Evaluation of Transition Methods of the 170E and

2070 ATC Traffic Controllers after Emergency

Vehicle Preemption
Ilsoo Yun1; Matthew Best2; and Byungkyu “Brian” Park3

Abstract: Modern traffic signal control systems provide emergency vehicle preemption 共EVP兲 capabilities using advanced sensors and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

communication technologies. While EVP strategies have been widely implemented by urban transportation management agencies, few
research efforts have studied the transition methods employed after EVP operations. This paper presents comprehensive evaluations of
EVP transition operations, considering both exit phase control and transition methods under three different traffic volume conditions. The
research employed hardware-in-the-loop simulation, which provides a more realistic evaluation environment because it incorporates actual
signal controllers into the simulation. The evaluation results at a coordinated-actuated signalized intersections in Northern Virginia
indicated that: 共1兲 performance measures varied significantly depending on the EVP transition methods; 共2兲 shortway in the 170E
controller and smooth in the 2070 ATC controller generally outperformed the other transition methods; and 共3兲 the use of exit phases—
available in the 2070 ATC controller—provided significant benefits over the 170E controller.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-947X共2008兲134:10共423兲
CE Database subject headings: Traffic signals; Traffic management; Simulation; Vehicles.

Introduction
Implementing optimal signal timing plans can improve mobility
and safety within urban signalized intersections. In addition to the
timing plans, modern traffic signal controllers are capable of
implementing various control strategies that can improve the ef-
ficiency and safety of urban signalized intersection systems. For
example, when emergency vehicles 共e.g., fire trucks, ambulances,
police cars兲 need priority to serve public needs, traffic signal con-
trollers can provide the right of way to these vehicles using signal
preemption. With the implementation of emergency vehicle pre-
emption 共EVP兲, emergency vehicles can receive green indications
along their routes to reach their destinations more quickly. One
disadvantage of implementing EVP, however, is the cost incurred
from disrupting the normal phasing and timing plan of the signal
system. This disruption is especially problematic within coordi-
nated systems where precise coordination is necessary to ensure
smooth traffic flow along an arterial or network. In the case of an
1
Research Fellow, Center for Transport Infrastructure Investment,
Korea Transport Institute, 2311 Daewha-dong Ilsanseo-gu Goyang-si,
Gyeonggi-do 411-701, Korea. E-mail: ilsooyun@koti.re.kr
2
Engineering Associate, HDR/WHM Transportation Engineering, 504
Lavaca St., Suite 1175, Austin, TX 78701-2817. E-mail: matthew.
best@hdrinc.com
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Virginia, 351 McCormick Rd., Thornton Hall, P.O. Box 400742,
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4742 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: bpark@
virginia.edu
Note. Discussion open until March 1, 2009. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on June 29, 2007; approved
on June 6, 2008. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 10, October 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
947X/2008/10-423–431/$25.00.
EVP call on a cross street, extensive queuing often results on the
mainlines.
Even though most traffic signal controllers can implement
EVP, they provide slightly different methods for the signal system
to return to its coordinated state. Traffic engineers would like to
evaluate the performance of various EVP transition methods be-
fore implementing them in the field. However, the available traf-
fic simulation models do not include the ability to model vendor-
specific EVP strategies directly. Hardware-in-the-loop simulation
共HILS兲, which combines a microscopic simulation program and
actual traffic controllers, can effectively evaluate EVP transition
methods under varying demand conditions 共Nelson and Bullock
2000兲. Given the uncertainties associated with EVP 共i.e., the time
of occurrence, traffic conditions, etc.兲, the process of optimizing
controller response to EVP is quite complex. Thus, a research
effort that identifies the most appropriate EVP transition method
within a laboratory environment is imperative to improve mobil-
ity and safety of urban transportation systems.
The purpose of this paper is to explore various EVP transition
methods and identify the method that can best minimize disrup-
tions of traffic signal operations caused by an EVP occurrence. A
test site consisted of four coordinated-actuated signals along Lee
Jackson Memorial Highway in Chantilly, Va. was developed
using a HILS environment with a calibrated VISSIM microscopic
simulation model, four traffic signal controllers, and four control-
ler interface devices. For the study, two types of traffic
controllers—McCain’s 170E and Econolite’s 2070 ATC—were
used. The EVP transition operations examined in this paper in-
clude both the selection of transition methods available in each
controller and the use of exit phase control under three different
traffic conditions and different locations of EVP calls in the local
cycle timer.
This paper is outlined as follows. The next section briefly ex-
plains the operation of EVP and prior studies of EVP transition
methods. The third section presents the procedure used in this

