National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Guidebook
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Summary: What We Know from the Literature." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/24974.
×
Page 32

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 2 Findings and Applications Summary: What We Know from the Literature Resilience adoption and climate adaptation planning and implementation by United States transportation agencies is relatively new, really less than 10 years old. Most reference documents on these topics have a heavy focus on threats, hazards and potential impacts from extreme weather and climate impacts. In that regard, there are basically two streams of literature. One stream focuses on understanding system vulnerabilities and documenting the impacts of recent disasters on transportation assets. The other highlights leading practices and what can be gained from adopting resilience measures and approaches in a pre-disaster context. Hurricane Katrina in 2005, followed by the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment report on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in 2007, appear to have created a “wake up” call to the transportation industry. Since 2008, a growing body of literature has emerged regarding transportation sector vulnerabilities to extreme weather events and climate change. In addition, a number of reports have been published recommending best practices for transportation agencies to follow to protect their assets and enhance the resilience of public transit services. Since 2010, there appears to have been growing recognition that transit systems are facing an increasing risk of extreme weather and climate impacts and that the significant and growing costs of recovering from natural disasters necessitates a focus on resilience among transportation agencies. In this regard, the literature shows that state departments of transportation and some metropolitan planning organizations are leading the way in the transport sector, especially in terms of proactive pre-disaster resilience planning. However, the recently completed FTA Climate Change Adaptation pilot projects, which included the participation of seven transit agencies, has somewhat evened the playing field, as more transit agencies engage in resilience planning. Examples of resilience adoption can be found across the country, in response to a variety of hazards and among agencies large and small. Many agencies have proactively undertaken vulnerability assessments and some have begun to incorporate resilience considerations as part of system planning, capital programming, asset management, project development, operations, and maintenance activities. In addition, there are some examples internationally of transit agencies adopting comprehensive resilience approaches––most notably Transport for London––as well as incremental adoption in various domains at other transport agencies. Hurricane Sandy in 2012 caused significant damage to transit infrastructure on the east coast, especially in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region. In the wake of the disaster, the Federal Government authorized billions of dollars in disaster recovery funding to be used specifically for transit projects. This funding also required that transit agencies consider resilience as part of recovery project planning and specifically consider the potential impacts of climate change. The capital projects advanced as part of Sandy recovery are providing important insights regarding the benefits and challenges of resilience adoption as part of project development, design and construction. While these experiences may be unique because of the extraordinary level of funding made available for implementation post-disaster, not all the projects are “mega” projects, and some may provide an opportunity to learn what other agencies can and should do when pursuing similar efforts. The lessons learned from rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy and other major disasters experienced throughout the country can help public transit systems that have not yet been affected, but are potentially vulnerable to weather and climate stressors, better prepare their assets and infrastructure for potential major events.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 3 Comprehensive resilience adoption requires dedication and attention from virtually every sector and individual in the transit system, from operations and maintenance personnel- usually the “first observers” of what is going on “on the ground,” through asset management, engineering, short- and long-term financial and capital planning, and more. In addition to its strong ties to asset management, noted above, resilience planning also has much in common with the safety culture that is being sought in most transit agencies. TRB Report 174, Improving Safety Culture in Transportation, identifies key components of safety culture, including:  Strong leadership, management, and organizational commitment to safety  Employee/union shared ownership and participation  Effective safety communication  Proactive use of safety data, key indicators, and benchmarking  Organizational learning and training  Consistent safety reporting and investigation for prevention  Employee recognition and rewards  High level of organizational trust Each of these key components is supported by specific attributes and performance metrics that help ensure that safety culture is highly valued and visible. Adding resilience to safety in each of the categories above may describe a “shortcut” framework to adoption. The FTA Flooded Bus Barns publication found that “(f)actors for success in transit adaptation efforts include: a high-level push from outside the agency, the embedding of climate change into existing work streams instead of a special system, a champion or central point person for coordination, interdisciplinary seminars with engaging narratives, coordination with other infrastructure providers and government entities, and reliance on existing climate data from reputable sources.” These and other findings that emerged from the research team’s case study work provide a solid foundation on which to build a very useful and much needed guidebook on this topic. Literature Review Synthesis: Thematic Overview of Current Practices (This synthesis and the accompanying literature review, included in the Database, comprised Task 1 of the study and a major portion of the Task 5 Interim Report. The full bibliography at the end of the report is separate from the reference list for this subsection. The full literature review is included in the Improving Transit Resilience Webpage Database, and is reproduced here and bound separately as Appendix A. The first section of Appendix A documents the resources referred to in this synthesis in chronological order as referenced in the synthesis; the second section documents resources in alphabetical order by author.) In 2008, the Transportation Research Board published Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. A key finding presented in the report is that changing climate conditions are very likely to result in an increase in the number of high heat days, more intense precipitation events and hurricanes, drought, and rising sea levels, all of which could have profound impacts on U.S. transportation systems. The report notes that the impacts “…will be widespread and costly in both human and economic terms and will require significant changes in the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of transportation systems.” (1) Other studies have documented similar vulnerabilities (2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17, 18). Table 1 provides a partial summary of potential impacts from various disasters, threats and hazards as explored in the literature.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 4 Table 1: Natural Disasters, Threats, Hazards and Potential Impacts Disaster/Threat/Hazard Potential Impacts on Public Transit Infrastructure and Services Temperature Extremes High Heat Days  Overheated electrical equipment, power failures and brown outs Asphalt and rail buckling  Binding/locking of moveable bridges  Sagging and/or failure of catenary systems  Auxiliary system failures at stations and on buses/trains due to increased use of air conditioning  Worker/customer health and safety concerns  Vehicle overheating and excess wear and tear on vehicle components, such as air conditioning and tires  Slow travel orders due to equipment stress (vehicles, tracks, catenary) Very Cold Days  Rail fracturing Asphalt heaving/potholes from freeze-thaw  Increase in rock falls from freeze-thaw  Gradual degradation of tracks/rail beds from increased freeze-thaw  Freezing of waterways navigated by ferries and ice jams impacting bridges  Frozen air lines on locomotives and gelling of diesel engine fuel  More rapid degradation of batteries utilized by rail and buses  Worker/customer health and safety concerns  Frozen rail switches Severe Storm Events and Coastal Storms High Wind/Lightning  Power failures due to tree and debris damage Damage to signage and other overhead structures  Wind induced bridge vibrations/damage  Damage or replacement to bus shelters  Vehicle damage from blowing debris  Lightning strike damage to catenary lines, circuitry and switching systems  Slow travel orders for vehicles operating under high wind conditions  Disruption of passenger information systems Heavy Rain, Temporary Inundation from Urban/Street, Riverine, and Flash Flooding and Storm Surge  Power failures due to flooding of substations  Damaged electrical transmission, signal systems and other circuitry associated with surface and subterranean facilities  Cessation of operations until flooding subsides and damage is repaired  Failure of overwhelmed drainage systems  Bridge pier and abutment scouring  Landslides, washouts, land subsidence and erosion along/adjacent to infrastructure  Diminished visibility that impedes operations  Damage from salt water intrusion to low-lying coastal infrastructure  Damage to fixed facilities such as stations (surface and subterranean), terminals, maintenance yards, garages and administrative offices located in low-lying areas Wave Action  Restrictions on ferry operations Bridge pier and abutment scouring  Erosion along/adjacent to infrastructure and bank destabilization

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 5 Disaster/Threat/Hazard Potential Impacts on Public Transit Infrastructure and Services Sea level Rise  Higher water tables and permanently flooded infrastructure is renderedinoperable  Flooding of waterside ferry terminals, docks and piers on a recurring basis  Infrastructure previously unaffected becomes vulnerable due to changing flood zones and exposure to salt water, tidal flooding and storm surge  Reduction in bridge clearance on waterways Winter Storms  Power failure/damaged electrical infrastructure from accumulatingsnow/ice  Delays due to snow/ice removal operations  Urban/street and riverine flooding from snow melt  Risks to employee/customer safety due to slippery walkways/platforms  Slow travel orders or annulments of service Earthquakes  Ground and embankment failure resulting in rail/pavement damage Track and tunnel misalignments  Rerouting to undamaged areas  Damage to stations, bridges and buildings (fixed facilities)  Damage to docks, levees, channels and dams necessary to maintain water-borne transit  Potential debris on tracks and across navigable waterways  Train derailment and overturned rail cars during event  Widespread impacts resulting in extensive assessment and repair time  Stranded customers following event  Reduced capacity to implement emergency plans Wildfires  Damage to fixed facilities located in the path of fire Potential rerouting or cessation of services until danger has passed  Employee health and safety concerns Drought-Dust Storms  Vegetation loss impacting erosion control and maintenance Decrease in water levels restricting use of navigable waterways  Increase susceptibility to wildfires and the vulnerabilities such an event creates  Reduced visibility and safety (Sources: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18) The objective of the TCRP A-41 project is to develop a handbook with an associated suite of digital presentation materials to address planning principles, guidelines (including metrics), strategies, tools, and techniques to enable public transit systems to become more resilient to natural disasters and climatic events. The project will also develop a draft recommended practice for public transit resilience to natural disasters and climatic events suitable as input to the APTA Standards Program. The purpose of this literature and state of the practice review and synthesis is to identify what is already known about: a) the vulnerability of public transportation system assets to extreme weather events and longer-term climate impacts; and b) how transit agencies are incorporating resilience measures into their business practices. To achieve this purpose the research team first developed a database source matrix that inventoried potentially relevant reports, documents and other resources. The source documents captured in the matrix were then categorized and prioritized on the basis of applicability, area of emphasis, conclusiveness of findings, and usefulness for public transit agencies. This process resulted in a prioritized list of more than 75 resources which were then reviewed in detail and summarized in a series of tables following a template format. The sections that follow describe and critique the literature and assess the current state of

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 6 practice relative to how public agencies are trying to make their infrastructure, assets and services more resilient to natural disasters and climatic events. Resilience Adoption: State of the Practice The National Academies has defined resilience as “the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, respond, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events,” noting further that “enhanced resilience allows better anticipation of disasters and better planning to reduce disaster losses — rather than waiting for an event to occur and paying for it afterward.” (19) In the last decade (2004-2014), there have been more than 1,400 major disasters, emergency and fire management declarations in the United States. The vast majority have been weather/climate related (20). These disasters have resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars in damage and economic losses (19). In the past several years, a number of literature reviews and practice scans have been published that capture the dynamic and evolving state of the practice in the transportation sector related to resilience planning and climate change adaptation (3,5,15,17,21). Transportation agencies, including many public transit operators, have undertaken efforts to become more resilient to extreme weather events and to adapt to a changing climate. Table 2 provides a summary of the recommended resilience adoption domains and exemplar strategies explored in the literature. Table 2: Domains of Potential Resilience Adoption Adoption Domain Resilience Strategies Policy, Planning, Administration and Safety  Adopt resilience principles to guide enterprise-wide decision-making.  Set goals, objectives and select performance measures related to resilience and climate adaptation.  Consider long-range planning scenarios that incorporate climate change impacts.  Develop and implement climate adaptation plans.  Emphasize system preservation and safety of transportation networks and infrastructure that addresses changing weather and climate conditions.  Link resilience strategies to agency organizational structures and existing workflow activities, including but not limited to safety culture practices, asset management and state of good repair (SGR) practices.  Encourage and reward bottom to top “no fault” reporting of equipment flaws, minor breakdowns and near misses as early signs of potentially bigger emerging problems.  Partner with other public agencies including emergency management agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), local governments, plus non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector to build capacity and undertake integrated resilience initiatives.  Create a central point of coordination within the agency to monitor and evaluate resilience adoption efforts.  Ensure planners, maintenance and operations personnel and infrastructure design professionals have the information and training needed to incorporate resilience considerations in their work responsibilities.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 7 Adoption Domain Resilience Strategies  Promote inter/intra-agency peer-to-peer knowledge exchange with agencies/departments with resilience adoption experience.  Develop annual training programs and exercises to respond to emergency conditions.  Assess the organizations’ annual asset management analysis and risk analyses impact on organizational policies and plans.  Acquire insurance coverage to meet the agency’s needs related to extreme weather events. Asset Management and Capital Programming  Incorporate resilience into asset management goals and policies.  Use GIS to map critical assets and conduct infrastructure vulnerability assessments that incorporate potential impacts from extreme weather/climate change.  Deploy technology solutions to monitor infrastructure conditions and provide advance warning of pending failures due to weather/climate extremes.  Ensure asset management data systems capture disruption-related data and are robust enough to “flag” potential vulnerabilities at early-warning stages.  Enlist front-line operations and maintenance staff to monitor infrastructure condition and environmental/weather/climate-related stresses.  Use performance measures and project selection criteria that incorporate resilience.  Prioritize resilience investments, including strategies that help agencies achieve multiple goals.  Incorporate risk-based approaches to investment decision-making and ensure cost/benefit analyses account for long-term benefits and the costs of failure.  Ensure that project prioritization criteria include and effectively consider long-term weather/climate risks in cost/benefit analyses. Project Development, Infrastructure Design, and Construction  Reevaluate, develop and regularly update infrastructure design standards to address likely weather/climate risks.  Require the use of resilient materials in rehabilitation, reconstruction and new construction projects located in vulnerable areas.  Ensure environmental review processes consider resilience and climate change.  Locate new facilities and equipment in less vulnerable areas.  Elevate infrastructure above future flood levels and install flood proofing, levees, seawalls, and dikes where feasible to protect critical infrastructure that cannot be elevated.  Upgrade drainage systems and increase pumping capacity for tunnels.  Protect bridge piers and abutments from scour.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 8 Adoption Domain Resilience Strategies  Use green infrastructure solutions to reduce storm water runoff and mitigate localized flooding.  Install protective measures such as flood mitigation, retaining walls to stabilize embankments, etc. Operations and Maintenance  Develop contingency plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs) for substitute services in the event of disruption.  Develop/ refine Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP) for operations staffing and administration including vehicle fueling and backup communications.  Provide redundant power including to prevent disruptions and facilitate rapid return to service after a disaster.  Improve communication capabilities and information sharing with customers to manage expectations and ridership demand.  Enhance inspection procedures to monitor the condition of potentially vulnerable infrastructure and elevate attention to minor precursors of potential failures.  Develop/ refine COOP for maintenance staffing and administration including communications, fuel, equipment and other essential supplies.  Ensure maintenance schedules provide for the proper functioning of fixed infrastructure (e.g., bed ballast, etc.) and protective measures (e.g., pumps, tide gates, back-flow valves).  Manage vegetation along rights-of-way. Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery  Develop and maintain Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plans and procedures.  Develop and maintain recovery plans, coordinate those plans with state and local recovery planning efforts.  Understand and “map” system linkages/interdependencies and plan for redundant services (i.e., bus service alternatives to rail disruptions).  Coordinate with other infrastructure and service providers.  Engage in state and local hazard mitigation planning efforts.  Ensure transportation is well-integrated in emergency response and evacuation plans, including the evacuation of critical transportation need populations.  Develop contingency plans for safe, orderly, and efficient shut down and return of service in the event of a disaster.  Develop standard operating procedures (SOPs) for moving vehicles and other portable assets out of harm’s way  Exercise and regularly review SOPs to ensure they reflect changing circumstances and asset inventories.  Coordinate regularly with state and local emergency management planners.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 9 Adoption Domain Resilience Strategies  Establish mutual aid agreements and other cooperative arrangements to facility implementation of emergency response and recovery plans. (Sources: 3,5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,15,16,17,21,22) The most comprehensive picture of extreme weather resilience planning among public transit agencies is the 2011 FTA Research publication Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation. The publication reviews the range of weather/climate-related risks facing public transit agencies in the United States, showcases leading practices in climate risk assessment and presents a range of strategies agencies can use to make transit systems more resilient to extreme weather and a changing climate. Strategies are organized in four categories: maintain and manage; strengthen and protect; enhance redundancy; and retreat. The report includes several illustrative case-studies and references numerous other transit agencies that have undertaken resilience planning and projects over the past decade (3). Note: The Department of Homeland Security has initiatives underway that address aspects of resilience, including new studies by the National Infrastructure Advisory Council, and new security grant initiatives that include resilience. These have not been addressed in the current study as they are considered outside the scope, but they may be of interest to researchers with a broader mandate. In 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted a review of efforts undertaken by select federal and local transit agencies to improve the resilience of transit systems and services. This review, which was requested by members of Congress, examined: 1) how the Federal Department of Homeland Security and USDOT are helping transit agencies make their systems more resilient; 2) what actions have been taken by nine transit agencies selected for the study to make their systems resilient; and 3) what challenges transit agencies face when trying to make their systems resilient. GAO researchers found that the transit agencies included in the study have performed risk assessments and developed plans–such as emergency operations plans–and taken other actions such as building redundant assets or facilities, to ensure the continuity of operations. Agencies have also made adjustments to infrastructure in order to mitigate the potential impact of disasters on their assets. For example, one agency elevated vents and curbs to minimize water flowing into the subway. At the same time, the GAO researchers found that transit agencies find it difficult to prioritize resilience planning and improvements in the face of competing demands under current fiscal constraints. Federal, transit-agency, and emergency-management officials also cited challenges related to some aspects of federal grants that have made it difficult for transit agencies to, among other things, incorporate resilience into disaster recovery efforts (21). Flooded Bus Barns, the GAO report and other similar resources provide a strong foundation for understanding the current state of the practice. However, they do not fully capture the lessons learned from recent disasters–in particular Hurricane Sandy. In 2013, Congress authorized the FTA to administer emergency relief funds for public transit and appropriated $10.4 billion for Hurricane Sandy relief, nearly half of which will be spent on resilience projects in Sandy affected areas (22). Transit-related post-Sandy recovery and resilience projects in New Jersey include: expanded flood proofing; substation/electrical system elevation; installation of back-up generators and redundant power supplies; hardening of fixed facilities such as rail operations centers, rail yards/beds, and terminals, construction of new “safe harbor” rail storage yards; replacement of wooden catenary poles with steel structures; and the design and deployment of a first-ever in the United States transit system micro-grid to help keep transit services moving during large-scale power outages (23). These significant investments in post-Sandy recovery and resilience projects represent important steps toward creating a more resilient transit system; however, a recent study completed by the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University found that significant gaps remain unaddressed in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. While some

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 10 progress has been made among transportation agencies and transit operators in New Jersey, comprehensive enterprise-wide adoption of resilience considerations remains elusive (24). In New York, efforts by New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (NY MTA) to enhance the resilience of its services, infrastructure and other assets dates back to 2008 when the agency published MTA Adaptations to Climate Change: A Categorical Imperative (25). In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, NY MTA created a new Sandy Recovery and Resilience Division to oversee the agency’s implementation of post-Sandy resilience projects. NY MTA projects include significant investments in mitigation projects designed to further protect stations, fan plants, under-river facilities, ground-level tracks, signal systems, maintenance shops and yards, traction power substations, circuit breaker houses, bus depots, train towers and public areas vulnerable to flooding and storm surge. NY MTA will also receive funds to upgrade emergency communications equipment and purchase mobile substations. The New York City Department of Transportation will receive funds to acquire new ferry vessels for the Staten Island Ferry that are capable of side boarding; upgrade ferry landings to accommodate such vessels; and flood proof existing terminals to improve response to disasters. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will receive funds to harden its fixed facilities, including the construction of concrete seawalls and installation of additional flood proofing to protect underground stations (26). Five other transit operators, including: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, the City of Nashua, NH, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) will also receive funding from the FTA for post-Sandy resilience projects. Funding will be used to upgrade power supply, including back-up power, construct redundant system command and control systems, stabilize steep slopes and shorelines, elevate ventilation shafts, and improve drainage (26). In terms of proactive resilience planning, in 2011, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funded seven pilot projects designed to “…advance the state of practice for adapting transit systems to the impacts of climate change.” (27) Final reports on the seven completed pilot projects were published in 2013. The pilot studies identified and assessed transit system vulnerabilities to extreme weather and climate conditions, including flooding and extreme precipitation, extreme heat, sea-level rise and tropical storms and hurricanes (28). The studies found that “system vulnerabilities from these climatic hazards are generally similar in each of the studied areas and include suspension of and delays in service and damage to infrastructure (rail, buses, equipment, right-of-way, and facilities).” (28) The definition of resilience includes elements of adaptation to climate, extreme weather events, and other natural events. The FTA pilot projects provided a seminal source of funding and knowledge that allowed transit operators to begin to explore how to make their systems more resilient in the context of changing climate- whether or not they used the terminology of resilience. The pilot studies explored a range of adaptation strategies, including:  Developing disaster operations plans  Proactively designing new and more resilient facilities and infrastructure and reassessing existing facilities  Integrating vulnerabilities to climate change impacts into asset management practices  Working with local public works departments  Proactively inspecting and maintaining assets  Adding backup power/generator capacity  Relocating critical assets prior to damage or impact  Upgrading cooling systems  Improving storm drainage capacity  Communicating plans and information with the public and stakeholders

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 11  Documenting and disseminating institutional knowledge  Integrating the adaptation and analysis solutions developed into current management practices. (24) Table 3 provides a summary of what each project addressed. Table 3: Summary of FTA Transit and Climate Change Adaptation Pilot Projects FTA Study Description Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) (7)  Describes the potential impacts climate change may have on the CTA systems;  Provides a methodology for prioritizing vulnerabilities for further investigation;  Outlines method for quantifying future costs from impacts of extreme weather;  As part of a life-cycle cost model (LCCM), details its use for comparing planning scenarios and is flexible, and sensitive, to agency needs and climate projections. Additional best practices in using the model are provided; and  Outlines approaches for incorporating climate change into standard business practices through CTA asset management system. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) (8)  Outlines a retrospective approach to understanding climate change impacts through review of historical impacts of recent weather events;  Provides an extensive list of vulnerabilities to extreme weather events; and  Provides an extensive list of adaptation strategies; Gulf Coast Region (9)  Describes the potential effects climate change may have on Gulf Coast transit agencies;  Outlines a framework for conducting a vulnerability assessment;  Provides two approaches to develop an assessment matrix detailing the impacts of climate change on assets;  Outlines the use of a Climate Change Vulnerability Index to identify the most likely impacts from climate change;  Provides a summary of potential strategies based upon the report’s case studies;  Outlines the uses GIS may provide agencies to assess vulnerability to climate change; and  Outlines survey results of the 20 of 32 transit agencies located within 100 miles of the Gulf Coast highlighting the impacts of extreme weather on those agencies. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) (10)  Identified >100 metrics agencies may use to evaluate the progress an organizations has made in incorporating climate change adaptation; 7 ultimately adopted and operationalized by LA Metro as most useful. Other agencies may choose other metrics.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 12 FTA Study Description  Provides a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan for the Los Angeles County MTA; and  Outlines a process for addressing risk to climate change within an agency’s asset management system through the identification of an asset’s vulnerability and criticality over a specific time period. The report outlines a methodology for conducting such identification. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) (11)  Provides a repeatable methodology for evaluating and assessing asset vulnerability and risk;  Provides an extensive list of adaptation strategies;  Outlines a cost-benefit model that prioritizes adaptation strategies;  Outlines a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) based on the US DOT LCCA which incorporates climate adaptation activities; and  Outlines a series of responsibilities assigned to various organizational roles to support climate change adaptation within the agency. Sound Transit (12)  Outlines a framework for assessing vulnerabilities and prioritizing adaptation measures;  Provides an extensive list of potential adaptation strategies; and  Provides an agency integration matrix outlining example activities agencies may consider undertaking to incorporate climate change adaptation into business practices. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) (13)  Discusses integration of climate change into an agency’s asset management system and outlines a framework for addressing climate adaptation within the transit agency’s system. This may include the development of life-cycle management plans ensuring performance requirements such as projected climate change as addressed at the earliest stage of project development;  Provides a process for identification of climate hazards; and  Outlines a series of adaptation strategies under both preventive and reactive environments. The FTA pilot projects, similar pilot projects sponsored by FHWA (29) and lessons learned from the broader field of multimodal transportation planning and international experience provide fertile ground for guiding practice in the transit industry. The sections that follow provide a summary of resilience implementation efforts across various domains of adoptions. Policy, Planning, and Administration In June 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a policy statement on climate change pledging to “integrate consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation into the planning, operations, policies and programs of DOT.” The policy statement was made in response to Executive Order (E.O.) 13514 – Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy and Economic Performance, signed by President Obama on 5 October 2009. It sets forth a series of guiding principles and directs each of USDOT’s modal agencies to, among other things, “…analyze how climate change may impact its ability to achieve its mission, policy, program, and operation objectives and report annually on its accomplishments in implementing climate adaptation strategies.” (30)

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 13 In the most recent update (2014) of the USDOT’s Climate Adaptation Plan, DOT identifies three “high-level priority actions” designed to “improve the transportation sector’s ability to assess and build resilience to risks posed by climate variability and change.” (14) In the plan, DOT commits to: 1. Take actions to ensure that federal transportation investment decisions address potential climate impacts in statewide and metropolitan transportation planning and project development processes as appropriate in order to protect federal investments. 2. Work to incorporate climate variability and change impact considerations in asset management. For example, modal administrations will work with grantees to assure that potential impacts are incorporated into existing grantee asset management systems and their own buildings and operations. Agencies will assess the policy, guidance, practices, and performance measures of their asset management programs to incorporate such considerations. 3. Provide tools, case studies, best practices, outreach, and performance measures for incorporating climate considerations into transportation decision-making (14). The plan goes on to describe the various accomplishments of each modal agency toward implementing the DOT policy and Climate Adaptation Plan priorities. While the USDOT has set an example for transportation agencies to emulate in terms of integrating resilience considerations in is policies, plans and programs, it appears that there are few examples of efforts by public transit agencies nationwide of comprehensive resilience integration. Only a handful of agencies appear to have explicit plans or adopted principles in place to guide agency-wide resilience decision-making. One study, an unpublished 2013 Master’s thesis by Bolich, explores the status of climate adaptation planning among nine primarily east coast transit agencies. The agencies investigated included: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) in Boston, NY MTA, NJ TRANSIT, WMATA, Hampton Roads Transit in Virginia Beach, Jacksonville Transportation Authority and Miami- Dade Transit in Florida, and New Orleans Regional Transit Authority in Louisiana (31). Bolich’s research documented a variety of resilience adoption efforts undertaken by the agencies studied. The efforts ranged from basic acknowledgment that climate change and extreme weather events are affecting or will impact transit system resources to adoption of official plans and the identification of specific next steps to address system vulnerabilities. However, only one of the nine agencies–NY State MTA – was judged to have had a comprehensive resilience-focused policy or plan in place coupled with tangible actions taken to implement the plan’s recommendations (31). As part of the literature review and practice scan for this project, the research team conducted a search of the Georgetown Climate Center’s Adaptation Clearinghouse–a resource database and online community that seeks to assist state policymakers, resource managers, academics, and others who are working to help communities adapt to climate change (32). The purpose of the search was to identify resilience and/or adaptation plans and policies adopted by transit agencies in the United States. Although the Georgetown Climate Center database contains several hundred examples of resilience adoption by federal, state and local government entities, most examples involving transportation adaptation policy and planning were sponsored by state and local departments of transportation and/or metropolitan planning organizations, not transit agencies specifically. In other cases, transportation sector assets including transit services and infrastructure are addressed as a component of a broader, more comprehensive state or local adaptation plan. Similar results were derived from a more general search for online documents. Notwithstanding the work products of the recently completed FTA pilot projects described above, only three transit agency-specific examples were found as part of the search–NY State MTA, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Los Angeles County MTA.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 14 New York State MTA (NY MTA) As noted earlier, NY MTA’s efforts to improve the sustainability and resilience of its transit services, infrastructure and other assets dates back to 2007 when a blue ribbon commission on sustainability was convened to “…expand the ‘greening power of transit’ to more riders and communities, while managing and reducing the NY MTA’s per rider energy consumption and environmental footprint.” The commission had six working groups, including one focused on climate adaptation. The Climate Adaptation working group was charged with “developing ways to adapt and mitigate the anticipated effects of climate change and global warming on the MTA network.” (33) In October of 2008, the Climate Adaptation working group published MTA Adaptations to Climate Change: A Categorical Imperative. The report outlines a range of climate change scenarios and related climate stressors; presents an initial survey of potential system vulnerabilities by agency, mode and facility; and recommends a stepped process for assessing potential climate-related impacts in detail across all asset categories and for integrating resilience considerations as part of agency decision-making (25). [A representative of NY MTA reported that following Hurricane Sandy, MTA insurance premiums increased. MTA pursued creative methods of obtaining adequate coverage, including use of a Catastrophe Bond. This required detailed analysis of assets, their precise locations and elevations and the use of models to predict probability of inundation at those levels. In turn, this analysis is being refined and used for capital planning and other long-term resilience efforts.] Since publication of the NY MTA Adaptations to Climate Change report in 2008, the agency has issued a number of follow-up documents, including: Greening Mass Transit and Metro Region: The Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA (2009), the 2011 MTA Sustainability Report and the 2012 MTA Sustainability Report (33). The Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission included ten near term recommendations including: Adopting a climate adaptation policy position; implementing an operational climate change database; completing a quantitative vulnerability and risk assessment; developing a climate change adaptation master plan; establishing a pre-disaster plan for post-disaster redevelopment; creating an adaptation priority task force; assigning an MTA-Internal Adaptation Team; preparing adaptation/mitigation cross-impact checklists; developing and implementing a climate adaptation resilience evaluation procedure; and providing visible NY MTA leadership on climate change issues (34). The report also included one “transformational” recommendation that called for the development and application of “…a climate-adaptation decision-making matrix/process to identify options for protecting vulnerable rapid transit infrastructure from storm surge, extreme heat, and other manifestations of climate change that have already occurred and cannot be mitigated by other strategies.” The recommendation recognizes the scale of the challenge and suggests that “…the MTA, like other rapid transit agencies around the nation (with similar vulnerabilities and assets at risk), must look to the states and federal government for financing to make long-term climate adaptation investments, many of which should ideally begin now, with significant adaptations completed or underway no later than 2030.” (34) Since 2009, NY MTA has completed a number of projects including flood proofing designed to “harden its system against more severe storms through regular maintenance and capital expenditures.” (33) The Authority has also engaged in a number of ongoing interagency collaborations, including participation on three related government task forces: 1) New York State Sea Level Rise Task Force; 2) New York State Energy Research and Development Agency (NYSERDA)-sponsored ClimAID Project Task Force; and 3) New York City Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. In addition, they have created an internal Adaptation Team (AT) with representation from all its modal operating agencies and expects to release a comprehensive Climate Change Master Plan in 2015. As reported on the MTA website: “The plan should, among other things, integrate ongoing climate forecasts, emergency response plans, a decision-making matrix, extensive mapping of system elevations and flood risks, evaluation of facilities

