Federal Highway Administration 

Focus States Initiative: 

Traffic Incident Management 

Performance Measures 

Final Report 

Submitted to: 

United States Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Transportation Operations 

December 2009 
Notice

The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) provides high-quality 

information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner 

that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to 

ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. USDOT periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
1. Report No. 

FHWA-HOP-10-010

2. Government Accession No. 

 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle Federal Highway Administration Focus States 

Initiative: Traffic Incident Management Performance Measures Final Report

5. Report Date 

December 2009 

 6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Authors Nicholas D. Owens (SAIC), April H. Armstrong (SAIC), Carol Mitchell 

(SAIC) , and Rebecca Brewster, (ATRI) 

8. Performing Organization Report 

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) 

1710 SAIC Drive, M/S T1-12-3 

McLean, VA 22102 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-06-D-00005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

United States Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered 

Final Report 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

HOIT-1 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Mr. David Helman (COTM) 

Mr. Barry Zimmerman (COTR) 

16. Abstract 

The Traffic Incident Management Performance Measures Focus States Initiative (TIM PM FSI) involves 11 States that have 

defined three traffic incident performance measures (PM) and conducted field tests of two of these measures. The following 

measures were defined in December 2005 and field tested for 18 months: 

1. Reduce “roadway clearance” time (defined as the time between awareness of an incident and restoration of lanes 

to full operational status) 

2. Reduce “incident clearance” time (defined as the time between awareness of an incident and removal of all 

evidence of the incident, including debris or remaining assets, from shoulders). 

A third measure was defined at the final project work shop in October 2007 but has not yet been field tested: 

3. Reduce the number of secondary incidents—specifically unplanned incidents for which a response or intervention 

is taken, where a collision occurs either a) within the incident scene or b) within the queue (which could include 

opposite direction) resulting from the original incident. 

The FSI represents the first effort by multiple States to measure TIM performance using common performance metrics. The 

results of the FSI demonstrated that TIM performance measurement is institutionally and technically viable. The participating 

States also demonstrated that integrating and coordinating TIM operations between multiple agencies can be done 

seamlessly. 

The final products of the FSI are an outreach plan and outreach products that can be used by States to promote TIM PM 

and integrated TIM programs. 

Key Words 

Traffic Incident Management, Performance Measurement, 

Integrated Traffic Incident Management Programs, 

Secondary Incidents 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21.No of Pages 

29 

22. Price 

N/A 
Table of Contents January 2009 

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................1

2. Focus States Initiative Overview.............................................................................................4

3. Focus States Initiative – Lessons Learned ...........................................................................10

Institutional Issues and Challenges....................................................................................10

Technical Integration and Data Exchange .........................................................................11

4. TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps......................................................................13

Capitalize on Demonstrated TIM PM FSI Success ............................................................13

TIM Outreach Strategy Plan...............................................................................................13

Appendix A: Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement Presentation ................18

Appendix B: TIM Performance Measurement Outreach Fact Sheet...........................................19

 v 
List of Tables January 2009 

List of Tables 

Table 1. TIM FSI Candidate National Program-Level Performance Measures............................1

Table 2. TIM PM FSI Implementation Summary..........................................................................3

Table 3. Candidate Program-Level TIM Objectives and Performance Measures........................5

Table 4. Candidate TIM Performance Measures Based on Candidate Objectives......................7

Table 5. Candidate for Third TIM Performance Measures Based on Candidate Objectives .......9

Table 6. Recommended Outreach Activities..............................................................................14

 v 
List of Abbreviations January 2009 

List of Abbreviations 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

ARTBA American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

CAD TMC Computer-Aided Dispatch Traffic Management Center 

CMP Congestion Management Process 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FAQs Frequently Asked Questions 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FSI Focus States Initiative 

GPS Global Positioning Satellite 

IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NTIMC National Traffic Incident Management Coalition 

NUG National Unified Goal 

PM Performance Measures 

RFP Request for Proposal 

SOW Statement of Work 

SSOM Subcommittee on Systems and Operation Management Committee 

TIM PM FSI Traffic Incident Management Performance Measures Focus States Initiative 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TIM SA Traffic Incident Management Self Assessments 

WSDOT Washington Department of Transportation

WSP Washington State Police 

 vi 
Introduction January 2009 

 1 

1. Introduction 

This report presents the results of the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of 

Operations-sponsored Focus States Initiative (FSI) designed to advance the state-of-thepractice for traffic incident management (TIM) performance measurement. Through this effort, 

11 Focus States1

 identified several national-level TIM program objectives and related 

performance measures. During the process, the States successfully overcame institutional, 

operational, and technical barriers and defined three multi-agency, measurable TIM objectives 

and methods of measuring performance toward those objectives. All 11 Focus States 

committed to build on the momentum generated by the TIM FSI and to continue to work 

together to advance program-level performance measurement in their States as well as 

nationwide. 

Table 1 summarizes the three national-level TIM program objectives and their supporting 

performance measures agreed to by the participating States. 

Table 1. TIM FSI Candidate National Program-Level Performance Measures 

TIM Program Objective Related Performance Measure 

1. Reduce “roadway clearance” time defined 

as the time between awareness of an incident 

and restoration of lanes to full operational 

status). 

