2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card

The 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card Assess traffic signal operations across the country Assess traffic signal operations across the country Provide benchmarking tool for agencies Provide benchmarking tool for agencies Publicize current state of systems Publicize current state of systems Promote benefits of good signal operation Promote benefits of good signal operation Make case for additional resources Make case for additional resources Present changes from the 2005 Report Card Present changes from the 2005 Report Card Highlight success stories Highlight success stories

What Is the Traffic Signal Report Card? Management Management Signal Operation at Individual Intersections Signal Operation at Individual Intersections Signal Operation in Coordinated Systems Signal Operation in Coordinated Systems Signal Timing Practices Signal Timing Practices Traffic Monitoring and Data Collection Traffic Monitoring and Data Collection Maintenance Maintenance An assessment of traffic signal operations in the following areas:

How Was the Traffic Signal Report Card Developed?  Based upon responses to a self-assessment survey tool (50 questions)  Scoring system for each section and overall  Working group consisting of transportation professionals and NTOC members: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) American Public Works Association (APWA) American Public Works Association (APWA) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America) International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) International Municipal Signal Association (IMSA) U.S. DOT - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) U.S. DOT - Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

How Was the Self-Assessment Tool Distributed? Significant advertising of the project through NTOC associations Significant advertising of the project through NTOC associations Accessible to everyone via ITE’s Web site (still posted for anyone to use) Accessible to everyone via ITE’s Web site (still posted for anyone to use) ed to more than 500 individuals ed to more than 500 individuals

Who Actually Participated? At least one agency response (state or local) in 47 states At least one agency response (state or local) in 47 states 276 local jurisdictions 276 local jurisdictions 67 counties 67 counties 28 Canadian agencies 28 Canadian agencies 417 agencies participated in 2007, up from 378 in 2005

Representing Different Size Signal Systems Less than 50 Signals Less than 50 Signals 98 (24%) 98 (24%) Signals Signals 134 (32%) Signals Signals 97 (23%) 450-1,000 Signals 450-1,000 Signals 51 (12%) More than 1,000 Signals More than 1,000 Signals 36 (9%) * This represents about 45% of the 272,000 traffic signals in U.S.

What Are the National Results?

Noteworthy Findings Major improvement not realized on national basis Major improvement not realized on national basis Some agencies experienced significant improvement Some agencies experienced significant improvement Individual intersections section scored highest, except for systems with less than 50 signals Individual intersections section scored highest, except for systems with less than 50 signals Maintenance section was second highest score – indicates a basic level of operation to ensure safety and protect the agency from liability Maintenance section was second highest score – indicates a basic level of operation to ensure safety and protect the agency from liability Traffic monitoring and data collection section lowest score across all agency types and system size – indicates significant focus is needed Traffic monitoring and data collection section lowest score across all agency types and system size – indicates significant focus is needed Very small systems (<50 signals) scored markedly lower in all categories Very small systems (<50 signals) scored markedly lower in all categories Overall, systems with scored the highest – generally indicates balance of system size/complexity with resources Overall, systems with scored the highest – generally indicates balance of system size/complexity with resources

Success Stories Results for several agencies showed significant improvement. Characteristics of these programs include:  Used 2005 self assessment to evaluate programs and focus on critical areas  Made targeted life-cycle capital investments to reduce maintenance costs  Placed emphasis on a program of regular timing updates and arterial coordination  Sought independent peer review  Facilitated regional coordination

City of Austin, TX Score Improvement: C to A Specific Actions: Utilized 2005 self assessment tool as a benchmark to identify deficiencies Utilized 2005 self assessment tool as a benchmark to identify deficiencies Proactive management vs. reactive fixes Proactive management vs. reactive fixes - Scheduled the retiming of signals to every 3 years - Staff assigned to zones, creating sense of ownership Results: Reduced maintenance calls from 5,000 to 2,500 in one year Reduced maintenance calls from 5,000 to 2,500 in one year 10% overall reduction in travel time for all arterials 10% overall reduction in travel time for all arterials 28% reduction in number of stops 28% reduction in number of stops 3.5% reduction in gallons of fuel 3.5% reduction in gallons of fuel

City of Alpharetta, GA Score Improvement: F to C Specific Actions: Regular timing maintenance program Regular timing maintenance program New technology New technology  Ethernet communications  Internet-based application software Results: 23% reduction in stops 23% reduction in stops 8% reduction in fuel consumption 8% reduction in fuel consumption 17% reduction in trip times 17% reduction in trip times 31% reduction in delays 31% reduction in delays Significant reductions in HC, NOx and CO emissions Significant reductions in HC, NOx and CO emissions

