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 21
21 certain magnitude) and the analyzed asset or asset group. established to provide oversight of and direction to the risk This, again, is a policy decision based on experience and management program efforts. There also needs to be involve- judgment and can be codified in predefined countermeasure ment by subject matter experts and caretakers of the vari- matrices. Once effective countermeasures are identified and ous management systems and databases (e.g., pavement, estimates of costs developed, they need to be packaged to bridge, maintenance, sign, financial, etc.). This multidiscipli- maximize cost efficiency and reduce impact on mobility in a nary team should collectively possess a working knowledge of given network. the owner agency's mission, policies, plan, procedures, and critical assets and operations. Important agency departmental Step 5. Establish Risk Mitigation Priorities. By looking functions such as the following should be represented: at the results of consequence analysis and the mitigation strate- gies and countermeasures identified, as well as estimated costs, · Planning and programming; the IHS owner can establish priorities among the potential · Budget and finance; risk mitigation packages. This set of risk mitigation priorities · Maintenance and operations; should be documented in the Interstate Asset Management · Construction; Plan and serve as an input into the agency's overall invest- · Design; ment decision-making process. It is in this process that in- · Materials testing; vestments from each of the agency's programs, including risk · Environmental management; mitigation, must be looked at side by side and the agency · Pavement and bridge management; must then determine the desired mix of investments. · Safety; In the event that the more rigorous consequence modeling · Traffic operations; approach was utilized in Step 3, avoided direct and indirect · Facilities management; losses arising from the implementation of each mitigation · Communications; and strategy for a given asset is computed. This is treated as a ben- · Regional or district executives. efit for use in a benefit/cost analysis, where the cost compo- nent is the cost of the mitigation strategy being employed for Given the nature of the threat/hazard emergency planning the asset. As an alternative to a benefit/cost analysis, a return- and response recovery processes, there are external stake- on-investment analysis can be performed which will allow for holders, such as the State Emergency Management Agency, phased mitigation strategy implementation over time to bet- State Police, threat-specific specialists, and local first respon- ter accommodate all the network needs. ders that should be considered as part of, or serve as a re- source to, the team or steering committee. This steering committee should establish protocols for risk 3.3 Institutional Responsibilities analyses, including identification of hazards/threats with for Risk Management significant consequences, developing and costing counter- The implementation of the proposed risk management ap- measures, and benefit/cost analysis. The team or steering proach for the Interstate Asset Management Framework re- committee may direct selected risk analyses to be performed quires a strong commitment and dedicated involvement of a on certain asset groups or corridor segments. Upon comple- broad spectrum of representatives from various organiza- tion and presentation of these risk analyses to the committee, tional levels and functional areas within an agency. Although the committee should determine priority and recommended it is technically feasible to perform the analysis described in courses of action for implementation. These actions can be Section 3.2 solely for the purpose of populating the Interstate programmatic, for example, placing remotely controlled vari- Asset Management Plan with a set of priorities for risk miti- able message signs at all major interchanges or implementing gation, realistically an IHS owner interested in instituting a risk seismic retrofits on bridges located in a specific seismic region, management approach must make a sustained commitment or project-specific, for example, upgrading a designated de- to working on this issue. This section describes the institu- tour route between two critical IHS interchanges. tional responsibilities required for an IHS owner establishing Once high priority risk mitigation countermeasures have an ongoing risk management function. been identified for promulgation, they must be funded, First and foremost, the basic requirement for instituting a planned, and programmed. Most DOTs have a standing pro- risk management approach is direction and continuous sup- gram management committee or process whereby periodic port for the effort from top executives. Next, there must be adjustments are made to multi-year Statewide Transporta- committed involvement by all of the pertinent departmental tion Improvement Plans (STIP). All DOTs have more worthy managers who have a role in the effort. It is suggested that a projects than they can afford to do. One method of garnering team or steering committee consisting of these managers be funding for a proposed risk mitigation effort would be for the
OCR for page 22
22 risk proposal to directly compete for funding against other ing and attention is needed specifically for disaster response. worthwhile projects based on their ability to meet preestab- Many transportation agencies have established the importance lished system performance goals and on benefit/cost analyses of budgeting for this function, and having well-established relative to those goals. and well-rehearsed protocols in place for responding to specific In addition to funding specific risk mitigation investments, types of disasters. transportation agencies should and do establish annual dis- The bottom line is that the successful implementation of cretionary or contingency funds specifically for risk mitiga- an ongoing risk assessment process as a component of the In- tion or disaster response, and have priority risk abatement or terstate Asset Management Framework requires institutional disaster recovery efforts vie for portions of such funds. A chal- planning, commitment, and continued personnel and financial lenge in establishing such a fund is setting aside enough fund- support. The benefits of a successful risk assessment process ing to address difficult-to-predict needs, while not setting go beyond the fundamental of risk avoidance, albeit the pri- aside so much money that this creates unduly complications mary purpose, to the augmentation of the credibility and in the capital programming process. Some amount of fund- accountability of the organization itself.