Wireless Netw
DOI 10.1007/s11276-017-1482-5
An efficient dynamic traffic light scheduling algorithm considering
emergency vehicles for intelligent transportation systems
Maram Bani Younes1 • Azzedine Boukerche2
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Traffic lights have been installed throughout
road networks to control competing traffic flows at road
intersections. These traffic lights are primarily intended to
enhance vehicle safety while crossing road intersections,
by scheduling conflicting traffic flows. However, traffic
lights decrease vehicles’ efficiency over road networks.
This reduction occurs because vehicles must wait for the
green phase of the traffic light to pass through the inter-
section. The reduction in traffic efficiency becomes more
severe in the presence of emergency vehicles. Emergency
vehicles always take priority over all other vehicles when
proceeding through any signalized road intersection, even
during the red phase of the traffic light. Inexperienced or
careless drivers may cause an accident if they take inap-
propriate action during these scenarios. In this paper, we
aim to design a dynamic and efficient traffic light
scheduling algorithm that adjusts the best green phase time
of each traffic flow, based on the real-time traffic distri-
bution around the signalized road intersection. This pro-
posed algorithm has also considered the presence of
emergency vehicles, allowing them to pass through the
signalized intersection as soon as possible. The phases of
each traffic light are set to allow any emergency vehicle
This work is partially supported by NSERC DIVA Strategic Research
Network, CREAT-TRANSIT Network, Canada Research Chairs
Program and Philadelphia University, Jordan.
& Maram Bani Younes
mbani047@EECS.uottawa.ca
Azzedine Boukerche
boukerch@EECS.uottawa.ca
1
Philadelphia University, Amman, Jordan
2
PARADISE Research Laboratory, DIVA Strategic Research
Center, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
approaching the signalized intersection to pass smoothly.
Furthermore, scenarios in which multiple emergency
vehicles approach the signalized intersection have been
investigated to select the most efficient and suit-
able schedule. Finally, an extensive set of experiments
have been utilized to evaluate the performance of the
proposed algorithm.
Keywords Road network  Vehicular network 
Emergency vehicle  Traffic light phases  Traffic light
scheduling
1 Introduction
Traffic light systems have incorporated increasingly intel-
ligent technology in recent years; the phases of each traffic
light can now be scheduled based on the real-time traffic
distribution over the road network. Several algorithms have
been designed to efficiently control the schedule of the
traffic light phases [1–3]. These algorithms consider the
expected arrival time to the signalized intersection [1] or
the density of competing traffic flows [2, 3, 4]. Most of the
previous algorithms have ignored emergency vehicles,
while scheduling the phases of the intelligent traffic light.
In global driving rules, emergency vehicles should be
treated differently over the road network; drivers are
expected to clear the road in a cooperative manner for these
vehicles. This action is necessary due to the critical mission
of these vehicles, which save peoples’ lives and stop cir-
cumstances of disaster. However, depending on the driver,
cooperation is not always a reliable solution for dealing
with these scenarios. Hazardous situations could arise in
the event that less expert or careless drivers respond with
panic to the sudden appearance of emergency vehicles.
123

Furthermore, these days most drivers keep windows
closed at all times, and most cars have a stereo or radio that
may prevent the driver from hearing the emergency vehicle
sirens. This causes a lack of awareness that may create a
serious dangerous situation, especially at signalized road
intersections. Drivers will follow the green phase of the
traffic light when they should clear the intersection in front of
the emergency vehicle, and this may cause a fatal accident.
On the other hand, in the event that the traffic light is located
close to the targeted emergency location, several emergency
vehicles targeting the same emergency case location may
appear from different traffic flows. Even expert drivers will
panic in this scenario, because they do not know which
vehicle should travel through the intersection first. Drivers
hear the same alarm sound coming from all emergency
vehicles in the area, which means some of them will not be
aware of the existence of the multi-emergency vehicles.
Thus, drivers will make decisions without having a complete
vision of the traffic distribution and the presence of emer-
gency vehicles at the signalized intersection. Due to the
aforementioned situations, a high percentage of traffic
accidents have involved emergency vehicles all over the
world [5]. Most fatal accidents have occurred at road inter-
sections where several traffic flows attempted to pass through
an intersection in a conflicted manner [6].
In this paper, we aim to design a dynamic traffic light
scheduling algorithm that considers the presence of one or
more emergency vehicles over the road network. This has
been introduced in three main phases. The first phase
considers designing a dynamic traffic light scheduling
algorithm that sets the phases of each traffic light cycle
based on the traffic distribution of competing traffic flows.
The real-time traffic characteristics of each traffic flow is
evaluated using cooperative communication among trav-
eling vehicles. Then, the highest-density competing traffic
flow is scheduled to pass the signalized intersection first,
coupled with another non-conflictive flow. Second, we
enhance the algorithm to efficiently consider and schedule
any appeared emergency vehicle. The enhanced algorithm
allows the emergency vehicle to pass the signalized
intersection quickly and safely. This occurs as a result of
assigning a higher priority to the traffic flow that con-
taining an emergency vehicle. Thus, each emergency
vehicle that appears is scheduled to pass the signalized
intersection quickly.
Furthermore, we have considered the scenario in which
two or more emergency vehicles appear at the competing
flows of the signalized intersection. The phases of the
traffic light cycle are set in this scenario to consider all the
emergency vehicles. The priority among different emer-
gency vehicles is set based on each vehicle’s type (i.e.,
mission), location, speed and targeted destination. In order
to set the vehicle priority, we investigate three types of
123
Wireless Netw
emergency vehicles: fire trucks, police vehicles and
ambulances. The highest priority is assigned to ambu-
lances, while the lowest priority is assigned to police
vehicles. Moreover, the distance between each emergency
vehicle and the signalized intersection is used to determine
the schedule of the located traffic light.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in Sect. 2,
we investigate previous intelligent traffic light scheduling
algorithms. Section 3 presents the details of the proposed
dynamic traffic light scheduling algorithm, which sets the
phases of the traffic light according to the traffic distribu-
tion over the road network. In Sect. 4, we present the
enhanced scheduling algorithm, which considers the exis-
tence of an emergency vehicle in the competing flows at
the signalized intersection. Scenarios in which two or more
emergency vehicles appear in the competing flows around
the signalized intersection at the same time are handled in
Sect. 5. The performance of the proposed algorithm is
evaluated for different considered conditions in Sect. 6.
Finally, we conclude the paper in Sect. 7.
2 Related work
Several research studies have investigated the problem of
traffic light scheduling. These studies aim to enhance traffic
efficiency over the road network, and decrease the waiting
delay time of vehicles at the signalized road intersections.
Many researchers have been inspired by intelligent com-
puter technology and algorithms to produce an intelligent
self-scheduling traffic light algorithm. For example,
vehicular ad-hoc networks and sensor networks have been
utilized to gather and aggregate the real-time traffic
information of competing traffic flows at each road inter-
section [1–3, 7–10, 11]. On the other hand, artificial
intelligence mechanisms have been used to schedule the
phases of the installed traffic lights. These mechanisms
include Fuzzy Logic [12, 13], Genetic algorithm [14, 15]
and Oldest Job First algorithm [1, 16], to mention a few. In
the rest of this section, we review previous studies that
have introduced self-scheduling traffic light algorithms.
Pandit et al. [1] introduced a two-phase approach called
Oldest Arrival First (OAF) algorithm. In the first phase, the
control of vehicular traffic lights was formalized as a job
scheduling algorithm on processors, in which jobs were
represented by a platoon of vehicles. In this phase, the
paper proposed an on-line algorithm, known as Oldest Job
First algorithm, to decrease the waiting delay of traveling
vehicles. The second phase of OAF was represented by a
demonstration of how to use the vehicular ad-hoc network
(VANET) technology to group vehicles into platoons. The
OAF algorithm reduces the waiting delay of vehicles
passing through the signalized intersection, compared with
Wireless Netw

vehicle-actuated methods, the Webster algorithm, and pre-

timed signal control algorithms.
Moreover, an intelligent traffic light controlling (ITLC)
algorithm is proposed in our previous work [3]. This
algorithm also uses VANET technology to gather the real-
time traffic characteristics of each competing traffic flow
at isolated traffic light road intersections. These traffic
characteristics are considered while setting the sequence
of phases and the time of each phase in the traffic light
timing cycle. In ITLC, the most dense traffic flow is
scheduled to cross the signalized intersection first.
Moreover, the time of each phase is set based on the
location and speed of the last vehicle that is expected to
cross the signalized intersection during the scheduled
phase. The ITLC algorithm has demonstrated a good
performance in terms of decreasing the waiting delay time
of traveling vehicles and increasing the throughput of the
signalized intersections.
Wireless sensor networks (WSN) have been also used
for dynamic traffic management of signalized road inter-
sections [9, 10, 17]. Colletta et al. [17] proposed a WSN
architecture with multi-level traffic flow controlling. A
scheduling algorithm has been used in this architecture to
manage the road intersection efficiently. This algorithm
uses the gathered traffic data by WNS to set the phase
sequences and the duration of the green signal dynamically
for each isolated traffic light. Using this algorithm, it is
possible to obtain a better management of isolated traffic
light junctions. Moreover, the algorithm is suitable for
intersections affected by irregular traffic flows that vary
throughout the day on all approaches.
The Fuzzy Logic approach has also been used to solve
the traffic light scheduling problem [12, 13]. Azimirad
et al. [13] proposed a fuzzy model and a fuzzy logic con-
troller for isolated traffic lights. This work applied some
state-space equations to formulate the waiting delay time of
Fig. 1 Four-legs signalized road intersection and the possible pair-
vehicles on signalized road intersections. The proposed
flow scheduling phases
fuzzy traffic controller optimally controls traffic flows,
while considering exceptional traffic conditions. Results
show that the performance of the proposed traffic controller emissions [19] on the atmosphere. Controlling the traffic
at novel fuzzy model is better than previous conventional light phases helps increase throughput [20], enhance the
fuzzy traffic controllers. efficiency of each traffic flow in these studies, and decrease
Henrique et al. [14] optimized the traffic flow of urban collisions at that location [21]. Bellavista et al. [22], have
areas using the Genetic algorithm. This work was intended proposed traffic evaluation protocol designed primarily to
to obtain the most appropriate traffic light timing schedule determine the traffic characteristics in close proximity to
of each located traffic light on the road network. The intersections. This work was intended mainly to offer
Genetic algorithm uses a high level Petri net model of the concise monitoring indicators to optimize traffic light
urban traffic flow fitness function. This work decreases the management. From the obtained results, they have proved
estimated arrival time of traveling vehicles, as concluded that this protocol works successfully even with a limited
from the experimental tests. penetration rate of vehicles.
Furthermore, several recent studies have used the As we can see, several mechanisms and approaches have
VANET technology to study the effect of traffic light been applied to solve the traffic light scheduling problem.
controlling systems on fuel consumption [18] and gas Many parameters have been considered, including real-

123

Fig. 2 The distances where vehicles can pass the signalized intersection during the MAX-GREEN and BEST-GREEN times. a The BEST-
GREEN is same as the MAX-GREEN. b The BEST-GREEN is less than the MAX-GREEN. c The BEST-GREEN is zero
time traffic characteristics, the shapes of the signalized
intersections, accidents or road block scenarios, etc. To the
best of our knowledge, none of the previous studies have
considered the context of traveling vehicles in terms of the
existence of emergency vehicles. However, this is an
extreme scenario that can cause serious problems, partic-
ularly for careless and inexperienced drivers. In the rest of
this paper, we introduce a context-aware traffic light
scheduling algorithm that considers the existence of
emergency vehicles over the competing traffic flows at any
signalized road intersection.
3 Dynamic scheduling algorithm of traffic lights
In any traffic light scheduling algorithm, the schedule
should be set to allow all competing traffic flows to fairly
and safely cross the signalized road intersection. At each
phase, multiple traffic flows that are not in conflict are
scheduled to cross the intersection simultaneously. The
sequence of phases are scheduled periodically as succes-
sive traffic light cycles.
In this section, we present the details of our proposed
traffic light scheduling algorithm. The phases of each cycle
are dynamically set to allow vehicles to pass through the
signalized intersection safely and efficiently. The number
123
Wireless Netw
and sequence of phases could be set differently from one
cycle to another; similarly, the scheduled time of the
configured phases could be set differently during each
cycle. Our algorithm is mainly intended to schedule the
phases of the next traffic light cycle. Considering the typ-
ical four-way signalized road intersection scenario, each
phase presents a pair of synchronous flows (i.e., pair-flow).
Figure 1 illustrates a typical four-way road intersec-
tion. The upper part of Fig. 1 shows the flow phases, while
the lower part illustrates all the possible pair-flow phases.
In order to schedule the flows of the located traffic light,
four out of these eight pair-flow phases are selected at each
traffic light cycle.
At any road intersection, several traffic flows are in
conflict and traffic lights are in place to guarantee efficient
and safe scheduling for vehicles. For example, at the four-
leg road intersection, any vehicle in a given leg (e.g., road
segment) can pass the intersection in three ways: straight,
right turn, left turn. Thus, 12 different flows should be
configured there. However, we assume that the right turn is
always open, and vehicles can turn right without conflicting
with any other traffic flow. Then, only eight traffic flows
could be in conflict and require a schedule at the four-leg
road intersection. We assign a certain number to each
competing traffic flow on the signalized intersection, with
the main intention of distinguishing that flow. Moreover,
Wireless Netw
these numbers facilitate determining the conflicted flows
and the non-conflicted flows. In our algorithm, all straight
flows are assigned even numbers (i.e., 2, 4, 6, 8) while left
turn flows are assigned odd numbers (i.e., 1, 3, 5, 7), as
illustrated in Fig. 1.
At each cycle of the traffic light, a certain period of time
is assigned to each configured phase. This scheduled time
varies between zero seconds for empty flows, and MAX-
GREEN seconds for highly dense flows. The MAX-
GREEN value represents the maximum amount of time
that can be assigned to any phase to guarantee fair sharing
of the signalized intersection among all competing traffic
flows. In this paper, we consider this parameter as a fixed
value, since we assume that all traffic flows within the
signalized intersection are major arterial flows. The BEST-
GREEN time for each phase is selected based on the traffic
distribution over the traffic flows of the selected phase,
according to Eq. 1. Section 3.1 illustrates the details of
configuring the BEST-GREEN time of each phase.
Zero\ ¼ BEST  GREEN\ ¼ MAX  GREEN ð1Þ
3.1 BEST-GREEN time configuration
In scenarios when the MAX-GREEN time is scheduled for
a certain phase, most vehicles pass early and the intersec-
tion remains empty for a certain period of time, before
allowing the next phase to start. However, in highly dense
traffic flow scenarios, vehicles keep crossing the signalized
intersection during the entire period of the MAX-GREEN
time. In this work, we investigate the BEST-GREEN time
to reduce the wasted time, while scheduling the phases of
each traffic light cycle. First, the BEST-GREEN time is
investigated separately for each traffic flow, based on the
traffic distribution over that road segment, as illustrated in
Fig. 2. The longest time between the paired flows is then
selected for the configured phase. Using the average traffic
speed, the number of vehicles that can pass the intersection
through the MAX-GREEN time could be detected based on
the traffic distribution on the selected pair-flows. The
BEST-GREEN time is equal to or less than the MAX-
GREEN time; it is defined as the time required to allow the
last vehicle to pass the intersection. This can be computed
using the location of the last vehicle in the traffic flow and
the speed of traffic. Equation 2 computes the BEST-
GREEN time of each traffic flow.
BEST  GREEN ¼ LVDistance =TSpeed ð2Þ
where LVDistance is the distance between the last vehicle
over the traffic flow inside the MAX-GREEN area and the
signalized intersection. TSpeed is the traffic speed of the
traffic flow.
3.2 The scheduling algorithm
The first step in the scheduling algorithm is to set the
MAX-GREEN value; then, based on the traffic speed
(TSpeed) of each flow, the farthest distance that moving
vehicles can traverse past the intersection during this
MAX-GREEN time is determined (DGREEN), as shown in
Eq. 3.
123

