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.
S E C T I O N 1 Background
5 Large, multijurisdictional disasters and emergencies occurring more frequently in the United States and internationally have ignited changes in how communities think about stand- ing ready. As a result, a considerable body of planning knowledge has developed in the last 10 to 15 years around planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events. Running through most regional transportation planning for everyday mobility is a set of com- mon principles that can be scaled up when planning for extraordinary transportation require- ments that come from a disaster, emergency, or major event. This guide is designed to help transportation agencies make disaster preparation integral to their regular planning processes and encourage stakeholders outside transportation to bring transportation to the table. It also provides tools to help transportation managers take leading roles in initiating or reinvigorat- ing collaborative work that integrates transportation into emergency readiness, response, and recovery planning. Foundational Principles Foundational principles work in community planning anywhere. They create a planning structure and help planners shape messages, methods, and means suitable for their location, agency, jurisdictional level, and event scenario. These principles can be visualized as a planning circle or wheel (Figure 1). The wedges, or spokes, of the wheel (the principles) are joined at a hub (resilience) and held together by a rim (communi- cation and collaboration). The image of the circle of planning principles that appears throughout this guide may be used to further categorize the foundational principles as applied to the planning process (coordinated, continuous/iterative); the plan itself (comprehensive, exercised, flexible); or the planning team (inclusive, cooperative, and informative). The principles are interdependent, as indicated in the figure by the dotted lines that separate them. The two precepts that hold together all the principles are communication and collabora- tion. Without these precepts, no other part of a multijurisdictional planning process can be functional. Categories of Communication 1. Communication for the planning process or related to the resulting plan (such as the work of developing the plan, sharing, and implementing the plan once it is complete). 2. Risk communications, which are discussions about âwhat could happen and what might we do about itâ that can be the impetus for planning as well as one of the outcomes of a plan. 3. Emergency communications before, during, and after a disaster, emergency, or major event. Introduction
6 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Each communication category has requirements for intra-agency and key stakeholder com- munication, but also for communication with the general public. Transportation planners have specialized knowledge and capabilities that are important to each communication category. 1. In communication for the planning process, it is important that transportation agencies identify communication capacity, constraints, and interdependencies to limit the potential for double counting or having multiple organizations think they have first or exclusive claim to a limited resource (e.g., dynamic messaging signage and ambulances or paratransit vehicles, which may be in demand by several entities). 2. In risk communications, transportation professionals must identify risks on two levels: a. Risks that come from the transportation sector (e.g., trucks or trains carrying hazardous materials subject to accident or derailment, or possible use of vehicles to carry out terrorist incidents). b. Risks to the transportation sector (e.g., bridges or tunnels susceptible to earthquakes or flooding), and the implications of such risk to multijurisdictional movement and response capabilities. 3. In emergency communications, transportation must provide a plan with a catalog of the kinds of emergency transportation-related guidance critical to decision-makers and travelers (e.g., communication and feedback on the condition and operations of public and private transportation infrastructure and interdependent systems). Cornerstones of Collaboration Collaboration is the cornerstone of many types of activities, especially those requiring high levels of interaction for mutual gain and high levels of trust of others. For example, the first step in the planning process outlined in the Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG) 101, Version 2.0, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to âform a collaborative planning team (FEMA November 2010).â âCollaboration: A purposeful process of working together to plan, to create, and to solve problems and/or manage activities.â âCampbell et al. (2005) Figure 1. Circle of principles.
Introduction 7 Collaboration delivers the following direct benefits to regional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events: â¢ Responding to public needs that require multimodal or multijurisdictional strategies. â¢ Using new technologies to integrate system and traveler information that crosses modal and jurisdictional boundaries. â¢ Improving the probability of securing new funding for a particular region or organization (by expanding the constituency base for the proposal). â¢ Preparing for both planned and unexpected events (such as freeway reconstruction and natural disasters) that could disrupt the transportation system (Campbell et al. 2005). This guide provides some suggestions for fostering collaboration, and comprehensive infor- mation is found in these specific resources: â¢ TCRP Report 106/NCHRP Report 536: From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making (Campbell et al. 2005). â¢ NCHRP Report 690: A Guidebook for Successful Communication, Cooperation, and Coor- dination Strategies Between Transportation Agencies and Tribal Communities (ATR Institute et al. 2011). â¢ Regional Transportation Operations Collaboration and Coordination: A Primer for Working Together to Improve Transportation Safety, Reliability, and Security (FHWA 2003). All three resources provide suggestions, tools, and practical applications for collaboration from varied perspectives. Communication and collaboration provide the framework that holds the other principles together. These principles are introduced briefly in this section and described in detail in Section 2. Planning Principles Comprehensive: Regional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events looks at the full range of potential events with widespread impact that could conceiv- ably affect the region and considers all possible stresses on the transportation system, includ- ing interdependencies with other critical infrastructure systems. Planning develops, examines, and tests a range of solutions to address the resulting impacts on critical services, constituents, response capabilities, and the short- and long-range recovery of the community and the region. Cooperative: The regional transportation planning process is cooperative, not top-down or single-government-agency driven. The process seeks, values, and uses input, suggestions, con- cerns, insights, and critiques from all public, private, and nonprofit stakeholders. Informative: Regional transportation planning encompasses data acquisition, analysis, decision making, guidance development, and the transfer of information in a timely, accurate, clear, simple, and useful way to travelers, first responders, and other stakeholders. This prin- ciple guides action-oriented plans for specific communication messages, methods of presenta- tion, and means of delivery. Coordinated: Regional transportation planning establishes a coordinated system that iden- tifies both problems and possible solutions. It takes into account the needs and capabilities of all relevant stakeholders. Inclusive: Regional transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events includes services, entities responsible for providing them, material requirements, and persons to be served. It includes every relevant transportation mode; public and private stakeholders, including emergency managers, businesses, owners and operators of critical infrastructure, Plan for the Maximum FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate urges communities to âplan for the maximum of maximums.â These are not just the expected events or recognized past events, but extreme conditions that could occur despite the probability being quite low.
8 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events layers of government, and community organizations that work with people with access and functional needs and transportation-disadvantaged populations. Exercised: Regional transportation plans for emergencies, disasters, and significant events are exercised regularly to improve planning and operations. Some of this planning and exercis- ing can take place concurrently with planning for significant events. Flexible: Regional transportation planning incorporates flexibility, adaptability, and the ability to make rapid decisions in times of uncertainty. It also aims at restoring transportation systems and the communities they serve to normal operations as quickly as possible. Continuous/Iterative: Ideally, regional transportation planning is ongoing and regular. For readiness and resilience, planning for disasters are essential parts of usual transporta- tion project plans and updates, but this requires long-term commitments to participation in emergency planning activities. Readiness and preparedness need a body of knowledge and set of relationships that develop without interruption over time. Regular assessments, plan updates, and regionally effective approaches to building community-wide networks continu- ously strengthen the level of communication and collaboration that are required in response to disasters, and these activities maintain critical relationships. This process also helps to ensure the continuous transfer of knowledge from one generation of personnel to the next and among agencies as roles and responsibilities emerge or change over time. All incidents are generally first and best managed at the grassroots level of government. Tribal, municipal, and county police, fire, medical, and emergency management entities are respon- sible for handling incidents that affect their communities, consistent with the philosophy of the National Incident Management System (NIMS). When an incident exceeds local jurisdictionsâ capabilities and resources, regional partners and state agencies assist whenever and wherever necessary; this is often when transportation becomes a more critical part of the equation. In addition to principles, the guide includes examples and case studies in which integrated planning has made a difference. Emergency managers and first responders in law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services regularly interact with transportation incident-response personnel. In some cases, the tools and practices developed to respond to routine incidents can be scaled up through forecasting and practice. Likewise, relationships, strategies, and protocols that are developed to address large-scale significant events, such as a major sporting, entertain- ment, or political events, can also be useful in planning for and responding to major events such as hurricanes, flooding, wildfires, or terrorism. Basic differences and similarities between disaster and emergency planning for planned spe- cial events are summarized in Appendix A. Figure 2 illustrates the types of regional and national incidents that require multijurisdic- tional coordination. Incidents become less frequent proceeding from the local to national scale. As a result, public preparedness decreases as incidents increase in scale, moving from left to right. Conversely, the complexity of coordinationâacross jurisdictions, agencies, and private and nonprofit organizations, and through levels of government and chains of commandâ increases dramatically as scale of the incident increases. The time required to resolve an inci- dent also increases with the scope and scale of the incident. Connections Between Emergency Management and Transportation Planning Table 1 summarizes and compares transportation and emergency management planning and operations frameworks that encompass transportation planning for disasters, emergencies, and significant events. It identifies areas in which transportation and emergency management Most of the guideâs focus is on transportation planning for disasters and emergencies because they present the most urgent challenges for multijurisdictional coordination.
Introduction 9 can leverage mutual interests and resources to improve community and regional resilience and outcomes. Appendix B provides additional detail. These connections are now working in many places throughout the nation. For example: â¢ Information sharing about transportation takes place every day on a regional basis, demon- strating its value to response agencies and the general public for small incidents, with even greater value for large events (see Section 3, Case Study 9). â¢ Transportation and emergency operations and recovery planning have successfully integrated private and nonprofit sectors into their planning, sometimes using novel non-governmental frameworks to accomplish that integration (see Section 2, Principle 2: Cooperative, and Sec- tion 3, Case Studies 1 and 3). â¢ Transportation and emergency management effectively collaborate to plan for major special events and use that information and collaboration to improve emergency operations plan- ning (see examples in Section 2, Principle 6: Exercised, and Section 3, Case Studies 1 and 6). â¢ Long-term transportation planning and major transportation project planning explicitly incorporate and preserve security and hazard mitigation measures throughout the project design and implementation cycle. (See the Washington State Department of Transportation [Washington State DOT] example in Section 2, Principle 1: Comprehensive.). â¢ Hazard-mitigation planning clearly incorporates transportation infrastructure. (See the Fort Collins example in Section 2, Principle 5: Inclusive, and Section 3, Case Study 5.) Figure 2. Incident scale, public preparedness, and intergovernmental, multijurisdictional involvement. Source: Graphic courtesy of John Contestabile, formerly of the Maryland Department of Transportation. Graphic used with permission; previously published in CIO Leadership for Public Safety CommunicationsâEmerging Trends and Practices (Shark 2012).
10 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Planning Operations TR A N SP O R TA TI O N Transport Systems Planning Transport Operations/Operations Planning Transportation systemsâ long-range transportation plans link with community and land use plans. These long-term (20+ years) strategic and policy plans are updated every 5 years. They are required at the state and MPO level (23 CFR 450). Planning tools and resources that can be used under emergency management as well as transport operation are data and geographic information systems (GIS). Climate adaptation planning ties well to mitigation planning. Planning addresses day-to-day management of transportation facilities, equipment, and systems (roads, bridges, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), bike/pedestrian paths, transit, etc.). Planning focuses on the system or specific aspects of the overall transportation system. Li nk s â¢ FHWA Planning: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ â¢ The Briefing Book (Planning 101): http://www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefin gbook/bbook.htm â¢ Planning for Operations: http://plan4operations.dot.gov/ â¢ Planning for Operations: http://plan4operations.dot.gov/ â¢ FHWA Operations: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/aboutus/aboutu s.htm â¢ Asset Management: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/ EM ER G EN C Y M A N A G EM EN T Recovery & Mitigation Planning Emergency Operations Planning Coordinated support for community recovery from the long-term impacts of major disasters. The mid- range (3â5 years). State multi-hazard mitigation plans are updated triennially. They are required at the state, local, and Tribal level (44 CFR 201). These plans are a perfect feed into transportation plans. HAZUSÂ®, a GIS-based natural hazard loss estimation software package, provides data that could aid transportation decision making. Tactical planning with repetitive training and exercises. All-hazards preparedness and response to no-notice (weather, earthquakes, human-caused) and planned events (sports, inaugurations). Short timeframes. Li nk s â¢ National Response Framework: http://www.fema.gov/national-response- framework (ESF14 Long-Term Community Recovery) â¢ Mitigation: http://www.fema.gov/what-mitigation â¢ HAZUSÂ®: http://www.fema.gov/hazus/hazus-mitigation- recovery-planning â¢ State Mitigation Planning âBlue Bookâ: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id =3115 â¢ National Response Framework (NRF): http://www.fema.gov/national- response-framework (ESFs 1-13,15) â¢ NIMS: http://www.fema.gov/national-incident- management-system â¢ Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (Support Tool): http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/division s/npd/CPG_101_v2_past.pdf â¢ FHWA Emergency Transport Operations: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_p se/index.htm Ti m e Sc al e Years to decades plus Minutes to months Sources: Fischer, E., RLA, ASLA, APA, IAEM. 2012. U.S. DOT, FHWA, Hawaii. Developed for this project. Table 1. Connections between transportation systems and operations planning guidance and emergency operations and recovery planning guidance (Fischer 2012). Worth the Effort With regard to disasters and emergencies, many communities do not yet have effective mul- tijurisdictional transportation planning that coordinates seamlessly with emergency manage- ment and other stakeholders. Working together would require a substantial investment of time for all entities to develop and carry out realistic exercises, coordinate and improve operating
Introduction 11 plans and procedures for emergency events, and prioritize regional investments to improve regional security and resilience. However, the effort is worth it. â¢ The cost of building security and resilience measures into a major project, such as a bridge or tunnel, from the beginning is far lower than the cost of retrofitting later for security and/ or hazard mitigation. â¢ The cost is also much lower than the costs to the community of losing access to and use of the asset and rebuilding after a disaster. â¢ Rebuilding after a disaster to reduce future risks, such as hardening structures or relocating homes, businesses, and infrastructure away from persistent hazards, reduces future reinvest- ments in disaster recovery. â¢ Investing in the social structures that build resilience, such as relationships with other agen- cies, jurisdictions, and nonprofit and for-profit organizations as demonstrated throughout the guide, helps communities rebuild more quickly after an emergency. No single entityâincluding any federal or state agencyâhas all the resources needed to miti- gate, respond to, and recover from all incidents of regional scale. Disasters demand coordination of resources among the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. This guide presents examples of where and how such coordination has developed and been most effective, highlighting the underlying and interrelated principles that foster success. What This Guide Provides This guide provides principles of planning; basic tools and resources; examples of many notable successes (and lessons learned from failures); and case studies about effective multijurisdictional transportation planning for disasters, emer- gencies, or significant planned events. This guide does not frame multijurisdictional transportation planning inside transportation or emergency management planning definitions or tie it to spe- cific planning cycles for emergency management, transportation, or municipal planning. It also does not prescribe standard operating procedures; suggested strategies are suggestions, not instructions. In some cases, recommendations developed through a planning process have been translated into projects in a transportation improvement program or under an Urban Area Security Initiative Grant (UASIG). Such prioritization and imple- mentation processes are recommended, but are inherently local and therefore are not treated in this guide. The National Academy of Sciences report, Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative puts forth a vision of the characteristics of a resilient nation in the year 2030: The characteristics describe a more resilient nation in which â¢ Every individual and community in the nation has access to the risk and vulnerability infor- mation they need to make their communities more resilient; â¢ All levels of government, communities, and the private sector have designed resilience strate- gies and operation plans based on this information; â¢ Proactive investments and policy decisions have reduced loss of lives, costs, and socioeco- nomic impacts of future disasters;
12 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events â¢ Community coalitions are widely organized, recognized, and supported to provide essential services before and after disasters occur; â¢ Recovery after disasters is rapid and the per capita federal cost of responding to disasters has been declining for a decade; and â¢ Nationwide, the public is universally safer, healthier, and better educated (National Resource Council 2012). Figure 3 illustrates the interconnectedness of social, economic, infrastructure, and land use choices, overlapping the emergency planning cycle of mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. Investments in all the systems and emergency phases are necessary to achieve resiliency. â¢ Transportation is a critical component of land use and development. Transportation deci- sions and investments or disinvestments strongly influence development, and vice versa; together, these decisions and investments also foster or undermine mitigation efforts. â¢ Transportation is essential to social systems, providing access to jobs, services, education, and recreation. â¢ Transportation is a major sector of the economy in and of itself, and it supports every other aspect of the economy, directly or indirectly. The ability of a community or region to restore its businesses and economy quickly after an event will depend to some degree on outside support as well as internal resources. â¢ A functioning transportation system is required to bring in resources and access locations that need help; response and recovery efforts rely on transportation infrastructure. This guide provides examples of effective planning in a variety of planning frameworks and institutional settings. The processes and outcomes, based on the application of the guideâs eight principles, suggest a robust but flexible planning framework that any region will be able Economy Social SystemsInfrastructure EVENT Land Use, Development, and Natural Systems Response Recovery Mitigation Preparedness Investment Priorities Figure 3. Interrelationships (LeDuc et al. 2009).
Introduction 13 to adapt to its particular circumstances. Resilience is an achievable goal when multijurisdic- tional, multidisciplinary relationships, communication, and planning are in place prior to an emergency. The principles in this guide foster such relationship building and planning. Objectives of the Guide The key outcome of embracing and applying the eight planning principles is a more resilient community. The major objectives of NCHRP Report 777: A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events are to â¢ Raise the level of visibility and relevance in transportation planning for emergencies, disas- ters, and significant events; â¢ Increase awareness of public and private assets and capabilities that may be available to support response efforts locally, county-wide, statewide, regionally, nationally, and internationally; â¢ Improve resilience to withstand changing environments and more quickly restore normal operations; â¢ Facilitate informed dialogues and planning between transportation stakeholders and other major stakeholders for emergency planning; â¢ Help establish grassroots collaborative networks to help plan ways to mitigate, respond to, and recover from emergencies, disasters, or significant events; and â¢ Identify common causes that can benefit from shared resources. Users of the Guide This guide is designed to assist professionals in the transportation sector (all modes, and across the public, private, and nonprofit sectors) as well as in the non-transportation community in making the most effective community use of transportationâs vital role in emergency plan- ning, response, recovery, and mitigation efforts. It specifies advance planning and collaboration principles that can identify risks and hazards and unlock a wealth of potential transportation assets and capabilities. Transportation brings many kinds of assets to the table and carries vital interdependencies with other key sectors and functions such as utilities and communications. Many of these capabilities and interdependencies may not be familiar to emergency manage- ment and other public stakeholders. How to Use the Guide NCHRP Report 777 is organized around key planning principles identified through the research. The principles make up the chapters of Section 2. For each principle, an overarching state- ment is given that summarizes the principle, followed by discussion of the characteristics of the principle, strategies and tips to implement it, examples of successful application of the principle, and cross-references to tools and case studies that further illustrate and support the principle. Section 3 of the guide presents nine longer case studies that illustrate, in greater depth, how agencies and organizations have developed multijurisdictional planning for disasters, emergen- cies, and significant events, effectively applying most or all of the principles. This section also includes descriptions of entities that have developed and evolved to work out the frameworks and the details of multijurisdictional, multi-agency, private- and public-sector coordination (including transportation) for mitigation of, response to, and recovery from disasters and emergencies. Some of the case studies include information about entities that have employed established relationships to develop breakthrough strategies for dealing with planned events of national significance as well as emergencies.
14 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events The case studies are designed to serve as guides and, as examples, they can be scaled up or down based on the specific needs of each community. Users are encouraged first to review the principles, refer to the tools, and delve into the case studies for more real-life examples, then to refer to the resources in Section 5 for further information. Section 4 of the guide provides eight tools that support the principles. The tools include checklists, tables, and discussion guides. Section 5 of the guide provides a glossary, an annotated list of resources that support the principles and action steps, and a list of references. Some resources are discussed in the text of the guide to better document the principles they support; however, the important information is repeated in Section 5 for ease of reference. Assumptions and Caveats In most regions, emergency management carries primary responsibility for response and recovery planning and implementation during disasters and emergencies. Emergency manage- ment plans must integrate transportation systems and operations to ensure transportation for emergency response and mobility. â¢ In the National Response Framework (NRF), Emergency Support Function 1 (ESF 1) covers transportation. Ideally, all modes and facets of transportation are represented at the table during emergency planning to ensure that their perspectives are heard, their resources are acknowledged, and their concerns and potential limitations on responses are addressed. â¢ Agencies and organizations that participate in planning will vary by location; planning will reflect the particular geographic, environmental, demographic, and transportation system characteristics in each region. â¢ Regions will be at various points in the planning process. Some regions that may not have considered the multijurisdictional aspects of transportation planning for disasters, emer- gencies, and significant events will find this guide helpful. Other regions, with integrated, tested regional emergency transportation plans already in place, may find this guide useful in evaluating their plans and operations as they look for opportunities to improve. â¢ This guide frequently mentions metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Some MPOs are active in emergency planning and in coordination that includes transportation services. Many MPOs do not have an active role in such planning, however; rather, they provide sup- porting information such as mapping, demographics, or modeling. Other MPOs have more active roles in coordination, such as regional situational awareness and data sharing. Partici- pation of these MPOs with regard to transportation planning for emergencies and significant events has been shown to have value in some communities, as highlighted in the examples and case studies in this guide. â¢ The examples and case studies provided are illustrative, not exhaustive. They are intended to represent promising practices or lessons learned based on the interviews and research conducted in NCHRP Project 20-59(42); many other excellent examples undoubtedly exist. This guide is written for transportation planners, but it includes readily usable information for planners in other sectors, especially first responders, utilities, and, in particular, emergency managers.