Coordinating critical transportation infrastructure vulnerability

3.0 CATALOG OF SELF–ASSESSMENT TOOLS
This section provides a catalog of vulnerability self-assessment tools that show potential for use in
the National Capital Region. The term “self-assessment tool” is used generically to describe any of
the models (e.g., mathematical or simulation), processes or tools that may be applicable to a regional
assessment of transportation infrastructure vulnerability.
The goal in identifying, cataloging and ranking these tools is to identify a set of tools that is currently
available and could be used by organizations within the National Capital Region to address the
requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This is not to say that a tool currently exists
that will meet these needs. Rather, it is assumed that a set of tools will need to be identified that can
be used in combination with each other (possibly through the creation of a hybrid tool) to begin to
address Homeland Security Act of 2002 requirements and establish a process to prioritize needs
throughout the region.
Fifteen tools are examined for applicability to the National Capital Region. A description of each
tool is provided in Appendix A. The tools are weighed against a set of criteria that is separated into
four categories: Planning and Prevention, Response, Recovery and Mitigation. An analysis of how
each tool compares to the criteria is provided and each tool is categorized as one of the following:
Robust, Comprehensive, Adequate or Limited for the purpose of a regional assessment of critical
infrastructure vulnerability.
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH
A literature search was conducted in order to obtain currently available vulnerability self-assessment
tools. The literature searched focused primarily among the following areas:
1. Federal Transit Administration
2. Federal Highway Administration
3. National Academies: Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Nation Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) and the Transportation Research Board (TRB)
4. Homeland Security Administration
5. General Search: Lexis-Nexis, Google
A number of documents were identified based upon these sources. After a brief review of each
document, fifteen of the tools appeared to be appropriate candidates for further review and analysis.
It is important to note that there were some tools identified that were inaccessible because of
security concerns. While it can be assumed that these tools would be applicable, they are not
included in this analysis.
The tools varied from general guidance documents to an overall framework for conducting a
vulnerability assessment. In order to better analyze the tools, they were classified as one of the
following:
PUBP 710/722 Page 11 of 60
WMATA Case Study June 5, 2003