A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 777 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Deborah Matherly The Louis Berger group Washington, DC a n d Neeli Langdon The Louis Berger group Kansas City, MO i n a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h Brian Wolshon Shreveport, LA Pamela Murray-Tuite Reston, VA John Renne New Orleans, LA Roberta Thomas ATkins Tampa, FL Jane Mobley Kelly Reinhardt JAne MoBLey AssociATes Leawood, KS Subscriber Categories Public Transportation • Planning and Forecasting • Security and Emergencies TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 777 Project 20-59(42) ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-28417-2 Library of Congress Control Number 2014942380 © 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Cover photos: FEMA News Photo.

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. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. C. D. Mote, Jr., 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, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized 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 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 20-59(42) by the Louis Berger Group, Inc. (LBG), Washington, D.C. Deborah Matherly, AICP, Principal Planner at LBG, was the Principal Investigator. Contributing authors noted on the title page are Neeli Langdon, LBG, Kansas City, Missouri; Dr. Brian Wolshon, Shreveport, Louisiana; Dr. Pamela Murray-Tuite, Reston, Virginia; Dr. John Renne, New Orleans, Louisiana; Roberta Thomas of Atkins, Tampa, Florida; Dr. Jane Mobley and Kelly Reinhardt (formerly of Jane Mobley Associates, Leawood, Kansas; now with LBG); and Dr. Vinayak Dixit, University of South Wales, Australia (formerly of Louisiana State University). Additional contributors of research, review, layout, and editorial support were Teresa Carter, Allyson Kuriger, Illika Sahu, Korey Smith, Julie MacLachlan, and Rea Wilson (LBG, various locations). The work was done under the general supervision of Deborah Matherly. We thank all those who generously gave of their time and knowledge to participate in our interviews, survey, and webinar. Much of the information included in the case studies draws on content from the interviews along with basic information made available on relevant websites. Special thanks go to John Contestabile, who shared the incident scale of public preparedness and intergovernmental, multijurisdictional involvement (Figure 2 in this document) that he developed while with the Maryland Department of Transpor- tation. Thanks, too, to Elizabeth Fischer, who developed Table 1, “Connections between transportation systems and operations planning guidance and emergency operations and recovery planning guidance,” and to all those who contributed to the development of the case studies. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 777 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Stephan A. Parker, Senior Program Officer Adrienne Blackwell, Administrative Coordinator Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-59(42) PANEL Area of Special Projects Richard E. “Rick” Bennett, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City, MO (Chair) Alexander Thomas Bond, Center for Urban Transportation Research, Tampa, FL John S. Himmel, Washington State DOT, Olympia, WA Alvin Michael Marquess, Jacobs, Baltimore, MD J. Thomas Martin, I-95 Corridor Coalition, Williamsburg, VA Harold W. Neil, Jr., Homeland Defense Solutions, Inc., Hamilton, NJ Jin Wang, Atkins, San Francisco, CA Xuesong Zhou, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ Dan Ferezan, FHWA Liaison Georgia M. “Gia” Harrigan, DHS Science and Technology Directorate Liaison Robert D. Jaffin, International Association of Emergency Managers Liaison Boyd A. Stephenson, American Trucking Associations Liaison Marc Tonnacliff, Federal Aviation Administration Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison

NCHRP Report 777: A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emer- gencies, and Significant Events helps transportation stakeholders in the public and private sectors, as well as non-transportation stakeholders, such as emergency managers and first responders, better understand transportation’s important role in planning for multijuris- dictional disasters, emergencies, and major events. The guide sets out foundational plan- ning principles and uses examples, case studies, tips, tools, and suggested strategies to illus- trate their implementation. The research (literature review, survey, and interviews) discovered multijurisdictional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events taking place in many locations across the country, in many different institutional frameworks. Such plan- ning shares precepts of communication and collaboration, supported by eight basic prin- ciples that enable communities to better recover after a major disruption. Effective planning is comprehensive, cooperative, informative, coordinated, inclusive, exercised, flexible, and continuous. These principles connect the many disciplines, levels of government, and pri- vate, nonprofit, and public-sector agencies that contribute to a good community plan. They provide a shared vocabulary for a collaborative effort that promises sound preparation, effective response, and rapid recovery. The Louis Berger Group led a team that prepared NCHRP Report 777 under NCHRP Project 20-59(42). They were tasked to develop a guide with principles and resources for facilitating regional transportation planning, coordination, and operations across all modes for disasters, emergencies, and significant events. Four key components comprise the research that led to the guide: a literature review; a national survey; follow-up tele- phone interviews with key stakeholders who had first-hand experience and knowledge of planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events; and two webinars to review the draft guide, one with the study panel and one with key stakeholders. The research discov- ered multijurisdictional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events crossing the thresholds between long range emergency mitigation planning, land use planning and transportation planning, as well as tactical emergency and transportation operations planning, in diverse planning and operations organizations as well as nonprofit agencies. The guide’s examples and case studies focus on the positive applications of the principles of multijurisdictional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events, including lessons observed, rather than emphasizing failures in planning. In addition to the guide, a research report and a PowerPoint presentation describing the entire project can be accessed on the TRB website at www.trb.org by searching for “NCHRP Report 777”. F O R E W O R D By Stephan A. Parker Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

1 Summary S E C T I O N 1 Background 5 Introduction 5 Foundational Principles 13 Objectives of the Guide 13 Users of the Guide 14 Assumptions and Caveats S E C T I O N 2 Principles 17 Principle 1 Comprehensive 17 Characteristics of Comprehensive Planning 17 Strategies 19 Tools 19 Tips 20 Examples 20 Case Studies 22 Principle 2 Cooperative 22 Characteristics of Cooperative Planning 23 Strategies 24 Tools 24 Tips 24 Examples 25 Case Studies 27 Principle 3 Informative 27 Characteristics of Informative Planning 27 Strategies 29 Tools 29 Tips 30 Examples 31 Case Studies 33 Principle 4 Coordinated 33 Characteristics of Coordinated Planning 34 Strategies 34 Tools 35 Tips 35 Examples 36 Case Studies C O N T E N T S

37 Principle 5 Inclusive 37 Characteristics of Inclusive Planning 37 Strategies 38 Tools 39 Tips 39 Examples 40 Case Studies 41 Principle 6 Exercised 41 Characteristics of Exercised Planning 42 Strategies 43 Tools 43 Tips 44 Examples 45 Case Studies 46 Principle 7 Flexible 46 Characteristics of Flexible Planning 46 Strategies 48 Tools 48 Tips 48 Examples 49 Case Studies 51 Principle 8 Continuous/Iterative 51 Characteristics of Continuous/Iterative Planning 52 Strategies 53 Tools 53 Tips 53 Examples 54 Case Studies S E C T I O N 3 Case Studies 59 Case Study 1 Pacific Northwest Economic Region and the Center for Regional Disaster Resilience 63 Case Study 2 Anchorage, Alaska 64 Case Study 3 All Hazards Consortium 68 Case Study 4 Southwest Missouri Council of Governments 70 Case Study 5 The Association of Bay Area Governments 72 Case Study 6 City of Craig, Alaska 75 Case Study 7 Marathon Bombing Medical Care: Boston Bombings 77 Case Study 8 Hurricane Sandy 80 Case Study 9 Regional Integrated Transportation Information System

S E C T I O N 4 Tools 85 Tool 1 Checklist of Potential Stakeholders 93 Tool 2 Checklist of Potential Transportation Assets (High Level) 95 Tool 3 Transportation Resources (Detailed Checklist) 109 Tool 4 Sample Transportation Security and Hazard Mitigation Strategies for Various Project Modes and Types 113 Tool 5 Checklist for Emergency Events Affecting Multiple Jurisdictions, Transportation, and Interdependencies 117 Tool 6 Key Steps to Effective Collaboration 119 Tool 7 Questions for Collaborative Partners and Other Stakeholders to Ask Each Other 121 Tool 8 Strategies to Exercise Regional Transportation Plan for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events S E C T I O N 5 Additional Information 127 Glossary 134 Abbreviations 137 Resources 141 References 145 Appendix A Summary Comparison Between Disaster and Emergency Planning and Significant Event Planning 147 Appendix B Emergency Management and Transportation Planning Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.