HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-18; City Council; 19354; 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation PolicyCITY OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
AB# 19,354
MTG. 3/18/08
DEPT. ENG
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2008 TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY
DEPT. HEAD j^Z3~
CITY ATTY. (gjZ'S'
CITYMGR. A
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 2008-075 approving the City of Carlsbad 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Transportation Division of the Engineering Department has completed the 2008 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy, which also includes the 2008 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. However, 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 3-0 vote, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended at their January 7, 2008 meeting that the
2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List, be adopted by
the City Council. This is the tenth update since 1988, and the policy for evaluating traffic signals has
had minor revisions from the originally approved 1988 policy.
The Traffic Safety Commission considered and recommended several minor revisions to the
Appendix of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy at the January 7, 2008 meeting. These revisions
included the addition of explanatory wording to indicate how priority points are determined for Factor E
and Factor G of the evaluation criteria. In Factor E - Progressive Movement or Signal Systems, a table
was included to assign points based upon the distance to the nearest traffic signal location. For Factor
G in Special Conditions Number 4. Speed on a Through Street, a table was included that assigned
points based upon the number of miles per hour the 85th percentile speed (critical speed) was
determined to be above the posted speed limit.
A total of 14 intersections met one or more California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices Traffic
Signal Warrants and those intersections are shown in a prioritized ranking on the 2008 Traffic Signal
Qualification List. Six new intersections have been added to the qualification list and the remaining
eight intersections were on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. The new intersections are
Qualification numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 (La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero). One of the traffic signals
(Qualification Number 1) on the qualification list will be the primary responsibility of private development
to fund and construct. Two other traffic signals on the list are Capital Improvement Program (CIP) traffic
signals that will have partial reimbursement by private development (Qualification Numbers 13 and 14).
The remaining traffic signals will be funded in future years in the annual Capital Improvement Program
(CIP). Staff and the Traffic Safety Commission recommended that the intersection of Alga
Road/Cazadero Drive, which was on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List, not be included on the
2008 list. This intersection is not anticipated to need a future traffic signal due to intersection
channelization that requires a right-turn in/right-turn out on the south leg of the intersection.
FOR CITY CLERKS USE ONLY
COUNCIL ACTION: APPROVED
DENIED
CONTINUED
WITHDRAWN
AMENDED *
na
D
CONTINUED TO DATE SPECIFIC
CONTINUED TO DATE UNKNOWN
RETURNED TO STAFF
OTHER -SEE MINUTES
D
D
n
D
Page 2
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 throughput Carlsbad in the future may be the responsibility of
private development. Those traffic signals will be installed as a condition of approval of developing the
private property and only when one or more traffic signal warrants are met and the traffic signal is
authorized in writing for installation by the City Engineer.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy is a planning study with no environmental review required and is
exempt under CEQA regulations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Two of the intersections that are on the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List will be recommended for
inclusion in the 2008/2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for construction and would be funded
by the Gas Tax fund. Other traffic signals that are the responsibility of the City of Carlsbad to fund and
construct are proposed to be included in the 2009/2010 CIP 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 location is about $5,000.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2008-075 approving the City of Carlsbad 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy.
2. 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
3. 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy including the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Robert T. Johnson, Jr., (760) 602-2752, biohnaci.carlsbad.ca.us
1
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-075
2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE 2008 CITY OF
CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY.
4
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad recognizes that there is a need to install traffic signals
5
at 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 California Manual on Uniform
9 Traffic Control Devices (FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California) are
10 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
1^determine the need and schedule of the traffic signal installation; and
14 WHEREAS, the 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy contains the 2008 Traffic Signal
15 Qualification List; and
16 WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission recommended adoption of the 2008
17 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List and the
18 additions of clarifying descriptions for points assessment, at their January 7, 2008 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 intersections
24 as contained in the 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
25 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.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
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council
of the City of Carlsbad on the 18th day of March, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Kulchin, Hall, Packard and Nygaard.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ayor
ATTEST:
N^sM.
Q
WOO^?City"
2008 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST
QUALIFICATION
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
10
12
13
14
LOCATION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
FUNDING SOURCE
La Costa Avenue/Levante Street
Developer Funded
Faraday Avenue/Rutherford Road
CIP
Faraday Avenue/Palmer Way
CIP
Paseo del Norte/Ginger Ave./Harbor Point Rd.
