Intelligent Transportation Systems

Field Operational Test

Cross-Cutting Study

Emergency Notification

And Response

September 1998

Prepared for: By:

U.S. Department of Transportation Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Federal Highway Administration Highway & Vehicle Technology Group

Washington, D.C. McLean, Virginia
Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship

of the Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

FHWA-JPO-99-033

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS FIELD OPERATIONAL TEST September 1998

CROSS-CUTTING STUDY EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION AND RESPONSE 6. Performing Organization Code

Booz•Allen & Hamilton Inc.

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

Samuel Boyd

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Booz•Allen & Hamilton Inc.

8201 Greensboro Drive 11. Contract or Grant No.

Suite 609

McLean, Virginia 22102 DTFH61-94-C-00207

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Cross-Cutting Study

U.S. Department of Transportation November 1997 – September 1998

Federal Highways Administration

Intelligent Transportation Systems 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Joint Program Office

400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3422 HVH-1

Washington, DC 20590

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) - Joe Peters, Room 3416

16. Abstract

Emergency Notification and Response report summarizes and interprets the results of two Field Operational

Tests (FOTs) that included emergency notification and response system components. The tests included in this

report are: Colorado Mayday and Puget Sound Help Me. These tests supplied technical lessons about the

function of the emergency systems. The test evaluations solicited user responses regarding acceptance and

ease of use of the systems through a series of focus groups. These tests encountered few institutional

challenges. The report findings are organized in the categories of impact, user response, technical lessons

learned, institutional challenges and resolutions, and cost to implement. This report highlights the successes

and problems these tests encountered while attempting to develop the technologies appropriate to establishing

and implementing emergency notification and response systems.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Emergency Notification and Response, FOTs, Field No restrictions. This document is available to the

Operational Tests, ITS Lessons Learned, Cross-Cutting, public through the National Technical Information

ITS Impacts Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 15

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1

REPORT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................2

FIELD OPERATIONAL TESTS CONSIDERED IN THIS ANALYSIS ..............................................3

Colorado Mayday ........................................................................................................3

Puget Sound Help Me ...............................................................................................3

Information Sources ...................................................................................................4

FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................................4

IMPACTS ..................................................................................................................................5

TECHNICAL LESSONS LEARNED .............................................................................................5

Positioning Accuracy ..................................................................................................5

Cellular And Global Positioning System Performance Under Various

Topographic Conditions .............................................................................................6

Tracking Vehicles In Motion ....................................................................................6

Dropped Calls ..............................................................................................................6

Customer Service Center Vehicle Location ............................................................6

USER RESPONSE ......................................................................................................................7

INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND RESOLUTIONS .................................................................8

COST TO IMPLEMENT ...............................................................................................................9

SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................9

BIBLIOGRAPHY .........................................................................................................................10
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Emergency notification and response systems

and associated services aid a specific individual

or motorist to request help from, and provide

information to, authorities about a distress

situation. The existing 911 emergency phone

system is often overloaded by multiple calls

about the same emergency and by nonemergency calls. Emergency notification and

response systems are intended to provide

appropriate assistance to distressed vehicles in

a more timely manner by providing accurate

information to emergency response operators.

This report summarizes and interprets the

results of two Field Operational Tests (FOTs)

that included emergency notification and

response system components.

These tests supplied several technical lessons

about the function of the emergency systems.

The computer system and mapping database

used by emergency call-takers must display and

update the map quickly and display a wide

range of geographic and political attributes in

the area surrounding the location of the

incident. The systems attained good

positional accuracy (within 100 meters in 44%

of the trials). Cellular communication

coverage was strong and reliable in densely

populated counties but unreliable in areas of

marginal or poor cellular coverage. The tested

Global Positioning Systems (GPS) experienced

difficulties in accurately locating vehicles

when they were in enclosed spaces or "urban

canyons," but were accurate when vehicles

were in forested or open terrain. Operators at

the call taking service center were able t o

locate the calling vehicle accurately (within

half a city block) in 82% of the trials.

