Arterial Management (109 unique benefit summaries found)
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)
In Monroe County, New York, the Camera Deployment and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Integration project reduced incident validation times by 50 to 80 percent saving between 5 and 12 minutes per incident.(August 2006)
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)
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)
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, 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 in Los Angeles, Broward County, and Oakland County reduced vehicle stops by 28 to 41 percent (December 2000)
Adaptive signal control systems deployed in five metropolitan areas have reduced delay 19 to 44 percent.(December 2000)
Adaptive traffic signal control systems in Los Angeles, Broward County, and Newark decreased travel times by 13 to 25 percent. (December 2000)
Adaptive signal control may can lower operations and maintenance costs associated with traffic signal retiming; in Minnesota DOT signal technicians indicated that adaptive signal control systems were easy to operate and required minimal maintenance.(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)
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 three to six percent and lowered fuel consumption by four to seven 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 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)
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)
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 ITS implementation projects in San Antonio, Texas, demonstrated that integrating freeway DMS with incident management systems could reduce fuel consumption by 1.2 percent, and that 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)
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)
Optimizing signal timing at 700 intersections in the Tysons Corner area of Northern Virginia lead to a 9 percent reduction in fuel consumption and a 134,600 kilogram decrease in annual emissions.(March 2000)
By optimizing signal timing at 700 intersections in the Tysons Corner area of Northern Virginia, delay was reduced by approximately 22 percent and stops were reduced 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Speed camera programs can reduce crashes by 9 to 51 percent. (September 2007)
In Brazilian cities, 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)
In London, England; 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)
Speed camera programs can reduce crashes by 9 to 51 percent. (September 2007)
Speed camera programs can reduce crashes by 9 to 51 percent. (September 2007)
In Arizona, red light cameras reduced the occurrence of severe right-angle and left-turn crashes while the number of rear-end crashes increased.(June 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)
In Great Britain, 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)
In Brazilian cities, 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 in Fairfax, Virginia 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 enforcement systems in Arizona, California, Maryland, and New York have reduced red-light violations by 20 to 60 percent and crashes by 22 to 51 percent. (December 1999)
Automated red light enforcement reduced the number of violations by 42 percent at 5 intersections in San Francisco, California. (March 1999)
Studies in six metropolitan areas of the United States and Australia, 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)
In London, England; 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)
