Department of Geological Sciences, Faculty of Sciences Masaryk University/Brno & Czech Geological Society September 12-14, 2011 Short Course on Geological Hazards Day 3 (wed am), Lecture 5: (Topic 5 of Original Announcement) Klaus H. Jacob Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, NY jacob@ldeo.columbia.edu In Essence: NYC has developed and maintained its economic viability largely without - at least until 3 years ago - conscientious consideration of climate change (CC) and, especially, sea level rise (SLR). CC Adaptation policies and practice need (and seem now) to gradually change. If they were not, NYC's built infrastructure and other vital economic assets, will be at growing risks from SLR and storm surge inundations. Without well planned and financed adaptation measures, the growing perils will gradually undermine the City's economic viability, and eventually - or catastrophically - make parts of the City unsustainable. In any case, CC adaptation will become a persistent RACE AGAINST TIME !! This presentation > Outlines expected risks from CC and SLR as function of time; > Estimates potential losses if the risks remain unaddressed; > Discusses cost-beneficial, sustainable adaptation options; > Provides estimates of the magnitude of needed investments to manage the expected risks, preferably as an integral part of an ongoing, much needed infrastructure upgrade & renewal process. Th3 GtobsiJ Context Coastal urban agglomerations with populations more than 8 million in 2010 5Ww York • 17.2 Los Angeles •>3r9j|j Rio de Janeiro • 11.5 Buenos Aires • _ f 13.7 Istanbul • 11.8 _ Seoul «9.9 Karachi . 16.6JWa • 18.4 \ ■ a „ 0 «1 Shanghai • 13.7 Mumbai • 23.6^ ^,cuttV *6 £ Manila • 13.9 Madras« 8.2 Bangkok*! Source: UN data 1995: Metro NY Hurricane Transportation Study Interim Technical Data Report. USACoE, FEMA, NYSEMO, NYCOEM et al.: Evacuation Planning 2001: Metro-East Cost (MEC) Climate Change Impact Study http://metroeast_climate.ciesin.columbia.edu/reports/infrastructure.pdf Early Science Baseline 2006/07: Climate Change Assessment for the NE US More Recent Sc. B.L. Union of Concerned Scientists - Working Group http://www.northeastclimateimpacts.org 2007: MTA 8/8/2007-Storm Report to Governor & Mayor See Appendix 2 of : http://www.mta.info/mta/pdf/storm_report_2007.pdf MTA-Specific Case Study 2007: Mayor's PlaNYC 2030 Sparse on Specific ADAPTATION Goals http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml 2008: National Academies / TRB Report # 290: Has National Scope Impacts of Climate Change on US Transport, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf 2009: MTA Blue Ribbon Commission on Sustainability http://mta.info/environment/pdf/SustRptFinal.pdf MTA Conceptual Guide for Climate Change Adaptation: http://www.mta.info/sustainability/pdf/Jacob_et%20al_MTA_Adaptation_Final_0309.pdf 2010: NPCC - NYC Panel on Climate Change NYC Rigorous Science Baseline http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123443059/PDFSTART : in: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123443047/issue 11: NYS CMmAID: Report due Oct 1, NYS-Wide Rigorous Science Baseline 2010/2011: NYSSLRTF Sea Level Rise Task Force; Report due Oct 1, 2011. 2010/2011: NYS CAC - Climate Action Council (Energy, Mitigation, Adaptation) Climate Change in the U.S. Northeast 1900 1950 2000 2050 21 Oi No. of days >90°F (32°C) No. ofdays>100°F (38°C) 90 o f 60 + c S 40-H I > 5 NEW YORK CITY □ Lower Emissions ■ Higher Emissions 80 ÜL c 0 I. C 8 iS * C > ■ °- 20 (A 1 NEW YORK CI1 n Lower Emissions .. I Higher Emissions n - i—™ 1961-1690 2010-2039 2040-2GÖ9 2070-2099 1961-1990 2010-2039 2040-2069 2D7'>2Cvd *> mora 3JJr sd/jduto/jJ/j^ h^x^ir^^ a/järijy, mar* mirnnni) \ CO o S ö) J2 <5 c > o < !