The National Institute for Standards and Technology Approach to Resilience in Transportation

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

1:00-2:30 PM ET

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and

requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.

Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A

certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered

and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that

may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.

Purpose Discuss the U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)’s approach toward the implementation of resilience in transportation projects.

Learning Objectives At the end of this webinar, you will be able to: • Understand the NIST approach to supporting implementation of

resilience, including knowledge of the NIST economic tool • Discuss other resources for the economic analysis of transportation

projects that are focused on assessing the benefits of producing resilient systems

• Understand the application of the NIST guide and the economic approaches for organizing work, implementing the process, and improving resilience of transportation systems

Silvana V Croope Delaware Department of Transportation

Stephen Cauffman National Institute for Standards and Technology

Jennifer Helgeson National Institute for Standards and Technology

Don Pickrell U.S.DOT Volpe Center

David Luskin Federal Highway Administration Office of Transportation Policy Studies The National Institute for Standards

and Technology Approach to Resilience in Transportation

NAS - TRB Webinar 8/16/2017

Programmatic and Projects

Implementation of Resilience

Scientific, Practical, Economic and Policy

Multidimensional Resilience Context

State DOT Motivation

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) • Cost effective investments

Benefit – Cost Analysis Economic Analysis

A Case Study...

DelDOT: Strategic Implementation Plan for Climate Change, Sustainability & Resilience for Transportation (SIP)

July 2017

... approach towards a strategic and cohesive plan to promote a more resilient and sustainable transportation system in Delaware

E.O.41

“Preparing Delaware for Emerging Climate Impacts and Seizing Economic Opportunities for Reducing Emissions” – causes and consequences

FAST Act - Cost effective investments - Community Resilience and Economic Assessment State, Local, Tribal and Territorial comprehensive approach - Transportation critical infrastructure sector - Programmatic and project level BCA

DelDOT Programmatic Approach

• Strategic organization – prioritization • Funding (revenue) sources • Tools and resources (THIRA, Hazus, RRAP) • Resilience supported initiative (NIST) • Federal Policies and Presidential Directives (PPD-8, PPD-21) • Financial Strategies (Insurance, Resilience Bonds)

Government

Private Sector

Cost-benefit analysis

Project Level Approach

• NEPA categorical exclusion: COST BENEFITS ALTERNATIVES

• Techniques, project level actions, policy or grant, specific design

• Federal Agencies Disaster Grant Criterias

Benefit-cost ratio ≥ 1

X

Acknowledgements: LaTonya Gilliam,

Brian Urbanek, James Pappas,

Kevin Needham

TRB Webinar: The NIST Approach to Resilience in Transportation

Community Resilience Planning Resources

Wednesday, August 16, 2017 Stephen A. Cauffman Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology

Why Community Resilience?

Functional Requirements

Business

Government Citizens

Industry

Transportation Energy

Structures

Water

• Communities are socio-technical systems • Buildings and infrastructure enable social and economic

function • Social and economic needs and functions should drive the

goals for performance of buildings and physical infrastructure • All communities are exposed to hazards that can cause

disruption to social and economic activity

Challenges

Hazard Level • Routine • Expected • Extreme

Hazards • Natural

hazards • Technological

hazards • Human-caused

hazards • Degradation

• What should the community be resilient to? • How to account for interconnected nature of social systems,

buildings, and infrastructure? • How to identify performance gaps (“measure”) resilience?

What is Resilience? • “the ability to prepare for and adapt to changing conditions

and to withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions. Resilience includes the ability to withstand and recover from deliberate attacks, accidents, or naturally occurring threats or incidents.” (PPD 21)

• Resilience addresses all activities through recovery: • Prevention, Protection, Mitigation, Response, and

Recovery • Risk assessments: address potential consequences of a

hazard’s impact on existing construction, identify vulnerabilities

• Emergency management: address immediate response, with a focus on life safety

Planning Guide Outline Volume 1 - Methodology Executive Summary • Introduction • 6 Step Methodology • Planning Example – Riverbend • Glossary and Acronyms

Volume 2 - Reference Executive Summary • Social Community • Dependencies and Cascading Effects • Buildings • Transportation Systems • Energy Systems • Communications Systems • Water & Wastewater Systems • Community Resilience Metrics

Planning Steps for Community Resilience

Example Matrix: Building Performance Goals

Building Clusters Support Needed4

Design Hazard Performance Phase 1

Short-Term Phase 2

Intermediate Phase 3

Long-Term Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+ Building Performance Category

