Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic Incident Management (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

13 CHAPTER 4 IMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES The purpose of this section is to provide reference exam- ples and lessons learned for TIM practitioners from other jurisdictions. Presented below are analyses of the findings from the site investigations. The major categories are benefits and performance measures, institutional implications, techno- logical implications, and operational implications. 4.1 BENEFITS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES Most local officials interviewed strongly supported shar- ing traffic incident information and employing multiagency teams to manage traffic incidents. The consensus opinion among these officials was that information sharing provides strong benefits in supporting coordination and cooperation in planning for and managing traffic incidents. However, these opinions were based generally on anecdotes and experience rather than hard evidence. No location visited during this study could formally quantify the benefits of information sharing. Moreover, most locations had no data to measure how other TIM practices affected detection, notification, response, clear- ance time, responder safety, or other metrics of performance. Some locations have conducted subjective and empirical assessments of TIM benefits. Incident responders in San Anto- nio have estimated that joint training and planning activities of the CMT has resulted in a 40-percent decrease in incident clearance times. WSDOT has developed a quarterly report- ing process to track a variety of performance and account- ability measures for routine review by the Washington State Transportation Commission and others. This report includes a section on incident response, including the total number of responses by month, the average clearance times by month, and the number of incidents that last more than 90 minutes. To add some specificity and to link these statistics to actual highway situations, examples of incidents that lasted more than 90 minutes in the quarter are also provided. All the sites visited face similar performance measurement difficulties. They generally lack a baseline set of performance data with which current performance data can be compared. Such a baseline database would characterize the performance of the system prior to implementing the new TIM capability. This baseline database is not intended to cover a situation without any TIM system in operation; it need only reflect the conditions prior to enhancing the current TIM system. This lack of general TIM performance measures precludes quan- tifiable assessment of the portion of the benefits correspond- ing to better information sharing. 4.2 INSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS The willingness of leaders and organizations to work within cooperative partnerships is a cornerstone of successful TIM. As documented in the case studies, each of the locations with effective information sharing between transportation agencies and public safety agencies had formal frameworks in place for cooperative activities and day-to-day working relationships at many levels of the organizations. 4.2.1 Frameworks Successful, long-lasting joint operations must be built on firm institutional foundations. Such foundations are con- structed out of mutual commitments that bind transportation agencies and public safety agencies to a common purpose and that ensure continuing support. A number of cooperative frameworks for coordinating public safety and transportation operations were found during the site investigations. All frameworks involved regional traffic management or incident management plans and organizations. Some of the frame- works could serve as models for other locations planning to implement cooperative programs. In all cases investigated, the frameworks were based on formal agreements or regional plans. These are memoranda of agreement, memoranda of understanding, and other forms of interagency contractual accord. Copies of some of these agreements are included in the case studies; all agreements are public documents that may be available from the organi- zations listed for the survey sites. Some of the content might be reusable; however, the format and content follow locally applicable statutes and regulations. In New York, the relationship between the Thruway Author- ity and the state police epitomizes public safety and trans- portation integration. With a formal partnership extending over five decades, these agencies have established a rare insti- tutional framework. At the Thruway Statewide Operations Center, TIM information sharing between public safety and

14 transportation is seamless; single individuals serve as the nexus for both agencies. This seamless integration is made possible by transportation funding of state police operations and by Thruway Authority employees serving as public safety dispatchers. San Antonio region organizations established a CMT in the 1960s to address regional transportation management issues. As the importance of managing traffic incidents has increased, the CMT has proved to be an effective mechanism for foster- ing communication and coordination among responders. The CMT consists of representatives from the Metropolitan Tran- sit Authority, the San Antonio Public Works Department, Alamo Dome, the San Antonio Police Department, the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department, EMS providers, towing and recovery service providers, and county health agencies. WSP and WSDOT have cooperatively developed a joint operations policy statement. The purpose of this working agreement is to document the joint policy positions between the two agencies regarding issues of mutual interest in operat- ing state highways. As a result, both agencies are able to make decisions internal to their own agencies to provide the foun- dation that ultimately supports information sharing between the two agencies. Minnesota DOT and state police have established multiple memoranda of understanding and guidelines since 1999 that lay the groundwork for coordinated TIM and interagency information sharing. Early in the process of establishing closer working relationships between transportation and law enforcement in the Salt Lake City region, the senior leader- ship in both departments signed a memorandum of agree- ment between their respective agencies. This expression of commitment and support proved to be an effective tool for bringing the members of each department closer together. The close working relationship was evidence that the spirit of the agreement was emphasized in the following years by senior and mid-level management in both departments, and it has come to be regarded as a native and natural way of doing business together. 4.2.2 Relationships TIM information sharing is part of the broader issue of inter- operability among all agencies for emergency response. As illustrated in the locations identified above, an established regional coordination or interagency partnership framework provided the foundation for effective TIM information sharing. Moreover, incentives help to foster interagency partnerships. In the case of new joint operations centers, the pooling of resources can bring an economy of scale in capital investment and operational capabilities. Leveraging resources in joint cen- ters or shared information systems are politically popular. Personal relationships among a handful of key staff are crucial to success. A few key individuals can make a big dif- ference in TIM information sharing. As demonstrated in suc- cessful locations, operational personnel have found innovative ways to overcome institutional and technical limitations to TIM coordination. Whether through informal traffic task forces or cellular talk groups, the trust established among the individuals permeates through the corresponding orga- nizations. Moreover, co-location strengthens these intera- gency relationships and trust. Daily face-to-face interaction fosters team-building and facilitates problem identification and resolution. The incident response teams (IRTs) in Salt Lake City exem- plified perhaps the tightest integration between public safety and transportation for highway incident operations. The IRTs use the same CAD system as the highway patrol uses and speak with the same dispatchers over the same radio system. The dispatching center also services the other DOT assets in the region, as well as other public safety and fire organizations. Long interaction between the responders has built a mutual familiarity and respect between them, which is evident in their face-to-face interaction on the scene of an incident. All respon- ders are comfortable with each other’s missions, roles, and responsibilities, and all responders work well together. Relationships at the leadership level can also make the difference between successful and unsuccessful TIM part- nerships. Leaders also serve as champions for their agency, project, or system. TIM programs can come to depend on such champions for their continued existence. The unex- pected departure of a champion can leave an operation’s program at risk. Changes in leadership often affect the relationships among organizations. At one location with a strong working rela- tionship throughout the years, a change in leadership helped reinvigorate the partnership. Through this change, both agen- cies learned that support and commitment from the leader- ship has made possible both joint operations and procure- ment of technology to support TIM functions. At another location, when champions moved on in their careers, an information exchange project lost essential management sup- port. That allowed previous minor problems to escalate, eventually leading to the project’s demise. Since no heirs to the previous champions were available to step into the role, the project also suffered from a lack of effective advocacy. The link between the transportation and law enforcement agencies is certainly important. However, the relationships among all the public safety agencies are crucial to the opti- mal sharing of notification, response, and other TIM infor- mation. The ability to coordinate and resolve 911 calls is one example of critical public-safety-to-public-safety TIM infor- mation sharing. 4.3 TECHNOLOGY IMPLICATIONS The case studies identify some limitations of capacity, service availability, and cost of technologies for exchang- ing information between certain transportation agencies and their respective public safety partners. However, as is shown in the case studies, technology is capable of enhancing TIM

information sharing and overcoming interoperability barri- ers. For example, agencies in the survey locations have shared common proprietary communications or data sys- tems, have used commercial wireless services, and are test- ing ways of crosslinking their information system. Various mature and off-the-shelf technologies can support voice and digital communications. They are widely used and supported by a significant vendor community. Configuration differences are the primary challenges for interoperability. These challenges take the form of differences in data encod- ing and messaging; radio frequencies, protocols, and licenses; and rules of security, privacy, and propriety. Data conversion and access management must be used to allow each side to exchange information with the other. However, if practical, public safety and transportation agen- cies should consider using compatible information systems when establishing effective interagency information exchange. Of course, institutional and operational realities usually com- plicate such clean solutions. When public safety agencies and transportation agencies can manage with a single system, the