Time between first recordable awareness of 

incident by a responsible agency and first 

confirmation that all lanes are available for traffic 

flow. 

2. Reduce “incident clearance” time (defined 

as the time between awareness of an incident 

and removal of all evidence of the incident, 

including debris or remaining assets, from 

shoulders). 

Time between first recordable awareness of 

incident by a responsible agency and time at which 

the last responder has left the scene. 

3. (NEWEST) Reduce the number of 

secondary incidents—specifically unplanned 

incidents for which a response or intervention 

is taken, where a collision occurs either a) 

within the incident scene or b) within the 

queue (which could include opposite direction) 

resulting from the original incident. 

Number of unplanned incidents beginning with the 

time of detection of the primary incident where a 

collision occurs either a) within the incident scene 

or b) within the queue, including the opposite 

direction, resulting from the original incident. 

The results of the Initiative clearly demonstrate that: 

 All States can use the same performance measure to analyze their respective programs. 

 States are able to collect and analyze the data needed to support TIM performance 

measurement using a common performance metric. However, the methods of data 

collection vary significantly between States. 

 States are able to compare TIM performance measurement using common metrics. 

 

1

The 11 States that participated in the FSI include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, 

North Carolina, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. As the FSI effort proceeded, other 

States expressed interest in the outcomes of this initiative, with one State asking to observe the TIM FSI’s 

final conference held in Milwaukee in October 2007. 
Introduction January 2009 

 2 

During the course of the Initiative, the 11 States worked with representatives from State 

Departments of Transportation (DOTs), law enforcement agencies and the FHWA. Collectively, 

they achieved the following: 

 The group conducted an 18-month field test using the “incident clearance” and “roadway 

clearance” performance measures. Five States (Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Wisconsin, 

and Washington) identified data sources, collected and analyzed data to measure TIM 

performance. 

 All 11 FSI States established inter-agency programs to support TIM. By late 2007, only 

two States (Texas and Utah) were not yet measuring TIM performance. 

 Four States (California, Connecticut, New York, and North Carolina) committed to 

implementing TIM performance measurements as part of a comprehensive TIM 

program. Their TIM programs include establishing inter-agency agreements; identifying 

data requirements and data sources; and developing data exchange interfaces. These 

activities required substantial planning, and in several instances, the acquisition of 

technical assistance to modify legacy systems and interfaces. While these States may 

not be measuring TIM performance metrics yet, they have initiated planning to enable 

performance measurement as part of an integrated TIM program. Table 2 demonstrates 

the Focus States’ TIM Performance Measurement activities through the notations “under 

development” and “in progress.”2

 The group developed a preliminary definition of secondary incidents and the third 

performance measure—“reduce secondary incidents”—at the final project workshop:3

Secondary Incidents are unplanned incidents (starting at the time of 

detection) for which a response or intervention is taken, where a collision 

occurs either a) within the incident scene or b) within the queue (which 

could include the opposite direction) resulting from the original incident. 

Through this initiative, the 11 Focus States overcame common institutional, operational, and 

technical barriers that define multi-agency, measurable TIM objectives and measured 

performance toward those objectives, as shown in Table 2.4

 Examples of TIM performance data 

collected by States are included in the PowerPoint presentation described in appendix A to this 

Final Report, which is provided under a separate cover. 

During the process, other States expressed interest in the outcomes of this initiative. One State 

(Missouri) participated as an observer in the TIM Focus State Initiative final conference held in 

Milwaukee in October 2007 to learn more. All 11 Focus States concluded the process by 

expressing their desire to build on the TIM FSI momentum and to continue the work together to 

advance program-level performance measurement in their States, as well as nationwide. 

 

2

 Note: “CAD TMC” in the third column refers to Computer-Aided Dispatch Traffic Management Center. 3

At the time of the final workshop, held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in October 2007, this third performance 

measure had not been tested through the FSI. 

4

The FSI implementation summary was developed during the final project workshop. 
Introduction January 2009 

 3 

Table 2. TIM PM FSI Implementation Summary 

State 

Developing 

Interagency 

TIM Program 

Interagency 

Data 

Exchange 

(CAD TMC) 

Reduce 

Roadway 

Clearance 

Time 

Reduce 

Incident 

Clearance 

Time 

Results Used to 

Improve TIM 

Operations 

California Y Under 

Development 

In Progress In Progress Planned 

Connecticut Y Under 

Development 

In Progress In Progress Planned 

Florida Y Y Y Y Tracking average 

incident duration in 

Districts 4 and 6 and 

on Florida Turnpike. 

Georgia Y N Y Y PM used to determine 

if targets for major 

incident clearance―90 

minutes and incident 

response―8 minutes 

are achieved. 

Maryland Y N Y Y Annual assessment 

data is used 

to identify high crash 

corridors, plan 

resource allocation, 

and identify trends in 

TIM. 

New York Y Under 

Development 

In Progress In Progress Planned 

North 

Carolina 

Y Under 

Development 

In Progress In Progress Planned 

Texas Y (Local 

Events) 

N N N N 

Utah Y Limited N N N 

Washington Y Limited Y Y In progress 

for incidents involving 

joint response with 

Washington 

Department of 

Transportation 

(WSDOT) and 

Washington State 

Police (WSP). 

