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.
