Search:

Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Self Assessment Guide

The TIM Self-Assessment Guide is available as a Microsoft Word file (DOC, 198KB), and the companion scoring template as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (XLS, 29KB).

To view DOC files, you need the Microsoft Word Viewer.
To view XLS files, you can use the Microsoft Excel Viewer.

March 2004

1. Introduction and Background
2. Conducting the Assessment
3. Scoring the Self-Assessment
4.0 Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Self-Assessment
4.1 Program and Institutional Issues
4.2 Operational Issues
4.3 Communication and Technology Issues
Appendix A Additional Resources
Appendix B Facilitator Guide
Appendix C Scoring Guidance for Traffic Incident Management Self Assessment Questions

1. Introduction and Background

Over the past decade, coordinated traffic incident management efforts have gained momentum as more and more transportation agencies seek ways to safely and efficiently handle congestion. Traffic incident management, once considered a disjointed activity fraught with turf battles and jurisdictional conflicts, has, in some places around the country, become a showcase of collaborative efforts between the various traffic incident management stakeholders. The stakeholders are many - the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other federal agencies, operations and maintenance personnel from state and local Departments of Transportation, law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency management, the towing and recovery industry, hazardous materials contractors, environmental specialists, transportation planners at the local, regional and state level, and the media - and they all play a role in ensuring that incidents are quickly detected, responded to, and cleared with minimum disruption to traffic flow. All of this is done while giving first priority to the safety of the on-scene responders and the motoring public.

Even with all the success in traffic incident management, a way to measure the effectiveness of these programs is still needed. One of the three objectives of the FHWA's Vital Few Congestion Goals, over the next five years, is to reduce incident delay by ensuring all States, District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Federal Land offices are engaged in aggressively anticipating and mitigating congestion caused by incidents. In order to measure progress toward achievement of that goal, and to bring about recognized measures for evaluating traffic incident management efforts, the Federal Highway Administration sponsored the development of a Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Self-Assessment tool.

The "TIM Self-Assessment" is a tool to be used by state and regional program managers to assess their achievement of a successful multi-agency program to manage traffic incidents effectively and safely. The tool also provides a method to assess gaps and needs in existing multi-agency regional and statewide efforts to mitigate congestion caused by traffic incidents.

The TIM Self-Assessment consists of a series of questions designed to allow those with traffic incident management responsibilities to rate their performance in specific organizational and procedural categories. Conducted as a group exercise, the TIM Self-Assessment allows for discussion among the group members with the resulting ratings being consensus values. This process provides a medium for enhanced communication between TIM stakeholders to identify specific areas or activities by which the multi-agency management of traffic incidents can be improved.

The ratings can then be tallied to provide an overall TIM score for the program. Areas for possible improvement can be identified through individual question ratings. While the score provides a metric for measurement, the most important information will be derived from the discussion of the assessment among the participants. This discussion will provide local agencies valuable information to form or improve a multi-agency program for traffic incident management.

The TIM Self-Assessments will be used by FHWA to determine gaps nationally that need attention and the information provided from the assessments will be used to direct future years' FHWA program initiatives for traffic incident management.

2. Conducting the Assessment

The TIM Self-Assessment is intended to be a group exercise and as such, should be conducted with as many TIM stakeholder representatives as possible. A concise guide to facilitating the assessment is found in Appendix B of this Guide. The convening organization should be an agency heavily involved in coordinating traffic incident management activities for the corridor, region or state conducting the assessment. In some cases this may be the state or local police or the state Department of Transportation, or perhaps the metropolitan planning organization.

Those invited to participate in the assessment should represent every aspect of traffic incident management response, including representatives from transportation departments, law enforcement, fire and rescue, emergency management, environmental protection, and private sector response contractors (towing and recovery and hazardous materials contractors). Others to consider inviting include the local traffic reporting media or other private sector groups responsible for disseminating traffic information to motorists. In addition, high-level decision makers need to make a commitment to this assessment activity and to follow-up in ensuring the implementation of identified changes.

It is intended that conducting this assessment will take approximately three to four hours, depending on the size of the group and the amount of discussion each program area is expected to generate.

In advance of the assessment exercise, this Guide and the scoring template should be provided to each invited participant. Each participant should be asked to read the TIM Self-Assessment Guide, consider the questions, and score each based on their understanding of the level of success in each topic area. This exercise is not meant to assess the performance of any single agency or partner, but of the TIM program as a whole. Therefore, each participant should be instructed to score the questions not from their agency's perspective, but from the perspective of how the issue is addressed by all of the partners acting together. The score sheet is set up electronically to facilitate its completion and return to the facilitator or the convening organization. Those score sheets should be submitted back to the facilitator or convening organization in advance of the group assessment exercise so that range and distribution of the scores for each question can be tallied. Participants are encouraged to bring their individual score sheets and comments to the assessment meeting for reference.

After the welcome and self-introductions, it is recommended that the assessment facilitator review each of the topic areas before proceeding to the actual assessment questions. For discussion of each assessment question, the facilitator should open by presenting the range and distribution of assessment scores as determined from the previously submitted assessments. The facilitator should then encourage open and honest discussion on each assessment question with the goal being to reach group consensus on the score. Fractional and average scores should be avoided.

Once consensus is reached, the facilitator should record the revised score for that particular question and move on to the next. The revised scores will then be totaled to give the overall score for the assessment. Again, this is a consensus building exercise and as such, the consensus opinion on the score for each question should be recorded along with any strong dissents and the reasons for them noted in the recordings of the exercise.

Suggestions for the Self-Assessment:

• Assemble a team of traffic incident management stakeholders.
• Include representatives of all agencies participating in TIM for the corridor, region or state.
• Agency representatives should be actively involved in TIM activities.
• Provide participants with this Guide and the score sheet in advance so that each may complete the assessment based on their individual understanding of the broad program-level of success in each area.
• Ask the participants to return their completed score sheets in advance of the exercise so average scores can be tallied.
• Have a designated facilitator for team meetings. The Division Office TIM person will usually facilitate, but Resource Center and Headquarters persons can help facilitate upon request.
• Review each question and its range and distribution of scores to obtain a feel for a possible level of consensus on the score for each question.
• Make note of any strong dissent to the majority opinion on any particular question.

3. Scoring the Self-Assessment

Score each question from 0 to 4, based on the your program's level of progress in each area as detailed below. Also, the reasons for each question scoring should be documented, if the opportunity exists. The scores should reflect the assessment of a multi-agency program's achievements and not those of the practices of individual agencies. Fire and rescue departments are almost universally trained in and use an Incident Command (or Incident Management) system (ICS) to manage activities and resources (question 4.2.3.1). Other agencies may be unfamiliar with ICS so its use at incident scenes is problematic and may lead to disagreements and independent actions or decision-making.

The following is a generalized description of the scoring criteria. It illustrates a gradation in progress from "not doing this at all" to "this is a well-established activity fully supported and engaged by the partner organizations".

Specific scoring guidance for each question is provided in Appendix C. This specific guidance is offered only to illustrate what levels of activity and inter-agency coordination are defined by the scores of 0 through 4. The specific scoring guidance is based upon a national range of practices in each area. A "0" means only that the activity isn't being done or isn't planned. It is possible for good programs to decide not to undertake a specific practice (e.g. rating levels for major incidents - question 4.2.1.1) because the benefits to be derived from doing this are achieved elsewhere (e.g. through very accurate, timely and non-ambiguous information sharing). The specific criteria are offered only as examples of grades of improvement and not are requirements of what must be done to earn a specific score.

General Scoring Guidance:

0 – No progress in this area.

• Has never been discussed
• Has been discussed informally but no action has been taken

1 – Very little being done in this area.

• Minimal activity, primarily in one agency
• Issue has been acknowledged and is being investigated

2 – Efforts in this area are moderate. Some good processes exist, but they may not be well integrated/coordinate - results are mixed.

• Has been put into practice on a limited or experimental basis.
• Some multi-agency agreement cooperation

3 – Efforts in this area are strong and results are promising. However, there is still room for improvement.

• Has become a generally accepted practice but refinements or changes are being discussed or pursued
• Good multi agency cooperation but not yet integrated in operations of all agencies as "standard procedure"

4 – Efforts in this area are outstanding. There is strong integration and coordination with good to excellent results.

• Excellent coordination and cooperation among agencies
• Policies and procedures are well integrated in operations of all agencies as "standard procedure"

4.0 Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Self-Assessment

Traffic Incident Management relies on the coordination of multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency resources to ensure that the impacts of incidents on public safety, traffic flow, and the local economy are minimized. To maximize TIM efforts, intricate programmatic, operational, and technical issues need to be addressed. This TIM Self-Assessment draws on the lessons learned and current practices of successful TIM programs from across the nation, providing a framework to allow TIM practitioners to assess their own efforts.

The TIM Self-Assessment consists of three primary assessment areas:

1. Program and Institutional Issues
2. Operational Issues
3. Communications and Technology Issues

The following sections describe these three assessment areas and their vital components in detail.

4.1 Program and Institutional Issues

Serving as the framework for all TIM efforts, Program and Institutional Issues are those that address how a program is organized, its objectives and priorities, agency roles and relationships, resource allocation and performance measurement. This section contains three subsections including:

• Formal Traffic Incident Management Programs (3 questions)
• TIM Administrative Teams (5 questions)
• Performance Measurement (4 questions)

4.1.1 Formal Traffic Incident Management Programs

4.1.1.1 TIM Program Strategic Plans

Traffic incident management is not a core function of any single agency. DOTs have traditionally focused on construction and maintenance of roadways and bridges. Highway operations, and traffic incident management as a support activity, is generally of lower priority in terms of budget and staffing, often falling in line behind myriad other maintenance activities. By their very nature, public safety agencies do include the management of traffic incidents as an agency function, but only as part of the much larger charge of providing for public safety.

The result is there are often limitations on available departmental funding for training and equipment specific to traffic incident management, with departmental resources directed towards activities more closely aligned to the agencies' core functions. This lack of funding specifically designated in agency budgets for resources needed to manage incidents limits the development and retention of traffic incident management specialists, makes long-term multi-agency planning difficult at best, and constrains the ability to deploy new equipment and technologies to meet increasing demands. The likelihood of success can be increased through the development of dedicated departmental budget items for traffic incident management in each partner agency and coordination of these budget initiatives through a program plan for traffic incident management that is created and agreed to by the partner agencies.

TIM programs have varying levels of formalized cooperation and coordination among participating agencies. At a minimum, there are informally established roles and responsibilities based on the working relationships between response personnel. While these arrangements can be very effective, they are also subject to disruption due to changes in personnel, funding uncertainty, or parochial priorities.

Formal programs can overcome these difficulties through interagency agreements; agreed upon program goals and objectives; formal program planning processes to meet the program goals and objectives; pre-established agency roles and responsibilities; and, multi-agency administrative mechanisms to assure adequate resources to advance program funding and personnel development.

A key element of a formal TIM program is the development of a TIM strategic plan listing specific agreed upon program goals and objectives. Supporting the strategic plan are multi-year program plans describing specific programmatic activities and projects, resource requirements, and identifying funding sources. Additionally, annual work plans form the basis for obtaining budget and personnel needs for each of the participating agencies.

4.1.1.2 Interagency Agreements

The various agencies participating in a program to effectively manage traffic incidents all have different agency goals, perspectives, responsibilities, priorities, and operating cultures that can cause misunderstandings, disagreements, delays, and inefficiencies in effectively resolving a traffic incident. Establishing formal agreements and memoranda of understanding covering issues where these difficulties arise can greatly facilitate on-scene operations. Such agreements might cover subjects like incident command structure, equipment staging, traffic control, hazardous materials incident issues and procedures, crash investigation procedures, quick clearance procedures, and many other issues. Interagency agreements can also set performance goals such as response time or incident clearance time.

4.1.1.3 Field-Level Input

An important element in ensuring that the strategic plans are successful is having those responsible for implementing the plans directly involved in their development. While high-level commitment is critical, action plans must make sense to those in the field or the plans will not be implemented as intended. Involving both high-level and field-level stakeholders from the beginning ensures realistic plans with buy-in at all levels.

4.1.2 TIM Administrative Teams

Supporting the formal goals and objectives of a TIM program requires coordination and cooperation among the mid-management and working levels of the participating agencies.

4.1.2.1 Formalized TIM Administrative Teams

A formalized multi-agency TIM Administrative Team should be the mechanism for accomplishing the established goals and objectives of the program and ensuring its continuity beyond administration and personnel changes. These multi-agency teams are typically comprised of senior (mid-to-upper level management) representatives of each of the participating agencies plus private sector partners. The TIM Administrative Team differs from a Major Incident Response Team (see 4.2.1.2) in that the Administrative Team is designed to meet away from the incident scene (a "conference room" team as opposed to a "highway team"). The agencies represented on both teams are usually the same, but the individuals representing those agencies may be different on the Administrative Team versus the Major Incident Response Team. However, in many instances, the individuals making up the Administrative Team will also be those on the Major Incident Response Team. This often leads to greater synergy on both teams as specific individuals work together both on-scene and off.

4.1.2.2 Regular TIM Administrative Team Meetings

The team should meet regularly to carry out the program goals and objectives. The team should have a facilitator that prepares and distributes an agenda well before the scheduled meeting and affords team members the opportunity to place items on the agenda for discussion or action by the team. The team may make changes in procedures where it is empowered to do so or resolve issues of agency coordination or understanding that have arisen at past incidents. The team may also recommend higher-level policy and procedure changes to a high-level Program Steering Committee for action at the agency level. It may also develop recommendations for changes in state or local law where needed to enable better response or to clarify a jurisdictional or policy issue.

4.1.2.3 Conduct Training

As part of this team's work, scene planning and training involving the partner agencies and organizations should be conducted. Administrative team members should conduct incident simulation, table top or "in-field" training exercises involving the TIM program partners.

4.1.2.4 Post-Incident Debriefings

Post-incident debriefings should be held to assess what did and did not work during recent major incident response. These may be organized following an incident or as part of the regular meeting of the teams. It is common for public safety agencies, especially fire and rescue agencies, to conduct internal agency debriefings of incidents. The multi-agency debriefing or review should be in addition to any internal review. It should be conducted at a "neutral facility" in a non-hostile environment with the intent to examine what can be improved rather than pointing blame for mistakes.

4.1.2.5 Special Event Planning

The Administrative Team should also plan for special event incident response, such as planning for major sporting events, concerts, conventions and weather-related events. Most major events, especially those of a repetitive nature, have event coordinators and some form of organizing team. Transportation management, security, medical response and traffic incident response are all items that should be addressed by the TIM team in the planning processes for these events.

4.1.3 Performance Measurement

An important aspect in advancing traffic incident management programs is the ability to accurately measure their effectiveness. Evaluation metrics provide the necessary feedback to traffic incident management responders to allow them to improve performance. Equally important, they provide decision makers with the data to demonstrate the value of traffic incident management activities and justify their related expenditures.

In many metropolitan areas, DOTs have established Transportation Management Centers (TMCs) to coordinate the collection, collation, and dissemination of traffic and roadway information. These TMCs are networked to numerous data collection devices in and along the roadways to monitor traffic flows, weather and roadway conditions, and detect and locate incidents. Some of these devices and technologies include video cameras, detectors, radio frequency vehicle identification, and GPS vehicle tracking. These data can be used to measure the impact of incidents on traffic flow.

Public safety agencies also collect operational information to gauge their performance levels and resource utilization. Though traffic incident management may be a subset of the overall activities of these agencies, the data collected - and integrated with other information - can be used to assess traffic incident management programs. For instance, police and fire departments often keep computerized, time-stamped dispatch records and run logs. These data can be used in assessing response and on-scene times.

Manpower utilization and budget records from agencies can be used to develop baseline information on the costs of traffic incident management activities. Satisfaction levels on the part of the motoring public or partner agencies can be obtained through surveys or polls. DOT motorist assistance programs can rely on service logs for baseline information.

Whatever measures are used, to be truly effective in advancing a TIM program, there must agreement on the performance measurements to be collected and the specific performance targets to be met. The performance measurements should reflect the specific goals and objectives described in the TIM strategic plan. Additionally, periodic evaluation of progress towards achieving the targets must be conducted.

4.1.3.1 Multi-Agency Agreements on Performance Measures

Many agencies track performance data to measure their performance toward meeting goals and objectives of their agencies. Measuring performance for a Traffic Incident Management Program requires collecting program performance data that may be different than agency-specific performance data. When TIM program performance objectives are developed, program measures of performance involving all participating parties should be developed to evaluate progress in achieving the program's objectives.

4.1.3.2 Collection and Analysis of Performance Data

After measures of program performance are defined it is necessary to specify what data will be used to measure each objective, how it will be collected and analyzed, and who will do the work. It is likely that no one agency's data will have all of the information needed about an incident to track the various performance objectives. It may be necessary to electronically combine and harmonize data from different agencies. It may also be necessary to define specific measures ("What is an "incident?" What kinds of incidents will be tracked?, When does the incident begin and end and whose "clock" will be used?) and methods to identify the same incident from disparate agency databases.

4.1.3.3 Targets for Performance

Some regions are now establishing targets for performance for traffic incident management that specify response to or clearance of all incidents within a specified time frame. Several areas, for instance, have recently stated goals of clearing all incidents within 90 minutes. Such goals can be highly controversial and even political. It is important to understand that these goals are not meant to encourage reckless actions. It is not difficult to imagine a hazmat incident, even one handled efficiently, that takes considerably longer than 90 minutes to clear. The purpose of these goals is to encourage multi-agency reviews of the processes in play at an incident to see where procedural changes or coordination of activities at the incident can reduce clearance time.

4.1.3.4 Periodic Review of Progress

Performance measures are useful only if the data collected are analyzed and reported in a meaningful and timely manner to a program administrative team and a program steering committee. The program reviews based upon tracked data may indicate which program initiatives are succeeding and which need to be bolstered or modified.

4.2 Operational Issues

Operational Issues addresses the policies, procedures, and processes used in the field while responding to an incident. Designed to maximize safety and reduce response and clearance times, Operational Issues are the nuts and bolts of a TIM program. This section contains three subsections including:

1. Procedures for Major Incidents (4 questions)
2. Responder and Motorist Safety (4 questions)
3. Response and Clearance Policies and Procedures (6 questions)

4.2.1 Procedures for Major Incidents

Anecdotal stories abound about dealing with multi-hour road closures due to a hazardous materials spill or a multi-vehicle pile-up. Without question, these "major" incidents present the greatest challenge to even the most organized TIM program.

4.2.1.1 Definition of Incident Levels or Severity

Some areas have found it helpful to responding agencies to classify incidents according to criteria defining 3 or 4 levels of severity. A Level 1 incident might be a disabled vehicle or a non-blocking incident, while a Level 4 incident might be a fatal crash or a major hazmat incident. Each level defines different levels of severity to responding agencies even before they reach the site. The levels might also define different traffic management procedures or imply different lengths of expected incident duration, traffic impact, and resources needed.

4.2.1.2 Major Incident Response Teams

One effective way to mitigate the effects of a major incident is to have a designated Major Incident Response Team. Made up of senior-level agency members from all concerned agencies, this team is available on a 24/7 basis to respond to a major incident. The members of the team should be high enough in rank or position to lead their agencies forces on-scene and command that additional resources from their agencies be brought to the scene without obtaining approval from higher-ranking officials in their agency. There is also an advantage in having the same people involved in command at an incident scene. Over time, these persons develop a trust and respect for each other's abilities, judgment and knowledge.

