Deploying Transportation Resilience Practices in State DOTs (2021)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

76 Chapter 5: IMPLEMENTATION OF RESILIENCE STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS The underlying objective of this project is to bring about cross-discipline and organizational change in state DOT policies and practices as well as agency culture for transportation resilience. The results of this research have the potential to affect whether and how state DOTs (and other transportation agencies) across the country adequately prepare for and take specific actions that can mitigate the risks associated with a broad array of natural and human-caused threats. The desire is to advance practical approaches and examples for “institutionalizing” a focus on resilience within the transportation sector. This section is organized into four major sections: 1) a discussion on typical challenges in implementing new governmental initiatives (to place the following strategies in context), 2) a national strategy for fostering and implementing resilience strategies, 3) state DOT and other transportation agency efforts, and 4) education and training opportunities for improving the skills and talents of today’s professionals and better prepare future professionals. Implementation Challenges It is useful to describe some the barriers or challenges associated with implementing resilience initiatives in an organization and within an institutional structure to provide a rationale for the recommendations on implementation. The recommendations in the following sections thus reflect strategies for overcoming some of these challenges. In the introduction of this report it was noted that one of the primary purposes of this research was to identify changes leading to a more resilience-oriented culture in transportation agencies. However, studies on organization change have consistently pointed to organizational inertia; that is, a propensity of organizations to not embrace change, as one of the key barriers to innovation and change in behavior. Such inertia can come from many sources—a natural tendency to be more comfortable with the status quo; a long-standing and engrained culture in an organization that relies on proven methods and approaches; encoded standard operating procedures that have directed acceptable practice (but which might not be supportive of new program goals); lack of understanding of what is exactly needed to implement a new program (especially challenging if there are few examples of where the program has been implemented elsewhere); and a lack of funding and staff capabilities to undertake the efforts needed to achieve new program goals. Table 5 shows a more complete list of some of the challenges to implementing organizational actions that upset the status quo. This table was originally created in TCRP Report 106/NCHRP Report 536, From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making that focused on strategies to foster effective collaboration among transportation agencies and a diverse set of partners (Campbell et. al. 2005). The table has been modified to focus instead on the implementation of resilience-oriented strategies. A lack of funding and staff capabilities is often pointed to by transportation officials as one of the most critical constraints in launching new initiatives. As part of a public agency, transportation officials are often faced with many differing “pulls” from a variety of sources—elected officials who want action on particular issues of greatest concern to them, enabling legislation and mandates that often provide legal and program boundaries within which agency action can occur, federal government laws and

77 regulations affecting the substance and process of federally-aide state programs, and public initiatives (sometimes in the form of referenda) that provide resources subject to very specific project eligibility criteria, to name a few. One can imagine a typical state DOT facing program and public policy pressures relating to transportation funding, safety, mobility, asset management, security, equity, multimodal program balance, environmental quality/climate change, economic development, community quality of life, and sustainability. To some, a renewed focus on resilience would be added on top of all these other issues. Table 5: Challenges to Implementation Organizational Characteristics Organizational Narrowly defined roles can be major impediments to working with other organizations that do not share the same mission. For major transportation functions—transit operations, traffic operations, infrastructure planning, design and construction—agencies have different perceived missions, priorities, and legal requirements. Often these missions also reflect different jurisdictional responsibilities and roles that can hinder collaborative implementation. Organizational motivation Although a mission can often explain why an organization acts the way it does, organizational behavior can be motivated by a variety of factors. Often, and especially when both public agencies and private firms are involved with a collaborative undertaking, a lack of understanding of what motivates the behavior of others can hinder joint action. Standardized practice or standard operating procedures Organizations often establish standard practices when facing situations that occur repeatedly. Thus, for example, most design manuals or transit operating guidelines provide standard responses to the types of decisions facing agency personnel. However, in many cases, the public today demands more tailored responses targeted at very specific needs, thus requiring a more flexible and creative response from the organizations involved. Organizational culture Organizational culture includes the concepts of mission, motivation, and standard practices, in addition to the history of interaction and the type of personnel (and their education and training) that are found within an organization. Thus, for example, an agency might be very hierarchically oriented with respect to decision making, where this decision making is driven by data and technical information. Professional mindset of dominant organizational groups The professional mindset of dominant groups in an organization can strongly influence the way an organization behaves and responds to challenges. Transportation is a complex field that fosters technical specialization, resulting in organizational fragmentation and the development of standardized approaches to solving problems. Language barriers The reliance on technical specialties in transportation often lends itself to the use of different vocabulary, acronyms, and terminology among the many different disciplines involved. For example, planners, traffic engineers, urban designers, developers, elected officials, and enforcement personnel often use different terms. This lack of a common language often creates great challenges in communicating key concepts.

