See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332865557

Operational performance evaluation of adaptive traffic control systems: A

Bayesian modeling approach using real-world GPS and private sector PROBE
data

Article in Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems Technology Planning and Operations · June 2019
DOI: 10.1080/15472450.2019.1614445

CITATIONS READS

38 655

3 authors, including:

Zulqarnain H. Khattak Michael D. Fontaine

Carnegie Mellon University Government of Virginia
24 PUBLICATIONS 373 CITATIONS 115 PUBLICATIONS 1,387 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Zulqarnain H. Khattak on 13 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Operational Performance Evaluation of Adaptive Traffic Control Systems : A
Bayesian Modeling Approach using GPS and Private Sector PROBE Data

Zulqarnain H. Khattak, Ph.D. a, b (Corresponding Author)

Research Associate
a
National Transportation Research Center, Oak Ridge National Lab
2360 Cherahala Blvd, Knoxville, TN 37932

b
Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia
zk6cq@virginia.edu; zhkhattak@gmail.com

Mark J. Magalotti P.E., Ph.D.c

Professor and Director Center for Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
706 Benedum Hall
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
mjm25@pitt.edu

Michael D. Fontaine P.E., Ph.D.d

Associate Director,
Virginia Transportation Research Council
530 Edgemont Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22903
Michael.Fontaine@VDOT.Virginia.gov

Accepted for Publication in Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems (In Press), 2019

1
 Abstract
This evaluation ascertained the operational impacts of the SUTRAC (Scalable Urban Traffic
Control) Adaptive Signal Control Technology (ASCT) in an urban corridor consisting of 23
intersections in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. A combination of real-world GPS floating car runs and
private sector probe data from INRIX was used to assess the impact of the ASCT. Data were
collected with the ASCT active and inactive to determine the operational impacts on the mainline
and cross streets. The ASCT was found to produce significant improvements in the number of
stops made along the corridor. On Baum and Centre, travel times improved during the AM and
PM peak in the WB direction. Speeds were also observed to improve significantly during the
Midday period on Baum EB and during the AM and PM peak periods on Baum WB. Similarly,
statistically significant improvements in speed were observed on Centre WB during the AM and
PM periods, while a statistically significant decrease in speed was observed during the Midday
period. Six months of private sector probe data was used to examine travel time reliability along
the corridor, and reliability was also found to have improved. Further, Bayesian models were
calibrated to account for variations in speeds and acceleration/deceleration, represented by
volatility. The Bayesian models revealed that driving was less volatile with the ASCT system in
operation over instantaneous periods, which also points towards improved operations. The
findings of this study are generally consistent with past evaluations of other ASCTs, indicating
that the SURTRAC system is another potential tool for managing congestion on signalized urban
arterial networks.

Keywords
GPS floating car, Adaptive traffic control, Bayesian Modeling, Volatility, SURTRAC, Travel
time reliability.

1. Introduction & Motivation

Traffic congestion is one of the preeminent problems faced by the field of transportation and
traffic engineering all across the world. Congestion can contribute to crashes and reduces
economic productivity. Although congestion remains a problem, capacity expansion is often not
economically feasible, especially in major cities. As a result, many transportation agencies have
sought to optimize the performance of existing infrastructure through the use of intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) (Khattak, Park, Hong, Boateng, & Smith, 2018).
According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), one way to alleviate
congestion is to improve signal timing plans (Federal Highway Administration, 2012). The state-
of-the-practice is to develop signal timing plans using turning movement counts collected
periodically. If timing plans are not updated regularly, intersection performance may become
suboptimal as traffic patterns change over time. Even if timing plans are updated regularly,
traditional actuated control still has difficulty adjusting to unusual changes in flow due to
incidents, special events, or weather changes. Adaptive signal control technology (ASCT) is a
novel ITS technology (Sussman, 2008) that has the ability to detect traffic at a particular
intersection in real-time, optimizing corridor performance based on current conditions. There are
numerous types of adaptive traffic signal systems available, each one with some unique features
as shown in Table 1. Each of these different types of signals use their own optimization
algorithm; some having the ability to use continuous optimization and adjust to live traffic each
second while others adapt only as frequently as every ten or fifteen minutes.

2
Table 1 Summary of Characteristics of Selected ASCT Systems

System Detection Type Optimization Method

SCOOT (Split Cycle Exit loops SCOOT collects data from detectors upstream of an intersection to
Offset Optimization construct a traffic profile that is fed into three optimizers continuously
Technique) adapting three key parameters (split, offset and cycle length) based on
minimizing the wasted green time. The coordination pattern repeats
every 2.5 or 5 minutes. (Infra, 2016)
SCATS (Sydney Stop bar loops SCATS uses real time vehicular data from detectors to develop
Coordinated Adaptive optimum plans for an entire network rather than individual
Traffic System) intersections by minimizing vehicular delays through optimization of
cycle length, splits, and offsets every cycle. (NSW, 2018)
RHODES (Regional Fully actuated RHODES uses real time data and a traffic flow arrival model to
Hierarchical Optimized calculate the load on each link. Splits are optimized based on the
Distributed Effective probability of vehicle arrivals and an objective of minimizing average
System) delay. The process is repeated second by second. (Pitu Mirchandani &
Head, 2001)
UTOPIA (Urban Fully actuated UTOPIA uses field data to perform real time optimization of signal
Traffic Optimization settings (splits and phase sequence) by minimizing socioeconomic cost
by Integration in terms of congestion and emissions. Optimization is repeated every 3
Automation) sec and per cycle. (Swarco, 2016)
OPAC (Optimization Exit loops OPAC uses predictive optimization with a rolling horizon to minimize
Policies on Adaptive total intersection delay and stops by optimizing offsets and cycle
Control) length. The optimization time frame is per phase, cycle or 5 minutes.
(Gartner, 2002)
SURTRAC (Scalable Radar and SURTRAC uses real time data for a schedule driven approach while
Urban Traffic Control) video looking at each intersection individually to optimize signal timings
second by second over an extended horizon. Optimization is based on
minimizing waiting time, travel time and environmental pollution. (S.
Smith, Barlow, Xie, & Rubinstein, 2013)

These various systems have been examined in several studies. A study regarding the
Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic system (SCATS) in Park City, Utah compared the
performance of coordinated time-of-day signal timing to SCATS. A before study was conducted
on Time of Day (TOD) coordinated signals, however a post-SCATS evaluation could not occur
until two years after the original before study. As a result, performance of the system was
evaluated using an off and on technique that compared a coordinated time-of-day plan with
SCATS. The results suggested that performance gains with SCATS active were measurably
greater than those with SCATS off for travel time and number of stops. The relevance of an off
on technique in place of a before after study was analyzed and results showed that the two
datasets behaved consistently 62.5% of the time hence, concluding that the values provide a basis
of support for using the off data which better represent the before signal timings on an after
network (Kergaye, Stevanovic, & Martin, 2010b). Kergaye, Stevanovic, & Martin, (2010a) again
used the same before SCATS data and off/on data for comparison with a microsimulation model
build in VISSIM and found similar results for performance gains of SCATS. They concluded
that a well calibrated microsimulation model can accurately reflect field conditions, but such an
effort can be very challenging.
Several researchers (Chilukuri, Perrin, & Martin, 2004; Slavin, Feng, Figliozzi, &
Koonce, 2013; Tian, Ohene, & Hu, 2011) evaluated ASCT’s for arterial progression and travel
time improvement along signalized corridors. Tian et al. demonstrated that no significant

