![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.49375in" height="8.403472222222222in"}

This page intentionally left blank.

Table of Contents

[List of Acronyms ii](#list-of-acronyms)

[I. Executive Summary 1](#i.-executive-summary)

[II. Introduction 2](#ii.-introduction)

[III. Conference Program 4](#iii.-conference-program)

[IV. Conference Outcomes 7](#iv.-conference-outcomes)

[Appendix A: List of Conference Participants
A-1](#appendix-a-list-of-conference-participants)

[Appendix B: Plenary Session Presentations
B-1](#appendix-b-plenary-session-presentations)

[Appendix C: Conference Discussion Papers
C-1](#appendix-c-conference-discussion-papers)

[Operational Issues Discussion Papers
C-1](#operational-issues-discussion-papers)

[Technological Issues Discussion Paper
C-18](#technological-issues-discussion-paper)

[Institutional Issues Discussion Paper
C-27](#institutional-issues-discussion-paper)

[Appendix D: Priority Issues and Actions/Initiatives
D-1](#appendix-d-priority-issues-and-actionsinitiatives)

[Appendix E: Issues and Actions/Initiatives Generated in the Breakout
Sessions
E-1](#appendix-e-issues-and-actionsinitiatives-generated-in-the-breakout-sessions)

[Appendix F: Post-Conference Survey Summary
F-1](#appendix-f-post-conference-survey-summary)

##  {#section .unnumbered}

## List of Acronyms

> AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation
> Officials
>
> Caltrans California Department of Transportation
>
> CCTV Closed Captioned Television
>
> DOT Department of Transportation
>
> FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
>
> FEMA Federal Emergency Management Administration
>
> FHWA Federal Highway Administration
>
> IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police
>
> IIMS Integrated Incident Management System
>
> IM Incident Management
>
> ITS Intelligent Transportation System
>
> ITSA Intelligent Transportation Society of America
>
> MOU Memorandum of Understanding
>
> MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
>
> NCHRP 20-6 National Cooperative Highway Research Program "Legal
> Programs Arising Out of Highway Programs"
>
> NCUTLO National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances
>
> NFPA National Fire Protection Association
>
> NHTSA National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
>
> STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
>
> TIM Traffic Incident Management
>
> TMC Traffic Management Center
>
> TRB Transportation Research Board
>
> USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
>
> USDOJ U.S. Department of Justice
>
> VMS Variable Message Sign

## I. Executive Summary

Traffic incidents have a great effect on the safety of responders and on
the mobility of the traveling public using our nation's roadways. They
can contribute to responder deaths and injuries, response equipment
damage, motorist injuries through secondary crashes, and the cost and
time of traffic delay in urban and rural areas. Integrated traffic
incident management (TIM) is emerging as a proven solution to address
these safety and mobility concerns. Traffic incident management 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.

To develop and advance a national agenda for improved traffic incident
management, the National Conference on Traffic Incident Management was
held on March 11-13, 2002, at The Beckman Center in Irvine, California.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America (ITSA), and the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) sponsored the conference. A steering committee,
composed of representatives from the fire and emergency response, law
enforcement, towing and recovery, technology, transportation, and user
communities, assisted in refining conference goals, developing the
program, and soliciting participation within and across their
disciplines. The steering committee was led by AASHTO, who along with
FHWA, appointed steering committee members, contracted for conference
planning and support, and reviewed and approved the content of the
proceedings.

The conference sponsors invited practitioners and policy level experts
from these disciplines to participate. Participants were selected to
achieve a balance between urban and rural perspectives; to identify
possible "champions" for moving the national agenda forward after the
conference; and to involve individuals who could draw upon experience,
success stories, and lessons learned in crafting a national agenda. One
hundred and sixty-seven professionals participated in the conference to
discuss barriers to improving traffic incident management and to
identify and prioritize actions that can be taken to address the
barriers and opportunities.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="1.75in" height="2.672222222222222in"}The
National Conference on Traffic Incident Management was organized in
three phases. On March 11^th^, experts presented, in a plenary session,
the history, safety, societal impact, and issues associated with traffic
incident management from the perspective of police, fire,
transportation, and other public and private sector partners. The
speakers provided a foundation for attendee participation throughout the
rest of the conference. On March 12^th^, participants discussed, in
small groups work sessions, their priority issues for advancing the
state of the practice in traffic incident management and recommended
actions/initiatives to address these issues. These breakout sessions
were divided into three focus areas: Operational Issues, Technological
Issues, and Institutional Issues. On March 13^th^, participants further
refined the priority actions and initiatives and began to identify
potential next steps to advance the traffic incident management agenda
at the national level.

Conference participants identified seven overall action items as most
important for guiding a national agenda for traffic incident management.
More than half of the actions came from the institutional area, while
two technological actions/initiatives were cited for better regional and
cross-agency coordination. Important action items were also identified
for each of the breakout session focus areas. **Operational Action
Items** focused on improved *responder training*, *funding* (e.g., for
incident management plan templates and state-wide program development),
and better *traffic control* (quick clearance, keeping lanes open, and
detour/diversion plans). **Technological Action Items** highlighted the
need for a *regional/cross-agency focus* (e.g., funding, development of
systems architectures, and sharing information and technology).
**Institutional Action Items** centered on *standards and metrics*
(e.g., national program models and guidelines, performance benchmarks,
benefit/cost approaches), *a common voice for public safety*, and
*communicating benefits in the context of broader community issues*.

The conference recommendations suggest five key components for
implementing a national traffic incident management strategy: (1) a
national TIM framework/coalition, (2) TIM program development, (3)
professionalizing traffic incident management, (4) TIM technology, and
(5) communication, public outreach, and education. While not shown as a
separate key element, research is also necessary throughout for an
effective strategy. The conference sponsors are committed to moving
forward with a national traffic incident management strategy. During
Summer 2002, efforts will be underway to explore the formation of a new
national coalition to provide national leadership in addressing the
conference recommendations. One of the main goals of this coalition will
be begin an outreach/education process on the results of this conference
and the need for action in implementing the key components of a national
traffic incident management strategy.

## II. Introduction

Traffic incidents have a great effect on the safety of responders and on
the mobility of the traveling public using our nation's roadways. In
1999, over half of the police officers killed in the line of duty died
in traffic crashes. Nearly 10,000 police cars, 2,000 fire trucks, and
3,000 other service vehicles were struck while going to or at traffic
incidents. Crashes that result from other incidents make up 14-18% of
all crashes. These secondary crashes are estimated to cause 18% of
deaths on freeways. Traveler mobility and productivity are also
adversely affected by incidents and incident management. Well over half
of non-recurring traffic delay in urban areas, and a large majority in
rural areas, is a result of traffic incidents.[^1] Estimates of what
users spend on highways (i.e., out of pocket costs for freight, shipping
over highways, auto owners' use and operation of vehicles) total about
\$1 trillion per year. Estimates of total delay in rural and urban areas
contribute an additional \$1 trillion per year. In addition to the delay
costs, there is close to \$200 billion per year in direct economic loss
due to accidents and fatalities.

Integrated traffic incident management (TIM) is emerging as a proven
solution to address these safety and mobility concerns. Traffic incident
management 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.

To develop and advance a national agenda for improved traffic incident
management, the National Conference on Traffic Incident Management was
held on March 11-13, 2002, at The Beckman Center in Irvine, California.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America (ITSA), and the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) sponsored the conference. A steering committee,
composed of representatives from the fire and emergency response, law
enforcement, towing and recovery, technology, transportation, and user
communities, assisted in refining the conference goals, developing the
program, and soliciting support and participation within and across
their disciplines. The steering committee was led by AASHTO, who along
with FHWA, appointed steering committee members, contracted for
conference planning and support, and reviewed and approved the content
of the proceedings.

This conference was designed to build upon decades of work in the
incident management area. Over the past ten years, organizations have
sponsored initiatives to determine the state of the practice, develop
guidance in creating traffic incident management programs, document
successful practices, assess needs, and provide training and education.
Some examples of these efforts include:

-   The National Incident Management Coalition, established in the early
    1990s to support, heighten awareness of, and provide education on
    incident management.

-   Traffic Incident Management Handbook, published by FHWA in 1991 and
    updated in November 2000 to assist transportation and public safety
    agencies in improving their programs and operations.

-   Managing Traffic Incidents and Roadway Emergencies, a National
    Highway Institute course taught continuously since 1998, designed
    for mid- and upper-level managers for all agencies involved in
    incident management. Focuses on practices to obtain good
    inter-agency and inter-disciplinary understanding and cooperation.

-   Incident Management Successful Practices: A Cross-Cutting Study,
    published by FHWA in April 2000 to document successful partnerships,
    benefits of TIM programs, and lessons learned from TIM programs
    around the United States.

-   An Assessment of Select Metropolitan Washington Public Safety and
    Transportation Agencies User Needs, a February 2001 report from the
    International Association of Chiefs of Police and the University of
    Virginia for the Capital Wireless Integration Network (CapWIN)
    Project. The report evaluates the current status of information
    sharing and major issues, concerns, and elements of CapWIN
    participants' needs.

-   Regional Traffic Incident Management Programs: An Implementation
    Guide, a May 2001 FHWA publication describing a program formation
    process to provide institutional cohesion to help assure the
    continuity and success of traffic incident management programs.

-   Traffic Incident Management Expert Focus Groups, an initiative of
    the National Incident Management Coalition, documented in a
    September 2001 report, to examine current practices, common
    challenges, the future of traffic incident management, measuring
    success, and determining the federal role.

The goal of the National Conference on Traffic Incident Management was
to integrate all of these efforts and determine what actions need to be
taken at the national level to reinforce and advance the traffic
incident management agenda.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.0055555555555555in"}The conference sponsors and steering
committee invited practitioners and policy level experts from the fire
and emergency response, law enforcement, towing and recovery,
technology, transportation, and user communities to participate.
Criteria for selecting participants included: a balance between urban
and rural perspectives; possible "champions" for moving the national
agenda forward after the conference; and individuals who could draw upon
experience, success stories, and lessons learned in crafting a national
agenda. One hundred and sixty-seven professionals participated in the
conference to discuss barriers to improving traffic incident management
and to identify and prioritize actions that can be taken to address
barrier issues. A complete list of conference attendees can be found in
Appendix A.

## III. Conference Program

![](media/image5.wmf){width="4.540277777777778in"
height="3.092361111111111in"}The National Conference on Traffic Incident
Management was organized in three phases, as shown in the figure below.
On March 11^th^,experts, in the plenary session, presented the history,
safety, societal impact, and issues associated with traffic incident
management from the perspective of police, fire, transportation, and
other public and private sector partners. They provided a foundation for
attendee participation throughout the rest of the conference. On March
12^th^, participants attended small group discussion sessions designed
to solicit their input on priority issues for advancing the state of the
practice in traffic incident management and on recommended
actions/initiatives to address these issues. On March 13^th^,
participants further refined the priority actions and initiatives to
address TIM issues. In addition, the conference sponsoring organizations
began to identify potential next steps to advance the traffic incident
management agenda at the national level.

### Opening Remarks

**Mr. Tony Kane**, Director of Engineering and Technical Services,
AASHTO, opened the conference by welcoming participants and citing some
of the urgent reasons for addressing traffic incident management as a
high priority. Incidents cause well over half of non-recurring traffic
delay in urban areas, and 100% in rural areas. Estimates of what users
spend on highways (i.e., out of pocket costs for freight, shipping over
highways, auto owners' use and operation of vehicles) total about \$1
trillion per year. Estimates of total delay in rural and urban areas add
up to another \$1 trillion per year. In addition, there is close to
\$200 billion per year in economic loss due to accidents and fatalities.
These are very large numbers to address and reduce. A strong focus on
safety and mobility is needed to have as few incidents as possible, to
clear incidents as quickly as possible, to preserve the safety of
police, fire, rescue, and emergency responders, and to restore mobility.

Citing the reference materials provided to participants, Mr. Kane noted
that while this is not the first conference for traffic incident
management, it will be a defining one for the future agenda. He
reiterated the goal of the conference to develop priority
recommendations to guide the emerging national agenda for traffic
incident management. Through this conference, participants will have the
opportunity to discuss and develop recommendations in areas including
research and development, technology deployment, institutional
arrangements, legislative and regulatory actions, and training.

### Welcome Address

In his welcoming remarks, **Mr. Randell Iwasaki**, Deputy Director for
Maintenance and Operations, California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), noted that California's experience with many natural
disasters (e.g., earthquakes, fires, and floods) has shown that
information is key for both large and small incidents. Without accurate
and up-to-date information, poor decisions are made. Mr. Iwasaki
outlined a number of challenges related to large-scale incident
management, including receiving information in many forms; the challenge
of obtaining complete information in the first 48 hours of any disaster;
and the difficulties partners have in communicating with each other. He
noted that numerous small incidents are dealt with daily around the
nation. For example, thousands of lane closures are requested weekly in
the Los Angeles area. Responders have learned to be more proactive and
clear incidents quicker.

Mr. Iwasaki stated that the events of September 11 were a turning point
for incident management. As a result, California is applying some of its
lessons learned to make response better. Among the initiatives he cited
were:

-   Improving the advanced transportation management system for earlier
    detection and verification of major and minor incidents so that the
    appropriate resources can be utilized.

-   Refining the existing Incident and Disaster Management Plan with the
    California Highway Patrol.

-   Integrating emergency management centers with local transportation
    management centers to provide alternative route options on the local
    system.

-   Using State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds to
    provide better connectivity between modes.

-   Expanding the fully interoperable radio system in San Diego to Los
    Angeles and Sacramento.

Mr. Iwasaki indicated one of the most critical pieces to successful
incident management is developing and growing the necessary
partnerships. He emphasized that this conference is designed to help
participants learn from collective experiences, find ways to become more
proactive, and refine the national agenda for traffic incident
management. On behalf of Jeff Morales, Director of Caltrans, Mr. Iwasaki
welcomed conference participants to California and thanked John Horsley,
Executive Director of AASHTO for his organization's leadership in this
area.

### Plenary Session Presentations

The conference opened with a plenary session in which participants heard
a multi-disciplinary panel discussion and presentations on rural and
urban incident management perspectives and lessons learned. Three
discussion papers focusing on operational, technological, and
institutional TIM issues were also presented in the plenary session on
Day Two of the conference. Together, these sessions formed the basis for
participant discussion on the issues and actions necessary for improving
traffic incident management. A more detailed summary of the plenary
session presentations and the full text of the discussion papers can be
found in Appendix B and Appendix C of this report.

##### The Importance of Traffic Incident Management: A Multi-Disciplinary View

Members of the law enforcement, fire, towing, transportation, and
technology communities provided their perspectives on what needs to be
done to improve traffic incident management.

-   Mike Brown, Chief, California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles District

-   Mitchell Villalpando, Deputy Chief, Sycuan Fire Department and Vice
    President, San Diego Fire Chiefs Association

-   Evelyn Harden, State President, California Tow Truck Association

-   John Horsley, Executive Director, AASHTO

-   Neil Schuster, President and CEO, ITSA

##### Traffic Incident Management Practices: Operational, Technological, and Institutional Perspectives

Speakers discussed how effective traffic incident management practices
are implemented in urban and rural environments.

-   Ellis Stanley, General Manager, Los Angeles City Emergency
    Preparedness Department

-   David Ekern, Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
    Transportation and Associate Director, AASHTO

##### Traffic Incident Management Lessons Learned

Presenters shared with the audience their traffic management experiences
during the September 11 terrorist attack on the Pentagon, at the 2002
Olympic Winter Games, and at the every day events that indicate a need
for greater multi-jurisdiction and multi-discipline coordination.

-   Ed Plaugher, Fire Chief, Arlington County, VA

-   Ed Flynn, Police Chief, Arlington County, VA

-   Tom Ranson, Incident Management Coordinator, Utah Department of
    Transportation

-   George Black, Member, National Transportation Safety Board

##### Discussion Papers: Operational, Technological, and Institutional Issues

Three discussion papers were commissioned to help frame the breakout
session activities. The papers were organized around a specific set of
traffic incident management topics -- operational, technological, and
institutional -- and highlighted key issues in each topic area. At
registration, participants received a set of papers to review. The
authors also presented overviews of the papers immediately preceding the
breakout sessions. These presentations were given by:

-   Operational Issues -- John O'Laughlin and Arland (Ted) Smith, PB
    Farradyne

-   Technological Issues -- Pam Scanlon, San Diego Automated Regional
    Justice Information System, and Bruce Churchill, NET Corporation

-   Institutional Issues -- John Corbin, Wisconsin Department of
    Transportation, and Steve Lockwood, PB Farradyne

## IV. Conference Outcomes

### Breakout Session Results

During breakout sessions, participants identified and prioritized issues
for advancing the state of the practice in traffic incident management.
They defined candidate actions/initiatives to be taken to address the
priority issues. Breakout sessions were organized around the
Operational, Technological, and Institutional discussion paper topics.
Participants rotated through the session topics, so that each attendee
had the opportunity to comment on all three areas.

A set of common priority issues and actions/initiatives emerged from the
breakout sessions. These were presented in a plenary session by topic
area and included:

##### ![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in" height="5.66875in"}

The priority issues and actions/initiatives presented in the plenary
session can be found in Appendix D.

A full reporting of all of the issues and actions/initiatives generated
in the breakout sessions can be found in Appendix E.

### Prioritization of Actions/Initiatives

After hearing the breakout session output, participants provided further
insights for guiding a national agenda by prioritizing their proposed
actions/initiatives to improve traffic incident management. Participants
were asked to choose those as "most important" in each area of
operations, institution, and technology from among the full set of 435
actions/initiatives The results of this prioritization are shown below.
**Operational Action Items** focused on *responder training*, *funding*
(e.g., for incident management plan templates and state-wide program
development), and *traffic control* (quick clearance, keeping lanes
open, and detour/diversion plans). **Technological Action Items**
highlighted the need for a *regional/cross-agency focus* (e.g., funding,
development of systems architectures, and sharing information and
technology). **Institutional Action Items** centered on *standards and
metrics* (e.g., national program models and guidelines, performance
benchmarks, benefit/cost approaches), *a common voice for public
safety*, and *communicating benefits in the context of broader community
issues*.

The results of participants' prioritization across all
actions/initiatives suggest the need to focus on institutional issues.
Within the list of the most important overall action items, more than
half of the actions come from the institutional area. The two
technological actions/initiatives cite the need to improve regional and
cross-agency coordination. Key phrases that summarize major
actions/initiatives by each category are shown in ovals in the graphic
below.

### ![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.95in" height="4.915277777777778in"} 

### Panel Discussion: What Did We Hear From The Group Discussions?

On the final day of the conference, **Jeff Lindley**, Director, Office
of Travel Management, FHWA led a panel to solicit reactions to the
discussions and priority items developed during the conference. He noted
the issues he expected to hear at this conference were brought forward
-- communication on the institutional and technical sides, information
sharing, the need for more resources, and the need for more training.
Mr. Lindley was surprised by a few of the emerging themes, including the
amount of dialogue on performance measures, standards, and how the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) relates to positive
traffic control. He commented that the depth of the recommendations
coming forward from this conference was outstanding.

**John Conrad**, Chairman, Future Strategic Highway Research Program
(F-SHRP), Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Regional Operations,
Washington Department of Transportation, noted that he was extremely
impressed how such a diverse group of people came together with a common
purpose at this conference. Mr. Conrad reviewed the F-SHRP agenda, which
is being developed around making a significant improvement to highway
safety, providing highway capacity in support of national economic and
environmental goals, providing a highway system with reliable travel
times, and accelerating the renewal of America's highways. He noted
several important recommendations emerged from this conference.
Performance measures will be necessary to advance the traffic incident
management program. A national coalition with a common voice and vision
is needed to nurture relationships with various federal agencies.
Communication is key for institutional issues, interoperability and
integration challenges, and in letting the traveling public know what is
happening on the roadways. In terms of next steps, Mr. Conrad commented
that even though the purpose of conference was to put together a
national agenda, many of the results can be taken back to local areas
and put into effect right away. He also stressed the need to help
support the national coalition as it forms.

**Rebecca Brewster**, Deputy Director, American Trucking Association
Foundation, presented her feedback from the perspective of a user of the
system. She thanked participants on behalf of the trucking industry for
keeping highways safe. The costs for heavy vehicles to sit in traffic
are very high and have a large impact nationally. Ms. Brewster noted the
operational issues are very important to the user and particularly to
the trucking industry. With regard to certification, the towing
community has the most contact with truckers during incidents. Anything
that can be done to further educate towers on proper scene operations
will help in getting incidents cleared and in handling equipment
properly.

Motorist information is also critical to the trucking industry. There is
an obligation to get real-time, accurate information to drivers. In
terms of positive traffic control, establishing queue protection,
providing incident information, and setting up the scene give truckers
the opportunity to slow down. In addition, Ms. Brewster cited the
importance of quick clearance, scene safety, secondary incident
information, and technology improvements to provide better incident
information. She stated the trucking industry supports increased
resources to meet institutional challenges and has made this part of
their transportation reauthorization recommendations. Ms. Brewster
referenced the National Incident Management Coalition established in the
1990s to support, heighten awareness of, and provide education on
incident management. She commented that a new organization would be a
great addition to this effort.

**Barbara Hauser**, Incident Management Coordinator, Maricopa County,
Arizona Department of Transportation, provided a county-level
perspective. She noted the Phoenix area is in a unique situation; the
police and fire departments are leaders in getting along and promoting
successful interagency cooperation. Ms. Hauser stated that this
conference has brought out the need to consider the regional nature of
incident management in planning. It has been recognized that incidents
do not just happen on the freeways; they happen on and affect arterials.
Ms. Hauser commented that the transportation community will not be a
player until it has representatives with the same expertise as police
and fire. Transportation needs to have people out on the road who will
respond to incidents at 2:00 or 3:00 AM. There is also a need for a
shift in thinking in the traffic community. For example, the first thing
done when responding to the scene is protect it. This is backwards from
what is trained in traffic control. Unless experience is developed, the
need for change will not be realized. In addition, certification needs
to be implemented. In closing, Ms. Hauser noted this conference is a
very good start and was pleased to see the level of fire and police
representation.

**Don Grabowski**, Deputy Commissioner, Chicago Department of
Transportation, discussed four areas that need attention as traffic
incident management initiatives move forward. He commented that getting
money from the federal government can be a large task and that lobbying
should be undertaken to ease procedures for receiving funds. He also
emphasized the importance of funds being allocated in a way that is best
suited for the situation. Mr. Grabowski provided the example that for
the towing industry, equipment to overturn a large vehicle is very
expensive. In rural area this equipment may not be readily available. He
suggested that it may be possible to find ways for state and local
governments to secure funding to pay for equipment and turn it over to
an operator. Mr. Grabowski also highlighted the need for a national
society/association for traffic incident management. This organization
could provide forums, like an annual meeting, to exchange ideas and to
share best practices. Mr. Grabowski stated that in terms of technology,
everyone agrees it needs to be used. However, sometimes there is so much
technology available, that it becomes hard to discern what to use.
Finally, Mr. Grabowski expressed concern about the lack of
representation from the transit community. He noted that dense urban
areas with sizable mass transit systems need to be prepared to deal with
transit incidents. Transit organizations need to have a stake in
incident management planning.

**Ann Lorscheider**, ITS Program Engineer, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, focused her comments on communications and standards.
She stated that if people cannot talk to each other to begin with, there
is no technology in the world that will make them talk. She stressed the
need not only for a shared language between safety and transportation,
but also the ability to communicate with executive decision makers and
technology implementers. Ms. Lorscheider also noted the need for open
networks and shared information. With regard to standards, Ms.
Lorscheider commented that transportation-driven technology standards on
how to exchange messages between public safety and transportation would
be beneficial. She stated that outreach and building liaisons with other
organizations is critical to this, and all, incident management efforts.

**Ed Plaugher**, Chief, Arlington County, VA Fire Department, stated the
fire service has paid some severe prices over years for doing things in
narrow minded way. They have found these approaches do not work and are
making corrective strides. The biggest stride is that they are now doing
things with a fire fighter safety focus in mind. Chief Plaugher also
noted that highway operation and management priorities need to be
revisited. The highway incident situation is overwhelmingly complex.
There is much to be done to make improvements, but the end result will
make the highways safer for all.

Chief Plaugher commented that the number one thing firefighters do
operationally, more than fighting fires or stopping a chemical leak, is
pull someone out of an automobile. Firefighters are actually on the
highway more than any other place. Chief Plaugher commended the attitude
of the partnership that has been started at this conference and noted
that it must be carried on; no one entity can achieve the goals of
integrated traffic incident management by itself. Chief Plaugher
highlighted the need for training and education. He stated that
firefighters are better at what they do if they have clear objectives to
achieve and are rewarded for achieving them. Cooperation from the public
is necessary to being successful in the firefighting business. The fire
service has cut deaths in fires in the United States by over 50%, mainly
through educating the public. Chief Plaugher stated that these same
techniques need to be used in traffic incident management. Teaching the
American motoring public to move better and react in a proper way will
cut loss of life on highways in half. Chief Plaugher noted two areas in
which the fire community may need assistance and education -- quick
clearance and secondary incidents. Quick clearance may not be a term to
which firefighters will easily relate, and it may not occur to
firefighters that highway incidents can cause secondary, and potentially
more lethal, incidents. He suggested that working directly with the fire
community on these issues will raise awareness about their importance.
The fire industry is very focused on best practices for scene safety.

In closing, Chief Plaugher noted that standards are a large part of the
firefighting world. A great deal of time and money has been spent
writing standards. He stated the fire community has experience in
writing codes and standards and will be glad to share what they have
learned and participate in standards development.

**John Pohlman**, Captain, Blue Ash, OH Police Department, commented
that while there are good interagency working relationships in the
Cincinnati area, the extent of institutional concerns indicate that
everyone needs to get together and talk more. Captain Pohlman noted that
not everyone is aware of the state of the art in incident management.
Police departments have come a long way since 1970. Police are usually
the last ones to come on board, but they have been rapidly progressing.
Those who are getting promoted in police departments are also anxious to
get involved in issues like incident management.

Captain Pohlman cautioned about the need to consider the audience for
incident management initiatives. There are 40,000 police departments in
the United States. Most agencies have less than 10 officers and do not
have interstate highways going through their jurisdictions. Officers in
general have little interest in traffic because there are practically no
traffic problems in most communities. However, traffic does affect
metropolitan areas and rural areas in the country. In addition, while
there is great deal of focus on crime today, many do not realize that
more people are killed and injured in traffic crashes than by crime.
Captain Pohlman advocated proactive training and certification, starting
the initiative immediately and educating first responders about the
importance of accurate information. He suggested those who make policy
decisions should ride with the police for a shift to see exactly what
happens at a scene. Captain Pohlman pointed to homeland security as an
important area for resources, as well as an opportunity to
collaboratively build responses to many different incidents. In closing,
Chief Pohlman noted that the technical and institutional areas must
support the operations. He also stressed that improvements for traffic
incident management should be looked at locally, instead of waiting for
someone else to provide assistance.

#### Questions and Comments For The Panel

*Washington State has changed focus on building freeways to handle
congestion to focusing on incident management to handle congestion. What
made this happen?*

Operating the system is just as important as building additions to
system. The organizational structure has changed to put more emphasis on
operations. New leadership was the driving factor behind this.

*Public safety will see a great deal of financing relating to homeland
security. Unless we as a community can prove our value in the homeland
security environment, we won't receive any funding. Right now, the only
thing in the U.S. Department of Transportation getting emphasis is air
and port security. We as a community have not done a good job of
explaining that what we do is important in supporting homeland security.
Everyone needs to think about and communicate what we have to offer in
terms of homeland security.*

Incident management can dovetail nicely with homeland security in the
area of evacuation -- how to evacuate and move people and still run the
country, how to move traffic in major cities and on interstate highways
during an emergency.

Existing or new technology could help in this area. For example, cameras
on every bridge in an area could be tied into the information flow at
traffic management centers or dispatch centers.

Homeland security funds have been received in areas because law
enforcement leadership has worked together. A group representing all
communities needs to work together to share information and get funding.
This collaboration may be a paradigm shift, but is necessary for future
success.

### Closing Remarks

Representatives from the sponsoring organizations -- Bill Baker, ITS
America, Jeff Lindley, FHWA, and Tony Kane, AASHTO -- provided final
comments and an indication of next steps.

**Bill Baker** stated that ITS America's interdisciplinary Public Safety
Advisory Group serves as a spokesgroup for and advises the U.S.
Department of Transportation on public safety issues. Its first national
public safety conference was held 18 months ago. This current effort can
be considered the second national conference, and the third conference
will be sponsored with AASHTO and held in 2003. Mr. Baker commented that
the issues raised during this conference will be the focus for next
steps for AASHTO, FHWA's public safety program, and ITSA's public safety
advisory group. He suggested that more joint sponsorship of activities
such as this will be seen in the future.

**Jeff Lindley** remarked the goal of this conference, developing
national program recommendations, was achieved. In terms of future
directions, he stated that many of the recommendations will be
integrated into FHWA's incident management and public safety programs.
In addition, the ideas and comments from this conference will be used to
shape FHWA's congestion goal area, will be considered in the F-SHRP
program, and will assist with the transportation reauthorization
efforts.

