Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Findings

Signal Warrant SR 48 and Springhouse-Old River Trail (9-22-22 Data)

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS FINDINGS

Warrant

Notes and Comments:

Applicable?

Satisfied?

Warrant 1, Eight-Hour
Vehicular Volume

Yes

Condition B was met.

Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular
Volume

Yes

Figure 4C-1 (100%)

Warrant 3, Peak Hour

Yes

Signals installed under Warrant 3 should be traffic
actuated.

Peak Hour
4:30 PM
5:30 PM

Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

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 complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter 4E of the OMUTCD.

Peak Hour
5:00 PM
6:00 PM

Warrant 5, School Crossing

N/A

Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal
System

(Shall not be used as the sole warrant in the analysis)

Warrant 7, Crash Experience

If this is the sole warrant, signal must be semi-actuated with control devices which provide proper coordination if installed at an intersection within a coordinated system and normally should be fully traffic actuated if installed at an isolated intersection.

Warrant 8, Roadway Network

(Shall not be used as the sole warrant in the analysis)

Warrant 9, Intersection Near a
Grade Crossing

Figure 4C-9

Multi-Way Stop Warrant

May be used as an interim measure if traffic signal warrants are satisfied.

The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of a traffic
control signal.

1. An engineering study, performed by a firm prequalified by ODOT for signal design, if approved by the ODOT district, may be used to justify a new signal installation or retention of an existing signal that otherwise does not meet the published warrants. An example of such an instance is a traffic signal in proximity to a railroad crossing that serves to reduce queuing across the tracks.

2. According to TEM 402-2, If the actual turning movement counts fail to satisfy a signal warrant, it may be acceptable to use traffic volumes projected to the second year after project completion. The Modeling and Forecasting Section should provide the projected traffic volumes.

3. A pedestrian hybrid beacon may be considered for installation to facilitate pedestrian crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants (see Chapter 4C of TEM) or at a location that meets traffic signal warrants under Sections 4C.05 and/or 4C.06 but a decision is made to not install a traffic control signal. Please fill inputs on PHB Score Sheet and submit to ODOT.

Considerations such as geometrics and lack of sight distance generally have not been accepted in lieu of satisfying signal warrants. These considerations may allow an otherwise unwarranted traffic signal to be retained at 100 percent local cost. Please review TEM 402-4 for details.

Conclusion: Retain Existing Traffic Signal

Notes: