Potential MUTCD Criteria for Selecting the Type of Control for Unsignalized Intersections (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

96 APPENDIX: POTENTIAL MUTCD REVISIONS INTRODUCTION This appendix provides suggested language recommended for inclusion in the upcoming edition of the MUTCD as developed at the conclusion of the research project. FORMATTING USED WITH REVISIONS Recommended Language The proposed revisions represent a substantial rewrite to Sections 2B.04, 2B.06, 2B.07, and 2B.09. Traditionally, changes are shown with strikeout deletions and underlined new text. Because of the extensive revisions, using that approach would result in multiple cross-outs. For this appendix, a different formatting structure was used that shows proposed text supplemented with notes shown in brackets. This decision was made with the intent that it would provide less confusion by showing a cleaner copy of the proposed text for these sections. The formatting styles used are:  Black text reflects existing MUTCD text.  Gray highlight surrounded by square brackets [ ] shows notes regarding the source of material including, if appropriate, where the text is currently within the 2009 MUTCD.  Red underline text presents new material developed by the research team. This new material reflects proposed changes to the MUTCD. Existing Language Deleted text from the 2009 MUTCD is not shown for Sections 2B.04, 2B.06, 2B.07, and 2B.09 within the “Recommended Language for the MUTCD” section but rather for clarity is provided at the end of the appendix. In effect, the existing text in those sections would be removed and replaced with the text in this proposal. The existing language is provided with deletions shown so the reader can identify whether existing language is being retained. The formatting styles used within the “Existing MUTCD (2009) Language” section are:  Red strikeout text reflects material that was not retained.  Black text reflects MUTCD text retained in the recommended language proposal.  Gray highlight surrounded by square brackets [ ] shows notes regarding where the 2009 MUTCD material is proposed to be moved.

97 RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE FOR THE MUTCD [Note: Sections 2B.04, 2B.06, 2B.07, and 2B.09 are deleted and replaced with the following.] Chapter 2B.XX Signing for Right of Way at Intersections Section 2B.X1 General Considerations Support: 1 Unsignalized intersections represent the most common form of intersection right-of-way control. Selection of unsignalized control type might be affected by specific requirements of state law or local ordinances. 2 Roundabouts and traffic circles are intersection designs and are not traffic control devices. The decision to convert an intersection from a traditional intersection to a roundabout is an engineering design decision and not a traffic control device decision. As such, criteria for conversion from a traditional intersection to a roundabout are not included in the MUTCD. Guidance: 3 The type of traffic control used at an unsignalized intersection should be the least restrictive that provides appropriate levels of safety and efficiency. 4 When selecting a form of intersection control, the following factors should be considered: A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 02.] Where the term units/day or units/hour is indicated, it should be the total of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume. B. Driver yielding behavior with regard to bicyclists and pedestrians. C. Number and angle of approaches. D. Approach speeds. E. Sight distance available on each approach. F. Reported crash experience.[Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 02.] 5 Yield or Stop signs should not be used for speed control. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 05.] Standard: 6 Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases: A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times; B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for conflict exists; or C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by a raised, painted, or other type island and the channelized turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 10.] 7 Except as provided in Section 2B.X6, STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be installed on different approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 11.]

98 8 Portable or part-time STOP or YIELD signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 12.] 9 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is manually placed into view and manually removed from view shall not be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach unless the maintaining agency establishes that the signal indication that will first be displayed to that approach upon restoration of power is a flashing red signal indication and that the portable STOP sign will be manually removed from view prior to stop-and-go operation of the traffic control signal. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 13.] Option: 10 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is electrically or mechanically operated such that it only displays the STOP message during a power outage and ceases to display the Stop message upon restoration of power may be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 14.] Section 2B.X2 Types of Unsignalized Intersection Right-of-Way Control Support: 1 The types of right-of-way control that can exist at an unsignalized intersection are listed below in order from the least restrictive to the most restrictive. A. No intersection control: There are no right-of-way traffic control devices on any of the approaches to the intersection. B. Yield control: YIELD signs are placed on all approaches (for a roundabout), on opposing approaches (for a four-leg intersection), on a single approach (for a three-leg intersection), or in the median of a divided highway. The YIELD signs are typically placed on the minor road. (See Section 2B.X3 for guidance on selecting the minor road.) C. Minor-road stop control: STOP signs are typically placed on opposing approaches (for a four-leg intersection) or on a single approach (for a three-leg intersection). The STOP signs are typically placed on the minor road. (See Section 2B.X3 for guidance on selecting the minor road.) D. All-way stop control: STOP signs are placed on all approaches to the intersection. Section 2B.X3 Determining the Minor Road for Unsignalized Intersections Guidance: 1 The selection of the minor road to be controlled by YIELD or STOP signs should be based on one or more of the following criteria: A. A roadway intersecting a designated through highway. B. A roadway with the lower functional classification. C. A roadway that is less important. D. A roadway with the lower traffic volume. E. A roadway with the lower speed limit.

