Mobility (152 unique benefit summaries found)

In Washington DC an ITS work zone program implemented on I-295 decreased delay up to 90 percent with an average decrease in delay of 52 percent when drivers were advised to take alternate routes.(October 2008)

In Texas, during major incidents or high construction impact periods, the work zone traffic management system diverted an average of 10 percent of mainline traffic to alternate routes, with the highest diversion of traffic at 28 percent.(October 2008)

In Kalamazoo Michigan, the activation of the Dynamic Lane Merge System in a work zone reduced the number of forced merges seven fold and reduced the number of dangerous merges three fold.(October 2008)

In Little Rock Arkansas, 82 percent of the drivers surveyed agreed that the Automated Work Zone Information System improved their ability to react to slow or stopped traffic.(October 2008)

In Espanola, New Mexico the implementation of a traffic management system on NM 68 provided a decrease in total crashes of 27.5 percent and a reduction in vehicle delay of 87.5 percent.(September 2, 2008)

In the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, the installation of an Advanced Traffic Management System reduced travel times up to 36 percent.(24 June 2008)

Increasing integration between AVL systems, components, and interfaces has improved the ability of transit agencies to collect data on location and schedule adherence; support operational control, service restoration, and planning activities.(2008)

In Snohomish County, Washington State, implementation of a transit signal priority system on two test corridors reduced average transit corridor travel time by 4.9 percent, and had insignificant negative impacts on local cross street traffic.(15 June 2007)

In Broward County, Florida, the 2006 analysis for the SMART SunGuide TMC roadway and incident clearance times showed reductions of 18 percent and 4 percent respectively over 2005.(January 2007)

In Hampton Roads, Virginia, a hurricane evacuation plan indicated that lane reversal is warranted for any hurricane predicted to make landfall as a Category 4 or 5 storm, and is strongly recommended for any Category 3 storm.(21-25 January 2007)

In Florida, the addition of Open Road Tolling (ORT) to an existing Electronic Toll Collection (ETC) mainline toll plaza decreased delay by 50 percent for manual cash customers and by 55 percent for automatic coin machine customers, and increased speed by 57 percent in the express lanes.(21-25 January 2007)

In St. Paul, Minnesota, an advanced parking management system reduced travel times by nine percent.(January 2007)

Bus rapid transit (BRT) can reduce transit running times by 38 to 69 percent, increase ridership by 35 to 77 percent, and improve service reliability.(2007)

Implementing Transit Signal Priority (TSP) can improve bus running times by 2 to 18 percent.(2007)

In Georgia, the NaviGAtor incident management program reduced the average incident duration from 67 minutes to 21 minutes, saving 7.25 million vehicle-hours of delay over one year. (August 2006)

In Monroe County, New York, the Camera Deployment and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Integration project reduced incident validation times by 50 to 80 percent saving between 5 and 12 minutes per incident.(August 2006)

An automated work zone information system deployed on a California interstate greatly reduced traffic demand through the work zone resulting in a maximum average peak delay that was 50 percent lower than expected.(22-26 January 2006)

Congestion pricing in London decreases inner city traffic by about 20 percent and generates more than £97 million each year for transit improvements.(January 2006)

In Florida, the Road Ranger Service Patrol program saved over 1.7 million gallons of fuel by eliminating over one million vehicle-hours of delay in 2004.(November 2005)

The Texas Traffic Light Synchronization Program reduced delay by 23 percent by updating traffic signal control equipment and optimizing signal timing on a previously coordinated arterial.(October 2005)

The Texas Traffic Light Synchronization program reduced delays by 24.6 percent by updating traffic signal control equipment and optimizing signal timing.(7-10 August 2005)

In North Carolina, work zone construction staff observed a dramatic reduction in queue frequency and length when using a smart work zone traveler information system.(May 2005)

Evaluation data show that adaptive signal control strategies can improve travel times in comparison to optimized signal timing plans.(2 February 2005)

In the Washington DC metropolitan area, drivers who use route-specific travel time information instead of wide-area traffic advisories can improve on-time performance by 5 to 13 percent.(9-13 January 2005)

An automated work zone information system deployed near Los Angeles, California, reduced freeway delay by 46 percent.(9-13 January 2005)

An automated work zone information system deployed near Los Angeles effectively diverted traffic to alternate routes during periods of congestion.(2005)

