2. Integration for Emergencies

2.1 Overview

In a transportation management setting, emergency integration relates to the ability to supply information and control transportation assets to prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency.

In a transportation management setting, emergency integration supports a TMC’s capability to supply information and control transportation assets as needed to prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency.  In order to fully discharge their responsibilities in emergency situations, emergency management agencies require support in a variety of functions.  The National Response Plan [8] designates transportation as Emergency Support Function #1.  This designation recognizes the critical importance of transportation in an emergency situation.  Emergency situations include damage to the transportation infrastructure, demand for transport of a population away from a threatened or dangerous location, and the need to provide access for emergency responders to a location.  All of these situations may apply in a single event.  In most instances transportation in an emergency setting is a derived demand, meaning that the demand for transportation is based on the need for a change in location of people and material.  In fact, transportation for recreational purposes in emergencies is routinely discouraged and frequently prohibited by civil authorities.

In characterizing emergency integration, the study team drew a distinction between two different types of emergencies:

• Localized emergency.  Typically localized emergencies impact the transportation system and a limited number of people or amount of property in a specific location.  TMCs address these emergencies using resources under their control or resources with which they routinely interact.  For example, a car fire that closes a single freeway lane is an emergency situation for the occupants of the car, but the impact is limited to the immediate vicinity of the fire and transportation staff members interact with fire, police, and possibly rescue squad staff members in a manner that is repeated on a nearly daily basis.  The upper bound of such a localized emergency would be the closure of an interchange blocking two or more routes (all lanes) due to an emergency situation such as a hazardous materials incident.
• Disaster emergency.  A disaster situation, usually involving activation of a regional EOC by the Office of Emergency Management (regional or state) involves extensive regional damage and threatened substantial loss of life.  Regional governments address these situations by activation of a regional Emergency Operations Center (EOC) that houses representatives from many governmental agencies as well as non-governmental organizations.  The EOC is operated under the coordination of an Office of Emergency Management or Emergency Management Agency (regional or state).  Many of the TMCs included in this study have a command center or Transportation Emergency Operations Center (TEOC) to coordinate transportation responses separately from the regional EOC.  The TEOC is dedicated to transportation issues and is located within the TMC or at a separate facility.  The TEOCs are equipped with facilities beyond typical TMC capabilities and host DOT staff to handle widespread emergencies.  Disasters would be expected to have a greater impact than just a localized disruption of the transportation system.

While the focus of this study is on disaster-level emergencies, a majority of the experiences of TMCs and therefore the basis for integration at the working level relate to the management of localized emergencies.

For the purposes of this study, the study team developed a scale of integration for each dimension discussed in Section 1.2.2.  Table 1 provides a description of levels zero to three for each dimension.  In the physical dimension, the descriptions are different for localized emergencies and disaster situations.  The descriptions are slightly revised from those used during the baseline analysis to fully reflect the most current thinking of the study team and to be consistent with the concepts and methods in Tables 5, 6, and 7.  The 0 to 5 scale will build on this by adding two additional levels to provide for more advanced forms of integration and the evolution of potential future integration concepts and methods.

Table 1.  Emergency Integration Measurement Scale: Dimensions and Levels.

The subsequent subsections related to emergency integration present analysis of the study findings and offer recommendations for improvements in current integration concepts as well as concepts not currently in use that have potential to improve integration and thereby performance in emergency situations.

2.2  State of the Practice

The study team examined some of the leading practitioners of emergency transportation operations.  The systems and processes in use by the practitioners are the result of custom engineering work based on the vision of leaders in the context of their state or region.  In conjunction with the custom engineering work, extensive institutional work was required to facilitate coordination of agency management and staff in the approval, funding, and joint use of the tools implemented.

2.2.1.  Concepts and Methods

The implicit concept implemented by all current practices is one of intercenter coordination to allow operational control center and dispatch groups from multiple agencies to coordinate response to the greatest extent possible using information available from the cooperating agencies as well as outside sources such as contract weather services and the media.  Managers, dispatchers, and operational staff with remote devices use a number of techniques to exchange information on the current situation and in some cases coordinate deployment of field resources using the expertise of their management and most experienced staff members.  Although the concept is to coordinate control centers, in some cases the control centers are collocated in a combined facility.

A common characteristic among all sites studied is that the EOC needs situational awareness of both the demand on the transportation system and the available supply of transportation service (roadway infrastructure and vehicle fleet).  This need can be satisfied by voice communication between a transportation manager and a liaison at the EOC, but is more adequately accomplished through a system connection between the TMC and the EOC with video and traffic surveillance data being transmitted to the EOC.  To adequately satisfy the need for transmitting situational awareness, communication from the TMC to the EOC must be highly reliable and continuously active.  A high bandwidth flow of electronic data is desirable.

The information flow from the EOC to the TMC consists primarily of decisions made by the EOC that either impact the operation of the TMC or must be implemented by assets controlled from the TMC.  The needed communication can be performed by voice, with no significant advantage to system interconnection.  The needed characteristic for the information flow channel from the EOC to the TMC is reliability, with increased availability and bandwidth having little advantage.

The most significant assets for emergency operations that are controlled by a TMC include Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras, freeway service patrols, state maintenance fleets, variable message signs, highway advisory radio transmitters, 511 traveler information systems, and web sites.  Traffic signals, which are the most common traffic control device and potentially the most beneficial, are controlled by local jurisdictions, which typically have limited access to the emergency operations resources.  Media can be significant assets both for informing the public of valuable information collected by the TMC and for gaining information useful to the TMC.

TMCs participate in operational processes activated in emergency situations.  Reversible lanes are frequently controlled from TMCs, with most reversible lanes found on HOV facilities, surface streets, bridges, and tunnels.  Contraflow operations are more unusual than reversible lanes and rarely have related infrastructure that is controllable from the TMC, with implementation of contraflow operations requiring coordination with decision-makers outside of TMC staff and support from law enforcement.  In both sites visited that have contraflow plans in place, the Governor makes the decision to initiate contraflow operations, with input from the upper management of state law enforcement, state emergency management, and the state DOT.

2.2.2.  Current Practices

The centers interviewed for this study represent some of the leading centers in terms of integration and operations.  Many of the procedures and systems in use were developed independently for the centers.  The current practices display similarities based primarily on the common functions to be performed.  The current practices also display a variety of approaches to solving common problems and performing common functions.

Each of the 10 TMCs that were site visited shared certain characteristics related to emergencies.  These TMCs:

• were related to an EOC, TEOC, or both to support emergency operations beyond localized emergencies;
• supported one or more regional EOCs;
• could continue operations at some level in case of infrastructure outages including power and telephone; and,
• provided facility for each agency (DOT as well as others with routine presence on the operations floor) to continue operations during an emergency without relocating their operational staff.

The TMCs also displayed significant differences in how they addressed emergencies.  While each TMC was related to an emergency facility, the nature and extent of the physical integration of the TMC and EOC varied widely.  These TMCs were:

• located in the same building;
• located on the same campus, with shared data and video networks;
• located remotely with private data networks; and,
• located remotely with data accessible via public infrastructure.

Table 2 describes the best practices, including locations where the practices were observed and a brief description of how the practices were implemented.

Table 2.  Observed Best Practices for Emergency Integration.

Relative to data exchange (technical integration), the range of connectivity between the TMC and EOC included:

• shared local area data and video networks;
• shared private wide area network using Ethernet technology and video encoding; and,
• commercial data access from publicly available providers such as Internet service providers and telephone service to analog modems.

Relative to directness of coordination with the EOC (a component of institutional integration), three models have been implemented:

• TMC communicates with a TEOC staffed with only DOT personnel, which in turn coordinates with one or more multi-agency EOC(s);
• TMC communicates with a single multi-agency EOC staffed with personnel from the DOT and a variety of other agencies from throughout the region; and,
• TMC communicates with several multi-agency EOCs staffed with personnel from the DOT and a variety of agencies from a single jurisdiction.

Relative to continuity of operations, all TMCs could continue operations at some level with loss of public infrastructure, including power, communication, and water services.  The range of remaining capabilities included:

• ability to continue for several days with food, water, sleeping quarters, showers, power, and air filtration resources located at the TMC;
• backup power only with no other accommodations for extended staff operations;
• communication with a subset of field devices over a survivable data network; and,
• dependence on the public infrastructure for operation of devices outside of the facility.

By using best practices and existing resources, the state of the practice in TMC emergency integration can be significantly improved.  In the judgment of the study team, five of the seven practices were highly relevant for both local emergencies and regional emergencies.  Table 3 lists the identified best practices along with an assessment of their relevance to localized and regional emergencies.

Table 3.  Local/Regional Relevance of Integration Best Practices.

The placement of TMC workstations in other centers allows management, dispatch, and operations to fully access TMC resources, even when the systems of the centers do not exchange data.  Placing workstations in cooperating centers can be accomplished with less cost than modifying software to perform center-to-center data exchange, while retaining system security by using current-generation security approaches and TMC system accounts with limited privileges.  The exchange of workstations is enabled by readily available communications technology such as dedicated WAN, ATM, or VPN access over the Internet.  Placement of workstations in other centers also supports placement of TMC staff at those centers for exceptional circumstances, since the TMC staff have available the resources with which they have experience.

Formal interagency agreements represent a management commitment to establishing and continuously improving operational cooperation.  The details of the agreements vary based on the factors discussed as part of the conceptual framework for integration.  Topics covered by the agreements may include common interpretation of operational goals, operational policies, organizational roles, processes for review, and funding formulae.  While many of the agreements allow agencies to unilaterally revoke the agreement, the trend in each location was for the agreements to expand in both the topics covered and the number of agencies participating.

The installation and sharing of a private data network enables exchange of information among centers, while leaving management of the bandwidth and access in the hands of representatives from the participating agencies.  The current technology used in the shared data network is standards-based using Ethernet.  This approach allows participating agencies to use commercial products and common networking practices to exchange video and traffic data as well as to use client software to access remote servers.  Based on sites studied, once a backbone is justified and established, additional agencies willingly connect to the network, having to only pay for the marginal cost for the expansion while bringing additional data resources with them to the network.

The collocation of operations from multiple agencies leverages the resources of each to develop a center with more capabilities.  Collocation requires a facility large enough to house both operations in a common area and management with separate office space.  Sharing of infrastructure costs allows for installation of equipment with additional capabilities.  Sharing of facility operations and maintenance functions reduces redundant staff requirements.  The physical sharing of space increases the awareness of the actions of other agencies.  The routine interaction of staff members builds working relationships.

The collocation of the TMC with the EOC entails the cooperation of a wide variety of agencies active during regional emergencies.  Facilities are needed for providing coordination and communication.  Similarly to collocation of routine operations, the collocation of a TMC with an EOC allows for the leveraging of resources.  Especially important to the TMC are the resources required for EOC operation such as backup power, backup communications, and staff shelter.  Sharing of information between the EOC and the TMC is also enabled, as is the establishment of working relationships that are important in emergency situations.

When agencies are not collocated, sharing of information is routinely a major issue.  Many of the agencies provide information to the public using web pages.  Passworded accounts help to overcome some of the reliability issues related to peaks in demand and accuracy of incoming information.  A lead agency establishes a common site for sharing of relevant information.  The participating agencies gain access not granted to the public, allowing them to have a more reliable connection than the general public.  Typically, the participating agencies also have trained observers who are allowed to enter information that is of interest to partner agencies, thereby increasing the value of the information sharing to all agencies.  To utilize readily available infrastructure, such sites use Internet communication techniques.

