Train-the-Trainer Pilot Courses for Incident Responders and Managers (2013)

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.

1C h a p t e r 1 The costs associated with traffic congestion are high and con- tinue to rise. The 2012 Urban Mobility Report, published by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute, cites the following facts: • The total financial cost of congestion in 2011 was $121 bil- lion, up $1 billion from the year before and translating to $818 per U.S. commuter and 5.5 billion h in additional travel time. • Of that $121 billion, about $27 billion represents wasted time and diesel fuel from trucks moving goods on the system. • Fuel wasted in congested traffic reached 2.9 billion gallons— enough to fill the New Orleans Superdome four times. • In 2012, carbon dioxide emissions attributed to traffic con- gestion were 56 billion pounds or about 380 pounds per automobile commuter (1). Traffic experts describe traffic as being either “recurring” or “nonrecurring.” Recurring congestion is predictable, associated for example with rush hour. Recurring congestion is both the plague and a hallmark of economically thriving regions. Non- recurring congestion describes unexpected traffic jams that develop as a result of unpredictable events such as weather or traffic incidents. Nonrecurring congestion accounts for nearly half of all traffic congestion. Furthermore, nonrecurring con- gestion negatively impacts travel time reliability or predictabil- ity on roadways. Motorists, including commuters and freight road users, continue to affirm that they value travel time reli- ability of roadways more highly than travel time itself. This observation is based on interviews with commuters and large and small freight carriers at metropolitan/regional planning organizations in Atlanta, Georgia, and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, in 2009 and 2010. The interviews were conducted in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration Office of Freight, Management and Operations, Peer-to-Peer Program. Traffic incidents—which include anything that happens on a roadway that impacts traffic ranging from disabled vehicles to fender-benders to vehicle crashes—account for up to 25% of all congestion and 40% of nonrecurring congestion (2). Bottlenecks caused by “rubbernecking” alone can drop a highway’s capacity an additional 12.7%, even if a lane is not closed (3). Finally, reliability and safety problems on roadways are inextricably interlinked. Every minute an incident is not cleared endangers other motorists and responders through an increasing risk of secondary incidents, which further propa- gate traffic congestion. Faster incident clearance means safer roadways for motorists and incident responders who are in harm’s way while attending to an incident; it can also improve the reliability of our nation’s roadways by restoring travel lanes more quickly to pre-incident conditions. the Need for National tIM responder training Improving traffic incident management (TIM) practices offers regions a highly cost-effective and sustainable opportunity to improve the reliability of their roadways. While minor traffic incidents may be routinely handled by a single responder—in fact, the rapid response and clearance of these minor traffic incidents helps prevent them from becoming more serious incidents—traffic incidents frequently require a multidisci- plinary response. For example, law enforcement personnel manage traffic control and lane closures; transportation per- sonnel help implement and oversee traffic control; towing and recovery firms are often needed to move disabled cars out of the roadway; and transportation management centers help minimize collateral impacts on reliability on related roadways. Fire and emergency management personnel and equipment are also crucial partners. Most incident response functions are executed through responder agencies, which may not have institutional structures that support working together or train- ing multidisciplinary teams together. A significant body of research has shown that improving incident response activities offers substantial benefits for Background

2reducing the adverse impact of traffic incidents—congestion, travel delays, responder safety (4). This research has also shown that a key component for improving TIM is the estab- lishment of multidisciplinary TIM programs that enable the development of coordinated operational policies, inter- operable communications, and interdisciplinary training. the role of Shrp 2 In recognition of the importance of improving TIM, the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC) was established in 2004 with support from FHWA and AASHTO. The NTIMC is a multidisciplinary group committed to con- gestion relief, enhanced responder safety, and emergency preparedness. The NTIMC, working with FHWA, played a key role in establishing the National Unified Goal (NUG) for TIM. The NUG was developed to help encourage state and local government agencies to adopt the unified, multidisciplinary programs and policies that have enabled other state and local governments to realize the benefits of improved TIM. The NUG is a unified national policy organized around three objectives: 1. Responder safety; 2. Safe, quick clearance; and 3. Prompt, reliable, and interoperable communications. Congress authorized SHRP 2 to provide accelerated, focused, multifaceted solutions to advance significant transportation problems, as a complement to longer-term highway research. The program executed research in four areas, one of which was Reliability (the others are Safety, Renewal, and Capacity). Under the Reliability program, Project L12 developed one of the first comprehensive, multidisciplinary, peer-validated national incident responder training curriculum and materi- als for use by TIM programs in jurisdictions large and small across the country. A corresponding train-the-trainer curricu- lum was also developed to support the cost-effective grassroots delivery of this core curriculum by TIM organizations. The curriculum is designed to be flexible and modular in order to accommodate different delivery options, such as an inten- sive two-day format or a weekly or monthly modular format, and to enable regions to customize the curriculum and case studies to their policies and challenges. The objective of the SHRP 2 L32A project, which built on Project L12, was to validate the train-the-trainer model as a first step toward nationwide implementation and a key path to transforming TIM practice across the country. FHWA, AASHTO, and the SHRP 2 program share a commitment to improving the reliability of our nation’s roadways by system- atically transforming TIM programs on a national scale within a decade. The fully validated National TIM Responder Train- ing program will facilitate this by elevating the state of the practice across the country so that, regardless of which state or region one is traveling through, responders are prepared to provide similar “standards of care” to motorists in traffic incident response. Shrp 2 projects L12/L32a: National tIM responder training, train-the-trainer pilots The focus of the L32A research was to validate and improve this crucial underpinning of the national TIM training pro- gram’s eventual success. Project L32A trained nearly 200 new TIM responders to improve the reliability and safety of the roadways in four states through the National TIM Responder Training course, developed and originally pilot-tested through the L12 Project. Having taken the train-the-trainer course, more than 150 of these TIM responders are qualified to train their multidisciplinary TIM partners in the curriculum. Note that the alumni-led pilot course was not a train-the-trainer delivery but was the first evaluated delivery of the National TIM Responder Training by first-generation graduates of the train-the-trainer course. Student-trainers from a diverse mix of primary TIM disciplines participated in the four train-the- trainer pilot workshops, as shown in Figure 1.1. The team conducted four train-the-trainer pilot courses and one alumni-led pilot course taught by graduates of the train-the-trainer course. The pilots were conducted at the fol- lowing locations and dates: • Pilot 1: Nashville, Tennessee June 19–20, 2012 • Pilot 2: Richmond, Virginia June 27–28, 2012 • Pilot 3: Helena, Montana July 11–12, 2012 • Pilot 4: Fort Lauderdale, Florida August 8–9, 2012 • Alumni-Led Pilot: Knoxville, September 12–13, 2012 Tennessee Feedback from the five pilot workshops conducted through the L32A project resulted in nearly 1,500 discrete improve- ments to the curriculum, as well as materials enhancements, including a pacer guide to help instructors pace themselves throughout the training; materials checklists; and photo- graphic enhancements to activity setup instructions. The results of Project L32A speak for themselves: FHWA and AASHTO have formally adopted this training program and are conducting workshops across the country with a vision toward training one million TIM responders in all 50 states within 10 years. More than 95% of graduates of the train-the-trainer course affirmed they would recommend this course to others. Of equal importance, 95% of graduates

3reported the course left them with a greater appreciation of the importance of safe, quick clearance (SQC) principles, and 98% reported believing the course saved them research time when preparing to teach their own course. Examples of testi- monials from responder participants include the following: • “All of our participants came away with [a] new perspec- tive of our job at the scene and a new understanding of how all the players need to work together to be safe.”— Towing Attendee (Montana Pilot) • “The main thing I’ve learned taking this course is there’s more than just the law enforcement aspect of it. Actually also having the fire and rescue, and being able to use those as one big component, instead of you trying to do everything yourself.”—Law Enforcement Attendee (Nashville, Tennes- see Pilot) • “This course has driven home the importance of agen- cies working together toward a common goal—‘Quick Clearance’—to prevent further incidents.”—Attendee (Virginia Pilot) • “I now understand that by communicating to the other departments that are responding to a scene will greatly reduce the time my guys and I will spend on the pavement in harm’s way.”—Law Enforcement Attendee (Montana Pilot) The following sections summarize the research approach used for the SHRP 2 Project L32A, findings, and conclusions. 32% 32% 23% 10% 1% 1% 1% DOT Law Enforcement Fire Towing Dispatch EMS Other Figure 1.1. Attendance by discipline (four train-the-trainer pilots).