National Academies Press: OpenBook

Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers (2021)

Chapter: Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap

« Previous: Part 2 - White Papers: Understanding Transportation Resilience
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Part 3 - The 2020 2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26160.
×
Page 88

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.

The 2020–2025 Transportation System Resilience Research Roadmap P A R T   3

62 Contents 63 Introduction 72 Analysis of Recommended Projects 75 Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects

63   The 2020–2025 Transportation System Research Roadmap presents the results of a 3-year effort to gather and prioritize critical resilience research needs gleaned from a diverse set of trans- portation policy makers, executives, professionals, and researchers. The roadmap supports a mechanism by which the transportation community can work towards a consensus concerning those projects that will significantly advance the understanding, policy, and practice of trans- portation resilience. As described in Part 1 of this report, more than 180 resilience research ideas were identified from a variety of sources including three national workshops, literature reviews of recently com- pleted resilience research, participation in multiple resilience-oriented meetings, and discus- sions with selected thought leaders from TRB, AASHTO, and NIST. The priority ratings used in the process were made by an equally diverse set of participants and reflect multiple perspectives of resilience research priorities. The research effort resulted in 26 recommended projects. The recommendations do not represent a fixed or final roadmap for research and change; rather, they are a tool meant to help shape the ongoing efforts as input to plot a forward course for FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB resilience-related initiatives. There are many possible ways to use this roadmap. Readers who want to go directly to the recommended 2020–2025 slate of projects will find core project material that can be used to prepare submissions to the annual NCHRP process. Alternatively, readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding about the family of ideas that were gathered will want to concentrate on the section titled “Analysis of Recommended Projects” and the downloadable workbook described in Appendix B. Readers who are interested in how the roadmap emerged, its development, and the breadth of effort taken in the research will want to focus on the sections titled “Introduction” and “Roadmap Approach.” Regardless of the exploration undertaken, the roadmap, its appendices, and the downloadable files that accompany NCHRP Research Report 975 provide readers with the most complete tools available to advance transportation security and resilience research on critical topics to the professionals working in the field. Despite the many public- and private-sector efforts that had been made to improve transpor- tation system resiliency over the previous decade, TRB’s 2013 report on Critical Issues in Trans- portation concluded that “[T]he performance of the transportation system is neither reliable nor resilient, yet transportation’s role in economic revival and in global economic competition has never been more important” (TRB Executive Committee 2013). More recently, the Critical Issues in Transportation 2019 report again recognized the significance of resilience and security, concluding the following: [R]ecent intense floods, superstorms, and hurricanes have disrupted the lives of millions and caused billions of dollars’ worth of damage. Combined with the vulnerability of transportation facilities to terrorism, these events have made public and private officials acutely aware of the need to identify community vulnerabilities Introduction

64 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers and plan for responses to natural and human-caused disasters, including near- and long-term climate change effects on sea-level rise, droughts, forest fires, and heatwaves. Transportation agencies working across all modes continue to grapple with the dawning realiza- tion that they cannot currently plan, build, or operate their respective infrastructures to achieve and maintain the degree of resilient service expected and demanded by society and its elected representatives. The many faces of resilience add complexity to the challenge (Figure 3-1). NCHRP Project 20-59(54) was founded to confront the dilemma inherent in the findings of the 2019 TRB report, which posed 14 critical questions (TRB Executive Committee 2018): 1. How can strategies appropriate for each mode be developed to apply layers of security without exces- sively impeding the movements of passengers and goods? 2. What kinds of decision-making tools can best help transportation agencies make appropriate deci- sions regarding climate change and terrorism in a risk management framework? 3. How can risk management approaches be incorporated into transportation planning and decision making? 4. How can results from climate models be translated into changes in design standards for severe weather events? 5. Which policies, programs, research topics, and investments can and should be undertaken to adapt existing transportation facilities and systems to rising sea levels, stronger storm surges, more fre- quent flooding, and other powerful and damaging extremes of weather? 6. How can experiences of communities and states that are beginning to adapt and change be best evaluated and shared? 7. In light of the inability to be precise about the scale and timing of future impacts, how can funding policies, designs, and standards be modified to build in flexibility to allow for needed adaptation, including the rebuilding of more resilient infrastructure after infrastructure is damaged or destroyed? 8. What evidence would convince policy makers and the public of the need to incur the extra, near-term costs of adaptive management? 9. What are feasible strategies for defending or retreating from the high-risk areas and avoiding con- tinued investment in the most vulnerable ones? 10. How can security forces most effectively mitigate the security risk from drones? 11. What capabilities will public agencies need to verify whether cybersecurity is being managed effectively? Source: Fletcher and Ekern (2017) Figure 3-1. Faces of resilience.

Introduction 65   12. What are the best practices, how can they be shared, and what role should the public sector play in overseeing and enhancing cybersecurity? 13. How can these vulnerabilities be overcome or managed effectively? 14. What strategies are needed for better preparation, response, communication, and sheltering-in-place on a regional basis? The challenge associated with implementing strategies for transportation systems resiliency arises from the scope, scale, and complexity of the concept, and the many topics related to it. Resilience not only spans the breadth of traditional transportation functions such as planning, engineering, and operations across seven modal areas, but it also is a central issue within other interdependent critical infrastructure sectors such as communications, emergency services, energy, government services, and IT. A growing body of experience suggests that the places that have the most resilient trans- portation systems have included multiple perspectives and participants from a wide variety of agencies, organizations, and sectors. At the same time, all parties involved admit that resilience science and engineering are still in their early days; that is, the concepts, principles, terminology, roles, responsibilities, strategies, practices, and resources necessary to improve transportation systems resilience are still very much a work in progress. The U.S. DOT, FHWA, DHS, AASHTO, TRB, and other transportation leaders believe that a crucial step in this process is to engage senior leadership in defining, understanding, and articulating a 5-year research program establishing a long-range course to support the goals set for resilient local, state, national, and international transportation systems. The implicit under- standing behind this strategy is to strike a balance between encouraging the dynamic innovation arising from local initiatives while at the same time avoiding inefficient re-inventing the same wheel hundreds of times in hundreds of places. A primary objective of the roadmap is to draft a program of discovery, exploration, and imple- mentation to develop and deploy new knowledge and practices. This 5-year research roadmap is intended to focus the efforts of the transportation community in implementing a broad-based program addressing a resilient transportation system. Roadmap Approach Multiple roadmapping activities undertaken by FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB have amply demonstrated that charting the future is not a simple exercise that follows a single linear path, but is a series of successive approximations vectoring to a direction using multiple inputs from the professionals engaged in the journey. This resilience research roadmap initiative was no different. The effort to develop a first-generation roadmap began in 2016 and has followed a two-round, six-vector approach. Each round was designed to tap into a different audience engaged in the search for a resilient transportation system. These audiences included senior leaders, academics, and professionals representing governmental and commercial interests. The research effort also included input from communities that have not been traditionally recognized as transportation resilience partners. Research Needs Identification and Prioritization The first-round methodology for this effort was implemented in four steps and resulted in more than 150 research needs: 1. Six stakeholder outreach, data collection, survey, and engagement techniques were used over 2.5 years;

66 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers 2. The accumulated research needs collected in Step 1 were analyzed and classified using four standard industry classification frameworks; 3. A flash poll was conducted using the research panel, the new AASHTO Committee on Transportation Systems Security and Resilience (CTSSR), and selected professionals; and 4. The computed community ratings were applied against several industry frameworks to identify the top needs as determined by multiple points of view. Step 1 describes the collection tools used. The research needs outreach, survey, and engage- ment activities included six primary sources of resilience research needs (Figure 3-2), which are discussed in the following sections. CRP Final Reports Between September 2001 and January 2019, 216 security, emergency management, infra- structure protection, and resilience-related planning and implementation projects were ini tiated through programs managed by TRB. Of these, 193 projects have been completed, totaling over $31 million worth of cooperative research. The final reports of these projects contain an accumulated wealth of information. Many reports include recommendations for further research. Focusing primarily on research completed within the last 5  years, the research team for NCHRP Project 20-59(54) extracted resilience-related research needs from the recommenda- tions for further research contained in the final reports of more than 24 CRP research projects associated with security, emergency management, and infrastructure protection. NCHRP Synthesis on DOT Resilience Activities NCHRP Synthesis 527: Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration, published in 2018, documented resilience efforts and how they are organized, understood, and implemented within transportation agencies’ core functions and services. This synthesis detailed specific motivations behind the policies that promote highway resilience; provided definitions of risk and resilience and the relationship between these two fields; and described how agencies are incorporating resilience practices through project devel- opment, policy, and design. The findings and conclusions sections of this synthesis proposed several critical research areas and needs. Figure 3-2. Sources of resilience research needs.

Introduction 67   Special Events The research team understood that resilience in transportation involves many constituencies other that state DOTs. Consequently, the team sought out and attended or participated in the following events where resilience research needs were generated: • The State of Resilience: A Leadership Forum and Community Workshop, sponsored by the Resilient America Roundtable (June 2016), • AASHTO Resiliency Peer Exchange on Extreme Weather and Climate Impacts (November 2017), • NIST Community Resilience Panel Meeting (October 2017), and • The 2018 Transportation Resilience Innovations Summit and Exchange (October 2018). Although the research team did not directly participate in the 2016 Leadership Forum, this activity brought together a diverse group of decision makers, experts, practitioners, and community stakeholders, including representatives from academia, government, the private sector, foundations, and nonprofit organizations, to consider the results of years of invest- ment, experimentation, and research in building resilience; take stock of these many initiatives and efforts; and share their experiences in building more resilient communities. Attending the proceedings and presentations provided the research team with a rich set of potential research topics. TRB Workshops The research team conducted two workshops: • Understanding Transportation Resilience Intersection with Cybersecurity Workshop, held at the 96th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board (January 2017), and • 2020–2025 Resilience Research Roadmap Workshop, held at the 97th annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board (January 2018). The two half-day workshops were attended by 160 professionals, who participated in the research topics identification exercises. The 2017 workshop focused on cyber resilience needs and the 2018 workshop was organized around resilience research in planning, design, opera- tions, and other resilience topics. Outreach and Engagement The research team participated in several national meetings to advance the roadmap out- reach process and to gather additional information from industry thought leaders concerning research needs, trends, and agency environments as they relate to understanding resilience and security in transportation. These engagement opportunities included: • AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management (SCOTSEM) annual meetings held in 2016 and 2017; • AASHTO CTSSR meetings, held in 2018; • TRB Committee ABR10 Critical Infrastructure Protection activities, held in 2017 and 2018; and • The 96th, 97th, and 98th annual meetings of the Transportation Research Board held in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In addition to these activities, the research team developed and distributed a Research Needs Form for submitting research needs and ideas in early 2017 (see Appendix A). An online version of the Research Needs Form also was developed. These mechanisms were promoted at every engagement opportunity in which the team participated.

68 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers 2018 Transportation RISE The Transportation Resilience Innovations Summit and Exchange (RISE) conference was a gathering of transportation professionals and executives that provided an opportunity to share experiences and discuss future directions in resilience and move to institutionalize its concepts. RISE was designed to gather and share new ideas, exhibit tools, and present guidelines that will help DOTs deal with and implement resilience in their organizations. The research team col- lected additional research topics and ideas. Research Needs Rating and Prioritization The research team employed a modified Nominal Group Technique (mNGT) for the rating and prioritization of potential research topics. Broadly speaking, this technique consists of several steps: 1. Research needs collection; 2. Needs polling (i.e., voting) to winnow out unsupported ideas; 3. Analysis of remaining ideas; 4. Synthesis and consolidation of alternatives into candidate project concepts; 5. Candidate project polling of alternatives; and 6. Final ranking and prioritization of alternatives. Steps 1 and 2 were conducted as a part of developing the Pre-RISE Roadmap. The mNGT allowed the research team to quickly “prune” the universe of choices, synthesize the remaining needs, and set up the topic prioritization and selection process. Although originally designed for interactive small group participation, the technique was modified for use with large groups who would be contributing remotely. Additionally, the group(s) responsible for generating the alternatives were distinct from the group that did the ratings. Because both groups were judged to have the same level of domain knowledge, the loss of fidelity of the ideas was not deemed significant. Step 1 yielded an aggregated list that preserved the original needs language as submitted. The original language was preserved in an attempt to avoid introducing the research team’s recom- mendations at this stage. In Step 2, a simple 0-to-5 rating scale was developed, and raters were instructed to rate each need independently of the others. Because each rating should be made independently, indi- vidual ratings do not express or imply any relative preference or ranking, preserving the rating across all subsequent analysis. Raters were instructed to consider the following questions in determining their ratings: • Does the proposed topic represent a critical research need of interest to many states? • Does the problem support FHWA, AASHTO, and/or TRB strategic directions? • Is the problem researchable? • Is the contemplated research timely? • Will successful research produce well-defined, implementable results with significant benefits? • Can a proposed project be designed that avoids undesirable duplication of other completed or ongoing research? Does information already exist that satisfies this research need? • Is the proposed study appropriate for the NCHRP or should it be performed elsewhere? The poll was distributed to the NCHRP project panel and to AASHTO staff for distribu- tion to the 52 TSSR member states. In September 2018, the research team prepared an Interim Report displaying the first-round flash poll results for use in consolidating, categorizing, and winnowing ideas. This effort resulted in bringing forward 46 projects for consideration in the second round.

