The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-01-09; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Review and provide recommendations regarding the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List( CITY OF CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMISSION MEETING OF: January 9, 2006 ITEMNO. 6B LOCATION: Citywide INITIATED BY: Transportation Division REQUESTED ACTION: Review and provide recommendations regarding the 2006 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. Since that time, it has been standard operating procedure for staff to update the traffic signal qualification list on a biannual basis. This policy has subsequently been updated and presented to the City Council eight times with the City Council adopting a resolution to establish the traffic signal evaluation list. The City Council updates 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, 1996 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 This policy is intended to provide the mechanism for evaluating intersections and to establish a 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. DATA: At the time the Policy was first adopted in 1988, staff indicated to both the Traffic Safety Commission and City Council that the traffic signal qualification list contained in the report would be periodically updated. The attached report is the .ninth update of the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy. During calendar year 2005, staff conducted new and updated traffic studies at each intersection indicated in the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy. Intersections meeting the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices· (MUTCD) traffic signal warrants have been placed on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. A total of 15 intersections are included on the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List. ( ( CITY OF CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT COMMISSION MEETING OF: January 9, 2006 ( continued) ITEMNO. 6B Six intersections have been added to the 2006 Traffic Signal Qualification List that were not included on the 2004 list. By their designated qualification number, new intersections on the qualification list are Numbers 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, and 15. The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee (TSCC) reviewed the wording of Qualification Factor 7 (Special Conditions), Number 4 and recommended revised language. Currently, Qualification Factor 7, Number 4 on page A-6 of the Appendix to the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy references "High" speed on a through street. It also describes high speed as " ... very high approach speed ... ". Because of the subjective nature of "high" and "very high" as it describes speed, the TSCC recommend Qualification Factor 7, Number 4 read as follows: "4. Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points.) In addition to worsening the problems caused by visibility restrictions, speeds above critical can worsen the severity of the accidents which occur." A redline/strikeout version of this qualification factor is provided in the Policy on page A-6. 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 signal at an intersection ranked higher on the list and initiate signalization of a lower ranked intersection. Basically, the Traffic Signal Qualification List provides a systematic listing of intersection priorities based upon preliminary engineering studies. 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 approval of the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List and incorporating the recommended revisions to Qualification Factor 7, Number 4. NECESSARY CITY COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approval and adoption, by Resolution, of the 2006 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, will be required. ( CITY OF CARLSBAD TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY PREPARED BY: TRANSPORTATION DIVISION JANUARY 2006 DRAFT ( ( CITY OF CARLSBAD TRANSPORTATION DIVISION TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT JANUARY 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION ........... ............ .. ...... ............. ..... ............ ......... .. . .. . . .. . ..... ....... .. .. .............. 1 BACKGROUND A.ND PURPOSE..................................................................................... 1 POLICY............................................................................................................................ 2 GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 2 DATA................................................................................................................................ 3-4 2006 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST............................................................... 5 TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED........................ 6 INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet Traffic Signal Warrants)...................... 6 APPENDIX A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM B. MUTCD 2003 EDITION AS AMENDED BY THE MUTCD 2003 CALIFORNIA SUPPLEMENT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS / i \_ CITY OF CARLSBAD Transportation Division ( TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT INTRODUCTION The City of Carlsbad, located in North San Diego County, has grown from a small, agricultural based residential community in its early history to a city of approximately 95,000 residents. Various industrial, commercial, recreational, residential and agricultural land uses are found in Carlsbad. Associated with population increases has been an increase in vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. With increased volumes on . Carlsbad's roadway system, there continues to be a need for a more detailed method of evaluating and determining locations of future traffic signals. Currently, Carlsbad has 160 signalized intersections. Ownership and maintenance responsibility is as follows: ■ 143 signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad ■ 14 signals owned and maintained by Caltrans. ■ 3 signals owned and maintained by other agency. The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate future traffic signals at various intersections throughout the City of Carlsbad. The Policy provides the mechanism to continually re-evaluate and update potential traffic signal locations on a regular basis. The Traffic Signal Qualification List is not steadfast. Financial constraints, private development schedules, capital improvement projects, or other valid considerations may dictate that a lower qualifying signal be installed at a given location. The qualification list does, however, serve as a guide for future traffic signal installations and only those intersections that meet traffic signal warrants are listed. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE As traffic volumes increase, the hierarchy of traffic control dictates that consideration be given to right-of-way assignment at intersections. Depending upon the traffic characteristics and geometrics at a given intersection, staff will evaluate and select from a variety of traffic control methods or devices the appropriate means of facilitating the safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians. Different types of intersection traffic control devices or strategies include: basic rules of the road governing right-of-way at intersections, yield sign installations, two-way STOP sign installations, three-way and four-way STOP sign installations, channelization, center median control, and traffic signals. 1 ( This report focuses on establishing a Citywide listing of one of the most efficient methods for assigning intersection right-of-way control, the traffic signal. The purpose of a traffic signal qualification list is to compare and impartially rank the intersections under consideration. A Traffic Signal Qualification List was originally established for the City of Carlsbad in 1988 by City Council Resolution Number 88-252 and was subsequently updated in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. This report is an update of the 2004 qualification list. All intersections included on the list have met the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 Edition as amended by the MUTCD 2003 California supplement criteria (traffic signal warrants) as adopted by the California Department of Transportation for the installation of a traffic signal. POLICY As with most traffic engineering departments, it has been the policy of the City of Carlsbad Transportation Division to only recommend installation of traffic signals that meet the minimum criteria adopted by the California Department of Transportation. All data collection and eligibility evaluation to determine if criteria is met for an intersection to qualify for a traffic signal is under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. GENERAL Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic control devices that direct the movement of vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at an intersection. Traffic signals establish the positive assignment of the right-of-way to help facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and pedestrians with minimum delay and maximum safety. Many cities use a priority list system for ranking future traffic signal projects. To qualify for this list, the signal analysis takes into account the relative delays on approaching streets, the collision history at the intersection, gaps in the major and minor street streams of traffic, pedestrian volumes, and various other factors. An evaluation is then conducted to determine if a signal will minimize or correct an identified problem. Establishing a Traffic Signal Qualification List helps answer two basic questions: 1. Do traffic conditions at the intersection meet the basic criteria that affect the benefits and costs of signal control; and 2. If so, how does this location compare with other locations throughout the City of Carlsbad that meet the same basic criteria? This evaluation provides a rational method to compare one intersection with another, the end result being a ranking that lists the greatest need for signalization between all potential signal locations. The attached Traffic Signal Qualification List indicates each location under consideration and is arranged in descending order based upon the total qualification points accumulated at each location. A listing of future traffic signals does not mean that signals will exclusively be installed in the order of ranking. Existing conditions, right-of-way needs, need for left turn or right turn lanes, budget constraints, or other factors may indicate a location that is more suitable and appropriate for signalization than one higher on the list. The list establishes locations for which preliminary engineering should take place and then be re-evaluated before proceeding to final design. Traffic signals are not installed unless written authorization from the City Engineer directs their installation or if the location has been approved by the City Council in the annual Capital Improvement Program (GIP). 2 ( DATA Over the past several years, traffic signal technology has experienced a technical evolution. Traffic signals have evolved from pre-timed signals in which control mechanisms operate on a predetermined time schedule allotting a fixed amount of time of each interval in the cycle to traffic actuated microprocessor units that can operate two to eight signal phases, highway ramp metering control, master controls for interconnected signal systems, traffic volume monitoring stations, and video detection of vehicles. Traffic signals are an expensive control device to install and under certain conditions more problems may be created than are solved. These problems can range from increased accident frequency, delays, increased air or noise pollution, and higher energy use, to causing circuitous travel along less desirable routes to avoid the signalized intersection. A properly designed signalized intersection, however, can resolve many problems and provide advantages ranging from reducing certain types of accident frequency, delay, and air pollutants, to creating an orderly traffic movement. In a coordinated signal system, traffic signals help maintain an efficient, progressive movement of vehicles along an arterial roadway. Rankings of the various intersections in Carlsbad for potential traffic signal installation was accomplished by using a Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System. Points were assigned to seven qualification factors which are based on the MUTCD 2003 Edition as amended by the MUTCD 2003 California supplement criteria. Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System factors include the following: Factor 1-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 2 -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 3 -Minimum Pedestrian Volume The minimum pedestrian volume factor reflects the length and frequency of gaps available for pedestrians to cross the major street as compared to the number of pedestrians that cross the street. Factor 4 -School Area Traffic Signals This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur at intersections near schools or on school walking routes. It is similar to the minimum pedestrian volume factor in that gaps in traffic are considered. 