1

Executive Summary
Problem
Until April 2016 the intersection of 11 Mile Road and Milford Road had very little traffic
control. There was a pair of stop signs on 11 Mile, and no traffic control on Milford Rd. Under
these conditions the major route in the North and Southbound traffic had very little delay.
Between April of 2016 and April of 2017 a traffic signal was installed at the intersection. This
signal increased the amount of delay for traffic at all approaches. Since the installation of the
traffic signal there has also been an increase in crashes reported at the intersection. This
intersection is in a rural area with low through volumes from all directions, which has caused
some discrepancy from local residents as to why the traffic signal was installed.

Objective
Our goal of this project is to assess whether or not the traffic signal at this intersection is
warranted using methods discussed in CE 4640. We will also discuss any necessary alternative
options of traffic control at the intersection that would help improve traffic flow and safety at the
intersection.

Methodology
Our methods for assessing this are based off of the nine traffic signal warrants​. Firstly, we will
discuss the conditions of the intersection. Then, we will give brief background knowledge of
each warrant, and continue to evaluate them. The nature of some warrants required certain types
of data to be collected, both in person and from online resources. Our data collection methods
and the results of the data will be discussed and used in warrant evaluation. A crash data analysis
will also be done for crashes that occurred both before and after the signal was installed. After
we have an understanding of why the signal was installed based off of the warrants, we will
continue to recommend changes to the intersection that could help the intersection operate better
with less delay, and less accidents. Our method and criteria for recommending changes will
include changing of the timing plan and discussion of other options to a traffic signal that could
achieve the same goals of safety and efficiency.

Data Collection
The descriptions of the nine traffic signal warrants were collected from the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A few of the nine traffic signal warrants require data to be
collected by going out into the site and through online research. Along with the on-site data
collection of traffic volume at the site of study during peak hour, we have also studied crash
diagrams for a number of years prior to the implementation of the signal at the intersection from
Michigan Crash Traffic Facts, as well as 24-hour traffic volume count data retrieved from the
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) website. The data collected through
each of the sources will be used in the evaluation of each traffic signal warrant and crash pattern
analysis. Additionally, they will be used to assist in the evaluation of alternative options, and
changes that could be made to the intersection.
 3

Results
We found Warrants 1, 2, 3, and 7 were met, and concluded that a signal was necessary at this
intersection. We also determined that no improvements needed to be made at this intersection, as
protected left-turn is not warranted and any other solutions would be not improve safety or
improve commute times.
 4

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2
Introduction 4
Traffic Signal Warrants 6
Data Collection 12
On-Site Analysis 13
Crash Analysis 14
Warrant Analysis 16
Signal Warrant Analysis Discussion 19
Sources of Error and Improvement 19
Protected Left-Turn Analysis 19
Conclusions and Recommendations 23
 5

Introduction
Problem Discussion
The traffic on the intersection of 11 Mile
Road and Milford Road, prior to April 2016,
was only controlled by stop signs on 11 Mile,
with no method of traffic control on Milford
Rd. Once a traffic signal was installed at the
intersection, the Northbound and Southbound
traffic delay increased since drivers now had
to stop at the signal, even when there was no
traffic at all. The Westbound and Eastbound
traffic also sees more delay, as they not have
to wait for the traffic signal to permit
movements, whereas before the signal they
could proceed when traffic cleared. Traffic
signals are used to promote the orderly
movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic
and to prevent excessive delay to traffic. Since
the intersection is located in a rural area, there
are low through volumes. We are concerned
whether the installation of this traffic signal allows more efficient traffic movement, minimizes
delay to vehicles, and reduces crash-producing conflicts. Along with these concerns, the recency
of the implementation of this traffic signal is concerning as it was an abrupt change and leads us
to question the reason for its placement. In order to assess whether this intersection operates
better with or without a traffic signal, we perform a warrant analysis of the intersection to assess
the necessity of the signal and, depending on our results, propose alternative solutions to provide
better traffic movement at this intersection.

