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 3 Case Studies
59 C A S E S T U D Y 1 Background PNWER was established in 1991 as a nonprofit, 501(c)(3), agency to foster cross-border eco- nomic coordination in the Pacific Northwest. Public-sector and private-sector partners come from the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington in the United States, and from the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta in Canada. The initial partnership was later expanded to include Saskatchewan Province and the Yukon and Northwest Territories. In 2000, PNWER established the Center for Regional Disaster Resilience (RDR). RDRâs initial impetus was the risk posed by impending energy brownouts across the regional grid, a risk that was later exacerbated by the Enron scandal. RDR succeeded in gathering private-sector and public agencies to take a regional look at energy choke points, congestion points, and interdependencies. After September 11, 2001 (9/11), state and provincial elected officials were largely preoccupied with ramping up emergency management, homeland security, and first responder capabilities, and effectively delegated the responsibility to RDR to work with private-sector partners responsible for critical infrastructure. RDR began organizing the Blue Cascades exercises, bringing public and private-sector part- ners together to explore problems and identify gaps in the plans (see the section on Process Highlights). The Blue Cascades exercises have proven to be worthwhile to the participants and to the region, both for identifying and addressing problems, and for establishing and building sound relationships across disciplines and across state and national boundaries. Structure/Characteristics The PNWER governance structure and authorizations are well described in the âAbout Us/ Backgroundâ portion of the organizationâs webpage, which can be accessed online at http:// www.pnwer.org/. PNWER was established through legislation passed in each jurisdiction. The executive committee consists of one legislator and one private-sector board chair from each jurisdiction, four governors/premiers (or their designees), and an executive director. There also are a delegate council, a private-sector council, and many official working groups. This structure also provides the foundation for the RDR and its working groups. Process Highlights Full membership and active participation of private-sector members, cross-border perspec- tives, and recognized interdependencies have steadily increased the visibility and recognized accomplishments of PNWER and RDR. PNWER and RDR have developed a culture of trust over the past 15 years. Pacific Northwest Economic Region and the Center for Regional Disaster Resilience
60 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Blue Cascade Exercises When planning each signature Blue Cascade exercise, RDR asks the private-sector partic- ipants what they are really worried about (rather than issuing a government mandate that âthis is what we will testâ). The private-sector working group participants are involved in the scenario designs from the earliest planning stages. They hash through issues, come up with exercise injects (inputs, or challenges, that can be included as part of the exercise), and then are active owners and participants in the exercise. Most private-sector participants are involved with or responsible for their companyâs Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP). Their focus, consistent with PNWERâs and RDRâs mission, is geared to resilience and recovery more than to immediate response. Exercise Sequence The sequence for most exercises goes from concept to workshop, development of materials and scenarios, the tabletop exercise, an after-action conference, and a final report. For each exercise, these elements were merged into a Regional Action Plan with identified projects and actions in the following areas: â¢ Interdependencies â¢ Coordination â¢ Roles and responsibilities â¢ Response â¢ Critical resource logistics and distribution â¢ Information sharing â¢ Economic continuity and recovery â¢ Public information â¢ Training and education Accomplishments The 2006 Blue Cascade Exercise III identified gaps in plans for recovery and restoration that clearly needed more work (see Table 2). Exercise V in 2008 focused on supply chain resilience. Exercise Year Focus I 2002 Physical disruptions to the energy grid II 2004 Cyber/physical disruptions III 2006 Recovery and restoration after major earthquake IV 2007 Critical infrastructure and pandemic preparedness V 2008 Critical supply chains: food, fuel and water after major earthquake VI 2010 Floods and H1N1 pandemic 2012 Maritime commerce resilience I 2002 Physical disruptions to the energy grid II 2004 Cyber/physical disruptions III 2006 Recovery and restoration after major earthquake IV 2007 Critical infrastructure and pandemic preparedness V 2008 Critical supply chains: food, fuel and water after major earthquake VI 2010 Floods and H1N1 pandemic 2012 Maritime commerce resilience Table 2. Blue Cascades exercises.
