Insync Adaptive Traffic Signal Technology:: Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Delivering Real-World Results

InSync Adaptive Traffic Signal Technology:
Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Delivering Real-World Results

By Reggie Chandra, PE, PTOE, PhD
and Chris Gregory
March 2012
• 12351 W. 96th Terrace, Suite 107 • Lenexa, Kansas 66215 • 913.227.0603 • RhythmTraffic.com
InSync Adaptive Traffic Signal Technology:
Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Delivering Real-World Results
By Reggie Chandra, PE, PTOE, PhD
and Chris Gregory
March 2012
Abstract
Every year, traffic congestion costs American motorists $115 billion in lost time, wasted fuel and
increased greenhouse emissions. On top of this, more than 30,000 people die in traffic accidents
in the U.S. each year, and accident-related expenses add another $164.2 billion to traffic’s
negative impact. Traffic congestion and dangerous roadways have become so common that most
motorists and transportation engineers have grown accustomed to these grim conditions. Yet recent
advancements in traffic management technology prove to solve the problem of traffic congestion and
substantially improve both roadway safety and quality of life in communities. This paper illustrates
how InSync, an adaptive traffic control system first released by Rhythm Engineering in 2008, uses
artificial intelligence to optimize traffic signals at individual intersections and coordinate signals
along arterial corridors to reduce traffic congestion. By reviewing the system’s main hardware and
software components, its optimization methodologies and available add-on modules, this paper
explains how InSync overlays existing traffic cabinets, controllers and detection devices to enable
traffic signals to intelligently and immediately adapt to real-time traffic demand. To illustrate the
versatility and performance of InSync’s adaptive technology, four case studies of InSync deployments
in different cities, each with a unique traffic control problem, are reviewed. These case studies reveal
how InSync’s adaptive technology works in real-world scenarios to intelligently improve traffic flow,
thus improving safety and travel time for motorists while also decreasing wasted fuel and harmful
emissions. These case studies and other independent studies demonstrate that InSync reduces traffic
stops by 60 to 90 percent, travel times by as much as 50 percent, fuel consumption and emissions
by 20 to 30 percent, and accidents by 17 to 30 percent, resulting in significant and quantifiable
economic savings for cities using the InSync system.
Mission of Rhythm Engineering

Rhythm Engineering empowers traffic professionals to save lives, save time and save the environment
through cost-effective, innovative traffic solutions.
InSync is protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 8,050,854 and 8,103,436, and other patents-pending.
© March 2012
Abstract
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 4
Traffic Congestion: The Cost of Complacency ......................................................... 8
Traditional Traffic Control Methods and Drawbacks.......................................... 9
InSync: Solving Real-World Problems in Real-Time ................................................ 11
InSync’s Hardware and Software Components ..................................................... 13
Optimizing Traffic Locally and Globally .............................................................. 17
Local Optimization: Intelligent Actuation ....................................................... 17
Global Optimization: Ensuring Progression ................................................... 18
System Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. 19
Failure Mitigation Mechanisms ................................................................... 20
Detector and Input Options ............................................................................... 21
InSync ................................................................................................... 21
InSync:Tesla ........................................................................................... 21
InSync:Fusion.......................................................................................... 21
Intercept Module ..................................................................................... 22
InSync in the Real World: Four Case Studies ........................................................ 24
Traffic Engineering Challenge #1: Variable Traffic Flow .................................. 25
Traffic Engineering Challenge #2: Saturation of the Corridor ........................... 28
Traffic Engineering Challenge #3: Intersecting Arterials ................................... 30
Traffic Engineering Challenge #4: High Pedestrian Traffic ............................... 32
Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 34
References ..................................................................................................... 35
© March 2012
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Every year, congestion and poor signal timing cost motorists and society-at-large billions of
dollars in wasted fuel, lost time, traffic accidents and environmental damage. Between 70 and
90 percent of traffic signals in the U.S. use outdated technology, are poorly timed and cause
unnecessary delays. Improving signal timing to better manage traffic congestion is integral to
improving roadway safety. For the last several years there were at least 30,000 traffic fatalities
each year with approximately 40 percent of crashes occurring at intersections. More time spent
idling at red lights or in stop-and-go traffic also means more emissions injected into the atmosphere.
As a result, over half of all Americans live in communities with unhealthy levels of air pollution.
Increased air pollution makes us sicker while also accelerating climate change. Thus, improving
traffic signal timing can create significant safety, economic and social benefits. Concerned with the
number of fatalities resulting from traffic accidents, as well as the negative impacts of congestion
on communities, Rhythm Engineering developed InSync, an adaptive traffic control system that uses
artificial intelligence to optimize traffic signals in real- time. InSync measures traffic demand, then
adapts in real-time by adjusting signal timing each second using global and local optimization logic
to move traffic in the most efficient manner possible. Today the InSync system is deployed by more
traffic agencies than any other adaptive traffic control system. The InSync system is selected for use in
over 600 intersections in 18 states.
4 © March 2012
Executive Summary
InSync is 100-percent compatible with modern traffic controllers, cabinets and detection devices. The
system is available with different detector options—provided video cameras (InSync), integration with
existing detection devices (InSync:Tesla), or a combination of multiple detection types (InSync:Fusion)
—depending upon the traffic agency’s preference. In all configurations, the InSync system includes
basic hardware and software components such as the InSync proce processor and a controller-appropriate
connection that seamlessly overlay and plug into existing traffic cabinet hardware.
InSync installations that include Rhythm Engineering’s proprietary video detection use digital Internet
protocol (IP) cameras for each approach at an intersection. Typically installed on the mast arms of
traffic signals, the IP digital cameras detect presence like traditional image detection cameras, but
also measure occupancy, queue length and delay every second and communicate that information
through an Ethernet connection to the InSync processor, which resides at the local traffic cabinet.
Based on information from the detectors showing the real-time traffic demands at the intersection, the
InSync processor determines the priority for service for each approach. Because the InSync processor
is a modern, digital state machine, thereby nonlinear and nonsequential, the system is able to serve
traffic demand without being inhibited by predetermined cycles or green splits. Connected to the
traffic controller, the InSync processor requests a green signal for the state that is most appropriate to
serve by inputting the appropriate calls into the signal controller, which runs in free mode to allow for
the acceptance of InSync’s detector calls.
InSync’s artificial intelligence is comprised of a local optimization algorithm for each intersection and
global coordination between all the intersections on a corridor. The intelligent actuation and global
coordination work in tandem to reduce stops and delay along the corridor.
Local refers to InSync’s activity at each individual intersection. At this level, InSync uses its local
optimization algorithm to determine priority for each approach to immediately adapt to real-time
traffic demand. InSync then requests the controller actuate the signal accordingly. Using the same
algorithm, InSync decides in real-time how to serve all movements – through-traffic on the main
corridor, side streets and left turn lanes – so as to minimize delay at each approach. At each
intersection, InSync adapts signalization to demand in three different ways: in its phasing, green time
allocation and sequencing. Each of these signal control variables adapts to actual demand based on
the system’s artificial intelligence.
Global refers to InSync’s synchronization of traffic signals at all the intersections on a given
corridor. InSync coordinates signals to move traffic through the arterial at a desired rate, thus
minimizing stops and congestion along the corridor. Keeping traffic flowing through a long series of
intersections also frees up roadway capacity. The system schedules green tunnels in which arterial
traffic experiences synchronized bands of green lights that progress groups, or platoons, of vehicles
through the corridor. Once activating a green light, an intersection communicates with the other
© March 2012 5
Executive Summary
intersections along the corridor via an Ethernet connection to ensure the following intersections will also
activate a green light as oncoming platoons approach. Tunnel duration, which is the ability to begin or
end earlier the green time served to a platoon, is another adaptive quality of InSync. If so configured,
InSync can dynamically generate tunnels.
InSync takes advantage of the gaps in time between passing platoons of vehicles traveling in the green
tunnels. During these usable gaps, InSync’s local optimization algorithm moves traffic on the minor
movements. This combination of intelligence allows for both prompt service on all approaches while
guaranteeing progression on the main corridor.
Once Ethernet communication is established between intersections, InSync is configured and monitored
through a user-friendly web interface using a standard browser such as Internet Explorer, Firefox,
Chrome and others. This allows the system to be monitored from any personal computer, smart phone,
tablet or similar device with an Internet connection.
InSync can be enhanced and customized to local geographic and traffic conditions by using existing
detection devices (InSync:Tesla), a combination of multiple detection types (InSync:Fusion) or integrating
with the Intercept Module which accommodates non-standard detection such as pedestrian traffic,
railroad crossings, transit system priority and emergency vehicle preemption.
Independent studies conducted on various deployments throughout the U.S. indicate the real-world
success and capability of InSync’s traffic optimization technology. Furthermore, these studies prove
InSync can manage a wide range of corridor traffic issues.
6 © March 2012
Executive Summary
The City of Grapevine, Texas, located in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, struggled with variable traffic flow
resulting from freeway incidents and construction, as well as event traffic. Although the city has 50,000
residents, 300,000 vehicles travel through it on an average weekday. Within days of its installation,
InSync reduced peak-time traffic stops in Grapevine by up to 63 percent and decreased peak-time
travel time by up to 42 percent. The significant reductions in wasted fuel, time and stops created an
equally significant economic benefit to the city of Grapevine.
In Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Department

