High-Resolution Performance Measures for Upgrade Evaluation of

Traffic Signal Assets

Abstract
Agencies that have large scale traffic signal systems under their purview often have to face asset
upgrade decisions. As one of the most advanced traffic control technology, Adaptive Traffic
Control Systems are one of the options that must be taken into consideration. Having in mind the
complexity of benefits and costs stemming from ATCS investments, there is a need for
information-rich performance measures (PM) used in the evaluation. However, conventional PMs
are often not suitable for evaluation of ATCS operations, due the inherent variability of ATCS
control parameters. To address this gap, this research develops a new performance measure -
average arrivals on green ratio, and proposes a refinement of average delay PM to account for
queue formation. In addition to presenting the analytical formulation, the evaluation methodology
uses microsimulation for case study comparison between actuated-coordinated and ATCS
operation. The results include comparison between previous and proposed PMs, based on the
processed simulation data as well as field data. In conclusion, proposed PMs have high
transferability potential, low data collection cost, and high data quality, thus being suitable for
investment decisions into signal assets. Finally, this research opens up further opportunities for
advancing decision-support methods for investments into traffic operations assets.

Keywords: Intelligent Transport Systems Assets; High-Resolution Performance Measures;

Adaptive Traffic Control Systems

Introduction
Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) are increasingly important assets due to physical and economic
constraints on the large infrastructural investments, especially in urban environments. As an
important element of ITS worldwide, traffic signal systems are one of the most cost effective
investments [1]. In practice, agencies having to operate large scale traffic signal systems are facing
the question of upgrade investments into these assets [2]. One of the options for system upgrade
that agencies have to consider are Adaptive Traffic Control Systems (ATCS). As the most
advanced traffic signal system technology for coordinated network control, ATCS continuously
makes small adjustments of signal-timing parameters in response to changing traffic demand and
patterns [3]. Thus, ATCS offer a promise of improving network-wide efficiency in dealing with
fluctuating travel demand, reducing signal-retiming costs, and providing large amount of real-time
performance data. Although most of these systems started as a research projects of academic
community, today most of them are sold as final products, having many operational similarities but
also many differences. Some examples of well-established ATCS include SCOOT [4], SCATS [5],
and MOTION [6], but new ATCS are continuously emerging on the market. In practice, ATCS are
usually vendor specific and delivered in the manner of "a black box", due to the proprietary in-built
modelling and optimization algorithms [7]. Despite the promises, ATCS might not always provide

1
benefits for networks with predictable or oversaturated conditions, and often have long setup time,
steep learning curve, and higher maintenance and operating costs [8].
Having in mind the complexity of benefits and costs stemming from investments in ATCS, the
increasing number of agencies worldwide that are considering procurement of ATCS are facing
the need for improved knowledgebase [9, 10]. Previous research informs us that it is important to
develop detailed functional requirements for investments into traffic operations assets [11, 12]. In
addition to the development of functional requirements, it is important to compare the operation of
the existing with the proposed traffic signal system in order to support investment decision-making.
The usual comparison of ATCS in previous literature is on case-by-case basis, with before-after
analysis approach [7, 12-19]. Evaluation is usually done using hardware-in-the-loop or software-
in-the-loop simulation, with occasional pilot field studies, due to their investment requirements.
However, one significant challenge for ATCS evaluation is the very nature of actuated control,
having variable signal timing parameters. For adaptive operation, conventional performance
measures (PMs) which are often based on conventional traffic flow measures do not provide
enough details for capturing multidimensionality of effectiveness [20, 21].
Accounting for the need to produce information-rich PMs, recent advances in controller logging
capabilities, high-level data storage methods, and communication technologies have enabled
collection of high-resolution signal operations data [22]. Resulting data with time-stamped detector
and phase state changes have enabled the development of novel PMs. Nowadays, there is a range
of PMs in use (e.g., phase termination, yellow/red actuations, arrivals on red, approach speed, etc.),
especially related to the quality of the main-road progression [23]. However, having the possibility
to establish new PMs, one has to account for common issues in performance measurement,
including such aspects as data collection cost, data quality, transferability of comparison to other
location or time, and liability for action [24, 25]. Thus, previous research has suggested focusing
on some of the PMs suitable for evaluating traffic progression, such as arrival on green (AOG)
[26], platoon ratio (PR), and approach delay (AD) [22]. Nevertheless, these PMs have limitations
in evaluating ATCS. Previous study informs us that AOG as a single performance measure cannot
be easily used to compare various traffic signal alternatives, as it does not provide information on
how efficiently the allocated green time is being used [27]. Findings suggest that AOG needs to be
combined with percentage of green time (GT) and cycle length (CL) to provide a holistic picture
of traffic progression. In addition, a simplified version of AD calculation from high-resolution data
significantly underestimates true average approach delay. As a result, AOG and AD cannot provide
proper explanation as to whether the major contributions are related to offset setting, proper GT
allocation, or any other parameter configurations.
Taking these findings into consideration, we propose a development of a new high-resolution PM
- Average Arrivals on Green Ratio (AAOGR). In addition, we propose a modification to the AD
calculation, with an evaluation of both measures. Although these measures are transferable for
comparison of different actuated network traffic signal systems, here we focus on comparison
between ATCS (in particular, InSync ATCS) and actuated-coordinated control. To this end, the
next section will present the formulation of PMs. The third section presents evaluation
methodology, while the fourth section presents case study results. The final section presents
discussions and conclusions.

2
Mathematical formulation of performance measures
Average Arrivals on Green Ratio
For a given intersection approach 𝑘, denote a cycle index by {𝑖 | 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁}, where 𝑁 is the total number
of cycles during the observed period of time 𝑇. Denote the corresponding cycle lengths and green
times with {𝐶𝑖 | 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁} and {𝑔𝑖𝑘 | 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁} (in sec), respectively. Here we assume that the observed
time period can be approximated by 𝑇 = ∑𝑖∈𝑁 𝐶𝑖 . This is the case, for example, when the signal
control strategy is based on the plan selection procedure, which defines the most suitable cycle
length with respect to the prevailing traffic conditions, invariant during the entire period of time 𝑇.
If out of the 𝑉𝑐,𝑖 number of vehicles during cycle 𝑖, there are 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 vehicles arriving on green and 𝑉𝑟,𝑖
vehicles arriving on red (𝑉𝑐,𝑖 = 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 + 𝑉𝑟,𝑖 ), aggregated measure of progression efficiency (AOG)
for given approach/direction 𝑘 and time period 𝑇, can be determined using Equation (1). Note that
it is evidently that for the same cycle length (𝐶1 = 𝐶2 ), but different green time distributions
(𝑔1 > 𝑔2 ), AOG can take different values (𝐴𝑂𝐺1 > 𝐴𝑂𝐺2 , assuming that 𝑉𝑔,1 > 𝑉𝑔,2). This is the
reason why AOG, as a single PM, cannot be easily used to compare various signal control strategies
and why more comprehensive PMs have to be proposed. One of such measures is platoon ratio
(PR), that takes into account the percentage of green time within a cycle (Equation (2)).

𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘
𝐺𝑇 𝑘 = ∑ 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 / ∑ 𝑉𝑐,𝑖 = ∑ 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 / ∑(𝑉𝑔,𝑖 + 𝑉𝑟,𝑖 ) (1)
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁

𝐺𝑇 𝑘 = ∑ 𝑔𝑖𝑘 / 𝑇 = ∑ 𝑔𝑖𝑘 / ∑ 𝐶𝑖 (2)

𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 2
𝐴𝑂𝐺 𝑘 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 /𝑉𝑐,𝑖 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝐶𝑖
𝑃𝑅 𝑘 = = (∑ 𝑘 𝐶𝑖 ) / ∑ 𝐶𝑖 = (∑ 𝐶𝑖 ) / ∑ 𝐶𝑖
𝐺𝑇𝑘 𝑔𝑖 /𝐶𝑖 𝑉𝑐,𝑖 𝑔𝑖𝑘
𝑘 (3)
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁

A quick look at Equation (3) would suggest that PR represents a good measure for traffic analysis,
which can describe with details how a platoon of vehicles progresses along a corridor. Thus, it is
intuitively very difficult to infer any flaws in its formulation. However, in order to elaborate the
need for a new PM, Equation (4) presents AAOGR formulation. Following (Equation (5)) compare
AAOGR with PR for a simple case of fixed time signal control. The reason behind formulating PR
and AAOGR for the fixed time signal systems is that such a simplistic case allows one to clearly
see the difference between those two PMs, as cycle length and green time do not vary
{𝐶𝑖 = 𝐶 ⋀ 𝑔𝑖𝑘 = 𝑔𝑘 | 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁}. Note that in such a simplistic case, PR actually represents a product
of AAOGR and cycle length (𝐶). Consequently, the AAOGR represents the percentage of vehicles
that have passed through the intersection per a second of green time, while PR is an index without
units.

