Introduction to

Intersection Control
CVL 742: Traffic Engineering

K. Ramachandra Rao
 Traffic Engineering

Outline
• The Hierarchy of Intersection Control Capacity
• Level I Control: Basic Rules of the Road
• Level II Control: YIELD and STOP
• Level III Control: Traffic Control Signals
• Advantages of Traffic Signal Control
• Disadvantages of Traffic Signal Control
• Warrants: MUTCD
• Warrants: IRC

Intersections
 Introduction

Intersection
Control

Level II—Direct
Level I—Basic assignment of Level III—Traffic
rules of the road right-of-way using signalization
yield or stop signs

Basic factors affecting

a driver's ability to
avoid conflicts:

Enough space for

Enough visibility maneuver
Level I Control: Basic Rules of the
Road
• Basic rules of the road apply where right-of-way is not assigned
• Rules are spelled out in each state's vehicle and traffic law
• In order to safely operate under basic rules of the road, drivers on conflicting approaches
must be able to see each other in time and to take appropriate action to avoid an
accident.
Rule 1
Adjacent figure
illustrates the visibility
triangle.

From similarity of rs in
the adjacent figure

where:
• dA = distance from Vehicle A to the collision point, ft
• dB = distance from Vehicle B to the collision point, ft
• a = distance from driver position in Vehicle A to the sight obstruction, measured parallel to the path of
Vehicle B, ft
• b = distance from driver position in Vehicle B to the sight obstruction, measured parallel to the path of
Vehicle A, ft
Rule 2
Adjacent figure
illustrates the visibility
triangle.

From similarity of rs in
the adjacent figure

To avoid collision from the point at which visibility is established, Vehicle A, must travel from 18 ft past
the collision point in the same time that Vehicle B travels to a point 12 ft before the collision point
Rules
• At any intersection, all of the sight triangles must be checked
and must be safe to implement basic rules of the road
Level II Control: YIELD and STOP
Control
• If a check of the intersection sight triangle indicates that it would not be safe to apply the
basic rules of the road, then as a minimum, some form of level II control must be imposed.
• MUTCD gives some guidance as to conditions for which imposition of STOP or YIELD
control is justified.
IRC-67
Signs
Two-Way Stop Control
• The MUTCD suggests several conditions under which the use of STOP signs would be justified.
The following table shows these warrants.
 Warrants for Two-Way STOP Control
STOP signs should not be used unless engineering judgment
indicates that one or more of the following conditions are met:

a. Intersection of a less important road with a main road where

application of the normal right-of-way rule would not be expected to
provide reasonably safe operation.
b. Street entering a through highway or street.
c. Unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
d. High speeds, restricted view, or crash records indicate a need for
control by the STOP sign.
 Yield Control
• A yield control requires vehicles on the minor approaches to slow and yield the right-of-
way to any major street vehicle approaching at a distance and speed that would present
an impending hazard to the minor street vehicle if it entered the major street.
• Warrants for YIELD control in the MUTCD are hardly definitive,
 Warrants for YIELD Control
YIELD signs may be installed:
a. When the ability to see all potentially conflicting traffic is sufficient to
allow a road use traveling at the posted speed, 85th percentile speed,
or the statutory
speed to pass through the intersection or stop in a safe manner.
b. If controlling a merge-type movement on the entering roadway
where acceleration geometry or
sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operations.
c. At a second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median
width is 30 ft or greater. A STOP sign may be installed at the entrance
to the first roadway
of a divided highway, and a YIELD sign may be installed at the
entrance to the second roadway.
d. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where
engineering judgment indicates that the problem is susceptible to
correction by use of a YIELD sign.
Multiway Stop Control
• All intersection approaches are controlled using STOP signs
• A controversial form of control
• Warrants as per in MUTCD given in the following table (Multiway Stop Control)