3
improvements in arterial progression were achieved with SCATS under normal traffic conditions
at a major signalized arterial in Las Vegas. The authors concluded that the video detection used
may have impaired performance. Chilukuri et al. evaluated SCOOT performance in a simulated
environment with two real world and one test network to quantify the additional benefits of
adapting to varying traffic during incidents. They found that during a 45min incident, SCOOT
reduced network delay, travel time, intersection delay and queue length by 28.3%, 22.8%, 30.7%
and 22.4% relative to an optimized time of day plan.
Slavin et al. evaluated SCATS and its impact on transit performance on Powell
Boulevard in Portland, Oregon in terms of traffic volume, speed and travel time. Traffic speeds
were found to have improved at one minor intersection, even with a statistically significant
increase in traffic volume. Travel times were found to have decreased on average by 33 s and 24
s during off peak periods in both the eastbound and westbound direction, while travel time
increased in westbound direction by 110 s during peak period. It was concluded that transit
service performance was not negatively affected by SACTS and improvements available through
SCATS varied at different times of the day and in different travel directions.
Another study (Hu et al., 2015) evaluated the Insync ASCT performance based on probe
data and found that ASCT reduced delays by 25% and improved travel time reliability by 16%
using buffer index as a measure of effectiveness. Day et al. summarized the results of a case
study from West Virginia using a 19-intersection system operating under a special event scenario
by comparing time of day operation with ACST and concluded that ACS LITE was found to
reduce congestion at the individual intersection level, with slight improvements over both TOD
and Traffic Responsive (TR) control. The magnitude of improvement was small compared with
the replacement of TOD with TR control, however, because of the ability of TR to select cycle
lengths in relation to traffic volume (Day et al., 2012). Some studies (Khattak, Fontaine, &
Boateng, 2018; Khattak, Fontaine, Smith, & Ma, 2019; Khattak, Magalotti, & Fontaine, 2017)
have also looked at the driver behavior and safety effects of ASCTs.
A study regarding SURTRAC (Scalable Urban Traffic Control) was conducted by its
developers, and mainly focused on explaining the architecture of SURTRAC and its
functionality along with providing some brief descriptions of its implementation to a nine-
intersection grid network. That study concluded that major reductions in travel times and
emissions were achieved, but no statistical evaluation was performed (S. F. Smith, Barlow, Xie,
& Rubinstein, 2013). As a result, there is no objective performance information available on the
performance of this system. The research documented in this paper evaluates the performance of
SURTRAC on a network in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to help fill this gap. The system was
assessed using a combination of real-world GPS floating car runs and private sector probe travel
time data from INRIX.

2. SURTRAC ALGORITM
SURTRAC (SCALABLE URBAN TRAFFIC Control) is an adaptive traffic signal system
developed by the Robotics Institute of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU). According to its
developers, SURTRAC acts as a decentralized type of adaptive traffic signal (Robotics Institute,
2013). The process diagram of SURTRAC is shown in Figure 1. SURTRAC looks at each
intersection individually, optimizing the flow of approaching traffic at individual intersections,
and uses this schedule for deciding when to switch green phases and how to allocate green time
based on these real time traffic flows. The projected outflow is then communicated to the
neighboring intersections to anticipate incoming vehicles.

4
 The architecture of SURTRAC consists of detectors (mainly video cameras) that
interface with other vehicle sensors such as stop bar detectors and advance detectors for traffic
far from intersection to process real time (live) data into messages to be further processed. The
main detection of this system is through video and radar, but this system also uses loop data for
the exit link, stop bars near intersection for the entry link, and some advance detectors far away
from the intersection. All of these detections are combined and then processed into messages.
The data is then sent to a communicator that forms an interface between a scheduler and executor
at neighboring intersections. The scheduler continuously receives live data and creates its own
phase schedule, the leading portion of which is sent to the executor for controlling the traffic
signal. The executor interfaces with the signal controller and when the SURTRAC is active, the
controller is configured to receive calls only from SURTRAC. The executor determines the end
on continuation of current phase based on calls.

Scheduler Executor Controller

Communicator Detector Sensors

SURTRAC INTERSECTION

Neighboring Intersections

Figure 1 Process Diagram for SURTRAC (S. F. Smith et al., 2013)

Adaptive traffic control usually follows one of two approaches: (a) aggregating detector
data to provide central control for the network, which may limit real-time responsiveness or (b)
performing local intersection control using static and predetermined coordination plans. Both of
these approaches have proven effective in arterial settings when there is a single dominant flow
of traffic, however they may be less effective in urban grid networks. In general, the SURTRAC
has three distinguishing features (S. F. Smith et al., 2013). First, SURTRAC uses a totally
decentralized approach as opposed to centralized control of other ASCT systems. This increases

5
responsiveness to real-time traffic conditions at individual intersections (S. F. Smith et al., 2013).
Another aspect is the responsiveness to changing dynamics of traffic conditions in real-time (S.
F. Smith et al., 2013). This enables computation of intersection control plans that optimize actual
traffic inflows. SURTRAC reformulates optimization problem as a single machine scheduling
problem to compute near optimal intersection control plans over an extended horizon on a
second by second basis. Lastly, SURTRAC is designed to work best for urban grid like networks
(S. F. Smith et al., 2013), which have multiple competing and dominant flows that experience
dynamic shifts throughout the day. These types of dynamic dominant flows cannot be pre-
determined. Further, a tight coordination is needed for urban grid networks that have densely
spaced intersections. Such densely spaced intersections combined with multiple competing flows
presents a huge challenge for real-time intersection control. The dominant flows at individual
intersections are dynamically determined by SURTRAC through continuous communication of
projected outflows to neighboring intersections (similar to the earlier PRODYN system (Barriere,
Farges, & Henry, 1986). This real-time information allows SURTRAC to locally balance
competing inflows and establish larger “green corridors”. Further, a spillback prevention
mechanism (S. F. Smith et al., 2013) is augmented with the basic coordination protocol,
detecting and preventing unnecessary spillback in advance of its occurrence while phase changes
are being accelerated. In case of spillback, the basic protocol estimates the queue length across
intersections and clears the highly congested links efficiently, provided it’s allowed by the
downstream intersections.

