Amtrak Northeast Corridor (NEC) Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Phase I: Final Report September 30, 2014 Delivered to: Karen Gelman Principal Officer, Long Range Planning AMTRAK - NEC Infrastructure & Investment Development 30th Street Station, 3N-205 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Prepared by: Booz Allen Hamilton 8283 Greensboro Drive McLean, VA 22102 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 APPROACH............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 TASK I: IDENTIFYING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES ...................................................... 3 2.2 TASK 2: RAIL ASSETS ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Identifying Rail Assets.............................................................................................................. 5 3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS...................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 RAIL ASSETS DATA FINDINGS............................................................................................................... 6 3.2 ASSET DATA GAPS.............................................................................................................................. 7 3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE DATA ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.3.1 Summary of Existing Climate Change Data ............................................................................. 9 3.3.2 Recent Climate Change Trends and Projected Changes......................................................... 9 3.3.3 Climate Change Impacts to Rail............................................................................................. 13 3.3.4 Using Existing Climate Change Data to Analyze NEC Vulnerability ...................................... 16 DATA SOURCES: FEMA, NWI, ESRI, FRA, HSIP 2013 ............................................................................. 17 3.4 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES ................................................................................... 17 3.4.1 Types of Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies ................................................................ 17 3.4.2 Prioritization within the Vulnerability Assessment Process .................................................... 18 3.4.3 Summary of Methodologies Researched ............................................................................... 19 3.4.4 Criteria for Reviewing and Comparing Methodologies ........................................................... 20 4.0 RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................... 20 4.1 PHASED APPROACH FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................... 20 4.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES UNDER PHASES II AND III ....................................................... 24 5.0 SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS .............................................................................................................. 24 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sources of Amtrak Asset Data ......................................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Climate change projections by state along the NEC ...................................................................... 11 Table 3. Climate Change Hazards and their Impacts on Rail Assets .................................................................. 13 Table 4. Common Vulnerability Factors ........................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Unique Vulnerability Factors (Bridge and tunnel sample)...................................................................... 16 Table 6. Methodology Types .......................................................................................................................... 18 Table 7. Impact Areas across Vulnerability Perspectives .................................................................................. 19 Table 8. Vulnerability Assessment Activities under Phases II and III .................................................................. 25 1 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Trends in sea level rise, northeast US ............................................................................................... 10 Figure 2. Projected temperature increases, northeast US ................................................................................. 13 Figure 3. Storm surge extent from Superstorm Sandy ...................................................................................... 17 Figure 4. Phased approach framework with proposed activities .................................................................. 22 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: METHODOLOGY RESOURCES METHODOLOGY MATRIX ASSET DATABASE STATE AND REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE STUDIES METHODOLOGY COMPARISON CRITERIA ADDITIONAL REFERENCES 2 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND The increasing frequency of extreme weather events brought upon by changing climate conditions has caused major disruptions to transportation systems over the past few years, including mass transit operators and regional operators like Amtrak. As a result, there is a growing recognition within the rail industry of the importance of understanding and evaluating the risks associated with extreme weather events and changing climate conditions. With a large portfolio of assets and infrastructure, much of which is vulnerable to the risks of extreme weather events, Amtrak has initiated a first phase in its assessment of the potential impacts of climate change on its operations. This initial phase seeks to examine Amtrak owned assets and operations along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and its connecting corridor spines including Springfield, Albany, and Harrisburg (Keystone Corridor) Lines. Although Amtrak’s NEC confirmed a reasonable level of resilience during such storms as Superstorm Sandy, the event demonstrated the strength of future storms and their potential impacts on rail operations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this Phase I study was to research, analyze and report results on a pre-selected list of data items in support of a full-scale vulnerability assessment to take place during a Phase II. Overall, this preliminary study was used to identify: 1. Availability of Amtrak NEC rail asset data; 2. Gaps in Amtrak NEC rail asset data; 3. Typical climate change impacts to rail assets and the general availability of climate change data for the northeast region of the United States; 4. Availability of applicable climate change vulnerability assessment methodologies, focusing primarily on methodologies that assess infrastructure and fixed assets using a risk-hazard (RH) approach1 and methodologies designed for use by transportation organizations; and 5. A recommended climate change vulnerability assessment approach for Amtrak to use as a lens through which to view its construction and capital planning projects and activities. This report provides a summary of the findings of this research and analysis, and provides recommendations for scoping the activities of a Phase II full-scale vulnerability assessment going forward. This Phase I Report document is also designed to be used as a discussion and decision-support tool for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Investment Development (NECIID) Department. NECIID may choose to distribute this document to other divisions and departments within Amtrak, or to relevant external stakeholders, for educational and/or planning purposes. 2.0 APPROACH 2.1 TASK I: IDENTIFYING VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES In conducting the methodologies research, various types of documents were reviewed to develop a working ‘methodologies matrix’ (See Appendix B). In order to conduct this research, and develop the methodology matrix, a set of documents was reviewed that consisted primarily of two types: 1) guidance manuals with A risk-hazard (RH) approach describes the impact consequences that results when a physical asset is exposed to, or interacts with, a hazard (e.g. extreme temperatures). Inherent sensitivities of physical assets also contribute to the over risk for impact. Source: Turner, et.al. (2003). 