A multiway stop
installation is useful as a
safety measure at some
locations
 Warrants for Multiway STOP Control
The following criteria should be considered in the engineering
study for a multiway STOP sign:
•a. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multiway STOP is an interim
measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while arrangements are
being made for the installation of the traffic control signal.
•b. A crash problem, as indicated by five or more reported crashes in a 12-month
period that are susceptible to correction by a multiway STOP installation. Such
crashes include right- and left-turn collisions as well as right angle collisions.
•c. Minimum volumes:
1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street
approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 veh/h for any
eight: hours of an average day.
2. The combined vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle volume entering the
intersection from the minor street approaches (total of both approaches)
averages at least 200 units/h for the same eight hours, with an average delay
to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 s/veh during the highest hour.
3. If the 85th percentile approach speed of the major highway exceeds 40
mi/h, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70% of the above values.
•d. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where criteria B, C1, and C2 are all
satisfied to 80% of the minimum values. Criterion C3 is excluded from this
condition.
 Level III Control:
Traffic Control Signals
• Alternately assigns right-of-way to specific movements
• Can substantially reduce the number and nature of intersection conflicts as no other form
of control can.
 To tro S
me
wa
rds tatio
ol
cho
rS

Ha n
th e
Junction Name:- IIT Flyover Jn. Code:- Y-35

uz
Mo
ds
ar

Kh
w
To C

as
Junction Name:- IIT Flyover Jn. Code:- Y-35 District :- South East
Circle :- Hauz Khas
District :- South East
Circle :- Hauz Khas 1 2 3 4
Plan Total

To
Time Cycle

wa
To

No. ini
wa

dm Time

rds
Jia Sarai ini
dm Pa
rds

Jia Sarai 4 a
rd s
sP
wa e
4

1.
To clav06:00 – 08:00 60 Sec. 25 Sec. 50 Sec. 30 Sec. 165 Sec.

Jia
ard e
Jia

w
1 To clav
En
1
Padmini En

Sa
Padmini
2.
Sa

Mother Mother
2 Enclave 2 Enclave 08:00 –11:00 90 Sec. 30 Sec. 60 Sec. 40 Sec. 220 Sec.

rai
rai

School School 3 3
4 Hauz
Khas
Metro St.
4 Hauz
Khas
3. 11:00 –17:00 50 Sec. 35 Sec. 40 Sec. 30 Sec. 155 Sec.
4.
FL
Metro St.
17:00 – 23:00 60 Sec. 45 Sec. 60 Sec. 45 Sec. 210 Sec.

FL
YO
FL

5.

YO
23:00 –06:00 15 Sec. 25 Sec. 15 Sec. 25 Sec. 80 Sec.

FL
YO

VE

YO

VE
R
VE

05 Sec. included in all Phases for AMBER

R
V
R

Signal Timing – 24 Hours Blinker Timing – N. A.