Wisconsin Y Y Y N Currently tracking 

average response 

times. 
Focus States Initiative Overview January 2009 

2. Focus States Initiative Overview 

The TIM PM FSI task comprised in three phases: 

 Phase I brought the 11 States together to identify the candidate performance measures, 

to select measures for testing, and to develop an Action Plan for conducting the test. 

 Phase II consisted of an 18-month performance measurement test where each State 

implemented its Action Plan. 

 Phase III involved a final workshop where States discussed their implementation results 

and identified next steps for continuing the development of performance measurement, 

in particular, identifying opportunities for FHWA to continue providing support for TIM 

performance measurement. 

1

Eastern/Western 

Regional Workshops Dallas Workshop

December 2005 1. Identification of Candidate National

TIM Performance Measures:

Goals, Objectives, Data Sources; 

and SWOT

2. Identification and Selection of Candidate TIM PM 

3. Development of State Action Plans

State Tests of

National TIM 

Performance Measures

Milwaukee Workshop

October 2007

4. Results of State Tests and Identification of Next 

Steps

TIM PM Outreach Strategy and 

TIM PM Outreach Briefing and 

Fact Sheet

TIM PM FSI 

Phase I

TIM PM FSI Phase II

TIM PM FSI

Phase III

Figure 1. TIM PM FSI Implementation Overview. 

For Phase I, FHWA divided the 11 States into two groups. This enabled transportation and law 

enforcement representatives from each State to meet. FHWA conducted two concurrent 

regional workshops, one held in McLean, Virginia, and the second in Sacramento, California, in 

September 2005. FHWA viewed the participation of law enforcement agencies as critical, since 

they play the lead role in traffic incident operations and respond to many more incidents than 

State DOTs. The State law enforcement agencies possess a vast collection of incident data that 

is valuable in the development of any developing coordinated regional TIM program. For these 

 4 
Focus States Initiative Overview January 2009 

reasons, law enforcement participation in the development of TIM performance measures is 

critical to the success of TIM program performance improvements. 

FHWA sponsored these workshops to gain input and support from State DOT representatives, 

law enforcement practitioners, and FHWA Division and Resource Center representatives to 

collaboratively define a core set of program-level TIM PMs. Table 3 summarizes the list of 

overall candidate objectives and proposed performance measures defined at the two regional 

workshops. 

Table 3. Candidate Program-Level TIM Objectives and Performance Measures 

Candidate Objective Proposed Performance Measure(s)

1. Reduce incident notification 

time (defined as the time 

between the first agency’s 

awareness of an incident, 

and the time to notify needed 

response agencies). 

a. The time between the first agency’s awareness of an incident, 

and the time to notify needed response agencies. 

2. Reduce roadway clearance 

time (defined as the time 

between awareness of an 

incident and restoration of 

lanes to full operational status. 

a. Time between first recordable awareness (detection/ notification/ 

verification) of incident by a responsible agency and first 

confirmation that all lanes are available for traffic flow. 

3. Reduce incident clearance 

time (defined as the time 

between awareness of an 

incident and removal of all 

evidence of the incident, 

including debris or remaining 

assets, from shoulders). 

a. Time between first recordable awareness (detection/ 

notification/verification) of incident by a responsible agency and 

time at which all evidence of incident is removed (including 

debris cleared from the shoulder). 

b. Time between first recordable awareness and time at which the 

last responder has left the scene. 

4. Reduce “recovery” time 

(defined as between 

awareness of an incident 

and restoration of impacted 

roadway/ roadways to “normal” 

conditions). 

a. Time between awareness of an incident and restoration of 

impacted roadway/roadways to “normal” conditions. (NOTE: 

Participants noted that “normal” conditions could be difficult to 

define.) 

5. Reduce time for needed 

responders to arrive onscene after notification. 

a. Time between notification and arrival of first qualified response 

person to arrive on incident scene. 

6. Reduce number of secondary 

incidents and severity of 

primary and secondary 

incidents. 

a. # of total incidents (regardless of primary or secondary) 

and severity of primary incidents (National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration [NHTSA] classification). 

b. # of secondary of incidents and severity (NHTSA classification). 

c. # fatalities. 

 5 
Focus States Initiative Overview January 2009 

 6 

Candidate Objective Proposed Performance Measure(s)

7. Develop and ensure 

familiarity with regional, 

multi-disciplinary TIM goals 

and objectives and 

supporting procedures 

by all stakeholders. 

a. Existence/availability of program-level plan for implementing 

traffic control devices and/or procedures. 

b. Existence of/participation in multi-agency/jurisdictional training 

programs on the effective use of traffic control/staging devices 

and procedures. 

c. % of workforce trained on National Incident Management 

System as well as local/ regional/ "program-level" procedures. 

d. % of agencies with active, up-to-date Memoranda of 

Understanding (MOUs) for program-level TIM. 

e. # of certified courses taken. 

f. # of attendees at various courses. 

8. Improve communication 

between responders and 

managers regarding the 

status of an incident 

throughout the incident. 

a. # or % of agencies with a need to communicate, who are able to 

communicate (sharing information or communications systems) 

within an incident. 

