EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Most major metropolitan areas in the United States rely on some type of advanced traffic management system(s) (ATMS) to help manage mobility, congestion, and incident response. Many States have installed an extensive infrastructure of remotely operated cameras, loop detectors, and other ITS applications that provide traffic management services. These systems are operated from centralized Traffic Management Centers (TMC), where traffic-related information is received and processed and appropriate remedial actions are deployed and coordinated. These TMCs are typically the hub of traffic management operations.
The hub of public safety and law enforcement operations is the dispatch center, where calls for assistance are received and officers are dispatched to respond to those calls. Dispatch operations are managed by Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems that track information about incidents that require a public safety answering point or law enforcement response and help manage that response.
These two separate systems overlap when responding to traffic incidents, which often have a need for both public safety/law enforcement and traffic management responses. However, to date, there have been few cases where the TMC systems used to manage traffic have been integrated with the CAD systems used to manage public safety and law enforcement. To investigate the benefits of integrating CAD and TMC systems, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) funded the CAD-TMC Field Operational Test (FOT) in Washington State and Utah, as well as an independent evaluation of that FOT. This report presents the findings of the evaluation of the Washington State CAD-TMC FOT.
Reducing traffic-related fatalities and improving emergency response capabilities are two primary goals of the USDOT's ITS JPO, ITS Public Safety Program. To help achieve these goals, the ITS Public Safety Program is committed to:
- Improving incident detection and notification.
- Reducing emergency response times.
- Improving information flows between emergency response agencies (real-time wireless communications links, integration of systems).1
To demonstrate how the integration of CAD and TMC systems can improve incident response capabilities and how institutional barriers can be overcome, the USDOT ITS JPO, sponsored two FOTs through the ITS Public Safety Program that integrated CAD-TMC systems in Utah and Washington State, respectively. As stated in the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the CAD-TMC Integration FOT evaluation:
Transportation, law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical personnel are discovering significant improvements in public safety operations can be made when information is shared across organizations and jurisdictions. Equipment and personnel can be more efficiently deployed, incidents can be cleared faster, and incident scenes can be made safer for the responders and the traveling public.
To date there has been little effort to integrate highway traffic management with public safety systems. Nor have systems supporting public safety operations been developed in the context of a regional ITS architecture or ITS standards. Most existing CAD systems are proprietary and not equipped to easily share information with systems with dissimilar interfaces. Further complicating integration are various data, message formats, and standards used by public safety agencies and transportation agencies. Nevertheless, CAD and ATMS systems can be integrated and data can be shared, provided that a number of related institutional and technical challenges are addressed. New procedures and methods of response that capitalize on the availability of the shared information must also be developed. 2
The WSDOT CAD-TMC Integrated System
The system integration and data exchanges within this project are summarized as three main components, defined as "PRIMARY ALERT," "RESPONSE SUPPORT," and "SECONDARY ALERT," and are described as follows.
Component #1 - PRIMARYALERT
PRIMARY ALERT serves as the main connection between the WSP CAD system and the WSDOT TMC. This component filters the CAD data and transfer those portions suited for receipt and use by the TMC. The key aspects of PRIMARY ALERT are as follows:
- Only specified fields are transferred form the WSP CAD system into the TMC system. Although there is a tremendous amount of data generated by the CAD system, only a small portion of that data is of interest to WSDOT, and similarly, only a portion could be shared with other public agencies.
- Information exchange between agencies is intended to be seamless and automatic, e.g., not requiring the operators to re-enter data in a different format or perform any intermediate tasks to exchange data. Any data translations are accomplished using automated software code that performs required translations without user intervention.
Component #2 - RESPONSE SUPPORT
The intent of the RESPONSE SUPPORT component is to transfer any available information from WSDOT to the WSP that would support WSP response efforts. Unlike PRIMARY ALERT, this information transfer will consist of information about other external events near the incident. For example, in the event that a crash is reported to WSP on I-5 just north of Tacoma, the PRIMARY ALERT component is intended to transfer information from WSP to WSDOT. RESPONSE SUPPORT displays information to WSP about nearby events, such as slow traffic, construction, accidents, or other extreme events (i.e., pass closures, flooding, National Weather Service warnings, etc.) that might impede the patrol officer's response.
