National Academies Press: OpenBook
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 11

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

© 2018 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research for this document was conducted through one or more programs administered by the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:  Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) research is sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program (HMCRP) research is sponsored by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).  National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) research is sponsored by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.  National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) research is sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  National Cooperative Rail Research Program (NCRRP) research is sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration.  Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) research is sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply endorsement by TRB and any of its program sponsors of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER To facilitate more timely dissemination of research findings, this pre-publication document is taken directly from the submission of the research agency. The material has not been edited by TRB. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this document are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board, the National Academies, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. This pre-publication document IS NOT an official publication of the Cooperative Research Programs; the Transportation Research Board; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Recommended citation: Flannery, A., M. A. Pena, J. Manns. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Pre-publication draft of NCHRP Synthesis 527. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

FINAL REPORT NCHRP PROJECT 20-05 SYNTHESIS TOPIC 48-13 RESILIENCE IN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, ENGINEERING, MANAGEMENT, POLICY, AND ADMINISTRATION Prepared by Aimee Flannery, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Investigator Maria A. Pena Transportation Analyst, M.S., E.I.T and Jessica Manns Technical Editor January 2, 2018 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 3  CONTENTS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. 7  GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................................................................................................................... 10  CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 12  Study Approach and Report Organization ...................................................................................... 13  CHAPTER TWO-EVOLUTION OF HIGHWAY RESILIENCE ........................................................ 14   INCORPORATION OF RESILIENCE INTO HIGHWAY PROGRAMS................................... 18  AGENCY PERSONNEL ROLES/RESPONSIBILITIES/TRAINING/EDUCATION ............ 20  FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR RESILIENCE ........................................................................... 21  FEDERAL AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION RESILIENCE INITIATIVES ......................... 22  CHAPTER THREE-DEFINITIONS, METRICS, AND FRAMEWORKS FOR RESILIENCE ......... 24  RESILIENCE DEFINITIONS FROM OTHER SECTORS ............................................................ 24  RESILIENCE DEFINITIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION ....................................................... 26  RISK DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 29  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RISK AND RESILIENCE ............................................................. 30    RESILIENCE METRICS AND INDICIES ..................................................................................... 33    INDICES............................................................................................................................................ 36    FRAMEWORKS FOR RESILIENCE .............................................................................................. 37    SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 41  CHAPTER FOUR-AGENCY PERSPECTIVES AND APPLICATION OF RESILIENCE PRACTICES .............................................................................................................................................. 42  AGENCY SURVEY .............................................................................................................................. 42  SURVEY PARTICIPATION ................................................................................................................ 42  SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 43  SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 55  CHAPTER FIVE-CASE EXAMPLES ON RESILIENCE ..................................................................... 56    ARIZONA DOT CASE EXAMPLE ................................................................................................... 56    COLORADO DOT CASE EXAMPLE ............................................................................................... 59    DELAWARE DOT CASE EXAMPLE ............................................................................................... 63    PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) CASE EXAMPLE ....... 67    GENESEE TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (GTC) CASE EXAMPLE ........................................ 74  SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 78 

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 4  CHAPTER SIX-CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................... 80  SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 80  FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................................. 81  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 82  REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 83  APPENDIX-SURVEY OF STATE DOTs ............................................................................................... 93 

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 5  TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Resilience Timeline .................................................................................................................. 14  Figure 2. Sixteen Critical Infrastructure Sectors Identified by ........................................................... 15  Figure 3. Resilience Profile (US Department of Homeland Security, 2011) ..................................... 31  Figure 4. Relationship between Risk, Resilience and Vulnerability ................................................. 32  Figure 5. Social Vulnerability Index for the United States (University of South Carolina, n.d.) .. 36  Figure 6. Resilience Attributes (New Zealand Transport Agency, 2014) ......................................... 38  Figure 7. FHWA Framework for Vulnerability Assessment (Federal Highway Administration, 2012) ........................................................................................................................................................... 40  Figure 8. Completed Surveys ................................................................................................................. 43  Figure 9. Survey Respondents Area of Expertise ................................................................................ 44  Figure 10. Survey Respondents Mode of Transportation Maintained by Responding Agency ... 45  Figure 11. Survey Respondent Resilience Definition .......................................................................... 47  Figure 12. Map of Survey Respondents who are Incorporating Resilience into Existing Programs  .................................................................................................................................................................... 48  Figure 13. Survey Respondents Program Resilience ........................................................................... 49  Figure 14. Survey Response Word Cloud ............................................................................................. 50  Figure 15. Map of Survey Respondents that have Performed Vulnerability or Risk Assessments  .................................................................................................................................................................... 51  Figure 16. Vulnerability and Risk Assessments by Asset .................................................................. 52  Figure 17. Where Survey Respondents would like further Information ......................................... 54  Figure 18. Risk and Resilience for Highways adapted from RAMCAP PlusSM .............................. 61  Figure 19. New York and PANYNJ Resilience Timeline .................................................................... 69  Figure 20. GTC Resilience Diagram ...................................................................................................... 75 