99 2 When two roadways that have relatively equal volumes, speeds, and/or other characteristics intersect, the following factors should be considered in selecting the minor road for installation of YIELD or STOP signs: [Note: Similar thought to 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 09.] A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; and C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe conflicting traffic. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 09.] Section 2B.X4 Alternatives to Changing Intersection Right-of-Way Control Guidance: 1 Before converting to a more restrictive form of right-of-way control at an unsignalized intersection, consideration should be given to the following alternative treatments to address safety, operational, or other concerns. 2 Alternatives that should be considered include, but are not limited to, the following: A. Where yield or stop controlled, installing STOP AHEAD or YIELD AHEAD signs on the appropriate approaches to the intersection; B. Removing parking on one or more approaches; C. Removing sight distance restrictions; D. Installing warning signs along the major street to warn road users approaching the intersection; E. Relocating the stop line(s) and making other changes to improve the sight distance at the intersection; F. Installing measures designed to reduce speeds on the approaches; G. Installing a flashing beacon at the intersection to supplement STOP sign control; H. Installing yellow flashing beacons on warning signs in advance of a STOP-sign- controlled intersection on major- and/or minor-street approaches; I. Adding one or more lanes on a minor-street approach to reduce the number of vehicles per lane on the approach; J. Revising the geometrics at the intersection to channelize vehicular movements and reduce the time required for a vehicle to complete a movement, which could also assist pedestrians; K. Revising the geometrics at the intersection to add pedestrian median refuge islands and/or curb extensions; L. Installing roadway lighting if a disproportionate number of crashes occur at night; M. Restricting one or more turning movements, perhaps on a time-of-day basis, if alternate routes are available; N. Installing a pedestrian hybrid beacon (see Chapter 4F) or in-roadway warning lights (see Chapter 4N) if pedestrian safety is the major concern; O. Converting to a roundabout; and P. Employing other alternatives, depending on conditions at the intersection. [Note: Items D–P noted above were taken from 2009 MUTCD Section 4B.04.]

100 Section 2B.X5 No Intersection Control Guidance: 1 The decision not to use intersection control should be based on engineering judgment that indicates all of the following conditions exist: A. Intersection sight distance is adequate on all approaches. B. All approaches to the intersection are a single lane, and there are no separate turn lanes. C. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume (existing or projected) entering the intersection from all approaches averages less than 1,000 units per day or 80 units in the peak hour. [Note: Value selected because (a) 1983 study in rural Michigan (41) found no statistical difference for stop-controlled and no-control intersections with major-street volumes less than 1,000 vpd, and (b) it is less than the value selected for yield control.] D. There are no pedestrian or bicycle traffic control devices on any approach. E. None of the approaches to the intersection are for a through highway or higher functional classification roadway. F. The angle of intersection is between 90 and 75 degrees. [Note: The Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population (72) includes the recommendation that the angle not be less than 75 degrees; therefore, it was added to this list of conditions when a stop should not be replaced with no intersection control.] G. The functional classification of the intersecting streets is either the intersection of two local streets or the intersection of a local street with a collector street. Support: 2 Evaluate and consider the presence of a rail crossing near the intersection of a local street with a collector street. Section 2B.X6 Yield Control Guidance: 1 At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.06, Paragraph 01.] 2 Yield control should be considered when engineering judgment indicates that all of the following conditions apply: A. Intersection sight distance is adequate on the approaches to be controlled by YIELD signs. B. All approaches to the intersection are a single lane, and there are no separate turn lanes. C. One of the following crash-related criteria applies: a. For changing from no intersection control to yield control, there have been two or more reported crashes that are susceptible to correction by installation of a YIELD sign in the previous 12 months. b. For changing from minor-road stop control to yield control, there have been two or fewer reported crashes in the previous 12 months.

101 D. Entering intersection volume of less than 1,800 units per day or 140 units in the peak hour. [Note: The 1,800 units/day value was based on NCHRP 320 (36) recommendation.] E. The angle of intersection is between 90 and 75 degrees. [Note: the Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population (72) includes the recommendation that the angle not be less than 75 degrees; therefore, it was added to this list of conditions when a Stop sign should not be replaced with a Yield sign.] F. The functional classification of the intersecting streets is either the intersection of two local streets or the intersection of a local street with a collector street. Option: 3 YIELD signs may be installed at an intersection when any of the following conditions apply: A. At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 30 feet or greater. In this case, a YIELD sign may be installed at the entrance to the second roadway. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.09, Paragraph 1, Item B.] B. For a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island, even if the adjacent lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control signal or by a STOP sign. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.09, Paragraph 1, Item C.] C. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.09, Paragraph 1, Item D.] D. Facing the entering roadway for a merge-type movement if engineering judgment indicates that control is needed because acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.09, Paragraph 01, Item E.] Guidance: 4 The YIELD signs should be installed on opposing minor-road approaches (for a four-leg intersection) or on the minor-road approach (for a three-leg intersection). (See Section 2B.X3 for information to identify the minor road.) Yield control should be established on the approach that conflicts most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes. Standard: 5 A YIELD sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout. YIELD signs at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the circulatory roadway. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.09, Paragraph 02.] 6 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection, except at roundabouts. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.09, Paragraph 03.]

