Case Study

Evaluation of Actuated, Coordinated, and Adaptive

Signal Control Systems: A Case Study
Irene Chia 1; Xinkai Wu, Ph.D. 2; Sawanpreet Singh Dhaliwal 3;
John Thai, P.E. 4; and Xudong Jia, Ph.D., P.E. 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: As urban traffic congestion grows, traffic engineers must find ways to maximize the efficiency of traffic signal control. Different
control strategies, including actuated, coordinated, and adaptive, have their own strengths and weaknesses; therefore, it is necessary to
comprehensively evaluate these control modes to understand which strategy is most appropriate for users. This research carries out a case
study to evaluate the adaptive performance of Adaptive Control Software Lite (ACS-Lite) versus conventional coordinated-actuated and fully
actuated, noncoordinated control. The test was done along two congested arterials around Disneyland in Anaheim, California. The results
indicated that adaptive control did not perform as well as the well-calibrated and finely-tuned time-of-day coordination. These results also
indicated that for this type of congested network, the adaptive signal control is best suited to improving the efficiency when traffic demand is
unpredictable, variable, and in low volume. During peak hours, when traffic demand was high and predictable, conventional coordinated
time-of-day plans performed better. Future research could aim to improve adaptive control by adopting more coordinated features and
utilizing high-resolution data to improve the overall efficiency. DOI: 10.1061/JTEPBS.0000068. © 2017 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction
As the population is ever-increasing worldwide, so is the increase
in urbanization and traffic congestion. With severe congestion
comes excess delays, vehicle operating costs, and emissions. It de-
creases the productivity of businesses, poses a safety threat to the
public, and deteriorates the quality of life. The demand for traffic
mobility is an issue that may no longer be overlooked. One of the
most cost-effective solutions is maximizing the efficiency of the
current transportation system through traffic signal control.
The conventional traffic signal control system uses historical
statistic data to create preset plans with various timings (El-
Tantawy et al. 2013). However, over time, these timing plans
need to be updated and optimized for the current traffic demand.
Outdated and poorly timed traffic signal timings account for about
5–10% (about 300 million vehicle-hours) of all traffic delay and
congestion on major routes (Chin et al. 2004).
To improve the efficiency of signal control, several control strat-
egies have been developed, including actuated, coordinated, and
adaptive control. The concept of actuated signal control was first
1
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, California State
Polytechnic Univ., 3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768. E-mail:
chiairene@yahoo.com
2 along an arterial with minimum stops, resulting in reduced travel
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, California State
Polytechnic Univ., 3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768 (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: xinkaiwu@cpp.edu
3
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, California State
Polytechnic Univ., 3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768. E-mail:
sdhaliwal@cpp.edu
4
Principal Traffic Engineer, Traffic Management Center, 201 S.
Anaheim Blvd., #502, Anaheim, CA 92805. E-mail: jthai@anaheim.net
5
Dept. of Civil Engineering, California State Polytechnic Univ.,
3801 West Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768. E-mail: xjia@cpp.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 11, 2016; approved on
March 17, 2017; published online on June 30, 2017. Discussion period
open until November 30, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation
Engineering, Part A: Systems, © ASCE, ISSN 2473-2907.
introduced in 1928 (Klein et al. 2006). After almost a century, most
new traffic signal installations are equipped with vehicle-actuated
signal control. In fully actuated operation, a vehicle-actuated sig-
nal uses sensors to detect and user-programmed settings to control
the timing of signals in response to traffic demand. This type of
operation is most effective at isolated locations or when traffic de-
mand is predictably low. The user-programmed settings contribute
to system operational flexibility and complexity. Jiang et al. (2011)
evaluated the performance by using different controller parameters.
Their results found that an actuated signal operates best when the
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio is within 0.4–0.6 and the minimum
green time for the main street is long enough to meet the demand.
In addition, they recommended relatively small vehicle extension
times and maximum green times for the side streets. Yarger (1993)
conducted a comparison on semiactuated versus fully actuated sig-
nals. While fixed-timed systems can produce good results, they
have to be updated regularly to reflect current traffic demands.
Yarger (1993) concluded that the benefit to fully actuated systems
was in their insensitivity to certain timing parameters such as cycle
length, split, and so forth.
The second signal control strategy, which has been most
widely applied by traffic engineers, is actuated-coordinated con-
trol. Actuated-coordinated control provides continuous progression
delay on arterial streets, but could result in longer delays for mi-
nor movements such as left turns and traffic on side streets. When
intersections are closely spaced and volume on the coordinated
arterials is predictable, the actuated-coordinated signal system is
preferred compared to the isolated signal system (Park et al. 2014).
The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recom-
mends that traffic signals within 0.5 miles of each other be coor-
dinated under a common cycle length (FHWA 2009). Stevanovic
et al. (2011) evaluated the robustness of signal timing for condi-
tions of varying traffic flows. They found that basing signal timing
plans from average traffic flow performs most optimally when ex-
posed to day-to-day traffic flow variability. Day et al. (2008) evalu-
ated coordinated signal control and found that using fully actuated

