PDF Version - 1.68 MB

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding.  Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information.  FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

 Acknowledgement

The national evaluation of the MAYDAY/9-1-1 project was performed under Battelle’s contract DTFH61-02-C-00134, Task BA34010 with the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT).  This evaluation was conducted in association with Mr. Jim Goerke of the Melcher Group who serves as a sub-consultant to Battelle.  The evaluation supports the on-going efforts of the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Joint Program Office (JPO) to assess the benefits of ITS deployments in the United States.

Battelle wishes to acknowledge the guidance provided to the evaluation team by Ms. Laurie Flaherty of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), who serves as the Government Task Manager (GOTM), and Mr. Ted Smith of Mitretek who provides support to Ms. Flaherty. 

Appreciation is also extended to Ms. Linda Dodge of the JPO who provided oversight to this evaluation; Dr. Joseph Peters who manages the national evaluation program within the JPO; the MAYDAY/9-1-1 Field Operational Test (FOT) team led by Mr. Bradley Estochen of the Minnesota Department of Transportation; and Mr. Jim Beutelspacher, 9-1-1 Program Manager of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, who provided kind support to the conduct of various evaluation activities.

Battelle also wishes to acknowledge the Mayo Clinic and many Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) staff who provided invaluable support to this evaluation, especially Mr. Pete Eggimann with the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Emergency Services Board who kindly provided coordination assistance.

 Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0       Introduction

1.1       Organization of this Document

2.0       Description of MAYDAY/9-1-1 Field Operational Test

2.1       The Problems

2.2       The Field Operational Test Solutions

2.3       Overview of Field Operational Test Solutions

3.0       Evaluation Approach

3.1       Evaluation Objectives and Scope

3.2       System Performance Evaluation Approach

3.2.1   Voice Routing System Acceptance Testing

3.2.1.1   Description of Field Acceptance Test

3.2.1.2   Evaluation Hypotheses and Measures of Performance

3.2.1.3   Data Collection

3.2.1.4   Analysis

3.2.2   Data Routing System Performance Analyses

3.2.2.1   Evaluation Hypotheses and Measures of Performance

3.2.2.2   Data Collection

3.2.2.3   Analysis of Data Transmission Logs

3.3       User Acceptance and Deployment Issues Evaluation Approach

3.3.1   Objectives

3.3.2   Evaluation Hypotheses and Measures of Performance

3.3.3   Data Collection

3.3.3.1   User Acceptance

3.3.3.2   Deployment Issues

3.3.4   Analysis

3.3.4.1   Assessment of User Acceptance

3.3.4.2   Assessment of Deployment Issues

4.0       Evaluation Findings

4.1       TSP Voice Routing Field Test

4.1.1   Test Results

4.1.2   Summary of Findings

4.2       ACN/AACN Data Routing Evaluation

4.2.1   Analysis Results

4.2.2   Summary of Findings

4.3       User Acceptance and Deployment Issues Evaluation Results

4.3.1   PSAP, Medical Responder, 9-1-1 Program Manager, Traffic Operator Feedback

4.3.1.1   Interview Results

4.3.1.2   Summary of Findings

4.3.2   Telematics Service Provider Feedback

4.3.2.1   Interview Results

4.3.2.2   Summary of Findings

4.3.3   Implications for NG9-1-1

4.3.3.1   Third Party Technical Review

4.3.3.2   Summary of Findings

4.3.3.3   Project Team Observations

4.3.3.4   Summary of Findings

5.0       Conclusions

5.1       Evaluation Hypotheses and Findings

5.2       Conclusions

References

List of Appendices

Appendix A:  Sampling Theory for Voice Routing Field Test

Appendix B:  Data Collected for Acceptance Test of FOT Voice Routing Functionality

Appendix C:  Data Summaries for FOT Data Routing Performance

List of Tables

Table 2-1. OnStar Data in Support of Data Routing

Table 3-1. Simulated AACN Data Sent as Part of Acceptance Sampling

Table 3-2. Hypotheses, Measures of Performance, Data Sources for Voice Routing Test

Table 3-3. Hypotheses, Measures of Performance, and Data Sources for Data Routing Test

Table 3-4. Hypotheses, Measures of Performance, Data Sources for User Acceptance and Deployment Issues Evaluation

Table 4-1. Summary Results of FOT Acceptance Testing of Voice Routing Functions

Table 5-1. Hypotheses Addressed by the Evaluation

List of Figures

Figure E-1. OnStar 9-1-1 Call Procedure Without FOT Solution

Figure E-2.  High-Level FOT System Functions Illustrated

Figure E-3.  Portable OnStar Test Unit in Support of Voice Routing Field Test

Figure E-4.  Sample PSAP Incoming Call Screen (IES)

Figure 2-1. OnStar 9-1-1 Call Procedure Without FOT Solution

Figure 2-2. High-Level FOT System Functions Illustrated

Figure 2-3.  Sharing of ACN and AACN Data on CARS

Figure 3-1.  Portable OnStar Test Unit in Support of Field Test

Figure 3-2.  Sample PSAP Incoming Call Screen (IES)

Figure 3-3.  Example Data Collection Form from FOT Acceptance Sampling

Figure 3-4.  Twenty-Two PSAPs Participated in FOT

Figure 4-1.  Spatial Distribution of FOT Voice Routing Acceptance Test Calls

Figure 4-2.  Temporal Distribution of FOT Acceptance Testing of Voice Routing Functions

Figure 4-3.  Focus of Data Routing Performance Evaluation

Figure 4-4.  FOT Data Routing Calls from OnStar to SOAP Server October 11, 2004 – September 4, 2005

Figure 4-5.  Selected PSAPs where Interviews Were Conducted

Figure 4-6.  Use of ACN Data in CARS by MnDOT RTMC

List of Acronyms