Digest of Results
Click on the relevant tool to access a list of reported benefits for this type of tool.
Tools List
Access ControlAdaptive Traffic Signal Control
Asset Management Databases
Broadcast Congestion Information
Car Park & Roadside Security
Common Databases
Data Collection & Monitoring
Dedicated Lane Enforcement
Demand Responsive Management
Emergency Vehicle Priority
Environmental Traffic Management
Freight & Fleet Management
Incident Detection
Intelligent Road Markings
Lane Control
Multimodal Trip Planning
Parking Management
Parking Payment Systems
Passenger Information Systems
Public Transport Payment Systems
Public Transport Priority
Public Transport Security
Ramp Metering
Red Light Monitoring
Road User Charging
Route Guidance & Navigation
Speeding Detection
Variable Message Signs
Variable Speed Limits
Vehicle Activated Signs
Vulnerable Road User Facilities
Access Control
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cambridge sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | NO2 levels improved or remained the same at 16 out of 18 sites across the city centre. | Five months after the access control scheme was initiated there had been a 10% reduction in traffic, with an associated 7% increase in the number of cyclists in the city centre. There was also a 7% reduction in evening peak travel times on the ring road, although this has led to a 9% increase in daily traffic on the ring road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Technical Performance was poor to begin with as vehicles would attempt to follow buses into the access control zone and damage the bollards. The imposition of flashing warning signs and improved detection meant that bollards now operate effectively for 95 | - |
|
Edinburgh sig |
The introduction of the scheme caused the average speed of vehicles to be reduced by 2-3 miles per hour. There was an overall decrease in accidents on Princes Street by 34% . | The scheme caused Nitrogen Dioxide levels on Princes Street to fall by 40%. | Bus journey times decreased slightly and overall traffic flows decreased 3% from the previous year. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 75% of members of the public surveyed about the scheme wanted the changes made permanent. |
| GAUDI / CONCERT - Barcelona, Spain sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The schemes reduced traffic entering each area by a third and increased parking availability by 15% in those areas. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Two thirds of residents of the area welcome the scheme and supported its use being extended to other parts of the city. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Adaptive Traffic Signal Control
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
SCOOT System - Southampton sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Following implementation of SCOOT, there were 18% and 26% reductions in journey times during the am and pm peaks respectively. Corresponding reductions in delay of 39% during the am peak and 48% in the pm peak were achieved. Economic benefit (excluding accident savings) equated to £140,000 in 1985. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Bristol Showcase scheme sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | One sample journey time survey of the A38 North Corridor showed an average reduction in bus journey time from 17 to 11 minutes within the Gloucester Road area. Early indications suggest an increase in patronage of up to 10% on the Showcase route, against an overall slight decline in bus patronage in Bristol. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| QUARTET / PRODYN - Toulouse, France sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Compared to the previous fixed time signal system there was a 10% reduction in total network travel time. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| UTOPIA-SPOT - Eindhoven, Holland sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Travel times were reduced by up to 21% on sections under control of UTOPIA-SPOT. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| MOTION - Cologne sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | There was a decrease in the most serious pollutants and of fuel consumption of between 8 and 15%. | MOTION implementation resulted in a 7% higher average network speed (26.8kph as opposed to 24.8kph) due to better signal coordination. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) - Los Angeles, California, United States sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 13% decrease in fuel consumption and 14% decrease in emissions. | 41% reduction in vehicles stops, 18% reduction in travel time, 16% increase in average speed, and a 44% decrease in delay. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Adaptive Traffic Signal Control System - British Colombia, Canada sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Fixed time UTC systems on provincial highways produced average delay savings of more than 25%. A dynamic system implemented on the Trans-Canada Highway led to an additional reduction of 15% in traffic delays during the peak traffic periods. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| SCOOT System - Toronto, Canada sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The SCOOT system improved the traffic flows and as a result improved fuel consumption by 5.7%. Carbon monoxide emissions were reduced by 5% and hydrocarbons by 3.7%. | After the SCOOT system was implemented in Toronto overall network journey times decreased by 8%, vehicle stops by 22% and vehicle delays by 17%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Green Logic - Netherlands sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | This system produced a 20% less time-loss, 10% shorter cycle times and as a result 5% higher capacity. Performance improved 2% on sunny days and 6% on rainy days following the implementation of Green Logic. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Advanced Signal System - Richmond, Virginia, United States sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Fuel consumption decreased as a result of this system by 10-12%, this lead to a decrease in emissions of 5-22% | Total delays decreased 14-30% and stops decreased 28-39%. This equates to a total annual saving of $4.2m. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Asset Management Databases
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This project has not yet identified robust, quantifiable results for this tool. If you aware of additional information in this area please contact the Transport Technology and Standards Division of the Department for Transport at: its@dft.gsi.gov.uk. sig |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Broadcast Congestion Information
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMC sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 67% of Viking users had listened to TMC messages before a journey. At the end of the trial 23% had changed behaviour as a result of a pre-trip message and 37% were willing to pay for the service at an average cost of £96/year. If the service were improved then an additional 50% of users would consider subscribing at an average price of £130. |
| ACCEPT RDS-TMC sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Equipping vehicles with RDS-TMC reduces travel times by 3-9%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| LLAMD, ACCEPT and PLEIADES trials of RDS-TMC sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Upon hearing relevant messages from the RDS-TMC system 20-24% of drivers will divert. | - |
| CITIES Project sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | If sample drivers received a message relating to relevant congestion then 6% of them would delay their departure. | - |
| ARTIMIS - Kentucky, Ohio, United States sig | Following implementation of ARTIMIS, there was a 3.2% reduction in fatalities during both the am and pm peak periods. | Hydrocarbon emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6 percent during the pm peak period. Carbon Monoxide emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6% during the pm peak period.. Nitrogen oxides emissions were reduced by 4.7% during the am peak period, and 4.5% during the pm peak period. | Travel time delay was reduced by approximately 12,000 hours per am peak period (0.2 minutes per driver trip) and 6,940 hours of unexpected delay per pm peak period (0.6 minutes per driver trip). | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | More than 99% of those surveyed in February 1999 said they benefited from the system by avoiding traffic problems. 65% said they would be willing to pay for the service, which is currently free of charge. 81% had recommended the service to someone else. A survey in February and April 2000 found 19% of travellers were very satisfied, 46% somewhat satisfied and 7% dissatisfied with the system. |
| TransGuide - San Antonio, Texas, United States sig | Primary accidents were reduced by 35%, secondary accidents by 30% and inclement weather accidents by 40%. There was an overall accident reduction of 41%, whilst mean incident response time was reduced by 20%. | The reduction in delays was calculated to reduce the consumption of fuel by approximately 2600 gallons per major accident. | Results indicated average delay savings of 700 vehicle-hours. Tthese figures translated into annual savings of $1.65 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Periodic surveys taken after implementation indicated that driver response to posted instructions improved from 33% just after implementation to 80% at the time of reporting. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Car Park & Roadside Security
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Crime prevention effects of closed circuit television: a systematic review sig |
There was evidence that CCTV in car parks led to a statistically significant decrease in crime of about 41% in experimental areas compared to control areas. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
CCTV installation at Albion Street car park, Hull sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | 45% drop in offences resulting in damage to vehicles, 89% drop in thefts of vehicles, 76% drop in thefts from vehicles. Car park usage (8am to 6pm) was 8.5% higher between February and June in the after monitoring period. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
CCTV installation at John Street car park, Bradford sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Thefts from cars dropped by 68%, thefts of cars dropped by 43% following installation of CCTV. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Common Databases
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This project has not yet identified robust, quantifiable results for this tool. If you aware of additional information in this area please contact the Transport Technology and Standards Division of the Department for Transport at: its@dft.gsi.gov.uk. sig |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Data Collection & Monitoring
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This project has not yet identified robust, quantifiable results for this tool. If you aware of additional information in this area please contact the Transport Technology and Standards Division of the Department for Transport at: its@dft.gsi.gov.uk. sig |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Dedicated Lane Enforcement
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Scheme, Camden, London sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Number of motorists illegally using bus lanes has dropped by up to 50%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Number of tickets issued to offending drivers has dropped from 5.5 per hour in December 2002 (when there were 33 hours of operational enforcement overall each day) to 2.6 in November 2003 (84 hours of enforcement each day). Numbers of tickets issued at 2 sites have dropped by almost 90%. |
|
Bus Lane Cameras, London sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Early data on the camera enforcement program in London has shown a 92% decline in violations, leading to average travel time improvements for buses of as much as 46%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Onewa Road Transit Lane, Auckland, New Zealand (gives priority to buses, motorcycles, bicycles and cars with 3 or more occupants) sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Average car occupancy doubled from 1.65 in May 2000 (pre-enforcement) to 3.3 per vehicle in March 2003. A journey along the majority of the transit lane, which previously took up to 30 minutes can now be done in between 4 and 7 minutes. The number of bus passengers on the road increased 25% over 3 years of enforcement of the transit lane. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Numbers of non-complying vehicles at one point in the transit lane dropped 98% from about 900 prior to enforcement in May 2000 to roughly 20 in March 2003 each day between 6.30 and 8.30am. Non-complying vehicles make up only 4.63% of all those using the transit lane. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Demand Responsive Management
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Wiltshire Wigglybus sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Patronage figures in late 2003 were around 3000 passengers/month, although prior to the reorganisation of the Travel Dispatch Centre, it was 3500 passengers per month. However further growth in patronage is expected. | A survey carried out in 2000 showed that 30% of trips made on the Wigglybus were not being made previously. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | - |
|
Lincolnshire Demand Responsive Bus Services sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Patronage of Lincoln-Skegness Connect 6 service has more than doubled - equivalent to 165,000 passengers per year. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Ridership of the feeder services grew by 25% in the second year of operation and continued to increase with the introduction of the CallConnect Plus Services. | - | - |
|
Phone and Go, Northumberland - Allen Valley Route sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 3258 trips were made between October 2002 and September 2003 (average 11 per day). Average distance of trip was 5.46km. 50% of survey respondents would have to walk over 20 minutes to their nearest bus stop without the service. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | 52% of passengers interviewed (also incorporating Lower Coquet service), appeared totally dependent on Phone and Go, some describing it as a lifeline. |
|
Phone and Go, Northumberland - Lower Coquet Route sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 7093 trips made between December 2002 and September 2003 (average 29 per day). Average distance of trip was 2.7km. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | 52% of passengers interviewed (also incorporating Allen Valley service), appeared totally dependent on Phone and Go, some describing it as a lifeline. |
|
NEXUS DRT, Tyne and Wear sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The call centre receives 60,000 calls per month, many from elderly people. The scheme has 14,300 clients, making approximately 300,000 trips per year in 24 vehicles. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 97.5% of calls were answered within 30 seconds | - |
| SAMPO / SAMPLUS - multiple sites across Europe sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Implementations of SAMPO and SAMPLUS in different sites around Europe have achieved enormous growth in patronage, ranging from 4 to 10 times the figures when the systems were first introduced. In Campi (Italy) patronage rose from 300 to 3000 trips per week. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | - |
| Outreach, San Jose, California, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | The paratransit fleet was reduced from 200 to 130 vehicles, and subsequently could reduced traffic congestion and air pollution in the area. | Benefits of Outreach included increased patronage, better on-time performance, and a $0.5m reduction in operating costs during the first year of operation. The number of shared rides increased from 38% to 55%, whilst the cost per passenger mile decreased from $4.88 to $3.72. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | - |
| CAD system, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The computer-assisted dispatching (CAD) system, which allowed same-day ride requests to be accepted, contributed to an increase in ridership from 5,000 to 9,000 passengers per month, without any increase in dispatching staff. The cost of running the service per passenger mile decreased by 50% over a 5-year period. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Emergency Vehicle Priority
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPTICOM - Denver, Colorado; St Pauls, Minnesota, United States sig | In Denver, travel times for fire trucks were reduced by 14-23%. The number of accidents involving emergency vehicles in St Pauls at junctions was reduced by 70%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Environmental Traffic Management
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
EFFECT/EMMA - Leicester sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | A survey was carried out on one day where air pollution was higher than normal. About 35% of respondents were aware that air pollution was higher than usual at lunch time, rising to 50% in the evening. Of those questioned, 1 had chosen not to travel into Leicester and 15% of had changed their behaviour in some way. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| QUARTET PLUS / APOLLON - Athens, Greece sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | The VMS warning strategy introduced as part of the trial caused carbon monoxide levels to fall by 29% and hydrocarbon levels by 26%. | **Covered in another part of the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | **Covered in another part of the project.** |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Freight & Fleet Management
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cab information and communication system, (Tesco), UK sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Analysis of driver performance to identify ways in which fuel economy can be improved (through a reduction in heavy braking and an increase in the use of cruise control), has led to fuel savings of approximately 4-5%, corresponding to an annual saving of £2 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Wisconsin Winter Weather System, United States sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Estimated to save approximately $75000 in reduced salt usage for a single storm and four hours per person for each significant storm. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| AVL/CAD on buses - Kansas City, Missouri, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | On-time performance improved by 12% in the first year of operation using AVL, compared to a 7% improvement as the result of a coordinated effort between 1986 and 1989. Examining AVL data led to a schedule revision that reduced the 200-vehicle fleet by 7 buses while reducing scheduled travel times by up to 10%. An annual operating expense reduction of $0.5m based on a $1.1m investment was reported. Kansas managed to recover the cost of AVL in 2 years. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| AVL on buses - Baltimore, Maryland, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The Mass Transit Administration reported a 23% improvement in on-time performance of equipped buses. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| City Logistics Trial - Holborn, Germany sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | Environmental pollution was reduced by approximately 60% compared to the traditional separate deliveries system. | 6 freight vehicles making deliveries in the inner city were reduced to 1, resulting in an 83% reduction in annual freight mileage in the inner city from 15,000km to 2,500km. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| City Logistics Trial - Magdeburg, Germany sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | First-year results showed 20% less cross-city freight travel, with a 25-40% reduction in distance travelled. The number of freight trips was reduced from 120 to 40 per month, with the average weight unloaded at each drop-off point increasing from 0.25 to 0.4 tonnes. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| COST321 - Multiple sites across Europe sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Delivery consolidation could reduce HGV mileage by approximately 10%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| AUSIAS - Valencia, Spain sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | A prototype dynamic bus scheduling and remote maintenance monitoring system managed to reduce the time to create a bus and crew schedule by 35%, whilst reduced waiting time made it possible to increase the cost-effectiveness of each schedule by around 10%. There was a large reduction in labour inputs required to produce a schedule (from 24 to 4 hours), as well as a 1% reduction in crew costs. AUSIAS estimated that the latter could amount to a cost saving of 100 000 € per year for an operator with 30 routes. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Incident Detection
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
COMPANION - M90 near Edinburgh |
2 trials showed significant speed reductions of 14.9km/h and 7.9km/h following implementation, alongside a drop in accident rate on site from 0.10 to 0.06 PIA per M.Veh.km. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Automatic Incident Detection - M1 Motorway |
Total injury accidents reduced by 18%. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Total savings of £94,000 per km of D3 motorway/year, due to reduced delays. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Video Information Highway (VIH) Trial, Bristol area |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 54% of emails received praised the website, with the consensus being that it is a highly useful tool for monitoring traffic conditions. 23% requested expansion of it to include other parts of the motorway network, most looking for national CCTV coverage. |