benefits can be substantial. Examples of shared radio systems are commonplace, but examples of shared information sys- tems are rare. A good example of a shared information system can be found in Salt Lake City. Sometimes circumstances do not make the above solutions practical, and neither joint use of communications systems nor integrating dissimilar systems can fulfill all users’ needs. As demonstrated in Albany and Minneapolis, cellular tele- phones can be used for radio-like voice interoperability. There is an increasing range of commercial options available to organizations desiring push-to-talk capability, and five wire- less carriers plan to offer push-to-talk service by 2004. Ser- vice costs will likely fall because of competition (5). Interagency integration of multimedia or advanced systems is a notable challenge. But as demonstrated with the Albany region’s wireless high-bandwidth prototype, the advanced capabilities of one organization can be effectively shared with other agencies through crosslinking. The Broadband Wire- less Integrated Service prototype demonstrated that high- bandwidth services such as live video relay can readily be provided across operational centers for a fraction of the cost of previous lease-lined options. However, if new systems cannot be made to work or are too impractical to use, then the negative consequences can reflect on the broader transportation–public safety relationship in a region. In one location, a monitor in the dispatching center sat idle because of a technical problem in video processing. Not only did that block the presentation of highway CCTV to dis- patchers, but its long period of uselessness demonstrated a lack of commitment by both agencies to solve the problem. 4.4 OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS Fundamentally, sharing TIM information is an operational issue. The importance of sharing information should be a 15 core value of public safety and transportation agencies. The shared information should lead to better decisions and per- formance—faster help to those in need, shorter time during which an incident impedes traffic, and ultimately less eco- nomic costs to the key stakeholders involved. 4.4.1 Information to Support Emergency Response Transportation agencies have important roles in TIM. Some transportation agencies operate advanced data collection and surveillance systems that can provide information useful for detecting and verifying incidents. Cellular 911 calls from motorists, delivered to public safety call centers, provide most highway incident notifications. However, neither the trans- portation data collection nor the public safety answering points will detect and locate all incidents alone. Both must cooperate in order to address all incidents affecting trans- portation in the most expeditious manner possible. That means that each must be responsive to the other concerning efforts to resolve conflicting or unclear incident information, such as location, type, severity, and impact. Integrating highway incident operations strongly builds a community highway response team with a shared purpose and attitude. The more interaction between members, the better, as interaction improves each others’ understanding and appre- ciation of the varying roles and responsibilities as they apply to the highway. Constant interaction between team members, or at least monitoring each others’ activities, improves every- one’s familiarity with everyday operations. Then, when inci- dents arise, and responders are assigned together, no time is wasted on familiarization and orientation. And, when the major incidents happen, everyday and ordinary operational practice can be easily adapted to larger-scale activities. Public safety can usually provide the most immediate field response to an incident and is able to provide the earliest remediation to resolve the incident’s near-term and nearby effects. Transportation agencies can support and accommo- date immediate response through whatever means are avail- able, such as CCTV imagery, road condition reports, and traffic signal preemption. However, the most immediate and effective means for transportation agencies to support inci- dent response and management is to influence the traveling public’s reaction to a blocking incident. This can be accom- plished through prompt and effective use of highway advi- sory radio, variable message signs, 511 systems, detours, and traffic news service interfaces. These means are most effec- tive when public safety agencies support and accommodate such traffic management methods. Public safety agencies are also important sources of TIM information for transportation agencies. Notably, 911 call centers provide valuable incident detection and notification information. Cellular calls from motorists are a growing source of incident notification information. Since wireless calls can come from any location within a region, effective

ways are needed to quickly process the call and notify trans- portation authorities of the highway incidents. The effects of wireless phones have rippled through most regions of society—business, family, and public safety, to name a few. More than 25 percent of the 190 million annual 911 calls are now made on wireless phones, and more than 50 percent of 911 calls at some metropolitan call centers are from wireless phones. Although these phones permit emer- gency access from a wide range of locations, they can also degrade emergency response. It is not unusual for an urban 911 call center to receive dozens of calls about a highway fender-bender, which may delay answering calls from other emergencies. Moreover, the lack of automatic location infor- mation and the inability of many individuals to describe their location add to the call center workload and can constrain effective response. Achieving this readiness among the nation’s 5,000 dis- patch centers requires cooperation and collaboration among wireless carriers, dispatch centers, local telephone exchange carriers, emergency responders, state legislatures, and others. To date, only about 20 percent of counties across the nation have implemented location-capable wireless E911 (6). A Fed- eral Communications Commission report and order (7) man- dates implementation of the service by wireless carriers by 2005, contingent on readiness of local public safety answer- ing points to accommodate and use the wireless location information. 