Pacific Northwest Economic Region and the Center for Regional Disaster Resilience 61 The exercise stakeholders developed recommendations and the state, city of Seattle, and private-sector participants have been moving the recommendations forward into specific projects within the Seattle region. The projects are included as part of the regional Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). The RDR serves as both a catalyst and a stimulus to specific actions and progress. 2010 Winter Olympics PNWER helped facilitate cross-border planning for the 2010 Winter Olympics, which led to longer-range improvements in balancing efficient border crossings and security. This effort provides a good example of multijurisdictional coordination for planned events contributing to everyday improvements and coordination for disasters and emergencies. PNWER established a Border Solutions Coordination Council with the support of the state and provincial governments to work on border issues in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics. The councilâs objectives were to â¢ Ensure a secure, convenient, and welcoming border crossing experience for the 2010 Olympics â¢ Reduce congestion and streamline flows of legitimate trade and travel â¢ Increase outreach and expansion of frequent border crossing programs to improve security by focusing on higher risk traffic The council was charged to â¢ Provide consistent input on regional priorities from governments, stakeholders, and border communities in the Pacific Northwest â¢ Help shape border security policy and implementation strategies â¢ Connect the federal governments in a systematic way with the local impacts of border decisions The Border Solutions Coordination Council convened regularly and developed recommen- dations and strategies. Many of the recommendations were adopted before the Olympic Games. Specific strategies to facilitate travel during the Olympics and then established as an improved mode of operations included: an advance passenger manifest clearance project for common carriers and first responder NEXUS (a separate, expedited lane for trusted travelers), and a Washington State Freight Mobility Plan (available online at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Freight/ freightmobilityplan) that assesses freight for priority status in case of a border closure or a major highway disruption. PNWER also hosted a border conference during the Olympic Games. The conference focused on a 10-year vision for the U.S.âCanada border and was attended by both ambassadors, three premiers, and many stakeholders. Results of the meeting contributed to a joint declaration by U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper on February 4, 2011, âBeyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness.â Lessons Learned In 2003 and 2004, Canadaâs approach to private-sector integration and threat levels relied on self-organization and sector-specific/geographic-specific inventories of critical infrastructure (national, provincial, and local assets). Canada developed risk assessments, strategies, and best practices for dealing with each level of threat for each sector at each geographic level. This was in marked contrast to the United States DHSâ issuance of a universal threat level. Individual stakeholders found the sector-specific, geographically scaled approach to be more useful in developing response and recovery plans than the DHS universal threat level approach.
62 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events PNWER was instrumental in sharing the Canadian model with the states in its region, and this led to a dialogue with DHS on the subject of âWhat is criticality?â The regionâs experience with the Blue Cascades exercises made clear that criticality is dynamic, changing often in the course of any incident, and that a thorough understanding of interdependenciesâespecially of critical infrastructuresâis important. The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) references PNWER as the model for bringing the public and private sectors together to address critical infrastructure protection issues (NIPP 2009). PNWER also is listed as a model of best practice for working with other states and provinces to address critical infrastructure security issues in A Governorâs Guide to Homeland Security (NGA 2007).
63 C A S E S T U D Y 2 Background The emergency management agency (EMA) in Anchorage, Alaska, has incorporated inclu- sive planning for people with access and functional needs into several emergency planning initiatives. The EMA worked with Access Alaska, the largest center in the state for independent living, on planning for access and functional needs populations. The EMA is forming agree- ments with Access Alaska for using resources, staff, and durable medical equipment for emer- gency response. Access Alaska also helped the EMA form a functional needs support services working group with additional agencies. The working group reviewed various sections of the mass-sheltering annex and helped to identify planning gaps. The EMA updates points of contact for agencies in the working group every 3 months by sending an email to confirm contact information. In addition, the Anchorage EMA revised the literacy level of the disaster registry brochure it was developing to enable use by more population groups, including people who had partial or total hearing loss. The EMA tested the brochure with members of target populations section-by- section and page-by-page and incorporated their suggestions into subsequent revisions. Sugges- tions included adding photos and using small words and bullet points rather than paragraphs. The EMA also developed an application for the disaster registry program in collaboration with the American Red Cross, paratransit partners, the state DOT, police, and other agencies to identify information they needed to collect on the application. The Anchorage EMA found that most of the population groups targeted for the disaster registry did not use the Internet and would not sign up for the registry online. Thus, trusted intermediaries, such as medical profes- sionals and service providers, were used to distribute the disaster registry applications and the brochure to the target populations. Anchorage, Alaska
64 C A S E S T U D Y 3 Background The All Hazards Consortium (AHC) is a regional nonprofit organization, guided by Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, and the urban areas of New York City, New York, Newark, New Jersey, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The role of the AHC is to âfacilitate multi-state collabora- tion efforts that result in coordinated planning, investments, research, projects, and the creation of new partnerships and resources for member states and UASIs (urban areas that are part of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program from DHS)â (RCCC 2011). AHC Overview The AHC started out with the All-Hazards Forum, a 2004 trade show conceived by John Contestabile of the Maryland DOT, and Dennis Schrader, Maryland Homeland Security advi- sor, organized around the concept of interoperable communications, and carried out through a network of partners. The forum brought together transportation, emergency managers, and first responders from many jurisdictions and across the state of Maryland with vendors and universi- ties to showcase the latest tools and technologies and discuss how to work effectively together. It included an exhibit hall and a technical program with panel discussions across multiple tracks. Each panel included representatives from the federal government, industry, academia, and