Transcript Final Survey Results - American Association of State

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
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.
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
2
Survey Completion by State
State Completed Survey: 36 (69%)











Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana








Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana

















Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
State Did Not Complete Survey: 16 (31%)
















Alabama
Alaska
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Wyoming
3
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
4
2
0
10
8
6
12
Added more than $50M 0
2
Added $10M - $50M
9
Added $1M - $10M
11
Added $100,000-$1M
7
Added less than $100,000
6
Don't know
Skipped
1
(Note: 35 DOTs responded to this question)
4
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*
0
5
Securing Transportation Infrastructure
(Particularly Bridges)
All Hazards Emergency Prevention,
Preparation, Mitigation, response, and
Recovery
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
35
14
Employee Training & Awareness
13
8
Evacuation Planning
Communications & Information Exchange
4
Continuity of Operations
4
Other
19
*Authors developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individual responses
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)
5
Top Basic Training Priorities for DOTs
(Share of survey respondents that report
“basic training still needed” for selected key topic areas.)
0%
20%
40%
Integrating homeland security
considerations in the planning process
(86%)
(81%)
Infrastructure design for homeland security
Detecting, deterring, & mitigating
homeland security threats
All hazards planning for end-to-end
evacuation
All hazards interagency communication &
coordination for emergency preparedness
Assessing transportation network
homeland security vulnerabilities (risk
Emergency transportation operations
All hazards emergency preparedness &
response including emergency
General homeland security awareness
60%
80%
100%
86%
81%
(78%)
78%
(67%)
67%
(67%)
67%
(67%)
67%
(56%)
56%
(53%)
53%
47%
*Topics are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)
6
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.)
5
0
Responses Grouped by Category*
NIMS, ICS & Emergency
Preparedness
15
20
25
30
24
6
Situational Awareness
Continuity of Operations
4
Vulnerability Assessment, Risk
Management, & Counter Measures
4
Hazardous Materials
10
2
Other
10
*Authors developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individual responses
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)
7
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.)
Responses Grouped by Topic*
0
Number of DOTs responding by category
5
10
Integrating homeland security considerations in the
planning process
20
25
22
21
Infrastructure design for homeland security
Assessing transportation network homeland security
vulnerabilities (risk assessment)
20
Detecting, deterring, & mitigating homeland security
threats
All hazards interagency communication &
coordination for emergency preparedness &
response
All hazards emergency preparedness & response
including emergency transportation operations
11
All hazards planning for end-to-end evacuation
11
General homeland security awareness
15
19
16
6
*Topics are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)
8
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
9
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*
0
5
10
20
25
30
24
Exercises & workshops
22
Printed/electronic training materials
Conferences & peer exchanges
16
Web-based information clearinghouse
15
Web-based seminars
15
11
*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))
10
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 nocost consultative services
(Note: 10 DOTs responded to this question by identifying previously unidentified capacity
building techniques; above text paraphrases actual responses
11
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.”
Risk Management and
Vulnerability Guide
Unaware of
AASHTO
Materials
8%
Somewhat
Useful
42%
Emergency Response &
Preparedness Guide
Unaware of
AASHTO
Materials
11%
Very Useful
50%
Somewhat
Useful
33%
Very Useful
56%
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)
12
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
13
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
14
DOT Emergency Management Plan Status
Agencies with agency-wide “all-hazards”
emergency management plan:
No
9%
Don't know
0%
Agencies with public transportation
integrated into emergency
management plan:
Don't know
6%
Underway
29%
No
48%
Yes
62%
Yes
46%
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to these questions)
15
DOT Coordination of Emergency
Management Plans
 Coordinated with NIMS
No
6%
 Coordinated with overall
2
statewide plans
6%
Yes
94%
(Note: 33 DOTs
responded to
these questions)
Yes
94%
 Coordinated with regional plans  Coordinated with local units of
government
No
31%
No
34%
Yes
66%
(Note: 32 DOTs
responded to
these questions)
Yes
69%
16
DOT Coordination of Emergency
Management Plans (Comparison with 2001,
2003 Surveys)
2001
Survey
2003
Survey
2007
Survey
Coordinated with
statewide plans
100%
96%
94%
Coordinated with
regional plans
84%
74%
66%
Coordinated with
local units of
government
85%
77%
69%
17
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)
18
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
19
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
20
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.
21
Use of AASHTO/TRB Websites by DOTs
AASHTO Website
TRB Website
Have you used TRB’s site?
Have you used AASHTO’s site?
No
29%
Yes
54%
No
46%
Yes
71%
How useful is TRB’s site?
Not
Useful
5%
Very
Useful
48%
Somewhat
Useful
47%
How useful is AASHTO’s site?
Somewhat
Useful
68%
Very
Useful
32%
`
(Note: 34 DOTs responded to the TRB question & 35 DOTs responded to the AASHTO question)
22
TRB & AASHTO Website Use
(Comparison with 2001, 2003 Surveys)
2001
Survey
47%
2003
Survey
65%
2007
Survey
54%
Found TRB site
somewhat or
very helpful
86%
88%
95%
Visited AASHTO
website
No question 65%
asked
No question 97%
asked
71%
Visited TRB
website
Found AASHTO
site somewhat or
very helpful
100%
23
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)
Don't Know 12 DOTs
(34%)
0% Costs
Reimbursed 8 DOTs (24%)
1-25% Costs
Reimbursed 5 DOTs (14%)
More than 50%
Costs
Reimbursed 7 DOTs (20%)
26-50% Costs
Reimbursed 2 DOTs (6%)
(Note: 34 DOTs responded to this question)
24
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.
25
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.
26
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:
Basic Training
Needs Have Been
Met
Refresher and/or
Advanced Training
Needed
More
Training
Needed
Don’t
Know
General homeland security awareness
Detecting, deterring, & mitigating homeland security
threats
Infrastructure design for homeland security
All hazards emergency preparedness & response
including emergency transportation operations
Emergency transportation operations
Integrating homeland security considerations in the
planning process
All hazards planning for end-to-end evacuation
All hazards interagency communication & coordination
for emergency preparedness & response
Assessing transportation network homeland security
vulnerabilities (risk assessment)
27
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.
28
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:
Very Likely to Use
Somewhat Likely to
Use
Unlikely to Use
Don’t Know
Print/electronic training materials
Conferences & peer exchanges
Exercises & workshops
Web-based seminars
Web-based information
clearinghouse
6. What other capacity building techniques would also be useful to your agency (please list up to
three)?
29
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:
Technical
Assistance Needs
Met
More Technical
Assistance Needed
Don’t Know
General homeland security awareness
Detecting, deterring, & mitigating homeland security threats
Infrastructure design for homeland security
All hazards emergency preparedness & response including
emergency transportation operations
Integrating homeland security considerations in the planning
process
All hazards planning for end-to-end evacuation
All hazards interagency communication & coordination for
emergency preparedness & response
Assessing transportation network homeland security
vulnerabilities (risk assessment)
30
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.
31
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
32
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.)
33
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?
34
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
35