| E? 15 a- 0 O > »- W CD — ■- O NO. OF DAYS WITH RAIN 1.5 - □ Lower Emissions ■ Higher Emissions 1 —I 0.5 -- o br >S cm 2010-2039 2040-2069 2070-2099 Many of these heavy rains occur during Nor'easters or Hurricanes SLOSH Category 1 SLOSH Category 2 SLOSH Category 3 SLOSH Category 4 Now -10-2/y -10"3/y -104/y -105/y WTC - Site: Questions: Can the West-Tub Flood? Can the East Tub Flood? For which Storm Surge Elevations? How will Flooding affect PATH System? • Hudson Tunnels • Stations / Tracks / Control Systems • New Transportation Hub? • For how Long ? Will Flooding of NYCT Subway System(s) Affect / Connect with PATH & WTC facilities? If Answers to Above are YES: What Sealing-Off Options Exist ? What Pumping Facilities are Planned ? Where ? Capacity? Reliability ? Is a Levee System 11 to West Street Feasible? Up to what Height? How long would it be effective, given SLR. GIS-based Risk Assessment Tool 'HAZUS-MH' (FEMA's "Hazards in the United States - Multi Hazards Version": Earthquakes, Wind, Flood). Risk = Sum ( $ / year or /event over Region rkrzsiril x .Asshjs x yuisiar^bWiy) probability per time $ value 0 < V < 1 Risk Expected Losses for either a scenario event ($) or in terms of probabilistic annual losses ($/year) • Hazards Probability per unit time of exceeding a certain hazard, e.g. wind speed or flood height (P=1 for scenario event) Replacement Value in Dollars for Buildings or Infrastructure, (or $ / live!) j VijJ/jarsj/jJJJxy Dimensionless Value between 0 and 1. It is the Damaged Fraction of Replacement Value of a Given Asset, for the Specified Hazard Level the Asset is exposed to. HAZUS-MH also has a Built-in Economic Model for Damage-Related, Indirect Economic Losses; e.g. for Losses related to building damage and closure; but Its default version is weak In assessing vulnerabilities of infrastructure systems. Requires user input for infrastructure assets and their vulnerabilities. 2007 EstimatePwirst Case Losses to New York State Coastal Counties: ^^m^^^W'''' MM^mm^Wh>^ / ,:.:.:3|i§fl^^ Wmm^mmM........ml ''-':Wß....... $350 Billion Wind Related Damages to Buildings (exclusive infrastructure !!) 1.8 Million Displaced Households (wind only); Total of 3 Million Evacuees 41 Million Tons of Debris (wind only)i 318,000 Population Residing in expected Storm Surge Inundation Area Hurricane of Category 3, Case' Trajectory Source: Dan O'Brien, NYSEMO SEMO 2006 HAZUS HURRICANE MODELING WORST CASE SCENARIO - TRACK 1 CATEGORY 3 (125 MPH) HAZUS ESTIMATED PEAK GUST (MPH) | 68-78 | 79-86 87-96 97-105 106 - 112 113- 121 122 - 130 ] 131 - 137 | 138 - 143 I 144 - 148 NOAA SLOSH MODEL: Surge Heights Translated into Inundated Areas by Dan O'Brien, NYSEMO Cost > a o 73 CD a -h o 3 if* o DG O 3 if* Ol o DG O 3 if* O O DD O 3 Ol o DD O 3 o DD if* M O o DD O 3 M Ol O DD O 3 CO o o DD O 3 CO Ol o DD O 3 if* O o DD O 3 CD 2 -< m Track 1- Slow Track 9- Slow Track 5- Slow Track 1- Fast Track 2- Slow Track 6- Slow Track 9- Fast Track 10- Slow s Track 5- Fast O Track 2- Fast Track 7- Slow Trackl 1- Slow Track 3- Slow Track 6- Fast Track 10- Fast Track 1- Moderate Track 12- Slow Track 8- Slow Track 11- Fast Track 7- Fast Track 9- Moderate Track 3- Fast Track 5- Moderate Track 2- Moderate Track 4- Slow Track 6- Moderate Track 10- Moderate Track 8- Fast 2 Track 1- Slow * Track 12-Fast 5 Track 7- Moderate 3. Track 9- Slow ° Track 5- Slow Track 11- Moderate Track 4- Fast Track 3- Moderate Track 2- Slow Track 6- Slow Track 10- Slow Track 8- Moderate Track 9- Fast Track 7- Slow Track 11- Slow Track4- Moderate Track 3- Slow Track 12- Moderate Track 1- Fast Track 5- Fast Track 10- Fast Track 8- Slow Track 12- Slow Track 6- Fast Track 2- Fast Track 4- Slow Track 11- Fast Track 7- Fast Track 3- Fast Track 8- Fast Track 12- Fast Track 4- Fast Ol 7) = o -■ c o CD ^ 11 Q- 5 O ^ E 5" CD 3 ° (D X o c Q. O O O u ? 3 ft) r-K ! = -! O o ^ 0 Q. 0 — > N Sea Level Rise Makes a Bad Situation Worse ! The Battery, NYC 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Year Reduction in Return Period of the 100-Year Flood due tO Sea Level Rise Only (ConstantStorm Frequency). Future Flood Return Periods (in Years) for a Land Elevation that in the 1960s was reached by a 100-Year Coastal Flood 100 80 60 - 40 20 - 0 New York City □ Current trend □ CCGG □ CCGS □ HCGG ■ HCGS 10yr 2020s 2050s 2080s 21st Century Decades ft 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Lowest Critical Elevations and Probabilistic Flood Heights for 10, 50, and 500-y Storms, at 2000 and at the End of the Century (2090). □ Lowest elevation □ 5-10yrvbaseline ■ 5-10yr72090 □ 50yr-baseline □ 5Ü..T-2090 □ 500yr-baseline ■ 500yr-2090 Jl Newark Aripcrt Holland Tunnel JFK Airport MEC 2001 ji ji ji ■ LGA Lincoln Passenger Ship Airport Tunnel Terminal SCIENCES Buildi ion in '"9 * ™* Managern Response New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 Report il-rj: :r; Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume 1196, Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response-New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 Report May 2010 The New York V Academy of Sciences http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi /10.1111/nyas.2010.1196.issue-1/issuetoc Appendix A CLliATE RISK INFORMATION Climate Change Scenarios & Implications _for NYC Infrastructure New York City Panel on Climate Change Lead Authors Radley Horton {Columbia University), Cynthia Rosenzweig {NASA, Columbia University) Contributing Authors Vivien Görnitz (Columbia University), Daniel Bader {Columbia University), Megan O'Grady {Columbia University) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11 11/j.1749-6632.2010.05323.x/pdf FIGURE C.1. Comprehensive Set of Sea Level Rise Projections New York City and the Surrounding Region 1 2 4 6 8 10 1S 1* 16 16 20 22 24 26 29 30 32 34 36 M <0 « <4 « 48 SO g M 56^1 90 Hiß schematic shorn saa M rise projections tor rfii 2WJS, mauve to the 20GQ-2QM period, based w three distinct nwriosfetefliieis, TJte d** oft» fcaföfW to sfow'/^Www lasetf on öte j'PCC-stfstjMetf mrtrW. 7?» f^ftH Mw tefcf» ftara stow prqwcfians bawd en the RthmstoriYMoiion method, adjusted for foes! cwjaVfexu. Each of fiw two «s shorn as ftfstogiRBOx, wlfo ft® pars containing tf» mcoci'-bsseo' prchabHit/ for Mat .fratfei stone. SMOccated w* foe sea teuer rise r'rrto.'va! shorn on the jf-axfe Tfte Rapid tee-Maff see tern' rise is Mücaferf Jt>y Me toaster on Jfte x-axfa; no probability is assotfaied wlto |T»s .range, Source: C&iumisia University Center for Cfeafe Suterns Researeii TABLE C.1. Total Sea Level Rise Projections in Inches for New York City and the Surrounding; Region for Four Different Methods _ IPCC Global Estimate + Local Subsidence NA? NA? (1Q.4to234)£ IPCC^adapfed Methods tor the NYC Region 3.?{1.4to$.5)3 9.7(6.Üto13.6p 17,8(9.3 to 2$&f 22.2 {14.9 to 30.0)* RahmstorfiHorton Method + Local SubSildersce 4.§(3.7to6.2)* 13,1 (10.0 to 16 if 24.6 {18.2 to Sief 28.1 (22.6 to 33.7}' CRI Rapid Ice-Melt Sea Level Rise -4 to 10s -17ta30» ~ 3? to S9 irs -48to?0in9 1 : CCSR. MOS; !KC. ?m'./viki:> si si'., 2008, Appendix B ADAPTATION ASSESSMENT GUIDEBOOK New York City Panel on Climate Change Lead Authors David C. Major (Columbia University}, Megan O'Grady (Columbia University) FIGURE 2. Flexible Adaptation Pathways A Time (decades) Monitor & Reassess! *f Acceptable risk ■ Status quo •™ Setting sr:Rexib!e adaptation standard with mitigation >» Finite* Adaptation Pathway without mitigation Flexible Adaptation Pathway with miflgitlon http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. 