This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.

Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS 1

Optimizing Signalized Intersections Performance

Under Conventional and Automated
Vehicles Traffic
Mahmoud Pourmehrab , Lily Elefteriadou, Sanjay Ranka, Fellow, IEEE, and Marilo Martin-Gasulla

Abstract— Automated vehicles or AVs (i.e., those that have the

ability to operate without a driver and can communicate with
the infrastructure) may transform the transportation system.
This study integrates AV trajectory planning and signal phase
and timing (SPaT) optimization at an isolated intersection.
The proposed control algorithm functions under mixed traffic
of AVs and conventional vehicles (CNVs) in real-time. The
proposed system aims to achieve coordination among incoming Fig. 1. Autonomy and communication technology in vehicles.
vehicles and SPaT through joint optimization. The input to the
algorithm includes vehicles arrival data, and the output consists
of optimized trajectories and SPaT commands to the AVs and the
signal controller, respectively, to be implemented. Comparison of adopted the SAE International definitions for six levels of
the algorithm to operations with a fully actuated signal control
shows 38%–52% reduction in average travel time. automation ranging from SAE level 0, being a Conventional
Vehicle (CNV), to SAE level 5, being a fully autonomous vehi-
Index Terms— Signalized intersection, automated vehicle, cle. According to the prescribed standard, intermediate levels
mixed traffic.
share responsibilities between the driver and the automation
system. Depending on the vehicle’s contribution to driving
I. I NTRODUCTION function and communication with other units, the broad spec-

S IGNAL phase and time (SPaT) optimization traces back

to the work of [1] where the least value of an approximate
average delay determines cycle length and split. Ever since,
signal control systems have been evolving to serve traffic
more efficient and to avoid them performing as bottlenecks.
With recent advancements, computers process larger amount
of data at a higher speed which makes real-time optimization
of signalized intersections tractable.
The term autonomous or self-driving refers to the class of
vehicles capable of performing the driving task without human
intervention. While an autonomous vehicle is only concerned
with operating itself, an Automated Vehicle (AV) also commu-
nicates with other vehicles, infrastructure, or cloud. Similarly,
a Connected Vehicle (CV) is communicative, but a human
driver controls the vehicle. Fig. 1 classifies vehicle technology
by presence of autonomy or communicativeness. [2] recently
Manuscript received August 18, 2018; revised December 4, 2018 and
April 26, 2019; accepted May 31, 2019. This work was supported in part
by grants from the National Science Foundation under Grant CNS-1446813
and in part by the Florida Department of Transportation under
Grant BDV31-977-45. The Associate Editor for this paper was N. Geroliminis.
(Corresponding author: Mahmoud Pourmehrab.)
M. Pourmehrab is with the Department of Industrial and Systems
Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA (e-mail:
mpourmehrab@ufl.edu).
L. Elefteriadou and M. Martin-Gasulla are with the Department of Civil
and Coastal Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
(e-mail: elefter@ce.ufl.edu; mmgasulla@ufl.edu).
S. Ranka is with the Department of CISE, University of Florida, Gainesville,
FL 32611 USA (e-mail: ranka@cise.ufl.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TITS.2019.2921025
1524-9050 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
trum of vehicles shown in Fig. 1 can be integrated with the
transportation system.
Recent attention has focused on designing algorithms to
integrate signalized intersection control and advanced vehicle
technologies. Achieving this objective, two major trends in
the solution methods have emerged; reservation-based and
trajectory-based. Under a reservation-based controlled model,
an AV asks the intersection manager (IM) for the space
and time it requires to cross the intersection. Checking for
conflicting requests, IM approves and notifies AVs of their
booking which determines overall vehicle departure sequence.
Assuming an AV asks for system-wide optimal reservation,
The decision is to whether accept or reject the request.
Trajectory-based models further expand the decision set to
compute the path that guides an AV to cross the intersection.
This study develops a trajectory-based control algorithm
to operate an isolated intersection under mixed-traffic of
Automated Vehicles (AVs) and Conventional Vehicles (CNVs).
Provided with the arrival information of vehicles, the algorithm
jointly decides on the trajectories of AVs and the Signal Phase
and Timing (SPaT) to minimize the total travel time at the
intersection. The model computes the trajectory of the arrived
vehicle depending on its type, i.e. AV or CNV, and position
relative to possible vehicles ahead, i.e. lead or follower. For
the lead AVs, we formulate a non-linear mathematical program
that minimizes the travel time delay of the vehicle. For the
follower AVs, we developed an algorithm that computes the
trajectory by minimizing the inter-departure time at the stop
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
bar. In coordination with computed trajectories, an adaptive
signal control algorithm adjusts the SPaT to maximize green
