Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
STATE OF THE PRACTICEâSTRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES The steering group of the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC), an assembly of representatives from the public safety and transportation communities, identified three categories of issues related to TIM for its 2002 conference: Operations, Technology, and Institutions. OPERATIONS Addressing the Procedures, Processes, Roles, and Relationships Used in the Field in Responding to Incidents and Emergencies Emergency response, general incident management, and TIM all have their own con- ventions consisting of agency roles, accepted procedures, headquarters functions, and ad hoc reactions by field personnel. Incidents and emergencies are not perceived in state DOTs and public safety agencies in the same way regarding their traffic service implica- tions. From a transportation point of view, major improvements in safety and efficiency have been demonstrated by developing and integrating comprehensive approaches based on coordinated and prepared operational regimes, rapid provision of emergency response, and speedy recovery of service. However, highway-related protocols and procedures employed locally for ETO vary widely nationwide among responders. Quick clearance policy is in force in a handful of areas, MUTCD-compliant traffic control is not widely used, traffic control training for responders is modest, and proper staging and emergency lighting are not widely employed. A major concern is the lack of training to formalize an approach designed to reduce the number and severity of secondary crashes. Furthermore, while the value of an all-hazard approach is widely acknowledged, the special operational needs associated with the range of incidents and emergencies are not approached on a coordinated basis. Highway-related emergency management procedures related to HAZMAT, WMD, and major disasters are not well-integrated with the incident man- agement process in most states. While there has been an increasing level of training in incident command (among most public safety agencies and some DOTs) and in TIM among DOTs, the field of ETO is not yet professionalized as part of basic training curricula and agency policies. In con- trast to other areas of emergency services (fire and rescue), the concept of performance standards for clearance of incidents is not yet widely accepted. Traffic incident clear- ance and other traffic-related emergency functions are rarely tracked or benchmarked against best practice or prior performance. There is wide variation in practice, as mea- sured by safety or delay, and a substantial gap exists between best emerging best prac- tices and the general state of the practice. TECHNOLOGY Addressing the Communications and Other Equipment Used to Facilitate and Improve the Effectiveness of ETO At the present time, the application of technology to ETO is limited and based princi- pally on safety service patrols; regional public safety call and computer-aided dispatch 14 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S
(CAD) centers; and the modest coverage of ITS surveillance, detection, and commu- nications systems. The need for interoperable interagency communications is widely acknowledged, but represents an expensive challenge in many regions. More generally, information-sharing protocols for each significantly different emergency type (weather, security, planned event) are not uniformly developed and often involve different units within responder and supporting agencies. State DOTs, because of their interest in ITS technology, are well-positioned to work with and support their public safety agency part- ners regarding advanced technology applications. These efforts are reinforced by Fed- eral Communication Commission (FCC) allocation of frequency to public safety func- tions and the new hardware emerging to supply this need. For example, TMC/CAD dispatch integration benefits may be obvious, but only a few regions are moving in this area. TMC protocols for both rapid and appropriate response and effectively informing the public have been developed in only a few regions. An inte- grated approach to a broader range of hazards also introduces other technology issues. These involve the need for cooperation among the emergency management community and public safety and transportation entities, more shared real-time information, rapid access across public data sources and data types, and a need to develop access to special expertise on an on-call basis. INSTITUTIONS Addressing the Policy Framework for ETO and How the Operations and Technology Issues are Organized into a Program, Resource, and Performance Framework âInstitutionalizationâ of ETO evolving best practices is still in very early stages, and the transportation and public safety entities have different priorities. The objectives, priori- ties, and management style exhibited by the DOTs and public safety agencies are based in law, culture, and resources. The legal and regulatory environment also varies substan- tially by state. Figure 5 illustrates in summary form the key agency objectives in emer- gency transportation response. As indicated, agency objectives may be complementary or diverge; however, the divergence may simply reflect lack of joint strategy to overcome apparent conflicts. For example, there are specific best practice approaches to ensuring safety at the scene while maintaining traffic flow. 15 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S
ETO is not treated as a formal, budgeted, managed program within most state DOTs. Rather, ETO is typically conducted as a fragmented, part-time reactive activity at the district level, with responsibilities divided among maintenance, traffic operations units, TMC management, and ITS project staff. Within the public safety community, traffic incidents and emergencies associated specifically with traffic often lack a separate pro- gram identity. As a result, key components (ITS, service patrols, communications) do not compete well for resources, and there is no clear professional cadre or related tech- nical certification devoted to ETO. Formal inter-institutional relationships between state DOTs and public safety agencies are most common at the field level, and DOTs are often perceived as public works agencies rather than aggressive advocates for systems man- agement. Despite the obvious overlap in responsibilities, personnel, infrastructure, and equipment appropriate to ETO, there is only a modest attempt to exploit common needs and resources or to develop common protocols covering both traffic and other emer- gencies among state DOTs and between DOTs and their public safety counterparts. The Appendix presents a more detailed discussion of the state of the practice for each of the three categories of issues. Key strengths and weakness are identified based on inter- views conducted for this project and the Federal Highway Administrationâs (FHWAâs) âTraffic Incident Management Self-Assessment National Executive Summary Reportâ reported key incident management practices among the top 75 metropolitan areas. 16 G U I D E F O R E M E R G E N C Y T R A N S P O R T A T I O N O P E R A T I O N S Figure 5. Agency Objectives in Emergency Transportation Response