The Problems That Traffic Engineers Face
Traffic delay, congestion, stops at traffic signals… all result in citizen complaints.
The issue is real. Citizen complaints are not without cause.
70-90% of traffic signals in the United States are uncoordinated! A failing grade of D+.
It seems like traffic engineers are failing at their job to keep traffic signals synchronized.
It is not the traffic engineer's fault. Their hands are tied. Read on.
The Problem
There are 3 reasons why traffic engineers can't keep traffic signals synchronized:
- They do not have enough time
- They do not have the technology
- They do not have enough resources
The current way of timing traffic signals is very time consuming.
- The process begins with data collection. Staff are sent to the intersection to collect traffic volumes.
- This traffic data is input into a computer model and timing plans for various time periods are created.
- The created timing plans are downloaded into the traffic signal controller at the traffic signal.
- The traffic engineer observes the performance of the timing plans in the field and makes manual adjustments.
It takes about 1-2 months to synchronize an arterial, and this process is not scalable.
Signal timing efforts tend to be cumbersome due to the primitive technology available for timing traffic signals.
- The quality of the manual data collection is unacceptable. Normally, a 6-hour sample data is collected for 5-7 years of traffic signal coordination. This process is not only labor-intensive, but it is inaccurate and limited in its effectiveness.
- Traffic demand and vehicle speeds are based on this snapshot-in-time, manual data collection effort. Volumes vary and so do vehicle speeds between traffic signals. This causes timing plans to be obsolete very quickly.
- The optimization models used for creating timing plans are derivatives of outdated 50-year-old Webster model. They are based on incorrect and limited assumptions. Since the models produce sub-optimal results, traffic engineers have to spend extra time in the field, fine-tuning the implemented timing plans.
Public Works departments throughout the United States are seeing a reduction in budgets and available resources.
The precious few available dollars are spent in fixing degrading pavements and faulty bridges. Often, traffic signal synchronization efforts are mostly an after thought.
The current way of coordinating traffic signals are manual, resource-intensive; thus, they are often not funded.
More Green Lights To Motorists Through Automation.
Rhythm Engineering offers traffic engineers the tools that automate traffic signal operations. All these tools are built by traffic engineers for traffic engineers.
Rhythm Engineering gives you EVERYTHING you need to interconnect, automatically synchronize, and measure performance of your traffic corridors.
Without having to hire a team of traffic staff!
"In|Sync is like having several (extra) traffic engineers on staff."
Glenn Bollinger, Program Manager | Augusta, GA
In|Sync is more than an Adaptive Traffic Signal System.
In|Sync is a Traffic Bot.
By definition, an adaptive traffic signal system simply adapts to changing traffic flow, automatically, to produce the optimal solution for traffic flow.
Many adaptive traffic signal systems exist. However, they are neither popular nor produce the degree of benefits that In|Sync can.
This robot needs to have a keen sense of vision/sensing (to collect relevant data) and a powerful brain to process the real-time data.
In|Sync uses 3D-UHD Radar technology, with near-100% accuracy to detect and classify vehicles a 1000' away from the traffic signal. The radar accuracy is enforcement-certified. In|Sync is also able to use video detection as well.
Also, this robot needs to be compatible with the legacy hardware in order to control the traffic signal. Moreover, the robot needs to function in varying environments such as snow, rain, and inclement temperatures.
In|Sync is fully-compatible with all existing controllers, cabinets, and central system software. In|Sync does not require any hardware to be upgraded or changed out.
Rhythm Engineering has solved the automation problem for Traffic Engineers.
Together, let's keep our signals synchronized.
“The results of their equipment is instant. The minute you turn it on the results are there.”
Matt Schlachter, PE
Deputy County Administrator, Construction & Maintenance | Columbia County, GA
In|Sync: The Traffic Bot
Watch The Webinar
In|Sync is a traffic bot that automatically collects traffic demand at an intersection and optimizes traffic signals in real-time.
Everyday, In|Sync impacts about 54,000,000 motorists throughout North America in a positive way.
