C

INFORMATION SHARING FOR TRAFFIC 

INCIDENT MANAGEMENT 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

QUALITY ASSURANCE 

The U.S. Department of Transportation 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. This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Highway 

Administration under contract number DTFH61-06-D-0007. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or 

recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the Federal Highway Administration.

i
ii

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION

1. Report No. 

FHWA-HOP-08-059

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

January 2009

4. Title and Subtitle 

Information Sharing for Traffic Incident Management

6. Performing Organization Code 

7. Author(s) 

Ingrid Birenbaum, P.E., PTOE

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

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

PBS&J 

3230 W. Commercial Boulevard, Suite 100 

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTFH61-06-D-0007

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Technical Report

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Transportation Operations 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

HOTO-1, FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Project performed under contract to Battelle for the Federal Highway Administration Office of Operations

16. Abstract 

Traffic incident management focuses on developing procedures, implementing policies, and deploying 

technologies to more quickly identify incidents, improve response times, and more effectively and efficiently 

manage the incident scene. Because so many entities are involved in response efforts, rapid and effective traffic 

incident management relies on successful information sharing between public safety agencies, transportation 

agencies, and other public and private sector incident responders. This document identifies and summarizes the 

information needs of public and private incident responders. It describes how information is obtained and shared 

during an event in order to best support safe, quick response. Additionally this document addresses technical 

and institutional barriers to information exchange as well as methods devised to overcome these barriers. This 

report presents key research showcasing the advantages of data sharing between multiple agencies. It identifies 

and summarizes the information needs of various incident response agencies, describing the means to obtain 

and share information during an event. Case study information is also presented to illustrate various means of 

information sharing. Collection and distribution of information is addressed in the context of the incident timeline. 

Selected best practices for information sharing are presented. Various information sharing barriers are presented 

as well as some strategies to overcome them.

17. Key Words 

Transportation Management Plans, Information 

Sharing, Traffic Incident Management

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the 

public.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

54

22. Price 

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized
LETTER FROM ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF OPERATIONS JEFFREY A. LINDLEY 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. 

Washington, DC 20590

October 31, 2008 

Dear Transportation Professionals & Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Partners: 

As part of the mission of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to “Keep America 

Moving,” we need to safeguard the motoring public and those responding to traffic incidents. 

Safe, quick clearance of highway incidents—a foundation of both mature and developing TIM 

programs—depends on strong, coordinated multi-agency operations that are supported by 

integrated communications. 

With more vehicles on the Nation’s highways, traffic incidents become increasingly life 

threatening for those involved, including responders dispatched to help. According to the 

National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC), "struck-by" secondary incidents are 

on the rise. In conjunction with the NTIMC partner organizations in the public safety and 

transportation arenas, FHWA promotes policies that enhance responder safety (such as driver 

removal and move-over laws); encourages the use of new technologies and gear to protect 

responders during roadside operations; and promotes improved safety procedures and safety 

training of traffic incident responders. In the coming year, FHWA will be launching a new 

campaign, similar to the highly successful “Click It or Ticket” campaign, to increase driver 

awareness of their roles and duties in safely addressing traffic incidents or public safety responses 

on the roads. 

As a part of this campaign and in support of TIM practitioners, FHWA is pleased to introduce a 

new set of primers, collectively known as the “Safe, Quick Clearance Primer Series.” This 

series includes five primers that address various issues associated with roadside clearance 

operations and provide basic building blocks on: 

• Information Sharing for Traffic Incident Management 

• Traffic Incident Management in Construction and Maintenance Work Zones 

• Traffic Incident Management in Hazardous Materials Spills in Incident Clearance 

• Traffic Incident Management Resource Management, and

• Traffic Control Concepts for Incident Clearance 

We encourage comments and contributions to these primers and other FHWA Traffic Incident 

Management documents. Please feel free to contact our Emergency Transportation Operations 

Team at ETO@dot.gov with suggestions for future revisions. 

 Sincerely, 

 Jeffrey A. Lindley 

 Associate Administrator for Operations 

iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

QUALITY ASSURANCE.................................................................................i

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION.....................................................ii

LETTER FROM ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR OF OPERATIONS 

JEFFREY A. LINDLEY......................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................vi

LIST OF FIGURES......................................................................................vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1

v

Purpose of This Document ..............................................................................1

Target Audience...............................................................................................1

Structure of this Guidebook .............................................................................2

 2.0

.................................................................................3

INFORMATION EXCHANGE BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 

RESPONDERS

Traffic Incident Management Concepts ...........................................................4

The Incident Command System and Unified Command..................................4

Information Sharing Practices..........................................................................7

Information Sharing Case Studies .................................................................12

3.0

...19

INFORMATION COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES 

THAT MAXIMIZE SAFETY AND FACILITATE QUICK CLEARANCE

The Incident Timeline.....................................................................................19

Information Collection ....................................................................................21

Information Dissemination .............................................................................26

Identification of Relevant Stakeholders .........................................................27

Coordination between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies...............27

Institutional Arrangement and Agreements ...................................................29

Training and Debriefings................................................................................30

Performance Measurement and Continuous Improvement Best Practices...31

Information Sharing Best Practices................................................................34

4.0 BARRIERS TO INFORMATION SHARING.......................................39

Administrative/Institutional Barriers................................................................39

Operational Barriers.......................................................................................40

Technological Barriers ...................................................................................40

5.0 References and Suggested Readings............................................43

References.....................................................................................................43

Suggested Reading........................................................................................44
vi

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Methods of Sharing TIM Between Transportation and Public Safety Agencies 

at Survey Locations................................................................................................................. 13

Table 2. System Performance Test Results Summary........................................................... 22

Table 3. System Impact Test Results Summary..................................................................... 23

Table 4. System Performance Test Results Summary........................................................... 24

Table 5. System Impact Test Results Summary..................................................................... 25

Table 6. Strategies and Techniques for Information Disseminations Between Responders.. 26

Table 7. Strategies and Techniques for Information Dissemination to the Public .................. 30

Table 8. IIMS’s Goals, Hypotheses, and Findings.................................................................. 35

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Incident Command Functional Areas ........................................................................ 5

Figure 2. Incident Command Structure Needs ......................................................................... 6

Figure 3. Advantages of Using Unified Command.................................................................... 7

Figure 4. Organizational Elements........................................................................................... 8

Figure 5. SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum.................................................................... 17

Figure 6. ICS Organizational Chart......................................................................................... 28

Figure 7. State of Florida’s Open Roads Policy...................................................................... 29
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

Traffic incident management is defined as the “systematic, planned, and coordinated use of 

human, institutional, mechanical, and technical resources to reduce the duration and impact 

of incidents, and improve the safety of motorists, crash victims, and incident responders” 

(Traffic Incident Management Handbook, 2000).1

 Traffic incident management focuses on 

developing procedures, implementing policies, and deploying technologies to more quickly 

identify incidents, improve response times, and more effectively and efficiently manage the 

incident scene. With many and varied parties involved in response efforts, rapid and effective 

traffic incident management relies on successful information sharing between public safety 

agencies, transportation agencies, and other public and private sector incident responders. 

Information sharing is critical for quick and appropriate response because the efforts have 

direct correlations to public safety and mobility. Information sharing allows multiple agencies 

to identify needed resources and provide coordinated traffic incident management; it also 

provides the motoring public with information upon which to base their travel choices. 

Purpose of This Document 

The purpose of this document is to identify and summarize information needs of public and 

private incident responders. It describes how information is obtained and shared during an 

event in order to best support safe, quick response and safe passage for the motoring public. 

Additionally this document addresses technical and institutional barriers to information 

exchange as well as methods devised to overcome these barriers. This report will build upon 

key research and efforts to show the advantages of data sharing between multiple agencies. 

This document will also highlight information sharing frameworks of response partnerships 

that successfully manage traffic incidents. 

Target Audience 

This document is targeted toward three distinct audiences that require information to 

effectively and efficiently carry out their duties as they respond to an incident. These include: 

• First Responders – These would include individuals from state and local law 

enforcement agencies, emergency dispatch centers, fire-recue and 

emergency medical service departments, and other public service personnel 

who typically address the immediate incident scene. Their primary duty is to 

secure the incident scene and look after the needs of the motorists involved 

in the incident. However, they also work with operations personnel to 

implement and execute traffic incident management responses. 

• Operations Personnel – These would include individuals that are typically 

associated with state and local transportation agencies whose response 

priorities focus on restoration of normal traffic flow. They work both on scene 

to support incident response and traffic control as well as in traffic 

management centers to coordinate the overall incident response. This group 

1
• Secondary Responders and Additional Stakeholders (“Secondary 

Responders”) – These would include individuals that take over traffic control 

set-up responsibilities from first responders and operations personnel as well 

as individuals from insurance divisions, coroners’ and medical examiners’ 

offices, the media, and other entities that have varied participation in a 

response effort. They are not generally first on scene, and secondary 

responders provide support functions to assist in the incident response. Their 

typical focus is traffic control and management as well as support to the 

incident scene that impacts incident duration, motorist response, and 

emergency manager actions. 

Structure of this Guidebook 

This guidebook is one in an Information Series on Traffic Incident Management Safe, Quick 

Clearance. This guidebook focuses on Information Sharing for Traffic Incident Management. 

Other guidebooks available in this information series deal with the following topics: 

• Traffic Control Concepts for Incident Clearance; 

• Hazardous Materials Spills in Incident Clearance; 

• Traffic Incident Management in Construction and Maintenance Work Zones; 

and 

• Traffic Incident Management Resource Management. 

This document identifies and summarizes the information needs of various incident response 

entities. It describes the means to obtain and share information during an event and some of 

the challenges associated with information sharing among multiple agencies. Chapter 2 

discusses the various means through which incident responders share information and 

summarizes case study information from the primary source document that supports these 

methods of information sharing. Chapter 3 discusses how incident response agencies collect 

and distribute information in the context of the incident timeline; it also highlights best 

practices for information sharing followed by various incident response agencies. Chapter 4 

discusses various information sharing barriers as well as some strategies to overcome them. 

Chapter 5 contains references and other suggested readings that were used to develop this 

guidebook. 

2
 2.0 INFORMATION EXCHANGE BY PUBLIC AND 

PRIVATE RESPONDERS 

Generally defined, a highway incident is a period of impact due to a vehicle crash, 

breakdown, or special traffic event in which normally flowing traffic is interrupted. The incident 

can vary in severity from a breakdown on the shoulder, to roadway blockage from a multivehicle crash, to a regional evacuation from a natural or man-made disaster. The scale of the 

incident influences the scope of the response in terms of agencies involved and resources 

needed to manage the incident. 

This non-recurring congestion results in a reduction in roadway capacity or an abnormal 

increase in traffic demand. Normal operations of the transportation system are disrupted. 

Incidents are a major source of roadway congestion, contributing to millions of hours of delay 

and productive hours wasted as well as causing a direct negative effect on roadway safety 

and operations. 

Incidents are classified in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2

 based upon 

duration, each with unique traffic control characteristics and needs: 

• Major – typically traffic incidents involving hazardous materials, fatal traffic 

crashes involving numerous vehicles, and other natural or man-made 

disasters. These traffic incidents typically involve closing all or part of a 

roadway facility for a period exceeding 2 hours. Traffic control is 

implemented. 

• Intermediate – typically affect travel lanes for a time period of 30 minutes to 2 

hours, and usually require traffic control on the scene to divert road users 

past the blockage. Full roadway closures might be needed for short periods 

during traffic incident clearance to allow traffic incident responders to 

accomplish their tasks. Traffic control is implemented. 

