Coordinating critical transportation infrastructure vulnerability

7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The goal of this report was to develop a product designed to assist WMATA in conducting a selfassessment
of its infrastructure security required for the National Capital Region by the Homeland
Security Act of 2002. Additionally, it provides recommended prioritization methodologies to assist
WMATA in allocating time and resources to security related improvements at the regional level. To
complement the Regional Emergency Coordination Plan (RECP) and the FTA's WMATA
vulnerability assessment, this report also describes various tools available today of the scope and
type most useful for WMATA's needs.
The RECP was designed to allow regional governments in the National Capital Region to effectively
plan, communicate, coordinate, and share information during actual emergencies. As described, the
RECP is comprised of the Regional Incident Communication and Coordination System (RICCS),
Regional Emergency Support Functions (R-ESFs), and associated annexes, all of which provide the
coordination framework needed during such an emergency.
WMATA has one of the most complex tasks for vulnerability assessment as it operates rail and bus
services in the majority of the COG jurisdictions. Through this vast region, it must coordinate with
18 separate governments located throughout Northern Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia ensuring the same level of coordination takes place throughout the region regardless of
jurisdiction. For example, WMATA must make certain the response to a potential incident in
Montgomery Co. Maryland must be as planned and coordinated as one in Arlington Co. Virginia.
Guaranteeing that type of seamless coordination is a daunting task.
One of the recommended methods WMATA can use to comply with Homeland Security Act of
2002's intent and plan cohesive responses across those many jurisdictions is the use of a selfassessment
tool. As described in Chapter 4, there are multiple tools available and in use to evaluate
infrastructure security and recommend corrective action when needed, but none are specifically
designed to address compliance with the Homeland Security Act. After assessing the attributes of
the 15 tools selected for review, the WashCOGs RECP scored in the highest category, "robust", for
addressing all four response phases and attaining at least 15 "high" marks in addressing evaluation
criteria.
Although all of the 15 tools reviewed have individual merit, none comprehensively fit WMATA's
particular need. This led to the development of the Hybrid Tool described in Chapter 5. This
hybrid was developed specifically for the critical infrastructure needs and assessments in the
National Capital Region. The tool is designed in a checklist format for ease of use and is broken out
by five categories (Planning & Prevention, Response, Recovery, and Mitigation). Each of the
questions listed under these categories was specifically selected and tailored to address WMATA's
needs. This tool, in conjunction with the RECP, will take WMATA through the necessary steps
towards compliance with the requirements of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
Once WMATA defines its specific needs for compliance with the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
prioritization is critical to efficiently utilize the limited resources for the greatest good. Chapter 6
discusses the various quantitative and qualitative methods recommended for use in needs
prioritization such as Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), Goals Achievement Methodology, and Security
Risk Index Methodology. The Goals Achievement Methodology is the recommended approach as it
PUBP 710/722 Page 45 of 60
WMATA Case Study June 5, 2003