HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-01-07; Traffic Safety Commission; ; Review and provide recommendations regarding the 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy and Traffic Signal Qualification List( (
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
COMMISSION MEETING OF: January 7, 2008 ITEMNO. 6A
LOCATION: Citywide
INITIATED BY: Transportation Division staff
REQUESTED ACTION: Review and provide recommendations regarding the 2008 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 has now been
standard 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 nine
times with the City Council adopting a resolution to establish the Traffic Signal
Qualification List. The City Council updates occurred on:
• March 27, 1990
• February 18, 1992
• April 19, 1994
• February 20, 1996
• March 3, 1998
• February 15, 2000
• March 5, 2002
• April 20, 2004
• March 7, 2006
Resolution Number 90-78
Resolution Number 92-58
Resolution Number 94-101
Resolution Number 96-64
Resolution Number 98-55
Resolution Number 2000-65
Resolution Number 2002-69
Resolution Number 2004-126
Resolution Number 2006-52
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 and
contain modifications specific to Carlsbad.
DATA:
When the Policy was first 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 tenth update of the
Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy.
During calendar year 2007, staff conducted new and updated traffic studies at each
intersection indicated in the 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy. Intersections meeting
the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) traffic signal
warrants have been placed on the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List (Exhibit 1 ). A
total of 14 intersections are included on the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List.
( I t
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
COMMISSION MEETING OF: January 7, 2008
( continued)
ITEMNO. 6A
Six intersections have been added to the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List that were
not included on the 2006 list. By their designated qualification number, new intersections
on the qualification list are Numbers 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 (La Costa Avenue/
Calle Maaero ).
Two new features were included in the Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System
priority point's determination criteria as found in the Appendix. However, although not
mdicated in the Traffic Signal Evaluation Policy in the past, these tables have been used
to determine the points assignment. Information was added to Factors E and G, as
follows:
• Factor E -Progressive Movement or Signal Systems -added a table assigning
points based on the distance to the nearest traffic signal.
• Factor G -Special Conditions, 4. Speed on a Through Stre*t -added a table
assigning points based on the number of miles per hour the 85 1 percentile/critical
speed is over the posted speed limit.
The intersection of Alga Road/Cazadero Drive, which is on the 2006 Traffic Signal
Qualification List, has been removed from the 2008 list based on the recommendation of
the Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee. This intersection has been on the Traffic
Signal Qualificat10n List continuously since 1988. However, with each bi-annual update
of the Qualification List, the projected construction date was pushed into the future based
on engineering judgment that a traffic signal is not required at this intersection.
Although this is a four-way intersection, for northbound drivers sight distance is limited
when looking westerly due to roadway curvature. This limitation was remedied about 15
years ago by construction of a raised island to channelize northbound drivers into a right-
tum only maneuver. The elimination of the northbound through movement and
northbound left-tum significantly improved the safety history at the intersection.
Recent traffic studies found that this intersection is currently operating satisfactorilr. with
only two reported traffic collisions in the last two years. One collision involved an illegal
left-tum from a northbound driver and the other involved an eastbound left-tum driver
colliding with the westbound vehicle.
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.
Tlie Traffic Signal Qualification List provides a systematic listin~ of intersection
priorities based upon preliminary engineering studies. Ultimately, engmeering judgment
will determine if a traffic si1snal is recommended for installation. An engineering cost
estimate and further evaluation will be conducted prior to beisinning final design after
authorization is received from the City Council to pursue signalization of an intersection.
( (
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
COMMISSION MEETING OF: January 7, 2008
( continued)
RECOMMENDATION:
ITEMNO. 6A
The Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee recommends that the Traffic Safety
Commission review and provide recommendations regarding the 2008 Traffic Si$nal
Evaluation Policy, including the 2008 Traffic Signal Qualification List, prior to submittal
to the City Council for adoption of a resolution establishing the 2008 Traffic Signal
Evaluation Policy.
NECESSARY CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council approval and ado_ption, by Resolution, of the 2008 Traffic Signal Evaluation
Policy, including the Traffic Signal Qualification List, is required.
!Tl >< :::i:: ...... co ......
-'i
......
!
