View By Application

Crash Prevention & Safety


Crash prevention and safety systems detect unsafe conditions and provide warnings to travelers to take action to avoid crashes. These systems provide alerts for traffic approaching at dangerous curves, off ramps, restricted overpasses, highway-rail crossings, high-volume intersections, and also provide warnings of the presence of pedestrians, and bicyclists, and even animals on the roadway. Crash prevention and safety systems typically employ sensors to monitor the speed and characteristics of approaching vehicles and frequently also include environmental sensors to monitor roadway conditions and visibility. These systems may be either permanent or temporary. Some systems provide a general warning of the recommended speed for prevailing roadway conditions. Other systems provide a specific warning by taking into account the particular vehicle's characteristics (truck or car) and a calculation of the recommended speed for the particular vehicle based on conditions. In some cases, manual systems are employed, for example where pedestrians or bicyclists manually set the system to provide warnings of their presence to travelers.


Carefully select vendors and develop contracts for animal detection systems. (August 2006)

Consider dynamic natural conditions and surrounding landscapes when selecting technologies for animal detection system deployments.(August 2006)

Thoroughly test, evaluate, and maintain animal detections systems.(August 2006)

Ensure public familiarity with animal detection systems by displaying signs so that they are easily understood and by providing basic system information prior to deployment.(August 2006)

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

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.

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)

Integrate stop and caution warning signage into heads-up displays to help older drivers brake sooner for potential hazards.(10/14/2015)

Arbitrate driver warnings generated by in-vehicle systems to prevent confusion in cases where multiple warnings are presented in multiple threat scenarios.(June 2011)

Incorporate proven technologies and false alarm reduction strategies in the design of future Automotive Collision Avoidance Systems (ACAS).(April 2006)

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 side object detection systems for transit buses that have proven effectiveness in transit operating environments and been accepted by transit operators.(December 15 2008)

Arbitrate driver warnings generated by in-vehicle systems to prevent confusion in cases where multiple warnings are presented in multiple threat scenarios.(June 2011)

Ensure that ITS field operations tests use technologies and applications that are proven to be deployment ready.(26 September 2003)

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)

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)

When installing antennas on streetcars to support wireless connected vehicle applications, verify that radio performance is not compromised by interference from high-voltage power lines.(11/01/2017)

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

Integrate stop and caution warning signage into heads-up displays to help older drivers brake sooner for potential hazards.(10/14/2015)

Specify and implement high accuracy vehicle location and pedestrian detection technology for connected vehicle transit safety applications.(November 2014)

Deploy side object detection systems for transit buses that have proven effectiveness in transit operating environments and been accepted by transit operators.(December 15 2008)

Ensure that ITS field operations tests use technologies and applications that are proven to be deployment ready.(26 September 2003)

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)

Understand the Impacts on Public Sector Infrastructure due to Connected Vehicle Deployments(August 2010)

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

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

Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program yields program management best practices for integrating and testing large disparate systems.(11/01/2017)

The USDOT’s three Connected Vehicle Pilots successfully demonstrate cross-site over-the-air interoperability among six participating vendors.(11/01/2017)

New York City Connected Vehicle pilot deployment project works to overcome challenges associated with pursuing a density of vehicle interactions never previously attempted with CV technology.(10/02/2017)

Specify interoperability testing requirements and steps as part of the connected vehicle device requirements prior to starting multiple rounds of testing, feedback, reset, and retesting.(September 2015)

Use a modular project structure and focus on high priority objectives and project components when deploying complex ITS projects such as those with connected vehicle technologies. (September 2015)

Clearly communicate requirements and testing procedures to connected vehicle device developers, and allow for industry input and iteration for less mature devices. (September 2015)

Develop a focused outreach plan that identifies all stakeholders, the message appropriate for each stakeholder and the method in which you will reach the stakeholders when embarking on a connected vehicle project.(September 2015)

Conduct a data collection pilot test to validate end-to-end data acquisition, transfer, processing, and quality assessment processes.(September 2015)

Consider New Approaches to Address Distracted Driving when Designing and Developing ITS Applications(March 31, 2011 )

Select appropriate technologies to enable emergency notification and response systems to complement traditional 9-1-1 service.(9/1/1998)

Implement location-based filtering to modify threat assessments or alerts where drivers choose not to respond to repeated in-vehicle warnings.(June 2011)

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)

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)

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)

Specify interoperability testing requirements and steps as part of the connected vehicle device requirements prior to starting multiple rounds of testing, feedback, reset, and retesting.(September 2015)

Use a modular project structure and focus on high priority objectives and project components when deploying complex ITS projects such as those with connected vehicle technologies. (September 2015)

Clearly communicate requirements and testing procedures to connected vehicle device developers, and allow for industry input and iteration for less mature devices. (September 2015)

Develop a focused outreach plan that identifies all stakeholders, the message appropriate for each stakeholder and the method in which you will reach the stakeholders when embarking on a connected vehicle project.(September 2015)

Conduct a data collection pilot test to validate end-to-end data acquisition, transfer, processing, and quality assessment processes.(September 2015)

Include driver age, time of day, and intersection characteristics in the design of red light violation algorithms and warning systems, and their field operational tests.(March 2006)

Implement infrastructure-based collision avoidance technology to mitigate risks at crash prone intersections.(September 2003)

Implement infrastructure-based collision avoidance technology to mitigate risks at crash prone intersections.(September 2003)

Current generation pedestrian crash avoidance systems may not be effective at night or during right-turns.(10/01/2019)

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

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.

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)

For pedestrian safety warning applications, opt to collect pedestrian location data from LIDAR sensors instead of pedestrian mobile devices that often have insufficient accuracy.(11/01/2017)

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

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

Facing a gap in standards interpretation, the Tampa and New York City Connected Vehicle Pilot Sites worked together to harmonize message structure for pedestrian safety applications.(11/01/2017)

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)

Integrate stop and caution warning signage into heads-up displays to help older drivers brake sooner for potential hazards.(10/14/2015)

Specify interoperability testing requirements and steps as part of the connected vehicle device requirements prior to starting multiple rounds of testing, feedback, reset, and retesting.(September 2015)

Use a modular project structure and focus on high priority objectives and project components when deploying complex ITS projects such as those with connected vehicle technologies. (September 2015)

Clearly communicate requirements and testing procedures to connected vehicle device developers, and allow for industry input and iteration for less mature devices. (September 2015)

Develop a focused outreach plan that identifies all stakeholders, the message appropriate for each stakeholder and the method in which you will reach the stakeholders when embarking on a connected vehicle project.(September 2015)

Conduct a data collection pilot test to validate end-to-end data acquisition, transfer, processing, and quality assessment processes.(September 2015)

Specify and implement high accuracy vehicle location and pedestrian detection technology for connected vehicle transit safety applications.(November 2014)

Separately deploying mileage-based user fee and in-vehicle safety alert functions helps ensure each technology has the best opportunity for user acceptance.(02/01/2013)

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)

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)

Separately deploying mileage-based user fee and in-vehicle safety alert functions helps ensure each technology has the best opportunity for user acceptance.(02/01/2013)

Use speed warning signs on dangerous curves to reduce speeds of trucks.(November 2001)

Use speed warning signs on dangerous curves to reduce speeds of trucks.(November 2001)

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)

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)

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)

