Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration (2018)

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.

30 This chapter provides insight as to how state DOTs are currently applying resilience prac- tices, the methods being used in their applications, and the challenges these agencies are experiencing with implementation of resilient practices. The information is drawn from a survey of state DOTs conducted in the spring of 2017. Agency Survey Resilience practices, metrics, models, and definitions were discussed in chapters 1 and 2. To learn more about the use of resilience practices currently being used within state DOTs, a survey was conducted in the spring of 2017 using the online survey tool Survey Gizmo. The survey was developed to better understand how agencies are using resilience practices in their planning, engineering, management, and policy and administration, and the challenges these agencies face in implementing these practices. The survey also provided information to demonstrate which states are performing resilience practices in their planning, engineering, management, and policy making and at what levels they are using these practices (i.e., systemwide, site-specific or asset level, facility level, or modal level). The goal of the survey was to achieve an 80% response rate (40 states) and to collect basic information about the use of resilience practices, as well as to locate potential state DOTs to highlight in case examples, which are presented in chapter 5. The participants were identified through a number of sources, including AASHTO committee membership, TRB committee membership, previous publications from state DOTs, and with help of the NCHRP project panel associated with this study. At the request of the project panel, the survey was also distributed through the National Association of Regional Councils, which represents MPOs and regional councils. Unfortunately, no survey responses were received from this group’s members. The draft survey was sent to the panel members for comment in December 2016 and was later revised to include their comments and subsequently added to the Survey Gizmo website for distribution to the state DOTs in February 2017. Survey Participation Given the lack of a home for resilience within highway agencies, the survey was sent to a range of offices across state DOTs, including operations, emergency management, asset management, planning, maintenance, and design. Efforts were made to identify potential survey respondents through AASHTO committee memberships, through presentations and publications made by representatives from state agencies, and with the help of the NCHRP committee panel. Exten- sive efforts were made to increase survey participation through the identification of alternative C H A P T E R 4 Agency Perspectives and Application of Resilience Practices

Agency Perspectives and Application of Resilience Practices 31 contacts within those agencies who did not respond to the initial survey request, follow-up phone calls, and in-person delivery of requests at various conferences. The survey was sent to state DOT stakeholders on February 27, 2017, and within the first week, four surveys had been completed. After the first week of distribution, follow up e-mails were sent to the recipients to remind them to complete the survey. The reminder list was updated as surveys were received, and those who completed the survey were removed from the list. In March and June of 2017, the panel was contacted to try to help identify dif- ferent contacts for the states who did not respond to the initial survey invitation. In total, as of July 12, 40 state DOTs (80%) had responded to the survey, with Maryland completing the survey twice (the DOT and the State Highway Administration), bringing the total number of survey responses to 41. Figure 7 provides a graphical representation of the state DOTs that have submitted completed surveys. Survey Results This section of the chapter details the findings of the survey and provides information as to how agencies are currently applying resilience practices in their transportation systems. The first set of questions was used to identify what type of agency was responding, the respondent’s area of expertise, and what type of transportation modes the responding agency is responsible for operating or managing. The next set of questions asked the respondents about their current use and understanding of resilience practices. Next, the respondents were asked to detail where/how they are currently using resilience practices within their agency. Finally, the survey concluded by asking the respondents if they were interested in being interviewed for a case example to high- light their use of resilience practices. The first question of the survey asked respondents what type of agency they were respond- ing from; 100% of the respondents reported being from a state DOT. The next question asked Figure 7. States that completed surveys.

32 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration the respondents to specify their areas of expertise within their organization and select all areas that apply. This information is highlighted in Figure 8. Note, given that the respondents were allowed to select more than one response, the total number of responses exceeds 41 (the total number of completed surveys). A diverse range of responses was received, with “Planning” being the most prevalent, and “Engineering,” “Asset Management,” and “Policy” closely following. Agency representatives that selected “Other” specified their areas of expertise to include driver licensing, environment and land use, environmental compliance, fiscal, research, and perfor- mance management. Next, respondents were asked to specify what types of transportation modes their agency is directly responsible for operating or managing and were able to select all responses that apply to their agency. As previously described, as respondents were allowed to choose more than one response, the total number of responses exceeds 41. Of the 41 respondents, 41 selected “Roads,” 18 selected “Aviation,” 16 selected “Transit,” 14 selected “Intermodal and Multimodal Facilities,” 13 selected “Ports and Waterways,” 10 selected “Freight Railroads,” 1 selected “Pipelines,” and 6 selected “Other,” which included ferries, tourist railroads, high- ways, biking trails, walking trails, and passenger railroads. This information is highlighted in Figure 9 and reflects the wide range of modes that can fall within the responsibilities of any state DOT. Next, the survey respondents were asked if their agency had developed their own definition for resilience or adopted a definition from elsewhere. Of the 41 respondents, 32 reported they had no definition for resilience, and 8 reported they did have a definition and provided informa- tion on adopted definitions. Figure 10 includes a graphical interpretation of the survey responses for this question. Given the relatively new concept of transportation resilience, many DOTs did not report having developed a standard definition for the practice or have yet to adopt a defini- tion from other sources. Table 3 provides the definitions adopted by eight DOTs who reported having adopted a definition of resilience. 26 18 17 17 11 10 10 9 8 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Re sp on se C ou nt (# ) Pla nn ing En gin ee rin g As se t M an ag em en t Po lic y M ain te na nc e Ad mi nis tra tio n Ot he r Op er ati on s Em er ge nc y a nd Ev en t R es po ns e Co ns tru cti on Figure 8. Survey respondents’ areas of expertise.

