Word count: 6,482 words text + 4 tables/figures x 250 words (each) = 7,482 words

Transcription

1 0 RISK AND RESILIENCE ANALYSIS FOR HIGHWAY ASSETS Elizabeth Kemp Herrera Colorado Department of Transportation 000 South Holly St. Denver, CO 0 Tel: Elizabeth.Kemp@state.co.us Aimee Flannery Applied Engineering Management Corporation 0 S. Street St. Suite #0 Denver, CO 00 Tel: Aimee.Flannery@aemcorp.com Michael Krimmer Applied Engineering Management Corporation 0 Dulles Corner Lane Suite #00 Herndon, VA 0 Tel: x Michael.Krimmer@aemcorp.com Word count:, words text + tables/figures x 0 words (each) =, words Submission Date: August 0

2 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer ABSTRACT Transportation agencies own tens of thousands of assets, providing essential mobility and economic services to the communities they serve. Via its Gulf Coast Studies and Climate Change Pilots, FHWA has led efforts exploring the impacts of various physical threats on highway infrastructure and these related services. Moving Ahead for Progress in the st Century legislation requires asset managers to implement risk-based asset management, addressing many of the same threats identified in the FHWA GC and Climate studies. In this paper the authors discuss application of one quantitatively based framework (i.e., the RAMCAP Plus TM framework) for analyzing risk posed by such physical threats to highway transportation systems and assets. We recount application of this particular risk analysis framework by the Colorado Department of Transportation following the 0 floods, supporting federal Emergency Response funding requests. We also examine likely benefits of such analysis for highway transportation project planning and strategic planning. Keywords: Risk, Resilience, CDOT, RAMCAP, Highway, Asset Management, MAP-

3 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer INTRODUCTION Moving Ahead for Progress in the st Century (MAP-) (P.L. -) legislation mandates transportation agencies develop and apply risk-based asset management processes to preserve or improve the performance of the road systems they own (). One of the challenges to incorporating risk (and resilience) with asset management is the lack of a standard framework by which to identify and prioritize critical assets, and to quantify the impact of physical threats. The FHWA Gulf Coast (GC) studies and Climate Change (Climate) Pilots represent the leading edge of national efforts exploring development of an asset criticality and threat assessment frameworks. However, the results of these studies have yet to lead to standard and widely adopted asset criticality criteria and a threat evaluation framework. The following discussion proposes standard asset criticality criterion, and a standardized threat evaluation framework. Potential data sources, and the quality and resolution of the data needed to develop these criterion and threat analysis framework are also discussed. The discussion concludes with a proposal for integrating the results of this analysis in asset management plans, meeting MAP- requirements. BACKGROUND The confluence of two highly visible factors characterize the challenges facing operators of the nation s highway infrastructure. The first of these is that highway transportation assets are aging in an environment with insufficient funding for maintenance and/or replacement (). The second factor is the anticipated impact of climate change. The best available evidence indicates severe weather-related events will increase both in frequency and intensity, with negative consequences for transportation assets (). Transportation Implications Seeking to better understand potential impacts of extreme weather events on transportation infrastructure, FHWA s Office of Environment has conducted a series of pilot projects since Hurricane Katrina (August, 00) to assess the vulnerability of highway infrastructure (). These projects have been extended beyond coastal regions, and further expanded to consider the effects of natural threats other than flooding and sea-level rise. The result has been a body of work providing transportation agencies methodologies for determining asset criticality and vulnerability screening tools. Lacking, however, is a comprehensive methodology to assess resilience of highway assets, and the capability to weigh the merits of various asset improvements in decreasing risk and increasing resiliency. MAP- legislation requires transportation system owners to develop risk-based asset management plans (AMPs). Plans must address life cycle cost of assets, and asset performance, in addition to assessing the risk of physical threats to assets. Transportation system owners have need of a standard framework to quantify the impacts of physical threats on transportation assets. Ideally, the framework should permit owners to quantify risk, and to be able to compare the benefit and cost of various risk mitigation measures across the range of assets under their management. The framework must also accommodate both the factors cited previously maintaining aging infrastructure in a fiscally constrained environment, and the threats posed by climate change. Benefits of such a framework include rationalization of risk-based assessments

4 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer for state highway agencies and Metropolitan Planning Agencies (MPOs). Additionally, a standardized framework can permit agencies to collaborate with and learn from peer organizations, potentially reducing any single agency s efforts. DISCUSSION Resilience analysis and threat mitigation are tied to hazard identification and risk assessment. In order to quantify the resiliency of an asset or system, one must understand the threats, the potential asset damage and the likely diminution of service resulting from those threats. In this sense, risk and resilience (R&R) are opposite sides of the same coin. RAMCAP Plus and Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Myriad frameworks have been proposed or used for risk management, including FHWA s Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework (). The risk (and resilience) management framework adopted by CDOT following the 0 floods is the American Society of Mechanical Engineer s (ASME) Risk and Resilience Analysis and Management for Critical Asset Protection (RAMCAP Plus TM ). RAMCAP Plus was developed in response to the terrorist attacks of September, 00. Initially focused on terrorist or directed threats, it has evolved to include all physical threats, including those related to natural threats such as weatherrelated hazards and seismologic events. The RAMCAP Plus framework now covers seven sectors including Transportation () (). Since 00 many hundreds of nationally recognized experts, scientists, engineers, industry leaders, academics, and federal, state and local government officials have been involved in developing the RAMCAP Plus R&R framework (). RAMCAP Plus has the advantages of more than a decade s worth of application across diverse sectors of the U.S. economy, and is well known among federal agencies. The precise definition and application of terms is essential to development of comparable R&R analyses, and in communicating results and proposed actions. One result of the extensive development of the RAMCAP Plus R&R framework has been the parallel development of a standard glossary of risk terminology, briefly explored below. For example, the RAMCAP Plus R&R framework explicitly differentiates between risk and resilience. Risk is operationalized as the potential for loss or harm due to an untoward event and its adverse consequences (). Risk is further defined as a function of consequences, hazard frequency or likelihood, and vulnerability, which with point estimates, is the product of the terms (). Resilience is defined as the ability to function through an attack or natural event or the speed by which an asset can return to virtually full function (). Vulnerability is the likelihood that an event has the estimated consequences, given that the event occurs. Threat is an event with the potential to cause harm. Consequence is the accumulation of the immediate, short-, and longterm effects of an event. Risk analysis is the process of identifying the components of risk and combining them into an estimate of risk (). As the initial steps in a RAMCAP Plus assessment for highway transportation, the likelihood and intensity of each specific threat for each asset, the system, and related services is calculated, using the risk equation:

5 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer R = C * V * T () Where R (risk) and C (consequence) are measured in dollars; V (vulnerability) and T (threat) are each expressed as probabilities. This disarmingly simplistic formula makes it possible to weigh alternatives for managing risk and improving resilience. Costs can be categorized as asset replacement cost, and user costs (i.e., wages and vehicle running costs). Benefits of potential mitigation measures can be assessed in terms of risk avoidance or increased resilience. Risk, mitigation, and resilience can then be incorporated into the prioritized annual investment decisions, aligning the R&R assessment outcomes with an agency s overall performance goals. Figure provides an overview of the RAMCAP Plus process developed by ASME. Each step in the RAMCAP R&R process is described in more detail below. 0 FIGURE The RAMCAP Plus TM Process (). Step : Asset Characterization (Identifying Critical Assets) In the first step of the RAMCAP Plus R&R framework, transportation assets are characterized in terms of impact on the network to overall delivery of service. The objective of this step is to complete an initial screening, identifying and prioritizing assets. This is necessary, as the total number of individual assets maintained by any agency possesses is quite large. The subset of critical assets can then be addressed first, and in greater detail than less-critical assets. Five possible criticality screening criteria have been developed for CDOT s R&R studies. These proposed asset criticality screening criteria (Figure ) are based on assessments in the various FHWA Gulf Coast II pilot projects, and procedures outlined in the RAMCAP Plus guidance. The criticality criteria seek to represent economic, social, and environmental impacts

6 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer to the system, and the concomitant loss of service on any specific asset within an agency s highway network. Figure lists proposed screening criteria developed for CDOT use. Criteria Roadway Classification AADT ( quantiles) Freight (tons) ( quantiles) Emergency Travel Time (minutes) Criticality Score Very Low Impact Minor Collectors Low Impact Major Collectors Moderate Impact Minor Arterial High Impact Principal Arterial Very High Impact Interstate Freeway Expressway Weight 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 > > 0 > 0 0 > 0 0% SoVI % 0 FIGURE Proposed CDOT asset criticality screening criteria. Using Figure, each asset is assigned a Criticality Score. Criteria can be weighted to reflect the relative importance of each criterion in characterizing the transportation network. The product of the Criticality Score and the criteria weight for each criteria is then summed, yielding the total criticality score for each asset. These Criticality Scores are low for less critical assets; higher values indicate greater criticality. In our work with CDOT, we have found Geographic Information Systems and database management tools can be efficiently employed at this step to identify and rank critical assets. We have also seen that graphically depicting assets on a map can be a valuable cross-check of the criticality rankings. Step : Threat Characterization (Worst Reasonable Event) Many transportation agencies have considerable experience with assessing threats, having provided essential input to regional and state-wide Natural Threat Mitigation Plans, an eligibility requirement for FEMA grants and in responding to natural disasters (). In its climate adaptation guidance, FHWA cites flood, wildfire, extreme temperatures, severe weather and precipitation, landslide, geologic subsidence, rock falls, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, and snow and ice as common natural threats (). Based on FHWA climate change guidance, a review of Natural Threat Mitigation Plans, and applying the RAMCAP Plus methodology, a standard set of Reference Threats for transportation is proposed below (Table ).

7 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer 0 0 TABLE Proposed Standard Threats for Transportation Natural Threats Civil Threats Dependency & Proximity Threats Avalanche HAZMAT Utility failure Earthquake Cyber Fire (wildland) Bomb Flood (riverine/flash) Bridge strikes Hail Landslide/rockslide Tornado Wind storm Winter storm (snow/ice) A standard set of threats provides a common basis for threat assessment, which can then be tailored for local and regional conditions for a transportation R&R analysis. For example, Coastal Flooding would not be assessed for an R&R analysis of Colorado roads, as this threat is extremely unlikely. For an initial R&R assessment supporting a risk-based asset management plan under MAP-, transportation agencies may consider an iterative approach. Specifically, the first assessment may be limited to only bridges and roadways, and these assets only assessed for the effects Natural Threats. Directed Threats (e.g., various methods of terrorist attack, and civil unrest) could be addressed in successive iterations of the R&R analysis process. Similarly, Proximity and Dependency hazards (e.g., the threat posed to an Interstate bridge by the petroleum pipeline carried by the bridge) are could be assessed successive iterations of the R&R analysis. A necessary step in characterizing threats is determining threat likelihood (e.g., scenario planning), a process well documented in FEMA Hazard Threat Mitigation planning, the FHWA Gulf Coast II studies, and RAMCAP Plus guidance (). The emphasis in developing scenarios is focused on plausible threats for the asset being evaluated specifically, the worst reasonable event. This leads to the development of a series of threat-asset pairs. Each threat-asset pair reflects the nexus of transportation asset planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. Step : Consequence Analysis (cost in dollars) Transportation assets are elemental units within transportation corridors and larger networks. Particular assets, such as a bridge with few alternate routes, are critical nodes in a network. When these assets are lost, they can become significant bottlenecks to freedom of movement, commerce, and potentially to essential emergency and safety services. The severity of consequences is directly related to each threat scenario. This phase of the R&R analysis identifies the consequence for each worst reasonable event generated for each threatasset combination. Asset design and operation are examined to determine consequences, as measured in Human Impact (fatalities and serious injuries), Owner Costs (asset damages or loss), and User Costs (vehicle running costs and lost wages). All of these consequences are expressed as dollar values. The value of human life and serious injury is calculated by USDOT (). Owner Costs are the replacement value of each asset, and may include the asset life cycle cost in more comprehensive R&R analyses. Replacement values may be derived from agency bid

8 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer records for similar assets. Vehicle running costs can be determined from industry operational cost surveys () and federal allowable rates (). User wage costs are available from National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates (). Vehicle occupancy rates are available from the National Household Transportation Survey (). Additional qualitative consequences (community costs) such as impacts on citizen confidence, military readiness, and governmental ability to operate can also be estimated from a variety of sources and added to the assessment. The resulting formula for Consequence follows: C$ = Human Impact (Fatalities + Injuries) + User Cost (Vehicle Running Cost + Lost Wages) + Owner Cost (Asset Damage + Asset Loss) + Impact + Impact + Impacti () Step : Vulnerability Analysis (probability of damage or loss) Vulnerability is the likelihood, given a hazard occurs, that the estimated consequences will ensue (). As applied to highway transportation, we must address both asset vulnerability and network vulnerability. Asset vulnerability is the susceptibility of a specific asset to a specific event. For example, the susceptibility of a particular segment of roadway to rockfall, and the related consequences. Network vulnerability deals with network weaknesses and consequences of failure (). This involves identifying critical assets in the system, and then defining the potential consequences of removing some critical component(s) of the network--such as the roadway segment--to the performance of the network. Critical assets may also include privately owned assets connected to the agency-owned or -maintained network. Interaction and consequences of loss or damage to these critical assets can then be quantified in terms of network performance measures i.e., travel time, or cost (). Step : Threat Assessment Threat is expressed as likelihood of event occurrence over a specified time period (recurrence interval), which can be converted to an annual basis. For example, a flood depth and extent reached once every 0 years (a one-hundred-year recurrence interval) has an annual probability of occurrence of 0.0 (/0, or.0%) at a specific location (). Specific threat events can be represented as discrete probabilities of a -year flood, a 0-year flood, a 0-year flood, and so forth at a particular bridge. Estimates of the probability (annual likelihood of occurrence) of natural hazards draws on the historical record of these events at the specific location of the asset. Federal agencies collect and publish records for hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and floods, which can be developed as frequencies for various levels of severity of these natural hazards. Threats for critical assets are analyzed in light of the asset s design the ability to withstand specific conditions or events. One significant source of highway asset design information is Load and Resistance Factor Designs (LRFDs) published by AASHTO. A second source are the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures published by ANSI/ASCE. These design specifications typically use parameters based upon recurrence intervals. For example, ASCE -0, ASCE -0 can be used to derive wind Gust Maps (), which can then be used with the LRFD for structural supports () to appropriately design overhead sign and lighting structures to withstand 0-year recurrence wind loadings (). To design these structures to withstand a 00-year or 00-year winds would presumably increase the cost of the structure to

9 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer the point that the additional investment would not be justified by the reduction in risk or increase in resilience. Step : Risk/Resilience Assessment Combining the concepts of risk and resilience yields a basis on which to prioritize mitigation measures among a transportation agency s assets. Resilience in the context of transportation has been extensively researched, and a variety of definitions and metrics put forth (). The Colorado Department of Transportation developed a definition during the recovery from the 0 floods, which we will use here. The definition links risk and resilience in the transportation sector, Resilience is the potential number of vehicles affected by natural threats in any given year (0). Just as the level of risk for each threat-asset pair can be quantified for Owners and Users, resilience can be similarly captured. Highway system resilience can be calculated as time to restored serviceability following an event (). Resilienceowner is comprised of the duration of closure, the amount of partial Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) following an event, and the time to restore to full service. Specifically, Resilienceowner reflects the time it takes to restore the pre-event AADT and the number of vehicles not serviced during the restoration period, as expressed on an annualized basis. Resilienceowner = (AADT * Annual Number of Vehicles Affected/AADT * ) * V * T () Where, Resilienceowner = potential number of vehicles affected by threats in a given year; % AADT Not Serviced = based on expected number of lanes closed; V = vulnerability to identified consequences under a specific threat (probability); T = specific threat likelihood (probability). Resiliencecommunity is estimated as a function of the AADT lost (privately owned vehicle and freight) for the duration of the asset/facility closure. Resiliencecommunity = Lost Economic Activity * V * T () Where, Resiliencecommunity = direct and indirect economic losses to the affected region(s); V = vulnerability to identified consequences under a specific threat (probability); T = specific threat likelihood (probability). Step : Risk/Resilience Management During this step decisions are made to reduce risk and to increase resilience of individual assets and the overall system. The baseline for comparing options to reduce threat likelihood or vulnerability (mitigation measures), or to reduce negative consequences, is the current level of risk. Options range from operating procedures (e.g., head-to-head lane operations) and emergency response planning and training, to hardening an asset (e.g., additional riprap to protect stream banks near a bridge), to improving or replacing an asset (e.g., re-building a bridge to withstand a greater flood event). The benefit-cost for each option (for each critical threat-asset pair) weighs Costs and Resilience for Owners and Users/Community in making resource

10 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer 0 0 allocation determinations. As different projects are selected and funded, the R&R process is iterated, identifying the next most-critical asset, and its mitigation measures. Applying this methodology permits different assets to be compared, and supports the objectives of Asset Management planning. Asset Management Planning In MAP- asset management is defined as a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on both engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the assets at minimum practicable cost (). Implemented in MAP- legislation, transportation agencies are now required to establish processes for risk-based, performance-based asset management planning (i.e., the AMP), with the goal of preserving and improving the condition of the National Highway System (NHS) (). AASHTO has extended the definition to transportation asset management as a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading, and expanding physical assets effectively through their life cycle. It focuses on business and engineering practices for resource allocation and utilization, with the objective of better decision-making based on quality information and well-defined objectives (). Risk, Resilience and Asset Management Plans Under MAP- and FHWA direction, risk management is an integral step in developing a comprehensive asset management framework (). Ideally, an agency s performance management and asset management plans converge, supported by a robust risk-based analysis, all aligned with the agency s strategic objectives. Agencies use the AMP to determine resources required to maintain the assets in a particular condition (). As these plans are developed and executed, the impacts of any shortfalls or surpluses in available financial resources are worked back into the long-term AMP (). The balancing of resources is reflected in the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), which identifies the program of projects needed to improve or maintain asset and system condition (Figure ). The objective is better decision making based upon quality information and well-defined objectives ().

11 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer 0 0 FIGURE RAMCAP Plus analysis relationship to Risk-Based Asset Management. Asset Management Planning State of Practice Aging transportation infrastructure and constrained resources are well-documented challenges facing transportation agencies (). It is commonly acknowledged that current and proposed levels of Federal and State funding are inadequate to permit all states to positively impact all of the National Goals (). As a result, transportation agencies will be forced to make difficult choices between which National Program Goals are positively addressed and which must be deferred (). FHWA has proposed the transportation asset management plan (AMP) as a process to ensure that declining asset condition can be managed in a way that minimizes impacts on the traveling public. Successfully managing assets in light of these competing priorities requires developing a baseline of asset location, design, and condition. The most extensive, long-range examples of transportation monitoring programs originate with FHWA directed bridge inspection and pavement management. Bridge monitoring programs date from (), and pavement monitoring dates from at least () (). A significant challenge in implementing these monitoring programs over the years has been data availability, quality, level of detail, and timeliness. One implication is that these well-established programs yield approximate results; deterioration models are still in development, inconsistently applied, and subject to wide confidence bands (). Development of risk-based performance measures, targets and gap analysis must be weighed against the worst, first to repair/replace ratings of the National Performance Measures. Guidance for addressing assets other than pavements and bridges such as tunnels is lacking. Also lacking are established deterioration models for these additional assets. Finally, extending data collection to assets beyond bridges and pavements would require investments of capital and time. Oregon DOT, as a typical example, estimates the additional cost to provide required pavement information [for an FHWA-specified RB-AMP] is $0,000 to $00,000, and requires an additional full-time staff person ().

12 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer LCCA Life-Cycle Cost Analysis The process identified in the MAP- Asset Management notice of proposed rulemaking instructs state departments of transportation (DOTs) to incorporate elements of performance gap analysis in their asset management plans, life cycle cost analysis (LCCA), investment strategies and financial plans. By statute, a life cycle cost analysis is defined as: a process for evaluating the total economic worth of a usable project segment by analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs, such as maintenance, user, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing costs, over the life of the project segment (). CALTRANS extends this definition further, overtly incorporating resilience LCCA should also include resilience and sustainability as well as regulatory, environmental, safety, and other costs reasonably anticipated during the life of the project (0). While LCCA is no longer an FHWA requirement, FHWA continues to actively promote it as an engineering economic analysis tool that allows transportation officials to quantify the differential costs of alternative investment options for a given project (). In an R&R analysis, LCCA supports comparison of the total cost of proposed mitigation measures. Increased resiliency of transportation networks can be effected by hardening critical assets, by increasing system redundancy (e.g., alternate routing), via operational changes and planning, or by some combination of these or other measures. Asset hardening decisions are heavily influenced by asset service life, as LCCA methodology directly informs asset replacement, improvement or abandonment decisions. However, exclusive focus on LCCA and asset physical condition is insufficient when assessing resilience, as LCCA ignores operational factors such as volume, level of service, congestion, travel time reliability, bottlenecks, vertical clearance, weight limitations, and network geometries. Significant challenges exist in determining the LCCA of alternative strategies in risk-based asset management plans and R&R assessments (). Detailed information about life cycle cost analysis is often lacking. This is significant as data is at the core of LCCA methodology incorporated in AMP development. The scope of an LCCA is indeterminate; should road user costs, benefits and estimates of environmental effects be considered in the analysis? While LCCA has found application in comparing alternatives at the project level, it is not clear how LCCA can be applied to assessment of mitigation measures for a transportation corridor or system. LCCA accuracy has increased over time as data collection methodologies have improved and LCCA has been incorporated into daily asset management activities. However, based on previous efforts to implement LCCA and risk-based asset management, and comments to CFR, we expect transportation agencies will continue to face varied challenges in data collection, maintenance, and analysis to support risk-based asset management planning (). R&R Example--Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Seeking to deal with myriad competing demands, several State DOTs have implemented an asset management program and developed AMPs, paralleling the developing requirements of MAP- rulemaking. CDOT developed its first AMP in 0, including addressing the MAP- riskbased analysis requirements (). Per this AMP, the stated goal of CDOT s asset management program is to minimize life cycle costs for managing and maintaining the department s assets subject to acceptable levels of risk. In pursuit of this goal CDOT developed a set of performance metrics and asset management objectives for eleven major assets: bridges; pavement; maintenance; buildings; Intelligent Transportation System (ITS); fleet; culverts;

13 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer rockfall; tunnels; signals; and walls. In its approach to risk management CDOT also consided three levels management: projects/assets; programatic; and agency. Each of these management levels uses specific tools to prioritize investments based on asset inventory, condition (including attainment of performance measure objectives), and existing and projected budgets. In September of 0, Colorado experienced the most devastating natural catastrophe in the state s -year history (). Ten persons lost their lives and more than,000 persons were rendered homeless by flooding in and around the Colorado Front Range. Twenty-four counties in Colorado were impacted by the floods, extending north from Boulder, CO. to nearly the Wyoming border. of these counties were included in the Federal Major Disaster Declaration (DR-). The 0 floods were preceded by the June, 0 High Park fire, which burned approximately,00 acres in Larimer County which burned much of the watershed involved in the 0 floods (). As part of the emergency response, CDOT established a flood recovery office (FRO) to coordinate and oversee recovery efforts (). From its inception, one objective of the FRO was to adapt the RAMCAP Plus methodology to quantify expected losses, evaluate consequences, and develop mitigation alternatives related to the flood. This approach was informed by the Big Thompson River/ Cache la Poudre River floods, previous severe flooding in the same area as the 0 floods (). Recovery decisions were guided by the definition of risk adopted by CDOT, Risk is the expected annualized monetary loss of an asset from any defined threat that reflects the likelihood of that threat as well as the vulnerability of that asset to that threat (). This methodology linked R&R to risk-based asset management, quantifying results in terms of expected annual monetary losses. Models used in CDOT s R&R analysis reflect: probabilistic threat analysis; the asset condition; threat geographic location and context; inter-dependency of nearby assets; vulnerability, based on asset condition and mitigation strategies; asset engineering design standards and post-event emergency repairs and permanent repairs. Risk- and resilience-based asset management decisions were developed from empirical data derived from various national databases maintained by organizations such as the US Geological Survey, FEMA, and the US Department of Agriculture, as well as regional data generated in response to the Colorado floods (e.g., LiDAR). Flood recovery decisions took into consideration the design standard of the asset, the age of the asset, the location of the asset, and the interdependency of assets with the network (including off-system assets not maintained by CDOT). Decisions reflect the interdependency between pavement, roadway prism, channel and bridge design, and mitigation strategies. The approach was later formally vetted by the FHWA s Office of Infrastructure as an approved method to analyze investments post-event within FHWA s Emergency Relief (ER) Program ().

14 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer Emergency Relief Funding and Response to Climate Change Related Events As transportation agencies grapple with implementing NHS performance measures () (). climate adaptation (), and the resiliency provisions of MAP- (), an opportunity exists to include application of ER funding () as an integral component of mandated risk-based asset management planning. Improving infrastructure preparedness requires evaluating existing and future vulnerabilities to climate change and prioritizing adaptation efforts (0). This opportunity is explicit in the MAP- legislation, as agencies are required to consider alternatives for facilities repeatedly needing repair or replacement, thereby increasing the resiliency of the transportation network (). The CDOT experience highlights the confluence of weather (in future, climate change) events, planning (risk-based asset management planning), and emergency relief (ER) (response to unforeseen events) (). This intersection reflects the opportunity to make strategic use of ER funding, leveraging it to reduce climate change risk and increase resilience as identified in asset management planning. Congress has limited ER funding to the cost of repair or reconstruction of a comparable facility (). Another constraint is that ER funding may only be used for repairs resulting from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure from an external cause; ER funds cannot be used to remedy existing deficient conditions or non-disaster related damage. In determining whether asset repair or replacement is the best option, and in defining the design of a comparable asset, the ER manual directs that a risk-based analysis be used in design and construction of repairs. The intent is to ensure the agreed solution is cost effective while reducing the potential for future losses. Using ER funds to repair or reconstruct fragile assets potentially offers the opportunity to increase system resilience. SUMMARY The nation s transportation infrastructure is aging, requiring extensive asset maintenance or replacement at the same time that climate change threatens hazardous events for which the system was not designed. Recent disasters have highlighted the situation; in response, legislators have demanded increased system resilience, and more efficient expenditures of capital by FHWA and transportation agencies. In response, transportation planners are exploiting advances in computing technologies, and in data collection, storage and analysis, to develop tools for quantifying hazard probabilities, and identifying and characterizing critical assets. We have discussed application of the RAMCAP Plus R&R framework to highway transportation infrastructure as a methodology to quantitatively assess R&R, supporting MAP- risk-based asset management planning. Key to the R&R process is quantifying asset risk related to a specified set of probable threats, deriving the consequences from asset design standards and maintenance practices. Having determined consequences, various mitigation measures can be evaluated to determine whether to harden the asset, abandon the asset, or to replace the asset in order to meet system recovery time goals. The -step RAMCAP Plus R&R framework has been adopted across multiple economic sectors since 00; CDOT and FHWA adapted this framework to highway systems following the 0 Colorado floods. The results of such an R&R analysis were used to support ER funding requests. CDOT is now piloting a program to extend the R&R framework to other threats and assets across the state. Outcomes of the pilot are expected to provide much better understanding

15 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer 0 of the various physical threats facing the agency s assets and system as a whole. The results are anticipated to complement existing enterprise risk management and risk registers. Criterion to be assessed in the calculus of risk mitigation were discussed, including the criticality of the asset as a component of the transportation system, LCCA, and the availability and functionality of alternate routes. Also discussed was the data-intensive nature of risk assessment, and reliance on transportation agencies to extend initiatives to capture, maintain, and use assetrelated data to support decision making. The related capital and institutional costs are significant. Finally, we suggested the opportunity to revise ER policy, aligning it with MAP- risk-based asset management objectives and performance management goals in an environment of aging infrastructure and limited resources. CONCLUSION The proposed R&R framework is a combination of LCCA and performance measures, providing agencies a standard methodology with which to assess their transportation systems to meet the mandates of risk-based asset management, performance measures, climate change planning, aging infrastructure, and fiscal limitations. As discussed, this R&R analysis supports a more extensive and strategic risk-based AMP, fulfilling MAP- risk analysis objectives. This R&R framework, as expressed in the AMP, can become the nexus of ER, climate change, and riskbased asset management planning.

16 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer REFERENCES. Risk-Based Asset Managment Plan Public Comments. Docket ID: FHWA-0-00, CFR. Accessed July, Report Card for America s Infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers. Accessed Jul., 0.. Climate change 0: Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 0.. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation System and Infrastructure, Gulf Coast Phase Lesson Learned. FHWA-HEP U.S. Department of Transportation Climate Adaptation Plan 0 Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and System Resilience. Adaptation Plan. Accessed June, 0.. Bush, B., W., Grayson, M., Berkeley, A. R., and Thomspon, J. Critical Infrastructure Resilience Final Report and Recommendations. National Infrastructure Advisory Council (DHS), Washington, D.C., 00, p... ASME Innovative Technologies Institute. All-hazards Risk and Resilience: Prioritizing Critical Infrastructure Using the RAMCAP Plus Approach. ASME, New York, NY, 00.. Spence, S. D. J0-: The National Standard for Water & Wastewater Vulnerability Assessments. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Vol. 0, No., 0, pp... Emergency Managment and Assistance. CFR 0 Title Volume Part, 0.. Fender, K., and D.A. Pierce. An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: A 0 Update. ATRI: American Transportation Research Group, 0.. Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates. Accessed January, 0.. May 0 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates. Accessed June 0, 0.. National Highway Transportation Statistics. Accessed April, 0.. Taylor, M. A. P. Network vulnerability in large-scale transport networks. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol., No., 0, pp... Xu, X., A. Chen, S. Jansuwan, K. Heaslip, and C. Yang. Modeling Transportation Network Redundancy. Transportation Research Procedings, Vol., 0, pp. 0.. Floods: Recurrence intervals and 0-year floods. Accessed October, 0.. Peterka, J. A. Colorado Front Range Gust Map. Cermak, Peterka, and Petersen, Fort Collins, CO., Puckett, J., and N. McDonald. New Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic Signals. Columbus, OH., June, 0.. Flannery, A., M. Pena, and M. Katon. Incorporating Risk and Resilience into Asset Management. AEM Corporation, Herndon, VA., 0.. Flannery, A., M. A. Pena, and M. R. Katon. Risk and Resilience Analysis for Emergency Projects. AEM Corporation, Herndon, VA., August, 0.. Berdica, K. An Introduction to Road Vulnerability: What Has Been Done, Is Done and Should Be Done. Transport Policy, Vol., No., 00, pp..

17 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer Moving Ahead for Progress in the st Century, MAP-, (Re-authorized). U.S.C., Sec., 0.. Federal Register, Volume 0 Issue (Friday, February 0, 0). Accessed July, 0.. Gordon, M., G. J. Smith, P. D. Thompson, H.-A. Park, F. Harrison, and B. Elston. AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide, Volume : A Focus on Implementation. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Prepared under NCHRP Project, 0, pp... Wright, Bud. AASHTO Comments to Risk-Based Asset Managment Plan Public Comments. Docket ID: FHWA-0-00, CFR. Accessed May, 0.. NBI Information - National Bridge Inventory - Bridge Inspection - Safety - Bridges & Structures - Federal Highway Administration. Accessed July, 0.. Pierce, L., G. McGovern, and K. Zimmerman. Practical Guide for Quality Management of Pavement Condition Data Collection. Publication D T F H -0-D-000. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, 00 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, D.C. 00, Pavement Library - Pavements - FHWA. Accessed July, 0.. Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Department of Transportation Comments on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Risk-Based Asset Management Plan Docket Number FHWA Accessed May, 0.. LCCA: RealCost v.a. ml. Accessed July, 0.. Evans, Mike. Using Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Highway Project Development. minary_investigation_--.pdf. Accessed July, 0.. Croope, S. V. Managing Critical Civil Infrastructure Systems: Improving Resilience to Disasters. University of Delaware, 0.. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and L. Redd. CDOT s Risk-Based Asset Management Plan. Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, CO., 0.. Colorado National Disaster Resilience Competition Application (NDRC). Accessed April, 0.. High Park Fire; Colorado Fire Maps. Accessed July, 0.. Flood-Related Projects Colorado Department of Transportation. Accessed July, 0.. Shroba, R. R., P. W. Schmidt, E. J. Crosby, W. R. Hansen, and J. M. Soule. Storm and Flood of July August,, in the Big Thompson River and Cache la Poudre River Basins, Larimer and Weld Counties, Colorado Part B. Geologic and Geomorphic Effects in the Big Thompson Canyon Area, Larimer County. US Geological Survey Professional Paper, Vol.,, pp..

18 Kemp Herrera, Flannery, Krimmer 0. U. S. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of. Public Law,, pp. 0.. Emergency Relief Manual (Federal-Aid Highways). FHWA Office of Infrastructure, Washington, D.C., Rowan, E., C. Snow, A. Choate, B. Rodehorst, S. Asam, R. Hyman, R. Kafalenos, and A. Gye. Indicator Approach for Assessing Climate Change Vulnerability in Transportation Infrastructure. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol., 0, pp... Asam, S., C. Bhat, B. Dix, J. Bauer, and D. Gopalakrishna. Climate Change Adaptation Guide for Transportation Systems Management, Operations, and Maintenance. FHWA- HOP--0. USDOT, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 0, p... Paniati, Jeffrey F. Risk-based asset management discussion. June 0, 0.