**Tony Kane** stated that the transportation community will need to
continually make an effort to view incident management from the
perspective of the emergency responders. He noted that the
transportation community can be instrumental in leadership and funding
roles for incident management. Like the other closing speakers, he
emphasized the impact this conference will have on reauthorization,
F-SHRP, and standards activities. Mr. Kane also expressed a commitment
to exploring the formation of a national coalition to take
recommendations from this conference and provide national leadership. He
underscored the point that success in incident management can lead to
benefits for traffic flow.

### Post-Conference Survey

After the conference, a survey was sent to all attendees thanking them
for their participation and requesting additional input. The survey
questions were designed to make sure conference sponsors heard all of
the traffic incident management issues and actions that were most
important to the participants. Fifty-seven individuals, 34% of
conference attendees, responded to the survey. Below is a breakdown of
responses by discipline represented at the conference. A summarized
version of the survey responses can be found in Appendix F.

+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| ##### Post-Conference Survey Respondents        |                    |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| #### Discipline                                 | #### Percent of    |
|                                                 | Survey Respondents |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Transportation                                  | 48.1%              |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Law Enforcement                                 | 13.0%              |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Research                                        | 13.0%              |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Consultant                                      | 9.3%               |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Other                                           | 7.4%               |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Towing and Recovery                             | 5.6%               |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Response Services   | 1.8%               |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Technology                                      | 1.8%               |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+
| Total Respondents                               | 100.0%             |
+-------------------------------------------------+--------------------+

Survey respondents were asked if they felt that the breakout session
format allowed for the capture of their most important issues and ideas.
Over four-fifths (83.9%) felt that the breakout session format captured
their ideas; 16.1% did not.

Those who did not feel their issues and ideas were captured during the
breakout sessions were provided the opportunity to submit them in their
survey response in an open-ended format. Highlights of these additional
issues and action items are shown below. The most frequently mentioned
comments focused on the need to work across disciplines and agencies to
develop regional approaches and the need to continue expanding the
participation in traffic incident management discussions into the towing
industry and public safety arena. These findings are consistent with the
main conference results.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ##### Additional I                |                                   |
| ssues And Action Items Captured T |                                   |
| hrough The Post-Conference Survey |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| #### Issu                         | #### Action Items to Address T    |
| es in Traffic Incident Management | raffic Incident Management Issues |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| -   Need for understanding,       | -   Develop Federal               |
|     participation, and            |     requirements/mandates for     |
|     collaboration among agencies  |     jurisdictional coordination   |
|     and disciplines at a regional |                                   |
|     level                         | -   Set up a federal-level        |
|                                   |     champion for incident         |
| -   Lack of public safety         |     management and funding        |
|     participation                 |     mechanisms to implement       |
|                                   |     initiatives                   |
| -   Need for procedures and best  |                                   |
|     practices                     | -   Increase representation for   |
|                                   |     towing industry and public    |
| -   Need for national public      |     safety -- include PSAP,       |
|     awareness and publicity as a  |     emergency medical, wireless   |
|     key approach to move the      |     communication, and telematics |
|     incident management agenda    |     representatives               |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Need to address total system  | -   Limit overall proportion of   |
|     impact of incidents           |     transportation representation |
|                                   |     (for future                   |
| -   Quick clearance               |     meetings/conferences)         |
|                                   |                                   |
| -   Need for a plan to get tow    | -   Prepare "best practices" for  |
|     and recovery vehicles on the  |     on-scene activities as well   |
|     scene as rapidly as possible  |     as planning, coordination,    |
|                                   |     and training from a regional  |
| -   Secondary incident and        |     point of view                 |
|     traffic flow focus for public |                                   |
|     safety and transportation     | -   Work within existing          |
|                                   |     standards development         |
| -   Technology integration and    |     organizations                 |
|     interoperability              |                                   |
|                                   | -   Improve public education and  |
| -   Education/training for        |     awareness to reduce rubber    |
|     transportation and public     |     necking                       |
|     safety                        |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

## Appendix A: List of Conference Participants

George Ake

Univ MD - Center for Advanced Transportation Technology

5000 College Avenue

Suite 3103E

College Park, MD 20742

William Albaugh

Highway Operations Director

FL DOT

605 Suwannee St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399

Bill Allen

Transportation Planner

Chattanooga MPO

1250 Market Street

Suite 2000

Chattanooga, TN 37402

Jim Allen

ITS/Transportation Engineer

FHWA

400 Seventh Street, SW

Room 3416

Washington, DC 20590

William Almany III

District Deputy Director of Maintenance

Calif DOT

120 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Jerry Althauser

Incident Response Team Supervisor

Washington State DOT

811 East Roanoke Street

Seattle, WA 98102-

Nayan Amin

Senior Technical Manager

BUCHER, WILLIS & RATLIFF CORPORATION

5980 Stoneridge Drive

Suite 103

Pleasanton, CA 94588

Adrienne Archer

Project Assistant

TRB

2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20007

April Armstrong

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

M/S CV-48

Vienna, VA 22182

Sam Assaad

Senior Transportation Engineer

CALTRANS

120 S. Spring Street

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Stephen P. Austin

Project Manager

CVVF Emergency Responders Safety Institute

3540 Old Capital Trail

Box 5070

Wilmington, DE 19808

James Austrich

Engineering Tech.

D.C. Dept. of Public Works

2000 14th St, NW

Washington, D. C., DC 20009

Malcolm Baird

Director

Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research

VU Station B 351831

Nashville, TN 37235

William Baker

Consultant

ITS America

400 Virginia Ave, SW

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20024

James Ballard, Jr.

Major - Cmdr., Central Region

Maryland State Police

Maryland State Police

7777 Washington Boulevard

Jessup, MD 20794

Alfonso Benet

Emergency Coordinator

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

400 7th Street, SW, Room 3408

Washington, DC 20590

Mahesh R. Bhatt

Senior Transportation Engineer

Caltrans

District 12, Transportation Management

Center

Irvine, CA 92868

George Black

Board

NTSB

490 L\'Enfant Plaza East, S.W.

Washington, DC 20594

Caroline Brabrook

Manager, ITS

Jacobs Sverdrup

600 108th Ave NE

Suite 700

Bellevue, WA 98004

Rebecca Brewster

Deputy Director

ATA Foundation

1280 West Peachtree Street

Suite 300

Atlanta, GA 30309-

Valerie Briggs Kalhammer

Booz Allen Hamilton

8283 Greensboro Drive

McLean, VA 22102

Ken Brooke

Principal

MITRETEK

Suite 755

600 Maryland Ave, SW

Washington, DC 20024

Mike Brown

Chief

California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles District

Los Angeles, CA

Jimmy Carter

President

Virginia Fire Chiefs Association

2133 Tall Pines Bend

Virginia Beach, VA 23456

Edmond Chang

ITS Program Manager

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

8720, Snowhill Ct

Potomac, MD 20854

Judy Chen

Office Chief

Caltrans-District 4

111Grand Ave

P.O. Box 23660

Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Bruce Churchill

Senior Project Manager

National Engineering Technology Corp

14320 Firestone Blvd

Suite 100

La Mirada, CA 90638

John F. Conrad

Washington State DOT

Harriet Cooley

Executive Director

Towing and Recovery

2121 Eisenhower Ave

Ste. 200

Alexandria, VA 22314

Robert Copp

Chief, Office of System Management Operations

California Department of Transportation

Traffic Operations, MS 36

P.O. Box 942874

Sacramento, CA 94274

John Corbin

Freeway Operations Engineer

Wisconsin D.O.T.

633 W. Wisconsin Ave.

Suite 1200

Milwaukee, WI 53203

Bob Crockett

Executive Director

California Tow Truck Association

20705 Western Avenue

Suite 213

Torrance, CA 90501-1845

Richard Cunard

Senior Program Officer

TRB

2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20007

Steve Cyra

Program Management Consultant

HNTB

Vinh Dang

Freeway Ops Mngr

WSDOT

P.O. Box 330310

15700 Dayton Avenue N.

Seattle, WA 98133-9710

Jude Depko

Principal Engineer

New Jersey Highway Authority

P.O. Box 5050

Woodbridge, NJ 07095

Ray Derr

Project Manager

Transportation Research Board

2001 Wisconsin Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20007

Caleb Dobbins

Assistant state Maintenance Engineer

New Hampshire Department of Transportation

1 Hazen Drive

P. O. Box 483

Concord, NH 03302-0483

Jim Dodd

TeleTran Tek Services

9475 Chesapeake Drive

Suite D

San Diego, CA 92177

Greg Dominguez

Sergeant

City Glendale AZ Police Department

6835 N 57 Drive

Glendale, AZ 85301

Kevin Dopart

Manager

Mitretek Systems

600 Maryland Ave, SW

Suite 755

Washington, DC 20024

Rebecca Doyle

Research Analyst

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

M/S CV-48

Vienna, VA 22182

James Draper

Marketing Manager

3M

3M Center

Building 225-5S-08

Saint Paul, MN 55144-1000

Chris Drews

Assistant Chief

Elwood Fire Protection District

309 W. Mississippi St.

Elwood, IL 60421-9211

David Ekern

Associate Director

AASHTO

444 N. Capitol St. NW

Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001

Mort Fahrtash

Senior Transportation Engineer

Caltrans

6681 Marine Way

Irvine, CA 92618

Tom Flaherty

Industry Manager

Reflexite Americas

108 Springbrooke Dr.

Venetia, PA 15367

Edward Flynn

Chief of Police

Arlington County Police Department

1425 N. Courthouse Road

Arlington, VA 22201

Robert Frankin

Manager, Business Development

Lockheed Martin

12999 Deer Creek Canyon Rd.

MS: DC4350

Littleton, CO 80127

Bill Giorgis

Vice President

Towing and Recovery Association of America

2809 Maplewood Street

Saginaw, MI 48601-3958

Jay Gould

District Engineer

WyDOT

3411 So. 3rd Suite 1

Laramie, WY 82070-8315

Donald Grabowski

Deputy Commissioner

Chicago Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic

30 N. LaSalle St.

Suite 400

Chicago, IL 60602-

Arti Gupta

Regional Manager

Siemens GTS

250 W. Colorado Blvd.

#110

Arcadia, CA 91007

Gloria Gwynne

Senior Transportation Electrical Engineer

Caltrans

New Technology & Research

3347 Michelson Drive

Irvine, CA 92612-8894

Evelyn Harden

President

California Tow Truck Association.

300 Terrace Way

Bakersfield, CA 93304

Mike Hartman

CE 3

NYSDOT

NYSDOT ITS Group

Bldg 5 Rm 319

Albany, NY 12232

George Hattrup

Senior Transportation Engineer

CALTRANS

New Technology & Research

3337 Michelson Drive

Irvine, CA 92612-8894

Barbara Hauser

ITS Incident Management Coordinator

Maricopa County DOT

2901 W. Durango St.

Phoenix, AZ 85009-

Harvey Heaton

Staff Services Manager

California Highway Patrol

444 North 3rd Street, Suite 310

Sacramento, CA 95814

Joseph Hecker

Chief, Division of Traffic Operations

CALTRANS

1120 N Street, MS 36

P.O. Box 942873

Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

Markus Heiman

Branch Chief, Operations RTMC-D3

Caltrans

3165 Gold Valley Drive

Rancho Cordova, CA 95742-6588

David Helman

Office of Travel Management, FHWA

400 7th Street, S.W.

Nassif Bldg., Room 3401

Washington, DC 20590-

David Hensing

Director, Transportation Policy and Analysis Center

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

Vienna, VA 22182

Ronald Hergert

Lieutenant

Phoenix Police Dept.

302 E. Union Hills

Phoenix, AZ 85024

Brandy Hicks

Transportation Specialist

FHWA

400 7th Street, SW

HOTO-1

Washington, DC 20590

Susan Hicks

Captain

City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation

Special Events Unit

411 North Vermont Avenue

Los Angeles, CA 90004

Eric Hillyer

Incident Management

Maricopa County

2901 W Durango

Phoenix, AZ 85009

Jeff Holm

Design/Traffic Operations Engineer

FHWA CA Division

980 9th Street, Suite 400

Sacramento, CA 95814-

John Horsley

Executive Director

AASHTO

444 North Capitol Street, NW

Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001

John Hourdakis

Research Fellow

U of Minnesota

500 Pillsbury Dr. SE

Minneapolis, MN 55455

Patrick Hughes

Director, Design Build

MN Department of Transportation

395 John Ireland Boulevard

Mail Stop 450

St. Paul, MN 55155

Robert Hungler

Lieutenant

Cincinnati Police Department

800 Evans Street

Cincinnati, OH 45204

Randell Iwasaki

Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations

California Department of Transportation

111 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94612

Carol Jacoby

Principal

Jacoby Consulting

PO Box 155

Lakewood, CA 90808

Tom Jennings

Transportation Management Engineer

FHWA VA Division

400 North 8th Street, Room 750

P.O. Box 10249

Richmond, VA 23240-

Christine Johnson

Operations CBU Program Manager

Federal Highway Administration

400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

Gregory Jones

Operations Team Leader

Federal Highway Administration- Southern Resource Center

61 Forsyth St.

Suite 17T26

Atlanta, GA 30303

Tony Kane

Director, Engineering and Technical Services

AASHTO

444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.

Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001-

Mark Karczewski

Sergeant

Illinois State Police

16648 S. Broadway St.

Lockport, IL 60441

David Keever

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

Vienna, VA 22182

David Kelley

ITS Programs Manger

SubCarrier Systems Corp

101 N. Citrus

Covina, CA 91723

Mark Keough

City of Mesa Fire

40 N. Center Street, Breakout #115

Mesa, AZ 85201

Jim Kerr

President

National Engineering Technology Corporation

14320 Firestone Blvd

Suite 100

La Mirada, CA 90638

Lawrence Klein

Consultant

314 Purdy Avenue

Placentia, CA 92870

Ray Klucens

Transportation Engineer

Michigan Dept of Transportation

P.O. Box 1433

Warren, MI 48090

Bill Knost

Master Police Officer

Fairfax County Police

3911 Woodburn Rd.

Annandale, VA 22003

Ken Kobetsky

Program Director for Engineering

AASHTO

444 N. Capitol Street, N.W.

Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001-

Tom Kurihara

ITS Consultant

TKstds Management

3800 N. Fairfax Dr #207

Arlington, VA 222031759

Hoang Lap

Deputy State Traffic Engineer

Florida DOT

Office of Traffic Operations

605 Suwannee St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-

Gary Larsen

Director, Office of Operations R&D

Federal Highway Administration

Turner-Fairbank Hwy Research Ctr.

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101

Steven Latoski

Senior Engineer

Dunn Engineering Associates

66 Main Street

Westhampton Beach, NY 11978

Byron Lee

Director

MTA

One Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Linda Lee

Transportation Engineer

Metropolitan Transportation Commission

101 Eighth Street, 3rd Floor

Oakland, CA 94607

Tom Lentz

ARA Maint. & Traffic

WSDOT

WSDOT MS 119

P.O. Box 330310

Washington, WA 98133-9710

Steve Levine

Associate Vice-President

TransCore

253 West 35th Street

New York, NY 10001

James W. Lewis

System Engineer

J and J Project Consultant

17202 Vickie Ave.

Cerritos, CA 90703

Jeffrey Lindley

Director

Office of Travel Management, FHWA

400 7th Street, S.W.

Nassif Bldg., Room 3401

Washington, DC 20590-

Steve Lockwood

VP

Parsons Brinckerhoff

3200 Tower Oaks Blvd

Rockville, MD 20852

Ann Lorscheider

ITS Programs Engineer

NCDOT

Traffic Management

MSC 1561

Raleigh, NC 27699

Cynthia Mahlstedt

Public Relations

Reflexite Americas

315 South Street

New Britain, CT 06051

Lt. Marty Maples

Border Communications Center Commander

California Highway Patrol

Caltrans/CHP TMC

7183 Opportunity Road

San Diego, CA 92121

Rich Margiotta

Senior Associate

Cambridge Systematics

1265 Kensington Drive

Knoxville, TN 37922

Edward Mark

Project Director, Integrated Incident Management

NYSDOT

47-40 21st Street

9th Floor

Long Island City, NY 11101-

Alvin Marquess

Operations Manager

MD State Highway Admin

7491 Connelley Drive

Hanover, MD 21076

Robert Marsili

Chief of Street and Bridge Maintenance Division

District Division of Transportation

1403 W Street NE

Washington, DC 20020

Ralph Martin

Captain

Colorado State Patrol

700 Kipling St.

Denver, CO 80215

Tarbell Martin

Chief, Transportation Management Center

Caltrans

7183 Opportunity Road

San Diego, CA 92111

Al Martinez

Program Manager

LACMTA

One Gateway Plaza

MS 99-13-12

Los Angeles, CA 90012-2932

Mike Maurer

California Highway Patrol

Office of Research & Planning

2555 First Avenue

Sacramento, CA 95818

Jim McGee

ITS Program Developer

Nebraska DOT

NDOT

Trans Tech Group

Lincoln, NE 68502

Stephen McMahen

Assistant Chief Engineer

Mississippi Department of Transportation

P. O. Box 1850

Jackson, MS 39212-1850

Tom Micone

California Highway Patrol

Office of Research and Planning

2555 First Avenue

Sacramento, CA 95818

Ronald Miner

Manager, Business Development

TRW Public Safety & Transportation

12011 Sunset Hills Road

6C74

Reston, VA 20190

Gary Mitchell

Trasportation Emergency Manager

KY DOT

Room 702

501 High Street

Frankfort, KY 40622

John Mitchell

ETP Manager

Illinois Dept. of Transportation

3501 S. Normal Ave.

Chicago, IL 60609

Pamela Mitchell

Project Manager

New Hampshire Department of Transportation

1 Hazen Drive

P. O. Box 483

Concord, NH 03302-0483

James Mock

Operations Engineer

Virginia Dpt. of Transportation

970 Reon Drive

Virginia Beach, VA 23464

Jeff Morales

Director

CALTRANS

P.O. Box 942873

Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

James Newman

Maricopa County DOT

2901 w Durangoi

Phoenix, AZ 85009

Thom Niesen

Deputy Director, Maintenance and Operations

California Department of Transportation

1120 N Street

PO Box 942873

Sacramento, CA 95814

Pat Noyes

Principal

Pat Noyes & Associates

1566 County Road 83

Boulder, CO 80302

John O\'Donnell

Office Director

US DOT - Volpe

55 Broadway

Cambridge, MA 02142

John O\'Laughlin

PB Farradyne

999 Third Ave suite 2200

Seattle, WA 98032

Masoud Omar

Caltrans

District 12, Transportation Management

Irvine, CA 92868

Lawrence Orcutt

CA Department of Transportation

CA DOT

Division of Maintenance

Sacramento, CA 95814

Rivy Oseni

NTSB

14315 Mansel Avenue

Lawndale, CA 90260

William Parks

Transport Towing, Inc

2615 Brandon

Joliet, IL 60436

Tim Pelzek

Battalion Chief

Milwaukee Fire Department

Milwaukee Fire Academy

6680 N. Teutonia Ave.

Milwaukee, WI 53209-

Edward Plaugher

Chief

Arlington Co. (VA) Fire Department

2100 Clarendon Blvd

Suite 400

Arlington, VA 22201-

John Pohlman

Captain

Blue Ash Police Dept

4343 Cooper Rd

Cincinnati, OH 45242

Paul Powell

National Sales Manager

3M Company

2310 Heatherwoods Way

Carrollton, TX 75007

Cesar Pujol

Senior Engineer

Caltrans-District 4

111Grand Ave

P.O. Box 23660

Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Tom Ranson

IMT Coordinator

UDOT Region 2

2010 S. 2760 W.

Salt Lake City, UT 84104

Richard Raub

Sr. Research Scientist

Northwestern University Center for Public Safety

405 Church Str

Evanston, IL 60048

Augstin Rosales

Maintenance District Liaison

Calif DOT

1120 N Street, Room 3100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Jerry Rounds

Chief

California Highway Patrol

Planning and Analysis Division

2555 First Avenue

Sacramento, CA 95818

Joseph Rutnik

Civil Engineer 2

N.Y.S. Dept. of Trans.

N.Y.S.D.O.T.

84 Holland Ave.

Albany, NY 12208

Sharon Rutzebeck

Administrator

Maryland State Police

Technology Management Division

Baltimore, MD 21208

Aram Sahakian

Transportation Engineer

Los Angeles Department of Transportation

1016 N. Mission Road,

Bldg. B, Suite 105

Los Angeles, CA 90033

Alan Sanderson

Traffic Engineer

City of Mesa Transportation

P.O. Box 1466

Mesa, AZ 85213

Pam Scanlon

Executive Director

ARJIS

401 B Street

Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

Timothy Schoch

Deputy Program Manager

TRW

508 W. 3rd Street

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Neil Schuster

President & CEO

ITS America

400 Virginia Ave., S.W.

Suite 800

Washington, DC 20024-2730

Sal Segura

Captain

California Highway Patrol

444 N. Third Street Breakout #310

Sacramento, CA 95814

Jennifer Seplow

Research Analyst

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

M/S CV-48

Vienna, VA 22182

Carla Simone

Senior Transportation Systems Engineer

National Engineering Technology Corporation

14320 Firestone Blvd

Suite 100

La Mirada, CA 90638

Arland (Ted) Smith

PB Farradyne

PB Farradyne

3201 NW Commercial Blvd.

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

Michael Smith

Sr. Scientist/AVP

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

M/S CV-48

Vienna, VA 22182

Michael Sobolewski

ITS Planner

Minnesota Dept. of Transportation

395 John Ireland Blvd.

St. Paul, MN 55155

Ellis Stanley

General Manager

LA City Emergency Preparedness

200 N. Main St., Ste. 1500

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Rob Stone

State Incident Management Engineer

NCDOT

Transportation Management Center

1533 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1533

Steve Takigawa

Deputy District Director of Maintenance

Calif DOT

1120 N Street, Room 3100

Sacramento, CA 95814

John Taylor

Senior Research Engineer

Western Transportation Institute

416 Cobleigh Hall

Bozeman, MT 59717-3910

Carol Thielman

IIMS Program Manager

Veridian Engineering

4455 Genesee Street

Buffalo, NY 14225

Robert VanHorn

HELP Supervisor

Tennessee Department of Transportation

4005 Cromwell rd.

Chattanooga, TN 37421

Richard Vecera

MSP-Sgt

MD SHA

MD SHA

Office of CHART

Hanover, MD 20613

Rick Verlinda

Battalion Chief/Safety Officer

Seattle Fire Department

301 2nd Avenue South

Seattle, WA 98104

Mitchell Villalpando

Deputy Chief

Sycuan Fire Dept.

Sycuan Fire Dept.

5449 Dehesa Road

El Cajon, CA 92019

Kenneth Voigt

Fellow

HNTB Corporation

11414 West Park Place

Suite 300

Milwaukee, WI 53224

Zhongren Wang

Transportation Engineer (Civil)

Caltrans

New Technology & Research

1227 \"O\" Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

Robert Watson

CEO

American Towing Alliance

P.O. Box 3865

Ontario, CA 91761

Karen Weiss

SAIC

7990 Science Applications Ct.

M/S CV-48

Vienna, VA 22182

Russ Wenham

District Deputy Director of Maintenance

Calif. DOT

1120 N Street, Room 3100

Sacramento, CA 95814

Jerry Werner

Editorial Director

ICDN

759 East Overlook Mountain

Buda, TX 78610

Ida Williams

Director

Maryland State Police

Central Records Division

Baltimore, MD 21244

Douglas Wilson

President

TMW Towing, Inc

P.O. Box 193

25250 S. State St.

Crete, IL 60417-0193

Randy Woolley

Senior Electronics Engineer

CALTRANS

3337 Michelson Drive

Irvine, CA 92612-8894

Fred Yazdan

Senior Transportation Engineer

CALTRANS

New Technology & Research

3337 Michelson Drive

Irvine, CA 92612-8894

Mark Zapatka

V.O.C. Team

Reflexite

315 South St.

New Britain, CT 06051

Bruce Zvaniga

Manager, Urban Traffic Control Systems

City of Toronto Transportation Services

703 Don Mills Road

5th Floor

Toronto, ON M3C 3N3

**\[Note: Fiscal constraints prevented some state agencies from sending
participants\]**

This page intentionally left blank.

## Appendix B: Plenary Session Presentations

The conference opened with a plenary session in which participants heard
a multi-disciplinary panel discussion and presentations on rural and
urban incident management perspectives and lessons learned. Three
discussion papers focusing on operational, technological, and
institutional TIM issues were also presented in the plenary session on
Day Two of the conference. Together, these sessions formed the basis for
participant discussion on the issues and actions necessary for improving
traffic incident management.

### The Importance of Traffic Incident Management -- A Multi-Disciplinary View

Members of the law enforcement, fire, towing, transportation, and
technology communities provided their perspectives on what needs to be
done to improve traffic incident management. Members of the panel
included:

-   Mike Brown, Chief, California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles District

-   Mitchell Villalpando, Deputy Chief, Sycuan Fire Dept, and
    Vice-President, San Diego Fire Chiefs Association

-   Evelyn Harden, State President, California Tow Truck Association

-   John Horsley, Executive Director, AASHTO

-   Neil Schuster, President and CEO, ITSA

**Mike Brown**, Chief, California Highway Patrol, Los Angeles District,
stated that the concerns of the law enforcement community are
straightforward and deal with public safety, loss of life and property,
investigating crime scenes, and on-scene management. One of the chief
law enforcement concerns is getting to the incident with appropriate
equipment and personnel. This includes response time, managing the
incident, and education of the responders. Chief Brown noted that law
enforcement strategies of the past have been incident driven and not
focused on the surrounding or secondary issues that occur as a result of
the incident. Today, it is very critical for law enforcement to manage
the incidents effectively to prevent or minimize the secondary issues.
In order to move forward, new approaches are needed. These include:

-   Looking at the bigger picture (i.e., the spill-over effects of
    incidents on surrounding communities).

-   Investing in long-term driver education (i.e., through community
    outreach programs and special initiatives like those in grammar
    schools).

-   Increasing the use of technology to detect and manage incidents.

-   Involving law enforcement officers in traffic management centers to
    help manage events.

-   Integrating communication systems across disciples and jurisdictions
    to coordinate resources.

-   Improving media access and public information (e.g. distribution via
    websites, media access to computer-aided dispatch system).

-   Encouraging voluntary compliance with traffic laws, addressing the
    large number of incidents caused by driver behavior and/or
    driver-controlled issues.

-   Shifting toward prevention of incidents and protection of
    infrastructure and interchanges instead of just response to
    incidents (i.e., consideration of the impacts to public safety, the
    transportation system, and the economy).

Chief Brown stressed that no one agency can move forward alone; agencies
and disciplines need to work cooperatively as well as maximize
technology and the use of innovative thinking in their approaches to
incident management. In closing, Chief Brown mentioned a recently
released report by a task force of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA), *Traffic Safety in the New Millennium --
Strategies for Law Enforcement*, in which over 56 strategies, 34 of
which are technology based, are presented for consideration.

**Mitchell Villalpando**, Deputy Chief, Sycuan Fire Dept, and
Vice-President, San Diego Fire Chiefs Association began his remarks by
noting this conference is great step toward collaboration. He stated
that for the fire service, the definition of the incident command system
is the "combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and
communications operating within a common organization structure with
responsibility for the management of assigned resources to effectively
accomplish assigned objectives relating to an incident". The incident
command system is an integral component for all responders -- it gives
structure to a chaotic scene, makes people accountable, cuts down on
radio traffic, and most importantly, saves lives. While all of the
organizations involved in clearing a traffic incident -- highway patrol,
law enforcement, fire department, ambulance, tow truck, traffic control
-- are trying to achieve the same goal, they all have different tasks,
operating procedures, and communications systems. Deputy Chief
Villalpando shared the following as an illustrative example:

During a multiple vehicle accident in San Diego County, an air ambulance
was about to land and a California Highway Patrol cruiser was right
underneath it. Since the fire department (which is the ground contact
for the air ambulance) and highway patrol did not share the same radio
communication systems, there was no way to radio this cruiser and the
helicopter pilot was blind to what was underneath him. Luckily, the
cruiser driver happened to look up at the last minute and moved. This
situation happened so fast that it could have easily gone awry.

Deputy Chief Villalpando noted this conference is an ideal venue to
exchange ideas and thoughts and get familiar with all of the players. He
stressed that information from this conference needs to be shared and
applied at the local level and expressed the commitment to taking back
to the San Diego County Fire Chiefs Association recommended actions to
implement a traffic incident management agenda.

**Evelyn Harden**, State President, California Tow Truck Association
noted that towing is an integral part to incident management. Currently
in California, tow truck drivers are receiving training and
certification classes in order to better respond to incidents. This
training focuses on safety and responding to the commander at the
incident scene. Ms. Harden also noted the effects of incidents on
California roadways. In the Los Angeles area, a traffic stop of 30
minutes will result in 4-5 lanes of halted traffic spanning 30 miles.
Incidents on bridges can also severely affect traffic. Ms. Harden stated
that these stoppages cost money, not just in terms of the cost of one
incident, but the on-going costs assumed with the incident. Ms. Harden
reaffirmed the towing industry's commitment to get to the scene as
quickly as possible and do the best job they can. She offered thanks on
behalf of the California Tow Truck Association and the towing industry
for being part of this effort.

**John Horsley**, Executive Director, AASHTO, thanked FHWA and other
organizers of this event for their leadership and noted the diverse mix
of people brought together for this conference. He reviewed several
statistics that emphasize the importance of integrated traffic incident
management:

-   In 1999, over one-half of police officers killed in line of duty
    died in traffic crashes.