Introduction 69   In total, more than 180 specific needs were identified from nine source categories. This set of needs was then community rated and ranked to determine the top 125 high-interest research needs in 10 subject matter areas: emergency management, asset management, design for resil- ience, community resilience, cyber resilience, infrastructure interdependencies, performance measures, economics of resilience, human and social factors, and risk management. Candidate Project Definition and Ranking Pursuant to the revised NCHRP 20-59(54) work plan and following the October 2018 Interim Panel Meeting and the RISE conference, the research team synthesized 125 community-rated high-priority resilience research needs into 46 candidate project concepts and conducted another rating poll during December 2018. The December poll was distributed to more than 130 subject matter experts, who included the NCHRP project panel, the AASHTO CTSSR, the TRB Resilience Section (TRB AMR10), and additional volunteer community raters. The rating individuals were again asked to rate the candidate projects on a scale from 0 to 5 considering the following questions: • Does the proposed project represent a critical research need of interest to many states? • Will successful research produce well-defined, implementable results with significant benefits? • Does the research advance more resilient activities, organizations, or systems? • Does the project support FHWA, AASHTO, and/or TRB strategic directions? • Is the problem researchable? • Is the contemplated research timely? • Can a proposed project be designed that avoids undesirable duplication of other completed or ongoing research? Does information already exist that satisfies this research need? • Is the proposed project appropriate for the NCHRP or should it be performed elsewhere? Poll responses were received from 34 individuals, representing a cross-section of transpor- tation organizations and affiliations (Tables 3-1 and 3-2). Because the respondents were self- selected, they do not represent a truly random sampling of all stakeholders and any extra polated Organization Count Percentage DOT 18 53% University 6 18% Industry 7 21% MPO 2 6% FHWA 1 3% Total 34 100% Table 3-1. Respondents by organization. Affiliation Count Percentage AASHTO CTSSR 15 44% TRB AMR Section 9 26% NCHRP 20-59 Panel 6 18% Community Raters 4 12% Total 34 100% Table 3-2. Respondents by industry affiliation.

70 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers results need to be viewed with some caution. However, their ratings provide an indication of higher and lower topics of interest, particularly within the AASHTO community. Raters also were asked to use a rating scale of 0 to 5, representing research with the least value to the greatest value (Table 3-3). The overall mean rating for all project candidates was 3.01, and the median rating was 3.03, indicating a normal distribution of rating values. No candidate project received a mean rating greater than 4 or less than 2. Analyzing the responses from the 18 DOTs only, the mean rating was 2.78. The 13 project candidates that the DOTs rated 3 or greater were also rated 3 or better overall. Many interpretations of these ratings are possible, and readers should bear in mind that the respondents represent about 25% of the total number of stakeholders polled; however, the research team believes that the rating results reflect the evolving nature of the topic. DOTs are still wrestling with the fundamental nature of resilience and how to accommodate it within their organizations. Table 3-3. Resilience research candidate projects. Item No. Title Rating Rank 1 DR-05 Integrating Resilience into Transportation Project Development 3.91 1 2 ER-02 Economic Benefits from Making Investments in Resilient Transportation Assets 3.75 2 3 DR-04 Design Guidance and Standards for Resilience 3.72 3 4 AM-01 Assessing and Managing the Vulnerability of Transportation Assets 3.71 4 5 AM-03 Incorporating Resilience in National Programs 3.68 5 6 EM-05 Streamlining the Damage Assessment Process 3.53 6 7 AM-02 Funding Resilience Adaptation 3.48 7 8 DR-01 Using Improved Hydrological Forecasting to Improve Transportation Resilience 3.44 8 9 PM-01 Resilience Performance Measures: A Quantitative Approach 3.36 9 10 CR-02 Cyber Risk Transfer Strategies 3.30 10 11 II-02 Transportation Infrastructure Interdependencies Risk Analysis and Modeling 3.24 11 12 CO-02 Resiliency Knowledge Base 3.21 12 13 EM-07 Effective Practices in Extreme Weather Response 3.18 13 14 II-01 Maintaining Resilience in a Multi-modal Transportation System 3.16 14 15 HF-01 Building a Resilient Work Force in State DOTs 3.15 15 16 AM-04 Assessing Resilience Frameworks 3.09 16 17 PM-03 Frameworks for Measuring Transportation Resilience 3.06 17 18 CO-05 Organizational Resiliency: Moving from Recovery to Retrenchment 3.06 17 19 CR-04 Assessing the Resilience of GPS-based Applications in Transportation 3.03 19 20 EM-02 New Technologies for Comprehensive Debris Management 3.03 19 21 EM-10 Emergency Project Contracting Guidelines 3.03 19 22 CR-05 Deploying the NIST Cybersecurity Framework in State DOTs 3.03 19 23 EM-03 Multi-Agency Emergency Preparedness 3.03 19 24 RM-01 A New Tool Assessing the Value of Resiliency Alternatives by State DOTs 3.03 19 25 EM-08 Emergency Management Training for Transportation Workers 3.00 25 26 CO-03 Restoring Access: Post-disaster Transportation Equity 3.00 25 27 DR-06 Post-Disaster Engineering Assessment 2.97 27 28 CR-03 Securing the Cyber Supply Chain 2.88 28 29 DR-07 Stormwater Management Techniques to Enhance Resilience 2.87 29 30 CR-01 Operations Technology Procurement Handbook and Peer Exchange 2.81 30