3 ( ( Factor 5 -Progressive Movement or Signal Systems Existing or proposed signal systems are considered by this factor. Often traffic flow efficiency can be enhanced if signals are installed at proper spacing along an arterial or signal network. Such signals may assist in holding traffic in compact platoons that will arrive at adjacent signalized locations in accordance with a timing plan. Factor 6 -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 7 -Special Conditions This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur due to the location of certain traffic generators, certain geometric or roadway features, sight distance obstructions, and various other criteria. The above rating system is used to evaluate various potential signal locations; these locations are then ranked based on the following relative weight system: 1 Minimum Vehicular Volume 2 lnterru tion 3 Pedestrian Volume 4 School Area 5 6 Accident History 7 S ecial Conditions TOTAL POSSIBLE 4 • > l\/1A?C1Mqfyt '<·· .· ,QUALIFICAT'ION.··· • •• Jio1Nrs • • 15 10 10 10 5 15 18 83 POINTS . __ . •. •·.·· .-··· , }: FiE4A-r1V~ : ,WEIGHT t , '·-: .. _ ----· ........ . 18% 12% 12% 12% 6% 18% 22% 100% 2006 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST . · , .. '. .. •••• . ·•.· QUALIE.ICATIONFACTOR·, • · . .., .. _: :-: _·, ,-.;.:>·. ' . -_. , LOCATION .. , > . ··•N11.1tcp <· ·.TOTAL. ·<./ . • • " •.·. .. ··. ·.·.·• .· Jg:ri1.. / •••• < ·. QUALIFICATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SIGNAL VOLUME·· ,,, .. .••. , QUALIFICATIOt11·••·, •·· ', ,· .. 2 ,, ,5 ... •• .Ei i 7 .. •· ' ' NUMBER FUNDING SOURCEIFISCALYEAR • ' WARRANTS,MET ·• 2 P.M. -6 P.M. 1 ,'. 3 .. 4 POINTS.· 1 Faraday Avenue/Rutherford Road 1, 2, 3 4491 15 6 0 0 5 0 2 28 CIP/2009-2010 2 Aviara Parkway/Camino de las Ondas 1,2,3,6 4033 6 7 0 0 5 0 4 22 Developer Funded/CIP/2005-2006 3 Tamarack AvenueNalley Street 3 3402 7 5 0 0 0 0 7 19 CIP/2009-2010 3 Monroe Street/Hosp Way 1, 2, 6 3848 6 6 0 0 5 0 2 19 CIP/2010-2014 5 Alga Road/Cazadero Drive 1, 2, 3, 6 5724 6 0 0 0 4 0 6 16 ~, CIP/2010-2014 6 Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida La Cima 2,3,6 5573 6 0 0 0 5 0 4 15 Developer Funded 7 La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way 1 5317 5 0 0 0 5 0 4 14 CIP/2010-2014 8 El Fuerte Street/Rancho Pancho 6 696 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 11 CIP/2010-2014 8 Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive 1,2,3,6 3488 3 0 0 0 3 0 5 11 CIP/2010-2014 8 Calle Barcelona/Paseo Avellano 6 3195 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 11 CIP/2010-2014 11 Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts 6 2380 0 2 0 0 4 0 4 10 c.n Developer Funded 12 Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry Avenue 6 6998 2 0 0 0 4 0 3 9 CIP/2010-2014 13 Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive 3,6 2359 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 8 CI P /2004-2005 14 Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine Drive 6 1797 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 8 Developer Funded/CIP/2010-2014 ~ 15 La Costa Avenue/Camino de los Caches 3,6 1432 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 CIP/2010-2014 ( CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED 1. Paseo del Norte/Car Country Drive 2. La Costa Avenue/Levante Street 3. Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive 4. Poinsettia Lane/Black Rail Road 5. Faraday Avenue/Priestly Avenue INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet MUTCD Signal Warrants) 1. Aviara Parkway/Nightshade Road 2. Aviara Parkway/Towhee Lane 3. Carlsbad Boulevard/Christiansen Way 4. Carlsbad Village Drive/Victoria Avenue 5. Chestnut Avenue/Harding Street 6. Chestnut Avenue/Valley Street 7. Grand Avenue/Madison Street 8. Hosp Way/Wintergreen Drive/Grove Avenue 9. La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street 10. Las Flores Drive/Pio Pico Drive 11. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida Aragon 12. Tamarack Avenue/Park Drive 6 ( APPENDIX ( ( TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM Factor 1 -Total Vehicular Volume Points are assigned based upon the graph below which considers major and minor street volumes and capacity. The entering volumes are based upon 4-hour counts (usually from 2:00 to 6:00 P.M. on a weekday). A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor. ~ 3 ~ ~ LU Cl:: I-"' c:: 0 z 2: 750 OVER 700 600 500 WO 300 200 100 NOTES 1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR 4 HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.) 2. MAXIMUM POINTS c 15 .fTERSECTlON OF: -2 Lane Sta. 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 -2 B 1-4 Lane Sl 2200 2400 2600 2SOO 3000 3200. 3400 3600 3800 -4 Lane Sts. 2600 2SOO 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 -Onr,-Way Sts. 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 TOTAL VOLUME ENTERING INTERSECTION A-1 3400 3600 3800+ 4000 4200 4400+ 4400 4600 4800+ 5000 5200 5400+ ( ' Factor 2 -Interruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles on through streets, if uncontrolled, tend to travel through minor street intersections at speeds that make it difficult and hazardous for vehicles and pedestrians from the side street to cross or enter the principal traffic stream. The total of the minor street vehicles plus pedestrians crossing or entering the major street must exceed 300 in four hours to receive any points. A maximum of 1 0 points may be assigned to this factor. . 4'-HOUR MAJOR . . STREET VOLUMES POINTS •.. 0-1649 0 1650-1949 1 1950-2249 2 2250-2549 3 2550-2849 4 2850-3149 5 3150-3449 6 3450-3749 7 3750-4049 8 4050-4349 9 4350-Over 10 A-2 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 . ' ~ i u i I-; I -d' ( Factor 3 -Pedestrian Volume 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. • • 3600 & OVER 3200 2B00 21f.00 2000 1600 1200 100 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. 