Traffic Incident Management (TIM)

Self Assessment

National Detail Summary Report

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Operations

October 2003

1.  Background and Methodology

Over the past decade, coordinated traffic incident management efforts
have gained momentum as more and more transportation agencies seek ways
to safely and efficiently handle congestion. Traffic incident
management, once considered a disjointed activity fraught with turf
battles and jurisdictional conflicts, has, in some places around the
country, become a showcase of collaborative efforts between the various
traffic incident management stakeholders. The stakeholders are many --
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other federal agencies,
operations and maintenance personnel from state and local Departments of
Transportation, police, fire and emergency services, the towing and
recovery industry, transportation planners at the local, regional and
state level, and the media -- and they all play a role in ensuring that
incidents are quickly detected, responded to, and cleared with minimum
disruption to traffic flow. All this is done while giving first priority
to the safety of the motoring public and the responders.

Even with all the success in traffic incident management, a way to
measure the effectiveness of these programs is still needed. One of the
three objectives of the FHWA's Vital Few Congestion Goals, over the next
five years, is to reduce incident delay by ensuring all States, District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Federal Land offices are engaged in
aggressively anticipating and mitigating congestion caused by incidents.
In order to measure progress toward achievement of that goal, and to
bring about recognized measures for evaluating traffic incident
management efforts, the Federal Highway Administration sponsored the
development of a Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Self- Assessment
tool.

The "TIM Self Assessment" is a tool used by state and regional program
managers to assess their achievement of a successful multi-agency
program to manage traffic incidents effectively and safely. The tool
also provides a method to assess gaps and needs in existing multi-agency
regional and statewide efforts to mitigate congestion caused by traffic
incidents.

The TIM Self Assessment consists of a series of questions designed to
allow those with traffic incident management responsibilities to rate
their performance in specific organizational and procedural categories.
Conducted as a group exercise, the TIM Self Assessment allows for
discussion among the group members with the resulting ratings being
consensus values. This process provides a medium for enhanced
communication between TIM stakeholders to identify specific areas or
activities by which the multi-agency management of traffic incidents can
be improved.

The ratings are then tallied to provide an overall TIM score for the
program. Areas for possible improvement can be identified via individual
question ratings. While the score provides a metric for measurement, the
most important information will be derived from the discussion of the
assessment among the participants. This discussion will provide local
agencies valuable information to form or improve a multi-agency program
for traffic incident management.

The results of the TIM Self Assessments, as detailed in this report,
will be used by FHWA to determine gaps nationally that need attention
and to direct future years' FHWA program initiatives for traffic
incident management.

1.  **Assessment Process and Structure\
    **

The TIM Self Assessment consists of 34 questions in three program areas:

1.  Program and Institutional Issues

2.  Operational Issues

3.  Communication and Technology Issues

Accompanying the questions is a TIM Self Assessment Guide that details
the assessment process and the questions. Participants are asked to
follow a suggested process for the conduct of the assessment:

1)  Assemble a team of traffic incident management stakeholders.

2)  Include representatives of all agencies participating in TIM for the
    corridor, region or state.

3)  Involve at least one key leader or TIM program manager.

4)  Provide participants with the Guide and score sheet in advance so
    that each can complete the assessment based on their individual
    understanding of the level of success in each area.

5)  Ask the participants to return their completed score sheets in
    advance of the exercise so average scores could be tallied.

6)  Have a designated facilitator for the conduct of the assessment.

7)  Review each question and its average score to obtain consensus on
    the score for each question.

8)  Record the discussion and note any strong dissent to the majority
    opinion on any particular question.

The Guide also explains the scoring process for the assessment.
Participants are asked to score their assessment according to the
following:

*Score each question from 0 to 4, based on your program's level of
progress in each area as detailed below.*

**Table 1**

**Scoring Scheme**

+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **      | **Description**                                            |
| Score** |                                                            |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **0**   | No progress in this area.                                  |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Has never been discussed.                              |
|         |                                                            |
|         | ```{=html}                                                 |
|         | <!-- -->                                                   |
|         | ```                                                        |
|         | -   Has been discussed informally but no action has been   |
|         |     taken                                                  |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1**   | Very little being done in this area.                       |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Minimal activity, primarily in one agency              |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Issue has been acknowledged and is being investigated  |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2**   | Efforts in this area are moderate. Some good processes     |
|         | exist, but they may not be well integrated/coordinate --   |
|         | results are mixed.                                         |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Has been put into practice on a limited or             |
|         |     experimental basis.                                    |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Some multi-agency agreement cooperation                |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **3**   | Efforts in this area are strong and results are promising. |
|         | However, there is still room for improvement.              |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Has become a generally accepted practice but           |
|         |     refinements or changes are being discussed or pursued  |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Good multi-agency cooperation but not yet integrated   |
|         |     in operations of all agencies as "standard procedure"  |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+
| **4**   | Efforts in this area are outstanding. There is good        |
|         | integration/coordination with good to excellent results.   |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Excellent coordination and cooperation among agencies  |
|         |                                                            |
|         | -   Policies and procedures are well integrated in         |
|         |     operations of all agencies as "standard procedure"     |
+---------+------------------------------------------------------------+

In addition to scoring the assessment, participants are asked to record
the discussion and resulting scores as further detail for their
particular assessment.

