November 15, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT · FROM: Lizzie Kemp, I 70 Pilot Project Manager and Joshua Laipply, P.E. Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Final briefing on I -70 Risk and Resiliency Pilot

www.coloradodot.Info

Purpose To present final results from the I-70 Risk and Resiliency Pilot Project and get feedback on proposed next steps. Action Accept final results. Provide feedback on next steps with regard to resiliency planning within CDOT. Background About a year ago, CDOT began work on a pilot study to assess risk to the transportation system resulting from a variety of physical threats, and to identify what improvements we could make to our system in advance of such events to to reduce the impact and cost to our system. The I-70 Risk and Resiliency Pilot looked at all asset classes on I-70 from Utah to Kansas. The Pilot is nearly complete with a final report expected before the end of the year. The attached powerpoint presents the final results of the study and several proposed staff recommendations for next steps. Attachments I 70 Pilot Powerpoint

DATE: November 15, 2017 TO: Transportation Commission Resiliency Committee FROM: Lizzie Kemp, I 70 Pilot Project Manager and Joshua Laipply, P.E. Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Final briefing on I -70 Risk and Resiliency Pilot

(c) AEM Corporation 2017

Risk and Resilience I-70 Pilot

Conceptual Risk and Resilience Program

• Motivation for pilot• Multiple emergency events• Mandates from FHWA for performance management and risk assessment• Application of process utilized in 2013 and 2016 Emergency Relief Projects to

routine business practice• Twice damaged asset assessment requirements FAST-Act• Desire for data driven decisions related to resiliency


1. Identify, understand, and prioritize physical threats2. Further develop existing CDOT risk reduction program3. Assess applicability of R&R Pilot methodology to entire CDOT system4. Input for risk-based, fiscally-constrained Asset Management Plan

(TAMP), maintenance strategies, and project selection5. Keep Commission informed of R&R Pilot progress and potential

implications for regions6. CDOT input to Governor’s Colorado Resiliency Framework

I-70 Risk and Resilience Proactive Assessment of ThreatsPilot Project Objectives


I-70 Risk and Resilience Pilot

• What was accomplished• Repeatable process for risk assessment of physical threats to primary assets developed

for CDOT data (availability and maturity)• Criticality model for system resilience developed that reflects economic, environmental,

social impacts to Colorado• 470 centerline miles of system has been assessed for range of physical threats• Owner and user annual risk calculated for each threat-asset pair for mainline I-70• Five specific site locations analyzed for potential mitigation measures of identified threats• CDOT Working Group developed four recommendations for next steps


RAMCAP PlusSM R&R for Highways


Criticality Map for System Resilience

AADT 16.7%AASHTO Road Classification 16.7%Freight $ (County) 16.7%Tourism $ (County) 16.7%SoVI 16.7%Redundancy 16.7%


A B

C D E F G H

J K L M

RESILIENCE SEGMENTS I-70 CORRIDOR

SEGMENT CRITICALITY SCORE Criticality Score reflects how crucial each segment is to overall CDOT system resilience.

E470 Jct.

DENVER

UTAH KANSAS

A B C D E F G H MJ K L

14MP

25 25 23 23 2322 2221 2124 24 24

90MP

155MP

205MP

231MP

245MP

288MP

353MP

360MP

404MP

438MP

450MP

MP = ENDING MILEPOST = HIGH CRITICALITY = MODERATE CRITICALITY


Loma

Rifle

WolcottSilverthorne

Empire IdahoSprings

I70 /

I70 /SH86 Jtc.