A B C D Critical Facilities Emergency Operation Centers R, S, MS 90% X First Responder Facilities R, S, MS 90% X Memorial Hospital R, S, MS 90% X Non-ambulatory Occupants (prisons, nursing homes, etc.) R, S, MS 90% X National Aircraft Parts Factory (NAP) R, S, C 90% X Emergency Housing Temporary Emergency Shelters R, S 30% 90% X Single and Multi-family Housing (Shelter in place) R, S 60% 90% X Housing/Neighborhood Critical Retail R, S, C 30% 60% 90% X Religious and Spiritual Centers R, S 30% 60% 90% X Single and Multi-family Housing (Full Function) R, S 30% 60% 90% X Schools R, S 30% 60% 90% X Hotels & Motels R, S, C 30% 60% 90% X Community Recovery Businesses – Manufacturing (except NAP) R, S, C 30% 60% 90% X Businesses - Commodity Services R, S, C 30% 60% 90% X Businesses - Service Professions R, S, C 30% 60% 90% X Conference & Event Venues R, S, C 30% 60% 90% X

Example Matrix: Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation Infrastructure Support Needed4

Design Hazard Performance Phase 1

Short-Term Phase 2

Intermediate Phase 3

Long-Term Days Weeks Months

0 1 1-3 1-4 4-8 8-12 4 4-24 24+ Ingress (goods, services, disaster relief) Local Roads R, S 60% 90% X State Highways and Bridge R, S 60% 90% X Regional Airport R, S 30% 60% 90% X Egress (emergency egress, evacuation, etc.) Local Roads R, S 60% 90% X State Highways and Bridge R, S 60% 90% X Regional Airport R, S 30% 60% 90% X Community resilience Critical Facilities Hospitals R, S 60% 90% X Police and Fire Stations R, S 60% 90% X Emergency Operational Centers R, S 60% 90% X Emergency Housing Residences R, S 30% 60% 90% X Emergency Responder Housing R, S 30% 60% 90% X Public Shelters R, S 90% X Housing/Neighborhoods Essential City Service Facilities R, S 30% 60% 90% X Schools R, S 30% 60% 90% X Medical Provider Offices R, S 30% 60% 90% X Retail R, S 30% 60% 90% X Community Recovery Residences R, S 30% 60% 90% X Neighborhood retail R, S 30% 60% 90% X Offices and work places R, S 30% 60% 90% X Non-emergency City Services R, S 30% 60% 90% X All businesses R, S 30% 60% 90% X

Example Summary Resilience Matrix

Desired Performance

Anticipated Performance

Infrastructure Recovery Time

Critical Facilities

Buildings Transportation Energy Water Wastewater Communication

Planning Steps for Community Resilience

Community Resilience Panel • Engage and connect community and cross-discipline stakeholders. • Identify and address policy and standards-related gaps and impediments. • Work with others to inform and advance efforts to eliminate barriers and gaps to

resilience planning and implementation. • Develop and maintain a Resilience Knowledge Base. • Panel meets twice per year; committees meet monthly by phone. • Membership open to all. • > 300 members: government at all levels, utility owners/operators, insurance/re-

insurance, engineers, architects, economists, and social scientists • In addition to NIST, five federal agencies and the National Academies co-sponsor the

Panel and there is one federal liaison member.

Using the Guide • Encourage use of the Guide for community resilience

planning. • Collect data on its use to inform future versions of the

Guide and other products. • Current uses include:

• Fort Collins, Colorado • Boulder Country, Colorado • Delaware Department of Transportation • San Diego/Tijuana Earthquake Scenario • Others!

NIST Contact Website: http://www.nist.gov/el/resilience/ Guide: http://www.nist.gov/el/resilience/guide.cfm Or google “NIST Resilience Planning Guide” General E-mail: resilience@nist.gov

Thank You!

Questions?

TRB Webinar: The NIST Approach to Resilience in Transportation

NIST Economic Decision Guide

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

1:00 PM-2:30 PM ET

Jennifer F. Helgeson, Ph.D.

Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology

Economic Decision Guide (EDG) • Provides a standard methodology for

evaluating investment decisions aimed at improving the resilience of communities

• Specifically designed for use with NIST’s Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems

• Provides a mechanism to evaluate the efficiency of resilience actions and to prioritize them

• Frames the economic decision process

• Identifies and compares resilience-related benefits & costs

• Across competing alternatives

• Versus the status quo (do-nothing)

Economic Decision Guide Software (EDGeS) Tool • Aimed at implementing the

NIST Economic Decision Guide and translating its guidance to assist decision makers with resilience planning efforts

• Programmed in Python and packaged as an .exe

• Ability to use “offline”

• Possible plug-in to a GIS platform

• User guide and tutorial

Build your own new analysis

Load in an old analysis • Continue working on your analysis • Load an example analysis, provided by NIST.

