This simplified resilience assessment for road projects was presented at the XVIth World Winter Service and Road Resilience Congress in Calgary in February 2022. We call this method the 3R-method because we use three Rs, robustness, redundancy and recovery as a measure of resilience

1. A SIMPLIFIED RESILIENCE
APPROACH FOR ASSESSING
ROAD PROJECTS IN NORWAY
Jan Husdal
Senior Principal Engineer, Norwegian Public Roads Administration
jan.husdal@vegvesen.no

2. Outline
• Purpose
• Societal Safety and Security
• Method
• The three R: robustness, redundancy and recoverability
• Importance and impact
• Results (applications)
• Transport corridors/Transport network in Norway
• Projects proposed for government funding
• Value Engineering
• Conclusion
2

3. MODES
Few Many
LINKS
Many Directed Free
Few Constrained Limited
The Purpose – Why 3R was developed
• Methods for risk and vulnerability assessment (RVA) in community
planning related to societal safety and security have been developed
and used in Norway since the early 1990s.
• NPRA needed a systematic method and strategic tool for RVA and
assessing societal safety and security, as it relates to road transport.
• Most of mainland Europe = “free” transport network.
Most of Norway = “constrained” transport network.
• Much of Norway is only served by road, often only one road.
>>> If disrupted, very few, if any rerouting options available.
• For societal safety and security, road transport is crucial.
3

4. The method - 3R in practice
4
The 3 R
Robustness – Redundancy - Recoverability
Importance
Local – Regional - National
Bearing in mind the importance of the road, the impact on resilience is scored separately for robustness,
redundancy and recoverability.
While the score value itself is not important for a single project, it allows for comparison
of different projects. For decision support, the verbal arguments +/- are more important.
1
2
3 4

5. The 3 R
• Robustness – is an expression of the ability of the road to
withstand stress.
Not merely physical stress, e.g., natural hazards and climate effects, but
also capacity, traffic load and any restrictions, e.g., axle load, vehicle length
• Redundancy – is a measure of flexibility, or the existence of
good alternative solutions.
Not only the existence, but more importantly, the adequacy of alternative routes
must be evaluated.
• Recovery – is a measure of how quickly and efficiently we
can overcome the disruption, both short-term repair and
long-term re-construction.
Recovery and robustness are particularly important where there is little or
no redundancy.
5

6. Robustness – Redundancy - Recovery
Some key questions to determine level of impact
6
Robustness Redundancy Recovery
Type of structure built?
Open road, (subsea) tunnel, bridge?
Alternatives before and after?
“Old” road >>> “new” alternative?
Segments that take long to restore?
Open road in easy terrain vs. long bridge?
Standard?
2-lane highway vs. 4-lane motorway?
Capacity on alternative?
Increased on “new” alternative?
Complex structures?
E.g., bridge or (subsea) tunnel?
Compliant with design rules?
If non-compliant, consequences?
New/additional links?
Short bypass or new directions?
Interdependencies?
E.g., requires automated traffic control?
Exposure to natural hazards?
Less or more exposed?
Improved intramodality?
Access to transport hubs?
Time to restore service levels?
Hours, days, weeks, month?
Improved availability 24/7?
Less disruptions?
Time to establish alternatives?
Hours, days, weeks, month?

7. Importance
7
Local Regional National
Project affects critical
services/businesses in
minor towns or
improves access to
local transport hubs?
Project affects critical
service/businesses in
large towns and small
cities or improves access
to regional transport
hubs?
Projects affects critical
services/businesses in large
cities or improves access to
(inter)national transport hubs or
is essential to military logistics
and defense?
What decides importance?
Population centres, Critical community services, Emergency services, Hospital services, Critical or
important businesses or production facilities, Power production facilities, Transportation hubs or
public transport hubs, Airports, Ports, Railway stations, Goods facilities linking road, rail, air and
sea, Military installations.
Positive impact or negative impact?

8. Result 1: Transport corridors in Norway
• Scope: The Norwegian National Transport Plan NTP
defines eight corridors. Each corridor was assessed
using 3R.
• Purpose: Pinpoint the main issues related to societal
safety and security within road transport.
• Result:
Southern Norway: Some lack of robustness, but
abundant redundancy. Recovery not important.
Northern Norway: No redundancy, so robustness and
recovery are very important here.
• Conclusion: From the viewpoint of social safety and
security on a national level, upholding the road network
in Northern Norway is considerably more important than
in Southern Norway, especially if considering military
logistics. 8

9. Result 2: Proposed projects
• Scope: The Norwegian National Transport Plan NTP lists
a number of projects that may receive national funding.
Twelve proposed projects were assessed using 3R.
• Purpose: Pinpoint the projects that contribute most to
improving societal safety and security.
• Result: 3/12 projects were only locally important, 7/12 had
regional importance, and only 2/12 could be considered
nationally important in terms of societal safety and
security. These projects, # 9 and #10, are in Northern
Norway in accordance with the findings in the 3R-
assessment of the transport corridors.
• Conclusion: Many projects have socio-economic benefits,
but only few contribute to societal safety and security
on a national level.
9

10. Result 3: Value engineering
• Scope: This particular 3R-assessment looked at four
segments along European route E134, over a
distance of 360 kilometers.
• Purpose: Apply 3R as part of value engineering and
pinpoint the projects that most efficiently contribute to
societal safety and security.
• Result: The four projects differ in their effect on
societal safety and security. Not surprisingly, the
project that eliminated two mountain passes,
inclines and hairpin bends has the highest score.
• Conclusion: 3R can be
used for comparing projects
and is suitable for
value engineering.
10

11. Conclusion
Multi-purpose, value-adding, holistic
• 3R is multi-purpose
• for assessing new road projects, as part of the risk assessment.
• for assessing the current infrastructure, highlighting the lack of robustness, redundancy or
recovery.
• in value engineering, as part of project optimization.
• 3R adds value
• is more than a traditional risk analysis
• shows how the interaction of robustness, redundancy and recoverability creates resilience.
• 3R is holistic
• highlights the importance of all choices early in the project and how they may impact the
performance of the road in relation to societal safety and security
11