Arterial Management > Traffic Control > Advanced Signal Systems
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)
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 Traffic Light Synchronization program in Texas demonstrated a benefit-to-cost ratio of 62:1(7-10 August 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)
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)
In Oakland County, Michigan retiming 640 traffic signals during a two-phase project resulted in Carbon monoxide reductions of 1.7 and 2.5 percent, Nitrogen oxide reductions of 1.9 and 3.5 percent, and hydrocarbon reductions of 2.7 and 4.2 percent.(November/December 2004)
In Oakland County, Michigan a two-phase project to retime 640 traffic signals resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 for the first phase and 55:1 for the second.(November/December 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)
Signal retiming projects in several U.S. and Canadian cities contributed to a reduction in crash frequency.(April 2004)
Signal retiming projects in several U.S. and Canadian cities reduced fuel consumption by 2 to 9 percent.
(April 2004)
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)
By implementing coordinated signal timing on the arterial network in Syracuse, New York total fuel consumption was reduced by 9 to 13 percent, average fuel consumption declined by 7 to 14 percent, average vehicle emissions decreased by 9 to 13 percent.(September 2003)
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)
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)
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)
A preemptive signal control system used to minimize truck stops in Sullivan City, Texas has resulted in cost savings due to reduced fuel consumption and emissions, less pavement wear, and reduced tire and brake wear.(September 2000)
A model found that coordinating fixed signal timing plans along congested arterial corridors leading into Seattle, Washington would help reduce the number of expected crashes by 2.5 percent and the frequency of fatal crashes by 1.1 percent.(30 May 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)
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)
Evaluation indicated that integrating DMS and incident management systems could reduce crashes by 2.8 percent, and that integrating DMS and arterial traffic control systems could decrease crashes by 2 percent, in San Antonio, Texas.(May 2000)
Evaluation of ITS implementation projects in San Antonio, Texas, demonstrated that integrating freeway DMS with incident management systems could reduce fuel consumption by 1.2 percent, and that integrating the DMS with arterial traffic control systems could save 1.4 percent. (May 2000)
In Arizona, traffic signal coordination among two jurisdictions contributed to a 1.6 percent reduction in fuel consumption and a 1.2 increase in carbon monoxide emissions. (April 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)
Crash risk along a corridor in Arizona was reduced by 6.7 percent due to traffic signal coordination among two jurisdictions.(April 2000)
Optimizing signal timing at 700 intersections in the Tysons Corner area of Northern Virginia lead to a 9 percent reduction in fuel consumption and a 134,600 kilogram decrease in annual emissions.(March 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)
A simulation study indicated that integrating traveler information with traffic and incident management systems in Seattle, Washington could reduce emissions by 1 to 3 percent, lower fuel consumption by 0.8 percent, and improve fuel economy by 1.3 percent.(September 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)
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)
In Japan, upgrading traffic signals improved travel times by 17 to 21 percent and increased average speed by 19 to 21 percent.(March 1998)
Installing new traffic signals in Japan reduced crash frequency by 75 to 78 percent and upgrading existing traffic signals reduced accidents up to 65 percent.(March 1998)
In the St. Paul, Minnesota region ramp metering has increased throughput by 30 percent and increased peak period speeds by 60 percent.(November 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)
The delay reduction benefits of improved incident management in the Greater Houston area saved motorists approximately $8,440,000 annually.
(7 February 1997)
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates that traffic signal improvements can reduce travel time by 8 to 25 percent. (1997)
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 advanced signal system in Richmond, Virginia reduced fuel consumption by 10 to 12 percent and decreased vehicle emissions by 5 to 22 percent.(June 1996)
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)
The cost to deploy a new traffic management system in Espanola, New Mexico was $862,279.(September 2, 2008)
Based on data from six separate studies, the costs to retime a traffic signal range from $2,500 to $3,100 per intersection per update.(2004 - 2006)
The average cost to retime signals under the MTC (California) program is $2,400 per intersection.(6 October 2006)
For the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the cost to time signals ranges from $1,800 to $2,000 per intersection.(October 2006)
The cost of retiming 16 signals at the Mall of Millenia (Florida) was about $3,100 per intersection.(October 2005)
A rough estimate for four retiming plans (AM, noon, PM, and off peak periods) ranges from $2,000 to $2,500 per intersection.(7-10 August 2005)
The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Tucson were estimated at $72.1 million. (May 2005)
A modeling study evaluated the potential deployment of full ITS capabilities in Cincinnati. The annualized life-cycle cost was estimated at $98.2 million.(May 2005)
The annualized life-cycle costs for full ITS deployment and operations in Seattle were estimated at $132.1 million.(May 2005)
From The National Traffic Signal Report Card: costs to update signal timing is $3,000 per intersection.(2005)
TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 2004)
The cost of retiming traffic signals in the Washington, DC area is about $3,500 per intersection.(April 2004)
The $106 million capital cost for CommuterLink - the Salt Lake City, Utah advanced transportation management system - includes numerous components such as a signal system, ramp metering, traveler information dissemination, traffic surveillance and monitoring, and fiber optic network.(March 2004)
To improve air quality in downtown Syracuse, the New York State DOT deployed a computerized traffic signal system and optimizd the signal timing of 145 intersections at a total project costs of $8.3 million.(September 2003)
In Lake County, Illinois, TMC physical components cost $1.8 million.(September 2003)
The city of Indianapolis, Indiana, upgraded more than 220 of its intersections with advanced signal controller systems and connected them to a central computer system for $5.1 million.(28 January 2002)
Nineteen metropolitan North Seattle, Washington city signal systems were integrated at a cost of $1,755,000.(30 May 2000)
Strengthen the ability to coordinate and manage operations for planned special events by co-locating a traffic management center with a public safety center with representatives from police, fire and 9-1-1.(November 2008)
Use portable ITS equipment to monitor and control traffic flow at major signalized intersections located at entrance and exit points near planned special events.(November 2008)
Incorporate contractual provisions to conduct on-site traffic signal hardware and software demonstration testing and provide sufficient project oversight to ensure vendors meet agency requirements.(24 June 2008)
Be aware that integration of advanced transportation management systems, regardless of size, creates challenges throughout project deployment.(24 June 2008)
Hire properly trained staff to deploy and maintain traffic signal systems.(1/31/2002)
Establish a working group among public sector partners to address liability issues.(December 2000)
Implement a communication structure across jurisdictions that facilitates the flow of traffic data and allows agencies to coordinate traffic signal timing.(10/1/2000)