1 3 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT specific steps and approaches to conducting vulnerability assessments; and 2) case study reports that provide examples of how methodologies (or elements of methodologies) have been utilized, including lessons learned (See Appendix A for these methodology resources). Methodologies were also collected through discussions with subject matter experts (SMEs) at the University of Birmingham. These methodologies were compared to one another using a predetermined set of criteria, and were also evaluated against the findings of the rail asset data research, and the climate change data research. This comparison to the research results helped determine which methodologies could potentially be utilized for a full scale vulnerability assessment, given the availability of existing rail asset and climate change data. These methodologies and their different merits and demerits were reviewed in preliminary discussion with Amtrak. The recommended approach for Phase II was developed based on this research, review, and preliminary discussion. 2.2 TASK 2: RAIL ASSETS Rail assets are defined as a single, unique piece of rolling stock (e.g., locomotives, rail cars, maintenance vehicles) or infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, stations, facilities, and components of systems including but not limited to track infrastructure and the traction power supply system. Assets work together as part of a system to support and sustain railroad operations. Assets also include people and information, but for the purpose of this study, only the “physical” assets are considered. Further, out of the physical assets, only those that are “fixed” are included in the study. Therefore, such rolling stock assets as locomotives and railcars are not included. Although rail assets vary in value and significance to the overall system, the significance of each asset type or class was also not considered in this study. In order to have a detailed understanding of the risks and impacts to Amtrak’s NEC and connecting corridor rail assets as a result of the predicted climatic changes, it is first necessary to understand the nature of the assets; specifically identifying them by type (or class), location, and other pertinent characteristics or attributes. For this phase of the project, an initial list of the rail infrastructure assets located along the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and its connecting corridor spines was developed. Assets identified included key components of the track infrastructure (e.g., turnouts, crossings, interlockings, junctions [main-branch, high volume]); electrical power /traction power supply system (e.g. electric power supply, electric substations, overhead catenary systems [OCS] structures and catenary, substations, frequency converters, commercial power interface); and signal system, as well as bridges/culverts; tunnels (e.g., subterranean, subaqueous); stations; and maintenance/ operations facilities (e.g., servicing facilities for locomotives and cars, repair facilities, storage yards, Maintenance of Way [MoW]). Further, when the information was available, asset characteristics were recorded to include general information (e.g., asset name, asset type), location information (e.g., city, state, line, section), ownership information (e.g., rail line owner, asset owner and operator), vulnerability information (e.g., exposed shoreline/riverbank, within storm surge zone), and structural information (e.g., type, subtype, length). Assets were recorded only if they are located immediately along the right-of-way of the NEC and the connecting corridor spines. Using the traction power supply system as an example, the frequency converter stations and electric substations which are found along the right-of-way were added to the list; however, the commercial power plants and other offsite electricity infrastructure were not included, regardless of their significance to railroad operations. For ease of use, assets were compiled into a Microsoft Excel based file. Using Excel will allow Amtrak and other stakeholders to search and sort the list based on any of the individual asset characteristics. 4 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Rail assets were added to the Excel-based list regardless of their ownership. As an example, Amtrak owns and operates the entire Harrisburg and Springfield Lines; however, it does not own and operate the entire NEC and Albany Line. In various instances, especially in the states of New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, rail assets are owned by freight railroad companies or the individual states and typically operated by their respective state departments of transportation or transit agencies. In gathering information on the bridges, particular emphasis was made to identify those which cross bodies of water versus those that cross under or over roadways; the undergrade and overhead/overpass bridges. This was due to the observation that in general, these bridges are more vulnerable to extreme weather events such as flooding than the bridges which cross roadways. For a more detailed analysis of the asset vulnerabilities, please see Section 3.3.2. Priority of research time was also given to identifying assets along the NEC as opposed to assets along the connecting corridor spines. 2.2.1 Identifying Rail Assets To identify NEC and connecting corridor rail assets, research was performed on sources provided by Amtrak as well as those which were publically available. Similarly, discussions with Amtrak subject matter experts (SME) and the materials they provided enabled further identification of assets. The source materials used in this task are identified in Table 1. Many of the source materials, especially those provided by Amtrak, provided information on locations of the majority of the major assets including the stations, bridges, or other assets which were under construction or where future construction projects are scheduled. To identify the smaller and more numerous assets such as the smaller bridges, culverts, and tunnels; Google Earth, Google Maps, and other publically available sources were used. The accuracy and level of detail of Google Earth is such that satellite photos of the entire NEC and connecting corridor spines were analyzed to identify storage yards, stations, bridges/culverts, tunnels, and junctions. This approach proved effective as the majority of assets in the list were identified in this manner. Using Google Earth; bridges, culverts, and other assets with a length of less than twenty feet could be routinely, consistently, and accurately identified. Once identified, characteristics such as length and geographic features crossed could be gathered using tools in the Google Earth suite (i.e. ruler) as well as geographic databases contained in Google Maps. In many cases the type of structure could be identified using the Street View tool in Google Maps. This occurred when a road ran adjacent to the railroad right-ofway and a 360° view from the road enabled rail infrastructure to be clearly seen. Many bridge characteristics such as bridge type (e.g., through truss, deck plate girder, plate girder, concrete/ stone arch) could be identified this way. With the high density of roadways in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast region, identifying asset characteristics using the Street View of Google Maps proved to be effective. Once identified, the rail assets were cross-referenced with other sources to determine the accuracy of the findings or if further information on a particular asset could be obtained. Another source which also proved to be effective was the NEC North and South End Storm Surge Vulnerability Database from the Surging Seas interactive SLR mapping tool. This source provided by Amtrak identifies the segments of the NEC which are within a ten foot storm surge (above existing sea levels). The rail segments are further classified as those which may have storm surge vulnerability based on their exposure to coastal open water (e.g., ocean, bay, estuary) and those that while are more inland and/or protected, still have a ten foot storm surge exposure. Not only were the segments added to the list, but assets which fall within these ten foot storm surge segments were also noted. 