Warwick, RI. Relevance PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE ON YOUR ROADS. Comparison of Asset Design Life With SLR Timeline

Transcription

1 arwick, I AA A V I A U: AP FA H P F A V I U A his act sheet aims to provide municipal leaders and practitioners with a survey o arwick s transportation inrastructure elements that may be aected by sea level rise and storm surge. In addition to explaining and presenting the data, this act sheet will outline strategies that may help in adapting to these conditions, and point towards resources that will enable urther investigation. elevance he impacts o ea evel ise () are oten perceived as distant, but the assets being built today will still be within their design lie when uture eects o sea level rise are elt. In addition, sea level rise will magniy the impacts o - year storm surge events by raising the water level. hough current ederal guidelines only require ederally unded assets be built to survive a -year storm event, what the impact o a -year storm event entails is likely to change during the design lie o the assets currently under consideration around hode Island. omparison o Asset esign ie ith imeline tandard Bridge esign ie tandard oad esign ie ea evel ise imeline F F F F ears 9 Figure ata and ethodology o help hode Island s cities and towns prepare or these changing conditions, the tatewide Planning Program (PP) has engaged in an eort to analyze the potential impacts created by the sea level rise and storm surge. Using data developed under the name by the oastal esources anagement ouncil and the University o hode Island, PP identiied the assets that could be impacted (exposure), and their vulnerability. As a result o this analysis, PP identiied the roads and bridges most likely to be impacted by ea evel ise, and scored their relative vulnerability based on the severity o the hazard they aced and the potential impact o asset damage on the transportation system as a whole. Figure : Flooding near auchest Point: June

2 arwick, I IA B V AP K K A I I AU PU P P K JFF I 9 A V VI P PII I IA HI A H HI P H P F VI K AK I PA I H PK FAX A iles U IV H A H UH U PP HI H HH Plus A H IVII Potentially Aected oads I A ities and own Boundaries oads I P QUAK HH Plus IVII V I A VI P A F A V I A A A I A I I Ponds & HH HH Plus I I I HH Plus V I P I AKF HI AH I A I A egend BU V A VI IU AKA H A H JAK F A H I V H A K A PK IUA F arwick oads xposed to ea evel ise HQ UI II, UI Figure iven seven eet o sea level rise, a total o miles o road in hode Island could be exposed to inundation, % o which would occur on local roads. For arwick miles o roadway inundation can be expected. this, 9% (~ miles) are local. arwick s roads (state and local) are the most vulnerable in the state o hode Island to sea level rise. Figure op oad Assets in arwick Vulnerable to ea evel ise () un. ank oad ame K PI P A K I I HA 9 UBUBA PK A VI Ft o Ft o,, 9, Ft o Ft o, 9, 9,, otal inear vac. Intermodal Functional Vuln. tate Feet oute Facility lassiication core ank Principal Art..9 9,. o inor Art.. o,. o o 9. o. o., o. o, o. 99 o, o.9

3 arwick, I arwick Bridges xposed to ea evel ise I H F P B V IV V I P IVII I A P K I IVII A U HQ UI II, UI Figure iven seven eet o sea level rise, a total o 9 bridges in hode Island cause concern either due to potential reeboard height or accessibility problems. In arwick there are ten bridges o concern, three o which are Amtrak acilities. arwick s bridge inrastructure is the second most vulnerable in the state o hode Island to sea level rise. Figure op arwick Bridge Assets Vulnerable to ea evel ise un. ank Bridge ame Facility arried Feature Intersected Inches o Freeboard errain anding Intermodal vac. Vuln. tate AA core ank elative to rossed Facility oute Ft oodmansee I H IV BK - ater o,. Apponaug U P APPAU ater,. Apponaug ill I V APPAU ater 9,. 9 idewater IA BUK BK HH o,. arner Brook I H A BK - ater o o,. Buckeye Brook I H BUK BK ater o,. 9 Forge oad F PU - HH o o,. ellington Ave AK I - HH o -. 9 Arnolds eck rive AK A K IV - HH o o -. asthead rive AK HA IV - ater o o -. 9 V I P IA A V F VI A H P HIP H JFF H P I 9 K AK I H K K A PA QUAK I HI KI P AKA BA I VI PUAKI HP V IK A A FAX FA I A I A AH I I A iles A I V U A I A H U I H A I oads Possible Bridge itiy and own Boundaries F HI I I V Bridge ible H I A V H HH Plus Bridge HH Plus HH Plus PI PIP FB HH Plus A Freeboard Potentially Aected by A Freeboard Unlikely to be Aected by U I ot xposed to K K P A Bridge Freeboards B egend

4 arwick, I F IA AP V IV I AU I A H PU iles K K I IA HI P P JFF B IK A A V VI P P B P A V I 9 H P F VI A PII U PA H AKA BA K AK I HI V IK A A P V I FAX A H PK F A H I IVII A H PP HI -ear Plus t. o oads I P A Potentially Aected oads H -ear Plus t. o QUAK -ear Plus t. o VI I IVI V I A A Plus t. o -ear I A ities andiown Boundaries VII -ear torm vent A A A I -ear Plus t. o IA P I I Ponds & HH I AKF HI AH I A egend I AKA H BU A IU H A A H I V VI A H JAK F A PK A IU A arwick oads xposed to -ear torm urge vents HQ UI II, UI Figure iven seven eet o sea level rise and a -year storm surge event, a total o miles o road in hode Island will potentially be exposed to inundation, % o which will occur on local roads. For arwick, 9 miles o roadway inundation can be expected, % ( miles) o which are local. arwick s roads are the most vulnerable in the state o hode Island to storm surge. Figure op oad Assets in arwick Vulnerable to -ear urge vents un. A ank otal o Foot Feet Feet Feet vac. Intermodal Functional Vuln. tate inear o o o o oute Facility lassiication core ank Feet VI H 9, 9 K, 9 VA IA X. K K 9,,9,,9, Principal Art.. o Principal Art.. inor Art.. o o Principal Art.. 9, 9 9, o ajor oll.. I o. I o. 9 PI,,.9 9 AP,, o ajor oll.., ajor oll.. 9 AKA BA, 9,,9

