# Surtrac Traffic Signals: How One-Second Cycles Cut Delay 25%

Hadley Sims · September 2, 2026

> Surtrac Traffic Signals: How One-Second Cycles Cut Delay 25%. A single urban interchange ramp costs roughly what it takes to transfor...

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| Continuous optimization outperforms periodic maintenance | A signal re-optimized every second beats a three-year retiming cycle by a factor of approximately 3, directly enabling the documented 25% delay reduction. |
| Enterprise AI adoption mirrors infrastructure deployment friction | While generative AI investment tripled to roughly $37 billion in a single year, approximately 95% of pilots show no measurable P&L impact due to unaddressed platform seams. |
| Pittsburgh's Surtrac proves scalable urban computation | The initial deployment achieved a 25% cut in travel times and a further reduction in intersection wait times at a capital cost that varies by infrastructure requirements. |
| Dynamic scaling eliminates operational bottlenecks | Genetic algorithm-driven cluster autoscalers adapt to fluctuating demand while gracefully managing node terminations, mirroring how real-time traffic signals continuously adjust to live flow. |

A single urban interchange ramp costs roughly what it takes to transform an entire city's grid. Pittsburgh deployed that exact budget across fifty intersections, replacing static timing plans with a system that recomputes optimal green phases every single second. The result was not a marginal improvement but a structural shift: travel times dropped by 25 percent and intersection wait times fell significantly.

This outcome exposes a fundamental flaw in municipal infrastructure management. Treating signal retiming as a triennial maintenance task leaves massive efficiency gains unrealized because traffic is inherently dynamic. When algorithms adjust continuously rather than periodically, they capture the full variance of driver behavior, pedestrian crossings, and emergency vehicle preemption without human intervention or scheduled downtime.

The same computational principle explains why most enterprise technology initiatives stall despite heavy funding. While corporate spending on artificial intelligence surged to approximately $37 billion last year, nearly 95 percent of those programs fail to deliver measurable financial returns. The difference between success and stagnation lies in whether the underlying system treats optimization as a one-time configuration or a continuous, automated process.

![Sun drenched urban intersection with sleek geometric traffic poles](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-c-ai-35d2c86b.jpg)
Sun drenched urban intersection with sleek geometric traffic poles

## The One-Second Cycle

At Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute, Stephen Smith’s team engineered Surtrac not as a traffic management upgrade, but as a distributed computing problem. Each intersection runs an independent rolling-horizon optimizer that recalculates green-time allocation every single second. Instead of executing a static timing plan generated by a central coordination server, the local controller continuously solves for the phase sequence that minimizes aggregate queue length across all approaches. This architectural shift from centralized command to decentralized negotiation is what allows the system to absorb stochastic demand spikes without human intervention.

The difference in decision frequency is mathematically stark. A conventional fixed-time or coordinated signal locks into a standard cycle, optimized months in advance based on historical turning-count surveys. Surtrac recomputes its phase schedule once per second, yielding thousands of optimization decisions per hour per intersection compared to one plan per retiming cycle (conventionally every three to five years). That computational density transforms signal control from a quarterly maintenance task into a continuous feedback loop.

This loop depends entirely on the sensing-to-actuation pipeline. Radar and video detection units feed approach-level queue data directly into the intersection controller. The controller treats incoming platoons as discrete jobs in a scheduling problem, allocating green intervals to clear them in minimum total delay. The logic mirrors how an operating system schedules CPU threads: prioritize the longest queues, preempt inefficient phases, and minimize overall wait time rather than maximizing throughput at a single approach.

Decentralization is not merely a software preference; it is a scalability requirement. Because each node exchanges state only with immediate neighbors along the arterial, Surtrac coordinates grids like Pittsburgh’s East Liberty network without routing traffic telemetry through a municipal data center. Earlier adaptive systems such as SCOOT in the UK and SCATS in Australia relied on hierarchical central servers that introduced communication latency and created single points of failure when fiber links degraded. Neighbor-to-peer messaging eliminates that bottleneck while preserving coordination fidelity.

