Taxonomy Category

Benefits LogoAvailable Benefit Data:

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)

Two thirds of bus tracking website users said they used transit more frequently because of the availability of real-time information.(December 2009)

Cameras on buses and in facilites improve rider and driver sense of security and reduce insurance claims paid to passengers, while scheduling software saved $1 million in labor costs.(December 16, 2009)

Implementation of ITS with AVL, real-time passenger information, and electronic fare media in a mid-sized transit system resulted in a minimum 3.9:1 benefit/cost ratio.(July 2009)

Increasing integration between AVL systems, components, and interfaces has improved the ability of transit agencies to collect data on location and schedule adherence; support operational control, service restoration, and planning activities.(2008)

Transit operators and dispatchers for the South Lake Tahoe Coordinated Transit System (CTS) are generally satisfied with the new system deployed and feel that it can provide good capabilities for future service expansion.(4/14/2006)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that more than 80 percent who experienced on-board next-stop announcements and real-time bus departure signs agreed these technologies made it easier to get around.(June 2003)

A transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland reduced delay by 44 to 48 percent, decreased travel time by 1 to 11 percent, and reduced travel time by 35,800 to 67,500 passenger-hours per year. (13-17 January 2002.)

Simulation of a transit signal priority system in Helsinki, Finland indicated that fuel consumption decreased by 3.6 percent, Nitrogen oxides were reduced by 4.9 percent, Carbon monoxide decreased by 1.8 percent, hydrocarbons declined by 1.2 percent, and particulate matter decreased by 1.0 percent.(13-17 January 2002.)

In Helsinki, Finland a transit signal priority system improved on-time arrival by 22 to 58 percent and real-time passenger information displays were regarded as useful by 66 to 95 percent of passengers.(13-17 January 2002.)

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)

Joint deployment of scheduling software and Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminals (AVL/MDT) increased ridership and quality of service for two rural transit providers.(December 2010)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that 90 percent of respondents who used the real-time bus departure signs and 84 percent of respondents who experienced the automated on-board next-stop message announcements agreed these technologies made it easier to get around.(February 2003)

Arrival notification system reduces passenger wait time for paratransit services by 15 to 20 minutes.(January 2017)

Following a small-scale launch of a real-time transit information systen in Tampa, 64 percent of users reported spending less time waiting at the bus stop.(July 2014)

A survey of travelers who used a multi-modal trip-planning website found that 40 percent of them decided to try at least one transit service that they do not normally use.(May 2011 )

Overtime hours for drivers reduced and no staff increase necessary to handle over 10 percent increase in transit ridership over six years.(May 2010)

Forty-five percent reduction in complaints by paratransit riders, 50 percent less missed trips due to mechanical problems, and a new trip planning tool for fixed-route riders introduced as part of ITS deployment in Reno.(May 2010)

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)

A personalized travel planning system helps commuters choose environmentally friendly routes and modes; reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent.(16-20 November 2008.)

The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) smart parking system field test increased BART trips and resulted in an average of 9.7 fewer vehicle miles traveled and decreased the average commute time by 2.6 minutes.(1 August 2007)

Deployment experiences document the importance of traveler information and list top sources of traveler information.(2005)

Integrated transit ITS technologies for a flexible-route transit service reduced the amount of time required to arrange passenger pick-up or drop-off off the fixed route from two days to two hours.(1/5/2002)

In London, a survey indicated that 30 percent of travelers who used a computerized route planning system and completed a trip, changed routes based on the information provided, another 10 percent decided to use public transport. (9 March 1998)

Real-time digital transit information displays at trip planning decision points contributed to a five percent decrease in drive-alone commuters.(04/20/2016)

Provision of real-time transit information yields a median ridership increase of 2.3 percent on the largest quartile of bus routes in New York City.(March 4, 2015)

Collaborative travel data analysis effort in Dublin leads to 10 to 15 percent reduction in bus travel times.(July/August 2014)

Changeable Message Signs in the Bay Area that displayed highway and transit trip times and departure times for the next train influenced 1.6 percent of motorists to switch to transit when the time savings was less than 15 minutes, and 7.9 percent of motorists to switch to transit when the time savings was greater than 20 minutes.(September 2009)

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)

Arrival predictions make customers think transit service has improved. Perceived wait times in London dropped from 11.9 to 8.6 minutes due to the Countdown System.(2003)

In 1996, the project benefits of existing and planned deployments of transit ITS technologies were estimated to yield between $3.8 billion and $7.4 billion (discounted dollars for 1996) within several years.(July 1996)