ER
To tro S
Not to scale Prepared by : www.onnyx.in
me
wa
rds tatio

ol
ho

To tro S
Sc

me
Ha n

er

wa
oth
uz

rds tatio
rds l
Kh

o wa h oo
T Sc C
as

Ha n
er
oth

uz
s M
rd

Kh
wa
To C

as
1 2 3 4
Plan Total
No.
Time Cycle
1 2 3
Time 4
1. 06:00 – 08:00 60 Sec. 25 Sec. 50 Sec. 30 Sec. 165 Sec.
 The MUTCD lists the following advantages and Disadvantages of traffic
control signals
• Advantages • Disadvantages
• 1. Provide for the orderly movement of • 1. Excessive delay
traffic.
• 2. Excessive disobedience of the signal
• 2. They increase the traffic-handling indications
capacity of the intersection.
• 3. Increased use of less adequate routes
• 3. They reduce the frequency and severity as road users attempt to avoid the traffic
of certain types of crashes, especially control signal
right-angle collisions. • 4. Significant increases in the frequency of
• 4. They are coordinated to provide for collisions (especially rear-end collisions)
continuous or nearly continuous
movement at a definite speed along a
given route under favorable conditions.
Warrants for Traffic Signals
• The MUTCD specifies eight different warrants that justify the installation of a traffic signal.
• The manual indicates that "satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in
itself require the installation of a traffic signal" On the other hand, traffic signal control
should not be implemented if none of the warrants are met.
• MUTCD suggests that the following data be included in an engineering study of the need
for a traffic signal:
• Traffic volumes for each approach for at least 12 hours of a typical day.
• Vehicular volumes by movement and vehicle class during each 15 minutes of the two
hours of the AM and two hours of the PM during which total traffic entering the
intersection is greatest.
• Pedestrian volume counts on each crosswalk for the same periods as noted in item 2.
• Information on nearby facilities and centers
• Statutory speed
• A condition diagram showing all physical and geometric features of the
intersection,(parking locations, driveways, roadside appurtenances, bus stops)
• A collision diagram showing accident experience by type, location, direction, time of
day, weather, and the like, including all accidents for at least one (most recent) year.
• This data will allow the engineer to fully evaluate whether or not the intersection satisfies
the requirements of one or more of the following warrants:
1. Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
2. Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
3. Peak Hour
4. Pedestrian Volume
5. School Crossing
6. Coordinated Signal System
7. Crash Experience
8. Roadway Network
9. Intersection Near a Highway-Rail At-grade Crossing
Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular
Volume
• The warrant is met when:
• Either Condition A or Condition B is met to the 100% level.
• Either Condition A or Condition B is met to the 70% level, where the intersection is located
in an isolated community of population 10,000 or less
• Both Conditions A and B are met to the 80% level.
• Details of the warrant is shown in the following table
Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Condition A: Minimum Vehicular Volume
Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major Vehicles per hour on higher volume
moving street (total, both approaches) minor street approach
traffic on each (one direction only)
approach
Major Minor 100% 80% 70% 100% 80% 70%
Street Street
1 1 500 400 350 150 120 105
2 or more 1 600 480 420 150 120 105
2 or more 2 or more 600 480 420 200 160 140

1 2 or more 500 400 350 200 160 140

Condition B: Interruption of Continuous Traffic

Number of lanes for Vehicles per hour on major Vehicles per hour on higher volume
moving street (total, both approaches) minor street approach
traffic on each (one direction only)
approach
Major Minor 100% 80% 70% 100% 80% 70%
Street Street
1 1 750 600 525 75 60 53
2 or more 1 900 720 630 75 60 53
2 or more 2 or more 900 720 630 100 80 70

1 2 or more 750 600 525 100 80 70

Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular
Volume
• The following figure shows the warrant, which is in the form of a continuous graph.
Because this warrant is expressed as a continuous relationship between major and minor
street volumes, it addresses a wide variety of conditions
• Conditions A and B of the eight-hour warrant represent two points in such a continuum for
each configuration
• This was Warrant 9 prior to MUTCD millennium edition
• TO meet this warrant, at least four hours must plot above the appropriate decision curve
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
— Addresses two critical situations that might exist for only one hour of a typical day.
— The first is a volume condition, similar in form to Warrant 2
— The second is a delay warrant . If either condition is satisfied, the peak-hour warrant is met.
— The volume portion of the warrant is implemented in the same manner as the four-hour warrant for
the Peak-Hour Volume Warrant, however, only one hour must plot above the appropriate decision
line to meet the criteria. Criteria are given for normal conditions in Figure (a), and the 70% criteria
for small isolated communities and high major-street speeds are shown in Figure (b). The Peak-
Hour Delay Warrant is summarized in the Table
— Delay portion of Warrant 3 applies only to cases in which STOP control is already in effect for the
minor street
Warrant 3B: Peak-Hour Delay Warrant

The need for traffic signal control shall be considered if an engineering study finds
that the following three conditions exist for the same one hour (any four
consecutive l5-minute periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped-time delay experienced by traffic on one minor street approach
(one direction only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four veh-hours for
a one-lane approach or five veh-hours for a two-lane approach.
2. The volume on the same minor street approach (one direction only) equals or
exceeds 100 veh/h for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 veh/h for two moving lanes.
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 veh/h
for intersections with three approaches, or 800 vehlh for intersections with four or
more approaches.
Warrant 4: Pedestrians
• Addresses situations in which the need for signalization is the frequency of vehicle-
pedestrian conflicts and the inability of pedestrians to avoid such conflicts due to the
volume of traffic present .
• The criteria for the warrant are summarized in the Table.
 Warrant 4: Pedestrian Warrant