-   In 1999, more than 15,000 emergency response vehicles that were
    damaged were damaged at or on their way to crash scene.

-   Eighteen percent of deaths on freeways were secondary to the initial
    incident because response to the initial incident wasn't fast
    enough.

-   Congestion in major metropolitan areas is getting worse -- 50% of
    all traffic delay is attributed to non-recurring incidents on major
    freeways.

Mr. Horsley noted that state Departments of Transportation are under
pressure to make their highways perform better. In addition, law
enforcement officials need protection, the threat to emergency vehicles
needs to be lessened, and drivers need to be protected. Mr. Horsley
suggested that these issues provide many reasons to work together during
this conference. He noted the command scene requires better
communications, including better interoperable radio communications. He
also stressed that it is just as important to have a clear understanding
of who is in charge of what at an incident and to establish protocols so
objectives of all agencies are met and the public is served. Mr. Horsley
concluded his remarks by commenting that there needs to be a commitment
to work together on an ongoing basis and to develop a systematic program
of sharing lessons learned.

**Neil Schuster**, President and CEO, ITSA, noted that while technology
can be a topic of discussion, the real question is language -- everyone
needs to learn to speak each other's language. Technology itself is
useless unless everyone can communicate. Mr. Schuster also stressed that
the technology focus should move past standards to interoperability. For
example, there is a world standard telephone system but if you call a
foreign country and you don't speak their language and they don't speak
yours it is useless because they are not interoperable. Mr. Schuster
also highlighted a major information challenge: How do we collect data
and information, combine it, turn it into something of value, and
provide it to a decision maker in a timely manner in order to make the
right decision? He cited the use of onboard navigation systems to help
consumers make choices and the ability of emergency responders to
pinpoint cell phone calls as areas where this challenge could be met.
Mr. Schuster expressed the desire to raise awareness in Congress and
continue moving this process forward. He noted that travel incidents
take place every day and there need to be ways to respond. Progress will
only occur with on-going effort and daily, recurring communication.

At the end of the presentations, panel members were asked to provide
their final thoughts to help guide conference discussions. All panel
members stressed that communication and collaboration among all
disciplines is necessary for advancing traffic incident management.

### Traffic Incident Management Practices: Operational, Technological, and Institutional Perspectives

-   Ellis Stanley, General Manager, Los Angeles City Emergency
    Preparedness Department

-   David Ekern, Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
    Transportation and Associate Director, AASHTO

##### Urban Traffic Incident Management

**Ellis Stanley**, General Manager, Los Angeles City Emergency
Preparedness Department presented an urban perspective on traffic
incident management. He noted large metropolitan areas need to be
prepared for anything. One of the commonalities in jurisdictions of all
sizes is that everyone has a role and responsibility before, during, and
after a disaster. While this may not always be clear or written in a
plan, it is essential to understand the responsibilities of being
prepared to deal with the consequences of a disaster. Mr. Stanley noted
that special events on a routine basis present issues for any city.
However, regardless of size of the jurisdiction, if infrastructure and
plans aren't in place, the event can become onerous.

Mr. Stanley stated two 21^st^ century challenges for urban incident
management: (1) the unknown itself, and (2) the fear of the unknown.
While incidents cannot be predicted, these challenges can partly be
addressed by planning for the impacts of a worst-case scenario. He also
noted the private sector plays a big part in the process of protecting
critical infrastructure. However, the private sector usually does not
have a seat at the table on a day-to-day basis. It is normally only
included in the planning process for special events. This has the
potential to cause difficulties. For example, on September 11^th^, there
was a great deal of spontaneous evacuation, which could have been better
coordinated (e.g., staggered evacuations, turning streets in one
direction). Mr. Stanley advocated a holistic approach to planning --
bringing all elements of the community to the table for planning and
communicating in a way that creates common understanding.

Mr. Stanley also addressed the area of technology. He noted that
technology itself or hardware communication are not typically problems.
The biggest challenge is people-to-people communication (e.g.,
collaborative planning, internal communication within a department,
external communication with partners). An associated concern is the
ability to integrate technologies among those involved in incident
management. In many cases, separate communications centers rarely talk
to each other; expectations differ on how technology could, should, and
will be used; and there may be no centralized function to integrate and
synthesize information. Los Angeles is working to address this challenge
through a bond referendum to build a new emergency operations center.
This center will be the most linked facility in the city and include the
private sector. Mr. Stanley proposed that the emergence of the
"intelligent city" will radically transform emergency and incident
management as we know it today. Computing and telecommunications
technologies allow cities to provide information necessary to keep the
public informed, to allow organizations to request resources, and to
ensure that all departments are involved.

Mr. Stanley cited two other areas for increased awareness. Emergency
managers can be valuable assets. They may be able to pull in a broader
set of partners and be a link to resources. The private sector can also
be a tremendous asset, since often the government acts in response to
private sector initiatives.

In closing, Mr. Stanley offered the following comments regarding making
better incident management a reality:

-   Make better use of current technology tools (e.g., intelligent
    decision support software, closed-captioned television, automated
    information exchange, database sharing).

-   Recognize the community perspective (i.e., incidents do not care who
    you are; everyone needs to be in the process and share information.

-   Utilize training to clarify roles, responsibilities, and rules of
    engagement.

-   Consider all players in before, during, and after-incident planning
    and activities. Be sensitive to, and include, all levels of
    government (e.g., "local" federal government).

#### Questions and Answers

*How does your department coordinate with city, county, and state
transportation agencies?*

Ongoing relationships exist with each transportation agency for before,
during, and after-incident collaboration. At the county level, there is
a direct line to sharing information. If the city activates its
Emergency Operation Center, the county is immediately activated and the
state stays in the information loop. The Caltrans link will be
strengthened by new offices being built in downtown Los Angeles.

*When you talk about "local" federal government, do you mean FEMA?*

"Local" federal government consists of the entire federal family (e.g.,
FBI, Secret Service, DOT, FEMA). It is important these agencies be
involved planning process to develop an understanding of their processes
and what resources they can bring.

##### Rural/Special Event Incident Management

**David Ekern**, Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
Transportation and Associate Director, AASHTO, provided a rural/special
event perspective on traffic incident management. Mr. Ekern noted that
54% of all crashes, 56% of all injuries reported, and 87% of all
fatalities occur outside of metropolitan areas. Seasons bring different
types of events/incidents in rural environments (e.g., snow and ice in
winter, floods in spring, work zones and fog in summer). All of these
events and incidents have an impact on how the system operates and
reinforce why incident management is critical in a non-urban
environment. Quick response is needed to restore transportation system
performance.

Mr. Ekern reviewed several of Minnesota's applications of incident
management principles in the non-urban environment.

-   Winter incidents. Freeways can be legally closed during bad weather
    to decrease recovery time from snow incidents and the number of
    abandoned vehicles. Road weather information systems, on-site
    detection systems, and automated de-icing systems are used to
    prevent ice/snow formation and accumulation in areas where full-time
    coverage is not available.

-   Spring incidents. During major floods, the statewide Emergency
    Management Center disseminates traveler information to help people
    respond to and reroute around flooded areas.

-   Summer incidents. Work zones utilize portable smart work zone
    signage and proper management within construction zones. Variable
    message signs and variable speed limit signs help inform drivers as
    they approach fog. Cameras help management center staff understand
    conditions of roadways.

Mr. Ekern noted that because the statewide Emergency Management Center
is operated only when there is a significant statewide emergency event
and only staffed on an as-needed basis, Minnesota developed a regional
operations management coordination system. This system came about from
the recognition of multiple agencies that they could not afford
technology or staffing to serve customers in non-metropolitan
environment. In 1995-96, these agencies came together as a group to
discuss what they learned from urban areas around the country that would
be applicable in a rural environment. As a result, nine Transportation
Operations Communications Centers were built around the state to
coordinate traffic operation, enforcement services, emergency response,
maintenance operation, traveler information, and transit operation
functions. One of the goals in developing the Centers was to be able to
quickly and consistently adopt new technology and tools as they come on
the market on a statewide basis. An example of this is CARS (Condition
Acquisition Reporting System), which manages and integrates information
gathered from road weather condition systems. CARS data is used to
deliver information to travelers, providing customer service on top of
serving transportation and emergency response.

Mr. Ekern noted many of the challenges that have been heard in previous
sessions are also issues emerging from Minnesota's experiences in rural
incident management. These include tools and technology, human and
financial resources, outreach, education, political support, interagency
buy-in, and need for planning. For Minnesota, the toughest "sell" for
the integrated and co-located Centers was with the officer on the
street, the dispatchers servicing those officers, and DOT maintenance
staff. Mr. Ekern described that one of the most difficult challenges in
moving incident management forward is not only finding a
leader/champion, but also maintaining the momentum after a leader
departs. He expressed that this conference provides a structured setting
to work together on these challenges. In closing, Mr. Ekern suggested a
key theme emerging from this conference may be the need for a
non-traditional response -- to use new tools to accomplish our shared
mission in new ways.

#### Questions and Answers 

*How advanced are other states in rural incident management? How much is
Minnesota sharing its practices with others? What is the future
direction of rural technology and rural incident management?*

On the whole, we may be further along than we think we are. Minnesota
found that the technology, tools, and co-location are very inexpensive
to implement. Centers that incorporate all technology needed in a rural
environment have been built for under \$1.5 million. Minnesota has been
trying to share its practices, but there is not much information on how
much Minnesota's practices have spread. In a rural environment there is
a great desire to find ways to make it happen inexpensively.

*How do you involve counties and cities?*

In the architecture established in rural environments, the district
engineers are the "conveners". They are responsible for bringing
counties to the table. In addition, a supplementary technique was used
that started as "How can we share sand and salt sites to reduce overall
cost?" In several districts, long-range plans were developed to address
a migration from equipment sharing to facility, communication, and human
resource sharing.

### Traffic Incident Management Lessons Learned

-   Ed Plaugher, Fire Chief, Arlington County, VA

-   Ed Flynn, Police Chief, Arlington County, VA

-   Tom Ranson, Incident Management Coordinator, Utah Department of
    Transportation

-   George Black, Member, National Transportation Safety Board

##### The Pentagon

**Ed Plaugher**, Fire Chief, and **Ed Flynn**, Police Chief, Arlington
County, VA spoke about the events on September 11^th^ at the Pentagon
and the challenges faced and lessons learned from such a major incident.
Chief Plaugher reviewed the history and physical structure of the
Pentagon, including the initiative to renovate the building wedge by
wedge. The plane hit the building where a renovated wedge and an old
wedge met. Chief Plaugher noted that while some of the renovations may
have reduced damage, reinforcements may have caused increased loss of
life because occupants may have been unable to open doors to escape. As
a result, Pentagon officials are evaluating and, as necessary,
re-thinking their "hardening" strategies.

Chief Plaugher explained that some fire support was at the Pentagon when
the plane crashed; the first Arlington fire responders were on the scene
within two minutes. All Arlington fire units, including off duty
personnel responded. Fire containment was begun immediately in inner and
outer corridors and search/rescue teams went in with regional resources.
The Incident Command Center and the Emergency Operation Center were
activated in the county. A Joint Operations Command Center was also
established at Fort Myer to organize the 60 partners involved in
response operations. Neighboring counties, the National Medical Response
Team, the FBI, FEMA, and State personnel all responded to the scene with
fire, emergency, search and rescue, law enforcement, and logistics
support. Assistance was also provided by fire departments from around
the country, as well through private sector donations and resources.

Chief Flynn gave an overview of the law enforcement response. Incident
command quickly set up an action plan to screen pedestrian and vehicular
traffic at the scene, monitor the rest of the county, assign
representatives to command posts, and designate a lieutenant to forecast
issues and needs 6 to 12 hours ahead. Sectors were also assigned to deal
with specific aspects of the incident, including traffic management,
staging, logistics, public information, staffing, evidence recovery,
safety, and morgue security. Post staffing was reevaluated every few
hours. One of the most immediate needs was clearing routes to and around
the Pentagon. Motorcycle units were proactive in securing areas around
the Pentagon prior to incident command establishment. A lieutenant on
the scene requested road closings like an "Army 10-miler." This
immediately communicated to cooperating agencies the roads, ramps, and
access points necessary to effectively seal off the entire Pentagon
area.

Chief Plaugher and Chief Flynn both highlighted challenges that were
faced in response to the Pentagon incident:

-   Another fire at a different location in Arlington County caused some
    initial misinformation and confusion.

-   Fire responders faced a complex set of three incidents rolled into
    one -- a building fire, a building collapse, and a plane crash. In
    addition, dangerous hot spots carried the risk of re-igniting jet
    fuel. Debris removal was complicated because it was needed for
    evidence.

-   Chaotic miscommunications and additional threats of impending
    hijacked planes slowed evacuation efforts.

-   Determining site entry authorization was difficult at times. Some
    responded in unmarked vehicles and in personal vehicles. Fire and
    EMS units from outside of mutual aid area also responded. Ten police
    checkpoints were established to limit points of entry and colored
    wristbands were used the first day for identification and security
    control. Eventually a badging system was set up with assistance from
    federal authorities.

-   The number of responding units caused problems. There was
    uncertainty about the number of units responding as mutual aid.
    Confusion over the location of the staging area created response
    difficulties for those that did not possess the ability to
    communicate directly with fire dispatch. Also, arriving units did
    not use a single arrival route. Some units abandoned their vehicles
    and continued responding on foot.

-   The closing of the federal government and much of the Washington
    area clogged the roadways as morning rush hour was ending. Continued
    traffic flow was of paramount importance. Roads had to be opened
    quickly to get people out of area. In addition, access to and from
    the Pentagon metro/bus station, one of the largest in the area,
    needed to be controlled.

-   Road closures and security caused confusion for resource and
    equipment deliveries. Standardized directions to the Pentagon were
    developed and distributed, making delivery locations more
    predictable.

-   Onlookers parked their cars on major arterials to watch. Many came
    to the scene to look for friends and loved ones. The intent of the
    onlookers was not always clear and access control needed to be
    established. For those that were family members, a place was set up
    where their questions could be answered.

-   Media trucks that rushed to the scene parked along roadways, which
    hampered the arrival of emergency units. A central media encampment
    was established to maintain access control and facilitate the
    dissemination of information.

-   Visiting dignitaries needed to be accommodated and additional
    coordination with their personal security staff was needed.

Chief Flynn noted that several factors facilitated the response on
September 11: fewer organizations to collaborate/coordinate due to
jurisdictional boundaries at the county level; existing working
relationship between the police and fire departments; established
relationships and plans for major events; and having separate commands
allowing traffic command to focus exclusively on traffic management.
Chief Flynn stated that trust among responders cannot be developed
during a crisis; it must be created through interim activities. Whatever
is not working, will get worse during a crisis.

Chief Flynn stressed that in an environment where government delegates
responsibilities, local responders are the key to any incident. A major
challenge for any incident will be adjusting incident command to fit the
circumstance. He suggested that in a large-scale incident such as the
Pentagon, responders cannot focus on the enormity of the situation, but
need to think tactically, break down tasks to a manageable level, and
begin to respond.

##### The 2002 Olympic Winter Games

**Tom Ranson**, Incident Management Coordinator, Utah Department of
Transportation, provided an overview of and insights gained from the
Salt Lake City Olympic Games. The Utah Department of Transportation led
the efforts and received assistance from Illinois, Tennessee, and
Washington transportation agencies plus Nevada state troopers. In order
to be prepared for incidents, much of the response procedure was
pre-planned. For example, heavy-duty tow trucks were pre-staged
throughout Olympic venue routes. Aggressive snow removal procedures were
implemented. Photogrammetry aided police investigations at incident
scenes. Variable message signs were used to prevent crashes in slow
traffic flow. Heavy police and DOT coverage reduced the numbers of
abandoned vehicles and lessened security concerns.

As a result of this collaboration and planning, the system worked and
there were relatively few major incidents. In addition, 2,306 motorists
were assisted during the 17 days of the Games. A serious injury crash
was cleared in 23 minutes due to excellent teamwork. Photogrammetry
allowed police to shoot an incident scene with evidence markers within
30 minutes, allowing the roadway to be cleared quickly. Twenty-nine
vehicles were removed from incident scenes on the athlete routes to
facilitate traffic flow.

Mr. Ranson stated that two years of multi-agency coordination paid off.
Good planning and performance, combined with the tireless dedication of
thousands of paid and volunteer staff made the event a success. He noted
that the response to all incidents was exceptionally well coordinated
due to multi-party preparation, a collaborative multi-state DOT effort,
and heightened planning for security reasons.

##### Co-Incident Damage

**George Black**, member of the National Transportation Safety Board,
began his presentation by noting that "traffic" has been a feature in
the news over the past year. A recent FHWA poll of drivers indicates
that respondents are most concerned with congestion, work zones, and
aggressive driving. These issues can be linked to incidents, since
incidents can waste around 60% of peak hour roadway capacity. Mr. Black
stated that while many improvements can be made at little or no cost,
most urban areas do not have effective incident management programs
because they require multi-jurisdiction and multi-disciplinary
coordination that is difficult to accomplish. He pointed to the
implementation of good incident management programs on the West Coast,
mainly because of the region's need to deal with fires, floods, and
earthquakes.

As a means to illustrate the need for multi-jurisdiction and
multi-disciplinary coordination, Mr. Black reviewed several case studies
and issue areas. These included:

-   The crash of a gas tanker with 9,000 gallons of gas had not yet
    resulted in a fire, but gas was flowing to the storm water system.
    Sometimes there is not much anyone can do to clear the scene
    quickly.

-   High voltage wiring was exposed when fire broke out at the scene of
    a minor injury crash. Firefighters declared the scene an electrical
    shock zone and sealed off the wreckage for three hours. As a result,
    evening rush hour traffic backed up and caused secondary accidents.
    In addition, a circuit breaker was tripped just as nightfall came.

-   Scheduled nighttime construction activities for one project were not
    completed so another project could not progress. This resulted in
    clogging the roadway during the day. Events like this lead to
    long-term variable traffic incidents and need to be addressed by
    more than just a traffic control plan.

-   Hazmat is the most challenging element because it is so variable and
    responders do not always know what is in the containers. Traditional
    fire procedures can make an incident worse. Particularly in these
    instances, state DOTs must maintain equal partnerships with police,
    fire, rescue and other agencies having responsibilities for elements
    of traffic "incidents."

-   In terms of fatal crashes, law enforcement responsibilities change
    when death is involved and potential homicides are given more
    attention. Pre-crash liaisons between DOTs and law enforcement can
    expedite investigations. DOTs often have total station survey and
    aerial photographic capabilities that can minimize on-scene activity
    and reduce the need to shut a road down for hours.

In summary, Mr. Black made the following observations. Each agency must
understand and appreciate the impacts of their actions on other
functions. An incident command system can help in this regard. Some
well-trained individual must be in charge of overall response, and
communication with the person-in-charge and other agencies is key. In
addition, an incident scene is no place for turf battles. While all of
this sounds reasonable, Mr. Black added that it is generally not
happening. He stressed that traffic incident management is an economic,
quality of life, and safety issue. The bottom line is that the costs are
too high to not make immediate improvements.

This page intentionally left blank.

## Appendix C: Conference Discussion Papers

## Operational Issues Discussion Papers

**Prepared by:**

John O'Laughlin and Arland Smith

PB Farradyne

**[Containing:]{.underline}**

Incident Management Operations: Top Five Issues

Advanced Incident Management Practices

Changing the Language of Incident Management Operations

(Ted Smith, retired manager of the Illinois DOT IM program and John
O'Laughlin,

retired State Patrol Command officer from Seattle, have teamed to
provide IM training workshops and

seminars in over 40 states and several other countries.)

### Incident Management Operations: Top Five Issues

##### Introduction

Welcome to Irvine. Thank you for taking the time from your busy
schedules to participate in this opportunity to set a national direction
for traffic incident management programs.

There are three areas of effort at this conference. Institutional,
Operational, and Technology. This paper is focused on Operational issues
in the field at and around traffic incidents of all kinds, but, all
three will overlap. Based on our experiences, there are lots of
opportunities to improve in all three areas.

There are two papers attached that we developed as a result of our four
years of providing facilitation at IM workshops around the United States
and in other countries. Please take time when it is convenient to look
them over. We would appreciate your input or opinions on the content and
we will update them as needed to maintain a current reflection of the
incident management issues.

##### Traffic Incident Management Operations Priority Issues

Prior to this conference, we were asked to develop a short paper on the
most important issues. After looking through all the notes, papers,
reports, and publications we have gathered in the workshops, we offer
these as the most critical issues at the scene or around incident
scenes.

####### Responder Safety

With the exception of the attack of September 11, 2002, traffic
incidents are one of the most dangerous tasks responders handle. In
1999, over half of officers killed in the line of duty died in traffic
crashes. According to USDOT, nearly 10,000 police cars, 2,000 fire
trucks and three thousand others (ambulances, service patrols, tow
trucks, etc.) were struck going to or at traffic incidents. This year
started with the first firefighter death at a crash scene on January
second when he was hit by a truck while putting flares out to warn
traffic.

In 2001, 21 state troopers died in the line of duty. One was shot, three
died in aircraft crashes and the remaining 17 died in traffic related
incidents.

We can and should focus significant effort to improve these numbers.
Training, equipment, research, policy development, updated statutes, and
performance standards are all outputs that could improve responder
safety.

####### Secondary Crash Prevention

Studies have indicated crashes secondary to other incidents range from
14 to 30 percent of all crashes. USDOT estimated that 18% of deaths on
freeways were secondary crashes. The authors are personally aware of
secondary crashes in the recent past that have killed 13, 7 and 4
respectively. The four were killed two weeks ago when they slammed into
the back of a parked semi in the middle of the roadway. The road had
been closed for over 6 hours for a previous car accident and traffic was
stopped with lights off conserving fuel when this crash occurred miles
from the original incident. Was there traffic control? Why was the road
closed so long? Were the responders taking into consideration secondary
crashes in managing the original crash scene? These are just a few of
the questions that professional response managers should be asking when
these tragedies.

This is another area where significant improvements can be made to
eliminate secondary crashes. Research, studies, training, and policy
development can have a positive impact on reducing the number and
severity of secondary crashes.

####### Traffic Control

Traffic control for all incidents that close or severely impact traffic
movement on one or more lanes is vitally important. Proper use of
traffic control devices such as signs, cones, Variable message signs,
Highway advisory radio, and other devices can improve traffic flow
through or around scenes. Proper use of detour routes, better on scene
traffic control, and continuous monitoring of the impact of the incident
can decrease secondary crashes, improve responder safety, and decrease
motorist delays.

Improper traffic control can be a major liability. The new Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) outlines requirements for
traffic control as it always has, but now defines incidents as requiring
temporary traffic control consistent with temporary work zones.

Manual traffic control at incidents can move up to 50% more traffic
smoothly past the incident while increasing responder safety. Think to
crash scenes you have passed by. Was traffic control in place, was
someone in the right place making sure traffic was under "Positive
Control" as it passed the actual incident location?

Traffic control can and should be a consistent part of even short-term
incidents. A multi-agency approach is required here to make sure all
responders understand and use the basic procedures required for the safe
movement of traffic.

####### Incident Site Management

Good site management procedures can dramatically improve safety, traffic
flow, clearance times, and even agency image. Proper positioning of
response vehicles, early deployment of tow trucks, setting proper
priorities, practicing good emergency light discipline, and working
together is necessary for good site management.

Even though agencies may respond to similar traffic incidents on a
frequent basis, multi-agency efforts to streamline the process are
unusual. Responders can individually improve certain aspects of site
management but a consolidated effort is necessary to make comprehensive
improvements.

Liability can be an issue here also. If vehicles remain blocking
roadways after they could have been moved, secondary crashes can result
in claims or law suits against the response agencies and individuals.

####### Quick Clearance

Early efforts in incident management by the Federal Highway
Administration resulted in the finding that quick clearance is the most
effect method to decrease responder injuries, decrease secondary
crashes, improve mobility, and improve public image of response
agencies. Quick clearance should be a policy and can be supported by
laws that reduce liability for responders taking aggressive actions to
open roadways.

There are a large number of actions that can be undertaken by individual
and multi-agency groups to improve the process. They include law and
policy changes, training, interagency agreements, changing the
priorities of on scene responders, streamlining investigative
procedures, updating towing regulations and procedures for their use,
and setting challenging performance standards for clearance times.

##### Conclusion

These issues are only the "Tip of the Iceberg". During this conference
we will need your input to identify additional issues, develop
recommendations and set priorities. Thank you for taking the time to
attend and participate in this process.

### Advanced Incident Management Practices

Incident Management (IM) programs have been developed in nearly every
urban area and in most states. Due to a variety of impacts such as
political pressure, budget restraints, institutional resistance, and
lack of a clear mandate, programs have a wide range of styles and
success rates.

We have found that there are some states with very good parts of an
overall program, but not one state with all the parts. We found good
equipment, motivated personnel, good procedures, appropriate laws, and
good leadership, but not all in the same state at the same time. We have
also found a number of challenges yet to be overcome in most programs.

To help senior managers get a better feel for what is occurring in the
IM field, we have gathered information on the programs and taken an
objective look at several of them to see how they really work. We have
been totally honest in our comments in the hopes it will help start an
open dialog for future improvements.

This briefing paper is a summary of the Executive Overview that was
developed for Legislators, Directors of transportation agencies, Chiefs
of Police, Chiefs of Fire Departments, and owners of towing businesses
who are key to the success of IM programs. Without their understanding
and support, programs will not reach their full potential.

##### Service Patrols

Service patrols are universally accepted as the most effective tools for
IM. From our experience, the most successful are operated with DOT
employees, have multi-purpose vehicles with a variety of safety
equipment including arrow boards or variable message boards. They double
as incident response vehicles for collisions, spills and crash
investigations. They have direct police radio contact and operate out of
the Traffic Operations Center, (TOC), if there is one. There is coverage
in major cities 24 hours a day or 12 to 13 hours, M-F, and they have an
on call program for nights and weekends. They are successful in becoming
a [true]{.underline} part of the incident management decision-making
process at incident sites.

Private providers of service patrol programs also do a good job. They
are, however, restricted in their activities by the public agencies that
manage them. They are seldom allowed to do the same activities as IM
personnel working for a department of transportation, and they don't
represent the DOT at large incident scenes. Often, they are not allowed
to communicate directly with the police officers handling the freeway
and that restricts timely and accurate communications.

##### 24-Hour Incident Response

Coverage and response during peak traffic periods is normally very good.
During off peak hours and weekends, response may be very slow by DOT
personnel. In highly congested cities, this may be when the most severe
incidents occur and they may impact peak traffic if not handled
properly. Inconsistent response can contribute to secondary crashes,
decreased trust from other response agencies, increased liability, and
generate negative media coverage.

Inconsistent response also pertains to the use of Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) applications. If ITS systems such as
Variable Message signs, (VMS) are operated effectively only during peak
periods, the public will soon become disenchanted with poor service
during non-peak hours. If systems are continuously used for
non-emergency information such as upcoming construction closures or
safety messages, they will lose their effectiveness.

The urban areas are not the only places needing response services from
DOT. The best programs have select rural maintenance personnel on call
with take home vehicles equipped for most contingencies. During the
workday, they are part of the maintenance program but may respond
quickly to any blocking incidents the police cannot handle alone. They
should have pagers, cell phones, and be well trained. They should
participate in multi-agency training whenever possible. Incident
response must be their priority when they are needed.

Given that response times will increase on weekends due to call-outs,
transportation agencies should still provide the same level of service
on Sunday morning as they do on Thursday afternoon. Several highly
embarrassing incidents have been well publicized when DOT failed to
respond adequately on their day off. Freeways operate 24 hours per day
as do the police and fire. DOT should be funded, staffed, equipped,
trained, and prepared to do the same.

##### Communications Interoperability

In every workshop, communications between agencies and between
responders is a big issue. Responders who routinely work with each other
at incident scenes, cannot communicate by radio. Traffic Operations
Center, (TOC) personnel cannot talk to the police directly. They also do
not have access to the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) information from
the emergency 911 centers. The emergency dispatch centers do not have
access or control of cameras that could help them manage response to
emergencies on the transportation systems.

These Communications challenges are even more important since the events
of September 11, 2001. Transportation systems and national security have
suddenly become linked in a manner we didn't expect. The ability to link
the systems police and transportation agencies have for management of
their particular disciplines is a significant opportunity to increase
security against terrorism. If additional attacks do occur, massive
response or evacuation of cities will require a complete system for use
by emergency operations personnel and transportation officials to be
effective.

Agencies should strive to link these systems as soon as possible. They
should then establish an interagency training program to ensure they
work well together and understand each other's priorities.

##### Interagency Agreements

Probably the most important agreement is an open roads policy developed
and signed by police and transportation agencies. New agreements should
include input and support from the fire departments. Response protocols
should also be covered between different agencies. For example, some
service patrol programs are not allowed to clear accident vehicles from
roadways until a police officer arrives while others are. Mutual aid
agreements are also important to share resources and save time.
Equipment in a construction zone should be available to help clear
roadways and this agreement should be set up at the start of
construction.

Media partnerships and agreements are also very important. Some areas
have radio contact with media pilots, get help with managing queues, and
share cameras. Generally, the closer you work with them, the better the
relationship, and the stronger your program will be.

None of these solutions are any good unless the agreements are known by
all employees and in some cases, the public. What good is a quick
clearance law if the public is not aware of it? The authors recently
read an open roads agreement that had been signed by agency directors
six months earlier. Several state police officers in attendance had
never heard of it. In one state, which has a "Steer it Clear it" law,
officers we talked to weren't aware of the law. Still others disagreed
with the law and openly resisted having lanes cleared of minor crashes
until they arrived, and some kept lanes closed until they completed
their paperwork.

Some officers will not call a tow truck until they are close to
completion of their accident reports. In one city, the officers did not
request tow trucks until they had been on scene for over 40 minutes. By
the time they responded and cleared the vehicles, it was well over an
hour per incident.

If you want to see a very good interagency agreement between State
Transportation and Patrol agencies, get a copy of the "Joint Operations
Policy Statement" from Washington State.

##### Reduced Liability For Incident Management 

Most responders are reluctant to be aggressive about clearing roadways.
Responders that have adapted aggressive clearance procedures, save
millions in lost time for the public and face the same or even less
litigation than the others.

Some of the biggest cases pending have to do with secondary crashes
where deaths occurred in the queue behind previous incidents. Make sure
you are getting the traffic control to these scenes quickly and it is
focused on protecting the queue. In some of our workshops, responders
have indicated there is nothing you can do about secondary crashes so
they do nothing to protect the queue. That can be a liability problem
for your agency when serious secondary crashes occur. This approach also
indicates training is lacking in a large number of agencies.

Proper traffic control is also required for long-term incidents and that
requirement is becoming more of a liability issue. A recent change in
Chapter 6 of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) has
placed incident management in the same category as temporary work zones.
That change could mean increased liability if emergency traffic control
is not improved to meet work zone standards quickly. A good rule that is
consistent with the MUTCD is initiate additional traffic control
measures if the first responders estimate the scene will take more than
one hour.

Rarely has a state ever paid even small amounts for quick clearance. By
the way, the American Trucking Association, American Automobile
Association, and the North American Insurance Institute either support
or are neutral on aggressive clearance. We have found that doing the job
aggressively while using good common sense is better, liability wise,
than being indecisive and worrying about liability. Push, pull, or drag
it off. Take pictures before and after removal. All police, IM or
service patrol trucks should have cameras and should also take pictures
of any potential liability issues, (roadway edges, signing, roadway
damage, etc.) Some carry the disposable cameras and do not develop the
film unless it is needed. When it is, they let the requestor pay for
development.

##### Quick Clearance Policies

Whether based on policy or law, quick clearance is a very good program
to implement. By making it mandatory that you must get out of the road
when in a minor collision, you prevent further delays and collisions.
This also sends a message to the responders that clearance is a
priority. Responders are also reducing their exposure to potential
injuries when they clear roads quickly.

Is it important? California Legislators passed the quick clearance law
in 1999 with unanimous support. The message is clear. Open roads are a
very high priority.

Clearing congested freeways doesn't mean moving everything to the
shoulder and then sitting there for extended periods to finish accident
reports etc. Move the whole mess to an exit, crash investigation site,
or parking lot. Traffic will recover quicker and responders will be in a
safer environment to complete their tasks. A recent truck crash in
another state was removed quickly and expertly to the shoulder, but sat
there and continued to back up traffic for over two additional hours
while a brake inspection was completed. That inspection could have been
done off of the freeway at a safe location not effecting traffic flow.

##### Truck Crashes Require Unified Actions ["Between The White Lines"]{.underline}

The QUICK CLEARANCE policy should give clear guidance on how to handle
truck wrecks. Cargo removal can take hours if not handled properly. It
is the public's road and operated by the transportation authority. If
possible, the truck owner and towing company should take part in the
process, but it is a DOT responsibility to focus on quick clearance by
any reasonable means.

"Unified Actions" means exactly that. When a truck with a placarded load
(HazMat) overturns, a wide range of responder decisions impact the
proper handling of the recovery. In one city, good coordinated incident
management leads to a 90-minute total incident including recovery and
removal of the truck and cargo.

In another city, the almost identical incident takes 17 hours with an
entire freeway closed. In the first city, the responders work together
and evaluate alternatives. The towing company and truck owner recommend
recovery of the truck while it is loaded and outline how they will
accomplish that for the police and fire incident commanders. Their
approach is approved and the recovery is accomplished quickly as well as
safely. They already had the trust of the fire departments and police
due to their working relationships and previous multiple agency
participation in exercises.

In the second city, the truck owner is not allowed to be at the command
center, the police call for a tow truck off the rotation list and the
tow driver has never recovered a vehicle and load like this. The fire
incident commander and police decide to "Error on the side of safety"
and thousands of motorists are left stranded for hours. The truck owner
has the ultimate liability for the recovery and, with the approval of
the incident commander, should have input into the recovery process.

If the load material is not hazardous, use whatever means necessary to
clear the traveled portion quickly. Push, pull, or drag, with tow
trucks, front-end loaders, or response trucks.

Just to be clear, and to follow the law in most states, it is DOT not
the police who should have the final say so on clearance when the debris
or load materials is "Between the White Lines". The police enforce and
investigate; the DOT operates, maintains and repairs the roadways. Good
working agreements and prior coordination are required to make this work
properly.

Once the lanes are cleared, the trucking company and towing company can
assume responsibility for remaining clearance needs as long as it won't
cause significant traffic impact. By having DOT be a more active player,
police are able to focus on their more important tasks; investigations
and enforcement.

Use your equipment, towing equipment or contracted equipment, but don't
wait. Delays increase the potential for responder injury, secondary
crashes and are too costly to the motoring public. DOT should be part of
the decision-making process at major crashes and is often the only
agency that has the interests of the motorist caught in the queue as a
priority.

##### Clean Up Of Fuel Spills

Another area of significant performance variance is clean up of small
amounts of petroleum products such as diesel and motor oil. Spills on
road surfaces should be handled as quickly as possible. Fuel can be
cleaned up from the road surface with any absorbent material by anyone
at the scene. Contrary to some opinions, a contractor should not be
required for spills on the road surface and there is more danger in
keeping the roads closed. Secondary crashes and more exposure to
responders from errant traffic are a significant safety issue when
closures are extended. Clean it up, package it, leave it for the
contractor, or put it in the wrecked vehicle if it is fuel or motor oil.

If the spill gets into drains, waterways, or causes other environmental
hazards, follow the rules you have established but still clean the lanes
quickly. Fire, towing or DOT responders in several states arrive at the
incident fully prepared to plug leaks and clean up roadway spills to
open roads quickly. Good for them. Other states close roadways, increase
exposure of responders to injuries and leave thousands stranded to wait
for a contractor to be called out to do the same thing. These delays can
result in more responder exposure to being injured, increase liability,
secondary crashes, and embarrassment to the response agencies when
programs from one state or city are compared to those from others.

A recent new documentary in one Eastern city compared how crashes were
handled there to how they are handled in Chicago. They criticized the
Police, DOT, and elected officials when they found Chicago cleared them
all hours quicker than in their city. They interviewed senior leaders
who blamed the problem on lack of funding. That is partially true, but
lots can be done to fix the problems with existing funds.

##### Multiple Agency Training

The NHI Incident Management workshops are a good opportunity to gage the
amount of training that is conducted with other agencies. In one we
recently conducted, police and fire responders were openly amazed at
what DOT had to offer. They had no idea what a TOC was or what it did.
They had never considered having DOT participate in the exercises they
regularly have with other response agencies.

To be truly effective in IM, these training sessions are necessary. DOT
should talk to police and fire agencies and make sure they know DOT
wants to participate. Get involved in the emergency management program
in your county that is responsible for disaster preparedness. They are a
great source of multiple agency training opportunities. They also foster
team building, and will include DOT as an emergency response agency and
a community resource.

Another common response is that agencies have never trained for highway
emergencies with each other. Routine accidents block our roadways
everyday, yet, they are not handled with a systematic approach,
Truthfully, and most responders have given it little thought. It is a
come as you are, park where you want, and do what we do. A little work
in this area with, a commitment to follow up in their agencies can
vastly improve clearance times and reduce congestion. When major events
occur, such as overturned tanker trucks, you really find out who is well
prepared, and who isn't.

Think back at crash scenes you have driven past and see if you recall
being partially blinded by excessive emergency lights, seeing responders
standing around, no traffic control, emergency vehicles blocking lanes
that could be open, and an appearance of a general lack of organization.
If so, you are, unfortunately, not alone.

##### Agency Program Evaluation

If you are told it is working well, have someone evaluate the records
and make sure. Sometimes certain individuals get it done quickly and we
think everyone is doing the same. Not true. I know of areas where
serious incidents may be cleared through the efforts of one key
responder in 60 to 90 minutes while others will take 5 to 7 hours. Some
questions to ask;

-   Do you have a published goal for clearance times?

-   Do you regularly evaluate closures looking for ways to reduce the
    time they take?

-   Have you looked at how ITS and other tools have shortened (or maybe
    lengthened) clearance times?

-   Do you give positive recognition and reinforcement to employees who
    excel in effective incident management?

Just as an example, "Total Station" surveying systems have been credited
with reducing the time it takes to investigate fatal or criminal
crashes. Not always true. It takes time to get them to the site and 20
minutes to set them up. Then, they often measure 5 to 10 times the
points they used to. It is our personal observation and that of several
officials, that total station [does not]{.underline} reduce clearance
time in most cases. It does allow them to produce better diagrams that
are seldom used in a criminal case.

One study indicted less than 20% of criminal investigations for
accidents are ever used in court. Another study compared fatality
investigation closures before and after acquiring "Total Stations".
Fatality investigation closures averaged one hour longer with the "Total
Station".

Some police go through the entire investigative process even if they
know it won't be a criminal case because they are concerned about civil
liability. Having police use a "Triage" technique can help them
eliminate some delays when it becomes clear there will not be felony
charges.

Some of the more responsive police agencies are doing several things to
reduce the impact on traffic and improve the safety of their responders.
If crashes are on major freeways, they send more personnel, prioritize
tasks, use new technology such as laser, GPS or Photogrammetry, or mark
roads for measuring later. Good police agencies figure out how to avoid
long closures and how to prevent secondary crashes. As a result, they
expose their own personnel to much less risk of injury in secondary
crashes.

A past FHWA study indicated quick clearance is the most effective means
of reducing congestion. We totally agree. Hopefully, you won't get to
the point that some states have where the media is chastising them for
poor management of incidents.

Evaluation can take many forms, but for our purposes, it is focused on a
few key issues. Are you conducting training for personnel that must
respond to emergencies on a regular basis? Are training objectives
clearly stated? Are your resources and those of other key agencies
deployed properly? On two occasions state police had printouts of
response times that showed in one area they took twice as long to
respond as other areas. As far as we could determine, they had not
looked into changing zone lines or moving personnel to correct this
disparity. The staffing adjustments have been made and response times
are nearly 50% improved.

From a DOT perspective, is your response times on weekends acceptable?
Police often say it's easy to get help from DOT on weekdays but when
needed at night or on weekends, as one east coast police officer stated,
"Forget about it". Take a look at this and it may save you future
embarrassment.

Good equipment must be readily available to responders. Does a
supervisor have to go unlock a shop for employees to have access to
needed resources? Have you set response standards? As part of one states
efforts, they got the state police to agree to a goal of two hours
maximum lane closures for criminal traffic investigations. In return,
the DOT promised faster and better response to help with traffic
control. Hopefully you have or are working toward an agreement like
this.

Always include a major incident review in this process. If there is a
school shooting that wounds one, everyone evaluates it for prevention
and response in the future. We usually don't do a good job of this on
major transportation emergencies on our highways.

##### Legislative Or Administrative Actions

We have discussed quick clearance issues already. Establishing liability
exemptions to facilitate quick clearance of load materials and trucks
reduces the reluctance many responders have to act decisively. This can
be accomplished through policy, but some agencies want this placed into
law. Some states have passed this legislation as a companion to 'Move
It' quick clearance laws.

Additional effort is needed [in nearly every state]{.underline} for
updating towing regulations. Although this is primarily a regulatory
issue, DOT can play a significant role. Regulations for large tow trucks
were developed over 40 years ago. At that time, legal truck weights were
much lighter than today. The best tow trucks available were rated for 25
tons. Now rotator and fixed boom hydraulic tow trucks have 35 to 70 ton
capacity, yet they are on rotation lists with older 25-ton units. There
is little incentive for a towing company to spend \$400,000 on a new
rotator when he has alternate calls with other companies with old
trucks.

One state has resolved the problem by having DOT call for a rotator for
all overturned, blocking trucks. They also allow the towing company to
charge a higher price (\$500.00 per hour) for this equipment. As a
result, there are now five rotators in that area available to clear
roads quickly.

Tow bills using older trucks that take longer and require more personnel
are often several thousand dollars. Consequently, the trucking company
pays more and the road stays closed longer. The best way to resolve this
is to try and get the state police to develop a new recovery class of
tow with a minimum of 35 tons. Old tows would still tow disabled trucks,
but they would not be used to relocate or upright overturned trucks
blocking roadways.

One state DOT refused to grant a minor weight waiver to allow a 60-ton
rotator tow truck to clear truck wrecks. This equipment can often do
this task in minutes where regular big tow trucks often take hours. Use
your authority to make it work instead of preventing it from happening.

Several other barriers to progress are blamed on laws or policies.
Police in one city indicated it was against the law to allow the service
patrols on their radio channel. One city said the law required all
deceased persons be removed by the Medical Examiner only, even if the
road was blocked and long delays could be expected before they arrived.
Another state said they are required to leave all emergency lights on
when along side a freeway even though it can be a safety hazard. If you
know of or have laws or policies that restrict good incident management,
work to change them.

##### Incident Command For Roadway Emergencies

Incident command of roadway emergencies is a challenge in several areas
of the nation. Incident Command Systems (ICS) or more recently Incident
Management Systems (IMS) are established methods to manage emergencies.
Based on old military principals of command and control, and formalized
by fire departments, this flexible structure is put in place to
incorporate all response agencies into the process.

A newer version that is in place in some cities is called "Unified
Incident Command." In this approach, there is still a single incident
commander, but the representatives of the other response agencies are
involved in the decision making process. It is not who is in charge as
much as it is who is in charge of what.

Unfortunately, in some areas it appears more time has been spent on WHO
is in charge than on HOW to be in charge. A good incident commander is a
facilitator of the process and genuinely considers the input of others
in making decisions. A good traffic incident commander talks directly to
the representatives of other agencies and is able to understand and
incorporate the priorities of others into the decision making process.

Most importantly, the incident commander has the experience and training
to deliver professional leadership that leads to effective management of
all types of transportation incidents. All too often, the incident
commanders do not have a good understanding of the total picture and
often have never attended multiple agency training for transportation
incidents. They may not understand the differences between operating on
city streets compared to operating on major freeways.

Anyone who is going to be put into the traffic incident command position
in their particular agency should attend a good multi-agency traffic
incident management course before they assume those responsibilities.
They should also have a good working knowledge of the incident command
process so they can fit into that process immediately upon arrival at a
traffic incident scene.

##### Planning For Incident Management In Construction Projects

During many of the workshops, members of response agencies comment on
the difficulty of accessing scenes in construction zones. They also
comment on the higher than average number of incidents that occur in
those zones.

Planning for construction should contain input from the fire, police and
towing industries. Sometimes, relatively inexpensive actions can be
taken early to reduce incident impact during construction. This input
from response agencies needs to take place early in the construction
staging and maintenance of traffic planning.

It is common for service patrols to be used in construction zones to
reduce response times. Does the agreement allow them to remove accident
vehicles before the police arrive? Are they equipped to handle minor
diesel spills and other debris cleanup? Have police and fire been
consulted and informed about the duties of the service personnel?

It is also common to employ police officers to maintain a high
visibility to keep traffic slowed to a reasonable rate. Does that
agreement require them to clear lanes rapidly by use of their push bars?
Do they take enforcement action or merely sit with emergency lights on?
Have you considered having them sit with emergency lights on may not be
a proper use of emergency lights and may actually de-sensitize motorists
to the meaning of emergency lights? Are they protected by attenuator
trucks or parked in coned off areas where they are vulnerable to out of
control motor vehicles?

Numerous areas use portable Dynamic Message signs, Highway Advisory
Radio, and regular media releases to keep motorists informed. Can the
signs and HAR be changed quickly when incidents occur? Who has control
of them during non-construction hours? Some areas now use temporary
closed circuit video cameras that the service patrol can monitor to
speed up detection and response. Can they tape incidents at police, fire
or DOT request?

What about the other response agencies that are affected by the project?
Has someone met with the fire departments to plan response routes when
ramps are closed or restricted? Have temporary landing sites been
identified to allow for patient air evacuation? Has the construction
been scheduled to allow for at least one open emergency lane or shoulder
on at least one side of the median barrier? Has the entire construction
zone been made an impound zone or immediate tow zone, to remove
abandoned vehicles? Have temporary turning points or median openings
been included in the plan to allow towing and emergency vehicle access?
Is there an agreement with the contractor that his equipment and
personnel can be diverted to clear an incident on a time and materials
basis? Is it have temporary accident investigation sites been identified
and the locations made known to all response agencies?

Is there an agreement in place that specifies who is on call for issues
in the work zone on weekends or holidays? Are the emergency agencies
provided with updated callout lists for resident engineers or key
contractor contacts when DOT doesn't have a 24-hour operations center?
Are they equipped and trained to provide effective IM support? Are they
within a reasonable distance to have a good response time?

##### Other Issues

Clearance times can be dramatically reduced for major collisions. A
plan, training, multiple agency commitment, and resources are required.
Police can prioritize tasks, use new technology, and demonstrate an
urgency to get it cleared up. DOT help is needed quickly when major
roads are closed or severely restricted for crash investigation and
clean up. They can have equipment and supplies readily available,
prioritize tasks, and provide proper traffic control for the other
agencies. All responders should operate with a sense of urgency to
complete tasks and get roadways restored to normal use as soon as
possible.

Investigative times can also be reduced. A new program called
photogrammetry is being used in at least 8 states that allow
measurements and diagramming to be done strictly from photographs. In
one state, the technical investigator using this along with the right
priorities was is able to complete a criminal crash investigation in 40
minutes. One group of 32 investigators worked on priorities on scene and
determined there were only 5 tasks that had to be completed with the
lanes blocked. We also ask that the lanes not be closed until police are
totally prepared to do the investigation in a timely manner. That means
traffic control is in place, the tools and personnel needed are on
scene, poised to work quickly, and everyone is focused on priority
tasks.

Intermittent closures can also be used effectively. Instead of closing
lanes traffic was traveling in when the first officers arrived, only
close then for the short period needed to complete measurements or other
tasks. Having the right personnel in place to accomplish these tasks can
reduce closures of those lanes to as little as 20 minutes.

One possible solution; ask the police to send only their very best to
investigations blocking major roadways. During the years the Chicago
Bulls were winning championships, they wouldn't sit Michael Jordan on
the bench in a critical game. The police should use the same approach.
It is really frustrating and embarrassing to have investigators reading
the directions to the "Total Station" in the middle of a blocked freeway
because they haven't had enough training or experience to use it
effectively.

##### Agency Leadership

In every NHI class, employees want to know what their leaders want, will
they be supported, and what actions are they allowed to take. They are
reluctant to do what is necessary due to a lack of guidance. Provide it
to them in writing and be supportive when they are trying to make
improvements. Hype the successes and innovation and give them positive
feedback. This was the organizational climate that cultivated many of
the nations most successful incident management programs.

### Changing the Language of Incident Management Operations

##### Introduction

Arland "Ted" Smith, and John O'Laughlin, each have over 30 years of
Incident Management (IM) experience. They have worked with several
states on IM issues, written portions of the latest version of the FHWA
IM handbook, and taught NHI IM courses throughout the nation. They have
presented over 100 workshops including "Executive Incident Management"
Briefings in 10 states.

Ted and John have determined that producing long-term major improvements
in incident management operations on roadways requires a different
approach, and most importantly, a different language. This paper was
developed to highlight the phrases we have collected from others,
developed personally, and gathered from previous documents on incident
management. We recommend selecting a few to use when discussing these
issues, especially when trying to improve IM operations

The different approach is simply emphasizing the responder's safety
instead of traffic congestion or pollution as the reason for clearing
all incidents quickly. We have used this approach in seminars with
police, fire, transportation and towing responders and have gotten a far
better reception than before. All responders who have experienced close
calls at incident scenes do understand they are safer when not out there
and want to learn techniques that improves their ability to clear
incidents effectively and quickly.

All of these terms are valuable for liability purposes. If agencies
adapt policies based on these approaches and responders use them as the
basis for their actions, they will experience less liability than if
they delay taking appropriate action.

We have also found that catch phrases supported with factual information
are easier to remember and even become part of the normal conversations
about IM. We offer the following terms for your consideration and hope
there are some you will use on a regular basis as we strive to improve
the delivery of incident management services.

##### "In The Interest Of Safety"

We strongly advocate the use of this phrase over the other similar one
"Error on the side of safety". We see this as being more applicable to
managing incidents and means always taking all safety issues into
consideration when making decisions at incidents.

It means opening lanes quickly adds to everyone's safety. It also means
always maintaining an awareness of the entire incident impact, not just
at the incident itself.

Long road closures are bad for everyone. Responders are exposed to
danger for longer periods of time. Motorists are exposed to the dangers
of secondary crashes. A 1998 USDOT report indicated approximately 18% of
fatalities on freeways are secondary to other incidents. A large number
could be prevented if decisions were made to protect the queue, divert
traffic and clear incidents quickly.

The first fire fighter killed in the nation this year was struck by a
tractor-trailer approaching a previous crash on an icy interstate.
Better responder training may have prevented that tragic death.

In 2001, there were 21 state police officers killed in the United
States. One died of gunshot wounds, 3 died in aircraft crashes, and 17
died in traffic related incidents. In the interest of all responder's
safety, we should concentrate more training on multi-agency incident
response and the benefits of quick effective procedures. By emphasizing
safety over mobility, we will gain more respect and support from all the
personnel who put themselves in jeopardy when they respond to roadway
emergencies.

##### "Between The White Lines"

This phrase is used to emphasize the need to handle the traveled portion
of the roadway differently than the shoulder or areas next to the
roadway. It is also used to highlight the need to have strong working
relationships between the enforcement and transportation agencies.

Police enforce and investigate. Transportation agencies operate and
maintain. Sometimes these distinctions are blurred and sometimes
transportation agencies have little control over what happens on the
roadways. They should have a strong say in what occurs on the traveled
portion and should work closely with police, fire, towing and others to
make sure the proper balance is taking place between the needs of all
agencies at incidents.

Clean up should also be handled with the priority going to the traveled
portion of the road first. If there is a diesel or other fuel spill,
clean up the road surface quickly with available resources and save the
clean up companies for the recovery of product from drains or soil.

"Between the White Lines" also means expediting the removal of all
incidents from the lanes by the most expeditious means. Patrol cars or
service patrols with push bumpers or tow straps should remove wrecked
vehicles to the shoulder instead of waiting in the road for tow trucks.

##### "Positive Traffic Control"

Probably anyone who reads this has been delayed due to crashes. You
creep along and finally reach the incident. As you pass, you see several
responders standing around and no one directing traffic. What impression
does it leave with you?

The cover of this document illustrates traffic control at an incident
scene by a DOT employee. He is keeping a constant presence and
continuously directing traffic past the scene. His efforts are
appreciated by passing motorists and they leave the scene knowing
someone was focused on getting them safely through the incident. There
were serious injuries in this crash and the driver had to b extricated
form the wreck. The entire scene was cleared completely in 21 minutes
from first report.

Having someone, and it can be any responder, continuously directing
traffic at the right location can increase traffic flow by up to 50
percent. If motorists are ignored, they go through the scene at the rate
of the slowest "Rubbernecker". By putting one responder in their line of
sight when they try and look at the wreck, they are directed to move
smoothly past the scene.

This technique is also an added safety device for the responders on
scene. They can work without concern from traffic when they know someone
is constantly watching the traffic for erratic behavior or someone
getting too close to the responders. If traffic must be stopped to allow
repositioning of emergency vehicles or personnel, the traffic controller
is close to the incident core and can easily get directions from the
incident commander.

Cones are also used to help identify the route for the motorists. They
are an early warning device, especially at night, and can wake up drowsy
motorists and allow responders reaction time when they hear the cones
get hit.

##### "Responder Mobility" 

This is a phrase that really catches the attention of Firefighters.

Urban areas all experience varying degrees of congestion related to
incidents. Responders are impacted by that congestion as much and
sometimes more than normal motorists. To maintain consistent response
times requires a transportation system that doesn't let any types of
incidents close major roadways. Events such as suicidal jumpers on
bridges, bomb threats, hazardous materials spills, or barricaded
subjects can result in large and long closures. When hey occur, fire
departments and other response agencies cannot reach emergency calls in
acceptable time fames.

We strongly recommend to all response senior personnel that closures do
have a negative effect on response to other emergencies and should be
kept to a minimum whenever possible.

Responder mobility also has to do with getting to incidents on congested
roadways in an acceptable time. When first responders block additional
lanes, they are creating a longer and more difficult trip for other
responders coming to assist at the same incident. First responders in
congested environments should not take additional lanes but should do
everything possible to minimize the impact on traffic at least until all
the needed resources reach the scene.

We all have the responsibility to continually inform other response
agencies of the need for keeping ingress routes open for others. We can
improve response times and clearance times through emphasizing
"Responder Mobility".

##### "50 mph Rule"

On a recent long closure for a truck crash, a freeway had traffic backed
up for several miles. After the lanes were finally cleared, the traffic
started to move again. Several trucks were parked in the lanes and the
drivers were asleep in the truck sleeper compartments. Officers had to
go truck to truck to wake them up.

Had these truckers known of the closure far enough in advance, they
could have taken alternate routes or stopped in safe locations for their
prescribed rest breaks. They would not have been stuck in the back up
and a number of other motorists would not have been stuck there either.
The 50 MPH rule means giving wide dissemination of closure information,
even to other states. For every hour the closure is estimated to last,
provide notice to drivers far enough away that they can avoid the
closures.

This process can also prevent secondary crashes by keeping motorists
aware of pending congestion. It will reduce the size of the queues and
make them easier to manage. This process also improves the image of the
agencies involved by demonstrating that providing motorist information
is important.

##### "15 Minute Rule"

This rule is taken from the procedures used in command posts for large
emergencies. Frequent updates and briefings are used to keep everyone
properly informed. By applying this process to traffic incidents and
having it done every 15 minutes, we improve the overall on scene
communications and coordination significantly.

The 15-minute rule also provides the leader of each response agency the
opportunity to update others on their progress. It eliminates confusion
and allows for better use of resources and prioritization of tasks. By
participating in these frequent exchanges, responders get to know others
and learn their priorities.

One step in this process is assessing the scene at the 15-minute point
to see what can be done to improve scene safety, improve traffic
movement, and determine an estimate of length of event. This information
is shared with each response agency at the scene, traffic control
personnel near the scene and with dispatch centers.

The Phoenix Fire Department uses a version of this and has the
dispatcher put out a 15- minute notification to the personnel on scene.
They then respond with the status of the event and the estimate of time
left on scene. This process also keeps everyone aware of how long they
have been at the incident.

##### Space Safety Or I=TWZ

I=TWZ means incidents are now considered to be temporary work zones in
the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and meet those
traffic control standards over a period of time. In the definitions, it
appears that requirements for more than minimal traffic control is
required if the incident will be there more than one hour. This change
should be reviewed by all transportation agencies and response agencies
to see how it impacts their operations at incident scenes.

Space safety has several meanings all related to giving responders
enough opportunity to escape injury should something go wrong. Large
police agencies that deal with traffic enforcement have changed the
violator approach to the non-traffic side of the vehicle. That will
reduce the number of officers struck by cars. Some police agencies have
also instructed officers to park further back from vehicles on the
shoulders of freeways. That will allow more time to escape should the
vehicle be struck from behind.

Higher speeds means traffic control devices need to be started further
from the incident. The speed of traffic, not the speed limit should be
considered in determining how long the taper is for lane closures. High
speeds can allow vehicles with the "D" Drivers (drowsy, drunk, drugged,
distracted) to hit traffic control devices and then responders or their
vehicles if the devices aren't placed far enough away. All responders
should carry a number of cones in their vehicles to serve as traffic
control and early warning devices.

Traffic control must be improved to reduce the number of secondary
crashes, injuries to responders and response vehicles being struck.

Traditionally, local transportation agencies haven't been heavily
involved in incident management programs. With the change in the MUTCD,
local agencies will have added responsibility to support emergency
agencies during lengthy closures. This will be especially important on
major arterials when traffic volumes are high. A new program in Maricopa
County, Arizona, is an example of being prepared to provide proper
after-hours traffic control on arterials.

Fatigued commercial drivers are also a hazard to responders. A large
truck traveling 75 miles per hour can take nearly 1000 feet to stop when
the driver is not fully alert. Commercial vehicles are involved in an
average of 14 fatalities per day nation wide. Better traffic control at
incident scenes can reduce that number by alerting the drivers early
enough to slow or stop safely.

##### "It Takes Iron To Move Iron"

Towing regulations have lagged behind the rapid changes in truck types
and weights. Most tow regulations were written over 40 years ago and
have not had significant changes to the heavy-duty class since then.
When the rules were written, trucks and trailers had steel frames,
weighed a maximum of 37 tons, and traveled at lower speeds.

Today's trucks often weigh over 50 tons, travel faster, and are mostly
made of aluminum to maximize cargo weight. When they are involved in
collisions, there is often more damage and they are difficult to remove
to restore traffic.

Tow truck regulations in nearly every state should be updated from a
25-ton class tow to a minimum of 35 tons. New tows in the 50 to 70 ton
class are far better and will clear roads much faster in the right
hands. They do cost up to \$400,000, and operators are reluctant to buy
them if they have to compete with old outdated equipment for the same
calls. In the right hands also means the operators need training and
experience before they can be truly effective in opening roadways.

States should give strong consideration to establishing a recovery class
of tows. Utah has upgraded to a recovery class and required that the
company have at least two large hydraulic or rotator tow trucks, with
additional equipment to expedite clearance of trucks and their loads.
This has allowed them to vastly decrease the time required to clear
roadways.

Training and certification is also needed to ensure the towing company
is sending qualified and experienced operators. Utah again is a leader
having just begun a certification program that will require all tow
drivers to take a training and certification course within the next
three years. Other states do have voluntary certification programs and
they are often supported by the tow industry.

One significant operational issue must be overcome to keep recoveries to
a minimum time length. That is the tendency of the tow company and truck
owner to want to minimize damage in the removal process. When a truck
crashes at a high enough speed to overturn, and the responders want to
slide it off the roadway before unloading or uprighting, they are doing
the right thing. The damage is already done. Roads should rarely remain
blocked to unload or upright a truck unless the cargo is hazardous.

##### "Target Acquisition"

The every year, approximately 10,000 police cars, 2,000 fire trucks, and
3,000 other response vehicles are struck at or going to incidents. 59%
of the officers that died in the United States in 2000 were killed
related to traffic. Target Acquisition means several things. Drunks and
others who are impaired may drift toward and collide with vehicles
displaying bright lights. There are frequent cases that responders have
been struck on purpose by enraged or mentally unstable motorists. The
bright lights also blind motorists passing emergencies and they try and
pay more attention to the incident than to their driving.

All responders, regardless of their jobs, should wear proper reflective
garments when working at incidents scenes, especially after the hours of
darkness. Reduce the ability of becoming a target by being seen when
necessary and by controlling the environment and taking away driver's
opportunities to inadvertently or intentionally strike a responder.

Target Acquisition also has meaning related to terrorism attacks. Their
approach is generally to inflict as many casualties as possible while
striking at something symbolic. We sometimes create great opportunities
for them by closing roadways and backing solid traffic onto bridges,
into tunnels, or onto urban elevated structures. Maintaining mobility as
a top priority is a means of defense against potential terrorist
activities.

##### "Dignity In Death"

Another area needing updating are the rules and laws that govern medical
examiners and coroners. Delays in removal of deceased victims or traffic
collisions can keep roadways closed for additional minutes or even
hours. The rules are based on the duties to investigate all deaths. If
you have "Organ Donor" on your driver's license your wishes to try and
make something positive out of a tragedy may go unheeded due to these
old rules.

Three are some organs that can be transplanted successfully after death
if the victim is properly taken care of and transported rapidly to a
proper facility. Even if the success rate is low, I would certainly
choose to have my family have the opportunity to tell the medical
professionals to go ahead and try than to find out my remains were left
along side a roadway for hours.

"Dignity in Death" also means that the deceased, their family and on
lookers should be treated with compassion and respect. Bodies should not
be covered and left in the roadway or in the sight of others any longer
than necessary. Police will often argue that they are part of a crime
scene and have to be left there. If there is any sign of life they
aren't left there, why should that change when they are deceased? There
are certainly exceptions for circumstances such as hit and run
fatalities, but generally they can be moved within a short period of
time.

Oklahoma City has one of the best medical examiners policies we have
seen. They exempt traffic crashes from keeping the deceased at the
scene. They can and should be transported immediately according to this
policy.

Years ago, delays in getting someone to respond and removed deceased
persons from traffic crashes prompted the head of Emergency Medical
Response in Chicago declared "Nobody dies on my highways". He
established a policy that all bodies would be removed expeditiously to a
medical facility that has the only authority to declare death. This
policy affectively reduced the length of closures on Chicago freeways.

##### "Agree To Agree"

Interagency agreements such as open roads policies, quick clearance
agreements, shared real time data, and shared resources can be important
in the improvement of delivery of services. Shared data can
significantly improve the delivery of the proper resources to the proper
locations. Imagine the responders having onboard, or at least direct
video in their dispatch centers, showing the incident location and
details. That process alone can reduce the number of vehicles and types
of vehicles responding to the incidents. It can also get them to the
incidents sooner by giving more detailed locations and traffic
conditions.

Response protocols can be as simple of getting agreements on how many
and what types of response vehicles will deploy for traffic incidents
and how they will be situated on the roadway. They can be as
comprehensive as the recently signed agreement between the Washington
State Patrol and Washington Department of Transportation. This agreement
covers all the interagency activities and defines who has what role
related to all types on interagency activities.

Regardless of all the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) being
deployed, most motorists in their cars are going to rely on their radios
to get information about changes in traffic conditions. That source is
generally commercial radio unless there are Highway Advisory Radio (HAR)
systems in place that are actually kept up to date.

Transportation, police and traffic media have some excellent
partnerships throughout the nation that cooperate to provide good
information to motorists. They communicate directly, they share space
and real time data, and they share costs. Media aircraft with police
radios help the responders with an eye in the sky. The pilots get better
details to share with motorists. In Chattanooga, Tennessee, the media
traffic reporter provides aerial photographs of all serious crashes free
of charge to the police to assist with investigations.

Mutual aid agreements are routine between fire departments in adjacent
jurisdictions. They are not as common between police agencies unless
they have joint drug task forces, or tactical teams. They are virtually
non-existent for general police services, including investigation of
felony or fatal collisions.

Interagency agreements for incidents can be determining who is closer
and having them responsible for immediate response even if it is not in
their actual jurisdiction. It can also be similar to the agreement in
South Dallas, Texas where the Sheriff has taken over patrol
responsibilities for 7 communities that had a small part of the loop
freeway system. This program has reduced response times and clearance
times dramatically because the officers are out there all the time and
have become experts at operating on that roadway.

##### "Training, Training, And More Training"

Major arterials and freeways, especially high-speed corridors require a
different set of skills and abilities for responders to maintain their
safety. Any response agency that enters freeways for incidents should
have a training program designed for proper safety techniques on that
system. If they don't, they may have someone become part of the huge
number of casualties that occur on freeways every day.

Training together with the other agencies that respond to roadways can
help each responder understand and respect the priorities of others.
Opportunities should not be missed to share ideas and information with
each other. All too often, the only contact the senior managers of the
agencies may have is when something goes wrong and there is a
disagreement between the agencies. The natural tendency is defend the
actions of the people in your organization, even if they could have done
better. That further detracts from good interagency coordination.

Having an incident team in the region that meets on a regular basis can
reduce the misunderstandings that occur when responders only have part
of the information. They can also work together to identify problems and
develop collective solutions. Having a segment of training in each of
these meeting focused on local issues, is a valuable way to get
participation.

Training for specialists should also be more balanced. Technical
accident investigators may have weeks, even months of technical training
and never get one hour about the hazards of keeping roadways closed.
Fire command personnel are trained extensively on the safety of their
personnel and never have it balanced with the needs to reduce secondary
crashes. Towing companies are often paid by the hour and resist hurrying
up because it costs them money. By having them get lanes open and then
do recovery, they still earn the same and traffic is restored sooner.

There are numerous examples of great results as the result of training.
Working together, agencies in San Antonio and South Dallas have cut
clearance times by more than 50%. They credit training as a key to that
improvement.

We hope that something in this paper is significant to you and you can
use it in your Incident Management program. Please feel free to contact
either or us should you need further information.

This page intentionally left blank.

## Technological Issues Discussion Paper

Prepared by:

Bruce Churchill

Senior Project Manager

NET Corporation

Pam Scanlon

Executive Director

San Diego Automated Regional Justice Information System

### Overview

In any operation, and especially in Incident Management, information
sharing is a powerful tool that facilitates improved inter-agency
coordination. It is not the "end all" to operational issues in traffic
incident management, but one of a set of tools available to the
practitioners and managers of IM activities. In 1996, the San Diego
InterCAD Project was initiated as the first in a series of "Early Start"
projects for the Southern California Priority Corridor Showcase Program.
The operational goal of this project was to improve IM operations
through improved inter-agency communications. The scope of the project
did not include on-scene voice communications but rather focused on
communications between agency automated systems such as Computer Aided
Dispatch and Advanced Transportation Management Systems. InterCAD
enjoyed some early deployment success but the original objectives have
not been fulfilled due to a series of institutional, technical and
operational issues. Given the intense current interest in this
integration goal, and its potential to improve IM operations, a Case
Study of InterCAD is timely and will provide useful insight on the
problems to avoid in the integration of public safety communications
systems with transportation management systems.

### InterCAD Project Background

The San Diego InterCAD (San Diego Regional Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD)
Interconnect) project, designed to facilitate improved incident
management in San Diego County's portion of the Southern California ITS
Priority Corridor, was begun in the fall of 1995. By summer 1996, the
California Division of FHWA had approved the Federal Work Plan. InterCAD
was originally envisioned as a two-phase project, leading to
implementation in more than one region within the Priority Corridor.

As part of the local match funds required to receive federal funding for
the project, the San Diego motorist aid call box authority, known as the
Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), provided operating
fund reserves to complete Phase 1 of the InterCAD project. Phase 2 of
the project was funded from the FHWA FY 96 Priority Corridor Showcase
budget administered by the San Diego Association of Governments
(SANDAG).

The Phase 1 participants in the InterCAD project included San Diego
Police Department (SDPD), San Diego Sheriff's Department (SDSD) and the
Border Division of the California Highway Patrol (CHP). Phase 2 of
InterCAD was planned to incorporate the new Caltrans Transportation
Management Center (TMC) when that facility's new Advanced Transportation
Management System (ATMS) became operational. Other public safety
agencies within San Diego County, including fire and EMS, also planned
to join the project in Phase 2. A similar project, Inland Empire
InterCAD, had been proposed for Riverside and San Bernardino counties as
part of the Showcase Increment II funding request -- this project was
not funded and was subsequently cancelled. Thus far, the only agencies
on the InterCAD Phase 2 network include Caltrans District 11 TMC,
Heartland Fire Communications (an East San Diego County Joint Powers
Agency for fire/EMS communications) and the Federal Fire Department (a
unified department consisting of local US Navy and Marine Corps base
fire departments).

### InterCAD Issues

Regional ITS information sharing projects typically suffer from the
following barriers:

-   Institutional inertia -- resistance to change

-   Lack of understanding of the other agency's needs and "hot buttons"

-   "Not Invented Here" syndrome

-   Lack of a regional "vision"

-   Lack of known and respected "champions"

-   Technical limitations: legacy, closed systems

-   Lack of a regional communications plan

-   Security concerns -- especially critical with public safety systems

-   Lack of participation in ITS integration dialogue by public safety
    CAD vendors

At one time or another InterCAD has experienced all of these issues to
some degree. In the following paragraphs some of the more critical are
highlighted.

##### Institutional

As with all projects of this type, the major issues revolved around
difficulties with institutional considerations. Law enforcement agencies
had difficulties assuring themselves that the InterCAD system had
adequate security safeguards. The security issue stalled the project for
almost a year and gradually law enforcement agencies lost interest in
participation. At a critical point in the project's life cycle, several
agencies switched CAD vendors, which combined with an over-reliance on
one CAD vendor to develop a workable CAD integration solution, struck a
severe blow to project progress. Communications managers were
understandably preoccupied with getting critical new CAD systems
operational and much less interested in regional interoperability.
Although senior law enforcement executives in the County had been
briefed on the project early on, they were not kept apprised of the
ongoing issues. Their counterparts in the fire service and EMS agencies
were never briefed.

The project champion, a senior uniformed law enforcement communications
commander, retired, and there was no leadership to fill the void. Since
there was only one champion, his departure led to an onset of a Not
Invented Here syndrome and a lack of qualified and motivated senior
personnel to assume responsibility. The leadership mantle passed from
law enforcement to fire/EMS, thus the focus of the project changed in
mid-stream. At this point the project gained two fire service advocates
that kept the project alive.

##### Technical 

As mentioned above, an over-reliance on a single CAD vendor to solve the
technical integration issue with host CAD systems, led to a technical
stalemate when that vendor lost several contracts to upgrade key law
enforcement and fire/EMS CAD systems in the region. Although the
technical solution proposed by that vendor was effective and
implementable, new CAD vendors were not made project stakeholders when
they became the new agency consultants. As a result, new CAD systems
were not designed to take advantage of the InterCAD architecture. There
appeared to be no compelling reason for agencies to deal with InterCAD
issues when they had more than enough to handle with just converting to
new CAD systems.

One of the more challenging technical problems that had to be solved was
the methodology to convert internal CAD incident representation on
dissimilar CAD systems into a common language for regional dissemination
over the InterCAD network. At the time there was no generally accepted
standard to accomplish this objective, therefore the InterCAD project
defaulted to a plain English representation of major incident record
details such as location, incident type, response status, etc.

As a result of the above, the InterCAD project today consists of
workstations that are installed in the three agencies listed earlier --
these workstations are connected using a messaging protocol called
MQSeries from IBM and a Switched Multimegabit Data Service (SMDS)
network provided by the local wire line telephone carrier. The
workstations are not connected to the host CAD systems as was originally
envisioned, but operate as standalone terminals in the centers involved.
For an integration project this is not an operationally satisfactory
solution, since CAD and TMC operators do not typically have time to
enter incident information on two different systems. See Figure 1.

The SMDS network that is currently operational for InterCAD has never
been given an official "green light" for security by law enforcement
agencies. In retrospect, the use of a law enforcement-sanctioned network
such as the San Diego Automated Regional Justice Information System
(ARJIS) would have been a strategically more acceptable choice than a
private network. The prospect of increased support costs and reluctance
to deal with additional bureaucracy drove the decision to use a more
readily available and cheaper communications alternative.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.350694444444445in"
height="3.4305555555555554in"}Figure 1. Existing InterCAD agency
architecture (typical).

##### Operations

Although the InterCAD project had a reliable source of local match
funding for Phase 1 and what initially appeared to be a sufficient
federal funding level for Phase 2, technical difficulties with the
change of CAD vendors and uncertainty in how to approach integration
with the evolving Priority Corridor Showcase network, led to a
significant funding shortfall that has not yet been addressed. The one
CAD vendor who prototyped the initial technical solution lost a
significant amount of money in the process and was not able to recoup
this loss before losing several local CAD contracts to other vendors.
The eventual funding shortfall can be at least indirectly attributed to
not involving a broader segment of the CAD industry as stakeholders in
public safety-transportation integration projects in general, and this
project in particular.

### InterCAD Lessons Learned

Were the InterCAD Project to be reinitiated today (and it yet may be),
the lessons learned from the original project experience and from the
current public safety/ITS dialogue would be applied to greatly increase
the chances of project success. The lessons learned and potential
solutions will be discussed from institutional, technical and
operational perspectives.

##### Institutional

####### Issue: Lack of senior public safety management buy-in to support regional public safety and transportation information sharing and operational integration.

It is quite clear that there is a need to build a clear and convincing
case for the benefits of public safety participation in regional
information sharing and the resulting positive impact on incident
management. This case must be presented to senior executive levels of
local public safety agencies -- this means executive management, not
senior technical personnel. However, senior technical personnel must be
engaged in the dialogue in parallel because their support is no less
critical to long-term success. The business case must highlight the
benefits of information sharing, a realistic security assessment (as
opposed to a blanket statement that information sharing is inherently
insecure), and the need to engage CAD vendors in a meaningful dialogue
on interoperability.

####### Issue: Ensuring multiple agency champions for regional information sharing.

The lack of "champions" is one of the most critical impediments to a
project of this nature, because without champions at agency executive
and senior management levels, political support for mainstreaming the
required changes will not be forthcoming. Mainstreaming is in turn
critical to build a funding base that can support regional integration
efforts on a continuing basis. The most difficult champions to recruit
will be from some segments of the public safety community (traditional
police agencies as opposed to Highway Patrol or State Patrol agencies)
because traffic incident management is not always high on their list of
priorities -- yet when these champions emerge, they typically have
greater local political support than transportation managers thus the
payoff is worth the recruitment and outreach effort. Multiple champions,
or project "sponsors", are virtually required where dissimilar types of
agencies are involved. Ideally this means champions from the Highway
Patrol/State Police, Local Police, Fire, EMS and Transportation agencies
as a minimum. In the case of InterCAD, this approach would have kept the
project on the "front burner" and prevented the eventual loss of
interest. In most agencies, there is at least one key person who can be
convinced of the value of information sharing if he/she is approached
with facts, case studies and success stories.

####### Issue: Multi-dimensional project outreach.

The following tactics have proven useful in other projects and may be
even more crucial to success in projects involving the integration of
public safety systems:

*Executive level outreach brochures*, particularly targeted to senior
public safety officials, should be used, outlining benefits to their
communities of sharing information with transportation centers and other
public safety agencies (the transportation community already has
numerous such materials dealing with incident management and its
benefits).

*A Concept of Operations*, outlining the business case for regional
integration and a conceptual view of how an integrated regional system
would operate, should be prepared early in the project life cycle. The
approach to this document should be from the layman's (read elected
official) perspective.

*Requirements Workshops* should be conducted, involving all appropriate
agencies to develop a sense of teamwork in the region and a collective
buy-in to realistic information sharing requirements. These workshops
must be supported by executive management of public safety and
transportation agencies. A particular effort should be made to involve
multiple CAD vendors in this effort.

##### Technical 

####### Issue: The need to [fully]{.underline} integrate information sharing into all regional systems as opposed to the "separate workstation" approach.

Full integration has two prerequisites: (1) a means to enable
*screen-to-screen communications* between center operators (i.e. no
double entry of incident data) and (2) a *common language to express
critical data* being exchanged between dissimilar "host" systems (the
word "host" is taken to mean either a CAD system, an ATMS system or a
Transit Management System). *Screen-to-screen communications* means that
an incident initiated in one CAD system is accepted into another CAD
system (or an ATMS system) transparently to the receiving operator. The
receiving operator can then choose to accept or reject the incident, and
if it is accepted, it becomes a new incident within the receiving system
(more on this later).

*A common language* means that when \<10-36\> in one system is a "felony
want", and in another system it is "time check", the intent of the
sending center is resolved into a system-independent language so that
the receiving center can properly interpret the incident. Failure to
accomplish this technical goal in a consistent manner has obvious
officer safety impacts and makes public safety agencies (especially law
enforcement) very nervous. The importance of developing a common
"language" to support IM operations cannot be overstated. The Institute
of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and its Incident
Management Working Group (IMWG) are attempting to address this issue
through publication of vocabulary standards encompassing all aspects of
Incident Management.

In Phase 1, InterCAD actually had a very effective design for ensuring
screen-to-screen communications through the use of a "pseudo console"
approach. Since CAD systems typically send messages from one console to
another (e.g. from a Call Taker to a Radio Dispatcher), the CAD vendor
established a "pseudo" console that was actually a substitute for an
external communications channel. When the CAD operator sent an incident
report or incident update message to an allied agency (or TMC), the CAD
system routed the message to the pseudo console address that was
actually a serial communications port attached to the MQSeries Messaging
Server connected to that CAD system. Figure 2 shows how this worked in
theory for InterCAD. The Messaging Server handled inter-system messaging
overhead tasks and removed that responsibility from the "host" CAD and
ATMS systems. The MQSeries approach for host system integration was a
sound technical and security decision in that it allowed the sending
agency to "push" selected CAD data to one or more recipient agencies at
the dispatcher's discretion. Further, the MQSeries approach used
transmit and receive message "queues" that allowed message exchange to
operate independently from host system processing. Other distributed
processing solutions that "pull" data from sometimes sensitive databases
are inherently less secure.

As mentioned earlier, the "common language" issue is approaching at
least a partial solution as the IEEE 1512 Emergency
Management-Transportation Management Data Dictionary and Message Set
Standards mature. Balloting for these standards will be completed in
2002 and as joint public safety/transportation IM programs are
initiated, these standards will play a major role in determining
implementation requirements. Another form of common language is the
Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA) Interface Definition
Language (IDL) being used for regional architectures in many major
metropolitan areas (Southern California Corridor, Phoenix, Portland,
Salt Lake City, Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor, Atlanta and parts of
the I-95 Corridor, among others). Standard IDL is being developed as
part of the National Transportation Communications ITS Protocol (NTCIP)
Center-to-Center CORBA Profile (NTCIP Standard 2305). Figures 3 and 4
show how the IEEE 1512 or CORBA IDL might be used in conjunction with a
message passing protocol such as MQSeries to exchange data from
dissimilar systems.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="2.946527777777778in"}Figure 2. Integration of messaging
architecture into CAD systems.

####### Issue: Operations support for new regional information sharing systems.

Ultimately, as regional information sharing architectures near
deployment, the following products would greatly facilitate the adoption
and operational use of such systems, especially by smaller agencies with
limited internal staff technical support:

*Implementation guidance for regional communications networks* and what
steps are typically needed by agencies and centers to connect to these
networks -- this guidance should also discuss capacity assessment.

*Implementation guidance on integration technologies* -- presented in an
executive level overview format as well as in more detail for planners
and implementers. This should include information relative to costs and
technical risks of the major integration alternatives and the advantages
and disadvantages of each.

*Implementation guidance on the IEEE 1512 EMC-TMC data element and
message set standards* including ways in which the standard can be
applied in those regions where object oriented technology (CORBA) is
being used for regional integration. The standard as currently
formulated is not immediately adaptable to the CORBA integration
approach. Further, considerable outreach to CAD vendors is needed to
make these standards implementable. The public safety CAD vendor
community is just now being made aware of the existence of these
standards and their significance to future CAD system deployments.

![](media/image10.wmf){width="0.6881889763779527in"
height="0.8582677165354331in"}![](media/image10.wmf){width="0.6889763779527559in"
height="0.8582677165354331in"}![](media/image11.wmf){width="0.8133858267716535in"
height="0.7062992125984252in"}

Figure 3. Use of messaging "middleware" to implement dissimilar system
data sharing.

##### Operations

####### Issue: Recognizing the inherent differences in public safety dispatch and TMC operations

The key to maximizing success in the integration of public safety and
transportation operations to support incident management is recognizing
the strengths and weaknesses that each type of system brings to the
table. A dispatch center's primary function is to take calls from the
public and allied agencies and dispatch the response to those calls.
Once officers are on scene, the dispatcher communicates via radio to
receive the latest information from those on scene. Officers on scene
and their dispatchers often do not have an appreciation for overall
"situational awareness" in the transportation system as a result of the
incident, but they have the best information from the scene itself. Many
CAD systems do not have map displays and few dispatch centers have
real-time CCTV video available. TMC's on the other hand, are designed to
manage the overall transportation picture in the region by integrating
several sources of information including real-time sensors, CCTV video
and links to other TMC's. TMC's are often not the first to learn about
incidents and until their own personnel are on scene, do not have
detailed information about the incident. It would seem then, that the
"marriage made in heaven" would be the integration of these two types of
systems. Figure 5 illustrates this issue.

Figure 4. Use of standard data sets to communicate between dissimilar
systems.

####### Issue: Working out "bugs" in operational integration.

Many projects lack a consensus Operational Concept Document in the early
stages of their life cycle, or, as in the case with InterCAD, the OCD
was incompletely thought out and did not involve agency operations
personnel in its preparation. The thinking and brainstorming process
that occurs during OCD preparation is invaluable for developing the
later inter-agency agreements that will be needed to operate regional
information sharing systems. One specific example that was partially
addressed during InterCAD early working group discussions was how to
handle the automatic transfer of incidents. Typically, dissimilar
systems maintain independent and usually incompatible ways of describing
and tracking incidents, e.g. log ID numbers. InterCAD participants found
that each agency that handles a multi-agency incident must have access
to all incident numbers currently active in the various systems. In
addition each agency must maintain a different life cycle of the
incident -- the originating agency may choose to close the incident
before an assisting agency. An agency may already carry an open incident
in their CAD system that duplicates an incident number received from
another agency. Many of these types of issues can be described and
discussed in the OCD, even if final resolution is not attained. The OCD
and its resulting dialogue can pay big dividends during system
definition and design.

![](media/image12.wmf){width="2.4925196850393703in"
height="1.727952755905512in"}

Figure 5. Operational differences between CAD systems and TMC's.

####### Issue: Understanding the roles and responsibilities of regional IM agencies

Understanding the roles and responsibilities of local agencies in
responding to incidents is crucial to developing an approach to the
integration of information to support regional incident management. This
is an issue best handled during the development of the Operational
Concept Document. Each agency has specific needs and constraints and
these must be individually considered in developing a regional approach
to information sharing. State Highway Patrol, local police agencies,
County Sheriff's, fire services, EMS services, County Medical Examiner
(Coroner) and transportation agency needs do not always coincide and yet
it can be safely said that each of these entities can use better
information, disseminated in a more timely manner that best supports
their individual needs. Transportation agencies need more timely input
of evolving incident data into their ATMS systems; public safety
agencies need access to real time congestion data and video that provide
dispatchers and the officers and units under their control with improved
situational awareness; Medical Examiners need more timely notification
of existing or potential fatalities and the location of incidents; fire
services need transportation network data and information from mutual
aid agencies to better coordinate response to major fires, and the list
goes on. In general the potential for improved coordination of local
agency IM operations is limited only by the imagination and willingness
to think "outside the box" of these agencies.

### Summary

The InterCAD San Diego Project was born in 1995 as part of the Southern
California ITS Priority Corridor Showcase Program. Its inspiration was a
desire to eliminate the confusing and time consuming practice of
exchanging telephone information between dispatchers of different
agencies during incidents in which mutual support was required. In the
ensuing years, InterCAD has had some successes but the original goals of
fully integrating public safety agencies with each other and with the
regional Transportation Management Center have not been met. Currently
only two fire/EMS agencies and the TMC are connected to the InterCAD
network and there are no internal connections to host CAD systems.
However the project architecture is an approach that has been proven in
other applications.

The major institutional requirement for future such projects in other
regions is the identification of multiple project champions from all
segments of regional public safety and transportation agencies and a
vigorous campaign to enlist executive level law enforcement and other
public safety agency support. One of the major missing technical
elements is an understanding of the compelling need for integration and
active participation by the public safety CAD vendor community. A
cooperatively developed Operational Concept Document will go along way
towards working through operational issues and should lead to effective
regional agreements for information sharing. The potential benefits of
an InterCAD or similar project to regional Incident Management are no
less compelling now than in 1995, and indeed are now even more so in the
light of recent initiatives in the US DOT/US DOJ ITS Public Safety
Program.

This page intentionally left blank.

## Institutional Issues Discussion Paper

Prepared by:

John Corbin

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Steve Lockwood

Parsons Brinckerhoff

### Introduction And Overview

Traffic incident management is the planning and coordination of people
and material resources to safely address and quickly clear disruptions
and distortions to the flow of traffic on our nation's highways. Traffic
incident management encompasses the development and application of
specific practices and tools, often involving the careful interaction of
multiple agencies and functions.

Practices may include methods for determining command and control roles
and responsibilities at an incident scene, means for administering
towing and recovery services to clear stalled and crashed vehicles, and
various approaches for parking emergency response vehicles and
controlling passing traffic at the scene of an incident.

Tools include fire apparatus, crash measurement equipment, service
patrol vehicles, and other equipment that support effective traffic
incident management practices. An increasingly vital set of tools
involves interpersonal and interagency communications networks and
devices that can share voice, data, and video information between
traffic incident responders and managers.

Creating, and refining the effectiveness of traffic incident management
practices and tools typically require the existence of a traffic
incident management program. Traffic incident management programs are
more than just collections of successful traffic incident management
practices and tools, which may address a [static set of issues at one
point in time]{.underline}. A traffic incident management program is an
ongoing, administered, multi-agency interjurisdictional, and
inter-organizational approach that is used to address a [changing set of
issues over time]{.underline}. These traffic incident management
programs can exist at varying levels of formality, and can go through
various stages of development. They most often are deployed at the
regional or state levels.

Despite the fact that much of the discussion about traffic incident
management focuses on operations and technology, there is widespread
agreement that significant improvements require departures from
"business as usual". The "institutional" changes go beyond improved
practice in the field. They involve fundamental changes in certain
aspects of the involved agencies including:

-   Agency objectives and priorities

-   Organizations, roles, relationships

-   Human and financial resources

-   Professional values, culture and conventions

Since the agencies involved in traffic incident management (law
enforcement, fire and emergency response, transportation, towing) have
different missions and legal status, it is important to identify
critical differences and the way in which they can be resolved for
improved coordination and integration. These differences extend to the
agencies' cultures which may be response-oriented or project-oriented,
may have different approaches to chains of command and communications,
may place varying emphases on traffic safety and responder safety; or
may be more focused on business and economic development relative to
pure public interest.

Underlying a focus on institutional change and collaboration is the idea
that measured progress can be made -- simultaneously improving public
safety and convenience -- through evaluation of improved procedures,
technology and improve coordination among agencies \-- based on an
awareness of state of the practice. There appears to be widespread
agreement that, in general, ad hoc approaches based on cooperation,
energy and good intentions of dedicated staff in the field \-- while
valuable -- cannot be counted on in the long run. Improved procedures
need to be explicitly described and formalized among agencies. In
addition, ongoing working relationships between agencies and the
individuals within them must be grown and nurtured.

### The Ten Key Institutional Challenges For Traffic Incident Management

Understanding the correlations between traffic incident management and
institutional issues can be approached through two basic questions.

-   What institutional aspects and issues limit, preclude, or enable
    effective traffic incident management practices and tools?

-   What is institutionally conducive to the successful implementation
    of ongoing traffic incident management programs?

Experience in the field and publications reviewing the state of the
practice indicate that institutional issues and challenges identified
through the above questions tend to fall into three basic categories.

##### Policy

Policy refers to the agencies stated mission(s), established by law or
administrative action: what is the agency trying to do and how. Key
dimensions of policy include:

-   Traffic incident management program justification

-   Agency priority of traffic incident management

-   Policy maker understanding

-   "Concept of Improvement" within performance effectiveness

##### Program Resources

Resources covers the agencies capability to execute its responsibilities
including how the agency is organized, staffed and funded and where
there is an "authorizing environment" of laws, regulations and
traditions that supports or inhibits agency activities, location of
responsibility in agency. Key factors include:

-   Resource availability and allocation

-   Constraints of law and local jurisdictions

##### Relationships

Traffic incident management is, by its nature a multi-jurisdictional
activity. Police, fire and emergency response and transportation each
have specific responsibilities. However, the effectiveness of the
combination of responsibilities depends on interactions. These
relationships are affected by:

-   Agency culture differences

-   Coordination of roles among agencies

-   Stakeholder involvement

-   Sustainability of multi-agency cooperation

### Institutional Challenges And Improving Traffic Incident Management

In the material that follows each of these ten key institutional
dimensions is presented. An overview of traffic incident management
practice around the country indicates that there appears to major
differences in the apparent effectiveness of traffic incident management
programs (based on the very few performance analyses that have been
conducted). The gap between average and best practice should be a source
of concern

For each of the ten issue areas, the situation that exists in the
average setting around the country is described. For comparison, "best
practice" is then described. Best practice refers to the situation that
exists in a few regions that have focused on this particular dimension
and have attempted to produce a more effective approach. In general,
best practice is associated with the following:

-   Long-term sustained program (mainstreamed)

-   Multi-agency cooperation and leverage

-   Concept of progress (continuous improvement)

Some characteristics of institutional effectiveness evident in these
regions are then described. Admittedly, there is no single best way to
form and sustain traffic incident management programs. The most
practical and productive approaches will vary from region to region.
However, there seem to be fundamental "Characteristics of Effectiveness"
that consistently underpin successful and continuously improving traffic
incident management practices, tools, and associated programs. By
understanding these Characteristics of Effectiveness -- and what is
required to attain them locally -- we can identify national actions that
are needed to overcome associated challenges.

### The State Of Play And Best Practice -- Institutional Approaches - Ten Issue Areas

##### 1. Traffic Incident Management Program Justification -- How Are Traffic Incident Management Programs Justified To Key Decision Makers?

####### Average Situation. 

Traffic incident management is often part of the agency's routine
mission and responsibility; it does not have to be justified. The
benefits of are not measured and performance is not measured; the
pay-off from improving practice are therefore not known.

####### Best Practice

Benefits of traffic incident management are measured and demonstrated
and disseminated to decision-makers and the public.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Study of needs and benefits at various levels of effort to support
    increased efforts

-   Development of performance measurement and analyses to guide
    improvements

-   Introduce terrorism-related emergency response (weapons of mass
    destruction) modifications to standard procedures as appropriate

##### 2. Agency Priority Of Traffic Incident Management -- How Important Is Traffic Incident Management As A Function Within An Agency?

####### Average Situation

Traffic incident management is only one of several responsibilities of
an agency and units within agencies -- as a reaction to problems rather
that a service program with its own line item budget. It is therefore
vulnerable to budget and staff cuts.

#######  Best Practice

Traffic incident management is recognized as an important service
program by all the agencies in a region; a budgeted core agency program.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness 

-   TQM and reorganization mechanisms and strategies include explicit
    recognition of Traffic incident management as core business area in
    goals and objectives, resource tradeoff

-   Middle level staff leadership sensitizes leadership to key issues
    (up-management) so that functions are recognized in upper levels of
    organizational structure, and across multiple business areas

-   Incorporation of traffic incident management responsibilities into
    career paths through management and staff position descriptions,
    individual performance assessment, and professional development

-   Agency celebration and awards for individual and team traffic
    incident management accomplishments

##### 3. Policy Maker Understanding --How Well Are Traffic Incident Management Practices, Tools, Programs, And Benefits Understood By Policy Makers And Senior Managers?

####### Average Situation

Policy makers not informed of benefits of traffic incident management
and the potential of further improvements for enhanced public safety and
convenience.

####### Best Practice

Senior management understands the value of traffic incident management
and the potential for increasing benefits from improvements; provides
agency commitment individually and together with leadership from other
agencies.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness 

-   Senior management exposure to program activities, benefits

-   Establishment of executive committee within and among agencies

-   Public awareness/outreach efforts (multiagency)

-   Reporting and accountability mechanisms to keep decision-makers
    aware of program and performance

##### 4. Concept Of "Improvement" In Performance Effectiveness -- How Is The Enhancement Of Traffic Incident Management Functions And Programs Viewed And Carried Out?

####### Average Situation

Traffic incident management activity carried out under "business as
usual' approach, using inherited techniques and legacy systems (ex:
communications). There is no sense that improvements can and should be
made (that it is possible to improve safety and reduced delay
simultaneously.

####### Best Practice

Concept of measured progress accepted as demonstrated by evaluation of
improved procedures and technology, synergy with other agency
strategies, based on an awareness of state of the practice.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Systematic reviews of potential contributions of new procedures,
    based on an understanding of the state of the practice knowledge

-   Use of performance measurement to indicate areas of potential
    improvement

-   Introduction of new technology (ITS, Interoperable communications)

-   Development of standards

##### 5. Resources -- How Are Financial And Human Resources For Traffic Incident Management Programs Prioritized And Allocated?

####### Average Situation

Traffic incident management activities, as a lower tier activity is
often subject to resource availability from budgets unrelated to
activity or to agency priorities. Resource availability uneven among
stakeholder agencies.

####### Best Practice

Increase in priority together with performance accountability improves
budget competitiveness and resource sufficiency.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Dedicated funding for traffic incident management

-   Interagency of support of resource requests of individual agencies

-   Resource-sharing among agencies

-   Shared funding for specific improvements

##### 6. Constraints Of Law And Local Jurisdictions -- To What Extent Do Laws, Legal Precedent, And Regulations Limit The Modification Of Traffic Incident Management Approaches? 

####### Average Situation

Local laws and conventions such as boundary constraints, towing
practices, and clearance policies inhibit improvements in key areas and
are often supporting status quo stakeholders.

####### Best Practice

Needed changes in laws and regulations are introduced and supported.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Conduct coordinated multi-agency legislative discussions to develop
    interagency consensus

-   Agencies cooperate on "campaign" for improvements

-   Develop regional, statewide law, compacts focused on improved
    practice (quick clearance, open road, towing, coroner requirements)

-   Clarify understanding of liability constraints via legal research

##### 7. Agency Culture Differences -- How Are Cultural Differences Between Agencies, Functions, And Professions Addressed?

####### Average Situation

Each agency possesses a culture with accepted conventions that are not
well understood by other stakeholders. The priorities of other agencies
are implied and guessed, and can be used to polarize viewpoints and
prospective partners.

####### Best Practice

Cultural differences between agencies, functions, and professions are
understood and respected. Agency priorities are explicit, and their
understanding between agencies is used to enhance their mutual
effectiveness.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Regular working encounters reconcile and reinforce shared goals and
    objectives, and productively acknowledge necessary differences in
    priorities.

-   Multi-agency training and planning are accommodated and encouraged.

-   Multi-agency critical incident de-briefings are routinely conducted,
    and outcomes are incorporated into refined traffic incident
    management practices and tools.

-   Staff and management levels are supported in local and national peer
    networking, both within and across their functional areas.

##### 8. Coordination Of Roles Among Agencies -- How Are The Roles Of Specific Agencies Assigned And Defined For Both On-Scene Operations As Well As Within The Administration Of A Traffic Incident Management Program?

####### Average Situation

Roles are defined informally on a case-by-case basis, and may even vary
within a function by personality or jurisdiction. Conflicts regarding
roles may be partially resolved on site, and are disregarded after the
clearance of an incident.

####### Best Practice

All stakeholders and partners recognize the Incident Management System.
Administrative roles within a traffic incident management program are
similarly formalized and committed to by participating agencies.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Multi-agency, actively facilitated teams meet regularly at both the
    executive and field or technical levels.

-   Interagency memoranda of understanding reinforce commitment to the
    Incident Management System, and to the administrative structures for
    traffic incident management.

-   There is appropriate interoperability of communications systems and
    practices to reinforce and support structured roles.

-   Joint facilities and collocation may be pursued.

##### 9. Stakeholder Involvement -- How Are All Partners And Stakeholders In A Traffic Incident Management Program Identified And Appropriately Involved?

####### Average Situation

Key stakeholders can be uninvolved for extended periods, except as
needed. Stakeholder involvement is determined by the strength of
personalities, or the size of an agency.

####### Best Practice

The full spectrum of stakeholders are involved in program development
and administration. Participation in decision-making is appropriately
scaled based upon organizational and individual roles and expertise.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   Steering committees, planning meetings, and other program functions
    receive broad and consistent participation by all key stakeholders.

-   Stakeholder participation in the program is monitored, and
    overlooked partners are recruited back into the dialogue.

-   Stakeholder spectrum defined by function, not just sector (e.g.
    towing & recovery industry, traffic media)

-   Engagement mechanisms tailored to stakeholders (e.g. special
    meetings & training to focus on fire & rescue issues & needs)

##### 10. Sustainability Of Multi-Agency Cooperation -- How Is The Continuity Of The Traffic Incident Management Program Promoted?

####### Average Situation

The level of attention paid to traffic incident management practices and
effectiveness depends upon recent events, or the personality of a strong
program champion. The same problems must frequently be revisited and
re-solved.

####### Best Practice

Roles and relationships are formalized and ongoing. The level of
institutional energy applied to continuously improving traffic incident
management effectiveness is consistent, and is adapted to meet a growing
set of challenges.

####### Characteristics of Effectiveness

-   There is development of formal interagency agreements that outlast
    representative individuals.

-   There is a continued commitment to seek individual and shared agency
    resources.

-   A fiscally significant agency takes a champion or facilitator role
    on an ongoing basis (DOT, RPC, Sheriffs Dept., or other)

-   Interagency coordination for traffic incident management is
    supported by a meaningful, incremental, performance-driven strategic
    planning process

-   Relationships are "incorporated" to affect a Council of Governments
    for Traffic Operations.

### Towards The National Agenda For Traffic Incident Management

There are several unifying values that cut across the Characteristics of
Effectiveness listed above.

-   Opportunities for improvement are sought out and pursued

-   Ad hoc cooperation is purposefully built into a sustainable traffic
    incident management program

-   Partner agencies recognize various aspects of a mainstreamed
    multi-agency traffic incident management program as core mission and
    business area

-   Formalized and sustained cooperation applies to all levels -- field
    and technical staff, front line management, senior administration,
    and elected officials.

Through the breakout sessions, we will seek the experts' reaction to
these Characteristics of Effectiveness. The purpose of this dialogue
will seek to understand why these characteristics are not more
universally and uniformly evident within metropolitan regions and rural
transportation corridors. Specifically, we will use the breakout
sessions to seek answers to the following questions

1.  What additional Characteristics of Effectiveness need to be
    recognized?

2.  What limits the attainment of these Characteristics of Effectiveness
    locally?

3.  What limits the attainment of these Characteristics of Effectiveness
    nationally?

4.  How can these limitations be overcome locally or regionally?

5.  What national actions might support the Characteristics of
    Effectiveness?

The list below is a straw man "starter" list for the final question in
the breakout discussions. The list illustrates both the range and
prospective depth of national actions to encourage Characteristics of
Effectiveness within traffic incident management programs.

-   Designated national process or federal entity to develop model
    regional compacts, model state legislation -- promulgation with
    local government associations

-   National research on legal issues, precedents and experience (ex:
    liability and risk)

-   Focus on terrorism/WMD emergency response needed modifications to
    conventional traffic incident management practice

-   General consensus on traffic incident management priorities and
    issues at the national association level (USDOT Public Safety
    Working Group?)

-   Peer and association networking (national organization?)

-   National executive level outreach

-   Federal supported joint training (modules in existing programs)

-   Focused research and technology development program including
    demonstration projects and pursue in existing research agendas
    (FSHRP, National R & T, etc)

-   Identify traffic incident management applications for modified
    highway design features

-   Formalize relationships with national equipment vendors to better
    define technology and equipment needs

-   Identify key entities involved in relevant interoperability of
    standards and pursue dialogue and resolution

-   Performance measurement support

-   Build traffic incident management explicitly into federal funding
    programs

## Appendix D: Priority Issues and Actions/Initiatives

### Operational Topics

##### Priority Issues

-   Training and Certification

-   Motorist Information

-   Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation

-   Quick Clearance

-   On-Scene Big Picture

-   Positive Traffic Control

-   Liability

-   Scene Safety

-   Secondary Incident Prevention

-   National Standards

##### Training and Certification Actions/Initiatives

-   Accomplish training at the police/fire academies

-   Mandate this inclusion

-   Develop guidelines for training requirements

-   Include traffic incident management as part of the towing industry
    certification

-   Certify all response operators

-   Each agency should provide input to the processes

-   Develop a mutual understanding of each agency's operation by
    cross-training between agencies

-   Rotate agency locations for training meetings

-   Include in freeway incident management team meetings

-   Utilize train-the trainer procedures

-   Train all responders in traffic control and standardize traffic
    control nationally so that motorists recognize what they see when
    approaching an incident.

##### Motorist Information Actions/Initiatives

-   Develop a relationship with the media (be pro-active instead of
    reactive)

-   Utilize technology to disseminate information to other agencies and
    the public

-   Educate first responders to the importance of relaying accurate
    information

-   Include improvements in technology in road construction programs
    plans

-   Develop a comprehensive picture of real-time information

-   Develop performance measures for timeliness and accuracy of
    information

##### Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation Actions/Initiatives

-   Mandate/fund a statewide incident management program with oversight
    by a state coordinator (i.e., IM champion)

-   Develop a mandate for interagency dialogue

-   Create advisory groups/task forces/teams to encourage cooperation

-   Increase interoperability between agencies (language, data,
    equipment, culture)

-   Establish public/private partnerships to improve interoperability

-   Document roles, responsibilities, agency decision making processes
    through incident management manuals

-   Develop special incident command system for traffic incidents

-   Formalize and implement a better after-hours response program

##### Quick Clearance Actions/Initiatives

-   Communicate the advantages of quick clearance

-   Create incentives and disincentives

-   Begin an comprehensive lobbying effort (from FHWA, industry, etc)
    for quick clearance/open roads policy and legislative buy-in

-   Change the towing rates from an hourly rate to an incident rate

-   Educate the public -- i.e., "move to the side of the road"

-   Conduct/develop training and table top exercises

-   Improve first responder on-scene processes

-   Equipment staging at the ramps instead of scene

-   Push bumpers of all first responder vehicles

-   Consider law/policy change for corpse removal

-   Accelerate implementation of dedicated color signage for IM

##### On-Scene Big Picture Actions/Initiatives

-   Address the pressure points through a regional incident management
    plan (TMC, other agencies)

-   Move voice/video/data between agencies as quickly as possible

-   Develop IIMS (Integrated Incident Management System)

-   Create a clearinghouse for information about planned special events,
    construction, etc. for the entire region

-   Drive the route before diverting traffic

-   Develop a system-wide detour/diversion implementation plan

-   Develop a protocol for decisions to divert traffic

-   Pre-plan routes for diversions/detours (talk to your planners,
    obtain all available data, pre-plan the required resources

##### Positive Traffic Control Actions/Initiatives

-   Keep as many lanes open as possible

-   Communicate/educate on the importance of traffic flow

-   Educate public on how to move out of/around scene

-   Provide better traveler information

-   Update heavy-duty towing regulations

-   Set performance measures for clearance

-   Manage investigations better

-   Share responsibilities by responders and cross-training for site
    management

-   Create clearer definition of authority/ownership

-   May require changes or clarification to laws

-   Conduct research on \"best practices\" and state-of-the-practice on
    quick clearance

-   Establish queue protection

-   Establish manual traffic control at all blocking incidents

##### Liability Actions/Initiatives

-   NCHRP 20-6

-   NCUTLO -- National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

-   MUTCD -- Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

##### Scene Safety Actions/Initiatives

-   Standardize personal safety equipment (e.g. European mode), traffic
    control equipment, illumination of scene

-   Research, collect, and distribute best practices

-   Quickly activate VMS

-   Establish clear, well delineated paths for motorists to follow

##### Secondary Incident Prevention Actions/Initiatives

-   Establish a standard definition for crash data, and develop a model
    to measure them

-   Require an incident management component for all construction
    projects

-   Revise/modernize traffic control plan requirements

-   Temporary signage cameras

-   ITS

-   Develop incentives for early completion of construction

-   Establish traffic controls behind incident queues

##### National Standards Actions/Initiatives

-   Secure reauthorization funding to develop a template of an Incident
    Management Plan for states to use in developing a state specific
    plan

-   Establish a clearinghouse for incident management data

-   Towing data

-   Accident data

-   Secondary incident data

-   Best practices

-   Fund an annual incident management performance report

-   Mandate a state/regional/district report of performance
    metrics/measurements

-   Develop standards for equipment requirements

### Technological Topics

##### Priority Issues Actions/Initiatives

-   The Case for the Benefits of Technology in Improving TIM

-   Interoperability/integration Issues

-   Minimum Basic Standards As Defined by All Agencies

-   Data Sharing and Data Security

-   Technology Life Cycle Issues

##### The Case for the Benefits of Technology in Improving TIM Actions/Initiatives

-   Demonstrate Regional/Cross-Agency technology strategies can improve
    1st responders/2nd responders picture of incident
    (detection/response)

-   Show that standards will result in less expensive systems

-   Demonstrate that operations and maintenance support will make
    technology benefits go further longer

-   Continue Federal Research on Regional Operating Organizations

-   Develop National TIM Program and establish baseline funding levels
    for regional TIM initiatives

##### Interoperability/Integration Issues Actions/Initiatives

-   Confirm acceptance of need for interoperability

-   Use of an Executive Board

-   Develop regional/cross-agency systems architectures (Based on
    standards)

-   Integrate legacy systems

-   Address interoperability of mapping databases

##### Minimum Basic Standards As Defined By All Agencies Actions/Initiatives

-   Need to "fast track" standards development\--Use industry standards
    where available

-   Need for coordinated federal standards development (USDOT and USDOJ)
    with sensitivity to users (possibly interagency board)

-   Promulgate standards to key users, vendors, decision-makers,
    procurement offices, etc.

-   Use financial incentives to move toward use of standards (USDOT
    regional architectures standards, etc.)

-   Research issues associated with open code vending

-   Require use of national standards for getting federal funds

-   Need process for maintaining/updating approved standards

##### Data Sharing and Data Security Actions/Initiatives

-   Establish basic national requirements/ standards for information to
    be displayed on map

-   Conduct an assessment of user data needs

-   Address Freedom of Information Act issues

-   Establish Concept of Operation for multi-agency use of CCTVs and
    other technologies

##### Technology Life Cycle Issues Actions/Initiatives

-   Organizations must have technologies/policies that allow for sharing
    of information

-   Implement management policies to require full life cycle costing
    before system procurement is approved

-   Recognize regional focus in developing/operating/funding TIM
    technologies

-   Establish basic national requirements/standards for information to
    be displayed on a map

### Institutional Topics

##### Priority Issues

-   Enabling Performance Measurement

-   Increase Resources

-   Institutionalizing Regional Traffic Incident Management

-   Policy Priority Campaign

-   Impacting Agency Priorities

-   National Coalition

##### Enabling Performance Measurement Actions/Initiatives

-   Creation of standards and guidelines for performance data

-   Creation of specific, national, performance benchmarks for TIM

-   Linking evaluation and awareness activities

-   Nationally recognized analytical approaches for capturing
    benefit/cost

##### Increase Resources Actions/Initiatives

-   Notion of a National Traffic Incident Management Program Act

-   Reauthorization mechanisms such as: TIM set aside, percentage of
    infrastructure improvement funds at the project level

-   Homeland and transportation security funding

-   Issue of resource sharing including public/private

-   Providing funding incentives to areas with TIM programs to support
    cooperative planning

##### Institutionalizing Regional TIM Actions/Initiatives

-   National program models and guidelines (Agreements, MOU's, best
    practices, standards (MUTCD, NFPA))

-   Self assessment tools, accreditation concepts

-   Training tools (Function specific protocols reflecting TIM, use
    existing delivery systems for training (NHI, academies), Support use
    of table top exercise techniques)

-   Integrating TIM needs into highway planning and design

-   Learning from responses to major events and crises

##### Policy Priority Campaign Actions/Initiatives

-   Communications plan that integrates TIM and associated benefits into
    broader community issues

-   Ride-along programs -- show & tell for decision makers

-   Scanning tours to take elected officials to see good programs

-   TIM needs to be a continued, sustained effort at multiple level
    (From campaigns to a national awareness program)

-   Recognizing distinct constituencies (e.g., commuters, goods
    movement, shippers, manufacturers, employers, port authorities)

-   Make the case for TIM -- part of making the case is being clear on
    the problem

##### Impacting Agency Priorities (Internal) Actions/Initiatives

-   Professionalize incident management (Risk/reward systems, career
    path, cross training)

-   National ratings of states and regions

-   Recruiting and growing "functional pioneers"

##### National Coalition Actions/Initiatives

-   Creation of a common voice for public safety (incorporating
    transportation)

-   Multiple national coalition layers (Executive level, working peer
    level)

-   Aggressive capture of immediate opportunities to grow this coalition
    building from this workshop

-   Federal Agency relationships (e.g. among USDOT and USDOJ)

## Appendix E: Issues and Actions/Initiatives Generated in the Breakout Sessions

### Operational Topics -- Session A (Participant Group #1)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Using technology/ITS ops as related to local response

-   Standardized dispatch decision tree

-   Lack of quick-clearance policies

-   Uniform procedures/procedures for IM

-   Model practices for vehicle placement, site management, training

-   Consistency in measuring incidents - duration/impacts

-   Construction incident management - project management

-   Tow trucks - right equipment, qualified operators, liability issues

-   Integrated, co-located 24/7 dispatch/operations centers

-   Dedicated (and direct) communication/coordination function

-   Communicate accurate/consistent data at the beginning - to
    facilitate decisions

-   Information to general public - advance warning, reliable detour
    info, time info

-   Getting the right equipment, people, resources to the scene in real
    time

-   Relationship with media on scene

-   Training and certification of towing companies and law enforcement

-   Safety of all responders (work zones, incident zones)

-   Define \"responder\"

-   Who\'s responsible for safety?

-   Pre-warning notification and communication to all effected entities

-   Real-time coordination of information on variable message signs

-   Reporting and communicating changing condition of the incident

-   Amount of time to clear incident

-   Better info sharing among agencies - i.e. arterial

##### Priority Issues 

-   Safety

-   Communication

-   Policies and Procedures

-   Clearance

-   Training

-   Coordination

### Operational Topics -- Session B (Participant Group #2)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Distribution of information regarding TIM on National/State and
    local level

-   Provide reliable, accurate and timely motorist information

-   Provide good customer service with a customer focus

-   Legislative awareness of quick clearance needs

-   Encourage interagency training

-   Creating incentives (Federal \$) for TIM performance

-   Whole-system integration (freeway and arterial roads)

-   Telematics and impacts on operational practices

-   Improvements in quality of information relayed from scene

-   Standards for site management

-   Find ways to increase awareness of legislative requirements
    (lobbying efforts)

-   Training of first responders in TIM

-   Understanding other agencies resources

-   Public education by combining traffic incident education with crime
    prevention education

-   Support quick clearance/open roads by legislative support for DOTs,
    public education, training, and open roads policies for each state

-   Policy requirements at the local level for criteria for cargo
    clearance

-   Development and Federal funding for statewide TIM Policy/Plan

-   Federal Incident Management guidelines

-   Create performance measurements and evaluations

-   Create standardized continuous training for certification of towers

-   Raise standards for towing equipment

-   Reduce lack of adherence to ICS by increasing
    understanding/appreciation of system with training

-   Improve political involvement in policy guidance

-   Encourage experience sharing/\"best practices\"

-   Explore availability of Federal funds for TIMs for local agencies

-   Perform continuous updating of pre-planning

-   Provide timely, appropriate responses

-   Improve flow of information between scene and dispatch

-   Increase interoperability of types of data between agencies

-   Provide establishment of temporary work zones for incidents

-   Increase enforcement of traffic control on the scene of an incident

-   Encourage use of Freeway incident management techniques on secondary
    roads

-   Establish actual requirements for investigation duration

-   Create a dialogue between agencies for interagency
    communication/cooperation

-   Increase communication interoperability at incident scene

-   Coordinate emergency light discipline

-   Improve initial mobilization/information and quality of detail

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Development and Federal funding for statewide TIM Policy/Plan

-   Secure reauthorization funding for a statewide incident management
    plan

-   Develop a template of an Incident Management Plan for states to use
    in developing a state specific plan

-   Clearinghouse for incident management data

-   Towing data

-   Accident data

-   Secondary incident data

-   Best practices

-   Funding of an annual report containing incident management
    performance report

-   Mandating a state/regional/district report of performance
    metrics/measurements

####### Issue: Create a dialogue between agencies for interagency communication/cooperation

-   Develop a mandate for interagency dialogue

-   Get wording in the federal reauthorization process

-   Within each state's DOT, develop a task force, each agency will
    assign a member and divide into subcommittees

-   Subcommittees will develop recommendations

-   Send recommendations to Federal level for implementation

-   Create a public safety advisory group to encourage cooperation
    between agencies

-   Make the advisory group the spokes group for traffic incident
    management

-   Serve as a forum for federal level issues

-   DOT has an ITS public safety group with many components which can be
    utilized for information dissemination

####### Issue: Training of first responders in TIM

-   Funding needs should be identified

-   Training could be accomplished at the Police/Fire Academies

-   Mandate this inclusion

-   Develop guidelines for training requirements

-   Part of the certification of the towing industry should include
    traffic incident management

-   Cross-Training between agencies to develop a mutual understanding of
    each agency's operations

-   Rotate agency locations for training meetings

-   Include in Freeway Incident Management Team meetings

-   Utilize train-the-trainer procedures

-   Develop new training techniques for first responders

####### Issue: Provide reliable, accurate and timely motorist information

-   Develop a relationship with the media (be pro-active instead of
    reactive)

-   Utilization of technology to disseminate information to other
    agencies and the public

-   Educate first responders to the importance of relaying accurate
    information

-   Include improvements in technology in plans for road construction
    programs

-   Improve detection

####### Issue: Legislative Support and Funding for Quick Clearance

-   Create incentives for the performance of quick clearance

-   Change the towing rates from an hourly rate to an incident rate

-   Reduce the liabilities on the responders

-   Legislative implementation of technology in the investigation
    process (satellite systems, photogrammetry)

-   Comprehensive lobbying effort (from FHWA, Insurance Industry, etc)
    for Quick clearance/Open Roads policy and legislative buy-in

-   Develop credibility for Traffic Incident Management by publicizing
    improvements, changes, and technology ("Dog and Pony" show)

-   Add a fee to insurance policies to fund Quick Clearance

### Operational Topics -- Session C (Participant Group #5)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Initial incident assessment

-   Top down communication and bottom-up communication

-   Receiving clear information \-- as a motorist and to and from the
    scene

-   Alternate Routes - which to use, how to inform, when to discontinue

-   Getting right equipment on scene and away from scene when needed

-   Scene safety for responders and motorists

-   Early detection, verification, and rapid removal

-   Management of scene/proper clearance of scene

-   Having information to differentiate recurring congestion and
    incidents - communication system interoperability

-   Procedures for dealing with commercial vehicles in incident

-   Formal policies and procedures for both in the field and in centers

-   Management of traffic flow thru the scene and restoration of traffic
    flow

-   Unnecessary closures

-   Coordination of and understanding each responding agency\'s
    decision-making process

-   Training - defined roles before the incident/event; \"check egos at
    the door\"

-   Automation and sharing of information through technology
    (performance standards)

-   Setting up traffic control

-   Standardizing the incident

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Scene safety for responders and motorists

-   Standardization of personal safety equipment (e.g. European mode),
    traffic control equipment, illumination of scene

-   Research, collect, and distribute best practices

-   Scene/traffic management - looking at the overall picture

-   Quick activation of VMS

-   Clear path (well delineated) for motorists to follow

####### Issue: Coordination of and understanding each responding agency\'s decision-making process

-   Understanding what resources are available

-   Document thru Incident Management manuals

-   Multi-agency training

-   Development of standard table-top

-   Create regularly-meeting incident management teams

-   Develop special incident command system for traffic incidents

-   Provide training for incident command system to all responder
    communities

-   Formalize and implement a better after-hours response program

####### Issue: Management of traffic flow thru the scene and restoration of traffic flow

-   Keep as many lanes open as possible

-   Communicate/educate on importance of traffic flow

-   Set performance measures for clearance

-   Educate public on how to move out of/around scene

-   Provide better traveler information

-   Update heavy-duty towing regulations

-   Better-managed investigations

-   Shared responsibilities by responders and cross training for site
    management

-   Clearer definition of authority/ownership \-- need to change laws
    and/or clarify laws

-   Research - \"best practices\" and state-of-the-practice on quick
    clearance

### Operational Topics -- Session D (Participant Group #6)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Provide training for first responders in traffic control

-   Managing traffic control in work zones keeping public informed of
    changes

-   Update/improve standards for work zone control and incident
    management

-   Identify who is in charge of traffic control

-   Provide continuous training in TIM by increasing training and
    resources

-   Reduce liability by quick clearance policies and procedures

-   Provide cross-training between agencies/understanding of roles and
    responsibilities

-   Make secondary crash prevention a priority

-   Make traffic a priority for police agencies

-   Create an agreement with medical examiners

-   Improve partnerships with response agencies

-   Manage traffic entering incident queue through instituting
    detours/diversion routes quickly

-   Require timely response by DOT after hours

-   Create/define performance metrics/measures with reporting
    requirements and publish data - \"You can\'t manage what you can\'t
    measure\"

-   Clearly define the language of incident management - How is an
    incident defined? How is clearance measured?

