resilience Archives - Transportation For America

Transportation and extreme heat

A man in jeans and a white t-shirt walks along the side of a wide, sunny street

The following post was written by Mehr Mukhtar and London Weier.

Recent record-breaking temperatures demonstrate that we can no longer rely on old design approaches to meet the needs of our communities. Transportation infrastructure is no exception. Extreme heat can cause road surfaces to buckle and rail tracks to warp, leading to significant travel disruptions and safety concerns for commuters.

The heatwaves this past summer, where temperatures soared to record highs in the eastern and western parts of the US, starkly highlighted the vulnerability of our transportation infrastructure designed to meet the demands of past climate trends, not the trends we see today.

Sweltering heat has pushed transportation infrastructure, from roadways to railroads, to the brink, potentially leaving thousands of travelers stranded in the aftermath. Extreme heat has already caused major damage and disruptions, from planes being unable to take off in Phoenix to pavement buckling in Minnesota. Amtrak, too, recently witnessed service disruptions across the Northeast Corridor, and WMATA announced widespread delays in service. Asphalt and metal rails can expand and buckle under high temperatures, creating potentially unsafe travel circumstances. This results in delays caused by the need to reduce speed levels of train cars in the heat, brought about by the need to reduce speed levels of train cars in the heat, impacting travel plans for commuters. Extreme heat and other climate change induced weather events, such as rising sea levels, are poised to drastically increase the costs of maintaining, repairing, and replacing transportation infrastructure—at a time when the nation is already behind on roadway maintenance and repair.

Transportation infrastructure can also exacerbate the effects of extreme heat on our communities. The urban heat island effect, which occurs in urbanized areas, is partly caused by the large amounts of heat-absorbing materials found in buildings and roads. The impacts can make these heat events drastically more extreme, with pavement reaching temperatures of 160° F when the outdoor temperature breaches 100° F.

Community impacts

The impact of heat waves is not limited only to infrastructure. During the heatwaves this past June, over 30 million people were subjected to extreme heat advisories and their deadly effects as treacherously hot conditions persisted across the country. People walking, biking, or utilizing public transit are especially vulnerable to the health risks associated with extreme heat.

Imagine a bus user, navigating their typical commute on a record hot day where temperatures are breaking 100° F. The five-minute walk to the bus stop in the sweltering heat causes sweat droplets to form as soon as they leave their home. The sunlight bounces off surrounding buildings and structures, creating an almost blinding light, and fatigue sets in immediately. These conditions, exacerbated by the delay of a bus, or non-shaded shelters, can spiral into emergencies, such as heat exhaustion or heat stroke.

Often referred to as the ‘silent killer,’ extreme heat has profound health risks due to its effect on the body’s ability to regulate internal temperature. Health impacts of extreme heat disproportionately harm low-income communities and communities of color, as emphasized in a recent video released by Smart Growth America on the disparate burden of extreme heat experienced by communities in Atlanta. Low-income neighbors and communities of color more often lack trees, shade, and natural landscapes that can reduce the urban heat island effect. For some, a hot day means driving instead of taking transit, but for others, that option is nonexistent, and they are forced to endure the high temperatures out of necessity. Communities can use tools, such as the CDC’s Health and Heat Tracker, to determine if they are more vulnerable to extreme heat and develop their own heat preparedness plans (advice for decision makers on how to develop a heat preparedness plan can be found here).

At a recent congressional briefing on extreme heat resilience for community well-being co-hosted by the American Public Health Association and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, experts brought these impacts to the attention of federal legislators. At the core of Markey’s opening statement was the sentiment that “prevention is preferable to cure,” highlighting the importance of both responding to climate change-induced warming and reducing carbon emissions in order to avoid exacerbating climate conditions. It is clear that we will continue to contend with increased and more intense heatwaves in the future, requiring governments, community leaders and planners, and residents to urgently develop a vision for adapting to, and preparing for, a changing environment.