• Minor –disabled vehicles and minor crashes that result in lane closures of 

less than 30 minutes. On-scene responders are typically law enforcement 

and towing companies, and occasionally highway agency service patrol 

vehicles. Diversion of traffic into other lanes is often not needed or is needed 

only briefly. It is not generally possible or practical to set up a lane closure 

with traffic control devices for a minor traffic incident. 

Incident response activities are interdependent, and responders must, therefore, effectively 

exchange information in order to have the most effective, rapid, and appropriate response to 

a highway incident. Responders must agree to basic task definitions, lines of authority, 

organizational issues, and assignments of responsibility. Information must be shared across 

a variety of boundaries, including technological, organizational, and institutional. While 

technology can overcome various interoperability issues, successful information sharing 

begins first with stakeholders’ commitment to cooperative partnerships to address 

organizational and institutional barriers. Overcoming these barriers permits coordinated and 

integrated response to incidents, and those agencies that work together effectively have 

3
found ways to address the challenges presented by these barriers. The primary reference for 

this section is the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 520, 

Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic Incident 

Management (2004).3

This report identifies four broad categories for information exchange: 

• Face-to-face 

• Remote voice 

• Electronic text 

• Other media and advanced systems 

This section will first introduce some traffic incident management concepts with respect to 

coordination and communications between response agencies. This will be followed by brief 

descriptions of the four areas of information sharing practices relative to the three categories 

of this document’s target audience. Successful programs typically use several practices 

within an environment that support and encourage information exchange. 

Traffic Incident Management Concepts 

Traffic incident management is the planned, coordinated effort between multiple agencies to 

deal with incidents and restore normal traffic flow as safely and quickly as possible. This 

effort makes use of technology, processes, and procedures to reduce incident duration and 

impact to: 

• Reduce incident detection, verification, response, and clearance times to 

quickly re-establish normal capacity and conditions 

• Enhance safety for motorists and field/safety personnel 

• Reduce the number of secondary crashes that occur as a result of the 

primary incident 

• Reduce motorist costs, vehicle emissions, and business costs 

• Allow resources to resume non-incident activities 

The Incident Command System and Unified Command 

Incident Command System 

Incident responders, particularly law enforcement and fire-rescue personnel, use the federally 

adopted Incident Command System (ICS), for all types of incident management. ICS was 

originally developed in the 1970s as an approach for managing responses to rapidly moving 

wildfires. In the 1980s, federal officials transitioned ICS into the National Incident 

Management System (NIMS), the basis of response for highway and other incidents. ICS is a 

standardized, on scene traffic incident management concept that allows responders to adopt 

an integrated organizational structure without being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries. 

ICS includes five major functional areas shown in Figure 1: command, operations, planning, 

logistics, and finance and administration. These major areas are further broken down into 

specialized subunits. The area of Intelligence may be included if required. 

4
Command – overall authority associated with the incident, responsible for determining size 

and magnitude of response and involved personnel 

Operations – activities necessary to provide safety, incident stability, property conservation, 

and restoration of normal highway operations 

Planning – activities associated with maintaining resource/situation status, development of 

incident action plans, and providing technical expertise/support to field personnel. 

Logistics – services and support for incident response effort in the form of personnel, 

facilities, and materials. 

Financial and Administration – tracking of incident costs/accounts for reimbursement. 

Intelligence – analysis and sharing of information and intelligence during the incident. 

Figure 1. Incident Command Functional Areas 4

ICS outlines roles and responsibilities for incident responders. Rather than defining who is in 

charge, ICS provides the management structure for who is in charge of what. ICS allows 

agencies to work together using common terminologies and operating procedures, leaving 

command personnel with a better understanding of other agencies’ priorities. 

ICS is scalable to the level appropriate for the incident and surrounding conditions. 

Responses can be transitioned from small, single agency to large, multi-agency and viceversa with minimal adjustments for the agencies involved as shown in Figure 2. ICS provides 

the structure to allow flexible, agile responses that adapt to real-time field conditions. 

5
Figure 2. Incident Command Structure Needs 5

Unified Command 

Unified command (UC) defines the application of ICS when there is more than one agency 

with incident jurisdiction or when an incident crosses multiple jurisdictions. UC provides a 

management structure that allows agencies with incident responsibilities to jointly work within 

an established set of common objectives and strategies that include: 

• Agency assignments 

• Incident priorities 

• Assignment of agency objectives 

• Communications protocols 

• Knowledge of duties within agency responsibilities 

• Acquisition and allocation of materials and resources 

When applied effectively, UC facilitates interagency communications and cooperation, 

leading to efficiencies in response. UC allows all agencies with jurisdictional authority to 

provide managerial direction at an incident scene while maintaining a common set of 

objectives and strategies. Command staff report directly to the Incident Commander. The 

identity of the Incident Commander is dependent on the priority mission at the time. Until the 

injured are treated and moved, fire-rescue or emergency medical services (EMS) will 

probably be in charge. When the priorities shift to investigation, law enforcement will take 

over. As the incident moves into clean-up/recovery, command can shift to the transportation 

agency or towing contractor. Personnel participate actively until they no longer have a role at 

the incident. During this process, other agencies have the opportunity to participate in 

decision making and provide direction to their own personnel; however, overall charge 

resides in the Incident Commander. A key component of success is the ability to 

communicate between the varied entities with roles to play in the response effort. Another 

key factor is the strength of interpersonal relationships, often built in other settings, that 

allows responders to communicate clearly and effectively with each other during the 

management of an incident. Some key advantages of UC, as listed in the United States 

(U.S.) Department of Homeland Security’s National Incident Management System Manual,4

are: 

6
Figure 3. Advantages of Using Unified Command 4

• A single set of objectives is developed for the entire incident 

A collective approach is used to develop strategies to 

achieve incident objectives 

• Information flow and coordination is improved between all 

jurisdictions and agencies involved in the incident 

• All agencies with responsibility for the incident have an 

understanding of joint priorities and restrictions 

• No agency’s legal authorities will be compromised or 

• The combined efforts of all agencies are optimized as they 

perform their respective assignments under a single Incident 

Action Plan 

neglected 

Information Sharing Practices , , 3 6 7

Face-to-Face 

Face-to-face communications between incident responders are the most common form of 

information exchange. Personal exchanges are most effective when responders are able to 

communicate openly and directly share information and coordinate responses. These 

exchanges occur both at an incident scene and within shared facilities; and they include both 

communications during an incident and various planning or debriefing teams that meet 

outside the course of an incident. 

On Scene 

Law enforcement and fire-rescue incident responders are familiar with, and frequently use, 

the ICS. Responders from transportation agencies are beginning to incorporate ICS 

applications in their actions both on scene and at traffic management centers. 

Most highway incidents involve law enforcement, transportation personnel, and a private tow 

truck and, therefore, usually do not require formal implementation of ICS. However, when a 

large-scale, complex incident requires a multiple-agency response, these personnel must 

understand how ICS defines; 

• Operational task responsibilities, 

• Chains of command, and 

• Scene management practices 

Incident responders located on scene work within the operations functional area of ICS. One 

person directs all incident-related operational activities and reports back to the Incident 

Commander. Depending on the complexity of the incident, subunits within this structure 

establish tactical objectives for each phase of response. Resources refer to the personnel 

and equipment needed to manage the response. The major organizational elements for the 

operations area are shown in Figure 4. 

7
Figure 4. Organizational Elements 4

More incident responders are beginning to be trained in ICS and UC in which multiple 

agencies respond to a single incident. As stated in the Traffic Incident Management 

Handbook, 1

 UC facilitates cooperation and participation between multiple 

agencies/jurisdictions through the following functions: 

• Provide overall response direction 

• Coordinate effective communication 

• Coordinate resource allocation 

• Establish incident priorities 

• Develop incident objectives 

• Develop strategies to achieve objectives 

• Assign objectives within the response structure 

• Review and approve incident action plans 

• Insure the integration of response organizations into the UC structure 

• Establish protocols 

Following UC principles permits agencies to more cooperatively work together to achieve 

common objectives. The required teamwork and communications helps to avoid duplication 

of tasks and activities. 

For example, the first responder on scene is responsible to assess the incident, secure the 

scene, provide emergency care, and call for additional response resources. As response 

activities occur, incident command shifts as the priority mission changes: 

• Emergency response to treat and transport victims and establish scene 

safety 

• Investigate incident 

• Clean up/restore/repair incident scene 

Effective communications between agencies is critical for successful management of the 

incident and resumption of normal traffic flow. 

8
Shared Facilities 

Shared facilities encompass a variety of locations in which multiple agencies operate jointly, 

both during the course of an incident and in settings that include debriefing and planning 

sessions. Traffic operations/management centers (TOC/TMC) can house transportation, 

public safety, and other personnel who are able to share both communications and 

information systems, allowing the facility to become a focal point for sharing incident status 

information in the region. Examples of other shared facilities include 911/dispatch centers 

and mobile command posts. Co-location of personnel, often initiated through an inter-agency 

Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement (MOU/MOA), allows partners to work side-by-side 

within the facility, strengthening relationships between responders as a result of the 

interpersonal contact. Such facilities evolve to become the focal point of information sharing 

in a region, beginning with information exchange through face-to-face communications and 

shared system access. 

Planning/Debriefing Sessions 

Another important means of information exchange is via incident-related, non-emergency 

meetings between responders. Such meetings are often held by multi-disciplinary traffic 

incident management (TIM) teams and task forces that debrief major incidents in order to find 

ways to improve TIM response. Recommendations from TIM teams range from immediate 

response improvements to longer term strategic suggestions that may require time, 

resources, and other commitments for implementation. Regular TIM team meetings provide a 

neutral environment to effectively discuss lessons learned as well as resolve issues that may 

have arisen during the management of an incident. Debriefing steps should include: 

• Incident re-creation 

• Agency input for aspects that worked well and those that did not 

• Discussion of potential improvements 

• Development of consensus for future events 

• Documentation of findings and update of response plans, if appropriate 

Remote Voice 

The most common ways incident responders share information between the incident scene, 

operations centers, and public safety facilities using voice communications are: 

• Land line telephones 

• Wireless telephones 

• Land mobile radios 

These remote voice tools are often used in combination by all of those involved in the 

incident and response: 

• A disabled or passing motorist dials 911 or a non-emergency assistance 

number via cellular telephone to notify public safety personnel about an 

incident 

• First responders relay information about the incident via their land mobile 

radio network 

9
• Response agencies speak to each other via the wired telephone network to 

coordinate their responses 

With voice communications to transmit information to and from the incident scene, 

responders can quickly adjust to changing conditions. Responders must use clear-text 

transmissions, mandated by NIMS-ICS guidelines, 4

 to prevent misunderstandings of their 

transmissions. Remote voice information exchange also facilitates the adjustment of 

response resources and provides an easily used pipeline of information to information 

dissemination services for the motoring public. 

Land-line Telephones 

Wired telephones are sometimes the only means available to share information between 

separately housed response entities. Wired telephones include voice and facsimile 

transmissions. They are critical for public safety communications, including 911 calls, and 

some portions of the cellular network make use of the land-line telephone network. 

Wireless Telephones 

Cellular phones, and less commonly used satellite telephones, are used between on scene 

and in-facility incident responders. Motorists, both those involved in an incident as well as 

passers-by, use cellular phones to call for assistance; however, there can be accuracy issues 

as unfamiliar motorists incorrectly identify incident locations. Cameras in cellular telephones 

have become common place and can be used to wirelessly transmit visual information; 

however, image transmission via wireless telephone is usually not a first action by incident 

responders. Cellular capabilities are improving as the network matures—both in terms of use 

of the network and cellular phone features (push-to-talk networks that sometimes replaces 

land mobile radios, text messaging, internet access, and still/video camera phones). 

Land Mobile Radios 

Radios can be used by incident responders to communicate directly with each other. While 

they are typically used within a single agency because of interoperability issues, sharing the 

radio frequency with other incident responders can facilitate response. For example, service 

patrol personnel may operate on a law enforcement radio network to communicate directly 

with law enforcement, both at the incident scene as well as with a dispatch center, with the 

result that response times may be reduced. Safeguards, including specialized training and 

procedures, must be put into place to overcome security concerns about sensitive information 

for shared communications with law enforcement agencies. One alternative is to allow civilian 

personnel to listen, but not talk, over the radio. Another benefit of sharing radio 

communications is that transportation personnel can handle minor incident response issues 

and communications, freeing public safety responders to handle emergency issues. 

Electronic Text 

Electronic text messaging is an automated way to share incident-related information quickly 

with large numbers of agencies and people with minimal resources. While not the primary 

method for inter-agency communications, electronic text messaging can be used to share 

information broadly and quickly. Categories of electronic text systems are: 

• Alphanumeric pagers 

• Email 

• Traffic incident-related systems, including computer aided dispatch (CAD) 

10
Pagers can be used to transmit abbreviated messages to incident responders; email text can 

be more detailed. Both are quick means to broadcast information to predefined response 

groups. Additionally, pages and email blasts can be sent to the public as a subscription 

service, sometimes in conjunction with 511 traveler information services, so motorists can be 

advised of traffic conditions. If necessary, they can avoid becoming part of the incident queue 

through route diversions and adjustments, reducing the overall incident’s impact and 

duration. 

CAD sharing by law enforcement is becoming more common. Because the information 

entered into CAD is sensitive, non-law enforcement personnel must undergo certain 

precautions (background checks, training, etc.) to satisfy security requirements. Read-only, 

sometimes filtered, access allows other responders to call for and adjust response resources 

more effectively. For example, transportation personnel can monitor CAD systems to track 

incident progress and adjust their own response efforts. CAD systems also become a 

valuable record keeping tool when debriefing or analyzing an incident’s response for areas of 

improvement. Interoperability issues can impact information exchange using CAD, since 

many CAD systems are proprietary and, therefore, pose technological challenges to sharing 

information. Integration can occur; however, institutional and technological barriers must be 

overcome to do so effectively. 

Other Media and Advanced Systems 

Other integrated technologies can be used to share incident-related information between 

transportation and public safety agencies. Advanced traffic management systems (ATMS) 

normally include surveillance and communications technologies. They also address the 

needs of two different audiences: response personnel from the public and private sectors, 

and the motoring public trying to navigate around an incident. 

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) field devices for incident detection and verification 

include in-ground and mounted sensors and closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. Visual 

verification allows increased accuracy of response because agencies can see what 

resources are needed for incident response and repair and, therefore, dispatch them more 

quickly and accurately. Images and detection data can be readily shared with co-located 

agencies or remotely if integration needs have been addressed. Visual imagery allows 

response agencies to adjust their response, manage traffic, and disseminate information. 

Information dissemination occurs through the use of electronic message signs (both portable 

and fixed), highway advisory radios, and telephone- and web-based 511 traveler information 

services. Information shared in this manner can be received by motorists, who can then 

evaluate roadway conditions, and decide if and how to adjust their travels during the course 

of an incident. This same information is useful to response agencies that need to travel on 

the roadway network quickly and efficiently, helping them reduce their own response times. 

Real-time information regarding roadway conditions, congestion, and scene details helps 

responders arrive, respond, and leave an incident scene more quickly. 

ITS media allow more accurate, timely, and reliable information sharing through an important 

technological set of tools that can be used by multiple responders to support traffic incident 

management response efforts. However, because ITS applications can have greater 

communications bandwidth requirements than remote voice or electronic text methods, 

especially when video is involved, the quality of the information shared may be impacted. For 

example, video may need to be reconfigured to snapshot or streamed images over the 

11
internet. Dynamic map displays, part of a traveler information system, may not provide the 

level of detail desired for the roadway network because of the time needed to load and 

refresh the information. These issues must be addressed during the developmental stage so 

that the varying audiences can obtain the correct information and appropriate level of detail 

for effective actions and decision making. 

Information Sharing Case Studies 

Examples of successful information sharing between incident responders are numerous; 

some key examples are highlighted below. 

NCHRP Report 520 Case Studies 

NCHRP Report 520, Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies 

for Traffic Incident Management (2004)3

 reviews the effectiveness of information sharing for 

the following nine locations with active traffic incident management programs that involve 

public safety, transportation, and other public and private sector entities. Key stakeholders 

are transportation departments and local/state law enforcement agencies. Whether or not 

these agencies are physically co-located at the common facility, the sites provide varying 

examples and levels of success with the information sharing practices previously described in 

this section for the purposes of incident detection and notification, response, and site 

management. 

• Albany – close working relationships between two transportation agencies 

(New York Department of Transportation (DOT) and New York State 

Thruway Authority) two law enforcement divisions (New York State Police 

and Albany Police Department); regional coordination and various 

information-sharing applications in place for a long time period. 

• Austin – Texas DOT, Austin Police Department, Austin Fire Department, and 

Travis County EMS are co-located in a TMC facility that serves as a focal 

point for information exchange through cooperatively developed 

technologies. The agencies have shared radio and video systems, and they 

have also integrated the CAD and traffic management systems. 

• Cincinnati – Ohio and Kentucky transportation agencies have joined to 

regularly and routinely share traffic information through the Advanced 

Regional Traffic Interactive Management Information System (ARTIMIS). 

Strong regional TIM teams convene at the center to handle major incidents 

with involvement by relevant public safety and transportation partners in the 

region. This mature interagency operation includes a partnership with CVS 

Pharmacies to provide roadway service patrols. 

• Minneapolis – Minnesota DOT and Minnesota State Police operate in a colocated TMC facility with a shared radio communications system (800 MHz) 

that includes workstations for media, and transportation and law 

enforcement. Additional joint communications centers throughout the state 

are also in place. 

• Phoenix – Arizona DOT, Maricopa County DOT, and Phoenix Fire 

Department share radio systems, phone lines, traveler information 

workstations, facsimile and pagers, and CCTV images in their efforts to 

overcome institutional barriers to information sharing. 

12
• Salt Lake City – strong inter-agency relationships between Utah DOT and 

Utah Highway Patrol leveraged upgrades resulting from the 2000 Winter 

Olympics to enhance information sharing both in the operations facility and 

on scene. Technical challenges were overcome by incorporating the same 

radio communications and CAD systems. Agencies share video images as 

well. 

• San Antonio – strong institutional framework and joint activities of key 

transportation and public safety agencies have led to highly integrated 

communications and information sharing. Representatives include 

Metropolitan Transit Authority, San Antonio Public Works Department, Alamo 

Dome, San Antonio Police Department, Bexar County Sheriff Department, 

EMS, county health departments, and private sector towing and recovery 

providers. Texas DOT (TxDOT) and the San Antonio Police Department work 

together in the TransGuide Operations Center, a central point for incident 

and emergency response. 

• San Diego – CalTrans and the California Highway Patrol have undertaken a 

CAD interface project to bridge communications between transportation and 

public safety agencies; while the project itself was only partially successful, 

the technical and institutional barriers identified have laid the foundation for a 

similar future project that will build upon the agencies’ commitment to share 

information. 

• Seattle – Washington DOT (WSDOT), Washington State Police (WSP), and 

the Washington State Legislature share a common focus that has led to 

coordinated traffic incident management and strong information sharing 

practices in the Seattle region. Together WSDOT and WSP have developed 

and implemented advanced technologies for inter-jurisdictional and interdisciplinary communications. 

NCHRP Report 520 results for the categories of information sharing described in this section 

are presented in Table 1, taken directly from the report. Further detailed research can be 

found in the report. 

Table 1. Methods of Sharing TIM Between Transportation and Public Safety Agencies at 

Survey Locations. 3

Geographical 

Region Face-to-Face Remote Voice Electronic Text Other Media and Advanced Systems 

Albany, NY State Police co-located with 

State DOT at one center; State 

Police co-located with Thruway 

Authority at another center. 

State DOT Service Patrols 

share public safety radios; 

State Police and Thruway 

share a radio system and 

dispatchers; Senior staff use 

commercial wireless service 

“talk groups.” 

Joint CAD system shared 

at Thruway center. 

ATMS data, images, and 

video shared remotely 

through experimental 

wireless broadband service. 

Austin, TX State DOT, city fire and police 

depts., and county EMS will be 

co-located at center. 

Service Patrols equipped 

with local police radios. 

Capability under 

development to share 

traffic incident data from 

public safety CAD data 

remotely. 

Control of transportation 

CCTVs shared with local 

police. 

13
Geographical 

Region Face-to-Face Remote Voice Electronic Text Other Media and Advanced Systems 

Cincinnati, OH Transportation center hosts 

regional Incident Management 

Team operations. 

ARTIMIS shares public 

safety radios; multiple 

agencies use commercial 

wireless service “talk 

groups.” 

Capability under 

development to share CAD 

data with ARTIMIS. 

Transportation CCTV 

images available on traveler 

information website. 

Minneapolis, 

MN 

State Patrol and State DOT 

staff co-located at a regional 

center. State Patrol and 

service patrol staff co-located 

at another location. 

State Patrol and State DOT 

share the 800MHz radio 

system. Senior staff use of 

commercial wireless service 

“talk groups.” 

Service Patrols have readonly terminals from State 

Patrol CAD. State DOT can 

access State Patrol CAD. 

State DOT CCTV and other 

traffic management systems 

are shared with State Patrol. 

Phoenix, AZ — Service Patrols equipped 

with State Patrol and State 

DOT radios. 

State DOT highway 

condition workstations 

provided to local fire dept. 

and emergency services 

div. County DOT incident 

response teams use 

alphanumeric pagers. 

State DOT CCTV shared 

with local fire dept. 

Salt Lake City, 

UT 

Highway Patrol and State DOT 

staff co-located at the regional 

center, but separated by 

elevated soundproof glass 

partition. 

All Highway Patrol and State 

DOT field units use the same 

radio system and 

dispatchers. Service Patrols 

are fully integrated into law 

enforcement radio system. 

State Patrol CAD shared 

with State DOT 

State DOT CCTV and other 

traffic management systems 

are shared with Highway 

Patrol. 

San Antonio, 

TX 

Local Police and State DOT 

co-located at the regional 

center. 

Service Patrols equipped 

with local police radios. New 

radio system will provide 

common channels for State 

DOT and local police and 

fire. 

Incident data from local 

police CAD shared with 

State DOT traveler 

information system. 

State DOT CCTV images 

are shared with local 

government and news 

agencies. 

San Diego, 

CA 

State Patrol and State DOT 

co-located at the regional 

center. 

Service Patrols equipped 

with local police radios. 

State DOT has read-only 

access to Highway Patrol 

CAD. 

Incident information from 

Highway Patrol CAD is 

provided to State DOT 

traveler information website. 

Seattle, WA — Service Patrols equipped 

with State Patrol radios. 

Intercom system (with 

handsets) is used between 

State DOT center and State 

Patrol 9-1-1 call center. 

State DOT partially shares 

State Patrol CAD system. 

State DOT has CAD 

terminal for entering traffic 

incident information. 

State DOT CCTV shared 

with State Patrol (includes 

control of cameras). 

All locations use standard telephones and facsimile machines for information sharing. 

