INFORMATION SHARING FOR TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

Information Collection

When a traffic incident occurs, it must be detected and verified before any response activities can begin; incident details are needed for effective, efficient response and management of traffic. This information can be collected by on scene personnel, ITS information detection field devices, or a combination of these elements. It must then be shared between agencies that handle various components of the response. This type of information exchange does not always occur easily; information collected may go back to a TMC or public safety/law enforcement dispatch center that is not integrated or does not allow for other forms of information exchange. No matter which means is used to collect the information; it must be shared across jurisdictions and organizations in order to realize improvements in overall safety and operations.

CAD and ATMS

CAD systems are used to track incident information with a focus on managing public safety or law enforcement responses. Many existing CAD systems are proprietary and do not easily share information with systems with different interfaces. Between themselves, CAD systems often work in independent frameworks with inconsistent standards and formats. Most major metropolitan areas in the United States (U.S.) have some type of ATMS to manage their transportation operations and incident response from some type of centralized TMC. They tend to use different data, message formats, and standards in their ATMS, further complicating integration efforts with law-enforcement CAD systems.

There is widespread agreement that these two types of information should be shared, but exactly how this is to be done is not always clear. For example, there are concerns about the type and amount of data potentially exchanged between agencies. Some CAD information is sensitive and, if inappropriately released, could compromise law enforcement activities. There are concerns about overwhelming incident response partners with too much information. However, these challenges have been successfully overcome when institutional and technical challenges were met and operational procedures amended to make best use of this newly shared information. These results are realized in two recent Field Operational Tests (FOT) performed in the states of Utah and Washington.

State of Utah

Utah’s integrated CAD-TMC system was intended to include the following elements:

Create common message sets
Support inter-agency service requests via data specification sets (DSS)
Select commonly used operating system and language
Develop legacy system interfaces between state, county, and municipal government systems
Integrate transit
Develop event tracking to manage and update planned events

While the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) staffs were previously co-located, integration of the systems eliminated the need for operators of either agency to observe multiple computer terminals. The result of this inter-agency cooperation has enhanced field operations and real-time information exchange from the earliest notification of an incident through its eventual resolution. Field device information from cameras, loop detectors, and other ITS applications were available to all staffs and provided more accurate and reliable incident location data. Incidents were documented more efficiently and with better data. Staffs from different agencies were able to work together more effectively because they were receiving and responding to the same information. They were able to achieve much improved inter-agency working relationships, both during the management of an incident and during non-incident planning/debriefing sessions.

A system performance study was designed to describe the FOT environment in a way that could transfer the CAD-TMC integration concept to other locations, identify system performance measures to comparative results, identify limitations in the deployed system, and identify other factors affecting the system’s performance. Key to this FOT’s success is that the State of Utah had a well-established incident response program prior to the information exchange enhancements. Results of the CAD-TMC FOT from the Final Evaluation Report are given in Table 2.

Table 2. System Performance Test Results Summary 14

Evaluation Objective	Hypothesis	Test Results
Objective #1: Document the system component performance.	The system meets functional specifications.	Achieved.
	The CAD and TMC systems will be able to link data on an incident.	Achieved.
	Using the system improved incident response procedures.	To a significant extent, achieved through prior projects. Project specific impact not measurable.
Objective #2: Automate the seamless transfer of information between traffic management workstations and police, fire, and EMS CAD systems from different vendors.	The system meets functional specifications.	Achieved.
	The FOTs will decrease the reliance on manual methods for exchanging information.	Preliminary result - achieved.
	The FOTs will increase the extent and reliability of information exchanges.	Preliminary result - achieved.
Objective #3: Extend the level of integration to include secondary responders such as utilities, towing and recovery, public works, and highway maintenance personnel.	Improved integration of secondary responders will reduce incident recovery time by getting required recovery personnel to the incident site as quickly as possible to begin recovery operations.	Secondary responders (ambulance, utilities, etc.) were not included in the project.

The CAD-TMC FOT also looks at whether or not the integration improved efficiency and productivity of incident response, reduced delays and improved mobility, enhanced incident-specific response plans, improved responder safety and reduced secondary crashes, and improved incident information for travelers. System impact test results from the CAD-TMC FOT are given in Table 3.

Table 3. System Impact Test Results Summary 14

Evaluation Objective	Hypothesis	Test Results
Objective #1: Productivity –To determine if the CAD-TMC integration improves the efficiency and productivity of incident response.	CAD-TMC integration enhances communications among responders.	Achieved - Key issue to be addressed is that of refining information exchange to meet agency specific requirements.
	CAD-TMC integration improves efficiency of on-scene operations.	Not measured during the evaluation.
	CAD-TMC integration enhances efficiency in documenting incident management.	Achieved.
	CAD-TMC integration reduces incident clearance times.	Not measured during the evaluation.
Objective #2: Mobility - To determine if the CAD-TMC integration improves mobility and reduces delays during incidents.	CAD-TMC integration enhances mobility during incident management (IM) activities.	No impact measured during the evaluation.
Objective #3: Capacity/ Throughput -To determine if CAD-TMC integration enhanced incident-specific traffic management plans.	CAD-TMC integration enhances incident-specific traffic management plans.	Not measured during the evaluation.
Objective #4: Safety - CAD-TMC integration will reduce exposure of response personnel and secondary crashes during incident response activities.	CAD-TMC increases safety for response personnel.	Not measured during the evaluation.
	CAD-TMC increases safety to the traveling public.	Not measured during the evaluation.
Objective #5: Traveler Information - To determine if CAD-TMC integration will improve incident management information available to travelers.	CAD-TMC integration enhances customer satisfaction and mobility during incident management activities by improving traveler information.	Qualitative assessment: Improved ability to post incident information for public access via 511, Web site.
UTA Objective: To determine if the integration of the UTA CAD system improves UTA’s ability to respond to incidents.	The CAD-TMC integration will enable UTA to more effectively implement reroute decisions in response to an incident.	CAD-TMC integration provided real-time information on unplanned incidents and complemented existing UTA incident management procedures. Additional benefit from system is information provided on planned incidents, such as road closures and/or construction activities.

State of Washington 13

The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) resources have had tremendous value in incident response and, therefore, a strong relationship exists between WSDOT and the Washington State Police (WSP). A Joint Operations Policy Statement (JOPS) encourages WSP CAD dispatchers and WSDOT TMC operators to exchange incident information and share response data. Prior to the FOT, WSP would begin the process to share information since emergency calls are received by their dispatch center, making it the primary incident information source. WSDOT TMC operators would sometimes note incident information from ITS field devices and record it in their Condition Acquisition and Reporting System (CARS). In either situation, information was typically shared between agencies verbally via telephone or radio or by monitoring read-only remote data terminals. While effective, these methods were time and labor intensive. The FOT was done in conjunction with the implementation of a new WSP CAD system with a common platform for all dispatchers and an improved ability to capture and record incident data.

Washington’s integrated CAD-TMC system has three primary elements:

PRIMARYALERT CAD Interface to filter data from WSP CAD and push it to WSDOT CARS, intended to be seamless and automatic through software code, filtering non-traffic information, and facilitating data sharing
RESPONSE SUPPORT Web Interface to provide WSDOT traffic information to WSP CAD dispatchers to facilitate response efforts, such as traffic, construction, or other activities that could impact emergency response
SECONDARY ALERT CAD Interface to push WSP CAD information to secondary responders such as local emergency medical service (EMS) providers, tow truck dispatchers, and local utility companies

Information exchange was based on use of the latest ITS and internet industry standards using open hardware and software platforms, institutional agreements based on agency operating requirements, and use of commercial, off-the-shelf technology and standard data exchange mechanisms.

A system performance study was design to describe the FOT environment in a way that could transfer the CAD-TMC integration concept to other locations, identify system performance measures to comparative results, identify limitations in the deployed system, and identify other factors affecting the system’s performance. Key to this FOT’s success is the strong existing relationship between WSDOT and WSP, leading to a well-established incident response program prior to the information exchange enhancements. Results of the CAD-TMC FOT from the Final Evaluation Report are given in Table 4.

