Traffic Control Device-TR24-106 William and Washington Removal & Installation

Home Browse Search

Signal Warrant Analysis The signal warrant analysis was performed using the guidelines provided in the current version of the Indiana Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (IMUTCD 2011). The MUTCD’s procedure for consideration of a traffic signal is presented in Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals Standard. This section contains three (3) main stipulations: 01. 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. 02. The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants: 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 Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing 03. The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal. Following this procedure, the evaluation summary of the nine (9) warrants is summarized in the following sections. The signal warrants analysis is presented in Attachment B. Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume 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 the major street is so heavy that traffic on the minor intersecting street suffers excessive delay or conflict in entering or crossing the major street. Either condition must be met to satisfy Warrant 1. 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. Traffic volume data collected indicates the major and minor streets do not meet the required thresholds (either under Condition A or B) for any eight (8) hours of the day, regardless of the right-turn volume reduction. Therefore, Warrant 1: Eight-hour vehicular volume conditions are not satisfied to justify the installation of a traffic signal at the subject intersection.