| QUARTET PLUS - Stuttgart, Germany | Field trials in Stuttgart showed that systems integrating emergency call management supported by GPS, digital road maps and GSM communications could reduce the response time of emergency vehicles by 43%. As a result, survival rates may improve by between 7 and 12%. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| CHART Incident Response - Maryland, United States | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Maryland DOT provided unit costs of different pollutants. Based on these costs, the reduction in delay due to the presence of CHART resulted in a saving estimated at 25.7 million dollars in 1999, and 26.7 million dollars in 2000. A model estimated a fuel saving of approximately 4.1 million gallons a year. | In 2000, the average incident duration was about 33 minutes with CHART and 77 minutes without it. The model estimated an annual saving of 24.24 million vehicle hours of delay. The CHART system caused a 5% reduction in delay for travellers. A benefit/cost ratio of 5.6:1 was estimated. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| ARTIMIS - Kentucky, Ohio, United States | Following implementation of ARTIMIS, there was a 3.2% reduction in fatalities during both the am and pm peak periods. | Hydrocarbon emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6 percent during the pm peak period. Carbon Monoxide emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6% during the pm peak period.. Nitrogen oxides emissions were reduced by 4.7% during the am peak period, and 4.5% during the pm peak period. | Travel time delay was reduced by approximately 12,000 hours per am peak period (0.2 minutes per driver trip) and 6,940 hours of unexpected delay per pm peak period (0.6 minutes per driver trip). | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | More than 99% of those surveyed in February 1999 said they benefited from the system by avoiding traffic problems. 65% said they would be willing to pay for the service, which is currently free of charge. 81% had recommended the service to someone else. A survey in February and April 2000 found 19% of travellers were very satisfied, 46% somewhat satisfied and 7% dissatisfied with the system. |
| Gowanus Expressway / Prospect Expressway - Brooklyn, New York, United States | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Average time taken to aid a motorist whose vehicle has broken down fell from 90 to 19 minutes following introduction of the AID system. Average time from inception to clearing is now 31 minutes. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| TransGuide - San Antonio, Texas, United States | This system reduced primary accidents by 35%, secondary accidents by 30% and inclement weather accidents by 40%. There was an overall reduction in accidents of 41%, whilst mean incident response time was also reduced by 20%. | The reduction in delays was calculated to reduce the consumption of fuel by approximately 2600 gallons per major accident. | Results indicated average delay savings of 700 vehicle-hours. Using the accident frequency for freeways and taking into account fuel consumption costs, these figures translated into annual savings of $1.65 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Driver confidence in the travel information provided improved significantly. Periodic surveys taken after implementation indicated that driver response to posted instructions improved from 33% just after implementation to 80% at the time of reporting. |
| Minnesota HIGHWAY HELPER, United States | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Mean duration of a vehicle stall (which accounts for 84% of all service calls) was reduced by 8 minutes. This resulted in an annual benefit of $1.4m, and a benefit cost ratio of 2.3:1. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Intelligent Road Markings
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A143 Haddiscoe, Norfolk sig |
In 3 years prior to scheme there were 22 recorded accidents (2 fatal, 6 serious, 14 slight). 40% occurred in dark and 65% on wet roads. In 2 years 2 months since implementation there have been only 5 recorded accidents (all slight) of which 0 dark, 1 wet. Accident frequency has reduced from 7.3 per year to 2.3 and severity ratio from 36% to zero. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Melmoth and Ulundi, South Africa sig | In the 7 months prior to implementation, there had been 88 serious accidents, claiming 27 lives and 15 less-serious accidents on the stretch of road. In 5 months following implementation, there were no accidents reported on that stretch of road. A cost : benefit ratio of 1:5 was calculated. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Lane Control
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead Dynamic Lane Control on the A3 Kolner Ring (Leverkusen to Heumar), Germany sig | Following implementation, the number of accidents during hours of darkness rose slightly from 162 to 170, though personal injury accidents (PIAs) stayed remained roughly the same. The number of accidents occurring on wet roads dropped from 292 to 264, whilst the number of PIAs dropped from 70 to 55. However, these results were not found to be conclusive. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Plus Lanes - The Netherlands sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Impact studies on capacity and safety have been carried out for peak lanes and plus lanes. The increased capacity of the plus lanes can reach 35 to 40%, with improved safety, by compliance with a speed limit of 70 kph. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Multimodal Trip Planning
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Traveline sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Usage of the Traveline website grew steadily during 2002 from nothing to about 3,000 individual user inquiry sessions per week. | The time taken to answer calls to Traveline and the customer service elements of the calls were generally satisfactory or good (overall 95 per cent). 90% of the answers given were completely accurate, according to a report in 2002. |
|
VIVALDI - Bristol sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Early project results indicate that 10% of people surveyed said they made new journeys by bus or rail as a result of the Travel Advice Screen. | - | - |
|
Bristol Area, Video Information Highway (VIH) Trial sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 54% of emails received praised the VIH website, it was felt that it was a highly useful tool for monitoring traffic conditions. 23% requested expansion to include other parts of the motorway network, the majority looking for national CCTV coverage. |
|
ROUTES (Rail, Omnibus, Underground Travel Enquiry System) - London sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 80% of callers made the journey they asked for information about. Of these, 38% changed their route based on information received from the operator and 13% made a trip that they would not otherwise have made by public transport. This 13% generated an estimated £1.3m of additional revenue for bus companies, £1.2m for the underground, and £1m for the railways. Societal benefits could be as high as £11m. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | - | - |
| ARTIMIS - Kentucky, Ohio, United States sig | Following implementation of ARTIMIS, there was a 3.2% reduction in fatalities during both the am and pm peak periods. | Hydrocarbon emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6 percent during the pm peak period. Carbon Monoxide emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6% during the pm peak period. Nitrogen oxides emissions were reduced by 4.7% during the am peak period, and 4.5% during the pm peak period. | Travel time delay was reduced by approximately 12,000 hours per am peak period (0.2 minutes per driver trip) and 6,940 hours of unexpected delay per pm peak period (0.6 minutes per driver trip). | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | More than 99% of those surveyed in February 1999 said they benefited from the system by avoiding traffic problems. 65% said they would be willing to pay for the service, which is currently free of charge. 81% had recommended the service to someone else. A survey in February and April 2000 found 19% of travellers were very satisfied, 46% somewhat satisfied and 7% dissatisfied with the system. |
| QUARTET PLUS / APOLLON - Athens, Greece sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Covered in another part of the project.** | **Covered in another part of the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Analysis of the website (which featured multimodal trip planning and real-time travel information) showed that 45% of the respondents were regular users. High rates were obtained for the comprehension (72%), usefulness (78%), accuracy (65%) and access time (65%) of the service. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Parking Management
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ELGAR / CONCERT - Bristol sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | There was a 5% modal change in Bristol from driving to the centre to the Park and Ride scheme. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Southampton PGI system sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The Parking Guidance system in Southampton caused a 50% reduction in the average search time for parking spaces, a cut from 2.2 mins to 1.1 mins. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
York Parking Guidance System sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 81% of drivers were aware of signs, of which 67% usually notice the information on them and take action (rising to 82% for first time visitors). 84% of drivers found the information useful, with 92% of those who had followed directional signs rating them as good or very good. |
| Cologne Parking Guidance System, Germany sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | The Parking Guidance System has reduced traffic searching for parking spaces in Cologne city centre by 30%. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Surveys have shown that 90% of car drivers were familiar with the system, with 79% using it regularly or occasionally, and 88% of those appreciating its usefulness. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Parking Payment Systems
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GAUDI - Dublin, Ireland sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 87% of people believed that the public transport and parking payment system was easy to understand and 89% said it was easy to use. 91% felt the DASH smart card was a convenient payment method, and 86% said they would use an electronic purse in preference to cash when paying for goods and services. 91% said they would continue to use DASH if the scheme was extended citywide. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Passenger Information Systems
