EVALUATION OF CELLULAR CALL-IN PROGRAMSFOR INCIDENT DETECTION AND VERIFICATION
by
Ryan C. Christenson
Professional MentorJack L. Kay, P.E.JHK & Associates
Prepared forCVEN 677
Advanced Surface Transportation Systems
Course InstructorConrad L. Dudek, Ph.D., P.E.
Department of Civil EngineeringTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, Texas
August 1995
B-ii
SUMMARY
Congestion is a widespread problem on urban highways in the United States and elsewhere.Incidents are a chief cause of nonrecurring congestion on urban highways. Quick detection,verification, and response are essential to reducing the impact of incidents on the traveling public.Cellular telephone incident reporting programs of various types are one of several effective incidentdetection and verification methods.
Through this study, three main types of cellular incident reporting programs have beenidentified: cellular 911 programs, other public cellular programs, and private cellular programs.Examples of cellular incident reporting programs in six geographic areas were evaluated.
This study determined that the greatest deficiency currently found in cellular programs of allthree types is that the exact location of the telephone from which the call is made must be obtainedfrom callers rather than automatically. Improved technology, such as in-vehicle signing, in-vehiclemaps, global positioning systems (GPS), improved triangulation techniques, and should makeidentifying the location of cellular telephone calls much better within a few years.
Another significant factor in the overall cellular industry, the level of cellular telephoneownership, has a great impact on the effectiveness of cellular telephone incident reporting programs.For areas with relatively low cellular telephone ownership density, further increases in ownershipgenerally increase program effectiveness. For areas with a relatively high cellular telephoneownership density, further increases in ownership contribute much more to duplicate calls than tooriginal calls, increasing program effectiveness only slightly.
One program from each of the six geographic areas was highlighted for in-depth analysis,using information obtained chiefly through telephone interviews and FAX surveys. The collectedinformation included program identification, program origin and objectives, organization andcoordination, program operation and management, and sample center operation and management.
The evidence appears to indicate that all three types of programs can coexist successfully.
The type of role played by each type of program varies somewhat from place to place, but nearlyalways the cellular 911 program is acknowledged as the one that should receive emergency highway-related reports, while the other programs handle non-emergency situations.
Since cellular 911 is nearly universally available and the other two program types are lessavailable, further implementations of cellular programs will normally involve the addition of a non-emergency highway incident service to an existing emergency service. This study concludes that acombination of cooperation between programs, public education, use of technology, training of calltakers and dispatchers, and other factors can increase the effectiveness of a new or existingimplementation of a cellular incident reporting program.
B-iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2Investigation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Task 1: Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2Task 2a: Telephone Survey of Cellular Telephone Organizations . . . . . . . . B-3Task 2b: FAX and Telephone Surveys of Existing Cellular Programs . . . . . B-3Task 3: Summarization of Information from Literature
Review and Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3Task 4: Draw Conclusions and Make Recommendations for a
Hypothetical Implementation of a Cellular Incident Reporting Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
EARLY STAGES OF INCIDENT MANAGEMENT AND INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5Early Stages of Incident Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5
Incident Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5Incident Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5Response Dispatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5Response Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7
Incident Management Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7Detection Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-7Verification Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9Dispatch Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9Response Travel Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-9
CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY AND THE CELLULAR MARKET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10Basics of Cellular Technology: Cell Sites, Switches, Telephones, and Signals B-10The Growth of the Cellular Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-10
ISSUES IN APPLYING CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY TO INCIDENT DETECTION AND VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12Equity: Haves and Have-Nots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12Distribution of Original, Duplicate, and Other Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-12Emergency and Non-Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15Land Line and Cellular Emergency Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15Public vs. Private Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
Traditional and Non-Traditional Flows of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16Paying the Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16Liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-16
B-iv
PEOPLE, SYSTEMS, AND PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17Call Takers, Dispatchers, Telecommunicators, and Computer-Aided
Dispatch Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17911 Emergency Services, Public Safety Answering Points, and
Emergency Number Associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-17Three Broad Types of Cellular Incident Reporting Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-18
Cellular 911 Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-18Other Public Cellular Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-18Private Cellular Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-19
EVALUATION OF CELLULAR INCIDENT REPORTING PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . B-20Highlighted Programs in the Context of All Cellular Programs Available
in Each Geographic Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-20Highlighted Programs in the Context of Incident Detection and Verification . . B-21
Required Dispatcher Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23Desirable Program Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23Measures of Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23Before and After Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-23Assisting Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24Detrimental Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24Handling of Duplicate Calls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-24Relative Performance of Cellular vs. Other Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25Overcoming Barriers to Communication Between Motorists
and Call Takers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25
ENHANCED TECHNOLOGY FOR INCIDENT DETECTION AND VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26Improvements in Cellular Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26Improvements in Driver Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-26Improvements in Technologies Closely Related to Cellular Technology . . . . . . B-26
APPLICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-28
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-31
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-32
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-33
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-34
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-38
B-1
INTRODUCTION
Background
Congestion is a serious problem on urban freeways in the United States and elsewhere. Ithas large economic impacts because of delays and other secondary effects such as increased fuelconsumption, wear and tear on vehicles, and increased emissions.
Congestion occurs when the demand on a facility exceeds the capacity of the facility to carrytraffic. This may occur because of a sudden increase in demand or a sudden decrease in capacity.This report is concerned with incident-related capacity reductions and resulting congestion.
Incident management is a process through which the effects of incidents on roadway facilitiesare minimized. Four early steps in incident management have been identified: detection,verification, response dispatch, and response travel time (1). Naturally, any reduction in time duringany of these steps (or later steps) would result in less delay, less fuel consumption, less pollution,and less cost.
Some of the traditional methods to reduce incident detection and verification times are (2):
• use of roadside call boxes and telephones,• induction loop detectors and algorithms to interpret data from them,• aerial surveillance with helicopters or airplanes,• closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at critical points, and• reporting by Motorist Assistance Patrols (MAPs) and highway or police patrols.
Some of the advantages offered by cellular telephone call-in programs are:
• uninvolved motorists can make an incident report call from the safety of their own vehicles;• uninvolved motorists can make the incident report with little or no extra delay to themselves;• in addition to reporting incidents, motorists may be able to report conditions that may lead to
incidents, such as debris, animals, or people in the roadway, and traffic signal malfunctions (3).
Some of the disadvantages of cellular telephone call-in programs are:
• uninvolved motorists may not know where they are with enough precision to identify thelocation of the incident;
• false reporting is still a possibility; and• duplicate reporting of incidents frequently occurs, reducing the efficiency of the program (3).
Objectives
The objectives of this research project were to:
1. Evaluate the impact of growth of cellular telephone coverage and usage in the United States onthe effectiveness of cellular call-in programs for incident reporting;
B-2
2. Study existing cellular call-in programs to identify the information dispatchers need in order torespond effectively to a reported incident, desirable program features, measures of effectiveness,before and after statistics on incident detection and identification times, reasons for not realizingexpected benefits, handling of duplicate calls, and typical results of combining cellular call-inprograms with complementary programs such as motorist assistance patrols, call-in boxes, andloop detectors with algorithms;
3. Identify limitations on the effectiveness of cellular call-in programs for incident detection. Inparticular, identify barriers to communication between motorists, call takers, and dispatchers.Recommend ways to help motorists, call takers, dispatchers, and hardware all to “speak the samelanguage;”
4. Explore the potential impact of further technological enhancements to cellular call-in programs.In particular, address the problem that motorists frequently do not know where they are or thenumber and type of vehicles involved in the incident with sufficient precision to help thedispatcher decide what action to take. The enhancements considered included: automaticlocation of cellular calls; use of global positioning systems (GPS); in-vehicle navigation andsigning; and “mayday signals” or automatic collision notification (ACN) transmitted frominvolved vehicles; and
5. Apply the lessons learned to a hypothetical city, giving recommendations for the features thatshould be included in a cellular call-in program for incident reporting.
Scope
The project scope was limited to studying six existing cellular call-in programs in the U.S.:
1. The *999 Cellular Express Line in Chicago, IL;2. the #77 Program in MD;3. the #77 Program in Northern VA;4. the *FHP Program in FL;5. cellular 911 service in Los Angeles County, CA; and6. cellular 911 service in the Bay Area, CA.
Investigation Procedure
Task 1: Literature Review
The literature review was performed in order to accomplish objectives 1 through 4. Theliterature review included a keyword search on NOTIS. Some representative keywords that wereinvestigated were: INCIDENT DETECTION, INCIDENT VERIFICATION, CALL BOX, LOOPDETECTOR, CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION, MOTORIST ASSISTANCE PATROL,CELLULAR, GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM, IN-VEHICLE SIGNING, and MAYDAY.
B-3
Task 2a: Telephone Survey of Cellular Telephone Organizations
This task was necessary to accomplish objective 1. Alexa Graf of the Cellular TelephoneIndustry Association (CTIA), a lobbying group based in Washington, DC, provided valuableinformation about the expected growth of the industry as well as some news clippings aboutsuccessful cellular-based safety programs around the country. In addition, Rod Shultz ofCellularOne of College Station, Texas provided technical information about cellular networks.
Task 2b: FAX and Telephone Surveys of Existing Cellular Programs
A six-page survey, placed in the Appendix, was prepared in order to gather the informationrequired to meet objectives 2 through 4. Additionally, several telephone interviews were conductedto fill in any gaps in the information collected. The contact information for the six cellular programsof interest for this task are as in Table 1:
Table 1. Cellular Call-In Program Key Information.
State - Area Program(s) Contact / Operating Agency
IL - Six counties inChicago area
*999 Rocky TravissConor Communications
I-95 Coalition - MD, VA,and other states
MD #77,VA #77
Jeff RandallI-95 Coalition Surveillance Project
MD - statewide #77 Dennis AtkinsMD State Highway Administration
VA - Fairfax County #77 Ron MinerVirginia Department of Transportation
FL - statewide *FHP Sgt. DuarteFlorida Highway Patrol
CA - Los Angeles County Cellular 911 Lynn DieboldLos Angeles California Highway Patrol
CA - Bay Area Cellular 911 Kin HoVallejo Transportation Management Ctr.
Task 3: Summarization of Information from Literature Review and Surveys
This task was necessary to accomplish objectives 1 through 4. This task involved thecreation of tables and figures to present findings from the literature review and telephone and FAXsurveys.
B-4
Task 4: Draw Conclusions and Make Recommendations for a Hypothetical Implementation of aCellular Call-In Program
This task was necessary to accomplish objective 5. This task involved reviewing the datafrom the various tables and figures and deriving from them a sense of the effectiveness of adding anew cellular call-in program to a geographic area that already has at least one program. Also, theeffectiveness of the new program as an element of the incident detection and verification programis considered.
B-5
EARLY STAGES OF INCIDENT MANAGEMENTAND INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY
Early Stages of Incident Management
Incident management is a critical key to minimizing the impact that a highway incident hason the traveling public. Naturally, there are several steps involved in responding to an incident (1).Figure 1 summarizes the steps involved. This paper is principally concerned with the use of cellulartelephones during the first two stages, incident detection and verification. The next two stages,response dispatch and response travel time, are also of some interest in that duplicate cellular callsabout the same incident are likely as long as no official response has yet arrived at the incident site;they are much less likely afterward. By reducing the time required for any of these steps to takeplace, the impact of incidents on highway operations is greatly reduced.
Incident Detection
Balke and Ullman list some of the most common methods of incident detection: cellulartelephone reports, motorist assistance patrol, police or highway patrol, roadside call boxes, roadsidetelephones, and loop detectors and algorithms (2). A few others, including closed-circuit television(CCTV), citizen's band (CB) radio, and aerial surveillance, are more suited to incident verificationthan detection, but occasionally may detect an incident earlier than any other method.
