View By Application



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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Design the system to withstand the demands of the physical environment in which it will be deployed.(4/1/2002)

Design and tailor system technology to deliver information of useful quality and quantity, that the user can reasonably absorb.(4/1/2002)

Beware of accuracy and privacy issues in using truck transponder data for developing real-time traveler information applications.(August 2009)

Participate in truckers' meetings to advertise new freight advanced traveler information systems, communicate changes in existing systems, and obtain feedback from stakeholders.(January 2003)

Facilitate integration of CVISN by establishing cooperative relationship among stakeholders and promoting incentives to improve mobile communications and enhance enforcement.(28 February 2007)

Implement a commercial vehicle e-credentialing program in order to make administration and roadside inspections more efficient, keep vehicles moving on the state's roads, and expedite registration.(9/1/2004)

Use a bi-national stakeholder forum to help apply ITS technology at an international border crossing.(10/1/2003)

Monitor emerging security requirements and legislation that may impact commercial vehicle business processes.(10/1/2003)

Protect data privacy by implementing user authorization levels for sensitive information.(10/1/2003)

Use an interoperable transponder to assure maximum benefits to both the private and public sector.(10/1/2003)

Facilitate integration of CVISN by establishing cooperative relationship among stakeholders and promoting incentives to improve mobile communications and enhance enforcement.(28 February 2007)

Ensure active oversight by knowledgeable state government staff of any complex ITS integration work that involves multiple contractors working simultaneously.(9/1/2004)

Assure success by involving all the relevant state agencies and the motor carrier industry early in the CVISN development process.(9/1/2004)

Maintain frequent and open communications with other states and the federal government when developing and deploying new, complex ITS technologies.(9/1/2004)

Work with the trucking industry to assure success in deploying an electronic credentialing system for commercial vehicles.(9/1/2004)

Use a bi-national stakeholder forum to help apply ITS technology at an international border crossing.(10/1/2003)

Monitor emerging security requirements and legislation that may impact commercial vehicle business processes.(10/1/2003)

Protect data privacy by implementing user authorization levels for sensitive information.(10/1/2003)

Use an interoperable transponder to assure maximum benefits to both the private and public sector.(10/1/2003)

Be sure to identify and take into account features unique to each state when designing and deploying ITS technology projects across multiple states.(3/29/2002)

Recognize that the Smart InfraRed Inspection System has promise for increasing productivity of inspection personnel but not yet ready for national deployment due to lack of accuracy in flagging commercial vehicles with potential defects.(06/01/2011)

Facilitate integration of CVISN by establishing cooperative relationship among stakeholders and promoting incentives to improve mobile communications and enhance enforcement.(28 February 2007)

Ensure active oversight by knowledgeable state government staff of any complex ITS integration work that involves multiple contractors working simultaneously.(9/1/2004)

Assure success by involving all the relevant state agencies and the motor carrier industry early in the CVISN development process.(9/1/2004)

Be sure to identify and take into account features unique to each state when designing and deploying ITS technology projects across multiple states.(3/29/2002)

Implement a commercial vehicle e-credentialing program in order to make administration and roadside inspections more efficient, keep vehicles moving on the state's roads, and expedite registration.(9/1/2004)

Ensure that new technology deployed in a weigh station to detect high-risk heavy trucks is in alignment with state organizational goals and inspection priorities.(31 January 2008)

Facilitate integration of CVISN by establishing cooperative relationship among stakeholders and promoting incentives to improve mobile communications and enhance enforcement.(28 February 2007)

Ensure active oversight by knowledgeable state government staff of any complex ITS integration work that involves multiple contractors working simultaneously.(9/1/2004)

Assure success by involving all the relevant state agencies and the motor carrier industry early in the CVISN development process.(9/1/2004)

Implement a commercial vehicle e-credentialing program in order to make administration and roadside inspections more efficient, keep vehicles moving on the state's roads, and expedite registration.(9/1/2004)

Be sure to identify and take into account features unique to each state when designing and deploying ITS technology projects across multiple states.(3/29/2002)

Ensure having a management-level champion to facilitate recruitment of participants and retain operational staff.(December 2002)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Allow one agency to be in charge of the procurement process when implementing ITS technologies designed to coordinate services between urban and rural transit systems.(December 2010)

Provide at least the recommended minimum distance between a GPS antenna and a radio antenna on a transit vehicle.(December 2010)

Secure high level management support and broad participation throughout an organization during the implementation and operation of transit automatic vehicle location systems.(2008)

Plan for cellular communications to evolve and transition to new communication technologies every few years.(2008)

Consider the pros and cons of performance bonds as they may not be appropriate for all types of procurements.(January 2006)

Exercise careful planning in preparation for issuing an RFP to help mitigate cost, schedule, and performance risks.(January 2006)

Consider issuing separate awards for specific project components when procuring divergent technologies, equipment, or services.(January 2006)

Assure accurate late train arrival forecasts in support of a Connection Protection system.(5/12/2004)

Incorporate real-time bus and train location information in the Connection Protection algorithm.(5/12/2004)

Adjust bus schedules to assure adequate time to accomplish rail-to-bus connections, given the risk of late train arrivals at connecting stations.(5/12/2004)

Install Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology to greatly enhance transit agency performance.(1/1/1999)

Improve demand response transit using ITS technology, including CAD/AVL, with Mobile Data Terminals (MDT), electronic ID cards, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS).(1/1/1998)

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

Consider user acceptance of driver fatigue detection systems to be dependent on ease of use, ease of learning, perceived value, driver behavior, and advocacy. (6/2009)

Evaluate the safety potential of the of Adaptive Driver Assistance (ADA) systems and assess driver behavior associated with these technologies(23 October 2006)

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

Allow one agency to be in charge of the procurement process when implementing ITS technologies designed to coordinate services between urban and rural transit systems.(December 2010)

Provide at least the recommended minimum distance between a GPS antenna and a radio antenna on a transit vehicle.(December 2010)

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

Maximize Field Operational Test (FOT) success by creating a sound experimental design and data acquisition plan.(September 2003)

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

Develop a detailed cardholder recruitment plan in the planning phase of the project, to provide guidance on processes to set pricing, and to ensure high user involvement and loyalty.(8/1/2004)

Seek assurances from your suppliers and sub-contractors, that their production and manufacturing schedules will meet your project schedule and inventory requirements throughout the lifecycle of the project.(8/1/2004)

Establish a forum for decision-makers and project managers to come together to receive project updates, work through critical project issues, make decisions, and support successful institutional collaboration in a project involving multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Provide for large sample sizes when conducting before/after data collection efforts, to avoid impacting the ability to reveal statistically significant differences during the evaluation's statistical analysis.(8/1/2004)

Include significant planning and development time in the overall project schedule to accommodate identifying and addressing the various compatibility issues, to integrate existing legacy system equipment across multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

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)

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)

Continually monitor effect of tolls on traveler behavior to maintain operational livelihood.(January 21, 2011)

Recognize that reducing congestion is at least as important as revenue generation for implementing congestion pricing or managed lanes.(April 2009)

Provide early outreach and education to elected officials, decision makers, key stakeholders, and the public about managed lanes and variable tolls. (April 2009)

Engage local operations, traffic control center and maintenance staff in the planning process for managed lanes and congestion pricing projects.(April 2009)

Incorporate managed lanes and congestion pricing projects into the metropolitan transportation planning process.(April 2009)

Incorporate managed lanes and congestion pricing projects into the metropolitan transportation planning process.(April 2009)

Be prepared to make policy tradeoffs between HOV incentives and revenue goals when developing managed lanes and congestion pricing projects.(April 2009)

Consider the complexity of the public-private partnerships when implementing managed lanes and congestion pricing projects.(April 2009)

Engage political champions to keep controversial High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects on track.(15 December 2011)

Establish contacts early and assure continued communications between planners and stakeholders to promote public and political acceptance of proposed pricing plans.(February 2011)

Continually monitor effect of tolls on traveler behavior to maintain operational livelihood.(January 21, 2011)

Use business and functional requirements to guide technology selection for a road pricing program and understand that the technology selected initially evolves over time.(12/01/2010)

Enforce congestion toll collection and create integration linkages between pricing system and motor vehicle registries to process violations.(12/01/2010)

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)

Develop public outreach programs based on the cultural and political context of the project location and provide clear, salient, and timely messages about the purpose and benefits of congestion pricing.(12/01/2010)

Develop a statutory and legal framework for as a foundational step for levying road pricing fees and utilizing revenues.(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)

Create performance standards for operational effectiveness of a pricing program, define business rules for back-office operations, and refine operations practices based on needs.(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)

Understand that while the viability of pricing programs is impacted by political actions, pricing signal is a potential tool for developing a sustainable transportation system.(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 advantages of open-source designs and beware of legal challenges in road pricing systems procurement.(12/01/2010)

Beware that schedule and costs of road pricing projects are affected by various factors including legislative outcomes, clarity and specificity of scope, and contracting methods.(12/01/2010)

Grow regional road pricing policies from individual projects and develop modeling tools that reflect a wide range of impacts.(09/13/2010)

Assure public acceptance prior to implementation of electronic congestion pricing solutions.(September 2009)

Package road value-pricing strategies with technology upgrades and conduct extensive outreach that involves champions, stakeholders, and the general public.(August 2008)

Address toll enforcement issues during the initial phase of planning process; with particular attention paid to the legal structure and potential enforcement technologies. (September, 2006)

Evaluate pros and cons of different methods for electronic toll collection.(September, 2006)

Optimize back office tolling operations.(September, 2006)

Consider various toll methods to push traffic demand away from peak hours.(September, 2006)

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

Consider public/private partnerships and unique financing methods as ways to cover costs for managed lanes projects.(2005)

Consider the appropriateness of different lane management strategies.(November, 2004)

Utilize public education and outreach in managed lane projects.(November, 2004)

Consider operational issues of electronic toll collection and enforcement with value pricing projects.(November, 2004)

Engage in comprehensive planning and coordination of managed lanes projects.(November, 2004)

Engage in active management of managed lanes projects.(November, 2004)

Ensure effective public and stakeholder outreach in order to garner support for HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Utilize standard highway project management procedures and tools to successfully implement HOT lane projects.(March 2003)

Set toll prices and vehicle occupancy requirements to maintain favorable travel conditions on HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Ensure that privatization agreements for the management of toll lanes retain the right for the public agency to improve upon or build transportation facilities that may potentially compete with the privatized toll lanes.(December 2000)

Strengthen public acceptance of congestion-based pricing of express lanes by preserving the option to use free lanes, maintaining good levels of service, and prioritizing safety.(December 2000)

Engage political champions to keep controversial High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane projects on track.(15 December 2011)

Grow regional road pricing policies from individual projects and develop modeling tools that reflect a wide range of impacts.(09/13/2010)

Package road value-pricing strategies with technology upgrades and conduct extensive outreach that involves champions, stakeholders, and the general public.(August 2008)

Consider public opinion when implementing tolling or road pricing initiatives.(January 2008)

Address toll enforcement issues during the initial phase of planning process; with particular attention paid to the legal structure and potential enforcement technologies. (September, 2006)

Ensure electronic toll collection systems are interoperable with neighboring toll facilities.(September, 2006)

Evaluate pros and cons of different methods for electronic toll collection.(September, 2006)

Avoid privacy concerns by ensuring that protecting legislation is in place prior to implementing tolling technologies.(September, 2006)

Optimize back office tolling operations.(September, 2006)

Draw on the strengths of complementary relationships between the public and private sectors for successful implementation of ITS projects.(August 2006)

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

Use a flexible approach and accepted techniques for project management.(12/2/2005)

Apply process re-engineering techniques to increase the likelihood of successful ITS deployment.(12/2/2005)

Consider public/private partnerships and unique financing methods as ways to cover costs for managed lanes projects.(2005)

Consider operational issues of electronic toll collection and enforcement with value pricing projects.(November, 2004)

Implement compatible Electronic Toll Collection systems in every state.(October, 2004)

Ensure effective public and stakeholder outreach in order to garner support for HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Utilize standard highway project management procedures and tools to successfully implement HOT lane projects.(March 2003)

Set toll prices and vehicle occupancy requirements to maintain favorable travel conditions on HOT lanes. (March 2003)

Enable and enforce managed lane facilities using various ITS tools.(January 2003)

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

Anticipate, understand, address and manage the risks associated with fare card technologies and the vendor relationship.(4/14/2006)

Understand the issues, strategies and trade-offs that motivate agencies to join in a regional partnership and provide appropriate support.(4/14/2006)

Plan for greater time and project complexity than expected.(4/14/2006)

Consider a consensus organizational model to help assure support and participation of partners in a regional fare card project.(4/14/2006)

Provide for appropriate legal support services to address the many significant legal issues faced in implementing a regional fare card project.(4/14/2006)

Establish a coordinated fare structure to effectively accommodate differences in fare structures across participating agencies.(4/14/2006)

Examine the contextual factors and carefully manage the associated issues that will determine the success or failure of a regional fare card project.(4/14/2006)

Seek a variety of funding sources to support a regional fare card project, and offer a finance plan that encourages participation.(4/14/2006)

Consider the value of implementing a limited fare pass system initially to serve as an interim experience base for a comprehensive region-wide electronic fare card system.(4/14/2006)

Install an electronic transit card system to enhance rural transit agency performance and coordinate human service transportation between agencies to achieve more efficient services.(9/1/2005)

Anticipate challenges in planning and deploying smart card technology in a rural environment.(9/1/2005)

Develop a detailed cardholder recruitment plan in the planning phase of the project, to provide guidance on processes to set pricing, and to ensure high user involvement and loyalty.(8/1/2004)

Seek assurances from your suppliers and sub-contractors, that their production and manufacturing schedules will meet your project schedule and inventory requirements throughout the lifecycle of the project.(8/1/2004)

Establish a forum for decision-makers and project managers to come together to receive project updates, work through critical project issues, make decisions, and support successful institutional collaboration in a project involving multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Provide for large sample sizes when conducting before/after data collection efforts, to avoid impacting the ability to reveal statistically significant differences during the evaluation's statistical analysis.(8/1/2004)

Include significant planning and development time in the overall project schedule to accommodate identifying and addressing the various compatibility issues, to integrate existing legacy system equipment across multiple agencies.(8/1/2004)

Establish a clear understanding among all partners on the level of technical support to be provided by suppliers and integrators, as equipment provided in-kind or at a reduced cost is often provided with minimal technical support.(8/1/2004)

