4
Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas

This chapter examines the role of transit in emergency evacuation in the 38 largest urbanized areas (UAs)—the primary focus of the committee’s charge. It begins with a profile of the 38 areas and a summary of the committee’s assessment of the role of transit in the publicly available emergency response and evacuation plans of the major jurisdictions within these UAs and their respective states. The chapter then turns to a discussion of the results of the case studies conducted by the committee, which provide an in-depth look at the multiple roles transit can play in emergency evacuation, as well as some of the factors limiting that role. The chapter ends with a series of findings.

Profile of the 38 UAs

The committee prepared a statistical profile of the 38 UAs to provide an overview of many of the factors discussed in the previous chapter that may affect the role of transit in an emergency evacuation and to help select the case study sites. The profile is limited to those factors that could be quantified. Indicators were developed on six topics: UA size, potential demand for transit service, supply of transit and other public transportation equipment (i.e., school buses), number of transit agencies (an indicator of coordination complexity), roadway congestion, and predominant types of recent disasters (see Box 4-1). The primary data sources are U.S. census data for information on population, land area, demographic statistics, and car ownership; the National Transit Database for data on transit agency size, service area, and equipment by type; the annual bus fleet survey of the top 100 school districts for school bus numbers; the Urban Mobility Report of the Texas Transportation Institute for the congestion indicator; and the annual Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) database on presidentially declared disasters for data on the most common disasters by state.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 74
4 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas This chapter examines the role of transit in emergency evacuation in the 38 largest urbanized areas (UAs)—the primary focus of the committee’s charge. It begins with a profile of the 38 areas and a summary of the com- mittee’s assessment of the role of transit in the publicly available emergency response and evacuation plans of the major jurisdictions within these UAs and their respective states. The chapter then turns to a discussion of the results of the case studies conducted by the committee, which provide an in-depth look at the multiple roles transit can play in emergency evacu- ation, as well as some of the factors limiting that role. The chapter ends with a series of findings. Profile of the 38 UAs The committee prepared a statistical profile of the 38 UAs to provide an overview of many of the factors discussed in the previous chapter that may affect the role of transit in an emergency evacuation and to help select the case study sites. The profile is limited to those factors that could be quanti- fied. Indicators were developed on six topics: UA size, potential demand for transit service, supply of transit and other public transportation equipment (i.e., school buses), number of transit agencies (an indicator of coordina- tion complexity), roadway congestion, and predominant types of recent disasters (see Box 4-1). The primary data sources are U.S. census data for information on population, land area, demographic statistics, and car owner- ship; the National Transit Database for data on transit agency size, service area, and equipment by type; the annual bus fleet survey of the top 100 school districts for school bus numbers; the Urban Mobility Report of the Texas Transportation Institute for the congestion indicator; and the annual Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) database on presiden- tially declared disasters for data on the most common disasters by state. 74 37274mvp84_127 74 11/24/08 10:50:26 AM

OCR for page 74
75 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas Box 4-1 Indicators by Category of Interest for Statistical Profile of 38 Urbanized Areas Size of Urbanized Area • Population • Land area (in square miles) • Transit service area of largest provider (in square miles) • Transit population served of largest provider Potential Demand for Transit Service • Carless households – Housing units without cars – Percent of housing units without cars • Seniors – Householders living alone and ≥65 years of age – Percent of householders living alone and ≥65 years of age • Recent immigrants – Number of foreign born, entry ≥2000 – Population ≥5 years of age who speak English less than “very well” – Percent of population ≥5 years of age who speak English less than “very well” • Poor (below the poverty line) – Population living below the poverty line – Percent of population living below the poverty line – Persons with disabilities – Population ≥5 years of age with a disability – Percent of population ≥5 years of age with a disability • Commuters – Number of workers ≥16 years of age using transit (excluding taxi) Supply • Density of urbanized area (population per square mile) • Number of cars • Number of buses (for transit agencies with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum service) • Number of railcars (for transit agencies with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum service) • Number of demand response vehicles (for transit agencies with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum service) • Number of school buses (continued on next page) 37274mvp84_127 75 11/24/08 10:50:27 AM

OCR for page 74
76 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation Box 4-1 (continued) Indicators by Category of Interest for Statistical Profile of 38 Urbanized Areas Coordination • Number of transit agencies (with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum service) Congestion • Travel time index Disasters • Predominant type The UA designation, which originated in the study request, proved to be a constraint. Census data are available by UA, but transit and school bus data are not; the boundaries of transit service areas and school bus districts are not coterminous with census-defined borders of the UAs. Even so, every effort was made to include the major transit properties and school districts in a UA. The focus on UAs, however, was useful from another perspective. UAs represent the most densely populated part of a region, where transit service is likely to be most extensive, and thus where the need for transit could be significant in an emergency evacuation. The results of the statistical profile are summarized in Table 4-1 and shown in detail in Annex 4-1.1 The profile, particularly the detailed sta- tistics, reveals the variety of conditions even among the largest UAs—the 38 selected for this study. For example, population ranges in size from just over 1 million for New Orleans (pre-Katrina) to 17.8 million for the New York–Newark UA. Even more relevant from the perspective of transit ser- vice provision, population density (population per square mile)—a good proxy for the levels of transit supply to be found in an area—ranges from Sylvia He, PhD candidate in the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of 1 Southern California, collected the data, working with committee member Evelyn Blumenberg under the general supervision of the committee. In the interest of brevity, once an individual UA has been mentioned, its name is shortened when  used again. 37274mvp84_127 76 11/24/08 10:50:27 AM

