The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 8-18

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 8... ... 4 Research Findings This section provides an overview of the research findings. CAPTA User Community The objective of Task 1 of the research project was to identify and categorize the user group for CAPTA and the CAPTool. CAPTA and the CAPTool were developed anticipating that state DOT planners and engineers would be the primary users of the tool. The FHWA/VOLPE Guide described the audience for the CAPTool as "a range of agencies responsible for risk management across transportation modes in an all‐hazards environment: (1) regional entities such as port authorities, toll authorities, and transit authorities; (2) Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... 5 As a result of this transition in thinking and priorities federal, state, and local agencies approach resilience as the ability to restore capability to pre‐event levels, rather than focusing primarily on preventing or mitigating the effects of an event. State DOTs are currently in the process of understanding the impact of a shift in focus to resilience of systems. This transition in thinking from "security" to "resilience" as a primary objective in infrastructure protection requires a change in the organizational arrangements consistent with that transition. Many of the decisions associated with infrastructure resilience occur earlier in the planning process and are often made by asset managers and transportation planners rather than by security or emergency response organizations within state DOTs. Potential Uses of CAPTA Based on the results of Task 1 the research team identified the following management processes where an updated CAPTA and CAPTool could provide value to a transportation agency. Incorporate into Planning From the onset, transportation planners were one of the anticipated users of CAPTA. All types of planners ‐ whether they develop long‐term or strategic plans (e.g., MTPs) , look at specific regional or statewide transportation improvement programs (e.g., TIPs and STIPs) Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 6 Scope of Planning Process -- (1) In general ‐‐The metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will‐‐ (A) Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... 7 Another step that is underway, but could be strengthened, is increasing communication between professionals who often focus on the short‐term (such as some security planning and operations planning) and those focused on the medium‐ or long‐term. This concept draws on the FHWA efforts with Planning for Operations covered at www.plan4operations.dot.gov. Some concerns shared between professionals focused on short‐term and long‐term transportation planning are how to keep bridges well‐enough maintained (such as for evacuation routes and everyday use) Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... 8 the project level during construction. However, the FHWA asserts that "understanding risk and how to manage it is emerging as another core competency expected of transportation agencies". The FHWA supports a broad approach to risk management that includes managing threats and capitalizing on opportunities. It's important for highway agency officials to consider incorporating risk management in the decision‐making process for several reasons. First, they have seen the benefits of risk management at the project level. Second, they have heard from their international colleagues that risk management can pay dividends when used at the broader program and enterprise level, particularly when agencies don't have enough funding to address their priorities. Third, managing risk is an integral step in following a comprehensive asset management framework as described in the AASHTO Asset Management Guide -- A Focus on Implementation. Finally, the U.S. Congress has proposed that states develop "risk‐based transportation asset management plans." Source: Risk‐Based Transportation Asset Management: Building Resilience into Transportation Assets, Report 5: Managing External Threats Through Risk‐Based Asset Management, FHWA 2013 The discussion at the 2014 SCOTSEM session confirmed that many state DOTs have conducted vulnerability assessments to identify major risks to their critical or major structures. However, as the FHWA Guide to INCORPORATING SECURITY INTO PLANNING notes: By this time, every State has probably conducted at least one critical infrastructure risk/threat assessment. The results of this will be on file in some archive, and will probably require some form of State‐level security clearance to access. However, there may not have been an updated assessment conducted since the initial one, which could have been several years ago. Therefore, there may not be any current information about the area in which the project is to be constructed. The project planner should ask security partners what information may currently be available and, if necessary, to conduct a current risk/threat assessment of the proposed construction area early in the planning process. Source: FHWA Incorporating Security into Planning CAPTA and CAPTool can support risk management and provide the following additional benefits to transportation agencies:  Expand the risk management focus to include potential solutions to address vulnerabilities and reduce the overall risk.  Provide insights to modify designs and adjust maintenance/replacement options based on future risks.  