102 Section 2B.X7 Minor-Road Stop Control Guidance: 1 Stop control on the minor-road approach or approaches to an intersection should be considered when engineering judgment indicates that one or more of the following conditions exist: A. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.06, Paragraph 2B.] B. Crash records indicate: a. For a four-leg intersection, there are three or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or six or more reported crashes in a 36-month period. The crashes are of a type susceptible to correction by installation of minor-road stop control. b. For a three-leg intersection, there are three or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or five or more reported crashes in a 36-month period. The crashes are of a type susceptible to correction by installation of minor-road stop control. C. The intersection of a lower functional classification road with a higher functional classification road. [Note: Similar thought as in 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.04, Paragraph 03A.] D. Conditions that previously supported installation of an all-way stop control, under all- way stop control warrants, no longer exist. Section 2B.X8 All-Way Stop Control [Note: The term “all-way” is recommended rather than “multi-way” because “all-way” is the term used in the supplemental plaque.] Guidance: 1 The decision to install all-way stop control at an unsignalized intersection should be based on an engineering study accounting for the advantages and disadvantages of the control treatment. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 03.] 2 The evaluation of the need for all-way stop control should include an analysis of factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study intersection and the potential to improve these conditions and the applicable factors contained in the following all-way stop control warrants: A. All-Way Stop Control Warrant A: Crash Experience (Section 2B.X9). B. All-Way Stop Control Warrant B: Sight Distance (Section 2B.X10). C. All-Way Stop Control Warrant C: Transition to Signal Control (Section 2B.X11). D. All-Way Stop Control Warrant D: Peak-Hour Delay (Section 2B.X12). E. All-Way Stop Control Warrant E: 8-Hour Volume (Vehicle, Pedestrians, and Bicycles) (Section 2B.X13). F. All-Way Stop Control Warrant F: Other Factors (Section 2B.X14). Standard: 3 The satisfaction of an all-way stop control warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the installation of all-way stop control at an unsignalized intersection.

103 Section 2B.X9 All-Way Stop Control Warrant A: Crash Experience Option: 1 All-way stop control may be established at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that: A. For a four-leg intersection, there are five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or six or more reported crashes in a 36-month period. The crashes should be susceptible to correction by installation of all-way stop control. B. For a three-leg intersection, there are four or more reported crashes in a 12-month period or five or more reported crashes in a 36-month period. The crashes should be susceptible to correction by installation of all-way stop control. [Note: Crash numbers are a reflection of the proposed signal crash experience warrant developed in NCHRP Project 07-18 (49).] Section 2B.X10 All-Way Stop Control Warrant B: Sight Distance Option: 1 All-way stop control may be established at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that sight distance on the minor-road approaches controlled by a STOP sign is not adequate for a vehicle to turn onto or cross the major (uncontrolled) road. At such a location, a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 05C.] Section 2B.X11 All-Way Stop Control Warrant C: Transition to Signal Control Option: 1 All-way stop control may be established at locations where all-way stop control is an interim measure that can be installed to control traffic while arrangements are being made for the installation of the traffic control signals at the intersection. [Note: Similar to 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 04A.] Section 2B.X12 All-Way Stop Control Warrant D: Peak-Hour Delay Option: 1 All-way stop control may be established at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that the peak-hour delay on an average day on the minor road(s) is greater than 35 sec/veh. Section 2B.X13 All-Way Stop Control Warrant E: 8-Hour Volume (Vehicle, Pedestrians, and Bicycles) Option: 2 All-way stop control may be established at an intersection where an engineering study indicates:

104 A. The volume entering the intersection from the major-street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 units per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and B. The volume entering the intersection from the minor-street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours; but C. If the 85th percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items A and B. [Note: Similar to 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 04C.] Section 2B.X14 All-Way Stop Control Warrant F: Other Factors Option: 3 All-way stop control may be installed at an intersection where an engineering study indicates that all-way stop control is needed due to other factors not addressed in the other all- way stop control warrants. Such other factors may include, but are not limited to, the following: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 05A.] B. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where all-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. [Note: From 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 05D.] C. Where pedestrian and/or bicycle movements justify the installation of all-way stop control. [Note: Similar to 2009 MUTCD Section 2B.07, Paragraph 05B.] [Note: Sections 2B.05 (STOP sign and ALL WAY plaque), 2B.08 (YIELD sign), and 2B.10 (STOP sign and YIELD sign placement) in the existing 2009 manual do not change as a result of the proposed revisions. Those sections would be inserted before or after the proposed text or in an alternate location between the revised sections as deemed appropriate by FHWA.] [Note: End of proposed revisions.] EXISTING MUTCD (2009) LANGUAGE [Note: The following text is from Sections 2B.04, 2B.06, 2B.07, and 2B.09 of the 2009 MUTCD. Deletions are shown, and notes are provided regarding the proposed location for text being moved.] Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections Support: 01 State or local laws written in accordance with the “Uniform Vehicle Code” (see Section 1A.11) establish the right-of-way rule at intersections having no regulatory traffic control signs such that the driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection must yield the right-of-way to any vehicle or pedestrian already in the intersection. When two vehicles approach an intersection from different streets or highways at approximately the same time, the right-of-way rule requires the driver of the vehicle on the left to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right. The right-of-way can be modified at through streets or highways by placing YIELD (R1-2) signs (see Sections 2B.08 and 2B.09) or STOP (R1-1) signs (see Sections 2B.05 through 2B.07) on one or more approaches.

105 Guidance: [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] 02 Engineering judgment should be used to establish intersection control. The following factors should be considered: A. Vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic volumes on all approaches; B. Number and angle of approaches; C. Approach speeds; D. Sight distance available on each approach; and E. Reported crash experience. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] 03 YIELD or STOP signs should be used at an intersection if one or more of the following conditions exist: A. An 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 reasonable compliance with the law; [Note: Similar thought was included in Section 2B.X7.] B. A street entering a designated through highway or street; and/or [Note: Similar thought in Section 2B.X7.] C. An unsignalized intersection in a signalized area. 04 In addition, the use of YIELD or STOP signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one or more of the following conditions exist: A. The combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volume entering the intersection from all approaches averages more than 2,000 units per day; B. The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right-of-way rule if such stopping or yielding is necessary; and/or C. Crash records indicate that five or more crashes that involve the failure to yield the right-of- way at the intersection under the normal right-of-way rule have been reported within a 3-year period, or that three or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. 05 YIELD or STOP signs should not be used for speed control. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] Support: 06 Section 2B.07 contains provisions regarding the application of multi-way STOP control at an intersection. Guidance: 07 Once the decision has been made to control an intersection, the decision regarding the appropriate roadway to control should be based on engineering judgment. In most cases, the roadway carrying the lowest volume of traffic should be controlled. 08 A YIELD or STOP sign should not be installed on the higher volume roadway unless justified by an engineering study. Support: 09 The following are considerations that might influence the decision regarding the appropriate roadway upon which to install a YIELD or STOP sign where two roadways with relatively equal volumes and/or characteristics intersect: A. Controlling the direction that conflicts the most with established pedestrian crossing activity or school walking routes; [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X3.]

106 B. Controlling the direction that has obscured vision, dips, or bumps that already require drivers to use lower operating speeds; and [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X3.] C. Controlling the direction that has the best sight distance from a controlled position to observe conflicting traffic. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X3.] Standard: 10 Because the potential for conflicting commands could create driver confusion, YIELD or STOP signs shall not be used in conjunction with any traffic control signal operation, except in the following cases: [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] A. If the signal indication for an approach is a flashing red at all times; [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] B. If a minor street or driveway is located within or adjacent to the area controlled by the traffic control signal, but does not require separate traffic signal control because an extremely low potential for conflict exists; or [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] C. If a channelized turn lane is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island and the channelized turn lane is not controlled by a traffic control signal. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] 11 Except as provided in Section 2B.09, STOP signs and YIELD signs shall not be installed on different approaches to the same unsignalized intersection if those approaches conflict with or oppose each other. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] 12 Portable or part-time STOP or YIELD signs shall not be used except for emergency and temporary traffic control zone purposes. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] 13 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is manually placed into view and manually removed from view shall not be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach unless the maintaining agency establishes that the signal indication that will first be displayed to that approach upon restoration of power is a flashing red signal indication and that the portable STOP sign will be manually removed from view prior to stop-and-go operation of the traffic control signal. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] Option: 14 A portable or part-time (folding) STOP sign that is electrically or mechanically operated such that it only displays the STOP message during a power outage and ceases to display the STOP message upon restoration of power may be used during a power outage to control a signalized approach. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X1.] Support: 15 Section 9B.03 contains provisions regarding the assignment of priority at a shared-use path/roadway intersection. Section 2B.06 STOP Sign Applications Guidance: 01 At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should first be given to using less restrictive measures such as YIELD signs [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.] 02 The use of STOP signs on the minor-street approaches should be considered if engineering judgment indicates that a stop is always required because of one or more of the following conditions:

107 A. The vehicular traffic volumes on the through street or highway exceed 6,000 vehicles per day; B. A restricted view exists that requires road users to stop in order to adequately observe conflicting traffic on the through street or highway; and/or [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X7.] C. Crash records indicate that three or more crashes that are susceptible to correction by the installation of a STOP sign have been reported within a 12-month period, or that five or more such crashes have been reported within a 2-year period. Such crashes include right-angle collisions involving road users on the minor-street approach failing to yield the right-of-way to traffic on the through street or highway. Support: 03 The use of STOP signs at grade crossings is described in Sections 8B.04 and 8B.05. Section 2B.07 Multi-Way Stop Applications Support: 01 Multi-way stop control can be useful as a safety measure at intersections if certain traffic conditions exist. Safety concerns associated with multi-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. Multi-way stop control is used where the volume of traffic on the intersecting roads is approximately equal 02 The restrictions on the use of STOP signs described in Section2B.04 also apply to multi-way stop applications. Guidance: 03 The decision to install multi-way stop control should be based on an engineering study. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X8.] 04 The following criteria should be considered in the engineering study for a multi-way STOP sign installation: A. Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way 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. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X11.] B. Five or more reported crashes in a 12-month period that are susceptible to correction by a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions. C. Minimum volumes: [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X13 with some changes.] 1. The vehicular volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) averages at least 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average day; and 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 per hour for the same 8 hours, with an average delay to minor-street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the highest hour; but 3. If the 85th -percentile approach speed of the major-street traffic exceeds 40 mph, the minimum vehicular volume warrants are 70 percent of the values provided in Items 1 and 2. D. Where no single criterion is satisfied, but where Criteria B, C.1, and C.2 are all satisfied to 80 percent of the minimum values. Criterion C.3 is excluded from this condition.

108 Option: 05 Other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study include: A. The need to control left-turn conflicts; [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X14.] B. The need to control vehicle/pedestrian conflicts near locations that generate high pedestrian volumes; [Note: Similar to Section 2B.X14.] C. Locations where a road user, after stopping, cannot see conflicting traffic and is not able to negotiate the intersection unless conflicting cross traffic is also required to stop; and [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X10.] D. An intersection of two residential neighborhood collector (through) streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multi-way stop control would improve traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X14.] Section 2B.09 YIELD Sign Applications Option: 01 YIELD signs may be installed: A. On the approaches to a through street or highway where conditions are such that a full stop is not always required. B. At the second crossroad of a divided highway, where the median width at the intersection is 30 feet or greater. In this case, a STOP or YIELD 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. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.] C. For a channelized turn lane that is separated from the adjacent travel lanes by an island, even if the adjacent lanes at the intersection are controlled by a highway traffic control signal or by a STOP sign. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.] D. At an intersection where a special problem exists and where engineering judgment indicates the problem to be susceptible to correction by the use of the YIELD sign. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.] E. Facing the entering roadway for a merge-type movement if engineering judgment indicates that control is needed because acceleration geometry and/or sight distance is not adequate for merging traffic operation. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.] Standard: 02 A YIELD (R1-2) sign shall be used to assign right-of-way at the entrance to a roundabout. YIELD signs at roundabouts shall be used to control the approach roadways and shall not be used to control the circulatory roadway. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.] 03 Other than for all of the approaches to a roundabout, YIELD signs shall not be placed on all of the approaches to an intersection. [Note: Moved to Section 2B.X6.]

