Threats to Transit in a Warming World: Heat, Floods, Hurricanes

The transportation sector’s contribution to climate change is well-documented. The latest EPA greenhouse gas inventory ascribes 26% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to cars, trucks, buses, trains, aircraft, construction vehicles and ships, a slightly higher percentage than in 1990. But there has been no comprehensive analysis of how expected climate change impacts will affect the nation’s transportation infrastructure and operations — until now.

A 218-page report released this week by the Transportation Research Board and National Research Council finally examines the issue, painting a grim picture of climate change’s potential threat to roads, rails, airports and ports. The report identifies five principal climate change outcomes of importance to transportation systems:

  1. Increases in very hot days and heat waves — threatening the integrity of roads, bridges and rail tracks.
  2. Increases in Arctic temperatures (relevant for far North America) — resulting in more ice-free shipping ports, but thawing of permafrost could cause subsidence of roads, rail beds, and bridges.
  3. Rising sea levels, combined with storm surges — flooding of roads, rail lines, tunnels, etc. in coastal areas. (The picture at right shows, shaded in gray, areas less than 10 feet above sea level, including Newark Airport, southern Brooklyn, Battery Park City in Manhattan, and the Rockaways in Queens.)
  4. Increases in intense precipitation events — causing flooding of roads, rail lines, tunnels, etc., and increases in road washout and damages to rail-beds.
  5. More frequent strong hurricanes — raising the probability of infrastructure failures.

» Continue reading…

Presidential Views (or not) on Public Transportation

As the primary season continues, MTR decided to ask the question: To what extent does transportation factor into the political discourse of the U.S. presidential candidates? Though it’s unlikely that transportation and land use issues will end up determining the election, nearly all of the candidates list climate change or energy independence as key planks in their platforms (the main exception being Ron Paul, who told City Hall News that he had never used the NYC or Washington, D.C. subways because subsidized transit violated his libertarian principles; does he drive on [subsidized] highways?).

To date, only the three main Democratic candidates (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama) address the link between mass transit and smart growth on one hand and reduced automobile use and oil dependence on the other.

Hillary Clinton wants to increase federal funding for public transit by $1.5 billion per year. She mentions principles inherent in a smart growth approach to land use as she vows to encourage a shift away from commercial developments towards urban centers that balance residential, commercial, and transportation needs. She correctly points out that this will help discourage sprawl and fight congestion while also increasing mobility options for the elderly. She wants to invest an additional $1 billion in intercity passenger rail systems as this mode is a “critical component of the nation’s transportation system.”

John Edwards’ few sentences on transportation give a mere glimpse into his transportation priorities but he does reference smart growth and transit-oriented development and wants to create incentives to reduce vehicle-miles traveled in the US. He will “support more resources” to encourage greater mass transit use amongst workers and will encourage more affordable and environmentally sound transportation alternatives.

Barack Obama is the only candidate to connect transportation and economic access. He identifies lack of adequate public transportation as a barrier to low-income people seeking work and highlights the disproportionate share of income they spend on transportation. Like Clinton and Edwards, he wants to see increased transportation funding but he goes further by seeking to incentivize bike and pedestrian measures. He also wants to reform the tax code to equalize the commuter pre-tax benefits for parking and transit riding (currently, employees can use up to $220/month in pre-tax income for parking, but only $115/month for transit).

» Continue reading…