𝑘 𝑘
𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝐶𝑖
𝐴𝐴𝑂𝐺𝑅 = 𝑘
(∑ 𝑘 𝐶𝑖 / ∑ 𝐶𝑖 ) / (∑ 𝑔𝑖𝑘 𝐶𝑖 / ∑ 𝐶𝑖 ) = ∑ 𝑘 / ∑ 𝑔𝑖𝑘 𝐶𝑖
𝑉 𝑉𝑐,𝑖 (4)
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑐,𝑖 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁

3
 𝑘 2 𝑘 𝑘
𝑘
𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝐶 2
𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝑘
𝑉𝑔,𝑖
𝑃𝑅 = ∑ 𝑘 𝑘 /∑𝐶 = 𝐶 ∑ 𝑘 /𝑁𝑔 𝐶 = 𝐶 ∑ 𝑘 /𝑁𝑔𝑘
𝑉𝑐,𝑖 𝑔 𝑉𝑐,𝑖 𝑉𝑐,𝑖
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘
𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝐶 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 𝑉𝑔,𝑖 (5)
𝐴𝐴𝑂𝐺𝑅 = ∑ 𝑘 / ∑ 𝑔 𝐶 = 𝐶 ∑ 𝑘 /𝑁𝑔 𝐶 = ∑ 𝑘 /𝑁𝑔𝑘
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘

{ 𝑉 𝑉 𝑉
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑐,𝑖 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑐,𝑖 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑐,𝑖
𝑘 𝑘
⇒ 𝐴𝐴𝑂𝐺𝑅 = 𝑃𝑅 × 𝐶

Comparing the previous case with a more complex one, when cycle length and green time vary in
almost each cycle {𝐶1 ≠ 𝐶2 ≠ ⋯ 𝐶𝑁 ⋀ 𝑔1𝑘 ≠ 𝑔2𝑘 ≠ ⋯ ≠ 𝑔𝑁𝑘 }, as in the case of ATCSs, ilustrates
the potential of using AAOGR. From the Figure 1 below, one can conclude that PR fails to take
cycle length change into consideration, while AAOGR reveals platoon efficiency. Figure 1 also
illustrates the comprehensiveness of AAOGR when compared to AOG, showing that AOG does
not provide information on efficiency of allocated green time used by an arriving platoon.
Essentially, AAOGR is a PM that takes into account variability of cycle length and green time
duration on a cycle-by-cycle basis, thus being suitable for ATCS evaluation.

Figure 1. AOG versus AAOGR for Adaptive Traffic Control Systems.

Approach Delay
In this section we propose modifications of the existing model for computing approach delay
(Equation (6)), which take into consideration the position of the arriving vehicle in the (virtual)
queue (𝛽) and the queue discharge rate {𝑡𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 = 𝑓(𝛽) | 𝑝 ∈ 𝛽 ⋀ 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁 ⋀ 𝑗 ∈ 𝑉𝑐,𝑖 } during
calculation of the delay time for given cycle 𝑖 and vehicle 𝑗. Essentially, delay for a vehicle 𝑗
𝑘
arriving on red {𝜑𝑖,𝑗 = 1} is computed as the difference between the departure time during the next
𝑘 ′ 𝑘 𝑘
green {𝑔𝑖+1 | 𝑖 ∈ 𝑁} and the time 𝑡𝑖,𝑗 when a vehicle 𝑗 arrived at the stop line (time 𝑡𝐷𝐸𝑇,𝑖,𝑗 of
𝑘 𝑘
placing detector call + fixed travel time 𝐿 /𝑣 between the detector and the stop line). As
mentioned previously, rank of the vehicle in queue 𝛽 is also taken into consideration. In other
words, if a vehicle was first in the queue 𝛽, it would leave at the start of green (plus two seconds
4
 𝑘
of start-up delay 𝑡𝐿𝑇 ); if there were multiple vehicles in the queue (𝛽 > 1), a delay would be
𝑘
increased by the time {∑𝑝∈𝛽𝑘 𝑡𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 | 𝑝 ∈ 𝛽}, needed to discharge the queue once the signal turns
𝑖,𝑗
green. Discharge rate are based on the recommendations given by [28, 29], according to which the
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘
first five headways are {𝑡𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 | {𝑡𝑝,𝑖,1 , 𝑡𝑝,𝑖,2 , 𝑡𝑝,𝑖,3 , 𝑡𝑝,𝑖,4 , 𝑡𝑝,𝑖,5 } = {3.8, 3.1, 2.7, 2.4, 2.2}} . After the
𝑘
fifth vehicle, the headways leveled out at {𝑡𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 = 2.2 | 𝑝 ≥ 6}.

𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 ′ 𝑘 𝑘
𝐴𝐷𝑘 = ∑ ∑ 𝐷𝑖,𝑗 = ∑ ∑ (𝑡𝐿𝑇 + 𝑡𝛽,𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑔𝑖+1 − 𝑡𝑖,𝑗 ) 𝜑𝑖,𝑗
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑗∈𝑉 𝑘 𝑖∈𝑁 𝑗∈𝑉 𝑘
𝑐,𝑖 𝑐,𝑖

(6)
𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘 𝑘
= ∑ ∑ (𝑡𝐿𝑇 +∑ 𝑡𝑝,𝑖,𝑗 + 𝑔𝑖+1 − (𝑡𝐷𝐸𝑇,𝑖,𝑗 +)) 𝜑𝑖,𝑗
𝑘
𝑝∈𝛽𝑖,𝑗
𝑖∈𝑁 𝑗∈𝑉 𝑘
𝑐,𝑖

Evaluation methodology
In order to perform a validity evaluation for the proposed PMs, the methodology bases on a
microsimulation model, having the capacity to generate high-resolution signal and detector data
(i.e. VISSIM 5.3). The evaluation includes a comparison between actuated-coordinated, time-of-
day (TOD), and ATCS operations. Evaluation includes comparison between AAOGR and PR,
AAOGR and AOG. In addition, the evaluation includes validation of the refined PM for AD, in
comparison with average delay per vehicle, as given by VISSIM, as well as to the actual field data
provided by Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). For the comparison with the field data,
only five intersections were compared, due to data limitations. In particular, adaptive operation is
simulated as software-in-the-loop of a novel market ATCS InSync. InSync has two major aspects
of operation. First, it automatically adjusts local signal timings, and second, it coordinates signals
along the arterial according to the demand. The spatial study scope was a 6.4 km signalized corridor
of SR-421 in Port Orange, Florida, from Williamson Blvd to US-1 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Evaluation study network.

5
In total, there are ten signalized intersections on the corridor. The temporal study scope was the
afternoon peak period. Annual Average Daily Traffic varies between 25,000 and 35,000
vehicles/day, depending on the corridor section. Signal timing plans for actuated-coordinated
control were developed accounting for afternoon peak period traffic. The resulting cycle lengths
vary from 80 to 160 seconds. The setup of detection system for InSync had to resemble video
detection systems, represented as a series of detectors up to the point of advance detection. Thus,
only one detection phase is activated at the time, based on what InSync calculates as optimal phase
sequence and duration.

Figure 3. Pseudo code for computing high-resolution PMs.

Moreover, detector size, location, and function were modelled according to the NEMA standard.
To enable such flexibility it was necessary to set up controllers in VISSIM to operate in an

6
uncoordinated mode. More information about the calibration and validation of the simulation
model, development of TOD signal timings and steps for integrating InSync with microsimulation
software can be found in [30].
Multiple simulation runs with different random seeds were executed for both InSync and TOD
scenarios. Each simulation lasted two hours and 15 minutes, with 15 minutes of warm-up time and
two hours of evaluation time. To compute AAOGR and AD based on VISSIM outputs, we post-
processed VISSIM's detection and signal phasing, as well as timing log files using the algorithm
shown in the form of pseudo code above (Figure 3). One should note that, for evaluating the
proposed AD model, VISSIM's AD from the simulation was obtained through the node evaluation,
where appropriate node boundaries (for incoming vehicles) were placed to coincide with outer
edges of the relevant approach detectors. Similarly, the node boundaries for outgoing vehicles were
placed at the stop lines. This way, simulation outputs were adjusted to closely match conditions
needed for high-resolution data collection and were shifted to avoid overestimating delay by
considering conditions not observed by detectors.