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STOPWATCH - Hampshire sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | This information scheme generated a 5% increase in bus patronage. A benefit:cost ratio in excess of 2:1 was achieved. Before the introduction of the system, 16.3% of people felt this would make them use the buses more, however post-implementation this figure had dropped to 3.7%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
TIMECHECKER - Liverpool sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The Timechecker system has led to a 5% increase in patronage on routes where Timechecker had been installed. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | The system claims 90% accuracy. | 68% of passengers used Timechecker consistently. 92% perceived RTI to be either 'very accurate' or 'accurate' and 85% that it made waiting more acceptable. 87% felt it gave a feeling of reassurance and 73% that it made them feel safer waiting for a bus at night. 57% thought that real-time displays resulted in decreased waiting times, with 71.5% believing that in general, bus services improved when the electronic displays were installed. 89% wanted to see an expansion in the provision of real-time information, to cover all stops. |
|
COUNTDOWN - London sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Countdown was found to generate a minimum of 1.5% new revenue. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | 96% of passengers thought that Countdown information was clear and easy to see, and had no problem with the system. Passengers approved of the 3 essential pieces of information provided (route number, destination and waiting time). | About 70% of passengers referred to the display when they arrived at the stop, and about 90% looked at the sign while they waited. 65% perceived a shorter waiting time, whilst 89% felt the wait was more acceptable. 83% of passengers found that time seemed to pass more quickly and the service was also perceived as being more reliable. Passengers perceived waiting at bus stops at night to be safer. |
|
Star Trak - Leicester sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The bus routes that were equipped with the Star Trak equipment experienced a 28% patronage increase. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 90% of users consider the electronic displays either useful or very useful. This is due to the implementation of VMS at bus stops, displays on the buses, SMS information for all stops and bus priority for late buses. |
| IBIS - Trondheim, Norway sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | During a 21-week trial period for the SMS information system, the system suffered only one breakdown, caused by a hacker breaking into the main server. | 86% of users found RTI to be helpful, with only 5% believing it to be unnecessary. Among SMS users, 59% would be willing to pay for RTI at bus stops, on average 1.5 Krone (13p) per journey. 49% would be willing to pay for the real time SMS service, at an average of 1.1 Krone (10p). Among respondents to a workplace survey, 35% would be willing to pay for RTI at bus stops, on average 0.7 Krone (6p) per journey. 40% would be willing to pay for the real time SMS service, at an average of 0.7 Krone (6p). |
| QUARTET PLUS / APOLLON - Athens, Greece sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Covered in another part of the project.** | **Covered in another part of the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Analysis of the website (which featured multimodal trip planning and real-time travel information) showed that 45% of the respondents were regular users. High rates were obtained for the comprehension (72%), usefulness (78%), accuracy (65%) and access time (65%) of the service. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Public Transport Payment Systems
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tampere, Kuopio region, Finland sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | 75% of users experienced no change in level of use, 4% saw a decrease and 16% experienced an increase in their bus use. The average time taken for passengers to board one of the privately operated buses fell from 7.5 seconds to 4.5 seconds, however there was little change on the public-operated services, due to many passengers owning passes. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 91% of users said the new payment system was better than or equally good as the earlier paper ticket system. 86% had found the card operated well and faultlessly, 11% that the operation was passable and only 3% that felt that the operation was poor. In 1996, soon after implementation, 70% of bus drivers believed transactions were easier to process. This increased to 83% when the same question was asked in 1997. 92% of drivers thought the new system was better than or equally as good as the earlier one. |
| GAUDI - Dublin, Ireland sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 87% of people believed that the public transport and parking payment system was easy to understand and 89% said it was easy to use. 91% felt the DASH smart card was a convenient payment method, and 86% said they would use an electronic purse in preference to cash when paying for goods and services. 91% said they would continue to use DASH if the scheme was extended citywide. |
| TELEPAY - site at Berlin, Germany sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | For 80% of users the waiting time to get a ticket after the request is under 40 seconds. | 80% of users were rather or very satisfied with TELEPAY, compared to other ticketing modes. 95% of users think the system is easy to use. However, only 50% of the users used TELEPAY in more than 50% of their transport system uses. 71.1% of users considered the TELEPAY system to be fast, 13.2% thought it was quite fast whilst only 10% felt it was slow. |
| TELEPAY - site at Rome, Italy sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | No major failure occurred during the trial, and 80% of users had a success for 90% of uses. Some problems occurred during receipt of the ticket, with 30% of users having a problem at some point with the system. 90% of users receive their ticket in less th | 90% of users were satisfied with TELEPAY compared to other ticketing modes. 80% found the payment very or rather secure and 85% that it was rather easy or very easy to use. 80% of users found TELEPAY to be fast or quite fast. Only 15% of users were prepared to pay more for using TELEPAY, whilst 15% wanted to pay less. |
| TELEPAY - site at Turku, Finland sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | 90% of users spent less than a minute to select a ticket and send a request to the server. | 90% of users found the system rather or very easy to use. A small number of people (3-5%) felt each stage of the ticketing procedure was slow or very slow. More than half of the users were ready to pay a supplement for the use of TELEPAY, 48% were ready to pay for the SMS plus the normal ticket price, and 5% a supplement and the SMS cost. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Public Transport Priority
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cardiff sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 11% saving in journey times in peak period. Where priority given to all buses, 4% journey time saving and 45s improvement in schedule adherence. Where priority given only to late buses, 3% journey time saving and 90s improvement in schedule adherence. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Salisbury Transport Plan (bus priority measures) sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | Since opening the Park and Ride site, the modal share of public transport along the A345 Castle Road has increased from 31% to 42% in the AM peak hour (park & ride and other buses). | Bus priority measures, associated with a new park and ride scheme, have led to a 68% increase in park and ride usage along one route, from 129,000 to 217,000 passengers per annum, removing about 395 car trips per day from the city centre. A bus lane has saved users 6 minutes between 8 and 9am without adverse impact on other vehicles. More people are entering Salisbury along this route, even though the number of cars at peak times is down. Inward travel has increased by 13% in between 8 and 9am (5% overall between 7:30am and 9:30am). | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Bristol Showcase scheme sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | One sample journey time survey of the A38 North Corridor showed an average reduction in bus journey time from 17 to 11 minutes within the Gloucester Road area. Early indications suggest an increase in patronage of up to 10% on the Showcase route, against an overall slight decline in bus patronage in Bristol. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
TABASCO - Munich, Germany; Glasgow sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | Results in Munich suggest that emissions of hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide were reduced by 3%, and fuel consumption by 2.6%. | The integrated traffic control system reduced public transport journey time and delay by 10% by 54% respectively and passenger delay by 57% (compared to the reference case). The standard deviation of public transport journey times was reduced by 22%, whilst there were reductions in private vehicle queue lengths and delays of 13% and 8% respectively. TABASCO concluded that the normal operation of an equivalent network to that in Munich can give an expected cost : benefit ratio of 19:1. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Trials in Munich found that 97% of public transport vehicles were correctly detected and recognised, while in Glasgow, 85% of buses were detected but 15% were missed. | - |
|
SCOOT - London, Southampton sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Average bus delay savings were 5 seconds per bus per junction. Field trials showed additional reductions of 8% in travel times for buses equipped with transponders, however this was counterbalanced by a slight increase in journey times for other traffic.. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
SPOT - Leeds sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Bus travel times for those buses fitted with transponders were reduced by 10% over a fixed time plan and by 19% over the network controlled by SPOT but without the bus priority component. Car travel times were unchanged. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