Algorithm 2: Schedule (p,q) Function
Data: P and q are the two synchronous flows in the scheduled phase.
1 if p.BESTGREEN > q.BESTGREEN then
2 < p,q >.BEST-GREEN = p.BESTGREEN;
3 else
4 < p,q >.BEST-GREEN = q.BESTGREEN;
5 end
6 Scheduled [p] = true;
7 Scheduled [q] = true;
DGREEN ¼ MAX  GREEN  TSpeed
After the distance is calculated, phases of each traffic
light cycle are selected, and the best time of each phase is
scheduled. Each scheduled phase should permit two syn-
chronous traffic flows\P,Q[to cross the intersection during
the scheduled period of time (i.e., BEST-GREEN). The
sequence of phases is selected based on the density of each
traffic flow. The unscheduled traffic flow with the highest
traffic density is selected in the first scheduling phase. Each
traffic flow can cross the intersection simultaneously with
one of two non-conflictive flows (i.e., Un - Con[i][1] and
Un - Con[i][2]). Algorithm 1 determines the possible syn-
chronous traffic flows, according to the assumed numbers
in Fig. 1. The synchronous flow with the highest traffic
density inside the DGREEN area is chosen at that scheduled
phase.
The BEST-GREEN time for the selected pair of flows is
set as explained in Sect. 3.1, where the longest BEST-
GREEN time between the scheduled pair of flows is chosen
(Algorithm 2, lines 1–5). Then, both selected flows of the
phase are marked as Scheduled (Algorithm 2, lines 6 and
7). In this case, the other synchronous flow is marked as
Paired flow, which means that only one flow is left to pass
123
Wireless Netw
ð3Þ the intersection with the Paired flow during this cycle. For
example, in Fig. 1, if the flow ‘‘1’’ is selected as the highest
density flow, then the flow ‘‘6’’ is denser at DGREEN area
than flow ‘‘5’’. Thus, the phase that contains flow ‘‘1’’ and
flow ‘‘6’’ \1, 6[ is scheduled, and the flow ‘‘5’’ is marked
as a Paired flow with flow ‘‘2’’. This means that at any
point during that traffic light cycle, flow ‘‘2’’ or flow ‘‘6’’
are selected as the highest density flow, and there is no
need to check and choose between the synchronous flows,
because in that case the phase \2,6[ should be scheduled.
Algorithm 3 illustrates how to determine the Paired flows
after scheduling a certain phase at each traffic light cycle.
The details of the main scheduling algorithm are illus-
trated systematically in Algorithm 4 for each phase selec-
tion. These steps are executed repeatedly, until all flows are
marked as Scheduled in that traffic light cycle. After that,
the next cycle of the traffic light may be configured, all
competing flows are reset as unscheduled, and the new
traffic distribution is configured over the competing traffic
flows. In the scenario in which both scheduled traffic flows
have no potential vehicles for crossing the intersection
within the MAX-GREEN time, the BEST-GREEN time is
set to zero, which indicates that the flow-pair in that traffic
light cycle must be skipped.
Wireless Netw
4 The enhanced scheduling algorithm
In this section, we enhance the traffic light scheduling
algorithm presented in Sect. 3 to consider scenarios in
which an emergency vehicle appears in one of the com-
peting flows at the signalized intersection. The existence
of the emergency vehicle is reported to the traffic light as
soon as it appears, using the vehicular communication
technology. This report includes the emergency vehicle
type, location, speed and targeted destination. The
scheduling algorithm first uses the reported information to
measure the distance between the emergency vehicle and
the signalized intersection. It also uses this report to
determine if that vehicle can pass through that intersec-
tion (Algorithm 5, line 1). This is determined based on
the expected arrival time of the emergency vehicle to the
signalized intersection, and based on the average length of
traffic light cycle time. The estimated arrival time of the
emergency vehicle (EATEV) is computed using Eq. 4,
where DEV is the distance between the emergency vehicle
and the signalized intersection, and SEV is the speed of the
emergency vehicle. If the emergency vehicle can pass the
signalized intersection during the next cycle of the traffic
light schedule, it is considered close to the intersec-
tion. Otherwise, the emergency vehicle is considered far
from the intersection (Algorithm 5, line 3).
EATEV ¼ DEV=SEV ð4Þ
In the event that the emergency vehicle is close, the
traffic flow containing that emergency vehicle should
have the highest priority for crossing the intersection
during the next cycle. The other phases are scheduled
according to the traffic density of the competing flows,
as explained in (Algorithm 5, lines 4 and 5.). For
emergency vehicles far away, the scheduling algorithm
first examines the traffic density of the area between the
emergency vehicle and the signalized intersection
(Algorithm 5, line 7).
123
 Wireless Netw

Algorithm 5: The Enhanced Scheduling Algorithm

Data: EVR: emergency vehicle report; DEV : distance between the emergency vehicle and the signalized intersection; EATEV : estimated arrival time of the emergency vehicle to
signalized intersection; Ctime: the traffic light cycle time; TFEV : the traffic flow that contains the emergency vehicle; TDDEV : the traffic density of the area between the
emergency vehicle and the signalized road intersection.

1 Upon receiving the EVR, the DEV is computed;

2 The EATEV is computed using Equation 4;

3 if EATEV < Ctime then

4The TFEV is the scheduled to pass the signalized intersection first;
5The other phases are scheduled according Algorithm 4;
6 else

7 Compute TDDEV ;

8 if TDDEV is high then

9The scheduled time of TFEV is increased;

10 else
11TFEV is scheduled during the following cycles of the traffic light;
12 end
13 end

If the traffic density is light in this area, that means the
emergency vehicle can move smoothly over the road, and
other vehicles can cooperatively allow it to reach the sig-
nalized intersection as soon as possible. Thus, the
scheduling algorithm should schedule the phases of the
next traffic light cycle according to Algorithm 4. Later, the
algorithm considers the existence of the emergency vehicle
with the highest priority in the following cycles, according
to its expected arrival time (Algorithm 5, line 11).
On the other hand, if the area between the emergency
vehicle and the signalized intersection is highly congested,
the emergency vehicle could be delayed before arriving at
the signalized intersection due to the density of the sur-
rounding traffic. The scheduling algorithm should extend
the scheduled time of the traffic flow that contains the
emergency vehicle, freeing the traffic in front of the
vehicle. In this case, the time length of the traffic light
scheduling cycle could be extended until the emergency
vehicle passes during the same cycle. In order to improve
the efficiency of the proposed algorithm, it can switch
between the two synchronous flows with the traffic flow
that contains the emergency vehicle during the long
scheduled time of the emergency vehicle flow. In this case,
the Green-time assigned to the traffic flow that contains the
emergency vehicle may exceed the MAX-GREEN time
defined in Sect. 3.1.
5 The scenarios of scheduling several emergency
vehicles at the same cycle
In this section, we tackle the scenarios in which several
emergency vehicles aim to cross the same signalized
intersection. The phases of the traffic light cycle are set
considering the location of the emergency vehicle and
traffic distribution of the competing flows at that signalized
intersection, as presented in Sect. 4. In the event that more
than one emergency vehicle arrives at the intersection at
the same time, the scheduling algorithm should determine
their priority. Priority is assigned to each emergency
vehicle based on its type, its distance from the signalized
intersection, and the traffic density over the area between
the emergency vehicle and the signalized intersection.
First, we consider three main categories of emergency
vehicles in this paper: ambulances, fire trucks and police
vehicles. According to the global driving rules, the ambu-
lance is always assigned the highest priority for crossing
any signalized intersection over the road network.

123
Wireless Netw
Meanwhile, fire trucks have higher priority than police
vehicles. Police vehicles have higher priority than other
ordinary traveling vehicles. These priority levels are due to
their urgent missions, since the expedient arrival of these
vehicles helps save lives and stops anticipated disasters.
Although emergency vehicles’ priorities for crossing a
given signalized intersection are determined by the global
driving rules, other factors can be considered for deter-
mining the sequence of emergency vehicles at any sched-
uled cycle. These factors include the distance between the
emergency vehicle and the signalized road intersection
(DEV) and the estimated arrival time of each emergency
vehicle to the signalized intersection (EATEV). The intro-
duced algorithm handles several scenarios in which mul-
tiple emergency vehicles approach the signalized
intersection, while considering all contributing factors.
This should enhance the efficiency of the scheduling
algorithm, and allow all emergency vehicles to cross the
intersection quickly and safely.
We explained how to determine close and far emergency
vehicles in Sect. 4. The various considered scenarios are
specified based on the estimated arrival time of the dif-
ferent emergency vehicles at the competing traffic flows.
The investigated scenarios are:
5.1 All emergency vehicles are close
In this scenario, if all the emergency vehicles are the same
type, the first arrival vehicle to the intersection is scheduled
to cross the intersection first. If the arriving emergency
vehicles are different types, the emergency vehicle with the
highest priority is scheduled first.
5.2 All emergency vehicles are far
In this scenario, the traffic density of the area between
each emergency vehicle and the signalized intersection
is examined first. If the traffic density in all emergency
vehicles’ areas is light, the scheduling of all emergency
vehicles is postponed to subsequent cycles. In those
cycles, the emergency vehicles approach the intersec-
tion, and are scheduled as explained in Sect. 5.1. The
scheduling algorithm increases the assigned scheduled
time of traffic flows containing emergency vehicles if
traffic density is high in these areas. It switches the
scheduling time between all competing traffic flows
containing emergency vehicles to free the road in front
of these vehicles. In the event that the traffic density of
some vehicles is high, while low in other areas, the
scheduling algorithm schedules the emergency vehicle
flows with dense traffic first. Light emergency vehicle
traffic flows are then scheduled.
5.3 Some emergency vehicles are close and some are
far
In this scenario, the closer vehicles are scheduled first,
according to the rules presented in Sect. 5.1. Then, far
vehicles are scheduled according to the rules presented in
Sect. 5.2.
6 Performance evaluation
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our pro-
posed algorithm compared to previous traffic light
scheduling algorithms. We used SUMO [23] to generate
several mobility scenarios for a signalized road intersec-
tion. We then used NS-2 [24] to implement our proposed
algorithm and the previous intelligent traffic light
scheduling algorithms. This implementation is mainly
intended to compare the performance of these algorithms
and to prove the advantages of our proposed algorithm.
Here, we refer to our algorithm as the enhanced traffic light
scheduling algorithm (ETLSA). The performance of the
ETLSA algorithm is compared to the performance of the
ITLC [2] and the OAF [1] algorithms. The details of the
last two compared algorithms are presented in Sect. 2.
These two algorithms are the most recent intelligent traffic
light scheduling algorithms; they both demonstrate supe-
rior performance to typical traffic light scheduling algo-
rithms, as stated in Sect. 2. Due to the aforementioned
reasons, we select these algorithms for comparison with
our proposed algorithm. The parameters that we set in the
tested experiments are presented in Table 1. We have
tested our algorithm at a single signalized road intersection
with four input and four output road segments. The size of
the tested area is 1000 9 1000 m2; on this area of the
signalized intersection, vehicles are delayed due to the
traffic light scheduling, and they can sense the phase of the
traffic light. Thus, the size of this tested area is enough to
measure the performance of the proposed algorithm.
Moreover, we have used SUMO to generate the mobility
Table 1 Simulation parameters
Parameter Value
Simulator NS-2
Vehicle transmission range (m) 200
Running time (s) 1000
Tested area (m2) 1000 9 1000
No. of traffic lights 1
No. of traveling vehicles 200–1000
No. of emergency vehicles 1–4
The map 4-leg traffic intersection
123
 Wireless Netw

