-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Traffic Incident Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting, 2 23 2023
ashleyauer edited this page Mar 10, 2023
·
1 revision
Subject: Transportation Incident Management Data Exchange (TIMDx) Stakeholder Kickoff Meeting
Date and Time: February 23, 2023, 1:00pm-2:00pm EDT
Location: Virtual (Zoom)
The slides from this meeting are available here.
The recording of this meeting is available here.
- Welcome and meeting goals
- FHWA project update
- Connected Work Zone Standardization update
- Review of preliminary research findings
- Participant feedback and discussion
- Conclusion and next steps
- This is the first public meeting of the USDOT’s new project: Transportation Incident Management Data Exchange (TIMDx). This effort will build off the open specification development process used for the Work Zone Data Exchange (WZDx) but focus on incident management and response.
- FHWA and ITS JPO are conscientious of how data exchanges and standards affect the broader ecosystem of data and information, as well as the evolution of the next generation transportation system. USDOT is thinking in terms of a national digital infrastructure that drives and affects transportation.
- The data specifications will be a framework for managing disruptions across the board.
- We are looking to expand what we learned from the WZDx into the areas of traffic incidents and emergency management, as well as responding to road weather events.
- There are a lot of parallel, but there are also a fair number of differences in how we generate information describing those events in a specification.
- The key focus of our project is figuring out the framework of all the associated business processes through which this data is created and fed into agency systems, as well as how that is then sent back to stakeholders. We are looking at a concept of operations for the broader managing of disruptions for traffic operations.
- Poll on demographics results:
- Half state and local agencies; contractor or software developer was next highest category
- Most attendees had participated in WZDWG activities, although there were new participants across almost all stakeholder types.
- Connected work zone standardization
- WZDx’s work zone feed and device feed are complete as of v4.2
- The consortium will develop a standard based on WZDx. Murat invited stakeholders to participate.
- Managing Disruptions – this will be a series of closely interconnected data exchanges.
- Traffic Incident Management (TIM) is the first priority.
- Emergency response is the next priority and will be closely connected to TIM.
- Other priorities in the pipeline:
- Weather-related traffic management
- Special events
- Evacuation management
- USDOT is seeking input on this prioritization, combinations, and concurrent development of specifications (understanding the dependencies).
- Process overview – modeled on WZDx
- ITS JPO and FHWA did a lot of research to see where there was a need in this area, and some of the challenges that they described that are posed by TIM data include topics such as real-time updates, the accuracy of crowdsourced data, being able to validate any data received, the need to reach beyond TMCs for comprehensive data sets, and the communication between stakeholders.
- Along with internal research, USDOT also spoke to external stakeholders, and has heard that there are similarities between TIM data and what we collected for WZDx.
- There is a similarity between the data producers and users, as well as the use case and required data elements.
- Potential challenges include the unplanned nature of a TIM event, many of these incidents have bidirectional impacts, and some may have the same start and end locations. There is a possibility of receiving many generation points and a need to pinpoint which is the most accurate for that event, and the need for instant clearance data – not just when the incident starts, but when the instant cleared and the roadway can be reopened.
- Polls:
- What are your main sources of TIM data? (Select up to 3). Results summary:
- ATMS is largest data source (60%)
- State traffic crash reports (46%)
- Computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems or similar systems (36%)
- Local TMCs (34%)
- Probe data (31%)
- Crowdsource data from navigation applications (30%)
- Medical or fire emergency responder (19%)
- Social media (19%)
- Safety system patrol logs (16%)
- Automatic vehicle location (12%)
- Does your organization currently share TIM data? Yes or no.
- Yes (76%)
- No (24%)
- As expected, almost all State/Local DOT attendees shared TIM data, but TIM data sharing was less common among stakeholders who identified as Contractor/Software Developers and Data Broker/Aggregators.
- What are your organization’s primary challenges with sharing TIM data? (Select up to 3)
- Data accuracy or completeness issues (55%)
- Lack of integration/consistency among multiple systems (49%)
- Timeliness of available data (i.e., lack of real-time data) (38%)
- Common/standard format for reporting data elements (35%)
- Multiple data sources without unique identifier (28%)
- Data privacy or proprietary system limitations (22%)
- Lack of buy-in or required skills (15%)
- Other (6%)
- Other comments from the chat:
- Includes collecting data that needs to be corrected manually (location, incident description, etc.). Integration with multiples can mean prioritizing or "trusting" one more than the other.
