Special Committee on Transportation Security
Snapshot Strategic Assessment1
Joe Crossett, High Street Consulting Group
Summer 2008 SCOTS Meeting Discussion Theme in a Nutshell – Security AND Emergency Management
More DOTs are recognizing the interrelationship between security and emergency management
requirements that are critical to safe and efficient operation of a resilient transportation network
across the United States in the 21st Century – Something every state DOT CEO should have near the
top of their priorities list. With investment in the right tools (people, planning, partnerships,
infrastructure, and technologies) DOTs can be well prepared to neutralize unexpected interruptions to
transportation networks before they have a dramatic ripple effect on travel across a wide region.
Forces Shaping State DOTs’ Security and Emergency Management Practices
Strengths
1. Building, Maintaining and Operating “Resilient” Transportation Networks Has Eclipsed Terror
Threats as the Driving Force for DOTs’ Transportation Security Programs
In the last several years, state DOTs have continued broadening use of the term “transportation
security” to mean their capability to prevent, prepare for, respond to and recover from a wide range
of natural or human disasters that pose threats to the resiliency of the nation’s transportation
network. Transportation security is now part of a broader set of emergency management
capabilities that DOTs are adopting to ensure resiliency of their transportation networks.
Anecdotal evidence suggests several important factors are at play in creating the surge of interest in
emergency management as a day-to-day function within state DOTs:

Even Small Events Pose Threat of Great Consequences - The impact of any disaster is magnified
when a transportation network is operating at or past its capacity – as is the case in portions of
many states as travel demand on their transportation networks grows.

DOTs Have Institutional “Heft” to Solve Problems - Surface transportation agencies are
recognizing that they are uniquely positioned in terms of their broad policy responsibility, public
accountability, large and distributed workforces, heavy equipment, communications
infrastructure, and ability to directly and swiftly take action (akin to the private sector). This
institutional heft provides a stable base for a campaign to systematically reduce risk exposure
over time through hazards capital budgeting. AND no-one else will do it for the DOTs.

Risk of Natural and Man-made Events Growing More Common - Natural or man-made disasters
– ranging from floods to infrastructure failures – are possibly on the rise – with climate change
one likely cause, but other pressures including terrorism and aging infrastructure.
1
This snapshot is based on discussion among the approximately 14 states that attended AASHTO’s SCOTS meeting
in Washington DC, August 26 & 27, 2008. It is intended as an initial “policy thought piece” for the SCOTS leadership
team, not a final public document.
September 23, 2008
1
2. A Steadily Growing Set of DOTs are Making “24/7” All-Hazards Emergency Management a Distinct
DOT Function
In some DOTs, emergency management has emerged as a distinct agency function alongside
traditional DOT roles like planning, design, construction engineering, traffic operations, or
maintenance. Examples of DOTs with distinct all-hazards emergency management capabilities
include: Virginia DOT, Iowa DOT, Kansas DOT, Maryland DOT, Michigan DOT, North Carolina DOT,
Washington State DOT, West Virginia DOT, and Wisconsin DOT. Characteristics of all hazards
emergency management roles within these agencies typically include:

Dedicated Staff - A small contingent of dedicated emergency management staff housed at the
DOT;

Investment in Capital Facilities - Emergency response trailers, interoperable communications,
and 24/7 combined operations centers that combine traffic management and emergency
response capabilities, etc;

All Hazards Emergency Preparedness Planning – Development of clear agency-wide protocols for
handling a range of emergency situations;