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 423

J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431

 Table 1. Comparison between 170E and 2070 ATC Traffic Controllers
Feature 170E
Transition methods
Shortway 共1–4 transition cycles兲
Dwell 共1–4 transition cycles兲
Exit phase control No
Minimum requirement control Yes
共Minimum green or pedestrian time兲
Minimum EVP time control Clearance time
Maximum EVP time control Up to 255 s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
study, and the fourth section provides the results of the HILS
experiments. The last section includes conclusions and recom-
mendations for future research.
Literature Review
Emergency Vehicle Preemption in 170E and 2070 ATC
Controllers
EVP systems are designed to detect approaching emergency ve-
hicles using sensors and provide a green indication to provide the
right of way to these vehicles. A brief description of EVP opera-
tions in the 170E and 2070 ATC traffic controllers, manufactured
by McCain and Econolite, respectively, is explained in this sec-
tion. McCain’s 170E controller was selected for the study because
it is currently being used at the test site, while Econolite’s 2070
ATC controller was selected to ascertain the benefits of exit phase
selection.
Once a preemption call from an emergency vehicle is received
in the 170E controller, the controller terminates its current phase
as soon as the minimum requirements 共e.g., minimum green time兲
have been served and displays green on the subject preemption
phase. Once the preempt signal is removed and the predetermined
clearance time 共i.e., the amount of green time needed for the
emergency vehicle to clear the intersection兲 has elapsed, the con-
troller starts the transition process to return to normal operations.
During the transition process, the controller may display greens
according to the sequence used during normal operations. In co-
ordinated systems, the transition period ends after the controller
achieves the proper offset value—the difference between the mas-
ter controller timer and local controller timer—thus returning the
controller to coordination 共BI Trans Systems 1994兲. The exact
EVP and transition operations, however, are vendor-specific.
McCain’s 170E controller provides two transition methods—
shortway and dwell—with between one and four transition cycles.
The controller achieves the target offset values by adjusting the
cycle lengths during the transition operation. With the shortway
transition method, the controller determines the quickest route to
achieve the proper offset value and increases or decreases the
cycle length accordingly within maximum and minimum cycle
length limits. The minimum cycle length is equal to the sum of
the phase coordination transition minimums, which may be ad-
justed by users, while the maximum cycle length is determined by
the number of transition cycles specified by users. The maximum
cycle lengths are specified as percentages of the background cycle
length as follows 共BI Trans Systems 1994兲:
• One cycle= 150%;
424 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431
Controllers
2070 ATC
Smooth
Add only
Dwell
共Dwell time: 0 – 255 s兲
Yes
Yes
共Minimum green or pedestrian time兲
Minimum holding time
Up to 255 s
• Two cycles= 125%;
• Three cycles= 117%; and
• Four cycles= 112%.
The Dwell transition method can only increase the cycle length
up to the maximum cycle length determined by the selected num-
ber of transition cycles. Force-off points of all phases are adjusted
by the same percentage change to maintain the same relative
phase split during transition. In addition, there are also several
numeric parameters that must be set to initiate and run EVP 共BI
Trans Systems 1994兲. These are described later in the paper.
EVP operations and their settings in Econolite’s 2070 ATC
controller are somewhat different from those in McCain’s 170E
controller. The 2070 controller provides three transition
methods—smooth, add only, and dwell. Similar to the 170E’s
Shortway, smooth lengthens or shortens the local cycle length to
return the controller to coordination. After the EVP period ends, if
the offset value is less than the desired offset value by less than or
equal to 50%, the controller can add up to 20% of cycle length
per cycle. Otherwise, the controller can subtract up to 17% of
cycle length per cycle to achieve the desired offset value. The
2070 controller also features the dwell method, which holds co-
ordinated phase green times until the end of a user-specified dwell
period 共255 s maximum兲. This dwell period repeats at the end of
each local cycle until coordination is regained. The third transi-
tion method available in the 2070 controller is add only, in which
the controller can add up to 20% of cycle length per cycle
共Econolite Control Products 2004兲.
Unlike the 170E controller, the 2070 controller allows users to
specify exit phases that operate after the EVP operation. Up to
two phases may be selected as exit phases, which serve as tran-
sition phases while the controller attempts to return to normal
operations. In the 2070 controller, the EVP phases time after the
current phases have served their minimum green times. They con-
tinue until all of the following have occurred:
• Min hold time has elapsed; and
• The EVP call has been dropped or the max time 共i.e., 255 s兲
has elapsed.
Here, the min hold time is the minimum number of seconds that
the preemption phases time, and the max time is the maximum
number of seconds that the hold phases time. There are also sev-
eral numeric parameters 共e.g., minimum preemption green time兲
in the 170E controller that must be set to initiate and run EVP
共Econolite Control Products 2004兲. The exit phases, if any, then
begin to time up to their maximum duration. The differences be-
tween the 170E and 2070 controllers are summarized in Table 1.
 Prior Studies
Several studies have presented the effects of EVP on traffic signal
systems, specifically the performance of transition methods of
various traffic signal controllers. Obenberger and Collura 共2001兲