SPRINT - London sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | On main road links buses achieved an average 2sec reduction in delay per junction, whilst a 6.4sec reduction in delay per junction was recorded by buses on side road links. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| QUARTET PLUS - Turin, Italy sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Field trials showed the public transport priority part of the scheme generated improvements of 14.4% for public and 17% in private transport travel times. With all the co-operative monitoring and control functions combined, travel time benefits of 19% for public transport passengers and 21.6% for private traffic were achieved. The investment could theoretically pay for itself in 131 days, even if passenger time-savings were not included. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| QUARTET PLUS / APOLLON - Athens, Greece sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Covered in another part of the project.** | Bus priority led to travel time reductions of 12-19% over 2 separate routes, depending on the period of the day. The smallest travel speed increase was of 2.3 km/h in the afternoon peak, with the largest being 7.3 km/h in the morning. There was a significant increase in the number of buses that passed with an immediate green traffic light (ranging from 11%-78%) and a reduction in the time the buses were stopped of between 6% and 21% was detected. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | **Covered in another part of the project.** |
| QUARTET PLUS - Gothenburg, Sweden sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Time savings for public transport vehicles were found to be up to 15%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| QUARTET PLUS - Toulouse, France sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Time savings for public transport were between 5 and 10%. A First Year Rate of Return of about 20% was calculated. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| SPOT - Gothenburg, Sweden sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Trials of the public transport priority system at 3 junctions showed reductions in car journey times of between 5 and 15%, though no change in public transport journey times. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Stuttgart, Germany sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Public transport vehicle delays have been reduced by 50% with little delay to private vehicles. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| AUSIAS - Valencia, Spain sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | A reduction in fuel consumption of 1750 €, in carbon monoxide emissions of 7kg and in NOx of 14 kg was estimated due to the presence of AUSIAS. | Trials of automatic bus priority at signals found an average 30% reduction in journey time delay for late-running buses. The priority system produced a 6% greater decrease in journey time than an integrated manual method, with no significant negative impacts on private vehicles. Time savings were estimated at 62.5 hours in bus operating time per year, while cost savings to passengers were calculated to be worth 10,800 € per bus route per year, representing a net improvement of 4%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Sapporo City, Japan sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | The scheme caused an increase in bus rider-ship of 9.9% and a 7.1% reduction in the number of stops buses made at signals, which resulted in a 20.8% reduction in stopped time. | The travel time of the bus services was reduced by 6.1%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Portland, Oregon, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The journey times of the buses were reduced by between 5% and 8% on one test route when buses were able to extend or reduce red times at junctions. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| CELTIC - Lyon/Toulouse, France sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Field trails in Toulouse generated journey time savings of 11-14%. There was also a 19-29% reduction in the standard deviation of bus journey times. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| CGA System, France sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Reduction in travel times of 4-5% over a whole run are claimed. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| OPTICOM - Charlotte, North Carolina, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | A 4-minute reduction in travel times and more reliable and regular service were achieved. Patronage on the express bus route doubled in the 10 years since the service came into operation and the number of journeys timetabled has been increased from 4 runs in each direction to 10 runs in the morning peak and 9 in the evening peak. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| OPTICOM - Phoenix, Arizona, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The system saved transit buses up to 15s per intersection. Improvements in timetable adherence and increased patronage were also reported. There was however, a 1.4% increase in delay to other traffic. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| OPTICOM - Vicenza, Italy sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Average journey times of buses were cut by nearly 24% on a 12-minute journey when the OPTICOM priority system was used. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| BALANCE - Munich, Germany sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Public transport vehicles obtained time savings of 14%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| SCATS - Melbourne, Australia sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Trams gained a benefit of (in peak) of 6-10% with benefits to private vehicles of 1-7% on the two main routes. The crossing routes for private vehciles varied from 41% saving to 13% disbenefit. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Zurich, Switzerland sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | It is claimed that zero waiting time for public transport is achieved at about 90% of signalised intersections. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Public Transport Security
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CROMATICA - London; Paris, France; Milan, Italy sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | In underground stations in London and Milan, the automatic system detected 97% of cases of persons motionless for 2 minutes or more, without any false detection. When set to detect wrong-direction movement of people, this gave a 97% correct detection rate | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Ramp Metering
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
M6, Birmingham sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Average flow increase of around 5% was acheived during some periods at the M6 test sites (J10, J9 and J7 Southbound). The impact of ramp metering on average speed was greater than the impact on average flow. Average speed was increased by 14% and 18% upstream of J9 and J7 Southbound respectively. The peak period was shortened with Ramp Metering by twenty minutes at M6 Junction 7 Southbound. On average flow breakdown was delayed by ten minutes and speed recovered ten minutes earlier. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
M8, Glasgow sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Between 4 and 5pm, an increase in the total volume of traffic handled by the network of 3 to 4 %. Journey times down by 9%, total delays down by 9%, average queue length down by 14%, motorway capacity up by 6%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Twin Cities Ramp Metering, Minnesota, United States sig | When ramp metering was switched off, crashes on previously metered freeways during peak periods increased by 26%. An annual reduction of 1041 crashes (4 per day) was attributed to ramp metering. | A net annual reduction of 1160 tons of emissions was calculated from the data collected. However, a rise in fuel consumption equivalent to 5.5 million gallons of fuel a year was recorded. | With the system switched off, there was an average 9% drop in traffic volume on the freeway, a 14% drop in mainline freeway throughput, whilst freeway travel time was almost twice as unpredictable. When on, the system reduced expected delay by 2.6m hours per year. Total annual savings worth approximately $40m were attributed to ramp metering. Benefit / cost ratios were approximately 5:1 for the congestion management system as a whole and 15:1 for the ramp metering scheme on its own. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Seattle, Washington, United States sig | Accident rates is now 62% of base level rates. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Shows a growth of traffic of 10% to 100%. Speeds remained the same or increased up to 48%. Average metering delays at each ramp have remained at or below 3 minutes. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Koge Bugt Motorway, Denmark (Variable speed limits application) sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 46% of participants in a questionnaire said they felt safer following the introduction of variable speed limits. 4% said they felt less safe, whilst 50% said it had made no difference. Over 80% of motorists surveyed approved of the implementation of variable speed limits and dynamic route guidance. |
| A40, Nordrhein Westfalen (NRW), Germany sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | A 50% reduction in traffic disruption was noted at the junction with the inflow signals, whilst there was greater throughput with the study area. During times of high flow, average speeds increased by 10km/h, due to shockwaves (drops in speed where vehicles 'bunch up') being diminished. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | User acceptance was high, and driver behaviour improved as scheme became established (red light violations dropped from 3% of vehicles during early weeks, to 1.3% later on). |
| Coentunnel, Netherlands sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks increased by 1-2%, average speeds on the motorway increased by 20km/h, whilst total delays on the motorway decreased by 20%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Delft-Zuid, Netherlands sig | 15% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks increased by 4%, whilst total delays decreased. Use of the on-ramp remained constant. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Zoetermeer, Netherlands sig | 13% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks increased by 3%, whilst travel times on the motorway decreased by 6%. Use of the on-ramp remained constant. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Schiedam-Noord, Netherlands sig | 3% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks increased and average speeds on the motorway increased by 20km/h. Use of the on-ramp decreased by 8%, whilst travel times on the motorway decreased by 6%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Barendrecht, Netherlands sig | 2% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks increased by 5% and average speeds on the motorway increased by 20km/h. Use of the on-ramp decreased by 35%, whilst travel times on the motorway decreased by 10%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Kolkweg, Netherlands sig | 6% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks remained the same, whilst average speeds on the motorway increased by 4km/h. Use of the on-ramp decreased by 10%, whilst travel times on the motorway decreased by 3%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Vianen, Netherlands sig | 5% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Capacity at bottlenecks increased by 5% and average speeds on the motorway increased by 5km/h. Use of the on-ramp decreased by 36%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Muiden/Muiderslot, Netherlands sig | 6-7% of drivers ignored the red lights on the on-ramp. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Travel time on the motorway remained the same. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Red Light Monitoring