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

Use on-board connected vehicle (CV) technology and SPaT / MAP infrastructure messages to prevent wrong way entries on reversible express lanes.(11/01/2017)

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

Specify interoperability testing requirements and steps as part of the connected vehicle device requirements prior to starting multiple rounds of testing, feedback, reset, and retesting.(September 2015)

Use a modular project structure and focus on high priority objectives and project components when deploying complex ITS projects such as those with connected vehicle technologies. (September 2015)

Clearly communicate requirements and testing procedures to connected vehicle device developers, and allow for industry input and iteration for less mature devices. (September 2015)

Conduct a data collection pilot test to validate end-to-end data acquisition, transfer, processing, and quality assessment processes.(September 2015)

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

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

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

Use current SAE, IEEE, and NTCIP standards with systems engineering content to control architecture and design activities for a connected vehicle network.(09/13/2017)

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

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)

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)

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

Ensure machine vision cameras are aligned to properly detect the onset of a queue.(01/01/2011)

Animal Detection System in Blacksburg, VA detects animals with 95 percent reliability(June 2015)

In Marshall, MN, a deer detection and warning system reduced number of deer/vehicle crashes by 56 percent.(2010)

Reliable deer detection warning systems can reduce deer-vehicle collisions by 65 percent.(05/01/2009)

An animal detection system with the warning lights activated resulted in 1.52 mi/h lower vehicle speeds (compared to warning lights off) for passenger cars and pick-ups.(March 2009)

In Switzerland, an animal warning system installed at 7 sites decreased collisions with large animals by more than 80 percent.(August 2006)

Field tests in the Netherlands involving intelligent bicycles coupled to automated vehicle braking systems found that 96 percent of drivers and 60 percent of cyclists agreed the connected system was effective at reducing accidents.(02/01/2016)

Blind spot warning technology contributes to a 23 percent reduction in lane change injury crashes.(7/26/2019)

Driver Assistance vehicle technologies have potential to prevent 1.6 million crashes per year.(02/01/2019)

Driving simulator participants equipped with heads-up display (HUD) forward collision warning systems experienced 35 percent fewer near-crash events under fog conditions.(August 2018)

Simulation found that connected vehicles can reduce secondary crash risk by one-third in areas with high-volume traffic and 25 percent connected vehicle market penetration.(08/05/2017)

Front crash detection, lane maintenance, and blind spot detection technologies have the potential to prevent 8,000 two-vehicle crashes with motorcycles per year.(August 2017)

Drivers are significantly more likely to identify pedestrian and vehicle hazards when presented with visual warnings from forward collision warning systems.(June 26 - 29, 2017)

Widely deployed in-vehicle Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) have potential to reduce crash rates by 47 percent.(June 2017)

More than half of the respondents to a Texas-wide survey indicated $0 willingness-to-pay for self-driving technology (Level 3 or Level 4); however, comparatively fewer (only around 38 percent) indicated $0 willingness-to-pay to add connectivity.(March 2017)

Texas study estimates that CAVs could have a $27,000 net benefit per vehicle with a 90 percent market penetration.(March 2017)

Forward collision warning (FCW) alone, low-speed autonomous emergency braking (AEB), and FCW combined with AEB that operates at highway speeds reduced rear-end striking crash involvement rates by 27 percent, 43 percent, and 50 percent, respectively.(February 2017)

A nationwide traveler survey finds that blind-spot monitoring and emergency automatic braking are the two most appealing automated vehicle technologies.(11/01/2016)

Heads-up display showing stop and caution warning signs helped older drivers brake sooner in German driving simulator study.(10/14/2015)

Deployment of blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, and forward collision warning systems on all light-duty vehicles in the U.S. could provide an annual safety benefit of $18 billion to $202 billion annually.(10/01/2016)

Connected vehicles with automated braking assist technology can avoid 37 to 86 percent of crashes.(06/01/2015)

V2V intersection and left turn assist applications can reduce crashes and injuries and may save between 777 to 1,083 lives per year.(08/01/2014)

Most professional truck drivers interviewed in Ohio and California expressed favorable views of on-board connected vehicle safety applications installed on Class 8 commercial vehicles.(01/31/2014)

Advanced Collision Avoidance Technologies (ACATs) range in effectiveness from 7 to 74 percent.(01/01/2014)

A modeling effort found that forward collision avoidance systems can prevent or mitigate up to 31 percent of all collisions.(06/28/2013)

Connected vehicle warning systems and autonomous emergency braking can reduce fatalities by 57 percent.(02/01/2013)

Forward collision warning systems with adaptive braking and anticipatory collision safety features can mitigate severity in 53 percent of rear-end collisions.(01/01/2013 12:00:00 AM)

After deployment of a low-speed collision avoidance system on the Volvo XC60 and S60, insurance claim frequency decreased by 15 and 16 percent, respectively, compared to similar vehicles.(December 2012)

With full market penetration adaptive cruise control and forward collision warning systems (ACC+FCW) have benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 3.9 to 5.2 for trucks and 0.5 to 0.7 for cars.(11/30/2012)

Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems can reduce the number of moderate to severe injuries in head-on collisions by 73 percent.(09/12/2012 )

91 percent of volunteer drivers that tested V2V communications safety features indicated they would like to have these technologies on their personal vehicle.(05/21/2012)

Casualty benefits from advanced emergency braking systems in passenger vehicles have potential benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 0.07 to 2.78.(November 2011)

Connected vehicle technologies can improve roadway capacity by 20 percent with relatively low market penetration .(09/07/2011)

In Michigan, 108 volunteers who drove 16 vehicles equipped with crash warning systems indicated the blind-spot detection component of the lane-change/merge crash warning system was the most useful and satisfying aspect of the integrated system. (June 2011)

Light vehicles that automatically activate in-vehicle alerts, seat belt tensioners, and braking systems can reduce fatalities by 3.7 percent.(June 2011)

In Michigan, 8 of 108 volunteers who drove light vehicles equipped with an integrated crash warning system indicated the system prevented them from having a crash.(June 2011)

Active and passive in-vehicle safety technologies are expected to decrease fatalities up to 16 percent.(April 2011)

In-vehicle technologies that use automated braking to prevent rear-end collisions can reduce drivers injured by 19 to 57 percent.(October 2010)

A benefit-cost analysis of Forward Collision Warning Systems for the trucking industry found benefits per dollar spent values of $1.33 to $7.22 with varying estimates of efficiency and annual VMT.(02/27/2009)

Forward collision warning systems have potential to prevent 23.8 percent of crashes involving large trucks.(2009)

A Side Object Detection System (SODS) for transit buses was cost-effective with a baseline benefit-cost ratio of 1.43 and a ratio range of 0.37-3.55.(August 2007)

Evaluation data show that forward collision warning systems (CWS) alone, and CWS bundled with adaptive cruise control (ACC) and advanced braking systems (AdvBS) can improve safety for commercial vehicles.(21-25 January 2007 )

The initial costs for collision warning systems (CWS) can be high making it difficult for fleets that experience few crashes to deploy cost-effective solutions.(1/5/2007)

Trucks equipped with collision warning systems, adaptive cruise control, and advanced braking systems have the potential to reduce truck-initiated rear-end crashes by up to 28 percent.(1/5/2007)

