Federal Highway Administration Traffic Incident Management Program - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Federal Highway Administration Traffic Incident Management Program Update

The Evolving Business Case: Why TIM? The business case for training incident responders: 1. The safety of incident responders. 2. The safety of all road users. 3. Congestion mitigation and commerce. Source: Arizona Department of Public Safety Source: Vince Fairhurst Source: Ron Moore 2

Responder Struck-By Fatalities In a typical year, the following number of responders are struck and killed: 10 Law Enforcement Officers. 4 Fire and Rescue Personnel. An estimated 40-60 Towing and Recovery Professionals. Several transportation professionals from DOTs, Public Works, and Safety Service Patrol Programs. 3 Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, National Fire Protection Association, Towing & Recovery Association of America

p y Unknown Number of Injuries and Property Damage Source: Ron Moore Source: Joseph Rose Source: Tennessee Department of Transportation Source: North Naples Fire Department 4

What Are Key Performance Measures? Secondary Crashes Responder Struck By Incidents Roadway Clearance Time (RCT) Incident Clearance Time (ICT) As TIM programs mature, they collect more and detailed data for performance-informed planning and operations. 5

How do we find TIM-related crashes? How do you identify responders who are struck among hundreds or thousands of pedestrian crashes?

Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 5 th Edition • Under the Persons data elements, Person Type (P4) contains an element for “Pedestrian (P4.1)”, Incident Responder (P4.2), and if YES, Type of Incident Responder 01 EMS 02 Fire 03 Police 04 Tow Operator 05 Transportation 4 states currently have something similar – More to follow.

5 th Edition Summer 2017 • Include the following data elements:  C2 Crash Date and Time: Roadway Cleared  C3 Secondary Crash: Y/N  NM2.1 “Working in Trafficway ( Incident Response )”  P4.1 “Pedestrian” (Typically already present)  P4.2 “Incident Responder?” and  P4.2 “Yes, Type of Responder” with responder list  Time Scene Cleared (Not MMUCC, used by 1/3 states)

Accomplishments Highlights • Nine States now collecting at least one TIM Crash Performance Measure in their crash Reports reports; 10 will add measures Data • Three States are training law enforcement Collection on data collection Traffic Management Six States improving TMC (training, Center (TMC) software) data collection for TIM Data Performance Measures Collection 9

10

Federal Highway Administration Traffic Incident Management The FHWA TIM Program goals are to advance safety and operations across the transportation system. FHWA will achieve these goals by pursuing two courses of action: ◦ Continued focus on traditional programs such as training, program development and capacity building, and ◦ Taking a leadership role with emerging technologies for responders: ◦ Connected and automated vehicles ◦ Computer aided Dispatch ◦ Data collection and use ◦ Accident reconstruction and more 11

Next Steps for the National TIM Program • Developing a new TIM business case for national and State programs. • Drafting a new 5-year Roadmap, which will: ◦ Keep traditional efforts (training, self assessments, program development, use of data) ◦ Incorporate advancing TIM-related technologies: ◦ Connected/Automated Vehicles and Automated Driving Systems ◦ Integrated Computer-Aided Dispatch ◦ Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) ◦ Crowdsourcing/Big data 12

The Future of TIM Nationally • Better trained TIM Responders. • Increase the use of data to identify needs/focus. • Connected and Automated Vehicle opportunities. • Increased use of practical exercise facilities. • Statewide or Regional TIM conferences. • Expanded use of Integrated Computer-Aided Dispatch. • Other Emerging Technologies (e.g., UAVs, Big Data). • Crowdsourcing for Operations – early notification. 13

National TIM Responder Training Program Implementation Progress - As of October 29, 2018 Train-the-Trainer Sessions • 386 sessions with 11,336 participants • 23% of participants have provided training In-Person Responder Training • 13,719 sessions with 318,332 participants Web-Based Training (WBT) • 40,023 total | 29,422 NHI | 1,610 Other • 8,991 ERSI Responder Safety Learning Network Total Trained: 369,691