2.  **2003 TIM Self Assessment Results**

In its inaugural phase, FHWA planned for TIM Self Assessments to be
conducted in the top 75 metropolitan areas. Assessments were conducted
from December 2002 through September 2003, with a total of 70
Assessments completed. A number of participants submitted their detailed
notes to FHWA in addition to their completed scoring templates. Their
comments are detailed below with each question.

Overall, the highest scores (indicating the greatest amount of/most
successful TIM activity) were found in the Operational Issues.
Operational Issues represent 40% of the score on the assessment and the
mean of 22.9% was much higher than the 11.0% and 12.5% for Program and
Institutional Issues and Communication and Technology Issues,
respectively. Each of these areas represented 30% of the score. The
overall mean score was 46.5% out of a possible 100%.

**Table 2**

**Mean Score for Each Section**

  ----------------------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------
  **Section**                         **Number of   **Mean      **Highest
                                      Questions**   Score**     Possible
                                                                Score**

  Program and Institutional Issues    12            11.0%       30%

  Operational Issues                  14            22.9%       40%

  Communication and Technology Issues 8             12.5%       30%

  **Overall Total**                   **34**        **46.5%**   **100%**
  ----------------------------------- ------------- ----------- ------------

What follows is a breakdown of each assessment question and a summary of
the comments received. Each question is designed to ask "Does your TIM
program have:..?"

3.  TIM Assessment -- Top 75 Urban Areas

The focus of the Traffic Incident Management Self Assessment is the top
75 urban areas of the United States. The areas defined by the Bureau of
the Census are Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas, many of
which are multi-state areas containing more than one major city. The
FHWA Division Offices, in cooperation with State and local partners,
determined how to identify logical operational boundaries for assessment
purposes. A total of 82 assessments were identified to cover the 75
largest urban areas.

4.  Details of Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement

This section summarizes the results of the Traffic Incident Management
Self Assessment from a national perspective. Each section and question
is presented along with observations regarding program strengths and
areas needing improvement.

Figure 1

Mean Scores for All Questions

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

Program and Institutional Issues: 4.1.1.1. through 4.1.3.4.

Operational Issues: 4.2.1.1. through 4.2.3.6.

Communication and Technology Issues: 4.3.1.1. through 4.3.3.3.

4.1 Program and Institutional Issues

Mean Score: 11.0% (of 30%)

Program and Institutional Issues are those that address how a program is
organized, its objectives and priorities, agency roles and
relationships, resource allocation and performance measurement.
Questions are divided into three sections: 1) Formal Traffic Incident
Management Programs; 2) TIM Administrative Teams; 3) Performance
Measurement.

Table 3 summarizes the responses for each question in Program and
Institutional Issues, providing the mean score and the percentage of
assessments scoring 3 or higher. Assessments scoring 3 or higher on any
particular question demonstrate real success in that particular area as
at a minimum the respondents feel that efforts are strong and results
promising in the area in question.

Table 3

Program and Institutional Issues

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------
  Question   Question                              Mean      \% of
  Number                                           Score     Assessments
                                                             Scoring 3 or
                                                             Higher

  4.1.1.1.   Have multi-agency, multi-year         1.41      13%
             strategic plans detailing specific              
             programmatic activities to be                   
             accomplished with appropriate budget            
             and personnel needs identified?                 

  4.1.1.2.   Have formal inter-agency agreements   1.75      20%
             on operational and administrative               
             procedures and policies?                        

  4.1.1.3.   Have field-level input into the plans 1.86      34%
             ensuring that the plans will be                 
             workable by those responsible for               
             their implementation?                           

  4.1.2.1.   Have formalized TIM multi-agency      1.92      31%
             administrative teams to meet and                
             discuss administrative policy issues?           

  4.1.2.2.   Hold regular meetings of the TIM      1.91      36%
             administrative team?                            

  4.1.2.3.   Conduct training through simulation   1.30      9%
             or "in-field" exercises?                        

  4.1.2.4.   Conduct post-incident debriefings?    1.55      16%

  4.1.2.5.   Conduct planning for special events?  2.52      36%
  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------
  4.1.3.1.   Have multi-agency agreements on what  0.70      3%
             measures will be tracked and used to            
             measure program performance?                    