Approximately 80 percent of the truck drivers surveyed indicated that collision warning systems made them more vigilant, helped them maintain a safer following distance, and increased their reaction time and awareness.(1/5/2007)

An integrated system of forward collision warning and adaptive cruise control functions was projected to prevent about 10 percent of all rear-end crashes, and 10 to 20 percent of severe near-crashes.(April 2006)

Widespread deployment of integrated countermeasure systems could prevent over 48 percent of rear-end, run-off-road, and lane change crashes.(August 2005)

Survey data collected from tractor trailer drivers with one to three years of experience driving with intelligent vehicle safety systems (IVSS) indicate that IVSS lowers their perceived workload by 14 to 21 percent over a range of driving conditions.(28 October 2004)

In the central area of Chicago, a 2004 feasibility study indicated that collision warning systems on buses would not be cost-effective in the near term.(August 2004)

In Germany, a simulation study found that with 50 percent of vehicles equipped, the braking control features of a collision avoidance system would contribute to a 45 to 60 percent decrease in collisions when the leading vehicle brakes.( 8-12 November 1999)

Freightliner to Offer Collision Warning on New Truck Line(20 November 1995)

Universal deployment of a Lane Change Assist system on motorcycles could prevent 17 to 24 percent of motorcycle crashes resulting in injuries in Germany.(June 5 - 8, 2017)

Most professional truck drivers interviewed in Ohio and California expressed favorable views of on-board connected vehicle safety applications installed on Class 8 commercial vehicles.(01/31/2014)

Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems can reduce the number of moderate to severe injuries in head-on collisions by 73 percent.(09/12/2012 )

91 percent of volunteer drivers that tested V2V communications safety features indicated they would like to have these technologies on their personal vehicle.(05/21/2012)

In Michigan, 108 volunteers who drove 16 vehicles equipped with crash warning systems indicated the blind-spot detection component of the lane-change/merge crash warning system was the most useful and satisfying aspect of the integrated system. (June 2011)

In Michigan, 8 of 108 volunteers who drove light vehicles equipped with an integrated crash warning system indicated the system prevented them from having a crash.(June 2011)

Active and passive in-vehicle safety technologies are expected to decrease fatalities up to 16 percent.(April 2011)

In Florida, camera-based systems with a regular angle lens reduced 43 percent of blind zones and wide-angle camera systems entirely eliminated blind zones during controlled tests among 28 transit bus drivers. (March 2010)

Widespread deployment of integrated countermeasure systems could prevent over 48 percent of rear-end, run-off-road, and lane change crashes.(August 2005)

Freightliner to Offer Collision Warning on New Truck Line(20 November 1995)

Blind spot warning technology contributes to a 23 percent reduction in lane change injury crashes.(7/26/2019)

Driver Assistance vehicle technologies have potential to prevent 1.6 million crashes per year.(02/01/2019)

Crash statistics show that lane departure warning systems have reduced all relevant crashes by 11 percent, and all relevant injury crashes by 21 percent, controlling for driver demographics.(August 2017)

Widely deployed in-vehicle Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) have potential to reduce crash rates by 47 percent.(June 2017)

Deployment of blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, and forward collision warning systems on all light-duty vehicles in the U.S. could provide an annual safety benefit of $18 billion to $202 billion annually.(10/01/2016)

Advanced Collision Avoidance Technologies (ACATs) range in effectiveness from 7 to 74 percent.(01/01/2014)

Casualty benefits from advanced emergency braking systems in passenger vehicles have potential benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 0.07 to 2.78.(November 2011)

Drivers recommend use of Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety Systems, but price remains a factor. (June 2011)

In Michigan, 108 volunteers who drove 16 vehicles equipped with crash warning systems indicated the blind-spot detection component of the lane-change/merge crash warning system was the most useful and satisfying aspect of the integrated system. (June 2011)

Integrated Vehicle-Based Safety System use results in 48 percent reduction in lane departure rate for light vehicles, with similar trend for heavy trucks.(June 2011)

In Michigan, 8 of 108 volunteers who drove light vehicles equipped with an integrated crash warning system indicated the system prevented them from having a crash.(June 2011)

Active and passive in-vehicle safety technologies are expected to decrease fatalities up to 16 percent.(April 2011)

A benefit-cost analysis of Lane Departure Warning System for the trucking industry found benefits per dollar spent values of $1.37 to $6.55 with varying estimates of efficiency and annual VMT.(February 2009)

Forward collision warning systems have potential to prevent 23.8 percent of crashes involving large trucks.(2009)

In the Netherlands, a five month field operational test (FOT) of 20 cars equipped with lane departure warning (LDW) systems found that the number of unintentional lane crossings decreased by 35 percent on secondary roads and 30 percent on highways due to the use of LDW.(9-13 October 2007)

A Side Object Detection System (SODS) for transit buses was cost-effective with a baseline benefit-cost ratio of 1.43 and a ratio range of 0.37-3.55.(August 2007)

Widespread deployment of integrated countermeasure systems could prevent over 48 percent of rear-end, run-off-road, and lane change crashes.(August 2005)

Survey data collected from tractor trailer drivers with one to three years of experience driving with intelligent vehicle safety systems (IVSS) indicate that IVSS lowers their perceived workload by 14 to 21 percent over a range of driving conditions.(28 October 2004)

A 1999 FHWA study suggested that lane departure warning systems have the potential to reduce road departure crashes by 10 percent for passenger vehicles and 30 percent for heavy trucks.(December 1999)

In-vehicle computer visioning technology designed to detect and warn truck drivers of lane departure and driver drowsiness reduced fuel consumption by 15 percent, increased safety, and provided drivers with more comfortable working conditions.(20 July 1999)

Blind spot warning technology contributes to a 23 percent reduction in lane change injury crashes.(7/26/2019)

Crash involvement rates in lane-change crashes of all severity types were 14 percent lower among vehicles equipped with blind spot monitoring compared to those without.(August 2017)

A nationwide traveler survey finds that blind-spot monitoring and emergency automatic braking are the two most appealing automated vehicle technologies.(11/01/2016)

Heads-up display showing stop and caution warning signs helped older drivers brake sooner in German driving simulator study.(10/14/2015)

Casualty benefits from advanced emergency braking systems in passenger vehicles have potential benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 0.07 to 2.78.(November 2011)

Active and passive in-vehicle safety technologies are expected to decrease fatalities up to 16 percent.(April 2011)

NHTSA estimates that annual fatalities in backover crashes would be reduced by 95 to 112 fatalities and annual injuries by 7,072 to 8,374 injuries if all vehicles were equipped with rearview cameras.(December 7, 2010)

Forward collision warning systems have potential to prevent 23.8 percent of crashes involving large trucks.(2009)

The deployment of side object detection systems on 257 transit buses in two different transit agencies reduced the side collision rate per 100,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled by 0.186.(December 15 2008)

A Side Object Detection System (SODS) for transit buses was cost-effective with a baseline benefit-cost ratio of 1.43 and a ratio range of 0.37-3.55.(August 2007)

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

Freightliner to Offer Collision Warning on New Truck Line(20 November 1995)

Implementing a collision-avoidance algorithm based on safe distance significantly reduces rear-end collisions in heterogenous fleets compared to other methods.(09/10/2018)

