Download Adapting Bridge Infrastructure to Climate Change in Vermont and Maine:

Adapting Bridge Infrastructure to Climate Change in Vermont and Maine:
Building Resilience through Restructuring Project Prioritization Procedures
In the Northeastern United States:
• Average temperatures are 2° warmer than a century ago; by the
2080s, they are predicted to increase 3° - 10° more¹
• From 1958-2012, the region experienced a 71% increase in the
percentage of precipitation falling in “very heavy” events, or the
heaviest 1% of all daily events (twice the increase seen by any other
US region)¹
• The state of Vermont made a record 11 Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) disaster declarations in the five years
from 2007 to 2012, almost double that of any other five-year
period since 1962²
• Collectively, temperature fluctuations, heavy rains, and major
storms have severe implications for bridges and culverts
Are transportation agencies in the Northeast prioritizing bridge
infrastructure adaptation to climate change threats?
OVERVIEW
• This research uses the states of Vermont and Maine as case
studies: it investigates existing prioritization procedures,
adaptation-related practices currently employed by
transportation agencies, and funding trends
• Our analysis relies on both quantitative and
qualitative data gathered from State
Department of Transportation project
prioritization criteria, interviews,
Statewide Transportation
Improvement Programs,
and Capital Programs
• Preliminary analysis
suggest that Northeast
states may not be
VMT in 2011
prioritizing bridge
VT: 7.1 billion
adaptation to
ME: 11.9 billion
climate change
PROJECT
PRIORITIZATION
PROCEDURES
Vermont
• The Vermont Agency of
Transportation (VTrans)
breaks projects into six
asset classes
• Assigns points based on a
specific subset of factors
• Projects are chosen
according to their
prioritization scores
Maine
• MaineDOT evaluates
potential projects based on
three Customer Service
Levels (CSLs), which are then
further broken down
• Projects are also judged
based on Highway Corridor
Priority (HCP) classes
(Priority 1 roads carry the
highest volume of traffic)
• Projects are given report
card-style grades, A-F
Vermont’s Prioritization Scheme
Asset Class
Paving
Safety
Category
Crash History
20
60
20
40
20
20
20
10
Bicycle/Pedestrian Land Use Density
Connectivity to Larger Network
Multi-Modal Access
Designated Downtown
Project Cost
Regional Priority
Project Momentum
Park and Ride
Total Highway and Location
Cost per Parking Space
Regional Priority
Project Momentum
20
10
5
5
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
Roadway
Bridge
Traffic Operation
Measure
Lane departure rate vs. the
statewide average
Pavement Rutting Maximum wheelpath rut depth
in inches
Paved Roadway
Width
Paved width in feet, including
lanes and shoulders
Bridge Reliability National Bridge Inventory (NBI)
Ratings
Inches per Mile of Variation
Condition Ride Quality
Pavement
Pavement Condition Rating 0-5
Scale: calculated from
Condition
International Roughness Index,
rutting, structural cracking, and
functional cracking
Roadway
Falling weight deflectometer
Strength
summation of deflections
Structural Bridge Lowest NBI condition rating
Condition (state (deck, superstructure,
bridges only)
substructure, and culvert)
Service
Points
Pavement Condition Index
Benefit/Cost
Regional Priority
Highway System
Cost per Vehicle Mile
Regional Priority
Project Momentum
Designated Downtown Project
(bonus class)
Bridge Condition
Remaining Life
Functionality
Load Capacity and Use
Waterway Adequacy and Scour
Susceptibility
Project Momentum
Regional Priority
Asset-Benefit Cost Factor
Intersection Capacity
Accident Rate
Cost per Intersection Volume
Regional Priority
Project Momentum
Maine’s Prioritization Scheme
CSL
Factors
Posted Road
Whether the roadway is eligible
for posting
Posted Bridge
Bridge load posting in place
Congestion
Summer AADT/Capacity Ratio
(June-August)
FUNDING TRENDS
CURRENT
PRACTICES
The funding data shown here can
be found in Vermont’s annual
Capital Programs and Maine’s
biennial Statewide Transportation
Improvement Programs (STIPs).
Both represent planned funding
allocations.
30
10
5
15
10
5
15
10
40
20
20
20
10
Adaptation?
Although Vermont uses some
criteria, such as scour, that
may be related to adaptation,
neither state explicitly
includes adaptation criteria in
the state project prioritization
processes. Qualitative data
suggest that State DOT
officials in both states
recognize the need for
adaptation. Maine lacks a
specific quantitative scheme
for ranking projects against
each other; i.e., it is unclear
how a project with “B” grades
is ranked versus one with a
mix of “A” and “C” grades.
Final decisions are made by a
panel of experts, which may
allow for politics to hold sway
over the selection process.
Funding (nominal $ in millions)
BACKGROUND
Paper 15-4448
Mean Funding per Project in Vermont and
Maine, 2000 - 2015
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2000
2002
2004
2006
Vermont
2008
Year
2010
2012
2014
Maine
Planned bridge Spending in
Vermont and Maine, 2000 - 2015
160
Practice
VT
Resilience or
adaptation
emphasized in
planning documents
Collaborates with
Agency of Natural
Resources or Dept. of
Conservation for
bridge projects
Currently builds
bridge structures to
bank full width
•
State leadership
voices public support
for adaptation
initiatives
Currently undertaking
climate vulnerability
study
ME
Total funding (nominal $ in millions)
Anna Schulz, Asim Zia, and Christopher Koliba - University of Vermont
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Year
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The research presented here is a preliminary overview of how two
states in the Northeast approach bridge adaptation. In general,
Vermont appears to prioritize adaptation slightly more than Maine,
perhaps due in part to the damage caused in Vermont by
Hurricane Irene in 2011. There are many barriers to incorporating
adaptation, including lack of funding, staff, and tools; competing
priorities; gaps in knowledge regarding vulnerability; and low
political commitment to addressing climate change. Restructuring
project prioritization procedures to include adaptation criteria may
be one low-cost way states can begin to address the threats posed
by climate change. Further research is needed to examine the
approaches undertaken by other states.
Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations (MPOs)
within state are
gaining momentum to
pursue adaptation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the United States
Department of Transportation via the University of Vermont
Transportation Research Center and National Science Foundation
EPS-1101317.
All photos courtesy of the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
¹Melillo, J.M., T.C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, (eds). (2014). Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment: Chapter 16.
²Johnson, I. (2012). Adapting Vermont’s Transportation Infrastructure to the Future Impacts of Climate Change: VTrans Climate Adaptation White Paper.