© ASCE 05017007-1 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007

 coordinated strategy can improve operations by reducing split fail-
ures and effectively balancing v/c ratios for all phases without ad-
versely affecting coordination. However, in practice, this is not
always the case. Buckholz (1993) indicated that coordinated signal
systems do not perform well in certain conditions, including
skipped phases that cause early return to green on the coordinated
phases resulting in a disruption on the arterial progression. Particu-
larly, under congested conditions, large queues disrupt progression;
a phase skip or a gap-out on noncoordinated phases could trigger an
earlier return to green on the coordinated phases that can result in a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
disruption of progression (Park et al. 2014). Nathan Ficklin (1973)
first observed the early return to green problem. Over the years,
some studies have tried to solve this problem; for example, Abbas
et al. (2001) proposed an algorithm that continually adjusted end-
of-green offsets at an intersection with the objective of providing
smooth progression of a platoon through an intersection using the
volume and occupancy profile of advance detectors. However, it
still presents a problem when the split utilization is highly variable
from cycle to cycle, as it often can be.
The third highly promising signal control strategy is adaptive
signal control. Since its introduction in the 1980s, Adaptive Traffic
Signal Control (ATSC) systems have shown great potential in alle-
viating the urban traffic congestion problem. It works by adjusting
signal timings in real time in response to traffic fluctuations. For
example, the Split, Cycle, and Offset Optimization Technique
(SCOOT) adaptive system responds to change in traffic flow by
estimating queue length through the use of exit detectors that pro-
vide arrival flow information (Hunt et al. 1981). On the other hand,
the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) instead
uses stop bar detection to diagnose the level of congestion by es-
timating the degree of saturation (Sims and Finlay 1984). Recently,
similar to SCATS, the Adaptive Control Software Lite (ACS-Lite)
application determines the degree of saturation for each traffic
phase by calculating phase utilization (Luyanda et al. 2003).
Occupancy data from the stop bar detectors combined with phase
timing information is used to calculate used green time. That
information plus data from the upstream advanced detectors are
used to measure when the approaching vehicle will arrive at the
intersection.
Several adaptive signal control systems have been evaluated.
Stevanovic and Zlatkovic (2013) evaluated Rhythm Engineering’s
InSync in 2013 by means of a microsimulation environment. The
results concluded that the ATSC outperformed time-of-day (TOD)
signal timings in terms of traffic efficiency in all areas but side-
street delay, where InSync was neither best nor worst. However,
since the study was based on a microsimulation, the results may
be skewed in that the model cannot reliably replicate all intricacies
of real-world traffic conditions. Hutton et al. (2010) also conducted
a research on InSync’s operational capabilities in 2010. Their evalu-
ation was along a 12-signalized intersection corridor and the
results indicated that the ATSC was effective in reducing travel
time, delay, and number of stops. The minor-street delay, however,
increased for most approaches where mainline delay showed sub-
stantial decline. In another ATSC evaluation, Brilon and Wietholt
(2013) analyzed their experiences with the system MOTION in
Germany in 2013. Their results concluded an increase in traffic
flow performance by around 30%. They came across a problem,
however, with MOTION switching the framework programs as
it is in transition every 15 min. This leads to periods of temporary
standstill at some intersections and results in periods of unsatisfac-
tory coordination.
In 2010, Fehon and Peters (2010) compared systems that have
been successfully installed in the United States and they described
the evaluation techniques that were used to provide statistically
© ASCE 05017007-2
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007
reliable results. They found that there were several potentially seri-
ous flaws in the standard practice of doing before and after travel-
time runs when evaluating the performance of an adaptive system,
some of which included having an insufficient sample size and
ignoring changes in traffic volume and pattern. This case study will
attempt to overcome these flaws by conducting numerous travel
runs from multiple drivers, collecting volumes concurrently during
the whole study period, and using data loggers enabled by the
Global Positioning System (GPS) to accurately track the driver’s
locations at all times. Fehon and Peters (2010) introduced a number
of case studies that were recently conducted, one of which was in
Gresham, Oregon, where SCATS was deployed at 11 intersections.
In 1998, new timing plans were installed, with travel times aver-
aging 6 min 8 s. However, by 2004, the travel times averaged 6 min
33 s. This indicates that the TOD coordinated plans had degraded
over time as traffic volumes changed. This same effect was evident
between 2004 and 2007. After the implementation of the SCATS
adaptive system, travel times have been reduced to the lowest re-
corded levels, without the need to continually optimize the travel
times to reflect current traffic conditions.
Shelby et al. (2008) conducted a performance evaluation on
ACS-Lite in 2008. The system had been integrated and tested
through Corridor Simulation (CORSIM). The results indicated that
ACS-Lite demonstrated significant benefits in the context of sub-
optimal settings, and no harm done in the context of signal timing
that had been optimized with perfect knowledge of the traffic con-
ditions. With the suboptimal timing settings, they found that signal
timing adjustments by ACS-Lite provided substantial reductions in
vehicle delay, travel time, vehicle stops, and fuel consumption. The
corresponding economic benefits of improved traffic flow were es-
timated to surpass system deployment costs within the first year.
Actuated, coordinated, and adaptive control strategies have
shown great potential for improving the operational efficiency of
current traffic control systems as shown by many previous evalu-
ation studies. But these strategies also have drawbacks; thus it
is critical to find out under which circumstances which control
strategy will outperform others. Searching for the answer may
be challenging because of the costly and timely extensive data col-
lection that is needed. This case study aims to shed light on
these signal control strategies by bringing significantly valuable
suggestions/recommendations to agencies that will benefit from
such information.
Another case study reported by Day et al. (2012) evaluated
traffic responsive (TR) control and the ACS-Lite system on a
19-intersection network in Morgantown (West Virginia) for a spe-
cial scenario with heavy volumes generated by a university football
game. Five alternative strategies were compared in the test network
using Vissim software: (1) fully actuated (or free) operations,
(2) time-of-day (TOD) control under a special-event plan,
(3) TOD with ACS-Lite, (4) TR, and (5) TR with ACS-Lite. Free
operation, TR, and TOD had delay results that illustrated sliding
trade-offs between local capacity assignment and corridor progres-
sion objectives, with free operation having the lowest noncoordi-
nated phase delay and the highest coordinated phase delay, and vice
versa for TOD operation. ACS-Lite was shown to yield slight im-
provements under both TOD and TR control, but the magnitude of
improvement was small compared with the replacement of TOD
with TR because of the ability of TR to select cycle lengths in re-
lation to traffic volume.
This case study will run three different control strategies
including (1) fully actuated (noncoordinated vehicle-actuated) con-
trol, (2) coordinated-actuated (TOD vehicle-actuated) control, and
(3) ACS-Lite adaptive control through Econolite’s Centracs Adap-
tive model for a duration of one week each. A comprehensive
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 evaluation was conducted using the high-resolution second-by-
second flow, occupancy, and phase timing data collected by the Cen-
tracs Adaptive module and travel-time data collected during the AM
peak, PM peak, and Midday off-peak. This research is expected to
serve as an important reference for future research on signal control.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. “Back-
ground: Fully Actuated, Actuated-Coordinated, and Adaptive
Signal Control” briefly describes the three traffic signal control
modes that will be evaluated in this case study. “Data Preparation”
introduces the test site along with the data collection methodology.
The data analysis and results from different perspectives are
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(ATMS) software (Centracs 2016). Recently, central manage-
ment systems with adaptive control elements are seeing in-
creased usage (Shelby et al. 2008). These systems adapt signal
timings to accommodate changes in traffic flow. ACS-Lite
makes incremental revisions to the same TOD plans used in
actuated-coordinated control based on observed historical detec-
tor data. To maintain coordination, the software maintains the
same cycle lengths, but actively reallocates the split times and
adjusts offsets based on current traffic demand (Shelby et al.
2008). Occupancy data from the stop bar detectors are used to
determine phase utilization and split adjustments. The flows