The test evaluations solicited user responses

regarding acceptance and ease of use of the

systems through a series of focus groups. One

focus group determined that a purchase cost of

$150 and a monthly service charge of from $5

to $20 would be an acceptable price for the

notification service. In another test, users

found the system easy to use and felt more

secure with the system available. These users

also felt that the systems would help

responding authorities deliver the appropriate

assistance. Some users complained about the

difficulty of physically connecting the

components of the system to their vehicles.

Opinions about one tested system indicated a

negative response with regard to its reliability.

These tests also encountered few institutional

challenges. Project partners overcame several

issues early in the projects. The most

significant issues concerned the future

deployment of such systems. Since the tests

were conducted, the federal government has

introduced regulations that require wireless

phone systems to provide some of the

capabilities that the tested systems developed

and evaluated. (Specifically, the requirement

that wireless phone calls be locatable within a

certain distance.) These requirements and the

progress of the technology have superceded

some of the capabilities of the tested systems.

Another issue concerned the use of private

service centers to screen emergency calls

before passing them on to Public Service

Answering Points. The tests tended t o

support the concept of these private service

centers to screen calls. However, the public

partners of the tests did not consider the use

of such centers essential while private partners

considered these centers necessary.

This report highlights the successes and

problems these tests encountered while

attempting to develop the technologies

appropriate to establishing and implementing

emergency notification and response systems.
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

2

REPORT BACKGROUND

In 1991, the U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT) initiated a new

program to address the needs of the emerging

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) field.

This program solicited and funded projects,

called FOTs. The tests were sponsored and

supported by several administrations of the

Department, including the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA), and the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA).

The FOTs demonstrated potentially beneficial

transportation products, technologies, and

approaches. The FOTs implemented these

products, technologies, or approaches on a

limited scale under real-world operational

conditions. These tests were an interim step

bridging the gap between conventional

research and development (that formed the

idea), and full-scale deployment (that would

see wide-spread use of the idea). FOTs

typically included a local or regional

transportation agency, as well as the FHWA,

as partners in the project. The partners often

included private sector providers of the

equipment, systems, and services interested in

demonstrating their idea. The FOTs

concentrated on user service areas needing a

“proof of concept” in order to achieve

deployment goals.

A fundamental element of each test was an

independent, formal evaluation. The

evaluation produced a final report that detailed

the test’s purpose, methods, and findings. The

evaluation aspect of the test intended to assess

whether the product, technology or approach

provided effective solutions at acceptable

levels of cost, schedule, and technical risk.

As the sponsoring organization and a partner

in many of the FOTs, the FHWA played a

central role. FHWA supported the tests by

providing a standardized set of evaluation

guidelines and by helping coordinate and

promote the relationships among test

partners. The FHWA also acted as the

communications clearing house collecting

reviewing, and disseminating information

about the tests.

Among the more than 80 FOTs, several tests

encompassed the same or similar areas of

interest. The FHWA is preparing several

“cross-cutting” studies that compare or

synthesize the findings of multiple tests within

a particular area of interest. The purpose of

this series of studies is to extract from the

separate tests the common information and

lessons learned that are of interest to ITS

practitioners and that could improve the

testing and deployment of future applications

of the subject technology.

This study focuses on the topic of Emergency

Notification and Response (EN&R) using ITS

Technology.

INTRODUCTION

EN&R is a system and associated services for

requesting help from, and providing

information to, authorities about a specific

individual or motor vehicle in distress. The

idea of EN&R came into being in 1993 when

FHWA published a request for proposals for

systems that would improve emergency

response to vehicular incidents.

These systems were to be deployed and

evaluated on a limited scale in near real-world

conditions in order to determine their

feasibility and foster new economic markets.

As a result, Colorado Mayday and Puget Sound

Help Me (PuSHMe) began as federally funded

operational tests.