5 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Once added to the list, assets were assigned a unique numeric identifier numbered sequentially based on geography. For instance, assets were numbered either from north to south as in the NEC, Albany, and Springfield Lines; or west to east as in the Harrisburg Line. Sorting the list based on geography will enable Amtrak or other stakeholders to identify the location of the assets and their proximity to other assets, and will also allow for a more efficient cross-check once additional asset lists and information are identified. In the next phase of this project, the gathering of geographic coordinates for all assets will enable Amtrak to transfer the list to a Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial database. For the numerous assets without an official Amtrak name or identifier, the assets were given names based on the body of water for which they crossed or in some examples, the closest geographical feature or point of interest (e.g., mountain peak, state park) to them. Table 1. Sources of Amtrak Asset Data Sources Amtrak Provided Sources  Amtrak Security Asset List  Amtrak Heavy Rail Conditions Location List  Amtrak NEC Assets List  Amtrak NEC Stations List  2011 Engineering State of Good Repair Report  NEC North End 10-foot Storm Surge Vulnerability Database  NEC South End 10-foot Storm Surge Vulnerability Database Discussions with Amtrak Employees  Glenn Sullivan - Sandy Impact  Dan Tasker - Electric Traction Publically Available Sources  The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor – 2012 Update Report  Critical Infrastructure Needs on the Northeast Corridor – January 2013  Freight and Passenger Rail in America’s Transportation System – Joseph H. Boardman Testimony before the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee – March 5, 2013  The Future of Passenger Rail: What’s Next for the Northeast Corridor, Testimony of Joseph H. Boardman, Testimony of Joseph H. Boardman before the Senate committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation  The Northeast corridor Infrastructure Master Plan  Google Maps  Google Earth  Amtrak and Commuter Railroad Timetables 3.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 3.1 RAIL ASSETS DATA FINDINGS Rail assets identified include key components of the track infrastructure; electrical power /traction power supply system; and signal system, as well as bridges/culverts; tunnels; stations; and maintenance/ operations facilities. In total, over 800 assets along the NEC and the connecting corridor spines were identified (See Appendix C, Asset Database, for a complete list of assets identified under Phase I). Specifically, 330 bridges/culverts, 177 stations, 110 interlockings/junctions, 39 tunnels, 29 MoW facilities, 25 traction power assets (e.g., substations, converter stations), and zero communication/signal system 6 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT assets were identified. As for a summary of assets identified by line, 592 are located on the NEC, 121 on the Albany Line, 80 on the Harrisburg Line, and 39 on the Springfield Line. In addition to the assets identified, the asset list contains 113 storm surge vulnerable segments on the NEC. These segments are not considered assets, but were included in the asset list and used to identify the assets located within a storm surge zone, or segment, of the corridor. The information was gathered using the following Amtrak provided databases: NEC North End 10-foot Storm Surge Vulnerability Database and NEC South End 10foot Storm Surge Vulnerability Database. This asset data gathering phase was an initial effort to identify and list the assets which are present on the NEC and connecting corridor spines. It is recommended that in the next phase of work, a more detailed and targeted review of assets be completed. The next section discusses the initial data gaps in this phase of work, as well as a recommended approach for identifying the remaining assets and other missing information. INITIAL ASSET DATA GAPS 3.2 As a general observation, a great deal of information was gathered for asset classes including the bridges/culverts, tunnels, and stations, while substantially less information was gathered for key components of the communication, signal, and the electrical power/traction supply system (i.e., secondary substations). In this initial phase, the readily-available asset reports tended to focus on bridges, tunnels, and stations. Other data gathering approaches also focused on these assets. As an example, using satellite photographs, it was much easier to identify bridges than key components of the communication, signal, and the electrical power/traction supply system. Regardless of asset class, for majority of assets identified, a sufficient amount of attribute-level information was gathered including asset location information (e.g., city, state, geographic location in reference to other nearby assets) and asset owner/operator information. The technology available including Google Earth and Google Maps not only allowed assets to be identified (in most instances), but it allowed their respective locations to be identified as well. Although asset attribute-level information was available in many instances, other some asset attributes were more difficult to obtain. As a result, further research needs to be conducted to verify and obtain such information to include asset name, structure length (if applicable), Amtrak assigned asset number (e.g., identification [ID] number), milepost, and construction year. As for the asset name, in many cases the names of assets were not known; so therefore, names were added using bodies of water crossed or nearby geographic features (e.g., mountains, state parks) traversed. The information below provides further information on the initial asset data gaps for the various asset classes.  Bridges/culverts – The vast majority of bridges along the NEC and connecting corridor spines which cross bodies of water were added to the asset data list. In most cases information on asset information was also identified, but more research needs to be conducted to obtain such attributelevel information including milepost, Amtrak assigned ID numbers, year built, and length. Out of the 330 bridges in the asset list, approximately 189 (or roughly 57%) of the assets already have bridge lengths. Still more research needs to occur to identify the lengths of the remaining bridges. Because this effort focused on the bridges which cross bodies of water, additional research needs to occur to identify the undergrade bridges, those railroad bridges which cross over or under roadways. 7 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT  Stations – The vast majority of the stations along the NEC and connecting corridor spines were added to the asset data list. Information was verified from a number of sources including Amtrak and commuter railroad operator timetables. A great deal of information was also gathered on notable station attributes including the station owner and operator.  Interlocking/Junctions – Although the interlockings and junctions were the third highest asset class in terms of total assets identified, more research needs to be performed to verify the accuracy of the data already contained within the asset list and to locate and identify additional interlockings and junctions throughout the NEC and connecting corridor spines.  Tunnels – The vast majority of tunnels along the NEC and connecting corridor spines were added to the asset data list. In most cases information on the tunnel attributes were identified, but similar to the bridges and culverts, more research needs to be conducted to obtain such information as milepost, Amtrak assigned identification numbers, year built, and length. Out of the 39 tunnels identified, approximately 31 (or roughly 79%) of the assets already have tunnel lengths. Still more research needs to occur to identify the lengths of the remaining tunnels.  Maintenance of Way (MoW) and Operations Facilities – The vast majority of the MoW and Operations Facilities along the NEC and connecting corridor spines were identified. Future research must be focused on verifying the accuracy of the data and obtaining asset attributes for those facilities including the year the facility was constructed.  Traction Power Supply System (e.g., Substations, Secondary Substations, Converter Stations) – Compared to other asset classes, less information on traction power supply system assets were identified. It is highly recommended that a high priority be placed on identifying the key components of the traction power system in a future data gathering phase.  Communication/Signal System – No assets were identified for the communications and signal system. It is highly recommended that a high priority be placed on identifying the key components of the communications and signal system in a future data gathering phase. It is recommended that the following actions be followed during any subsequent research gathering efforts. Doing so will assist Amtrak in developing a more comprehensive asset list, and better align this effort to other ongoing Amtrak initiatives. The recommendations include:    Align Amtrak Asset Numbers (ID Numbers) with those Amtrak uses in other systems such as Maximo. Include in the list those key components of the traction power supply system which supply and transfer power to the corridor (e.g., power plants, substations), but are not necessarily found along the right-of-way. These components are just as critical as other components of the system, but are located off-corridor. Add geographic coordinates for all assets, using the unique identifier found in the asset list as reference. 