Integrating Hazard Mitigation into MPO Long-Range
Transportation Planning
Charlotte County-Punta Gorda MPO
Mitigation Options
Allison Boyd, CSA
Dec. 10, 2009 PTAC Meeting
Agenda Item Objectives
1) To review the range of potential mitigation
options for the Charlotte County
transportation system and to determine
which options to include in a current strategy
2) To consider approaches for including the
mitigation strategy in the Long Range
Transportation Plan and project prioritization
processes.
The National Academies, 2008
← (also current hazards)
← Completed # 2.
← Now working on #3.
← Next step to be
accomplished for
upcoming PTAC meeting
discussions.
← End product for MPO
Review of what
we’re trying to
accomplish with
this project
Project’s Potential Results
Leonard, K.J., J.H. Suhrbier, E. Lindquist, M.J. Savonis, J.R. Potter, W.R. Dean, 2008: How Can Transportation
Professionals Incorporate Climate Change in Transportation Decisions? In: Impacts of Climate Change and
Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Savonis, M. J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R.
Potter (eds.)]. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA.
& Current Natural Hazards
• Current Storm Surge
• Rainfall Flooding
• Erosion
• Hurricane Force Winds
How to integrate
• Goals, objectives, and performance
indicators (LRTP)
Strategies to implement (LRTP)
Criteria for prioritizing projects (TIP)
Today’s purpose is to concentrate on
choosing a current strategy from the menu
of mitigation options
Document in the LRTP
• Hazard Mitigation Chapter
or
• Insert in various sections and refer to
separate hazard mitigation report
and
• Goals and Objective integration
Hazard Mitigation Section Outline
• Introduction
• Pilot Project Planning Process
• Hazard Vulnerability Assessment – Coastal Flooding: Storm Surge and Sea Level Rise (including
erosion)
– Rainfall Flooding
– Hurricane-Force Wind
– Wildfire
• Hazard Mitigation Options – Protection
– Accommodation
– Relocation/Retreat
• Hazard Mitigation Strategy
Timeframes
• When to advance a specific mitigation
project depends on the hazard impact
timeframe in relation to the plan horizon
Leonard, K.J., J.H. Suhrbier, E. Lindquist, M.J. Savonis, J.R. Potter, W.R. Dean, 2008: How Can Transportation
Professionals Incorporate Climate Change in Transportation Decisions? In: Impacts of Climate Change and
Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. A Report by the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research [Savonis, M. J., V.R. Burkett, and J.R.
Potter (eds.)]. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, USA.
Threshold for mitigation/adaptation
Two general thresholds for infrastructure:
(1) Economic write-off, when replacement
costs less than repair (or in this case the
cost to mitigate if not full replacement required)
(2) When the condition of the infrastructure
component falls below a certain
standard. (i.e. frequency of interruption due to
flooding is unacceptable)
Jones, R.N., 2001: An Environmental Risk Assessment/Management Framework for
Climate Change Impact Assessment. Natural Hazards, 23: 197-230.
Mitigation/Adaptation Options
• 3 basic choices (IPCC)
– Protect: protect the land from flooding
through “hard” or “soft” techniques (i.e. sea
wall vs. beach nourishment)
– Accommodate: operational strategies to deal
with periodic flooding or design options to
mitigate impacts
– Retreat/Relocate: abandon the infrastructure
or relocate it out of the risk zone
Option considerations
• Hazards addressed
• Level of protection or risk reduction
• Lifespan (temporary or permanent solutions)
• Benefits (lowered maintenance/repair costs, decreased
delays from out of service)
• Cost
– Increased Cost to Mitigate
– Adjacent land impacts
– Environmental impacts
Protection Options
Accommodation Options
Relocation/Retreat Options
Accommodation
• Permanent inundation vs. temporary flooding
– Operational strategies to work around flooding or pump the water out would not be viable in case of permanent inundation
– Emergency management including pre-disaster evacuation and post-disaster repair may be acceptable options for temporary flooding depending on frequency and repair costs
Retreat/Relocate
• Under extreme cases in the future, population
and land use shifts due to hazard impact and/or
cases where more than adequate redundancy
exists, a transportation component could be
abandoned
• Relocation may be considered if the costs of
alternate ROW acquisition and
reductions/changes in system performance are
less than the cost to accommodate or protect the
transportation component
Considerations for Relocation
The relevant decision maker would have a general idea as to:
(1) how much replacement would cost;
(2) how long it would take;
(3) the economic resources available for replacement;
(4) public sentiment regarding replacement (or not);
(5) how essential the facility is to system performance; and
(6) whether or not plans exist for dealing with disruption of facility and/or system performance over the duration of the replacement time.
Prioritizing Factors
• Plans for road work in future (mitigate
while other improvements being made)
• Do alternate routes exist for disaster
recovery - redundancy
• Level of usage of the roadway
• Degree of risk and expected level of
damages (how long out of service, cost of
repairs)
Prioritizing Mitigation Projects
Project Selection Criteria
Surface Transportation Enhancement Selection Criteria
Does the project serve a school? 10 points
Does the project serve a commercial area? 7 points
Will the project benefit transit in the future? 5 points
Does the project serve a park, recreational facility, or
community facility (e.g. library)?
5 points
Is the project associated with a functionally classified road? 5 points for arterial,
2 for collector
Does the project serve an urban service area? 5 points for infill, 2
for suburban
What is the population density around the project? (Population/square
mile/750)
Does the project provide improved facilities in an area that
has many bicycle/pedestrian accidents?
2 points per
documented
accident per mile,
capped at 10 years
of records
Does the project provide geographic continuity, complete an
earlier phase of the project, or complete a connection between
two existing or funded facilities?
10 points
Does the project mitigate against damage from disasters? 10 points
Project Selection Criteria Landscaping Project Selection
What percentage of plants utilized are native?
100% 5 points
81% to 99% 4 points
61% to 79% 3 points
41% to 59% 2 points
20 % to 39% 1 point
0% to 19% 0 point
What percentage of the plants utilized are drought-tolerant?
100% 5 points
81% to 99% 4 points
61% to 79% 3 points
41% to 59% 2 points
20 % to 39% 1 point
0% to 19% 0 point
What percentage of the plants utilized are wind resistant?
100% 5 points
81% to 99% 4 points
61% to 79% 3 points
41% to 59% 2 points
20 % to 39% 1 point
0% to 19% 0 point
Does the landscaping incorporate wind-resistant urban design principles?
Yes 5 points
No 0 points