Improve passenger information accuracy and reduce redundant hardware without overwhemling communications capacity, by integrating adaptive traffic signal priorty and dynamic passenger information systems into existing AVL/ACS systems on transit vehicles.(August 2011)

Transit operations decision support systems (TODSS) reduce false and low priority incident reports sent to dispatchers by 60 percent, allowing dispatchers to focus on higher priority incidents.(February 2010)

Implementation of an adaptive transit signal priority system resulted in 5 percent reductions in running time and 18 to 32 percent reductions in bus intersection delays in San Mateo County.(June 2010)

Automatic vehicle location (AVL) on Reno buses leads to nearly four percent increase in on-time performance for paratransit services and more comprehensive schedule adherence data to create more accurate schedules.(May 2010)

Estimated reduction of 9.37 million personal vehicle miles traveled and 4,252 metric tons of CO2 from increased transit ridership in Reno, Nevada.(May 2010)

In Waterloo, Canada, express bus service equipped with ITS technologies results in 3,650 tons annual decrease in green house gas emissions.(December 2009)

Data archive warehousing pays for itself in less than 1.4 years and scheduling software saves almost four weeks per year for operations planners.(December 2009)

In rural Pennsylvania, demand-response service vehicles experienced a nine percent increase in overall on-time performance and over five percent decrease in non-revenue miles traveled.(08/31/2009)

Bus rapid transit (BRT) can reduce transit running times by 38 to 69 percent, increase ridership by 35 to 77 percent, and improve service reliability.(2007)

Comprehensive proposed transit ITS implementation proposes numerous operational efficiency and customer satisfaction benefits.(24 August 2006)

Full ITS deployment in Seattle projects personal travel time reductions of 3.7 percent for drivers and 24 percent for transit users.(May 2005)

In Salt Lake City, Utah, a transit Connection Protection system yielded a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the number of travelers satisfied with their travel experience; 87 percent compared to 85 percent.(5/12/2004)

In Portland, Oregon, the Tri-Met transit agency used archived AVL data to reduce variation in run times, improve schedule efficiency, and make effective use of resources.(June 2003)

Implementation of radio system combined with AVL/MDT technology leads to increase in trip productivity and better vehicle maintenance in a large service area with low population density.(March 2003)

New Mexico's scheduling/billing sofware leads to better customer service, more efficient reporting and billing, and better coordination between transportation providers and funding agencies.(March 2003)

Implementation of paratransit software with Automatic Vehicle Location/Mobile Data Terminal (AVT/MDT) technologies leads to increase in trip productivity; reduction in administrative staff; and greater overall confidence in the transportation system.(March 2003)

Implementation of a two-way radio network with paratransit scheduling software provides better customer service, better scheduling, and more efficient staffing.(March 2003)

A survey of visitors to the Acadia National Park in Maine found that 80 percent of bus passengers who used electronic departure signs and 44 percent of bus passengers who experienced real time parking information reported it helped them decide to ride a bus. (February 2003)

In Denver, 80 percent of RTD dispatchers felt that the GPS functions of the transit AVL system were "easy" or "very easy" to use and approximately half of bus drivers and street supervisors felt likewise.(August 2000)

In Denver, transit AVL decreased early and late arrivals by 12 and 21 percent, respectively.(August 2000)

In 1998, in Portland, Oregon an automatic vehicle location system with computer aided dispatching improved on-time bus performance by 9 percent, reduced headway variability between buses by 5 percent, and decreased run-time by 3 percent.(Summer 2000)

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)

In San Jose, California, a paratransit driver commented that she was satisfied with a new AVL/CAD scheduling and routing system, and said it was useful for settling disputes concerning on-time performance .(March/April 1997)

In San Jose, California, a paratransit program equipped with AVL/CAD and an automated scheduling and routing system, realized increased ridership, better on-time performance, and a $500,000 reduction in annual operating costs.(March/April 1997)

In Sweetwater, Wyoming a computer assisted dispatching system that allowed same-day ride requests contributed to an 80 percent increased in ridership (5,000 to 9,000 passengers per month), without requiring an increase in dispatch staff. (September 1996)

In Kansas City, Missouri an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system increase productivity by eliminating seven buses out of a 200 bus system that allowed Kansas City to recover their investment in AVL in two years.(14 November 1995)

In Kansas City, a transit AVL system reduced the time required to respond to bus drivers' calls for assistance.(November 1995)

In Kansas City, transit AVL systems improved on-time bus performance from 80 to 90 percent.(November 1995)

