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.

4 Transportation system resilience has always been a critically important—if under-recognized— characteristic of effective system performance. It is becoming more so with the growing aware- ness of the consequences of natural and human-caused system disruptions. In the case of extreme weather, events over the years have demonstrated (often with tragic consequences) that many state departments of transportation (DOTs) assets, as well as other public and private assets, are at risk. Consider the following. • According to the U.S. National Weather Service, the United States experienced 14 weather and climate disaster events in 2019 (the last full year reported before publication) having losses exceeding $1 billion per event. The years 2011 and 2016 each had 16 such events. The United States experienced a total of $258 billion in weather disasters from 1980 to 2019, including tropical cyclones, severe storms, riverine floods, freeze, drought, and wildfires. Weather disasters in 2017 set a new record for cumulative costs in 1 year of over $306 billion (with Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria alone accounting for just over $265 billion of this total). Over the past 40 years, the frequency of billion-dollar disasters increased from an annual average of 6.5 events over the entire 40 years to an annual average between 2015 and 2019 of 13.8 events [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2020]. • With respect to human-caused disruptions, terrorist attacks against the New York City subway system and Brussels transit system in 2016 and other attacks in London, Brussels, and St. Petersburg (Russia) in 2017 highlighted how vulnerable transportation systems can be to physical attacks. • The past several years have also seen disruptive cyberattacks against transportation services in states (the Colorado Department of Transportation in 2018), cities (Atlanta and Baltimore in 2017), and private firms (Maersk in 2017). These natural and human-caused events resulted in significant damage and disruption to communities, transportation systems, and to the organizations that provide mobility. The accumulated experience of state DOTs to such disruptions and the importance of a high- performing and reliable transportation system to the nation, states, and communities have increased the interest of transportation officials in what steps they can take to enhance the resilience of the transportation system. With that in mind, this guide presents a tool that can be used to assess the status of a transportation agency’s capabilities with respect to resilience actions and strategies. It also identifies actions to enhance an agency’s contribution to a more resilient transportation system. The first section in this chapter describes the purpose of the guide. The second section provides a definition of resilience that serves as the foundation for the recommendations Introduction C H A P T E R   1

Introduction 5   in the guide. The remaining sections identify relationships between this research and other resilience research projects, the intended audiences, and the organization of and how to use the guide. Purpose of the Guide The purpose of this guide is to provide transportation officials with a benchmark that can be used to assess the current status of an agency’s efforts to create a more resilient transportation system. It also identifies actions and strategies to enhance and mainstream resilience actions into their agencies. The guide is organized around the Framework for Enhancing Agency Resilience to Natural and Anthropogenic Hazards and Threats (FEAR-NAHT), the Framework, a 10-step process that can be used to identify where changes in an organization and collaborative institutional relationships could be made to better mainstream resilience efforts (see Chapter 2 for a detailed description of the Framework). The Framework has evolved through the experiences and lessons learned from many studies on system resilience and adaptive transportation system design. It focuses on the institutional tools, governance steps, policies, pro- cesses, data, performance measures, work plans, and funding support a transportation agency might consider to enhance its resilience efforts and evolve the culture of the agency to one where system resilience is part of the standard way of doing business. The combination of the Framework and a self-assessment methodology described in the following chapters leads to the self-assessment tool proposed in the guide. The tool can be applied to a broad array of natural and human-caused threats to transportation systems and services. It focuses on these threats and describes actions that can be taken to mini- mize the consequences of system disruptions. The guide looks at resilience not only from an agency perspective (and thus the types of responsibilities these agencies have) but also from a societal perspective. This latter perspective introduces into the assessment such issues as the transportation-related economic, social, public health, and financial implications to society. It should be noted that the self-assessment tool is based on key analysis steps and factors identified by this research project. They reflect the results of an extensive literature review, case studies, and the conclusions/lessons learned from the Transportation Resilience Innova- tions Summit and Exchange (RISE Conference), an international conference on transportation system resilience held in October 2018. However, the usefulness and effectiveness of any self- assessment tool reflect an agency’s ability to adjust it to target the circumstances the agency faces. Thus, although the tool presented in this guide offers ranges in the level of agency capability to mainstream resilience concerns into decision-making, guide users may need to adjust the tool to meet their unique needs and circumstances. Defining Resilience and Other Key Terms The concept of “system resilience” is found in many different fields, including environ- mental science, ecology, community structure, organization theory, management science, and the built environment. In addition, in the context of transportation, resilience encompasses many different types of strategies—network redundancy, back-up systems, adaptive design, and the like. The following key terms are common to many of the definitions of resilience in these fields and especially to those relating to the built environment and transportation. These concepts are also important for the types of strategies and actions proposed in this guide. Purpose of the Guide This guide provides transportation officials with a tool that can be used to assess how their agency is currently doing with respect to actions that lead to a more resilient transportation system and identify strategies to enhance and mainstream such actions in their agency.

