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.

4CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION Transportation operations and public safety operations are intertwined in many respects. Public safety providers—law enforcement, fire and rescue, and emergency medical ser- vices (EMS)—ensure safe and reliable transportation opera- tions by helping to prevent crashes and rescuing crash vic- tims. Conversely, the transportation network enables access to emergency incidents and, increasingly, provides real-time information about roadway and traffic conditions. 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 informa- tion must be shared across system, organizational, and juris- dictional boundaries. Public safety agencies and transporta- tion organizations often have information that is valuable to each other’s operations. For example, • Better incident detection and notification can engage appropriate public safety resources sooner, provide more rapid medical care to save lives and to minimize injury consequences, and reduce transportation infrastructure disruption; • Better road situation information can speed the delivery of emergency (and support) resources to the scene; and • Better incident site status and coordination information can improve the safety of emergency responders and has- ten incident stabilization, investigation, and clearance. Some transportation and public safety agencies in loca- tions across the United States are usefully exchanging infor- mation through various methods. As part of this study, inter- views 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 features of the interagency relationships. 2.1 INCIDENT MANAGEMENT CONTEXT FOR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS The incident management system (IMS) was born out of the chaos of wildland fires in California in the early 1970s. The fire service created a nationally standardized command and control paradigm to adopt common operational task responsi- bilities, organizational lines of command, and good manage- ment practices. It has been adopted throughout the fire service and by EMS because of their close organizational and oper- ational association with the fire service. Law enforcement is also beginning to use IMS as well, especially for large or com- plex incidents. Transportation agencies, in seeking to opera- tionally integrate their handling of congestion-producing high- way incidents with public safety, have also embraced IMS principles and broadened IMS application beyond on-scene operations to include traffic management center operations. TIM is a planned and coordinated process to detect, respond to, and remove traffic incidents and restore traffic capacity as safely and quickly as possible. It involves the coordinated interactions of multiple public agencies and private-sector partners (1). TIM may be used for a range of purposes, from a fender bender on the highway to a hurricane evacuation. TIM requires transportation and public safety organizations to work together. Effective TIM depends on rapid and effec- tive exchange of information among all involved parties, including agreement on task definitions, lines of authority, organizational framework, divisions of responsibility, and means of resolving conflicts. However, in many regions, key officials from one agency can rarely talk to their counterparts in another agency by radio, let alone share detailed and situ- ational information. Interoperability—that is, two or more different agencies exchanging information according to pre- scribed methods in order to achieve predictable results—is essential. Many factors influence interoperability. For multi- agency TIM information sharing, the broad factors are insti- tutional, technical, and operational. At the highest level are the institutional factors that enable and influence multiagency willingness to share information. Key factors include policies for coordination and cooperation (e.g., legislative or executive branch mandates), common or coordinated budgets, memoranda of understanding or agree- ment, co-location of personnel or equipment, and information security or privacy restrictions. Technical factors determine the capability to efficiently share information. Radio, com- puter, and video systems can greatly strengthen information- sharing capabilities. At the same time, however, incompati- bilities among these systems can also impede communication. Spectrum, standards, bandwidth, and equipment reliability influence the ability of technologies to support interoperabil- ity. Although institutional and technical aspects are crucial factors, the operational context ultimately determines the efficiency and effectiveness of the information sharing. The

