I asked the question ''what exactly does the word 'warrants' mean'' in the article I posted in this month's newsletter. The following is the reply.
I understand how one could be confused with what I sent you. Everything in quotations came from our design section and I simply passed along the information and they tend to talk in technical terms that don't always make sense to the rest of us. Basically what it says is that when we do a signal evaluation for an intersection, there are several warrants (or criteria for a better word) that must be met. These ''warrants'' include traffic volumes (for several times of day), turning movements, accident data and crash patterns that would be correctable by a signal, determining whether or not a signal would impede the flow of traffic during off-peak hours, if a signal at one intersection would disrupt the timing or effectiveness of a signal in near proximity (if applicable), etc.
I do not personally work in the signal section and this is my limited knowledge of some of the warrants that must be met. The City uses the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and we are required to meet and satisfy a certain percentage of the above criteria before we are given the funding to install traffic control devices, not limited to only signals. The requirements to meet those warrants are set up to as greatly as possible, maintain traffic flow.
From my understanding, when this new extension was being designed, the city used current traffic counts and also used a formula of some sort to ''predict'' traffic volume and turning movements at both Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek intersections. This was also determined by studying the traffic that used Mallard Creek, turned right at the signal at Sugar Creek, then turned left onto Nevin. This showed the need for a signal at Sugar Creek and Nevin. However, the study did not show the need for a signal at Mallard Creek and Nevin due to the traffic turning right from Nevin onto Sugar Creek, then turning left onto Mallard Creek.
CDOT had to use the information that we had at the time and were approved for funding of the signal at Sugar Creek. Now that the extension is open, and we are monitoring the intersection at Mallard Creek and Nevin, it is becoming apparent that a signal will quickly meet the criteria for funding of a signal.
I understand how one could be confused with what I sent you. Everything in quotations came from our design section and I simply passed along the information and they tend to talk in technical terms that don't always make sense to the rest of us. Basically what it says is that when we do a signal evaluation for an intersection, there are several warrants (or criteria for a better word) that must be met. These ''warrants'' include traffic volumes (for several times of day), turning movements, accident data and crash patterns that would be correctable by a signal, determining whether or not a signal would impede the flow of traffic during off-peak hours, if a signal at one intersection would disrupt the timing or effectiveness of a signal in near proximity (if applicable), etc.
I do not personally work in the signal section and this is my limited knowledge of some of the warrants that must be met. The City uses the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) and we are required to meet and satisfy a certain percentage of the above criteria before we are given the funding to install traffic control devices, not limited to only signals. The requirements to meet those warrants are set up to as greatly as possible, maintain traffic flow.
From my understanding, when this new extension was being designed, the city used current traffic counts and also used a formula of some sort to ''predict'' traffic volume and turning movements at both Sugar Creek and Mallard Creek intersections. This was also determined by studying the traffic that used Mallard Creek, turned right at the signal at Sugar Creek, then turned left onto Nevin. This showed the need for a signal at Sugar Creek and Nevin. However, the study did not show the need for a signal at Mallard Creek and Nevin due to the traffic turning right from Nevin onto Sugar Creek, then turning left onto Mallard Creek.
CDOT had to use the information that we had at the time and were approved for funding of the signal at Sugar Creek. Now that the extension is open, and we are monitoring the intersection at Mallard Creek and Nevin, it is becoming apparent that a signal will quickly meet the criteria for funding of a signal.