200 lf.00 600 800 1000 1200 PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREET . A-3 1500 & OVER 1500 1100 * ...J g u LI. 750 LI. ! ; I N 500 --Iii I. & - 250 ( Factor 4 -School Area Traffic Signals Points are assigned basei upon the number of school age pedestrians crossing thn 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 1 O points may be assigned for this factor. -------------1800 10 -------- 8 1,.00 --- 6 1000 4 -- 600 ---2 C Iii .a I. ::::, -0 200 POINTS 100 150 200 250 350 (Urban) 60 100 no 180 220 (Rural) PEDESTRIANS CROSSING THE MAJOR STREET (Per 2-Hour Period) NOTE: No points wlll be assigned If nearest controlled crossing Is less than 600 feet away. A-4 ( <: ( Factor 5 -Progressive Movement or Signal Systems This factor depends upon engineering studies and must include the present and future traffic demands of the area. A signal may be justified when it forms a part of an interconnected or coordinated system. A maximum of 5 points may be assigned to this factor. Factor 6 -Accident History Only those accidents susceptible to correction by traffic signals are considered and then only if less restrictive measures such as warning signs, proper lighting, painted markings, etc. have failed. A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor. 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. Factor 7 -Special Conditions This factor considers extenuating circumstances that are not covered in the previous six factors. These may include: the proximity of schools, churches, public buildings, and other traffic and pedestrian generators; an abrupt change from a rural to an urban area; the need for. police control during portions of the day; a steep hill; a horizontal curve; restricted sight distance. This factor requires engineering judgment based on physical inspection of the site. A maximum of 18 points may be assigned to this factor. A summary of the factors considered to be special conditions and the points that were assigned follows: 1. Four-way STOP Control (5 points): Typically, right-angle accident frequency drops sharply after installation of a Four-Way STOP. However, total delay, as well as rear- end collision frequency, increase to a level higher than that which would be reflected by the results of Factors #1 and #2. A-5 ( ',. ( 2. Proximity of a school (1 to 5 points): Depending on the type of school and its distance from the intersection in question, points are assigned to reflect the potential benefit to school-age pedestrians and bicycle traffic. 3. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature and Visibility (1 to 5 points): The alignment of a major street can affect the visibility available to side-street motorists, and the relative safety of their crossing or merging maneuvers. There may also be other restrictions to visibility, such as utility poles and appurtenances and trees and shrubs on private property. 4. ~ Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points): In addition t<:> V1Jorsening the problems caused by visibility restrictions, very high approaoh speeds ~~,Wi.iJ:.fBj can worsen the severity of the accidents which occur. A-6 r ( 2003 Edition CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for .Justifying Traffic Control Signals Standard: Page 4C-1 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-tum vehicles from the minor-street approaches. Engineering judgment should be used to determine what, if any, portion of the right-tum 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-tum 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-tum 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-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-tum traffic with traffic on the major street should be considered. Thus, right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with only the traffic volume in the through/left-turn lane considered. At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed. For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 9 m (30 ft), should be considered as one intersection. Sect. 4C.01 C Page 4C-2 2003 Edition Option: At an intersection with a high volume of left-tum traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-tum volumes as the "minor- street" volume and the corresponding single direction of opposing traffic on the major street as the "major-street" volume. For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians. Support: When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as pedestrians. Option: Engineering study data may include the following: A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour from each approach during 12 hours of an average day. It is desirable that the hours selected contain the greatest percentage of the 24-hour traffic volume. B. Vehicular volumes for each traffic movement from each approach, classified by vehicle type (heavy trucks, passenger cars and light 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 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 of a Saturday or Sunday. E. Queue length on stop-controlled approaches. Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Support: The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 is satisfied and Condition B and the combination of Conditions A and B are not needed. Similarly, if Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant 1 is satisfied and the combination of Conditions A and B is not needed. Sect. 4C.0l to 4C.02 C 2003 Edition Table 4C-1. Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Condition A-Minimum Vehicular Volume Vehicles per hour on higher-volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor-street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%" 8Qo/ob 70%0 56o/od 100%" 80o/ob 70%0 56o/od ---------------- 1 ................. 1 ................. 500 400 350 280 150 120 105 84 2 or more ... 1 ................. 600 480 420 336 150 120 105 84 2 or more ... 2 or more ... 600 480 420 336 200 160 140 112 1 ................. 2 or more .... 500 400 350 280 200 160 140 112 Condition 8-lnterruption of Continuous Traffic Vehicles per hour on higher-volume Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major street minor-street approach moving traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only) Major Street Minor Street 100%" 80o/ob 70%0 56o/od 100%" 80o/ob 70%0 56o/od ---------------- 1 ................. 1 ................. 750 600 525 420 75 60 53 42 2 or more ... 1 ................. 900 720 630 504 75 60 53 42 2 or more ... 2 or more ... 900 720 630 504 100 80 70 56 1 ................. 2 or more .... 750 600 525 420 100 80 70 56 • Basic minimum hourly volume. b Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures. c May be used when the major-street speed exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. d May be used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate trial of other remedial measures when the major- street speed exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph or in an isolated community with a population of less than 10,000. Standard: Page 4C-3 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; or B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 100 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. In applying each condition the major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 8 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 70 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 100 percent columns. Sect. 4C.02 Page 4C-4 2003 Edition Guidance: The combination of Conditions A and B is intended for application at locations where Condition A is not satisfied and Condition B is not satisfied and should be applied only after an adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day: A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition Bin Table 4C-1 exist on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection. These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns. Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume Support: The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of these 4 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-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 following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day: 1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach; or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and Sect. 4C.02 to 4C.04 2003 Edition I a. > 500 I I u I-<1'. 400 wO wa: a: a. 1-a. 300 en< a:W 02 ~:3 200 2~ I a: 100 w I (!) :i: ( ( Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume 2 OR MORE LANl;S & 2 OR MORE LANES 2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE I I 1 LANE & 1 LANE 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Page 4C-5 Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) I 400 a. > I 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 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. 1000 Sect. 4C.04 ( Page 4C-6 2003 Edition 2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes, and 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more approaches. B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach ( one direction only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes .. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to satisfy the criteria in the second category of the Standard. Section 4C.05 Warrant 4. Pedestrian Volume Support: The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met: A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or midblock location during an average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow pedestrians to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the requirement applies separately to each direction of vehicular traffic. The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E. Guidance: If this warrant is met and a traffic control signai is justified by an engineering study, then: A. If at an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian detectors. B. If at a nonintersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian-actuated, parking and other sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft) beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings. C. Furthermore, if installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated. Option: The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major roadway may be reduced as much as 50 percent if the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.2 m/sec (4 ft/sec). A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street, even if the rate of gap occurrence is less than one per minute. Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing Support: The School Crossing signal warrant is intended for application where the fact that school children cross the major street is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal. Sect. 4C.04 to 4C.06 2003 Edition I 600 a.. > I 500 I (.) I-<( wO 400 wa: a: a.. I-a.. (/) <( 300 a:W o=z z::::l 200 _ _J :::z~ rt 100 w :c (!) :i: ( Page4C-7 Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 7""---~-.;;;i::=---1---1 *150 ~-----,~---l----l---l----l----1----1----l----+=~~-1---=:::::i::=== .... --l·100 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Figure 4C-4. Warrant 3, Peak Hour {70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET) :c a.. > I :c (.) I-<( wO wa: a: a.. I-a.. (/) <( a:W o=z z::::i _ _J :::z~ a: w :c (!) :i: 400 300 200 100 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET-TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES- VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) *Note: 100 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 75 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. Sect. 4C.06 ( Page 4C-8 2003 Edition Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered when an engineering study of the frequency and adequacy of gaps in the vehicular traffic stream as related to the number and size of groups of school children at an established school crossing across the major street shows that the number of adequate gaps in the traffic stream during the period when the children are using the crossing is less than the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 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 not Sect 4C.06 to 4C.08 ( ( 2003 Edition Page 4C-9 less than 80 percent of the requirements specified in the Pedestrian Volume warrant. These major- street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of the 8 hours. Option: If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-l may be used in place of the 80 percent columns. Section 4C.09 Warrant 8, Roadway Network Support: Installing a traffic control signal at some intersections might be justified to encourage concentration and organization of traffic flow on a roadway network. Standard: The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes meets one or both of the following criteria: A. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour during the peak hour of a typical weekday and has 5-year projected traffic volumes, based on an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants 1, 2, and 3 during an average weekday; or B. The intersection has a total existing or immediately projected entering volume of at least 1,000 vehicles per hour for each of any 5 hours of a nonnormal business day (Saturday or Sunday). A major route as used in this signal warrant shall have one or more of the following characteristics: A. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal roadway network for through traffic flow; or B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or C. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study. Sect. 4C.08 to 4C.09 ( ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement CHAPTER 4C. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES Section 4C.0l Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals The following is added to this section: Standard: Page 4C-1 Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion, future land use or other evidence of the need for right of way assignment beyond that which could be provided by stop sign shall be demonstrated. Support: Figure 4C-101 and Table 4C-101 are examples of warrant sheets. Guidance: Table 4C-101 should be used only for new intersections or other locations where it is not reasonable to count actual traffic volumes. Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume In the first Option, the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph" is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40 mph". Delete the last Option that begins "If the posted or ... " The 56% column in Table 4C-1 shall not apply in California. Table 4C-1 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume Delete the 56% column and related note(d). Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume In the Option the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph" is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40 mph". Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour In the Option the text "70 km/h or exceeds 40 mph" is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h or exceeds 40 mph". Section 4C.06 Warrant 5, School Crossing The following is added to this section: Option: Flashing beacons at school crosswalks may be installed on State highways in accordance with CVC Sections 21372 and 21373. The following alternative criterion may be used for determining if a school crossing traffic signal is justified under this warrant: 1. When other warrants in this Chapter are met AND 2. No other controlled crossing is located within 180 m (600 ft) AND; 3. Urban Areas -500 vehicles and 100 school pedestrians for each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school; or 500 vehicles for each of any two hours daily while students are crossing to or from school and a total of 500 school pedestrians during the entire day. OR 4. Rural Areas -350 vehicles and 70 school pedestrians for each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school; or 350 vehicles for each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) daily while students are crossing to or from school and minimum total of 350 school pedestrians during the entire day. May 20, 2004 ( ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page4C-2 Guidance: When the critical (85th percentile) approach speed exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) or the sight distance to the intersection is less than the required stopping sight distance, rural criteria should be applied. Section 4C.101 Function of School Crossing Traffic Signals Support: A traffic signal assigns intersection right-of-way and promotes the orderly movement of pedestrians and vehicles. However, improper signal controls sometimes lead to intentional violations, unnecessary delays and traffic diversion to less desirable routes. Section 4C.102 Criterion for School Crossing Traffic Signals Standard: 1. The signal shall be designed for full-time operation. 2. Pedestrian signal faces of the International Symbol type shall be installed at all marked crosswalks at signalized intersections along the "Suggested Route to School." 3. If an intersection is signalized under this guideline for school pedestrians, the entire intersection shall be signalized. 4. School area traffic signals shall be traffic actuated type with push buttons or other detectors for pedestrians. Option: Non-intersection school pedestrian crosswalk locations may be signalized when justified. Section 4C.103 Bicycle Signal Warrant Guidance: A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume and collision or volume and geometric warrants have been met: 1. Volume, When W =Bx V and W ~50,000 and B ~50. Where: Wis the volume warrant.Bis the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersection. V is the number of vehicles at the peak hour entering the intersection. B and V shall use the same peak hour. 2. Collision, When 2 or more bicycle/vehicle collisions of types susceptible to correction by a bicycle signal have occurred over a 12-month period and the responsible public works official determines that a bicycle signal will reduce the number of collisions. 3. Geometric, (a) Where a separate bicycle/ multi use path intersects a roadway. (b) At other locations to facilitate a bicycle movement that is not permitted for a motor vehicle. Figure 4C-2 Warrant 2 -Four Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) Under the Figure title, the text "70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph" is replaced by "64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph.,, Figure 4C-4 Warrant 3 -Peak hour (70% Factor) Under the Figure title, the text "70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph" is deleted and replaced by "64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph. " May 20,2004 ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement --~--~--~ DIST -CO RTE .:" ·:'::._.·· .: ... ~.:;.:.;' -MajofSt-------------,-"'"""-.....-"'"-'"--"'""'"..,..;... Minor St: ... -....... ___,...,._ .............. .....,,.....,,.....,. ___ ....,.._-..-...... ..,.. Condition A-Minimun1VelllchrVoltlme • HigbestAppr911ches Mlnor,street. _ . . . '' .· . . -. ,Condition BflnterruptJon;ofCqntlnuoys Tra.ffic APPROACH LANgS BothAppr<lachcs Major Stfoet lighestAppronches . Minor Street MINlMllM REQUIREMENTS -:{8Cl% S}'.IOWN lt-!.-BRA_C:Kt;TS, •- U R Combination of Conditions A& B REQUIREMENT WARRA.Nf ( .............. • • bALc_i • __ -._.: ____ -__ ... 0AtE.•.•-.,_.:-............. ---- cH1( ... -...,.. ............. .....,,..•·DATE------------ cr1tica1Approach Speed ;:-•· ··-·------,---krnlh Critical Approach Sp~ed ·_ .)rnih 100% SATl$f1ED YE$ C1 NO .□ YES Gl NOQJ -_100%SAT1sr=iep •·v1;s•c1 No □ • 13()% SATISFIEb YES □ : NO 'ttl Hour SATISFIED YES □ t{O □ --✓ FULFILLED TINO WARRANTS 1, MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME Yes □ □ SATISFIED 80% No 2. INTERRUPTION OF CONTINUOUSTRAFFIC Page 4C-3 May 20, 2004 ( ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page 4C-4 ·····WARR:A.Nt.•i ::~fQ(fr:ffouFVehl¢\ilar;\tQIUm~ ·• •R ec6rd:·hourly,vehi6Jlarv6t:me~ fof:fgur,hou;s, ·••• .• • ••• • '.. _--·:--,. _--:-.. ··:,-::_· :APPROACHLANfS •• .•... --.· . . .. ...... .. ·• ...... . PARTA ·.. . .•. . . . . (Alfparts 1,12,arid 3b11lowmusfbe iatlsfled) /,SATISFIED YES • CJ NO.•[] _. _·:, •• • • • .. ; : ·.,.:-:· -=,-' • •; :, .·: ·.::_'_ 1. The tot~tctefay-experieffcedJortraffic onone mirlof sireet approac~ &ontroned • •• •• by. a· ST·O··· P sign. eqll.=ils or excee .. ddsJour vehlcle~1:1our.s for a. one~rane approach•· • and five·vehide-hours for a two;lane appro3:ch;AND> • •• • • • •. • .. • • .. " . '. 