Resilience in the face of extreme heat

The impacts of extreme heat can threaten urban infrastructure that was not built to withstand such extreme weather events. Just as we created these conditions, we also have the opportunity to create environments that protect communities from the dangers of climate change and extreme heat.

With transportation policies and investments encouraging highways and sprawling development, communities have to drive further away to access the jobs and services they need to get to, causing more emissions to be generated. In combating extreme heat, a necessary strategy is measuring and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the transportation sector is one way to help combat the impacts of extreme heat. With transportation policies and investments encouraging highways and sprawling development, communities have to drive further away to access the jobs and services they need to get to, causing more emissions to be generated. Tackling car-oriented design can play a significant role in not only reducing emissions but also mitigating the negative outcomes associated with extreme heat.

Other ways that we can address extreme heat in urbanized areas are heat mitigation and heat management. Heat mitigation seeks to reduce heat in our cities by changing the design of built environments. These initiatives might include incorporating more tree shade and native vegetation or using different building materials like more permeable and reflective pavements.

Heat management protects those in our communities when extreme heat can not be avoided. Management strategies could include improving bus shelters, establishing cooling centers, and creating heat preparedness plans. Approaching heat management with smart growth policies—like prioritizing location-efficiency, improving conventional zoning and land-use regulations, and adapting existing infrastructure—can drastically enhance effective response capabilities.

Additionally, our federal government should direct current and future investments toward building more resilient infrastructure. When government agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, set standards for materials used in new builds to be greener and better able to withstand high temperatures, they will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used to build a future that is sustainable and livable for all of the nation’s residents.

Solutions to the extreme heat crisis require bipartisan support to ensure that protections are enshrined in legislation and our built environments’ standards. Urbanized areas need to improve their resilience to extreme heat, especially our transportation system, to help ensure residents can safely travel to where they need to go, regardless of the temperature.

Transit’s physical cliff: Climate change

A passenger train crosses a bridge near coastal California cliffs

California and New York State Legislatures voted to save transit from the fiscal cliff in 2023. While a win for transit can be a win for the climate, changing conditions across the country demonstrate the need for transit to find ways to be both fiscally and physically resilient.

Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner along coastal bluffs. Photo by Glenn Beltz via Flickr.

Between uncertain revenue sources, a sluggish ridership recovery after the pandemic, and increasing inflation-derived capital costs, transit agencies have their work cut out for them over the next few years. However, these crises are not new. Over the course of the 20th century, urban mass transit has had to weather many of the same crises we face today, including dealing with sprawling development, congested commutes, and inevitable budget crises stemming from unsustainable revenue streams. Transit advocates still need to find permanent ways down the fiscal cliff, and the solutions will likely involve brave policy decisions, coordinated advocacy, and innovation from transit authorities.

But the fiscal cliff is not the only problem on the horizon. As climate change unfolds, transit will need the support to serve as communities’ resilient backbone through subtle, day-to-day challenges and demanding disasters.

Changing landscapes

Coastal erosion, an issue only exacerbated by climate change, threatens one of the country’s most highly utilized rail transportation corridors. The Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Corridor in Southern California serves millions of riders annually and currently vies for the title of second-busiest intercity passenger rail corridor with Miami and Orlando’s new Brightline rail service. The alignment hosts Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner as well as two commuter rail services, Metrolink in Los Angeles and Coaster in San Diego, connecting people to jobs along the coast and helping travelers bypass the extreme traffic congestion Southern Californians have always struggled with.

Despite the high ridership and significance to the region, the current alignment is literally falling into the sea as the rails on sandstone bluffs erode with rising sea levels and shifting weather patterns. After two decades of service interruptions from landslides and over $100 million spent on temporary measures to stave off literal collapse, the San Diego Association of Governments has begun preliminary engineering & environmental review work to study a new alignment (with plans to open in 2035), after years of consideration and following months of service interruptions.