  4.1.3.2.   Have agreed upon methods to collect   0.71      3%
             and analyze/track performance                   
             measures?                                       

  4.1.3.3.   Have established targets for          1.25      4%
             performance?                                    

  4.1.3.4.   Conduct periodic review of whether or 0.78      1%
             not progress is being made to achieve           
             targets?                                        
  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------

**[4.1.1 Formal Traffic Incident Management Programs]{.underline}**

In order to be successful over the long term, traffic incident
management efforts will need to be supported through strategic plans
with agreed upon program goals and objectives. The strategic plans
should contain multi-year program plans describing specific programmatic
activities and projects and resource requirements, with funding sources
identified.

To solidify relationships and establish program policies among disparate
agencies, formal inter-agency agreements on operational and
administrative policies and procedures are important. These agreements
foster closer inter-agency relationships than do informal or ad hoc
program relationships. Traffic Incident Management programs usually are
started at mid-management levels of transportation and public safety
agencies. The most successful programs resulted where mid-level
managers, who manage field-level personnel, have been successful in
communicating program needs identified by field personnel to upper-level
managers who are responsible for budgeting to obtain needed resources.

Strengths

-   Formal traffic incident management programs are virtually
    non-existent but interest has increased in establishing more formal
    inter-agency relationships in recent years.

-   The emphasis on coordinated TIM over the past ten years has resulted
    in more agencies developing joint policies, procedures and memoranda
    of understanding. Most often cited are agreements between state
    police and state departments of transportation; tow agreements;
    quick clearance policies; and procedures for hazardous materials
    clean-up.

-   For those participants scoring higher for having a strategic plan
    and/or formal agreements on policies and procedures, it appears that
    the majority were developed with field-level input. This may be the
    result of many of the earliest and most successful coordinated TIM
    efforts coming out of the efforts of field personnel. In fact, in
    the early 1990s, the National Incident Management Coalition
    conferences were designed to showcase for top-level decision makers
    all that was being done by field-level TIM personnel, with the
    ultimate goal of gaining top-level support for TIM initiatives.

Figure 2

Formal Traffic Incident Management Programs

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

Opportunities for Improvement

-   Very few of the Assessment participants are at the stage of creating
    formal programs yet.

-   Where participants scored higher on the question of multi-agency,
    multi-year strategic plans, it is often based on the various
    participating agencies having their own TIM plans in place but
    lacking connectivity between the plans, or a certain level of
    discussion between the various agencies about a strategic plan, but
    lacking any formalizing of such a plan.

-   For those with plans in place, funding issues remain a difficult
    obstacle to overcome. One participant referenced a budget submittal
    for TIM activities that only received 1/8^th^ of 1% of its requested
    funds.

-   While these may be in place and working at the state level,
    participants note that more often than not the agreements are not
    developed with, nor do they filter down to the local level. Local
    agencies are often not aware that such agreements exist, even though
    they may be impacted by them. Furthermore, communication is such
    that not everyone involved at the state level is aware of the
    agreements, often resulting from personnel changes.

**[4.1.2 TIM Administrative Teams]{.underline}**

A formalized multi-agency TIM Administrative Team should be the
mechanism for accomplishing the established goals and objectives of the
program and ensuring its continuity beyond administration and personnel
changes. The teams should represent all of the TIM program partners.
Successful teams meet regularly and are often facilitated by an agency
perceived as "neutral". Meetings have an agenda and agency
representatives participate in identifying agenda items.

TIM administrative teams can plan for and sponsor multi-agency
"cross-training" through field exercises or simulation. The often
conduct multi-agency debriefings following major incidents where
participants and discuss success and identify areas for improvement.

TIM administrative teams can also plan for major and construction and
maintenance projects that have a major effect on traffic and response to
traffic and other public safety incidents. They are catalysts for
multi-agency planning for special events such as sporting events,
concerts, fairs, parades and conventions. They are also excellent forums
for planning response to natural and man-made catastrophic events.

## Strengths

-   Quarterly meetings were the most common meeting frequency for TIM
    administrative teams.

-   Assessment participants gave planning for special events some of the
    highest scores on the Assessment. In particular, planned special
    events such as sporting events, concerts and conventions generate
    the greatest amount of pre-planning as so many of the traffic
    variables can be accounted for -- date, time, location, approximate
    traffic volumes.

-   Planning for catastrophic events, once limited to hurricane and
    earthquakes, now includes areas working on traffic plans in the
    event of terrorist activity.