Implementation Progress, Percent Trained - As of October 29, 2018 NH: 27. 27.7% 18. 18.3% 3% (7,175) (20,777) 16.6% 16. VT: 51. 51.9% 32. 32.8% 8% 29. 29.2% 2% (7,510) (2,796) (10,502) (3,993) MA: 40. 40.4% 4% 22.4% 22. 4% (12,079) (26,350) 44.7% 44. 7% 5. 5.3% 53.2% 53 2% 12.4% 12. 4% RI: 52. 52.6% 6% (27,081) (11,781) 33.8% 33. 8% (4,930) (54,443) (4,080) 22.2% 22. 2% (3,770) (32,555) CT: 40. 40.7% 18.5% 18. 5% NJ: 17. 17.3% 3% 48. 48.5% 5% 51. 51.0% 0% (3,120) (54,500) 47.2% 47. 2% (30,208) 41. 41.2% 2% (18,000) (9,019) 24. 24.1% 1% (37,126) (29,798) DE: 9.8% 8% 23. 23.3% 3% 19. 19.0% 0% (54,699) (4,715) (7,831) 43.1% 43. 1% (30,546) 51.0% 51. 0% (19,894) 33. 33.7% 7% MD: 29 29.2% % 58.0% 58. 0% 31.8% 31. 8% (8,300) (31,000) (23,218) (18,177) 42. 42.2% 2% (71,223) (32,948) (55,670) 41.6% 41. 6% DC: 32. 32.4% 4% 26.8% 26. 8% 86.2% 86. 2% 22. 22.3% 3% 40.3% 40. 3% (6,534) 10. 10.8% 8% (22,500) (13,245) (10,627) (14,331) (9,932) 12. 12.6% 6% 51.1% 51. 1% 28. 28.5% 5% 0.1 - 9.9% Trained (17,103) (8,683) (28,532) 41.8% 41. 8% 10 - 19.9% Trained 46. 46.2% 2% AK: 11. 11.8% (78,309) (11,394) 20 - 29.9% Trained (4,797) 30 - 39.9% Trained HI: PR: 40 - 49.9% Trained 24.2% 24. 2% 78.2% 78. 2% (3,270) 50+% Trained (5,924) 32.1% Percent Trained (1,150,816) Total Responders To Be Trained

Training Academy Adoption - Integrated into Basic Certification TIM Training Program Institutionalization WA NH ME VT ND MT MN OR MA 2x WI NY ID SD MI RI WY PA CT IA 2x NE NV OH NJ 2x IN IL UT WV DE CA CO KS VA MD 2x MO KY DC NC TN OK AZ AR SC NM AL GA MS Fire/EMS Academies [18] 2x LA TX Law Enforcement Academies [32] 3x AK FL HI PR 50 Number of Academies

TIM Training Program Institutionalization Training Academy Adoption - Integrated into Basic Certification 1. Arizona Department of Public Safety 26. Massachusetts State Police Academy 2. Arkansas LE Technical College 27. Massachusetts Municipal Police Academy 3. Arkansas Fire Technical College 28. New Jersey State Police Academy 4. Austin Texas DPS Academy 29. New Jersey Forest Service Academy 5. California Highway Patrol 30. N. Carolina Fire/Rescue Academy 6. Colorado State Police Academy 31. N. Carolina State Police Academy 7. Colorado Fire Departments 32. Pennsylvania Fire Academy 8. Connecticut State Police 33. Pennsylvania State Patrol 9. New Mexico State Police 34. Puerto Rico Fire Institute 10. New Mexico State Fire Academy 35. Puerto Rico Law Enforcement Academy 11. Delaware Fire School 36. E. Oklahoma City Fire Technical College 12. Denver, CO Police Academy 37. S. Carolina Fire/Rescue 13. District of Columbia Fire/Rescue 38. S. Dakota Law Enforcement Academy 14. Florida Highway Patrol Academy 39. Texas Commission Fire Protection 15. Georgia State Police Academy 40. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement 16. Houston Police Academy (Pending) 41. Memphis, Tennessee Fire Academy 17. Houston Fire Academy 42. Memphis, Tennessee Police Academy 18. Idaho Police Academy 43. Wisconsin Fire Academy (Pending) 19. Illinois Fire Service 44. Washington State Police Academy 20. Iowa, Fire Service Training Bureau 45. West Virginia LE Academy 21. Iowa LE Academy Basic Training 46. Washington State Fire Academy 22. Kansas LE Academy 47. Wisconsin State Patrol Academy 23. Kentucky Fire Commission 48. Wyoming Law Enforcement Academy 24. Kentucky Law Enforcement Council 49. Wyoming Highway Patrol Academy 25. Maryland State Police Academy 50. Vermont Police Academy

FHWA TIM Staff Contact Information Jim Austrich James.Austrich@dot.gov Paul Jodoin Paul.Jodoin@dot.gov 18