Rapid Flow Technologies, the CMU spin-out commercializing the platform, deliberately avoids proprietary cabinet replacements. The architecture runs on standard NTCIP-compliant traffic controllers augmented with added detection hardware and city-owned communications modules. That design choice keeps per-intersection deployment costs in the tens of thousands of dollars rather than triggering hundreds-of-thousands-dollar capital projects. According to the 2026 Pittsburgh Surtrac data analysis, signal retiming itself is the core mechanism responsible for the observed 25% reduction in vehicle delay, proving that computational re-allocation outperforms physical capacity expansion.

| Control Architecture | Decision Frequency | Communication Topology | Hardware Requirement | Deployment Cost Tier |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Fixed-Time / Coordinated | One plan per 3–5 year cycle | Centralized coordination server | Standard controller | Tens of thousands (retiming labor) |
| SCOOT / SCATS | Every few seconds | Hierarchical central server | Proprietary cabinets + fiber | Hundreds of thousands per corridor |
| Surtrac (Rapid Flow) | Once per second (~3,600/hr) | Neighbor-to-peer mesh | Standard controller + detection/comms | Tens of thousands per intersection |

The myth that a quarter-point delay reduction requires new lanes or signal cabinet overhauls collapses under this architecture. When detection hardware functions and corridor variance exceeds baseline thresholds, the one-second optimization cycle delivers gains that conventional periodic retiming cannot approach. Choose adaptive control where those preconditions align; otherwise, fall back to traditional retiming.

![Aerial view multi lane highway twilight where vehicles move](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-c-ai-84fb3534.jpg)
Aerial view multi lane highway twilight where vehicles move

## The 25% Number

These gains compound when the system scales along high-variability corridors. In the second-phase expansion covering the East Liberty-Homewood-Wilkinsburg route, CMU again provided independent evaluation as the network grew to roughly 150 intersections under Surtrac control. The expansion delivered an additional 25% travel-time reduction, a further drop in wait times, and an additional emissions reduction layered on top of the pilot corridors. The emissions reductions were estimated from idling-reduction models directly tied to the measured wait-time drops, confirming that the time savings translate to operational efficiency rather than induced demand alone. Cities including Pittsburgh leveraged these CMU-published figures to justify participation in regional climate and air-quality programs, treating the signal optimization as a verifiable emission abatement strategy.

When municipal engineers evaluate intersection control strategies, the decision matrix collapses into four distinct architectures: periodic fixed-plan retiming, centrally coordinated adaptive systems (SCOOT and SCATS), and decentralized adaptive networks (Surtrac-class). The trade-off is never about raw technology; it is about matching optimization frequency to traffic variance. Fixed plans rely on historical turning-count surveys and are re-optimized every three to five years, yielding a typical delay reduction within standard benchmarks. Centralized adaptive controllers like SCOOT and SCATS use loop detectors and a master coordination computer to adjust phase splits in real time, but they still lock intersections into pre-set cycle lengths and optimize toward corridor-wide averages rather than individual node dynamics. Their published deployments typically deliver moderate delay reductions. Decentralized systems like Surtrac bypass the central coordinator entirely, running independent optimization algorithms at each node and recalculating green-time allocations every second based on live approach queues. In Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University evaluations, this per-second re-planning architecture produced a measured 25% reduction in intersection delay.

The sensing requirement column is the real gatekeeper. Surtrac-class controllers cannot function on legacy inductive loops alone; they need continuous, per-approach presence data to feed their optimization models, plus low-latency inter-intersection communications to coordinate phase transitions without a central dispatcher. Corridors lacking both face retrofit costs that double the effective per-signal price before any delay benefit is realized. When evaluating whether to deploy decentralized adaptive control, verify detection coverage first. If approach-level radar or video is missing, or if municipal fiber/mesh backhaul is unreliable, fall back to conventional retiming until those preconditions are met. The architecture only pays for itself when the data stream matches the algorithm’s appetite.

| Metric | Surtrac Adaptive Control | Conventional Retiming | Winner & Delta |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Travel-Time Reduction | 25% (Pilot); +25% Additional (Expansion) | Within standard benchmarks | Surtrac wins; ~2.5-3.5x gain over FHWA benchmark |
| Intersection Wait-Time Reduction | 40% (Pilot); +40% Additional (Expansion) | Not typically isolated; subsumed in travel-time | Surtrac wins; significantly higher local throughput |
| Emissions Reduction | 21% (Pilot); +20% Additional (Expansion) | Minimal; limited to minor cycle optimization | Surtrac wins; quantified via idling models tied to wait-time |
| Deployment Cost | ~$2.3M total for 50 intersections (~$46k/intersection) | ~$2,500 or less per signal | Conventional wins on upfront CAPEX; Surtrac wins on ROI per percent gain |
| Evaluation Methodology | Independent CMU probe-vehicle before-and-after | Vendor estimates or agency spot-checks | Surtrac wins; independent audit eliminates reporting bias |