4.4.2 Service Patrols At all case study locations, service patrols—also known as Highway Emergency Local Patrol (HELP) trucks, motorist assistance vehicles, incident management patrols, and other names—offer aid to vehicles traveling on limited- access public roadways. The service patrols are usually operated by DOT employees or by DOT-contracted ser- vices. However, the private sector, such as CVS Pharmacy’s Good Samaritan program, also provides highway assistance services. Incident detection and incident clearance are the main focus of a service patrol program. By quickly identi- fying and responding to incidents, the service patrol opera- tors are able to minimize the effect on the traveling public. Service patrol operators are usually required to go through training and background checks prior to beginning employ- ment and are also trained and certified in first aid and CPR. Service patrol vehicles are natural nodes for public safety and transportation information sharing. They provide prob- ably the most immediate and positive person-to-person interaction with the traveling public that is available to a transportation organization. They can remove many causes of traffic congestion while simultaneously handling minor problems that do not require public safety involvement. The effective use of service patrol vehicles is greatly affected by their ability to reach an incipient problem in a timely man- ner. The response can be greatly facilitated by cooperative 16 transportation and public safety management and direction. In most locations, service patrols are equipped with public safety radios. 4.4.3 Full-Time Operations Over its long history of responding to emergency calls from citizens, which happen around the clock, public safety has developed an operational posture that is designed for continuous operation. Transportation agency duty schedules came from different origins, partially from construction and maintenance management and partly from traffic manage- ment. The lack of full-time incident management operations by transportation agencies was an issue identified by public safety agencies in the survey locations. Public safety agencies recognize that transportation field resources provide important incident management services and have identified important roles for highway operations staff. However, transportation agency personnel—because of contractual, political, and bud- getary restrictions—often have multiple-hour response lags at night and on weekends (typically 2–3 hours or more). These response lags are generally too slow for all but the largest traffic incidents. Exchanges of information concerning incidents are diffi- cult if transportation staff are not available. Many transporta- tion operations centers have increased their hours of opera- tion in recent years, and transportation agencies in Arizona and Washington have demonstrated the benefits of providing 24/7 incident response teams. Transportation agencies would be more effective TIM partners with 24/7 operations. Public safety responds in minutes in most situations at any time. The safety of the first responders, the care of the incident victims, and traffic operations for other drivers are important regard- less of the time of day. Providing public safety agencies with traffic control equip- ment and allowing direct access to, and control of, trans- portation information systems are among the ways some regions are addressing off-hour restrictions. There were concerns expressed at some sites that control of assets can work at cross purposes. For instance, highway cameras are not only useful in traffic management, but can also aid pub- lic safety in incident operations. While traffic managers might be interested in monitoring traffic flow around an inci- dent, law enforcement dispatchers might rather view sus- pects or responders in high-risk situations. Viewing public safety issues as paramount, at least one law enforcement agency would even like preemptive control of transportation cameras at any time. 4.4.4 Incident Management System and Interagency Training Public safety uses a mature and proven methodology in man- aging emergency incidents called the incident management system (IMS). All departments have used similar adaptations

of the nationally standardized IMSs for some years, with the fire service having the longest experience. These procedures are now becoming even more formal and standardized as the Department of Homeland Security establishes the National IMS (NIMS). The procedures will soon be mandatory for all agencies that respond to emergency incidents, and federal funding will require that it be followed. The use of NIMS will probably be extended into the non-emergency incident realm as well, if only to maintain consistency and to practice procedures. Transportation responders are just beginning to assume some roles within incident management, but they need to better integrate their activities within the operational structures that are established for each transportation incident. The responder in charge at a traffic incident is selected from those on the scene. For example, in some locations where state patrol or local police respond to traffic incidents, the officer who arrived first is in charge. If the incident involves fire or injuries, then the fire department or EMS unit may be in charge. If the problem involves only a highway repair or main- tenance, then the highway or