OCR for page 74
77 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas a low of 1,783 in Atlanta to a high of 7,068 in Los Angeles. In low-density Atlanta, the largest transit system, the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, covers only one-quarter of the land area and provides service to about 40 percent of the population of the Atlanta UA. By contrast, in high- density Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority bus system covers nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the land area and provides service to a roughly equivalent percentage of the popula- tion in the Los Angeles UA. The 38 UAs also differ in more direct measures of transit system availabil- ity. Nearly half—17 of 38—generally those in the bottom triad with respect to population size3—are served by only one transit agency (see Table 4-1).4 The inventory of available transit equipment (e.g., buses, railcars, demand response vehicles) is also low for this group of UAs (i.e., ≤1 transit vehicle per 1,000 persons), even though the data represent the maximum levels of equipment likely to be operational in the event of an emergency. At the other end of the spectrum, with the exception of Boston and Houston, the largest UAs—those in the top triad with respect to population size—are served by two or more transit agencies; the very largest UAs—New York and Los Angeles—have 17 and 9 transit providers, respectively. Not sur- prisingly, the supply of transit equipment is also larger in these areas; New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles lead the group, with 18., 6.6, and .3 tran- sit vehicles per 1,000 persons, respectively. In sum, the differences among UAs, particularly with respect to the number and size of transit agencies and the density of the population served, suggest that there is no single set of circumstances, or planning template, regarding the provision of transit service, even among this pool of the 38 largest UAs. What the UAs do appear to have in common is relatively large numbers of special-needs populations—carless households, older residents living The exceptions in terms of population size are Boston and Houston, which are defined here as 3 large UAs (i.e., in the top triad of the 38 UAs). For the purposes of this profile, only transit agencies with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum 4 service (VOMS) were included. The Federal Transit Administration defines VOMS as the number of revenue vehicles operated to  meet annual maximum service requirements. This is the revenue vehicle count during the peak season during the week and day that maximum service is provided. VOMS exclude atypical days or one-time special events. 37274mvp84_127 77 11/24/08 10:50:27 AM

OCR for page 74
TABLE 4-1 Summary Profile of 38 Largest Urbanized Areas Size: Large, Carless Households: Car Availability: Medium, Small Number of Housing Cars/1,000 Urbanized Area UAsa Units Without Carsb Personsc Atlanta L 99,835 646 Baltimore M 132,965 578 Boston L 219,213 579 Chicago L 436,049 548 Cincinnati S 64,934 658 Cleveland M 83,920 637 Columbus S 37,761 672 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington L 99,384 621 Denver–Aurora M 59,522 692 Detroit L 147,695 635 Houston L 108,281 580 Indianapolis S 37,801 671 Kansas City S 43,034 679 Las Vegas S 47,282 585 Los Angeles–Long Beach– L 437,913 541 Santa Ana Miami L 207,476 576 Milwaukee S 67,646 608 Minneapolis–St. Paul M 84,472 659 New orleans S 70,328 523 New York–Newark L 2,102,874 425 orlando S 29,700 640 Philadelphia L 319,899 556 Phoenix–Mesa M 76,756 614 Pittsburgh M 106,557 610 Portland M 55,749 667 Providence S 54,658 613 Riverside–San Bernardino S 39,397 540 Sacramento S 43,859 631 St. Louis M 81,489 646 San Antonio S 45,888 569 San Diego M 78,393 613 San Francisco–oakland L 174,176 584 San Jose S 29,147 663 Seattle M 91,536 696 Tampa–St. Petersburg M 74,404 645 Virginia Beach S 45,688 632 Washington L 181,846 607 San Juan M 205,563 388 The 38 largest UAs are divided into three groups, with roughly even numbers in each group: 12 large UAs, a 12 medium UAs, and 14 small UAs. Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing (SF3-Table H44). b Number of cars is from 2000 Census of Population and Housing (SF3-Table H46). c Number of transit vehicles per 1,000 persons (buses + railcars + demand response vehicles); number of transit d vehicles is from 2005 National Transit Database for all UA transit properties with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum service. Source: 2005 National Transit Database, Appendix D; all UA transit properties with ≥100 vehicles operated in e maximum service. Source: FEMA (declared disasters by state); top three disasters (disasters in parenthesis are tied with respect to f frequency) and disasters that occurred more than five times in the past 15 years (1992–2006). 37274mvp84_127 78 11/24/08 10:50:27 AM