2.1 Mathematical Description

SURTRAC uses an optimization framework termed schedule driven intersection control (SchIC)
(Xie, Smith, Lu, & Barlow, 2012). This approach achieves a near optimal solution, and its
novelty lies in the effective utilization of route flow information which strengthens solving
efficiency. Additionally, the schedule driven approach utilizing real time route inflows makes
SURTRAC well-suited for urban grid networks with multiple competing dominant flows
throughout the day.
The optimization process is briefly explained in this section, but readers interested in
details are encouraged to refer to several references that detail the SURTRAC algorithm written
by its developers (S. F. Smith et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2012). Considering a signalized
intersection with a set of entry and exit approaches, the signal can be defined by the phase design
(Xie et al., 2012) containing a set of phases J. Here each phase index j ϵ [1, |J|] corresponds to
the right of way for route j (Xie et al., 2012). The signal timing specifications contain a set of
operating constraints on the phase switching process (Xie et al., 2012) to ensure safety and
fairness for all vehicles:
1. Phase change indicates a switch in phases within cycles (P. Mirchandani & Head, 2001).,
i.e. the next phase of j is the next(j)=(j+1) modulo (|J|).
j j j j
2. Each phase j has a variable duration between [Gmin , Gmax ], where Gmin , Gmax are
minimum and maximum green times for phase j.
3. Each switch from phase i to the next (j) requires a fixed integration time Y (j) , known as
the effective clearance interval (Sen, S., Head, 1997) during which no vehicles can leave
the intersection.
Each actual phase (Xie et al., 2012) is defined as (j, g), or g (j) , in which j is the
phase index, g is a variable for phase duration. A phase switching sequence is defined as a

6
sequence of phases (Xie et al., 2012), given an initial phase condition (j c , g c ), (Bell, 1992) where
jc , is the current green index and g c is the time that the current phase jc has been green. The
intersection control is realized by iteratively extending the existing traffic light phase switching
sequence (TL-PSS) before its finish time on a rolling horizon basis (Bell, 1992; Newell, 1998) to
utilize flow information in a limited prediction horizon (Hp ).
The input parameters (Xie et al., 2012) for intersection optimization include basic
operating constraints, route flow information, and related setting parameters. The operating
constraints include signal specifications and current phase condition (jc , g c ). Similarly, the route
flow includes queue size q(j) and temporal arrival distribution (P. Mirchandani & Head, 2001) of
(j)
vehicles between [0, Hp ] on route j, given the origin time point is located at the stop line of
|j| (j)
intersection. The maximum prediction horizon is Hp = maxj=1 Hp .
The setting parameters, including startup lost time and saturation flow rate, (Xie et al.,
2012) are constant for each intersection optimization process and the signal control in the
optimization horizon (Ho ) while the temporal values are rounded into number of time steps by
dividing by a fixed time resolution (∆) (Robertson & Bretherton, 1974). In a given time
resolution ∆, the underlying state space Ω can be described by a decision tree (Porche &
Lafortune, 1999; Robertson & Bretherton, 1974; Shelby, 2004). Each PSS is built from time 0
(the root node), and the state at its finish time is a partial solution with an objective value of
cumulative delay (d). Further, each state is called a clearance state if it is able to clear all vehicles
in the prediction horizon. For the complete decision tree, the optimal solution is the one with the
minimal cumulative delay among all leaf states with a finish time of Ho# , which could be longer
than Hp for saturated flow conditions. Without the loss of optimality, sufficiently long
optimization horizon |Ho | = |Ho |∆ can be used to limit the finish time of states. A challenge
here is that the size of the state space Ω increases exponentially (Xie et al., 2012) with |Ho |=
Ho |∆, showing the number of steps in Ho .
The intersection optimization is based on control model of (Xie et al., 2012), an
optimization procedure, extension decision, and a static component for TL-PSS implementation.
The control model has two functions; formation of an actual state space (𝒟) that is a subspace of
the underlying state space Ω and transition and evaluation of the states in 𝒟. The optimization
procedure tries to find a nearly optimal solution in 𝒟 through search optimization strategies. The
extension decision outputs a time duration ext ≥ 0 based on the solution obtained by
optimization procedure. According to the basic operating constraints, TL-PSS is implemented
using a rolling interval by using a static repair rule (Kim, C.O., Park, & Baek, 2005; Porche &
(ic)
Lafortune, 1999). If ext > 0 then the current phase is extended to g c = min(g c + ext, Gmax ). If
(ic) (ic)
g c = Gmax or ext = 0, then the current phase is terminated, and a new phase (in , Gmax ) is added
where in = next(ic ) after the inter-green time Y (ic ) .

3. Scope and Contributions

The objective of this study was to provide a first quantitative performance evaluation of the
SURTRAC adaptive signal control technology since an objective performance evaluation of
SURTRAC currently does not exist. Although past studies have examined various ASCT
systems, each ASCT system operates using its own unique algorithm. Thus, any benefits or
degradation in performance observed for one particular system cannot be generalized for another
7
disparate system. This makes it imperative to conduct the performance assessment of SURTRAC
system. The performance evaluation was conducted using instrumented probes in real-world and
six months of private sector INRIX data. Unfortunately, no granular Bluetooth data was
available on the corridor. Some of the major contributions of this study includes:
• No objective study exists on the performance assessment of SURTRAC. Performance
gains from other ASCT systems may not be generalized for SURTRAC system. Thus, the
performance evaluation of SURTRAC will serve a base for future comparisons with other
systems and help agencies in making deployment decisions about these systems.
• Past studies have conducted before-after performance evaluation of other ASCT systems
but with a time lapse between the before and after period, however, this study conducted
a field evaluation with the system on and off to provide a more realistic assessment. Field
studies are hard to conduct and highly valuable compared to simulations.
• Most of the past studies have conducted mainline performance evaluation but neglected
side streets. It is usually expected that improvements in mainline may come at the cost of
side street performance. This study therefore, also provides the performance evaluation
for side streets along with the mainline to assess whether any benefits across mainline
may be offset by the side street performance. The side street performance points towards
the unique algorithm of SURTRAC and how control parameters across the individual
intersections affect the side street performance.
• Additionally, the study used INRIX data for reliability analysis along with real-world
data. While past studies have either used INRIX or field data with a time lapse between
the comparison periods (which may bias the results), performance using both sources has
rarely been conducted. The performance over longer periods for travel time reliability
may establish more confidence and help in making future deployment decisions for
SURTRAC.
• While variations in speeds and accelerations are important, this study also applied
rigorous Bayesian modeling to assess the impact of ASCT on driving volatility. It is
expected that ASCT may reduce such variations by harmonizing the flow of traffic. The
measure of volatility, expressed through variations in speeds and accelerations and
decelerations would provide insights about how ASCT influence instantaneous driving
over time.

4.Evaluation Methodology
4.1 Site Description
Baum Boulevard and Centre Avenue form two of the busiest and most important routes in the
City of Pittsburgh. There are 23 intersections in the Baum/Centre corridor which have been
converted to operate with the SURTRAC adaptive traffic signals. The length of the study
corridor is 7.5 miles, and is shown in Figure 2. Both the study routes are undivided roads with
two 12 feet lanes in each direction of travel. At some locations, on street parking limits the routes
to a single lane of travel in each direction. Bicyclists are also allowed to use the traffic lanes for
some part of the route. The speed limit on the study corridor is 35 mph, and the routes serve as
the central access routes to residential settings in the University and Central Business District.
The corridor experiences high traffic flow, averaging 35000 vehicles for the combined AM, Mid-
day, PM and Evening Peak hours. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for Baum

8
Boulevard is 16409 and the AADT for Centre Avenue is 8897. The conversion of time of day
coordinated signals to SURTRAC was a two-phase project where phase 1 involved retiming and
renewal of existing signal equipment that ended in Dec 2014. During phase 2, the system was
converted to SURTRAC in August 2015. Hence, any improvements in performance are likely
due to the conversion to ASCT and not significantly outdated timing planes in the “before”
period.

