HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-01; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Review and provide recommendations on the 2010 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification ListC
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
COMMISSION MEETING OF: February 1, 2010 ITEM NO. 6B
LOCATION: Citywide
INITIATED BY: City Engineer
REQUESTED ACTION: Review and provide recommendations on the 2010 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List.
BACKGROUND:
A Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy was first established for the City of Carlsbad when the
City Council adopted Resolution Number 88-252 on July 19, 1988. It is standard
procedure for staff to update the Traffic Signal Qualification List, which is part of the
Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, on a biannual basis. This Policy has subsequently been
updated and presented to the City Council for approval ten times with the City Council
for adopting a resolution to establish the Traffic Signal Qualification List. The City
Council approvals occurred on:
• March 27, 1990 Resolution Number 90-78 • February 18, 1992 Resolution Number 92-58 • April 19, 1994 Resolution Number 94-101 • February 20, I 996 Resolution Number 96-64 • March 3, 1998 Resolution Number 98-55 • February 15, 2000 Resolution Number 2000-65 • March 5, 2002 Resolution Number 2002-69 • April 20, 2004 Resolution Number 2004-126 • March 7, 2006 Resolution Number 2006-52 • March 18, 2008 Resolution Number 2008-75
This policy provides the mechanism to evaluate intersections and to establish a priority
ranking system of potential future signalized intersection locations for comparative
purposes. Procedures contained in the Evaluation Policy were based upon similar traffic
signal policies established by the City of Escondido and the City of San Diego with
modifications specific to Carlsbad.
DATA:
When the Policy was established and adopted in 1988, staff indicated to both the Traffic
Safety Commission and City Council that the Traffic Signal Qualification List included in
the report would be periodically updated. The attached report is the eleventh update of the
Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
During calendar year 2009, staff conducted new and updated traffic studies at each
intersection indicated in the 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, except for where a
C
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
COMMISSION MEETING OF: February 1, 2010
( continued)
ITEMNO. 6B
traffic signal was installed. Intersections meeting one or more of the California Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) traffic signal warrants have been
placed on the 2010 Traffic Signal Qualification List. A total of 16 intersections are
included on the 2010 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
Four intersections have been added to the 2010 Traffic Signal Qualification List that were
not included on the 2008 list. The new intersections are:
• La Costa A venue/La Quinta A venue ( qualification number 4)
• Gateway Road/Finnila Place ( qualification number 9)
• College Boulevard/Salk A venue ( qualification number 11)
• Armada Drive/Fleet Street (qualification number 16)
City Council adoption of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, and subsequent
establishment of the Traffic Signal Qualification List, does not commit or require the
designated traffic signals to be installed in the order of ranking. For various reasons,
it may be determined to defer installation of a traffic signal at an intersection ranked
higher on the list and initiate signalization of a lower ranked intersection.
The Traffic Signal Qualification List provides a systematic listing of intersection
priorities based upon preliminary engineering studies. Ultimately, engineering judgment
and possibly other detailed engineering studies will determine if and when a traffic signal
is recommended for installation. An engineering cost estimate and further evaluation will
be conducted prior to beginning final design after authorization is received from the
City Council to pursue signalization of an intersection.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that the Traffic Safety
Commission review and provide recommendations regarding the 2010 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List. Further, that the Policy
and Qualification List be submitted to the City Council for adoption of a resolution
establishing the 20 IO Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
NECESSARY CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council approval and adoption, by Resolution, of the 20 IO Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, is required.
C
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC DIVISION
JANUARY 2010
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION .. ... ................... ........ .......................... .................................................. .. 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE..................................................................................... 1
POLICY............................................................................................................................ 2
GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 2
DATA................................................................................................................................ 3-4
2010 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, CHAPTER
4C, TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Transportation Department
Traffic Division
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
The City of Carlsbad is located in northern San Diego County and has grown from a small,
agricultural based residential community in its early history to a city with approximately 105,000
residents. A variety of industrial, commercial, recreational, residential, transportation, and agri-
cultural land uses are found in Carlsbad. Population increases in Carlsbad has generated
additional vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.
With increased traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes on Carlsbad's roadway system, there
continues to be a need for a methodology to evaluate and determine locations of future traffic
signals. Currently, there are 182 signalized intersections in Carlsbad. Ownership and mainte-
nance responsibility is as follows:
■ 168 traffic signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad.