Component #3 - SECONDARY ALERT
The third component is SECONDARY ALERT, which is intended to reach those event responders beyond the WSP and WSDOT jurisdictions, including local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers, tow truck dispatchers, and local utility companies. The general philosophy of SECONDARY ALERT is as follows:
To provide as comprehensive and complete information in the most useful fashion to secondary responders across the entire State of Washington, recognizing that the dispatch systems of these secondary responders vary widely in complexity. 3
At least one EMS provider (Skagit County EMS) was going to serve as a demonstration for the transfer of information to the CAD system of a non-WSP responder. However, for a variety of reasons discussed in section 2.3, Skagit County EMS did not participate in the FOT. The Secondary Alert component was not included in the FOT.
Evaluation Goals and Objectives
The combined ITS JPO and WSDOT evaluation goals and objectives developed for the CAD-TMC integration FOT are summarized in table 1.
| ITS JPO | WSDOT | Evaluation Goal | Evaluation Objective |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Performance | |||
| The FOT will automate the seamless transfer of information between traffic management workstations and police, fire and EMS CAD systems from different vendors. | Enable the automated electronic exchange of data between agencies on a real-time basis. This electronic data exchange will address the one outstanding need that still exists between WSDOT and WSP. | Document system component performance. | Determine the feasibility of automating the seamless transfer of information between traffic management workstations and police, fire, and EMS CAD systems from different vendors. |
| The FOT will incorporate ITS standards such as IEEE 1512 and NTCIP into the integration of public safety and transportation information systems. Other standards areas that will have to be addressed are those pertaining to Geographic Information Systems (GIS). | The State has committed to using ITS standards and to develop a system that conforms to the National ITS Architecture. | Document system component performance. | Investigate the benefits of incorporating ITS standards such as IEEE 1512 and NTCIP into the integration of public safety and transportation information systems. Also, address standards related to GIS and sharing data between map databases from different vendors. |
| The FOT will extend the level of integration to include secondary responders such as utilities, towing and recovery, public works and highway maintenance personnel. | Integrate local, county, and municipal government emergency management and response agencies (fire and rescue, law enforcement). | Document system component performance. | Determine the benefits of extending the level of integration to include secondary responders such as utilities, towing and recovery, public works, and highway maintenance personnel. |
| System Impact | |||
|
Expected project impacts include:
|
Conduct a system impact study. | Determine whether CAD-TMC integration improves:
|
| Institutional and Technical Challenges | |||
| Assess institutional and technical challenges. | Improved inter-agency relationships, in particular understanding of each agency's role and duties, to dissolve institutional barriers between the two agencies. | Identify institutional and technical challenges. | Document process by which institutional and technical issues were resolved. |
| Lessons Learned | |||
| Document lessons learned. | Not specifically established, but fully supported. | Identify lessons learned. | Document lessons learned that would be of benefit for other jurisdictions considering similar deployments. |
| Benefits | |||
| Summarize benefits. | Not specifically established, but fully supported. | Identify benefits from integrating the CAD-TMC system. | Identify qualitative and qualitative benefits achieved by the deployment that can be used by other jurisdictions to obtain support (programmatic, technical, funding) for similar deployment. |
System Performance Test Results
The assessment of system performance was conducted through:
- Interviews with project management and technical staff.
- Observations of technical staff using the integrated system at TMCs.
- Review of data obtained from the integrated system.
The results of the system performance test are summarized in table 2.
| Evaluation Objective | Hypothesis | Test Results |
|---|---|---|
| Objective #1: Document the system component performance. | The system meets functional specifications. | Achieved |
| The CAD and TMC systems will be able to link data on an incident. | Achieved | |
| Using the system improved incident response procedures. | To a significant extent, achieved through
prior projects. Project specific impact not measurable. |
|
| Objective #2: Automate the seamless transfer of information between traffic management workstations and police, fire, and EMS CAD systems from different vendors. | The system meets functional specifications. | Achieved. |
| The FOTs will decrease the reliance on manual methods for exchanging information. | Achieved previously through placement of CAD terminals at TMCs. Enhanced through project. | |
| The FOTs will increase the extent and reliability of information exchanges. | Preliminary result - achieved. | |
| Objective #3: Extend the level of integration to include secondary responders such as utilities, towing and recovery, public works, and highway maintenance personnel. | Improved integration of secondary responders will reduce incident recovery time by getting required recovery personnel to the incident site as quickly as possible to begin recovery operations. | Not achieved during the evaluation period. |
Objective #1: Document the System Component Performance
The Evaluation Team relied on a combination of observations and interviews to determine whether or not the system meets functional specifications. Seeing the system work and finding out if the system meets operator expectations are the best indications of successfully meeting system performance needs.