Situational Awareness – Training for all DOT staff to increase situational awareness about how
to handle emergency situations;
This appears to represent a significant shift among DOTs towards a more aggressive emergency
management role; it contrasts with strong sentiment after 9/11 among DOTs and their outside
partners that transportation agencies had a modest supporting role to play in emergency
management. It also reflects a shift away from the abstract concept of transportation security,
which has largely failed to provide sufficient credibility to motivate executive decision-makers to act.
3. DOTs With Strong Security and Emergency Management Capabilities are Speaking a Common
Language and SCOTS is Their Emerging Forum
Among the DOTs identified in #2 above, emergency management staff and their leaders now share a
similar language, easily using terms like “risk management,” “fusion centers,” “all hazards,” “first
responders,” “DHS grants,” “HSAS,” etc; and talking about common themes and challenges, such as
extracting security information from Traffic Management Centers, getting on-board with statewide
interoperable communications, and partnering with first responders, etc. This shared experience
points to the emergence of emergency management as a credible discipline with DOTs that AASHTO
needs to recognize.
Weaknesses
1. Too Many State DOT CEOs Overlook the Vital Link Between Emergency Management and Higher
Profile Issues Like Climate Change or Economic Stability
Many DOTs are finding that emergencies – whether flooding in Iowa, Tornados in Kansas, hurricanes
in Florida, drought-related wildfires in California, or unpredictable winter storms in Washington –
are becoming more “routine.” (Missouri, for example, has had a major road closed somewhere in
the state every day between April and August 2008.) In a “just in time” economy heavily dependent
on travel, disasters that hit the nation’s overloaded transportation network can have huge economic
and social costs when transportation resiliency breaks down. State DOTs are only beginning to
understand the connection between strong emergency management capabilities and their efforts to
manage the impact of climate change on transportation and preserve economic stability.
September 23, 2008
2
2. Critical Transportation Infrastructure Resiliency Gap is Enormous
The cost of hardening critical transportation infrastructure to provide greater resilience to human
and natural disasters is huge and will require large investments by states in coming years. Blanket
protection by state DOTs of all transportation assets is neither feasible nor warranted. Much of the
nation’s transportation system is characterized by features, such as physical robustness, ease of
replacement, system redundancy, and limited potential for mass casualties that make it a relatively
unappealing as a terrorist target and of no major consequence in a natural disaster. Some individual
transportation facilities, however, are critical to protect and may be attractive targets for terrorists.
These include facilities where users are concentrated in small areas; or that span large natural
barriers such as rivers, bays or mountains; or that serve unique regional or national transportation
and economic functions; or that have a symbolic role. A combination of risk management and
countermeasure development and deployment is necessary to protect these assets.
3. Situational Awareness Remains Weak Beyond Key DOT Staff
Effective emergency management depends on strong situational awareness across a DOT. Many
DOTs, however, consider security activities an ancillary responsibility for units with other primary
responsibilities, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS), traffic operations, or maintenance.
For example, at many DOTs, emergency transportation operations (ETO) are conducted as a
fragmented, part-time reactive activity at the district level with responsibilities divided among
maintenance, traffic operations units, traffic management center (TMC) management, and ITS
project staff. As a consequence, DOTs have experienced poorly managed emergencies where
employees on the ground lacked the training and communication capabilities to respond effectively.
In an emergency, district and field personnel may find themselves in the role of initial responders
making critical decisions.
4. Emergency Management is not the same as Traffic Operations
DOTs’ all-hazards emergency management functions share some overlapping capabilities with the
traffic operations community, but the two topics are not the same, obvious differences include:

Mitigation Strategies – Emergency management involves pre-event mitigation planning and
post-event stabilization of transportation network;

Infrastructure Resiliency Component – Emergency management includes a strong interest in
infrastructure hardening, which includes risk management, and countermeasure development
and deployment;

Agency-wide Situational Awareness – Emergency management touches almost every DOT
employee in ways that traffic operations does not – everyone has to acquire some basic
situational awareness skills;

Strong Cross-Disciplinary Focus – Emergency management depends on cross-disciplinary
expertise that extends beyond the DOT to first responders.
September 23, 2008
3
State DOTs’ Key Security and Emergency Management Challenges
1. Building New Institutions within DOTs
Every DOT should be working to create and institutionalize an appropriately sized emergency
management unit within their agency. (Two to 10 person units are typical.) Typically, the DOT’s
emergency management group will include HQ and district components and a close link to executive
management. Day-to-day responsibilities include regular communication with executive
staff/management, training, partnering with other agencies, and developing emergency
management plans
2. Investing in Emergency Management Capital Infrastructure/Technology Deployment
From West Virginia to California, DOTs are starting to invest significant sums in emergency
management infrastructure like 24/7 operations centers, emergency response trailers, and
interoperable communications. Continued support and guidance on where and how to invest wisely
in emergency management is needed.
3. Coordinating Among States
Disasters do not always stay within state boundaries. State DOTs are finding that they need to get
better at coordinating with each other when emergencies occur. In Washington State, for example,
when severe winter snow storms shut down critical interstate routes and forced complex detours,
truck traffic was affected as far away as Los Angeles.
4. Strengthening Risk Based Critical Infrastructure Protection
DOTs still need to invest more in risk-based protection of critical transportation infrastructure
including assessments of vulnerability and development and implementation of detection,
deterrence, and hardening control measures.
5. Advancing Interoperable Communications
Transportation agencies must participate in communications interoperability initiatives with first
responders who have security responsibilities. This includes multiple means for disseminating
emergency notifications, including web distribution, blast fax systems, radio codes, paging, and
telephone calling lists, as well as development of an integrated communications system and
establishment of mobile emergency response command centers to support various radio
frequencies, including those for state DOT, state patrol, and local police and fire departments.
6. Taking on New Leadership Roles Outside the DOT
Credible state DOT emergency management roles must include leadership within the broader
emergency management community on issues like debris clearance, interoperable communications,
or evacuation management.
7. Improved Evacuation Planning
Transportation agencies must work more with personnel from city, and county, transportation,
police, fire, and emergency management agencies, metropolitan planning organizations and major
hospitals to develop plans for primary and alternative evacuation routes for major population
centers.
September 23, 2008
4
Next Steps for SCOTS
1. Renew Commitment to Keeping SCOTS, but with Realigned Focus?

Discussion at summer 2008 SCOTS meeting justifies continuation of SCOTs, but with a realigned
focus that includes a stronger emphasis on emergency management activities.

Leadership team should get comfortable with the right balance between SCOTS’ emergency
management role versus its transportation security role. Is it 70/30, 60/40, or 50/50, etc.?

Make SCOTS a voice for DOTs that recognizes the interrelationship between security and
emergency management requirements is critical to safe and efficient operation of a resilient
transportation network across the United States in the 21st Century.
2. Time for a New and Improved Name?



Special Committee on Emergency Management (SCEM)
Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management (SCOTSEM)
Special Committee on Transportation Network Resiliency (SCOTNR)
3. Re-engage DOTs via Membership Drive?

Need to push harder to reach out to DOTs that are not participating; may be able to reach them
more effectively with an emergency management focus once items #1 and #2 above are
settled?
4. Re-Configure SCOTS Strategic Plan?

With a renaming and refocusing of SCOTS, is it time to rework the SCOTS strategic plan and
associated sub-committee structure?
Joe’s Ideas for New SCOTS Initiatives
5. Use SCOTS as Platform to Build Economic/Social Case for Better Emergency Management
Capabilities within DOTs?

Quantify the economic impact of transportation-related components of recent natural disasters
like Hurricane Ike or Mississippi flooding to help build the case for SCOTS/emergency
management?
6. SCOTS Could Develop a Transportation Network Resiliency Self-Assessment Tool?

Create a multi-criteria survey that DOTs can choose to use to rate their statewide transportation
resiliency “index” using a mix of quantitative data from risk assessment materials; highway
travel/infrastructure records; checklists of “good practices” like emergency response trailers and
24/7 emergency response trailers, and qualitative grades for factors such as partnerships with
first responders, etc.
7. SCOTS Could House a Green Book Supplement for Transportation Security Design Practices?

Compile a set of formal or informal materials to support states looking for guidance.
September 23, 2008
5