Section 1 - Management Summary:  Overarching, documented philosophy for how agency operates and times signals  Overseeing traffic operations outside of normal working hours  Coordination and information sharing with the public, emergency service providers and event managers Findings ( D - ):  The overall low score for this section is the most noteworthy finding  Only half the agencies reporting have resources monitoring/managing traffic on a regularly scheduled basis

Section 2 - Signal Operation at Individual Intersections Summary:  Regular review of signal timing  Review includes consideration of coordination, operations and safety  Develop and implement timing plans efficiently Findings ( C ): Close to half of the agencies reported having little or no documented process that triggers a timing review Close to half of the agencies reported having little or no documented process that triggers a timing review Once timing developed, installation and management of timing setting is good Once timing developed, installation and management of timing setting is good Limited consideration and process to support other concurrent safety or operational changes Limited consideration and process to support other concurrent safety or operational changes

Section 3 - Signal Operation in Coordinated Systems Summary:  Regular review (3 years) of signal timing  Implementing updated timings quickly, once the need is established  Developing timings using a well-defined process  Including timing plans outside weekday peaks (off-peak, holidays, events and incidents)  Coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions Findings ( D ):  Only 2/3 of the reporting agencies are: Conducting area-wide or corridor based signal timing review within 3 years Conducting area-wide or corridor based signal timing review within 3 years Have strong processes to develop signal timing Have strong processes to develop signal timing Coordinating across jurisdictional boundaries Coordinating across jurisdictional boundaries

Section 4 - Signal Timing Practices Summary:  Applying time-space diagrams, timing parameters, queue discharge and turn bay capacity to signal systems  Field-reviewing timing plans  Adjusting timings for periods of light traffic (i.e. nighttime) Findings ( C - ): Nearly 60% of reporting agencies perform comparative analysis of cycle, offset, phase sequence, etc. Nearly 60% of reporting agencies perform comparative analysis of cycle, offset, phase sequence, etc. About 2/3 of the reporting agencies adjust timing for light traffic periods About 2/3 of the reporting agencies adjust timing for light traffic periods About 2/3 of the reporting agencies have strong processes for timing actuated controllers About 2/3 of the reporting agencies have strong processes for timing actuated controllers

Section 5 – Traffic Monitoring and Data Collection Summary:  Regular process for gathering and analyzing traffic volume data  Quality assurance policies to review accuracy of surveillance data  Archiving and sharing data with other jurisdictions Findings ( F ):  Greatest potential for improvement  43% reported little or no regular on-going program for collecting and analyzing traffic data for signal timing  Half reported that they do not assess data quality

Section 6 - Maintenance Summary:  Adequate staffing and policies for signal technicians  Regular assessment of the condition of traffic control equipment  Asset management system to track maintenance, infrastructure and software Findings ( C - ):  More than 2/3 of agencies have process in place to have a technician at an intersection within 1 hour (business hours) to 2 hours (non-business hours)  Almost 70% have regular preventive maintenance and operations review to assess condition of traffic control system

Where Do We Go From Here? Improving The Score GOAL: Performance excellence in traffic signal operation.  Proactive program management  Substantial traffic monitoring and data collection  Routine timing updates  Sound maintenance practices  Reasonably current traffic signal hardware * Benefits of investing in signal timing outweigh costs by at least 40:1

Program Management Essential Components:  Leadership focus  Strategic planning  Customer and market focus  Measurement, analysis and knowledge management  Workforce development and training  Process management  Focus on outcomes

The Benefits of Improvement— We Would See:  Reduction in traffic delay up to 40% and reductions in travel time up to 25%  Reduction in fuel consumption of up to 10%  Reduction in harmful emissions (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds) up to 22%

What Can You Do to Make the Case for More Resources? Complete the traffic signal self assessment Complete the traffic signal self assessment Review your score Review your score Perform traffic signal system audit Perform traffic signal system audit Talk with your agency’s leadership and public information officer Talk with your agency’s leadership and public information officer Publicize the efforts you are making to improve traffic signal management and operations Publicize the efforts you are making to improve traffic signal management and operations

What if My Agency Did Not Participate in the Self Assessment? Complete the self assessment now Complete the self assessment now Review the 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card Technical Report Review the 2007 National Traffic Signal Report Card Technical Report Baseline your agency against the national scores Baseline your agency against the national scores Perform a traffic signal system audit, (see Traffic Signal Audit Guide) Perform a traffic signal system audit, (see Traffic Signal Audit Guide)

Questions? For additional information contact: For additional information contact: Lisa Fontana Tierney Traffic Engineering Senior Director Institute of Transportation Engineers th Street, NW Suite 300 West Washington, DC Phone: (202) Fax: (202)