Traffic Incident Management Focus State Initiative: Program-Level Performance Measurement Workshops Talking Operations Webcast February 22, 2006

2 Overview  The Approach  Accomplishments  Program-level Performance Measures Selected for Implementation  Development of Action Plans  Next Steps

3 The Approach Eastern Regional WorkshopWestern Regional Workshop Dallas Workshop 1. Identification of Candidate National TIM Performance Measures: Goals, Objectives, Data Sources; and SWOT 2. Development of State Action Plans State Tests of National TIM Performance Measures Feedback to FHWA

4 Accomplishments to Date  More Than 50 TIM practitioners from eleven leading States participated  Defined 10 program-level objectives across three “goal areas”  Defined 30 candidate program-level TIM performance measures  Developed common understandings of some core terms such as “incident clearance time”  All Eleven Focus States are developing Action Plans for two common “program-level” performance measures East CoastWest Coast Dallas TX Workshop (Action Plan Development) Connecticut Georgia Maryland New York North Carolina Wisconsin California Florida Texas Utah Washington Participation:

5 Regional Workshops: Candidate Program-Level TIM Vision Reduce Incident Duration Improve Safety Improve Communications to Reduce the Impacts of Incidents on Customers Participants recognized and emphasized the overlapping relationships between these areas. Sample TIM Program Mission: Prevent and manage traffic incidents in a manner that minimizes travel time (delays), safety, and environmental impacts. “Goal Areas”

6 10 Candidate Program-Level TIM Objectives 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 removal of all evidence of the incident, including debris or remaining assets, from shoulders). 4. Reduce “recovery” time (defined as between awareness of an incident and restoration of impacted roadway/roadways 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 communication 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 regular basis during incident. 10. Regularly evaluate and use customer (road user) feedback to improve TIM program assets and practices. NOTE: Synthesis of objectives from regional workshops

7 Candidate Program-Level TIM Performance Measures Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure (s) *1. Reduce incident notification time (defined as the time between the first agency’s awareness of an incident, and the time to notify needed response agencies). 1a. The time between the first agency’s awareness of an incident, and the time to notify needed response agencies. *2. Reduce roadway clearance time ( defined as the time between awareness of an incident and restoration of lanes to full operational status. a. Time between first recordable awareness (detection/notification/verification) of incident by a responsible agency and first confirmation that all lanes are available for traffic flow. *3. Reduce incident clearance time (defined as the time between awareness of an incident and removal of all evidence of the incident, including debris or remaining assets, from shoulders). a. Time between first recordable awareness (detection/notification/verification) of incident by a responsible agency and time at which all evidence of incident is removed. (including debris cleared from the shoulder). b. Time between first recordable AWARENESS and time at which the last responder has left the scene. 4. Reduce “recovery” time (defined as between awareness of an incident and restoration of impacted roadway/roadways to “normal” conditions). a. Time between awareness of an incident and restoration of impacted roadway/roadways to “normal” conditions. (NOTE: participants noted that “normal” conditions could be difficult to define) *5. Reduce time for needed responders to arrive on- scene after notification. a. Time between notification and arrival of first qualified response person to arrive on incident scene.

8 Candidate Program-Level TIM Performance Measures (Cont.) Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure *6. Reduce number of secondary incidents and severity of primary and secondary incidents. a. # of total incidents (regardless of primary or secondary) and severity of primary incidents (NHTSA classification) b. # of secondary of incidents and severity (NHTSA classification) c. # fatalities *7. Develop and ensure familiarity with regional, multi-disciplinary TIM goals and objectives and supporting procedures by all stakeholders. a. Existence/availability of Program-level plan for implementing traffic control devices and/or procedures b. Existence of/participation in multi-agency/jurisdictional training programs on the effective use of traffic control/staging devices and procedures c. % of workforce trained on NIMS as well as local/regional/ "program-level" procedures d. % of agencies with active, up to date MOUs for program- level TIM e. # of certified courses taken f. # of attendees at various courses

9 Candidate Program-Level TIM Performance Measures (Cont.) Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure 8. Improve communication between responders and managers regarding the status of an incident throughout the incident. a. # or % of agencies with a need to communicate, who are able to communicate (sharing information or communications systems) within an incident 9. Provide timely, accurate, and useful traveler information to the motoring public on regular basis during incident. a. Comparison of information provided at any given time to what information could have been provided b. Customer perceptions on usefulness of information provided c. Time of updates to various sources d. # of minutes it takes to disseminate informational updates to the public (after something changes regarding incident status) e. # of sources of information to the public f. # of system miles that are covered/density of coverage by traveler information systems (seek to increase these)

10 Candidate Program-Level TIM Performance Measures (Cont.) Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure 10. Regularly evaluate and use customer (road user) feedback to improve TIM program assets and practices. a. % incidents managed in accordance with Program-level procedures. b. % of incidents for which multi-agency reviews occur c. Perceived effectiveness (by involved stakeholders) of use of traffic control devices to achieve incident management goals developed for each incident. d. Correlation of use of program-level traffic control devices by incident type. e. # of instances of sending the needed equipment (presumes that needed quantities and types of equipment are defined) for the incident. f. Frequency of dissemination of multi-agency/program-level and customer feedback back to partners g. Measures of customer feedback: # website feedback # of surveys conducted/focus groups # of complaint logs # of service patrol comment cards # of feedback system calls # of sources of information to the public (# of media/government outlets providing information) # of 511 calls

11 Consensus-Based Selection of Two Measures for Test Implementation Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure (s) 2. Reduce roadway clearance time. a. Time between first recordable awareness (detection/ notification/verification) of incident by a responsible agency and first confirmation that all lanes are available for traffic flow. 3. Reduce incident clearance time. b. Time between first recordable awareness and time at which the last responder has left the incident scene.

12 Other Measures Selected for Implementation Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure (s) # States 7. Develop and ensure familiarity with regional, multi-disciplinary TIM goals and objectives and supporting procedures by all stakeholders. Examples: a. Existence/availability of Program-level plan for implementing traffic control devices and/or procedures b. Existence of/participation in multi-agency/jurisdictional training programs on the effective use of traffic control/staging devices and procedures c. % of workforce trained on NIMS as well as local/regional/ "program-level" procedures d. % of agencies with active, up to date MOUs for program-level TIM…ETC 3 5. Reduce time for needed responders to arrive on-scene after notification. a. Time between notification and arrival of first qualified response person to arrive on incident scene Provide timely, accurate, and useful traveler information to the motoring public on regular basis during incident. a. Comparison of information provided at any given time to what information could have been provided b. Customer perceptions on usefulness of information provided c. Time of updates to various sources…ETC. 2

13 Other Measures Selected for Implementation (cont). Candidate ObjectiveProposed Performance Measure (s) # States 6. Reduce number of secondary incidents and severity of primary and secondary incidents. a. # of total incidents (regardless of primary or secondary) and severity of primary incidents (NHTSA classification) b. # of secondary of incidents and severity (NHTSA classification) c. # fatalities 1 and FHWA to focus on 1. Reduce incident notification time a. The time between the first agency’s awareness of an incident, and the time to notify needed response agencies Reduce “recovery” time a. Time between awareness of an incident and restoration of impacted roadway/roadways to “normal” conditions Improve communication between responders and managers regarding the status of an incident throughout the incident. a. # or % of agencies with a need to communicate, who are able to communicate (sharing information or communications systems) within an incident 1

14 Action Plan Framework  Related Program-level Objective  Performance measure  Implementation partners  Needed data and sources  Measurement tool or approach  Specific steps to implement and evaluate the performance measure Lead coordinator Implementation partners and roles Timeframe for implementation Needed resources/support FHWA can provide

15 Emerging Common Approaches  Start Small  Integrate CAD Systems  Develop/Expand MOUs with partners

16 Issues to Consider In Implementing Program-Level TIM Performance Measures  More clarity and consensus is needed still on a number of factors that influence the ability to evaluate program-level TIM performance including: How “normal traffic flow” should be defined (“recovery”) Varying incident type classifications Varying incident severity classifications Criteria for determination that an incident is a “secondary” incident Value of tracking queue length in understanding TIM performance  Non-DOT and non-law enforcement responders may not collect data that could be needed for program-level analysis at this time.  State agencies and systems may not collect data consistently at this time (may collect slightly different data in different formats). Time-synchronization between systems within a State may be difficult. Different means of identifying incident location – Use of Lat/Long and State Plane Coordinates Incident managers may feel they don't have time to call TMC with updates or to input data into various systems in real-time because they are trying to manage the site. Time-stamping may not be representative of actual time (validation procedures can correct this but could be time-consuming).

17 FHWA Support Areas  Technical Support  Funding  Information Exchange (website/webexes)  Follow-up Forums  Training  Case Studies

18 Future Steps  The Focus States will refine their action plans, will act to implement program-level performance measures and will share their progress and experiences.  FHWA will coordinate with states for technical support needs.  FHWA will create a forum for the States to exchange their experiences and lessons-learned.  FHWA will work with states to further refine the types of incidents to be evaluated.  FHWA will support definition of safety-related performance measures.