Assessing Transportation Infrastructure Asset Resilience using a Data-Driven Framework: A Case Study for Harris County Precinct 4 (HC PCT 4)

As extreme rainfall and urban flooding increase across Texas, state and local governmental agencies must prioritize transportation investments using clear and defensible methods to enhance their asset resilience. This presentation describes an application of the Criticality–Vulnerability (C–V) framework developed by Houston Galveston Area Council to three specific infrastructure assets identified by HC PCT 4: 137 bridges, 58 major thoroughfare (MTF) segments, and five staging areas/community centers. In our study, criticality measures the impact of asset disruption on mobility, community access, and public safety in preparation for, during, and immediately after a flood event. Each asset was scored on a 0–4  scale across three components: Mission Essential Function (MEF), Community Lifeline Connectivity (CLC), and Health & Safety (H&S), using spatial indicators evaluated within defined service areas around each asset. MEF captures corridor connectivity, evacuation route association, and proximity to emergency facilities. CLC evaluates access to essential lifeline community service types, population percentile rankings, and Social Vulnerability Index values representing dependent communities. H&S reflects proximity to medical and emergency response facilities using distance-based thresholds. Asset vulnerability was evaluated independently under 100-year storm conditions using MAAPNext models using riverine and rain-on-grid/urban model results. This approach distinguishes channel-driven flooding from localized overland flow. Bridges were assessed using modeled water surface elevations relative to deck elevations, while major thoroughfares were evaluated using maximum flood depth above the roadway surface. Community centers were evaluated using modeled flood depths to capture both direct inundation and access disruption. Results show that asset criticality and flood vulnerability are not consistently aligned. Bridges with higher exposure generally exhibited lower criticality, while 18 MTFs were classified as both high criticality and high vulnerability, identifying priority corridors for mitigation. Four of five community centers were classified as highly vulnerable. Northern Harris County exhibits elevated flood exposure in areas with comparatively lower criticality, highlighting the importance of separating functional importance from hazard exposure in resilience planning. The study recommendations, a program of mitigation projects, indicate the need to view transportation infrastructure asset prioritization exercise using a 2-dimensional approach that integrates safety, mobility, operational enhancements, and flood mitigation strategies. This would allow the PCT 4 decision makers to enhance regional infrastructure resilience and potentially access grant funding from multiple agencies for one project.