ARTIMIS = Advanced Regional Traffic Interactive Management Information System. 

ATMS = advanced traffic management system. 

CAD = computer-aided dispatching. 

CCTV = closed-circuit television. 

DOT = department of transportation. 

EMS = emergency medical services. 

Additional Case Studies 

Kentucky’s Intelligence Fusion Center 8

Kentucky’s Intelligence Fusion Center, a unified hub that uses a remotely accessed data 

sharing and analysis system, coordinates and connects all levels of law enforcement and 

public safety agencies as well as the private sector. The center’s goal is to improve 

intelligence sharing between responders. The public is also encouraged to report suspicious 

activities through a telephone hotline. While this exchange of information is done primarily in 

the context of enhancing domestic security and reducing criminal activity, improvements to 

14
information sharing also enhance traffic incident management activities as some of the same 

organizations involved in the center deal with traffic incident management. Agencies involved 

in the Kentucky Intelligence Fusion Center include: 

• Kentucky Office of Homeland Security 

• Kentucky State Police 

• Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 

• Kentucky Department of Corrections 

• Kentucky Department of Military Affairs 

• Kentucky Vehicle Enforcement 

• Federal Bureau of Investigation 

• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

• United States Department of Homeland Security 

• Lexington Division of Police 

A fusion center is a unified information hub linking all types of information collected by law 

enforcement and public safety agencies that is necessary to combat criminal activity and 

domestic and international terrorism; the ultimate result of this linkage is to bring together 

agencies with common purpose. These same agencies are also charged with the 

responsibility of being the first responders for emergency and incident management. It is a 

natural extension of this mechanism to also serve as the basis of the necessary 

communication, coordination, and cooperation among these agencies charged with first 

response to traffic incidents. To this end, the capabilities of the Kentucky Intelligence Fusion 

Center, relative to information sharing for incident response, include: 

• Shared database to assist federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies 

with information requests, reporting requirements, and /or performance 

measures 

• Receipt of law enforcement field reports from in-car mobile data computers 

• Radio communications dispatching for state police 

• AMBER Alert notification 

• Connection to multiple intelligence and information sharing networks 

• Traffic and TIM center monitoring of highway construction, maintenance, 

weather, and other events 

• Monitoring and updating of the Kentucky 511 traveler information system 

• Monitoring of regional traffic center Web sites in Louisville, Lexington, and 

the Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati area 

FDOT District Five and Florida Highway Patrol 9

FDOT’s District Five Road Ranger Service Patrol is currently operating on the State Law 

Enforcement Radio System (SLERS). This pilot project is in the Orlando metropolitan area 

where the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) TMC is co-located with the Florida 

Highway Patrol (FHP) Communications Center. The radio system allows Road Rangers to 

15
communicate directly with FHP Troopers at incident scenes and also with FHP dispatchers. 

Response times have been reduced as incidents are identified more quickly by multiple 

responding entities, either by having a Road Ranger come upon a disabled vehicle and 

making the first call into the dispatch center, or by having a Road Ranger hear the dispatch 

call over the radio. 

These varied locations have demonstrated that no single approach to information sharing is 

best. Local factors and organizational issues must be identified and addressed to achieve 

effective interagency communications practices that are influenced by interoperability issues 

and interpersonal relationships. 

SAFECOM10, 11

The lack of interoperability between emergency responders—the ability for agencies to 

exchange voice or data with one another via radio communication systems—has been a 

long-standing, complex, and costly problem that has affected their responses to incidents and 

emergencies. In addition to incompatible communications equipment, responders also have 

to deal with funding issues, insufficient planning and coordination, a limited radio spectrum, 

and limited equipment standards. Wireless devices can provide some relief, but the cellular 

network is quickly overwhelmed during an incident or emergency and then becomes 

unreliable and unavailable. This issue was highlighted during the tragic events of September 

11, 2001. As a result, the SAFECOM program was established as a communications 

program within the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Interoperability and 

Compatibility. SAFECOM “provides research, development, testing and evaluation, guidance, 

tools, and templates on communications-related issues to local, tribal, state, and Federal 

emergency response agencies working to improve emergency response through more 

effective and efficient interoperable wireless communications.”10

 SAFECOM is a practitioner-driver program; i.e., local and state emergency responder input 

and guidance are heavily relied-upon in the pursuit of solutions to interoperability issues. 

Based upon the results of a pilot initiative in ten urban areas completed in 2004, five factors 

critical to the success of interoperability were identified in an “Interoperability Continuum” or 

guiding principles as follows and shown in Figure 5: 

• Governance 

• Standard operating procedures 

• Technology 

• Training and exercises 

• Usage 

16
Figure 5. SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum 12

Public safety communications requirements for voice and data interoperability were first 

released in 2004. These requirements serve as a first step for establishing base-level 

communications and interoperability standards for emergency response agencies, a process 

that is expected to take up to 20 years to achieve. In the interim, SAFECOM has11: 

• Created the Federal Interagency Coordination Council (FICC) to coordinate 

funding, technical assistance, standards development, and regulations 

affecting communications and interoperability across the federal government; 

• Published a Statement of Requirements which, for the first time, defines what 

it will take to achieve full interoperability and provides industry requirements 

against which to map their product capabilities; 

• Issued a request for proposals for the development of a national 

interoperability baseline; 

• Initiated an effort to accelerate the development of critical standards for 

interoperability; 

• Created a Grant Guidance document that has been used by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Community Oriented Policing Services, 

and Office of Domestic Preparedness state block grant program to promote 

interoperability improvement efforts. 

• Established a task force with the Federal Communications Commission to 

consider spectrum and regulatory issues that can strengthen emergency 

response interoperability; 

• Created a model methodology for developing statewide communications 

plans; 

17
18

• Released a Request for Information to industry that netted more than 150 

responses; and 

• Worked with the emergency response community (local, tribal, state, and federal) 

to develop a governance document that defines both how SAFECOM will operate 

and how participating agencies will work within that framework. 
3.0 INFORMATION COLLECTION AND 

DISTRIBUTION PRACTICES THAT MAXIMIZE 

SAFETY AND FACILITATE QUICK CLEARANCE 

Information is vital to providing an effective incident response. With better information 

collection, incident response is improved by ensuring that the proper equipment and 

resources are available to the responders at the time when it is needed on scene. Better 

information dissemination allows travelers to make better decisions regarding departure time, 

mode choice, and route to take. 

Improved coordination and communications between incident responders helps reduce 

incident impacts. The means and effectiveness through which response agencies collect and 

distribute incident information affects the duration of the incident, discussed below. 

Successful agencies use best practices that make use of: 

• Integrated response 

• Automation or technology 

• Strong relationships 

• Shared command/understanding of how scene command changes 

• Understanding of roles and responsibilities of involved entities 

• Ability to debrief, measure, and learn 

Two sets of documents that form the basis for this section are the Results of the U.S. DOT 

CAD-TMC Field Operations Team (Washington and Utah)13,14 and the Traffic Incident 

Management Focus States Initiative on TIM Performance Measurement.

15

The Incident Timeline16

While nomenclature and details can vary from state to state, there are generally five areas 

recognized as part of the incident timeline. Each step has unique characteristics that allow for 

performance assessment in after-action reviews. When changes to administrative, 

operational, or technological processes are implemented, the overall duration of an incident 

and its impacts can be shortened. Key elements to shorten timeframes are: implementation 

of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), inter-agency coordination, and improvements 

derived from after-action reviews. 

Incident Detection 

The crash or incident occurs, and traffic queues begin to build from lane blockages or 

“rubbernecking.” The earlier responding agencies are aware of an incident, the more quickly 

resources can be sent to resolve the situation. Automating this process through the use of 

detection equipment removes the reliance of human detection, whether by law 

enforcement/emergency personnel notification or cell phone calls from passing motorists. 

19
This is the first time someone in an official capacity learns of the incident and has an 

opportunity to follow a response plan. 

Incident Verification 

Once an incident is detected and a response agency (transportation management center 

[TMC] or law enforcement) is aware of an incident, the location, scope, and impact of the 

event must be verified quickly so that the appropriate resources can be sent out to the scene. 

Verification through closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras or video from other sources is 

extremely useful because it eliminates the time needed to send a person to the scene for 

verification. Scene images can often be shared with multiple responding partners so that all 

can take appropriate action. 

Incident Response 

Incident response resources are called for and then arrive. They can include law 

enforcement, transportation agency resources, wreckers, hazardous material clean-up 

specialists, specialty equipment, etc. Having the personnel with appropriate resources and 

training arrive quickly is critical. Pre-established routes or wrong-way access to a site while 

following a law enforcement pilot vehicle are examples of ways response vehicles may avoid 

traffic queues that grow quickly after an incident occurs. 

Incident Clearance 

Once the area is declared safe for cleanup for responders, motorists, and other personnel on 

scene (there may be fire or other dangers, loads may be unsafe, etc. that must be addressed 

first), the incident response team can get to work. The response team must have the right 

equipment available so that scene clearance and temporary repair work, if needed, can begin 

so that the roadway can be re-opened to traffic. This time is lengthened if equipment is 

missing; the full complement of needed equipment must be at the incident scene. Changes to 

the clearance component of the incident timeline may be addressed during multi-agency 

sessions (traffic incident management team meetings and workshops) where traffic incident 

management (TIM) partners discuss and learn from previous and proposed practices. 

Development of agreements, execution of tabletop exercises, and discussion of after-action 

reviews are also extremely helpful in reducing incident clearance times. Sharing automated 

information, clear communication, understanding and agreeing upon roles and authority, and 

cooperative work efforts go a long way in addressing incident scene needs by minimizing 

institutional barriers and increasing collaboration. These areas are best addressed away from 

the incident scene so that interactions between responders are clear and all roles are 

understood rather than when actions are critical and pressure mounts for the roadway to reopen quickly. 

Incident Recovery 

When the incident is finally cleared and the roadway is re-opened, time is needed for queues 

to dissipate. Recovery time is the period from the re-opening of all lanes to the resumption of 

normal traffic flow. This time is largely dependent upon the length of the queue from the 

incident; an accepted estimate is that for every minute of lane closure, four minutes of 

recovery time is needed once lanes are re-opened. If fewer vehicles join the waiting traffic 

stream and possibly divert to other roadways or modes, they do not become part of the 

incident queue, in turn shortening the time needed to resume normal conditions. Traveler 

information services, partnerships with the media, and ITS information dissemination devices 

placed in advance of the queue help travelers make route decisions that can keep them from 

driving unwittingly into an incident queue for an unknown period of time. Because travelers 

20
themselves have a part in controlling this part of the incident timeline, the information they 

receive must be accurate, timely, and reliable. 

Information Collection 

When a traffic incident occurs, it must be detected and verified before any response activities 

can begin; incident details are needed for effective, efficient response and management of 

traffic. This information can be collected by on scene personnel, ITS information detection 

field devices, or a combination of these elements. It must then be shared between agencies 

that handle various components of the response. This type of information exchange does not 

always occur easily; information collected may go back to a TMC or public safety/law 

enforcement dispatch center that is not integrated or does not allow for other forms of 

information exchange. No matter which means is used to collect the information; it must be 

shared across jurisdictions and organizations in order to realize improvements in overall 

safety and operations. 

CAD and ATMS 

CAD systems are used to track incident information with a focus on managing public safety or 

law enforcement responses. Many existing CAD systems are proprietary and do not easily 

share information with systems with different interfaces. Between themselves, CAD systems 

often work in independent frameworks with inconsistent standards and formats. Most major 

metropolitan areas in the United States (U.S.) have some type of ATMS to manage their 

transportation operations and incident response from some type of centralized TMC. They 

tend to use different data, message formats, and standards in their ATMS, further 

complicating integration efforts with law-enforcement CAD systems. 