Establish a champion and open communication among stakeholders to help enable regional smart card programs.(9/1/2001)

Establish a pricing structure for the new fare media that makes them competitive with other available fare media.(9/1/2001)

Ensure customer acceptance of new technology.(9/1/2001)

Perform adequate analyses and tests to design, calibrate and validate the capabilities of a bridge security monitoring system in order to reduce false alarms.(01/30/2009)

Perform adequate analyses and tests to design, calibrate and validate the capabilities of a bridge security monitoring system in order to reduce false alarms.(01/30/2009)

Develop an effective evacuation plan for special event that gathers a large audience and consider co-locating the responding agencies in a joint command center.(01/30/2009)

Be aware of the challenges of disseminating travel information during disasters in rural areas.(28 March 2006)

Closely coordinate the content and delivery of travel information messages to the public during disasters.(28 March 2006)

Adequately plan for the ATIS operational needs for communicating with the public during disasters.(28 March 2006)

Adopt best practices for integrating emergency information into Transportation Management Center (TMC) operations to improve performance and increase public mobility, safety and security.(2/28/2006)

Invest in research and development for emergency integration.(2/28/2006)

Extend the application of emergency integration best practices to further improve emergency operations.(2/28/2006)

Integrate weather information into Transportation Management Center (TMC) operations to enhance the ability of operators to manage traffic in a more responsive and effective way during weather events.(2/28/2006)

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)

Involve both public and private sectors in disseminating emergency management and disaster recovery information (4/1/2004)

Anticipate and plan for delays in deployment related to weather and the physical environment.(12/1/2003)

Identify innovative solutions for deploying Information Stations that report real-time data for weather and traffic monitoring in the event of a hurricane.(11/1/2003)

Develop partnerships for a cost-effective approach to deploy remote traffic count stations that will provide real-time traffic data during a hurricane evacuation.(11/1/2003)

Effectively communicate plans for implementing contraflow lanes during a hurricane evacuation.(11/1/2003)

Provide a single message to the public to assure consistency and to correct inaccurate crisis information.(March 2002)

Identify a single agency to be responsible for maintenance of an emergency vehicle preemption system.(January 2006)

Conduct rigorous testing prior to deployment of an emergency preemption system to avoid potential problems and negative system impacts.(January 2006)

Utilize transportation tools in communications, traffic control, and monitoring and prediction to maximize the ability of the highway network to support evacuation operations.(December 2006)

Include public and private sector transportation organizations as stakeholders in emergency evacuation operations and involve them in the preparedness and response planning.(December 2006)

Utilize ITS technologies to improve highway efficiency in emergency evacuations with advance notice.(December 2006)

Use a common Concept of Operations for evacuation operations that clarifies stakeholder roles and defines coordination activities for all operational phases of the evacuation.(December 2006)

Adopt best practices for integrating emergency information into Transportation Management Center (TMC) operations to improve performance and increase public mobility, safety and security.(2/28/2006)

Invest in research and development for emergency integration.(2/28/2006)

Extend the application of emergency integration best practices to further improve emergency operations.(2/28/2006)

Integrate weather information into Transportation Management Center (TMC) operations to enhance the ability of operators to manage traffic in a more responsive and effective way during weather events.(2/28/2006)

Plan for the transport of special need populations, such as nursing home residents, during no-notice evacuations by advance identification of wheelchair accessible buses and shelters.(February 2006)

Plan for the transport of special need populations, such as prisoners, during no-notice evacuations by advance identification of the line of authority as well as the potential evacuation routes.(February 2006)

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)

Identify innovative solutions for deploying Information Stations that report real-time data for weather and traffic monitoring in the event of a hurricane.(11/1/2003)

Develop partnerships for a cost-effective approach to deploy remote traffic count stations that will provide real-time traffic data during a hurricane evacuation.(11/1/2003)

Effectively communicate plans for implementing contraflow lanes during a hurricane evacuation.(11/1/2003)

Develop an effective evacuation plan for special event that gathers a large audience and consider co-locating the responding agencies in a joint command center.(01/30/2009)

When considering the use of camera phones in managing incidents, be aware of the challenges associated with technology interoperability among agencies and first responder priorities.(April 2007)

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 )

Utilize transportation tools in communications, traffic control, and monitoring and prediction to maximize the ability of the highway network to support evacuation operations.(December 2006)

Include public and private sector transportation organizations as stakeholders in emergency evacuation operations and involve them in the preparedness and response planning.(December 2006)

Utilize ITS technologies to improve highway efficiency in emergency evacuations with advance notice.(December 2006)

Use a common Concept of Operations for evacuation operations that clarifies stakeholder roles and defines coordination activities for all operational phases of the evacuation.(December 2006)

Adopt best practices for integrating emergency information into Transportation Management Center (TMC) operations to improve performance and increase public mobility, safety and security.(2/28/2006)

Invest in research and development for emergency integration.(2/28/2006)

Extend the application of emergency integration best practices to further improve emergency operations.(2/28/2006)

Integrate weather information into Transportation Management Center (TMC) operations to enhance the ability of operators to manage traffic in a more responsive and effective way during weather events.(2/28/2006)

Eliminating 17.7 tons of NOx and .2 tons of PM2.5 per day, a Hybrid Truck Catenary System has the potential for use on a Zero Emissions Corridor.(March 8, 2013)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 had benefit-cost ratios ranging from 1.58 to 6.10.(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Across the nation, traffic signal retiming programs have resulted in travel time and delay reductions of 5 to 20 percent, and fuel savings of 10 to 15 percent. (November/December 2004)

In Oakland County, Michigan retiming 640 traffic signals during a two-phase project resulted in Carbon monoxide reductions of 1.7 and 2.5 percent, Nitrogen oxide reductions of 1.9 and 3.5 percent, and hydrocarbon reductions of 2.7 and 4.2 percent.(November/December 2004)

In Oakland County, Michigan a two-phase project to retime 640 traffic signals resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 for the first phase and 55:1 for the second.(November/December 2004)

Signal retiming projects in several U.S. and Canadian cities decreased delay by 13 to 94 percent, and improved travel times by 7 to 25 percent.(April 2004)

Signal retiming projects in several U.S. and Canadian cities contributed to a reduction in crash frequency.(April 2004)

Signal retiming projects in several U.S. and Canadian cities reduced fuel consumption by 2 to 9 percent. (April 2004)

Coordinated signal timing on the arterial network in Syracuse, New York reduced vehicular delay by 14 to 19 percent, decreased total stops by 11 to 16 percent, and increased average speed by 7 to 17 percent.(September 2003)

By implementing coordinated signal timing on the arterial network in Syracuse, New York total fuel consumption was reduced by 9 to 13 percent, average fuel consumption declined by 7 to 14 percent, average vehicle emissions decreased by 9 to 13 percent.(September 2003)

Simulations indicated that using a decision support tool to select alternative traffic control plans during non-recurring congestion in the Disney Land area of Anaheim, California could reduce travel time by 2 to 29 percent and decrease stop time by 15 to 56 percent. (December 2001)

Optimizing signal timing plans, coordinating traffic signal control, and implementing adaptive signal control in California reduced travel time by 7.4 to 11.4 percent, decreased delay by 16.5 to 24.9 percent, and reduced stops by 17 to 27 percent.(7-11 January 2001)