■ 11 traffic signals owned and maintained by Caltrans.
■ 3 traffic signals owned and maintained by other agency.
This report will identify and evaluate future traffic signals that may be installed at intersections
throughout the City of Carlsbad. A policy is provided that is the mechanism for continuous
re-evaluation and update of potential traffic signal locations on a regular basis.
The Traffic Signal Qualification List is not steadfast. Financial constraints, private development
schedules, capital improvement projects, funding availability, or other considerations may
dictate that a lower qualifying traffic signal be installed at a specified location, The qualification
list does, however, serve as a guide for future traffic signal installations and only those
intersections that meet one or more 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 by appropriate means. Depending upon the traffic,
bicycle, pedestrian characteristics and geometrics 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, bicycles, and pedestrians.
Different types of intersection traffic control devices or strategies include, but are not limited to:
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.
1
The focus of this report is to establish 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 current 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, 2006 and 2008. This 2010 report
is an update of the 2008 approved report and qualification list. All intersections included on the
201 0 list have met one or more warrants contained in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for the installation of a traffic signal.
POLICY
As for many cities, it has been the policy of the City of Carlsbad Traffic Division to only recom-
mend 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 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 facilitate the orderly movement of traffic, bicycles, and
pedestrians with minimum delay and maximum safety.
Many cities use a priority list to rank future traffic signal installations. 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 improve, minimize, or correct an identified issue.
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 determines 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).
2
DATA
Over the years, traffic signal equipment 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 controls 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 drivers following
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 accident frequency, certain types of accidents, reductions in
delay and air pollutants, 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 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 takes into account that at specified 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.
3
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 keeping traffic in compact platoons that will arrive at adjacent
signalized locations in accordance with a coordination timing plan.
Factor F -Accident History
This factor recognizes 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 be present at an intersection due to the
location of certain traffic generators, specific geometric or roadway features, corner sight
distance obstructions, and/or various other criteria.
The above rating system is used to evaluate potential traffic signal locations and these locations
are ranked based on the following relative weight system:
MAXIMUM
QUALIFICATION RELATIVE
FACTOR DESCRIPTION POINTS WEIGHT
A Minimum Vehicular Volume 15 18%
B Interruption 10 12%
C Pedestrian Volume 10 12%
D School Area 10 12%
E Sional Svstem 5 6%
F Accident History 15 18%
G Special Conditions 18 22%
83
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 100%
4
2010 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST
QUALIFICATION FACTOR
LOCATION CALIFORNIA TOTAL TOTAL
QUALIFICATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MUTCD SIGNAL VOLUME QUALIFICATION
NUMBER FUNDING SOURCE/FISCAL YEAR WARRANTS MET 2 P.M. -6 P.M. A B C D E F G POINTS
1 La Costa Avenue/Levante Street 1, 2, 3 4972 14 10 0 0 5 0 2 31
Developer Funded/GIP 2012-2013
2 Faraday Avenue/Palmer Way 1,2,3 5150 12 10 0 0 5 0 1 28
CIP2011-2012
3 La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way 1,2,3 5732 6 0 0 0 5 1 5 17
CIP 2010-2011
4 La Costa Avenue/Quinta Street 3 4363 4 0 0 0 5 3 2 14
CIP 2010-2011
5 La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street 1,2,3 4192 4 0 0 0 5 0 2 11
CIP 2010-2011
5 Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive 2,3,6 3174 3 0 0 0 3 0 5 11
CIP 2011-2012
7 La Costa Avenue/Gibraltar Street 6 4875 3 0 0 0 5 0 2 10
CIP 2010-2011
7 Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry Avenue 6 6545 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 10
CIP 2011-2012
9 La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero 6 5002 3 0 0 0 4 0 2 9
CIP 2010-2011
9 Gateway Road/Finnila Place 1 2129 3 0 0 0 5 0 1 9
Developer Funded 2010-2011
11 Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive 6 2406 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 8
CIP 2015-2020
11 College Boulevard/Salk Avenue 6 2374 1 1 0 0 4 0 2 8
Develooer Funded 2010-2011
13 Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts 6 2649 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 7
CIP 2015-2020
14 Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine Drive 6 2531 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 6
Developer Funded/GIP 2015-2020
15 La Costa Avenue/Camino de los Caches 3 1640 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2
Develooer Funded/GIP 2012-2013
16 Armada Drive/Fleet Street{S) 6 2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
CIP 2015-2020
NOTE: The indicated year in the CIP is recommended, but has not been approved by the City Council, and can change year to year.