OCR for page 74
Transit Availability: Coordination: Transit/ No. of Transit 1,000 Personsd Agenciese Disasters: Predominant Typef 0.86 2 Tornadoes, severe storms, heavy rain 1.24 1 Severe storms, hurricanes (flooding, tornadoes) 2.14 1 Flooding, severe storms (heavy rain, blizzards) 6.59 3 Flooding, severe storms, tornadoes 0.37 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.75 2 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.28 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1.28 4 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1.43 1 Severe storms, flooding (wildfires, mudslides, landslides) 0.81 2 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1.94 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.20 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.34 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.44 1 Flooding, severe storms (heavy rain, wildfires) 5.30 9 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 2.22 5 Hurricanes, flooding, tropical storms, severe storms, tornadoes 0.68 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1.50 3 Flooding, severe storms, tornadoes 0.48 1 Severe storms (flooding, hurricanes, tropical storms) 18.54 17 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.38 1 Hurricanes, flooding, tropical storms, severe storms, tornadoes 2.57 2 Flooding, severe storms, tropical depressions 0.97 3 Severe storms, flooding, wildfires 1.47 2 Flooding, severe storms, tropical depressions 0.98 2 Severe storms, flooding (landslides, mudslides, earthquakes) 0.33 1 Blizzards 0.45 2 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 0.38 1 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 0.67 2 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 0.54 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1.16 4 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 4.26 8 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 0.59 1 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 3.73 4 Severe storms, flooding, landslides 0.45 2 Hurricanes, flooding, tropical storms, severe storms, tornadoes 0.39 1 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 2.95 4 Severe storms (hurricanes, flooding, blizzards) 3.34 2 Flooding, severe storms, hurricanes 37274mvp84_127 79 11/24/08 10:50:28 AM

OCR for page 74
80 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation alone, people living below the poverty line, and people with a disability (see Annex 4-1). All these special-needs groups are potential users of transit in an emergency evacuation. However, the transit fleet inventory suggests that, with the exception of a few UAs, the numbers of paratransit and other demand response vehicles available to serve many of the groups who might need assistance in an evacuation are small. [It is difficult to get a sense of the total shortfall from the inventory numbers. Many buses are Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-equipped and could serve those who are carless but ambulatory in an evacuation. Similarly, ADA-accessible school buses could be used to supplement transit service for the same group. This type of detail was not available in the summary statistics.] Moreover, the spatial distribution of special-needs populations, together with the availability of transit and school bus drivers and equipment to serve them at the time of an emergency, determines the extent to which transit and other public transportation providers can play a significant role in an evacuation. The indicators—with their summary averages and percentages—fall short of providing this vital information. With the exception of San Juan and New York, the UAs show similar and significant levels of car ownership relative to transit availability per 1,000 persons (see Table 4-1). Even taking into account the greater carry- ing capacity of transit vehicles, the numbers serve as a reminder that cars will be the primary mode of transportation in an emergency evacuation. Results of the Committee’s Plan Assessment Using the contextual data provided by the statistical profile of the 38 UAs, the committee undertook an assessment of the emergency response and evacuation plans of each UA and its respective state to ascertain the extent to which transit is included in these plans. At the outset of the study, the intent was to draw on the in-depth reviews prepared by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in its Nationwide Plan Review of 6 states and territories and the 7 largest UAs (DHS 006). Unfortunately, confidentiality issues precluded the committee from accessing all but the summary data from that review, which are discussed in Chapter  and the literature review in Appendix B. Therefore, the committee commis- sioned a small project to access information that could be gleaned from 37274mvp84_127 80 11/24/08 10:50:28 AM

OCR for page 74
81 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas online documents.6 The primary purpose was to evaluate each of the UAs to determine whether it had an emergency response and evacuation plan and whether and to what extent the plan considered the use of transit resources in an emergency evacuation.7 Internet searches were used to locate relevant publicly available emer- gency planning documents for each UA and its respective state. When no documents could be found, a follow-up call was made to determine whether they could be located. In some cases, plans were not available to the public for security reasons; in other cases, technical problems pre- cluded accessing the documents. Of the 33 UAs reviewed,8 16 had made publicly available at least portions of an emergency response or evacuation plan, while 17 either did not have publicly available plans or were in the process of drafting or revising them. The documents of the 16 UAs with publicly available plans were reviewed to answer 14 questions; both the questions and a summary matrix of the results can be found in Appendix C.9 In 11 of the 16 UAs, transit was included in emergency evacuation plans. However, only seven plans clearly indicated transit’s role in the chain of command in the event of an emergency, and an equivalent number identified available transit equipment. Only six plans described transit’s role in evacuating special- needs populations, and details were scant regarding methods for identify- ing these populations, communicating with them about what to do in an emergency, identifying pickup locations for those who are ambulatory, and specifying where transit passengers would be taken (see Appendix C for more details). In summary, only seven plans contained sufficient detail to lend credibility to the role of transit in emergency evacuation. The committee concluded that the data gathered through its plan review were inadequate to analyze in any depth or to assess reliably the role of tran- Both budgetary considerations and the already significant survey demands on relevant respon- 6 dents prevented the committee from conducting an in-depth survey of its own. The work was performed by Joseph M. Maltby and Aaron D. Green, JD candidates at the George 7 Mason University School of Law, both of whom had prior experience as legal interns for DHS’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Program. Five of the 38 UAs were handled as case studies, which included detailed assessments of the role 8 of transit (see Appendix D). For cost reasons, the detailed data for each UA have been made available in electronic form only 9 (onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr94appendixC.pdf). 37274mvp84_127 81 11/24/08 10:50:28 AM

