resiliency indicator framework -...

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


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


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


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.


Robustness = 5.1

Redundancy = 4.0

Safe to fail = 2.5

Legend:


2





2





2





2





2





2





2





2






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.


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.


Robustness = 5.5

Redundancy = 5.8

Safe-to-Fail = 2.5

Legend:


2





2





2





2





2





2





2





2




Project Approach16


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.


Robustness = 6.1

Redundancy = 8.4

Safe-to-Fail = 3.8

Legend:


2





2





2





2




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.


Robustness = 6.9

Redundancy = 6.8

Safe-to-Fail = 2.5

Legend:


2





2





2





2





This page intentionally left blank

Project Approach18

3. Chapter


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).


> 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


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


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 Indicators

The indicators can be found in the following pages, organized by:

> Technical

> Organizational

Note: This framework is available as an interactive Excel spreadsheet.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.



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


Redundancy (RE) Safe-to-fail (S)

Robustness (R) Principle



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


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


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


Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

213.922.9200 Tel 213.922.5259 Fax

metro.net