Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System ...€¦ · Proposal to the American...

the MATRIX group, LLC

PROPOSAL

for

Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System

Interdependencies in the

Response and Recovery from the

Recent Florida Hurricanes

Volume 1 of 2 Technical Proposal

Submitted to the

American Lifelines Alliance Washington, DC

December 20, 2004

Technology Assessment and Adoption ▪ Project Economics ▪ Development and Infrastructure Research ▪ Policy Analysis ▪ Market Studies


4701 Keswick Road Baltimore, Maryland 21210-2322

Internet: [email protected] voice 410-235-3307

fax: 410-235-0838

December 20, 2004 American Lifelines Alliance c/o National Institute of Building Sciences 1090 Vermont Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005-4905 Attention: Joseph D. Steller

Subject: Proposal for Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System

Interdependencies in the Response and Recovery from the Recent Florida Hurricanes

Dear Mr. Steller: Responding to your request of November 15, 2004, we are pleased to present our proposal to undertake the subject project. For nearly two decades, MATRIX has provided specialized research and advisory services to clients in the public and private sectors, on matters related to public works management, urban and regional development, and government policy. We applaud the Alliance for undertaking this project. Florida’s 2004 hurricane experience presents a uniquely promising, complex and challenging opportunity to increase our understanding of the influence of utility and transportation system interdependencies and to extract practical, transferable lessons for emergency-management. MATRIX is well suited to take advantage of that opportunity. In conformance with your request, our proposal is in two separate volumes: Volume°1 includes our 15-page Technical Proposal and an Annex containing background information on the firm and our key project personnel; Volume 2 is our Cost Proposal. This letter is included in both volumes. I am authorized to bind the firm and to negotiate terms of the engagement. I look forward to your decision and hope to work with you on this exciting assignment. Sincerely, The MATRIX Group, LLC Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D. Principal

Proposal to the American Lifelines Alliance December 20, 2004 Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System Interdependencies Volume 1 of 2, Tech. Proposal, Page 1


Summary The MATRIX Group, LLC, specializes in research and policy analysis. Because of this project’s focus on extraordinary circumstances and its appropriately short period of performance, we conclude that extensive surveys have little likelihood of yielding meaningful data. Because of the varied configurations of infrastructure interdependencies and storm experience among Florida’s local-government jurisdictions, we conclude that restricting this project’s inquiries to a single county or metropolitan area will not yield robust conclusions able to support formulation of broadly applicable emergency-management lessons and policy recommendations. Because the project’s budget is small, we conclude that a very small and highly capable professional team is best suited to the challenge of extracting valid, defensible conclusions from inherently fuzzy and subjective data. These three conclusions motivate our proposal.

Our technical approach is formulated to achieve four key objectives: (1) to learn practical lessons from the reports of people with first-hand experience, (2) to collect data from the unique 2004 Florida hurricane season that is representative of a wide range of conditions, (3) to apply an explicit and realistic analytic framework that will facilitate extraction of valid and defensible conclusions from that data, (4) to communicate the project’s findings and their bases clearly and engagingly to the target audience, particularly local and state emergency management and public works officials. Our technical strategy is based on using personal communication within a structured but open protocol to build a database on significant transportation and utility interdependencies.

Andrew C. Lemer, Ph.D., will serve as our Project Director and will be responsible for field data collection. He is a leader in development and application of knowledge-based public-works management practices and an active member of the public works professional community, with extensive personal contacts throughout that community. He brings to this assignment more than 30 years of experience in public work management, urban and transportation planning, and management research. As a participant in leadership of the American Public Works Association and other professional organizations, he has established personal contacts in local and state government in many areas of Florida and throughout the country. As former director of the Building Research Board (now the Board on Infrastructure and Constructed Environment) and consultant to the Transportation Research Board, he has investigated communications technology and institutional relationships underlying metropolitan emergency management capabilities, risk analysis and management strategies of government agencies and utilities, and storm hazard assessment and mitigation policies. As a consultant in international practice, he has specialized in understanding the interdependencies of functional components of civil infrastructure systems.

The project will be based at the MATRIX headquarters in Baltimore, enabling easy access to ALA personnel and others in the Washington area. MATRIX has established an office in Sarasota that may facilitate data collection activities.

MATRIX proposes to undertake this project on a firm fixed price basis.



Technical Approach This section presents the strategy that MATRIX proposes for completing this project, the considerations underlying the crafting of that strategy, and the work the MATRIX team will undertake. This work is described within the framework of the RFP’s specified tasks.

In preparing this proposal, MATRIX staff consulted with emergency response personnel in several Florida jurisdictions. References to published documents or work in progress cited in the body of this proposal are listed in the Annex.