presented in the section, “Data Analysis and Results.” Lastly, from the advanced detectors, or exit detectors from the previous
“Concluding Remarks” concludes this paper with a number of intersection, are used for estimating vehicle movement to cal-
propositions for future research. culate offsets. The splits and offsets are updated once every three
cycles, as the software needs a minimum of three cycles’ worth
of data to optimally adjust the signal timing.
Background: Fully Actuated, Actuated-Coordinated,
and Adaptive Signal Control
Data Preparation
This research aims to carry out a case study to evaluate actuated,
coordinated, and adaptive signal control strategies. Some brief
Test Site
background information about these three traffic signal control
modes: The test site is located in the city of Anaheim in Southern
1. Fully actuated (non-coordinated vehicle-actuated) control: California. The city is home to one of the most traffic-generating
A vehicle-actuated signal uses sensors to detect and user- attractions, Disneyland, and is a host to more than 20 million
programmed settings to determine the phases served and the visitors each year. The Centracs Adaptive model has been imple-
amount of green time signals provided in response to traffic de- mented in Anaheim, along seven intersections and two corridors
mand. This control is governed by the phasing structure and the bordering Disneyland, as shown in Fig. 1. These arterials see a sig-
minimum and maximum green times allocated per phase. Based nificant increase in traffic flow due to the theme parks, especially
on whether or not there is a vehicle actuation from the detectors, during the summer, when this study was taking place. For this
the green time will run between the minimum and maximum reason, the study area is a great location to test all three control
times. If there is an actuation from the advanced detectors strategies’ capability under high, unstable traffic flow.
for the current green phase, that phase will acquire a prepro- Both Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue corridors have six
grammed green-time extension, which varies based on posted/ through lanes. The Harbor Blvd. corridor, with a speed limit of
average approach speed, until it gaps-out or maxes-out. If there 56.33 kph (35 mph) and a distance of 1.45 km (0.9 miles), has an
is an actuation on a conflicting phase, there will be a call to that Interstate 5 on- and off-ramp immediately north of the study area;
phase. This type of signal control allows for variable phase se- the Katella Ave. corridor, with a speed limit of 64.37 kph (40 mph)
quences, variable green times, and variable cycle lengths. Such and a distance of 0.8 km (0.5 miles), has an Interstate 5 on- and
variability allows the signal to efficiently allocate green time off-ramp immediately east of the study area. All seven intersections
based on current demands and operations, but lacks the ability
to synchronize due to varying green splits without a cycle length
and an offset.
2. Actuated-coordinated (time-of-day vehicle-actuated) control:
The signal timings are optimized and pretimed based on sepa-
rate timing plans for major day-to-day traffic patterns. The tim-
ings are based on historical traffic data such as volume counts,
turning movement counts, travel speed, and travel time. They
are governed by three main factors: cycle length, phase splits,
and offset. In this study, the intersections are running with ac-
tuated coordination, in which the controllers were operating in
coordinated mode and that all intersections in the study area are
fully actuated, i.e., having detection for every phase/movement.
This coordinated operation is based on a group of signals oper-
ating on a nonvarying cycle length with a predetermined start or
end of the coordinated phases where each vehicular movement
is allocated a green split based on historical data. Since the study
area consists of a low-speed network where the volumes are
always near capacity, a fixed force-off was not used because
the seconds gained, if any, would not have a made a material
difference. Existing timing plans with a lead-lag left turn phase
order to optimize coordination patterns were used.
3. ACS-Lite Adaptive control: This case study will be based on the
Fig. 1. Map of Harbor Blvd. and Katella Ave. corridors (Google Map
Centracs Adaptive model that utilizes the benefits of the original
data, ©2015 Google)
ACS-Lite in its Advanced Transportation Management System

© ASCE 05017007-3 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007

 have stop bar detection and advanced detection. Video detection is
used mainly for the stop bar detection, and inductive loops are used
for advanced detection.
Data Collection
The city of Anaheim ran the seven intersections on each of the three
types of signal control for a duration of one week each:
Week 1: Fully actuated control (Tue. 6/16/15–Thu. 6/18/15)
Week 2: Actuated-coordinated control (Tue. 6/23/15–Thu.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
location, heading, and travel duration. With the participation of 11
university students, travel-time runs were made in either direction
in both corridors. Travel-time runs were conducted during three
time-of-day periods (AM peak: 7:00–9:00 a.m., Midday: 12:00–
2:00 p.m., and PM peak: 4:00–6:00 p.m.) on Tuesday, Wednesday,
and Thursday of the three-week study period. In total, data from 54
trips were collected under the fully actuated control, 48 trips under
the coordinated control, and 28 trips under the adaptive control.
Data Analysis and Results

