Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations (2005)

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.

2G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S THE CHALLENGES The highway network is vulnerable to disruption from a variety of events—traffic inci- dents, weather, construction, natural disaster, and security-related incidents. This vul- nerability is increasing with increased traffic, urban development in vulnerable areas, and the threat of terrorism. Closures are more frequent and long back-ups often accom- pany even modest incidents. Those that occur on the upper-level systems—typically under state DOT jurisdiction—tend to be more serious and disruptive. Indeed, more than half of highway delay results from nonrecurring causes of this type. Furthermore, such incidents are the major contributor to the lack of predictability and reliability of high- way transportation service. These events also involve significant impact to life safety, property damage, and responder safety. It is apparent that effective management of highway system operations is critical for transportation agencies to improve public safety and mobility when any type of incident or emergency occurs. Handling the wide range of incidents that happen to occur on high- ways in the traditional generic “all incidents are really alike” manner is no longer appro- priate on highly traveled roadways where “business as usual” can cause tremendous dis- ruption on top of the incident or emergency itself.1 Resolving highway incidents and delays in the shortest possible time is important to both public safety and mobility. It contributes to more timely victim treatment, reduced acci- dent exposure, and a minimum of public inconvenience. There is not likely to be a more cost-effective approach meeting customer objectives and advancing public credibility. Therefore, traffic incident management (TIM) has increasingly focused on the subject of more organized planning on the part of both state DOTs and public safety communities. At the same time, there is heightened public focus on the critical function transportation plays in disaster response, including terrorist events, because transportation roadway networks, whether or not directly affected by an emergency, are always the means by which response and recovery are facilitated. In this context, the Department of Home- land Security’s (DHS) National Incident Management System (NIMS) calls for more rigorous emergency management protocols with its principles of incident command, joint planning and standardization, and performance-based improvement. The overlap between TIM and the transportation aspects of disaster response, emergency management, and security-related operations is obvious and compelling. This guide pro- vides strategies for the development of a comprehensive, coordinated, performance- oriented approach among the transportation, public safety, and emergency management communities in responding to traffic incidents, natural disasters, and other types of emergencies. For purposes of this guide, this integrated approach is called emergency transportation operations (ETO). 1 Throughout this guide, reference will be made to state DOT current practice. While not specifically dis- cussed, the same issues and approaches are applicable to local government operations.

KEY DRIVING FORCES The imperative for a more formal approach to dealing with the traffic implications of incidents, emergencies, and disasters arises out of a set of driving forces that character- ize the external environment for state DOTs and their public safety partners, as well as the legacy institutional environments in which they operate. Seven key forces can be perceived: 1. Highway incidents and traffic-related emergencies are a major cause of delay and safety problems, 2. The broad and growing array of hazards that involve highways directly or indi- rectly has varying implications for response, 3. State DOTs and local government transportation departments are not clearly focused on accountability for ETO, 4. There is no clear “best practice” that is widely accepted, 5. New technology is available that could support improved ETO, 6. There is limited institutional commitment to traffic incident and related emer- gency operations as part of ETO, and 7. Significant highway performance improvement opportunities are being missed. Together these compose a powerful incentive to break away from conventional practice. These forces are described in the next section of this guide. A SERIOUS COMMITMENT TO ETO A review of the state of the practice suggests that improving the performance of ETO presents a significant opportunity to improve mobility and safety. However, this will require a reorientation of the state DOTs’ role and a higher degree of cooperation among DOTs, law enforcement, fire and rescue, towing and recovery, and other contributing agencies. Public safety agencies have principal incident command authority and long-standing conventions both for generic incident response and emergency management procedures, including those that take place on or impact highways. Their priorities are on law enforcement, life safety, and property protection. Improvements in the mobility dimen- sion of ETO must respect the priorities and conventions of public safety agencies, but there is an increased public safety understanding of the DOT role, as evidenced in recent national fire service guidance on TIM (the Incident Management Model Procedures Guide for Highway Incidents, published by the National Fire Service Incident Manage- ment System Consortium and the U.S. Department of Transportation [USDOT]). To fulfill their mobility mission, many DOTs will have to upgrade the position of inci- dent management and emergency operations activities beyond their often fragmented, part-time, and reactive character. The operational performance level of incident response in terms of detection, response, site management, and clearance times is rarely tracked. 3 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

The best technology for communication and site documentation and the best proce- dures (as presented in the new Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices [MUTCD]) are not widely deployed. These characteristics reflect the fact that TIM is not a for- mal, budgeted, managed program. At the same time, state DOTs’ emergency opera- tions in support of state and emergency management are also often part-time respon- sibilities and fail to exploit the full potential of DOTs to contribute. These same concerns apply to county and municipal governments with significant freeway and major arterial responsibilities. In addition to moving toward a more formal state program for ETO on the part of state DOTs, a new level of cooperation among state DOTs, law enforcement, fire and rescue, towing and recovery, and other contributing agencies will be essential. It must focus on policies, procedures, organization, technology, and performance. However, in pursuing this agenda, state DOTs will have to earn credibility through consistent, aggressive con- duct of their own responsibilities. SELF-ASSESSMENT AGAINST BEST PRACTICE There are no nationally accepted standards for incident management against which cur- rent practice can be measured—or that can be used for accreditation purposes. The review of evolving best practices (see NCHRP Web Document 73, Section A, Best Prac- tices) indicates that there is tremendous variation nationwide in the conventions of ETO, including who responds, when and how, chain of command, and in-field procedures. Many of the challenges to be faced are derived from the legacy of informal, personality- dependent approaches rather than standardized practice. Within individual state DOTs, shortcomings in practice can be identified through a direct self-assessment of specific approaches to both institutional issues (policy and organization) as well as operations and technology (field protocols, roles, and relationships). Key questions include 1. Are the DOT’s responsibilities and capabilities across the full range of transportation-related events fully integrated within the emergency manage- ment community and vice versa? 2. Is there a formal ETO program with senior executive responsibility and account- ability at the state DOT’s district and headquarters levels? 3. Is there a clear, sustainable resource allocation process that reflects the DOT’s priority on ETO? 4. Are the managers of ETO response being held accountable for performance through a performance reporting process? 5. Is there a clear sustainable policy commitment to operations, including statu- tory authorization for an efficient program? An organized improvement program will not be starting from scratch. ETO responsi- bilities already exist. Most DOTs have incident management programs that are manned by a combination of traffic operations personnel in transportation management centers (TMCs) and maintenance personnel, with long-standing relationships among DOT and public safety field staff. An improved approach must build on current strengths such as 4 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