78 Uneven playing fields in the institutional environment In many cases, not all potential members of a collaborative implementation have equal power or influence. Those having control of financial resources or having legitimacy due to legal mandate can often have a greater say. Interpersonal Relationships Personal dynamics Collaborative implementation depends primarily on establishing trust among the participants involved in the effort. Organizational barriers might stand in the way, but on a personal basis, success can still occur within these boundaries as long as everyone trusts the other actors. In some cases, due to personalities or personal history, establishing such trust is very difficult. Established behavior Some individuals have difficulty thinking beyond the “way it has been done for the past 40 years.” Through many years of experience, promotion guidelines, or training, they have come to believe that there is only one right way to do something and that any deviation is unacceptable. Resources Insufficient dollars This is often one of the most difficult challenges. Many collaborative undertakings require the sharing of costs and thus the need for participants to support financial efforts that are often at the fringe of their main mission. This is especially critical in the initial start-up phase of an implementation where, in the short term, financial resources are needed that can usually only come from limited budgets that are mostly allocated to other programs. Inadequate information or communication sharing Information and communication systems are an important resource in support of collaborative efforts. Not having the ability to communicate and exchange information because of incompatible information systems or due to inadequate organizational support of such systems can seriously degrade efforts to establish effective implementation strategies. Insufficient staff capabilities Many examples of collaborative implementation require staff support to establish joint ownership of a particular initiative. This support might be nothing more than organizing and staffing meetings, or could be as significant as conducting detailed assessments of the technical and/or institutional feasibility of actions that are being considered. In either case, the assignment of adequate and capable staff time is critical for overall success. Changing staff For collaborative implementation that lasts for some time, it is likely that new staff members will join the effort while others will retire or leave the organization. Each staff turnover, which represents a loss of institutional memory, leads to the need to educate the new participant in the goals of the effort, what has been done to date, and what has yet to be done. Inadequate analysis tools Many collaborative implementation efforts focus on transportation issues that include different modes of transportation and many different professional perspectives. This research found that few analysis capabilities exist to understand and assess multijurisdictional and multimodal strategies. Thus, for those implementation collaborations that require a good analysis foundation for understanding the problem and needs, inadequate analysis capability could be a significant challenge. Source: As modified from (Campbell et.al. 2005)

