{UAH} If roads are gridlocked in rush hour, what happens when disaster strikes?

If roads are gridlocked in rush hour, what happens when disaster strikes?

Major roads which get snarled in rush hour or after a few inches of snow could be potentially deadly in the event of a terrorist attack or superstorm. So what should a more resilient transport system look like?

Traffic gridlocked on the Long Island Expressway, New York. Photograph: Jason DeCrow/AP

Cities is supported by:

Rockefeller Foundation

Laurie Mazur

Friday 8 January 2016 08.00 GMT Last modified on Friday 8 January 2016 08.05 GMT

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

I was late for an appointment, sitting in traffic on one of the major arteries out of Washington DC. It was miserable, barely moving traffic of the kind that makes you whimper with frustration as yet another green light turns yellow, then red, as you inch along.

Then I happened to notice a roadside sign that read: "Evacuation Route." And I tried to imagine fleeing from a major crisis – a terrorist attack, say, or climate-change enhanced superstorm – on a road that can't even handle the daily evacuation called "rush" hour.

Here in DC, we claim the worst traffic in the US. Non-apocalyptic events, such as the lighting of the National Christmas Tree or a couple of inches of snow, routinely induce gridlock. An ice storm or rare earthquake can mean commuters spending the night in their cars.

Washington may be an extreme case, but it is not alone. In many American cities, transportation systems are dysfunctional on a good day, much less in a crisis. In a world that is increasingly prone to extreme weather and other disruptions, our transportation systems may fail us when we need them most.

That's what happened when Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast in 2005. Millions fled by car before the storm, creating monumental traffic and fuel shortages. But a quarter of New Orleans's residents, including many of the poorest and most vulnerable, did not have access to cars. More than 100,000 people were left in the city when the levees broke, creating a humanitarian disaster that took nearly 2,000 lives and displaced hundreds of thousands more.

It costs less to build a bridge higher and stronger than it does to replace it after it's destroyed

Emil Frankel

Moreover, the sorry state of our nation's infrastructure (which has earned a grade of D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers) means greater vulnerability to damage from climate and other disasters. When Superstorm Sandy came ashore in 2012, it flooded New York's subway system and submerged runways at La Guardia Airport. And the 2010 "superflood" in Tennessee and Kentucky destroyed highways and bridges; people drowned in their cars on the flooded interstate.

Our transportation systems are frustrating on a good day, and potentially deadly on a bad one. But what could a more resilient system look like? First, it wouldn't be all about cars.

"Dedicating all of our right-of-way to car movement leaves us in a very precarious position when there is a disaster," says Gabe Klein, author of Start-Up City and former transportation commissioner for DC and Chicago. A "multimodal" system, which includes trains, buses, bike paths and ferries in addition to cars, will fare better in times of crisis and upheaval – and is, of course, much more equitable.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

A motorist is pulled over by a police car for driving the wrong way on Interstate 45 in Texas, during the evacuation in advance of Hurricane Rita. Photograph: Johnny Hanson/AP

Such a transportation system requires an upgrade of our crumbling infrastructure with an eye to the new climate reality. According to Emil Frankel, who served as assistant secretary for transportation policy at the US Department of Transportation, many highways, rail lines and airports on the East and Gulf Coasts are in danger of being inundated by sea-level rise. That means planners must deal with those challenges up front. "Anticipating sea-level rise will add costs to projects," says Frankel, "but it costs less to build a bridge higher and stronger than it does to replace it after it's destroyed."

As we upgrade our ageing infrastructure, however, it's important to remember that hi-tech solutions aren't always the answer. Gabe Klein recalls that when Superstorm Sandy hit, New York City had upgraded some trains to a sophisticated IT-based dispatch system. "When the tunnels flooded, guess what?" says Klein. "Those trains were the ones that didn't work. It fried all the systems. The old electro-mechanical systems that hadn't been switched over were the only trains that ran."

Klein also notes the importance of "redundancy" in electronic systems. "I'm not going to name them," he says, "but there are systems – signal systems, critical infrastructure and even entire transit systems – that are completely unprepared and subject to one single point of failure. You have to have a lot of redundancy, so that all your information isn't subject to one massive server failure."

Money, of course, is a challenge – especially when Washington's political gridlock is as bad as its traffic. Frankel is not optimistic about the prospects for proactive federal funding: "We have a shortfall of over $2 trillion to bring the nation's infrastructure to a state of good repair — and that does not include the cost of also making it resilient."

The federal government steps in only after a disaster, with FEMA emergency funds. But while regulations state that those funds must be used to "build it back to what it was", in fact the feds "are now allowing states, localities and transportation authorities to rebuild to higher and more resilient standards with FEMA money," Frankel says.

The sickness at the heart of modern cities is clear. But what's the cure?

Still, with all the immediate needs facing cities today, it is difficult to muster funds to prepare for crises that may or may not occur. That's why we need a new way of thinking about resilient transportation, says Sue Zielinski, who runs SMART – a transportation thinktank at the University of Michigan.

"Resilience is not just something we do in case something terrible happens," Zielinski says. "It's about creating the kinds of places we want to live in that work for us in good times and bad."

Many of the qualities that define a resilient transportation system – robust infrastructure, many ways to get around, access for all – would also make our cities better places to live. And by shifting the focus away from cars, we will also reduce our carbon emissions and slow the advance of climate change. The best way to weather a disaster is to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place.

• This post was produced as part of the Island Press Urban Resilience Project, with support from the Kresge Foundation

--

_____________________________

Bwanika Nakyesawa Luwero

--
Disclaimer:Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ugandans-at-heart+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com