Site Description
The intersection, pictured above, lies in the city of South Lyon which houses a population of
about 12,000 people (US Census Bureau 2010) . We chose this site for a number of reasons that
deal with the surrounding area of the intersection, and the community that it lies in. Primarily,
we are concerned with how recent the signal was put in place. It was completed between April
2016 and April 2017, and no other changes were made to the road that should affect the need for
a traffic signal. The only part of construction was the traffic signal, no lane changes or additions
were made. The speed limits on both roads remained at 50 mph before and after installation of
the signal. Because of how abrupt the change was made, we chose to analyze the reasoning
behind the signal using traffic signal warrants. Other factors that made us question the need for
this signal include the surrounding area and lack of attractions for drivers. The only two
landmarks nearby are a school (about ¼ mile west) and a War Dog Memorial at the intersection.
This is a cemetery honoring canines that sacrificed their lives in the line of police and military
duty. It has a small driveway and parking lot off of 11 Mile Rd, but does not attract drivers on a
regular basis. Besides this, the surrounding area has a subdivision with entrances on both 11 Mile
 6
and Milford Rd. The eastern side of 11 Mile is a dirt road with only residential property. Because
there are not many attractions nearby, these roads are used for traffic getting to other
destinations. Each road has AADT traffic counts that range from about 400 vehicles/day to
11,000 veh/day (SEMCOG).

Site Selection
Besides the seemingly unnecessary wait times for drivers in this rural area, having a traffic signal
that is implemented at an intersection where it is not needed may have adverse effects on safety
and efficiency of vehicle traffic at the intersection. Due to an unnecessary traffic signal, there can
be excessive delay, disobedience of the signal indications, increased use of less adequate routes
as road users attempt to avoid traffic control signals, and increases in the frequency of crashes,
especially rear-end crashes. More specifically, at this intersection there is more delay for vehicles
moving NB/SB that get stopped by a light, that was not previously there. Additionally, vehicles
traveling EB/WB are now getting stopped at a light, and have to wait for the signal to change,
rather than waiting for an opening in traffic. This may be useful in peak volume situations,
however, in those with low traffic vehicles may have to stop even with no cross traffic. Besides
delay, safety plays a factor in the analysis of this traffic signal. Because of how recent this signal
was installed, many people may not expect a traffic signal in the area when there was not one in
the past, which can lead to drivers either stopping last minute, or not stopping at the intersection
at all. Both of these are hazardous situations for all drivers in the area. For these reasons, we
want to ensure that this signal is warranted, and look into other options at this intersection that
could help reduce delay and improve safety.

Moving forward, this report will introduce each of the traffic warrants. This will be followed by
discussing each of the methods of data collection and how it is relevant to the scope of the
analysis of this intersection. After the methods are introduced, a summary of data collection will
be provided, with more details provided in the appendix.

Figures 2 and 3:​ Images of site taken during on-site analysis

 7

Traffic Signal Warrants

For this report, the focus is specifically on traffic signal warrants and the guidelines that are in
place to help determine when installing or improving upon a traffic signal is justified. The
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) lists nine warrants for evaluating traffic
signals (Roess et al.):

● Warrant 1 - Eight-hour vehicular volume

● Warrant 2 - Four-hour vehicular volume
● Warrant 3 - Peak hour vehicular volume
● Warrant 4 - Pedestrian volume
● Warrant 5 - School crossing
● Warrant 6 - Coordinated signal system
● Warrant 7 - Crash experience
● Warrant 8 - Roadway network
● Warrant 9 - Intersection near a grade crossing

Warrant 1: Eight-hour vehicular volume

Condition A, the ​Minimum Vehicular Volume,​ is purposed where a large volume of intersecting
traffic is the main reason to consider implementing a traffic signal. Condition B, the Interruption
of Continuous Traffic,​ is purposed where the traffic volume on a major street is so busy that
traffic on a minor intersecting street is affected with delay in entering or crossing the major
street.

Tables 1 and 2:​ Condition A Minimum Vehicular Volume and Condition respectively
 8
Under the circumstances where neither of the two conditions are satisfied for a particular
location, the combination of the two conditions can be considered. This combination lowers the
volume threshold recommended for traffic signal implementation to about 80%.

Tables 3 and 4: Condition A Minimum Vehicular Volume and Condition B Interruption of Continuous
Traffic respectively

The signal is warranted if Condition A is satisfied, Condition B is satisfied, or a combination of

Conditions A and B are satisfied.