1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05324.x/pdf Adaptation Assessment Steps 1. Identify current & future climate hazards 6. Link Strategies to Capital & Rehab Cycles III! fir 2. Conduct Inventory of Infrastructure & Assets The 8 steps of adaptation assessment 3. Characterize Risk of CC on Infrastructure CD l d 4. Develop Initial Adaptation Strategies http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. 1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05324.x/pdf 5. Identify Opportunities for Coordination 284337 CtiinÄlD 'íľŕinspoť&'úon - CASE STUDY: "100-YE/\R 3TOFÍŕA SURGE rJJTä ŕJ\EÍRO-ľ\YC TRÁľl SP OKÍ 3 Y27EM Methodology to Estimate Transport Outages, Recovery & Related Economic Losses: 1. Use the surge elevations of 3 scenarios (31: 1%/y flood; B2: same +2ft SLR; S3: +4ft SLR). 2. Map the flooded portions of the transportation system. 3. Compute the volume of floodwaters that enter the tunnels. 4. Estimate the times (days) needed to restore electricity [E] & and for logistic set-up [L] before pumping-out of the tunnels can start. Continued: 5. Estimate the pumping times [P] to drain the tunnels (assume -100 mobile modern pumps !!). 6. Estimate post-pumping times [days] to assess the damage [A] and carry out the necessary repairs [R]. 7. Combine above times [T90] needed to gradually restore transportation system to 90% of its pre-storm capacity. 8. Estimate economic impact of transport outage & restoration times based on pre-storm daily economic output (~ $4 Billion/day) 9. Infer lessons for adaptation options to manage these risks. 2 Modes of Water Entry into Tunnels a) Mostly Vertically via Subway Ventilation and Entrances b) Sub-Horizontally into inclined Rail and Road Tunnels Modified Storm Surge Time-History oo 12 00 Q ^* 10 < I H = Lowest Critical Elevation of System (NAVD88) Peak 10ft H = 7 ft (LCE) 120 140 Time after Storm Surge Starts (in minutes) h/(t) = h.,(t)-H h2'(t) = h2(t)-H Vertical Flow through subway entrances & ventilation grates --' r TT V h't Average Flow Rate (ft3/s) Qi(t) = A0Vt(t) A0 = total area of openings (ft2) Average Flow Velocity (ft/s) Vt(t) = ^2ght'(t) g = gravitational constant W, Volume of Water Entering Opening Area Ac W = fQ(t)dt = fAQV(t)dt u36 minutes aw i«» uw Time t after Tunnel Flooding Starts, in seconds Vertical Influx Example □ State St. N of South Ferry Station (#1 Line) □ NAVD88 LCE elevation of ventilation area is 5' (head: hmax = 10'surge - 5'LCE = 5' max. head) □ Opening area: 48 ft2 from grates, 150 ft2 from stairway entrances (A0=198 ft2) □ Event duration of 36 minutes □ 17.9 ft/s peak flow velocity □ 3,550 ft3/s peak flow rate, all openings □ Total volume of flooding 4,700,000 cf Assumptions in Methodology □ Once the water fills its corresponding tunnel section 100%, the overflow volume is divided by the tunnel cross-sectional area to get the length of adjacent tunnels being flooded (only below or up to exterior water line). □ No debris blocking the open area of the ventilation, the entire open area is used to compute unhindered flow. 32'-0" Flooded Subway and Under River Tunnels, Lower Manhattan, 1% Flood (length overflow) Legend ° Stations Ventilation openings (data provided) 100 Year Flood O 0% Enters • 100% Enters Under River Tunnels (data provided) 100 Year Flood 0% Flooded 100% Flooded Subway tunnels