Incident Verification
When an incident is initially detected by a cellular telephone report or by a roadsidetelephone or call box, incident verification is usually not required before response dispatch; all theinformation necessary to take action has already been gathered. Initial incident detection by motoristassistance patrol or highway or police patrol is another special case in which “the help is alreadythere,” with no need to verify the incident if the incident is a minor one. In some cases, the incident may besevereenough that the patrol officer may take a little while to verify or assess the situation before requestingreinforcements from the dispatcher.
Verification is required when the initial detection method has a relatively high false alarmrate or when the information given at the time of detection is incomplete or suspect in some otherway. In Chicago, for instance, loop detector alarms are verified by CB radio or CCTV before sendinga response dispatch (4). Sending a full-fledged response to check every alarm would becounterproductive. Likewise, aerial surveillance may notice congestion without seeing what thecause is. Even a cellular telephone report may be too vague to respond effectively to it.
Response Dispatch
As with verification, no response dispatch is required for a minor incident initially detectedby a motorist assistance patrol or highway or police patrol. A major incident would require responsedispatch for any additional help requested by the patrol officer.
B-6
Figu
re 1
. St
ages
of
Inci
dent
Man
agem
ent (
1).
B-7
With all other methods of initial detection, when sufficient information about the locationand nature of the accident has been gathered, the telecommunicator decides what action should betaken and notifies the appropriate agencies.
One way in which the time required for this step might be shortened would be to attempt toroute incoming calls directly to the agency most likely to be required to dispatch units. This is doneboth by switching to the closest agency and by using the type of call (cellular or land line) to predictwhich type of agency should be notified. California, for instance, has done this with its cellular 911service (5). Incoming cellular 911 calls go directly to the highway patrol, on the premise that themajority of cellular calls will require response by the highway patrol. In this way, it is hoped thatfewer messages will have to be passed on to another agency.
Response Travel
A motorist assistance patrol or highway or police patrol responding to a minor incident willexperience some response travel time on the average because each incident has a 50-50 chance ofbeing detected while the patrol vehicle and the incident site are on opposite directions of thehighway. For a major incident, the patrol’s response travel time includes the response travel timeof any additional help requested. It may also include some of the detecting vehicle’s own responsetravel time, but any travel time concurrent with incident verification should not be double-counted.
All other methods of initial incident detection will involve the full response travel time. Theresponse travel time may vary quite a bit depending on whether the incident is minor or major. Otherfactors that influence response travel time include the size of the agency’s jurisdiction and traffic.
Incident Management Technology
To review, the most common technologies that have been applied to the early stages ofincident management are: cellular telephones, motorist assistance patrols, police or highway patrols,CCTV, roadside call boxes, roadside telephones, loop detectors, aerial surveillance, and CB radio.Table 2 compares the effectiveness of each of these elements as applied to incident detection andverification. Table 3 gives a rough approximation of the time required for officials to respond at theincident scene to a typical incident initially detected by each of the several methods. Most if not allsuccessful incident detection and verification programs rely on a combination of methods, with onemethod picking up what another may miss due to positioning of sensors, timing, or any other reason.The following section provides some detail on how the figures in Table 3 were obtained.
Detection Time
Most of the figures in the detection time column are taken from the information acquired inthe survey for the #77 program in VA (6). The loop detector values and motorist assistance patrolfigures were reduced from ten minutes to five minutes as it was felt that these values were moregenerally representative (7). The values for roadside call boxes and telephones were obtained byassuming one mile spacing (8) (average one-half mile walk) at four miles per hour, with anadditional two and one-half minutes for the decision to walk.
B-8
Table 2. Comparison of Methods for Incident Detection and Verification (2, 4, 6, 9, 10).
Method andAvailability Incident Detection Application
Incident VerificationApplication
CellularTelephones,available full-time
High reliability - verification not usuallyrequired; quick detection time - often the firstmethod through which an incident is detected.
Duplicate calls about anincident serve to verify theincident and may refine theinformation known.
Motorist AssistancePatrols, usuallyavailable only part-time (peak periods)
Good to fair detection time, depending onfrequency of patrols. Excellent reliability; noverification required; no dispatch time orresponse travel time required unless incident isserious (reinforcements / backups requested).
Patrols of any type are aneffective method ofverifying incident reports byother methods such as loopdetectors, CB radio, etc.
Police or HighwayPatrols, availablefull-time
Same as above. Same as above.
Aerial Surveillance,available part-time
Same as above, except dispatch time and responsetravel time for ground units are required.
Same as above. Aerialsurveillance may beconsidered a type of patrol.
Closed-CircuitTelevision (CCTV),available full-time
Fair to poor method for incident detection; bettersuited to incident verification because of longperiods without incidents.
Good method of incidentverification; some locationsmay be outside CCTVcoverage.
CB Radio, availablefull-time
Same as above. Good method of incidentverification; geographicalcoverage more completethan CCTV.
Roadside CallBoxes, availablefull-time
Good to fair reliability; some unnecessary buttonsmay be pushed because of user “panic.” Detection time variable and often poor because oftime required to walk to nearest call box. GoodSamaritan behavior less likely than with cellulartelephones - caller is exposed to traffic.
Not used for incidentverification.
RoadsideTelephones,available full-time
Same as above, except reliability better than thatof roadside call boxes.
Not used for incidentverification.
Loop Detectors,available full-time
Reliability fair to poor; a loop detector “alarm”almost always should be verified independentlyby some other method before sending a response.
Not used for incidentverification.
B-9
Table 3. Estimated Time from Incident Occurrence to Response Arrivalfor Minor and Major Incidentsa (6, 7).
Initial Methodof Detection
DetectionTime
VerificationTime
DispatchTime
ResponseTravel Time Total Time
Cellular telephone 2 / 2 0 / 0 1 / 1 5 / 7 8 / 10
Motorist assistance patrol 5 / 5 0 / 1 0 / 1 1 / 7 6 / 14
Police or highway patrol 10 / 10 0 / 1 0 / 1 1 / 7 11 / 19
Closed-circuit television 5 / 5 1 / 1 1 / 1 5 / 7 12 / 14
Roadside call boxes 10 / 10 0 / 0 1 / 1 5 / 7 16 / 18
Roadside telephones 10 / 10 0 / 0 1 / 1 5 / 7 16 / 18
Loop detectors 5 / 5 1 / 1 1 / 1 5 / 7 12 / 14
Aerial surveillance 15 / 15 1 / 1 1 / 1 5 / 7 22 / 24
CB radio 5 / 5 1 / 1 1 / 1 5 / 7 12 / 14a "Minor" and "major" indicate incidents for which a response from a motorist assistance patrol orpolice or highway patrol is and isn't sufficient, respectively. For each cell in the table, the valuesshown are the estimated time in minutes required for minor and major incidents, respectively.
Verification Time
Incident verification time varies widely. Verification by CCTV may take about one minute;verification by patrol car or motorcycle requires much more time. Minor and major incidentsdetected by cellular telephone and roadside call boxes and telephones do not require verification; nordo minor incidents detected by motorist assistance patrol and police and highway patrol. In detectinga major incident, a patrol officer may take about one minute to verify the nature of the incidentbefore requesting further help. Minor and major incidents detected by closed-circuit television, loopdetectors, aerial surveillance, and CB radio are all assumed to be verified within about one minute.
Dispatch Time
Even in cases where multiple agencies need to respond to an incident, the dispatch time isfairly stable at about one minute. This applies to minor and major incidents and every method ofdetection, except that no dispatch time is required for patrols arriving at a minor incident.
Response Travel Time
Five minutes is a typical response travel time for minor incidents for the #77 program in VA(6). Congestion caused by major incidents was assumed to add two minutes. These figures applyto all methods, except for patrols at a minor incident. Their one-minute travel time accounts forthose patrol vehicles that must travel to an incident in the direction opposite to their own originaldirection.
B-10
CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY AND THE CELLULAR MARKET
Basics of Cellular Technology: Cell Sites, Switches, Telephones, and Signals
A Motorola technical training manual explains that a cellular network consists of four mainelements: cell sites, switches, telephones, and signals (11). The cell sites consist of antennae usuallymounted on a tower of some sort, together with a building housing certain control equipment. Theantennae pick up, intensify, and repeat the signals received from the telephones; they are usuallyplaced on towers so they can receive and transmit signals over a wide geographic area.
Surrounding each cell site is the cell itself. A cell may be thought of as the area of influenceof the cell site. Cells, normally represented as regular hexagons of constant size in figures for thesake of simplicity, actually come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Cell radii vary from one toforty miles, with five to ten miles being typical (11).
The switch is a central control site to which all cell sites in a network are tied. The switchmanages the initiation and termination of cellular calls, as well as the "handoffs" that occur as acellular telephone moves from one cell to another. Handoffs are accomplished by occasionallypolling signal strength. When signal strength drops below a certain level, the switch scans adjacentcell sites for the one that has the greatest signal strength from the cellular telephone, and performsthe switch (11).
In one sense, the cellular telephone is little more than a glorified two-way radio. The onlysignals it deals with directly in receiving and transmitting are radio signals. A cellular telephone is"intelligent" in that it seeks the clearest channels over which to broadcast, and it also responds tosignals from the switch to let the switch know about any special capabilities it has which willimprove the efficiency with which the signal can be carried over the network.
The voice signals are initially carried as radio signals. Later, the cell site sends the signalsto the switch, and the switch finally connects to the land line network.
As seen in more detail later on, some characteristics of cellular technology have tremendousimpact on the effectiveness of cellular programs for reporting highway incidents. Partly because oftechnological limitations (and partly because of cellular carrier policy), the exact location of thesource of a cellular call cannot yet be feasibly pinpointed. The location of an incident is one of theprimary pieces of information that must be known in order to take action on an incident report.
Sometimes the best that can be done is to identify the cell site which received the strongestsignal. But since a typical cell site may vary between 80 to 315 square miles (based on a radius offive to ten miles), this information is not very useful (11). Some improvement occurs by observingnot just which cell site receives the strongest signal but also which of the three faces of the antennaat the cell site receives the strongest signal (12). More precise location of cellular calls, as discussedlater, can be achieved even with today’s technology, but only at great expense.
B-11
Figure 2. Exponential Growth of the Cellular Market (13).
The Growth of the Cellular Market
From its inception in 1984, the cellular market has grown steadily at an exponential pace, andshows no signs of slowing (13). See Figure 2. This steady growth has some implications for thefuture effectiveness of cellular call-in programs for highway incident reporting. Namely, it is likelythat an ever-higher percentage of calls regarding incidents will be duplicate calls. Thus, the law ofdiminishing returns is a feature inherent to the system. Future technologies may be able to decreasethe occurrence of duplicate calls and improve system performance at higher levels of cellulartelephone ownership. These topics will be discussed in more detail later.
B-12
ISSUES IN APPLYING CELLULAR TECHNOLOGYTO INCIDENT DETECTION AND VERIFICATION
As seen later on, there are several different types of cellular call-in programs for reportinghighway incidents. The issues discussed below may arise regardless of the type of program orprograms instituted in a single geographic area.
Equity: Haves and Have-Nots
One of the concerns voiced by the creators of the *999 program in Chicago, IL, was that theprogram would be viewed as inequitable since only those who can afford a cellular phone would beable to call for help (3). However, this issue quickly became a non-issue as early statistics indicatedthat roughly 95 percent of the cellular calls received were from “Good Samaritans,” people notdirectly involved in the incident. From a survey conducted in 1993, the Cellular Telephone IndustryAssociation reported that 13 percent of cellular phone users had made a medical emergency call forthemselves, while 29 percent of cellular phone users had made a medical emergency call forsomeone else (14). Similarly, 34 percent had called for help with their own disabled vehicle, while40 percent had called for help for someone else’s vehicle. Clearly, the benefits of cellular telephoneprograms for reporting highway incidents extend beyond those who own the telephones to the entirecommunity.
Distribution of Original, Duplicate, and Other Calls
Charles McLean, in reviewing the *999 program in Chicago, IL, describes three classes ofcalls (3). Original calls report an incident or condition on the roadway for the first time. Duplicatecalls report an incident or condition that has been previously reported. Other calls includeinappropriate or incomplete calls such as requests for traffic information and calls cut off early.
Figure 3 shows what this author believes to be a significant trend. From 1990 to 1991, thepercentage of original calls fell from 66.7 percent to 60.4 percent (15). At the same time, the numberof duplicate calls rose from 21.0 percent to 24.4 percent. This information, combined with theexponential growth of the cellular telephone market, indicate that the percentage of duplicate callsis likely to continue growing. As mentioned earlier, this would lead to a “law of diminishingreturns” for system effectiveness. See Figure 4. With higher market penetration, more vehicles willhave a cellular telephone available. With more cellular telephones available, a higher percentage ofpeople in the vehicles passing by an incident will have the opportunity to report it (16). See Figure5.
Finally, as a last step in the reasoning, consider that a conservative estimate of the averagetime from incident occurrence to response arrival for a minor incident detected by cellular telephoneis eight minutes; see Table 2. Once help arrives at the scene of an incident, it is assumed that nomore calls about the incident are received. For even a modest (for urban area freeways) one-wayflow rate of 4000 vehicles per hour, Figure 5 implies that on average one, two, and four calls,respectively, would be received within eight minutes with two, four, and eight percent of passingvehicles having cellular telephones. Therefore, the danger of the system being overloaded with
B-13
Figure 3. The Increasing Proportion of Duplicate Calls Over Time (15).
duplicate calls seems very likely as cellular telephone ownership continues to rise sharply. Basedon current U.S. cellular
B-14
Figure 4. Law of Diminishing Returns.
Figure 5. Cellular Phone Use for Incident Detection (16).
B-15
Emergency and Non-Emergency Calls
An "emergency" may be defined as a situation in which there has been an injury, and / or inwhich there is an ongoing or impending threat to life or limb. Typical roadway emergencies wouldinclude hazardous material spills, fires, and accidents. Other less immediately critical situations,such as debris on the road, a live animal on the road, or a stranded motorist on the shoulder with adisabled vehicle may or may not be considered emergencies. California for one appears to havetaken the attitude that these less immediately critical situations are nonetheless important enough todemand a quick response and are treated roughly the same way (17). Most other states appear tomake more of distinction in name if not in practice between "emergency" and "non-emergency"situations.
For the purposes of this paper, a "non-emergency" call will be one reporting a situationconsidered to be less immediately critical. This is not to say that a quick response is any lessdesirable. Certainly, in many cases a quick response to a "non-emergency" call can preventsomething much worse from occurring. However, "emergency" calls must take priority in situationswhere there are simply not enough resources to respond to all situations occurring at any given pointin time.
Land Line and Cellular Emergency Calls
As discussed in more detail later, cellular calls are inherently anonymous since cellulartelephones are not associated with any particular land line number or location. Generally, cellularcarriers insist that emergency call takers not request personal information (3). This means that tipsreceived from cellular callers remain anonymous unless the caller volunteers the information or ifin the call taker's judgment the police will require the caller’s personal information.
Even though allowing anonymous tips from cellular callers is a departure from the generalpolicy of emergency number services, it is generally felt that system abuse thus far has been very low(6). That is, most anonymous calls appear to be genuine, rather than an attempt by one driver toharass another, for instance by false accusations of drunk driving.
Whether the cellular calls are anonymous or not, some people raise the issue that theseprograms represent another government intrusion on citizens' privacy. However, enlisting citizens’help to catch lawbreakers on roadways "is not intrusive in the same constitutionally suspect way thatsome other electronic forms of communication and monitoring might be" (18). Robyn Blumner,executive director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, feels that "makingthe access to police more convenient does not inject a civil liberties concern into the process.”
Cellular 911 calls may or may not be routed differently than land line 911 calls. The stateof California has taken the approach of routing all cellular 911 calls to the California Highway Patrol(CHP); the call is then transferred to local police barracks or other appropriate agencies if the callfalls outside CHP’s jurisdiction (5). The order of notification is reversed with land-line calls, whichare routed first to traditional 911 answering agencies such as local police barracks, who then transfercalls to the CHP if required. The underlying logic for this strategy is that most cellular 911 calls willbe made while the cellular phone owner is in a vehicle, presumably on a road that is in the CHP'sjurisdiction. Most states handle all 911 calls, cellular and land-line, through local police barracksor fire departments first, and then transfer to other public agencies such as highway patrols asrequired.
B-16
Public vs. Private Programs
Traditional and Non-Traditional Flows of Information
When an incident occurs on the highway, two interrelated processes need to begin in orderto minimize the impacts of the incident on the traveling public. First, public authorities and specialservices need to know about the incident in order quickly to clear travel lanes, remove debris, andattend to injuries. Second, the public should also be made aware of the incident in order for themto take action to avoid delays if possible, especially by diverting to another route or changing thetime of their trip. This second process is accomplished in part by variable message signs and othermeans under the direct control of public authorities, but is also accomplished through privately-owned “publicity agencies” such as radio stations and the traffic information agencies that servethem.
Traditionally, the flow of information about an incident goes first to the public authoritiesand then to private publicity agencies. Metro Traffic's *TIP program, which operates in severalurbanized areas around the U.S., reverses this traditional flow of information, at least for non-emergency calls (19). Metro Traffic call takers, upon receiving an emergency call, may forward itto the authorities, or may ask the driver to hang up and call the authorities first. For non-emergencycalls, Metro Traffic call takers record the pertinent information, then notify the authorities ifnecessary.
Paying the Costs
Cellular 911 service may be paid for out of state funds as in California (20), or a monthlysurcharge may be added to cellular customers’ monthly bills (21). One question that arises iswhether the surcharge should be based on where a cellular 911 call is made or on where the cellulartelephone is registered. Maryland recently settled the question by passing a law stipulating that thelatter rule should apply statewide (21). In Chicago (more precisely Cook County), on the other hand,cellular 911 service is currently unavailable, as officials are still debating this matter (22). In themeantime, land line 911 is available, as well as another public cellular program called *999, to bedescribed in more detail later.
Other public programs for the most part are financed through state funds. Private programsnaturally depend on their own resources. Private program costs are doubtless folded into othercompany costs and passed on to the customer base.
Liability
Whether a program is designed to handle emergency or non-emergency calls or both, calltakers may be instructed to word their responses to the caller carefully. A dispatch center operatedby the Illinois Department of Transportation originally answered the calls for the *999 program inChicago. Charles McLean reported that a *999 call taker “never commits any services or equipmentto a caller. The caller is informed that ‘we will notify the authorities’” (3). Such careful wordingoffers some protection. But in the event that a critical piece of information about the incident issomehow lost, the agency operating the program, or the agency responsible for the program, or both,may be held liable. Many private companies may be unwilling to assume so much responsibility(12). This seems to be at least a partial explanation for the apparent scarcity of private cellularprograms.
B-17
PEOPLE, SYSTEMS, AND PROGRAMS
Call Takers, Dispatchers, Telecommunicators, and Computer-Aided Dispatch Systems
No two programs for reporting incidents are the same. One thing they all have in commonis people and communications. In every case, a successful incident reporting program involvespeople working together to detect incidents, to gather information about incidents for verificationand response, and to dispatch help. Some care should be taken in referring to the job titles of thepeople who work in an emergency communications center, since a job title implies what theemployee's duties are. In many cases, the person who answers an incoming call is not the same asthe one who actually dispatches help. Thus, the specific terms "call taker" for the person receivingthe incoming call, and "dispatcher" for the person dispatching help, are often used. The general term"telecommunicator" refers to a person performing either or both of these functions (23).
Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems are one means of achieving the division of tasksbetween call takers and dispatchers (16). CAD systems also offer the advantage that duplicate callsmay be more easily identified. Thus, if information received from a duplicate call is superfluous,it can be ignored, and if the information is a refinement of what was previously known, the plannedresponse may be altered accordingly. CAD systems may tie into a knowledge-based expert systemwhich would aid new dispatchers in making quick and orderly decisions.
If the emergency call is a land line 911 call, a CAD system can display the phone numberassigned to the telephone from which the call is being made and the corresponding address. Thisis accomplished through automatic number identification (ANI) and automatic location identification(ALI) (24). The call back telephone number allows follow up calls to be made in case it is necessaryto ask the person reporting the incident to testify in court or for any other reason (3). The address,of course, allows the dispatcher to know where to send help.
911 Emergency Service, Public Safety Answering Points, and Emergency Number Associations
Calling 911 in case of emergency has become almost second nature to citizens of the U.S.(25) The availability of 911 service on the land line telephone system in the U.S. is almost universal.The immediate cost of land-line and cellular 911 calls is generally free. For land line 911, the costof the service is generally covered by adding a surcharge to every telephone owner's monthly bill(21).
Fire departments, police barracks, and county sheriff's offices are among those agenciestypically in charge of answering 911 calls. In 911 terminology, these agencies are generically calledPublic Safety Answering Points or PSAPs (26).
The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) holds an annual meeting andpublishes a quarterly magazine (21). Some states, including Maryland, also have a state-levelEmergency Number Association (27). The Maryland Emergency Number Association meetsquarterly. Through organizations such as these, knowledge and methods are shared and concernsare raised. The absence of ANI and ALI for cellular 911 calls currently appears to be a frequent topicof discussion within these organizations (27).
B-18
Three Broad Types of Cellular Incident Reporting Programs
Three broad types of cellular highway incident reporting programs have been instituted tosome extent around the country. These are cellular 911 programs, other public cellular programs,and private cellular programs.
Cellular 911 programs
The 911 program is now nearly universally recognized in the U.S. as "the" emergencynumber (25). Simultaneously with the growth of the 911 program, cellular telephones and networkshave expanded quickly until now cellular phone service is available almost everywhere nationwide.
The institution of cellular 911 service added a new dimension to the overall 911 program,and cellular 911 programs have been set up nearly everywhere cellular service itself is available. Thecellular companies, though not legally obliged to provide the service, have some fairly strongincentives to do so (28). Existing PSAPs typically contract with the cellular carriers to providecellular 911 service in their geographic area.
911 programs obviously handle many types of emergencies besides highway incidents. Inhighly populated areas, the use of cellular 911 for reporting highway incidents in addition to moretraditional uses of 911 for crimes in progress, poisoning, accidents at home, etc. appears to beproblematical in that the PSAP may receive more calls than it can effectively manage. This wouldbe particularly true where cellular and land line calls are not treated differently as in California.Thus, the second broad type of cellular highway incident reporting program, the other public cellularprogram, appears to be well suited to highly populated areas.
Other Public Cellular Programs
Other public cellular programs may come about as a complementary program to an alreadysuccessful though overburdened cellular 911 program, or they may come about to fill a void wherecellular 911 has not yet been instituted. If an existing cellular 911 program has been receiving bothemergency and non-emergency road-related calls, consistency dictates that road-related non-emergency calls should be separated out and handled by another agency. Inevitably, achieving thisseparation of calls requires a concerted effort to educate the public.
Most attempts at limiting public cellular programs either geographically or by type of callsreceived have been unsuccessful. Chicago, for instance, initially attempted to limit calls to its *999program to travelers on tollways and expressways (29). However, when travelers on arterialsadjacent to the tollways and expressways began to report broken traffic signals, debris, and evencrimes in progress, the system adapted to handle and respond to those calls as well.
B-19
Similarly, most other public cellular programs, whether originally intended or not, eventuallyevolve into a general “road-related complaint” program rather than remaining a pure and simple“highway incident reporting” program. This may be frustrating to some program administrators, butsuch an evolvement is natural. The program administrators, while continuing to educate the publicabout the proper use of the program, may at least take pride in the fact that the traveling public isbeing well served and is getting a chance to voice its concerns in the moment trouble is seen.
Other public cellular programs may be operated directly by either a public agency or a privateagency, but are always very closely tied to a public agency. In other words, even though a privateagency may be the one actually answering the phone calls, a public agency is still viewed as theagency responsible for the program, and the operating agency would report to them.
Private Cellular Programs
The third type of program, the private cellular program, appears to be less common thaneither of the other two, and yet is noteworthy because of its reversal of the traditional flow ofinformation. Private cellular programs may involve a motorist calling a private traffic informationservice, such as Metro Traffic (27). This private service would of course notify the authorities iftheir response is required. As mentioned earlier, such a service might even insist that a driver callthe authorities first before calling back if the report involves an accident. Compared to a programoperating under the traditional flow of information (from the authorities to the private agencies), aslight time advantage in informing the public about non-emergency incidents might be realized. Ofcourse, the disadvantage is a slight delay in response by the authorities.
A second type of agency that might run such a program would be a cellular carrier. Cellularcarriers, though they have been actively involved in urging the various PSAPs to set up cellular 911operations in the places where they operate, seem traditionally to have taken a somewhat passive orminor role in actually designing the programs. PacTel in Southern California may be starting a newtrend with the initiative they have taken recently in setting up a program known as the PacTel Patrol(30). By dialing *9, PacTel customers in the San Bernardino-Riverside area may report such road-related problems as traffic accidents, road hazards, graffiti, polluters, and drunken drivers. PacTelpresents the caller with a menu through which the caller navigates to report their problem to any ofseveral agencies, including public works, graffiti control, and law enforcement agencies.
B-20
EVALUATION OF CELLULAR INCIDENT REPORTING PROGRAMS
The rest of this paper is concerned with making comparisons between the various programsimplemented in the six chosen geographic areas. First, the highlighted programs are evaluated inthe context of all the cellular programs available in each geographic area. Second, the highlightedprograms are evaluated in the context of the incident detection and verification.
Highlighted Programs in the Context of All Programs Available in Each Geographical Area
Table 4 summarizes the availability of each of the three broad types of cellular highwayincident reporting programs in each of the six geographical areas studied.
Table 4. Overall Summary of Cellular Programs in Geographical Areas of Interest(6, 10, 19, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)
.
Geographic Area Cellular 911 ProgramaOther PublicCellular Programa
Private CellularPrograma
Illinois (Six counties in theChicago area - Cook,DuPage, Kane, Kankakee,Kendall, McHenry)
Cellular 911 is availableexcept for Cook County;typically the countysheriff's office
*999b is availablefor the entire area;ConorCommunications
*TIP is availablein entire area;Metro Traffic
Maryland (Statewide - 24 jurisdictions -23 countiesplus one city)
Cellular 911 is availablethroughout the state;typically the local policebarracks
#77b is availablethroughout thestate; the localpolice barracks
*TIP is availablein Baltimore;Metro Traffic
Virginia(I-95 corridor in FairfaxCounty, Virginia )
Cellular 911 isavailable; the FairfaxCounty Police
#77b is availablealong the corridor;Virginia DOT
“Traffic Patrol”is available;WTOP-AM
Florida(Statewide)
Cellular 911 is generallyavailable; local policebarracks
*FHPb is availablestatewide; FloridaHighway Patrol
*TIP is availablein Miami;Metro Traffic
California(One county - Los Angeles County)
Cellular 911b isavailable; CHPLos AngelesCommunication Center
None known *TIP is availablein entire area;Metro Traffic
California(9 countiesin the Bay Area)
Cellular 911b isavailable; VallejoTransportationManagement Center
None known *TIP is availablein entire area;Metro Traffic
a The name and geographical coverage of a program fitting the appropriate categories are given first, then the name ofthe agency currently operating the program.b The programs indicated are the ones that are highlighted in this report.
B-21
Some observations about Table 4 follow:
• Cellular 911 is available in all of the six geographic areas studied, except for Cook County inChicago, IL. As expected, cellular 911 is answered by traditional PSAPs (police or sheriff inthis case) outside of CA; the CHP answers cellular 911 calls within CA.
• No other public cellular programs were identified in either of the two CA areas, but the otherfour areas all had other public cellular programs.
• Private cellular programs were available in all six areas to some extent, but it appears that theyprincipally serve urbanized areas. Thus, statewide other public cellular programs such as *FHPin FL and #77 in MD apparently offer greater geographic coverage than the correspondingprivate programs.
• Two or three programs are operating simultaneously in every geographical area studied. Thisseems to indicate that peaceful coexistence of programs that inevitably have some overlap inpurpose is attainable.
Tables 8 through 13 in the Appendix give more detailed information about all three types ofprograms in each of the six areas. For each of the six geographic areas, one program washighlighted. Table 5 repeats information from Tables 8 through 13, but only for the highlightedprograms. The program information presented includes items concerning program identification,program origin and objectives, organization and coordination, program operation and management,and sample center operation and management.
Some observations about Table 5 follow:
• MD, VA, and FL have all instituted new other public programs in locations where cellular 911was already being used.
• IL is unusual in that the other public program was in place and operational before cellular 911.• A single communications center typically covers one county, but the center for the *999 program
in IL covers six counties and the center for the cellular 911 program in the Bay Area in CAcovers nine counties.
Highlighted Programs in the Context of the Incident Detection and Verification Program
Now that we’ve answered the question of how multiple cellular programs fit together in asingle geographic area, the question turns to a single cellular program fits into an incident detectionand verification program. The main idea was to use the experiences of existing programs in orderto answer a variety of fundamental questions about how the program should be run and monitoredand improved. The questions included:
1. What information does a dispatcher require in order to respond effectively to an incident report?2. What are some desirable program features?3. What measures of effectiveness are used to justify the existence of the program?4. How has system performance changed since the addition of the cellular element of the incident
detection and verification program (before and after statistics)?5. What are some factors that contribute positively to the success of the program?6. What are some factors that are detrimental to the success of the program?
B-2
2
Tab
le 5
. Su
mm
ary
of H
ighl
ight
ed P
rogr
ams
for
All
Six
Geo
grap
hica
l Are
as
(3, 5
, 6, 1
0, 1
8, 2
0, 2
1, 2
2, 2
3, 2
4, 2
6, 3
2, 3
3, 3
6, 3
7, 3
8, 3
9, 4
0, 4
1, 4
2, 4
3).
Pro
gram
Asp
ects
Chi
cago
, IL
Oth
er P
ublic
MD
Oth
er P
ublic
Fai
rfax
Cty
., V
AO
ther
Pub
licF
LO
ther
Pub
licL
os A
ngel
es, C
AC
ellu
lar
911
Bay
Are
a, C
AC
ellu
lar
911
Pro
gram
Ide
ntif
icat
ion
N
umbe
r ca
lled
to a
cces
s sy
stem
N
ame
of p
rogr
am
Con
tact
info
rmat
ion
O
pera
ting
agen
cy
*999
Cel
lula
r E
xpre
ss L
ine
Roc
ky T
ravi
ssC
onor
Com
mun
ic'n
s.
#77
(#SP
)#7
7D
enni
s A
tkin
sM
D S
tate
Pol
ice
#77
(#SP
)#7
7R
on M
iner
VA
Sta
te P
olic
e
*FH
P (
*347
)*F
HP
Sgt.
Dua
rte
FL H
ighw
ay P
atro
l
911
Cel
lula
r 91
1L
ynn
Die
bold
CA
Hig
hway
Pat
rol
911
Cel
lula
r 91
1K
in H
oV
alle
jo T
MC
a
Pro
gram
Ori
gin
and
Obj
ectiv
es
Ord
er o
f in
stal
latio
n
Yea
r of
inst
alla
tion
In
tend
ed u
se o
f pr
ogra
m
Firs
t (be
fore
911
)19
89H
ighw
ay in
cide
nts
Seco
nd (
afte
r 91
1)19
91 -
199
4N
on-e
mer
genc
y
Seco
nd (
afte
r 91
1)19
94H
ighw
ay in
cide
nts
Seco
nd (
afte
r 91
1)19
94H
ighw
ay p
robl
ems
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Gen
eral
em
erge
ncy
Unk
now
nA
bout
‘88
-’89
Gen
eral
em
erge
ncy
Org
aniz
atio
n an
d C
oord
inat
ion
C
ellu
lar
carr
ier(
s)
R
espo
nsib
le a
genc
y
Sour
ce o
f fu
ndin
g
In
trap
rogr
am c
oord
inat
ion
In
terp
rogr
am c
oord
inat
ion
Am
erite
ch C
ellu
lar,
Cel
lula
r O
neIL
St.
Tol
l Hw
y. A
uth.
IL S
t. T
oll H
wy.
Aut
h.,
IL D
ept.
of T
rans
.N
one
Non
e
Bel
l Atla
ntic
,C
ellu
lar
One
MD
St.
Hw
y. A
dmin
Gen
eral
sta
te p
olic
e
fund
sSt
atew
ide
sim
ilari
ty91
1 he
lped
pla
n #7
7
Bel
l Atla
ntic
,C
ellu
lar
One
VA
Dep
t. of
Tra
ns.
VA
Sta
te P
olic
e
Non
eN
one
/ inf
orm
al
10 c
ellu
lar
carr
iers
Flor
ida
Hw
y. P
atro
lU
nkno
wn
Stat
ewid
e si
mila
rity
Unk
now
n
L.A
. Cel
lula
r,P
ac B
ell
CA
Hig
hway
Pat
rol
CA
Mot
or V
ehic
le
Fund
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Cel
lula
r O
ne,
GT
E M
obil
net
Val
lejo
TM
Ca
CA
Mot
or V
ehic
le
Fund
Non
eU
nkno
wn
Pro
gram
Ope
rati
on a
nd M
anag
emen
t
Cos
t of
call
to c
alle
r
Ave
rage
res
pons
e ti
meb
G
eogr
aphi
c li
mit
s of
pro
gram
N
umbe
r of
cen
ters
in o
pera
tion
Free
90 s
ec.
Six
coun
ties
1
Free
5 m
in.
Ent
ire
stat
e of
MD
24
Free
Unk
now
nI-
95 c
orri
dor
1
Free
Unk
now
nE
ntir
e st
ate
of F
LU
nkno
wn
Free
Unk
now
nL
os A
ngel
esC
ount
y1
Free
Abo
ut 1
min
.9
Bay
Are
aco
unti
es1
Sam
ple
Cen
ter
Ope
rati
on a
nd M
gmt.
G
eogr
aphi
c lim
its o
f ce
nter
D
ays
/ hou
rs o
f op
erat
ion
M
inim
um /
max
imum
sta
ff o
n-du
ty
Ave
rage
num
ber
of c
alls
per
day
A
nnua
l bud
get
All
six
coun
ties
7 da
ys /
24 h
ours
3 / 4
500
$320
,000
City
of
Bal
timor
e7
days
/ 24
hou
rs1
/ 1U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n
I-95
cor
rido
r7
days
/ 24
hou
rs1
/ 1U
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n
Mia
mi,
FL7
days
/ 24
hou
rsU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Los
Ang
eles
Cou
nty
7 da
ys /
24 h
ours
Unk
now
nA
bout
155
0U
nkno
wn
9 B
ay A
rea
coun
ties
7 da
ys /
24 h
ours
6 / 6
Abo
ut 1
050
Unk
now
na T
MC
sta
nds
for
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
Man
agem
ent C
ente
r.b T
he a
vera
ge r
espo
nse
time
is d
efin
ed a
s th
e tim
e fr
om in
cide
nt n
otif
icat
ion
to r
espo
nse
disp
atch
(no
t arr
ival
at i
ncid
ent s
ite).
B-23
7. How are duplicate calls handled?8. What is the relative performance of the cellular element versus other methods of incident
detection and verification? and9. What are some ways of overcoming the barriers to communication between motorists and call
takers?
Required Dispatcher Information
The most frequently cited information that a dispatcher requires in order to take action on aphone call included: incident type (disabled vehicle or accident), location of incident, direction oftraffic, number of vehicles involved, type of vehicles involved, injuries (yes or no), and hazardousmaterials (yes or no).
The 911 program in VA makes a distinction between primary and secondary information(44). The primary information is the location of the incident and the type of incident. Secondaryinformation would include the position of vehicles (on the road or shoulder), caller’s name, call backnumber, and whether the caller is involved. Once the call taker has obtained the primaryinformation, a dispatcher can immediately respond while the call taker continues to obtain moreinformation from the caller.
Desirable Program Features
One desirable program feature identified in the study was computer-aided dispatch (CAD).CAD can simplify several of the dispatcher’s tasks. Another desirable program feature is intelligentrouting of calls. This actually includes three types of routing: routing directly to police or highwaypatrol cars; routing to the nearest PSAP; and routing cellular calls to a highway-related agency.Public education was seen as a desirable feature of every program. Also, flexibility was desirable,yet firmness in teaching the public about the correct use of the system was also desirable.
Measures of Effectiveness
The *999 program in Chicago, IL, defined very clearly their program objectives, and theirmeasures of effectiveness were also useful and to the point (3). Their division of calls into threegroups - original, duplicate, and other calls - was very useful. Also, reporting the percentage of“Good Samaritan” calls and the percentage of traffic-related calls was interesting and useful.
*FHP also collects some statistics, but had a much different focus (32). Their focus seemedto be enforcement, as the measures of effectiveness collected included number of calls to *FHP,number of vehicles stopped, and number of arrests.
Before and After Statistics
None of the programs surveyed provided statistics before and after the addition of cellular911 to the overall incident detection and verification program. However, the estimated time fromincident occurrence to response arrival as summarized in Table 2 was available, as well as theestimated percentage of incidents detected first by the various methods as reported in FAX surveys
B-24
returned by IL, MD, VA, and the Bay Area in CA. These data were combined to provide an overallaverage estimated time from incident occurrence to response arrival, for minor and major incidents,and before and after the addition of cellular telephone reporting to the overall incident detectionprogram. The results are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. Average Estimated Time in Minutes from Incident Occurrence to Response Arrival (6, 7, 9, 10, 34).
GeographicalArea
Minor Incident Major Incident
Beforea Aftera Beforea Aftera
Chicago, IL 10.7 9.6 15.7 13.4
MD 9.9 9.7 17.6 16.8
Fairfax County,VA
12.9 10.0 17.1 12.9
Los AngelesCounty, CA
10.3 8.8 13.4 11.2
a “Before” and “after” refer to the entire incident detection program before and after the addition of a cellular call-in program.
Assisting Factors
*FHP in FL (32) and #77 in MD (34) reported that unexpectedly positive motorist responseproduced greater than expected benefits. Cellular 911 in Los Angeles County, CA, reported that thevast number of cellular phones, people’s willingness to report incidents, and the speed of reports allcontributed to greater than expected benefits (33).
Detrimental Factors
*FHP in FL reported that one detrimental factor is that the program receives too many trivialcalls, that is, calls that do not require the intervention of the highway patrol (32). One of the biggestdetrimental factors common to all programs is that ANI and ALI are not yet available.
Handling of Duplicate Calls
The *999 program in IL instructs call takers not to tell callers, “We already have thatincident,” even if they do (3). Rather, the caller’s information should be taken courteously in orderto encourage the caller to continue to use the system. It is felt that this is a reasonable way to handleduplicate calls.
B-25
Relative Performance of Cellular vs. Other Methods
The study areas in IL (4), VA (6), and the Bay Area in CA (10) all report that cellulartelephones are by a significant margin most frequently the first method to detect an incident. Thesituation is quite different in MD, where police and highway patrols are the initial detection methodmost of the time (34).
Overcoming Barriers to Communication Between Motorists and Call Takers
The *999 program in Chicago, IL, relies heavily on the geographic knowledge of its calltakers to ask motorists the right questions and find out where they are calling from (if they don’tknow) (22). Since *999 covers a six-county area and the cellular 911 communications centers in fivecounties on the outskirts of Chicago cover only one county apiece, it could be argued that the *999call takers simply can’t locate a caller as quickly and efficiently as a cellular 911 call taker, who hasto know the geography of only one county.
B-26
ENHANCED TECHNOLOGY FOR INCIDENT DETECTION AND VERIFICATION
Improvements in Cellular Technology
The chief improvement in cellular technology that has bearing on incident detection andverification is the improvement of ALI. There appear to be two principal approaches to improvingALI. One approach is to upgrade the equipment at each cell site so that the direction from which asignal is received may be determined precisely. Knowing the location of two or three cell sites andthe corresponding signal direction at each site is sufficient to locate the call. The expense of thisapproach currently makes it impractical for most geographic areas.
In the second approach, a Global Positioning System (GPS) chip in the telephone enableslocation information downloaded from satellites to be transmitted along with the voice signals (45).While early versions of such a telephone already exist on the market, demand is low and cost is high.Washington State DOT's Puget Sound Help Me (PuSHMe) program is currently assessing anapplication of a telephone which introduces three new buttons to the standard cellular telephonebuttons: one for traveler assistance, a second for non-emergency roadside assistance, and a third foremergency roadside assistance. The three buttons connect the caller to the same response center,establish two-way voice communications, and transmit GPS location information. Naturally, thebutton pushed helps the response center predetermine the nature of the call.
With improved ALI, the routing of calls to the proper agencies can be significantly improved.It may even be possible for a call to be routed directly to the closest highway patrol or police vehicleinstead of passing through a dispatch center first. The improved location information may simplybe used to make sure the call is routed to an agency within the proper jurisdiction.
Improvements in Driver Information Technology
Driver information technology such as in-vehicle navigation and in-vehicle signing could beused by a driver to immediately find out where they are and pass this information on to a call taker,removing the burden of keeping track of their location from them. In-vehicle navigation aids whichprovide reliable location information have already been developed; they usually involve acombination of methods, including map matching, dead reckoning, and GPS signals, to keep trackof the location of a vehicle during motion. In-vehicle signing, currently in the conceptual stages,involves roadway to vehicle communications requiring the installation of infrastructure which doesnot yet exist.
Conceivably, vehicle-to-vehicle communications could be used to let drivers approachingan incident know that it has already been reported. This could cut down substantially on the numberof duplicate calls made about a single incident. However, like in-vehicle signing, this technologyis not mature enough to appear on the market for several years.
Improvements in Technologies Closely Related to Cellular Technology
The time required for incident detection might be greatly reduced in the future as Automatic
B-27
Collision Notification (ACN) technologies are developed. ACN may be thought of as a maydaysignal which automatically notifies authorities of trouble. It may be triggered by the deployment ofan airbag or by feedback from a gyroscope which senses hard decelerations (45).
The next revolution in mobile communications is personal communications systems (PCS)(33). While PCS improves on cellular technology in some ways, the most important impact of PCSon incident detection and verification may be that the availability of PCS as a superiorcommunications service will likely drive down the price of cellular communications. This couldmake the addition of GPS receivers in cellular phones more palatable for consumers.
B-28
APPLICATION OF LESSONS LEARNED TO A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
In applying the lessons learned during this research to a hypothetical situation, this authordesired to set the stage so that the situation considered was a common one. Since cellular 911appears to be so widespread and other public programs appear to be less so, it was reasoned that acommon situation that might arise would be the consideration of whether to install a new "other"public program where cellular 911 already exists. Private programs were not considered as an optionsince so little information about private programs was gathered in the course of the research.
Also, it appears that most cellular 911 programs route their calls to traditional PSAPs suchas fire and police agencies; routing cellular 911 calls to a "non-traditional" PSAP like a highwayagency (as in CA) appears to be the exception to the rule. So a common situation that might arisewould be the consideration of whether to switch from traditional routing to non-traditional routing.
Thus, the three initial conditions assumed for this hypothetical situation are: 1). Cellular 911is available; 2). cellular 911 calls are routed to a traditional PSAP; and 3). no other public programis available. The three options evaluated are:
• Option A: No change - emergency and non-emergency road-related calls to cellular 911 arerouted to a traditional PSAP, and no other public program is available;
• Option B: Add a new public program - cellular 911 is still available for emergency highway-related calls, these calls are still answered at a traditional PSAP, and the new public programhandles non-emergency highway-related calls;
• Option C: Change routing of cellular 911 calls to a non-traditional PSAP - both emergency andnon-emergency highway-related calls to cellular 911 are routed to a highway-related agency.
In evaluating these three options, six attributes were identified as being critical to the successof the programs in meeting the emergency and non-emergency highway-related needs of the public:
1. The level of familiarity of the public with the program;2. the internal consistency of the 911 program (i.e., similarity of use of 911 for both land line and
cellular telephone users);3. the level of financial resources available;4. the level of integration among detection methods;5. the directness of routing of emergency calls; and6. the directness of routing of non-emergency calls.
Table 7 summarizes the performance of each of the three options against these six criteria.From the table, it is apparent that all three options have advantages and disadvantages. Options Band C appear to have a slight edge over Option A in terms of the desirable program attributes listedhere. This author feels that there is evidence in the table to conclude that Option C is a good short-term solution, but that Option B is the best long-term solution.
B-29
Table 7. Program Performance Against Desirable Program Features.
Program Attributes Pro Con
Level of familiarity of public High: Options A and C Low: Option B
Consistency of 911 program Consistent: Option B Inconsistent: Options A and C
Level of financial resources High: Options A and C Low: Option B
Level of detection integration High: Options B and C Low: Option A
Emergency call placement Direct: Options A and B Indirect: Option C
Non-emergency call placement Direct: Options B and C Indirect: Option A
In terms of public familiarity, Option C holds no advantage over Option A. Either way, thepublic is generally well-educated about the 911 program. In the short term, Options A and C holdan edge over Option B; any new program would require a significant public education effort, whichcould certainly be effective in the long term (say five to ten years).
Both Options A and C preserve an inconsistency in the way 911 is used for land line versuscellular calls. That is, while the public has been strongly encouraged to use land line 911 only foremergencies, cellular 911 seems to relax that requirement somewhat. If any highway-related cellular911 call, emergency or non-emergency, is accepted at the PSAP, this author feels that the systemcould easily become swamped with unwanted "trivial" calls. Option B offers one way of preservinga sharper distinction between emergency and non-emergency calls.
Options A and C both offer a higher level of financial and other resources than Option B.This is a critical issue because of the high cost of setting up and maintaining a system of this typeand the expertise required to operate it. 911 programs simply have a head start in terms of havingtheir funding mechanisms in place and so forth. But even 911 had to be phased in over a period oftime, so in the long term Option B could eventually reach a similar level of funding as Options Aand C.
Non-emergency calls under Option B and emergency and non-emergency calls under OptionC would typically be answered by a highway-related agency rather than a traditional PSAP. Thus,these options appear to offer a slight advantage in terms of integrating the information obtained fromthe cellular calls with other methods of detecting incidents on the highway, since the highway agencywould presumably also be in charge of the entire incident detection and management program. Ofcourse, with emergency calls under Option B going to a traditional PSAP, the highway-relatedagency would still depend heavily on second-hand information. For all three options, the highway-related agency can arrange access to critical highway incident information, both emergency and non-emergency, through cooperative agreements and computer linkages with PSAPs.
Finally, in conjunction with the second program attribute (consistency within the 911program), the placement of emergency and non-emergency calls is an issue. Every time a call mustbe transferred or the information forwarded to another agency represents a loss of time. Naturally,
B-30
if the call is initially placed directly to the agency that actually has to respond, the performance ofthe system will improve. Option B is the only one that appears to offer direct placement of bothemergency and non-emergency calls. The highway-related agency should be the one to handle non-emergency highway-related calls, while a traditional PSAP is the appropriate one to handle at leastsome emergency calls. Of course, with any of these options, some calls will always be misplaced.Ironically, this may be particularly true of Option B, especially until the public becomes well-educated about the purpose of the new public program.
B-31
CONCLUSIONS
This author feels that the separation between emergency and non-emergency calls should bekept for cellular 911 calls as well as land line calls. This is not to say that cellular 911 programswhich receive both emergency and non-emergency calls will not work. However, it is felt that theinconsistency between cellular and land line 911 calls may be confusing to the public. In addition,in the long run the 911 system may become overburdened with relatively trivial highway-relatedcalls.
Regardless of the program type or types that are instituted, public education is a critical stepin the success of the program. A mixture of methods is always required to reach as many segmentsof the population as possible. Despite any amount of public education, however, there will alwaysbe some who abuse the system maliciously or ignorantly.
The integration of various detection methods is a key consideration. CAD appears to offera sensible means of accomplishing this. It is desirable to have a mixture of methods available bywhich to detect and verify incidents.
Improved cellular and other communications technologies and improved driver informationtechnologies are critical to the future success of cellular programs for reporting highway incidents.These technologies will become cost-effective over time. Public demand, technology, andconsequent shifting of cellular carrier policy are driving and will continue to drive the market toproduce better methods of identifying with precision the location from which a cellular call is made.
The quickly expanding cellular market will result in higher percentages of duplicate calls.In the short term, CAD will be an adequate solution to the duplicate call problem. In the long-term,vehicle-to-vehicle communications and other technologies may have to be used to prevent duplicatecalls from occurring in the first place.
B-32
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the long term, this author feels that establishing a separate public program for highway-related non-emergency calls in conjunction with cellular 911 for emergency calls is preferable tomaintaining a cellular 911 program for both emergency and non-emergency calls. In the short term,routing cellular 911 calls to a highway-related agency while routing land line 911 calls to traditionalPSAPs appears to be a plausible solution. The eventual transition to having a separate publicprogram would probably be triggered by an intolerable level of non-emergency calls coming in tothe cellular 911 PSAP.
A new public program should start small, full-time, free, and flexible. The geographiccoverage initially may be limited to a single corridor, a single county, or a few counties, allowingsome time for the operating agency to learn and gain experience before expanding their coverage.However, the time coverage from the outset should probably be 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (like911 programs) in order to provide full-time response to motorists. The call should be free to thecaller in order to encourage as much participation in the program as possible. Finally, no matterwhat objectives are set for the program, some calls will be received for which the program was notoriginally intended. The program administration will need to walk a fine line between adapting tomotorist needs as demonstrated by calls received and holding firm to program objectives.
Public education will be necessary to achieve proper use of the system. The program shoulduse a mixture of methods to reach the public. Static road signs are very common and useful, as areadvertisements in newspaper, radio, and even television. Telephone stickers, bill stuffers, and newcustomer literature are other effective ways of teaching and reminding the public about the program.
If the cellular call-in program is not directly operated by the highway-related agency incharge of incident management, a computerized link between the highway-related agency and theoperating agency should be established; CAD offers one way of accomplishing this. This step iscritical in order for the incident management agency to receive timely information about incidentsdetected through the cellular call-in program and integrate that information with other methods ofdetection.
As financial resources become available, the program should take advantage of improvedtechnology for identifying the location of cellular calls and for reducing the impact of duplicate calls.
B-33
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was prepared for Advanced Surface Transportation Systems, a graduate coursein Transportation Engineering at Texas A&M University. The instructor for this course was Dr.Conrad L. Dudek. Professional mentors for the class were Walter Dunn, Leslie Jacobson, Jack Kay,Walter Kraft, Gary Trietsch, and Thomas Werner. The author extends his thanks to all the mentorsfor their lively and enlightened participation in refining the paper topics of all the students. Theauthor extends special thanks to his personal mentor for this paper, Jack Kay, for his advice andcomments. The author is grateful to Dr. Conrad Dudek for his continuing efforts at making thisunique course available to the students in the Transportation Engineering Program, and for hisfeedback and direction in writing this paper.
The author also is very grateful to the many people who were able on short notice tocontribute their time and effort in answering seemingly endless questions in telephone interviews,personal interviews, and the FAX survey. Special thanks go to:
• Joe McDermott of the Illinois Department of Transportation,• Richard DeRobertis of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority,• Rocky Traviss of Conor Communications, Inc., • Jeff Randall of JHK and Associates,• Dennis Atkins of the Maryland State Highway Administration,• Marilyn Farndon of the Maryland Emergency Number Services Board,• Ron Miner of the Virginia Department of Transportation,• Sgt. Duarte of the Florida Highway Patrol,• Lynn Diebold of the Los Angeles California Highway Patrol Communications Center,• Kin Ho of the Vallejo Transportation Management Center, • Joan Ravier of Metro Traffic, and• Alexa Graf of Cellular Telephone Industry Association.
B-34
REFERENCES
1. Texas Highway Operations Manual. Texas Transportation Institute, Research Report 1232-3,August 1992.
2. Balke, K. N. and G. L. Ullman. Method for Selecting Among Alternative Incident DetectionStrategies. Texas Transportation Institute, Research Report 1232-12, August 1992.
3. McLean, C. H. Cellular Phones - A Key Traffic Management Component. ITE 1991Compendium of Technical Papers.
4. McDermott, J. July 10, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the *999program in Chicago, IL.
5. Kay, J. June 3, 1995. Personal interview with Ryan Christenson regarding programs in Illinois,Connecticut, the I-95 Coalition, Florida, and California (Los Angeles and the Bay Area).
6. Miner, R. July 6, 1995. FAX survey administered by Ryan Christenson regarding the #77program in Northern VA.
7. McDermott, J. August 2, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding typicalincident detection times.
8. Cloud, B. June 12, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the *FHPprogram in FL.
9. Traviss, R. July 10, 1995. FAX survey administered by Ryan Christenson regarding the *999program in Chicago, IL.
10. Ho, K. June 27, 1995. FAX survey administered by Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in the Bay Area in CA.
11. Motorola, Inc. Cellular Subscriber Technical Training Manual. July 1993.
12. Koziol, J. June 12, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the *999program in Chicago, IL.
13. Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. Mid-Year Results Show WirelessCustomers Near 20 Million Mark; Monthly Bills Drop. Press release dated September 6, 1994.
14. Gravino, P. "Nonbusiness use rises for portable telephones". Associated Press article appearingin the Washington Times, c. 1993.
15. Author unknown. Untitled Illinois Department of Transportation manuscript, c. 1992.
B-35
16. JHK & Associates. Bay Area Traffic Operations System: Operations, Procedures, andStrategies Report. Unpublished manuscript, January 13, 1994.
17. Diebold, L. July 7, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in the Los Angeles area in CA.
18. Rohter, L. "Thousands of Eyes for State Police - Florida Asks Cellular Phone Users for Helpon Highways". The New York Times, May 10, 1994.
19. Ravier, J. July 11, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the *TIPprogram.
20. Jeffries, L. July 25, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding 911 service.
21. Farndon, M. July 6, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in MD.
22. Baniak, P. "A call to action". Chicago Tribune, Sunday, November 27, 1994.
23. Farndon, M. July 10, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911in MD.
24. Traviss, R. June 30, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the *999program in Chicago, IL.
25. Ivy, S., T. Dayharsh, and P. Bruce. 911 Public Education: Assessment and Guidelines. Bureauof Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, September 1980.
26. Diebold, L. June 9, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911program in the Los Angeles area in CA.
27. N. Herman. July 6, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in MD.
28. Bahls, C. "They're high-tech heroes of the highways - A world made safer by cellular phones".The Philadelphia Inquirer, November 22, 1992.
29. McLean, C. IDOT Taps Cellular Samaritans. Unpublished Illinois Department ofTransportation manuscript, c. 1990.
30. Miller, C. "'Cellular Samaritans' on duty - Enlisted for fight against freeway crime andcongestion". Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA), June 27, 1993.
31. Stevens, C. July 6, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in VA.
B-36
32. Duarte, E. June 23, 1995. FAX survey administered by Ryan Christenson regarding the *FHPprogram in FL.
33. Diebold, L. June 14, 1995. FAX survey administered by Ryan Christenson regarding cellular911 service in the Los Angeles area in CA.
34. Atkins, D. July 28, 1995. FAX survey administered by Ryan Christenson regarding the #77program in MD.
35. Eldridge, S. July 27, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the “TrafficPatrol” program in metropolitan Washington, DC.
36. DeRobertis, R. June 16, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the *999program in Chicago, IL.
37. Atkins, D. July 7, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the #77program in MD.
38. Miner, R. July 5, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the #77 programin Northern VA.
39. Miner, R. June 28, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding the #77program in Northern VA.
40. Florida Highway Patrol. Star (*) FHP Cellular Phone Project. March 22, 1994.
41. Michelmore, P. "Riding with the Cellular Posse". Reader's Digest, October, 1994.
42. Ho, K. June 16, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in the Bay Area in CA.
43. Kay, J. June 8, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in the Bay Area in CA.
44. Stevens, C. July 11, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in VA.
45. Balogh, M. August 2, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding thePuSHMe program in WA.
46. Janaes, T. June 30, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in DuPage County, IL.
47. Hyatt, S. July 5, 1995. Telephone interview with Ryan Christenson regarding cellular 911service in MD.
B-37
Ryan C. Christenson received his B.S. in Civil Engineering fromBrigham Young University in August 1993. Ryan is currently pursuing hisM.S. in Civil Engineering from Texas A&M University. He completedone semester of graduate studies at Texas A&M University in Fall 1993before heading to Washington D.C. for one year to work at FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) headquarters under the Dwight D.Eisenhower Grants for Research Fellowships Program, run by FHWA’sNational Highway Institute. He was employed in Fall 1993 by the TexasTransportation Institute and is currently employed as a Graduate ResearchAssistant. His areas of interest include: traffic operations (especiallycongestion), geographic information systems, and applications oftelecommunications and computers such as telecommuting and advancedtraveler information systems.
B-38
APPENDIX
B-3
9
Tab
le 8
. C
ross
-Pro
gram
Com
pari
son
for
Chi
cago
, IL
, and
Sur
roun
ding
Are
as -
-Si
x C
ount
ies:
Coo
k, D
uPag
e, K
ane,
Kan
kake
e, K
enda
ll, a
nd M
cHen
ry C
ount
ies
(3, 1
9, 2
2, 2
4, 3
6, 4
6).
Pro
gram
Asp
ects
Cel
lula
r 91
1O
ther
Pub
lic C
ellu
lar
Pro
gram
aP
riva
te C
ellu
lar
Pro
gram
Pro
gram
Ide
ntif
icat
ion
N
umbe
r ca
lled
to a
cces
s sy
stem
N
ame
of p
rogr
am
Con
tact
info
rmat
ion
O
pera
ting
agen
cy
911
Cel
lula
r 91
1V
arie
s [T
om J
anae
s]V
arie
s [D
uPag
e C
ount
y Sh
erif
f's O
ffic
e]
*999
*999
, Cel
lula
r E
xpre
ss L
ine
Roc
ky T
ravi
ssC
onor
Com
mun
icat
ions
, Inc
.
*TIP
(*8
47)
*TIP
Joan
Rav
ier
Met
ro T
raff
ic
Pro
gram
Ori
gin
and
Obj
ectiv
es
Ord
er o
f in
stal
latio
n
Yea
r of
inst
alla
tion
In
tend
ed u
se o
f pr
ogra
m
Seco
nd19
94G
ener
al e
mer
genc
y
Firs
t19
89H
ighw
ay in
cide
nts
and
othe
r re
port
s
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Tra
ffic
tips
, con
gest
ion
repo
rts
Org
aniz
atio
n an
d C
oord
inat
ion
C
ellu
lar
carr
ier(
s)
Res
pons
ible
age
ncy
So
urce
of
fund
ing
In
trap
rogr
am c
oord
inat
ion
In
terp
rogr
am c
oord
inat
ion
Am
erite
ch C
ellu
lar,
Cel
lula
r O
neV
arie
s [D
uPag
e C
ount
y Sh
erif
f’s
Off
ice]
Var
ies
[Gen
eral
DuP
age
Cou
nty
reve
nue]
NE
NA
Non
e
Am
erite
ch C
ellu
lar,
Cel
lula
r O
neIl
linoi
s St
ate
Tol
l Hig
hway
Aut
hori
tyIl
linoi
s St
ate
Tol
l Hig
hway
Aut
hori
ty,
Illi
nois
Dep
artm
ent o
f T
rans
port
atio
nN
one
(non
e re
quir
ed -
one
cen
ter)
Non
e
Am
erite
ch C
ellu
lar,
Cel
lula
r O
neM
etro
Tra
ffic
Met
ro T
raff
ic
*TIP
is s
imila
r ac
ross
the
U.S
.N
one
Pro
gram
Ope
rati
on a
nd M
anag
emen
t
Cos
t of
call
to c
alle
r
Ave
rage
res
pons
e ti
meb
G
eogr
aphi
c li
mit
s of
pro
gram
N
umbe
r of
cen
ters
in o
pera
tion
Free
45-6
5 se
c.Fi
ve c
ount
ies
(all
but
Coo
k)1
per
coun
ty (
5 to
tal)
Free
90 s
ec.
All
six
coun
ties
1
Free
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
n
Sam
ple
Cen
ter
Ope
rati
on a
nd M
anag
emen
t
Geo
grap
hic
limits
of
cent
er
Day
s / h
ours
of
oper
atio
n
Min
imum
/ m
axim
um s
taff
on
duty
A
vera
ge n
umbe
r of
cal
ls p
er d
ay
Ann
ual b
udge
t
DuP
age
Cou
nty
7 da
ys /
24 h
ours
3 / 4
-525
0$8
25,0
00
All
six
coun
ties
7 da
ys /
24 h
ours
3 / 4
500
$320
,000
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
nU
nkno
wn
Unk
now
na T
he p
rogr
am in
dica
ted
is th
e on
e th
at w
ill b
e hi
ghlig
hted
in th
is r
epor
t for
this
geo
grap
hic
area
.b T
he a
vera
ge r
espo
nse
time
is d
efin
ed a
s th
e tim
e fr
om in
cide
nt n
otif
icat
ion
to r
espo
nse
disp
atch
(no
t arr
ival
at i
ncid
ent s
ite).
B-40
Table 9. Cross-Program Comparison for the Entire State of MD --Includes 24 Jurisdictions - 23 Counties Plus the City of Baltimore (19, 21, 23, 34, 37, 47).
Program Aspects Cellular 911 Other Public Cellular Programa Private Cellular Program
Program Identification Number called to access system Name of program Contact information Operating agency
911Cellular 911Varies [Sidney Hyatt]Varies [Baltimore City Police]
#77 (#SP for State Police)#77Dennis AtkinsVaries [Local police barracks]
*TIP (*847)*TIPJoan RavierMetro Traffic
Program Origin and Objectives Order of installation Year of installation Intended use of program
Firstc. 1985General emergency
SecondBegan in 1991; expanded in 1994Non-emergency police
UnknownUnknownTraffic tips, congestion reports
Organizations and Coordination Cellular carrier(s) Responsible agency Source of funding Intraprogram coordination Interprogram coordination
Varies [Bell Atlantic, Cellular One]Varies [Baltimore City Police]Surcharge - registration location of phoneNENA, MD Emergency Number Assn.911 representatives helped plan #77
Bell Atlantic, Cellular OneMD State Highway AdministrationGeneral state police fundsStatewide similarities in #77911 representatives helped plan #77
Bell Atlantic, Cellular OneMetro TrafficMetro Traffic*TIP is similar across the U.S.None
Program Operation and Management Cost of call to caller Average response timeb
Geographic limits of program Number of centers in operation
FreeVaries [Baltimore: 2-3 minutes]Entire state of MD24
FreeUnknownEntire state of MD24
FreeUnknownUnknownUnknown
Sample Center Operation and Management Geographic limits of center Days / hours of operation Minimum / maximum staff on duty Average number of calls per day Annual budget
Baltimore City7 days / 24 hours26 / 30About 4650 (1.7 million / year)$5 million
Unknown7 days / 24 hours1 / 1UnknownUnknown
UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
a The program indicated is the one that will be highlighted in this report for this geographic area.b The average response time is defined as the time from incident notification to response dispatch (not arrival at incident site).
B-41
Table 10. Cross-Program Comparison for I-95 Corridor in Northern VA - Fairfax County (6, 31, 35, 38, 39).
Program Aspects Cellular 911 Other Public Cellular Programa Private Cellular Program
Program Identification Number called to access system Name of program Contact information Operating agency
911Cellular 911Calvin StevensFairfax County Police
#77 (#SP for State Police)#77Ron MinerVirginia State Police
*TIP (*847)*TIPJoan RavierMetro Traffic
Program Origin and Objectives Order of installation Year of installation Intended use of program
FirstUnknownGeneral emergency
Second1994Highway incident reporting
UnknownUnknownTraffic tips, congestion reports
Organization and coordination Cellular carrier(s) Responsible agency Source of funding Intraprogram coordination Interprogram coordination
Cellular OneFairfax County PoliceGeneral county fundsNENANone / informal
Cellular One, Bell AtlanticVirginia Dept. of TransportationVirginia State PoliceNone (none required - one center)None / informal
Cellular One, Bell AtlanticMetro TrafficMetro Traffic*TIP is similar across the U.S.None
Program Operation and Management Cost of call to caller Average response timeb
Geographic limits of program Number of centers in operation
Free1 minuteFairfax County1
FreeUnknownI-95 corridor, Fairfax County1
FreeUnknownUnknownUnknown
Sample Center Operation and Management Geographic limits of center Days / hours of operation Minimum / maximum staff on-duty Average number of calls per day Annual budget
Fairfax County7 days / 24 hours22-30About 3100 (1.2 million / year)$6.8 million
I-95 corridor, Fairfax County7 days / 24 hours1 / 1UnknownUnknown
UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
a The program indicated is the one that will be highlighted in this report for this geographic area.b The average response time is defined as the time from incident notification to response dispatch (not arrival at incident site).
B-42
Table 11. Cross-Program Comparison for the Entire State of FL (18, 19, 32, 40, 41).
Program Aspects Cellular 911 Other Public Cellular Programa Private Cellular Program
Program Identification Number called to access system Name of program Contact information Operating agency
911Cellular 911Varies [Tim Lanham]Varies [Miami Fire Department]
*FHP (*347)*FHPSgt. DuarteFlorida Highway Patrol
*TIP (*847)*TIPJoan RavierMetro Traffic
Program Origin and Objectives Order of installation Year of installation Intended use of program
FirstUnknownGeneral emergency
SecondApril, 1994Highway-related problems
UnknownUnknownTraffic tips, congestion reports
Organizations and Roles Cellular carrier(s) Responsible agency Source of funding Intraprogram coordination Interprogram coordination
10 cellular carriersVaries [Miami Fire Department]UnknownUnknownUnknown
10 cellular carriersFlorida Highway PatrolUnknownStatewide similarities in *FHPUnknown
UnknownMetro TrafficMetro Traffic*TIP is similar across the U.S.Unknown
Program Operation and Management Cost of call to caller Average response timeb
Geographic limits of program Number of dispatch centers in operation
FreeUnknownEntire state of FLUnknown
FreeUnknownEntire state of FLUnknown
FreeUnknownUnknownUnknown
Sample Center Operation and Management Geographic limits of center Days / hours of operation Minimum / maximum staff on-duty Average number of calls per day Annual budget
Miami, FL (Dade County)7 days / 24 hoursUnknownUnknownUnknown
Miami, FL (Dade County)7 days / 24 hoursUnknownUnknownUnknown
UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
a The program indicated is the one that will be highlighted in this report for this geographic area.b The average response time is defined as the time from incident notification to response dispatch (not arrival at incident site).
B-43
Table 12. Cross-Program Comparison for Los Angeles County, CA (18, 19, 20, 26, 33).
Program Aspects Cellular 911a Other Public Cellular Program Private Cellular Program
Program Identification Number called to access system Name of program Contact information Operating agency
911Cellular 911Lynn DieboldCalifornia Highway Patrol
NoneN/Ac
N/AN/A
*TIP (*847)*TIPJoan RavierMetro Traffic
Program Origin and Objectives Order of installation Year of installation Intended use of program
UnknownUnknownGeneral emergency
N/AN/AN/A
UnknownUnknownTraffic tips, congestion reports
Organizations and Roles Cellular carrier(s) Responsible agency Source of funding Intraprogram coordination Interprogram coordination
L.A. Cellular, Pac BellCalifornia Highway PatrolUnknownUnknownUnknown
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
L.A. Cellular, Pac BellMetro TrafficMetro Traffic*TIP is similar across the U.S.Unknown
Program Operation and Management Cost of call to caller Average response timeb
Geographic limits of program Number of centers in operation
FreeUnknownLos Angeles County1
N/AN/AN/AN/A
FreeUnknownUnknownUnknown
Sample Center Operation and Management Geographic limits of center Days / hours of operation Minimum / maximum staff on-duty Average number of calls per day Annual budget
Los Angeles County7 days / 24 hoursUnknownAbout 1550 (47,000 per month)Unknown
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
a The program indicated is the one that will be highlighted in this report for this geographic area.b The average response time is defined as the time from incident notification to response dispatch (not arrival at incident site).c "N/A" signifies "not applicable".
B-44
Table 13. Cross-Program Comparison for Bay Area, CA -- Includes Nine Counties (5, 10, 19, 20, 26, 42, 43).
Program Aspects Cellular 911a Other Public Cellular Program Private Cellular Program
Program Identification Number called to access system Name of program Contact information Operating agency
911Cellular 911Kin HoVallejo Transportation Management Ctr.
NoneN/Ac
N/AN/A
*TIP (*847)*TIPJoan RavierMetro Traffic
Program Origin and Objectives Order of installation Year of installation Intended use of program
UnknownUnknownGeneral emergency
N/AN/AN/A
UnknownUnknownTraffic tips, congestion reports
Organizations and Roles Cellular carrier(s) Responsible agency Source of funding Intraprogram coordination Interprogram coordination
Cellular One, GTE MobilnetVallejo Transportation Management Ctr.UnknownUnknownUnknown
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Cellular One, GTE MobilnetMetro TrafficMetro Traffic*TIP is similar across the U.S.Unknown
Program Operation and Management Cost of call to caller Average response timeb
Geographic limits of program Number of centers in operation
FreeUnknown9 counties in Bay Area1
N/AN/AN/AN/A
FreeUnknownUnknownUnknown
Sample Center Operation and Management Geographic limits of center Days / hours of operation Minimum / maximum staff on-duty Average number of calls per day Annual budget
9 counties in Bay Area7 days / 24 hours6 / 6About 1050 (380,000 per year)Unknown
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
UnknownUnknownUnknownUnknownUnknown
a The program indicated is the one that will be highlighted in this report for this geographic area.b The average response time is defined as the time from incident notification to response dispatch (not arrival at incident site).c "N/A" signifies "not applicable."
B-45
FAX
SUR
VE
Y of C
EL
LU
LA
R T
EL
EPH
ON
E C
ITIZ
EN
CA
LL
-IN PR
OG
RA
MS
Research E
mphasis:
Highw
ay incident reporting through cellular telephone call-in programs
Nam
e of Researcher:
Ryan C
hristenson, Texas A
&M
University (M
.S. candidate)Phone/FA
X/em
ail: (409) 862-2820 / 845-6008 / rhino@ttiadm
in.tamu.edu
Mail:
Ryan C
hristenson / Texas T
ransportation Institute / College Station, T
X 77843-3135
PER
SON
AL
INFO
Nam
e: _________________________D
ate: _________________T
itle: __________________________O
rganization: _____________________________Phone, fax, and em
ail: ___________ _____________ _______________________________PR
OG
RA
M IN
FO N
ame, phone, year of initiation: ______________________
_________
SUR
VE
Y Q
UE
STIO
NS
NO
TE
: Most of the survey questions are w
orded as though your cellular telephone citizen call-inprogram
is exclusively for highway incident reporting. Please contact the researcher if you feel a
question is not applicable to your program.
1. (a). Which of the follow
ing elements are included in your overall highw
ay incident reportingprogram
, and in what phase of developm
ent are they? (b). How
important is each elem
ent in theoverall operation of your program
? (c). Give your best guess as to the approxim
ate annualpercentage of first incident reports m
ade by each of the methods. (d). G
ive your best guess as tothe approxim
ate average time in m
inutes from incident occurrence to first incident report for
each method. (e). G
ive the approximate average tim
e in minutes from
first incident report toresponse dispatch (e.g., police, hazardous m
aterials crew, am
bulance, etc. are notified ofincident). (f). G
ive the approximate false alarm
rate for each method.
Colum
n (a): Mark all that apply. U
se ‘X’ if elem
ent is in operation, and ‘P’ if it is planned.
Colum
n (b): For each item
marked w
ith ‘X’ or ‘P
’ in column a, please indicate relative
importance w
ith 1 for very important, 2 for im
portant, and 3 for less important.
Colum
ns (c-f): Please answ
er for each item m
arked with ‘X
’ in column a. T
he total forcolum
n © should add to 100%
. (a)
(b) ©
(d)(e)
(f)___
______
______
___R
eports by cellular telephone*___
______
______
___M
otorist assistance patrol___
______
______
___Police or highw
ay patrol___
______
______
___C
losed-circuit television___
______
______
___R
oadside call boxes (pushbuttons)___
______
______
___R
oadside telephones (voice comm
unications)___
______
______
___L
oop detectors + algorithms
______
______
______
Aerial surveillance
______
______
______
Citizen’s band (C
B) radio
______
______
______
Other (please specify): ______________________
______
______
______
Other (please specify): ______________________
Col. ©
total: 100
* This should include “G
ood Samaritan” calls by people uninvolved in the incident as w
ell as calls by involvedpeople.
B-46
NOTE: The remaining questions assume that the cellular telephone element of your incidentreporting program is operational. If this is not the case, please skip the remainingquestions and return this survey.
If the cellular telephone element of your incident reporting program is operational, and anyreports listed in question 3 are available in the literature (or you can send a copy of them tome), and you feel that they can be used to answer any of the remaining questions adequately,please feel free to skip any question (mark questions skipped with a note like “See literature”).
2. (a). Estimate the number and percent of vehicles (and annual growth of the same) that havecellular telephones. (b). What cellular telephone companies provide service in your area?
Part (a): Market penetration of cellular telephones (please answer if known).Vehicles with cellular telephones: Number ________ Percent ___%Annual growth of vehicles with cellular telephones: Number ________ Percent ___%
Part (b): Cellular telephone companies providing service in your area.Company: ____________________ Phone: _____________Company: ____________________ Phone: _____________Company: ____________________ Phone: _____________
3. Do you have access to any reports summarizing information about your cellular incidentreporting program? Please list title, author, and if published, the journal and date as well. If thereport is not published, please indicate whether your are willing to send the reports to me.
Send? Report 1 Title: ___________________________________________________________ Author, Journal, Date: _________________________________________________Send? Report 2 Title: ___________________________________________________________ Author, Journal, Date: _________________________________________________Send? Report 3 Title: ___________________________________________________________ Author, Journal, Date: _________________________________________________
4. What information does a dispatcher need to know in order to take action in responding to anincident? (Please mark all that apply).___ Incident location ___ Number of vehicles ___ Type of vehicles___ Other (please specify: ______________ ) ___ Other (please specify: _____________)
B-47
5. Which of the following best describes the cellular element of your incident reportingprogram?
Part (a). Design of program (please mark only one):___ The program was not designed specifically for highway incident reporting.___ The program was designed specifically for highway incident reporting.
(IF you marked the first choice in part (a), please fill out parts (b) and (c).)Part (b). Relative volume of incident reports (please mark only one):___ Highway incident reports are a significant portion of the overall volume of calls.___ Highway incident reports are an insignificant portion of the overall volume of calls.Part (c). Adaptation to use for incident reports (please mark only one):___ The program has adapted well to responding to highway incident reports.___ The program needs some improvement in responding to highway incident reports.
(IF you marked the second choice in part (a), please fill out parts (d) and (e).)Part (d). Development of incident reporting program (please mark only one):___ Even before the addition of the cellular telephone element, the overall program for reporting incidents was already highly evolved.___ The overall program for reporting incidents was not very highly evolved before, but theaddition of the cellular telephone element represents a big step forward.___ The overall program for reporting incidents was not very highly evolved before, and theaddition of the cellular telephone element still is not enough.Part (e). Integration with rest of incident reporting program (please mark only one):___ The cellular telephone element is highly integrated with the rest of the program.___ The cellular telephone element is somewhat isolated from the rest of the program.
6. What steps have been taken to educate the public about the cellular telephone element of thehighway incident reporting program?(Please mark all that apply.)___ TV ads ___ Radio ads ___ Newspaper ads___ Billboards ___ Road signs ___ Internet outreach___ Other (please specify: ______________ ) ___ Other (please specify: _____________)
B-48
7. (a). What measures of effectiveness are used to evaluate or justify the existence of the cellulartelephone element of your incident reporting program? (b, c, d). What are the actual annualvalues of these statistics for the most recent years (up to three) for which you have summarizeddata? (e). What are the units of measurement for these statistics?Column (a): Please mark with ‘X’ all that apply.Columns (b-d): For each item marked in column (a), please give appropriate values andunits. Also, please specify the year for which the data apply.Column (e): Please fill in where not pre-specified.Year: ____ ____ ____ (a) (b) © (d) (e)___ ____ ____ ____ # / year No. of cellular incident reports (includes duplicate calls)___ ____ ____ ____ # / year No. of first incident reports made by any method___ ____ ____ ____ # / year No. of first incident reports made by cellular telephone___ ____ ____ ____ % % of all cellular incident reports made by “Good
Samaritans” (includes duplicate calls)___ ____ ____ ____ % % of first cellular incident reports made by “Good Samaritans”___ ____ ____ ____ min. Average time from first incident report to response dispatch
for reports made by any method___ ____ ____ ____ min. Average time from first incident report to response dispatch
for reports made by cellular telephone___ ____ ____ ____ ______ Other (please specify): _______________________________ ____ ____ ____ ______ Other (please specify): ____________________________
8. Please describe below the interagency relationships that are required for the success of yourcellular call-in program; include information on (a). primary agencies and (b). secondaryagencies.Part (a). Primary Agencies (please give the name and role of primary agencies; i.e., thosewith whom you deal on a daily or nearly daily basis, or those who play a unique role notduplicated by any other agency. Examples: State DOT, state highway patrol).Name of Agency Role of Agency_____________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________Part (b). Secondary Agencies (please give the category and approximate number ofagencies in each category for agencies with whom you have dealings on a less frequentbasis, or which are too numerous to list one by one. Examples: Ambulance services,wrecker services, hazardous material cleanup services, local police departments).Category of Agency Approx. # of Agencies in Category_____________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ ____________
B-49
9. Management Issues: Please describe the current and future operation of your cellular call-inprogram. Note that I’ve tried to provide flexibility by allowing a different “future year” to bespecified in each of parts a, b, d, and e, but please use the same year to the extent possible. Suggested future years: 2000, 2005, or 2015 (5, 10, or 20 years in the future).Part (a). Extent of coverage provided by serviceFuture year: _____ Current Future Units
Type of area covered (city, county, etc.) _________ _________ N/AName of city, county, etc.: _________ _________ N/AGeographical size of area: _________ _________ sq. mi.Population of city, county, etc.: _________ _________ #Length of freeway covered: _________ _________ mi.Length of surface streets covered: _________ _________ mi.
Part (b). Peak periods (please answer both questions for each column)Future year: _____ Current Future
Hours of AM peak period (Example: 6-9) _________ _________Hours of PM peak period (Example: 4-6) _________ _________
Part (c). Program hours of operation (please mark with ‘X’ only one of the following forthe “current” column. If you are currently operating the program at less than 24 hours aday, seven days a week, please indicate the target year in which you plan to reach any ofthe other “milestones” on the way to 24 / 7 operation.)
Days per weekCurrent Target year Current/future
During AM peak period only _________ _________ ____ / ____During PM peak period only _________ _________ ____ / ____During both peak periods _________ _________ ____ / ____24 hours a day _________ _________ ____ / ____Other (please specify): _______________ _________ _________ ____ / ____
Part (d). Staffing requirementsFuture year: _____ Number of staff required
Position Description Current Future_____________________________ _________ ______________________________________ _________ ______________________________________ _________ ______________________________________ _________ ______________________________________ _________ _________
Part (e). Funding sourcesFuture year: _____ Percent / amount of funding provided
Funding source description (agency name) Current Future Units_____________________________ _________ _________ %_____________________________ _________ _________ %_____________________________ _________ _________ %_____________________________ _________ _________ %TOTAL BUDGET: _________ _________ $
B-50
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME!
10. (a). How have the actual benefits of adding the cellular telephone element to your incidentreporting program compared with the expected benefits? (b). If expected benefits have beensurpassed, what reasons have been identified for this result? (c). If expected benefits have notbeen realized, what reasons have been identified for this result?
Part (a). Actual versus Expected Benefits:(Please mark only one.)___ Actual benefits have exceeded expected benefits___ Actual benefits have been roughly equivalent to expected benefits___ Actual benefits have fallen short of expected benefits
Part (b). Reasons for Surpassing Expected Benefits:(IF you marked the first choice in part (a), please mark any that apply.)___ Unexpectedly positive motorist response___ Unexpectedly effective combination of incident reporting system elements___ Other (please specify): _________________________________________________________ Other (please specify): ______________________________________________________
Part (c). Reasons for Falling Short of Expected Benefits:(IF you marked the first choice in part (b), please mark any that apply.)___ Excessive duplication of calls (excessive density of cellular telephones)___ Long detection times (insufficient density of cellular telephones)___ Reporting motorists don’t know enough about incident location___ Reporting motorists don’t know enough about number of vehicles involved in incident___ Reporting motorists don’t know enough about type of vehicles involved in incident___ Too many false / unsubstantiated reports___ Other (please specify): _________________________________________________________ Other (please specify): ______________________________________________________
11. Is there anything I should have asked about your program that I didn’t?____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