of Transportation deployed InSync to mitigate congestion on the corridor adjacent to the King of
Prussia Mall. The corridor suffered from variable traffic patterns and high volumes. Under the previous
closed loop system, the northbound and southbound left turn lanes were unable to clear their queues
the majority of the time, leaving motorists waiting through several cycles. The independent study
conducted indicates after InSync’s deployment, each of the movements were able to completely clear
their respective queues during each signal phase. Not only was service improved for these minor
movements, but InSync reduced stops and travel time on the main corridor up to 44 percent and
increased average speed by up to 79 percent in peak times.
In Evans, Georgia, InSync was deployed to coordinate intersecting arterials: Washington Road,
a one-mile long corridor and North Belair Road, another major arterial. InSync was installed at ten
intersections on these two corridors. Washington Road experiences an average daily traffic (ADT) of
more than 40,000 vehicles. An average of 41,000 vehicles travel North Belair Road daily, making it
difficult to efficiently move traffic through the arterials’ common intersection. InSync reduced peak-time
travel time by up to 48 percent and stops by up to 100 percent on Washington Road. Average speeds
on the arterial increased by up to 93 percent. In total, the study estimates that due to installing InSync
on just the five-signal Washington road corridor, Evans experiences an economic benefit of $2.6
million per year in saved fuel, stops and time.
The City of Salinas, California, installed InSync at five intersections to manage the combination of
high pedestrian and vehicular traffic along Main Street. Prior to InSync’s installation, the corridor
was running in free mode, delivering green time based solely on the presence of traffic. With no
coordination, the corridor’s traffic control system consistently disrupted traffic flow to serve pedestrian
movements, exacerbating congestion along the corridor. InSync reduced peak-time stops by up to 91
percent, delay by up to 89 percent and travel time by up to 46 percent.
InSync is successful in optimizing traffic signals in a wide breadth of deployments, each with unique
traffic demands and concerns. The aforementioned case studies are evidence of the real-world success
of the InSync adaptive traffic control system. In its deployments nationwide, InSync has decreased
travel time by up to 50 percent, fuel consumption by up to 32 percent and stops by up to 90 percent.
More importantly, InSync has reduced crashes by 17-30 percent, which prevents injuries, saves lives
and creates better communities.
© March 2012 7
Executive Summary
Traffic Congestion: The Cost of Complacency
Roadways across the United States are plagued by congestion. According to an article in The New
Yorker, approximately “one out of every six American workers commutes more than forty-five minutes,
each way.”1 Additionally, 3.5 million American workers commute 90 minutes or more.2 With the
number of motorists on the road and the number of miles traveled increasing every year, congestion
has become a national problem in the United States.
Of course, many of these heavily congested roads rely on traffic signals to manage traffic. Yet 70-90
percent of traffic signals in the U.S. use outdated technology, are poorly timed and cause unnecessary
delay. Day after day, Americans fight their way through an increasingly larger sea of vehicles and an
abundance of red lights. Congestion and poor traffic control not only cause frustration for motorists and
traffic professionals, but significantly diminish our quality of life, our health and the wellbeing of our
communities.
Congestion and poor traffic control costs individual motorists and American society-at-large millions
of dollars in lost time, wasted fuel, environmental damage and traffic accidents. In 2009, congestion
cost American motorists $115 billion in wasted time and fuel.3 On an individual level, time wasted at
traffic signals costs each motorist $808 per year.4 Taking into consideration all transportation-related
expenses, families now spend more money on transportation each year than they do on groceries.5
The fuel wasted idling at red lights or in stop-and-go traffic also increases harmful emissions in the
atmosphere, increasing air pollution and accelerating climate change. Over half of all Americans now
live in areas with unhealthy levels of air pollution.6 Furthermore, studies show that regular exposure to
air pollution increases the occurrence of asthma, cancer, lung and cardiovascular diseases and the
related fatalities from these illnesses.7
Poor signal timing and congestion also compromise roadway safety. Every year, there are 30,000
traffic fatalities with approximately 40 percent of all crashes occurring at intersections.8 According to
AAA, car accidents cost the U.S. population $164.2 billion annually, or more than $540 for every
man, woman and child in the U.S.9 Clearly traffic congestion carries significant economic and social
costs: less time with loved ones, lower quality of life, stress, frustration, road rage, increased air
pollution and respiratory illnesses, paychecks that go to fueling and insuring our vehicles more than
putting food on the table and accident-related expense, injuries and fatalities, to name a few of the
negative consequences.
8 © March 2012

Yet traffic congestion is so pervasive that most motorists and transportation engineers consider it a
necessary evil. Saturated roads are thought to be the unsolvable result of too many vehicles and too
little capacity, the stop-and-go traffic that fosters rear-end accidents is viewed as a normal part of
one’s daily commute and the chance of getting home quickly and safely by catching a series of green
lights in a row is so rare that it’s considered luck.
Traditional Traffic Control Methods and Drawbacks
But congestion isn’t necessary and motorists should not have to accept it as such. Signal
synchronization can reduce the negative impacts of congestion. So if the solution is available, why
is it not implemented? The answer is simple: cost. Government agencies – especially today – are
constantly battling finite and often contracting budgets.
To understand the context of the environment of InSync, a review of traditional signal synchronization
is offered here. First a summary of traditional signal control management methods is provided, and
second a brief outline of the process required to time signals is described.
There are three ways to control traffic signals: actuated, pre-timed and semi-actuated. Actuated (or
“fully actuated”) signals rely on sensors such as inductive loops or cameras to alert the traffic controller
of the presence of at least one vehicle (or “demand for service”) in an approach. When the presence
of vehicles waiting for a green light is detected, the controller will serve the appropriate approach
a green signal but only serves signals in a predetermined sequence regardless of the distribution of
demand across the various approaches. While a coordinated series of actuated signals is the best
traditional method of progressing traffic along an arterial, many actuated signals are not coordinated
with their adjacent signals.
Pre-timed signals do not rely on detecting the presence of traffic. The green time allotted to each
approach is fixed, which can mean that a green signal is served to an empty approach or a lengthy
approach queue is not cleared. This is the least desirable (and oldest) method of controlling signals.
The third method of controlling traffic signals is semi-actuated. The green light “rests” on the main
(or busiest) street, and the green light cycles to the side streets and left turns when a sensor detects
the presence of at least one vehicle. It is possible to coordinate a series of semi-actuated signals so
they are synchronized and motorists can travel through multiple signals on green lights. However,
accomplishing synchronization is costly and temporary. Because timed and semi-actuated timing plans
are fixed, they are unable to adequately respond to varying traffic conditions.
The U.S. Federal Highway Administration recommends corridors are re-timed every three years; in
practice this is rarely the case. To understand the burden of timing signals, following is an outline of
the signal timing process.
Step 1. Data collectors go to each intersection and manually count the number of cars that go through
each approach. Northbound left turn movement is an approach. Southbound through movement is
another approach. Each approach may have multiple lanes. Counting is a two-person job. Normally,
counts are collected during morning peak hours (7-9AM), noontime peak hour (11AM-1PM) and
evening peak hours (4-6PM) on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Mondays and Fridays are
© March 2012 9

considered anomalies and data is not collected on those days. Thus, a two-person data collection
team can collect data for up to three intersections each day. Imagine the challenges faced by cities
with 300-plus signals. Having data collectors on staff is a luxury for most cities. Data collection is
expensive. Consequently, most cities don’t collect data and don’t keep their signal timing updated.
Step 2. The engineer creates a software model of the arterial he/she is trying to synchronize and
inputs the collected data. This is often a time-consuming process. Once all the data are input, the
engineer runs the software model that spits out a timing plan for each time period.
Step 3. This timing plan is manually translated to a format that the traffic signal controller understands
and is downloaded to the controller. If the engineer has the luxury of having some form of
communication to the traffic signal, he/she can load from his/her office. The less fortunate have to
go out in the field to each controller and manually load the timing plans. One mistake in the plan
translation can cause gridlock in the arterial.
Step 4. The engineer observes the arterial and makes changes to the timing plan based on field
observation. This is a time consuming and labor intensive activity as well. Creating traffic timing plans
relies on the Webster Equation. However the equation is flawed in that it assumes uniform arrival of
the queue, when in actuality cars arrive randomly. The engineer has to spend countless hours over
several days or weeks rectifying and tweaking the timing plans generated by the software model.
This four-step process is so tedious and resource consuming that between 70 and 90 percent of traffic
signals in the United States are not synchronized. The National Transportation Operation Coalition
grades U.S. traffic signal operation a grade D.
Recent advancements in traffic management technology prove to solve the problem of traffic
congestion and substantially improve quality of life in communities without the negative side
effects of the traditional methods. Given congestion’s cost both in dollars and in lives,
Americans must demand a higher standard of traffic management and safety. Rhythm Engineering is
Rhythm Engineering empowers traffic professionals

to save lives, save time and save the environment
through cost-effective, innovate traffic solutions.
a company founded on this imperative. Concerned with the number of fatalities resulting from traffic
accidents as well as congestion’s negative impact on communities, Rhythm Engineering developed
InSync, an adaptive traffic control system that uses artificial intelligence to optimize traffic signals
in real-time. InSync has been selected by dozens of state and local traffic agencies to intelligently
optimize over 600 intersections in the United States.
10 © March 2012

