Delaware Administrative Code
Title 2 - Transportation
2000 - Department of Transportation
2400 - Division of Transportation Solutions
2402 - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals
Chapter 4C - TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL NEEDS STUDIES
Section 4C.01 - Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals
Current through Register Vol. 28, No. 3, September 1, 2024
Standard:
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.
Support:
04 Sections 8C.09 and 8C.10 contain information regarding the use of traffic control signals instead of gates and/or flashing-light signals at highway-rail grade crossings and highway-light rail transit grade crossings, respectively.
Guidance:
05 A traffic control signal should not be installed unless one or more of the factors described in this Chapter are met.
06 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.
07 A traffic control signal should not be installed if it will seriously disrupt progressive traffic flow.
08 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 signal warrants listed in Paragraph 2.
09 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 should dictate whether an approach is considered as one lane or two lanes. For example, for an approach with one lane for through and right-turning traffic plus a left-turn lane, if engineering judgment indicates that it should be considered a one-lane approach because the traffic using the left-turn lane is minor, 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.
10 Similar engineering judgment and rationale should be applied to a street approach with one through/left-turn 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.
11 At a location that is under development or construction and where it is not possible to obtain a traffic count that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes should be estimated as part of an engineering study for comparison with traffic signal warrants. Except for locations where the engineering study uses the satisfaction of Warrant 8 to justify a signal, a traffic control signal installed under projected conditions should have an engineering study done within 1 year of putting the signal into stop-and-go operation to determine if the signal is justified. If not justified, the signal should be taken out of stop-and-go operation or removed.
12 For signal warrant analysis, a location with a wide median, even if the median width is greater than 30 feet, should be considered as one intersection.
Option:
13 At an intersection with a high volume of left-turn traffic from the major street, the signal warrant analysis may be performed in a manner that considers the higher 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.
14 For signal warrants requiring conditions to be present for a certain number of hours in order to be satisfied, any four sequential 15-minute periods may be considered as 1 hour if the separate 1-hour periods used in the warrant analysis do not overlap each other and both the major-street volume and the minor-street volume are for the same specific one-hour periods.
15 For signal warrant analysis, bicyclists may be counted as either vehicles or pedestrians.
Support:
16 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:
17 Engineering study data may include the following:
18 The following data, which are desirable for a more precise understanding of the operation of the intersection, may be obtained during the periods described in Item B of Paragraph 17:
