View By Application

Arterial Management


Arterial management systems manage traffic along arterial roadways, employing traffic detectors, traffic signals, and various means of communicating information to travelers. These systems make use of information collected by traffic surveillance devices to smooth the flow of traffic along travel corridors. They also disseminate important information about travel conditions to travelers via technologies such as dynamic message signs (DMS) or highway advisory radio (HAR).


NYC operated an Automated Speed Enforcement program in 140 school zones with 180 speed cameras for over two years at a cost of $69,460,446.(06/01/2017)

The capital cost to install a next generation transit signal priority system in the Portland area was estimated at $500,000.(06/01/2010)

The cost to deploy and maintain a portable changeable message speed limit sign was estimated at $40,200 per year.(02/25/2008)

The installation and operational costs for 599 speed cameras (mobile and fixed) deployed during a two-year pilot study in the United Kingdom totaled approximately £21 million.( 11 February 2003)

Study reports automated speed enforcement system costs 5.9 million euros in Denmark and 178,000 euros in Finland.(2000)

The installation and operational costs for 599 speed cameras (mobile and fixed) deployed during a two-year pilot study in the United Kingdom totaled approximately £21 million.( 11 February 2003)

Implementation costs for automated red light camera systems range from $67,000 to $80,000 per intersection.(January 2002)

Evaluation of Arterial Travel Time Information System in Minneapolis suburb costs $180,000(October 2010)

Planning-level studies indicate that an effective combination of ICM strategies can be implemented for $7.5 Million per year (annualized capital and O&M).(September 2008)

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)

TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 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)

The cost of stage one of the Watt Avenue ITS corridor in Sacramento, California was estimated at $1.5 million.(May 2003)

Detailed costs of the advanced parking management system operational test in St. Paul, Minnesota.(2001)

The costs of the Integrated Corridor Management Project (ICTM), deployed on an 8-mile section of the I-494 transportation corridor south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, was $9 million.(April 2000)

In Wenatchee, Washington, the construction of a Transportation Management Center (TMC) and the installation of the associated ITS field equipment cost $460,000.(June 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)

The cost of stage one of the Watt Avenue ITS corridor in Sacramento, California was estimated at $1.5 million.(May 2003)

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)

Development of an ICM strategy for 8-mile corridor in Minneapolis costs $601,215.(October 2010)

London congestion pricing annual O&M costs are estimated at £92 million.(January 2006)

Advanced parking management systems cost between $250 and $800 per parking space to install.(January 2007)

Pay and display parking stations costing approximately $15,000 each are recommended for the City of Bellingham, Washington.(September 2004)

Detailed costs of the advanced parking management system operational test in St. Paul, Minnesota.(2001)

An advanced parking information system was deployed as part of the Seattle Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative for $925,000; maintenance costs of the system hardware were estimated at 7% of the hardware capital costs.(30 May 2000)

The capital cost to install a next generation transit signal priority system in the Portland area was estimated at $500,000.(06/01/2010)

The capital cost to centralize all real-time roadway traveler information to the TripCheck Travel Information Portal was estimated at $3 million.(06/01/2010)

In Chicago, the RTA/Metra parking management guidance system cost approximately $1 million(9 May 2008)

Advanced parking management systems cost between $250 and $800 per parking space to install.(January 2007)

Detailed costs of the advanced parking management system operational test in St. Paul, Minnesota.(2001)

An advanced parking information system was deployed as part of the Seattle Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative for $925,000; maintenance costs of the system hardware were estimated at 7% of the hardware capital costs.(30 May 2000)

The annual operating costs for a parking pricing system in central London averaged $77 million.(2011)

A smart parking field test conducted for the California Department of Transportation and the Bay Area Rapid Transit estimated capital cost at $150 to $250 per space; O&M costs were estimated at $40 to $60 per space.(July/August 2007)

System costs for advanced signal operating strategies and automated roadside safety warning systems have been projected for upstate California.(06/14/2019)

System costs for TMC construction and integration of communication systems were projected for upstate California; capital costs were estimated at $1.2 million per facility.(06/14/2019)

In Detroit, the design and construction of traffic signal interconnection upgrades, DSRC field infrastructure, and communication systems designed to support CV applications cost $1.33 million on a 6-mile corridor and $1.42 million on a 12-mile corridor.(3/25/2019)

A fiber optic communications network supporting traffic operations on a 17 mile section of US-24 in Colorado was estimated to cost $2.5 million.(2019)

City-wide vehicle detection, remote signal control, and wireless broadband radio at 63 intersections cost $1.5 million.(11/17/2017)

Video-based vehicle detection technology installed at 17 intersections was estimated to cost $350,910.(03/21/2016)

Statewide annual O&M for 410 CCTV cameras and 139 DMS units was estimated at $525,685 and $233,037, respectively.(10/23/2014)

Deploying an advanced signal control system for 110 blocks in Midtown Manhattan cost $1.6 million.(August/September 2012)

Initial deployment of Bluetooth-based travel time measurement budgeted for $238,004(October 2010)

In Edmonds, Washington, connecting six arterial traffic signals and five CCTV cameras to a central signal system cost $90,000.(June 2009)

In Snohomish County, Washington, interconnecting five traffic signals and three CCTV cameras to a central signal system cost $91,000.(June 2009)

In Wenatchee, Washington, the construction of a Transportation Management Center (TMC) and the installation of the associated ITS field equipment cost $460,000.(June 2009)

In Kent, Washington, the cost of connecting five arterial traffic signals and five CCTV cameras to a central signal system and another traffic management center was $92,000.(June 2009)

The cost to deploy a new traffic management system in Espanola, New Mexico was $862,279.(September 2, 2008)

Monroe County, NY, deployed five CCTV cameras at high priority intersections at a cost of $279,338.(August 2006)

TMC central hardware costs can exceed $200,000 if regional communications and system integration are required.(5 August 2004)

Two California cities opt to transmit real-time video over existing copper-based communications infrastructure at a cost of $96,000 compared to $161,000 if new fiber optic cable alternative selected.(May 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)

In Lake County, Illinois, TMC physical components cost $1.8 million.(September 2003)

The city of Colorado Springs, Colorado spent about $5.6 million to replace in-pavement loops with video detection at 420 intersections.(September 2003)

The cost of stage one of the Watt Avenue ITS corridor in Sacramento, California was estimated at $1.5 million.(May 2003)

At a cost of $65,000, Washington State DOT added a traffic camera system to fight congestion at two of the busiest intersections in the Puget Sound area.(4 December 2002)

The costs of the Integrated Corridor Management Project (ICTM), deployed on an 8-mile section of the I-494 transportation corridor south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, was $9 million.(April 2000)

A seaport technology program planned for the Port of Oakland was projected to cost $30.6 million.(01/29/2018)

Estimated capital costs to equip 10 intersections with DSRC radio communications and backhaul needed to support V2I applications can range from $443,000 to $644,000.(06/01/2016)

The cost to implement a red-light extension (RLE) system on two major approaches to a single four-way signalized intersection was estimated at $16,500.(January 2016)

The capital cost to implement adaptive signal control at 45 intersections was estimated at $3 million.(11/19/2014)

The overall cost to implement a region-wide Traffic Management System in Portland Oregon was estimated at $36 million.(09/01/2013)

The average cost to implement Adaptive Signal Control Technology is $28,725 per intersection.(January 2013)

An adaptive signal control system for 8 intersections in Woodland Park, CO was implemented for $176,300.(July 2012)

An adaptive signal control system for 11 intersections in Greeley, CO was implemented for $905,500.(July 2012)

Adaptive signal control can be installed for $20,300 to $82,300 per intersection depending on upgrades required.(07/01/2012)

Costs for adaptive signal control can vary widely, ranging from $6,000 (ACS Lite) to $60,000 (SCOOT) per intersection.(05/14/2012)

Installation of Adaptive Signal Control Technology systems ranges from $8,000 to $35,000 per intersection(04/01/2012)

The average installation cost per intersection of an Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) is $65,000.(2010)

Implementing Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies on the I-15 Corridor in San Diego, California is estimated to cost $1.42 million annualized and a total 10-year life-cycle cost of $12 million.(September 2010)

A SCATS adaptive signal control system costs approximately $28,800 per mile per year.(September 2010)

The cost to develop, implement, and document the deployment of an adaptive signal control and transit signal priority upgrade on the Atlanta Smart Corridor was estimated at $1.7 million.(30 June 2010)

In Edmonds, Washington, connecting six arterial traffic signals and five CCTV cameras to a central signal system cost $90,000.(June 2009)

In Snohomish County, Washington, interconnecting five traffic signals and three CCTV cameras to a central signal system cost $91,000.(June 2009)

In Kent, Washington, the cost of connecting five arterial traffic signals and five CCTV cameras to a central signal system and another traffic management center was $92,000.(June 2009)

Planning-level studies indicate that an effective combination of ICM strategies can be implemented for $7.5 Million per year (annualized capital and O&M).(September 2008)

The National Transportation Operators Coalition estimates that upgrading and retiming the US's traffic signals over 10 years would cost $1.125 billion annually(December 31, 2007)

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)

System costs for advanced signal operating strategies and automated roadside safety warning systems have been projected for upstate California.(06/14/2019)

A fiber optic communications network supporting traffic operations on a 17 mile section of US-24 in Colorado was estimated to cost $2.5 million.(2019)

A dual protocol road-side unit (RSU) providing both cellular and dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) technologies can be deployed for approximately $6,000 per intersection.(July 2018)

The cost to equip 10 intersections with dedicated short range communications (DSRC) was estimated at $70K to $80K in the Seattle area.(07/01/2018)

A seaport technology program planned for the Port of Oakland was projected to cost $30.6 million.(01/29/2018)

City-wide vehicle detection, remote signal control, and wireless broadband radio at 63 intersections cost $1.5 million.(11/17/2017)

Estimated capital costs to equip 10 intersections with DSRC radio communications and backhaul needed to support V2I applications can range from $443,000 to $644,000.(06/01/2016)

The cost to implement a red-light extension (RLE) system on two major approaches to a single four-way signalized intersection was estimated at $16,500.(January 2016)

A national study estimates that average hardware costs to upgrade signal controllers for connected vehicle purposes may be as little as $3,200 per site(06/27/2014)

One-time capital costs for controller-based high resolution data collection systems were estimated at $3,120 per intersection.(03/01/2014)

Deploying an advanced signal control system for 110 blocks in Midtown Manhattan cost $1.6 million.(August/September 2012)

Capital costs for various Adaptive Signal Control Technology deployed across the U.S range from $8,000 to $60,000.(02/04/2011)

Annual maintenance costs for a traffic signal control system upgraded from five non-coordinated actuated signals to five coordinated actuated signals is $2,434.40.(September 2010)

The capital cost to install a next generation transit signal priority system in the Portland area was estimated at $500,000.(06/01/2010)

In Spokane, Washington, the cost of integrating ITS field devices with fiber optic links and a microwave link was $1,837,251.(June 2009)

In Spokane Washington, the cost of the Regional Traffic Management Center Enhancements project was $1,238,679.(June 2009)

The cost to deploy a new traffic management system in Espanola, New Mexico was $862,279.(September 2, 2008)

The National Transportation Operators Coalition estimates that upgrading and retiming the US's traffic signals over 10 years would cost $1.125 billion annually(December 31, 2007)

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)

In Lake County, Illinois, TMC physical components cost $1.8 million.(September 2003)

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)

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)

The costs of the Integrated Corridor Management Project (ICTM), deployed on an 8-mile section of the I-494 transportation corridor south of the Twin Cities in Minnesota, was $9 million.(April 2000)

DSRC Roadside Unit(10/23/2018)

In Atlanta, the cost to purchase, install, configure, and support 600 RSUs for DSRC SPaT/MAP applications was estimated at $2,490,000 (FY2018).(10/23/2018)

Onboard Unit (OBU)(10/23/2018)

Onboard Unit (OBU)(10/23/2018)

Alternative pedestrian traffic control devices valued at $30,000 and $160,000.(March 2012)

A pedestrian safety system was deployed in downtown Boulder, Colorado; total project cost ranged from $8,000 to $16,000.(November 2001)

The cost to equip 10 intersections with dedicated short range communications (DSRC) was estimated at $70K to $80K in the Seattle area.(07/01/2018)

In Detroit, the design and construction of traffic signal interconnection upgrades, DSRC field infrastructure, and communication systems designed to support CV applications cost $1.33 million on a 6-mile corridor and $1.42 million on a 12-mile corridor.(3/25/2019)

DSRC Roadside Unit(10/23/2018)

In Atlanta, the cost to purchase, install, configure, and support 600 RSUs for DSRC SPaT/MAP applications was estimated at $2,490,000 (FY2018).(10/23/2018)

Onboard Unit (OBU)(10/23/2018)

Onboard Unit (OBU)(10/23/2018)

Estimated capital costs to equip 10 intersections with DSRC radio communications and backhaul needed to support V2I applications can range from $443,000 to $644,000.(06/01/2016)

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)

The California PASS Program implemented GPS signal communications at 50 traffic signals in San Francisco for $529,484.(01/19/2016)

Development of an ICM strategy for 8-mile corridor in Minneapolis costs $601,215.(October 2010)

Vehicle Speed Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $8467(2013)

Wireless Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $8467(2013)

Wireless Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $8467(2013)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $29.48(2009)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $29.48(2009)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Speed Monitoring Trailer - Capital cost/unit - $25.84(2008)

Machine Vision Sensor at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $16500 - Lifetime - 10 years(7/22/2004)

DMS support structure - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - shelter - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications wireless - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

DMS support structure - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - shelter - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

DMS support structure - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

DMS support structure - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - shelter - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

DMS support structure - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Dynamic message sign - Capital cost/unit - $5000(2/4/2013)

Changeable Message Signs - Capital cost/unit - $19000(June 2008)

Conduit - Capital cost/unit - $150000(January 2008)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $150000(January 2008)

Dynamic Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $150000(January 2008)

Variable Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $35000 - O&M cost/unit - $2500 - Lifetime - 10 years(7/10/2007)

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

Variable Message Sign - Arterial - Capital cost/unit - $55000 - O&M cost/unit - $2750(5 August 2004)

Trailblazer Structure - Capital cost/unit - $55000 - O&M cost/unit - $2750(5 August 2004)

Trailblazer Structure - Capital cost/unit - $55000 - O&M cost/unit - $2750(5 August 2004)

Variable Message Sign - Arterial - Capital cost/unit - $55000 - O&M cost/unit - $2750(5 August 2004)

Variable Message Sign - Arterial - Capital cost/unit - $55000 - O&M cost/unit - $2750(5 August 2004)

Variable Message Sign - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $30000 - O&M cost/unit - $1200 - Lifetime - 14 years(09/17/2003)

Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - Capital cost/unit - $40000(September 2003)

Conduit Design and Installation - Corridor - Capital cost/unit - $64000 - Lifetime - 30 years(08/20/2003)

Variable Message Sign - Capital cost/unit - $16400 - O&M cost/unit - $250 - Lifetime - 15 years(08/20/2003)

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 - $12670(2007)

Highway Advisory Radio - Capital cost/unit - $150000(January 2008)

Highway Advisory Radio - Portable - Capital cost/unit - $150000(January 2008)

Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) - Capital cost/unit - $40000(September 2003)

Highway Advisory Radio (HAR) Signs - Capital cost/unit - $40000(September 2003)

Intersection MAP File - Capital cost/unit - $220(07/01/2018)

DSRC On-board Unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $2500(07/01/2018)

DSRC Roadside Unit - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(11/13/2017)

DSRC Roadside Unit - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(11/13/2017)

Roadside Equipment for DSRC - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(09/01/2015)

TMC Information Dissemination Hardware - Capital cost/unit - $7500 - O&M cost/unit - $375 - Lifetime - 5 years(September 2008)

Labor for Traffic Information Dissemination - O&M cost/unit - $100000(September 2008)

TMC Information Dissemination Software - Capital cost/unit - $7500 - O&M cost/unit - $375 - Lifetime - 5 years(September 2008)

Dynamic Trailblazer - Capital cost/unit - $12415 - O&M cost/unit - $2168(5 August 2004)

Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) system - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(June 2003)

Automatic Passenger Counter (APC) system - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(June 2003)

Automated Passenger Counter (APC) system - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(June 2003)

DSL Line (Installation) - Capital cost/unit - $500(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Website - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Master Base Unit - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Labor - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Local Base Units - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Secure Communication - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

DSL Line - O&M cost/unit - $100(June 2008)

Smart Parking In-Ground Sensors - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Transit Sign with paging receiver and solar power equipment - O&M cost/unit - $80(July 2009)

Smart Transit Sign engineered post with installed foundation - O&M cost/unit - $80(July 2009)

Voice Recognition System Hardware - Capital cost/unit - $20000(June 2008)

Smart Parking Cellular Sign Connection - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

DSL Line (Installation) - Capital cost/unit - $500(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Website - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Changeable Message Signs - Capital cost/unit - $19000(June 2008)

Smart Parking Master Base Unit - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Labor - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Local Base Units - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Smart Parking Reservation Secure Communication - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

DSL Line - O&M cost/unit - $100(June 2008)

Smart Parking In-Ground Sensors - O&M cost/unit - $80(June 2008)

Voice Recognition System Software Customization - Capital cost/unit - $20000(June 2008)

Electronic Signs - Unit Costs Future Deployment - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Static Sign - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Electronic Signs - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Static Sign - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: System Software - Capital cost/unit - $39300(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: System Planning and Design - Capital cost/unit - $3000(2001)

Communication Lines - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: System Software - Capital cost/unit - $39300(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: O&M Labor - O&M cost/unit - $13500(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: System Development - Capital cost/unit - $3500(2001)

Communication Lines - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: Test Evaluation - Capital cost/unit - $109200(2001)

Parking Facility Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: System Development - Capital cost/unit - $4050(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: Management and Coordination - Capital cost/unit - $2300(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: System Planning and Design - Capital cost/unit - $3700(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: O&M Labor - O&M cost/unit - $15900(2001)