Agency Perspectives and Application of Resilience Practices 33 41 18 16 14 13 10 6 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Re sp on se C ou nt (# ) Ot he r Pip eli ne s Fre igh t R ail ro ad s Po rts an d W at er wa ys Int er mo da l a nd M ulti mo da l F ac iliti es Tr an sit Av iati on Ro ad s Figure 9. Survey respondents’ mode of transportation maintained by responding agency. Figure 10. Survey respondent resilience definition.

34 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Next, the survey respondents were asked if their agency has specific metrics to assess or mea- sure resilience, or both. Of the 41 survey respondents, 39 answered this question: 36 respon- dents (92%) answered “No,” while only 3 respondents answered “Yes.” Of those state DOTs that responded that they had adopted specific metrics for resilience, CDOT noted they are currently using a criticality model and the RAMCAP approach to quantify annualized risk from multiple hazards. Vermont DOT noted they use in-house formulas to decide which assets are at risk of failure from threats or hazards. The Illinois DOT noted they are currently developing a vulnerability index for all state-owned roads, bridges, rail corridors, and opera- tion facilities that will take into account all manmade and natural events. It is interesting that the survey question was specifically asking for resilience metrics, and those respondents that stated “Yes” provided information on how they are calculating risk or vulnerability but did not provide a resilience metric. As noted in the introduction of this synthesis, much work has been done on risk management, but little to date has been completed or implemented on resilience models or metrics or how risk and resilience are related. This is echoed in the responses of the state DOTs. Next, the respondents were asked if their agency has incorporated resilience practices into their existing programs and to detail the programs that are currently using these practices. Of the State Agency Resilience Definition Minnesota Department of Transportation Reducing vulnerability and ensuring redundancy and reliability to meet essential travel needs. Oregon Department of Transportation Uses a definition from the ODOT seismic report: “To achieve rapid recovery, require government continuity, resilient physical infrastructure, and business continuity.” Arizona Department of Transportation ADOT developed its resilience program to support its mission to provide a safe, efficient, cost-effective transportation system that can be compromised from the effects of heat extremes, dust storms, wildfires, flooding, landslides, rockfall incidents, and slope failures, and cope with the ever-growing cost of these threats. Delaware Department of Transportation Uses the concept in the Delaware Executive Order 41, which outlines resiliency practices to help mitigate climate impacts and reduce emissions. Colorado Department of Transportation Uses a definition provided by the Governor’s Resiliency Framework. “The ability of communities to rebound, positively adapt to or thrive amidst changing conditions or challenges – including disasters and climate change – and maintain quality of life, healthy growth, durable systems, and conservation of resources for present and future generations.” New York State Department of Transportation Uses the recommended guidance provided by the NYS 2100 Commission, which outlines how the state plans to identify areas where further resilience practices are needed. New Hampshire Department of Transportation Uses the NAS definition by default, which states “resilience is the ability to plan, absorb, recover and adapt.” Illinois Department of Transportation Plan and invest in the state’s transportation system to ensure that infrastructure is prepared for extreme weather events. Table 3. State DOTs resilience definitions.