Figure 2 Baum/Centre SURTRAC Intersections in Pittsburgh

4.2. GPS Floating Car Data Collection

Travel time runs using the floating car method were conducted in each direction, with and
without the SUTRAC in operation. In early September 2015, the system was first turned off to
operate with the time of day coordinated plans present before SURTRAC was installed. In late
September and early October 2015, the SURTRAC system was activated and travel runs were
conducted (Z. H. Khattak, 2016). Since the system was turned off and on for the study and data
was collected within a period of two months, a true comparison was established between the base
time of day coordinated system and the ASCT. The GPS Tracks mobile app was used for
collection of travel data for each run. The GPS app recorded instantaneous data every second,
using the WGS-1984 coordinate system with high precision for navigation purposes. Data were
collected on the mainline and crossing routes to assess the impact of the ASCT on operations.
These routes shown in Fig 3 were selected because they covered all of the intersections and
driving movements influencing the SURTRAC performance and represented a traditional
progression along the primary routes as well as crossing routes through the grid system.
Six floating car runs were conducted during each of the AM peak (8-9 AM), Mid-day
(12-1 PM) and PM peak (4-5 PM) on weekdays, and for each of the crossing and corridor control
routes, producing a total of 72 travel runs. The mobile app recorded GPS traces of the travel runs
as shown in Figure 3. The GPS traces had instantaneous travel data along each of the route,
which was separated into Eastbound and Westbound movements for both the parallel routes

9
(Baum/Centre). This data was processed to determine desired performance measures such as
travel times, speed, and number of stops (which was defined as instances where speed dropped
below 3 mph). The desired performance parameters were then evaluated for significant
improvements in congestion and statistical tests were conducted to judge the significance of any
improvements achieved.
The before and after data were first analyzed for any differences by day of the week to
determine whether there was any statistically significant variability in the performance
parameters based on different days of the week. Since day of week was not found to be a
significant factor in performance, the data was pooled across days of the week and performance
measures were tested using paired t-tests with a null hypothesis of zero difference between the
means of any two performance measures being compared.

a) Corridor for Mainline routes of Baum and Centre b) Crossing for Side-street evaluation

Figure 3 Corridor and Crossing GPS Tracks of Drive Run

4.3 INRIX Probe Data

While the GPS floating car runs provide very detailed data on vehicle trajectory, the quantity of
data available was limited due to manpower constraints. In order to examine long-term
performance, probe data from INRIX was utilized as an additional source for examining data
over time. Several studies have shown that INRIX data passes accuracy benchmarks and can be
used for performance evaluation (Fontaine, 2012; Haghani, Hamedi, & Parvan, 2013). In
contrast to the GPS floating car data, INRIX provides estimates of mean speed and travel time on
roadway links (called traffic message channel or TMC links) and does not contain individual
vehicle level information. Thus, it can be a useful source for looking at average performance but
cannot be used to evaluate performance measures like stops.
INRIX generates their estimates by processing anonymous location information collected
from cars, trucks, taxis and other type of vehicles, as well as GPS enabled smartphones. The

10
INRIX data was accessed through the University of Maryland’s CATT Lab system known as the
Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS). The INRIX data was only
available for one of the routes in study corridor (Baum Boulevard), which was aggregated into
60-minute intervals from January to June 2015 in the before period and from January to June
2016 in the after period to have a true comparison that addresses seasonal variations in travel.
Since the time of day signals were updated to adaptive signals in August 2015, ample time was
allowed for the ASCT system to reach equilibrium prior to the after-period data collection. The
data was separated for the eastbound and westbound direction based on the TMC’s recording
data for each time stamp along the section of roadway. Data were evaluated using the same time
periods as the floating car data: AM (8-9AM), Mid-day (12-1 PM) and PM (4-5PM).
The INRIX data relies on probe vehicles traversing the section, and reports travel
time on discrete sections called traffic message channel (TMC) links. During certain periods,
there might be an insufficient number of probes to generate reliable travel times. For example,
during overnight periods, there might be no traffic on the network. In such instances, the travel
times are reported using historical average data during the daytime or free flow speeds overnight.
The vendor provides confidence scores when data is not based on real-time information, and
those data points were removed from the analysis. Only real-time data (INRIX confidence score
of 30) was used in the analysis. A total of 8 TMCs were present on the study section. For this
analysis, travel time data were initially accessed for 15-min intervals and each of these 15-min
intervals were segregated into three time of day periods. Real-time data availability was
generally high during daytime periods, with 87%, 86%, and 89% of TMCs reporting real time
data during the AM peak, Midday, and PM peak, respectively). Only real time data with score of
30 was included in the analysis. Usually, high traffic is expected to lead to high travel times and
ultimately a high planning time index. However, since the data was broken up by time of day
into three periods, which includes both high and normal traffic, the non-real-time data is not
expected to affect daytime results significantly. After screening and processing the INRIX data,
the speed and travel time results were compared to the GPS floating car data, and then a travel
time reliability analysis was conducted. The INRIX data was used to determine the planning time
index because it accounts for both expected delays and unexpected delays. The performance
measures for travel time reliability included the 95th percentile travel time and planning time
index. The 95th percentile travel time is considered to be the simplest measure of reliability.
According to FHWA, the planning time index (PTI) is calculated as a ratio of the 95th percentile
to the ideal (free flow) travel time. The PTI is sometimes described as a way to show how early
someone would need to leave for work if they could only be late one weekday per month. The
PTI equation is:
95𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 (1)
For this paper, the free flow travel time is defined as the travel time through the corridor
at the posted speed limit. Travel time reliability plays an important role as a performance
measure because travelers are more concerned about non-recurring congestion and they want to
know about unexpected delays on the worst travel days. Hence, quantifying the improvements in
travel time reliability in a before and after study can play a major role in traffic and congestion
management. Furthermore, ASCT is often expected to outperform time-of-day signals during
these unexpected events since they can more dynamically allocate green time when nonrecurring
congestion occurs. If traffic is consistent and predictable, mean travel times for ASCT and a
well-timed time of day system may be similar.

