Highways Agency

• Traffic Incident Management Bulletin

May 2008

The Highways Agency network is sub-divided into Regions and Areas for the purpose of operations and therefore incident management. Incidents do not recognise these boundaries so cross-border working is an important skill in incident management. This article follows comments from previous articles and also actions on the Traffic Operations Actions Spreadsheets (TOAS). It will highlight the key stages to managing cross-border incidents and then looks at some examples from across England.

The Incident Management Lifecycle

Cross-border working is not simply an activity to be undertaken during an incident. In the August 2007 Bulletin we introduced the incident life cycle. Cross-border working is good practice at each stage within the lifecycle.

Incident Management Life Cycle

Work should start with identifying the risks and who is responsible for what. Simply ensuring the exact boundary is agreed and understood is an obvious but critical first step.

At the incident planning stage the interface is further developed. Both operational and contingency plans should have agreed, documented contact points and processes for managing cross-border incidents. This may include pre-agreed mutual aid arrangements. In its simplest form just meeting colleagues from the other side of the border will make working together easier when under pressure.

Once everything is in place the plans and arrangements need to be tested in preparation for use at a real incident. After an incident occurs it is important to consider jointly debriefing to ensure that any lessons learned are identified and shared. Of course all this should go onto the TOAS spreadsheet so that the Bulletin can disseminate their learning and experiences wider.

Cross-border preparations in the North

For many years Areas 10 and 12 have been liaising closely regarding one of their highest risk interfaces. The M62 at junction 22 forms part of a trans-european haulage route and is also the highest motorway in England. To complicate matters it also forms the boundary between the Police, Traffic Officers, Local Authorities and Service Providers.

Given the risk of severe weather the Service Providers have had plans in place to manage snow events on the Pennines. A specific contingency plan was written and agreed by the Service Providers and the Police to ensure that everyone was aware of the process. Work is ongoing to merge this with work done by the Traffic Officer Service. The plans include which junctions to close and how to keep carriageways clear of snow if one direction is completely closed by an incident.

Exercises in the West Midlands

Last winter’s severe weather exercises involved Service Providers working cross-border. One such example was delivered in the West Midlands including Areas 9 and 11. This promotes closer working relationships, tests mutual aid protocols and reinforces communication routes. Similar cross-border exercises were carried out elsewhere across the Highways Agency network.

Incident Management on the A66

Last month's Bulletin featured an article on a severe weather event on the A66. The article highlighted the efforts required to manage an incident of this type but did not focus on the cross-border element of it.

The A66 is maintained by both Area 13 (AmeyMouchel) in the west and Area 14 (AOne) in the east. This requires collaborative working and regular use of pre-agreed plans. The A66 snow event required Area 13 resources to support those in Area 14 to clear the road. Communication is critical and it is clear that regular contact between the two Service Providers provided a joined up response to a difficult situation. The incident involved a gold command, two Police forces, two Regional Control Centres (RCCs) and the two Service Providers (including the Highways Agency's Area Performance Teams) highlighting the importance of pre-planning and good communication.

Heavy Snowfall on the A66

Debriefing in the South

Area 3 has had several incidents involving multiple RCCs and Police forces. Two of these were identified from the TOAS spreadsheet as having been debriefed and therefore identified lessons learned.

The first incident was in 2006 where an overturned large goods vehicle required the closure of the M4. The main issues highlighted were:

• The additional Police / RCCs involved complicated the management of the incident,
• Determining who makes the decision to reopen the carriageway,
• The Incident Support Units arrived promptly and worked well with the Traffic Officers.

The other example was in 2007 involving the total closure of the M27. This incident was debriefed and the key learning points were:

• As above, the additional Police / RCCs involved complicated the management of the incident,
• There was no system in place to ensure all RCCs, Police Forces etc were regularly updated.

Finally

It is clear that at all stages communication is critical. Cross-border incidents result in more interested stakeholders which in turn requires more communication and management. By setting up relationships and protocols in advance of the incident, communication should become easier.

Has this article been worthwhile reading? Why not take a moment to send us your comments, thoughts or questions. Please e-mail TIMbulletin@highways.gsi.gov.uk.