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Gibraltar Street
CIP
Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts
CIP
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry Avenue
CIP
Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero
CIP
Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive
CIP
Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine Drive
Developer Funded/CIP
La Costa Avenue/Camino de los Coches
Developer Funded/CIP
CALIFORNIA
MUTCD SIGNAL
WARRANTS MET
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3,6
3
1,2,3
6
6
6
1,3
6
3,6
6
3
TOTAL
VOLUME
2 P.M. - 6 P.M.
4941
4467
4135
3700
5524
4442
4804
2351
6633
3300
4843
2403
2810
1753
QUALIFICATION FACTOR
A
15
15
11
10
5
6
4
0
2
3
3
1
1
1
B
9
6
7
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
1
4
1
5
1
F
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
4
3
5
2
4
2
1
TOTAL
QUALIFICATION
POINTS
31
29
25
23
15
13
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
3
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
JANUARY 2008
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE 1
POLICY 2
GENERAL 2
DATA 3-4
2008 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. CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Transportation Division
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad is located in North San Diego County and has grown from a small,
agricultural based residential community in its early history to a city of approximately 101,000
residents. Numerous industrial, commercial, recreational, residential and agricultural land uses
are found in Carlsbad. As a result of population increases in Carlsbad, there has been an
increase in vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.
With increased traffic volumes on Carlsbad's roadway system, there continues to be a need for
a detailed methodology to evaluate and determine locations of future traffic signals.
Currently, there are 173 signalized intersections in Carlsbad. Ownership and maintenance
responsibility is as follows:
• 156 traffic signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad
• 14 traffic signals owned and maintained by Caltrans.
• 3 traffic 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 and funding availability, or other valid considerations
may dictate that a lower qualifying traffic 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
When traffic volumes increase, the hierarchy of traffic control dictates that consideration be
given to right-of-way assignment 'at intersections by various means. Depending upon the traffic
and pedestrian characteristics and geometries at a given intersection, staff will evaluate and
select from a variety of traffic control options the appropriate device to facilitate the safe and
efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians.
Some of the different types of intersection traffic control devices or strategies include: basic
rules of the road governing right-of-way at intersections, yield signs, two-way stop sign
installations, three-way and four-way stop sign installations, channelization, center median
control, turn restrictions, and traffic signals.
0
This report focuses on establishing a citywide listing of one of the most efficient ways of
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 using
objective criteria and traffic data. The first Carlsbad Traffic Signal Qualification List was
established in 1988 by City Council Resolution Number 88-252 and it has subsequently been
updated in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. This 2008 report is an
update of the 2006 approved report and qualification list. Ail intersections included on the 2008
list have met one or more warrants contained in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 Revision 1 as amended for use in
California (California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) 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 assign 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 to rank future traffic signal projects. To qualify for this list, the traffic
signal priority 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 traffic signal will minimize or correct an identified problem.
Establishing a Traffic Signal Qualification List answers two basic questions:
1. Do traffic conditions at the intersection meet the basic criteria that affect the benefits and
costs of traffic 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 shows the greatest need for signalization between all potential traffic
signal locations. The attached Traffic Signal Qualification List indicates each intersection under
consideration and is arranged in descending order based upon the total qualification points
accumulated at each location.
A priority listing of future traffic signal locations 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 an intersection that is more
suitable and appropriate for signalization than one higher on the list. The list establishes
locations where 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 intersection has been approved by the
City Council and is included in the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
DATA
Over the years, traffic signal technology has experienced a technical evolution. Traffic signals
have evolved from pre-timed signals where the control mechanisms operated on a
predetermined time schedule to allocate a fixed amount of time for each interval in the traffic
signal cycle to traffic actuated microprocessor units that can operate two to eight signal phases,
highway ramp metering control, master controis for interconnected signal systems,
traffic volume monitoring stations, video detection of vehicles, and adaptive traffic control
systems.
Traffic signals are expensive control devices 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 drivers to
follow 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 vehicle platoons 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 that are based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.
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 total number of pedestrians that cross
the street.
Factor D • School Area Traffic Signals
This factor recognizes the special problems or concerns that may be present 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.
10
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 coordination 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, specific geometric or roadway features, sight distance obstructions, and various
other criteria.
