Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 149-158
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 149... ...
C-1 Gap Assessment Contents C-2 1 Introduction C-2 1.1 Purpose C-2 1.2 Methodology C-2 1.3 Gap Assessment Framework C-2 2 Gaps in Processes C-5 3 Gaps in Technology and Tools C-7 4 Gaps in Technical Capacity Building C-8 5 Conclusion A P P E N D I X C
|
From page 150... ...
C-2 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis 1 Introduction Research to date suggests state DOTs and other transportation agencies currently employ different methods to incorporate risk and resilience analyses in their planning processes. These differences include an assortment of data sources, and a variety of different methodologies, with results that can be difficult to compare with each other.
|
From page 151... ...
Gap Assessment C-3 Interagency collaboration between DOTs and EMAs usually occurs most during the response and recovery phases since emergency managers rely on the DOT to operate traffic control centers to monitor evacuation and recovery traffic, control dynamic message signs, and set up detours as needed. Recovery and detour management plans do not always take into consideration highway network performance in their decision-making framework.
|
From page 152... ...
C-4 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Gap 4: Scoping Guidance for Risk and Resilience Analysis Current state. During the scoping process, planners identify the stressors, threats, and hazards potentially impacting highway assets.
|
From page 153... ...
Gap Assessment C-5 3 Gaps in Technology and Tools The second set of gaps relates to the technology and tools that are used to support risk and resilience assessments. There are a variety of technologies and tools that are available to planners, including the following: • Qualitative, semiquantitative, and quantitative risk assessment tools • Asset vulnerability estimation tools • Criticality and communication tools These tools have limitations and gaps in their underlying methodologies and data requirements necessary for their use.
|
From page 154... ...
C-6 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis State DOTs maintain a wide range of asset data that include location, condition, and other descriptive elements that are critical in supporting risk and resilience assessments. There are standardized datasets, such as the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS)
|
From page 155... ...
Gap Assessment C-7 4 Gaps in Technical Capacity Building The final set of gaps relates to the technical capacity that agencies have to carry out risk and resilience assessments. As risk and resilience methodologies become more sophisticated, they require more staff training and additional skill development to conduct the assessments on a regular basis and within constrained resources.
|
From page 156... ...
C-8 Developing a Highway Framework to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Gap 9: Various Definitions and Frameworks for Risk and Resilience Analyses Current state. There are numerous definitions used for terms related to risk and resilience.
|
From page 157... ...
Gap Assessment C-9 • State DOTs do not have a consistent way of determining the scope and applicable hazards for risk and resilience analyses, whether at the system, corridor, or regional level. As a result, there are opportunities for more collaboration between DOTs and EMAs in threat and hazard identification and in developing risk assessments.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.