A Federal report evaluated Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) management and operations in several states.
Nationwide, United States
This study introduced a flexible method to evaluate performance-based traffic signal operations and maintenance. The intent was to describe advantages and disadvantages of using a proactive, performance-based traffic signal monitoring process, executed through the Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) Program as compared to a traditional reactive approach for monitoring and retiming traffic signals. The following agencies that adopted and incorporated the ATSPM approach were interviewed and participated in the study.
- Utah DOT (UDOT)
- Georgia DOT (GDOT)
- Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) with personnel from Cranberry Township, PA
- Lake County, Illinois DOT (LCDOT)
- Clark County, Washington
- Maricopa County DOT (MCDOT).
Table 1: Operational Characteristics of the Agencies in the Six Case Studies
Agency |
Number of Signals |
Number of Signal Operations Staff |
Use of ATSPM |
GDOT |
6804 signals. |
70–80 full-time employees, including consultants. |
Continuous. |
UDOT |
1,252 traffic signals and 19 High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK) signals owned and operated by UDOT. |
18 staff and 3 signal timing consultant firms. |
Continuous. |
Cranberry Township |
49 signals. |
Four engineers and one technician. |
In early deployment. |
MCDOT |
170 (117 monitored with ATSPM) operated by MCDOT |
2 full-time employees and 4 on-call consultants. |
Automated alerts; as needed. |
LCDOT |
180 signals; 133 signals under ATSPM, the rest will be under ATSPM by the end of 2019. |
1.5 full-time employees, excluding sporadic engagement consultants. |
On a daily basis. |
Clark County |
98 traffic signals, 3 HAWK signal, and 24 signals for other agencies. |
Nine staff and consultants. |
As needed (now); continual (future). |
Cost items were estimated using a formula with input data obtainable by analysts considering their current practices or by examining previous implementations. Some recurrent cost items, such as training costs, are estimated for the 10-year life cycle with a discount rate of 5 percent. The quantified costs of the six case studies using ATSPM are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Table 2: Deployment Cost
Deployment Cost |
GDOT |
UDOT |
Cranberry Township |
MCDOT |
LCDOT |
Clark County |
Firmware upgrades |
|
|
$35,000 |
|
$37,352 |
$166,563 |
Communication system development |
|
|
|
|
$30,000 |
|
Detection system reconfiguration |
$173,520 |
|
$13,000 |
$22,100 |
$20,633 |
$1,625 |
Detection system documentation |
$144,600 |
|
|
|
|
$2,031 |
New server |
|
|
$15,000 |
$1,000 |
$15,000 |
|
Server maintenance |
|
|
$5,000 |
|
|
|
Software license cost |
|
|
|
$2,800 |
|
$50,000 |
Installation cost. |
$200,000 |
$1,008,000 |
$30,000 |
|
$64,744 |
|
Maintenance cost |
|
$1,164,176 |
$25,000 |
|
$24,000 |
|
Integration/Training cost |
$75,000 |
$127,473 |
$6,500 |
$50,000 |
$6,300 |
$150,000 |
Total |
$593,120 |
$2,299,649 |
$129,500 |
$75,900 |
$198,029 |
$370,219 |
Table 3: Operation Cost
|
GDOT |
UDOT |
Cranberry Township |
MCDOT |
LCDOT |
Clark County |
Operation Cost |
$285,640 |
$9,273,264 |
$260,936 |
$441,584 |
$101,163 |
$451,620 |
A Methodology and Case Study: Evaluating the Benefits and Costs of Implementing Automated Traffic Signal Performance
See Summary