Introduction 71   Table 3-3. (Continued). Item No. Title Rating Rank 31 ER-01 Improving Supply Chain Resilience 2.81 30 32 RM-03 Enterprise Risk Management in State Departments of Transportation 2.81 30 33 CR-06 Using the Internet of Things to Improve Transportation Resilience 2.78 33 34 RM-02 Using Enterprise Risk Management Approaches on Emergency Projects 2.78 33 35 CO-01 Social Media’s Role in Transportation Operations Resilience 2.75 35 36 RM-04 Risk Strategies and Transportation Resilience 2.74 36 37 EM-04 DOT Role in Improving EMS Response Time 2.70 37 38 EM-01 Building a National Understanding of the Language of Resilience 2.67 38 39 EM-09 Tunnel Operator Certification Program 2.67 38 40 DR-02 Understanding Geotechnical Aspects of Resilience 2.59 40 41 DR-03 Approaches to Improving Tunnel Evacuation 2.56 41 42 PM-02 Building Resiliency through Redundancy 2.52 42 43 HF-02 Generational Shifts: Workforce Shaping Resilience Beyond 2025 2.50 43 44 EM-06 Responding to Freight Rail Oil Incidents 2.28 44 45 CO-04 Resilience Research Program on Labor Trafficking 2.27 45 46 ER-03 Multi-Objective Optimization of Pooled Resources 2.25 46 Findings Key findings from the research team’s needs identification and prioritization approach are as follows: 1. Participants in the needs identification, needs ranking, candidate project development, and projects ranking processes comprised a representative sample of research sponsors, research users, and researchers. 2. Needs ratings and candidate projects ratings appeared unbiased and within expected distri- butions. Relatedly, the researchers did not detect any attempt to skew the results in favor of some predetermined outcome. 3. Top-ranked candidate projects encompassed a variety of DOT program areas. As such, these candidates could be used by several AASHTO committees for possible problem statement development, endorsement, and submission. 4. Top-ranked candidate projects addressed multiple aspects of the program management process. 5. Although the needs identification process failed to include many broad disruptors, the top- ranked candidate projects slate does include coverage of some of them, primarily related to climate change. 6. Although each top-ranked candidate project is assumed to incrementally advance resilience practices within DOTs and contribute to the overall resiliency of the transportation system, the researchers were unable to discover any strategic or synergistic effects of the list taken as a whole. 7. Similarly, given that each candidate project’s objectives appear to be independent of each other, there is no apparent project precedence. In other words, no project depends on the successful completion of another; no pairs of projects are envisioned to run in parallel and share intermediate research results. 8 Several of the top-ranked candidates are more suited to be synthesis projects. 9. Although implementation products and activities could be incorporated into specific state- ments of work, only one of the top-ranked candidate projects has an implementation focus (EM-08 Emergency Management Training for Transportation Workers).

72 Table 3-4 presents the research team’s consensus compilation of the 26 Roadmap Projects recommended for the period 2020–2025. The final section in Part 3 presents the entire Roadmap detail for the recommended projects. Many interpretations of candidate ratings are possible, but the research team believes that this is a reflection of the evolving nature of resilience. DOTs are still wrestling with the fundamental nature of resilience and how to accommodate it within their organizations. One the one hand, there is clear evidence that AASHTO and TRB no longer equate resilience with emergency management activities or more narrowly with extreme weather operations. On the other hand, Table 3-4 illustrates the breadth of concepts that the community is currently including under the umbrella term of resilience. A balanced research, development, and deployment program contains a mixture of distinct overlapping and interacting thrusts or emphasis areas (see Table 3-5 and 3-6). Project opportu- nities dealing with changes to workflow, workforce, and community engagement are well rep- resented in the 25 top-ranked proposals, whereas more basic research and deployment projects (i.e., the programmatic “tails”) are less so. This distribution appears to reflect the industry’s desire to incorporate resilience into existing lines of business as opposed to envisioning a new mission with new structures as was done a generation ago with transportation security. If, as AASHTO’s adopted definition states, resilience is “[T]he ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, or more successfully adapt to adverse events,” and the evolving sense of the phrase adverse events is expanded to mean “disruptive forces,” then a set of transforma- tional influences on transportation exists that requires thoughtful attention. The two ideas can be distinguished by their end points. Adverse events generally come to an end when recovery operations can commence. Disruptive forces have no end point—they continue and may, in fact, worsen over time. With disruptive forces, recovery is not an option; the best that can be hoped for is continuous adaptation. Although the list may vary from state to state, the following disruptive forces are already changing the long-term status quo enjoyed by the industry (Table 3-7). The effects of these disruptive forces are already being felt in the transportation industry, and these disruptions are starting to manifest themselves. Contending with each of these disruptive forces will require a great deal of preparation, planning, absorbing, and adapting by transporta- tion researchers, organizations, and agencies throughout the United States. A quick perusal of the top-ranked candidate projects highlights that, with the exception of extreme weather events, most of these issues are not yet of interest or not tied to the idea of resilience within the DOTs. Analysis of Recommended Projects

Analysis of Recommended Projects 73   Item No. Title Rating Rank 1 DR-05 Integrating Resilience into Transportation Project Development 3.91 1 2 ER-02 Economic Benefits from Making Investments in Resilient Transportation Assets 3.75 2 3 DR-04 Design Guidance and Standards for Resilience 3.72 3 4 AM-01 Assessing and Managing the Vulnerability of Transportation Assets 3.71 4 5 AM-03 Incorporating Resilience in National Programs 3.68 5 6 EM-05 Streamlining the Damage Assessment Process 3.53 6 7 AM-02 Funding and Financing Resilience Adaptation 3.48 7 8 DR-01 Using Improved Hydrological Forecasting to Improve Transportation Resilience 3.44 8 9 PM-01 Resilience Performance Measures: A Quantitative Approach 3.36 9 10 CR-02 Cyber Risk Transfer Strategies 3.30 10 11 II-02 Transportation Infrastructure Interdependencies Risk Analysis and Modeling 3.24 11 12 CO-02 Resiliency Knowledge Base 3.21 12 13 EM-07 Effective Practices in Extreme Weather Response 3.18 13 14 II-01 Maintaining Resilience in a Multi-modal Transportation System 3.16 14 15 HF-01 Building a Resilient Work Force in State DOTs 3.15 15 16 AM-04 Assessing Resilience Frameworks 3.09 16 17 PM-03 Frameworks for Measuring Transportation Resilience 3.06 17 18 CO-05 Organizational Resiliency: Moving from Recovery to Retrenchment 3.06 17 19 CR-04 Assessing the Resilience of GPS-based Applications in Transportation 3.03 19 20 EM-02 New Technologies for Comprehensive Debris Management 3.03 19 21 EM-10 Emergency Project Contracting Guidelines 3.03 19 22 CR-05 Deploying the NIST Cybersecurity Framework in State DOTs 3.03 19 23 EM-03 Multi-Agency Emergency Preparedness 3.03 19 24 RM-01 A New Tool Assessing the Value of Resiliency Alternatives by State DOTs 3.03 19 25 EM-08 Emergency Management Training for Transportation Workers 3.00 25 26 CO-03 Restoring Access: Post-disaster Transportation Equity 3.00 25 Table 3-4. Top-ranked resilience research projects. Subject Count Percentage Emergency Management 6 23% Asset Management 4 15% Design for Resilience 3 12% Community Resilience 3 12% Cyber Resilience 3 12% Infrastructure Interdependencies 2 8% Resilience Performance Measures 2 8% Economics of Resilience 1 4% Human Factors 1 4% Risk Management 1 4% Total 26 100% Table 3-5. Top-ranked projects by subject.