There is widespread agreement that these two types of information should be shared, but 

exactly how this is to be done is not always clear. For example, there are concerns about the 

type and amount of data potentially exchanged between agencies. Some CAD information is 

sensitive and, if inappropriately released, could compromise law enforcement activities. 

There are concerns about overwhelming incident response partners with too much 

information. However, these challenges have been successfully overcome when institutional 

and technical challenges were met and operational procedures amended to make best use of 

this newly shared information. These results are realized in two recent Field Operational 

Tests (FOT) performed in the states of Utah and Washington. 

State of Utah 

Utah’s integrated CAD-TMC system was intended to include the following elements: 

• Create common message sets 

• Support inter-agency service requests via data specification sets (DSS) 

• Select commonly used operating system and language 

• Develop legacy system interfaces between state, county, and municipal 

government systems 

• Integrate transit 

• Develop event tracking to manage and update planned events 

21
While the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah Highway Patrol (UHP) staffs 

were previously co-located, integration of the systems eliminated the need for operators of 

either agency to observe multiple computer terminals. The result of this inter-agency 

cooperation has enhanced field operations and real-time information exchange from the 

earliest notification of an incident through its eventual resolution. Field device information 

from cameras, loop detectors, and other ITS applications were available to all staffs and 

provided more accurate and reliable incident location data. Incidents were documented more 

efficiently and with better data. Staffs from different agencies were able to work together 

more effectively because they were receiving and responding to the same information. They 

were able to achieve much improved inter-agency working relationships, both during the 

management of an incident and during non-incident planning/debriefing sessions. 

A system performance study was designed to describe the FOT environment in a way that 

could transfer the CAD-TMC integration concept to other locations, identify system 

performance measures to comparative results, identify limitations in the deployed system, 

and identify other factors affecting the system’s performance. Key to this FOT’s success is 

that the State of Utah had a well-established incident response program prior to the 

information exchange enhancements. Results of the CAD-TMC FOT from the Final 

Evaluation Report are given in Table 2. 

Table 2. System Performance Test Results Summary14

Evaluation Objective Hypothesis Test Results 

The system meets functional specifications. Achieved. 

The CAD and TMC systems will be able to 

link data on an incident. 

Achieved. 

Objective #1: Document the system 

component performance. 

Using the system improved incident 

response procedures. 

To a significant extent, achieved through 

prior projects. 

Project specific impact not measurable. 

The system meets functional specifications. Achieved. 

The FOTs will decrease the reliance on 

manual methods for exchanging 

information. 

Preliminary result - achieved. 

Objective #2: Automate the seamless 

transfer of information between traffic 

management workstations and police, 

fire, and EMS CAD systems from 

different 

vendors. The FOTs will increase the extent and 

reliability of information exchanges. 

Preliminary result - achieved. 

Objective #3: Extend the level of 

integration to include secondary 

responders such as utilities, towing and 

recovery, public works, and highway 

maintenance personnel. 

Improved integration of secondary 

responders will reduce incident recovery 

time by getting required recovery personnel 

to the incident site as quickly as possible to 

begin recovery operations. 

Secondary responders (ambulance, 

utilities, etc.) were not included in the 

project. 

The CAD-TMC FOT also looks at whether or not the integration improved efficiency and 

productivity of incident response, reduced delays and improved mobility, enhanced incidentspecific response plans, improved responder safety and reduced secondary crashes, and 

improved incident information for travelers. System impact test results from the CAD-TMC 

FOT are given in Table 3. 

22
Table 3. System Impact Test Results Summary 14

Evaluation Objective Hypothesis Test Results 

CAD-TMC integration enhances 

communications among 

responders. 

Achieved - Key issue to be addressed is 

that of refining information exchange to 

meet agency specific requirements. 

CAD-TMC integration improves efficiency of 

on-scene operations. 

Not measured during the evaluation. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances efficiency 

in documenting incident management. 

Achieved. 

Objective #1: Productivity –To 

determine if the CAD-TMC integration 

improves the efficiency and productivity 

of incident response. 

CAD-TMC integration reduces incident 

clearance times. 

Not measured during the evaluation. 

Objective #2: Mobility - To determine if 

the CAD-TMC integration improves 

mobility and reduces delays during 

incidents. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances mobility 

during incident management (IM) activities. 

No impact measured during the 

evaluation. 

Objective #3: Capacity/ Throughput -To 

determine if CAD-TMC integration 

enhanced incident-specific traffic 

management plans. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances incidentspecific traffic management plans. Not measured during the evaluation. 

CAD-TMC increases safety for response 

personnel. 

Objective #4: Safety - CAD-TMC Not measured during the evaluation. 

integration will reduce exposure of 

response personnel and secondary 

crashes during incident response 

activities. 

CAD-TMC increases safety to the traveling 

public. 

Not measured during the evaluation. 

Objective #5: Traveler Information - To 

determine if CAD-TMC integration will 

improve incident management 

information available to travelers. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances customer 

satisfaction and mobility during incident 

management activities by improving 

traveler information. 

Qualitative assessment: Improved ability 

to post incident information for public 

access via 511, Web site. 

UTA Objective: To determine if the 

integration of the UTA CAD system 

improves UTA’s ability to respond to 

incidents. 

The CAD-TMC integration will enable UTA 

to more effectively implement reroute 

decisions in response to an incident. 

CAD-TMC integration provided real-time 

information on unplanned incidents and 

complemented existing UTA incident 

management procedures. 

Additional benefit from system is 

information provided on planned 

incidents, such as road closures and/or 

construction activities. 

State of Washington13 

The Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) resources have had tremendous 

value in incident response and, therefore, a strong relationship exists between WSDOT and 

the Washington State Police (WSP). A Joint Operations Policy Statement (JOPS) 

encourages WSP CAD dispatchers and WSDOT TMC operators to exchange incident 

information and share response data. Prior to the FOT, WSP would begin the process to 

share information since emergency calls are received by their dispatch center, making it the 

primary incident information source. WSDOT TMC operators would sometimes note incident 

information from ITS field devices and record it in their Condition Acquisition and Reporting 

System (CARS). In either situation, information was typically shared between agencies 

verbally via telephone or radio or by monitoring read-only remote data terminals. While 

effective, these methods were time and labor intensive. The FOT was done in conjunction 

with the implementation of a new WSP CAD system with a common platform for all 

dispatchers and an improved ability to capture and record incident data. 

Washington’s integrated CAD-TMC system has three primary elements: 

23
• PRIMARYALERT CAD Interface to filter data from WSP CAD and push it to 

WSDOT CARS, intended to be seamless and automatic through software 

code, filtering non-traffic information, and facilitating data sharing 

• RESPONSE SUPPORT Web Interface to provide WSDOT traffic information 

to WSP CAD dispatchers to facilitate response efforts, such as traffic, 

construction, or other activities that could impact emergency response 

• SECONDARY ALERT CAD Interface to push WSP CAD information to 

secondary responders such as local emergency medical service (EMS) 

providers, tow truck dispatchers, and local utility companies 

Information exchange was based on use of the latest ITS and internet industry standards 

using open hardware and software platforms, institutional agreements based on agency 

operating requirements, and use of commercial, off-the-shelf technology and standard data 

exchange mechanisms. 

A system performance study was design to describe the FOT environment in a way that 

could transfer the CAD-TMC integration concept to other locations, identify system 

performance measures to comparative results, identify limitations in the deployed system, 

and identify other factors affecting the system’s performance. Key to this FOT’s success is 

the strong existing relationship between WSDOT and WSP, leading to a well-established 

incident response program prior to the information exchange enhancements. Results of the 

CAD-TMC FOT from the Final Evaluation Report are given in Table 4. 

Table 4. System Performance Test Results Summary 13 

Evaluation Objective Hypothesis Test Results 

The system meets functional 

specifications. 

Achieved. 

The CAD and TMC systems will be 

able to link data on an incident. 

Achieved. 

Objective #1: Document the system 

component performance. 

Using the system improved incident 

response procedures. 

To a significant extent, achieved 

through prior projects. 

Project-specific impact not 

measurable. 

The system meets functional 

specifications. 

Achieved. 

The FOTs will decrease the reliance on 

manual methods for exchanging 

information. 

Achieved previously through 

placement of CAD terminals at 

TMCs. 

Enhanced through project. 

Objective #2: Automate the seamless 

transfer of information between traffic 

management workstations and police, 

and EMS CAD systems from different 

vendors. 

The FOTs will increase the extent and 

reliability of information exchanges. 

Preliminary result - achieved. 

Objective #3: Extend the level of 

integration to include secondary 

responders such as utilities, towing and 

recovery, public works, and highway 

maintenance personnel. 

Improved integration of secondary 

responders will reduce incident 

recovery time by getting required 

recovery personnel to the incident site 

as quickly as possible to begin 

recovery operations. 

Not achieved during the evaluation 

period. 

The CAD-TMC FOT also looks at whether or not the integration improved efficiency and 

productivity of incident response, reduced delays and improved mobility, enhanced incidentspecific response plans, improved responder safety and reduced secondary crashes, and 

24
improved incident information for travelers. System impact test results from the CAD-TMC 

FOT are given in Table 5. 

Table 5. System Impact Test Results Summary13

Evaluation Objective Hypothesis Test Results 

CAD-TMC integration enhances 

communications among responders. 

Achieved with WSDOT and WSP. 

CAD-TMC integration improves 

efficiency of on-scene operations 

Not measured during the 

evaluation. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances 

efficiency in documenting incident 

management. 

Partially achieved; further 

reductions will enhance results. 

Objective #1: Productivity - To determine 

if the CAD-TMC integration improves the 

efficiency and productivity of incident 

response. 

CAD-TMC integration reduces incident 

clearance times. 

Not measured during the 

evaluation. 

Objective #2: Mobility - To determine if 

the CAD-TMC integration improves 

mobility and reduces delays during 

incidents. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances 

mobility during incident management 

activities. 

No impact measured during the 

evaluation. 

Objective #3: Capacity/ Throughput - To 

determine if CAD-TMC integration 

enhanced incident-specific traffic 

management plans 

CAD-TMC integration enhances 

incident-specific traffic management 

plans. 

Not measured during the 

evaluation. 

CAD-TMC increases safety for 

response personnel. 

Not measured during the 

evaluation. 

Objective #4: Safety - CAD-TMC 

integration will reduce exposure of 

response personnel and secondary 

crashes during incident response 

activities. 

CAD-TMC increases safety to the 

traveling public. 

Not measured during the 

evaluation. 

Objective #5: Traveler Information - To 

determine if CAD-TMC integration will 

improve incident management 

information available to travelers. 

CAD-TMC integration enhances 

customer satisfaction and mobility 

during incident management activities 

by improving traveler information. 

Not directly measured. Increased 

number of incidents posted to 

traveler information systems 

indicates improved flow of 

information to public. 

Improving Information Dissemination Between Incident Responders 

Improving the level of coordination and collaboration between incident responders helps to 

reduce the impact of incidents. Better information dissemination can facilitate this 

coordination and collaboration. Table 6, adapted from the Safe, Quick Clearance TIM in 

Construction and Maintenance Work Zones Primer,

17provides several strategies and 

techniques that have been used to assist with information dissemination about incident 

response policies, procedures, and guidelines between incident responders. 

