| Home |
 |
Writing in the World Projects |
|
Pedestrian Safety: A Cost-Benefit Analysis and Report |
|
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/2003r1/part4/part4-toc.htm
Part 4. Highway Traffic Signals
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.
The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic control signal.
Using the recommendations of the MUTCD, city traffic engineers have completed a study of the intersection of Manchaca and Prather. They assessed
1. The number of vehicles passing through the intersection each hour during the peak 12-hour period of an average day.
2. Pedestrian traffic in the crosswalk during the same periods as the vehicular counts above. The number of young, elderly, or other persons needing more than standard crossing times was also observed.
3. The businesses and schools nearby, and the vehicular and pedestrian traffic they produced.
4. The record of collisions at the intersection over the past 12 months.
The engineers determined that the following sections of the MUTCD are relevant to the question of whether a signal is needed at this intersection:
Warrant 1
Section 4C.01 Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals
Standard:
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.
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 4
Warrant 5
Warrant 7
|