Communication Lines - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: Startup/Testing/Training - Capital cost/unit - $2025(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: Marketing - Capital cost/unit - $8900(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: Management and Coordination - Capital cost/unit - $2750(2001)

Parking Facility Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $49550(2001)

Advanced Parking Management System: Startup/Testing/Training - Capital cost/unit - $1700(2001)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

GPS Module - Capital cost/unit - $1026.04(2013)

Fiber Optic Backhaul - Capital cost/unit - $200000(06/14/2019)

Cellular Modem - Capital cost/unit - $200000(06/14/2019)

Advanced Signal Control - Pedestrian Detection - Capital cost/unit - $40000(06/14/2019)

Advanced Signal Control - Pedestrian Detection - Capital cost/unit - $40000(06/14/2019)

Connected Vehicle Local Management Station Firmware License - Capital cost/unit - $1750(07/01/2018)

Connected Vehicle (V2X) Roadside Equipment (RSE) at Intersection - O&M cost/unit - $2000(07/01/2018)

DSRC Roadside Unit (RSU) - Capital cost/unit - $5250(07/01/2018)

Connected Vehicle (V2X) Roadside Equipment (RSE) at Intersection - O&M cost/unit - $3000(07/01/2018)

Connected Vehicle Central Management Station Network Firmware License - Capital cost/unit - $300(07/01/2018)

DSRC Roadside Unit - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(11/13/2017)

DSRC Roadside Unit - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(11/13/2017)

CCTV Surveillance System - Capital cost/unit - $6565(01/25/2017)

CCTV Surveillance System - Capital cost/unit - $6565(01/25/2017)

CCTV Surveillance System - Capital cost/unit - $6565(01/25/2017)

CCTV Surveillance System - Capital cost/unit - $6565(01/25/2017)

CCTV Surveillance System - Capital cost/unit - $6565(01/25/2017)

Video-based vehicle detection at intersection - Capital cost/unit - $4200(03/21/2016)

Video-based vehicle detection at intersection - Capital cost/unit - $4200(03/21/2016)

Video-based vehicle detection at intersection - Capital cost/unit - $4200(03/21/2016)

Video-based vehicle detection at intersection - Capital cost/unit - $4200(03/21/2016)

Video-based vehicle detection at intersection - Capital cost/unit - $4200(03/21/2016)

Video-based vehicle detection at intersection - Capital cost/unit - $4200(03/21/2016)

Roadside Equipment for DSRC - Capital cost/unit - $7450 - Lifetime - 5 years(09/01/2015)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

Loop Detector Wire - Capital cost/unit - $216(05/12/2015)

CCTV Video Camera Assembly - Capital cost/unit - $17600(2/12/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - loop detector wire install - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - loop detector wire install - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

CCTV camera - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - solar power unit - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

CCTV camera - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - solar power unit - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Loop detector wire assembly - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Vehicle detector - microwave - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Loop detector wire assembly - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - modem - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Vehicle detector - magnetic - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Loop detector wire assembly - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Loop detector wire assembly - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Loop detector wire assembly - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

CCTV camera - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - logic hardware and connection - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Vehicle detector - video - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Loop detector wire assembly - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

Traffic surveillance site - cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $777.53(2/4/2013)

CCTV Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Fiber Optic Cable - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Conduit 2" PVC - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Fiber Optic Drop - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $4591.29(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Ethernet Switching Station - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

Conductor Cable - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV Surveillance System - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $4591.29(2013)

Vehicle Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Driver and Vehicle Safety Sensors - Capital cost/unit - $4000(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Roadside Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $4591.29(2013)

Driver and Vehicle Safety Sensors - Capital cost/unit - $4000(2013)

Fiber Termination Rack - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Fiber Optic Cable - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Encoder - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV Control Cable - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV Camera Lowering System - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Communications Network Server - Capital cost/unit - $525(2013)

CCTV Pole - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Vehicle Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV Pole Site Installation - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $20(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV Field Equipment Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV Control Cable - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV camera - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $4591.29(2013)

CCTV Base Structure - Capital cost/unit - $600(2013)

Modem - Capital cost/unit - $7998.8(2013)

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $3500(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $3500(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

Camera Foundation - Capital cost/unit - $3500(01/01/2012)

Camera Foundation - Capital cost/unit - $3500(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

CCTV Camera - Capital cost/unit - $12200(01/01/2012)

Veh. Detection Stat. - Rural - Capital cost/unit - $103000 - O&M cost/unit - $2500 - Lifetime - 25 years(2007)

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) - Capital cost/unit - $102816 - O&M cost/unit - $3440 - Lifetime - 10 years(2007)

Veh. Detection Stat. - Urban - Capital cost/unit - $103000 - O&M cost/unit - $2500 - Lifetime - 25 years(2007)

Traffic Detector - Capital cost/unit - $500(2009)

Traffic Detector - Capital cost/unit - $500(2009)

NYC Automated Speed Enforcement pilot sees a 14 percent decline in the overall number of people injured in crashes in school zones where speed cameras were activated.(06/01/2017)

Speed enforcement cameras can reduce injury crashes by 20 percent.(01/05/2014)

Speeding has dropped 65 percent in Chicago neighborhoods where Automated Speed Enforcement systems have been installed.(11/19/2013)

Speed camera programs can reduce crashes by 9 to 51 percent. (September 2007)

Controlled motorways offer improved travel time reliability and less stress for drivers, but in some cases costs can outweigh benefits.(November 2004)

Automated speed and red light enforcement lowered crash frequency by 14 percent, decreased crash injuries by 19 to 98 percent, and fatalities 7 to 83 percent.(2001)

Automated enforcement systems have reduced red-light violations by 20 to 60 percent and crashes by 22 to 51 percent. (June 1998)

Automated speed enforcement systems have reduced speed by 10 percent, decreased all crash injuries by 20 percent, and reduced serious and fatal crash injuries by 50 percent. (March 1995)

Red-light camera systems can have positive impacts on driver behavior.(June 2018)

U.S. cities that turned off their red light enforcement cameras experienced 30 percent more annual red-light running fatalities per capita than would have been expected had they been left on.(March 2017)

In Chicago, red light camera enforcement systems reduced overall injury-producing intersection crashes by 10 percent.(January 2017)

Red light violation cameras significantly reduce rates of red light running at ticketed intersections and those in the same travel corridor.(January 2013)

Right angle crashes were reduced by 86 percent, total crashes by 57 percent, and estimated severity costs by $268,900 in a two year analysis of red-light traffic signal enforcement in New Jersey.(November 2012)

Intersection-related crashes decreased 11 percent overall at signal controlled intersections in Texas after the installation of automated traffic enforcement systems.(June 2011)

Red light camera enforcement programs in 14 cities in the U.S. reduced the per capita rate of fatal red light running crashes by 24 percent.(February 2011)

Red light cameras reduced the occurrence of severe right-angle and left-turn crashes while the number of rear-end crashes increased.(June 2005)

Cost-benefit analysis from 132 red-light camera treatment sites in California, Maryland and North Carolina showed a positive crash reduction benefit of approximately $39,000 per site per year when property-damage-only (PDO) crashes are included and $50,000 per site per year when PDO crashes are excluded.(April 2005)

Seventy (70) percent of survey respondents in Great Britain thought that automated speed and red-light enforcement cameras were a useful way to reduce accidents and save lives. ( 11 February 2003)

Automated speed and red-light enforcement reduced the percentage of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 58 percent, the number of persons killed or seriously injured by 4 to 65 percent, and the personal injury accident rate by 6 percent.( 11 February 2003)

In the United States, approximately 60 to 80 percent of survey respondents approve of automated enforcement systems at traffic signals. (13 August 2001)

Automated enforcement at intersections in the United States reduced traffic signal violations by 20 to 87 percent.(13 August 2001)

Automated red light enforcement at 11 intersections in Oxnard, California reduced crashes by 7 percent, decreased right-angle crashes by 32 percent, lowered injury crashes by 29 percent, and reduced right-angle injury crashes by 68 percent.(7-11 January 2001)

Automated speed and red light enforcement lowered crash frequency by 14 percent, decreased crash injuries by 19 to 98 percent, and fatalities 7 to 83 percent.(2001)

A survey conducted in 10 U.S. cities indicated that 76 to 80 percent of drivers strongly favor automated red light enforcement systems.(6-10 August 2000)

An automated enforcement system in Charlotte, North Carolina reduced red light violations by 75 percent and decreased associated crashes by 9 percent. (May/June 2000)

Automated red light enforcement has reduced the crash rate by 35 percent. (16 March 2000)

Automated red light enforcement systems have reduced right-angle crashes by 32 percent in Victoria, Australia; and decreased crash frequency by 47 percent and red light violations by 53 percent in Howard County, Maryland.(January/February 2000)

Automated red light enforcement reduced the number of violations by 42 percent at 5 intersections in San Francisco, California. (March 1999)

Automated enforcement systems have reduced red-light violations by 20 to 60 percent and crashes by 22 to 51 percent. (June 1998)

Automated enforcement systems reduced red light violations by 20 to 60 percent, decreased right-angle crashes by 30 percent, and reduced crash injuries by 10 percent.(August 1997)

Automated enforcement systems have reduced red light violations by 50 to 60 percent at two intersections in Fort Mead, Florida and Jackson, Mississippi.(17 March 1995)

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies that promote integration among freeways, arterials, and transit systems can help balance traffic flow and enhance corridor performance; simulation models indicate benefit-to-cost ratios for combined strategies range from 7:1 to 25:1.(2009)

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)

A model indicated that an advanced transportation management and traveler information system serving northern Kentucky and Cincinnati reduced crash fatalities by 3.2 percent during peak periods.(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)

Modeling found emissions reductions of 3.7 to 4.6 percent due to an advanced transportation management and traveler information system serving northern Kentucky and Cincinnati.(4-7 June 2001)

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)

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 increased throughput by 0.1 percent.(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)

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 increased throughput by 0.1 percent.(6-9 November 2000)

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)

Intelligent advanced warnings of end-of-green at signalized intersections led to more stopping and milder deceleration compared to no warnings.(03/01/2014)

Applications that recommend optimal speeds for specific road segments can yield emissions and fuel consumption savings of 5.3 percent and 11.6 percent, respectively, for cars.(2014)

The Safe Green Passage application using the Multipath Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) broadcast message to inform drivers revealed that as travel demand increased, the benefits of the application decreased.(03/01/2013)

Simulation models show that real-time on-board driver assistance systems that recommend proper following distances can improve fuel economy by approximately 10 percent.(21-25 September 2009)

An overheight warning system at a CSX bridge in Maryland decreased the number of tractor-trailer incidents by 75 percent(04/02/2011)

Implementation of a connected eco-driving traffic signal system can lead to fuel savings of up to nine percent for heavy-duty diesel trucks.(07/31/2019)

Intersection control system for autonomous vehicles results in up to 95 percent reduction in intersection delay.(01/13/2013)

Simulation shows an optimized CAV control framework can increase the effective capacity of high-volume corridors.(3/18/19)

Connected eco-driving for drayage operations on signalized networks can reduce diesel truck energy consumption by 4.4 to 8.1 percent.(1/13/2018)

The cost to evaluate ICM using AMS tools was estimated at five percent of the deployment budget.(12/01/2016)

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

In San Diego, ICM improves mobility for most commuters on I-15 saving them more than 1,400 person hours each day during peak commute periods.(12/01/2016)

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) on the I-15 Corridor in San Diego yielded an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 9.7:1.(September 2010)

Congestion charging in London resulted in pollutant emission reductions: 8 percent for oxides of nitrogen, 7 percent for airborne particulate matter, and 16 percent for carbon dioxide.(July 2007)

Congestion mitigating benefits of cordon charging in London enabled taxi drivers to cover more miles per hour, service more riders, and decrease operating costs per passenger-mile.(January 2006)

Survey data collected from an organization of approximately 500 businesses in London indicated that 69 percent of respondents felt that congestion charging had no impact on their business, 22 percent reported positive impacts on their business, and 9 percent reported an overall negative impact.(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)

Controlled motorways offer improved travel time reliability and less stress for drivers, but in some cases costs can outweigh benefits.(November 2004)

Modeling effort shows that Transit Signal Priority can reduce bus travel times up to 43 percent with minimal impacts on non-transit traffic.(May 8-11, 2018)

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

At the Baltimore/Washington International (BWI) airport, 81 percent of surveyed travelers agreed that the advanced parking management system made parking easier compared to other airports.(January 2007)

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

Smart parking systems can reduce congestion and save the City of Houston $4.4 million per year.(01/01/2018)

Double parking and illegal U-turns in Washington, DC decrease by 64 percent with curbside delivery reservation system.

San Francisco-based tool makes parking more efficient by decreasing parking spot search time by 43 percent.(11/27/2014)

Broadcasting information from sensors and vehicles regarding status of on-street parking spaces reduces cruising time by 5-10 percent.(November 1, 2014)

Thirty percent of commuters would like to see an expansion of the Automated Parking Information System (APIS) that provides heavy-rail commuters with station parking availability information at en-route roadside locations.(December 2010)

A Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) smart parking system encouraged 30 percent of surveyed travelers to use transit instead of driving alone to their place of work.(June 2008)

Survey data indicate the most popular reason commuters use smart parking is that a parking spot will be available when they need it.(June 2008)

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

At the Baltimore/Washington International (BWI) airport, 81 percent of surveyed travelers agreed that the advanced parking management system made parking easier compared to other airports.(January 2007)

Outside San Francisco, a transit-based smart parking system contributed to an increase in transit mode share, a decrease in commute time and a reduction in total VMT.(December 2006)

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

A dynamic time-of-day parking meter pricing system in Los Angeles increased revenues by 2.5 percent and lowered the average parking meter rate by $0.19 per hour.(08/31/2015)

Models of dynamic parking management systems in San Francisco indicated the distance traveled while circling to find downtown parking can be reduced by 56 to 70 percent.(01/04/2015)

Low cost portable roadside sensor system estimates vehicle velocity within 2 percent accuracy and provides 100 percent accuracy of vehicle classification.(August 1, 2012)

Greater adoption of CAV may result in long-term benefits but mid-term fluctuations for costs and congestion, according to predictive model.(01/11/2019)

Greater adoption of CAV may result in long-term benefits but mid-term fluctuations for costs and congestion, according to predictive model.(01/11/2019)

CAVs are expected to decrease congestion up to 50 percent, increasing the effective capacity of urban networks leading to a new equilibrium with more users but with negligibly less congestion than the current system.(01/11/2019)

Bluetooth-based detection systems coupled with flashing beacons activated by approaching school buses is the most cost-effective strategy to enhance safety at school bus stops.(January 2017)

ICM diversion route strategies can reduce average delay up to 26 percent, reduce average number of stops up to 42 percent, and increase average speeds up to 9 percent on arterials with traffic signal control.(07/01/2013)

Deploying advanced traffic signal controllers and an adaptive decision support system for 110 blocks of New York City led to a 10 percent decrease in travel times.(August/September 2012)

Bluetooth technology helps capture real-time, accurate travel time along arterials(October 2010)

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 Monroe County, New York, the closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera provided traffic operators the availability of visual information so they can examine real time incident conditions and provide a higher and more responsive quality of service to the traveling public.(August 2006)

License plate recognition system successful in monitoring travel times, leading to reduced congestion in work zone.(October 2004)

A model indicated that an advanced transportation management and traveler information system serving northern Kentucky and Cincinnati reduced crash fatalities by 3.2 percent during peak periods.(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)

Modeling found emissions reductions of 3.7 to 4.6 percent due to an advanced transportation management and traveler information system serving northern Kentucky and Cincinnati.(4-7 June 2001)

Simulation results indicated that vehicle emissions could be reduced by two percent if arterial traffic flow data were included in the traveler information system in Seattle, Washington.(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)

A model determined that incorporating arterial traffic flow data into the traveler information system in Seattle, Washington could decrease the number of stops by 5.6 percent.(30 May 2000)

Users of the Advanced Traveler Information System in Seattle, Washington were satisfied with the information on freeway and transit conditions provided via Web sites and a Traffic TV service.(30 May 2000)

More than 99 percent of surveyed users said they benefited from information provided by an advanced transportation management system and traveler information system serving northern Kentucky and Cincinnati. (June 1999)

V2I data used to support adaptive signal control applications can reduce fuel consumption by 19 percent in scenarios with 70 percent CV market penetration.(January 2018)

V2I data used to support adaptive signal control applications can reduce rear-end conflicts by 46 to 54 percent in scenarios with 10 percent CV market penetration.(January 2018)

V2I data used to support adaptive signal control networks can reduce delay up to 30 percent in scenarios with greater than 60 percent CV market penetration.(January 2018)

Eco-Approach and Departure (EAD) techniques for connected vehicles can save six percent energy for trip segments within range of DSRC enabled signal controllers.(01/11/2017)

A SCOOT adaptive traffic signal control system provided a 12 to 21 percent savings in end-to-end travel times across a two-mile corridor in Ann Arbor, Michigan.(December 2016)

Smart red-light extension (RLE) systems can predict red-light running events and immediately extend intersection clearance times to improve safety.(January 2016)

Sixty-six percent of drivers changed their route following information provided by Iowa 511 system.(July 2015)

Intersections with dilemma zone protection can improve safety by more than 20 percent with only a two percent reduction in efficiency.(6/15/2015)

Adaptive traffic signal system reduces travel times by 1 to 4 percent on a congested arterial.(June 10, 2015)

A real-time adaptive traffic signal control algorithm supported by connected vehicle data can reduce delay by 6 to 16.6 percent depending on traffic demand and the connected vehicle market penetration rate.(January 2015)

Adaptive signal control systems that use connected vehicle data at a penetration rate of 60 percent can reduce average vehicle delay up to 60 percent under low demand scenarios.(05/14/2014)

Adaptive signal control systems that use connected vehicle data at a penetration rate of 60 percent can reduce average vehicle delay up to 60 percent under low demand scenarios.(05/14/2014)

Adaptive Transit Signal Priority (TSP) on corridors with vehicle detection can limit bus delays and mitigate impacts on cross street traffic.(01/16/2014)

A weather responsive signal control system installed on a busy corridor in Utah improved travel times by 3 percent and reduced overall stopped times by 14.5 percent during severe winter weather events.(10/13/2013)

A typical signal timing project in Portland saves over 300 metric tons of CO2 annually per retimed traffic signal.(09/01/2013)

An adaptive signal timing system in Gresham, Oregon reduced average travel times by 10 percent.(09/01/2013)

Transit signal priority in the Portland metro area can reduce transit delay by 30 to 40 percent and improve travel times 2 to 16 percent.(09/01/2013)

ICM diversion route strategies can reduce average delay up to 26 percent, reduce average number of stops up to 42 percent, and increase average speeds up to 9 percent on arterials with traffic signal control.(07/01/2013)

A German adaptive signal control system (MOTION) improved transit schedule adherence and reduced overall traffic delay by 40 percent.(01/01/2013)

Retiming of traffic signals in Fort Myers and Bonita Springs, Florida results in a 23 percent annual reduction in travel delays, in addition to fuel savings and emissions benefits.(September/October 2012)

Autonomous vehicles with full market penetration can use intelligent intersections to manage approach speeds and reduce delays by 85 percent.(9/1/2012)

An adaptive signal control system deployed in Long Island, New York, reduced motorists' fuel consumption by 2,429 gallons per day, reduced average travel time by 19 percent, and cut average emissions by 42 percent.(August 2012)

Installation of adaptive signal control systems on two corridors in Colorado improved travel times by 9 to 19 percent, increased average speed by 7 to 22 percent and maintained or improved level of service at the studied intersections. (July 2012)

Adaptive signal control systems installed on two corridors in Colorado improved weekday travel times 6 to 9 percent.(07/01/2012)

A decentralized adaptive signal control system has an expected benefit-cost ratio of almost 20:1 after five years of operation, if deployed city-wide in Pittsburgh.(July 2012)

Installation of adaptive signal control systems in two corridors in Colorado reduced fuel consumption by 2 to 7 percent and pollution emissions by up to 17 percent. (July 2012)

Adaptive signal control systems installed on two corridors in Colorado have benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 1.6:1 to 6.1:1.(07/01/2012)

A decentralized signal system pilot showed overall improvements of greater than 25 percent for average travel time, vehicle speed, number of stops and wait time for twelve routes through the pilot test area.(July 2012)

A decentralized adaptive signal control system could reduce fuel consumption by 4.3 million gallons and total emissions by 39K tonnes annually, if deployed city-wide in Pittsburgh.(July 2012)

Adaptive traffic signal control strategies can reduce travel times up to 29 percent.(05/14/2012)

Current practice and comparison research on nationwide deployed Adaptive Signal Control Technology shows up to 26 percent reduction in travel time.(04/01/2012)

Prioritization for heavy commercial vehicles at signalized intersections would reduce travel times of 22 percent of northbound trucks and 10 percent of southbound trucks.(01/26/2012)

Adaptive signal control technology reduces travel time, delays, and stops with savings ranging between $88,000 and $757,000 per year.(02/04/2011)

A survey of US and foreign Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS) users reported that 71 percent thought ATCS outperformed conventional traffic signal systems.(2010)

Total crashes per mile per year decreased by 28.84 percent on a corridor operating under SCATS adaptive signal control in Oakland County, Michigan.(September 2010)

Implementing Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies on the U.S. 75 corridor in Dallas, Texas produced an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 20.4:1.(September 2010)

After presence detection, adaptive signal control, and transit signal priority were implemented on the Atlanta Smart Corridor total fuel consumption decreased by 34 percent across all peak periods.(30 June 2010)

After presence detection, adaptive signal control, and transit signal priority were implemented on the Atlanta Smart Corridor total travel time decreased by 22 percent and total vehicle delay decreased by 40 percent across all peak periods.(30 June 2010)

Adaptive signal control, transit signal priority, and intersection improvements implemented during the Atlanta Smart Corridor project produced a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 23.2:1 to 28.2:1.(30 June 2010)

Adaptive signal control at 12 intersections improved average travel time up to 39 percent on Route MO-291.(March 2010)

Connected vehicles with a market penetration rate of 33 percent or more can support V2I applications and significantly reduce delays at urban intersections.(3-9 October 2009)

CO2 emissions can be reduced up to 15 percent using in-vehicle performance monitoring systems for Eco-Driver Coaching.(September 16, 2009)

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies that promote integration among freeways, arterials, and transit systems can help balance traffic flow and enhance corridor performance; simulation models indicate benefit-to-cost ratios for combined strategies range from 7:1 to 25:1.(2009)

Case studies of several transportation departments updating traffic signal systems estimated at least 10 percent reduction in delays, 23 percent reduction in the number of stops, and 3.5 percent reduction in fuel consumption as a result of signal system upgrades and retimings. (December 31, 2007)

Use of ACS Lite reduced travel time by 12 percent, stops by 28 percent, and travel time delay by 28 percent.(September 2006)

Deployed ACS Lite near Columbus, Ohio saves $88,400 in operations while increasing network volumes.(November 2005)

Portable field mapping systems reduce delivery time for post-landslide maintenance and have potential annual net savings in labor costs of $208,000.(10 February 2005 )

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 and Seattle Washington 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 reduced vehicle stops by 28 to 41 percent; improve safety.(December 2000)

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

Arterial information allows travelers to make more informed decisions.(December 2000)

Adaptive signal control can lower operations and maintenance costs.(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)

Deploying advanced technologies and an integrated corridor management approach decreased congestion and improved traffic flow within an 8-mile corridor south of Twin Cities, Minneapolis encouraging 58% of motorists surveyed to use arterial streets for short trips rather than Interstate-494.(April 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 3 to 6 percent and lowered fuel consumption by 4 to 7 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 improved flow by reducing 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)

Autonomous intersection management (AIM) systems can achieve three percent more traffic throughput than a traditional signal system, assuming 10 percent CAV market penetration.(July 2018)

Hybrid Vehicle Actuation signal timing using connected vehicle broadcasts and inductive loop data can reduce delay by up to 32 percent compared to inductive loop only systems.(01/07/2018)

Simulation experiments show that connected and autonomous vehicle signalized intersection coordination systems can reduce fuel consumption by 22.1 to 52.0 percent.(10/25/2017)

Simulation experiments show that signalized intersection coordination for connected and autonomous vehicles can reduce travel delay by 24.2 to 77.1 percent.(10/25/2017)

After deployment of a dilemma zone protection system in Maryland, the percentage of vehicles approaching rural intersection sites at excessive speeds dropped from 29 to 16 percent at one site and from 8 to 1 percent at another site.(July 2017)

After deployment of dilemma zone protection system, the percentage of drivers going through an intersection at speed on a yellow phase reduced from 50 percent to 43 percent at one intersection and 18 percent at another.(July 2017)

Deployment of a dilemma zone protection system reduced the maximum length of the dilemma zone by 30 percent at a rural intersection in Maryland.(July 2017)

Radar-based dilemma zone protection systems reduced red-light running by up to 80 percent at test locations in Virginia.(April 2017)

Eco-Approach and Departure (EAD) techniques for connected vehicles can save six percent energy for trip segments within range of DSRC enabled signal controllers.(01/11/2017)

The California PASS Program deployed intelligent traffic signal systems throughout the Bay Area to achieve benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 12:1 to 105:1.(01/19/2016)

Smart red-light extension (RLE) systems can predict red-light running events and immediately extend intersection clearance times to improve safety.(January 2016)

Signal Priority operations shown to improve connected bus travel times by 8.2 percent and connected truck travel times by 39.7 percent.(08/19/2015)

Intelligent traffic signal systems can reduce average vehicle delay by 17 to 23 percent with 50 percent connected vehicle market penetration.(08/19/2015)

Enabling connected vehicles to pay for priority at signalized intersections yields a benefit cost of at least 1.0 at 20 percent CV penetration and as much as 3.0 at 10 percent CV penetration when including reduced network delay for all vehicles.(08/01/2015)

Adaptive traffic signal system reduces travel times by 1 to 4 percent on a congested arterial.(June 10, 2015)

Field Evaluation of Detection Control System leaves 72 percent fewer vehicles in the dilemma zone(April 2015)

A well designed signal retiming plan covering 8.7 miles resulted in 16,322 hours of travel time savings and 982 tons of CO2 reductions.(03/01/2014)

A typical signal timing project in Portland saves over 300 metric tons of CO2 annually per retimed traffic signal.(09/01/2013)

An adaptive signal timing system in Gresham, Oregon reduced average travel times by 10 percent.(09/01/2013)

Transit signal priority in the Portland metro area can reduce transit delay by 30 to 40 percent and improve travel times 2 to 16 percent.(09/01/2013)

Full deployment of mobility applications may be capable of eliminating more than 1/3rd of the travel delay that is caused by congestion.(12/10/12)

Cooperative vehicle intersection signal control systems can reduce intersection stop time by more than 82 percent. (09/06/2012)

Cooperative vehicle intersection signal control systems can reduce fuel consumption and emissions by 36 and 37 percent, respectively.(09/06/2012)

Cooperative vehicle intersection signal control systems can reduce numbers of rear-end crash events by 30 to 87 percent.(09/06/2012)

Deploying advanced traffic signal controllers and an adaptive decision support system for 110 blocks of New York City led to a 10 percent decrease in travel times.(August/September 2012)

Decision Support System scenarios modeled on the ICM Corridor in Dallas Texas show travel time savings of 9 percent on arterials when vehicles divert from the freeway.(August 1, 2012)

An optimized traffic signal timing project in Allegheny County, PA resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 57:1 along the corridor.(August 2011)

Synchronizing traffic lights on Alicia Parkway, a major corridor in California, reduced the number of stops by 75 percent and lowered greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent.(May 25, 2011)

Navigation systems with eco-routing features can improve fuel economy by 15 percent.(January 2011)

Coordinated actuated traffic signal systems produced a 30 percent reduction in corridor travel times compared to actuated isolated systems, resulting in a benefit/cost ratio of 461.3.(September 2010)

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)

Case studies of several transportation departments updating traffic signal systems estimated at least 10 percent reduction in delays, 23 percent reduction in the number of stops, and 3.5 percent reduction in fuel consumption as a result of signal system upgrades and retimings. (December 31, 2007)

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)

Full ITS deployment in the Seattle area projected to reduce recurrent congestion delays by 3.2 percent and incident related delays by 50 percent.(May 2005)

Full ITS deployment in Seattle projects personal travel time reductions of 3.7 percent for drivers and 24 percent for transit users.(May 2005)

Full deployment of comprehensive ITS strategies in Seattle are projected to reduce CO, HC, and NOx emissions by 16 percent, 17 percent and 21 percent, respectively and reduce fuel consumption by 19 percent.(May 2005)

Full ITS deployment in Seattle projects vehicle speeds to increase by as much as 12 percent on major roadways.(May 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)

Controlled motorways offer improved travel time reliability and less stress for drivers, but in some cases costs can outweigh benefits.(November 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 freeway DMS integrated with incident management in San Antonio, Texas, found fuel consumption reduced by 1.2 percent; 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)

Deploying advanced technologies and an integrated corridor management approach decreased congestion and improved traffic flow within an 8-mile corridor south of Twin Cities, Minneapolis encouraging 58% of motorists surveyed to use arterial streets for short trips rather than Interstate-494.(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)

In Tysons Corner, Virginia optimized signal timing lead to a 9 percent reduction in fuel consumption.(March 2000)

In Tysons Corner, Virginia optimized signal timing reduced delay by approximately 22 percent and decreased stops 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)

A prototype intelligent pedestrian traffic signal system tested at an intersection in Valladolid, Spain successfully reduced pedestrian wait times, resulting in a 23 percent reduction of pedestrian crowding at crosswalks.(02/01/2016)

A prototype intelligent pedestrian traffic signal system tested at an intersection in Alcalá de Henares, Spain reduced serious pedestrian-vehicle conflicts by 20 percent.(02/01/2016)

Presence of pedestrian countdown signals in Michigan reduces crashes involving pedestrians age 65 years and older by 65 percent.(11/15/2015)

Pedestrian gate presence reduces violation propensity at rail crossings, providing public safety benefits.(04/01/2013)

HAWK pedestrian beacon shows 69 percent reduction in crashes involving pedestrians.(June 2012)

Pedestrian control devices reviewed by the Oregon Department of Transportation prompt driver compliance rates up to 98 percent.(March 2012)

Automated pedestrian detection at signalized intersections tested in three U.S. cities reduced the number of pedestrians who began crossing during the steady DON’T WALK signal by 81 percent.(August 2001)

Vehicle-pedestrian conflicts were reduced by 89 percent in the first half of the crossing and 43 percent in the second half with automated pedestrian detection at intersections in Los Angeles, California; Rochester, New York; and Phoenix, Arizona. (Spring/Summer 1999)

Signal optimization model can reduce intersection vehicle delay by 22 percent compared to actuated signal control.(January 2018)

Signal optimization model can increase intersection efficiency by 16 percent compared to actuated signal control.(January 2018)

Eco-approach and departure technology provides an additional 4 -5 percent improvement on top of a coordinated corridor.(November 2013)

Greater adoption of CAV may result in long-term benefits but mid-term fluctuations for costs and congestion, according to predictive model.(01/11/2019)

CAVs are expected to decrease congestion up to 50 percent, increasing the effective capacity of urban networks leading to a new equilibrium with more users but with negligibly less congestion than the current system.(01/11/2019)

CV-based adaptive signal control has potential to increase mainline arterial speeds by an average of 5 percent and reduce maximum intersection queue lengths by 66.7 percent even with low market penetration (5 percent CV).

A connected automated-vehicle velocity control and separation strategy improved the performance of platoons on a signalized arterial reducing travel times by 19.2 percent.(07/17/2018)

A connected automated-vehicle velocity control and separation strategy improved the performance of platoons on a signalized arterial reducing fuel consumption by 18.1 percent. (07/17/2018)

An intersection Eco-signal System can reduce fuel consumption up to 45 percent.(1/13/2018)

V2I data used to support adaptive signal control applications can reduce fuel consumption by 19 percent in scenarios with 70 percent CV market penetration.(January 2018)

Compared to the performance of a well-tuned fully actuated signal control system, proactive signal control supported by connected vehicle data can reduce fuel consumption by 18 percent.(January 2018)

Simulation effort shows that connected vehicle-enabled proactive signal control systems can reduce vehicle stops by 40 percent with full market penetration.(January 2018)

Compared to the performance of a well-tuned fully actuated signal control system, proactive signal control supported by connected vehicle data can reduce total vehicle delay up to 59 percent.(January 2018)

Simulation effort shows that connected vehicle-enabled proactive signal control systems can reduce fuel consumption by 18 percent with full market penetration.(January 2018)

Applying a proactive signal control system to a connected vehicle network can reduce fuel consumption by 24 percent.(July 2017)

Applying a proactive signal control system to a connected vehicle network can reduce total vehicle delay up to 89 percent.(July 2017)

A signal control system that uses SPaT messages and vehicle trajectory information to advise connected vehicles can improve throughput by up to 11 percent.(6/1/2017)

A signal control system that uses SPaT messages and vehicle trajectory information to advise connected vehicles can reduce fuel consumption up to 58 percent.(6/1/2017)

Eco-Approach and Departure (EAD) techniques for connected vehicles can save six percent energy for trip segments within range of DSRC enabled signal controllers.(01/11/2017)

Eco-Signal Operations applications could provide up to 11 percent decrease in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions.(January 26, 2015)

Intelligent intersection signal control systems that use connected vehicle data to optimize approach and departure speeds of vehicles equipped with cooperative adaptive cruise control (CACC) systems can reduce fuel consumption by 21.8 percent.(02/18/2014)

Preliminary modeling results for Eco-Traffic Signal Timing show 5 percent reduction in fuel consumption.(01/29/2014)

Eco-driving can reduce emissions by more than 50 percent at signalized intersections.(01/12/2014)

Eco-speed control applications for connected vehicles can reduce fuel consumption 30 percent at urban intersections.(12-16 January 2014)

Eco-approach and departure technology provides an additional 4 -5 percent improvement on top of a coordinated corridor.(November 2013)

Connected vehicles that receive future state intersection signal control data to support predictive cruise control functions can reduce fuel consumption 24 to 47 percent.(05/01/2011)

Deployment of special event signal timing plans has reduced queuing onto travel lanes of I-75 before events and reduced time for traffic to disperse after events to 90 minutes from 3 to 4 hours.(2013)

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)

Simulation models show that in a fully connected vehicle environment, a variable speed limit (VSL) control algorithm can reduce total travel time by 20 percent.(07/18/2015)

Simulation models show that in a fully connected vehicle environment, a variable speed limit (VSL) control algorithm can reduce fuel consumption by 5 to 16 percent.(07/18/2015)

Local traffic measures such as controlling traffic demand, banning heavy duty vehicles or restricting speeds activated only during periods of peak pollution can contibute to significant reductions in air quality measures.(10-14 January 2010)

Compared to using connected vehicle data alone, algorithms developed to estimate the positions of unequipped vehicles can result in up to an 8 percent reduction in delay.(12/01/2013)

The Safe Green Passage application using the Multipath Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) broadcast message to inform drivers revealed that as travel demand increased, the benefits of the application decreased.(03/01/2013)

Intersection control system for autonomous vehicles results in up to 95 percent reduction in intersection delay.(01/13/2013)

Emphasize data-driven mobilizations and incorporate Automated Speed Enforcement devices in vulnerable locations to minimize resource needs of speed-limit enforcement.(01/20/2019)

During system testing, CV Pilot sites discover the importance of having expertise in detecting and mitigating interferences with radio frequency and GPS signals(12/13/2018)

Refine institutional arrangements when deploying connected vehicle technology to outline the expectations of partners in terms of service, outcomes and reporting.(12/13/2018)

Refine proper antenna placement on connected vehicles (particularly commercial vehicles) to reduce DSRC ‘shadow’ areas where DSRC signal is degraded.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers are encouraged to utilize multi-vendor outsourcing and to source suppliers early to create a collaborative environment that enables as much parallel work as possible.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers should assess field equipment and organizational capabilities that will be needed to support core CV components.(12/13/2018)

RSU triangulation techniques and inertial GPS solutions can improve geolocation accuracy for connected vehicles operating in dense urban environments.