Limon Seibert Burlington


Threat-Asset Pairs Analyzed

Threats Assets

Avalanche Bridges

Flood (scour) Bridge Approaches

Flood (Overtopping/debris) Roadway Prism

Fire (wildland) Post Tension Concrete Slabs

Landslide Tunnels

Rockfall NBI CulvertsHigh wind

(special wind zone)Minor Culverts

Tornado Walls

Bridge strike ITS Devices

Traffic Management Center

Tunnel Control Centers

8

ANNUAL TOTAL RISK BY CORRIDOR SEGMENT

A

B

C

D E FG H J K L M

$13,699,578

$85,432,063

$25,692,244

$11,723,825

$16,444,734

$12,529,247$1,529,417 $1,709,105 $202,038 $541,036 $750,333 $206,175

SEGMENT CRITICALITY SCORE CORRIDOR TOTAL ANNUAL RISK: $170.5 M

25 25 23 23 2322 2221 2124 24 24


Utah Loma Rifle Wolcott Silverthorne EmpireIdaho

Springs I70 / E470 Jct.

I70 /SH86 Jct. Limon Seibert BurlingtonKansas

$4,451

AB

CD

EF

G H J K L M

$244,635 $281,027

$98,816

$58,619

$137,728

$220,585

$5,997 $6,573 $7,216 $3,074 $5,517

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL THREATS PER LANE MILE

SEGMENT CRITICALITY SCORE


25 25 23 23 2322 2221 2124 24 24

Utah Loma Rifle Wolcott Silverthorne EmpireIdaho

Springs I70 / E470 Jct. Limon Seibert BurlingtonKansas

I70 /SH86 Jct.

USER RISK

= $50M

OWNER RISK

SEGMENT

BREAKDOWN OF OWNER (CDOT) AND USER (TRAVELING PUBLIC) RISKCDOT AND USER ANNUAL RISK

A B C D E F

$11,805 $418,024

$13,687,773

$85,014,040

$3,931,198

$16,103,534 $12,402,671

$755,867 $341,200 $126,576

$21,761,046

$10,967,958

G H J K ML

$172,012 $308,565 $22,524 $19,766 $23,525 $4,484 $179,514 $521,268 $726,808 $201,691 $1,357,404 $1,400,540


$2,161,863 $8,516,684$35,781,405 $117,857,395

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT TOTAL RISK I-70

FLOOD AVALANCHEROCKFALL LANDSLIDE

$1,344,101 $3,835,682 $216,093 $723,814

$15,853

$164,324,248 $8,475

HIGH WIND & RELATED WEATHER TOTAL SYSTEM RISKBRIDGE VEHICLE STRIKE

$310

$6,901

$6,135,544

USER RISK OWNER RISK

TOTAL = $170.5 M

TOTAL


BRIDGE VEHICLE STRIKEFLOOD

$2$33

$31

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREATSEGMENT A -- UTAH STATE LINE TO LOMA -- HIGH CRITICAL

$13,687,771$13,699,545

$11,774

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$13,687,773 $13,699,578

$11,805

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M

USER RISKTOTAL RISK OWNER RISK

TOTAL

Utah


Loma

TOTAL RISK FROM ALL THREATS PER LANE MILE = $224,635

FLOOD

$85,014,040 $85,432,063

$418,023

$84,792,946$85,172,493

$379,547

LANDSLIDE

$46,164 $83,664

$37,500

ROCKFALL

$174,717$174,987

$270

BRIDGE VEHICLE STRIKE

$213 $919

$706

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT B -- LOMA TO RIFLE -- HIGH CRITICAL

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTALLoma

Rifle




$206 $1,456

$1,250

FLOOD

$8,586,235$8,713,721

$127,486

ROCKFALL

$16,977,067$13,174,605$3,802,462

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT C -- RIFLE TO WOLCOTT -- HIGH CRITICAL

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$25,692,244 $21,761,046 $3,931,198

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M



RifleWolcott

TOTAL


$7,653,416 $7,850,903

$197,487

AVALANCHE

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$1,997,032$2,146,487

$149,455

$10,967,958 $11,723,825

$755,867

$1,316,362 $1,722,946

$406,584

LANDSLIDE

$1,148$3,489

$2,341

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT D -- WOLCOTT TO SILVERTHORNE -- HIGH CRITICAL

