|
ITE Traffic Incident
Management E-mail Discussion Group Digest #22
February 3 to February 5, 2000
This digest contains the following messages:
#1.
RE: Information Needed - from
Althauser, Gerry
#2. TIM: Information Needed -Reply - from
Kurt Aufschneider
#3. CTDOT Traffic CAMs - from
Dan Howard
#4. RE: RE: Information Needed - from
Franklin, Robert B
#5. RE: RE: RE: Information Needed - from
O'Laughlin, John B.
#6. Re: TIM: RE: RE: Information Needed - from
Dick Raub
#7. RE: Information Needed - from
Franklin, Robert B
#8. Re: TIM: RE: Information Needed - from
Ann R. Lorscheider
#9. RE: Information Needed - from
DuFresne, Jon C.
#10. Prototype Simplified Access Web Page for the
ITS-EDL - from
Chuck Miller
#11. TIM: STEER IT, CLEAR IT!! - from
Corbin, John
#12. Re: TIM: Information Needed - from
Steve Cummins
#13. TIM: INTL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF POLICE - HWY SAFETY
DESK REFERENCE - from
Corbin, John
#14. Multiple Cell 911 Calls - from
Dick Raub
#15. Re: TIM: Multiple Cell 911 Calls - from
David Kelley
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: Two Press Releases from the U.S. Fire
Administration - from Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:13:24 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: Re: Two Press Releases from the U.S. Fire Administration
I found this interesting from the National Fire Academy. Yes, they
couldn't resist patting themselves on the back, but this is an occasion
nevertheless. FIRESCOPE has come a long way and has been field
proven over its thirty years of use in California. It's not just
fire anymore! Any of you who might be interacting with the federal
or state EMA disaster planning, or in relationship to the
counter-terrorist/weapons of mass destruction planning activities might
hear of it again. These courses and videos are how you can learn how
to speak their language! I wouldn't be surprised to see this
paradigm become regulation in many federal and local agencies over the
next few years.
And, it wouldn't hurt if our data dictionaries and message sets also
enabled ITS to fit into and describe these FIRESCOPE incident
organizations.
-Ken Brooke
---------------------------
>
> This is a message from the FEMA's US Fire Administration.
>
> Media Contact: Release No.: 00-017
> Marc Wolfson Release Date: February 1,
2000
> (202) 646-4600
>
> INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM COURSES REVISED
>
> EMMITSBURG, MD -- The United States Fire Administration's National Fire
Academy recently completed revisions to all Incident Command System (ICS)
related courses. The revisions ensure that the ICS presentation is uniform
and consistent with the FIRESCOPE Incident Command System and the National
Fire Service Incident Management System (IMS) Consortium. The new
materials will be used in course deliveries starting April 1, 2000.
>
> "The USFA staff has done an excellent job revising all the Incident
Command System courses," said USFA Administrator Carrye B. Brown. "
Completion of this project represents a major milestone for the USFA."
>
> "A standardized approach to the Incident Command System will allow
emergency response organizations from different jurisdictions to respond
cooperatively, efficiently, and effectively to emergency incidents," said
Ken Burris, USFA Chief Operating Officer. "A single emergency response
organization may need to work with a number of other local, state, or
federal agencies. With all responding agencies using a common command
system the inherent confusion encountered during an emergency situation
should be significantly reduced."
>
> ICS Training--The Key to Consistency, a new NFA video, is now available.
It is designed to provide information on curriculum changes for contract
instructors presenting the revised courses.
>
> The Federal Emergency Management Agency has formally adopted FIRESCOPE
ICS as the incident management system for federal disaster response
operations. A number of other federal departments and agencies also have
adopted the FIRESCOPE ICS.
>
> Begun in southern California following the disastrous 1970 wild fire
season, FIRESCOPE (FIrefighting RESources of California Organized for
Potential Emergencies) has fostered development of several major disaster
response concepts including not only the Incident Command System but also
the use of mutual aid.
>
> For more information on the NFA ICS course revision project, please
contact Robert P. Murgallis, (301) 447-1347.
Top
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: TIM: Re: Traffic Incident Detection - from
Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 10:52:44 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: Re: TIM: Re: Traffic Incident Detection
Certainly, one can analyze the sensor information for many purposes.
It would be very interesting to to multivariate regression analysis to
determine associative relationships . . . even on to predicting traffic
behavior. And, then perhaps on to predicting the geographical
density of incidents (!), and even way further on to pre=positioning
response external resources in anticipation of incidents. I think
all of these uses benefit the others, including generative processes such
as sensor networks. I'm real rusty, but multivariate regression
analysis for discrete populations used to be pretty much beyond the state
of the art. I would guess that nonparametric statistical analysis
methods have improved over the last 25 years.
If one were interested in proving a correlation between some
environmental factor and incident occurrences, as in your example, it
would seem to me that the question of determining whether an incident has
occurred would already have been settled. If that were so, I think I
would be seeing qualifying statements in the literature that deal with
confidence levels, levels of significance, standard error, etc, etc.
Their absence is what set me off on this subject in the first place.
Near as I can tell, the terms "incident" and "non-recurring" have
little or no consistent meaning. Why is that, when they are such
important terms in our world? Couldn't this group do something about
that?
Ken Brooke
Top
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Analyzing the data we're already collecting -
from Barry Drogin
Top
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:30:20 -0500
From: "Barry Drogin" <BDrogin@mtabt.org>
Subject: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
** Reply Requested When Convenient **
Statistical analysis requires the following:
1. Data to analyze.
2. Computing power capable of handling the analysis.
3. A user intelligent enough to understand the mathematics, set up the
computation and make sense of the results.
It is only in the last few years (certainly less than a decade) that the
first two conditions have existed. As evidenced at TRB, professors
at MIT and other traffic simulation/prediction laboratories are starting
to show the ability to do 3, so it is largely a question of public
agencies making the data available to them and funding their research.
Sometimes this is done under the rubric of "calibrating" their theoretical
models. Whatever it's called, this is very important work. Our
ATMS installations probably have more computing power than NASA did to
send a man to the moon, but can we implement more than one incident
detection algorithm? Are we compiling meaningful data on our traffic
patterns? There's more to life than popping up the right video scene
and logging a telephone call, you know.
The absence in the literature you see (can you see an absence?) is due to
a typical disconnect between the research community and the operations
community, as well as a generally lazy view of software development (you
know, we can always add those functions later...).
I'd be interested to know which TMC's have established a decent connection
to an academic institution or individual, to the point where TMC data is
made available, on a one-time or regular basis, to the academic for
analysis and such.
I know that Victor Blue up in Westchester County, NY is putting in a new
TMC, hopefully using TRANSMIT technology, and is pursuing a connection
with the developers of MITSIM and DYNAMIT for the mutual benefit of both.
A fellow at NJIT analyzed the first TRANSMIT installation, but that was
more a proof of principle analysis, not a traffic model analysis.
Any others?
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
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: Re: Two Press Releases from the U.S. Fire
Administration - from
Sarath Joshua
Top
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:21:59 -0700
From: Sarath Joshua <sjoshua@mag.maricopa.gov>
Subject: RE: Re: Two Press Releases from the U.S. Fire Administration
Good idea! I think we need to speak the police/fire/EMS language as much
as or perhaps more than they need to learn ours!
Local police, fire and EMS agencies respond to far more incidents, both
off and on roads, than any DOT Incident Response Crew. They also use
the transportation network to get there. These folks need to be consulted
from the start when any region develops an ATMS and not as an after
thought.
We have just begun efforts at coordinating regional ITS development
with existing systems that these folks are using. Putting a workstation
that provides real-time incident information in front of a fire/EMS
dispatcher (the easy solution that is only good for marketing) is not a
practical solution from a human factors viewpoint. We have tried it here
through AZTech and it does not work! Those working on implementing ATMS
systems MUST work with these very important stakeholders on integrating
with existing systems and compatibility issues.