time utilization. Finally, we test and analyze the sensitivity of
the proposed real-time framework in simulation.
The following section reviews the literature on AVs and
intersection management. The third section provides an
overview of the proposed methodology, while the fourth
section presents numerical results for the simulation experi-
ments, into which the proposed algorithm logic is fed, along
with comparisons to actuated traffic signal system simulated
in VISSIM. The final section discusses the performance of
the algorithm, suggests potential improvements, and poses
questions for future research.
II. L ITERATURE R EVIEW
This section reviews some of the studies on integrating
AVs with intersection control logic from the two major
class of intersection control algorithms: (1) reservation-based
algorithms that book time and space for AVs to cross the
intersection (2) trajectory-based algorithms that decide on
movement of AVs within a detection distance near the inter-
section. For comprehensive survey on control algorithms with
communicative vehicle technology refer to [3]–[7] and on AV
perception technologies see [8].
Under the reservation-based class, [9] proposed an inter-
section control algorithm that models AVs as agents that
actively request space-time to cross the intersection conflict
zone. An intersection manager grants requested space and
time to an AV only if proven safe; a process which deter-
mines vehicle departure sequence free of traditional signal
phases. They conducted simulation experiments that showed
performance improvement close to an overpass — where
AVs cross unaffected by conflicting movements. In subse-
quent studies, the AIM was extended to: make the con-
trol policy compatible with communicative semi-autonomous
vehicles, ( [10]–[12]); manage priorities for side traffic under
unbalanced demand, ( [13]); improve estimation of vehicle
arrivals to the stop bar, ( [14]); and coordinate a network
of multiple interconnected intersections, ( [15]). Reservation-
based control algorithms may have limitations since: (1) the
performance at intersection level depends on the amount of
data an individual AV has at the time it makes the request
(2) it is assumed, once approved, there exists a trajectory that
the claiming AV follows to honor the reservation (3) the IM
can reserve space-time for CNVs after they are detected.
Under the trajectory-based category, [16] proposed an inter-
section control algorithm that jointly optimizes AV trajectories
and SPaT for an intersection with two through movements.
Their algorithm enumerates the feasible switches between two
conflicting movements along with the optimized trajectory for
the AVs. Later [17] extended the control method to allow
for full set of available movements at an intersection. The
algorithm optimizes AV trajectories along with the departure
sequence and not the SPaT. This study aims to improve the cur-
rent trajectory-based models by: (1) developing an algorithm
that jointly optimize AV trajectories and SPaT (2) capturing
the effect of CNVs presence in traffic.
Fig. 2. Intelligent intersection control system (IICS).
In summary, reservation- and trajectory-based control algo-
rithms have been developed to integrate AV technology
with intersections. They both rely on collecting vehicles
arrival information in real-time to assign the right-of-way
to vehicles. Depending on the underlying assumptions,
a variety of algorithms were designed under each category.
The reservation-based models coordinate departure time and
sequence of vehicles per vehicles’ request. The trajectory-
based models further incorporate AVs movement as variables
to ensure optimal movement of vehicles is synchronized with
the provided green times.
III. M ETHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
In this section, we develop an Intelligent Intersection Con-
trol Algorithm (IICA) to optimize intersection performance.
AVs with a two-way vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) connec-
tivity and CNVs with no ability to communicate compose the
traffic. The objective is to minimize the average travel time
by coordinating the signal phase and timing parameters with
the computed trajectories. As a result, IICA maximizes the
green time utilization and hence throughput. Fig. 2 schemat-
ically shows the proposed Intelligent Intersection Control
System.
Initially, the central computer, marked as 1 in Fig. 2,
receives each vehicle’s arrival information, marked as 2 and 3,
within the detection distance in each lane. Next, the algorithm
computes the parameters associated with the movement of
vehicles toward the intersection for AVs and CNVs. The
algorithm implements a modified adaptive signal control logic
based on computed trajectories. Finally, the algorithm provides
two sets of outputs: the Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) to
be sent to signal controller, marked as 4, and the optimal
trajectories to be implemented by AVs, marked as 5. The
procedure executes continuously to update the signal status
and to serve arriving vehicles.
The next subsection presents the proposed mathemat-
ical models to describe the movement of vehicles fol-
lowed by introducing the proposed enhanced adaptive signal
control.
A. Algorithms for Trajectory Optimization/Estimation
In the IICA, vehicle type, i.e, AV or CNV, and whether
its movement is under the influence of the vehicle in front,
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