Warrant 2: Four-hour vehicular volume

The ​Four Hour Vehicular Volume ​warrant is purposed to be considered where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the main reason to install a traffic control signal. The signal is warranted if,
for any four hours, plotted volumes fall above the relevant curve:

If 85th percentile speed on major streets exceeds 40 mph, or intersection is in isolated

community of less than 10, 000, use figure on the bottom.
 9

Warrant 3: Peak hour vehicular volume

The ​Peak Hour signal warrant is purposed for
utilization at locations where traffic conditions are
such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average
day, the minor street traffic is delayed when
entering or crossing the major street. This warrant
is not applied in most situations.

Condition 1 applies to a situation where:

a) Total stopped delay on one minor street

stop-controlled approach is greater than or equal to
4 vehicle-hours and 5 vehicle-hours for two-lane
approach.
b) Volume on the same minor approach is greater
than or equal to 100 vph for one-lane approaches
and 150 vph for two-lane approaches.
c) Total intersection entering volume is greater than
or equal to 650 vph for three-approaches and 800
vph for four or more approaches

Condition 2 applies to situations where if for any

one hour, plotted volumes fall above the relevant
curve.

If 85th percentile speed on major street exceeds 40 mph, or intersection is in isolated community
of less than 10, 000, use figure below on the bottom.

The warrant is met if Condition 1 or 2 is met.

Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volumes

The ​Pedestrian Volumes signal warrant is purposed for locations where traffic volumes on a
major street are so heavy that pedestrians are highly delayed in crossing the major street. It shall
not be applied at locations where the distance to the nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign
controlling the street pedestrians wish to cross is less than 300 feet. If the signal will not restrict
progression, it may be applied.
 10

Figures 6 and 7: Warrant 4, Pedestrian Normal Four-Hour Volume and Warrant 4, Normal Pedestrian
Peak Hour

The traffic control signal shall be considered at an intersection of midblock crossing if for any
four hours, plotted volumes fall above curves on the figure below on the left or for any one-hour,
plotted volumes fall above the curve on the figure below on the right.

If 85th percentile speed on major street exceeds 35 mph, or intersection is in isolated community
of less than 10,000, use these figures.

Figures 8 and 9: ​Warrant 4, Pedestrian Four-Hour Volume and Warrant 4, Pedestrian Peak Hour (70%
Factor)

● Pedestrian signal heads SHALL be used

● Traffic signal SHOULD be actuated
● Pedestrian detectors SHOULD be used
● If installed within a signal system, SHOULD be coordinated

If a midblock signal is warranted based on pedestrian volumes:

● SHOULD be pedestrian actuated
● Sight obstructions SHOULD be removed 100’ in advance and 20’ beyond
● Suitable signs and markings SHOULD be provided
 11

Warrant 5: School-crossing warrant

The ​School-Crossing Warrant is purposed for application where school children cross the major
street. A minimum of 20 students crossing during the highest peak hour and the number of
adequate gaps in traffic stream are less than the number of minutes in the same period.

Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System

The ​Coordinated Signal System warrant is purposed for maintaining proper platooning of
vehicles. It shall be considered in an engineering study finds that on a one-way street or a street
that has traffic in one direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do
not provide the necessary vehicular platooning or on a two-way street, adjacent traffic control
signals do not provide the necessary vehicular platooning and the proposed signals will
collectively provide progressive movement. It should not be applied where the resultant spacing
of traffic control signals would be less than 1, 000 ft.

Warrant 7: Crash experience

The ​Crash Experience warrant is purposed for situations where the degree and frequency of
crashes are the main reasons to consider implementing a traffic control signal. This warrant is
met if engineering alternatives fail to decrease crash frequency, five or more crashes susceptible
to correction by a signal are reported in a 12-month period, and for each of any eight hours on an
average day, VPH volumes meet or go beyond 80% of the requirements for Warrant 4.

Warrant 8: Roadway network

The ​Roadway Network warrant is purposed to encourage concentration and formation of traffic
flow on a roadway network. It is warranted if the intersection of two or more major routes, a) on
a typical weekday,total intersection entering volume of 1, 000 vph or more more during peak
hour and 5-year volumes meet Warrants 1, 2, and 3 and/or b) for a typical weekend day, total
intersection entering volume of 1, 000 vph or more for any five hours.