2008 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ClUALIFICATION LIST
QUALIFICATION FACTOR
LOCATION CALIFORNIA • TOTAL
QUALIFICATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MUTCD SIGNAL VOLUME
NUMBER FUNDING SOURCE/FISCAL YEAR WARRANTS MET 2P.M. -6 P.M. A B C D E F
1 La Costa Avenue/Levante Street
DeveloperFunded
1, 2, 3 4941 15 9 0 0 5 0
2 Faraday Avenue/Rutherford Road
CIP/2009-2010
1,2,3 . , 4467 15 6 0 0 5 1
3 Faraday Avenue/Palmer Way 1,2,3 4135 11 7 0 0 5 0
CIP 2009-2010
4 Paseo del Norte/Ginger Ave./Harbor Point Rd.
CIP 2008-2009
1,2,3,6 3700 10 6 0 0 5 ,0
5 La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way 3 5524 5 0 0 0 5 0
CIP 2008-2009
6 La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street 1,2,3 4442 6 0 0 0 5 0
CIP 2010-2011 .
7 -La Costa Avenue/Gibraltar Street 6 4804 4 0 0 0 5 0
CIP 2010-2011
8 Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts 6 2351 0 2 0 0 4 0 CIP 2013-2018
8 Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry Avenue 6 6633 2 0 0 0 5 0
CIP 2011-2012
10 Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive
CIP 2010-2011
1,3 3300 3 0 0 0 1 0
10 La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero 6 4843 3 0 0 0 4 0
CIP 2010-2011
12 Tamarack· Avenue/Pontiac Drive
CIP 2013-2018 3,6 2403 1 2 0 0 1 0
13 Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine Drive 6 2810 1 0 0 0 5 0
Developer Funded/CIP 2013-2018
14 La Costa Avenue/Camino de los Coches 3 1753 1 0 0 0 1 0 Developer Funded/CIP 2012-2013
NOTE: The indicated year in the CIP is recommended, but has not been approved by the City Council.
TOTAL
QUALIFICATION
G POINTS
2 31
2 29
2 25
2 23
--·
5 15
2 13
2 11
4 10
3 10
5 9
2 9
4 8
2 8
1 3 ~"
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION
POLICY
PREPARED BY:
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
JANUARY 2008
(
CITY OF CARLSBAD
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
JANUARY 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
INTRODUCTION .. . ...... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ..... . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . 1
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .... . . ............................ .... . ..... . ................... ... .... 1
POLICY............................................................................................................................ 2
GENERAL........................................................................................................................ 2
DATA................................................................................................................................ 3-4
2008 TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION LIST............................................................... 5
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED ...... .. .. .... .... .. .... 6
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED (Did not meet Traffic Signal Warrants)...................... 6
APPENDIX
A. TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RATING SYSTEM
B. CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Transportation Division
(
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EVALUATION POLICY REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The City of Carlsbad is located in North San Diego County and has grown from a small,
agricultural based residential community in its early history to a city of approximately 101,000
residents. Numerous industrial, commercial, recreational, residential and agricultural land uses
are found in Carlsbad. As a result of population increases in Carlsbad, there has been an
increase in vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic.
With increased traffic volumes on Carlsbad's roadway system, there continues to be a need for
a detailed methodology to evaluate and determine locations of future traffic signals.
Currently, there are 173 signalized intersections in Carlsbad. Ownership and maintenance
responsibility is as follows:
■ 156 traffic signals owned and maintained by the City of Carlsbad
■ 14 traffic signals owned and maintained by Caltrans.
■ 3 traffic signals owned and maintained by other agency.
The purpose of this report is to identify and evaluate future traffic signals at various intersections
throughout the City of Carlsbad. The Policy provides the mechanism to continually re-evaluate
and update potential traffic signal locations on a regular basis.
The Traffic Signal Qualification List is not steadfast. Financial constraints, private development
schedules, capital improvement projects and funding availability, or other valid considerations
may dictate that a lower qualifying traffic signal be installed at a given location. The qualification
list does, however, serve as a guide for future traffic signal installations and only those
intersections that meet traffic signal warrants are listed.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
When traffic volumes increase, the hierarchy of traffic control dictates that consideration be
given to right-of-way assignment at intersections by various means. Depending upon the traffic
and pedestrian characteristics and 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 and pedestrians.
Some of the different types of intersection traffic control devices or strategies include: basic
rules of the road governing right-of-way at intersections, yield signs, two-way stop sign
installations, three-way and four-way stop sign installations, channelization, center median
control, turn restrictions, and traffic signals.