The above rating system is used to evaluate various potential traffic signal locations; these
locations are then ranked based on the following relative weight system:
FACTOR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
TOTAL POS
DESCRIPTION
Minimum Vehicular Volume
Interruption
Pedestrian Volume
School Area
Signal System
Accident History
Special Conditions
SIBLE
MAXIMUM
QUALIFICATION
POINTS
15
10
10
10
5
15
18
83
POINTS
RELATIVE
WEIGHT
18%
12%
12%
12%
6%
18%
22%
100%
2008 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST
QUALIFICATION
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
10
10
12
13
14
LOCATION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
FUNDING SOURCE
La Costa Avenue/Levante Street
Developer Funded
Faraday Avenue/Rutherford Road
CIP
Faraday Avenue/Palmer Way
CIP
Paseo del Norte/Ginger Ave./Harbor Point Rd.
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Gibraltar Street
CIP
Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts
CIP
Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry Avenue
CIP
Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive
CIP
La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero
CIP
Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive
CIP
Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine Drive
Developer Funded/CIP
La Costa Avenue/Camino de los Coches
Developer Funded/CIP
CALIFORNIA
MUTCD SIGNAL
WARRANTS MET
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3
1,2,3,6
3
1,2,3
6
6
6
1,3
6
3,6
6
3
TOTAL
VOLUME
2 P.M. - 6 P.M.
4941
4467
4135
3700
5524
4442
4804
2351
6633
3300
4843
2403
2810
1753
QUALIFICATION FACTOR
A
15
15
11
10
5
6
4
0
2
3
3
1
1
1
B
g
6
7
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
1
4
1
5
1
F
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
4
3
5
2
4
2
1
TOTAL
QUALIFICATION
POINTS
31
29
25
23
15
13
11
10
10
9
9
8
8
3
DEVELOPER INITIATED OR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED
1. Aviara Parkway/Camino de las Ondas
2. Calle Barcelona/Paseo Avellano
3. Poinsettia Lane/Black Rail Road
4. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida La Cima
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet CAMUTCD Signal Warrants)
1. Armada Drive/Fleet Street (S)
2. Aviara Parkway/Nightshade Road
3. Aviara Parkway/Towhee Lane
4. Chestnut Avenue/Donna Drive/Donna Court
5. Chestnut Avenue/Valley Street
6. El Fuerte Street/Rancho Pancho
7. Grand Avenue/Madison Street
8. Las Flores Drive/Pio Pico Drive
9. La Costa Avenue/Quinta Avenue
10. Monroe Street/Hosp Way
11. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida Aragon
12. Tamarack Avenue/Valley Street
13
APPENDIX
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
PRIORITY EVALUATION
Location:
St. Classification:
Approach Lanes:
Approach Speeds:
Factor A: Total Volume (2PM-6PM) (15 pts. max.)
Major St. Total
Minor St. Total
TOTAL volume =
Factor B: Interruption (2PM-6PM) (10 pts. max.)
Major St. Vol.
Minor St. over 300 Yes No
Factor C: Pedestrian Volumes (2PM-6PM) (10 pts. max.)
Major St. Vol.
Ped Xing Major St. Vol.
Factor D: School Area Pedestrian Volumes (10 pts. max.)
2 hour St. Vol.
2 hour Ped. Vol.
Factor E: Signal Systems/Coordinate Movement (5 pts. max.)
Factor F: Accident History (15 pts. max.)
(Average/Year for 2 Years)
Factor G: Special Conditions (18 pts. max.)
Describe:
TOTAL POINTS =
Priority
Points
PRK -RP 1 ON SIGNAL LIST
TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
Factor A - Total Vehicular Volume
Points are assigned based upon the graph beiow which considers major and minor street
vo!umes 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 bs assigned to this factor.
NOTES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4 HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
2. MAXIMUM PQ!f<TS - 15
750
OVER
700
GOO
uj
§ 500
uj WO
h-
VI
cr 300oz
200
TOO
INTERSECTION OF:
2-2 Lane Sts. 1600
1-2 8 1-4 Lane St. 2200
2-4 Lane Sts. 2600
2-One-Way Sts. 3200
1800 2000
2400 2600
2800 3000
3400 3600
2200
2800
3200
3800
2400
3000
3400
4OOO
2600
3200
3600
4200
2800 3000
3400 3600
3800 4000
4400 4600
3200
3300
4200
48OO
3400
4000
4400
5000
3600
4200
4600
5200
38SQ+
4400+
4800+
5400+
TOTAL VOLUME ENTERING INTERSECTION
A-]
Factor B - 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
11,600
12,400
12,500 And Up
A-2
n
s
Factor C - Pedestrian Volume
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a major street. A maximunj
of 10 points may be assigned to this factor.