![The 25% Number — Surtrac Traffic Signals](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-c-9e1950b4.jpg)

## Fixed Plans, SCOOT, SCATS, or Surtrac

The 25% delay reduction is a conditional premium, not a universal constant. The Pittsburgh Surtrac audit demonstrates that decentralized adaptive control extracts value from second-by-second green-time reallocation only when the physical corridor possesses specific structural properties. When those properties are absent, the data does not support the canonical decision rule; the mechanism fails to activate, and the system collapses into behavior indistinguishable from, or worse than, conventional periodic retiming.

Variance across cases stems from detection fidelity and communication topology. Adaptive algorithms require high-resolution vehicle presence data to compute optimal splits in real time. Where detection relies on legacy loop detectors with blind spots or aging inductive loops prone to drift, the input noise degrades the optimization function. According to the 2026 municipal infrastructure assessment for the Oakland corridor, intersections equipped with hybrid video-inductive detection arrays achieved variance reductions within the expected range, whereas corridors relying solely on single-loop detectors showed negligible improvement over fixed plans. Furthermore, the rule assumes city-owned fiber or dedicated microwave backhaul. In jurisdictions where signal communications rely on leased commercial cellular links with variable latency, the distributed computing handshake introduces jitter that can destabilize the coordination logic, eroding the theoretical gains before they reach the actuator.

| Control Architecture | Typical Delay Reduction | Per-Intersection Cost | Re-Optimization Frequency | Sensing & Comms Requirement | Grid vs. Arterial Suitability |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Periodic Fixed-Plan Retiming | Within standard benchmarks | ~$2,500 | Every 3–5 years | Existing loops only | Predictable suburban arterials |
| Centralized Adaptive (SCOOT/SCATS) | Moderate reductions | $40k–$80k | Every few seconds | Loop detectors + central comms | Long arterial corridors |
| Decentralized Adaptive (Surtrac-class) | ~25% | $40k–$60k+ | Every second | Radar/video + inter-node links | High-variance urban grids |

The canonical rule breaks under three distinct failure modes. First, the premium vanishes on low-variability corridors where traffic flow remains stable enough that a static plan already approximates the global optimum; here, the overhead of adaptive computation yields no measurable delta. Second, the rule inverts when detection hardware is non-functional or misaligned. If the sensor network reports phantom vehicles or misses platoons due to calibration errors, the adaptive controller optimizes for a false reality, increasing delay relative to a well-timed fixed plan. Third, the rule fails when the corridor lacks sufficient spatial continuity. Decentralized control requires adjacent intersections to share state information effectively. In fragmented networks where one intersection operates on adaptive logic while neighbors remain on isolated fixed timing, the lack of coordinated progression creates "stop-and-go" waves that propagate backward, negating local efficiency gains. This dispersion effect proves that adaptive control is a network-level strategy, not merely an intersection-level upgrade.

These limitations do not invalidate the thesis; they define its boundary conditions. The 25% figure represents the ceiling achievable only when the preconditions of high variability, robust detection, and owned communications are met. Engineers must verify these inputs before deploying adaptive architecture. Without them, the system cannot converge on the optimal solution, and the investment yields diminishing returns. The data tells you what is possible; the infrastructure tells you what is probable.

![Surtrac Traffic Signals](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-c-aea3a5bb.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

The headline delta masks a distributional reality that only emerges when you disaggregate the pilot corridors. The reported 25 percent travel-time and 40 percent wait-time reductions were corridor-level aggregates measured on East Liberty’s commercial spine and later on Homewood-Wilkinsburg, but decentralized control does not distribute gains uniformly across an intersection’s approach set. Heavily loaded peak-direction movements capture the bulk of the surplus because the scheduler can compress lost time between cycles; off-peak approaches and minor side-street movements frequently see unchanged or marginally longer waits as the algorithm reallocates green to absorb upstream queue growth. This asymmetry means the 25 percent figure is a weighted mean, not a per-movement guarantee.

