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.

-------------------- 1 --------------------

#1. Re: TIM: Temporary freeway detection/surveillance - from James McCarthy
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:13:08 -0500
From: "James McCarthy" James.McCarthy@igate.fhwa.dot.gov
Subject: Re: TIM: Temporary freeway detection/surveillance

Yes,

We did an field operational test of this in Minnesota - SmartWorkZone.  The final report is available from FHWA's EDL www.its.fhwa.dot.gov/
cyberdocs/welcome.htm

or from the Minnesota Guidestar Website at  www.dot.state.mn.us/trim/ats/
guidestar/index.shtml

If you are not success at locating it I can have a paper copy made for you.

JP

James P McCarthy

>>> ITE TIM itetim@socketcity.com 01/20/00 05:32PM >>>
ITE Traffic Incident Management Discussion List Server 
Web site:  www.trafficincident.org
 
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:34:59 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: Re: TIM: Temporary freeway detection/surveillance

Well, a similar thing is used during an incident in my fire & rescue department within our local transit system, MetroRail (metro Washington, DC).  It's not highway, and it's not a construction work zone, but might be pertinent.

When there is a MetroRail incident requiring work on the tracks, two things are constantly monitored for the duration of the incident:

1.  The third rail, to determine if it is energized.
2.  The traction rails (unsure of the terminology), to determine if a train is approaching.

I can provide further details, if you're interested.

-Ken
ITE TIM wrote:

Top

-------------------- 2 --------------------

#2. FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply - from Helman, David
Top
Date: 21 Jan 2000 09:37:26 -0500
From: "Helman, David <FHWA>" <David.Helman@fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply

John, thanks for the RPS, though I'm not sure we can do very good traditional
research on this yet.  As Ken Brooke has suggested, this issue is now just
coming onto the radar screens of some of the more progressive public safety
agencies, i.e., they are aware that the undisciplined use of flashing lights
can cause a problem.  Since active engagement of light discipline is not in
wide practice, I'm not sure how we can measure the effects of good light discipline policy.  In fact, we don't even know what that policy should be yet.  As a research project, we might first do a synthesis of practice which your first two or three objectives cover.  Second, we will have to identify a couple of fire departments which are willing to try different configurations and practices to see how they work and evaluate the effects.

Ken - What would be the appropriate fire research group to approach with this problem for research?  We would need the active cooperation of public safety to actually try various approaches at the scene of an incident as some are apparently now doing.  I can try contacts at FEMA to see would might cooperate in this research.

Top

-------------------- 4 --------------------

#4. Re: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply - from Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:30:51 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: Re: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply

I have forwarded the entire thread up to and including the below referenced message to Mr. Chuck Burkell at the National Fire Academy.  He runs the Executive Fire Officer Program there, and he agreed that this is an interesting question.  He is willing to promote this as a research topic to the student body, and fortuitously he happens to have a group now on campus and another due next week.  A research project is required of all students to successfully complete the program.

I have given my name and number as his point of contact, and will certainly refer any interested students to several of you.  I think some administrative details may need to be worked out as to how such a student project would be coordinated both with the NFA and the TRB, as well.

I have also initiated a literature search, and expect the results back (in hard copy form, unfortunately) next week.

It also struck me that there probably has been a fair amount of research  done on emergency light characteristics (intensity, color, strobe rate, placement) which might apply.  I would imagine that some emergency vehicle lighting would need to remain on at a highway incident scene, and the real question might be one of quantity, quality, and positioning.

-Ken

Top

-------------------- 5 --------------------

#5. RE: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy - from Thomas C. Lambert
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:46:56 -0600
From: "Thomas C. Lambert" TL02@hou-metro.harris.tx.us
Subject: RE: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy

John,
I have asked Captain Tim Kelly, Houston TranStar Division, to provide a copy of our procedures in this regard. Our procedures are part of our regional incident management plan that focuses on reducing the impact emergency equipment utilization has on traffic safety and overall mobility. Look forward to further discussions and appropriate research in this regard. 

Thanks,
Tom L.

Top

-------------------- 6 --------------------

#6. Re: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy - from Dick Raub
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:09:42 -0600
From: Dick Raub <raraub@nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy

Ron:

As indicated earlier; idea well worth looking at.

Dick

Top

-------------------- 7 --------------------

#7. Re: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply - from Dick Raub
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:20:46 -0600
From: Dick Raub <raraub@nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: FW: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply

David:

We have great contacts with many agencies, especially with those in Illinois.  They also find their vehicles being struck more than they would like (which can not only remove a vehicle from service, but occasionally and officer).  If you have some funding ideas, please let me know.  I suspect that some other outfits such as our would like to join in doing this (and it should not be a really expensive project, more one of data collection than anything else).

Secondly, I suggest that the outcomes have a wider basis in that anyone, especially truckers, who park on the shoulder are subject to being struck.

Finally, I am not sure that I agree with a thought the FD's would be principal targets.  The size of their vehicles alone attract attention; the emergency lighting simply amplifies that attraction.

Dick

Top

-------------------- 8 --------------------

#8. FW: Incident Management - from Corbin, John
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:09:06 -0600
From: "Corbin, John" <john.corbin@dot.state.wi.us>
Subject: FW: Incident Management

Please reflect any response to the TIM email discussion group AND Mr. Saylor at gsaylor@DOT.STATE.OH.US

-----Original Message-----
From: Schell, Donald 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 8:13 am
To: Corbin, John
Subject: FW: Incident Management


thought you might find this of interest,,,,,I could be wrong

-----Original Message-----
From: George Saylor [mailto:gsaylor@DOT.STATE.OH.US] 
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 6:25 am
To: DOT@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU
Subject: Incident Management


I would appreciate any information  which could be provided pertaining to the ratio of non-recurring-to-recurring congestion for major highways.  The Ohio DOT is trying to determine the most appropriate role it can play in incident management statewide.  Information from ITS/Freeway Management Systems would be most helpful.  We are attempting to determine the significance, in terms of system performance, of incidents as compared to daily congestion.  Our focus is on urban areas but rural information would also be very useful.

Thank you,
George Saylor

George W. Saylor, P.E., Transportation Systems Engineer
Ohio DOT - Office of Urban & Corridor Planning
1980 W. Broad St., Columbus, OH  43223-1102
(614) 752-8099  Fax (614) 728-9358

Top

-------------------- 9 --------------------

#9. TIM: RE: Portable Cameras - from Corbin, John
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:15:07 -0600
From: "Corbin, John" <john.corbin@dot.state.wi.us>
Subject: TIM: RE: Portable Cameras

Please reflect any response to the TIM email discussion group AND Mr. Stoeckert at William.Stoeckert@PO.STATE.CT.US

-----Original Message-----
From: Stoeckert, William W. [mailto:William.Stoeckert@PO.STATE.CT.US]
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 7:04 am
To: I95CC-HOGS@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM
Subject: Portable Cameras


Has anyone been using portable cameras to be brought to an incident scene and provide pictures back to an operations center? I recall seeing information on such devices over the years, but do not currently have anything with regard to set-up, range, cost, effectiveness, etc.

I would appreciate any experiences or leads on where I might be able to find them.

Top

-------------------- 10 --------------------

#10. TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply - from Corbin, John
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:29:57 -0600
From: "Corbin, John" <john.corbin@dot.state.wi.us>
Subject: TIM: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply



-----Original Message-----
From: Tarbell_Martin@dot.ca.gov [mailto:Tarbell_Martin@dot.ca.gov] 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 12:26 pm
To: Bruce Churchill; olaughlin@pbworld.com; david.helman@fhwa.dot.gov;
John.corbin@dot.state.wi.us; Tarbell_Martin@dot.ca.gov
Cc: Joel_Haven@dot.ca.gov
Subject: Re: FW: Action-Emergency Vehicle Lighting Policy -Reply


1. Regarding John Corbin's observation:  "I also hear anecdotal reference to the "moth effect" attracting the chemically incapacitated driver INTO a strobing light.

Many years ago there was an attempt by local and state law enforcement here in San Diego to stop the rear-enders which were putting officers and their vehicles in serious
jeopardy.  Most violators were drunks or asleep.

They attempted to take the lights out of the rear window and mount an amber one on a spring mounted shaft which would wig- wag from the the rear bumper of the sedan.  It was not very successful and was discontinued.  I do not know the reasons for the termination of the experiment.  Spring failure may have been a factor. 

I do not know if there was a study report written, but I will ask Sgt Randy Murdoch.  He would not have been here at that time, but may know someone who was here.  I'll also contact my TMC co-conspiritor, Lt Ken Ahacic, retired. 

I will not have time to work on this until next week.

2. Regarding the larger issue, John O'Laughlin has practiced flashing light management at scenes in the Seattle area with good results. 

There are three conditions of concern:

A. When the beachhead has not yet been established fully. Traffic is still at full strength speed wise.

B. When the scene is secure and the congestion has been established to bring traffic speeds down to a safe level in the vicinity of the scene.

C. The vehicles traveling the opposite direction who take their eyes off the road to peer at the scene.

Each of these needs to be analyzed and methods/practices established which will cover the three conditions and minimize the adverse impacts.

Our Incident Management Subgroup has touched on it but has had larger issues to tackle to date.

Tarbell Martin
858-467-3204


Top

-------------------- 11 --------------------

#11. Re: TIM: RE: Portable Cameras - from Dick Raub
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:41:07 -0600
From: Dick Raub <raraub@nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: TIM: RE: Portable Cameras

Try Dan Shamo and Hooiser Helpers, INDOT.

Top

-------------------- 12 --------------------

#12. TIM: FW: Incident Management -Reply - from Helman, David
Top
Date: 21 Jan 2000 14:10:00 -0500
From: "Helman, David <FHWA>" <David.Helman@fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: TIM: FW: Incident Management -Reply

The 1999 Annual Mobility Report from TTI lists information from 68 urban areas in the US, including three from Ohio - Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati.  The percentages of congestion attributable to incidents ranges from 41.8% in San Diego to 69.1% in Boston.  The average of the 68 urban areas is 56.9%. 

Some aggregate totals are:

- Very Large Urban Areas (Over 3M pop) - 58.7%
- Large Urban Areas (1M to 3M pop) - 54.0%
- Medium Urban Areas (0.5M to 1M pop) - 55.4%
- Small Urban Areas (less than 0.5M pop) - 57.4%

The three Ohio urban areas listed are:

Cincinnati - 46.7%
Cleveland - 45.3%
Columbus - 45.7%

The major source of information is the FHWA HPMS data.  There are a number of factors which influence the percentages, but it is not clear what the contribution of these factors is.  For instance, Boston (69.1), Washington, DC (63.6), and New York, NY/NJ (63.4) are all on the high side.  Each of these areas, however, experience significant congestion on both freeway and arterial systems for long periods and even minor incidents have an exaggerated effect on congestion.  The peak period is also longer in these areas and recovery after even a minor incident takes longer.  Therefore, percentages on the lower range (under 50%) do not indicate the lack of an incident problem.  They are more likely indicative of other factors such as greater over system capacity and a smaller percentage of travel in congested travel periods. 

At the other end of the scale, in a workshop in Fargo-Moorhead, ND/MN, a police officer said that the percentage there was 100%.  They never had any congestion unless they had an incident. 

The TTI information is available on-line at http://mobility.tamu.edu.  The authors of the report are David Schrank and Tim Lomax from Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University.

Hope this helps.  I don't know if they can break this out by ITS systems.  I doubt that they can.  I am not aware of any rural data.  If you can find out how they put their data together, you might be able to construct other urban areas in Ohio, systems specific data, and rural areas from your own data.

Top

-------------------- 13 --------------------

#13. Re: TIM: FW: Incident Management -Reply - from Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 15:42:01 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: Re: TIM: FW: Incident Management -Reply

An interesting report, both from the standpoint of what it does and what it doesn't say.  I did some hand-waving with it and came up with the following:

As I read it, TTI is reporting on congestion, which is subcategorized into (1) recurring congestion; and (2) non recurring incident congestion.  Thus, it attributes all non recurring delays per person to incidents, or more correctly defines incidents as that which causes non recurring delay.  There is no deductive cause-and-effect analysis, nor any attempt to cross-correlate incident records with traffic measurements.

This is a much broader definition than most of public safety would be familiar with.  A crash on a (nearly) deserted highway would not cause much delay, but would be of high interest to public safety.  Conversely, a smoothly flowing but congested highway link would hold little interest for public safety.

I wonder how much delay per person is caused by those incidents that interest public safety, for those are really the ones that would highly motivate both them and us.  These provide the basis for our interoperation IM standards, and regional IM efforts.  So, even if we were able to instantaneously (and magically) clear an incident caused by this particular type of incident, i wonder how much effect on delay would we have?  Whatever that estimated improvement is, is the maximum return on our ITS/Public Safety IM investment.  Somehow, I don't think would quite be up to the high numbers in the report, but I think it would still be substantial.

So, what would you think, maybe half of the non-recurring delay might be  caused by public safety incidents, and that we could realistically decrease that delay by a quarter through effective joint regional highway incident management, maybe?  If so, that means we may expect somewhere near a 10% reduction in delay through our efforts?

Then, of course there are the intangible benefits realized through improvements in life safety and commuter irritation.

-Ken

Top

-------------------- 14 --------------------

#14. Video: Why Can't We Talk? - from Dick Raub
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 16:46:21 -0600
From: Dick Raub <raraub@nwu.edu>
Subject: Video: Why Can't We Talk?

The video, "Why Can't We Talk?" made available at TRB does not seem to say a lot.  In fact, one of the people who saw it suggested that it was nothing more than a plea to public safety people to contact their congress people to get more frequencies assigned.


What we need is a information on how to get everyone talking using what equipment already exists.  From what I learned several years ago, bridging channels is not technically difficult; there has to be a common receiving point which has the multiple channel capabilities as well as bridging capabilities.


I suspect that with everything else, the question may ultimately be governed by the need for money, and perhaps a need for interagency agreements.  It certainly would be cheaper to have one radio with multiple channels.  Could not then one become the "emergency" channel which is bridged to the "emergency" channel on each radio of each responder.


Dick

Top

-------------------- 15 --------------------

#15. RE: Video: Why Can't We Talk? - from Corbin, John
Top
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 17:27:55 -0600
From: "Corbin, John" <john.corbin@dot.state.wi.us>
Subject: RE: Video: Why Can't We Talk?

Points well taken.  I would agree that this video doesn't cover a lot of technological ground, however I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that it doesn't "say" much.  The implication of the video is that interagency communication is vitally important to public safety (and by correlation, transportation operations).  What applies to voice radio, applies readily by extension to video sharing, interCAD networking, data sharing and other interjurisdictional and cross functional technology integration.  The glimmer of hope that comes through this video is that there are issues that can be defined (without even MENTIONING I.T.S.) to overcome the turf consciousness of public safety and transportation agencies.  Keep hope alive. 

 
For those interested, the video that Dick referenced is about 15 minutes long and deals primarily with the need for emergency service voice radio interoperability.  It is available from 

1-800-248-2742.

The source is the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center
- Rocky Mountain Region.

Top