5
DEVELOPER INITIATED OR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED
1. Melrose DriveNia Patron
2. College Boulevard/Salk Avenue
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet CA MUTCD Signal Warrants)
1. Aviara Parkway/Nightshade Road
2. Aviara Parkway/Towhee Lane
3. Chestnut Avenue/Donna Drive/Donna Court
4. Chestnut AvenueNalley Street
5. El Fuerte Street/Loker Avenue(E)/Loker Avenue(W)
6. El Fuerte Street/Rancho Pancho
7. Grand Avenue/Madison Street
8. Las Flores Drive/Pio Pico Drive
9. Monroe Street/Hosp Way
10. Paseo del Norte/Ginger Avenue/Harbor Point Road
11. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida Aragon
12. Tamarack AvenueNalley Street
6
APPENDIX
TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
Factor A -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.
"' w
:E
:::)
_J
0 >
I-w w ~ I-"' ~
0 z -:E
750+
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
AC3) 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 9 (3) 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000
d 3l 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400
d 3l 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000
TOTAL VOLU ME ENTERING INTERSECTION
(Per 4-Hour Period)
NOTES
1. All volumes are for 4 hours (usually 2-6 p.m.)
2. Maximum points = 15.
3. The total volume used In the analysis should be based on the following:
A -The intersection of two 1-lane streets (each direction typical).
B -The intersection of a 1-lane street and a 2-lane street.
C -The intersection of two 2-lane streets.
D -The intersection of two one-way streets.
A-1
3600 3800+
4200 4400+
4600 4800+
5200 5400+
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 APPROXIMATE
STREET VOLUMES POINTS ADT
0-1649 0 4,700
1650-1949 1 5,600
1950-2249 2 6,400
2250-2549 3 7,300
2550-2849 4 8,200
2850-3149 5 9,000
3150-3449 6 10,000
3450-3749 7 10,700
3750-4049 8 11,600
4050-4349 9 12,400
4350-Over 10 12,500 And Up
A-2
Factor C -Pedestrian Vo lume
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a major street. A maximum of 1 0
points may be assigned to this factor.
w
:i: ::::,
..J
0 >
0 -LL
LL
~ I-
0:: ::::,
0 ::c I ~
3600 &
OVER
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200 100 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1500 &
OVER
PEDESTRIANS CROSSI NG THE MAJ OR STREET
(Per 4-Hour Period)
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 period. .
4. No points if less than 1200 major street vehicles during the 4-hour period.
A-3
Factor D -School Area Traffic Signals
Points are assigned based 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.
w
::i! 3 1100 1400
0 >
0
u::::
LL 750 1000 ~
l-
o:: ::::,
0 J: I N
500 -~ ::, ll:'. -
250
600 -C: <U .c ....
2,
200 100
60
NOTE
'
------------
2
------------
150 200 250
100 140 180
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET
(Per 2-Hour Period)
350 (Urban)
220 (Rural)
No points will be assigned if nearest controlled crossing is less 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 Points
<1 ,200 feet 5
1,201 feet -1,500 feet 4
1,501 feet -1,800 feet 3
1,801 feet -2,100 feet 2
2,101 feet -2,600 feet 1
>2,600 feet 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.
NOTE:
ACCIDENTS
0-2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 & Over
POINTS
0
1
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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 corner
sight distance or stopping sight distance. This factor requires engineering judgment after a
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 under study, points are assigned to reflect the poten-
tial 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 presents
conflict for their crossing or merging maneuvers. There may also be other
restrictions that limit visibility, such as utility poles and appurtenances, trees and
shrubs on private property, signs, fire hydrants, fences, etc.
4. Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points): In addition to the problems caused by
visibility restrictions, speeds above critical can worsen the severity of the accidents
that may occur. Points are assigned based on the number of miles per hour the 85th
percentile/critical speed is above the posted speed limit as indicated below.
