National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Introduction
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Evolution of Highway Resilience." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25166.
×
Page 14

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.

6 Security and protection of assets is fundamental to ensure a safe and functional society. This chapter presents a review of the evolution of policies related to infrastructure and highway resilience. The review notes the shift in policy over the past several decades from risk reduction and protection of critical infrastructure assets from potential hazards, initially highly concen- trated on direct threats, toward improving infrastructure resilience (the ability to absorb and quickly recover from events) from a wider range of hazards, including both direct and natural threats. Figure 1 has been included to highlight major policy initiatives related to system resilience and also major disasters in the United States over the past several years. Modern examples of legislation and policies implemented to support security and protection needs of critical infrastructure include the 1963 establishment of the National Communications System, which was established to ensure that officials could efficiently communicate with the public in emergency situations. This was followed by the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in 1979, whose mission was to form and maintain “a secure and resilient nation with the capabilities required across the whole community to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from the threats and hazards that pose the greatest risk.” After the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a Presidential Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection was established, and in 2002 the first National Strategy for Homeland Security was published. This publication was followed by the National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets and the Homeland Security President Directives 7 and 8 in 2003 (Hart and Ramsay, 2011). These publications helped to develop what is known today as the National Infrastructure Protec- tion Plan (NIPP), which includes the following updated list of 16 critical infrastructure sectors that if incapacitated or destroyed could have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, or national public health or safety: • Chemical; • Commercial facilities; • Communications; • Critical manufacturing; • Dams; • Defense industrial base; • Emergency services; • Energy; • Financial services; • Food and agriculture; • Government facilities; • Health care and public health; • Informational technology; C H A P T E R 2 Evolution of Highway Resilience

Evolution of Highway Resilience 7 • Nuclear reactors, materials, and waste; • Transportation, and • Water and wastewater. In response to climate and environmental concerns, the U.S. DOT established the Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting in 1999, which is a focal point for information and technical expertise on transportation and climate change. In 2006, the Critical Infrastructure Task Force of the Homeland Security Advisory Council argued that the government was too focused on protecting assets from terrorist attacks with little mention of protecting those same assets from a variety of threats, including climate change 7/1/1996 Presidential Commission for Critical Infrastructure Program 5/1/1998 Presidential Decision Directive No. 63 9/11/2001 Terrorist Attacks 7/1/2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security 11/1/2002 Department of Homeland Security Established 12/1/2003 Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 8/1/2005 Hurricane Katrina 9/1/2005 Hurricane Rita 7/1/2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 10/1/2012 Hurricane Sandy 2/1/2013 Presidential Policy Directive 21 5/1/2013 Moore Oklahoma Tornado Outbreak 6/1/2013 Yarnell Hill Fire 9/1/2013 Colorado Floods 12/1/2014 FHWA Order 5520 3/1/2015 Oso Washington Mudslide 12/1/2015 FAST Act 6/1/2016 West Virginia Floods 10/1/2016 Hurricane Matthew 11/1/2016 Great Smokey Mountain Wildfires Figure 1. Resilience timeline.

8 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration and natural hazards. This led the House Committee on Homeland Security to hold a series of hearings in 2008 to address issues related to resilience. After this, policies became more focused on resilience (Moteff, 2012). In 2005, FHWA’s Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty led a U.S. DOT study that analyzed the vulnerability of the Gulf Coast states through two separate studies, phase 1 in 2008 and phase 2 in 2015. The focus of the studies was to better understand the vulnerabilities to transportation assets from climate change and to determine strategies for improving system resilience (FHWA, n.d., d). Several tools and reports were developed as part of this study includ- ing vulnerability assessment tools, criticality assessment reports, and adaptation frameworks. In 2013, Presidential Policy Directive 21 (PPD-21) was issued, and the supporting report NIPP 2013: Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, also referred to as the National Plan, was published to guide the national effort to manage risk to the Nation’s critical infrastructure (Moteff, 2012). This directive updated the existing NIPP; established a vision, mis- sion, and goals; and built on the previously published critical infrastructure risk management frameworks from 2006. Many of these efforts and policies are based on protection from terrorist attacks; however, it has been recognized that many of the same principles apply when planning and protecting national infrastructure from other non-manmade hazards such as natural threats, including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, landslides, wildfires, tornadoes, ice and snowstorms, debris flow, and geohazards. The basis for many of the policies relating to the identification and protec- tion of critical infrastructure is drawn from risk analysis and management methods and pro- cedures. The connection between direct and non-direct threat analysis lies in the ability to use probabilistic approaches to analyze threats, estimate consequences, and assess vulnerability of infrastructure to a range of threats deemed possible for any identified critical infrastructure asset. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) (P.L. 112-141) signed into law by President Obama on July 6, 2012, continued to move the industry forward for the pro- tection of highway assets by requiring states to establish a process for developing a risk-based, performance-based asset management plan to be reviewed and updated every 4 years for preserving and improving the condition of the National Highway System (NHS) (FHWA, 2012). This act created a streamlined and performance-based surface transportation program and built on many of the existing highway, transit, bike, and pedestrian programs and policies established in 1991. If an agency fails to develop and implement a plan by the beginning of the second year after the Secretary’s rulemaking was published and the process was established, there will be a reduction of 35% of the federal share for the National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) projects in that fiscal year. The developed plan needs to include the following at a minimum: • A summary list of salient assets, including condition, of the state’s NHS pavements and bridges; • Asset management objectives and measures; • Performance gap identification; • Life cycle cost and risk management analysis; • A financial plan; and • Investment strategies. Risk has been broadly defined within MAP-21, leaving it open to agencies to determine which risks will be addressed within their overall asset management plan. At a minimum, agencies are required to address risks that may affect pavements and bridges but are encouraged to include all assets within the agency’s right of way. Agencies should also consider risk at the agency, program, and project levels (FHWA, 2012).

Evolution of Highway Resilience 9 Recently, there has been an effort to focus on resilience with regard to terrorism as well as to natural hazards that may be caused by the effects of climate change. FHWA Order 5520, pub- lished in December 2014, provides a framework to enable agencies to better prepare for and be resilient to hazards due to climate change and extreme weather conditions. The purpose of this policy is to establish FHWA’s policy on preparedness and resilience to climate change and extreme weather. The directive focuses on how “changing climate (such as higher temperatures, sea-level rise, and changes in seasonal precipitation and the intensity of rain events) and extreme weather events are affecting the lifecycle of transportation systems and are expected to intensify” (U.S. DOT, 2014). In July 2015, the National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC), which provides the Presi- dent of the United States with advice on the security of the critical infrastructure sectors and their information systems, provided recommendations as to the nation’s transportation sector resilience. The NIAC provided three key observations and three key recommendations to the president to address resilience of the transportation sector (NIAC, 2015): Key observations: • Systemic risks are not well understood by mode, jurisdiction, regions, or the interdependence between critical sectors. In addition, emerging risks from cyber threats, extreme weather, sea-level rise, aging infrastructure, and workforce changes are not well understood. • While national resilience policies are well established, they have not been well integrated into practice. • Chronic underinvestment in the nation’s transportation infrastructure and the lack of monetization of the resilience have limited the integration of resilience into investments. Key recommendations: • Create a baseline of current risks and establish a federal vision for transportation resilience. • Develop the analytic tools, models, and exercises to better understand and plan for emerging risks and interdependencies. • Use the results of these efforts to operationalize resilience by increasing funding and imple- menting effective federal practices, procedures, and procurement processes. The NIAC noted that there is an urgent need to rebuild the U.S. transportation infrastructure that has suffered neglect and increasing disruptions from natural and manmade threats. It was noted that in order to achieve a truly resilient transportation sector, a long-term, systematic approach needs to be incorporated into the sector through long-term investments. The follow- ing section outlines some of the ongoing activities at state DOTs to address improving system resilience in the face of climate change and extreme weather events. Incorporation of Resilience Into Highway Programs In reaction to evolving policies at the national level and recommendations for critical infra- structure, transportation agencies and organizations have responded through specific efforts aimed at transportation infrastructure. Along the lines of system resilience, AASHTO held a workshop in May of 2012 titled Adapting Infrastructure to Extreme Weather Events: Best Prac- tices and Key Challenges and produced a background paper for a workshop that details what states are doing to mitigate potential natural threats to their respective transportation systems with respect to climate change. The purpose of the workshop was to provide a mechanism for states to exchange information on how they are addressing climate change and extreme weather events (Meyer, Choate, and Rowan, 2012). At the time of the publication, several key stressors were noted for transportation assets, including temperature extremes, precipitation extremes, sea-level rise, and increases in the number and intensity of hurricanes.