Best practices previously mentioned encourage regular interaction among agencies.  The specific mention of routine interaction reiterates the value of establishing working relationships with agencies that are routinely involved in localized emergencies.  While additional agencies are involved in regional emergencies, each agency involved in localized emergencies is still active during regional emergencies, and established relationships can be called on during the rapid activity of an emergency situation.  Management encourages both task and casual interaction among staff.  Task interaction includes routine operations as well as training events.

2.2.3.  Challenges

Each center and staff member interviewed in the study could relate challenges that had to be addressed to establish the level of integration that has been realized.  Some of the challenges encountered were faced by many of the TMCs given similarities in their functions and resources.  Other challenges were unique to an individual TMC as dictated by the unique geographic, technical, political, and legal landscape each TMC faces.  The following challenges observed during the study are offered in the hope that TMCs can address the challenges that they will face with less disruption to the implementation of improved integration and operations.

Lack of strategic vision.  The typical development of the agencies involved in emergency transportation results in agencies making independent decisions that may or may not be supportive of interacting agencies.  The agencies involved have disparate goals, structures, and resources.  This type of decision-making results in tactical progress and unintegrated operations without direction toward a regional vision for improved emergency operations and the infrastructure necessary to accomplish those improvements.  The centers that have accomplished extensive implementations and multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional integration have been lead by champions who forged such a regional vision.  The presence of such a vision forms a basis for resolution of many challenges.

Access to traffic control devices.  State DOT TMCs have limited access to traffic control devices that can be used to respond to emergencies, especially when the emergency initiates a spike in traffic demand.  Most traffic signals are controlled by local jurisdictions that have limited access to the emergency operations resources.  In some states, traffic control devices on state routes are controlled by state traffic signal organizations, but still are not well integrated into the freeway management centers.  Centers have incorporated traffic signal control by providing a workstation at the TMC/EOC for agencies controlling the traffic signals along with network access to the traffic control server and have attempted to facilitate a coordinated regional traffic signal system.  This level of integration frequently requires management or interjurisdictional agreements.

Unique transportation context.  Each TMC exists in a unique institutional framework involving jurisdictional boundaries, governmental organization, private organizations, operational policies and local and state laws.  This topic was introduced as part of the integration conceptual framework.  The unique context in which each TMC operates implies that the staff at the TMCs and cooperating regional agencies must design custom solutions to enable collaboration and cooperation.

Lack of national-level TMC coordination.  TMCs across the country view themselves as fitting into a blend of three core functions: information clearinghouse, operations center, and/or emergency manager.  This reflects the mixture of agencies and intra-agency departments that is unique to each TMC.  The unique approaches to operations and integration contained in each TMC are not easily shared with other TMCs that may be facing similar issues.  There is no TMC clearinghouse association that regularly brings together this varied group to discuss common interests.  Therefore, cross-pollination and opportunities for TMCs to learn from other’s experiences and practices are very limited.  If such a venue existed for TMCs to share ideas it may facilitate addressing many of the challenges discussed in this report.

Consensus decision-making.  In any situation where individual actors collaborate, some of the desired actions of one or each actor have to be abandoned to accomplish the joint goal.  In the setting of a public agency, the loss of ability to act independently can significantly delay projects that a single agency would initiate immediately, and unwillingness to compromise can prevent the possibility of cooperation.  Centers have developed both formal and informal working relationships to allow regional progress.  Formal relationships take the form of intergovernmental agreements signed by the elected officials at the highest level and management agreements signed by managers of the involved agencies.  Informal relationships take the form of working groups addressing technical and operational issues with each agency opting to send representatives based on their own best interests.  Additionally, informal relationships form among managers and operational staff members who work together on a frequent basis.

Lack of reliability in legacy systems.  Existing systems are not always designed to be robust with the occurrence of component failures or emergency situations.  One single point of failure repeatedly identified in the study was the use of public infrastructure.  The most common infrastructure system used by the TMCs is the commercial power grid.  The second most common is dependence on commercial communications services including telephone service and the Internet.  In the event of an emergency, traffic control devices, ITS field components, and communications to those devices are frequently affected by the emergency and not available for use during the emergency.  TMC systems are susceptible to inoperability from lightning, wind, flooding, earthquakes, and deliberate sabotage as well as other events leading to outages in the public infrastructure.  Centers that have addressed this challenge have implemented backup systems that do not rely on local infrastructure, such as satellite communication and backup power generators, and have upgraded the reliability of existing systems through retrofit or replacement.

Data security and privacy requirements.  The legitimate data security concerns of law enforcement and homeland security organizations complicate the already difficult problems in data sharing.  Depending on the agreements and processes in place, sensitive data may be completely unavailable for transportation uses, may have operational restrictions placed on them, or may require additional system development to implement filters to extract data that can be shared.  Security issues increase costs and can impact timeliness of data sharing.  Centers have addressed data security needs through cooperation among legal and technical staff members in planning the implementation.  Some data security issues cannot be overcome without enabling legislative action.

Lack of benefits data and mature measures of effectiveness.  In competing for budget and institutional resources, emergency transportation operations integration suffers from a lack of perceived benefit.  In locations that have not experienced emergency situations recently, scarce resources for infrastructure investment are targeted to construction and routine operations.  Even in locations that have experienced repeated emergency situations over the last decade, the perceived benefit from additional integration competes poorly against other infrastructure investments.  One of the major weaknesses in advocating for integration is the immaturity of measures of effectiveness and benefit/cost analysis.  To date, the lack of benefits data has been overcome by the actions of a local champion risking political capital and the willingness of one or more managers to initiate implementations without analysis support.

Licensing restrictions on proprietary products.  Integration between centers using systems that are proprietary potentially faces licensing issues in sharing client software and access to custom protocols.  Since many of the centers license software rather than owning it, the vendors of the software sell specific rights to the use of the software tailored to the institutional needs of the vendor.  In some cases, the center has the rights to only use the software on a specific number of server and workstation computers.  In other cases, the center has the license to an unlimited number of computers, but only on the premises of the center or only by agency personnel.  In either case, additional licenses can be purchased, but with additional costs that may either not fit within center budgets or may be difficult to allocate between partner agencies.  The ability to communicate with a system may require knowledge of specific message formats that are proprietary to the system vendor.  In this case, the vendor may be willing to share the formats with an existing customer without additional fee, with additional compensation, or may consider the format to be vital to the company’s competitive position making them unwilling to divulge the information at any price.  Addressing this challenge requires knowledge of the licenses of existing systems and cooperation between managers and product vendors.

Differing legal bases for cooperating agencies.  When centers cooperate with centers representing other agencies, legal barriers and potential liabilities arise due to the roles and legislated protection given to each organization.  This also can arise when public resources are shared with private interests.  This typically arises when a system or component installed for one purpose becomes used for an incompatible purpose, possibly a more critical role that the component may not be sufficiently hardened to accomplish in all situations.  For example, a microwave communication system that is adequate for traffic surveillance video may not be sufficiently reliable for emergency vehicle communication use.  This use could potentially expose the transportation department to legal proceedings if a citizen needing medical attention suffered harm due to the loss of communication between the dispatcher and the emergency vehicle.  Centers addressing this challenge use a combination of coordination among technical resources, formal agreements among agency management, consultation with legal staff, and enabling legislation.

Lack of sustained investment in emergency transportation.  Once a region has either experienced an emergency with serious transportation impact or observed a nearby emergency, the planning and integration process takes on significant urgency.  If these efforts are successful, systems are implemented, processes are established, and staff is trained.  Once systems and processes are established, significant resources are required to maintain both the staff and the systems in a state of readiness.  Required expenses include repeated training exercises to keep knowledge fresh and the ability to retain or hire experienced staff.  The observed “boom and bust” cycles of planning efforts reflect the reduction in emphasis that naturally occurs in contingency planning of any type.  The decrease in effort is amplified in emergency transportation since most key managers and decision-makers have primary assignments outside of emergency transportation.  Approaches to sustaining investment include dedicating staff or coordinators to emergency transportation and using champions to keep emergency preparedness as a priority.  Sustained investment has been most successful where weather-related emergencies are frequent.

Insufficient funding.  All centers identified available funding as a constraint.  Most of the funding constraints limited staffing for either operational, management, or engineering activities.  With additional engineering staff, more reliable systems could be implemented.  With more management staff, improvements could be made either internally or in conjunction with cooperating agencies.  With additional operational staff, improvements could be made in training and other aspects of readiness for emergencies.  Centers that have succeeded in getting adequate funding have champions in government who vigilantly protect the center’s budget and managers willing to make budgets for operations a priority.

2.3  Additional Concepts for Emergency Integration

The best practices in this study reflect initial operating procedures available to operations staff positions in binders, in management offices, and condensed to flip charts.  These documents were highly valued and reflect knowledge gained through years of experience.  The experience gained through frequent interaction primarily with localized emergencies requiring response from local fire, rescue, enforcement, and public works staffs forms a basis for cooperation on all emergencies, no matter how extensive or extraordinary.  However, the existing operations procedures were not comprehensive in terms of potential interacting agencies and with few exceptions, did not carry approval signatures from all of the interacting agencies.

During the study, the study team has identified a number of opportunities to improve TMC operations during emergencies that can be addressed by improved integration concepts.  The issues that can be mitigated or resolved through integration include:

• Missing and inaccessible data supporting coordination among emergency agencies;
• Lack of clear communication with other emergency agencies;
• Inefficient introduction of emergency information;
• Reliance solely on intuition and experience from previous events; and,
• Inability to rapidly deploy resources to augment the existing system.

The team developed integration concepts to capitalize on these opportunities.  Table 4 lists the integration concepts along with an assessment of the expenses related to pursuing the concepts.

Table 4.  Cost Estimates for Integration Concepts.

2.3.1.  Additional Application of Current Integration Concept

As mentioned previously, the current integration concept includes collaboration and cooperation based on sharing information to assist management and experienced staff.  The concept of sharing information and decision-making can be extended further than is currently in practice.  The extension of this concept can improve technical, physical, procedural, and institutional integration to resolve the problem of incomplete or inaccessible information being available to support coordination among agencies.  Table 5 contains the current concept along with potential methods for improvement and some of the pros and cons associated with each concept/method combination.

 Table 5.  Emergency Integration Concepts and Methods: Current Concept Extension.

Additional application of the current integration concept would culminate in the operations centers of all organizations active throughout emergency situations being tied together through a network of voice and data connectivity to coordinate the actions of each.  From a TMC or TEOC perspective, connectivity would be provided with a limited number of Combined Emergency Centers (CECs) and as well as other organizations and devices not integrated into a CEC.  Each CEC would collocate as many of the operations groups, managers, or representatives of organizations active in emergencies as possible into a single facility given the particular integration framework.  Agencies without presence at CECs or with need for integration with other operations locations would be connected to the CEC via a reliable voice and data network.  The reliability of the network could be accomplished through joint ownership, arrangement with public infrastructure providers, redundant media, or a combination of techniques.  Physically remote centers, especially those representing smaller jurisdictions and those outside of urban areas, have unique challenges in obtaining reliable communication paths and acquiring systems that meet interoperability goals.  A representative comprehensive network of agencies is presented in Figure 3.  The centers and systems communicating with the TMC/TEOC exchange data of mutual interest.  Data collected by the TMC and made available to other centers include video images, traffic data, infrastructure conditions, roadway network graphics, and incident data.  Information collected by other centers and transmitted to the TMC include incident data, fleet resource availability, fleet vehicle locations, infrastructure conditions, press releases, press field reports, road weather data, weather reports, and weather forecasts.  The fact that the central entity of Figure 3 is a traffic management center indicates that this study focuses on integration with the TMC, not that the TMC is the most important resource in emergency operations.

Figure 3.  Representative Comprehensive Network.

Significant improvements are available in the integration of emergency data during the recovery phase of an emergency.  In current practice, DOTs generally coordinate infrastructure repair independent of TMC support.  EOC operations typically are not structured for ongoing operations with significant information exchange with a TMC.  TMC resources relevant to recovery include surveillance capabilities and public information capabilities.  Surveillance includes existing video and traffic detection as well as infrastructure to expand the surveillance network on a temporary and rapid basis.  Public information capabilities include media contacts, websites, variable message signs, and highway advisory radio.

A major enabler of increased integration is the ability of computer-based systems in use by each agency to exchange data rapidly and seamlessly.  Based on the experience to date, interchange among systems from different agencies such as a DOT and a police department is enabled by use of widely accepted standards.  Specifically, video images are easily exchanged using National Television System Committee (NTSC) and Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) standards.  Electronic data on other topics such as traffic and incidents are enabled through the use of data processing and networking standards such as Ethernet, Structured Query Language (SQL), and Extensible Markup Language (XML).  Starting in the late 1990’s, FHWA has supported development of standards to enable the use of traffic and incident data for purposes other than immediate display.  The IEEE 1512 family of standards addresses efficient communication between centers for the real time, interagency management of transportation-related events.  Initial implementations of the standards are ongoing.  Based on the data collected for this study, additional adoption of the standard and a broadening of the standard are required to limit the amount of custom engineering work involved in more comprehensive integration.

2.3.2.  Currently Available Practitioner Improvement

In addition to the integration concept currently being applied, other improvements are available to TMCs without significant technological advances.  Table 6 contains two concepts that can be implemented with existing technology along with potential methods related to these concepts and some of the pros and cons associated with each concept/method combination.

Table 6.  Emergency Integration Concepts and Methods: Available Concepts.

2.3.2.1.  Operational Coordination and Training

Leadership in the Federal government for interoperation of emergency systems is coming from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).  DHS has established the National Incident Management System (NIMS) to improve interagency cooperation based on an all-hazards approach.  The fundamental command and management component of NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS), which provides a framework and command chain for on-scene incident response.  In some cases, Multi-agency Coordination Systems such as EOCs and multi-agency centers coordinate with and support the on-scene incident command.  Agencies that use Federal preparedness funds must adopt NIMS to retain funding eligibility.  The schedule and process required for NIMS adoption is currently still evolving as are related standards and documents.  While NIMS is not currently mandated for TMCs, agencies with which TMCs cooperate have incentive to begin NIMS implementation during FY2005, including institutionalizing ICS.

Transportation relates to several parts of the ICS organizational structure, which is shown in Figure 4.  For DOT staff members on the scene of an incident, ICS specifies processes for fitting in to the overall incident response.  Traffic plans for incident vehicles are produced by the Ground Support Unit of the Logistics Section and evacuation plans are produced by technical specialists in the Planning Section.  Traffic management, which is not fully developed in current NIMS documentation, can provide valuable support to operations, planning, and logistics sections of the ICS organizational.

Figure 4.  ICS Organizational Chart.

Training of TMC operational staff provides a basis for cooperation with all other agencies involved in an incident.  Experience has shown that the ability to communicate clearly between staff members of the active organizations is a vital capability, with many of the failures in emergency operations attributable to poor communication.  While localized emergency coordination is practiced on a routine basis, the interactions with some of the agencies in a regional emergency can be one-time events.  This unique characteristic to emergency operations requires training and exercises to prepare the operational staff for a realized event.  The variety of potential organizations that could be involved in the realized emergency necessitates training across the spectrum of agencies with standard training materials.  The National Emergency Training Center operated by FEMA offers a series of classes related to NIMS and ICS.  The training material and opportunities will expand as further protocols and standards related to NIMS are finalized.  It is a recommendation of this study that introductory classes on NIMS be mandatory for TMC managers and operational staff members.  NIMS courses are available on line from the FEMA Independent Study web site (http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/).

In addition to classroom training, agencies in some of the centers studied participate in exercise programs with multiple agencies.  The exercises range from tabletop exercises involving agencies routinely cooperating on major incidents to field drills such as “Top Officials” headed by DHS and “Determined Promise” headed by the Department of Defense that are extensively planned, involve thousands of participants, and attract emergency and political leaders.  Cooperation on available exercises and drills should be accomplished under a NIMS framework.  While the agencies are involved, the extent to which the operational staffs participate is extremely limited.

TMCs should coordinate operational concepts and procedures with cooperating agencies, both as identified under NIMS and as part of the recommendations from this study.  To be consistent with the policy of FHWA and mandates of FEMA to cooperating agencies, TMC operations plans and procedures should be consistent with NIMS.

2.3.2.2.  Optimized Emergency Information Integration

Progress toward integration has been accomplished through individual and some times heroic efforts of leaders in locations across the country, many of whom were interviewed in the course of this study.  The integration came from a combination of foresight, political leadership, innovative funding, technical insight, and hard work.  In transitioning from a process of innovation into a discipline with uniform excellence, rational processes are required.  The rational process assesses the current situation, develops measurable goals and objectives, tracks progress toward those objectives, and then repeats the steps to establish a continuous improvement process.  A typical optimization process is shown in Figure 5.

The establishment of a continuous improvement process is consistent with existing processes used currently, including regional ITS architecture development and a systems engineering approach.  Such a process must be performed regionally given the unique integration context of each center.  Federal support is appropriate both to develop resources for an optimization process and to support execution of the optimization process.  Federal resources could include guidelines for process and staffing needs, model products, training material, and desired Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs).  Federal support for execution would take the form of funding through grants and incentives.

Preparation and updating of regional architectures are now required for transportation projects.  The regional architecture provides a forum for transportation and related agencies to review the existing and planned network of systems related to transportation.  This process forms an excellent foundation for application of continuous improvement.

Figure 5.  Optimization Process.

In preparation for the implementation of projects to improve integration, each region should perform a realistic self-assessment.  The self assessment will identify needs and opportunities reflected in the regional ITS architecture.  The assessment will also identify the capabilities and the resources available both within the region and from outside sources to address the identified needs.  The assessment will realistically evaluate the feasibility of addressing the needs with available resources.  One source for determining the feasibility is review of best practices from other regions addressing similar problems.

As part of rationalizing the process of optimal integration, projects should be implemented using a systems engineering approach.  The systems engineering approach outlines steps to be performed and the ordering of the steps.  An overview of the systems engineering process is shown in Figure 6.  The systems engineering approach is progressive, with each document depending on the information shown in previous documents.  The left hand side of Figure 6 shows system conceptual and design processes with increasing levels of detail.  The right hand side of Figure 6 shows the steps in testing with increasing levels of completeness.  The bottom of the diagram is the system implementation that ties the design processes to the testing processes.  Testing of implementations is tied to specific design descriptions presented in a corresponding document.  For example, requirements and architecture are at the same level as system verification and validation.  The testing at the system verification and validation stage will substantiate that the requirements and architecture have been properly implemented.

Figure 6.  Systems Engineering “V” Diagram.

2.3.3.            Research and Development Needs

The current state-of-the-practice provides a point of reference useful for TMCs pursuing further integration with other agencies active during emergencies.  However, to move beyond the current state-of-the-practice will require an expanded vision and further investment in the development of new methods and approaches in emergency integration.  Potential future methods may refine those found with existing concepts while others will likely be associated with new concepts.  Table 7 contains two concepts that existing technology cannot support along with potential methods related to these concepts and some of the pros and cons associated with each concept/method combination.

A consistent theme of the research endeavors should be the establishment of management strategies and rules of practice to support improved TMC operations.  Research funds should be identified and allocated to permit the research and operations communities to institutionalize practices that provide a clear, effective, and demonstrable management strategy to improve TMC operations through enhanced integration.  These research studies should be utilized to identify common methods that cut across geographical and demographic scales and provide a constant measurement of the present ‘best practices’ and their evolution.  As emergency traffic operations integration evolves, regular baseline investigations of the next level of best practices will continually provide a pathway for all TMCs to improve emergency operations.

Table 7.  Emergency Integration Concepts and Methods: Future Research.

2.3.3.1.  Advanced Tools

During an emergency and recovery, emergency managers rely on their own cognitive skills to assimilate situational data and goals into plans of action.  The manager’s cognitive skills are conditioned and intuitive, based on experience, simulation, practice, training, reason, and knowledge along with situational awareness and the physical context.  Existing tools are related to emergency transportation support planning, but are not designed for use during emergency operations.  The tools used during emergencies come from the traffic manager’s standard arsenal of surveillance, control, and public information systems, augmented by additional staffing.

The concept for advanced tools is to provide advice for actions that emergency managers can take to achieve transportation objectives in support of emergency management goals.  The advanced tools would primarily aid technical integration.  The advice would cover traffic operations parameters such as traffic signal timing, adjustment of traffic operations regime such as reversible lane operations, emergency operations decisions such as contraflow and evacuation, public information through both TMC devices and the media, and infrastructure repair priority.  Such tools would synthesize real-time condition data from roadway sensors with travel demand measurements, condition of the available transportation network, and transportation objective representations into understandable recommendations to be selected by emergency managers.  Sources of real-time data include traffic variables such as speed, volume, and occupancy, weather conditions and predictions that affect roadway capacity.  The condition of the transportation network would include the roadway network adjusted for transportation management actions such as traffic signal timing and roadway availability.  Transportation objectives relate to the transport desired by the emergency managers including such options as emergency medical access, supply delivery to incident workers or a sheltered population, equipment movement to affect infrastructure repair, evacuation of a large population using private vehicles, evacuation of a population using a fleet of shared-ride vehicles or public transit vehicles, and return of an evacuated population.

To utilize such tools, emergency transportation managers would have to accept additional concepts including trip value, priority utilization of scarce vehicle and infrastructure resources, and system-optimal operations.  The concept of trip value quantifies the benefit of each journey.  Priority utilization of scarce resources addresses the constraints imposed by having a finite amount of transportation resources.  For example, available roadway capacity across a bridge that acts as a bottleneck can be used by a family carrying three family members and their belongings fleeing an emergency, by a transit bus carrying 45 people with limited luggage, or medical supplies needed by the injured.  System optimal operation describes a selection from the collection of resources to meet the objectives of system operation, even though some individuals may not be allowed to act in their personal best interest.

This type of advanced tool would require extensive research and development efforts prior to initial test usage.  Initial test usage would require joint projects including regional and federal resources.  With each emergency transportation operation being unique, expert support would be expected during the emergency events.

2.3.3.2.  Federal Resources for Rapid Deployment

The concept of a rapidly deployable set of resources would provide any TMC the ability to field additional ITS components, communication networks, or control center components rapidly when an emergency occurs that exceeds local resources.  This concept addresses primarily technical integration both within the TMC and with interacting agencies.  The lack of local resources could be due to either gaps in the existing system that become important during the emergency or damage that occurs related to the emergency.  In order for this concept to be viable, the reserve assets have to be able to work in any setting with any currently deployed system or to stand alone if the existing system is completely incapacitated or no system is deployed at the emergency location.  The system would be deployed with the assistance of a federal emergency team, but the team would be under the direction of the local emergency managers and TMC managers with respect to deployment location unless the incident becomes federalized.  Local management and operational staff would also remain in control of the fielded assets, including both the existing system and the temporary deployment.

The technical obstacles to achieving such a system will require significant development effort to overcome.  The most difficult technical barrier to overcome is the variety of TMC systems currently deployed.  Currently deployed TMCs are each essentially one of a kind.  Unique requirements placed on TMC acquisitions mean that even when an implementer has an existing system available for deployment unmodified, the system is customized.  Additionally, the fielded systems use a wide variety of field hardware ranging from the latest technology to devices that have been working adequately for decades.

Communications replacements are the most technically viable rapid deployment component.  Existing technology for gap deployment or extensions allow connection of remote sites to regional networks without dependence on regional infrastructure.  Connectivity options include satellite Internet services and trailer-based wireless Ethernet nodes.  Products for conversion between Ethernet and many other protocols are readily available in the marketplace.  Additional options are available if the communications device only has to cover a gap measured up to several miles.

Products deployed with each center present a more difficult technical challenge.  Products fielded prior to the wide acceptance of NTCIP frequently have proprietary or custom protocols.  For rapid deployment of systems components to work properly, the reserve assets would either have to communicate with the existing system or a conversion from the reserve asset’s protocol to the existing system’s protocol would be required.  While this is achievable for components where a small number of companies set de facto standards with early implementations such as video surveillance, components without dominant companies present a difficult technical challenge.

Concepts for integration of additional center capability with existing systems that have not implemented inter-center communication are currently undeveloped.  Developing concepts to establish meaningful integration poses a difficult research problem.  The federal response assets should be consistent with the communication annex (ESF #2) of the National Response Plan.

2.4  Recommendations

The following sections discuss six approaches that the study team recommends be pursued to improve integration in emergency situations.  The first four recommendations are available for immediate implementation with little or no technical innovation, either independently by existing TMCs or through leadership of FHWA.  The remaining two recommendations are geared toward approaches that require research and development prior to being fielded.

2.4.1.  Enhancements to Current Practice

The first four recommendations are focused specifically on enhancements to the current practice of TMC emergency information integration.  Each of the recommendations provides specific actions either FHWA or TMC administrators can take to enhance the level of integration with the goal of improving the overall operational effectiveness of the TMC.

Recommendation 1:  Extend the current concept of collaboration and coordination to comprehensive coverage of agency centers and information

Scope:  TMCs should expand information sharing to a network including operations centers of all organizations active during emergencies.

Problem Addressed:  Incomplete or inaccessible information required to support coordination among agencies resulting from limited technical, physical, procedural, and institutional integration.

Leadership:  Transportation Management Center Administrators/Managers, regional agencies and organizations

Expected Outcomes:  The expected outcomes of expanded information availability are an increase in the benefits currently being reaped including:

• Improved coordination and cooperation among agencies active in emergencies.
• Better decisions about the deployment of resources of each organization, including the TMC.
• More information of higher accuracy available to the media and the general populace.

Description/Approach:  To date, emergency integration has occurred on a case-by-case basis using the foresight and resources of individual centers.  This process can be continued to add relevant agencies to the integrated network as identified by centers working in their own distinct contexts.  While leadership for implementing this recommendation ultimately rests with the centers on the front line of integration, FHWA can enable improvements by continued support of standards development applicable across industry boundaries and through education of best practices using traditional techniques such as scanning tours and peer-to-peer networks.  FHWA can also enable advancement in the state of the art through funding support.

Recommendation 2:  Improve coordination capabilities of operation staffs

Scope:  TMCs should develop interagency operations procedures and participate in joint education and training covering response to incidents of all scopes under the National Incident Management System framework

Problem Addressed:  Inability to coordinate and communicate effectively among members of operational staffs of various agencies.

Leadership:  Transportation Management Center Administrators/Managers, regional agencies and organizations.

Expected Outcomes:  The expected outcomes of improved coordination are:

• Improved effectiveness of operational staff members at an incident scene.
• Avoidance of communication errors and thereby a reduction in exposure of emergency responders to life-threatening.
• Improved coordination of center and field staff members

Description/Approach:  The improvement of coordination among operational staff members can be accomplished with existing resources.  Training opportunities in the use of standard tools such as NIMS are available under the sponsorship of DHS both in online and classroom settings.  The performance of exercises to reinforce and institutionalize the training can be accomplished through interaction with regional agencies and coordination with Federal agencies with presence in specific regions.  FHWA can support this recommendation through education and training grants, sponsorship of joint training exercises through the National Highway Institute, and raising awareness of the need for improved operation via resource centers.

Recommendation 3: Develop quantitative measures of emergency integration and emergency operations

Scope:  To make rational decisions and discuss trade offs for use of limited resources, decision makers need quantitative terms for use in analyzing the benefits of emergency integration.  MOEs should be developed that address effectiveness of integration, effectiveness of operations, and risk exposure for the emergency transportation need

Problem Addressed:  Integration takes place based on non-technical factors leading to inefficient improvement in integration and operations.

Leadership:  FHWA with support from Transportation Engineering groups such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Transportation Research Board.

Expected Outcomes:  The expected outcomes of an availability of quantitative measures include:

• Improved ability to analyze emergency integration and operations capability;
• Improved cost effectiveness of integration improvements; and,
• Improved management of projects and programs.

Description/Approach:  FHWA has taken leadership roles in the development of transportation performance measures that can be widely applied and understood using a combination of review of performance measures currently in use, analysis by experienced transportation researches, and review by transportation practitioners.  The emergency transportation operations field lacks performance measures related to integration or operation to support decision-making and to guide research.  FHWA should initiate a line of research to address appropriate ways to measure the performance and effectiveness of emergency transportation similar to the efforts related to broader transportation measures.

Recommendation 4:  Establish an optimal level of integration at each TMC and in each region

Scope:  TMCs should rationalize the process of establishing increased levels of integration.

