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