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 6  LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Key Discriminators used to Develop Consolidated Resilience Definitions (US Department of Homeland Security, 2011) ............................................................................................ 24  Table 2. State DOT Definitions of Resilience ........................................................................................ 28  Table 3. State DOTs Resilience Definitions ........................................................................................... 46 

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 7  SUMMARY The objective of this synthesis study was to document resilience efforts and how they are organized, understood, and implemented within transportation agencies’ core functions and services. Core functions and services include planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, operations, and administration. The information gathered details the motivations behind the policies that promote highway resilience, definitions of risk and resilience and the relationship between these two fields, and how agencies are incorporating resilience practices through project development, policy, and design. The findings of this report reflect information gathered through three primary sources: a literature review; a survey of state DOTs; and five case examples developed through interviews with infrastructure agencies incorporating resilience into their programs. A review of national policies found that while resilience policies are becoming well established, there lacks integration of resilience into practice within transportation. With the recent requirements for risk based asset management plans, it is possible that state DOTs have yet to fully complete those requirements and are struggling to address an un-mandated management approach. Also lacking is strong guidance correlating a relationship between risk and resilience, which would be helpful to allow agencies to understand how their risk assessments can help support their system resilience analyses. In addition, while policy touts the need for resilient systems, the lack of monetary assessment of the value of system resilience makes it challenging for agencies to stretch limited dollars in another direction when already faced with challenges related to new performance metrics such as safety, infrastructure condition, and operational reliability. The relationship between each of these metrics and system resilience, in the transportation sector, has not yet been fully fleshed out in an easy to use guidance or modeling tool to assess resilience. Because of this, implementation and understanding of performance metrics and resilience will continue to be a challenge at state DOTs. The literature review identified shortcomings in the definition of resilience, the quantitative relationship between risk and resilience, and metrics to measure resilience. Much of the focus of resilience definitions is on the ability to recover post event, however, a DHS study was reviewed that helped to define key discriminators for resilience definitions to address the full range of time periods in which resilience is needed to be addressed by asset managers and owners and reflect four goal areas (maintaining continuity of function; graceful degradation; recovery of function to desired function in designated time; inhibit basic state of change). The reflection of definitions against the key discriminators provided by DHS for infrastructure systems may be of use to state DOTs as they move forward with their resilience programs as a way to help identify resilient practices and policies that address a broader range of activities that can be implemented to provide more than quick recovery post event to transportation assets. Resilience metrics also appear to be lacking in quantitative measures that can be readily calculated and assessed. Much of the published peer-reviewed literature focused on utilizing existing operational metrics normally related to system reliability as surrogates to reflect recovery time as a measure of system resilience. Some researchers have attempted to measure

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 8  characteristics such as the angle of deterioration and recovery triangles during weather events on interstate systems. This approach appears to have promise with the availability of historical traffic performance data at the micro and meso scales. In general, however, it appears that agencies are struggling to measure system resilience as was reflected in the state survey reviewed in Chapter 4 of this report. The survey of 40 state DOTs (80%) revealed that the majority of respondents are working to incorporate resilience into their management programs, however, a closer look at their response to questions related to information needed, revealed that agencies are seeking information on resilience metrics and assessment methods, criticality assessment models, asset vulnerability, and the expected benefits from mitigation measures. Given the lack of documented metrics for resilience in the literature review and the request of additional data from states on how to measure and assess resilience, this appears to be a pressing need to fully address resilience in transportation systems. It is also noted that a wide range of agency divisions responded to the survey including asset management, operations, design, planning, emergency management, and maintenance. This range of agency divisions that are working to address resilience may imply the need for a framework to assist agencies with determining roles and responsibilities of the appropriate offices and programs within highway agencies to address resilience throughout the project life cycle. Five case examples were also developed, three for state DOTs (Arizona, Colorado, and Delaware), one for the New York/New Jersey Port Authority, and one for the Genesee Transportation Council, a MPO in the State of New York. Each of the case examples documents what each agency is doing to address resilience within their agency. The three state DOTs included in the case examples have been brought into the realm of resilience analysis from different starting points: Arizona DOT was involved in the FHWA Climate Change Pilots and has focused their efforts on establishing a unique relationship with USGS to improve their understanding of the potential flow and path of extreme rain events and how those flows may affect ADOT assets. Utilizing this information, the agency is seeking candidate locations to apply a newly developed process to economically validate resilience investments referred to as Resilience Investment Economic Analysis. Colorado DOT is building on lessons learned from the devastating 2013 flood event which damaged over $750 million in highway assets alone. Utilizing the ASCE RAMCAP Plus framework, CDOT is proactively conducting an all-hazards risk and resilience assessment of the I-70 corridor from border to border. The goals of the project include developing a repeatable process, establishing a model for assessing asset criticality, determining the most risk prone locations on the corridor, and developing mitigation plans for some of the locations. Delaware DOT, also a FHWA Climate Change Pilot site, has focused their efforts on incorporating resilience into their policies and planning areas. Much of the focus of their resilience assessments are focused on sea-level rise and coastal flooding given the state has the lowest average elevation in the country and 381 miles of shoreline. The two remaining case examples were included to demonstrate how similar entities (port authority and MPO) are addressing resilience.

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 9  Based on the information gathered through three distinct sources of data (literature review, state DOT surveys, and case examples) the three primary challenges for state DOTs for incorporating resilience into their management programs appear to be:  Lack of understanding of how resilience is related to risk assessment and management  Lack of metrics to measure system resilience and the benefits expected from resilience investments  Lack of clear direction as to how system resilience can affect mandated transportation performance measures such as safety, infrastructure health, and system operations and vice versa Finally, much of the information related to highway system resilience appears to be disjointed in that climate change, risk assessment, asset deterioration as reflected in asset management plans, operational performance, and safety performance have yet to be fully integrated to demonstrate how each affects the other. In addition, the lack of clear metrics to measure system resilience leave agencies to struggle with appeasing policy makers who react to national mandates without the tools to implement resilient practices. Finally, data to support such analyses, such as the expected performance or benefit derived from mitigation measures implemented to improve system resilience, make it very difficult for agencies to justify such investments as compared to model and data rich areas like operational or safety performance when competing from the same limited pool of funding. Simply stating that a design or maintenance activity will “improve system resilience” is not enough to support the argument when considering the funding allocation process when other management areas have well established data sets, metrics, and models to forecast expected performance. National research could shed further light on addressing the integration of resilient practices into highway programs.

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 10  GLOSSARY OF TERMS Adaptation- Adjustment in natural or human systems in anticipation of or response to a changing environment in a way that effectively uses beneficial opportunities or reduces negative effects (US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2014). Asset (transportation system) - Pavement, bridges, culverts, signs, embankments, etc., essentially all features built and maintained on highways. Asset Management- A data-driven, strategic approach for the preservation, rehabilitation, and maintenance of assets. Climate Change- refers to any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an extended period of time. Climate change includes major variations in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among other environmental conditions, that occur over several decades or longer. Changes in climate may manifest as a rise in sea level, as well as increase the frequency and magnitude of extreme weather events now and in the future (US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2014). Consequence- The outcome of an event occurrence, including immediate, short and long-term, direct and indirect losses and effects. Consequence Mitigation- The planned and coordinated actions or system features designed to reduce or minimize the damage caused by attacks or natural hazard events. Countermeasures- What is in place or could be put in place to reduce the vulnerability of an asset, and/or the probability that an attack will succeed in causing a failure or significant damage. Critical Asset- Assets, that if lost or damaged, would severely degrade or curtail an owner’s ability to perform core functions or its mission. Extreme Weather Events- Weather events that can include significant anomalies in temperature, precipitation and winds and can manifest as heavy precipitation and flooding, heatwaves, drought, wildfires and windstorms (including tornadoes and tropical storms). Consequences of extreme weather events can include safety concerns, damage, destruction, and/or economic loss. Climate change can also cause or influence extreme weather events. Preparedness- actions taken to plan, organize, equip, train, and exercise to build, apply, and sustain the capabilities necessary to prevent, protect against, ameliorate the effects of, respond to, and recover from climate change related damages to life, health, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and national security (US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 2014). Redundancy- a measure of alternative routes available. Sustainability- Capacity to endure. The goal of sustainability can be described with the triple bottom line, which includes giving consideration to three primary principles: Social, Environmental, and Economic (Federal Highway Administration).

Topic 48-13 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Final Report 11  Threat- Any indication, circumstance or event with the potential to cause the loss of, or damage to, an asset, system or network. Threat Characterization- Threat scenarios are identified and described in enough detail to estimate vulnerability and consequences. Threat Assessment- Normalized assessments of attractiveness in light of the high level objectives of terrorists and intelligence based assessments of adversary capabilities and intent. Vulnerability- Network weakness plus the consequence of failure. Potential factors affecting vulnerability are: asset age, condition, interdependence of on-system and off-system assets, countermeasures, and magnitude of event. Vulnerability Analysis/Vulnerability Assessment- A systematic examination of an asset’s ability to withstand a specific threat using current security and emergency preparedness procedures and controls.

Next: CHAPTER ONE-INTRODUCTION »
Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has released a pre-publication, non-edited version of Synthesis 527: Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. The report documents resilience efforts and how they are organized, understood, and implemented within transportation agencies’ core functions and services. Core functions and services include planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, operations, and administration. The information gathered details the motivations behind the policies that promote highway resilience, definitions of risk and resilience, and the relationship between these two fields. The report also explores how agencies are incorporating resilience practices through project development, policy, and design.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!