reviewed five transition methods—hold/dwell, maximum dwell,
long way/add, short way, and best way/smooth—based on previ-
ous literature to provide a state-of-the-practice assessment of al-
ternative transition methods. They found that no condition
supports the use of any one transition method for EVP. In addi-
tion, they recommended the use of a simulation methodology
using software-in-the-loop 共SILS兲 simulation or HILS to evaluate
more accurately actual transition methods used in the controller
after EVP operations.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Shelby et al. 共2006兲 compared several transition methods—
dwell, max dwell, add, subtract, shortway, immediate, two-cycle,
three-cycle, etc.—using CORSIM 共TSIS 5.2兲, which was en-
hanced to support ACS-Lite. Two different sites were studied—an
isolated intersection and a four-intersection arterial. The results
indicated that the level of saturation is a significant factor in de-
termining the optimum transition method. For instance, in the
arterial network study, at 80% or less saturation, the best way
method was most effective. At 90% or higher saturation, add out-
performed best way in some instances. overall, it was found that
the minimax class of transition methods 共i.e., smooth, best way,
long/short, shortway兲 outperforms dwell, which can actually de-
grade performance at low saturation levels. Further, it was found
that a three-cycle transition period performs better than a two-
cycle transition period, which in turn outperforms a one-cycle
transition period. They also reported that EVP operations ac-
counted for approximately 18% additional delay to the traffic
network.
Obenberger and Collura 共2007兲 also investigated four transi-
tion methods—best way, long, short, hold—available in the Si-
emens NextPhase Suitcase Tester 共Version 1.4B9兲 traffic signal
controller software, which was coupled with CORSIM 共TSIS 5.2兲
to establish a SILS environment. Using a four-coordinated-
actuated traffic signal system along the Columbia Pike corridor in
Arlington, Va., they used the midday period from 11:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. as a base traffic condition, as well as 20 and 40%
increases in traffic volumes from the base conditions. They found
that statistically significant interactions exist between the transi-
tion methods and traffic conditions. In addition, best way, long,
and hold were found to be the most efficient transition methods
for the base and 40% increased traffic conditions. For the 20%
increased traffic condition, best way performed the best. Based on
these results, they concluded that the traffic volume condition
greatly influences the effectiveness of a given transition method.
Cohen et al. 共2007兲 studied the performance of the dwell, max
dwell, subtract, and shortway methods on two different traffic
networks using CORSIM Version 6.0. The test network, located
along Speedway Boulevard in Tucson, Ariz., contained ten inter-
sections along a 7.1 km–long 共4.4-mi-long兲 corridor. The study
results showed that delay and travel times under dwell and max
dwell transition methods spiked early in the transition process. In
another hypothetical six-intersection network that operated near
oversaturated conditions, the results showed a similar spike in
delay under dwell and max dwell transition methods while sub-
tract and shortway allowed for a smoother return to coordination.
Cohen et al. concluded that, due to this “shockwave” in delay
during the transition period caused by dwell and max dwell, those
methods are not appropriate for major-crossing thoroughfares.
The above studies were based on transition methods embedded
Fig. 1. Test site: Lee-Jackson Memorial Highway, Chantilly, Va.
in microscopic traffic simulation models and not on the exact
methods available in traffic controllers. Although the methods
available in the simulation models are intended to mimic those in
traffic controllers, they do not always do so with complete preci-
sion and accuracy. Using HILS, some research efforts have at-
tempted to study the exact transition methods used in the field and
are summarized below.
Nelson and Bullock conducted a HILS-based study to quantify
the impacts of EVP calls and determine the most effective transi-
tion methods 共Nelson and Bullock 2000兲. They used CORSIM
and actual controllers manufactured by Econolite Control Prod-
ucts and tested between one and four consecutive EVP calls to
evaluate the performance of the transition methods. The authors
found that single EVP calls had little impact on network perfor-
mance while multiple consecutive EVP calls spaced at short in-
tervals greatly affected network performance. In the evaluation of
the various transition methods, they found that the smooth
method performs best.
Yun et al. 共2007兲 evaluated various EVP transition methods
using HILS, which consisted of a well-calibrated VISSIM micro-
scopic simulation model, four 170E traffic controllers, and four
controller interface devices. The transition methods under exami-
nation were shortway and dwell with different numbers of cycles
for transition completion and two phase sequences for the cross
streets. The evaluation results indicated that:
1. A single EVP call causes significant increases in delays and
travel times;
2. The resulting impacts on networkwide and intersection-
specific performance is quite different according to selected
EVP transition methods; and
3. The dwell transition method often does not return the traffic
controller to coordination.
Although previous literature and research on EVP transition
methods have provided information and guidelines regarding the
performance and selection of individual methods, none of these
studies compared controller performance 共e.g., between 170 and
2070 controllers兲 nor considered the exit phase control available
in 2070 controllers. The research summarized in this paper at-
tempts to compensate for this lack of knowledge.
Case Study
Test Site and Data Collection
The test site, shown in Fig. 1, is a corridor along Lee Jackson
Memorial Highway 共U.S. Route 50兲 in Chantilly, Va., and in-

