addressing climate change adaptation in regional transportation plans
addressing climate change adaptation in regional transportation plans addressing climate change adaptation in regional transportation plans
Addressing Climate Change Adaptation in Regional Transportation PlansA Guide for California MPOs and RTPAsThe magnitude of consequences needs to be measured in some fashion. Thepreferred measure of magnitude may be very qualitative or fairly quantitative, orcombine qualitative and quantitative measures. A uniform unit (for example“dollars of direct and indirect losses”) is not necessary, and can complicate theanalysis (an exception, for regions conducting benefit-cost analyses, is describedbelow). Nor is it necessary, or always realistic, to develop precise estimates ofmagnitude; ranges or orders of magnitude will suffice for most assessmentefforts. The right measure and level of precision will be a matter of preferenceand measurement resources. For example, disruption to a facility may bemeasured in time (minutes, hours, days – or, when coupled with damage,potentially months or even years), by detour costs (AADT * detour length * traveltime and/or vehicle costs), by congestion effects on the greater system, or usinganother metric important to the region.Regions with a constrained list of top tier assets may opt to employ the climateriskadjusted benefit-cost analysis technique developed for Climate ChangeAdaptation and the Highway System (NCHRP, forthcoming). In this application,full range of consequences is monetized, and becomes, in effect the “benefit” sideof the equation – as risks that were expected to affect the asset but are mitigatedby adaptation activities (the marginal resources expended in the cause ofadaptation become the “cost” side of the equation).The final step of the consequences pathway is to pair the expected magnitudes ofconsequence with the likelihood of occurrence. The basis for the consideration oflikelihood was established in Module 3, which accounted for expected stressoroccurrence at threshold levels to which infrastructure is vulnerable, according torules of thumb. Revisiting likelihood permits the adjustment of these rules ofthumb for determining susceptibility, if needed. Starting with the likelihood ofstressor occurrence (from Module 2b), this exercise suggests assessing thelikelihood of the range of correlated consequences. For example, the assessmentteam might have identified “major damage/disruption” and “moderate damage/disruption” as expected consequences of a one-percent chance flood event. Byemploying knowledge of past consequences, professional knowledge about theasset, and estimates of future condition, “major damage/disruption” might bedeemed “highly unlikely/very rare,” for instance, whereas “moderate damage/disruption” might be considered more probable. This stage can also beconducted prior to the measurement of consequences as a means of screening outconsequences of extremely low probability.This process yields a screened list of risks that are priorities for adaptation.Although mathematical representation is rarely possible, and not necessarilydesirable, the concept is best illustrated as a function of [(stressor likelihood *impact likelihood) * magnitude of impact]. To populate this equation with somehypothetical values, perhaps the stressor likelihood is 50 percent (in a given timeperiod – year, decade, even century). For each occurrence of the stressor, thelikelihood of “major damage” is thought to be 1 percent, and the likelihood of“moderate damage” is 50 percent (the matrix of impacts and likelihoods could12-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
Addressing Climate Change Adaptation in Regional Transportation PlansA Guide for California MPOs and RTPAscontinue to other permutations). The consequence of “major damage” isestimated to be $10 million; whereas, moderate damage is $1 million. Therefore,the risk of major damage is $50,000 (0.5 percent likelihood * $10 million) and therisk of moderate damage is $250,000 (25 percent * $1 million). The determinationwill rarely be so clean or so precise, but distinctions are more likely to beapparent in orders of magnitude, allowing regions to create tiers of risk to beaddressed with adaptation strategies in the following section.Evaluate and Prioritize Adaptation StrategiesIdentify Potential Adaptation StrategiesNow that risks are better understood, regions can consider opportunities for riskmitigation 25 . Risk mitigation is a process of identifying contextually appropriateadaptation actions, assessing the expected effectiveness (in terms of riskreduction) and implementation feasibility (including cost) of each, and thenprioritizing the actions that most cost-effectively address the most significantrisks for inclusion in the RTP or other planning and programming processes. Itis recommended that the tiers of risk generated in the previous section beaddressed in sequence to ensure adequate attention – starting with the greatestrisks and moving to lesser risks as time allows.The first stage involves identifying the range of strategies for consideration.Planners and infrastructure professionals would generate many of these optionsindependently, but, in order to ensure that the full range of options isconsidered, a quick scan of existing literature is recommended. Sources ofparticular note include The Gulf Coast Study Phase 1 (2008) and Phase 2(forthcoming), Climate Change Adaptation and the Highway System (forthcoming),and the FHWA climate change first round pilots (2011).Although a number of schemes for categorizing strategies exist, a simpleframework is suggested here, including three broad categories: Planningstrategies, Design/Engineering strategies, and Operational/Maintenancestrategies.Planning. This covers a host of strategies that stress preparedness and(mostly) longer-term strategic actions, often facilitated through the RTP orother established planning processes (such as hazard mitigation oremergency evacuation plans). Strategies within this category might includethe creation of redundant routes or capacity improvements, strategicabandonment and disinvestment, the creation of emergency protocols forrapid implementation (such as detours), or asset management programs.25 In the context of climate change, the term “mitigation” often refers to the reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions (as in SB 375). In this document, mitigation refers to thereduction of risk through adaptation strategies.Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 12-9