**Figure 3**

**Traffic Incident Management Administrative Teams**

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

Opportunities for Improvement

-   Where TIM administrative teams do exist, participants note that they
    are not as inclusive of the appropriate stakeholder groups as
    possible. This is either the result of not knowing who the right
    people are to invite or extending invitations to certain groups who
    choose not to participate.

-   There was mention of teams that had met previously, but which had
    since been disbanded. In some cases, this was the result of teams
    being formed to deal with a specific special event and thus the team
    disbanded once the event passed.

-   It was noted by some participants that there needs to be better
    follow-through on items coming out of meetings. This lack of
    follow-through may be one reason teams eventually disband or groups
    choose not to participate. Some participants indicate that they have
    contracted with a consultant to facilitate the TIM Administrative
    team meetings in an attempt to improve follow-through.

-   There is not much training through simulation or "in-field"
    exercises being done. Where it is referenced, it is generally being
    done by public safety agencies and does not include transportation.
    However, the training referenced is primarily for hazardous
    materials response, not general traffic incident management.

-   Where post-incident debriefings are held, participants note that
    most are done internal to individual agencies and not across all
    involved agencies. Public safety agencies are mentioned as those
    most likely to hold regular post-incident debriefings.

-   A number of participants indicate lacking a threshold to determine
    what level of incident would necessitate a debriefing. Other
    suggestions for improving debriefings are:

    -   Hold the debriefing as soon as possible following the incident.

    -   Include towing and recovery for improved clean-up and recovery
        times.

    -   Include the traffic reporting media to find out what happened
        from their perspective.

    -   Hold debriefings after successfully handled incidents as well to
        learn what worked.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It was noted on several of the assessments that while planning for
    construction and maintenance is done well by transportation
    agencies, there is a lack of information provided to local fire and
    police concerning these events.

**[4.1.3. Performance Measurement]{.underline}**

Many public safety and transportation agencies measure their performance
toward achieving their own performance objectives. Traffic Incident
Management programs are not owned by any agency and thus measuring the
performance of one agency's achievement of traffic incident management
objectives doesn't provide a complete picture of how well a multi-agency
program is performing. Furthermore, the data needed to measure program
performance is housed in several agencies and no one agency's data is
sufficient to adequately assess program performance.

The questions related to performance measurement in the TIM Self
Assessment were intended to but answered from a multi-agency program
perspective and not from the perspective of individual agencies.

**Strengths**

-   Those areas that do report tracking multi-agency measures do so as
    part of agreements between towers and police for contractual tow
    agreement response time.

-   The areas that do collect performance data typically do so in
    conjunction with their service or courtesy patrol operation.

-   Several participants did indicate that performance measure data is
    being collected and analyzed by local universities.

**Figure 4**

**Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement**

![](media/image4.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

### Opportunities for Improvement

-   Very few participants report tracking any multi-agency performance
    measures. Where performance measures are being tracked, it is being
    done on an individual agency basis with the measures selected and
    utilized by that agency alone.

-   With very few participants reporting any multi-agency performance
    measure tracking, there likewise is very little agreement on methods
    to collect and track multi-agency performance measures

-   Participants indicate that while individual agencies have
    performance targets, they are not set across agencies. Others
    recommended against setting performance targets due to the
    variability of incidents.

-   Those who report conducting periodic reviews of whether or not
    targets are being achieved report doing so on an individual agency
    basis only.

**4.2 Operational Issues**

Mean Score: 22.9% (of 40%)

Operational issues address the policies, procedures, and processes used
in the field while responding to an incident. Designed to maximize
safety and reduce response and clearance times, Operational Issues are
the nuts and bolts of a TIM program. Questions are divided into three
sections: 1) Procedures for Major Incidents; 2) Responder and Motorist
Safety; 3) Response and Clearance Policies and Procedures.

Table 4 summarizes the responses for each question in Operational
Issues, providing the mean score and the percentage of assessments
scoring 3 or higher.

Table 4

Operational Issues

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------
  Question   Question                              Mean      \% of
  Number                                           Score     Assessments
                                                             Scoring 3 or
                                                             Higher

  4.2.1.1.   Have established criteria for what is 1.62      17%
             a "major incident" -- incident levels           
             or codes?                                       

  4.2.1.2.   Identify high ranking agency members  2.95      77%
             available on 24/7 basis to respond to           
             a major incident?                               

  4.2.1.3.   Have a pre-identified (approved)      2.85      66%
             contact list of resources (including            
             special equipment) for incident                 
             clearance and hazardous materials               
             response?                                       

  4.2.1.4.   Have the response equipment           2.25      44%
             pre-staged for timely response?                 

  4.2.2.1.   Train all responders in traffic       2.02      30%
             control procedures?                             

  4.2.2.2.   Utilize on-scene traffic control      1.94      29%
             procedures for various levels of                
             incidents in compliance with MUTCD?             