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 425

J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Example of EVP operation
cludes four coordinated-actuated signals between Centerview
Drive/Sullyfield Circle, and Chantilly Road. The dotted circles in
Fig. 1 outline the four intersections under examination. They are
referred to as Intersections 10–13 from the east of the network
hereinafter as follows:
• Chantilly Road and Route 50 共Intersection 10兲;
• Metrotech Drive/Elmwood Street and Route 50 共Intersection
11兲;
• Centerville Road/Walney Road and Route 50 共Intersection 12兲;
and
• Centerview Drive/Sullyfield Circle and Route 50 共Intersection
13兲.
Data collection efforts provided inputs for the VISSIM micro-
scopic simulation program and performance measures for the
calibration of the VISSIM program, which was used in the evalu-
ation of EVP transition methods. While signal timings and link
geometry attributes were provided by the Virginia Department of
Transportation 共VDOT兲, other data, including traffic and pedes-
trian counts for network building and travel times for calibration,
were collected directly from the site on one weekday in 2006
between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., which is referred to as the
off-peak traffic condition hereinafter. Traffic counts were mea-
sured using the JAMAR handheld manual traffic data collectors
and video recording using three cameras. For travel time mea-
surements, two vehicles equipped with global positioning system
共GPS兲 receivers traveled Lee Jackson Memorial Highway in both
directions collecting vehicle position data, which were then used
to calibrate the VISSIM model.
VISSIM Network and Calibration
The VISSIM microscopic simulation program 共Version 4.10-14兲
was used in this study. Since the use of a well-calibrated micro-
scopic simulation model is a key to achieving reliable results for
any simulation-based evaluations, the study network was cali-
brated using a previously proposed microscopic simulation model
calibration and validation procedure by Park and Qi 共2005兲. A
total of 11 calibration parameters, including car following behav-
ior, lane changing behavior, and speed distributions, were cali-
426 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008
J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431
brated to match the field traffic conditions after careful reviews of
the VISSIM manual and related references 共Planung Transport
Verkehr AG 2005; Park et al. 2006a兲. As the measure of effec-
tiveness 共MOE兲 for calibration, the following two travel times
were selected: 共1兲 westbound travel time from the eastern bound-
ary to the western boundary of the study area along Lee Jackson
Memorial Highway of 116.3 s; and 共2兲 eastbound travel time at
the same location of 102.2 s, which were both aggregated using a
total of 16 and 15 individual travel time measurements, respec-
tively, obtained during data collection with the GPS units. Finally,
the VSSIM-based HILS was established with the resulting cali-
brated VISSIM network. The detailed results can be found in Best
共2007兲.
Traffic Signal Control and Preemption Settings
As noted, the test site is currently being operated by McCain’s
170E traffic controllers. An EVP detector is installed at the north-
bound approach of Intersection 12 to serve the EVP requests from
the fire station located south of the intersection. The test site uses
an optical preemption detector, which is mounted on the signal
mast arm facing the northbound approach. Therefore, this study
confines EVP capabilities to the northbound approach of Intersec-
tion 12. The current EVP settings in the 170E controller were
used:
1. Preemption function: emergency vehicle preemption;
2. Preempt minimums:
a. Pedestrian walk: 7 s;
b. Pedestrian flash don’t walk: 40 s; and
c. Minimum green: 10 s;
3. Maximum preempt time: 255 s;
4. EVP clearance time: 10 s;
5. EVP clearance Phases 4 共northbound through兲 and 7 共north-
bound left turn兲; and
6. Transition:
a. Method: Shortway; and
b. Transition cycles: three transition cycles.
Based on the above settings, Fig. 2 illustrates an example of the
EVP operation at Intersection 12. In this example, it was assumed
 that an EVP call lasted for 20 s and was initiated at the local
controller timer’s 30 s mark, which is the middle of Phases 4 and
8. In Fig. 2, the resultant signal indications by the real timer,
master timer, and local timer were observed using the QuicLoad
software program 共BI Tran Systems 2000兲, which provides com-
munication between a computer and a 170E traffic controller via
a serial connection, and is used for monitoring controller perfor-
mance and transmitting data.
Upon receiving the EVP call, the controller returned to coor-
dination after 363 s. When the controller received the EVP call at
the real timer equal to 0 s, Phase 8 was terminated as soon as its
minimum green time was satisfied to serve the EVP phases 共i.e.,
Phases 4 and 7兲. After the EVP call was removed at the real timer
equal to 20 s, the controller showed 10 s of green indications—
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the clearance time—to the EVP phases. The controller then

started the transition operation, in which the controller set the
master timer and the local timer equal to 0 s. When both reached
the background cycle length 共200 s兲, the controller reset the mas-
ter timer to its internal value as if an EVP call had not occurred
共i.e., at a real timer equal to 232 s, the master timer reached the
original cycle length of 200 s and then reset to 134 s兲. Mean-
while, the local timer continued to its adjusted cycle length ac-
cording to the selected transition method and number of transition
cycles. In the first cycle during transition, the controller increased
the cycle length up to 236 s, with the force-off points of all
phases adjusted in proportion to the increase in the total cycle
length and Phase 3 skipped in the first cycle. In the second cycle,
the controller decreased the cycle length to 91 s, with the force-
off points for all phases adjusted proportionally, and after which
the controller finally returned to coordination.
Construction of VISSIM-Based HILS
The VISSIM-based HILS consisted of the VISSIM microscopic
simulation software, McCain/NITTA’s CID-II, and McCain’s
170E controllers or Econolite’s 2070 controllers 共Planung Trans-
port Verkehr AG 2005; BI Tran Systems 2000; McCain/NIATT
2002兲. The parameters included controller settings 共e.g., mini-
mum greens, recall modes, vehicles extensions, pedestrian times兲,
coordination settings 共e.g., cycle length, offsets, offset reference
point, green splits兲, and EVP settings 共i.e., preempt minimums
and preemption phases兲. Fig. 3 shows the physical and logical
connections for the VISSIM-based HILS with the 170E traffic
controllers.
EVP Transition Methods under Examination
During the preliminary analysis 共Park et al. 2006b兲, it was found
that transition operations vary according to the location in the
cycle length when an EVP call occurs. To account for this impact,
this study selected 20 locations in the local cycle length for EVP
calls. For the first simulation run, the EVP call was placed at 10 s
after the termination of the green indications for Phases 2 and 6
共i.e., the yield point兲 following the 6 min simulation warmup
time. The EVP call for the subsequent simulation runs occurred at
10 s increments, allowing for the 20 total runs to span the entire
200 s cycle length in separate VISSIM-based HILS runs. In ad-
dition, to consider the variability in the VISSIM microscopic traf-
fic simulation model linked to HILS, three randomly seeded
replications were made for each location. Thus, a total of 60 HILS
runs were made for each scenario.
The length of an EVP call was determined by the assumed
free-flow travel time of the emergency vehicle through the inter-
Fig. 3. Physical and logical connections of HILS applied to test site
section 共i.e., 18 s兲 and the time to serve the preemption phases
after the EVP call was first made. If the latter was greater than the
actual free-flow travel time due to the need to serve current pre-
emption minimums 共e.g., minimum green and pedestrian walk
times兲, it was assumed that the emergency vehicle would not wait
at the intersection for a green indication, so the EVP call was
removed 5 s after the free-flow travel time of the emergency ve-
hicle elapsed to account for the vehicle weaving around traffic
and through the red light. Otherwise, the EVP call lasted for 18 s.
Several studies found that the prevailing traffic condition dur-
ing EVP operations is one of primary factors that influences
which transition method is most effective 共Obenberger and Col-
lura 2001; 2007; Shelby et al. 2006兲. Therefore, this study inves-
tigated the EVP transition methods available in the 170E and
2070 traffic controllers in different traffic volume conditions—
midday, off-peak, and p.m. peak. In addition to the differences in
traffic volumes among these conditions, the cycle lengths were
150 s during the midday period and 200 s during the off-peak and
p.m. peak periods.
170E Traffic Controller
For the 170E traffic controller, the shortway method with two
different transition cycle settings 共i.e., two and three transition
cycles兲 were tested using the current phase sequence—lead-lead
left turns with overlap on the cross streets at Intersection 12.
Currently, Phase 3 共southbound left turn兲 and Phase 7 共north-
bound left turn兲 are lead phases with overlap on the cross streets,
as shown in Fig. 4-1. In an attempt to improve the transition
operation, this study examined an alternative phase sequence—
lead-lag left turns with overlap on the cross streets, as shown in
Fig. 4-2. In the lead-lag left turns with overlap sequence, Phase 3
was served after Phase 4 in an attempt to alternate the sequence of
phases during the transition period. In this sequence, the green
intervals used in the lead-lag left turns case were identical to
those of the lead-lead left turns case.
The dwell transition method, which is available in the 170E
controller, was not considered for this study because transition
operations in a previous study did not return the controller to
coordination in 38% of cases when using dwell 共Park et al.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 427