6/25/15)
Week 3: Adaptive control (Tue. 6/30/15–Thu. 7/2/15). *Note:
Harbor Blvd./East Shuttle Area and Harbor Blvd./Manchester
Ave. were not on adaptive control due to time and budget
constraints.
During each of these weeks, data were collected both from
the field and from the Centracs model. From the Centracs model,
high-resolution second-by-second detector flow and occupancy
and phase signal timing data were archived for five of the inter-
sections: Harbor Blvd./Disney Way, Harbor Blvd./Katella Ave.,
Harbor Blvd./Convention Way, Katella Ave./Clementine St., and
Katella Ave./Anaheim Blvd. The other two intersections, Harbor
Blvd./Manchester Ave. and Harbor Blvd./East Shuttle Area, were
turned live on Centracs days before the project started, and they
were not connected to the Centracs Adaptive system. As a result,
they did not have the same high-resolution data collection capa-
bility as the other intersections. For those two intersections, the
volume and signal timing data were event-based, and data were
collected through the ASC/3 controller trip log.
Travel-time data were collected on the field through the use
of mobile phone applications that tracked the drivers’ speed, GPS
Traffic Flow
Traffic volume data along the two corridors were collected and
analyzed to see if the volume counts were consistent during the
three-week study period. The traffic volume data were collected
from every detector. Table 1 displays the mainline southbound (SB)
and northbound (NB) through movement of 2-h volume counts for
the Harbor Blvd. corridor, along with the number of travel runs
made. Table 2 displays the volume counts and number of travel
runs for the mainline eastbound (EB) and westbound (WB) through
movements for the Katella Ave. corridor.
To better visualize how the traffic flow varies during the three-
week study period, Fig. 2 displays the average volume counts for
the 2-h time periods for the mainline through movements by week.
The figure indicates that the intersections followed a similar pattern
that increased during certain times of day and decreased during
other times of day.
For the Harbor Blvd. NB direction, Week 2 had a consistent
increase in volume throughout the whole corridor. The increase
may represent an impact on the intersection performance results.

Table 1. Mainline through 2-h Volume Counts for Harbor Blvd. Corridor
(CW) (CW) (DW) (DW) (KA) (KA) (MA) (MA) (ESA) (ESA)
Time period Week Day NB TH SB TH NB TH SB TH NB TH SB TH NB TH SB TH NB TH SB TH
AM peak Week 1 Fully actuated (18 runs) Tue. 928 686 634 607 749 1,016 505 702 886 537
(7:00–9:00 a.m.) Wed. 1,088 818 804 1,053 735 1,011 513 772 947 713
Thu. 1,103 862 783 1,101 791 986 558 793 932 716
Week 2 Actuated-coordinated Tue. 1,231 1,099 969 1,018 810 1,486 709 823 N/A N/A
(16 runs) Wed. 1,306 1,146 1,008 1,036 835 1,399 635 830 N/A N/A
Thu. 1,269 1,030 945 1,015 755 1,471 680 745 N/A N/A
Week 3 Adaptive (9 runs) Tue. 1,267 660 653 1,156 790 825 374 857 N/A N/A
Wed. 1,178 633 590 1,035 731 889 375 868 N/A N/A
Thu. 738 736 709 1,045 762 774 482 737 N/A N/A
Midday Week 1 Fully actuated (18 runs) Tue. 785 740 781 753 801 737 625 623 1,057 984
(12:00–2:00 p.m.) Wed. 882 732 879 1,104 684 794 636 653 1,107 838
Thu. 908 713 769 1,067 755 815 619 617 N/A N/A
Week 2 Actuated-coordinated Tue. 1,241 936 878 942 641 1,043 859 465 N/A N/A
(15 runs) Wed. 1,151 855 895 913 708 1,086 898 443 N/A N/A
Thu. 1,140 942 789 978 578 1,038 909 491 N/A N/A
Week 3 Adaptive (7 runs) Tue. 1,234 796 519 912 718 733 263 412 N/A N/A
Wed. 1,133 661 627 1,037 722 744 506 715 N/A N/A
Thu. 746 870 932 1,190 732 767 603 720 N/A N/A
PM Peak Week 1 Fully actuated (18 runs) Tue. 1,207 848 890 988 831 970 459 847 1,113 1,070
(4:00–6:00 p.m.) Wed. 1,237 916 1,015 1,368 808 865 454 933 1,273 948
Thu. 1,153 935 867 1,330 868 950 514 967 1,036 919
Week 2 Actuated-coordinated Tue. 1,072 1,200 1,155 1,273 819 1,461 733 1,005 N/A N/A
(17 runs) Wed. 1,258 1,019 1,082 1,328 984 1,497 673 936 N/A N/A
Thu. 1,342 1,018 1,086 1,445 919 1,466 662 1,038 N/A N/A
Week 3 Adaptive (12 runs) Tue. 1,251 865 742 1,293 765 817 542 797 N/A N/A
Wed. 1,176 1,041 603 1,150 832 896 497 762 N/A N/A
Thu. 828 1,021 842 1,406 809 894 336 1,014 N/A N/A
Note: CW ¼ convention way; DW ¼ Disney Way; ESA ¼ east shuttle area; KA ¼ Katella Ave:; MA ¼ Manchester Ave:; NB ¼ Northbound; SB ¼
Southbound; TH ¼ through.

© ASCE 05017007-4 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007

 Table 2. Mainline through 2-h Volume Counts for Katella Ave. Corridor
(HB) (HB) (CS) (CS) (AB) (AB)
Time period Week Day EB TH WB TH EB TH WB TH EB TH WB TH
AM peak Week 1 Fully actuated (18 runs) Tue. 1,565 1,442 N/A N/A 1,385 977
(7:00–9:00 a.m.) Wed. 1,512 1,469 869 2,304 1,313 981
Thu. 1,537 1,445 1,204 2,461 1,430 1,109
Week 2 Actuated-coordinated (16 runs) Tue. 1,609 1,288 1,497 2,767 1,461 936
Wed. 1,906 1,411 1,384 2,580 1,336 902
Thu. 1,703 1,314 1,054 2,771 1,571 1,025
Week 3 Adaptive (9 runs) Tue. 1,536 1,304 1,521 2,602 1,540 1,083
Wed. 1,251 1,317 1,486 2,477 1,487 1,120
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Thu. 1,190 1,286 1,464 2,393 1,498 1,031

Midday Week 1 Fully actuated (18 runs) Tue. 950 1,255 N/A N/A 1,086 1,687
(12:00–2:00 p.m.) Wed. 1,102 1,328 1,170 2,227 1,303 1,675
Thu. 1,235 1,328 948 2,040 1,117 1,390
Week 2 Actuated-coordinated (15 runs) Tue. 828 1,510 994 2,049 1,140 1,542
Wed. 845 1,660 912 1,870 1,088 1,426
Thu. 1,102 1,265 909 2,039 1,061 1,338
Week 3 Adaptive (7 runs) Tue. 953 1,307 983 1,938 1,095 1,233
Wed. 1,012 1,259 1,403 1,970 1,325 1,241
Thu. 887 1,303 874 1,981 1,160 1,289
PM Peak Week 1 Fully actuated (16 runs) Tue. 1,165 1,420 N/A N/A 1,330 2,090
(4:00–6:00 p.m.) Wed. 1,121 1,383 1,234 2,292 1,153 2,081
Thu. 1,168 1,409 1,198 2,439 1,134 2,138
Week 2 Actuated-coordinated (16 runs) Tue. 831 1,150 1,271 2,702 1,198 2,050
Wed. 1,271 1,119 1,392 2,732 1,379 2,395
Thu. 1,227 1,177 1,291 2,742 1,351 2,200
Week 3 Adaptive (12 runs) Tue. 1,257 1,002 1,497 2,447 1,407 1,534
Wed. 1,132 1,017 1,310 2,256 1,218 1,666
Thu. 981 1,377 1,081 1,922 907 2,036
Note: AB ¼ Anaheim Blvd; CS ¼ Clementine St:; EB ¼ eastbound; HB ¼ Harbor Blvd:; TH ¼ through; WB ¼ westbound.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Fig. 2. Average 2-h volumes by intersection, where H-C ¼ Harbor Blvd:=Convention Way, H-K ¼ Harbor Blvd:=Katella Ave:, H-D ¼ Harbor
Blvd:=Disney Way, H-E ¼ Harbor Blvd:=East Shuttle, H-M ¼ Harbor Blvd:=Manchester Ave, K-H ¼ Katella Ave:=Harbor Blvd:, K-C ¼
Katella Ave:=Clementine St:, K-A ¼ Katella Ave:=Anaheim Blvd: (a) Harbor Blvd. NB direction; (b) Harbor Blvd. SB direction; (c) Katella
Ave. EB direction; (d) Katella Ave. WB direction

© ASCE 05017007-5 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007

 Most noticeably, for the SB direction, Week 2 had a significant
spike in volume for the intersection of Harbor Blvd. and Disney
Way. The increase of the mainline through volume for Week 2 may
be that since it is running under the actuated-coordinated control,
the fine-tuned coordination may allow the mainline through move-
ments to push more vehicles through.
With the exception of the EB direction AM peak, the Katella
Ave. corridor volume counts were more consistent across the board.
This will help ensure, for Katella Ave., that variance in volume was
minimal and most likely did not have an effect on the performance
comparisons during the three-week study period. This is further
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
confirmed by the phase utilization percentages directly provided
by the Centracs system. The phase utilization percentages were
almost always over 90%, which indicated that traffic demand was
near capacity. Thus the variable volumes over the three-week study
period had very limited impact on the conclusions.
Travel Time
The average travel time was used as a performance measure for
the three-week study period. The distribution of travel times for
each run is presented in box plots in Fig. 3. The first and third
quartiles are at the ends of the box, the median is indicated with a
horizontal line in the interior of the box, and the maximum and
minimum are at the ends of the whiskers (perpendicular lines at
the end of vertical extents). In addition, the vertical extent of plot
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3. Travel-time box plots: (a) Harbor Blvd. Corridor; (b) Katella Ave. corridors
© ASCE 05017007-6
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007
shows the variability of data. Therefore, a plot with less variability
and median travel time, as compared to others, will be better.
For the Harbor Blvd. corridor, the Week 2 coordinated-actuated
control performed best of the three weeks for both directions, and
for all the time periods: AM peak, Midday off-peak, and PM peak
as the median travel time and variability of travel time was least in
this case. This is consistent with the high throughput volume on
Harbor Blvd. during Week 2 as shown in Fig. 2. But this might
also indicate that the actuated-coordinated control mode performs
better than fully actuated or adaptive mode under the circumstance
of high traffic volume. For Week 3, the adaptive control performed
slightly worse than the Week 1 fully actuated control for the north-
bound direction; however, it performed slightly better than Week 1
for the SB direction. This may be a result of adaptive favoring the
SB, and thus allocating more green time to that direction.
For the Katella Ave. corridor, it is clear that for the EB direction,
the Week 2 coordination outperformed the other two weeks during
the AM and PM peak times. However, during the off-peak midday
time period, Week 3’s adaptive control outperformed Week 1 and
Week 2. This may be because during the off-peak time, the traffic
flow is unpredictable. As shown from the midday plots, the box
is narrower in the Harbor Blvd. corridor than in the Katella Ave.
corridor. Because Harbor Blvd.’s box is narrower, the traffic flow
arrival is more uniform and predictable as all the travel times
through the corridor were very close. For Katella Ave., however,
the range of the box is larger, indicating less stable flow. This helps
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 to further explain that the coordinated control worked better during
constant and uniform traffic flow, as shown in most of the AM
and PM peak period travel-time results. But when the traffic flow
was more random and unpredictable, as seen during the midday
for Katella Ave., adaptive control performed better because it
adjusts signal timings based on these flow variances. It may be
noted that high variability in case of adaptive control for Harbor
Blvd. may be influenced by the fact that two of the five intersec-
tions did not have adaptive control enabled. Hence, the results dem-
onstrate the better performance of coordinated control for high
(stable/uniform/predictable) volume and adaptive control for low
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
calculated as the time difference it took to travel through the
corridor, minus the time it would have taken if the vehicle had trav-
eled with the fully actuated flow speed. The number of stops was
counted from each time the speed dropped below 8 kph (5 mph)
after exceeding 24.14 kph (15 mph).
It is evident from the table that there were a couple of instances
where Week 3’s adaptive mode performed worse than Week 1’s
fully actuated mode and Week 2’s coordinated mode. The travel-
time runs were made by traveling only along the mainline through
movements. But in Week 2, the signal was coordinated for the