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
West London study into red light / speed cameras (21 sites, Oct 1992-Oct 1995) sig |
The introduction of this caused 69% fewer road deaths, 27% fewer road accidents and 65% fewer speed-related accidents; this equates to £20 million/year accident savings. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Red Light Cameras, Glasgow sig |
There was a 25% drop in accidents at signalised junctions, including a 67% drop in fatal accidents, a 40% drop in serious accidents, a 28% drop in slight accidents and a 22% drop in non-injury accidents. | **Not an objective for the project.** | The reduction in accidents has led to a significant rate of return. The discount net present value of the project is estimated to have been £1m in relation to total costs of £452,000. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Red Light Camera Evaluation: Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, London Metropolitan, Northumbria, Thames Valley and Wiltshire sig |
An accident reduction of 18% was recorded over 254 sites, equating to 0.48 less accidents per site per year on average. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Oxnard, California, United States sig | Accidents were reduced by 7%, Right angled accidents were reduced by 32%, Injury crashes reduced by 29%, Right angled injury crashes were reduced by 68% | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | The enforcement program achieved a 42% reduction in violations within its first year |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Road User Charging
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Durham Road User Charging sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | In the first 3 months, traffic levels within the zone during charging hours fell from 2,000 to 200 vehicles a day - a drop of 90%. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | A 10% increase in pedestrian activity - each day between 13,000 and 19,000 pedestrians use the same stretch of road, which is wide enough for just one vehicle at a time. A steady increase in use of the Cathedral Bus service. | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | A rise to 78% (10% increase) in those who consider Durham City Centre to be a safe place to visit. 70% (21% increase) believe the charge is a good idea. 83% of businesses have not altered their servicing arrangements following introduction of the charge. |
|
London Congestion Charging sig |
20% reduction in the number of accidents within the zone. | The introduction of congestion charging resulted in 50,000 fewer cars per day (a reduction of 16%) but only 4000 fewer people. The scheme has also produced 15,000 extra bus passengers per day, whilst cycling has increased by 30%. | 30% reduction in congestion within the zone in 6-months of operation. Journey time reliability has improved by an average of 30%. 14% reduction in journey times. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | 106,200 Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) issued per month. | - |
| Tappan Zee Bridge, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Throughput can exceed that of a staffed lane by 200-300%. Went from 350-400 vehicles per hour to 1000 vehicles/hr with automated system installed. Traffic speeds have risen from 8-12 mph to 25 mph with automated toll. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| E-Zpass - New Jersey Turnpike, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | Due to reduced queuing, emissions estimates were reduced by 1.2m gallons per year. Estimates of VOC emissions were reduced by 0.35 tons per weekday with 80% of the reduction resulting from improved light-duty vehicle performance. Estimates of NOx emissions were reduced by 0.056 tons per weekday with 58% of the reduction due to improved heavy-duty vehicle performance. | Toll plaza delay was reduced by approximately 85%, saving over 2m vehicle-hours per year. Passenger car delay was reduced by 1.8m hours per year. User cost savings as a result of delay reductions were estimated at $19.0m per year for passenger cars and $6.1m per year for trucks. User cost savings related to fuel consumption were estimated at $1.5m for passenger cars, and $0.4m for trucks. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Trondheim Toll Ring, Norway sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | Car journey times in and around the zone during the week were actually 7% longer on average in 1992 (following installation of the Toll Ring than 1990), due to drivers avoiding the zone. There was a 10% reduction in car traffic in and around the Toll Ring during hours of operation, but an increase at evenings and weekends. Over Trondheim as a whole, there was a 14% drop in car traffic, with an 8% increase in public transport journeys. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 42% of travellers indicated that the Toll Ring had an effect on their travel behaviour for any of the purposes of work, shopping and 'other', with 7% stating it affected their behaviour for all 3 types of journey. The Toll Ring had an effect on the travel behaviour of 27% of those within the Ring, and 49% of those outside it. 85% of inbound crossings during the high-toll periods were made by drivers outside the Toll Ring. |
| TELEPAY - French motorway site sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | 60% of users sometimes had problems with the system ergonomic. | 80% of people using TELEPAY used it in more than 90% of their transport system transactions. 95% thought the system was easy or rather easy to use. 94% felt satisfied by the trial. However, 87% of the users thought that improvement of the system was needed. Only 15% of users were ready to pay more to access TELEPAY service, whilst 20% thought that payment through a mobile phone was not secure. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Route Guidance & Navigation
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle Information and Communication System (VICS) - Naha City, Japan sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The time saved with the Dynamic Route Guidance System in the Vehicle Information and Communication System is approximately 15%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | In a questionnaire survey of rent-a-car users conducted in Okinawa Prefecture, more than 90% of VICS users said they had felt comfortable. |
| Toyota City, Japan sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Provision of information on travel time between Toyota-cho-Minami and Sakae-machi resulted in a reduction in travel time of about 4min. Daily average travel time was reduced from 10.5min to 9.5min. Average travel speed rose from 23.1km/h to 24.2km/h. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| CLEOPATRA - Multiple sites across Europe sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | The cars equipped with In-Vehicle Navigation devices experienced a time saving greater than 10%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Customer satisfaction measures ranged from 50-75% of users expressing satisfaction with the devices (Turin). 20% of drivers in Rotterdam expressed concern over being distracted from driving. |
| TravTek demonstration project, Orlando, Florida, United States sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | All local users and 98% of rental drivers felt TravTek would be useful for vacation and business travel. 55% felt it would be useful for home travel. When TravTek was installed into rental vehicles, 63% of users felt it was helpful, especially in unfamiliar areas. 50% of renter and local users were willing to pay $1,000 for TravTek. |
| TransGuide - San Antonio, Texas, United States sig | Primary accidents were reduced by 35%, secondary accidents by 30% and inclement weather accidents by 40%. There was an overall accident reduction of 41%, whilst mean incident response time was reduced by 20%. | The reduction in delays was calculated to reduce the consumption of fuel by approximately 2600 gallons per major accident. | Results indicated average delay savings of 700 vehicle-hours. These figures translated into annual savings of $1.65 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Periodic surveys taken after implementation indicated that driver response to posted instructions improved from 33% just after implementation to 80% at the time of reporting. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Speeding Detection
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
The national safety camera programme: Three-year evaluation report, England, Wales, Scotland sig |
This compilation of surveys covering safety cameras in 24 areas showed that vehicle speeds at cameras sites had dropped by around 7% following the introduction of cameras. At new sites, there was a 32% reduction in vehicles breaking the speed limit. There was a 71% reduction at fixed sites and a 21% reduction at mobile sites. The proportion of vehicles travelling at more than 15mph above the speed limit dropped by 80% at fixed camera sites and 28% at mobile camera sites. After allowing for the long-term trend, there was a 33% reduction in PIAs at camera sites, and a 40% drop in KSI accidents. This meant a reduction in over 100 deaths per year and 4,030 fewer PIAs per year. | **Not an objective for the project.** | There was a positive cost : benefit of around 4:1. In the third year the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221 million, compared to enforcement costs of £54 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 79% of people surveyed agreed that 'the use of cameras should be supported as a method of reducing casualties'. 68% of people surveyed agreed that the primary use of cameras was to save lives. |
|
Cost recovery system for speed and red light cameras (Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottingham (City), South Wales, Strathclyde and Thames Valley) sig |
The average speeds at camera sites dropped by 10% (3.7 mph). At fixed camera sites, excessive speeding (defined as those vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph) fell by 96% and at mobile camera sites the reduction was 55%. There has been a 35% decrease in people being killed or seriously injured at camera sites, compared to the long term trend - equating to 280 fewer deaths and serious injuries. In total, the system has released around £20m of additional funds for local partnerships. The benefits to society, in terms of the value of casualties saved, are estimated to be in the region of £112m in the first two years. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 80% of people questioned agreed with the statement that ‘cameras are meant to encourage drivers to keep to the limits not punish them’. |