Deploy automated speed enforcement with dynamic "your speed" signs in work zones to heighten visual attention from drivers.(01/01/2016)

During system testing, CV Pilot sites discover the importance of having expertise in detecting and mitigating interferences with radio frequency and GPS signals(12/13/2018)

Refine institutional arrangements when deploying connected vehicle technology to outline the expectations of partners in terms of service, outcomes and reporting.(12/13/2018)

Refine proper antenna placement on connected vehicles (particularly commercial vehicles) to reduce DSRC ‘shadow’ areas where DSRC signal is degraded.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers are encouraged to utilize multi-vendor outsourcing and to source suppliers early to create a collaborative environment that enables as much parallel work as possible.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers should assess field equipment and organizational capabilities that will be needed to support core CV components.(12/13/2018)

Perform robust observations at intersections before determining whether red-light cameras should be installed.(June 2018)

RSU triangulation techniques and inertial GPS solutions can improve geolocation accuracy for connected vehicles operating in dense urban environments.

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

Avoid using blank messages on dynamic message signs (DMS) including dashes for travel time applications as drivers may not understand these signs or assume they are broken.(December 2012)

In developing software for automated posting of messages on dynamic message signs, focus on the types of messages that are used often and changed frequently, and also include manual methods for posting.(01/30/2009)

Use Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation (AMS) to identify gaps, determine constraints, and invest in the best combination of Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies.(September 2008)

Consider the long-term operations and maintenance responsibilities and costs when selecting project components. (9 May 2008)

Expect non-custom hardware and software to have technology limitations that may affect operational capabilities. (9 May 2008)

Prepare in advance for severe weather by staffing enough snow plow operators and ensuring that public information systems will be updated with current weather and road conditions.(March 27, 2007 )

Identify key design issues in the deployment of advanced parking management systems (APMS).(January 2007)

Involve all appropriate stakeholders in a formal and collaborative manner during each phase of the advanced parking management systems (APMS) project.(January 2007)

Consider the impact of different technical and design factors when making cost estimates for advanced parking management systems (APMS).(January 2007)

Ensure proper operations and maintenance of advanced parking management systems (APMS)(January 2007)

Consult with traffic engineers early in the process of no-notice evacuations to secure the use of traffic management resources and to identify routes for evacuation and re-entry.(February 2006)

Develop a user-oriented system for displaying travel time messages on dynamic messages signs. (May, 2005)

Optimize travel time messaging operations by improving the way in which data is collected, analyzed, and displayed. (May, 2005)

Follow accepted guidelines to create concise, effective messages to communicate to the public using Dynamic Message Signs (DMS).(August 2004)

Adopt adequate and thorough procurement processes which cover purchases of both standardized commodity type equipment and highly complex integrated ITS components.(9/23/2003)

Deploy ITS systems strategically to achieve benefits.(6/1/2001)

Integrate freeway and alternate route operations to achieve greater benefits.(6/1/2001)

Follow a modular approach when deploying complex projects in locations with a shortened construction season.(April 2000)

"Smart City" Planners are encouraged to emphasize the interconnectedness of mobility solutions with community goals, whether or not those solutions are perceived of as being high-tech.(11/12/2018)

RSU triangulation techniques and inertial GPS solutions can improve geolocation accuracy for connected vehicles operating in dense urban environments.

Industry Experts Offer Recommendations for Enterprise-wide Security Controls for the Connected Vehicle Environment.(05/01/2017)

Consider the spatial environment in which a wireless technology is planned to assure signal reception will be sufficient to support V2I applications.(03/01/2013)

Keep technical solutions open-ended in the early stages of an ITS research project, and follow a research oriented contract vehicle.(May 16, 2007)

Consider road geometry carefully before implementing part-time shoulder use lanes.(11/21/18)

Marketing the benefits of roadway pricing strategies throughout the lifespan of a project can improve public perception of these projects.(04/01/2013)

For successful implementation of a road pricing program, strive for simplicity in policy goals and strong championing of the program by the executive and legislative leaders.(12/01/2010)

Consider stakeholder outreach and education, transport modes that offer an alternative to driving, performance measurement, and area geography with high importance in the planning phase for road pricing programs.(12/01/2010)

Be prepared to face the opportunities and challenges posed by political timetables, project deadlines, as well as pricing-equity issues for road pricing procurement and implementation.(12/01/2010)

Define clear goals and pay attention to key institutional and technical factors for successful implementation of road pricing programs.(12/01/2010)

Consider tolling as a tool for managing travel demand and increasing efficiency, as well as for generating revenue.(2006)

Use appropriate traffic control markings and measures to encourage driver comfort and proper use of reversible lanes at signalized intersections. (07/01/2019)

Deploy reversible lanes on arterial streets to improve capacity in the peak direction, but note that it may yield higher collision rates.(2013)

USDOT identifies ten characteristics that support an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) approach to improving throughput and reducing congestion.(11/01/2018)

Consider the following three criterial when screening candidate sites for active traffic management solutions: limited capacity improvement options; operations and maintenance resources; and ability to coordinate among stakeholders.(2013)

Automate collection of parking occupancy data when traditional parking surveys lack resolution and sample size to support large-scale demand-responsive parking management systems.(11/13/2015)

Periodically assess the accuracy and reliability of parking management vehicle sensors and predictive algorithms to assure performance under a variety of weather conditions and traffic situations.(12/27/2013)

In planning for a demand-responsive pricing based parking management system, involve executive leadership, seek strong intellectual foundations, strike the right balance between complexity and simplicity, and emphasize data collection and project evaluation.(August 2011)

Consider the long-term operations and maintenance responsibilities and costs when selecting project components. (9 May 2008)

Study the surrounding area for topographical encumbrances and radio interference when deploying wireless communication projects for traffic and parking management. (9 May 2008)

Expect non-custom hardware and software to have technology limitations that may affect operational capabilities. (9 May 2008)

Employ sensors that can account for a range of parking lot vehicle movements.(1 August 2007)

Anticipate project delays and allocate sufficient time and funding to address key project variables.(1 August 2007)

Manage uncertainty and discovery associated with procurement of advanced parking management technologies and plan for potential delays resulting from permitting and regulation processes.(August 2011)

Utilize organizational assets and competencies effectively; do not underestimate the need and efforts for building internal consensus and cultural change when implementing a new parking management system.(August 2011)

Conduct extensive outreach, be transparent about goals, policies, and methods of installing an advanced parking management system, and communicate clearly how the revenue from a new parking management system will be used.(August 2011)

In planning for a demand-responsive pricing based parking management system, involve executive leadership, seek strong intellectual foundations, strike the right balance between complexity and simplicity, and emphasize data collection and project evaluation.(August 2011)

Pursue technology based, high risk policies incrementally to better manage likely organizational and technological challenges.(August 2011)

Install message signs at strategic locations to provide commuters en route with real-time information of the parking availability status at a major transit station.(December 2010)

Implement smart parking systems at sites that experience high parking demand, are located close to a major freeway or arterial, and are configured to accommodate parking sensors at entrances and exits to promote accurate parking counts.(June 2008)

Consider the long-term operations and maintenance responsibilities and costs when selecting project components. (9 May 2008)

Expect non-custom hardware and software to have technology limitations that may affect operational capabilities. (9 May 2008)

Involve all appropriate stakeholders in the planning and development of the project to encourage coordination and collaboration. (9 May 2008)

Consider and evaluate user needs when designing communication infrastructure.(1 August 2007)

Identify key design issues in the deployment of advanced parking management systems (APMS).(January 2007)

Involve all appropriate stakeholders in a formal and collaborative manner during each phase of the advanced parking management systems (APMS) project.(January 2007)

Consider the impact of different technical and design factors when making cost estimates for advanced parking management systems (APMS).(January 2007)

Ensure proper operations and maintenance of advanced parking management systems (APMS)(January 2007)

Consider the impact fees have on parking behavior.(1 August 2007)

Plan your system to accommodate future expansion.(October, 2008)

Provide commuters with predictive traffic measures to improve trip planning and reduce congestion during peak hours.(05/17/2019)

Greater adoption of CAV may result in long-term benefits but mid-term fluctuations for costs and congestion, according to predictive model.(01/11/2019)

During system testing, CV Pilot sites discover the importance of having expertise in detecting and mitigating interferences with radio frequency and GPS signals(12/13/2018)

Refine institutional arrangements when deploying connected vehicle technology to outline the expectations of partners in terms of service, outcomes and reporting.(12/13/2018)