transportation department’s supervisor will run the activity. Incident management oper- ating principles specifically and explicitly cover situations where even though a particular agency may hold jurisdiction, none of the responders have yet arrived on the scene. In such cases, it is incumbent upon those actually present on the scene to organize themselves, deal with the problems pre- sented, and agree upon leadership. There is a growing desire among the response community that responders be certified by an accredited authority before they can fill the higher posi- tions in an incident’s management organization. Such for- mality may eventually extend into the support community, including transportation. Fire and law enforcement training academies usually offer advanced training in multiagency incidents, but not on small multiagency incidents and not specifically on highway inci- dents. The National Highway Institute is offering a recently updated course on TIM (8). The National Fire Academy is modifying its standardized courses to incorporate some material on transportation incidents. The newly revised national standard training course for incident safety officers will include material relating to the management and control of traffic in and around a highway incident scene. This material is presented from the standpoint of risk management and recognizes the danger presented by moving traffic. Generally, interagency training is not provided on traffic incident operations by local agencies. Researchers specifically looked for instances of formal interagency training regarding highway operations and for TIM in particular. No instances could be identified at the time of the site visits. However, standard preparatory and on-the-job training are provided to field and operations center staff on procedures, policies, and equipment related to traffic incidents. In some locations, outside consultants have been brought in to help foster coordinated operations by conducting work- shops to improve joint operations. The workshops have been 17 beneficial in that they have encouraged responders to be more actively involved in cooperatively managing highway inci- dents. They have also inspired responders to work toward a common goal of enhancing responder and traveler safety while opening the highway more quickly following an inci- dent. The improved communication and understanding of the operational roles and responsibilities of each response agency fosters coordination and cooperation among all the response agencies. Drills and exercises are another effective way for trans- portation and public safety agencies to train together. WSDOT annually participates in earthquake response drills with the King County, Seattle, Fire Department and the Seattle Police Department. WSDOT is also in the process of planning mock incidents with the Mercer Island Fire Department and the Seattle Fire Department. An interesting idea under discus- sion in Minneapolis involves crosstraining transportation and public safety field personnel in each other’s duties as a way to increase mission awareness across agencies. 4.4.5 Security, Terrorism, and Homeland Defense The general public’s level of awareness regarding terror- ism has been greatly heightened by the media and official government notices since the events of September 11, 2001. Because public safety agencies provide the front-line defense against domestic terrorism, they have been better informed and more involved in security and homeland defense than any other kind of agency has. However, the transportation community has also been eager to contribute and to become involved and has used whatever formal and informal chan- nels of communication were available to keep abreast of threat assessments, periods of heightened awareness, and current operations. Joint preparatory activities have become com- monplace, and joint standard operating procedures are usu- ally available for implementation when needed. In the few instances since September 11 that special operational anti- terrorism working relationships were needed, these relation- ships were formed on an ad hoc basis and appear to have met the needs of the participants. Public safety and transportation agencies recognize the importance of managing surface transportation in the context of a terrorist incident. Moreover, they realize that the same types of homeland defense information exchanged between transportation agencies and public safety agencies can be applied to the less serious (but more common) domains of everyday crime and traffic law enforcement. More everyday use of each other’s information by public safety agencies and transportation agencies will both heighten awareness of the information’s value and increase the skills of both communi- ties to use each other’s information. Such an improvement will serve the public well should another terrorist event occur. Some of the agencies interviewed during this project actively participated in Top Officials (TOPOFF)—a national-

level, multiagency, multijurisdictional, real-time, limited- notice weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) response exercise. TOPOFF was designed to better prepare senior gov- ernment officials to effectively respond to an actual terrorist attack involving WMDs. TOPOFF involved more than 100 federal, state, local, and private-sector entities (9). This exer- cise involved a simulated multipoint attack. In Seattle, the exercise simulated a radiological dispersal device, or dirty 18 bomb, detonation. During the exercise, WSDOT provided staff in the State Emergency Operations Center. Most of WSDOT’s operations during the exercise focused on road- way closures. The exercise identified gaps and inconsisten- cies in information that was disseminated to WSDOT by the state and county departments of health. This exercise included 36 hours of continuous, live, full-scale exercise, with a follow-up table-top exercise.