FLOOD

$8,448 $8,756

$308

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M

HIGH WIND & RELATED WEATHER



TOTALWolcott


Silverthorne


AVALANCHE

$863,268 $881,874

$18,606


$16,103,534 $16,444,734

$341,200

$808,144$848,075

$39,931

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

ROCKFALL

$13,660,714$13,678,549

$17,835

LANDSLIDE FLOOD

$770,937 $1,030,687

$259,750

$471 $5,549

$5,078

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT E -- SILVERTHRONE TO EMPIRE -- MODERATE

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTAL SilverthroneEmpire



FLOOD

$3,631,182$3,742,035

$110,853

ROCKFALL

$8,771,369$8,786,484

$15,115


$120 $728

$608

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT F -- EMPIRE TO IDAHO SPRINGS -- MODERATE

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$12,402,671 $12,529,247

$126,576

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTAL

Empire


IdahoSprings



$4,371$9,349

$4,978

LANDSLIDE

$28,400 $48,380

$19,980 $1,324,634$1,471,688

$147,054

FLOOD

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT G -- IDAHO SPRINGS TO I70 / E470 DET. -- HIGH CRITICAL

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$1,357,405 $1,529,417

$172,012

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTAL

IdahoSprings


I70 / E470 Jct.



$336 $1,090

$754

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$1,400,540 $1,709,105

$308,565

FLOOD

$1,400,204$1,708,015

$307,811

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT H -- I70 / E470 DET. TO I70 / SH86 DET. -- HIGH CRITICAL

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTAL


I70 / E470 Jct.

I70 / SH86 Jct.


FLOOD

$179,514$202,038

$22,524

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT J -- I70 / SH86 DET. TO LIMON -- MODERATE

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M

$179,514$202,038

$22,524


TOTAL

Limon


I70 / SH86 Jct.


ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT K -- LIMON TO SEIBERT -- HIGH CRITICAL


$17$86

$69

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$521,269 $541,036

$19,767

FLOOD

$521,252$540,950

$19,698

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTAL

Limon Seibert



FLOOD

$726,808$750,333

$23,525

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT L -- SEIBERT TO BUNLINGTON -- MODERATE

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M

$726,808$750,333

$23,525


$27$29

$2

HIGH WIND & RELATED WEATHER

TOTAL

Seibert


Bunlington


BRIDGE VEHICLE STRIKEFLOOD

$201,674 $206,119

$4,445 $17 $56

$39

ANNUAL RISK SUMMARY BY THREAT SEGMENT M -- BUNLINGTON TO KANSAS STATE BORDER -- HIGH CRITICAL

TOTAL SYSTEM RISK

$201,691 $206,175

$4,484

A B

C D E F G H

J K L M


TOTAL


Bunlington

Kansas



Site Mitigation Analysis

Mitigation Sites


Example 1: Non-NBI Culvert – Flood

Structure ID Milepost RegionResilience Segment Criticality

Total Annualized

Risk

CO-070A-RS00140 112.9 3 C High $1,325,151

Analyzed EconomicViability –• 72” Concrete Culvert• Concrete Box Culvert

Outlet

Inlet


Example 1: non-NBI Culvert – Flood

Proposed Mitigation Description

Proposed Hydraulic Design Cost of Mitigation

Option 1

Replacement of existing culverts with Two 72" concrete pipes (1 each direction) with headwalls

50-yr

(roadway overtopping at 100-yr event)

$500,000/culvert$1M/site

Option 2

Replacement of existing culverts with Two 8' x 8' CBC (1 each direction) connected with a concrete chute and improvements to private crossing above interstate

100-yr

(NO roadway overtopping at 100-yr event)