A Side Object Detection System (SODS) for transit buses was cost-effective with a baseline benefit-cost ratio of 1.43 and a ratio range of 0.37-3.55.(August 2007)

Crash statistics show that lane departure warning systems have reduced all relevant crashes by 11 percent, and all relevant injury crashes by 21 percent, controlling for driver demographics.(August 2017)

Casualty benefits from advanced emergency braking systems in passenger vehicles have potential benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 0.07 to 2.78.(November 2011)

In Michigan, 108 volunteers who drove 16 vehicles equipped with crash warning systems indicated the blind-spot detection component of the lane-change/merge crash warning system was the most useful and satisfying aspect of the integrated system. (June 2011)

In Michigan, 8 of 108 volunteers who drove light vehicles equipped with an integrated crash warning system indicated the system prevented them from having a crash.(June 2011)

Widespread deployment of integrated countermeasure systems could prevent over 48 percent of rear-end, run-off-road, and lane change crashes.(August 2005)

A 1999 FHWA study suggested that lane departure warning systems have the potential to reduce road departure crashes by 10 percent for passenger vehicles and 30 percent for heavy trucks.(December 1999)

In-vehicle computer visioning technology designed to detect and warn truck drivers of lane departure and driver drowsiness reduced fuel consumption by 15 percent, increased safety, and provided drivers with more comfortable working conditions.(20 July 1999)

Multi-state analysis suggests active safety and advanced headlighting systems have contributed to a 46 percent and 81 percent reduction in forward and rear collisions, respectively.

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

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)

In a pilot test, collision avoidance warning systems contributed to a large reduction in near-miss events, though bus driver acceptance was mixed.(05/19/2017)

In a pilot test, bus drivers using in-vehicle collision avoidance warning systems were involved in 72 percent fewer near-miss events than a control group where the warning feature was turned off.(05/19/2017)

Buses equipped with collision avoidance warning systems have potential to reduce insurance claims by 58.5 percent.(05/19/2017)

Autonomous vehicles that can detect imminent rear-end collisions and quickly accelerate using on-demand power from electric motors can reduce whiplash injuries by 40 to 65 percent.(9/11/2015)

Speed cameras in Montgomery County, Maryland reduce crashes resulting in fatal or serious injuries by 49 percent.(August 2015)

Low speed autonomous emergency braking (AEB) can reduce rear-end crashes by 38 percent.(May 2015)

Wrong-way driving deterrent system in Florida successfully self-corrects all instances of wrong-way drivers, with zero crashes being reported during pilot period.(2015)

Performance of transit-specific connected vehicle safety applications in Safety Model Deployment show promise but would benefit from more precise location determination and pedestrian detection technology.(November 2014)

V2V intersection and left turn assist applications can reduce crashes and injuries and may save between 777 to 1,083 lives per year.(08/01/2014)

Electronic Stability Control (ESC) saved an estimated 1,144 lives among passenger vehicle occupants in 2012.(06/01/2014)

San Antonio pilot program results in up to 30 percent reduction of wrong way (WW) driving incidents.(May/June 2014)

70 percent of drivers in a large-scale field operational test felt that forward collision warning systems increased safety.(11/21/2012)

Green Routing System in Buffalo-Niagara Region shows over 16 percent reduction in CO and NOx.(March 2012)

Electronic Stability Control (ESC) systems can reduce the risk of fatal crashes by 33 percent.(May 2010)

Widespread deployment of integrated countermeasure systems could prevent over 48 percent of rear-end, run-off-road, and lane change crashes.(August 2005)

Intersection collision avoidance systems deployed at intersections with high crash frequencies or high rates of severe injury are projected to recoup initial costs within one year, through a reduction in crashes.(September 2003)

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

EU-mandated automated emergency call technology, eCall, is expected to reduce response time to road accidents by up to 50 percent and help save up to 1,500 lives per year.(03/27/2018)

Autonomous emergency braking (AEB) systems can reduce the number of moderate to severe injuries in head-on collisions by 73 percent.(09/12/2012 )

Korean study finds Automatic Crash Information Notification Systems would reduce freeway fatalities by 11.8 to 18.1 percent.(August 1, 2012)

Automatic Crash Notification (ACN) systems can reduce road traffic deaths by 1.5 to 15 percent.(September 2009)

An enhanced Automatic Collision Notification System enables three quarters (75.9 percent) of injured occupants to be correctly identified as seriously injured, by using only data automatically collected and transmitted by the vehicles.(June 2009)

Implementing an enhanced Automatic Collision Notification (ACN) system in all passenger vehicles in the US could help improve outcomes for over 15,200 drivers each year involved in moderate to high severity crashes. (June 2009)

Over a 20-year lifecycle, NG9-1-1 would likely cost about the same as maintaining the status quo of the current 9-1-1 system, but deliver 80 percent additional value.(03/05/2009)

In Erie County, New York, a field operational test found that automated collision notification systems reduced incident notification time from an average of 3 minutes to less than 1 minute.(February 2001)

Two surveys asked motor carriers what the motivation was for safety technology installation. A clear majority of the respondents indicated that crash reduction (68%) and lower insurance rates (52%) were key benefits.(22-26 January 2006)

CVO inspectors participating in CVISN focus groups felt that CVISN technology saved time, and improved the speed and accuracy of data reporting. (March 2002)

In Puget Sound, Washington, a survey of drivers equipped with in-vehicle emergency communications found that 95 percent of respondents felt "more secure" with Mayday voice communications, and 70 percent felt "more secure" with data communications.(September 1997)

Multi-state analysis suggests active safety and advanced headlighting systems have contributed to a 46 percent and 81 percent reduction in forward and rear collisions, respectively.

Prototype Crash Warning Interface displays for Connected Vehicle-based motorcycle Crash Warning System show considerable promise for implementation.(10/20/2015)

V2V intersection and left turn assist applications can reduce crashes and injuries and may save between 777 to 1,083 lives per year.(08/01/2014)

Alternating blank out signs installed at rail crossings near Denver resulted in a 61.3 percent reduction in crashes. (01/02/2014)

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

In Los Angeles, California, the installation of a "second train coming" warning system at a light rail transit grade crossing reduced risky behavior of pedestrians and surveyed pedestrians felt that safety was improved.(November 2002)

In Baltimore, a "second train coming" warning system decreased the frequency of the most common risky behavior at crossings (i.e., drivers that crossed the tracks after the protection gates began to ascend from the first train before the protection gates could be redeployed for the second train) by 26 percent.(November 2002)

In San Antonio, a modeling study found that if traffic congestion were to increase by 25 percent, posting nearby railroad crossing closing delays on freeway dynamic message signs would reduce crashes by 8.7 percent.(October 2000)

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

In Ames, Iowa, an automated horn warning system that alerted motorists and pedestrians of oncoming trains reduced the area impacted by noise levels greater than 80 dBA from 171 acres to less than 6 acres.(2000)

In Ames, Iowa, a survey of area residents indicated that 78 percent preferred an automated horn warning system that reduce the area impacted by excessive noise from 171 acres to less than 6 acres. (2000)

An automated enforcement systems in California decreased highway-rail grade crossing violations by up to 92 percent.(June 1998)

Automated enforcement systems have reduced highway-rail crossing violations by 78 to 92 percent along two corridors in Los Angeles, California.(17 March 1995)

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems improve safety and offer an alternative to traffic signals at rural intersections(October 2010)