Create and support multi‐level risk management practices at the strategic, business operations, and project levels. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... 9 management plan into the TAMP. For example, in the VTrans TAM Implementation Plan (2014) , strategies included:  Developing an Agency Risk Registry to be included in the Agency's TAMP and reviewed annually by Agency Division and Bureau management leaders.  Annually prioritizing Agency risks that threaten asset management processes.  Developing and implementing risk mitigation strategies based on the Agency's risk prioritization process. Source: VTrans TAM Implementation Plan, 2014, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/gap/vtgap.pdf In a FHWA Summary Report of the 2013 TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PEER EXCHANGE, representatives from state DOTs discussed the difficulty of incorporating risk management into the TAMP. A number of states found the "risk management section was the most challenging one to develop". E.g. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development created risk registers and listed mitigation strategies, but the agency still needed to determine how to use this information. One benefit found was that it helped to develop information on projected future funding and work to communicate to agency stakeholders. Connecticut DOT has established a risk register. CDOT bridge management staff use a variety of factors to determine what preservation work to perform and ideally, managers will use the risk registers to tailor their projects. A 2012 report on assessing asset management in DelDOT (ADVANCING ASSET MANAGEMENT AT DELDOT, McNeil and Li, Delaware Center for Transportation, November 2012) Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... 10 to decision making. They demonstrate the strategic best use of limited resources to preserve condition and performance on key routes, as opposed to spreading limited funds equally across the network and accepting a statewide drop in highway condition and performance. Source: Risk‐Based Transportation Asset Management, Report 1, FHWA 2012 CAPTA and CAPTool can support asset management and provide the following additional benefits to transportation agencies:  Understanding how at‐risk assets that may be affected can influence long‐range maintenance, repair and replacement strategies in an asset management plan.  Support investment decisions on when/where to invest and provide options for design and reconstruction. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... 11 is impossible to protect the infrastructure from every possible threat (natural and man‐made) ; however, with an increased emphasis on resilience, the effects of these types of events can be minimized. In DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE, resilience is defined as the "ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events". Enhanced resilience allows better anticipation of disasters and better planning to reduce disaster losses -- rather than waiting for an event to occur and paying for it afterward. …Building the culture and practice of disaster resilience is not simple or inexpensive. Decisions about how and when to invest in increasing resilience involve short‐ and long‐term planning and investments of time and resources prior to an event. Source: Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, The National Academies, Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2013 The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 12 investments. The CAPTA methodology is available to the public as a computer‐based spreadsheet model providing a means to analyze assets, relevant threats and hazards, and consequence levels of interest in a common framework (TRB, 2009) .The report and accompanying tool consider natural hazards as potential risk to highway infrastructure, including: flooding, earthquakes, extreme weather (including extreme wind, rainwater, snow, ice, etc.) Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... 13  The Business Services Bureau within DBM provides a wide array of services including centralized purchasing, fiscal services (expenditure, revenue and project accounting) , fleet and facilities services, employee safety and risk management services, research and library services, records and forms management, communication support, and warehousing and distribution. Design/System Development Central Office Division of Transportation System Development (DTSD) Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 14  Senior managers and executives who would benefit from the tool but are unaware of CAPTA or do not understand how they might use the approach to support their capital investment decisions, i.e., the tool was intended to support the strategic high‐level planning undertaken by transportation executives with budgetary discretion responsible for multiple modes of transportation, multiple asset classes, or many individual assets. Application issues include concerns over the range of hazards, countermeasures, cost data, and related information, requiring, among other things:  Reviewing the all‐hazards taxonomy to clearly communicate that the CAPTool addresses all‐ hazards and is not just solely security focused; for example, by expanding the hazards list to include natural events and providing detailed examples of usage. Read the entire page →

From page 8...

... 4 Research Findings This section provides an overview of the research findings. CAPTA User Community The objective of Task 1 of the research project was to identify and categorize the user group for CAPTA and the CAPTool. CAPTA and the CAPTool were developed anticipating that state DOT planners and engineers would be the primary users of the tool. The FHWA/VOLPE Guide described the audience for the CAPTool as "a range of agencies responsible for risk management across transportation modes in an all‐hazards environment: (1) regional entities such as port authorities, toll authorities, and transit authorities; (2)

Read the entire page →

From page 9...

... 5 As a result of this transition in thinking and priorities federal, state, and local agencies approach resilience as the ability to restore capability to pre‐event levels, rather than focusing primarily on preventing or mitigating the effects of an event. State DOTs are currently in the process of understanding the impact of a shift in focus to resilience of systems. This transition in thinking from "security" to "resilience" as a primary objective in infrastructure protection requires a change in the organizational arrangements consistent with that transition. Many of the decisions associated with infrastructure resilience occur earlier in the planning process and are often made by asset managers and transportation planners rather than by security or emergency response organizations within state DOTs. Potential Uses of CAPTA Based on the results of Task 1 the research team identified the following management processes where an updated CAPTA and CAPTool could provide value to a transportation agency. Incorporate into Planning From the onset, transportation planners were one of the anticipated users of CAPTA. All types of planners ‐ whether they develop long‐term or strategic plans (e.g., MTPs) , look at specific regional or statewide transportation improvement programs (e.g., TIPs and STIPs)

Read the entire page →

From page 10...

... 6 Scope of Planning Process -- (1) In general ‐‐The metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will‐‐ (A)

Read the entire page →

From page 11...

... 7 Another step that is underway, but could be strengthened, is increasing communication between professionals who often focus on the short‐term (such as some security planning and operations planning) and those focused on the medium‐ or long‐term. This concept draws on the FHWA efforts with Planning for Operations covered at www.plan4operations.dot.gov. Some concerns shared between professionals focused on short‐term and long‐term transportation planning are how to keep bridges well‐enough maintained (such as for evacuation routes and everyday use)

Read the entire page →

From page 12...

... 8 the project level during construction. However, the FHWA asserts that "understanding risk and how to manage it is emerging as another core competency expected of transportation agencies". The FHWA supports a broad approach to risk management that includes managing threats and capitalizing on opportunities. It's important for highway agency officials to consider incorporating risk management in the decision‐making process for several reasons. First, they have seen the benefits of risk management at the project level. Second, they have heard from their international colleagues that risk management can pay dividends when used at the broader program and enterprise level, particularly when agencies don't have enough funding to address their priorities. Third, managing risk is an integral step in following a comprehensive asset management framework as described in the AASHTO Asset Management Guide -- A Focus on Implementation. Finally, the U.S. Congress has proposed that states develop "risk‐based transportation asset management plans." Source: Risk‐Based Transportation Asset Management: Building Resilience into Transportation Assets, Report 5: Managing External Threats Through Risk‐Based Asset Management, FHWA 2013 The discussion at the 2014 SCOTSEM session confirmed that many state DOTs have conducted vulnerability assessments to identify major risks to their critical or major structures. However, as the FHWA Guide to INCORPORATING SECURITY INTO PLANNING notes: By this time, every State has probably conducted at least one critical infrastructure risk/threat assessment. The results of this will be on file in some archive, and will probably require some form of State‐level security clearance to access. However, there may not have been an updated assessment conducted since the initial one, which could have been several years ago. Therefore, there may not be any current information about the area in which the project is to be constructed. The project planner should ask security partners what information may currently be available and, if necessary, to conduct a current risk/threat assessment of the proposed construction area early in the planning process. Source: FHWA Incorporating Security into Planning CAPTA and CAPTool can support risk management and provide the following additional benefits to transportation agencies:  Expand the risk management focus to include potential solutions to address vulnerabilities and reduce the overall risk.  Provide insights to modify designs and adjust maintenance/replacement options based on future risks.  Create and support multi‐level risk management practices at the strategic, business operations, and project levels.

Read the entire page →

From page 13...

... 9 management plan into the TAMP. For example, in the VTrans TAM Implementation Plan (2014) , strategies included:  Developing an Agency Risk Registry to be included in the Agency's TAMP and reviewed annually by Agency Division and Bureau management leaders.  Annually prioritizing Agency risks that threaten asset management processes.  Developing and implementing risk mitigation strategies based on the Agency's risk prioritization process. Source: VTrans TAM Implementation Plan, 2014, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/gap/vtgap.pdf In a FHWA Summary Report of the 2013 TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT PEER EXCHANGE, representatives from state DOTs discussed the difficulty of incorporating risk management into the TAMP. A number of states found the "risk management section was the most challenging one to develop". E.g. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development created risk registers and listed mitigation strategies, but the agency still needed to determine how to use this information. One benefit found was that it helped to develop information on projected future funding and work to communicate to agency stakeholders. Connecticut DOT has established a risk register. CDOT bridge management staff use a variety of factors to determine what preservation work to perform and ideally, managers will use the risk registers to tailor their projects. A 2012 report on assessing asset management in DelDOT (ADVANCING ASSET MANAGEMENT AT DELDOT, McNeil and Li, Delaware Center for Transportation, November 2012)

Read the entire page →

From page 14...

... 10 to decision making. They demonstrate the strategic best use of limited resources to preserve condition and performance on key routes, as opposed to spreading limited funds equally across the network and accepting a statewide drop in highway condition and performance. Source: Risk‐Based Transportation Asset Management, Report 1, FHWA 2012 CAPTA and CAPTool can support asset management and provide the following additional benefits to transportation agencies:  Understanding how at‐risk assets that may be affected can influence long‐range maintenance, repair and replacement strategies in an asset management plan.  Support investment decisions on when/where to invest and provide options for design and reconstruction.

Read the entire page →

From page 15...

... 11 is impossible to protect the infrastructure from every possible threat (natural and man‐made) ; however, with an increased emphasis on resilience, the effects of these types of events can be minimized. In DISASTER RESILIENCE: A NATIONAL IMPERATIVE, resilience is defined as the "ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events". Enhanced resilience allows better anticipation of disasters and better planning to reduce disaster losses -- rather than waiting for an event to occur and paying for it afterward. …Building the culture and practice of disaster resilience is not simple or inexpensive. Decisions about how and when to invest in increasing resilience involve short‐ and long‐term planning and investments of time and resources prior to an event. Source: Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative, The National Academies, Committee on Increasing National Resilience to Hazards and Disasters, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2013 The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC)

Read the entire page →

From page 16...

... 12 investments. The CAPTA methodology is available to the public as a computer‐based spreadsheet model providing a means to analyze assets, relevant threats and hazards, and consequence levels of interest in a common framework (TRB, 2009) .The report and accompanying tool consider natural hazards as potential risk to highway infrastructure, including: flooding, earthquakes, extreme weather (including extreme wind, rainwater, snow, ice, etc.)

Read the entire page →

From page 17...

... 13  The Business Services Bureau within DBM provides a wide array of services including centralized purchasing, fiscal services (expenditure, revenue and project accounting) , fleet and facilities services, employee safety and risk management services, research and library services, records and forms management, communication support, and warehousing and distribution. Design/System Development Central Office Division of Transportation System Development (DTSD)

Read the entire page →

From page 18...

... 14  Senior managers and executives who would benefit from the tool but are unaware of CAPTA or do not understand how they might use the approach to support their capital investment decisions, i.e., the tool was intended to support the strategic high‐level planning undertaken by transportation executives with budgetary discretion responsible for multiple modes of transportation, multiple asset classes, or many individual assets. Application issues include concerns over the range of hazards, countermeasures, cost data, and related information, requiring, among other things:  Reviewing the all‐hazards taxonomy to clearly communicate that the CAPTool addresses all‐ hazards and is not just solely security focused; for example, by expanding the hazards list to include natural events and providing detailed examples of usage.

Read the entire page →

Key Terms

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.