Independent studies reveal that InSync reduces stops by up to 90 percent, which in turn can reduce
fuel consumption by up to 25 percent and harmful emissions by up to 30 percent.10 Most importantly,
this reduction in stops decreases the likelihood of traffic accidents, which saves lives and prevents
injuries. The City of Springdale, Arkansas reported InSync is responsible for a 30 percent crash
reduction11, the City of Topeka, Kansas reported a 27 percent crash reduction12, and the City of Lee’s
Summit, Missouri reported a 17 percent crash reduction.13 The artificial intelligence InSync employs
saves lives, helps motorists get to their destinations quicker and more safely and positively impacts
communities.
InSync: Solving Real-World Traffic Problems in Real-Time
When developing the InSync system, Rhythm Engineering used creative approaches and technologies
that were new to the transportation engineering industry. The InSync research and development team
drew upon advancements in artificial intelligence, electronics, sophisticated mapping systems and
wireless communications instead of limiting themselves to the industry-accepted methodologies. For
the first time in history, the revolution taking place in consumer electronics such as data digitalization,
real-time information processing, customization, networking and web-based applications began to
affect traffic engineering.
Nearly all traffic control systems today use digital hardware but remain constrained by analog
thinking, such as fixed offsets, common cycle lengths and standardized allotment of green time, or
splits. The InSync processor is instead a modern state machine, meaning it can dynamically choose
which phases to serve and instantly adjust and coordinate service and green time. InSync is superior
to predetermined signal timing plans which, at best, estimate traffic demand based on a small
historical sampling and generalize those results across years of traffic signalization.
InSync relies on detectors and artificial intelligence to move traffic in the most efficient manner
possible. In effect, InSync makes decisions as a traffic engineer would: accepting inputs of actual
traffic demand, determining phase priority based on occupancy and delay and anticipating and
coordinating traffic along the entire corridor. This complex decision-making process happens instantly,
constantly and in real-time, as the system adapts moment by moment to actual demand on the road.
Rather than changing signalization in future cycles or "cycle by cycle," InSync's adaptability to
demand happens intra-phase; even the current phase being served is lengthened or shortened based
on the presence or absence of vehicles.
Installation and Configuration of InSync
As an overlay system, InSync’s hardware components plug into existing traffic cabinet hardware.
The system is Ethernet - and web- based, compatible with all modern controllers, cabinets and
detection devices and does not require removal or upgrades of any hardware or software.
Installation of the InSync system consists of installing in each cabinet a processor, equipment panel
and method to transmit detection calls (such as cabling or detector cards). If InSync’s video detection
is used, installation also includes installing cameras for each approach. If existing detection methods
are preferred (InSync:Tesla), Rhythm Engineering will integrate these inputs with the adaptive system.
Once cables are pulled from the camera locations to the traffic cabinet, installation of the cameras
© March 2012 11
InSync: Solving Real-World Problems in Real-Time

and in-cabinet hardware typically requires about four hours per intersection. After the hardware is
installed, the initial configuration of the system is performed by Rhythm Engineering engineers.
The time from an agency or contractor ordering the system to full operation is less than 90 days.
Customization is part of the initial configuration and an option that remains available to the
local traffic engineers. Local engineers can determine permissible phase pairs and sequences,
minimum green time, maximum delay thresholds and more. This allows the system to combine artificial
intelligence with local engineers’ knowledge of motorist expectations, surrounding streets’ traffic
needs, specific geometries, regulations and other considerations to efficiently manage traffic.
Depending on the options chosen by the deploying agency and other factors, the total product cost
for InSync (not including installation and communications) usually falls within $25,000 to $35,000
per intersection. All sales include two years of warranty, support and upgrades. Extended support
plans are available.
12 © March 2012
InSync: Solving Real-World Problems in Real-Time

InSync’s Hardware and Software Components
InSync is available in three detector options to best accommodate the transportation agency’s
preferred detection methods.
• InSync uses Rhythm Engineering’s proprietary video detection (up to four IP cameras per intersection
are included in the base system).
• InSync:Tesla uses existing or preferred detection devices such as inductive loops, radar,
magnetometers, microwave or other video cameras.
• Finally, InSync:Fusion combines multiple detection sources. Fusing together data from Rhythm
Engineering’s video detection cameras and existing detectors gives InSync unparalleled detection
accuracy which can improve adaptive operations.
(See “Detector and Input Options” for more information on how InSync:Tesla and
InSync:Fusion differ from the base system.)
CentralSync Vehicle Detection Non-Standard Detection
Adaptive configuration InSync video cameras or Intercept Module

settings for the corridor your preferred detectors, (optional)
such as loops or radar for pedestrian traffic etc.
InSync Processor
Core of the adaptive system’s capabilities
Equipment Panel Optional Components

Connection Methods
Power and • Monitor + Keyboard
communications hub • Ethernet Repeater
Choose one of the following: • DIN Relay
• Detector Card
• Spade Cable
• C1 Y-Cable
• ABC Y-Cable
• SDLC Interface Module
Traffic Controller
InSync is compatible with all major makes

and models of modern traffic controllers
© March 2012 13
InSync's Hardware and Software Components

The three main components of the standard InSync system are digital IP cameras for each approach,
an InSync processor for each intersection and a method to transmit detection calls (such as specific
cabling or plug-in detector cards). Ancillary equipment includes cables, a networking switch and an
equipment panel.
InSync:Fusion 330s-Style Cabinet

Camera
Back of Camera Enclosure
Power from Camera Enclosure

to Ground, Equipment Panel,
and DIN Relay Shielded ICAT5E
(Ethernet) to
Equipment Panel
(lightning arrestors)
EXTERNAL NETWORK
Fiber Switch
Wireless Radio
Copper Interconnect
Cabinet Back - New Hardware Cabinet Front - New Hardware

DIN RELAY MONITOR KEYBOARD
(RECOMMENDED) (RECOMMENDED)
COM NC NO COM NC NO COM +5 +5 GND

1 2 3 4
LAN
ACT LAN PWR RESET
8-24v AC/DC
5 6 7 8 POWER IN
COM NC NO COM NC NO COM + +
INSYNC PROCESSOR
Power
Aux Out
CPU
Status Power
EQUIPMENT PANEL
Adaptive
24V DC
RG Cable
In
Detector Adaptive
Mode
xV xV xV xV xV xV
Power to
AC INPUT
HRP-400-24 MW
Equipment
Panel C1 Y-Cable
Existing C1 Cable
coming from
A
PP
backpanel/
Q OVA
C
R
L
cabinet/input file
SURGE
PROTECTOR SIGNAL CONTROLLER (BACK SIDE)
110V AC
OUTLET
C30S
C2S C20S
DO C1S
AO
AO
DC GND
14 © March 2012

The digital IP cameras monitor the traffic at each of an intersection’s approaches. Installed in
weatherproof enclosures usually on the mast arms of traffic signals, the cameras measure occupancy,
queue length and delay for configured detection zones. Approaches generally have between
ten and thirty detection zones depending on the depth of the field of view and number of lanes.
Because there is no analog-to-digital conversion, the cameras instantly provide high-quality images.
Furthermore, InSync’s cameras use progressive CMOS scan sensors, which enable moving images
to be presented without distortion. The accuracy of the InSync cameras in detecting the presence of
demand is competitive with other major video detection systems on the market.
By measuring the percentage of occupancy in each detection zone, InSync serves green time
commensurate with actual demand thus not wasting green time by over-serving
an approach or reducing service levels by under-serving an approach.
Every second, the cameras communicate the queue length and delay in each approach to the InSync
processor via a local Ethernet connection. Unlike even the latest solid-state traffic controllers, the
InSync processor is a nonlinear and nonsequential state machine, allowing the system to service
demand without being inhibited by fixed rules. The processor resides in the traffic cabinet at each
intersection and communicates to the signal controller through provided cabling or an InSync detector
card. The InSync processor dynamically calls up states, or phase pairs, by evaluating queue length
and delay information from the system’s cameras. The signal controller runs in free mode to allow for
the acceptance of InSync’s calls, which the controller understands as concurrent phase pair detector
calls. The processor places two concurrent, passive calls into the controller such that the controller
responds to the single pair of calls. (The existing conflict monitor continues to operate as usual.)
© March 2012 15