6 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide What is a resilient transportation agency? The following definition is offered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015): A resilient transportation agency is one that has, ‘. . . the ability to prepare for changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions.’ Notice that this definition, which this report adopts, focuses on the abilities and capabilities of an organization’s efforts to enhance transportation system resilience, that is, a system that withstands, responds to, and can recover from disruptions. It is important to note that resilience to natural hazards (including extreme weather, climate change, and the like) and resilience to cyber or other human-caused threats are similar in concept but somewhat different in application. Different professions and disciplines are involved and each brings its own perspectives on terminology and definitions. Given this, it is important to have a common understanding of how terms are used in this document. When used in this report, these words have the following meanings. Adaptation: Used especially in the context of climate change and extreme weather, adapta- tion means taking steps to adapt a community or targeted assets before a disruption event to minimize the impacts, if not avoid them altogether. An example would be increasing the diameter of new culverts in areas likely to experience increased flooding in the future. Emergency/Incident Management: Efforts to prepare for and respond to disruptive incidents or events. This has been a focus of many DOTs as part of their transportation system manage- ment and operations (TSMOs) strategy. The emphasis tends to be on the hazards or incidents of today and not on longer-term, chronic threats due to climate change. An example might be a DOT’s emergency response service—efforts to respond to crashes and other incidents to save lives and return the system to normal operations as quickly as possible. Exposure: The presence of infrastructure in places and settings where it could be adversely affected by hazards and threats—for example, a road in a floodplain. This definition was adopted from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). Hazard and Threats: Stresses on transportation system performance and condition. Whether such stressors occur today (e.g., riverine flooding that closes major highways) or whether they are part of a long-term trend (e.g., sea level rise), mainstreaming resilience efforts into an agency’s functions requires an understanding of their nature, scope, and magnitude. The term “hazards” is used in the guide to refer to transportation stressors originating primarily from natural causes (e.g., flooding or wildfire hazards). The term “threats” is used in the guide to refer to transportation system stressors caused by human actions (e.g., the cyberattack threat). Mitigation: Commonly defined as actions taken to reduce the contributors to potential impacts. However, when considering climate change, mitigation has a different meaning. In the climate change context, mitigation refers to strategies and actions to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to climate change, whereas adaptation is focused on actions that can be taken to prevent or minimize the impacts (i.e., the climate science community’s use of the term adaptation is more akin to the term mitigation as used in system resilience planning). This report adopts the use of the terms mitigation and adaptation as used by the climate science community when discussing climate-related hazards; the word mitigation is used as defined above when discussing other hazards and threats. Recovery: Steps or stages a system goes through to regain the major functions of the system to pre-disruption performance and/or condition. For example, community recovery after an earthquake often includes the financial support, medical services, debris removal, and longer- term reinvestment needed to replace damaged structures and infrastructure.