109 REFERENCES 1 Federal Highway Administration. 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 2 Federal Highway Administration. 1948. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 3 Federal Highway Administration. 1961. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 4 Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 5 Federal Highway Administration. 2000. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 6 Federal Highway Administration. 2003. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 7 National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. “Multiway Stop Control.” NCUTCD Regulatory/Warning Signs Technical Committee, Council Approval Date: June 20, 2009. 8 Idaho Transportation Department. 2012. Traffic Manual. Section 100, STOP and YIELD Signs. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://itd.idaho.gov/manuals/Manual%20Production/Traffic/100TrafStdy.pdf. 9 Indiana Department of Transportation. 2011. Indiana Design Manual. Section 75-3.02 “Stop” or “Yield” Sign of Chapter 75 Traffic Design. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://www.in.gov/dot/div/contracts/standards/dm/2011/Part7/Ch75/ch75.htm. 10 Maryland State Highway Administration. 2011. Maryland Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Section 2B.04 Right-of-Way at Intersections, p. 61. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://www.roads.maryland.gov/mmutcd/2011_Chapters_02B.pdf. 11 Montana Department of Transportation. 2007. Traffic Engineering Manual. Section 18.2.1 Stop/Yield Signs. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://www.mdt.mt.gov/other/traffic/external/pdf/chapter_18.pdf. 12 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. No date. Official Traffic Control Devices. Publication 212, p. B2-3. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20212.pdf. 13 Washington Department of Transportation. 2014. Design Manual. M 22-01.10, p. 1300-5. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/1300.pdf. 14 Florida Department of Transportation. 2007. Florida Intersection Design Guide. Section 2.2.3 Traffic Control Modes. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/rddesign/fidg-manual/fidg2007.pdf. 15 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. 2005. Traffic Operations Guidance Manual. Section TO-402-9. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://transportation.ky.gov/organizational- resources/policy%20manuals%20library/traffic%20operations.pdf. 16 Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2007. Intersection Control Evaluation. Accessed on October 31, 2013, from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/safety/ice/2007_ICE_Manual.pdf.

110 17 Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2013. Facilities Development Manual. Chapter 11 Design, Section 25 Intersection at Grade. Accessed on October 1, 2014, from http://roadwaystandards.dot.wi.gov/standards/fdm/11-25.pdf. 18 Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 2007. Traffic Guidelines Manual. Chapter 13 Traffic Regulations, Section 26 Intersection Control, Subject 5 All-Way Stop. 19 Maze, T. H., J. L. Hochstein, R. R. Souleyrette, H. Preston, and R. Storm. 2010. NCHRP Report 650: Median Intersection Design for Rural High-Speed Divided Highways. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C. Accessed on October 1, 2014, from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_650.pdf. 20 Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2007. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE). Accessed on October 31, 2013, from http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/signals/worksheets/ICE.pdf. 21 City of Janesville. 1996. Transportation Committee Procedures. August 1977, updated 1996. 22 Fitzpatrick, K., S. Turner. M. Brewer, P. Carlson, N. Lalani, B. Ullman, N. Trout, E. S. Park, D. Lord, and J. Whitacre. 2006. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. Accessed on January 5, 2011, from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_562.pdf. 23 Highway Capacity Manual. 2010. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 24 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010. Highway Safety Manual. Washington, D.C. 25 Schroeder, B. J., C. M. Cunningham, D. J. Findley, J. E. Hummer, and R. S. Foyle. 2010. Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies. Second Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. 26 Pline, J. (ed.). 2001. Traffic Control Device Handbook. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C. 27 Koonce, P., L. Rodegerdts, K. Lee, S. Quayle, S. Beaird, C. Braud, J. Bonneson, P. Tarnoff, and T. Urbanik. 2008. Traffic Signal Timing Manual. Report No. FHWA-HOP‐08‐ 024, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 28 Highway Capacity Manual. 2000. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 29 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 2014. Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse Website. Federal Highway Administration. Accessed on February 1, 2014, from http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm. 30 Sayed, T., K. El-Basyouny, and J. Pump. 2006. “Safety Evaluation of Stop Sign In-Fill Program.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1953. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 201–210. 31 El-Basyouny, K. and T. Sayed. 2010. “A Full Bayes Approach to Before-After Safety Evaluation with Matched Comparison.” Presented at 89th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

111 32 Simpson, C. L. and J. E. Hummer. 2010. “Evaluation of the Conversion from Two-Way Stop Sign Control to All-Way Stop Sign Control at 53 Locations in North Carolina.” Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 239–260. 33 Lovell, J. and E. Hauer. 1986. “The Safety Effect of Conversion to All-Way Stop Control.” Transportation Research Record 1068. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp 103–107. 34 Persaud, B. N. 1986. “Safety Migration, the Influence of Traffic Volumes, and Other Issues in Evaluating Safety Effectiveness—Some Findings on Conversion of Intersections to Multi-way Stop Control.” Transportation Research Record 1068. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp 108–114. 35 Souleyrette, R. R., R. J. Tenges, T. McDonald, T. H. Maze, and A. Carriquiry. 2006. “Safety Effectiveness of Stop control at Ultralow-Volume Unpaved Intersections.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1967. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 58–65. 36 McGee, H. W. and M. R. Blankenship. 1989. NCHRP Report 320: Guidelines for Converting Stop to Yield Control at Intersections. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 37 Stokes, R. 2000 Analysis of Rural Intersection Accidents Caused by “Stop” Sign Violations and Failure to “Yield” the Right-of-Way. Report No. K-TRAN: KSU-98-6, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 38 Stokes, R. 2004. Effectiveness of Two-Way Stop Control at Low-Volume Rural Intersections. Report No. K-TRAN: KSU-99-5, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. 39 Mounce, J. M. 1981. “Driver Compliance with “Stop”-Sign Control at Low-Volume Intersections.” Transportation Research Record 808. TRB, National Research Council, Washington D.C., pp. 30–37. 40 Stockton, W. R., R. Q. Brackett, and J. M. Mounce. 1981. Stop, Yield, and No Control at Intersections. FHWA/RD-81/084, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 41 Lum, H. S. and M. R. Parker, Jr. 1983. “Intersection Control and Accident Experience in Rural Michigan.” ITE Journal, May Issue, pp. 27–29. 42 Polus, A. 1985. “Driver Behavior and Accident Records at Unsignalized Urban Intersections.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 25–32. 43 Harwood, D. W., F. M. Council, E. Hauer, W. E. Hughes, and A. Vogt. 2000. Prediction of the Expected Safety Performance of Rural Two-Lane Highways. FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-99-207, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 44 Hochstein, J. L., C. Albrecht, and R. R. Souleyrette. 2011. Rural Expressway Intersection Safety Toolbox, Desktop Reference. Iowa Department of Transportation Report No. 14690. Accessed on October 1, 2013, from http://publications.iowa.gov/14690/. 45 Briglia, P. M. 1984. “4-Way Stop Signs Cut Accident Rate 58 Percent at Rural Intersections.” ITE Journal Vol. 54, No. 11. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C.