Transit AVL can improve O&M and reduce operating expenses.(November 1995)

In Baltimore and Kansas City, AVL improved on-time bus performance by 23 percent and 12 percent, respectively; in Milwaukee, AVL contributed to a 28 percent reduction in buses behind schedule by more than one minute.(July 1995)

In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a CAD scheduling system and other improvements increased vehicle miles per passenger-trip by 5 percent, reduced operating expenses, and contributed to an expanding client list which grew from 1,000 to 2,000 in 6 months(1995)

In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a CAD scheduling system and other improvements used to manage 17 transit vehicles decreased passenger wait time by more than 50 percent.(1995)

In Europe, a centralized and coordinated paratransit system resulted in a 2 to 3 percent annual decrease in the cost to provide paratransit services.(1994-1998)

Bus rapid transit concepts deployed in New York City attracted new riders accounting for 18 percent of ridership; 61 percent of these riders were attracted to the improved features of the new service.(01/11/2016)

In Orlando, Transit Signal Priority and Bus Rapid Transit systems were estimated to reduce travel times up to 26 percent for all vehicles and reduce delays up to 64 percent for buses. (01/11/2016)

Bus rapid transit service improvements on the I-10 and I-110 corridors increased ridership on Metro's Silver Line by 52 percent in the morning and 41 percent in the afternoon.(08/31/2015)

Transit Priority Corridor planned for San Francisco estimates to amass $227.4 million in safety benefits from 2020-2050.(08/01/2015)

On-time performance of transit trips across the SR 520 bridge improved by 42 percent during peak periods after deployment of electronic tolling.(12/02/2014)

Transit ridership increased by 38 percent on SR 520 after deployment of pricing and electronic tolling.(12/02/2014)

A prototype Integrated Dynamic Transit Operations (IDTO) system saved transit riders 13 to 39 minutes for each successfully protected trip connection.(03/02/2016)

Implementing bus rapid transit concepts on Brooklyn, New York’s B44 bus route reduced traffic volume by 9 to 13 percent on arterials served by the route.(01/11/2016)

Implementing bus rapid transit on B44 route in Brooklyn, New York reduced travel time by 18 to 29 minutes for passengers traveling most of the route.(01/11/2016)

Operational Strategies modeled to optimize real-time transit network operations may reduce overall passenger travel time by 4.7 percent.(08/11/2015)

Real-time automated passenger counter data enables responsiveness to periods of high and low demand for light rail.(January 2015)

Coordinating human service transportation across funding sources can increase passengers per revenue hour by 10 percent.(August 1, 2013)

Deploying ITS transit technologies, such as CAD/AVL and traveler information services, to coordinate community transportation services for the transportation-disadvantaged improved non-Medicaid demand response trips by 18 percent and non-emergency Medicaid response trips by 40 percent.(2011)

Surveys found that riders on Vancouver's 98 B-line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service, which implemented transit signal priority to improve schedule reliability, rated the service highly with regard to on-time performance and service reliability (an average of 8 points on a 10 point scale).(29 September 2003)

Final Report: Commercial Fleet Management Project(January 1998)

Adding transit signal priority with dedicated bus lanes or queue jump lanes to additional intersections can yield 5 to 8 percent multiplier effect benefit.(January 2017)

Transit Signal Priority (TSP) logic that resolves conflicting TSP requests can reduce bus intersection delay up to 57 percent compared to conventional first-come-first-serve TSP strategies.(06/01/2016)

Bus rapid transit could reduce travel time by 20 percent compared to conventional bus service.(02/26/2016)

Signal Priority operations shown to improve connected bus travel times by 8.2 percent and connected truck travel times by 39.7 percent.

A multi-modal ICM solution for the I-95/I-395 corridor would cost approximately $7.45 Million per year.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to increase person throughput 14 to 38 percent.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has projected benefit-to-cost ratios ranging from 4:1 to 6:1.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to reduce fuel consumption 33 to 34 percent.(June 2014)

A multi-modal ICM strategy designed for the I-95/I-395 corridor has potential to reduce average travel times 48 to 58 percent.(June 2014)

Transit Signal Priority in San Antonio’s metropolitan transit system decreases travel time by up to 20 percent.