OCR for page 74
82 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation sit in the emergency response and evacuation plans of the 33 UAs. Although it was not focused on transit, a recent online review of the content of the websites of all 0 state emergency management agencies (Liu 008) found similar limitations. Slightly more than half (6 percent) of the websites included crisis communications or emergency management plans. In the researcher’s opinion, the reluctance to post plans reflects the security concerns of the post–September 11 environment. Websites that provided information on disasters were focused on terrorism, rather than on those disasters likely to occur in the respective states. Moreover, the websites did a poor job of targeting special-needs populations. For example, only one- third had foreign-language access; 38 percent included information for the disabled; and only 16 percent had information targeting the elderly. These findings raise a more general issue about the appropriate level of emergency information that should be made publicly available. The commit- tee believes that the public should be informed about area emergency evacu- ation plans and how transit will be deployed in an emergency. An informed public, particularly special-needs populations, is critical to preparedness in an emergency incident. However, sensitive operational details should be excluded from emergency planning documents and only “sanitized” versions made publicly available. FEMA could provide a template for suitable presen- tation formats as part of its guidance to state, local, and tribal governments. Results of the Committee’s Case Studies In response to its charge, the committee conducted five in-depth case studies to enhance its understanding of the various roles transit can play in an emergency evacuation. The case study results are summarized here and presented in greater detail in Appendix D. Selection of Case Study Sites The committee used the statistical profile summarized above to help guide its selection of case study sites. The final selection was made on the basis of five criteria: • Size of UA, • Mix of transit system types (e.g., bus, rail), 37274mvp84_127 82 11/24/08 10:50:28 AM

OCR for page 74
83 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas • Large special-needs populations, • Different types of disaster threats and experience with disasters, and • Jurisdictional complexity. With regard to size, the larger UAs were of particular interest because they typically have large transit systems with the potential to play a major role in an emergency evacuation. That said, as noted in Chapter 1, the committee was interested in selecting one medium-sized UA to examine the extent to which scale issues make a significant difference in response capacity. Having sites with a mix of different transit systems was also important, including UAs with large heavy-rail systems; UAs with large bus systems; and UAs that draw on other types of public transport, such as ferries or intercity passenger rail (e.g., Amtrak). The presence of large special-needs populations was a key criterion, which most of the UAs met. Variation in the types of disasters faced was another selection cri- terion; recent experience with a disaster was also desirable. Finally, UAs that posed challenges from the perspective of jurisdictional complexity were of interest. Also factored into the selection process was the ability to identify a lead committee member who could help organize and con- duct each site visit. The application of these criteria resulted in the selec- tion of five case study sites—the Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana, New York–Newark, and Tampa–St. Petersburg UAs (see Table 4-). At each of the case study sites, representatives of city and county emergency management agencies, transit agencies, state and local departments of transportation (DOTs), and other relevant agencies [e.g., school districts, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)] were interviewed. The questionnaires that guided the interviews can be found in Appendix D. Roles of Transit in an Emergency The case studies provide good examples of the breadth of roles transit can play in an emergency evacuation. The committee also supplemented its site visits with information about individual UAs from briefings at its meetings and from other case studies that were brought to its 37274mvp84_127 83 11/24/08 10:50:29 AM

OCR for page 74
TABLE 4-2 37274mvp84_127 84 Criteria for Selection of Case Study Sites and Rating of Five Selected Sites Predominant Type Jurisdictional Urbanized Area Population Sizea Type of Transit System Special-Needs Populationsb of Disaster Complexityc Chicago Large Rail and bus 15 percent carless households; Flooding, severe storms, Medium 14 percent speak English less tornadoes; terrorism than “very well” threat Houston Large Predominantly bus 14 percent of population Severe storms, flooding, Low living below the poverty line; tornadoes; experience 20 percent speak English less with Hurricane Rita than “very well” Los Angeles–Long Large Predominantly bus 17 percent of population Flooding, severe storms, High Beach–Santa Ana living below the poverty line; landslides, mudslides, 28 percent speak English less earthquakes; terrorism than “very well” threat New York–Newark Large Rail, bus, and ferry 32 percent carless households; Severe storms, flooding, High 14 percent of population tornadoes; terrorism living below the poverty line; (September 11, 2001) 17 percent speak English less than “very well” Tampa–St. Petersburg Medium Bus 17 percent of population with Hurricanes, flooding, Low a disability; 11 percent of tropical and severe storms, tornadoes; households living alone and ≥65 recent hurricane experience a See Table 4-1 for explanation of ranking. b See Annex 4-1 for indicators. c Low = 1–2 transit agencies; medium = 3–4 transit agencies; high = ≥5 transit agencies. 11/24/08 10:50:29 AM

OCR for page 74
107 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas profit organizations.6 Funding priorities currently include public educa- tion on disaster preparedness and recovery, coordination of relief efforts of statewide private-sector organizations, and improved training and opera- tions capabilities of agencies with lead or support responsibilities in the Florida Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Findings In this chapter, the committee has attempted to provide a picture of the role of transit in the evacuation plans of the nation’s 38 largest UAs. The statistical profile of the UAs suggests a diversity of conditions that makes it difficult to generalize—differences in the size and density of their popula- tions, the size and coverage of the major transit systems that serve them, the types of emergencies they face, and their jurisdictional complexities. One common element among most of the UAs is their relatively large numbers of special-needs populations, who are potential users of transit in an emergency. Moreover, with the exception of some of the largest UAs (e.g., Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco), the gap between the numbers of carless households and the supply of transit equipment is large. The numbers of paratransit and other demand response vehicles are particularly low relative to the size of populations with disabilities who need such vehicles for transport in an evacuation. In addition, the location of special-needs populations in a particular UA, their actual need for tran- sit in an emergency evacuation, and the availability of drivers and equip- ment to serve them at the time of an incident remain largely unknown. Similarly, the committee could not assess with any reliability the extent to which transit is included in the emergency response and evacuation plans of the 38 UAs. The plans of 11 of the 16 UAs with publicly available online documents mention transit, but sufficient detail is provided in only seven to indicate a credible role for transit in evacuation plans. The committee’s five in-depth case studies proved to be a more reward- ing source of information, but that information cannot be generalized to the other 33 UAs. Nevertheless, the case studies illustrate the wide range A competitive grant program is also available to municipalities that have an emergency manage- 6 ment program and are signatories to the Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement. Eligible grantees may apply annually for one grant, not to exceed $0,000. 37274mvp84_127 107 11/24/08 10:50:33 AM

OCR for page 74
108 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation of roles transit can play in emergency evacuation and raise many issues likely to affect its role in other UAs. The primary role for transit is to evacu- ate those without a car, either by bus or by rail, away from an emergency site to area shelters or outside the UA during a major disaster. Transit’s role in evacuation can be augmented by other modes of public transport, such as school buses, commuter and intercity rail, and ferries, as evidenced by several of the case studies. Transit has a special role to play in evacuating special-needs popula- tions. Many are likely to need assistance and require trained drivers or, at a minimum, accessible equipment, which is often provided by paratransit operators. The emergency evacuation of special-needs populations, how- ever, poses a major challenge in all the case study sites with the excep- tion of Tampa, which has targeted its transit and school bus resources to evacuating these populations. In the other case study sites, the large size of special-needs populations and the no-notice nature of many of the inci- dents faced increase the complexity of both identifying and planning for the evacuation of these groups. Another role for transit is to bring emergency responders and equip- ment to incident sites. Finally, transit can aid in recovery, both in return- ing evacuees to their initial point of departure and in providing general transport following an emergency if travel by private vehicle is difficult. The most detailed roles for transit are found in the plans of those case study sites that face advance-notice incidents, such as hurricanes. Emer- gency evacuation plans and transit’s role in those plans are more process oriented in those sites where no-notice incidents are more likely. Together, the case studies suggest many of the factors that can make transit a successful partner in evacuation. These include collaboration with emergency managers in evacuation planning and integration with emergency operations plans. In all the case study sites, the primary tran- sit agencies are part of evacuation plans; transit staffs are represented on the decision-making team when activation of EOCs is required; and transit operators have the capability of communicating with emergency managers and with other transit providers in real time, although few have fully interoperable systems. Communication with potential transit users, both the general public and special-needs populations, is recognized as critical, both in advance of and particularly during an emergency, but 37274mvp84_127 108 11/24/08 10:50:33 AM

OCR for page 74
109 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas the case study sites vary in their approaches to and the effectiveness of their communications. Transit agencies participate in exercises and drills in several of the case study sites, an important means of practicing for an emergency evacuation. Finally, plans for workforce availability, asset deployment and safety, and mutual-aid agreements to help meet surge demands in an emergency evacuation are all recognized as important to the successful use of transit, but they are addressed to varying degrees by the case study sites. The case studies also suggest the limits of transit’s role in an emer- gency evacuation. The most obvious limit is damage to the system itself. In the event of an earthquake in Los Angeles or another terrorist event in New York City, transit operators would shut down service until the integ- rity of the system had been verified. Another limitation is the lack of a regional approach to evacuation and the use of transit. Few case study sites had planned for a major disaster and integrated transit agencies into an evacuation scenario that could involve multiple jurisdictions and states in a region. Emergency planners have begun to develop more coor- dinated regional evacuation plans, and some transit agencies are part of these efforts, but progress is slow. New DHS grant funds for regional cata- strophic preparedness could help, but the funds are currently limited to the largest urban areas. A third limitation is the fact that transit systems operate as part of a transportation network in a UA and thus may be hampered by system con- gestion and capacity constraints in an evacuation—issues largely outside their control. Bus systems, which operate on area highways, are particu- larly vulnerable to local congestion and capacity bottlenecks. The problems are especially acute in the central business districts of large UAs, such as New York and Chicago, where buses have to negotiate both pedestrian and vehicular traffic. But congestion and capacity constraints are also manifest in newer UAs such as Houston, or at the suburban or exurban fringe of UAs both new and old should an evacuation extend outside the UA, as it did during Hurricane Rita. Those UAs having extensive and redundant rail networks with good system connectivity possess an important asset in an emergency evacuation, as was amply demonstrated in New York City and Washington, D.C., in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11. Few UAs, however, have such extensive rail transit systems. 37274mvp84_127 109 11/24/08 10:50:33 AM

OCR for page 74
110 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation The solutions to many of these limitations, particularly those involv- ing capacity additions and removal of bottlenecks, require long-term capi- tal funding from both federal and state sources and must compete with other budgetary priorities. Improving the efficiency of existing operations through deployment of ITS technologies and contraflow operations on selected highways, where conditions permit, can be effective, but these solutions also require funds. The case studies provide examples of states, such as Florida and Texas, that play an important role in funding projects aimed at improving evacuation capability, largely to address the recurring hurricanes to which these areas are susceptible. Even among the case study sites, however, such support is the exception rather than the rule. In the following and final chapter, the committee’s recommendations with respect to funding as well as a range of measures that could enhance transit’s role in emergency evacuation are presented. References Abbreviations AASHTO Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials DHS Department of Homeland Security MIPRC Midwest Interstate passenger Rail Commission 11 Coalition. 008. 11 Usage Statistics. www.deploy11.org. AASHTO Journal. 006. D.C. Opens New Emergency Call Center for Multiple Jurisdic- tions. Vol. 106, No. 39. DHS. 006. Nationwide Plan Review, Phase 2 Report. June 16. www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/ Prep_NationwidePlanReview.pdf. Liu, B. F. 008. Online Disaster Preparation: Evaluation of State Emergency Manage- ment Web Sites. Natural Hazards Review, Vol. 1, No. 9, pp. 43–48. Kendra, J., T. Wachtendorf, and E. Quarantelli. 003. The Evacuation of Lower Manhat- tan by Water Transport on September 11: An Unplanned “Success,” Forum. Joint Com- mission Journal on Quality and Safety, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 316–318. MIPRC. 006. Responding Regionally: The Role of Passenger Rail in Midwestern Emergency Planning. www.miprc.org/portal/uploads/lkliewer/MIPRC_rail_&_emergency_ preparedness_report.pdf. 37274mvp84_127 110 11/24/08 10:50:33 AM

OCR for page 74
111 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas ANNEx 4-1 Detailed Statistical Profile of 38 Urbanized Areas Size Transit Transit Service Area Population Land Area of Largest Served of Population (square Provider Largest Urbanized Area (2000)a miles)a (square miles)b Providerb Atlanta 3,500,000 1,963 498 1,355,000 Baltimore 2,076,000 683 1,795 2,078,000 Boston 4,032,000 1,736 3,244 4,510,000 Chicago 8,308,000 2,123 356 3,709,000 Cincinnati 1,503,000 672 262 845,000 Cleveland 1,787,000 647 458 1,412,000 Columbus 1,133,000 398 325 1,058,000 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington 4,146,000 1,407 689 2,250,000 Denver–Aurora 1,985,000 499 2,326 2,598,000 Detroit 3,903,000 1,261 144 951,000 Houston 3,823,000 1,295 1,285 2,797,000 Indianapolis 1,219,000 563 373 792,000 Kansas City 1,352,000 584 396 757,000 Las Vegas 1,314,000 286 280 1,785,000 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana 11,789,000 1,668 1,224 8,493,000 Miami 4,919,000 1,116 306 2,380,000 Milwaukee 1,309,000 487 237 940,000 Minneapolis–St. Paul 2,389,000 894 596 1,762,000 New orleans 1,009,000 198 75 485,000 New York–Newark 17,800,000 3,353 321 8,008,000 orlando 1,157,000 453 2,538 1,537,000 Philadelphia 5,149,000 1,800 836 3,331,000 Phoenix–Mesa 2,907,000 799 515 1,439,000 Pittsburgh 1,753,000 852 775 1,415,000 Portland 1,583,000 474 574 1,254,000 Providence 1,175,000 504 299 846,000 Riverside–San Bernardino 1,507,000 439 2,725 1,498,000 Sacramento 1,393,000 369 248 1,035,000 St. Louis 2,078,000 829 574 1,007,000 San Antonio 1,328,000 408 1,213 1,487,000 San Diego 2,674,000 782 570 2,102,000 San Francisco–oakland 2,996,000 527 93 834,000 San Jose 1,538,000 260 326 1,760,000 Seattle 2,712,000 954 2,134 1,788,000 Tampa–St. Petersburg 2,062,000 802 254 578,000 Virginia Beach 1,384,000 527 369 1,211,000 Washington 3,934,000 1,157 692 1,306,000 San Juan 2,217,000 892 198 1,177,000 (continued on next page) 37274mvp84_127 111 11/24/08 10:50:33 AM

OCR for page 74
112 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation ANNEx 4-1 (continued) Detailed Statistical Profile of 38 Urbanized Areas Demand Carless Householdsc Seniorsd Housing Percent of Percent of Units Housing Householder Households Without Units Without Living Alone Living Alone and ≥65 and ≥65 Urbanized Area Cars Cars Atlanta 99,835 8 68,919 5 Baltimore 132,965 16 76,045 9 Boston 219,213 14 152,326 10 Chicago 436,049 15 260,385 9 Cincinnati 64,934 11 58,458 10 Cleveland 83,920 12 79,579 11 Columbus 37,761 8 32,300 7 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington 99,384 7 86,658 5 Denver–Aurora 59,522 8 58,818 7 Detroit 147,695 10 146,170 10 Houston 108,281 11 78,596 5 Indianapolis 37,801 8 43,030 8 Kansas City 43,034 8 43,579 8 Las Vegas 47,282 10 42,834 8 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana 437,913 11 288,083 7 Miami 207,476 11 223,250 11 Milwaukee 67,646 13 52,796 10 Minneapolis–St. Paul 84,472 9 73,789 8 New orleans 70,328 18 35,367 10 New York–Newark 2,102,874 32 657,966 10 orlando 29,700 7 31,915 7 Philadelphia 319,899 16 198,154 10 Phoenix–Mesa 76,756 7 95,320 8 Pittsburgh 106,557 15 97,264 13 Portland 55,749 9 50,581 8 Providence 54,658 12 51,435 11 Riverside–San Bernardino 39,397 9 30,418 6 Sacramento 43,859 8 45,412 8 St. Louis 81,489 10 76,789 9 San Antonio 45,888 10 35,303 7 San Diego 78,393 8 83,524 9 San Francisco–oakland 174,176 15 107,709 9 San Jose 29,147 6 36,068 7 Seattle 91,536 8 84,942 7 Tampa–St. Petersburg 74,404 9 102,958 11 Virginia Beach 45,688 9 41,775 8 Washington 181,846 12 105,604 7 San Juan 205,563 28 66,603 9 37274mvp84_127 112 11/24/08 10:50:34 AM

OCR for page 74
113 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas Recent Immigrantsd Population ≥5 Years Who Number of Percent of Population ≥5 Years Who Speak English Foreign Born, Speak English Less Than Entry ≥2000 “Very Well” Less Than “Very Well” 182,576 309,073 9 49,914 75,010 4 171,643 371,534 10 306,385 1,050,086 14 20,416 25,826 2 21,365 60,570 4 35,030 46,106 4 242,703 670,082 17 74,045 189,556 10 91,839 186,787 5 229,066 755,097 20 29,660 45,097 4 29,084 55,819 4 70,321 203,416 15 683,329 3,078,504 28 393,540 1,101,880 23 20,435 63,524 5 72,670 137,853 6 7,979 31,906 4 908,066 2,779,817 17 50,621 121,190 11 131,556 278,775 6 168,031 392,001 13 15,620 26,208 2 62,927 145,085 9 30,213 103,217 9 66,254 364,495 23 74,672 173,921 13 34,783 51,085 3 46,073 190,012 15 115,752 401,071 16 187,222 597,956 21 106,204 318,718 23 124,766 249,789 10 60,230 131,549 7 16,071 31,026 2 254,984 472,303 13 18,048 N.A. N.A. (continued on next page) 37274mvp84_127 113 11/24/08 10:50:34 AM

OCR for page 74
114 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation ANNEx 4-1 (continued) Detailed Statistical Profile of 38 Urbanized Areas Demand Poor (below poverty line)e Disabledd Population Percent of Population Percent of ≥5 Years Living Population Population ≥5 Years with Below Living Below with a Urbanized Area Poverty Line Poverty Line Disability a Disability Atlanta 329,370 10 346,408 10 Baltimore 223,637 11 276,686 15 Boston 345,562 9 453,759 12 Chicago 890,127 11 912,085 12 Cincinnati 143,599 10 207,231 15 Cleveland 195,668 11 250,308 16 Columbus 122,682 11 138,780 13 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington 462,881 11 468,076 12 Denver–Aurora 163,522 8 205,260 11 Detroit 434,974 11 553,977 16 Houston 533,269 14 416,926 11 Indianapolis 108,931 9 169,420 15 Kansas City 124,340 9 170,822 13 Las Vegas 141,432 11 158,880 12 Los Angeles–Long Beach– 1,934,022 17 1,257,885 11 Santa Ana Miami 676,102 14 662,918 14 Milwaukee 149,701 12 162,754 14 Minneapolis–St. Paul 171,317 7 248,106 11 New orleans 200,558 20 146,169 16 New York–Newark 2,425,106 14 2,049,640 12 orlando 126,529 11 139,443 12 Philadelphia 569,503 11 686,741 15 Phoenix–Mesa 339,140 12 362,136 12 Pittsburgh 180,555 11 247,247 16 Portland 154,416 10 203,871 13 Providence 137,423 12 180,401 17 Riverside–San Bernardino 249,020 17 194,139 12 Sacramento 181,692 13 217,835 16 St. Louis 215,827 11 274,473 14 San Antonio 205,654 16 191,053 15 San Diego 326,304 13 278,394 12 San Francisco–oakland 306,923 10 355,837 12 San Jose 114,229 8 132,616 9 Seattle 235,272 9 362,354 14 Tampa–St. Petersburg 226,341 11 337,507 17 Virginia Beach 143,443 11 169,714 14 Washington 301,542 8 358,415 10 954,400 44 531,539 25 San Juan 37274mvp84_127 114 11/24/08 10:50:35 AM

OCR for page 74
115 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas Commutersd Supply Number of Workers Density ≥16 Years Using Public (population/ Number of Number of Number of Transport (excluding taxi) square mile)a Carsf Busesg Railcarsg 76,592 1,783 2,259,474 522 182 75,257 3,041 1,199,359 786 222 225,408 2,323 2,335,339 880 855 455,494 3,914 4,556,398 2,296 2,015 20,279 2,238 988,620 325 0 38,232 2,761 1,137,494 542 39 11,427 2,849 761,395 228 0 39,785 2,946 2,574,101 721 118 43,998 3,979 1,373,001 928 46 27,324 3,094 2,477,867 650 0 61,108 2,951 2,218,830 1,161 17 7,179 2,205 818,388 120 0 8,890 2,330 918,514 220 0 24,346 4,597 769,220 270 0 309,762 7,068 6,377,100 3,785 337 83,315 4,407 2,833,715 1,156 122 20,648 2,687 796,064 433 0 60,175 2,671 1,574,425 970 23 25,343 5,102 527,750 306 66 2,452,978 5,309 7,556,605 8,413 8,404 11,918 2,554 740,354 197 0 228,103 2,861 2,861,024 1,359 688 36,059 3,638 1,784,139 518 0 56,441 2,057 1,069,874 997 55 62,380 3,340 1,056,073 613 87 16,212 2,332 720,713 208 0 10,598 3,434 814,340 276 0 15,521 3,776 878,390 226 56 27,697 2,506 1,342,524 396 34 16,602 3,257 756,094 355 0 37,726 3,419 1,639,155 567 28 235,696 6,130 1,749,161 1,699 751 23,403 5,914 1,019,342 366 34 104,670 2,844 1,886,777 1,865 35 13,553 2,571 1,330,955 303 8 8,565 2,647 875,121 276 331,185 3,401 2,389,134 1,791 758 31,851 2,486 860,978 3,303 0 (continued on next page) 37274mvp84_127 115 11/24/08 10:50:36 AM

OCR for page 74
116 The Role of Transit in Emergency Evacuation ANNEx 4-1 (continued) Detailed Statistical Profile of 38 Urbanized Areas Supply Number of Demand Urbanized Area Response Vehiclesg Number of School Busesh Atlanta 157 382 (city)/820 (Fulton Co.) Baltimore 230 915 Boston 407 611 Chicago 2,274 1,760 Cincinnati 43 N.A. Cleveland 169 N.A. Columbus 47 668 Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington 436 1,450 (Dallas)/443 (FW) Denver–Aurora 456 478 (Denver)/N.A. Detroit 162 697 Houston 763 1,011 Indianapolis 76 512 Kansas City 123 442 Las Vegas 172 1,279 Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana 1,178 2,500 (LA)/439 (LA Co.) Miami 941 1,886 Milwaukee 242 1,200 Minneapolis–St. Paul 400 (Minn.)/423 (St. Paul) 423 New orleans 111 N.A. New York–Newark 1,727 7,307 (NYC) orlando 183 1,271 Philadelphia 525 1,473 Phoenix–Mesa 456 N.A./413 (Mesa) Pittsburgh 420 N.A. Portland 276 305 Providence 120 N.A. Riverside–San Bernardino 173 N.A. Sacramento 98 N.A. St. Louis 243 N.A. San Antonio 181 400 San Diego 560 601 San Francisco–oakland 1,806 N.A. San Jose 192 N.A. Seattle 1,829 465 Tampa–St. Petersburg 142 1,400 (Hillsborough Co.)/ 839 (Pinellas Co.) Virginia Beach 112 760 Washington 398 N.A. San Juan 38 N.A. Note: N.A. = data not available. Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing as summarized in the Federal Transit Agency’s 2005 National a Transit Database. Source: 2005 National Transit Database, profiles over and under 200,000 in population. b Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing (SF3-Table H44). c Source: American Community Survey 2005. d Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing (SF3-Table P88). e Source: 2000 Census of Population and Housing (SF3-Table H46). f Includes all UA transit properties with ≥100 vehicles operated in maximum service. Source: 2005 National Transit g Database, Appendix D. Data for New orleans are for 2004. 37274mvp84_127 116 11/24/08 10:50:36 AM

OCR for page 74
117 Evidence from the 38 Largest Urbanized Areas Coordination: Congestion: Number of Transit Travel Time Agenciesi Indexj Disasters: Predominant Typek 2 1.34 Tornadoes, severe storms, heavy rain Severe storms, hurricanes (flooding, tornadoes) 1 1.3 Flooding, severe storms (heavy rain, blizzards) 1 1.27 Flooding, severe storms, tornadoes 3 1.47 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.18 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 2 1.09 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.19 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 4 1.35 Severe storms, flooding (wildfires, mudslides, landslides) 1 1.33 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 2 1.29 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.36 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.22 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.08 Flooding, severe storms (heavy rain, wildfires) 1 1.3 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 9 1.5 Hurricanes, flooding, tropical storms, severe storms, tornadoes 5 1.38 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.13 Flooding, severe storms, tornadoes 3 1.26 Severe storms (flooding, hurricanes, tropical storms) 1 1.15 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 17 1.39 Hurricanes, flooding, tropical storms, severe storms, tornadoes 1 1.3 Flooding, severe storms, tropical depressions 2 1.28 Severe storms, flooding, wildfires 3 1.31 Flooding, severe storms, tropical depressions 2 1.09 Severe storms, flooding (landslides, mudslides, earthquakes) 2 1.29 Blizzards 1 1.16 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 2 1.35 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 1 1.32 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 2 1.16 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.23 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 4 1.4 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 8 1.41 Flooding, severe storms, landslides, mudslides, earthquakes 1 1.34 Severe storms, flooding, landslides 4 1.3 Hurricanes, flooding, tropical storms, severe storms, tornadoes 2 1.28 Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes 1 1.18 Severe storms (hurricanes, flooding, blizzards) 4 1.37 Flooding, severe storms, hurricanes 2 N.A. Source: School Bus Fleet 2005 Annual Top 100 School District Fleet Survey. h Source: 2005 National Transit Database, Appendix D. Includes all U.S. transit properties with ≥100 vehicles oper- i ated in maximum service. Data for New orleans are for 2004. Defined as the ratio of peak-period travel time to free-flow travel time; used as a measure of congestion. A j value of 1.35, for example, indicates that a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 27 minutes in the peak hour. Source: Schrank and Lomax, The 2007 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute. Source: FEMA (declared disasters by state); top three disasters (disasters in parentheses are tied with respect to k frequency) and disasters that occurred more than five times in the past 15 years (1992–2006). 37274mvp84_127 117 11/24/08 10:50:37 AM