The EDGeS Tool – Details/Highlights 1. Collect info. on alternative resilience projects the

community is considering

2. Give user the power to input amount values and descriptions for each cost & benefit for each project

3. Provides an Economic Analysis Summary based on best practice

• Calcs. Net Present Values (NPVs) of all cost/benefit streams

• Return on Investment, non-disaster ROI

4. Allows Economic Analysis to be exported

.docx (full analysis) or .csv (table summary)

EDGeS Tool – Details (con’t.) • Provide info. on co-benefits (i.e., “non-disaster related

benefits”) • Uncertainty (user defined)

• hazard probability, benefits, costs, co-benefits, co-costs

• options: triangular, rectangular, Gaussian, discrete

• symmetric & asymmetric

• To whom does the externality accrue? • assignment of Bearers of the costs/benefits

• property rights

• Graphical presentations – coming soon (FY18) • Pilot communities – DelDOT is the first!

EDGeS Transportation Case Study

Riverbend: Four-lane interstate bridge over the Central River, between Riverbend and neighboring Fallsbourgh. Traffic volume on this bridge was higher than capacity and it is the only crossing that carries traffic and clean water into Riverbend. Candidate Resilience Project Options 1. Upgrade the Central River Bridge (RETROFIT) 2. Construct a Second bridge over the Central River This example is packaged with the EDGeS.exe file

Menu Page

Project Information

Cost(s) Page

Benefit(s) Page

Externalities Page

Non-Disaster Related Benefits Page

Fatalities Averted Page

Costs Uncertainties Page

Analysis Information Page

View w/ Uncertainty Analysis Page

Exporting w/o Uncertainty

Exporting w/ Uncertainty

Data Input via Spreadsheet Template

Data Input Cost example

Additional EDGeS Case Studies 1. Adoption of a Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI)-specific code.

Narrative – after a WUI fire sweeps through their town, a community considers a WUI-specific building code.

2. Land reclamation. Narrative – After a major flood a town government is considering purchasing all (or a percentage) of private homes in the 100 year flood plain.

3. Hospital relocation. Narrative – A town at risk of flooding is worried their hospital is too close to the flood source, so in a major event it may be inaccessible.

4. Levee and pump system construction. Narrative – A town is considering building a levee to prevent flooding due to 50 or 100 year event.

Website:

http://www.nist.gov/el/resilience/

Economic Decision Guide: https://www.nist.gov/topics/community-resilience/community-resilience-economic-decision-guide

Or google “NIST Economic Decision Guide”

General E-mail: resilience@nist.gov

Want to pilot the EDGeS Tool? E-mail: helgeson@nist.gov

NIST Contact

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Improving Resilience: State of the Practice

Don Pickrell Chief Economist, U.S. DOT Volpe Center

Road map • What decisions are we talking about? • Key aspects of benefit-cost analysis for investments that increase resilience

• Selected tools for economic analysis of investments to improve resilience

• Useful features of each tool

2

What decisions are we talking about? • Designing and locating specific facilities

• Reduce exposure to extreme weather events • Improve ability to withstand extreme events without damage, disruption

of service, loss of capacity, etc. • Formulating design standards for infrastructure (bridges,

airports, etc.) that reduce vulnerability to disruption or damage • Developing regional infrastructure plans that incorporate

resilience as a specific objective

3

Key categories of benefits and costs • Benefits

• Reduced or avoided costs to public agencies for repairing damaged assets • Less widespread or shorter disruptions to transportation networks (reduces

circuity, travel delays, added operating costs during disruptions) • Improved continuity of high-value transportation services: emergency

vehicles, evacuation routes, mobilization • Benefits from avoiding disruption typically increase over time as travel

volumes grow

• Costs • Costs to restore functionality and capacity of assets, especially on

accelerated schedules • Extended disruptions to travel patterns during closures to assess and repair

damages

• As always, need to measure both against baseline values 4

Role of Uncertainty is Critical • Frequency, scale, and severity of weather-related incidents are each

uncertain, and all are likely to increase over time • Likelihood and extent of damages or disruptions to infrastructure

resulting from extreme weather events are also uncertain • Both sources are present even – or especially – under the baseline • Alternative investments in strengthening or protecting infrastructure

can reduce (conditional) probabilities damage to infrastructure, capacity reduction, service disruption, etc., but won’t eliminate them

