Civotec Blog

Here are the five key things cities typically look for in a Signal Warrant Study submission:

1. Accurate and Complete Data Collection

The foundation of any warrant study lies in the quality of data used. Municipal reviewers rely heavily on traffic counts, pedestrian volumes, turning movement data, and crash history to assess whether a signal is justified under the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) criteria.

Cities want to see:

• Data collected using industry-standard methods (e.g., pneumatic tube counts, manual turning movement counts)

• Clearly labeled dates and times of data collection

• Peak hour analysis, with both AM and PM peaks studied

• Counts taken during normal conditions, avoiding holidays or school closures

Missing or poorly collected data raises red flags and can delay the review process. Make sure the study clearly documents how, when, and where the data were collected and ensure all raw data are included as an appendix.

2. MUTCD Warrant Analysis for All Applicable Warrants

MUTCD defines nine traffic signal warrants (Warrants 1 through 9), and cities expect the study to analyze all relevant warrants, not just one or two. While Warrant 1 (Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume) and Warrant 2 (Four-Hour Vehicular Volume) are most common, other warrants like Warrant 3 (Peak Hour), Warrant 4 (Pedestrian Volume), or Warrant 7 (Crash Experience) may apply depending on context.

The warrant analysis should include:

• Tabulated results showing how the collected volumes compare with MUTCD threshold values

• Clear indication of which warrants are met and which are not

• Summary conclusions and interpretations of results

Keep in mind that meeting a single warrant does not guarantee a signal will be approved. But failing to perform a full analysis across all potential warrants will likely lead to rejection or a request for resubmittal.

3. Crash History Evaluation and Safety Justification

While volume warrants often take the spotlight, cities are highly concerned with safety performance at the intersection. A compelling signal warrant study should examine at least the past three years of crash data, identifying patterns that may indicate the need for traffic control.

In this section, cities look for:

• Types and patterns of crashes (e.g., angle collisions, rear-ends, pedestrian incidents)

• Time of day and weather-related conditions

• Any correlation between crashes and lack of control (e.g., sight distance issues, high-speed crossings)

• Assessment under MUTCD Warrant 7 (Crash Experience), if applicable

Even if volume warrants are not met, cities may consider a signal if the crash history clearly shows a recurring, preventable pattern that a signal might mitigate. Be sure the study shows thoughtfulness in interpreting crash data rather than simply listing it.

4. Contextual and Site-Specific Considerations

Cities also evaluate how well the signal fits within the broader transportation and land use context. A technically justified signal that would cause backups, increase cut-through traffic, or create new conflicts may still be rejected if it lacks harmony with city planning goals.

The study should include:

• A clear aerial map showing the intersection and adjacent land uses

• Notation of schools, parks, bus stops, or pedestrian generators nearby

• Relationship to nearby traffic signals (signal spacing)

• Information about driveway access, queuing issues, or known operational concerns

This section often separates good submissions from excellent ones. Show that you understand how the proposed signal will impact not just traffic volumes, but neighborhood livability, connectivity, and long-term goals in the city’s transportation plan.

5. Professional Formatting and Transparent Recommendations

Finally, cities place value on the professionalism of the submission. Poor formatting, confusing charts, or vague conclusions undermine the credibility of your study—even if your analysis is technically correct.

Your study should include:

• A well-structured executive summary with a clear recommendation (install/not install)

• Methodology, analysis, and appendices clearly separated and labeled

• Consistent use of units, terminology, and formatting

• No ambiguity in whether warrants are met or not—state it clearly

Most cities appreciate a summary table near the beginning of the report indicating which warrants were analyzed, the threshold values, and whether they were met. Including a concise narrative explaining the final recommendation (along with its implications) will allow decision-makers and council members to digest the report without needing to be traffic engineers.