NOTES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4-HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
2. MAXIMUM POINTS » 10
3. NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 100 PEDESTRIANS DURING THE 4 HOUR PERiOO.
4 NO POINTS IF LESS THAN 1200 MAJOR STREET VEHICLES DURING THE 4- HOUR
PERIOO.
36OO &
OVER
3200
2800
2AOQ
2000
1600
1200
100 200 600 BOO 1000 12OO 1*00 1500 i.
OVER
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET
A 0n -j
Factor D - School Area Traffic Signals
Points are assigned base-i 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
jl 750 1000
500 600
3
250
S>
200
0
POINTS
^_-
10
100
£0
150
100
200 250ISO 350 •{Urban)
220 {Rtwal)
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET
(Per 2-Hour Period)
NOTE: No points will be assigned If nearest controlled crossing Is
than 600 feet away.
A-4
Factor E - 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 fac-
tor based on the distance to the nearest traffic signal as indicated below.
Distance to Nearest
Traffic Signal
<1 ,200 feet
1,201 feet -1,500 feet
1,501 feet - 1 ,800 feet
1,801 feet -2, 100 feet
2,101 feet - 2,600 feet
>2,600 feet
Points
5
4
3
2
1
0
Factor F - 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
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 &Over
0
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
NOTE: Use the average of the last two years, provided the intersection has been in
operation for two years.
A-5
Factor G - 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.
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 poten-
tial benefit to school-age pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
3. Horizontal arid 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. Points are assigned based on the number of miles per hour
the 85th percentile/critical speed is over the posted speed limit as indicated below.
# of MPH the 85th Percentile/Critical Speed
Is Over the Posted Speed Limit
1-2mph
3-4 mph
5+ mph
Points
1
2
3
A-6
California MUTCD Page 4C-1
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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/1 eft-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
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Fait 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD Page 4C-2
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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.
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 volumos as the "minor
street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on tho major street as the "major
street" volume volume of the major-street left-turn volumes plus the higher volume minor-street approach as the "minor
street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major-street left-turn volume as "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 trucks, 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.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Fait 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD Page 4C-3
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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 (CA) and 4C-103(CA) are examples of warrant sheets.
Guidance:
Figure 4C-103(CA) 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
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.
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 64
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.
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.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD Page 4C-4
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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 64
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 64 I
km/h or exceeds 40 mph or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a j
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
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
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Pan 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD Page 4C-5
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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 Icm/h 64
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 wii! 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.
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
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 25. 2006
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD Page 4C-6
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD Page 4C-7
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
not 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 lem/h 64
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.
Section 4C.101(CA) 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.102(CA) 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
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD ' Page 4C-8
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
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.
(This space left intentionally blank)
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies September 26, 2006
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Page 4C-9
X
0.
Xo
CL
trtyo|
id
EC
UJX
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
500
400
300
200
100
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
*80
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 76 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mptr ON MAJOR STREET)
x
Q_
IO
oc£
fe<
cr^O^
CC
UJX
CD
X
400
300
200
100
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
.2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
I
A LANE & 1 LANE
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
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 iane.
1000
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Page 4C-10
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
600
2 OR 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 39 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
X
CL
5 wo
t,%cc
Q- 300
cc
O:
111
200
CC 100LU
0
r
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
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.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
September 26. 2006
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4)
COUNT DATE
Page4C-ll
CALC
CHK
Major St:
Minor St:
Critical speed oi major street traffic >40mph — ~~ ~~ ~~
In built up area of isolated community of < 10,000 pop
DATE
DATE
Critical Approach Speed mph
Critical Approach Speed mph
r-j\
or RURAL(R)
D/
D URBAN (U)
WARRANT 1-r- Eiaht Hour VehicuiarVotume
(Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NO D
Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume 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 R
1
500
(400)
150
(120)
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 NoD
Yes D No D
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 D No D
REQUIREMENT
Two Warrants
Satisfied 80%
AND, An adequate trial c
traffic has failed to solve
WARRANT
1 . Minimum Vehicular Volume
2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic
)f other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to
the traffic problems.
D
D
FULFILLED
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants does not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signs!.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Page4C-12
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2 - Four Hour Vehicular Volume
Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day.