9. Provide timely, accurate, 

 and useful traveler 

information to the motoring 

public on regular basis 

during incident. 

a. Comparison of information provided at any given time to what 

information could have been provided. 

b. Customer perceptions on usefulness of information provided. 

c. Time of updates to various sources. 

d. # of minutes it takes to disseminate informational updates to the 

public (after something changes regarding incident status). 

e. # of sources of information to the public. 

f. # of system miles that are covered/density of coverage by 

traveler information systems (seek to increase these). 

10. Regularly evaluate and 

use customer (road user) 

feedback to improve TIM 

program assets and 

practices. 

a. % incidents managed in accordance with program-level 

procedures. 

b. % of incidents for which multi-agency reviews occur. 

c. Perceived effectiveness (by involved stakeholders) of use 

of traffic control devices to achieve incident management goals 

developed for each incident. 

d. Correlation of use of program-level traffic control devices by 

incident type. 

e. # of instances of sending the needed equipment (presumes that 

needed quantities and types of equipment are defined) for the 

incident. 

f. Frequency of dissemination of multi-agency/program-level and 

customer feedback back to partners. 

g. Measures of customer feedback: 

• # Web site feedback. 

• # of surveys conducted/focus groups. 

• # of complaint logs. 

• # of service patrol comment cards. 

• # of 1-800 feedback system calls. 

• # of sources of information to the public (# of 

media/government outlets providing information). 

• # of 511 calls. 
Focus States Initiative Overview January 2009 

 7 

After the concurrent workshops, participants from all 11 States met in Dallas in December 2005 

to develop consensus on performance objectives and identify a few good measures that they 

could use in their States. All 11 States developed an Action Plan to pursue TIM performance 

measurement in their States by identifying how to conduct the test of the two measures.5

 Table 

4 identifies the two program-level performance measures selected for testing by the States. 

Table 4. Candidate TIM Performance Measures Based on Candidate Objectives 

Candidate Objectives Proposed Performance Measures 

 Reduce roadway clearance time (defined as 

the time between awareness of an incident and 

restoration of lanes to full operational status. 

 Time between first recordable awareness 

of incident by a responsible agency and 

first confirmation that all lanes are available 

for traffic flow. 

 Reduce incident clearance time (defined as 

the time between awareness of an incident 

and removal of all evidence of the incident, 

including debris or remaining assets, from 

shoulders). 

 Time between first recordable awareness 

of incident by a responsible agency and 

time at which the last responder has left 

the scene. 

Following the Dallas workshop, the participating States then agreed to test the selected 

performance measures over an 18-month period during Phase II. In Phase III, FHWA hosted a 

final task workshop in Milwaukee. There, the States reported on progress made in 

implementing the two performance measurements during. The workshop objectives included: 

1. A presentation of States’ status reports on the implementation of State Action Plans. 

2. Discussions of lessons learned–institutional, technical integration, and data exchange–

and how States were or were not able to resolve issues they encountered. 

3. Development of outreach strategies, including materials needed to support the 

development of TIM programs and TIM performance measurements. 

4. An initial discussion on a common definition of secondary incidents. 

5. The identification of areas where FHWA could assist with the adoption of TIM 

performance measurements. 

To address the first workshop objective, each State presented an update on their progress in 

implementing its State Action Plan. Following the progress updates, FHWA facilitated 

discussions to gain participant input and experience to support the remaining workshop 

objectives. The results from the workshop were submitted to FHWA in December 2007.6

During the final Phase III workshop in Milwaukee, FHWA asked participants to work on 

developing a common definition for secondary incidents. Participants opened the discussion 

with a general understanding that secondary incidents are crashes or other incidents resulting 

 

5

A majority (85 percent) of the participants at the Action Plan Development Workshop attended either the 

East or West Coast Regional Workshop. 

6

“Focus States Initiative Traffic Incident Management Performance Measures Milwaukee Workshop 

Report,” (December 2007), developed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), in 

association with American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) for the Federal Highway 

Administration. 
Focus States Initiative Overview January 2009 

from immediate factors associated with a previous incident. The participants noted that the 

definition is subjective. 

Discussing a secondary incidents definition and data collection methods for this metric, 

participants identified the following issues for consideration: 

 Secondary incidents resulting from rear-end crashes. A common type of secondary 

incident involves rear-end crashes caused by unexpected slowing as a result of a 

primary incident. However, participants noted that rear-end crashes result from two 

factors: capacity and an existing incident. In identifying secondary incidents, participants 

stated that capacity crashes should be filtered out so as not to overstate the number of 

secondary incidents. 

 Secondary incidents resulting from an unplanned incident/event occurring during 

recurring congestion. Participants noted that recurring congestion is considered a 

planned incident/event and that incidents that occur during such an incident/event 

should not be considered as secondary incidents. Secondary incidents should be 

incidents occurring as a result of an unplanned incident/event that result in a nonrecurring queue. 

 Need to establish a time or distance parameter used in defining secondary 

incidents. Participants discussed the need to establish a time or distance parameter to 

use in defining secondary incidents. One State indicated that secondary incidents are 

defined as incidents that occur within 2 miles and/or 2 hours of a primary incident. The 

State also indicated that incidents occurring within one-half mile and/or one-half hour of 

primary crash in the opposite direction are also considered secondary. 

 Need to provide training to incident responders to preclude subjective 

determination in properly identifying secondary incidents associated with nonrecurring congestion. Secondary incidents often are based on the investigating 

officer’s determination that the incident is a secondary incident. This can be subjective 

and participants stated that training would be required for officers (and other incident 

responders) on how to properly determine that a crash or incident is in fact secondary, 

and is associated with non-recurring congestion. 