|
Safety Cameras Initiative, Strathclyde sig |
The cameras resulted in 64% less personal injury accidents, 67% less fatal and serious accidents and 8% lower speeds at camera locations. There was also 14% less fatal and serious injury accidents across Glasgow. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Speed Camera Evaluation: Devon and Cornwall, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire, London Metropolitan, Northumbria, Thames Valley and Wiltshire sig |
An average accident reduction of 28% was found over the 10 areas, equating to an reduction of 1.25 accidents per site per year. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| ASE units on German autobahn sig | 85th percentile speeds dropped by 45km/h, yearly number of accidents also reduced after installation. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| ASE on Autobahn (A3), Elzer Mountain, Germany sig | Immediately after 100km/h speed limit imposed, a 30km/h reduction in mean speed occurred. Following installation of safety cameras, a further 20km/h speed reduction occurred. This led to a 91% reduction in accidents. Overall, accident rates between 1971 and 1982 decreased by ratio of 18:1. Fatalities reduced from 7-8 per year in 1972 to 1 per year. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| ASE & VMS study, Netherlands sig | Average speeds reduced by 5km/h and 85th percentile speeds were reduced by 8km/h. Percentage vehicles speeding dropped by 27%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Automatic Speed Enforcement (ASE) study, Norway sig | Injury accidents dropped on average by 20%. For sections of road where the criteria for ASE were satisfied, injury accidents decreased by 26%, on those that did not, the decrease in accidents was by 5%. (Not every section where ASE was deployed met the criteria for deployment, as these criteria were decided upon subsequent to installation of ASE). | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Variable Message Signs
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CLEOPATRA - London sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Advance warning messages were shown to provide overall network journey time savings of typically 1%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 58% of respondents to the survey would immediately respond to VMS congestion warnings, of which 83% would reschedule their journey and 6% would change travel modes. |
|
TABASCO - Glasgow sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 61% of users noticed the system, of which 32% found it useful. |
|
ROMANSE / EUROSCOPE - Southampton sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | VMS applications caused a traffic diversion of 30-50%, although there was a greater change in route choice than mode choice. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Midlands Driver Information System (MDIS) sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Each time a serious incident was detected, 40 pairs of VMS would inform drivers of delays they might expect and suggest possible alternative routes. In the first seven months of operation, more than 14 strategic plans were set each month for incident and roadwork delays. Traffic delay costs were reduced by over £5m/annum, with a £0.3m saving being achieved in one major incident. Up to 40% of drivers may change route as a result of reading the VMS. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
PLEIADES - Kent Corridor sig |
**Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Average benefits of this scheme were estimated at £1.2 million per year. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| CLEOPATRA - Toulouse sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | A global routing strategy was shown to produce a 3% saving in overall network journey times. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Interview surveys found that the VMS were perceived as useful by 77%, the destination displayed was relevant to 36% and 11% of them changed route. |
| Ile de France Network sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Real Time Information provided to motorists during 1998 World Cup led to over 7000 reported individual diversions with some drivers saving over 20 minutes on their journey time to the stadium. |
| Automatic Fog Warning System - Breda, Netherlands sig | Warning system yielded a reduction in speed of 8-10km/h. Fog-related incidents in the test site in the two years following the installation was reduced to zero (no decrease in the surrounding area). | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| North Bavaria, Germany - (Queue and Congestion Warning / Speed Limits or Recommendations) sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Reduction of incidents, Acceptance rate of the display by 79%; the reaction is reduction of speed and increase in attention. 88% of drivers considered the display as credible, 59% reduced their speed (39% to the demanded level). |
| Fog Warning System - Tennessee, United States sig | Prior to implementation of the Fog Detection and Warning system in December 1993, the 3-mile stretch over the Hiwassee River had seen fog-related crashes involving 99 vehicles, which had resulted in 42 injuries and 12 fatalities, since opening in 1973. In the first 8 years following installation, there were no crashes caused by the presence of fog. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| ARTIMIS - Kentucky, Ohio, United States sig | Following implementation of ARTIMIS, there was a 3.2% reduction in fatalities during both the am and pm peak periods. | Hydrocarbon emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6 percent during the pm peak period. Carbon Monoxide emissions were reduced by 3.8% during the am peak period, and 3.6% during the pm peak period.. Nitrogen oxides emissions were reduced by 4.7% during the am peak period, and 4.5% during the pm peak period. | Travel time delay was reduced by approximately 12,000 hours per am peak period (0.2 minutes per driver trip) and 6,940 hours of unexpected delay per pm peak period (0.6 minutes per driver trip). | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | More than 99% of those surveyed in February 1999 said they benefited from the system by avoiding traffic problems. 65% said they would be willing to pay for the service, which is currently free of charge. 81% had recommended the service to someone else. A survey in February and April 2000 found 19% of travellers were very satisfied, 46% somewhat satisfied and 7% dissatisfied with the system. |
| Route Comparison Information Boards - Hanshin Expressway, Osaka-Kobe, Japan sig | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Dynamic Message Signs showing alternate route information increased the divergence rate by 3.7%. Detoured traffic saved an average of 9.8min/vehicle. DMS data from a second route showed detoured traffic saved up to 38min/vehicle during congestion. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| TransGuide - San Antonio, Texas, United States sig | Primary accidents were reduced by 35%, secondary accidents by 30% and inclement weather accidents by 40%. There was an overall accident reduction of 41%, whilst mean incident response time was reduced by 20%. | The reduction in delays was calculated to reduce the consumption of fuel by approximately 2600 gallons per major accident. | Results indicated average delay savings of 700 vehicle-hours. Tthese figures translated into annual savings of $1.65 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Periodic surveys taken after implementation indicated that driver response to posted instructions improved from 33% just after implementation to 80% at the time of reporting. |
| Koge Bugt Motorway, Denmark (Dynamic route guidance application) sig | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | When dynamic route information was used up to 12% of the traffic driving towards Copenhagen diverted to the least congested route. When driving away from Copenhagen, this increased to 14%. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Over 80% of motorists surveyed approved of the implementation of variable speed limits and dynamic route guidance. |
| TransGuide - San Antonio, Texas, United States sig | Primary accidents were reduced by 35%, secondary accidents by 30% and inclement weather accidents by 40%. There was an overall accident reduction of 41%, whilst mean incident response time was reduced by 20%. | The reduction in delays was calculated to reduce the consumption of fuel by approximately 2600 gallons per major accident. | Results indicated average delay savings of 700 vehicle-hours. Tthese figures translated into annual savings of $1.65 million. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | Periodic surveys taken after implementation indicated that driver response to posted instructions improved from 33% just after implementation to 80% at the time of reporting. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Variable Speed Limits
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Controlled Motorway, M25 |
Injury accidents reduced by 15%; 20% drop in the ratio of damage only to injury accidents | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | Flow rate increased by 15% following implementation of controlled motorway | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | A survey of 1600 drivers using the scheme found that 60% believed the system had resulted in improvements. Just under 60% thought the speed limits were appropriate for the conditions (only 25% disagreed), and 84% said they complied with the limits posted. Over two-thirds wanted the system extended to cover other areas of the M25 or to other congested parts of the motorway network. |
| Controlled Motorway, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany | 30% reduction in accident rates and costs. | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Overhead Dynamic Lane Control on the A3 Kolner Ring (Leverkusen to Heumar), Germany | Following implementation, the number of night-time accidents rose from 162 to 170, though personal injury accidents (PIAs) stayed remained roughly the same. Accidents occuring on wet roads dropped from 292 to 264, whilst the number of PIAs dropped from 70 to 55 (figures inconclusive). | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Vehicle Activated Signs
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Norfolk Speed Activated Signs* sig |
Over 21 sites in Norfolk (individual results for each site shown below), the number of accidents occurring was 31% lower than predicted (61 as opposed 92.4), with a confidence interval of 8% either way. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Vehicle activated signs: Summary of 30mph sites depicting 30mph roundels sig |