Agency Perspectives and Application of Resilience Practices 35 40 survey respondents that answered this question 26 respondents (65%) answered “Yes,” while 14 respondents (35%) answered “No.” This information is detailed in Figure 11. When asked which programs are using resilience practices, 70% of respondents noted inclusion of resilience in their project planning and planning programs, 73% of respondents have begun to include resilience in their design methods, and 58% of respondents have included resilience in their asset management programs. For those that chose “Other,” responses included emergency response, emergency management, flood recovery, pavement, culvert replacement, and municipal bridge programs. As noted earlier in this chapter, the lack of a true resilience “home” with State DOTs is reflected in the range of areas where state DOTs are addressing resilience. For example, maintenance activities can be used to keep a culvert clear, thus reducing the probability of flooding, thus improving system resilience. Also, agencies, through planning activities and risk assessment, may note a critical redundant route that may need to be upgraded in design standard to accept heavier vehicles of traffic flow, should their main line be closed due to an event. This redundant route may then be addressed in the design process after being programmed in the planning process. Note, respondents were able to select multiple responses, meaning that some states are implementing resilience practices and methods across multiple program areas as shown in Figure 12. Next, the survey respondents were asked to detail examples of proactive and reactive resil- ience practices that their agency performs. “Proactive” refers to assessing vulnerabilities and risk for asset improvement to prevent or reduce damage and disruption from future events, while “Reactive” refers to the development of plans for system recovery after an event. The word cloud shown in Figure 13 details the responses received. The word cloud reveals that states are currently focused on both proactive and reactive management of risk, though other words such as “sea-level rise” appear to also reflect emerging efforts for proactive management of system resilience. A range of management areas appear to be engaged in resilience assessment and management, including maintenance, design, emergency response, and asset management. Figure 11. Map of survey respondents who are incorporating resilience into existing programs.

36 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration In addition, terms like “vulnerability” and “mitigation” appear to be more commonplace than in the recent past. Next, the responding agencies were asked if they currently have a plan to respond to and recover from disruptive events on their system/network or assets. Of the 37 respondents who answered this question, 31 (80%) said “Yes.” Of the respondents who said “Yes,” some provided examples of their agency’s plan. The following are examples: • ADOT has a full emergency management group; • Maryland DOT has the State of Maryland Response Operations Plan and the Coordinated Highways Action Response Team; • Tennessee DOT has an emergency response and recovery plan titled Transportation Emergency Preparedness Plan; 19 18 15 15 14 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Design Planning Asset Management Operations Maintenance Other Re sp on se C ou nt (# ) Figure 12. Survey respondents’ program resilience. Figure 13. Survey response word cloud.

Agency Perspectives and Application of Resilience Practices 37 • Utah DOT uses emergency preparedness efforts to coordinate with other agencies and entities; • Massachusetts DOT participates in storm-planning workshops and emergency management exercises; and • New York DOT uses NY Responds website and emergency operations manuals. Next, the survey respondents were asked if their agency has performed vulnerability or risk assessments, or both, to any particular threats. Of the 41 survey respondents, 22 answered “Yes,” 20 answered “In process,” and 3 answered “No.” The respondents were then asked to provide a list of threats they have analyzed. The answers included climate change, flooding, earthquakes, coastal erosion, funding shortfalls, changes in political environment, terrorism, sea-level rise, fires, rockfall, bridge strikes, and more. The range of threats being analyzed is reflective of the current guidance on risk management for highway assets from FHWA and AASHTO that has cast the net wide in terms of what threats to consider. It would be interesting to learn more about how agencies are predicting some of these threats given the lack of empirical or historical records to establish a probability of occurrence and the results of the event on highway asset or system performance. This information is further detailed in Figure 14. Next, the respondents were asked at what level their agency performs these vulnerability and risk assessments. Of the 37 respondents who answered this question, 22 (60%) stated they per- form them at the system-wide level (e.g., statewide or region wide), 13 (35%) at site-specific or asset level (e.g., HWY 101 at milepost 31; bridge structure F-21-XX), 1 (3%) at the facility level (e.g., Traffic Management Center), and 1 (3%) at the modal level (e.g., a bus-rapid transit system). The respondents were then asked to select all assets where they perform vulnerability or risk assessments, or both. Given the data requirements for pavement and bridge manage- ment systems, it is not surprising that these two asset classes ranked high in terms of assets being analyzed for vulnerability or risk assessments. Culverts and drain pipes were also noted to be assessed for vulnerability or risk assessment by many state DOTs. The range of assets being assessed [including intelligent transportation systems (ITS), tunnels, signs/signals, and facilities] reflects the emerging desire to understand more about system vulnerability and potential risk. Figure 14. Map of survey respondents that have performed vulnerability or risk assessments.

38 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration This information is presented in Figure 15. For those that chose “Other,” responses included evacuation routes, back-up power, communications, fueling, ferries, rail corridors, pump stations, and slopes. Next, the survey respondents were asked if they have guidance or procedures in place to incorporate consideration of climate change vulnerability in planning, project development, and engineering design. Of the 39 respondents, 26 stated they have none, and 13 stated they have guidance. The respondents were then asked to detail what types of guidance their agency is currently using. New York, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Maine are all currently in the process of developing guidance. Florida DOT noted that they have incorporated climate change vulner- ability in their roadway design manual. Also, the Maryland State Highway Administration noted that they published a Climate Change Adaptation Plan with Detailed Vulnerability Assessment in October 2014. Next, the responding agencies were asked if they used any specialized models/software to incorporate and/or evaluate resilience. Some respondents provided examples of the models/ software they use. • Florida DOT developed a sea-level risk sketch planning tool based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Climate Assessment sea-level rise scenarios. • Ohio DOT uses the FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Scoring Tool. • Colorado DOT uses the Risk and Resilience Analysis based on RAMCAP Plus framework. This is a 7-step repeatable, data-driven model for risk and resilience assessment of infrastruc- ture published by ASME. • Caltrans noted multiple models currently in use, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal Storm Modeling System, a USACE Sea-Level Change Curve Calculator, and the CalFIRE Wildfire Model. Caltrans noted extensive GIS modeling to support the use of these models. 33 30 23 13 11 11 10 9 8 7 7 6 4 1 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Bridges Roadway prism (pavement and embankment) Culverts Drain pipes Buildings Signs and signals ITS Other Tunnels Grade crossings Port and waterway facilities Aviation facilities Multimodal and intermodal facilities Pipelines Response Count (#) Figure 15. Vulnerability and risk assessments by asset.

Agency Perspectives and Application of Resilience Practices 39 The responding agencies were then asked to select areas where they would like to gain addi- tional information, best practices, and training. This information is presented in Figure 16. Of particular note is the high response rate requesting additional information on resilience metrics and methods in which 87% of respondents are requesting additional information. In addition, information is requested that will support resilience modeling including asset critical- ity assessment, deterioration curves, asset vulnerability, and expected benefits from mitigation measures. This may imply that agencies desire to better understand their system resilience and anticipated performance under threats but may not yet have the information needed to accomplish this analysis. Next, the responding agencies were asked if they incorporate benefit–cost analysis into their transportation resilience analysis. Of the 39 respondents that answered this question, 32 said “No,” and 7 said “Yes.” This is an important point given the acceptance of economic analysis of investments that go above and beyond standard design practices. Without fully understanding the benefit of resilient practices, it will be difficult for staff to justify additional expenditures to increase system resilience. As noted in the previous question regarding additional information that is requested of participants, additional information on the expected benefits from mitiga- tion measures is needed as well. Without this information, it will be difficult for agencies to perform benefit–cost analysis to economically justify investments in resilience. The responding agencies were then asked if they allocate or set aside funding to improve trans- portation resilience through any of the following: maintenance, operations, planning, design, and construction of projects. If they said yes, the agencies were asked to provide revenue sources that they use for this funding. Some of the funding sources that were highlighted included FEMA programs, FHWA programs such as the ER program and the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), the BRIDGE NY program, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and state resources. Of note is the use of emergency response funding sources to improve system resilience through FEMA and FHWA ER programs. 26 17 17 16 13 12 12 11 11 9 4 4 4 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Resilience Metrics and Assessment Methods System, Site and/or Asset Criticality Assessment Expected Benefits from Mitigations Asset Vulnerability Deterioration Curves or Models Asset Performance Metrics Anticipated Risks from Multiple Hazards Capital Costs Maintenance Costs User Costs Geospatial Location of Assets Asset Conditions Other Asset Inventory Response Count (#) Figure 16. Where survey respondents would like additional information.

40 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Summary A survey was conducted with 40 state DOTs on the topic of resilience. Questions were aimed at gaining a better understanding of the incorporation of resilient practices and policies within their agencies. A range of departments within the state DOTs responded to the survey, including mainte- nance, operations, planning, engineering, and asset management. Some agencies appear to be embracing resilience and have begun to shape their own definitions of what resilience will mean or does mean to their agency. Eight respondents provided details on their agency’s definition of resilience. Climate change and extreme weather appear to be the primary focus of many of these definitions, although there is some mention of being able to absorb and adapt to events. Over half of the respondents noted that their agency is incorporating resilience into their programs including planning, asset management, operations, maintenance, and design. In addition, they are addressing resilience at a range of levels from system to asset level and beginning to conduct vulnerability or risk assessments on specific assets, with bridges and pavements being the most prevalent followed by culverts and drains. Of note is the desire for additional information regarding resilience modeling, metrics, and expected benefits of mitigation measures. Survey respondents requested additional informa- tion related to several variables and inputs needed to model resilience including the metrics themselves, methods to capture asset criticality, deterioration curves, asset vulnerability from applicable threats, and anticipated performance of mitigation measures. Of the survey respondents, a few noted their willingness to participate in a case example. The following pages outline five case examples that reflect efforts underway in three departments of transportation, including Arizona, Colorado, and Delaware, and two case examples developed to highlight resilience efforts underway at PANYNJ and GTC, which is an MPO in the State of New York.