In-vehicle adaptive stop display results in more compliant behavior compared to the traditional stop sign.(07/30/2015)

Dynamic roadside warning systems that alert drivers of opposing traffic at rural intersections can decrease roll-throughs up to 22 percent.(February 2014)

Most professional truck drivers interviewed in Ohio and California expressed favorable views of on-board connected vehicle safety applications installed on Class 8 commercial vehicles.(01/31/2014)

"Vehicle Entering When Flashing" Signs at stop-controlled intersections in North Carolina yield a 7 percent reduction in crashes. (11/14/2012)

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems improve safety and offer an alternative to traffic signals at rural intersections(October 2010)

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)

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)

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

In-vehicle warning systems that provide drivers with auditory alerts of approaching red-light running vehicles can reduce collisions by 75 percent.(02/21/2014)

Wrong-way driver thermal detection system in Phoenix addressed 33 near-incidents in first six months of operation.(8/8/2018)

Crash-conflict models suggests a 50 percent AV market penetration rate can reduce crashes at four-legged signalized intersections by 24 percent.(7-11 January 2018)

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)

The annual number of near-crash events at test sites equipped with intersection collision warning systems in Minnesota decreased by approximately 26 percent.(October 2017)

Rural Intersection Active Warning System trialed in New Zealand demonstrates ability to slow down motorists, resulting in a 71 percent decrease in crashes.(08/05/207)

FHWA national study finds intersection conflict warning systems reduce total crashes by 27 percent for two-lane at two-lane intersections(06/01/2016)

91 percent of volunteer drivers that tested V2V communications safety features indicated they would like to have these technologies on their personal vehicle.(05/21/2012)

Vehicle-to-vehicle applications can have positive benefit-to-cost ratios at fleet penetration rates above 6.1 percent.(04/29/2010)

In Hennepin County, MN, an intersection warning system reduced traffic conflicts and received very positive feedback from the public.(2010)

In Hennepin County, MN, a public survey reported nearly 80 percent of respondents had improved awareness of approaching traffic after the installation of the intersection warning system.(2010)

Initial research suggests that most drivers will respond to intersection collision warning systems and slow or stop appropriately.(22-26 January 2006)

Intersection collision avoidance systems deployed at intersections with high crash frequencies or high rates of severe injury are projected to recoup initial costs within one year, through a reduction in crashes.(September 2003)

In a rural area of Virginia, a collision countermeasure system installed on a two-way stop-controlled intersection reduced vehicle speeds by 2.4 mi/hr, and increased the average projected time to collision from 2.5 to 3.5 seconds.(1-4 May 2000)

Current generation pedestrian crash avoidance systems can reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions by 40 percent under certain conditions.(10/01/2019)

Pedestrians receiving alerts while texting chose larger gaps, were more discriminating in gap choices, and better timed their crossing than those texting without warnings.(January 7-11, 2018)

Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation Systems can reduce up to 24 percent of annual vehicle-pedestrian crashes where fatalities are involved.(April 2017)

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)

Heads-up display showing stop and caution warning signs helped older drivers brake sooner in German driving simulator study.(10/14/2015)

A benefit-to-cost assessment shows that a Bluetooth-based system using flashing beacons is the recommended solution to warn drivers of an upcoming school bus stop.(02/01/2016)

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 detection system sufficiently warns driver before collision with pedestrian in 69 percent of cases.(06/24/2015)

Brake assist systems and autonomous emergency braking systems were able to avoid vehicle-pedestrian crashes 12 percent and 42 percent of the time, respectively.(06/24/2015)

Prototype pedestrian warning system has potential to minimize noise pollution.(06/02/2015)

23 percent of pedestrians reported that a crosswalk transit vehicle turn warning system helped them avoid a collision with a bus.(May 2015)

Benefit-to-cost ratios for buses equipped with pedestrian warning systems were baselined at 28:1.(May 2015)

Performance of transit-specific connected vehicle safety applications in Safety Model Deployment show promise but would benefit from more precise location determination and pedestrian detection technology.(November 2014)

Pedestrian Crash Avoidance/Mitigation (PCAM) technologies result in 18.7 percent reduction in pedestrian injuries.(04/01/2014)

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)

Simulation models show that collision warning systems with full auto-brake and pedestrian detection features can reduce pedestrian fatalities by 24 percent.(12/01/2010)

In Miami-Dade County, ITS pedestrian safety measures showed an increase in pedestrian safety by significantly reducing drivers right on red violations from 40 percent to 13 percent and increasing drivers yielding to pedestrians by up to 92 percent.(08/25/08)

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)

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)

Passive safety treatments were found to be more reliable and affordable than active safety treatments on two-lane rural roads with dangerous horizontal curves in Virginia.(June 2018)

Sequential Dynamic Curve Warning System reduces the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph or more by 27.8 percent(January, 2014)

Approximately 75 percent of drivers in a large-scale field operational test felt that curve speed warning systems increased safety.(11/21/2012)

A Benefit Cost analysis shows that dynamic curve speed warning signs have 30 percent effectiveness and an incremental B/C ratio between 2.79 to 5.57 for curves that already have static curve warnings.(December 2009)

Simulated Rural Highway Driver Warning Systems (RHDWS) showed a potential reduction of critical events by 21 percent, a decrease of 71 percent for runoff-road crashes, and contributed to smoother driving on the curvy highway.(May 2009)

In Myrtle Creek, Oregon, an advanced curve speed warning system installed on I-5 reduced the speed of 76 percent of drivers surveyed.(June 2006)

In Colorado, a downhill truck speed warning system installed on a curved section of I-70 reduced 85th percentile truck speeds by 27 percent.(November 2001)

An advanced curve warning system on an interstate route in northern California caused over 68 percent of drivers to reduce their speed. (April 2000)

More than 76 percent of drivers on an interstate route in northern California indicated that messages displayed by an advanced curve warning system were useful.(April 2000)

In Oregon and Colorado, downhill speed warning systems decreased truck crashes up to 13 percent at problem sites.(31 October 2006)

In Colorado, a downhill truck speed warning system installed on a curved section of I-70 reduced 85th percentile truck speeds by 27 percent.(November 2001)

A dynamic truck down hill speed warning system installed on I-70 in Colorado reduced the average speed of passing trucks by approximately 5.2 mi/hr. (15 December 1999)

A small-scale study of truck drivers who experienced a dynamic truck down hill speed warning system in Colorado indicated that most drivers thought it was helpful.(15 December 1999)

In Colorado, a dynamic truck downhill speed warning system (DSWS) installed on I-70 decreased the number of accidents by 13 percent.(15 December 1997)

In Colorado, a down hill truck speed warning system installed on I-70 reduced runaway ramp usage by 24 percent and contributed to a 13 percent drop in crashes involving trucks and excessive speeds.(May 1997)

Overheight vehicle detection systems on I-10 in Houston reduced bridge hits by 66 percent.( July/August 2018 )

Overheight vehicle detection systems on I-10 in Houston contributed to 20 fewer bridge hits per year, saving TxDOT more than $2 million in annual bridge repair costs.( July/August 2018 )

The cost to purchase and install an overheight vehicle detection system (OHVDS) was estimated at $100,000 per location.( July/August 2018 )