The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or mid-block crossing shall be
considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:
1. The pedestrian volume crossing the major street at an intersection or mid-block location
during an average day is 100 or more for each of any four hours, or 190 or more during
anyone hour.
2. There are fewer than 60 gaps per hour in the traffic stream of adequate length to allow
pedestrians to cross the street during the same period when the pedestrian volume criteria
are 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 Signal Warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the
nearest traffic control signal along the major street is less than 300 ft, unless the proposed
traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
The criterion for pedestrian volume crossing the major roadway may be reduced as much as
50% if the average crossing speed of pedestrians is less than 4 ft/s,
If a traffic control signal is justified by both this signal warrant and a traffic engineering study,
the traffic control signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads conforming to
requirements set forth in Chapter 4E (of the MUTCD).
Warrant 5: School Crossing
• This warrant is similar to the pedestrian warrant but is limited to application at designated
school crossing locations, either at intersections or at mid-block locations. Unlike Warrant
4, "adequacy" of gaps must be related to the numbers of school children crossing the
major street in groups
Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System
• Criteria for this warrant is given in the table

Warrant 6: Coordinated Signal System

The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering

study finds that one of the following criteria is met:

1. On a one-way street or a street that has traffic predominantly in one

direction, the adjacent traffic control signals are so far apart that they do not
provide the necessary degree of vehicular platooning.

2. On a two-way street, adjacent traffic control signals do not provide the

necessary degree of platooning and the proposed and adjacent traffic
control signals will collectively provide a progressive operation.
The Crash Experience Warrant addresses cases in which a traffic control signal
would be installed to alleviate an observed high-accident occurrence at the
intersection. The criteria are summarized in the following Table

Warrant 7: Crash Experience

The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered
if an engineering study finds that all of the following criteria
are met:
1. Adequate trial of alternatives with satisfactory observance
and enforcement has failed to reduce the crash
frequency.
2. Five or more reported crashes of types susceptible
to correction by a traffic control signal have occurred
within a 12-month period, each involving a
personal injury or property damage apparently exceeding
the applicable requirements for a reportable
crash.
3. For each of any eight hours of the day, vehicular volumes
meet either Warrant lA or Warrant lB at the
80% level.
 Warrant 8: Roadway Network
The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering
study finds that the common intersection of two or more major routes
meets one or both of the following criteria:
I. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately
projected, entering volume of at least 1,000 veh/h during the peak hour of
a typical weekday, and has five-year projected traffic volumes, based
upon an engineering study, that meet one or more of Warrants I, 2 and 3
during an average weekday.
2. The intersection has a total existing, or immediately projected, entering
volume of at least 1,000 veh/h for
each of any five hours of a non-normal business day (Saturday or
Sunday).
A major route as used in this warrant shall have one or more of the
following characteristics:
I. It is part of the street or highway system that serves as the principal
roadway network for through traffic flow.
2. It includes rural or suburban highways outside, entering, or traversing
a city.
3. It appears as a major route on an official plan, such as a major street
plan in an urban area traffic and transportation study.
Warrant 8: Roadway Network
• A warrant addressing future conditions.
• The specific criteria for this warrant are summarized in the following table.
Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Highway-
Rail At-grade Crossing
• This signal warrant should be applied only after adequate consideration has been given to
other alternatives or after a trial of an alternative has failed to alleviate the safety concerns
associated with the grade crossing.
• Among the alternatives that should be considered or tried are:
• A. Providing additional pavement that would enable vehicles to clear the track or that
would provide space for an evasive maneuver, or
• B. Reassigning the stop controls at the intersection to make the approach across the track
a non-stopping approach.
Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Highway-
Rail At-grade Crossing
Warrant 9: Intersection Near a Highway-
Rail At-grade Crossing
 Warrants for traffic signals as given by
IRC:93-1985 :Guidelines on Design and Installation of Road Traffic Signals
(under revision since 2018)

• Warrant 1 - Minimum vehicular volume

• Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic
• Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian volume
• Warrant 4 - Accident experience
• Warrant 5 - Combination of warrants

• Compare these with 9 warrants of MUTCD!