25
Table 6. Strategies and Techniques for Information Disseminations Between Responders17

Strategies and Techniques Description Pros Cons 

Incident Response Manual This strategy involves 

developing an incident 

response manual that collects 

all the policies, procedures, and 

guidelines for managing 

incidents. 

● All information needed by 

incident responders 

● Contains contact 

information for 

responders in different 

response agencies 

● May be difficult to keep 

contact information up-todate 

Communication Protocols / 

Frequency List 

This strategy involves 

developing a listing of 

predetermined radio frequency 

assignments that incident 

responders can use to 

communicate with each other 

on scene. 

● Provides a quick 

reference of all radio 

frequencies for 

responders 

● May be difficult to keep 

contact information up-todate 

Identification Vests This strategy involves adopting 

the use of identification vests to 

be used by incident command 

and emergency personnel. 

● Makes it easier for late 

arrivals to identify 

individuals in charge at 

incident scene 

● Can be used to limit 

access by individuals 

within certain perimeter 

areas 

● Vests that follow National 

Incident Management 

System Incident 

Command Structure 

(ICS) can be purchased 

from private vendors 

● Multiple vests may be 

required for same agency 

to accommodate shifts 

Personnel Resource List This strategy involves 

developing a comprehensive 

contact list of response 

personnel. 

● Provides a quick 

reference for notifying 

responders 

● Usually part of incident 

response manual 

● May be difficult to keep 

up-to-date 

Incident Management 

Reviews / Debriefings 

This strategy involves 

establishing regular meetings 

between incident responders to 

review and discuss coordination 

and tactical issues associated 

with responding to incidents. 

● Many locations already 

have a process for doing 

incident 

reviews/debriefings 

● Allows agencies to 

discuss issues that 

affected response 

● Allows agencies to 

collaborate on 

modifications to improve 

responses 

● Facilitates dialogue 

between responders 

● Some responders may 

view this as a personal 

attack on performance 

● May be difficult to get all 

field personnel together at 

same time because of 

shifts 

Media Packets This strategy involves 

developing packets that can be 

distributed to media to 

disseminate information during 

incidents. 

● May include contact 

information for agency 

public information officer 

● Contains maps showing 

staging areas, detour 

routes, etc. 

● Information may not be 

relevant for all incident 

conditions 

● Strategy valid for major 

incidents only 

Information Dissemination 

Once an incident is detected and verified, incident responders must share and disseminate 

this information, both amongst themselves and with the motoring public, for the incident 

26
timeline phases of response, clearance, and recovery. As previously discussed, public safety 

and transportation agencies can share information with via remote voice, electronic text, or 

other media, such as integrated CAD systems. They must also disseminate incident 

information to the public. While public safety personnel may be limited to Web site updates, 

transportation agencies can make use of their ATMS and advanced traveler information 

systems (ATIS). With greater automation and integration, they have an opportunity to provide 

the most accurate, reliable, and timely information available as incident scene and congestion 

conditions change. 

Identification of Relevant Stakeholders 

Incidents occur on different scales and have varying impacts depending on time of day, 

location, and other factors. As such, the agencies involved and the impacts to the public vary. 

For example, a vehicle crash in an urban location can quickly cause congestion, impeding the 

ability of responders to reach the scene. In a rural location, a vehicle crash may not cause the 

same congestion, but will have issues surrounding site access. Information dissemination 

must, therefore, be adjusted accordingly, both in terms of which response agencies are 

notified and what type of information is provided to the public. A few elements to consider 

when identifying stakeholders include: 

• Time of day 

• Location 

• Degree/seriousness of incident (property damage/injury/fatality) 

• Scene safety (fire, hazardous materials) 

• Impact to roadway facility (damage, environmental concerns, spill) 

• Agency responsibilities (jurisdictional issues) 

• Response protocols 

These issues are best addressed in TIM team or other planning meetings so that when 

needed, resources and personnel can be effectively engaged. 

Coordination between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies 

Information dissemination is most effective when a centralized location, such as a TMC, is 

used as an information clearinghouse for response efforts. This reduces redundant 

notifications, improves accuracy, and keeps on scene responders from being distracted by 

repeated requests for information that detract from activities that require their attention. It 

allows responders to focus on their mission and adjust as scene conditions warrant until the 

roadway is finally reopened. 

Inter-agency communication is critical to achieving effective on scene traffic incident 

management. Issues with intra- and inter- agency communications become more critical 

when the incident response is complex or spread out over a large area. Strategies used to 

improve communication include the following: 

• Conducting traffic incident management preparedness training exercises, 

• Adopting common communications and data transmission standards, 

27
• Adopting and using ICS practices to manage traffic incidents, 

• Establishing electronic paging or an email alert system for notifying incident 

responders, and 

• Developing a matrix of radio frequencies used by scene incident responders. 

One way to achieve coordination between agencies is to make use of a public information 

officer (PIO) as described in the National Incident Management System (NIMS). This person 

is a central point of contact, reducing redundant information requests made by the public, 

news media, and other entities regarding incident-related information. As shown in the ICS 

Organizational Chart in Figure 6, the PIO reports to the Incident Commander and 

communicates with the public, media, or other agencies regarding incident-related 

information. These efforts are critical to effectively help the response and public community 

as they navigate around the incident scene. 

Key steps that a PIO (or other individual designated as a point of contact) follow are: 

• Gather information from the Incident Commander and general staff who 

comprise the source of official outgoing information on response efforts 

• Verify information by consulting with response specialists 

• Internally coordinate the information 

• Disseminate the information externally to the public, affected jurisdictions, 

private sector, media, and other impacted groups 

Figure 6. ICS Organizational Chart 4

Another aspect to consider when coordinating between agencies is public outreach during 

non-incident situations. PIO staff can assist with education efforts about traffic incident 

management procedures, motorist assistance or courtesy patrols, “Move-It,” or quick 

clearance policies, etc., through public education campaigns and press releases. These 

activities can greatly enhance compliance with “Move-It” laws and, thereby, enhance 

responder safety. 

28
The media should also be considered a partner in disseminating information about incidents 

and TIM procedures and policies as they can be a fast, reliable means of disseminating 

information about incident conditions and travel alternatives to the traveling public. 

Institutional Arrangement and Agreements 

Memoranda of Understanding/Agreement (MOU/MOA) provide the framework for incident 

operations and define responder roles and responsibilities. This framework helps to keep 

everyone involved in incident response clear and informed, especially when a response plan 

grows in complexity or is influenced by external factors. TIM becomes a cooperative and 

collaborative effort between multiple agencies and entities with a solid foundation of trust. 

Participants in the process know and understand their roles and responsibilities. A sample 

agreement between parties is Florida’s Open Roads Policy,

18 signed by FDOT and FHP, in 

which the parties commit to quickly restoring the safe, orderly flow of traffic following an 

incident; an excerpt is shown below in Figure 7. 

Figure 7. State of Florida’s Open Roads Policy18

Mutual aid agreements, common between fire and emergency medical responders, permit 

incident responders to provide emergency assistance to each other in the event of disasters 

or emergencies.19Similar types of agreements can be used to allow other governmental 

agencies to provide incident management functions outside their own jurisdictions. 

29
Training and Debriefings 

Training and debriefing sessions allow responders to share knowledge on practices and 

techniques and are, therefore, important aspects of developing and implementing TIM plans. 

Transportation and law enforcement agencies can partner with other incident responders to 

develop field exercises that allow responders to become familiar with various types of traffic 

incidents. TIM team meetings are an effective forum for such discussions as continuous 

improvement is a recurring theme at these meetings. TIM team members can gauge current 

TIM performance and then establish strategies for on scene operations, inter- and intraagency protocols, communications, and outreach and training that meet and exceed 

performance expectations. As they learn from prior responses and one another, incident 

responders build relationships and trust that facilitate the refinement of incident response 

practices. 

Improving Information Dissemination to the Public 

Improving incident dissemination to the public helps to reduce the impact of incidents. Better 

information dissemination can facilitate this coordination and collaboration. Table 7, adapted 

from the Safe, Quick Clearance TIM in Construction and Maintenance Work Zones Primer,17

provides several strategies and techniques that have been used to assist with information 

dissemination about incident response policies, procedures, and guidelines to the public. 

Table 7. Strategies and Techniques for Information Dissemination to the Public17 

Strategies and 

Techniques 

Description Pros Cons 

Dynamic Message 

Signs 

This strategy involves using 

permanent or movable dynamic 

message signs to provide motorists 

with information in advance of, or at, 

the scene of an incident. 

● Information provided directly to 

motorists affected by incident 

● Many locations will have devices 

as part of Transportation 

Management Plan (TMP) 

● Motorist familiar/expect to receive 

information from these devices 

● Message content restricted to 

a relatively few characters 

● Does not reach travelers 

outside immediate vicinity of 

sign 

● Cannot display complex 

messages 

Highway Advisory 

Radio 

This strategy involves using a lowpowered AM or FM radio system to 

provide travelers in the immediate 

vicinity with information about 

incidents. 

● Allows operators to provide more 

detailed messages 

● Reaches a broader range of 

travelers in corridor 

● Drivers must tune to radio 

station to receive message 

● Requires signing to alert 

motorists that a message is 

available 

Broadcast Radio 

and Television 

Media 

This strategy involves developing 

agreements with broadcast radio and 

television stations to provide incident 

information in a pre-established format 

for a specified period of time. 

● Has potential to reach travelers 

before they enter corridor or begin 

trip 

● Can impact mode choice, routing, 

and departure time decisions 

● Accuracy of information being 

disseminated difficult to control 

● Media agreement to 

information format may be 

difficult to obtain 

Traffic Reporting 

Service 

This strategy involves utilizing traffic 

reporting services to disseminate 

traffic and travel information for 

incorporation in in-vehicle displays 

● Information can be tailored by 

traffic reporting service for specific 

users 

● Information can be integrated with 

in-vehicle travel information 

displays 

● Agency does not 

control/influence diversion 

route of traveler 

● Agency does not control 

accuracy of information being 

disseminated 

Email /Fax Alerts 

or Mobile Web 

Site 

This strategy involves deploying a 

system whereby incident alerts are 

automatically distributed through 

electronic means, such as emails, 

faxes, pages, etc. 

● Has potential to reach a wide 

distribution of travelers 

● Technology relatively easy to 

deploy 

● Users would need to subscribe to 

service 

● Many urban areas have systems 

● Requires staff to manage 

system 

30
Strategies and Description Pros 

Techniques 

Cons 

already in place 

Web Sites/ Kiosks This strategy involves using Web sites 

and information kiosks in public areas 

to disseminate information about 

incidents 

● Has potential to reach travelers 

prior to initiating trip 

● Can impact mode choice, routing, 

and departure time decisions 

● Does not reach motorist 

already in area of incident 

● Requires integration with other 

systems 

Dedicated 

Information Phone 

Number / 511 

System 

This strategy involves disseminating 

incident information through either a 

dedicated telephone call-in number or 

an existing 511 service. 