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)

Transit signal priority is expected to reduce bus rapid transit travel times by 15 percent based on a simulation in West Valley City, Utah.(July 2013)

Electric vehicles can save 50 to 85 percent in fueling costs per year.(06/02/2012)

Transit signal priority reduced bus delays at signalized intersections by 33 to 39 percent in Los Angeles.(05/01/2012)

Bus speeds increased by 23 percent in Los Angeles and by more than 20 percent on a route in New York City after deployment of Bus Rapid Transit.(05/01/2012)

Schedule adherence and speed-based transit signal priority system in Minneapolis reduced travel times by 3 to 6 percent more than a traditional transit signal priority system on the same route.(October 2011)

In Staten Island, New York City, a transit signal priority pilot along a 2.3 mile corridor reduced travel times by approximately 17 percent.(May 2011)

In Washington D.C., allowing transit vehicles priority during a no-notice evacuation resulted in a 26 percent time saving for transit buses without impacting on personal vehicle travel time.(May 2011)

Navigation systems with eco-routing features can improve fuel economy by 15 percent.(January 2011)

Simulated deployment of Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) technologies on the I-394 corridor in Minneapolis show a benefit-cost ratio of 22:1 over ten years.(November 2010)

Transit Signal Priority implemented in Chicago found a 4 to 15 percent reduction in bus travel time, 51 to 54 percent reduction in bus travel time variance, and annual fuel consumption savings of 131 gallons for bus routes 49 and X49.(09/08/2010)

Deploying transit signal priority systems may reduce transit bus delay in Burlington, Vermont by 14.2 to 16.5 percent on Route 15 and by 2.5 to 7 percent on the Old North Route, without producing delays for non-priority traffic.(July 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)

Transit signal priority reduced average bus travel times by 7.5 and 15 percent along major bus corridors in Los Angeles and Chicago, respectively.(2010)

Queue jumper transit signal priority (TSP) can reduce bus delay by 3 to 17 percent over mixed-traffic TSP design.(2009)

In Snohomish County, Washington State, implementation of a transit signal priority system on two test corridors reduced average transit corridor travel time by 4.9 percent, and had insignificant negative impacts on local cross street traffic.(15 June 2007)

Implementing Transit Signal Priority (TSP) can improve bus running times by 2 to 18 percent.(2007)

Transit signal priority deployment along a 4 mile corridor can reduce bus travel times by 5 percent.(2005)

In the central area of Chicago, a feasibility study indicated that driver assistance technologies and transit signal priority for bus rapid transit would be cost-effective.(August 2004)

When transit signal priority was not used in Portland, Oregon; bus travel times increased up to 4.2 percent during peak periods and up to 1.5 percent in non-peak periods.(19-22 May 2003)

In Dallas, Texas, simulation found that transit signal priority reduced bus travel time up to 11 percent during peak periods, reduced car travel times up to 16 percent, vehicle delay up to 4 percent and person delay up to 6 percent.(14-17 October 2002)

During the A.M. peak period, transit signal priority on an arterial route in Arlington, Virginia could increase carbon monoxide emissions by 5.6 percent and decrease nitrogen emissions by 1.7 percent.(13-17 January 2002)

During the A.M. peak period, transit signal priority on an arterial route in Arlington, Virginia could reduce bus travel time by 4.0 to 9.1 percent, decrease person delay of bus passengers by 6.5 to 14.2 percent, and reduce transit vehicle stops by 1.5 to 2.9 percent.(13-17 January 2002)

Evaluation of several transit signal priority systems found decreased bus travel time variability by 35 percent, lowered bus travel times by 6 to 27 percent, reduced AM peak intersection delay by 13 percent, and decreased signal-related bus stops by 50 percent.(January 2002)

A before-and-after study found that transit patrons experienced a smoother and more comfortable ride when a transit signal priority system was implemented in Seattle, Washington. (January 2002)

In Los Angeles, transit signal priority reduced total transit travel time by approximately 25 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)

A transit priority system along an urban arterial in Vancouver, Canada reduced bus travel time variability by 29 and 59 percent during AM and PM peak periods, respectively.(6-10 August 2000)

Implementing traffic signal priority for a light-rail transit line in Toronto, Canada allowed system operators to remove one vehicle from service and maintain the same level of service to passengers.(6-10 August 2000)

At an intersection in Eindhoven, the Netherlands a transit signal priority system reduced bus schedule deviation by 17 seconds. (1-4 May 2000)

When conditional priority was deployed in Eindhoven, the Netherlands; buses experienced 27 seconds of delay without priority and no significant change in delay under conditional priority. (9-13 January 2000)

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)

A transit signal priority system in Eastleigh, England reduced bus fuel consumption by 19 percent and reduced bus emissions by 15 to 30 percent, and increased fuel consumption for other vehicles by 5 percent and increased the emissions of other vehicles up to 11 percent.(1999)