74 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers Topic Count Percentage Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding 8 31% Tools and Technical Systems 6 23% Institutional Focus 5 19% Community Engagement 5 19% Investing in Innovation 1 4% Widespread Deployment 1 4% Total 26 100% Table 3-6. Top-ranked projects by topic. Disruptive Force Count Percentage Anthropocene (climate change, sea level rise, extreme weather) 67% Megacities/Smart Cities 17% Disruptive Technology (e.g., the IoT, AI, robotics, 5G) 11% Knowledge, Trust, Resource, and Resilience Inequities 6% Post-Carbon Society 0% Post-Ownership or Sharing Society 0% Total 100%* 12 3 2 1 0 0 18 IoT = The Internet of Things; AI = artificial intelligence; 5G = fifth generation. * Total percentage reflects rounding. Table 3-7. Top-ranked projects addressing disruptive forces.

75   This section contains the 5-year roadmap of recommended research projects as developed by the research team in collaboration with the project panel and transportation community. The family of 26 projects represents a potential program investment ranging from $10,750,000– $16,750,000. In the first portion of this section, Table 3-8, Table 3-9, and Table 3-10 summarize the research project titles, ratings, and rankings, and provide necessary reference material. The tables are followed by individual project write-ups that provide the material necessary to develop a TRB NCHRP project proposal for consideration in that process. The material and format have been specifically prepared to be usable in and serve as a foun- dation for developing a specific application to the NCHRP or related process. Integrating Resilience into Transportation Project Development Background: A recent review of national policies found that while resilience policies are being established within transportation agencies, integrating resilience requirements into design prac- tice is not well understood or practiced uniformly. With the recent federal requirements for risk- based asset management plans, it is possible that many DOTs have yet to fully complete those requirements and are struggling to address capturing resilience within their management and project development approaches. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify and consolidate the mandates requiring resilience and asset programs, and 2. Develop guidance to incorporate these mandates into AASHTO and national guidance, and other established procedures. Estimated Duration: 24 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Tools and Technical Systems Subject: Design for Resilience Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects

76 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers Topic Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Tools and Technical Systems Institutional Focus Community Engagement Investing in Innovation Widespread Deployment Table 3-10. Project subject areas. Prefix Subject AM Asset Management CR Cyber Resilience DR Design for Resilience ER Economics of Resilience EM Emergency Management HF Human and Social Factors II Infrastructure Interdependencies PM Performance Measures RM Risk Management CO Community Resilience Table 3-9. Project subject prefix codes. Table 3-8. Top-ranked resilience research projects. Item No. Title Rating Rank 1 DR-05 Integrating Resilience into Transportation Project Development 3.91 1 2 ER-02 Economic Benefits from Making Investments in Resilient Transportation Assets 3.75 2 3 DR-04 Design Guidance and Standards for Resilience 3.72 3 4 AM-01 Assessing and Managing the Vulnerability of Transportation Assets 3.71 4 5 AM-03 Incorporating Resilience in National Programs 3.68 5 6 EM-05 Streamlining the Damage Assessment Process 3.53 6 7 AM-02 Funding and Financing Resilience Adaptation 3.48 7 8 DR-01 Using Improved Hydrological Forecasting to Improve Transportation Resilience 3.44 8 9 PM-01 Resilience Performance Measures: A Quantitative Approach 3.36 9 10 CR-02 Cyber Risk Transfer Strategies 3.30 10 11 II-02 Transportation Infrastructure Interdependencies Risk Analysis and Modeling 3.24 11 12 CO-02 Resiliency Knowledge Base 3.21 12 13 EM-07 Effective Practices in Extreme Weather Response 3.18 13 14 II-01 Maintaining Resilience in a Multi-modal Transportation System 3.16 14 15 HF-01 Building a Resilient Work Force in State DOTs 3.15 15 16 AM-04 Assessing Resilience Frameworks 3.09 16 17 PM-03 Frameworks for Measuring Transportation Resilience 3.06 17 18 CO-05 Organizational Resiliency: Moving from Recovery to Retrenchment 3.06 17 19 CR-04 Assessing the Resilience of GPS-based Applications in Transportation 3.03 19 20 EM-02 New Technologies for Comprehensive Debris Management 3.03 19 21 EM-10 Emergency Project Contracting Guidelines 3.03 19 22 CR-05 Deploying the NIST Cybersecurity Framework in State DOTs 3.03 19 23 EM-03 Multi-Agency Emergency Preparedness 3.03 19 24 RM-01 A New Tool Assessing the Value of Resiliency Alternatives by State DOTs 3.03 19 25 EM-08 Emergency Management Training for Transportation Workers 3.00 25 26 CO-03 Restoring Access: Post-disaster Transportation Equity 3.00 25

Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects 77   Economic Benefits from Making Investments in Resilient Transportation Assets Background: News stories have identified the benefits of improved building codes in rela- tion to reduced impacts from Hurricane Irma, and identified how communications recovered quickly in most areas in Houston in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey. However, few finan- cial and economic benefits from transportation investments that foster resilience have been documented. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Develop guidance, tools, and effective practices in identifying transportation sector resilience investments; and 2. Identify benefits and costs and the return on investment of these investments. Estimated Duration: 15 Months Estimated Budget: $100,000–$250,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Economics of Resilience Design Guidance and Standards for Resilience Background: Many current permit requirements, design standards, and guidance do not account for extreme weather and future temperatures, precipitation, or sea-level rise. Existing infrastructure and future designs need to account for these conditions to reduce repetitive damage. This research will identify state and federal regulations, design standards, and guidance that need revision to account for extreme weather and future climate change. Developing methods to protect existing and future infrastructure from extreme weather and future climate conditions while integrating a green infrastructure philosophy through design and permitting is an emerging and incomplete initiative in the resilience approach to roadway design. There are many locations around the country where state and local agencies have made incremental innovations in developing a resilient infrastructure for the future. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify federal and state regulations, design standards, and so forth, that need revision due to extreme weather, sea-level rise, and other effects of future climate change; 2. Update current AASHTO transportation design standards; 3. Define the next generation of design standards in a resilience environment; and 4. Ensure that design standards incorporate future climate change impacts. Estimated Duration: 24 Months Estimated Budget: $ 750,000–$1,000,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Design for Resilience Assessing and Managing the Vulnerability of Transportation Assets Background: Extreme weather and natural disasters are becoming a new challenge to the transportation community. These vulnerabilities include extreme/prolonged heat; wild- fires; repeated flooding; and avalanche potentials. As transportation agencies acquire a better

