Emergency Notification and Networked Crisis Communications for Transportation

Best Practices for Air, Sea, Rail, Intermodal, Mass Transit, and Other High-Volume Transportation Assets

White Paper

Executive Summary 3

Transportation Hubs and the Challenge of Crisis Communications 3

The Root Causes of Inadequate Emergency Alerting 4

Networked Crisis Communications 6

Crisis Communications and Emergency Alerting — A Brief History 6

Multiagency Interoperable Crisis Communications 7 Communication Needs to Extend Beyond Four Walls 7

Exchanging One Problem for Another 8

Social Media Is Not the Answer for Interoperabiity 8

Control and Security Are Mandatory, Not an Afterthought 9

Adherence to Market and Government Policies 9

Using Networked Crisis Communication to Address Interoperability 10

The Future of Networked Crisis Communications 11

Outcome: Secure, Interoperable, Scalable Crisis Communications 13

Appendix: Best Practices for Leading Implementations 14

About AtHoc 14

Table of Contents

2

White Paper

Ensuring public safety across transportation facilities and their surrounding communities requires a complex coordination of emergency response services, advanced alerting systems, and tightly integrated operations.

Communicating critical information about an emergency event as soon as possible is one of the most important activities necessary for effective emergency response and recovery. Transportation hubs depend on a wide variety of organizations and agencies to assist them in times of crisis or disruption. These partnerships and networks rely heavily on the timely sharing of accurate information with each other, stakeholders, passengers, employees, vendors, other businesses, and the general public.

Due to the transitory nature of transportation, emergency management leaders are

always searching for ways to improve the performance and efficient coordination of emergency response. This white paper describes the evolution of Emergency Mass Notification Systems (EMNS) employed by major transportation organizations. Integrated safety and security solutions have grown from stand-alone, unmanageable physical systems to sophisticated communication networks that support efficient, effective real-time emergency response.

This paper also offers best practices and other guidance for transportation executives seeking to improve operational efficiency along with safety, security, and regulatory compliance at their own facilities, and out into surrounding communities.

Whether they are airports, seaports, rail stations, or mass transit hubs, transportation facilities carry multiple, very distinctive challenges when it comes to emergency preparedness and crisis communications:

• Highly secured private areas that must be balanced with public areas in which large numbers of passengers, service personnel, and vendors enter and leave on a constant basis

• Secured ticketing for some forms of transportation, such as air travel, operating in close proximity with other modes in which anyone can board or carry packages with minimal oversight, such as a bus or transit train

• Differenttransportationorganizationssharing the same hub facilities, or operating intentionally in close physical proximity to each other, including intermodal operations spanning multiple forms of passenger and cargotraffic

• Multiple groups within any given facility with responsibilityforpolice,fire,andemergencymedical response

• Ancillary industrial operations on or next to the transportation hub, such as industrial facilities,hazardouschemicalstorage,warehouses, and manufacturing plants

• Nearby communities not directly connected to a transportation facility, but directly affectedbyanyincidentthatmighttake place there

• Communities that may be exposed to a threat or danger from a transportation vehicle or vessel transiting through their jurisdiction

These issues lead to critical complications when it comes to guiding individuals to safety and protecting property during emergencies. In the case of natural disasters, these gaps in coverage, incompatible policies, and overlapping governing entitiesmakeitextremelydifficulttoreachallaffectedpersonnelinatimelymanner,letalone

Transportation Hubs and the Challenge of Crisis Communications

Executive Summary

3

White Paper

coordinate either shelter-in-place or evacuation orders across all of the multiple constituencies.

Man-madedisasters,suchasfires,explosions, orterroristattacks,areequallydifficulttoaddress,for many of the same reasons. These situations carry an additional level of threat, precisely because transportation facilities represent areas with high numbers of people who are all but impossible to track, identify, and secure. As a result, transportation hubs have become a prime targetforterrorists,asevidencedbywell-publicizedattacks in Brussels, Paris, and Istanbul.

Chaotic,disorganizedcommunicationsarethe worst possible result when crises strike transportation facilities. First responders cannot quickly establish who is in charge, delaying the situational awareness that is essential for formulating the correct response. Roadways into

andoutfromfacilitiesareblockedbynormaltraffic,orbypanickedindividualsattemptingtofleethearea. Individuals at risk of harm cannot be reached in time to prevent injury or death. Buildings and other property that might have been protected become damaged or destroyed.

Itdoesnottakeagreatdealofdisorganizationfor this nightmare scenario to develop. An airport shooting at Los Angeles International Airport that began in the public, unrestricted area of the airportledtomorethan20differentagenciesresponding to the incident. Without an interoperable communicationsplatformtocoordinateeffortsamong the various commanders, it took an excruciatinglylongperiodoftimeforaunifiedcommandcentertobeestablished,andaneffectiveresponse put into action. While confusion ruled, dozensofpeopleremainedunderthreat,ifnotactive attack.

4

White Paper

The Root Causes of Inadequate Emergency AlertingWhy these incidents lead to uncoordinated, ineffectiveresponseisnothardtounderstand.Itisdifficulttoalertmultiplegroupstoanimmediaterisk in real time. This lack is especially acute in environments, such as transportation hubs, where multiple entities are each likely to have their own emergencynotificationsystems.

Even worse, “civilians,” such as passengers, employees at on-site vendors, and industrial entities on or adjacent to the facilities, are unlikely tohaveaccesstothehub’semergencynotificationsystem–ortoanyemergencynotificationsystem atall.Staffturnoverattransportationhubstendsto be high, especially at businesses such as restaurants or shops operating on premises. This lack of a stable workforce complicates both security vettingandreachingrapidlychangingstaffduringan incident.

Itisexceedinglydifficulttoquicklyalertmultiplegroups to a major, immediate risk – especially when organizationsotherthanemergencypersonnel,police,fire,andmedicalstaffatthetransportationhub become involved. Couple this with raw data and speculation being disseminated through social media, plus the new style of journalism where

“everyone is a reporter,” and the ability to control and accurately provide emergency communications andnotificationsbecomesevenmoredifficult.

Today, disparate communication systems are operating across too wide a range of technologies and media, with too many constituencies to coordinate, and too many moving parts to manage effectively.Thisleadstochaoticresponsesandinefficiencies,withthepotentialtocausedelaysanddisruptions worldwide.

Collaboration is a necessary foundation for dealing with both natural and technological hazards and disasters and the consequences of terrorism.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. (2014) EffectiveCooperationAmongAirportsandLocalandRegionalEmergencyManagement

Agencies for Disaster Preparedness and Response: A Synthesis of Airport Practice.

Nevertheless, a solution to this challenge does exist. It is known as networked crisis communications, and it represents the next evolution of emergency notificationtechnology.

Consider the following scenario: Control tower personnel at an airport observe an “Alert III,” an aircraft accident or crash on the airport. Airport emergency response teams are activated. Police, fire,andfollow-onresourcesareintegratedinto a live communications system, so they can monitor unfolding events – and the extended airportstaffisabletorequestassistancefromanyconnected resource.

In near real time, the same system automatically alerts airlines operating at the airport, plus vendors, hotels, and medical teams. The airlines become awareofinterruptionstotheirflightschedulesandcan immediately make adjustments. Airlines and vendors can accelerate or delay shift changes,

minimizingtrafficintoandoutoftheairport,whichfacilitates more rapid responses from emergency personnel. Travelers and family members on their way totheairportforanydivertedflightscanbeadvisedtogotoadifferentlocalairport,orwaitathomeorintheirofficesforupdatesonalternateflights.

Areahotelscanbenotifiedthatpassengersstrandedin the airport may need accommodations. In coordinationwithemergencymanagementofficials,schools,homes,andbusinessesintheaffectedareacan receive warnings that a potentially dangerous situation is developing, and receive ongoing updates regarding the severity of the threat and sheltering options, should they be required. Hospitals and triage teams can prepare for injuries.

Thatishowaproperlyconfiguredemergencyalerting solution should work. Networked crisis communications makes it possible.

6

White Paper

Networked Crisis Communications

ThefirsttechnologicalattemptstonotifypeopleenmassewerecalledEmergencyMassNotificationSystems(EMNS).Thesebasicsystemsutilizedphysical wire-based hardware, such as telephones, fireannunciators,two-wayradios,andPAsystems,toalert response personnel in a command center. First responders relied on public safety communicators to sort out the various types of input and recommend appropriate action.

In 2005, the speed, ubiquity, and robust nature of Internet Protocol (IP) networking enabled some of those systems to be connected to each other, and to laptop and desktop computers. Rather than having to listen to a cacophony of audio and visual signals during a crisis, operators could see alerts on a central screen with minimal distraction.

The move to IP-based emergency communications provided for the integration of physical systems with

a broader response infrastructure, without having to replace legacy technology. These cost savings became critical, as transportation facilities needed new ways to upgrade safety, security, and emergency response,whilemaximizingreturnoninvestment(ROI)anddoingthebestwithlimitedfinancialresources as a result of 9/11 and subsequent economic downturns.

With the next step in the evolution of EMNS, transportation hubs have started to move to a facility-wide, enterprise approach for governing emergency management. Increasing numbers of network-capable devices mean more data can be brought into the command center to provide improved situational awareness. Facility operations can be monitored from multiple remote locations, and can connect large numbers of mobile personnel via smartphones or tablets.Usingalerttemplates,pre-definedresponsescenarios,andemployeeprofiles,emergency

Crisis Communications and Emergency Alerting – A Brief History

managers can now centrally manage mass notificationandcontrol“sub-systems,”eliminatingredundancies and errors in data management across the enterprise.

Additional technological advances are now expanding these communications to vendors, communities,

andotherentitiesdirectlyaffectedbytransportationfacility operations. These connections bridge a much wider range of communications technologies, while providingthereal-timeresponseandsecuredflowofinformation that, up until now, had only been possible inside the physical and networked perimeter of the transportation hub itself.

7

White Paper

In many instances, aging communications infrastructure, legacy technologies, and incompatible systems are the primary challenge for emergency alerting and messaging. Additionally, a large number of these legacy systems are proprietary, with minimal levels of technological support, because of the attrition of vendors with knowledge of the systems and products reaching the end of their intended useful life.

Thedifficultyliesintransitioningthesestand-alonesystemsintoasingleunifiedexperience,whichallows operators to control all inputs and outputs, and to extend rapid response capability beyond the transportation hub. History has shown that facility operators need to inform their tenants, surrounding infrastructure, and even the broader community, to coordinateaneffectiveresponse.

The goal, therefore, must be to keep people from harm by delivering timely and accurate warnings to everyoneaffectedbyacrisisatatransportationhub,wherever they might be, based on whether they are employees or visitors, on any device they are likely to be using. The technology exists, but governance and awareness will be necessary for many transportation organizationsandfacilitiestomakeithappen.

Communication Needs to Extend Beyond Four WallsMost major transportation hubs have to accommodate passenger, cargo, and other ancillary operations that maintain these services. Beyond the facility itself, each vendor or industrial entity using thefacilityislikelytohaveitsownorganizationalprocesses, procedures, and cultures.

Multiagency Interoperable Crisis Communications

These challenges can be overwhelming. Each entity maintains a workforce of great diversity with regardtolanguage,size,role,disability,securitylevel, and access level. The entire ecosystem surrounding a facility must be considered, because it is an interconnected network where any individual element does not operate in isolation.

Emergency managers typically know how to handle internal communications within their physical domains. True interoperability, however, has to include collaboration with a broader range of public and private stakeholders, including:

• Federal and state government authoritiesFederal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

• Public and private security and protective service organizationsLawenforcement,fire,paramedics,andambulances

• Facility and contract employees, including full- and part-time, on- and off-site

• Geographic and functional neighborsIndustrial, supply chain, hospitals, schools, hotels, rental car, and food vendors

Itisdifficulttocoordinatetheinteractionsoftheseentities on a daily basis. Emergency situations put these relationships under tremendous strain, precisely when seamless communications are most urgent. While some essential stakeholders may be part of the communications infrastructure, most of the ecosystem remains outside these frameworks.

Exchanging One Problem for AnotherSome transportation and emergency management organizationshavetriedtoestablishinteroperabilityby including external emails and contact lists within

their own information distribution lists. While logical andlaudable,theseeffortsarecounterproductiveinpractice, for four reasons:

1. Contact lists must constantly be updated to ensure that critical information is sent to the appropriate personnel.

2. Email and other passive communications rely on someone to open and read the message. Critical information may not reach essential external personnel simply because that person is not online.

3. List-based contact management is very resource-intensive.Staffmustworkdiligentlytoconfirminformationaboutthousands–ortens of thousands – of individuals. A more intuitive,automatedsolutionfreesstaffforhigherpriorities.

4. The transportation hub does not control the level of security and access to the external emails and servers.

Social Media Is Not the Answer for InteroperabilityManyemergencynotificationsystemsallowsurroundingorganizationsandthegeneralpublicto sign up for email alerts via social media without permission or vetting by the originating authority.

Thisopen-accessapproachmakesitdifficultfor safety and security personnel to isolate the communications they need from the inevitable noise thatarisesduringanemergency.Moresignificantly,thesenotificationsystemsarenotsecured,whichcreates a major risk when proper control of information is critical.

The lack of an interoperable system means that subscriptionservicesviasocialmediaoffernopractical interoperable value other than getting thewordout.Socialmediabydefinitionproducesunreliable information from unknown sources that cannot be relied upon to make informed decisions during an event.

8

White Paper

Control and Security Are Mandatory, Not an AfterthoughtControl is another major concern of interoperability. Enterprise businesses expect their systems to grant the ability to adjust roles and permissions across theirorganizationtoensureindividualsseeonlywhat they need to see, at the times they need to see it. Transportation hubs should follow similarly strict guidelines. These controls should also extend to customers, external partners, stakeholders, and the general public.

Security, likewise, needs to be inherent to the system, and is especially relevant for interoperability. By statute and as a business practice, personally identifiableinformation(PII),confidentialoperationalinformation, and other critical data need to be protected and stored in secure failover systems, especially when essential details must be revealed onveryshortnoticeandtospecificallytargetedpopulations.

Adherence to Market and Government PoliciesTransportation agencies are increasingly encouraged to follow a collaborative approach to integrating local and regional communities and response agencies into the emergency planning process, as described in many reports – most notable is the 2014 Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) synthesis of airport practice, sponsored by the FAA.

“Waugh and Streib (well-known scholars in disaster studies and emergency management) demonstrated that ‘collaboration is a necessary foundation for dealing with both natural and technologicalhazardsanddisastersandthe

consequences of terrorism.’ They recommend a number of methods for improving collaborative activities,suchasoptimizingtheuseofnetworks,”the Transportation Research Board synthesis noted.

Furthermore, the U.S. federal government has enacted several laws adding to the momentum and need for interoperable communication and emergencyresponsenotifications:

H.R. 615: DHS Interoperable Communication Act – enacted on July 6, 2015. DHS is now mandated “to achieve and maintain interoperable communications among the components of DHS, for acts of terrorism, daily operations, planned events, and emergencies.”

H.R. 2206: Statewide Interoperable Communications Enhancement Act – passed the House on July 28, 2015. Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to “require governors of each state to designate a Statewide Interoperability Coordinator, or indicate that the state is performing the functions of such a Coordinator in another manner.”

H.R. 720: Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act – enacted September 24, 2015. TSA is “to conduct outreach to all TSA U.S. airports on the implementation and performance of security measures, and verify thatsuchairportshaveinplaceindividualizedworking plans for responding to security incidents inside the airport perimeter, including active shooters, acts of terrorism, and incidents that target passenger-screening checkpoints.”

9

White Paper

10

White Paper

Internal alerts through multiple systems and devices are becoming more prevalent as many transportation organizationsdevelopstrongercommunicationprograms to alert their employees. (See the Appendix for system best practices.) The ability to communicatewithotherorganizations,however,is still a critical need, and must be achieved just as quickly to protect the overall ecosystem within and surrounding any facility.

ThefirstrequirementistodevelopaFacilityEmergency Plan and protective measures that can either execute – or prevent – a mass, uncontrolled movementoftravelersandstaff,ormakeshelteravailable to those who may be stranded. Next, a community approach would suggest a phased responsethatincludestheorganizationsandpeople located closest to the incident, followed by a reinforced response with those farther away. Mutual aid relationships must be nurtured, practiced, and maintained at local and regional levels. Typical interoperable communication scenarios encompass:

• Emergency events that require stakeholder notification(workforce,customers,andpartners)

• Public alerting, 911 reverse dialing, and enhanced 911 (if available)

• Businessoperationsnotifications,suchasworkforce management roll call or mustering, callouts, severe weather, and important meeting reminders

• Context-based alerting triggered by a process orevent,suchasaflightdelay,workavailabilityoptions by locale, or incoming injured patients

• Potential public alerting and emergency warnings of an impending emergency by local, regional, or national authorities

At the forefront, two-way interactive alerting is an essential element to begin responding to any incident. Targeted recipients who receive alerts can respond with their status. They can, in turn, equip their own decision-makers with the information necessary

to protect people and facilities, and then focus on arranging assistance for those impacted.Next, emergency managers need to reliably and rapidlysendanalertthatcanreachstaffacrossallpersonal and mass communication devices to ensure both visual and audio alerts are received within the ecosystem. As the situation unfolds, additional alerts need to notify on-site tenants, as well as the extended community and political authorities, about the event and its level of emergency. A truly state-of-the-art solutionempowerseachsubscribingorganizationtocreateaunique,customizednetworkofpeopleandgroups,sothatthequalityandfidelityoftheinformation remains high and actionable as it is disseminatedbymemberorganizations,eachusingits own operational protocols.

Finally,giventhatmostcommercialandcertificatedtransportation hubs and other facilities are owned or operated by local, state, and national jurisdictions, emergency response requires expanding networks of shared information and intelligence to include federal, state, and regional agencies, such as :

• Department of Homeland Security (DHS) • U.S. Treasury Department • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) • Health and Human Services (HHS) • U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)• American Red Cross • CDC • Department of Defense (DOD)• FBI • U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) • NORAD • TSA

Networked crisis communications should support directcollaborationamongdifferentorganizations, so responders can quickly establish ongoing situational awareness to contain and recover from an event. The system should also have a sophisticated reporting capability to capture all the system and personnel activities for post-event assessment and compliance requirements.

Using Networked Crisis Communication to Address Interoperability

11

White Paper

One of the key issues that continue to frustrate emergency management at transportation hubs is the inability to contact individuals outside the reach of the agency’s communications infrastructure, or atasurroundingorganizationthatisnotlinkedintothe interoperability framework. Fortunately, new developments that solve these shortcomings at the regulatory and technological level will soon be available.

For example, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is actively pushing the development ofstandardizedWirelessEmergencyAlerts(WEA).This system works at the wireless carrier level, delivering alerts and messaging to all mobile phones withintherangeofspecificsubsetsoftowers.Anetworked crisis communications system can easilylinkwithWEAtoissueofficiallyauthorizedalerts and information across a broad geographic region, even if none of the recipients participate in emergency alerting systems operating in the area. This capability can be critical in reaching individuals at or approaching the public, unsecured areas of a transportation facility that is experiencing a dangerous situation.

The data-driven nature of networked crisis communications enables other innovative approaches to safety and security. For example, a situation in Northern California led to passengers onatrainactuallyenteringanevacuationzoneafterastation had been closed due to a potential chemical cloud.Theexistingsystemcouldnotrecognizethattrainswereinsidetheaffectedarea,norcoulditalert the conductors to stop before arriving at their intended destination.

The technology already exists to use GPS and track-based sensors to provide essential intelligence on all train locations. When coupled with networked crisis communications, this information can trigger automatic alerts and actions as soon as the initial emergency alert is issued. Those same trains today would “know” not to enter the locked-down area, and trafficmanagerswouldknowtoshunttrainstosafelocations until the situation could be resolved. The networked crisis communications system provides the crucial linkages so that these actions happen in near real time.

More importantly, this same next-generation system might alert bus lines and taxi companies, as well asUberandLyftdrivers,toavoidtheaffectedarea. These emergency communications would betriggeredautomatically,basedonpre-definedtemplates matched to the threat involved and the predetermined optimal response. There would be no timelostwaitingforstafftorecognizethatthethreatrequired a broader reaction, and no one would be placedatunnecessaryriskbecausetheirorganizationwas accidentally overlooked.

Another unique possibility introduced by networked crisis communications is the ability to linkmultipleorganizationsintoincreasinglywiderwebs of emergency response, graduating from local to regional to federal levels. Both the United States and Canada have well-understood and widely practiced models for risk analysis and emergency preparedness. Top-tier networked crisis communications systems work alongside these guidelines and best practices, helping streamline the process of building truly large-scale, tightly integrated interoperability solutions.

The Future of Networked Crisis Communications

White Paper

Situational Awareness√ Integrated data should be available

from a wide range of safety, security, and operational resources, including images and videos received directly from first responders.

√ The transportation hub’s operations center must be able to deliver maximum situational awareness and ground zero intelligence to protect lives and property during any crisis to authorized internal personnel and external industry partners.

Performance Standards√ Acceptable solutions must include

secure, flexible technology that exceeds industry and government standards, and should have a proven, global record of accomplishment.

√ The system must be scalable with the ability to adapt to existing workflows and scenarios.

Ease of Use√ The technology must be simple

to subscribe to, with a tiered permission structure to protect emergency content.

√ The system should be intuitive to deploy, manage, and operate with real-time operation, fully secured against attack or misuse.

√ It must be capable of alerting the surrounding communities, through emergency management, within the same workflow of the core emergency communication system.

Comprehensive Reach√ The technology should foster

collaboration and communication between on- and off-site transportation agencies and organizations, passengers, and the general public at-large to improve daily operations and emergency crisis management.

√ Real-time communications should be possible to any device, including two-way radios, wired telephones, mobile phones and tablets, email, and SMS.

√ Integration is needed with existing systems, including passenger and crew information displays, VoIP telephone equipment, perimeter fencing, and public announcement (PA) devices.

Positive Control√ Privileges should be based on role, not

personal identity, so that unexpected changes in personnel do not interrupt emergency response.

√ Rapid coordination is needed with key personnel across a transportation facility’s extended ecosystem, including federal, state, and local agencies, on-site commercial tenants, health care, and off-site vendors.

√ An activity log and customizable reporting for the after-event assessment and compliance is critical.

Identify and select a collaborative emergency communications solution that is omnipresent across a transportation facility, its ecosystem, and the surrounding community. The following is a checklist of important attributes.

Best-of-Breed Networked Crisis Communication

13

White Paper

Outcome: Secure, Interoperable, Scalable Crisis Communications Transportation centers, such as airports, seaports, bus stations, train stations, mass transit hubs, and intermodal/multimodalfacilities,are,bydefinition,acriticalandcentralizedpointofinteractionforpeople,organizations,technology,andcommunities.Theyare also an integral part of our emergency response during natural disasters and threats to national security. Given the unique position of these entities within their geographic and economic surroundings, it is critically important to deploy secure crisis communications systems that deliver essential information, situational awareness, and real-time alerts and warnings during emergencies.

Internal communications within transportation facilities have historically been a system of stand-alone modalities,oftenlimitedtomobilefireandpoliceradios,PAsystems,fireannunciators,andstrobelights, with little coordination among the individual elements. The growing need to deliver alerts and warningstoexternalorganizationsandgovernmentalagencies has only served to highlight how existing communications are ready for an upgrade.

Transportation executives often regard EMNS as a commoditizedservicewhereinexperiencedvendorscompete on price, using limited feature sets that inadequately address the full range of transportation

facility requirements. However, networked crisis communications solutions already deliver secure, cost-effectivecommunicationsplatformsthatstreamline internal communications, empower people, and enable emergency communication and collaboration to an entire transportation ecosystem.

Secure, scalable networked communication transcendsdevices,firewalls,radiofrequencies,channels, jurisdictions, and talk groups. By enhancing the ability to share important elements of an unfolding incident in a controlled fashion, people andorganizationsgaintheknowledgeneededtorespond appropriately and the credibility that the facility operator and responding partners are capable of addressing the situation in a professional and highly coordinatedmanner.Thissynchronizationmusttakeplace across a broad geographical area – with the transportation hub at the center.

Transportation authorities must leverage technology to prevent service disruption and protect passengers, employees, vendors, and surrounding neighborhoods. A carefully researched investment in networked crisis communications is central to safety and security for each of these constituencies.

The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies report on Emergency Management Best Practices recommends the following nine attributes to ensure a strong, collaborative relationship between emergencymanagementandtransportationofficials:

√ Demonstratedsupportfromthetransportationagency’s senior management

√ Afacilityemergencymanager,inafull-timeposition or major collateral duty, senior enough in theorganizationtohavevisibilityandinfluence

√ Clarityregardingrolesandresponsibilities

√ Designationofliaisonswithinparties

√ Consistentupdatingofinformationregardingroles,responsibilities, resources, capabilities, and constraints

√ Jointtraining,drills,andexercisesthatarerealisticand challenging enough to test procedures and relationships

√ Effectiveafter-exerciseandafter-actionreviews

√ Transportationhubandgeneralcommunityawareness of the strong link between EM and business continuity planning

√ Activetransportationagencyparticipationinlocal and regional emergency and disaster organizationsorboards

We would add to these best practices – a robust, scalable, networked crisis communications system.

For more information on how transportation administrators can enhance their emergency communication infrastructure, solve interoperability challenges, and implement a modern crisis communication network, please feel free to visit the AtHoc website, or request a free demonstration from our transportation technology team.

Tel: +1-650-685-3000 www.AtHoc.com

AtHoc, a division of BlackBerry Limited, is the pioneerandrecognizedleaderinnetworkedcrisiscommunication, protecting millions of people and thousandsoforganizationsaroundtheworld.AtHocprovides a seamless and reliable exchange of critical informationamongorganizations,theirpeople,devices, and external entities. A trusted partner to the world’s most demanding customers, AtHoc is

the leading provider to the U.S. Departments of Defense and Homeland Security, and safeguards numerous other government agencies and leading commercial enterprises. Headquartered in Silicon Valley, the company operates around the globe.

For more information about AtHoc, please visit www.AtHoc.com.

Appendix: Best Practices for Leading Implementations

About BlackBerry

14

White Paper

©2016 BlackBerry Limited. All rights reserved. Trademarks, including but not limited to BLACKBERRY, EMBLEM Design, BBM and BES are the trademarks or registered trademarks of BlackBerry Limited and the exclusive rights to such trademarks are expressly reserved. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Content: 2016-24-Aug-BB-TransportationWP-1415