• Benefits of alternative investments are reductions in “expected values” of costs of damage and disruption from baseline

• Ideally, we would simulate the distributions of potential damages under each alternative using Monte Carlo-type methods

5

As if things weren’t complicated enough… • Expected frequencies and severity of disruptive events are only

approximately known • Risks of extreme events may be very low, which makes them

difficult for people to grasp and react appropriately • Society may be collectively risk-averse

• We may value reductions in expected damages by more than the change in their expected value

• Especially likely where potential consequences include catastrophic losses – widespread, extended disruptions to economic activity

• It may make sense to err on the cautious side, by “overinvesting” • Risks to different infrastructure assets don’t average out – the

same events pose risks to many of them simultaneously 6

Timing of investments can be critical • Future rates of change in expected frequency and severity of

stressor events affect the ideal timing of investments that strengthen or protect them

• Investments that don’t make economic sense yet may become more desirable over the future

• Experiment with alternative timing of investments as part of analysis • Re-evaluate proposed investments periodically

• Scheduled reconstruction dates provide opportunities to redesign facilities to increase their resilience

• Economies from joint redesign and reconstruction can be significant

7

Network effects are important • Investments to improve the resilience of specific assets may

affect benefits from protecting other elements of a network • Direction of these effects isn’t clear a priori, but there may be

important synergies in fortifying multiple elements of a regional network

• Increased redundancy in a network probably reduces benefits from improving the resilience of individual facilities, but this may make it a useful alternative

• Some recent progress in capability to solve complex problems posed by timing of investments and network interdependencies – find “approximate optimum”

8

Benefits may grow over time • Value of improved resilience grows with increasing use of

infrastructure, since that signals its importance to the regional transportation network and economy

• Important to estimate growth in benefits – even approximately – when analyzing investments that improve resilience

• Key infrastructure facilities – bridges, tunnels, etc. – are long-lived, so benefits from improving their resilience may be experienced partly by future generations

• Appropriate rates for discounting “intergenerational” benefits can be lower than conventional rates

9

Some useful tools • NCHRP Report 270 (Vol. 2, Appendix B) • FHWA Sandy Vulnerability Assessment Tool (Cambridge

Systematics) • Case studies under FHWA Transportation Engineering

Approaches to Climate Resiliency (TEACR) Project, especially Dyke Bridge (Maine) study

• FEMA Benefit-Cost Tool • FTA Hazard Mitigation Cost Effectiveness Tool

10

NCHRP Report 270 • Spells out each individual step in the analysis process clearly • Specifies a comprehensive framework for benefit-cost analysis

of investments in improved resilience • Includes an extended example to illustrate calculations in each step • Identifies specific data necessary to implement framework

• Includes a detailed explanation of how to incorporate relevant sources of uncertainty

• Changing future frequency of asset exposure to climate hazards • Probabilities of resulting asset damage or failure

• Clearly distinguishes between benefits to transportation or other public agencies and to users of exposed transportation assets 11

FHWA Sandy Vulnerability Assessment Tool • Looks promising, but complete documentation not yet available • Requires careful specification expected frequency of

disruptions, repair costs, etc. under baseline • Incorporates future increases in frequency and severity of

extreme weather events • Sea level rise and storm surge • Severe precipitation and flooding

• Explicitly considers duration and severity of resulting facility closures and disruptions to travel patterns

• Enables detailed estimation of costs from transportation disruptions

12

TEACR Dyke Bridge (Maine) Case Study • Focuses on benefits and costs to transportation agencies from

alternative improvements in resilience of a single asset • Very detailed treatment of relevant sources of uncertainty and

how to incorporate them in analysis • Changing probabilities of stressor events due to future climate change • Relationship of damage probabilities to severity and duration of

stressor events • Effectiveness of alternative investments in reducing damage

probabilities • Suggests useful alternative to Monte Carlo-type analysis • Illustrates decision rules for selecting preferred alternative • Doesn’t address user costs from transportation disruptions

13

FEMA Benefit-Cost Tool • Supports required benefit-cost analysis for projects seeking funding

under FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs • Not explicitly climate-focused, but sea level rise is expressly

recognized as a threat where mitigation provides economic benefits • Adds projected future rise in sea level to periodic flood elevations, which

increases benefits from measures to mitigate flood damages • Users supply estimates of sea level rise from federal sources (NOAA trend

projections, USACE sea level change curves) or other published sources • Uses “depth-damage curves” to estimate reductions in expected damage to

structures resulting from design changes • Benefits include reductions in damages to structures, loss of function, and

displacement of occupants • Emphasis seems to be on residential and non-residential buildings,

rather than public infrastructure • Extensive training materials available on-line, and Technical