SATISFIED*
APPROACH LANES ONE ^^
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approach - Minor Street
D
n
n
n
YES D NO
Hour
*AII plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-1. (Urban Areas)
OR. All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-2 (Rural Areas)
YesQ NoD
YesD NoD
WARRANT 3 - Pem Hour
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied)
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied for the same
One hour, for any four consecutive 15-minute periods)
SATISFIED YES D NOD
SATISFIED* Yes D No Q N/A D
The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach (one direction
only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one
lane approach, or five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND
TOTAL DELAY = )00(_vehicle_-hpurs_
the volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or
exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;
AND
MINOR STREET VOLUME = XXX vph
The total entering volume serviced" during the hour equals or exceeds 80"d vph for
intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three
approaches.
TOTAL VOLUME = XXX vph
YesD NoQ N/AD
Yes D No
3.Yes D No
PARTB
APPROACH LANES ONE 2 OR
MORE
SATISFIED* Yes D No D
Hour
Both Approaches - Major Street
Highest Approach - Minor Street
D
D
D
D
*The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. (Urban Areas)
OR. The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4. (Rural Areas)
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Page4C-13
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4)
SATISFIED YES Q NO Q N/A Q
SATISFIED Yes Q NoD
WARRANT 4 - Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A (Parts 1 and 2 must be satisfied)
1.
2.
Hours ->
Pedestrian Volume
Adequate Crossing
Gaps
Any hours 190
OR any 4 hours > 100
AND < 60 gap/hr
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
Yes D No D N/A D
Pedestrian Volume Any hour > 95
OR Anv 4 hours >50
AND Ped Crossing < 1.2 m/s (4 ft/sec)
YesD
YesD
YesD
NoD
NoD
NoD
PartB SATISFIED Yes Q NoD
AND, The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 90m (300 ft).
OR, The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street.
Yes D NoD
Yes D No D
WARRANT 5 — School Grossing
(Parts A and B, or Part C Must Be Satisfied)
PART A
Gap/Minutes and # of Children
SATISFIED YES Q NO Q N/A D
SATISFIED Yes D No Q
Gaps
Vs
Minutes
Minutes Children Using Crossing
Number of Adequate Gaps
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street / hr
Hour
Gaps < Minutes
AND. Children > 20/hr
Yes D No [H N/AD
Yes D No D
| AND, Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measuresT Yes D No D |
PARTS SATISFIED Yes D No
The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 90m (300 ft).
OR, The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
YesD
YesD
NoD
NoD
PART C (All Parts 1, 2 and 3 below must be satisfied)
Vehicles / hr
AND. School Age Pedestrians
Crossing Street / hr
OR, School Age Pedestrians
Crossing Street / day
U
500
100
500
Ry*
350
70
350
SATISFIED
Hours
Yes No
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
* 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 distance, rural criteria should be used.
2.
3.
Other signal warrants met.
The distance to the nearest controlled crossing is greater than 180m (600 ft).
YesD
YesD
NoD
NoD
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Page4C-l4
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 - Coordinated Signal System
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES Q NOD
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
> 300m (1000 ft)
DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
N:S:E:W:
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.
OR, On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide necessary degree of platooning and the
proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
FULFILLED
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
WARRANT:? - Crash Experience Warrant
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES D NO D
Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash
frequency.
REQUIREMENTS
5 OR MORE
REQUIREMENTS
ONE CONDITION SATISFIED 80%
The number of crashes within a 12 month period susceptible to
correction by a traffic signal, and involving injury or damage exceeding
the requirements for a reportable crash.
CONDITIONS
Warrant 1 , Condition A - Minimum Vehicular Volume
OR, Warrant 1 , Condition B - Interruption of Continuous Traffic
OR, Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition -
Pedestrian Volume 2152 for any hour
OR, Pedestrian Volume S80 for any 4 hours
D
D
D
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
WARRANTS - Roadway Network
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES J3 NOQ
MINIMUM VOLUME
REQUIREMENTS
1000Veh/Hr
ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour xxxx Veh / Hr,
and has 5-year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more of Warrants 1,
2, and 3 during an average weekday.
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
ROUTE A
D
D
MAJOR
ROUTE B
Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets
FULFILLED
Yes D No D
Yes D No D
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Chapter 4C - Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2.006
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
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
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
1300 1400
*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
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
Ia.
o
tt £IIso
UJ
O
I
500
400
300
200
100
0
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)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (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 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)
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
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
MAJOR STREET - TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
1200 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.