8 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT   3.3 Coordinate and leverage other Amtrak initiatives including the Condition Assessment which also has a data gathering component. Leverage the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) geographic databases including the FTA Network which is available via the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD). CLIMATE CHANGE DATA 3.3.1 Summary of Existing Climate Change Data “Climate data” in this section refers to the projections of the likely outcomes of climate change as predicted by climate models. It does not refer to the raw data used as inputs to the models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the primary scientific organization on climate change, established in 1988 within the United Nations. Its mandate is to provide the information needed to support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change. The goal of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (i.e., human-induced) interference with the climate system". The IPCC is not a research organization in that it does not carry out its own original research, nor does it directly monitor climate, weather, sea level rise, or related phenomena. It does not “own” the climate models or computing power or other assets necessary for making predictions. Instead, the IPCC is an aggregator: its assessments and other reports are syntheses of scientific results published in the literature, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. The IPCC releases regular assessments reports containing scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the causes of climate change, its potential impacts, its risks, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The contributors to the literature from which IPCC draws its information, and who also review and comment on IPCC drafts reports, include thousands climate, weather, social, environmental, and other scientists and experts from all over the world, and as such IPCC reports constitute a consensus of scientific opinion at the time of publication. The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in its National Assessments (2009, 2014)2 provides regional projections based on the output from Air-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) down-scaled to regions by such organizations as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Most regional climate projections can be traced back to these organizations. Projections are typically categorized by temporal intervals, often short-term projections being defined general in the range of 2015-2030, mid-term as 2030-2080, and long-term as 2080-2100. 3.3.2 Recent Climate Change Trends and Projected Changes Over the past two to three decades, significant changes in climate have already been observed, and their impacts felt. This has been the case for a variety of climate change hazards, including extreme temperatures of heat and cold, precipitation patterns and intensity, storminess, and sea level rise. For example, Figure 1 represents the output of satellite measurements taken of sea level along the North 2 http://nca2009.globalchange.gov/ and http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/ 9 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Atlantic coast since 1992, showing a steady increase in sea level that is observable even over a short timeframe of twenty years. Scientists at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) report that this rate has started to increase due to the reduced strength in the Gulf Stream causing warmer, more thermally expansive water to accumulate along the East Coast. Figure 1. Trends in sea level rise, northeast US3 Data source: NOAA http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/slr/slr_sla_na_keep_txj1j2.png Local assessments of sea level rise have been made or are underway for many locations up and down the NEC, these are usually a product of regional, state, or local initiatives as part of broad effort in the Northeast to gauge the impacts of climate change for planning purposes (See Appendix D for examples of these state-based studies). These assessments typically take the form of detailed GIS maps, often developed by climate change scientists at research universities for reports or climate change planning events. They typically integrate elevation data with sea level rise projections, with the more sophisticated including storm surge modeling results and/or historical data from real events such as Superstorm Sandy. Climate projections for the Northeast include an average temperature increase in the range of 4.5 °F to 10 °F by the 2080s, with relative sea-level rise within a range of 1 to 4 feet by 2100.4 The uncertainty in sea level rise is due to its dependence on the rate of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ice sheet melting, rates of local land subsidence, changes in Gulf Stream dynamics, and other factors that are not static. The output of regional models is a first step towards downscaling climate information to a level at which it is useful for decision makers. For more granular assessments of sea level rise, a more geographically focused approach is needed. However, Table 2 outlines at a high level climate change hazard projections by state along the NEC. TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 are a series of NASA satellite oceanography missions to monitor global ocean circulation and analyze the connections between the ocean and the atmosphere to improve global climate forecasts and predictions. 4 http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northeast 3 10 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Table 2. Climate change projections by state along the NEC State Sea Level Rise Storm Surge Extreme Heat Events Massachusetts  3.8 feet by 21005  3-6 feet by 21006  Boston 100% chance of 5-10+ foot storm surge event by 21007  Boston storm surge +7.5 feet by 20508 Rhode Island  2-6 feet by 2010  3.7 feet by 210013 Connecticut  1-5 feet by 2050  New Haven 3.8 feet by 210016  Providence 100% chance of 7-10 foot storm surge event by 210014  New Haven 100% chance of 6-9+ feet by 210017 New York  31 inches by 205020  2 feet by 208021  NYC 3.9 feet by 210022  Newark 3.9 feet by 210026 New Jersey  NYC 100% chance of a 6-9+foot storm surge event by 210023  Newark 100% chance of 6-9+ foot storm surge event by 210027  Boston +30-60 days/year over 100ºF by 2100  Boston +51-71 EHE9 days by 209910  Boston +60 EHE days by 210011  +41-63 EHE days/year by 209915  +30-50 days/year over 90 ºF by 2100  +30-50 days/year over 90 ºF by 210018  Hartford +52 EHE Days by 210019  NYC +53-75 EHE days/year by 209924  NYC +20 days/year over 90 ºF by 202625  Newark +53-68 EHE days/year by 209928  Newark +60 EHE Days by 210029 Extreme Precipitation Events Increase in precipitation per event.12 Increase in precipitation per event. Increase in precipitation per event. Increase in precipitation per event. Increase in precipitation per event. Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/massachusetts Boston Harbor Association, 2013, “Preparing for the Rising Tide” 7 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/massachusetts 8 Boston Harbor Association, 2013, “Preparing for the Rising Tide” 9 EHE (excessive heat event) days are defined as days with conditions that are historically associated with significant heat-related morbidity and mortality, and are tied to the ambient climate of the region/city in question. 10 Greene et al. 2011 11 NRDC, 2012 12 Between 1958 and 2010, the Northeast saw a 70% increase in the amount of rain falling in extreme precipitation events. This trend is expected to continue, but it is difficult to forecast precisely. 