In Colorado, an automated commercial vehicle pre-screening system installed at three ports of entry check stations saved approximately 8,000 vehicle hours of delay per month.(12/29/2004)

During lane closures in the Minneapolis/St. Paul region a dynamic late merge system reduced confusion and aggressive driving, decreased queue lengths, and reduced congestion.(28 December 2004)

Across the nation, traffic signal retiming programs have resulted in travel time and delay reductions of 5 to 20 percent, and fuel savings of 10 to 15 percent. (November/December 2004)

The Illinois DOT indicated that an automated traffic control system deployed during the reconstruction of I-55 improved mobility by preventing severe congestion in the work zone. (October 2004)

A dynamic lane merge system deployed in a work zone outside Detroit increased PM peak travel speeds by 15 percent, no change in AM peak speeds.(October 2004)

In North Carolina, Smart Work Zone systems increased alternate route usage by 10 to 15 percent when specific delay and alternate route information was posted on roadside dynamic message signs.(September 2004)

In Chicago, a feasibility study indicated that automated truck-way technologies (automatic truck steering, speed, and platoon spacing control) would save travel time and reduce fuel consumption.(8/19/2004)

Proof-of-payment systems that use ticket vending/validating machines can reduce boarding times by up to 38 percent.(August 2004)

Signal retiming projects in several U.S. and Canadian cities decreased delay by 13 to 94 percent, and improved travel times by 7 to 25 percent.(April 2004)

On the Pennsylvania Turnpike, EZ-Pass participation and variable tolling were projected to decrease peak period traffic congestion at urban interchanges by 15 to 20 percent and have minimal impacts on non-turnpike diversion routes.(8 March 2004)

In Salt Lake Valley, Utah a ramp metering study showed that with an 8 second metering cycle, mainline peak period delay decreased by 36 percent, or 54 seconds per vehicle.(March 2004)

In Utah, incident management teams in Salt Lake Valley area decreased incident duration by approximately 20 minutes per incident on three major interstates.(March 2004)

In North Carolina, a modeling study indicated that work zone delay messages reduced maximum traffic backups by 56 percent and contributed to 55 percent reduction in traveler delay.(11-15 January 2004.)

In 2002, the Maryland CHART highway incident management program reduced delay by about 30 million vehicle hours and saved about 5 million gallons of fuel.(November 2003)

Freight Information Real-Time System for Transport (FIRST): Evaluation Final Report(5 October 2003)

A variable speed limit system deployed at a work zone on I-96 in Lansing, Michigan contributed to a decrease in travel times and an increase in average speeds.(September 2003)

Coordinated signal timing on the arterial network in Syracuse, New York reduced vehicular delay by 14 to 19 percent, decreased total stops by 11 to 16 percent, and increased average speed by 7 to 17 percent.(September 2003)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that more than 80 percent who experienced on-board next-stop announcements and real-time bus departure signs agreed these technologies made it easier to get around.(June 2003)

When transit signal priority was not used in Portland, Oregon; bus travel times increased up to 4.2 percent during peak periods and up to 1.5 percent in non-peak periods.(19-22 May 2003)

On the Køge Bugt Motorway in Copenhagen, Denmark, travel times and alternative route information posted on dynamic message signs prompted 12 to 14 percent of drivers to divert onto less congested alternative routes.(8 April 2003)

A simulation study in the Washington, DC area found that regular users of pre trip traveler information reduced their frequency early and late arrivals by 56 and 52 percent, respectively.(12-16 January 2003)

A simulation study found that drivers using traveler information arrived at their destination within 15 minutes of the target arrival time 79 percent of the time; this percentage drops to 42 without traveler information.(14-18 October 2002)

In Dallas, Texas, simulation found that transit signal priority reduced bus travel time up to 11 percent during peak periods, reduced car travel times up to 16 percent, vehicle delay up to 4 percent and person delay up to 6 percent.(14-17 October 2002)

A study of the Coordinated Highways Action Response Team in Maryland found that the system reduced average incident duration by 57 percent in 2000.(14-17 October 2002)

In Minneapolis-St.Paul, an evaluation of the effectiveness of ramp meters on four test corridors showed that freeway travel speeds decreased 5 to 10 percent and freeway travel times increased 5 to 10 percent between 2000 and 2001.(10 May 2002)

