1、 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 st
2、udies on behalf of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security. The report was prepared by Joe Crossett 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,
3、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,
4、 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
5、 sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Boards Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 249 Washington, DC 20001
6、P: 202-624-5800, F: 202-624-5806 fax transportation.org by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law. ISBN: 1-56051-347-0 Publication Code: RP-MSD-1 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and T
7、ransportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.20052006 Executive Committee Voting Members Officers: President : Harold E. Linnenkohl, Georgia VicePresident: David Spyrncznatyk, North Dakota Secretary- Treasurer: Larry M. King, Pennsylvania Regional Represe
8、ntatives: REGION I: Robert L. Flanagan, Maryland, One-Year Term James R. Capaldi, P.E., Rhode Island, Two-Year Term REGION II: Joe McInnes, Alabama, One-Year Term Harold E. Linnenkohl, Georgia, Two-Year Term REGION III: Carol Molnau, Minnesota, One-Year Term Frank J. Busalacchi, Wisconsin, Two-Year
9、Term REGION IV: Victor M. Mendez, Arizona, One-Year Term David Sprynczynatyk, North Dakota, Two-Year Term Nonvoting Members Immediate Past President: John R. Njord, Utah AASHTO Executive Director: John Horsley, Washington, DC 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offic
10、ials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Special Committee on Transportation Security Chair: Ekern, David S., Idaho Vice Chair: John M. Contestabile, Maryland Secretary: John Gerner, FHWA Liaison: Valerie Briggs, AASHTO Liaison: Anthony R. Kane, AASHTO Member California
11、 Randell H. Iwasaki District of Columbia Michelle L. Pourciau Florida Frank Day Idaho Alan J. Frew Indiana Richard K. Smutzer Kansas Jaci S. Vogel, P.E. Maryland Thomas Hicks, P.E. Ricky D. Smith Mississippi Steven K. Edwards, P.E., P.L.S. Missouri Steven Billings Nevada James R. Souba, P.E. New Yor
12、k George A. Christian, P.E. Paul Gavin Wisconsin Jeffrey L. Western, P.E., S.E. U.S. DOT Member FHWA Al Alonzi Steve Ernst Michael Onder FMCSA Charles Horan FRA William Fagan FTA Gail Taylor U.S. DOT Vince Pearce AASHTO AASHTO Rachel Beyerle David H. Clawson Leo Penne Associate MemberFederal SDDCTEA
13、 Robert D. Franz Other ASCE World Jonathan C. Esslinger, P.E. Headquarters ITE Philip J. Caruso TRB Stephan Parker 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Table of Contents Section One: State DOT
14、sGuardians of Transportation Infrastructure and Mobility 1 1.1. Understanding the Threat to Transportation 2 1.2. Highlights of DOTs AASHTO-Led Activities . 3 1.3. State DOTs Partners . 4 1.4. White Paper Structure 4 Section Two: Protection of Critical Transportation Assets5 2.1. Risk Assessment 5 2
15、.2. Counter Measure Development and Deployment 6 Section Three: Emergency Management Support to First Responders 7 3.1. Mobilizing Emergency Transportation Operations 8 3.2. Recovery of Transportation Infrastructure. 9 Section Four: Critical Gaps and Needs.10 4.1. Interagency Coordination. 104.2. Fu
16、nding Needs . 104.3. DOT Organizational Structures 11 4.4. Technology. 114.5. Communications 11 4.6. Training, Drills, and Exercises. 12 4.7. Information Sharing . 12 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of app
17、licable law.1Section One: State DOTsGuardians of Transportation Infrastructure and Mobility Deadly and unprecedented terror attacks on the transportation infrastructure in the United States and Western Europe, including bombings on Londons subway system and Madrids commuter rail network, as well as
18、the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks, have forced state department of transportation (DOT) leaders to reassess their agencies security needs. Among DOTs, the top priorities that have emerged include better protection of critical transportation infrastructure and ensuring adequacy of emergency man
19、agement capabilities. It has been four years since the attacks of 9/11 that provoked this new level of scrutiny, and after considerable investment of time and money by DOTs and their partners, this white paper offers a mid-course review of how DOTs are continuing to refine and enhance approaches to
20、homeland security and the needs they have in two critical areas:1 Critical Transportation Infrastructure Protection. Unlike natural or accidental emergency situations, terrorist attacks are deliberate acts that may be prevented or deterred. DOTs are now challenged to ensure that the infrastructure t
21、hey own and operate is adequately protected against terrorism; a responsibility that requires new skills such as risk management as well as partnerships with the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and additional resources. In every state, small transportation infrastructure assets are suf
22、ficiently vulnerable to attack and/or critical to society and to the economy that they merit extraordinary measures of protection. “All Hazards” Emergency Management Support. DOTs have always been prepared to support public safety and first responder agencies when potentially deadly devastation is i
23、nflicted by natural or accidental emergencies, such as hurricanes, floods, truck crashes, fires, or chemical spills. Transportation agencies now find that refinement of the same support roles, such as their Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) capabilities for incident management can help prepare
24、 for, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks on the nations transportation systems, or other targets. “All Hazards” emergency management has become a by-word at many DOTs for guiding their homeland security effortsbut keeping abreast of fast-moving developments in emergency management practi
25、ces often proves challenging. The ways DOTs now address transportation security are different from four years ago. Emergency management and critical infrastructure protection are no longer unfamiliar terms. Advanced preparedness planning, sophisticated emergency transportation operations, improved c
26、oordination with public safety and law enforcement agencies, and counter measures that protect critical infrastructure are on every DOTs agenda. The purpose of this white paper is to provide a big picture perspective on the multiple directions in which transportation-related security policy is headi
27、ng at the state DOT level. This analysis 1The need for a white paper was first discussed by AASHTOs Special Committee on Transportation Security at its January 2005 meeting. A request for the paper was made during the June 2005 SCOTS meeting. 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Tra
28、nsportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.2will help DOT policy makers identify next steps for ensuring DOTs are fully prepared to prevent future attacks and respond to emergencies, and how to obtain resources to support these needs. 1.1. Understanding t
29、he Threat to Transportation Transportation is a vital part of the nations social and economic fabric. It ensures workers get to their jobs, goods and services reach their destinations, and people stay connected. Blanket protection by state DOTs of all transportation assets, however, is neither feasi
30、ble nor warranted. Collectively, state DOTs have primary responsibility for building and operating most of the busiest highways, bridges, and tunnels in the United States, which together constitute more than 1.8 million lane-miles of highways.2DOTs are also multimodal agencies whose responsibilities
31、 often include passenger and freight rail, public transit, water ports, ferries, and aviation. Every day, vehicles travel about five billion miles on state DOT-owned roads. About 90 percent of all freight by value is shipped around the United States by truck, and businesses rely on a “just-in-time”
32、economy in which a single unexpected incident can have significant effects.3The weeklong shutdown of all sea- and airports following September 11, for example, is estimated to have resulted in economic losses as great as the $50 billion World Trade Center costs, in addition to the tragic loss of lif
33、e. The apparent scale and redundancy of the nations transportation system gives a false sense of security, but in many parts of the country that system is straining to keep up with the transportation demands of communities and the economy. A Blue Ribbon Panel convened by American Association of Stat
34、e Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2003 suggests there are about 1,000 bridges across the country where substantial casualties and economic disruption would result from isolated attacks. The costs of failure to prepare for a terrorist att
35、ack that affects the nations transportation infra-structure or relies on that infrastructure for emergency response, in terms of loss of life and economic disruption, could be catastrophic. The FHWA/AASHTO Blue Ribbon Panel concluded that economic and replacement costs for loss of a single critical
36、bridge or tunnel could exceed $10 billion.42FHWA, Highway Statistics 2003, 2004. 3FHWA, Our Nations Highways2000, 2004. 4FHWA, Recommendations for Bridge and Tunnel Security, 2003 State DOTs and Terror An Example: On September 11, 2001, the emergency management capabilities of several state DOTs in
37、the New York and Washington, DC, regions were tested in previously unimaginable ways. Highways, bridges, and tunnels; transit systems; and pedestrian facilities in these areas were turned into evacuation routes and a way for emergency response teams to reach incident scenes. Virginia DOTs high-tech
38、Traffic Management Center in Arlington, VA, was even transformed into the incident command headquarters for emergency responders after American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon. State DOTs were able to act swiftly on September 11 because they were already equipped to meet the challenges of respon
39、ding to and recovering from the devastation caused by natural and man-made disasters. When incidents such as hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, or major traffic crashes threaten safety and mobility, DOT personnel and equipment are part of response and recovery activities. Their sophisticated traffi
40、c management systems help keep traffic moving, their information systems help keep communications flowing, and their construction expertise helps speed recovery. 2006 by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicab
41、le law.3The threat of terrorism poses new challenges for state DOTs. In 2003, 80 percent of DOTs surveyed said they had incurred additional costs to improve transportation security.5According to a national needs assessment for ensuring transportation infrastructure security that was published in 200
42、2, overall security costs for DOTs are expected to reach at least $10.5 billion during the six-year TEA-21 reauthorization period.6More training, equipment, infrastructure hardening, and research for DOTs is vital, yet only one percent of the Department of Homeland Securitys fiscal year 2004 $247 mi
43、llion research and development budget is dedicated to supporting highway-related initiatives.7Eventually, no security counter measures funding went to highways. 1.2. Highlights of DOTs AASHTO-Led Activities AASHTOs 21-member Special Committee on Transportation Security (SCOTS) in its Task Force form
44、 was established immediately after 9/11/01 and reports directly to AASHTOs President. SCOTS vision is to be “the voice and resource for state DOTs to improve transportation security across all modes.” Working together under the auspices of AASHTOs Special Committee on Transportation Security, state
45、DOTs and their partners have undertaken a wide variety of activities over the past four years. SCOTS has sponsored National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) research of over $6 million on development of guides, research, training, and workshops for AASHTO members. It is also a unifying f
46、orce among DOTs and their partners at FHWA for raising the profile of homeland security issues in transportation and for forging partnerships with other groups engaged in security activities. Highlights of completed NCHRP/SCOTS/FHWA-sponsored activities include: Two surveys of state DOTs approaches
47、to transportation security (2001 and 2003); Transportation and Security Research Priority Setting Workshops (April 2002 and February 2003); Survey of State DOTs Security Training Needs (August 2002); AASHTO Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection (2
48、002); AASHTO Guide to Updating Highway Emergency Response Plans for Terrorist Incidents (2002); National Needs Assessment for Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure Security (2002); FHWA Emergency Preparedness Workshops30 two-day workshops around the country consisting of a case study analysis and a
49、 terrorism exercise (20022005); AASHTO/FHWA Emergency Response Workshops (2003); FHWA Bridge and Tunnel Vulnerability Assessment Workshops (2003); AASHTO/FHWA Recommendations for Bridge and Tunnel SecurityBlue Ribbon Panel on Bridge and Tunnel Security (September 2003); 5AASHTO/TRB, 2003 Survey of State Transportation AgenciesSummary of Results, 2004. 6Ham, D., and S. Lockwood, National Needs Assessment for Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure Security. 2002. 7General Accounting Of