13 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/rhode-island 14 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/rhode-island 15 Greene et al, 2011 16 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/connecticut 17 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/connecticut 18 National Climate Assessment 2009 19 NRDC, 2012 20 PlanNYC website 21 New York Office of Emergency Management, 2012 22 Climate Central, 2100, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/new-york 23 Climate Central, 2100, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/new-york 24 Greene et al, 2011 25 Patz, J.A., et al. 2014 26 Climate Central, New Jersey, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/new-jersey 27 Climate Central, New Jersey, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/new-jersey 28 Greene et al, 2011 29 NRDC, 2012, http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/killer-heat/ 5 6 11 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT State Sea Level Rise Storm Surge Extreme Heat Events Pennsylvania  Philadelphia: limited available predictions, but 10km2 are less than 3 feet above current high water mark.30  1.6-5 feet by 210033  Wilmington 4.2 feet by 210034  3.7 feet by 2100, 5.7 for structures built to last beyond 210037  Baltimore 4 feet by 210038  4 feet by 210043  Philadelphia: limited available predictions, but 10km2 are less than 3 feet above current high water mark.  100% change of 4-7+ foot storm surge event by 210035  100% chance of 6-9+ foot storm surge event by 210039  Philadelphia +51-73 EHE days/year by 209931  Philadelphia +67 EHE days by 210032 Delaware Maryland Washington, DC  98% chance of 8-10 foot storm surge event by 210044  Similar to Baltimore, smaller heat island effect36  +60 days over 90 by 205040  Baltimore +38-69 EHE days by 209941  Baltimore +61 EHE Days by 210042  +60 days over 90 by 205045  46-69 by 209946  +52 EHE Days by 210047 Extreme Precipitation Events Increase in precipitation per event. Increase in precipitation per event. Increase in precipitation per event. Increase in precipitation per event. Local assessments of climate change hazards have been made or are underway for many locations up and down the NEC. These are usually a product of regional, state, or local initiatives as part of broad effort in the Northeast to gauge the impacts of climate change for planning purposes (See Appendix D for examples of these state-based studies). These assessments typically take the form of detailed GIS maps, often developed by climate change scientists at research universities for reports or climate change planning events. They typically integrate elevation data with sea level rise projections, with the more sophisticated including storm surge modeling results and/or historical data from real events such as Superstorm Sandy. The most obvious and damaging heat-related impact of climate change is summer heat waves. The length and intensity of summer heat waves in the Northeast are expected to increase substantially by the end of this century. Cities across the Northeast are projected to average 20 days per summer over 100°F by 2100 compared to an average of 1 between 1961 and 1990, and some inland cities such as Philadelphia, PA and Hartford, CT could average as much as 30 days.48 EPA, 2014 Greene et al, 2011 32 NRDC, 2012, http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/killer-heat/ 33 Wilmington Area Planning Council, January 2011 34 Climate Central, 2012 http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/delaware 35 Climate Central, 2012 http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/delaware 36 Wilmington, DE is not a large population center, and projections on EHE and morbidity tend to focus on large cities, therefore EHE days are not reported in the literature 37 State of Maryland, 2014 38 Climate Central, 2012 http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/maryland 39 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/maryland 40 National Climate Assessment, 2014 41 Greene et al, 2011 42 NRDC, 2012 43 Climate Central, 2012 http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/dc 44 Climate Central, 2012, http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/ssrf/dc 45 National Climate Assessment, 2014 46 Greene et al, 2011 47 NRDC, 2012 48 Union of Concerned Scientists, Confronting Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast, 2007 30 31 12 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSSESSMENT PHASE I REPO ORT Climate prrojections by the National Climatic C Data Center show w the followingg pattern (Figuure 2) for sum mmer heat wavees across the Northeast U.S S. Figure 2. Prrojected temperaature increases, northeast US Data sourcee: 2009 National Climate Assesssment, US Globaal Change Reseaarch Program 3.3.3 Climate C Cha ange Impa acts to Raill Climate chhange will direectly and indirrectly affect raail service in sseveral differeent ways. Tabble 3 outlines typical imppacts of climaate change onn rail: Table 3. Clim mate Change Haazards and theirr Impacts on Rail Assets Hazard H Assset or Risk Extreme Heat H Track expanssion and bucklingg, catenary expaansions/ saggingg, switch failuress, overheating off equipment, otther failures of thhe infrastructuree, and track workk bans during hoot weather (due tto heat stress foor workers). Extreme Cold C Brittle or fracttured tracks, other failures of thee infrastructure, aand track work bbans during coldd weather (due to cold stress foor workers). 13 SEPTEMBER 115, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Hazard Precipitation Winter Precipitation Wind Sea level rise Asset or Risk Flooding of tracks, stations, tunnels, storage yards, and equipment; short-circuiting of electrical substations, signal infrastructure, utility lines, and equipment; bridge scouring; degradation of rail ties (water collection in concrete ties, insect damage in wood ties); increased salt corrosion of catenary and bridges (especially steel bridges, stringer bridges, rebar in reinforced concrete piers and abutments); extended wet-levels of bridges and tunnels; clogging of bridge deck and tunnel drainage systems; debris in right-of-way; landslides; erosion/fouling of embankments, track ballast, and sub-ballast; sediment accumulation in culverts/drainage systems; etc. Broken rails, icing and contraction of the catenary, ice and snow in the traction motors of locomotives, heavy ice / snow accumulation on tracks, switch failures, freezing of water in concrete ties, etc. Speed restrictions, falling trees on railway, etc. Long-term/permanent track flooding Tables 4 and 5 identify vulnerability factors and elements for consideration. The factors are grouped into those that are common across asset classes and those that are unique to a given asset class. For each vulnerability factor identified, vulnerability elements have also been added as a means to compare the varying levels of vulnerability for each factor. Vulnerability elements such as these will enable risk managers to weigh the severity of the vulnerability, and ultimately their impact based on climate change and extreme weather events. For each proposed vulnerability factor, there are three vulnerability elements listed left to right from lower to higher vulnerability. 14 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Table 4. Common Vulnerability Factors Vulnerability Factors Vulnerability Elements Lower Vulnerability Location of Asset Flood Zone Flooding – Single Storm Event Proximity to Exposed Water Freeze/ Thaw Cycle Accessibility Heat Cold Wind Rock Slides Infrastructure Age Higher Vulnerability Surface (at grade) Subterranean Subaqueous Located in no flood zone Heavy rain Located in a 10 year flood zone Heavy snow melt Located in a 50+ year flood zone Hurricanes, Nor’easters No Water River Bay/Ocean <30 days of above and below 32F Easily accessible 30-89 days of above and below 32F Moderately accessible Expected to receive <5 days of 100+°F temps. Expected to receive <5 days of <32+°F temps. Average wind speed <5 mph No potential for rock slides Expected to receive 5-14 days of 100+°F temps. Expected to receive 5-14 days of <32+°F temps. Average wind speed 6-9 mph Moderate potential for rock slides 20-99 years old >90 days of above and below 32F Inaccessible (no close set-on locations) Expected to receive >15 days of 100+°F temps. Expected to receive >15 days of <32+°F temps. Average wind speed >10 mph Great potential for rock slides Greater than 100 years old Less than 20 years old Although there are some vulnerability factors that can be applied across all asset classes as shown in the table above, many factors are unique to that specific asset class. Below are a sampling of vulnerability factors which are unique to a given asset type, or class. The bullets in the table are the proposed vulnerability factors listed in descending vulnerability order from top to bottom. The bridges and tunnels are used as an example. 