J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Phase sequence on cross streets

2006b兲. The cases presented in Table 2 were selected for the Implementation of Emergency Vehicle Preemption
evaluation of the EVP transition methods under three different
traffic conditions. To initiate and terminate EVP calls, this study used a software
program built in C# that has the following capabilities:
2070 ATC Traffic Controller 1. Initiates a VISSIM simulation run;
Unlike the 170E controller, the 2070 controller is able to employ 2. Transmits an EVP call to the subject controller after the
exit phases in an attempt to minimize the impacts of EVP by simulation warmup time according to user-specified con-
adjusting the phase sequence after the EVP operation. A portion straints;
of the study focused on determining the most effective exit 3. Terminates the EVP call;
phases. Phases 2 and 6 共eastbound and westbound through move- 4. Terminates the VISSIM simulation run; and
ments兲, Phases 4 and 8 共northbound and southbound through 5. Saves VISSIM-generated output files.
movements兲, Phases 3 and 8 共southbound left turn and through In the VISSIM-based HILS, 6 min of warmup time and
movement兲, and Phases 1 and 5 共westbound and eastbound left 20 min of simulation time were used. The actual simulation run
turns兲 were considered as exit phases. In this experiment, smooth time of 20 min was sufficient to consider the entire period of EVP
was used as the transition method because previous studies found operations, clearance time, and transition over the maximum
it to be the most effective 共Nelson and Bullock 2000; Obenberger number of cycles. The resultant performance measures were ex-
and Collura 2001; Shelby et al. 2006兲. tracted only during the simulation time.
Once the best exit phases were identified, smooth, add only,
and dwell with three different maximum dwell times 共100, 200,
255 s兲 were evaluated under the three different traffic volume Evaluation of EVP Transition Methods
conditions. Table 3 summarizes five EVP transition methods
evaluated in this study. Evaluation of EVP Transition Methods with
170E Traffic Controller
The EVP transition methods available in the 170E controller,
Table 2. EVP Transition Methods Using 170E Traffic Controller shown in Table 2, were evaluated using the VISSIM-based HILS.
Case number Cross street phase sequence Transition cycles Table 4 presents the performance measures from the evaluation of
a
these methods. These include the eastbound and westbound travel
170-1 Lead-lead left turns with overlap 3 times, networkwide average vehicle delay, and average number of
170-2 Lead-lead left turns with overlap 2 stops.
170-3 Lead-lag left turns with overlap 3 Under off-peak traffic conditions, Case 170-3 共shortway with
170-4 Lead-lag left turns with overlap 2 three transition cycles, lead-lag left turns兲 was found to be the
a
Current controller setting at the test site most effective EVP transition method by producing the best net-
workwide performance measures, as shown in Table 4.
Table 3. EVP Transition Methods Using 2070 ATC Traffic Controller
Under midday traffic conditions, there were no statistically
Case number Transition method Dwell time significant differences among the four cases according to Tukey’s
2070-1 Smooth — method’s of analysis of the two main measures—networkwide
2070-2 Add only —
average delay and travel time along the main corridor. However,
Case 170-4 共shortway, two transition cycles, lead-lag left turns兲
2070-3 Dwell 100
showed the least amount of networkwide average delay.
2070-4 Dwell 200
Under p.m. peak traffic conditions, Case 170-3 共shortway,
2070-5 Dwell 255
three transition cycles, lead-lag left turns兲 showed the least