78 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers understanding of how these extremes create short- and long-term impacts on their transporta- tion assets they are recognizing a need to develop, share, and align adaptation and mitigation strategies that will work. A useful tool set and effective practices would assist transportation leaders on this journey to resilience. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify current effective practices, 2. Provide guidance on aligning adaptation and mitigation strategies, and 3. Develop potential objective decision support systems. Estimated Duration: 15 Months Estimated Budget: $100,000–$250,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Tools and Technical Systems Subject: Asset Management Incorporating Resilience in National Programs Background: A recent review of national policies found that while resilience policies are becoming established, there lacks integration of resilience into practice within transportation. With the recent requirements for risk-based asset management plans, it is possible that many DOTs have yet to fully complete those requirements and are struggling to address capturing resilience within their management approach. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify and consolidate the mandates requiring resilience and asset programs, and 2. Develop guidance to incorporate these mandates into AASHTO and national guidance and other established procedures. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $250,000–$500,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Asset Management Streamlining the Damage Assessment Process Background: Cost-effective damage assessment technologies can assist state DOTs in deter- mining causes of damage and providing eligibility-related documentation for the FHWA Emer- gency Relief (ER) and FEMA Public Assistance (PA) programs. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Develop a cost model with easy-to-use interface for common damage assessment and road repair items and activities that is acceptable to both FHWA and FEMA; and 2. Pilot this approach and interface in several FHWA and FEMA regions. Estimated Duration: 24 Months Estimated Budget: $750,000–$1,000,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Tools and Technical Systems Subject: Emergency Management

Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects 79   Funding and Financing Resilience Adaptation Background: Transportation agencies are inundated with a continuing stream of federal, state, and local requirements that demand new or different approaches to incorporating them in their assets and programs. Many of these requirements can assist agencies in achieving a long- term resilience of their assets. However, meeting this challenge will require a different way of thinking about financing their investments. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify the challenges facing agencies in funding and financing climate-related issues in transportation projects, and 2. Create tools and techniques to identify opportunities to classify funding in a way that helps agencies seize these opportunities. Estimated Duration: 21 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Asset Management Using Improved Hydrological Forecasting to Improve Transportation Resilience Background: Highway and transit investments have long service lives, so finding ways to use predicted or forecast precipitation and flow is important, particularly as the location, frequency, and severity of storms are changing. A gap in research exists to identify scientifically defen- sible approaches to address non-stationary forecasting of precipitation and flow in a riverine environment. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Improve flooding models using risk and uncertainty principles to make better flooding fore- casts, and 2. Develop methods to better assess impact on riverine flow and on transportation infrastructure. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $250,000–$500,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Tools and Technical Systems Subject: Design for Resilience Resilience Performance Measures: A Quantitative Approach Background: With the MAP-21 focus on performance measures, research is needed to identify and develop ways to evaluate resilience, security, infrastructure protection, and cybersecurity to provide effective performance measures for state DOTs to use. Given the lack of documented metrics for transportation resilience in the literature and the stated desire on how to measure and assess resilience, this dimension appears to be a pressing need. The relationship between long-term performance metrics (e.g., community health and safety, economic recovery, quality of life, environmental justice) and system resilience is not fully understood, so there needs to be easy-to-use guidance or modeling tools to assess resilience and reflect the relationship between mandatory performance metrics and resilience. Implementation will continue to be a challenge at state DOTs.

80 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Survey measures currently used; 2. Evaluate their effectiveness; 3. Address data needs, assessment methods, criticality assessment models, and asset vulner- ability; and 4. Determine expected benefits from performance measures. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $250,000–$500,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Performance Measures Cyber Risk Transfer Strategies Background: There is a lack of understanding of what a cyber resilient organization should look like and very little exchange of cyber resiliency effective practices and lessons learned. Roughly half of the DOTs have transferred IT responsibility to other state agencies or to the private sector; most, however, still retain Operations Technology (OT) oversight. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Address how to establish cyber resilience/cybersecurity programs without IT oversight authority or in-house IT resources; 2. Identify effective IT/OT cyber resilience/cybersecurity governance models; 3. Identify strategies for cybersecurity risk transfer, including insurance; 4. Support business continuity and IT disaster recovery; and 5. Identify additional elements of cyber resilience, including technology, process, organizational capacity, and governance. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $250,000–$500,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Institutional Focus Subject: Cyber Resilience Transportation Infrastructure Interdependencies Risk Analysis and Modeling Background: As transportation infrastructure transcends several multi-modal individual infrastructure sectors, its scale and complexity ranges across local, regional, national, and inter- national linkages/interdependencies. The scale, complexity, and criticality of such systems create the need for resilience measures that can prevent cascading failures throughout the transporta- tion infrastructure. This can only be identified through detailed risk modeling to identify the weak and critical points that can control the overall system reliability, redundancy, robustness, and recoverability, and hence the overall system resilience. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify the different multi-modal system interdependencies; 2. Identify and apply the resilience measures for these interdependencies; and

Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects 81   3. Create a risk management model for: a. Identification of system criticality and the quantification of the resilience variability measures applied to each critical node, and b. Quantification of the associated costs for resilience recovery. Estimated Duration: 21 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Institutional Focus Subject: Infrastructure Interdependencies Resiliency Knowledge Base Background: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) chartered a Community Resiliency Panel to help inform NIST’s work on community resiliency best prac- tices. The NIST CRP has standing committees in key areas. Transportation is one key area, because it is a lifeline during disruptive events in the community. An information gap exists that affects resilience efforts: national research products have not yet detailed the resources used by and the approach taken by each of the state DOTs to develop a resilience posture; state DOTs may not be knowledgeable of community resilience needs; and communities may not understand transportation systems beyond jurisdictional lines. There are hundreds of directly relevant materials on transportation sector resilience and community resilience that if assessed together could inform resilience efforts in communities that relate to transportation. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Define a strategy for building a CRP Resiliency Knowledge Base, 2. Identify the topic areas of interest to a community, 3. Inventory and catalogue existing resiliency information products in the transportation sector, 4. Assess their suitability for the Resiliency Knowledge Base, and 5. Design an approach to sustaining this knowledge base. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $250,000–$500,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Community Engagement Subject: Community Resilience Effective Practices in Extreme Weather Response Background: Many natural hazards need to be better understood in the world of emergency management. The vulnerabilities and risks associated with extreme weather and other driving hazards such as dust storms also need to be assessed at regional and local scales. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Increase state DOT technical expertise to complement and supplement federal weather fore- casting at the local, regional, and national levels. Identify technologies, training, and standards in Knowledge Management that can support informed decision making and coordination within state DOTs and with external partners, given the increased risk of extreme weather events;

82 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers 2. Collect a common set of information from states that experienced the same extreme weather event to learn about similarities and differences before, during, and after the event as well as the lessons learned, identified by each state; 3. Identify the extreme weather events projected to occur with more frequency or intensity in the future; 4. Develop a framework for an organized response, and collect a standard set of information and materials on previous events of a similar nature; and 5. Conduct research and synthesis of Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) case examples to surface effective practices in the transportation sector under extreme weather events. Estimated Duration: 21 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Widespread Deployment Subject: Emergency Management Maintaining Resilience in a Multi-modal Transportation System Background: The global transportation system is inherently multi-modal and increasingly seamless in nature. People, goods, and services easily transfer from one mode to another expecting the same degree of reliability and resilience across the entire trip. Unfortunately, all too often this is not the case. This project seeks to improve the understanding about the interdependencies between transportation modes and other critical infrastructure sectors such as communications, energy, and information technology, in both normal and emergency operations. This project approaches interdependent systems from a resilience context by defining and understanding the resilience ecosystem “system of systems” framework to quantify and address interconnected/ dependencies and risk/mitigation leading to resiliency. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Identify a framework to identify and assess interdependencies between transportation modes, 2. Identify a framework to identify and assess interdependencies between critical infrastructure networks, and 3. Define methods to identify critical points in multi-modal or multi-sector networks of critical physical infrastructure with respect to preventing cascading failures. Estimated Duration: 21 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Community Engagement Subject: Infrastructure Interdependencies Building a Resilient Workforce in State DOTs Background: The report A Ready and Resilient Workforce for the Department of Homeland Security: Protecting America’s Front Line offered workforce policy guidance for senior execu- tives on institutional and workforce resilience (Institute of Medicine 2013). This policy guidance emerged from an assessment of its mission readiness and resilience capacity.

Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects 83   Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Develop and promote a unified strategy and common vision of workforce readiness and resilience, 2. Clarify and expand roles and responsibilities for workforce resilience, 3. Review and align responsibility and accountability for workforce resilience, 4. Propose an AASHTO sustainable leadership development program or focus on resilience, 5. Develop approaches to cultivate and sustain a culture of resilience, 6. Develop a measurement and evaluation strategy for workforce resilience in a state DOT, and 7. Develop a 5-year workforce resilience work plan for use by AASHTO. Estimated Duration: 24 Months Estimated Budget: $750,000–$1,000,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Institutional Focus Subject: Human Factors Assessing Resilience Frameworks Background: Over the last several years a variety of agencies at federal, state, and local levels have created frameworks to characterize how to understand and incorporate resilience in their asset management programs. Likewise, a variety of association and research efforts have identi- fied international practices and frameworks in the same areas. At each conference and associa- tion event, the transportation practitioner and senior leader is inundated with the newest and latest framework for their use. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Collect and analyze these frameworks to identify what is common and different in each framework, and 2. Develop tools and guidance for transportation agencies to use in selecting which framework would work best for their asset classes. Estimated Duration: 15 Months Estimated Budget: $100,000–$250,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Institutional Focus Subject: Asset Management Frameworks for Measuring Transportation Resilience Background: Literature reviews have 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 recent DHS study 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 to reflect four goal areas (maintaining continuity of function; graceful degradation; recovery of function to desired function in designated time; inhibit basic state of change). Resilience metrics appear to be lacking in quantitative measures that can be readily calcu- lated and assessed. Much of the published peer-reviewed literature focuses on utilizing existing

84 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers operational metrics normally related to system reliability as surrogates to reflect recovery time as a measure of system resilience. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Assess various quantitative performance frameworks currently proposed; 2. Develop examples demonstrating the usefulness of each to transportation operations, emer- gency, and risk managers; and 3. Identify a framework to assess the impact of resilience alongside reductions in congestion, improved safety, and improved air quality and other national performance measures. Estimated Duration: 15 Months Estimated Budget: $100,000–$250,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Performance Management Organizational Resiliency: Moving from Recovery to Retrenchment Background: As the frequency of recurring flooding and other road damage increases, deter- mining when or if it is ever appropriate for state and local departments of transportation to consider retrenchment and/or retreat (i.e., abandonment) of stretches of roads and highways is an increasingly meaningful topic. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Explore other alternatives besides the option to maintain, repave, or rebuild damaged roads and highways; 2. Develop guidelines for what state DOTs need to know regarding the pros and cons of this; 3. Survey states to learn which ones are dealing with chronically damaged facilities where loss of service has become part of the normal course of business. The survey will capture long-range predictions of their expectations of the amount of resources this will require over the next 10 years, 20 years, and 40 years; 4. Document effective retrenchment practices illustrating how state DOTs have dealt with those residences who are on roads that are flooded; and 5. Examine the political, legislative, economic, and tactical aspects of this sensitive topic. Estimated Duration: 24 Months Estimated Budget: $750,000–$1,000,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Community Engagement Subject: Community Resilience Assessing the Resilience of GPS-based Applications in Transportation Background: GPS technology provides three essential services underpinning much of today’s digital economy. Positioning, navigation, and timing (PNT) applications are essential not only for routine transportation operations but are critical in post-event response and recovery

Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects 85   activities. The rapid introduction of PNT-dependent connected vehicles into the fleet is expo- nentially increasing this risk. However, this technology is vulnerable to disruption and error. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Document transportation vulnerabilities to GPS failure or degradation of signal, 2. Discuss strategies to recover or work around GPS failure, and 3. Present existing and potential replacement or alternative PNT approaches. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $250,000–$500,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Tools and Technical Systems Subject: Cyber Resilience New Technologies for Comprehensive Debris Management Background: Over the past decade, significant advances have been made in aerial imagery, remote sensing, and data management technologies. This project would create training and tools to help local and state debris managers take advantage of new technologies and applica- tions, including but not limited to load ticket tracking systems, debris volume modeling, remote volume assessments, and predictive cost estimating. As a field tool, it would be worthwhile to incorporate this information into a comprehensive Debris Management Planning Guide for State and Local Departments of Transportation. This Guide would build on the planning chapter of the Debris Management Handbook, going into explicit details about the plans and processes necessary for a successful and actionable debris management technology plan. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Develop a mobile field tool for debris management; and 2. Demonstrate or pilot the tool on several platforms including iOS and Android phones, tablets, and other devices. Estimated Duration: 24 Months Estimated Budget: $750,000–$1,000,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Tools and Technical Systems Subject: Emergency Management Emergency Project Contracting Guidelines Background: A survey found that fewer than half of the responding DOTs had a document that provided specific guidance for expediting the procurement of emergency projects, and only five had a “contract document that was specifically developed for emergency projects.” Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Define the appropriate content of DOT emergency project delivery plans, 2. Define the form and content of tailored emergency contracts and their efficacy for agencies that have used them,

86 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers 3. Identify the optimal content of emergency contracts, and 4. Document the effectiveness of using this approach. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Emergency Management Deploying the NIST Cybersecurity Framework in State DOTs Background: The NIST Cybersecurity Framework consists of standards, guidelines, and best practices to manage cybersecurity-related risk. It provides a flexible and cost-effective approach that promotes the protection and resilience of critical cyber infrastructure and other sectors important to the economy and national security. The Framework elements are general in nature and not specific to the unique needs of state DOTs. Objectives: The objective of this research is to develop framework implementation/adoption guidance to DOT executives, program managers, and IT staff. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Policy, Rules, Process, and Funding Subject: Cyber Resilience Multi-Agency Emergency Preparedness Background: Interagency emergency response coordination and communication have been and continue to be critical issues for many agencies at all levels of government. Multi-organization decision making is always a difficult stumbling block. This study will build on the benefits and lessons learned in the utilization of the Incident Command Center concepts and programs in urban and rural environments. Objectives: The objectives of this research are to: 1. Develop guidance to shape emergency response approaches, identify responsibilities, and facilitate coordination between state DOTs and others; 2. Provide recommendations for regular training and preparedness exercises; 3. Develop tools and techniques to help DOTs to plan for and anticipate needs during weather- related disruption; and 4. Consider challenges to agency operations and program development posed by climate change. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Community Engagement Subject: Emergency Management

Recommended Roadmap of 2020–2025 Research Projects 87   A New Tool Assessing the Value of Resiliency Alternatives by State DOTs Background: Most government risk management programs follow a vulnerability-focused, probabilistic model. These programs primarily consider only the downside aspects of risk, and lack the ability to explicitly consider potential upside opportunities. They also lack a common measure of value that is necessary to quantify and compare the impact of response alternatives and perform trade-off analyses over different time periods. Transportation decision makers need a better method to quantify the impacts of various transportation system resiliency invest- ment and response scenarios that supports consideration of the full distribution of possible social and economic outcomes and impacts using different time periods. Objectives: The objectives of this research are to: 1. Develop a surface transportation resiliency value model to be used by transportation officials when assessing and selecting resiliency intervention strategies; 2. Calibrate the model using case studies; 3. Evaluate decision outcomes over different time horizons using this model; 4. Develop a prototype application incorporating the decision model; and 5. Pilot the application with one or more state DOTs. Estimated Duration: 18 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Investing in Innovation Subject: Risk Management Emergency Management Training for Transportation Workers Background: Legislation and executive orders such as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012 and Presidential Policy Directive 21 on Critical Infra- structure Security and Resilience (PPD-21) in 2013 have changed the roles of state DOTs in emergency training and exercises. Emergency management training content should include general incident command system (ICS) and emergency support function (ESF) role awareness; accidents involving hazardous materials; response to flooding and storm damage; training on emergency operations plans; and training for field support personnel, including human resources, procurement, finance, and construction. Additional material should be developed on dealing with trauma and prepared- ness for out-of-area deployments. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Further define training needs, and 2. Develop emergency management training content. Training courses are needed to: a. Present recent changes to federal requirements. b. Identify and train the human resources needed to carry out all-hazards resilience-focused emergency management, recognizing that it is difficult for most transportation agencies to allocate significant personnel, monetary, and material resources to planning and training for events that occur on infrequent bases or may not occur in their state or region. c. Establish correlations between (1) state and agency characteristics and emergency management training implementation problems, (2) preferred training/exercise methods

88 Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers and state and agency characteristics, and (3) required training and exercises for district personnel, and whether there is a nuclear power plant within the district or in a nearby district; and d. Establish the appropriate content, format, and length for necessary emergency manage- ment refresher training. Estimated Duration: 21 Months Estimated Budget: $500,000–$750,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Institutional Focus Subject: Emergency Management Restoring Access: Post-disaster Transportation Equity Background: Resilience goals are being pursued at international, national, state, tribal, and local levels. In each arena, the term “resilience” has different dimensions that foster a lack of under- standing. There needs to be research to clarify for the transportation community what resilience means at a community level and what role DOTs can play in assisting the community. Objectives: The purpose of this research is to: 1. Develop guidelines for achieving equity of resilience between differing sized communities with different resource availability; 2. Address the non-infrastructure, non-economic components of the value of resilience such as social disruptions, sense of place, aesthetic values, and ecosystem services; and 3. Explore technical approaches including multi-objective modeling to help deal with con- flicting interests in resilience. Estimated Duration: 15 Months Estimated Budget: $100,000–$250,000 Potential Funding Source: NCHRP Topics: Community Engagement Subject: Community Resilience

Next: References »
Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Although the need for a more effective set of short- and long-term transportation resilience strategies is increasingly obvious and urgent, many knowledge gaps and institutional barriers still exist.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Research Report 975: Transportation System Resilience: Research Roadmap and White Papers highlights significant knowledge gaps within AASHTO and state departments of transportation, presents a 5-year research plan that addresses these gaps, and discusses critical resilience-related issues facing senior transportation leaders today.

Supplementary materials to the report include a Road Map Ratings and Rankings Workbook (Appendix B) and a Resilience Research Roadmap and White Papers Presentation.

  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!