Most professional truck drivers interviewed in Ohio and California expressed favorable views of on-board connected vehicle safety applications installed on Class 8 commercial vehicles.(01/31/2014)

At a tunnel in Pennsylvania, an overheight/overwidth warning system improved safety; occasional crashes demonstrate value of system and importance of maintenance.(31 October 2006)

A nationwide survey evaluating overheight/oversize warning systems found that eight states that deployed active infrared light or laser activated warning systems had fewer overheight load strikes on infrastructure components.(12-16 January 2003)

At the Breezewood Interchange on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, installation of a truck rollover warning system immediately reduced the occurrence of truck rollover crashes.(April 2006)

Evaluation Results of Three Prototype Automatic Truck Rollover Warning Systems(11-15 January 1998)

After a ramp rollover warning system was installed at three curved exit ramps on the beltway around Washington, DC, there were no accidents at any of these sites during the three year post deployment test period evaluated.(15 December 1997)

In Colorado, a down hill truck speed warning system installed on I-70 reduced runaway ramp usage by 24 percent and contributed to a 13 percent drop in crashes involving trucks and excessive speeds.(May 1997)

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)

Dynamic Speed Feedback Signs on Curves cuts number of single-vehicle crashes nearly in half.(January 2015)

Simulated Rural Highway Driver Warning Systems (RHDWS) showed a potential reduction of critical events by 21 percent, a decrease of 71 percent for runoff-road crashes, and contributed to smoother driving on the curvy highway.(May 2009)

Through use of the Roll Stability Control (RSC) systems, it was estimated that between 1,422 and 2,037 combination vehicle rollover crashes in curves could be prevented, resulting in effectiveness rates of 37 percent and 53 percent, respectively.(February 2009)

An analysis of benefits and costs of Roll Stability Control (RSC) Systems for the trucking industry found benefits per dollar spent values of $1.66 to $5.34 with varying estimates of efficiency and annual VMT.(February 2009)

Forward collision warning systems have potential to prevent 23.8 percent of crashes involving large trucks.(2009)

An evaluation of electronic stability control (ESC) and crash data from the Institute for Traffic Accident Research and Data Analysis indicated that the crash rate for single-car crashes and head-on crashes decreased by about 36 percent where ESC was expected to be effective.(18 February 2005)

In-vehicle rollover advisory control warning messages are expected to prevent 20 percent of rollover crashes caused by excessive speed in curves, based on driving data collected during a Freightliner FOT.(September 2003)

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)

Vehicle-to-vehicle applications can have positive benefit-to-cost ratios at fleet penetration rates above 6.1 percent.(04/29/2010)

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

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

In Smart Zone work zones, 71 percent of local resident survey respondents found variable speed limit signs useful.(January 28, 2015)

Field testing in the UK estimates a 10:1 benefit-cost ratio of a VMS over-height vehicle warning system compared to conventional physical beam systems.(September/October 2014)

Augmented speed enforcement system in work zone significantly reduced the number of vehicles traveling in excess of 65 mph(01/01/2013)

Field data collected over the last two decades show variable speed limit (VSL) systems can reduce crash potential by 8 to 30 percent. (03/01/2010)

Sequential, dynamic curve warning guidance systems can reduce reduce reported crashes by up to 77 percent.( June/July 2010 )

Hardware for an active deer warning system costs $40,000 to $50,000 per mile.(05/01/2009)

The costs to plan, purchase, install, and operate and maintain an animal detection system on a one-mile section of roadway have been estimated at $31,300 per year.(August 2006)

Animal warning system deployed in Saskatchewan, Canada for $100,000 (Canadian).(August 2003)

Animal warning system deployed in the Greater Yellowstone Rural Intelligent Transportation Systems (GYRITS) corridor at a cost of $3,800 per site.(November 2001)

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

A bicycle safety system was installed for $5,000 at a tunnel near Chelan, Washington.(November 2001)

Equipping all light-duty vehicles with blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, and forward collision warning expected to cost $13 billion.(10/01/2016)

Truck Collision Avoidance system estimated to cost between $2,500 and $4,000 per heavy truck.(11/05/2014)

Lane departure warning (LDW) systems sold in the United Kingdom ranged in price from $457 to $750 per vehicle (2009).(November 2011)

An industry analysis found the cost of Forward Collision Warning Systems for large trucks ranged from $1,415 to $1,843 per vehicle. (02/27/2009)

Collision Avoidance Systems for transit buses ranged from $900 for a Lane Departure Warning System to $2,550 for a Side Object Detection System(August 2007)

Cost estimates to install collision warning systems (CWS) range from $2,000 to $3,000 per tractor. Bundled packages of CWS and adaptive cruise control cost approximately $2,300; the cost is approximately $6,300 if an advanced braking system is added.(1/5/2007)

The costs of the in-vehicle components of precision docking technology ranged from $2,700 to $14,000 per bus depending on the number of units produced.(August 2004)

The average cost for a collision warning system among four trucking companies is $2,500 per vehicle.(15 July 2001)

The costs of deploying Side Object Detection Systems for transit buses include acquisition, training and maintenance costs.(December 15 2008)

The average cost for a collision warning system among four trucking companies is $2,500 per vehicle.(15 July 2001)

Equipping all light-duty vehicles with blind spot monitoring, lane departure warning, and forward collision warning expected to cost $13 billion.(10/01/2016)

Lane departure warning (LDW) systems sold in the United Kingdom ranged in price from $457 to $750 per vehicle (2009).(November 2011)

An industry analysis found the cost of Lane Departure Warning Systems for large trucks ranged from $765 to $866 per vehicle.(February 2009)

Collision Avoidance Systems for transit buses ranged from $900 for a Lane Departure Warning System to $2,550 for a Side Object Detection System(August 2007)

Various safety- and driver assistance-related systems such as blind spot monitoring, route guidance, adaptive cruise control, automatic collision notification, and lane departure warning are available for purchase as an individual option or a bundled-options package at costs that vary widely.(February 2006)

Lane departure warning (LDW) systems sold in the United Kingdom ranged in price from $457 to $750 per vehicle (2009).(November 2011)

The costs of deploying Side Object Detection Systems for transit buses include acquisition, training and maintenance costs.(December 15 2008)

Collision Avoidance Systems for transit buses ranged from $900 for a Lane Departure Warning System to $2,550 for a Side Object Detection System(August 2007)

The Pittsburgh Port Authority outfitted 100 buses with a collision avoidance system at a cost of approximately $2,600 per vehicle.(5 April 2001)

Collision Avoidance Systems for transit buses ranged from $900 for a Lane Departure Warning System to $2,550 for a Side Object Detection System(August 2007)

Lane departure warning (LDW) systems sold in the United Kingdom ranged in price from $457 to $750 per vehicle (2009).(November 2011)

ADOT installs first-of-its-kind wrong-way driver thermal detection system in Phoenix for $3.7 million (8/8/2018)

Deployment of 8,500 connected vehicles with roadside devices installed at 310 intersections and 44 strategic sites and major thoroughfares in New York City was estimated to cost $23.5 million.