428 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431

 Table 4. Travel Times and Networkwide Performance Measures Using 170E Controller
Average travel time Networkwide performance
共s兲 measures
Average Avg number of
Traffic Case delay stops
condition number Eastbound Westbound 共s/veh兲 共stops/veh兲
a c
Off-peak 170-1 132 共19.2兲 149 共13.2兲 76 共6.5兲 2.1 共0.3兲
170-2 135 共19.4兲 151 共13.0兲 77 共6.5兲 2.1 共0.3兲
170-3 125 共18.1兲 142 共17.7兲 74 共7.4兲 2.1 共0.4兲
170-4 128 共16.6兲 144 共12.9兲 75 共6.1兲 2.1 共0.3兲
Midday 170-1 143 共15.0兲 186 共27.4兲 95 共9.6兲 3.6 共0.7兲
170-2 142 共10.8兲 177 共22.3兲 91 共6.8兲 3.3 共0.5兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

170-3 144 共14.8兲 175 共25.2兲 92 共9.6兲 3.4 共0.7兲

170-4 142 共11.2兲 173 共16.6兲 91 共6.5兲 3.3 共0.5兲
p.m. peak 170-1 185 共22.5兲 179 共19.0兲 105 共11.0兲 4.7 共0.8兲
170-2 193 共27.5兲 185 共18.3兲 109 共11.8兲 4.9 共0.8兲
170-3 185 共24.1兲 177 共17.2兲 105 共11.7兲 4.7 共0.9兲
170-4 187 共26.3兲 183 共21.1兲 106 共12.3兲 4.8 共0.9兲
a
Case 170-1 is the current EVP setting at the test site.
b
The calculation of the average time to coordination was conducted using only one run of each case 共20 replications with different EVP locations兲. The
time to coordination is the elapsed time from the start of the transition operation to coordination.
c
Numbers in parenthesis 共 兲 = standard deviation.

amount of networkwide average vehicle delay, but there was no Evaluation of EVP Transition Methods with 2070 ATC
significant difference between Cases 170-1 共shortway, three tran- Traffic Controller
sition cycles, lead-lead left turns兲 and 170-4.
Comparing the cases with different transition cycle settings, an Selection of Exit Phases
optimum number of transition cycles for the controller to return to The EVP transition methods for the 2070 controller, shown in
Table 3, were evaluated using the VISSIM-based HILS. As men-
coordination could not be identified. Comparing the different
tioned, this section begins with identifying the best exit phases
phase sequences on the cross street, as shown in Fig. 4, the tran-
following EVP. Four exit phase sets as well as a case without
sition operations using leadlag left turns with overlap performed specified exit phases were tested under off-peak traffic conditions,
better than those using lead-lead left turns with overlap. The im- as shown in Table 5.
pact of changing the phase sequence can be shown in a compari- As expected, it was found that all cases with exit phases out-
son of the average and maximum red intervals of Phase 3. For performed the no exit phase case. By exiting to nonpreemption
example, under the off-peak traffic conditions, Cases 170-3 共347 s phases, the traffic signal can immediately serve approaches that
of maximum red interval for Phase 3兲 and 170-4 共356 s of maxi- likely contain queued vehicles 共e.g., Phases 2 and 6—the coordi-
mum red interval for Phase 3兲 showed less average delay and nated phases兲. In the no exit phase case, however, the traffic sig-
shorter red intervals by phase at Intersection 12 than Cases 170-1 nal continues serving the EVP phases and proceeds with the
共470 s of maximum red interval for Phase 3兲 and 170-2 共i.e.,
482 s of maximum red interval for Phase 3兲. As illustrated in Fig.
2, this discrepancy occurred because the lead-lead left turn phase Table 5. Travel Times and Networkwide Performance Measures by
sequence skipped Phase 3 共southbound left turn兲 in the first cycle Selected Exit Phases
during transition. In the lead-lag left turn phase sequencing, how- Average
ever, the controller was able to give a green indication to Phase 3 travel time Networkwide performance
in the first cycle of transition by changing the phase sequence on 共s兲 measures
the cross streets. This result indicates that the effect of changing Average Average number
the phase sequence 共i.e., exit phase selection兲 is significant. Be- delay of stops
cause the 170E controller does not have the functionality to Exit phases Eastbound Westbound 共s/veh兲 共stops/veh兲
specify exit phases after preemption operations, however, its per- 4&8 117 共13.7兲b 125 共13.3兲 68 共4.9兲 1.8 共0.2兲
formance after EVP is limited. In addition, it was identified that a 3&8 117 共12.1兲 125 共14.4兲 68 共4.3兲 1.8 共0.2兲
kind of exit phase control by changing the phase sequence as 1&5 115 共4.7兲 123 共4.9兲 67 共2.5兲 1.8 共0.1兲
shown in Case 170-3 is able to give additional benefit beyond the 2&6 111 共8.6兲 117 共5.0兲 66 共2.4兲 1.7 共0.1兲
EVP parameter control, including the selection of different tran- No exit phasea 117 共13.0兲 129 共13.8兲 74 共4.6兲 1.8 共0.2兲
sition methods and transition cycle numbers. However, the im- a
The travel times, delay, and number of stops of the No exit phase case
pacts depend on traffic conditions during the preemption were extracted from only 40 replications.
b
operations as evidenced by the other two traffic conditions. Numbers in parenthesis 共 兲 = standard deviation.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 429

