Executive Summary
Background
The Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment (TIM SA) is a benchmarking
tool for evaluating TIM program components and overall TIM program success.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initiated development of the
TIM SA in 2002 and the first assessments were conducted in 2003. While
the TIM SA is intended to provide local TIM program managers with a
way to assess progress, analysis of the aggregated TIM SA results also
allows FHWA to identify program gaps and better target TIM program resources.
There are 80 FHWA-defined operational areas (States, regions, localities)
in the annual TIM SA process. The original plan for the TIM SA was to
have 40 of the operational areas complete a re-assessment in 2004 and
the remaining 40 to do so in 2005. In 2006, the decision was made to
have all 80 areas conduct the TIM SA on an annual basis. Since the inaugural
TIM SA in 2003, additional TIM programs beyond the original 80 have
completed and submitted the TIM SA for inclusion in the national analysis.
A total of 86 TIM SA were submitted for the 2009 national analysis,
the largest number submitted to date. Table ES1 shows the total number
of new and re-assessments each year.
Table ES1. TIM SA Completed
| Year |
New Assessments |
Re-Assessments |
Total Completed |
| 2003 |
70 |
-- |
70 |
| 2004 |
7 |
25 |
32 |
| 2005 |
1 |
41 |
42 |
| 2006 |
-- |
70 |
70 |
| 2007 |
5 |
62 |
67 |
| 2008 |
2 |
74 |
76 |
| 2009 |
6 |
80 |
86 |
The TIM SA underwent a review and revision in 2007 to more closely
align the TIM SA with current TIM state of practice and to create synergy
with a number of complementary federal initiatives. The TIM SA Revision
was completed in 2008. Among other changes, the Revision included a
reduction in the number of questions from 34 to 31 and a renaming of
the three primary categories of questions as follows:
- Program and Institutional Issues was renamed Strategic.
- Operational Issues was renamed Tactical.
- Communication and Technology Issues was renamed Support.
In order to benchmark progress in the three sections, the initial assessments
completed in 2003, 2004 and one in 2005 (78 in total) are used as the
Baseline data against which subsequent years (2006 and beyond) are evaluated.
Table ES2 shows the average score for each of the three TIM SA sections
from the Baseline and 2009, along with the percentage change from the
Baseline. The table also shows the high score achieved in each of the
three program areas.
Table ES2. Mean Score for Each Section (Baseline and 2009)
| Section |
# of Questions |
Mean Score Baseline |
Mean Score 2009 |
High Score 2009 (possible) |
% Change in scores from Baseline |
Section Weights |
| Strategic |
11 |
36.3% |
51.1% |
28.2 (30) |
40.9% |
30% |
| Tactical |
13 |
57.6% |
68.8% |
39.2 (40) |
19.5% |
40% |
| Support |
7 |
41.3% |
59.0% |
30.0 (30) |
42.8% |
30% |
| Overall Total |
31 |
45.9% |
60.60% |
96.6 (100) |
31.9% |
100% |
Strategic
The questions in the Strategic section ask respondents to rate progress
in how the TIM program is organized, resourced, supported and sustained.
The Strategic questions also cover TIM performance measures. The Strategic
questions have realized a 40.9 percent increase over the Baseline.
Despite progress in the Strategic area, the five questions receiving
the lowest mean score in the TIM SA are in this section, with four of
the five coming from the subsection on TIM Performance Measurement (Table
ES3). The lowest scoring question on tracking performance in reducing
secondary incidents was added as part of the TIM SA Revision and therefore
does not have a Baseline against which to measure progress. In 2010
and subsequent TIM SA analyses, the 2009 mean score of 1.03 will become
the Baseline for this question.
Table ES3. Lowest Mean Scores (2009)
| Mean Score Rank in 2009/ Baseline |
Question Number |
Question |
2009 Mean Score (n=76) |
% Scoring 3 or Higher (2009) |
% Change in 2009/Baseline Mean Scores |
| 31/-- |
4.1.3.5
Strategic |
Track performance in reducing secondary incidents? |
1.03 |
8% |
-- |
| 30/23 |
4.1.3.4
Strategic |
Routinely review whether progress is made in achieving the targets? |
1.63 |
26% |
120.0% |
| 29/24 |
4.1.3.1
Strategic |
Have multi-agency agreement on the two performance measures being
tracked (roadway clearance time and incident clearance time)? |
1.66 |
26% |
159.8% |
| 28/19 |
4.1.3.2
Strategic |
Is there a process in place to ensure the continuity of these
agreements / memoranda of understanding through integrated planning
and budgeting across and among participating agencies? |
1.79 |
28% |
32.6% |
| 27/21 |
4.1.3.3 Strategic |
Have targets (i.e. time goals) for performance of the two measures? |
1.84 |
33% |
58.4% |
The questions in TIM Performance Measurement are also among the questions
that achieved the largest increase from the Baseline. Table ES4 shows
that scores for three of the TIM Performance Measurement questions have
more than doubled since the Baseline.
Table ES4. Largest Changes in Mean Score (2009 from Baseline)
| Mean Score Rank in 2009/Baseline |
Question Number |
Question |
2009 Mean Score (n=86) |
% Scoring 3 or Higher (2009) |
% Change in 2009 Mean Scores from Baseline |
| 24/24 |
4.1.3.2
Strategic
|
Has the TIM program established methods to collect and analyze
the data necessary to measure performance in reduced roadway clearance
time and reduced incident clearance time? |
1.97 |
33% |
207.0% |
| 29/24 |
4.1.3.1
Strategic
|
Have multi-agency agreement on the two performance measures being
tracked? |
1.66 |
26% |
159.8% |
| 30/23 |
4.1.3.4 Strategic |
Routinely review whether progress is made in achieving the targets? |
1.63 |
26% |
120.0% |
| 22/22 |
4.3.2.2
Support
|
Are motorists provided with travel time estimates for route segments? |
2.13 |
42% |
114.9% |
| 20/20 |
4.1.2.2 Strategic |
Conduct training?
- NIMS training?
- Training on the NTIMC National Unified Goal?
- Other training?
|
2.16 |
49% |
71.7% |
The questions in Tactical focus on the policies and procedures used
by field personnel when responding to incidents. This includes the policies
and procedures specifically targeting motorist and responder safety.
Collectively, these questions consistently score among the highest in
the TIM SA and in 2009 this section achieved an overall score of 68.8
percent. Four of the five questions achieving the highest mean score
are in the Tactical section (Table ES5).
The highest scoring question in the 2009 TIM SA on "move over" laws
was added as part of the 2008 TIM SA Revision and therefore does not
have a Baseline score. With 85 percent of the assessments scoring this
question 3 or higher and with 47 states with "move over" laws already
in place, the expectation is that this question will remain in the top
five scoring questions in subsequent analyses.
Tactical
Table ES5. Highest Mean Scores (2009)
| Mean Score Rank in 2009/Baseline |
Question Number |
Question |
2009 Mean Score (n=86) |
% Scoring 3 or Higher (2009) |
% Change in 2009 Mean Scores from Baseline |
| 1/-- |
4.2.2.1 Tacticcal |
Have “move over” laws which require drivers to slow
down and if possible move over to the adjacent lane when approaching
workers or responders and equipment in the roadway? |
3.20 |
85% |
-- |
| 2/2 |
4.2.1.3 Tactical |
Use a safety service patrol for incident and emergency response? |
3.10 |
83% |
13.7% |
| 3/5 |
4.1.2.4 Strategic |
Conduct planning for special events? |
3.09 |
88% |
25.0% |
| 4/4 |
4.2.1.4
Tactical
|
Utilize the Incident Command System? |
3.08 |
76% |
20.8% |
| 4/1 |
4.2.1.6 Tactical |
Identify and type resources so that a list of towing, recovery
and hazardous materials response operators (including operator capabilities
and special equipment) is available for incident response and clearance? |
3.08 |
74% |
7.7% |
In part due to the already high scores in the Tactical section, it
is also the TIM SA section with the questions achieving the smallest
increases in mean score from the Baseline. However, as shown in Table
ES6, two of the three questions with little change over Baseline point
to a need for additional guidance in hazardous materials incident response.
Table ES6. Smallest Changes in Mean Score (2009 from Baseline)
| Mean Score Rank in 2009/Baseline |
Question Number |
Question |
2009 Mean Score (n=86) |
% Scoring 3 or Higher (2009) |
% Change in 2009 Mean Scores from Baseline |
| 15/3 |
4.2.1.7 Tactical |
Have specific policies and procedures for hazmat and fatal accident
response that also address maintaining traffic flow around the incident? |
2.50 |
56% |
-7.7% |
| 4/1 |
4.2.1.6 Tactical |
Identify and type resources so that a list of towing, recovery
and hazardous materials response operators (including operator capabilities
and special equipment) is available for incident response and clearance? |
3.08 |
74% |
7.7% |
| 2/2 |
4.2.1.3 Tactical |
Use a safety service patrol for incident and emergency response? |
3.10 |
83% |
13.7% |
Support
The questions in Support focus on the tools and technologies enabling
improved incident detection, response and clearance. The questions in
Support collectively continue to experience the largest increase over
the Baseline, up 42.8 percent. However, in 2009 the overall mean score
declined slightly from the 2008 score of 59.4 to 59.0.
In the Data subsection, the highest scoring question is 4.3.1.1 on
the use of a Traffic Management Center/Traffic Operations Center (TMC/TOC)
to coordinate incident detection, notification and response. However,
lower scores throughout this subsection indicate that the potential
of TMCs/TOCs is not yet being fully realized due to several factors
including limited co-location of public safety and transportation in
the centers.
Summary
The 2009 TIM SA is the first completed following an extensive review
and revision completed in 2008. As a result of the revision, several
key changes were made to the TIM SA.
- The three subsections were renamed.
- The total number of questions was reduced from 34 to 31.
- A new scoring approach was instituted which asked respondents
to rate progress using High, Medium and Low rather than the numeric
scoring of 0-4.
- An online TIM SA was introduced to make it easier for participants
to respond to the questions.
With a total of 86 TIM SA completed in 2009, it appears that the revisions had a positive impact on participation. The 86 assessments represent 80 re-assessments and six new locations submitting an assessment for the first time. An overall score of 60.6 percent was achieved, representing a 31.9 percent increase over the Baseline. The highest scores continue to be in the Tactical section and the largest percentage increase over Baseline was once again in the Support section.
Low scoring questions and those with the least improvement over Baseline indicate specific program areas where additional guidance from FHWA is warranted. This includes TIM Performance Measurement and in particular, additional guidance on secondary incident definitions and technical direction on tracking reductions in the occurrence of secondary incidents.