Warrant 9: Highway-rail grade crossing

The Highway-Rail Grade Crossing Warrant is purposed for intersections where a grade crossing
exists on an intersection approach controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign and none of the other
eight traffic signal warrants are met. The signal is warranted if the center of track nearest to
intersection is within 140 ft. of the stop bar and during the highest volume hour when trains use
crossing, VPH on the major street/minor street approaches are above the curves below.
 12

Figures 10 and 11:​ Minor Street Crossing Approach Curves

Data Collection

Traffic Volumes
Hourly traffic volumes at this intersection are needed to evaluate Warrants 1 and 2. Volumes
were found on the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) website. We chose
the hourly volumes selected on the most recent dates SEMCOG performed their collections;
however, that means that the hourly data of each road was collected on different dates. Hourly
volumes for each street and total intersection volumes are found below:
 13

Table 5: ​Street Volume counts

 14

Table 6: ​Total Intersection Volumes

 15

On-Site Analysis
On Tuesday, November 27th, from 5pm to 6:30pm, our group performed an on-site analysis of
the intersection. We went to the site with the goal of collecting volumes of traffic to be used in
determining Warrant 3 and looking for any nearby structures (i.e. schools, railroad tracks) that
would call for the implementation of a signal. The following traffic volumes were collected
between 5:15 pm and 6:15pm:

Figure 12: ​Total Intersection Volumes

There is only one crosswalk at the intersection, crossing the west side of 11 Mile Road. The
sidewalk does not extend south down Milford Road, but does extend to the north. While on site,
zero pedestrians used this intersection. There is an elementary school located on west on 11 Mile
(William A. Pearson Elementary); however, because of the single crosswalk and missing
sidewalk extending south on Milford and, we believe that this crosswalk is not meant to service
the students.

Crash Analysis
Crash data is required in order to evaluate Warrant 7. Crash data at this intersection was found on
the Michigan Traffic Crash Facts website. Provided below are collision diagrams for collisions
that occured at this intersection one year before the signal was installed, and one year after the
signal was installed:
 16

Figures 13 and 14:​ Pre- and Post-Signal Collision diagrams respectively

 17

There were 8 crashes the year prior to the signal being installed, and 10 crashes the year after the
signal was installed. Of the 8 crashes that occured the year prior to signal installation, 4 were
rear-end collisions, 2 were collisions with deer, and 2 were broadside collisions. Of the 10
crashes that occured the year after the signal was installed, 2 were left-turn accidents and 8 were
rear-ends (though 1 of these did occur when the the cars were making a left turn).

Researching the crashes and going over the official police reports, the exact cause of the
accidents were unknown due to the lack of information provided by the police officers. From this
point we can only speculate how the crashes occurred. We can assume that all crashes that
occurred both pre and post signal could in some way be connected to distracted driving. Prior to
the light installation, broadside collisions could have occured from both drivers thinking that
they have the right of way. For deer collisions we are unaware if there was any signage that
could have warned drivers of deer in the area that in turn could have avoided these crashes. For
both pre and post light rear-end crashes we can assume the driver was distracted, was tailing the
vehicle ahead of them too closely or the weather conditions caused them to slip into the vehicle
in front as one crash report stated. The broadside collisions that happened after the traffic light
was installed could have been because the vehicle making the left turn accepted a gap that wasn't
long enough for them to complete the turn without being struck by oncoming traffic (Roess).

Warrant Analysis
Warrant 1: Eight-hour vehicular volume

Since the speed limit of the major street exceeds 40 mph, we must note Condition C (where we
use the 70% column instead of the 100% column) when determining if Condition A or Condition
B is met. Both the major and minor streets have one lane for moving traffic in each direction;
therefore, we use the first row of each chart for determining if the conditions are met. We
observed that from 6 am to 2 pm, the vehicles per hour summed in both directions of the major
street exceed 350 and the vehicles per hour in one direction only of the higher volume approach
exceed 105 on the minor street, on the North side of Milford and West side of 11 Mile on
8/28/2018. Therefore, since Condition A is satisfied, Warrant 1 is met.