112 46 Abdel-Aty, M., P. Kerr, K. Haleem, and H. Huang. 2009. Identification of Intersections’ Crash Profiles/Patterns to Include Unsignalized Intersections and Expand the Safety/Traffic Database (Part I). Report Number BD548-27. 47 Charbonneau, J. and E. Rooney. 1995. “Developing Modified MUTCD Stop Sign Warrants: The City of Portland’s Experience.” 65th Institute of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting Compendium of Technical Papers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, pp. 199–203. 48 Lee, S. B. and W. D. Berg. 1998. “Development of Safety-Based Level-of-Service Parameters for Two-Way Stop-Controlled Intersections.” Transportation Research Record 1635, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 127–132. 49 Bonneson, J., K. Laustsen, L. Rodegerdts, and S. Beaird. 2014. NCHRP Web-Only Document 204: Crash Experience Warrant for Traffic Signals. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Tables 4C-2 and 4C-3. 50 Upchurch, J. 1983. “Guidelines for Use of Sign Control at Intersections to Reduce Energy Consumption.” ITE Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C. 51 Nitzel, J. J., F. G. Schattner, and J. P. Mick, Jr. 1988. “Residential Traffic Control Policies and Measures.” ITE 1988 Compendium of Technical Papers, pp. 217–223. 52 Box, P. C. 1995. “Warrants for Traffic Control Devices at Low-Volume Urban Intersections.” ITE Journal, Vol. 65, No. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C. 53 Bonneson, J. A. and M. D. Fontaine. 2001. NCHRP Report 457: Evaluating Intersection Improvements: An Engineering Study Guide. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Figure 3-2. 54 Marek, J. F., M. Kyte, T. Zongzhong, K. Lall, and K. Voigt. 1997. Determining Intersection Traffic Control Using the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. ITE Journal, Vol. 67, No. 12, pp. 22–26. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C. 55 Elbermawy, A. E. 2004. “Development of Vehicular Volume Guidelines for Two-Way versus Four-Way Stop Controls” ITE Journal, Vol. 74, No. 11, pp. 16–22. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, DC. 56 Han, L. D., J-M. Li, and T. Urbanik II. 2008. “Control Type Selection at Isolated Intersections Based on Control Delay under Various Demand Levels.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2071, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 109–116. 57 Jiang, T., Q. Yu, X. Deng, and Y. Zhang. 2012. “Control Type Selection at Isolated Intersections Based on Level of Service.” Paper 12-2511, Compendium of Papers, 91st Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C. 58 Wu, N. 2000. “Determination of Capacity at All-Way Stop Controlled Intersections.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1710, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 205–214. 59 Brilon, W. and T. Miltner. 2005. “Capacity at Intersections without Traffic Signals.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No.