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 15 design, climate risk assessment for TOD programs and expansion projects, target elevations for new construction, assessment of MTA insurance programs, and other adaptive strategies.” (34) Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANY&NJ) Like NY MTA, PANY&NJ adopted a sustainability policy in 2008. The goals addressed in the policy statement include reducing GHG emissions, promoting sustainability among the Port Authority’s tenants and customers and adapting the authority’s facilities to reduce climate change risk. PANY&NJ has identified that over half of its facilities are vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge, increased precipitation and high winds. In response, the Authority has undertaken numerous initiatives and projects since 2008 to achieve its sustainability goals. Examples include: incorporating multi-hazard risk assessment as part of its asset management program; adopting and implementing sustainable design guidelines; and implementing a range of physical and operational adaptation projects, including: acquisition of resilience- related property insurance, flood proofing projects, elevating structures, installation of redundant power supplies, and protecting and restoring natural systems as flood defense. Representatives from the PANY&NJ are also providing leadership on resilience issues by collaborating with a variety of external groups focused on climate change mitigation and adaptation (35). Los Angeles County MTA (LA Metro) The Los Angeles County MTA published its Climate Action and Adaptation Plan in 2012. The Plan “…establishes the framework for Metro to both reduce GHG emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change.” The adaptation component of the plan provides “…a high-level” vulnerability assessment that identifies “…some of the most important Metro services and assets that are likely to be affected by climate impacts.” The vulnerability assessment consisted of four steps: 1) identify the critical assets and services within the Metro system; 2) examine local historical climate data and projections for future climate conditions; 3) qualitatively assess the vulnerability of critical services and assets; and 4) identify potential adaptation strategies that can address the identified vulnerabilities. The plan identifies a series of next steps for both limiting future GHG emissions as well as evaluating specific options for adaptation. With regard to adaptation, the plan recommends the following: 1) investigate climate vulnerabilities at a higher level of specificity; 2) explore the monetary and social costs of climate impacts and adaptation options; 3) develop a communications strategy for the adaptation component of the Plan and subsequent adaptation activities; and 4) explore implementation of climate adaptation principles at the operations level through the FTA-funded Climate Adaptation Pilot Program (36). As noted above, Metro was one of the seven transit agencies selected to participate in the FTA climate change pilot program. The Metro Climate Adaptation Plan was developed in advance of that pilot project. Metro used its participation in the pilot program to advance implementation and begin to operationalize the plan recommendations in the EMS. In this regard, the agency: conducted a cross-walk of the plan’s climate adaptation principles against other agency goals (e.g., safety, state of good repair) and projects to see how well they aligned. Metro also identified a program of strategies and measures that could be employed to address climate-related vulnerabilities and developed a comprehensive set of metrics that will “…enable Metro to gauge past progress while also identifying new targets and guide the direction of growth of climate adaptation work.” (10) In all more than 100 metrics were developed in the categories of planning, operations, ridership, and adaptation. The metrics will be used to “…develop action plans for continual improvement and will serve as a guide for further work.” (10) In addition, implementation of adaptation capital projects in the Metro service region will be supported by funding from a transportation expansion plan referendum approved by voters in 2008. Explicit in the expansion plans is funding for adaptation projects (37).

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 16 The three examples described above represent comprehensive approaches to resilience adoption that start with statements of principles, goals and policies which guide implementation of resilience measures enterprise-wide. Evidence of incremental adoption of resilience approaches and measures in the areas of policy, planning and administration are also found in the literature. For example many agencies, including NJ TRANSIT (2,4), Wave Transit in Mobile, AL (3), Honolulu Transit (3), Cape Cod Transit in Massachusetts (3), Transport for London (3), CTA in Chicago, IL (7), SEPTA in Philadelphia, PA (8), HART in Tampa Florida (9), Houston Metro and Island Transit in Galveston, TX (9), BART in San Francisco, CA (11), Sound Transit in Seattle, WA (12), and MARTA in Atlanta, GA (13) have all conducted vulnerability and risk assessments to determine the extent to which transit assets are at risk to weather and climate-related hazards. The European Environment Agency (EEA) documents innovative information sharing initiatives in Norway, France, Spain, and Poland, but basically concludes that incremental improvements in transportation infrastructure, operations and services based on past experience is the prevailing approach (16). NJ TRANSIT, Honolulu Transit, TriMet in Portland, OR, BART in San Francisco, CA, King County Metro in Seattle, WA, and Cape Cod Transit in Massachusetts have all taken part in cross-sector, multi-agency climate adaptation planning studies or working groups (3). Transport for London and Washington State DOT conducted a series of training seminars for transportation sector workers on climate change and adaptation (3). Asset Management and Capital Programming Transit agencies nationwide own and operate hundreds of billions of dollars in transit assets including: transit vehicles; facilities and stations; guideway elements, and systems (38). Managing and maintaining these assets in a state of good repair is a significant challenge. In fact, a 2010 analysis conducted by FTA found that transit agencies face “…an estimated back-log of $50-80 billion in deferred maintenance and replacement needs (38). The Federal Transit Administration’s Asset Management Guide defines transit asset management as “…a strategic and systematic process through which an organization procures, operates, maintains, rehabilitates, and replaces transit assets to manage their performance, risks, and costs over their life-cycle to provide safe, cost-effective, and reliable service to current and future customers.” The guide recommends that asset management be used as the “…cornerstone for effective performance management.” Asset management allows transit agencies to leverage data to improve investment decision-making. This in turn helps to achieve multiple goals such as improving service reliability and safety; ensuring transit assets are in a state of good repair; managing costs; and enhancing customer service (38).

The rec Inventory scenarios; typically c  A  A  Q  E  R  R  L  A ommended assets and a 4) Finalize aptured in an sset age sset condition uantity xpected usefu eplacement c ehabilitation ocation sset type or c Figure 1: process for d vailable data investment s asset invent l life ost schedule and ategory (39). Transit Ass eveloping a ; 2) Analyze cenarios; 5) ory includes: associated c et Categorie 17 transit asset asset conditi Develop Tr osts s and Classe T managemen ons and perf ansit Asset M s (38) CRP A-41: Fi t plan inclu ormance; 3) anagement nal Research R des five step Define inves Plan. Inform eport s: 1) tment ation

Many t These ass climate i condition, incorpora strategies and bud addition, managem the op integratio into the organizati adaptation seamlessly the ass process b risk asse componen managem example, exposure weather e climate cause ass deteriorat accelerate managem a tool to of deferr or not re This may increased considerat provide a managem An imp demonstra managem on how opportuni enterprise manage r assets.” (1  A “Asse  A  A ransit agenci et manageme mpacts on ting adapt into capital p gets.” (3) “… ent systems portunity n of adapt culture of on. Cli can integrated et managem y including ssment,” a t of ent planning incre to extr vents and o stressors et condition e at d rate. “A ent systems measure the ing mainten placing an a take the for downtime of ions can be number of su ent planning ortant goal o te how vul ent systems ( this can be ties to integr and asset le isks while u 3) The final framework f t Managemen process for i n overview o es use some nt systems “… asset and ation lans In asset offer for ation the mate be into ent it in key asset . For ased eme ther may s to an sset offer cost ance sset. m of mission criti built into as ggestions on and systems. f the FTA T nerability an 27). The MA done on a s ate climate vels and the ndertaking co report of the or addressing t Guide;” dentifying cl f MARTA’s Tabl Asse form of ass offer a stre cal assets, hig set managem how resilien See Table 4. ransit Clima d risk asses RTA pilot pr ystematic ba adaptation st n linked the ntinual imp project provid climate adap imate hazards Asset Manag e 4: Oppor t Manageme 18 et manageme amlined fram her maintena ent decision ce and clima te Change A sment can oject provide sis. As part rategies in i resulting in rovement an es: tation in tran in the Metro ement System tunities to nt (40) T nt system so ework for id nce expendi -making. In te adaptation daptation As be integrated s a of the pilot ts transit ass formation to d updates in sit asset man Atlanta area that outline Include Cl CRP A-41: Fi ftware to m entifying clim tures or safet this regard, may be inco sessment Pilo within tra project, MAR et managem appropriate the life-cyc agement bas and the MA s opportuniti imate Cons nal Research R aintain asset ate risks, tra y issues.” (3) Meyer et al rporated into t Program w nsit agency TA “…iden ent system a business un le manageme ed on FTA’s RTA service es to incorpo iderations i eport data. cking Such . (40) asset as to asset tified t the its to nt of area; rate n