Through interviews with the WSDOT system developers and the WSDOT project manager, the system performed according to expectations and the functional specifications established. In observations of the integrated system, Evaluation Team members saw that there is latency in the system from when an entry is entered into and displayed on the WSP CAD and when it is displayed in Condition Acquisition and Reporting System ([CARS] 4, the integration platform). This latency was known during the development of system requirements and design. As mentioned in section 2, the latency is a product of the way in which the WSP CAD system is designed. There is also additional latency in presenting information in the 511 system or on the WSDOT traffic information Web site. This was also foreseen during the project conceptualization phase.
The latency does not affect whether the system meets its functional specifications. However, it is important to note that the significance of the latency differs depending on the area and the view of the WSDOT operators involved. Operators in more rural regions were reported to be satisfied with the system and its performance. In urban areas, there were more mixed feelings about the system and its inherent latency issues. Only one operator interviewed in the Seattle TMC said he used the integrated system. The other operators entered incident information directly into CARS as soon as they saw an incident of interest displayed on the WSP CAD terminal. They did not feel they could wait for the incident to display in the integrated system to complete the entry and send it to the travel information systems.
It is important to realize that the operators in the urban areas (Seattle and Tacoma) had access to WSP CAD terminals before the integrated system was implemented. The operators were used to seeing incidents on the CAD terminal, deciding which ones were of interest, and entering the appropriate information into CARS. Because of this experience, any latency from the display on the CAD terminal to the integrated system would be noticeable. Operators in rural regions did not have access to WSP CAD terminals prior to the integrated system and getting the information, even with some latency, greatly improved the information and timeliness of incidents that they report to the travel information systems.
There have been some improvements in incident response procedures in the WSDOT operations centers. Improving the efficiency of documenting incident management will be covered in the next section. In addition to improved efficiency, there are two other improvements that should be mentioned:
- Time to enter an incident first reported by a partner agency.
- Accuracy of the information in the incident record.
Objective #2: Automate the Seamless Transfer of Information between Traffic Management Workstations and Police, and EMS CAD Systems from Different Vendors
From observations and interviews, it was demonstrated that the integrated system reduces the reliance on manual methods for exchanging information when the operators choose to use it. Incidents reported by WSP CAD are transmitted to the integrated system and easily imported into CARS. For regions that did not have WSP CAD terminals, this information sharing is the only reliable way to receive incident information. Where CAD terminals were not available, WSDOT operators relied on scanners, calls from WSP, and radio calls from WSDOT field personnel to find out about incidents. It was very easy to miss incidents because the operators didn't hear scanner reports or because WSP dispatchers or WSDOT field personnel were too busy to call in the incident. It was very easy to miss incidents because the operators didn't hear scanner reports or because WSP dispatchers or WSDOT field personnel were too busy to call in the incident.
From observations and interviews, integration increased the extent and reliability of information exchanges. Information passed from WSP directly through CAD to CARS so conversations were only needed to clarify information. There was a lower likelihood of misunderstanding basic aspects of the incident. In locations where WSP CAD terminals existed, this benefit was already realized. However, where the terminals weren't available, the ability to focus voice communication only on details that need clarification is a tremendous benefit.
Objective #3: Extend the Level of Integration to Include Secondary Responders such as Utilities, Towing and Recovery, Public Works, and Highway Maintenance Personnel
Secondary responders have not yet been included in the FOT, and this component of the evaluation was not conducted. As the project and discussions between WSDOT and Skagit County EMS progressed, this concept did not appear to really be a benefit. Skagit County EMS was too small, with too focused a mission to really be a good candidate as a secondary responder incorporated in the integrated system.
System Impact Test Results Summary
The assessment of system impact was conducted through:
- Interviews with project management and technical staff.
- Observations of technical staff using the integrated system at TMCs.
- Review of data obtained from the integrated system.
The high degree of operational integration between WSP and WSDOT that existed before the CAD-TMC FOT meant that the impact of the FOT on operational productivity would be limited. Many of the operational benefits that could be achieved through a CAD-TMC integration e had already been accomplished through other means, such as providing a CAD terminal in the individual TMCs. Other potential benefits of the integration were negated by technical limitations of the integration. For example, most TMC operators reported that the long lag time before the automated system made CAD incidents available to CARS induced them to continue to use the manual, pre-FOT approach for populating CARS with incident data. For those operators that did not use the system, no benefits related to its use were possible. The Evaluation Team observed lower usage rates in the Olympic and Northwest areas.
Thus, these impacts may under-represent the impacts that might be found in a similar integration at other locations.
Evaluation findings related to system impact are qualitative, as follows:
- From observations and interviews, due to the existing operational integration between WSP and WSDOT that existed before the CAD-TMC FOT, there was little change in the nature of the CAD incidents, other than an increase in the total number of incidents that occurred.
