View By Application

Roadway Operations & Maintenance > Information Dissemination


Information dissemination technologies can be deployed temporarily, or existing systems can be updated periodically to provide information on work zones or other highway maintenance activities. Examples of these systems include dynamic message signs (DMS), highway advisory radio (HAR), internet websites, wireless devices, and telephone services.


In work zone areas, dynamic message signs are most effective at night and when alerting drivers of the presence of workers.(June 3, 2017)

Use text-only messages instead of graphic-aided messages on dynamic message signs during traffic slow-downs.(02/29/2016)

Avoid unnecessarily restrictive requirements and ambiguous terms in bid documents.(04/01/2013)

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)

Treat maintenance staff as customers and beneficiaries of ATIS information.(5/1/2005)

Treat system operators as the client and consider their perspectives during ATIS project development.(5/1/2005)

Consider how implementing an ATIS system will impact staffing and training requirements.(5/1/2005)

Consider that ATIS deployment in rural and/or remote areas presents special challenges.(5/1/2005)

Consider changeable message sign (CMS) positioning, data archive requirements, and traffic demand when considering deployment of a dynamic late merge system.(28 December 2004)

Coordinate extensively with other stakeholder agencies.(1/1/2004)

Use ITS to implement a reliable communications system in work zones.(1/1/2004)

Ensure initial and ongoing success of ITS deployments by providing sufficient start-up time, maintaining flexibility, and performing maintenance needs in-house.(1/1/2004)

Treat maintenance staff as customers and beneficiaries of ATIS information.(5/1/2005)

Treat system operators as the client and consider their perspectives during ATIS project development.(5/1/2005)

Consider how implementing an ATIS system will impact staffing and training requirements.(5/1/2005)

Consider that ATIS deployment in rural and/or remote areas presents special challenges.(5/1/2005)

Coordinate extensively with other stakeholder agencies.(1/1/2004)

Use ITS to implement a reliable communications system in work zones.(1/1/2004)

Ensure initial and ongoing success of ITS deployments by providing sufficient start-up time, maintaining flexibility, and performing maintenance needs in-house.(1/1/2004)

Provide traveler information in rural areas to allow for good travel decisions in inclement weather and construction season.(November 2001)

Texas DOT offers recommendations and best practices for agencies looking to anticipate widescale implementation of connected and automated vehicles.(10/1/16)

Use truck-mounted radar speed signs to help reduce vehicle speeds through continuously moving and intermittent mobile work operations.(01/01/2016)

Integrate Road Weather Information Systems program and Transportation Management Centers to improve internal operations practices.(November 2009)

Clearly define information sharing procedures among agencies in an integrated Transportation Management Center-Computer Aided Dispatch system.(July 2006)

Recognize staffing and communication needs for Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) projects.(April 2006)

Recognize integration issues in Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) Projects, and follow the systems engineering approach to establish a project's foundation.(April 2006)

Assess needs and communication infrastructure capabilities for the design of an Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS).(April 2006)

Build public awareness of large-scale construction projects and keep the public informed of work zone schedules to help minimize the associated travel impacts.(1/1/2004)

Develop a regional ITS architecture with a common data server to facilitate ITS integration in a region(2001)

In Minneapolis, implementation of a queue warning system resulted in 54 percent decrease in near-crashes and 22 percent decrease in crashes along segment of interstate.(June 13, 2017)

In work zone areas, dynamic message signs are most effective at night and when alerting drivers of the presence of workers.(June 3, 2017)

In work zone areas, dynamic message signs are most effective at night and when alerting drivers of the presence of workers.(June 3, 2017)

Truck-mounted radar speed signs were effective in reducing traffic speeds by 5 to 23 percent versus reductions of 4 to 8 percent in work zones without them.(01/01/2016)

A traveler information system for informing visitors to the Grand Canyon National Park of the availability of a shuttle for car-free travel to the Canyon View Information Plaza added 368 shuttle riders per day, an increase of transit mode share by 45.7 percent.(March 2009)

An automated work zone information system (AWIS) greatly reduced traffic demand through a highway work zone in California resulting reducing maximum average peak delay 50 percent more than expected.(22-26 January 2006)

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)

In North Carolina, a work zone equipped with smart work zone traveler information systems observed fewer crashes compared to other work zones without the technology.(May 2005)

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

Modeling data indicated that an automated work zone information system deployed on I-5 near Los Angeles contributed to a 4.3 percent increase in diversions and an 81 percent increase in average network speed.(9-13 January 2005)

In North Carolina, a survey of motorists who experienced a smart work zone information system on I-95 found that 85 percent of respondents changed routes at least once in response to the delay and alternate route information posted.(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 Los Angeles, a survey of motorists who experienced an automated work zone information system found that 78 percent of respondents changed their route based on the information provided.(2005)

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)

A dynamic lane merge system deployed at a work zone outside Detroit reduced aggressive driving maneuvers.(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)

A dynamic lane merge system deployed outside Detroit was found to be cost-effective based on an analysis of system cost and motorist time and fuel savings.(October 2004)

The Illinois DOT enhanced work zone safety on I-55 by deploying an automated traffic control system that posted traffic information and enforcement updates (number of citations issued) on dynamic message signs located upstream of the work zone.(October 2004)

The Illinois DOT staff reported a high level of satisfaction with the automated traffic control system deployed during the reconstruction of Interstate 55.(October 2004)

The Illinois DOT reduced operating costs during the reconstruction of I-55 by deploying an automated traffic control system and eliminating the need for constant traffic monitoring.(October 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)

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 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.)