Case study results

Comparison between ATCS and TOD
Results in Table 1 indicate the variance in high-resolution PMs. For example, if one was to judge
InSync and TOD performance at Taylor Rd based on AOG, they would conclude that InSync
(AOG=87%) outperforms TOD plans (AOG=80%). A quick look at the PR would show that these
two systems perform equally well at the same intersection (PR=1.10). Moreover, the AAOGR
results show that for given CL and GT, TOD plans outperform InSync. Table 1 displays many
contradicting results, showing that these three measures (AOG, PR and AAOGR) generate a variety
of conclusions.

Table 1. AOG and PR vs. AAOGR for InSync and TOD.

For example, AAOGR has shown greater values at intersections that provided poorer progression
in terms of AOG (Clyde Morris and Nova in InSync scenario with 1.43% and 1.54% for AAOGR,
60% and 68% for AOG respectively; Spruce in TOD scenario with 1.72% for AAOGR, 63% for
AOG). Similar relation can be seen between AOG and PR. In the InSync scenario, the maximum

7
value for PR is at Nova, where relatively small AOG was recorded (68%) compared to the other
intersections. On the other hand, the minimum value for PR is at Taylor Rd (1.10), where high
AOG (87%) was obtained. The TOD scenario also shows that the greatest value for PR was
recorded at Nova (1.79), with the lowest AOG (60%). I-95 NB and Taylor Rd were intersections
with lowest PR (1.10 for both intersections) compared to high AOG (78% and 80% respectively).
An interesting illustrative example is the intersection of Yorktowne and SR-421 where the same
results (73%) for InSync and TOD were obtained for AOG, with similar values for GT (67% for
InSync; 65% for TOD). If PR was taken into consideration, TOD would have a small advantage
over InSync (1.14 > 1.08), whereas the AAOGR shows a clear advantage for evaluating TOD
operation (1.24% > 0.98%).

Figure 4. Comparison of High-Resolution PMs between InSync and TOD: AAOGR vs PR.

Figure 5. Comparison of High-Resolution PMs between InSync and TOD: AAOGR vs AOG.

8
Figure 4 shows differences between AAOGR and PR, while Figure 5 shows differences between
AAOGR and AOG, for InSync and TOD operations at various intersections. One can notice a
higher level of compliance between AAOGR and PR (Figure 4) than between AAOGR and AOG
(Figure 5).
Summaries of the comparison between AOG, PR, and AAOGR are given in Table 2, highlighting
incorrect conclusions that could be made if a comparison between InSync and TOD is based solely
on AOG and PR. For example, there are eight incorrect assumptions if AOG was used instead of
AAOGR to comparatively evaluate performance of InSync and TOD. On the other hand, AAOGR
and PR provide the most consistent results, with occasional differences. For example, these
inconsistencies can be seen at I-95 SB, Taylor Rd, Clyde Morris, and Village. InSync is shown to
perform better than TOD at I-95 SB in terms of PR (1.36 compared to 1.15). However, TOD
outperformed InSync at the same intersections in terms of AAOGR (1.15% compared to 1.14%).
In addition, at Clyde Morris and Village, TOD performed better than InSync in terms of PR, while
InSync performed better than TOD in terms of AAOGR. As mentioned previously, both system
performed equally well in terms of PR (1.10) at Taylor Rd., while results for AAOGR suggest that
TOD plans outperformed InSync (1.10% compared to 0.93%) at this site.

Table 2. Compliance between AOG, PR and AAOGR.

Approach delay validation

To determine how well a new delay model computes AD, an average delay per vehicle (as given
by VISSIM) was compared with the proposed high-resolution AD as shown in Figure 6. This figure
shows that AD derived from high-resolution simulation data closely matches VISSIM's own
approach delay, as the model is quite reliable R2 is around 93%). In addition, Figure 7 demonstrates
the relationship between high-resolution AD obtained by the current UDOT methodology and
high-resolution approach delay obtained by the proposed discharge rate-based model. The value of
coefficient of determination (90.57%) indicates a strong correlation between the field data and the
proposed model. However, further analysis shows that current methodology underestimates delays

9
by around 45%, when compared to discharge rate-based AD model, because it is not taking into
consideration the possible queue build-up during red time duration.

Figure 6. Validation of the proposed AD model.