Sudden disasters

As adverse weather events like the recent Hurricane Otis and Tropical Storm Hilary become increasingly frequent and intense, the federal government, states, MPOs, and transit authorities will need to find ways to cooperate both proactively and reactively to meet the moment. Failure to prepare for and rebuild in the wake of a disaster can set regions back for years and only increase future chaos. When Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast’s rail infrastructure, it eliminated a key resource for the region’s resilience. While freight rail infrastructure was quickly repaired, passenger trains have been out of service for nearly two decades and only recently—after much effort—are due to return.

Without passenger rail or mass transit, residents are dependent on highway infrastructure for evacuation, which is vulnerable to car crashes and choking congestion during emergencies (check out the congestion on I-45 during an evacuation of Houston in 2005). Transit and passenger rail can provide citizens, especially those who do not have a car, a resilient avenue for evacuation that won’t just clog with a traffic jam.

The need for emergency funding

The stunningly fast 12-day turnaround to patch connections after the Interstate 95 collapse in Philadelphia this year shows just how swiftly critical infrastructure can be restored when properly prioritized. Mere days after the collapse, the Federal Highway Administration released $3 million to Pennsylvania DOT, offsetting the costs of the state’s repairs that started immediately after the incident. The FHWA’s Emergency Relief Program, funded at $100 million annually (in addition to supplemental appropriations), covers 100 percent of the immediate costs to mitigate emergency damage and up to 90 percent of federal highway repairs. This fast-acting program enables critical, day-one work to restore service, as states can work with certainty that they will be quickly reimbursed.

Transit and passenger rail need emergency funding that is just as responsive (if not more so) than programs for highway infrastructure. Just as repairs are needed for highways to continue functioning after a disaster, they’re needed to keep transit and passenger rail running on time so that people can get where they need to go. And since transit can be a valuable tool for mobility in the wake of disaster, transit systems should be restored as quickly as possible to ensure travel flow can continue.

Unlike the FHWA’s emergency program, the Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transit Emergency Relief Program receives $0 in annual appropriations. Instead, transit has to rely on Congress to pass legislation (a task that generally requires a Speaker of the House) to respond to disasters. This means that FTA cannot provide funding immediately after emergencies. Worse still, when disaster hits rail infrastructure, FTA’s disaster reserves have been transferred out to the Federal Railroad Administration, which does not have a much-needed emergency relief program of its own. Funds for disasters that occurred as far back as 2017 were only awarded this year as a result of an act that appropriated just $214 million to transit for four calendar years of disasters. Meanwhile, the same bill appropriated an additional $803 million to FHWA’s emergency program, on top of annual appropriations.

This issue is being recognized by federal legislators in new marker bills leading up to the next transportation reauthorization bill. Earlier this year, Senator Fetterman introduced a bill to inject an additional $50 million annually for the FTA’s Public Transit Emergency Relief Program to expedite the delivery of funds to match I-95’s 12-day recovery. In response to sudden rain and flooding in New York, Senator Gillibrand put forth legislation that would add funding to help transit agencies conduct proactive resiliency projects to FTA’s State of Good Repair Grants. Long-term resiliency for transit matters more every year, as its riders, many of whom are low-income, will be the most intensely hit by climate change, which they will face in the form of record-breaking heatwaves, rainstorms, and wildfire-induced air pollution.

The bottom line

With the IIJA lapsing in 2026 and natural disasters on the rise with climate change, Congress needs to devise new policies to improve how the country restores public transit in the wake of earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and even the less dramatic, predictable emergencies. New programs must find ways to prioritize transit speed, equitable service, and long-term resiliency, not just infrastructure built the same and built to fail.

The infrastructure law is not climate legislation, but states could make it green

A man observes a stretch of Dock Street in Annapolis, Md., that flooded after the area received over three quarters of an inch of rain in 24 hours on Jan. 25, 2010.