models of vehicles in this area, including different traffic
density scenarios, to study the density effects on the
algorithm performance. The number of simulated vehicles
are set according to the capacity of the tested area, aiming
to generate the desired traffic densities.
In the first set of experiments, we aim to compare the
throughput of each signalized intersection, the average
delay time of each vehicle waiting at the signalized inter-
section, and the average delay time of the emergency
vehicle. These experiments are tested when one emergency
vehicle appears close to the signalized intersection, and a
different number of traveling vehicles have been investi-
gated. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the comparison study
between the ETLSA algorithm and the previous traffic light
scheduling algorithms.
In terms of the signalized intersection throughput, the
ITLC algorithm achieved the best performance compared
to ETLSA and OAF. The throughput of the signalized
intersection is decreased by 30% when applying the
ETLSA algorithm, compared to the case when the ITLC
algorithm is applied. This variation occurs because several
dense traffic flows must wait for the emergency vehicle to
cross the intersection. However, ETLSA achieved 10%
higher throughput than was achieved by the OAF algo-
rithm. This difference is due to the efficient design of the
ETLSA algorithm, in which highly congested traffic flows

(a) (b)

(c)
1
ITLC
OAF
ETLSA
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Number of Traveling Vehicles

Fig. 3 The performance evaluation of the ETLSA algorithm for to cross the signalized intersection; and c the average delay time of
different numbers of traveling vehicles: a the throughput of the the emergency vehicle
signalized intersection; b the average delay of each vehicle that aims

123
Wireless Netw
have the highest scheduling priority after emergency
vehicles, while the OAF algorithm schedules the first
arrival first. Figure 3(a) illustrates the throughput perfor-
mance of the scheduling algorithms. From Fig. 3(a) we can
also infer that by increasing the number of the traveling
vehicles, the throughput of the signalized intersection has
been increased for all tested algorithms.
According to Fig. 3(b), we can see that the waiting delay
time of each vehicle at the signalized intersection is 20%
longer when applying the ETLSA algorithm, compared to
cases in which the ITLC algorithm is applied. However, the
performance of the ETLSA algorithm is 10% better com-
pared to the OAF algorithm, in terms of decreasing the
waiting delay time of traveling vehicles. This is justified by
the implementation of the ETLSA algorithm, which allows
the emergency vehicles to pass the signalized intersection
before allowing flows with high density. Moreover, from
Fig. 3(b) it is clear that by increasing the number of
vehicles at the signalized intersection, the gap between the
performance of the ITLC and ELSA algorithms is
increased. However, the gap between the performance of
the OAF and the ETLSA algorithms is decreased by
increasing the number of vehicles heading towards the
signalized intersection. Figure 3(b) studies the effect of the
scheduling algorithm on the average delay time required
for vehicles intending to cross the intersection. SUMO has
simulated several numbers of vehicles at different random
locations on the tested map; vehicles moving towards the
signalized intersection should stop waiting for the green
phase to pass through the intersection. Thus, the number of
Fig. 4 The performance evaluation of the ETLSA algorithm, when different numbers of emergency vehicles appeared at the signalized
intersection: a the throughput of signalized intersection; and b the average waiting delay time of each emergency vehicle
waiting vehicles on any conflicted flow is not large enough
to require more than one traffic cycle to pass (i.e., they
require less time than the MAXGREEN time). The average
delay time of each vehicle is not increased by increasing
the number of simulated vehicles on the tested map,
because only a few vehicles must wait for a long time,
while a larger number of vehicles passes the signalized
intersection on the scheduled phase, as previously con-
cluded from Fig. 3(a).
Finally, Fig. 3(c) illustrates that the ETLSA algorithm
eliminates the waiting delay time of emergency vehicles at
the signalized road intersection. In the ITLC algorithm, the
waiting delay time of the emergency vehicle depends on the
number of vehicles that intend to cross the signalized
intersection. As Fig. 3(c) illustrates, the delay time of each
emergency vehicle increases when a large number of vehi-
cles intend to cross the intersection. However, in the OAF
algorithm, the waiting delay time of emergency vehicles
depends on the estimated arrival time of the first vehicle in
the configured platoon of each competing traffic flow.
In the second set of experiments, we aim to compare the
throughput of the signalized intersection and the average
delay time of emergency vehicles when a different number
of emergency vehicles appears on the competing flows at
the signalized intersection. We test the algorithm for 1, 2,
3, and 4 emergency vehicles of different types. We assume
that in real road scenarios, it is very rare (if not impossible)
for more than 4 emergency vehicles to meet at the same
signalized intersection. Figure 4 illustrates the performance
of the ETLSA algorithm in terms of the throughput of the
123