Researchers identify that initial costs for backhaul deployment per connected vehicle field infrastructure site may range from $3,000 to $40,000 per site(06/27/2014)

Costs and Outlook of On-Board Equipment for Connected Vehicles(September 2012)

The total expected risk-adjusted cost of implementing and operating a nationwide NG9-1-1 system ranged from $82 billion to $86.3 billion over the next 20 years.(03/05/2009)

Various safety- and driver assistance-related systems such as blind spot monitoring, route guidance, adaptive cruise control, automatic collision notification, and lane departure warning are available for purchase as an individual option or a bundled-options package at costs that vary widely.(February 2006)

After market device cost range and monthly service fees from the Mayday Plus field operational test.(April 2000)

A connected vehicle pilot project involving over 1,600 vehicles in Tampa's central business district was estimated to cost $17.7 million.(08/25/2016)

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

The cost of a vehicle detection safety system installed at a dual track rail crossing can range from $27,500 for a radar-based system to $36,680 for an inductive loop-based system.(December 2012)

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)

From a cross-cutting study of seven highway-rail intersections using ITS, project cost ranged from $200,000 to $9.5 million depending on system design and functionality. (December 2001)

An advanced highway-rail intersection warning system was deployed for just over $350,000 as part of the San Antonio Metropolitan Model Deployment Initiative.(May 2000)

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System program costs $5,222,635 over six years in Minnesota(October 2010)

Intersection conflict warning systems that use vehicle detection loops, warning signs and flashers cost $21,200 to $28,000 per intersection.(11/14/2012)

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)

Cellular-V2X (C-V2X) communication modules that use wireless wide-area network (WWAN) cellular modems to broadcast and receive basic safety messages (BSM) can be supplied to automobile manufacturers for less than $222 per unit.(February 2018)

Costs to deploy Intersection Collision Warning Systems range from $9,000 to $142,500 depending on number of lanes and if systems are post or overhead mounted.(06/01/2016)

Total potential connected vehicle DSRC deployment costs at signalized intersections needing controller upgrades may cost on average $51,600 per site(06/27/2014)

With inter-vehicle communications available as a standard feature on new vehicles by 2020, the cost to implement a V2V solution in Europe (EU-25) was estimated at 359 million Euros per annum assuming a fleet penetration rate of 6.1 percent.(04/29/2010)

For six types of intersection collision warning scenarios, the cost of the design, equipment, and installation ranged from $47,230 to $73,320 per intersection.(September 2003)

Cellular-V2X (C-V2X) communication modules that use wireless wide-area network (WWAN) cellular modems to broadcast and receive basic safety messages (BSM) can be supplied to automobile manufacturers for less than $222 per unit.(February 2018)

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

Pedestrian light emitting diode (LED) crosswalk control treatments in British Columbia range from $10,000 to $125,000.(12/01/2018)

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)

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 connected vehicle pilot project involving over 1,600 vehicles in Tampa's central business district was estimated to cost $17.7 million.(08/25/2016)

Deployment of 8,500 connected vehicles with roadside devices installed at 310 intersections and 44 strategic sites and major thoroughfares in New York City was estimated to cost $23.5 million.

Capital costs for a transit vehicle pedestrian warning system installed on 45 buses in Portland ranged from $58,500 to $97,200.(May 2015)

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

A Dynamic Curve Speed Warning Sign (with a Flashing Beacon and Radar Detection) system ranges from $9,000 to $14,000(December 2009)

In Colorado, a Truck Tip-Over Warning System was deployed on I-70 at a cost of $446,687.(31 October 2006)

Colorado DOT deployed a truck speed warning system in Glenwood Canyon at a cost ranging from $25,000 to $30,000.(November 2001)

Colorado DOT deployed a truck speed warning system in Glenwood Canyon at a cost ranging from $25,000 to $30,000.(November 2001)

An overheight warning system in Maryland cost a total of $146,000(04/02/2011)

Based on a nationwide survey of states operating overheight detection systems, the initial costs of active laser- or infrared-based systems vary considerably, ranging from $7,000 to $70,000.(12-16 January 2003)

The Michigan Department of Transportation estimated that an ITS-based active overheight detection and warning system installed at both approaches to a bridge would cost $110,000.(24-27 March 2002)

The Pennsylvania (PA) Turnpike Commission expanded its statewide advanced traveler information system (ATIS) to better inform motorists of traffic, weather, and emergency conditions along the PA Turnpike. The overall project cost was $8.2 million.(April 2006)

The cost of an automated truck rollover warning system can vary significantly, ranging from $50,000 to $500,000.(7 December 2005)

The cost of a prototype truck rollover warning system on the Capital Beltway in Virginia and Maryland was estimated at $166,462 for a one-lane ramp and $268,507 for a two-lane ramp.(11-15 January 1998)

The cost for Roll Stability Control (RSC) systems for large trucks range from $439.99 and $1,101.39.(February 2009)

Connected vehicle deployment that aims to reduce the impact of adverse weather on truck travel on the I-80 corridor in Wyoming was estimated to cost $5.76 million.(08/11/2016)

I-70 Corridor ITS Study identifies system costs for several technology applications.(June 2010)

With inter-vehicle communications available as a standard feature on new vehicles by 2020, the cost to implement a V2V solution in Europe (EU-25) was estimated at 359 million Euros per annum assuming a fleet penetration rate of 6.1 percent.(04/29/2010)

Estimated annual DSRC site operations, maintenance and replacement costs range from $1,950 -$3,050(06/27/2014)

Researchers identify that initial costs for backhaul deployment per connected vehicle field infrastructure site may range from $3,000 to $40,000 per site(06/27/2014)

Estimated annual DSRC site operations, maintenance and replacement costs range from $1,950 -$3,050(06/27/2014)

Traditional and third-party data service cost comparisons show that estimated 10 year probe based costs average $7,650(06/27/2014)

Unit Costs for DSRC-based Data Collection Equipment costs can range from $4,150 -$9,200(06/27/2014)

Researchers identify that DSRC field infrastructure deployment costs can range from $13,000 to $21,000 per site, with average cost estimated at $17,600(06/27/2014)

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

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

Advanced emergency braking system - Capital cost/unit - $334(November 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system - Capital cost/unit - $334(November 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system with pedestrian detection - Capital cost/unit - $1540(November 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system with pedestrian detection - Capital cost/unit - $1540(November 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system with pedestrian detection - Capital cost/unit - $1540(November 2011)

Emergency brake assist for passenger vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $1000(April 2011)

Emergency brake assist for passenger vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $1000(April 2011)

Emergency brake assist for trucks - Capital cost/unit - $1000(April 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system - Capital cost/unit - $334(September 16, 2009)

Forward Collsion Warning System with Adaptive Cruise Control (Commercial Vehicle) - Capital cost/unit - $2300(02/27/2009)

Forward Collsion Warning System (Commercial Vehicle) - Capital cost/unit - $2000(02/27/2009)

Forward Collision Warning System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $2000 - O&M cost/unit - $40(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $2500(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $3200(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System + Adaptive Cruise Control - CV - Capital cost/unit - $2300(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System + Adaptive Cruise Control - CV - Capital cost/unit - $4600(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System + Adaptive Cruise Control - CV - Capital cost/unit - $7100(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $3000 - O&M cost/unit - $40(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $2000(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $2500(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $3000(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $1200(1/5/2007)

Collision Warning System (CWS) - CV - Capital cost/unit - $2500(1/5/2007)

Side Object Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $2000 - O&M cost/unit - $77.38 - Lifetime - 12 years(December 15 2008)

