Improving Surface Transportation Security

A Research and Development Strategy

Committee on R&D Strategies to Improve Surface Transportation Security

National Materials Advisory Board

Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems

Computer Science and Telecommunications Board

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

Transportation Research Board

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.



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 R1
Improving Surface Transportation Security A Research and Development Strategy Committee on R&D Strategies to Improve Surface Transportation Security National Materials Advisory Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems Computer Science and Telecommunications Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications Transportation Research Board National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was established by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This project was supported by the Department of Transportation under Contract No. DTRS56-98-C-0001. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily express the views of the sponsor. Available in limited supply from: National Materials Advisory Board HA-262 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 202-334-3505 nmab@nas.edu Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press Box 285 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) http://www.nap.edu International Standard Book Number: 0-309-06776-6 Copyright 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON R&D STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY H. NORMAN ABRAMSON, chair, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas DONALD E. BROWN, University of Virginia, Charlottesville NICK CARTWRIGHT, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada A. RAY CHAMBERLAIN, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Denver, Colorado H. ANDY FRANKLIN, Bechtel Technology, Inc., San Francisco, California ROBERT E. GREEN, JR., Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland BRUCE HADDAN, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia WILLIAM J. HARRIS, consultant, Arlington, Virginia MICHAEL L. HONIG, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois JIRI (ART) JANATA, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta STEVEN B. LIPNER, Mitretek Systems, McLean, Virginia MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta FRED V. MORRONE, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Jersey City, New Jersey JULIA WEERTMAN, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois National Research Council Staff DANIEL MORGAN, study director, senior program officer, National Materials Advisory Board STEPHEN GODWIN, director, Studies and Information Services, Transportation Research Board JANE GRIFFITH, interim director, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board HERB LIN, senior scientist, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board JANICE PRISCO, senior project assistant, National Materials Advisory Board

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD EDGAR A. STARKE, JR., chair, University of Virginia, Charlottesville JESSE L. (JACK) BEAUCHAMP, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena EARL H. DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina EDWARD C. DOWLING, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio THOMAS W. EAGAR, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ALASTAIR M. GLASS, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey MARTIN E. GLICKSMAN, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York JOHN A.S. GREEN, The Aluminum Association, Washington, D.C. SIEGFRIED S. HECKER, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico JOHN H. HOPPS, JR., Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia MICHAEL JAFFE, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick SYLVIA M. JOHNSON, SRI International, Menlo Park, California SHEILA F. KIA, General Motors Research and Development Center, Warren, Missouri LISA KLEIN, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick HARRY A. LIPSITT, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio ALAN G. MILLER, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington ROBERT C. PFAHL, JR., Motorola, Schaumburg, Illinois JULIA M. PHILLIPS, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg JAMES W. WAGNER, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio JULIA R. WEERTMAN, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois BILL G.W. YEE, Pratt & Whitney, West Palm Beach, Florida RICHARD CHAIT, director

OCR for page R1
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD DAVID D. CLARK, chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge FRANCES E. ALLEN, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York JAMES CHIDDIX, Time Warner Cable, Stamford, Connecticut JOHN M. CIOFFI, Stanford University, Stanford, California W. BRUCE CROFT, University of Massachusetts, Amherst A.G. FRASER, AT&T Labs Research, Florham Park, New Jersey SUSAN L. GRAHAM, University of California, Berkeley JAMES N. GRAY, Microsoft Corporation, San Francisco, California PATRICK M. HANRAHAN, Stanford University, Stanford, California JUDITH HEMPEL, University of California, San Francisco BUTLER W. LAMPSON, Microsoft Corporation, Cambridge, Massachusetts EDWARD D. LAZOWSKA, University of Washington, Seattle DAVID LIDDLE, Interval Research Corporation, Palo Alto, California JOHN E. MAJOR, Wireless Knowledge, San Diego, California TOM M. MITCHELL, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania DONALD NORMAN, Hewlett-Packard, Atherton, California RAYMOND OZZIE, Groove Networks, Beverly, Massachusetts DAVID A. PATTERSON, University of California, Berkeley LEE S. SPROULL, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts LESLIE L. VADASZ, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, California MARJORY S. BLUMENTHAL, director

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WAYNE SHACKELFORD, chair, Georgia Department of Transportation, Atlanta MARTIN WACHS, vice chair, University of California, Berkeley SHARON D. BANKS, AC Transit, Oakland, California THOMAS F. BARRY, JR., Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee BRIAN J.L. BERRY, University of Texas at Dallas SARAH C. CAMPBELL, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, D.C. ANNE P. CANBY, Delaware Department of Transportation, Dover E. DEAN CARLSON, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka JOANNE F. CASEY, Intermodal Association of North America, Greenbelt, Maryland JOHN W. FISHER, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania GORMAN GILBERT, North Carolina State University, Raleigh DELON HAMPTON, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C. LESTER A. HOEL, University of Virginia, Charlottesville JAMES L. LAMMIE, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., New York, New York THOMAS F. LARWIN, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego, California BRADLEY L. MALLORY, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Harrisburg JEFFREY J. MCCAIG, Trimac Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada JOSEPH A. MICKES, Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City MARSHALL W. MOORE, North Dakota Department of Transportation, Bismarck JEFFREY R. MORELAND, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation, Fort Worth, Texas SID MORRISON, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia JOHN P. POORMAN, Capital District Transportation Committee, Albany, New York ANDREA RINIKER, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, Washington JOHN M. SAMUELS, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia JAMES A. WILDING, Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, Alexandria, Virginia CURTIS A. WILEY, Indiana Department of Transportation, Indianapolis DAVID N. WORMLEY, Pennsylvania State University, University Park ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., executive director

OCR for page R1
Preface In May 1998, in response to a congressional mandate (House Report 104-863, p. 1189) and with funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Research Council formed the Committee on R&D Strategies to Improve Surface Transportation Security. The committee's purpose was to examine the vulnerabilities of the surface transportation system, identify ways to improve the system's security, and recommend a strategy for research and development (R&D). The committee consisted of 14 members with diverse expertise in science, technology, and policy. The committee was given the following task: The study will review the results of the DOT vulnerability assessment to help define areas that could be made less vulnerable with new technologies and processes and which of these technologies and processes are likely to be effective, affordable, and acceptable to the users. This study will identify technologies and processes that hold promise for defending against, mitigating the consequences of, or assisting in the investigation of attacks on the physical surface transportation infrastructure or on the surface transportation information systems and network, including technologies and processes in use for other security efforts that may be applied to surface transportation modes with or without modifications technology areas and processes where a development effort or research support may lead to promising surface transportation security technologies The study will recommend a research and development agenda for the

OCR for page R1
DOT, including a broad research and development strategy and technology transfer process. Areas to be addressed include technologies and processes that are specific to an individual transportation mode, as well as those that are crossmodal and intermodal. The study will also consider how these technologies and processes may be effectively transferred to the user communities. The committee interpreted the word "attacks" primarily to mean attacks by terrorists (or by others using similar methods, such as foreign agents, violent protesters, or disgruntled insiders) rather than conventional criminal activities, such as robberies. Many response strategies might be helpful in both situations, however. In addition, the committee interpreted "attacks on the physical infrastructure" to include human casualties caused by explosions or chemical or biological releases, as well as physical damage, but not to include hijacking or hostage-taking incidents directed primarily at individuals rather than infrastructure. Here too, however, many of the same strategic approaches might be useful in both cases. Any R&D agenda is based on a set of goals, values, and priorities. During the course of the study, the committee concluded that the first step in establishing an R&D strategy for surface transportation security should be to make that basis explicit. The range of possible security technologies and processes is so broad, the variety of threats so diverse, and the overall security problem so complex that proceeding to the selection of R&D topics without an explicit strategy would give no assurance of an appropriate result. The committee has not lost sight of the ultimate need to identify specific R&D projects that might improve the security of the surface transportation system. It firmly believes, however, that DOT should put in place a strategy of the type recommended in this report before proceeding to that step. The process of implementing the strategy—such as further evaluating systemic vulnerabilities, establishing a framework for setting priorities, and ensuring the involvement of transportation owners and operators—will elicit essential feedback both from within DOT and from the broader surface transportation community. This report therefore focuses on the first step, developing a strategic vision of an R&D program for the long term, and recommends a process for achieving that vision. The goal is to present a strategy rather than a shopping list of projects. Several specific R&D topics are discussed, but the report cannot and does not seek to be complete at that level. The committee met four times between May and November 1998. Meetings included open sessions for gathering information from outside experts, as well as closed deliberative sessions for discussions among the committee members. The third meeting, in August 1998, included a day of site visits to transportation facilities. In addition, selected committee members and staff participated in several outside conferences and workshops during the course of the study to

OCR for page R1
gather information and ideas from the broader transportation and security communities. Two brief interim letter reports were issued during the course of the study to update DOT on the committee's progress. The present report, the final product of the study, supersedes the two letter reports and presents the committee's complete findings and recommendations.

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The committee wishes to express its appreciation to the many individuals who provided valuable assistance during the course of the study. The following speakers gave presentations during the first, second, and fourth committee meetings on security and R&D issues in their particular areas of expertise: James Biostad, Kelley Coyner, John Daly, Mortimer Downey, Thomas Falvey, Jeffrey Shumaker, and Daniel Sullivan, U.S. Department of Transportation; Richard Clarke, National Security Council; John Davis, Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office; Basil Doyle, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Beverly Huey and Richard Little, National Research Council; Kerri-Ann Jones and Steven Rinaldi, Office of Science and Technology Policy; Michael O'Connell and Page Stoutland, U.S. Department of Energy; and Julie Wigton, Counterterrorism Center. For arranging and hosting the committee's site visits during its third meeting, the committee thanks Beth Brown, Michael Franke, Michael Henry, Ron Hughes, and Hal Whiteman of Transport Canada. Thanks also to those who showed the committee around at the sites: Greg Poitras, Terminal Systems, Inc.; Steve Lefler and Sheena Nelson, BC Ferry Corporation; Fred L. McCague, North West Cruise Ship Association; and K.L. (Kelly) Thomas, VIA Rail Canada. This study was a joint project of the National Materials Advisory Board of the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS), the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board of the Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications (CPSMA), and the Transportation Research Board (TRB). Joint oversight was provided by a ''virtual commission" consisting of James C. Williams, GE Aircraft Engines, and Barry M. Trost, Stanford University, representing CETS; John Kreick, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company,

OCR for page R1
and John E. Estes, University of California, Santa Barbara, representing CPSMA; and Lester A. Hoel, University of Virginia, and John M. Samuels, Norfolk Southern Corporation, representing TRB. This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the National Research Council in making their published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The draft manuscript and the content of the review comments remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. The committee wishes to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: Arden Bement, Purdue University; Trent DePersia, National Institute of Justice; Patrick Griffin, Sandia National Laboratories; Thomas Lambert, Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority; Thomas Larson, consultant; James van Loben Sels, Parsons Brinckerhoff; Fred Schneider, Cornell University; and Joseph Vervier, ENSCO, Inc. While the individuals listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests solely with the authoring committee and the National Research Council. Finally, the committee gratefully acknowledges the support of the staff of the National Research Council: Daniel Morgan, Stephen Godwin, Jane Griffith, Herb Lin, and Janice Prisco.

OCR for page R1
Contents     Executive Summary   1 1   Introduction and Background   3     The Surface Transportation System   4     Federal Security Research and Development   7     Characteristics of Surface Transportation Research and Development   8     Related Efforts in Infrastructure Protection Policy   10     The Organization of This Report   12 2   Assessing Vulnerability   13     Review of the Methodology and Findings of the Department of Transportation Vulnerability Assessment   13     Assessing Interdependencies and Strategic Vulnerability   20     Summary   27 3   Establishing a Research and Development Strategy   28     Defining the Problem and Objectives   29     Identifying Potential Alternatives   35     Evaluating Alternatives   36     Deciding on a Course of Action   37     Implementing the Plan   37     Protecting Sensitive Information   40     Summary   42

OCR for page R1
4   Applying the Methodology: Some Specific Research and Development Topics   43     Prevention   45     Mitigation   48     Monitoring   53     Recovery   56     Investigation   57     Systems Responses   58     Summary   60 5   A Vision of the Future   61     References   64     Appendices         A Background on Systems Theory   69     B The Likely Course of Development of Chemical and Biological Attacks   71     Biographical Sketches of Committee Members   74

OCR for page R1
Boxes, Figures, and Tables BOXES 1-1   Some Incidents Involving Surface Transportation in the United States   4 1-2   The Satin Gas Attack on the Tokyo Subway in 1995   6 1-3   DOT Agencies with R&D Activities   9 2-1   Nonvirus Cyber Attacks on Surface Transportation   17 2-2   Differences between Chemical and Biological Attacks   19 2-3   The Impact of Earthquakes on Surface Transportation   24 2-4   Implications for Surface Transportation of Trends in Communications   26 3-1   A Matrix for Categorizing R&D Topics in Surface Transportation Security   30 3-2   Operators' Perceptions of Threats   41 4-1   R&D Opportunities in Construction Design   52 FIGURES 4-1   Platform-edge doors in the London subway   49 B-1   Flow chart of probable actions in a chemical agent incident   72 B-2   Flow chart of probable actions in a biological agent incident   73

OCR for page R1
TABLES 2-1   Scenarios Considered in the DOT Vulnerability Assessment   15 4-1   Illustration of the Matrix Categorization of R&D Topics   44