2. The vqlume on .the s,3n1e minot~~Elefc:ipproach Elquals or e15:ceeds '.!Ob vphfoi one moving lan¢.of traffic.or 150 vphfortwo•m()vi11gJaoes;AND • . . 3.·.•.Th~'•IQ)al .• en1eri.ng,voluiiJe.service~duri11g';theho~r .e1quals•qr.~xc~~sJOOvpl1··.•··· :forlntersectioh~ with fouror·moh~ approaches or 650 vph.fo(rnter$ectloni with. three:approao~es, • · · · · · • • • • · · •.. · · • APPROACH LANES . . : . Eloth Approaches -Major Street The plotted points·fdr vehicl~s per houron major streets. (both ~pproache;s)c and the corresponding per houchlgher..volume vehicle mlnorstreetappr?ach (one direction only) for one hour(ari.y con. Sel:!Jlive 15 minute .•• period) fall above the applfcable curves lnMUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C•4. . i - Yes O· No □ Yes[]. Nc?'O May 20, 2004 ( ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement . :· ·.: ...... : ... :.· . ··,. ·.·.··,• :::-.·;: ;_' ·\:: ... . ... . • -· o-:,s-t-'' ·.;, .-" '-20-· ... ·-·•· ••• • ~tE . iPM : ' CAL¢ .. ' ........................ _ DATE ....... ------CHk .·•··, .·,. DATE ... ,_...._ ............... ' ••..•••... -_, -- ''MajorSt: .......................... ..__ ................. ....._ ................................. .__ ,:priticalAPIJl'~<lChSpeed ·•---·· ____ ........ __ • krn/h M1nor'Sfr ·-· __....;;.;;;..,...;-... ---' ........ --. ---...... -.-.-.. -.""····'""······"'"····..a···.,,.•·,..,"":.,;;;;;·· .. •... Criti~IAppro~cfSpeed • kffilh ?:::,:::::or~!'.:,::::]:,rf :::!:;u;;;::::::!} R6M41tl • • • • •• •• , • 0 • .. URB,jlll (ll) . . . . .. . ··· .. ·· • .• ' .. • .. ,. •.• . WARR.ANT-A .~ P!3desfria,,·,VolUl'lle (All p~t(s MusU:fo Satfofied) • .. • , •·.·.·, . 100,0A.SATISFl~b, YES,.£3 },JO Cl ' Anrhou{>J!)O ••• OR4hoors>'100 M:tQ· < 60 gap/t,r • • AND, The distance t6 ;th·e~earesttraffioslgMI along.th~ rnaJor •. streetls greater than 90r!i'(3QO ft) L, . , ,:, ··• :,. '_. • •• • AND ,.Th~. new traffic signE11 .in1 ~oiserfotis)y 'dl0upt:;®r~¢$iv~. traffic flowJh the maJpr street, • , •• .... • ·• · , • • • • . . • WARRANT 5·. SchootCrc,ssing (AIIParts MustBe Satisfied) PartA . Gnp/MJoutosand#of,C::h!ldreo :· Each of Two H<iurs -~ ~ > Gaps vs Minute!! PartB .· Mh'iutas'Chlldren . ' Usin ' Cross! • Distance to Nearest Controllod Crossing ---____ ... --•------;.;,; . . ..... .. . .. ';•.·· ·: :NCJ·'J:l .No ... [J No[I No 0 Yes (Z) ·· No .. I], ls Nearest Controlled Crossing More Than 180 m (600ft) ai.'lay? SATISFIEP YES O NO 0 Page 4C-5 May 20, 2004 ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement : '':: :···:=/'' :,:.,.,,, , s1~:tf§FfEb{Ne~;,□.f NQ•'Elt ::,-· : ..• _. . . • . ~= -· .. ._,, __ ·:·.···c.····--· >300 n:t(1POO,ttt \ • > a: :cm.,W 0- •• :,;orni?r;:1~.t!,~~icirfh1 ,w;,~:;u1$ g~~c. -------=------= • -:--:-=-:--, -way $lte~faw'tliilre: • • ••• '. plafodhirig • REQUJREMENi'S • One Warrant ,·. satisfied · /80% • . i • . • • . ·WARRANT • . Wa_rrant • t -Mirlih'!.urri•VehituliirVol.ume Signal WiU Not.serjouslyDlsrupt PidgressiveTrartfoiF1ow.· .. ·~:. ~t~n ! 1! ~~t~P_:rlod ?usc~P.tl?leJot CC)! ~-~vOlVihQ :,~J~~ ~ra$500_t1a'tna~e . • • i 'MINIMUMHEQUIHEMEN:r i ·NuM~~R PFA¢CIDl:NT$ ,•: ,· . ,.· . . • .. • .· . . .· .• ," .•. . :·' : : .·: _-• .. • .• •. . . : . • .. . ~WARRANTl~ Ri:i~dw~y N~tworl< . ·(AILParts MtisfBe :~aJisfiedl. 0 SATISF1eo • ves c.:i , No El • MINIMUMVOLUME .·.E ... N.TERINGVOLUMES sAL.LA. PPR.0.ACHES . ' . . - . .. . . ·.·• .... ,/ 1 ••. ·• FUL,FlWl,;6D · 'REQL,JIREl'v1E:NT$ · • .. ·t-,--------.. -----.,.....,.-.----,-~.--,.,.,.....,........,.,... -,-..,......----.---.... -.➔ ·1--.----.--'-..-"-![·. • During typlcal Weekday Peak Hour.._.-·· --------'--Veh/Hr > I .· I• · .i+-,;,:;:; • ..;.....,...;..•-..... ----oFi_....:..;,:. ,....7"~_.-...,. ... "'"'~..,:. 1000Veh/Hr Dµring_.~ach ofAny 5Hrs, of aSatand/orSun Veh/Hr • •·· YesD Nq□ ···· . . . . CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR .ROUT.ES :~AJOR ST. MINOR St •• Hwy. System Serving as Principal Network for Tlir~ugh Traffic . . -Ruralor • S1,tburban Highway Outside Of, Entering, or Trav~rsing a Gity . . • ----------------------------Appears as Major Route on an Offlcfat Plan Any Major Route Characteristics Met, .Both Streets O · □ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right~or-way assignment must be shown. I. Page 4C-6 May 20, 2004 / l ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Page4C-7 •• -· ·----; >.-1 ·~· ............ :r:---· -.k_,,/ ~ •.. •·==··•:;;:··• r ===:::t==••·_ • ~I----.. .• ,-, -.•. ·': ., •Entire ,Count Period -• •. Day -.. -Date -• • ~ -Total\!o7ume -• AM __ --· _ · · • _• _ . _ • Hour Volume PM------------Hour Volume May 20, 2004 ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement "''"' ·:, ""··:· • L/RBAN ........ ;;,; ................ , ··RUML.i .. , ...... ,,.,..;/,,;;.,.:. . .. . . . . . .. ' . . . .· 1A •. Minim.um Vehicular Traffic ~----.,....-'-NotSatlsfied ---~'----,~- Mei/orStreet • • Minor.Street ·1'. ·.• • ••. •• ..... , .... : .. 1· :<•·.·.> ... : ... · ....... · ... ·:.'_ •• :2 :or More, ...... :: ............. : 1 , ..... ,,.,.,, ... , .. :., ..... ; .... ;;:;,.::.; .. __ 2 orMore: .............. :;....... • ·2 .or More.;.:., ...... :~.:·::L.a'. • . : 1 ................. : ..... , ... i.,'....... 2• or: M6re:.: .. , ....... "''··• .. >: • Number of ian,fs fe>rmoving • traffic qn each ap~r~ach . Major Street • • > .. l'v1il1c,,r Strelil • •· . > · 1.; ... , .... ;; ........ ;.,., ... , .• :., ... ,,. 'le ... :;.,,.,, .. :,;., .. ·,c .. ; .... ; .. ;, .i, · . .·.2:.orMore., ....... ;,.; .... '. .•. ,.. 1 ................ :.:., .. : ........ L .. ,i.; •. •· 2 or More .... ;,.:: ... ,.:......... 2;or'More; ... :.:.:, .. , .... ;; ...... :: ·1 ...... :. ............. :................ •• 2 or More ... ; .... .'., .. ,;.,; ... , .. . Not.Satisfied --,,----,,-- ...:-...:;.:.:.=;::;;.;.;aaaan.:.:.t..c..sa;::.:l::..:::is""fie=d, but 1ollowing warrants re, ....... : .. ___ .......,.,_,.,... • . , ;(· 2Wari'anls ( :•Vehir:lesPet Day . on Hlgher;w11,1me . . . Minor. Street ,Appro1,1cl:l .. (Ol)e Dft¢ctiori OrilY) • Urban .. :.1;200 •.• .. 1200 ••• .. 1:~00 1;600 2warrants . Note: To be usecfonly for.NEWINTERSECTJpt)ls: or o.ther loc~tfoni where it ls not reasonableio cciurit itctual ttaffl!