Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 17

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 16
CAPTA Development Path 17 Quality data and quantifiable benefits did not exist for the full range of threats, hazards, and mit- igation measures examined within CAPTA. The project team eventually concluded that any attempt to include a costbenefit analysis in the methodology would result in a model that most state DOTs and transportation agencies could not or would not administer without external assistance. Development of the CAPTA Methodology CAPTA Within the Context of Existing Risk Assessment Literature CAPTA evolved from "A Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Iden- tification and Protection" and incorporates lessons learned since that document was published in 2002 (2). In subsequent years, federal agencies and other transportation authorities have brought ground-level experience into the application of risk management and assessment products, and excellent guides that focus on assets associated with specific modes have been introduced. These mode-specific guides were examined during the design of this multimodal guide, and elements of those previous guides influenced the development of CAPTA. The initial objective of this guide was to update the previously referenced 2002 Guide, pub- lished shortly after the September 11th attacks. That effort was the first to help transportation agencies prioritize critical and vulnerable assets, focusing exclusively on highway assets and pri- marily on vulnerabilities to intentional attacks on highway-related infrastructure. During consultation, the NCHRP project panel and the project team agreed to simplify the approach and focus more on the consequences of an event rather than the cause of the event. This approach is closer to the reality of a transportation operation. In this, the operator is very con- cerned about the loss of use of assets and systems and less concerned about how they came to be disrupted. The operator knows whether or not an asset or system is functioning properly and, if it is not, the operator's primary concern is how quickly it can become operational. The causes for the disruption are normally apparent after post-event investigation. In light of this transportation reality, the CAPTA methodology begins with the consequences resulting from the loss or significant degradation of an asset or mode. Compared to previous assessment methodologies, this loss of use factor closely parallels criticality, although it places less emphasis on vulnerability assessment, because that tends to be more asset specific. The definition of consequence is designed to help owners and operators to answer the questions "What are the outcomes (consequences) that concern me most? What worries me most?" Figure 4 demonstrates the role of the CAPTA methodology. CAPTA is the first step in a multi- step approach to risk assessment and consequence management in the transportation environment. Based on the results of the CAPTA application, the user would proceed to asset- or mode-specific assessment methodologies that could be used to determine more specific vulnerabilities and mitigation measures. The simplifications of the CAPTA model make possible a useable tool for planning and bud- geting purposes. The tool can yield resource estimates that can be varied based on variations in consequence thresholds. CAPTA helps users minimize resource needs through integration with existing risk reduction practices. This synergy is achieved by allowing users to give priority to adding incremental or multipurpose capital measures for moderate- to high-consequence, moderate- frequency events, and implementing temporary operational measures for high-consequence, low-frequency events. The effort by agencies to dedicate resources is often predicated by the con- fluence of expected consequences and the likelihood (frequency) of occurrence. In other words, standard operating procedures are ordinarily sufficient to handle low-frequency, low-consequence events; however, escalating potential consequences require significantly greater dedication of resources to mitigate or prevent.

OCR for page 16
18 CAPTA Final Report Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) NCHRP 20-59(23), A Guide to Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Guide for Emergency Emergency Response Planning at Transportation Operations State Transportation Agencies (NCHRP Report 525 Volume 6) Transportation Security, Volume 12: TCRP Report 86 Volume 11 Making Transportation Tunnels Safe and Secure (NCHRP Report 525 Security Measures for Ferry Volume 12) Systems 2002 AASHTO Guide to Highway Report To Congress On Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Catastrophic Hurricane Asset Identification and Protection Evacuation Plan Evaluation, (FHWA/DHS) DHS Special Jurisdictions (DHS) Other Asset, Mode, Threat, Hazard, or Sector Specific Guidance Figure 4. CAPTA relationship to asset-specific guides. The decision of when to deploy an operational measure rather than build or install a capital asset is difficult to ascertain. CAPTA attempts to ease that decision by providing a prioritization system for all assets based on the intuitive thresholds for consequence set by the user and the funding available. Testing During development, the CAPTA methodology was demonstrated to transportation officials in Virginia, Maryland, Kansas, and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston. There, as with other jurisdictions, the methodology was well received and noted as being the missing link between asset-specific risk assessment methodologies and capital budget prioritizations. CAPTA and the Data Model CAPTA consists of a written document that describes the methodology (Part II of this report) and an electronic spreadsheet, CAPTool (available on the TRB website: detail.asp?id=9579), that contains the user interface and the data model. These components work together to increase users' knowledge and their ability to work through the methodology efficiently. CAPTool manages the interaction between user preferences and prescribed definitions of con- sequences, threats and hazards, assets, and countermeasures using static displays. The data model contains all the formulae, definitions, and parameters needed to use CAPTA. Part II of this report contains a step-by-step CAPTool user guide to move the user through the electronic spreadsheet model. The references and diagrams help the reader understand the interactive data model. Figure 5 illustrates the interaction between user inputs, the assessment methodology, and the countermeasures database.

OCR for page 16
CAPTA Development Path 19 User Inputs Asset Classes of Interest Threats/Hazards of Concern Consequence Thresholds User Inputs Asset Attributes within Classes Countermeasure Selection Risk Management Methodology Master Countermeasures Data Base Six step methodology implemented Consolidated User Inputs Description of generic countermeasures using Microsoft Excel considered effective in mitigating risks spreadsheet to capture inputs and by asset class, hazard or threat, and display intermediate outputs Potential Countermeasures consequence. Candidate Countermeasure Configurations Candidate Countermeasure List of selected countermeasures that will Countermeasures attributes reduce risks to asset classes of interest against threats/hazards of concern to avoid exceeding specified consequence threshold Description of selected countermeasures including rough order of magnitude costs and selected functional characteristics Figure 5. CAPTA data model environment. The data model allows the user to repeat the six-step process quickly and repeatedly. The inclusion of data, formulae, and definitions provides a consistency of thought and application of CAPTA by any user. Key Model Components The CAPTA risk management methodology and supporting database emanate from a set of definitions and classifications relating to consequence; consequence-related threats and hazards; threatened assets; and relevant, possible countermeasures. As a high-level budgeting tool, there is a trade-off between level of detail and CAPTA utility. More detailed analysis is intended to occur in conjunction with asset-specific tools. Taxonomy Level of Detail and Desegregation CAPTA draws on previous experience in applying risk management methods for various modes, including the experiences of the authors. The focus of existing methods (previously dis- cussed) allowed CAPTA to move in a different direction with the following key features: CAPTA uses consequence thresholds to limit the risk relevant to threats or hazards, assets, and countermeasures. For example, a moderate consequence threshold concerning the replace- ment cost of an asset eliminates the need to consider threats and assets that cannot combine to achieve a substantial monetary value. CAPTA classifies assets at a high generic level, through asset classes in which a single class can represent assets present in multiple modes. For example, an administrative and support facil- ity can be found in transit, road, general aviation, and ferry modes of transportation. Threats and hazards are limited to Those not currently institutionalized within an agency. Institutionalized hazards include mechanical failure, crashes, and ordinary weather events; Those expected to have a significant casualty, property damage, or long-term (25+ hours) mission impact;

OCR for page 16
20 CAPTA Final Report Those that may present currently unbudgeted liabilities. Institutionalized hazards, miti- gated by a highly advanced state of practice, are not included; and Those that have already occurred or are likely to occur to a transportation operator. These include events that would impact the owner's planning and budgeting. The material that follows describes the taxonomies built into the methodology and database. Relevant Consequences CAPTA examines risk beginning with consequence. The consequence threshold is a linchpin for use of CAPTA in capital allocation decisions. Establishing a consequence threshold for plan- ning and resource allocation purposes rather than focusing on assets, specific hazards, or threats simplifies the risk management process. This focuses attention on significant, relevant assets, eliminating from further consideration those assets or asset classes whose loss of use would not exceed consequence thresholds, regardless of the hazard or threat. The user may then focus on high-consequence assets that may experience multiple hazards or threats. The consequence threshold identifies assets or asset classes to be included and the extent to which the hazards and threats identified in Step 1 are retained in the assessment. Consequence thresholds are not consistent throughout the United States. Regional and local vari- ation in tolerance to risk, social or funding priorities, and the owners' institutional experience com- bine to provide different levels of risk acceptance. This history and these individual experiences are reflected in the users' choice of what consequences they choose to use in their assessment. It is not expected that thresholds for potentially exposed population (casualty), property loss, or mission dis- ruption would be the same for urban systems versus rural communities, or for transit systems with rail services versus bus-only agencies. CAPTA provides objective data points and formulae to set consequence thresholds, limiting users' subjective inputs to achieve consistency. These consistent results allow for clearer interpretation during planning and budgeting processes. The consequence threshold is the planning factor used to set the level of consequences at which the decision maker or agency assumes greater responsibility for managing the risk. Thresholds represent the point at which either the potential casualties, property loss, mission disruption, economic disruption, and/or public reaction is such that the responsible agency must consider allocating resources above and beyond those typically included in operating budgets to prevent or mitigate the effects of the hazard or postulated threat. CAPTA consolidates consequences along four key areas: Potentially Exposed Population (fatalities and injuries). This consequence is the surrogate for casualties; it is concerned with the number of people who may become casualties. Occu- pancy limits, or capacity, is a surrogate data point for this category. Property Loss. This concerns the cost to repair or rebuild a damaged or destroyed structure. These monetary estimates are standardized unit cost estimates based upon square or linear footage of an asset, or an amount provided by the user for specially designed structures such as a cable stay bridge. Mission Disruption. This concerns the adverse impact on the transportation system due to the loss of the functionality of an asset. Because they indicate the redundancy of the road and rail networks, detour lengths to and from a disabled asset are used as a surrogate for mission disruption level. Detour length is readily available in current agency databases for bridges and tunnels. Transit facilities are assessed using ridership levels of an asset. Social Effects. The social consequence reflects how the population might respond to the event through significant behavioral changes. These behavioral changes may include fear of travel or avoidance of a transportation mode or route. Fear and avoidance of transportation modes will lead to a decrease of commercial activity. There may also be adverse reaction by the pub- lic to the imposition of security measures, such as personal searches, needed to prevent a dis- ruption or mitigate the effects of a disruption. CAPTA does not determine this consequence

OCR for page 16
CAPTA Development Path 21 directly, but provides a manual opportunity for the user to input an asset for consideration. The manual entry is left to the users, as only they can know local conditions, mood, and the emotional appeal of an asset, such as a landmark bridge. Selection of thresholds is an iterative process, given the high cost of some measures and scarce resources in transportation agencies. The CAPTA methodology encourages the user to move back and forth through the steps to examine the effects of different consequence threshold lev- els and the various measures available to mitigate the consequences of an event. The selection of a certain threshold for potentially exposed population, property loss, or mis- sion disruption does not explicitly suggest that losses below this level are unimportant or incon- sequential. Threshold consequences should be chosen in relation to resources available to the agency to respond to the threat or hazard, replace or repair damaged or destroyed property, or complete the mission of moving people and goods to and from destinations. The selection of proper threshold consequence levels in CAPTA will allow users to identify a result (consequence) beyond which additional investments in countermeasures are required. Relevant Threats and Hazards Risk management is not new to transportation system owners and operators. State DOTs, transit operators, bridge and tunnel authorities, seaport and airport authorities, ferry operators, railroads, and state and local public safety agencies all have experience in handling risks to their assets. The localized independence of these owners ensured that there has been a difference in both planning for risk and formalizing risk management. These major disruptions may be inten- tional to produce terror or the result of a natural disaster. Figure 6 illustrates threats and hazards as a risk management spectrum in terms of the mag- nitude of consequence, the current level of preparedness, and the degree of coordination needed Increasing Consequence Source: SAIC (2). Figure 6. Range of threats and hazards to multimodal transportation systems.

OCR for page 16
22 CAPTA Final Report to address these risks. The figure implies that, as the severity of the event increases (to the right) the frequency of the event decreases. Frequent hazards, such as major snowstorms, have a rou- tine response borne of regular implementation. Force majeure events such as earthquakes, hur- ricanes, and terrorist acts are at the less frequent but more complex end of this spectrum and result in mass casualties, significant property loss, and broad-based economic disruption. This last category also represents a special danger due to the infrequency of such events and a lack of institutional memory concerning how to handle them. Balancing frequent, routine events with less frequent, severe events, many transportation agencies struggle to integrate risk assessment and strategic security with other conventional agency activities into an institutionalized program. Current institutionalized activities include developing policies and protocols to handle traffic incidents, crime, and probable natural events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods. They also include institutional knowledge and the experience of personnel, which contribute to the mainstreaming or routinization of the tasks. The agencies face a challenge in establishing a program to incorporate consequence-based assess- ment as part and parcel of an agency program, allowing objective budgetary allocation.