POURMEHRAB et al.: OPTIMIZING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PERFORMANCE 3

follower or lead, determine the trajectory computation model. dnl (t) : [tn0l , tncross
l
] → [0, dl ] the center-lane distance to
We define a lead vehicle as a vehicle whose movement stop bar profile of vehicle nl , ∀ l ∈ L, ∀ n l =
is not limited by other vehicles. Any vehicles movement 1, . . . , Nl , (in ft)
can affect its follower depending on a variety of factors The equation for AV Trajectory Optimization (AVTO):
such as speed, gap and braking capability. Considering the ⎧
cumulative effect in traffic stream in a lane, the lead vehicles ⎨
⎨ LAVO(s(t), V max , Vm(n l)
, an l , an l )
cross acc dec
⎨
⎨
have a key role in intersection total delay. We formulate a ⎨
⎨ ∀ nl = 1, ∀ l ∈ L, cnl = AV
⎨
⎨
nonlinear mathematical model (1) to address the follower–lead ⎨
⎨ FAVO(d (n−1)l (t), s(t), V
max , V cross , a dec , a dec )
⎨
⎨ m(n ) nl (n−1)l
dependencies among a set of vehicles in each lane. The AV ⎨ ∀ n = 2, . . . , N , ∀ l ∈ L, c l = AV
l l nl
Trajectory Optimization (AVTO) model (1) captures this effect dnl (t) =
⎨
⎨ LCNVE(s(t), v nl (tnl ))
0
by recursively computing the trajectories. ⎨
⎨
⎨
⎨ ∀ nl = 1, ∀ l ∈ L, cnl = C N V
Sets, Parameters, and Indices: ⎨
⎨
⎨
⎨ FCNVE(d(n−1)l (t), s(t), Vndes , anacc , andec )
L the set of incoming lanes, l ∈ L ⎨
⎨
⎩ l l l
nl the vehicle counter in lane l, nl = 1, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L ∀ nl = 2, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L, cnl = C N V
(note the vehicles are from closest to the farthest (1)
relative to the stop bar.)
Sub-models to AVTO model:
cnl the class of vehicle nl , cnl ∈ {AV, CNV}, ∀ l ∈
L, ∀ n l = 1, . . . , Nl L AV O(.) the Lead AV Optimizer
t re f the reference point to measure time (it can be set F AV O(.) the Follower AV Optimizer
to any arbitrary but constant values through analysis LC N V E(.) the Lead CNV Estimator
time horizon in seconds) FC N V E(.) the Follower CNV Estimator
t the time relative to the reference time t re f , (in sec- Eq. (1) defines the trajectory of nth vehicle in lane l
onds) to be a function of signal status at time t (i.e s(t)), char-
tn0l the detection time of vehicle nl relative to the refer- acteristics of the vehicle itself (i.e. anacc l
, andecl
), speed lim-
ence time t re f , (in seconds), nl = 1, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L its (i.e. V max , Vm(nl ) ), and trajectory of its lead vehicle
cross
cross
tnl the cross time of vehicle nl at the stop bar rela- (i.e. d(n−1)l (t)). In this study, we assume a conventional lead
tive to the reference time t re f , (in seconds), nl = vehicle, represented by LCNVE model, tends to maintain
1, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L its arrival speed when signal indicates green. Next subsec-
m(n l ) the mapping that keeps movement of AV nl , m(n l ) : tions discuss LAVO, FAVO, and LCNVE models to AVTO
1, . . . , Nl → {le f t, str aight, right}, cnl = AV problem.
dl the detection range of lane l ∈ L, (in ft) 1) Lead AV Optimization (LAVO) Model: In this section,
Vndes the desired speed of the follower CNV nl (in ft/s), we formulate and solve the Lead AV Optimizer (LAVO)
l
nl = 2, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L, cnl = CNV problem. The problem aims to minimize an automated lead
V max the speed limit inside the detection range, (in ft/s) vehicle’s travel time delay. The benefit of planing ahead
cross the speed limit at the stop bar for movement m(n ),
Vm(n l
at vehicle level has roots in accessible real-time arrival of
l)
(in ft/s) vehicles along with ability to harmonize movement of AV
anacc the maximum acceleration rate of vehicle nl , n l = with the signal phase and timing. IICA advises an AV to
l
1, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L (in ft/s2 ) adjust its motion to prevent lost times due to accelerating from
andec the maximum deceleration rate of vehicle nl , nl = standstill. We consider the functional form for AV trajectory—
l
1, . . . , Nl , ∀ l ∈ L (in ft/s2 ) also called the space-time function— that have several prop-
 the set of phases to serve all available movements at erties: (1) provides acceleration/deceleration stages for AV
the intersection, φ ∈  trajectories; (2) produces paths that AVs can implement;
 the phase-lane incidence matrix  = [ηφl : ∀ l ∈ L, (3) parametrizes trajectories that are tractable to optimize.
∀ φ ∈ ], where ηφl is 1 if lane l belongs to phase φ, Hence, we formulate the lead AV trajectory considering
0 otherwise three ordered stages as:
⎧
s(t) = (tφs (t), G φ (t), Yφ (t), A R φ (t)) the vector that con- ⎨ d 1 (t) ∀ t ∈ [tn0l , tn1l ]
⎨
⎨ nl
tains signal status at time t
tφs (t) the time stamp when the green interval for phase φ dnl (t) = dn2l (t) ∀ t ∈ (tn1l , tn2l ] (2)
⎨
⎨
begins ⎩ d 3 (t) ∀ t ∈ (t 2 , t 3 ]
nl nl nl
G φ (t) the duration of green interval for phase φ
Yφ (t) the duration of yellow interval for phase φ where:
A R φ (t) the duration of all-red interval for phase φ dni l (t) is the distance to the stop bar during the i th stage,
Notice all phases that belong to  except φ, receive (in ft)
red during [tφs (t), tφs (t) + G φ (t) + Yφ (t) + A Rφ (t)] tni l is the time stamp when the i th stage ends, (in sec-
onds). Note tn3l = tncross
l
since the vehicle nl crosses
Variables: at the end of the third stage.
v nl (t) : [tn0l , tncross
l
] → R+ the speed profile of vehicle nl , The stage-wise trajectory by Eq. (2) provides flexibility
∀ l ∈ L, ∀ n l = 1, . . . , Nl , (in ft/s) to adjust the speed of incoming AV—if driven too slow or
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS


v nl (tn3l )2 − v nl (tn2l )2
− /v nl (tn1l ) (8)
2an3l
v nl (tn3l ) − v nl (tn2l )
tn3l − tn2l = (9)
an3l
We formulate the LAVO mathematical program to mini-
mize vehicle’s travel time delay subject to constraints from
the signal, maximum speed limit, and vehicle accelerating
capability. Defining the base travel time of a vehicle to be
Fig. 3. The three stages of a lead AV’s trajectory. the amount of time to travel the detection range at its desired
speed, we minimize the total travel time delay as of stated in
fast—then maintain the speed followed by final a stage to model (10-15). The first set of constraints, (11), bounds the
readjust the speed for a safe departure. Therefore, the first feasible area to solutions which AV will be granted green or
and third stages adjust the speed by a constant acceleration or yellow. The constraint (12) ensures following the speed limit
deceleration rate, while the vehicle maintains a constant speed starting from the second stage. The constraint (13) controls
during the second stage, see Fig. 3. The speed profile of the the crossing speed at the stop bar depending on the type of
vehicle can be formulated as: movements i.e. left turn, through, or right turn. The constraints
⎧ (14) and (15) limit all acceleration or deceleration rates to the
⎨ v nl (tn0l ) + an1l × (t − tn0l ) ∀ t ∈ [tn0l , tn1l ]
⎨
⎨ range that the vehicle can execute.
v nl (t) = v nl (tn1l ) ∀ t ∈ (tn1l , tn2l ] (3)
⎨
⎨ 
3
dnl (tn0l )
⎩ LAVO: min (tni l − tni−1 ) − (10)
v nl (tnl ) + anl × (t − tnl ) ∀ t ∈ (tnl , tnl ]
2 3 2 2 3
v,a l
Vndes
i=1 l

where: subject to
v nl (tn0l ) is the arrival speed of vehicle nl at detection time, ηφl × tφs (t) ≤ ηφl × (tn3l − tn0l ) ≤ tφs (t)
(in ft/s)
+ G φ (t) + Yφ (t) ∀ φ ∈ 
v nl (tni l ) is the speed of vehicle nl at the end of the i th
stage, (in ft/s) (11)
ani l is the acceleration/deceleration rate of vehicle nl 0≤ v nl (tn1l ) ≤V max
(12)
within the i th stage, (in ft/s2 )
0 ≤ v nl (tn3l ) ≤ Vm(n
cross
l)
(13)
Fig. 3 demonstrates a sample trajectory indexed by time and
distance. andec
l
≤ an1l ≤ anacc
l
(14)
Using the instantaneous velocity differential equation dec
an l ≤ an3l ≤ acc
an l (15)
−ddnl (t) = dv nl (t) × dt, the trajectory function can be
derived as: The gradient of the travel time delay, function 10, indicates
an1l monotonic variation with respect to the set of variables. This
dn1l (t) = dnl (tn0l ) − v nl (tn0l ) × (t − tn0l ) − × (t − tn0l )2 suggests the optimal solution to belong to the boundaries of
2 the feasible region; otherwise, the objective function could
∀ t ∈ [tn0l , tn1l ] (4) be decreased along the negative of the gradient. Therefore,
dn2l (t) = dnl (tn1l ) − v nl (tn1l ) × (t − tn1l ) model (10-15) can be solved by devising a constant time
algorithm to probe the boundaries of the feasible region for
∀ t ∈ (tn1l , tn2l ] (5) the minimizer, see Fig. 4. It first starts with assigning an
an3l obvious non-optimal value, M, to deln∗l which holds the
dn3l (t) = dnl (tn2l ) − v nl (tn2l ) × (t − tn2l ) − × (t − tn2l )2 global minimum value of the objective by the end of the
2
procedure. The indicator f lag is used to detect infeasibility
∀ t ∈ (tn2l , tn3l ] (6) due to an empty feasible region. The set A includes all LAVO
decision variables, and every time a variable is selected to
Note the trajectory function has to comply with first degree
determine the edge to explore. Then the for-loop fixes the
of continuity— meaning not only the distance but also the
rest of variables to the bounds; note there may be multiple
speed of vehicle remains differentiable. This is to provide a
combinations based on the choice of either the lower bound
smooth speed transition between stages. Finally, using fun-
or the upper bound. When all variables except the selected
damental motion equations, the following equations gives the
one are determined, a single-variable constrained minimization
travel time of stages:
problem can be easily solved to find the minimum point on
v nl (tn1l ) − v nl (tn0l ) that edge. Repeating this procedure for all edges, the algorithm
tn1l − tn0l = (7) outputs the global minimum, if any exists.
an1l
 2) Follower AV Optimization (FAVO) Model: The Follower
v nl (tn1l )2 − v nl (tn0l )2 AV Optimizer (FAVO) model computes the trajectory of an
tn2l − tn1l = dnl (tn0l ) −
2an1l automated follower. If the vehicle in front is going to cross
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

POURMEHRAB et al.: OPTIMIZING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PERFORMANCE 5

Fig. 5. A follower AV transitions to the hypothetical trajectory with saturation

headway at the stop bar.

Fig. 4. The exact heuristic algorithm to solve LAVO.

