Arterial Management (158 unique benefit summaries found)

T3 Webinars

Traffic

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

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

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)

Adaptive Signal Control

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Advanced Signal Systems

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

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)

Bicycle & Pedestrian

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

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

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)

Eco-Signal Priority

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

Eco-Traffic Signal Timing

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

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

Special Events

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)

Variable Speed Limits

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)

Lane Control

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)

Pricing

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)

Data Collection

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)

Information Dissemination

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)

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

Dynamic Message Signs

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)

Highway Advisory Radio

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)

In-Vehicle Systems

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)

Speed Enforcement

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)

Traffic Signal Enforcement

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)