- Geolocation of incidents can be a challenge
- Everyone wants it in their own proprietary format or a format that no one else uses.
- Sources and structures are not an issue for RIITS because it is a technical issue. The main issue is it creates a very complex organizational structure that is hard to find the personnel time to explain and consolidate into a central system.
- There has been interest from agencies to create a TIM feed, but it has not been funded/prioritized
- Use cases: What is the primary viable use case or benefit of exchanging TIM data using a common specification for your organization? (Single choice)
- Providing accurate and real-time information to travelers (e.g., rerouting and detours (35%)
- Improve safety impacts of traffic incidents (e.g., secondary crash or responder struck-by) (30%)
- Improving incident response planning, resource management, and coordination activities (23%)
- Enabling integration of automated vehicles on roadways (6%)
- Improving navigation and HD mapping information (5%)
- Other (0%)
- Final thoughts – write in: What is preventing your organization from achieving its TIM data sharing/using objectives? Did we miss anything?
- Russell Holt (RIDOT)- What is the level of standardization from the Federal level that should go into this? As a smaller DOT less experienced with data, my preference would be for it to be heavy on the federal. We would appreciate that, however, other states who are more advanced might have different opinions because they have done things their own way and have their own legal battles, political considerations, - that's part of the challenge right? Every DOT is different. I just hope we get there with standardization because it comes down to that with data sharing.
- The level of federalization of standardization that goes into developing specifications will have to be planned and considered. This will also apply to the long-term stewardship of not only the specifications but also the associated infrastructure for sharing and disseminating the data. This will all have to be planned in the next stages of this effort. Obviously, USDOT wants that to be stakeholder-driven as well because the implications are far-ranging.
- Eli Sherer (GEWI)- In some ways, it is less about finding a unique standard, but instead whether any agencies already have a standard. How many of the agencies on here do not have any standard that they are using? Maybe a free text or a file that you ship off to somebody that is handwritten with your own abbreviations, because the character limits, etc. For example, one of the tumultuous questions from the WZDx meetings was about the different terms for the center-to-turn lane (when the road has two lanes and a lane in the middle that can go in either direction, depending on which way you are going). There was this huge question about different terminology, which can all be boiled down to coding. How many agencies have avoided using standards up to this point, because you do not think that a standard fits your own needs?
- Russell Holt (RIDOT)- What is the level of standardization from the Federal level that should go into this? As a smaller DOT less experienced with data, my preference would be for it to be heavy on the federal. We would appreciate that, however, other states who are more advanced might have different opinions because they have done things their own way and have their own legal battles, political considerations, - that's part of the challenge right? Every DOT is different. I just hope we get there with standardization because it comes down to that with data sharing.
- What are your main sources of TIM data? (Select up to 3). Results summary:
| Who is in the audience today? | % |
|---|---|
| State / Local DOT | 59% |
| Contractor and/or Software Developer | 25% |
| Other | 14% |
| U.S. DOT | 7% |
| Data Broker/Aggregator | 4% |
| Mapping and Navigation Provider | 4% |
| Did you or your organization participate in WZDWG activities? | No | Yes | Blank | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapping and Navigation Provider | - | 3 | 1 | 4 |
| State/Local DOT | 9 | 46 | 4 | 59 |
| Contractor and/or Software Developer | 3 | 22 | - | 25 |
| Other | 3 | 11 | - | 14 |
| U.S. DOT 1 | 6 | - | 7 | |
| Data Broker/Aggregator | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Total | 17 | 90 | 6 | 113 |
| Does your organization currently share TIM data? | No | Yes | Blank | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mapping and Navigation Provider | 1 | - | - | 1 |
| State/Local DOT | 2 | 35 | 1 | 38 |
| Contractor and/or Software Developer | 5 | 6 | 1 | 12 |
| Other | 5 | 2 | - | 7 |
| Not Stated | 3 | 10 | 1 | 14 |
| Data Broker/Aggregator | 1 | 1 | - | 2 |
| Total | 17 | 54 | 3 | 74 |
| What is the primary viable use case or benefit of exchanging TIM data using a common specification for your organization? (Single choice) | Enabling integration of automated vehicles on roadways | Improve safety impacts of traffic incidents (e.g., secondary crash or responder struck-by) | Improving incident response planning, resource management, and coordination activities | Improving navigation and HD mapping information | Providing accurate and real-time information to travelers (e.g., rerouting and detours) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State/Local DOT | 2 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 22 | 44 |
| Not Stated | 3 | 9 | 9 | - | 4 | 25 |
| Contractor and/or Software Developer | 1 | 5 | 5 | - | 6 | 17 |
| Other | - | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| Data Broker /Aggregator | - | - | - | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Mapping and Navigation Provider | - | - | 1 | 1 | ||
| Total | 6 | 29 | 22 | 5 | 34 | 96 |
| Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kelley Pecheux | AEM Corp |
| Anissa Gerard | AZDOT |
| Patrick Brown | Blyncsy |
| Mark Pittman | Blyncsy |
| Jennifer Cantwell | Blyncsy |
| Mahsa Ettefagh | Booz Allen Hamilton |
| Josh Garties | Booz Allen Hamilton |
| Ashley Auer | Booz Allen Hamilton |
| Brenda Boyce | Booz Allen Hamilton |
| Daniel Leong | CA DOT |
| Kristin Virshbo | Castle Rock ITS |
| Anna W McAuley | Center for Transportation Research |
| Tracy Linder | City of Austin |
| Brandon Patocka | City of Omaha |
| Sean Qian | CMU |
| David Reeves | Colorado DOT |
| Benjamin Acimovic | Colorado DOT |
| Heather Pickering-Hilgers | Colorado DOT |
| Mara Strother | Colorado DOT |
| Manjari Bhat | Colorado DOT |
| Manny Insignares | ConSysTec |
| Doug Benison | ConSysTec |
| Viban Gonzales | ConSysTec |
| Marty McKinney | Cranberry Township |
| Fausto Rodriguez | CT DOT |
| Marian Thompson | CTCOG |
| Sina Darban Khales | DC PSI |
| Paul Dreher | Denver DOT |
| Alan Clelland | DKS |
| Nick Hegemier | DriveOhio |
| JoAnna Hand | FDOT |
| Michael Kerpen | FDOT |
| Jayanthi Rao | Ford |
| Eli Sherer | GEWI |
| Curtis Hay | GM |
| Eric Kolb | |
| Richard Bukowski | |
| Philip Ashlock | GSA |
| Lillian Richter | GWU |
| Cory James Hohs | HAAS Alert |
| Jeremy Agulnek | HAAS Alert |
| Weimin Huang | HERE |
| Jingwei Xu | HERE |
| Ivo Kushkiev | Hill and Smith |
| William Twaite | Hillsborough County |
| Brian Gentry | Hillsborough County |
| Jacob Brady | IBI |
| Michelle Boucher | IBI |
| Rachel Ostroff | ICF |
| Lina Abounassif | ICF |
| Adam Kovar | iCone |
| Peter Stresino | Illinois DOT |
| Juan Pava | Illinois DOT |
| Kathy Borgmann | Indiana DOT |
| Jim Williams | INRIX |
| Ted Sadler | integral-blue |
| Jim Armstrong | Iowa DOT |
| Sinclair Stolle | Iowa DOT |
| Tim Simodynes | Iowa DOT |
| Willy Sorenson | Iowa DOT |
| Skylar Knickerbocker | Iowa State University |
| Siva Narla | ITE |
| Brandon Saylor | KYTC |
| Will Holmes | KYTC |
| Chris Lambert | KYTC |
| Jerame Brown | KYTC |
| Linh Trinh | LA Metro |
| Will Martin | Leidos |
| Andrew Vernon | Lindsay |
| Laura Huizinga | Lindsay |
| Rashad Rice | Maryland DOT |
| Neil Boudreau | MassDOT |
| David Lucas | MCDOT |
| April Wire | MCDOT |
| Alexander Lemka | MCDOT |
| Hasina Luna | MCDOT |
| Dawn Miller | MDOT |
| Kali Fogel | METRO |
| Elise Feldpausch | Michigan DOT |
| Christopher Poe | Mixon Hill |
| Xiaoxiao Zhang | Mixon Hill |
| Adam Wellner | MnDOT |
| Cory Johnson | MnDOT |
| Tony Kasella | MnDOT |
| Daniel Oesch | MODOT |
| Daniel Smith | MODOT |
| Matt Ulberg | MT LTAP |
| Vinod Chandran | Navjoy Inc. |
| Ethan Alexander | Navjoy Inc. |
| Kelly Wells | NC DOT |
| Jon Gutman | NCT9-1-1 |
| Natalie Bettger | NCTCOG |
| Thomas Bamonte | NCTCOG |
| Camille Fountain | NCTCOG |
| Tony English | Neaera |
| Tim Fiato | New York State DOT |
| Ed Mark | New York State DOT |
| David Fosbroke | NIOSH |
| Roy Goudy | Nissan |
| Justin Anderson | Noblis |
| Navin Nageli | NueGOV |
| Stephanie Marik | Ohio DOT |
| William Welch | Ohio DOT |
| Michael Schnuerle | OMF |
| Adam Graham | one.network |
| Joseph Kuenzi | Oregon DOT |
| Chad Mann | Oregon DOT |
| Todd Leiss | Pa Turnpike |
| Mike Pack | Pa Turnpike |
| Tim Adams | Panasonic |
| Gunnar Rhone | PennDOT |
| David Gaffney | PennDOT |
| Russell Holt | RIDOT |
| Michael Malone | ROADSAFE |
| John Copple | Sanborn Maps |
| Christina Bennett | SD DOT |
| Darryl Keeton | Sensagrate |
| Alex Demisch | SFMTA |
| Tim Jackson | StreetSmartRentals |
| Nick Boltralik | SWRI |
| Lynne Randolph | SWRI |
| Jason Quicksall | Tennessee DOT |
| Angela Fessler | Tome Software |
| Zorica Cvijovic | Trihydro |
| Shane Zumpf | Trihydro |
| Darran Anderson | TX DOT |
| Jianming Ma | TX DOT |
| Chuck Felice | UDOT |
| Blaine Leonard | UDOT |
| Yaw Adu-Gyamfi | University of Missouri |
| Yang Cheng | University of Wisconsin |
| Steven Parker | University of Wisconsin |
| Curtis Deborah | USDOT - FHWA |
| King Jeffrey | USDOT - FHWA |
| Todd Peterson | USDOT - FHWA |
| Taylor Rich | USDOT - FHWA |
| Jodoin Paul | USDOT - FHWA |
| Corbin John | USDOT - FHWA |
| Hartman Kate | USDOT - FHWA |
| Jon Obenberger | USDOT - FHWA |
| David Johnson | USDOT - FHWA |
| David Gaffney | USDOT - FHWA |
| Jeff Loftus | USDOT - FMCSA |
| Mike Lukuc | USDOT - FMCSA |
| Murat Omay | USDOT - ITS JPO |
| Molly Behan | USDOT - Volpe |
| Mark Mockett | USDOT - Volpe |
| Nate Deshmukh Towery | USDOT - Volpe |
| Sophie Abo | USDOT - Volpe |
| Eric Englin | USDOT - Volpe |
| Taylor Long | USDOT - Volpe |
| Silvy Sirajum Munira | UT Austin |
| Todd Foster | VerMac |
| Ken Earnest | Virginia DOT |
| Kevin MacVittie | vmarkings |
| Lisa Spellman | VRU Safety Consortium |
| Tim Paulino | Wanco |
| Dagan Packman | Wanco |
| Brielle | Waymo |
| Acey Roberts | WG INC |
| Mike Jungbluth | WI DOT |
| Qassim Abdullah | Woolpert |
| Donald Shupp | WP Signal |
| Justin Belk | WSDOT |
| Tom Stidham | WSDOT |
| Kelvin Daratha | WSDOT |
| Vince Fairhurst | WSDOT |
| Steve Haapala | WSDOT |
| M. Gibbs | Unknown |
| Julie Nixon | Unknown |
| Dyllon Jennings | Unknown |
| D. Lorenz | Unknown |
| Ed ODonnell | Unknown |
| Larry Lyons | Unknown |
| Susan Olson | Unknown |
| Brian Moen | Unknown |
| A. Lewis | Unknown |