state and local governments. Exhibitorsâ fees covered the costs of the program. The 2004 forum brought together 354 participants from 19 states and the 2005 forum included 670 participants from 31 states and four foreign countries. The forums uncovered a thirst to collaborate on problems across jurisdictions, agencies, and disciplines. Attendees recognized that an ongoing dialogue must include both private-sector and public-sector participants. In discussing the potential structure of that ongoing collaboration, they realized a government entity would probably encounter too many constraints (e.g., ethical, procurement, legal). It might also be perceived as jurisdictionally biased, whereas a private com- mercial entity would probably discourage government participation. A university entity might be too academic. Therefore, in 2005, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit entity was established as the neutral third party and was named the AHC, with Tom Moran named as director. AHC Structure and Functional Framework The nonprofit consortiumâlimited to nine states by choice to maintain a regional scopeâ has a governing body of the nine participating states. It serves as an impartial arbiter. It has a staff of three full-time people with additional limited part-time support. The majority of its All Hazards Consortium
All Hazards Consortium 65 work is conducted by volunteer state and operator working groups. The staff typically help get a working group started, ensuring that the groupâs mission and objectives are clear, arbitrate conflicts, and then step back. Funding is provided by corporate sponsors and grants. AHC is looking to expand its funding base and sustainability by marketing its membership program to the owners and operators of critical infrastructure (e.g., finance, power, transportation, retail, and others). Serving state and local governments and private-sector infrastructure owners and operators, AHC provides an enabling framework that allows various stakeholders to come together on specific projects and issues, sometimes with competing or overlapping interests, to collaborate on common initiatives that result in unique benefits to each group. Such initiatives may include the following: â¢ Integrate planning efforts on specific topics â¢ Identify interdependencies and common vulnerabilities â¢ Develop pre-event resiliency projects and initiatives â¢ Adopt common standards and best practices â¢ Develop plans and agreements â¢ Conduct joint exercises to identify joint gaps, projects, plans, agreements â¢ Improve business operations and reduce risk (AHC website 2012) Effective Collaborations and Practical Successes Foster Continued and Expanded Collaborations The collaboration and effective working relationships between the private sector and the public sector, and among public-sector agencies, continue to yield great value and unex- pected opportunities to make things work better in an emergency. In turn, the bonds between people and agencies and among peopleâs commitments to keeping the consortium going are strengthened. Process Highlights One lesson learned by hosting the forums in 2004 and 2005 was that there are necessary precursors to applying the technology used in planning for, responding to, and recovering from hazards. The people who âown the problemâ must come together and develop consensus on exactly what is needed to address the problem, including application of technology. Histori- cally, the people and process components are often overlooked, and the AHC found its role facilitating these aspects, illustrated in Figure 4. AHC Helps The AHC helps governments work across geographic and agency bound- aries with critical infrastructure owners and opera- tors to get busi- nesses back faster after an event. Source: Figure courtesy of John Contestabile. Figure 4. People, process, and technology alignment.
66 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Building on its success with governmental entities, the AHC has expanded its private-sector outreach within the past few years to apply this model to operators of critical infrastructure, in particular the lifeline sectors. For example, a national firm with satellite communications can identify if a ground link is up or down. Knowing this is extremely useful in plotting power out- ages after a disaster. The firm provides the information to the consortium, AHC provides the translation role, adds disclaimers (this is private information, no warranty implied, etc.), and distributes the information to government agencies that identify who might need assistance and to utilities to help prioritize deployments. In December 2011, the AHC and others sponsored a workshop to discuss transit of response crews and provision of mutual assistance across state lines. A key finding was that owner-operators from the energy, communications, transportation, banking and finance, and commercial facilities sectors have generally good knowledge of the protocols within their home states and immediate surrounding states, but are often not cognizant of protocols in more distant states to which they may lend assistance. The AHC established a multi-state fleet response initiative working group to address this issue. The working group developed goals and objectives, desired outcomes, and products (including a regional directory of pertinent public and private-sector entities involved in permitting and facilitating the response). The AHC, its working groups, and its partnersâ groundwork proved their value during and after Hurricane Sandy. One of many AHC success stories from the superstorm occurred in the power sector, when out-of-state utility trucks were tied up at toll stations in New Jersey. By facilitating the connection of several people in New Jersey with the power sector, the New Jersey Toll Administration helped develop a workaround process, agreed to within a few hours, that was circulated to the private sector within 8 hours. This simple workaround had a dramatic impact on the flow of trucks through toll gates, not just in New Jersey but also in Delaware and other surrounding states. People were connected quickly via telephone, text message, or emailâ and knowing the right people to connect in government and the private sector was critical to the success of this workaround (AHC website 2012). Working group members represent the following sectors: â¢ Power â¢ Retail â¢ Gas and oil â¢ Electric â¢ Chemical â¢ Telecommunications â¢ Water â¢ Transportation â¢ Banking and finance â¢ Rail and roadways â¢ Ports â¢ Information technology â¢ Food and supply chain â¢ State and local government â Homeland security â Emergency management â Transportation â Health â Boards of public utilities â Public utility commissions
All Hazards Consortium 67 â Revenues and tolls â Parks and planning â General services â¢ Federal government â DHS infrastructure protection â DHS science and technology â FEMA â U.S. DOT â Department of Energy â Department of Commerce â Department of Justice â U.S. Navy â National Guard â U.S. Secret Service Other AHC capabilities and services that emerged during Hurricane Sandy included locating citizen and worker housing, enhancing citizen protection via social media, fostering regional rail security, developing and disseminating private-sector resource data for fuel, food, phar- macy, and hotel availability, and expediting the connection of people to resolve issues. Plan in Advance Advance identification of a need, and identification and connections among key stakeholders, facilitated rapid resolution of problems that could have delayed response to the storm by days.
68 C A S E S T U D Y 4 Background The Southwest Missouri Council of Governments (SMCOG) provides planning services to 10 mostly rural counties in and around Springfield, Missouri. SMCOGâs stated purpose is âto promote area-wide dissemination of information regarding issues and problems and to provide technical and advisory servicesâ (SMCOG 2012). SMCOG was formed in 1989 through a state statute that authorized the creation of a regional planning commission (RPC) for 10 counties in southwestern Missouri. SMCOG did some pre- liminary work on regional transportation activities but did not fully participate in the early phase of state transportation planning. After some restructuring during the mid-1990s, the Missouri Department of Transportation (Missouri DOT) included RPCs in needs evaluation and project prioritization. RPCs received increased funding and responsibilities, including a process of evaluation of transportation needs, a public involvement process, development of regional data, and professional staff development. SMCOG began full participation in 1996. The Missouri Association of Councils of Governments (MACOG) formed a working group to develop a common outline for this state plan. The content of the plan was developed over the course of several meetings and conference calls. SMCOG staff then compared these elements with plans from other regional planning organizations across the country, and further devel- oped the outline for a regional transportation plan in the SMCOG region. In 2003, the Missouri DOT initiated a new planning framework to expand public participa- tion in planning the future transportation network in the state using collaborations with local officials to determine regional priorities for transportation. How SMCOG Works SMCOG provides transportation and land use planning services to its member counties and cities, many of which are dealing with significant development. It also provides comprehen- sive planning, zoning, subdivision regulation services; specialized planning studies; economic development planning; funding searches and grant writing and administration services; a cen- sus data center and a data-gathering and specialized research planning library; workshops and seminars; mapping services; community surveys and hazard mitigation. SMCOG prepared the Southwest Missouri Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) (published in March 2009), a comprehensive, performance-based, multimodal and coordinated regional plan to guide future transportation improvements. The RTP covered all modes of transporta- tion from a regional perspective, including freeways/highways, streets, public mass transit, airports, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, goods movement and special needs transportation. Southwest Missouri Council of Governments
Southwest Missouri Council of Governments 69 In addition, the RTP addressed key transportation-related activities, such as transportation demand management, transportation management systems, safety, environmental justice, and equity issues between disparate social groups. The RTP became part of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the stateâs Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). SMCOG also has assisted its member counties with developing and updating hazard mitiga- tion plans. The state emergency management agency (SEMA) contracts with councils of govern- ments and RPCs throughout Missouri to prepare updates to multijurisdictional natural hazard mitigation plans. SMCOG also is the lead RPC in Region D, one of nine regions designated to have regional homeland security oversight committees. One SMCOG member, Taney County, participated in the multijurisdictional response and recovery to the Category 5 tornado that damaged Joplin, Missouri, in 2011. SMCOG regularly schedules public meetings within each county to discuss transportation plan updates, natural hazard mitigation planning, and other local issues. It sponsors workshops and seminars on a variety of topics for local government officials, administrative staff, and other agencies that serve the public. Collaboration Success â¢ SMCOG is administered and operated through the Center for Resource Planning and Man- agement at Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri. Of 17 regional councils in Missouri, SMCOG is the only one affiliated with a university. Through this unique partner- ship, SMCOG has access to a wide variety of resources and technical assistance. â¢ Membership in SMCOG is open to civic and development organizations, educational, community-based, and faith-based organizations, quasi-governmental entities, and other local organizations. â¢ SMCOG not only serves as a convener around transportation planning in southwestern Mis- souri, it also collaborates with diverse agencies and community entities to coordinate regional services ranging from recreation to emergency services to services for aging populations; coordinates with community-based organizations for Hispanic and African-American com- munities; and coordinates services to colleges, universities, private businesses, and utilities. â¢ The Ozark Transportation Planning Organization (OTO) is the MPO that covers portions of two counties in which Springfield is located. SMCOG does not make recommendations for areas within the OTOâs boundaries, but collaborates with the MPO with regard to regional transportation planning. The SMCOG addresses the coordination of major thoroughfares that run through both jurisdictions and the transportation needs in outlying areas. â¢ The SEMA relies on SMCOG to help local jurisdictions develop county-wide, multijurisdic- tional, multi-hazard mitigation plans. SMCOG assisted many counties with developing their first hazard mitigation plans and is now in the process of updating those plans. â¢ SMCOG also works with rural electrical cooperatives to help the coops develop local hazard mitigation plans.
70 C A S E S T U D Y 5 Background The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in the area of San Francisco, California, is primarily responsible for land use planning but has been involved in earthquake mitigation and planning at least since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. ABAG led and coordinated the development of the Multijurisdictional Local Hazard Mitiga- tion Plan (MJ-LHMP) for the San Francisco Bay area. The plan explicitly includes transporta- tion and other infrastructure. Examples of transportation mitigation projects include the San FranciscoâOakland Bay Bridge, which was replaced and retrofitted for seismic safety; retro- fitting the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Transbay Tube, and elevating BART track structures for seismic safety. The MJ-LHMP includes extensive discussion and diagrams describing the interconnectivity between utilities, transportation, and communications. The plan includes all hazards, including wildfires and human-made events. The plan also includes health risks, such as a pandemic. Normally the purview of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), health risks were included by the Bay area planners to ensure that the MJ-LHMP was comprehensive. Process Highlights ABAG developed a detailed template and underlying database of hazards and other informa- tion for local jurisdictions and partner agencies (such as water districts and power plants). They worked diligently to encourage and assist local jurisdictions and partner agencies to complete their individual plans. They also emphasized the need to identify interdependencies among different systems (see Transportation and Infrastructure System Interdependencies in box). This is one of many interdependency diagrams in their plan. FEMA did not give ABAG extra credit for this comprehensive approach; in fact, ABAG had a difficult time getting FEMA to approve the plans because ABAG did not use a âcheck boxâ approach. FEMA expressed concern that ABAG in essence did âtoo much hand holdingâ with partner agencies. ABAG was eventually able to obtain approvals after convincing FEMA that most jurisdictions and agencies would not have completed the plans on their own. The Association of Bay Area Governments
The Association of Bay Area Governments 71 Transportation and Infrastructure System Interdependencies* Regional transportation systems are both supplied by and supply services to major infrastructure systems, essentially creating a mutually supportiveâand dependentâ ecosystem. Recognizing these interdependencies is acutely important when plan- ning regional responses to disasters, emergencies, and significant events. Transportation systems operate in conjunction with other systems such as water and wastewater systems, telecommunications systems, and/or electric, petroleum, and natural gas systems. Important interdependencies between transportation systems and other community systems include the following: â¢ Transportation systems conduct workers to and from homes and workplaces, allowing workers access and the ability to deliver necessary fuel, materials, and equipment to conduct operations, respond to emergencies, and/or make repairs. â¢ Water and wastewater systems receive workers via transportation systems and provide water to transportation systems as necessary (e.g., for concrete construction and dust control). â¢ Electric, petroleum, and natural gas systems are supplied with workers, fuel, and vehicles via transportation systems and, in turn, supply the fuels needed for repair vehicles and worker transport; back-up generators; lubricants; and power for rail systems, control systems, gas station pumps, and even credit card machines. â¢ Telecommunications systems likewise are supplied with workers, repair vehicles, and necessary equipment, in turn facilitating systems control, process control, emergency communications, and communication with drivers and repair crews. Adapted from information in Taming Natural Disasters: Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, 2010 Update of 2005 Plan (2010, 1-16). The full document is available using online links available at http:// quake.abag.ca.gov/mitigation.
72 C A S E S T U D Y 6 Background The City of Craig, Alaska, population approximately 1,200, is located in the southernmost region of Prince of Wales Island, one of a chain of islands in the Alaskan panhandle and the fourth largest island in North America. The island runs along the coast of British Columbia. Craig is the largest community on the island. The population in Craig doubles in the summer because the city attracts seasonal residents for tourism and recreational activities. Prince of Wales Island is fairly isolated from other communities. A daily ferry service is offered to Ketchikan Island, where most medical services are located. There is a paved air strip in the community of Klawock, but the airport does not have general aviation or TSA personnel. Two carriers provide small passenger air service to two other communities. Craig and other communities are serviced by float plane carriers. The political situation in Alaska is unique as compared to most places in the United States. In Alaska, boroughization is optional; more than half of Alaskaâs land area is part of the larger Unorganized Borough. Prince of Wales Island is not within an organized borough, so the com- munities on the island are politically separate. Each community owns its own resources and is responsible for its own emergency planning and response. Advisory groups exist, but no political group can mandate regional transportation planning. Regional Emergency Planning Most emergency planning for the region happens within the local emergency planning committee (LEPC). Regional emergency planning is the responsibility of Craigâs city plan- ning director. The LEPC meets monthly but has no political authority to institute emergency plans, so the LEPC works cooperatively with communities on what plans might work or how to tackle problems. It is up to individual communities to adopt the plans. Most emergency plans are perpetually in draft form because it can be difficult to get communities to sign on to a single plan. Emergency plans are more like operating frameworks rather than plans with any authority behind them. One key to overcoming political challenges has been the constant process of communities working together to match resources and responsibilities and forming mutual aid agreements to share resources. Routine and day-to-day occurrences, such as dispatch of fire departments from one community to another, require communities to work together and share resources, which builds a sense of regional community and an awareness of available resources. To keep planning partners engaged, the Craig city planning director works to make the LEPC meetings meaningful and applicable to the communities that participants represent and tries City of Craig, Alaska
City of Craig, Alaska 73 to provide access to outside resources. It is common practice, for example, to invite representa- tives from the tsunami warning center, the American Red Cross, and other entities to LEPC meetings and tie the programming into regional events and issues. Leveraging Special Event Planning to Form Agreements The Craig city planning director builds on relationships developed through inclusive LEPC meetings and exercises to identify resources and enter into formal agreements with other agencies and organizations. Over the last few years, the City of Craig has been working on establishing a no-cost mutual aid agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service has fire resources, many personnel, and Incident Command System (ICS) experts on staff, equipment, vehicles, and communications capabilities, all of which are resources the city has reached agreement on with the Forest Service. There has been great value in starting with informal mutual aid agreements before moving into agreements that are more formal. If the city provides informal fire assistance to a commu- nity and a formal agreement is necessary, the city planning director builds on the established working relationships to enter into the necessary agreements. Experience obtaining mutual aid on scheduled events also has been a good lead into forming larger mutual aid agreements. For example, the City of Craig hosted a regional development meeting for approximately 300 attendees to come to the island. The event required planning for housing, food, and transportation. The Craig city planning director served as the transporta- tion lead for the event, which required determining where people would stay and designing a public transportation system to service the event. Bringing many people and agencies to the planning table was a way to gather information about transportation resources and capabilities in the region. The event planning has led to discussions about how to leverage this experience for emergency planning and for establishing more formal mutual aid agreements among part- ners in the future. The City of Craig also has totem raising events that double the communityâs population for a week at a time. All emergency-related logistics come into play when a city is responsible for sheltering, feeding, and moving an influx of people. Knowing leaders in the various communi- ties and not being afraid to reach out to ask for help have been keys to using such major events to precipitate a move to multijurisdictional emergency transportation planning. Small-Scale Exercises Can Be Effective Tests Getting the right people to the table is where regional transportation planning starts. Exer- cises are important opportunities to engage planning partners and test plans. The Craig city planning director stressed the importance of keeping exercises simple. The planning director led a tabletop exercise based on a fuel truck accident scenario with fuel truck operators, community leaders, and personnel representing fire and the state Department of Conservation. A map and a sequence of mass events were provided, along with information about âfancyâ terms people would use. The planning director kept the scenario simple and let participants talk through it: âA fuel truck has spilled. What questions do you have?â The Craig city planning director also speaks at conferences and talks about small commu- nity planning. He asks communities questions like the following: â¢ If something happened today, such as a fuel tank rupture, who would you call? â¢ Do you have their phone numbers? â¢ What if you make a list of those numbers?
74 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Small, discussion-based exercises can be effective starting points for smaller communities. He has also relied on the state emergency management agency (SEMA) to support training and exercise initiatives, and the state has been responsive by providing exercise scenarios, photos, mock messages, and other resources to use in exercises. Inclusive Planning and Coordination with Tribes Tribal organizations are a part of the Craig LEPC and have been involved in the emergency planning process. Most Tribes have environmental planners who are responsible for emergency planning and response. The emergency planning process has helped to identify and better understand differences in cultural priorities. The Craig city planning directorâs approach has been to draw on those cultural priorities to benefit the overall emergency planning process. For example, the weakest link in emergency response is the cityâs public warning system. Craig does not have an operational siren system, community radio, or television station, so all public warning or public information attempts are piecemeal and rely on key agencies to communicate information to their constituents. Information can be sent to the local cable station, but the information will only reach those segments of the population watching the public access chan- nel. City officials can also call the public radio station in another community to disseminate information. Culturally, the Craig Tribe has a focus on elders and their members, and Tribal representa- tives want to be sure they are taken care of through the planning process. The Craig city plan- ning director can contact the Tribal Administrator and request assistance with notifying their elders and members of critical information. Through regular engagement with the Tribes, the city planner understands what is important to the Tribes and how to engage them in a way that helps them meet their cultural priorities, while also meeting emergency planning and response priorities.
75 C A S E S T U D Y 7 âMarathon Bombing Medical Careâ by Noah Reiter (IAEM)1 Despite the devastation caused by the blasts at the Boston Marathon in 2013, the difference between a single-digit death count and one that was far higher was a tribute to the cityâs pre- paredness; first-class police, fire, and emergency medical services (EMS) agencies; and arguably its unparalleled medical infrastructure. Highlights of the most significant contributing factors to the effective response include: Preparedness: Few events require more medical planning than a road race with tens of thou- sands of runners and spectators, whether in Boston, New York City, or Atlanta, Georgia. Success- fully covering such an event from a medical perspective will include the following important elements: â¢ Adequate numbers of trained medical staff â¢ Logically placed and well-controlled medical treatment areas with sufficient access and egress â¢ Patient movement devices (e.g., wheelchairs, backboards, and stretchers) and people to move individuals to treatment areas â¢ Patient tracking â¢ Effective incident command (A command structure is needed that controls everything from response to movement of patients to safety and public information.) â¢ Communications that are all-encompassing, to include medical responders, other public safety agencies, volunteers, area hospitals, and both high-tech (public safety radio) and low- tech (verbal and mobile phone) communications technologies Rapid transportation and surgical intervention (the âgolden hourâ): The reality is that, after correcting immediate life-threats, such as a compromised airway or severe hemorrhage, the victim of significant trauma needs surgery from the most skilled teams. Many news outlets have reported on the so-called âgolden hourâ in trauma care, learned from battlefield medicine. Specifically, a complex trauma patientâs chance of survival drops dramatically if they are not in an operating room within an hour of sustaining their injuries. With six of the highest level (Level 1) trauma centers within such a small geographic area, Bos- ton is uniquely positioned to provide outstanding care to a large number of victims. Distribution of patients to receiving facilities: No matter how capable or large a hospital is, there is a point of saturation for all of them. Nearly 200 patients, several dozen of whom sustained critical injuries, were moved quickly to hospitals without overwhelming any hos- pital. This was due to planning, available patient movement and transportation resources, Marathon Bombing Medical Care: Boston Bombings 1Article lightly edited from Reiter, N. 2013. âKey Success Factors for Marathon Bombing Medical Care.â The Safety Blog (blog), Rave Mobile Safety. Used with permission of Noah Reiter (Reiter 2013).
76 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events coordination, and highly skilled and professional responders and civilians. Area trauma centers each received more or less equal numbers of patients. This demonstrated coordination, com- mand and control, discipline, and professionalism of the highest order. People: The successful response to this horrific incident boiled down to outstanding peopleâ police officers, EMTs and paramedics, firefighters, nurses, surgeons, and other physicians (both on the street and in the receiving trauma centers), race volunteers, and bystanders. There was a well-coordinated response that quickly moved nearly 200 patientsâseveral dozen of whom were critically injuredâto capable hospitals. This was due to planning, available patient movement and transportation resources, coordination, and highly skilled and profes- sional responders and civilians.
77 C A S E S T U D Y 8 New York Metropolitan Transportation Council and Hurricane Sandy Response and Recovery The New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) is a regional council of governments (COG) that provides a collaborative planning forum to address transportation- related issues from a regional perspective. NYMTC acts as the MPO for New York City, Long Island, and the lower Hudson Valley. NYMTC members work together to develop regional plans and make decisions on use of federal funds. NYMTC also collaborates with neighboring MPOs to coordinate planning activities in the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut metro- politan region. NYMTC Structure and Operations Voting and advisory members that represent local, regional, state, and federal transportation agencies make up NYMTC. Representatives of the principal and advisory member organiza- tions also serve on the Program, Finance, and Administration Committee (PFAC), which is responsible for overseeing NYMTCâs day-to-day activities. NYMTC comprises three standing subregional Transportation Coordinating Commit- tees (TCCs) that respond to local needs and ensure coordination and consistency with formal requirements. NYMTC also has a central staff that coordinates regional activities to support PFAC and council responsibilities and the development of the mandated planning products. Additional, smaller staff groups support the TCCs. Successes and Lessons Learned from Hurricane Sandy Impacts to the Regionâs Transportation System When Hurricane Sandy ravaged the East Coast of the United States in October 2012, it left behind unprecedented damage to the regional transportation system, estimated in billions of dollars, and paralyzed entire sections of the NYMTC planning region. Extreme flood- ing closed roadways and tunnels; subway service was completely shut down; infrastructure, such as roadways, bridges, and rail lines, was severely damaged; railroad power lines were destroyed; and electrical, lighting, and communications systems were ruined. The result was a drastic reduction in the regional transportation systemâs capacity and an urgent need to restore transportation operations as quickly as possible. Hurricane Sandy
78 A Guide to Regional Transportation Planning for Disasters, Emergencies, and Significant Events Transportation Response and Recovery Efforts Were Flexible and Coordinated NYMTCâs member organizations demonstrated a flexible and coordinated approach to Hurricane Sandy recovery and restoration of the transportation system. Transportation agen- cies modified transportation operations and offered customers alternative services and travel modes. Coordination among transportation and government agencies of all levels, utilities, and other responders resulted in transportation operations resuming just days after the storm. NYMTCâs flexible and coordinated recovery efforts included the following: â¢ The Long Island Railroad operated under modified schedules and offered bus service from major stations while Amtrak repaired flooded tunnels. In one instance, the waiting room of a major railroad station was turned into a comfort station that offered heat, water, restrooms, and a charging station for electronic devices. â¢ The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) set up a âBus Bridgeâ for 3 days, using more than 300 buses to connect approximately 200,000 daily riders to functioning subways on both sides of the East River. Within a week after the storm, most subway service was restored. â¢ The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey worked with New Jersey Transit and other agen- cies to provide a combination of alternative transportation services, including bus, ferry, and rail. â¢ The New York City DOT coordinated with New York Water Taxi to operate a temporary ferry service serving various Staten Island communities to provide transportation access to residents. â¢ Rockland County teamed with MTA to offer free rides on the countyâs express bus. Rock- landâs bus services were functioning just 1 day after the storm. â¢ Westchester County restored its Bee-Line System bus service within days after the storm by working with utility companies and local, county, and state road crews to remove debris from blocked streets. â¢ Rockland County used an interactive GIS mapping tool to provide a common operating picture for response agencies at the local, county, and state levels, including fire, police, utility, Red Cross, and other emergency personnel. The tool allowed response agencies to share information on road obstructions and closures. The county used the mapping infor- mation to organize, prioritize, and direct efforts to clear major highways and roads and to route emergency vehicles and evacuations. The tool was also used to update information on changing road conditions, restore power, manage cleanup and detours, reopen schools and businesses, and restore the transportation system. â¢ The New York State DOT implemented Incident Command System (ICS) protocols to stage staff and equipment at strategic locations, ready to be deployed. â¢ Contractor staff provided additional staff to clean up and repair storm damage, resulting in more than 35,000 hours of work in the hardest hit counties. Post-Hurricane Sandy Regional Transportation Planning Hurricane Sandy was yet another reminder of regional transportation system vulnerability to extreme weather and other emergencies. The event brought into focus a number of issues to be factored into subsequent regional transportation planning efforts to improve transportation infrastructure resilience. Transportation system resiliency and risks associated with climate change and extreme weather are areas of focus for long-term planning. NYMTC and its member organizations have numerous planning initiatives under way to apply lessons learned from the Hurricane Sandy recovery. NYMTC is partnering with FHWA, the North New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, South Western Regional Planning Agency, and the Greater Bridgeport Regional Council, along with the New York, Connecti- cut, and New Jersey DOTs on a pilot program to assess the vulnerabilities of transportation
Hurricane Sandy 79 infrastructure and analyze adaptation strategies for critical infrastructure. Sponsored by FHWA, the vulnerability assessment will â¢ Assess the impacts of Hurricane Sandy, and to a lesser extent preceding weather events, on the transportation assets within the region â¢ Assess the vulnerability of those assets to the impacts of extreme weather events and possible future impacts of climate change â¢ Identify adaptation strategies to increase the resilience of the transportation system The initiative will result in a series of deliverables and a final report highlighting the regionâs most vulnerable transportation assets and analyzing the adaptation measures available. Regionally, NYMTCâs metropolitan planning process is considering the potential impacts of climate change on the transportation system in the 2014â2040 RTP. The draft plan, which was under public review and comment at the time this guide was written, includes a strategic regional policy guideline to incorporate climate change and carbon reduction considerations into regional âgreen transportation policies.â The draft plan includes a section dedicated to resiliency and climate adaptation strategies, which outlines related state, regional, county, and local initiatives underway. According to the RTP â¢ The Regional Plan Association and Clean Air-Cool Planet partnered to develop the New Jersey Climate Adaptation Directory, a resource that brings together data, models, existing and pro- posed policy, and other tools to be shared and applied by various practitioners across a range of fields. The directory is designed for New Jersey but can be used by other states and regions. â¢ PlaNYC, New York Cityâs long-range sustainability plan, includes forward-looking resiliency initiatives and recommendations to address challenges brought on by climate change. Rec- ommendations include increasing transportation options, measures to address congestion, and maintaining and improving the physical conditions of infrastructure and the transit system to accommodate more users safely. â¢ After Hurricane Sandy, New York City formed the Special Initiative for Rebuilding and Resiliency, charged with producing a plan to provide additional protection for the cityâs infrastructure, buildings, and communities from the impacts of climate change. The result- ing roadmap for creating âa stronger, more resilient New Yorkâ identifies future climate risks to the cityâs transportation network, such as storm surge and high winds, and strategies and initiatives to mitigate the impacts of climate change and increase resiliency. â¢ Westchester County is working to adapt services and infrastructure to the increasing sever- ity and frequency of storms, such as Hurricane Sandy, including identifying detours for bus routes and developing flood mitigation plans to minimize roadway closures. â¢ Planning is underway in Rockland County to pursue more direct communication links among transportation agencies, responders, and utilities to establish an organized approach to restoring transportation infrastructure in a timely manner. Plans to improve response and recovery time include encouraging main power lines to be secured underground and more vigorous tree monitoring programs; defining more specific staging areas, establishing more widespread power redundancies; and continuing to call for all service stations and food stores to have generators. â¢ Suffolk County is pursuing a âConnect Long Islandâ initiative through Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to help reduce automobile dependency. The county is also expanding hazard mitiga- tion plans to create comprehensive, state-of-the-art flood protection systems that balance buildings, roads, wastewater infrastructure, and power grids with natural water systems. â¢ Statewide plans created by the State Climate Action Council seek to build all new trans- portation infrastructure inland from or above rising water levels and to use heat-resistant construction materials that can withstand higher temperatures.
80 C A S E S T U D Y 9 Background The Regional Integrated Transportation Information System (RITIS) was conceptualized in 2001 by the National Capitol Region Transportation Planning Board and developed by the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Transportation Technology. It is the primary source of information for the information sharing and operations coordination activities of the Metropolitan Area Transportation Operations Coordination Program (MATOC). MATOC is a coordinated partnership among transportation agencies in the District of Columbia, Mary- land, and Virginia. RITIS is an automated data sharing, fusion, dissemination, and archiving system for opera- tional data. It includes many performance measure, dashboard, and visual analytics tools with real-time information to help agencies gain situational awareness and measure performance. RITIS does this through compiling transportation data from each participating agency, stan- dardizing it, and making it available to other participating agencies through each agencyâs existing transportation management systems (see Figure 5). RITIS also communicates infor- mation between different agencies and to the public. This improved, real-time information is crucial for effective management of the regionâs transportation system and related emergency preparedness. Managers and policy makers from transportation, transit, and public safety agencies can also use real-time RITIS data to monitor their agenciesâ incident response. The RITIS website allows authorized users with appropriate credentials to interact with live events, incidents, weather sensors, radio scanners, and other data sources in map, list, and graphic format. Users can even apply filters, access contact information, and set up alerts. This data fusion and dissemination system increases the regional situational awareness of operations staff from each agency by complementing the agencyâs own transportation man- agement system and the direct interpersonal communications that take place among traffic management centers (TMCs) from different jurisdictions. During a regional emergency, trans- portation and public safety agencies can use RITISâ real-time operational data to adjust traffic or transit operating conditions to support emergency management efforts and lessen the travel demand on affected transportation sectors. RITIS users include staff in the traffic and transit operations centers of the participating agencies, field staff from traffic and transit agencies, public safety personnel and other emer- gency responders, information service providers, agency public affairs personnel responsible for giving the public accurate and comprehensive information, and the traveling public. Addi- tionally, there are archived data users who include researchers, transportation planners, other transportation agency staff, and consultants. Regional Integrated Transportation Information System
Regional Integrated Transportation Information System 81 Similar systems have been developed in other regions of the country, such as greater Philadelphia. Figure 5. RITIS structure.