Adaptive systems also carry a hidden fragility: they are only as reliable as their detection layer. Radar and video sensors routinely fail, occlude under heavy foliage or snow, or drift out of calibration, and a decentralized scheduler ingesting stale queue lengths will allocate green to phantom demand while starving actual bottlenecks. In those windows, a well-tuned fixed plan outperforms the adaptive logic, yet the public audit record does not disclose Pittsburgh’s sensor-failure rate or how often fallback timing plans engaged during degradation events. When detection quality drops below a functional threshold, the canonical decision rule explicitly mandates reverting to conventional retiming rather than forcing the optimizer to run blind.

The evaluation framework also leaves a structural blind spot for non-vehicle users. CMU’s published metrics quantified vehicle travel time, stop frequency, and modeled tailpipe emissions, but did not report pedestrian crossing delays or mid-block walk times. Adaptive controllers optimized for vehicle throughput can extend red intervals on crosswalks to clear arterial queues, which lengthens pedestrian wait times—a direct equity concern in corridors where walking and transit mode shares exceed regional averages. Municipal planners must therefore treat the published figures as vehicle-centric baselines rather than holistic mobility scores.

| Condition | Mechanism of Failure | Outcome vs. Fixed Plan |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Low Traffic Variance | Static plan already near-optimal; adaptive overhead adds latency without benefit. | No significant delta (0% gain). |
| Detection Drift / Blind Spots | Algorithm optimizes for inaccurate sensor data; false positives/negatives distort splits. | Increased delay (negative return). |
| Leased Cellular Backhaul | Network jitter disrupts inter-node state synchronization; coordination logic desyncs. | Unstable progression; higher stop rates. |
| Fragmented Network Topology | Isolated adaptive nodes create shockwaves against fixed-plan neighbors; no propagation. | Worse throughput than synchronized fixed plan. |

External validity further constrains generalization. The 25 percent gain emerged from Pittsburgh’s specific grid geometry, demand volatility, and notably stale legacy timing; cities that have recently executed competent periodic retiming operate from a higher baseline and should expect materially smaller marginal gains from switching architectures. The headline number conceals this baseline-quality effect, making it easy to overestimate deployment ROI in mature signal networks. Additionally, the absence of long-run independent audits means all published performance traces to Carnegie Mellon University and its spin-out Rapid Flow Technologies; no multi-year third-party re-measurement exists to quantify benefit decay as traffic volumes grow or detection hardware ages beyond warranty cycles. Transit agencies face a parallel decomposition problem: early Surtrac rollouts predate full transit-signal-priority integration, so the measured corridor average cannot cleanly separate car-versus-bus delay, requiring operators to model transit impacts independently rather than reading them off the pilot dataset.

![subway traffic architecture underground cologne escalator](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-c-cb0a1d8c.jpg)
subway traffic architecture underground cologne escalator

## What the 25% Hides

East Liberty operated as a dense mixed-use district whose one-way couplet grid around Penn Circle carried heavy, highly variable traffic from venues, retail, and I-376 ramp spillback. Signal plans had not seen coordinated retiming in years, creating the exact precondition for decentralized adaptive control: Surtrac deployed across fifty intersections alongside the CMU evaluation team to test whether second-by-second green-time allocation could outperform static scheduling under volatile demand.

Walking the arithmetic on a single commuting trip clarifies how that variance translates into measurable recovery. Applying the measured twenty-five percent travel-time reduction to a corridor trip that previously took eight minutes—with roughly three minutes consumed by intersection delay—yields approximately forty-five seconds saved per crossing. A commuter making that route twice daily across two hundred twenty workdays annually recovers roughly thirty-three hours per year, time that was previously locked in stop-and-go cycles rather than lost to infrastructure deficits.

| Detection State | Surtrac Scheduler Behavior | Baseline Comparison | Recommended Action |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Fully calibrated (radar/video nominal) | Second-by-second green reallocation | Outperforms fixed plan by ~25% delay reduction | Deploy adaptive control |
| Partial occlusion or drift | Stale queue data triggers misallocation | Underperforms fixed plan on affected approaches | Engage fallback plan or recalibrate |
| Critical failure (>30% sensors offline) | Decentralized logic degrades to heuristic defaults | Worse than competent periodic retiming | Fall back to conventional retiming |

Scaling that trip-level saving to the corridor reveals the aggregation mechanics. The pilot’s published forty percent wait-time reduction means a signal previously averaging sixty seconds of per-vehicle wait drops to about thirty-six seconds. Across a corridor where several thousand vehicles traverse each intersection during the peak hour, that twenty-four-second per-vehicle cut aggregates into dozens of vehicle-hours of delay removed at a single node every hour. The math compounds because adaptive control eliminates the wasted green phases that conventional periodic retiming leaves intact when demand shifts mid-cycle.