Refine proper antenna placement on connected vehicles (particularly commercial vehicles) to reduce DSRC ‘shadow’ areas where DSRC signal is degraded.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers are encouraged to utilize multi-vendor outsourcing and to source suppliers early to create a collaborative environment that enables as much parallel work as possible.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers should assess field equipment and organizational capabilities that will be needed to support core CV components.(12/13/2018)

A Federal report highlights best practices for ITS programs that plan to implement connected vehicle (CV) technology.(07/01/2018)

USDOT Identifies Effective Ownership and Governance Model Areas of Interest for a Full-Scale SCMS deployment for Connected Vehicles.(06/22/2018)

Perform early real-world testing of connected vehicle technology with actual infrastructure in place to verify end-to-end system/application performance (10/02/2017)

Deploy arterial travel time detection systems incrementally to allow time to identify issues and fine-tune performance.(04/01/2013)

Install detection sensors overhead on existing signal mast heads when possible, instead of using in-ground sensors to reduce both initial costs and maintenance costs.(August/September 2012)

Use vehicle probes to monitor traffic cost-effectively, manage incidents and queue ups proactively, reduce delays, and increase traveler satisfaction along a multi-state transportation corridor.(August 12, 2010)

Beware of costs, utility, reliability, and maintenance issues in deploying a statewide transportation network monitoring system. (01/30/2009)

Beware of the limitations of using toll tags in order to calculate travel time on limited access roadways and arterials. (01/30/2009)

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)

Beware that modeling may not be a suitable substitute for before-after studies of ITS integration projects.(14 May 2008)

Improve overall usefulness of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera by expanding the coverage, color-vision features, and operational availability of the camera. (August 2006)

Beware of the likely trade-off between a decrease in the frequency of right-angle crashes and an increase in the frequency of rear-end crashes when considering installation of red-light-cameras.(April 2005)

Identify methods to distribute automated vehicle identification tags to improve market penetration when collecting arterial travel speed information.(October 2000)

Forge a partnership among the local public sector agencies managing transportation operations along a multi-jurisdictional corridor and the private sector for deployment and integration of ITS.(April 2000)

Follow a modular approach when deploying complex projects in locations with a shortened construction season.(April 2000)

Invest in automated bicycle-pedestrian counters to both save time over doing manual counts and provide the ability to track continuous data over longer periods of time.(12/01/2016)

Provide commuters with predictive traffic measures to improve trip planning and reduce congestion during peak hours.(05/17/2019)

A Federal report highlights best practices for ITS programs that plan to implement connected vehicle (CV) technology.(07/01/2018)

Perform early real-world testing of connected vehicle technology with actual infrastructure in place to verify end-to-end system/application performance (10/02/2017)

Future ICM systems will require new technical skill sets. Involve management across multiple levels to help agencies understand each other’s needs, capabilities, and priorities.(06/30/2015)

Use Model Systems Engineering (SE) Documents for Deployment of Adaptive Signal Control Technology Systems(August 2012)

Commit to acquiring the proper level of staffing and knowledge required for the operations and maintenance of Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) prior to deployment.(2010)

Be sure to conduct a detailed evaluation prior to installing an Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS), and be aware that conducting a public education campaign on ATCS risks building expectations too high.(2010)

Identify functional boundaries and needs for cross jurisdictional control required to implement adaptive signal control and transit signal priority systems.(30 June 2010)

Use Analysis, Modeling, and Simulation (AMS) to identify gaps, determine constraints, and invest in the best combination of Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) strategies.(September 2008)

Incorporate real-time data collection capabilities when updating traffic signals to better target signal maintenance needs.(December 31, 2007)

Use the ITE Traffic Signal Self-Assessment to help make the case for increased staffing and funding to support traffic signal programs.(December 31, 2007)

Follow a modular approach when deploying complex projects in locations with a shortened construction season.(April 2000)

Connected Vehicle Vehicle-to-Infrastructure deployment in Tallahassee, FL realizes importance of field reviews, placement of devices, and roadway geography.(04/10/2019)

National Operations Center of Excellence (NOCoE) provides updates on operational SPaT Challenge deployments in recorded Webinar #10.(01/22/2019)

During system testing, CV Pilot sites discover the importance of having expertise in detecting and mitigating interferences with radio frequency and GPS signals(12/13/2018)

Refine institutional arrangements when deploying connected vehicle technology to outline the expectations of partners in terms of service, outcomes and reporting.(12/13/2018)

Refine proper antenna placement on connected vehicles (particularly commercial vehicles) to reduce DSRC ‘shadow’ areas where DSRC signal is degraded.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers are encouraged to utilize multi-vendor outsourcing and to source suppliers early to create a collaborative environment that enables as much parallel work as possible.(12/13/2018)

Connected vehicle deployers should assess field equipment and organizational capabilities that will be needed to support core CV components.(12/13/2018)

National Operations Center of Excellence (NOCoE) provides updates on SPaT Challenge activities in recorded Webinar #7. (07/17/2018)

Checklist for a successful deployment of the V2I Hub platform that facilitates communication between connected vehicle hardware and traffic control systems.

A Federal report highlights best practices for ITS programs that plan to implement connected vehicle (CV) technology.(07/01/2018)

Best practices to support the arrival of smart mobility for non-urban communities.(03/15/2018)

RSU triangulation techniques and inertial GPS solutions can improve geolocation accuracy for connected vehicles operating in dense urban environments.

Use local student mechanics where possible to perform CV equipment installations to provide students with required trainee experience and to contain costs(11/01/2017)

Obtain working prototypes of CV applications from the USDOT’s Open Source Application Data Portal (OSADP) to prevent time spent doing duplicative software development(11/01/2017)

Allow for increased coordination with the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) early on in the DSRC licensing process to help reduce what is traditionally a very lengthy process.(11/01/2017)

Include technical, operations, and legal personnel in stakeholder meetings to address the requirements of the CV deployment and ensure that participants' privacy is being maintained(11/01/2017)

Incorporate standardized over-the-air update procedures to permit efficient firmware updates for connected vehicle devices.(11/01/2017)

Consider installing additional vehicle detection equipment if it is determined that there is not sufficient market penetration for CV traffic signal control applications to work at their full potential(11/01/2017)

Publish all CV planning documentation to serve as an example for other early deployers to follow(11/01/2017)

Agencies that manage multimodal transportation corridors can use AMS methodology with ICM decision support systems to facilitate predictive, real-time, and scenario-based decision-making.(12/01/2016)

Placing detectors and deploying transit signal priority should be done to maximize benefits for transit vehicles while minimizing delay for other vehicles.(2013)

Familiarize travelers with active traffic management applications and use visible police presence when initiating ATM operations to improve pedestrian safety.(2013)

Install detection sensors overhead on existing signal mast heads when possible, instead of using in-ground sensors to reduce both initial costs and maintenance costs.(August/September 2012)

Focus on the integration of business processes at the institutional or programmatic level rather than at the operations level.(2011)

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)

Incorporate real-time data collection capabilities when updating traffic signals to better target signal maintenance needs.(December 31, 2007)

Use the ITE Traffic Signal Self-Assessment to help make the case for increased staffing and funding to support traffic signal programs.(December 31, 2007)

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)

Follow a modular approach when deploying complex projects in locations with a shortened construction season.(April 2000)

Best practices to support the arrival of smart mobility for non-urban communities.(03/15/2018)

USDOT Identifies Effective Ownership and Governance Model Areas of Interest for a Full-Scale SCMS deployment for Connected Vehicles.(06/22/2018)

A Federal report highlights best practices for ITS programs that plan to implement connected vehicle (CV) technology.(07/01/2018)

Focus on the integration of business processes at the institutional or programmatic level rather than at the operations level.(2011)

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)

Vermont offers key lessons learned on asset management for agencies exploring deployment of Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPMs).(11/14/2019)

USDOT identifies ten characteristics that support an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) approach to improving throughput and reducing congestion.(11/01/2018)

Consider the spatial environment in which a wireless technology is planned to assure signal reception will be sufficient to support V2I applications.(03/01/2013)

Consider the following three criterial when screening candidate sites for active traffic management solutions: limited capacity improvement options; operations and maintenance resources; and ability to coordinate among stakeholders.(2013)

Deploying right-turn restrictions as an active traffic management strategy can improve safety and efficiency at intersections with unconventional layouts, right-turn overlaps, emergency vehicle conflict concerns, and high pedestrian volumes.(2013)

Maintain, reinforce, and expand existing programs to improve traffic signal operations.(3/26/2006)

Test new signal timing plans, even on a shoestring budget.(July 2005)

Conduct a site survey when developing a new signal timing plan. (July 2005)

Adopt a performance-based, proactive approach to traffic signal system operations in order to maximize operational efficiency.(February, 2004)

Maintain adequate funding and personnel levels to maximize efficient operation of traffic signal systems operations.(February, 2004)

Use a regional approach for traffic signal systems operations to realize cost efficiencies.(February, 2004)

Partner with neighboring agencies, either formally or informally, to address institutional challenges and benefit from cross-jurisdictional traffic signal coordination.(February 2002)

Use non-proprietary software for ITS projects to ensure compatibility with other ITS components(2001)