Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 64

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 63
Introduction 65 Overview of the CAPTA Methodology The CAPTA methodology provides a starting point for transportation risk assessment. CAPTA provides users with a capital planning and budgeting tool, used as a strategic point of departure for resource allocation decisions. CAPTA enables an executive to base allocation decisions on objective data about assets. It can also direct decision makers toward assets and asset classes that merit further attention or study. CAPTA is intended for use by senior managers whose jurisdiction or influence extends over multiple modes of transportation, multiple asset classes, and many individual assets. This method- ology provides a means for moving across transportation assets to address system vulnerabilities that could result in significant losses given the hazards and threats of greatest concern. These losses, or consequences, could be casualties, property loss, failure to provide services to the pub- lic successfully, or loss of public confidence in the use of existing infrastructure and facilities. These four areas of loss all represent risk to the transportation system. CAPTA is consequence driven. This methodology begins by asking the transportation owner/ operator to set an initial consequence "threshold," indicated by the level of losses at which additional resources would likely be required. Subsequent analysis is completed iteratively by identifying assets where losses would exceed the consequence threshold and then identifying counter- measures that could avoid or reduce the consequences. Users may choose to change the conse- quence threshold to focus resources on the highest consequence assets or vary thresholds among transportation modes to reflect variations in authority or responsibility for different modes or asset classes. This approach is ideally suited to the strategic, high-level planning undertaken by an execu- tive with budgetary discretion. The executive faced with deciding where and how to spend funds can arrive very quickly at the most logical choices based on agency priorities and the characteristics of the assets. The process begins with the question of "What adverse consequences do I consider beyond our ability to handle through our normal operations and capital investments?" and then asks the user to indicate the types of hazards and threats of concern that might cause such losses. The user is not, however, expected to know all of the characteristics of potential hazards and threats (e.g., severity, frequency, capability, intent, and motivation). A consequence-based approach to capital allocation departs from traditional risk management strategies in that it does not attempt to assess the likelihood of an event explicitly. In essence, the consequence-based approach assumes that if a decision maker perceives an event to be possible, and if the consequences are sufficiently severe, the decision maker must consider alternatives for avoid- ing or minimizing consequences if the event should occur. The consequence-based approach focuses on how an asset has been adversely affected regardless of why or how it became disabled. Costing Asset Protection Tool (CAPTool) allows senior managers to move through multiple iterations quickly by setting consequence thresholds for losses at levels that reflect levels of respon- sibility and available resources. The consequence threshold may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdic- tion and among individual managers, depending on individual tolerance. Reasonable ranges of consequences are provided to guide the user in each of the following four consequence areas: Potentially exposed population Property loss Mission disruption Social/cultural disruption The CAPTA methodology, as implemented in a spreadsheet (CAPTool), contains examples and default values to assist the user in choosing consequence thresholds, identifying existing