The Colorado Mayday and PuSHMe FOTs

have issued final evaluation reports.

Consequently, the reported findings represent

Booz•Allen & Hamilton current understanding

of the lessons learned in EN&R based on these

two FOTs.
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

3

The need for EN&R systems is demonstrated

by today’s emergency 911 phone system.

Often saturated due to large call volumes and

sometimes inappropriate use by the public,

Public Service Answering Point (PSAP)

operators estimate that for every incident on

the roadway, twenty or more cellular calls are

received from “good samaritan” drivers

passing the incident scene. These redundant

calls burden the PSAP operators and occupy

the available phone lines, preventing other

emergency calls from getting through.

Additionally, non-emergency calls occupy the

time of PSAP operators in lieu of true

emergency calls.

EN&R systems offer a relief to emergency

911 phone systems by directing calls to the

appropriate response agency or by introducing

Mayday Processing Centers (MPCs) which

receive emergency assistance request signals

from in-vehicle units. A distressed vehicle

containing an in-vehicle unit sends an

emergency signal via GPS to an MPC. The

emergency signal is received at the MPC as

raw GPS data where it is analyzed and the

distressed vehicle location is determined.

EN&R systems also help define the type of

service needed. Some systems offer in-vehicle

devices configured with multiple service

selection buttons to allow the user to request a

particular type of service. Therefore, nonemergency calls may go directly to a private

Customer Service Center (CSC). Both MPCs

and CSCs are types of monitored response

centers. The former typically being public and

the latter privately run.

The premise of an EN&R system is to help

provide appropriate assistance to distressed

vehicles in a more timely manner by providing

more accurate information to PSAP operators

and ultimately to the response units they

dispatch.

FOTS CONSIDERED IN THIS ANALYSIS

Colorado Mayday

The Colorado Mayday Emergency Response

Request System utilizes the Tidget Mayday

System (an In-Vehicle Emergency Response

System (IVERS) developed by NAVSYS

Corporation. The Colorado Mayday system

test used GPS to determine vehicle location,

and the cellular infrastructure to communicate

between the vehicle and the MPC. To help

reduce the production costs of the Tidget, a

unique approach was taken by using GPS. The

Tidget device captured a snapshot of the

signals being received from the GPS satellite

constellation. The Tidget forwarded only the

raw “snapshot” data to the MPC instead of

processing the GPS data in the vehicle and

forwarding the calculated latitude/longitude t o

the MPC. A central processor at the MPC

received the data through the cellular network

and calculated the location of the vehicle. A

map database provided support when fewer

than four satellites were “visible”. The entire

system was triggered by the Tidget located

inside the test vehicles. By removing the GPS

processor from each Tidget and calculating

vehicle locations centrally, the production

costs of the Tidget was reduced.

PuSHMe

PuSHMe was an operational test project that

implemented and tested a regional Mayday

system. The project involved the deployment

of two systems, Motorola and XYPOINT,

that allowed test groups of users to signal a

need for emergency assistance to a monitored

response center. Both systems used

Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)

technology to locate signaling vehicles. Both

systems employed Private Response Centers

(PRC) to facilitate interaction between

distressed vehicles and public emergency

service providers. The major differences

between the two systems are that the

Motorola system, based on the existing

Motorola MotoTrack Emergency Response

system provides two-way voice

communication and relies on the standard

communications infrastructure while the

XYPOINT system is text based, and like a

pager, employs an Liquid Crystal Display
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

4

(LCD). XYPOINT communicates via the

newer Cellular Digital Packet Data system

(CDPD). Motorola established its response

center at the Washington Department of

Transportation (WSDOT) Transportation

System Management Center (TSMC) in

northern Seattle, while XYPOINT established

a separate response center at its offices near

downtown Seattle.

