I know some big cities have all their lights on a set schedule. Some big cities have a fully integrated system where intersections communicate and predict arrivals to one intersection based on exits from another.
I think the researcher is suggesting that prediction is too difficult to make good results from fixed scheduling or communicating intersections, and that instead, each intersection should adapt to its local sensors. That can include bike detectors and pedestrian buttons.
I think this idea generally works. I've seen lots of traffic signals that respond to cars, bikes, and pedestrians (via button, sadly, I've never seen an inductive loop detector in a sidewalk, would have to be sensitive to count a person). You get better results if you can put sensors a bit back from the intersection to determine queue length, although that adds some expense. It's also nice if traffic controls can be placed into an event mode to help traffic disperse from things like sporting events, commuter trains, and ferries; at least for a few intersections around the site, adaptation may not be enough if there's steady cross traffic, during the event, it may be more efficient to make cross traffic wait longer than normal reasonable limits, or add a cycle for all direction walking, so pedestrians can make diagnol crossings more easily, etc.
Cars idling at a stop light when there's no conflicting traffic (including bikes and peds) is bad for everyone, not just cars. Reducing that is good for everyone, at least in the small --- as the article mentions, improved traffic conditions may encourage more driving, which may not be beneficial for bikes and peds.