HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - 210 HOLT ROAD 8/20/2007 H Ps
"Community Partnership"
Mary Ippolito, Planning Department August 20, 2007
Osgood Landing
Town of North Andover
1600 Osgood Street
Bldg. 20, - Suite 2-36, Planning Department
North Andover, MA 01845
Dear Mary,
The Police Department has been asked to comment on the traffic signal recommendations
made by Mass Highway for the intersection of Osgood Street and Holt Road. Mass Highway
reported to the Board of Health in a letter dated August 2,2007 that an overhead flashing
warning beacon would address most of the traffic concerns. A secondary device that could be
installed is an illuminated sign that would display a message when vehicles are entering from
Holt Road.
It is our opinion that the overhead flashing warning beacon be installed as recommended
and that it be designed and constructed to accommodate full signalization in the future. We do
not feel that the secondary device is needed at this time. The site lines at the intersection are
adequate for good visibility in both directions for traffic approaching the intersection as well as
traffic entering Osgood Street from Holt Road.
There are a number of warning signs and devices already installed in the immediate area
alerting motorists of a variety of hazards including the traffic lights at Osgood Landing.We feel
the use of the secondary device may result in too many warning devices in this short span of
roadway.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding our recommendation. Thank you
for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Lt. John Carney
Operations Division Commander
cc: Richard M. Stanley, Chief of Police
566 MAIN STREET, NORTH ANDOVER, MASSACHUSETTS 01845-4011
Telephone: 978-683-3168 Fax: 978-686-1212
}
A-
_ E Decal L Pa-Xdf Timo u1my &&wrd Cohan Losa Pa'e�sity
MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE
OF Tn ANSPORTATION
August 2,2007
Thomas A. Trowbridge
Chainruan AUG - 6 2007
Board of Health r
120 Main Street t o'�:r
North Andover,MA 01845
Dear Mr. Trowbridge:
I am writing as a follow up to your recent conversations with District Operations Engineer Paul
Stedman as well as a past meeting with local officials and Representative Torrisi regarding The
intersection of Route 125 with Holt Road in your community..
MassH.ighway previously reviewed the traffic infort-oatlon prepared by the design consultant for the
Transfer Station proposed on Holt Road. That review confirmed a previous finding that under build
conditions,the intersection would not meet the traffic signal warrants set forth in the Federal
Highway Adtninistratio.n's(FHWA) Manual on Uniform.Traffic Control Devices (NUTCD).
Detailed information regarding traffic signals can be found at the following web page:
http://mute-d.fhwa.dot.,P,ov/pdfs/2003!Ch4.pdf: I am attaching a copy of Chapter 4C; which deals
specifically with traffic signal warrants.
Our review of the intersection found that there may be other treatments that could be considered to
effectively address the concerns raised by local officials regarding the increased volume of heavy
vehicles using Holt Road as a result of the proposed development. Some of the infrastructure
associated with these devices could potentially be used in the future in the event that the location
satisfies traffic signal warrants and a determination is made that traffic signal controls should be
installed.
The primary device tliat could be installed at this location to address the concerns is an overhead
flashing warning beacon. This type of device has been successfully used at a number of locations to
provide advance notice of an intersection and to reinforce the normal right of way rules. It is
possible to design the installation to allow the supporting structure and associated underground
wiring conduit to be utilized in any future :full signalization effort.
Another device that could be installed to raise driver awareness of the intersection and enhance
overall safety is a ground mounted illuminated advance warning sign that would display an
appropriate message such as"Vehicles Entering Ahead". In this application,signs would be placed
in each direction on Route 1 225 at an appropriate distance prior to the intersection and the illuminated
text would be triggered by a vehicle traveling through a vehicle detection zone on Dolt Road. The
associated detection devices and the underground conduit used to wire in the illuminated signs could
be designed.to allow t seir reuse in any future full signalization effort.
��et::'tz lt.:setts hrrgFnvq),IJepartrnenf 19 1ITIPIelo.:Street,Arlington, IvY4 02476 a(%$/)04i4300
T-'d ZT2T989BL6 spJooad avtTod ,aanopud ON e8b :Bo Lo of 2nd
Neither of the above suggestions would be sufficient to fully provide for a future traffic signal
installation;however,they would provide for some cost savings in such an effort. The
implementation of either of these applications by either the community or a private entity could
be handled through MassHighway's normal permit process.
It was noted by local officials at the past meeting that the developer's local approvais require
their full participation in the design and implementation of traffic signal control at this
intersection. In light of the fact that the location does not currently meet the necessary warrants,
the community may want to consider the installation of either or both of the above suggestions as
an alternative and enter into an agreement with the developer to place any remaining funds into
escrow for use in the design and installation of a full traffic signalization project ill the event
such an improvement becomes necessary in the future. .
If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact Paul Stedman,the District's
Operations Engineer,at(781)541-8405.
Sincer ly,
Patricia A.Leavenworth,P.E.