The CORSIM simulation model has been used to estimate ramp metering speed improvements at the merge influence area under different ramp and mainline volumes, acceleration lane lengths, and number of lanes conditions, and the simulated outputs show that the average speeds at the merge influence areas increase when on-ramp junctions are metered, and that the increase is most prevalent under high traffic volumes, short acceleration lane, and low number of mainline lanes. (13-18 January 2002)

During the A.M. peak period, transit signal priority on an arterial route in Arlington, Virginia could reduce bus travel time by 4.0 to 9.1 percent, decrease person delay of bus passengers by 6.5 to 14.2 percent, and reduce transit vehicle stops by 1.5 to 2.9 percent.(13-17 January 2002)

A transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland reduced delay by 44 to 48 percent, decreased travel time by 1 to 11 percent, and reduced travel time by 35,800 to 67,500 passenger-hours per year. (13-17 January 2002.)

A simulation study in Minneapolis-St. Paul estimated that ramp metering decreased total system travel time by 6 to16 percent and increased average mainline speeds by 13 to 26 percent.( 13-17 January 2002)

A simulation study found that adaptive signal control reduced delay by 18 to 20 percent when compared to fixed-timed signal control. (13-17 January 2002)

Evaluation of several transit signal priority systems found decreased bus travel time variability by 35 percent, lowered bus travel times by 6 to 27 percent, reduced AM peak intersection delay by 13 percent, and decreased signal-related bus stops by 50 percent.(January 2002)

Simulations indicated that using a decision support tool to select alternative traffic control plans during non-recurring congestion in the Disney Land area of Anaheim, California could reduce travel time by 2 to 29 percent and decrease stop time by 15 to 56 percent. (December 2001)

Implementation of the E-ZPass electronic toll collection system on the New Jersey Turnpike reduced delay for all vehicles by 85 percent saving approximately 2.1 million hours per year.(August 2001)

In Los Angeles, adaptive signal control systems improved travel time by 13 percent, decreased stops by 31 percent, and reduced delay by 21 percent.(July 2001)

A simulation study of existing ITS (traveler information, ramp metering, and DMS) on a Detroit freeway demonstrated how these technologies can increase average vehicle speed, decreased average trip time, and reduce commuter delay by as much as 22 percent.(July 2001)

In Los Angeles, transit signal priority reduced total transit travel time by approximately 25 percent.(July 2001)

In Oregon, an analysis of archived incident data showed that freeway service patrol programs that expand from part-time to full-time operations can reduce incident duration by 15 to 30 percent.(6/30/2001)

In Albuquerque, New Mexico, work zone surveillance and response at the "Big I" Interchange reduced average clearance time by 44 percent.(4-7 June 2001)

Modeling indicated that an advanced transportation management and traveler information system serving northern Kentucky and Cincinnati reduced delay by 0.2 minutes per trip during AM peak periods and by 0.6 minutes during PM peak periods. (4-7 June 2001)

Winter maintenance personnel indicated that road weather information systems reduced travel times, and anti-icing techniques decreased the need for road closures.(March 2001)

When the ramp metering system on Minneapolis-St. Paul freeways was shut down, speeds fell by seven percent. (February 2001)

In Tucson, Arizona, models indicated adaptive signal control in conjunction with transit signal priority can decrease delay for travelers on main streets by 18.5 percent while decreasing delay for travelers on cross-streets by 28.4 percent.(7-13 January 2001)

In Toronto, Canada models of traffic-sensitive dynamic route guidance show that with a 20 percent market penetration rate, average travel times would decrease and throughput would increase.(7-11 January 2001)

Optimizing signal timing plans, coordinating traffic signal control, and implementing adaptive signal control in California reduced travel time by 7.4 to 11.4 percent, decreased delay by 16.5 to 24.9 percent, and reduced stops by 17 to 27 percent.(7-11 January 2001)

In the Washington DC region, a simulation study indicated that commuters who use real-time travel time information to plan routes and departure times during peak periods can improve on-time reliability by 5 to 16 percent.(January 2001)

Adaptive signal control systems deployed in five metropolitan areas have reduced delay 19 to 44 percent.(December 2000)

In Japan, a guidance-vehicles system designed to lead traffic through heavy fog on freeways was projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 1.7:1 to 2.1:1.(6-9 November 2000)

A simulation study of the road network in Seattle, Washington demonstrated that providing information on arterials as well as freeways in a traveler information system reduced vehicle-hours of delay by 3.4 percent and reduced the total number of stops by 5.5 percent.(6-9 November 2000)