The estimated benefit-to-cost ratio for optimizing signal timing plans, coordinating traffic signal control, and implementing adaptive signal control in California was 17:1.(7-11 January 2001)

Optimized signal timing plans, coordinated traffic signal control, and adaptive signal control reduced fuel use by 7.8 percent in California.(7-11 January 2001)

In Sullivan City, Texas, a signal control system that gives priority to trucks has reduced truck stops by 100 for a weekly volume of 2,500 trucks and has reduced truck delay.(September 2000)

A preemptive signal control system used to minimize truck stops in Sullivan City, Texas has resulted in cost savings due to reduced fuel consumption and emissions, less pavement wear, and reduced tire and brake wear.(September 2000)

A model found that coordinating fixed signal timing plans along congested arterial corridors leading into Seattle, Washington would help reduce the number of expected crashes by 2.5 percent and the frequency of fatal crashes by 1.1 percent.(30 May 2000)

Modeling indicated that coordinating fixed signal timing plans along congested arterial corridors leading into Seattle, Washington, and incorporating arterial traffic flow data into the traveler information system would reduce vehicle delay by 7 percent and 1.8 percent, respectively.(30 May 2000)

Modeling performed as part of an evaluation of nine ITS implementation projects in San Antonio, Texas indicated that integrating DMS, incident management, and arterial traffic control systems could reduce delay by 5.9 percent.(May 2000)

Evaluation indicated that integrating DMS and incident management systems could reduce crashes by 2.8 percent, and that integrating DMS and arterial traffic control systems could decrease crashes by 2 percent, in San Antonio, Texas.(May 2000)

Evaluation of 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can have tremendous societal cost savings well beyond the break even point for benefits and costs.(11 November 2004)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can reduce the potential for terrorist consequences by approximately 36 percent.(11 November 2004)

Estimated benefits for shippers using an integrated shipment, equipment, and freight status information system equate to a 6.2 percent reduction in shipment costs.(September 2003)

In Scandinavia, vehicles equipped with a GPS-based tracking system and on-board monitoring systems were able to reduce wasted mileage and emissions in southern and central Sweden, and increase freight movement by 15 percent.(May/June 1997)

Fleet Increases Productivity by 15% using AVL System(April 1995)

In Europe, several projects investigated management systems designed to improve the operating efficiency of carriers. Centralized route planning systems reduced vehicle travel distances 18 percent and decreased travel time 14 percent.(1994-1998)

An ATA Foundation study (1992) found that trucking companies who use computer aided dispatch systems can make more runs per truck per day, and improve productivity by 5 to 25 percent.(1992)

Tire pressure monitoring and maintenance systems improved motor carrier fuel economy by 1.4 to 1.8 percent.(02/24/2011)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can have tremendous societal cost savings well beyond the break even point for benefits and costs.(11 November 2004)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can reduce the potential for terrorist consequences by approximately 36 percent.(11 November 2004)

A series of interviews with commercial vehicle operators across the U.S. indicated that truck and motorcoach drivers are in strong agreement in favor of some ITS applications, but have mixed opinions about other applications. (1997)

ITS CVO applications for on-board safety monitoring were projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 0.02:1 to 0.49:1.(1996)

Several carriers reported that on-board monitoring systems enable carriers to increase loaded mileage by 9 to 16 percent, decrease operating costs, and save drivers time in reporting their status to dispatchers.(January 1992)

Final Report of the FORETELL Consortium Operational Test: Weather Information for Surface Transportation(April 2003)

FleetForward Evaluation, Final Report.(October 2000)

In Maryland, electronic screening and credentialing systems deployed as part of the CVISN program had an overall estimated benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.28 to 4.68.(November 1998)

Ninety-four percent (94 percent) of motor carrier companies surveyed say that electronic credentialing is more convenient, 80 percent saw savings in staff labor time, and 58 percent achieved costs savings over manual methods.(03/02/2009)

In 2000, a survey of Maryland motor carriers indicated that electronic data interchange and Internet technologies were valued more by carriers with large fleets (25 or more vehicles) that conduct business with state agencies.(14 November 2000)

A two-year study by the American Trucking Associations Foundation found that the commercial vehicle administrative processes reduced carriers' costs by an estimated 9 to 18 percent when electronic data interchange technology was used. (Fall 1996)

Ninety-four percent (94 percent) of motor carrier companies surveyed say that electronic credentialing is more convenient, 80 percent saw savings in staff labor time, and 58 percent achieved costs savings over manual methods.(03/02/2009)

Electronic credentialing allowed trucks to be placed into service an average of 3.5 days sooner than paper-based systems.(2 October 2007)

Approximately 50 percent of Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks (CVISN) managers surveyed indicated that CVISN electronic credentialing systems can save staff time and labor, allowing additional support to be assigned to more critical agency functions. (28 February 2007)

In Kentucky and Virginia, state overhead costs required to maintain motor carrier accounts were estimated to decrease 35 percent for each motor carrier participating in electronic credentialing. (March 2002)

An evaluation of CVISN technologies found that electronic credentialing enabled carriers to commission new vehicles 60 percent faster, and saved 60 to 75 percent on credentialing costs by reducing paperwork.(March 2002)

In 2000, a survey of Maryland motor carriers indicated that electronic data interchange and Internet technologies were valued more by carriers with large fleets (25 or more vehicles) that conduct business with state agencies.(14 November 2000)

In the mid-continent transportation corridor, a study of electronic credentialing found that benefit-to-cost ratios for motor carriers and state agencies range from 0.7 to 2.7.(8-12 November 1999)

In Maryland, electronic screening and credentialing systems deployed as part of the CVISN program had an overall estimated benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.28 to 4.68.(November 1998)

Software supporting oversize/overweight permitting enables staff reduction from 21 to 9, statewide. (July 1998)

A series of interviews with commercial vehicle operators across the U.S. indicated that truck and motorcoach drivers are in strong agreement in favor of some ITS applications, but have mixed opinions about other applications. (1997)

A two-year study by the American Trucking Associations Foundation found that the commercial vehicle administrative processes reduced carriers' costs by an estimated 9 to 18 percent when electronic data interchange technology was used. (Fall 1996)

Motor carriers involved in the Automated Mileage and State Line Crossing Operational Test indicated that the automated reporting features tested have the potential to reduce International Fuel Tax Agreement and International Registration Plan reporting costs by 33 to 50 percent.(May 1996)

In 1994, the HELP/Crescent project evaluated the potential benefits of implementing automatic vehicle identification, weigh-in-motion, electronic screening, credentialing, automatic vehicle classification, and integrated communications and databases, and projected that these systems would yield a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 4.8:1 to 12:1 for state governments.(February 1994)

An evaluation of the Maryland Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks program indicated the program would have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.17 to 4.83 over a 10 year lifecycle.(November 1998)

ITS CVO applications for administrative processes were projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 1:1 to 19.8:1.(1996)

In a test using RFID tags for border crossing identification, full electronic verification and screening took place in one second compared to 15 minutes when done manually, and correctly identified vehicles' compliancy status 99 percent of the time.(October 2009)

Deploying CVISN at a border crossing led to a 32 percent improvement in inspection efficiency and also saved shippers $228,120 per year.(July 2008)

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection ACE e-Manifest System provides annual cost savings of over $2,000 to carriers and inspection staff in all but one scenario analyzed.(January 2008)