Table 4. System Performance Test Results Summary 13

Evaluation Objective	Hypothesis	Test Results
Objective #1: Document the system component performance.	The system meets functional specifications.	Achieved.
	The CAD and TMC systems will be able to link data on an incident.	Achieved.
	Using the system improved incident response procedures.	To a significant extent, achieved through prior projects. Project-specific impact not measurable.
Objective #2: Automate the seamless transfer of information between traffic management workstations and police, and EMS CAD systems from different vendors.	The system meets functional specifications.	Achieved.
	The FOTs will decrease the reliance on manual methods for exchanging information.	Achieved previously through placement of CAD terminals at TMCs. Enhanced through project.
	The FOTs will increase the extent and reliability of information exchanges.	Preliminary result - achieved.
Objective #3: Extend the level of integration to include secondary responders such as utilities, towing and recovery, public works, and highway maintenance personnel.	Improved integration of secondary responders will reduce incident recovery time by getting required recovery personnel to the incident site as quickly as possible to begin recovery operations.	Not achieved during the evaluation period.

Table 5. System Impact Test Results Summary 13

Evaluation Objective	Hypothesis	Test Results
Objective #1: Productivity - To determine if the CAD-TMC integration improves the efficiency and productivity of incident response.	CAD-TMC integration enhances communications among responders.	Achieved with WSDOT and WSP.
	CAD-TMC integration improves efficiency of on-scene operations	Not measured during the evaluation.
	CAD-TMC integration enhances efficiency in documenting incident management.	Partially achieved; further reductions will enhance results.
	CAD-TMC integration reduces incident clearance times.	Not measured during the evaluation.
Objective #2: Mobility - To determine if the CAD-TMC integration improves mobility and reduces delays during incidents.	CAD-TMC integration enhances mobility during incident management activities.	No impact measured during the evaluation.
Objective #3: Capacity/ Throughput - To determine if CAD-TMC integration enhanced incident-specific traffic management plans	CAD-TMC integration enhances incident-specific traffic management plans.	Not measured during the evaluation.
Objective #4: Safety - CAD-TMC integration will reduce exposure of response personnel and secondary crashes during incident response activities.	CAD-TMC increases safety for response personnel.	Not measured during the evaluation.
	CAD-TMC increases safety to the traveling public.	Not measured during the evaluation.
Objective #5: Traveler Information - To determine if CAD-TMC integration will improve incident management information available to travelers.	CAD-TMC integration enhances customer satisfaction and mobility during incident management activities by improving traveler information.	Not directly measured. Increased number of incidents posted to traveler information systems indicates improved flow of information to public.

Improving Information Dissemination Between Incident Responders

Improving the level of coordination and collaboration between incident responders helps to reduce the impact of incidents. Better information dissemination can facilitate this coordination and collaboration. Table 6, adapted from the Safe, Quick Clearance TIM in Construction and Maintenance Work Zones Primer17, provides several strategies and techniques that have been used to assist with information dissemination about incident response policies, procedures, and guidelines between incident responders.

Table 6. Strategies and Techniques for Information Disseminations Between Responders 17

Strategies and Techniques	Description	Pros	Cons
Incident Response Manual	This strategy involves developing an incident response manual that collects all the policies, procedures, and guidelines for managing incidents.	All information needed by incident responders Contains contact information for responders in different response agencies	May be difficult to keep contact information up-to-date
Communication Protocols / Frequency List	This strategy involves developing a listing of predetermined radio frequency assignments that incident responders can use to communicate with each other on scene.	Provides a quick reference of all radio frequencies for responders	May be difficult to keep contact information up-to-date
Identification Vests	This strategy involves adopting the use of identification vests to be used by incident command and emergency personnel.	Makes it easier for late arrivals to identify individuals in charge at incident scene Can be used to limit access by individuals within certain perimeter areas Vests that follow National Incident Management System Incident Command Structure (ICS) can be purchased from private vendors	Multiple vests may be required for same agency to accommodate shifts
Personnel Resource List	This strategy involves developing a comprehensive contact list of response personnel.	Provides a quick reference for notifying responders Usually part of incident response manual	May be difficult to keep up-to-date
Incident Management Reviews / Debriefings	This strategy involves establishing regular meetings between incident responders to review and discuss coordination and tactical issues associated with responding to incidents.	Many locations already have a process for doing incident reviews/debriefings Allows agencies to discuss issues that affected response Allows agencies to collaborate on modifications to improve responses Facilitates dialogue between responders	Some responders may view this as a personal attack on performance May be difficult to get all field personnel together at same time because of shifts
Media Packets	This strategy involves developing packets that can be distributed to media to disseminate information during incidents.	May include contact information for agency public information officer Contains maps showing staging areas, detour routes, etc.	Information may not be relevant for all incident conditions Strategy valid for major incidents only

Previous | Table of Contents | Next