InSync dynamically serves phase pairs based on demand without the constraints associated with a
cycle, dial or fixed sequencing. By immediately adapting the signalization to actual traffic conditions,
InSync does not suffer the effects of transition associated with standard traffic control devices. There is
no cycle for the system to align with, and there are no timing plans to switch between.
Because the processors reside at the intersection and InSync does not depend on a central server
to make decisions, the traffic controller can respond to traffic issues immediately and efficiently.
Additionally, the traffic cabinets at each of the corridor’s intersections are linked by Ethernet connection,
allowing the network to communicate with each intersection and optimize traffic signals at multiple
lights along the corridor. InSync’s bandwidth requirements are low enough that the system is able to
operate on Ethernet-over-copper, wireless Ethernet and Ethernet-over-fiber. Once Ethernet communication
is established to the local intersections’ processors, InSync can be configured, monitored and managed
using a standard web browser such as Internet Explorer or Firefox. Thus, the system can be monitored
from any personal computer, smart phone, tablet, or similar device with an Internet connection. There is
no need for software to be installed on a computer’s hardware for monitoring, no ongoing licenses to
obtain and no dependency on a central system for regular operation.
CentralSync, the software companion to InSync, is a Windows-based corridor configuration program

that gives control to the local traffic engineers if desired. The software enables engineers to easily and
quickly create and modify a number of traffic management variables and strategies using a Google
Maps-based interface of their adaptive corridors.
CentralSync’s features include time-space diagram views, editing of progression protocols, geographic
mapping of intersections, adjustments to phasing, and viewing and editing of other configuration
settings. Modifications can be uploaded and downloaded remotely by the operator.
The CentralSync software companion to InSync enables local traffic managers, such as engineers and
technicians, to visualize the configuration of the InSync system and adjust it if needed.
16 © March 2012

Optimizing Traffic Locally and Globally
InSync works at both the local and global level to mitigate traffic congestion on arterial roadways and
high-demand roadways of a grid geometry. In effect, InSync operates as “intelligently fully-actuated”
intersections paired with the best possible progression coordination along the entire corridor. By using
green time in the most efficient manner, level of service for all approaches can be increased.
In many ways, InSync’s optimization algorithm can be thought of as green time efficiency maximization, as
it serves green time in a manner to move the most vehicles through an intersection inside a measurement
of time. To move as many vehicles as possible, it is critical to not waste finite, nominal time on empty
approaches, the yellow and amber signal times between phases or the time needed for vehicles to
accelerate after stopping.
Local Optimization: Intelligent Actuation
InSync has three different adaptive characteristics at the local intersection. The system can adapt its
phasing, green time allocation and sequencing. InSync’s flexibility with each of these signal control
variables enables the system to adapt to actual demand.
Phasing – At each individual intersection, InSync optimizes signals by determining priority for each
approach in immediate reaction to real-time vehicular and non-vehicular traffic demand and requesting
that the controller serve concurrent phase pairs and sequences accordingly. The algorithm emulates
the decisions a traffic engineer would make if she/he were standing at each intersection with full control
of the signals. The InSync processor assigns priority to approaches based on the queue volume and
the delay for each vehicle in the approach, making it more intelligent than traditional fully actuated
intersections. Unconstrained by cycles, InSync then actuates a green light for those approaches with the
highest priority while suppressing calls of a lesser priority. After the highest priority calls are satisfied, the
algorithm then determines next highest priorities and distributes green time accordingly.
InSync also decides in real-time how to serve side streets and left turn lanes so as to minimize delay for
each as well as allow progression on the main arterial. The highest priority is the global optimization’s
green tunnels (discussed later). After serving the main corridor progression, InSync’s local optimizer
determines how to most efficiently distribute green time. Based on queue length and delay, InSync serves
the approach with the greatest need. It then reassesses demand in real-time to service the approach that
then has the greatest need. It not only detects demand in real-time, it adjusts signalization in real-time.
Green time allocation – In addition to actuating phases, InSync also adjusts green time according to
queue volume and intersection geometry. If there is a low number of vehicles demanding service, less
green time is allocated. By not serving green time to empty approaches and instead distributing time to
those approaches with demand for service, all approaches benefit.
Sequencing – The third parameter that InSync adjusts to adapt to actual traffic demand is sequencing. The
local traffic engineer can select allowable sequences using CentralSync. InSync draws from the available
sequences but can skip a particular phase pair in the sequence whenever there is no demand for service.
This provides the best possible use of green time for vehicles waiting at or approaching the intersection.
© March 2012 17

Global Coordination: Ensuring Progression
Likewise, InSync coordinates signals along a corridor to move traffic through the arterial at a
desired rate, thus minimizing stops and congestion along the corridor. The system schedules
green tunnels based on demand. In these tunnels, arterial traffic experiences synchronized bands
of green lights that progress platoons of vehicles through the corridor. Upon activating a green
light to commence a green tunnel, InSync communicates with the other intersections along the corridor
via an Ethernet connection to ensure the downstream intersections will also turn green as the traffic
progression approaches. Because the vehicles arrive to green signals, green time is not wasted
on standing and accelerating vehicles. Instead, green time is used to move vehicles through the
intersection at their traveling speed. More vehicles can travel through an intersection per second of
green time, because green time is not spent on drivers reacting to the signal change and the low rate
of travel associated with acceleration. This continual traffic movement creates additional benefits,
such as reducing fuel usage, emissions and circumstances conducive to traffic accidents.
InSync initiates green tunnels throughout the day; their frequency and duration are determined
by traffic demand. As traffic needs change, InSync varies the duration and frequency of green
Based on demand, InSync schedules green tunnels to guarantee progression along the corridor. Each green tunnel’s
duration can expand or contract based on real-time demand. As platoons of vehicles travel through the corridor,
they arrive at each intersection to a green signal, thus not wasting time and fuel on stopping and accelerating.
18 © March 2012

tunnels to best support traffic conditions. InSync’s flexibility with these two variables, tunnel duration
and period length, when added to the three adaptive variables used for local optimization, total
five different ways in which InSync is adaptive. InSync can adapt to real-time traffic demands by
beginning or ending green time earlier or later at each intersection. InSync has the option of enabling
the dynamic commencement of green tunnels.
In the periods between green tunnels, InSync uses its local optimization algorithm to serve minor
movements before the next platoon of vehicles moves through the intersection.
It is this ability to prioritize traffic movements at the local level, while also coordinating signals
at the global level, which allows InSync to adapt to traffic demands in real-time and create a
meaningful difference in stops and travel time for motorists. InSync is unique among all adaptive
traffic control systems in that it is intelligently actuated, globally coordinated and completely
compatible with existing equipment.
System Operation and Maintenance

Typically, Rhythm Engineering project engineers, using input from local traffic professionals, spend 2-3
weeks configuring the adaptive intersections using an in-house simulator before the equipment is fully
installed. Once installed, turned on and switched into adaptive mode, InSync immediately optimizes
traffic. There are no timing plans to create and upload.
Installing InSync can take as little as a single day in the case of InSync:Tesla, or less than a week
with InSync or InSync:Fusion. In either case, installation requires minimal time and is supported by
Rhythm Engineering’s on-site installation training.
Once installed and operational, the maintenance required to sustain InSync’s functionality is minimal,
averaging around one hour of maintenance per month per intersection. Maintenance issues are
typically minor and include adjusting camera angle, zoom and focus, as well as the occasional
detection zone adjustment. Maintenance is similar to that of standard video detection systems.
Because InSync is driven by rich data, the data collected can also be analyzed for trends.
Data for volume, delay and level of service can be viewed for any timeframe with a few clicks.
© March 2012 19

After configuration, operating the system is a passive activity. There is little or no ongoing
configuration or alteration unless there is a significant and permanent change in traffic patterns or
volume. Rhythm Engineering has seen evidence of corridors and motorist behaviors evolving with
the introduction of better progression – prevailing speeds and volume tend to increase as motorists
become aware of and accustomed to the improved progression and level of service. This may cause
the need for a small investment of time to modify the configuration.
Failure Mitigation Mechanisms
InSync has a failure mitigation plan that allows it to control traffic even when the system experiences
some form of reduction in operation.
When cameras are disabled by severe weather, such as fog or a lightning strike, InSync accesses
its historical optimization data collected from the previous four weeks of operation. Using this data,
InSync determines the optimal way to move traffic through the corridor based on past demand.
If communications are interrupted or lost, InSync continues both its local and global optimization.
Delay will continue to be minimized at each individual intersection and scheduled green tunnels will
continue uninterrupted.
In case of power failure, communications failure or any other unusual activity detected, InSync
attempts to send email and SMS alerts to notify traffic professionals when the system has been
compromised or damaged. Local staff can review the situation by looking at camera views and
other settings through a standard web browser, rather than having to make an emergency trip to the
troubled traffic signal or the traffic management center. The InSync system can revert back to a timing
plan programmed in the local controller. In a worst-case-scenario, manual calls to controllers can be
placed through the web interface.
CentralSync empowers agencies to create alerts and alarms. The system sends emails
and/or SMS to the proper personnel when triggered by the specified events. The
alerts can be configured by time-of-day, day-of-week and other conditions.
20 © March 2012

InSync’s alert system and ability to make efficient, real-time traffic decisions negates the need to
monitor traffic flow at specific intersections. With little need to monitor or perform maintenance on the
InSync system, traffic professionals can dedicate their time and energy to other important projects.
The CentralSync software companion to InSync empowers traffic engineers to create and force
plans for special circumstances, such as event traffic (i.e. tens of thousands of vehicles exiting a
sporting event) or even evacuation situations. These plans can be scheduled in advance or
enacted within minutes.
Detector and Input Options
InSync
The standard InSync system uses Rhythm Engineering’s proprietary video detection. Up to four digital
IP cameras per intersection are included in the base system. The cameras detect and measure traffic
demand and allow remote monitoring from any web browser. InSync offers great value because it is
comparable to the price of video detection alone, but includes both video detection and adaptive
traffic control. The system is compatible with all traffic controllers and cabinets.
InSync:Tesla
Traffic professionals desiring to achieve InSync’s adaptive results using their own detection devices
will find their needs best met by InSync:Tesla. This detector option enables traffic agencies to
quickly and easily access the benefits of InSync by simply integrating their existing detectors with
the adaptive system. InSync:Tesla works with all forms of detection including inductive loops, radar,
microwave, magnetometers and other video detection systems, as long as stop-bar detection is
provided in each lane.
Rather than four video detection cameras, InSync:Tesla includes one panomorph 360-degree camera
per intersection for remote monitoring. Since there is no need to install new detectors, InSync:Tesla
installs along an entire corridor in only days or hours. This option lets the traffic agency switch their
busy signalized intersections to adaptive traffic control in as little as just one day, a clear break with
the time-consuming, labor-intensive legacy systems of the past.
InSync:Fusion
InSync:Fusion allows traffic professionals to combine InSync’s video detection with other traffic
detection methods to bring detection of presence to an unprecedented level of accuracy. This detector
option works in tandem with existing inductive loop detection, radar, microwave and other detection
methods to enhance data collection and make traffic management even more efficient. This “fused”
approach virtually eliminates the possibility for false calls and overcomes limitations common to
video detection systems. This detection redundancy also means that if one detection method fails, the
intersections can rely on the other detection method. The result is an adaptive traffic control system
that is nearly 100 percent free of detection errors.
© March 2012 21

InSync:Fusion integrates the accuracy of
physics-based detection of presence from
devices such as inductive loops, radar or
magnetometers. These devices are used
in addition to InSync’s cameras that are
still relied on to calculate occupancy.
Intercept Module
Of course, vehicular traffic is not the only kind of traffic that must be accommodated at signalized
intersections. InSync can accommodate other types of traffic needs and special situations using the
Intercept Module.
The Intercept Module is a system add-on (consisting of both hardware and software) that allows
InSync to intercept and temporarily hold inputs from non-standard detection such as pedestrian push
buttons, trains approaching at railroad crossings, transit system priority and emergency vehicle
preemption. Depending upon the type of input and how the system is configured, InSync can hold the
call for service until the best time or serve it immediately before returning to InSync’s optimization of
vehicular traffic.
In the case of pedestrian push buttons, the Intercept Module minimizes the impact of pedestrian
calls on vehicular service levels. InSync optimizes the movements of pedestrians along with traffic
so pedestrian service does not interrupt the progression of what may be dozens of vehicles traveling
in a platoon which will pass the intersection in just a few seconds. Instead, InSync intercepts the
pedestrian call and waits until it can coordinate the pedestrian movement along with vehicular traffic.
In most cases, this creates no noticeable difference for the pedestrian.
The Intercept Module can also be configured for corridors that intersect with or are affected by
nearby railroads. To accommodate railroad crossings, InSync reverts to detection mode when a train
approaches, allowing the signal controller to take over traffic control and maintain all programmed
safety protocols. After the train passes, InSync continues running in detection mode while adaptive
22 © March 2012

InSync optimizes the
movements of pedestrians
along with traffic so
pedestrian service does
not interrupt the progression
of what may be dozens of
vehicles traveling in a platoon
which will pass the intersection
in just a few seconds.
mode runs in the background. When detection and adaptive modes align, InSync switches back into
adaptive mode and continues moving traffic according to its global and local optimization. Detection
mode describes InSync’s activity as purely a detection device feeding calls into the controller and
allowing the controller to determine phasing. Recovery of traffic conditions is the same as described
in the following section.
Finally, the Intercept Module can also be used to make way for any higher-priority calls that go
directly into a controller, such as those for emergency vehicles. When a vehicle with preemption
approaches an intersection, InSync switches from adaptive mode to detection mode to allow
emergency vehicles to move through the intersection without interference. After the emergency
vehicles have passed through the intersection, InSync runs in detection mode (see above) and
allows the controller to cycle naturally until it aligns with adaptive mode. It then resumes adaptive
traffic control seamlessly. Because InSync recognizes the actual demand at the intersection, it very
rapidly resolves traffic conditions historically associated with transition. With InSync, the intersection
conditions return to "normal" in seconds instead of minutes.
© March 2012 23

InSync in the Real World: Four Case Studies
Matt Selinger and Luke Schmidt of HDR, Inc., one of the country’s largest and most respected
engineering firms, issued a September 2010 report entitled, Adaptive Traffic Control Systems in
the United States: Updated Summary and Comparison. Their report summarizes the effectiveness of
various adaptive traffic control systems deployed across the United States, including InSync. Based
on feedback from the traffic agencies employing the various systems, the report compared benefits in
travel time reduction, stop reduction and reduction in delay amongst other client-critical factors, such
as overall cost to implement and maintain and client satisfaction. Of the several systems compared
based on feedback from actual users, InSync ranked first in stop reduction, delay reduction, travel
time reduction, affordability, up-time, ease of maintenance and client satisfaction. In fact, 100
percent of clients surveyed said given the opportunity to make the decision again, they would repeat
their decision to install InSync. It is important in understanding this study to underscore this was an
independent research effort drawing inputs solely from actual adaptive traffic control customers
operating systems on corridors, not simulations or theoretical research.
The 2010 independent, comparative

study on adaptive traffic control
quantifies real-word results of
various adaptive traffic control
systems as reported by the
agencies managing them.
The report pointedly acknowledged that the real-time adaptive technology used by InSync provides
noteworthy benefits in arterial travel time reduction, stop reduction and reduction in delay: “In the
recent past, some adaptive technology experts have downplayed the differences between real-time
adaptive architecture and responsive adaptive system architectures. Based on the findings from recent
studies compared in this paper, it is clear there is a significant difference that true real-time technology
can provide.” 14 Furthermore, the report notes that InSync, the only system included in the study that
employs a real-time adaptive architecture, had the “highest operational benefits by a large margin.”15
This only makes sense, since a traffic control system that can adapt to traffic conditions second by
second will certainly manage traffic better than one that cannot. The real-time capabilities must not
only apply to the detection, but also the execution and implementation of optimization routines.
Download the full paper at http://www.hdrinc.com/about-hdr/knowledge-center/white-

papers/2010-adaptive-traffic-control-systems-in-the-united-states-u
24 © March 2012

Independent studies of InSync deployments throughout the nation confirm Selinger and Schmidt’s
conclusion. These studies illustrate that the real-time adaptive traffic technology employed by InSync
can reduce congestion and provide significant safety and economic benefits for motorists and traffic
agencies. Because InSync makes moment-to-moment decisions about how best to serve traffic in real-
time, the system is able to adapt to the unique traffic demands of each corridor to provide optimal
travel conditions for motorists.
InSync’s adaptability and the power of its artificial intelligence technology are evidenced by its
successful deployments in varying climates, geometries, city sizes, traffic cultures and traffic agency
philosophies. The following four case studies demonstrate InSync’s ability to adjust to unique traffic
demands in real-time to reduce stops, reduce travel time, increase motorist safety and decrease the
economic and environmental costs of congestion to cities.
Traffic Engineering Challenge #1: Variable Traffic Flow
Bass Pro Drive (above), State Highway 26

(above-right) and Northwest Highway (right)
corridors in Grapevine, Texas using InSync
Grapevine, Texas, installed the InSync system in 2010 to manage the city’s variable traffic flow.
Although the city has 50,000 residents, approximately 300,000 vehicles pass through Grapevine
daily. Traffic volume and flow on Grapevine’s arterials are highly variable as they are frequently a
result of freeway incidents, construction on the many highways surrounding the city and event traffic.
InSync was chosen to be deployed at 52 intersections city-wide, representing 90 percent of the city’s
signals.
© March 2012 25

Prior to installing InSync, Grapevine used a prominent central-software product to communicate
with and attempt to coordinate its signals. The City of Grapevine hired an independent engineering
firm, Lee Engineering, to collect before-and-after data on three of the corridors on which InSync was
deployed.
The Benefits of InSync
Within weeks of its installation, InSync reduced traffic stops by up to 85 percent and reduced travel
time for motorists by as much as 42 percent. The stop reductions and improvements in travel time
seen on these individual corridors reflect similar positive results deriving from InSync’s city - wide
deployment. By reducing stops and improving traffic flow, InSync creates significant reductions in
wasted time and fuel for motorists passing through Grapevine. Accordingly, the reductions in wasted
fuel and time, as well as the reduction in stops, created an equally significant economic benefit to the
city of Grapevine.16
Ramana Chinnakotla, Grapevine’s Assistant Director of Public Works at the time of deployment, says
both motorists and traffic professionals are happy with the outcome of InSync’s city-wide deployment.
“We have received a lot of positive feedback from our residents; especially people on the side streets
have noticed that they do not wait as much. They’re able to get through the intersections much easier.
We have also seen a dramatic improvement in the travel time on the corridor itself.”
Travel Time Reductions Stop Reductions