11
4.4 Bayesian Modeling and Volatility
Volatility reflects the three-dimensional vehicular movements and erratic movements that can
lead to safety risks, lower comfort, and efficiency issues related to fuel consumption and
emissions. The response variable of driving volatility (Kamrani, Ramin, & Khattak, 2018; Wang,
Khattak, Liu, Masghati-amoli, & Son, 2015) is defined as deviation from normal driving
expressed as dispersion or variations in driving regimes (e.g. acceleration, deceleration, and
speed). Coefficient of variation was used as measure of volatility in this study since past studies
(Kamrani et al., 2018; A. J. Khattak & Wali, 2017; Wang et al., 2015) have shown this metric to
best represent the variations in driving regimes over time in terms of volatility. The authors
believe that volatility is a relevant measure of effectiveness (MOE) for traffic control since
adaptive traffic control is expected to harmonize traffic and reduce speed variations by extending
green times over successive intersections, resulting in fewer stops. Thus, volatility can be used to
represent the effectiveness of ASCT in terms of creating improved uniformity of flow.
Coefficient of variation, a measure of volatility shows the relative measure of dispersion, given
by the ratio of standard deviation to the mean shown in equation (Kamrani et al., 2018):
𝑆.𝐷
𝐶𝑣 = 𝑥̅ ∗ 100% (2)

Where S.D. is the standard deviation and 𝑥̅ represents the sample mean for speed and
acceleration-deceleration. Acceleration-deceleration in this case were derived from speed values.
Bayesian regression models (Ahmed, Franke, Ksaibati, & Shinstine, 2018) are used to
determine the relation between the response variable of volatility and explanatory variables such
as AADT, speed limit, intersection type etc. This analysis used speed data taken from GPS
trajectories for a total of 72 drive runs, while AADT was extracted from Pennsylvania roadway
shapefiles available through Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) and geometrics
were analyzed from Google maps. The measures of volatility were estimated over discrete
segments around each intersection, defined as segments extending 0.2 miles from the center of
each intersection.
A Bayesian regression model can handle both binary and continuous variables. Classical
regression treats model parameters as fixed while the unknown data and the constant estimates
the unknown value of the parameters. The Bayesian approach treats the parameters as random
variables and the data is utilized to update beliefs about the behavior of parameters in order to
assess their distributional properties. Bayesian inference derives updated posterior probabilities
of the parameters and constructs credibility intervals that have a natural interpretation in terms of
probability. Additionally, Bayesian inference also deals with overfitting issues when the number
of observations is limited and the number of variables is large.
Assuming the response variable y has the outcome of volatility and the explanatory
variables includes exposure and geometric variables, then the equation for linear regression is
expressed as:
𝑦 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽𝑗 𝑋𝑗 (3)
Where 𝛽0 represents the intercept, 𝛽𝑗 is the vector of coefficients for explanatory
variables, and 𝑋𝑗 is the vector of explanatory variables.
Bayesian analysis offers the advantage of choosing the prior probability distribution and
their family. The common form of priors with normal distribution was utilized, given by:
𝛽~𝑁(𝜇𝑗 , 𝜎𝑗2 ) (4)

12
 Where μj is zero and σ is chosen to be large enough to be considered non-informative,
common values being 𝜎 = 10 − 1000.
The posterior distribution was then derived using Bayes theorem by multiplying the prior
distribution over all parameters by full likelihood function,
𝑝 1
𝑃𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 = 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 . (𝜋𝑗=0 exp(𝛽𝑗 − 𝜇𝑗 ) (5)
√ 2𝜋𝜎
𝑗
Since there is no closed form expression for the above equation, multiple iterations are
required to obtain marginal distribution for each coefficient. Thus, Monte Carlo Markov Chains
(MCMC) that contains the approximate posterior distribution of samples by Gibbs sampling and
adaptive rejection of 10,000 samples were utilized. Further, 95% Bayesian Credible Interval
(95% BCI) was used to assess the significance of covariates. It provides probability
interpretations with normality assumptions on unknowns and confidence interval estimations
(Ahmed et al., 2018). The Deviance information criteria DIC, which is a Bayesian generalization
of Akaike information Criteria is used to measure model complexity and fit.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1.GPS Floating Car Evaluation
The GPS traces of each travel run were post processed using the GPS Babel and Viking software
packages. The evaluation criteria for the corridor runs was processed and separated into
Eastbound and Westbound for both Centre Avenue and Baum Boulevard, and the crossings
criteria was used to double check the critical locations and evaluate side street performance. The
desired performance parameters of speed, stops and travel time for the AM Peak, Mid-day and
PM peak were evaluated. The differences that were significant at a 95% confidence level (p-
value < 0.05) and those at 90% confidence level (p-value <0.1) are shown in bold with * and **
in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 6. Further, Bayesian models were used to assess the impact of ASCT on
driving volatility. The results of these analyses are discussed in more detail in the following
sections.
5.1.1 Travel Time
Travel time data before and after SUTRAC activation is shown in Figure 4. It was observed that
SURTRAC often improved travel times on Baum Boulevard. The highest improvement observed
was in westbound direction during both in the AM and PM peaks, with 25% and 33% reductions
in travel time, respectively. Travel time in the eastbound direction remained somewhat constant.
Similarly, it was observed that travel time is often reduced on Centre Ave, with the highest
improvement observed during the AM peak in westbound direction. Travel time is also observed
to be reduced during the PM peak but remains somewhat constant during the mid-day period.
The results showing statistical significance are provided in Table 2. The t-tests showed
statistically significant reductions in travel time on Baum westbound in the AM and PM peak
and on Centre WB during the AM and PM periods. The small sample size acted as a limitation to
determining statistical significance in these data sets.

13
 Baum Travel Time Centre Ave Travel Time
500 1000
TRAVEL TIME (SEC)

TRAVEL TIME (SEC)

400 800
300 600
200 400
100
200
0
0
After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)
Before (WB)

Before (EB)

Before (WB)

Before (EB)

Before (WB)

Before (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)
Before (EB)

Before (EB)

Before (EB)
Before (WB)

Before (WB)
Before (WB)
AM MID-DAY PM AM MID-DAY PM

Figure 4 Baum/ Centre Ave Travel Time

Table 2 P-values for t-tests on Travel time (t-test)

Time Period P-value of t-test on Travel Time

Baum WB Baum EB Centre WB Centre EB
AM Peak 0.042* 0.11 0.03* 0.1
Midday 0.25 0.15 0.2 0.3
PM Peak 0.06** 0.15 0.07** 0.2
*Significant at 95% confidence level, **Significant at 90% confidence level

5.1.2 Travel Speed

The GPS floating car speed data is provided in Figure 5, and is consistent with the travel time
analysis. The travel speed for AM and PM peak often improved following the deployment of
adaptive traffic signals in both the eastbound and westbound directions for Baum Boulevard
while during mid–day, the speed remains somewhat constant. Similarly, for the Centre Avenue
improvement was observed in both the AM and PM peaks. The results showed that the
eastbound and westbound directions had a very small change in travel speeds during the mid-
day. The highest improvement was observed in the westbound direction during the AM peak,
which is about 83%. This is expected because it is the predominant direction of flow in the AM
peak. The results showing statistical significance are provided in Table 3. Statistically significant
improvements in speeds were observed on Baum EB during Midday period, and on Baum WB
during the AM and PM peak periods. Similarly, statistically significant improvements were
observed on Centre WB during AM and PM periods, while a statistically significant decrease in
speed was observed during Midday period.