1
(
This report focuses on establishing a citywide listing of one of the most efficient ways of
assigning intersection right-of-way control, the traffic signal. The purpose of a traffic signal
qualification list is to compare and impartially rank the intersections under consideration using
objective criteria and traffic data. The first Carlsbad Traffic Signal Qualification List was
established in 1988 by City Council Resolution Number 88-252 and it has subsequently been
updated in 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006. This 2008 report is an
update of the 2006 approved report and qualification list. All intersections included on the 2008
list have met one or more warrants contained in the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) 2003 Revision 1 as amended for use in
California (California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) for the installation of a traffic
signal.
POLICY
As with most traffic engineering departments, it has been the policy of the City of Carlsbad
Transportation Division to only recommend installation of traffic signals that meet the minimum
criteria adopted by the California Department of Transportation. All data collection and eligibility
evaluation to determine if criteria is met for an intersection to qualify for a traffic signal is under
the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. •
GENERAL
Traffic signals are electrically powered traffic control devices that assign the movement of
vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians at an intersection. Traffic signals establish the positive
assignment of the right-of-way to help facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and pedestrians
with minimum delay and maximum safety.
Many cities use a priority list to rank future traffic signal projects. To qualify for this list, the traffic
signal priority analysis takes into account the relative delays on approaching streets, the
collision history at the intersection, gaps in the major and minor street streams of traffic,
pedestrian volumes, and various other factors. An evaluation is then conducted to determine if
a traffic signal will minimize or correct an identified problem.
Establishing a Traffic Signal Qualification List answers two basic questions:
1. Do traffic conditions at the intersection meet the basic criteria that affect the benefits and
costs of traffic signal control; and
2. If so, how does this location compare with other locations throughout the City of Carlsbad
that meet the same basic criteria?
This evaluation provides a rational method to compare one intersection with another, the end
result being a ranking that shows the greatest need for signalization between all potential traffic
signal locations. The attached Traffic Signal Qualification List indicates each intersection under
consideration and is arranged in descending order based upon the total qualification points
accumulated at each location.
A priority listing of future traffic signal locations does not mean that signals will exclusively be
installed in the order of ranking. Existing conditions, right-of-way needs, need for left-turn or
right-turn lanes, budget constraints, or other factors may indicate an intersection that is more
suitable and appropriate for signalization than one higher on the list. The list establishes
locations where preliminary engineering should take place and then be re-evaluated before
proceeding to final design. Traffic signals are not installed unless written authorization from the
City Engineer directs their installation or if the intersection has been approved by the
City Council and is included in the annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
2
Over the years, traffic signal technology has experienced a technical evolution. Traffic signals
have evolved from pre-timed signals where the control mechanisms operated on a
predetermined time schedule to allocate a fixed amount of time for each interval in the traffic
signal cycle to traffic actuated microprocessor units that can operate two to eight signal phases,
highway ramp metering control, master 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 causing drivers to
follow circuitous travel along less desirable routes to avoid the signalized intersection.
A properly designed signalized intersection, however, can resolve many problems and provide
advantages ranging from reducing certain types of accident frequency, delay, and air pollutants,
to creating an orderly traffic movement. In a coordinated signal system, traffic signals help
maintain an efficient, progressive movement of vehicle platoons along an arterial roadway.
Rankings of the various intersections in Carlsbad for potential traffic signal installation was
accomplished by using a Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System. Points were assigned to
seven qualification factors that are based on the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices.
Traffic Signal Qualification Rating System factors include the following:
Factor A -Minimum Vehicular Volume
This factor considers the fact that at certain traffic volume levels the delay can be reduced and
orderly flow through an intersection enhanced by signal controls.
Factor B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic
The interruption factor applies when the traffic volume on the major street is so high that few
gaps occur to permit the minor street traffic to cross or enter the intersection., As a result, the
minor street traffic may suffer long delays or experience hazards at the intersection.
Factor C -Minimum Pedestrian Volume
The minimum pedestrian volume factor reflects the length and frequency of gaps available for
pedestrians to cross the major street as compared to the total number of pedestrians that cross
the street.
Factor D -School Area Traffic Signals
This factor recognizes the special problems or concerns that may be present at intersections
near schools or on school walking routes. It is similar to the minimum pedestrian volume factor
in that gaps in traffic are considered.
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 holding traffic in compact platoons that will arrive at adjacent
signalized locations in accordance with a coordination timing plan.
Factor F -Accident History
This factor reflects the fact that certain types of accidents could be reduced by traffic signal
control. However, experience has shown that few changes in accident frequency can be
expected at a location that historically has less than five accidents per year, or an accident rate
of less than about 1.0 accident per million vehicles.