-   Create a national mandate for TIM

-   Increase level of competency in traffic management for towing and
    other response agencies in incident management

-   Create a database for training in incident management and traffic
    control

-   Encourage train-the-trainer policies to increase information
    dissemination

-   Redesign equipment to improve responder safety

-   Place emergency vehicles to improve safety/traffic flow

-   Place a priority on a public safety, reduce liability on first
    responders

-   Encourage interagency communication outside of incidents

-   Change the way towing rates are charged (incident vs. hourly/lbs)

-   Create new standards for towing/recovery equipment

-   Find a method to fund improvements for equipment and operations and
    maintenance

-   Improve response times by establishing trust between first
    responders (agencies)

-   Develop a standard architecture for emergency service communications

-   Look at secondary road (corridor) instead of just freeway incidents

-   Create uniform/universal language for incident classes

-   Require certification of incident response operators (job
    descriptions)

-   Develop standards for traffic incident response vehicles

-   Find methods of reducing demands

-   Improve resources on the scene (both equipment and operators)

-   Maintain training on new technologies

-   Improve interstate coordination for traffic incidents and long range
    diversions and dissemination of this information

-   Share information on unusual incidents between agencies

-   More clearly define roles and responsibilities of each agency and
    concentrate on core competencies

-   Encourage input on new MUTCD

-   Highlight the need for good data

-   Achieve change by showing value

-   Challenge of dual performances

-   Encourage more communication between responding agencies before
    arriving on scene

-   Better define tasks/jobs/agencies for traffic incident control

-   Enforcement of traffic laws at an incident scene

-   Need direction from FHWA or USDOT on the cleanup of non-cargo diesel
    fuel and motor oil spillage

-   Involve prosecutors in decision making processes for SOPs

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Increase level of competency in traffic management for towing and other response agencies in incident management 

-   Certification of Towing Operators (TRAA certification standards are
    currently being updated)

-   Ensure re-certification requirements include traffic incident
    management

-   Design job descriptions that include traffic incident management
    roles

-   Certifications

-   Cross-Training

-   Require ongoing training for all responders

-   Require enforcement of standards

####### Issue: Interagency cooperation for training in traffic control

-   Develop courses to be given at the local level to train responders
    in traffic control

-   Motorists should recognize what they see when approaching an
    incident

-   Standards for traffic control nationally

####### Issue: Improve on-scene communication between responding agencies

-   Increase interoperability between agencies (language, data,
    equipment, culture)

####### Issue: Develop standards for traffic incident responses (communications, equipment, procedures)

-   Establish a national clearinghouse for information

-   Create a national database of traffic incident information

-   Develop standards for equipment requirements

-   Establish a source for best practices

-   Issue: Liability issues (MOUs or legislation)

-   NCHRP 20-6

-   NCUTLO -- National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances

####### Issue: National agenda for prevention of secondary crashes

-   Establish a standard definition for crash data, and develop a model
    to measure them

-   REACT program in Maricopa County, AZ

-   AASHTO Crash Database

### Operational Topics -- Session E (Participant Group #3)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation

-   Inter- and intra-agency

-   Interoperability

-   Unified command

-   Defined roles and responsibilities

-   Multi-agency and incident command training

-   Incident-related congestion

-   Motorist information

-   Accurate, real-time information

-   HAR, VMS

-   Speed on highway

-   Trip reliability

-   Alternate Routes

-   Advance notice

-   Guidance through detours

-   Quick clearance

-   Formal and informal accident investigation sites

-   Truck removal

-   Reduce closure length

-   Performance Measures

-   Shared resources and shared costs

-   Training

-   Standards for temporary work zones

-   Transportation and response agencies

-   Experience level of first responders

-   Training in scene management

-   Consensus on operation/performance measures

-   Better integration of IM and TMC/ITS

-   CAD

-   TMC software

-   Better traffic control at incident site

-   Lack of resources for traffic control and quick removal for first
    responders

-   Including portable equipment

-   Including safety equipment

-   Mobility and safety for managing the incident and traffic

-   Better communication to get the right equipment to the scene quickly

-   Verify the incident - what is it

-   Concise information

-   Freeway service patrol programs

-   Poorly timed and executed work zones

-   IM in work zones

-   Rubber necking

-   Need for TIM association/group to coordinate effort

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Motorist information

-   Comprehensive picture of real-time information

-   Have better information and provide it in a more efficient way
    (in-vehicle and safe)

-   Develop standard info formats

-   Develop performance measure for timeliness and accuracy of
    information

-   Use consistent VMS messaging

####### Issue: Quick clearance

-   Communicate the advantage of quick clearance

-   Training

-   Create incentives/disincentives

-   Education of public, i.e. \"move to the side of the road\"

-   Have push bumpers on all first responder vehicles, service patrols

-   Use service patrols better

-   Develop signed agreements on time goals

-   Consider law/policy change for corpse removal

####### Issue: Lack of resources for traffic control and quick removal for first responders

-   Accelerate implementation of dedicated color signage for IM

-   Prioritize at state/local/metro level

-   Implement multi-agency grant applications

####### Issue: Communication, Coordination, and Cooperation

-   Training -- to include all players

-   Incident command for incidents -- make sure everyone is represented

-   Get input from all players for better understanding

-   Establish consistency in a region

-   Establish public-private partnerships to improve interoperability

-   Establish better communication to get the right equipment to the
    scene quickly

####### Issue: Training

-   Develop training standards for responders

-   Make training mandatory for towers

-   Provide training/develop awareness for construction, utility
    personnel

-   Cross-train responders

-   FHWA/NHI provide more training opportunities for local responders

-   FHWA support for MUTCD training

-   Include standards/performance measures in accreditation

### Operational Topics -- Session F (Participant Group #4)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Communication/Cooperation between agencies (intra/inter)

-   Make quick clearance a priority across the board

-   Improve responder safety through improved policies/strategies/op
    procedures

-   Improve level of competency of responders and
    measurability/standards

-   Standardize response operators/equipment

-   Change methods of qualifying towers for rotation lists

-   Separate classification for recovery towing equipment

-   Focus on entire system (regional perspective) impacts of an incident
    instead of just the incident scene - \"Look at the big picture\"

-   Increase the priority for creating strategies for preventing
    secondary incidents

-   Improve the accuracy of incident verification after a 911 cell call

-   Improve investigation techniques by obtaining funding for training
    and equipment

-   Find ways to reduce impacts of an incident

-   Improve decision making in scene management - \"Who is in charge?\"

-   Development of system wide detour/diversion implementation plan to
    control traffic flow by pre-planning and involving all agencies

-   Make real-time motorist information a priority

-   Stimulate and improve media relations

-   Improve data fusion problems in the early response time of an
    incident

-   Increase shared information between call takers/response agencies

-   Manage the flow of information between transportation and dispatch

-   Require real-time updated information from response operators
    (change in status information)

-   Minimize incidents in work zones (special events and construction
    zones) with detailed instructions

-   Standards for incident management in construction zones

-   Reduce incident duration

-   Attempt to secure funding for incident management resources
    (training, equipment)

-   Improve competency of responders (training standards) and a
    certification program

-   Get top management \"buy-in\" for incident management prioritization

-   Create strategies for incident prevention

-   Identify methods for verifying incidents and appropriate response by
    improving trust between agencies responding to incidents

-   Change abandoned vehicle policy changes

-   Use proper lighting in work zones

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Communication/Cooperation between agencies (intra/inter)

-   Mandate a statewide Incident Management Program, with oversight by a
    State Coordinator to act as an incident management champion

-   Find means for establishing funding priority (reauthorization bill
    lobbying)

-   Remove the barriers to obtaining funding

-   Examine possibility of establishing a Incident Management Unit,
    removing the responsibility from Maintenance

-   Issue: Make quick clearance a priority across the board

-   Quick detection, response and verification of incident information

-   Revise state-level clearance policies to allow the quick removal of
    vehicles

-   Inter-agency agreements (MOUs, MOEs) for an "open road" philosophy

-   Public Outreach to inform them of quick clearance requirements

-   Equipment staging at the ramps instead of at the incident scene

-   Table-top exercises

-   Issue: Focus on entire system (regional perspective) impacts of an
    incident instead of just the incident scene - \"Look at the big
    picture\"

-   Address where the pressure points are -- need a regional incident
    management plan

-   TMC

-   Other agencies

-   Cooperation between agencies

-   Move voice/video/data between agencies as quickly as possible

-   Develop IIMS (Integrated Incident Management System)

-   Create a clearinghouse for information about planned special events,
    construction, etc. for the entire region

-   Drive the route before diverting traffic

####### Issue: Development of system wide detour/diversion implementation plan to control traffic flow by pre-planning and involving all agencies

-   Develop a protocol for decisions to divert traffic

-   Pre-plan routes for diversions/detours

-   Talk to your planners

-   Obtain all available data

-   Pre-plan the required resources

####### Issue: Create strategies for incident prevention(work zones)

-   Require an incident management component for all construction
    projects

-   Revise/modernize traffic control plan requirements

-   Temporary signage cameras

-   ITS

-   Smart signs

-   Incentives for early completion of construction

####### Issue: Standardization of response operators/equipment

-   Certification of response operators

-   Provide input for certification by other agencies

-   Cross-training between agencies

-   Tow truck standards for recovery vehicles

-   New standards for rotation schedule development

### Technological Topics -- Session A (Participant Group #5)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Communication and plans (Network, organizational structures,
    interagency H/W)

-   Databases for performance measures

-   Ensure everyone is on the same "wavelength": language standards and
    technology standards

-   Ensure everyone is on the same "wavelength": technology standards

-   Standardize detection and response technology

-   Standardize performance measures

-   Wireless data communication problems (coverage, transmission speed)

-   Interoperability (standards, integration of systems)

-   Data Security

-   Seamless integration and redundancy of communication systems
    (reliability)

-   Integrate data through data mining/warehousing

-   Urban versus rural perspective and standardization

-   Regional and statewide visions

-   Plug \'N Play transparent to end users

-   Think modular and incremental (\"Lego model\", COTS)

-   Automation of ATIS to minimize operator intervention

-   Communication among responding agencies

-   Probe vehicles program to verify and calibrate

-   Need for multi-disciplinary management centers with interoperability

-   Stable and continuous field equipment for detection

-   Systems integration plan (Fed to state to region to local)

-   Voice and data communications funding contingent on plans

-   Vendor source code must be available

-   Capability of agency and tow response vehicles

-   Data quality

-   Voice interoperability plus filtering capability

-   Automate Performance measures (add Issues 2 and 6)

-   Means to standardize rural-urban needs

-   Emergency lighting research

-   Address vehicle design to facilitate TIM operations (human factors)

-   Develop and refine simulation models to assist with TIM

-   Develop framework for predicting travel times

-   Communicate on-site information to responders (CCTV, others)

-   Accident and data collection

-   Gaps in service areas

-   Real-time traveler information (added with - getting information to
    users of the transportation network)

-   Data sharing of real-time information

-   Affordable ways for private towers to tap into communication systems

-   Corridor-wide traffic control

-   Better real-time traffic control

-   E-911 location finding

-   Standardized traffic control plans

-   Arterial versus freeway issues

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Communicate On-Site Information from First Responders To Others

#######  

-   Require use of standard language -- use of similar terminology

-   Use existing technologies applied outside of transportation, e.g.,
    EMS responders being able to communicate with hospitals while
    enroute, similar to media use of remote cameras, etc.

-   Establish standards for the initial evaluation of the scene in order
    to overcome perspectives of individual agency/entity responders.

-   Address the need for data communications and supporting computer
    equipment to convey on-site expertise; incorporate into training.

-   Promulgate appropriate funding guidelines.

-   Select the appropriate incident action plan based on national IMC
    guidelines.

-   Educate the general public and individuals on how to report an
    incident.

-   Require proactive monitoring and detecting of the (potential) site
    by a TMC.

-   Prior to a TMC in-place, employ the use of "smart" telephone
    technology to filter, route, or enhance calling information.

-   Enforce the Federal mandate to capture and transmit the lat/long of
    cellular calls.

-   Make the case for the benefits of improved TIM.

-   Establish improved communication protocols for verification based on
    existing technologies (pagers, service patrols, cellular, etc.) --
    integrate, coordinate, etc.

-   Establish new or expanded joint programs between USDOJ and USDOT to
    address TIM.

-   Establish a set of standardized criteria for reporters of an
    incident.

-   Develop a data warehouse of reported information (text, video, etc.)
    about a potential incident with standardized reports.

-   Make sure state/regional/local investments are reviewed and
    compatible with Federal guidelines (USDOJ and USDOT) to ensure
    compatibility; possible use of sample plans and approaches.

-   Research issues associated with standardization and open code
    vending.

-   Encourage USDOJ to get industry CAD vendors to establish an
    agreed-upon set of standards.

-   Share/compare emerging USDOJ standards (end of March 2002) with
    USDOT standards; possible use of common translators, etc.

####### Issue: Real-Time Traveler Information

-   Develop (federal) outreach programs to share technological successes
    associated with first responder programs/activities.

-   Develop models of regional funding mechanisms and procurement
    agreements done through Federal encouragement and/or guidelines.

-   Standardize terminology for travelers.

-   Address the data collection issues when outside of a "closed"
    system, e.g., arterial coverage.

-   Get traveler information to the users -- when, format, usefulness
    for decision-making, etc.

-   Automate system information and provide directly to the public

-   Establish important types of traveler information:

-   Travel time between key points (Needs research)

-   Audiences: getting them out of the area, diverting them from coming
    into the area, and getting appropriate responders into the incident
    area.

-   Develop better specification of the information provided by the 511
    systems

-   Address the need for high reliability and accuracy of alternate
    routes and/or other information (to retain user confidence)

-   Require mandatory monitoring of alternative route information and
    factor into real-time traveler information.

-   Establish procedures on when to stop information dissemination
    (agencies, media, etc.)

-   Use probe vehicles to expand coverage

-   Lift the restriction on 10-watt broadcast power for HARs to broaden
    coverage (USDOT to work with FCC); possible use of variable power
    based on incidents.

-   Need to confirm accuracy of media traffic broadcasts -- standard
    terminology, plain language, accurate, timely, reliable information.

-   Need to develop approaches to convey long-distance traveler
    information about incidents/weather/other factors many miles away --
    criteria for type of information to be broadcasted for certain
    distances for selected durations.

-   Use of the internet to provide real-time traveler information --
    subscriber services to provide accurate, reliable, timely traveler
    information.

-   Provide intermodal information to offer traveler choices.

-   Use an overlay "Intelligent Agent" with a
    national/state/regional/local incident and/or road closure
    information systems to allow users to explore travel information,
    construct route plans, and explore other options.

### Technological Topics -- Session B (Participant Group #6)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Broaden technology choices for rural incident detection (beyond cell
    phones)

-   Need to develop traffic control/management systems for rural
    incidents that cause traffic problems (i.e., fire, plane crashes)

-   Create Systems Architecture

-   Improve technology portability for special events (temporary
    issues)---beyond traffic

-   Provide technology for emergency vehicle response on local streets
    (v. freeways) to include mutual aid (better ramp metering, signal
    preemption, etc.)

-   Improve security (data access, network, communications)---Define
    access controls, privacy issues, public, agency v. interagency

-   Improve AVL reliability/timeliness in crisis management operations

-   Improve communications infrastructure in rural areas

-   Improve monumenting/signage to help public identify where they are
    reporting incidents

-   Ensure distributed/system-wide redundancy to reduce vulnerability of
    loss and capability in any one physical area

-   Improve technology education

-   Shorten development time and ensure upgrades are designed in

-   Reduce use of proprietary technologies

-   Make technology use affordable

-   Ensure access to ITS technologies to all areas (traveler
    information) and data exchange

-   Create TIM Technology "Blueprint" and Make available

-   Improve Dispatch Communication

-   Improve/Expand use of incident documentation technologies to reduce
    need for manual crime scene documentation

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Enhance voice communications/data interoperability through systems-wide regional/architecture and standards

-   Implement common standards in consistent nation-wide fashion

-   Develop unified architecture approach across federal
    programs/organizations (institutional issue as well)

-   Identify all TIM partner agencies who need to participate in shared
    architecture

-   Create policy to ensure implementation of standards.

-   Ensure funding for implementation of these technology and protocol
    standards (specifically local responders)

-   Create agreements between partner agencies to share information
    (institutional)

-   Develop timeline, with agreement among all partner agencies, for
    migration to standard implementation (i.e., changeable message
    signs, NTCIP)

-   \(4\) Improve technology portability for special events (temporary
    issues)---beyond traffic

####### Issue: Ensure access to ITS technologies to all areas (traveler information) and data exchange 

-   Accelerate 511 deployment through increased funding

-   Identify commonalities/uniformities in VMS/CMS & HAR technologies

-   Enhance partnerships with private sector value added
    service/technology providers

####### Issue: Improve Dispatch Communication\-- Improve ability for agency dispatch centers in city or region to communicate with each other in timely manner

-   Resolve incompatibilities between local radio systems and
    Nextel---Address spectrum allocation/available issues with FCC.

####### Issue: Improve technology education

-   Improve communications infrastructure in rural areas\--Develop
    public safety satellite system

### Technological Topics -- Session C (Participant Group #3)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Establish a center to handle all communications \-- city and
    surroundings areas

-   Integrate detection devices into public safety communication systems

-   Best examples of patching technologies to tie legacy systems

-   Radio communications from initial responders to allied agencies
    directly

-   Lack of IM standards and standards compliance (interfaces,
    equipment, devices, communications)

-   Hauling enough equipment for first responders.

-   Cost effective data sharing

-   Back-up communication systems independent of primary infrastructure

-   911 screening capabilities to minimize overloads.

-   Tradeoff between new technologies (standards) versus use of existing
    technologies (Vendor-driven) to address interoperability issues

-   Need to get correct vision (assessment) of the incident to get the
    right equipment to the site.

-   Use of programmable (SDR) cellular technology

-   Access real-time information about incidents for responders

-   Provide real-time and accurate information for public (users) and
    routing.

-   Interstate coordination of traffic incident information (share,
    coordinate, set criteria for range of dissemination, timing, etc.)

-   Use and integration of mobile data terminals.

-   Data privacy parameters.

-   National database to explore new technologies (unbiased
    clearinghouse of successes and failures)

-   Redundancy of TMCs (operations and data backup/security)

-   Standard practice for backup systems

-   Need standardized procedure for ITS (IM) elements for performance
    evaluation.

-   Acknowledge public-private partnerships with media to get better
    access to real-time information

-   Affordable interagency GPS, especially in rural areas

-   Expand the use of on-line (web-based) roadway conditions reports to
    any portable device, plus graphics, maps/pictures

-   Provide national awareness of funding issues

-   Regional assessment and deployment of technologies - procure,
    deploy, operate, evaluate

-   Recognize regional focus for developing, operating, and funding
    traffic incident management (Federal incentives, train MPOs)

-   Procedures to analyze regional needs and develop
    templates/approaches

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Recognize Regional Focus for Developing, Operating, and Funding TIM

-   Endorse a regional operating approach which involves all parties
    (public safety, transportation, etc.).

-   Funding should go to regional entities -- regional operations
    authority concept with traffic incident management elements.

-   Develop a TIM program and establish "baseline" funding levels for
    regional TIM initiatives, even though it may not go through a
    regional entity based established criteria and incentives.

-   Continue federal research on Regional Operating Organizations.

-   Identify the benefits from a regional approach to traffic incident
    management to assist in long-term operations and funding.

####### Issue: Provide/Integrate Detection Devices into Public Safety Communication Systems

-   Integrate cameras and loops into CAD/Dispatch systems and centers.

-   Need to forward centralized information (text, video, etc.) to
    mobile responders.

-   Need to identify the information (text, video, etc.) exchange "loop"
    to/from all agencies and the appropriate information to be
    disseminated (pre-programmed).

-   TMCs need information feeds from emergency response local, state and
    federal agencies.

####### Issue: Access Real-Time Information About Incidents For Responders

-   Define who has the information

-   Use of web-access techniques

-   Use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and associated security
    issues

-   Define common data definitions/elements

-   Define for CAD vendors a required, standard interfaces

-   Define and develop opportunities for the private sector to be the
    information provider for selected data/information

-   Define standards for separating public safety information which can
    be used for traffic incident management purposes

-   Use of portable cameras for on-site information collection and
    sharing with appropriate agencies

-   Need to build in backup systems and contingency plans into overall
    system development

-   Need standards for GIS mapping and displays -- interoperability of
    mapping databases (SAE working on this issue)

-   Need for standards on GPS

####### Issue: Radio Communication From Initial Responders To Allied Agencies

-   Provide \$\$\$

-   Address interoperability issues:

-   Multi-state models?

-   Statewide model?

-   Region-wide model?

-   Define protocols and training to address information sharing needs

-   Evaluate existing technologies from a multi-agency perspective

-   Use of civilian field personnel to aid with incident management

-   Promote multi-agency integration and private sector sharing of
    infrastructure (e.g., cell towers and fiber)

-   Disseminate information about ROW and placement of telecommunication
    assets

####### Issue: Lack of IM Standards

-   Need a national focus on standards, larger than the current efforts
    (beyond NTCIP/USDOT to include USDOJ).

-   Use industry standards when available, e.g., 802.11b, open system
    architectures, etc.

-   Need to "fast track" standards development.

-   Promulgation of standards to key users, vendors, decision-makers,
    etc.

-   Use financial incentives to move towards use of standards, e.g.
    USDOT regional architecture standards, etc.

-   Develop national database to explore and explain new technologies,
    benefits, costs, advantages, disadvantages from a national
    clearinghouse

-   Best examples of patching technologies to tie legacy systems
    together

-   Interoperability focus on procurement standards versus vendor driven

### Technological Topics -- Session D (Participant Group #4)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Need to resolve communications between organizations

-   Improve systems integration/interoperability between TIM partner
    organizations and their systems

-   Address TMC operator overload

-   Need additional mechanisms for Incident Management -- Reliance on
    public phone system for operators causes problems

-   Need to find better ways to allow cell phone users to identify
    location -- better incident detection systems needed

-   Proprietary systems pose problems

-   Need city-wide information system that gives signal operators the
    \"big picture\" of what\'s going on

-   Need for expanded interoperable frequencies for on-scene TIM

-   Improve coordination/control of CCTV feeds for TIM

-   Implement procedures to use technology to help avoid secondary
    accidents

-   Implement location signage/call boxes for location ID

-   Need to manage/maintain regional communications infrastructure
    capabilities

-   Rate of technology change

-   Near real-time common operation picture between

-   National implementation of 511

-   Need to address policies that would address privacy issues/barriers
    to implementation of AVL/GPS

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: (Technology focus) Improve systems integration/interoperability between TIM partner organizations and their systems---(mapping, TIM, 1^st^ responder radios/systems, communication networks, etc., with both on-scene and center-to-center systems)

-   Develop regional architecture-àdesign in/develop redundant system
    capabilities

-   Must think on both major and minor incident scale---Incorporate 9/11
    lessons learned

-   Coordinate FCC involvement in examining/expanding incident
    management frequency usage/spectrum allocation and develop plan to
    have cross-service frequency coordination within a region.

-   FCC and State PUCs-àAddress prioritization for emergency responders
    through cellular/PCS system

-   Look for lessons-learned in aerospace industry for data fusion to
    avoid operator overload issues

-   Beware of linear integration which risks causing operator
    overload---everything coming through one terminal with no
    prioritization/intelligent incident notification

####### Issue: Institutional/process focus) Need to resolve communications policies/procedures between organizations (both with on-scene and center-to-center communications)

-   Must think on both major and minor incident scale---Incorporate 9/11
    lessons learned

####### Issue: Need to manage/maintain regional communications infrastructure capabilities---ID requirements, total cost of ownership, budget (lease/buy, etc.)

-   Determine methodology for managing influx of software
    upgrades---maintaining/enforcing standard architecture

-   Develop regional architecture and Transition Plan to support
    costing/budgeting of system and required support

-   Develop "plug & play" guidance and make available to those who want
    to plug in

-   Cost in expenditures for support of systems and system
    transition/upgrades (i.e., x% of capital plus installation costs for
    annual maintenance/support)

####### Issue: Address TMC Operator Overload

-   Implement intelligent technology to enable operators to focus only
    on inputs of incident and quickly prioritize

### Technological Topics -- Session E (Participant Group #1)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Complexity of entire process for commonplace technologies

-   Basic standards for interoperability (voice, data) for messages,
    open architecture, and networks

-   Need for public safety and transportation to play together on
    standards.

-   Need for better coordination between field and system
    developers/purchasers - User involvement

-   Technology would provide IM Action plan (templates) that would
    unfold as part of a comprehensive Incident Command System

-   Public wireless information system promotes levels of incident-type
    systems (public buy-in, part of ICS, routing info)

-   Joint investment program to deploy technology

-   Integrated co-located emergency response centers (e.g., ARTEMIS)

-   Use of tools to: avoid an incident, clear an incident, and manage
    traffic during an incident.

-   Use of dynamic traffic information to aid in \"Template\"
    development (see #6)

-   Integrate technology planning and development with institutional
    vision processes, user involvement is critical

-   Couple interoperability issues with homeland security initiatives.

-   Re-visit state procurement procedures for low bid on technology
    acquisition.

-   Address technical staffing issues (retention, sharing, promotion,
    etc.)

-   Capability to share and control CCTV, photos, digital camera images,
    etc. across responding agencies

-   Interoperability/translation of maps (Combine with #19)

-   Low cost, easy to maintain detection and monitoring systems

-   Data management: formats, usability, archive procedures, others

-   Need for system-wide adaptive controls

-   Design for survivability and redundancy

-   Need set of technology evaluation tools

-   Utilize existing technologies through middleware

-   Performance measures

-   Use of new/refined procedures upon introduction of new technologies.

-   Acceptance of need for interoperability: use of Executive Board,
    integration of legacy systems, intra-regional coordination, use
    existing technologies to bridge technologies

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Basic Standards

-   Need for coordinated federal standards development with sensitivity
    to users -- possibly an interagency board

-   Require use of national standards for getting federal funds

-   Need a process for maintaining, promulgating, and updating approved
    standards

-   Build the case that standards will result in less expensive systems

-   Educate users on the benefits of using open architecture and basic
    standards

####### User Involvement In Systems Development And Implementation At All Levels

-   Utilize systems engineering approach in procurement -- requires user
    groups to provide inputs on requirements

-   Conduct business process review prior to requirements development

-   Get executive-level buy-in on system development and personnel needs
    for project continuity

-   Have users involved in entire systems development phases, including
    standards

-   Use frequent user reviews during system development

-   Provide proper training to assist users in system development and
    system use; re-certification, hands-on

-   Involve users in the systems acceptance definition and testing

-   Maintain project scope to avoid creep

-   Pay attention to change management principles and techniques

####### Issue: Interoperability

-   Confirm acceptance of need

-   Use of an Executive Board

-   Integrate legacy systems

-   Bridge/link existing technology

-   Confirm business case for interoperability (may require research)

-   Leverage use of shared resources

-   Need to prioritize data

-   Demonstrate cost effectiveness (benefits/costs) of shared systems

####### Issue: Field-To-Field, Field-To-Center, and Center-To-Center Data Sharing

-   Establish basic national requirements/standards for information to
    be displayed on a map (e.g., accurate location)

-   Need for new data compression techniques

-   Develop an affordable wireless data systems

-   Provide a national evaluation of wireless data systems

-   Conduct an assessment of users' data needs (define basic information
    sets from multi-agency perspective --type, severity, location, etc.)

-   Use of existing communication systems to meet data sharing needs;
    add additional technologies to meet new, common needs

-   Establish Concept of Operation for multi-agency use of CCTVs, other
    technologies

-   Address security/data privacy issues

-   Address Freedom of Information issues

### Technological Topics -- Session F (Participant Group #2)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Improve transmission of crash data from scene to hospital to assist
    trauma centers

-   Wireless e-911 would enhance incident detection\--need to evaluate
    due to problems with urban GPS

-   Technology needed to allow 1st responders to get visual data from
    site to 2nd responders

-   Improve inter-agency integration/interoperability of TIM systems

-   Streamline data inputs from scene from multiple agencies to
    eliminate redundancy and resolve issue of inconsistent data to each
    agency

-   Reliable, timely dissemination of information to media outlets
    (radio)

-   Address security, privacy, ownership issues with sharing information

-   Improve conformity to established standards among TIM partner
    agencies

-   Reconcile inconsistencies in standards of agencies beyond
    traditional transportation agencies (DOJ, etc.)

-   Need to define common data standards, languages, dictionaries for
    CAD system effectiveness

-   Need to address future technology requirements

-   The cost of developing and maintaining automated incident detection
    capabilities is high

-   Lack of planning and foresight with O&M with TIM systems\--failing
    to support cost of maintaining developed systems\--do we need to
    require this kind of life cycle costing?

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Improve inter-agency integration/interoperability among TIM systems (CAD, ATMS, radio transmission, dispatch systems, etc.)

-   Establish minimum standards/mandates to ensure agencies can
    interoperate

-   State procurement processes/procedures must be addressed to ensure
    they reinforce standards compliance

-   Define/Implement common data language/dictionary to facilitate data
    exchange between systems

-   Fund and field results of field operational tests of candidate
    systems

-   Ensure system designs address future as well as current network,
    capacity, and data sharing requirements

####### Issue: Need to define common data standards, languages, dictionaries for CAD system effectiveness

-   Get TIM standards issue included in ITS standards-making processàor
    consider using ITS standards in TIM standards

-   Ensure TIM community stays plugged in to develop and help maintain
    standards with key standards bodies such as IEEE.

-   Just do it!

####### Issue: Lack of planning and foresight with O&M with TIM systems\--failing to support cost of maintaining developed systems\--do we need to require this kind of life cycle costing?

-   Implement management policies to require full life cycle costing
    before system procurement is approved

-   Regional architectures should include life cycle maintenance plan
    and transition plan

-   Leverage/utilize systems engineers in developing architectures and
    life cycle systems transition plans---transportation community needs
    to better recognize systems engineering expertise in systems
    maintenance/planning---often view as "overhead"

-   Build life cycle costs into capital improvement projects

-   Issue: sometimes legislative priorities are levied that are not
    funded---this can

####### Issue: The cost of developing and maintaining automated incident detection capabilities is high---need for constant re-calibration of algorithms drives costs up.

-   Implement pilot programs (for large venues) with funding from
    private sector partners (example City of LA)

####### Issue: Technology needed to allow 1st responders to get visual data from site to 2nd responders

-   IIMS Project in NYC has mobile traffic mgt system that allows
    digital images overlaid on GIS maps to get incident information to
    needed parties ASAP and shorten duration of incident.

-   NC has "sleeping giant" TMC that goes up and takes over during race
    events and then shuts down

-   Need to fund Field Operational Tests to alert others and enable them
    to benefit

### Institutional Topics -- Session A (Participant Group #3)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Need \$ for people, equipment for IM programs

-   Getting data in a timely fashion - real-time accident/incident data

-   Communication - from dispatch and to/from scene

-   Interagency communications at the scene

-   Lack of national benchmark for high quality performance in TIM -
    model practices

-   Poorly informed/educated decision makers (elected officials) about
    IM needs - including ITS benefits regionally

-   Disconnect between capital planning boundaries and \"operational
    boundaries

-   Inadequate intra-agency priority given to IM within the agency

-   Upper level communications, coordination among agency leadership -
    policy level - need higher level of support

-   No \"tradition of cooperation\" among multiple agencies

-   Lack of willingness to share assets with other agencies - sometime
    due to proprietary restrictions, sometime lack of policy

-   Lack of dedicated group for IM responsibility (team)

-   Conflicting multiple agency cultures, values, priorities - and we
    don\'t understand each other

-   Can\'t communicate with other public/private sector responders at
    the scene

-   Skills needed for traffic management at the scene are different from
    localized traffic control - need better training

-   Inconsistency in level of understanding - variations among
    responders

-   Inadequate joint in internal training/exercise among responders

-   Who\'s in charge at scene - of what and when - ambiguity in command
    and control

-   Lack of \"sense of urgency\" about TIM - economic, public safety,
    etc. (IM as part of solution to congestion)

-   Lack of successful examples to showcase to others - including small,
    medium, and large communities

-   Poor management of scheduled events - that lead to incidents

-   Lack of formal clearance goals at local level

-   Unclear legal responsibilities

-   Fascination with new technology rather than solving the problem and
    using technology appropriately

-   Nomenclature differences

-   Ambiguity in responsibility for \"operations\"

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Need Funding for People, Equipment for IM Programs

-   Set aside/mandate highway funds for operations

-   Educate 1^st^ responders on resources available through homeland
    defense legislation

-   Congressional education about resources needed for IM programs --
    link to homeland defense

-   AASHTO/ATA coordinate "messages" to Congress, agency leadership at
    national and state levels

-   Educate transportation professional about resources available
    through homeland defense and other programs

-   Leverage available resources through resource sharing (people,
    equipment, etc.)

-   Leverage non-transportation (public/private) entity assets to expand
    resource base.

-   Integrate IM into capital planning process (regulatory/legislation)

-   Analysis to articulate and justify IM resource investment.

####### Issue: Inadequate Joint in Internal Training/exercise Among Responders

-   Develop curriculum -- standard procedures, best practices for joint
    operations

-   Integrate "joint perspective" into internal training/exercises

-   Use existing "delivery systems" for training (NHI, academies)

-   More table top exercises and contingency plans -- "playbooks"

####### Issue: Conflicting Multiple Agency Cultures, Values, Priorities - and We Don\'t Understand Each Other

-   Joint training

-   MUTCD supplement; NFPA language to promote cross-cultural thinking

-   National Association for Traffic Incident Management (NATIM) or
    something that gets folks together

-   Professional motivators, career risks/rewards documented,
    communicated

-   Joint Concepts of Operations for TIM

####### Issue: Can\'t Communicate With Other Public/private Sector Responders at the Scene

-   Develop consistent language

-   Assign priority to interoperability

-   Patch (technical fix)

-   FCC assigned frequency for TIM operations

-   Procurement policy

####### Issue: Poorly Informed/educated Decision Makers (Elected Officials) About IM Needs - Including ITS Benefits Regionally and Upper Level Communications, Coordination Among Agency Leadership - Policy Level - Need Higher Level of Support

-   Executive outreach materials

-   Meet with NGA, etc. to explain importance of TIM to economic
    development, QOL, public safety

-   Sustained dialogue to show continued support

### Institutional Topics -- Session B (Participant Group #4)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Lack of uniform internal awareness (transportation and public safety
    agencies)

-   Need to make clear, quantified agency-specific and economic benefits

-   Competing, politically driven decision maker priorities (e.g.,
    perceive speeding as most important priority

-   \"Lead\" responsible entity is unclear

-   Stakeholder group is too limited, not all stakeholders are involved
    on a constant basis (e.g., coroners, towers are left out)

-   Mutual understanding is limited

-   There is a lack of pre-planning

-   On scene policies are inconsistent

-   There is no case being made to administrators that there is a
    problem with TIM - \"if it ain\'t broke don\'t try to fix it\"

-   From a consumer standpoint, there is no understanding of who to call
    to complain about problems

-   Highways aren\'t designed for incident management

-   There\'s no collection of TIM best practices from around the country

##### Priority Issues and/or Actions/Initiatives

1.  TIM Considerations in Green Book -- to incorporate TIM focus in
    highway design

2.  National TIM Interstate Act and Program

3.  National CALEA (accreditation standards) for institutional elements
    of TIM

4.  National ad campaign for TIM

5.  Active national clearinghouse

6.  "Critical incident reporting" requirement or incentive

7.  National executive level TIM awareness (e.g. briefing of IACP, etc)

8.  Encouragement for regional operations entities

9.  National rating of states/regions

10. Incorporation of TIM considerations into driver testing and
    education

11. National protocols by subject matter experts (e.g., "react" teams
    for traffic centers)

12. Federal grants for private industry collaboration

### Institutional Topics -- Session C (Participant Group #1)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Multi-jurisdictional coordination among PD, FD, ER - need for
    standards

-   No coordinated, widely accepted/understood definition and
    understanding of roles (partnerships)

-   No dedicated frequency for TIM communications - lack of consensus on
    need for common frequency

-   Conflicting (or competing) missions, priorities, values without
    \"common\" TIM mission

-   Unmeasured (or unknown) benefits; or benefits not communicated -
    lack of good measures

-   Unclear state laws about who is in charge under various conditions
    (esp. important to paramilitary organization)

-   Responsibility for coordination and communication before, during,
    and after the response period not \"institutionalized\" - formalize
    the cooperative process

-   Lack of understanding of other agency roles, procedures

-   Need for leadership during incidents - scene management

-   \"Reactive\" rather than \"proactive\" thinking about TIM - response
    oriented (e.g., for maintenance)

-   Reframing the problem - incident management versus emergency
    response - ER is broader term

-   Reluctance of agencies to share information - e.g., incident
    report - liability issues

-   Responders don\'t understand implications of their actions on the
    \"entire life cycle of the incident (inter/intra agency)

-   No single budget for TIM - not coordinated among agencies

-   PD/FD understand \"command\" culture; DOTs don\'t

-   Perception that institutional issues are \"easy to solve\" and
    don\'t need attention

-   PD have limited \$ and traffic management is not a priority

-   Communication from scene to responders - need understanding of
    equipment needs to clear incident

-   Lack of status for DOT\'s in ER/IM - DOTs don\'t give priority to IM

-   Risk/rewards/accountability for TIM traffic operations component for
    public safety and DOTs

-   Elected officials/opinion leaders lack understanding of effect of
    traffic incidents on system performance - no common voice among
    national organizations

-   Lack of investment in solving \"non-recurring\" congestion -
    importance of operations and management as part of solution to
    congestion

-   Not good at marketing ourselves

-   Fragmented responsibilities for TIM among agencies

-   We don\'t know what % of budget is needed for effective TIM

-   TIM is not a \"career\" within transportation professionals

-   Uneven resources (and solutions) among agencies/jurisdictions to
    address TIM needs

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Responsibility for Coordination and Communication Before, During, and After the Response Period Not \"Institutionalized\" - Formalize the Cooperative Process

-   Fund a regional IM coordination group (state or federal funding)

-   Develop interdisciplinary teams at national/state/regional level
    with equal representation (fire, police, transportation, etc) to
    develop cooperation, policy and procedures, and an integrated
    communications system; link to funding; provide model procedures

-   Major associations serve as national level team

-   Make joint coordination/communications "part of the job" -- shared
    resources

-   Cross training among PD, FD, DOTs -- create viable career path in IM

-   Individuals commit to an action plan to make TIM better -- do what
    you can do now; build on small successes

-   Frequency allocation for dedicated to interoperable communications
    for IM

####### Issue: Lack of Investment in Solving \"Non-recurring\" Congestion - Importance of Operations and Management As Part of Solution to Congestion

-   Dedicate federal funds for Management and Operations

-   Develop cost/benefit data to support M&O and TIM

-   Leverage homeland security investment to support TIM, esp. for 1^st^
    responders

-   State level dedicated funds for TIM

-   Leverage private investment -- e.g., motorists patrols, cell phone
    service

-   Document, disseminate lessons learned to justify investments

-   NIJ practitioner team (peer-to-peer) to help use resources wisely

-   Use some project funds to support M&O solutions to TIM (redirect
    existing resources)

-   Balance investments in infrastructure for M&O (e.g., ITS) and funds
    for doing M&O

-   Build partnerships that capitalize on existing political access and
    credibility

####### Issue: Unmeasured (or Unknown) Benefits; Or Benefits Not Communicated - Lack of Good Measures

-   Research to define and measure incidents and the response

-   Establish standards/benchmarks for good performance -- consistent
    measures (for internal/self-assessment)

-   Identify the "beneficiaries" of good TIM to develop constituencies

-   Tell a good story!

####### Issue: Uneven Resources (and Solutions) Among Agencies/Jurisdictions to Address TIM Needs

-   Ride-along programs -- show & tell for decision makers

-   Hands-on experience to explain and build support

-   Symbols/gifts as "reminders"

-   Show how security plays in TIM

-   Scanning tours to take elected officials to see good programs

-   Use experiences (problems) to demonstrate needs to leadership

-   Develop coordinated messages

-   Tell the public what they can do -- outreach/education

### Institutional Topics -- Session D (Participant Group #2)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   No champion or champion burns out or moves on

-   Lack of local government support

-   Lack of champion continuity

-   Support of law enforcement is limited

-   Support of other public safety is limited

-   Turf consciousness

-   Lack of \"role education\" - no one understands what their role is
    during an incident

-   Lack of funding

-   Lack of staffing

-   Resistance to change

-   TIM mainstreamed into planning, DSN, construction/work zones

-   Recruit and nurture internal TIM advocates

-   Difficulties in getting people to the table

-   Educating politicians about the significance of traffic incidents

-   Overcoming limitations of small businesses such as the towing
    industry

-   Fear of liability

-   TIM is not on top of every agency\'s list

-   Until now TIM has always just happened, incidents didn\'t cause as
    much of a backup as they do today

-   Need to get internal buy-in - there are multiple levels of
    stakeholders within agencies

##### Priority Issues and/or Actions/Initiatives

1.  TIM reflected in reauthorization

    -   Emphasis on operations and management of highways ("core
        business")

    -   TIM set aside

    -   Certain percentage of infrastructure improvement funds needs to
        go to ITS/TIM

2.  National cross disciplinary guidebook (updated and maintained
    current)

3.  Coordinated body as a voice for public safety

4.  National "strawman" TIM plan and program

5.  Standards, guidelines for performance data for TIM

6.  Recruit or grow fire/rescue, EMT, pioneers

7.  Analytical models for TIM

8.  Network of national groups (fire, police, DPW/transportation, etc)

9.  NHI courses -- national TIM training program

10. National case for TIM

11. Research plan inputs from TIM

12. Define relationship between infostructure and TIM

13. Sustained national dialogue

### Institutional Topics -- Session E (Participant Group #5)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Too much \"ad hoc ness\" - TIM depends on single champion; no
    institution for TIM; inadequate planning

-   Dedicated level of response effort - lower priority

-   Sporadic information sharing; not routine; need buy-in to value of
    routine info sharing rather than event by event

-   Lack of common shared mission statement about what we\'re trying to
    accomplish (e.g., incident avoidance vs. response)

-   Coordination among many public safety agencies in multiple
    jurisdictions

-   Different priorities assigned to IM tasks by different agencies
    (e.g., PS, EMS, traffic)

-   Resistance to and fear of change - (e.g., of using technology to
    improve performance)

-   Failure to prioritize - don\'t know significance or benefits (and
    for whom) of TIM

-   Policies in some departments change more slowly than others - uneven
    solutions across agencies

-   Lack of \"building blocks\" to institutionalize TIM - agreements,
    legislation

-   We don\'t match resources to stated priorities for TIM; no dedicated
    resources

-   How to get (integrating) towing community into larger TIM community

-   Human factor - lack of willingness to cooperate in TIM among
    different agencies due to basic cultural differences

-   Honesty, integrity with respect to honoring signed agreements
    between agencies and jurisdictions and accountability for following
    agreements

-   Lack of uniform/standard operating procedures among multiple
    jurisdictions

-   Lack of identified and agreed to performance metrics for TIM (e.g.,
    clearance time, etc.)

-   No formal evaluation/assessment of TIM to improve over time

-   We don\'t understand how TIM is best implemented - top down or
    bottom up

##### Priority Issues and Candidate Actions/Initiatives

####### Issue: Lack of Identified and Agreed to Performance Metrics for TIM (e.g., Clearance Time, etc.)

-   Research to identify measures; find best practices (synthesis)

-   Develop linkages between response performance (benchmarks) and
    response resources/approach

-   Compare performance to expectations of key constituencies

-   Think about performance measures systemically (complementary
    measures)

-   Be able to show the value of TIM to help secure resources

####### Issue: We Don\'t Match Resources to Stated Priorities for TIM; No Dedicated Resources

-   Life cycle (including M&O) funding for transportation facilities

-   Line item funding at federal/state/local levels to fund TIM -- but
    may not always be desirable

####### Issue: Human Factor - Lack of Willingness to Cooperate in TIM Among Different Agencies Due to Basic Cultural Differences

-   "Get 'um while they're young"; cultivate "interagency thinking"
    among young professionals; cross-training; "professionalize"
    incident management -- career track

-   Clarify the vocabulary across agency boundaries

-   Joint training/exercises to encourage interaction outside the
    incident response

-   Jointly sanction courses -- police, fire, transportation

-   Get department executives involved with each other across agencies
    (PD, FD, DOTs)

####### Issue: Too Much \"Ad Hoc Ness\" - TIM Depends on Single Champion; No Institution for TIM; Inadequate Planning

-   Formal interagency agreements

-   Learn from special events management and build on those experiences
    and relationships and agreements

-   Dedicated resources -- assigned to TIM program

-   Adopt common/standard "symbols" (e.g., colors) for TIM and use to
    institutionalize TIM

-   Leverage other regional programs (e.g., planning, ITS regional
    architecture, etc.) to build TIM institutional strategy on regional
    basis

-   Federal funds to encourage developing regional TIM approach
    (multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional)

####### Issue: Lack of Common Shared Mission Statement About What We\'re Trying to Accomplish (e.g., Incident Avoidance Vs. Response)

-   Broaden to include incident avoidance (design, enforcement,
    operations, ITS, education)

-   National initiative to define incident response across multiple
    agencies

### Institutional Topics -- Session F (Participant Group #6)

##### Issues for Advancing the State of the Practice in Traffic Incident Management

-   Turf issues

-   Resources

-   Competing priorities

-   Inadequate communications

-   Lack of champions

-   Lack of commonly agreed to goals

-   Lack of understanding of incident management program and incident
    command system

-   Lack of education

-   Rural areas not feeling incident management is necessary

-   A lot of people don\'t understand concept of operations

-   TIM will not eliminate congestion - this is a false benefit

-   TIM is not solving a problem that is first and foremost in people\'s
    minds, when something doesn\'t happen it means that there\'s not a
    demand for it, it\'s not valued as highly as other things

-   Average state and local officials don\'t know what incident
    management means

-   The proof and statistics of the benefits of TIM are hard to show -
    you can\'t show the statistics of a secondary incident not
    happening, you can\'t quantify the benefits

-   Transportation didn\'t understand or recognize its role in the
    bigger picture until September 11, terrorism wasn\'t a factor to
    think about - TIM is more relevant today than it was previously

-   The operating cultures of transportation, public safety and other
    stakeholders are very different

-   There isn\'t one person responsible so it is harder to succeed -
    from an ongoing standpoint there are unclear leadership roles
    distinct from the notion of on scene command

-   Extremely slow secondary response by DOT assets to the scene

-   Lack of high-level, top-down support or buy-in - they don\'t want to
    change

-   TIM is regarded as a quality of life characteristic to the traveling
    public, rather than an economic or public safety issue

-   Lack of cooperation between federal, state and local law enforcement
    agencies

-   Limited success in TIM programs because they are not multi-modally
    aware

-   There can be inherent conflicts in cross purposes

-   Disagreeable personalities

-   Communication - there is no common language to get everybody to the
    table

-   Without a crisis there is no motivation to create a TIM program -
    need to get people to buy into the need for preparedness

-   Lack of coordination among agencies

-   Legacy mentality - \"we\'ve always done it this way\"

##### Priority Issues and/or Actions/Initiatives

-   National and highly publicized recognition of excellence

-   Other agencies have their table and transportation may or may not be
    invited to it -- the federal agencies need to get together to figure
    out that they're all dealing with public safety and mobility, the
    agencies themselves need to get together and start coordinating
    together

-   Setting up national standards/guidelines on TIM practices and
    institutional programs

-   Active guidance -- a check and balance system/Accreditation

-   Peer Exchange -- every 4 of 5 years each state DOT research
    department has to bring in their peers to discuss their programs

-   Empower people by writing legislation for the funding for TIM at the
    state level but give it to Congressional delegation and try to get
    that legislation passed as an earmark

-   Ability to fund various federal programs against another -- use a
    DOT grant as a match for an HHS grant for example, be able to use
    multiple sources of federal funds to match each other

-   National scanning tours/peer networking

-   Creation of an information clearinghouse - a shared database --
    knowing what kind of staff incident management people have in other
    states, knowing what kind of equipment is involved, how they
    dispatch employees

-   Training protocols for law enforcement, fire, towers and recovery,
    DOT, EMS and then there needs to be a marketing program that follows
    this -- take it to where the rubber meets the road

-   Model TIM after extreme sports -Have a team competition based upon
    regional TIM teams at the national level -- involve police, fire,
    EMS, transportation, towing and recovery, put it on national TV and
    have a cash reward

-   Do something for TIM analogous to the model deployment initiative

-   Require an organized TIM approach in certain cities or regions in
    order to get funding -- just like a regional ITS architecture is
    required

-   Better linkage to federal emergency management and military

-   Hold a TIM conference automatically at least twice a year and
    broaden the invitee list

-   Clarify and codify liability relief

-   National legislation that governs the NHS -- anything that happens
    on the NHS is governed by federal law

## Appendix F: Post-Conference Survey Summary

After the conference, a survey was sent to all attendees thanking them
for their participation and requesting additional input. The survey
questions were designed make sure conference sponsors heard all of the
traffic incident management issues and actions that were most important
to participants. Fifty-seven individuals, 34% of conference attendees,
responded to the survey. Below is a break down of responses by
discipline represented at the conference.

  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
  **Discipline**                                    **Percent of Survey
                                                    Respondents**

  Transportation                                    48.1%

  Law Enforcement                                   13.0%

  Research                                          13.0%

  Consultant                                        9.3%

  Other                                             7.4%

  Towing and Recovery                               5.6%

  Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Response Services     1.8%

  Technology                                        1.8%

  Total Respondents                                 100.0%
  ------------------------------------------------- ---------------------

Survey respondents were asked if they felt that the breakout session
format allowed the capture of their most important issues and ideas.
Over four-fifths (83.9%) felt that the breakout session format captured
their ideas; 16.1% did not.

Those who did not feel their issues and ideas were captured during the
breakout sessions were provided the opportunity to submit them in their
survey response in an open-ended format. The following is a summary of
survey responses on traffic incident management issues and actions to
address traffic incident management issues.

### Traffic Incident Management Issues

-   Jurisdictional coordination, Tow vehicle contracting strategies,
    standardization of practices

-   I believe the task of getting all parties together, Fire, Police,
    Transportation folks Towing and all other entities to come up with a
    uniform procedure is the toughest part of the process. Each must
    recognize the other and assist each other. I think more regional
    meetings are needed.

-   There remains very little participation from public safety - until
    that is addressed we\'ll continue to have different agendas,
    systems, and priorities

-   Procedures and best practices

-   Many of the issues focused on research and more guidelines and such,
    which I feel, will just lead us back to where we are now. I feel the
    way inc. mgt. needs to get off the ground everywhere maybe anew
    non-technical approach and kind of out of the box idea but instead
    of federal dollars going toward more research, instead supply
    funding to target the \"DOT and MPO managers with the money" by
    forcing the issue through a national public awareness and publicity
    (national ad campaigns, PBS specials, special documentaries by
    consultants to get the word out, USA today advertisements). They
    would target the benefits by mentioning that USA has the technology
    to make the publics life easier and safer and Inc. Mgt. is how to do
    it, and that they should call (special dot number in their area) to
    let them know how important incident management is to them.). This
    through time would be the answer, because with (1) funding for
    installation and operations of these systems and (2) the priority of
    the DOT and MPO managers stating that Inc. Mgt. is required more
    over than just another construction project; these 2 keys will open
    the real door to improvements.

-   Insufficient public safety participation in the TIM conference.

-   We did not address the total system impact of incidents. There was
    too much focus on actions to be taken at the incident site and not
    enough energy spent on what are the system-wide impacts and actions.
    If we are to take full advantage of the growing capability of ITS
    our total capability must be analyzed and appropriately applied in a
    regional context.

-   Getting all disciplines to cooperate, even if a corporate cultural
    change is required.

-   Understanding the each other\'s role and respecting their
    responsibility with full support and quick information for the
    benefit of early clearance. Incident management commander need full
    understanding the impact on congestion and overall impact on
    traveling public in the form of delay and cost benefit. Private tow
    trucks policy need to revise to get right kind of specialize
    equipment at first time to reduce response time and clearance time.

-   Much of what is termed traffic incidents is the result of vehicular
    problems; i.e., overturned trucks, major pile-ups etc. The only way
    these situations are going to be expedited is by getting the
    equipment on scene that is going to clear the road. All the law
    enforcement, Fire, Paramedics, et. al. on scene will not move the
    vehicle actually causing the back-up. Currently, the tow and
    recovery vehicles can be stuck in the same traffic jam as the rest
    of the population. Some plan must be developed to get the tow and
    recovery vehicles on scene as rapidly as possible. Do we clear a
    path to the scene? Bring the trucks in from the other side? In
    either case, law enforcement must assist in getting them there. As
    we went through these issues at the conference, they made their way
    onto the board, but as we voted to retain some, the number of other
    interests represented, dictated the actual flavor of responses. At
    the end of the day, there was no mention of our industry and/or what
    our involvement might be to make it better.

-   Quick clearance; delay in highway use cost issues; interoperability
    both in policy and equipment for emergency responders.

-   Operations conversation, in my opinion, is still too focused right
    at the actual scene (i.e. within a few hundred yards), this is one
    of the classic language hurdles between the two communities, when
    discussing scene control, PS is thinking w/in 1/4 mile,
    Transportation is alerting and diverting 2 miles back (moving back
    from scene once devices in place to a rear guard position preventing
    secondaries and protecting other responders and continuing to move
    control points away from scene if it escalates

-   PSAP, telematics, CAD integration and interoperability with
    transportation systems

-   Use of existing standards for computers, communications, vehicles,
    etc.

-   One of the biggest unresolved issues is how to reduce rubber necking
    and the added congestion it causes.

-   Most of the discussion focused, appropriately, on short-term
    improvements. Longer-term issues, especially related to state and
    federal policy, funding, legislation, and related issues, received
    less attention. Those issues need to be addressed in other ways.

-   First, I wish to say that the breakout sessions were a good idea.
    One must realize that most Incidents are traffic accidents and quick
    clearances are hampered by the Tow Truck inaccessibility to the
    scenes. This item is the most important for expediting the scene
    clearance. The law enforcement must find a suitable way of getting
    the equipment into the scene quickly. If this means, escorting the
    tow trucks through the shoulder, center divider, or even from the
    wrong side of the roadway, this must happen for the incident to
    clear expeditiously. Also, when considering the players in this
    arena, please always include the Towing Industry as we are a major
    player. The reason why I have voiced this opinion, is that I found
    looking back on the outcome of our breakout groups, that the actual
    scene clearance was lost. This is a difficult transition to combine
    the Bureaucracy and Industry - But it must be done for the
    betterment of all.

-   To many people that were at the conference did not understand or
    participate in incident management. To mush time was spent on
    education. This was among the transportation people attending.
    Before we reach to public safety we need to educate Transportation.
    Education and training should have been the \# 1 concern.

### Action Items to Address Traffic Incident Management Issues

-   Federal requirements/mandates for jurisdictional coordination

-   The suggestions should have been attached for our review - with so
    many identified it\'s important to forward those with the highest
    priorities. I\'d like to see the issues and ideas in electronic
    format - can you please make them available - Also what criteria was
    used to prioritize them -- also, who\'s responsible for taking the
    idea forward, next steps, etc.

-   Up-to-date and predictive information

-   Set up a champion for incident management. This should be at the
    federal level. Then establish a funding mechanism to implement the
    initiatives. Make sure the projects are completed.

-   For the next conference: Solicit, support, invite, and admit groups,
    each consisting of at least one representative from each public
    safety profession (minimum law enforcement, fire & rescue, EMS), and
    no more than one transportation representative. Strive to limit the
    overall proportion of transportation professionals to all attendees
    to a small plurality, or even a minority.

-   Catalogue not only the on-scene activities but also those actions
    that are taken in support of, reaction to or because of an incident
    as addressed from a regional, multi-agency (and potentially
    multi-jurisdiction) perspective.- Determine what planning,
    coordination and training actions are needed to prepare for
    execution of these response activities.- Prepare a \"Best
    Practices\" document that will document the above and serve as a
    mental tickler for DOTs at all levels as they prepare to improve
    their IM capability.

-   Professional associations must be in agreement i.e. IACP etc

-   Policy direction for all agencies to understand and cooperate -- all
    the agencies involved in Incident Management.

-   In some cases, even with consensus, there were some consensus
    because those voting were more concerned with the field operational
    issue

-   Involve the towing industry in all discussions about
    traffic/incident management

-   Ensure PSAP (911 caller center); OnStar/ATX; emergency medical; and
    wireless communication industry participation in the future . . .
    participation was weak to non-existent from these communities.
    Overall, public safety participation should be much higher

-   A new standards organization is not needed except to find the
    pertinent standards developed and disseminate them, and possibly to
    identify missing standards and work with the existing SDOs.

-   One method to reduce rubber necking is better education and outreach
    to the public to make them more aware of the problem and their role
    in causing the added congestion. Perhaps use of CMS to alert drivers
    to maintain speed or drive at some posted speed would help.

-   Encourage continued discussion within AASHTO, FHWA, Office of the
    Secretary; support policy level work as part of F-SHRP; encourage
    more sessions at TRB; sponsor periodic conferences on incident
    management and make \"policy\" the focal point for a future meeting.

-   Please always include the Towing Industry in discussions, seminars,
    conferences, etc. on Traffic Incident Management.

-   Education and training should have been the \# 1 concern.

[^1]: In rural areas, work zones can also be a significant cause of
    congestion.