DOT TMC operations and incident response patrol programs and must be developed in close cooperation with the other responder entities. In the long run, clear standards must be set by which improved practice may be measured. STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE CURRENT PRACTICE Improvement strategies and tactics for overcoming the gaps between current and best practice for ETO are presented in this guide. The strategies focus on a more formal, all- hazard approach, developed on an interagency basis using agreed-upon performance objectives. The strategies are organized into two general areas: Institutions and Leader- ship and Operations and Technology. Five basic improvements have been identified that require executive action, the imple- mentation of which would reflect a new cooperative commitment with public safety agencies to service improvement. The needed changes are institutional and organiza- tional in nature and require top management support to provide leadership, policy and program definition, and top-level liaison with public safety agencies. They also suggest the logic of making ETO a formal program of the department. Basic Strategies for Improving ETO 5 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Develop an approach to ETO on an integrated, comprehensive, all-emergency/hazard/discipline basis. Develop a structured ETO process with joint pro- tocols and procedures with full regard to the range of objectives while minimizing traffic disruptions. Examine technology opportunities and cost- effectiveness to introduce new technology and improve efficiency, effectiveness, and safety. Measure performance in the field to provide the basis for continuous improvement. Formalize ETO as a program with appropriate policies, authorization, organization, structure, and resources. REALITY BASIC STRATEGY IMPLIED 1. Need to accommodate the full range of incidents, emergencies, and hazards. 2. Absence of widely accepted best practice approaches. 3. Effective technology not integrated. 4. Absence of performance measures. 5. Informal, fragmented activities. THE IMPORTANCE OF EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP Executive-level support is crucial to the development of a more formal program approach and to ensure that the responsibilities and resources are mobilized and targeted. Raising what is now a part-time, fragmented set of responsibilities to the level of a resourced, managed program must overcome bureaucratic traditions and inertia, com- pete for resources, support new approaches, and forge new external relationships. These challenges require top executive leadership—starting at the policy level in agency head- quarters and executed under the responsibility of the district and regional management levels. Such executive initiative and oversight is essential to ensure

• Fostering of an interagency focus on the complete array of incidents and emergencies; • Establishment of a formal program with senior responsibility, organization, and reporting; • Allocation of adequate resources; • Establishment of objectives with related performance measures and account- ability; and • Development of agency policy, laws, regulations, and interagency agreements. Given a decision to move ahead, top-level agreement must be reached among the DOT, law enforcement, fire and rescue, towing and recovery, and state and local emergency response entities on a joint focus for improvement. Cementing this relationship is crucial, and DOTs can serve as conveners to create a positive environment for change. Policy commitment and joint agreements within the responder community can then be converted into a manageable program working simultaneously on joint interagency improvements and the department’s own internal approach to achieving a higher level of sustainable activities and commitment to continuous, measurable improvement. This will require development of a strategic business plan, specifying responsibilities, resources, and per- formance targets. THE GUIDE Addressing the ETO challenge will require careful guidance and assignment of roles and responsibilities within and across agencies. The the first five sections of this guide are for all readers. The sections addressing Institutions and Leadership are for policy mak- ers and senior managers to establish the case for increased programmatic attention to ETO. The section addressing Operations and Technology is for program-level managers to develop specific plans and projects based on the evolving institutional framework established by senior managers. The resources guide, which is published as NCHRP Web Document 73, provides reference materials. Two related tools for process improvement are provided: 1. A self-assessment that allows managers to determine current strengths and weaknesses and thereby focus on the relevant part of the guidance material. 2. General strategies and tactics related to five areas of principal weakness described in a subsequent section of the guide. In the material that follows, Driving Forces and State of the Practice describe key chal- lenges to be overcome in three key areas—institutions, operations, and technology. The subsequent Improvement Strategies section serves as the basis for the guide and sets forth areas for change based on current problems. The Guidance Framework is then explained, followed by Self-Assessment and Guidance sections, which are organized around strategies and tactics for improvement. 6 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S

It is important to recognize that this guidance material represents a starting point in identifying and consolidating related needs and practices to improve management of transportation-related emergencies. The material included necessarily represents a first cut at this consolidation—a point of departure—focused principally on the mix of inci- dents that impact the upper-level roadway systems (freeways and expressways). The same issues and approaches are substantially applicable on the lower-level components of the roadway network. Furthermore, the material developed in this guide can be used as the basis for further, more detailed guidance appropriate for specific jurisdictions and the mix of emergencies experienced in a given state, region, or jurisdiction (for example, more/less weather emergencies or planned events). 7 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S