In San Antonio, a modeling study found that if traffic congestion were to increase by 25 percent, posting nearby railroad crossing closing delays on freeway dynamic message signs would reduce total network delay by up to 6.7 percent.(October 2000)

A simulation study in Seattle found that if 6 to 10 percent of travelers started using pre-trip traveler information during severe weather conditions, there would be a small positive impact on roadway system efficiency and mobility .(October 2000)

FleetForward Evaluation, Final Report.(October 2000)

In Sullivan City, Texas, a signal control system that gives priority to trucks has reduced truck stops by 100 for a weekly volume of 2,500 trucks and has reduced truck delay.(September 2000)

Simulation revealed that, in Fargo, North Dakota, a freeway management system displaying incident warnings on DMS and integrated with adaptive signal control could decrease travel times by 18 percent and increase speeds by 21 percent. (6-10 August 2000)

Simulation revealed that a freeway management system in Fargo, North Dakota could reduce network travel times by 8 percent and increase speeds by 8 percent when DMS are used to warn drivers of incidents.(6-10 August 2000)

A transit priority system along an urban arterial in Vancouver, Canada reduced bus travel time variability by 29 and 59 percent during AM and PM peak periods, respectively.(6-10 August 2000)

In Denver, transit AVL decreased early and late arrivals by 12 and 21 percent, respectively.(August 2000)

In 1998, in Portland, Oregon an automatic vehicle location system with computer aided dispatching improved on-time bus performance by 9 percent, reduced headway variability between buses by 5 percent, and decreased run-time by 3 percent.(Summer 2000)

Modeling indicated that coordinating fixed signal timing plans along congested arterial corridors leading into Seattle, Washington, and incorporating arterial traffic flow data into the traveler information system would reduce vehicle delay by 7 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively.(30 May 2000)

At an intersection in Eindhoven, the Netherlands a transit signal priority system reduced bus schedule deviation by 17 seconds. (1-4 May 2000)

Modeling performed as part of an evaluation of nine ITS implementation projects in San Antonio, Texas indicated that integrating DMS, incident management, and arterial traffic control systems could reduce delay by 5.9 percent.(May 2000)

Final Evaluation Report: Ambassador Bridge Border Crossing System (ABBCS) Field Operational Test(May 2000)

In 1997, the Maryland CHART highway incident management program reduced delay by approximately 15.6 million vehicle hours and saved about 5.85 million gallons of fuel.(May 2000)

Modeling performed as part of an evaluation of nine ITS implementation projects in San Antonio, Texas indicated that users of an improved traveler information web site would receive annual benefits of a 5.4 percent reduction in delay.(May 2000)

Modeling performed as part of an evaluation of nine ITS implementation projects in San Antonio, Texas indicated that drivers of vehicles with in-vehicle navigation devices could experience an 8.1 percent reduction in delay.(May 2000)

Traffic signal coordination among two jurisdictions in Arizona resulted in a 6.2 percent increase in vehicle speeds; optimization of the coordinated timing plans was predicted to reduced AM peak period delay by 21 percent.(April 2000)

By optimizing signal timing at 700 intersections in the Tysons Corner area of Northern Virginia, delay was reduced by approximately 22 percent and stops were reduced by roughly 6 percent.(March 2000)

When conditional priority was deployed in Eindhoven, the Netherlands; buses experienced 27 seconds of delay without priority and no significant change in delay under conditional priority. (9-13 January 2000)

A driving simulator study in Finland indicated that drivers cannot accurately assess road surface friction, thus the use of adverse road condition driver support systems can assist drivers in assessing adverse road conditions and increase safety and travel speeds. (2000)

Adaptive signal control integrated with freeway ramp meters in Glasgow, Scotland improved network travel times by 10 percent.(January 2000)

A simulation study of five intersections in Oakland, Michigan indicated that adaptive signal control resulted in lower travel times than optimized fixed-time signal control.(8-12 November 1999)

A simulation study of an Indiana weigh station found that implementing weigh-in-motion technology and equipping 40 to 50 percent of trucks with electronic screening transponders would significantly reduce queue overflows.(8-12 November 1999)

Incident Management Simulation on a Freeway Corridor in Honolulu(8-12 November 1999)