A receiver in the Motorola device used GPS

navigation messages being transmitted by the

GPS satellite constellation to calculate the

vehicle’s position and velocity. For

improved position accuracy, a DGPS reference

station was located at WSDOT TSMC, where

PuSHMe calls from subscriber vehicles were

answered at a CSC. The Telephone Company

(TELCO) and Analog Mobile Phone System

(AMPS) cellular infrastructures provided the

communications link between the CSC and

subscriber vehicles.

The XYPOINT’s emergency response system

relied on a CDPD wireless network, DGPS

location technology, and an emergency

response center. The emergency response

center integrated multiple databases with a rule

based engine to facilitate interaction between

distressed vehicles and emergency response

providers to support three types of emergency

calls: (1) police or highway patrol, (2) medical

assistance, and (3) towing or roadside services.

Information Sources

This report was prepared using material

gathered as part of Booz•Allen & Hamilton’s

work to provide evaluation oversight support

of ITS FOTs. This material includes published

and unpublished reports prepared by the test

personnel and evaluators as well as

information gathered in meetings and

conversations with test personnel. Booz•Allen

& Hamilton was not directly involved in the

conduct of the tests. The reports prepared by

the test personnel and evaluators present the

findings, results, and conclusions of the tests

themselves. This report interprets the results

of a group of tests that have a common theme

in an attempt to extract lessons that cut

across the group of tests. Because it draws

from the results of the tests as a group, this

report may offer lessons and conclusions that

are not found in the material from the

individual tests.

FINDINGS

This section presents the comparison of the

similarities and differences of these tests and

an interpretation of the results. Findings are

organized into five categories:

• Impacts—changes caused by the results of

the test

• Technical Lessons

Learned—conclusions about the ease of

use, applicability, transferability, and

safety of the tested technologies

• User Response—the reactions of the test

participants

• Institutional Challenges and

Resolutions —conclusions about the

relationships among the test partners,

institutional barriers, and legal issues

• Cost to Implement—descriptions of how

costs may affect the potential

development and deployment of the

technologies.

IMPACTS

System impacts were not measured in either

PuSHMe or Colorado Mayday. Both tests used

focused groups to collect data and simulate

emergency situations. Further, no actual

emergency or official police vehicles were used

in either test.

TECHNICAL LESSONS LEARNED

In Both Colorado Mayday and PuSHMe, the

map display system and the map database used

in the system were problematic. More

specifically, in Colorado May, the speed of the
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

5

computer used for the map display system was

adequate for the test but likely to be too slow

under real world conditions of multiple,

simultaneous mayday calls. The display

system needed to be enhanced t o

automatically display streets in the vicinity of

the incident. The display system also needed

the capability to display more than one

incident at a time. The map databases and

display should have included all roads, road

labels, geographic landmarks, bodies of water,

as well as city, county, state and dispatch

region boundaries.

Both Colorado Mayday and PuSHMe produced

results that provided critical information in

determining if EN&R is practical for

widespread deployment. The primary

objectives of Colorado Mayday and PuSHMe

were to assess the technical performance and

feasibility of the system by:

• Determining the ability of the MPC t o

accurately locate test vehicles.

• Assessing the performance of the GPS

component of the system under various

topographic conditions

• Evaluating the ability of the system t o

track vehicles in motion

• Evaluating the ability of the system t o

handle dropped calls

• Evaluating the ability of a remote CSC t o

determine the location of a vehicle

Positioning Accuracy

In Colorado Mayday, the independent

evaluator assessed the technical performance

of the system and found the MPC was able t o

locate the test vehicle to within 100 meters of

its actual position in 44 percent of the trials

that produced a valid solution. The MPC was

able to locate the vehicle to between 100 and

200 meters of its actual position in 14 percent

of the valid trials. In 10 percent of the valid

trials the positional difference was greater

than 200 meters.

The remaining 32 percent of the trials were

inconclusive due to non-connection and errors

in the cellular links. In PuSHMe data collected

during the Motorola trials indicated the mean

distance error was about 37 meters and the

median distance error was about 31 meters

from the actual vehicle location.

