1 NCHRP REPORT 793 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Incorporating Transportation Security Awareness into Routine State DOT Operations and Training
2 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2014 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing Vice Chair: Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, TX Malcolm Dougherty, Director, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor and Director, Centre for Geoinformatics, School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, Fife, United Kingdom John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona DOT, Phoenix Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, CA Chris T. Hendrickson, Duquesne Light Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA Jeffrey D. Holt, Managing Director, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets, and Chairman, Utah Transportation Commission, Huntsville, Utah Gary P. LaGrange, President and CEO, Port of New Orleans, LA Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island DOT, Providence Joan McDonald, Commissioner, New York State DOT, Albany Abbas Mohaddes, President and CEO, Iteris, Inc., Santa Ana, CA Donald A. Osterberg, Senior Vice President, Safety and Security, Schneider National, Inc., Green Bay, WI Steven W. Palmer, Vice President of Transportation, Lowe s Companies, Inc., Mooresville, NC Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor, University of Texas, Austin Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO Kumares C. Sinha, Olson Distinguished Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN Gary C. Thomas, President and Executive Director, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Dallas, TX Paul Trombino III, Director, Iowa DOT, Ames Phillip A. Washington, General Manager, Regional Transportation District, Denver, CO EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thomas P. Bostick (Lt. General, U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC Alison Jane Conway, Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, City College of New York, NY, and Chair, TRB Young Member Council Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. DOT David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior John T. Gray II, Senior Vice President, Policy and Economics, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT Paul N. Jaenichen, Sr., Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. DOT Therese W. McMillan, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. DOT Michael P. Melaniphy, President and CEO, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Gregory G. Nadeau, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. DOT Peter M. Rogoff, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. DOT Craig A. Rutland, U.S. Air Force Pavement Engineer, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Tyndall Air Force Base, FL Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. DOT Barry R. Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA Gregory D. Winfree, Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT Frederick G. (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Paul F. Zukunft (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security * Membership as of August 2014.
3 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 793 Incorporating Transportation Security Awareness into Routine State DOT Operations and Training Ernest R. Frazier, Sr. David S. Ekern Michael C. Smith Countermeasures Assessment & Security Experts (CASE ), LLC New Castle, DE Jeffrey L. Western Patricia G. Bye Western Management & Consulting, LLC Madison, WI Subscriber Categories Education and Training Maintenance and Preservation Security and Emergencies Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C
4 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. NCHRP REPORT 793 Project 20-59(43) ISSN ISBN Library of Congress Control Number National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC and can be ordered through the Internet at: Printed in the United States of America
5 The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
6 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 793 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher J. Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Stephan A. Parker, Senior Program Officer Danna Powell, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Scott E. Hitchcock, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-59(43) PANEL Area of Special Projects Frank Quon, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles, CA (Chair) Marianne L. Elbertson, USDA, FSIS, Office of Data Integration and Food Protection, Washington, DC Dennis A. Randolph, City of Grandview Public Works Department, Grandview, MO Amber B. Reep, Transportation Safety Institute (TSI), Oklahoma City, OK Lance W. Simmons, Texas DOT, Atlanta, TX Meghann M. Valeo, MMV Consulting, Morrisville, PA Dan Ferezan, FHWA Liaison Laurel J. Radow, FHWA Liaison Georgia M. Gia Harrigan, DHS Science and Technology Directorate Liaison Richard A. Cunard, TRB Liaison author ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team acknowledges Texas DOT for allowing the inclusion of its Security Reporting Procedure Flowchart as an example in report.
7 FOREWORD By Stephan A. Parker Staff Officer Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 793: Incorporating Transportation Security Awareness into Routine State DOT Operations and Training highlights the importance of security awareness for all state DOT employees and contractors. The report outlines a flexible campaign approach providing techniques to integrate all-hazards security awareness concepts and reminders into routine state DOT operations, maintenance, and training. This report should be very helpful for state DOTs to improve the security of transportation systems within existing resource and budgetary constraints. Information contained in the report may also be valuable for transportation training organizations such as the Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP/TTAP), National Highway Institute (NHI), and other organizations that develop security training for transportation agencies. In most states, accountability for security may reside in state emergency management or homeland security organizations. Because of this, the perception by many state DOTs and DOT employees is security is not DOT business. Though state DOTs might not be directly responsible for patrolling state-owned infrastructure, DOTs do have the responsibility for controlling access to critical components, establishing coordination with law enforcement to ensure quick response to incidents, conducting infrastructure risk and vulnerability assessments, and taking action to mitigate the effects of those risks and vulnerabilities. As a result, state DOTs do play a significant role in infrastructure security. Under NCHRP Project 20-59(43), Countermeasures Assessment and Security Experts, LLC, and Western Management and Consulting, LLC, were asked to develop a guide for incorporating transportation security awareness into routine state DOT operations and training. The project team undertook a phased approach to gather information to develop the guide. For the literature review, the team reviewed all-hazards security and training research, compiled current transportation training programs related to security and security awareness, and identified effective security awareness programs and training approaches. A scanning survey was then done to identify and review existing transportation safety and security training. An electronic version was distributed to all fifty state DOTs; Puerto Rico; Washington, D.C.; the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO); the American Public Transportation Association (APTA); the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO); the American Association of Railroads (AAR); the National Association of Counties (NACO); and the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), using an online survey tool to track responses and results. In-depth telephone interviews were then conducted with DOT training managers, LTAP representatives, and staff at the National Transit Institute (NTI). The focus of the interviews was to identify successful security awareness programs and training concepts that could be incorporated into the development of the guide.
8 The team used the information obtained through the literature review, survey, and interviews to develop the guide. Section 1 provides a brief introduction to transportation security and the current role of the state DOTs in security. Security awareness is defined and differentiated from security training. The section also presents the importance of security awareness for all transportation executives, employees, and contractors. Section 2 addresses issues of organizational readiness and includes five key Questions to Ask to ensure that an agency is ready to have and support an effective security awareness program. Section 3 identifies the core components of a security awareness campaign, utilizing examples from current practices. The section includes general messages for all employees and suggested messages and delivery methods for operations and maintenance staff. Section 4 provides methods for promoting security awareness within a state DOT that can be relatively inexpensive to implement. Additional material is provided in the Appendices: an overview of current training available with links to training resources and training courses, a contact list for training organizations, and a directory of resources relevant to transportation security. In addition to the guide, a methodology report and a PowerPoint presentation describing the entire project are available on the TRB website (www.trb.org) by searching for NCHRP Report 793.
9 CONTENTS 1 Preface: How to Use This Guide 2 Section 1 Introduction 4 Section 2 Organizational Readiness 6 Section 3 Security Is Everybody s Business 7 General Security Awareness Messages 7 Knowing the Risks 8 Recognizing/Observing a Security Risk 9 Reporting a Security Threat 10 Section 4 Promoting Security Awareness within DOTs 12 Appendix A Transportation Security Training Courses 12 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Transportation Security Administration (TSA) 14 National Transit Institute (NTI) 14 Transportation Research Board 15 Center for Transportation Safety, Security and Risk (CTSSR) 16 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 16 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 16 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 17 Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 18 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Security Training 19 Other Federal Training 20 State Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) Training 20 Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium (RDPC) 21 Other Sector Training Resources 21 Other Security Training Resources 23 Appendix B Training Center Resources 23 Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) and Tribal Technical Assistance Program (TTAP) 23 National Highway Institute (NHI) 23 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 24 Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement 24 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 25 Appendix C Directory of Transportation Security Resources 25 Transportation Security Guidance 26 Transportation Security Awareness Programs 28 Research Studies Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at retains the color versions.
10 Preface How to Use This Guide NCHRP Report 793: Incorporating Transportation Security Awareness into Routine State DOT Operations and Training highlights the importance of security awareness for all state DOT employees and contractors. Through a flexible campaign approach, the Guide outlines techniques to integrate all-hazards security awareness concepts and reminders into routine state DOT operations, maintenance, and training. The Guide is designed for use by state DOTs to improve the security of transportation systems within existing resource and budgetary constraints. Information contained in the Guide may also be valuable for transportation training organizations such as the Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program (LTAP/TTAP), National Highway Institute (NHI), and other organizations that develop security training for transportation agencies. Section 1 provides a brief introduction to transportation security and the current role of the state DOTs in security. Security awareness is defined and differentiated from security training. The section also presents the importance of security awareness for all transportation executives, employees, and contractors. Section 2 addresses organizational readiness and includes five key Questions to Ask to ensure that an agency is ready to implement and support an effective security awareness program. Section 3 identifies the core components of a security awareness campaign, utilizing examples of existing security awareness campaigns for transportation agencies. General messages for all employees and suggested messages and delivery methods for operations and maintenance staff are included in the section. Section 4 provides methods for promoting security awareness that can be relatively inexpensive to implement within a state DOT. Additional material is provided in the Appendices. Appendix A provides an overview of the current training available for transportation security, with links to training resources and training courses in a range of formats including classroom sessions, train-the-trainer, and online courses. Appendix B provides a contact list of training organizations relevant to transportation security. Appendix C provides a directory of resources relevant to transportation security. 1
11 SECTION 1 Introduction Transportation systems are vulnerable to a variety of hazards and threats. Natural events such as earthquakes, floods, and wind events can damage or destroy roads, bridges, tunnels, and other transportation assets. Accidents, especially those with resulting fires, can do extensive damage to systems. Likewise, intentional acts such as criminal activity or terrorism can result in injury or loss of life, along with damage or destruction of transportation facilities and infrastructure. NCHRP Report 525, Volume 14, Security 101: A Physical Security Primer for Transportation Agencies (2009) defines security as freedom from harm resulting from intentional acts or circumstances. All-hazards circumstances include natural events or technological failures, such as a serious accident. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) summarized the security role of State DOTs in Protecting America s Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels: The Role of State DOTs in Homeland Security (2005) as all-hazards emergency management and critical asset protection, along with the traditional functions to better protect transportation systems and preserve user safety. The state DOT role in security was further defined in an AASHTO subcommittee white paper, Roles and Implications of Transportation Systems in Homeland Security (2005). According to that white paper, state DOTs have five fundamental responsibilities: 1. Prevent incidents within their control and responsibility. 2. Protect transportation users, agency personnel, and critical infrastructure. 3. Support regional/state/local emergency responders with resources including facilities, equipment, and personnel. 4. Recover swiftly from incidents. 5. Evaluate response(s) and continually improve plans, training, skills, and protocols. In most states, accountability for security may reside in state emergency management or homeland security organizations. Because of this, the perception by many state DOTs and DOT employees is security is not DOT business. Though state DOTs might not be directly responsible for patrolling state-owned infrastructure, DOTs do have the responsibility for controlling access to critical components, establishing coordination with law enforcement to ensure quick response to incidents, conducting infrastructure risk and vulnerability assessments, and taking action to mitigate the effects of those risks and vulnerabilities. As a result, state DOTs do play a significant role in infrastructure security. All transportation employees contribute to security. Because of their varied responsibilities and work locations, employees are often the first to notice or learn about suspicious activity and are best positioned to recognize threats or security concerns. An employee s presence alone 2
12 Introduction 3 can deter unlawful acts. Because of their constant presence on agency premises, employees are uniquely positioned to identify issues, problems, and deviations from the usual. Employees may believe that the security systems fences, cameras, access cards and management are responsible for security and may not see themselves as a vital part of the security system. Employees need to know that they have security responsibility too. Because they are the eyes and ears of the agency, they should be encouraged to be aware of suspicious activity and know who to call to report matters of a suspicious or dangerous nature. Directly akin to keeping safety top of mind, establishing a security mindset of awareness in all employees can increase an agency s security effectiveness. Security awareness is the cornerstone of a security culture. In a security culture, security is an integral part of the daily routine. The importance of security to daily work is understood by all employees, and each one takes responsibility to know the security risks that exist and the corresponding, appropriate measures to address potential and actual security issues. There have been a number of national security awareness programs for both highways and transit over the years. Employee-watch programs have long been recognized as an important security awareness tool. Over time, the security awareness programs have changed and matured in line with the increased understanding of the role of state DOTs. Today, security awareness programs such as If You See Something, Say Something are more commonly implemented programs that focus on making employees aware of potential risks and teaching them how to report a security threat. The following sections provide the concepts and techniques of an all-hazards security awareness program for transportation agencies. Integral to the success of any security awareness program is the knowledge that security is everyone s responsibility. Transportation employees must understand that they are the most important part of the security program. Awareness is not training... The purpose of awareness is simply to focus attention on security. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication : Information Technology Security Training Requirements
13 SECTION 2 Organizational Readiness This section focuses on key QUESTIONS TO ASK to be sure an agency is ready to implement and support an effective security awareness program. There are fundamental capabilities that must be in place for a security awareness program. This section provides the five key questions to ask to ensure that a transportation agency is ready and can support an effective security awareness program. 1. Is there management support for security awareness? Security awareness programs with top-level support are more successful. As with safety, security in a transportation agency is a top-down organizational activity. The rest of the agency takes its lead from the senior executives. Senior leaders act as role models and establish what should be focused on by the rest of the organization. Management must demonstrate to all employees that security awareness is important and can be integrated into normal daily operations and maintenance processes. If there is strong support, senior management participation can be incorporated in the program, e.g., the CEO can send out a message to the entire organization that briefly summarizes threats and states that security is the responsibility of everyone in the organization. 2. Has a reporting structure been identified and/or articulated, e.g., what gets reported and to whom? Establishing a reporting structure in advance who to tell and how to describe something suspicious is critical to a security awareness program. What are the internal reporting procedures that should be followed? There are a number of reporting contacts, both internal and external, used by transportation agencies. Internal transportation agency contacts include an appropriate supervisor such as a dispatcher, immediate or designated manager, or designated internal security personnel. Based on the evaluation of the employee report, an internal agency contact may then contact law enforcement or the state or federal Department of Homeland Security. External contact options include calling 911 or a local designated law enforcement contact. Once a reporting structure has been identified, employees need to know: Who should be contacted, e.g., internal supervisory or security contact, or external law enforcement agency contact. How to contact them, e.g., using emergency hotlines, 911, etc. What key information should be reported (the Who, What, Where, When, and details of involved persons, objects, or vehicles). 4