Introduction From the perspective of those responsible for operation and maintenance of the state’s civil infrastructure systems, Florida’s 2004 hurricane season was extraordinary in at least two important ways: First, four major storms passing through the state in a short period of time created or exposed inadequacies in an emergency response and recovery apparatus that had been developed and refined through previous experience with storms that individually were equally or more severe than those of 2004. Second, a large area of central Florida—18 counties—was hit by three of the four storms sufficiently hard to qualify each time for public assistance (Categories C-G) under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) programs.1

The four storms of the 2004 season represent an important scientific sample, observations of the impact of major storms on vulnerable physical and institutional interdependencies among transportation and utility systems. Analysts seeking to extract lessons from that sample—lessons that can inform future emergency management planning and response—must give careful attention not only to the specific elements of these observations but also to the extraordinary nature of the season. The study must distinguish complex interactions among multiple factors.

For example, Florida Power and Light (FPL) reports that the time before power was restored to 90 percent of customers was significantly shorter following Hurricane Jeanne as compared to Hurricanes Charley and Frances (approximately 4 versus 6 days). However, the absolute number of customers restored by day 7 following Frances was 53 percent greater than the comparable number following Frances.

For example, county public works officials in Stuart had agreements in place with contractors for debris removal, but the amount of debris and the rate at which it was produced by consecutive storms exceeded the capacity of that response component. Prolonged blockage of roads and outages of electric power led eventually to public-health issues that are not typically encountered. Officials in Port St. Lucie found that span wires supporting traffic signals were torn away with greater frequency than would typically have been expected while mast arms survived; federal assistance is limited to in-kind replacement of the wires. 1 All but one (Santa Rosa) of Florida’s 67 counties qualified for such assistance under at least one storm. However, some of these jurisdictions were not exposed to conditions that many people would consider unusual, as illustrated by news media investigations regarding the amounts of disaster assistance spending in the Miami-Dade area. (“Probe…, 2004)

Four storms of the 2004 season



The officials in Stuart found also that available models used in preparedness planning were overly simplified. Timing of tidal cycles was neglected in forecasts of coastal storm surge, causing the models to under-predict damage potential. Evidence of infrastructure system interdependencies in this area may then be particularly useful for assessing the role of preparedness.

While much work has been done in recent years to learn from the experience of major hurricanes2, this study is particularly important because the experience it considers is recent and involves closely-spaced multiple events. The duration of the study, as specified in the RFP, is appropriately short to capture data while experience is fresh in the minds of people who prepared for and responded to the emergencies. In addition, the areas hit hard by the storms are varied in their levels of urbanization, density of infrastructure networks, and coastal versus inland locations. The data set is potentially very rich; gathering that data in a short period of time is desirable but challenging. Case-study details will be important to the task of extracting robust and transferable lessons about important interdependence among transportation and utility infrastructures.

Technical Strategy Our technical strategy is formulated to achieve four key objectives: (1) to learn practical lessons from the reports of people with first-hand experience, (2) to collect data from the unique 2004 Florida hurricane season that is representative of a wide range of conditions, (3) to apply an explicit and realistic analytic framework that will facilitate extraction of valid and defensible conclusions from that data, (4) to communicate the project’s findings and their bases clearly and engagingly to the target audience, particularly local and state emergency management and public works officials.

We propose to achieve these objectives by using personal communication within a structured but open protocol to build a database on significant transportation and utility interdependencies. We propose to select a small set of counties exposed to severe hurricane conditions and then to interview key informants responsible for emergency-management preparation and response in those jurisdictions. Interviews will be supplemented with data on infrastructure network characteristics and other data descriptive of the counties’ geographic and socio-economic character. We will assemble these data into a database that can be analyzed using statistical and semantic methods. We will use decision-tree analysis to describe and analyze emergency-management scenarios and timelines.

Because of this project’s focus on extraordinary circumstances and its short period of performance, we conclude that written surveys have little likelihood of yielding meaningful data. Because of the varied configurations of infrastructure interdependencies and storm experience among Florida’s local-government jurisdictions, we conclude that restricting this project’s inquiries to a single county or metropolitan area will not yield robust conclusions able

2 Studies of 2003 emergency management experience of Hurricane Isabel in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, for example, found that utility company and government agency priorities were frequently different for repair of disabled power grid elements. The adverse consequences of system interdependences consequently were exacerbated by extended outages.

The MATRIX strategy has four objectives • learn practical lessons

from first-hand experience

• collect data representative of a wide range of conditions

• apply an explicit and realistic analytic framework to support valid and defensible conclusions

• communicate the project’s findings to the target audience



to support formulation of broadly applicable emergency-management lessons and policy recommendations. Because the project’s budget is small, we conclude that a very small and highly capable professional team is best suited to the challenge of extracting valid, defensible conclusions from inherently fuzzy3 and subjective data. These three conclusions shape our work plan.

We propose to structure our analyses using the four-stage description of emergency management that FEMA has adopted: preparation, mitigation, response, recovery. We will use this PMRR framework4 in data entry and analysis of key-informant interviews, and in development of robust lessons and open questions to be drawn from the study.

Work Plan Our work plan is designed to conform to several external milestones. First, we assume that ALA will give MATRIX a Notice to Proceed with the work not later than February 1, 2005. Second, we intend that data collection and preliminary analysis (Tasks 1 and 2) should be complete before the start of the Governor's 19th Hurricane Conference, in Tampa, May 9 through 13, 2005. Finally, the RFP specifies that all work is to be completed and a final report delivered no later than September 30, 2005.

The MATRIX plan work is structured to conform to the RFP’s listing of tasks. We have defined a number of sub-tasks that represent distinct work elements to be completed.

Task 1. Define Interviewees The language of the RFP suggests that a single community should be selected for investigations in this study. While RFP does not define the term, we have assumed that “community” would represent a single local government jurisdiction or perhaps a metropolitan area. As we have explained, we believe that a broader perspective in data collection will yield superior results.

We propose to focus on a subregion that encompasses a range of geographic, infrastructure, and institutional characteristics. We propose that the selected region should include jurisdictions actually exposed to multiple storms.

We propose to focus on the 18 counties qualifying for FEMA public assistance under three storms. (See box)

3 We use the term “fuzzy” in not only its strict statistical sense but with the broader implication that the factors influencing emergency management are ill-defined. For example, materials shortages that certainly had some impact in the 2004 Florida season may have been caused in part by state government policies. (E.g., see “Banned…” 2004) 4 Australian agencies and the Open GIS Consortium’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Initiative (CIPI), for example, use a similar framework with slightly different terms: prevention, preparation, response, recovery. (PPRR; see, e.g., Critical 2003)

A variety of electric utilities may be involved in the study… • Florida Power and Light Company*• Gulf Power Company • Progress Energy* • Tampa Electric*

• Central Florida Electric Cooperative • Choctawhatchee Electric

Cooperative • Clay Electric Co-op • Florida Keys Electric Cooperative

Association • Lee County Electric Cooperative * • Seminole Electric Cooperative* • Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. • West Florida Electric Cooperative *(Utilities serving customers in the areas MATRIX anticipates will be the focus of this study)

In 2004, 18 Florida counties were hit hard by three hurricanes…

• Brevard • DeSoto • Flagler • Glades • Hardee • Hendry • Highlands • Hillsborough • Jefferson

• Leon • Manatee • Orange • Osceola • Polk • Sarasota • Seminole • Volusia • Wakulla



We will add to this list as many a six adjacent counties that may offer particular lessons based on institutional arrangements within their jurisdictions (e.g., service by utilities cooperatives, see box) The 18 to 24 counties are concentrated in the Tallahassee area and in Central Florida between the Tampa-Sarasota area and the Melbourne-Daytona Beach area.

1.1 Survey candidate counties During project mobilization, we will conduct telephone interviews with selected government and utility officials and assemble summary statistics to characterize the interdependencies likely to have been important to the emergency management experience in these counties. Based on this preliminary analysis, we will recommend a specific subset of 5 to 7 counties that will be the subject of detailed data collection in Task 2.

1.2 Identify key contacts We will contact identify key contacts within these 5 to 7 counties to be included in the Task 2 work. Key contact will represent people with substantial responsibility and first-hand experience in preparation, mitigation, response, or recovery for the 2004 hurricane season. We will contact the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) or other designated emergency management coordinators in the selected counties. We will include government entities and utilities.5 We anticipate the initial contacts will support identification of a selected key-contacts list of approximately 20 to 30 people.

1.3 Canvas key contacts We will conduct preliminary telephone interviews with all key contacts to discuss the nature of information to be gathered in Task 2, the range of other personnel that the project team may wish to contact in Task 2, and the schedule for the study. These calls will establish contact for subsequent scheduling of interviews and will yield preliminary information that will influence design of interview protocols. Through these calls, we will assemble written hurricane-emergency management plans that were in effect at the start of the 2004 season. Information gathered through this canvassing will be used to refine the overall project schedule and to inform development of Task 2 interview protocols.

1.4 Draft interview protocols We will draft explicit protocols to be used in Task 2 data collection. These protocols will include descriptions of meeting formats, specific questions to be asked, and supplementary data to be collected during interviews in Task 2. The structure of these protocols will be coordinated with database design to facilitate assembly of the analysis database. In particular, we propose to use a decision-tree formulation to structure data collection and analysis, expanding the detail of emergency-management processes within the PMRR framework. The focus of interviews will be to identify factors that influenced critical decisions and whether hindsight suggests changes in emergency management plans and responses that might have improved outcomes in the 2004 season.

1.5 Develop survey strategy We will specify the logistic strategy to be used in Task 2. We anticipate that Task 2 data collection will include approximately 15 days of visits to agencies involved in emergency management in the recommended 5- to 7-county focus area.

1.6 Submit data collection plan We will assemble the information developed in preceding subtasks into a letter-style report that we will submit to ALA for discussion and approval.

1.7 Secure study plan approval We propose that a meeting with ALA representatives may be useful to discuss the data collection plan. We anticipate that meeting, occupying no 5 For simplicity in the discussion, references in this proposal to “public works” include all government agencies responsible for transportation facilities and other facilities that influence transportation facility functions (e.g., storm drainage and sewerage). “Utilities” include electricity, telecommunications, water supply, and waste removal and treatment. “Transportation” necessarily encompasses logistics activities (e.g., transport busses and movement of emergency response personnel) as well as facilities operations.



more than half a day, would be held in Washington. The data collection plan and this meeting, if the latter is held, would be the bases for ALA’s approval for MATRIX to proceed with Task 2.

1.8 Prepare task report We will document the work of Task 1 in an informal task report that will be delivered to ALA as an attachment to a monthly progress report prepared under Task 5. This task report will be used in preparing the draft final project report (Task 4).

Task 2. Data Compilation We propose that data collected in this study will include both numerical statistics (e.g., miles of roadway and power line, numbers of intersections and customer interconnections) and relatively unstructured narrative from key-informant interviews. We will compile all data into a structured database that can be analyzed using a variety of numerical and journalistic or reportorial methods.

2.1 Develop context information Building on information collected in Task 1, we will characterize the emergency-management context each of the 5 to 7 selected counties. This characterization will entail collecting data on physical and institutional aspects of transport and utility subsystems in each jurisdiction. We will consider subsystem interdependencies within four primary categories: physical, geographic, information or “cyber,” and logical. (See Rinaldi, et al. 2001) We propose to develop interdependency matrices for each jurisdiction, that will be analyzed by decomposition in Task 3, to identify those with significant recurring importance.

2.2 Conduct interviews We will use protocols developed in Task 1 to structure interviews with key informants identified in Task 1. We anticipate that each key informant may arrange for project staff to meet with other personnel in their agency or jurisdiction, so that more interviews will be conducted. The total number of interviews will be limited by time budgeted for this work and the project team’s ability to schedule interviews. MATRIX anticipates that approximately 60 interview reports will be produced in Task 2.

We propose that structured interviews in local jurisdictions will be completed prior to opening of the Governor’s Hurricane Conference in Tampa. We propose that MATRIX staff will attend that conference to discuss the study and emergent results with attendees. The conference will serve as an informal test bed for emerging conclusions of the project, identification of lessons to be learned from this study of the 2004 hurricane season.

2.3 Prepare analysis database Interview reports and characterization statistics will be assembled in a computerized database.6 We will review the database and summary statistics to detect anomalies that may indicate errors or bias in the interview and data entry processes. The database will be made available to ALA upon request.

2.4 Prepare task report We will document the work of Task 2 in an informal task report to be delivered to ALA as an attachment to a monthly progress report prepared under Task 5. This task report will be used in preparing the draft final project report (Task 4).

Task 3. Data Assessment Data collected in this study will include both numerical statistics (e.g., miles of roadway and power line, numbers of intersections and customer interconnections) and relatively 6 MATRIX is conducting ongoing research on the coordinated use of XML, flat file, and relational database formulations for infrastructure interdependencies analysis. We propose that a relational database will be used for this study, but may wish to discuss alternatives with ALA.



unstructured narrative from key-informant interviews. We will apply statistical methods to data of both types to the extent that is likely to be productive.

3.1 Confirm and adjust analysis framework Summary statistics and overall review of the database in Task 2 may indicate that adjustments should be made in the analysis framework proposed here. MATRIX will document proposed adjustments and will confirm the proposed analysis framework or adjustments with ALA prior to commencing with the full analysis.

3.2 Report summary statistics A report of summary statistics will support inter-jurisdictional comparisons and provide a basis for judging whether the interview data set as a while may exhibit biases that would influence conclusions.

3.3 Conduct interdependencies analysis We propose to use matrix decomposition to identify infrastructure interdependencies that were most influential on emergency and emergency-response experience in the study areas. In addition, we will employ a simplified form of latent semantic analysis to confirm generic key actors within the context of institutional (i.e., operating as logical and informational) interdependencies.7 We will use the information from these analyses to develop composite PMRR scenarios and timelines.

3.4 Develop composite PMRR scenarios and timelines Based on the summary statistics and interdependencies analyses, we will construct one or more composite PMRR scenarios and timelines as generalized (i.e., storm-independent) characterizations of emergency occurrence and response experience in the 2004 hurricane season. A decision-tree framework will be used to represent the characterization. A single parametric characterization will be developed unless the interdependencies analyses indicate that fundamental differences existed among the jurisdictions investigated.

3.5 Extract robust “lessons” A primary objective of the study is extraction of lessons from the 2004 hurricane season that can usefully inform future emergency management activities. We will consider what conclusions may be drawn from the analysis about how emergency management in Florida might have been more effective, and whether changes in management procedures are warranted for the future. We will consider as well whether these conclusions are valid only for the areas from which experience was studied or may be extended to other areas. Our intent is to extract lessons that are “robust” in the sense that they are likely to be valid for future storm seasons and in other geographic areas.

3.6 Propose open questions While we propose to focus primarily on learning useful lessons about emergency management practice, we anticipate that our analyses will indicate also where additional information is needed to draw conclusions or make management improvements. We will document these open questions for discussion with ALA or other interested groups.

3.7 Prepare task report We will document the work of Task 3 in an informal task report to be delivered to ALA as an attachment to a monthly progress report prepared under Task 5. This task report will be used in preparing the draft final project report (Task 4).

Task 4. Final Report Preparation Task reports will become the basis for preparing the final report of the project. We propose that MATRIX and ALA should meet to discuss the audience for the report prior to the drafting 7 Network connectivity analysis and agent-based modeling are two approaches to assessing infrastructure interdependencies and risk that have been found to be very effective. (E.g., see Haimes and Jiang 2001 and Rinaldi et al. 2002) The small size and limited scope of this study preclude extensive analytical work, but these methods will underlie the MATRIX teams work and be applied in a cost-effective manner.



of that final report. We anticipate a half-day meeting to review major conclusions, the scope and limitations of the project, and ALA’s goals for the report’s readership and influence. The discussions will then shape the final report’s style, emphasis, form and presentation.

4.1 Prepare initial draft We will prepare a draft final report that is complete and formatted according to ALA requirements stated in the RFP. We will submit that report for ALA review and comment.

4.2 Review and revise draft We anticipate that MATRIX will receive comments and approval to proceed within two weeks of delivery of the draft report. We will make corrections and other revisions required by ALA.

4.3 Prepare final report We will prepare a finished final report that is formatted according to ALA requirements stated in the RFP and suitable for publication in PDF format.

Task 5. Interim Reporting We will make interim reports as specified in the RFP and as an aid to coordination with ALA (Task 6).

5.1 Progress letters We will submit progress reports in letter format at the end of each full month following commencement of the project and continuing until the final report is delivered to ALA. These letters will describe work done in the preceding month, overall budgetary status, and whether the project is proceeding according to the plan described here.

5.2 Technical notes & reports We will attach to the monthly progress letters task completion reports and other notes on technical matters that may be of interest to ALA. The purpose of these supplements is to assure that ALA and MATRIX maintain a common understanding of the direction and objectives of the study and its likely outcomes.

Task 6. Coordination with ALA We anticipate that ALA partner representatives may have insights and suggestions that would enhance the likelihood of the project’s success. We welcome discussions with these representatives as well as ALA staff.

6.1 Reviews We anticipate having regular telephone contact with ALA staff. At a minimum, each monthly progress report will serve as the basis for a brief progress review.

6.2 Reviews & approvals As indicated in preceding tasks we will request ALA agreement and approval with our plans and conclusions at key project milestones.

Names and Responsibilities of Key Project Members We believe that the scope and timing of this study require that data collection and analysis be conducted with deep understanding of both the institutional and physical character of the infrastructure and emergency management systems being studied. The project team is more likely to be successful if its members have knowledge of the geographic area and a well developed network of professional contacts among the agencies to be interviewed.

We propose that Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D., will serve as our Project Director. He will be responsible for all aspects of the study and will conduct field data-collection interviews.

As a participant in leadership of the American Public Works Association and other professional organizations, he has established personal contacts in local and state government in many areas of Florida and throughout the country. As former director of the Building Research Board (now the Board on Infrastructure and Constructed Environment), he has directed studies of facility risk management, working closely with experts in government and



the private sector. As a consultant to the Transportation Research Board, he has investigated communications technology and institutional relationships underlying metropolitan emergency management capabilities and interoperability requirements. He recently completed a project for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program that entailed surveys of current practices in state transportation agencies regarding communication of the public benefits of road maintenance activities.

Based in Baltimore, he has been responsible for establishing the MATRIX office in Sarasota. That office serves primarily a private-sector client base.

Dr. Lemer is a principle of MATRIX and a leader in development and application of knowledge-based public-works management practices. He is an active member of the public works professional community, with extensive personal contacts throughout that community. He brings to this assignment more than 30 years of experience in public work management, urban and transportation planning, and management research. He is a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Lemer will be assisted particularly by Bess Z. Caplan, who will serve as project associate. She will be responsible for setting up and managing the project database and project administration.

Ms. Caplan is skilled at extracting essential points from unstructured commentary. She recently was responsible for preparation of the draft report of a symposium on technology and metropolitan growth, held in Baltimore, using written notes and video from several sources. She is trained in floodplain regulation and environmental management.

Proposed Schedule, Key Milestones, Deliverables, and Project Meetings We anticipate that ALA will make a selection and issue a notice to proceed no later than February 1, 2005. Our proposed project schedule is based on a seven-month period of active work to produce the initial draft report (Task 4.1) The schedule is shown below.

As explained in previous paragraphs, we consider the following events to be key project milestones:

• Project initiation, February 1 (latest start) • Review of key contacts and survey strategy, March 8 (approximate target) • Governor’s Hurricane Conference, May 9-13 (fixed date, Tampa) • Completion of data collection and analysis July 29 (approximate target) • Submission of initial draft report, September 1 (specified by ALA) • MATRIX receives ALA comments on initial draft report, September 15 • Submission of final report, September 30 (specified by ALA) We plan that the March, May, and July milestones will entail project meetings with

ALA. We anticipate that a project initiation meeting will be held as well. In addition to these four meetings, we anticipate informal discussions, monthly or more frequently, with ALA staff and possible partner representatives.



The project will have several products deliverable to ALA: • Data collection plan (Task 1.6) • Progress letters (seven, Task 5.1) • Task completion reports (four, informal, accompanying progress letters) • Project data base file • Initial draft project report (Task 4.1) • Final report (Task 4.3)

Qualifications of the Team The team proposed for this study is small and will be managed essentially as an individual consultancy assignment. Dr. Lemer founded MATRIX in 1985 with several associates and has maintained the company as a small professional services firm specializing in research and policy analysis, project economics and planning, market analysis and technology forecasting related to urbanization, transportation, and public works. The firm’s initial client was the National Institute of Building Sciences.

MATRIX works with private and public sector clients on engagements that typically involve significant technical challenge and institutional complexity. Recent engagements have included studies of federal government programs for intelligent transportation system technology advancement, assisting local governments to establish infrastructure asset management decision-support systems, and reviews of the state of practice in transportation asset management. MATRIX applies available technology to respond quickly to clients’ needs, providing services with high technical content within the context of a distributed, low-overhead organization.

Client contact information for selected recent engagements is provided in the Annex to this volume of the proposal.

<<<<< >>>>>

Proposal to the American Lifelines Alliance December 20, 2004 Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System Interdependencies Volume 1 of 2, Annex, Page 1


Annex The following information supplements the MATRIX Technical Proposal:

• Cited References (page 2)

• Resumes of Key Personnel (pages 3 through 6) Andrew C. Lemer Bess Z. Caplan

• Description of the MATRIX Group, LLC (pages 7 through 8)

• Selected Client Contact References (page 9)



Cited References “Banned in Florida,” Dan Seligman, Forbes magazine, November 29, 2004, p. 138. Critical Infrastructure Emergency Risk Management and Assurance Handbook, 2003, Mt. Macedon, VIC: Emergency Management Australia, January 2003. Haimes, Y., and P. Jiang, 2001 “Leontieff-based model of risk in complex interconnected infrastructures,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, March 2001, pp 1-12. Rinaldi, S., J. Peerenboom, and T. Kelly, 2002 Complexities in identifying, understanding, and analyzing critical infrastructure interdependencies,” IEEE Control Systems Magazine, December 2002, pp 11-25. “Probe sought into questionable aid to Miami-Dade ‘hurricane victims’,” Sally Kestin and Megan O'Matz, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, October 12 2004.

<<<<< >>>>>



ANDREW C. LEMER, Ph.D., Principal, is an engineer-economist and planner with more than three decades of experience, specializing in policy research and analysis, urban and regional development, project planning, and performance assessment for civil infrastructure.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Performance and Environmental Impact Assessment Advised the Baltimore Metropolitan Council on requirements and procedures for assessing the equity and environmental justice of transportation policies and plans. Conducted National Research Council study on risk management for real property holdings of federal agencies; principal author of Using Risk Analysis to Achieve Balanced Safety in Building Design and Operations (National Academy Press) Conducted National Research Council studies on defining and measuring infrastructure performance; principal author of Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance (National Academy Press). Developed guidelines for the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for environmental impact analysis of projects, plans, and programs. Conducted studies for metropolitan planning organizations of regional impact of transportation-system investments for Tallahassee (Florida) and Baltimore (Maryland). Conducted project impact evaluation and prepared public decision documents for airport investments in Sydney for Australia’s commonwealth government. Infrastructure Policy Assessed policies for inter-jurisdictional water supply pricing in the Baltimore metropolitan region, for a private foundation. Developed policy statement on physical infrastructure, as part of World Bank's report Sub-Saharan Africa: From Crisis to Sustainable Growth. Assessed cost recovery policies for large-scale irrigation projects in Nigeria, for the Ministry of Water Resources. Reviewed state-of-the-art in assessing and communicating public benefits of highway maintenance, for Transportation Research Board. Established National Research Council’s strategic program in Infrastructure Technology and Policy and conducted study of performance measurement; principal author of Measuring Infrastructure Performance (National Academy Press). Member of Civil Engineering Research Foundation task forces assessing infrastructure investment, technology and research in Asia (1996), Western Europe (1993), and Japan (1990). Asset Management, Decision Support and Assessment Methodology Author of Getting the Most out of Your Infrastructure Assets: A Guide to Using Infrastructure Asset Management Systems (APWA, 2002) Advised on asset-management systems and full-cost accounting frameworks for Road Commission of Oakland County (MI) and City of Indianapolis. Urban and Regional Development Programs Conducted planning and feasibility studies of major industrial and commercial development project in the Ho Chi Minh City region, Vietnam. Directed master planning for Batam Centre, urban and commercial core of a free-trade enclave on an island near Singapore; presented plan and development strategy to the President of Indonesia and senior Cabinet officers. Assessed market potential and prepared development program and concept plan for 10,000- acre property near (then-proposed)



Denver International Airport. Conducted strategic review of cost-recovery experience in urban projects for Eastern and Southern Africa Projects Department, World Bank. Developed project management, financial, housing, and implementation plans for Abuja, federal capital of Nigeria. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 1985-present, founder and chief executive, the MATRIX group, LLC. 1988-1993, Director, Building Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. 1981-1985, Division Vice President, PRC Engineering; General Manager, Eastern Group, PRC Planning and Development; Board of Directors, PRC (Nigeria) Ltd. 1971-1981, various positions, PRC Planning & Economics, Alan M. Voorhees & Associates, Inc. Visiting Professor of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, 1995-97. Adjunct faculty, the Johns Hopkins University, 1995-present; Morgan State University, 1999-2002. EDUCATION Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, S.B. 1967, S.M. 1968, Ph.D. 1971 Loeb Fellow, Harvard University Graduate School of Design, 1992-1993 AWARDS, HONORS, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES L’Enfant Award, Rensselaerville Institute, 2001. Federal Design Award, National Endowment for the Arts, 1992. Featured speaker at Techno-Forum '93, Okayama, Japan; Brunel Lecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991. Keynote speaker, Rinker International Conference on Construction, University of Florida, 1990. Awarded Key the City of Osaka (Japan), 1990. Member of National Science Foundation “Blue Ribbon” evaluation panels for review of proposals for engineering research centers (1995-96, 1997-98). Author of Solving the Innovation Puzzle: Challenges Facing the U. S. Design and Construction Industry (1996, with H. Bernstein), and numerous articles and papers. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Planning Association. American Public Works Association; President’s Task Force on Asset Management, 1997-1998, Leadership and Management Committee, 1999-2004. American Society of Civil Engineers; Control Group Member, Land Use Committee, Urban Planning and Development Division, 1988-1991. Lambda Alpha International (land economics honorary society); president, Baltimore Chapter, 2002-present. Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, Professional Member. Transportation Research Board; Chair, Committee on Transport, Land Use, and Technology in Developing Countries (A1D07) 1989-1993.

<<<<< >>>>>



BESS Z. CAPLAN, Associate, is a specialist in environmental hazard policy and natural resource management, with particular emphasis on hydrology and aquatic systems and the impact of urban growth and development.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE Environmental Hazard and Risk Mitigation Coordinator of the Maryland Department of the Environment industry training on oil and propane tank anchoring. Developed and distributed a public information document on hazards of home heating oil and propane tank spills. For the Maryland Association of Floodplain Managers, developing techniques to assist local communities to enhance management capability and meet standards for Association membership. Advisor to Maryland Department of the Environment on procedures for educating floodplain residents on floodplain safety. Performed site inspections for development areas in Maryland’s floodplain areas. Review variances, permits and policy pertaining to development in floodplain areas. Identify possible growth issues including flood hazards, wetland impact and natural disaster impacts. Risk Management Policy Reviewed legislation pertaining to floodplain development with regard to impacts of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland, suggesting future initiatives to reduce risk to life and property during natural disaster events. Researched the role of democratic institutions in promoting sustainable development. Analyzed impacts of urban growth, deforestation, pollution, agriculture, consumption and waste on the future supply of resources in the United States. Reviewed current and past legislation and formulated hypotheses for their impacts on the country’s natural resources. Urban Growth Policy Reviewed literature on relationships of technology and “smart growth” policies in the Baltimore region, and prepared documentation for symposium on the topic sponsored by local and national organizations. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY 2004-present, Associate, The MATRIX Group, LLC, Baltimore. 2002-2003, Outdoor Science Educator, Audubon Camps, National Audubon Society. 2001, 20/20 Vision, Program Associate. 2000-2001, Harrison Program for the Future Global Agenda, University of Maryland, Research Associate. EDUCATION University of Maryland, College Park, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, B.S. 2002 Towson University, Department of Environmental Science, M.S. candidate.



AWARDS, HONORS, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES University of Maryland, College Park Environmental Studies Scholars Citation, 2001 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Maryland Association of Floodplain Managers

<<<<< >>>>>



An Overview of the MATRIX Group, LLC The MATRIX Group, LLC, provides professional services in project economics and planning, market analysis and technology forecasting, strategic planning and programming, and policy analysis, focused in four primary areas of practice:

• Investment analysis, feasibility studies, and performance assessment for infrastructure facilities, urban and regional development, and related business enterprise

• Market research for the design and construction and transportation industries • New technology and innovation management, investment strategy, and technology

policy research • Transportation project, systems and policy studies Since 1985 the firm has served a broad range of domestic and international clients, in

the private and public sectors, applying principles of multidisciplinary problem solving and specialized computer software for market analysis, project impact assessment, network optimization, and multi-criteria evaluation. When appropriate, the firm customizes these programs for client use and provides staff training.

Principal Staff The firm's principals offer expertise based on many years of experience gained in a variety of settings:

Andrew C. Lemer, Ph. D., the firm's founder and president, is an engineer-economist and policy analyst. A specialist in technology assessment and project feasibility, he served for five years as director of the U. S. National Research Council's Building Research Board, where he was responsible for establishing programs in technology management and infrastructure policy. He has more than two decades of diversified experience gained on assignments in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Australia, and throughout the U. S. In addition, he has served as visiting or adjunct faculty at Carnegie Mellon University, Purdue University, the Johns Hopkins University, and George Washington University. A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he also held a Loeb Fellowship at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

Janet Felsten, R.A., AICP, is an architect and planner specializing in urban design and community involvement in development decision-making. She has conducted view-corridor studies for the Texas State Capitol, directed art-in-public-places programs, prepared community-resource maps, and directed programs to introduce primary and secondary school students to principles of urban design. She has taught as a member of the adjunct faculty of the Morgan State University, Institute of Architecture and Planning.

Bruce A. Ralston, Ph. D., is a geographer and expert in transport and location analysis and in geographic information systems (GIS). He has conducted extensive field research and data collection on transport systems and economic development, particularly in eastern and southern Africa and southern Asia. He is also a Professor of Geography and was GIS Center Director at the University of Tennessee.

The MATRIX team includes professionals with extensive experience in urban and transportation facility and system planning and design, technology management, advanced methods of systems and statistical analysis, GIS development, and computer programming.



MATRIX staff members are encouraged to publish their work and to take leadership roles in their professions.

Headquartered in Baltimore, MD, MATRIX maintains project offices in Knoxville, TN, and Sarasota, FL.

Selected Project Experience MATRIX has undertaken a diverse range of assignments for private and public agency clients, such as the following examples:

Market Reconnaissance Studies For a private client, MATRIX conducted a market survey of truck and trailer manufacturers, suppliers, and users, to estimate current and future shares of heavy truck fleet operations using such newer technologies as wide base or low profile tires and air spring and composite leaf spring suspensions. For a major industrial company desiring to identify international market opportunities, MATRIX conducted a survey to identify projects in early stages of planning and design, gather market information, and assess the likelihood that each project might be implemented within the next four years.

Real Estate Development Studies Working with private clients, MATRIX conducted development market analyses for joint development projects proposed for the Anacostia station on Washington, DC's Metro subway Green Line, and reviewed progress and current status of development of a new town and industrial enclave near Singapore.

Measuring Infrastructure Performance MATRIX assisted the National Research Council to conduct a study issues and measures for judging the multi-functional performance of urban public works infrastructure systems. The study, requested by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was part of that agency's program to support formulation of national infrastructure management strategy. MATRIX has conducted several studies sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration to propose performance measures and guidelines for assessing airport landside capacity.

Transport System Modeling For the World Bank and the Government of Bangladesh, MATRIX developed a microcomputer-based, graphics-oriented network modeling and project analysis package and related databases for analysis of the transport system of Bangladesh. The model has been placed in the Ministry of Transport as an investment analysis and training tool. MATRIX staff conducted seminars in Bangladesh to instruct ministry staff in the models' use. For a U. S. government agency, MATRIX developed a suite of advanced modeling and GIS programs for strategic analysis of goods movements.

Land Use and Housing Policy For professional organizations and international lenders, MATRIX has conducted studies of how government land use regulations influence the balance between affordability and quality in land development, and of the role of rentals as an element of the housing stock in developing countries.

<<<<< >>>>>



Selected Client References

Project 1: Infrastructure management systems advice for Oakland County, MI Dates of engagement: August 1, 2001 – November 30, 2002 MATRIX client: Stantec Inc. 8th Floor, 171 Queens Avenue London, Ontario N6A 5J7 Principal contact: Andrew Dalziel, 519-645-2007 MATRIX role: Andrew Lemer provided expert advice on decision-support

system design and implementation for the Road Commission of Oakland County, for management of infrastructure assets

Project 2: Public Benefits of Highway Maintenance (NCHRP Project 20-5, Topic 32-06) Dates of engagement: March 5 1, 2001 – December 31, 2003 MATRIX client: The National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Principal contact: Jon Williams, 202-334-3245 MATRIX role: Andrew Lemer directed a study to describe the state of practice

in assessing and presenting the public benefits of highway maintenance, including a formal survey of state departments of transportation and telephone interviews with local government officials and others.

Project 3: Transportation and regional development in China Dates of engagement: July 1, 2004 – present MATRIX client: American Planning Association 1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Principal contact: Jeffrey Soule, 202-349-1012 MATRIX role: Andrew Lemer is provided expert advice on transportation

planning and regional development issues in Shanghai and Nantong


4701 Keswick Road Baltimore, MD 21210 voice: (410) 235-3307

telefax: (410) 235-0838

1630 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, FL 34236

email: [email protected]

Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System ...€¦ · Proposal to the American...

Documents

Transcript of Assessing the Role of Utility and Transportation System ...€¦ · Proposal to the American...