-volume$. · • · · •· • • • ••• · • ••• · • • • • • • • • • • • • · Page 4C-8 May 20,2004 ( MlJTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4) CALC _______ DATE CHK DATE Major St: Minor St: __________________ Critical Approach Speed Critical Approach Speed ______ mph ______ mph Critical speed of major street traffic >40mph -------------------0 ) Or In built up area of isolated community of< 10,000 pop, ____________ 0 □ RURAL(R) URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 -Eight Hour Vehicular Volume (At Least One Part Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED YESON0O Condition A -Minimum Vehicular Volume MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) u R u R APPROACH 1 2 or more LANES 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 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS) u R u R APPROACH 1 2 or more LANES Both Approaches 750 525 900 630 Major Street (600) (420) (720) (504) Highest Approach 75 53 100 70 Minor Street (601 (421 (80) (561 Combination of Conditions A & B REQUIREMENT WARRANT Two Warrants 1. Minimum Vehicular Volume Satisfied 80% 2. Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED 80% SATISFIED 100% SATISFIED 80% SATISFIED SATISFIED YESON0O YESON0O YESON0O YESON0O YES ONO 0 Hour Hour FULFILLED □ □ YES □ NO □ ( ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants. Worksheet (Sheet 2 of 4) WARRANT 2 -Four Hour Vehicular Volume SATISFIED* YESON0O Record hourly vehicular volumes for four hours. APPROACH LANES ONE 2OR MORE Hour Both Approaches -Major Street □ □ Highest Approach -Minor Street □ □ • All plotted points fall above the curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-1 or 4C-2. WARRANT 3 -Peak Hour PART A or PART B SATISFIED YESON0O PART A (All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) 1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach and five vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; AND Total delay= XXX veh-hr 2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND Minor street volume = XXX vph 3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches. Total vo/qme = XXX vph YES O NO O NIA □ YES O NO □ YES □ NO □ PARTB SATISFIED* YES □NO 0 APPROACH LANES ONE 2OR MORE Hour Both Approaches -Major Street □ □ Highest Approach -Minor Street □ □ • The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher volume vehicle minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any 4 consecutive 15 minute periods) fall above the applicable curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3 or 4C-4. ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4) WARRANT 4 -Pedestrian Volume (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) REQUIREMENT Pedestrian volume crossing the major street is 100 or more for each of any four hours or is 190 or more during any one hour; AND There are less than 60 gaps per hour in the major street traffic stream of adeQuate length for pedestrians to cross; AND The nearest traffic signal along the major street is greater than 300 feet; AND The new traffic signal will not seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow on the major street. WARRANT 5 -School Crossing (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) PART A-OTHER WARRANTS Are other Warrants met? PART B -VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS u R Vehicle Volume Each of 500 350 2 hours Each of 100 70 School Age Pedestrians 2 hours ---------------------------------------------Crossing Street or per day 500 350 Part C -Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing Is Nearest Controlled Crossing More than 600 ft away? --------- SATISFIED YESON0O FULFILLED YES□ NO □ NIA □ YES□ NO □ NIA □ YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ SATISFIED YESON0O NIA □ YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ ( MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4) WARRANT 6 -Coordinated Signal System {All Parts Must Be Satisfied) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS > 300 m (1000 ft) N: I SATISFIED DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL S: I E: I W: On one way Isolated streets or streets with one way traffic significance and adjacent signals are so far apart that necessary platooning & speed control would be lost. On 2-way streets where adjacent signals do not provide necessary platooning and speed control proposed signals could constitute a progressive signal system. WARRANT 7 -Crash Warrant (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS WARRANT One Warrant Warrant 1 -Minimum Vehicular Volume, OR □ Satisfied -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80% Warrant 2 -Interruption Of Continuous Traffic □ Signal Will Not Seriously Disrupt Progressive Traffic Flow Adequate Trial Of Less Restrictive Remedies Has Failed To Reduce Accident Frequency Acc. Within A 12 Month Period Susceptible Of Corr. & Involving Injury Or> $500 Damage --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS 5 or More WARRANT 8 -Roadway Network (All Parts Must Be Satisfied) SATISFIED MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENT During Typical Weekday Peak Hour xxxx Veh/Hr, OR D 1000 Veh/Hr During Each Of Any 5 Hrs. Of A Sat And/Or Sun xxxx Veh/Hr D CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MINOR 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 Any Major Route Characteristics Met, Both Streets YES □NO □ FULFILLED YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ YES □NO □ FULFILLED YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ NIA □ YES □ NO □ YES □NO □ FULFILLED YES □ NO □ YES □ NO □ The satisfaction of a warrant is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay, congestion, confusion or other evidence of the need for right-of- way assignment must be shown. 500 -:::c 0. ~ 400 :::c 0 .... <( ttl ~ 300 a:: 0. ti <( a:: w O :E 200 ~3 :E 0 > a:: ~ 100 (!) :i: 0 400 ( Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume r 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) 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH) *Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. ( ( Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor) (COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET) 400 -:c a.. ~ :c 300 0 I-<C wi w Q. u: a.. T 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) ~ <C 200 1-----f'~:------+-'""""';::---+--~--t-a: w 0 :e 2: 3 ::a:o > u: w :c C, :c 100 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH) 900 *80 *60 1000 *Note: 80 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 60 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane. ( Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour 600 -2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) :c !; 500 -:c 0 I 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) I-<t 400 wO w a:: a:: Q. I-Q. ti) <t 300 a::: w o:ii: z ::, -...J zo 200 > a:: w :c 100 !:2 *100 :c 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR) 0 I I 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) 500 ~---...-----,-----,------, 2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) 0-+---+---------------f------l----------1 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (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.