mainline through movements, thus resulting in the actuated-

(unstable/nonuniform/unpredictable) volume.
Delay and Number of Stops
Summaries of the results from the field runs are presented in
Table 3. The data collected from the field were analyzed using
version 10.0 of Tru-Traffic transportation software. The travel time
was calculated as the time in seconds to travel from the limit line of
the first intersection, to the limit line of the last intersection. All the
runs during that particular week and time period were averaged, to
give a resulting average travel time. Table 3 displays the percentage
change in travel time compared to Week 1. The delay time was
coordinated control mode performing best. Week 3’s adaptive
mode however, does not only take into account the mainline move-
ments, but also the side-street movements. The adaptive mode
follows an access-equity objective for all approaches, by favoring
all movements rather than only focusing on the mainline (Wu and
Liu 2014). This might be the reason why the adaptive mode per-
formed worse than the other control modes under certain condi-
tions. Note, due to limited data in this case study, the previous
statement could not be supported with data. More data will be
needed to further explore the reasons why the adaptive mode per-
formed worse than other control models under certain conditions in
future research.

Table 3. Summary of Travel Time, Delay, and Number of Stops

Average % Change in Average Average
Corridor Time period Test period travel time (s) travel time delay (s) number of stops
Harbor Blvd. AM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 235 — 91 2.2
(Northbound) Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 143 −39 −1 1.9
Week 3—Adaptive 248 6 104 2.8
Midday Week 1—Fully actuated 192 — 47 1.7
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 159 −17 15 1.7
Week 3—Adaptive 244 27 160 2.3
PM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 221 — 77 3.0
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 147 −33 3 2.9
Week 3—Adaptive 240 9 96 2.3
Harbor Blvd. AM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 230 — 86 2.1
(Southbound) Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 130 −43 −14 2.3
Week 3—Adaptive 204 −11 60 2.3
Midday Week 1—Fully actuated 226 — 82 1.9
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 156 −31 12 2.7
Week 3—Adaptive 206 −9 62 2.8
PM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 265 — 121 3.4
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 135 −49 −9 2.7
Week 3—Adaptive 214 −19 70 2.3
Katella Ave. Week 1—Fully actuated 85 — 44 1.6
(Eastbound) Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 58 −32 17 0.6
Week 3—Adaptive 75 −12 34 1.4
Midday Week 1—Fully actuated 99 — 58 2.3
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 116 17 74 1.2
Week 3—Adaptive 75 −24 34 2.0
PM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 99 — 57 2.9
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 72 −27 30 0.3
Week 3—Adaptive 94 −5 53 3.0
Katella Ave. AM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 117 — 21 2.2
(Westbound) Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 106 −9 9 1.8
Week 3—Adaptive 85 −27 −11 1.6
Midday Week 1—Fully actuated 135 — 38 2.4
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 100 −26 3 1.0
Week 3—Adaptive 72 −47 −25 2.0
PM peak Week 1—Fully actuated 138 — 42 3.3
Week 2—Actuated-coordinated 137 −1 40 1.6
Week 3—Adaptive 143 4 47 3.4

© ASCE 05017007-7 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Time-distance and speed-distance diagrams for Harbor Blvd. NB direction during AM peak (different solid lines in figure represent
trajectories of different probe vehicles) (a) week 1: fully actuated; (b) week 2: actuated-coordinated; (c) week 3: adaptive

Coordination
The time-distance and speed-distance diagrams for the Harbor
Blvd. NB direction during the AM peak period are presented in
Fig. 4. Note that some inconsistencies between the laminar flow
in time-space diagram and zero speed in speed-space diagram
[particularly see Fig. 4(b)] are mainly due to the detection errors of
cell phone applications, which rely on an accelerometer in the cell
phone to detect motion and thus derive instantaneous speed.
The time-distance diagram demonstrates that the intersections
along Harbor Blvd. are more coordinated during Week 2. This
may be because during the AM peak hour, the traffic flow is more
predictable and constant, and thus the coordinated time-of-day
control outperforms the fully actuated control and adaptive control.
During all the runs, the vehicles all seem to come to a stop at
Katella Ave. and from there drive freely through the corridor with
very little delay. From the speed-distance diagram, only a few of the
runs’ speeds dropped below 24.14 kph (15 mph) after Katella Ave.
During Week 1’s fully actuated control, a third of the runs were
able to clear through the corridor after Katella Ave., while the re-
mainder of the runs come to a stop at every light. This is because
fully actuated control does not coordinate traffic between intersec-
tions; its sole purpose is to move traffic based on vehicle actuations
at that intersection only.
Week 3’s adaptive control seems to be less coordinated going
NB than Week 1. The travel time and delay results showed that
adaptive control performed the worst for the NB direction. It is clear
from the space-distance diagram that the runs during Week 3 are
more sporadic and less consistent.
Signal Timing and Cycle-by-Cycle Vehicle Throughput
It would be interesting to see if there are any correlations between
green time and cycle-by-cycle throughout under different con-
trol. Fig. 5 depicts cycle-by-cycle vehicle throughput and green
time plots for the Harbor Blvd./Katella Ave., SB direction. The
duration of green time per cycle is displayed in green (curved
solid line). As can be seen in the figure, the green times for
Week 1 are highly varied. This is because during the fully actuated
control, the cycle lengths vary and are solely based on vehicle
actuations.
During Week 2, the traffic signal control was running on
actuated-coordinated plans. For this particular intersection and
phase, the AM peak split time was 39 s, Midday off-peak was 43 s,
and the PM peak split time was 39 s. From the figure, it can be
observed that the green times followed extremely closely to the
split times allocated for that TOD. What may account for the vari-
ance is the green extension time that may have occurred as a result
of a vehicle actuation at the advanced detectors.
The green times for Week 3 are governed initially by the TOD
split times. However, with adaptive running behind the scenes, the