Final Evaluation Report: Ambassador Bridge Border Crossing System (ABBCS) Field Operational Test(May 2000)

In the mid-continent transportation corridor, a study of electronic border clearance technologies found that benefit-to-cost ratios for motor carriers range from 85:1 to 718:1(8-12 November 1999)

A simulation study of a transponder based system to improve border crossing processes for cars and trucks at the Peace Bridge between the U.S. and Canada found that, with 50 percent of the vehicles equipped with the technology, the average inspection time for cars and trucks would decrease by 14 to 66 percent.(April 1999)

A series of interviews with commercial vehicle operators across the U.S. indicated that truck and motorcoach drivers are in strong agreement in favor of some ITS applications, but have mixed opinions about other applications. (1997)

Smart Roadside Inspection Stations can reduce emissions annually by 6.57 metric tonnes by not performing needless commercial vehicle inspections; compliant carriers saved $89,425 annually.(February 2013)

Adding an Automated License Plate Reader system to supplement an electronic credentialing system produces an estimated benefit cost ratio of 26.2:1.(21-25 September 2009)

Improvements in commercial vehicle travel times, fuel savings and emission reductions are five times greater when using an Automated License Plate Recognition system to determine inspection pull overs in conjunction with an electronic credentialling system.(21-25 September 2009)

Nearly all respondents (98 percent) to a nationwide motor carrier survey reported that CVISN electronic screening improved shipping times and reduced turnaround time delays.(03/02/2009)

CVISN technologies that improve carrier compliance can increase safety and carrier efficiency; benefit-to-cost ratios approach 7.5 for electronic screening and 2.6 for electronic credentialing.(03/02/2009)

Using Inspection Selection Systems (ISS) and out-of-service (OOS) history information provided by safety information exchange programs can lead to significant reductions in crashes injuries and fatalities due to heavy vehicles.(03/02/2009)

The Oregon DOT estimated that weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems at 21 weigh stations can save motor carriers more than $600,000 per year in fuel costs and increase annual freight transport by more than two million miles.

The Oregon DOT estimated that weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems at 21 weigh stations can reduce emissions of harmful particulate matter by 0.5 tons per year.

Pre-clearance systems that use interagency coordination to deploy interoperable electronic toll collection (ETC) and electronic screening (E-screening) systems improve the efficiency of motor carrier operations by saving time and money. Interoperable applications incorporated into a single transponder can save carriers between $0.63 to $2.15 per event at weigh stations. (12/2/2005)

In Colorado, an automated commercial vehicle pre-screening system installed at three ports of entry check stations saved 48,200 gallons of fuel per month.(12/29/2004)

In Colorado, an automated commercial vehicle pre-screening system installed at three ports of entry check stations saved approximately 8,000 vehicle hours of delay per month.(12/29/2004)

A simulation study of an Indiana weigh station found that implementing weigh-in-motion technology and equipping 40 to 50 percent of trucks with electronic screening transponders would significantly reduce queue overflows.(8-12 November 1999)

In the mid-continent transportation corridor, a study of electronic credentialing found that benefit-to-cost ratios for motor carriers and state agencies range from 0.7 to 2.7.(8-12 November 1999)

Evaluation of an automated commercial vehicle safety enforcement system in New South Wales, Australia found that the system had a benefit-to-cost ratio of 2.5:1. (June 1998)

In 1994, the HELP/Crescent project evaluated the potential benefits of implementing automatic vehicle identification, weigh-in-motion, electronic screening, credentialing, automatic vehicle classification, and integrated communications and databases, and projected that these systems would yield a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 4.8:1 to 12:1 for state governments.(February 1994)

Smart Roadside Inspection Stations can reduce emissions annually by 6.57 metric tonnes by not performing needless commercial vehicle inspections; compliant carriers saved $89,425 annually.(February 2013)

Nearly all respondents (98 percent) to a nationwide motor carrier survey reported that CVISN electronic screening improved shipping times and reduced turnaround time delays.(03/02/2009)

CVISN technologies that improve carrier compliance can increase safety and carrier efficiency; benefit-to-cost ratios approach 7.5 for electronic screening and 2.6 for electronic credentialing.(03/02/2009)

Using Inspection Selection Systems (ISS) and out-of-service (OOS) history information provided by safety information exchange programs can lead to significant reductions in crashes injuries and fatalities due to heavy vehicles.(03/02/2009)

The Oregon DOT estimated that weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems at 21 weigh stations can save motor carriers more than $600,000 per year in fuel costs and increase annual freight transport by more than two million miles.

The Oregon DOT estimated that weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems at 21 weigh stations can reduce emissions of harmful particulate matter by 0.5 tons per year.

Most truck drivers who participated in an evaluation of CVISN technology felt that electronic screening saved them time but lacked a set of standards governing inspection selection; motor carriers were concerned with the cost-effectiveness of the technology.(March 2002)

An evaluation of CVISN technologies found that electronic screening techniques that promote compliance with commercial vehicle safety inspections could prevent thousands of truck accidents each year.(March 2002)

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 2000, a survey of Maryland motor carriers asked them if electronic screening at mainline speeds would decrease unsafe and illegal carriers; approximately 32 percent agreed, 25 percent disagreed, and 42 percent were neutral; 24 percent were willing to participate despite the possibility of incurring more costs.(14 November 2000)

In the mid-continent transportation corridor, a study of electronic screening technologies found that benefit-to-cost ratios for motor carriers and state agencies range from 6.0:1 to 11.9:1.(8-12 November 1999)

An evaluation of the Maryland Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks program indicated the program would have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.17 to 4.83 over a 10 year lifecycle.(November 1998)

Smart Roadside Inspection Stations can reduce emissions annually by 6.57 metric tonnes by not performing needless commercial vehicle inspections; compliant carriers saved $89,425 annually.(February 2013)

Adding an Automated License Plate Reader system to supplement an electronic credentialing system produces an estimated benefit cost ratio of 26.2:1.(21-25 September 2009)

Improvements in commercial vehicle travel times, fuel savings and emission reductions are five times greater when using an Automated License Plate Recognition system to determine inspection pull overs in conjunction with an electronic credentialling system.(21-25 September 2009)

Nearly all respondents (98 percent) to a nationwide motor carrier survey reported that CVISN electronic screening improved shipping times and reduced turnaround time delays.(03/02/2009)

The Oregon DOT estimated that weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems at 21 weigh stations can save motor carriers more than $600,000 per year in fuel costs and increase annual freight transport by more than two million miles.

The Oregon DOT estimated that weigh-in-motion and electronic screening systems at 21 weigh stations can reduce emissions of harmful particulate matter by 0.5 tons per year.