 Warrants for traffic signals as per IRC:93-1985: Guidelines for Design
and Installations of Road Traffic Signals

• 2.1. Traffic control signals should not be installed, unless one or more of the signal war rants
specified herein are met . Information should be obtained by means of traffic and engineering
studies and compared with the requirements se t forth in the warrants. If these requirements are not
met, a traffic signal should neither be put into operation not continued in operation (if already
installed ).
• 2.2. When a traffic control signal is indicated as being warranted, it is presumed that the signal and
all related traffic control devices. and markings arc installed according to the standards set forth in
the previous sections.. All of its related device and traffic signal controller shall be selected on the
basic engineering study and judgement, All the mechanical and electrical equipment shall conform
ISI standards.
• 2.3. An investigation of the need for traffic signal control should include where applicable. at least an
analysis of factors contained in the following war rants :
Warrant 1 –Minimum vehicular volume
• 3.1. The minimum vehicular volume warrant is intended for application where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the principal reason for consideration of signal installation . The warrant is
satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day. the traffic volume given in the Table exist
on major street and on the higher volume. minor street approach to the intersect ion.
• 3. 2. These major street and minor street volumes are for the same 8 hours . Each traffic lane
marked a t the intersection shall be minimum 2.8 meter wide. During the 8 hours mentioned above.
the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one approach during same hours and
the opposite approach during other hours .
• 3,3. When the 85th percentile speed of major street traffic (or average approach speed) exceeds 50
kmph or when the intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a
population of less than 2.5 lakhs the minimum vehicular warrant is 70 percent of the requirements
above (in recognition of differences in the nature and operational characteristics of traffic in urban
and rural environments and small municipalities).
 Minimum vehicular volume for warrant 1

Number of lanes for moving Motor vehicles Motor vehicles

traffic on each approach per hour on per hour on
major street higher volume
(total both minor street
approaches) approach(one
Major street Minor street
direction only

1 1 650 200
2 or more 1 800 200
2 or more 2 or more 800 250
1 2 or more 650 250
Warrant 2 – interruption of continuous traffic

1 This warrant is applicable to operating conditions where the traffic volume on a major
street is so heavy that traffic on a minor intersection suffers excessive delay . This
warrant is satisfied if for any 8 hours on an average day ,the traffic volume given in the
table exists on the major street

2 During the 8 hours the direction of higher volume on the minor street may be on one
approaching during some hours and on the opposite approach during other hours.
When the 85th percentile speed of major street traffic exceeds 60 kmph the interruption
of continuous traffic warrant is 70 percent of the requirements above
 Warrant 2 interruption of continuous traffic

Number of lanes for moving Motor vehicles Motor vehicles

traffic on each approach per hour on per hour on
major street higher volume
(total both minor street
approaches) approach(one
Major street Minor street direction only

1 1 1000 100
2 or more 1 1200 100
2 or more 2 or more 1200 150
1 2 or more 1000 150
Warrant 3 –Minimum pedestrian volume

• It is satisfied when for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the following traffic volumes
exist

1. On the major street , 600 or more vehicles per hour enter the intersection
2. During the same 8 hours as above there are 150 or more pedestrians per hour on the highest
volume cross walk crossing the major street
• When the 85th percentile speed of major traffic exceeds 60 kmph
• A signal installed under this warrant at an isolated intersection or mid block , should be
of the traffic actuated type with push buttons for pedestrians crossing the main street .
Warrant 4 – accident experience

• This warrant is satisfied when-

1. Adequate trial of less restrictive remedies with satisfactory
observance and enforcement have failed to reduce the
accident frequency
2. 5 or more reported accidents of types susceptible of
correction by traffic signal control have occurred within a
period of 12 months .
3. The signal installation will not seriously disrupt traffic flow
Warrant 5 –combination of warrants

• In some cases signals may be justified occasionally where no

single warrant is satisfied but where two or more warrants are
satisfied to the extent of 80 percent or more of stated volume
• Adequate trial of other remedial measure which causes less
delay and inconvenience to traffic should precede installation of
signals under this warrant
 Traffic Engineering

REFERENCES
1. Roess, R.P. Prassas, E.S. and McShane, W.R. Traffic
Engineering (5th Edition), Pearson, 2020