Figure 7. Comparison between proposed AD model and UDOT methodology applied to field
data.

Conclusions
Taking as a basis the importance of detailed ATCS evaluation for asset investment decisions, this
study proposed and evaluated two PM models based on high-resolution signal control data. The
first model for evaluating signalized intersection performance introduces a new PM, Average
Arrivals on Green Ration (AAOGR). This PM is suited for adaptive operations as its analytical
formulation enables to take into account the ratio of vehicles that passed through the intersection
per second of green time. The second model proposes a new methodology for computing approach
delay (AD) by taking into account the possible queue formation during red signal duration. In
addition to the analytical formulation, the evaluation methodology uses microsimulation for case
study comparison between actuated-coordinated and adaptive operation. The evaluation bases on
the calibrated and validated signalized network including ten intersections, accompanied with the
field data comparison. ATCS operation has been simulated as software-in-the-loop, while actuated-
coordinated operation included optimized timing. A novel algorithm was developed to derive high-
resolution PMs from simulation outputs.

10
The results show that AOG as a PM cannot be easily used for adaptive operations evaluation, as it
does not provide information on efficiency of allocated green time used by an arriving platoon. In
contrast, PR is an improved PM but it does not take into account the duration of the cycle length,
which is crucial for adaptive operation. Thus, a signal operating at a higher cycle could be evaluated
as less efficient than the one with lower cycle and the same green time and AOG values. As
AAOGR includes the necessary parameters, namely green time and cycle length, this PM can
clearly depict the efficiency of a platoon of vehicles through a signal in adaptive mode. Moreover,
this PM is also suitable for evaluating signalized intersections operating at different cycle length
on different network partitions. In addition, the refined AD model shows that vehicle delay can be
estimated very well, and comparison with field data shows that refined AD model can be
implemented on the existing field data. In general, both PM are applicable for implementation in
the field, even in the case of controllers not based on NEMA standard. For example, European
controller standards can also provide a high-resolution (10 Hz) logging data, that can be used for
performance evaluation, so the findings have transferability potential. In addition to the
transferability potential, these PM have low data collection cost and high data quality, and are thus
suitable as a standard PM for asset investment decisions. Overall, the proposed PMs can provide
crucial information for evaluation of ATCS considered for an upgrade.
The limitation of the proposed AD model relates to the advanced detector location, which limits
the capability to infer delay for vehicles waiting in queue behind the advanced detector.
Nevertheless, in such cases, the already developed methodology for estimating queue length for
the entire segment, also based on the high-resolution event data, can be used [31]. Furthermore,
future research studies should consider accounting for the sensitivity of PM formulation to the
queue discharge rate by taking into account the local values. In addition, further research should
include similar experiments on other networks and with other ATCS, both to confirm result of this
study and to suggest further PM improvements. Finally, there is a need for further advancement of
PMs and decision-support frameworks for investment decisions into ITS assets.

References
[1] Sunkari, S., The benefits of retiming traffic signals. Institute of Transportation Engineers.
ITE Journal, Vol. 74, No. 4, 2004, p. 26.
[2] Mladenovic, M., K. Mangaroska, and M. Abbas, Decision-Support System for Planning
Traffic Operations Assets. ASCE Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 05017001, 2017.
[3] Papageorgiou, M., Concise encyclopedia of traffic & transportation systems. 6, Pergamon,
1991.
[4] Day, I., SCOOT-Split, Cycle & Offset Optimization Technique, Version 3.1. Siemens AG
Traffic Control Systems Division, 1998.
[5] Lowrie, P., Scats, sydney co-ordinated adaptive traffic system: A traffic responsive method
of controlling urban traffic, 1990.
[6] Busch, F. and G. Kruse, MOTION for SITRAFFIC-a modern approach to urban traffic
control. In Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 IEEE, IEEE, 2001,
pp. 61–64.
[7] Stevanovic, A., Adaptive traffic control systems: domestic and foreign state of practice.
Project 20-5 (Topic 40-03), 2010.
[8] Abbas, M. M., A survey of experiences with adaptive traffic control systems in north
america. Journal of Road and Traffic Engineering, Vol. 59, No. 2, 2013, pp. 5–11.