# of MPH the 851n Percentile/Critical Speed
Is Over the Posted Speed Limit Points
1-2 mph 1
3-4 mph 2
5+ mph 3
A-6
California MUTCD
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.0l Studies and Factors for Justifyine Traffic Control Sienals
Standard:
Page 4C-l
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 1 0D.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-tum 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-tum 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-tum 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-tum lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-tum vehicles.
Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one lane plus a
right-tum lane. In this case, the degree of conflict of minor-street right-tum traffic with traffic on the major
street should be considered. Thus, right-tum 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-tum 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 I year of putting the signal into stop-and-go
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
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 ef the RHlj0r street left ttilll ,10l1:1mes as the "miner
street" 110l1:1me aBa the eerrespemlieg siegle direetiee ef eppesi:eg traffie ea the majer street as the "majer
street" veh¼me 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 ltem
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
geometrics, 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 ofa Saturday or Sunday.
E. Queue length on stop-controlled approaches.
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C-3
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, 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 Band the combination of Conditions A and Bare not needed. Similarly,
if Condition Bis 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 Bin 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 641
km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a
population ofless than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-l 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 Bin 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
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C-4
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision l, 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 641
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
population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-l.
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 foUowing 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
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C-5
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, 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 km/h 641
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.
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
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
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 7 A.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 Bin 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
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C-7
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, 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 km/h 641
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 = Bx V and W ~50,000 and B ~50.
Where: Wis 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 . Band 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
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C-8
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, 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.
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
(This space left intentionally blank)
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended foruse in California)
::c a.. > 500
I
::c (.)
f-<( 400
wO wa: CI: a.. f-a.. 300 Cl)<(
a:W ~~ 200
-_J
::?~
' CI: 100 w :r: ~ :r:
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
I I
1 LANE & 1 LANE
Page 4C-9
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 tor 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 +8 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
::C 400 a.. >
'
300
200
100
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
I I
1 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 ror 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.
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
1000
September 26, 2006
I
California MUTCD Page 4C-10
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended foruse in California)
I 600
a.. >
::c 500
u
t-<( wO 400 wa: a: a.. t-a.. (J) <( 300 a:W o:E z=> 200 _....1
:::1g
ri: 100 w I
C)
:i:
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
7"' ..... ~-.iiF .... -+---! '150
l--l-_jf---t---1-----+---+---+--+-----+~~-4-.::::::;::::......,----1 '100
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
MAJOR STR EET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES-
VEHICLES PEA HOUR (VPH)
'Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street
approach wi1h 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 -1Q 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
I a.. > ' ::c 400 u
tuc5 wa: 300 a: a..
t;~
0:W 0::? 200 z=> _...J
:::1g
ri: w 100
I C)
:i:
~---+----.--1f---2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES --1-----1
I I I I
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
I
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4)
COUNT DATE
CALC
DIST co RTE PM CHK
Major St: Critical Approach Speed
Minor St: Critical Approach Speed
Speed limit or critical speed on major street traffic > 64 km/h (40 mph) ........ D } or
In built up area of isolated community of < 10.000 population ....................... D
□
DATE
DATE
RURAL (R)
URBAN (U)
Page 4C-l l
mph
mph
WARRANT 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED YES O NO 0
(Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied)
Condition A -Minimum Vehicle Volume 100% SATISFIED YES O NO 0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES 0 N OD
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u R u R
APPROACH 1 2 or More Ill/Ill LANES Hour
Both Approaches 500 350 600 420
Major Street (400) (280) (480) (336)
Highest Approach 150 105 200 140
Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112)
Condition B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES O NO □
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 80% SATISFIED YES 0 N o □
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u R u R
APPROACH 1 2 or More I I I I I I I . LANES Hour
Both Approaches 750 525 900 630 Major Street (600) (420) (720) (504)
Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 Minor Street (60) (42) (80) (56)
Combination of Conditions A & B SATISFIED YES O NO 0
REQUIREMENT CONDITION ✓ FULFILLED
TWO CONDITIONS A. MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
SATISFIED 80% AND, Yes □ No 0
B. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
Af:LQ., AN ADEQUATE TRIAL OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD
CAUSE LESS DELAY AND INCONVENIENCE TO TRAFFIC HAS FAILED Yes D No 0
TO SOLVE THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
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 Page 4C-12
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4)
WARRANT 2 -Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YES □ NO □
Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day.