© ASCE 05017007-8 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007

 (a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. Cycle-by-cycle vehicle throughput and green time plots for Harbor Blvd./Katella Ave. SB direction: (a) AM peak; (b) midday;
(c) PM peak (different solid lines in the figure represent the trajectories of different probe vehicles)
green times are reallocated based on traffic demand on all ap-
proaches. It can be seen in the figure that the green times are varied,
however not as varied as Week 1, which is attempting to stay close
to the original split times.
The blue bars in Fig. 5 display the cycle-by-cycle vehicle
throughput: The number of vehicles per second that were able
to go through the intersection during the green time. The red
(dotted) line is the average vehicle throughput. During the AM
and PM peak periods, Week 2’s coordinated control was able to
move more vehicles per green time second than the other two
weeks. During the Midday time period however, all three traffic
signal controls performed similarly in terms of moving vehicles
through the intersection.
From Fig. 5, it can be seen that Week 1’s fully actuated control
performed slightly better than Week 3’s adaptive control. This may
be because the fully actuated control is only governed by actua-
tion. Thus if there is a vehicle call on the current phase, it may
extend the green to accommodate that phase, and in doing so, push
more vehicles through. The adaptive control takes into account
vehicle calls from all approaches. So instead of maximizing the
vehicle throughput for a particular phase, it follows an access-
equity objective and favors all phases equally. Whereas the fully
actuated control does not have a limited cycle length, adaptive
control does. Thus it must take into account the set cycle length,
and allocating the green times to all phases. For this reason, the
adaptive control may not move as many vehicles per green time
second as the other signal controls.
© ASCE
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007
Concluding Remarks
As the population increases and there are more drivers on the road,
traffic engineers must turn their focus to maximizing the efficiency
of the current transportation system through traffic signal control.
A case study was conducted to evaluate ACS-Lite’s adaptive
performance versus conventional actuated-coordinated signal con-
trol, and fully actuated, vehicle-actuated control. The test was
done along heavy flow arterials around Disneyland in Anaheim,
California. The results indicated that adaptive control did not
perform as well as the well-calibrated and finely tuned actuated-
coordinated control. These results also indicated that for this type
of congested network, the adaptive traffic signal control is best
suited to improving the efficiency of arterial intersections when
traffic demand is unpredictable, variable, and in low volume.
During the AM and PM peak hours, the traffic demand was high
and predictable, thus in those situations, conventional actuated-
coordinated plans performed better. Particularly, the TOD timing
patterns are based on traffic engineering principles and soundly de-
veloped theory, so it is not a surprise that it may perform better
than an ATSC (Gettman et al. 2015). This result was similar to the
conclusion that Shelby et al. (2008) came to, that ACS-Lite does
not have substantial performance improvements where the signal
timings had already been previously optimized. The timing plans
for this test area were well calibrated and based on historically
recorded traffic data.
The minor and subtle gains in improvement of adaptive signal
control might be caused by its access-equity objective, which aims
05017007-9 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.
 to favor all phases equally, while other modes purely aim to maxi-
mize the vehicle throughput for a particular phase. Therefore,
as this study only evaluated through traffic, adaptive control per-
formed worse than other modes, especially coordinated-actuated
control. Future research should be done to evaluate adaptive con-
trol’s effect on noncoordinated phases. In addition, a fully adaptive
system may have returned different results. Since ACS-Lite is
constricted by the cycle length, which had already been optimized
based on historical data, that limits adaptive’s ability to improving
the traffic mobility. Furthermore, current research excludes traffic-
responsive plan selection due to the testing side limitation. It would
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico on 02/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
be interesting for future research to investigate the impacts from
traffic-responsive plans.
The findings from this study may offer some hints for the future
potential improvement for adaptive control, which might achieve
better efficiency by adjusting its objective from favoring all
approaches to focusing more on coordination. In addition, it is
the authors’ understanding that the current adaptive control system
does not fully utilize highly valuable high-resolution traffic and
signal data collected by the Centracs system. It would be a very
promising future research topic to investigate the great potential
of high-resolution data, as demonstrated by Wu and Liu (2014),
claiming that high-resolution data is extremely helpful in the fields
of detector error diagnosis, travel time estimation, arterial perfor-
mance measure, and signal control optimization. Adaptive systems
can improve immensely if they utilize this high-resolution data col-
lection capability that is currently present in the newer controllers
and software available today.
As a last remark, this research was limited as it only covered
seven intersections along two corridors, focusing only on the main
arterial movements. Also, the uneven traffic volumes during the