- From observations and interviews, there was also little change in the response times before and after the deployment.
- Because the CAD-TMC deployment had little impact on TMC and CAD operations, an impact on mobility, safety, capacity, and throughput was not possible.
The results of the system impact test are summarized in table 3.
| Evaluation Objective | Hypothesis | Test Results |
|---|---|---|
| Objective #1: Productivity –To determine if the CAD-TMC integration improves the efficiency and productivity of incident response. | CAD-TMC integration enhances communications among responders. | Achieved with WSDOT and WSP. |
| CAD-TMC integration improves efficiency of on-scene operations. | Not measured during the evaluation. | |
| CAD-TMC integration enhances efficiency in documenting incident management. | Partially achieved; further reductions will enhance results. | |
| CAD-TMC integration reduces incident clearance times. | Not measured during the evaluation. | |
| Objective #2: Mobility – To determine if the CAD-TMC integration improves mobility and reduces delays during incidents. | CAD-TMC integration enhances mobility during incident management (IM) activities. | No impact measured during the evaluation. |
| Objective #3: Capacity/ Throughput –To determine if CAD-TMC integration enhanced incident-specific traffic management plans. | CAD-TMC integration enhances incident-specific traffic management plans. | Not measured during the evaluation. |
| Objective #4: Safety - CAD-TMC integration will reduce exposure of response personnel and secondary crashes during incident response activities. | CAD-TMC increases safety for response personnel. | Not measured during the evaluation. |
| CAD-TMC increases safety to the traveling public. | Not measured during the evaluation. | |
| Objective #5: Traveler Information - To determine if CAD-TMC integration will improve incident management information available to travelers. | CAD-TMC integration enhances customer satisfaction and mobility during incident management activities by improving traveler information | Not directly measured. Increased number of incidents posted to traveler information systems indicates improved flow of information to public. |
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is important to note that WSDOT and WSP have a long-standing relationship for sharing details of incidents that occur on the roadway system. WSP has provided a CAD listing of incidents for several years to the WSDOT TMCs to monitor to which incidents the field patrols were receiving and responding. With cameras or detectors available to WSDOT operators, they could verify the incidents and provide information to the media. The WSDOT operators could also use Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) to advise motorists of the incidents. That system was manual, however, and required the WSDOT operator to create an entry based on the input from the WSP CAD system.
An important and frequent participant in all roadway incidents is the WSDOT Incident Response Team. Expanded in recent years to all regions with Interstate highways, these operators are dispatched by the WSP, have direct mobile to mobile communications with troopers, and with the maintenance personnel in their regions. They respond to incidents to provide a full range of incident management services to prevent secondary crashes, reduce congestion, and restore normal traffic flow as quickly as possible.
For the CAD-TMC FOT to show substantial improvement in accuracy and timeliness was recognized as a challenge because of the already existing procedures and relationships in place. The FOT has proven worthwhile for the agencies to continue their quest to develop a true real-time data exchange system.
Recommendations
General Recommendations
- Involve IT staff early-on in the project planning process. Interviewees emphasized the importance of involving agency information technology staff early in the development of the integrated system. This is important so the IT organization provides technical input to the system to ensure that the computing and communication environment fit within each agency and can be effectively maintained.
- Understand the importance of close working relations from the start. All interviewees commented on the importance of a close working relationship among the agencies involved in this FOT. As is noted in section 2 of the report, WSP and WSDOT have established a Joint Operations Policy Statement governing incident response procedures, and conduct regular meetings to discuss operational issues. The two agencies had long-standing, well-established working relationships prior to the FOT that provided a forum for resolving issues encountered during the deployment.
- Provide dedicated staff working on integration, or staff with emphasis on integration. Interviewees mentioned that it was often difficult to spend enough time on the integrated system. Decisions and work items sometimes took longer than those involved would have preferred. Even though every agency supported the integrated system, staff had normal responsibilities with integration duties added on. It would be ideal if staff involved had a priority on the integrated system tasks.
- Understand the importance of considering role of business practices in the integrated system. As discussed earlier in this document, it is important that the integrated system not require a change in the operator's or dispatcher's work process. For example, as discussed in section 5, WSDOT originally intended to be able to populate event information in the WSP CAD system through a "hazard flag." The WSP CAD application did not lend itself to ingesting the WSDOT data as proposed and dispatchers would have to access WSDOT event information through a Web interface, and congestion information through either a Web interface or TMC workstation software. This approach would have required dispatchers to change their normal work processes to access and view this information.