200
Eastbound 200 Eastbound
160
AM Peak 66.2 secs 45% reduction AM Peak 0.7 stops 54% reduction
160
Midday Peak 12.4 secs 14% reduction Midday Peak 1.4 stops 70% reduction
120 PM Peak 27.6 secs 26% reduction 120
PM Peak 1.0 stops 50% reduction
Off Peak 16.6 secs 16% reduction Off Peak 0.5 stops 31% reduction
80 80
Westbound Westbound
40
AM Peak -35.7 secs -38% reduction 40 AM Peak -0.1 stops -7% reduction
Midday Peak 9.6 secs 9% reduction Midday Peak -0.2 stops -20% reduction
0 0
PM Peak 24.6 secs 15% reduction PM Peak 0.2 stops 17% reduction
BASS PRO DRIVE RESULTS
Average Speed Increase Delay Reductions

adt=18,300
40 Eastbound Eastbound
120
AM Peak 11.9 mph 84% increase AM Peak 49.8 secs 70% reduction
30 Midday Peak 3.8 mph 16% increase 100 Midday Peak 12.4 secs 32% reduction
PM Peak 7.1 mph 35% increase 80 PM Peak 26.0 secs 51% reduction
20 Off Peak 11.2 mph 30% increase 60
Off Peak 15.8 secs 30% reduction
Westbound 40 Westbound
10
AM Peak -6.5 mph -29% increase 20 AM Peak -36.5 secs -93% reduction
0
Midday Peak 2.2 mph 11% increase Midday Peak 9.4 secs 19% reduction
0
PM Peak 2.2 mph 17% increase PM Peak 24.4 secs 22% reduction
Off Peak 3.8 mph 22% increase Off Peak 22.8 secs 32% reduction
Hydrocarbon Emission Reductions Fuel Usage Reductions
6
Eastbound 0.05
Eastbound
AM Peak 1.33 grams 29% reduction AM Peak 0.014 gallons 31% reduction
5
0.04
Midday Peak -1.84 grams 16% reduction Midday Peak 0.004 gallons 11% reduction
4
PM Peak -0.07 grams -1% reduction 0.03 PM Peak 0.004 gallons 9% reduction
3 Off Peak 0.21 grams 5% reduction Off Peak 0.003 gallons 6% reduction
0.02
2
Westbound Westbound
0.01
1
AM Peak -0.30 grams -7% reduction AM Peak -0.005 gallons -12% reduction
0 Midday Peak -1.01 grams -30% reduction 0 Midday Peak -0.003 gallons -9% reduction
PM Peak -0.25 grams -5% reduction PM Peak 0.002 gallons 5% reduction
Off Peak -0.08 grams -2% reduction Off Peak 0.002 gallons 5% reduction
The study evaluates and compares the travel time, number of stops, speed, delay, hydrocarbon
emissions, and fuel usage before and after the implementation of the InSync system in Grapevine, TX.
26 © March 2012

a

350 Eastbound 4.0 Eastbound
300
AM Peak 22 secs 7% reduction 3.5 AM Peak 2.2 stops 61% reduction
Midday Peak -3.6 secs -2% reduction 3.0 Midday Peak 0.6 stops 50% reduction
250
PM Peak 34.6 secs 13% reduction 2.5 PM Peak 1.0 stops 56% reduction
200
Off Peak 51.9 secs 19% reduction 2.0 Off Peak 2.3 stops 87% reduction
150
1.5
100
Westbound Westbound
1.0
50 0.5
Midday Peak 67.8 secs 26v reduction Midday Peak 1.2 stops 50% reduction
0 0.0
PM Peak -20.4 secs -7% reduction PM Peak -0.4 stops -13% reduction
STATE HIGHWAY 26 RESULTS

adt= 36,000
60 Eastbound 140 Eastbound
50
AM Peak 2.0 mph 8% increase 120 AM Peak 22.0 secs 15% reduction
Midday Peak -0.3 mph 33% increase 100
Midday Peak -3.6 secs -6% reduction
40
PM Peak 4.4 mph 14% increase 80
PM Peak 34.6 secs 36% reduction
30 Off Peak 7.4 mph 24% increase Off Peak 15.8 secs 72% reduction
60
20
10 AM Peak 6.9 mph 25% increase 20 AM Peak 58.6 secs 48% reduction
Midday Peak 10.9 mph 35% increase 0
Midday Peak 67.8 secs 76% reduction
0
PM Peak -1.6 mph -6% increase PM Peak -20.4 secs 16% reduction

12 0.12
Midday Peak -1.84 grams -21% reduction Midday Peak -0.005 gallons -4% reduction
9 PM Peak 0.59 grams 6% reduction 0.09 PM Peak 0.009 gallons 7% reduction
Off Peak 2.25 grams 19% reduction Off Peak 0.015 gallons 11% reduction
6 0.06
Westbound Westbound
3 0.03
0 Midday Peak 1.58 grams 15% reduction 0 Midday Peak 0.009 gallons 8% reduction
PM Peak -0.88 grams -7% reduction PM Peak -0.007 gallons -5% reduction

700 AM Peak 47.6 secs 9% reduction AM Peak 2.0 stops 46% reduction
8
600 Midday Peak 45.0 secs 9% reduction Midday Peak 0.8 stops 27% reduction
500 PM Peak 325.6 secs 42% reduction 6
400 Off Peak 67.7 secs 14% reduction Off Peak 1.6 stops 47% reduction
4
300
Westbound Westbound
200
AM Peak 116.0 secs 20% reduction 2 AM Peak 2.6 stops 48% reduction
100
Midday Peak -19.6 secs -6% reduction Midday Peak -0.4 stops -13% reduction
0 0
PM Peak 7.2 secs 1% reduction PM Peak -0.8 stops -14% reduction
northwest highway results

35 AM Peak 2.8 mph 10% increase AM Peak 48.4 secs 25% reduction
400
adt=31,000
30
25 PM Peak 13.8 mph 71% increase 300

PM Peak 308.6 secs 76% reduction
20 Off Peak 5.5 mph 17% increase Off Peak 52.6 secs 48% reduction
200
15
Westbound Westbound
10
AM Peak 6.4 mph 25% increase 100
AM Peak 109.0 secs 52% reduction
5
Midday Peak -0.9 mph -3% increase Midday Peak -15.8 secs -17% reduction
0 0

30 AM Peak 1.75 grams 8% reduction 0.30 AM Peak 0.018 gallons 8% reduction
25 Midday Peak 0.73 grams 4% reduction 0.25 Midday Peak 0.010 gallons 4% reduction
20
PM Peak 12.38 grams 40% reduction 0.20
PM Peak 0.082 gallons 28% reduction
15
Off Peak 3.43 grams 18% reduction 0.15
Off Peak 0.016 gallons 7% reduction
10
Westbound 0.10
Westbound
5 AM Peak 3.59 grams 15% reduction 0.05 AM Peak 0.028 gallons 12% reduction
0 Midday Peak -1.94 grams -11% reduction 0 Midday Peak -0.009 gallons -4% reduction
PM Peak 1.82 grams 7% reduction PM Peak 0.008 gallons 3% reduction
© March 2012 27

Traffic Engineering Challenge #2: Saturation of the Corridor
Section of Pennsylvania Route 202 using InSync
Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania, is home to the King of Prussia mall. The 2.8 million square
feet of retail space positioned near the intersection of three major freeways created intense traffic
volumes. The closed loop timing plan installed in 2008 could not adequately address the traffic
conditions. The existing closed loop system on Route 202 was consistently unable to clear its queues
during peak travel periods, resulting in heavy congestion on the arterial. An independent study by
Pennoni Associates notes that one northbound left turn lane was unable “to clear its queue 87 percent
of the time during the afternoon peak hour [and] the southbound left turn movement was not able
to clear its queue 67 percent of the time.”17 Because the arterial’s traffic signals could not manage
traffic during busy shopping seasons, police officers were regularly stationed at the two intersections
along Route 202 to direct traffic through the corridor. Many shoppers avoided the mall because of
the difficult traffic.
The InSync system was installed in 2010 to reduce congestion and deliver better service
to motorists.
InSync’s artificial intelligence allowed the system to advance traffic along the arterial while also better
serving the side streets and left turns. According to the aforementioned study, the system accomplished
both goals. InSync reduced both peak-time stops and travel time on Route 202 by as much as 44
percent and increased speed by up to 79 percent while the northbound and southbound left turn
movements are able to consistently and completely clear their queues under InSync’s management.
28 © March 2012