15 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Table 5. Unique Vulnerability Factors (Bridge and tunnel sample) Bridges Length of Longest Span or Channel Span (Recoverability)  Greater than 200 feet  100-199 feet  Less than 100 feet Structure/Superstructure Type  Moveable - through truss (no backup power)  Moveable - through truss (backup power)  Moveable - deck plate girder, plate girder (no backup power)  Moveable - deck plate girder, plate girder (backup power)  Fixed - through truss  Fixed - deck plate girder, plate girder,  Fixed - concrete, stone arch Tunnels Length of Tunnel  Greater than 5000 feet  1000-4999 feet  Less than 1000 feet Structure Type  Subaqueous - brick lined, unreinforced concrete lined  Subaqueous - reinforced concrete lined  Subaqueous - natural rock, no lining  Subterranean - Cut-and-Cover - brick lined, unreinforced concrete lined  Subterranean - Cut-and-Cover - reinforced concrete lined  Subterranean - Cut-and-Cover - natural rock, no lining  Subterranean - Bored - brick lined, unreinforced concrete lined  Subterranean - Bored - reinforced concrete lined  Subterranean - Bored - natural rock, no lining Substructure Type  Stone/Masonry/Steel Columns  Unreinforced Concrete  Reinforced Concrete 3.3.4 Using Existing Climate Change Data to Analyze NEC Vulnerability There is a wealth of climate change data and forecast products available. Many of them are scientifically credible efforts to make realistic projections of where societal vulnerabilities lie and generate results useful in decision-making. While most models were not created for the purpose of guiding specific planning or preparation efforts, they do provide a general picture of where climate change hazards will occur, and can help focus risk assessments to areas where critical vulnerabilities might lie. More intense modeling and mapping would be needed to confirm these vulnerabilities and suggest adaptation strategies. Figure 3 is provided as a sample to illustrate how a mapping tool like GIS, using inputs of climate change and NEC asset data, can generate visual representations of rail asset risk to climate change, in this case as a result of Superstorm Sandy. Typically, all that is needed to generate this type of map is data on the location of an asset of interest, and the outputs of climate change models for a particular hazard of interest and a particular year of interest. From Amtrak’s perspective, many areas through which the Northeast Corridor travels have already received preliminary assessments of how sea level rise will alter the coastline; where temperatures are predicted to spike to unprecedented highs and lows; and how precipitation patterns are expected to alter over the coming 10-80 years. It is unlikely that existing data will provide enough information upon which to base engineering or procurement decisions in its current form. However, it is certainly possible for Amtrak to begin assessing vulnerability of its critical assets in order to incorporate the impacts of climate change into general planning discussions. 16 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Figure 3. Storm surge extent from Superstorm Sandy (10/29/2012) and Amtrak station locations and rail lines in Connecticut. Data sources: FEMA, NWI, ESRI, FRA, HSIP 2013 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES 3.4 3.4.1 Types of Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies The document review of methodologies, in conjunction with the SME input process, revealed three types of asset vulnerability methodologies:    Qualitative Semi-quantitative Quantitative Table 6 illustrates each of these methodologies with a brief description, representative list of justifications for using the methodology type, and a sample result of the methodology type: 17 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Table 6. Methodology Types Methodology Type Description Justifications for Use Sample Result Qualitative Qualitative vulnerability assessments typically require a modest level of data input, and result in a set of preliminary conclusions about an asset’s or a system’s vulnerabilities to climate change. Qualitative outcomes are often used to focus future, quantitative-based approaches in pursuit of empirical results. Narrative-based vulnerability assessment report with recommendations on conducting future, targeted analysis using more quantitative-based methodologies Semi-quantitative Semi-quantitative vulnerability analyses requiring enough data to determine, on a scaled system, the relative significance of climate change impacts on an asset class or system. Quantitative Quantitative vulnerability analyses insert robust data inputs within mathematical models to generate numerical results, often in the form of statistical probabilities associated with the climate change impacts on an asset or operation. 1. Lack of sufficient asset / operational data or climate change data required to conduct a more quantitative-based analysis 2. When the purpose of the study is to generate a high-level overview of asset vulnerability, or system-wide vulnerabilities 3. Qualitative results can narrow the focus of future quantitative assessments 4. Qualitative results in the form of a narrative report can be effective in introducing the general concepts of climate change impacts to different levels or departments of an organization 1. Lack of sufficient asset / operational data or climate change data required to conduct a more quantitative-based analysis 2. When the purpose of the study is to generate a high-level understanding of how assets differ in their relative vulnerability to climate change impacts 3. Semi-quantitative results can indicate high priority assets or systems based on their relative vulnerability, which can aid in narrowing the focus of future quantitative analyses. 1. Sufficient amount of asset / operational data and climate change data to conduct a quantitative analysis 2. When the purpose of the study is to generate more definitive results to be used in organizational decision-making, investment planning, maintenance scheduling, resilience and adaptation planning, etc. Primarily narrative report describing the results of a simplified, numerical or graphical ranking system used to generate an asset list that indicates relative vulnerability to climate change impacts, such as a “stop light” approach using red, yellow, green for relative rankings Numerical-based report including results of modeling and analysis, along with a narrative describing the implications of those results 3.4.2 Prioritization within the Vulnerability Assessment Process While the original intent of the methodology research under Phase I was to focus on risk-hazard approaches to assess asset impacts, the research also revealed additional “impact areas” that could be analyzed under a climate change vulnerability assessment. These impact areas generally cut across different vulnerability perspectives (e.g. operator, passenger, local rail and freight rail partners), and can, if evaluated, generate a more holistic understanding of operational, system, program, and planning level impacts. Impact areas may also be deemed the “priority areas” of a study. While they are subject to revision, priority areas are often identified upfront to:  Ensure that the outcome of the vulnerability assessment process is relevant to the organization’s purpose for conducting the study, and that the results provide information needed to drive decisionmaking; and 18 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT  Determine the analytical approach to be taken under the vulnerability study. Table 7 below outlines representative vulnerability perspectives and impact areas (including assets) that could be incorporated into future, NEC climate change vulnerability assessments. Table 7. Impact Areas across Vulnerability Perspectives Impact Areas Vulnerability Perspective Operator Passenger Partners Existing Assets    Future Assets   Safety   System Schedule    Maintenance Schedule  Lifecycle Costs  Geographic Segment of NEC   In many instances, beginning with an asset-level vulnerability study can provide the necessary information to facilitate a vulnerability study of an organization’s systems, operations, programs and/or planning processes. For example, an analysis of Amtrak asset vulnerability between Philadelphia, PA and Newark, NJ can provide the data necessary to understand how scheduling between that city pair could be disrupted by climate change impacts, the safety concerns associated with those impacts, as well as passenger satisfaction implications given the expectation of delays. Under this scenario, the perspective of the operator and the passenger could be considered to determine a relative level of vulnerability from each perspective. It is important to note that any of the three types of methodologies (as outlined in Section 3.4.1) can be used to conduct vulnerability assessments of various impact areas from different perspectives, provided the requisite level of data is available. In some instances, multiple impact areas can be prioritized and selected for analysis under the same vulnerability analysis. Similarly, multiple methodology types can be used to evaluate one impact area. 3.4.3 Summary of Methodologies Researched Methodologies of the qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative types were identified and reviewed during the research process. These methodologies are outlined in the methodologies matrix in Appendix B. Throughout the review process, information on key methodology characteristics was gathered and organized by categories into the methodologies matrix. Categories of key characteristic data were as follows:        Summary of the methodology; Type