10 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration A few states provided information as to the expected performance of their facilities as a result of climate change and extreme weather that was included in the background paper. California noted that it was expected that the state would experience fewer extreme cold days and more extreme hot days, which will increase the risk of buckling highways as well as potential flooding of tunnels, coastal highways, runways, and railways. Michigan noted reviewing its snow and ice removal strategies to be better prepared for more major snowstorms. In addition, Michigan DOT is considering removing piers in new bridge designs to reduce the potential for bridge scour in the future. Washington State noted a need to assess upsizing drainage culverts to accommodate expected increases in demand flow from more intense rainfalls, glacial thawing, and sea-level rise (Meyer, Choate, and Rowan, 2012). The report also noted efforts by state agencies to include climate change and extreme weather events in their planning efforts, including those in Florida, California, Oregon, and Maryland. Maintenance activities were also documented to address extreme weather and climate change, including Maine and Oregon DOTs that are including culvert vulnerability assessments in an effort to identify areas of concern and to improve sys- tem resilience. The report concluded that agencies should move toward incorporating climate change and extreme weather planning to increase system resilience in their asset management plans and have begun to address reducing risk from these events through design, operations, and maintenance programs. Also noted in the background document, at the direction of its governor, the State of California produced a document to address sea-level rise at the statewide level to incorporate sea-level rise projections into their planning and decision-making processes. This document is meant to provide projections that can be used for risk-based scenario planning and assessments, including long-range transportation plans (LRTPs) and vulnerability assessments. Accord- ing to the document, “California Executive Order S-13-08 required all state agencies planning construction projects in areas vulnerable to future sea-level rise to ‘consider a range of sea-level rise scenarios for the years 2050 and 2100 in order to assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea level rise’” (Georgetown Climate Center, 2013; Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. Online). The Executive Order was established in 2009 and also required the California DOT (Caltrans) to conduct a vulnerability assessment of transportation systems and make recommendations for future investment to curtail losses of infrastructure and improve safety. The motivation to reduce risks associated with sea-level rise provides a good example of an agency or state analyzing threats that are likely and to develop mitigation strategies to protect against these threats, resulting in a more resilient transportation system. Since the 2012 AASHTO workshop, other states have begun to initiate proactive efforts to address extreme events. As a result of extreme flooding in September 2013 and destructive rockfall events along key corridors in the state, Colorado DOT has launched a pilot project known as the I-70 Risk and Resilience Pilot, to assess hazards along the I-70 corridor from border to border to proactively identify areas with high probability of losses from a range of threats includ- ing natural (e.g., flooding) and direct (e.g., bridge strikes). The project has purposively engaged a wide range of Colorado DOT staff from all five regions of the agency as well as its headquarters staff and executives throughout the year-long study. By engaging a wide range of engineering, maintenance, operational, planning, and executive staff, the project is benefiting from the knowl- edge of each of these areas of expertise and working to ensure buy-in across the agency for the proactive approach to system resilience management. The I-70 Risk and Resilience Pilot provided Colorado DOT with the following three key pieces of information important to decision making: • A criticality rating reflecting each asset’s effects on overall system performance; • An annualized monetary risk from potential threats for each analyzed asset; and • The measure of resilience of each analyzed asset, reflecting the effect to the traveling public from potential threats.

Evolution of Highway Resilience 11 Colorado DOT is beginning to explore potential uses of the information ranging from main- tenance, operational planning, and project design. In addition, Colorado DOT will assess the usefulness of the information provided by the process and determine if future analyses should be conducted (Colorado Resiliency and Recovery Office, Online). Several state DOTs participated in the FHWA Climate Change Resilience pilot studies, and some have framed their approaches to climate change in terms of system resilience. Washington DOT participated in phase 1 and 2 of the climate change pilots and developed information to help drive decision making based on system vulnerability assessment. The study resulted in 11 site-specific vulnerability assessments and adaptation strategies focused on improving system resilience from potential future flooding. The second phase of the assessment con- centrated its efforts on the Skagit River Basin, which is the third largest river on the West Coast. The basin contains five dams and floods frequently in both urban and rural areas. For each of the 11 sites, several adaptation strategies were developed, ranging from opera- tional preparation, alignment changes, culvert enhancement, and increasing water storage (FHWA, Online, d). State DOTs are looking to the future to analyze and prepare for potential threats that may be brought on by unplanned events. Some agencies have begun to analyze their personnel roles and responsibilities and training needs to address resilience of highway systems. In 2013, FHWA published a report on how agencies should address system resilience through their asset management plans (FHWA, 2013b). The document notes some of the lessons learned from Hurricanes Lee, Irene, and Sandy in the Northeast, and the following several recommenda- tions were made to transportation agencies: • Develop a risk assessment of the state’s transportation infrastructure; • Strengthen existing transportation networks; • Protect transit systems and tunnels against severe flooding; • Strategically expand transportation networks in order to create redundancies; and • Build for a resilient future with enhanced guidelines, standards, policies, and procedures. FHWA notes that a strong risk-based asset management plan will help agencies better understand their ability to withstand physical threats to their system by understanding system redundancy, robustness, and resilience. In the summer of 2017, after the development of the draft version of this report, which was vetted by the project panel, FHWA published additional information and guidance on the incor- poration of resilience in project development (FHWA, 2017). Given the publication occurred after the initial development of this report, a cursory review was made of the document only. The guidance includes information on the inclusion of climate change models within the project development process and provides information on how agencies can downscale climate models to incorporate such climate change information within their processes. FHWA notes the need for improved models to conduct economic analyses of the benefits of climate change adaptation measures and the need for information on how assets are anticipated to perform under various climate stressors. Agency Personnel Roles, Responsibilities, Training, and Education State DOTs are responsible for providing methodologies that can be used throughout the state to promote resilience practices that align with federal regulations. These policies can be used to ensure resilience throughout all components of the government, including laws that govern local

12 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration developmental decisions. Local governments play an important role in resiliency practices. Since local governments are directly responsible for community planning, they have a greater under- standing of the potential risks that could affect their respective areas, which in turn strengthens mitigation practices to promote greater resilience. One of the largest concerns with climate change is sea-level rise and the potential adverse effects it will have on transportation system resilience. Caltrans produced a guidance docu- ment to inform their staff on how to assess vulnerabilities associated with sea-level rise. Caltrans employees are instructed to use a two-part analysis to determine if sea-level rise mitigation is required in project programming or design (Georgetown Climate Center, 2011). The document also notes the uncertainties associated with climate change modeling, yet the agency is working toward incorporating these factors into their processes to improve their system resilience and reduce future risks. Vermont has developed a three-tiered training program, Rivers and Roads, which was devel- oped in cooperation with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation’s Rivers Program, the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife Fisheries Division, and the Vermont Department of Transportation Local Roads Program. The program is aimed at considering the river in the design, construction, and maintenance of transportation infrastructure in Vermont and is delivered through online and in-person modules (Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, 2016). The training builds on the lessons learned from Tropical Storm Irene, which dumped 11 inches of rain on portions of the state and caused an estimated $733 million in damage in Vermont alone (Pierre-Louis, 2016). FHWA published guidance on the establishment of incident command centers aimed at familiarizing transportation professionals with the components of incident command centers. The guidance was based largely on the Department of Homeland Security’s National Incident Management System and on the Model Procedures Guide for Highway Incidents developed by the National Fire Service Incident Management System Consortium (FHWA, 2006). Agencies are also seeking mechanisms to fund resilience strategies on highway systems, as described in the next section. Funding Mechanisms for Resilience While it is a requirement for transportation agencies to promote resilience in their trans- portation systems, many agencies find it difficult to fund such programs. Because of this, it is important for agencies to develop a strong asset management plan that will lead to the devel- opment of long-term asset management plans. According to FHWA, “Comprehensive trans- portation asset management plans (TAMP) could show the expected and desired projections of asset performance for more than 10 years into the future. A pragmatic TAMP would address the amount of investment required for the rehabilitation, preservation and maintenance of assets during their useful life” (FHWA, 2015). When agencies produce asset management plans that analyze future risk, it becomes easier to justify the use of the expenses needed to build and main- tain such assets. Other potential sources of funding to incorporate resilience include the FHWA Emergency Relief Program after a qualifying disaster has occurred. In January 2017, FHWA published a fact sheet that outlines how resilience can be incorporated into recovery efforts on those facilities that fall within the FHWA emergency relief (ER) program. Examples are provided to outline how an agency can incorporate resilience that reflects current design standards or provide an economic justification to demonstrate the anticipated reduced cost to the ER program from future events with more resilient designs.

Evolution of Highway Resilience 13 For those facilities that may be eligible for FEMA grants, the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assis- tance Guidance provides information on grants available to communities addressing post- disaster recovery to support the planning and implementation of long-term hazard mitigation measures as well as a Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program to help proactively address potential hazards before an event. In addition, the same guidance document includes information on FEMA’s Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FEMA, 2015). Some not-for-profit and non-profit organizations have sponsored resilience competitions in the recent past as a way to promote forward thinking and incorporation of resilient designs into infrastructure. One example is the National Disaster Resilience Competition sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2014. A national competition took place in two phases with applicants from a range of cities, counties, and states. Ultimately, eight states and five cities/counties were selected to receive a portion of $1 billion distributed through the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (The Rockefeller Foundation, Online). Federal and Other Transportation Resilience Initiatives Federal and other transportation agencies and organizations such as FHWA, AASHTO, TRB, FTA, and ASCE have been developing initiatives to incorporate the concept and importance of resilience into transportation systems at federal, state, and local levels for over 10 years. FHWA has funded numerous pilot projects and published many reports and much guidance related to climate change, vulnerability, and resilience. There is a full section on their website dedicated to resilience, with information related to adaptation frameworks, case studies, pilot projects, policy and guidance, publications, tools, webinars and workshops, and peer exchanges (FHWA, d). The goal of FHWA resilience efforts is to “develop resources and guidance materials for operating agencies to better prepare for the effects of extreme weather on transportation management, operations and maintenance” (FHWA Online, e). FTA has also funded resilience projects, especially after Hurricane Sandy recovery, and has funded multiple pilot projects since 2011 to conduct climate change adaptation assessment (FTA, Online, e). Similarly, AASHTO approved a reorganization of their committee structure in November 2016 to add new subcommittees, including the Transportation System Security and Resil- ience (TSSR), which is chaired by Michael Lewis of Colorado DOT (AASHTO, 2016a). This new committee has the purpose of coordinating national efforts and identifying best prac- tices to fill research gaps in order to promote resilience in transportation systems. The RSTS new action plan, adopted in May 2017, specifies all the committee’s new initiatives and goals for the next 2 years (AASHTO, 2017). In addition, in January 2017, AASHTO’s Special Com- mittee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management published Understanding Transportation Resilience: A 2016–2018 Roadmap for Security, Emergency Management, and Infrastructure Protection in Transportation Resilience with the purpose of providing a discus- sion tool for other resilience-oriented committees and existing and future resilience-funded programs and initiatives (AASHTO, 2016b). TRB has also played a role in promoting resilience initiatives in the transportation sector. A publication from July 2017, TRB Resilience: Key Products and Projects, explains in detail all the resilience initiatives sponsored by TRB in the past (TRB, 2017). In addition, resilience was iden- tified as the number one NCHRP emphasis area for fiscal year 2017 and has been a hot topic for recent TRB Annual Meetings (2016 and 2017) (AASHTO, 2016b). ASCE has also promoted resilience and established the Infrastructure Resilience Divi- sion in 2014 to advance the concept in infrastructure with a focus on community resilience,

14 Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration disaster assessment, emergency technologies, civil and infrastructure lifeline systems, multi- hazard characterization, risk and resilience measurements, and social and economic impacts. In particular, it created the Risk and Resilience Measurements Committee to address the use of risk in civil infrastructure and lifeline systems and to build risk-based resilience standards (ASCE, Online). As outlined in this chapter, the concept of infrastructure resilience has evolved over the past two decades, and emphasis is shifting to understanding how capable infrastructure is to recover from or resist events before they occur. Several states have begun to adopt resilient practices into their planning, maintenance, and operational management programs. Some states have begun to address resilience in their training and education programs as well, and recent initiatives by several professional organizations reflect the desire to further incorporate resilience into traditional planning, design, operations, and maintenance programs. With the increased focus on the need for a resilient transportation sector in policy and guid- ance, there is a need to establish a firm definition of resilience in the highway sector in order to align the understanding among transportation professionals as to what a resilient highway system is and how to measure resilience. The next chapter of this report provides some insight as to current thinking for these concepts in transportation and other relevant sectors.

Next: Chapter 3 - Resilience Definitions, Metrics, and Frameworks »
Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

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

Appendix A, A Survey of State Departments of Transportation, accompanies the report.

  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!