Assistance Helpline available to support grant applicants in preparing benefit-cost analyses

14

FTA Hazard Mitigation Cost- Effectiveness Tool

• Supports transit agencies in conducting benefit-cost analysis of proposed investments in resilience projects, and incorporating resilience in asset management programs

• Estimates benefits from financial savings to transit agencies and reduced economic costs to users from service disruptions

• Can incorporate effects of future sea level rise on frequency and potential consequences of storm-related hazards

• Damages aren’t probabilistic, but allows resilience projects to reduce (rather than eliminate) resulting disruption and damages

• Incorporates effects of projected changes in development patterns and demographics on future benefits 15

Selected references • NCHRP SR 270: https://www.nap.edu/download/22473

• FHWA Pilot Studies and other resources:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/pilots/2013-2015_pilots/index.cfm

• FEMA Benefit-Cost toolkit: https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/89659

• FTA Cost-Effectiveness tool: https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grant-programs/emergency-relief-program/hazard-mitigation-cost-effectiveness-tool

16

Presentation by David Luskin (FHWA) to TRB Webinar:

The National Institute for Standards and Technology

Approach to Resilience in Transportation

August 16, 2017

Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability

Assessment Framework (under revision) Adaptation Decision-Making Assessment Process ◦ Case study economic analysis – Dyke Bridge replacement

Hurricane Sandy Follow-up and Vulnerability

Assessment Process (2017 scheduled release) ◦ Benefit-cost analysis approach to evaluate climate

adaptation investments.

Models Highway Economic

Requirements System (HERS)

National Bridge Investment Analysis System (NBIAS)

Purposes Project conditions &

performance at alternative levels of investment over 20 years

Estimate economically optimal level of investment

Medium Auto 5-Axle Comb.

Business Travel Value per Person $31.28 $28.00 Avg. Vehicle Occupancy 1.33 1.02 Vehicle Capital Cost $13.01 Inventory Costs $0.17 Total Business $41.53 $41.75

Personal Travel Value of Time $12.31 Avg. Vehicle Occupancy 1.76

Total Personal $21.67 Percent Personal 90% Weighted Average $17.31

4

Source: FHWA Estimates

Incident delay imposes greater costs on travelers because of its unpredictability.

HERS values incident delay reduction twice as much per hour as ordinary time savings.

Additional research would be needed to estimate costs of prolonged delays/ lack of access from extraordinary events such severe flooding.

Pavement and bridge deterioration relationships reflect only current climate

Including climate change mitigation measures could require adding types of improvements o e.g., Sea walls; Elevating a highway.

Effort to better optimize timing of investment in HERS

Network effects absent from these models

Analyses of regional economic development impacts of highways: ◦ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/economic_development/

Current study of national economic impacts of potential increases to total highway investment.

Inputs Model Outputs Travel time and vehicle operating cost savings (from HERS)

USAGE-Highway

• Real GDP • Export volumes • Industry output

levels • etc.

Chen & Rose (2016)* analyzed transportation system failures resulting from Hurricane Katrina ◦ Estimated that 35% of potential GDP loss was avoided

through resilient responses. Hillsborough County FL used REMI model to estimate

economic costs to the region of climate change. ◦ Part of a transportation-focused assessment of climate

change vulnerability (FHWA-sponsored)

* “Economic Resilience to Transportation Failure:

A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis”

Traffic Incident Management Systems https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/software/research/operations/timbc/

Operational Improvements (e.g. ramp metering, variable speed limits, HOT lanes) https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/topsbctool

HERS-ST, State level version of national HERS

Contact: David Luskin Federal Highway Administration David.Luskin@dot.gov 202-366-6597

Today’s Participants

• Curt Castagna, Aeroplex/Aerolease Group, castagna@aeroplex.net

• Robert Alfert, Broad and Cassel LLP, ralfert@broadandcassel.com

• Lacey Corona, Broad and Cassel LLP, lcorona@broadandcassel.com

• John Fortin, CH2M, john.fortin@ch2m.com

Panelists Presentations

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/170810.pdf

After the webinar, you will receive a follow-up email

containing a link to the recording

Get Involved in ACRP • Submit a research idea to ACRP. • Volunteer to participate on a project panel. • Prepare a proposal to conduct research. • Get involved in TRB's Aviation Group of

committees. • Take part in the Champion or Ambassador

Programs.

For more information: http://www.trb.org/acrp/acrp.aspx