The remaining 32 percent of the trials were

The remaining 32 percent of the trials were

inconclusive due to non-connection and errors

in the cellular links. In PuSHMe data collected

during the Motorola trials indicated the mean

distance error was about 37 meters and the

median distance error was about 31 meters

from the actual vehicle location.

Cellular and GPS Performance Under

Various Topographic Conditions

In Colorado Mayday, the cellular

communications coverage was strong and

reliable in densely populated counties in the

test area (where approximately 90 percent of

the state’s population resides). In areas of

marginal to non-existent cellular coverage, the

analog cellular system was unreliable in

transmitting data. Test participants expressed

a desire to have a better verification system of

the progress of the communication during a

call.

With PuSHMe, the GPS-based systems

experienced difficulties in accurately

determining locations in enclosed spaces like

44% of trials

14% of trials

10% of trials
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

6

parking garages. XYPOINT experienced a 37

percent failure rate and Motorola 29 percent

in updating locations in-between buildings (i.e.,

in “urban canyons”). Both systems also

experienced difficulties determining accurate

location as evidenced by the 71 percent “bad”

rating assigned by the test evaluators for

XYPOINT and 47 percent “bad” for

Motorola.

However, for trials conducted in forest terrain,

both systems had no trouble updating

locations. Most of the calls were ranked

“close” and none ranked as “good”. This may

be attributed to the fact that the maps used on

the terminals include most, but not all roads.

The lesser traveled roads were less likely to be

on the maps and were the ones generally used

by test vehicles during the trials.

In open terrain, the XYPOINT system

updated locations with as little as 8 percent

failure, while the Motorola had considerable

difficulty with 44 percent failure.

Tracking Vehicles In Motion

With moving vehicles, both PuSHMe systems

were able to track moving vehicles reasonably

well. However, in the case of the XYPOINT

system it was highly labor intensive for the

CSC operator to continuously poll the vehicle

in order to track it. With the Motorola

system, the operator did not successfully make

contact with the test vehicle in nearly one in

every five trials.

Dropped Calls

In the PuSHMe operational test, the ability of

the system to handle dropped calls was of

chief concern. Motorola built into the system

an automatic re-dial feature that enabled a

dropped call to be automatically reconnected.

This feature was designed to counterbalance

calls disconnected by the user, unit

malfunction, bad cellular connection, or phone

line problems. Of the 150 trials conducted, 95

percent of the calls connected with the first

button push. Of those that connected with the

first button push and were then disconnected,

93 percent of calls reconnected. Of calls that

reconnected, 98 percent were reconnected

validly (recognized as dropped calls and reestablished under the same identification

number).

CSC Vehicle Location

The ability of a remote operator to locate a

distressed vehicle was key in the evaluation of

how an emergency response system would

handle peak loads. The general concern was

that a large-scale traffic accident or a natural

disaster could overload a local processing

center. In these situations, service centers in

other areas of the country could be used t o

process calls when local service center

operators are overloaded or unable to answer

calls. In 60 percent of the 50 Motorola trials,

the remote CSC operator was able to identify

the exact location of the vehicle. For 22

percent of the trials, the remote CSC operator

was very close, either being within a half block,

naming one of the cross streets slightly

incorrectly, or showing a stopped vehicle as

moving. Therefore, for 82 percent of the

trials, the remote CSC was able to identify the

location of the vehicle within half a block. In

2 percent of the trials, the operator identified

location was off by more than a block, and in

16 percent of the trials, the operator either

did not or could not correctly identify the

name of one of the cross streets.

USER RESPONSE

Both Colorado Mayday and PuSHMe evaluated

the user’s acceptance and ease of use of the

systems. Focus groups were used as the

qualitative source of information. Specific

objectives included:

• Assessment of the system reliability and

consistency

• Assessment of system ease of use
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

7

• Evaluating the perception of security and

safety

• Assessment of user perception of market

issues, such as price sensitivity

The demographic characteristics of the

respondents for both tests were varied.

However, focus groups for both represented a

cross section of users for the given areas of

the tests. For both tests, the majority of the

focus groups were men (82 percent for

PuSHMe and 60 percent for Colorado

Mayday). The income range for both groups

was between $25,000 and $75,000.

The general conclusions drawn from the

Colorado Mayday focus group centered around

the similarities and differences in men and

women’s perceptions and acceptance of the

Mayday system. The men tended to focus on

technical factors, and believed they knew both

the questions and the answer. Women were

wary consumers and were hard-nosed

bargainers seeking a good deal. The women

had a lot of questions and wanted the answers.

A market price in the $150 range with a

monthly service fee of $5 to $20 was the

expectation of the focus group.

For the Motorola portion of PuSHMe, 100

percent of the users found the device easy t o

use. The auto re-dial feature was also

unanimously viewed as user friendly. With

respect to security and safety, 95.7 percent

felt more secure in their vehicle if the system

was permanently available to them and other

members of the family. When the users were

in situations requiring police, medical, or

roadside assistance, 95.6 percent of them

thought that the system would be likely to

help authorities deliver assistance. In the area

of reliability and consistency, 91 percent of

the respondents reported that only rarely or

occasionally were they disconnected when

speaking with the response center operator,

and 100 percent reported that they were

almost always or frequently automatically

reconnected.

For the XYPOINT test in PuSHMe, the

majority of the respondents found the system

easy to use but not as overwhelmingly so as in

the Motorola tests. Only 61 percent found

the device easy to handle. A number of

respondents commented that the cords of the

in-vehicle unit were too long and easily

tangled; there was no convenient location t o

place the in-vehicle unit; and it was

inconvenient to plug it in and attach the

antenna on the roof. Regarding security and

safety, 70 percent of participants felt the

system afforded them a sense of security in

their vehicle, compared to 96 percent of

Motorola respondents." In the areas of

reliability and consistency, 71 percent of the

respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed

when asked if they felt the XYPOINT system

consistently and reliably interacted with their

test vehicles.

In general, the user acceptance in both tests in

the areas of system reliability, security/safety

and ease of use indicate in nearly every respect

there is widespread satisfaction with the

respective systems. The least favorable

responses were reported on the system

reliability and consistency of the XYPOINT

portion of the PuSHMe test. The inconsistent

performance of the XYPOINT system was in

part due to the infancy of the CDPD network

which was undergoing upgrades and

improvements at the time of testing.

INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES AND

RESOLUTIONS

Overall, the impact of institutional issues was

minimal for EN&R. Project partners

acknowledged that there were a number of

challenges to be overcome, particularly early

in the project, but they were all handled

successfully. The chief concern with both

tests was with respect to institutional issues

affecting future deployment. Since 1993,

when the PuSHMe Operational Test was first

conceived, administrators of PSAPs, the

cellular industry, the Federal Communication

Commission (FCC), and others have been
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

8

working toward introducing new cellular 911

call requirements to better enable PSAPs t o

handle cellular 911 calls. To that end, in

1997, the FCC ruled that by the year 2001,

the sites of 66 percent of all wireless 911 calls

must be locatable within 128 meters (420

feet). In fact, addressing the difficulties

associated with cellular E-911 calls was an

important motivation in the original

conception of the PuSHMe operational test.

PuSHMe addressed these difficulties through

the use of (1) in-vehicle emergency response

systems that utilize GPS technology to

automatically locate vehicles and (2) private

CSC operators who route the call to the

appropriate PSAP. As a result, location

information can be relayed from cellular calls

to the appropriate PSAP.

Another institutional issue encountered in the

PuSHMe test was the relationship between

existing PSAPs and the proposed private

CSCs. Currently, most 911 calls are answered

and handled by PSAPs. PSAPs, sometimes

known as E-911 centers, are publicly run

services that respond to all calls within a given

coverage area.

CSCs are privately operated. As private

response centers, they provide services only

to subscribers or paying customers. Examples

of CSCs in the Puget Sound region include the

American Automobile Association (AAA),

home and office security system services, and

a variety of ambulance services.

Essentially, PuSHMe was established t o

support the concept of CSCs screening calls

from subscribers and then, where appropriate,

calling PSAPs (or another CSC) that would

dispatch aid or communicate medical advice.

The PuSHMe operational test helped partners

better understand the role of a PRC in the

deployment of an in-vehicle emergency

response system (IVERS). Private partners

felt that a PRC would be a necessary

component of any early deployment scenario

and pointed to existing PRCs such as those

serving the Ford Lincoln RESCU system.

Public partners were less concerned, seeing the

PRC as a viable and likely scenario but not the

only one.

Most of the partners regarded additional invehicle services that went beyond emergency

response as being key to the relationship

between PRCs and public PSAPs. They

regarded the successful integration of PRCs

and PSAPs as being based on the PRC handing

emergency calls directly over to the PSAP

while PRCs provide direct service for lower

priority calls such as motorist assistance and

directions.

As the PuSHMe operational test came to a

close, the partners began to find their niches

in the overall operation on which they wanted

to focus. For example, both Motorola and

XYPOINT decided during the test that they

didn’t want to operate CSCs. Another benefit

to the commercial partners was the fact that

PuSHMe was useful in their efforts to attract

venture capital.

COST TO IMPLEMENT

No cost data on either Colorado Mayday or

PuSHMe was collected or evaluated.

SUMMARY

Colorado Mayday and PuSHMe operational

tests illustrated the many facets of EN&R

systems. In so doing, they brought to the

forefront varied technology essential in the

development of EN&R systems. The use of

GPS, DGPS technology, AMPS, CDPD, and in

conjunction with two way voice

communication and text based LCD as

demonstrated in these tests, present a realistic

potential for future practical application.

Of the three emergency systems evaluated, the

Motorola system was regarded by the users as

the most reliable, most user friendly, and most

practical. The CDPD network of the XY

POINT system underwent several upgrades

during the PuSHMe operational test. The
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

9

periodic upgrades often times rendered the

system inoperable or unreliable during the test.

The unfavorable responses from the users

reflected their "lack of confidence" and "lack

of sense of security" in the system. Because

of the incompleteness of the operational test,

the Mayday system's results were inconclusive.

However, when asked if they would participate

in a full scale deployment of the Mayday

operational test in which they would only use

the Mayday unit for assistance during actual

emergencies (planned Phase III), the user

focus group participants responded six to one

in favor.

• The institutional challenges clearly show

an involved partnership. As a result, issues

involving working relations between

PSAPs, and private CSCs were thoroughly

worked with innovative solutions derived.

As EN&R systems continue to respond t o

both the practical as well as FCC issued

challenges, the findings and lessons learned

from these tests demonstrate the benefits

of using a GPS based emergency

notification system which can be achieved

with the proper application of available

technology.
 U.S. Department of Transportation September 1998

Federal Highway Administration Booz·Allen & Hamilton

Emergency Notification and Response Field Operational Test Cross-Cutting Study

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Castle Rock Consultants, Mayday Operational

Test Project Phase I Evaluation Summary

Report-Draft, October 1997

Haselkorn, Mark, Evaluation of the PuSHMe

Regional Mayday System Operational Test,

June 1997

Castle Rock Consultants, Mayday Operational

Test Project Phase II Evaluation Summary

Report-Draft, November 1995
To access an electronic version of this publication

and other ITS related publications visit the

ITS Electronic Document Library (EDL):

http://www.its.fhwa.dot.gov/cyberdocs/welcome.htm

EDL Document Number 6326

Visit Our ITS WEB Site

ITS Joint Program Office: http://www.its.dot.gov

Publication No. FHWA-JPO-99-033

HVH-1/9-98