J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431

 Table 6. Travel Times and Networkwide Performance Measures Using 2070 ATC Controller
Average travel time Networkwide performance
共s兲 measures
Average
Case delay Average number of stops
Traffic condition number Eastbound Westbound 共s/veh兲 共stops/veh兲
Off-peak 2070-1 111 共6.3兲a 117 共5.0兲 66 共2.4兲 1.7 共0.1兲
2070-2 135 共11.6兲 139 共11.2兲 73 共3.7兲 2.0 共0.2兲
2070-3 103 共4.2兲 111 共4.4兲 64 共4.2兲 1.6 共0.1兲
2070-4 110 共4.6兲 118 共6.1兲 70 共2.7兲 1.7 共0.1兲
2070-5 110 共5.2兲 119 共4.6兲 70 共3.5兲 1.8 共0.1兲
Midday 2070-1 156 共7.2兲 144 共8.2兲 78 共3.5兲 3.1 共0.3兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2070-2 162 共5.2兲 161 共8.3兲 81 共2.0兲 3.1 共0.3兲

2070-3 154 共6.3兲 152 共11.3兲 83 共4.6兲 3.2 共0.3兲
2070-4 157 共14.1兲 156 共16.8兲 87 共8.4兲 3.4 共0.6兲
2070-5 164 共14.5兲 157 共21.1兲 89 共10.7兲 3.6 共0.7兲
p.m. peak 2070-1 164 共15.6兲 158 共13.9兲 99 共8.5兲 4.2 共0.7兲
2070-2 194 共16.4兲 193 共17.8兲 112 共5.6兲 5.0 共0.5兲
2070-3 166 共9.1兲 165 共14.7兲 111 共6.8兲 4.1 共0.5兲
2070-4 163 共8.2兲 158 共9.3兲 103 共5.9兲 4.4 共0.5兲
2070-5 160 共9.5兲 159 共11.7兲 100 共4.8兲 4.1 共0.4兲
a
Numbers in parenthesis 共 兲 = standard deviation.

regular phase sequence while transitioning back to coordination.
Based on this finding, the importance of applying the exit phase
control to the EVP transition methods could be emphasized.
Among the four exit phase cases, the multiple t-test using
Tukey’s method indicated that no single method was outstanding
in terms of networkwide average delay 共Mann 2004兲. Exit Phases
2 and 6, however, showed significant improvements in eastbound
and westbound travel time over the other exit phases. As a result,
Phases 2 and 6 were chosen as the exit phases for the EVP ex-
periments using the 2070 ATC controllers.
Evaluation of Transition Methods
Transition methods available in the 2070 ATC controller were
then studied using the selected exit phases. Five cases were es-
tablished for the three different transition methods—smooth, add
only, dwell with 100 s dwell time, dwell with 200 s dwell time,
and dwell with 255 s dwell time, as shown in Table 3. Three
HILS runs, each with 20 different locations in the local cycle
length for the EVP call, were made for each case. Table 6 shows
the results.
Under off-peak traffic conditions, the experimental results
show that Case 2070-3 共dwell with the maximum dwell time of
100 s兲, performed best in networkwide average delay, eastbound
travel time, and westbound travel time by approximately 2, 6, and
7 s, respectively, over the second-most effective scenario, Case
2070-1 共smooth兲. Case 2070-3’s improvements were realized
most clearly at the noncoordinated movements—the northbound,
southbound, eastbound left, and westbound left approach delays
were much lower than the other cases while eastbound and west-
bound approach delays were very similar among all cases except
Case 2070-2. In addition, by exiting to the coordinated phases, the
travel times of the major street were also reduced, as shown in
Table 6. These findings support those of Shelby et al. 共2006兲.
Under midday traffic conditions, Case 2070-1 共smooth兲 out-
performed the other cases by significant margins, improving by
approximately 3 and 8 s of average network delay and westbound
travel time, respectively, over the second-best transition method.
Under p.m. peak traffic conditions, no one transition method
stood out statistically in any of the three main MOEs, but Case
2070-1 共smooth兲 showed the least networkwide average delay. It
was thus found that the best EVP transition method may be dif-
ferent according to the traffic volume conditions and the time-of-
day 共TOD兲 plans.
The results of the experiments also show the advantages of the
2070 controller over the 170E controller in transitioning after
EVP. For example, under off-peak traffic conditions, the compari-
son between Case 170-3—the best 170E EVP transition method
from the previous section—and Case 2070-3 indicates the advan-
tages of using the 2070 controller, which is capable of specifying
exit phases after EVP. Case 2070-3’s eastbound and westbound
travel times were lower by 22 s 共17.6%兲 and 31 s 共21.8%兲, re-
spectively, than Case 170-3. The networkwide average vehicle
delay was also lower by 10 s 共13.5%兲.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This study compared various EVP transition methods using
VISSIM-based HILS at an urban corridor along Lee Jackson Me-
morial Highway 共U.S. Route 50兲 in Chantilly, Va.
In a comparison of the transition methods available in the
170E controller, Case 170-3 共shortway with three cycles and lead-
lag left turns with overlap on the cross streets兲 showed the best
networkwide and intersection-specific performance measures
under off-peak traffic conditions. No one transition method stood
out under midday and p.m. peak traffic conditions, however.
The evaluation of the transition methods available in the 2070
controller identified that Case 2070-3 共dwell with 100 s of maxi-
mum dwell time and exit Phases 2 and 6兲 yielded the best net-
workwide and intersection-specific performance measures under
off-peak traffic conditions. However, Case 2070-1 共smooth兲 per-
formed the best under midday traffic conditions. Unde p.m. peak
traffic conditions, no single transition method stood out statisti-