5operational context implies that all personnel understand the importance of the information, that the information is usable, and that it can usefully affect decisions. Operational factors that can set this context include cross-agency training and other training and joint operations frameworks, such as inci- dent response teams and general IMSs. Following the events of September 11, 2001, these inter- operability factors have gained national attention. There is an expanding range of possibilities for coordinating public safety and transportation agencies, some of which are identified in this study. There is also strong public and political support, a range of information technology options, and new funding mechanisms for improving interoperability. The challenge is to engage public safety and transportation professionals and to enable them to implement successful practices for generating and sharing safety information. This project assesses some of these information-sharing practices and the degree to which localities have taken advantage of these opportunities. 2.2 RESEARCH APPROACH A case study approach based on site visits and interviews was used. A list of the candidate sites to visit was compiled from a literature review and Intelligent Transportation Sys- tems (ITS) Integration Program information. On the ITS Inte- gration Program list, several projects exemplified cutting-edge efforts to integrate transportation and public safety informa- tion systems, institutions, and operations. Using NCHRP guidance, the list also contained locations with failed or no attempts at such integration. These types of situation were desired to provide a more rounded view of information sharing between transportation and public safety organizations. The proposed visit lists were presented to the NCHRP Project 3-63 Panel for review and approval. The sites visited are identified in Table 2. In selecting the list of candidate interview sites, the term “transportation management center (TMC)” as used in the research problem statement was loosely interpreted in a man- ner that encompasses any facility containing information sys- tems that are used to manage traffic flow, including trans- portation operations centers (TOCs) that also manage field resources, or other communications centers that also pro- vide similar services. Also, the researchers regarded linked transportation management and public safety organizations to be worthy of initial consideration for a site visit and inter- view, regardless of whether the organizations were physically co-located. An approach was used to gather information about incident management programs at the sites that concentrated on using face-to-face interviews with participants in an environment designed to maintain the privacy of discussions. Interviews, meetings, and conversations were conducted with participants at multiple organizational levels, including actual operators at all key agencies and their direct supervisors where practicable. Prior to each site visit, researchers contacted the inter- viewees and sought to obtain a packet of background and ori- entation information about the TIM coordination activities. There were varied responses from the sites, ranging from voluminous documentation to telephone conversations. After studying the information received, gaining an appreciation of the history of interaction between the local transportation and public safety communities, and understanding the background of the project or system in use at the site, researchers visited the sites and conducted the interviews. As time permitted, and as the opportunities presented themselves, researchers augmented their information gathering with ride-along ses- sions, tours, and demonstrations. 2.3 WHAT INFORMATION AND METHODS OF SHARING WERE CONSIDERED? The following types of traffic incident information were considered within the scope of this study: • Detection and Notification Information—Identifies the incident (e.g., vehicle crash or other event) and informs TABLE 2 Case study locations and agencies Location Key Transportation Agencies Key Public Safety Agencies Albany, NY New York State DOT; New York State Thruway Authority New York State Police; Albany Police Austin, TX Texas DOT Austin Police Cincinnati, OH Ohio DOT; Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Hamilton County Dept. of Communications; Cincinnati Police; Covington Police Minneapolis, MN Minnesota DOT Minnesota State Patrol Phoenix, AZ Arizona DOT Phoenix Fire Dept. Salt Lake City, UT Utah DOT Utah Dept. of Public Safety Highway Patrol and Communications Bureau San Antonio, TX Texas DOT San Antonio Police Dept. San Diego, CA California DOT California Highway Patrol Seattle, WA Washington State DOT Washington State Patrol

6the agencies responsible for dispatching appropriate per- sonnel and equipment and for managing traffic. • Response Information—Provides incident details (e.g., number and type of injuries and precise location) to speed the delivery of the optimal emergency resources to the scene. Related information includes local traffic con- ditions and agency resource location. • Site Management Information—Provides status details about the incident site and resources to enable on-scene coordination within and among agencies. This supports emergency responder safety, traffic management, inci- dent stabilization, investigation, and clearance. For the purpose of this case study, the results are grouped according to categories of traffic incident information-sharing methods: • Face-to-Face—Personal communication where staff from different agencies share office space (such as joint operations centers or mobile command posts). • Remote Voice—Common options readily available to support operations within most transportation and public safety agencies, such as telephone and land mobile radio. • Electronic Text—Lower-bandwidth interconnection applications such as facsimile machines, electronic mes- saging, CAD, or record management systems. • Other Media and Advanced Systems—Technology- dependent methods not addressed in the previous cate- gories. This category contains primarily higher-bandwidth communications options, such as video and other imag- ing systems, and integrated systems, such as advanced traffic management systems.