Command-Level Decision Making for Transportation Emergency Managers (2022)

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.

TCRP NCHRP ACRP Web-Only Document 75 Web-Only Document 321 Web-Only Document 52 Command-Level Decision Making for Transportation Emergency Managers Richard A. Madrid, Jr. Engineering & Computer Simulations, Inc. Orlando, FL Conduct of Research Report for TCRP Project A-36 NCHRP Project 20-59 ACRP Project 04-04 Submitted June 2021 ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation (TDC). It was conducted through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Additional funding was provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), which is sponsored by the individual state departments of transportation of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP), which is sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). NCHRP and ACRP are also administered by TRB. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for- profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 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. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR TCRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 74/ NCHRP WEB ONLY DOCUMENT 321/ ACRP WEB-ONLY DOCUMENT 52 Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Gwen Chisholm Smith, Manager, Transit Cooperative Research Program Waseem Dekelbab, Associate Program Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Marci A. Greenberger, Manager, Airport Cooperative Research Program Stephan A. Parker, Senior Program Officer Stephanie L. Campbell, Senior Program Assistant Natalie Barnes, Director of Publications Heather DiAngelis, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer J. Weeks, Publishing Projects Manager TCRP PROJECT A-36 PANEL Field of Operations Rene T. Garcia, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA (Cochair) Kenneth C. Housden, McDonald Transit Associates, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN (Cochair) Harry Saporta, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District, Portland, OR (Cochair) Kevin J. Amberg, New Jersey Transit Police, Newark, NJ Mark Dozier, ABSG Consulting, Arlington, VA Keaven M. Freeman, ArenaNet, LLC, Seattle, WA Edward Gincauskis, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Boston, MA Elizabeth A. Hendel, Phoenix Fire Department, Phoenix, AZ Evangelos I. Kaisar, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL Yuko Julie Nakanishi, Nakanishi Research and Consulting, LLC, Forest Hills, NY John R. Plante, Sr., METRA, Wilmette, IL Lorena de Rodriguez, SSI, Inc., Phoenix, AZ Allen C. Smith, Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), Charlotte, NC Walt Stringer, Mineta Transportation Institute, Carlsbad, CA Ronald W. Tarr, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL Jeffrey King, FHWA Liaison Roy Wei Shun Chen, FTA Liaison Ruth Lyons, FTA Liaison Christopher McKay, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Liaison William Brownlow, AASHTO Liaison Gummada Murthy, AASHTO Liaison Joseph W. Niegoski, American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Liaison William D. Brohard, National Guard Bureau Liaison ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work reported herein was performed under TCRP A-36 by Engineering and Computer Simulations, Inc., with oversight from the ECS Program Manager, Mr. Richard A. Madrid, Jr., Vice President, Global Services, in conjunction with ECS’s Subject Matter Experts, Complete EM, LLC, and others.

F O R E W O R D By Stephan A. Parker Staff Officer Transportation Research Board TCRP Web-Only Document 75\NCHRP Web-Only Document 321\ACRP Web-Only Document 52: Command-Level Decision-Making for Transportation Emergency Managers is designed to assist public transportation agencies, state departments of transportation (DOTs), and airports to develop training and exercises to prepare for natural or manmade disaster incidents. It also can be used by organizations as they prepare to meet training and exercise requirements. Command-level decision-making is a critical factor in successfully managing and mitigating critical incidents. Incident training for public transportation, state DOT, and airport emergency response personnel is typically conducted manually; that is, a live exercise facilitator is in a room with the personnel who will serve as command and general staff, and uses paper handouts and PowerPoint slides to conduct the training or exercise. This publication documents the field validation of 24 tabletop exercise (TTX) training and simulation scenarios for emergency managers across airport, public transportation, and state DOT agencies. While the body of the publication focuses on public transportation and state DOT agencies that engaged in the final phase of field validation under TCRP Project A-36, the appendices include scenarios developed and validated under ACRP Project 04-04. All the scenarios were unified on a single game engine platform under TCRP Project A-36, “Command-Level Decision Making for Transportation Emergency Managers.” The goal of this project was to develop a Transportation Emergency Response Application (TERA) that accurately trains transportation command-level decision-makers through simulation guided experiential learning. Simulated guided experiential learning provides gradual and consistent guidance while using a blend of instructional strategies to aid learners in achieving expert performance. TERA provides training and exercise for command-level roles in the public transportation agency, state DOT, and airport emergency operations centers (EOCs) in relation to mitigating specific emergencies and supporting state and local emergency management authorities in natural or manmade disaster incidents. Under TCRP Project A-36, Engineering and Computer Simulations developed TERA, a scenario- based training system compliant with federal standards (e.g., the National Incident Management System (NIMS), the Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP)), and relevant public transportation and state DOT standards and regulations. For a number of years, the training system was delivered through an automated, functional exercise simulation system capable of providing on-demand emergency response training and exercises. The training system initially operated on an existing platform, the Emergency Management Staff Trainer (EMST) that had been adopted by the National Guard Bureau. TERA accommodated individual training, team training, and multiagency training within one framework. It also addressed novice, intermediate, and expert levels of learning and provided foundational concepts in a knowledge-level system for prerequisite study prior to team exercises, thus moving the learner from novice to expert. TERA was cost free to the end-user, scalable, easy to setup and use, had readily available support,

provided a measured assessment, and allowed participants to exercise the resources and policies they used currently in response to emergencies. TERA also allowed the user to customize training and exercises reflecting particular staffing and geographic characteristics. The TERA scenarios allow for transportation-specific roles, interactions, emergency tasks, and other relevant context to be easily “played” by transportation emergency management personnel who may be assigned (with various degrees of training and experience) to an EOC that is managed using various levels of planning. As a result of previous NCHRP, TCRP, and ACRP funding, TERA now includes 24 different transportation emergency scenarios and over 1,300 simulated emergency management interactions for use by airport, state DOT, and public transportation EOCs. A key feature of TERA is its ability to allow a mix of on-site, socially distanced, and quarantined staff to participate collaboratively in tabletop exercises and training in real time. The sunsetting of Flash technology at the end of 2020, however, has made the TERA scenarios unplayable on the EMST game engine. A project jointly funded under TCRP Project A-36 and ACRP Project 04-29, “Transportation Emergency Response Application (TERA): Migration Options Beyond 2020,” will identify migration options for the core features, training capabilities, scenarios, and content of TERA onto a modern platform. However, the scenario learning objectives, scripts, injects, and artifacts created under ACRP, TCRP, and NCHRP are valuable resources for creating training and tabletop exercises. The scripts are included as appendices in this web-only document. More than 1,000 items related to the 24 scenarios are freely available for download and use from the National Academies Press website at www.nap.edu by searching for TCRP Web-Only Document 75\NCHRP Web-Only Document 321\ACRP Web-Only Document 52: Command-Level Decision-Making for Transportation Emergency Managers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Summary.................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background .............................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Contract Tasks ........................................................................................................................................1 1.4 Accomplishments ....................................................................................................................................3 1.5 Purpose of Report ...................................................................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................... 5 Facilitated Exercises ...............................................................................................................................................5 2.1 Facilitated Exercises Format and Objectives .........................................................................................5 Webinars .................................................................................................................................................................5 2.2 Webinar Format ......................................................................................................................................5 2.3 Webinar Dates ........................................................................................................................................5 Scenarios and Scenario Exercises Listing .............................................................................................................5 2.4 Scenario Validation and Objectives ........................................................................................................5 2.5 Scenario Exercise Dates ........................................................................................................................6 Scenario Exercises and Outcomes ........................................................................................................................6 2.6 Wyoming DOT – Earthquake ..................................................................................................................6 2.7 North Carolina State University ITRE – Airport Hangar Fire ..................................................................8 2.8 North Carolina DOT – Hurricane ......................................................................................................... 11 2.9 Georgia DOT – Ice Storm .................................................................................................................... 13 2.10 Georgia DOT – Hurricane with COVID-19 considerations .................................................................. 15 2.11 Utah DOT – Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 17 CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 20 General Findings ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Finding Related to Program Value ...................................................................................................................... 20 3.1 Purpose of Program ............................................................................................................................. 20 3.2 General Result of Program .................................................................................................................. 20 3.3 Current Status ...................................................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................. 21 Most Recent Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 21 4.1 General Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 21 Ongoing Recommendations ................................................................................................................................ 21 4.2 Organizational Acceptance .................................................................................................................. 21 4.3 Financial and Technical Assistance Options ....................................................................................... 22 4.4 Technical Support (Software) .............................................................................................................. 22 4.5 Training Support .................................................................................................................................. 23 4.6 System Sustainment ............................................................................................................................ 23 4.7 Follow-Up Research ............................................................................................................................ 23 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 24 APPENDIX A: SCENARIO OUTLINES ...................................................................................A-1 APPENDIX B: 1) TERA QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE; 2) TERA USER GUIDE; AND 3) TRAINER’S GUIDE .............................................................................................................. B-1