14
 Baum Travel Speed Centre Ave Travel Speed
20 16
14

SPEED (MPH)
15 12
10
SPEED (MPH)

10 8
6
5 4
2
0 0

After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

Before (EB)
After (EB)
Before (EB)

Before (WB)

Before (EB)

Before (WB)
After (EB)

After (EB)

After (EB)
After (WB)

After (WB)

After (WB)
Before (EB)

Before (WB)

Before (EB)

Before (WB)

Before (EB)

Before (WB)
Before (WB)

AM MID-DAY PM AM MID-DAY PM

Figure 5 Baum/Centre Ave Travel Speeds

Table 3 P-values for t-tests on Speed

Time Period P-value of t-test on Speed

Baum WB Baum EB Centre WB Centre EB
AM Peak 0.007* 0.10 0.008* 0.2
Midday 0.31 0.02* 0.01* 0.4
PM Peak 0.05* 0.18 0.08** 0.4
*Significant at 95% confidence level, **Significant at 90% confidence level

5.1.3 Number of Stops

Vehicular stops are often a good indicator of the quality of flow, and are typically assumed to be
correlated with the potential for rear end collisions. Since there is inherent measurement error in
GPS data, it is difficult to measure the number of stops made with complete accuracy. As a
result, stops were defined as the instance when a vehicle’s speed dropped below 3 miles per
hour. The number of stops made by the test vehicles during the travel study on Baum/Centre
Avenue corridors before and after ASCT deployment are provided in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows
that the ASCT provided a significant improvement in terms of number of stops. The number of
stops were observed to be reduced in all time periods and during both directions of travel. The
highest reduction in number of stops observed is around 67% on Baum Boulevard during the
AM peak and 73% for the westbound direction during the AM peak on Centre Ave. The results
showing statistical significance are provided in Table 4. All reductions were statistically
significant except for the PM peak on Baum WB and the Midday period for Baum EB and
Centre WB.

15
 Baum Number of Stops Centre Ave Number of Stops
9 16
8 14
NUMBER OF STOPS

7 12
6 10

NUMBER OD STOPS
5
8
4
6
3
2 4
1 2
0 0

After (WB)

After (EB)

After (WB)

After (EB)

Before (WB)
After (WB)

After (EB)
Before (EB)

Before (WB)

Before (EB)

Before (EB)
Before (WB)
After (WB)
After (EB)

After (EB)

After (EB)
After (WB)

After (WB)
Before (EB)

Before (EB)

Before (EB)
Before (WB)

Before (WB)

Before (WB)

AM MID-DAY PM AM MID-DAY PM

Figure 6 Baum/ Centre Ave Number of Stops

Table 4 P-values for t-tests on number of stops

Time Period P-value of t-test on Number of Stops

Baum WB Baum EB Centre WB Centre EB
AM Peak 0.02* 0.01* 0.02* 0.05*
Midday 0.004* 0.2 0.1 0.06**
PM Peak 0.2 0.08** 0.09** 0.06**
*Significant at 95% confidence level, **Significant at 90% confidence level

5.1.4 Side Street Performance

One concern with adaptive signals is that they can improve performance on the mainline at the
cost of side street performance. As a result, side street performance was also evaluated moving
along the mainline of Centre and Baum using speed and travel time. The side streets on the
corridor connect the two routes (Baum Boulevard and Centre Avenue), as shown in Figure 2 (b).
Most of the side streets were evaluated crossing both the mainline routes repeatedly and
conducting runs throughout the corridor in similar way until all cross streets were covered. These
were then separated from the GPX data files for each street. The side street approaches at Baum
and Centre that were evaluated included:

• NB and SB South Negley Street

• NB and SB South Aiken and Liberty
• NB Morewood Ave
• SB South Milvale Ave
• NB and SB Cypress Street
The results for before and after comparison of above-mentioned side streets are shown in Tables
5 and 6.

16
 Table 5 Side Street Performance Evaluation

Street Before Speed Before Travel After Speed After Travel Time
(mph) Time (sec) (mph) (sec)
South Negley (N) 6.78 79.33 10.71 57.33
South Negley(S) 6.11 60.00 6.79 57.67
South Aiken & Liberty (N) 10.77 52.00 14.50 35.00
South Aiken & Liberty (S) 9.03 85.00 18.04 43.33
Morewood Avenue 7.50 101.67 9.86 59.00
South Milvale Ave (S) 4.81 100.33 8.67 75.00
Cypress Steet (N) 9.94 53.33 13.53 34.67
Cypress Steet (S) 5.93 52.00 9.34 32.33

Table 6 P-Values for t-tests on Side Street Performance Measures

Street Speed p-value Travel Time p-Value

South Negley (N) 0.04* 0.05*
South Negley(S) 0.3 0.1
South Aiken & Liberty (N) 0.03* 0.03*
South Aiken & Liberty (S) 0.1 0.02*
Morewood Avenue 0.1 0.04*
South Milvale Ave (S) 0.03* 0.05*
Cypress Steet (N) 0.05* 0.06*
Cypress Steet (S) 0.04* 0.03*
*Significant at 95% confidence level, **Significant at 90% confidence level

The side streets were evaluated for all three time of day periods, but the results provided
in Table 5 are the average of all three periods. From Table 5, ASCT provided consistent
improvements in side street operation across all sites. Thus, the mainline benefits that were
observed did not come at a cost of increased delay on the side streets. This performance over the
side streets may be attributed to SURTRAC’s algorithm that handles conflicts at each
intersection individually. The decentralized nature of SURTRAC looks each intersection
individually and then allocates green times based on changing demand. The demand information
is also passed to next intersection to anticipate the incoming traffic. This decentralized
assessment may be responsible for reducing the queues at side streets and reveals how control at
individual intersections benefits the overall performance.

5.2 Probe Data Evaluation and Travel Time Reliability

Figure 7 compares the travel time data on Baum collected from INRIX to the GPS floating car
data discussed earlier. The INRIX data generally shows longer travel times than the GPS floating
car data, but trends in before and after performance are generally consistent. Figure 7 shows a
reduction in travel time in all the three time of day periods (AM, Mid-day and PM peak) and in
both the westbound and eastbound direction on Baum after deployment of ASCT system using
the INRIX data. However, the GPS tracks show reductions in only the WB direction, while travel
time in the eastbound direction remained stable or slightly increased. None of the EB changes
were statistically significant when the GPS tracks were analyzed, however. This difference in

17
trends may be attributed to the limited number of probes available with the real-world GPS data.
The highest improvement was observed in eastbound direction during AM peak, which resulted
in 16.5% reduction in average travel time. The difference in travel times with this higher sample
size (six months) of before and after data was found to be statistically significant at α = 0.05 for
all comparison. This data provides confirmation for the findings regarding the reductions
observed over the three periods in WB direction from the floating car runs.

Baum Travel Time from Inrix and GPS Tracks

600
500
Travel Time (sec)

400
300
200
Inrix
100
GPS tracks
0

AM Mid day PM peak

Figure 7 Changes in Travel Time Using INRIX and GPS Tracks

The INRIX data was used to determine the planning time index because it accounts
for both expected delays and unexpected delays (from non-recurring congestion) thus, helping
travelers in making intuitive decisions about their travel. The results are provided in Table 7,
shows that adaptive traffic signals have a positive impact on travel time reliability. Since
adaptive traffic signal control can respond in real time to unexpected variations in flow,
improvements in reliability were expected. These improvements in reliability may be attributed
to the larger green corridors produced by SURTRAC. This is due to the decentralized algorithm
of SURTRAC which handles conflicting movements at individual intersections separately and its
responsiveness to changing dynamics of traffic in real time, thus enabling optimization of actual
traffic inflows. This intelligent coordination also maximizes green time along the corridor on a
grid network and reduces queue generation since each intersection is handled in a decentralized
manner.

