Click for next page ( 4


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 3
Introduction and Background Hazard and Security Planning: "One size does not fit all!" Rural, small urban, and community-based public transportation agencies face many of the same security concerns as other service-sector enterprises. Transit employees may experience workplace violence or spillovers of domestic violence, and there is a risk of domestic or international terrorism. Beyond the immediate trauma, intentional harm to an employee, a destroyed vehicle, or a vandalized facility can be disruptive to operations and emotionally disturbing to employees and riders. Consequently, transit systems must have a plan to identify and to eliminate the risk of these events or mitigate the loss. Rural, small urban, and community-based public transportation systems do not generally have sufficient staffing and funding resources to develop and apply the type of system security plans that may be generated and used in larger urban areas. Yet, as security planning becomes a requisite element of transit management across the United States, researchers are discovering that one size does not fit all. In some respects, security and hazard planning can vary more between Bonifay, Florida, and Boonville, Missouri, than between New York and Los Angeles. What researchers have found is that in rural areas there are wide varieties of hazards and security threats ranging from nuclear bomb disposal in rural Texas to large earthen dams in Pennsylvania to tsunamis in Hawaii. It can be said that urban security needs are more similar and more predictable than those in the rural portions of our country, where safety and security threats, ranging from modest to extreme, may develop from circumstances unknown in urban areas. Consequently, security planning for rural areas does not fit neatly into prevention and response patterns established in urban areas. To help overcome this variability in security and hazard planning for rural, small urban, and community-based transportation, the malleable "hazard and security plan" (HSP) template was developed under Project J-10D, "Security Planning Tools for Rural, Small Urban, and Community- Based Public Transportation Operations," for the Transit Cooperative Research Program. The HSP template should help rural, small urban, and community-based transit managers select policies and procedures that fit the individual needs of each service area. The template is introduced in an 8-hour workshop. During the workshop, participants are guided through the template in an interactive process to help participants establish the foundation of the plan so they can return to their home office to complete and refine the document for use. Recognizing that rural, small urban, and community-based transit managers "wear many hats" in their organizations, the template is designed to be comprehensive and thorough, yet also adaptable and not burdensome. A CD-ROM containing the plan template and sample policies is given to each participant with the workshop materials. An important feature of the workshop, designed to help participants understand the nature of their hazard and security threats, is the preparation of an area base map, similar to the map shown on Slide 68. Workshop participants are first asked to identify all the hazards on the sample map. Then they are directed to draw a map of their home operating territory. In preliminary workshops, the map exercise has been greeted enthusiastically, with comments such as "I had no idea how many threats and hazards there were in my home area!" 3