| ITE
Traffic Incident Management E-mail Discussion Group Digest #17
December 21 to December 28, 1999
This digest contains the following messages:
#5. TIM: JANUARY 9 IM SEMINAR - FINAL SCHEDULE - from Corbin,
John
#6. Y2K Stories on-line - from
Barry Drogin
#7. Information Needed - from
Obenberger, Jon
#8. Re: TIM: Information Needed - from
Juanita Lowe
#9. RE: Information Needed - from
Ken Brooke
#10. Re: TIM: RE: Information Needed - from
Paul Einreinhofer
#11. Re: TIM: Information Needed - from
James McCarthy
#12. RE: TIM: RE: Information Needed - from
Ken Brooke
#13. RE: Information Needed - from
Bruce Churchill
#14. Re: TIM: Information Needed -Reply -
from Ed Mark
#15. TIM: Information Needed -Reply - from
Dan Howard
Disclaimer: Topics
that do not pertain to Traffic Incident Management have been omitted
from the discussion group digests to save the reader time when reviewing
messages, and to save space on the web server. See
Discussion Group Etiquette for examples of
other reasons a message may have been omitted from a digest.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. TIM: JANUARY 9 IM SEMINAR - FINAL SCHEDULE -
from Corbin, John
Top
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 18:09:39 -0600
From: "Corbin, John" <john.corbin@dot.state.wi.us>
Subject: TIM: JANUARY 9 IM SEMINAR - FINAL SCHEDULE
The 2000 Incident Management Seminar remains scheduled for
Sunday, January 9, 2000 at the Omni Shoreham in Washington, DC.
This Seminar is to be jointly sponsored by the TRB Freeway Ops Committee
and the ITE TIM Committee. We will conduct the Winter Meeting of
the ITE TIM Committee beginning at 1:30 pm immediately following the
Seminar.
--Program--
Introduction of Speakers: Phil Masters, Ontario Ministry of
Transportation
8:15 am Welcome and Opening Remarks
Phil Masters, Ontario Ministry of Transportation
8:30 am Overview of Incident Management
Jodi Carson, Civil Engineering Department - Montana State University
9:00 am FHWA Update - Incident Management Tools
Dave Helman, Jon Obenberger, FHWA
9:30 am Traffic Management Council Incident
Management Clearinghouse Steve Cyra, HNTB
9:40 am Coffee Break
Moderator: John Corbin, Wisconsin DOT
10:00 am Panel: Incident Management Lessons from MDI's and
Priority Corridors
New York
I 95 Corridor
Gary-Chicago-Milwaukee Corridor
Seattle
Southern California
Houston
San Antonio
11:30 am Coffee Break
Introduction of Speakers: Jodi Carson, Civil Engineering Department -
Montana State University
12:00 pm Program Evaluation
Vince Pearce, Booz-Allen & Hamilton
12:30 pm Photogrammetry in Incident Cleanup
C.D. Tyler, PB Farradyne Inc.
12:45 pm Incident Management Program Self Assessment
C.D. Tyler, PB Farradyne Inc.
1:15 pm Wrap Up, Final Comments
Phil Masters, Ontario Ministry of Transportation
Technical Program Coordinators:
Jodi Carson, Civil Engineering Department - Montana State University
John Corbin, Wisconsin DOT
Larry Corcoran, Douglas County, Colorado
Jon DuFresne, Virginia DOT
Phil Masters, Ontario Ministry of Transportation
Top
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Y2K Stories on-line - from
Barry Drogin
Top
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 09:26:57 -0500
From: "Barry Drogin" <BDrogin@mtabt.org>
Subject: Y2K Stories on-line
Please circulate.
Incident Management Y2K stories
All members of the transportation community are invited to post stories
about Y2K preparations and aftermath, not as they relate to software
testing and replacement, but as they relate to traffic management,
emergency incident response, contingency planning, on-site and on-call
New Year's Eve weekend events, and so on. Web postings on the ICDN
thread will be available at the ITE Traffic Incident Management (TIM)
committee meeting on Sunday, January 9 at the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) conference in Washington, DC. For more info about TIM and
the meeting, visit
http://www.trafficincident.org
Visit
http://www.nawgits.com/itsforum/nawg/ to post your stories.
Barry Drogin
ATMS Project Manager
ATMS Program Management Division/Engineering & Construction Dept.
MTA Bridges & Tunnels (Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority)
Robert Moses Building/Randall's Island
New York, NY 10035-0035
bdrogin@mtabt.org
(212) 870-6535
(212) 870-6515 fax
(917) 641-0533 pager
Top
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Information Needed - from
Obenberger, Jon
Top
Date: 27 Dec 1999 15:54:59 -0500
From: "Obenberger, Jon <FHWA>" <Jon.Obenberger@fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: Information Needed
INFORMATION NEEDED:
Subject: Use of Mile Post Signs in Detecting Incidents
Issue: Is there a need to change the mile post sign standard in the
MUTCD to allow the option to modify these signs to assist with the
detection of roadway incidents.
Practice: Currently the MUTCD does not allow for the modification
of the text or spacing of the mile post signs to assist in the detection
of incidents. Mile post signs are required to be vertical, have a
green background with white numerals, border and legend. The sign
text is limited to the word *mile* and corresponding number. A
deviation from this standard sign, consideration of an additional sign,
or deviation from the recommended application is allowed only on an
experimental basis for a limited period of time. The information
and process required to be followed to request approval for
experimentation is identified in the MUTCD.
The number of cellular phone calls that are made by motorists to report
roadway related incidents continue to increase at a significant rate
each year. The number, frequency and accuracy of these calls have
resulted in cellular calls becoming the primary source of detecting
roadway incidents for some freeway management systems. Several
metropolitan areas are experimenting with the modification of mile post
signs, to improve the effectiveness and accuracy of the submittal of
incident related information from cellular phone calls. This
experimentation has included the route number, direction of travel and
increase in spacing of these signs.
A number of agencies have also identified the need to improve on the
information that is received from motorists generated cellular phone
calls, as a part of their planning to develop, justify and implement a
continuous and comprehensive region wide incident management program.
Continued advancements in technology and pending regulations
requiring the automatic identification of a cellular phone call, may
also influence the need for any additional information to be added to
mile post signs to assist in the identification of incidents.
Information Requested: In assist with identifying the current
state-of-the-practice with the use of mile post signs in detecting
roadway incidents, the following information is requested:
-Has your agency installed modified mile post signs to enhance incident
detection?
-Is your agency currently planning to install modified mile post signs
to enhance incident detection?
-What design is being used? Or planning to be used?
-Is the route number being displayed and how?
-Size of letters and sign?
-Color of sign?
-What spacing is being used for the sign?
-Where are the signs being installed (right or left hand shoulders)?
-What was the justification or basis for establishing the design for the
modified mile post sign?
-What impact have the modified mile post signs had on the performance of
your agency or regions detection of incidents? Benefit to the
overall incident management program?
-Will technology and the regulations requiring the automated location
identification of cell phone calls, replace the need to use mile post
signs to support or enhance incident detection?
Forward information to:
jon.obenberger@fhwa.dot.gov
or
Jon Obenberger, P.E.
Transportation Specialist
Federal Highway Administration
Room 3404, HOTM
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590
Top
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: TIM: Information Needed - from
Juanita Lowe
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 07:52:28 -0600
From: "Juanita Lowe" <Juanita@ksdot.org>
Subject: Re: TIM: Information Needed
KDOT in the Kansas City Metro area has added additional mile posts every
.2 of a mile in the median of the road. The signs are blue with
while letters and show the interstate highway, direction of travel, the
mile and the .2 of a mile. At the same time we installed signs on
the ramps of interchanges that state highway, direction of travel,
highway, direction of travel. For instance, I-35 NB to I-435 EB.
We also marked all overpasses with the highway or street name going over
the interstate.
The police departments have been favorable of these as they help pin
point the exact location of an incident or an accident. It is also
easier for those calling on a cell phone to tell the exact location,
even if they are unfamiliar with the area.
If you have any further questions give me a call at 913-677-5963.
Juanita Lowe
Kansas Department of Transportation
Top
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. RE: Information Needed - from
Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:10:25 -0500
From: "Ken Brooke" <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: RE: Information Needed
Happy holidays to everyone!
I was also wondering how enhanced cellular 9-1-1 would influence mile
post sign redesign programs. And then moreover what will be the
effects from the significant projected delay in implementing EC 9-1-1?
Would there be interest in obtaining similar information from the public
safety community? I believe I could further circulate it for a
straw poll (unscientific) sort of response. The problematical
areas I am most familiar with are complex freeway interchanges, where
EC9-1-1 would not help very much at all.
Top
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: TIM: RE: Information Needed - from
Paul Einreinhofer
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:21:43 -0500
From: Paul Einreinhofer <peinreinhofer@usa.net>
Subject: Re: TIM: RE: Information Needed
The subject of "enhanced cellular" is an interesting one. The
wireless industry has marketed for years the concept of a cellular phone
as a method of personal security. The FCC has mandated that all
phones, including non-subscribed, must be capable of dialing 9-1-1 and
reaching an answering point. Contrast that with the fight for
"cost recovery" by the wireless industry before they will provide phase
I, caller identification or phase II, location information.
Public Safety, as a group, are well behind the power curve on this one.
We are saddled with an ever increasing volume of wireless 9-1-1 calls
from these phones which taxes our ability to provide quality service.
Mile posts are one way to get us onto a more level footage. The
ability to locate callers will speed call process and response times.
It is a shame that government will again need to expend tax dollars for
this service to an industry that reaps the profits from the very benefit
government provides. However, we need to have mile posts with
consistent markings and colors across the country so the traveler
becomes aware of them and takes notice when calling 9-1-1.
Paul Einreinhofer
Bergen County Police
peinreinhofer@usa.net
Top
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: TIM: Information Needed - from
James McCarthy
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 09:48:19 -0500
From: "James McCarthy" <James.McCarthy@igate.fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: Re: TIM: Information Needed
Jon,
Additional MP signs are not being used in Minnesota
It is the intent of the ITS program in Minnesota to provide AVL/AVI for
all State Patrol vehicles along with the CAD 911 dispatching. This
will provide for both incident location by patrol vehicles and by
dispatchers responding to existing 911 calls as well as new enhanced 911
calls. The extensive video surveillance on most all freeways and a
growing number of arterials often provides the incident confirmation
that additional signing intends to provide.
In addition the Mayday Plus project being done by Minnesota Guidestar is
trying to ensure that Mayday calls will be automatically channeled to
the emergency dispatch center with the geo-location attached.
James P McCarthy
Top
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. RE: TIM: RE: Information Needed - from
Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 10:00:18 -0500
From: "Ken Brooke" <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: RE: TIM: RE: Information Needed
Hi Paul, good to hear from you -- it's been a while.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ITE TIM [mailto:itetim@socketcity.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 1999 9:36 am
> To: ITE Traffic Incident Management
> Subject: Re: TIM: RE: Information Needed
....<snip>...
> The FCC has mandated that all
> phones, including non-subscribed, must be capable of dialing 9-1-1 and
> reaching an answering point. Contrast that with the fight for
"cost
> recovery" by the wireless industry before they will provide phase I,
> caller identification or phase II, location information.
For the uninitiated, Phase I is similar to basic 9-1-1, where the
answering
point will be provided a callback number. Phase II is similar to
enhanced
9-1-1, except instead of providing the answering point with a street
address,
they will get geographical coordinates. The FCC is very concerned,
as it does
not look like the Phase II implementation deadline (2001, I believe)
will be
met, mostly due to cost recovery squabbling. Some of the financial
maneuvering is being camouflaged with debate on the technological merits
of a
couple of candidate solutions.
> Public Safety, as a group, are well behind the power curve on this
> one. We are saddled with an ever increasing volume of wireless
9-1-1
> calls from these phones which taxes our ability to provide quality
> service. Mile posts are one way to get us onto a more level
footage.
> The ability to locate callers will speed call process and response
> times.
C9-1-1 call volume's rate of increase is phenomenal, and the spikes
generated
by a significant highway incident are huge. I know that in my
area, a hundred
C9-1-1 calls can be generated from a single stalled car in the center
lane of
I-66 during rush hour.
I must inject a slightly contrary personal opinion regarding the value
of knowing where the C9-1-1 caller is (was) located. Imagine the
scenario where you witness a serious incident occur on the opposite side
of the interstate as you motor along at 55 (65? 75?). It
will be several miles before you fumble out your cell phone, succeed in
reaching the answering point, them answering,
and you making your report. A geographical scatterplot of all such
calls will most certainly show quite a spread of locations, which are
not really much use compared to accurate verbal location reporting by
the public. Dispatch needs to know where the trouble is, not where
the caller is! That is where improved
mile-marker signage provides its added value.
>
> It is a shame that government will again need to expend tax dollars
> for this service to an industry that reaps the profits from the very
> benefit government provides. However, we need to have mile posts
with
> consistent markings and colors across the country so the traveler
> becomes aware of them and takes notice when calling 9-1-1.
>
I attended a series of meetings in Knoxville a couple of years ago,
where this
solution was rated as the most important, and most quickly and easily
implement able, solution of all the technologies known to the public
safety
representatives.
-ken
Top
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. RE: Information Needed - from
Bruce Churchill
Top
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 20:04:47 -0800
From: "Bruce Churchill" <bchurchill@home.com>
Subject: RE: Information Needed
Jon:
FYI - the California "SAFE" Call Box program may provide some insight to
the
use of newly designed milepost signs. There is a standard numbering
system
used on the call box sign (white letters on blue background) that fairly
precisely locates the caller if they can just read the sign. The
CHP/Caltrans Statewide Motorist Aid Call Box Guidelines document
describes
this scheme in some detail. Basically the system uses the notation:
xxx-yyyzA, where
xxx = route number
yyy = miles and z = tenths of miles, where z is even for north and east,
odd for south and west
(the last digit is always tenths of miles, 0,2,4,6,8 north and east,
1,3,5,7,9 south and west)
A = alpha modifier for Park and Ride lots, transition connector,
realignment, etc.
Examples: 163-156P: Route 163, northbound at approximately
the 151/2 milepost, located in a Park and Ride lot 15-455: Interstate
15, southbound at approximately the 451/2 milepost
If these signs were items recorded in CAD and/or ATMS databases, the
exact location for each sign including freeway geometry in the vicinity
would be known. I could be reversed on which directions apply to odd and
even tenths of miles, but I'll check that to be sure. In the California
case, postmiles are county-by-county, so the call box sign also
identifies the county name at the top of the sign. In the more general
case where postmiles are based on statewide numbering, county
identification may not be necessary. The CHP CAD database contains the
exact location of all these call boxes so that a sign number is uniquely
tied to a direction of travel and a geographic position. Many public
safety agencies, notably CHP and fire departments, have used the sign
numbers to locate incidents on the freeway system, even without CAD
database assistance. Like any other roadside signage, motorists have
become used to seeing these signs and would generally respond if asked
to read a sign for determining position and direction of travel. The
signs are located on both sides of freeways and on one side of a
two-lane rural highway - the spacings vary from 1/4-mile in heavily
traveled urban freeways to 2 miles on rural highways. The most common
spacing in urban and suburban roadways is 1/2-mile. The signs are easily
readable at night because they use highly reflective paint. I can obtain
the spec for these signs in pretty short order if you desire. I've
always thought that the use of these signs would be beneficial, even
without the call box attached. There are enough call box systems
in the U.S. right now that follow a generally similar spec that there
might be the advantage of critical mass for public recognition. It would
also be nice to have a nationwide spec for these signs that would apply
whether or not call boxes were present at the site.
Let me know if I can be of further assistance. See you at the TRB IM
meetings on 1/9.
Bruce
Top
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. Re: TIM: Information Needed -Reply - from
Ed Mark
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:08:42 -0500
From: Ed Mark <EMARK@gw.dot.state.ny.us>
Subject: Re: TIM: Information Needed -Reply
NYSDOT currently sites reference markers every 0.1 mile along the State
owned system. They are currently being used for accident reports
and are to be referenced by incident reports from the field to the
center.
Top
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. TIM: Information Needed -Reply - from
Dan Howard
Top
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 18:44:58 -0500
From: Dan Howard <dhoward@gw.dot.state.ny.us>
Subject: TIM: Information Needed -Reply
NY State DOT in the Albany area has installed 1/10 mile markers on the
Interstate Highways and one of the controlled access non-interstate
arterial highways in the area.
I will discuss our operations experience below. I have asked my
supervisor about the MUTCD-related information (sign size, etc.).
I will forward any further info received.
We operate the Capital Region Transportation Management Center (TMC)
jointly with the NY State Police. At the TMC, NYSP receives Cell
911 calls for the immediate 5 county area. When the calls are
related to highway incidents, the 1/10 milepoints have been worth their
weight in gold.
In conjunction with this, DOT produced reference tables for
operations personnel. When reports come in with the 1/10 milepoint
descriptions, or SP or DOT units use the milepoints, personnel know
geographically where the location is (e.g. I90 at milepoint 6.0 is
between the I787 interchange and the Patroon Island Bridge over the
Hudson River).
Top |