113 1920, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 32–40. 60 Gard, J. T. 2001. “Estimation of Maximum Queue Lengths at Unsignalized Intersections.” 2001 Compendium of Papers, ITE 2001 Annual Meeting and Exhibit, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, August 19–22. 61 Tian, Z. and M. Kyte. 2006. “Queue Length Models for All‐Way Stop‐Controlled Intersections.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1988, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 63–66. 62 Kirk, A., C. Jones, and N. Stamatiadis. 2011. “Improving Intersection Design Practices.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2223, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 1– 8. 63 Arizona Department of Transportation. (Undated). Final Pedestrian Crosswalk Warrant Study: SR 89A Dry Creek Road to Airport Road. Phoenix, Arizona. 64 City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department. (Undated). Draft Phoenix HAWK Beacon Priority Evaluation. Phoenix, Arizona. 65 Arizona Department of Transportation. (Undated). ADOT Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Evaluation Guidelines. Arizona Department of Transportation. Accessed on February 12, 2015 from http://azdot.gov/docs/default-source/traffic-library/draft- pedestrian-hybrid-beacon-phb-guide.pdf. 66 ITE All Member Forum Community. 2012. “RRFB Pedestrians per Hour Threshold” conversation thread. Accessed on January 11, 2013, from http://community.ite.org/ite/communities/viewdiscussions/viewthread?GroupId=1597&MI D=4296. 67 City of Boulder. 2011. City of Boulder Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines. Boulder, Colorado. Accessed on January 30, 2015, from https://www- static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/pedestrian-crossing-treamtment-installation-guidelines-1- 201307011719.pdf. 68 Washington County Board of Commissioners. 2010. Resolution and Order No. 10-107: Approval Process for New Pedestrian Crossings at Midblock Locations and Uncontrolled Intersections. Hillsboro, Oregon. Accessed on January 24, 2013, from http://www.co.washington.or.us/lut/upload/midblock-crossing-policy-and-agenda.pdf. 69 Zegeer, C. V., J. R. Stewart, and H. Huang. 2002. Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and Recommended Guidelines. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-075, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 70 Texas Department of Transportation. 2012. Guidelines for Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon. Austin, Texas. 71 Texas Department of Transportation. 2012. Guidelines for Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon. Austin, Texas. 72 M. A. Brewer, D. Murillo, A. Pate, D. Harkey, L. Staplin, K. Lococo, R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, M. Daul, H. McGee, and M. Tantillo. 2014. Handbook for Designing Roadways for the Aging Population. Report No. FHWA-SA-14-015, Federal Highway Administration,

114 Washington, D.C. Accessed on August 21, 2014, from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/older_users/handbook/. 73 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2010. User and Non- User Benefit Analysis for Highways. Washington, D.C. 74 Kittelson and Associates, Inc., Eco Northwest, and Write Rhetoric. 2013. Estimating the Life-Cycle Cost of Intersection Designs: Interim Report. NCHRP Project 03-110, Kittelson and Associates, Reston, Virginia. 75 Federal Highway Administration. 2005. Highway Economic Requirements System-State Version: Technical Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 76 Fitzpatrick, K., M. Brewer, J. S. Gluck, W. L. Eisele, Y. Zhang, H. S. Levinson, W. von Zharen, M. R. Lorenz, V. Iragavarapu, and E. S. Park. 2010. NCHRP Web-Only Document 193: Development of Left-Turn Lane Warrants for Unsignalized Intersections., Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 77 Upchurch, J. E. 1982. Development of an Improved Warrant for Use of Stop and Yield Control at Four-Legged Intersections. Dissertation, University of Maryland. 78 Schrank, D., B. Eisele, and T. Lomax. 2012. 2012 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas. Accessed on June 21, 2014, from http://tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2012- wappx.pdf. 79 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. CPI Detailed Report for February 2014.Table 24, Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All Items. Accessed on April 10, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1402.pdf. 80 Rodegerdts, L. A., M. Blogg, E. Wemple, E. Myers, M. Kyte, M. Dixon, G. List, A. Flannery, R. Troutbeck, W. Brilon, N. Wu, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, D. Harkey, and E. C. Carter. 2007. NCHRP Report 572: Applying Roundabouts in the United States. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 81 Trottenberg, P. and R. S. Rivkin. 2013. “Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses.” Memorandum to Secretarial Officers, Modal Administrators. Accessed on April 10, 2014, from http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL Guidance_2013.pdf. 82 Council, F. M., E. Zaloshnja, T. Miller, and B. Persaud. 2005. Crash Cost Estimates by Maximum Police Reported Injury Severity within Selected Crash Geometries. Report No. FHWA-HRT-05-051, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 83 Bonneson, J., K. Zimmerman, and C. Quiroga. 2003. Review and Evaluation of Enforcement Issues and Safety Statistics Related to Red-Light Running. Report No. FHWA/TX-04/4196-1, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas. 84 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. “Frequently Asked Questions: What Is the Outlook for Gasoline Prices for 2014 and for 2015?” Accessed on October 1, 2014, from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=287&t=10. 85 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. “Frequently Asked Questions: What Are the Projected Diesel Fuel Prices for 2014 and for 2015?” Accessed on October 1, 2014, from http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=31&t=9.

115 86 Federal Highway Administration. 2010. “Roundabouts—The Maryland Experience, A Maryland Success Story.” FHWA-SA-09-018. Accessed on June 14, 2014, from http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/resources/casestudies/fhwasa09018/.