APPROACH LANES One ~o~~ I I I Hour
Both Approaches -Major Street
Higher Approach -Minor Street
"Alf plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-1 . (URBAN AREAS) Yes □ No □
QB, All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-2. (RURAL AREAS) Yes □ No □
WARRANT 3 -Peak Hour SATISFIED YES □ NO 0
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied)
PART A SATISFIED YES O NO 0
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied for the same
one hour, for any four consecutive 15-minute periods)
1. 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 Yes D No D
approach, or five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; ANO ---------------------------------------------------~-----------
2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds Yes D No D
100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
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. Yes D No D
PARTB SATISFIED YES O NO 0
2 or H APPROACH LANES One More our
Both Approaches -Major Street
Higher Approach -Minor Street
The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. Yes D No □
QB, The plott.ed point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4. Yes D No □
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 Page4C-l3
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4)
WARRANT 4 -Pedestrian Volume
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED
Part A (Parts 1 or 2 must be satisfied) / / /
Hours ---> / SATISFIED
1. Pedestrian Volume Any hour.:! 190
OR any 4 hours.:! 100
Adequate Crossing Gaps AND < 60 gap/hr
2. Pedestrian Volume I Any hour.:! 95
I QB Any 4 hours > 50
~ ped crossing < 1.2m/s (4 ft/sec)
YES □ NO □
YES □ NO □
Yes D No □
Yes D No □
Yes D No □
Yes D No □
Yes D No □
Yes fl No fl
Part B SATISFIED YES □ NO □
AND, The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
ffiari90 m (300 ft) Yes D No □
OR, The proposed traffic signal will not restrict progressive traffic flow along the major street. Yes D No □
WARRANT 5 -School Crossing
(Parts A and B, or Part C Must Be Satisfied)
Part A
G
SATISFIED YES □ NO □
SATISFIED YES □ NO □
ap/Mlnutes and # of Children Ho ur
Gaps Minutes Children Using Crossing
vs
Minutes Number of Adequate Gaps G aps < Minutes
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street I hr ~ Children > 20/hr
AND, Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures.
YES □ NO □
YES □ NO □
Yes D No D
Part B SATISFIED YES □ NO □
The distance to the nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater
than 90 m (300 ft) Yes D No □
OR, The proposed signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. Yes D No □
Part C (All Parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES □ NO □
u
1. Vehicles/hr 500
AND, School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street I hr 100
OR, School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street I day 500
Ry* /
350
70
350
y,
y,
y,
es D
es D
es D
No □
No □
No □
• 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 are met.
The distance to the nearest controlled crossing is greater than 180 m (600 ft).
Yes D No 0
Yes D No □
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 Page 4C-14
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended foruse in California)
Figure 4C-101 (CA). Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4)
WARRANT 6 • Coordinated Signal System
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES O NO 0
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
~ 300 m (1000 ft) N __ tt. s __ tt. E __ tt, w __ ft Yes □ No□
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. Yes □ No □ ~---------------------------------QB, 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.
WARRANT 7 • Crash Experience Warrant
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES O NO 0
Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to
reduce the crash frequency. Yes □ No □
REQUIREMENTS Number of crashes within a 12 month period susceptible Yes □ No□ to correction by a traffic signal, and involving injury or
damage exceeding the requirements for a reportable crash. -------------------------------------------------SOR MORE
REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS ✓
Warrant 1, Condition A-
Minimum Vehicular Volume
ONE CONDITION QB, Warrant 1, Condition B -Yes □ No□ SATISFIED 80% Interruption of continuous traffic
QB, Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition
Ped Vol ~ 152 for any hour
.QB, Ped Vol ~ 80 for any 4 hours
WARRANT 8 • Roadway Network
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
SATISFIED YES O NO 0
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VO LUM ES • ALL APPROACHES ✓ FULFILLED REQUIREMENTS
During T~pical Weekday Peak Hour Veh/Hr
and has -year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more
1000 Veh/Hr of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday. Yes □ NoO ~-----------------------~-OR
During Each of Any 5 Hrs. of a Sat. and/or Sun ___ Veh/Hr
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MAJOR
ROUTE A ROUTE B
Hwy. System Serving as Principal Network for Through Traffic ~--------------------------------Rural or
Suburban Highway Outside Of, Entering, or Traversing a City ---------------------------------
Appears as Major Route on an Official Plan
Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets Yes □ NoO
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