District Highway Director
PDStpds
Xe_ RepreseitativeDavid'rorrisi
Mark Roes,North Andover Town Manager
Traffic
Planning
Pcrrrtits
2003 Edition Page 4C-I
CddAa T
ER 4C. T RA;F'1r IC: i;ONTRO L,SiUNAL 16tEUDS S T UDMS
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Tustifviit g Traffic Control Signals
Standard:
An engineering study of traffic conditions,pedestrian characteristics,and physical characteristics of
the location shall he performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a
-ar Ocular-location.
The investigation of the heed fora 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,I+our-Hour Vehicular Volume.
Warrant 3P,Peak Hour.
'10�arrant 4,l2edest0.ian Vf)'ijun,:.
Warrant 5,School Crossing.
Warrant 6,Coordinated Signal System.
`Alarrant 7,Crash r xpe_raence.
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 I OD.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,
Guidance:
A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more-of the factors described in this Chanter
are net.
A traffic control signal should not be installed unless an engineering study indicates that installing a traffic
control signal will improve the overall safety and/or operation of the intersection.
A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
The study should consider the effects of the right-turn vehicles from the minor-street approaches.
Engineering judgment should be used to determine what,if any,portion of the right-turn traffic is subtracted
from the minor-street traffic count when evaluating the count against the above signal warrants.
Engineering judgment should also be used in applying various traffic signal warrants to cases where
approaches consist of one lane plus one left-turn or right-turn lane. The site-specific traffic characteristics dictate
whether an approach should be considered as one lane or two lanes. For example,for an approach with one lane
for through and right-fuming traffic plus a left-turn lane,engineering judgment could indicate that it should be
considered a one-lane approach if the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor. In such a case,the total traffic
volume approaching the intersection should be applied against the signal warrants as a one-lane approach, The
approach should be considered two lanes if approximately half of the traffic on the approach turns left and the
left-turn lane is of sufficient length to accommodate all left-turn vehicles.
Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one lane plus a right-
turn lane. In this case,the degree of conflict of minor-street right-turn traffic with traffic on the major street
should be considered. Thus,right-turn traffic should not be included in the minor-street volume if the movement
enters the major street with minimal conflict. The approach should be evaluated as a one-lane approach with
only the traffic volume in the through/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 die engineering study uses the
satisfaction of Waixant 8 to justify a signal,a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should
have-an engineering study done within I year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the
signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should betaken 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 in(30 ft),should be considered as one intersection,
Sect,ac.oi
E --1 'i;_7TC1o0 PLuc'LzN 00t `0 ��-cry o? °LF >ctJ 10 JTnU
Page 4C-2 2003 Edition
Option;
At an intersection with a high volume of left-turit traffic from the major street,the signal warrant.analysis
may be performed in a manner that considers the higher of the major-street left-turn 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,bicycUsts may be counted a5 either;.,Melee 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 sonic locations, bicycles),doting
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
ahave and during hours of highest pedestrian voluble. 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 facili ties and activity centers that serve the young,elderl y.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.
B. 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 layou€,iricludi.,g such features as intel•sertir,I,
geometries,channelization,grades,sight-distance restrictions, transit stops and routes,parking
conditions,pavement markings,roadway lighting,driveways,nearby railroad crossings,distance to
nearest traffic control signals, utility poles and fixtures,and adjacent land use,
G. A collision diagram showing crash experience by type,location,direction of movement,severity,
weather, time of day,date,and day of week for at least I 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_
The.number and drStrtbn•€ran of acceptable aaps in Ile!?3EL•Iar traffic or ihE major;tree(for entrance frGLrl
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.
B:, Queue length on stop-controlled approaches.
cetion M'_.02 l.'112rra_r_f 1,Eialit-Plopi,Vehicplar WOu4nv
Support:
The Minimum Vehicular Volume,Condition A,is intended for application at locations where a large volume
of in." G 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 of conflict iii entering or crossing tier;major st:cet_
It is intended that Warrant I be treated as a single warrant. If Condition A is satisfied,ihen 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;k raw 1 is satisfied and the r_.ninbination of Conditions A and B is
not needed.
Sect.4C.0)to 4C.02
t-7 J 7!T2T-Qn- /rte �n�^� ��Tj^_ JO^OnUt-1 r'il egs '00 -0 OT r 'a'
2003 Edition Page 4C-3
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
FMMajor g traffic on each approach (total of both approaches) (one direction only)
Street Minor Street 100%" 80%° 70%` 56°f°° 100%' 80°10° 70%` 5G0
................. 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 B—Interruption 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% 80%° 70%` 56%' 100%' 80%70%` 56%°
1................ 1................. 750 600 525 420 75 60 53 42
2 or more... i................. 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..
°Used for combination of Conditions A and B after adequate triaf of other remedial measures.
`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.
°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:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that one of the
following conditions exist"for eaeb of any "ho 1 of an aEe.aba 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 mirror-street approaches,respectively,to the
intersectio— u
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 tire
In tersecti on.
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 hotirs.
Option:
If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 knA or
exceeds 40 mph,or if ilia intersection tics within tine 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.