Factor G -Special Conditions
This factor recognizes the special problems that may occur due to the location of certain traffic
generators, specific geometric or roadway features, sight distance obstructions, and various
other criteria.
The above rating system is used to evaluate various potential traffic signal locations; these
locations are then ranked based on the following relative weight system:
~ : )
A Minimum Vehicular Volume 15 18%
B lnterru tion 10 12%
C Pedestrian Volume 10 12%
D School Area 10 12%
E 5 6%
F Accident Histo 15 18%
4
2008 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 4941 15 9 d 0 5 0 2 31
Developer Funded
2 Faraday Avenue/Rutherford Road 1,2,3 4467 15 6 0 0 5 1 2 29
CIP/2009-2010
3 Faraday Avenue/Palmer Way 1,2,3 4135 11 7 0 0 5 0 2 25
CIP 2009-2010
4 Paseo del Norte/Ginger Ave./Harbor Point Rd. 1,2,3,6 3700 10 6 0 0 5 _o 2 23
CIP 2008-2009
5 La Costa Avenue/Nueva Castilla Way 3 5524 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 15
CIP 2008-2009
6 La Costa Avenue/Esfera Street 1,2,3 4442 6 0 0 0 5 0 2 13
CIP 2010-2011
7 La Costa Avenue/Gibraltar Street 6 4804 4 0 0 0 5 0 2 11
CIP 2010-2011
8 Armada Drive/Grand Pacific Resorts 6 2351 0 2 0 0 4 0 4 10
CIP 2013-2018
8 Carlsbad Boulevard/Cherry Avenue 6 6633 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 10
CIP 2011-2012
10 Faraday Avenue/Camino Hills Drive 1,3 3300 3 0 0 0 1 0 5 9
CIP 2010-2011
(J"l 10 La Costa Avenue/Calle Madero 6 4843 3 0 0 0 4 0 2 9
CIP 2010-2011
12 Tamarack Avenue/Pontiac Drive 3,6 2403 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 8
CIP 2013-2018
13 Poinsettia Lane/Brigantine Drive 6 2810 1 0 0 0 5 0 2 8
Developer Funded/GIP 2013-2018
14 La Costa Avenue/Camino de los Caches 3 1753 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3
Developer Funded/GIP 2012-2013 -----
NOTE: The indicated year in the CIP is recommended, but has not been approved by the City Council.
( (
DEVELOPER INITIATED OR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
TRAFFIC SIGNALS CURRENTLY BEING DESIGNED/CONSTRUCTED
1. Aviara Parkway/Camino de las Ondas
2. Calle Barcelona/Paseo Avellano
3. Poinsettia Lane/Black Rail Road
4. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida La Cima
INTERSECTIONS INVESTIGATED
(Did not meet CAMUTCD Signal Warrants)
1. Armada Drive/Fleet Street (S)
2. Aviara Parkway/Nightshade Road
3. Aviara Parkway/Towhee Lane
4. Chestnut Avenue/Donna Drive/Donna Court
• 5. Chestnut AvenueNalley Street
6. El Fuerte StreeVRancho Pancho
7. Grand Avenue/Madison Street
8. Las Flores Drive/Pio Pico Drive
9. La Costa Avenue/Quinta Avenue
10. Monroe StreeVHosp Way
11. Rancho Santa Fe Road/Avenida Aragon
12. Tamarack AvenueNalley Street
6
( (
APPENDIX
(
TRAFFIC SIGNAL QUALIFICATION RA TING SYSTEM
Factor A. Total Vehicular Volum~
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 tram 2:00
to 6:00 P.M. on a weekday). A maximum of 15 points may be assigned to this factor.
i 0 >
I-L,J
~ I-11'1
0:: 0 z
::c
750
OVER
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
NOTES
1. ALL VOLUMES ARE FOR -4 HOURS (USUALLY 2-6 P.M.)
2. MAXIMUM POINTS "" 15
INTERSECTION OF:
2-2 Lane Sis. 1600 1800 2000 zm 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200
1-2 8 1-4 Lane St. 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800
2-4 Lane Sis. 2600 21300 JOOO 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200
2-One-Way Sis. . 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800
i'OTAL VOLUME ENTERING INTERSECTION
A-l
3400 3600 3800+
4000 4200 4400+
-4400 4600 4000+
5000 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.
. ·-..•. '.. ., ...
;. ·)s1rfE~~~~t~~is ::,_,. , APPROXll'illATE .•1 )i.
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 M Pedestrian Volume
A traffic signal may be needed where many pedestrians cross a major street A maximun,
of 1 O points may be assigned to this factor.
3600 &
OVER
3200
2800
21JOO
7.000
1600
1700
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 MA.JOA STREET VEHICLES DURING TrlE 4-HOUR
PERIOD.
200 WO 600 BOO 1000 1200
PEDESTRIANS CROSSING MAJOR STREE'f
A--3
15-00 6..
O\'ffi
1500
1100
! >
u
tt 750
~ ;
I N
500
,-" ~ ,a
250
Fa.ctor _D ~ School Area Traffic Signals
Points are assigned basei upon the number of school age pedestrians crossing tho major
street as compared to the major street traffic. This factor will apply only to location-s wtthin
one mile of a school and where the nearest controlled intersection or potentlaJ crossing
point Is moro than 600 feet away. A maximum of 1 o points may be assigned for this factor.
-----
1800 ,o
--·-•-···-
1.\00 8 -....., __ -
.......
----
6
1000
, __
600 -c:; " ,a .,Q I. -------~ 0 -~ I POINTS 20(1 ->~-·=<L
100 150 200 250 350 • WrL> .. m> 60 100 1'4> 180 2W (Ihm~!)
PEDE~TRIANS CROSS!~G THE MAJOR STREET
(Per 2-Hour Period)
NOTE: No points will be assigned If nearest controlled crossing [§ 10!,t
than 600 feet away.
A-4
! I
(
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.
1; . Distance to Nearest .·.• ...
:.P~i11t~:::
(1 . >
: ,:, ·o:':t .. att1c. s1gna1 • .. .'-:",•
' •·., ·,' '.!: •• <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 sight
distance. This factor requires engineering judgment based on physical inspection of the
site. A maximum of 18 points may be assigned to this factor.
A summary of the factors considered to be special conditions and the points that were
assigned follows:
1. Four-way STOP Control (5 points): Typically, right-angle accident frequency drops
sharply after installation of a Four-Way STOP. However, total delay, as well as
rear-end collision frequency, increase to a level higher than that which would be
reflected by the results of Factors #1 and #2.
2. Proximity of a school (1 to 5 points): Depending on the type of school and its
distance from the intersection in question, points are assigned to reflect the poten-
tial benefit to school-age pedestrians and bicycle traffic.
3. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature and Visibility (1 to 5 points): The alignment of a
major street can affect the visibility available to side-street motorists, and the
relative safety of their crossing or merging maneuvers. There may also be other
restrictions to visibility, such as utility poles and appurtenances and trees and
shrubs on private property.
4. Speed on a Through Street (1 to 3 points): In addition to worsening the problems
caused by visibility restrictions, speeds above critical can worsen the severity of the
accidents which occur. Points are assigned based on the number of miles per hour
the 85th percentile/critical speed is over the posted speed limit as indicated below.
1·:.·.' </i1i I
Points:,\(,·
1
2
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 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-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics
dictate whether an approach should be considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach
with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-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-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-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 stuqy for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering
study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected
conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
California MUTCD Page 4C-2
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
operation to deterynine 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-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 mm Yolumes as the "minor
street" volume and the eorresponding single direetion of opposing trnffie on the major street as the "major
street" volume volume of the major-street left-turn volumes plus the higher volume minor-street approach as the "minor
street" volume and both approaches of the major street minus the higher of the major-street left-turn volume as "major
street" volume.
For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.
Support:
When performing a signal warrant analysis, bicyclists riding in the street with other vehicular traffic are
usually counted as vehicles and bicyclists who are clearly using pedestrian facilities are usually counted as
pedestrians.
Option:
Engineering study data may include the following:
A. The number of vehicles entering the intersection in each hour froni 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-transitvehicles, and, in some locations, bicycles),
during each IS-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.
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
(
California MUTCD Page4C-3
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Standard:
Delay, congestion, approach conditions, driver confusion, future land use or other evidence of the need for
right of way assignment beyond that which could be provided by stop sign· shall be demonstrated.
Support: •
Figure 4C-101 (CA) and 4C-103(CA) are examples of warrant sheets.
Guidance:
Figure 4C-103(CA) should be used only for new intersections or other locations where it is not reasonable to count
actual traffic volumes.
