1 / 36

AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Summary of 2007 State DOT Security Survey

AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Summary of 2007 State DOT Security Survey Results Final Contractor’s Report August 2007. Study Requested By: AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Study Prepared By: Joe Crossett & Lauren Hines

jalila
Download Presentation

AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Summary of 2007 State DOT Security Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Summary of 2007 State DOT Security Survey Results Final Contractor’s Report August 2007

  2. Study Requested By: AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Study Prepared By: Joe Crossett & Lauren Hines TransTech Management Under Contract NCHRP 20-59 (14) Acknowledgments This study was requested by AASHTO and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-59. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 20-59 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security. The report was prepared by Joe Crossett & Lauren Hines of TransTech Management, Inc. Project 20-59 is guided by a panel that includes David S. Ekern, David P. Albright, John M. Contestabile, Frank Day, Ernest R. "Ron" Frazier, Lee D. Han, Polly L. Hanson, Randell H. "Randy" Iwasaki, Gummada Murthy, Mary Lou Ralls, Ricky D. Smith, Jeff Western, and Mark Wikelius. Liaisons include Steven L. Ernst, Michael Taborn, Valerie Briggs, Robert D. Franz, Paul Golden, Greg Hull, Anthony R. Kane, Jack Legler, Vincent P. Pearce, Matthew D. Rabkin, Kerry Thomas, and Joedy Cambridge. The project was managed by S. A. Parker, CRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

  3. Survey Methodology(Copy of Survey Included at the End of this Document) • 4/26/07: E-mail from SCOTS chair sent to all contacts on AASHTO “security alert list” (covers all 52 AASHTO members) with request to complete online survey on their DOT’s behalf • 5/8/07: SCOTS chair reminded attendees at AASHTO Spring Meeting to complete survey/AASHTO letter sent to CEOs asking for their cooperation • Weeks of May 21/28: Contractor/AASHTO called all DOTs that had not responded to survey • Mid-June: Survey closed

  4. Survey Completion by State State Did Not Complete Survey: 16 (31%) State Completed Survey: 36 (69%) • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Mexico • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Pennsylvania • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • Wisconsin • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Maine • Maryland • Michigan • Minnesota • Missouri • Montana • Alabama • Alaska • District of Columbia • Hawaii • Kentucky • Louisiana • Massachusetts • Mississippi • New Jersey • New York • Oklahoma • Oregon • Puerto Rico • Rhode Island • West Virginia • Wyoming

  5. Effect of Security Responsibilities on Annual State DOT Budgets(Respondents asked to select a cost range that best matches the typical annual increase in their agency’s capital and operating budgets as a result of new security demands.) Number of DOTs responding by category (Note: 35 DOTs responded to this question)

  6. Top All-Hazards Security Priorities for State DOTs(Each respondent asked to list up to three priorities; chart shows frequency with which most commonly referenced categories of priorities were identified by states.) Number of DOTs responding by category Responses Grouped by Category* *Authors developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individualresponses (Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

  7. Top Basic Training Priorities for DOTs(Share of survey respondents that report “basic training still needed” for selected key topic areas.) (86%) (81%) (78%) (67%) (67%) (67%) (56%) (53%) *Topics are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question (Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

  8. Additional Training Needs of DOTs(Each respondent asked to identify any other training needs not included in slide 6; chart shows frequency with which most commonly referenced categories of additional training needs were identified.) Responses Grouped by Category* *Authors developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individualresponses (Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

  9. Technical Assistance Priorities of DOTs(Number of respondents that report they have “a need for more technical assistance” such as guidebooks, federal expertise, web resources, etc. for selected key topic areas.) Number of DOTs responding by category Responses Grouped by Topic* *Topics are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question (Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

  10. Additional Technical Assistance Needs of DOTs(Each respondent asked to identify any other capacity building techniques they would like to see developed.) • Low cost interoperable communications • Collaborative inter-DOT intelligence and information sharing • Library of exercises that support transportation needs and comply with Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Procedures (HSEEP) • DOT equipment needed for response to hazardous rescue environments • State to state evacuations • Development of joint operations with neighboring states • Evacuation modeling  (Note: 8 DOTs responded to this question by identifying additional training needs; above text paraphrases actual responses