the stop bar at time tncross l

, assuming a saturation headway
of sh , an automated follower can cross from the stop bar no
sooner than time tncross
l
+sh . Therefore a hypothetical trajectory
for vehicle n can be computed by lagging trajectory of vehicle
n −1 to the saturation headway sh . The hypothetical trajectory
may not be compatible with the arrival of the nth vehicle.
However, if possible, an AV can be instructed to reach to
the hypothetical trajectory at some point within the detection
distance.
It should be noted that the automated follower may fail to
depart at the saturation headway if it is not close enough,
or moves much slower, relative to its lead vehicle. Thus, even
at the maximum acceleration rate, the AV may not be able to
reduce its time headway down to the saturation time headway.
In this case, the proposed algorithm considers that AV as a lead
and optimizes the trajectory by solving the LAVO problem. Fig. 6. The algorithm to compute trajectory of a follower AV.
The algorithm in Fig. 6 describes the steps to minimize the
time headway of an AV at the stop bar. First it computes the
cross,hyp
earliest hypothetical cross time for the nth vehicle, tnl , been found. If positive, the final trajectory is composed of the
considering the time interval in which the vehicle is allowed transition segment and the hypothetical segment (the Fig. 6).
to cross — the latest of either the time when green start or Otherwise, the green light or saturation headway could not
the cross time at the saturation headway after its lead vehicle, influence the nth vehicle’s cross time, thus the vehicle can be
cross
t(n−1) l
+ sh . Next, it constructs the hypothetical trajectory that considered as a lead AV.
assures the earliest cross time by lagging the trajectory of 3) Trajectory Estimation for Conventional Vehicles:
its lead vehicle. In other words, for the same distance to the We assume that a lead CNV tends to maintain its arrival speed
stop bar, the hypothetical trajectory has time stamps shifted within the detection range. The rest of this section explains
cross,hyp
by tnl − t(n−1)
cross seconds. Lastly, since the computed
l
the model to estimate a follower CNV’s trajectory. Sensors on
hypothetical trajectory is the arrival information may not the roadside, i.e. radar and/or camera, are assumed to obtain
match the real arrival of nth vehicle, the algorithm searches the lane, location, and speed of CNVs once they enter the
for a transition acceleration/deceleration rate, antrans
l
, that is in detection range. The AVTO model predicts their movements
the range the vehicle can perform to join the actual arrival through a car-following model. In this study, we implement
point to the hypothetical trajectory (the Fig. 5). By the end of the [18] car-following model— as the FCNVE sub-model in
the search, the f lag variable indicates if such a transition has Eq. (1) — to estimate the trajectory of a conventional follower.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Fig. 7. The Gipps car-following model implementation.
Eq. (16), shown at the bottom of this page, yields the speed
profile of follower CNV, where:
t is the time steps to compute trajectory points and the
reaction time of CNVs
v nl (t + t) is the speed of follower vehicle t seconds
after t
L nl is the length of nth vehicle in lane l
In the context of the AVTO model, the algorithm in Fig. 7
implements the Gipps car-following model to compute a
CNV’s trajectory.
B. Enhanced Adaptive Signal Control
With Trajectory Optimization
The IICA framework makes SPaT decisions that are in
coordination with the planned trajectories to avoid lost times
due to low green time utilization. This section devises an
adaptive signal logic which controls whether to extend or
switch an ongoing phase. The proposed algorithm re-evaluates
the signal control status every time a new vehicle is detected.
As shown in Fig. 8, a traffic generation module emulates the
arrival of the vehicles at the detection distance of the lanes.
Before solving AVTO model (1), the position of the arrived
vehicle is updated assuming it traveled at the detected speed
during the message transmission time. Given the ongoing
signal phase and timing, the solution to AVTO model (1)
for the entered vehicles determines if the upcoming green
intervals serve all the vehicles. In case the ongoing signal
plan is insufficient, the algorithm asks the signal controller
for either enough green extension or a switch of the phase.
Therefore, the decision on signal phase and timing falls into
one of the following categories:
• The ongoing signal plan provides all the vehicles enough
green time to safely cross the intersection.
• The ongoing signal plan is insufficient, and:
v nl (t)
v nl (t + t) = min v nl (t) + 2.5anl × t × (1 − des ) × 0.025 + ldes , andec
acc
Vnl
 
Fig. 8. Enhanced adaptive signal control.
– The unserved vehicle is in a lane that belongs to the
last scheduled phase. Based on the trajectory of this
vehicle, extend the green interval to ensure safe cross
at the stop bar.
– The unserved vehicle is in a lane that does not belong
to the last scheduled phase. Schedule the phase that
serves this vehicle for a green interval long enough to
guarantee safe cross at the stop bar.
The timing for each phase should meet several practical
criteria. Any green interval lower than a minimum green or
higher than a maximum green causes too frequent or late phase
switches which forces excessive delay to vehicles and should
be avoided.
Fig. 9 illustrates the association of each arrival inter-
val, tφarr , and the corresponding SPaT decision for a few
consecutive phases. The minimum time to travel the detection
lag
range necessitates a lag time, tφ , between the end of the
green and the end of the associated arrival interval. In other
words, the lag time represents the time between when the
algorithm makes signal decision and when the corresponding
traffic will depart at the stop bar.
IV. A LGORITHM I MPLEMENTATION
AND N UMERICAL R ESULTS
We programmed the proposed IICA process in [19] and was
run on an Ubuntu machine with Intel Core i7-8550U CPU
and 8 GB RAM with no noticeable delay per iteration. A test
four-leg intersection as shown in Fig. 10 was considered. The
intersection includes six incoming lanes, four discharge lanes,
and two approaches with exclusive left turn lanes.
v n (t)
l
× t
Vnl
 
 v
(n−1)l (t)
2
+ anl × 2 × d(n−1)l (t) − dnl (t) + L nl + t × anl × t + v nl (t) +
dec dec (16)
andec
l
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

POURMEHRAB et al.: OPTIMIZING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PERFORMANCE 7

Fig. 9. Schematic SPaT (G φ , Yφ and ARφ are the green, yellow and all-
red intervals for phase φ; tφarr indicates the arrival interval in phase φ;
lag
tφ denotes the time before the end of yellow interval in phase φ).
Fig. 11. Cumulative arrival and departure curves after 15 minutes of
simulation. (Notice departures occur at the stop bar while arrivals occur at
the detection distance, in this case 1000 feet far from the stop bar.)