5 arwick, I V IA B P JFF I Figure 9 I IV A IIHA F I 9 H P F VI P K F A H HI K K K AK I PA I A AKA BA H PK H HA K IVII H I A iles F oads A ities and own Boundaries U V -ear Plus t. o P -ear Plus t. o -ear Plus t. o I P H A -ear Plus t. o Possible Bridge H -ear Plus t. o A H -ear torm vent ot xposed to urge Bridge ible I QUAK I Ponds & HH Freeboard Unlikely to be Aected by urge Bridge A IVII Freeboard Aected by urge I 9Potentially IVII I VI I I H P A I PUAKI Bridge Freeboard AH I A egend UH A HI IU I AKF H A I I I V H I A V H I UA A PK I arwick Bridges xposed to -ear torm urge vents II, UI iven seven eet o sea level rise plus a -year storm surge event, a total o bridges statewide cause concern either because o potential ree-board height or accessibility problems. In arwick there are bridges o concern, seven o which are Amtrak Facilities, and one o which is a local acility that may not be eligable or ederal aid. arwick s bridge inrastructure is the second most vulnerable to storm surge in the state o hode Island. Figure op arwick Bridge Assets Vulnerable to ea evel ise Plus a -ear torm urge vent un. ank Bridge ame Facility arried Feature Intersected Inches o Freeboard errain anding Intermodal vac. Vuln. tate AA elative to rossed Facility oute core ank Ft Apponaug U P APPAU - ater, 9. arpenters orner I V UAUK -9 ater, 9. Apponaug ill I V APPAU - ater 9, 9. ottage Home I A K BUK BK - ater, 9. oodmansee I H IV BK -9 ater o,. Buckeye Brook I H BUK BK - ater o,. idewater IA BUK BK - HH o,. arner Brook I H A BK - ater o o,. 9 orton Pond ulvert I I ater o o,.9 - HH o o,. 9 Forge oad F P U PU

6 arwick, I ext teps iven the potential scale o the impacts o sea level rise and storm surge on local transportation inrastructure, local communities will need to ind a way to prepare. A variety o approaches are available, and programs exist to help communities execute these strategies. Finding preparedness strategies will require undertaking urther analysis, ormulating a clear adaptation strategy, and then taking advantage o planning opportunities that may present themselves. Further Analysis he most important step is the pursuit Figure : onsideration o ea evel ise can be included in regular o urther analysis. he data contained planning activities in this actsheet serves as introduction to municipal level transportation issues associated with sea level rise and storm surge. he data contained here and in echnical Paper #: Vulnerability o unicipal ransportation Assets to ea evel ise and torm urge (published by PP and available at planning.ri.gov/geodemino/data/slr. php) should allow local decision makers to prioritize the assets that may require an engineering analysis. ecision makers would also be advised to consult he methodology or, a key source o data or this project, which is available on-line at beachsamp.org/the-science-behindstormtools/. Adaptation nce the nature o the ongoing changes are understood, a policy should be developed to prepare or the changes holistically. he speciic policies to be implemented will vary widely based on the community, the assets under threat, and the resources available. he policies can broadly be described as Protect, Accommodate, etreat, and o othing. Figure Protect: hough oten popular, this is the most inancially expensive option. A municipality can seek to saeguard an asset by building sea walls, or take a slightly more green approach by attempting to artiicially recreate the types o dune or wetland structures that naturally stabilize a shoreline. hese approaches oer short term security i well designed and implemented, but their eectiveness in the long term may be limited by urther changing conditions and the resources required or maintenance.

7 arwick, I Accommodate: Accommodation can imply a number o built solutions that take into account the new conditions. An engineering oriented solution would be to elevate the assets in question above the new waterline, while another option would be to rebuild the asset in a way that suits the new conditions better, or example by rebuilding a road using a new alignment on higher ground. etreat: I built solutions are ineasible, a community may decide to simply abandon the asset. Private stakeholders may take over responsibility or the asset, or the need or its maintenance may diminish as users o the asset leave the area. hough undoubtedly the most eicient solution rom a iscal perspective, there are complex legal issues involved that remain unresolved. Figure o othing: ommunities may choose to take no action in response to rising sea levels. In eect this would consist o maintaining the status quo inrastructure, regardless o risk and the increasingly common inundations. In practice this approach may closely resemble retreat, as assets are incapacitated with increasing regularity until all those served by the assets move away. he inancial strain o repeated maintenance could have signiicant iscal eects on communities. Planning pportunities nce the subject o sea level rise and storm surge have been adequately researched, and an overall municipal adaptation strategy has been decided upon, decision makers should attempt to take advantage o planning opportunities that may allow the city or town to begin implementation o their planning goals. A key irst step to this process will be building awareness amongst sta and constituents, either by direct outreach or simply through inormal discussions. As awareness grows, the community would be well served simply by keeping their readiness policy goals in mind when conducting their regular planning activities, such as comprehensive planning, or zoning compliance review. ore concrete policies like overlay zones and rolling easements may become important tools or communities seeking a way to realize their policy goals. ommunities that are critically threatened by sea level rise and storm surge may seek to directly invest in readiness measures using municipal unds. Additional unding may be available to aid in this process rom state and ederal sources. Placing eligible projects or consideration in the tate ransportation Improvement Plan, or other sources o Federal and tate unding, is a good way to leverage local unding. Figure