Problem Addressed:  Integration takes place based on non-technical factors leading to inefficient improvement in integration and operations.

Leadership:  Transportation Management Center Administrators/Managers, regional agencies and organizations with FHWA support.

Expected Outcomes:  The expected outcomes of an optimal process include:

• Improved cost effectiveness of integration improvements;
• Establishment of quantifiable evaluation and effectiveness criteria; and,
• Improved management of projects and programs.

Description/Approach:  Optimization processes use impartial evaluation criteria to determine the best use of available resources.  A continuous improvement paradigm, such as the one shown in Figure 5, repeatedly applies evaluation and implementation to approach optimal improvement.  Application of such an approach requires management and technical resources.  While TMCs may perform evaluation on their own initiative, FHWA should encourage use of such processes by incorporating evaluation and feedback requirements into mandates for use of systems engineering approach and National ITS Architecture usage.  FHWA should also enable optimization processes by developing a model process and applying it through a model deployment.

2.4.2.  Supporting Research

The following two recommendations outline research and development needs that would extend the state of the practice in emergency integration.  These recommendations present needed improvement in technology to enable the accomplishment of the concepts being supported.  If successful, the process of creating this technology will cause the concepts to evolve and mature into products that can be field tested and placed into operational use.

Recommendation 5:  Develop advanced decision support tools

Scope:  FHWA should sponsor research into advanced tools to assist emergency transportation managers is making strategic and tactical decisions.

Problem Addressed:  Decisions made during emergency and recovery operations are limited by the experience and cognitive capacity of managers and operational staff.

Leadership:  FHWA supported by research institutions.

Expected Outcomes:  The expected outcomes of advanced tool use include:

• Increased capacity to integrate relevant data from multiple locations;
• Reduction of cognitive load of emergency transportation managers;
• Capability to implement complex calculations and algorithms in support of emergency decision-making; and,
• Ability to capture knowledge of most experienced emergency transportation managers nationwide.

Description/Approach:  Knowledge of approaches for the use of automated or computational tools to assist in emergency transportation operations is limited.  Basic research is needed into the processes in emergency operations that can be assisted through advanced techniques.  The initial research goals should relate to analysis of the emergency transportation process to identify areas where additional integration can be advantageous, identification of potential sensing and computational techniques that can improve operations and management, and estimation of potential benefits to implementation of advanced tools.  The FHWA should sponsor research at research universities and institutions to both formulate the research goals and perform the research.

Recommendation 6:  Develop emergency resources available for rapid deployment

Scope:  FHWA should sponsor research into development of assets available for rapid deployment when needed in a region experiencing an emergency situation.

Problem Addressed:  In emergencies, the deployed transportation systems in a region may be temporarily disabled or insufficiently extensive.

Leadership:  FHWA supported by research institutions.

Expected Outcomes:  The expected outcomes of rapidly deployable resources include:

• Decreased duration of outages caused by emergency occurrence such as storms, power outages, or deliberate targeting of infrastructure.
• Reduction in regional resources dedicated to rarely used functions.
• Improved ability to handle region-wide or multiple region incidents.

Description/Approach:  Significant natural and manmade disasters can introduce gaps in coverage or complete outages in even the most robust of systems.  The ability to augment, repair, or completely replace a network with communications, center, or field components can greatly improve the capabilities of emergency transportation operations.  The major technical hurdle to overcome is the incompatibility between the currently deployed systems, most of which are essentially custom systems using a wide variety of current and obsolete components.  FHWA should initiate research into the ability to develop a pool of resources available that can interoperate with all deployed systems.  This research includes both discovery of the full set of fielded devices and the development of approaches, techniques and products that will restore or expand any system.  Appropriate research institutions include both transportation organizations and electrical engineering institutions.

2.4.3.  Federal Roles

Transportation operations are state, regional, and local responsibilities.  Federal roles provide support to operations through a combination or techniques to advance technology, deployment and operations.  Many of the Federal roles have been referenced in the recommendations in the previous section and are presented in more detail in this section.

The single constraint faced by all locations is funding.  Budget pressures require the TMC to compete for resources with other beneficial projects.  While cost/benefit analysis is helpful, the realities of assembling a city, state, regional, or facility budget put each additional capital and operating expense under scrutiny.  The federal roles in funding are to create incentive through grants, pilot projects, and rulemaking to assist integration projects reach deployment.

Additional ways to quantify the impact of integration are needed.  Neither MOEs, which quantify effectiveness of an approach to meet an objective, nor Measures of Performance (MOPs), which quantify the level of usage of an approach, are mature and institutionalized in the Emergency Transportation Operations arena.  The current lack of MOEs limits the ability for emergency transportation integration projects to survive the budget processes.  The federal role in developing measures is to lead the process of both defining the measures and providing expected values.

For concepts that require significant research, federally sponsored studies will be needed to advance technical knowledge.  The advanced tools and rapid deployment resources require investment beyond the capability of regions to perform, with implementation and benefit years from achievement.

The traditional FHWA role in providing technical advice is needed on several technical topics related to integration.  Dissemination of best practices related to integration would assist regions in several aspects of the existing and new integration concepts.  With the evolving standards and identified need for additional multi-industry communication, federal effort is needed to track and influence standards development efforts.  Federal support to identify promising new technology is valuable to regions.  Training opportunities related to the best practices, standards, and technology are needed to assist regions, with a foundation in NIMS being desirable.

Once research and technology are developed to the point where beneficial implementations are feasible, federal support of demonstration projects becomes important.  With the highly technical nature of initial implementations and the inherent budgetary and technical risks, regions will more quickly move to adopt the concepts with a federal partner assisting in the implementation based on national priorities.  The technical nature of implementations also will necessitate a federal role encompassing operations and maintenance as well as initial implementation.

Introduction  |  Table of Contents  |  Integration for Weather