Introduction 7   Resilience: The characteristic of a system that allows it to absorb, recover from, or more successfully adapt to adverse events. Resilience-Oriented Agency: The ability of an organization to prepare, plan for, manage, and recover from unexpected transportation system disruptions. Resilience Program: A set of organizational actions, strategies, and efforts that collectively lead to a more resilient transportation system. Risk: A combination of the likelihood of exposure and some measure(s) of the consequences of a disruption to the transportation system caused by that exposure. Uncertainty: The degree to which a future condition or system performance cannot be fore- casted. Both human-caused and natural disruptions, especially for longer-term climate changes, are by their very nature uncertain events (as no one knows for sure exactly when and where and with what intensity they will occur). Sensitivity tests using multiple plausible scenarios of future conditions can help one understand the range of uncertainty and its implications. This approach is used routinely when working with climate projections to help understand the range of possible conditions given different future (uncertain) GHG emission scenarios. Vulnerability: Per FHWA, “the degree to which a system is susceptible to or unable to cope with adverse effects of climate change or extreme weather events” (FHWA 2014). Workforce Resilience: As a critical component of institutional capacity, workforce resilience includes both the staff mindset toward accepting and supporting agency resilience efforts and the physical and mental health of the workforce. Each of these concepts is found throughout this guide. For example, the self-assessment tool includes a step where vulnerabilities to the transportation system are estimated for different types of hazards. From this, the guide then encourages practitioners to identify types of adaptation, mitigation, and recovery strategies that could be considered to lower such risks. Relationship to Other Resilience Research and Guidance A plethora of transportation system resilience guidance materials has been developed over the past several years. Many such materials address resilience from a societal perspective (e.g., community resilience), which encompasses all types of community-supportive infra- structure, including transportation networks. Others examine very specific hazards/threats (e.g., cyberattacks) or targeted functions within a transportation agency (e.g., system opera- tions or emergency response). Still others focus on one aspect of the resilience self-assessment tool presented in this guide (e.g., vulnerability/risk assessments). More detail on how the guide relates to this other guidance can be found in Appendix A. It is important to understand that this guide presents an overarching/all-encompassing approach designed specifically for DOTs. The guidance and/or tools for other agencies and organizations can fit into various points of the guide’s self-assessment tool where appropriate. An important context for the material included in the guide is that much of the information on resilience strategies and actions comes from research conducted under the auspices of the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB’s) Cooperative Research Programs (CRPs). The research focusing on system resilience was particularly helpful (see TRB http://www.trb.org/Main/ Blurbs/166648.aspx). Also of note is that this research project was conducted in concert with two other projects: • NCHRP Project 20-59(54), “Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers.” This study resulted in a strategic plan for research on transportation system

8 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide resilience, including the identification of research problem statements. The study’s results will be published in forthcoming NCHRP Research Report 975: Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers (Fletcher and Ekern, forthcoming). • NCHRP Project 20-59(55), “Transportation System Resilience: CEO [chief executive officer] Primer & Engagement.” This study developed a primer for transportation executives entitled, NCHRP Research Report 976: Resilience Primer for Transportation Executives (Matherly et al., forthcoming). The primer provides a high-level guide for DOT officials on how to incorporate resilience into agency operations. Where appropriate, guidance from the primer is referenced in this guide. The crosswalk between NCHRP Research Report 976 and this guide is particularly relevant in that both focus on similar concepts but are aimed at different audiences. Table 1 compares the major topics included in both. As shown, there is a very close connection between the two documents in terms of the topics covered. Topical Areas in the forthcoming NCHRP Research Report 976 (Aimed at Executives) Topical Areas in this Guide (Aimed at Agency Managers and Staff) Integrating Resilience Throughout Your Agency • Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities • Assess Current Practice (Step 1) • Organize for Success (Step 2) • Implement Early Wins (Step 4) • Understand the Hazards and Threats (Step 5) • Understand the Impacts (Step 6) • Determine Vulnerability and Prioritize Responses (Step 7) Planning and Programming • Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9) • Monitor and Manage System Performance (Step 10) and Planning Functional Area Asset Management • Integrate into Asset Management (Step 8D) Design and Engineering • Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C) Operations and Maintenance • Emergency Management and Response in Resilience • Technology and Materials • Identify Enhancements to Operations and Maintenance Activities (Step 8B) • Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Preparedness (Step 8A) Agency Communications • Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan (Step 3) Cybersecurity • Cybersecurity examined throughout Table 1. Comparison between the forthcoming executive primer and this guide.