$800,000/culvert$1.6M/site


Example 1: non-NBI Culvert – Flood

Mitigation

Reduction in

Annualized Owner Risk

% Reduction in


Reduction in Annualized User Risk

% Reduction in

Annualized User Risk

Reduction in Annualized Total Risk

% Reduction in

Annualized Total Risk

B/COwner

Risk

B/CTotalRisk

Option 1 $ 5,900 76% $ 1,217,276 92% $ 1,223,176 92% 0.17 35.6

Option 2 $ 7,481 76% $1,278,337 97% $1,285,819 97% 0.14 23.4


Example 2: PTCS – Rockfall

Location Milepost RegionResilience Segment Criticality

Total Annualized

Risk

Glenwood Canyon 123.7 3 C High $1,233,853

Rockfall Area

WB

Analyzed EconomicViability –• Improved fencing• Adding wallEB

Asset Type


Example 2: PTCS – Rockfall

Proposed Mitigation Description Cost of Mitigation

Option 1

Replacement of existing 2,000KJ fences with 5,000KJ fences (5 fences total)

$ 290,000/fence$ 1,450,000/site

Option 2

New 140 feet wall to existing site with 2,000 KJ fences $ 350,000


Example 2: PTCS – Rockfall: Summary

Mitigation

Reduction in


% Reduction

in Annualized Owner Risk

Reduction in Annualized User Risk

% Reduction

in Annualized User Risk

Reduction in Annualized Total Risk

% Reduction

in Annualized Total Risk

B/COwner

Risk

B/CTotalRisk

Option 1 $ 69,912 31% $ 388,113 31% $ 458,025 31% 0.41 2.7

Option 2 $36,839 16% 268,225 22% $305,064 21% 2.56 21.2


Risk and Resilience Program

• What can information generated from RnR be used to support?• Planning Studies• Asset Management• Design• Maintenance• Operations



Working Group Recommendations for Next Steps

RnR Working Group Recommendation #1• Base risk map for CDOT system made available on OTIS or similar familiar platform

• Base risk map developed with consistent models, data elements, threats, etc.• Provides even playing field for risk assessment for potential mitigation measures• Meets FHWA’s desire for CDOT to integrate flood process within daily business practices


RnR Working Group Recommendation #2

• CDOT “standard” for risk assessment of mitigation measures• Similar to the Highway Capacity Manual – default values that allow CDOT to “control”

mitigation assessments performed by consulting industry• Bounds variable ranges and limits• Establishes threat maps• Allows for consistent benefit-costs assessments from consulting industry



• Work to develop case study example applications of the RnR process• PEL Studies – potentially SH 66 or US 34• Prioritized culvert list for I-70 – working with maintenance or hydraulics staff

to determine usefulness of risk information to their processes• Operations – work to assess alternative routes around high risk areas – assess

capability of alternative route to withstand applicable threats and additionaltraffic



• Review of CDOT policies, manuals, standards, models for funding allocation todetermine appropriate locations for inclusion of RnR information

• CDOT Project Design Manual• Planning and Environmental Linkage Studies• Asset Management Program• TSMO Program• Maintenance Project Prioritization


Risk and Resilience

• CDOT is on the bleeding edge of risk assessment from multiplephysical hazards to individual assets and corridors

• Quantitative• Considers owner and user risks

• Guidance for uses of data is vague at national level• Federal mandates are vague• CDOT is in position to lead nation on how to use such information in

daily business practices


Conclusion


Contact InformationProject Management TeamLizzie Kemp-Herrera, CDOT Region 1 Planning & Program [email protected] (303) 829-0274

Heather Paddock, PE, CDOT Region 4 Central Program [email protected] (970) 290-8723

Project TeamAimee Flannery, Ph.D., P.E., Program Manager, AEM Corporation [email protected] (703) 328-2423 (cell)

Joe Garcia, P.E., Senior Manager, AEM [email protected] (719) 250-3442 (cell)


mailto:[email protected]




Documents

November 15, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT · FROM: Lizzie Kemp, I 70 Pilot Project Manager and Joshua Laipply, P.E. Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Final briefing on I -70 Risk and Resiliency Pilot