DOCSLIB.ORG

Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations July 10, 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations July 10, 2015 National Infrastructure Advisory Council Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations July 10, 2015 Jack Baylis Glenn S. Gerstell Dr. Beverly Scott Working Group Co-Chair Working Group Co-Chair Working Group Co-Chair President and Chief Partner Chief Executive Officer Executive Officer Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & Beverly Scott Associates, LLC The Baylis Group, LLC McCloy LLP Margaret E. Grayson Constance Lau Jim Nicholson President President and Chief President and Chief MTN Government Services Executive Officer Executive Officer Hawaiian Electric Industries, PVS Chemicals, Inc. Inc. (HEI) About the NIAC The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) provides the President of the United States with advice on the security and resilience of the critical infrastructure sectors and their functional systems, physical assets, and cyber networks. These critical infrastructure sectors span the U.S. economy and include the chemical; commercial facilities; communications; critical manufacturing; dams; defense industrial base; emergency services; energy; financial services; food and agriculture; government facilities; healthcare and public health; information technology; nuclear reactors, materials and waste; transportation systems; and water and wastewater systems sectors. The NIAC also advises the lead Federal agencies that have critical infrastructure responsibilities. Specifically, the Council has been charged with making recommendations to: • Enhance the partnership of the public and private sectors in securing and enhancing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure and their supporting functional systems, physical assets, and cyber networks, and provide reports on this issue to the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security, as appropriate. • Propose and develop ways to encourage private industry to perform periodic risk assessments and implement risk-reduction programs. • Monitor the development and operations of critical infrastructure sector coordinating councils and their information-sharing mechanisms, and provide recommendations to the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security on how these organizations can best foster improved cooperation among the sectors, the Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal Government entities. • Report to the President through the Secretary of Homeland Security, who shall ensure appropriate coordination with the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. • Advise sector specific agencies with critical infrastructure responsibilities, to include issues pertaining to sector and government coordinating councils and their information sharing mechanisms. NIAC Transportation Sector Resilience ii Table of Contents About the NIAC ..................................................................................................................................ii Executive Summary............................................................................................................................ 1 I. Study Objective and Approach ..................................................................................................... 8 A. Study Charge .......................................................................................................................8 B. Study Methodology..............................................................................................................9 C. Point of Departure: Recommendations from Prior Assessments ........................................... 10 II. Current Situation: The Intersection of Resilience and Complexity in Transportation..................... 14 A. The Nation’s Transportation System: Enormous, Complex, and Diverse ................................ 16 B. Status of Federal Policy and Action ..................................................................................... 18 III. Assessment of Transportation Resilience Today .......................................................................... 21 A. Transportation Risks .......................................................................................................... 21 B. Infrastructure Investment and Funding ............................................................................... 22 C. Policies and Practices ......................................................................................................... 24 D. Leadership and Coordination .............................................................................................. 25 IV. Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 27 V. Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 31 Appendices Appendix A: Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 40 Appendix B: The Resilience Challenge: Key Aspects of the Problem ................................................... 44 Appendix C: Infrastructure Investment in Decline ............................................................................. 60 Appendix D: Indicators of Progress ................................................................................................... 65 Appendix E: Overview of the National Transportation System ........................................................... 72 Appendix F: Federal Transportation Policy and Programs .................................................................. 81 Appendix G: Overview of Transportation Modes and Resilience Practices ....................................... 100 Appendix H: Case Study of Disruption Scenarios – Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach................... 134 Appendix I: Compendium of Prior NIAC Recommendations Related to Resilience ............................ 165 Appendix J: Compendium of Prior Recommendations from Other Sources ...................................... 177 Appendix K: Consolidated Interview Information Collected by the Working Group .......................... 187 Appendix L: Consolidated Information from Study Group Subject Matter Expert Discussions ........... 204 Appendix M: References and Research Resources ........................................................................... 213 Appendix N: Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 241 NIAC Transportation Sector Resilience iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The Nation’s transportation system is crucial to the U.S. economy and the overall quality of life for Americans from all walks of life. In today’s increasingly complex and connected society, every critical infrastructure sector depends on a resilient transportation system that is safe, secure, reliable and efficient in the movement of people and goods; without it, most critical services cease to function. In recognition of this important role, the President directed the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) to examine the resilience of the Nation’s transportation sector to determine potential gaps and identify opportunities for the Federal Government to improve the sector’s resilience and security. Throughout this study, infrastructure resilience is defined as the ability to reduce the magnitude or duration of disruptive events that is accomplished by anticipating, absorbing, adapting to, or rapidly recovering from the disruption. In simplest terms, resilient systems can maintain critical functions during a disruption and require less time and fewer resources to recover functions that have degraded. A Critical National Resource at Risk A healthy transportation system is vital to the Nation’s economy, security, and prosperity. Yet our current transportation infrastructure faces a diverse set of emerging risks for which no one Federal entity has full jurisdictional responsibility to address. Extreme weather, rising sea levels, decaying infrastructure, and cyber threats are creating new challenges for public and private owners and operators within the various modes, and among regulators and funding entities in all levels of Federal, state, and local government. Fragmentation of authority and responsibility has resulted in the lack of a national consensus—public and private—on resilience goals and outcomes. Meanwhile, critical infrastructure systems are becoming more tightly intertwined as transportation and other critical sectors integrate their cyber and physical systems to optimize operations and global supply chains. This increases productivity and efficiency but also makes systems more fragile in the event of a major catastrophe. All these factors are exacerbated by decades-long underinvestment in much of the Nation’s transportation infrastructure. “The tragic thing is that we’re letting our The continuity of critical transportation operations is now transportation system crumble at the virtually inseparable from the continuity of other lifeline exact moment we need to build it up.” infrastructures—energy, communications, and water. Greater interdependencies within regional infrastructures Anthony Foxx, Secretary of Transportation increase the likelihood that a localized disruption will cascade across adjacent infrastructures, transportation modes, and jurisdictions. Since
Load more

Recommended publications
  • APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information
    APPENDIX E Hazards and Hazardous Materials Information PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 12761 Schabarum Avenue Irwindale, CA 91706 Assessor’s Identification Number (AIN): 8546-031-090 Prepared for: Teresa Wolfe Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. 393 Walnut Street, 4th Floor Pasadena, CA 91188 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 290 Conejo Ridge Avenue Thousand Oaks, CA 91361 Project No.: 185803384.200.0001 January 29,2015 Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals This document entitled PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) for the account of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. All information, conclusions, and recommendations provided by Stantec in this document regarding the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by the professionals whose signatures appear below. Prepared by (signature) Kai Pavel Geologic Associate I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional (EP) as defined in § 312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Property.
    [Show full text]
  • W • 32°38'47.76”N 117°8'52.44”
    public access 32°32’4”N 117°7’22”W • 32°38’47.76”N 117°8’52.44”W • 33°6’14”N 117°19’10”W • 33°22’45”N 117°34’21”W • 33°45’25.07”N 118°14’53.26”W • 33°45’31.13”N 118°20’45.04”W • 33°53’38”N 118°25’0”W • 33°55’17”N 118°24’22”W • 34°23’57”N 119°30’59”W • 34°27’38”N 120°1’27”W • 34°29’24.65”N 120°13’44.56”W • 34°58’1.2”N 120°39’0”W • 35°8’54”N 120°38’53”W • 35°20’50.42”N 120°49’33.31”W • 35°35’1”N 121°7’18”W • 36°18’22.68”N 121°54’5.76”W • 36°22’16.9”N 121°54’6.05”W • 36°31’1.56”N 121°56’33.36”W • 36°58’20”N 121°54’50”W • 36°33’59”N 121°56’48”W • 36°35’5.42”N 121°57’54.36”W • 37°0’42”N 122°11’27”W • 37°10’54”N 122°23’38”W • 37°41’48”N 122°29’57”W • 37°45’34”N 122°30’39”W • 37°46’48”N 122°30’49”W • 37°47’0”N 122°28’0”W • 37°49’30”N 122°19’03”W • 37°49’40”N 122°30’22”W • 37°54’2”N 122°38’40”W • 37°54’34”N 122°41’11”W • 38°3’59.73”N 122°53’3.98”W • 38°18’39.6”N 123°3’57.6”W • 38°22’8.39”N 123°4’25.28”W • 38°23’34.8”N 123°5’40.92”W • 39°13’25”N 123°46’7”W • 39°16’30”N 123°46’0”W • 39°25’48”N 123°25’48”W • 39°29’36”N 123°47’37”W • 39°33’10”N 123°46’1”W • 39°49’57”N 123°51’7”W • 39°55’12”N 123°56’24”W • 40°1’50”N 124°4’23”W • 40°39’29”N 124°12’59”W • 40°45’13.53”N 124°12’54.73”W 41°18’0”N 124°0’0”W • 41°45’21”N 124°12’6”W • 41°52’0”N 124°12’0”W • 41°59’33”N 124°12’36”W Public Access David Horvitz & Ed Steck In late December of 2010 and early Janu- Some articles already had images, in which ary of 2011, I drove the entire California I added mine to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Nor Th P a Cific Ocean C Alifornia
    204 ¢ U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 4 Chapter 7, Pilot Coast U.S. 121° 120° 119° 118° 117° 18720 Point Arguello C ALIFORNIA Point Conception Santa Barbara 18725 T A B A R B A R A C H A Ventura S A N N N E L 18724 Port Hueneme Santa Miguel Island Santa Cruz Island 18740 18721 18744 18748 34° Santa Rosa Island 18729 18727 18728 Los Angeles SANTA MONICA BAY 18751 S A N T A P E D R 18749 Newport Beach O C H A N N 18756 E L 18754 18757 Santa Barbara Island 18774 Santa Catalina Island 18746 San Clemente San Nicolas Island 18746 E R S A N T A 18720 O U T B A R B A R A P A Oceanside S S A G E 18758 18755 18763 Encinitas 33° 18765 Del Mar GULF OF SANTA CATALINA San Clemente Island 18765 San Diego NORTH PA CIFIC OCEAN 18762 18773 18764 18772 Chart Coverage in Coast Pilot 7—Chapter 4 18740 19 SEP2021 NOAA’s Online Interactive Chart Catalog has complete chart coverage http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml 19 SEP 2021 U.S. Coast Pilot 7, Chapter 4 ¢ 205 San Diego to Point Arguello, California (14) METEOROLOGICAL TABLE – COASTAL AREA OFF SAN DIEGO, CA Between 31°N to 34°N and 116°W to 120°W YEARS OF WEATHER ELEMENTS JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC RECORD Wind > 33 knots ¹ 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 48 Wave Height > 9 feet ¹ 0.8 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.2 48 Visibility < 2 nautical miles ¹ 4.4 4.5 2.8 2.4 1.5 3.2 2.9 2.2 3.0 4.7 3.3 4.0 48 Precipitation ¹ 3.6 3.6 2.4 1.7 1.2 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.9 2.1 3.1 1.8 Temperature > 69° F 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.9 3.0 9.2 14.7 14.8 9.0 4.4 1.7 5.4 Mean Temperature (°F) 58.3 58.4 58.5 59.3 60.4 62.1 64.7 66.4 66.5 65.2 62.7 59.9 61.9 Temperature < 33° F ¹ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mean RH (%) 77 79 78 79 81 83 84 84 83 81 77 76 80 Overcast or Obscured ¹ 19.4 21.4 22.2 25.7 37.9 48.1 45.7 38.8 31.4 26.3 15.4 16.7 29.3 Mean Cloud Cover (8ths) 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.2 5.0 5.5 5.6 5.3 4.6 4.2 3.4 3.5 4.4 Mean SLP (mbs) 1018 1018 1017 1015 1015 1013 1013 1013 1012 1014 1017 1018 1015 Ext.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Project Profile
    USA Alameda Corridor, California - 1 - This report was compiled by the NYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. Please Note: This Project Profile has been prepared as part of the ongoing OMEGA Centre of Excellence work on Mega Urban Transport Projects. The information presented in the Profile is essentially a 'work in progress' and will be updated/amended as necessary as work proceeds. Readers are therefore advised to periodically check for any updates or revisions. The Centre and its collaborators/partners have obtained data from sources believed to be reliable and have made every reasonable effort to ensure its accuracy. However, the Centre and its collaborators/partners cannot assume responsibility for errors and omissions in the data nor in the documentation accompanying them. - 2 - CONTENTS A INTRODUCTION Type of project Project name Description of mode type Principal transport nodes Major associated developments Parent projects Country/Location Current status B BACKGROUND TO PROJECT Principal project objectives A description of the project from key stakeholders Stakeholders Project objectives Key enabling mechanisms and decision to proceed A description of key mechanisms Process and events leading up to decision Feasibility studies Main organisations involved Pre-construction phase Construction phase Operations phase Planning regime Outline of planning legislation/policy related to the project and its associated developments Environmental statements and outcomes related to the project Overview
    [Show full text]
  • September 2019
    Published by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union www.ilwu.org VOL 77, NO 8 • SEPTEMBER 2019 THE INSIDE NEWS LETTERS TO DISPATCHER 2 Harry Bridges statue inspires a new generation 6 TRANSITIONS 8 BOOKS & VIDEO 8 Candidate interviews: The ILWU International Executive Board met with Senators Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren at the meeting on August 23 in San Francisco. Invitations were extended to all of the candidates running for the Democratic nomination. Additional candidates are invited to December Board meeting. Presidential candidates 40th Annual Wilmington Labor Day Parade and Picnic page 3 meet ILWU Executive Board hree top contenders run- encouraged to hold their own meet- Another brother got a union job, and ning for U.S. President ings for members to discuss the can- became a life-long union member. Tmet with ILWU Interna- didates and issues. “At every town hall meeting, I tional Executive Board members Elizabeth Warren goes first always tell people that unions built America’s middle-class and they will in August. Senators Elizabeth After thanking International re-build America’s middle class.” Warren, Bernie Sanders and President Willie Adams and Board Kamala Harris each took sev- members for the invitation to appear, Beating the odds to teach eral hours from their busy Warren launched into her fast- “I wanted to become a teacher, paced overview of the problems schedules to sit down with the but our family had no money to facing America’s working families. pay for a college application, let Board, give short presentations She explaining that her views were alone four years of tuition, so I got and answer questions from shaped by growing-up in a working- a scholarship but then got married union members on August 22 class family of six, “…on the ragged and dropped-out at 19.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix D Cultural Resources Evaluation
    Appendix D Cultural Resources Evaluation Berths 226-236 [Everport] Container SCH# 2014101050 Terminal Improvements Project Draft EIS/EIR April 2017 ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL Cultural Resources Evaluation for Canner’s Steam Plant, Electrical Distribution Station 121, and Three Starkist Buildings, and Extended Phase I Report for the Vacant Parcel at 201-259 Cannery Street: Berths 226-236 Everport Container Terminal Project, Port of Los Angeles, City and County of Los Angeles, California APP No. 131015-136 Agreement No. 13-3196 Project Directive No. 1 Prepared for: CDM Smith Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants March 2016 ADMINISTRATIVE FINAL CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION FOR CANNER’S STEAM PLANT, ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION STATION 121, AND THREE STARKIST BUILDINGS, AND EXTENDED PHASE I REPORT FOR THE VACANT PARCEL AT 138 EAST TERMINAL WAY:BERTHS 226-236 EVERPORT CONTAINER TERMINAL PROJECT, PORT OF LOS ANGELES, CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA APP No. 131015-136 Agreement No. 13-3196 Project Directive No. 1 Prepared for: CDM Smith 111 Academy, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92617 Prepared by: Benjamin Vargas, M.A., RPA Steven Treffers, M.H.P., Emily Williams, M.S.U.R.P, Debi Howell-Ardila, M.H.P. SWCA Environmental Consultants 150 South Arroyo Parkway, 2nd Floor Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com Benjamin Vargas – Project Manager [email protected] USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle San Pedro, California SWCA Project No. 027455.00 SWCA Cultural Resources Report Database No. 14-688 March 2016 Keywords: historic
    [Show full text]
  • Built Environment Evaluation Report for Properties on Terminal Island, Port of Los Angeles, City and County of Los Angeles, California
    Built Environment Evaluation Report for Properties on Terminal Island, Port of Los Angeles, City and County of Los Angeles, California ADP No. 110518-060 Agreement No. 10-2922 PD No. 5 Prepared for: CDM Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants December 2011 BUILT ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION REPORT FOR PROPERTIES ON TERMINAL ISLAND, PORT OF LOS ANGELES, CITY AND COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA ADP No. 110518-060 Agreement No. 10-2922 PD No. 5 Prepared for CDM 111 Academy, Suite 150 Irvine, California 92617 Prepared by Samantha Murray, B.A., Steven Treffers, B.A., Mary Ringhoff, M.A., and Jan Ostashay, B.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 150 South Arroyo Parkway, 2nd Floor Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 240-0587 www.swca.com USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle San Pedro, California SWCA Project No. 021135.00 SWCA Cultural Resources Report Database No. 2011-379 Final December 2011 Keywords: CEQA, built environment evaluation, historic building evaluation, historic context, industrial properties, institutional properties, intensive survey, Terminal Island, Port of Los Angeles, positive results Built Environment Evaluation Report Terminal Island, Port of Los Angeles MANAGEMENT SUMMARY/ABSTRACT Purpose and Scope: This report contains results of the built environment evaluation conducted for properties on Terminal Island, located at the Port of Los Angeles in the city and county of Los Angeles, California. Under contract to CDM, SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) prepared a built environment evaluation report to identify built environment resources on Terminal Island to assess whether properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM) or Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ).
    [Show full text]
  • NIAC Transportation Sector Resilience Report
    National Infrastructure Advisory Council Transportation Sector Resilience Final Report and Recommendations DRAFT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW June 30, 2015 Working Group Co-Chairs Jack Baylis Glenn S. Gerstell Dr. Beverly Scott Working Group Co-Chair Working Group Co-Chair Working Group Co-Chair President and Chief Executive Partner CEO Officer Milibank, Tweed, Hadley & Beverly Scott Associates, The Baylis Group, LLC McCloy LLP LLC NIAC Pre-Decisional Draft for Council Review – QBM June 30, 2015 About the NIAC The National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) provides the President of the United States with advice on the security and resilience of the critical infrastructure sectors and their functional systems, physical assets, and cyber networks. These critical infrastructure sectors span the U.S. economy and include the chemical; commercial facilities; communications; critical manufacturing; dams; defense industrial base; emergency services; energy; financial services; food and agriculture; government facilities; healthcare and public health; information technology; nuclear reactors, materials, and waste; transportation systems; and water and wastewater systems sectors. The NIAC also advises the lead Federal agencies that have critical infrastructure responsibilities. Specifically, the Council has been charged with making recommendations to: Enhance the partnership of the public and private sectors in securing and enhancing the security and resilience of critical infrastructure and their supporting functional systems, physical assets, and
    [Show full text]
  • Terminal Island (Pier 400) Railyard Enhancement Project
    Terminal Island (Pier 400) Railyard Enhancement Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration APP No. 171106-154 Prepared by: Los Angeles Harbor Department Environmental Management Division 425 South Palos Verdes Street San Pedro, California 90731 With assistance from: ICF August 2018 Los Angeles Harbor Department Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION .................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 CEQA Process ................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Document Format ............................................................................................................ 1-3 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Regional Setting .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.2 Project Setting ..................................................................................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Land Use and Zoning .......................................................................................... 2-4 2.2 Project Background
    [Show full text]