Office of Operations
21st Century Operations Using 21st Century Technologies
Contents >> 4.0  BARRIERS TO INFORMATION SHARING

INFORMATION SHARING FOR TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT

4.0 BARRIERS TO INFORMATION SHARING

While information sharing is generally accepted by incident responders as a positive and desirable practice, a number of barriers exist to effective information exchange. The foundation to overcome any such barriers is organizations’ willingness and dedication to work cooperatively with one another. While information sharing practices used in one area may not necessarily be successfully adopted by another jurisdiction because of location-specific constraints, formal frameworks for response activities and close working relationships at all organizational levels increase the opportunities for effective and efficient information sharing.

Administrative/Institutional Barriers

Information sharing is most effective when it is supported by strong administrative and institutional foundations at multiple levels. Transportation and public safety agencies have a mutual interest and common goal in resolving traffic incidents quickly: maximizing the safety of responders and motorists. Partner agencies that have successful information exchanges use formal agreements (typically memoranda of understanding/agreement [MOU/MOA]) to detail responsibilities and accountability structures. These documents can range from statements of support and cooperation to commitments of agency funds to achieve traffic incident management (TIM) goals and objectives.

Another aspect of information sharing that must be considered is how public records laws relate to information regarding traffic incidents. States have public records laws that range from varying degrees of restriction to completely transparent, and agencies must be careful to meet the intent of these laws. With the advent of technologies that allow real-time transmission of traffic data and incident response information, laws, policies, and procedures have not necessarily addressed at what point in time the information may be made public: during the response/investigation or after the event? As to the information itself, limitations to information sharing (privileged versus non-sensitive) must be considered; there may be differences between what may be shared between agencies for effective response and what can be shared with the public. And does the information availability change as the investigation proceeds from open to closed? Additionally, shared information must preserve the dignity of the deceased in a way that transmits incident information without sensationalizing information being shared with public. Another area that has not been well documented is the recording and retention of internally captured (via a closed-circuit television [CCTV] camera system) video images; most agencies tend to avoid video retention because of storage and liability issues. This is an area that continues to evolve without a consistent pattern of execution outside a consensus to not record video images.

Operational Barriers

Successful TIM information sharing often begins through strong personal relationships between response stakeholders at various levels within the organizations. These key staff can find innovative ways to overcome barriers and develop effective operational procedures that support incident response activities. Trust between these stakeholders is critical, since their actions and attitudes provide incentive for others to participate actively.

More formally, co-location and pooling of resources can support improved information exchange. Proximity allows responders to understand the information they receive, how it is best used and shared, and how decisions are made. There are inter-agency language barriers where specialized terms may not be understood by other professions; using clear speech and a common set of terms is helpful. Cross training and joint operations are two means by which staff from different agencies can learn to communicate more effectively.

Technological Barriers

The ability to communicate and share information across various media, particularly when technological updates outstrip agencies’ ability to keep pace with changes, is critical for effective traffic incident management. Communications media are not always interoperable, or costs to allow information sharing may be prohibitive. By sharing proprietary communications or data systems, relying on commercial communications services, and finding ways to build communications linkages, successful TIM response agencies have found ways to overcome technological barriers. Technological barriers have often been overcome by addressing administrative/institutional and operational issues rather than by solely trying to keep up with technology changes.

Some specific technological barriers include

  • Inability to communicate across a common platform
  • Communications equipment not available in emergency response vehicles
  • Communications mechanisms not available during non-office hours
  • Proprietary communications systems
  • Insufficient redundancy for some communications systems, making them vulnerable to loss of functionality
  • Insufficient training, coordination, and planning between agencies to establish usage parameters

Sample Solutions to Administrative, Operational, and Technological Barriers

A solution to one type of information sharing barrier can resolve another. The representative examples below cross over from one type of barrier to another with the result being a best-practice type example of information sharing.

Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT)/Washington State Police (WSP)

In Washington, the WDOT and WSP have developed a joint operations policy statement (JOPS). 23 This working agreement describes both agencies’ missions and organizational alignment and then goes on to state their intent to share information needed to facilitate joint highway operations. Examples of information sharing include:

  • CAD access and user training
  • Real-time traffic flow, road, collision, and weather information
  • Video from traffic monitoring cameras
  • Video road inventories
  • Speed data
  • Geo-spatial data, including interchange drawings

WSP and WSDOT have created a standard for data sharing that addresses:

  • Data content and formatting
  • Data documentation and meta-data
  • Data collection and update methods and procedures
  • Data accuracy
  • Data update cycles
  • Third party data
  • Stewardship
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Four

Another example of a commitment to share data and resources is FDOT District Four’s MOU 29 that provides the initial framework and guidelines to promote collaborative efforts between TIM team members for decision making and information sharing in efforts for TIM planning, design, deployment, operations, funding, and evaluation. Team members consist of transportation and public safety personnel as well as private sector partners. This team’s vision is to develop an institutionally integrated, fully cooperative association of public agency and private industry TIM stakeholders to improve the safety and reliability of the transportation system. Agencies that have agreed to the terms of this MOU include:

  • FDOT District 4, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, and FDOT Motor Carrier Compliance Division
  • Florida Highway Patrol
  • County Sheriff Departments
  • Local Police Departments
  • County and Local Fire Departments
  • Local and County Traffic Engineering Departments
  • County Departments of Environmental Protection
  • County Metropolitan Planning Organizations
  • County Medical Examiner Departments
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)/Utah Department of Public Safety (UDPS) 14

While the UDOT/UDPS-led team had a history of working together, when they worked to integrate their CAD-TMC system, they encountered a varied set of challenges:

  • Consensus about type and amount of information available for sharing
  • Fully engaging participants at all levels to maintain communication flows and staff involvement
  • Minimizing impacts on agency business practices
  • Inconsistent data sets and emergent data standards
  • Different legacy systems
  • Staff workload concerns
  • Reluctance to change to an automated system

Team cooperation was vital to the project’s success, and this was built on strong existing relationships between agency partners. While the agencies had different areas of focus (scene management versus traffic control), understanding each other’s needs, roles, and motivations as well as committing to support at all levels and use of project standards helped to successfully navigate these various challenges.