Risk-informed asset management and an understanding of system resilience are two relatively new concepts within the transportation industry. Transportation agencies often use all-hazards risk and resilience analyses to make decisions about enhancing system resilience. The Federal Emergency Management Administration defines "all-hazards" as “Natural, technological, or human-caused incidents that warrant action to protect life, property, environment, and public health or safety…” (https://training.fema.gov/programs/emischool/el361toolkit/glossary.htm). To conduct all-hazards risk and resiliency analyses for transportation assets, a transportation agency must:
• Know assets’ locations and their criticality for service delivery;
• Understand potential natural and man-made threats and associated likelihoods affecting assets;
• Be able to quantify the potential consequences from applicable threats to assets while adequately addressing the considerable uncertainty in those consequences; and
• Understand the link between risk and resilience.

In 2006, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers published Risk Analysis and Management for Critical Infrastructure Protection (RAMCAP), an all-hazards approach to critical infrastructure risk assessment. The initial document focused on terrorist activities but has since expanded into analysis of natural hazards such as extreme weather, seismic events, and changing environmental conditions, given the increased activity from such threats in recent years. RAMCAP identifies transportation as a critical sector, along with industries such as banking, oil/gas, electricity, water/wastewater, and nuclear energy. To date, several industries, including the water/wastewater sector, have developed an industry-specific standard for risk assessment. By demonstrating an active approach to risk assessment and management developed and approved by professionals within the water/wastewater sector, those agencies have seen improvements in bond ratings and reductions in insurance premiums. While RAMCAP provides a generic approach to critical infrastructure risk assessment, it does not provide specific information on asset performance under applicable threats for any one critical sector.

Through pilot studies, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have applied RAMCAP and similar guidance to risk and resilience analysis in their states. FHWA’s Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework (FHWA-HEP-18-020), for example, is guidance based on significant pilot studies in a large number of states. Four key lessons from the state DOT pilot studies include:

1. Though some research studies have been published on transportation asset performance under physical threats, this information is scattered across many published articles dating back to the 1960s and has not been compiled in a user-friendly format.
2. State agencies see the need for a common language for risk and resilience practitioners to facilitate adoption and implementation of consistent and effective risk management and resilience practices.
3. A simple industry framework is needed to support compilation of information for risk-based analysis of transportation assets, to reduce the burden on state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations by clarifying the bases for quantifying annual risk and ensuring system resilience:
• Threat probabilities by type of hazard and by geographic location;
• Asset vulnerability to each applicable threat, appropriately considering asset resilience; and
• Quantitative anticipated consequences from each applicable threat to each asset, appropriately considering the significant uncertainties in those consequences.
4. Agencies prefer not to be constrained by proprietary solutions for all-hazards risk and resilience analyses but have the flexibility to implement open-source, repeatable methodologies. Inputs for these analyses should be derived from data readily available to agencies or other users.

The AASHTO Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience and the Subcommittees on Risk Management and Asset Management have, collectively, identified the need for a transportation-specific framework that responsible agencies can use in conducting their own all-hazards risk and resilience analyses to facilitate enterprise-wide transportation decision-making. Research is needed to develop this framework and provide guidance on its use.

The objective of this research is to provide a scoping study for a transportation framework for all-hazards risk and resilience analysis of transportation assets. The scoping study must accomplish the following objectives:

1. Develop a comprehensive and consistent set of risk- and resilience-related terminology for transportation agency use; and
2. Provide a research roadmap for developing a framework for a quantitative all-hazards risk and resilience analysis of transportation assets, with its associated tools, and guidance on its application.

Accomplishment of the project objective(s) will require at least the following four tasks.

Task 1. Conduct preliminary work for roadmap development. Some preliminary work must be conducted before guidance on roadmap development can be sought (see Task 2) and the roadmap can be designed (see Task 3). This groundwork has two parts, which shall be done concurrently.

Task 1a. Develop a risk- and resilience-related glossary of terms. Transportation agencies may use this glossary as a common reference for future research on this topic. To develop the glossary, the terminology presented in NCHRP_Synthesis_527: Resilience in Transportation Planning, Engineering, Management, Policy, and Administration, should be reviewed, with the prospect of making the terminology more broadly actionable. At minimum, the following items should be considered for the glossary development:
Nature and extent of risk faced by state DOTs, including ways of characterizing risk both qualitatively and quantitatively;
Terminology adopted by risk standards organizations;
Risk and resilience terminology already in use in the transportation industry; and
Terminology already adopted and standardized within technical disciplines that support the transportation industry.
Where it is not feasible to propose a single characterization or definition, the glossary will enable translation across disciplines, and it shall include a quick reference matrix or table to help users understand how terms are used in different contexts or guidance.

Task 1b. Conduct a state-of-practice review. This review will summarize current, leading practices, including but not limited to the following:
Identifying critical transportation assets;
Estimating vulnerability to various threats or hazards;
Assessing consequences from damage and loss of functionality;
Developing recovery strategies to enable assessment of risk and system resilience, including RAMCAP and other relevant work; and
Incorporating cybersecurity and other emerging threats associated with evolution of transportation technology.
NCHRP must approve the glossary of terms (Task 1a) and state-of-practice review (Task 1b) products before work on Task 2 may begin.

Task 2. Engage the transportation industry for roadmap development guidance. To obtain broad industry input on roadmap development, the research team should explore, at a minimum, the following engagement options:

Relevant AASHTO and other industry meetings, including those of the Committee on Transportation System Security and Resilience (CTSSR) and the Subcommittees on Risk Management and Asset Management; and
Conducting a webinar for AASHTO committee and subcommittee members and other interested parties presenting an executive-level summary and forum to discuss pertinent frameworks and how they relate to the proposed effort for transportation.

Task 2 shall include the following milestones:
Submittal of a technical memorandum summarizing results from Tasks 1 and 2.
Presentation of the memorandum at an interim meeting with the project panel in Washington, D.C. The memorandum shall include multiple proposed approaches for designing the roadmap.
Approval of the memorandum by NCHRP before proceeding with Task 3.
Task 3. Design research roadmap and develop research problem statements.

Task 3a. Design research roadmap to develop the quantitative all-hazards framework. The roadmap design should recognize that the framework would ultimately include associated tools and application guidance.
Outline work groups composed of AASHTO committee members and possibly non-AASHTO experts who will guide and validate the roadmap; and
Conduct invitational, multi-day workshop for up to 20 key personnel to validate the roadmap, preferably in conjunction with another AASHTO meeting.
Task 3b. Develop associated problem statement(s) for research supporting the roadmap. The research problem statement(s) will focus on developing the framework and its associated tools and application guidance. NCHRP will provide a template for the problem statement(s).

The Task 3 products will include (1) a validated roadmap document that includes the findings of Tasks 1-2; and (2) research problem statements. NCHRP approval of both of these products is required before their use in Task 4.

Task 4. Final report preparation. The roadmap document developed and validated in Tasks 1-3 shall be combined with the research problem statement(s) developed in Task 3 to constitute the final project report.