Warrant 2: Four-hour vehicular volume

As the speed limit on the major street exceeds 40 mph, we would use the second chart and the
curve relating to one lane on the minor street and one lane on the major street. Based on our sum
of both approaches, North and South, of the major street from 2pm to 6pm, the vehicles per hour
for the four-hour period equate to 6,497. Based on our sum of the highest volume approach, the
West side, on the minor street, the vehicles per hour for the four-hour period equate to 1,933.
When this is plotted on the second chart, the point falls above the curve. Therefore, since the
plotted volumes fall above the relevant curve, Warrant 2 is met.
 18

Warrant 3: Peak hour vehicular volume

We are going to use our data collected from the on-site analysis to see if the warrant is met.
However, we cannot determine whether condition 1 is met, as we do not have any delayed data
for the minor street, and it is no longer a STOP controlled intersection. We are able to utilize our
data to determine whether condition 2 is met. Since the speed limit exceeds 40 mph, the second
chart was used. The sum of both approaches on the major street, Milford Rd, equates to 857 vph.
The sum of the higher volume approach on the minor street, 11 Mile, equates to 201 vph. When
this point is plotted on the chart it falls above the designated curve for 1 lane on minor and major
streets. Therefore, since Condition 2 is satisfied, Warrant 3 is met.

Warrant 4: Pedestrian volume

Since there are no midblock crossings, and hence, no pedestrian volumes available, in the
intersection being studied, the warrant is not applicable. Also, the intersection only has one
available crosswalk, which crosses the West side of the intersection on 11 Mile Rd. So,
pedestrians do not have the option to cross the major street. Thus, the signal cannot be warranted
due to pedestrian volume.

Warrant 5: School crossing

Roughly 0.36 miles away from the intersection being studied, there is a school, William A.
Pearson Elementary School. However, due to the school crosswalk not being utilized by
students, and the crosswalk not being in a designated school zone, the warrant is not applicable
and school crossings are not a reason to warrant a signal.

Warrant 6: Coordinated signal system

Ideally, we could determine whether the warrant is applicable because the distance from other
signalized intersections exceeds 1,000 feet. However, due to not having any gap study data
available to us, we are unable to determine the degree of vehicular platooning that occurs
between signals. This gap study would be useful in knowing if there is sufficient time for
vehicles to turn within available gaps provided from nearby traffic signals. Therefore, this
warrant is applicable but cannot be assessed due to the lack of information.

Warrant 7: Crash experience

Warrant 7 is met only if all three requirements for this warrant are met. The first requirement is
that engineering alternatives and enforcement must fail to reduce crash frequency. In this case,
we do not have any information on other attempts made by government agencies to address these
issues before the installation of the signal. Therefore, this requirement is cannot be applied. The
second requirement requires that at least 5 or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by a
signal occur in a 12-month period. However, of all the crashes that occured prior to the signal
being put in place, only 2 of the crashes could have been corrected by the signal, which were two
t-bone collisions. Requirement 3 requires us to use the eight-hour volume warrant, and since our
speed exceeds 40 mph, we use the 56% column in Condition A, instead of the 80% column to
 19
see whether our volumes meet or exceed these values. We find that our volumes do exceed the
given values, and therefore, this specific requirement is met. Considering that two of the three
requirements of this warrant are not met, we can conclude that this warrant is not met.

Warrant 8: Roadway network

From the traffic study completed, the total intersection entering volume is 1,076 vehicles during
one of the peak hours, 5:15 pm to 6:15 pm, which exceeds 1,000 vph. There are also several
other hours of data from SEMCOG traffic counts (see ​Figure 7)​ where the total intersection
volume exceeds this limit for all days of the week. Therefore, the roadway network warrant is
met.

Table 7:​ List of times where intersection volume is above 1,000 VPH

Warrant 9: Intersection near a grade crossing

There is not a railway crossing near to this intersection, so this warrant is not applicable.