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 19 climate change adaptation considerations in the system;  Discussion on the integration of climate adaptation into MARTA’s decision-making processes; and  Recommendations regarding possible adaptation strategies based on the climate hazards identified for the transit system service area (13). Another example of a transit agency that has systematically included resilience and adaptation considerations in transit asset management is Transport for London. Transport for London operates buses and underground rail as well as other surface transportation assets, including roads, traffic operations and signals, taxis and river taxis. “During 2010, all of Transport for London’s operational business areas (bus, underground, road, etc.) assessed the updated climate change risks to their assets and services using these projections. The key results from the review were incorporated into the agency’s robust risk and asset management systems.” (3) Each business unit regularly reviews management system data and updates the system as needed. For example, “London Underground, the subway system business unit, has a series of asset management plans that consider a number of issues including weather in the management of track, rolling stock, signals, and stations. London Underground mapped assets against 200 identified risks and opportunities from climate change, identified critical points and their impacts on operations, and developed correlation graphs between climate change parameters, effects on asset management and predicted costs and savings.” (3) Over time, Transport for London has found that the benefits of resilience adaptation do not always justify the costs. As a general principle, risks will be mitigated to as low a level as possible, but only as far as the benefits gained from risk reduction outweigh the costs of mitigating the risk.” (3) The literature also includes examples of incremental action toward resilience-informed asset management decision-making. For example, as noted above, many transit agencies have conducted climate and weather-related vulnerability and risk assessments. This is one of the first steps toward incorporating information on vulnerability to extreme weather events and climate stressors into asset management systems. Another example is BART in San Francisco that developed a series of cost-benefit matrices to inform decision related to implementing resilience-related capital, operations and maintenance projects (11). As part of its FTA climate adaptation pilot project CTA in Chicago developed a Life-cycle Cost Analysis model and multiple approaches for incorporating climate considerations in the agency’s Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) System. The first approach used qualitative risk assessment tables for major asset groups driven by severe weather impacts; and the second incorporated fields in the EAM database to indicate the climate vulnerability of a given asset, defined as a function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Finally, CTA developed a Framework Model for forecasting operational and budgetary impacts (7). The report and links to the tools are included in the project database. Sound Transit in Seattle identified adaptation priority ratings for 70 options for action. Options were categorized as follows: 1. Adjustments to infrastructure—retrofitting, replacing, or relocating infrastructure; 2. Adjustments to operations and maintenance—changes in maintenance frequency or standard operations; 3. Design changes—changes in design criteria (specifications) for new and existing infrastructure; and 4. Decision support and capacity-building activities—implementing new tools to gather additional information related to climate impacts on the system, using partnerships to address impacts. (12)

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 20 Project Development, Infrastructure Design, and Construction The transportation project development process typically includes all or some of the following steps: a needs assessment, alternatives analysis, environmental review, preliminary engineering/design, final engineering/design, and construction. Each step in the process presents an intervention point during which resilience can/should be considered. For example, transportation projects are often designed to withstand flooding, wind and temperature variation based on historical weather data. However, given changing climate conditions and an increasing frequency of extreme weather events, historical weather data may no longer be sufficient to ensure resilient infrastructure over the lifespan of transit projects. New transit projects should be designed to withstand future climate and weather conditions, which are likely to be very different in the coming decades (3,5). Meyer (Undated) points out that “(c)limate change-induced design factors include temperature change, precipitation and water levels, wind loads, and storm surges and wave heights.” (41) His paper goes on to explore how climate stressors might affect engineering decisions when designing transportation infrastructure. A good summary of this discussion appears in Hodges (2011): The key components of infrastructure design that can be significantly affected by changing environmental conditions are:  Subsurface conditions—The stability of the infrastructure (e.g., track, road, bus bay, building) depends on the soils it upon which it is built. Under saturated conditions, such as heavy rain events expected to be more common with climate change, soil is subject to sinking or a change in shear strength causing mudslides. Certain types of soils are more susceptible than others.  Materials specifications—Different materials respond differently under varying freeze-thaw cycles, temperatures, loads, and precipitation levels. Much research on cost-effective transportation materials best for different conditions has been conducted by the American Society for Testing and Material, FHWA, and State departments of transportation, much of which is applicable to transit. Particularly important for transit agencies are pavements for stations and lots that are maintained by the transit agency rather than state DOT and handle frequent stop and go heavy duty vehicle loads under high temperatures. Also important for transit agencies are materials for bridges, tunnels (especially regarding permeability to water), tracks, track beds, and power systems.  Cross sections and standard dimensions—The slope of paved surfaces is important for runoff, as is vertical clearance over waterways for transit bridges.  Drainage and erosion—Flood levels, flood flow patterns and velocities, hydraulic controls, clearance over water, protection of bridge foundations from water flows and scour from debris, storm surge, and wave crests are all important considerations for designing new transit infrastructure to withstand a changing climate. (3) In addition, similar flood and surge conditions must be considered for tunnels, tunnel vents, or other low-lying transportation infrastructure (rail beds are often located next to waterways). (NY MTA representative- report comments).  HVAC systems- Both for rolling stock and for support and maintenances facilities. Changing climate will necessitate changing HVAC requirements. (NY MTA representative- report comments). In terms of design guidelines and standards, it does not appear from the literature that there are any industry-wide standards to guide infrastructure design related to flooding, heat tolerance of rails and catenary or other potential impacts from extreme weather and climate change. On this topic, a 2007 review by the Region II University Transportation Research Center found that “…there are no general, national public transportation design standards or protocols to address floods.” Instead, “…standards are adopted locally based on local experience and conditions thought to be most likely.” (42) This results in wide variation across agencies.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 21 In addition, some transportation stakeholders have observed that even widely used engineering design guidelines for drainage systems and culverts appear inadequate to address the increasing frequency of intense rainfall events (24). PANYNJ as well as the NY MTA have design guidelines for changing climate. NY MTA emphasizes that flood protection is based on the useful life of the assets and anticipated climatic conditions at that future point in time. The key is that these guidelines link useful life to future climate projections. For example, a shorter-term asset, like an HVAC system, does not need to meet climate projections for 2060. (NY MTA representative- report comments) Hodges observed that as climate and weather conditions continue to change, it will be necessary for agencies to change their assumptions regarding what local conditions may require. For example, he observed that by mid-century, climate and weather conditions in Massachusetts could resemble current conditions in Maryland under some higher emissions scenarios. This would mean that system design standards currently used by Maryland MTA or WMATA may useful to Boston’s Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (3). One example of an agency-specific design guideline that incorporates climate vulnerabilities and resilience considerations is the Port Authority of NY& NJ Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines (43). After Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the Authority “Engineering Department, in consultation with line departments, updated the agency’s standard design guidelines to ensure that current and future projects are more resilient to climate events. The guidelines identify critical infrastructure assets; comply with updated resilience codes and consider federal, state and local recommendations for resilience; and require design engineers to consider changes to the climate, such as sea level rise and severe storms, increased average temperatures, heat waves and changes in precipitation when designing new projects and improvements to existing assets.” The updated guidelines include a clear definition of flood risks to an asset, including defining the flood protection level based on the useful life of the asset and anticipated sea level rise (44). With regard to project design, alternatives analysis and environmental documentation, in 2010 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued draft guidance for considering climate change as part of preparing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, including Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (45). The draft guidance states: With regards to the effects of climate change on the design of a proposed action and alternatives, Federal agencies must ensure the scientific and professional integrity of their assessment of the ways in which climate change is affecting or could affect environmental effects of the proposed action. 40 CFR 1502.24. Under this proposed guidance, agencies should use the scoping process to set reasonable spatial and temporal boundaries for this assessment and focus on aspects of climate change that may lead to changes in the impacts, sustainability, vulnerability and design of the proposed action and alternative courses of action. At the same time, agencies should recognize the scientific limits of their ability to accurately predict climate change effects, especially of a short-term nature, and not devote effort to analyzing wholly speculative effects. Agencies can use the NEPA process to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts, adapt to changes in our environment, and mitigate the impacts of Federal agency actions that are exacerbated by climate change. (45) In addition, at the state level, California and Washington State DOT require that climate change mitigation and adaptation be considered as part of environmental impact statements developed under state environmental policy laws (3).

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 22 Despite CEQ guidance and state laws, a 2013 practice review completed for the Federal Highway Administration found that transportation agencies were beginning to consider future climate change impacts on project design, but “very few agencies in the United States have explicitly required design changes in anticipation of future climate change.” The study did however find evidence that “…many agencies have retrofitted or rebuilt assets based on recent experiences with extreme weather.” (5) For example, the California Department of Transportation “…is beginning to screen proposed roadway structures in the project initiation phase to identify potential sea level rise vulnerabilities and determine the need to incorporate adaptation measures.” (5) “The Vermont Agency of Transportation is employing a new approach for considering hydraulic capacity in design (and) has re-designed their approach for repairing slope sections adjacent to rivers. Rather than placing stone to stabilize the slope, engineers are building the slope to match stable channel dimensions.” (5) Connecticut Department of Transportation is revisiting current hydraulic design standards for bridge and culvert structures and Iowa DOT is selectively retrofitting overflow bridges in order to account for localized, extreme flooding events. (5) Hodges (2011) found similar consideration of weather and climate impacts being made by transit agencies. For example, TriMet in Portland, OR considered the impact of higher river levels in the area of a bridge crossing for the seven-mile Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail line that is scheduled to be completed in 2015. When designing its new Bus Rapid Transit line, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority included rain gardens in bump-outs at 20 BRT stations to collect and filter stormwater runoff and mitigate potential flooding. The system also includes a pervious concrete parking lot and generous use of shade trees to capture rainwater. San Francisco MTA and NY MTA have both incorporated green roofs on new facilities to mitigate the impact of high heat days and reduce stormwater runoff. The Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit District conducted a bridge scour analysis of two bridges over tidal rivers that includes projected sea level rise. The Hawaii State DOT hardened a landslide vulnerable area along a bus transit route near Waimea Bay on Oahu to reduce the risk of service interruptions, and the Regional Transportation Authority and SunTran in Tucson, AZ designed stations along the new Tucson Modern Streetcar system to incorporate double-tiered shade structures that decrease temperatures by 10 to 15°F and provide shade at all times of day (3). Internationally, Transport for London “incorporated climate change projections into the design for its major new rail project, Crossrail, with a 120-year design life. Adaptation measures were built into the design and remained through pressure to reduce the budget. The main adaptation is flood prevention in the tunnels, which will traverse a floodplain predicted to be more subject to flooding as the climate changes. The design includes “passive” flood protection such as raising entry and egress levels, raising track levels, and extending portal walls. Where these measures do not suffice (above 0.4m), active flood protection measures have been identified such as flood gates and stop logs. Design standards for all tunnel entrances are set to withstand a 1-in-200-year flood.” The design of Transport for London’s Docklands Light Rail extension considered potential future flood levels under various climate change scenarios. As a result, the agency decided to adjust the elevation of the light rail guideway and stations based on the analysis (3). Other international examples include a new commuter rail line constructed in Istanbul, Turkey that was “…built to withstand a 10,000 year flood event with 3 feet of sea level rise;” transit systems in Singapore designed to handle frequent monsoon rains of up to 12 inches per day; and the installation of ventilation grates in Tokyo Japan that can be closed remotely to prevent the flooding of subway lines in the event of excessive rain (3). Operations and Maintenance As noted earlier, public transit agencies nationwide own and steward hundreds of billions of dollars in public transit assets. Previous sections of this review have explored the state of practice with regarding

