0. Summary of 2007 State DOT Security Survey Results
AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security
Summary of
2007 State DOT
Security Survey
Results
Final Contractor’s Report
August 2007

1. AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security Study Prepared By:
Study Requested By:
AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security
Study Prepared By:
Joe Crossett & Lauren Hines
TransTech Management Under Contract NCHRP (14)
Acknowledgments
This study was requested by AASHTO and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security. The report was prepared by Joe Crossett & Lauren Hines of TransTech Management, Inc. Project is guided by a panel that includes David S. Ekern, David P. Albright, John M. Contestabile, Frank Day, Ernest R. "Ron" Frazier, Lee D. Han, Polly L. Hanson, Randell H. "Randy" Iwasaki, Gummada Murthy, Mary Lou Ralls, Ricky D. Smith, Jeff Western, and Mark Wikelius. Liaisons include Steven L. Ernst, Michael Taborn, Valerie Briggs, Robert D. Franz, Paul Golden, Greg Hull, Anthony R. Kane, Jack Legler, Vincent P. Pearce, Matthew D. Rabkin, Kerry Thomas, and Joedy Cambridge. The project was managed by S. A. Parker, CRP Senior Program Officer.
Disclaimer
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. This report has not been reviewed or accepted by the Transportation Research Board's Executive Committee or the Governing Board of the National Research Council.

2. Survey Methodology (Copy of Survey Included at the End of this Document)
4/26/07: from SCOTS chair sent to all contacts on AASHTO “security alert list” (covers all 52 AASHTO members) with request to complete online survey on their DOT’s behalf
5/8/07: SCOTS chair reminded attendees at AASHTO Spring Meeting to complete survey/AASHTO letter sent to CEOs asking for their cooperation
Weeks of May 21/28: Contractor/AASHTO called all DOTs that had not responded to survey
Mid-June: Survey closed

3. Survey Completion by State
State Completed Survey: 36 (69%)
State Did Not Complete Survey: 16 (31%)
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Alabama
Alaska
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Kentucky
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Jersey
New York
Oklahoma
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Wyoming

4. Effect of Security Responsibilities on Annual State DOT Budgets (Respondents asked to select a cost range that best matches the typical annual increase in their agency’s capital and operating budgets as a result of new security demands.)
Number of DOTs responding by category
(Note: 35 DOTs responded to this question)

5. Top All-Hazards Security Priorities for State DOTs (Each respondent asked to list up to three priorities; chart shows frequency with which most commonly referenced categories of priorities were identified by states.)
Number of DOTs responding by category
Responses Grouped by Category*
*Authors developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individual responses
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

6. Top Basic Training Priorities for DOTs (Share of survey respondents that report “basic training still needed” for selected key topic areas.)
(86%)
(81%)
(78%)
(67%)
(67%)
(67%)
(56%)
(53%)
*Topics are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

7. Additional Training Needs of DOTs (Each respondent asked to identify any other training needs not included in slide 6; chart shows frequency with which most commonly referenced categories of additional training needs were identified.)
Responses Grouped by Category*
*Authors developed categories to summarize DOTs’ individual responses
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

8. Technical Assistance Priorities of DOTs (Number of respondents that report they have “a need for more technical assistance” such as guidebooks, federal expertise, web resources, etc. for selected key topic areas.)
Number of DOTs responding by category
Responses Grouped by Topic*
*Topics are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

9. Additional Technical Assistance Needs of DOTs (Each respondent asked to identify any other capacity building techniques they would like to see developed.)
Low cost interoperable communications
Collaborative inter-DOT intelligence and information sharing
Library of exercises that support transportation needs and comply with Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Procedures (HSEEP)
DOT equipment needed for response to hazardous rescue environments
State to state evacuations
Development of joint operations with neighboring states
Evacuation modeling 
(Note: 8 DOTs responded to this question by identifying additional training needs; above text paraphrases actual responses

10. Preferred Capacity Building Approaches of DOTs (Number of respondents that report they are “very likely to use” general capacity building mechanisms described below.)
Responses Grouped by Approach*
*Approaches are listed on chart as they were worded in survey question
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question, except “print/electronic training materials (35), conferences & peer exchanges (34) web clearing houses (33))

11. Other Capacity Building Techniques Identified by DOTs (Each respondent was asked to identify any other capacity building techniques they would like to see developed.)
Multi-agency interactive exercises
Multi-state exercises across state borders
Debriefings on major incidents (what went well, lessons learned, etc.)
Top-down departmental orientations
New employee orientations
Train the trainer materials
Minimum training standards (similar to public safety community)
Designated funding
Constructive simulation suite that will support micro, meso and macro testing, modeling and exercise simulation
Transportation sector specific “subject matter experts” available for no-cost consultative services
(Note: 10 DOTs responded to this question by identifying previously unidentified capacity building techniques; above text paraphrases actual responses

12. Value of Key AASHTO Guidance Materials to DOTs (Share of respondents that indicate they find key AASHTO documents either “very useful,” “somewhat useful,” “not useful,” or are “unaware of AASHTO materials.”
Risk Management and Vulnerability Guide
Emergency Response & Preparedness Guide
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to this question)

13. Suggestions from DOTs for Improving AASHTO Documents (Each respondent who said resources were “somewhat useful” or “not useful” was asked to identify suggestions (if any) for improving AASHTO documents.)
Information Overload! Help readers absorb information by making more use of concise formats – e.g. short checklist style “Dummies” overviews at the start of each chapter to ease identification of key points, particularly to help DOT field personnel who will not read long, wordy documents
Too Generic! Find ways to customize documents to guide states with differing needs in terms of security demands, legal structures, and political constraints
Not Publicized! Make sure DOTs know AASHTO’s all hazards security guidance documents are available; keep AASHTO’s emergency contact list up to date to get information out to states
Not Practical Enough! Focus documents more on practical “how to” guidance and lessons learned elements and less on “doctrine;” documents should be revised to incorporate National Infrastructure Protection Plan
Not Timely! Materials needed in a more timely manner

14. Suggestions from DOTs for Best Security Related Resources (Each respondent was asked to identify up to three resources that have been most useful to their agency.)
TRB security website (trb.org/activities/security/transportationsecurity1.asp)
AASHTO security website (
Websites for FHWA Operations ( FEMA ( DHS ( & TSA (
DHS National Response Plan  ( )
NCHRP Report 525: Surface Transportation Security, Volume 6: Guide for Emergency Transportation Operations (
DHS Homeland Security Digital Library (
DomPrep Journal
Highway Watch Program  (highwaywatch.com)
TSA Suspicious Incident Report/ s from AASHTO staff  (Tony Kane)
Homeland Defense Journal
NIMS related information from FEMA
National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) (
DHS Lessons Learned Information Sharing website (llis.gov) 
FHWA Transportation Security and Emergency Response Professional Capacity Building Initiative
FEMA Training
AASHTO Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection
DHS Automated Critical Asset Management  System

15. DOT Emergency Management Plan Status
Agencies with agency-wide “all-hazards” emergency management plan:
Agencies with public transportation integrated into emergency management plan:
(Note: 36 DOTs responded to these questions)

16. DOT Coordination of Emergency Management Plans
Coordinated with NIMS
Coordinated with regional plans
Coordinated with overall statewide plans
Coordinated with local units of government
(Note: 33 DOTs responded to these questions)
(Note: 32 DOTs responded to these questions)

17. DOT Coordination of Emergency Management Plans (Comparison with 2001, 2003 Surveys)
Coordinated with statewide plans
100%
96%
94%
Coordinated with regional plans
84%
74%
66%
Coordinated with local units of government
85%
77%
69%

18. Selected Security-related Research Published by DOTs (Each respondent was asked to identify any relevant research their state DOT has produced.)
Arizona DOT - Vulnerability Assessment Final Report
Arizona DOT - Evacuation of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area
Connecticut DOT - Homeland Security Contact List
Connecticut DOT - Homeland Security Resource Document
Connecticut DOT - Agency Response Plan to CT. Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Delaware DOT - Transportation Security Plan  
Illinois DOT - Vulnerability Assessment Plan
Illinois DOT - Response Handbook for Incidents, Disasters & Emergencies (RHIDE)
Minnesota DOT - Evacuation Modeling Tool (Underway)
Pennsylvania DOT - Recommendations for PennDOT to Address Transportation Security,
Virginia Tech - Critical Infrastructure Modeling and Assessment Program (CIMAP)
Washington State DOT - Prioritization of Transportation Security Projects (Underway)
Washington State DOT - Quantitative Security Risk and Allocation Model: (Underway) 

19. Additional Security-Related Research Needs Identified by DOTs (Each respondent was asked to suggest research needs; needs listed verbatim by category.)
Traffic & Evacuation Planning (7 Needs Suggested)
Realistic evacuation modeling for non-hurricane events 
Evacuation planning for expressways 
Excavation routes 
Stop movement 
Traffic modeling 
More on evacuation planning 
Effects and effectiveness of contra flow during no-warning catastrophic events
Multi-State Coordination (4 Needs Suggested)
Capabilities-based planning on a regional level (multi-state) 
Joint operations with neighboring states for the coordination of all hazard responses and movement of civilians and first responders
Communications between states for transportation security 
Dedicated intelligence and information sharing network

20. Additional Security-Related Research Needs Identified by DOTs (Cont.)
Infrastructure Security (5 Needs Suggested)
DOT headquarters security requirements 
Ground infrastructure protection
Integrating transportation security into transportation capital and operating programs 
Highway infrastructure “airspace” security
Threat deterrence    
Port/Freight Security (3 Needs Suggested)
Cargo inspection systems
Port security 
Inland waterways and port security 
Communications (2 Needs Suggested)
Low cost interoperable communications 
Intra Agency Communication

21. Additional Security-Related Research Needs Identified by DOTs (Cont.)
Risk Assessment (2 Needs Suggested)
Interdependencies, Cascading Effects, Single Points of Failure supporting a common vulnerability analysis methodology  
Risk/Vulnerability Assessment 
Other
Border security  
Regional command and control exercise capabilities
Using transportation assets for major disaster response, search and rescue, & hazardous environment operations 
aerosol dispersion modeling 
ID of potential terrorist events 
Awareness education for general public in event of an incident
SAFETEA-LU security review requirements. 

22. Use of AASHTO/TRB Websites by DOTs
Have you used TRB’s site?
How useful is TRB’s site?
AASHTO Website
Have you used AASHTO’s site?
How useful is AASHTO’s site?
(Note: 34 DOTs responded to the TRB question & 35 DOTs responded to the AASHTO question)

23. TRB & AASHTO Website Use (Comparison with 2001, 2003 Surveys)
Visited TRB website
47%
65%
54%
Found TRB site somewhat or very helpful
86%
88%
95%
Visited AASHTO website
No question asked
71%
Found AASHTO site somewhat or very helpful
97%
100%

24. Percent of DOT Costs for Security Reimbursed by the Federal Government (Each respondent asked to indicate the share of security costs reimbursed by the Federal Government)
(Note: 34 DOTs responded to this question)

25. Background - Survey Text
2007 AASHTO/TRB
Transportation & Homeland Security Survey
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the 2007 AASHTO/TRB-sponsored 26-question survey on homeland security needs.
Tips for completing the survey:
Response deadline is May 9, 2007.
IMPORTANT! AASHTO used its "security alert" list, which may include two or three personnel at a state, to spread word about the survey. We are relying on you to ensure only ONE survey response comes from your agency. Look at the list attached with the AASHTO survey and make sure you coordinate with any other listed staff from your agency to ensure only one person gives responses for your state.
No survey answers are submitted from your browser until you click the “DONE” button after question 26.
As long as you do not click the “DONE” button, you may close your browser window or click on “exit survey” at the top right of each screen and return to your partially completed survey at a later time.
If you have any questions about the survey, please call our consultant, Joe Crossett, who is administering the survey on our behalf. His phone number is (412)

26. Survey Questions
1. Identify the name and state of the person primarily responsible for completing this survey:
Name:
State:
2. In brief, what are your agency's top three highway-related homeland security priorities: 1. 2. 3.

27. 3. Assess the extent to which you think relevant staff at your agency have received a satisfactory amount and quality of training in the following areas by choosing:
Basic Training Needs Have Been Met
Refresher and/or Advanced Training Needed
More Training Needed
Don’t Know
General homeland security awareness
Detecting, deterring, & mitigating homeland security threats
Infrastructure design for homeland security
All hazards emergency preparedness & response including emergency transportation operations
Emergency transportation operations
Integrating homeland security considerations in the planning process
All hazards planning for end-to-end evacuation
All hazards interagency communication & coordination for emergency preparedness & response
Assessing transportation network homeland security vulnerabilities (risk assessment)

28. 4. Are any other training areas very important to your agency
4. Are any other training areas very important to your agency? Please list up to three and indicate if these needs have been met: 1. 2. 3.

29. 5. Professional capacity on a particular security topic can be developed using different approaches. Please indicate the likelihood that your agency would use each of the following types of resources, if offered at little or no cost:
Very Likely to Use
Somewhat Likely to Use
Unlikely to Use
Don’t Know
Print/electronic training materials
Conferences & peer exchanges
Exercises & workshops
Web-based seminars
Web-based information clearinghouse
6. What other capacity building techniques would also be useful to your agency (please list up to three)?

30. Technical Assistance Needs Met More Technical Assistance Needed
7. Assess the extent to which you think your agency has access to a satisfactory amount and quality of technical assistance (including guidebooks, Federal expertise, web resources, etc.) in the following areas:
Technical Assistance Needs Met
More Technical Assistance Needed
Don’t Know
General homeland security awareness
Detecting, deterring, & mitigating homeland security threats
Infrastructure design for homeland security
All hazards emergency preparedness & response including emergency transportation operations
Integrating homeland security considerations in the planning process
All hazards planning for end-to-end evacuation
All hazards interagency communication & coordination for emergency preparedness & response
Assessing transportation network homeland security vulnerabilities (risk assessment)

31. 8. List up to three types of technical assistance not mentioned in Q.7. that you think would also be useful to your agency? (Enter "Don't know" on the first line if you are unsure about assistance needs, a blank response will be interpreted to mean your state does not seek additional types of technical assistance.) 1. 2. 3.
9. Have you found AASHTO's guidance materials on risk management and vulnerability assessment to be useful?
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Unaware of AASHTO materials
10. If, in response to Q. 9, you found AASHTO's guidance materials on risk management and vulnerability assessment to be "somewhat useful" or "not useful", briefly explain why/how they could be made more useful.
11. Have you found AASHTO's guidance materials on emergency response and preparedness issues to be useful?
12. If, in response to Q.11, you found AASHTO’s guidance materials on emergency response and preparedness issues to be “somewhat useful” or “not useful,” briefly explain how they could be made more useful.

32. 13. Name up to three specific security related resources (e. g
13. Name up to three specific security related resources (e.g. specific documents or websites) that you have found to be most useful to your agency: 1. 2. 3.
14. Does your agency have an agency-wide, “all hazards” emergency management plan in place?
Yes
Underway No
Don’t Know
15. Is public transportation integrated into your agency’s emergency management plan?
16. Is your agency’s emergency management plan coordinated with:
National Incident Management System (NIMS) plans
Overall statewide plans
Regional plans
Local units of government

33. 17. Provide title and accessibility information for any published research studies and policy reports concerning transportation security produced by your agency during the past five years.
(Enter Don't know on the first line if you are unsure about any research completed, a blank response will be interpreted to mean your state has not conducted any relevant research in this area.)
18. List up to three significant general categories of transportation security issues you think need further research among the states?
(Enter "Don't know" on the first line if you are unsure about any research completed, a blank response will be interpreted to mean your state has not conducted any relevant research in this area.)

34. 19. Have you used the TRB Transportation Systems Security website
19. Have you used the TRB Transportation Systems Security website? (website: www4.trb.org/trb/homepage.nsf/web/security)
Yes No
20. How useful was the TRB website?
Very useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Never viewed TRB website
21. Do you have any suggestions on how the TRB's webpage could be improved?
22. Have you used the AASHTO Security website? (website:
23. If yes, how useful was it?
Never viewed AASHTO website
24. Do you have any suggestions on how this webpage could be improved?

35. 25. How significantly have homeland security responsibilities added in the last five years affected your agency's annual budget (capital and operating costs)?
Added more than $50 million
Added $10 million to $50 million
Added $1 million to $10 million
Added $100,000 to $1 million
Added less than $100,000
Don't know
26. If costs for security have been added, roughly what percentage has been reimbursed by the federal government? 0%
1-25%
26-50%
More than 50%