Though distinctly not serious about fighting climate change, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, the infrastructure law) can still help lead to some decent climate outcomes if states and metro areas make the choice to prioritize doing so with their flexible funding.

This post is part of T4America’s suite of materials explaining the 2021 $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which governs all federal transportation policy and funding through 2026. What do you need to know about the new infrastructure law? We know that federal transportation policy can be intimidating and confusing. Our hub for the new law will walk you through it, from the basics all the way to more complex details.

The most recent report from the International Panel on Climate Change warns us that even with the most aggressive emissions reduction strategies, global warming will more than likely exceed 1.5°C in the near term. So emissions reduction strategies that can prevent even more destructive consequences from greater global warming are urgently needed, but we also need to prepare our communities for the disastrous effects of climate change that are already hitting much of the country.

That is why this post will focus on how the federal government and its state and local grant recipients can use money from the infrastructure law to:

reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, and
make our transportation infrastructure, especially in our most vulnerable communities, adaptive and resilient to the all-but-inevitable effects of global climate change.

Both of these strategies are essential to reach the Biden administration’s climate goals and save Americans from the worst of climate change.

Emissions reduction

How and where the infrastructure law money is spent will have a massive impact on whether it is able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition to the bill’s separate $46+ billion dedicated toward resiliency and new climate-focused programs outlined below, states and metro areas are free to spend much of the law’s $650 billion in surface transportation money on climate-friendly projects like transit, active transportation, or repair, thanks to the broad flexibility built into the law. But it could just as well be spent on expanding roadways, inducing more demand for driving and thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

It all comes down to what states choose to prioritize, and how they direct their money. Here’s what we mean, via two potential future scenarios of IIJA spending, courtesy of the Georgetown Climate Center (GCC):

pie chart graphics — *Analysis and chart by the Georgetown Climate Center*

In the high-emissions scenario (left), highway expansion outpaces highway repair, encouraging yet more driving and doubling down on a system where a car is required just to participate in the economy. But the low-emissions scenario (right) heavily prioritizes repair and shifts five percent of funds toward transit, providing room for communities to provide for multimodal accessibility and move away from a dependence on cars. (According to the GCC, our recent spending/priorities are somewhere in between these two scenarios.) Both scenarios are legal and valid uses of infrastructure law money, but represent two radically different spending approaches.

But only one of these scenarios will bring a net decrease in transportation emissions:

bar chart graphic element — The change in transportation emissions over the next 20 years, with zero representing the levels we were set to hit without the new infrastructure law. The vertical axis is measured in cumulative million metric tons (MMT) of CO2. Analysis and chart by the Georgetown Climate Center

When one-tenth of a degree of warming could make the difference in extreme weather events, the difference between these two scenarios is massive. Especially when the GCC’s model predicts that the high-emissions scenario would in fact substantially increase emissions above where we would be without the infrastructure law.¹

Each of the largest formula grant programs (like the NHPP and STBG) and every other program with broad eligibility can and should be used to reduce emissions by enabling modes of travel other than cars. In fact, most of the infrastructure law’s funding could be marshaled toward either of the scenarios, so we will not list every specific program in this post. Check out our IIJA hub for guides on how to make sure the low-emissions scenario wins out, category by category. But three climate-focused programs are worth noting:

The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program: This formula grant program is funded annually at about $2.6 billion (up from $2.4 billion) and can be used for a wide range of projects that reduce congestion and therefore air quality. The IIJA allows states to spend CMAQ funds for operating public transit and shared micromobility, including bike share and shared scooter systems, as well as for the purchase of medium- or heavy-duty zero emission vehicles and related charging equipment.

