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 13
14 CAPTA Final Report
Table 2. Transportation agencies/associations and audiences
to whom they can disseminate CAPTool.
Agency or Association Audience
AASHTO and American Railway Engineering State departments of transportation (DOTs),
and Maintenance Association (AREMA) county highway departments, local
transportation authorities, and railroads
American Public Transportation Association Transit agencies
(APTA)
U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT) Port authorities, turnpike authorities, and
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), bridge and tunnel authorities
and Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
American Underground Construction Membership
Association (AUA), American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), International Association
of Emergency Managers (IAEM)
procedures in an agency, as is already the case for worker safety, traffic incident management,
and routine weather events such as snow and ice storms.
CAPTA's risk management process focuses on specific threats and hazards with the following
characteristics:
· These threats and hazards can cause significant damage to transportation assets and mission
or loss of life.
· Designed/engineered and operational measures to reduce the risk of these threats and hazards
are not yet "mainstreamed" in conventional transportation agency practice.
· Reasonable and practical consequence-reducing countermeasures to these threats and hazards
are available.
In keeping with the above approach, CAPTA uses consequence thresholds (for life, property,
and mission) to focus risk management only on asset and hazard or threat combinations that
merit risk reduction investment at the program planning level. CAPTA defines transportation
hazards or threats and the asset classes included in this analysis at generalized levels. These inter-
pretations relate both to their potential for significant consequences and to the applicability of
countermeasures. This generalization allows the user to move quickly to the issues that are of
primary concern regardless of transportation mode, location, or use. This approach relieves the
user of the burden of estimating probabilities related to specific threats and hazards or the like-
lihood that specific assets are affected. The countermeasure-oriented database relates potential
countermeasure strategies directly to consequences and assets.
The modest level of effort involved in using CAPTA is intended to encourage mainstream-
ing an integrated, high-level, all-hazard, NIMS-responsive, multimodal risk management
process into major transportation agency programs and activities. CAPTA also provides the
departure point for applying asset-specific vulnerability assessment and countermeasure guides
for asset-specific design and cost estimation.
Institutional Context for Risk Management
The guide does not yield designs or design specifications, but acknowledges sources for more
detailed asset-specific countermeasure guidance that exists for each mode. These sources include
· The United States Coast Guard (DHS) for maritime assets;
· The Office of Grants and Training (DHS) and the Federal Transit Administration (U.S.DOT)
for transit;
OCR for page 14
Project Rationale and Approach 15
· The Transportation Security Administration (DHS) for general aviation; and
· The Federal Highway Administration (U.S.DOT), state DOTs, and the NCHRP for highways,
bridges and tunnels.
Risk management decisions require different information and analysis depending upon the
nature of the decision, the organizational level at which the decision is made, and the agency or
entity making the decision. Multimodal transportation systems typically cross agency and juris-
dictional boundaries, and multiple entities are often involved in managing and operating the
facilities or systems. As illustrated in Figure 3, state DOTs work within the context of state and
federal funding sources, multiple response agencies, and multiple local authorities. They must
be capable of both justifying capital resource requests and allocating existing resources wisely.
The guide is intended to assist state DOTs and others in both of these areas.
Figure 3 does not show specific authorities or a chain of command because of the differences
among jurisdictions. It illustrates the complexities of seeking and allocating resources when mul-
tiple agencies and jurisdictions have interests in preparing for and responding to hazards and
threats. What is most important about these relationships is that risk management decisions must
be coordinated across multiple agencies and jurisdictions if they are to result in the efficient use
of the limited resources available at federal, state, regional, and local levels of government.
The data model developed to support the CAPTA is the integrating mechanism among multi-
ple modes and the variety of assets, hazards, and threats associated with these modes. The CAPTA
model provides the user with a convenient interface for accessing the data used to implement the
methodology.
US Department of US Department of
Transportation Homeland Security
Regional Emergency State Governor's State Emergency
Management Entities Office Management
State DOTs (some with State & Local Authorities
multimodal scope) (road, transit, rail, etc.)
Figure 3. Government levels for risk management resource
allocation decisions.