below Houston St (data provided) 100 Year Flood 0% 42% 100% ■ ■ Added length for volume overflow Flooded Subway and Under River Tunnels, Lower Manhattan, 1% Flood + 4' SLR (length overflow) Legend ° Stations Ventilation openings (data provided) 100 Year Flood + 4' SLR • 0% Enters • 100% Enters Under River Tunnels (data provided) 100 Year Flood + 4' SLR 0% 100% Subway tunnels below Houston St (data provided) 100 Year Flood + 4' SLR ^^^B 0% ^^^B 17% 71 % ^^^B 100% ■ ■ ■ Added length for volume overflow N a 0 600 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800 I Feet Flooded Under River Tunnels, Midtown, 1% Flood + 2" SLR (length overflow) Legend ° Stations Ventilation openings (data provided) 100 Year Flood + 2'SLR o 0% Enters o 3% Enters c 8% Enters c 17% Enters o 72% Enters • 100% Enters Under River Tunnels (data provided) 100 Year Flood + 2'SLR ^« 0% 3% ^™ 100% ■ ■ Added length for volume overflow Flooded Under River Tunnels, Harlem River Crossings, 1% Flood + 4' SLR (length overflow) / 10Qy floods 2000 (surge of - 8f fcn|2000 (surge c in 2040s, with + OOy flood in 2040s, with +2ft OOy flood in 2080s, with +4ft 2ft SL 31i — Spuyten Duyvil ^1 ' : ■ ■ L- ~P.ml XriiakButton, LOE-o.o'; 100-yr BFE T^y at mta's Metro-North Spuyten Duyvil Rail Station along the Harlem River. Flooding of Road Tunnels (2 Examples, Without Adaptation or Protective Measures) FLOOD ESTIMATES (by % of Tunnel Volume). Brooklyn-Battery Queens Midtown 100y 100y+2ftSLR 100y+4ftSLR 100y 100y+2ftSLR 100y+4ftSLR Entrances 36% 167% 254% 0% 22% 105% Ventilations 0% 3% 49% 0.3% 4% 45% Total 36% 170% 303% 0.3% 26% 150% NYC Street Length (miies) and % Flooded, for Three Flood Scenarios 10000.0 8000.0 0) 6000.0 CD C 0) 4000.0 0) 0) CO 2000.0 0.0 100-Yr Storm with 2-ft SLR 10.6% 25.3% 33.8% with 4-ft SLR Flooded Street Length Dry Street Length Total: ~ 8,632 miles • What is the expected impact/damage from the flooding of the transportation infrastructure ? • How long will it take for the various components of infrastructure to have their services restored ? • What will be the economic losses from the transportation outages and extended restoration times ? Progress of Electric Restoration 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Days after Damage Assessment Source: Sandia NL D Duration of Storm / Flood E Time to Restore Electric Power L Time for Logistic Set-up P Time to Pump out Tunnels A Time Assessing Damage in Tunnels R Time for Repairs & Cleanup T90 (days) = Max {D, E, L|P>o} + Max {P, A, R} > 1 1 2** I 3 4 5 TYPE OF DELAY I 1%/yBFE BFE +2ft BFE +4ft 1 Surge Duration, D++ <1 <1 <1 2 Restore Power, E <1 <1.5 <2 3 Logistics Set-Up, L |P>0 <1 <2 <3 4 Max{D, E, L} < 1 <2 < 3 T90 T90 T90 5 FACILITY LCE/Zi (ft) Max{P,A,R} Max{P,A,R> Max{PA,R> 6 Lincoln Tunnel* 22.6*/Z5=9 {0,0,0} {0,0,1} T {0,0,1} 7 Holland Tunnel* 12.1*/Z5=9 {0,0,0} {0,0,1} T {3/2/6} 8 Queens-Midtown T. 9.5/Z2=11 {1/1/1} T {4,2,4} T {6,2,7} T 9 Brooklyn-Battery T. 7.5/Z1=9 {2/1/2} T {5,3,6} T {6,3,7} T 1 0 PATH System 9.9/Z5=9 {0,1,1} T {6,3,7} {7,3,8} 1 1 LIRR/AmtrERvr42ndStrT 7.9/Z2=11 {6,3,10} T {6,3,11} T {6,3,12} T 1 2 NJTHudsonTubesPen n St 8.9/Z5=9 {5,3,7} T {7,3,11} T {7,3,12} T 1 3 NJT ARC Tunnel*** 11.5/Z5=9 {0,0,0} {0,0,0} T {5,2,7} T 14 1 5 LI RR 63rdStrE-River>GCT 11.6/Z2=11 {0,0,0} {7,3,11} T {8,3,10} T to GCT via Steinway T. 9.9/Z2=11 {6,3,10} T {7,4,11} T {8,5,12} T 1 6 NYC Subway System >5.9/Z5=9 {7,5,20} T {8,6,23} T {9,7,26} T 1 7 MNR Hudson Line along Harlem River (SpuytenDvl.Stn.) 6.6/Z4=8 {0,2,3} T= 4 {0,3,6} T= 8 {0,4,9} T=1 2 18 19 20 21 22 23 Bridae Access Ramps+ to Ma ri ne Pa rkw-Rockaway Cross BayBrdChnlRockaw. ThrogsNeck BronxWhitestone