4.2.1.3 Resource Lists

Another important way to mitigate the effects of a major incident and to speed up clearance is to have a pre-identified contact list of persons and equipment resources (including special equipment) for incident clearance and hazardous materials response.

4.2.1.4 Pre-Staged Equipment

To further expedite clearance, the equipment can be pre-staged for timely access. Equipment should be catalogued, its location known to responders, and means of bringing it to the scene arranged (e.g.. standard trailer hooks on various types of responding vehicles from different agencies). It is also important to have traffic control equipment (signs, cones, flares, arrow boards, portable dynamic message signs, etc.) staged in strategic locations so that can be quickly accessed and brought to the incident.

4.2.2 Responder and Motorist Safety

Emergency responders are at risk from traffic as they work an incident scene. Having formalized procedures for managing traffic flows through and around an incident area; ensuring responders have adequate training in emergency traffic flow management, proper use of emergency lighting, and emergency vehicle positioning; and, ensuring they have and use reflective clothing and traffic diversion devices such as flares and cones can all greatly reduce responder exposure.

Additionally, motorists moving through and upstream from a traffic incident site are vulnerable to secondary incidents caused by sudden slowing of traffic, lane changes, and the situation or movement of emergency vehicles. Proper traffic control procedures at the site and upstream can significantly reduce the chances of secondary incidents. Approaches to safely controlling traffic flow include:

• moving the initial point of traffic contact upstream from the incident site;
• providing notification of incidents to drivers via radio or changeable message signs;
• coordinating detour route signalization to ensure smooth traffic flow; or,
• expanding capacity at the site by use of equipment staging practices to keep lanes open or being prepared to open them quickly when no longer needed for incident clearance or safety.

4.2.2.1 Train All Responders in Traffic Control Procedures

The first responders to arrive on the scene of a traffic incident often have to deal with chaotic situations to stabilize a potential dangerous scene and then to establish the initial on-scene traffic control. The first arriving responders are usually a single law enforcement officer or a fire and rescue unit that have not been trained in traffic control. The initial placement of equipment or traffic control devices such as cones and flares often establish traffic control at the scene for the duration of the incident. It is important that all persons responding to traffic incidents be trained in traffic control principles to increase their safety and the safety of the motoring public.

4.2.2.2 Use MUTCD Traffic Control Procedures

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has long been an established national standard for the use of traffic control devices such as signs, signals, and pavement markings and for traffic control procedures. The MUTCD is well known among traffic and transportation professionals, but much less so among public safety and private sector responding professionals. Part 6 of the MUTCD (Temporary Traffic Control) was formerly dedicated to work zones, but now contains requirements for traffic control for incidents. The 2003 edition of the MUTCD includes a new Chapter 6-I that more specially describes traffic control concepts for traffic incident scenes. It is important that responders in charge of traffic control at an incident scene understand the requirements of the MUTCD and that the traffic control procedures prescribed in the MUTCD be applied at the scene of traffic incidents.

4.2.2.3 Traffic Control at the End of the Queue

There are two critical locations for traffic control with each incident. One is at the incident scene itself where clear understand direction is needed to move traffic safely past the incident and protect responders working on the incident. The second is at the end of the queue of traffic that forms beginning at the incident and extends back sometimes for many miles. The length of the queue depends on the magnitude of traffic volume (which varies by time of the day), the number of lanes blocked, and the attraction of the incident scene to passers-by ("rubbernecking"). A minor shoulder incident during off-peak hours may not create a traffic queue at all. A major incident blocking several lanes during peak hours may create a very long queue. Drivers approaching the end of a short queue may see the incident. Drivers approaching the end of a long queue may be several miles from the incident and may be taken by surprise by a sudden slowing of traffic. Approximately 20 percent of all incidents are secondary in nature, with most of these being near the end of the traffic queue. Secondary incidents in high-speed traffic can be severe, even fatal. It is important to monitor the end of the traffic queue and move the first traffic control and warning to approaching motorists as the length of the queue grows.

4.2.2.4 Equipment Staging and Emergency Lighting Procedures

Undue delays in traffic flow (increasing the likelihood of secondary incidents) are often caused by equipment or vehicles not being used for work at the incident scene blocking lanes that could be used for traffic. It is important to have staging procedures, either on-site or off-site, for arriving vehicles and equipment so that the equipment can access the scene, be used at the scene, and be removed when no longer needed to open traffic lanes when safe to do so.

Emergency vehicle lighting provides warning to approaching vehicles but provides very little positive traffic control. Indeed, excessive lighting from numerous response vehicles, especially at night, can be confusing to motorists and can even degrade scene safety. The use of emergency vehicle lighting is a contentious issue which is understandable given that the leading cause of on-duty death among law enforcement officers (and a major cause among fire-rescue personnel) is traffic crashes, both on-scene and in response. In recent years there has been increasing interest shown in public safety organizations for investigating policies that reduce emergency lighting at traffic incidents after the scene is secured and good traffic control is in place. Procedures for the use of emergency lighting on-scene should be developed reducing the use of emergency lighting as much as possible while still providing adequate warning to approaching motorists.

4.2.3 Response and Clearance Policies and Procedures

4.2.3.1 Incident Command

Crucial to the safe and timely clearance of traffic incidents is coordination of response resources from the DOT, public safety responders, private-sector contractors, etc. This requires a clear command hierarchy, designated responder roles and responsibilities, clear procedures, and the ability of all responders to communicate clearly and effectively throughout the response and clearance processes. The Incident Command System (ICS), also known as the Incident Management System (IMS), provides the framework for the command, control and coordination of resources at the scene of an emergency; and, provides a management tool consisting of procedures for organizing personnel, facilities, equipment, and communications at the scene of an incident. It is an objective-based system that emphasizes common terminology, integrated communications systems, and comprehensive resource management across response organizations.

4.2.3.2 Investigation of Fatal Crashes

Investigation of fatal incidents can result in road closures and delayed road openings. Existing policies may require certification of death by a medical examiner before bodies can be moved and the scene cleared. Careful planning and mutually accepted policies and procedures for fatal crash investigation can mean increased scene clearance time and traffic flow restoration, while protecting the scene for investigation and respecting the rights of the deceased and their families. Mutual training will enable other responders to identify and preserve evidence and enable the maintenance of traffic flow past the incident without jeopardizing the investigation.

Even technology can play a role, such as in the case of photogrammetry that allows investigators to quickly document the incident scene with three-dimensional digital photography that can be reviewed in detail after the incident has been cleared.

4.2.3.3 Hazardous Materials Procedures

Effective first response to an incident involving hazardous materials (hazmat) is critical to minimizing the impacts of the incident in terms of public and responder safety, environmental degradation, and costs for clean up. Well-defined hazmat response policies and procedures and responder training allow first responders to accurately identify the hazardous material and direct further response. For certain spills, equipment carried in the first response vehicles can be used to contain the spills until the fire department or hazmat contractor can arrive at the scene.

While some materials are extremely hazardous in any quantity, hazardous materials response procedures are frequently invoked when a gasoline or diesel fuel spill exceeds a legally specified amount, typically 25 gallons. Some states have adopted procedures that exempt larger spills of engine fluids (gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, anti-freeze, etc.) from hazardous materials response procedures, providing the spill has been contained on the pavement. The USDOT regulations and guidelines for hazardous materials apply only to materials being transported, not engine fluids. Quick cleanup and removal of engine fluid spills can greatly reduce incident duration time.

4.2.3.4 Quick Clearance Policies

Quick clearance polices generally focus on the timely and prudent clearance of incidents involving commercial vehicles. Incidents involving these larger vehicles carrying a wide variety of freight types have the potential for closing roadways for extended periods of time. Several traffic incident management programs have legal mechanisms in place to sacrifice the freight load or vehicle in order to open the roadways. Many transportation and law enforcement officials are reluctant to take aggressive action by pushing or dragging heavy damaged vehicles and cargoes off the road for fear of liability. Experience has shown, however, that agencies that take aggressive actions do not incur increased liability, especially if aggressive clearance in the name of public safety is a stated policy and if the clearance is done in a manner that is not reckless or negligent. These policies are tempered by such considerations as the potential for hazards associated with the load and the availability of appropriate towing and recovery equipment and personnel.

About half of the states have laws that require drivers involved in minor property damage crashes (no injuries) to move their vehicles, if they can be driven, to a safe location out of traffic lanes. These laws, generally called "Move It", or "Steer It, Clear It" laws, are very helpful not only in quickly opening traffic lanes, but also increasing the safety of motorists who are often tempted to get out of their vehicles to talk to each other, inspect damage and exchange insurance information. The driving public is largely unaware of these laws or what their actions should be following a minor crash and for insurance reasons drivers will often want to leave their vehicles where they collided until law enforcement arrives on the scene. A strong continuing public education program is needed with these laws to make drivers aware of the laws and their responsibilities and to educate new drivers.

Quick clearance policies can also include immediate tow-away policies, especially in proximity to metropolitan areas, to ensure the timely removal of disabled vehicles from roadway shoulders. This reduces the potential for moving traffic colliding with parked vehicles. Removal of the vehicles is typically at the expense of the owners. However, increasingly many of these vehicles are derelicts, abandoned by their owners. Once towed, these abandoned vehicles can become a financial burden to tow companies who have to store, and then scrap them. Working with the towing and recovery companies on development of traffic incident management policies helps mitigate these financial impacts.

4.2.3.5 Towing and Recovery

Towing and recovery operations clear the roadway of disabled or damaged vehicles and their cargoes restoring the roadway to it full capacity. Timely dispatch of appropriate towing and recovery assets to an incident scene can be facilitated through a contact list of towing and recovery companies who have been pre-approved regarding equipment and capabilities. Towing and recovery services are usually contacted through law enforcement agencies that have rotational agreements or contracts with towing and recovery companies. Most towing companies can adequately handle passenger sized vehicles and vans. Larger trucks, especially those that have overturned require the expertise of recovery specialists. Rotational and other types of contracts for towing and recovery services must assure that the correct equipment is brought to the scene and that the specialists are qualified for the task at hand. It is important to let the towing and recovery professionals know as much as possible about the nature of the vehicles involved so they can bring the correct equipment. In many areas, the towing and recovery companies are working with law enforcement and fire-rescue agencies in mutual education activities so that vehicle and cargo removal proceeds swiftly and safely. The Towing and Recovery Association of America (TRAA) has developed a three level National Driver Certification Program to establish a higher level of professionalism in their industry. Certified towing and recovery specialists also have greater professional credibility with other responders and an increasing number of law enforcement agencies that contract with towers are now requiring TRAA certification as a qualification for participation in a contractual relationship.

4.2.3.6 Motorists Assistance - Service Patrols

Motorist assistance programs are widely used to help stranded motorists. These programs feature mobile service patrols that travel the highways and render assistance where needed. The service patrols often push disabled vehicles off the road, provide gasoline, change flat tires, or provide minor repairs to allow the motorist to safely drive the vehicle from the highway. If the vehicle cannot be moved, the service patrols can contact tow companies for the motorist. The service patrols can be provided as a public service usually provided by a transportation agency, or by private companies, either as a contracted service for a public agency or as a free promotional activity or for a fee.

Service patrols help assure that stranded motorists don’t stay "stranded" and that the travel lanes and shoulders are kept clear. They are also an extra set of eyes and ears for other incidents and often can provide traffic control or communications assistance at the scene of a larger incident.

4.3 Communication and Technology Issues

Careful planning for incident response and expedited on-scene procedures will not achieve the desired results if communication among agencies, responders and the motoring public is not present. Communication, and the technology to facilitate it, is a critical part of any Traffic Incident Management Program.

Traffic incidents can cause major disruptions to transportation facilities and so corridor or area wide traffic management is essential to mitigate effects of an incident. The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies enable effective management of freeway and arterial street traffic in response to an incident. The traveler also must understand what lies ahead. Good reliable, up-to-date traveler information will allow a motorist to assess the consequences of staying with the originally intended route, and the choices open for diversion to other routes or even, in some cases, to other modes of travel.

This section contains three subsections including:

1. Integrated Interagency Communications (2 questions)
2. Transportation Management Systems (3 questions)
3. Traveler Information (3 questions)

4.3.1 Integrated Interagency Communications

4.3.1.1 Two-Way Voice Communications

At an incident site, voice communications among the diverse response agencies have historically been hampered by lack of direct connectivity between their discrete communications systems. Methods of integrating these communications systems to allow on-site direct communications between incident responders, regardless of their legacy systems, are advancing. Trunked radio systems provide a partial solution to this problem. In recent years a large number of options have become available for sending voice and free text messages over a host of media including radio, cellular telephone and Internet services.

4.3.1.2 TMC-CAD Integration - Data and Video

Most traffic incidents are first detected by means of a cellular telephone call (911, #77, *SP, etc.) that is received at a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). The information is then routed to the appropriate public safety dispatcher (law enforcement, fire-rescue, medical, etc.) for response. That information about the incident does not go to transportation management centers (TMC). Where they exist, the TMCs are usually left to find out about the incident through their own devices, usually several minutes later. The TMCs have traffic and transportation related information that would be important to public safety responders both to enable quicker response and also to manage the incident scene more effectively. That information rarely gets to public safety agencies. Towing and recovery companies are left out of the loop entirely except for voice communications with law enforcement. It is not too unusual now to see a police computer-aided dispatch (CAD) terminal in a TMC, but to date true data integration is virtually non-existent. There is strong interest and some actual progress being made in data integration between TMC databases and public safety CAD databases, working through the data security issues to provide true two-way data communication among public safety and transportation agencies.

4.3.2 Transportation Management Systems

4.3.2.1 Traffic Management Centers

The use of technology for the detection, verification, and clearance of highway incidents has increased dramatically over the last decade. In metropolitan areas, the use of video cameras, loop detectors, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) on probe vehicles, and cellular telephone use by the motoring public have all dramatically reduced the time to detect and verify an incident. These technologies have also improved the richness of the information available to incident managers, allowing them to better direct resources to the problem.

Many major metropolitan areas have established Traffic Management (or Operations) Centers (TMCs) to receive, collate, and direct information to incident responders and the motoring public. Dedicated DOT personnel staff these TMCs and to a limited but increasing degree, personnel from police and fire departments are co-located at the facility to improve information sharing and traffic incident management coordination. In some cases, public safety dispatch for traffic incidents is conducted by public safety personnel located at a TMC. In these cases, public safety computer-aided dispatch information can be shared with DOT personnel, and CCTV images and data are provided to the public safety personnel to facilitate dispatching and to brief responders prior to arrival to an incident scene.

4.3.2.2 Technical Infrastructure for Surveillance and Detection

Effective traffic management relies on an effective and efficient traffic surveillance system of detectors to monitor traffic volumes and speeds on the road network. The traffic detection system is usually supplemented by television (CCTV) cameras to provide visual confirmation of network conditions. Personnel in a TMC usually do not monitor cameras on a continual basis and rely on alarms from the traffic detector network to alert them to traffic incidents. The data from traffic detectors is smoothed through computer algorithms to filter out false alarms, but this smoothing process usually delays automated detection of an incident by a TMC for several minutes. The sharing of electronic fusion of CAD-TMC data would provide much quicker detection of incidents for the TMC and much quicker location and verification of traffic incidents for public safety and transportation responders.

4.3.2.3 Traffic Management Policies and Procedures for Traffic Incidents

There are usually a large number of traffic management options to consider after the occurrence of an incident, not only to manage traffic immediately impacted by the incident, but also to manage traffic in a wider area that may be ultimately impacted. These options also are important to responders, both to enable their response and to manage the incident scene more effectively. Actions such as opening and closing freeway ramps, opening and closing HOV facilities, use of service or frontage roads, use of arterial streets for freeway diversion and resulting traffic control needs to handle the extra traffic volume, need to discussed in an administrative team setting and planned so that they can be quickly implemented when needed. Larger incidents can impact transportation facilities over very large areas. The closing of a major facility for several hours may necessitate the implementation of alternative traffic management procedures in adjacent jurisdictions or states many miles away from the incident scene.

4.3.3 Traveler Information

4.3.3.3 Provide motorists with travel time estimates for route segments?

Providing incident information to the motoring public can dramatically reduce the impact of highway incidents on traffic movement by allowing motorists to take alternate travel routes, change departure times, or otherwise modify their travel plans to avoid incidents. Common technologies and methods used to provide incident information to the public and divert traffic include:

• predetermined alternate routes;
• distribution of traffic incident information to radio and television outlets;
• dynamic message signs along the roadways;
• highway advisory radio broadcasts;
• traveler information internet sites;
• pager and broadcast fax alerts; and,
• traveler information telephone numbers.

4.3.3.1 Use of Information from Multiple Sources

There are an increasing number of private sector information service providers (ISP) in business to provide traveler information to subscribers and to media outlets. Many of these ISPs also have their own traffic monitoring equipment to supplement information from public sector sources. Information that comes into a TMC may be automated (traffic detectors) or voice (verbal information from callers or from service patrols or law enforcement sources. Private ISPs should be part of a traffic incident management program since the information they have is vital to providing accurate and timely information to travelers about dynamic traffic situations. The ability to collect and fuse traffic data from a number of sources and provide a coherent picture to travelers is important to a traffic incident management program.

4.3.3.2 Real-time Motorist Information System with Incident-Specific Information

Many media outlets are oriented to the news value of an incident, particularly a spectacular one, and do not provide information that motorists can use to make good decisions about the use of alternate routes. Media information usually describes the general location of the incident, but often ignores specifics about what ramps or streets are impacted. Information typically does not describe the effect of the incident. A reporter may say that traffic is "stop-and-go" but usually does not say how far back the delay (or traffic queue) goes from the incident. Information, particularly that ISPs provide, should provide information about what facilities are impacted and how serous that impact is. If specific direction is not provided on alternate routes, the motorists who are familiar with the area can make more informed decisions on whether to divert to a different route.

4.3.3.3 Provide Travel Time Information

It is common to see message on dynamic highway message signs that say "Congestion Ahead", or "Accident at X, Expect Delays". These messages are perhaps better than no notification at all, but provide very little useful information. Research has shown that motorists prefer predictable travel times to shorter delay free travel in major urban areas, given that delay free travel is virtually impossible. Drivers very quickly become accustomed to travel time information if it is provided. Providing such information is within the capability of most automated traffic management systems.

Next Steps

The assessment is complete and you now have a score for your corridor, region or state. Essentially you have established a benchmark for your TIM activities and identified those areas where improvement may be needed.

Those topic areas receiving the lowest scores may need additional resources brought to bear. For those topic areas for which there was strong dissent on the score, more TIM team building may be indicated. Whatever the case, it is recommended that you utilize your area’s score as a means to improving your overall TIM program.

Not intended as a one-time exercise, this TIM Self-Assessment should be conducted on an annual or biannual basis. This will provide a consistent measure of your improvement and allow for continual refocusing of resources to those areas needing them most. You may find the score in one area actually decreases over time, indicating a lapse of attention to that particular area. And again, divergent opinions on the score for a particular topic area should signal a need for additional team exercises to ensure all stakeholder opinions are considered and valued in the process.

For additional resources on where to go for help in a particular topic area, see the Appendix.

APPENDIX A
Additional Resources

Traffic Incident Management Handbook - November 2000 [PDF file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view]

• http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/jpodocs/rept_mis/@9201!.pdf

Regional Traffic Incident Management Programs - Implementation Guide (2001) [PDF file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view]

• http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13149.pdf

Incident Management Successful Practices - A Cross-Cutting Study (2000) [PDF file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view]

• http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/11484.pdf

Framework for Developing Incident Management Systems - Revised 1995 [PDF file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view]

• http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_TE//2810.pdf

ITS Public Safety Program Web Site

• http://www.its.dot.gov/its_publicsafety/index.htm

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Web Site

• http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

APPENDIX B
Facilitator Guide

Background and Purpose

The Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Self Assessment (SA) is a tool to be used by state and regional program managers to assess their achievement of a successful multi-agency program to manage traffic incidents effectively and safely. The tool also provides a method to assess gaps and needs in existing multi-agency regional and statewide efforts to mitigate congestion caused by traffic incidents.

The TIM SA consists of a series of questions designed to allow those with traffic incident management responsibilities to evaluate program performance in specific organizational and procedural categories. Conducted as a group exercise, the TIM SA provides a format for discussion among the group members aimed toward reaching a consensus on various aspects of a traffic incident management program. This process provides a medium for enhanced communication between TIM stakeholders to identify specific areas or activities by which the multi-agency management of traffic incidents can be improved.

The ratings can then be tallied to provide an overall TIM score for the program. Areas for possible improvement can be identified through individual question ratings. While the score provides a metric for measurement, the most important information will be derived from the discussion of the assessment among the participants. This discussion will provide local agencies valuable information to form or improve a multi-agency program for traffic incident management.

The purpose of this Facilitator Guide is to provide the TIM SA facilitator or facilitating agency with enough background and instruction to prepare for the conduct of the assessment, and to assure its successful completion. Among the issues addressed are:

• Pre-Meeting Preparations
• Meeting Facilitation Strategies
• Post-Meeting Actions

A. Pre-Meeting Preparations

The first step as the facilitator is to become familiar with the TIM SA Guide and Scoring Template. If you are new to traffic incident management, there are a number of helpful references found in Appendix A. You should have a working knowledge of the TIM terms and references cited throughout the TIM SA Guide. Familiarity with TIM will allow you to better target the appropriate participants and to facilitate the group discussions.

As detailed in the Guide, the TIM SA is designed to be conducted as a group exercise. There are a number of stakeholder groups involved in TIM and, at minimum, each assessment should include representatives from the following:

• State and local transportation departments

  • Operations
  • Maintenance
• State and local law enforcement
• Fire and rescue
• Emergency Medical Services (especially if not part of fire and rescue)
• Private sector response contractors
  • Towing and recovery
  • Hazardous materials response contractors

To broaden the input and perspective, other groups that could be invited to participate include:

• Traffic reporting media
• Private sector providers of traffic information for motorists
• Associations representing roadway users
  • Automobile clubs
  • Trucking associations

While the size of the group will be dictated by the geographic area being assessed, it is recommended that the assessment be conducted with no less than five participants and no more than 20.

Again, depending on the geographic area being assessed and the subsequent size of the group, conduct of the assessment will take anywhere from three to five hours. It is recommended that a minimum of three hours be scheduled for the assessment, as anything less will not allow participants a chance to thoroughly discuss each of the program areas.

Pick a location easily accessible by a majority of participants. The meeting room should be set up conference-style to allow for maximum interaction among participants. It is a good idea to provide table tents for participants to write their name on, both for ease of the facilitator and for the other participants. While many in the group may know each other from their work in TIM, others may be relatively new to the group. If the TIM SA PowerPoint slides are going to be used, audiovisual equipment will need to be provided. This will also enable you to project the score sheet as you conduct the meeting. It is also a good idea to provide refreshments or at least let participants know where they are available.

You should send out the TIM SA materials in advance, so the assessment will need to be scheduled far enough in advance to give participants time to review the materials and complete the assessment on their own. After identifying the appropriate individuals to invite, sending out the official invitation and accompanying materials a month in advance should allow enough time for their review and completion.

The TIM SA Guide and Scoring Template should be sent to all invitees in advance. If you plan on using the TIM SA PowerPoint slides, you may want to send those to the invitees in advance as well.

Participants should be asked to read the TIM SA Guide, consider the questions, and score each based on their understanding of the level of success in each topic area. This can be facilitated by sending an electronic version of the Scoring Template to each participant and asking that they complete it and return to you in advance. Doing so will allow scores for each question to be tallied and used as the basis for discussion of each question at the assessment. Encourage participants to bring their individual score sheets to the assessment for reference.

However, if participants are unlikely or unwilling to complete the Scoring Template in advance, request that they at least review the TIM SA Guide and become familiar with the questions. Explain that doing so will facilitate the discussion at the assessment, ultimately saving them time.

While the Guide explains the purpose and objective of the TIM SA, it is helpful to reiterate several points in the cover letter sent with the materials.

→ The TIM SA will prove most valuable and lead to the greatest improvements if it is conducted as a true group exercise, inclusive of all TIM stakeholders. Everyone's input is important!

→ This is not a competition to see which corridor, region or state can achieve the highest score. Furthermore, the assessment is not meant to measure or test any one agency's response. The scoring done in advance of the meeting should represent your views on how all TIM stakeholders work together, not how you view your particular agency's success. An honest assessment of your program's success, or lack thereof, in each area will provide the clearest guidance on where resources need to be targeted.

→ The numeric score is less important than the consensus building done in reaching that score. Let's agree on where we need to concentrate our efforts and commit to working together in those areas.

B. Meeting Facilitation Strategies

Your service as facilitator will not allow you time to take adequate notes of the discussion and record the significant points made or concerns raised. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you assign a staff person to serve as recorder. While verbatim notes are not necessary, capturing the essence of the discussion on each question will provide sufficient detail for follow-up discussion and action. As the TIM SA is intended to be an ongoing exercise, completed at least every other year or more often if desired, these notes will serve as the basis for discussion in subsequent iterations of the TIM SA, when participants can gauge if they have addressed the concerns raised and realized improvement as a result.

After your welcome, introduction and mention of any housekeeping items, participants should be asked to introduce themselves and briefly describe their involvement in traffic incident management. Pass around a sign-up sheet to collect contact information on all participants.

Before starting in on the questions, you may want to again describe the objective of the TIM SA, reiterating the points above on the importance of 1) valuing everyone's opinion; 2) providing honest assessments of the program's success or lack thereof in each area; and, 3) focusing more on consensus building rather than achieving a high score.

It is also helpful to explain each of the three assessment areas in more detail, utilizing either the TIM SA PowerPoint slides or the descriptions in the Guide.

• Program and Institutional Issues
• Operational Issues
• Communications and Technology Issues

You will also need to explain the Scoring Template, carefully reviewing the range of activity required for each score. For instance, a question scoring a 1 may mean that only one agency is minimally involved in that activity or it may mean that, while no one agency is involved in the activity, it has been acknowledged by one or more agencies and is being investigated.

You can and should put participants at ease by reminding them that the Scoring Template, and indeed the entire TIM SA exercise, is not meant to measure any one agency's success, but rather is meant as an assessment of how all the TIM partners work together. The FHWA will publish only national summary reports of the TIM Self Assessment. This summary report will not contain state or urban area scores but will report only national average scores and score distributions.

You can now start in on the individual questions. Begin with an overall explanation of what the question is asking. If you collected individual Scoring Templates in advance of the session and have tallied the scores, let the participants know what the range and distribution of the scores for that question. Ask them for reaction to the scores. Much of the range in the scores may be due to not clearly understanding the question or answering it from a narrower agency viewpoint rather than from a "program" viewpoint. Ask questions and guide discussions to narrow the range through clarification of the question and by asking participants to explain why they scored that question the way they did.

These may turn out to be some of the most fruitful discussions of the entire exercise. For instance, Question 4.2.2.2 asks if your TIM program "Utilize(s) on-scene traffic control procedures for various levels of incidents in compliance with MUTCD?" While the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and its nationally accepted standards for the use of traffic control devices is well-known among traffic and transportation professionals, individuals from public safety or from the private sector may not be aware of the MUTCD and the guidance it provides incident responders. While they may have scored this question low based on their lack of knowledge on this specific subject matter, the subsequent discussion of their score will not only introduce them to the MUTCD, but also will likely elucidate its value for them and possibly lead to greater use and acceptance of its standards by all TIM stakeholders. Likewise, question 4.2.3.1 asks if your TIM program "Utilize(s) the Incident Command System?" Public safety responders, especially those in fire and rescue agencies, operate under ICS (or IMS) as a matter of course and would tend to rate this question highly from their agency's viewpoint. Others who are not familiar with ICS would rate the question lower. The discussion should strive to reach consensus among the group on how well ICS is understood and used as a command and control protocol by all responders at incident scenes.

If Scoring Templates have not been collected in advance, you will need to "poll" the group and lead the discussion toward development of a consensus score for each question. Start with an explanation of the question and then ask for opinions from the group. The initial discussion may show a large range in the scores due primarily to agency-oriented viewpoints. It will be very important that you recognize each constituency so that a true consensus can be reached. Clarify that the goal is to reach a multi-agency program score rather than one that reflects the perspectives of individual agencies. Strong dissent by one group or person should be noted in the minutes so that particular issue can be dealt with at future TIM team meetings or TIM SA sessions.

There are strategies you can employ to draw out responses from each of the participants. By actively questioning participants and probing them for responses, you may reach consensus that otherwise would have eluded your group. When participants respond to your question, you can ask for more detail to help build understanding and group consensus. For each answer offered, consider asking the following questions:

• Do all TIM stakeholders have the same response regarding this issue?
• What steps has each group taken to address these issues?
• What are the implications of these issues for each stakeholder group?
• What are some strategies that could be adopted to address these issues?
• Do the strategies offered and their applicability to the situation differ by stakeholder group?

At the conclusion, assuming your recorder has utilized the electronic version of the Scoring Template, you will have arrived at an overall consensus score for the session. Ask participants for any final reactions to that score and any closing thoughts they may have on the assessment exercise.

Describe possible next steps and get participant recommendations on the course of action to take. Is there a formal TIM team that can now address those program areas with the lower scores or is now the time to form such a team out of the stakeholder groups present? Is a subcommittee needed to start planning TIM strategies for some of the special events referenced in Question 4.1.2.5 under TIM Administrative Teams? Have the responses in Traveler Information revealed a need to focus more on informing the public? Use the discussion as a guide for developing an action plan.

In closing, thank the participants for their time and commitment to the process. It is recommended that participants be involved in follow-up review and comment on the assessment. Let the participants know that they will be sent copies of the final assessment Scoring Template and assessment notes and encourage them to submit any comments they might have on the assessment results and the process. Encourage their participation in future TIM activities and subsequent TIM SA sessions.

C. Post-Meeting Actions

Prepare the final Scoring Template and assessment notes for distribution to the participants. It is recommended that you send out and solicit their final comments from the participants before sending on to FHWA. Once final, forward your Scoring Template and assessment notes by email to David Helman, David.Helman@fhwa.dot.gov, at FHWA headquarters.

An After Action report can be prepared with a list of action items resulting from the assessment exercise. Assignments can be made to committees or agencies for follow-up on particular action items, or a subsequent meeting can be scheduled to address those action items. The idea is to utilize the findings from assessment to target areas where improvement is needed and to capitalize on the momentum built by the assessment to put in place action items to address those areas for improvement.

D. Where to Go For Help

Help is available for any questions you may have or assistance you may need, including:

• Determining what agencies to invite to participate
• Contacting the appropriate agencies or individuals within those agencies to secure their participation
• Facilitating the assessment or recording the minutes
• Determining next steps for the group

FHWA Headquarters
David Helman
(202) 366-8042
david.helman@fhwa.dot.gov

Resource Center Traffic Incident Management Team
Greg Jones
(404) 562-3906
gregm.jones@fhwa.dot.gov

TIM SA Contractor
Rebecca Brewster
(770) 432-0628
rbrewster@trucking.org

Appendix C
Scoring Guidance for Traffic Incident Management
Self Assessment Questions

The general scoring guidance shown on pages 4-5 of the Guide offers high-level guidance on how to score each question. This Appendix offers more specific guidance for each question to assist those assessing their programs to better evaluate their program performance. These criteria, while more specific, are also fairly general in that they indicate various levels of achievement for each question based upon broad national experience. The specific policies, procedures, institutional relationships, legal framework and institutional operating cultures vary widely across the country. Therefore the guidance that follows may only be marginally helpful in some cases. Therefore, these scoring "criteria" should be taken only as general guidance of a more specific nature as to what levels of achievement might define a score. The criteria should not be interpreted as required actions or status needed to achieve a score.

Section 1 - Program and Institutional Issues

Part 4.1.1 - Formal Traffic Incident Management Programs

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.1.1.1 Have multi-agency, multi-year strategic plans detailing specific programmatic activities to be accomplished with appropriate budget and personnel needs identified?

0 - There is no effective coordination of TIM activities and issues at managerial or administrative levels of partner organizations. TIM does not have any specific work plans or program "roadmaps" even at the agency level.

1- There is some program planning in TIM in individual agencies but no formal coordination of these activities among partner agencies.

2 - The issue of multi-agency TIM program planning has been raised and there are some organizational efforts underway to better coordinate budget and resource allocations for TIM by the partner agencies.

3 - Agencies have committed to a strategic planning process for coordination of activities and resource allocation. Cooperative activity is underway to bring this process to life, but the process is not fully formalized and underway. There is, however, a significant amount of high-level coordination among partner agencies to identify and plan and budget for TIM resources.

4 - High levels by a multi-agency strategic planning process that is reviewed on a regular basis and this process leads to a coordinated approach to identify and budget for needed resources by the partner agencies.

4.1.1.2 Have formal interagency agreements on operational and administrative procedures and policies?

0 - There are no "memoranda of understanding" (MOU), mutual-aid agreements or any other formal or informal agreements among similar (e.g. fire to fire or law enforcement to law enforcement) or disparate agencies (e.g. law enforcement to transportation).

1 - There are some mutual-aid agreements, most notably among similar public safety agencies in adjoining jurisdictions.

2 - There are informal (non-binding) agreements among a number of agencies to actively work toward better coordination at incident scenes and to improve communications and information sharing. While these agreements may work well, they are informal and therefore subject to change with a change in leadership of individual agencies.

3 - Informal agreements have an "institutional life" and are accepted in the operational culture of the various agencies. Some of these agreements have been formalized into signed MOUs or in formal TIM program structure.

4 - Agencies are bound operationally by formal agreements and program structures that ensure a high level of coordination and communication both at the management and operational levels. These close relationships, while formalized, are also widely accepted within the operational cultures of the various agencies.

4.1.1.3 Have field-level input into the plans ensuring that the plans will be workable by those responsible for their implementation?

Note - Agencies will have different operating cultures. This question should be scored on whether or not field-level input influences high-level policies that affect on-scene operations in general and not necessarily how one agency's culture impacts operations.

0 - Decisions leading to operational policies and procedures are heavily "top-down" and there is little chance for on-scene experience to filter up to effect changes in policy at high levels.

1 - There are some opportunities for field input to be accepted and studied for minor changes, but major policies and procedures are still rigidly in place and not subject to meaningful review.

2 - There are some procedures for examining agency policies and procedures based on field-level input and some changes have been made based on this input. The procedures for change are entirely internal, however, and input from other agencies is not usually well received or acted on.

3 - There is a process in place to examine and evaluate policies and procedures from field level or middle management personnel. Input usually comes from agency representatives on a working level multi-agency TIM "administrative" team. The process works well for making minor policy and procedure changes. Significant changes, even if supported by mid-level staff, are much more difficult to make because of agency culture and traditions and a perception that the recommended change is not important if it has originated outside the agency.

4 - There is a structured process for evaluating TIM policies and procedures based on input from multi-level working level teams. This process works well for making both minor and major changes in policies and procedures. High-level relationships among agencies are strong so that recommendations that are endorsed by mid-level managers are taken seriously and studied regardless of the original source of the recommendation. Changes that improve incident response and clearance and don't compromise an agency's legally prescribed functions are made.

Part 4.1.2 – Traffic Incident Management Administrative Teams

Does tour traffic incident management program...
4.1.2.1 Have formalized TIM multi-agency administrative teams to meet and discuss administrative policy issues?

0 - There is no team.

1 - Representatives of 2 or more agencies meet on an informal and ad hoc basis to discuss items of mutual interest. Follow-up activities are difficult to implement because of the lack of upper level interest or awareness.

2 - A team has been organized. Facilitation of the meetings is the responsibility of a staff level person in one agency but this activity is not well supported or given priority or adequate resources. The participation of agencies, particularly the public safety agencies, is not consistent. The perception of the value of the team is mixed.

3 - A team meets and representation from the various agencies on a fairly regular basis. Agency representatives are actively engaged in TIM activities in their organizations. The TIM meeting is facilitated either by a staff person in one of the agencies or by a consultant, but in either case the attention and resources given to support the team meetings is sustained and regarded as important.

4 - The team is the mechanism, under a formal TIM program, by which the goals and objectives of the multi-agency strategic plan are carried on at the working level of each agency. Meetings are well attended by representatives of a number of agencies. The team does meaningful work in implementing the TIM program and is highly valued by upper-level management of the participating agencies.

4.1.2.2 Hold regular meetings of the TIM administrative team?

0 - There is no team and, therefore, no meetings.

1 - Representatives of 2 or more agencies meet on an informal and ad hoc basis usually in response to some specific issue or problem.

2 - Even though the team has been organized, it meets on an irregular basis and meetings are frequently cancelled in deference to other "priorities. The frequency of the meetings may depend on waxing and waning enthusiasm of the participants or of the facilitating agency.

3 - A team meets on a fairly regular basis. They are regarded as sufficiently important that they are rarely cancelled without being rescheduled. Attendance of representatives from various member organizations is reliable and consistent.

4 - Team meetings are not only regular, they are regarded by attending organizational representatives as an important to the fulfillment their agency's TIM program responsibilities.

4.1.2.3 Conduct training through simulation or "in-field" exercises?

0 - There is no training done relative to traffic incident management practices.

1 - Training is done on various techniques and procedures for handling traffic incidents, but that training is internal within an agency.

2 - Some initial efforts have been made to do "cross-training" with other agencies specific to managing traffic incidents. This training is not regularly scheduled, however, and many agency "new hires" may never be exposed to it.

3 - The TIM team actively plans for and looks for opportunities to engage multiple agencies in traffic incident management training with field and “table top exercises and simulations.

4 - Coordinated multi-agency training on the handling of traffic incidents is a planned and supported part of the TIM program. Not only to response teams train together, but agencies engage representatives of partner agencies in their internal training efforts on TIM.

4.1.2.4 Conduct post-incident debriefings?

0 - No

1 - Individual agencies, particularly fire and rescue, conduct internal debriefings for their agencies.

2 - The need for multi-agency debriefings has been discussed but none have been held.

3 - Some multi-agency debriefings have been held following major incidents particularly those that have attracted media attention. There is no established regular process.

4 - There is an established process for regularly holding multi-agency post-incident debriefings. The findings of these debriefings are fed back into TIM program planning.

4.1.2.5 Conduct planning for "special events" - (a) construction and maintenance; (b) sporting events/concerts/conventions/etc.; (c) weather-related events; (d) catastrophic events?

0 - Planning for special events is the responsibility of the event promoter. Agencies are contacted as needed.

1 - Some minimal coordination and planning is done for larger-scale annual events, but this planning is not well-coordinated among affected agencies and organizations.

2 - Coordinated planning of major recurring events is done among a core group of organizations. It was (or may have been) the catalyst for forming the TIM team.

3 - The TIM team actively coordinates planning for major and minor special events as a matter of course. Event promoters are generally well acquainted with the planning and organizing process and the needs and requirements of the various agencies.

4 - Special event planning and coordination is an integral part of a formal TIM program. The process is well understood and works smoothly.

Part 4.1.3 - Performance Measurement

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.1.3.1 Have multi-agency agreements on what measures will be tracked and used to measure program performance?

0 - Performance relative to traffic incident management is not measured by anyone.

1 - Individual agencies measure their response time to traffic incidents, but there is no activity contemplated to measure program performance of multiple agencies working together.

2 - Electronic records of incidents exist both in traffic management databases and in CAD databases. However, they don't use comparable measures for the same incident and definitions don't match well. Interest has been expressed in compiling a larger view of incidents from records in these disparate databases, but this has been nearly impossible to do.

3 - Efforts are underway to identify specific measures in various databases that can be tracked or aligned to enable a more comprehensive evaluation of multi-agency program activities.

4 - The formal TIM program has defined specific measures program performance agreed to by partner agencies (as opposed to agency specific performance) that are tracked and evaluated to measure the programs success as well as areas needing improvement.

4.1.3.2 Have agreed upon methods to collect and analyze/track performance measures?

0 - Performance relative to traffic incident management is not measured by anyone.

1 - While individual agencies measure performance criteria important to them there is no effort or interest evident in coordinated multi-agency program performance measurement. Program goals, if they exist, are agency specific and therefore any performance measurement is also agency specific.

2 - Interest has been expressed in program performance measurement but inconsistent data definitions have made is an impossible task to do electronically. Individual agencies are reluctant to change or modify their performance measures or their electronic data definitions.

3 - Agreement has been reached on what should be measured, how it should be measured and by whom (resources identified to support the program performance measurement). Doing it is still problematical, but efforts are underway to identify ways to better align definitions of incident events so that electronic information from disparate databases can be fused to enable good performance measurement.

4 - The formal TIM program has defined specific measures program performance, as opposed to agency specific performance, that are tracked and evaluated to measure the programs success as well as areas needing improvement. Performance measurement is a supported program activity.

4.1.3.3 Have established targets for performance in: a) response and b) clearance?

0 - There are no target goals for response or clearance.

1 - Individual agencies, primarily public safety agencies have established response time criteria. Clearance goals are regarded as unimportant, controversial or threatening, or as implications that clearance takes precedence over responder safety. There are no clearance goals.

2 - There are no formal TIM program goals, but individual agencies understand the importance of setting them. They have been discussed but not adopted.

3 - Broad goals have been set but they are still somewhat controversial as is their measurement.

4 - Under the formal TIM program, specific multi-agency program goals for incident response and clearance have been set and agreement has been reached regarding the criteria used to evaluate the achievement of the goals. Goal establishment and measurement is no longer controversial.

4.1.3.4 Conduct periodic review of whether or not progress is being made to achieve targets?

0 - Since there are no target goals, there is no review of performance.

1 - Individual agencies measure and review their own target goals but this review is internal.

2 - There are no formal TIM program goals, but individual agencies are measuring and evaluating response and clearance times where they regard them as important to their agency's mission.

3 - Broad program goals for response and clearance have been set but since they are still somewhat controversial, their measurement and evaluation is not consistent or done on a regular basis.

4 - Under the formal TIM program, specific multi-agency program goals for incident response and clearance have been set and agreement has been reached regarding their assessment. Periodic evaluations of incident response and clearance times are program-based and are not viewed as threatening to individual agencies. The frequency of incidents that fall outside the goals for clearance are tracked and evaluation is done within the TIM program structure to identify possible problem areas. The establishment of goals has focused attention on the need to clear incident as quickly and safely as possible.

Section 2 - Operational Issues

Part 4.2.1 - Procedures for Major Incidents

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.2.1.1 Have established criteria for what is a "major incident" - incident levels or codes?

0 - No, this has never been discussed or it is thought not to be needed.

1 - Lack of clarity on the magnitude of the incident is a problem that has been discussed but no action has been taken to resolve it.

2 - Efforts are underway to develop an incident classification system that will easily convey to all response agencies the general magnitude of the incident that in turn might generally define its expected duration.

3 - An incident classification system is in "initial" use and testing and is being refined to reflect field experience and the understanding of the responding agencies.

4 - An incident classification system is used, well understood and has proven very helpful in the initial phases of the incident to convey general incident magnitude information to responding agencies.

4.2.1.2 Identify high ranking agency members available on 24/7 basis to respond to a major incident (Major Incident Response Team)?

0 - No. Response of lead agency persons depends on when and where the incident occurs and who’s on duty.

1 - The need for such a team has been discussed, but no significant action has been taken.

2 - Discussions are underway with key transportation and public safety agencies to develop a team or teams of supervisory-level persons to respond to major incidents on a "24/7" basis.

3 - A team (or teams) have been formed an initial results are good. The team members know and understand each other and work well together. There are still some problems with consistency of response on a 24/7 basis.

4 - Major Incident Response Teams are an integral and highly successful part of the TIM program. Response of the team members on a 24/7 basis is excellent and consistent and the teams work effectively to direct the quick and safe clearance of major incidents.

4.2.1.3 Have a pre-identified (approved) contact list of resources (including special equipment) for incident clearance and hazardous materials response?

0 - No.

1 - Some agencies have lists of resources, but there is no master list and the information is not shared among agencies.

2 - Discussions are underway with key transportation and public safety agencies to develop a list of resources but there is no master list yet available.

3 - A list of resources and contacts is available, but there are some "holes" in the list and some specialized equipment is hard to obtain on short notice. The list works but there are kinks to be ironed out.

4 - A comprehensive list of resources available from multiple sources exists and is used successfully. There are very few problems in getting whatever is needed when it is needed. Interagency cooperation on locating and obtaining needed resources is exceptional.

4.2.1.4 Have the response equipment pre-staged for timely response?

0 - No.

1 - Individual agencies have discussed pre-staging of resources to better meet their own needs but no action or coordinated discussion has taken place.

2 - Some equipment (e.g. traffic control) is pre-staged but its availability and functions are not widely understood or appreciated.

3 - There is an equipment pre-staging plan, especially for traffic control equipment and it use has been reasonably successful. There are still some problems in identifying what exactly is available, where it is and how to access it and bring it to the scene. These problems are been worked out.

4 - Pre-staged equipment, especially for traffic control, is available and information about its location, accessibility, and transport is widely available and widely understood by all partners. Procedures for getting it to the scene are also understood and work smoothly. Equipment needed is available when it is needed.

Part 4.2.2 – Responder and Motorist Safety

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.2.2.1 Train all responders in traffic control procedures?

0 - No. Traffic control, if done at all, is provided by whomever is available and they are not trained in god traffic control techniques.

1 - Transportation responders have some traffic control training, but their availability is problematical. Law enforcement also has some training, but traffic control is not consistent with the incident.

2 - Efforts are underway to develop training for all on-scene responders and to identify appropriate traffic control measures for various types of incidents.

3 - Training is available in traffic control, but not all response agencies take advantage of it.

4 - Training in traffic control is an essential piece of the TIM program. Agencies cooperatively have agreed to traffic control standards appropriate for specific agency types. Only persons who have been trained and certified in traffic control are authorized to perform the function at intermediate and major incident scenes.

4.2.2.2 Utilize on-scene traffic control procedures for various levels of incidents in compliance with MUTCD?

0 - No. Traffic control is done mostly by law enforcement and they don’t understand the MUTCD.

1 - Transportation agencies understand the requirements of the MUTCD but few others do.

2 - Discussions are underway about the MUTCD requirements and how all responders at traffic incidents should apply them. There is, however, no mechanism to train responders in traffic control so provision of good traffic control is inconsistent.

3 - Training is available in traffic control for agencies, and traffic control has improved, but the requirements are not fully understood by all response agencies and the application of traffic control is still inconsistent.

4 - Traffic control standards and practices for all ranges of incidents that are in full compliance with the MUTCD have been adopted and are used at all incidents. All persons providing traffic control are fully trained in these standards and practices.

4.2.2.3 Utilize traffic control procedures for the end of the incident traffic queue?

0 - No. Attention is directed to the incident site only.

1 - We understand that this is a problem, but we don’t have resources to do anything about it.

2 - Attempts to warn drivers are primarily through traffic information regarding incidents, but even that doesn't often mention how long the queue is.

3 - Attempts are made, especially with major incidents, to provide warning to drivers approaching the end of the traffic queue.

4 - Traffic queues are actively monitored as a part of incident traffic control and good advance warning is provided regarding the end of the traffic queue. The warning is adjusted as the queue grows or shrinks.

4.2.2.4 Have mutually understood equipment staging and emergency lighting procedures on-site to maximize traffic flow past an incident while providing responder safety?

0 - No. These issues are handled by the individual agencies.

1 - Some minor changes are being made by individual agencies but there is no coordinated action or discussion of these issues.

2 - There are ongoing discussions about emergency lighting policies and procedures related to traffic control and responder safety, but no significant policy changes have been implemented yet.

3 - Emergency lighting policies have been mutually adopted in the TIM program, but there is still some confusion and disagreement about their implementation.

4 - Emergency lighting policies have been mutually adopted in the TIM program. Agencies are trained in the policies and procedures and they are, for the most part, faithfully implemented on-scene.

Part 4.2.3 - Response and Clearance Policies and Procedures

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.2.3.1 Utilize the Incident Command System?

0 - There is little or no understanding of ICS other than with fire and rescue agencies. "who’s in charge" is an issue that occasionally arises and causes confusion and unclear direction at incident scenes.

1 - The issue of incident command has been discussed among public safety agencies, but its application at incident scenes, especially complex ones, is not fixed or accepted by all responders.

2 - The application of ICS is well understood by public safety responders even if there are some disagreements about its deployment. Breakdowns in command structure are rare. Unified Command is not understood in the same way by various agencies and is never used at highway incidents anyway.

3 - ICS is well understood by all public safety agencies and also understood by transportation and private sector responders. Criteria and procedures for establishing Unified Command have been discussed among all agencies. Unified Command is frequently employed at large incidents involving multiple response agencies, but agencies still seem to have different understandings of the incident chain of command and how it changes during an incident.

4 - The application of ICS is well understood by all responders. Unified Command is used at all major incidents with multiple responding agencies as a matter of policy. Major incidents run smoothly, at least from an incident command standpoint. Communication of information up and down the command chain works well.

4.2.3.2 Have specific policies and procedures for fatal accident investigation that also address maintenance of traffic flow?

0 - No. The investigation and preservation of evidence takes primacy and there is no consideration of traffic flow other than to secure the crash site.

1 - Law enforcement attempts to maintain traffic flow if possible, but this is of low priority. There is little or no coordination with other responding agencies.

2 - Discussions are underway among some of the responding agencies on how to more effectively accommodate traffic while investigating the crash.

3 - Law enforcement agencies have examined their crash investigation procedures and priorities in coordination with other agencies and accommodation of traffic now has a much higher priority during the crash investigation process.

4 - The safety and mobility impacts of lane and road closures is fully appreciated by responding partners. Accommodation of traffic has high priority and efforts are routinely undertaken to maximize traffic flow past or around the crash site while not jeopardizing the crash investigation.

4.2.3.3 Have specific policies and procedures for hazardous materials response that also address the maintenance of traffic flow?

0 - No. The handling of hazmat and the safety of the responders takes primacy and there is no consideration of traffic flow other than to secure the crash site.

1 - Traffic flow is maintained if possible, but this is of low priority. There is little or no coordination with other responding agencies. Clean up of engine fluids (diesel fuel from saddle tanks, gasoline, crankcase oil, anti-freeze, etc.) is treated as a hazmat response.

2 - Discussions are underway among some of the responding agencies on how to safely speed hazmat clean up and also more effectively accommodate traffic during the incident. Discussions about handling of engine fluid spills are underway to allow faster handling and cleanup.

3 - Hazardous materials contracts have been reviewed or renegotiated in order to provide more rapid response to hazmat incidents and more effective clean up. Accommodation of traffic now has a much higher priority. An engine fluids clean policy is in development or has recently been adopted.

4 - The response to hazardous materials incidents is swift and efficient and the clean up is handled expeditiously while providing on-site safety to responders, travelers and nearby residents and businesses. Accommodation of traffic is given high priority. Clean up of spilled engine fluids is done routinely, quickly and without incident.

4.2.3.4 Have quick clearance policies for major and minor incidents?

0 - No. These issues are handled by the individual agencies.

1 - A "Move It" law has been discussed. The DOT has shown some interest in more aggressive clearance of spilled non-hazardous loads. No actions have been taken.

2 - A "Move It" law is being drafted. Discussions are underway about how to effectively clear spilled loads and heavily damaged vehicles. Liability is a significant issue.

3 - "Move It" is now law, but it is not widely understood by motorists. There is agreement among transportation, law enforcement and towing and recovery specialists on policies and procedures for quickly clearing heavily damaged vehicles and spilled non-hazardous cargoes. There are some implementation problems, however, and while most smaller incidents are cleared quickly,,larger incidents still present problems.

4 - Minor incidents are cleared quickly. Motorists understand and obey the "move It" law. Major incidents involving heavily damaged vehicles including trucks and their spilled non-hazardous cargoes are cleared quickly. Relationships with towers and recovery specialists is very good.

4.2.3.5 Have a pre-qualified list of available and contracted towing and recovery operators (to include operators' capabilities)?

0 - No. Sometimes it's a "free-for-all".

1 - Law enforcement has a rotation list, but qualifications for being on the list are not very strict and there is not differentiation on the list between small, medium or heavy duty towing and heavy recovery.

2 - The rotation list is differentiated into towing and recovery classes and minimum qualifications exist for being on the list in each class.

3 - Towing arrangements are being enhanced to include more specific requirements or contract provisions that include levels of training, certification and equipment.

4 - Acquisition of towing and recovery services is achieved through in-place rotational or towing contracts that assure these services are provided by towing and recovery specialists trained and certified for the type of service needed and using the correct equipment.

4.2.3.6 Use motorist assist service patrols?

0 - No.

1 - Some limited private sector services are available.

2 - Limited services are provided primary on long holiday weekends.

3 - Operational service patrol exists, not yet 24/7, but for greater than 8 hours per day (weekdays).

4 - Full service patrol (24/7) operates within a TIM program with full communications with appropriate transportation and public safety agencies.

Communication and Technology Issues

Part 4.3.1 - Integrated Interagency Communications

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.3.1.1. Have a two-way interagency voice communications system allowing for direct on-site communications between incident responders?

0 - Voice communication other than face-to-face is difficult due to incompatible radio frequencies.

1 - Voice communication with other agencies is difficult but cell phones help.

2 - Activity is underway to establish emergency frequencies available to all agencies, but the radio systems make full participation of all agencies difficult.

3 - Activity is underway to integrate emergency communication by all agencies through trunked radio systems and/or enhanced cellular telephone communications equipment and procedures.

4 - Voice communications among responders of other agencies is reliable and works well due to integration of radio systems, trunked radio systems, cellular telephone communications, walkie-talkies, etc. and a communications discipline is followed.

4.3.1.2. Provide data and video information transfer between agencies and applications (TMC-CAD integration)?

0 - There is no exchange of data or video information.

1 - Some video is sent from the Transportation Management Center (TMC) to law enforcement.

2 - Some public safety agencies can exchange information among their CAD systems but transportation agencies are not linked.

3 - Efforts are underway to integrate CAD-TMC data systems, but two-way data flow is not yet possible. Some CAD information can be sent to CAD terminals in the TMC or directly to TMC databases, but no return flow is possible.

4 - Data and video information is exchanged among transportation and public safety agencies according to mutually agreed to procedures, exchanging information among agencies needed to manage and coordinate incident response.

Part 4.3.2 - Transportation Management Systems

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.3.2.1 Use Traffic Management Center(s) to coordinate incident notification and response?

0 - There is no TMC.

1 - A TMC exists but it coordinates information only within transportation.

2 - Public safety agencies are investigating the possible uses of TMC facilities.

3 - Some public safety personnel are co-located in the TMC to coordinate their agency's response using TMC capabilities and facilities.

4 - The TMC serves as a focal point for the two-way flow of information needed to coordinate incident response and status as well as a source of incident information to the public. Public safety dispatch for traffic incidents is done from the TMC using TMC facilities to gather information.

4.3.2.2 Have a developed technical infrastructure for surveillance and rapid detection of traffic incidents?

0 - Incident detection is primarily through emergency cell phone (911) calls. There is no surveillance system.

1 - A TMC exists and uses an incident detection algorithm to detect incidents on that portion of the system under surveillance. Communications with law enforcement are minimal and informal. Detection of minor incidents is nearly impossible.

2 - DOT uses multiple sources (electronic surveillance and service patrols) and this information is exchanged with law enforcement (or public safety dispatch). On major incidents law enforcement (or public safety dispatch) provides a "heads up" call to DOT. Minor incidents are detected largely by patrols if at all.

3 - Surveillance system exists and nearly all of the freeway mileage and information is exchanged regularly (primary through voice) between transportation and law enforcement (or public safety dispatch).

4 - Nearly all freeway mileage and a significant portion of the arterial street mileage is under some form of electronic surveillance. Automated and voice information about incidents and their effects are regularly exchanged. Private sector traveler information and media sources are also incorporated.

4.3.2.3 Have specific policies and procedures for traffic management during incident response (i.e. signal timing changes, opening/closing of HOV lanes/ramp metering)?

0 - No, this isn't done.

1 - Transportation agencies can change signal timing to respond to incidents, but little else is done to manage traffic.

2 - Exploring ways of merging (fusing) data from different sources for incident status and tracking and for performance measurement

3 - Some limited ability exists to merge information. Wider scale data merging is in development.

4 - Data is merged (fused) from different sources for incident status and tracking and for performance measurement.

Part 4.3.3 - Traveler Information

Does your traffic incident management program...
4.3.3.1 Have the ability to merge/integrate and interpret information from multiple sources?

0 - No.

1 - This ability exists only within each agency.

2 - Exploring ways of merging (fusing) data from different sources for incident status and tracking and for performance measurement.

3 - Some limited ability exists to merge information. Wider scale data merging is in development.

4 - Data is merged (fused) from different sources for incident status and tracking and for performance measurement.

4.3.3.2 Have a real-time motorist information system providing incident-specific information?

0 - No.

1 - DOT and others are interested, but infrastructure doesn't exist to explore this in more detail.

2 - Discussions are underway (also in context of ITS Regional Architecture) to see how this might be done with existing and planned infrastructure and as part of a 511 Traveler Information system.

3 - In development, but not yet available. Private sector media sometimes provides fairly specific information about the magnitude and extent of an incident.

4 - Real-time motorist information system is available. Incident specific information is offered through public and private sources and on the 511 Traveler Information system.

4.3.3.3 Provide motorists with travel time estimates for route segments?

0 - No.

1 - DOT and others are interested, but infrastructure doesn't exist to explore this in more detail.

2 - Discussions are underway (also in context of ITS Regional Architecture) to see how this might be done with existing and planned infrastructure.

3 - In development, but not yet available. Private sector media sometimes attempt to make estimates.

4 - Travel time estimates are provided by highway signs and by private traveler information services.