In|Sync has been installed at more locations than all other similar, legacy systems combined.
In|Sync has proven to produce 30%-40% better results than other similar, legacy systems. This is because In|Sync is the only 3rd-generation, real-time adaptive traffic signal system.
In|Sync is fully-compatible with all flavors of traffic signal infrastructure such as: traffic signal controllers, cabinets, central systems, detection systems, etc.
The proof is in the pudding.
Results are all that matter. No matter what the developer or vendor claims, results cannot lie. Below is a table of results from validation studies by independent agencies.
The results are the reason why our clients turn into raving fans.
Please note that these are all independent studies. In case you are interested, we have a zillion other studies too.
See for yourself.
Community Source |
Reduced Stops |
Reduced Delay |
Reduced Travel Time |
Reduced Fuel Consumption |
Reduced Emissions |
Increased Average Speed |
Annual Savings to Motorists |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Longmont, CO CDOT, CO, 2018 |
41% |
52% |
22% |
6% |
N/A |
27% |
$5.8M |
| Columbia, MO MoDOT, MO, 2010 |
74% |
58% |
20% |
N/A |
N/A |
25% |
$1.9M |
| Columbia Cty, GA Columbia County, GA, 2012 |
71% |
72% |
29% |
15% |
20% |
54% |
$2.9M |
| Farmingtion, NM AECOM, 2015 |
64% |
39% |
14% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$1.1M |
| Greeley, CO Atkins, 2012 |
43% |
25% |
10% |
4% |
N/A |
12% |
$1.3M |
| Lee’s Summit, MO MRIGlobal, 2010 |
73% |
59% |
23% |
10% |
19% |
27% |
N/A |
| Mountain View, CA TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2016 |
40% |
39% |
28% |
N/A |
N/A |
54% |
N/A |
| Mt. Pleasant, SC HDR, 2011 |
58% |
56% |
23% |
N/A |
N/A |
25% |
N/A |
| Pinnelas Cty, FL Transportation Institute, UF, 2017 |
N/A |
21% |
16% |
N/A |
N/A |
13% |
N/A |
| Richmond, VA VCTIR, 2015 |
100% |
94% |
55% |
N/A |
52% |
120% |
N/A |
| Salinas, CA TJKM Transportation Consultants, 2011 |
66% |
72% |
42% |
N/A |
N/A |
70% |
$1.7M |
| San Diego, CA Urban Systems Associates, Inc., 2014 |
59% |
N/A |
17 |
27% |
N/A |
17% |
N/A |
| San Ramon, CA DKS Associates, 2010 |
45% |
45% |
25% |
16% |
38% |
N/A |
$1.3M |
| Springdale, AR City of Springdale, AR, 2010 |
88% |
79% |
35% |
19% |
28% |
56% |
$5.1M |
| State of Virginia VCTIR, 2015 |
68% |
N/A |
37% |
39% |
N/A |
59% |
$33.4M |
| Teays Valley, WV RTI, Marshall University, 2012 |
N/A |
N/A |
23% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
| Topeka, KS City of Topeka, KS, 2011 |
73% |
67% |
41% |
27% |
32% |
73% |
$2.1M |
| Upper Merion, PA PennoniAssociates, 2010 |
23% |
32% |
26% |
N/A |
N/A |
39% |
795,000 |
| Volusia Cty, FL Aleksandar Stevanovic, PhD, PE, and Milan Zlatkovic, PhD, 2012 |
9% |
18% |
18% |
N/A |
N/A |
5% |
N/A |
| Washington Cty, OR Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2012 |
N/A |
N/A |
20% |
39% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
| Wauwatosa, WI TranSmart Technologies, Inc., 2013 |
32% |
28% |
10% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
$1.3M |
| Wichita, KS City of Wichita, KS, 2011 |
83% |
66% |
29% |
21% |
30% |
45% |
$975,000 |
| Hillsboro, OR Kittelson & Associates, Inc., 2012 |
N/A |
9% |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
