CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature: Recovery Plans and Recovery

This chapter provides a summary of the literature review on recovery and recovery plans.

2.1 Sources of Information

A focused online search and review of recent domestic and international literature on recovery at transit systems after events that impacted services were conducted. The focus was particularly on recovery plans, the timing of recovery, measurements of recovery success, and financing recovery. As part of this online search, recovery plans and After-Action Reports were collected from transit agency websites.

The literature review’s sources include Google and Google Scholar, which were the initial search engines for the online search of relevant research. In the information-gathering phase, the authors sought out both U.S. and non-U.S. results. Transportation-specific sources include the FTA, APTA, Transportation Research International Documentation (TRID) database, and other transportation and security research databases. The team also reviewed industry magazines such as Mass Transit magazine and association newsletters such as the transit section of the AASHTO newsletter.

2.2 Overview of Recovery

Recovery is one of the phases of emergency management, the phase when restoration efforts occur after an event. Recovery is related to the response phase, but the distinction between recovery and response is important. The skills, resources, objectives, time horizons, and stakeholders of the response and recovery phases are dramatically different. The federal preparedness frameworks highlight the differences: “Response efforts focus on stabilizing the situation by saving lives and property, and meeting basic human needs. Recovery efforts focus on how best to restore, redevelop, and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural, and environmental fabric of the community and often begins while response is still occurring” (FEMA, 2020b).

According to the U.S. DOT, the “process used for facilitating recovery needs to be more flexible, context-based and collaborative in approach than the task-oriented approach used during the response phase of an incident” (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014).

For some time, recovery was one of the least understood aspects of emergency management, with more focus on response to the event and preparedness prior to the event (Berke, Kartez, and Wenger, 1993; Smith and Wenger, 2006). Although research about recovery is still limited, there has been progress in understanding disaster impacts, recovery activities, and recovery outcomes (Kushma, 2021).

The following sections provide an overview of recovery, including definitions of recovery, the most common activities during recovery, typical timing of recovery, and measurements of the effectiveness of recovery efforts.

2.2.1 Definitions of Recovery

Various definitions of recovery differ in the extent to which they emphasize the objective, physical aspects of recovery—restoration and reconstruction of the built environment—or subjective, psychosocial, and experiential ones (National Research Council, 2006).

FEMA defines “recovery” with both of these dimensions—actions done to “assist communities affected by an incident to recover effectively” and “response” as actions meant to “save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident has occurred” (FEMA, 2016). The federal government preparedness frameworks, under the National Preparedness Goal, include a National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). The NDRF describes “how the whole community works together to restore, redevelop, and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural, and environmental fabric of the community” (FEMA, 2016). Recovery includes those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover effectively. Lifelines are the most fundamental services in the community that, when stabilized, enable all other aspects of society to function (FEMA, 2024a). Efforts to protect lifelines, prevent and mitigate potential impacts to them, and build back stronger and smarter during recovery will drive the overall resilience of the nation. When stabilization of community lifelines is achieved, either through rapid reestablishment of services or through the use of a temporary solution, the focus shifts to achieving recovery outcomes that emphasize long-term resilient solutions across all lifelines and other aspects of a community (FEMA, 2024a).

The NDRF emphasizes preparing for recovery before an event happens. It identified guiding principles for recovery, including leadership, pre-event recovery planning, engaged and inclusive partnerships, timeliness and flexibility, and established recovery support functions (RSFs) and measures to assess recovery.

State government definitions may differ from the federal definition and one another. However, most, if not all, states (or state emergency management organizations) follow the principles of the NDRF in their Emergency Operations plans, Recovery plans, or both. Examples include the Missouri Disaster Recovery Framework (Missouri SEMA, 2022), California Disaster Recovery Framework (California Office of Emergency Services, 2019), and Louisiana State RSFs (Louisiana Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, 2024).

Transportation industry definitions of recovery are focused more on the physical restoration and rebuilding aspects of recovery. The U.S. DOT follows the NDRF definition and considers recovery to be the “process that occurs after an adverse incident, and which is comprised of simple restoration of transportation infrastructure, assets, and systems to their conditions prior to the incident” (T.Y. Lin International, SGA, and TREC, 2018).

The National Transportation Recovery Strategy (NTRS) adds the concept of “resiliency” to the definition of recovery. “Recovery can and should involve rebuilding the network beyond its previous condition to a superior standard that is more resilient against future disasters. Resiliency in the recovery phase should result in a network that has a vibrant ability to absorb damage from a future disaster and thereby bounce back rapidly following the incident” (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009).

An APTA Recommended Practice on suspension of service and recovery defines system recovery as “those activities that need to be completed in order to restore the system to normal operations. It may be phased over several hours, days, or longer, depending on the nature and

cause of the suspension of service” (APTA, 2019b). The transit agency initiates service restoration as quickly and safely as possible. It continues until all systems return to normal or near-normal operation (APTA, 2022).

It is common to consider recovery and reconstruction as similar concepts, but they are different. Reconstruction is the restoration and replacement of damaged or destroyed infrastructure, facilities, and other components of the built environment (National Research Council, 2006).

Recovery is not just building back but making decisions and taking action to remedy the problems that events create. Recovery decisions about restoration and reconstruction include determining what the outcome of recovery needs to be. Is recovery a return to pre-disaster circumstances and social and economic activities, improvements in community sustainability and long-term resilience, or the creation of a “new normal” with potentially some degree of social transformation? Such decisions and actions can be made by governments, private sector entities, groups, households, and individuals (National Research Council, 2006). FEMA includes evaluation of the incident to identify lessons learned, post-incident reporting, and development of initiatives to mitigate the effects of future incidents in its definition of recovery (FEMA, 2010a).

For this synthesis, recovery will focus more on the physical aspects of recovery—that is, the restoration and resumption of transit services to the community. However, there will be some mention of the psychosocial aspects of recovery, recognizing the impacts of events on the transit agency employees, customers, and the public.

2.2.2 Timing and Stages of Recovery

The ability to recover transit service operations in a timely manner is dependent on the type of event and a range of factors that both precede and follow an incapacitating event. Recovery may begin during the response phase and continue until all systems return to normal or near normal (FEMA, 2018). Some weather events, such as tornadoes and flash floods, are relatively brief (hours at most) with minimal time for preparation and impacts in a limited, well-defined area. Recovery can begin quickly after the event is over. Others, such as hurricanes and floods, may have a period of warning followed by a longer event time (hours to days) with recovery delayed until the event is over, the response has started, and the worst of the impacts have been assessed and cleared. Depending on the damage done to infrastructure, facilities, and vehicles, recovery may take weeks, months, and sometimes years from the initial restoration of some level of operations through the longer-term reconstruction of critical infrastructure (Bye and Yu, 2013).

Table 1 provides some examples of significant impacts on transit agencies resulting from recent and notable severe weather events and the timing of recovery.

Recovery is commonly thought of in stages: short-term, intermediate, and long-term recovery. According to the NDRF, short-term recovery includes clearing primary transportation routes and establishing temporary facilities or infrastructure to support the resumption of services. Intermediate recovery includes debris removal and planning the repair and restoration of damaged facilities and infrastructure. Response and recovery may occur simultaneously in the short term, with the overlap continuing into intermediate recovery. Long-term recovery includes rebuilding infrastructure and implementing activities. The APTA Recommended Practice on emergency management programs (APTA, 2022) defines the goals of short-term and long-term recovery for transit agencies. “Short-term recovery restores transit operations to minimum operating conditions. Long-term recovery may go on for months—even years—until the affected area returns to its previous condition.”

A frequently cited four-phase model (Kates and Pijawaka, 1977) begins with the emergency period, lasting for a few days up to a few weeks, and encompasses the period when the emergency

Table 1. Severe weather events, impacts, and recovery time.

operations plan (EOP) is put into action. Next comes the restoration period, when repairs to utilities are made; debris is removed; evacuees return; and commercial, industrial, and residential structures are repaired. The third phase, the reconstruction/replacement period, involves rebuilding capital stocks and getting the economy back to pre-disaster levels. This period can take some years. Finally, there is the development phase, when commemorative structures are built, memorial dates are institutionalized in social time, and attempts are made to improve the community.

The idea that recovery proceeds in an orderly, stage-like, and unitary manner has been replaced by a view that recognizes that the path to recovery is often quite uneven. A phased recovery concept may also mask both how phases overlap and how recovery proceeds differently for different social groups (Neal, 1977). Recovery does not occur at the same pace for all who are affected by disasters or for all types of impacts (National Research Council, 2006).

Recovery is frequently described as a continuum, illustrated in Figure 1, a sequence of interdependent and often concurrent activities that progressively advance starting days after the event to weeks, months, or even years after the event.

(Source: Modified from FEMA, 2016)

2.2.3 Activities of Recovery

Recovery activities constitute measures that are intended to remedy negative disaster impacts; restore social units as much as possible to their pre-disaster levels of functioning; enhance resilience; and, ideally, realize other objectives such as the mitigation of future disaster losses and improvements in the built environment, quality of life, and long-term sustainability (National Research Council, 2006).

FEMA (2022) identified three categories of transit recovery activities, or challenges, after emergency events, including weather events, illustrated in Figure 2.

• Clearing roadways of debris
• Repairing damaged roadways and bridges
• Repairing damaged infrastructure

(Source: FEMA, 2022)

Other activities in FEMA’s definition of recovery include evaluating the incident to identify lessons learned, post-incident reporting, and developing initiatives to mitigate the effects of future incidents (FEMA, 2010a).

An APTA Recommended Practice states that the primary activities of emergency recovery are the restoration of service and documentation and assessment of emergency response (APTA, 2018). Recovery includes actions taken to return to a normal or an even safer situation following an emergency. According to FEMA, recovery may include getting financial assistance to help pay for the repairs (FEMA, 2018).

A guidebook for Texas transit agencies (Higgins, Hickman, and Weatherby, 2000) provided a general guide to restoring services after an incident:

• Determine critical services and prioritize needs.
• Assess damage and determine required resources.
• Communicate to appropriate authorities.
• Implement critical services.
• Assess the feasibility of restoring normal operations.
• Perform trial runs of normal operations.
• Communicate with employees.
• Resume all scheduled services on all routes.

APTA Recommended Practice on emergency management programs (APTA, 2022) included the following recovery activities:

• Evaluate the incident to identify lessons learned and track them in an After-Action Report/Improvement Plan (AAR/IP).
• Provide Employee Assistance Plan (EAP) resources to employees who may need care and treatment.
• Rebuild, repair, or procure equipment and supplies for transit operations and services.
• Determine facility and system restoration needs, such as repair or long-term capital improvements.

Another APTA Recommended Practice (APTA, 2019b) listed some of the activities that transit agencies need to complete before resuming service:

• Systems, rolling stock, facilities, and right-of-way inspections and verification of operability and safety
• Availability and transportation of employees to worksites
• Refueling of buses
• Notification to public via news media, social messaging, and websites

Box 1 shares Houston’s experience in response to Hurricane Ike.

Some activities could be thought of as transitioning to recovery, such as assessing impacts, notifying employees to return to work, and returning evacuees to their homes. After Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, LeeTran, in Southwest Florida, begins looking at its routes when it is safe to do so. The agency sends scouts out to make sure the roads the agency operates on are passable so they can get their fixed routes back out. At Palm Tran (Palm Beach, Florida), once winds go to under 40 mph, the agency sends a message to its employees alerting them to get ready to report to work so they are ready to get people from the shelters back to their homes. Assessments start to take place, with the sheriff ’s office and county engineering staff members driving the streets “looking for downed power lines, major debris in the roadway. All of that has to be checked and corrected before we can put service back on the road” (Mass Transit, 2017).

2.2.4 Measurements of Recovery

Performance metrics can demonstrate recovery effectiveness and help justify funding for staff and resources by quantifying the benefits. Such metrics allow agencies to identify efforts that are making a difference, such as documenting benefits from training, implementation, and investments made (Matherly, Bye, and Benini, 2024). A recovery plan can establish baseline conditions, define measures, outline monitoring programs, and design policies that support the use of data for assessing the effectiveness of recovery. Communities or transit agencies must first decide on a clear definition of recovery before they can measure it, and this definition can have numerous dimensions: environmental, physical, economic, social, and institutional, among others (Schwab, 2014).

The identification of a robust set of recovery indicators, with quantifiable metrics for assessing the effectiveness of national recovery efforts, has been identified as a major challenge requiring federal investment (National Research Council, 2012). According to an American Planning Association briefing paper (Horney, Berke, and Zandt, 2014), recovery metrics need to be measures that are flexible, easy to assess, cost-effective, and useful for decision-making. They should be able to be measured and assessed repeatedly over time. They need to be sensitive to changes in recovery status over time and within key demographic and geographic subpopulations. Finally, the effect of both community- and individual-level experiences needs to be considered.

Bidwell (2011) assessed approaches to measuring recovery to identify sources of routinely collected data that could be used as recovery indicators for communities and found that routinely collected data that is disaggregated by social group or geographic area is the most useful source. However, this data often cannot be used to assess community well-being during recovery.

The National Disaster Recovery Framework (FEMA, 2016) identified seven factors for successful disaster recovery but did not provide metrics to assess the factors. Those factors are

1. Effective decision-making and coordination
2. Integration of community recovery planning processes
3. Well-managed recovery

4. Proactive community engagement, public participation, and public awareness
5. Well-administrated financial acquisition
6. Organizational flexibility
7. Resilient rebuilding

Jordan and Javernick-Will (2012) identified key indicators that can be used to monitor community recovery and suggested the causal factors that are critical to successful recovery. The most frequently cited recovery indicators focused on infrastructure, including the restoration of public facilities and lifelines.

Ryan, Worthey, and Ni She (2016) developed a model and questions to evaluate the recovery process that focused on the ability of the program or activity to achieve the desired outcomes, the efficient use of resources, and whether the recovery approach addressed or was appropriate for the needs of the community. They suggest that evaluations of recovery need to be process and outcome focused. A process evaluation examines the actual development and implementation of a program or intervention. An outcomes evaluation is a systematic assessment of the impacts, benefits, or changes that have occurred as a result.

A number of community recovery metrics or tools have been proposed. For example, the Community Recovery Checklist, based on the Disaster Recovery Tracking Tool developed by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Coastal Hazards Center of Excellence, identified metrics for tracking recovery based on a review of the literature and case examples (Urban Waters Federal Partnership, 2019). Some of the 10 focus areas of measures are particularly relevant to transit agencies, including disaster and recovery management, mobilization of recovery funding, and public sector recovery. The public sector metrics included measures that addressed public transit, transportation infrastructure and facilities, and debris management.

An Emergency Management Playbook for transportation agencies (Matherly, Bye, and Benini, 2024) included common categories for Emergency Management Metrics. Those most relevant to recovery are listed in Table 2.

The survey conducted as part of the EM Playbook research project asked highway and transit agencies how they measured the success of EM in their agency. While a majority of highway agencies (73 percent) used the time of recovery as a measure of success, 44 percent of transit

Table 2. Emergency management metrics.

agencies did so. Some transit agencies used resource allocation/workforce performance measures (30 percent) and financial measures such as reimbursement efficiencies (22 percent).

RIDE New Orleans is an independent nonprofit organization founded in 2009 as Transport for NOLA. The organization conducted a multiyear process of gathering and analyzing data after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita because there had not been a comprehensive study of the impacts that those hurricanes caused to the New Orleans public transit network, Regional Transit Authority (RTA). A 2014 report contains the results of that study (RIDE New Orleans, 2014). RIDE continued to conduct data gathering and analysis and publish reports of the results on an annual basis. In 2023, RIDE published a document that looked at the changes over the 10 years it had researched the transit system (RIDE New Orleans, 2023). The metrics RIDE used to assess the state of public transit in New Orleans can be considered measurements of transit system recovery from the community perspective. RIDE used information from the National Transit Database, from RTA (such as route maps and schedules), and the U.S. Census to calculate its service restoration measures.

In terms of restoration, RIDE compared transit service based on weekly trip numbers (the number of trips made on all transit routes in a typical week) to 2005 pre-event levels and then looked at population recovery rates (the percentage of the population that had returned to New Orleans after the event). The weekly trip numbers focused on scheduled service and did not include paratransit trips. In 2012, 36 percent of pre-Katrina transit services were restored compared to a New Orleans neighborhood recovery rate of 86 percent during that same time. RIDE also computed this information by neighborhood and income based on U.S. Census demographic data. In 2012, RIDE found that service reductions were worst in low-income neighborhoods, communities of color, and areas where people have less access to personal vehicles.

Frequency (how often a bus comes) was another metric used by RIDE to assess restoration, using peak wait times (the headway or number of minutes wait between transit trips on bus and streetcar routes during morning and evening peak hours taken from RTA schedules) as the measure. In 2005, 28 percent of transit routes provided peak hour waits of less than 15 minutes, and no bus or streetcar routes had peak hour waits of longer than 60 minutes. In 2012, 9 percent of RTA transit routes had peak hour waits under 15 minutes, and 18 percent had peak hour waits greater than 60 minutes.

RIDE compared the number of vehicles in the RTA fleet pre- and post-event and the number of vehicles operated at maximum service. In 2004, the RTA had 367 buses available in its fleet and operated 301 of those buses in maximum service. In 2012, the RTA had 86 buses available and operated 79 of them in maximum service.

RIDE also assessed demand for transit using RTA self-reported statistics in the National Transit Database compared to other transit agencies with similar population income profiles, transit service area density, transit service expenditure per capita, and transit service expenditure per service area. In 2012, the organization found that RTA’s vehicles are full compared to other similar transit agencies, based on service effectiveness (unlinked passenger trips per vehicle revenue hour) and “load factor” (comparison of passenger miles to vehicle revenue hours).

RIDE added an economic accessibility metric starting in the 2016 State of Transit Report, the share of the region’s jobs accessible by public transit that was based on a method developed by the University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies (University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies, 2024). In 2023, RIDE found that New Orleans residents can reach 34 percent of the approximately 375,000 jobs available in Jefferson, Orleans, and St. Bernard parishes on public transportation within 60 minutes compared to 99 percent of residents using cars, with the percentage worse for lower periods (30 and 45 minutes). Figure 3 shows the accessibility metric for the years 2013–2022.

(Source: RIDE New Orleans, 2023)
Note: *Column labels indicate jobs accessible all day on weekdays, 6AM – 6PM.

2.3 Interdependencies of Recovery

A matrix of interdependencies characterizes recovery. Depending on the nature and severity of the emergency and its aftermath, transit recovery is dependent on other sector capabilities and activities, such as power, fuel, and communications networks. After Hurricane Irma, electric power and wireless services were found to be major determinants in the recovery process of the transportation systems of two counties that were directly hit by the hurricane (Nguyen et al., 2023).

Recovery is also dependent on other local and state agencies. Bus transit systems, in particular, are dependent on state and local departments of transportation and public works for clearing debris from roadways, repairing and monitoring damaged roadways, assessing stability, and replenishing supplies (Boyd, Maier, and Caton, 1998) and on law enforcement, such as local police and sheriff departments, to assess road conditions and allow access to areas.

Other transportation modes may be dependent on bus transit systems to support their recovery by providing temporary alternate services when rail lines or other major infrastructure has been destroyed or rendered unusable. After Superstorm Sandy damaged rail and subway services to parts of the system, both NJ Transit and NY Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) used shuttle buses to take riders between rail stations (NJ Transit, 2012; MTA, 2012).

The damages and commuting challenges after Superstorm Sandy led to an innovative transportation solution—impromptu Bus Rapid Transit (Kaufman et al., 2012). MTA ran 330 buses between Brooklyn and Manhattan to replace the missing subway service (CBS New York, 2012). The buses ran on exclusive or priority lanes, when possible, which required coordination with the New York Department of Transportation. However, the bus bridges were only a temporary solution. Eventually, they became inadequate, with long lines at pick-up locations and difficult traffic to get through. As the President of MTA at the time said, “If the bus bridge did anything, it helped underscore for people [in NY] how our rail system has a lot more utility than our bus system” (Kolker, 2012).

Transit agencies may be dependent on other transit agencies to help them recover. After Superstorm Sandy, New Jersey (NJ) Transit was able to restore bus service relatively quickly, with loaned buses from Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and U.S. DOT (Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 2012). After losing vehicles in an EF-4 tornado in 2021,

Fulton County Transit Authority (FCTA) in Kentucky reached out to members of the Kentucky Public Transit Association to temporarily replace those lost. Vehicles and drivers from the Paducah Area Transit System, the Murray-Calloway Transit Agency, the Frankfort Transit System, and the Transit Authority of River City (TARC), along with loans of community services organization vehicles, enabled the bus services to resume. According to the FCTA Executive Director, “We’ve provided over 300 rides to displaced residents in Fulton and Graves counties from the volunteer drivers over the past two weeks. Without the help of our partner agencies, we would not have been able to perform the services needed at this time” (Fulton County Transit Authority, 2023). After the 2019 flood, Nashville Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) was loaned buses from other transit agencies—Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority in Cincinnati and Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA)—that allowed it to resume full services (Halford et al., 2011).

The NTRS states that “one of the most important things” for recovery is to identify transportation interdependencies by contacting and beginning to work with representatives from all transportation modes. Understanding those interdependencies will allow for better planning for and recovering from an event (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009).

2.4 Recovery Guidelines and Resources

This section provides a summary of general and transportation-specific guidelines and resources for recovery.

2.4.1 General Guidelines

The FEMA national preparedness framework provides overall guidance for major phases of emergency management, including recovery. A recovery planning guide for local governments (FEMA, 2017) offers guidelines, helpful hints, and case examples to assist in preparing a pre-disaster recovery plan.

The NTRS provided suggestions for preparing and managing the transportation recovery process (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009). The overall goal of this strategy was to promote a recovery process for transportation networks and, subsequently, for communities in general that results in a greater level of resilience. Although superseded by the National Recovery Strategy (FEMA, 2024e), the information in the NTRS on managing transportation recovery, especially before an incident, is still valuable today. Before an incident, the NTRS suggests developing and exercising a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP), entering into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and assistance networks with other industry stakeholders, coordinating and enhancing information sharing with others, training staff, reviewing risk assessments, considering improvements in the agency’s materials and construction methods, and evaluating insurance coverage.

NCHRP Report 753: A Pre-Event Recovery Planning Guide for Transportation (Bye and Yu, 2013) provides an overview of what can be done to prepare for the recovery of critical transportation infrastructure with checklists, decision support tools, and resources to support pre-event recovery planning.

2.4.2 Transit-Specific Guidelines

FTA (2023) prepared a resource document for transit agencies that included recovery actions that transit agencies can take, such as securing funding and reimbursement for restoring services following a declared emergency or disaster.

APTA has produced a series of Recommended Practices for Emergency Management that includes guides on recovery. Both the transit (APTA, 2022) and the rail (APTA, 2018) documents include sections on recovery with an overview of recovery and common recovery activities. APTA suggests that recovery procedures be part of the agency’s Emergency Management Plan. A recent Recommended Practice (APTA, 2024) encourages including recovery actions in a hazard-specific annex to the Emergency Operations Plan.

Another APTA Recommended Practice (APTA, 2019b) addresses recovery after a suspension of service and suggests documenting guidelines on who has the authority to reopen the system or at least identify the process to decide on the reopening.

2.5 Recovery Plans

The fundamental purpose of planning for disaster recovery is to improve the quality and efficiency of the community’s recovery over that of an ad hoc approach. Planning helps identify the resources to perform critical tasks and achieve desired outcomes and target levels of performance (FEMA, 2010a). While using a prescribed planning process cannot guarantee success, inadequate plans and insufficient planning are proven contributors to failure.

The Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) regulation (§ 673.11(a)(6)(i)) requires rail transit agencies to include or incorporate by reference an emergency preparedness and response plan into their Agency Safety Plan (ASP). Each emergency preparedness and response plan must address, at a minimum, the assignment of transit worker responsibilities during an emergency and coordination with federal, state, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency’s service area. There are no federal requirements for recovery plans, but APTA suggests that recovery be included in emergency plans that are developed.

Bus transit agencies are not required to incorporate or reference existing emergency preparedness and response plans or procedures in their ASPs, though they may choose to do so. State departments of transportation may have their own emergency preparedness and response plan requirements for bus transit agencies. For example, Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) in Cocoa, Florida, has a Hurricane Plan that is mandated by the Florida Department of Transportation (Sherburn, 2011). The plan includes recovery operations and emergency contact (call-down) procedures for transit leadership, community stakeholders, and employees.

Recovery plans can take the form of either a standalone plan or a plan integrated into existing plans, such as an emergency operations plan. Both a standalone and an integrated plan have their advantages; the critical factor is to take stock of the various plans that may be linked to recovery (Schwab, 2014).

Having a recovery plan is different from just modifying or adding to existing emergency response plans (Bye and Yu, 2013). The recovery plan recognizes that different stages of recovery require different actions and protocols (MacArthur and Siwek, 2020). It also requires balancing the more immediate need to return the community to normalcy with the longer-term goal of reducing future vulnerability (Haddow, 2008).

2.5.1 Types of Recovery Plans

The American Planning Association (APA) (Schwab, 2014) differentiates between pre- and post-disaster plans. A pre-disaster recovery plan addresses issues in a general way that can apply to any event that might occur. The pre-disaster plan establishes a managerial structure for handling the recovery. It defines general policies regarding priorities and issues that typically occur, along with

policies and procedures for funding recovery activities. A post-disaster recovery plan is developed after the disaster has occurred to deal directly with the known consequences. This plan will include specific details about recovery projects, organizational priorities, and community recovery goals.

Three types of recovery plans are identified by APA that cover pre- and post-recovery:

1. Operational recovery plans (pre-event). These plans have a focus on short-term recovery and emergency management needs and may be an annex of an emergency management plan. Because they address the short term, they tend to lack the visionary components for long-term reconstruction. They provide a description of roles and responsibilities, tasks, integration, and actions required of agencies during emergencies and focus on coordinating and integrating the activities of the many response and support organizations within a jurisdiction (FEMA, 2010a).
2. Policy recovery plans (pre-event). These plans establish the organizational framework for managing recovery and creating certain policies that will guide decisions after a disaster. These plans include the structure for managing recovery, general policies and guidelines, identification of recovery resources, and policies for funding recovery activities (Schwab, 2014).
3. Recovery plans (post-event). These plans are developed after a disaster to address the known consequences, with an orientation toward physical planning and design (Schwab, 2014).

There are a number of operational recovery plans that address specific timeframes, functions, or hazards. A COOP focuses on restoring limited operating capability, usually within 12 hours and for a period of up to 30 days. The COOP is specific to the recovery and restoration of essential business functions or services. The COOP lists essential functions and the resources needed to perform them. Essential functions are those that enable the agency to provide vital services needed to sustain the industrial and economic base of the area while maintaining the safety and well-being of the agency’s employees and customers (APTA, 2020). According to APTA, a COOP is a specific component of a transit agency’s overall EOP, which includes a concept of operations before, during, and after emergencies.

2.5.2 Benefits of Recovery Plans

Recovery planning can help accelerate the recovery process by predefining roles and responsibilities and, through the planning process itself, building the institutional and community awareness and capacity to engage in recovery efforts (Schwab, 2014).

A pre-event recovery plan allows for the effective use of resources. The clear definition of the mission and supporting goals in place beforehand enables unity of effort and consistency of purpose among the multiple groups and activities involved in executing the plan, thus enabling personnel to operate as a productive team more effectively and reducing duplication of effort (FEMA, 2010a).

Recovery planning also increases the opportunity for betterment by allowing time for long-term considerations and a strong foundation for post-disaster reconstruction planning and implementation. These considerations include regional interdependencies, opportunities to improve infrastructure and transportation services, and changes in service demands (Schwab, 2014).

2.5.3 Guidelines on What to Include in Recovery Plans

FEMA (2010a) provides guidance on recovery planning, which must provide for a near-seamless transition from response activities to short-term recovery operations, including the re-establishment of transportation routes. Recovery plans must clearly communicate to

operational personnel and support providers what their roles and responsibilities are and how those complement the activities of others. There must be no ambiguity regarding who is responsible for major tasks.

FEMA provides an outline of the key sections of a recovery plan (FEMA, 2010a), included in Appendix C of this report, and suggests that a recovery plan needs to address the following:

• Mission and supporting goals (with desired results). Every other plan element needs to be designed and evaluated according to its contributions to accomplishing the mission and achieving the goals and desired results.
• Prewritten emergency standard operating procedures (SOPs) or ordinances that facilitate recovery operations, such as those dealing with road closures, debris removal, and expedited permitting.
• Continuity of operations (may also be addressed in a separate continuity of operations or COOP plan).
• Recovery-related mutual aid agreements and regional compacts.
• Strategies for including civic leaders and the public in the recovery decision-making process.
• Community efforts that affect mitigation processes with the potential to reduce the effects of a threat or incident.

Early on, FEMA recognized the importance of establishing priorities for restoring transportation, which is an essential part of recovery operations and recovery planning (FEMA, 2010b). Given competing demands, limited resources, and the urgency of the recovery effort, establishing recovery priorities and agreeing on trigger-setting processes before an event is essential to avoiding conflicts and delays during the recovery process. The priorities established beforehand will guide decision-making during the actual recovery process and minimize any unintended consequences or conflicts since the recovery team will be working toward established goals. Another benefit of identifying priorities in advance is the opportunity it affords to ensure that the transportation system owner’s recovery priorities are aligned with the community’s recovery priorities. Bye and Yu (2013) provide transportation-specific guidelines for prioritizing recovery goals, taking the perspectives of the organization, the economy, and long-term agency planning. In later guidance, FEMA (2021) provides some questions to help integrate response and recovery planning.

The NTRS (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009) had a number of key suggestions for recovery planning:

• Establish clear leadership, coordination, and decision-making structures.
• Understand transportation interdependencies and develop pre-disaster partnerships to ensure engagement of all potential resources through the following methods:
  • – Identify and engage stakeholders, including but not limited to the general public, community leaders, faith-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and private sector entities.
  • – Organize connections to interface with local, state, tribal, and federal governments.
  • – Ensure community participation of populations that may not have participated in recovery planning before.
• To the extent permitted by law or in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, consider entering into mutual aid agreements and assistance networks with other transportation industry stakeholders, community faith-based organizations, nonprofit groups, and private sector entities.
• Test and evaluate pre-disaster recovery plans through seminars, workshops, and exercises.
• Integrate pre-disaster recovery planning with other planning, including community planning.
• Develop an accessible public information campaign that addresses the public’s concerns and a range of possible scenarios.

• Develop and implement recovery training and education as a tool for building recovery capacity and make it available to all other stakeholders.
• Identify resource requirements and conduct acquisition planning.

According to the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans (PTASP) regulation (§ 673.11(a) (6)(i)), each emergency preparedness and response plan must address, at a minimum, the assignment of transit worker responsibilities during an emergency and coordination with federal, state, regional, and local officials with roles and responsibilities for emergency preparedness and response in the transit agency’s service area. The FTA suggests that this plan address the integration of responses to all hazards, as appropriate.

Training and exercises are an essential part of recovery plans. It is important to maintain plans and practice their use. An effective exercise program validates plans, tests operational capabilities, maintains leadership effectiveness, and examines ways in which the whole emergency management community is utilized (Matherly et al., 2023).

APTA (2019b) notes that developing and communicating a service restoration or resumption plan after a disruption is an essential part of recovery planning. The community and critical regional stakeholders need to be given clear information and realistic expectations about operational timelines, priorities, and where work will be occurring. The plan identifies areas and services that have priority and suggests how to staff both recovery and continuity operations. It might also include a plan for how and when to transition recovery to normal service.

Table 3 provides a framework for a transit recovery plan based on guidelines found in the literature review and commonalities found in transportation agency and community recovery plans. Note that pre-event recovery plans addressing operations and policy can provide a sound foundation for a post-recovery plan after an actual event.

Because “recovery and continuity can be complex and difficult” (National RTAP, 2024), the National Rural Transit Assistance Program (RTAP) developed an emergency response checklist for rural transit agencies that contains items related to recovery, such as contacting drivers; maintaining a list of drivers, vehicles they are using, hours on duty and routes; and opening and staffing garage and maintenance areas.

Some transit agencies include one or more checklists in their plans. For example, the Chatham Area (Georgia) Transit Authority Hurricane Preparedness Plan (Chatham Area Transit, 2023), prepared in conjunction with the Chatham Emergency Management Agency (CEMA), contains a section on resuming operations along with a resumption checklist that is provided in Box 2.

2.5.4 Regional and Community Recovery Plans

Because weather events and other emergencies can impact multiple municipalities and states, transportation agencies and emergency management agencies often coordinate with each other in the same region.

Some agencies have created regional recovery plans to plan and document a coordinated post-event recovery. Each region’s plan may include an annex that summarizes the operations, priorities, concerns, and needs of each state and participating entity within its jurisdiction to ensure a common operational concept (FEMA, 2021).

Table 3. Recovery plan framework and key questions.

The Puget Sound Transportation Recovery Annex (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2014) is a best-practice example of a regional Transportation Recovery Plan (see Box 3). The Regional Catastrophic Plan was developed with the goals of

• Strengthening the ability of the region to effectively respond to a disaster through a coordinated, unified effort based on sound planning
• Efficiently allocating state and local resources in support of a comprehensive regional strategy
• Effectively integrating federal resources with state, regional, and local response and recovery efforts

The Recovery Annex identifies strategies that can be applied during short-, mid-, or long-term phases of recovery. It contains toolboxes and recovery checklists for each phase of recovery—short term, midterm, and long term—for each transportation sector: roadways, waterways, and airways. These include infrastructure assessments, mitigation strategies, and repair and replacement approaches.

The FTA funded a project to develop an all-hazards emergency transportation recovery plan for Portland, Oregon, working directly with organizations that are involved in transit and transportation demand management in the Portland region as an example for other regions and agencies to develop a transportation recovery plan (MacArthur and Siwek, 2020). Transit agencies such as TriMet and Metro (the metropolitan planning organization), city bureaus, county and state agencies, transportation management associations, and emergency management agencies in the region (Portland Bureau of Emergency Management and Multnomah County) were involved in developing a coordinated plan (T.Y. Lin International, SGA, and TREC, 2018). Table 4 provides an outline of the Portland Regional Transportation Recovery Plan.

It has been suggested by the FTA and planning advocacy organizations such as the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) and National Association of Regional Councils (NARC) that metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)/regional transportation planning organizations (RTPOs) take on a “convener” role or act as a forum through which regional plans could be discussed and coordinated for recovery. In addition, the MPO/RTPO could conduct vulnerability analyses on regional transportation facilities and analyze the regional transportation network for emergency route planning and strategic gaps in the network and services (Bye and Yu, 2013).

In California, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission developed the San Francisco Regional Transportation Emergency Management Plan (RTEMP) to support coordinated emergency response capabilities for transportation agencies throughout the region via a Regional Emergency Management Program that focuses on interagency communications and preparation of detailed emergency response plans. The RTEMP is a counterpart to the Regional Emergency Coordination Plan, a plan developed by the California State Office of Emergency Service. A Transportation Response Plan is included in an Appendix of the RTEMP that defines the functions, responsibilities, and procedures for developing and implementing a comprehensive multimodal transportation response and recovery to a regional emergency (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2018).

Community-level recovery planning prior to the emergency helps set the partnerships, parameters, and vision for potential rebuilding at a community level, which will be followed by more concrete plans after the extent of damage and potential for rebuilding are ascertained.

FEMA introduced the concept of whole community emergency preparedness in 2011 (FEMA, 2011) as one of its guiding principles. Whole community emergency preparedness means two things: involving people in the development of national preparedness documents and ensuring

Table 4. Portland Regional Transportation Recovery Plan outline.

their roles and responsibilities are reflected in the content of the materials. Included in the FEMA report are illustrations of how whole community planning supports all phases of emergency management, including recovery. Recovery examples that demonstrate whole community involvement include the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, flood in 2008 and the May 2011 Joplin, Missouri, tornado. Cedar Rapids developed a Citizens Advisory Recovery Plan, while Joplin developed a Recovery and Reinvestment Coordinating Team. The respective efforts involved community members in collectively determining their recovery vision and goals (FEMA, 2011).

The FEMA Glossary defines “Whole Community” this way: “Preparedness is a shared responsibility; it calls for the involvement of everyone—not just the government—in preparedness efforts. By working together, everyone can help keep the nation safe from harm and help keep it resilient when struck by hazards, such as natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and pandemics” (FEMA, 2020c). The Whole Community includes

• Individuals and families, including those with access and functional needs
• Businesses
• Faith-based and community organizations
• Nonprofit groups
• Schools and academia
• Media outlets
• All levels of government, including state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal partners

APTA standards and recommended practices related to emergency management adhere closely to FEMA guidelines, adapting practices and principles to be more applicable to transit. Emergency planning principles specifically note the importance of tailoring EOPs to fit the needs of the communities they service and engaging the entire community in developing inclusive and effective EOPs that ensure equitable emergency management. APTA (2024) notes: “Transit agencies should collaborate with key stakeholders, including transit operators, elected officials, nonprofits and community groups, to identify the community’s emergency needs and realistic approaches to respond to requirements.”

Community-level recovery planning prior to the emergency helps set the partnerships, parameters, and vision for potential rebuilding at a community level, which will be followed by more concrete plans after the extent of damage and potential for rebuilding is ascertained. Successful community disaster recovery plans and processes find a way to effectively attain a baseline of community recovery while also moving the community’s vision forward in adapting and taking advantage of post-disaster opportunities to transform and thrive. The post-disaster period can be a time to promote more sustainable rebuilding, generate new ideas, and assess alternative recovery strategies (Schwab, 2014). Transit agencies may want to be part of any such pre-disaster and post-disaster community planning.

2.6 Tools and Technology to Support Recovery

Transportation agencies have many technologies to support emergency management, including technology utilized in normal transportation system management and operations such as traffic management centers, traffic control, traffic monitoring, weather monitoring, communications, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The technology is used to coordinate information and management during emergencies, detect and monitor the event and response, track resources, provide alerts and notifications, maintain integrated communications internally and externally, and increase the capabilities of the agency (Matherly, Bye, and Benini, 2024). Transit agencies rely on highways and roadways for their bus systems, and they are

often closely integrated with local, regional, and state highway monitoring as well as emergency management systems.

NCHRP Research Report 1093, a transportation Emergency Management Guide (Matherly, Bye, and Benini, 2024), identifies the following technologies for response and recovery:

• Emergency management communication and coordination tools such as WebEOC, Microsoft Teams, and other similar applications have become more and more common in emergency management for response and recovery.
• Geographic information systems (GIS) allow the tracking, mapping, analysis, and modeling of geospatial data that can inform emergency management by helping to explain where hazards and damages are located, how many people are affected by the event, and what is needed for response and recovery. GIS models and simulation capabilities allow agencies to both exercise emergency plans before events and understand near real-time possibilities during an event. During major Midwest flooding, the Illinois transportation agency demonstrated the role of geospatial information in flood response and recovery (Baglin, 2014). Many transit agencies employ geospatial tracking for buses and other vehicles, including automatic vehicle locator (AVL) or geospatial positioning systems (GPS). Many also have automated passenger counters on buses to provide additional data. Both AVL and GPS support real-time situational awareness for emergencies and recovery.
• Data analysis tools and systems, such as visualization and mapping, have evolved to allow agencies to turn data into actionable information. In Vermont, after Hurricane Irene, data sets such as information from maintenance logs were valuable in the recovery (Baglin, 2014).
• Unmanned aircraft vehicles/systems (UAV/UAS) are used in applications such as real-time traffic monitoring and surveillance, roadside and roadway condition inspection, and real-time detection and monitoring of incidents or events.
• Connected vehicle/automated vehicle technology has significant applications in emergency management, such as automatic vehicle locator technologies, real-time measurements of road surface conditions and weather using onboard sensors, and real-time communications during emergency and recovery conditions.

After Hurricane Harvey, Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) developed a roadway flood warning system to address flood conditions on local streets. Cameras and other data were available on the freeways, but local roads were outside of the freeway camera network. TTI worked with Houston TranStar and the Harris County Flood Control District to overlay rainfall sensor data on the TranStar traffic map. This information, together with TranStar’s real-time roadway data, helps predict which areas are at risk for localized street flooding. Houston TranStar and TTI won a 2018 ITS Texas award for the completed tool (Harris County Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 2018).

Emergency operations centers (EOCs) are used to coordinate information and management during emergencies, providing integrated communications between response agencies. Radio is often used to maintain communication when other networks are damaged during an emergency. Vehicle location equipment can track and map the location of all emergency management resources from the EOC (FHWA, 2006).

Other communications technologies that support response and recovery include satellite equipment that can be easy to carry and convenient to use and call center technology to support customer communications (HART, 2018). Transportation agencies today have a number of internet and internal software systems running on a variety of platforms and devices that support response and recovery. Hillsborough Area (Florida) Regional Transit Authority (HART), during Hurricane Irma, used pre-established redundant internet circuits during the recovery until all systems were brought back up (HART, 2018).

2.7 Financing Recovery

Agencies need to know in advance the federal, state, and private resources available to fund any recovery effort and to understand any eligibility or documentation requirements for obtaining the funding (Bye and Yu, 2013). Both FEMA and FTA are authorized to award disaster relief assistance to public transit agencies that have incurred emergency expenses as a result of a disaster.

Table 5 provides examples of federal funding awarded to transit agencies for recent emergency events.

2.7.1 Federal Government’s Role in Financing Recovery

2.7.1.1 Robert T. Stafford Act and Amendments

The major legislation guiding the federal government’s role in recovery is the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and its amendments, such as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, and the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2017.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 100-107), signed into law November 23, 1988, amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288 U.S. code Title 42) and provided an “orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government” for disasters by revising and broadening the scope of existing disaster relief programs such as providing federal assistance programs for both public and private losses sustained in disasters, encouraging hazard mitigation measures to reduce losses from natural disasters, and establishing better coordination and responsiveness of disaster preparedness and relief programs (FEMA, 2006).

The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390) amended the Stafford Act to require hazard mitigation plans as a prerequisite for certain kinds of nonemergency disaster assistance and added incentives for states deemed “enhanced” who demonstrate increased coordination and integration of mitigation activities (U.S. Congress, 2000). The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act

Table 5. Examples of FTA ER grants.

(P.L. 113-2), passed in January 2013, made significant changes to the way the federal government provided disaster assistance to improve the efficacy and availability of FEMA disaster assistance (U.S. Congress, 2013). The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 reduced the complexity of FEMA by streamlining the disaster grantee process, improving the coordination of disaster assistance delivery, and strengthening grant management (U.S. Congress, 2018). The intent was to build the nation’s capacity for the next catastrophic event by incentivizing investments to reduce disaster risk, including pre-disaster mitigation.

2.7.1.2 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21)

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act or MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141), signed into law on July 6, 2012, was a long-term surface transportation authorization bill that also established the authority for FTA to support public transportation agencies after an emergency or major disaster (U.S. Congress, 2012). The Emergency Relief (ER) Program (49 U.S.C. 5324) helps states and public transportation systems pay for protecting, repairing, and replacing equipment and facilities that may suffer or have suffered serious damage as a result of an emergency, including natural disasters such as floods, hurricanes, and tornadoes. Eligible activities include capital projects to protect, repair, reconstruct, or replace public transportation equipment and facilities in danger of or having incurred serious damage as a result of an emergency. Operating costs related to evacuation, rescue operations, and temporary public transportation service, as well as reestablishing, expanding, or relocating public transportation services before, during, or after an emergency, are also eligible activities. These eligible activities also extend to tribal lands.

Under MAP-21, transit systems affected by a disaster may also utilize funds apportioned under the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 U.S.C. 5307) or the Formula Grants for Rural Areas Program (49 U.S.C. 5311) under the terms of the ER Program.

2.7.1.3 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Bipartisan Infrastructure Law)

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 49 U.S.C. § 5324/IIJA § 30011), enacted in 2022, continued the public transportation Emergency Relief program (U.S. Congress, 2022).

2.7.2 Federal Relief Programs and Processes

FEMA is authorized under the Stafford Act (U.S. Congress, 1988) to make funding available for emergency and disaster-related activities, from severe weather to other events, if the president issues an emergency or major disaster declaration. FEMA may assist with heat-related events under the Stafford Act. However, so far, requests for presidential declarations for heat emergencies have not been granted because the severity and magnitude have not warranted a declaration (that is, the event was not beyond the ability of the state government to handle).

During presidentially declared emergencies and disasters, funds available through Stafford Act programs flow from FEMA to affected states, then grantees through three major grant programs: Individual Assistance, Public Assistance (PA), and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. The states identify potentially eligible projects, identify the local cost share (up to 25 percent), notify subgrantees that funds are available, and disburse the funds. Transit agencies may receive FEMA funds directly from states or through lower-tier organizations or agencies, such as regional emergency management coordinating organizations, depending on state and jurisdictional agreements and the local agencies or authorities under which the transit agencies operate.

States can request assistance from FEMA to provide emergency transit services to help a community or regional area recover from the effects of a disaster. Transit agencies that receive funds under Stafford Act programs are accountable to states for the use of the funds. They must provide documentation and personnel to work with FEMA and the state in assessing damages, completing application processes, and identifying all damages to the state and FEMA for reimbursement.

FEMA assistance is available to reimburse costs associated with evacuations and other emergency transportation needs. In addition, through contract or mission assignment, FEMA can directly provide temporary public transportation services to meet emergency needs and provide transportation to government offices, employment centers, and other places, as necessary, to enable the community to resume its normal pattern of life as soon as possible.

For transit agencies whose vehicles, capital equipment, or facilities are damaged during a declared emergency or disaster, the PA program under the Stafford Act makes provisions for federal reimbursement for permanent work, including repairs, restoration, or replacement of the damaged assets. Stafford Act assistance is generally provided at a 75 percent federal share.

Emergency repairs are capital projects that are undertaken within a short time after an emergency to minimize the extent of damage, restore service, or ensure that service can continue until necessary permanent repairs can be made. Emergency repairs may be temporary measures that are intended to last from a period of weeks to several years and can include permanent repairs implemented within a short timeframe. The scope of emergency repairs is generally limited to the extent necessary to allow a safe resumption of regular service. Permanent repairs are capital projects that are undertaken after an emergency or major disaster to permanently repair, replace, or reconstruct seriously damaged public transportation system elements, including rolling stock, equipment, facilities, infrastructure, and other assets to a satisfactory operable condition.

Because the FTA ER program does not have a permanent annual authorization, all funds for the program are authorized on a “such sums as necessary” basis and are available only pursuant to an appropriation from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury. When and if funding is available for FTA’s ER Program, FTA has the primary responsibility of awarding disaster relief assistance to transit agencies. For transit agencies whose vehicles, capital equipment, or facilities are damaged during a declared emergency or disaster, FTA’s ER Program will fund capital projects undertaken for the purpose of repairing, replacing, or reconstructing seriously damaged public transportation system elements, including rolling stock, equipment, and facilities and infrastructure as necessary to restore the elements to a state of good repair. If funding is not available, FEMA has the authority to award disaster relief assistance to affected transit agencies to help replace or repair vehicles, equipment, and facilities that are damaged or destroyed during a disaster.

FTA’s ER program has fewer limits and more flexibility than the emergency relief programs administered by FEMA and, to some extent, FHWA. It does not have a limit on the amount that can be spent on resilience projects as FEMA funding does, and it also allows damaged assets to be improved or upgraded when being replaced. The ER funding can also be spent on a project that is included in a statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). In contrast, FHWA ER funding cannot be used, for example, to permanently repair or reconstruct a bridge if the construction phase of the project is included in the STIP at the time of a disaster (Congressional Research Service, 2024).

2.7.2.1 Types of Federal Assistance Programs for Transit Agencies

A number of federal assistance programs may provide financial assistance or reimbursement to transit agencies after severe weather events and other disasters or emergencies. Table 6 provides an overview of each program.

2.7.2.2 Guidelines on Federal Financial Assistance

The FTA Emergency Relief Manual (FTA, 2023) describes steps that transit agencies can take prior to and after an event to receive FTA assistance, including program eligibility information and requirements and the process for applying for Emergency Relief Program funding related to the emergency or disaster.

Table 6. Federal recovery assistance programs.

Prior to an event, transit agencies are encouraged to develop a recordkeeping policy and protocols, especially for hours of asset use and asset losses, because documentation is essential for recovery funding under the Stafford Act and FTA’s ER Program. Agencies need to be aware of federal contracting provisions. Federal procurement standards permit the use of a noncompetitive procurement when the circumstances of an emergency require it without prior approval by the FTA. It is important to document the emergency circumstances at the time of the procurement for federal review later. In addition, under the regulations governing the ER Program, FTA may determine that federal contracting requirements do not apply for certain emergency response costs incurred within 45 days after a declared disaster as the federal agency recognizes the importance of rapid action after an event. However, this 45-day waiver period is not automatically granted, and transit agencies are encouraged to seek the waiver using the specified process outlined in 49 CFR part 601.

After a disaster or emergency, transit agencies must contact their FTA Regional Office to determine whether ER funds are available and for information on how to proceed with requesting federal disaster relief assistance. The FTA Manual (2023) includes flow charts of the FTA ER Program process and process for the evaluation of FTA ER Program recipient eligibility. Transit agencies are encouraged to consider current and future conditions and hazards when identifying and scoping disaster recovery projects. Permanent repairs may also include repairs undertaken as a result of damages that were not identified in the immediate aftermath of an emergency (latent damages).

The FHWA Emergency Relief Manual (FHWA, 2013) provides guidance for transit agencies applying for emergency relief funds from FHWA.

FEMA produced a Disaster Financial Management Guide (FEMA, 2020a) that identifies the capabilities and activities necessary to prepare and successfully implement disaster financial management while maintaining fiscal responsibility throughout response and recovery operations.

RTAP guided funding assistance based on the advice of agencies that have been through disasters (National RTAP, 2024). For example, the Lake County Transit Authority in Lower Lake, California, discovered the importance of calling the DOT right away (and the FTA regional office) about FTA emergency assistance to continue operations or to implement special routes and services. The Public Transit Director of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development suggested: “document everything—days of service, number of rides, cost of emergency services, geographic region/area served, who requested emergency services, driver salaries, fuel, etc. Driver journals may provide additional resources for putting timelines together after the event. You never know what you will have to remember when presenting to FEMA” (National RTAP, 2024). Note that because FEMA requirements can change, agencies need to check current requirements with their state EMA or FEMA region as part of annual preparedness activities.

In an article describing lessons learned from Hurricanes Harvey and Irma (Mass Transit, 2017), transit agencies had suggestions for funding. LeeTran emphasized the importance of documentation: “You’ve got to get your emergency POs [purchase orders] in place and try to recover as much money as you can from FEMA—and that’s quite a task right there.” HART suggests starting to work “really early” with federal agencies for reimbursement. Palm Tran noted that “the paperwork is always somewhat laborious, but it has to be done” and mentioned the benefits of calls received from federal administrators. “It was great to hear her voice on the end of the line offering assistance at the federal level.”

2.7.2.3 Emergency and Disaster Declarations

A federal or state declaration of an emergency or major disaster is necessary for a transit agency to obtain federal resources and reimbursement for response and recovery (Boxes 4 and 5).

The U.S. president can declare an emergency on any occasion or instance when the president determines that federal assistance is needed. The governor of an affected state or tribal chief executive of an affected tribe must submit a request to the president through the appropriate regional administrator within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident. The request must be based on a finding that the situation is beyond the capability of the state and affected local governments or Indian tribal government and that federal emergency assistance is necessary. A governor or tribal chief executive may request an emergency declaration in advance or in anticipation of

the imminent impact of an incident that threatens such destruction as could result in a major disaster. Such requests must meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements for an emergency declaration request (FEMA, 2024b). In the case of a state declaration, federal representatives must concur that the state emergency declaration is justified.

2.7.3 Insurance

Transit agencies have insurance on their facilities and vehicles to cover damages, losses, and other incidents or events, which may include self-insurance as well as catastrophic insurance for losses incurred above a given threshold. Insurance coverage may be required under federal regulations or state laws. FEMA considers the amount of existing insurance coverage, or what should have been in force as required by law and regulation at the time of the disaster, and reduces the amount of anticipated assistance by that amount (FEMA, 2024b).

To be eligible for a Public Transportation ER Program grant, an applicant must supply documentation showing proof of insurance required under federal law, such as flood insurance. Any facilities previously repaired, restored, or rehabilitated with assistance received under the Stafford Act are required to have insurance coverage. The agency must also certify that it has insurance required under state law. The FTA provides details on insurance requirements (FTA, 2023). FTA will reimburse only the eligible expenses remaining after accounting for insurance proceeds, although “deductibles consistent with sound management practices associated with otherwise eligible expenses . . . are eligible for reimbursement” (FTA, 2023).

The NTRS suggested that evaluations of the sufficiency of insurance coverage for physical and financial losses be done as part of recovery planning. It also suggested understanding the limitations of liability insurance policies in potential situations that may occur (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2009).

2.8 Key Takeaways

• Recovery is focused on restoring services to revitalize the health, social, and economic status of the community. Recovery plans improve the quality and efficiency of an agency and the community’s recovery by identifying priorities and resources in advance and defining roles and responsibilities.
• Recovery is commonly thought of in terms of the restoration of services and the reconstruction of infrastructure and facilities. Federal preparedness frameworks, including the National Disaster Recovery Framework, emphasize that recovery is more than repairing damaged structures. It includes restoring and strengthening key systems and resources that are critical to the economic stability, vitality, and long-term sustainability of communities.
• Recovery is making decisions and taking action to remedy the problems that events create. Recovery decisions include determining what the outcome of recovery might be—a return to pre-disaster circumstances and social and economic activities, improvements in community sustainability and long-term resilience, or the creation of a “new normal.”
• Recovery often begins while the response is still ongoing, with the time of recovery dependent on the type of event, the extent of the impacts, and a range of factors that include resources, capabilities, and types of interdependencies. It can range from within 24 hours to many years after an event.
• Recovery is frequently described as a continuum, a sequence of interdependent and often concurrent activities that progressively advance over time. For transit systems, those activities typically include assessing damage, recalling personnel, restoring services, returning to normal operations, and debriefing and after-action reporting.

• Recovery performance metrics are useful to demonstrate recovery effectiveness. Identifying recovery indicators with quantifiable metrics has been a major challenge. Categories of metrics used include service restoration, efficiency, and sustainability.
• Guidance is available on recovery planning, including what to include in recovery plans. For transit agencies, developing and communicating a service restoration or resumption plan after a disruption is an essential part of recovery planning. Some agencies have developed regional recovery plans to plan and document a coordinated post-event recovery.
• Training and exercises are an essential part of recovery plans, both to maintain plans and practice their use.
• Typically, funding is available to transit agencies for recovery from declared disasters. It is important to know in advance what federal, state, and private resources are available and to understand any eligibility or documentation requirements for obtaining the funding.