CHAPTER 3

Survey Results

The study team developed a questionnaire to survey transit agencies about recovery plans and their use in severe weather events. This chapter provides an overview of the survey process and results.

3.1 Overview of Questionnaire

A questionnaire was distributed to transit agencies with bus services across the United States using a web-based tool to understand better the current existence of recovery plans at bus transportation agencies. The questionnaire included general questions about the transit agency response and recovery planning and questions about agency recovery plans and content, if any.

The survey team accepted responses over four months, opening in February 2024 and closing in May 2024. As survey responses came in and it became clear that most of the survey respondents did not have recovery plans, which was the focus of the report, the team, in consultation with the review panel, decided to shift efforts from obtaining more survey respondents to identifying transit agencies that had experienced severe weather events in recent years and could provide information through interviews. There were 24 responses to the questionnaire when it was closed.

3.2 Profile of Respondents

Transit agency respondents represented 13 states and the District of Columbia with a range of service areas from rural to intercity, as shown in Figure 4. Agency respondents included a broad range of agency sizes, with annual ridership from 20,000 to over 48 million. In addition to bus services, most respondent agencies offered paratransit services (71 percent), light rail (71 percent), and commuter rail (57 percent). Other services provided by some agencies included street car, subway, and ferry. Figure 4 illustrates the locations of the survey respondents.

3.3 Existence of Recovery Plans

Most of the survey respondents did not have recovery plans (57 percent), as previously noted. Of those that had recovery plans, 67 percent indicated that the recovery plan was part of the continuity of operations plan (COOP) or response plan (see Figure 5). Many agencies had COOPs (86 percent) or response plans (67 percent) with or without a recovery plan. The majority of agencies that did have recovery plans have had recovery plans for over five years (75 percent), with the remaining for one to two years.

Reasons given by survey respondents for not having agency recovery plans included

• Not sufficient staffing to develop (75 percent)
• Too many other duties to find time (50 percent)
• Not enough severe events to be a priority (25 percent)
• Not a demand from senior executives (25 percent)

3.4 Content of Recovery Plans

Common events addressed by COOP, response, or recovery plans according to survey respondents are provided in Table 7.

The information contained in the respondent recovery plans included

• Internal protocols to address adjustment of staff work schedules and duty assignments
• Internal and external emergency contact information and communication protocols with other agencies or stakeholders
• Situational awareness processes
• Public outreach plans and protocols, including SOPs to respond to customer inquiries

Table 7. Events addressed by agency plans.

• SOPs to conduct emergency repairs
• Prioritization guidance for the re-establishment of normal service plans
• Coordination with community or regional essential services plans

Some agencies included SOPs for emergency contracting and procurement in their recovery plan.

3.5 Timing of Recovery

Most survey respondents had to activate their recovery plans in either the past year or the past three years. The time to recover from disruption of service depended on the type and intensity of the event, ranging from less than 24 hours to one to five days to one to three weeks or one or more months, as shown in Table 8.

3.6 Challenges Encountered with Recovery Plans

Two-thirds of the respondent agencies stated that their recovery plan adequately addressed the event, but most encountered challenges in using the existing plan. Common challenges mentioned were

• Every event is unique, and plans cannot reasonably account for every scenario encountered
• Impractical documentation
• Difficulty in making plans realistic and useful

Changes made to recovery plans based on lessons learned during events included:

• Changes to service modification thresholds
• Improved communication internally and with external partners
• Major rewrite to be more practical and effective

Table 8. Recovery timing by event type.

3.7 Tools and Technology in Recovery

Agencies were asked about the tools and technology used as they implemented their recovery plans. Common technologies mentioned included

• Internet communication systems, such as smartphones and tablets
• Radio communications technology
• Social media
• Automatic vehicle location or global positioning system (AVL/GPS) technology
• Emergency management coordination systems (e.g., WebEOC)

Other technologies mentioned included

• Remote sensing technology
• Autonomous vehicles
• Unmanned aerial vehicles/systems (UAVs)
• Maintenance management systems
• Security systems

Planned new technologies include enhanced mapping capabilities that can be shared with other stakeholders.

Survey respondents mentioned emergency management systems and communication systems as the most common systems used in developing recovery plans. Some agencies mentioned maintenance management systems and security systems.

3.8 Effectiveness of Recovery

Most survey respondents rated their recovery plan as adequate (3 on a scale of 1 to 5), neither not effective nor very effective. Few agencies analyze the effectiveness or impact of the agency recovery plan. Those that do have looked at the following:

• Reduction of service downtime
• Impact on employee and customer safety
• Impact on cost
• Assessment of fairness
• Public perceptions of agency

Survey respondents did identify the factors used to measure the success of their overall emergency management (response and recovery):

• Safety measures, for example, limited loss of life or injury (16, 67 percent)
• Impact measures, for example, number of passengers transported, services provided (16, 67 percent)
• Time of recovery of transportation services (12, 50 percent)
• Workforce performance measures, for example, resource utilization (12, 50 percent)
• Time to respond (8, 33 percent)
• Financial measures, for example, cost-effectiveness, reimbursement efficiencies (8, 33 percent)

3.9 Funding for Recovery

When asked how the agency was able to fund recovery, all survey respondents said through insurance. Local and state funds were utilized by 14 (60 percent) of respondents. Ten (40 percent) of the respondents obtain federal reimbursement funds such as FTA or FHWA.

3.10 Key Takeaways

• Many transit agencies do not have recovery plans for severe weather, especially those that do not experience frequent severe weather events. Agencies are limited in staffing and time. Senior executives may not be aware of the importance of having a recovery plan.
• Transit agencies with recovery plans often include them as part of another plan, such as a response plan or continuity of operations plan.
• Information contained in transit agency recovery plans include protocols to address adjustment of staff work schedules and duty assignments, prioritization guidelines for re-establishment of normal service plans, situational awareness processes, SOPs to conduct emergency repairs, public outreach plans and protocols, contact lists, and coordination with community or regional essential services plans. Some agencies include SOPs for emergency contracting and procurement.
• Most agencies stated that their recovery plan adequately addressed the event. Common challenges mentioned were impractical documentation and the difficulty of making plans realistic and useful. Also, because every event is unique, plans cannot reasonably account for every scenario encountered.