430 / JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008

J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431

 cally in any of the three main MOEs, while Case 2070-1 共smooth兲
yielded the least networkwide average delay.
Based on the evaluation results of this study, the following
conclusions were made:
1. The use of exit phases during the transition to coordination is
one of the key factors in the EVP transition operation. By
changing the phase sequence in the 170E controller and
using the exit phase control in the 2070 ATC controller, dis-
ruptions to normal traffic signal operations after EVP can be
significantly mitigated; and
2. The minimax class of transition methods 共e.g., smooth, short-
way兲 generally perform best, which is similar to previous
findings in the literature. In addition, the performance of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by AJOU UNIVERSITY on 03/23/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
transition methods may be dependent on the TOD plan and
traffic conditions when EVP occurs. Therefore, the EVP tran-
sition method should be selected by carefully considering the
TOD plans in use and prevalent traffic conditions.
Based on the findings from this study, several recommenda-
tions were made:
1. The cycle lengths used in the evaluations were 150 s under
off-peak traffic conditions and 200 s under peak traffic con-
ditions. Given that short cycle lengths 共i.e., less than 100 s兲
could impact EVP performance and operations differently,
future research should investigate this variable;
2. Since different exit phases worked better for certain locations
of EVP calls within the local cycle, it is recommended that
controller vendors add a feature allowing dynamic selection
of exit phases. This would help to improve transition opera-
tions after EVP;
3. There is a need to examine the impact of transition opera-
tions when an EVP call occurs on the mainline. Preliminary
experimental results on mainline EVP calls showed that the
impacts on the mainline were more significant than those on
a side street. Also, the role of exit phase control in the use of
the 2070 controller was more substantial 共Park et al. 2007兲.
There is another need for further research effort; and
4. The use of HILS in the comparison of the EVP strategies has
shown great potential in the evaluation of EVP operations.
However, the huge computational time of HILS is a signifi-
cant obstacle to overcome. As an alternative, the use of SILS
may be considered as the technology becomes more avail-
able, as suggested by Obenberger and Collura 共2001兲.
Acknowledgments
The writers thank Northern Virginia VDOT personnel for their
support during data collection and for providing information on
existing EVP strategies.
JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING © ASCE / OCTOBER 2008 / 431
J. Transp. Eng., 2008, 134(10): 423-431
References
Best, M. 共2007兲. “Evaluation of traffic controller algorithms after emer-
gency vehicle preemption.” MS thesis, Univ. of Virginia, Charlottes-
ville, Va.
BI Tran Systems, Inc. 共1994兲. Model 170E controller traffic signal pro-
gram 233 VA, Sacramento, Calif.
BI Tran Systems, Inc. 共2000兲. QuicLoad user’s manual, Sacramento,
Calif.
Cohen, D., Head, L., and Shelby, S. G. 共2007兲. “Performance analysis of
coordinated traffic signals during transition.” Proc., 86th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, TRB, National Re-
search Council, Washington, D.C.
Econolite Control Products, Inc. 共2004兲. ASC/2070 software program-
ming manual, Econolite Control Products, Inc., Anaheim, Calif.
Mann, P. S. 共2004兲. Introductory statistics, Minitab 14 manual, 5th Ed.,
Wiley, New York.
McCain/NIATT. 共2002兲. Controller interface device (CID II): User’s
manual, version 2.0, McCain Traffic Supply, Vista, Calif.
Nelson, E. J., and Bullock, D. 共2000兲. “Impact of emergency vehicle
preemption on signalized corridor operation: An evaluation.” Trans-
portation Research Record. 1727, Transportation Research Board,
Washington D.C., 1–11.
Obenberger, J., and Collura, J. 共2001兲. “Transition strategies to exit pre-
emption control: State-of-the-practice assessment.” Transportation
Research Record. 1748, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 72–79.
Obenberger, J., and Collura, J. 共2007兲. “Using software-in-the-loop simu-
lation methodology to evaluate traffic signal transition strategies em-
ployed to exit preemption control.” Proc., 86th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
Park, B., and Qi, H. 共2005兲. “Development and evaluation of simulation
model calibration procedure.” Transportation Research Record. 1934,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 208–217.
Park, B., Won, J., and Yun, I. 共2006兲. “Application of microscopic simu-
lation model calibration and validation procedure: A case study of
coordinated actuated signal system.” Transportation Research Record.
1978, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 113–122.
Park, B., Yun, I., and Best, M. 共2006兲. “Evaluation of emergency vehicle
preemption strategies on a coordinated actuated signal system using
hardware-in-the-loop simulation.” Draft Rep., Center for Transporta-
tion Studies, Univ. of Virginia, Blacksburg, Va.
Park, B., Yun, I., and Best, M. 共2007兲. “Evaluation of pre-emption and
transition strategies for Northern Virginia smart traffic signal systems
共NVSTSS兲.” Final Draft Rep., Virginia Transportation Research
Council, Va.
Planung Transport Verkehr AG. 共2005兲. VISSIM 4.10 user’s manual,
Berlin.
Shelby, S. G., Bullock, D., and Gettman, D. 共2006兲. “Transition methods
in traffic signal control.” Transportation Research Record. 1978,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 130–140.
Yun, I., Best, M., and Park, B. 共2007兲. “Evaluation of emergency vehicle
preemption strategies on a coordinated actuated signal system using
hardware-in-the-loop simulation.” Proc., 86th Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.