In 2000, a survey of Maryland motor carriers asked them if electronic screening at mainline speeds would decrease unsafe and illegal carriers; approximately 32 percent agreed, 25 percent disagreed, and 42 percent were neutral; 24 percent were willing to participate despite the possibility of incurring more costs.(14 November 2000)

A simulation study of an Indiana weigh station found that implementing weigh-in-motion technology and equipping 40 to 50 percent of trucks with electronic screening transponders would significantly reduce queue overflows.(8-12 November 1999)

In the mid-continent transportation corridor, a study of electronic screening technologies found that benefit-to-cost ratios for motor carriers and state agencies range from 6.0:1 to 11.9:1.(8-12 November 1999)

A prototype CVO electronic screening and credentialing system deployed on two interstate corridors was projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.6 over 20 years as a result of improved safety and productivity for agencies and commercial carriers.(1996)

In 1994, the HELP/Crescent project evaluated the potential benefits of implementing automatic vehicle identification, weigh-in-motion, electronic screening, credentialing, automatic vehicle classification, and integrated communications and databases, and projected that these systems would yield a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 4.8:1 to 12:1 for state governments.(February 1994)

Institutional Issues Affecting the Implementation of IVHS Technologies to Commercial Vehicle Operations in the State of Indiana(1993)

Electronic screening produced operating cost savings per bypass of $8.68 for interstate motor carriers.(2 October 2007)

In Maryland, electronic screening and credentialing systems deployed as part of the CVISN program had an overall estimated benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.28 to 4.68.(November 1998)

ITS CVO applications for electronic screening were projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 1.9:1 to 6.5:1.(1996)

Smart Infrared Brake Inspection Systems identify trucks with faulty systems. Of the vehicles flagged as having thermal issues, 86 percent were found to have a violation and 83 percent of those vehicles were placed out-of-service.(06/01/2011)

CVISN technologies that improve carrier compliance can increase safety and carrier efficiency; benefit-to-cost ratios approach 7.5 for electronic screening and 2.6 for electronic credentialing.(03/02/2009)

Using Inspection Selection Systems (ISS) and out-of-service (OOS) history information provided by safety information exchange programs can lead to significant reductions in crashes injuries and fatalities due to heavy vehicles.(03/02/2009)

An Integrated Safety and Security Enforcement System (ISSES) for identifying high-risk heavy trucks was estimated to contribute to crash reductions between 63 and 629, personal injuries between 16 and163, and 7 fatalities per year.(31 January 2008)

An infrared detection system deployed in a mobile van correctly identified vehicles that need to be taken off the road 44 percent of the time; an improvement over using random selection alone.(4/11/2006)

An evaluation of infrared brake screening systems at weigh stations indicated the technology increased the percentage of vehicles placed out of service because of brake problems by 250 percent.(December 2000)

A series of interviews with commercial vehicle operators across the U.S. indicated that truck and motorcoach drivers are in strong agreement in favor of some ITS applications, but have mixed opinions about other applications. (1997)

Smart Roadside Inspection Stations can reduce emissions annually by 6.57 metric tonnes by not performing needless commercial vehicle inspections; compliant carriers saved $89,425 annually.(February 2013)

For the industry data sample provided in this analysis, RSC technology is more effective than ESC technology at preventing rollover, jackknife, and tow/stuck crashes, thus providing greater benefit to society and carriers with markedly lower installation costs.(August 2012)

CVISN technologies that improve carrier compliance can increase safety and carrier efficiency; benefit-to-cost ratios approach 7.5 for electronic screening and 2.6 for electronic credentialing.(03/02/2009)

Using Inspection Selection Systems (ISS) and out-of-service (OOS) history information provided by safety information exchange programs can lead to significant reductions in crashes injuries and fatalities due to heavy vehicles.(03/02/2009)

Most truck drivers who participated in an evaluation of CVISN technology felt that electronic screening saved them time but lacked a set of standards governing inspection selection; motor carriers were concerned with the cost-effectiveness of the technology.(March 2002)

An evaluation of CVISN technologies found that electronic screening techniques that promote compliance with commercial vehicle safety inspections could prevent thousands of truck accidents each year.(March 2002)

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 2000, a survey of Maryland motor carriers asked them if electronic screening at mainline speeds would decrease unsafe and illegal carriers; approximately 32 percent agreed, 25 percent disagreed, and 42 percent were neutral; 24 percent were willing to participate despite the possibility of incurring more costs.(14 November 2000)

An evaluation of the Maryland Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Networks program indicated the program would have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.17 to 4.83 over a 10 year lifecycle.(November 1998)

A prototype CVO electronic screening and credentialing system deployed on two interstate corridors was projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 3.6 over 20 years as a result of improved safety and productivity for agencies and commercial carriers.(1996)

Commercial trucks without speed limiters had a significantly higher crash rate (approximately 200 percent) compared to trucks equipped with speed limiters.(November 1, 2012)

In Maryland, electronic screening and credentialing systems deployed as part of the CVISN program had an overall estimated benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 3.28 to 4.68.(November 1998)

ITS CVO applications for automated roadside safety inspections were projected to have a benefit-to-cost ratio ranging from 1.3:1 to 1.4:1.(1996)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can have tremendous societal cost savings well beyond the break even point for benefits and costs.(11 November 2004)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can reduce the potential for terrorist consequences by approximately 36 percent.(11 November 2004)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can have tremendous societal cost savings well beyond the break even point for benefits and costs.(11 November 2004)

HAZMAT safety and security technologies can reduce the potential for terrorist consequences by approximately 36 percent.(11 November 2004)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

Cost of remote asset tracking device begins at approximately $800 per trailer.(22 June 2000)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

Average per state start-up costs for electronic credentialing (EC) was estimated at $1.35 million; average annual O&M was estimated at $250,000 per state.(03/02/2009)

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

Total project cost for electronic credentialing system in New York state was $577,910.(September 2001)

Average per state start-up costs for electronic credentialing (EC) was estimated at $1.35 million; average annual O&M was estimated at $250,000 per state.(03/02/2009)

Startup costs were $275 and annual recurring costs were $125 for 38 companies enrolled in electronic credentialing.(2 October 2007)

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

Based on data from Maryland and Kentucky, the costs to deploy a CVISN electronic credentialing system ranges from $464,802 to $935,906.(March 2002)

Total project cost for electronic credentialing system in New York state was $577,910.(September 2001)

Cost of a province-wide, supplemental automated license plate reading system is $1,060,200 (CAN).(21-25 September 2009)

Start-up costs for electronic screening ranged from $1 million to $2.8 million per state; average O&M costs were about $160,000 per year.(03/02/2009)

Truck driver credentialing system at three Virginia terminals cost $7.5 million.(March 9, 2006)

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)

Using data from Kentucky and Connecticut, the initial deployment of full CVISN electronic screening at a static scale site is $522,252. The cost of upgrading each additional site to full CVISN electronic screening is $303,540.(March 2002)

Start-up costs for electronic screening ranged from $1 million to $2.8 million per state; average O&M costs were about $160,000 per year.(03/02/2009)

An Integrated Safety and Security Enforcement System (ISSES) was installed on I-75 near London, Kentucky at a cost of $350,000. Subsequent installations in the State of Kentucky were $500,000.(31 January 2008)

Recurrent costs for electronic screening ranged from $7 to $14 per transponder per month.(2 October 2007)

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

Cost of a province-wide, supplemental automated license plate reading system is $1,060,200 (CAN).(21-25 September 2009)

Start-up costs for electronic screening ranged from $1 million to $2.8 million per state; average O&M costs were about $160,000 per year.(03/02/2009)

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)

Using data from Kentucky and Connecticut, the initial deployment of full CVISN electronic screening at a static scale site is $522,252. The cost of upgrading each additional site to full CVISN electronic screening is $303,540.(March 2002)

Weigh station electronic screening systems can be deployed with basic ($150,000) or advanced functions ($780,000).(8-12 November 1999)

An Integrated Safety and Security Enforcement System (ISSES) was installed on I-75 near London, Kentucky at a cost of $350,000. Subsequent installations in the State of Kentucky were $500,000.(31 January 2008)

"Thermal Eye" van and equipment for screening of commercial vehicles cost $500,000.(4/11/2006)

Average per state start-up costs for CVISN safety information exchange (SIE) was estimated at $680,000; average annual O&M was $74,000 per state.(03/02/2009)

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)

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

Using data from Kentucky and Connecticut, statewide deployment of the safety information exchange system cost approximately $650,000. (March 2002)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

Cost of remote asset tracking device begins at approximately $800 per trailer.(22 June 2000)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Recent contract awards suggest the capital costs to implement bus AVL systems range from $10,000 to $20,000 per vehicle.(2008)

Capital costs for transit vehicle mobile data terminals typically range between $1,000 and $4,000 per unit, with installation costs frequently between $500 and $1,000.(2007)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 2005)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

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

The cost of the capital infrastructure of the Cape Cod Advanced Public Transit System—which included radio tower upgrades, local area network upgrades, AVL/MDT units (total of 100), and software upgrades—was $634,582.(January 2003)

Detailed communications equipment costs for the Denver Regional Transportation District regional transit AVL/CAD system.(August 2000)

The Denver Regional Transportation District deployed a regional transit AVL/CAD system for $10.4 million; O&M costs were estimated at $1.9 million. (August 2000)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

Capital costs for transit vehicle mobile data terminals typically range between $1,000 and $4,000 per unit, with installation costs frequently between $500 and $1,000.(2007)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 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)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

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

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 2005)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

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)

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)

Cost of Driver Assistance packages that include Vision-Based Lane Departure Warning Systems range from $295 to $2800.(December 2009)

Cost of DGPS Lane Departure Warning Systems estimated between $500 and $1,000 after 20 years on the market.(December 2009)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(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)

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)

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

In-vehicle navigation units and real-time traveler information software development were the main cost drivers for the San Antonio TransGuide MMDI project to improve operations at several public agencies.(May 2000)

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

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)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(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)

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)

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)

Blind spot monitoring systems can range from $200 - $395 and lane change assists systems including lane departure warning functions cost approximately $1,400 per vehicle identified in an analysis of Lane Departure Warning (LDW) and Lane Change Assist (LCA) systems.(November 2008)

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

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

The capital cost to implement a smart parking system having two roadside DMS units, an integrated web-based reservation system, and IVR support was estimated at $205,000(June 2008)

System to support the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority multi-agency electronic fare payment card cost approximately $25.5 million.(February 2004)

Between 2003 and 2007, annual operating costs and revenues at 15 tolling agencies averaged $85.825 million and $265.753 million, respectively.(2011)

Between 2003 and 2008 operating costs for cordon pricing in European cities ranged from $9.2 million to $238.5 million.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

Estimates to implement and operate a comprehensive VMT-based charging system for all road use in the Netherlands by 2016 averaged $2.255 billion and $667.59 million per year, respectively.(2011)

Capital cost estimates to implement MnPASS dynamic pricing on freeway shoulder lanes ranged from $6 million to $23 million per mile.(September 2010)

Annual operating costs for congestion pricing systems can exceed $161,000,000.(September 2009)

In California, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) purchased a four-lane 10-mile long limited access variable toll facility for $207.5 million.(August 2008)

Value pricing projects conducted in three metropolitan areas indicated the costs to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes ranged from $9 million to $17.9 million.(August 2008)

In the Seattle metropolitan area, a network wide variable tolling system would cost roughly $749 million to implement and $288 million to operate each year.(April 2008)

Cost estimates of operational concepts for converting HOV lanes to managed lanes on I-75/I-575 in Georgia range from $20.9 million to $23.7 million.(April 2006)

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

The cost to convert two reversible high-occupancy vehicle lanes on an eight-mile stretch of the Interstate-15 in San Diego to high-occupancy toll lanes was $1.85 million. Evidence also suggests that costs to build new high-occupancy toll lanes are substantially higher, but financially feasible.(Spring 2000)

Between 2003 and 2007, annual operating costs and revenues at 15 tolling agencies averaged $85.825 million and $265.753 million, respectively.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

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

In California, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) purchased a four-lane 10-mile long limited access variable toll facility for $207.5 million.(August 2008)

Value pricing projects conducted in three metropolitan areas indicated the costs to convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes ranged from $9 million to $17.9 million.(August 2008)

In Florida, a limited-access tolled expressway featuring express electronic toll collection (ETC) lanes and open road tolling (ORT) cost $237 million.(21-25 January 2007)

In San Diego County, the cost to implement ETC with managed lanes on a 26 mile section of I-5 was estimated at $1.7 million.(April 2006)

In Miami, the cost to implement open road tolling (ORT) on five expressway segments was estimated at $56.5 million.(March 2006)

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

Operating costs of electronic toll lane is 1/10th that of staffed lane.(1997)

Deployment of an Advanced Public Transit System (APTS) for a mid-size transit system costs $150,000.(July 2009)

Capital costs to implement ITS fare collection systems for bus rapid transit (BRT) ranged from $2 million to $6 million.(February 2009)

Capital costs to implement ITS applications for bus rapid transit (BRT) can vary widely ranging from $100,000 to more than $1,000,000 per mile.(February 2009)

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority installed two fare vending machines—one full service and one cashless—at each of the Logan Airport terminal stops at a total deployment cost of $1.26 million.(1 June 2007)

The projected operating costs for a regional smartcard financial clearing center totaled less than $4 million per year.(6 February 2007)

Driver assist and automation systems can substantially increase the cost of a new bus.(2007)

The cost to implement the ICTransit Card system was estimated at $635,700. (9/1/2005)

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)

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

System to support the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority multi-agency electronic fare payment card cost approximately $25.5 million.(February 2004)

The cost to develop the Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination Project was estimated at $42.1 million. (29 April 2003)

The cost of the capital infrastructure of the Cape Cod Advanced Public Transit System—which included radio tower upgrades, local area network upgrades, AVL/MDT units (total of 100), and software upgrades—was $634,582.(January 2003)

Electronic fare payment was implemented on 109 buses operated by the Ventura County Transportation Commission for $1.7 million.(13 December 2002)

In Arizona, the estimated cost of a statewide Automatic License Plate Recognition (ALPR) system at 55 sites is $9.98 million.(June 2008)

In Arizona, the estimated cost of a statewide Electronic Vehicle Registration (EVR) system using radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is $49.6 million.(June 2008)

The capital cost to design, develop, test, and integrate ACN dispatch center equipment and software was estimated at $152,400.(February 2001)

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)

Over half of the $3.25 million cost for the San Antonio Lifelink advanced telemedicine project was attributed to reseach and development.(May 2000)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

Commercially available, off-the-shelf technology that enhances the safety and security of hazmat transportation operations ranges in cost from $250 to $3,500 per vehicle.(31 August 2004)

Louisiana deployed seven flood detection and traffic evacuation monitoring stations for approximately $200,000.(11/1/2003)

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 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)

Emergency preemption equipment was deployed at several intersections in British Columbia, Canada at a cost of $4,000 (Canadian) per intersection.(November 2001)

A GPS-based satellite system costing roughly $4,000 per intersection and $2,000 per vehicle, allows Palm Beach County, Florida fire personnel to responder faster.(1 June 1997)

