Each state in the U.S.A. is required to develop and maintain a risk-based transportation asset management plan for the National Highway System (NHS) to improve or preserve the condition of the assets and the performance of the system. Awareness of natural hazards and extreme weather events has also increased with recent catastrophic hurricanes, such as Matthew (October, 2016) and Harvey (August, 2017), which caused significant inland floods in Robeson County, North Carolina, and Houston, Texas, respectively. These recent events and the damage to transportation infrastructure has also focused attention on the resilience of transportation networks. However, an integrated, consistent, well-understood method to assess or quantify the resilience of transportation networks is still lacking. This paper reviews the relevant concepts, legislative requirements that link asset management, risk and resilience, and tools available to support risk-based asset management. Based on a review of the transportation asset management plans developed by 49 state departments of transportation in 2018 and 2019, the paper summarizes the approaches to the risk management section of these asset management plans and the role resilience plays. Opportunities to better integrate resilience into the risk-based asset management plans are then identified. Examples are presented that demonstrate the role of resilience-related technical performance measures that reflect decisions related to flooding in the various stages of the disaster cycle (preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
112th Congress. Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. 2012.
Federal Highway Administration. Asset Management Plans and Periodic Evaluations of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events. Federal Register, Vol. 81, No. 205, 2016, pp. 73196–73268.
4.
MenendezJ.GharaibehN. G.Incorporating Risk and Uncertainty into Infrastructure Asset Management Plans for Pavement Networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2017, p. 04017019.
5.
FrangopolD.DongY.SabatinoS.Bridge Life-cycle Performance and Cost: Analysis, Prediction, Optimisation and Decision-making. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 10, 2017, pp. 1239–1257.
6.
ThompsonP.ByeP.WesternJ.ValeoM.Risk assessment for bridge management systems. In Maintenance, Safety, Risk, Management and Life-Cycle Performance of Bridges: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS 2018), 9-13 July 2018, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, p. 246.
7.
DynesR.Chapter 3: The Disaster Event and Community Stress. In Organized Behavior in Disaster Analysis and Conceptualization. The Disaster Research Center, Ohio State University, 1970.
8.
HollingC.Resilience and Stability in Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Ecological Systems, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1973, pp. 1–23.
9.
The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. Presidential Policy Directive – Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience. 2013.
10.
FletcherD.EkernD.Understanding Transportation Resilience: A 2016–2018 Roadmap. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2017.
Ingenium and Institute of Public Works Engineering of Australia. International Infrastructure Management Manual, Version 4.0. Association of Local Government NZ Inc (INGENIUM), Wellington, and the Institue of Public Works Engineering of Australia (IPWEA), Sydney, 2015.
14.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc, PB Consult, Inc. and Texas Transportation Institute. Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006.
15.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and High Street Consulting Group. Transportation Performance Management: Insight from Practitioners. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2010.
16.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 31000 Risk Management—Principles and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
17.
CurtisJ. A.DaileyJ. S.D’AngeloD.DeWittS. D.GrafM. J.HenkelT. A.MillerJ. B.MiltonJ. C.MolenaarK.RichardsonD. M.RoccoR. E.Transportation Risk Management: International Practices for Program Development and Project Delivery. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2012.
18.
ProctorG.VarmaS.RoordaJ.Managing Risk across Enterprise: A Guide for State Departments of Transportaiton. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2016.
19.
NlenanyaI.SmadiO.Risk Management and Data Needs: A State of the Practice Survey fo State Highway Agencies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2018. 2672: 55–61.
20.
ProctorG. D.VarmaS.Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Literature Review. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2012.
21.
Federal Highway Administration. Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Report 1: Evaluating Threats, Capitalizing on Opportunities. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2012.
22.
Federal Highway Administration. Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Report 2: Examining Risk-Based Approached to Transportation Asset Management. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2012.
23.
Federal Highway Administration.Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Report 3: Achieving Policy Objectives by Managing Risks. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2012.
24.
Federal Highway Administration.Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management Report 4: Managing Risks to Critical Assets. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2013.
25.
Federal Highway Administration.Risk Based Transportation Asset Management Report 5: Managing External Threats through Risk-Based Asset Management. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2013.
26.
Federal Highway Administration. Incorporating Risk Management into Transportation Asset Management Plans. FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2017.
2018 Federal NHS Transportation Asset Management Plan. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 2018.
46.
Maine DOT Transportation Asset Management Plan. Maine Department of Transportation, 2019.
47.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Massachusetts Department of Transportation, 2019.
48.
Initial Transportation Asset Management Plan. Michigan Department of Transportation, 2018.
49.
Minnesota Department of Transportation. Draft Transportation Asset Management Plan. 2018.
50.
MoDOT’s National Highway System Transportation Asset Management Plan. Missouri Department of Transportation, 2018.
51.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Montana Department of Transportation, 2018.
52.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Nebraska Department of Transportation, 2018.
53.
Fully-Compliant Transportation Asset Management Plan. Nevada Department of Transportation, 2019.
54.
Asset Management Plan for Roads & Bridges on the National Highway System. New Hampshire Department of Transportation, 2019.
55.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. New Jersey Department of Transportation, 2019.
56.
Delivering Asset Performance. New Mexico Department of Transportation, 2018.
57.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. New York State Department of Transportation, 2019.
58.
Transportation Asset Management Plan: 2018 Interim Report. North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2018.
59.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. North Dakota Department of Transportation, 2018.
60.
ODOT’s Federally-Compliant Transportation Asset Management Plan. Ohio Department of Transportation, 2019.
61.
Transportation Asset Management Plan 2018–2027. Oklahoma Department of Transportation, 2018.
62.
Oregon Transportation Asset Management Plan. Oregon Department of Transportation, 2019.
63.
Transportation Asset Management Plan 2018. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, 2018.
64.
2028 Puerto Rico Transportation Asset Managment Plan. Puerto Rico Department Highway and Transportation, 2019.
65.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Rhode Island Department of Transportation, 2019.
66.
Initial Transportation Asset Management Plan. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 2018.
67.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. South Dakota Department of Transportation, 2019.
68.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Tennessee Department of Transportation, 2018.
69.
Texas Transportation Asset Management Plan. Texas Department of Transportation, 2019.
70.
Utah Transportation Asset Management Plan. Utah Department of Transportation, 2018.
71.
Transportation Asset Management Plan: Right Investment, Right Asset, Right Time. Vermont Agency of Transportation, 2018.
72.
Commonwealth of Virginia Transportation Asset Management Plan. Virginia Department of Transportation, 2019.
73.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington State Department of Transportation, 2018.
74.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. West Virginia Division of Highways, 2019.
75.
TAMP - Transportation Asset Management Plan. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2019.
76.
Transportation Asset Management Plan. Wyoming Department of Transportation, 2018.
77.
BruneauM.ReinhornA.Exploring theConcept of Seismic Resilience for Acute Care Facilities. Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2007, pp. 41–62.
78.
BocchiniP.FrangopolD. M.Optimal Resilience- and Cost-Based Postdisaster Intervention Prioritization for Bridges along a Highway Segment. Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2012, pp. 117–219.
79.
LiuY.McNeilS.HerningG.Integrating Resilience Concepts with Pavement Management: Two Case Studies. Proc., World Conference on Pavement and Asset Management, Milan, Italy, 2017.
80.
McNeilS.LiuY.Ramirez-VillamizarA.Infrastructure Resilience: From Concept to Performance to Decisions. Proc., 7th International Conference on Bituminois Mixtures and Pavements, Thessalonki, Greece, 2019.
81.
RenT.Operationalizing the Concept of Resilience: Case study of Flooding in North Carolina. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, 2019.
82.
HacklJ.AdeyB. T.LethanhN.Determination of Near-Optimal Restoration Programs for Transportation Networks Following Natural Hazard Events Using Simulated Annealing. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 8, 2018, pp. 618–637.
83.
LiuY.McNeilS.HacklJ.AdeyB.Prioritizing Transportation Network Recovery Using a Resilience Measure. Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 2020. DOI:10.1080/23789689.2019.1708180