Signal Warrant Analysis Discussion

Based on our research, we found that Warrants 1, 2, 3, and 8 were satisfied; Warrants 4, 5, 6, and
9 were not applicable; and Warrant 7 was not met. Considering only five warrants were
applicable in this case, and four of them were met, we can conclude that the signal that was
implemented at this intersection is justified. However, due to the increase in left-turn crashes
following the installation of the signal, we decided to conduct a protected left-turn analysis to see
whether such a countermeasure would resolve this issue.

Regardless of the results of our protected left-turn analysis, there is very little that can be done at
this intersection to prevent hazardous situations for drivers. There are no pedestrians for drivers
to share the road with. With the exception of left-turn crashes, all other crashes at this
intersection are caused by human error and there are no traffic control devices that would
 20
necessarily reduce these crashes Therefore, we conclude that there are no recommendations we
could propose that would significantly increase flow and improve safety at this intersection.

Sources of Error and Improvement

During data collection, the group analyzed traffic volumes on the major and minor roads. The
time of collection (notably 5:00PM to 7:00 PM) may not have been the best time for a few
reasons. The sun typically sets sometime around 5:45 PM at the time of data collection. The
counts we took down may have been slightly inaccurate due to the pitfalls of human data
collection (the most accurate way of counting vehicles would be by means of mechanical devices
such as a pressure hose, vehicle counters, or loop systems, which we did not have) and lack of
light for clear visibility (headlights become visually “grouped together” and individual vehicles
become hard to see).

Utilizing data collection during two separate days can also be a large source of error in the
included calculations. These collection volumes were not modified by any factors and therefore,
we do not have data for a single day. Milford Road also had quite a bit of commercial truck
traffic, which may vary day to day based on need for those products. The counts marked do not
separate commercial traffic from other vehicles.

A gap study would have perhaps helped deduce an acceptable gap taken by left and right turns
on the major road in question. The acceptable gaps could then be compared to the average
occuring gap in traffic on the major road, allowing for an assumption to be made about typical
driver behavior.

Protected Left-Turn Analysis

There are 8 Warrants that should be considered in order to determine whether to place a
protected left-turn signal.

POLT Warrant 1: Crash Frequency

Depending on the number of left-turn movements on the subject road and the period during
which we are considering crash data, we can determine if our intersection requires a
partially-protected or fully-protected left-turn signal using the following chart:
 21

Table 15:​ Critical LT-Related Crash Count

There are two left-turn movements on the subject roads of Mildford and 11 Mile. We are
considering a 1-year period of crash data. With these criteria, we use the fourth row of the chart
above. There were 2 left-turn-related crashes on 11 Mile, and none on Milford. Since both crash
counts are less than 18 and 9, we can determine that this warrant is not met.

POLT Warrant 2: Traffic Volumes

To determine whether this warrant is met, we must consider the minimum left-turn volumes and
volume cross-products of each approach. We are going to use the data we collected during our
on-site analysis. Each left turn at the intersection must be considered. The following is the
equation for finding volume cross-product:

The left-turn volume collected during the peak hour, 5:15 pm to 6:15 pm, is 151 vph going
Eastbound on 11 Mile, 6 vph going Westbound on 11 Mile, 101 vph going Northbound on
Milford Rd, and 3 vph going South bound on Milford Rd. These values are all less than the
minimum left turn volume for this warrant to be met, which is 200 vph.

The volume cross products for each approach must be considered, and be greater than 50,000
vph. Using data from our on-site analysis, we can compute the following:
9 vph
C P 11 M ile Eastbound = 151 vph * ( 1 Lane ) = 1, 359 vph < 50, 000 vph
 22
3 vph
C P 11 M ile W estbound = 6 vph * ( 1 Lane ) = 18 vph < 50, 000 vph

11 vph
C P M ilf ord N orthbound = 101 vph * ( 1 Lane ) = 1, 111 vph < 50, 000 vph

313 vph
C P M ilf ord Southbound = 3 vph * ( 1 Lane ) = 1, 359 vph < 50, 000 vph

As we can see, the product of left-turn volumes and opposing through volume per lane are all
less than 50,000 vph. Therefore, this warrant is not met.