Introduction 9   Intended Audiences The primary intended audiences for the guide include: • Transportation officials/leaders who want to understand how to evolve their agency to be more resilient-oriented, and • Transportation agency staff who are responsible for system resilience-related functional areas within transportation agencies. Although the focus is on transportation agency leadership and staff, others who are interested in system resilience might find the document insightful. These include (1) non-transportation organizations or community officials who interact with transportation agencies during the response to disruptions and (2) stakeholders who are concerned about making their communities more resilient. With this in mind, the document is written to be accessible to non-transportation professionals. Guide Organization The guide is organized largely according to the steps in the Framework. Note that each of the chapters describing these steps (Chapters 3 to 16) presents the types of agency characteristics that represent the highest level of resilience capability (or as referred to in the guide, maturity) for that particular step as well as the types of agency characteristics that represent lower levels of maturity. Each chapter also includes strategies that can be used to proceed from a lower level of maturity to a higher level. For each step, where it is appropriate, a discussion is provided on both natural hazards and human-caused threats. In addition, although the self-assessment steps are presented in a logical sequence of what should come first before other steps are undertaken, in some cases, the steps could occur in parallel. For example, Step 8A, Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Preparedness, is placed where it is because any enhancements to such capabilities relate to gaining a better understanding of the types of impacts that are expected (analyzed in Steps 5 to 7). However, some actions could occur for Step 8A before this (indeed, many are ongoing at DOTs already). The guide is organized in the following chapters: Chapter 2: A Framework and Self-Assessment Tool for Mainstreaming Transportation Agency Resilience Capabilities—Overview of the Framework and the DOT self-assessment tool. Chapter 3: Assess Current Practice (Step 1)—Understand and assess current practices in a DOT as they relate to fostering and mainstreaming system resilience. Chapter 4: Organize for Success (Step 2)—Establish organizational structures, relationships, protocols, and interorganizational partnerships that support resilience efforts. Chapter 5: Develop an External Communications Strategy and Plan (Step 3)—Create new strategies and amend current actions to make the case for system resilience and supporting other agency resilience efforts. Chapter 6: Implement Early Wins (Step 4)—Identify resilience-oriented strategies and actions that can be undertaken in the short-term and often without great cost. Chapter 7: Understand the Hazards and Threats (Step 5)—Identify the types of hazards and threats likely facing the transportation system. Chapter 8: Understand the Impacts (Step 6)—Identify the likely impacts and consequences of the different hazards and threats on the DOT, state, communities, the economy, etc. Chapter 9: Determine Vulnerability and Prioritize Responses (Step 7)—Identify where more detailed facility-level adaptation assessments need to be undertaken first due to the serious- ness of a type of hazard or threat or because of the significance of the facility or asset.

10 Mainstreaming System Resilience Concepts into Transportation Agencies: A Guide Chapter 10: Identify Actions to Enhance Resilience (Step 8)—Introduction of Step 8, which consists of four sub-steps. Chapters 11: Assess Strategies for Enhancing Emergency Response Capabilities and Agency Pre- paredness (Step 8A)—Identify improvements to the emergency response program, including enhancing the effectiveness of partnerships with other participants. Chapter 12: Identify Enhancements to Operations and Maintenance Activities (Step 8B)—Identify how any agency’s operations and maintenance efforts can be enhanced to contribute to the resilience program and strategy. Chapter 13: Undertake Detailed Assessments of Exposed Assets and New Projects (Step 8C)— Conduct more detailed assessments that evaluate adaptation options for specific assets/ projects (recommendations are made on how to do the assessments). Chapter 14: Integrate into Asset Management (Step 8D)—Integrate resilience concerns and concepts into an agency’s asset management program so that investment decisions supported by the program consider system resilience as an important prioritization factor. Chapter 15: Program and Implement Resilience Measures (Step 9)—Incorporate resilience projects and support for resilience strategies into the agency budget, capital investment programs, and operations budgets. Chapter 16: Monitor and Manage System Performance (Step 10)—Establish performance measures on transportation system resilience and internal organizational output measures that can be used to monitor progress toward a more resilient transportation system. Chapter 17: Mainstreaming Resilience into Agency Functional Areas—Incorporate the different strategies identified in the self-assessment into different functional activities in a DOT. As noted earlier, Appendix A presents information on how the guide relates to other resil- ience research and guidance. Appendix B presents tables that are used in each self-assessment step in stand-alone form. How to Use the Guide: A Roadmap Transportation agencies will likely exhibit very different levels of maturity with respect to how resilience concerns are integrated into the different functional responsibilities in the agency. For example, it is likely that an agency’s emergency response capability will be at a higher maturity level (based on the assessment criteria in this guide) with respect to system resilience because there has been a long history of organizations focusing on this topic. Conversely, it is likely that many of the later steps in the Framework—undertaking detailed adaptive designs, integrating resilience into asset management processes, and monitoring transportation system resilience with adopted metrics—will be in the most need of improve- ment since many of these topics are relatively new to the field. Given that every agency will be different, the self-assessment tool is designed to allow transportation officials to enter into the self-assessment process in several different ways. 1. For those agencies just starting—It is recommended that you start with Step 1 and proceed through all 10 steps. The intent is for the self-assessment tool to provide a systematic and comprehensive examination of your agency’s capabilities in all aspects of transportation system resilience. 2. For those agencies that consider themselves to have strong resilience-oriented capabilities— It would be useful to begin at Step 1, which assesses what your agency is currently doing with respect to transportation system resilience. Based on this determination, you can then jump to the steps in the self-assessment tool where you think additional effort might be necessary or use the functional area templates in Chapter 17 to identify specific actions to enhance your capabilities where you believe there might be gaps.

Introduction 11   3. For those agencies (or agency managers) concerned about specific agency functional areas and how resilience-oriented concerns could be better mainstreamed—Again, you are encouraged to start with Step 1 to get a good sense of what your agency is currently doing with respect to resilience-oriented efforts. The functional area templates in Chapter 17 also provide very useful guidance on what agency managers should consider to enhance capa- bilities in their functional area responsibility. Asking your managers responsible for each functional area to examine these templates to identify actions they could take would also be a good place to start for improving your agency’s resilience capabilities. As suggested above, no matter how capable you might think your agency is with respect to resilience, the self-assessment tool is designed to find areas where such efforts can be enhanced. Chapter 1 References FHWA. 2014. FHWA Order 5520, “Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events.” Dec. 15, 2014. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/ directives/orders/5520.cfm FHWA. 2015. Transportation System Resilience to Extreme Weather and Climate Change—Executives: Adaptation to Climate Change in Transportation Systems Management, Operations, and Maintenance. Publication FHWA-HOP-15-024. November 2015, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://ops.fhwa. dot.gov/publications/fhwahop15024/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. IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report: Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp. Matherly, D., P. Bye, J. McDonald, W. Ankner, J. Mobley, K. Kim, P. Murray-Tuite, A. Pande, J. Renne, B. Wolshon, and E. Yamashita. Forthcoming. NCHRP Research Report 976: Resilience Primer for Transportation Execu- tives. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview. Website. Retrieved June 30, 2020, from https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/