Knowledge Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Tyler, Texas deployed Adaptive Control System (ACS)-Lite on a 3.17-mile corridor at a cost of $546,900.(12/09/2007)

An adaptive signal control system used to manage traffic at 65 intersections in Arlington, Virginia, was implemented for $2.43 million.(February 2001)

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)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $34700(01/01/2012)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $34700(01/01/2012)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $34700(01/01/2012)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $34700(01/01/2012)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $34700(01/01/2012)

Adaptive Signal Control Equipment - Capital cost/unit - $34700(01/01/2012)

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)

Service Cabinet - Capital cost/unit - $2900 - O&M cost/unit - $10 - Lifetime - 10 years(06/30/2006)

Machine Vision Sensor at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $25500 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 5 years(6/26/28/2005)

Inductive Loop Surveillance at Intersection - Capital cost/unit - $9000 - O&M cost/unit - $500 - Lifetime - 3 years(6/26/28/2005)

Telephone Drop - Capital cost/unit - $2900 - O&M cost/unit - $600 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/26/28/2005)

Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System - Capital cost/unit - $85000 - O&M cost/unit - $13800 - Lifetime - 10 years(6/26/28/2005)

Signal Controller Upgrade for Signal Control - Capital cost/unit - $3500 - Lifetime - 5 years(6/30/2003)

Signal Controller Upgrade for Signal Control - Capital cost/unit - $3050 - Lifetime - 5 years(08/31/2001)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evaluation data show that adaptive signal control strategies can improve travel times in comparison to optimized signal timing plans.(2 February 2005)

A simulation study found that adaptive signal control reduced delay by 18 to 20 percent when compared to fixed-timed signal control. (13-17 January 2002)

In Los Angeles, adaptive signal control systems improved travel time by 13 percent, decreased stops by 31 percent, and reduced delay by 21 percent.(July 2001)

In Tucson, Arizona and Seattle Washington models indicated adaptive signal control in conjunction with transit signal priority can decrease delay for travelers on main streets by 18.5 percent while decreasing delay for travelers on cross-streets by 28.4 percent.(7-13 January 2001)

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

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

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

Adaptive signal control systems reduced vehicle stops by 28 to 41 percent; improve safety.(December 2000)

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

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

Adaptive signal control can lower operations and maintenance costs.(December 2000)

Simulation revealed that, in Fargo, North Dakota, a freeway management system displaying incident warnings on DMS and integrated with adaptive signal control could decrease travel times by 18 percent and increase speeds by 21 percent. (6-10 August 2000)

Deploying advanced technologies and an integrated corridor management approach decreased congestion and improved traffic flow within an 8-mile corridor south of Twin Cities, Minneapolis encouraging 58% of motorists surveyed to use arterial streets for short trips rather than Interstate-494.(April 2000)

Adaptive signal control integrated with freeway ramp meters in Glasgow, Scotland increased vehicle throughput 20 percent on arterials and 6 percent on freeways.(January 2000)

Adaptive signal control integrated with freeway ramp meters in Glasgow, Scotland improved network travel times by 10 percent.(January 2000)

An adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada increased traffic flow speeds by 3 to 16 percent. (8-12 November 1999)

An adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada reduced vehicle emissions by 3 to 6 percent and lowered fuel consumption by 4 to 7 percent.(8-12 November 1999)

A simulation study of five intersections in Oakland, Michigan indicated that adaptive signal control resulted in lower travel times than optimized fixed-time signal control.(8-12 November 1999)

In Toronto, Canada adaptive signal control reduced ramp queues by 14 percent, decreased delay up to 42 percent, and reduced travel time by 6 to 11 percent; and transit signal priority reduced transit delay by 30 to 40 percent and travel time by 2 to 6 percent. (8-12 November 1999)

The payback period for expansion of an adaptive signal control system in Toronto, Canada was estimated at less than two years.(8-12 November 1999)

When bus priority was used with an adaptive signal control system in London, England average bus delay was reduced by 7 to 13 percent and average bus delay variability decreased by 10 to 12 percent. (6-12 November 1999)

Implementation of an adaptive signal control system in Anaheim, California resulted in travel time changes ranging from a 10 percent decrease to a 15 percent increase. (July 1999)

Adaptive signal control deployed in Madrid, Spain decreased travel time by 5 percent, reduced delay by 19 percent, and improved flow by reducing the number of stops by 10 percent.(1999)

Adaptive signal control in Sao Paulo, Brazil, increased speed by 25 percent and reduced delay by 14 percent.(1999)

An adaptive signal control system in Oakland County, Michigan reduced travel time by 7.0 to 8.6 percent during peak periods.(4-6 May 1998)

Simulation of a network based on the Detroit Commercial Business District indicated that adaptive signal control for detours around an incident could reduce delay by 60 to 70 percent and that travel times can be reduced by 25 to 41 percent under non-incident conditions. (June 1997)

An adaptive signal control system in British Columbia, Canada reduced delay by 15 percent during peak periods.(May 1997)

A survey of drivers in Oakland County, Michigan revealed that 72 percent believe that they are better off after deployment of adaptive signal control. (May 1997)

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates that traffic signal improvements can reduce travel time by 8 to 25 percent. (1997)

Simulations performed for the National ITS Architecture Program indicated that delay can be reduced by more than 20 percent when adaptive signal control is implemented. (June 1996)

In Toronto, Canada, an adaptive signal control system reduced travel time by 8 percent, decreased delay by 17 percent, and reduced vehicle stops by 22 percent. (Spring 1995)

Fuel consumption fell by 5.7 percent, hydrocarbons declined by 3.7 percent, and carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by 5.0 percent when an adaptive signal control system was implemented in Toronto, Canada.(Spring 1995)

Fuel consumption fell by 13 percent and vehicle emissions were reduced by 14 percent due to a computerized signal control system in Los Angeles, California.(June 1994)

A computerized signal control system in Los Angeles, California increased average speed by 16 percent, reduced travel time by 18 percent, decreased vehicle stops by 41 percent, and reduced delay by 44 percent. (June 1994)

Crash frequency declined when an advanced traffic management system and an advanced traveler information system were integrated in Oakland County, Michigan.(1994)

Integrating an advanced traffic management system and an advanced traveler information system in Oakland County, Michigan increased average speed and reduced the number of stops by 33 percent. (1994)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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