● 511 services available in many 

metropolitan areas 

● Has potential to reach travelers 

prior to initiating trip as well as 

drivers who have already started 

trip 

● Dedicated telephone number 

requires operator to staff 

● Requires driver to initiate call 

to obtain information 

Performance Measurement and Continuous Improvement Best Practices 

TIM Program-Level Performance Measures Focus States Initiative 

Monitoring and measuring TIM strategy effectiveness is essential to continually evaluate 

progress and identify improvements. Through the efforts of the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) TIM Program-Level Performance Measures Focus States Initiative15

participating states developed ten candidate freeway operations objectives through a series 

of regional workshops relative to TIM: 

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) 

2. Reduce roadway clearance time (defined as the time between awareness of 

an incident and restoration of lanes to full operational status) 

3. Reduce incident clearance time (defined as the time between awareness of 

an incident and the time the last responder has left the scene) 

4. Reduce recovery time (defined as the time between awareness of an incident 

and restoration of impacted roadway(s) to “normal” conditions) 

5. Reduce time for needed responders to arrive on scene after notification 

6. Reduce number of secondary incidents and severity of primary and 

secondary incidents 

7. Develop and ensure familiarity with regional, multi-disciplinary TIM goals and 

objectives and supporting procedures by all stakeholders 

8. Improve communications between responders and managers regarding the 

status of an incident throughout the incident 

9. Provide timely, accurate, and useful traveler information to the motoring 

public on a regular basis during an incident 

10. Regularly evaluate and use customer (road user) feedback to improve TIM 

program assets 

31
At the December 2005 National Workshop, objectives 2 and 3 were selected as candidates 

whose definitions were further defined for candidate performance measures. From 2005 

through 2007, the participating states tested these two measures and discussed results at 

another national workshop help in October 2007. 

All ten objectives have some relationship to information sharing; however, objectives 8 and 9 

place particular emphasis on communications measurement and improvement. The concepts 

inherent in these measures require well-developed communications between response 

agencies as well as a strong commitment to an integrated TIM program. In addition to 

allowing agencies to track their progress toward meeting multiple agency goals, they may 

identify 

• Areas where improvements are being made 

• Areas where improvement is still needed 

• Highly effective practices 

This information can then be provided to decision makers to 

• Improve allocation of existing resources to improve TIM practices 

• Justify allocation of additional resources for future needs 

• Assess how well agency goals and objectives are being met 

Florida Results20

When reporting at 2007’s National Workshop, Florida’s TIM program highlighted its multitiered TIM teams and their commitment to improved communications between incident 

responders. One sub-team concentrates specifically on recommendations to ensure effective, 

accurate, and timely communications among incident response agencies and the public. In 

addition to reviewing past response actions, members explore ways that incident 

management can be improved. Florida TIM team members have identified challenges in 

collecting and archiving the data needed to support their communications objectives; 

however, they continue to strive for multi-agency and multi-level communications 

improvements. 

Wisconsin Results21

Wisconsin discussed its Traffic Incident Management Enhancement (TIME) program at the 

October 2007 National Workshop. TIME members regularly conduct multi-discipline training 

sessions for transportation and public safety personnel. They produce a monthly report that 

provides performance measurement information on 

• Total incidents 

• Response time 

• Incident clearance times 

• Travel rate index 

• Hours of delay 

• VMS usage 

• Maintenance average service time 

32
• Freeway service and safety patrol assists 

• High occupancy vehicle ramp lane usage 

While not always easy to quantify, effective communication between response partners is 

crucial for TIME partners’ success. 

Washington Results 

Published quarterly, WSDOT’s Measures, Markers, and Mileposts (aka “Gray Notebook”)22

provides details regarding department management and transportation programs. The 

Notebook reports, in detail, on WSDOT’s and WSP’s joint efforts to 

• Reduce incident response program clearance times 

• Debrief lane-blocking incidents exceeding 90 minutes in duration 

A new feature includes analysis of Washington’s new Major Incident Tow Program, a pilot 

incentive-based project intended to encourage local tow operators to respond more quickly to 

incidents. While details regarding information sharing are not discussed explicitly, the strong 

foundation for communications between incident response partners is the Joint Operations 

Policy Statement executed between WSDOT and WSP.23 

Evaluation and Lessons Learned 

When incident responders assess their communications effectiveness, as well as the results 

of their overall traffic incident management strategies, they may find it difficult to quantify 

specific metrics. Baseline information or data specific to information sharing can be extremely 

limited. Additional reporting capabilities and resources may need to be developed, so 

responders must be careful when working toward measures that exceed their current data 

collection and reporting system capabilities. Instead, they find may find it easier to 

qualitatively assess their actions regarding improved communications by answering a series 

of questions: 

• Were resources engaged more quickly? 

• Were proper resources brought to the incident scene? 

• Was the incident investigation process improved? 

• Was the response effort improved? 

• Were traffic disruptions minimized? 

• Were safety improvements realized, including secondary crashes? 

• Did traffic congestion recover more quickly? 

• Was roadway customer satisfaction improved? 

Most officials support information sharing and the use of multi-agency teams as they result in 

improved coordination and cooperation between incident response stakeholders. This finding, 

however, tends to be anecdotal. Most locations do not yet have enough data to quantify their 

results. As agencies take steps to improve TIM practices, they must also work to document 

the effectiveness of their actions under the framework provided by the TIM Program-Level 

Performance Measures Focus States Initiative.15 

33
Information Sharing Best Practices 

This subsection highlights various best practices for information sharing between incident 

responders. Information sharing between multiple agencies clearly has advantages in the 

improved management of incidents as responders are aware of what is happening, and 

debriefing sessions allow for learning, improvement, and relationship building. Other 

successful practices include the development of TIM strategic plans that address 

communications and technical issues with the objective of improving overall traffic incident 

management through better communications and collaboration. Successful information 

sharing initiatives cut through organizational boundaries to involve entities from traditional 

public sector agencies as well as response partners from the private sector and other 

stakeholders such as insurance divisions, coroners’ and medical examiners’ offices, 

hazardous materials contractors, and the media. 

Real-Time State Police CAD Data and Richmond District TMC – Virginia 

In 2005, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) documented integration issues 

encountered between the Richmond District Smart Traffic Center (STC) traffic management 

system (“OpenTMS”) and the Virginia State Police (VSP) CAD system. The project, known as 

“VSP-CAD Implementation Effort,”24 had two components: 

• Integrate data arriving from VSP into OpenTMS 

• Customize the OpenTMS incident management subsystem to use the 

integrated data 

This project was seen as having significant benefits to integrating VDOT and VSP 

information; STC staff would be able to use VSP-initiated traffic incidents as part of their 

operations. The open exchange of ideas and information between the involved organizations 

(FHWA, VSP, VDOT, and their private contractors) was critical to the project’s success. VSP 

and VDOT had an established common commitment for the systems’ integration built upon 

prior relationships that led to rapid resolution of conflicts. They developed a common 

understanding of the project through the Richmond Regional Data Sharing Concept Study24

that established goals that were then shared with new agency members as they were added 

to the team. 

During the project, VSP and VDOT identified lessons learned relative to 

• Data exchange standards for the VSP-VDOT interface 

• Publish/subscribe services to distribute the CAD data to other state agencies 

• Issues surrounding data availability and consistency 

• Security of sensitive (non-traffic) data 

• Deployment strategies and prototyping for quick implementation 

Throughout the integration project, VSP and VDOT were able to identify and resolve 

information issues relative to incidents that were not meeting the project’s intent. STC 

operators were then able to track more traffic incidents and there were significantly fewer 

redundant calls between VSP dispatchers and VDOT STC operators. Through the joint 

efforts of VSP and VDOT, this successful project was recommended for expansion into other 

traffic management facilities in Virginia. 

34
Integrated Incident Management System – New York City 

The Integrated Incident Management System (IIMS)25 was deployed for freeways in the fiveborough area of New York City to facilitate information exchange, data sharing, and 

coordination of incident response management activities. Results were also reviewed to 

document lessons learned, analyze “before” and “after” data, and identify benefits realized 

during field operational tests. The following table, taken directly from the Evaluation Final 

Report, summarizes IIMS’s goals, hypotheses, and findings relative to activities undertaken 

by project participants, namely 

• New York State DOT 

– Headquarters and Region 11 

• New York City 

– DOT 

– Police Department 

– Office of Emergency Management 

– Fire Department 

– Emergency Management Services 

– Department of Sanitation 

– Department of Environmental Protection 

• Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police 

Table 8. IIMS’s Goals, Hypotheses, and Findings 25

Goal Hypothesis Finding 

IIMS will result in improved incident 

response. 

Finding 3: The IIMS case studies 

successfully identify situations where 

the use of IIMS has the potential to 

improve incident response operations. 

IIMS will result in improved 

communications. 

Evaluate the incident management 

effects of the IIMS 

IIMS will result in improved coordination of 

resources. 

Finding 8: IIMS improves the postincident assessment/evaluation 

process. 

Evaluate the transportation system 

Performance effects of the IIMS 

IIMS will result in improved mobility. Finding 4: The case studies identify 

how the use of IIMS has the potential 

to substantially improve mobility. 

Evaluate the energy and 

environmental effects of IIMS 

IIMS will result in energy and environmental 

benefits. 

IIMS will result in energy and 

environmental benefits. 

Evaluate the safety effects of IIMS. IIMS will result in increased traveler safety. 

IIMS will result in increased worker safety. 

Finding 5: IIMS has the potential to 

improve traveler and responder safety. 

IIMS will result in better incident 

management documentation. 

Finding 7: The use of IIMS has 

resulted in better Incident 

management documentation. 

Assess the process improvements 

and institutional impacts of the 

IIMS. 

IIMS will improve evaluation and 

assessment of the process and its 

performance. 

Finding 1: IIMS has been considered a 

successful deployment (by 

stakeholders). 

Finding 2: IIMS was deployed in a 

cost-effective manner. 

35
Through the efforts of the various stakeholders, IIMS has been integrated into normal and 

sustainable operations for several years. In addition to requiring high-level management 

support, system users were regularly asked for feedback to allow for continuous 

improvement. Regular communications were maintained, ensuring the system would meet all 

users’ needs and ultimately lead to a high-level of system usage by all stakeholders. IIMS 

deployment benefited from inter-agency collaboration and strong relationships between 

users. IIMS began with a more an informal organizational structure to allow for greater 

flexibility, and as system enhancements were tested and accepted, stakeholder buy-in 

allowed for definition of a more formal organizational structure defined in various MOUs. 

The final system evaluation report noted the following conclusions: 

• IIMS provides interoperable real-time communications that allows 

stakeholders to communicate directly and use the system to coordinate 

incident response activities 

• IIMS is a successful deployment that is used by multiple users from multiple 

agencies to managed thousands of incidents annually 

• IIMS has been “mainstreamed” as an operational system whose operations 

and maintenance support have dedicated sources of funding and technical 

support 

Combined Transportation, Emergency, and Communications Center – Texas 

The Austin District of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has implemented a 

Combined Transportation, Emergency, and Communications Center (CTECC) as part of its 

evolving ITS. This facility has three primary purposes: 

• 911 and 311 (non-emergency) call-taking and dispatch for City of Austin and 

Travis County 

• Transportation management for TxDOT and Capital Metro area 

• Emergency Operations for City of Austin and Travis County 

In 2005, TxDOT reported on the progress of the CTECC to the CAD-ITS User Group at a 

meeting in Seattle, Washington.26 The facility’s key objective related to real-time, inter-agency 

traffic information sharing have accomplished 

• Reduced congestion 

• Improved response routing recommendations 

• Enhanced coordination 

• Earlier incident detection, notification, and response 

TxDOT has performed significant ITS integration work to standardize TMC and center-tocenter communications to allow multiple users to access and respond to traffic information. 

Continuing efforts include sharing video images and addressing conflicts in 

emerging/conflicting communications standards. 

36
Portland Dispatch Center Consortium – Oregon 

Portland, Oregon’s Dispatch Center Consortium CAD Integration Project27 was undertaken to 

address issues of interoperability, quality of service, performance, and manageability 

between nine agencies in the Portland area: 

• Oregon DOT 

• Oregon State Police 

• City of Portland 

• Clackamas County 

• Washington County 

• Lake Oswego Communications 

• Clark Regional Emergency Services Agency 

• Airport Communications Center 

• Columbia 911 Communications District 

The project integrated state and local traffic information centers and seven metro area CAD 

systems. By migrating to a standards-based, secure system, Consortium members were able 

to ensure a highly reliable, accurate, and scalable system that effectively shares incident and 

road condition information between its members. 

