4. RESULTADOS
4.2. Validez de Instrumentos
4.2.1. Objetivo Específico 1
4.2.1.2. Condiciones de habitabilidad
In response to common task-specific and cross-cutting challenges and impediments to TIM efforts identified in the United States, a number of potential tools and strategies for improving TIM efforts were identified, each having varying levels of reported effectiveness. For many of the individual tools and strategies, a wide range of effectiveness was reported by locale, suggesting that local conditions related to the nature and extent of operation, maintenance, marketing, etc. have a significant impact on the perceived or measured success of specific TIM efforts and challenging the explicit identification of best practices. Task-specific tools and strategies generally reported to be most effective in enhancing TIM efforts include:
field verification by on-site responders and closed-circuit television cameras to support incident detection and verification;
media partnerships and dynamic message signs to support the provision of traveler information;
instant tow dispatch procedures to speed response;
on-site traffic management teams, local protocols for high-occupancy vehicle lane use during incidents, and responder injury tracking mechanisms to support scene management and traffic control; and
service patrols, vehicle-mounted push bumpers, and major incident response teams to support quick clearance and recovery of minor to major incidents.Tools and strategies generally reported to be most effective in addressing cross-cutting TIM challenges include:
joint traffic/emergency management centers housing multiple agencies to enhance agency relations and institutionalize TIM,
local and virtual TIM training to encourage joint and effective training among responders,
a common mutual-aid radio frequency/channel and wireless information networks to enhance en-route and on-scene communications among responders from different agencies,
expedited standards development processes and minimum interoperability requirements to encourage the cost-effective use of technology for TIM,
a strong link between funding and performance and periodic TIM self-assessments (facilitated through FHWA’s TIM self-assessment process) to encourage continued TIM program improvements, and
development of a TIM strategic plan and the integration of TIM into local capital planning processes to ensure ongoing access to program resources and funding.A myriad of other task-specific and cross-cutting tools and strategies identified in this document have the potential to improve TIM efforts. These tools and strategies may offer significant benefit in response to a particular challenge, may have moderate to high reported effectiveness in one or more locales, or may offer moderate benefits at little to no cost. In some cases, TIM tools and strategies must operate concurrently to fully realize the benefits to operations. For example, benefits resulting from the use of standard message
sets will only be realized if dynamic message signs are concurrently used for traveler information. Similarly, the benefits resulting from the use of electronic loop detectors and closed-circuit television cameras in combination outweigh the benefits of either used singularly. Where appropriate, opportunities for improving the effectiveness of the various TIM tools and strategies or synergistic benefit through concurrent
implementation were identified. This investigation did not, however, consistently consider cost in relation to reported effectiveness. Low- or no-cost tools or strategies with moderate reported effectiveness may prove to be better implementation options than higher cost strategies with the same or potentially higher benefits.
27B
Implementation
At a local, regional, or State level, TIM administrative or operations personnel considering implementation of a particular tool or strategy can refer to the appropriate references for published findings cited in this document or contact TIM practitioners participating in this investigation directly by telephone or email to obtain more information. Experiences that resulted in a low relative effectiveness rating may be of most interest to TIM administrative or operations personnel considering implementation of a specific tool or strategy, particularly if others have reported only positive experiences. Identification of potential pitfalls early in the implementation stage can help to ensure that the same shortcomings are not propagated and that the full effectiveness of TIM efforts can be realized.
At a national level, NTIMC provides a unique forum for disseminating the information presented here directly through its website and through participation in various outreach activities and events. Stated goals of NTIMC include promoting and supporting the successful development and conduct of local, regional, and statewide TIM programs through peer networking, mentoring, and knowledge exchange among public safety and transportation professionals, and providing leadership in the development of multidisciplinary best practices, guides, standards, and performance measures in support of sound TIM activities.
As evidenced by the wide range of reported effectiveness for singular TIM tools and strategies among the various participating locales, longer term efforts of NTIMC should focus on standardizing practices to consistently maximize the effectiveness of TIM efforts. In many cases, this may require additional research to identify the local conditions related to the nature and extent of operation, maintenance, marketing, etc.
that have a significant impact on the perceived or measured success of specific TIM efforts. More consistent implementation of TIM tools and strategies will enhance not only the cost-effectiveness of program operation but also its sustainability over time.
8B
REFERENCES
511 Deployment Coalition Website. HUhttp://www.deploy511.org/usage.htmlUH. 2008.
American Transportation Research Institute. Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment 2007 National Report. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. September 2007.
Ang-Olson, Jeffrey, and Steve Latoski. Simplified Guide to the ICS for Transportation Professionals. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. February 2006.
Arnold, Robert. Freeway Safety Service/Motorist Assistance Patrol Sponsorship Programs Memorandum.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. April 2008.
Bachman, L. R., and G. R. Preziotti. Automated Collision Notification (ACN) Field Operational Test (FOT) Evaluation Report. Report No. DOT-HS-809-304. EDL No. 13830. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, DC. February 2001.
Baird, Malcolm. Freeway Service Patrols: Overview of Survey Results. Preliminary Results. Vanderbilt Center for Transportation Research. Nashville, TN. July 2008.
Balke, Kevin N., David W. Fenno, and Brooke Ullman. Incident Management Performance Measures.
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington DC. November 2002.
Bertini, Robert L., Sutti Tantiyanugulchai, Edward Anderson, Roger Lindgren, and Monica Leal. Evaluation of Region 2 Incident Response Program Using Archived Data. PSU-CE-TRG-01-01. Oregon Department of Transportation. June 2001.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupation by Transportation Incidents and Homicides 2003-2007. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI)—Current and Revised Data. 2008.
Chang, Gang-Len, et al. Performance Evaluation of CHART (Coordinated Highways Action Response Team) Year 2002. Final Report. Maryland State Highway Administration. November 2003.
COMSIS Corporation. CHART Incident Response Evaluation. Final Report. EDL No. 10004.
HUhttp://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/10004.pdfUH. May 1996.
Dudek, Conrad L. Changeable Message Sign Operation and Messaging Handbook. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. August 2004.
Dumke, Lisa R., and Terrence E. Doyle. “Intelligent Transportation Systems in Work Zones: Leveraging the Internet and Wireless Communications.” Paper presented at the 11th Annual ITS America Meeting. Miami, Florida. June 2001.
Dunn, W. M., and S. P. Latoski. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 318: Safe and Quick Clearance of Traffic Incidents. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, DC. 2003.
Fatal Accident Reporting System Encyclopedia Website. HU http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesLocation.aspxUH. 2008.
Federal Highway Administration Traffic Incident Management Program Website.
HUhttp://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/incidentmgmt/about/tim_partners.htm#towrecovUH. 2008.
Fenno, David W., and Michael A. Ogden. “Freeway Service Patrols: A State of the Practice.” Paper submitted to the 1998 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. November 1997.
Florida Department of Transportation. “Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise Takes Proactive RISC in Incident Management.” The SunGuide Disseminator. May 2005.
Glassco, R., et al. Studies of Potential Intelligent Transportation Systems Benefits Using Traffic Simulation Modeling: Volume 2. Report No. MTR 1997-31. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. June 1997.
Guin, Angshuman, et al. Benefits Analysis for the Georgia Department of Transportation NaviGAtor Program.
Final Report. Georgia Department of Transportation. August 2006.
Hamlin, C., R. Fries, M. Chowdhury, Y. Ma, and K. Ozbay. “Incident ‘Quick Clearance’ Legislation: Will It Effectively Reduce Congestion?” Paper #07-3349. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.
January 2007.
Hoppers, K. P. Opening HOV Lanes to General Traffic during Major Incidents and Severe Weather Conditions. Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. August 1999.
I-95 Corridor Coalition. Coordinated Incident Management Toolkit for Quick Clearance. April 2007.
ITS Deployment Survey Website. HUhttp://www.itsdeployment.its.dot.govUH. 2008.
Klotz Associates, Inc., Consensus Systems Technologies, and SubCarrier Systems Corporation. Guide for Implementing IEEE Std 1512™ Using a Systems Engineering Process. Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Washington DC.
November 4, 2008.
Kolb, Stephanie L. “Georgia’s Call Box Project: Evaluation and Future Deployment Recommendations.”
Paper presented at the 11th Annual ITS America Meeting. Miami, FL. June 2001.
Kolb, Stephanie L., Elizabeth N. Williams, and Karl R. Alff. “Evaluation of Georgia’s Emergency Motorist Aid Call Box Pilot Project.” Paper presented at the 10th Annual ITS America Meeting. Boston, MA. May 2000.
Latoski, S., et al. “Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Hoosier Helper Freeway Service Patrol.” Journal of Transportation Engineering. Volume 125, Number 5. September/October 1999.
Logi, F., and S. G. Ritchie. “Development and Evaluation of a Knowledge-Based System for Traffic
Congestion Management and Control.” Transportation Research. Volume 9C, Number 6. December 2001.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Highway Helper Summary Report—Twin Cities Metro Area. Report No. TMC 07450-0394. July 1994.
National Conference on Traffic Incident Management. Conference Proceedings. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, ITS America, and the Federal Highway Administration. Irvine, CA.
June 2002.
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center. Guide to Radio Communications
Interoperability Strategies and Products. Report No. TE-02-02. AGILE: Interoperability Strategies for Public Safety, National Institute of Justice. April 2003.
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund Website.
HUhttp://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/state.htmUH. 2008.
National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. Benefits of Traffic Incident Management. 2006b.
National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. Example strategies for Building Stronger State Traffic Incident Management Programs. 2006c.
National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. Multidisciplinary Core Competencies. February 2008.
National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. Safe, Quick Clearance. 2006a.
O’Laughlin, J.B. Arizona Statewide Incident Management Plan. FHWA-AZ00-497. Arizona Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 2000.
Pearce, Vincent. Regional Traffic Incident Management Programs: Implementation Guide. FHWA-OP-01-002/FTA-TRI-11-00-03. FHWA ITS Joint Program Office and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C. May 2001.
Perrin, Joseph, Rodrigo Disegni, and Bhargava Rama. Advanced Transportation Management System Elemental Cost Benefit Assessment. Utah Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Transportation. March 2004.
SAIC. Computer-Aided Dispatch — Traffic Management Center Field Operational Test Final Report:
Washington State. U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C. July 2006
Schrank, D., and T. Lomax. 2007 Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System. College Station, TX. September 2007.
Smith, Arland T. “What is TRIP?” Presentation at the ITS GA-TIME Conference. Savanna, GA. October 2008.
Smith, B. L., L. Qin, and R. Venkatanarayana. “Characterization of Freeway Capacity Reduction Resulting from Traffic Accidents.” HJournal of Transportation EngineeringH. Vol. 129, No. 4. July/August 2003. pp.
362-368.
The Survivor Fund Website. HUhttp://www.thesurvivorfund.com/need.phpUH. Towing and Recovery Association of America. 2008.
Sussman, Joseph, et al. What Have We Learned About ITS? Report No. FHWA-OP-01-006. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. December 2000.
Taylor, Steven T. “Helping Americans.” ITS World. January 1997.
Traffic Engineers, Inc. Emergency Response Management System Study. Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority. April 1991.
Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual 2000. National Research Council. Washington, DC. 2003.
Washington State Department of Transportation. Incident Response Strategic Initiatives. November 19, 2007.
Washington State Patrol and Washington State Department of Transportation. A Joint Operations Policy Statement. February 13, 2002.
9B
APPENDIX
Texas Department of Transportation, Austin District (512) 974-0899