Establish an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Research Program to Develop a National Standard

Once you are done editing, you may close this tab.
Note: Please save any changes made to the fields above before adding new champions, supporting organizations, or potential panel members to this statement.
Champion(s)

Larry Redd

Larry Redd, LLC

[email protected]

Adi Smadi

The University of Kansas

[email protected]

7853939590

Others Supporting Problem Statement
Please add at least one supporting organization.
Potential Panel Members
Please add at least one potential panel member.

Establish an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis Research Program to Develop a National Standard


Funding

Please provide a funding amount.

Research Period

Please provide a research period.

Description

Please provide a brief description of the project.


Objectives

This program will establish a series of individual research projects born out of NCHRP 23-09, Scoping Study to Develop the Basis for a Highway Standard to Conduct an All-Hazards Risk and Resilience Analysis. Similar to other NCHRP research programs such as NCHRP 20-102, Impacts of Connected Vehicles and Automated Vehicles on State and Local Transportation Agencies, this is a long-term research program that will result in an industry standard for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis for use in decision-making.
A “roadmap” laying out a coherent evolution path for risk analysis capabilities could be drafted in order to define a research program and enable continued progress across DOTs in capturing opportunities in risk management.
The product of this research program will be a collection of tools and techniques that transportation agencies can use for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis similar to what has been produced for the Highway Capacity Manual and the Highway Safety Manual.
These research products would be intended to help agencies not only meet the “letter of the law”, but the full spirit of the objectives in 23 CFR667 and other guidelines. Potential capabilities to further develop include:
1. Estimate a full-spectrum of event probabilities and associated damage for each identified threat. This capability will require some development in general because current approaches are inconsistent across DOTs, or entirely nonexistent. This capability is essential, since many (all?) of the following capabilities depend upon this capability.
2. Develop a deeper quantification of “risk costs” for identified threats, across all event frequencies, in order to better scrutinize leading resilience and mitigation investment candidates. This scrutiny includes the ability to compare benefit-to-cost across high-priority strategies. We recommend using annualized “risk costs” for quantifying the impacts of uncertainty as well as quantifying the $ savings from risk reduction. The goal would be to create “calculators” for risk cost elements, which fully quantify impacts of risk on safety, mobility, environmental damage, economic impacts, asset damage/repair, and perhaps others.
3. Devise and implement a process for considering a full range of risk management strategies for each threat situation, across all event frequencies. Objectives would include benefit-to-cost aspects of candidate strategies as well as determining points of diminishing return when considering increased resilience investments. This would of course require consistent, standardized approaches to estimating the cost of candidate remedies in providing resilience and/or mitigation benefits (see above). Finally, as mentioned above, a consistent method for calculating or estimating the reduction in annualized risk costs for each candidate strategy will be required.
4. Improve the consistency, quality, and/or availability of situational threat and vulnerability data across the network by establishing “archetypal similarities” (or “proxies” for missing or sketchy data) for at least the major types of network threats, based on correlative dimensions such as topography, terrain, rainfall, vegetation, corridor characteristics, and other factors. This is an issue that many agencies are struggling with, due to the lack of threat characterization and is a strong leverage point in achieving consistent, successful outcomes. The objective here is to avoid having to perform site-specific risk cost/impact analyses for every possible threat location/site across all corridors.
5. Develop the ability to perform tradeoffs re: rehabilitation opportunities versus resilience opportunities. In other words, there are often synergies as well as compromises in considering a range of risk management strategies, given the age and condition of the asset(s) involved; hence there are choices to be made in a) whether to rehabilitate the asset and to what extent, b) whether to provide resilience investment and to what extent, c) what are the relative magnitudes of either rehabilitation or resilience investment, and d) other considerations.
6. Develop on-going monitoring, optimization and (re)selection of vulnerability and resilience strategies through time, starting by systematic tracking/modeling of threats, results, etc. This might be established as part of the development of rehabilitation strategies in parallel with the choice of resilience strategies as part of risk management strategy optimization (see above).
7. Resource allocation – define coherent process(es) for including resilience and risk management investment opportunities in overall asset management choices – for decisions at both project and program funding levels.


Urgency and Potential Benefits

Please describe the urgency and potential benefits of the project.

Implementation Considerations

Please provide implementation considerations for the project.

Champion(s)

Larry Redd

Larry Redd, LLC

[email protected]

Adi Smadi

The University of Kansas

[email protected]

7853939590


Others Supporting Problem Statement

Please add at least one supporting organization.

Potential Panel Members

Please add at least one potential panel member.

Person Submitting Statement

Please add information about the person submitting the statement.

Notes

Research Tracks:
Threat Identification and Modeling
Asset Vulnerability from Identified Relevant Threats
Asset Characteristic
Establishing Risk and Resilience Performance Metrics and Levels of Performance
Intersection between Risk/Resilience Assessment and Performance Management
Intersection between Risk/Resilience Assessment and Asset Management
Education and Outreach




Cancel

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *