Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide (2021)

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.

166 Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9) The ultimate products of applying the Framework (and, in partic- ular, of the analyses and efforts in Step 8) are projects, actions, and strategies aimed at improving your agency’s resiliency. Step 9 consists of programming and implementing resilience-related projects. Many different factors will influence the degree to which resilience projects are implemented as part of your agency’s resilience program. Such factors include the eligibility criteria for categorical funding programs, the adopted priority criteria used to allocate funding, the degree to which funding sources (e.g., state legislatures) understand the need for resilience investments, and the willingness of partner agencies to collaborate in supporting mutually beneficial resilience-supporting efforts. Governmental transportation programs are often limited by constitutional/legal requirements on how different funding sources can be used to further an agency’s goals. Thus, this step reflects the level of support your agency has obtained. This speaks to the importance of making the business case for resilience, a theme reflected in the factors below. Capability Factors and Levels of Maturity Factor 9.1: Has your agency made the business case for investing in resilience-oriented projects and strategies? Programming and implementing resilience projects and actions depend on the budgetary and funding support of different enabling agencies. For state transportation agencies, the source of funds primarily comes from the state government, dedicated trust funds, and/or the federal government. Often, convincing decision-makers to invest in any transportation program depends on a perceived return on investment, either as benefits measured in dollars or as those that are considered public benefits (and not easily monetized). A successful resilience program will require funds that can be used for capital investments aimed at a more resilient transportation system as well as budget allocations to agency units that are on the front line of implementing this program, such as operations, maintenance, and emergency response. This factor focuses on your agency’s efforts to make the business case for resilience-oriented invest- ments and/or budget allocations. The major distinctions among the different maturity levels of this factor reflect the level of sophistication in making this case, e.g., in assigning monetary values to expected benefits and the degree to which resilience-oriented projects have been implemented. • Level 1: We rely on a subjective assessment of the need for additional investment in resilience projects and strategies when justifying additional funding. C H A P T E R   1 5

Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9) 167   • Level 2: We have developed written materials based on historical evidence relating to the benefits associated with resilience investments. This written material is used in our efforts to justify additional budget requests. • Level 3: We have developed written materials based on economic analysis of the benefits of providing funding of resilience actions. This business case explicitly recognizes resilience co-benefits with other project goals. This information has resulted in additional funds being provided for resilience actions. Factor 9.2: Has your agency/jurisdiction established a resilience project funding category or targeted funds to projects whose primary aim is to enhance system resilience? This factor represents your agency’s commitment to a resilience program by creating a stand- alone funding category for resilience projects or by using existing funds to target resilience- related project components. Except for federal ER funds and funding programs aimed at seismic protection, there are few examples of dedicated funding aimed at enhancing system resilience. In most cases, developing a dedicated funding program requires enabling legislation and thus the need for your agency to make the business case for such investments (see previous factor). The major distinction among the maturity levels reflects the degree to which resilience funding has been set aside and institutionalized in your agency. • Level 1: We consider system resilience as part of the project selection process and will often spend an incremental amount of funds to support resilience efforts. However, there is no dedicated resilience project funding source. • Level 2: We have set aside funds from existing funding sources to support resilience projects. There are many examples where such funds have been used for this purpose. • Level 3: We have a dedicated funding source for resilience projects. We have adopted written guidance on the criteria for project eligibility. Factor 9.3: To what degree are project resilience-oriented considerations included in the capital program prioritization process? Prioritization criteria are often used in identifying the most desired projects in a capital investment program. These criteria relate to adopted agency goals and mandates and are subject to scrutiny and periodic review. In many ways, such criteria are a good indication of what an agency considers most important when allocating its limited funding. This factor focuses on the extent to which resilience-oriented considerations are part of the capital program prioritization process. This could be either with explicit resilience criteria or with the use of surrogate criteria that would serve many goals, one of which would be to enhance system resilience. The major distinctions among the maturity levels in this factor reflect the level of formal inclusion of resilience criteria in the prioritization process and the level of monetization incorporated into these criteria. • Level 1: Our capital programming prioritization process uses resilience information from Step 8 on an ad hoc basis. There are no formal resilience-related prioritization criteria. • Level 2: Our capital programming prioritization process uses resilience-oriented prioritiza- tion criteria for some of our capital investment program areas but not for every program in the agency. The set of criteria does not include economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience project benefits. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, formal resilience-oriented prioritiza- tion criteria are used for all of our capital investment decisions where project priorities need

168 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide to be established. In addition, economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience project benefits are considered as part of the prioritization process. Resilience co-benefits with other project goals are explicitly included in the prioritization. Factor 9.4: To what degree are project resilience-oriented considerations included in noncapital program prioritization processes (e.g., operations and maintenance program priorities)? Similar in concept to the above factor, this factor focuses on the extent to which resilience considerations are incorporated into budget allocations for your agency units that have an important resilience role and that are dependent on the agency’s budget for implementing and maintaining program activities. This factor links back to Step 8 and examines the extent to which Step 8 activities are used in establishing noncapital program priorities. The major distinc- tions among the levels of maturity reflect the degree of formality in using resilience information in budgetary decisions and the level of economic analysis that accompanies the use of such information. • Level 1: Our noncapital programming prioritization processes use resilience information from Step 8 on an ad hoc basis. There are no formal resilience-related prioritization criteria. • Level 2: Our noncapital programming prioritization processes use resilience-oriented priori- tization criteria for some of our program areas but not for every program in the agency. The set of criteria does not include economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience projects or strategy benefits. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2 level. In addition, formal resilience-oriented prioritization criteria are used for all of our noncapital investment decisions where project or strategy priorities need to be established. In addition, economic or BCA monetary assess- ments of resilience benefits are considered as part of the prioritization process. Resilience co-benefits with other project goals are explicitly included in the prioritization. Factor 9.5: Has your agency implemented projects where incremental increases in project costs were allowed in order to increase system resilience? One strategy used by some transportation agencies to fund resilience-oriented project components is to piggyback resilience funding on the capital budget of a project that is often being undertaken for other purposes. This approach has been used to include seismic protection into structures and other projects that were considered particularly vulnerable. Although such additional costs might be considered scope creep (and are often viewed nega- tively as part of the value engineering process), this factor recognizes that using incremental costs for key projects is one of the most direct ways of making some investment in system resilience. The major distinction among the maturity levels for this factor is the degree of formality in considering such costs. • Level 1: We have used incremental funding to enhance resilience in a few cases with the initiative to do so coming from individual engineers or unit leaders. • Level 2: We have used incremental funding to enhance resilience in a few cases. We have done so for targeted programs such as bridge rehabilitation projects where incremental costs provide a greater level of protection against hazards (e.g., seismic or flooding). However, this approach is not widespread in the agency. • Level 3: We actively seek changes in project scopes where incremental increases in project costs are allowed because of expected additional system resilience benefits. Guidance has been developed to provide directions for doing so.

Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9) 169   Factor 9.6: Has your agency participated with partner agencies in jointly sponsoring projects that will enhance overall system resilience? As has been noted elsewhere in this guide, resilience programs and actions often include the participation of numerous agencies, each having different mandates and goals. Such coordinated and collaborative actions are necessary to ensure the successful implementation of many resilience efforts. This factor recognizes the multi-agency, multi-participant nature of many resilience efforts. The major distinctions among the maturity levels reflect the degree of formality of this interaction and the extent to which such interaction includes jointly funding strategies aimed at improving system resilience. • Level 1: We meet on an ad hoc basis with some of the agencies involved with providing a resilient transportation system (e.g., emergency responders) to identify mutually beneficial projects. Results of these discussions are considered in budget decisions. • Level 2: We formally meet with some of the agencies involved with providing a resilient transportation system to identify mutually beneficial projects/strategies. We have identified projects/actions that will enhance our collaborative efforts, and, by mutual agreement, these projects receive priority in each agency’s budget process. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we have jointly funded projects/ strategies that aim at improving system resilience and that benefit each partner. Jointly defined projects receive funding priority in our programs. Factor 9.7: If your agency uses public-private partnership (P3) agreements, to what extent are resilience-oriented performance criteria incorporated into the contractual requirements of the investor/bidder responsibilities? Some transportation agencies use P3 agreements for especially costly projects or programs. Such agreements establish the respective roles of government agencies and private investors in a project or program that receives private investment. In essence, the purpose of a P3 agree- ment is to promote private investment in a project or program in exchange for the investor obtaining a financial return on the initial investment over a specified timeframe. The asset is the responsibility of the investor during the term of the agreement, but at some point in the project life, it is turned back to the government. This factor reflects the degree to which resilience considerations are part of the contractual requirements of the investor. The major distinction in the maturity levels reflects the level of formality of resilience provisions included in the contract documents. • Level 1: We have noted facility resilience (in light of future disruption uncertainty) as a desired facility characteristic in the project scope. However, such characteristics are not linked to performance criteria that applicants must respond to, such as the length of time for recovering from asset failures. • Level 2: We have explicitly incorporated resilience criteria (e.g., guaranteed facility perfor- mance in light of future disruption potential) into the P3 agreement. We have also included adaptive design criteria as part of the design process. Only a limited number of potential hazards and threats are identified in the project scope. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, all possible potential hazards and threats are considered. It is expected that the applicant will conduct a detailed assessment of these hazards and threats using a process like ADAP and will include the monetary value of any risks in the fee/payment structure.

170 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Factor 9.8: Does your agency periodically monitor funding allocations to determine how many projects are being funded that have been defined from Step 8 as having system resilience benefits? This factor reflects the degree to which your agency’s implemented resilience program is actually having an impact on your agency’s resilience efforts. The intent is to monitor resilience- related funding over time to identify trends in such funding and to determine the level of success in implementing projects and actions resulting from Step 8 activities. The major distinctions among the levels of maturity reflect the level of analysis and the formality of reporting such funding allocations. • Level 1: We monitor the allocation of project funding only as it relates to targeted resilience policy and program priorities established by agency leadership. The allocation is reported periodically to agency leadership. • Level 2: We monitor the allocation of project funding for all resilience projects and strategies undertaken by our agency. The results of this monitoring are reported as part of the agency’s annual performance management process. • Level 3: We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we provide more detailed analyses on the benefits and costs associated with investing in resilience actions (e.g., the incremental costs of providing resilience benefits as part of projects undertaken primarily for other reasons). Table 28 summarizes the factors that are included in the self-assessment tool for Step 9. The maturity levels for each factor are presented in the descriptions of each factor. The total score for this step is found by summing the number of points given for each factor. Recommended Actions to Maintain the Highest Level of Agency Resilience Capability The highest level of capability for Step 9: Program and Implement Resilience Measures focuses on continual improvement in agency capability and actions leading to a more resilient transportation system. If your agency has reached a Level 3 maturity, the steps that can be taken to maintain this level include: • Continue to update the business case for resilience with the most recent benefit-cost data collected by your agency. Update written materials accordingly. • Monitor the allocation of resilience-related funding to determine trends over time and to determine the types of resilience projects implemented. Link to the benefits calculation in the previous bullet. • Periodically reassess the resilience-oriented prioritization criteria used by your agency in developing capital programs to determine how these criteria are influencing capital program development. Update monetary costs in the economic analysis associated with relevant criteria. • Similar to the previous bullet, periodically review how resilience-oriented prioritization criteria are used by your agency in developing noncapital investment priorities. Assess the extent to which they have influenced budget allocation to resilience-oriented functions in your agency. Update monetary costs in the economic analysis associated with the relevant criteria in the budget analysis. • Monitor the effectiveness of incremental project scope changes aimed at enhancing system resilience. Over the long term, determine the benefit-cost relationship for such incremental investments. • Continue to nurture the collaborative relationships established with partner organizations. Re-energize these relationships if necessary. Hold interagency meetings with the leaders of all partner agencies to identify enhancements in these relationships, if needed.

Maturity Characteristic Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 9.1 Has your agency made the business case for investing in resilience-oriented projects and strategies? We rely on a subjective assessment of the need for additional investment in resilience projects and strategies when justifying additional funding. We have developed written materials based on historical evidence relating to the benefits associated with resilience investments. This written material is used in our efforts to justify additional budget requests. We have developed written materials based on economic analysis of the benefits of providing funding of resilience actions. This business case explicitly recognizes resilience co-benefits with other project goals. This information has resulted in additional funds being provided for resilience actions. 9.2 Has your agency/jurisdiction established a resilience project funding category or targeted funds to projects whose primary aim is to enhance system resilience? We consider system resilience as part of the project selection process and will often spend an incremental amount of funds to support resilience efforts. However, there is no dedicated resilience project funding source. We have set aside funds from existing funding sources to support resilience projects. There are many examples where such funds have been used for this purpose. We have a dedicated funding source for resilience projects. We have adopted written guidance on the criteria for project eligibility. 9.3 To what degree are project resilience-oriented considerations included in the capital program prioritization process? Our capital programming prioritization process uses resilience information from Step 8 on an ad hoc basis. There are no formal resilience-related prioritization criteria. Our capital programming prioritization process uses resilience-oriented prioritization criteria for some of our capital investment program areas but not for every program in the agency. The set of criteria does not include economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience project benefits. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, formal resilience-oriented prioritization criteria are used for all of our capital investment decisions where project priorities need to be established. In addition, economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience project benefits are considered as part of the prioritization process. Resilience co-benefits with other project goals are explicitly included in the prioritization. 9.4 To what degree are project resilience-oriented considerations included in noncapital program prioritization processes (e.g., operations and maintenance program priorities)? Our noncapital programming prioritization processes use resilience information from Step 8 on an ad hoc basis. There are no formal resilience- related prioritization criteria. Our noncapital programming prioritization processes use resilience- oriented prioritization criteria for some of our program areas but not for every program in the agency. The set of criteria does not include economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience projects or strategy benefits. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, formal resilience-oriented prioritization criteria are used for all of our noncapital investment decisions where project or strategy priorities need to be established. In addition, economic or BCA monetary assessments of resilience benefits are considered as part of the prioritization process. Resilience co- benefits with other project goals are explicitly included in the prioritization. Table 28. Assessment table for Step 9: Program and Implement Resilience Measures. (continued on next page)

Maturity Characteristic Level 1 (1 point) Level 2 (2 points) Level 3 (3 points) 9.5 Has your agency implemented projects where incremental increases in project costs were allowed in order to increase system resilience? We have used incremental funding to enhance resilience in a few cases with the initiative to do so coming from individual engineers or unit leaders. We have used incremental funding to enhance resilience in a few cases. We have done so for targeted programs such as bridge rehabilitation projects where incremental costs provide a greater level of protection against hazards (e.g., seismic or flooding). However, this approach is not widespread in the agency. We actively seek changes in project scopes where incremental increases in project costs are allowed because of expected additional system resilience benefits. Guidance has been developed to provide directions for doing so. 9.6 Has your agency participated with partner agencies in jointly sponsoring projects that will enhance overall system resilience? We meet on an ad hoc basis with some of the agencies involved with providing a resilient transportation system (e.g., emergency responders) to identify mutually beneficial projects. Results of these discussions are considered in budget decisions. We formally meet with some of the agencies involved with providing a resilient transportation system to identify mutually beneficial projects/strategies. We have identified projects/actions that will enhance our collaborative efforts, and, by mutual agreement, these projects receive priority in each agency’s budget process. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we have jointly funded projects/strategies that aim at improving system resilience and that benefit each partner. Jointly defined projects receive funding priority in our programs. 9.7 If your agency uses public- private partnership (P3) agreements, to what extent are resilience-oriented performance criteria incorporated into the contractual requirements of the investor/bidder responsibilities? We have noted facility resilience (in light of future disruption uncertainty) as a desired facility characteristic in the project scope. However, such characteristics are not linked to performance criteria that applicants must respond to, such as the length of time for recovering from asset failures. We have explicitly incorporated resilience criteria (e.g., guaranteed facility performance in light of future disruption potential) into the P3 agreement. We have also included adaptive design criteria as part of the design process. Only a limited number of potential hazards and threats are identified in the project scope. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, all possible potential hazards and threats are considered. It is expected that the applicant will conduct a detailed assessment of these hazards and threats using a process like ADAP and will include the monetary value of any risks in the fee/payment structure. 9.8 Does your agency periodically monitor funding allocations to determine how many projects are being funded that have been defined from Step 8 as having system resilience benefits? We monitor the allocation of project funding only as it relates to targeted resilience policy and program priorities established by agency leadership. The allocation is reported periodically to agency leadership. We monitor the allocation of project funding for all resilience projects and strategies undertaken by our agency. The results of this monitoring are reported as part of the agency’s annual performance management process. We have achieved Maturity Level 2. In addition, we provide more detailed analyses on the benefits and costs associated with investing in resilience actions (e.g., the incremental costs of providing resilience benefits as part of projects undertaken primarily for other reasons). Your agency is eme Your agency has implemented severa initiative of agency staff. Score Range Description of Agency Maturity in Programming and Implementing Resilience Measures 0 to 11 rging into this area and has taken initial steps to grow awareness and understanding of the types of efforts it can take to program/prioritize resilience projects and strategies. Additional action is warranted. 12 to 20 l programming/prioritizing strategies, not so much as part of an agency-wide strategy but rather at the 21 to 24 Your agency has reached significant maturity in programming/prioritizing resilience projects/strategies. The major focus should be on maintaining and enhancing existing efforts where appropriate and taking advantage of new opportunities as they become available. Table 28. (Continued).

Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9) 173   • If your agency uses P3 agreements, monitor the effectiveness of the resilience-related require- ments in contract documents. Modify related language for future P3 agreements to account for any deficiencies in existing agreements. If you did not score a 24 in the assessment (a perfect score in Level 3 efforts), identify those factors that were rated lower, and identify a strategy or action steps to improve these particular components of Step 9. Recommended Actions to Achieve Higher Levels of Resilience Capability If you scored at Level 1 or 2, you can take steps to continue your evolution toward a more resilience-oriented agency as it relates to enhancements to programming and implementing resilience activities. In such cases, agency managers should identify which of the factors in Table 28 were most deficient and determine priorities for improving your agency’s organiza- tional resilience capabilities in programming and implementing resilience measures. Table 29 is offered as a template to determine which steps your agency can take to improve its capabilities in programming and implementing resilience measures, who should be responsible, the timeframe for the implementation, and expected outcomes. Let’s do this. (check) Action Re sp on si bi lit y? Ti m ef ra m e? Ex pe ct ed ou tc om es ? If you have not done so, develop a business case for resilience investments that can be used to justify more such investments. If such a business case has been developed, update periodically as new information on benefits and costs becomes available. Develop and implement a strategy for securing dedicated funding for resilience actions and project design components. This could be a stand-alone funding program or incremental additions to existing funding programs that allow resilience-relatedinvestments. Develop and implement a set of prioritization criteria that will result in more investment in resilience projects and strategies. Periodically assess the influence of these criteria in supporting resilience projects. Adjust over time as needed. Hold meetings with agency leaders and staff, especially those who often speak in public forums, to make sure they understand the meaning, implications, and benefits associated with your agency’s resilience program (as reflected in reported performance measures). Continue to investigate the most appropriate strategy for monetizing resilience benefits. Monitor the literature and examine best practices from other transportation agencies in how this can be done most convincingly. Possible steps for Step 4: Implement Early Wins Table 29. Actions to achieve higher maturity for Step 9: Program and Implement Resilience Measures.

174 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Useful Resources FHWA. n.d. Performance-Based Planning and Programming. Website. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https:// ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/performance_based.htm FHWA. 2020. Climate Change Adaptation Guide for Transportation Systems Management, Operations, and Main- tenance. Report FHWA-HOP-15-026. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ fhwahop15026/index.htm Fletcher, D. R. and D. S. Ekern. Forthcoming. NCHRP Research Report 975: Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. TRB. 2017. Transportation Research Circular E-C226 Transportation Systems Resilience, Preparation, Recovery, and Adaptation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. Nov. 2017. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec226.pdf Weilant, S., A. Strong, and B. Miller. 2019. Incorporating Resilience into Transportation Planning and Assessment. RR-3038-TRB. RAND Corporation. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://doi.org/10.7249/RR3038