  11. Preferred Capacity Building Approaches of DOTs (Number of respondents that report they are “very likely to use” general capacity building mechanisms described below.) Responses Grouped by Approach* *Approaches are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question (Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question, except “print/electronic training materials (35), conferences & peer exchanges (34) web clearing houses (33))

  12. Other Capacity Building Techniques Identified by DOTs(Each respondent was asked to identify any other capacity building techniques they would like to see developed.) • Multi-agency interactive exercises • Multi-state exercises across state borders • Debriefings on major incidents (what went well, lessons learned, etc.) • Top-down departmental orientations • New employee orientations • Train the trainer materials • Minimum training standards (similar to public safety community) • Designated funding • Constructive simulation suite that will support micro, meso and macro testing, modeling and exercise simulation • Transportation sector specific “subject matter experts” available for no-cost consultative services (Note: 10 DOTs responded to this question by identifying previously unidentified capacity building techniques; above text paraphrases actual responses

  13. Risk Management and Vulnerability Guide Emergency Response & Preparedness Guide Value of Key AASHTO Guidance Materials to DOTs(Share of respondents that indicate they find key AASHTO documents either “very useful,” “somewhat useful,” “not useful,” or are “unaware of AASHTO materials.” (Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

  14. Suggestions from DOTs for Improving AASHTO Documents (Each respondent who said resources were “somewhat useful” or “not useful” was asked to identify suggestions (if any) for improving AASHTO documents.) • Information Overload! Help readers absorb information by making more use of concise formats – e.g. short checklist style “Dummies” overviews at the start of each chapter to ease identification of key points, particularly to help DOT field personnel who will not read long, wordy documents • Too Generic! Find ways to customize documents to guide states with differing needs in terms of security demands, legal structures, and political constraints • Not Publicized! Make sure DOTs know AASHTO’s all hazards security guidance documents are available; keep AASHTO’s emergency contact list up to date to get information out to states • Not Practical Enough! Focus documents more on practical “how to” guidance and lessons learned elements and less on “doctrine;” documents should be revised to incorporate National Infrastructure Protection Plan • Not Timely! Materials needed in a more timely manner

  15. Suggestions from DOTs for Best Security Related Resources(Each respondent was asked to identify up to three resources that have been most useful to their agency.) • TRB security website (trb.org/activities/security/transportationsecurity1.asp) • AASHTO security website (http://security.transportation.org/?siteid=65) • Websites for FHWA Operations (http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/), FEMA (www.fema.gov), DHS (www.dhs.gov) & TSA (www.tsa.gov) • DHS National Response Plan  (www.dhs.gov/nrp ) • NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_525v6.pdf) • DHS Homeland Security Digital Library (www.hsdl.org) • DomPrep Journal • Highway Watch Program  (highwaywatch.com) • TSA Suspicious Incident Report/E-mails from AASHTO staff  (Tony Kane) • Homeland Defense Journal • NIMS related information from FEMA • National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) (www.dhs.gov/nipp) • DHS Lessons Learned Information Sharing website (llis.gov)  • FHWA Transportation Security and Emergency Response Professional Capacity Building Initiative • FEMA Training • AASHTO Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection • DHS Automated Critical Asset Management  System

  16. Agencies with agency-wide “all-hazards” emergency management plan: Agencies with public transportation integrated into emergency management plan: DOT Emergency Management Plan Status (Note: 36 DOTs responded to these questions)

  17. Coordinated with NIMS Coordinated with regional plans Coordinated with overall statewide plans Coordinated with local units of government DOT Coordination of Emergency Management Plans (Note: 33 DOTs responded to these questions) (Note: 32 DOTs responded to these questions)

  18. DOT Coordination of Emergency Management Plans (Comparison with 2001, 2003 Surveys)

  19. Selected Security-related Research Published by DOTs(Each respondent was asked to identify any relevant research their state DOT has produced.) • Arizona DOT - Vulnerability Assessment Final Report • Arizona DOT - Evacuation of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area • Connecticut DOT - Homeland Security Contact List • Connecticut DOT - Homeland Security Resource Document • Connecticut DOT - Agency Response Plan to CT. Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security • Delaware DOT - Transportation Security Plan  • Illinois DOT - Vulnerability Assessment Plan • Illinois DOT - Response Handbook for Incidents, Disasters & Emergencies (RHIDE) • Minnesota DOT - Evacuation Modeling Tool (Underway) • Pennsylvania DOT -Recommendations for PennDOT to Address Transportation Security, • Virginia Tech - Critical Infrastructure Modeling and Assessment Program (CIMAP) • Washington State DOT - Prioritization of Transportation Security Projects (Underway) • Washington State DOT - Quantitative Security Risk and Allocation Model: (Underway) 

  20. Additional Security-Related Research Needs Identified by DOTs(Each respondent was asked to suggest research needs; needs listed verbatim by category.) Traffic & Evacuation Planning (7 Needs Suggested) • Realistic evacuation modeling for non-hurricane events  • Evacuation planning for expressways  • Excavation routes  • Stop movement  • Traffic modeling  • More on evacuation planning  • Effects and effectiveness of contra flow during no-warning catastrophic events Multi-State Coordination (4 Needs Suggested) • Capabilities-based planning on a regional level (multi-state)  • Joint operations with neighboring states for the coordination of all hazard responses and movement of civilians and first responders • Communications between states for transportation security  • Dedicated intelligence and information sharing network

  21. Additional Security-Related Research Needs Identified by DOTs (Cont.) Infrastructure Security (5 Needs Suggested) • DOT headquarters security requirements  • Ground infrastructure protection • Integrating transportation security into transportation capital and operating programs  • Highway infrastructure “airspace” security • Threat deterrence     Port/Freight Security (3 Needs Suggested) • Cargo inspection systems • Port security  • Inland waterways and port security  Communications (2 Needs Suggested) • Low cost interoperable communications  • Intra Agency Communication

  22. Additional Security-Related Research Needs Identified by DOTs (Cont.) Risk Assessment (2 Needs Suggested) • Interdependencies, Cascading Effects, Single Points of Failure supporting a common vulnerability analysis methodology   • Risk/Vulnerability Assessment  Other • Border security   • Regional command and control exercise capabilities • Using transportation assets for major disaster response, search and rescue, & hazardous environment operations  • aerosol dispersion modeling  • ID of potential terrorist events  • Awareness education for general public in event of an incident • SAFETEA-LU security review requirements. 

  23. Use of AASHTO/TRB Websites by DOTs AASHTO Website Have you used AASHTO’s site? How useful is AASHTO’s site? TRB Website Have you used TRB’s site? How useful is TRB’s site? (Note: 34 DOTs responded to the TRB question & 35 DOTs responded to the AASHTO question)

  24. TRB & AASHTO Website Use (Comparison with 2001, 2003 Surveys)

  25. Percent of DOT Costs for Security Reimbursed by the Federal Government(Each respondent asked to indicate the share of security costs reimbursed by the Federal Government) (Note: 34 DOTs responded to this question)

  26. Background -Survey Text 2007 AASHTO/TRB Transportation & Homeland Security Survey Introduction Thank you for agreeing to participate in the 2007 AASHTO/TRB-sponsored 26-question survey on homeland security needs. Tips for completing the survey: Response deadline is May 9, 2007. IMPORTANT! AASHTO used its "security alert" list, which may include two or three personnel at a state, to spread word about the survey. We are relying on you to ensure only ONE survey response comes from your agency. Look at the list attached with the AASHTO survey e-mail and make sure you coordinate with any other listed staff from your agency to ensure only one person gives responses for your state. No survey answers are submitted from your browser until you click the “DONE” button after question 26. As long as you do not click the “DONE” button, you may close your browser window or click on “exit survey” at the top right of each screen and return to your partially completed survey at a later time. If you have any questions about the survey, please call our consultant, Joe Crossett, who is administering the survey on our behalf. His phone number is (412) 441-1820.

  27. Survey Questions 1. Identify the name and state of the person primarily responsible for completing this survey: Name: State: 2. In brief, what are your agency's top three highway-related homeland security priorities: 1. 2. 3.

  28. 3. Assess the extent to which you think relevant staff at your agency have received a satisfactory amount and quality of training in the following areas by choosing:

  29. 4. Are any other training areas very important to your agency? Please list up to three and indicate if these needs have been met: 1. 2. 3.

  30. 5. Professional capacity on a particular security topic can be developed using different approaches. Please indicate the likelihood that your agency would use each of the following types of resources, if offered at little or no cost: 6. What other capacity building techniques would also be useful to your agency (please list up to three)?

  31. 7. Assess the extent to which you think your agency has access to a satisfactory amount and quality of technical assistance (including guidebooks, Federal expertise, web resources, etc.) in the following areas:

  32. 8. List up to three types of technical assistance not mentioned in Q.7. that you think would also be useful to your agency? (Enter "Don't know" on the first line if you are unsure about assistance needs, a blank response will be interpreted to mean your state does not seek additional types of technical assistance.) 1. 2. 3. 9. Have you found AASHTO's guidance materials on risk management and vulnerability assessment to be useful? Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful Unaware of AASHTO materials 10. If, in response to Q. 9, you found AASHTO's guidance materials on risk management and vulnerability assessment to be "somewhat useful" or "not useful", briefly explain why/how they could be made more useful. 11. Have you found AASHTO's guidance materials on emergency response and preparedness issues to be useful? Very useful Somewhat useful Not useful Unaware of AASHTO materials 12. If, in response to Q.11, you found AASHTO’s guidance materials on emergency response and preparedness issues to be “somewhat useful” or “not useful,” briefly explain how they could be made more useful.

  33. 13. Name up to three specific security related resources (e.g. specific documents or websites) that you have found to be most useful to your agency: • 1. • 2. • 3. • 14. Does your agency have an agency-wide, “all hazards” emergency management plan in place? • Yes • Underway • No • Don’t Know • 15. Is public transportation integrated into your agency’s emergency management plan? • Yes • No • 16. Is your agency’s emergency management plan coordinated with: • National Incident Management System (NIMS) plans • Overall statewide plans • Regional plans • Local units of government

  34. 17. Provide title and accessibility information for any published research studies and policy reports concerning transportation security produced by your agency during the past five years. (Enter Don't know on the first line if you are unsure about any research completed, a blank response will be interpreted to mean your state has not conducted any relevant research in this area.) 18. List up to three significant general categories of transportation security issues you think need further research among the states? (Enter "Don't know" on the first line if you are unsure about any research completed, a blank response will be interpreted to mean your state has not conducted any relevant research in this area.)

  35. 19. Have you used the TRB Transportation Systems Security website? (website: www4.trb.org/trb/homepage.nsf/web/security) • Yes • No • 20. How useful was the TRB website? • Very useful • Somewhat useful • Not useful • Never viewed TRB website • 21. Do you have any suggestions on how the TRB's webpage could be improved? • 22. Have you used the AASHTO Security website? (website: http://security.transportation.org) • Yes • No • 23. If yes, how useful was it? • Very useful • Somewhat useful • Not useful • Never viewed AASHTO website • 24. Do you have any suggestions on how this webpage could be improved?

  36. 25. How significantly have homeland security responsibilities added in the last five years affected your agency's annual budget (capital and operating costs)? Added more than $50 million Added $10 million to $50 million Added $1 million to $10 million Added $100,000 to $1 million Added less than $100,000 Don't know 26. If costs for security have been added, roughly what percentage has been reimbursed by the federal government? 0% 1-25% 26-50% More than 50% Don't know

More Related