RFK(Triboro) Ve rraza n o- N a rrows 6.9/Z8=9 {0,0,0} T {0,1,1} T {0,1,2} T 6.9/Z8=9 {0,0,0} T {0,1,1} {0,1,2} T 8.9/Z1=14 {0,0,0} T {0,1,1} {0,1,2} 10.9/Z1-2=12.5 {0,0,0} T {0,1,1} {0,1,2} T 13.9/Z3-2=10 {0,0,0} T {0,0,0} T {0,1,1} 7.6/Z5=9 {0,0,0} T {0,1,0} T {0,1,0}T 24 25 26 27 Airports: JFK 10.6/Z7=8 {0,0,0} T {0,1,1} {1,3,4}T LaGuardia* Newark Teterboro 10.0*/Z2=11 {2,2,3} {3,2,4} T {3,2,6} T 9.2/Z5a=8 {0,0,0} T {0,1,2} T {0,2,3} 3.9/Z5s<8 {0,1,1} {0,2,2} {0,2,3} T 28 Marine Ports: Information currently not available 29 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 30 T90min to T90max (days): 1 to 21 1 to 25 2 to 29 = Time Integrated Economic Losses for the Entire Metropolitan Region DGMP = Daily Gross Metropolitan Product=$4B/day -nZLZM =DGMP[T90min+y,(TyU/jj^TyUjjjj/j)'J DDJ9D] Daily Productivity [$/day] 1.0 DGMP=$4B/day T90max: 21 25 29 days Combined economic and physical-damage Losses for the New York City Metropolitan region for a 100-year storm surge, for three sea level rise scenarios (2010 assets and 2010-dollar valuation). Scenario TIELEM ($ billion) Physical Damage ($ billion) Total Loss ($ billion) S1, current sea level 2100 48 10 $58 2 (2-foot rise in sea level) 2040s 57 13 y $70 S3 (4-foot rise in sea level) 2080s 68 _ $84 Multipliers for 40 and 80 year time horizons as a function of growth rate r when p=2 (i.e. add each year 2% of initial asset value). Effective Economic Growth Rate r(%/year): 52- TIELEM Multiplier for 40 Years: 53- TIELEM Multiplier for 80 Years: 0.0 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.8 2.91 3.16 3.44 2.6 6.39 7.50 8.83 Combined economic and physical-damage Losses for the New York City Metropolitan region for a 100-year storm surge, for three sea level rise scenarios (2010 assets and 2010-dollar valuation). Scenario TIELEM ($ billion) Physical Damage ($ billion) Total Loss ($ billion) S1, current sea level 2100 48 10 $58 S2 (2-foot rise in sea level) 2040s 57 13 w$70 S3 (4-foot rise in sea level) 2080s 68 Multipliers for 40 and 80 year time horizons as a function of growth rate rwhen p=2 (i.e. add each year 2% of initial asset value). Effective Economic Growth Rate r(%/year): 0.0 1.50 1.75 2.00 52- TIELEM Multiplier for 40 Years: 1.8 2.91 3.16 3.44 53- TIELEM Multiplier for 80 Years: 2.6 6.39 7.50 8.83 For Transportation & Specifically the Subway System, what measures would it take to avoid such losses? 1. In all current and future flood zones, seal all ventilation street grates and replace passive 'open' ventilation with forced 'closed' ventilation. This requires new fan plants, and uses more energy. 2. In all flood prone zones, provide safe flood gates at all entrances and ventilation shafts; and/or safer: surround all entrances and openings by sufficiently high berms and/or levees: "Taipei-Solution"- Go up before you step down ! 3. What are the Costs? Needs engineering studies, but costs are likely to be at least 25% of the expected avoided losses: i.e. in excess of $ 15 to 20 Billion ? For Transportation, and Specifically the Subway System, what measures should be undertaken to avoid such losses? 1. In all current and future flood zones, seal all ventilation street grates and replace passive 'open' ventilation with forced 'closed' ventilation. This requires new fan plants, and uses more energy. 2. In all flood prone zones, provide safe flood gates at all entrances and ventilation shafts; and/or safer: surround all entrances and openings by sufficiently high berms and/or levees: "Taipei-Solution"- Go up before you step down ! 3. What are the Costs? Needs engineering studies, but costs are likely to be at least 25% of the expected avoided losses: i.e. in excess of $ 15 to 20 Billion ? Structural "Solution": 3 or 4 Barriers. Probably Unsustainable. Why? 2005 Melt Extent Risk Management Tools: Minimizing the Risk via Mitigation and Adaptation Measures (Let's use the Risk Equation and GIS-based Models!): Risk = Sum (Hazard x Assets x Vulnerability) Mitlg.: Reduce GW + SLR Hazards Adapt: Land Use Planning & Zoning, Considerate Placements of new Assets, Relocation of Essential Assets. Levees & Dams (?). Equity Issues. or by Risk = Sum (Hazard x Assets x Vulnerability) Aikipl: Good Engineering, Construction Quality-Control, Codes and Code Enforcement, Retrofitting, Raising Assets in Place Reinforcing Levees and Pump Stations Response Options: 1) Do Nothing: => More GHG, CC, Global Warming & Sea Level Rise, Storm Surges => Greater Hazards! => Higher, More Frequent CC-Related Losses 2) Rely on Insurance and/or Federal Disaster Relief Aid Limitations on Commercial Wind Insurance More Restrictive Federal Flood Insurance ("3-times: out") Both more expensive - less available Higher Deductibles, Lower "Ceilings" Tighter Federal Disaster Relief Aid to Local Governments, Businesses & Citizens (see New Orleans) 3) Adaptation Measures/Options: Short-term: Early Warnings, Evacuation ('Only' Saves Lives) Emergency & Operational Preparedness. Assess & Avoid Growth in Hazard Zones, Retreat from Low Coasts Restore and Preserve Wetland, and Create Vegetated Buffer Areas / Parks. • Raising & Hardening Structures (Unsustainable Barriers??). • Increase Peak Capacity (Road Drainage / Storm Sewer / Treatment Plants / Water & Energy Supply ). Reduce Demand. • rJ^dbJs' / Adaptable Urban Design/Planning! Response Options (cont.): 4) For Individual Building Projects Flood Proofing (Basements, Put Infrastructure far above Ground, Raise Entrances, Install Floodgates, Raise Entire Structures,....). Reduce Run-off; Build Green Roofs; Capture Rain/Storm-Water Increase Insulation, Decrease Air Leakage to Increase AC Efficiency to cope with Higher Peak Temperatures. 5) City / Urban / Landuse Planning Reduce Heat Island Effects - Trees, Parks, Green Roofs, Lighter Roadways Reduce Storm Runoff - Infiltration Rezone Waterfront as Storm Surge Buffer Zones Adjust FEMA FIRM for SLR and New Storm/Surge Frequencies Modify Building Code applicable in Current & Future Flood-Prone Areas. Flood-Prove Infrastructure - ?? - NYCT, Sewer - $$ Protect Entire "Blocks" or entire NY Harbor Estuary - Latter Unsustainable ? 6) Smart Policies ....e.g. PlaNY2030 / NPCC / ClimAID Capital Investments into CC-Mitigative & Adaptive Infrastructure & Landuse are Part of a Smart Growth Path. NYC can make these Investments to Achieve Short-term Gains for Today's Communities (Safety, Health, Quality of Live, 'Green City'), but also Leave in Place a Better Legacy for the City's Future and Coming Generations. The good Message is For every $1 invested in Hazard Loss Mitigation & Prevention There is a Return of $4 Saved in NOT Incurred Losses. National Institute of Building Science Multi-hazard Mitigation Council (NIBS/MMC) Study "Mitigation Saves": h ttp://www. n i bs. o rg/M M C/M rt^ http://green-changemakers.blogspot.com/2010/09/hafencity -case-study -on-future-adaptive, html / V 10Qy flood in 2000 (surge of - 8f OOy flood i n 2000 (surge c n 2040s, with + 2ft SL OOy flood in 2080s, with +4ft 1.Incorporate the information underlying this storm surge map into all strategic planning and capital spending decisions. 2. Have operationa rim plans to nimize impact and Mosses, until the assets are retrofitted and are I engineered to be not I any longer vulnerable I to flood hazards. 40 44.955' N 73'59.285'W elev 44