The Carbon Reduction Program: States receive more money overall under the IIJA, but this new program requires them to set aside about 2.56 percent of their total apportionment toward reducing transportation emissions. There is a loophole, though: states can redirect this money into their highly flexible STBG funds if the Secretary certifies that the state has reduced transportation emissions on a per capita and per unit of economic output basis. (More about fixing this loophole under “what the administration can do” below.) Of the new carve-out, 65 percent of the program’s funds are to be allocated by population in the state, whereas the remaining 35 percent is at the discretion of states. For areas with populations over 200,000, the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) administers that 65 percent local share of program funding for eligible projects. These can include planning, designing, and building on- and off-road active transportation facilities and improvements to the roadway right-of-way to facilitate reductions in transportation emissions and congestion.

Reduction of Truck Emissions at Port Facilities Program: This new discretionary grant program, funded at $400 million over five years, will be distributed to America’s ports so they can invest in technology and operational efficiencies to reduce emissions from idling trucks. They can also use the money to electrify their operations and conduct the required workforce development and training therein.

Adaptation and resilience

Catastrophic hurricanes, heat waves, flooding, and other extreme weather events devastating American communities have become more frequent due to climate change and will happen more often as global warming worsens. So while we reduce emissions, we must also work to protect people from these events, with a focus on the disproportionate impact of climate-related disasters and public health hazards (like urban heat islands) on marginalized communities. The kinds of adaptation and resilience resources outlined below should focus first and foremost on these communities. The EPA’s action on clean water justice is a good model for environmental justice in climate resilience.

The National Highway Performance Program (NHPP), which accounts for over half of all Highway Trust Fund formula program spending, expanded its mission to address resilience, clearing the way to use these highway dollars to upgrade or repair existing assets to make them more resilient. It is still only an option on a menu of uses, but advocates can now pressure states to use NHPP funding for this newly stated purpose: “mitigate the cost of damages from sea level rise, extreme weather events, flooding, wildfires, or other natural disasters.”

The most direct funding mechanism for adaptation and resilience is the Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation (PROTECT) Program. Split between competitive and formula grants, the program is designed to help communities anticipate, prepare for, and adapt their transportation systems to natural disasters. The $7.3 billion (over five years) formula portion can be used by states and MPOs to build more resilient roads, transit, or ports, such as through the elevation or hardening of key infrastructure, as well as adjacent infrastructure like flood gates and culverts. The competitive grants, funded at $1.4 billion over the next five years, can be used for many of the same purposes, with more of a focus on access to services and evacuation routes.

The Healthy Streets Program is a competitive grant program that dedicates $100 million a year (subject to annual appropriations) to address the urban heat island effect. Local, regional, tribal, and state governments can apply for funding to make improvements to tree canopies, porous pavement, and other cooling projects.

Many states like Rhode Island have found federal flood mapping inadequate to capture evolving risk, so the law provides the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with $492 million to develop improved flood mapping and water modeling which could inform critical areas for future resilience investment. This will improve existing resources like the Sea Level Rise Viewer (which you should check out if you have not).

Finally, USDOT will provide for the establishment of 10 regional Centers of Excellence for Resilience and Adaptation and one national Center of Excellence for Resilience and Adaptation, each receiving $5 million annual grants to research resilience and adaptation technology, support data collection, and develop new approaches to keeping our communities safe.

How else could the administration advance our climate goals?

Other than prioritizing projects that do the most to lower emissions when awarding competitive grants, the Biden administration can pull a couple other administrative levers to make sure that federal action is oriented toward a lower-emission future.

As noted above about the Carbon Reduction Program, the Secretary of Transportation can allow states to divert CRP money to their highly flexible STBG pot, likely resulting in projects that will lead to much higher transportation emissions. So USDOT needs to codify strict guidelines for determining sufficient emissions reductions before allowing states to shift these funds—protecting against a future administration allowing states to fund projects that do not actually lower emissions.

Any efforts to address climate change should focus on those who are and will be most burdened by its effects. Some essential steps include focusing on communities with a history of underinvestment, addressing comorbidities like asthma and heart disease, and accounting for flooding vulnerabilities in marginalized communities (and conversely, climate change-induced gentrification in marginalized communities). The administration should continue to push guidance to include those strategies in formula and discretionary grant distribution.

USDOT should require clearer and more robust data for the public on transportation emissions. For one, induced demand should be included in transportation growth modeling. Also, USDOT should track transportation emissions per capita by state and publish results and trends online. They should include emissions reduction from the system, not just vehicles.

So what?

Many of the Biden administration’s most serious emissions reduction policies were in the (stalled) Build Back Better Act, but the future of that bill is uncertain and advocates should continue to push for emissions-slashing transportation policies not only at the federal level, but state, regional, and local level.

The infrastructure law largely gives states the flexibility to do what they like with climate-related money. So now, the onus of lowering greenhouse gas emissions and making our communities more resilient falls to states and localities. Whether you are a planner, a legislator, an advocate, or a concerned citizen, now is the time to raise the alarm and make sure infrastructure money is spent in a way that minimizes the impact of climate change on American communities.

Boston’s Olympic bid aims to be the first where you don’t need a car

Three Massachusetts-based organizations recently published Putting Legacy First, a report that makes a series of recommendations intended to support the official 2024 Boston Olympics bid. Their smart recommendations focus on ensuring that the transportation investments made to support a walkable, transit-oriented Olympics and Paralympics will also be primed to serve the Bay Staters well for years to come.

The authors recognize the potential of transportation as a catalyst for short and long-term change. Improvements that the city and state officials can start on now will improve Boston immediately, like addressing the backlog of MBTA’s maintenance needs or focusing future development on creating more walkable, bikeable and livable neighborhoods in affected areas, will also go a long way to making a more widely supported bid. Additionally, by rallying around the challenge of being the first Olympic and Paralympic games that visitors can attend car-free, the authors pose a challenge to federal, state and local officials to think about transportation for the disabled and enabled populations equally.

“We’ve known for a long time that our transportation system – especially the MBTA – needed lots of maintenance and investment just like many transit systems throughout our country. This winter certainly proved it. The Games could provide the deadline that the Boston area may need to create a system Bostonians can be proud of, but it requires that the state, cities and towns, and the Olympic host committee work together to overcome the political and financial barriers that stand in the way of a world-class transportation system,” said Kristina Egan, director of Transportation for Massachusetts.

How do they propose to achieve this goal? Putting Legacy First has eight transportation recommendations, Putting Legacy First Cover a few of which are summarized below:

The Olympics and Paralympics should serve as a catalyst to accelerate efforts to make the MBTA fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Infrastructure improvements that are solely related to the Games should be financed entirely by private sources. Projects that generate shared benefits to the Games as well as long-term public benefits should be financed by a mix of public and private funds.
Since all the main venues are along the coast or Charles River, the report strongly suggests Olympic planners use the Games as an opportunity to build resilience to climate change, sea level rise and storm surges.

One concern expressed by the critics of the Boston 2024 bid is the fear that citizens will wind up paying for a large amount of new infrastructure while receiving few of the benefits. What they view as a current lack of public information and participation adds to this concern. In response, the report offers ways to mitigate those concerns by clearly defining public and private sector roles, as well as recommending that the Commission, “maximize public input and participation with a special focus on under-represented groups”.

“We have to put legacy first,” said Marc Draisen, executive director of MAPC, whose staff are the prime authors of the report. “It’s not just about writing a winning bid and making the Games a success; it’s about making sure our region ends up with more affordable homes, better jobs, beautiful parks, and a 21st century transportation system. These things won’t just happen by themselves. We have to leverage the Olympic bid to make them happen, and the sooner the better.”

While the International Olympic Committee will not announce the 2024 host city until 2017, many civic-minded groups are ready to fight for a blueprint that ensures their investments into such an opportunity benefit the greater Boston region and have lasting positive effects for decades to come.

Putting Legacy First was written and published jointly by the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance, Transportation for Massachusetts and the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (a T4A member).