three-week evaluation period might also have an impact on the
evaluation results. To further analyze the full capacity of an adap-
tive system, evaluation on a larger network with even traffic volume
and more emphasis on the side-street impacts is recommended.
Also, there are many other technologies that can be used to estimate
travel time such as Bluetooth reidentification (Haseman et al. 2010;
Day et al. 2016). ACS-Lite is just one type of adaptive signal con-
trol system. The conclusion from this case study may not apply to
all adaptive systems from various other manufacturers.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation
(#1536277) and California Department of Transportation through
University of California Transportation Center (#0000876).
References
Abbas, M., Bullock, D., and Head, L. (2001). “Real-time offset transition-
ing algorithm for coordinating traffic signals.” Trans. Res. Rec., 1748,
26–39.
Brilon, W., and Wietholt, T. (2013). “Experiences with adaptive signal
control in Germany.” Trans. Res. Rec., 2356, 9–16.
Buckholz, J. W. (1993). “The 10 major pitfalls of coordinated signal tim-
ing.” ITE J., 63(8), 26–29.
Centracs. (2016). “Centracs ATMS—Econolite advanced traffic manage-
ment system.” 〈http://www.econolite.com/index.php/products/systems
/centracs〉 (Jul. 3, 2016).
Chin, S. M., Franzese, O., Greene, D. L., Hwang, H. L., and Gibson, R. C.
(2004). Temporary losses of highway capacity and impacts on perfor-
mance: Phase 2, U.S. Dept. of Energy, Washington, DC.
CORSIM [Computer software]. U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
© ASCE 05017007-10
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2017, 143(9): 05017007
Day, C., et al. (2012). “Performance measures for adaptive signal control.”
Trans. Res. Rec., 2311, 1–15.
Day, C., et al. (2016). “Visualization and assessment of arterial progression
quality using high resolution signal event data and measured travel
time.” Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measure Workshop,
National Operations Center of Excellence, Washington, DC.
Day, C., Smaglik, E., Bullock, D., and Sturdevant, J. (2008). “Quantitative
evaluation of fully actuated versus nonactuated coordinated phases.”
Trans. Res. Rec., 2080, 8–21.
El-Tantawy, S., Abdulhai, B., and Abdelgawad, H. (2013). “Multiagent
reinforcement learning for integrated network of adaptive traffic signal
controllers (MARLIN-ATSC): Methodology and large-scale applica-
tion on downtown Toronto.” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 14(3),
1140–1150.
Fehon, K., and Peters, J. (2010). “Adaptive traffic signals, comparison and
case studies.” Western ITE Annual Meeting 2010. Paper 9A-Fehon,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). (2009). Manual on uniform
traffic control devices, Washington, DC.
Ficklin, N. C. (1973). “For and against semi-actuated traffic signal control.”
Traffic Eng. Inst. Traffic Eng., 43(6), 20–25.
Gettman, D., Flanigan, E., Fok, E., and Curtis, E., (2015). “Survival of
the adaptable.” Transportation Management and Engineering. Spring
2015, Scranton Gillette Communications, Arlington Heights, IL, 13–15.
Haseman, R., Wasson, J., and Bullock, D. (2010). “Real-time measure-
ment of travel time delay in work zones and evaluation metrics using
Bluetooth probe tracking.” Trans. Res. Rec., 2169, 40–53.
Hunt, P. B., Robertson, D. I., Bretherton, R. D., and Winton, R. I. (1981).
“SCOOT—A traffic responsive method of coordinating signals.” TRL
Laboratory Rep., 1014, Transport and Road Research Laboratory,
Berkshire, U.K.
Hutton, J. M., Bokenkroger, C. D., and Meyer, M. M. (2010). “Evaluation
of an adaptive traffic signal system: Route 291 in Lee’s Summit,
Missouri.” 〈http://library.modot.mo.gov/RDT/reports/Ri08026/or10020
.pdf〉 (Nov. 22, 2010).
InSync [Computer software]. Rhythm Engineering, Lenexa, KS.
Jiang, X., Qiu, Y., and Ruan, S. (2011). “An approach to optimize the
settings of actuated signals.” J. Model Trans., 19(1), 68–74.
Klein, L. A., Mills, M. K., and Gibson, D. R. (2006). Traffic detector hand-
book, FHWA, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA.
Luyanda, F., Gettman, D., Head, L., Shelby, S., Bullock, D., and
Mirchandani, P. (2003). “ACS-Lite algorithmic architecture: Applying
adaptive control system technology to closed-loop traffic signal control
systems.” Trans. Res. Rec., 1856, 175–184.
MOTION [Computer software]. Siemens AG, Munich, Germany.
Park, B. B., Chen, Y., Cho, H., and Yun, I. (2014). “Quantifying the benefits
of adaptive split feature on the operation of coordinated actuated traffic
signal system.” KSCE J. Civ. Eng., 19(1), 311–317.
Shelby, S. G., Bullock, D. M., Gettman, D., Ghaman, R. S., Sabra, Z. A.,
and Soyke, N. (2008). “An overview and performance evaluation of
ACS-Lite: A low cost adaptive signal control system.” Transportation
Research Board Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board,
Wasington, DC.
Sims, A. G., and Finlay, A. B. (1984). “SCATS: Splits and offsets simpli-
fied (SOS).” ARRB Proc., Vol. 12, Australian Road Research Board
(ARRB) Group Limited, Vermnt South, VIC, Australia.
Stevanovic, A., Kergaye, C., and Stevanovic, J. (2011). “Evaluating robust-
ness of signal timings for varying traffic flows.” Trans. Res. Rec., 2259,
141–150.
Stevanovic, A., and Zlatkovic, M. (2013). “Evaluation of InSync adaptive
traffic signal control in microsimulation environment.” Transportation
Res. Paper #13-0487, Transportation Research Board, Wasington, DC.
Vissim 5 [Computer software]. Planung Transport Verkehr AG, Karlsruhe,
Germany.
Wu, X., and Liu, H. X. (2014). “Using high-resolution event-based data
for traffic modeling and control: An overview.” Trans. Res. Part C,
42, 28–43.
Yarger, B. (1993). Fully actuated vs. semi-actuated traffic signal systems,
Yarger Engineering, Indianapolis.
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Syst.