Section 4C.02 Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
The Minimum Vehicular Volume, Condition A, is intended for application at locations where a large
volume of intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
The Interruption of Continuous Traffic, Condition B, is intended for application at locations where
Condition A is not satisfied and where the traffic volume on a major street is so heavy that traffic on a minor
intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street.
It is intended that Warrant 1 be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied, then the criteria for
Warrant 1 is satisfied and Condition Band the combination of Conditions A and Bare not needed. Similarly,
if Condition B is satisfied, then the criteria for Warrant l ,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 veh_icles 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 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 les_s 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 Bis 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
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
These major:-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition;
however, the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in
Condition B. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach
during each of the 8 hours.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/a 64 I
km/h or exceeds 40 mph, or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a
1 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-l for the existing
combination of approach ~anes. 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 !cm/a 64 I
km/h or exceeds 40 mph or if the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a I
population of less than 10,000, Figure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Support:
The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a
minimum of l hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing ·
the major street.
Standard:
This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes,
manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or
discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the
criteria in either of the following two categories are met:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute
periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one
direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds:_ 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane
approach; or 5 vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach, and
2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100
vehicles per hour for one moving Jane 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 vehi_cles 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
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
day falls a_bove 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 w~en 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 ofvehicular 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 signai will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an ~ngineering 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) beyondthe 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 th~ major roadway may be reduced as much as 50
percent if the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.2 ni/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
S,eptember 26, 2006
( (
California MUTCD Page 4C-6
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
crossing is less tIJan the number of minutes in the same period (see Section 7 A.03) and there are a
minimum of20 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 shallnot 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. Furthennore, if installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.
Section 4C.07 Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System.
Support:
Progressive movement irt 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 b~ considered if an engineering study finds that one of
the following criteria is met:
A. On a Of!e-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 arty 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 --~ighway Traffic Signals
September 26, 2006
( (
California MUTCD Page 4C-7
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
not less tl~an 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 vplumes 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 ipeet 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 prin\!ipal roadway network for
through traffic flow; or
B. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing a City; or
C. It appeirs 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
signaiized intersections alo.ng the "Suggested Route to School."
3. If an intersection is signalized under this guideline for school pedestrians, the entire intersection shall
be signalized.
4. School area traffic signals shall be traffic actuated type with push buttons or other detectors for
pedestrians.
Option:
Non-intersection school pedestrian crosswalk locations may be signalized. when justified,
Section 4C.102(CA) Bicycle Signal Warrant
Guidance:
A bicycle signal should be considered for use only when the volume and collision or volume and geometric warrants
have· been met:
1. Volume; When W = B x V and W ~50,000 and B ~50.
Where: Wis the volume warrant. B is the number of bicycles at the peak hour entering the intersection. Vis 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 \o 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
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
occurred ov.er a 12-month period and the responsible public works official determines that a bicycle signal will I
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
([his space left intentionally blank)
September 26, 2006
(
California MUTCD Page 4C-9
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in California)
-Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
:c a.. 50.0 >
I 2 OR MORE LANES & 2 OR MORE LANES :c (.) 400 I-~ wO
ill~ g: 0.. 300 Cf) <{
I I I
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
-1 I
1 LANE & 1 LANE
a:LU 0~ 200 z=i __ ....J
20 > I 0:: 10.0 w :c
<.? I
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 appfoach with one lane.
Figure 4C-2. Warrant2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)-
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE +G 64 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREEn
: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 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.
Chapter 4C -Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies
Part 4 -Highway Traffic Signals
1000
September 26, 2006
I
( (
California MUTCD Page 4C-I0
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision I, as amended for use in Califor11:ia)
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
:r: 600
0... > . 500 J: 0
I-<( wO 400 wa: a: 0.. I-0.. 1/) <( 300 0:W o::;E z=> 200 --' zg
cr; 100 w
J: (!j r
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 1G 64 kmlh OR ABOVE 40 inph ON MAJOR STREET)
r 0... > ' r 0
I-<( wO wCX: a: 0... I-0... Cl)<(
a:: UJ
0~ z:::, ~-' :Z§?
cr; w J: 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 tor 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. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 1 of 4)
COUNT DATE
CALC ______ DATE
CHK ______ DATE
Page 4C-l l
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
D
RURAL(R)
URBAN (U)
~ARR)f61J.l~,f~\i:nawFHourWeffieillilrallc51um'ei£i?~L11:;d~t1,~Ist¥:~~::~S~~~'.~;:;;¥?l;:?:'E1;~;':·;:;~,~~$~:t(§F(i;P~;p~);~CJ'"~QlE]~!t~
(Condition A or Condition B or combination of A and B must be satisfied)
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
Maior Street (400) /280) (480) (336)
Highest Approach 150 105 200 140
Minor Street (120) (84) (160) (112)
Condition B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic
MINIMUM REQUIREM!::NTS
(80% SHOWN IN BRACKETS)
u R u ~
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 (60) (42) (80) (56)
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
AND, An adequate trial of other alternatives that could cause less delay and inconvenience to
traffic has failed to solve the traffic problems.