InSync eliminated the need for traffic cops and solved the city’s struggles with saturation along Route
202. The changes were so substantial that motorists noticed and reported their satisfaction to the
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.18 “We got rave reviews about InSync not only from public
officials, but also from motorists,” said Ashwin Patel, Traffic Signal and Safety Manager for District
Six of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. “The travel times and number of stops have
improved dramatically.”
Travel Time Reduction Stop Reduction
350 4.0
Eastbound Eastbound
300 3.5
250
AM Peak 9.2 secs 11% reduction 3.0 AM Peak 0.3 stops 33% reduction
200
Midday Peak 45.6 secs 39% reduction 2.5 Midday Peak 0.1 stops 10% reduction
150
PM Peak 49.2 secs 44% reduction 2.0
1.5
100
1.0
Westbound Westbound
0.5
AM Peak 24.3 secs 26% reduction 0.0 AM Peak 0.3 stops 27% reduction
Midday Peak 10.3 secs 10% reduction Midday Peak 0.2 stops 13% reduction
ROUTE 202 RESULTS
Average Speed Increase Delay Reduction

20 100
Eastbound Eastbound
adt= 47,000
16 AM Peak 2.7 mph 12% increase 80 AM Peak 9.3 secs 14% reduction
12 60
PM Peak 7.2 mph 79% increase PM Peak 47 secs 53% reduction
8 40
Westbound Westbound
4 20
0 Midday Peak 1.3 mph 11% increase 0 Midday Peak 10.0 secs 13% reduction
Hydrocarbon Emissions Reduction Fuel Usage Reduction

5.0
Eastbound .05
Eastbound
4.0 AM Peak 0.61 grams 18% reduction .04 AM Peak 0.005 gallons 13% reduction
Midday Peak 1.14 grams 30% reduction Midday Peak 0.010 gallons 25% reduction
3.0 .03
2.0 .02
Westbound Westbound
1.0 .01
0 Midday Peak 0.28 grams 8% reduction 0 Midday Peak 0.003 gallons 8% reduction
emissions, and fuel usage before and after the implementation of the InSync system in Upper Merion, PA.
© March 2012 29

Traffic Engineering Challenge #3: Intersecting Arterials
Intersecting corridors in Evans, Georgia using InSync
In Evans, Georgia, InSync was deployed to coordinate Washington Road, a 1- mile long corridor
that intersects another major arterial, North Belair Road. Because Washington Road is one of the
city’s main thoroughfares and serves both retail and residential traffic, the corridor experiences high
traffic volumes at all times of the day, averaging 40,000 vehicles daily. Additionally, an average of
41,000 vehicles travel North Belair Road daily, making it difficult to efficiently move traffic through
the arterials’ common intersection.
Columbia County installed a coordinated timing plan on Washington Road in 1995, and it was
periodically updated. However, with the intersecting arterials experiencing heavy traffic during peak
and off-peak travel periods, Washington Road’s coordinated signal system was unable to overcome
congestion.
Optimizing traffic signals on intersecting arterials is particularly difficult. Both roadways experience
heavy traffic volume and their need for progression is equal. If not perfectly engineered, the needs of
the two arterial corridors can be at odds with each other.
To move traffic as efficiently as possible along these especially challenging corridors, Rhythm
Engineering installed InSync; they also fused the system’s detection technology with the city’s existing
inductive loops to eliminate the possibility for false calls and ensure efficient traffic movement. The
InSync system was able to coordinate and guarantee progression along both corridors including their
common intersection.
30 © March 2012

InSync reduced stops by up to 100 percent and increased average speed on Washington Road by
up to 93 percent, according to the performance study conducted by Columbia County. Consequently,
InSync nearly halved motorists’ travel time. Additionally, InSync reduced fuel consumption by as much
as 32 percent and cut harmful hydrocarbon emissions by up to 39 percent.
Matt Schlachter, director of the Columbia County Board of Commissioners, commented on the
noticeable reduction in travel time and stops along the corridor, saying, “In the past five years, I have
driven this corridor several times a day. I can clearly remember only making it through the corridor,
without stopping, one time in those five years. We were able to do it three times in a row within 30
minutes of activating the system.”19
In total, independent studies estimate InSync’s economic benefit to Evans to be $2.6 million per year
in saved fuel, stops and time.20
300 3.0
Eastbound Eastbound
Noon 57.0 secs 35% reduction Noon 1.2 stops 67% reduction
200 2.0
Evening 19.4 secs 18% reduction Evening 0.8 stops 100% reduction
100 1.0
Westbound Westbound
WASHINGTON ROAD ReSulTS
ulTS
0
Noon 53.8 secs 29% reduction 0 Noon 1.4 stops 64% reduction
ul
Evening 16.6 secs 15% reduction Evening 0.4 stops 67% reduction

160
adt= 40,000
50
Eastbound Eastbound
40
120
Noon 12.1 mph 54% increase Noon 57.0 secs 70% reduction
30 PM Peak 15.7 mph 93% increase PM Peak 104.2 secs 78% reduction
80
Evening 7.4 mph 22% increase Evening 17.8 secs 66% reduction
20
10
0 Noon 8.2 mph 41% increase 0 Noon 53.8 secs 53% reduction
Evening 6.0 mph 18% increase Evening 13.8 secs 50% reduction

9 0.10
Eastbound Eastbound
AM Peak 1.4 grams 20% reduction 0.08
AM Peak 0.01 gallons 11% reduction
Noon 0.2 grams 2% reduction Noon 0.00 gallons 3% reduction
6
PM Peak 3.3 grams 39% reduction 0.06 PM Peak 0.02 gallons 32% reduction
Evening 0.7 grams 14% reduction Evening 0.00 gallons 5% reduction
0.04
3
Westbound Westbound
0.02
AM Peak 0.3 grams 5% reduction AM Peak 0.00 gallons -1% reduction
0 Noon 1.3 grams 18% reduction 0 Noon 0.01 gallons 13% reduction
PM Peak -0.1 grams -1% reduction PM Peak 0.00 gallons 3% reduction
Evening 0.2 grams 5% reduction Evening 0.00 gallons 2% reduction
emissions, and fuel usage before and after the implementation of the InSync system in Evans, GA.
© March 2012 31

Traffic Engineering Challenge #4: High Pedestrian Traffic
N Main
E Boro
nda Ro
ad
Street
rive
Harden Parkw
oD
ay
rad
Do
El
Street
innon
E Alvin D
rive
McK
e
riv
eD
N Main S
ag
E Alv
Os
in Dri
ve
treet
Ad a
Drive
d
m s S t re e
oa
dR
ood
a
id
Linw
tiv
t
Na
e
ive
Drriv
E Laurel
N Main Street
E Lau
rel D
rive
d
Roa
e
riv
vis
al D
E B ern
Da
reet
r St
N
to
Vic
Main Street in Salinas, California using InSync
Salinas, California, installed InSync at five intersections to manage the high pedestrian and vehicle
traffic along Main Street. Prior to InSync’s installation, the corridor was running in free mode, delivering
green time based on the presence of traffic, without prioritizing movements on main or side streets or
factoring in queue length at the intersection’s approaches.
With no coordination plan, the corridor’s traffic control system served pedestrian movements upon
request from pedestrian button pushes. Consequently, the high pedestrian volume crossing the corridor
from Monterey Bay disrupted traffic flow and exacerbated congestion on the busy arterial. City and
traffic officials concluded that timing the intersections along the corridor would not solve the problem
and installed the InSync adaptive traffic control system shortly thereafter.
Benefits of InSync
InSync incorporates pedestrian calls in its local optimization and global coordination to ensure that
pedestrians can cross the street safely without disrupting traffic flow. During InSync’s green tunnels, the
system serves pedestrians crossing in the same direction. Likewise, InSync services pedestrians crossing
the street in the periods between green tunnels, allowing traffic to flow smoothly along the corridor
without disruption from pedestrian releases.
“Other traffic control systems try to work this way, but if there is a high volume of pedestrian calls, it
can override vehicular calls and throw the signals out of coordination,” explained Grant Niehus, a
Rhythm engineer who worked on the Salinas deployment. “Whereas other systems service pedestrians
when they arrive at an intersection, InSync never breaks coordination along the corridor. It may be an
additional wait time of ten or fifteen seconds – not long enough that pedestrians notice it – but InSync
doesn’t stop what can be dozens of vehicles driving at 30 miles per hour or more just to serve one
pedestrian.”
32 © March 2012

Niehus also noted that InSync’s universal compatibility allowed the City of Salinas to capitalize on their
existing infrastructure instead of installing new Ethernet wiring to connect the corridor’s intersections:
“Salinas had an existing copper infrastructure that tied their controllers together, which was outdated.
Rhythm engineers were able to install an Ethernet over copper device, which in turn saved them quite
a bit of money to install the system. Also, with other systems, traffic agencies have to buy brand new
controllers and use the same controllers at every intersection. InSync can work with 20 different traffic
controllers at 20 different intersections.”
InSync’s compatibility and ability to incorporate pedestrian movements into its global
coordination and local optimization created significant safety and economic benefits for
the city of Salinas, California.

350 3.0
300 Northbound 2.5 Northbound
250 AM Peak 80 secs 37% reduction AM Peak 1.8 stops 78% reduction
2.0
Midday Peak 108 secs 38% reduction Midday Peak 1.3 stops 48% reduction
200
PM Peak 120 secs 43% reduction 1.5 PM Peak 1.3 stops 54% reduction
MAIN STREET RESULTS
150
1.0
100
Southbound Southbound
0.5
50
AM Peak 80 secs 38% reduction AM Peak 1.7 stops 91% reduction
0 Midday Peak 136 secs 45% reduction 0 Midday Peak 1.5 stops 60% reduction
PM Peak 143 secs 46% reduction PM Peak 1.7 stops 63% reduction
adt= 26,407

180
35 Northbound Northbound
30 AM Peak 12.4 mph 60% increase 150 AM Peak 20 secs 75% reduction
25 Midday Peak 9.5 mph 61% increase Midday Peak 85 secs 60% reduction
120
PM Peak 11.7 mph 74% increase PM Peak 79 secs 69% reduction
20
90
15
Southbound Southbound
60
10 AM Peak 60 secs 89% reduction
AM Peak 12.7 mph 60% increase
30
5 Midday Peak 12.1 mph 82% increase Midday Peak 121 secs 73% reduction
PM Peak 12.0 mph 84% increase 0 PM Peak 110 secs 67% reduction
0
The study evaluates and compares the travel time, number of stops, speed and delay,
before and after the implementation of the InSync system in Salinas, CA.
© March 2012 33

Conclusion
The InSync system from Rhythm Engineering represents progressive technology that delivers profound
results with minimal cost. By employing artificial intelligence to emulate the decisions a traffic
engineer would make, the system approaches traffic management in a revolutionary way.
InSync’s real-time adaptive traffic control system provides significant benefit to motorists and
transportation agencies as a solution to a number of congestion causes on arterial roadways.
In its deployments nationwide, InSync has decreased travel time by up to 50 percent, fuel
consumption by up to 32 percent and stops by up to 90 percent. More importantly, InSync has
reduced crashes by up to 30 percent, making roadways safer for motorists and pedestrians alike.
Reductions in travel time and delay have also saved motorists and cities millions of dollars by
cutting down on the fuel and time wasted at poorly timed traffic signals.
Cities, traffic agencies, citizens and motorists all benefit substantially from an investment in InSync.
34 © March 2012
Conclusion
References
1
Paumgarten, N. (2007). There and Back Again: The Soul of the Commuter. The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_paumgarten#ixzz16VuluShi.
2
Paumgarten, N. (2007). There and Back Again: The Soul of the Commuter. The New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_paumgarten#ixzz16VuluShi.
Schrank, D., Lomax, T., & Turner, S. (2010). Urban Mobility Report 2010. Texas Transportation Institute. http://tti.
3
tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2010.pdf.
4
Schrank, D., Lomax, T., & Turner, S. (2010). Urban Mobility Report 2010. Texas Transportation Institute, http://tti.
tamu.edu/documents/mobility_report_2010.pdf.
5
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2006). 100 Years of U.S. Consumer Spending: Data for the Nation, New York City, and
Boston. http://www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/home.htm.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Consumer expenditures in 2008. http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann08.pdf.
6
American Lung Association. (2010). Air Quality Facts. http://www.stateoftheair.org/2010/facts/.
7
American Cancer Society. (2006). Air Pollution Linked to Deaths From Lung Cancer Risk for
Other Diseases Is Increased As Well. http://our.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_Air_Pollution_Linked_to_
Deaths_From_Lung_Cancer.asp.
Di Rado, A. (2005). Childhood Asthma Linked to Freeway Pollution. University of Southern

California. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/11614.html.
8
Schrank, D., & Lomax, T., (2009). Urban Mobility Report 2009. Texas Transportation Institute. http://tti.tamu.edu/
documents/ums/mobility_report_2009_wappx.pdf.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). FARS Encyclopedia. http://www-farsnhtsa.dot.gov/Main/
index.aspx.
National Safety Council. (n.d.) Summary of Estimate Model. http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/Resources/
Documents/NSC%20Estimate%20Summary.pdf.
9
AAA. (March 2005). Crashes vs. Congestion – What’s the Cost to Society? http://www.aaanewsroom.net/main/
Default.asp?CategoryID=7&ArticleID=596
Midwest Research Institute. (March 2010). Evaluation of an Adaptive Traffic Signal System: Route 291 in Lee’s
10
Summit, Missouri. http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LeesSummit_Validation_Study1.pdf.
11
Linda Voss, Traffic Engineer for the City of Topeka, Kansas, email dated 2-1-12
12
City of Springdale, Arkansas Police Department statistics, provided by Taylor Johnson, email dated 9-8-11
13
Lee’s Summit Police Department. (March 2010.) Memorandum: Operation Safe Highway 2009 End of Project Report.
14
Selinger, M. & Schmidt, L. (September 2010). Adaptive Traffic Control Systems in the United States: Updated
Summary and Comparison. HDR, Inc. http://www.hdrinc.com/sites/all/files/content/white-papers/white-paper-
images/3675-adaptive-traffic-control-systems-in-the-united-states-updated-summary-and-comparison.pdf.
15
Selinger, M. & Schmidt, L. (September 2010). Adaptive Traffic Control Systems in the United States: Updated
Summary and Comparison. HDR, Inc. http://www.hdrinc.com/sites/all/files/content/white-papers/white-paper-
images/3675-adaptive-traffic-control-systems-in-the-united-states-updated-summary-and-comparison.pdf.
16
Lee Engineering. (n.d.). GRAPEVINE, TEXAS: State Highway 26 (Baylor Parkway to Pool Road) Adaptive System
Improvement Summary http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/grapevine_Validation_Study1.pdf.
17
Pennoni Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers. (December 2010). InSync System Comparison.
18
Pennoni Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers. (December 2010). InSync System Comparison.
19
Rhythm Engineering. (n.d.). Evans, Georgia Validation Study Brief. http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/
uploads/2010/06/Evans_Validation_Study1.pdf.
20
Rhythm Engineering. (n.d.). Evans, Georgia Validation Study Brief. http://rhythmtraffic.com/wp-content/
uploads/2010/06/Evans_Validation_Study1.pdf.
© March 2012 35
References
• 12351 W. 96th Terrace, Suite 107 • Lenexa, Kansas 66215 • 913.227.0603 • RhythmTraffic.com

Insync Adaptive Traffic Signal Technology:: Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Delivering Real-World Results

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Insync Adaptive Traffic Signal Technology:: Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Delivering Real-World Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

InSync Adaptive Traffic Signal Technology:

Real-Time Artificial Intelligence Delivering Real-World Results

Mission of Rhythm Engineering

Executive Summary ........................................................................................... 4

Traffic Congestion: The Cost of Complacency ......................................................... 8

Traditional Traffic Control Methods and Drawbacks.......................................... 9

InSync: Solving Real-World Problems in Real-Time ................................................ 11

InSync’s Hardware and Software Components ..................................................... 13

Optimizing Traffic Locally and Globally .............................................................. 17

Local Optimization: Intelligent Actuation ....................................................... 17

Global Optimization: Ensuring Progression ................................................... 18

System Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. 19

Failure Mitigation Mechanisms ................................................................... 20

Detector and Input Options ............................................................................... 21

Intercept Module ..................................................................................... 22

InSync in the Real World: Four Case Studies ........................................................ 24

Traffic Engineering Challenge #1: Variable Traffic Flow .................................. 25

Traffic Engineering Challenge #2: Saturation of the Corridor ........................... 28

Traffic Engineering Challenge #3: Intersecting Arterials ................................... 30

Traffic Engineering Challenge #4: High Pedestrian Traffic ............................... 32

In Upper Merion Township, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Department

Traffic Congestion: The Cost of Complacency

Traditional Traffic Control Methods and Drawbacks

Traffic Congestion: The Cost of Complacency

Rhythm Engineering empowers traffic professionals

Traffic Congestion: The Cost of Complacency

InSync: Solving Real-World Traffic Problems in Real-Time

Installation and Configuration of InSync

InSync: Solving Real-World Problems in Real-Time

InSync: Solving Real-World Problems in Real-Time

CentralSync Vehicle Detection Non-Standard Detection

Adaptive configuration InSync video cameras or Intercept Module

Core of the adaptive system’s capabilities

Equipment Panel Optional Components

InSync is compatible with all major makes

InSync's Hardware and Software Components

InSync:Fusion 330s-Style Cabinet

Back of Camera Enclosure

Power from Camera Enclosure

Cabinet Back - New Hardware Cabinet Front - New Hardware

COM NC NO COM NC NO COM +5 +5 GND

InSync's Hardware and Software Components

InSync's Hardware and Software Components

CentralSync, the software companion to InSync, is a Windows-based corridor configuration program

InSync's Hardware and Software Components

Local Optimization: Intelligent Actuation

Optimizing Traffic Locally and Globally

Optimizing Traffic Locally and Globally

System Operation and Maintenance

System Operation and Maintenance

Failure Mitigation Mechanisms

System Operation and Maintenance

Detector and Input Options

Detector and Input Options

Detector and Input Options

Detector and Input Options

The 2010 independent, comparative

Download the full paper at http://www.hdrinc.com/about-hdr/knowledge-center/white-

InSync in the Real World: Four Case Studies

Traffic Engineering Challenge #1: Variable Traffic Flow

Bass Pro Drive (above), State Highway 26

InSync in the Real World: Four Case Studies

The Benefits of InSync