• The saturation headway at the stop bar is 1.0, 1.5,

or 2.0 seconds.
• The average time headway for vehicle arrivals varies from
8 to 60 seconds (ten equidistant values to control flow).
• The AV ratio for all lanes varies from 0.3 to 1 (ten
equidistant values); 1 being the traffic with all AVs and
no CNVs.
• The detection range for all lanes varies from 500 to
3000 feet (ten equidistant values).
Fig. 10. A four-leg intersection with six incoming lanes and four phases.
Fig. 11 illustrates how the algorithm serves arriving vehicles
in a lane. The horizontal time gap between arrival and depar-
We implement the IICA based on the following assump-
ture curve represents the time that each vehicle spent traveling
tions:
from the detection distance to the stop bar.
• The sum of critical lane flows indicates under capacity
In order to quantify the performance, a module moni-
operation.
tors three outcome variables including: (1) average travel
• The [18] car-following model predicts the conventional
time (measured from detection to departure at the stop bar)
followers’ movement, as described in section III-A3.
(2) average delay (determined as the extra travel time relative
• No data loss due to communication malfunction occurs.
to the free flow travel time) (3) average effective green
• Operating conditions:
(sum of actual green and yellow times). Under the set of
– Vehicle inter-arrival times follow the exponential dis-
assumptions stated in section IV, we observe the following
tribution with rate parameter equal to the inverse of the
patterns (Fig. 12):
average time headway.
– Maximum allowable speed is 40 mph. • Fig. 12 (the first two rows of panels) indicates average
– Turning movements cross the stop bar at speeds no travel time and average delay increases as flow increases.
higher than 30 mph. For saturation headway equal to 2 seconds, the intense
– Minimum green time for all phases is 4.5 seconds. increase of travel times for flows close to theoretical
– Yellow and all-red time are 1.5 seconds each per phase. capacity is a sign of inevitable queues.
– No lane changing occurs within the detection zone. • As expected, capacity increases as the saturation headway
– No pedestrians are present in the vicinity of the decreases (see the first row of panels in Fig. 12). Since
intersection. AVs are expected to safely maintain shorter headways,
• Traffic generation: they can increase the capacity of the intersection.
– The scenarios are simulated for 15 minutes. • The average delay slightly decreases as the detec-
– The initial speeds of vehicles follow the triangular tion range increases. The higher the available distance,
distribution with minimum, peak, and maximum values the more flexibility in the trajectory optimization, which
equal to 0.85, 1, and 1.1 factors of the speed limit. reduces the total delay.
– Vehicles can accelerate/decelerate from −15 ft/s2 • The average delay deceases with increase in AV ratio.
to 10 ft/s2 . For low flows, the average delay of near zero could be
achieved since SPaT and trajectory decisions are made in
A. Simulation Experiments a non-competitive environment. For higher flows, an AV
This section reports the results of 3000 simulation experi- may be instructed to slow down due to inability to assign
ments which range in the following scenarios: the green time if it would drive at maximum speed. This
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Fig. 12. Sensitivity analysis for 3000 scenarios (panels in same column
associate with same saturation headway; panels in same row associate with
same measure of effectiveness on the vertical axis).
saves the vehicles unnecessary stops due to a greedy
speed maximization.
• For higher flows, the IICA model assigns less amount of
effective green to each phase, see the last row of panels
in Fig. 12. This reflects the increase in the likelihood that
multiple phases need the right-of-way simultaneously as
flow intensifies.
• The IICA algorithm allocates more green for longer
detection distances to guarantee serving incoming vehi-
cles. This trend is less noticeable for higher flows as the
conflicting movements are more likely to prevent green
extensions.
B. Comparison to a Fully Actuated Signal Control in VISSIM
In this section, we model the same intersection under a fully
actuated signal control— the state-of-the-art control system —
in VISSIM [20]. In order to produce quantitative outputs
comparable to the proposed IICA framework, we take three
primary considerations into account:
• Both simulators are set up to hold identical values for
those control parameters that are shared. This category
of parameters includes simulation period, intersection
geometry, sets of phases, minimum and maximum green
duration, inter-arrival distribution, arrival speed distribu-
tion, length of incoming lane to collect travel time data,
vehicles acceleration/deceleration capabilities.
• Simulators are calibrated to behave likely under the
boundary conditions. To rule out the possibility that
different car-following models for CNVs affect the travel
times, we calibrate the VISSIM’s Wiedemann 99 car-
following model, with values reported in Table. I, to have
same travel time as IICA’s Gipps car-following model
under different flows when the light is green. In other
TABLE I
W IEDEMANN 99 PARAMETERS VALUE
Fig. 13. The first row indicates Average Travel Time per miles compared
between IICA and fully-actuated signal control for CNVs in VISSIM. Second
row shows average effective greens compared between IICA and fully-
actuated signal control for CNVs in VISSIM.
words, the behavior of CNVs matches when neither signal
phase and timing nor presence of AVs could affect them.
The calibration process helps to reduce the probability
of bias toward variation in results that is unrelated to
identified causes.
• The choice of the measure of effectiveness should be
based on the exact definition each simulator uses to
collect them. This criterion makes the comparison on
the basis of measured travel times more reliable than
a judgment based on obtained travel time delays which
VISSIM collects in a specific way.
Fig. 13 and 14 compare the Average Travel Time (ATT) per
mile and average effective green duration under IICA and fully
actuated control logic. The 45-degree line passing through the
origin divides the quadrant into two areas. For each scenario,
the logic with lower ATT per mile — equivalent to a point
that resides in the side of 45-degree line closer to the logic
with higher ATT per mile—is preferable. The first row of
panels in Fig. 13 shows both IICA and actuated signal control
implemented in VISSIM both operate at almost identical ATT
per mile. Hence, for near free-flow condition, neither presence
of programmable AVs nor the optimization framework to plan
AV trajectories have a significant effect on ATT per mile.
This trend starts to change as flow increases to the range
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
POURMEHRAB et al.: OPTIMIZING SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS PERFORMANCE
Fig. 14. Average Travel Time per mile compared between IICA and fully-
actuated signal control for CNVs in VISSIM (panels in same column associate
with same saturation headway; Dashed lines show average values; Panels in
same row associate with same flow spectrum; s to be the saturation headway
at the stop bar).
where a collision-free and efficient SPaT decision becomes
prominent. The lowest service rate —saturation headway of
2 sec —indicates the ATT per mile by IICA becomes closer
to VISSIM model at the higher end of flow spectrum. In other
words, intersection management is trivial in cases where the
ratio of arrival to service rate is either near zero or close
to one. Whereas any real-time signal logic can effortlessly
serve free flow traffic, growing queues become inevitable for
a congested condition. The arrival information at a detection
range gives the proposed IICA the ability to plan the signal
phase and timing by reducing unusable effective green times
and preventable stops.
The comparison of average effective greens gives some
crucial insights on the reason behind significant ATT per miles
difference between the two algorithms. Despite having almost
the same average effective green duration, IICA outperformed
VISSIM actuated model due to two reasons. First, since loop
detectors may call the signal either too soon or too late if
placed close to or far from the stop bar. Therefore, they run
the signal with either a lead or a lag relative to the time green is
needed. This implies while the actuated logic is allocating the
right amount of greens, the intervals could start either early
or late depending on arrival speed of the detected vehicle.
Second, VISSIM actuated model had no mean to instruct the
vehicles to prevent unnecessary stops. This is while, depending
9
on AV ratio, IICA was able to save time on queue formation
and the startup lost times associated with it.
V. C ONCLUSIONS AND R ECOMMENDATIONS
We developed a modeling framework (IICA) to integrate
AVs with signalized intersection operations in mixed traffic
(AVs and CNVs). The IICA model adjusts the signalization
and trajectory of AVs in real-time to minimize total travel time
delay. The method incorporates the following factors into the
decision-making process:
• Vehicle arrival information:
– Traffic stream composition (e.g. AV versus CNV ratio)
– Individual vehicle
∗ Spatial information (e.g. speed and location of a
vehicle)
∗ Attributes (e.g. acceleration/deceleration capabili-
ties)
– Flow fluctuation (e.g. randomness of incoming vehicles
in each lane)
• Phase plan (e.g. simultaneously serving all movements of
an approach)
• Speed limits (e.g. the maximum allowable speed near
an intersection, and the maximum crossing speed at the
stop bars)
The proposed algorithm reduced unnecessary stops for
tested conditions, jointly optimized trajectories of AVs and
signal phase and timing, and utilized both connectivity and
programmability of AVs. The proposed models were to min-
imize the travel time of the AV subject to signalization and
extra constraints to assure the optimal trajectory is executable
in a real-world application. For details on the field deployment
of the proposed IICS the reader may refer to [21].
Several assumptions limit the scope of this study and left
unanswered questions for future research. While this study
did not consider presence of pedestrian, they can be included
after defining a delay function and pedestrian phase for each
approach. Similar to sensory technology for arriving vehicles,
pedestrian and bicyclists arrivals can be used to extend IICA
to optimized for a broader group of users. Our proposed IICA
does not support traffic signal preemption. There might be
challenges to detect emergency vehicles if not equipped with
DSRC mean. Due to future technological advancements to
increase range of DSRC and radio communication, it may
become feasible to consider lane changing within the detection
range. The proposed IICA can be extended to advise AVs to
change lane in a way that distributes them evenly.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are grateful to Econolite Group, Inc and City
of Gainesville for their assistance during the course of this
research. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or rec-
ommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of either
the National Science Foundation or the Florida Department
of Transportation. For further references the reader may visit
AVIAN.ESSIE.UFL.edu.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
R EFERENCES
[1] F. V. Webster, “Traffic signal settings,” Road Res. Lab., London, U.K.,
Tech. Rep. 39, 1958.
[2] “Federal automated vehicles policy: Accelerating the next revolution
in roadway safety,” U.S. Dept. Transp. Nat. Highway Traffic Saf.
Admin., Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep., 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.transportation.gov/AV/federal-automated-vehicles-policy-
september-2016
[3] H. S. Mahmassani, “50th anniversary invited article—Autonomous
vehicles and connected vehicle systems: Flow and operations consid-
erations,” Transp. Sci., vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 1140–1162, 2016. doi: 10.
1287/trsc.2016.0712.
[4] L. Chen and C. Englund, “Cooperative intersection management: A sur-
vey,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 570–586,
Feb. 2016.
[5] J. Rios-Torres and A. A. Malikopoulos, “A survey on the coordination
