Incorporating Security into the Transportation Planning Process (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2005 www.TRB.org NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 525 Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration SUBJECT AREAS Planning and Administration • Safety and Human Performance • Public Transit • Security Surface Transportation Security Volume 3 Incorporating Security into the Transportation Planning Process DANIEL L. DORNAN AECOM CONSULT, INC. Fairfax, VA AND M. PATRICIA MAIER MAIER CONSULTING, INC. Barboursville, VA

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Note: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 525: Volume 3 Project 8-36(34) ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 0-309-08803-8 Library of Congress Control Number 2004111186 © 2005 Transportation Research Board Price $20.00 NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 525 VOLUME 3 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP RONALD D. MCCREADY, Senior Program Officer EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications KAMI CABRAL, Editor NEALE BAXTER, Contributing Editor NCHRP PROJECT 8-36(34) Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Forecasting MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology (Chair) DAVID H. CLAWSON, AASHTO KIMBERLY FISHER, Transportation Research Board RANDY K. HALVORSON, Minnesota DOT TERRY W. HEIDNER, Kansas DOT TIMOTHY HILL, Ohio DOT CHARLES E. HOWARD, JR., Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, WA CALVIN LEGGETT, North Carolina DOT KENNETH J. LEONARD, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Madison, WI YSELA LLORT, Florida DOT MARTIN W. LORING, Oregon DOT MICHAEL R. MORRIS, North Central Texas Council of Governments ROBERT RITTER, FHWA MARY LYNN TISCHER, Commonwealth of Virginia AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Proj- ect 8-36(34) by AECOM Consult, Inc., in association with Maier Consulting, Inc. AECOM Consult was the contractor for this study. The work undertaken by Maier Consulting, Inc., was under a sub- contract with AECOM Consult, Inc. Daniel L. Dornan, P.E., Vice President with AECOM Consult, Inc., was the principal investigator for this study. The other author of this report is M. Patricia Maier, President of Maier Consulting, Inc. The work was done under the supervision of Daniel L. Dornan, who served as project manager for this study.

This report contains the results of research into the status of state and metropolitan transportation planning processes and the extent to which security issues and strategies are reflected in long-range plans and priority programs. The study focused on consid- eration of security in the transportation planning processes of state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). It included a comprehensive review of recent literature and a review of transportation improvement programs of 10 major metropolitan areas and more detailed case examinations in four areas. The research found limited evidence that security has yet been given major pri- ority in plans and programs of either the states or the metropolitan areas. This report presents a broad assessment of the status, constraints, opportunities, and strategies for incorporating security into transportation planning at the state and metropolitan levels and for including security-related projects in their priority programming decisions. This report should be useful to state DOTs, MPOs, and local transportation planners as well as other practitioners concerned with planning, programming, and implementing trans- portation projects. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, state and metropolitan transportation planners have been asked to address many security-related issues and to begin to consider security within the context of their transportation planning and programming activities. Questions are increasingly asked regarding the implications of security on the transportation system, such as the potential long-term effects of terrorist attacks against transportation facilities; the effects of increased security on transportation investment decisions; the impacts of tightened secu- rity at sensitive locations on the long-term operations of the transportation system; and the redundancy or resiliency of the transportation system if certain elements of it have to be closed for security- or terrorist-related reasons. Although related, these issues are different from short-term operational issues that deal with immediate response to inci- dents in that they deal with longer-term and systemwide effects. Transportation planners have little guidance on what issues need to be considered or how long-term planning for transportation can best address security-related issues. The Transportation Research Board sponsored a panel discussion at its January 2002 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., on this subject that identified and discussed security-related issues in transporta- tion planning. On the basis of that session, it is clear that there is a need for more guid- ance to assist state and metropolitan planners in addressing more effectively security issues within the long-range transportation planning process. This research was initiated to provide guidance to assist transportation planners in addressing security-related issues in transportation planning and priority programming for surface modes, both at the statewide and metropolitan levels. The research was intended to identify long-term security-related issues that transportation planners need FOREWORD By Ronald D. McCready Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

to consider and provide an indication of how to deal with these issues including types of analyses that are appropriate, who needs to be involved in the planning efforts, and what outcomes could typically be expected from the planning efforts. Under NCHRP Project 8-36 (34), “Incorporating Security into the Transportation Planning Process,” AECOM Consult, Inc., of Fairfax, Virginia, reviewed current prac- tice in dealing with security issues within the state and metropolitan transportation plan- ning processes. The research team reviewed planning documents from major metropoli- tan areas and their states. The research team also developed detailed case studies on four of those metropolitan areas: New York, New York; Portland, Oregon; San Francisco, California; and Washington, D.C. This report provides a wealth of information regard- ing approaches, strategies, and procedures for strengthening the consideration and analy- sis of security issues and projects within the planning and decisionmaking processes of the state DOTs and the MPOs. Emergencies arising from terrorist threats highlight the need for transportation man- agers to minimize the vulnerability of travelers, employees, and physical assets through incident prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Managers are seeking to reduce the chances that transportation vehicles and facilities will be targets or instruments of terrorist attacks and to be prepared to respond to and recover from such possibilities. By being prepared to respond to terrorism, each transportation agency is simultaneously prepared to respond to natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and wildfires, as well as human-caused events such as hazardous materials spills and other incidents. This is the third volume of NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, a series in which relevant information is assembled into single, concise volumes—each pertaining to a specific security problem and closely related issues. These volumes focus on the concerns that transportation agencies are addressing when developing pro- grams in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed. Future volumes of the report will be issued as they are completed. To develop this volume in a comprehensive manner and to ensure inclusion of sig- nificant knowledge, available information was assembled from numerous sources, includ- ing a number of state DOTs. A topic panel of experts in the subject area was established to guide the researchers in organizing and evaluating the collected data and to review the final document. This volume was prepared to meet an urgent need for information in this area. It records practices that were acceptable within the limitations of the knowledge available at the time of its preparation. Work in this area is proceeding swiftly, and readers are encour- aged to be on the lookout for the most up-to-date information. Volumes issued under NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security may be found on the TRB website at http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+20-59.

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 3 CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Research Approach Study Purpose and Objectives, 5 Scope of Effort, 5 Intended Audience, 6 Methodology, 6 Report Organization, 7 8 CHAPTER 2 Planning Process and Safety Elements Transportation Planning Process, 8 Introduction of Safety into the Transportation Planning Process, 10 13 CHAPTER 3 Incorporation of Security into the Planning Process Why Transportation Security Is Important, 13 Legal Background, 15 Planning for Security, 15 Solutions, 17 Issues with Incorporating Security into the Planning Process, 18 22 CHAPTER 4 Research Results Summary of the Literature Search, 22 Transportation Improvement Program Review, 22 Case Studies, 26 44 CHAPTER 5 Conclusions Key Findings, 44 Recommendations, 45 Conclusions, 47 48 REFERENCES A-1 APPENDIX A Annotated Bibliography B-1 APPENDIX B Interview Guide