79 A resilience implementation strategy should address as many of these challenges as possible, recognizing that there will be different roles for those participating in the strategy. At the national level, the federal government has historically been involved in implementing national programs in a variety of ways, from outright legislative and regulatory requirements, to providing funding incentives to encourage actions to meeting program objectives, to providing technical guidance and funding pilot studies to establish best practices. The federal government has had in the past, and conceivably will continue to have, a strong influence in setting the agenda and providing support for resilience challenges that state DOTs and other transportation agencies must address. At the individual agency level, which in this project has been defined mainly at the state level, bringing about change can include a wide range of strategies. Depending on how the agency is structured and how standard operating procedures and information channels have been established, the leader (Chief Executive Officer, CEO) of the agency can mandate/encourage/reward/establish expectations/monitor agency resilience strategy implementation. However, the tenure of many state DOT CEOs is often limited, which means meaningful change should include engaging “next-tier” leadership in institutionalizing required resilience procedures and approaches in state DOTs and other transportation agencies. The Resilience Guide and Self-Assessment Tool provides the CEO and agency leadership with the information to identify and justify the actions needed to enhance an agency’s resilience capability. The final area where long-term implementation success needs attention is in fostering the knowledge base, skills, and talents of the transportation staff who will be involved. This includes existing staff, which implies training and professional development opportunities to introduce new concepts into staff expertise; and new and future staff, which implies encouraging universities and other educational programs that produce the next generation of DOT staff members to expose students to key resilience concepts and tools. National Resilience Program Given the continuing exposure of the nation’s transportation systems to natural and human-caused disruptions, and with expectations that such disruptions will likely increase in the future, there is a need for a national focus on adaptive transportation systems and infrastructure. A national focus can take various forms. Legislatively, federal legislation has tied policy concerns to the federal aid provided to the nation’s transportation systems. The national transportation performance measures discussed earlier is an example of this. Table 6 illustrates some other examples of recent federal policies that relate to making the transportation system more resilient. It seems likely that future federal legislation and regulations will continue to include transportation system resilience as an important federal goal. Outside of federal legislative and regulatory mandates, another model for fostering and/or supporting the implementation of a resilience-oriented program is through the voluntary creation of collaborative partnerships. Efforts to support the implementation of the National Unified Goal (NUG) for TIM is an excellent model of a possible effort for implementing resilience initiatives. The genesis for a NUG for TIM began in the early 2000s when a coalition of transportation and emergency responder agencies decided it was important to establish a national focus

80 Table 6: Example Resilience Policies in Federal Legislation and Agency Guidance Documents Mechanism Requirements USDOT FY 2018-22 Strategic Plan “DOT will increase its effectiveness in ensuring that infrastructure is resilient enough to withstand extreme weather.” FHWA Order 5520 Commits FHWA to integrating extreme weather risk consideration into programs. Federal Law [as found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)] 23 CFR 515 Risk-based asset management plans must address risks associated with current and future environmental conditions. 23 CFR 667 Assets requiring repeated repair require evaluation of alternatives. USC 134, 23 CFR 450 State and metropolitan transportation planning should now include resilience as a planning factor. 23 CFR 450.324(f)(7)) Metropolitan transportation plans shall include an assessment of capital investment and other strategies to… reduce the vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure to natural disasters. 23 CFR 450.206(a) “(a) Each State shall carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive statewide transportation planning process that provides for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will address the following factors: (9) improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate storm-water impacts of surface transportation.” 23 CFR 450.306(b) “(b) The metropolitan transportation planning process shall be continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive, and provide for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will address the following factors: (9) Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate storm-water impacts of surface transportation.” 23 CFR 216(c) “(c) The long-range statewide transportation plan shall reference, summarize, or contain any applicable short-range planning studies; strategic planning and/or policy studies; transportation needs studies; management systems reports; emergency relief and disaster preparedness plans.” Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act Resiliency program funded at S6.25 B. Natural infrastructure component added to eligibility. • New local discretionary grant program focused on climate solutions. • Pollution reduction and resiliency woven into the project planning process. 23 CFR 450.324(f)(7) “(f) The metropolitan transportation plan shall, at a minimum, include: 7) Assessment of capital investment and other strategies to preserve the existing and projected future metropolitan transportation infrastructure, provide for multimodal capacity increases based on regional priorities and

81 needs, and reduce the vulnerability of the existing transportation infrastructure to natural disasters.” 23 CFR 515.7 (c)(6) and 515.9 (h) “(c) A State DOT shall establish a process for developing a risk management plan. This process shall, at a minimum, produce the following information: (6) Risk management analysis, including the results for NHS pavements and bridges, of the periodic evaluations under part 667 of this title of facilities repeated damaged by emergency event.” “(h) A State DOT shall integrate its asset management plan into its transportation planning processes that lead to the STIP, to support its efforts to achieve the goals in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.” 23 CFR Part 667 “State DOTs must evaluate facilities that have repeatedly been damaged in emergency events.” on response and recovery times to traffic incidents. As noted in the announcement establishing the NUG, “In an unprecedented show of unity among highway agencies, emergency medical professionals, firefighters, tow truck operators, and 9-1-1 call centers, nineteen national organizations announced the launch of the NUG for Traffic Incident Management” (NITMC 2007) The NUG was developed through a consensus-building process among many of the key agencies and professional associations. The process was based on extensive outreach and listening sessions with national stakeholder organizations, and the creation of formal partnerships intended to further the national goal. The process for developing the NUG is illustrative of the types of efforts that correspond to such an effort. The early timeline includes: (AASHTO undated) Summer and Fall 2006 – Outreach and listening sessions with national TIM stakeholder organizations to develop Preliminary Draft NUG. November 2006 – NUG Conference in Newport Beach, California, with national TIM stakeholder organization delegates to gather input to the Preliminary Draft NUG Winter 2007 – Development of Draft NUG by a Steering Committee that included representation from the national TIM stakeholder groups. March 2007 – Release of Draft NUG. Spring – Fall 2007 – Circulation of Draft NUG to national TIM stakeholder groups for formal policy adoption. October 2007 – Ratification of NUG by all NTIMC member organizations had fully ratified the NUG. November 20, 2007 – Formal announcement of NUG ratification. The NTIMC, formed as the catalyst for developing the NUG, currently consists of 26 national organizations representing emergency medical services, fire and rescue, law enforcement, public safety communications, towing and recovery, and transportation sectors. An institutional structure was created to lead the effort, and the following strategic goals were adopted:

82 1. Promote and support the successful development and conduct of local, regional, and statewide TIM programs through peer networking, mentoring, and knowledge exchange among public safety and transportation professionals. 2. Provide leadership in the development of multidisciplinary best practices, guides, standards, and performance measures in support of sound TIM activities. 3. Develop and recommend appropriate research problem statements for referral to one or more Coalition partners to take advantage of multiple research avenues. 4. Develop a delivery mechanism across the nation for NTIMC products, including the NUG. NTIMC’s identified six cross-cutting strategies that are very similar to what would be included in a national transportation resilience initiative (Emergency Responder Safety Institute 2020). Cross-Cutting Strategies Strategy 1. TIM Partnerships and Programs. TIM partners at the national, state, regional and local levels should work together to promote, develop and sustain effective TIM Programs. Strategy 2. Multidisciplinary National Incident Management System (NIMS) and TIM Training. Traffic Incident Management responders should receive multidisciplinary NIMS and TIM training. Strategy 3. Goals for Performance and Progress. TIM partners should work together to establish and implement performance goals at the state, regional and local levels for increasing the effectiveness of TIM, including methods for measuring and monitoring progress. Strategy 4. TIM Technology. TIM partners at the national, state, regional and local levels should work together for rapid and coordinated implementation of beneficial new technologies for TIM. Strategy 5. Effective TIM Policies. TIM partners at the national, state, regional and local levels should join together to raise awareness regarding proposed policies and legislation that affect achievement of the NUG objectives of Responder Safety; Safe, Quick Clearance; and Prompt, Reliable Traffic Incident Communications. Strategy 6. Awareness and Education Partnerships. Broad partnerships should be developed to promote public awareness and education regarding the public’s role in safe, efficient resolution of incidents on the roadways. In many ways, one could replace the term “traffic incident” with “system resilience” and we would have a strong model for developing national, state and local capabilities in system resilience. The emphasis on partnerships, training, goals, role of technology, standard policies for response, and awareness/education are exactly the dimensions that characterize a system resilience coalition. The NTIMC group has defined what are considered core competencies for incident management and has listed on its website numerous references that showcase incident management best practice strategies. An FHWA self-assessment tool (described earlier) is offered for those wanting to conduct an enterprise assessment on where an agency currently is with respect to incident management, and to help identify the steps necessary to move forward. This tool is similar in concept to the self-assessment tool

83 developed for this project. The Resilience Guide and Self-Assessment Tool could serve as platform for an ongoing involvement of resilient-related professionals via NUG or a NUG-like platform. As noted earlier, the process of forming and maintaining the NTIMC consisted of many steps: • Multidisciplinary partnerships including agencies from the public safety and transportation communities • Efforts to coordinate the experiences, knowledge, practices, and ideas of participants • Background research and analysis on the “problem” • Collaborative efforts to develop a strategic plan and action strategy • Scheduled forums and meetings to foster collaborative strategic actions • Development of a self-assessment tool for state DOTs and other agencies • Evolutionary development of services and tools that can be used by the members • Linkages to other governmental and professional organizations These steps should be followed in a strategic implementation plan for a national transportation system resilience initiative. For some of these steps, such as conducting background research and holding forums or meetings to foster collaboration (e.g., RISE), efforts have already been taken. Combined with possible federal legislation, the creation of a national resiience coalition would be a powerful impetus for collective and consistent efforts to develop a more resilient transportation system. State DOTs and Other Transportation Agencies The Resilience Guide and Self-Assessment Tool is designed to provide transportation officials with a capability to identify and implement actions and strategies to enhance their agency’s resilience-related capabilities. As such, it provides an approach to overcome some of the implementation challenges noted in Table 5. However, efforts still need to be made to discuss the availability of the tool, provide an exposure to how it can be used, and overview the types of strategies that could be considered by transportation officials. Such efforts could be undertaken by numerous organizations, including AASHTO, TRB, FHWA, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO), and the National Association of Regional Councils (NARC). The initial challenge is getting top leadership interested and committed, especially with all the other demands on their time. Therefore, a key to successful implementation is cultivating the active engagement of a core group of state DOT CEOs and career agency leaders who become advocates for resilience actions and can convey the benefits of such an approach to their counterparts. Second, many state DOTs tend to look toward to the leading edge of practice before deciding whether to move in the same direction and at the same pace. There is a natural tendency of wanting others to “take the first step,” particularly in areas that are still relatively new to an organization. By highlighting leading states via future peer exchanges, newsletter articles and even national recognition awards (from AASHTO and FHWA), one can establish which states are leading examples of a culture of resilience, with systems-oriented, integrated readiness to respond to threats. Doing this requires the commitment of

84 agencies and organizations that support peer exchanges and for presence at the national level (AASHTO, FHWA, and TRB). Third, as with most topics in transportation, the concepts associated with resilience will be changing quite often, as new agencies contribute to the dialogue, and quite frankly, as new disasters focus attention on the importance of having a resilient transportation system. There should thus be a system in place for providing updates on the latest information on resilience strategies (something NTIMC does an excellent job at for incident management). Other examples include AASHTO’s Resilient and Sustainable Transportation Systems1 technical services programs and its Center for Environmental Excellence.2 This component of an implementation strategy could include: • Peer exchanges among transportation agencies interested in finding out about best practices • Pilot studies on use of the Resilience Guide and Self-Assessment Tool • Presentation at conferences and annual meetings • Webinars • Information dissemination on the Resilience Guide and Self-Assessment Tool aimed at target audiences Education and Training In many cases, the strategies resulting from the use of the Self-Assessment Tool will require a change in standard operating procedures (e.g., in engineering design and maintenance), different data sets and analysis tools, and perhaps even in a change in mindset of the priorities necessary in system investment. As noted in the introduction, a state DOT resilience-oriented culture would likely affect every functional unit within an agency. An assessment of one state DOT’s capability in climate adaptation, for example, resulted in recommendations in the following agency areas: (Caltrans 2020) • Organizational Responsibility • Vision/Goals/Policy Direction • Planning • Project Prioritization • Environment • Project Design • System Operations • System Maintenance • Asset Management • Project Concepts 1 AASHTO. RSTS Technical Services Program. Website. Accessed June 11, 2020 from https://rsts.transportation.org/ 2 AASHTO. Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. Website. Accessed June 11, 2020 from https://environment.transportation.org/

85 State DOT officials in this case also emphasized the need for training programs in their agency to expose their staff to the broad dimensions of such a focus (why are we doing this?) to very specific exposure to data and tools (how are we going to do this?). Training programs would expose existing transportation staff to such knowledge and skills. Incorporating resilience-related material into course material in universities would expose future transportation professionals to similar information. Education Most transportation staff have either an undergraduate or graduate degree in a field related to transportation. This includes degrees in engineering (e.g., civil and environmental), planning, public administration, business, and many different degrees for specialty areas (e.g., history and archaeology). In some functional areas, such as maintenance, many staff members have a high school degree or a degree from a community college. The capabilities of educational programs to incorporate transportation system resilience into academic offerings will vary by program. For example, some academic programs only offer undergraduate courses and thus transportation courses are usually ”survey” courses designed to provide an overview of the key concepts in a particular field. Other, larger academic programs have the possibility of providing more in-depth course electives. This is usually the case for graduate programs. Some implementation strategies for both contexts follow. Undergraduate Courses • Develop lecture modules illustrating the basic concepts of transportation system resilience that could be included in an undergraduate transportation course. These modules would include lecture notes, PowerPoint presentation, and example problems. • Develop course guidelines/modules for including a resilience component to an undergraduate capstone experience. Most undergraduate programs have a capstone course that exposes students to an integrated design experience. These capstone courses could ask the students to contemplate how the design might change if protection against future stresses (e.g., from flooding or extreme temperatures) was a desired design outcome. Graduate Courses • Similar to the above, develop lecture modules illustrating the basic concepts of transportation system resilience that could be included in a graduate transportation course. These modules would include lecture notes, PowerPoint presentation, and example problems. Given the graduate level of education, the example problems would be more detailed and require more thought as compared to the undergraduate course material. The emphasis would also include adaptive design linkage to societal and environmental concerns. • Some of the larger graduate programs have developed courses on specific topics that are of concern to the transportation profession. Examples include asset management, connective vehicle technologies, traffic safety, and the like. This effort would develop a course outline and associated materials for a course on transportation system resilience. Possible topics in such a course would reflect the materials developed in this project: 1) definitions of resilience, 2) how resilience can be integrated into transportation agency decision-making, 3) projections of future threats and hazards, 4) cascading effects and interconnections to other networks, 5) [depending

86 on the focus of the course] adaptive design approaches--in some cases, engineering design and for others more a community resilience focus, and 6) example resilience strategies. This material could be disseminated via groups such as the Council of University Transportation Centers (CUTC). Training Many state DOTs have developed a training program either through their local university or by relying on such groups as the National Highway Institute (NHI). Developing a resilience-oriented culture in an agency will likely need to be supported with training of existing staff, relating resiliency concepts to their discipline within the agency. This training could include a range of topics relating to resilience, including the possible course topics shown below (amount of time in the course would vary by subject material). Note that this training does not address topics associated with TIM nor emergency management, where many courses already exist. • What is Transportation System Resilience and How Does It Affect My Agency? • Adaptive Project Development and Design (note: NHI is currently developing a course on this topic) • Incorporating Risk into Project Decision-making • Community Resilience and Where Does Transportation Fit In? • System Resilience and Transportation Planning • System Resilience and System Operations • System Resilience and Maintenance • System Resilience and Asset Management • Communicating Resilience Concepts to the Public Following NHI course development guidelines, each of these courses would identify learning objectives and establish expectations of what the participants should know upon completion of the course. Given the nature of resilience and of the professional communities involved with developing a more resilient transportation system, many of these courses would be “hands-on,” focusing on providing participants with tools and analysis approaches that could be used in their day-to-day work.