S-i 40.02
aQ € ELQ ja cp° i3 =co >L; L:3 O
Page 4C-4 2003 Edition
"u idarce:
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 causeless 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
t=-._•Iv=?irr conditions e;:i st-'or e acli of any"I hours of-4-1 c`2re'®°afye°,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 higlier-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the
intersection;and
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist
on the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches,respectively,to the
intersection.
These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for cacti condition;however,
the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B,
Orr file minor street,the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same?prroach d:rrmg 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 40.03 Warrant 2—Four-Hour WWcular Volume
Support:
The rour-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 oil the higher-volume mirror-street
approach(one direction only)all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for tike existing
combination of approach lanes. Orr 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 35th-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,ri ure 4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3,Peak Hour
Support:
Tire 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,tinge,
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 nret:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour(any four consecutive 15-minute
periods)of an average day:
I. 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 S vehicle-hat)rs for a two-lane approach,and
Sect.4C.02 to 4C.G4
.,ar,opearrJ- 014 pl� :Ato Lo O °r ;
2003 Edition Page 4C-5
Figure 4C-1. Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
S
j 500
z —
2 OR MORE LANES&'2 OR MORE LANES
U
00 400 2 OR MORE LANES&t LANE
uj c>
0- 3b0 1L INE&1 ILANE
�Q
200
20
Ir 100
W '80
2
U'
T
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Y00o 1100 1200 1300 .1400
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
*Note;115 vph applies as the tower 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.
V6biculia U fn`ne('70% G3 iorl
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 kmlh OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
S 400
M 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES
w
Q 3o0
2 OR MORE LANES&1 LAN'
a
IL
0)d 200 1 LANE&1 LANE
SIC W
O�
Z�
:5i O 100
W
W Io
X •so
C9 7 i
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
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.
Sect 4004
L °� ZTZT98981L6 SP.100ad 90110d Janopud ON a6b :60 LO OT 2nd
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 appr oaclies.
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 I5-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 Iimit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 70 km/11 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 rlelay in crossing die 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 fallowing cre°teeia are 6F-$:
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 in(300 ft),unless the proposed traffic
control signal will not restrict the progressive nioveneerrt of ira-c.
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 QE,
G 1IId
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 in(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 tl.an 1.2 m/scc(4 fusee).
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
friaJnf'street 2.5 the llriiiCln L rc_aSJIt tU Jr?s:d r it=Stalhii�a irafilC CvllirUi signal.
Sect.40.04 to 4006
8 -01 ZTZT989t3L6 sp.aooad a01 10d Janopud oN e0S :90 LO 01 2nd
2003 Edition Page 4C-7
Figure W-3. Warrant 3,Peak Hour
2 600
a
a 500 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES
W¢ 400 i-
¢a 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE
03 Q 300
o LU 1 LANE&1 LANE
O 200
'150
W100 — I 100
C7
Z
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 180D
MAJOR STREET—TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES—
VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH)
'Note:150 vph applies as the lo+aer 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.
fou s f cSPe °g Wae:a't fi;Peak-,- :0%a
(COMMUNITY LESS THAN 10,000 POPULATION OR ABOVE 70 km/h OR ABOVE 40 mph ON MAJOR STREET)
z
a
T- A00 2 OR MORE LANES&2 OR MORE LANES
Q
W� 2 OR MORE LANES&1 LANE
a 300
i LANE&1 LANE
aW
02
200'
�0
> 100
W_ ioo 1
s ! 75
cn
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 r:•i7^r-street approach wiiri one lane.
SW.40.06
S 'd ZTZT9898L6 SP.100a�] a0110d .tanopud ON e09 :80 LO 01 2nU
organization of traffic flow on a roadway network.
Standard:
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered If all engineering study finds that the common
fntersection a 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 wetItday;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 east 1, 0
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.
Page 4C-8 2003 Wition
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 or groups orsehouf
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 7A.03)and there are it minimum of 20 students during the highest
crossing hour.
€Icf?ro a crecision L.mvd+:to ipstall a iraffrc control signal,00c siderafiion shall b+i 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
tragic control signal along the major street is less than 90 in(300 ft),unless the proposers t<ruc control
signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
Guidance:
If this warrant k met and a traffi c control signal is justified by an engineering spiny,then:
A. If at an intersection,the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian
detectors.
B. If at a noninterseclion crossing,the traffic control signal should be pedestrian-actuated,parking and other
sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 in(100 ft)in advance of and at least 6.1 in(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 C 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:
"file peed 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 sweet 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:
'nic 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 4CAS Warrant 7.Crash Experience
Support:
The Crash Experience signal warrant conditions are intended for application where the severity and
frequency of crasheq are the principal reasons to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
The need fora traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study Ends that all of the
following criteria are met:
A. Adeauate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance and enforcement has fatted 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 S 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 vpb in both of the so
percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exists on the major-street and the bigher-volume
minar-r.reet approach,re_gpeeriveiy,to ti:e int.ersnetinle;or the voiume of pedestrian tf'auI is not
Sac 4Cn6 w 4008