of methodology; Asset data/ information requirements; Climate change data requirements; Vulnerability perspective(s) of the methodology; Incorporate of financial impacts; Perceived or documented shortfalls of the methodology The approaches in the methodologies matrix are meant to be illustrative examples of the types of qualitative, semi-quantitative and quantitative methodologies that currently exist. The information gathered on each methodology was used to facilitate an understanding of each methodology type’s process, 19 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT requirements, and results, facilitating a comparison of the methodology types and a determination of its suitability for application under Phase II. 3.4.4 Criteria for Reviewing and Comparing Methodologies The methodologies identified and reviewed were compared based on a pre-selected list of criteria. Appendix E contains a complete narrative description of each criterion listed here:      Criterion 1. Availability of Asset Data Criterion 2. Availability of Climate Change Data in the Northeast United States Criterion 3. Temporal Scale of the Assessment Criterion 4. Vulnerability Perspective Criterion 5. Financial Vulnerability Of these criteria, the most significant criterion in comparing and selecting a methodology going forward was criterion 1, availability of asset data. For this, the asset list was compared to the data requirements of the sample methodologies under each methodology type. This criterion extended not only to the availability of information on the existence/location of assets, but also on certain characteristic data of those assets. Characterization data included:       Asset location (e.g. coordinates of an asset’s location) Physical characteristics (e.g. engineering specifications) Historical performance during extreme weather (e.g. damage or resilience) Lifecycle phase (e.g. age of the asset, repair history, schedule for repair or replacement) System criticality (e.g. criticality of the asset in maintaining a functioning network) Current and future demand (e.g. current and predicted future passenger load) The results of the climate change data research were also compared to the methodologies to verify the capacity to perform more quantitative, climate data driven analyses based on the availability of climate change data in the northeast US. Methodologies that were capable of incorporating some form of financial analysis were also identified and included in the methodologies matrix based on an Amtrak’s interest in considering this form of analysis. 4.0 RECOMMENDED APPROACH TO VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT 4.1 PHASED APPROACH FRAMEWORK It is the recommendation of this report that any future, full-scale NEC vulnerability study be conducted using a phased approach framework. A phased approach would include a series of activities that would enable Amtrak to begin the vulnerability assessment process using a qualitative or semi-quantitative methodology, with an assumption that, over time, additional information and data could be identified and made available to conduct quantitative-based assessments. This methodology would be similar to the one used by Rail Safety and Standards Board (UK) (RSSB) to conduct a preliminary, high-level assessment of vulnerabilities across Britain’s Network Rail system as a way to identify areas of highest vulnerability, and to identify areas of data deficiency. 20 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT This phased approach was identified through SME interviews, and was selected as the best available option based on the current availability of NEC asset data. In addition, preliminary discussions with Amtrak confirmed that a phased approach could facilitate internal organizational discussion regarding prioritysetting for more comprehensive, quantitative vulnerability assessments, in addition to serving as an introductory document for Amtrak personnel (e.g. asset managers, schedulers, engineering, maintenance of way, etc.) to learn about vulnerability assessment options. The phased approach will allow Amtrak to visualize how additional impact areas or priorities could be incorporated into the assessment process over time, and how a gradual increase in data availability can lead to more quantitative and definitive vulnerability analyses for more informed discussions both within Amtrak and with external stakeholders on the topic of climate change vulnerability and resilience planning in response to confirmed risk. Additional justifications for using a phased approach are as follows:        Creates opportunities for data gaps to be identified and filled, enabling a gradual progression towards more quantitative and definitive risk analysis in future phases; Provides the opportunity to take results and lessons learned from previous steps (e.g. pilot studies) and incorporate those into subsequent phases of the assessment process; Provides flexibility, enabling phases to be modified during time of shifting priorities within the organization; Provides time for climate change data to mature with the expectation that the latest climate change data will generate a more robust understanding of vulnerabilities; Enables the gradual integration of climate change issues into Amtrak’s decision-making processes, operations, planning, and management; Enables a phased approach to funding the vulnerability study, while providing real results to demonstrate progress to management along the way; Provides time to identify key stakeholders in the vulnerability assessment process, and to engage in stakeholder outreach. The recommended phased approach is represented in Figure 4. 21 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSSESSMENT PHASE I REPO ORT Figure 4. Phhased approach framework with proposed activitties o this Phase I report, it is recommended r d that Phase III consist of tw wo activities: 11) Based on the findings of additional data collectioon on Amtrak owned NEC assets a and thheir characteriistics, and 2) tthe completioon of a high-level vulnerability analysis of the entire NEC using both quualitative and semi-quantitaative methodoloogies. Activity 1, additional daata collection, would primarrily serve to fil l the remaininng data needss of the research methodoloogy chosen inn Activity 2. Foor this, it is reccommended tthat data on hhistorical perfoormance of asssets during exttreme weather events be coollected to thee extent that tthis data is avvailable. This ddata might incclude informatioon on when ann asset failed to function, and under whaat weather connditions this faailure occurreed; the geograaphic locationn of the failuree; the length of o time the assset lost functioonality; the reesults of the loost function on neighboringg/interconnectted assets (if applicable); aand any charaacterization off system or schedulingg disruptions caused by ann asset failure. Activity 1 woould secondarily serve to fiill other data ggaps as identifieed in this repoort, emphasizing asset chaaracterization data and asseet location daata as availablle. 22 SEPTEMBER 115, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Activity 2 would utilize the information in the asset database (from this Phase I Report), and the information gathered from Activity 1 under Phase II on historical performance of assets, to run a qualitative and semiquantitative analysis of the vulnerability of the entire NEC to the impacts of climate change. As a first step in the analysis, a sensitivity factor would be assigned to different assets or different asset classes, depending upon the assets location, and the climate hazard considered most likely to impose risk on the asset (e.g. “X” miles of track [asset] exposed to extreme heat [climate hazard]). This sensitivity factor can be generated using the historical performance data of the asset49 (e.g. how many times a year did these “X” miles of track fail during days when temperatures were 95 degrees or above). These sensitivity factors are then applied to the assets under projected climate conditions to see how those assets might perform/fail in the future. For example, if the number of days above 95 degrees is set to increase from 20 to 40 days within the next 50 years, what is the relative probability that “X” miles of track will fail on an annual basis? Using these resulting probabilities, a semi-quantitative analysis can be generated, such as a table listing assets most probable, somewhat probable, and unlikely to have an increase in failure rate due to a certain weather conditions in the future. The purpose of this analysis would be to generate a preliminary understanding of which geographic areas of the NEC are most vulnerable, which Amtrak assets or asset classes along the NEC are most vulnerable, and if there is a particular climate hazard of greatest