Warrant #4 MUTCD

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Predgw

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2013
Messages
182
Reaction score
31
Location
Vermont
I have searched for updates, but dont see any. In the CERM and the Goswami depth reference section, they state Warrany #4 requires gaps in the traffic stream to be less than 60 per hour. They also state you need ped volume of greater than 190 peds per hour. I dont see that language either in the MUTCD.

Any thoughts?

 
As I am sure you know, most of the existing study references out there make reference to the previous NCEES list of design books (ex. they reference the previous 2003, not the current 2009 MUTCD). Thus, I think the requirements you list, are from the 2003 MUTCD (see copy/past below). You should be able to find the 2003 MUTCD on-line for free at FHWA's website. Let me know if you need a link.

Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume

Support:

The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street

is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.

Standard:

The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an

engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:

A. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or midblock location during an

average day is 100 or more for each of any 4 hours or 190 or more during any 1 hour; and

B. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow pedestrians

to cross during the same period when the pedestrian volume criterion is satisfied. Where there is a

divided street having a median of sufficient width for pedestrians to wait, the requirement applies

separately to each direction of vehicular traffic.

The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the

nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 90 m (300 ft), unless the proposed traffic

control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.

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 conforming to requirements set forth in Chapter 4E.

Guidance:

If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:

A. If at an intersection, the traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated and should include pedestrian

detectors.

B. If at a nonintersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be pedestrian-actuated, parking and other

sight obstructions should be prohibited for at least 30 m (100 ft) in advance of and at least 6.1 m (20 ft)

beyond the crosswalk, and the installation should include suitable standard signs and pavement markings.

C. Furthermore, if installed within a signal system, the traffic control signal should be coordinated.

Option:

The criterion for the pedestrian volume crossing the major roadway may be reduced as much as 50 percent if

the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 1.2 m/sec (4 ft/sec).

A traffic control signal may not be needed at the study location if adjacent coordinated traffic control signals

consistently provide gaps of adequate length for pedestrians to cross the street, even if the rate of gap occurrence

is less than one per minute.

 
Hmmn I think I stumbled on an errata then because the CERM list the 2009 MUTCD, but on page 73-18 of the (13th edition) they list the same language you are listing from the 2003. That seems like a big goof up on their part. Something is messed up here.

 
Hmmn I think I stumbled on an errata then because the CERM list the 2009 MUTCD, but on page 73-18 of the (13th edition) they list the same language you are listing from the 2003. That seems like a big goof up on their part. Something is messed up here.




I see. If we give PPI the b. of the d., then maybe the CERM literally references the 2009 MUTCD and not the 2009 MUTCD with the May 2012 Revisions 1 + 2? I am not sure when Warrant #4 changed exactly.

 
Never mind, it does look like PPI made a mistake in the CERM because the 2009 MUTCD matches the 2009 MUTCD with 2012 Revisions, not the 2003 MUTCD.

[SIZE=medium]2003 FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD):[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1r2/pdf_index.htm[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]2009 FHWA MUTCD:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/pdf_index.htm[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]2009 FHWA MUTCD with Rev 1 and 2 (May 2012)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009r1r2.htm[/SIZE]

 
I logged into PPI and completed an errata form.

This should exempt me from the actual test and the certificate should be in the mail!!! Just kidding.

 
Back
Top