Yes □ No □
YesO No □
YesOaNo□
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
Hour
Hour
FULFILLED
D
YesO No·□
D
Yes □ No □
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants does 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)
1~~~!~!~~;1!!!~·~!:!!:J;~::;~;~t~~!l !1ifiiti12JiI!f~ii;~!~'J;t~i]J~~!i ~f!!:;:s~t:?,~i~:ttiitl~~~i~'g:ijt:
Record hourly vehicular volumes for any four hours of an average day.
APPROACH LANES ONE 2OR
MORE Hour
Both Approaches -Major Street □ □
• Highest Approach -Minor Street □ □
*All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-1 . (Urban Areas) Yes □ No □
OR, All plotted points fall above the curves in Figure 4C-2 (Rural Areas) Yes □ No □
hW'ARR--X~tTa1~fFfeal<IBrol 1r
~s'r_l4it~fob~~~-~:~~~j~,:f;_~%~,-
(Part A or Part B must be satisfied)
PART A SATISFIED* Yes O No O N/A 0
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied for the same
One hour, for any four consecutive 15-mlnute 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 approach, or five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND Yes O No O N/A 0
2.
3.
TOTAL DELAY= XXX vehicle-hours
The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or
exceeds 100 vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes;
AND Yes □ No □
MINOR STREET VOLUME= XXX vph
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 O No 0
TOTAL VOLUME= XXX vph
PARTB SATISFIED* Yes O No □
APPROACH LANES ONE
Both Approaches -Major Street □
Highest Approach -Minor Street □
2OR
MORE
□
□
Hour
*The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-3. (Urban Areas)
OR, The plotted point falls above the curve in Figure 4C-4. (Rural Areas)
Yes □ No □
Yes □ 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
(FHW A's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 3 of 4)
~ii!Rifl~TJ?4'"rl,lficf~slr1anWoiurrfei_---_: .:J-;?~.sr ye, __ _
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Part A (Parts 1 and 2 must be satisfied) SATISFIED
Hours ➔
1.
Pedestrian Volume
Adequate Crossing
Gaps
Any hour ~ 190
OR any 4 hours ~ 100
AND < 60 gap/hr
2. Pedestrian Volume I Anv hour .: 95 _
I OR Anv 4 hours .:50
AND Ped Crossin!'.! < 1.2 mis (4 ft/sec)
Part B SATISFIED
Page 4C-13
Yes O No□
Yes □ No D
Yes □ No D
Yes O No O NIA 0
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No□
Yes □ No□
Yes No D
\WA1~J6\'Nf~~4~-cH'o'olfG"ro~s1nq":i~~';;';J;t£(;~,~n:.::;,1'.:~,f;::~;~:~'',Wrii~{-7':'.;<··:;,;;~-;-;;;$~:m$nll:Q f '({Y;!;$~IZLNP:'Elt'Nt~EJ,,:
(Parts A and B, or Part C Must Be Satisfied)
PART A
Gap/Minutes and # of Children
Gaps Minutes Children Using Crossing
Vs Number of Adequate Gaps Minutes
School Age Pedestrians Crossing Street/ hr
SATISFIED
Hour
Gaps < Minutes
AND, Children > 20/hr
! AND, Consideration has been given to less restrictive remedial measures.
PARTB SATISFIED
The distance to the nearest traffic si nal alon the ma·or street is realer than 90m 300 ft .
PART C (All Parts 1, 2 and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED
u R/ Hours
Yes □ No □
Yes O No O NIA 0
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
Yes D No □
YesO No □
1. Vehicles / hr
AND, School Age Pedestrians
Crossing Street/ hr
OR, School Age Pedestrians
Crossing Street/ day
500
100
500
350
70
350
Yes □ No □
Yes □. No □
Yes □ No D
• When the critical (85th percentile approach speed exceeds 55 km/h (35 mph) or the sight distance to the intersection is less than
2.
3.
the required stopping distance, rural criteria should be used. •
Other si nal warrants met.
The distance to the nearest controlled crossin is realer than 180m 600 ft .
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
Part4 -Highway Traffic Signals
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
September 26, 2006
/ .\ (
California MUTCD
(FHWA's MUTCD 2003 Revision 1, as amended for use in California)
Figure 4C-101. Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet (Sheet 4 of 4)
tWlfRRWNf%.st::ztaoota1natect:¥siqna·1rsvslem;21-,;ts,;;~;:f,.;~ts;-~t:;,.·:J~·•:S%'<:-,:,.·.,•:·-_•~--§At-i$F11:p;,:'.·•
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS DISTANCE TO NEAREST SIGNAL
> 300 m (1000 ft) N: I S: I E: I W:
On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals
are so far apart that they do not provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------OR, On a two--way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide necessary degree of platooning and the
proposed and adjacent traffic control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
Page 4C-14
FULFILLED
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
J1tAr£a!(N~ft "~cfa~rr:exoerT~nce•:Warrct11t:~i~:;¥~':'.(::r\t4E~tir··:~~~::;~~>•/frft$~~~,$~t1~J=J1;g~-•·.~:~s-::'.Pi~~--:'.-1~~.,-~~~rmNJ::t~EElr~
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash Yes □ No □ frequency. '
The number of crashes within a 12 month period susceptible to
REQUIREMENTS correction by a traffic signal, and involving injury or damage exceeding
the requirements for a reportable crash. Yes □ No □
• ••• •• 5 OR MORE • -------------------------------------------------------------------
REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONS
Warrant 1, Condition A -Minimum Vehicular Volume □
----------------------------------------------------------------□-OR, Warrant 1, Condition B -Interruption of Continuous Traffic Yes □ No □ -------------------------------------------------------------------ONE CONDITION SATISFIED 80% OR, Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Condition -
Pedestrian Volume <?:152 for any hour □
OR, Pedestrian Volume .:80 for any 4 hours
~WA'Rlffi'Nmrs144"Rfia'.dWayIN~twork;i~~(k,:J~i';,}%J!,l,%~ffi~14~;·;,,~r;l~?},p,:.,~J-~½%W';,j~~~$"A:I!~~l~-Qfa:Y,"~§ •-,~{~~fatfg~EmNQ.~8].
(All Parts Must Be Satisfied)
MINIMUM VOLUME ENTERING VOLUMES -ALL APPROACHES REQUIREMENTS
During Typical Weekday Peak Hour x~ Veh / Hr,
and has 5-year projected traffic volumes that meet one or more of Warrants 1, □
1000 Veh / Hr 2, and 3 during an average weekday.
OR, During Each Of Any 5 Hrs. Of A Sat And/Or Sun x~ Veh / Hr □
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAJOR ROUTES MAJOR MAJOR
ROUTE A ROUTE B
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
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
FULFILLED
Yes □ No □
Yes □ No □
September 26, 2006
0
400
( (
\
Figu_re 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR) .
500 600 700 800 900 · 1000 1100 1200 1300
MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (VPH)
1400
*Note: 115 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with two or more lanes and 80
vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor-street approach with one lane.
(
Figure 4C-2. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume (70% Factor)
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET)
400 .------,----~---~----.----.------.----....-----.
i"
Cl. ~ :c 300
0
1-< wO wet: ct: Cl. I-Cl.
ti) er: 200 ct: w 0 :E z => -..J :E 0 >
ct: 100 w :c C)
:i:
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE
(MINOR)
o~--~-------~--~---~---~----'---~
•ao
*60
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
• MAJOR STREET -TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES (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.
(
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3, Peak Hour
600
-2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
J: c.. 500 > -J:
0
2 OR MORE LANES (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
OR 1 LANE (MAJOR) & 2 OR MORE LANES (MINOR)
I-< 400 wO w a:: a:: c.. I-c..
Cl) < 300 a:: w 0 :E z ::,
--I ::iE 0 200 > a:: w J: 100 ~ *100 J:
1 LANE (MAJOR) & 1 LANE (MINOR)
0 .___...__ _ _._ _ __._ _ __._ __ ,__ _ _.__ _ _,__ _ __._ _ ___._ __ ,__...___....,__ _ __.__~
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 -.-----,----,---~---.---........--------r-----r--~---,----,
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)
0 +-----+----+----+----!----+-----+----1-----+----+------l
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.