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 23 the adoption of resilience measures in policy and planning, asset management and project development and design. It is important to remember as well that day-to-day decisions regarding the operation and maintenance of transit systems offers a critical opportunity to consider resilience and adaptation needs. Every transit agency has standard operating procedures for how they deliver and maintain services. Some also have standard procedures for dealing with extreme weather events. Adjustments to these procedures can offer a low-cost and effective way to enhance transit system resilience. For example, maintenance activities such as tree trimming and culvert cleaning can be prioritized to reduce damage during extreme weather events. During high heat days, some construction and maintenance activities can be shifted to nights or cooler times of the day. “Quick maintenance” teams can be deployed to check for and repair potholes or damaged expansion joints on hot days. Agencies can also plant heat and drought resistant plants that can help with erosion control (5). Examples of resilience-oriented transit operations and maintenance activities are also prevalent in the literature. For example, ICF International found that based on its experience with severe storms in recent years, SEPTA has accelerated its tree trimming program to reduce the risk of falling tree debris damaging its equipment and blocking tracks. Amtrak is upgrading overhead electrical wire that tends to sag and tighten in variable temperatures and is adding intermediate support structures for the catenary wires that power a stretch of track between Trenton and New Brunswick, New Jersey to shorten the spans between supporting poles. These upgrades will improve service reliability and increase resilience on high heat days. Transport for London has painted the tops of buses white to keep vehicles cooler on hot days and has changed the specifications for new vehicle purchases to require upper deck ventilation systems and tinted windows that can open (5). According to Hodges, TriMet in Portland, OR has developed standard operating procedures for slowing down rail operations during periods of high wind. TriMet has also installed supplemental ventilation for its electrical equipment to reduce overheating on hot days. Additionally, they have developed and installed a system of expansion joints along stretches of rail track susceptible to frequent heat-induced rail buckling. MARTA in Atlanta, GA conducts weekly inspection and maintenance of storm drainage systems. New York State MTA has raised ventilation grates to mitigate flooding in its subway stations during periods of heavy rain and MTA’s bus division deploys snow emergency teams and equipment to keep buses running during winter storms (3). Finally, SEPTA is working on standardizing procedures for incorporating input from the agency’s front-line workers and operations and maintenance managers regarding system vulnerabilities during extreme weather events. They have recognized that these employees have intimate knowledge of how transit systems perform under normal conditions and stressed conditions. Many have years of first-hand, front-line experience managing assets on a daily basis and during unexpected events. This experience can be tapped to inform resilience decision-making (24). Researchers have determined that operations and maintenance personnel are often in the best position to observe, identify and report on the anomalies, small failures and near misses in equipment and operations during “normal” times that can elevate to major problems, especially in times of stress (such as major weather events (46, 47). The practice of active observation, vigilance and collaborative problem solving translates and escalates well to major events. TCRP Report 174, Improving Safety Culture in Transportation, (47) thoroughly describes the practices of High Reliability Organizations (HROs) (epitomized in the literature by aircraft carriers, hospital emergency rooms, firefighting organizations, and nuclear power plants, among others) as potential models for transit agencies to emulate in developing a culture of safety. HROs create processes and systems that reduce the possibility of unexpected events, allowing for containment and speedy recovery if one occurs. In the HRO infrastructure, small failures are tracked meticulously. Personnel are engaged in collective problem

so id ca ad di The int Figu 2015 Emergen As note prepare an closely to recovery. “better an transporta briefing p Homeland (NIMS). B In addi Administr agencies managem should ad the base o recover fr Hazard Mitigating activities. above flo achieved b (48). Oth lving throug entifying ga tastrophes. dress the ca saster (47). eractions of H re 2. A mind (47). cy Prepare d earlier, a c d plan for, the four pha (48) The em ticipation o tion agencies ackage to in Security N oth are core tion, to supp ation develo to use (49) ent and there dress. The F f knowledge om natural di mitigation the consequ For example od levels be y incorporat er examples h inquiry, w ps in syste Operations p use of failu RO processe ful infrastru dness, Res entral aspect absorb, respo ses of the em ergency ma f disasters a to begin add troduce State ational Resp foundational ort transit a ped a guide . In general fore are wo TA recomme for transit ag sasters. includes any ences of adv , pre-disaster fore a storm ing adaptatio might includ hich allows H m continuit ersonnel are re prior to i s are illustra cture for hig ponse, and of resilience nd, (and) re ergency man nagement pr nd better p ressing emer DOTs and onse Frame documents t gency respon book that ou , planning ven througho ndations com encies to inc activity int erse events mitigation m causes dam n strategies i e building re 24 ROs to mai y and unde trained to nitiation of a ted in Figure h reliability Recovery as defined b cover from… agement pro ocess allows lanning to r gency manag other transpo work and th o the current se to and re tlines a seri activities oc ut the recom bined with p rease their a ended to re may take pla ight involve age. During nto the rebuil dundancy in T ntain a high rstanding w react to even series of e 2 (47). (Muhren et y the Nation adverse eve cess: mitigati for pre-disa educe disast ement, FHW rtation agenc e National practice of em covery from es of recom cur througho mendations ast studies a bility to prep duce the da ce before a elevating ele the recove ding of dama to agency o CRP A-41: Fi level of prof arnings of weak signa vents that ca al., 2008) fr al Academie nts.” This de on, prepared ster plannin er losses.” A funded the ies to the U Incident Ma ergency ma disasters, th mendations ut all phas and activitie nd research are for, abso maging effe disaster or a ctrical or sw ry phase, m ged or destro perations by nal Research R iciency at potential ls and to n lead to om Roberts s is “the abil finition corr ness, respons g that encou (19) In prep developmen .S. Departme nagement Sy nagement (48 e Federal T and resource es of emerg s transit age have helped rb, respond t cts of a dis s part of rec itching equip itigation cou yed infrastru providing ba eport et al, ity to elates e and rages aring t of a nt of stem ). ransit s for ency ncies build o and aster. overy ment ld be cture ckup

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 25 power or having multiple means of radio communications. Both allow for the continuity of operations during disasters (5,9,49). Redundancy efforts may even include establishing bus contingency fleets or even establishing multiple bus garages or rail yards to mitigate the potential of losing an entire fleet to a single event (49). Mitigation need not only include the purchase of physical assets: mitigation can also be achieved through planning (9). Planning activities may include pre-planning for the loss of infrastructure and establishing alternative routes and modal use to maintain transit system services; for example, establishing a bus-bridge as a substitute service during a rail system failure (49,50). Another example is developing standard operating procedures for pre-fueling all vehicles prior to an advance notice disaster such as a hurricane. This can help reduce the impact of fuel shortages or the loss of refueling facilities post-disaster (9,49). Other planning activities include establishing procedures for shutting down transit systems systematically and moving rolling stock out of harm’s way prior to an advance notice disaster (5,9,50). Should movement of fleet assets not be possible, infrastructure hardening activities and the development of pre-disaster checklists focusing on preparing infrastructure for a disaster may also be utilized. Pre-disaster checklists should include activities such as cleaning of catch basins and removal of debris from stormwater management systems ahead of threats of storm flooding (5,49). The second phase in the emergency management process is preparedness. Preparedness activities include identification of hazards and the development of emergency operations plans, training staff, exercising the plans, and evaluating the effectiveness of the plans based on the exercise. The most effective plans address the four phases of emergency management; outline an organizational structure under disaster operations that includes a unified single command structure; delegation of authority; and continuity of operations (9). Plans should comply with NIMS (9) and the Incident Management System (ICS) policies and procedures outlined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (5). These plans may be supported by detailed operation plans based on a specific hazard. For example, pre-established evacuation routes (5,49) or pre-planned public messages (49) may be developed. All plans developed should be reviewed and updated regularly. Other preparedness activities might include participation in local and state hazard mitigation planning activities and participation in interagency planning activities (49,51) Additional stakeholder coordination could allow agencies to establish pre-disaster contractors to support plans such as staffing support as well as asset protection (e.g. movement of rolling stock to a contracted partners garage or lot) (9). Finally, as part of preparing for disaster, educating the public on agency plans can help to establish expectations (49) and can benefit agencies during the recovery phase. (50) Norway provides an example of preparedness that merges into the response phase. The European Environment Agency (EEA) documents a robust online tool in Norway called xGeo that is used for risk assessment and preparedness, and for monitoring and forecasting floods, landslides and avalanches. It was developed in cooperation between transportation stakeholders and hydrological and meteorological experts. The mapping tool combines historic, present and forecast weather data with ground and road data, threshold values for natural hazards, and data on road network events such as floods, landslides and avalanches. The tool is widely used for forecasting in the national alert system for landslides and avalanches (16). The third phase is response. During the response phase transit agencies are expected to support the government’s efforts to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. This may mean implementing emergency transportation operations such as assisting with evacuations while also preparing the transit system or network for the disaster. To support life-safety of residents, agencies should be involved in local emergency management planning and should also incorporate disaster response activities into agency plans and procedures.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 26 The final phase, recovery, includes activities designed to return the transit system back to normal service, for example, conducting damage assessments, inspecting and repairing assets, and reestablishing transit operations as quickly as possible while maintaining the safety of transit employees and the public (9). Resilience activities that can speed recovery include: putting procedures in place to rapidly plan replacement services if rail and road infrastructure are damaged along regular routes. Plans may also be needed to provide service to temporarily displaced populations (49). Other examples include having contracts in place for substitute vehicles to replace damaged rolling stock (e.g. loaned vehicles) and to facilitate debris removal for rapid restoration of services (49). Over the past decade, transit agencies have made significant progress in the area of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) developed a number of best-practice strategies (52). To support citizen evacuation in response to future coastal storms, New Orleans area stakeholders have developed a City-Assisted Evacuation Plan (CAEP). Under the plan, the city, in coordination with the RTA and the state, have established a series of procedures to assist carless and other vulnerable populations to evacuate. As part of the plan, the city established evacuee pick-up locations which RTA services supports by picking up individuals at these locations and relocating them to established reception centers for long-distance travel to evacuee shelters established by the state. The plan includes an evacuee registry to support demand analysis as part of preparedness phase planning and also establishes a procedure to systematically shut down transit operations 54-72 hours prior to hurricane landfall. Regular route bus services are suspended approximately 30-54 hours prior to landfall to allow the start-up of emergency bus evacuation operations in accordance with the CAEP (53). As part of the CAEP, the city conducted an extensive public education campaign which helped inform the public regarding what they can expect from the City and RTA and what expectations are for individuals being evacuated. The plan was implemented successfully in response to Hurricane Gustav in 2008. The city estimated 18,000 individuals were evacuated (52). Katrina demonstrated several flaws in the previous emergency management approach. For example, many people refused to evacuate because their pets were not able to accompany them. The evacuation procedures for Hurricane Gustav included climate controlled trailers for registered pets to be transported to specific areas near assigned shelters for their owners. The use of the climate controlled pet trailers was a joint responsibility of the state transportation and agriculture departments and was very effective. Like New Orleans, Houston, TX is situated near the Gulf Coast, an area prone to coastal storms. After Hurricane Ike in 2008, the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (Houston METRO/METRO) adopted an emergency management plan that outlines organizational responsibilities as they relate to the four phases of emergency management. As part of the plan, Houston METRO incorporated NIMS and delineates authority and responsibility to agency departments and personnel as well as outlines a conceptual timeframe for when decisions and operational activities need to occur relative to the timing of a coastal storm (9). Houston METRO preparedness efforts also included establishing procedures for moving assets to new storage locations to reduce their vulnerability to coastal flooding and wind damage. In preparing for a coastal storm, METRO developed a series of protocols for staff related to actions during severe weather and flooding as well as requirements for essential staff to remain available. In support of its staff METRO has also established contracts for comfort services such as feeding and shelter (9). In the area of response, METRO put procedures in the plan for notifying personnel and stakeholder agencies, including the public through media outlets, the activation of the agency’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and by embedding agency emergency staff with government emergency personnel at their EOC. Procedures also cover implementation of response plans such as evacuation plans and bus bridges as needed and demobilization of response resources once the threat has passed (9).