An I-40 work zone in Arkansas equipped with an automated work zone information system had fewer fatal crashes compared to similar sites without the technology.(12-16 January 2003)

Ninety-seven (97) percent of the motoring public found that predicted travel time information was useful when posted at a work zone on I-75 near Dayton, Ohio. (January 2002)

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)

During the first year of operations at the "Big I" work zone in Albuquerque, temporary traffic management and motorist assistance patrols reduced the average incident response time to less than eight minutes, and no fatalities were reported.(4-7 June 2001)

In the Minneapolis/St. Paul, a motorist survey found 61% of drivers who experienced a portable traffic management system at a work zone felt more informed about traffic conditions than at other work zones.(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 the Minneapolis/St. Paul, a portable traffic management system (PTMS) installed at two interstate work zones improved safety by slowing approaching vehicles by 9 mi/hr and reducing speed variability by 70 percent. (May 1997)

Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) can provide route diversion information during periods of congestion when phone and internet travel advisory systems are not available; benefit-to-cost ratios can range from 4:1 to 16:1 assuming a 5 to 20 percent compliance rate.(2017)

A traveler information system for informing visitors to the Grand Canyon National Park of the availability of a shuttle for car-free travel to the Canyon View Information Plaza added 368 shuttle riders per day, an increase of transit mode share by 45.7 percent.(March 2009)

In North Carolina, a survey of local residents near the Smart Work Zone systems found that over 95 percent of motorists surveyed would support use of these systems in the future.(September 2004)

An I-40 work zone in Arkansas equipped with an automated work zone information system had fewer fatal crashes compared to similar sites without the technology.(12-16 January 2003)

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)

Rapid deployment of DSRC for connected vehicles can save thousands of lives, regardless of whether a later transition to C-V2X proves advantageous.(12/12/2017)

Audible "slow traffic ahead" alerts can improve drivers' situational awareness and increase safety on freeways.(June 2011)

An automated work zone information system (AWIS) greatly reduced traffic demand through a highway work zone in California resulting reducing maximum average peak delay 50 percent more than expected.(22-26 January 2006)

An evaluation of the Arizona 511 telephone traveler information system found that more than 70 percent of users surveyed were satisfied with the enhanced content provided.(30 September 2005)

Dynamic outreach efforts in a construction workzone in Southern California reduce traffic volume by 20 percent and peak hour delay by 50 percent.(31 July 2005)

In North Carolina, a work zone equipped with smart work zone traveler information systems observed fewer crashes compared to other work zones without the technology.(May 2005)

The Illinois DOT enhanced work zone safety on I-55 by deploying an automated traffic control system that posted traffic information and enforcement updates (number of citations issued) on dynamic message signs located upstream of the work zone.(October 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)

In North Carolina, a survey of local residents near the Smart Work Zone systems found that over 95 percent of motorists surveyed would support use of these systems in the future.(September 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 Albuquerque, New Mexico, work zone surveillance and response at the "Big I" Interchange reduced average clearance time by 44 percent.(4-7 June 2001)

During the first year of operations at the "Big I" work zone in Albuquerque, temporary traffic management and motorist assistance patrols reduced the average incident response time to less than eight minutes, and no fatalities were reported.(4-7 June 2001)

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 the Minneapolis/St. Paul, a portable traffic management system (PTMS) installed at two interstate work zones improved safety by slowing approaching vehicles by 9 mi/hr and reducing speed variability by 70 percent. (May 1997)

With Advanced Traveler Information Systems additional travel time through work zones decreased from 14 percent to 3 percent.(January 2009)

A traveler information system with two highway advisory radios and a portable dynamic message sign was deployed in a 3-month pilot test at the Grand Canyon National Park at a cost of $19,600.(March 2009)

Minnesota DOT deployed a dynamic late merge system for $900 per day per direction.(September 12, 2005)

Illinois DOT implements work zone ITS on the I-64 Add-lane Construction project at a cost of $435,000.(12 September 2005)

Based on a study of 17 states, the majority of work zone ITS cost between $150,000 and $500,000.(12 September 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)

ITS deployment set to improve safety, efficiency, air quality, and traveler information to cost $11,250,000 across Colorado.(12/29/2004)

A real-time work zone traffic control system leased by the Illinois Department of Transportation cost $785,000.(October 2004)

North Carolina DOT leased its first smart work zone system along I-95 near Fayetteville at a cost of $235,000.(3 June 2003)

In Arkansas, the contract bid costs for two different automated work zone information system ranged from $390 to $750 per day.(12-16 January 2003)

The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) leased an automated work zone information system in West Memphis for $495,000 which was less than 4% of the total recontruction project cost. West Memphis is one of four locations highlighted in a cross cutting study.(November 2002)

Average cost to install a highway advisory radio station ranged from $40,000 to $50,000 as reported by agencies that continue to use this technology.(2017)

A traveler information system with two highway advisory radios and a portable dynamic message sign was deployed in a 3-month pilot test at the Grand Canyon National Park at a cost of $19,600.(March 2009)

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)

Detailed costs of road weather information systems deployed at several sites north of Spokane, WA.(8 January 2004)

In Arkansas, the contract bid costs for two different automated work zone information system ranged from $390 to $750 per day.(12-16 January 2003)

The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) leased an automated work zone information system in West Memphis for $495,000 which was less than 4% of the total recontruction project cost. West Memphis is one of four locations highlighted in a cross cutting study.(November 2002)

The highway advisory radio (HAR) system deployed at Blewett/Stevens pass in Washington State included a portable HAR unit ($30,000), and two fixed HAR stations ($15,000 each).(July 2001)

The average cost to upgrade backhaul telecommunications to support a DSRC roadside unit for V2I applications is estimated to vary from $3,000, if the site has sufficient backhaul and will only need an upgrade, to $40,000, if the site requires a completely new backhaul system.(09/01/2015)

From the 511 Deployment Coalition case study: total costs (to design, implement, and operate for one year) averaged $2.5 million among six statewide systems and $1.8 million among three metropolitan systems.(November 2006)

Illinois DOT implements work zone ITS on the I-64 Add-lane Construction project at a cost of $435,000.(12 September 2005)

Based on a study of 17 states, the majority of work zone ITS cost between $150,000 and $500,000.(12 September 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)

A real-time work zone traffic control system leased by the Illinois Department of Transportation cost $785,000.(October 2004)

Detailed costs of road weather information systems deployed at several sites north of Spokane, WA.(8 January 2004)

North Carolina DOT leased its first smart work zone system along I-95 near Fayetteville at a cost of $235,000.(3 June 2003)

The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) leased an automated work zone information system in West Memphis for $495,000 which was less than 4% of the total recontruction project cost. West Memphis is one of four locations highlighted in a cross cutting study.(November 2002)

Cost estimates for rural ITS in Arizona (ITS maintenance, weather information systems, highway advisory radio, motorist assistance patrols, and training applications) totaled $3.78 million per year for five years.(September 2007)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Changeable Message Sign (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

DMS - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $824(5/1/2017)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $870(10/25/2016)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $787.5(10/25/2016)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(10/25/2016)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $824(10/25/2016)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(05/12/2015)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(05/12/2015)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(05/12/2015)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(05/12/2015)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(05/12/2015)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(05/12/2015)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - Capital cost/unit - $60.51(05/06/2014)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - Capital cost/unit - $60.51(05/06/2014)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - Capital cost/unit - $60.51(05/06/2014)

Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Rental - Capital cost/unit - $958.05(05/06/2014)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - Capital cost/unit - $60.51(05/06/2014)

Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Rental - Capital cost/unit - $958.05(05/06/2014)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $100(05/30/2013)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $100(05/30/2013)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $60.51(05/30/2013)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $60.51(05/30/2013)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $4400(2013)

Communications Network - Capital cost/unit - $1280.16(2013)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $4400(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Ethernet Switch - Capital cost/unit - $1280.16(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Portable Dynamic Message - Capital cost/unit - $4400(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Modem - Capital cost/unit - $1280.16(2013)

Ethernet Switch - Capital cost/unit - $1280.16(2013)

Modem - Capital cost/unit - $1280.16(2013)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $4400(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $12581.25(2013)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $4400(2013)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $4400(2013)

Ethernet Switch - Capital cost/unit - $1280.16(2013)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign Controller - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign Controller - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign Controller - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign Controller - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $20000(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $20000(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $20000(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign Controller - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Dynamic Message Sign Controller - Capital cost/unit - $10800(01/01/2012)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(03/10/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable DMS (Rental) - Capital cost/unit - $16(02/25/2010)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Portable Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $44.84(2008)

Variable Message Sign - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $18300 - O&M cost/unit - $600 - Lifetime - 7 years(06/30/2006)

Portable Changeable Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10000

Portable Changeable Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10000

Portable Changeable Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $10000

Highway advisory radio - Capital cost/unit - $12670(2/4/2013)

Highway advisory radio - Capital cost/unit - $12670(2/4/2013)

Highway advisory radio - Capital cost/unit - $12670(2/4/2013)

Highway Advisory Radio - Capital cost/unit - $82270(2013)

Highway Advisory Radio - Capital cost/unit - $82270(2013)

Highway Advisory Radio - Capital cost/unit - $12670(2007)