The MUTCD traffic signal warrants were developed with “a careful analysis of traffic operations, pedestrian, and bicy- clist needs, and other factors at a large number of signalized and unsignalized intersections, coupled with engineering judgment.” Research projects are periodically conducted to ensure that the traffic signal warrants reflect current opera- tional and safety needs for the different user groups. In addi- tion to researching operational and safety needs, periodic reviews of engineers’ judgment toward the traffic signal war- rants (or toward proposed revisions to the traffic signal war- rants) are needed.
A study (55) in Texas recruited six DOT representatives, seven city representatives, and one consultant representative (all from Texas) to assess the appropriateness of installing a traffic signal because of pedestrian concerns at five loca- tions. The Texas study provided interesting findings; how- ever, only using engineers from one state was a concern. For this TCRP/NCHRP study, the timing and location of the 2004 Institute of Transportation Engineers Spring Confer- ence provided an opportunity to host a workshop on engi- neering judgment evaluations of pedestrian signal warrants that could include a more diverse geographic representa- tion. The workshop was held March 28, 2004, in southern California. The workshop’s objectives were to obtain opin- ions on
• The traffic signal warrants;
• How they related to specific locations; and
• Potential treatments, including signalization, for the selected intersections.
Workshop Procedures
The Signal Warrant Engineering Judgment Evaluation Work- shop was held March 28, 2004. Two tours were conducted as part of the workshop. In the first tour, seven engineers partici- pated; six participated in the second. Each tour included an engineer who was very familiar with the area and could answer questions about local practices. Of the 13 participants, 9 partic-
ipants came from the West Coast, one came from the North- west, one came from the East Coast, and two came from the Midwest.
Each participant was provided with traffic/pedestrian data, photographs, and a sketch of the eight intersections. The traf- fic volumes were provided both in numeric format and plot- ted on a chart with the relevant curves for Signal Warrant 2 (4-hour vehicular volume) and Warrant 3 (peak hour). Tables were also provided listing the pedestrian volume (per hour and per street), intersection characteristics, and preliminary results from an analysis using the eight warrants.
The group then drove to each site and reviewed the condi- tions in the field. While in the field, the participants com- pleted a questionnaire for each site. After visiting the eight sites, the tour concluded at the original hotel with a 1-hour discussion. The discussion included comments on specific sites as well as general discussion on the pedestrian signal warrant. The participants were also asked to complete a gen- eral questionnaire on the pedestrian signal warrant.
Workshop Observations
Details on the workshop and findings are included in Appendix J. Observations from the workshop are summa- rized below
• The revised pedestrian signal warrant should consider the width of roadway being crossed.The width could either be the number of lanes or width of the roadway; however, if the number of lanes is being used, then a method to factor in the presence of bike lanes, parking lanes, and/or center turn lane needs to be included (given that all represent extra distance that a pedestrian must consider and cross). The judgment decision and gap determination become more difficult when a pedestrian is crossing a wider street.
• The pedestrian signal warrant needs to consider the number of vehicles on the roadway along with the num- ber of pedestrians.When there are many pedestrians and few cars, the pedestrians can “control” the crossing by becoming a steady stream of pedestrians with insufficient gaps for vehicles to enter (for example, a site where there
LOS Delay/Pedestrian(s) Likelihood of Risk-Taking Behavior a A B C D E F < 5 ≥ 5 to10 > 10 to 20 > 20 to 30 >30 to 45 > 45 Low Moderate High Very High a
Likelihood of acceptance of short gaps.
Average
Table 12. Reproduction of HCM Exhibit 18-13: LOS criteria for pedestrians at unsignalized intersections. (23)
was heavy pedestrian movement between a parking garage and a municipal building in the morning and afternoon). In this situation, a signal is not needed for the pedestrian (although one participant noted that a signal may be needed for the vehicles–i.e., the signal needs to stop the pedestrians to allow the cars to move through the cross- ing). The participants preferred having the vehicle data expressed in number of vehicles rather than gaps.
• The revised warrant should consider the operating or posted speed on the major roadway.
• Several participants commented on treating pedestrians and vehicles equally.
• One participant noted a safety concern with crosswalks on streets with four or more lanes.These crosswalks have the potential for a “multiple threat” conflict, where a pedes- trian begins to cross in front of a vehicle stopped in the near lane but then has to avoid a vehicle in a subsequent lane that has not stopped. The participant advocated a dif- ferent set of criteria for pedestrian signals on multi-lane streets.
• The participants considered the following factors during the evaluation of the eight intersections:
– Pedestrian volume (92 percent); – Traffic volume (77 percent);
– Speed (operating or posted) on major street (46 percent); – Number of lanes on major street (23 percent);
– Other[opportunity for median refuge, crossing dis- tance, or other possible treatment (23 percent)]; – Crash history (8 percent);
– Intersection versus midblock (8 percent); – Distance to nearest signal (8 percent); and – Vehicular gaps available (8 percent).
• When asked what other factors should be included in the MUTCD, the only factor they listed (and that was not listed as being used in the evaluation of the eight sites—
see previous bullet) was sight distance.There were several comments at individual sites where the adequacy of the available site distance was questionable, especially when on-street parking was present.
Summary
In the 2003 MUTCD, the pedestrian warrant for a traffic control signal considers several factors in determining the need for a signal: pedestrian volume, gaps in vehicular traffic, and walking speed (which may be used to reduce pedestrian volume). Previous studies have documented the difficulty of meeting this warrant at intersections with pedestrian cross- ing needs. A review of the literature provided insight into the current warrant as well as the signal warranting practices of other countries. In reviewing all traffic control signal war- rants, the research team noted several inconsistencies between the pedestrian warrant and vehicle-based warrants. For example, the pedestrian warrant provides a single pedestrian volume criterion, regardless of the major-street vehicle vol- ume being crossed, whereas vehicle-based warrants provide a “sliding scale” where fewer minor-street vehicles are required as the major-street vehicle volume increases. Additionally, vehicle-based warrants permit a vehicle volume reduction to 70 percent when major-street vehicle speeds exceed 40 mph (70 km/h). The research team conducted a workshop to gather engineering judgment about proposed revisions to the pedestrian warrant. In their judgment, most traffic engineers at the workshop believed the following should be considered in a revised pedestrian warrant: width of roadway being crossed, the pedestrian volume, the major-street vehicle vol- ume, and the major-street speed. The research team used these findings to develop the proposed recommendations for a revised pedestrian warrant for traffic control signals (see Appendix B).
This chapter summarizes the findings from surveys used to obtain information on pedestrian treatments as well as the challenges of identifying and providing pedestrian treat- ments, including traffic control signals. Survey techniques were as follows:
• Focus groups of providers,
• Phone meetings with providers,
• On-site interviews of providers,
• A focus group of bus drivers, and
• On-street interviews of pedestrians.
Appendixes J and K contain details on how each of the sur- veys was conducted. The observations are summarized below.