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 27 Finally, Houston METRO has developed a practical and useful outline for recovery planning. The agency established a five step process to address recovery: 1) damage assessment; 2) recall of personnel; 3) restoration of services; 4) return to normal operations; and 5) debriefing and after action reporting. All recovery activities are broken-down by department. The Service Delivery Department is responsible for identification and repair of facilities and equipment, driver notifications, and system safety. The Communications and Marketing Department provides for public information and internal messages to staff and contractors. The Engineering and Construction Department is initially responsible for repairing facilities to provide initial service resumption and planning for long-term repairs and recovery. METRO’s Procurement, Human Resources, Customer Service, and Finance and Audit departments each have responsibilities as well (9). In responding to Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the New York State MTA implemented a number of best practices that benefited the agency and its customers. NY MTA was actively engaged in public information dissemination through a variety of outlets including social media (50). This provided a positive public perception as NY MTA systematically shut down the transit system to prepare for the storm’s impacts. Cloud-based communications systems proved to be robust. By shutting down the system well ahead of the storm, NY MTA was able to minimize storm-related damage of its assets. This included moving trains and equipment to higher ground to avoid flooding impacts and placing sandbags, building temporary plywood and plastic barriers, or applying inflatable barriers to vulnerable train portals, subway entrances, electrical equipment and other assets. Once the storm passed, NY MTA quickly established bus bridges along rail routes where rail infrastructure was too damaged to operate safely or at all (50,54). Another innovation was offering free service which freed up personnel to focus on immediate repairs while allowing the public to return to some level of normalcy. These efforts resulted in mostly positives views of the agencies response efforts (50) and (NY MTA representative- report comments). Literature Review Summary and Discussion Resilience adoption and climate adaptation planning and implementation by U.S. transportation agencies is relatively new, really less than 10 years old. Most reference documents have a heavy focus on threats, hazards and potential impacts from extreme weather and climate impacts. In that regard, there are basically two streams of literature. One stream focuses on understanding system vulnerabilities and documenting the impacts of recent disasters on transportation assets. The other highlights leading practices and what can be gained from adopting resilience measures and approaches in a pre-disaster context. Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment report on climate change impacts, vulnerability and adaptation in 2007 (55) appear to have been a “wake up” call to the transportation industry. Since 2008, a growing body of literature has emerged regarding transportation sector vulnerabilities to extreme weather events and climate change. In addition, a number of reports have been published recommending best practices for transportation agencies can follow to protect their assets and enhance the resilience of public transit services. Since 2010, there appears to have been growing recognition that transit systems are facing an increasing risk of extreme weather and climate impacts and that the significant and growing costs of recovering from natural disasters necessitates a focus on resilience among transportation agencies. In this regard, the literature shows that state departments of transportation and some metropolitan planning organizations are leading the way in the transport sector, especially in terms of proactive pre-disaster resilience planning. However, the recently completed FTA Climate Change Adaptation pilot projects– which included the participation of seven transit agencies–has evened the playing field somewhat.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 28 As noted above, examples of resilience adoption can be found across the country, in response to a variety of hazards and among agencies large and small. Many agencies have proactively undertaken vulnerability assessments and some have begun to incorporate resilience considerations as part of system planning, capital programming, asset management, project development, operations, and maintenance activities. However, there is comparatively limited evidence in publicly accessible documents that comprehensive resilience-related policy adoption and holistic implementation is widespread among transit agencies in the U.S. Three notable exceptions include New York State MTA, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Los Angeles County MTA. Interviews with some of the pilot project agencies were conducted as case studies for the A-41 project to identify implementation actions that have been taken by the agencies since project completion. In addition, there are some examples internationally of transit agencies adopting comprehensive resilience approaches–most notably Transport for London–as well as incremental adoption in various domains. However, at least one study–completed in 2014 by the European Environment Agency–found that “…most practical examples of adaptation action in the transport sector found across Europe focus on early steps like collecting knowledge, and tailoring climate change impact information and assessment.” (16) So, it seems that experience in Europe somewhat mirrors the U.S. experience among transit agencies. Hurricane Sandy in 2012 caused significant damage to transit infrastructure on the east coast, especially in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region. As noted above, in the wake of the disaster, the Federal Government authorized billions of dollars in disaster recovery funding to be used specifically for transit projects. This funding also required that transit agencies consider resilience as part of recovery project planning and specifically consider the potential impacts of climate change. The capital projects advanced as part of Sandy recovery provide important insights regarding the benefits and challenges of resilience adoption as part of project development, design and construction. While these experiences may be unique because of the extraordinary level of funding made available for implementation post-disaster, not all the projects are “mega” projects, and provide an opportunity to learn what other agencies can and should do when pursuing similar efforts. In addition, the literature review prompted case study investigation as to whether the Sandy disaster experience has prompted agencies to adopt a holistic approach to resilience adoption or whether their experiences remain siloed in various domains. Much was learned from the structured interviews with transit agencies that received Sandy recovery funding, documented in the case studies for this project. The lessons learned from rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy and other major disasters experienced throughout the country can help public transit systems that have not yet been affected, but are vulnerable to weather and climate stressors better prepare their assets and infrastructure for potential major events. As noted in the discussion of domains above, resilience requires dedication and attention from virtually every sector and individual in the transit system- from operations and maintenance personnel- usually the “first observers” of what is going on “on the ground”- through asset management, engineering, short- and long-term financial and capital planning, and more. In addition to its strong ties to asset management, noted above, it also has much in common with the safety culture that is being sought in most transit agencies, briefly discussed in Operations and Maintenance, above, but not restricted to those sectors. TRB Report 174, Improving Safety Culture in Transportation, identifies key components of safety culture, summarized in Table 5.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 29 Table 5. Key Components of Safety Culture (47) Strong leadership, management, and organizational commitment to safety Employee/union shared ownership and participation Effective safety communication Proactive use of safety data, key indicators, and benchmarking Organizational learning and training Consistent safety reporting and investigation for prevention Employee recognition and rewards High level of organizational trust Each of these key components is supported by specific attributes and performance metrics that help ensure that safety culture is highly valued and visible. Adding resilience to safety in each of the categories above may describe a “shortcut” framework to adoption. As noted in the Operations and Maintenance discussion, TCRP Report 174 (47) thoroughly describes the practices of High Reliability Organizations (HROs) as potential models for transit agencies to emulate in developing a culture of safety. “Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty” (46), by leaders in the field of study of HROs, demonstrates the strong link between the development of a culture of safety and a culture of resilience. Lessons and tools from the TRB report and the book, along with other findings in literature and interviews, will help frame the human factors and organizational cultural change aspects of the guide. The FTA Flooded Bus Barns publication found that “(f)actors for success in transit adaptation efforts so far include: a high-level push from outside the agency, the embedding of climate change into existing work streams instead of a special system, a champion or central point person for coordination, interdisciplinary seminars with engaging narratives, coordination with other infrastructure providers and government entities, and reliance on existing climate data from reputable sources.” (3) These and other findings that will emerge from the research team’s case study work should provide a solid foundation on which to build a very useful and much needed guidebook on this topic. Works Cited Note: Items marked with an asterisk * are included for reference purposes only. No literature review summary was prepared. 1. Committee on Climate Change and U.S. Transportation, Transportation Research Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies. 2008. Transportation Research Board Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2. Cambridge Systematics. 2010. Climate Change Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of New Jersey’s Transportation Infrastructure. Newark, NJ: North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA). 3. Hodges, Tina. 2011. Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled Rails: Public Transportation and Climate Change Adaptation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 4. Thomson, Barbara, Elizabeth Delaney, Stephen Eget, and Liam Gallagher. 2012. Resilience of NJ TRANSIT Assets to Climate Impacts. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Transit Corporation. 5. ICF International. 2013. Assessment of the Body of Knowledge on Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation Measures into Transportation Projects. Publication FHWA-HEP-14-016. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 6. Gopalakrishna, Deepak, Jeremy Schroeder, Amy Huff, Amy Thomas, and Amy Leibrand. 2013. Planning for Systems Management & Operations as part of Climate Change Adaptation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 30 7. Chicago Transit Authority, and TranSystems. 2013. An Integrated Approach to Climate Adaptation at the Chicago Transit Authority. FTA Report No. 0070. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 8. Choate, Anne, Philip Groth, Cassandra Snow, Thuy Phung, Joe Casola, and Erik Johanson. 2013. A Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of SEPTA’s Regional Rail: A Transit Climate Change Adaptation Assessment Pilot. FTA Report No. 0071. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 9. Brooks, Jonathan, Roma Stevens, Stuart Matthew Sandidge, Linda Cherrington, Russell Blessing, Alexandra Stiles, and Samuel Brody. 2013. Gulf Coast Climate Change Adaptation Pilot Study. FTA Report No. 0072. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 10. Liban, Cris B., Matthew Egge, and Carley Markovitz. 2013. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Climate Change Adaptation Pilot Project Report. FTA Report No. 0073. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 11. Feng, Tian. 2013. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Climate Change Adaptation Assessment Pilot. FTA Report No. 0074. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 12. Binder, Laura Whitely, Ingrid Tohver, Amy Shatzkin, and Amy K Snover. 2013. Sound Transit Climate Risk Reduction Project. FTA Report No. 0075. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 13. Amekudzi, Adjo, Matthew Crane, David Springstead, David Rose, and Tiffany Batac. 2013. Transit Climate Change Adaptation Assessment/Asset management Pilot for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. FTA Report No. 0076. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 14. U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 2014. U.S. Department of Transportation Climate Adaptation Plan 2014: Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and System Resilience. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. 15. Meyer, M., M. Flood, J. Keller, J. Lennon, G. McVoy, C. Dorney, K. Leonard, R. Hyman and J. Smith. 2014. NCHRP Report 750: Strategic Issues Facing Transportation, Volume 2: Climate Change, Extreme Weather Events, and the Highway System: Practitioner’s Guide and Research Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. http://nap.edu/22473. 16. European Environment Agency. 2014. Adaptation of Transport to Climate Change in Europe: Challenges and Options across Transport Modes and Stakeholders. EEA Report No 8/2014. 17. Filosa, Gina, and Alexandra Oster. 2015. International Practices on Climate Adaptation in Transportation: Findings from a Virtual Review. Cambridge, MA: Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 18. *Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium and MS Technology. 1996. Revised 2000. Earthquake Vulnerability of Transportation Systems in the Central United States. Memphis: Central U.S. Earthquake Consortium. 19. *Cutter, Susan L., Joseph A. Ahearn, Bernard Amadei, Patrick Crawford, Elizabeth A. Eide, Gerald E. Galloway, Michael F. Goodchild, Howard C. Kunreuther, Meredith Li-Vollmer, Monica Schoch-Spana, Susan C. Scrimshaw, Ellis M. Stanley, Gene Whitney, and Mary Lou Zoback. 2013. Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 55, Iss. 2. Washington, D.C. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2013.768076 20. *Federal Emergency Management Agency. Disaster Declaration Database. Accessed online: https://www.fema.gov/disasters. 21. Wise, David J. 2014. Public Transit: Federal and Transit Agencies Taking Steps to Build Transit Systems’ Resilience but Face Challenges. GAO-15-159. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office. 22. *Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. Public Law 113-2-Jan. 29, 2013 23. *New Jersey Transit (NJ Transit). Superstorm Sandy Recovery. Repair, Recovery and Resilience Projects. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://www.superstormsandyrecovery.com/. 24. Carnegie, Jon. 2014. New Jersey Climate Adaptation Alliance (NJCAA) Stakeholder Engagement Report: Transportation. Climate Change Preparedness in New Jersey. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University. 25. Jacob, Klaus, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Radley Horton, David Major, and Vivien Gornitz. 2008. "MTA adaptations to climate change: a categorical imperative." Metropolitan Transportation Authority 37. 26. *Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Resilience Projects in Response to Hurricane Sandy. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://www.fta.dot.gov/15138_16147.html. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 31 27. *Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2011. Transit Climate Change Adaptation Assessment Pilots: Notice of Request for Applications (RFA). Publication FTA-2011-016-TBP. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 28. *Alberts, Brian, Mazhar Ali Awan, and Kimberly A Gayle. 2014. “Transit and Climate Change Adaptation: Synthesis of FTA-Funded Pilot Projects.” FTA Report No. 0069. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 29. * FHWA. Climate Change Resilience Pilots. 2010-2011 Pilot Program Case-study Information. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/ongoing_and_current_research/vulnerability_assess ment_pilots/index.cfm. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 30. FHWA. 2011. Policy and Guidance: USDOT Policy Statement on Climate Change Adaptation. June 2011. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/climate_change/adaptation/policy_and_guidance/usdot.cfm. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 31. Bolich, Rosemary R. 2013. “Planning for Climate Change Adaptation: How Does the MTA Compare?” Unpublished Master Thesis. New York: Columbia University. 32. *Georgetown Climate Center. Adaptation Clearinghouse. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://www.georgetownclimate.org/adaptation/clearinghouse. 33. New York State Metropolitan Transit Authority. Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA. Accessed online: http://web.mta.info/sustainability/?c=BRC. 34. New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York MTA). 2009. Greening Mass Transit and Metro Region: The Final Report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability and the MTA. Metropolitan Transit Authority. New York City, NY. http://web.mta.info/sustainability/pdf/SustRptFinal.pdf. 35. Zeppie, Christopher. Undated. Adapting to Climate Change: Practical Strategies at the Port Authority. Undated PowerPoint presentation. https://www.panynj.gov/about/pdf/NYSA-Adaptation-Presentation.pdf. 36. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). 2012. Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 37. *Lascher. Bill. 2014. The Next Generation of Infrastructure: Building for Hotter, Wetter, Stormier Cities. Next City.org. Accessed online: http://nextcity.org/features/view/the-next-generation-of-infrastructure. 38. Rose, David, Lauren Isaac, Keyur Shah, and Tagan Blake. 2012. Asset Management Guide: Focusing on the Management of Our Transit Investments. FTA Report No. 0027. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 39. Robert, W., V. Reeder, K. Lawrence, H. Cohen, and K. O'Neil. 2014. TCRP Report 172: Guidance for Developing a Transit Asset Management Plan. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 40. Meyer, M., Amekudzi, A., and O’Har, J. 2009. Transportation Asset Management Systems and Climate Change: An Adaptive Systems Management Approach. Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting CD‐ROM. Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C. 41. Meyer, Michael D. 2006 (“Undated” in Literature Reviews). Design Standards for U.S. Transportation Infrastructure: The Implications of Climate Change. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290Meyer.pdf. 42. New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York) MTA. 2007. August 8, 2007 Storm Report. Appendix 3: Benchmarking Study: Discussion of Storm Impacts, Summary of Findings prepared by Region II, University Transportation Research Center. New York: Metropolitan Transportation Authority. 43. *Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2011. Sustainable Infrastructure Guidelines. New York: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 44. Dawson, S. 2015. Incorporating Disaster Response Management into Asset Management. Transit State of Good Repair Conference. March 11, 2015, Washington D.C. Port Authority of NY & NJ. 45. Sutley, N. 2010. Memorandum Re: Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Council on Environmental Quality. 46. Weick, K. and Sutcliffe, K. 2007. Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. San Francisco, CA. 47. Roberts, Howard, Richard Retting, Tom Webb, Ashley Colleary, Brian Turner, Xinge Wang, Roger Toussaint, Gwynn Simpson, and Claudia White. 2015. TCRP Report 174: Improving Safety Culture in Public Transportation. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

TCRP A-41: Final Research Report 32 48. Excalibur Associates, Inc. Undated. Security and Emergency Management: An Information Briefing for Executives and Senior Leaders of State Departments of Transportation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Accessed online: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/security/emergencymgmt/profcapacitybldg/docs/hsemexecsrrleaders/hsem_srexecs.cfm. 49. Chandler, Kevin L., and Pamela J. Sutherland. 2013. Response and Recovery for Declared Emergencies and Disasters: A Resource Document for Transit Agencies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 50. Man, Jenessa, Aarshabh Misra, and Amar Shalaby. 2014. Building Transit Resilience in the City of Toronto: A Case Study Approach to Exploring the Impacts of Severe Disruptions on Public Transit Systems. Presented at Canadian Institute of Traffic Engineers, Waterloo, Ontario. June 1-4, 2014. 51. Radow, Laurel J., and Louise Neudorff. 2011. Transportation Adaptation’s Bearing on Planning, Systems Management, Operations and Emergency Response. Transportation Research Circular: Adapting Transportation to the Impacts of Climate Change, Number E-C152, pp. 2-9. 52. Renne, John. 2011. Evacuation Planning for Vulnerable Populations: Lessons from the New Orleans City Assisted Evacuation Plan. Chapter 8 in Resilience and Opportunity: Lessons from the U.S. Gulf Coast after Katrina and Rita, pp. 120-130. Ed. Amy Liu, Roland Anglin, Richard Mizelle and Allison Plyer. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 53. *New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA). Evacuation Plans webpage. Accessed online. May 15, 2015: http://www.norta.com/Rider-Tools/Safety-and-Security/Evacuation-Plans.aspx. 54. *Gibbs, Linda, and Caswell Holloway. 2013. "Hurricane Sandy after action: report and recommendations to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg." Hurricane Sandy after Action: Report and Recommendations to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the City of New York, New York, NY 36. http://www.nyc.gov/html/recovery/downloads/pdf/sandy_aar_5.2.13.pdf. 55. *Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC. Accessed online: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm.  

Next: Summary: What We Learned from the Case Studies »
Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Web Only Document 70: Improving the Resilience of Transit Systems Threatened by Natural Disasters, Volume 2: Research Overview summarizes elements of the research effort that offers practices for transit systems of all sizes to absorb the impacts of disaster, recover quickly, and return rapidly to providing the services that customers rely on to meet their travel needs. It also explores additional research needs that have been identified during the course of the study. The report is accompanied by Volume 1: A Guide, Volume 3: Literature Review and Case Studies, and a database called resilienttransit.org to help practitioners search for and identify tools to help plan for natural disasters.

This website is offered as is, without warranty or promise of support of any kind either expressed or implied. Under no circumstance will the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine or the Transportation Research Board (collectively "TRB") be liable for any loss or damage caused by the installation or operation of this product. TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind, expressed or implied, in fact or in law, including without limitation, the warranty of merchantability or the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, and shall not in any case be liable for any consequential or special damages.

TRB hosted a webinar that discusses the research on March 12, 2018. A recording is available.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!