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.
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, significant attention has been devoted to securing our nationâs infrastructure from further attack. These efforts have focused on what can be done now to prevent these threats from being carried out, to mitigate the results if they do occur, and to expedite the response and recovery efforts following the event. These include determining the vulnerability of transportation infrastructure to terrorist attack, developing strategies to better protect these assets from terrorist attack, and generating policies and procedures to mitigate the effects of ter- rorist events and to expedite response and recovery. Despite these various efforts, it is unclear whether and to what extent security issues associated with prevention, mitiga- tion, response, and recovery are being considered during the development of capital improvement programs at the state and local levels of government. With security prevention and mitigation strategies heavily oriented to facility design and retrofit, it is recognized that the most cost-effective time to begin to address security issues during the life-cycle of transportation infrastructure assets is when they are being planned and designed. Leaving consideration of security issues to the post-construction or operations phase can make efforts to enhance the protection of transportation assets much more expensive. With the scarcity of available resources, transportation agencies can little afford to wait until after projects are planned and developed to consider the requirements of securing transportation assets from terrorist attack. The purpose of this study was to research the status of transportation planning processes at the state and local levels and determine the extent to which these program development processes incorporate security issues and strategies for securing the nationâs transportation infrastructure. For the purpose of this study, the research team defined the term security as follows: Protection from terrorist threats or actions due to acts of extreme violence resulting in significant loss of life, injury, and/or damage or destruction of facilities and infrastruc- ture, whether or not these acts are intended to further political or social objectives. The study considered those efforts undertaken to produce metropolitan transporta- tion improvement programs (TIPs) and statewide transportation improvement pro- grams (STIPS). Through literature search, review of the most recent TIPs for 10 major SUMMARY INCORPORATING SECURITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) across the country, and development of detailed case studies of four metropolitan areas selected for their unique features, the research team has provided a comprehensive assessment of the status, constraints, oppor- tunities, and strategies for incorporating security into the transportation planning process at the local and state levels. The sample TIPs provided insights into the current status of transportation planning documents relative to security considerations. The case studies examined the transportation efforts of four metropolitan areas (New York City, Wash- ington, D.C., San Francisco, and Portland, Oregon) to address security issues and develop security-enhancement projects. The research team also discussed how safety has become a more significant element of transportation improvement plans. Safety, therefore, may provide a model for promoting the importance of security into the program development process. The study produced a number of key findings and provided a series of strategies to help transportation planners at state and local levels to address these findings and bet- ter consider and promote security enhancement much earlier in the program and plan development processes. The study showed that overall, there is widespread confusion over what specifically security refers to, which level of government is responsible for addressing national security issues, where the funding for these initiatives will come from, and how federal legislation can be interpreted regarding the need to specifically address security as a core element of the required transportation planning process. These areas of confusion have impeded efforts to consider security earlier in the proj- ect development process. In the absence of local interest and commitment and federal funding support, security is addressed on a sporadic basis, at best. Most efforts to address security issues at the metropolitan planning level appear lim- ited to the operational aspects of the asset, with little or no consideration of security in the development TIPs or STIPs. While safety has emerged as a major factor in the trans- portation planning process, security as a distinct issue area is either not addressed or sub- sumed under the safety element. Security issues are considered to a greater extent where the local community has already been sensitized to the threats posed by terrorist attacks, such as in New York City and in Washington, D.C. In contrast, metropolitan areas such as San Francisco and Portland, Oregon are focused on more imminent natural disasters or local security threats, such as earthquakes and vandalism, respectively, where the link- age between security and emergency preparedness is more pronounced. To address these findings, the research team offered a menu of strategies that federal transportation agencies and state and local transportation planning groups might con- sider to better incorporate security issues and strategies in state and local transportation planning processes. Solution strategies include establishing greater consistency and understanding the definition and concepts, roles and responsibilities, and tools and methodologies relating to security enhancement of the nationâs transportation infra- structure. This involves defining what security means in the context of transportation infrastructure; developing the purpose, goals, objectives, and performance criteria to strategically guide consideration of security in the transportation planning process; determining the key components of a process for incorporating security into trans- portation planning; identifying the individuals and groups to be responsible for these activities and held accountable for the results; establishing the level of funding and other resources to support these activities, defining the institutional relationships among dif- ferent groups involved in security enhancement for the area, and educating public offi- cials, the private sector, and citizens regarding security issues and how they are being addressed in the transportation planning process. Leadership is needed to move security to a position of prominence among the fac- tors considered in the transportation planning process. Such leadership is required at the federal, state, and local (metropolitan and rural) levels of government to promote security considerations on an ongoing and sustainable basis. 2
