HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-03-07; City Council; 18468; City of Carlsbad 2006 Traffic Signal EvalutionCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB#
MTG.
DEPT.
18,468
3/07/06
ENG
TITLE:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2006 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY
T^T-3-^ ^-^
DEPT. HD. /4r
CITYATTY. /£
CITY MGR.^V
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2006-052 approving the City of Carlsbad 2006 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Transportation Division of the Engineering Department has completed the 2006 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy, which also includes the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Prior to 1988,
the City of Carlsbad did not have a list that prioritized warranted traffic signal locations for future
installations. By adopting the initial Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy with Resolution Number 88-252
on July 19, 1988, the City Council established the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and authorized
staff to periodically update the warranted traffic signal list and present the information to the
Traffic Safety Commission and City Council. Staff continues to update the traffic signal qualification
list on a bi-annual basis.
By a 5-0 vote, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended at their January 9, 2006 meeting that
the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List,
be adopted by the City Council. This is the ninth update since 1988, although the policy for
evaluating traffic signals has not been revised from the originally approved 1988 policy.
At the meeting on January 9, 2006, two minor revisions to the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy
were recommended by the Traffic Safety Commission. Both revisions have been incorporated
into the attached Policy. One revision changed the listing of Qualification Factors designated on the
2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List from numbers (1-7, inclusive) to alphabetical letters
(A-G, inclusive). The other revision, found in the Appendix on page A-6, modified the description
under Qualification Factor 7 - Special Conditions, Number 4 - to eliminate the references to "high
speed" and "very high approach" speeds due to their subjective description.
A total of 15 intersections met one or more Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrants and those intersections
are shown in a prioritized ranking on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Six new intersections
have been added to the qualification list and the remaining nine intersections were on the
2004 Traffic Signal Qualification List. Two of the traffic signals on the qualification list are the
primary responsibility of private development to fund and construct. Two other traffic signals on the
list are Capital Improvement Program (CIP) signals that will have partial reimbursement by private
development. The remaining traffic signals will be funded in future years in the annual
Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
Approval of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List does not obligate
the City Council to authorize installation of a traffic signal or to install traffic signals in the order as
listed on the Traffic Signal Qualification List. Future traffic signals to be installed by the City of
Carlsbad are placed in the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in the year they are projected
to be needed. Other intersections that will be signalized throughout Carlsbad in the future may be
the responsibility of private development and those traffic signals will be installed as a condition of
approval of developing private property when traffic signal warrants are met and the traffic signal is
authorized for installation.
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy is a planning study with no environmental review required and is
exempt under CEQA regulations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None of the traffic signals that are on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List will be recommended
for inclusion in the 2006/2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The traffic signals that are the
responsibility of the City of Carlsbad to fund and construct are proposed to be included in the CIP in
2009 or later.
Design and construction costs for a four-leg traffic signal is estimated at $210,000. Once installed,
yearly operation and maintenance costs for each traffic signal is about $5,000.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2006-052 approving the City of Carlsbad 2006 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy.
2. 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
3. 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy including the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Robert T. Johnson, Jr., (760) 602-2752, bjohn@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-052
2
3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2006 CITY OF
CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY.
4
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes that there is a need to install traffic signals at
5
select intersections to promote the safe and efficient movement of people and goods; and
6
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes the need to have an objective evaluation
7
policy to determine when and where traffic signals will be installed in the future; and
8
WHEREAS, traffic signal warrants as contained in the Federal Highway Administration's
9
(FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 Edition as amended by the
10
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement are used in the evaluation of intersections; and
11
WHEREAS, maintaining an up-to-date qualification list of warranted traffic signals will
12
assist staff when reviewing future Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) or developer projects to
13
determine the need and schedule of the traffic signal installation; and
14
WHEREAS, the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy contains the 2006 Traffic Signal
15
Qualification List; and
16
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended adoption of the 2006
17
Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List, at their
18
January 9, 2006 meeting.
19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
20
California, as follows:
21
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
22
2. The City Council of the City of Carlsbad hereby adopts the traffic signal warrant
23
evaluation procedures and the updated Traffic Signal Qualification List of prioritized intersections24
as contained in the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. The Engineering Department of the City of Carlsbad is hereby authorized to
periodically update the Traffic Signal Qualification List as contained in the Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy and present such updated list to the Traffic Safety Commission and the
City Council for review and approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 7th day of March , 2006 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis,
NOES: None
ABSENT:
1, Kulchin, Packard, Sigafoose
CLAUDE A. LEWI
ATTEST:
. WOOD, City Clerk (SEAL)
g
LL
<
O
<
Zoto
o
(Ooo
CM
OZ0
O
zo
o
u.
cr
zg
5o|
o t o
a
0
LL.
LLI
0
0
m
<
5
• StL^* 2E <oi Z3°%i
CN
UJ
S
a ^ COCj _j ^~^— z ^=> o <
Sco^LOCATIONCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTFUNDING SOURCE/FISCAL YEARzO
1- U.< LU
U CO
O
00
CN
O
in
o
o
CD
m
T—
^~o>5
CO
CN
Faraday Avenue/Rutherford RoadCIP/2009-2010,_
CM
*
O
in
0
o
^
CD
COCOo
CD
CO
CM
Aviara Parkway/Camino de las OndasDeveloper Funded/CIP/2005-2006CM
O>
"
O
o
0
o
m
^
CMO
CO
CO
Tamarack Avenue/Valley StreetCIP/2009-2010CO
0)
CM
O
m
0
o
CD
CD
00
OOCO
CD
CM
Monroe Street/Hosp WayCIP/2010-2014CO
CD
CD
O
*"
0
o
o
CD
^>CM
m
CD
CO
CN
Alga Road/Cazadero DriveCIP/2010-2014in
m
•*
o
m
0
o
o
CD
CO
min
CD
CO
CM"Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida La CimaDeveloper FundedCD
^
*
O
in
0
o
o
in
fs»
^~
COm
T—La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla WayCIP/2010-2014^
,_
CD
O
in
0
o
o
0
CD
CD
El Fuerte Street/Rancho PanchoCIP/2010-201400
,-
m
o
CO
0
o
o
CO
0000a
CD
CO
CM
T—Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills DriveCIP/2010-2014CO
,-
CN
O
0
o
0
CO
CD
mO5
CO
CD
Calle Barcelona/Paseo AvellanoCIP/2010-201400
o
*
o
*
0
o
CM
O
O00
CO
CM
CD
Armada Drive/Grand Pacific ResortsDeveloper Funded•<-
0)
CO
o
*
o
0
0
CN
00a>OiCD
CD
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry AvenueCIP/2010-2014CN
OO
*
O
CM
0
o
CM
0
O)in
CO
CM
CD
CO
Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac DriveCIP/2004-2005CO
00
CO
o
m
o
o
o
o
f^o>
CD
Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine DriveDeveloper Funded/CIP/201 0-2014•*
CM
"-
O
"-
0
o
o
0
CMCO
CD
CO
La Costa Avenue/Camino de los CochesCIP/2010-2014in
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
JANUARY 2006
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1
POLICY 2
GENERAL 2
DATA 3-4
2006 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED 6
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet Traffic Signal Warrants) 6
APPENDIX
A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
B. MUTCD 2003 EDITION AS AMENDED BY THE MUTCD 2003 CALIFORNIA
SUPPLEMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Transportation Division
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad, located in North San Diego County, has grown from a small, agricultural
based residential community in its early history to a city of approximately 95,000 residents.
Various industrial, commercial, recreational, residential and agricultural land uses are found in
Carlsbad. Associated with population increases has been an increase in vehicular, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic.
With increased volumes on Carlsbad's roadway system, there continues to be a need for a
more detailed method of evaluating and determining locations of future traffic signals.
Currently, Carlsbad has 160 signalized intersections. Ownership and maintenance responsibility
is as follows:
• 143 signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad
• 14 signals owned and maintained by Caltrans.
• 3 signals owned and maintained by other agency.
The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate future traffic signals at various intersections
throughout the City of Carlsbad. The Policy provides the mechanism to continually re-evaluate
and update potential traffic signal locations on a regular basis.
The Traffic Signal Qualification List is not steadfast. Financial constraints, private development
schedules, capital improvement projects, or other valid considerations may dictate that a lower
qualifying signal be installed at a given location. The qualification list does, however, serve as a
guide for future traffic signal installations and only those intersections that meet traffic signal
warrants are listed.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
As traffic volumes increase, the hierarchy of traffic control dictates that consideration be given to
right-of-way assignment at intersections. Depending upon the traffic characteristics and
geometries at a given intersection, staff will evaluate and select from a variety of traffic control
methods or devices the appropriate means of facilitating the safe and efficient movement of
vehicles and pedestrians.
Different types of intersection traffic control devices or strategies include: basic rules of the road
governing right-of-way at intersections, yield sign installations, two-way STOP sign installations,
three-way and four-way STOP sign installations, channelization, center median control,
and traffic signals.
This report focuses on establishing a Citywide listing of one of the most efficient methods for
assigning intersection right-of-way control, the traffic signal. The purpose of a traffic signal
qualification list is to compare and impartially rank the intersections under consideration.
A Traffic Signal Qualification List was originally established for the City of Carlsbad in 1988 by
City Council Resolution Number 88-252 and was subsequently updated in 1990, 1992, 1994,
1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. This report is an update of the 2004 qualification list.
All intersections included on the list have met the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 Edition as amended by the MUTCD
2003 California supplement criteria (traffic signal warrants) as adopted by the California
Department of Transportation for the installation of a traffic signal.
POLICY
As with most traffic engineering departments, it has been the policy of the City of Carlsbad
Transportation Division to only recommend installation of traffic signals that meet the minimum
criteria adopted by the California Department of Transportation. All data collection and eligibility
evaluation to determine if criteria is met for an intersection to qualify for a traffic signal is under
the direction of the City Traffic Engineer.
GENERAL
Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic control devices that direct the movement of
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at an intersection. Traffic signals establish- the positive
assignment of the right-of-way to help facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and pedestrians
with minimum delay and maximum safety.
Many cities use a priority list system for ranking future traffic signal projects. To qualify for this
list, the signal analysis takes into account the relative delays on approaching streets, the
collision history at the intersection, gaps in the major and minor street streams of traffic,
pedestrian volumes, and various other factors. An evaluation is then conducted to determine if
a signal will minimize or correct an identified problem.
Establishing a Traffic Signal Qualification List helps answer two basic questions:
1. Do traffic conditions at the intersection meet the basic criteria that affect the benefits and
costs of signal control; and
2. If so, how does this location compare with other locations throughout the City of Carlsbad
that meet the same basic criteria?
This evaluation provides a rational method to compare one intersection with another, the end
result being a ranking that lists the greatest need for signalization between all potential signal
locations. The attached Traffic Signal Qualification List indicates each location under
consideration and is arranged in descending order based upon the total qualification points
accumulated at each location.
A listing of future traffic signals does not mean that signals will exclusively be installed in the
order of ranking. Existing conditions, right-of-way needs, need for left turn or right turn lanes,
budget constraints, or other factors may indicate a location that is more suitable and appropriate
for signalization than one higher on the list. The list establishes locations for which preliminary
engineering should take place and then be re-evaluated before proceeding to final design.
Traffic signals are not installed unless written authorization from the City Engineer directs their
installation or if the location has been approved by the City Council in the annual Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
DATA
Over the past several years, traffic signal technology has experienced a technical evolution.
Traffic signals have evolved from pre-timed signals in which control mechanisms operate on a
predetermined time schedule allotting a fixed amount of time of each interval in the cycle to
traffic actuated microprocessor units that can operate two to eight signal phases, highway ramp
metering control, master controls for interconnected signal systems, traffic volume monitoring
stations, and video detection of vehicles.
Traffic signals are an expensive control device to install and under certain conditions more
problems may be created than are solved. These problems can range from increased accident
frequency, delays, increased air or noise pollution, and higher energy use, to causing circuitous
travel along less desirable routes to avoid the signalized intersection.
A properly designed signalized intersection, however, can resolve many problems and provide
advantages ranging from reducing certain types of accident frequency, delay, and air pollutants,
to creating an orderly traffic movement. In a coordinated signal system, traffic signals help
maintain an efficient, progressive movement of vehicles along an arterial roadway.
Rankings of the various intersections in Carlsbad for potential traffic signal installation was
accomplished by using a Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System. Points were assigned to
seven qualification factors which are based on the MUTCD 2003 Edition as amended by the
MUTCD 2003 California supplement criteria.
Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System factors include the following:
Factor A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
This factor considers the fact that at certain traffic volume levels the delay can be reduced and
orderly flow through an intersection enhanced by signal controls.
Factor B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
The interruption factor applies when the traffic volume on the major street is so high that few
gaps occur to permit the minor street traffic to cross or enter the intersection. As a result, the
minor street traffic may suffer long delays or experience hazards at the intersection.
Factor C - Minimum Pedestrian Volume
The minimum pedestrian volume factor reflects the length and frequency of gaps available for
pedestrians to cross the major street as compared to the number of pedestrians that cross the
street.
Factor D - School Area Traffic Signals
This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur at intersections near schools or on
school walking routes. It is similar to the minimum pedestrian volume factor in that gaps in
traffic are considered.
Factor E - Progressive Movement or Signal Systems
Existing or proposed signal systems are considered by this factor. Often traffic flow efficiency
can be enhanced if signals are installed at proper spacing along an arterial or signal network.
Such signals may assist in holding traffic in compact platoons that will arrive at adjacent
signalized locations in accordance with a timing plan.
Factor F - Accident History
This factor reflects the fact that certain types of accidents could be reduced by traffic signal
control. However, experience has shown that few changes in accident frequency can be
expected at a location that historically has less than five accidents per year, or an accident rate
of less than about 1.0 accident per million vehicles.
Factor G - Special Conditions
This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur due to the location of certain traffic
generators, certain geometric or roadway features, sight distance obstructions, and various
other criteria.
The above rating system is used to evaluate various potential signal locations; these locations
are then ranked based on the following relative weight system:
FACTOR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
DESCRIPTION
Minimum Vehicular Volume
Interruption
Pedestrian Volume
School Area
Signal System
Accident History
Special Conditions
TOTAL POSSIBLE
MAXIMUM
QUALIFICATION
POINTS
15
10
10
10
5
15
18
83
POINTS
RELATIVE
WEIGHT
18%
12%
12%
12%
6%
18%
22%
100%
<o
o
e>
CO
o
(Ooo
CN
O
'):
i.
z
<
LU
O
O
_1 H U)
OSt oi- j 5.
13a
o
u.
LU
Q
O
m
<
S
_i^a
< ^ <o
1 1 '
°> ^
CM
LUS
Q d OT
{J Zi ^™i— Z £ug <
LU <LOCATIONCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJFUNDING SOURCE/FISCAL YE•z.OH o:
< LLu mEZS
3O
00
CN
0
in
o
0
CD
in
o>
^-
"*
CO
CN
Faraday Avenue/Rutherford RoadCIP/2009-2010T-
CN
^
0
in
0
o
K
CO
COCO
0
CO
CO
CN
Aviara Parkway/Camino de las OndasDeveloper Funded/CIP/2005-2006CN
O5
K^
0
0
0
O
m
^
CN0
CO
CO
Tamarack Avenue/Valley StreetCIP/2009-2010CO
OJ
CN
O
m
o
o
CD
CO
00
00CO
CO
CN
Monroe Street/Hosp WayCIP/2010-2014CO
CD
CD
O
^
O
o
o
CD
CNr^in
CD
co
eg
Alga Road/Cazadero DriveCIP/2010-2014in
in
^.
o
in
o
o
o
CD
CO
min
CD
CO
CN"
CO
Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida La CDeveloper FundedCO
^
^
o
in
0
0
0
in
£
COin
T—La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla WayCIP/2010-2014^
,-
CO
o
m
o
o
0
0
CO
/2
CD
El Fuerte Street/Rancho PanchoCIP/2010-201400
,-
m
o
CO
o
o
0
CO
0000rfCO
CO
CO
CN
Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills DriveCIP/2010-201400
T-
CM
O
O
o
o
CO
CO
in
T—
CO
CO
Calle Barcelona/Paseo AvellanoCIP/2010-201400
o
^.
o
^.
o
o
CN
O
000COCN
CD
Armada Drive/Grand Pacific ResortsDeveloper FundedT—
OJ
CO
o
^
o
o
o
CN
00O50)CO
CD
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry AvenueCIP/2010-2014CN
00
^
O
CN
O
O
CN
0
0)inCOCN
CD
CO
Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac DriveCIP/2004-2005co
00
CO
o
in
o
o
o
o
01
'r~
CD
Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine DriveDeveloper Funded/CIP/2010-2014?
CN
^_
O
,_
o
0
o
o
CN
CO
-T~
CD
CO
coCD
La Costa Avenue/Camino de los CochCIP/2010-2014m
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED
1. Paseo del Norte/Car Country Drive
2. La Costa Avenue/Levante Street
3. Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive
4. Poinsettia Lane/Black Rail Road
5. Faraday Avenue/Priestly Avenue
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet MUTCD Signal Warrants)
1. Aviara Parkway/Nightshade Road
2. Aviara Parkway/Townee Lane
3. Carlsbad Boulevard/Christiansen Way
4. Carlsbad Village Drive/Victoria Avenue
5. Chestnut Avenue/Harding Street
6. Chestnut Avenue/Valley Street
7. Grand Avenue/Madison Street
8. Hosp Way/Wintergreen Drive/Grove Avenue
9. La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street
10. Las Flores Drive/Pio Pico Drive
11. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida Aragon
12. Tamarack Avenue/Park Drive
APPENDIX
TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
Factor 1 • Total Vehicular Volume
Points are assigned based upon the graph below which considers major and minor street
volumes and capacity. The entering volumes are based upon 4-hour counts (usually from 2:00
to 6:00 P.M. on a weekday). A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOTES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4 HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
Z MAXIMUM POINTS - 15
ptn
750
OVER
700
600
500
300
200
100
TERSECTION OF:
Z Lane Sts. 1600
Z81-4LaneSt 2200
4 Lane Sts. 2600
One-Way Sts. 3200
3800+
4400+
4800+
5400+
TOTAL VOLUME ENTERING INTERSECTION
A-l
Factor 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Vehicles on through streets, if uncontrolled, tend to travel through minor street intersections at
speeds that make it difficult and hazardous for vehicles and pedestrians from the side street to
cross or enter the principal traffic stream. The total of the minor street vehicles plus pedestrians
crossing or entering the major street must exceed 300 in four hours to receive any points. A
maximum of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
4-HOUR MAJOR
STREET VOLUMES
0-1649
1650-1949
1950-2249
2250-2549
2550-2849
2850-3149
3150-3449
3450-3749
3750-4049
4050-4349
4350-Over
POINTS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
APPROXIMATE
ADT
4,700
5,600
6,400
7,300
8,200
9,000
10,000
10,700
1 1 ,600
12,400
12,500 And Up
A-2
Factor 3 • Pedestrian Volume
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a major street. A maximum
of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOTES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4-HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
Z MAXIMUM POINTS = 10
3. NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 100 PEDESTRIANS DURING THE 4 HOUR PERIOD.
4. NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 1200 MAJOR STREET VEHICLES DURING THE 4 HOUR
PERIOD.
3600 &
OVER
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200 I—
100 200 WO 600 800 1000 1200 1*00
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET
1500 &
OVER
A-3
Factor 4 • School Area Traffic Signals
Points are assigned base~l upon the number of school age pedestrians crossing the major
street as compared to the major street traffic. This factor will apply only to locations within
one mile of a school and where the nearest controlled intersection or potential crossing
point is more than 600 feet away. A maximum of 10 points may be assigned for this factor.
1500 1800
1100 uoo
750 1000
500 600
19U
250 200
0
POINTS
10
100
60
150
100
200
140
250
180 350 (Urban)
220 (Rural)
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET
(Per 2-Hour Period)
NOTE: No points will be assigned if nearest controlled crossing is less
than 600 feet away.
A-4
Factor 5 - Progressive Movement or Signal Systems
This factor depends upon engineering studies and must include the present and future traffic
demands of the area. A signal may be justified when it forms a part of an interconnected or
coordinated system. A maximum of 5 points may be assigned to this factor.
Factor 6 - Accident History
Only those accidents susceptible to correction by traffic signals are considered and then only if
less restrictive measures such as warning signs, proper lighting, painted markings, etc. have
failed. A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
ACCIDENTS POINTS
0-2 0
3 1
4 3
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 &Over 15
NOTE: Use the average of the last two years, provided the intersection has been in
operation for two years.
Factor 7 - Special Conditions
This factor considers extenuating circumstances that are not covered in the previous six
factors. These may include: the proximity of schools, churches, public buildings, and other
traffic and pedestrian generators; an abrupt change from a rural to an urban area; the need
for police control during portions of the day; a steep hill; a horizontal curve; restricted sight
distance. This factor requires engineering judgment based on physical inspection of the
site. A maximum of 18 points may be assigned to this factor.
A summary of the factors considered to be special conditions and the points that were
assigned follows:
1. Four-way STOP Control (5 points): Typically, right-angle accident frequency drops
sharply after installation of a Four-Way STOP. However, total delay, as well as rear-
end collision frequency, increase to a level higher than that which would be reflected
by the results of Factors #1 and #2.
A-5
2. Proximity of a school (1 to 5 points): Depending on the type of school and its distance
from the intersection in question, points are assigned to reflect the potential benefit to
school-age pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
3. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature and Visibility (1 to 5 points): The alignment of a
major street can affect the visibility available to side-street motorists, and the relative
safety of their crossing or merging maneuvers. There may also be other restrictions to
visibility, such as utility poles and appurtenances and trees and shrubs on private
property.
4. Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points): In addition to worsening the problems
caused by visibility restrictions, speeds above critical can worsen the severity of the
accidents which occur.
A-6
2003 Edition • Page4C-l
CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals
Standard:
An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of
the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a
particular location.
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:
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.
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a
traffic control signal.
Support:
Sections 8D.07 and 10D.05 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates
and/or flashing light signals at highway-railroad grade crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings,
respectively.
Guidance:
A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter
are met.
A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic
control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.
A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
The study should consider the effects of the right-turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches.
Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-turn traffic is subtracted
from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the above signal warrants.
Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where
approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics dictate
whether an approach should be considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane
for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, engineering judgment could indicate that it should be
considered a one-lane approach if the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor. In such a case, the total traffic
volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach. The
approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the
left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles.
Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one lane plus a right-
turn lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street
should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement
enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with
only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered.
At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count
that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study
for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the
satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should
have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the
signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed.
For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than
9 m (30 ft), should be considered as one intersection.
Sect. 4C.01
Page 4C-2 2003 Edition
Option:
At an intersection with a high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis
may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-turn volumes as the "minor-
street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the "major-street"
volume.
For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.
Support:
When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are
usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as
pedestrians.
Option:
Engineering study data may include the following:
A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an
average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic
volume.
B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy
trucks, passenger cars and light tracks, public-transit vehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles), during
each 15-minute period of the 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon during which total
traffic entering the intersection is greatest.
C. Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts in Item B
above and during hours of highest pedestrian volume. Where young, elderly, and/or persons with
physical or visual disabilities need special consideration, the pedestrians and their crossing times may be
classified by general observation.
D. Information about nearby facilities and activity centers that serve the young, elderly, and/or persons with
disabilities, including requests from persons with disabilities for accessible crossing improvements at the
location under study. These persons might not be adequately reflected in the pedestrian volume count if
the absence of a signal restrains their mobility.
E. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the uncontrolled approaches to the
location.
F. A condition diagram showing details of the physical layout, including such features as intersection
geometries, channelization, grades, sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes, parking
conditions, pavement markings, roadway lighting, driveways, nearby railroad crossings, distance to
nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures, and adjacent land use.
G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type, location, direction of movement, severity,
weather, time of day, date, and day of week for at least 1 year.
The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection,
may be obtained during the periods specified in Item B of the preceding paragraph:
A. Vehicle-hours of stopped time delay determined separately for each approach.
B. The number and distribution of acceptable gaps in vehicular traffic on the major street for entrance from
the minor street.
C. The posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on controlled approaches at a point near
to the intersection but unaffected by the control.
D. Pedestrian delay time for at least two 30-minute peak pedestrian delay periods of an average weekday or
like periods of a Saturday or Sunday.
E. Queue length on stop-controlled approaches.
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1. Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume
of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition
A is not satisfied and 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.
It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for
Warrant 1 is satisfied and Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if
Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 is satisfied and the combination of Conditions A and B is
not needed.
Sect. 4C.01 to4C.02
2003 Edition Page 4C-3
Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A — Minimum Vehicular Volume
Number of
moving traffic on
Major Street
1
2 or more...
2 or more...
1
lanes for
each approach
Minor Street
1
1
2 or more...
2 or more....
Vehicles per hour on major street
(total of both approaches)
100%" 80%" 70%c 56%"
500 400 350 280
600 480 420 336
600 480 420 336
500 400 350 280
Vehicles per hour on
higher-volume
minor-street approach
(one direction only)
100%a 80%b 70%c 56%d
150 120 105 84
150 120 105 84
200 160 140 112
200 160 140 112
Condition B — Interruption of Continuous Traffic
Number of
moving traffic on
Major Street
1
2 or more...
2 or more...
1
lanes for
each approach
Minor Street
1
1
2 or more...
2 or more....
Vehicles per hour on major street
(total of both approaches)
100%a 80%" 70%c 56%"
750 600 525 420
900 720 630 504
900 720 630 504
750 600 525 420
Vehicles per hour on
higher-volume
minor-street approach
(one direction only)
100%" 80%b 70%c 56%d
75 60 53 42
75 60 53 42
100 80 70 56
100 80 70 56
* Basic minimum hourly volume.b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures.
0 May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a
population of less than 10,000.
d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major-
street speed exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the
following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist
on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the
intersection; or
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist
on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the
intersection.
In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On
the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these
8 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or
exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population
of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100
percent columns.
Sect. 4C.02
Page 4C-4 2003 Edition
Guidance:
The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not
satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives
that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the
following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist
on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the
intersection; and
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist
on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the
intersection.
These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however,
the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B.
On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of
the 8 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or
exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population
of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80
percent columns.
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2. Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of
any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street
(total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street
approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing
combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the
same approach during each of these 4 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or
exceeds 40 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-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3. Peak Hour
Support:
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.
Standard:
This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing
plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers
of vehicles over a short time.
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria
in either of the following two categories are met:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute
periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one
direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane
approach; or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04
2003 Edition Page 4C-5.
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
a.
I
W
UJ
ocUJJC
500
400
300
200
100
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
IQ.
400
300
200
100
roiio
-2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
-2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
^1 LANE & 1 LANE
*80
*60
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Sect. 4C.04
Page 4C-6 2003 Edition
2. The volume on the same minor-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
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for
intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or
more approaches.
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches)
and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one
direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above
the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or
exceeds 40 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-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to satisfy the criteria in the second
category of the Standard.
Section 4C.05 Warrant 4. Pedestrian Volume
Support:
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street
is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an
engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:
A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or midblock location during an
average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and
B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow pedestrians
to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a
divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the requirement applies
separately to each direction of vehicular traffic.
The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the
nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic
control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control
signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E.
Guidance:
If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:
A. If at an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian
detectors.
B. If at a nonintersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian-actuated, parking and other
sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft)
beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
C. Furthermore, if installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.
Option:
The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major roadway may be reduced as much as 50 percent if
the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.2 m/sec (4 ft/sec).
A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals
consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street, even if the rate of gap occurrence
is less than one per minute.
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5. School Crossing
Support:
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.
Sect. 4C.04 to 4C.06
2003 Edition Page 4C-7
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
600
MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
CL
111 tr
£<
oc ^-oi
400
300
200
£ 10°
gi
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES -
. 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
*100
*75
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Sect. 4C.06
Page 4C-8 2003 Edition
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency
and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school
children at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps
in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing is less than the number of
minutes in the same period (see Section 7A.03) and there are a minimum of 20 students during the highest
crossing hour.
Before a decision is made to install a traffic control signal, consideration shall be given to the
implementation of other remedial measures, such as warning signs and flashers, school speed zones, school
crossing guards, or a grade-separated crossing.
The School Crossing signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest
traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control
signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
Guidance:
If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:
A. If at an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian
detectors.
B. If at a nonintersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian-actuated, parking and other
sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft)
beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.
C. Furthermore, if installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.
Section 4C.07 Warrant 6. Coordinated Signal System
Support:
Progressive movement in a coordinated signal system sometimes necessitates installing traffic control signals
at intersections where they would not otherwise be needed in order to maintain proper platooning of vehicles.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the
following criteria is met:
A. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic
control signals are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular
platooning.
B. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the necessary degree of
platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a
progressive operation.
Guidance:
The Coordinated Signal System signal warrant should not be applied where the resultant spacing of traffic
control signals would be less than 300 m (1,000 ft).
Section 4C.08 Warrant 7. Crash Experience
Support:
The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and
frequency of crashes are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that all of the
following criteria are met:
A. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce
the crash frequency; and
B. Five or more reported crashes, of types susceptible to correction by a traffic control signal, have
occurred within a 12-month period, each crash involving personal injury or property damage
apparently exceeding the applicable requirements for a reportable crash; and
C. For each of any 8 hours of an average day, the vehicles per hour (vph) given in both of the 80
percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 (see Section 4C.02), or the vph in both of the 80
percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the higher-volume
minor-street approach, respectively, to the intersection, or the volume of pedestrian traffic is not
Sect. 4C.06 to 4C.08
2003 Edition Page 4C-9
less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant, These major-
street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher
volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or
exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population
of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80
percent columns.
Section 4C.09 Warrant 8. Roadway Network
Support:
Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and
organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common
intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria:
A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000
vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic
volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an
average weekday; or
B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000
vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday).
A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics:
A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through
traffic flow; or
B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or
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.
Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.09
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement ~ Page 4C-1
CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals
The following is added to this section:
Standard:
Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion, future land use or other evidence of the
need for right of way assignment beyond that which could be provided by stop sign shall be
demonstrated.
Support:
Figure 4C-101 and Table 4C-101 are examples of warrant sheets.
Guidance:
Table 4C-101 should be used only for new intersections or other locations where it is not reasonable to
count actual traffic volumes.
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
In the first Option, the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph " is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40
mph ".
Delete the last Option that begins "If the posted or... " The 56% column in Table 4C-1 shall not apply in
California.
Table 4C-1 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Delete the 56% column and related note(d).
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
In the Option the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph " is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40
mph ".
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
In the Option the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph " is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40
mph".
Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing
The following is added to this section:
Option:
Flashing beacons at school crosswalks may be installed on State highways in accordance with CVC
Sections 21372 and 21373.
The following alternative criterion may be used for determining if a school crossing traffic signal is
justified under this warrant:
1. When other warrants in this Chapter are met AND
2. No other controlled crossing is located within 180 m (600 ft) AND:
3. Urban Areas - 500 vehicles and 100 school pedestrians for each of any two hours (not necessarily
consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school; or 500 vehicles for each of any two
hours daily while students are crossing to or from school and a total of 500 school pedestrians during
the entire day. OR
4. Rural Areas - 350 vehicles and 70 school pedestrians for each of any two hours (not necessarily
consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school; or 350 vehicles for each of any two
hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school and minimum
total of 350 school pedestrians during the entire day.
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-2
Guidance:
When the critical (85th percentile) approach speed exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) or the sight distance to the
intersection is less than the required stopping sight distance, rural criteria should be applied.
Section 4C.101 Function of School Crossing Traffic Signals
Support:
A traffic signal assigns intersection right-of-way and promotes the orderly movement of pedestrians and
vehicles. However, improper signal controls sometimes lead to intentional violations, unnecessary delays
and traffic diversion to less desirable routes.
Section 4C.102 Criterion for School Crossing Traffic Signals
Standard:
1. The signal shall be designed for full-time operation.
2. Pedestrian signal faces of the International Symbol type shall be installed at all marked
crosswalks at signalized intersections along the "Suggested Route to School."
3. If an intersection is signalized under this guideline for school pedestrians, the entire intersection
shall be signalized.
4. School area traffic signals shall be traffic actuated type with push buttons or other detectors for
pedestrians.
Option:
Non-intersection school pedestrian crosswalk locations may be signalized when justified.
Section 4C.103 Bicycle Signal Warrant
Guidance:
A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume and collision or volume and
geometric warrants have been met:
1. Volume, When W = B x V and W >.50,000 and B >_50.
Where: W is the volume warrant. B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the
intersection. V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersection. B and V shall
use the same peak hour.
2. Collision, When 2 or more bicycle/vehicle collisions of types susceptible to correction by a bicycle
signal have occurred over a 12-month period and the responsible public works official determines
that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions.
3. Geometric, (a) Where a separate bicycle/ multi use path intersects a roadway, (b) At other locations
to facilitate a bicycle movement that is not permitted for a motor vehicle.
Figure 4C-2 Warrant 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
Under the Figure title, the text "70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph " is replaced by "64 km/h OR ABOVE 40
mph." '
Figure 4C-4 Warrant 3 - Peak hour (70% Factor)
Under the Figure title, the text "70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph " is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h OR
ABOVE 40 mph."
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page4C-3
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4)
DJST CO RTE KPM
IWajnrfif , ,
Minor St-
Critical speed of major street traffic > 64 kt
In built up area of isolated community of <
rw«- r>4Ti=
n/h (40 mph) ,,. D 1l ^ ' or >• RURAL (R)
10, 000 population D )
D URBAN (U)
(*n>/h
WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A - Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES D NO D
APPROACH
LANES
Both Approaches
Major Street
Highest ApproachesMinor Street
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
U
SCO(400)
1SO
(120)
R
1
350(280)
10S
(34)
U R
2 or More
600(480)
200
.(183)
420(336)
140
(112)
/
BU7o SAIISMtlJ YtS U N
//////Hour
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES D NO D
APPROACH
LANES
Both ApproachesMajor Street
Hghest ApproachesMinor Street
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS
U R
1
rso
$00)
75
(60)
S2S
(420)
S3
(42)
U R
2 of More
900
(720)
100(80)
630
(SO*)
70
(56)
ou/o OMI i-aricu ico |_| M
///////Hour
Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES Q NO
REQUIREMENT
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED 80%
WARRANT
1. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
^FULFILLED
Yes O No D
May 20,2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-4
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2 • Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Record hourly vehicular volumes for four hours.
SATISFIED* YES D NO Q
2or / / /APPROACH LANES One More / / /
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
Hour
*Ali plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2.Yes D No Q
WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour PART A or PART B SATISFIED YES D NO D
PART A
(Ali parts 1,2, and 3 below must be satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NO D
1. The tote! delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled
by a STOP sign equals or exceedds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach
and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND Yes Q No D
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for
one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND Yes D No D
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph
for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with _ __three approaoches. Yes D No U
PARTB SATISFIED YES D NO D
2 or /
APPROACH LANES One More /
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approaches - Minor Street
/ /Hour
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches)
and the corresponding per hour higher volume vehicle minor street approach(one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period)fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.
May 20,2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-5
Figure 4C-101, Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4)
DIST
Major St:.
Minor St:,
CO RTE KPM
CALC.DATE.
DATE.
Critical Approach Speed
.OCritical speed of major street > 64 knVh (40 mph) , M . ,»,,„», ,-,or /• RURAL. (Rj
!n built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 population , D J
D URBAN {U)
km/h
WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
100% SATISFIED YES Q
Hours >
Pedestrian Volume
Adequate Crossing Gaps
Any hour > 190 Yes O No D
OR 4 hours > 100 Yes D No D
AND<60gap/hr Yes O No D
AND., The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major
street is greater than 90m (300 ft)
ANQ, The new traffic signal wilt not seriously disrupt progressivetraffic flow in the major street,
Yes D No D
Yes D No O
WARRANT 5 - School Crossing
(Ail Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
Gap/Minutes and # of Children
SATISFIED YES D NO D
Each of Two Hours >
Gaps
vsMinutes
Minutes ChildrenUsirsg Crossing
Number of
Adequate Caps
School Age PedestriansCrossing Street
/
Gaps < Minutes SATISFIED YES O NO D
Children > 20/hr SATISFIED YES D NO D
PartB
Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More Than 180 m (600ft) away?SATISFIED YES Q NO
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-6
Figure 4C-1Q1. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System
(All Farts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES NO Q
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
> 300 m(1 OOOt)
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
N m, S m, E m, W m
On one way isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent
signals are so far apart that necessary platooning and speed control would be lost.
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and
speed control proposed signals could constitute a progressive signal system.
FULFILLED
YesO NoQ
D 0
WARRANT 7 - Crash Warrant
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES NO D
REQUIREMENTS
One Warrant
Satisfied
80%
WARRANT
Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume
OR
Warrant 2 - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
S
Signal Will Not Seriously Disrupt Progressive Traffic Ffow
Adequate Trial of Less Restrictive Remedies Has Failed to Reduce Accident Frequency
Ace. Within a 1 2 Month Period Susceptible for Corr. & Involving Injury or 2 $500 Damage
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
5 or More
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
FULFILLED
YesQ NoQ
D D
D D
D D
WARRANT 8 • Roadway Network
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NO D
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENTS
1000 Veh/Hr
ENTERING VOLUMES - ALLAPPROACHES
Durina TvBical Weekday Peak Hour Veh/Hr
OR
During Each of Any 5 Hrs. of a Sat. and/or Sun Veh/Hr
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES
Hwy. System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic
Rural orSuburban Highway Outside Of, Entering, or Traversing a City
Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan
MAJOR ST.
V
MINOR ST.
Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets
FULFILLED
YesO NoQ
D D
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other
evidence of the need for right-of-way assignment must be shown.
May 20,2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-7
figure 4C-102. Traffic Count Worksheet
Insert North Point
Number of Lanes
Pedestrians
Total*jakPMPeak Total*——
Peak
X
Not to Scale
AM Peak PM Peak Total*
-L_I
AM Peak PM Peak Total*
f?
\
T
'Entire Count Period
AM Peak PM Peak T—
r**s
Pedestrians
Total-Peak
Number of Lanes
DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT
Oist __ Co __ Rle, __ KPM __
„
6iy~ ~
flour to How
AM
PM
Hbur
Hour
Volume
Volume
May 20,2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-8
Table 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
(Average Traffic Estimate Form)
(Based on Estimated Average Daify Traffic - See Note)
URBAN. RURAL
1 A - Minimum Vehicular Traffic
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street
1 1
2 or More 1....
2 or More 2 or More
1 ..... 2 or More....
18 - interruption of Continues Traffic
Satisfied Not Satisfied
Number of lanes for moving traffic on each approach
Major Street Minor Street1 t
2 or More 1 ... .
2 or More . 2 or More.....1 2 or More,
1A&B - Combinations
Satisfied Not Satisfied
No one warrant satisfied, but following warrants
fulfilled 80% or more
1 2
Minimum Requirements
EADT
Vehicles Per Day
on Major Street
(Total of Both Approaches)
Urban Rural
8,000 5,600
9,600 6,720
9,500 6,720
8,000 5,600
Vehicles Per Day
on Major Street
(Total of Sotrt Approaches)
Urban Rural
12,000 8,400
14,400 10,080
14,400 10,080
12,000 8,400
2 Warrants
Vehicles Per Day
on Higher-Volume
Minor Street Approach(One Direction Only)
Urban Rural
2,400 1,680
2,400 1.680
3,200 2,240
3,200 2,240
Vehicles Per Day
on Higher-Volume
Minor Street Approach
(One Direction Only)
Urban Rural
1,200 850
1,200 850
1,600 1,120
1,600 1,120
2 Warrants
Note: To be used only for NEW INTERSECTIONS or other locations where it is not reasonable to count
actual traffic volumes.
May 20, 2004
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4)
Major St:
Minor St:
f*ror
In
CALC
CHK
itical speed of major street traffic >40mph — - — — ~- —
built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop
DATE
DATE
Critical Approach Speed
Critical Approach Speed
r-]\
Or J RURAL(R)
D URBAN (U)
mph
mph
WARRANT 1 - Eight Hour Vehicular Volume
(At Least One Part Must Be Satisfied)
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
SATISFIED YES Q NO
100% SATISFIED
80% SATISFIED
YES D NO
YES D NO
APPROACH
LANES
Both Approaches
Major Street
Highest Approach
Minor Street
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U
1
500
(400)
150
(120)
R
350
(280)
105
(84)
U R
2 or more
600
(480)
200
(160)
420
(336)
140
(112)
Hour
Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED
80% SATISFIED
YES D NO D
YES D NOQ
APPROACH
LANES
Both Approaches
Major Street
Highest Approach
Minor Street
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
U R
1
750
(600)
75
(60)
525
(420)
53
(42)
U R
2 or more
900
(720)
100
(80)
630
(504)
70
(56)
Hour
Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES DNOD
REQUIREMENT
Two Warrants
Satisfied 80%
WARRANT
1. Minimum Vehicular Volume
2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic
D
D
FULFILLED
YES D NO D
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Record hourly vehicular volumes for four hours.
SATISFIED*YES D NOD
APPROACH LANES ONE ,^°JLMvJKt
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approach - Minor Street
D
n
n
n
Hour
' AH plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2.
WARRANT 3 - Peak Hour PART A or PART B SATISFIED YES Q NOD
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied)
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach 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
Total delay = XXX veh-hr
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
Minor street volume = XXX vph
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for
intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three
approaches.
Total volume = XXX vph
YES D NO D N/A
YESD NOQ
YESQ NOD
PARTS SATISFIED* YES D NO
o OPAPPROACH LANES ONE f^"IWJKt
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approach - Minor Street
D
n
n
n
Hour
* The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume
vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any 4 consecutive 15 minute periods) fall above the applicable
curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4.
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4)
WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES Q NO D
REQUIREMENT
Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for
each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one hour
AND
There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traffic
stream of adequate length for pedestrians to cross; AND
The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than
300 feet; AND
The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic
flow on the major street.
FULFILLED
YESD NO D
YESQ NO D
YESD
YESQ
N/AQ
N/AQ
NOQ
NOD
WARRANT 5 - School Crossing
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)SATISFIED YES Q NO Q N/AQ
PART A - OTHER WARRANTS
Are other Warrants met?YESD NOD
PART B - VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES
Vehicle Volume
School Age Pedestrians
Crossing Street
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Each of
2 hours
Each of
2 hours
or
per day
U
500
100
500
R
350
70
350
YESD NOQ
Part C - Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing
Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More than 600 ft away?YES D NO
MUTCD 2003 California Supplement
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES n NO n
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
> 300m (1000 ft)
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
N:S:E:W:
On one way Isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that
necessary platooning & speed control would be lost.
On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed signals
could constitute a progressive signal system.
FULFILLED
YES D NO D
YES D NO D
WARRANT 7 - Crash Warrant
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NO D
REQUIREMENTS
One Warrant
Satisfied
80%
WARRANT
Warrant 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume, OJR
Warrant 2 - Interruption Of Continuous Traffic
n
n
Signal Will Not Seriously Disrupt Progressive Traffic Flow
Adequate Trial Of Less Restrictive Remedies Has Failed To Reduce Accident Frequency
Ace. Within A 12 Month Period Susceptible Of Corr. & Involving Injury Or > $500 Damage
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
5 or More
NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS
FULFILLED
YES D NO D
YES D NO D
YESQ NOD N/AQ
YES D NO D
WARRANT 8 - Roadway Network
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES n NO n
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENT
1000Veh/Hr
ENTERING VOLUMES - ALL APPROACHES
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour xxxx Veh/Hr, OR
During Each Of Any 5 Hrs. Of A Sat And/Or Sun xxxx Veh/Hr
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES
Highway System Serving As Principle Network For Through Traffic
Rural Or Suburban Highway Outside Of, Entering, Or Traversing A City
Appears As Major Route On An Official Plan
MAJOR
D
n
MINOR
Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets
FULFILLED
YES D NO D
YES D NO D
The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of-
way assignment must be shown.
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
500
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
115
"80
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80
vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)
400
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
(. 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)*80
*60
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
1000
*Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60
vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
600
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) A 1 LANE (MINOR)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
*IMote: 150 VPH applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor street
approach with two or more lanes and 100 VPH applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor street approaching with one lane.
Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)
500
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINO
0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
1300
*Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75
vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.