It may end up with ATMS projects having to partially or fully fund needed
modifications to fire/EMS dispatch systems. How flexible are the federal
$$ highway dollars for such purposes? I would like to hear from any one on
the list that has used CMAQ funds to support freeway incident management
(or freeway service patrol) programs run by police.
Top
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
- from Lan, Chang-Jen
Top
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:37:19 -0500
From: "Lan, Chang-Jen" <clan@miami.edu>
Subject: RE: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
A body of research on this subject can be widely categorized into three
groups
1. pure statistical analysis in either parametric or nonparametric
settings
2. decision tree using simple logic operation on the raw data
3. data filtering
To my limited knowledge (correct me if I am wrong), there has not existed
much work seriously looking at the statistical information (e.g.
uncertainty or higher moments) of the complicated traffic flow dynamics
between recurrent and nonrecurrent conditions such as incidents. If
one can capture the distinctive physical phenomenon (temporal and spatial
evolutions) of flow dynamics during different conditions by the accurate
traffic flow model, then detection or classification of "hard-to-tell"
incidents becomes possible. Non-physical prediction models as above
might be powerful enough to detect the correlation but are pretty limited
in identifying the actual causal relationship between incident and flow
data. I am not aware of the fact that MITSIM (microscopic in nature)
has been calibrated using microscopic sensor data (again correct me if I
am wrong) during different situation as such, or looks into statistical
information associated with flow dynamics for incident detection purposes.
C. J. Lan
Dept. of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering
University of Miami
1251 Memorial Dr., 325 McArthur
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Tel: 305-284-6447
Fax: 305-284-3492
Top
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. RE: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
- from Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 16:30:59 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: RE: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
Could you explain this portion of your message in a little more detail?
What is MITSIM's definition of an "incident?"
If I understood most of what you meant, then this simulation (package?
product? tool?) has not been calibrated by comparing its behavior with
actual measured traffic flows. If so, how useful is such a thing to
real world traffic system engineering situations? If one were
simulating incidents with "microscopic" data, then it would seem that some
sort of traffic distribution probability density function (relation,
maybe?) must have already been constructed and built into the modelling
logic. Wouldn't that have been validated?
I think that the whole idea of incident detection rests upon the
presumption that one can perform real time hypothesis testing (Did an
incident just occur, or is this variation within normal fluctuations?)
using discrete sensor data sampling. If so, then such analysis also
presumes some sort of tractable stochastic behavior of traffic. I
would hope that it had also been calibrated. If not, wouldn't it
give spurious incident detections?
If all of this is common knowledge, then I apologize for wasting
everyone's time, and I would be happy to correspond off line.
Ken Brooke
ken@mitretek.org
Top
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Incident Management Committee Mission Statements
-Reply - from Helman,
David
Top
Date: 03 Feb 2000 18:40:11 -0500
From: "Helman, David <FHWA>" <David.Helman@fhwa.dot.gov>
Subject: Incident Management Committee Mission Statements -Reply
Yes, and I am sending this to the ITE-TIM reflector for answers. I'm
doing this on travel so I hope I do it right and the message goes to the
reflector.
>>> Morris Hoevel 02/03/00 04:38pm >>>
Steve: After nearly a year's hiatus, Detroit has resurrected its
Greater Detroit Incident Management Committee. Actually this is now
a subcommittee of ITS Michigan.
ANYWAY, at (in the last 10 minutes of) our first meeting, we threw out
some ideas to help us develop a Mission Statement. During that
exercise, I was asked to canvas my counterparts to see if other cities or
states had active Incident Management Committees, and to see if any of
those who did had any kind of MISSIONS STATEMENT or VISION for their
Committee (to share with us).
Could you please canvas your Resource Center counterparts and ask them in
turn to check with their Division Offices.
I need responses by the end of February, to present at our next meeting.
DAVE - I SEE YOU ARE A MEMBER OF www.trafficincident.org. Do you
have a focus group that you could canvas through that website?
