An evaluation of the various EVP technologies was reported in Austroads (2007f). Table 6.15 summarises the results.
|EV priority measures and technologies||Objective||Quantitative impacts||Qualitative impacts|
|Route pre-emption plan||Reduce travel time to incident sites by improving progression on designated routes with pre‑determined signal linking plans.||–||95% of respondents to a survey of operators in Adelaide expressed moderate to high satisfaction in improvement in travel speed and safety. 65% of operators found that loading the pre-emption plan was of moderate difficulty (Baskerville 2006).|
|Detection at signals||Clear traffic at an intersection before the arrival of an EV with a green phase by detecting its arrival before reaching the intersection.||Reduce response time by 14% to 23% and road crashes by 90% (Federal Highway Administration 2006a).||An infrared system was able to activate a signal at a distance up to 500 m in a Melbourne trial with no misses. Response time, stress and public safety were significantly reduced (Bean & Studwick 2006).|
|GPS tracking with an in‑vehicle GPS unit and another at an intersection||Predict the arrival time of an EV and provide a green phase before and during its passage through the intersection.||Reduce response time by 20% in a trial in Illinois, USA (Proper et al. 2001).||–|
|Route guidance||Provide shortest path to incident site based on traffic information en route.||Reduce response time by 10% to 15% in New Mexico, USA (Proper et al. 2001).||Route guidance.|
Source: Austroads (2007f).