  4.2.2.3.   Utilize traffic control procedures    1.44      14%
             for the end of the incident traffic             
             queue?                                          

  4.2.2.4.   Have mutually understood equipment    1.42      16%
             staging and emergency lighting                  
             procedures on-site to maximize                  
             traffic flow past an incident while             
             providing responder safety?                     
  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------
  4.2.3.1.   Utilize the Incident Command System?  2.51      54%

  4.2.3.2.   Have specific policies and procedures 2.48      51%
             for fatal accident investigation?               

  4.2.3.3.   Have specific policies and procedures 2.92      69%
             for hazardous materials response?               

  4.2.3.4.   Have quick clearance policies?        2.00      36%

  4.2.3.5.   Have a pre-qualified list of          2.91      74%
             available and contracted towing and             
             recovery operators (to include                  
             operators\' capabilities)?                      

  4.2.3.6.   Use motorist assist service patrols?  2.79      70%
  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------

**[4.2.1. Procedures for Major Incidents]{.underline}**

Major incidents can disrupt the mobility of a transportation corridor or
even a large portion of an urban area as well as impacting public safety
operations. Major incidents attract media attention and often the
public's perception about how well the incident was handled is often
negative.

Many agencies and private sector partners typically respond to major
incidents. If these partner entities have not cooperatively addressed
policy and procedure issues and coordinated their operations, major
incidents can test their ability to work effectively together. Many
traffic incident management programs have been born out of a mutual
desire of multiple partners to remedy ineffective response to a major
incident.

Strengths

-   Several programs have developed 3 or 4 level incident magnitude
    descriptions to help identify the relative size of the "problem" to
    a number of responding agencies.

-   The majority of participants indicate that the appropriate agencies
    each have someone high-ranking available on a 24/7 basis.

-   Most participants report having contact lists available for response
    and clearance, primarily towing and recovery operations. Such lists
    usually reside with only one or two agencies, typically police
    and/or DOT, and seem to be updated fairly regularly.

-   Participants who scored their programs higher for pre-staging of
    equipment seem to be responding to one of two possibilities for
    pre-staging. The first are those who pre-stage equipment for timely
    response by placing response vehicles at strategic spots (bridges,
    tunnels or on busy corridors) during peak times or have traffic
    control equipment (signs, cones, flares, arrow boards, portable
    dynamic message signs) available on service patrol or other response
    vehicles. Others scored this question higher if the necessary
    equipment was kept at a DOT maintenance facility or similar location
    that is centrally located or easy to access in the event of an
    incident.

Figure 5

Procedures for Major Incidents

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

Opportunities for Improvement

-   Very few participants report having established criteria for major
    incidents that are understood and utilized across agencies. Many,
    however, report that within individual agencies there exist such
    criteria -- primarily residing with the police and/or fire
    departments. Others responded that, while they did not have
    established criteria, there was the sense that "you'll know it when
    you see it," negating the need for any formal criteria.

-   There was mention by several of the participants that where this
    process breaks down is in communicating the correct equipment needed
    for the incident, resulting in times where inappropriate equipment
    is brought to the scene, delaying the response and clean-up.

**[4.2.2. Responder and Motorist Safety]{.underline}**

Concern for responder safety has lead responding agencies, primarily
from public safety to block extra travel lanes to protect their
responders. Attention is now shifting to providing positive traffic
control to guide motorists more safely through confusion incident scenes
while more effectively protecting on-scene responders.

**Figure 6**

**Responder and Motorist Safety**

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

## 

## Strengths

-   DOT participants generally report utilizing MUTCD-compliant traffic
    control procedures. Among other Assessment participants -- fire,
    police, towing and recovery -- there was less familiarity with the
    MUTCD.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Where VMS/CMS/HAR are available, participants felt they were being
    used effectively to control the end of the queue.

-   Traffic reporting media often do a good job in helping to control
    the end of the queue, utilizing helicopters to keep an eye on the
    queue and reporting on its progress.

-   The age-old conflict of fire/police versus DOT on the staging of
    response vehicles and use of emergency lights seems to be getting
    resolved in more and more locations. Much of this can be credited to
    the work of TIM teams bringing public safety and transportation
    together to mutually decide what makes sense at the incident scene
    for responder safety and maximizing traffic flow.

-   Much progress is being made on equipment staging procedures as well
    as proper use of emergency lighting.

## Opportunities for Improvement

-   Participants indicate that training in traffic control seems to be
    on an agency-by-agency basis, specific to each agency's role at the
    scene. For instance, fire and police train on public safety issues,
    while DOTs focus more on traffic control.

-   Traffic control training tends to stop at the state level, with very
    little training for anyone at the local level.