CAD – CARS Integration – Washington 

Before the project to integrate CAD and TMC information, WSP and WSDOT communicated 

primarily via telephone or radio by transferring data to read-only monitors in the northwest 

region radio room. There was no linkage between the CAD and TMC systems. Through a 

highly collaborative effort, this project has created an automated link to WSDOT’s Condition 

Acquisition and Reporting System (CARS).28 TMC operators are now alerted to every crash 

reported in WSP’s CAD system; they are then easily able to include these crashes into the 

CARS. In addition to demonstrating a successful technology integration effort, this on-going 

operational project has had specific benefits and results: 

• Proven use in urban and rural settings 

• Rapid operator response through minimized keystrokes and ability to quickly 

update system 

• Virtual functionality wherein operators can view, edit, and accept events 

statewide 

Through the detailed FOT, clear goals and objectives were established by participants in this 

project that related to system performance, system impact, institutional and technical 

challenges, lessons learned, and benefits. The evaluation found that functional specifications 

were met, with the linked data and improved integration decreasing reliance on prior methods 

for data exchange. Communication between responders, both on scene and within the 

TMC/dispatch facilities, increased and became more effective. 

37
38

This project demonstrated not only how integrated CAD and TMC systems could improve 

response capabilities, but also how institutional barriers could be overcome. This project 

resulted in an integrated transportation and public safety incident management information 

network that allowed enhanced information-sharing between multiple agencies across 

multiple jurisdiction. 
4.0 BARRIERS TO INFORMATION SHARING 

While information sharing is generally accepted by incident responders as a positive 

and desirable practice, a number of barriers exist to effective information exchange. 

The foundation to overcome any such barriers is organizations’ willingness and 

dedication to work cooperatively with one another. While information sharing 

practices used in one area may not necessarily be successfully adopted by another 

jurisdiction because of location-specific constraints, formal frameworks for response 

activities and close working relationships at all organizational levels increase the 

opportunities for effective and efficient information sharing.

Administrative/Institutional Barriers 

Information sharing is most effective when it is supported by strong administrative 

and institutional foundations at multiple levels. Transportation and public safety 

agencies have a mutual interest and common goal in resolving traffic incidents 

quickly: maximizing the safety of responders and motorists. Partner agencies that 

have successful information exchanges use formal agreements (typically memoranda 

of understanding/agreement [MOU/MOA]) to detail responsibilities and accountability 

structures. These documents can range from statements of support and cooperation 

to commitments of agency funds to achieve traffic incident management (TIM) goals 

and objectives. 

Another aspect of information sharing that must be considered is how public records 

laws relate to information regarding traffic incidents. States have public records laws 

that range from varying degrees of restriction to completely transparent, and 

agencies must be careful to meet the intent of these laws. With the advent of 

technologies that allow real-time transmission of traffic data and incident response 

information, laws, policies, and procedures have not necessarily addressed at what 

point in time the information may be made public: during the response/investigation 

or after the event? As to the information itself, limitations to information sharing 

(privileged versus non-sensitive) must be considered; there may be differences 

between what may be shared between agencies for effective response and what can 

be shared with the public. And does the information availability change as the 

investigation proceeds from open to closed? Additionally, shared information must 

preserve the dignity of the deceased in a way that transmits incident information 

without sensationalizing information being shared with public. Another area that has 

not been well documented is the recording and retention of internally captured (via a 

closed-circuit television [CCTV] camera system) video images; most agencies tend to 

avoid video retention because of storage and liability issues. This is an area that 

continues to evolve without a consistent pattern of execution outside a consensus to 

not record video images. 

39
40

Operational Barriers 

Successful TIM information sharing often begins through strong personal 

relationships between response stakeholders at various levels within the 

organizations. These key staff can find innovative ways to overcome barriers and 

develop effective operational procedures that support incident response activities. 

Trust between these stakeholders is critical, since their actions and attitudes provide 

incentive for others to participate actively. 

More formally, co-location and pooling of resources can support improved information 

exchange. Proximity allows responders to understand the information they receive, 

how it is best used and shared, and how decisions are made. There are inter-agency 

language barriers where specialized terms may not be understood by other 

professions; using clear speech and a common set of terms is helpful. Cross training 

and joint operations are two means by which staff from different agencies can learn 

to communicate more effectively. 

Technological Barriers 

The ability to communicate and share information across various media, particularly 

when technological updates outstrip agencies’ ability to keep pace with changes, is 

critical for effective traffic incident management. Communications media are not 

always interoperable, or costs to allow information sharing may be prohibitive. By 

sharing proprietary communications or data systems, relying on commercial 

communications services, and finding ways to build communications linkages, 

successful TIM response agencies have found ways to overcome technological 

barriers. Technological barriers have often been overcome by addressing 

administrative/institutional and operational issues rather than by solely trying to keep 

up with technology changes. 

Some specific technological barriers include 

• Inability to communicate across a common platform 

• Communications equipment not available in emergency response 

vehicles 

• Communications mechanisms not available during non-office hours 

• Proprietary communications systems 

• Insufficient redundancy for some communications systems, making 

them vulnerable to loss of functionality 

• Insufficient training, coordination, and planning between agencies to 

establish usage parameters 

Sample Solutions to Administrative, Operational, and Technological 

Barriers 

A solution to one type of information sharing barrier can resolve another. The 

representative examples below cross over from one type of barrier to another with 

the result being a best-practice type example of information sharing. 
41

Washington Department of Transportation (WDOT)/Washington State Police 

(WSP) 

In Washington, the WDOT and WSP have developed a joint operations policy 

statement (JOPS).23 This working agreement describes both agencies’ missions and 

organizational alignment and then goes on to state their intent to share information 

needed to facilitate joint highway operations. Examples of information sharing 

include: 

• CAD access and user training 

• Real-time traffic flow, road, collision, and weather information 

• Video from traffic monitoring cameras 

• Video road inventories 

• Speed data 

• Geo-spatial data, including interchange drawings 

WSP and WSDOT have created a standard for data sharing that addresses: 

• Data content and formatting 

• Data documentation and meta-data 

• Data collection and update methods and procedures 

• Data accuracy 

• Data update cycles 

• Third party data 

• Stewardship 

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Four 

Another example of a commitment to share data and resources is FDOT District 

Four’s MOU29 that provides the initial framework and guidelines to promote 

collaborative efforts between TIM team members for decision making and information 

sharing in efforts for TIM planning, design, deployment, operations, funding, and 

evaluation. Team members consist of transportation and public safety personnel as 

well as private sector partners. This team’s vision is to develop an institutionally 

integrated, fully cooperative association of public agency and private industry TIM 

stakeholders to improve the safety and reliability of the transportation system. 

Agencies that have agreed to the terms of this MOU include: 

• FDOT District 4, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise, and FDOT Motor 

Carrier Compliance Division 

• Florida Highway Patrol 

• County Sheriff Departments 

• Local Police Departments 

• County and Local Fire Departments 

• Local and County Traffic Engineering Departments 
42

• County Departments of Environmental Protection 

• County Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

• County Medical Examiner Departments 

Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)/Utah Department of Public 

Safety (UDPS)14

While the UDOT/UDPS-led team had a history of working together, when they 

worked to integrate their CAD-TMC system, they encountered a varied set of 

challenges: 

• Consensus about type and amount of information available for 

sharing 

• Fully engaging participants at all levels to maintain communication 

flows and staff involvement 

• Minimizing impacts on agency business practices 

• Inconsistent data sets and emergent data standards 

• Different legacy systems 

• Staff workload concerns 

• Reluctance to change to an automated system 

Team cooperation was vital to the project’s success, and this was built on strong 

existing relationships between agency partners. While the agencies had different 

areas of focus (scene management versus traffic control), understanding each 

other’s needs, roles, and motivations as well as committing to support at all levels 

and use of project standards helped to successfully navigate these various 

challenges. 
5.0 REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED 

READINGS 

References 

1. United States (USDOT), Traffic Incident Management Handbook (2000). 

2. USDOT, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

3. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 520, Sharing 

Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic 

Incident Management (2004). 

4. United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), National Incident 

Management System (2004). 

5. USDOT, Simplified Guide to the Incident Command System for Transportation 

Professionals (2006). 

6. USDOT, Common Issues in Emergency Transportation Operations 

Preparedness and Response (2007). 

7. USDOT, Traffic Incident Management Program Web site. Available at 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/incidentmgmt/index.htm. 

8. Kentucky Office of Homeland Security, Kentucky Intelligence Fusion Center Web 

site. Available at: http://homelandsecurity.ky.gov/fusion.htm. 

9. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) SunGuideTM Disseminator, Road 

Rangers and Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System 800 MHz Radio 

Network (2007). 

10. USDHS, About SAFECOM. Available at 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/about/default.htm.

11. USDHS, About SAFECOM, Frequently Asked Questions. Available at 

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/about/faq/.

12. USDHS, Interoperability Continuum Brochure. 

13. USDOT, Computer-Aided Dispatch – Traffic Management Center Field 

Operational Test: Washington State Final Report (2006). 

14. USDOT, Computer-Aided Dispatch – Traffic Management Center Field 

Operational Test: State of Utah Final Report (2006). 

15. Traffic Incident Management (TIM) Focus States Initiative on TIM Performance 

Measurement, SAIC, TIM Program-Level Performance Measurement Focus 

States Initiative Update (2007). 

16. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Incident Management Best 

Practices (2007). 

17. USDOT, Safe, Quick Clearance Primer Series, Traffic Incident Management in 

Construction and Maintenance Work Zones (2008). 

18. Florida, Open Roads Policy (2002). 

43
44

19. Federal Emergency Management Administration, Mutual Aid Agreements for 

Public Assistance and Fire Management Assistance, Available at

http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/9523_6.shtm. 

20. Traffic Incident Management Focus States Initiative on TIM Performance 

Measurement, Cambridge Systematics, Florida ITS and TIM Performance 

Measures (2007). 

21. Traffic Incident Management Focus States Initiative on TIM Performance 

Measurement, HNTB, Wisconsin DOT Performance Measures (2007). 

22. Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Measures, Markers, and 

Mileposts, published quarterly. 

23. WSDOT and WSP, Joint Operations Policy Statement.

24. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), Challenges Faced and Tactics 

Used to Integrate Real-Time State Police Computer Aided Dispatch Data with the 

VDOT Richmond District Smart Traffic Center (2005). 

25. USDOT, New York Integrated Incident Management System Evaluation Project 

Final Report (2007). 

26. Texas Department of Transportation, Combined Transportation, Emergency, and 

Communication Center (2005). 

27. Oregon Department of Transportation, Portland Dispatch Center Consortium 

CAD Integration Project (2005). 

28. WSDOT, CAD-Traffic Management Center Integration in Washington Statement

(2006). 

29. FDOT, Memorandum of Understanding for Traffic Incident Team within FDOT 

District Four, updated as new agencies are included. 

Suggested Reading 

1. Federal Emergency Management Administration, Basic Guidance for Public 

Information Officers (2007). 

2. Texas Transportation Institute, 2007 Urban Mobility Report (2007). 

3. USDOT, Freeway Management and Operations Handbook, Chapter 10 

(2003). 
45

 
46

FHWA Office of Operations, HOTO 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov 

FHWA-HOP-08-059 

January 2009

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration