Arterial Management > Traffic Control > Adaptive Signal Control
Evaluation data show that adaptive signal control strategies can improve travel times in comparison to optimized signal timing plans.(2 February 2005)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The estimated benefit-to-cost ratio for optimizing signal timing plans, coordinating traffic signal control, and implementing adaptive signal control in California was 17:1.(7-11 January 2001)
Optimized signal timing plans, coordinated traffic signal control, and adaptive signal control reduced fuel use by 7.8 percent in California.(7-11 January 2001)
Adaptive signal control systems in Los Angeles, Broward County, and Oakland County reduced vehicle stops by 28 to 41 percent (December 2000)
Adaptive signal control systems deployed in five metropolitan areas have reduced delay 19 to 44 percent.(December 2000)
Adaptive traffic signal control systems in Los Angeles, Broward County, and Newark decreased travel times by 13 to 25 percent. (December 2000)
Adaptive signal control may can lower operations and maintenance costs associated with traffic signal retiming; in Minnesota DOT signal technicians indicated that adaptive signal control systems were easy to operate and required minimal maintenance.(December 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)
Adaptive signal control integrated with freeway ramp meters in Glasgow, Scotland increased vehicle throughput 20 percent on arterials and 6 percent on freeways.(January 2000)
Adaptive signal control integrated with freeway ramp meters in Glasgow, Scotland improved network travel times by 10 percent.(January 2000)
An adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada increased traffic flow speeds by 3 to 16 percent. (8-12 November 1999)
An adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada reduced vehicle emissions by three to six percent and lowered fuel consumption by four to seven percent.(8-12 November 1999)
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)
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)
The payback period for expansion of an adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada was estimated at less than two years.(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)
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)
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)
Adaptive signal control in Sao Paulo, Brazil, increased speed by 25 percent and reduced delay by 14 percent.(1999)
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)
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)
An adaptive signal control system in British Columbia, Canada reduced delay by 15 percent during peak periods.(May 1997)
A survey of drivers in Oakland County, Michigan revealed that 72 percent believe that they are better off after deployment of adaptive signal control. (May 1997)
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates that traffic signal improvements can reduce travel time by 8 to 25 percent. (1997)
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)
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)
Fuel consumption fell by 5.7 percent, hydrocarbons declined by 3.7 percent, and carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by 5.0 percent when an adaptive signal control system was implemented in Toronto, Canada.(Spring 1995)
Fuel consumption fell by 13 percent and vehicle emissions were reduced by 14 percent due to a computerized signal control system in Los Angeles, California.(June 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)
Crash frequency declined when an advanced traffic management system and an advanced traveler information system were integrated in Oakland County, Michigan.(1994)
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)
The City of Tyler, Texas deployed Adaptive Control System (ACS)-Lite on a 3.17-mile corridor at a cost of $546,900.(12/09/2007)
An adaptive signal control system used to manage traffic at 65 intersections in Arlington, Virginia, was implemented for $2.43 million.(February 2001)