In Torino, Italy, an automated speed control system was able to automatically adjust vehicle following distances, and use real-time TMC signal control timing data to regulate intersection approach speeds and optimize travel speeds between green lights to improve travel times by up to 10 percent.(8-12 November 1999)

In Toronto, Canada adaptive signal control reduced ramp queues by 14 percent, decreased delay up to 42 percent, and reduced travel time by 6 to 11 percent; and transit signal priority reduced transit delay by 30 to 40 percent and travel time by 2 to 6 percent. (8-12 November 1999)

When bus priority was used with an adaptive signal control system in London, England average bus delay was reduced by 7 to 13 percent and average bus delay variability decreased by 10 to 12 percent. (6-12 November 1999)

A simulation study indicated that integrating traveler information with traffic and incident management systems in Seattle, Washington could diminish delay by 1 to 7 percent, reduce stops by about 5 percent, lower travel time variability by 2.5 percent, and improve trip time reliability by 1.2 percent.(September 1999)

In European cities, advanced parking information systems have reduced traffic volumes related to parking space searches up to 25 percent.(August 1999)

Implementation of an adaptive signal control system in Anaheim, California resulted in travel time changes ranging from a 10 percent decrease to a 15 percent increase. (July 1999)

Modeling indicated that emergency vehicle signal preemption at three intersections on a Virginia arterial route increased average travel time by 2.4 percent when priority was requested.(July 1999)

A simulation study of a transponder based system to improve border crossing processes for cars and trucks at the Peace Bridge between the U.S. and Canada found that, with 50 percent of the vehicles equipped with the technology, the average inspection time for cars and trucks would decrease by 14 to 66 percent.(April 1999)

In California, electronic toll collection on the Carquinez Bridge saved 25,193 hours per year by improving traffic movement through the toll facility and reducing the time required to process transactions.(March 1999)

Weather-related traffic signal timing along a Minneapolis/St. Paul corridor reduced vehicle delay nearly eight percent and vehicle stops by over five percent.(1999)

Adaptive signal control in Sao Paulo, Brazil, increased speed by 25 percent and reduced delay by 14 percent.(1999)

A transit signal priority system in Eastleigh, England reduced bus delay by 9 seconds/vehicle/intersection and increased delay for other traffic by 2.2 seconds/vehicle/intersection. (1999)

Adaptive signal control deployed in Madrid, Spain, decreased travel time by 5 percent, reduced delay by 19 percent and the number of stops by 10 percent. (1999)

A transit signal priority system in Southampton, England reduced bus delay by 9.5 seconds/vehicle/intersection and increased delay for other traffic by 3.8 seconds/vehicle/intersection.(1999)

A bus priority system in Sapporo City, Japan reduced bus travel times by 6 percent, decreased the number of stops by 7 percent, and reduced the stopped time of buses by 21 percent.(1999)

In Japan, real-time alternative-route travel time information posted on dynamic message signs contributed to a 3.7 percent divergence rate during periods of congestion, saving detoured motorists an average of 9.8 minutes per vehicle.(12-16 October 1998)

Impacts on Traffic Congestion by Switching Routes and Shifting Departure Time of Trips(12-16 October 1998)

An adaptive signal control system in Oakland County, Michigan reduced travel time by 7.0 to 8.6 percent during peak periods.(4-6 May 1998)

In Japan, upgrading traffic signals improved travel times by 17 to 21 percent and increased average speed by 19 to 21 percent.(March 1998)

The Japanese Vehicle Information and Communication System (VICS) began operations in Spring 1994 and according to the results of several road tests, the amount of time saved with the dynamic route guidance system in VICS was approximately 15 percent.(January 1998)

Intelligent Time Savers, Life Savers(December 1997)

In Japan, a field test found that conventional toll collection takes an average of 14 seconds per car, while electronic toll collection takes only 3 seconds per car. (October 1997)

Simulation of a network based on the Detroit Commercial Business District indicated that adaptive signal control for detours around an incident could reduce delay by 60 to 70 percent and that travel times can be reduced by 25 to 41 percent under non-incident conditions. (June 1997)

In Brooklyn, an incident management system on the Gowanus and Prospect Expressways used CCTV, highway advisory radio, dynamic message signs, and a construction information hotline to improve average incident clearance time by about one hour, a 66 percent improvement.(May 1997)

An adaptive signal control system in British Columbia, Canada reduced delay by 15 percent during peak periods.(May 1997)

In the Minneapolis/St. Paul, traffic speed data collected at two interstate work zones showed that when portable traffic management systems were deployed, work zone traffic volumes increased 4 to 7 percent during peak periods.(May 1997)

In England, an variable speed limit system on the M25 freeway increases average travel times, but promotes proper following distances between vehicles and creates smoother traffic flow.(14 March 1997)

The delay reduction benefits of improved incident management in the Greater Houston area saved motorists approximately $8,440,000 annually. (7 February 1997)

Incident Management: Challenges, Strategies, and Solutions for Advancing Safety and Roadway Efficiency(February 1997)

In San Antonio, Texas, a freeway management system led to an estimated delay savings of 700 vehicle-hours per major incident.(12-16 January 1997)

In Toronto, the COMPASS traffic monitoring and incident information dissemination system on Highway 401 decreased the average incident duration from 86 to 30 minutes per incident.(1997)

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates that traffic signal improvements can reduce travel time by 8 to 25 percent. (1997)

The Advanced Driver and Vehicle Advisory Navigation Concept (ADVANCE) simulation study in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago indicated that motorists could use dynamic route guidance and reduce travel time by 4 percent under normal or recurring conditions.(July 1996)

Simulations performed for the National ITS Architecture Program indicated that delay can be reduced by more than 20 percent when adaptive signal control is implemented. (June 1996)

An advanced signal system in Richmond, Virginia reduced travel time by 9 to 14 percent, decreased total delay by 14 to 30 percent, and reduced stops by 28 to 39 percent.(June 1996)

An initial evaluation of the Maryland CHART program indicated that lane sensors and freeway video cameras in the coverage area supported incident management and contributed to a 5 percent reduction in non-recurrent congestion delay.(May 1996)

Transit priority systems in England and France have reduced transit vehicle travel times by 6 to 42 percent, while increasing passenger vehicle travel times by 0.3 to 2.5 percent. (December 1995)

In Kansas City, transit AVL systems improved on-time bus performance from 80 to 90 percent.(November 1995)

A preliminary analyses of the potential impacts of an automated highway system on the Long Island Expressway and I-495 Capital Beltway was projected to improve capacity and reduce travel time by 38 to 48 percent.(October 1995)

A study found that use of the TravTek system for route planning yielded a time savings of 80 percent.(October 1995)

In Baltimore and Kansas City, AVL improved on-time bus performance by 23 percent and 12 percent, respectively; in Milwaukee, AVL contributed to a 28 percent reduction in buses behind schedule by more than one minute.(July 1995)

In Toronto, Canada, an adaptive signal control system reduced travel time by 8 percent, decreased delay by 17 percent, and reduced vehicle stops by 22 percent. (Spring 1995)

In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a CAD scheduling system use to manage 17 transit vehicles decreased passenger wait time by more than 50 percent.(1995)

A bus priority system on a major arterial in Portland, Oregon reduced bus travel times by five to eight percent. (July 1994)

Highway Helper Summary Report - Twin Cities Metro Area(July 1994)

A computerized signal control system in Los Angeles, California increased average speed by 16 percent, reduced travel time by 18 percent, decreased vehicle stops by 41 percent, and reduced delay by 44 percent. (June 1994)

Three evaluation projects conducted in Europe found that transit signal priority reduced travel time for transit vehicles by 5 to 15 percent.(1994-1998)

Integrating an advanced traffic management system and an advanced traveler information system in Oakland County, Michigan increased average speed and reduced the number of stops by 33 percent. (1994)

In Europe, several projects investigated management systems designed to improve the operating efficiency of carriers. Centralized route planning systems reduced vehicle travel distances 18 percent and decreased travel time 14 percent.(1994-1998)

In Finland, a road weather information system was estimated to save an average of 23 minutes per de-icing activity and improve traffic conditions.(1993)

Incident Management Using Total Stations(August 1992)

In Long Island, New York, ramp metering and traveler information increased freeway speeds by 13 percent despite an 5 percent increase in vehicle-miles traveled during PM peak periods.(January 1992)

An emergency vehicle signal preemption system in Houston, Texas reduced emergency vehicle travel time by 16 to 23 percent.(April 1991)

In Denver, Colorado emergency vehicle signal preemption reduced response time by 14 to 23 percent.(5 October 1978)