Traffic Incident Management Performance Measurement

1
Traffic Incident ManagementPerformance
Measurement

• The Focus States Initiative On the Road to
  Success

2
Traffic Incident Management

• The systematic, planned and coordinated used 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.

Source FHWA Traffic Incident Management (TIM)
Handbook (2000).
3
Who are the TIM Stakeholders?

• Law Enforcement
• Fire and Rescue
• Emergency Medical Services
• Transportation Agencies
• Towing and Recovery
• Emergency Managers
• Hazardous Materials Responders
• Medical Examiners and/or Coroners
• Elected and Appointed Officials
• Traffic Media
• Highway Users

4
5 Benefits of Effective TIM

• Increased driver and responder safety
• a. Reduced secondary accidents, fatalities,
  injuries and property damage
• Congestion relief
• More effective preparation for larger-scale
  emergencies/disasters
• Public resources go further/Happier public
• Reduced emissions

5
Measuring Success

• What Gets Measured Gets Performed...
• Quantifying TIM benefits will advance program
  continuity
• Builds critical mass for program support from
  managers and elected officials
• Supporting what works
• Ensures buy-in from diverse stakeholders
• Multiple agencies, coordinated response
• Supports allocation of technical and budget
  resources

6
TIM Performance Measurement Focus States
Initiative

• Eleven states working together to develop
  consensus on national program-level TIM
  Performance Measures
• Representatives from Law Enforcement and
  Transportation

• TIM Performance Measures Focus States
• California
• Connecticut
• Florida
• Georgia
• Maryland
• New York
• North Carolina
• Texas
• Utah
• Washington
• Wisconsin

7
TIM Performance Measurement Focus States
Initiative

• Two performance measures initially identified for
  collection and analysis
• Roadway Clearance Time
• Incident Clearance Time
• Third performance measure proposed by
  participating states
• Reduce secondary crashes

Focus State Testimonials The TIM FSI process
helped to crystallize what the measurements are
about. It became very clear we are all defining
things in different ways. New York FSI
Participant There were a lot of definitional
differences between public safety and DOT. This
was a major hurdle we overcame. Washington
FSI Participant Determining secondary crashes
and the reduction of this through TIM is
important for funding for Road Rangers and the
expansion of TIM. Florida FSI Participant
8
TIM Performance Measurement

• Roadway Clearance Time
• The time between first recordable awareness of an
  incident (detection/notification/verification) by
  a responsible agency and first confirmation that
  all lanes are available for traffic flow.

9
TIM Performance Measurement

• Incident Clearance Time
• The time between the first recordable awareness
  and the time at which the last responder has left
  the scene.

10
TIM Performance Measurement

• Secondary Crashes
• The number of secondary crashes beginning with
  the time of detection of the primary incident
  where a collision occurs either a) within the
  incident scene or b) within the queue, including
  the opposite direction, resulting from the
  original incident.

11
Some Focus State Experiences Benefits of
Performance Measurement
12
The Maryland (CHART) Experience

• Response Time Reduction
• Clearance Time Reduction
• Delay Reduction
• Reduction In Incident Duration
• Fuel Consumption
• Emissions
• Secondary Incidents
• Risks At Primary Incident Sites
• Potential Incidents Due To Chart Ops.

13
The Wisconsin Experience

• Establish a baseline
• Method to monitor and improve day-to-day
  operations
• Tool for prioritizing needs
• Ultimately use to support/justify programs

14
Monthly Performance Report

• Total Incidents
• Response Time
• Incident Clearance Times
• Travel Rate Index
• Hours of Delay
• VMS Usage Report
• Maintenance AverageService Time
• Freeway Service SafetyPatrol Assists
• HOV Ramp Lane Usage

15
Some Focus State Experiences Data Collection
and Evaluation
16
Wisconsin Average Incident Clearance Time

• Definition
• Time between State Transportation Operations
  Center awareness of an incident and the time all
  vehicles/debris/etc. are clear of the incident
  scene (including shoulder/median)
• Data Source
• Start time
• CAD data sent from Milwaukee County Sheriffs
  Office
• Operator entered observes or is notified of an
  incident
• End time
• Operator entered observes or is notified
  incident scene is clear
• Computation
• Automated using Incident Management System
  database
• Issues/Limitations
• Based on Operator entered data, not always
  highest priority
• Future Enhancements
• Direct link to the Wisconsin State Patrol CAD data

17
Wisconsin Average Incident Clearance Time
18
Florida Incident Duration

• Objective To obtain the incident timeline from
  the time any Florida DOT (FDOT) or Florida
  Highway Patrol (FHP) staff is notified to the
  time that all travel lanes are cleared
• Incident Influence Time ? Entire length of the
  timeline (from occurrence to return to normal
  flow)
• Roadway Clearance Time
• Begins with the arrival of the first responder,
  either FHP or FDOT, and ends when all mainline
  travel lanes are cleared
• Directly comparable with the Open Roads Policy of
  clearing all travel lanes in 90 minutes or less

19
Florida Incident Duration Data Collection

• Pilot Effort in 2005 to collect incident timeline
  data from manual(paper) records
• Results determined that collecting incident
  timeline data was too complex and time-consuming
  to be done manually
• In 2006 the SunGuide statewide Traffic Management
  Center (TMC) software was modified to include the
  data collection and reporting requirements for
  obtaining incident duration data
• 2 districts are currently able to collect data.
• In late 2007 or early 2008 it is anticipated that
  several other Districts will also be able collect
  and report incident duration data

20
Florida Data Collection Recommendations

• Manual data collection not recommended
• Too expensive, not enough data
• Develop automated data collection of ALL incident
  timeline components through SunGuide software in
  all Districts
• Collect data and establish targets for all
  components of timeline (i.e. 90 minute clearance
  time) in 2007

21
Florida 2007 Incident Duration Results
22
Maryland (CHART) Evaluation Findings

• Reduction in Incident Duration (Roadway
  Clearance Time) for Each Incident Evaluation
  Period
• lt ½ Hour (13 Reduction)
• ½ Hour lt 1 Hour (13 Reduction)
• 1 Hour lt 2 Hours (41 Reduction)
• 2 Hours (35 Reduction)

23
Some Focus State Experiences Challenges and
Lessons Learned
24
Florida Challenges

• Creating and maintaining a data archive that
  stores all the needed data (output and outcome)
• Developing TMC management software that collects
  the needed data for the incident duration
  timeline (all components need to be collected and
  stored) ? manual data collection is far too time
  consuming
• Training TMC operators to properly collect the
  needed incident data - they must understand the
  importance
• Training service patrol operators to collect or
  at least cooperate with the TMC operators
  collecting incident data
• Integrating disparate systems to enable data
  exchange
• Inconsistencies in data availability

25
Florida Lessons Learned

• PMs need to reflect multi-agency nature of
  incident management
• Need for output and outcome measures
• Limit reporting to a critical few
• Track data before setting targets

26
Wisconsin Challenges

• Data quality
• Constant technology changes/advances
• Initial lack of standard measures
• Making the results meaningful to multiple
  audiences

27
CHART TIM EvaluationLessons Learned

• Need Consistency In Logging All Lanes Open and
  Incident Closed as Separate Events
• Need to Provide Select Responding Agencies with
  Chart Workstation Access to Log First Recordable
  Awareness Data
• Evaluation Constrained Due to Lack of Data From
  CHART Roads
• Need Ongoing/Active Participation Among TIM
  Stakeholders In Jurisdictions

28
Getting Started
29
What Is Needed to Get Started?

• High-level support within your organization for
  tracking and evaluating TIM performance measures
• Shared commitment among your TIM partners
• Common language around the performance measures
  for clarity
• And maybe
• System modifications to capture and exchange data
  between agencies
• Develop common data elements
• Real-time exchange of information
• Changes in operational practices to improve TIM
• Investment of additional resources in terms of
  people and/or equipment

30
Resources Available TIM Performance Measurement
Knowledge Management System

• Subscribe to the TIM PM managed email list to
  access the experiences and expertise of the focus
  states and others across the country measuring
  TIM performance
• Ask specific questions, get helpful answers from
  people with experience
• Suggest/share helpful resources
• Send an email to TIMPM_at_dot.gov to subscribe!
• Bookmark the TIM PM Knowledgebase at
  www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/preparedness/tim/
  knowledgebase/knowledgebase.htm to access
  documented knowledge
• TIM Performance Measurement Fact Sheet and
  Presentation
• TIM Performance Measurement Focus State Workshop
  Reports
• Helpful Materials/Resources from States doing
  performance measurement
• Example Memorandum of Agreements
• Example requirements documents or reports
• Example systems specifications for data sharing
• Contact List of TIM PM Focus States Participants
• FHWA TIM Self-Assessment and other resources

31
Questions?

• Contact the FHWA TIM Program Manager
• tel [phone]
• ETO_at_dot.gov
• Kimberly Vásconez, FHWA ETO Team Leader
• tel [phone]
• Kimberly.Vasconez_at_dot.gov