-   Personnel turnover affects responder training. With limited
    resources, it is difficult to continually train consistent with the
    rate of turnover.

-   There was also concern expressed about "future rigid MUTCD
    requirements for first responders."

-   Where access to traffic control devices was an issue, traffic
    control at the end of the queue was likewise.

**[4.2.3. Response and Clearance Policies and Procedures]{.underline}**

Quick safe and effective incident clearance is the most cost-effective
traffic incident management strategy. Quick clearance involves having
effective strategies for efficiently handling fatal crashes, hazardous
materials incidents, incidents involving large vehicles such as
tractor-trailers and their cargoes and smaller incidents involving
crashes and injuries -- all under effective and well-understood incident
command systems.

## Strengths

-   A number of participants indicate that the Incident Command System
    (ICS) is used consistently, while others report that it is used only
    for major incidents. The importance of ICS is underscored by those
    participants that report the mandatory use of ICS in their state.

-   Specific policies and procedures do exist and reside primarily with
    public safety.

-   Progress is being made in the requirements for coroner/medical
    examiner on-scene before the body can be moved, with greater
    flexibility allowing traffic flow to be restored quicker, while
    still respecting the rights of the deceased and their families.

-   The majority of participants report hazardous materials policies and
    procedures are well-established and well-followed.

-   The responses vary on quick clearance policies. Some report great
    success with established (either adopted or legislated) quick
    clearance or move it policies which aid in clearance and recovery.

-   A majority of participants report having lists of pre-qualified tow
    and recovery operators and indicate general success with their use.

-   Motorist assist service patrols are increasing as evidenced by the
    number of areas reporting their use on the freeways.

**Figure 7**

**Response and Clearance Policies and Procedures**

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

## 

## Opportunities for Improvement

-   Some areas report little to no quick clearance activity due to
    liability concerns or lack of understanding of the issue on the part
    of responders.

-   In those areas where motorists are required to move vehicles off the
    roadway, participants report a lack of understanding on the part of
    the motorists, resulting in unnecessary incident queues behind cars
    that could be safely moved.

-   Some areas still report difficulty in towing and recovery operators
    showing up with the wrong equipment for the incident, but this
    problem, once common, appears to be lessening.

-   The only real issue associated with service patrols is one of
    resources and the need to operate more units for longer periods of
    time (many mention the possibility of having service patrols operate
    24/7).

4.3 Communication and Technology Issues

Mean Score: 12.5% (of 30%)

Careful planning for incident response and expedited on-scene procedures
will not achieve the desired results if communication between agencies,
responders and the motoring public is not present. Communication, and
the technology to facilitate it, is a critical part of any Traffic
Incident Management program. Questions are divided into three
sections: 1) Integrated Interagency Communications; 2) Transportation
Management Systems; 3) Traveler Information.

Table 5 summarizes the responses for each question in Communication and
Issues, providing the mean score and the percentage of assessments
scoring 3 or higher.

Table 5

Communication & Technology Issues

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------
  Question   Question                              Mean      \% of
  Number                                           Score     Assessments
                                                             Scoring 3 or
                                                             Higher

  4.3.1.1.   Have a two-way interagency voice      1.68      19%
             communications system allowing for              
             direct on-site communications between           
             incident responders?                            

  4.3.1.2.   Provide data and video information    1.48      11%
             transfer between agencies and                   
             applications (TMC-CAD integration)?             

  4.3.2.1.   Use Traffic Management Center(s) to   2.04      43%
             coordinate incident notification and            
             response?                                       

  4.3.2.2.   Have a developed technical            1.95      30%
             infrastructure for surveillance and             
             rapid detection of traffic incidents?           

  4.3.2.3.   Have specific policies and procedures 1.62      21%
             for traffic management during                   
             incident response (i.e. signal timing           
             changes, opening/closing of HOV                 
             lanes/ramp metering)?                           

  4.3.3.1.   Have the ability to merge/integrate   1.67      23%
             and interpret information from                  
             multiple sources?                               

  4.3.3.2.   Have a real-time motorist information 1.88      24%
             system providing incident-specific              
             information?                                    
  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------
  4.3.3.3.   Provide motorists with travel time    1.04      13%
             estimates for route segments?                   

  ---------- ------------------------------------- --------- --------------

**[4.3.1. Integrated Interagency Communications]{.underline}**

Effective response is supported and facilitated by a two-way flow of
information that is center-to-center, center-to-field, and
field-to-field. It is essential that responding partners effectively
communicate clear unambiguous information about an incident with each
other.

**Figure 8**

**Integrated Inter-agency Communications**

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

**Strengths**

-   Historically an issue for incident responders, it appears that
    on-site communications between incident responders is improving
    through the increased use of 800 mhz radios and cellular telephone
    systems.

