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.

1CHAPTER 1 SUMMARY Traffic incident management (TIM) is a planned and coor- dinated process to detect, respond to, and remove traffic inci- dents and restore traffic capacity as safely and quickly as pos- sible. It involves the coordinated interactions of multiple public agencies and private-sector partners. The objective of this study was to assess methods, issues, benefits, and costs associated with sharing information between public safety and transportation agencies in support of TIM. Interagency exchange of information is the key to obtaining the most rapid, efficient, and appropriate response to highway incidents from all agencies. More and more, such information must be shared across system, organizational, and jurisdic- tional boundaries. Transportation and public safety agencies in locations across the United States are successfully sharing highway incident information through a variety of methods. A case study approach based on site visits was used. Inter- views and document reviews were conducted at a selected group of sites regarding the methods of information sharing between transportation and public safety organizations, the effectiveness of these methods, and the corresponding fea- tures of the interagency relationships. The limited sample represented by these surveys confirmed that working rela- tionships between public safety and transportation organiza- tions are positively correlated with information sharing. A summary of results is provided in Table 1. Four broad methods of information sharing were identified: Face-to-face encompassed direct interpersonal activities, usu- ally at joint operations or shared facilities. Remote voice included common communications options such as telephones and land mobile radio. Electronic text involved text messaging via paging, facsimile, or email devices and text access to traf- fic incident–related data systems, including computer-aided dispatching (CAD). Other media and advanced systems com- prises technology-dependent methods not addressed in the pre- vious categories, such as video and other imaging systems, and integrated technologies, such as advanced traffic management systems. At six locations surveyed, communications and information systems are made accessible to both public safety and trans- portation organizations at a common location. These joint operations centers are often the cornerstone for information sharing between agencies in a region. The standard wireline telephone is still the primary means of center-to-center inter- agency communication at most locations. Transportation inci- dent scene information is best and most immediately commu- nicated via land mobile radio. This was reflected in the wide- spread practice of providing public safety radio access to some transportation agency units at most locations. Service patrols were the transportation units most commonly found to be equipped with public safety radios at the case study locations. Commercial cellular capabilities have greatly improved with the advent of push-to-talk and priority access features that can effectively emulate radio service. Key personnel from some of the agencies coordinate with interagency points-of-contact commercial wireless push-to-talk networks. Alphanumeric pagers, cellular short message service text messaging, and email are used by some individuals to com- municate within their agencies. However, these applications are not the key means for sharing TIM information with other agencies. CAD systems, while also not yet a key method for interagency information sharing, has become a component of incident information sharing networks in seven of the loca- tions. Most existing CAD systems are proprietary and are not designed to exchange information with CAD systems offered by other vendors, let alone with transportation systems. When practical, public safety and transportation agencies should consider using compatible information systems to establish effective interagency information exchange. Freeway management systems operated by transportation agencies in many metropolitan areas include closed-circuit television (CCTV) or other video systems, embedded sensors in roadways, dynamic message signs, and highway advisory radio systems. Information generated by these systems is read- ily shared where public safety staff are co-located at the rel- evant transportation centers. In some locations, video and still images are shared remotely. The survey locations provided clear examples of successes and failures of sharing traffic incident information between transportation and public safety agencies. Of the various methods of sharing information presented in this report, no single one is best. The characteristics of the local environ- ment and organizations are key factors affecting the success of a method. There is no guarantee that implementing any of these methods under different institutional, operational, or technical situations will achieve the same results as reported in the case studies. However, the successful programs iden- tified in the case studies are certainly viable candidates for emulation elsewhere.

Effective communications arise between transportation and public safety organizations that work well together. Interaction between the two communities can work to build the mutual trust and respect necessary to build close working relation- ships. Many factors influence interoperability. For multi- agency TIM information sharing, the broad factors are insti- tutional, technical, and operational. 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 and pub- lic safety had formal frameworks in place for cooperative activities and day-to-day working relationships at many lev- els of the organizations. In all cases investigated, the frame- works were based on formal agreements or regional plans. Some of the frameworks could serve as models for other locations planning to implement cooperative programs. Personal relationships among a handful of key staff are crucial to success. As demonstrated in successful locations, operational personnel have found innovative ways to over- come institutional and technical limitations to TIM coordi- nation. Whether through informal traffic task forces or cellu- lar talk groups, the trust established through these individuals permeates through the corresponding organizations. More- 2 over, co-location strengthens these interagency relationships and trust. 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. At another location, when cham- pions moved on in their careers, an information exchange proj- ect lost essential management support. That allowed previous minor problems to escalate, eventually leading to the project’s demise. The case studies identify some of the limitations of capac- ity, service availability, and cost of technologies for exchang- ing information between certain transportation agencies and their respective public safety partners. However, as also shown in the case studies, technology is capable of enhancing TIM information sharing and overcoming interoperability barriers. Agencies in the survey locations have shared common propri- etary communications or data systems, have used commercial wireless services, and are testing ways of crosslinking their information system. Fundamentally, sharing TIM information is an operational issue. Information sharing is a core value of public safety and of transportation agencies that work well together. The shared information leads to better decisions and performance—that TABLE 1 Summary of information-sharing methods by location Location Face-to-Face Remote Voice Electronic Text Other Media and Advanced Systems Albany, NY Two co-location sites Some sharing of public safety radios; some use of commercial wireless service “talk groups” Shared CAD system Roadway data, images, and video shared remotely Austin, TX Co-location site ready to open Service patrols equipped with local police radios CAD data to be shared remotely CCTV control shared with local police Cincinnati, OH Transportation center hosts regional incident management team operations Some sharing of public safety radios; some use of commercial wireless service “talk groups” Shared CAD under development CCTV and other traveler information are shared with public Minneapolis, MN Multiple co-location sites Shared radio system; some use of commercial wireless service “talk groups” Shared CAD data CCTV and other traffic management systems are shared Phoenix, AZ — Service patrols equipped with state police and DOT radios DOT data workstations provided to local public safety agencies CCTV shared with local fire department Salt Lake City, UT Co-location site Shared radio system Shared CAD data CCTV and other traffic management systems are shared San Antonio, TX Co-location site Service patrols equipped with local police radios; shared radio system to be deployed Shared CAD data CCTV and other traffic management systems are shared San Diego, CA Co-location site Service patrols equipped with local police radios Shared CAD data CAD data are posted on traveler information website Seattle, WA — Service patrols equipped with state patrol radios; center-center intercom system Shared CAD data Control of CCTV is shared with state patrol All locations use standard telephones and facsimile machines for information sharing. CAD = computer-aided dispatching. CCTV = closed-circuit television. DOT = department of transportation.

is, faster help to those in need, shorter time that an incident impedes traffic, and ultimately less economic costs to the key stakeholders involved. However, exchanges of infor- mation concerning incidents are difficult if transportation staff are not available. Many transportation operations cen- ters have increased their hours of operation in recent years, and transportation agencies in Arizona and Washington State have demonstrated the benefits of providing 24/7 inci- dent response teams. Most local officials interviewed were strongly supportive of sharing traffic incident information and employing multi- agency teams to manage traffic incidents. However, no loca- 3 tion visited during this study could formally quantify the ben- efits of information sharing. Moreover, most locations had no data to measure how other TIM practices affected detection, notification, response, clearance time, responder safety, or other metrics of performance. It is recommended that a set of performance measures be formulated and that sampling of these statistics be taken before and after the implementation of new TIM elements. Documenting and promoting the effec- tiveness of TIM enhancements, such as information-sharing programs, will help ensure that political leaders and public safety professionals increase their awareness of TIM problems and opportunities.