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 37
APPENDIX A Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) Test Preparation During the assembly of the CAPTA model, field tests were held with a combination of state transportation agencies and transit agencies. The tests were conducted to review the functionality of the model, the logic of the methodology, and the usefulness of the results. The agencies were expected to help the project team stress the system by inputs or demands. Recommendations from the field test did make their way into the model. These improvements included · Establishing a basic model and an enhanced model (Maryland DOT), and · Including ridership levels within the threshold equations for transit assets (Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityBoston). The input from the participating agencies--the Maryland Department of Transportation, Virginia Department of Transportation, Kansas Department of Transportation, and the Mass- achusetts Bay Transportation Authority--was a tremendous influence and assistance to the completion of this product. The instructions provided to field test participants are included below. Purpose of Model The Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) project was funded through the Transportation Research Board's National Cooperative High- way Research Program (NCHRP). The guide provides detailed instruction on assessing the risks to transportation assets using a consequence-based approach. The guide enables users, typically state transportation authorities, to evaluate all modes of transportation consistently based upon an initial threshold for adverse consequences set by the user. The guide offers an objective, robust means to evaluate all assets under a user's jurisdiction and requires minimal data to ease in its application. The guide presents an asset protection methodology (CAPTA) that has been implemented as a computer-assisted tool using Microsoft® Excel, which pro- vides a data and graphical means to interact with the consequence-driven multimodal asset protection model. CAPTA assists the user in evaluating the relative appropriateness of dedicating resources to an asset or a class of assets. The consequence-based methodology employed in CAPTA begins with the user setting an initial threshold for adverse consequences, indicating the point at which additional investments may be needed to mitigate consequences or reduce the likelihood of an event. CAPTA moves from there to anticipated consequences associated with hazards and threats to each asset or asset class under consideration. CAPTA allows users to compare dissimilar assets such as transit tunnels, highway bridges, buildings, and ferry boats. The tool also allows users to 38
OCR for page 38
Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) Test Preparation 39 address consequences regardless of the events that precipitated them, including such dissimilar causes as explosions or extreme weather. The guide provides detailed instructions for use of the asset protection methodology (CAPTA), which is the centerpiece of the field test. The Microsoft® Excel implementation is designed for easy data entry and report generation. Purpose of Field Test CAPTA is being demonstrated in the field using data provided by state transportation agencies. The test is to affirm the logic of the methodology, the ease of use of the tool, and the consistency between the inputs required and the outcome products. The field test is also a useful platform for agency feedback concerning the methodology and the tool. The consultant team desires to make the tool as easy to use as possible, and encourages advice from agency practitioners. Overview The CAPTA field test is consultant led, with inputs from the state agency. The consultant will input the necessary data supplied by the state agency prior to meeting. The test is expected to last between 4 and 5 hours. The state agency will be tasked to provide inputs concerning their consequence thresholds. These choices are expected to be different between jurisdictions. The state agency is also expected to provide information on assets or classes of assets they wish to submit for consideration under this methodology. State Agency Preparation Prior to the Field Test Prior to using CAPTA, the user should assemble the following data concerning multimodal assets under agency jurisdiction: 1. A list of assets previously designated as critical or potentially critical by the transportation agency. This list of named assets should be broken out by the following asset categories: · Road bridges/tunnels · Transit/rail stations · Transit/rail bridges/tunnels · Buildings · Ferry boats · Fleets of vehicles OR 2. Gather a list of all assets under jurisdiction and break them out by the following categories: · Road bridges/tunnels · Transit/rail stations · Transit/rail bridges/tunnels · Buildings · Ferry boats · Fleets of vehicles (e.g., all 45 passenger buses)
OCR for page 39
40 CAPTA Final Report Table A-1. Data detail to be collected by state agency. User-Input Price Road Detour ADT Length (ft) Lanes Type (Only for Other Bridges/Tunnels (mi) (i.e. Cable-Stay)) Transit/Rail Max Car Below Transfer Stations Occupancy Ground? Station? Transit/Rail Max Car Type Sq. Footage Bridges/Tunnels Occupancy Replacement Occupancy Building Sq. Footage Cost (if known) (if known) Max Ferry Max Vessels Occupancy Max Max Avg Fleet Occupancy/ Vehicles Cost/Vehicle Vehicle Following the assembly of named assets from either of the groups described above, collect data for each asset as noted in Table A-1. The data solicited in Table A-1 is required to take full advan- tage of CAPTA. CAPTA can accommodate data in spreadsheet format. Common sources for these data are the following documents or databases: · The National Bridge Inventory (NBI) · Transit vehicle occupancy guidelines as established by the manufacturer · Building occupancy permits and applications · Maritime occupancy permits designated by the federal or state government · Purchasing records relating to transit or fleet vehicles · Institutional memory Table A-2 shows an example of a data set for road bridges and tunnels collected for use with CAPTA. Table A-2. Example of data collection for each asset. User-Input Price Road Bridges/Tunnels Length Detour (Only for Other Asset ID ADT (ft) Lanes (mi) Type [i.e. Cable-Stay]) Bridge Class A (25 ea) 65000 3200 4 15 Concrete Bridge Class B (100 ea) 25000 120 4 5 Concrete Bridge Class C (5 ea) 125000 2750 10 2 Steel Interstate Bridge X 203680 14429 8 58 Steel Interstate Bridge Y 173000 9049 6 58 Steel Interstate Bridge Z 174878 1289 8 14 Concrete Broad St 104000 131 6 0 Concrete Mayfair 104000 3520 2 13 Steel Cianci 180000 2245 2 1 Other $1,000,000,000
OCR for page 40
Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) Test Preparation 41 Existing Countermeasures in Place Across Transportation Assets Countermeasure List Prior to the field test, the state agency user will need to have a general awareness of the measures currently deployed upon transportation assets. CAPTA includes the following common preventive, protective, and response measures for consideration. The state agency user can add other named specific measures for consideration. Prior knowledge of the measures already in place across the transportation modes will allow the tool to present "gap" opportunities and strategies not already considered by the agency. The tool contains inputs for the following classes of countermeasures: · Lighting · Background Checks · Explosive Detection · Intelligence Networking · Barriers & Berms · Metal Detectors · Established Clear Zones · HAZMAT Mitigation · Fences · Restricted Parking · Visible Signs · Security Awareness Training · CCTV · Random Inspections · Seismic Retrofitting · Emergency Response Training · Intrusion Detection Devices · Visible Badges · Fire Detection & Suppression · Emergency Evacuation Planning · Physical Inspection of Asset · Limited Access Points · Encasement, Wrapping, Jacketing · Planned Redundancy (e.g., detours) · ID Cards · Visitor Control & Escort · Patrols · Public Information and Dissemination · Biometrics · Locks · WX/Seismic Information · Chemical Detector Data Transmission Following the assembly of the requested data in a Microsoft® Excelcompatible format, it may be transmitted to the consultant for entry prior to the field test. State Agency Participation During the Field Test Significant Hazards/Threats Likely to be Experienced by the State Agency The user will be asked to designate which hazards and threats are of concern to the agency. These choices may be guided by experience, intelligence warnings, geographical contours, or concurrent planning activities. The categories of hazards and threats addressed in CAPTA are listed in Table A-3; users will have the opportunity to add to this list. Array of Hazards and Threats Against the Six Major Transportation Modes The state agency user is asked to decide if a chosen threat is likely to have an adverse effect on the selected transportation mode. These decisions are intended to reflect only the hazard
OCR for page 41
42 CAPTA Final Report Table A-3. List of threats/ hazards. THREATS Small Explosives Large Explosives Chemical Biological Radiological Criminal Acts UNINTENTIONAL HAZARDS Fire Structural Failure HAZMAT NATURAL HAZARDS Flood Earthquake Extreme Weather Mud/Landslide ADDITIONAL User Entered 1 or threat relevant to transportation modes that are present in the agency's jurisdiction. The choices should be based on experience, intelligence warnings, geographic contours, and concurrent planning practices of the agency. The state agency user will answer "yes" or "no" for each combination of threat or hazard and transportation mode. An example is provided in Table A-4. Consequence Thresholds The state agency user will be asked to designate initial levels or "thresholds" where significant investments beyond normal capital budgets and operating and maintenance would be justified in order to reduce the likelihood of the event or mitigate the consequence. These consequence thresholds require judgments in the following areas: · Potentially Exposed Population: Threshold for the potential number of persons adversely affected by a hazard or threat. This is an objective observation. · Property Damage: Threshold for the financial cost of replacing a lost asset. This is an objec- tive observation. · Mission Importance: Threshold for the extent to which an asset is vital to the operation of the transportation system. This may be a subjective observation. The consequence threshold choices are mapped between defined data points as determined by the user. Table A-5 is provided with illustrative data. The explanations provided in the far right column are intended to assist the user in reaching a decision. Note that the "Mission Importance" threshold levels are set based on national bridge data. Figure A-1 shows isoquants for ADT*Detour Length, illustrating combinations of these two data elements that result in the same product; Figure A-2 shows the distribution of this product for US bridges. Note that 75%, 85%, and 95% are used as alternative threshold levels for establish- ing consequence thresholds.
OCR for page 42
Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) Test Preparation 43 Table A-4. Hazards/threats arrayed against transportation modes. Transit/ Road Rail Bridges/ Transit/Rail Bridges/ Threats/Hazards Tunnels Stations Tunnels Building Ferry Fleet Threats SCE Y Y Y Y Y Y LCE Y Y Y Y Y Y CBR N N N N N N Criminal Acts N N N N N N Unintentional Hazards Fire N N N N N N Struct. Failure N N N N N N HAZMAT N N N N N N Natural Hazards Flood N N N N N N Earthquake Y N N Y Y Y Extreme Weather Y N N N N N Mud/Landslide N N N N N N Additional User Entered 1 N N N N N N User Entered 2 N N N N N N Countermeasures The state agency user will be asked to enter information concerning the current state of preventive, protective, or readiness measures. The user will also be asked to provide inputs to the type of measures desired, and will also be given the opportunity to amend the programmed costs to reflect local influences. CAPTA provides likely choices for countermeasures against the identified threats and hazards. The state agency user is allowed to amend these choices and the unit costs to receive a more accurate picture of their assets. Countermeasure Intentions Table A-6 lists the decision points the user will need to address before proceeding through the countermeasure section. They are provided here as a reference and to encourage thought and discussion by the state agency prior to the CAPTA field test. Countermeasure Cost CAPTA provides unit costs for all of the named countermeasures. After the input of user decision and credit given for the measures already in place, CAPTA generates reports providing financial information on the cost of measures intended to mitigate the chosen consequences. The accuracy of the financial picture is dependent upon unit costs in line with the local area. The estimates provided in CAPTA are based upon construction estimation tools, with the acknowl- edgement that there is cost variation from region to region. The agency user has the ability to change any of the unit costs.
OCR for page 43
44 CAPTA Final Report Table A-5. Consequence threshold example. Critical Category Threshold Explanation Potentially Exposed 500 PEP Threshold Population Property Damage $500,000,000 Replacement Cost Mission Importance Level III Percentile for ADT * Detour Length ROAD BRIDGE/TUNNEL Level I 29,000 The default threshold values for ADT * detour length are taken 68,000 from the 75th, 85th, and 95th Level II percentiles for the bridges 241,000 nationally. If these are inappropriate for your state, enter Level III different values in the appropriate fields to the left. Potentially Exposed 100 PEP Threshold TRANSIT/RAIL Population STATION Property Damage Yes Do you consider below-ground stations to be property-critical? Mission Importance Yes Do you consider transfer stations to be mission-critical? Potentially Exposed 100 PEP Threshold TRANSIT/RAIL Population BRIDGE/TUNNEL Property Damage $100,000,000 Replacement Cost Mission Importance Yes Does at least 25% of the working population utilize rail/transit transportation? BUILDING Potentially Exposed 100 PEP Threshold Population Property Damage $100,000,000 Replacement Cost FERRY BOATS Potentially Exposed 100 PEP Threshold Population Property Damage $100,000,000 Replacement Cost TRANSIT Potentially Exposed 100 PEP Threshold FLEETS Population Property Damage $100,000,000 Replacement Cost 100 90 80 100,000 70 200,000 Detour Length (KM) 300,000 60 400,000 500,000 50 600,000 40 700,000 800,000 30 900,000 1,000,000 20 10 0 0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 ADT (vehicles/day) Figure A-1. Isoquants for ADT*detour length.
OCR for page 44
Costing Asset Protection: An All Hazards Guide for Transportation Agencies (CAPTA) Test Preparation 45 100 95 90 95% < 241,000 85 Cummulative Percentage of Bridges 80 85% < 68,000 75 70 75% < 29,000 65 60 Nationally 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 900,000 1,000,000 ADT*Detour Length Figure A-2. Cumulative distribution of ADT*detour length for all U.S. bridges. Table A-6. Decision points. Is prediction a desirable countermeasure PREDICT function? Is deterrence a desirable countermeasure DETER function? Is detection a desirable countermeasure DETECT function? Is interdiction a desirable countermeasure INTERDICT function? Is response preparedness a desirable RESPONSE PREP. countermeasure function? Are countermeasures related to DESIGN/ENGINEERING design/engineering desirable? Do you wish to consider only area-wide AREA-WIDE AND ASSET- countermeasures, only asset-specific SPECIFIC countermeasures, or both? Do you wish to consider temp/redeployable TEMPORARY/REDEPLOYABLE countermeasures? Are you willing to consider countermeasures MULTIPURPOSE POTENTIAL that are NOT multipurpose? Do you wish to consider only basic BASIC AND ENHANCED countermeasures, only enhanced countermeasures, or both? Do you wish to consider threat responsive THREAT RESPONSIVE countermeasures? (Answer "N" if you only want permanent countermeasures.) What is the maximum per unit countermeasure MAX UNIT COST (X1000) cost you are willing to pay?
OCR for page 45
46 CAPTA Final Report Post Field Test Following the one-on-one session between the consultant and the state agency user, the user will retain a copy of the data model and the reports generated. The user is free to use the data model independent of the consultant. Copies of the reports and relevant notes will be taken by the consultant. The agency user is welcome at any time to recommend alterations to the data model that may improve ease of use. The information gleaned from the field test will be assessed by the consultant for possible inclusion into the final data model to be presented to the NCHRP 20-59(17) panel.