-   Several participants report the sharing of video with the media.

**Opportunities for Improvement**

-   A number of areas still report on-site communication difficulties,
    resulting in agencies having to communicate through their respective
    dispatch centers.

-   There is very little in the way of data and video information
    transfer between agencies and applications. Where it is done it is
    typically between the DOT (TMC) and state police.

**[4.3.2. Transportation Management Systems]{.underline}**

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) provide important support for
incident responders and provide the means of managing traffic flow in a
corridor affected by an incident.

## Strengths

-   Several participants scored their assessments high on the use of
    TMCs for incident communication based on good communication between
    agencies rather than on actual use of a TMC for incident
    notification and response.

-   Cameras and loop detectors are the devices mentioned most by those
    indicating that they do have some technical infrastructure.

-   Participants mention the opening/closing of HOV lanes and signal
    timing changes as the most commonly utilized traffic management
    procedures supported by ITS.

## Opportunities for improvement

-   Where TMCs exist, it appears they are being used for incident
    notification and response, although participants note that their
    utilization for this purpose could be improved.

-   Most participants feel that, as resources allow, improvements must
    be made in the development of technical infrastructure for
    surveillance and rapid detection.

-   Participants note that motorists' cell phones are still the most
    effective medium for detection and notification of incidents.

**Figure 9**

**Transportation Management Systems**

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

**[4.3.3. Traveler Information]{.underline}**

An important area of communication is with the motorist, either before
the trip is begun or while enroute. The most common source of traveler
information is commercial radio. ITS systems can provide information
directly through highway advisory radio and dynamic message signs, or
indirectly by providing information to a private third party that can
pass on personalized information by a number of communications media
such as web sites, pagers or PDAs.

# **Strengths**

-   Collection of data, primarily a function of the TMCs, is done with
    more regularity than any integration of data from multiple sources.
    Several participants reference the media as the likely source for
    merging data from multiple sources.

-   Most participants acknowledge the media as the provider of real-time
    motorist information. Also mentioned are VMS/CMS/HAR and some state
    DOT websites as providing incident-specific information.

-   In the few places where motorists are provided travel time estimates
    for route segments, it is either provided via a website, VMS/CMS or
    by the media.

## Opportunities for Improvement

-   Most areas rely on news media as the primary provider of traveler
    information. This coverage primarily focuses on the "news"
    information of a crash often without providing travelers with enough
    specificity to allow them to make good route choice or time or mode
    of travel decisions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Very few areas provide estimates of travel time information to
    motorists.

**Figure 10**

**Traveler Information**

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.824305555555555in"
height="4.660416666666666in"}

**5. Conclusions**

As shown in Table 6, the top ten highest scoring questions all received
a mean score greater than 2, with scores ranging from 2.02 to 2.95. Nine
of the top ten high scoring questions were in Operational Issues, with
the top five dealing specifically with incident response procedures,
either procedures for major incidents or response and clearance policies
and procedures.

**Table 6**

**Top 10 Scoring Questions**

  ------------ --------------- ------------------------- --------- --------------
  **Question   **Section**     **Question**              **Mean    **% of
  Number**                                               Score**   Assessments
                                                                   Scoring 3 or
                                                                   Higher**

  4.2.1.2.     Operational     Identify high ranking     2.95      77%
               Issues          agency members available            
                               on 24/7 basis to respond            
                               to a major incident?                

  4.2.3.3.     Operational     Have specific policies    2.92      69%
               Issues          and procedures for                  
                               hazardous materials                 
                               response?                           

  4.2.3.5.     Operational     Have a pre-qualified list 2.91      74%
               Issues          of available and                    
                               contracted towing and               
                               recovery operators (to              
                               include operators\'                 
                               capabilities)?                      

  4.2.1.3.     Operational     Have a pre-identified     2.85      66%
               Issues          (approved) contact list             
                               of resources (including             
                               special equipment) for              
                               incident clearance and              
                               hazardous materials                 
                               response?                           

  4.2.3.6.     Operational     Use motorist assist       2.79      70%
               Issues          service patrols?                    

  4.1.2.5.     Program and     Conduct planning for      2.52      36%
               Institutional   "special events"                    
               Issues                                              

  4.2.3.1.     Operational     Utilize the Incident      2.51      54%
               Issues          Command System?                     

  4.2.3.2.     Operational     Have specific policies    2.48      51%
               Issues          and procedures for fatal            
                               accident investigation?             
  ------------ --------------- ------------------------- --------- --------------

  ---------- ------------- ------------------------- ------- --------------
  4.2.1.4.   Operational   Have the response         2.25    44%
             Issues        equipment pre-staged for          
                           timely response?                  