of connected and automated vehicles at intersections and merging at
highway on-ramps,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 18, no. 5,
pp. 1066–1077, May 2017.
[6] L. Li, D. Wen, and D. Yao, “A survey of traffic control with vehicular
communications,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 15, no. 1,
pp. 425–432, Feb. 2014.
[7] R. Florin and S. Olariu, “A survey of vehicular communications for
traffic signal optimization,” Veh. Commun., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 70–79,
2015.
[8] J. Van Brummelen, M. O’Brien, D. Gruyer, and H. Najjaran,
“Autonomous vehicle perception: The technology of today and tomor-
row,” Transp. Res. C, Emerg. Technol., vol. 89, pp. 384–406,
Apr. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
article/pii/S0968090X18302134
[9] K. Dresner and P. Stone, “Multiagent traffic management: A reservation-
based intersection control mechanism,” in Proc. 3rd Int. Joint Conf.
Auton. Agents Multiagent Syst., Jul. 2004, pp. 530–537.
[10] D. Teodorovic, Ed., Routledge Handbook of Transportation. New York,
NY, USA: Routledge, 2016. doi: 10.4324/9781315756684.
[11] K. Dresner and P. Stone, “Human-usable and emergency vehiclle–aware
control policies for autonomous intersection management,” in Proc. 4th
Int. Workshop Agents Traffic Transp. (ATT), May 2006, pp. 1–9.
[12] K. Dresner and P. Stone, “Making autonomous intersection management
backwards-compatible,” in Proc. 21st Nat. Conf. Artif. Intell., 18th Innov.
Appl. Artif. Intell. Conf., Jul. 2006, pp. 1865–1866.
[13] T.-C. Au, N. Shahidi, and P. Stone, “Enforcing liveness in autonomous
traffic management,” in Proc. 25th AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., Aug. 2011,
pp. 1317–1322.
[14] T.-C. Au and P. Stone, “Motion planning algorithms for autonomous
intersection management,” in Proc. Workshops 25th AAAI Conf. Artif.
Intell., Jul. 2010, pp. 2–9.
[15] M. Hausknecht, T.-C. Au, and P. Stone, “Autonomous intersection
management: Multi-intersection optimization,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Intell. Robots Syst., Sep. 2011, pp. 4581–4586.
[16] Z. Li, L. Elefteriadou, and S. Ranka, “Signal control optimization for
automated vehicles at isolated signalized intersections,” Transp. Res. C,
Emerg. Technol., vol. 49, pp. 1–18, Dec. 2014.
[17] Z. Li, M. Pourmehrab, L. Elefteriadou, and S. Ranka, “Intersec-
tion control optimization for automated vehicles using genetic algo-
rithm,” J. Transp. Eng., A, Syst., vol. 144, no. 12, Oct. 2018,
Art. no. 04018074. [Online]. Available: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/
10.1061/JTEPBS.0000197
[18] P. G. Gipps, “A behavioural car-following model for computer simula-
tion,” Transp. Res. B, Methodol., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 105–111, Aug. 1981.
[19] MATLAB, MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA, 2016.
[20] VISSIM 9.00 User Manual, VISSIM, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2016.
[21] A. Omidvar et al., “Deployment and testing of optimized autonomous
and connected vehicle trajectories at a closed-course signalized inter-
section,” Transp. Res. Rec., vol. 2672, no. 19, pp. 45–54, 2018. doi:
10.1177/0361198118782798.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Mahmoud Pourmehrab received the B.Sc. and
M.Sc. degrees in civil engineering and transportation
planning from the Sharif University of Technology,
Tehran, Iran, in 2012 and 2014, respectively, and
the M.Sc. degree in operations research and the
Ph.D. degree in transportation planning from the
University of Florida, Gainesville, USA, in 2018 and
2019, respectively. His research interest includes
transportation system optimization through mathe-
matical programming and data analytics.
Lily Elefteriadou received the Ph.D. degree in
transportation planning and engineering from the
Polytechnic University of NYU, NY, USA, in 1994.
She is currently a Professor with the University
of Florida, where she directs the University of
Florida Transportation Institute. She has served as
the principal investigator for several federal and
state projects, funded by the National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Highway
Administration, PennDOT, and FDOT. She has
authored a textbook Introduction to Traffic Flow Theory. She serves on the
Editorial Board for the Transportation Research: Part B. Her research interests
include traffic operations, traffic flow theory, and simulation. She is the Past
Chair of the Transportation Research Board’s Highway Capacity and Quality
of Service Committee. She is also a Past Chair of the Executive Board of
the Council of University Transportation Centers and was the President of the
ARTBA Research and Education Council from 2014 to 2015.
Sanjay Ranka (S’87–M’88–SM’01–F’02) received
the Ph.D. degree in computer science from the Uni-
versity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA, in 1988.
He was the Chief Technology Officer with Paramark,
where he developed real-time optimization software
for optimizing marketing campaigns. He was one
of the main architects of the Syracuse Fortran
90D/HPF compiler. He is currently a Professor with
the University of Florida, where she directs the
University of Florida Transportation Institute. He has
coauthored two books: Elements of Neural Networks
(MIT Press) and Hypercube Algorithms (Springer Verlag). His research inter-
ests include data mining, informatics and grid computing for data-intensive
applications in high energy physics, bioterrorism, and biomedical computing.
He was a past member of the Parallel Compiler Runtime Consortium and
the Message Passing Initiative Standards Committee. He is a fellow of the
AAAS, an Advisory Board Member of the IEEE Technical Committee on
Parallel Processing, and a member of IFIP Committee on System Modeling
and Optimization. He serves on the Editorial Board for the Journal of Parallel
and Distributed Computing.
Marilo Martin-Gasulla received the B.Sc. and
M.Sc. degrees in civil engineering and transporta-
tion planning and engineering from the Universitat
Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain, in 2011 and
2015, respectively. Her research interest includes
traffic operation.