 Need to establish criteria to define a secondary incident as any incident that 

would not have occurred given the lack of a primary incident. One discriminator 

identified by participants in defining secondary incidents was to establish criteria that a 

secondary incident is any incident that most likely would not have happened given the 

lack of the primary incident. However, participants cautioned that defining an incident as 

secondary can create huge liability issues for responders. For example, if responders 

had properly handled a primary incident, the secondary incident would not have 

occurred; therefore, the secondary incident is the direct responsibility of the responders. 

The participants agreed that the following statement represented a good start to developing a 

common definition for secondary incidents. However, the participants did not reach consensus 

on this definition: 

 8 
Focus States Initiative Overview January 2009 

 9 

Unplanned incidents (starting at the time of detection) for which a response or 

intervention is taken, where a collision occurs either a) within the incident scene 

or b) within the queue (which could include the opposite direction) resulting from 

the original incidents. 

Participants used the results of the facilitated discussion to establish the third performance 

measure related to secondary incidents, as presented in Table 5. 

Table 5. Candidate for Third TIM Performance Measures Based on Candidate Objectives 

TIM Program Objective Related Performance Measure

3. (NEWEST) Reduce the number of 

secondary incidents—specifically unplanned 

incidents for which a response or intervention 

is taken, where a collision occurs either a) 

within the incident scene or b) within the 

queue (which could include opposite direction) 

resulting from the original incident. 

Number of unplanned incidents beginning with the 

time of detection of the primary incident where a 

collision occurs either a) within the incident scene 

or b) within the queue, including the opposite 

direction, resulting from the original incident. 

Phase III of the TIM performance measurements FSI also addressed development of an 

outreach strategy and outreach materials for use by States interested in establishing TIM PM. 

The Statement of Work (SOW) produced by the Focus States identified and defined three 

deliverables in support of outreach efforts promoting TIM performance measures: 1) What 

message or messages should be delivered; 2) key issues that needed to be addressed; and 3) 

what supporting documentation should be highlighted in the materials. 
Focus States Initiative – Lessons Learned January 2009 

3. Focus States Initiative – Lessons Learned 

Institutional Issues and Challenges 

The participating States identified the most common institutional issue as gaining acceptance to 

measure performance from both executive decision makers and other agencies involved with 

TIM responsibilities. The following identify reasons for the difficulty in obtaining executive 

acceptance: 

 The development of an integrated TIM program and program-level TIM PM often 

requires “thinking outside of the box”: 

— Agencies have specific charges and responsibilities and may not view the collection 

of data needed for TIM PM as a priority when responding to an incident. 

— Agencies view TIM PM as being the responsibility of another agency. One State 

cited an example where emergency responders indicated that collecting data and 

measuring performance was the responsibility of the State’s DOT. 

 Decision makers may have limited resources available for program activities and need to 

be convinced that investing resources in TIM PM is worthwhile. 

The participating States also identified other significant issues involved obtaining executive 

acceptance for data exchange: 

 Exchanging data with other agencies may be a new practice for an agency and 

managers need to be convinced that this is beneficial to their agency. 

 What data is exchanged, who has access to the data, and how the data is used also 

may be of concern. This is particularly true with respect to data that may be needed for 

criminal investigations that arise from an incident. 

 Data exchange often involves legacy system modifications. Again, the key issue is 

convincing managers to invest resources. 

Fortunately, the participants identified a number of strategies that they have used in their own 

States to address the above-cited issues. Successful strategies, all of which emphasize 

developing cooperative relationships with other agencies, include the following: 

 Establishing working relationships with all agencies involved. Several States have 

established working groups that meet on a regular basis to discuss TIM operations and 

policies as a means to identify areas for improvement and exchange information and 

lessons learned. 

 Developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between agencies that 

defines roles, responsibilities, and establishes a defined working relationship. An 

 10 
Focus States Initiative – Lessons Learned January 2009 

MOU can be an effective tool for addressing data exchange issues by stating what data 

will be exchanged and how the data will be used. 

 Developing outreach materials that document the benefits of TIM PM. These can 

incorporate results from other States or within the State, but the key is to show how 

performance measurement can be a benefit, i.e., improving response operations and 

responder safety, obtaining additional budget funds, and so forth. 

 Establishing a cost-sharing agreement was identified by several States as critical 

to success. Placing responsibility on a single agency to obtain the funding needed for 

legacy system modifications was identified as problematic, whereas cost-sharing served 

the benefit of reducing a particular agency’s resource requirements. States indicated that 

leveraging other funding sources and resources also was a critical success factor, such 

as demonstrating how a particular legacy system modification needed to support TIM 

PM also would support other program activities helped obtain acceptance and support 

from management. 

Technical Integration and Data Exchange 

States identified the following solutions they used in to successfully address the most common 

technical integration and data exchange challenges: 

 Establish agreements between law enforcement and DOTs to preclude 

compromising sensitive data. Ensuring that law enforcement data provided to DOTs 

did not include any sensitive data that if made public would compromise a criminal 

investigation. A number of States indicated that to address this issue they had 

established agreements to specifically define data elements to be provided. These 

States also had established system filters that allowed the exchange of these agreed to 

data elements. 