  4.2.2.1.   Operational   Train all responders in   2.02    30%
             Issues        traffic control                   
                           procedures?                       
  ---------- ------------- ------------------------- ------- --------------

Of the ten lowest scoring questions, all had a mean score less than 2,
ranging from .70 to 1.48. Six of the lowest scoring questions were in
Program and Institutional Issues with the remaining four divided two
each in Operational Issues and Communication and Technology Issues.

Three of the four questions concerning performance measures were the
three lowest scoring questions on the assessments, each with a mean
score less than 1 and no more than 3% of the assessments scoring any of
the three questions 3 or higher. This may point to the continuing
difficulty in quantifying the benefits of TIM initiatives absent any
specific metrics by which to track progress.

**Table 7**

Bottom 10 Scoring Questions

  ------------ --------------- ------------------------- --------- --------------
  **Question   **Section**     **Question**              **Mean    **% of
  Number**                                               Score**   Assessments
                                                                   Scoring 3 or
                                                                   Higher**

  4.1.3.1.     Program and     Have multi-agency         .70       3%
               Institutional   agreements on what                  
               Issues          measures will be tracked            
                               and used to measure                 
                               program performance?                

  4.1.3.2.     Program and     Have agreed upon methods  .71       3%
               Institutional   to collect and                      
               Issues          analyze/track performance           
                               measures?                           

  4.1.3.4.     Program and     Conduct periodic review   .78       1%
               Institutional   of whether or not                   
               Issues          progress is being made to           
                               achieve targets?                    

  4.3.3.3.     Communication   Provide motorists with    1.04      13%
               and Technology  travel time estimates for           
               Issues          route segments?                     

  4.1.3.3.     Program and     Have established targets  1.25      4%
               Institutional   for performance?                    
               Issues                                              

  4.1.2.3.     Program and     Conduct training through  1.30      9%
               Institutional   simulation or "in-field"            
               Issues          exercises?                          

  4.1.1.1.     Program and     Have multi-agency,        1.41      13%
               Institutional   multi-year strategic                
               Issues          plans detailing specific            
                               programmatic activities             
                               to be accomplished with             
                               appropriate budget and              
                               personnel needs                     
                               identified?                         

  4.2.2.4.     Operational     Have mutually understood  1.42      16%
               Issues          equipment staging and               
                               emergency lighting                  
                               procedures on-site to               
                               maximize traffic flow               
                               past an incident while              
                               providing responder                 
                               safety?                             

  4.2.2.3.     Operational     Utilize traffic control   1.44      14%
               Issues          procedures for the end of           
                               the incident traffic                
                               queue?                              

  4.3.1.2.     Communication   Provide data and video    1.48      11%
               and Technology  information transfer                
               Issues          between agencies and                
                               applications (TMC-CAD               
                               integration)?                       
  ------------ --------------- ------------------------- --------- --------------

It comes as no surprise that Operational Issues received the highest
scores as part of the TIM Self Assessment. Even absent any coordinated
Traffic Incident Management activities, Operational Issues would, to
some extent, have to be addressed as part of any incident response.
Furthermore, addressing Operational Issues does not involve overcoming
institutional barriers or resource constraints to the degree that
Program and Institutional Issues and Communication and Technology Issues
do, respectively.

The fact that Communication and Technology Issues scored somewhat higher
(12.5% versus 11.0%) than Program and Institutional Issues might
indicate that agencies continue to invest in technology solutions for
traffic incident management without having fully resolved the
institutional barriers that would maximize the use of those
technologies. This might be the result of the relative ease in investing
in technology versus addressing the underlying institutional issues.

There continues to be a noticeable range of effectiveness among Traffic
Incident Management programs in the top 75 metropolitan areas. Given
that the problems faced by these top areas are similar (e.g. congestion,
capacity constraints, incident mitigation, recovery times), the variance
of results may point to a lack of effort in coordinated TIM initiatives,
or more possibly, a lack of high-level support for such activities.
Clearly, no amount of commitment among field-level practitioners can
achieve maximum effectiveness without adequate support and resources
from the highest levels.

The purpose of the Traffic Incident Management Self Assessment was to
identify those areas where success has been achieved as well as those
where more attention needs to be directed. The assessment will help
State and local TIM practitioners identify specific program initiatives
to improve those areas identified by low scores and build on the success
already achieved in other program areas.

From the baseline established in this round of TIM Self Assessments, it
is recommended that, after some refinement, a similar TIM Self
Assessment exercise be undertaken biennially to measure improvement.
This will not only provide a metric for improvement, but will result in
the continued exchange of best practices among practitioners, and
ultimately the continued improvement of all TIM programs.