signalized intersection, and the average delay time of each
emergency vehicle. These experiments are evaluated for a
different number of emergency vehicles intending to cross
the signalized intersection. In this set of experiments, the
total number of simulated vehicles is 600, while the
number of emergency vehicles is between zero and four.
These emergency vehicles appeared at various distances
from the signalized intersection in the tested experiments.
Furthermore, the traffic density between each emergency
vehicle and intersection was highly congested (i.e., vehi-
cles have to reduce their traveling speed to traverse the
area. Any vehicle cannot easily change its lane to overtake
other vehicles) in some test scenarios while it was light
(i.e., vehicles can easily increase their traveling speed, and
change their lane to overtake other slow vehicles) in others.
The ETLSA algorithm decreases the throughput of any
signalized road intersection, because it focuses on scheduling
the emergency vehicles first. The total number of waiting
vehicles at each competing traffic flow is considered as a sec-
ondary parameter in this algorithm. This determination justifies
the result that the ETLSA algorithm achieves a higher
throughput of the signalized intersections, compared to the
OAF algorithm, when one emergency vehicle appears close to
the signalized intersection. On the other hand, when two or
more emergency vehicles appear at the competing flows of the
signalized intersection, the performance of the ETLSA algo-
rithm decreases drastically compared to the ITLC and the OAF
algorithms, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a).
Figure 4(b) illustrates the average delay time of each
emergency vehicle traveling towards the signalized inter-
section. As we can infer from the figure, the ETLSA
algorithm can eliminate the delay time of one emergency
vehicle. Moreover, it decreases the waiting delay time of
each emergency vehicle, in the event that two or more
emergency vehicles have appeared at the signalized inter-
section. It decreases the waiting delay time of the emer-
gency vehicles by 50% compared to the ITLC algorithm,
and by 60% compared to the OAF algorithm.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, we have introduced a dynamic traffic light
scheduling algorithm. This algorithm schedules the com-
peting flows at any signalized intersection, to allow the
more dense traffic flows to cross the intersection first. The
assigned time for each phase is set based on the traffic
distribution over its traffic flows. This algorithm is
enhanced to handle the appearance of any emergency
vehicle. The enhanced algorithm schedules the flows con-
taining emergency vehicles before other phases. Several
scenarios for the appearance of emergency vehicles con-
sider the distance between the signalized intersection and
123
Wireless Netw
traffic density between the vehicle and the intersec-
tion. Finally, from an extensive set of experiments, we
have proved that although the proposed enhanced algo-
rithm decreased the throughput of the signalized intersec-
tion, the waiting delay time of emergency vehicles is
decreased compared to previous scheduling algorithms.
Moreover, our algorithm efficiently and safely tackled
those scenarios in which more than one emergency vehicle
appeared at the signalized intersection.
In our future studies, we intend to test the proposed algo-
rithm for different penetration rate, and investigate its behavior
in the case that not all vehicles are equipped with vehicular
network transceivers. Moreover, we intend to study the sce-
nario in which emergency vehicles travel through several
successive signalized intersections. Cooperative scheduling
among located traffic lights should help the emergency vehicle
to reach its destination as quickly as possible.
References
1. Pandit, K., Ghosal, D., Zhang, H. M., & Chen-Nee, C. (2013).
Adaptive traffic signal control with vehicular ad-hoc networks.
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 62(4), 1459–1471.
2. Bani Younes, M., Boukerche, A. (2014). An intelligent traffic
light scheduling algorithm through VANETs. In IEEE 39th
Conference, in local computer networks workshops (LCN work-
shops) (pp. 637–642).
3. Bani Younes, M., Boukerche, A. (2015). Intelligent traffic light
controlling algorithms using vehicular networks. In IEEE trans-
actions on vehicular technology (vol no. 99, pp. 1–1).
4. Younes, M. B., Boukerche, A., & Roman-Alonso, G. (2014). An
intelligent path recommendation protocol (ICOD) for VANETs.
Computer Networks, 64, 225–242.
5. U.S. Fire Administration. (2014). Emergency vehicle safety ini-
tiative, FA-336/February 2014.
6. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2012). TRAFFIC SAFETY
FACTS 2012.
7. Li, L., Wen, D., & Yao, D. (2014). A survey of traffic control
with vehicular communications. IEEE Transactions on in Intel-
ligent Transportation Systems, 15(1), 425–432.
8. Chen, B., & Cheng, H. H. (2010). A review of the applications of
agent technology in traffic and transportation systems. IEEE
Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 11(2),
485–497.
9. Pau, G., & Scata, G. (2014). Smart traffic light junction man-
agement using wireless sensor networks. WSEAS transactions on
communication, 14, 2224–2864.
10. Khalil, Y. M., Al-Karaki, M. N., & Shatnawi, A. M. (2010).
Intelligent traffic light flow control system using wireless sensors
networks. Journal of Information Science and Engineering,
26(3), 753–768.
11. Ghaffarian, H., Fathy, M., & Soryani, M. (2012). Vehicular ad
hoc networks enabled traffic controller for removing traffic lights
in isolated intersections based on integer linear programming.
Intelligent Transport Systems, 6(2), 115–123.
12. Askerzade, I. N., & Mahmood, M. (2010). Control the extension
time of traffic light in single junction by using fuzzy logic. In-
ternational Journal of Electrical and Computer Sciences IJEC-
SIJENS, 10(2), 48–55.
Wireless Netw
13. Azimirad, E., Pariz, N., & Sistani, M. (2010). A novel fuzzy
model and control of single intersection at urban traffic network.
IEEE Systems Journal, 4(1), 107–111.
14. Henrique, D., Marranghello, N., & Damiani, F. (2014). Genetic
algorithm-based traffic lights timing optimization and routes
definition using Petri net model of urban traffic flow. World
Congress, 19(1), 11326–11331.
15. Wunderlich, R., Elhanany, I. & Urbanik, T. (2007). A
stable longest queue first signal scheduling algorithm for an
isolated intersection. In IEEE international conference on
vehicular electronics and safety (pp. 1–6).
16. Garca-Nieto, J., Alba, E., & Olivera, A. C. (2012). Swarm
intelligence for traffic light scheduling: Application to real urban
areas. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 25(2),
274–283.
17. Collotta, M., & Pau, G. (2015). New solutions based on wireless
networks for dynamic traffic lights management: A comparison
between IEEE 802.15. 4 and bluetooth. Transport and
Telecommunication Journal, 16(3), 224–236.
18. Tessa, T., Killat, M., Hartenstein, H., Luz, R., Hausberger, S., &
Benz, T. (2010). The impact of traffic-light-to-vehicle commu-
nication on fuel consumption and emissions. In IEEE In Internet
of Things (IOT) (pp. 1–8).
19. Ferreira, M., & d’Orey, P. (2012). On the impact of virtual traffic
lights on carbon emissions mitigation. IEEE Transactions on
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 13(1), 284–295.
20. Pasin, M., Scheuermann, B., & Moura, R. (2015). VANET-based
Intersection control with a throughput/fairness tradeoff. In 2015
8th IFIP wireless and mobile networking conference (WMNC)
(pp. 208–215), IEEE.
21. Tung, L., Mena, J., Gerla, M., & Sommer, C. (2013). A cluster
based architecture for intersection collision avoidance using
heterogeneous networks. In Ad Hoc Networking Workshop
(MED-HOC-NET), 2013 12th Annual Mediterranean (pp.
82–88). IEEE.
22. Bellavista, P., Foschini, L., & Zamagni, E. (2014). V2x protocols
for low-penetration-rate and cooperative traffic estimations. In
Vehicular technology conference (VTC Fall), 2014 IEEE 80th
(pp. 1–6), IEEE.
23. Behrisch, M., Bieker, L., Erdmann, J., & Krajzewicz, D. (2011).
SUMO simulation of urban mobility: An overview. In: The third
international conference on advances in system simulation
(SIMUL) (pp. 63–68).
24. Network Simulator ns-2. http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/.
Maram Bani Younes received
the Ph.D. degree in computer
science from the University of
Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, in
2015. She is currently an
Assistant Professor with the
Department of Computer Sci-
ence, Philadelphia University,
Jordan. Her research interests
are smart city, smart trans-
portation, vehicular networks,
sensor networks, mobile ad hoc
networks, wireless networks,
wireless ad hoc and sensor net-
works, vehicular networks and
traffic efficiency for vehicular network.
Azzedine Boukerche is a Full
Professor and holds a Canada
Research Chair Tier-1 position
at the University of Ottawa. He
is the Scientific Director of
NSERC-DIVA Strategic
Research Network and NSERC
TRANSIT Research Network,
and a Director of PARADISE
Research Laboratory at uOt-
tawa. Prior to this, he held a
faculty position at the Univer-
sity of North Texas, USA. He
worked as a Senior Scientist at
the Simulation Sciences Divi-
sion, Metron Corporation located in San Diego. He spent a year at the
JPL/NASA-California Institute of Technology where he contributed
to a project centered about the specification and verification of the
software used to control interplanetary spacecraft operated by JPL/
NASA Laboratory. Dr. Boukerche is a Fellow of IEEE, a Fellow of
the Engineering Institute of Canada, a Fellow of the Canadian
Academy of Engineering, a Fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the recipient of the Ontario Distin-
guished Researcher Award, the Premier of Ontario Research Excel-
lence Award, the G. S. Glinski Award for Excellence in Research,
The IEEE Computer Society Golden Core Award, The IEEE CS-
Meritorious Award, the University of Ottawa Award for Excellence in
Research, IEEE Canada G. Gotlieb Computer Silver Medal Award,
the Spanish Catedra de Excelencia, IEEE ComSoc Outstanding
Technical Achievement Award, the IEEE Computer Society TCPP
Technical Achievement and Contributions Award. Dr. A. Boukerche
serves as an Associate Editor for several IEEE Transactions and ACM
journals, as well as a Steering Committee Chair for several IEEE and
ACM international conferences. His current research interests include
smart city, smart transportation, vehicular networks, sensor networks,
mobile ad hoc networks, wireless multimedia and pervasive com-
puting, performance evaluation and modeling of large-scale dis-
tributed systems, and large-scale distributed interactive simulation.
Dr. Boukerche has published extensively in these areas, and he is the
recipient of several best research paper awards for his work on smart
transportation, vehicular and sensor networking and mobile comput-
ing. He is the Editor of three books on mobile computing, wireless ad
hoc and sensor networks.
123