 Establish technical committees to develop common data dictionaries. Many 

agencies within a State do not have compatible data dictionaries and collect the same 

information in different formats. States indicated that to address this issue, States would 

establish technical committees to help develop common data dictionaries or translators 

that would enable different systems to identify and match information. 

 Establish a common time stamp and common geographic coordinates necessary 

for data exchange and reporting functions. A common time stamp and common 

geographic coordinates necessary to identify an incident’s location also were identified 

as key issues for data exchange. For example, an enforcement agency may time stamp 

the closing of an incident as when the last enforcement vehicle departs the scene, while 

DOT or other responders may still be onsite. States indicated that establishing a 

common time stamp that establishes common incident start and close time stamps and 

the sharing of this information between agencies as critical to properly measuring 

incident duration. The same issue was identified with the use of geographic coordinates: 

 11 
Focus States Initiative – Lessons Learned January 2009 

 12 

if agencies use different geographic coordinates to identify an incident location, some 

type of system modification that translates these into a common set of coordinates is 

needed to enable agencies to properly identify the location of the same incident. 

 Identify and agree to a defined standard or group of standards for data exchange.

The States cited that identifying and agreeing to a particular standard or group of 

standards was identified as critical for ensuring interoperability. States indicated that 

multiple systems using multiple standards (IEEE 1512, APCO 36, NLETS, and so forth) 

created problems in enabling the exchange of data between systems. As part of this 

discussion, participants stated that developing a common ITS architecture was very 

helpful in identifying standards to be used by different agencies. 

 Identify and agree upon method of integrating text, video, and audio formats for 

data exchange. Integrating multiple types of data exchange via text, video, audio also 

was identified as important. This helps with identifying the appropriate response 

strategy; providing information on 511 or Web-based traveler information systems; 

notifying the media; and improving overall incident management in addition to enabling 

TIM PM. States indicated that this also helped convince managers to support the 

allocation of funds and resources needed for legacy system modifications. 

 Identify and agree upon consistent data collection practices within and between 

agencies. A significant issue facing States is that of inconsistent data collection 

practices both within and between agencies. Solutions identified included: 

— Minimizing human interface through use of automated data entry where possible, 

i.e., Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) systems, time-stamped data entry, and so 

forth. 

— Single-point data entry that is based on a user-friendly interface (for example, pulldown menus, single sheet, and so forth). 

— Pushing crash data from law enforcement to DOT and identify an agency (for 

example, DOT) responsible for time-stamping closure of incident. 

— Prioritizing the need for a “lane-clear” time stamp among law enforcement 

responders. 

— Training at all levels (practitioner, mid-level and executive) and among all partners 

organizations (DOT, law enforcement, etc.) on data-collection techniques to ensure 

common practices. 

— Identification and standardization by each State on which organization collects timestamp data. 
TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps January 2009 

 13 

4. TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps 

During the final session, the group identified the next steps for nationwide adoption of TIM 

performance metrics. 

Capitalize on Demonstrated TIM PM FSI Successes 

The TIM FSI successfully demonstrated the viability of performance measurement. The initiative 

unexpectedly resulted in the development of a peer exchange network. The FSI peers shared 

innovative approaches to TIM performance measurement, data exchange and systems 

integration, and institutional models to promote multi-agency information exchange. A majority 

of the participating States continue to move ahead with implementing integrated TIM programs 

that involve inter-agency data exchange and performance measurement. 

All of the participating States indicated the importance of continuing the information exchange, 

a key component of the TIM PM FSI. Responding to recommendations from the Focus States, 

FHWA developed an online Knowledge Management System to promote a national-level 

dialogue and knowledge exchange on TIM performance measurements. It is accessible at the 

FHWA ETO website, specifically http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse. The TIM Performance 

Measurements Knowledge Management System constitutes only one of many tools that may be 

used to continue to promote TIM performance measurements. 

TIM Outreach Strategy Plan 

Produced by the TIM Focus States, the TIM Outreach Strategy Plan encompasses a five-year 

scope. The goals are designed to help FHWA Division Offices move key decision-makers in 

State transportation and law enforcement agencies from “awareness” through “comprehension,” 

“conviction,” “desire,” and finally “action” to learn more about and implement TIM performance 

measurement and to adopt and implement the three proposed performance metrics outlined in 

this document.7

 

Performance measurement successes in other domains and its growing importance in FHWA 

initiatives suggest that there is an emerging market for information. States seek best practices 

and technical assistance in how to conduct multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional performance 

measurements given available resources. Examples of FHWA initiatives that emphasize 

performance measurement include: 

 Congestion Management Process (CMP), including management and operations into 

the planning process, 

 Integrated Corridor Management, 

 Several Safety initiatives, and 

 National Unified Goal (NUG) for Traffic Incident Management, 

Other indicators include the importance of Performance Measurement to the National Traffic 

Incident Management Coalition’s (NTIMC) work; the level of engagement by States in the TIM 

FSI; and the expression interest by other States (such as Missouri) during the FSI process. 