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

Costs for creating a statewide electronic crash data collection system range from $1.1 to 2.3 million.(2010)

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

The cost of O&M at the Arizona TMC was estimated at $2 million per year.(January 2006)

In Michigan, the Flint Mass Transportation Authority budgeted $1 million to develop a central system for county-wide AVL.(June 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)

The cost to design and deploy a shared regional transportation, emergency, and communications center in Austin and Travis Counties (Texas) was estimated at $5 million.(May 2004)

The total capital cost of the Seattle MMDI emergency operations centers project including equipment and planning/development costs were $151,700; O&M costs were approximately 5% of the equipment costs.(30 May 2000)

A GPS-based satellite system costing roughly $4,000 per intersection and $2,000 per vehicle, allows Palm Beach County, Florida fire personnel to responder faster.(1 June 1997)

Between 2003 and 2007, annual operating costs and revenues at 15 tolling agencies averaged $85.825 million and $265.753 million, respectively.(2011)

Operating costs of Mileage-based user fee programs can be as low as 7 percent of total system revenue and are more cost-effective than many other types of variable pricing systems.(2011)

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)

Six replacement dynamic message signs with remote activation capability cost $321,000 to procure and install in Idaho.(February 7, 2013)

The cost to install six dynamic message signs on two freeways in North Carolina was estimated at $1,980,000.(12/17/2010)

Costs to deploy an Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) system in Minneapolis for ten years is estimated at $3.96 million.(November 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)

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

The Arizona DOT installed a freeway management system to control and monitor traffic on I-10 and I-19 within the City of Tucson for approximately $3.1 million (2009).(02/01/2010)

The Arizona DOT installed a freeway management system to control and monitor traffic on an 7.5-mile section of Loop 101 in the area of Scottsdale/Phoenix for approximately $1.6 million (2009).(01/27/2010)

In Washington state, the Mount St. Helens traveler information system was installed at a cost of $499,526.(June 2009)

In central Washington state, the cost of deploying two variable message signs (VMS) on westbound Interstate 90 was $660,000.(June 2009)

In central Washington state, the cost of deploying two variable message signs (VMS) on westbound Interstate 90 was $660,000.(June 2009)

In Washington State, the implementation of the SR 14 Traveler Information System cost $511,300(June 2009)

In Yakima, Washington, the deployment of a Traveler Information System cost $333,000.(June 2009)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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 - Capital cost/unit - $9452(2013)

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

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

CCTV - Capital cost/unit - $9452(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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $5000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000(January 2008)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $5000 - O&M cost/unit - $2000(January 2008)

CCTV Video Camera Tower - Capital cost/unit - $5000 - O&M cost/unit - $30 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $6400 - O&M cost/unit - $30 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $30000 - O&M cost/unit - $1500 - Lifetime - 10 years(7/5/2005)

CCTV Video Camera Tower - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - Lifetime - 50 years(7/5/2005)

Pole w/lowering device - Capital cost/unit - $5000 - Lifetime - 25 years(7/5/2005)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $20000 - O&M cost/unit - $200 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/30/2005)

Video Displays for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $25000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/30/2005)

Wireless Communications, Medium Usage - Capital cost/unit - $8000 - O&M cost/unit - $200 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/30/2005)

Inductive Loop Surveillance at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $1440 - O&M cost/unit - $710 - Lifetime - 8 years(5 August 2004)

CCTV Video Camera Pole - Capital cost/unit - $8700 - Lifetime - 20 years(5 August 2004)

Inductive Loop Surveillance at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $12000(5 August 2004)

CCTV Video Camera and Associated Equipment - Arterial - Capital cost/unit - $14000(5 August 2004)

Machine Vision Sensors at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $18000 - O&M cost/unit - $236.76 - Lifetime - 8 years(5 August 2004)

Probe Surveillance – Roadside Transponder Reader - Capital cost/unit - $32000 - O&M cost/unit - $1000(5 August 2004)

CCTV Video Camera Pole - Capital cost/unit - $8700(5 August 2004)

Machine Vision Sensors at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $18500(5 August 2004)

Probe Surveillance – License Plate Reader - Capital cost/unit - $30000 - O&M cost/unit - $800(5 August 2004)

Machine Vision Sensors at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $16000 - O&M cost/unit - $592.25 - Lifetime - 8 years(5 August 2004)

Cabinets - Capital cost/unit - $6700 - Lifetime - 10 years(7/22/2004)

CCTV Video Camera Tower - Capital cost/unit - $1700 - Lifetime - 10 years(7/22/2004)

Encoders - Capital cost/unit - $5200 - Lifetime - 5 years(7/22/2004)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $5600 - Lifetime - 10 years(7/22/2004)

CCTV Video Camera - Capital cost/unit - $3200 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 8 years(09/2/2003)

Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) camera - Capital cost/unit - $20000(September 2003)

Loop Detector Card - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector AC Isolator Unit - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector Card - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector AC Isolator Unit - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector AC Isolator Unit - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector Card - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector Card - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector Card - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector AC Isolator Unit - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector AC Isolator Unit - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector Card - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector for Traffic Surveillance - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Loop Detector AC Isolator Unit - Capital cost/unit - $85(01/27/2010)

Communications equipment - shelter - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications wireless - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Signal controller communications - modem - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - shelter - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Signal controller - system software - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Signal controller communications - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Signal controller - communications equipment - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Signal controller - communications equipment - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Signal controller assembly - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - shelter - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Signal controller - communications equipment - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Signal controller - communications equipment - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Communications equipment - cabinet - O&M cost/unit - $63.15(2/4/2013)

Signal controller communications hardware - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Signal controller - communications equipment - Capital cost/unit - $20274.88(2/4/2013)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $6000(2013)

Video Detection - Capital cost/unit - $400(2013)

Video Detection - Capital cost/unit - $400(2013)

Video Detection - Capital cost/unit - $110.47(2013)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $6000(2013)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $6000(2013)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $6000(2013)

Adaptive Signal Control System and Components - Capital cost/unit - $416319(July 2012)

Signal Controller Cabinets (Installed) - Capital cost/unit - $2025(July 2012)

Construction Equipment and Control - Capital cost/unit - $9220(July 2012)

Local Controller Firmware - Capital cost/unit - $3600(July 2012)

QuicNet Pro Central System - Capital cost/unit - $30750(July 2012)

Microwave Presence Detectors - Capital cost/unit - $4156.25(July 2012)

Telemetry (Communication System) - Capital cost/unit - $38178(July 2012)

TMC Hardware for Signal Control - Capital cost/unit - $22500 - O&M cost/unit - $2000 - Lifetime - 5 years(September 2008)

Fiber optic Cable Installation - Capital cost/unit - $35700 - O&M cost/unit - $180 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Signal Controller - Capital cost/unit - $17900 - O&M cost/unit - $90 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Conduit Design and Installation - Corridor - Capital cost/unit - $414100 - O&M cost/unit - $2070 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Machine Vision Sensor at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $234200 - O&M cost/unit - $1170 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Signal Controller Upgrade for Signal Control - Capital cost/unit - $3100 - O&M cost/unit - $20 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Wireless Communications, Low Usage - Capital cost/unit - $4000 - O&M cost/unit - $20 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Labor for Signal Control - Capital cost/unit - $95000 - O&M cost/unit - $100000(06/30/2006)