11
[9] Mladenovic, M., Large scale analysis of traffic control systems. Traffic Engineering &
Control, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2012.
[10] Mladenovic, M. and M. Abbas, A guide to effective adaptive traffic control systems. Traffic
Engineering & Control, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2012.
[11] Mladenovic, M. N., A. Stevanovic, I. Kosonen, and D. Glavic, Adaptive Traffic Control
Systems: Guidelines for Development of Functional Requirements. mobil. TUM, 2015.
[12] Friedrich, B., Adaptive signal control: an overview. In 13th Mini Euro Conference–
Handling Uncertainty in the Analysis of Traffic and Transportation systems, 2002.
[13] Shelby, S. G., Design and evaluation of real-time adaptive traffic signal control algorithms,
2001.
[14] Doshi, H. P. and K. Ozbay, Evaluation of Three Distinct Adaptive Control Strategies for
New Jersey State Highways Using Paramics. In Transportation Research Board 85th
Annual Meeting, 2006, 06-2910.
[15] Gartner, N. H., L. Zhang, and H. Li, Comparative evaluation of three adaptive control
strategies: OPAC, TACOS, and FLC. In Transportation Research Board 85th Annual
Meeting, 2006, 06-2479.
[16] Papageorgiou, M., A. Kouvelas, E. Kosmatopoulos, V. Dinopoulou, and E. Smaragdis,
Application of the signal control strategy TUC in three traffic networks: Comparative
evaluation results. In Information and Communication Technologies, 2006. ICTTA’06. 2nd,
IEEE, 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 714–720.
[17] Jagannathan, R. and A. M. Khan, Methodology for the assessment of traffic adaptive
control systems. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, Vol. 71, No. 6, 2001,
p. 28.
[18] Stevanovic, A., C. Kergaye, and P. T. Martin, Scoot and scats: A closer look into their
operations. In 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington
DC, 2009.
[19] Afandizadeh Zargari, S., N. Dehghani, H. Mirzahossein, and M. Hamedi, Improving
SCATS operation during congestion periods using internal/external traffic metering
strategy. PROMET-Traffic&Transportation, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2016, pp. 41–47.
[20] Day, C., J. Ernst, T. Brennan Jr, C.-S. Chou, A. Hainen, S. Remias, A. Nichols, B. Griggs,
and D. Bullock, Performance measures for adaptive signal control: Case study of system-
in-the-loop simulation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2311, 2012, pp. 1–15.
[21] Day, C. M., D. M. Bullock, H. Li, S. M. Remias, A. M. Hainen, R. S. Freije, A. L. Stevens,
J. R. Sturdevant, and T. M. Brennan, Performance measures for traffic signal systems: An
outcome-oriented approach, 2014.
[22] Smaglik, E., A. Sharma, D. Bullock, J. Sturdevant, and G. Duncan, Event-based data
collection for generating actuated controller performance measures. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2035, 2007, pp. 97–
106.
[23] Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures, accessed January 26, 2017,
http://udottraffic.utah.gov/ATSPM/.
[24] Major Issues in Performance Measurement, accessed January 26, 2017,
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/perf_measurement/fundamentals/major_issues.htm.
[25] Jelusic, N., M. Anzek, and B. Ivankovic, Information source quality in intelligent transport
systems. PROMET-Traffic&Transportation, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2010, pp. 125–131.

12
[26] Smaglik, E. J., D. M. Bullock, and A. Sharma, Pilot study on real-time calculation of arrival
type for assessment of arterial performance. Journal of transportation engineering, Vol.
133, No. 7, 2007, pp. 415–422.
[27] Stevanovic, A., M. Zlatkovic, I. Dakic, C. Kergaye, and M. Enock, Evaluation of Adaptive
Traffic Control through Performance Metrics based on High-Resolution Controller Data,
2015.
[28] Greenshields, B., D. Shaspior, and E. Erickson, Traffic Performances at Urban
Intersections, Bureau of Highway Traffic. Technical report, 1947.
[29] Bonneson, J. A., Modeling queued driver behavior at signalized junctions. Transportation
Research Record, 1992, pp. 99–99.
[30] Stevanovic, A., I. Dakic, and M. Zlatkovic, Comparison of adaptive traffic control benefits
for recurring and non-recurring traffic conditions. IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 2016.
[31] Liu, H. X., X. Wu, W. Ma, and H. Hu, Real-time queue length estimation for congested
signalized intersections. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, Vol. 17,
No. 4, 2009, pp. 412–427.

13