Table 7 Average Planning Time Index on Baum

Direction Time of Day Before After % Change p-value

WB AM Peak 2.5 2.1 -14 <0.05
Midday 2.4 2.1 -12.5 <0.05
PM Peak 2.3 2.1 -8.7 0.086
EB AM Peak 2.3 1.9 -17.4 <0.05
Midday 2.4 2.1 -12.5 0.07
PM peak 2.6 2.4 -8.0 0.09

18
 Improvements in travel time reliability showed similar trends for both the eastbound
and westbound direction and across all three time of day periods. The highest percent
improvement is observed in both the WB and EB AM peak, while the second highest
improvement is observed during the Mid-Day.

5.3 Volatility based Performance Assessment

The descriptive statistics are provided in Table 8 for the dependent variables including volatility
measures for acceleration/decelerations and speeds, the traffic exposure including Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and geometrics including no. of lanes and type of intersection.
The AADT values were collected for the average of the two study routes, while data on no. of
lanes and type of intersections were also collected over the two study routes. The descriptive
statistics reveal that volatility in acceleration/deceleration and speeds are much higher with the
non-adaptive signal system compared to adaptive signal control system. However, it is important
to build a predictive model with other exposure parameters to identify the influence of different
parameters along with presence of adaptive signal system on driving volatility.
Table 8 Summary Statistics of Variables
Variable Mean St. Dev Min Max
Volatility in Accel/ Decel 5.57 11.41 1.9 41.09
(Before Period)
Volatility in Accel/ Decel 2.77 4.73 0.88 13.56
(After Period)
Volatility in Speed (Before 23.39 13.18 6.89 49.94
Period)
Volatility in Speed (After 15.16 10.28 1.49 36.15
Period)
No. of lanes 3.46 0.48 1 2
Number of Intersection 3.46 0.51 3 4
Legs
AADT 13132 3879 8897 16409

Table 9 Bayesian Regression Model for Volatility with and without the Presence of Adaptive Signal Control
Model 1 (Volatility in Speeds) Model 2 (Volatility in Accel/Decel)
Variable Mean 95% Credible Interval Mean 95% Credible Interval
Main effect
Presence of SURTRAC -7.90 -11.07 -4.50 -2.83 -3.37 -2.35
Other Confounding Factors
Constant 3.14 1.12 4.43 2.51 1.62 4.32
Speed limit -5.17 -6.64 -1.38 -.011 -.083 .069
No. of lanes 10.8 5.54 16.23 3.35 2.84 3.97
Average AADT .0114 .011 .0227 .0192 .0101 .0238
4-legged Intersection 1.412 -15.90 20.23 5.29 5.06 5.56
Goodness of fit
DIC 320.3 315.4
Notes: Variables are significant at 95% credible interval. The 95th percentile credible intervals are constructed using the 2.5th
percentiles and 97.5th percentile of the posterior distribution of parameters

Table 9 provides the results for Bayesian regression models representing volatility in
speeds and volatility in acceleration/deceleration regimes. The goodness of fit represented by

19
DIC, reveals a good model fit. The models in general reveals good association of volatility with
presence of SURTRAC adaptive signal control system. The main effect in model 1 shows that
volatility in speed is lower under the presence of SURTRAC system as opposed to normal time
of day signals. This may be explained by lower number of stops and continuous green bands
provided by the SURTRAC system, leading to efficient flow. Similarly, the volatility in
acceleration/deceleration is shown to be reduced with the presence of SURTRAC system by
Model 2. This again is intuitive based on improved flow created by continuous green bands that
are provided by the ASCT system. These accelerations and decelerations are more important
since higher variation in acceleration/deceleration profile is dangerous and could lead to rear end
crashes. The lower volatility here also points towards improved safety. Likewise, the
confounding factors are observed to have significant impact. For instance, with an increase in
speed limit, driving is observed to be less volatile. This can be explained by the fact that drivers
usually travel at higher speeds compared to the lower posted speed limits, leading to variations in
speeds and accelerations over a segment. While increasing the speed limits may harmonize the
traffic and lead to lower volatility. On the contrary, it also indicates that signals in these settings
may be spaced far apart allowing higher travel speeds and lower volatility. Similarly, increase in
traffic exposure and number of lanes are observed to produce higher volatility in speeds and
accelerations/decelerations. This is also intuitive since higher exposure and number of lanes
increase probability of potential conflicts that may disrupt the traffic flow. However, some
degree of correlation is expected between exposure and number of lanes.
6. Conclusions and Future Recommendations
This paper analyzed the recently developed ASCT technology by Carnegie Mellon University in
Pittsburgh named SURTRAC for its operational benefits in terms of travel time, speed, number
of stops, planning time index and impact on volatility to ascertain the true benefits associated
with the system. The before and after comparative analysis of ASCT with optimized TOD plans
indicated the potential of SURTRAC to improve traffic flow in an urban corridor.
From the field study, the largest improvement was observed in the number of stops made
along the corridor. Similarly, speeds and travel times were observed to improve over three
periods across Baum and Centre while they remained stable or worsened during the other three
periods. Due to the small sample size of the field data, a six month of before and after INRIX
data was used for performance comparison of ASCT and the results were found to be correlated
with those of GPS floating car evaluation. Overall, a net benefit was observed and ASCT was
found to have a significant impact in improving travel time reliability, with a significant percent
change in planning time index. The results are also statistically significant based on days of the
week during the three time of day periods that were analyzed. More specifically, the PTIs on
Baum during the AM Peak and Mid-day in Westbound direction and AM Peak in Eastbound
direction changed significantly at a 95% confidence level while the PTIs for the PM peak in the
WB direction and the Mid-day and PM Peak for Eastbound direction changed at a 90%
confidence. Hence, with the deployment of ASCT, travelers would need to plan for less total
time ahead of their travel to account for both expected and unexpected delays. Likewise, the
Bayesian models revealed that driving was less volatile with the ASCT system in operation,
pointing towards improvement in uniformity of flow. These findings reveal the significance of
unique decentralized algorithm of SURTRAC, which handles each intersection individually and
passes outflow traffic information to neighboring intersections, thus leading to improved

20
performance over the mainline and side streets. These findings can help planning agencies and
engineers to ascertain the benefits of SURTRAC while considering types of ASCT deployments
and would also provide a base for future comparisons of SURTRAC with other different ASCT
systems that are available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the researchers from CMU Robotics Institute (Intelligent Coordination
and Logistics Lab) for their help with the data collection. The authors would also like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