- Coordinate deployment schedule with vendor schedule for system modifications and upgrades. As stated in section 5, CAD systems are generally off-the-shelf products. Vendors have a fixed release schedule, so it is important to coordinate project schedules with the vendors' release schedules.
- Define what data is exchanged and when. In Washington State, WSP had concerns about releasing all incident-related information recorded in the CAD system. The WSP did not want to provide WSDOT with information that might compromise the investigation of incidents or other proprietary information related to law enforcement activities. The two agencies eventually established a protocol on what information would be provided to WSDOT, and a filter was developed that selected only the agreed to information from the CAD system when incident information was pushed to the CARS system.
Technical Recommendations
- Coordinate deployment schedule with CAD vendor schedule for system modifications and upgrades. There were times that the project schedule was not met because the vendor release schedule was unknown when the CAD-TMC project schedule was developed.
- Establish common incident location identifiers. There was confusion and a potential problem identified with ability to correctly locate incidents because the WSP and WSDOT typically used somewhat different location identifiers. These location identifiers may be different names for the same landmark or may be different ways to describe the same location. It would be helpful to come to agreement on a method of describing locations among the parties involved. In addition, it would be beneficial to agree on as many common incident locations as practical.
- Consider system latency. It is critical to consider what is acceptable for latency in the system. This may differ from region to region, agency to agency, even operator to operator. Latency should be considered early during the system approach development phase and needs to be considered a system requirement once the appropriate levels of latency are identified.
- Consider automation. In general, the more automation, the better. Things to consider are whether operators sometimes or always need to verify incidents before the information is sent out. This may vary by situation, so the system needs to be designed with the needs of various operators and stakeholders in mind. There may need to be different approaches in rural and urban areas.
Institutional Recommendations
- Select response partners carefully. There must be a clear benefit to the partner in the integration. As mentioned is section 2.3, Skagit County EMS was too small with too focused a mission to really be a qualified candidate as a secondary responder incorporated in the integrated system. WSDOT initially selected Skagit County EMS because it was small and WSDOT thought it would be a better initial step to incorporate a smaller, less complex response agency. In hindsight, WSDOT representatives indicated that they should have selected a response agency where there were more traffic problems. For example, on an urban freeway where roving incident response vehicles have just started operation, it might be beneficial to know when and to what location local police and fire are dispatching response units. It would be interesting to determine if knowledge about the actions and location of the WSDOT incident response vehicles would be a benefit for dispatchers at these local agencies.
- Focus on primary objectives. In Washington State, the primary objective is providing improved traveler information. The primary view of success was whether or not information about incidents to the public is improved and provided on a more timely basis. By focusing on the primary objectives, trade-off decisions can be made more easily. Also, the focus on primary objectives helps determine the best design alternatives.
- Work process. WSDOT initially thought that providing information about traffic conditions and WSDOT incident management activities directly to WSP dispatchers would be beneficial to the dispatchers. However, the information was not integrated into the dispatcher's applications well, so the dispatcher's work process would need to change to make use of this information. As a result, WSDOT is now considering sending a map layer to the WSP dispatch terminals that will show events and perhaps traffic congestion. Also, WSP will be equipping vehicles with AVL. WSP has suggested that the WSDOT incident response vehicles and service patrols be equipped with AVL to display their locations in the WSP system. Together, these approaches will provide the functionality originally envisioned by WSDOT, and would fit much better into the WSP dispatchers' work process as well.
- System training. From interviews with development staff and operators, additional training would have been beneficial in the WSDOT system. There are some subtleties in how to configure the system to provide operators with the most benefits. Although it initially seems straightforward with little need for additional training, it is important to train operators on how to use the system features and to allow them to ask the developers how to use the system in specific situations to gain the desired results.
1 Excerpted in part from the USDOT ITS Program Safety Web site: < http://www.its.dot.gov/pubsafety/> (February 7, 2006).
2 USDOT, ITS JPO-sponsored RFP, "National Evaluation of the Computer-Aided Dispatch - Traffic Management Center Integration Field Operational Test Request for Proposals," March 7, 2003, page 1.
3 Adapted from: Legg, Bill, WSDOT, "Application for RFA Number DTFH61-02-X-00062, Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) - Traffic Management Center Integration Field Operational Test (FOT)."
4 CARS is a non-proprietary, standards based condition reporting system that allows authorized users to enter, view and disseminate critical road, travel, weather and traffic information. Additional information is available at www.carsprogram.org/public/documents/CARSprogram.pdf