THANKS TO ALL, <Morrie Hoevel>
Top
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. TIM: Incident Management Committee Mission
Statements -Reply - from
Dan Howard
Top
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:56:57 -0500
From: Dan Howard <dhoward@gw.dot.state.ny.us>
Subject: TIM: Incident Management Committee Mission Statements -Reply
-Reply
I am not a great fan of Mission Statements, but I am the Secretary of the
Capital Region Traffic Management Task Force in Albany NY. The
following is our Mission Statement:
The Capital Region Traffic Managment Task Force, comprised of State,
Regional, County, Municipal agencies, as well as private industry and
volunteers, promotes safety, reliability, and efficiency on the highways
of the Capital Region.
Top
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. MITSIM and DYNAMIT - from
Barry Drogin
Top
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 09:22:28 -0500
From: "Barry Drogin" <BDrogin@mtabt.org>
Subject: MITSIM and DYNAMIT
Of course I'd prefer if a representative of MIT replied directly, but I
will attempt to explain what MITSIM and DYNAMIT are. MITSIM stands
for MIcroscopic Traffic SIMulator, and DYNAMIT for DYnamic Network
Assignment for the Management of Information to Travelers (it is very
clever that they got "MIT" in there without it meaning Massachusetts
Institute of Technology).
As a microscopic simulator, MITSIM takes a traffic network configuration
and places a stochastic set of random vehicles with unique individual
driving "behaviors". These random vehicles enter and exit the
network and interact with the road and each other as the simulation runs.
You can predetermine the mix of driving behaviors before running the
simulation.
DYNAMIT, on the other hand, takes as its input macroscopic data (as from
traffic sensors), attempts to predict the current and future state of the
network, and issues informational advisories for placement on ATIS.
It's a study in real-time computational complexity.
The fellows at MIT then had the brilliant idea of hooking DYNAMIT up to
MITSIM, so that, in essence, MITSIM simulated the real traffic, and
DYNAMIT simulated an ATMS/ATIS system interacting with it. They
quickly realized that they had to simulate a third behavior - that
microscopic vehicles in the presence of ATIS might actually change their
route based on the information given them! They could then run
different simulations - what if 10% of the vehicles paid attention?
What if 50%? 70%?
What they basically "discovered" is that "intelligent" vehicles subject to
a democracy of information create an equality of traffic flow throughout
the network. In other words, if only 10% of the vehicles have access
to or pay attention to (or trust) ATIS, then that 10% takes an alternative
route and moves very fast, and the great majority is stuck in a traffic
jam. On the other hand, if a large percentage of people pay
attention to the ATIS, then the traffic jam is alleviated, but the "fast"
alternative route is not so fast as before. This is so simple that
it seems obvious - once someone points it out to you! It also makes
for some wonderful graphs. Those guys with Ph.D.'s and graduate
students to burn really get to do some sexy stuff.
The tools are very new, and were used to test ATIS placement on the new
Boston Central Artery/Tunnel routes. Since CA/T is still under
construction, the tools haven't been properly "calibrated" yet, but I
assume they will be! The Westchester implementation was, as I
indicated, just in the discussion phase.
I have a PowerPoint presentation on the two, but it's over 3Meg.
It's by Profs. Moshe Ben-Akiva (mba@mit.edu)
and Ismail Chabini of MIT. Contact them for better info.
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
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: TIM: Incident Management Committee Mission
Statements -Reply - from
Ann R. Lorscheider
Top
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 09:56:54 -0500
From: "Ann R. Lorscheider" <alorscheider@dot.state.nc.us>
Subject: Re: TIM: Incident Management Committee Mission Statements -Reply
For NCIMAP it is:
Mission:
To maximize efficiency of freeway traffic flow through incident prevention
and reduction
Goals:
* Fully implement local incident management plans
* Determine the cost effectiveness of the Incident Management
Program
* Provide training for Incident Management personnel.
* Increase awareness and use of incident management concepts and
benefits statewide
* Improve uniformity
* Develop safe operating procedures for inclusion in the Workplace
Safety
Manual for incident management operations.
Top
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: Incident Management Missions - from
Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 10:45:21 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: Re: Incident Management Missions
Is it a general practice in the profession to include highway incident
prevention under highway incident management?
Public safety's prevention activities are not usually organized that way.
Thus, fire prevention, crime prevention, and injury prevention (EMS would
be involved mostly in trauma prevention -- something like the health
department would usually handle disease prevention, like immunizations
etc) are quite distinct from the command and control operational incident
management structure.
There are, of course, interesting business feedback loops in public safety
that might be similar to what might be practiced in highway incident
management. I'm thinking about an incident commander taking action
to prevent further fire, crime, or injury...sort of like a highway
incident commander at a crash scene taking action to prevent further
crashes. There is also much post hoc analysis of incident
information that is fed back into the planning, programming, and budgeting
process. This is similar to ITS' archived data user service, but for
incident, instead of traffic information.
I don't know that the notion of incident prevention has been well
incorporated into ITS incident or emergency management. I think it
is foundational to ITS traffic management and transit management, along
with efficiency.
Hi Ann!
-Ken Brooke
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. 2000 Edition, North American Emergency Response
Guidebook - from Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 14:06:48 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: 2000 Edition, North American Emergency Response Guidebook
For those of you who are interested in hazardous materials incidents, the
2000 ERG is on the U.S. DOT/ RSPA web site as a *.pdf file (1.7 MB), as of
February 1, 2000.
http://hazmat.dot.gov/gydebook.htm
This is the first responders' bible for HAZMAT.
-Ken Brooke
Top
-------------------- 13 --------------------
#13. HAZMAT Operations Show on Cable TV This Weekend
- from Ken Brooke
Top
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 14:29:38 -0500
From: Ken Brooke <ken@mitretek.org>
Subject: HAZMAT Operations Show on Cable TV This Weekend
The History Channel will present a World Premiere "Suicide Missions:
HAZMAT" This Saturday February 5 at 10 pm ET/ 9 pm CT/ 8 pm MT/ 7 & 11 pm
PT
Top
-------------------- 14 --------------------
#14. TIM: I*LEADERSHIP TEAM TELECONFERENCE - FEBRUARY 24,
NOON CENTRAL - from
Corbin, John
Top
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:28:33 -0600
From: "Corbin, John" <john.corbin@dot.state.wi.us>
Subject: TIM: I*LEADERSHIP TEAM TELECONFERENCE - FEBRUARY 24, NOON CENTRAL
TIME
The next Leadership Team Teleconference will be conducted from Noon to
1:30 pm (CST) on Thursday, February 24, 2000. The call-in number and
code will be provided prior to the teleconference.
The tentative teleconference agenda is as follows:
1. 1/9 TIM COMMITTEE MEETING SUMMARY (10 MINUTES)
2. TIM LIAISON REPORTS (20 MINUTES)
3. ACTION PLAN REVISIONS (30 MINUTES)
A. Ideas from the 1/9 Meeting (J. Corbin)
B. Existing Action Plan Status
- Informational Report Outline (M. Ogden)
- Key Issues & Practices Series (B. Churchill)
- TIM Peer Network Support Proposal (S. Levine/S. Cyra)
- National Public Safety & Transportation Agenda (J. Corbin)
C. Roles & Volunteers to Draft a Revised Plan
4. TIM COMMITTEE AT APRIL ITE CONFERENCE (20 MINUTES)
A. Opportunities for Involvement
B. Informal Meeting Date & Time
5. NEXT TELECONFERENCE (5 MINUTES)
A. Possible Date - April 27
B. Agenda Items
Top
-------------------- 15 --------------------
#15. RE: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
- from Franklin, Robert B
Top
Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2000 08:35:30 -0700
From: "Franklin, Robert B" <robert.b.franklin@lmco.com>
Subject: RE: Analyzing the data we're already collecting
Barry:
VDOT has really tried to tie to UVA's research center. You might give J.R.
Robinson a shout.
I have CC'd him on this message so that he know's its coming.
Tip
Top |