A transit signal priority system in Eastleigh, England reduced bus delay by 9 seconds/vehicle/intersection and increased delay for other traffic by 2.2 seconds/vehicle/intersection. (1999)

A transit signal priority system in Southampton, England reduced bus fuel consumption by 13 percent, lowered bus emissions by 13 to 25 percent, increased fuel consumption for other vehicles by 6 percent, and increased the emissions of other vehicles up to 9 percent.(1999)

A transit signal priority system in Southampton, England reduced bus delay by 9.5 seconds/vehicle/intersection and increased delay for other traffic by 3.8 seconds/vehicle/intersection.(1999)

A bus priority system in Sapporo City, Japan reduced bus travel times by 6 percent, decreased the number of stops by 7 percent, and reduced the stopped time of buses by 21 percent.(1999)

There were 32 accidents along a transitway at the University of Minnesota before transit priority lights were installed, while no accidents were reported after installation of the lights.(2 February 1998)

Transit priority systems in England and France have reduced transit vehicle travel times by 6 to 42 percent, while increasing passenger vehicle travel times by 0.3 to 2.5 percent. (December 1995)

A bus priority system on a major arterial in Portland, Oregon reduced bus travel times by five to eight percent. (July 1994)

Evaluations of the QUARTET PLUS and TABASCO Projects in Europe found that transit signal priority reduced travel time for transit vehicles by 5 to 15 percent.(1994-1998)

Chicago Transit Authority installs computerized bus-tracking system for 1,800 fleet vehicles for an estimated cost of $8.8 million.

Transit management system in Chicago reduces larger-than-scheduled bus gaps by nearly 40 percent.

Bus rapid transit deployment reduces travel time by 20 percent compared to standard bus service in West Valley City, Utah.(July 2013)

Analysis of optimal bus stop spacing based on archived automatic vehicle location data shows potential savings of $100,000 per year on one route. (September 2009)

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, fixed-route scheduling software improved operations by saving approximately 60 hours per week in operator labor, resulting in a savings of approximately $62,000 per year.(10 June 2008)

Stop consolidation and reduced boarding time concepts could save a single route 8.5 hours a day and $180,000 a year.(January 2004)

A 1998 survey of transit riders in Ann Arbor, Michigan found that police presence and increased lighting had the greatest influence on riders' perception of personal security; emergency phones and video surveillance systems had little influence.(1999)

In Florida, camera-based systems with a regular angle lens reduced 43 percent of blind zones and wide-angle camera systems entirely eliminated blind zones during controlled tests among 28 transit bus drivers. (March 2010)

Conversion of HOV to HOT lanes decreases express bus travel time from 25 to 8 minutes, increases bus speeds from 18 to 55 mph, and increases reliability and ridership.(January 2011)

An evaluation of scheduling software for the paratransit service in Billings, Montana found that the break-even point for savings as a result of the software implementation was a three percent improvement in efficiency.(May 2, 2007)

Experience with the Omnilink system in Prince William County, Virginia suggests that with less than 20 passengers per hour, adding 10 minutes of slack time allows accommodation of one or two deviations per hour for routes taking approximately 35 minutes to drive without deviations.(January 2007)

Scheduling software enabled St. Johns County in northeast Florida to reduce office staff from 9 to 4.5 full-time equivalents, while doubling the number of daily trips on the paratransit service, saving $58,000 per year.(February 2003)

RideKC’s Freedom On-Demand, an app-based, same-day transportation service, reduced paratransit trip cost from $27.13 to $15.80 a trip, saving $166,000 in 5 months.(October 5, 2017)

New York City’s app-based ride services provide increased mobility options but with a cost: over 600 million additional vehicle miles travelled over three years.(February 27, 2017)

A modeling effort showed that the number of vehicle miles traveled by autonomous mobility-on-demand vehicles can be reduced by 50 percent when service is paired with mass transit.(January 2017)

Free floating, one-way car sharing model reduces GHG per household by up to 18 percent(July 2016)

Study shows that utilizing distributed parking facilities can improve the overall performance of an Automated Mobililty-on-Demand system(June 2015 )

Arlington County, VA bikesharing service saves members an estimated $2 million dollars in transportation spending.(May 2015)

UbiGo, a mobility-as-a-service application in Gothenburg, Sweden improved attitudes towards multi-modal options and decreased use of private cars by 50 percent among pilot participants.(10/11/2016)

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)