References
Ahmed, M. M., Franke, R., Ksaibati, K., & Shinstine, D. S. (2018). Effects of truck traffic on
crash injury severity on rural highways in Wyoming using Bayesian binary logit models.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 117, 106–113.
Barriere, J. F., Farges, J. L., & Henry, J. J. (1986). Decentralization vs hierarchy in optimal
traffic control. In IFAC Control in Transportation Systems. Vienna, Austria.
Bell, M. . (1992). Future directions in traffic signal control. Transportation Research, 26, 303–
313.
Chilukuri, B., Perrin, J., & Martin, P. T. (2004). “SCOOT and Incidents: Performance Evaluation
in Simulated Environment.” Transportation Research Record, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Day, C., Ernst, J., Brennan, T., Chou, C.-S., Hainen, A., Remias, S., … Bullock, D. (2012).
Performance Measures for Adaptive Signal Control:Case Study of System-in-the-Loop
Simulation. Transportation Research Record 2311, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, 1–15.
Federal Highway Administration. (2012). Model Systems Engineering Documents for Adaptive
Signal Control Technology ( ASCT ) Systems, (August).
Fontaine, M. D. (2012). Evaluating travel time data quality form a private sector data provider: A
case study of I-66 in Northern Virginia.”. In North American Traffic Monitoring Exhibition
and Conf., Dallas.
Gartner, N. H. (2002). Optimized Policies for Adaptive Control Strategy in Real-Time Traffic
Adaptive Control Systems: Implementation and Field Testing. Transportation Research
Record, Journal of Transportation Research Board, 1811, 148-156. doi: 10.3141/1811-18
Haghani, A., Hamedi, M., & Parvan, K. (2013). I-95 Corridor Coalition Vehicle Probe Project :
Validation of INRIX Data Monthly Report, (June).
Hu, J., Fontaine, M. D., Park, B. B. (2015). Field Evaluations of an Adaptive Traffic Signal —
Using Private-Sector Probe Data. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 142(1), 1–9.

21
 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000806.
Infra, I. T. (2016). Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique. Retrieved from http://www.scoot-
utc.com/DetailedHowSCOOTWorks.php?menu=Technical
Kamrani, M., Ramin, A., & Khattak, A. J. (2018). Extracting useful information from connected
vehicle data : An empirical study of driving volatility measures and crash frequency at
intersections. Transportation Research Record, Journal of Transportation Research Board,
2672, 290-301. doi: 10.1177/0361198118773869.
Kergaye, C., Stevanovic, A., & Martin, P. (2010a). Comparative Evaluation of Adaptive Traffic
Control System Assessments Through Field and Microsimulation. Journal of Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 14(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472451003719764
Kergaye, C., Stevanovic, A., & Martin, P. T. (2010b). Comparison of Before-After Versus Off-
On Adaptive Traffic Control Evaluations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2128(1), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.3141/2128-20
Khattak, A. J., & Wali, B. (2017). Analysis of volatility in driving regimes extracted from basic
safety messages transmitted between connected vehicles. Transportation Research Part C,
84, 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.08.004
Khattak, Z. H. (2016). “Evaluating the Operational & Safety Aspects of Adaptive Traffic Control
Systems in Pennsylvania.” University of Pittsburgh Thesis.
Khattak, Z. H., Fontaine, M. D., & Boateng, R. A. (2018). Evaluating the impact of adaptive
signal control technology on driver stress and behavior using real-world experimental data.
Transportation Research Part F, 58, 133–144.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.006
Khattak, Z. H., Fontaine, M. D., Smith, B. L., & Ma, J. (2019). Crash severity effects of adaptive
signal control technology: An empirical assessment with insights from Pennsylvania and
Virginia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 154, 151–162.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.01.008
Khattak, Z. H., Magalotti, M. J., & Fontaine, M. D. (2017). Estimating Safety Effects of
Adaptive Signal Control Technology Using the Empirical Bayes Method. Journal of Safety
Research, 64, 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.12.016
Khattak, Z. H., Park, H., Hong, S., Boateng, R., & Smith, B. L. (2018). Investigating
Cybersecurity Issues in Active Traffic Management Systems. Transportation Research
Record, Journal of Transportation Research Board.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118787636
Kim, C.O., Park, Y., & Baek, J.-G. (2005). Optimal signal control using adaptive dynamic
programming. International Conference on Computational Science & Its Applications.
Singapore.
Mirchandani, P., & Head, L. (2001). A real-time traffic signal control system: architecture,
algorithms, and analysis. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 415–
432.
Mirchandani, P., & Head, L. (2001). RHODES: A Real-Time Traffic Signal Control System -
Architecture, Algorithms, and Analysis. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, 9(6), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-090X(00)00047-4

22
 Newell, G. . (1998). The rolling horizon scheme of traffic signal control. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 32, 39–44.
NSW. (2018). Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic Signal. Retrieved from
http://www.scats.com.au/how-scats-works.html
Porche, I., & Lafortune, S. (1999). Adaptive look-ahead optimization of traffic signals. ITS
Journal-Intelligent Transportation Systems Journal, 209–254.
Robertson, D. I., & Bretherton, R. . (1974). Optimum control of an intersection for any known
sequence of vehicle arrivals. IFAC/IFIP/IFORS Symposium on Traffic Control and
Transportation Systems. Monte Carlo, Monaco.
Robotics Institute, C. M. U. (2013). Scalable Urban Traffic Control. Retrieved from
http://www.surtrac.net/
Sen, S., Head, K. (1997). Controlled optimization of phases at an intersection. Transportation
Science, 31, 5–17.
Shelby, S. . (2004). Single-intersection evaluation of real-time adaptive traffic signal control
algorithms. Transportation Research Record, 1867, 183–192.
Slavin, C., Feng, W., Figliozzi, M., & Koonce, P. (2013). A Statistical Study of the Impacts of
SCATS Adaptive Traffic Signal Control on Traffic and Transit Performance. 92nd Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, 53.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Smith, S., Barlow, G., Xie, X.-F., & Rubinstein, Z. B. (2013). SURTRAC: Scalable Urban
Traffic Control. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 15. Retrieved from
https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publication_view.html?pub_id=7408
Smith, S. F., Barlow, G. J., Xie, X.-F., & Rubinstein, Z. B. (2013). Smart Urban Signal
Networks: Initial Application of the SURTRAC Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System.
Icaps, (C), 434–442.
Sussman, J. S. (2008). “Perspectives on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).” Springer
Science & Business Media. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com/books?id=t6mJGZocOnIC&pgis=1
Swarco. (2016). Urban Traffic Optimization by Integration Automation. Retrieved from
https://www.swarco.com/en/Products-Services/Traffic-Management/Urban-Traffic-
Management/Urban-Traffic-Systems/UTOPIA
Tian, Z., Ohene, F., & Hu, P. (2011). “Arterial Performance Evaluation on an Adaptive Traffic
Signal Control System.” In 6th International Symposium on Highway Capacity and Quality
of Service (Vol. 16). Retrieved from http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1136429
Wang, X., Khattak, A. J., Liu, J., Masghati-amoli, G., & Son, S. (2015). What is the level of
volatility in instantaneous driving decisions ? Transportation Research Part C, 58, 413–
427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.12.014
Xie, X.-F., Smith, S. F., Lu, L., & Barlow, G. J. (2012). Schedule-driven intersection control.
Transportation Research Part C, 24, 168–189.

23

View publication stats