Resiliency Indicator Framework
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityDec 2015, Rev.1
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Acknowledgements
This document was prepared by AECOM under contract through the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Environmental Program administered by Metro’s Environmental Compliance and Sustainability Department.
Technical input was provided by staff in the following Metro departments: Environmental Compliance and Sustainability Department (ECSD), Corporate Safety & Risk Management, and Planning and Operations.
Table of Content
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
Purpose of This Document 6
Document Overview 6
Project Overview 6
Chapter 2: Project Approach 7
Building on Existing Work 8
Literature Review 8
Resiliency Dimensions and Principles 9
Framework Process 11
Relating Indicator and Measurement Scales to Metro 11
List of Resiliency Indicators 12
Resiliency Score and Weighting 13
Workshops 14
Case Studies 14
Chapter 3: Resiliency Indicator Framework 19
Resiliency Indicator Framework 19
Implementation Strategies 19
Guidance for using the Indicators – Step-by-Step 21
Resiliency Indicators 23
Chapter 4: Potential Next Steps 39
Appendices
Appendix A: Summary of Technical Resiliency Weighting Methodology
Appendix B: Case Study Scorecards
3
List of FiguresFigure 2-1: Framework Process ........................................................................................................................................................11
Figure 2-2: Example Technical Resiliency Summary Score ............................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2-3: Example Indicator ......................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3-1: Technical Resilience ....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-2: Organizational Resilience ..............................................................................................................................................22
List of TablesTable 2-1: Refined Resiliency Principles .............................................................................................................................................9
Table 2-2: List of Indicators .............................................................................................................................................................. 12
Table 2-3: Case Studies ......................................................................................................................................................................15
4
1. Chapter
Introduction
5
Internationally there is a growing call for building more ‘resilient cities’ and for improving the resilience of critical infrastructure. In the context of transportation infrastructure, operators strive to ensure that assets and services can function uninterrupted to provide a defined level of service, and with an ability to restore service quickly in the face of a range of existing and emerging hazards. This has led to a specific focus on the concept of resilience and how this can be defined, measured, and improved across the transport system.
Metro has been developing and implementing climate adaptation efforts for a number of years. The 2012 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan provided a high level screening analysis to identify some of the most important services and assets that are likely to be affected by climate change. The 2014 Climate Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) identified Metro’s critical assets, and vulnerabilities and climate risks to these assets. The CVA also identified the need for the agency to measure/evaluate future options through the use of resiliency indicators.
Metrics are very important to Metro. The indicators will provide a mechanism through which Metro can measure and prioritize the necessary actions to ensure its assets and organization are resilient in the face of climate change, and the evolving frequency of extreme weather events (primarily focused on extreme heat and flooding from precipitation). It is expected that the indicators could also be utilized in the context of broader hazard and failure reduction planning by Metro in the future.
Resiliency indicators also facilitate the process of continual improvement and help prioritize actions for Metro’s planning, construction, and operational activities. These indicators will contribute to the understanding of the progress of Metro’s climate management efforts over time and allow the agency to gauge the effectiveness of specific strategies.
Purpose of This Document
The purpose of this document is to introduce a set of resiliency indicators that have been developed for Metro’s transit programs to help address climate change.
The Framework is intended to help prioritize and evaluate climate adaptation implementation priorities to ensure infrastructure resilience and maintain a good state of repair.
While this document focuses on climate stressors of precipitation and heat, Metro will explore the convening of an agency-wide and multi-stakeholder team to evaluate resilience beyond climate change.
Project Overview
Metro definition of resiliency:
Metro defines resiliency as the ability to provide core functions in the face of threats, and recover quickly from major shocks or changing conditions.
> Chapter 1 Introduction: provides an overview of resilience and highlights the purpose of the Resiliency Indicator Framework.
> Chapter 2 Project Approach: describes the development of the framework, the methodology of the scoring and weighting system, and summarizes six completed case studies.
> Chapter 3 Resiliency Indicator Framework: includes a static copy of each type of assessment: Technical and Organizational. There are 20 technical indicators and 41 organizational indicators. This section also provides guidance on completing an assessment and recommends implementation strategies.
> Chapter 4 Potential Next Steps: proposes additional tasks that can be completed in the future to continue refinement of the framework.
Document Overview
Introduction6
2. Chapter
Project Approach
7
Developing and identifying resiliency indicators is an emerging field and there is not one accepted standard. Several organizations and educational institutions are currently developing frameworks.
AECOM New Zealand Ltd completed a research project in 2014 for the New Zealand Transport Agency called ‘Measuring the Resilience of Transport Infrastructure’. The report included a global literature review of over 70 papers (including extensive U.S. references), and development of a full set of resilience indicators for both ‘technical resilience’ (for hard assets) and ‘organizational resilience’ (governance and operational issues). This report formed the foundation for adapted work applicable to Metro.
Metro first issued the Resiliency Indicator Framework in June 2014. In early 2015, Metro decided to complete additional case studies, develop a weighting system for the technical indicators, and modify the indicator language based on staff input. The overall Framework has been updated (Rev.1) to include these changes.
Building on Existing Work
Literature Review
The organization of resiliency indicators is rooted within existing academic research and is based on dimensions (technical and organizational) and principles (robustness, redundancy, safe to fail, change readiness, networks, and leadership and culture), both defined in Table 2-1. By categorizing the dimensions and principles, a broad framework can be built, from which meaningful and practical resiliency indicators can be developed.
The first task for this project was to review relevant literature since the completion of the NZ report to identify the major trends that could influence the development of the Resiliency Indicator Framework. Over 20 recent documents were reviewed that were issued between August 2013 - April 2014 and highlighted the following findings:
> The majority of resiliency frameworks being developed are at a city-scale.
> The identified dimensions (technical and organizational) in the NZ Report continue to be supported by the literature.
> The principles vary within different frameworks, but ultimately have the same meanings as those identified in the NZ report.
> The updated literature review provided examples of indicators for potential incorporation/ adaptation for the Metro framework.
> Safe-to-fail concept is supported by updated literature.
Project Approach8
Resiliency Dimensions and Principles
Based on the findings of the literature review, and discussions with Metro staff from the Environmental Compliance & Sustainability Department, Corporate Safety & Risk Management, Planning and Operations departments, it was agreed that the two dimensions remain applicable to Metro: technical and organizational. However, the definitions of the principles were expanded to include current trends. For example, principles such as ‘modularity’ and ‘diversity’ were included within the broader technical principles of ‘redundancy’ and ‘safe to fail’, and
Dimension Principle and Definition
TechnicalAbility of the physical system(s) to perform to an acceptable/ desired level when subject to a hazard event
Robustness
Strength, or the ability of elements, systems and other units of analysis, to withstand a given level of stress or demand without suffering degradation or loss of function (Bruneau et al 2003).
Summary Version: Strength of system that can withstand stress and not suffer degradation or loss of function.
Redundancy
Extent to which elements, systems, or infrastructure exists that can be substituted to satisfy functional requirements and provide business continuity. This can be achieved through either: a) providing multiple (back-up) or reserve capacity within a system, to fill in for the compromised system until it can be replaced or repaired (i.e. redundancy) (Bruneau et al 2003); or b) providing a range of types, methods or modes of service provision or operation in order to reduce the potential negative impact to a whole network (or city) of the failure of any one particular system (i.e. diversity). For example, Metro, diversity is provided by the combination of a bus and rail system.
Summary Version: Extent to which elements, systems, or infrastructure exist that can be substituted to satisfy functional requirements and provide business continuity.
Safe-to-fail
Design approach that allows for failure (where relevant) in a controlled and planned manner that facilitates rapid recovery. Importantly, this recognizes that the possibility of failure can never be eliminated.
This may be achieved through innovative design methods [to complement traditional, incremental risk-based design (Park et al 2013)], or through specific ‘modularity’. This modularity can be characterized by; a) system components having enough independence so that damage or failure of one part or component of a system has a low probability of inducing failure, or b) system components being constructed in a ‘modular’ manner that facilitates rapid rebuild / restoration following failure.
Summary Version: Design approach that allows for failure in a safe and controlled manner, and facilitates rapid recovery.
‘flexibility’ and ‘resourcefulness’ were included within the broader organizational principle of ‘change readiness’.
The revised definitions for this project are in Table 2-1. These are drawn from the NZ report and have been modified based on the literature review update and consultation with Metro. There are two versions of the principle definitions – a longer description that references the primary literature source(s) that were used, and a simplified ‘working’ principle that may be more appropriate for day to day use.
Table 2-1: Refined Resiliency Principles
Resiliency Indicator Framework 9
Dimension Principle and Definition
OrganizationalCapacity of an organization to make decisions and take actions to plan, manage and respond to a hazard event
Change Readiness
Ability of an organization to anticipate hazards and failures. Involves ability to be flexible, to be able to change, evolve or adopt alternative strategies (either in the short or long term) in response to changing conditions (Da Silva, et al, 2012), and learn from success and failure (adapted from Bruneau et al 2003 and Park et al 2013).
The ability to sense and anticipate hazards, identify problems and failures, and to develop a forewarning of disruption threats and their effects through sourcing a diversity of views, increasing alertness, and understanding social vulnerability (Resilient Organisations 2012). Also involves the ability to adapt (either via redesign or planning) and learn from the success or failure of previous adaptive strategies (Park et al 2013).
This also includes resourcefulness – that can be conceptualized as: a) the capacity to mobilize resources when conditions exist that threaten to disrupt some asset or system (adapted from Da Silva et al, 2012); b) the ability to skillfully prepare for, respond to, and manage a crisis or disruption as it unfolds (NIAC, 2009), and; c) the ability to apply material (i.e. monetary, physical, technological, and informational) and human resources to meet established priorities and achieve goals (Bruneau et al 2003).
Summary Version: Ability to anticipate hazards and failures. Involves ability to adapt, be flexible and resourceful, and learn from success and failure.
Networks
The ability to establish relationships, mutual aid arrangements and partnerships, understand interconnectedness and vulnerabilities across all aspects of supply chains and distribution networks, and; promote open communication and mitigation of internal/external silos (Resilient Organisations 2012).
Summary Version: Ability to establish internal/external relationships, mutual aid arrangements, and regulatory partnerships.
Leadership and Culture
The ability to develop an organizational mind-set/culture of enthusiasm for challenges, agility, flexibility, adaptive capacity, innovation and taking advantage of opportunity (Resilient Organisations 2012).
Summary Version: Ability as an organization to embrace challenges, agility, flexibility, adaptive capacity, innovation, and opportunity
Project Approach10
• 20 Technical
The framework for the resiliency indicators is graphically illustrated in Figure 2-1 and demonstrates the thought process on how the organization of dimensions and principles results in specific indicators and scores.
Relating Indicators and Measurement Scales to MetroFramework Process
A key component of this project has been to tailor the Resiliency Indicator Framework so that each indicator is specific to Metro. A number of indicators were removed or consolidated, many were reworded and their measurement scales revised. Direct links have been made to other Metro documents that relate to climate change and emergency planning. One example includes using the data from the State of Good Repair Asset Database regarding the condition of an asset (good, adequate, poor, etc.) and tying it directly to Metro’s measurement scale.
Documents that were reviewed for incorporation include:
> Metrics for Tracking Climate Change Adaptation (2013)
> Climate Vulnerability Assessment (2014)
> Rail Design Criteria (May 2012)
> Emergency Response Plan (index only)(2010)
> State of Good Repair Asset Database (2013)
> Long Range Transportation Plan (2009)
A list of all the resiliency indicators is provided in Table 2-2.
• Individual scores are aggregated by principle and dimension.
• Technical: Each indicator is scored and weighted • Organizational: Each indicator is scored
• Technical
Measurement Scale• Robustness• Redundancy• Safe to Fail
Principle
Dimension
Indicators
Measurement Scale
Score
1
2
3
4
5
• Change Readiness• Networks• Leadership & Culture
• Organizational
Level of Resilience:• 4 (Very High)• 3 (High)• 2 (Moderate)• 1 (Low)
• 41 Organizational
Figure 2-1: Framework Process
Resiliency Indicator Framework 11
List of Resiliency Indicators
Technical
ROBUSTNESS
R-01. Maintenance - Day to DayR-02. Maintenance - Post IncidentR-03. Renewal/Upgrade (Long Range Plans)R-04. Design - Compliance with Current CodesR-05. Design - Condition of AssetR-06. Design - Vulnerability AssessmentR-07. Design - Resilience Design CriteriaR-08. Design - Overheating StandardsR-09. Extreme Weather Repair CostsR-10. Supplier Utility Robustness - AwarenessR-11. Supplier Utility Robustness - Improvement
REDUNDANCY
RE-01. Alternate Route/Mode AvailabilityRE-02. Alternate Route/Mode CapacityRE-03. Spare CapacityRE-04. Back Up Parts and EquipmentRE-05. Re-routing and Communication PlansRE-06. Supplier Utility Redundancy - AwarenessRE-07. Supplier Utility Redundancy - Improvements
SAFE-TO-FAIL
S-01. Safe-to-Fail - Design ApproachS-02. Safe-to-Fail - Design Guidelines
Table 2-2: List of Indicators
Organizational
CHANGE READINESS
C-01. Warnings - General PublicC-02. Communication Systems - StaffC-03. External - Public AwarenessC-04. SensorsC-05. Current Weather DataC-06. BackupC-07. CoverageC-08. InformationC-09. Roles & Responsibilities - Key People IdentifiedC-10. Roles & Responsibilities - Succession PlanningC-11. Internal Coordination - Event ResponseC-12. Remote Response AbilityC-13. Staffing Responder RolesC-14. Sufficient StaffingC-15. Risk Assessment and Scenario PlanningC-16. Emergency Management Plans - ExistenceC-17. Tracking Climate-related Injuries C-18. Joint PlanningC-19. Priority Routes/Structures to Manage FirstC-20. Lessons Learned and Thinking AheadC-21. Training /Drills - CurriculumC-22. Training /Drills - OfferedC-23. Training /Drills - CompletedC-24. Training /Drills Practice - Testing & Public Eng.C-25. Capital AvailabilityC-26. Operational Funding for Resilience InitiativesC-27. Integration with ResilienceC-28. Contingency FundingC-29. Modelling
NETWORKS
N-01. Internal RelationshipsN-02. Information Sharing - InternalN-03. Inter-agency CompatibilityN-04. Business Continuity/AwarenessN-05. Information Sharing - ExternalN-06. Inter-agency Compatibility and Cooperation
LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE
L-01. Roles and ResponsibilitiesL-02. Staff EngagementL-03. Leveraging KnowledgeL-04. Crisis Decision MakingL-05. Advance AgreementsL-06. Approach to Projects
Project Approach12
Resiliency Score and Weighting
The assessor selects a score for each indicator, based on a measurement scale from 1 (least resilient) to 4 (most resilient) that has been tailored for each indicator. In addition, each technical indicator is automatically weighted on a 4-tier scale (low, medium, high, highest). See example, Figure 2-3.
The weighting is predetermined and based on Metro’s core values of safety, service reliability, and fiscal responsibility and priorities outlined in Metro’s policy and plans. See appendix A for summary of weighting methodology. Note: at this time only the technical indicators have been weighted.
All of the indicator scores are aggregated into one overall weighted resiliency score on a 10 point scale (1 least resilient, and 10 most resilient) and is based on the total percentage of points achieved for that assessment.
A graphic is also automatically generated to provide a snap-shot of a technical assessment (see example, figure 2-2). The number in the center of the graphic is the overall resiliency score. Each segment represents an indicator, grouped by principle. Each principle is noted on the graphic by a color (purple for robustness, yellow for redundancy, and blue for safe-to-fail). The size of each segment of the graphic
Indicator Measurement Scale Lead Department/ Source of Information
Score1 = Least Resilient4 = Most Resilient
WeightingLowest - Highest
Assessment Notes/ Score Justification
ROBUSTNESS Maintenance-Day to dayStandard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) exist to maintain asset(s) and ensure safe and reliable operation - as per operations manual, asset management plans (e.g. – stormwater systems are not blocked).
4 – Audited inspection of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) and corrective maintenance completed within a specified timeframe.3 – Partially audited inspection of SOP’s and corrective maintenance completed when required.2 – Ad hoc inspections and corrective maintenance completed, but with possible delays/backlog.1 – No inspections or corrective maintenance completed.
Lead Department(s)Operations - Maintenance Equipment Maintenance, Facility Maintenance, RFM - Rail Facilities Maintenance, Rail Communications, Contract Management
Source of InformationMaintenance plans and procedures
Completed by assessor
High Completed by assessor
illustrates the weighting (the bigger the segment, the greater the weighting) and the color of each segment illustrates the score (the darker the green, the higher the score). The assessment scorecard also provides a score for each principle.
The purpose of the scoring and weighting system is to ensure Metro prioritizes certain resiliency indicators. This will help focus limited funding on improving areas of resilience that are in line with the agency’s other key priorities. The graphic will also provide a side-by-side comparison of assessments.
Figure 2-2: Example Technical Resiliency Summary Score
Figure 2-3: Example Indicator
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
Organizational
CHANGE READINESS
C-01. Warnings - General PublicC-02. Communication Systems - StaffC-03. External - Public AwarenessC-04. SensorsC-05. Current Weather DataC-06. BackupC-07. CoverageC-08. InformationC-09. Roles & Responsibilities - Key People IdentifiedC-10. Roles & Responsibilities - Succession PlanningC-11. Internal Coordination - Event ResponseC-12. Remote Response AbilityC-13. Staffing Responder RolesC-14. Sufficient StaffingC-15. Risk Assessment and Scenario PlanningC-16. Emergency Management Plans - ExistenceC-17. Tracking Climate-related Injuries C-18. Joint PlanningC-19. Priority Routes/Structures to Manage FirstC-20. Lessons Learned and Thinking AheadC-21. Training /Drills - CurriculumC-22. Training /Drills - OfferedC-23. Training /Drills - CompletedC-24. Training /Drills Practice - Testing & Public Eng.C-25. Capital AvailabilityC-26. Operational Funding for Resilience InitiativesC-27. Integration with ResilienceC-28. Contingency FundingC-29. Modelling
NETWORKS
N-01. Internal RelationshipsN-02. Information Sharing - InternalN-03. Inter-agency CompatibilityN-04. Business Continuity/AwarenessN-05. Information Sharing - ExternalN-06. Inter-agency Compatibility and Cooperation
LEADERSHIP AND CULTURE
L-01. Roles and ResponsibilitiesL-02. Staff EngagementL-03. Leveraging KnowledgeL-04. Crisis Decision MakingL-05. Advance AgreementsL-06. Approach to Projects
Resiliency Indicator Framework 13
Workshops
Several workshops were held as part of the framework development process and included key Metro staff from the following departments: Environmental Compliance & Services Department, Corporate Safety & Risk Management, and Planning and Operations.
The purpose of the first workshop (May 2014) was to introduce the project, receive feedback on the draft resilience indicators, complete two case study assessments and to introduce the concept of developing a Metro resiliency team. Based on the detailed discussions, several of the indicators and measurement scales were modified.
Additional workshops were held (April 2015) to complete four more case studies and further refine the indicator language.
Overall, Metro staff recognized the value of this work effort and are starting to see/having to respond to emergencies, some of which are a result of emerging climate change issues and other potential hazards (such as the accident on I-210 that took out the Gold Line OCS) offering a future overview of what resilience issues may arise. Staff highlighted that the implementation of the Resilience Indicator Framework will require resources (time and funding). They recommended a phased implementation strategy, such as grouping assets together to evaluate categories of assets, rather than individual assets. There was also a strong interest in evaluating how indicators could be integrated into other Metro initiatives, such as scoping for the upcoming agency-wide risk assessment.
Case Studies
Six case studies were completed with Metro staff to address a diversity of asset types to ensure that the Resiliency Indicator Framework is meaningful and useful across the agency’s operations.
The following case studies were completed:
> Blue Line - Wardlow Station
> Gold Line - Overhead Catenary System (OCS)
> Orange Line - BRT Route between Sepulveda and Roscoe Stations
> Bus Line 236 - Route between Victory and Ventura Boulevards
> Metro Bus Division 9 - Maintenance Facility
> Gold Line - Little Tokyo Station Communication System
A summary is provided in Table 2-3.
Note: based on limited workshop time and further refinement of the indicators, some of the case study scores have been slightly adjusted, based on Metro review, to correlate to the updated streamlined framework.
Project Approach14
Table 2-3: Case Studies
Case Study Evaluation Summary Resiliency Score10 = most resilient,
1 = least resilient
Wardlow Station, Blue Line
Background:
The tracks that run along embankments are susceptible to bank erosion. This indicates high sensitivity to potential flood events.
Wardlow Station on the Blue Line received an overall resiliency score of 5.3.
The asset scored high in the following indicators: compliance with current codes, defined alternate route/mode choices and rerouting plans, and availability of back up parts and equipment.
The asset scored low in the following indicators: develop overheating standards, understand extreme weather repair costs, engage utility suppliers to improve procedures, and provide capacity levels during alternate route/mode events.
Given that safe to fail is a relatively new approach, this was not considered for the design and construction of Wardlow Station
Resiliency Score = 5.3
Robustness = 4.6
Redundancy = 6.9
Safe to fail = 2.5
Legend:
Overhead Catenary System (OCS), Gold Line
Background:
Heat and wind can expand wires and cause arcing. Storms can cause objects to get lodged in the wires or tree branches, which could bring the wires down. Arcing or other damage of OCS can cause localized power outages and service disruptions.
The OCS along the Gold Line received an overall resiliency score of 4.7.
The asset scored high in the following indicators: maintenance day to day, compliance with current codes, and the condition of the asset.
The asset scored low in the following indicators: maintenance post incident, design criteria does not include resilience or overheating standards, extreme weather repair costs, and supplier utility improvement procedures.
The indicators that focus on alternate route/mode choice and routes have not been included, but should be further evaluated to understand applicability.
Given that safe to fail is a relatively new approach, this was not considered for the design and construction of the OCS.
Resiliency Score = 4.7
Robustness = 5.1
Redundancy = 4.0
Safe to fail = 2.5
Legend:
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
Resiliency Indicator Framework 15
Case Study Evaluation Summary Resiliency Score10 = most resilient,
1 = least resilient
Bus Route Between Sepulveda and Roscoe Stations, Orange Line
Background:
The high speed bus route is located in an area with a high number of extreme heat days and experiences a high number of engine and air conditioning failure road calls. This area is anticipated to experience even more extreme heat days as a result of climate change.
This assessment includes the buses, busway, and stations between Sepulveda and Roscoe Stations.
The Orange Line – route between Sepulveda and Roscoe Stations received an overall resiliency score of 6.4.
The network scored high in the following indicators: maintenance – day to day; compliance with current codes; availability of alternate route/mode choice; re-routing and communication plans.
The assessment scored low in the following indicators: implementation of resilience strategies based on design criteria; existence of vehicle, facility and busway design criteria to address resilience; awareness of supplier utility robustness; awareness of supplier utility redundancy; and supplier backup plan procedures.
Given that safe-to-fail is a relatively new approach, this was not considered for the design and construction of the Orange Line.
Resiliency Score = 6.4
Robustness = 6.1
Redundancy = 7.3
Safe-to-Fail = 2.5
Legend:
Local Line 236 Route From Victory to Ventura Boulevards, Metro Bus
Background:
This local bus line experiences periodic flooding issues associated with the Sepulveda Basin during heavy rainfall periods, which are projected to get worse with extreme weather impacts.
This assessment includes the buses and street route the buses operate on.
The Metro Bus Local Line 236 route from Victory to Ventura Boulevards received an overall resiliency score of 5.5.
Line 236 scored similarly to the Orange Line, primarily because both are managed by Division 8. However, the two bus lines have different vehicle fleets and the Orange Line operates on a fixed busway. Compared to the Orange Line, Line 236 scored lower in the following indicators: vulnerability assessment; defined alternate route/mode choice; and rerouting and communication plans.
The network scored high in the following indicators: maintenance – day to day; compliance with current codes; defined alternate route/mode choice; re-routing and communication plans.
The network scored low in the following indicators: implementation of resilience strategies based on design criteria; existence of vehicle design criteria to address resilience; awareness of supplier utility robustness; awareness of supplier utility redundancy; and supplier backup plan procedures.
Given that safe-to-fail is a relatively new approach, this was not considered for the design of the buses that serve route 236.
Resiliency Score = 5.5
Robustness = 5.5
Redundancy = 5.8
Safe-to-Fail = 2.5
Legend:
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
Project Approach16
Case Study Evaluation Summary Resiliency Score10 = most resilient,
1 = least resilient
Maintenance Yard Division 9 San Gabriel Valley, Metro Bus
Background:
This maintenance facility experiences precipitation-based flooding issues, which are projected to get worse with extreme weather impacts.
This asset assessment focused on the Maintenance Facility, but also included the surrounding area: storage yard, vehicle wash, bays, body shop, paint booth, CNG fueling facility.
Wardlow Division 9 Maintenance Facility received an overall resiliency score of 6.8.
This asset scored high in the following indicators: maintenance post incident; compliance with current codes; awareness of supplier utility robustness; supplier utility improvement procedures; defined alternate route/mode choice, capacity level of alternate mode choice; availability of back up parts and equipment; awareness of supplier utility redundancy; supplier back up procedures; and safe-to-fail (requires follow up).
This asset scored low in the following indicators: overheating standards; tracking extreme weather repair costs; re-routing and communication plans; resilience in renewal/upgrade plans; and condition of asset.
Given that safe-to-fail is a relatively new approach, this was not considered for the design and construction of the maintenance facility.
Resiliency Score = 6.8
Robustness = 6.1
Redundancy = 8.4
Safe-to-Fail = 3.8
Legend:
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
Communications System Little Tokyo Station, Gold Line
Background:
This is an example of a utility asset that experiences precipitation-based flooding. A new station and system upgrade (under construction) is in a new location to serve the Regional Connector. The new location should consider that extreme weather impacts (both heat and flooding) are projected to get worse.
This asset assessment includes the communication system underground cabinets: battery equipment, battery UPS, CCTV, CTS, telephone, F&EM, fire management panel, radio, PA.
The Little Tokyo Station Communication System received an overall resiliency score of 6.6.
This asset scored high in the following indicators: compliance with current codes; overheating standards; tracking extreme weather repair costs; and re-routing and communication plans.
This asset scored low in the following indicators: capacity level of alternate route/mode; resilience in renewal/upgrade plans; and vulnerability assessment.
Given that safe-to-fail is a relatively new approach, this was not considered for the design and construction of the existing or future station and/or communication assets.
Resiliency Score = 6.6
Robustness = 6.9
Redundancy = 6.8
Safe-to-Fail = 2.5
Legend:
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
4 (Most resilient) 3 NA/Incomplete
2
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy Safe-to-fail
Robustness Principle
Resiliency Indicator Framework 17
This page intentionally left blank
Project Approach18
3. Chapter
Resiliency Indicator Framework
19
This section discusses the implementation strategies, guidance/instructions, and includes a static copy of the Resiliency Indicator Framework.
The hands-on Resiliency Indicator Framework tool is an interactive Excel spreadsheet that includes the following templates to evaluate technical and organizational resilience:
> Technical: the ability of the physical system(s) to perform to an acceptable/desired level when subject to a hazard event. There are 20 technical indicators, which focus on maintenance, design criteria/codes, back up parts/equipment, alternative modes/routes, etc. Technical resilience can be evaluated either by individual asset (example: one train station, OCS along one line, etc), or group of assets that work together to complete a system (example: operating division that includes several components, all stations along one rail line, communication systems, etc).
> Organizational: the capacity of an organization to make decisions and take actions to plan, manage and respond to a hazard event. There are 41 organizational indicators, which focus on emergency plans, communication systems, drills and training, funding measures, etc. An assessment can be completed for an entire agency, division, department, etc.
The Resiliency Indicator Framework tool has been developed so that an assessment can be completed on several levels, such as evaluating only the technical resilience, or the overall resilience of the agency (both technical and organizational).
Resiliency Indicator Framework
> The Resiliency Indicator Framework is an internal tool for Metro staff to evaluate resilience of an asset, group of assets, or the entire agency, in order to help prioritize climate change adaptation implementation priorities.
> Due to limited resources, Metro may consider prioritizing assessments to be completed. A recommended practice is to identify the critical assets that are most at risk from climate impacts, and that may already be suffering from extreme weather events. (Reference the Climate Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) for guidance).
> Based on the workshops with Metro staff, it also became evident that certain assessments could be grouped together to save time, while some should be completed separately to account for important differences that may affect resilience; such as:
1. Complete bus line assessments on a division level.
2. Complete assets constructed at different times separately.
3. Complete assessments with different asset infrastructure designs separately.
> Prior to starting an assessment, clearly identify what components are included in the assessment. For example, the entire division or just certain elements, such as the maintenance facility or fueling station, etc. Facilities are often in different conditions and have different applicable policies and procedures that could affect their resilience score.
> It is understood that some of the indicators will be challenging to score. The scoring is not meant to pass a rigorous audit process at this point, but rather should focus on appropriate staff completing an assessment to the best of their ability. Early assessments may not be based on specific quantitative data while systems are put in place to collect data or improve current systems.
Implementation Strategies
Resiliency Indicator Framework 20
Guidance for using the Indicators – Step-by-Step
The instructions provided below are also included as a separate worksheet within the Resiliency Indicator Framework Excel document to provide guidance to the assessor.
Technical Assessment
Asset(s) project examples include: bridge, bus station, all bus maintenance facilities, all stations along one rail line, building, Gold Line overhead catenary system, a portion of a rail track with similar characteristics, etc. An example is provided in Figure 3-1.
1. Identify asset(s) for study. 2. Click on ‘Technical Resilience’ worksheet. 3. Insert asset title and description (row 2).
Example: Overhead Catenary System (Gold Line)Looking at the Overhead Catenary System (OCS) as an example, the indicator shown in Figure 3-1 for this asset examines whether there are good practices in place for regular maintenance to ensure the integrity and functionality of the asset. The scale ranges from no inspection or maintenance process in place (scoring 1) to a fully audited inspection process that is implemented (scoring 4). To score this indicator, there are several Lead Departments that can be consulted that know about the maintenance plans and procedures for day-to-day issues for the OCS. This indicator scored a 3, based on the understanding of Metro staff of current maintenance procedures.
4. Note that indicators are organized by resilience principles: Robustness, Redundancy, and Safe-to-Fail).
5. Review Indicator (column B) and Measurement Scale (column C).
6. For guidance, review Lead Department / Source of Information (column D).
7. Determine and enter score (column F) ranging from 1 (least resilient) to 4 (most resilient) or ‘NA’ if not applicable. (Weighting is predetermined and cannot be changed).
8. Add Assessment Notes and/or Score Justification (column H).
9. Repeat for each indicator.
10. After all indicators are scored, hit the ‘View Result’ button (row 1) for a summary scorecard of that assessment. See Appendix B for case study summary scorecard examples.
Figure 3-1: Technical Resilience
Indicator Measurement Scale Lead Department/ Source of Information
Score1 = Least Resilient4 = Most Resilient
WeightingLowest - Highest
Assessment Notes/ Score Justification
ROBUSTNESS
Maintenance-Day to dayStandard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) exist to maintain asset and ensure safe and reliable operation - as per operations manual, asset management plans (e.g. – stormwater systems are not blocked).
4 – Audited inspection of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) and corrective maintenance completed within a specified timeframe.3 – Partially audited inspection of SOP’s and corrective maintenance completed when required.2 – Ad hoc inspections and corrective maintenance completed, but with possible delays/backlog.1 – No inspections or corrective maintenance completed.
Lead Department(s)Operations - Maintenance Equipment Maintenance, Facility Maintenance, RFM - Rail Facilities Maintenance, Rail Communications, Contract Management
Source of InformationMaintenance plans and procedures
3 High Completed by assessor
Step 5 Step 6
Step 3
Step 7 Step 8
Project Title: Gold Line OCS
Description: Overhead Catenary SystemTechnical Resilience - Asset
Resiliency Indicator Framework 21
Organizational
Project examples include: bus operations division, overview of entire agency, etc. Example is provided in Figure 3-2.
1. Click on ‘Organizational Resilience’ worksheet.2. Insert project title and description (row 2).3. Note that indicators are organized by resilience
principles (Change Readiness, Networks, and Leadership and Culture).
4. Review Indicator (column B) and Measurement Scale (column C).
5. For guidance, review Lead Department / Source of Information (column D).
6. Determine and enter score (column F) between 1 (least resilient) to 4 (most resilient) or ‘NA’ if not applicable.
7. Add Assessment Notes and/or Score Justification (column G).
Figure 3-2: Organizational Resilience
Example: Agency Organizational Planning StrategiesThe indicator shown in Figure 3-2 for the agency is examining whether there are good practices in place for robust risk identification and assessment for climate hazards. The scale ranges from no practices exist (scoring 1) to a process that is documented, published, readily available, trained to, and monitored on a regular basis (scoring 4). To score this indicator, the department that can be consulted is the Environmental Planning and/or the Corporate Safety & Risk Management group. Currently Metro would score a 2 for this indicator because a Climate Vulnerability Assessment has been carried out for the most critical assets, but has not yet been published.
Indicator Measurement Scale Lead Department/ Source of Information Score Assessment Notes/
Score Justification
C-15 Risk assessment and scenario planning
Existence of robust risk identification and risk assessment practices for climate hazards
4- Practices exist, are documented, published, readily available, trained to, and monitored on a regular basis.3- Practice exists and published.2- Ad hoc approach is undertaken.1- No practices exists.
Corporate Safety & Risk Management and Environmental Planning
CVA
2 Climate Vulnerability Assessment has been carried out for the most critical assets, but has not yet been published.
Step 4 Step 5
Step 2
Step 6 Step 7
Project Title: Title
Description: Describe key elements
Organizational Resilience
Resiliency Indicator Framework 22
Resiliency Indicators
The indicators can be found in the following pages, organized by:
> Technical
> Organizational
Note: This framework is available as an interactive Excel spreadsheet.
Resiliency Indicator Framework 23
Proj
ect T
itle:
Dat
e: D
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
):Ti
tleD
ate
Proj
ect d
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
)
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esili
ent
4 =
Mos
t res
ilien
t
Wei
ghtin
gAs
sess
men
t Not
es/
Scor
e Ju
stifi
catio
n
RO
BU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- D
ay to
Day
Stan
dard
Ope
ratin
g Pr
oced
ures
(SO
P's)
exi
st
to m
aint
ain
asse
t(s) a
nd e
nsur
e sa
fe a
nd
relia
ble
oper
atio
n - a
s pe
r ope
ratio
ns m
anua
l, as
set m
anag
emen
t pla
ns (
e.g.
– s
torm
wat
er
syst
ems
are
not b
lock
ed).
4 –
Audi
ted
insp
ectio
n of
Sta
ndar
d O
pera
ting
Proc
edur
es (S
OP'
s) a
nd c
orre
ctiv
e m
aint
enan
ce
com
plet
ed w
ithin
a s
peci
fied
timef
ram
e.3
– Pa
rtial
ly a
udite
d in
spec
tion
of S
OP'
s an
d co
rrec
tive
mai
nten
ance
com
plet
ed w
hen
requ
ired.
2 –
Ad h
oc in
spec
tions
and
cor
rect
ive
mai
nten
ance
co
mpl
eted
, but
with
pos
sibl
e de
lays
/bac
klog
.1
– N
o in
spec
tions
or c
orre
ctiv
e m
aint
enan
ce
com
plet
ed.
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)O
pera
tions
- M
aint
enan
ceEq
uipm
ent M
aint
enan
ce,
Faci
lity
Mai
nten
ance
, R
FM -
Rai
l Fac
ilitie
s M
aint
enan
ce, R
ail
Com
mun
icat
ions
, C
ontra
ct M
anag
emen
t
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nM
aint
enan
ce p
lans
and
pr
oced
ures
Hig
h
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntPr
oced
ures
exi
st o
n ho
w to
resp
ond
afte
r an
inci
dent
to re
pair
and
mai
ntai
n as
set(s
) to
ensu
re s
afe
and
relia
ble
oper
atio
n - i
n lin
e w
ith
appr
oved
Sta
ndar
d O
pera
ting
Proc
edur
es
(SO
P's)
(e.g
. – O
CS
dow
n af
ter s
torm
due
to
fallin
g tre
es o
r bus
dam
aged
by
flood
ing)
.
4 –
Audi
ted
proc
edur
e in
pla
ce fo
r rep
airin
g as
set(s
) afte
r an
inci
dent
and
cor
rect
ive
mai
nten
ance
com
plet
ed w
ithin
a s
peci
fied
timef
ram
e.3
– N
on-a
udite
d pr
oced
ures
in p
lace
for r
epai
ring
asse
t(s) a
fter a
n in
cide
nt a
nd c
orre
ctiv
e m
aint
enan
ce c
ompl
eted
with
in a
spe
cifie
d tim
efra
me.
2 –
Ad h
oc re
pairs
car
ried
out p
ost i
ncid
ent w
ithin
a
spec
ified
tim
efra
me
1 –
No
spec
ific
proc
edur
es in
pla
ce fo
r pos
t in
cide
nt m
aint
enan
ce
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)O
pera
tions
- M
aint
enan
ce
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nD
ivis
ion
Man
ager
s /
Supe
rvis
ors
Hig
h
R-3
Ren
ewal
/Upg
rade
(Lon
g R
ange
Pla
ns)
Long
rang
e pl
ans
for a
sset
(s) i
nclu
de s
trate
gies
to
impr
ove
resi
lienc
e.
4 –
Long
rang
e pl
ans
exis
t for
ass
et(s
), ar
e lin
ked
to re
silie
nce,
and
are
revi
ewed
, upd
ated
and
im
plem
ente
d.3
– Lo
ng ra
nge
plan
s ex
ist f
or a
sset
(s) a
nd a
re
linke
d to
resi
lienc
e, h
owev
er th
ere
is n
o do
cum
enta
tion
that
they
are
follo
wed
.2
– Lo
ng ra
nge
plan
s ex
ist f
or a
sset
(s),
but
are
not
linke
d to
resi
lienc
e, a
nd a
n ad
hoc
repa
ir ap
proa
ch
occu
rs.
1 –
Long
rang
e pl
ans
for a
sset
(s) a
re n
ot li
nked
to
resi
lienc
e.
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Pl
anni
ng &
Dev
elop
men
t, Fa
cilit
ies
Engi
neer
ing-
Ope
ratio
ns, D
epar
tmen
t M
anag
ers,
Div
isio
n D
irect
ors
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
Lon
g R
ange
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
Plan
(L
RTP
)2.
Div
isio
ns' L
ong
Ran
ge
Plan
s3.
Inv
ento
ries
of
tech
nolo
gies
/ equ
ipm
ent
used
regu
larly
and
non
-ro
utin
ely,
and
pla
ns fo
r fa
cilit
y an
d eq
uipm
ent
upgr
ades
Low
1: T
echn
ical
Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Com
plet
ed
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame
Vi
ew R
esul
t
Resiliency Indicator Framework 24
Proj
ect T
itle:
Dat
e: D
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
):Ti
tleD
ate
Proj
ect d
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
)
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esili
ent
4 =
Mos
t res
ilien
t
Wei
ghtin
gAs
sess
men
t Not
es/
Scor
e Ju
stifi
catio
n
1: T
echn
ical
Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Com
plet
ed
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame
Vi
ew R
esul
t
R-4
Des
ign
- Com
plia
nce
with
Cur
rent
Cod
esD
esig
n of
ass
et(s
) is
com
plia
nt w
ith c
urre
nt
code
s, re
gard
less
of w
hen
asse
t(s) w
as b
uilt.
4 –
Asse
t(s) c
ompl
ies
with
all
curr
ent c
odes
(or n
on-
com
plia
nce
auth
oriz
ed)
3 –
Mor
e th
an 5
0% c
ompl
iant
2 –
Som
e no
n-co
mpl
ianc
e1
– M
ajor
non
-com
plia
nce
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)En
gine
erin
g &
Con
stru
ctio
n,
Proj
ect M
anag
ers
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nPr
ojec
t Sub
mitt
als
Low
R-5
Des
ign
- Con
ditio
n of
Ass
etG
ener
al c
ondi
tion
of a
sset
(s)
4 –
Asse
t(s) i
s in
exc
elle
nt c
ondi
tion
(bas
ed o
n St
ate
of G
ood
Rep
air D
atab
ase)
3 –
Asse
t(s) i
s in
goo
d co
nditi
on2
– As
set(s
) is
in a
dequ
ate
cond
ition
1 –
Asse
t(s) i
s in
poo
r/mar
gina
l/sub
stan
dard
co
nditi
on*F
or n
etw
ork
- use
ave
rage
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)O
pera
tions
- S
trate
gic
Initi
ativ
es G
roup
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nSt
ate
of G
ood
Rep
air
Dat
abas
e
Hig
h
R-6
Des
ign
- Vul
nera
bilit
y As
sess
men
tVu
lner
abilit
y as
sess
men
t has
bee
n co
nduc
ted
to id
entif
y if
asse
t(s) i
s ex
pose
d to
clim
ate-
rela
ted
haza
rds
(e.g
. flo
odin
g an
d ex
trem
e he
at.)
4 –
Vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent c
arrie
d ou
t for
all
clim
ate
rela
ted
haza
rds
and
docu
men
tatio
n pu
blic
ly
avai
labl
e3
– Vu
lner
abilit
y as
sess
men
t car
ried
out f
or a
ll cl
imat
e re
late
d ha
zard
s2
– Vu
lner
abilit
y as
sess
men
t car
ried
out f
or s
ome
clim
ate
rela
ted
haza
rds
1 –
No
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent c
arrie
d ou
t for
any
cl
imat
e re
late
d ha
zard
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)En
gine
erin
g an
d C
onst
ruct
ion
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
Clim
ate
Actio
n an
d Ad
apta
tion
Plan
2. C
limat
e Vu
lner
abilit
y As
sess
men
t
Hig
h
R-7
Des
ign
- Res
ilienc
e D
esig
n C
riter
iaD
esig
n cr
iteria
that
add
ress
resi
lienc
e is
sues
an
d ris
ks e
xist
and
are
impl
emen
ted
(e.g
. ex
trem
e he
at a
nd p
reci
pita
tion)
.
4 –
Res
ilienc
e de
sign
crit
eria
has
bee
n de
velo
ped
and
stra
tegi
es h
ave
been
impl
emen
ted
for n
ew a
nd
upgr
ade/
repa
ir pr
ojec
ts3
– R
esilie
nce
desi
gn c
riter
ia h
as b
een
deve
lope
d,
but s
trate
gies
hav
e no
t bee
n im
plem
ente
d 2
– R
esilie
nce
desi
gn c
riter
ia is
in d
evel
opm
ent
1 –
No
resi
lienc
e de
sign
crit
eria
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)En
gine
erin
g &
Con
stru
ctio
n,Fl
eet M
anag
emen
t &
Supp
ort S
ervi
ces,
Pr
ojec
ts E
ngin
eerin
g,
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
Met
ro R
ail D
esig
n C
riter
ia (M
RD
C)
2. F
ire L
ife &
Saf
ety
Des
ign
Crit
eria
(FLS
DC
)
Hig
hest
Resiliency Indicator Framework 25
Proj
ect T
itle:
Dat
e: D
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
):Ti
tleD
ate
Proj
ect d
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
)
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esili
ent
4 =
Mos
t res
ilien
t
Wei
ghtin
gAs
sess
men
t Not
es/
Scor
e Ju
stifi
catio
n
1: T
echn
ical
Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Com
plet
ed
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame
Vi
ew R
esul
t
R-8
Des
ign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sTh
e as
set(s
) has
des
ign
and
oper
atin
g st
anda
rds
to p
reve
nt o
verh
eatin
g in
faci
litie
s,
buse
s, a
nd tr
ains
that
cou
ld c
ause
equ
ipm
ent
failu
re, d
isco
mfo
rt of
pas
seng
ers
or e
mpl
oyee
s,
or n
egat
ive
heal
th im
pact
s.
4 –
Ove
rhea
ting
stan
dard
s in
pla
ce a
nd fu
lly
impl
emen
ted.
3 –
Ove
rhea
ting
stan
dard
s in
pla
ce a
nd p
artia
lly
impl
emen
ted.
2 –
Ove
rhea
ting
stan
dard
s in
pla
ce, b
ut n
ot
impl
emen
ted.
1
– N
o ov
erhe
atin
g st
anda
rds
in p
lace
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)En
gine
erin
g &
Con
stru
ctio
n,
Fl
eet M
anag
emen
t, Fa
cilit
ies
Mai
nten
ance
, D
ivis
ion
Man
ager
s
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
Roa
d C
all L
og2.
Fai
lure
Rep
orts
Hig
hest
R-9
Extre
me
Wea
ther
Rep
air C
osts
Rep
air c
osts
resu
lting
from
ext
rem
e w
eath
er
even
ts a
re tr
acke
d (e
.g. e
quip
men
t dam
aged
by
extre
me
heat
).
Extre
me
wea
ther
def
ined
as
'hea
t day
s' w
hen
tem
pera
ture
s ex
c eed
s 95
deg
rees
and
'hea
vy
rain
' whe
n pr
ecip
itatio
n fa
lls a
t 0.3
inch
es p
er
hour
or a
bove
(bas
ed o
n C
VA).
4 –
Extre
me
wea
ther
rela
ted
repa
irs a
re tr
acke
d (a
utom
atio
n) a
nd re
porte
d 3
– Ex
trem
e w
eath
er re
late
d re
pairs
are
som
etim
es
track
ed a
nd re
porte
d2
– Ad
hoc
trac
king
app
roac
h is
und
erta
ken
1 –
No
track
ing
exis
ts
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)D
ivis
ion/
Faci
litie
s M
aint
enan
ce,
Mai
nten
ance
of W
ay
(MO
W).
For
co
mm
unic
atio
n sy
stem
s:
Rai
l Fac
ilitie
s M
aint
enan
ce, R
ail
Com
mun
icat
ions
, Tra
nsit
Syst
ems
Engi
neer
ing,
Fl
eet M
anag
emen
t
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
M3
Dat
a2.
SC
ADA
Rep
orts
Med
ium
R-1
0Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sSt
aff a
re a
war
e of
stre
ngth
s an
d vu
lner
abilit
ies
in s
uppl
ier u
tiliti
es (e
.g. D
WP,
SC
E).
4 –
Goo
d aw
aren
ess
of a
ll ut
ility
type
s3
– So
me
awar
enes
s of
all
utilit
y ty
pes
2 –
Min
or a
war
enes
s of
a s
ubse
t of u
tility
type
s1
– N
o aw
aren
ess
or u
nkno
wn
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Ve
ndor
/Con
tract
M
anag
emen
t, M
ater
ial
Man
agem
ent
Dep
artm
ent,
Way
side
sys
tem
s,
Trac
tion
Pow
er, F
acilit
y M
aint
enan
ce
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nN
A
Low
R-1
1Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - I
mpr
ovem
ent
Supp
liers
(e.g
. DW
P, S
CE)
hav
e im
plem
ente
d pr
oced
ures
to a
ddre
ss th
eir v
ulne
rabi
litie
s.
4 –
Supp
liers
hav
e de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
proc
edur
es a
nd th
ere
is o
n-go
ing
dial
ogue
with
M
etro
3 –
Initi
al d
ialo
gue
with
Met
ro a
nd p
lans
are
bei
ng
prep
ared
2 –
Initi
al d
ialo
gue
with
Met
ro1
– N
o ac
tion
or e
vide
nce
of p
roce
dure
s or
un
know
n
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Ve
ndor
/Con
tract
M
anag
emen
t, M
ater
ial
Man
agem
ent
Dep
artm
ent,
Way
side
sys
tem
s,
Trac
tion
Pow
er, F
acilit
y M
aint
enan
ce
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nN
A
Hig
h
Resiliency Indicator Framework 26
Proj
ect T
itle:
Dat
e: D
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
):Ti
tleD
ate
Proj
ect d
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
)
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esili
ent
4 =
Mos
t res
ilien
t
Wei
ghtin
gAs
sess
men
t Not
es/
Scor
e Ju
stifi
catio
n
1: T
echn
ical
Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Com
plet
ed
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame
Vi
ew R
esul
t
RED
UN
DAN
CY
RE-
1Al
tern
ate
Rou
te/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
Alte
rnat
e ro
utes
/mod
es a
re a
vaila
ble
if a
rout
e/tra
ck, n
etw
ork,
sta
tion,
or f
acilit
y is
di
srup
ted.
4 –
Mul
tiple
alte
rnat
e ro
utes
/mod
e ex
ist
3 –
Sing
le a
ltern
ate
rout
e/m
ode
exis
ts2
– Al
tern
ate
rout
es/m
ode
may
exi
st,n
ot c
onfir
med
1 –
No
alte
rnat
e ro
utes
/mod
e
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Bu
s O
pera
tions
Con
trol
Cen
ter (
BOC
), R
ail
Ope
ratio
ns C
ontro
l C
ente
r (R
OC
)
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n 1.
Bus
Fle
et
Man
agem
ent P
lan
or R
ail
Flee
t Man
agem
ent P
lan
2. D
epar
tmen
t M
anag
ers/
Sup
ervi
sors
Hig
h
RE-
2Al
tern
ate
Rou
te/M
ode
Cap
acity
Alte
rnat
e, u
naffe
cted
rout
e(s)
or f
acilit
y(ie
s) h
as
capa
city
to a
ccep
t a d
eman
d sh
ift d
urin
g pe
ak
dem
and.
4 –
Alte
rnat
e, u
naffe
cted
mod
e ha
s >7
5% c
apac
ity
of fa
iled
mod
e du
ring
peak
dem
and.
3 –
Alte
rnat
e m
ode
has
50-
75%
cap
acity
of f
aile
d m
ode
durin
g pe
ak d
eman
d.2
– A
ltern
ate
mod
e ha
s 25
-50%
cap
acity
of f
aile
d m
ode
durin
g pe
ak d
eman
d.1
– Al
tern
ate
mod
e ha
s <2
5% c
apac
ity o
f fai
led
mod
e du
ring
peak
dem
and.
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)BO
C, R
OC
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n 1.
Bus
Fle
et
Man
agem
ent P
lan
or R
ail
Flee
t Man
agem
ent P
lan
2. D
epar
tmen
t M
anag
ers/
Sup
ervi
sors
3. B
us B
ridge
Man
ual
Med
ium
RE-
3Sp
are
Cap
acity
The
asse
t(s) h
as s
pare
cap
acity
(in
the
even
t of
parti
al fa
ilure
, or s
urge
in d
eman
d).
4 –
Asse
t(s) h
as 2
0%+
spar
e ca
paci
ty
3 –
Asse
t(s) h
as 1
0-20
% s
pare
cap
acity
2 –
Asse
t(s) h
as 5
-10%
spa
re c
apac
ity1
– As
set(s
) has
0-5
% s
pare
cap
acity
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)O
pera
tions
/ Pl
anni
ng
and
Dev
elop
men
t
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nD
epar
tmen
t M
anag
er/S
uper
viso
rs
Med
ium
RE-
4Ba
ck U
p Pa
rts a
nd E
quip
men
tPl
ans
/ req
uire
men
ts e
xist
for b
ack
up
equi
pmen
t for
ass
et(s
). Ba
ck u
p eq
uipm
ent i
s av
aila
ble
/ rea
dy fo
r dep
loym
ent.
4 –
Req
uire
men
ts a
re w
ell s
peci
fied.
Equ
ipm
ent i
s av
aila
ble
and
read
y.3
– R
equi
rem
ents
are
wel
l spe
cifie
d, b
ut a
re n
ot
impl
emen
ted
2 –
Ad
hoc
appr
oach
1 –
No
plan
/requ
irem
ents
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)1.
Dep
artm
ent M
anag
ers
2. M
ater
ial M
anag
emen
t D
epar
tmen
t
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
nM
ater
iel M
anag
emen
t Sy
stem
(MM
S)
Low
Resiliency Indicator Framework 27
Proj
ect T
itle:
Dat
e: D
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
):Ti
tleD
ate
Proj
ect d
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
)
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esili
ent
4 =
Mos
t res
ilien
t
Wei
ghtin
gAs
sess
men
t Not
es/
Scor
e Ju
stifi
catio
n
1: T
echn
ical
Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Com
plet
ed
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame
Vi
ew R
esul
t
RE-
5R
e-R
outin
g an
d C
omm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
Plan
s ex
ist t
o es
tabl
ish
dive
rsio
nsw
hen
failu
re
of a
sset
(s)/l
ink
occu
rs.
4 –
Plan
s ar
e w
ell s
peci
fied
for a
sset
(s)/l
inks
. Sy
stem
s ar
e av
aila
ble,
test
ed a
nd re
ady.
3 –
Plan
s ar
e w
ell s
peci
fied,
how
ever
not
test
ed2
– A
d ho
c ap
proa
ch1
– N
o pl
an/re
quire
men
ts
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)BO
C, R
OC
, M
anag
er
Way
side
Sys
tem
s,
Div
isio
n Tr
ansp
orta
tion,
M
aint
enan
ce, F
acilit
ies
Mai
nten
ance
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n 1.
Dep
artm
ent
Man
ager
/Sup
ervi
sors
2. E
mer
genc
y Pr
epar
edne
ss3.
Bus
Brid
ge/A
ltern
ate
Rou
te M
anua
l
Hig
hest
RE-
6Su
pplie
r util
ity re
dund
ancy
- Aw
aren
ess
Met
ro s
taff
are
awar
e of
redu
ndan
cy is
sues
w
ithin
sup
plie
rs u
tiliti
es (p
ower
, tel
ecom
, oth
er).
[Not
e: R
edun
danc
y re
fers
to th
e ex
tent
to
whi
ch e
lem
ents
, sys
tem
s, o
r inf
rast
ruct
ure
exis
t th
at c
an b
e su
bstit
uted
to s
atis
fy fu
nctio
nal
requ
irem
ents
and
pro
vide
bus
ines
s co
ntin
uity
.]
4 –
Goo
d aw
aren
ess
3 –
Som
e aw
aren
ess
2 –
Min
or a
war
enes
s1
– N
o aw
aren
ess
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Ve
ndor
/Con
tract
M
anag
emen
t, M
ater
ial
Man
agem
ent
Dep
artm
ent,
Way
side
sys
tem
s,
tract
ion
pow
er, F
acilit
y M
aint
enan
ce
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
ntb
d
Low
RE-
7Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
edun
danc
y - I
mpr
ovem
ents
Supp
liers
hav
e im
plem
ente
d pr
oced
ures
to
impr
ove
redu
ndan
cy.
4 –
Supp
liers
hav
e de
velo
ped
and
impl
emen
ted
proc
edur
es a
nd th
ere
is o
n-go
ing
dial
ogue
with
M
etro
3 –
Initi
al d
ialo
gue
with
Met
ro a
nd p
roce
dure
s ar
e be
ing
prep
ared
2 –
Initi
al d
ialo
gue
with
Met
ro1
– N
o ac
tion
or e
vide
nce
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Ve
ndor
/Con
tract
M
anag
emen
t, M
ater
ial
Man
agem
ent
Dep
artm
ent,
Way
side
sys
tem
s,
tract
ion
pow
er, F
acilit
y M
aint
enan
ce
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
ntb
d
Hig
h
Resiliency Indicator Framework 28
Proj
ect T
itle:
Dat
e: D
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
):Ti
tleD
ate
Proj
ect d
escr
iptio
n of
Ass
et(s
)
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esili
ent
4 =
Mos
t res
ilien
t
Wei
ghtin
gAs
sess
men
t Not
es/
Scor
e Ju
stifi
catio
n
1: T
echn
ical
Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Com
plet
ed
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame
Vi
ew R
esul
t
SAFE
- TO
- FA
ILS-
1Sa
fe-to
-Fai
l - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chTh
ere
is e
vide
nce
that
em
erge
ncy
cond
ition
s (s
afe-
to-fa
il) a
re c
onsi
dere
d w
hen
desi
gnin
g an
d pl
anni
ng fo
r ass
et re
new
al a
nd u
pgra
des.
4 –
Des
ign
docu
men
tatio
n sh
ows
cons
ider
atio
n or
in
corp
orat
ion
of s
afe-
to-fa
il ap
proa
ch.
3 –
Safe
-to-fa
il ap
proa
ch is
doc
umen
ted,
but
not
ap
plie
d at
des
ign
stag
e.2
– Sa
fe-to
-fail
appr
oach
is n
ot d
ocum
ente
d, b
ut
anec
dota
l evi
denc
e of
con
side
ratio
n at
des
ign
stag
e.1
– Sa
fe-to
-fail
not c
onsi
dere
d
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Fa
cilit
ies
Engi
neer
ing-
Ope
ratio
ns, P
roje
ct
Engi
neer
ing,
Cor
pora
te
Safe
ty, E
ngin
eerin
g &
Con
stru
ctio
n
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
MR
DC
2. F
LSD
C
Low
S-2
Safe
-to-F
ail -
Des
ign
Gui
delin
esEm
erge
ncy
cond
ition
(saf
e-to
-fail)
app
roac
hes
are
incl
uded
with
in d
esig
n gu
idel
ines
and
co
des.
4 –
Safe
-to-fa
il ap
proa
ches
are
con
side
red
in
asse
t(s) d
esig
n gu
idel
ines
and
cod
es.
3 –
Safe
-to-fa
il ap
proa
ches
are
con
side
red
in
asse
t(s) d
esig
n gu
idel
ines
or c
odes
. 2
– Sa
fe-to
-fail
appr
oach
not
incl
uded
in g
uide
lines
or
cod
es, b
ut p
lans
to in
corp
orat
e in
futu
re.
1 –
Safe
-to-fa
il no
t con
side
red
in a
ny g
uide
lines
.
Lead
Dep
artm
ent(s
)Fa
cilit
ies
Engi
neer
ing-
Ope
ratio
ns, P
roje
ct
Engi
neer
ing,
Cor
pora
te
Safe
ty
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n1.
MR
DC
2. F
LSD
C
Low
0.0
200.
0in
dica
tors
left
unra
nked
0.0
0.0
Sco
re =
10
mos
t res
ilien
t, 1
Leas
t
Sum
mar
y Sc
ore
Rob
ustn
ess
Scor
eR
edun
danc
y Sc
ore
Safe
-to-fa
il Sc
ore
Tech
nica
l Res
ilien
cy
Resiliency Indicator Framework 29
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
CH
ANG
E R
EAD
INES
SC
-1.
War
ning
s - G
ener
al P
ublic
Abi
lity
to re
ach
pass
enge
rs a
cros
s m
ultip
le
com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels
. M
eans
to w
arn
trave
lers
of p
robl
ems
and
let t
hem
kno
w
trans
porta
tion
optio
ns.
4 –
Info
rmat
ion
is c
ontin
uous
ly u
pdat
ed li
ve a
cros
s al
l com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels
3 -
Info
rmat
ion
is u
pdat
ed a
cros
s al
l co
mm
unic
atio
n ch
anne
ls w
ithin
1-h
r. of
an
even
t2
- Inf
orm
atio
n is
upd
ated
acr
oss
all c
omm
unic
atio
n ch
anne
ls w
hen
feas
ible
1- In
form
atio
n up
date
d th
roug
h lim
ited
com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels
Com
mun
icat
ions
,B
us O
pera
tions
Con
trol
(BO
C),
Rai
l Ope
ratio
ns
Con
trol (
RO
C),T
rans
it P
olic
e
C-2
. C
omm
unic
atio
n S
yste
ms
- Sta
ffE
xist
ence
and
relia
bilit
y of
mul
tiple
, ind
epen
dent
co
mm
unic
atio
n ch
anne
ls fo
r tra
nspo
rtatio
n st
aff
and
man
ager
s (u
nder
ext
rem
e c
ondi
tions
)
4 –
Sys
tem
s ex
ist a
nd h
ave
back
up
and
have
bee
n te
sted
with
sta
ff an
nual
ly.
3 –
Sys
tem
s ex
ist a
nd h
ave
back
up,
but
are
not
te
sted
with
sta
ff an
nual
ly2
- Som
e ga
ps in
sys
tem
, unt
este
d1
– La
rge
gaps
in s
yste
m
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
nsB
OC
, RO
C, S
CA
DA
Way
side
Sys
tem
s,
Tran
sit P
olic
e
C-3
. E
xter
nal -
Pub
lic A
war
enes
sE
xpos
ure
of p
ublic
to e
duca
tion
and
awar
enes
s m
ater
ials
/mes
sagi
ng o
n w
hat t
o ex
pect
dur
ing
an e
xtre
me
wea
ther
eve
nt.
4 –
Sys
tem
atic
, stru
ctur
ed c
ampa
ign
exis
ts3
– S
ome
stru
ctur
e, n
ot s
yste
mat
ic2
- Inf
requ
ent a
d ho
c ca
mpa
ign
1 –
No
cam
paig
n
Com
mun
icat
ions
, M
arke
ting
C-4
. S
enso
rsU
se o
f rem
ote
sens
ors/
crow
d-so
urce
d in
form
atio
n to
pro
vide
cur
rent
info
rmat
ion
on
asse
t sta
te, h
azar
ds a
nd im
pact
s.
4 - D
ocum
ente
d m
etho
dolo
gy a
nd e
stab
lishe
d in
form
atio
n pl
atfo
rm3
- Par
tial d
ocum
enta
tion
and
plat
form
dev
elop
men
t2
- Not
doc
umen
ted
but s
ome
know
ledg
e of
po
tent
ial p
roce
ss1
- No
know
ledg
e of
or d
evel
opm
ent o
f m
etho
dolo
gy o
r pla
tform
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy
C-5
. C
urre
nt W
eath
er D
ata
Cap
acity
to m
onito
r wea
ther
and
tem
pera
ture
co
nditi
ons
in re
al ti
me
at k
ey lo
catio
ns in
ser
vice
ar
ea.
[Ref
eren
ced
in M
etric
s fo
r Tra
ckin
g C
limat
e C
hang
e A
dapt
atio
n]
4 –
Mon
itorin
g sy
stem
s ex
ist a
cros
s en
tire
netw
ork
3 –
Mon
itorin
g sy
stem
s ex
ist a
cros
s pa
rt of
net
wor
k2
- Lar
ge g
aps
in m
onito
ring
syst
ems
1 –
No
mon
itorin
g s
yste
m
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy
C-6
. B
acku
pE
nsur
e cr
itica
l inf
orm
atio
n (e
.g. o
n st
ruct
ures
, ha
zard
s, c
onta
cts)
is ro
utin
ely
back
ed-u
p
4 - B
ack-
ups
taki
ng p
lace
3 - D
ocum
ente
d pr
oced
ure,
occ
asio
nal b
ack-
up2
- Doc
umen
ted
proc
edur
e, n
o ba
ck-u
ps1
- No
proc
edur
e, n
o ba
ck-u
ps
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy,
Rec
ords
Man
agem
ent,
Doc
umen
t Con
trol
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Information and TechnologyCommunication and Warning
Indi
cato
r
Resiliency Indicator Framework 30
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
C-7
. C
over
age
Ens
urin
g ap
prop
riate
insu
ranc
e co
vers
are
in
plac
e pr
ior t
o an
eve
nt o
ccur
ring.
Mak
e su
re th
e ris
ks a
re p
rope
rly d
imen
sion
ed.
4 - I
nsur
ance
in p
lace
, rev
iew
ed a
nnua
lly, r
isks
su
itabl
y di
men
sion
ed3
- Ad
hoc
revi
ew o
f ins
uran
ce, d
raft
proc
ess
for
addr
essi
ng e
mer
ging
thre
ats/
haz
ards
2 - A
d ho
c re
view
of i
nsur
ance
, no
proc
ess
for
addr
essi
ng e
mer
ging
thre
ats/
haz
ards
1 - I
nsur
ance
not
in p
lace
and
risk
s no
t di
men
sion
ed a
ppro
pria
tely
Fina
nce
& B
udge
t, R
isk
Man
agem
ent
C-8
. In
form
atio
nU
nder
stan
d in
form
atio
n re
quire
men
ts o
f ins
urer
s an
d en
sure
app
ropr
iate
info
rmat
ion
will
be
avai
labl
e w
hen
requ
ired.
4 - R
equi
rem
ents
doc
umen
ted
and
avai
labl
e3
- Req
uire
men
ts d
ocum
ente
d, n
o pr
oces
s in
pla
ce
for m
akin
g av
aila
ble
2 - R
equi
rem
ents
und
erst
ood
(not
doc
umen
ted)
, no
proc
edur
e or
resp
onsi
bilit
y in
pla
ce1
- Req
uire
men
ts n
ot u
nder
stoo
d, n
o pr
oced
ure
or
resp
onsi
bilit
y in
pla
ce
Fina
nce
& B
udge
t, R
isk
Man
agem
ent
C-9
. R
oles
& R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s - K
ey P
eopl
e Id
entif
ied
Iden
tific
atio
n of
key
peo
ple
at n
atio
nal,
regi
onal
an
d lo
cal l
evel
s –
incl
udin
g ot
her n
etw
ork
prov
ider
s an
d th
e pu
blic
and
priv
ate
sect
ors
rele
vant
to re
silie
ncy .
Def
ine
role
s/re
spon
sibi
litie
s ah
ead
of e
vent
s, in
clud
ing
defin
ing
the
‘lead
’ org
aniz
atio
n fo
r par
ticul
ar
type
s of
eve
nts.
4 - O
rgan
izat
iona
l stru
ctur
e an
d ro
le d
efin
ition
s im
plem
ente
d an
d op
erat
ing
3 - P
artic
ipan
ts re
view
ing
stru
ctur
e an
d de
finiti
ons
for s
ign
off
2 - S
truct
ure
and
role
def
initi
ons
bein
g dr
afte
d fo
r pa
rtici
pant
revi
ew1
- No
stru
ctur
e or
role
def
initi
ons
avai
labl
e, n
o pa
rtici
pant
s id
entif
ied
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
nsR
isk
Man
agem
ent,
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
s,G
over
nmen
t Rel
atio
ns,
Env
ironm
enta
l C
ompl
ianc
e &
S
usta
inab
ility
(EC
SD
)C
-10.
Rol
es &
Res
pons
ibili
ties
- Suc
cess
ion
Pla
nnin
gP
roce
ss fo
r ide
ntify
ing
and
deve
lopi
ng in
tern
al
peop
le to
fill
key
busi
ness
lead
ersh
ip a
nd
stra
tegi
c po
sitio
ns, r
elev
ant t
o re
silie
ncy ,
as
they
be
com
e av
aila
ble,
incl
udin
g m
echa
nism
s fo
r co
achi
ng a
nd k
now
ledg
e tra
nsfe
r.
4 - K
ey p
ositi
ons
iden
tifie
d an
d in
divi
dual
s sh
arin
g kn
owle
dge
and
expe
rienc
e w
ith s
ucce
ssor
s3
- In
form
al p
roce
ss o
f ide
ntify
ing
posi
tions
and
in
divi
dual
s w
ith n
o fo
rmal
mec
hani
sms
for
know
ledg
e sh
arin
g.2
- Ad
hoc
proc
ess
1 - N
o fo
rmal
or i
nfor
mal
suc
cess
ion
plan
ning
or
know
ledg
e sh
arin
g
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
nsR
isk
Man
agem
ent,
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
s,G
over
nmen
t Rel
atio
ns,
EC
SD
C-1
1. I
nter
nal C
oord
inat
ion
- Eve
nt R
espo
nse
Coo
rdin
atio
n of
all
rele
vant
eve
nt re
spon
se
activ
ities
, with
cla
rity
of ro
les
and
acco
unta
bilit
y.
4 - I
mpl
emen
ted
and
oper
atin
g3
- Par
ticip
ants
revi
ewin
g st
ruct
ure
and
defin
ition
s fo
r sig
n of
f2
- Stru
ctur
e an
d ro
le d
efin
ition
s be
ing
draf
ted
for
parti
cipa
nt re
view
1 - N
o st
ruct
ure
or ro
le d
efin
ition
s av
aila
ble,
no
parti
cipa
nts
iden
tifie
d
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
nsR
isk
Man
agem
ent,
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
s,G
over
nmen
t Rel
atio
ns
Em
erge
ncy
Site
Pla
n
Insurance Internal ResourcesResiliency Indicator Framework 31
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
C-1
2. R
emot
e R
espo
nse
Abi
lity
Abi
lity
to re
spon
d to
haz
ards
in re
mot
e ar
eas,
or
exis
tenc
e of
dec
entra
lized
resp
onse
opt
ions
4 - R
emot
e ar
eas
cons
ider
ed a
nd re
spon
se o
ptio
ns
in p
lace
3 - R
emot
e ar
eas
cons
ider
ed, h
owev
er n
o ac
tion
take
n2
- Ad-
hoc
appr
oach
1 - N
o pr
epar
edne
ss
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
nsR
isk
Man
agem
ent,
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
s,
Gov
ernm
ent R
elat
ions
, E
mer
genc
y O
pera
tions
C
ontro
l (E
OC
),Tra
nsit
Pol
ice
Dis
aste
r Ser
vice
W
orke
rs P
rogr
am
C-1
3. S
taffi
ng R
espo
nder
Rol
esS
taffi
ng/re
spon
der r
oles
are
def
ined
for r
ange
of
haza
rd s
cena
rios.
4 –
Rol
es d
efin
ed, k
eyed
to s
cena
rios
3 –S
ome
role
s de
fined
and
key
ed to
sce
nario
s bu
t w
ith g
aps
in d
efin
ition
2 - R
oles
are
bei
ng d
rafte
d an
d sc
enar
ios
bein
g de
term
ined
1 –
No
role
s de
fined
(or n
o pl
an –
see
abo
ve)
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
ns,
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EO
C, T
rans
it P
olic
e
C-1
4. S
uffic
ient
Sta
ffing
Ava
ilabi
lity
of s
uffic
ient
num
bers
of s
taff
to
resp
ond
in a
n ev
ent,
to m
an p
lann
ed s
hifts
- al
low
ing
for i
nabi
lity
to g
et to
wor
k, lo
okin
g af
ter
fam
ilies
etc
.
4 –
Sta
ffing
and
resp
onde
rs k
now
n to
be
avai
labl
e in
line
with
def
ined
nee
ds3
– S
ome
shor
tfalls
2 - M
ajor
sho
rtfal
ls1
– N
o de
finiti
on –
see
abo
ve
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
ns,
Ope
ratio
ns -
Man
pow
er,
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EO
C, T
rans
it P
olic
e
Dis
aste
r Ser
vice
W
orke
rs P
rogr
am
C-1
5. R
isk
Ass
essm
ent a
nd S
cena
rio P
lann
ing
Exi
sten
ce o
f rob
ust r
isk
iden
tific
atio
n an
d ris
k as
sess
men
t pra
ctic
es fo
r clim
ate
haza
rds
4 –
Pra
ctic
es e
xist
, are
doc
umen
ted,
pub
lishe
d,
read
ily a
vaila
ble,
trai
ned
to, a
nd m
onito
red
on a
re
gula
r bas
is.
3 –
Pra
ctic
es e
xist
and
pub
lishe
d2
– A
d ho
c ap
proa
ch is
und
erta
ken
1– N
o pr
actic
es e
xist
s
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EC
SD
CV
A
Internal ResourcesResiliency Indicator Framework 32
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
C-1
6. E
mer
genc
y M
anag
emen
t Pla
ns -
Exi
sten
ceE
xist
ence
of p
lans
form
ulat
ed to
add
ress
haz
ard
scen
ario
s, s
hare
d an
d si
gned
off
by a
ll re
leva
nt
parti
es (i
nclu
ding
com
mun
ity o
rgan
izat
ions
):-
com
man
d an
d co
ntro
l - c
oord
inat
ion
with
oth
er
agen
cies
and
citi
es, r
oles
, res
pons
ibili
ties
- ev
acua
tions
(inc
ludi
ng h
ospi
tals
, jai
ls, e
tc.)
- co
mm
unic
atio
n sy
stem
s -
criti
cal a
sset
man
agem
ent
- fir
st re
spon
se
- la
w a
nd o
rder
resp
onse
-
publ
ic in
form
atio
n -
inco
rpor
atio
n of
citi
zen
orga
niza
tions
4 –
Com
plet
e pl
ans
exis
t, ke
yed
to s
cena
rios,
are
do
cum
ente
d, p
ublis
hed,
read
ily a
vaila
ble,
trai
ned
to, a
nd m
onito
red
on a
regu
lar b
asis
.3
– P
lans
exi
st a
nd p
ublis
hed
2 - A
d ho
c pl
ans
bein
g dr
afte
d1
– N
o pl
ans
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EO
C, T
rans
it P
olic
e
Dis
aste
r Ser
vice
W
orke
rs P
rogr
am
C-1
7. T
rack
ing
Clim
ate-
Rel
ated
Inju
ries
Abi
lity
to tr
ack
num
ber o
f wor
kers
and
ride
rs
inju
ries/
med
ical
em
erge
ncie
s ca
used
by
tem
pera
ture
and
rain
fall.
[Ref
eren
ced
in M
etric
s fo
r Tra
ckin
g C
limat
e C
hang
e A
dapt
atio
n]
4 –
Pra
ctic
es e
xist
and
are
regu
larly
follo
wed
, re
view
ed a
nd u
pdat
ed3
– P
ract
ices
exi
sts,
how
ever
inc
onsi
sten
t2
– A
d ho
c ap
proa
ch is
und
erta
ken
1– N
o pr
actic
es e
xist
s
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EO
C
C-1
8. J
oint
Pla
nnin
gR
evie
w e
mer
genc
y pl
ans
for o
ther
age
ncie
s an
d se
ctor
s, id
entif
y re
quire
d ac
tions
and
in
corp
orat
e in
to p
lans
as
requ
ired.
Cos
t-sha
ring
agre
emen
ts in
pla
ce fo
r sig
nific
ant r
equi
rem
ents
by
oth
ers.
4 - C
ross
-sec
tor a
nd a
genc
y em
erge
ncy
plan
s lin
ked
and
Met
ro re
quire
men
ts d
ocum
ente
d, c
ost-
shar
ing
agre
emen
ts3
- Em
erge
ncy
plan
s lin
ked,
gap
s in
Met
ro
requ
irem
ents
, no
cost
-sha
ring
agre
emen
ts2
- Cro
ss s
ecto
r and
age
ncy
emer
genc
y pl
ans
sele
cted
for r
evie
w
1 - E
mer
genc
y pl
ans
not l
inke
d, n
o re
quire
men
ts
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
G
over
nmen
t Rel
atio
ns
C-1
9. P
riorit
y R
oute
s/S
truct
ures
to M
anag
e Fi
rst
Iden
tify
ahea
d of
tim
e pr
obab
le p
riorit
y ro
utes
/stru
ctur
es fo
r res
pons
e, re
habi
litat
ion
and
prot
ectio
n fro
m fu
rther
dis
aste
r. In
clud
e id
entif
icat
ion
of p
riorit
y lif
elin
es s
ites,
vul
nera
ble
popu
latio
ns (t
rans
it-de
pend
ent a
nd lo
w-in
com
e)
and
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies.
4 –
Com
plet
e pl
an e
xist
s, k
eyed
to s
cena
rios,
are
do
cum
ente
d, p
ublis
hed,
read
ily a
vaila
ble,
trai
ned
to, a
nd m
onito
red
on a
regu
lar b
asis
.3
– P
lan
exis
ts a
nd p
ublis
hed
2 - A
d ho
c pl
an b
eing
dra
fted
1 –
No
plan
s
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t,E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EC
SD
, Gov
ernm
ent
Rel
atio
ns
CV
AC
-20.
Les
sons
Lea
rned
and
Thi
nkin
g A
head
Exi
sten
ce o
f pro
cess
es fo
r enc
oura
ging
, re
cord
ing,
repo
rting
, com
mun
icat
ing
clim
ate
haza
rd w
arni
ng s
igns
or c
limat
e ha
zard
cau
sed
failu
res.
4 –
Pro
cess
es in
pla
ce a
nd w
ell e
nact
ed a
nd
embe
dded
in c
ultu
re3
– P
roce
sses
new
and
non
ena
cted
2 - A
d-ho
c1
– N
o pr
oces
s
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Offi
ce, E
mer
genc
y P
repa
redn
ess,
EC
SD
Planning StrategiesResiliency Indicator Framework 33
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
C-2
1. T
rain
ing/
Dril
ls -
Cur
ricul
umTr
aini
ng c
urric
ulum
dev
elop
ed.
4 –
Com
plet
e cu
rricu
lum
dev
elop
ed, k
eyed
to
scen
ario
s3
– C
urric
ulum
exi
sts
but w
ith s
ome
sign
ifica
nt g
aps
2 - A
d ho
c cu
rricu
lum
bei
ng d
rafte
d1
– N
o cu
rricu
lum
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
ns,
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent,
EC
SD
, O
pera
tions
C-2
2. T
rain
ing/
Dril
ls -
Offe
red
Trai
ning
offe
red
and
avai
labl
e to
all
iden
tifie
d an
d re
leva
nt s
taff.
4 –
Trai
ning
“cur
ricul
um” d
eriv
ed fr
om k
now
n or
an
ticip
ated
nee
ds a
vaila
ble
to a
ll 3
– A
d ho
c tra
inin
g cl
asse
s ad
dres
s so
me
issu
es
for s
ome
area
of t
he c
ity2
- Ad
hoc
train
ing
clas
ses
with
littl
e re
leva
nce
1 –
No
train
ing
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent
deliv
ers
train
ing
drill
s -
clas
ses
by
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
ns,
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
sC
-23.
Tra
inin
g/D
rills
- C
ompl
eted
% o
f rel
evan
t sta
ff tra
ined
in la
st y
ear.
4 –
80%
or m
ore
train
ed in
all
emer
genc
y re
spon
se3
– 40
% o
r mor
e2
- 10%
or m
ore
1 –
No
train
ing
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
s
Rec
ords
wou
ld b
e m
anag
ed b
y C
orpo
rate
S
afet
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent
C-2
4. T
rain
ing/
Dril
ls P
ract
ice
- Tes
ting
and
Pub
lic E
ngag
emen
tTe
stin
g of
pla
ns a
nnua
lly, b
y re
fere
nce
to n
on-
emer
genc
y ev
ents
and
thro
ugh
spec
ific
exer
cise
s in
clud
ing
the
publ
ic.
4 –
Ann
ual s
uite
of e
xerc
ises
with
sig
nific
ant p
ublic
en
gage
men
t3
– Le
ss th
an a
nnua
l exe
rcis
es, s
ome
publ
ic
enga
gem
ent
2 - P
lans
in p
lace
, exe
rcis
es y
et to
be
impl
emen
ted
1 –
No
exer
cise
s (o
r no
plan
s –
see
abov
e)
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent,
Em
erge
ncy
Pre
pare
dnes
s
Drills and Response Exercises Resiliency Indicator Framework 34
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
C-2
5. C
apita
l Ava
ilabi
lity
Cap
ital p
lan
fund
s (fr
om m
ultip
le s
ourc
es a
s ap
plic
able
) are
ava
ilabl
e fo
r lon
g ru
n en
gine
erin
g an
d ot
her w
orks
requ
ired
to b
uild
re
silie
nce
4 –
Pla
n ex
ists
and
is 1
00%
fund
ed3
– P
lan
exis
ts b
ut o
nly
50%
fund
ed3
– A
d ho
c pl
an e
xist
s an
d pa
rtial
ly fu
nded
1 –
No
plan
.
Fina
nce
& B
udge
tO
pera
tions
: Stra
tegi
c P
lann
ing
incl
udes
Ass
et
Man
agem
ent a
nd S
tatio
n of
Goo
d R
epai
r & O
MB
C-2
6. O
pera
tiona
l Fun
ding
for R
esili
ence
In
itiat
ives
Rev
enue
fund
s (fr
om m
ultip
le s
ourc
es a
s ap
plic
able
) are
ava
ilabl
e to
mee
t all
oper
atin
g ex
pens
es a
nd in
cent
ive
paym
ents
requ
ired
to
build
resi
lienc
e.
4 –
Bud
get e
xist
s an
d is
100
% a
dequ
ate
3 –
Bud
get e
xist
s bu
t cov
ers
50%
of k
now
n ta
sks
2 –
Bud
get e
xist
s bu
t cov
ers
25%
of k
now
n ta
sks
1– N
o bu
dget
.
Fina
nce
& B
udge
t
C-2
7. I
nteg
ratio
n w
ith R
esili
ence
Cap
ital s
pend
ing
initi
ativ
e is
sys
tem
atic
ally
re
view
ed fo
r its
pot
entia
l to
impr
ove
resi
lienc
e.
4 –
Sys
tem
atic
revi
ew3
– A
d ho
c –
ofte
n qu
oted
2 –
Ad
hoc
– se
ldom
quo
ted
1 –
Not
real
ly m
entio
ned.
Fina
nce
& B
udge
t
C-2
8. C
ontin
genc
y Fu
ndin
gC
ontin
genc
y fu
nd fo
r pos
t dis
aste
r rec
over
y av
aila
ble,
suf
ficie
nt a
nd a
ble
to b
e re
leas
ed
quic
kly.
4 –
Con
tinge
ncy
from
“mos
t pro
babl
e” s
cena
rio is
es
timat
ed a
nd 1
00%
fund
ed.
3 –
Fund
exi
sts
but o
nly
at 5
0% o
f est
imat
ed n
eed
(may
be
com
mitm
ents
from
oth
er a
genc
ies
to
supp
ly th
e re
st)
2 –
Fund
exi
sts
but o
nly
at 2
5% o
f est
imat
ed n
eed
(may
be
com
mitm
ents
from
oth
er a
genc
ies
to
supp
ly th
e re
st)
1– N
o fu
nd.
Com
bina
tion
of
Ope
ratio
ns, C
orpo
rate
S
afet
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent
C-2
9. M
odel
ling
Mod
el fi
nanc
ial e
ffect
s of
eve
nts
usin
g di
ffere
nt
scen
ario
s to
ens
ure
a br
oad
rang
e of
opt
ions
are
co
nsid
ered
and
whe
re re
leva
nt, p
repa
red
for
(incl
udin
g co
nsid
erin
g th
e fin
anci
al im
pact
of
mul
tiple
eve
nts
occu
rring
at t
he s
ame
time
or
clos
e to
geth
er; a
nd th
e po
ssib
ility
of e
xhau
stin
g em
erge
ncy
fund
s).
4 –
Mod
ellin
g un
derta
ken
and
publ
ishe
d3
– M
odel
ling
unde
rtake
n2
– M
odel
ling
scop
ed, n
ot u
nder
take
n1–
No
mod
ellin
g
OM
B /
Ope
ratio
ns
FundingResiliency Indicator Framework 35
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
NET
WO
RK
SN
-1.
Inte
rnal
Rel
atio
nshi
psE
stab
lishi
ng fa
ce to
face
rela
tions
hips
dur
ing
norm
al ti
mes
to fa
cilit
ate
inte
ract
ions
dur
ing
times
of c
risis
.
4 - P
eopl
e kn
ow d
epar
tmen
t rol
es a
nd k
ey
indi
vidu
als
3 - N
etw
orki
ng p
rogr
am e
stab
lishe
d, n
o in
terd
epar
tmen
tal w
orki
ng g
roup
s2
- Net
wor
king
pro
gram
dra
fted,
no
inte
rdep
artm
enta
l wor
king
gro
ups
1 - N
o op
portu
nity
for f
ace
to fa
ce n
etw
orki
ng n
or
inte
rdep
artm
enta
l wor
king
gro
ups
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y an
d R
isk
Man
agem
ent
N-2
. In
form
atio
n S
harin
g - I
nter
nal
Agr
ee o
n in
form
atio
n sh
arin
g pr
otoc
ols
with
ot
her d
epar
tmen
ts
4 - P
roto
col d
ocum
ente
d an
d pu
blis
hed
3 - P
roto
col d
ocum
ente
d, n
ot p
ublis
hed
2 - P
artia
l pro
toco
l dev
elop
men
t, no
t pub
lishe
d1
- No
prot
ocol
, not
pub
lishe
d
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Offi
ce
N-3
. In
ter-a
genc
y C
ompa
tibili
tyE
xist
ence
of e
mer
genc
y op
erat
ions
cen
ter w
ith
parti
cipa
tion
from
all
agen
cies
, aut
omat
ing
std
oper
atin
g pr
oced
ures
(SO
Ps)
spe
cific
ally
de
sign
ed to
dea
l with
haz
ard/
even
t sce
nario
s
4 –
Ops
cen
ter e
xist
s an
d w
as d
esig
ned
to d
eal w
ith
“mos
t sev
ere”
; all
agen
cies
par
ticip
ate.
3 –
Ops
cen
ter e
xist
s bu
t may
hav
e sh
ortc
omin
gs o
r m
ay n
ot h
ave
SO
Ps
2 - O
ps c
ente
r exi
sts,
lack
of p
artic
ipat
ion,
no
SO
Ps
1 –
No
ops
cent
er.
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t
N-4
. B
usin
ess
Con
tinui
ty/A
war
enes
sC
ross
-sec
tor a
nd c
ross
-age
ncy
wor
king
gro
up
mee
ts re
gula
rly to
:- u
nder
stan
d in
terd
epen
denc
ies
and
inco
rpor
ate
into
thei
r res
pect
ive
busi
ness
con
tinui
ty
plan
ning
.- t
o an
alyz
e m
ajor
inci
dent
impa
cts
on a
gein
g in
frast
ruct
ure
and
resu
lting
cas
cade
effe
cts
- und
erta
ke c
ompl
ex h
azar
d pl
anni
ng w
ith c
ross
-se
ctor
par
tner
s an
d de
velo
p jo
int p
lans
4 - W
orki
ng g
roup
est
ablis
hed
and
mee
ts re
gula
rly,
outc
omes
ach
ieve
d.3
- Wor
king
gro
up e
stab
lishe
d, b
ut n
o pr
ogre
ss2
- Wor
king
gro
up m
embe
rs id
entif
ied,
not
met
1
- No
wor
king
gro
up
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t
N-5
. In
form
atio
n S
harin
g - E
xter
nal
Agr
ee o
n in
form
atio
n sh
arin
g pr
otoc
ols
with
ex
tern
al p
artn
ers
4 - P
roto
col d
ocum
ente
d an
d pu
blis
hed
3 - P
roto
col d
ocum
ente
d, n
ot p
ublis
hed
2 - P
artia
l pro
toco
l dev
elop
men
t, no
t pub
lishe
d1
- No
prot
ocol
, not
pub
lishe
d
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Offi
ce
N-6
. In
ter-a
genc
y C
ompa
tibili
ty a
nd
Coo
pera
tion
Sig
ned
partn
ersh
ip a
gree
men
ts in
pla
ce
outli
ning
aid
arra
ngem
ents
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies.
4 - S
igne
d ag
reem
ent
3 - A
gree
men
t dra
fted,
rela
tions
hips
est
ablis
hed
2 - N
egot
iatio
ns a
nd re
latio
nshi
p bu
ildin
g un
derw
ay
1 - N
o co
ntac
t est
ablis
hed
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t
Effective Partnerships (external)Breaking SilosResiliency Indicator Framework 36
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
LEAD
ERSH
IP A
ND
CU
LTU
RE
L-1.
Rol
es a
nd R
espo
nsib
ilitie
sD
efin
ed re
spon
sibi
litie
s an
d ro
les
for r
esili
ence
pl
anni
ng (i
nclu
ding
KP
Is) w
ith re
gula
r mee
tings
an
d do
cum
ente
d pr
oces
s fo
r im
plem
entin
g im
prov
emen
ts
4 - R
esili
ence
pla
nnin
g re
sour
ced
and
impr
ovem
ents
impl
emen
ted
3 -
Par
tial r
esou
rcin
g of
resi
lienc
e pl
anni
ng,
impr
ovem
ents
not
impl
emen
ted
2 -
Res
ilien
ce p
lann
ing
bein
g de
fined
and
re
spon
sibi
litie
s as
sign
ed1
- No
reso
urci
ng to
resi
lienc
e pl
anni
ng
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Offi
ce
L-2.
Sta
ff E
ngag
emen
tLe
ader
ship
, inn
ovat
ion,
per
sona
l dev
elop
men
t ar
ound
resi
lienc
y is
enc
oura
ged
and
activ
ely
prom
oted
. Cle
ar le
ader
ship
from
sen
ior s
taff,
an
d at
tribu
tes
and
visi
ble
and
unde
rsto
od.
4 - C
lear
lead
ersh
ip a
t sen
ior l
evel
, an
d co
mpa
ny
attri
bute
vis
ible
, rec
ogni
zed,
and
und
erst
ood
by
over
80%
of s
taff
3 - C
lear
lead
ersh
ip a
nd c
ompa
ny a
ttrib
ute
reco
gniz
ed b
y ov
er 5
0% o
f sta
ff2
- Are
attr
ibut
es re
cogn
ized
by
betw
een
20 a
nd
50%
of s
taff
1 - N
ot p
art o
f com
pany
cul
ture
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Offi
ce
L-3.
Lev
erag
ing
Kno
wle
dge
Pro
cess
for e
nsur
ing
that
inco
min
g w
orkf
orce
un
ders
tand
s an
d is
kno
wle
dgea
ble
rega
rdin
g M
etro
clim
ate
chan
ge e
fforts
and
app
licab
ility
on
proj
ects
.
4 –
Pro
cess
in p
lace
, doc
umen
ted,
pub
lishe
d,
read
ily a
vaila
ble,
trai
ned
to, a
nd m
onito
red
on a
re
gula
r bas
is.
3 –
Pro
cess
exi
sts
and
publ
ishe
d2
– A
d ho
c ap
proa
ch is
und
erta
ken
1– N
o pr
oces
s ex
ists
Labo
r/Em
ploy
ee
Rel
atio
ns
L-4.
Cris
is D
ecis
ion
Mak
ing
Pro
cedu
res
and
role
s es
tabl
ishe
d to
redu
ce re
d ta
pe a
nd a
llow
qui
ck d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
4 - P
roce
dure
s an
d ro
les
agre
ed a
nd in
pla
ce fo
r all
elem
ents
, are
doc
umen
ted,
pub
lishe
d, re
adily
av
aila
ble,
trai
ned
to, a
nd m
onito
red
on a
regu
lar
basi
s.3
- Som
e pr
oced
ures
and
role
s ag
reed
, not
for a
ll el
emen
ts2
- A
d ho
c1
- No
proc
edur
es a
gree
d
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
tO
pera
tions
L-5.
Adv
ance
Agr
eem
ents
Req
uire
d pe
rson
nel,
serv
ices
and
reso
urce
s id
entif
ied
and
agre
emen
ts in
pla
ce fo
r pos
t eve
nt
resp
onse
4 - A
gree
men
ts in
pla
ce, a
re d
ocum
ente
d,
publ
ishe
d, re
adily
ava
ilabl
e, tr
aine
d to
, and
m
onito
red
on a
regu
lar b
asis
.3
- Som
e ag
reem
ents
, not
for a
ll se
rvic
es o
r re
sour
ces
2 -
Ver
y fe
w a
gree
men
ts1
- No
agre
emen
ts
Cor
pora
te S
afet
y &
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t
Decision Making AuthorityLeadershipResiliency Indicator Framework 37
Met
ro R
esili
ency
Indi
cato
r Fra
mew
ork
Proj
ect T
itle:
Com
plet
ed
by a
nd D
ate:
Des
crip
tion:
Title
Firs
t and
Las
t N
ame,
Dat
eP
roje
ct d
escr
iptio
n
Mea
sure
men
t Sca
leLe
ad D
epar
tmen
t /
Sour
ce o
f Inf
orm
atio
n
Scor
e1
= Le
ast R
esilie
nt4
= M
ost r
esilie
nt
Ass
essm
ent N
otes
/Sc
ore
Just
ifica
tion
2: O
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
ce
Indi
cato
r
Innovation and Creativity
L-6.
App
roac
h to
Pro
ject
sE
xten
t to
whi
ch a
ny p
ropo
sal/p
roje
ct in
Met
ro is
ev
alua
ted
for r
esili
ence
ben
efits
4 - D
ocum
ente
d an
d de
mon
stra
ted
revi
ew o
f re
silie
nce
bene
fits
in p
roje
ct d
evel
opm
ent p
hase
3 - D
ocum
ente
d re
view
with
inco
nsis
tent
app
licat
ion
2 - P
roce
ss n
ot d
efin
ed a
nd m
ay o
r may
not
be
incl
uded
in re
view
1 - N
o re
view
of r
esili
ence
ben
efits
Pro
gram
Man
agem
ent
Offi
ce
0.0
410.
0in
dica
tors
not
rank
ed0.
00.
0
Net
wor
ks
Sum
mar
y Sc
ore
Lead
ersh
ip a
nd C
ultu
reO
rgan
izat
iona
l Res
ilien
cyS
corin
g =
10 m
ost r
esili
ent,
1 Le
ast
Cha
nge
Rea
dine
ss
Resiliency Indicator Framework 38
4. Chapter
Potential Next Steps
39
> Evaluate Metro’s Technical Resilience: Given that it would be an extensive effort to evaluate every Metro asset, it is recommended that a scope of work be developed to evaluate Metro’s most critical and at risk assets (a prioritized list of assets). This work should include establishing an appropriate frequency of the resilience assessment, who should be responsible for carrying out the assessment, and the level of detail (for example, should individual assets be assessed, or groups of assets? Should quantitative data be required, or is informed staff opinion sufficient?) Methods would include reviewing applicable documents, such as the CVA, and interviewing internal stakeholders such as Operations and Maintenance staff.
> Identify Potential Cost Impacts: It has been noted that to improve many of the resiliency indicator scores could have significant cost impacts. For example, annual emergency drills or additional training (organizational indicators) can be costly due to the number of staff hours required. Similarly, it can be expensive to provide additional back up equipment for a train station or to provide generator power to ensure that buses can be fuelled during a black out (technical indicators). Based on assessment efforts to date, a cost evaluation could be completed to identify the financial impact of key indicators. The recommendation is to complete a cost-benefit analysis, as it is likely to be dependent on the hazards that the asset is exposed to, the likelihood of an impact occurring, as well as Metro’s current level of resilience.
This project has highlighted several opportunities to further refine the Resiliency Indicator Framework and support its implementation. Potential future tasks to be considered to further strengthen the framework and its utility for Metro include:
> Refine Organizational Framework: The organizational indicators were not reviewed individually as part of the workshop (a very useful but more high level discussion was held instead). It would be constructive to further evaluate the organizational indicators with appropriate Metro staff knowledgeable about how the agency is organized in relation to emergency management, training, HR and other organizational issues to ensure that indicators and measurement scale are appropriate for the agency. The indicator-by-indicator review carried out on the technical indicators during the workshop was very informative, and a number of the measurement scales for the asset level indicators were revised based on staff feedback. Specific efforts would include:
> Review and refine indicator and measurement scale language.
> Develop weighting system. Currently the Organizational indicators are all counted equally and the scoring is not weighted.
> Complete case studies.
Potential Next Steps
Potential Next Steps40
> Identify Co-benefits: Evaluate if any of the resiliency indicators support other Metro initiatives, such as reducing GHG emissions. Indicators with co-benefits could be weighted higher.
> Incorporate Climate Change Into Procedures And Frameworks. The Resiliency Indicator Framework references several procedures and frameworks.Metro is already engaging in an effort to incorporate climate resilience into Design Criteria, but other procedures and frameworks could be strengthened by incorporating climate change considerations. For example, guidance could be developed on incorporating climate change into O&M Standard Operating Procedures and asset management systems. Guidance could also be developed for tracking extreme weather repair costs and how those results could influence O&M budget development. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has provided guidance on key knowledge gaps regarding transportation engineering approaches to climate resilience.
> Strengthen Implementation Strategies: While initial implementation steps are provided as part of this document, a more fully developed plan including immediate actions and long-term actions (with an associated time-line) should be developed on implementing the Resiliency Indicator Framework and embedding its use into the agency. The resulting plan would have a number of parts:
> Connections with Environmental Management System (EMS): consider incorporating the Resiliency Indicator Framework into the EMS framework. The recommendation is to start with Division 8 or 9 as they are already familiar with the Framework and have identified areas for improvement through initial workshops.
> Connections with Asset Management Integration: Metro currently has several efforts underway that address climate change, all of which have the potential to be related or integrated within the Resiliency Indicator Framework. The most important of these is the integration of indicators into the existing asset management ‘state of good repair database’ and related transition into potential procurement of a more robust asset management system.
> Connections with Other Metro Efforts: Other efforts underway that address climate change, which have the potential to be related or integrated into the Resiliency Indicator Framework, include the Long Range Transportation Plan, Short Range Transportation Plan, update to the Metro Rail Design Criteria, and the upcoming RFP for an agency-wide risk assessment. Metro’s current planning process would be reviewed to identify points of intervention where some of the indicators could be incorporated. A review of the updating cycles for a number of documents (including Long Range Transportation Plan, Facility Plans, design criteria, design standards) should be undertaken to ensure that appropriate actions to improve resilience are incorporated into day-to-day business, through future planning and design efforts.
Note: This Framework is an evolving document. Please reach out to ECSD staff regarding ques-tions, stakeholder engagement, and updates.
Resiliency Indicator Framework 41
This page intentionally left blank
Potential Next Steps42
Summary of Technical Resiliency Weighting Methodology
Appendix A
43
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL RESILIENCE WEIGHTING METHODOLOGY
The proposed weighting system was developed through a review of established sustainable weighting systems and an evaluation of Metro plans and policies.
Weighting for sustainability rating tools are often based on the core values of an organization (e.g. LEED v.4 and the AECOM Triple Bottom Line Tool). Therefore, Metro agency plans and policies were reviewed to identify whether any of the resiliency indicators would help Metro achieve its vision, mission, values, and core business goals. Indicators that do not relate as closely to Metro’s core goals and values could potentially be weighted less, while those that are more directly related could be weighted more. After reviewing Metro documents, it was determined that Metro’s core values most relevant to resiliency include: safety, service reliability, and fiscal responsibility. Each resiliency indicator was analyzed against these three core values and given additional weight if the intent of the indicator directly aligned with the core value. The more core values that the indicator related to, the higher the weighting received. The weighting system can be updated as Metro priorities change over time.
Table 1 is a summary of the total weight given to each indicator and includes the breakdown of the weight (Metro’s core values and supporting Metro plans and policies). Figure 1 is a graphic representation of the weighting system. The wider the segment within the chart, the higher the weighting of that indicator. So indicators that are weighted the highest (4) are the widest, and those weighted the least (1) are the most narrow.
Based on the proposed weighting of the indicators, the hierarchy of principles remains the same as the existing structure with robustness weighted the highest; followed by redundancy, and then safe-to-fail (reference Table 3). However the weighting percentages have slightly shifted with additional emphasis placed on robustness (61% instead of 55%), same importance on redundancy (35%) and less on safe-to-fail (4% instead of 10%).
The weighting system was applied to the six completed case studies and all of the technical resiliency scores increased, except for Division 9 Maintenance Yard. The increases in technical resiliency scores is likely due to the higher weighting of robustness indicators in the overall score and the reduced influence of safe-to-fail in the overall score as all cases scored low in safe-to-fail indicators. The decrease in score for Division 9 is likely attributable to the network receiving low scores in indicators that were given high weights in the proposed weighting system (overheating and re-routing and communication plans). In general, indicators that were given high weights now have greater influence in the scores and both principle scores and overall technical resiliency scores have changed as a result.
The benefit of developing a weighting system is that it provides an opportunity to highlight which indicators are most important to Metro. Recognizing that it may not be feasible to achieve high scores in all areas of resilience, the weighting can help Metro focus its constrained funding on areas of resilience that are in line with the agency’s other key priorities.
Appendix A44
Weighting Applied To Each Indicator
Principle Indicators Safety Service Reliability
Fiscal Responsibility
Indicator supported by Policy/
Plans
Total Weight
4 = Highest 3= High
2= Medium 1= Low
Robustness
R-1. Maintenance - Day to Day 1 1 1 3 - High
R-2. Maintenance - Post Incident 1 1 1 3 - High
R-3. Renewal/Upgrade (Long Range Plans) 1 1 - Low
R-4. Design - Compliance w/ Current Codes 1 1 - Low
R-5. Design - Condition of Asset(s) 1 1 1 3 - High
R-6. Design - Vulnerability Assessment 1 1 1 3 - High
R-7. Design – Resilience Design Criteria 1 1 1 1 4 - Highest
R-8. Design - Overheating Standards 1 1 1 1 4 - Highest
R-9. Extreme Weather Repair Costs 1 1 2 - Medium
R-10. Supplier Utility Robustness - Awareness 1 1 - Low
R-11. Supplier Utility Robustness - Improvement 1 1 1 3 - High
Redundancy
RE-1. Alternate Route/Mode Availability 1 1 1 3 - High
RE-2. Alternate Route/Mode Capacity 1 1 2- Medium
RE-3. Spare Capacity 1 1 2- Medium
RE-4. Back Up Parts and Equipment 1 1 - Low
RE-5. Re-routing and Communication Plans 1 1 1 1 4 - Highest
RE-6. Supplier Utility Redundancy - Awareness 1 1 - Low RE-7. Supplier Utility Redundancy - Improvement 1 1 1 3 - High
Safe-to-Fail S-1. Safe-to-Fail – Design Approach 1 1 - Low
S-2. Safe-to-Fail – Design Guidelines 1 1 - Low
Figure 1: Graphic representation of weighting system
R-1
R-2
R-3R-4
R-5
R-6
R-7
R-8R-9R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4
RE-5
RE-6
RE-7S-1 S-2
Table 1: Proposed Weighting System
4 (Most resilient) 3 Incomplete 2 NA
1 (Least resilient) Score
Redundancy (RE) Safe-to-fail (S)
Robustness (R) Principle
Resiliency Indicator Framework 45
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A46
Case Study Scorecards
Appendix B
47
ROBU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- Da
y to
Day
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntR-
3Re
new
al/U
pgra
de (L
ong
Rang
e Pl
ans)
R-4
Desig
n - C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith C
urre
nt C
odes
R-5
Desig
n - C
ondi
tion
of A
sset
R-6
Desig
n - V
ulne
rabi
lity
Asse
ssm
ent
R-7
Desig
n - R
esili
ence
Des
ign
Crite
riaR-
8De
sign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sR-
9Ex
trem
e W
eath
er R
epai
r Cos
tsR-
10Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sR-
11Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - Im
prov
emen
t
RED
UN
DAN
CYRE
-1Al
tern
ate
Rout
e/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
RE-2
Alte
rnat
e Ro
ute/
Mod
e Ca
paci
tyRE
-3Sp
are
Capa
city
RE-4
Back
Up
Part
s and
Equ
ipm
ent
RE-5
Re-r
outin
g an
d Co
mm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
RE-6
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Aw
aren
ess
RE-7
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Im
prov
emen
ts
SAFE
-TO
-FAI
LS-
1Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chS-
2Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Gu
idel
ines
Res
ilien
cy In
dica
torA
sses
smen
t Sco
reca
rdLA
Met
ro
Proj
ect
Title
:W
ardlo
w St
ation
Desc
riptio
n:Bl
ue Li
ne a
nd in
clude
s all c
ompo
nent
s of t
he st
ation
.
Com
plet
eby:
Met
ro S
taff
Wor
ksho
pDa
te:
4/1/
2014
4 (M
ost r
esili
ent)
3N
A /
Inco
mpl
ete
2
1 (L
east
resi
lient
)
Scor
e
Red
unda
ncy
Saf
e-to
-Fai
l
Rob
ustn
ess
Prin
cipl
eR-1
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-3 R-
4 R-5 R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4RE
-5
RE-6
RE-7
S-1
S-2 5.
3
Appendix B48
ROBU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- Da
y to
Day
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntR-
3Re
new
al/U
pgra
de (L
ong
Rang
e Pl
ans)
R-4
Desig
n - C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith C
urre
nt C
odes
R-5
Desig
n - C
ondi
tion
of A
sset
R-6
Desig
n - V
ulne
rabi
lity
Asse
ssm
ent
R-7
Desig
n - R
esili
ence
Des
ign
Crite
riaR-
8De
sign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sR-
9Ex
trem
e W
eath
er R
epai
r Cos
tsR-
10Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sR-
11Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - Im
prov
emen
t
RED
UN
DAN
CYRE
-1Al
tern
ate
Rout
e/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
RE-2
Alte
rnat
e Ro
ute/
Mod
e Ca
paci
tyRE
-3Sp
are
Capa
city
RE-4
Back
Up
Part
s and
Equ
ipm
ent
RE-5
Re-r
outin
g an
d Co
mm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
RE-6
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Aw
aren
ess
RE-7
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Im
prov
emen
ts
SAFE
-TO
-FAI
LS-
1Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chS-
2Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Gu
idel
ines
Res
ilien
cy In
dica
torA
sses
smen
t Sco
reca
rdLA
Met
ro
Proj
ect
Title
:Go
ld Lin
e OC
S
Desc
riptio
n:Ov
erhe
ad C
aten
ary S
yste
m (O
CS) a
long G
old L
ine
Com
plet
eby:
Met
ro S
taff
work
shop
Date
:4/
1/20
14
4 (M
ost r
esili
ent)
3N
A /
Inco
mpl
ete
2
1 (L
east
resi
lient
)
Scor
e
Red
unda
ncy
Saf
e-to
-Fai
l
Rob
ustn
ess
Prin
cipl
eR-1
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-3 R-
4 R-5 R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4RE
-5
RE-6
RE-7
S-1
S-2 4.
7
Resiliency Indicator Framework 49
ROBU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- Da
y to
Day
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntR-
3Re
new
al/U
pgra
de (L
ong
Rang
e Pl
ans)
R-4
Desig
n - C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith C
urre
nt C
odes
R-5
Desig
n - C
ondi
tion
of A
sset
R-6
Desig
n - V
ulne
rabi
lity
Asse
ssm
ent
R-7
Desig
n - R
esili
ence
Des
ign
Crite
riaR-
8De
sign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sR-
9Ex
trem
e W
eath
er R
epai
r Cos
tsR-
10Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sR-
11Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - Im
prov
emen
t
RED
UN
DAN
CYRE
-1Al
tern
ate
Rout
e/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
RE-2
Alte
rnat
e Ro
ute/
Mod
e Ca
paci
tyRE
-3Sp
are
Capa
city
RE-4
Back
Up
Part
s and
Equ
ipm
ent
RE-5
Re-r
outin
g an
d Co
mm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
RE-6
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Aw
aren
ess
RE-7
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Im
prov
emen
ts
SAFE
-TO
-FAI
LS-
1Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chS-
2Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Gu
idel
ines
Res
ilien
cy In
dica
torA
sses
smen
t Sco
reca
rdLA
Met
ro
Proj
ect
Title
:Or
ange
Line
Desc
riptio
n:Ro
ute b
etwe
en S
epulv
eda
and R
osco
e Sta
tions
(foc
us:
bus s
ervic
e and
extre
me h
eat)
Com
plet
eby:
Met
ro S
taff
Wor
ksho
pDa
te:
5/1/
2015
4 (M
ost r
esili
ent)
3N
A /
Inco
mpl
ete
2
1 (L
east
resi
lient
)
Scor
e
Red
unda
ncy
Saf
e-to
-Fai
l
Rob
ustn
ess
Prin
cipl
eR-1
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-3 R-
4 R-5 R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4RE
-5
RE-6
RE-7
S-1
S-2 6.
4
Appendix B50
ROBU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- Da
y to
Day
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntR-
3Re
new
al/U
pgra
de (L
ong
Rang
e Pl
ans)
R-4
Desig
n - C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith C
urre
nt C
odes
R-5
Desig
n - C
ondi
tion
of A
sset
R-6
Desig
n - V
ulne
rabi
lity
Asse
ssm
ent
R-7
Desig
n - R
esili
ence
Des
ign
Crite
riaR-
8De
sign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sR-
9Ex
trem
e W
eath
er R
epai
r Cos
tsR-
10Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sR-
11Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - Im
prov
emen
t
RED
UN
DAN
CYRE
-1Al
tern
ate
Rout
e/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
RE-2
Alte
rnat
e Ro
ute/
Mod
e Ca
paci
tyRE
-3Sp
are
Capa
city
RE-4
Back
Up
Part
s and
Equ
ipm
ent
RE-5
Re-r
outin
g an
d Co
mm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
RE-6
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Aw
aren
ess
RE-7
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Im
prov
emen
ts
SAFE
-TO
-FAI
LS-
1Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chS-
2Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Gu
idel
ines
Res
ilien
cy In
dica
torA
sses
smen
t Sco
reca
rdLA
Met
ro
Proj
ect
Title
:Bu
s 236
Desc
riptio
n:Ro
ute
betw
een V
ictor
y and
Ven
tura
Blvd
’s
Com
plet
eby:
Met
ro S
taff
Wor
ksho
pDa
te:
5/1/
2015
4 (M
ost r
esili
ent)
3N
A /
Inco
mpl
ete
2
1 (L
east
resi
lient
)
Scor
e
Red
unda
ncy
Saf
e-to
-Fai
l
Rob
ustn
ess
Prin
cipl
eR-1
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-3 R-
4 R-5 R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4RE
-5
RE-6
RE-7
S-1
S-2 5.
5
Resiliency Indicator Framework 51
ROBU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- Da
y to
Day
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntR-
3Re
new
al/U
pgra
de (L
ong
Rang
e Pl
ans)
R-4
Desig
n - C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith C
urre
nt C
odes
R-5
Desig
n - C
ondi
tion
of A
sset
R-6
Desig
n - V
ulne
rabi
lity
Asse
ssm
ent
R-7
Desig
n - R
esili
ence
Des
ign
Crite
riaR-
8De
sign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sR-
9Ex
trem
e W
eath
er R
epai
r Cos
tsR-
10Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sR-
11Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - Im
prov
emen
t
RED
UN
DAN
CYRE
-1Al
tern
ate
Rout
e/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
RE-2
Alte
rnat
e Ro
ute/
Mod
e Ca
paci
tyRE
-3Sp
are
Capa
city
RE-4
Back
Up
Part
s and
Equ
ipm
ent
RE-5
Re-r
outin
g an
d Co
mm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
RE-6
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Aw
aren
ess
RE-7
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Im
prov
emen
ts
SAFE
-TO
-FAI
LS-
1Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chS-
2Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Gu
idel
ines
Res
ilien
cy In
dica
torA
sses
smen
t Sco
reca
rdLA
Met
ro
Proj
ect
Title
:Di
vision
9
Desc
riptio
n:M
ainte
nanc
e Fac
ility –
San G
abrie
l Vall
ey, M
etro
Bus
Com
plet
eby:
Met
ro S
taff
Wor
ksho
pDa
te:
5/1/
2015
4 (M
ost r
esili
ent)
3N
A /
Inco
mpl
ete
2
1 (L
east
resi
lient
)
Scor
e
Red
unda
ncy
Saf
e-to
-Fai
l
Rob
ustn
ess
Prin
cipl
eR-1
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-3 R-
4 R-5 R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4RE
-5
RE-6
RE-7
S-1
S-2 6.
8
Appendix B52
ROBU
STN
ESS
R-1
Mai
nten
ance
- Da
y to
Day
R-2
Mai
nten
ance
- Po
st In
cide
ntR-
3Re
new
al/U
pgra
de (L
ong
Rang
e Pl
ans)
R-4
Desig
n - C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith C
urre
nt C
odes
R-5
Desig
n - C
ondi
tion
of A
sset
R-6
Desig
n - V
ulne
rabi
lity
Asse
ssm
ent
R-7
Desig
n - R
esili
ence
Des
ign
Crite
riaR-
8De
sign
- Ove
rhea
ting
Stan
dard
sR-
9Ex
trem
e W
eath
er R
epai
r Cos
tsR-
10Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - A
war
enes
sR-
11Su
pplie
r Util
ity R
obus
tnes
s - Im
prov
emen
t
RED
UN
DAN
CYRE
-1Al
tern
ate
Rout
e/M
ode
Avai
labi
lity
RE-2
Alte
rnat
e Ro
ute/
Mod
e Ca
paci
tyRE
-3Sp
are
Capa
city
RE-4
Back
Up
Part
s and
Equ
ipm
ent
RE-5
Re-r
outin
g an
d Co
mm
unic
atio
n Pl
ans
RE-6
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Aw
aren
ess
RE-7
Supp
lier U
tility
Red
unda
ncy
- Im
prov
emen
ts
SAFE
-TO
-FAI
LS-
1Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Ap
proa
chS-
2Sa
fe-t
o-Fa
il - D
esig
n Gu
idel
ines
Res
ilien
cy In
dica
torA
sses
smen
t Sco
reca
rdLA
Met
ro
Proj
ect
Title
:Lit
tle T
okyo
Gold
Line
Sta
tion
–Co
mm
unica
tion
Desc
riptio
n:Al
l com
pone
nts o
f the
com
mun
icatio
n sys
tem
Com
plet
eby:
Met
ro S
taff
work
shop
Date
:5/
1/20
15
4 (M
ost r
esili
ent)
3N
A /
Inco
mpl
ete
2
1 (L
east
resi
lient
)
Scor
e
Red
unda
ncy
Saf
e-to
-Fai
l
Rob
ustn
ess
Prin
cipl
eR-1
R-2
R-3
R-1
R-2
R-3 R-
4 R-5 R-6
R-7
R-8
R-9
R-10
R-11
RE-1
RE-2
RE-3
RE-4RE
-5
RE-6
RE-7
S-1
S-2 6.
6
Resiliency Indicator Framework 53
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952
213.922.9200 Tel 213.922.5259 Fax
metro.net