POLT Warrant 3: Speed Limit

Warrant 3 dictates that if the posted speed limit of opposing traffic is greater than 45 mph, a
protected left-turn signal is warranted. This warrant is analyzed to protect the left turning traffic
from turning into oncoming traffic with high speed traffic. The speed limit on each road at this
intersection is 50mph, so for each direction of travel the opposing traffic exceeds the 45 mph
limit stated in this warrant. Thus, this warrant is not met.

POLT Warrant 4: Traffic Conflicts

Warrant 4 dictates that if the left-turning movement crosses four or more lanes of opposing
through traffic, a protected left-turn signal is warranted. This warrant is used to see if left turning
vehicles have to cross several lanes of traffic, creating a potentially hazardous situation for
drivers. That is not the case at this intersection, where there is only one lane of opposing traffic,
less than the four lanes specified in the warrant. A signal cannot be warranted on the basis of
traffic conflicts crossing too many lanes of traffic. Therefore, this warrant is not met.

POLT Warrant 5: Turn Lane Configuration

The warrant for turn lane configuration is used to warrant a traffic signal if there are multiple
turn lanes. At this intersection, there is only one turn lane at each approach, so it is not necessary
to warrant a protected only left turn phase because of turn lane configuration.

POLT Warrant 6: Sight Distance

Sight distance is essential for left turning vehicles to make the decision to make a left turn, or
wait for traffic to clear. This warrant gives a table giving specific sight distances for opposing
traffic and corresponding speed limits. For a 50mph road there must be clear sight of less than
400 ft for a POLT to be warranted. At the intersection, all roadways are straight, and clear of any
obstructions. The sight distance is much greater than 400ft, so a traffic signal cannot be
warranted due to this criteria.

POLT Warrant 7: Lead-Lag Phasing

This warrant is meant to protect drivers from the yellow trap phenomenon, where drivers go left
on a yellow permissive signal, assuming that opposing traffic has the same signal. However,
there are times opposing traffic still has the green signal, causing potential conflicts. This warrant
does not apply to this intersection because the phasing on approach is the same as the opposite
approach.
 23

PLOT Warrant 8: Engineering Study

So far, there has not been any of the warrants met for protected only left turn signal. There is not
any extra sources of traffic conflicts such as high pedestrian volume, high volume vehicle
 24

Conclusions and Recommendations

After analyzing the signal warrants, we determined that the implementation of a traffic signal at
this intersection was necessary, due to meeting most of the warrant requirements. In an attempt
to improve the operation at this intersection, we conducted a protected left-turn warrant analysis
due to the increase in left-turn crashes following the implementation of this signal. However,
upon conducting our left-turn warrant analysis, we found that a protected left-turn signal is not
necessary in this situation.

Since traffic volumes are relatively low and crashes taking place at this intersection are caused
primarily by driver error, we concluded that there is no urgent need to implement any additional
traffic control devices to address these crashes.

We initially went into the project with the intention of determining whether this signal was
justified by the means of warrant analysis. We find that this signal is justified and the
intersection is currently processing traffic safely and efficiently.
 25

Works Cited
Michigan Traffic Crash facts.​ ​https://www.michigantrafficcrashfacts.org/querytool/ma p#q1; 0;
2017​. Web. 2018

Roess, Roger, Prassas, Elena, and McShane, William. ​Traffic Engineering.​ Hoboken, NJ:
Pearson Education, 2019. ​Yuzu.com.​ Web. 16 Dec. 2018.

South East Michigan Council of Governments​.​http://semcog-all.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearch.asp?

loc=sem cog- all &mod= tcds&mpo_id=15600. Web, 2018

South East Michigan Council of Governments​.​http://semcog-all.ms2 soft.com/tcds/

tsearch.asp?lo c=semcog-all&mod=tcds&mpo_id=15599​.​Web, 2018

South East Michigan Council of Governments​.​http://semcog-all.ms2 soft.com /tcds/tsear ch.as

p?loc =semcog-all &mod =tcds&mpo_id=173​. Web, 2018

South East Michigan Council of Governments​.​http://semcog-all.ms2soft.com/tcds/tsearc h.asp?l

o c=semcog-all&mod=tcds&mpo_id=175​. Web, 2018

South Lyon Michigan​.​http://www.southlyonmi.org/residents/community/demographics.php​,

Web. 2018.