Average speed reductions following implementation of the vehicle activated signs varied between 2.6 and 7.1mph. The greatest reductions occurred at the sites with the highest 'before' speeds. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Vehicle activated signs: Summary of 40mph sites depicting 40mph roundels sig |
Average speed reductions following implementation of the vehicle activated signs varied between 1.2 and 4.4mph. The greatest reductions occurred at the sites with the highest 'before' speeds. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Vehicle activated signs: Summary of 50mph sites depicting 50mph roundels sig |
Average speed reductions following implementation of the vehicle activated sign were 4.6mph for lane 1 and 3.6mph for lane 2. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Vehicle activated signs: Summary sites with junction warning signs sig |
Average speed reductions following implementation of the vehicle activated signs varied between 0.8 and 9.2 mph. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Vehicle activated signs: Summary sites with bend warning signs sig |
Average speed reductions following implementation of the vehicle activated signs varied between 2.1 and 6.9 mph. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Vehicle activated signs: Summary sites with safety camera repeater signs sig |
Average speed reductions following implementation of the vehicle activated signs varied between 0.5 and 3.7 mph. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Acle, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 7.1mph. A decrease of 48% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Billingford, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 2.7mph. A decrease of 19% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Costessey, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 4.6mph. A decrease of 40% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Hellesdon, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.5mph. A decrease of 26% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Horstead, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.7mph. A decrease of 29% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 99% of respondents to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Litcham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 5.0mph. A decrease of 39% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Marham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.9mph. A decrease of 27% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; North Elham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.1mph. A decrease of 29% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Outwell, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.0mph. A decrease of 22% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Pulham Market, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 2.7mph. A decrease of 23% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Scole, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 5.7mph. A decrease of 51% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Wells, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 2.6mph. A decrease of 22% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Wroxham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 2.9mph. A decrease of 15% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Five Oak Green, Kent sig |
A mean speed decrease of 6.3mph. A decrease of 43% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Coxheath, Kent sig |
A mean speed decrease of 6.7mph. A decrease of 43% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Littlebourne, Kent sig |
A mean speed decrease of 5.8mph. A decrease of 37% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
30mph Speed Roundel Sign; Sutton Valence, Kent sig |
A mean speed decrease of 6.8mph. A decrease of 48% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
40mph Speed Roundel Sign; Carbrooke, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.9mph. A decrease of 17% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 98% of respondents to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
40mph Speed Roundel Sign; Mileham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 2.0mph. A decrease of 8% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
40mph Speed Roundel Sign; Swaffham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 4.0mph. A decrease of 12% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
40mph Speed Roundel Sign; Kingsfold, West Sussex sig |
A mean speed decrease of 1.2mph. A decrease of 2% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
40mph Speed Roundel Sign; Hersden, Kent sig |
A mean speed decrease of 4.4mph. A decrease of 13% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
50mph Speed Roundel Sign; Findon Bypass (S end), A24 lane 1, West Sussex sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.6mph. A decrease of 10% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
50mph Speed Roundel Sign; Findon Bypass (S end), A24 lane 2, West Sussex sig |
A mean speed decrease of 4.6mph. A decrease of 36% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Felthorpe, Norfolk, Southbound sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.4mph. A decrease of 17% in the number of vehicles exceeding 50mph on the junction approach on this 60mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 93% of respondents to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Felthorpe, Norfolk, Northbound sig |
A mean speed decrease of 7.4mph. A decrease of 38% in the number of vehicles exceeding 50mph on the junction approach on this 60mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 93% of respondents to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
Junction Warning Sign; A24/B2135 Lane 1, West Sussex sig |
A mean speed decrease of 5.2mph. A decrease of 11% in the number of vehicles exceeding 70mph on the junction approach on this 70mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; A24/B2135 Lane 2, West Sussex sig |
A mean speed decrease of 7.2mph. A decrease of 26% in the number of vehicles exceeding 70mph on the junction approach on this 70mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Bradford Leigh, Wiltshire, Westbound (Approaching Sign) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 0.8mph. A decrease of 5% in the number of vehicles exceeding 45mph near the sign on this 60mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Bradford Leigh, Wiltshire, Westbound (Near Junction) sig |
A mean speed increase of 3.2mph. An increase of 1% in the number of vehicles exceeding 45mph on the junction approach on this 60mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Bradford Leigh, Wiltshire, Eastbound (Approaching Sign) sig |
A mean speed increase of 1.5mph. An increase of 3% in the number of vehicles exceeding 45mph near the sign on this 60mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Bradford Leigh, Wiltshire, Eastbound (Near Junction) sig |
A mean speed increase of 1.2mph. A decrease of 2% in the number of vehicles exceeding 45mph on the junction approach on this 60mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, Northbound (Near Junction) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 1.4mph. A decrease of 6% in the number of vehicles exceeding 35mph on the junction approach on this 30mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 92% of respondents to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, Southbound (Near Junction) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 2.2mph. A decrease of 17% in the number of vehicles exceeding 35mph on the junction approach on this 30mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 92% of respondants to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, Northbound (Approaching Sign) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 9.2mph. A decrease of 41% in the number of vehicles exceeding 35mph near the sign on this 30mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 92% of respondants to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
Junction Warning Sign; Wootton Bassett, Wiltshire, Southbound (Approaching Sign) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.4mph. A decrease of 19% in the number of vehicles exceeding 35mph near the sign on this 30mph speed limit road. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 92% of respondants to a public opinion survey felt that the sign was a good idea. |
|
Bend Warning Sign; Sells Green, Wiltshire, Northbound (Approaching Sign) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.5mph. A decrease of 20% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Bend Warning Sign; Sells Green, Wiltshire, Northbound (Past Sign) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.0mph. A decrease of 10% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Bend Warning Sign; Kingsfold, West Sussex (20m after sign) sig |
A mean speed decrease of 3.6mph. A decrease of 1% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Speed Camera Repeater Sign; Loddon, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 0.6mph. A decrease of 2% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Speed Camera Repeater Sign; Poringland, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 0.5mph. A decrease of 1% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Speed Camera Repeater Sign; Shipdham, Norfolk sig |
A mean speed decrease of 1.3mph. A decrease of 11% in the number of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 5mph or more. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
| Warning system for trucks travelling downhill - Eisenhower Tunnel, United States sig | When in use, the speed warning system caused a mean speed reduction in passing lorries of 5.2mph. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | 40 lorry drivers were surveyed about the warning sign. 22 had noticed the sign, and 21 of these indicated the sign would help truckers travel at a safer descent speed. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.
Vulnerable Road User Facilities
| Scheme | ![]() Safety |
![]() Environment |
![]() Efficiency |
![]() Accessibility |
![]() Integration |
![]() Performance |
![]() User Acceptance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Gloucester Safer City sig |
The number of people killed or seriously injured on the city’s roads in 2002 dropped by 45% to 33 from an average of 60 each year from 1991-95 (before the Safer City Project was launched). The number of serious injuries across the county as a whole was also reduced by 23%, from 395 to 303. | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | - |
|
Toucan Crossings - Warwick and Cambridge sig |
**Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not measured in the project evaluation.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | **Not an objective for the project.** | - | An evaluation found that 93% of those using the crossing said they felt safe, this figure remained the same for pedestrians, cyclists, those with mobility impairments and those of different ages. |
sig indicates that the results for this scheme are significant at the 95% or greater level.