Training - Capital cost/unit - $14.13(December 15 2008)

Training - Capital cost/unit - $15.04(December 15 2008)

Lane Departure Warning System - Capital cost/unit - $470(November 2011)

Lane Departure Warning System - Capital cost/unit - $470(November 2011)

Lane departure warning system for passenger vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane departure warning system for passenger vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane departure warning system for trucks - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane departure warning system for trucks - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane Departure Warning System - CMV - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $0(February 2009)

Lane Departure Warning System - CMV - Capital cost/unit - $1000 - O&M cost/unit - $0(February 2009)

Lane Departure Warning System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $900 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Advanced emergency braking system with pedestrian detection - Capital cost/unit - $1540(November 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system with pedestrian detection - Capital cost/unit - $1540(November 2011)

Advanced emergency braking system with pedestrian detection - Capital cost/unit - $1540(November 2011)

Active pedestrian detection system - Capital cost/unit - $4500(April 2011)

Active pedestrian detection system - Capital cost/unit - $4500(April 2011)

Side Object Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $2000 - O&M cost/unit - $77.38 - Lifetime - 12 years(December 15 2008)

Training - Capital cost/unit - $14.13(December 15 2008)

Training - Capital cost/unit - $15.04(December 15 2008)

Rear Object Detection System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $2550 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Side Object Detection System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $2550 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Forward Object Detection System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $2550 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Pedestrian Detection System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $2550 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Rear Collision Warning System (Transit Bus) - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $141(August 2007)

Lane Departure Warning System - Capital cost/unit - $470(November 2011)

Lane Departure Warning System - Capital cost/unit - $470(November 2011)

Lane departure warning system for passenger vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane departure warning system for passenger vehicles - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane departure warning system for trucks - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane departure warning system for trucks - Capital cost/unit - $1400(April 2011)

Lane Departure Warning System - CMV - Capital cost/unit - $1500 - O&M cost/unit - $0(February 2009)

Lane Departure Warning System - CMV - Capital cost/unit - $1000 - O&M cost/unit - $0(February 2009)

Automatic crash notification - Capital cost/unit - $1500(April 2011)

Hardware, Software Upgrade for E-911 - Capital cost/unit - $2163000 - Lifetime - 5 years(2/10/2005)

Junction Boxes - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Preformed Inductive Loop - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Radar Mast Extension - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Loop Detector Electronics - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Radar Electronics - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Junction Boxes - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Cabling - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Radar Sensor - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Mast Cable - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Cabling - Capital cost/unit - $2 - Lifetime - 10 years(December 2012)

Rail Crossing Pedestrian Warning Signal, Gates - Capital cost/unit - $11200 - O&M cost/unit - $296 - Lifetime - 7 years(5 August 2004)

Rail Crossing Controller - Capital cost/unit - $11200 - O&M cost/unit - $296 - Lifetime - 7 years(5 August 2004)

Rail Crossing Pedestrian Warning Signal, Gates - Capital cost/unit - $11200 - O&M cost/unit - $296 - Lifetime - 7 years(5 August 2004)

DSRC Roadside Unit - Capital cost/unit - $1000(10/23/2018)

Onboard Unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $1000(10/23/2018)

Roadside Unit (RSU) - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

Roadside Unit (RSU) - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

On-Board Unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

RSU DSRC Backhaul Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

RSU DSRC Backhaul Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

Signal Controller Upgrade - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

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

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

DSRC Roadside Unit - Capital cost/unit - $1000(10/23/2018)

Onboard Unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $1000(10/23/2018)

Roadside Unit (RSU) - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

RSU DSRC Backhaul Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

Roadside Unit (RSU) - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

On-Board Unit (OBU) - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

RSU DSRC Backhaul Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

RSU DSRC Backhaul Communications Link - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

Signal Controller Upgrade - Capital cost/unit - $10000(06/01/2016)

Pedestrian detector - intersection - Capital cost/unit - $1734.21(2/4/2013)

Pedestrian Countdown Signal - Capital cost/unit - $540(08/25/08)

Rectangular LED rapid flashing beacons - Capital cost/unit - $15000(08/25/08)

Video Pedestrian Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $20502(08/25/08)

Pedestrian Push Button (illuminated) - Capital cost/unit - $100(08/25/08)

Electronic "No Turn on Red" (NTOR) sign - Capital cost/unit - $3000(08/25/08)

Portable Changeable Message Speed Limit Signs - O&M cost/unit - $25(08/25/08)

Microwave Pedestrian Detection - Capital cost/unit - $6240 - O&M cost/unit - $6000 - Lifetime - 5 years(6/29/2007)

Dynamic Curve Speed Warning Sign (High) - Capital cost/unit - $14000 - Lifetime - 20 years(December 2009)

Dynamic Curve Speed Warning Sign (Low) - Capital cost/unit - $14000 - Lifetime - 20 years(December 2009)

Truck Tip Over Warning System - Capital cost/unit - $278611(31 October 2006)

Blank Out Sign (Fiber Optic) (4 Ea.x 8,788 $/ea.) - Capital cost/unit - $10457.5(31 October 2006)

Steel Sign Post (W 6x12) (39.5 lf x 23 $/lf) - Capital cost/unit - $23(31 October 2006)

Concrete Footing (Type 1) (2 ea x 941 $/ea) - Capital cost/unit - $941(31 October 2006)

Steel Sign Post (W 8x18) (33 lf x 32 $/lf) - Capital cost/unit - $32(31 October 2006)

Concrete Footing (Type 3) (3 ea x 976 $/ea) - Capital cost/unit - $976(31 October 2006)

Truck Curve Warning and High Wind Warning System for Bridge - Capital cost/unit - $572000 - Lifetime - 20 years(3/18/2006)

Truck Speed Warning System - Capital cost/unit - $35000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 7 years(8/28/2003)

Roadside message sign - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Overheight vehicle detector system controller - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Overheight vehicle detector - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Cellular modem - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Electrical conduit - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Warning siren - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Electrical pull box - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Electrical conduit - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Communications cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Roadside flasher beacon - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Electrical conduit - Capital cost/unit - $35(01/19/2018)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $9(01/01/2012)

Loopd Detector Lead - Capital cost/unit - $9(01/01/2012)

Overheight Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $9(01/01/2012)

Loop Detector - Capital cost/unit - $9(01/01/2012)

Loopd Detector Lead - Capital cost/unit - $9(01/01/2012)

Overheight Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $9(01/01/2012)

Overheight Detection System - Capital cost/unit - $150000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 15 years(6/19/2006)

Machine Vision Sensor on Corridor - Capital cost/unit - $3000 - O&M cost/unit - $10000 - Lifetime - 7 years(3/17/2007)

Systems Integration - Capital cost/unit - $25000 - O&M cost/unit - $4000 - Lifetime - 5 years(3/17/2007)

Roadside Probe Beacon - Capital cost/unit - $4000 - O&M cost/unit - $6000 - Lifetime - 7 years(3/17/2007)

Twisted Pair Installation - Capital cost/unit - $11000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000 - Lifetime - 10 years(3/17/2007)

Conduit Design and Installation - Corridor - Capital cost/unit - $32000 - O&M cost/unit - $4000 - Lifetime - 10 years(3/17/2007)

Roll stability control for trucks - Capital cost/unit - $2000(April 2011)