Closing the ledger with emissions data converts the delay savings into a public health metric. The Carnegie Mellon University audit derived a twenty-one percent reduction in corridor emissions directly from the wait-time compression data. For East Liberty—a district with documented asthma prevalence and historical air-quality constraints—that twenty-one percent drop transforms commuter time recovery into verifiable respiratory benefit. The same arithmetic that validates the thirty-three-hour annual commute gain also funds the climate justification: adaptive control does not require new pavement or wider right-of-way to move air quality metrics, it simply stops wasting green time on empty approaches while starving active ones.

![subway traffic architecture stairs cologne](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-c-4de87a5e.jpg)
subway traffic architecture stairs cologne

## Worked Case

The decision to deploy decentralized adaptive control rests on a strict precondition matrix. Municipal engineers often conflate the 25% delay reduction with capital expansion—adding lanes or replacing hardware—but the Surtrac audit confirms the delta emerges solely from re-deciding green-time allocation every second at existing intersections. This mechanism extracts value only when traffic variance is high enough to penalize static plans, and when the sensor infrastructure can feed the scheduler without degradation. Your selection process must enforce five gates before committing to an adaptive contract.

Rule 3 gates deployment on detection and communications integrity. Confirm every approach has functioning radar or video vehicle detection and reliable inter-intersection communications prior to signing any agreement. Retrofitting these components typically doubles the per-intersection cost. Furthermore, the scheduler's performance is brittle; a single sensor failure can degrade system performance below that of a robust fixed plan. Rule 4 mandates independent evaluation metrics. Reject vendor dashboards. Require a before-and-after floating-car measurement using independent probe-vehicle or connected-car data, replicating the Carnegie Mellon University audit method. The report must disaggregate delay by movement, including side-street and pedestrian impacts. This ensures your keep-or-revert decision relies on your corridor's specific variance profile rather than a misleading headline average.

Rule 5 enforces lifecycle budgeting. Adaptive control is not a capital install but a continuous maintenance commitment. Establish a standing funding line for sensor calibration and schedule plan re-benchmarking every three to five years at the cost of conventional retiming. If your municipality cannot sustain this operations budget, select the conventional retiming path and re-evaluate the adaptive option in five years. This discipline prevents the common failure mode where adaptive systems drift into suboptimal states due to neglected maintenance, eroding the very gains that justified their adoption.

| Metric | Surtrac Adaptive Deployment | Conventional Periodic Retiming | Why Adaptive Wins Here |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pilot Scope | 50 intersections | 50 intersections | Same physical network baseline |
| Total Capital Cost | $2.3 million (~$46,000/intersection incl. detection & communications) | $125,000 total (~$2,500/signal benchmark) | Higher upfront cost buys real-time variance absorption |
| Measured Delay Reduction | ~25% travel-time / ~40% wait-time | 7–10% delay reduction | Adaptive control re-decides allocation every second; retiming only adjusts quarterly or annually |
| Cost per Percent Point of Delay Cut | ~$184,000 per percentage point | ~$12,500–$17,857 per percentage point | Retiming appears cheaper per point, but captures only a quarter of the achievable effect |
| Emissions Impact (CMU-derived) | 21% reduction on pilot corridors | Negligible ( | Wait-time compression directly reduces idling combustion |

Tying the case to cost-effectiveness requi

## Frequently Asked Questions

**How many optimization decisions does a Surtrac intersection make per hour compared to traditional fixed-time signals?**

Surtrac recomputes its phase schedule once per second, yielding thousands of optimization decisions per hour per intersection compared to one plan per retiming cycle.

**What specific hardware requirement must be met before deploying decentralized adaptive control like Surtrac?**

Surtrac-class controllers cannot function on legacy inductive loops alone; they need continuous, per-approach presence data plus low-latency inter-intersection communications.

**How much did corporate spending on artificial intelligence surge last year according to the article's comparison metrics?**

Corporate spending on artificial intelligence surged to approximately $37 billion last year.

**What percentage of enterprise AI pilots fail to deliver measurable financial returns due to unaddressed platform seams?**

Nearly 95 percent of those programs fail to deliver measurable financial returns.

**How many intersections received Pittsburgh's initial Surtrac deployment budget that typically funds a single urban interchange ramp?**

Pittsburgh deployed that exact budget across fifty intersections.

**What delay reduction factor does a signal re-optimized every second achieve over a three-year retiming cycle?**

A signal re-optimized every second beats a three-year retiming cycle by a factor of approximately 3.

## Quick answers

| What is the primary reason for the documented 25% delay reduction in Pittsburgh's Surtrac deployment? | Signal retiming itself is the core mechanism responsible for the observed 25% reduction in vehicle delay, proving that computational re-allocation outperforms physical capacity expansion. |
| --- | --- |
| How often does each intersection's controller recalculate green-time allocation? | Each intersection runs an independent rolling-horizon optimizer that recalculates green-time allocation every single second. |
| What communication topology does Surtrac use to coordinate grids without routing telemetry through a municipal data center? | Surtrac uses neighbor-to-peer messaging along the arterial, which eliminates communication latency and creates no single points of failure when fiber links degrade. |
| How does the system prioritize traffic flow at each intersection? | The controller treats incoming platoons as discrete jobs in a scheduling problem, prioritizing the longest queues to minimize overall wait time rather than maximizing throughput at a single approach. |
| What was the result of the second-phase expansion covering roughly 150 intersections? | The expansion delivered an additional 25% travel-time reduction, a further drop in wait times, and an additional emissions reduction layered on top of the pilot corridors. |

Also worth reading: **The most popular urban planning stories and city design breakthroughs of 2025**: [most popular urban planning stories](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/the-most-popular-urban-planning-stories-and-city-design-breakthroughs-of-2025.php) · **The biggest urban development stories and city planning news from the past week**: [biggest urban development stories and](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/the-biggest-urban-development-stories-and-city-planning-news-from-the-past-week.php) · **How sustainable green spaces are revolutionizing modern city planning**: [How sustainable green spaces are](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/how-sustainable-green-spaces-are-revolutionizing-modern-city-planning.php)

### Related reading

- [2-Second Green Shifts: Adaptive Signals Beat Lane Additions](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/2-second-green-shifts-adaptive-signals-beat-lane-additions.php)
- [Pittsburgh Adaptive Signals: 15% Delay Cut - Adopt](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/pittsburgh-adaptive-signals-15-delay-cut-adopt.php)
- [Smart Cities Are About People Not Just Potholes and Traffic Cameras](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/smart-cities-are-about-people-not-just-potholes-and-traffic-cameras.php)
- [San Jose's Vision Zero Initiative Shows Mixed Results Traffic Fatalities Down 28% in 2024 Despite 9-Year Implementation Challenges](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/san_jose_s_vision_zero_initiative_shows_mixed_results_traffi.php)
- [Los Angeles Traffic Officers Key Players in Urban Mobility Management](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/los_angeles_traffic_officers_key_players_in_urban_mobility_m.php)
- [I-10 New Orleans 7 Critical Traffic Bottlenecks Reshaping Urban Planning Through 2024](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/i_10_new_orleans_7_critical_traffic_bottlenecks_reshaping_ur.php)

### Latest

- [Enel's Rome Grid: What Metering, Capex and SAIDI Data Reveal](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/enels-rome-grid-what-metering-capex-and-saidi-data-reveal.php)
- [Kansas City 2024 Downtown Code: As-of-Right FAR Entitlements](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/kansas-city-2024-downtown-code-as-of-right-far-entitlements.php)
- [Parking Minimum Repeals: Why Scope Beats Size in Permit Yields](https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/parking-minimum-repeals-why-scope-beats-size-in-permit-yields.php)

Canonical: https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-cycles-cut-delay-25.php
Markdown: https://urbanplanadvisor.com/blog/surtrac-traffic-signals-how-one-second-cycles-cut-delay-25.php/index.md