- Page 86 and 87: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 88 and 89: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 90 and 91: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 92 and 93: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 94 and 95: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 96 and 97: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 98 and 99: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 101 and 102: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 103 and 104: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 105 and 106: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 107 and 108: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 109 and 110: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 111 and 112: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 113 and 114: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 115 and 116: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 117 and 118: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 119 and 120: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 121 and 122: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 123 and 124: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 125 and 126: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 127: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 130 and 131: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 132 and 133: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 134 and 135: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 138 and 139: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 140 and 141: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 142 and 143: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 144 and 145: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 146 and 147: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 149 and 150: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 151 and 152: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 153: Addressing Climate Change Adaptatio
- Page 157: appendix b reportState-of-the-Pract
- Page 161 and 162: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 163 and 164: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 165 and 166: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 167 and 168: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 169 and 170: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 171 and 172: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 173 and 174: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 175 and 176: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 177 and 178: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 179 and 180: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 181: State-of-the-Practice Climate Chang
- Page 185 and 186: C A L I F O R N I AADAPTATIONPLANNI
Address<strong>in</strong>g Climate Change Adaptation <strong>in</strong> Regional Transportation PlansA Guide for California MPOs and RTPAscont<strong>in</strong>ue to other permutations). The consequence of “major damage” isestimated to be $10 million; whereas, moderate damage is $1 million. Therefore,the risk of major damage is $50,000 (0.5 percent likelihood * $10 million) and therisk of moderate damage is $250,000 (25 percent * $1 million). The determ<strong>in</strong>ationwill rarely be so clean or so precise, but dist<strong>in</strong>ctions are more likely to beapparent <strong>in</strong> orders of magnitude, allow<strong>in</strong>g regions to create tiers of risk to beaddressed with <strong>adaptation</strong> strategies <strong>in</strong> the follow<strong>in</strong>g section.Evaluate and Prioritize Adaptation StrategiesIdentify Potential Adaptation StrategiesNow that risks are better understood, regions can consider opportunities for riskmitigation 25 . Risk mitigation is a process of identify<strong>in</strong>g contextually appropriate<strong>adaptation</strong> actions, assess<strong>in</strong>g the expected effectiveness (<strong>in</strong> terms of riskreduction) and implementation feasibility (<strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g cost) of each, and thenprioritiz<strong>in</strong>g the actions that most cost-effectively address the most significantrisks for <strong>in</strong>clusion <strong>in</strong> the RTP or other plann<strong>in</strong>g and programm<strong>in</strong>g processes. Itis recommended that the tiers of risk generated <strong>in</strong> the previous section beaddressed <strong>in</strong> sequence to ensure adequate attention – start<strong>in</strong>g with the greatestrisks and mov<strong>in</strong>g to lesser risks as time allows.The first stage <strong>in</strong>volves identify<strong>in</strong>g the range of strategies for consideration.Planners and <strong>in</strong>frastructure professionals would generate many of these options<strong>in</strong>dependently, but, <strong>in</strong> order to ensure that the full range of options isconsidered, a quick scan of exist<strong>in</strong>g literature is recommended. Sources ofparticular note <strong>in</strong>clude The Gulf Coast Study Phase 1 (2008) and Phase 2(forthcom<strong>in</strong>g), Climate Change Adaptation and the Highway System (forthcom<strong>in</strong>g),and the FHWA <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong> first round pilots (2011).Although a number of schemes for categoriz<strong>in</strong>g strategies exist, a simpleframework is suggested here, <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g three broad categories: Plann<strong>in</strong>gstrategies, Design/Eng<strong>in</strong>eer<strong>in</strong>g strategies, and Operational/Ma<strong>in</strong>tenancestrategies.Plann<strong>in</strong>g. This covers a host of strategies that stress preparedness and(mostly) longer-term strategic actions, often facilitated through the RTP orother established plann<strong>in</strong>g processes (such as hazard mitigation oremergency evacuation <strong>plans</strong>). Strategies with<strong>in</strong> this category might <strong>in</strong>cludethe creation of redundant routes or capacity improvements, strategicabandonment and dis<strong>in</strong>vestment, the creation of emergency protocols forrapid implementation (such as detours), or asset management programs.25 In the context of <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong>, the term “mitigation” often refers to the reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions (as <strong>in</strong> SB 375). In this document, mitigation refers to thereduction of risk through <strong>adaptation</strong> strategies.Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 12-9
Change language