 

7

Note that all timeframes are approximate. The primary impetus for moving from one phase of the 

marketing effort to the next will be the accomplishment of the previous phase’s goals. 
TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps January 2009 

 14 

The FSI study team recommends that FHWA support the implementation of the outreach 

activities. Table 6 outlines a number of cost-efficient, yet highly effective means of providing 

outreach to participating States. Further, the message delivered through each medium can be 

tailored to meet the needs of a specific audience.8

Table 6. Recommended Outreach Activities 

Outreach 

Product/Tool Description 

Conferences and 

Events 

Conferences and events represent one of the most effective outreach 

opportunities for continuing to advance the State of the practice in any area. 

Practitioners value in-person meetings as well as virtual opportunities for peer 

exchange (see Webinars). This was one of the most frequently referenced 

suggestions by FSI participants when asked how FHWA could continue to 

advance program-level TIM PM: 

“Bringing everyone together. Having these kinds of conferences/ 

workshops. This needs to be something that goes on over years. 

Building a bench. We need to bring new people to these meetings to 

keep the flow going. Maybe once per year/ maybe meet on a regional 

basis annually and national basis every 5 years.” 

Conferences also provide effective forums for distributing hardcopy outreach 

materials (fact sheets, trading cards); interacting with stakeholders in person 

(word of mouth marketing); and giving presentations on program-level TIM PM. 

Structured Regional 

or Topic-Based 

Workshops 

Assuming a sufficient level of interest, FHWA could sponsor targeted regional or 

topic-based workshops on program-level TIM PM and invite one or more focus 

State(s) to participate as subject matter experts/peers. 

The FHWA peer exchange model could be used (see Office of Freight peer 

exchange model). For topic-based workshops, role plays, and other experiential 

learning techniques could be blended with more traditional peer 

exchange/knowledge exchange techniques to help prepare participants to be 

successful in their regions or home environments. 

Personal contact with 

representatives from 

target States and 

agencies. 

While outreach products can help to raise awareness and generate interest in 

performance contracting and in FHWA’s Implementation Framework, the most 

effective way to influence States to consider program-level TIM PM is 

through direct personal contact between FHWA and the target States. The 

outreach products can help to prepare FHWA and its representatives to 

communicate effectively with States about program-level TIM PM. Conferences/ 

events offer opportunities to do this, but phone calls and emails can be effective. 

*Fact Sheet The TIM FSI developed an executive fact sheet (see appendix B) that introduces 

the need for program-level TIM PM, how it can benefit agencies and the public, 

and where States can learn more. Division offices can distribute this to State 

partners, and bring this to all events/forums where they are attending or 

presenting on TIM. 

*PowerPoint 

Presentation 

The TIM FSI also developed an executive-level presentation for use by State and 

local transportation or law enforcement officials in building support for programlevel TIM PM. Division offices can distribute this to State partners, and bring this 

to all events/forums where they are attending or presenting on TIM. 

This presentation is available on the FHWA TIM Website, and can be readily 

tailored if desired, to a particular audience by removing unrelated slides. 

 

8

Those outreach products marked with * were developed through the TIM PM FSI are available to support 

outreach activities. 
TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps January 2009 

 15 

Outreach 

Product/Tool Description 

Webinar and Podcasts Webinars represent another popular electronic means for disseminating 

information to a large number of people and can be podcasted along with closed 

captioning. One Webinar was held for general TIM stakeholder audiences near 

the end of the TIM FSI to introduce the FSI. FHWA can consider holding 

additional Webinars periodically, such as: 

 Introduce all Division Offices to program-level TIM PM and the FSI outreach 

strategy. 

 Conduct in-depth learning/skill development in a core area of program-level TIM 

PM (institutional development/partnership building, technical development, 

operational implementation). 

 Bring TIM stakeholders interested in TIM PM together to exchange lessonslearned, practices, and tips. 

 Announce the program-level TIM PM Knowledge Management System to 

stimulate interest and help regain momentum. 

Webinars offer a structured, interactive forum in which stakeholders can ask 

questions. Webinars can be scheduled quarterly or biannually to maintain a 

general awareness and account for staff turnover in agencies (a key barrier to 

implementing program-level TIM PM cited by TIM FSI participants. 

The Webinars also can be held as needed to address specific topics of interest, or 

to offer educational opportunities to provide stakeholders with regular 

opportunities to learn more about performance contracting for construction and 

how this approach can be helpful to them. 

Questions asked during the Web conferences can serve to help FHWA to gather 

additional information for creating Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) lists. 

Website, Knowledge 

Management System, 

and FAQs 

The FHWA or other national sponsor Website (NTIMC) should function as the 

reliable source for the latest information on program-level TIM PM. (Note that 

passive mechanisms such as the Website alone are not effective means for 

marketing. Target audiences must be made aware of the Website, motivated to 

visit it, and must find the information they are seeking when they visit.) 

Create pointers from all related Websites to a Web page that is dedicated to 

introducing program-level TIM PM; how it can benefit stakeholders; FAQs; 

introducing the Knowledge Management System; and include the experiences of 

the TIM FSI. 

FHWA is developing a Knowledge Management System to allow the focus States 

and others interested in TIM performance measurement to continue to share 

information, experiences, and resources such as data exchange standards and 

architectures with each other. This system will be comprised of a managed email 

list to allow folks to tap into the collective knowledge across the country with TIM 

PM, as well as an online Knowledgebase for conveniently sharing documents and 

other downloadable products. 

Press or News 

Release 

A brief news release may be used for significant updates or developments in the 

area of TIM PMs. News releases can be distributed to, and available from the 

Website, to be carried by external media. 

Magazine/Journal/Web 

Articles 

A core article could be developed for a key target publication (i.e., Public Roads) 

introducing program-level TIM PM, the TIM FSI experience, how program-level 

TIM PM can benefit partner agencies, to promote the forthcoming Knowledge 

Management System, and explain how and where readers can learn more. 
TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps January 2009 

 16 

Outreach 

Product/Tool Description 

Headlines on/links 

from other 

related/partner sites 

Request that partners’ sites (NTIMC, Office of Operations, law enforcement/EMS 

associations, AASHTO, etc.) carry a headline for a period of 1-3 weeks 

introducing FHWA’s program-level TIM Knowledge Management System. 

Suggested group websites include: 

 American Associate of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 

General 

 American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) 

 Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Subcommittee on Systems and 

Operation Management (SSOM) Committee 

 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 

 I-95 Corridor Coalition, and others as defined

Trading Cards Develop a business card or baseball style card that emphasizes the message in a 

catchy way such as “TIM is a Team Sport,” and motivates practitioners to consider 

program-level TIM PM. Cards could feature “most valuable players,” and feature 

individuals or teams across the country who are leading in program-level TIM 

performance measurement, showing that it can be done.

Managed Email List The program-level TIM performance measurement Knowledge Management 

System LISTSERV will serve as a primary means of information exchange and 

promotion for the forthcoming Knowledgebase. Transportation stakeholders 

regularly report preferring managed email lists (like a LISTSERV) as an efficient 

means of receiving quick updates on a topic of interest that they may optionally 

choose to pursue further if desired. Emails sent to the managed email list will 

include informational headlines and Website addresses to short articles or new 

articles in the program-level TIM performance measurement Knowledgebase that 

stakeholders can pursue further at their leisure. 

Workshop Report 

(Can be posted to 

Knowledgebase) 

The workshop reports give more detailed information on how the Focus States got 

started in their data collection and analysis and the lessons learned. A contact list 

of TIM PM focus States participants is available so that you can contact them 

directly for more information.

Self Assessments FHWA’s annual TIM Self-Assessment is another useful tool for identifying TIM 

performance measures and tracking those measures on a yearly basis. 

Research shows that people need to be exposed to a message seven times in three different 

formats for the information to make an impression. This means that to effectively raise 

awareness about TIM performance measurements and to motivate people to take action and 

learn more, outreach efforts should be “layered” to ensure that target audiences receive the 

message multiple times. Examples of layered outreach would include using an event-driven 

approach and announcing the event through several channels such as: 

 A press release. 

 Targeted article. 

 Web site postings. 

 Presentations at conferences/events. 

 Distributing collateral such as trading cards or fact sheets at events. 

 A webinar. 
TIM Performance Measurement – Next Steps January 2009 

 17 

A number of newsworthy, cost-efficient TIM Performance measurement-related events lend 

themselves to outreach: 

 Completion and release of the TIM PM FSI final report. 

 Launch of the program-level TIM PM Knowledge Management System. 

 Promotion of major advances in TIM PM by States that are worthy of national attention. 

 New resource updates or functionality upgrades to the TIM PM Knowledge Management 

System. 

Through sharing the FSI’s results and promoting expanded involvement of all interested States 

through the Knowledge Management System, FHWA’s efforts will benefit all States and provide 

a forum where they can exchange successes in overcoming these challenges. The results and 

findings of this initiative will help States to identify areas where improvements in incident 

response capabilities can improve highway safety for both the traveling public and the 

responder community. As an added benefit, this study addresses a significant gap in existing 

resources and tools available for improving TIM performance. FHWA hopes that this report will 

aid States in reducing congestion, safeguarding the motoring public and responders, and 

contributing toward the National Unified Goal (NUG) for Traffic Incident Management through 

measuring TIM performance. 

A supplementary PowerPoint presentation developed through this initiative follows as Appendix 

A, “Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement The Focus States Initiative: On the 

Road to Success.” 
Appendix A: Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement Presentation January 2009 

Appendix A: Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement 

Presentation 

The referenced Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement PowerPoint 

presentation, titled “The Focus States Initiative: On the Road to Success” supplements this Final 

Report and the 2-page outreach fact sheet in appendix B. 

The presentation details the benefits of program-level TIM performance measurement, with the 

goal of helping various State transportation professionals determine how they can capitalize on 

the results and utilize them in their respective States. 

Specific topics include: 

 Various TIM stakeholders. 

 What are the five benefits of effective TIM? 

 Samples of data collection and evaluation results from the three sample States. 

 Challenges and lessons learned. 

 How other States can gain support in getting started in tracking and evaluating identified 

performance measures. 

 18 
APPENDIX B: TIM PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OUTREACH 

FACT SHEET 

The following two pages present an executive-level outreach fact sheet, titled “Traffic Incident 

Management (TIM) Performance Measurement On the Road to Success.” States may use this 

fact sheet, which complements the PowerPoint presentation in appendix A, to build support 

among colleagues, managers, and partner agencies for program-level TIM performance 

measurement. 

 19 
 20 
 21 
 22 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov

 Publication #: FHWA-HOP-10-010 

December 2009