threat to the corridor. This information will be used to help set the priorities of the activities in future phases. Under Phases III and IV in Figure 3, a selection of example activities is presented. These activities would build on the accomplishments and results of the prior phases, and illustrate the steady increase in data availability to execute more quantitative vulnerability assessments. In conjunction, activities that extend beyond an analysis of Amtrak owned assets can be incorporated into the overall vulnerability assessment framework. The examples provided of Phase III and IV are included in this report to provide a conceptual understanding of these other activities available to Amtrak in conducting a comprehensive vulnerability assessment to include, for example, the vulnerabilities inherent in the assets and systems upon which Amtrak operations depend (e.g. electric grid, local and freight rail infrastructure); stakeholder concerns and processes for collaboration; issues of safety; and capacity planning for the future of the NEC. It is also recommended that activity results be shared with the NEC Futures program, as deemed appropriate by Amtrak. While activities of future phases may be selected to align with the priorities and planning processes of the NEC Futures program, Amtrak’s own NEC vulnerability study may enable the organization to take a leading role in shaping the objectives and scope of the NEC Futures climate change analyses, including the incorporation of Amtrak’s vulnerability assessment results into the Tier I and Tier II assessments. Activities that include the execution of vulnerability assessment would draw from the existing approaches researched and identified in the methodologies matrix, utilizing either a complete methodology or elements of a methodology. This multi-approach design is meant to provide flexibility, and to enable a gradual progression of the assessment process through a set of sequential phases that build on one another. If historical performance data is not available, generic sensitivity factors for rail assets can be applied, although the results are less specific to Amtrak assets and their geographic location. 49 23 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT 4.2 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES UNDER PHASES II AND III Table 8 on pages 25 and 26 provides an overview of the assessment-based activities under Phases II and III. This description includes task data requirements; a case study example (where applicable); and the expected outcomes or results of the activity. This table can be used to facilitate an internal discussion of vulnerability assessment options, and to determine a best-fit strategy given Amtrak’s priorities going forward. The phased approach should be designed in a manner that reflects Amtrak’s priorities, while also allowing the flexibility for those priorities to change over time. Following this Phase I report, Phase II would launch the early stages of a full-scale vulnerability assessment (based on agreed upon priorities), with an initial recommendation of conducting a high-level vulnerability assessment of the entire NEC corridor. Asset data identified in this Phase I report, in addition to information on historical weather events, would be used to conduct this high-level study using qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Additional opportunities for targeted, quantitative analyses are also recommended as supplementary assessment studies under Phase III. These additional activities would be dependent upon the extent of climate knowledge, and the availability of asset information. 5.0 SUMMARY OF NEXT STEPS Based on the information revealed during the execution of Phase I, and based on the assessment of that information as outlined in this report, a summary of the ‘next steps’ are recommended here:   Amtrak’s NECIID team reviews the findings of this report, with particular emphasis on the identified gaps in asset data. These data gaps will need to be filled prior to the execution of any quantitative approach to assessing climate change vulnerabilities of the NEC under the proposed phased approach framework. Methods for prioritizing and filling data gaps should be identified - an activity strongly encouraged during Phase II. Amtrak’s NECIID team reviews the recommended phased approach framework for assessing climate change vulnerability with an emphasis on: o Resource requirements and management buy-in needed in order to launch Phase 2; and o Setting internal, organizational priorities for conducting a climate change vulnerability assessment to determine (preliminarily) the activities to fall under the phases of the vulnerability assessment. For setting internal priorities, it may be beneficial to distribute this document with relevant divisions and key personnel across Amtrak. Following this document-share, a series of internal meetings could be held to facilitate organizational-wide discussion of Amtrak’s priorities and the activities to implement going forward. 24 SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Table 8. Vulnerability Assessment Activities under Phases II and III Phase Activity Description Geographic Scope II High-level Vulnerability Assessment NEC system This analysis would provide a highlevel portrait of NEC vulnerability using a qualitative methodology. Entire area of NEC III Conduct Pilot Study of Select Geographic Area of NEC This analysis could be used to generate a detailed vulnerability assessment of a pre-selected segment of the NEC. Priority in selecting the segment of study would be given first to portions of the NEC for which there is currently a sufficient amount of data to conduct the analysis and second to segments that are of high risk to climate change impacts based on historical information. Selected segment(s) of NEC 25 Expected Method Type Qualitative Semiquantitative or quantitative Data Requirements Case Study Example Expected Outcomes and their Potential Uses 1. Historical data on weather impacts to rail assets 2. Northeast climate change scenario predictions of different future intervals (e.g. 20, 50, 80 years out) 3. Asset data set identified through Phase I Report Tomorrow's Railway and Climate Change Adaptation: Phase 1 Report 1. Complete asset characterization data of all assets within the selected segment including studies on asset behavior (reaction to weather) 2. Historical data on weather impacts to assets 3. Climate change data specific to the selected segment of NEC, including data on all hazards of interest Operations and Management, Adapting to Extreme Climate Change: Phase 3 Report 1. Provide a narrative report of NEC assets most likely to be impacted by climate change, enabling future semi-quantitative and quantitative analyses to focus on these assets specifically. 2. Provide an introductory analysis of NEC climate vulnerability that could be distributed across Amtrak lines of business, and used as a framework for internal discussion and decisionmaking regarding the prioritization of vulnerability study next steps. 1. Provide an example of the results generated by a semi-quantitative / quantitative analysis. 2. Confirm the data types needed to conduct a quantitative based analysis in other segments of the NEC. 3. Provide preliminary, quantitative results to be shared internally with Amtrak, and externally with stakeholders. SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 AMTRAK NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CLIMATE CHANGE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PHASE I REPORT Phase III Activity Description Geographic Scope Conduct Pilot Study of a Select Hazard on a Select Asset Type This analysis would highlight vulnerabilities between an assethazard pair (e.g. track-heat interactions). Priority would be given first to asset-hazard pairs for which there are sufficient data to conduct a quantitative analysis, and second to asset-hazard pairs that are of interest or concern to Amtrak based on historical information or future planning. Entire area or segment(s) of NEC 26 Expected Method Type Semiquantitative or quantitative Data Requirements Case Study Example Expected Outcomes and their Potential Uses 1. Complete asset characterization data on the pre-selected asset under study including studies on asset behavior (reaction to weather) 2. Historical data on weather impacts to assets 3. Climate change data specific to the hazard under study Operations and Management, Adapting to Extreme Climate Change: Phase 3 Report 1. Provide an example of results generated by an asset-hazard analysis. 2. Confirm data types needed to conduct this type of analysis to identify future data needs 3. Provide preliminary, quantitative results to be shared internally with Amtrak, and externally with stakeholders. SEPTEMBER 15, 2014