1

Seventh Framework Programme

Theme 6

Environment

Project: 603864 – HELIX

Full project title:

High-End cLimate Impacts and eXtremes

Deliverable: 5.4

Global assessment of impacts on transport

Version 1.0

2

Original Due date of deliverable: 04/2017

Date of submission after extension: 31/07/17

Actual date of submission: 28/07/17

3

Aris Christodoulou, JRC Seville – European Commission

Panos Christidis, JRC Seville – European Commission

Hande Demirel, Istanbul Technical University

Global

assessment of

impacts on

transport

July

5678

4

Introduction

This study aims to provide a comprehensive view of the impacts of climate change on transport by

covering all transport modes and as many relevant issues as possible, e.g. impacts on

infrastructure, operation, maintenance. For the majority of transport modes the investigation of

climate change impacts builds on previous studies taking benefit of the significant efforts that have

already been made to analyse the topic. Issues covered include vulnerability assessment, cost

analysis and review of adaptation strategies. Furthermore, coastal impacts on seaports are

analysed for two climate scenarios using the projections produced by the HELIX team working on

coastal impacts.

Transport infrastructure is designed and constructed to be resilient to various stresses along its life

span but is vulnerable to extreme weather events. The main finding of relevant studies is that the

transport sector is more sensitive to extreme events such as storm surges, flash floods and wind

gusts than incremental changes in the mean climate variable. The frequency and severity of

extreme events increase the deterioration pace of transport infrastructure, as well as the

probability of disruptions or delays of transport services. As a result of the projected increase of

the frequency and severity of extreme events according to several climate scenarios, significant

changes might be required in planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of

transport systems.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Meehl et al., 2007), a global

mean temperature rise between 2 and 6oC in comparison to pre-industrial levels is projected for

2100. To better understand and predict how the transport sector would react to such extremes,

different climate change scenarios, both low- and high-end, should be considered. In any case,

impacts of climate change on transport will likely be widespread and vary among transport modes

and regions.

Relevant research efforts continue at international level and several reports on the economics of

adaptation of the transport sector to climate change have been produced. (Ribeiro, 2007; Nicholls,

2010; UNECE, 2013; ITF, 2016; Vallejo, L. and Mullan, M. 2017). In the US, various studies have

been completed in recent years (TRB, 2008; FHWA, 2012a; US-DOT, 2014; Melillo, 2014; EC-TRB,

2016) and the US Department of transportation has defined three categories of vulnerability to

climate change in terms of resilience: existing infrastructure resilience, new infrastructure

resilience and system resilience (US-DOT, 2014). In the UK, the Department for Environment, Food

and Rural Affairs (Defra) has requested reporting on progress in planning for climate change from

the transport sector (Heathrow, 2011; Heathrow, 2016; PortofDover, 2015). On the other hand, in

less developed regions of the world such studies are rare.

In the EU, research projects financed by the European Union Framework programs and their

follow-up activities reveal significant results regarding the impacts of climate change on the

transport sector. Projects such as WEATHER, EWENT, ECCONET and MOWE-IT are projects of high

importance because they cover various transport modes, integrate EU-wide available information

and produce relevant estimates. The PESETA (Projection of Economic impacts of climate change in

Sectors of the European Union based on bottom-up Analysis) projects have been conducted by the

Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission and the impacts of climate change on the

5

transport sector are covered in PESETA-II and PESETA-III. More specifically, the impacts on road

and rail were assessed in PESETA-II (Nemry and Demirel, 2012) while in the context of the PESETA

III (Christodoulou and Demirel, 2017) the impacts on airports, seaports and inland waterways were

analysed.

Important European and international projects are reviewed in this study in order to collect

findings and cover the impacts of climate change on different transport modes. Furthermore, the

analysis of the coastal impacts on seaports builds on the work made in PESETA-III. With the help of

data on coastal inundation under different scenarios it is possible to identify ports at risk and as a

result to quantify the impacts in different years and for events of different severity. In order to

provide a more complete view of the effects of potential disruption of ports operations, the

impacts on hinterland and foreland are also considered.

This report is divided in two main sections. In the first section, the potential risks of future climate

change for the transport sector are discussed by reviewing European and global studies. Particular

focus is put on the impacts on different transport modes, the relationship with climate stressors,

the vulnerability to weather events and the cost of weather for transport. In the second section,

the data, methodology and results regarding the analysis of the impacts on seaports are presented.

6

Potential risks for transport of future climate change

The transport sector is vulnerable to weather events and according to the projected climate patterns

there will be an intensification of extreme weather events. A large list of weather related stressors

with potential impact on transport infrastructure and services can be found in the literature. These

stressors might be permanent or temporary, incremental or sudden. Among them are included

extreme events that can damage transport infrastructures or disrupt operations. Most modes of

transport will be adversely affected, while a few positive impacts might occur such as lowering of

winter maintenance costs or opening of Artic sea routes as a result of the higher winter

temperatures.

1.1 Climate change events affecting transport

According to the literature, sea level rise plus sea storm surges, floods and extreme precipitation are

expected to have the most severe impacts on the transport sector. Table 1 lists important climate

stressors and how they affect the transport sector. Weather events affect transport by affecting one

or more of the following elements: infrastructure, service, operation and maintenance.

The following is a summary of climate change impacts on different transport modes (Based on Van

den Brink et al (2005), Frei et al (2006), Von Storch et al (2006), Fowler et al (2007), Beniston et al

(2007), Rockel et al (2007), Makkonen et al (2007), Von Storch et al (2008), Nikulin et al (2011),

Velegrakis (2013), (UNECE, 2013), Melillo et al (2014)).

a) Higher summer temperatures:

- Asphalt melting

- Thermal pavement loading/ degradation

- Rail buckling

- Speed restrictions for railways

- Infrastructure and rolling stock overheating/failure

- Damage to infrastructure/equipment/cargo.

- Asset lifetime reduction.

- Higher energy consumption for cooling cargo.

- Lower water levels and restrictions for inland navigation affecting

competiveness.

- Increase of accidents (e.g. grounding for IWW).

- Higher fuel consumption related to tons/km and low flow velocities.

- Reductions of snow/ice removal costs.

- Shorter maintenance windows for all modes

- Higher construction and maintenance costs for all modes

- Changes in demand for all modes

According to the projected trends all regions in Europe will be affected. The

frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves all over Europe will increase.

b) Increased precipitation and flooding:

7

- Flooding of roads, railways, airports, seaports and inland waterways.

- Increased rainfall causing high surface run off.

- Land infrastructure inundation; damage to cargo/equipment.

- Navigation restrictions in inland waterways.

- Scour due to high river levels Cabinets

In summer, Nordic countries are expected to experience more precipitation, while in

South European regions precipitation will likely decrease. For regions in between,

trends are very inconsistent across models.

c) More frequent and of higher intensity events of extreme winds

- Damage to infrastructure of seaports, airports, tall structures.

- Effect on equipment (OLE, signal, telecoms) structures, station canopies etc.

Expected increase of extreme wind speeds in regions that lie in latitudes between

45o and 55o, especially in the British Isles and North Sea coast during winter periods.

Storms are likely to become more frequent in Central Europe. In other regions, no

significant changes are expected. However, trends are inconsistent. The observation

data in many regions are missing and there is a weakness of models to reproduce

available observed data.

d) Sea Level Rise and sea storm surges

- Permanent and temporary inundation of roads, railways, airports, seaports

and inland waterways.

- Higher tides in ports/ harbour facilities, low level aviation infrastructure at

risk, (Regular and permanent inundation).

- Damages in port infrastructure/cargo.

- Sedimentation/dredging issues in ports/navigation channels.

- Higher port construction/maintenance costs.

Shoreline retreat will be observed everywhere. However, the magnitude depends on

local morphology and (human induced) subsidence.

e) Change in frequency of Winter Storms

- Impacts of snow storms on all modes.

Decrease in mean snow precipitation but more frequent extreme snow precipitation

events in the Nordic countries (Makkonen et al., 2007)

f) Thawing permafrost

- Damage to road and rail infrastructure

- Airport embankment failures, freeze-thaw cycles increase maintenance

needs.

- Freight and passenger restrictions

- Major damages in infrastructure; coastal erosion affecting road and rail links

to ports.

8

- Longer shipping seasons; shorter shipping routes/less fuel costs, but higher

support service costs

Thawing has already been observed and according to the trends it will continue. No

model based projections have been found.

g) Reduced ice cover

- New northern shipping routes, reduced ice loading on structures, such as

piers.

- Longer shipping seasons.

- Less fuel costs, but higher support service costs.

h) Earlier River Ice Breakup

- Ice-jam flooding risk.

9

Table 1: Climate Change Stressors and transport modes (Adapted from NOAA, 2015)

Climate stressor Transport

Mode

Physical infrastructure Access, Operations, maintenance and safety

Increased

temperature

and extreme

heat

Roads -Asphalt concrete pavement to soften resulting in rutting and

shoving. Asphalt binder is designed to withstand temperatures up to

a certain threshold. Incremental temperature increases up to this

point are not likely to cause much damage.

-Concrete pavement can heave at the joints.

-Areas with high truck traffic (particularly areas where trucks stop)

can experience shoving during heat spells.

-High temperatures can increase health and safety risk as well as engine and

equipment heat stress for road maintenance, truck operations, bus

operations, private vehicles, and public vehicles (OFCM 2002).

- Risk of an accident increases with increasing extreme heat conditions (most

likely due to slowed reaction time or loss of concentration or alertness). The

largest increase was found to be in the category of single-vehicle accidents

(Koetse and Rietveld, 2009; Stern and Zahavi, 1990).

Railways -During heat events, electric utility brownouts can affect tunnel

lighting and -cooling, which can render tunnels and stations

temporarily unusable. These are indirect, rather than direct, impacts

of heat events (NJTC, 2012).

-Continuous welded rail (CWR) is particularly susceptible to

temperature-related buckling (OFCM, 2002; Rossetti, 2002, 2007;

Peterson et al., 2008; U.S. CCSP, 2008; Zeman et al., 2009; Nemry

and Demirel, 2012).

-Possible malfunctions of track sensors and signal sensors are

possible above threshold temperatures. Sagging and snapping

catenary lines due to increased temperature are possible (ICF, 2013).

-Buckled tracks remove rail lines from service, at least temporarily until

sections are replaced. The threat of heat damage to tracks and catenary lines

reduces travel speed in many cases (depending on owner/ operator

guidance), which reduces efficiency.

-High heat can affect rail crew and passengers waiting in station shelters or in

inadequately ventilated stations. Inadequate ventilation may also affect

service buildings such as maintenance garages and rail yard buildings

(including impacts to service personnel and to equipment) (FTA, 2011, NJTC,

2012).

Airports -Concrete pavement buckling, Loss of non-concrete pavement

integrity. (FHWA, 2011). (Baglin, 2012).

-Needs for cooling, Increased water and energy demand for cooling

(Ang Olson, 2009; TRB, 2008; Baglin, 2012)

-Longer runway required to take off, particularly at high altitudes or hot

weather airports. (Ang-Olson, 2009; NRC, 2008; U.S. CCSP, 2008; Baglin, 2012)

-Extreme high temperatures may limit the types of aircraft that can take off

on certain days, reduce the ability of certain airports to take certain aircrafts,

cause delays and cancellations due to the need to limit daytime flights, or put

restrictions on payload to lower weight (Ang-Olson, 2009; Baglin, 2012; NRC,

2008).

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Terminals often have open paved areas for storing cargo; higher

temperatures and extreme heat can cause these paved surfaces to

deteriorate more quickly (U.S. CCSP, 2008).

-Most dock and wharf facilities are made of concrete and lumber,

which are less sensitive to temperature fluctuations (U.S. CCSP,

2008).

High temperatures can improve port operating conditions in cold regions.

Higher winter temperatures can increase safety and reduce interruptions if

frozen precipitation shifts to rainfall, reducing ice accumulation on vessels,

decks, riggings, and docks and reducing the occurrence of dangerous ice fog

and the likelihood of ice jams in ports (NRC, 2008; IFC, 2011; Peterson et al.,

2008).

Precipitation-

driven inland

flooding

Roads -Heavy precipitation and flooding can erode paved road surface.

Over time, precipitation can also worsen existing pavement damage

(for example, from cracking due to temperature impacts)

-If the pavement is completely submerged, the water may begin to

-Even light rain slows traffic and decreases the capacity of a road to handle

traffic.

-Rain also increases safety risk on the road by impairing visibility and mobility

and increasing the likelihood of hydroplaning (OFCM, 2002).

10

infiltrate the subgrade. If this happens multiple times, it will damage

the pavement, particularly if the road has high traffic loads as well

(Dawson, 2008).

-Heavy precipitation events can cause debris accumulation,

sedimentation, erosion, scour, piping, and conduit structural

damage.

Railways -In cases of stream flooding or heavy precipitation events, rates of

rainfall or the volume of incoming water may exceed the capacity of

existing pumps, leading to flooding (MTA, 2012; FTA, 2011). All

freight or passenger rail infrastructure in low-lying, flood-prone areas

is at risk of damage due to washout.

-Immersion of wood ties (often standard, rather than concrete ties)

in water due to local inundation softens/expands the wood,

weakening its ability to support tracks. Erosion of supporting systems

(such as ballast and other nearby ground) can threaten track

stability. Loss of embankment support due to gradual or sudden

inundation-related erosion is also a risk (Rossetti, 2002). Flooding of

underground transit tracks is possible during precipitation-driven

inland flooding. Such flooding may be hard to clear, depending on

available pumps or other technology (MTA, 2012).

-Inundation-related shorts can cause rail sensor failure, as well as

other electrical failure (switches, gates, signals) (OFCM, 2002;

Rossetti, 2002; FTA, 2011).

-Flooded tracks can interfere with operations via direct obstructions due to

inundation and can also interfere with operations by affecting the electrical

systems on the tracks themselves (or signaling equipment, posing safety

hazards).

-Heavy precipitation conditions can result in train speed reductions. (OFCM,

2002; Rossetti, 2002).

Airports -Standing water on pavements (OFCM, 2002).

-Temporary flooding

Standing water on pavements, causing delays (OFCM, 2002).

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Flooding can damage port structures and equipment in buildings

-Flooding can damage piers, wharves, and berths

-Increases in weather-related delays are likely with more precipitation.

-Floods can completely submerge navigation locks and render them

inoperable, leading to lock closure and disrupting river traffic (Peterson et al.,

2008).

Sea Level Rise +

storm surge

Roads -Damage or render inaccessible low-lying coastal infrastructure

including roads and tunnels (Mills and Andrey, 2002).

-Sea-level rise will reduce the 100-year flood return periods and will

lower the current minimum critical elevations of infrastructure such

as roads and tunnels (U.S. CCSP, 2009).

-Drainage systems become less effective, causing more flooding—

and increased rainfall intensity will further increase the severity and

frequency of flooding there (Titus, 2002).

-Several mechanisms damage pavements exposed to overwash

-Some low-lying tunnels and roads are already vulnerable to flooding and a

rising sea level will only exacerbate the situation by causing more frequent

and more serious disruption of transportation services (U.S. CCSP, 2009)

-Storm surge can flood coastal and low lying routes, including evacuation

routes.

-Storm surge and waves can render key bridges inoperable, while

accompanying precipitation and wind lessen visibility and increase the risk of

traveling (Hitchcock et al., 2008).

11

(Douglass and Krolak, 2008).

-There is evidence that the "weir" water flow pattern might often be

the primary failure asset type (i.e., during Hurricanes Ivan and

Katrina).

-During storms, utility connections and exposed cables usually fail

before systems do, causing traffic gates and lights (among other

electrical traffic control components) to fail (NIST, 2006).

Railways -Sea level rise can exacerbate storm surge in coastal areas.

Underlying earthen support may erode, or manmade infrastructure

may break down from forces beyond design specifications (Nemry

and Demirel, 2012; Rossetti, 2002; FTA, 2011; NJTC, 2012; MTA,

2012).

-Light rail stations, rail yards, and service buildings (such as garages)

may be impacted by sea level rise and storm surge via gradual

inundation or storm-related inundation. Earthen support for

structures may erode, reducing the foundation's stability. In cases for

which water reaches a high enough level that it enters buildings, the

structural integrity may remain but serious flooding can require

temporary closures due to clean-up and interior rebuilding (FTA,

2011; NJTC, 2012; MTA, 2012).

-Sea level rise or extreme high tides can cause tracks to flood, both

above- and below-ground. Further, sea level rise can exacerbate

storm surge in coastal areas. Rail bed (including ballast) destruction

due to storm surge is possible, from erosion that comes with

repeated wave action. The amount of destruction is dependent on

ballast material and severity of surge. Wave action can strip the rail,

ties, and ballast off of railroad bridges and off coastal area rail lines if

they are exposed (OFCM, 2002; MTA, 2012; NJTC, 2012; FTA, 2011).

-Inundation can cause rail sensor failure, as well as other electrical

failures (switches, gates, signals). There are also potential corrosive

damages from salt (OFCM, 2002; MTA, 2012; NJTC, 2012).

-Rail bed (including ballast) destruction due to storm surge is

possible, from erosion that comes with repeated wave action. The

amount of destruction is dependent on ballast material and severity

of surge. Wave action can strip the rail, ties, and ballast off of

railroad bridges and off coastal area rail lines if they are exposed

(OFCM, 2002; MTA, 2012; NJTC, 2012; FTA, 2011). Storm surge can

also cause tracks to flooding, both above- and below-ground.

-Sea level rise can exacerbate storm surge in coastal areas. Storm surge can

scour the rail bed, derail train cars, and damage railway bridges over streams,

all of which can disrupt service. There is an increased risk of hazardous

material spills (requiring monitoring, mitigation, and reporting), which can

cause service disruption. This applies to both heavy and light rail (NIST, 2006;

OFCM, 2002).

-Debris on rails can also interfere with operations; length of disruption is

dependent on the amount of debris present and clean up time (NJTC, 2012;

MTA, 2012).

-Storm surge can scour the rail bed, derail train cars, and damage railway

bridges over streams, all of which can disrupt service. There is an increased

risk of hazardous material spills (requiring monitoring, mitigation, and

reporting), which can cause service disruption. This applies to both heavy and

light rail (NIST, 2006; OFCM, 2002).

12

Airports -Runways and taxiways, are vulnerable to flooding due to storm

surge and sea level rise (Baglin, 2012).

-Temporary or permanent disruption of the airport. The region's

airfield capacity is insufficient to absorb air traffic, resulting in

negative impacts on the region's economy.

-Storm surges may cause flight cancellations and delays (U.S.CCSP,

2008).

-Storm surge and heavy precipitation can flood buildings, access

roads, and disrupt fuel supply and storage (ICF, 2008).

-Airports are designed for an operational economic life of 70 years or less,

therefore routine repairs, replacement, and re-design can take into account

sea-level rise (Peterson et al., 2008). Airports are not expected to be replaced

in the foreseeable future and there are practical difficulties with raising the

elevation of airfield surfaces. The most likely response is to raise the elevation

of surrounding berms or dikes. However, these could be overtopped in an

extreme event.

- Potential impacts due to a severe storm, airport services can be completely

disrupted by high wind speeds, precipitation, flooding, electrical outages, and

debris impacts (NRC, 2008) delays and cancellations can have ripple effect (it

can take airlines a long time to return their timetables to punctuality.)

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Storm surge and direct wave action can damage marine port

buildings (Curtis, 2007). Fast moving water can undermine or

damage building foundations (U.S. CCSP, 2008).

-Strong waves can batter piers and scour pier supports, leaving

berths inoperable; and storm surge can wash away asphalt paving.

There may be serious damage to both the piers/ wharves as well as

the vessels.

-Sea level rise coupled with storm events can increase the risk of coastal

flooding, which can inundate rail and road access to the seaport, or inundate

maritime facilities (NOAA and San Francisco BCDC, 2013)

-Potential impacts due to a severe storm, seaport services can be completely

disrupted.

Wind gust Roads -Wind does not directly damage the physical structure of the road,

but can severely disrupt road traffic and other service activities.

-High winds cause safety risks and travel delays, a loss of visibility, impaired

mobility, loss of communications and power, freight/cargo damage risk,

increased risk of collisions/spills of hazardous cargo, and transport schedule

delays (Caldwell et al., 2002).

Railways -High wind velocities can directly damage platforms, stations and

other structures. (NJTC, 2012).

-High winds also increase risk to rail bridge stability (NJTC, 2012).

-Intense crosswinds in some areas from microbursts or squall lines

cut the electricity needed for gates/flashers and signal bungalow

operation. Signals themselves can also be knocked over.

-Debris that is moved by wind can also damage equipment (including

catenary lines) (Rossetti, 2002; Nemry and Demirel, 2012).

-Intense crosswinds in some areas from microbursts or squall lines can disrupt

or halt service

-There are potential safety risks to railroad personnel (such as from rail car

blow over and hazardous spills), as well, which may disrupt operations.

-Electrical outages due to wind can slow or completely disrupt service,

especially for regional light rail that may rely on catenary lines.

Airports - High winds can cause damage to terminal buildings at airports. High

winds can cause construction materials to blow loose, placing debris

and objects in the pathways of moving aircraft (Ang-Olson, 2009;

OFCM, 2002)

Aviation commerce starts to be impacted at sustained winds of 10.28 m/s or

greater or winds gusts over ~15.42 m/s. Delays or cancellations of flights

occurred at sustained winds of 17.88 m/s or higher (for an hour), or gusts of

25.93 m/s or higher (no time limit) (Peterson et al., 2008).

Pejovic et al. (2009) did not establish a threshold for high winds (indicated by

1-hour mean wind speed above the mean), but found that incremental

increases in wind speed above the mean could increase likelihood of delay.

13

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Most buildings are built to withstand 3-second gust wind speeds of

up to 38 m/s. Wind damage to structures increases non-linearly as

wind speed increases.

- High winds can damage or destroy piers, wharves, and berths (IFC,

2011). Wind has its most damaging effects on unreinforced

structures (U.S. CCSP, 2008).

Small boat handling, tugboat movement, ferry docking, barge handling are all

restricted during high winds (NRC, 2008; OFCM, 2002).

Changes in

Freeze/Thaw

Roads -Asphalt cement is blended, and some asphalt binders respond

better to freeze thaw cycles than others. Additionally, the volume

and spacing of air voids in the aggregate mix has an effect on how

susceptible an asphalt roadway is to freeze/thaw (Ozgan and Serin,

2013; FHWA, 2006).

-The asphalt "bubble" is unsupported, and cars driving over it cause

it to weaken and collapse into the hole beneath it. This is what is

known as a pothole. This same phenomenon also causes additional

surface cracks, deformations, and wheel ruts (Ozgan and Serin,

2013).

-Potholes, cracks, and rutting in the road surface result in increased

maintenance costs and also present a safety risk to drivers.

-During the colder months in some parts of the world, frozen subgrades in the

roadway can provide a more solid road foundation for heavy vehicles.

However, as the thaws begin, or as the number of cycles increases, the road

surface becomes more susceptible to cracking and potholes (FHWA, 2013).

-Varying amounts of post- or pre-winter maintenance to do. However, the

number of new potholes after a winter season (particularly one with many

freeze/thaw cycles) can number into the tens of thousands per year in a large

city

Railways -In areas with earlier spring thaw, there is the potential for ice jam

flooding, which can damage rail bridges (Nemry and Demirel, 2012;

OFCM, 2002; Smith and Levasseur, 2002).

-Rail seat deterioration (RSD) is linked in part to freeze-thaw cycling,

due to the expansion of freezing water, as well as the flow of water

during freezing. --The cement paste from the concrete components

is at risk of extra wear (Zeman et al., 2009; Lutch et al., 2009).

-In cold weather, Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) contracts, which

can cause fractures that result in rail separations (Nemry and

Demirel, 2012).

-Warmer winter temperatures present more opportunity to extend

operations and to increase maintenance hours. Construction seasons could

change.

-In areas with earlier spring thaw, potential for ice jam flooding over and near

rail bridges and disrupting service also exists (Nemry and Demirel, 2012;

OFCM, 2002; Smith and Levasseur. 2002).

Airports -Changes in freeze/thaw cycles can damage runways and other

airfield pavements in areas susceptible to such conditions (Baglin,

2012).

-Changes can undermine the foundations of infrastructure (Smith

and Levasseur, 2002), be disruptive to buildings and other

infrastructure that are designed for less dynamic changes (Baglin,

2012).

-Such changes can damage access roads and damage underground utilities

(e.g., oil and gas pipelines), leading to disruption of utility services as well as

pollution and compliance issues (Baglin, 2012).

14

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Changes in freeze/thaw cycles will undermine the foundations of

infrastructure (Smith and Levasseur, 2002).

-River ice breakup will continue to occur and may be more difficult to

predict in terms of ice jam flooding risks (Smith and Levasseur, 2002).

-Damage to port infrastructure due to changes in freeze/thaw cycles

will disrupt port services.

-Damage to the foundations of port buildings and other infrastructure raises

safety issues.

Permafrost

Thaw

Roads -The thaw settlement occurs unevenly, which can pose a threat to

the structural integrity of any infrastructure built on top of the

permafrost, including roadways (UNEP, 2012).

-Road slope sloughing can fill ditches and plug culverts (ADOT & PF,

2013).

-Road surface damage from permafrost thaw endangers drivers and poses

significant maintenance costs. A report from the Alaska Climate Stressor

Assessment Commission estimates that the Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities spends an average of $10 million annually

to address permafrost impacts on the highway system. Furthermore, Alaska

predicts an additional cost of between $0.9 - $1.5 billion in damage costs

through 2030 from permafrost thaw (Alaska Climate Impact Assessment

Commission, 2008; ADOT & PF Climate Change Strategy).

Railways -Rail bridge superstructure is not directly impacted by permafrost

thaw. However, if permafrost thaw causes shifting of bridge

substructures (including bridge pilings, the abutments, or

approaches), then the superstructure may collapse (NRC, 2008).

-Rail infrastructure built on permafrost is frequently at risk of uneven

settling and ground heave due to the freeze-thaw cycles of

permafrost. Rail buckling and sinking is possible unless concrete,

steel, or gravel supports are developed. Embankment failures are

potentially a significant risk. In the US, this is only of concern in

Alaska (Smith and Levasseur, 2002; Ferrell and Lautala, 2010; Nemry

and Demirel, 2012).

-Disruptions in service due to buckled or sinking tracks (OFCM, 2002; Ferrell

and Lautala, 2010; Nemry and Demirel,, 2012).

Airports -Many airstrips in Alaska are built on permafrost. Permafrost thaw

can undermine the foundations of these runways (NRC, 2008;

Peterson et al., 2008).

-Damage to airfield pavements and surfaces due to permafrost thaw

can result in uneven surfaces and loose debris that can damage

aircraft if thrown up on take-off or landing or ingested into engines

(Gosling, 2013).

-Permafrost thaw can damage the foundation of airfield buildings

and structures, requiring increased maintenance, rebuilding, or

relocation (NRC, 2008). Permafrost thaw will also accelerate the

erosion of shorelines and riverbanks, threatening infrastructure

located on them (U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 2003).

-Erosion or subsidence of access roads to airports is possible (Baglin, 2012).

-Damage to airstrips and airport buildings and other structures will result in

service disruption.

15

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Permafrost thaw affects the foundation and structure of port

terminals and other buildings built on permafrost.

-As sea ice retreats and permafrost thaws, the shore is exposed to

direct wave action, causing increased coastal erosion and affecting

infrastructure located on eroding shorelines (Larsen et al., 2008;

Smith and Levasseur, 2002; U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 2003).

-Permafrost thaw affects the foundation and structure of piers,

wharves, and berths built on permafrost.

-Damage to port infrastructure due to permafrost thaw and coastal erosion

will disrupt port operations and services.

Droughts Roads -Drought can contribute to cracking and splitting of pavements

(Pelham, 2012).

-The stone and sand-sized particles of gravel to “float” and the

material can easily align itself into the washboard pattern under

traffic (Skorseth and Selim, 2000).

-Sedimentation in culverts can occur during periods of low flow

(FHWA, 2012b).

-Dry conditions leading to the movement of dust from gravel roads can cause

off-site damage, be a health hazard to humans, wildlife and plant life, or

become a traffic safety hazard

Railways -No documented relationship -No documented relationship

Airports -No documented relationship -Droughts can stress water supply and affect airport operations.

-The Airport will have to switch from potable water to reclaimed water for

part of the water used for cooling energy powers, irrigation, pavement power

washing, and gas well washing. The cost of switching to reclaimed water is

estimated to cost $18 million, but the Airport would save $4 million over 20

years and $121 million or more over 60 years (Baglin, 2012).

Seaports &

Inland

waterways

-Lower water levels due to drought decrease the cargo limits for

river shipping, especially for barges, as well as restricting ship

navigability and berthing. To maintain efficiency, additional dredging

of channels may be required (Mills and Andrey, 2002; Peterson et al.

2008; Burkett, 2002).

-The impacts of drought can be made worse during extreme heat

events (e.g., high temperatures increase evaporation and/or increase

water demand, further reducing water levels).

-Drought can affect the ability of ships to berth at docks.

-Drought can cause lower water levels in shipping channels and therefore

pose a threat to shipping operations (Mills and Andrey, 2002; Peterson et al.

2008; Burkett, 2002).

-Hotter and drier conditions can lead to increased risk of dust explosions

associated with grain handling and storage (IFC, 2011).

Project 603864 16

1.2 Weather induced costs on transport

Transport infrastructures are designed to be resilient to various stresses including extreme weather events. Regular

maintenance is performed to sustain the resilience and design codes are established and standardized to achieve a

high level of resilience to extreme events for which the occurrences (return period) are set in accordance to the

typical design life spans. The following are typical life spans of different types of transport infrastructure:

• Bridges: 100 years

• Roads: 30-40 years

• Road pavement: 10-25 years

• Culverts: 20-100 years

• Drainage (surface): 20 years

• Airports: 70 years

• Seaport: 100 years

Transport infrastructure and operations are more sensitive to extreme events, such as storm surges, floods, wind

gusts, while services – including operation, maintenance and safety – are generally more sensitive to climate change

than infrastructure.

The current costs of extreme events for the transport sector have been estimated either only for specific transport

modes or following a comprehensive approach to cover them all. According to the FP7 project WEATHER, the total

cost of climate induced events for the period 1998-2010 was € 2.5 billion annually, with €1 billion annual indirect

costs due to disruptions including damages, infrastructure repair/maintenance, vehicle damages, operation costs.

The impacts of storms, winter conditions, floods, avalanches, heat and drought are considered, while winter

conditions (42%) and floods (45%) have the highest contribution to the total estimated cost. The impacts on road

transport account for 80.1% of the total estimated costs, of rail for 2.7% and of air transport for 16%, while the

impacts on maritime and inland waterways have been estimated to be below 1% of the total estimated costs.

Storms can have devastating impacts. According to the SwissRe loss model, an insured storm loss of nearly 7 billion

Euros could be expected once every 10 years and of 30 billion Euros once every 100 years (Schwierz et al., 2010).

Extreme winds can cause overtopping on defences and flooding at coastal assets, and can severely damage port and

airport facilities.

According to the EWENT project, current costs due to accidents for 2010 were estimated to exceed 12 billion Euros.

The project considered road, rail, inland waterways, shortsea shipping, aviation and light traffic. Major findings are

summarized in Table 2. In terms of modes, road transport has the largest share as 83.33% of accident costs are

associated with roads.

Table 2: Current costs due to extreme weather, including all phenomena (ca.2010) (EWENT PROJECT)

Transport

Mode

Accidents Time costs Infrastructure Freight &

Logistics Physical

Infra.

Maintenance

Road >10 bill. 0.5-1.0 bill. ca 1 bill. ca 0.2 bill. 1-6 bill.

Rail >0.1 bill. >10mill. - >01.bill 5-24 mill.

IWT ca. 2 mill. n.a n.a n.a 0.1-0.3 mill.

Project 603864 17

Short sea >10 mill. n.a n.a n.a 0.2-1 mill.

Aviation n.a >0.6 bill. n.a n.a 0.5-2.3 mill.

Light traffic >2bill. - n.a n.a -

TOTAL (Euro) >12 bill. > 1bill. ca 1.bill >0.3 bill. 1-6 bill.

In general, damages have been quantified for six elements of the transport system, namely infrastructure assets,

infrastructure operations, vehicle assets, vehicle operations, user time costs and user safety. Infrastructure

deterioration and damage costs at European level were estimated in the PESETA-II project considering only

infrastructure and user time costs. For road, weather stresses represent 30% to 50% of current road maintenance

costs in Europe (8 to 13 billon €/year). Around 10% of these costs (approximately 0.9 billion €/year) are associated

with extreme weather events alone, out of which heavy rainfalls and floods play the most important role.

The studies examining the vulnerability of air- and sea-borne transport infrastructure are rare compared to other

modes of transport. However, climate change is expected to enhance the frequency and length of weather related

delays and disruptions (Eurocontrol, 2008; Becker et al, 2013). In 2011, the United States experienced a record of 12

weather related disasters costing at least $1 billion each for airports (Koetse and Rietveld 2009). Although the design

and operational capacity affects significantly the overall cost of the airport, according to a rough estimation based on

relevant studies (Schade et al., 2006; Schade et al, 2013) the total cost of permanent inundation could be nearly 5

billion Euros. Disruptions of air transport activities could also be costly, the closure of airports due to the volcanic ash

cloud from Iceland in 2010, lead to 0.5 billion Euros loss per day (Nokka et al, 2012).

Inundation due to sea level rise and storm surges could cause both temporary and permanent flooding and such

impacts are already observed. Seaports will be strongly affected by sea level rise and storm surges as 64% of all

seaports are expected to be inundated according to the projected (IPCC, 2012) global mean sea levels and combined

effects of tides, local waves, and storm surges.

Main adaptation approaches for seaports include storm defences, elevation to compensate for projected sea levels

and relocation. Decisions have to be taken considering each case separately as construction costs are high, around €4

billion for international ports (Schade et al., 2006; Schade et. al, 2013). For seaports inundated at levels between 1

and 3 meters, beach nourishment will be needed. According to Nicholls et al (2010), in absolute terms for the

medium scenario, the cost of beach nourishment is expected to increase from 2.2 billion euro/year in the 2010s to

4.6 billion euro/year by the 2040s (Dollar/Euro parity is taken as equal). The cost of raising port ground levels by 1m

is $15 million per km2 based on IPCC (1990). According to the literature, sea wall and bulkhead construction would

cost 756,000-2,023,000 euro/kilometre and construction of dikes or levees to protect against 1 meter rise would cost

756,000-4,004,460 euro/kilometre (Hippe, 2015).

Additional costs could be expected due to storm surges that could disrupt the transportation activity temporarily.

The total amount of the damage when closing the port of Rotterdam for 24 hours could exceed 3 million Euros

(WEATHER D4: Adaptation Strategies), while the sea shipping cost for other ports could reach the amount of 0.75

million Euros. Time delay costs to European shippers are estimated to be between 0.19 and 0.96 million Euro per

year. (Nokka et al, 2012).

Project 603864 18

1.3 Vulnerability of transport modes to weather conditions

In order to analyse the risks of climate change and extreme events for the transport system, several factors should

be taken into account such as infrastructure stock, projected exposure to risk, frequency and severity of the weather

event, and of course vulnerability of the system. A European wide first indicative assessment has been made in the

PESETA-II and PESETA-III projects, where shorter (up to 2050) and longer time periods (up to 2100) are analysed

based on the results of bottom-up biophysical impact models. Major findings are presented in this section.

In order to measure vulnerability, projected exposure to risk should be evaluated considering thresholds above

which the intensity of a weather event is likely to have damaging consequences or cause disruptions. In Table 3 are

listed impact functions and thresholds that have been used in PESETA-II (Nemry and Demirel, 2012) and PESETA-III

(Christodoulou and Demirel, 2017) for different transport modes.

Table 3: Impact functions and thresholds per transport mode

Transport mode Impact Function Threshold

Road

High temperatures

Number of days with Tmax > threshold

(7 hottest consecutive days in a year)

Change in average maximum temperature

SLR + storm surge Inundation level estimations

Extreme precipitation 100-year river discharge

Bridges Extreme precipitation 100-year river discharge

Rail High temperatures

Number of days with "stress-free" temperatures >

threshold

SLR + storm surge Inundation level estimations

Airport

SLR + storm surge Inundation level estimations

flooding Inundation level estimations

wind gust >10 m/s, >15 m/s, >20 m/s, >25 m/s

Seaport

SLR + storm surge Inundation level estimations

flooding Inundation level estimations

wind gust >35 m/s

Inland waterways

flooding Inundation level predictions

drought Number of days with discharges below the 5th percentile

of water levels

The vulnerability of different transport modes is discussed in the rest of this section using selected case studies and

the findings of the PESETA projects.

Road

Due to traffic load and weather conditions, road pavement deteriorates. Although scheduled maintenance is

performed, temperature and precipitation changes could accelerate some damaging effects. Hence, upgrading

asphalt performance to comply with the new – warmer - climate conditions is one adaptation measure to be

considered in the future in order to maintain road transport serviceability and safety. The 7-day pavement

Project 603864 19

temperature is used as the climate related indicator to determine the level of adaptation required for the asphalt

binder. By definition, this is the highest daily pavement temperature for the 7 hottest consecutive days in a year.

The EU27- wide cost for road asphalt binder adaptation to future climate warming by 2040-2070 is estimated to be

between 35 and 135 million €/year across the different climate scenarios considered, representing 0.1% to 0.5% of

current road maintenance costs. In the long term, these costs could increase to between 1% and 1.2% of current

maintenance cost. According to PESETA-II, more frequent extreme rainfalls and floods (river floods and pluvial

floods) in Europe could also increase the maintenance costs for road transport infrastructure (50-192 million €/year

for the period 2040-2100).

Sea Level Rise plus storm surges could have the most devastating impact on the European road network as

infrastructure at risk of permanent or episodic inundation represents 4.1% of the coastal infrastructure. The value of

infrastructure under risk is estimated to be approximately 18.5 billion € for the period 2070-2100.

Rail

There is a potential risk of rail track deformation effect and rail track buckling due to higher average temperatures

and more frequent occurrences of extremely high temperatures. ‘Rail track buckling’ is defined as the formation of

large lateral misalignments in continuous welded rail track (CWR) and can lead to derailments. Speed restrictions, as

guided by temperature forecasts, is the most common preventive measure.

Since the track is more stable when the rail is in tension at temperatures below the neutral temperature, the target

neutral temperature is generally 75% of the expected maximum temperature of the region (U.S. CCSP, 2008).

Although speed restrictions are effective in reducing derailment risks, they also increase operating costs and cause

delays while they reduce track capacity. In general, increased equipment cycle time leads to larger fleet sizes and

costs.

In several regions of Europe (Southern Europe, France) speed restrictions had been suggested during the period

1990-2010. In total, current estimated delay cost for Europe is approximately 34 million € referring mainly to Italy,

Spain, France and Germany. Future costs are projected to increase all over Europe (60% by 2040-2070 and 104% by

2070-2100, with respect to current costs).By 2070-2100, this extra cost could be from 50 to 130 million €/year

depending on the scenario considered.

Airports

The air transport sector plays a vital role in the European economy; the International Airports Council estimated the

total economic impact of airport and aviation related activities to be €338 billion across the EU in 2015. Air traffic is

expected to nearly double by 2030 and infrastructure investments have already been planned to enlarge and

improve airports’ infrastructure. However, airport infrastructures and services are vulnerable to climate change,

especially to extreme events such as storm surges, flash floods and wind gusts.

Impacts of Sea Level Rise (SLR) and surge heights will likely double or triple in the future. Potential effects are

devastating for North European countries such as Germany, Poland, Denmark, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Sweden.

According to the spatial analysis in PESETA-III, 6 major airports in the EU could be under permanent inundation by

2060 and 9 by 2100; for these airports, permanent closure might be an option to be considered depending on

Project 603864 20

demand. As a first order of magnitude, future costs are estimated to exceed 30 billion Euros in 2060 and 45 billion

Euros in 2100. This amount should be only interpreted as an indicator of vulnerability to sea level rise and further

analysis focusing on the airports in danger is necessary. According to the same analysis, in 2060 the number of

airports expected to be inundated at levels between 1m and 3m is 30 and could increase to 55 by 2100. In order to

estimate the damage costs for airports at risk of temporary inundation, the cost of closure for one day could be

considered. According to the EWENT project the closure of airports due to the volcanic ash cloud from Iceland in

2010, lead to 0.5 billion Euro loss per day. (Nokka et al, 2012).

Wind gusts can also cause delays or cancellations of flights. According to Peterson et al. (2008), sustained winds of

17.88 m/s or higher (for an hour), or gusts of 25.93 m/s or higher (no time limit) can cause disruptions. Pejovic et al.

(2009) did not establish a threshold for high winds (indicated by 1-hour mean wind speed above the mean), but

found that incremental increases of wind speed above the mean could increase the likelihood of delay. According to

the analysis in PESETA-III, current costs of delays due to 15-20 m/s wind gusts are estimated to be 921 million Euros

and are projected to increase to 971 million Euros in 2056. Stronger wind gusts (20-25 m/s, 25-30 m/s) are projected

to occur in several airports. For wind gusts above 30 m/s, redesign and rehabilitation might be necessary.

Seaports

According to the PESETA-III project, the number of ports that face the risk of inundation in 2100 is expected to

increase drastically in comparison to 2060. This trend is even stronger on the North Sea coast, where according to

the GISCO database over 500 ports are located with traffic accounting for up to 15% of the worlds cargo transport.

(EUCC-D, 2013). More than half of the important ports in the EU face the risk of inundation in 2100.

In 2060, the number of seaports under inundation levels of 4 meters or above is expected to be73 and to increase to

132 by 2100. Temporary inundation is expected to cause, at least, the closure of the seaport for a certain period in

order to comply with the expected quality and safety standards. The total amount of the damage when closing the

port of Rotterdam for 24 hours could exceed 3 million Euro (WEATHER D4: Adaptation Strategies), while the sea

shipping cost for other ports could reach the amount of 0.75 million Euros. In 2060 the number of seaports under

temporary risk of inundation is projected to be 455 and to increase to 684 by 2100. The storm surge height is

projected to increase over 50%, even above 100%, from 2060 to 2100 in 39 TEN-T seaports according to the model

results. The total cost for temporary inundation is estimated to exceed 341 million Euros in 2060 and 513 million

Euros in 2100. Since the frequency of storm surges could not be retrieved from the model, these figures should only

be considered as very rough estimates. When wind gust speeds exceed 30 m/s ports are assumed to close, while

lower values are expected to adversely affect operations.

Inland Waterways (IWW)

IWW is vulnerable to floods and droughts, because of the reliance of river navigation on water levels. Extreme

weather events affecting IWW include floods, during which water levels exceed the maximum permitted ones, and

droughts, due to which water levels become critically low imposing limitations to navigation services. Floods are

considered to have less severe impacts on IWW transportation than droughts because of their relatively low duration

(Hendrickx and Breemersch, 2012; Scholten and Rothstein, 2016; Jonkeren et al., 2007).

Project 603864 21

In PESETA –III, the economic impacts of droughts are quantified by focusing on the impacts of change of transport

activity in terms of cargo transported or better cargo transportation potential of a given fleet. The impacts of climate

change on IWW are estimated by combining physical impacts with activity data on the IWW network. In this study,

daily discharge values from five scenarios have been combined with empirical data on water levels and discharges

(e.g. ELWIS, 2016; Scholten and Rothstein, 2016; https://www.pegelonline.wsv.de/gast/start). The analysis is

conducted focusing on four critical points, namely Wildungsmauer (Danube), Hofkirchen (Danube), Ruhrort (Rhine)

and Kaub (Rhine). For the majority of the cases (model runs and points) a benefit is estimated as a result of the

reduction of low water days ranging from €9million to €80 million annually (mean value) for the 2070-2100 period

depending on the port.

Project 603864 22

Risks of coastal inundation for European ports and maritime transport

The maritime sector is very important for the world economy and has a dominant role in international trade. Around

80% of the world freight is transported by boat, while ports are the main gateways of Europe as 74% of extra-EU

goods pass by ports. Furthermore, more than one third of the freight transported within the EU is passing from ports

and the figures are expected to increase significantly in the mid-term future as a 50 % increase of the cargo handled

in EU ports is projected to take place by 2030 (Eurostat, 2017).

Ports are by default particularly exposed to weather events and vulnerable to major climate change impacts such as

sea level rise, storm surges, flooding etc. but major European ports exposed to such events have already taken

measures and built defences against inundation and storm surges. For example, important port cities including

Rotterdam, Amsterdam and London located in an area particularly exposed to extreme weather events have already

taken protection measures against events of high severity (Nicholls et al, 2008).

Measuring the impacts of climate change on ports is a particularly challenging task because the combination of

uncertainty of the projections or data with the level of detail required to evaluate the effects complicate both the

identification of seaports at risk and the assessment of impacts. The complication increases with the size of the area

and number of ports covered, while the analytical approach cannot be independent from the data available. Under

these limitations, aim is to provide an indication of the impacts of coastal inundation due to climate change on ports

in Europe.

1.4 Data

1.4.1 Extreme Sea Level (ESL)

The ports in risk of inundation are identified with the help of the Extreme Seal Level data produced by Vousdoukas et

al (2016a, 2016b, 2017). The data refer to the distribution of Total Water Level at the European Coastline, which has

been estimated considering the major hydrodynamic sea level components, i.e. mean sea level, tides, waves and

storm surges. The data are derived from an ensemble of climatic models based on the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.

More information can be found in Vousdoukas et al (2016a, 2016b).

The data files include two variables, Extreme Sea Level (ESL) and Episodic Extreme Water Level (EEWL) that are

available for different return periods (ranging from 10year to 1000year) and years (from 2010 to 2100). Furthermore,

as the sea level rise data are the output of the ensemble of different GCMs and consideration of different ice-sheet

and glacier contributions, the maximum, minimum and mean relative sea level rise values have been estimated for

each scenario. In the analysis here, mainly the mean ensemble values are used that represent the most likely

scenario.

According to the Extreme Sea Level projections, the largest increases of Mean Sea Level will take place at the North

Sea, on the Atlantic coasts and at the Black Sea, while the smallest in the Baltic Sea as a result of the land uplift in the

area (Vousdoukas et al, 2017). At the same time, the uncertainty of the relative sea level rise projections is higher at

the North Sea than at the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic coasts, while the uncertainty of the projections of waves

and storm surges is in general higher in comparison to the relative sea level rise projections (Vousdoukas et al, 2017).

Project 603864 23

The increase of ESLs is to a large extent driven by relative sea level rise with the exception of certain regions such as

the Baltic Sea where waves and storm surges outweigh the impacts of land uplift. The opposite effect is projected

along the Portuguese coast and the Golf of Cadiz where the reduction of the impacts by waves and storm surges

offsets relative sea level rise (Vousdoukas et al, 2017).

The variables used from the dataset in reference are the following:

• ESL from historic data for 100year return period

• ESL in 2010 for 100year return period according to RCP4.5

• ESL in 2100 for 100year return period according to RCP4.5

• ESL in 2010 for 100year return period according to RCP8.5

• ESL in 2100 for 100year return period according to RCP8.5

Using the four last variables above, ESL increase in 2100 for the two different scenarios is calculated as the difference

between ESL in 2100 and 2010.

In Figure 1 is presented the ESL distribution of a 100year event, maximum ensemble, along the European coastline as

projected for 2060 and 2100 according to RCP4.5 and RCP8.5.

Figure 1: Extreme Sea Levels of a 100 year event in 2060 (left column) and 2100 (right column) according to RCP4.5

(upper row) and RCP8.5 (lower row)

1.4.2 Seaports infrastructure

Data on the location of ports were obtained from the geospatial database of seaport infrastructure provided by

Eurostat (Geodata in GISCO of Eurostat). It consists of a point feature class and contains 2440 ports including all

types of infrastructure from small ports and marinas to major ports. Point coordinates are derived from several input

sources, including ports lists from EMSA, Lloyds, Norie’s Seaports of the World, the GISCO Ports dataset and the

Project 603864 24

UN/LOCODE 2007 list. The geospatial database includes main characteristics of the ports that help with their

identification.

The geospatial database of ports has been combined with Eurostat data on the gross weight of goods handled in

ports. As a result 1428 ports were selected, the largest of which are shown in Figure 2. The data used refer to total

cargo handled – distinction between incoming and outgoing cargo is possible – and the values used are the average

for the period 2006-2016.

Figure 2: Major ports in the EU (source: Eurostat, 2017)

1.4.3 Port calls

Data on port calls have predominately been used in order to estimate secondary effects of interruption of ports’

operation or services. Such effects refer to impacts on foreland and ports worldwide. The historic Automatic

Identification System (AIS) data are micro data and contain information on container ships at individual level

regarding the time of arrival to and time of departure from a port for a specified time period. The specific data that

have been used in this study refer to year 2014.

Project 603864 25

1.5 Methodology

For the evaluation of the risks associated with sea level rise and coastal inundation due to climate change, water

level estimates are combined with the geospatial ports’ database to identify the ports that face the highest risk to be

affected by inundation and extreme weather events according to the ESL projections.

To identify ports at risk, a simplified approach is followed for the association of ports with water levels. Using a

digital elevation model would unlikely add great value considering the scope and macroscopic perspective of the

present study. Ports at risk are indicated by the extreme water level increase assuming that increases beyond a level

are potential danger for the ports, while the level of the danger depends on the level of the increase.

The risk of sea level rise and associated implications are estimated for all seaports in Europe that handle more than

0.5 million tonnes of cargo annually. The size of ports is determined by the gross weight of goods handled annually

and refers to the 2006-2016 average. Although sea level rise and extreme weather events might affect all ports, the

impacts’ level and duration cannot be independent of the existence of protection measures. Several ports, many of

them major ones, are already protected against flooding and storm surges. For example, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and

London are known to be protected against 1000year event (Nicholls et al, 2008). In fact, the Rotterdam protection

measures are of the highest level globally consisting of different storm surge barriers two of which are the largest in

the world. London’s flood barrier is also among the biggest in the world, while other ports have also taken protection

measures against storm surges (Sigma Plan in Belgium, storm surge protection plan of the port of Hamburg etc.).

Even these cases upgrading of the existing flooding defences will most probably be necessary in response to the

projected sea level rise.

Furthermore, there are ports that are physically protected and can be relatively easier defended against rising sea

levels. Among those are ports that are not located on coastal but inland areas such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam,

Hamburg, Antwerp, Ghent, Gothenburg and London, to mention only some of the major ones. In Figure 3 can be

seen a selection of ports on coastal (light blue) and inland (red) areas in the part of North Sea between the UK and

the European continent.

The defences against storm surges will protect port infrastructure from damages and might allow the continuation of

some port operations by protecting the ports from inundation, but they will also restrict the movement of ships.

Hence, even in ports with protection measures in place, operations will likely be affected by extreme weather

events.

Project 603864 26

Figure 3: Large ports on coastal (light blue) or inland (red) areas in Southeast UK, Northeast France, Belgium and the

Netherland

To measure the impacts of sea level rise and extreme weather events, each port is associated with the respective

level of ESL or ESL increase that indicate level of risk. The freight activity and port calls data can then be used to

quantify the impacts of seizing (due to closure of a port) or interruption of port services.

Important for the HELIX project is the comparison of the impacts corresponding to Specific Warming Levels of 4°C,

2°C and 6°C relative to pre-industrial levels. However, the analysis is to a large extent driven by the data available, i.e.

the ESL estimates of the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios represent the impacts of the different global warming levels

under examination. According to Vousdoukas et al (2017), “RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenario correspond to a likely global

mean temperature increase of 2.0–3.6∘C and 3.2–5.4∘C in 2081–2100 above the 1850–1900 levels”. Hence, the

comparison between different global warming scenarios made in this study refers to the comparison of the results of

these scenarios.

Impacts on hinterland

Ports are gateways of Europe to the world and a significant part of European trade is passing through ports. As a

result, any disruption of the operation of ports is expected to also affect non-coastal regions that connect to ports

through the road, rail and inland waterways networks, and rely on ports for the import or export of goods. Impacts

on hinterland are quite difficult to quantify and one of the difficulties has to do with the availability of trade data

between ports and regions.

For the assessment of the impacts on hinterland, a simplified approach is followed: At first, for each NUTS3 region

the 5 closest seaports are selected and then for each region an impact indicator �� is calculated according to the

following formula:

Project 603864 27

�� = � �����∈

/ � ���∈

, �� = ���, ��, ��, ��, ���

where

�� is the sea level rise indicator, the one used in this case is Extreme Sea Level change from 2010 to 2100, at port p

�� is the gross weight of goods handled in port p annually

�� is the set of ports p that are closest to the centroid of region R

The indicator �� is used as a qualitative measure of the impacts on hinterland ranging from ‘Low’ to ‘High’ with two

intermediate categories: ‘Low- Medium’, ‘Medium-High’.

Impacts on foreland

As in the case of hinterland the main objective of looking at the impacts on foreland is to provide a more

comprehensive view of the coastal impacts of climate change on port operations. For the moment, the impacts of

coastal inundation are only available for Europe and the impacts on foreland refer to secondary impacts of the

effects of SLR to European ports.

The data on port calls are analysed by considering the connections between ports and as a result potential secondary

impacts of the interruption of services in one port. For each ship it is possible to identify to which ports it has called.

The impacts on foreland are measured by considering the ports to which a ship calls before and after calling to a port

known to be affected during a period of one month.

1.6 Results

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global mean sea levels are projected to rise by

18–59 cm above 1990 levels by the 2090s. Furthermore, in Northern Europe sea level rise could exceed the global

average by 15–20 cm and reach 38–79 cm in the area of Denmark.

Of particular interest for the HELIX project are the differences between different global warming scenarios. The

differences of Extreme Sea Level projections according to RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 in 2100 (100year return period,

maximum ensemble) are presented in Figure 4. Only the areas for which ESL differences exceed 0.5m are highlighted

in red, and the maximum difference is 0.66m.

Project 603864 28

Figure 4: Comparison of the ESL projections for 2100 and 100 year event according to RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 (red indicates

differences larger than 0.5 and up to 0.66 meters)

The comparison between ESL projections of the two scenarios aims to provide a quick visual indication of the areas

where the highest differences are expected. These areas are the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia between Sweden

and Finland where the land uplift is projected to take place. Furthermore, differences exceeding 0.5m occur in some

areas of the western part of Great Britain, western France and Denmark where high levels of ESL increase are

expected.

Mean sea level rise may affect ports and where necessary and economically sensible it is expected that ports will

take adaptation measures as the ones that have already been reported earlier. However, the most severe and

probably unpredictable impacts of climate change will have to do with the increase of extreme episodic events such

as waves, storm surges, wind gusts etc. In the case of such events, services might be interrupted and ports might

have to seize of operations for specific time periods.

The ESL dataset offers the opportunity to isolate certain factors of sea level rise as together with the total ESL it

provides data referring to Episodic Extreme Water Levels (EEWLs), i.e. storm surges and waves, for different return

periods and years. In Figure 5 are illustrated the EEWL values of a 100year event in 2010 (maximum ensemble). The

highest values, larger than 5.5 meters, can be found in the continental coastline on the North Sea. Other areas with

relatively high values are the UK coast, the Baltic Sea and the Northern part of the Adriatic Sea.

Project 603864 29

Figure 5: Distribution of Episodic Extreme Water Levels in 2010 according to RCP8.5 (ranging from 0m to 6m)

1.6.1 Present day Extreme Sea Levels

In order to quantify the impacts it is important to have information not only on the severity of the event but also on

the frequency and duration. Regarding the frequency, Vousdoukas et al (2017) have estimated that present day

100year ESL “is projected to occur approximately every 11 years by 2050, and every 3 and 1 year by 2100 under

RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively”. Moreover, “some regions are projected to experience an even higher increase in

the frequency of occurrence of extreme events, most notably along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, where the

present day 100-year ESL is projected to occur several times a year.” (Vousdoukas et al, 2017)

The information provided in the excerpt above is used simply as an indication for the assumptions to make regarding

frequencies. Furthermore, without incorporating information relevant to the vulnerability and resilience of ports, it is

very difficult to infer the level of impacts. Extreme Sea Level data are used to categorise areas according to the

potential impact and for a present day 100year event the frequency estimates in the excerpt above can be used.

The distribution of the 100year present day ESL is presented in both maps of Figure 6, in the right hand side map

together with relatively large ports (handling more than 2 million tonnes annually). The colour variation represents

the variation of ESL values, with lighter blue for lower ESL and darker for higher. The highest values are projected to

occur in the North Sea and the Atlantic coast.

Project 603864 30

Figure 6: Distribution of impacts of present day 100 year event (ESL100)

In Table 4 the total number of ports and cargo handled (present day volumes) to be affected in Europe by different

water levels are presented, while in Figure 7 per country results are shown. Disruptions to be caused by ESL higher

than 3 meters are projected to affect ports that handle more than 2billion tonnes of cargo annually after 2050

according to RCP8.5.

In the Black Sea and the Mediterranean the impacts are projected to be milder but much more frequent. For

example, in many parts of the Mediterranean ESL100 is projected to take values in the range between 1 and 2 meters,

and to occur 5 times per year between 2050 and 2100 according to RCP8.5. In the Black Sea where ESL values are

even lower, ESL is projected to occur 10 times per year. On the other hand, in the North Sea where ESL100 values are

much higher, often more than 6 meters, they are projected to occur once every 2 years approximately after 2050

(Vousdoukas et al, 2017).

The countries to be affected mostly include those with ports on the North Sea, i.e. UK, Germany, Belgium, France and

the Netherlands. For a detailed estimation of the impacts of ESL events on ports and cargo handled the resilience of

ports needs to be taken into account.

Table 4: Ports affected in Europe by present day ESL100 and gross weight of goods handled annually

ESL (meters) Ports Tonnes (millions)

0-1.5 128 1135

1.5-3 159 1021

3-4.5 66 448

4.5-6 41 719

6-7.5 39 783

>7.5 16 113

Project 603864 31

Figure 7: Gross weight of cargo handled in ports affected by present day ESL100 in European countries

Finally in Figure 8 all the ports handling more than 2million of tonnes annually to be exposed to higher than 3m

water levels are shown. As can be see the majority is in ports on the North Sea while a few appear also on the

Atlantic Coast and the Adriatic Sea.

Figure 8: Large ports (handling more than 2 million tonnes annually) exposed to higher than 3 meters present day ESL100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

BE BG CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR IE IT LT LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI TR UK

To

nn

es

ha

nd

led

an

nu

all

y i

n p

ort

s (m

illi

on

)

>7.5m

4.5-7.5m

1.5-4.5m

0-1.5m

Project 603864 32

1.6.2 Extreme Sea Level increase

The impacts of Extreme Sea Levels are also assessed with the help of the projections of increase of Extreme Sea Level

from 2010 to 2100 for 100year return period (mean ensemble). The results for the two RCP scenarios are presented

in Figure 9 and the darker blue areas are those in higher risk. The two maps also indicate the differences between

the two scenarios. According to RCP8.5, for most of the coastline there will be ESL increases higher than 0.5meters,

while increases larger than 1 meter are projected to occur in the North Sea, the Western part of the Baltic Sea and in

parts the British and French Atlantic coasts.

Figure 9: ESL100 increase from 2010 to 2100 according to RCP4.5 (left) and RCP8.5 (right)

In Table 5 are presented estimates of the additional number of ports and cargo (present day tonnes of gross weight

handled in ports annually) in Europe to be exposed to certain ESLs (two ranges are used to capture ESL increase)

from 2010 to 2100. In Figure 10 and Figure 11, per country results according to RCP8.5 are shown.

According to RCP8.5, in 2100 approximately 208 million tonnes more will be handled annually in ports to be affected

by ESL higher than 4.5m than in 2010. Regarding the comparison of the two scenarios, according to RCP8.5 additional

ports handling annually 44 tonnes will be affected by ESL higher than 4.5 meters in 2100 in comparison to 2010 than

according to RCP4.5. The additional ports projected to be exposed to ESL higher than 4.5 meters in 2100 than in 2010

are located in Spain, UK, Ireland, Portugal and Norway. Obviously, this has to do with the thresholds set, as countries

such as Belgium and the Netherlands are already exposed to ESL higher than 4.5 meters. Furthermore, in Figure 10

and Figure 11 it is shown that in many countries there is an increase of the ports exposed to water levels higher than

1.5 meters. For example, according to the RCP8.5 projections in France in 2010 around 30% of the total cargo

handled annually is handled in ports exposed to less than 1.5 meter ESL, while in 2100 there are no ports exposed to

ESL below 1.5 meters and 30% of the total cargo is handled in ports exposed to ESL between 1.5 and 4.5 meters; the

rest of the cargo is handled in ports exposed to ESL of more than 4.5 meters.

Project 603864 33

Table 5: Additional ports to be affected in Europe by an increase of ESL from 2010 to 2100 (100year event) and present

day gross weight of goods handled annually

ESL (meters) RCP4.5 RCP8.5

Ports Tonnes (millions) Ports Tonnes (millions)

1.5-4.5 79 843 65 740

> 4.5 29 164 40 208

Figure 10: Cargo distribution in European countries according to ports’ exposure to ESL100 in 2010 (RCP8.5)

Figure 11: Cargo distribution in European countries according to ports’ exposure to ESL100 in 2100 (RCP8.5)

1.6.3 Impacts on hinterland

In Figure 12 the results regarding the impacts on hinterland are presented. The colour variation reflects the impact

variation according to the increase of ESL from 2010 to 2100. More specifically the following thresholds have been

used to classify the level of potential impacts:

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BE BG CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR IE IT LT LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI TR UK

> 4.5m

1.5-4.5m

0-1.5m

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BE BG CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HR IE IT LT LV MT NL NO PL PT RO SE SI TR UK

> 4.5m

1.5-4.5m

0-1.5m

Project 603864 34

- Low: ���������� − ���������� < 0.25m

- Low-medium: 0.25 ≤ ���������� − ���������� < 0.5m

- Medium-high: 0.5 ≤ ���������� − ���������� < 0.75m

- High: ���������� − ���������� ≥ 0.75m

The regions that appear red are those projected to be most severely affected as they are predominately served by

ports projected to be exposed to high ESL increase. The regions to be mostly affected are in Germany, the

Netherlands, Belgium, France, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Poland and the Baltic countries. There are also regions to

be severely affected in the UK, Spain, Italy and Turkey.

The impacts represented here are only secondary impacts of the disruption of port operations. Coastal inundation

and flooding can also affect the connections to the hinterland by interrupting the operation of the road, rail and

inland waterway network. However, these effects are not considered here and the focus remains on the operation of

ports.

The impact measure is qualitative and is associated with the increase of ESL. It aims to indicate the risk that

hinterland areas face according to the exposure of ports to ESL. The assumption that proximity is the main factor that

determines the reliance of a region to a port plays clearly an important role in shaping the result.

Figure 12: Impacts of the ports affected by ESL100 increase from 2010 to 2100 on hinterland (NUTS3 regions) according to

RCP4.5 (left) and RCP8.5 (right)

1.6.4 Impacts on foreland

Finally, in Figure 13 and Figure 14 the impacts on ports worldwide are illustrated. These results have been produced

with the help of data on port calls and they refer to secondary effects of the disruption of European ports operations

Project 603864 35

as a result of the projected increase of ESL until 2100. The data are used to extract information on connections of

container ports worldwide, the size of the pies represent the total number of connections or port calls and the

coloured pieces of the pies represent the part of the total connections to ports exposed to different levels of ESL

increases. The same ESL thresholds as in the previous section (Impacts on hinterland) have been used and the colour

variation used corresponds to potential impacts according to the following classification:

• Transparent: Low

• Yellow: Low-medium

• Orange: Medium-high

• Red: High

The highest secondary impacts appear to occur in Europe and specifically North Europe which is also the area where

the highest ESL increases are projected to take place. Most likely, this the result of the fact that container ships

embark in various European ports when in the area. Areas out of Europe where relatively high secondary impacts

might be expected include North Africa, America and the Middle East. Ports in the far East seem to be very little

affected, possibly reflecting the fact that the vast majority of the ports calls during the one month window applied

(considering only stops in ports one month before and after the stop to the affected port) are from other Asian or

American ports instead of European ones for which data on ESL increases are used.

Project 603864 36

Figure 13: Worldwide links of European ports affected by ESL increase according to RCP4.5 (top) and RCP8.5 (bottom)

Project 603864 37

Figure 14: Links of European ports affected by ESL increase according to RCP4.5 (left) and RCP8.5 (right)

Project 603864 38

Conclusions

This study has been conducted in the context of the HELIX project in order to assess potential risks associated with

different climate change scenarios for all modes of transport. For the majority of the modes it builds on previous

projects collecting outcomes from various studies that have been made either at European or international level.

Furthermore, the issue of the impacts of climate change on seaports is analysed using sea level rise projections

produced by the relevant physical impacts working group of HELIX.

The analysis of the impacts on all modes summarises the main risks that transport faces and provides a concise but

comprehensive view of the topic. In the context of listing and highlighting major findings of projects it takes

particular benefit of the PESETA-II and PESETA-III projects that jointly have covered a wide range of important issues

related to the impacts of climate change on transport in Europe.

For the analysis of the impacts on seaports, all European freight ports are covered focusing on those handling more

than 0.5 million tonnes annually, while the risk level is associated to present day ESL and the increase of ESL from the

present to 2100. Following the evaluation of the risk of ports according to the projected exposure to sea level rise

and extreme weather events, the level of impacts can be measured in relevance to the volumes of cargo handled

annually in the ports affected by high ESLs. Furthermore, the results are aggregated at country level and it is possible

to see which countries are already threatened by particularly high water levels and which countries’ exposure is

expected to change in the future.

Very important for the analysis is to take benefit of the available data sources; the ESL data offer a good opportunity

for analysis at the geographical level and for the RCP scenarios they are available. At first the data on present day ESL

in combination with the information on corresponding frequencies provide an indication of the projected disruptions

and their spatial distribution. The differences between the scenarios regarding global temperature increase are

assessed by comparing the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios and they refer to the number of additional ports to be

exposed to a high ESL from 2010 to 2100. According to the worse scenario (RCP8.5) it is estimated that the cargo

volume to be handled in the additional ports exposed to ESL higher than 4.5 meters from 2010 to 2100 is 25% higher

than according to the RCP4.5 scenario.

Following the identification of major ports at relatively high risk the wider impacts of potential disruption of port

operations are evaluated. This is made by looking at the impacts on hinterland in Europe and on foreland worldwide.

Such an assessment is particularly challenging with the level of information available and considering the

assumptions that need to be made. From the analysis of the impacts on hinterland, it has been possible to assess the

risk of European regions based on the risk level of ports in proximity. From the analysis on the impacts on foreland, it

has been possible to identify European and overseas destinations to be mostly affected based on their connections

with the ports at risk.

Project 603864 39

References

ADOT&PF (Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities), 2013. Alaska Climate Change Strategy: Public

Infrastructure. Accessed August 7, 2013. Available:http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/aag/docs/O97F17336.pdf.

Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission, 2008. Final Commission Report. Alaska State Legislature. Available:

http://housemajority.org/coms/cli/cli_finalreport_20080301.pdf.

Ang-Olson, J. 2009. What Does Climate Change Mean for Airport Planning? Presentation to Transportation Research

Board.

Baglin, C., 2012. Airport climate adaptation and resilience. National Research Council (U.S.), Transportation Research

Board, Airport Cooperative Research Program, United States, & Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, D.C.:

Transportation Research Board.

Becker, A., M. Acciaro, R. Asariotis, E. Carera, L. Cretegny, P. Crist, M. Esteban, A. Mather, S. Messner, S. Naruse,

A.K.Y. Ng, S. Rahmstorf, M. Savonis, D. Song, V. Stenek, and A.F. Velegrakis, 2013. A Note on Climate change

adaptation for seaports: A challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society, Climatic Change 120(4): 683-695

Available: htp://www.dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0843-z

Beniston, M., Stephenson, D.B., Christensen, O.B., Ferro, C., Frei, C. Goyette, S., Halsnaes, K., Holt, T., Jylhä, K., Koffi,

B., Palutikof, J., Schöll, R., Semmler, T., Melillo, J. M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe (eds.), Climate

Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, USGCRP, United States Global Change

Research Program, 2014. 841 pp

Breemersch, T., Heyndrickx, C., Bruinsma, F., Rietveld, P., 2012. Cost Effectiveness of IWT, Deliverable 4.2 of

ECCONET project. Report prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport.

Available here: https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017)

Bruinsma, F., Koster, P., Holtmann, B., van Heumen, E., Beuthe, M., Urbain, N., Jourquin, B., Ubbels, B., Quispel, M.,

2012. Consequences Of Climate Change For Inland Waterway Transport, Deliverable 3.3 of ECCONET project. Report

prepared for the European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport. Available here:

https://www.ecconet.eu/deliverables/index.htm (last accessed: 30/3/2017)

Burkett, V.R, 2002. Potential Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation in the Gulf

Coast/Mississippi Delta Region. In The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Federal Research

Partnership Workshop, October 1-2, 2002, Summary and Discussion Papers. Sponsored by U.S. Department of

Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

The U.S. Global Change Research Program of the U.S. CCSP, and U.S. Department of Energy. Available:

http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/workshop.pdf.

Caldwell, H., K.H. Quinn, J. Meunier, J. Suhrbier, and L. Grenzeback, 2002. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on

Freight Transport. In The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Federal Research Partnership

Workshop, October 1-2, 2002, Summary and Discussion Papers. Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation

Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Global

Change Research Program of the U.S. CCSP, and U.S. Department of Energy. Available:

http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/workshop.pdf.

Project 603864 40

Christodoulou, A. and Demirel, H. 2017. Impacts of Climate Change on Transport - A focus on airports, seaports and

inland waterways. JRC Technical Reports, European Commission, Seville

Curtis, S. (ed), 2007. Hurricane Katrina Damage Assessment: Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Reston, VA:

American Society of Civil Engineers.

Douglass, S., and J. Krolak, 2008. Highways in the Coastal Environment. Hydraulic Engineering Circular 25, Second

Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/pubs/07096/07096.pdf.

EC-TRB, 2016. Transportation Resilience Adaptation to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events, Summary of

the Fourth EU–U.S. Transportation Research Symposium, Katherine F. Turnbull Rapporteur, June 16–17, 2016,

Brussels, Belgium, Organized by the European Commission U.S. Department of Transportation Research Board

Washington, D.C. 2016, Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 53 ISSN 1073-1652 ISBN 978-0-309-

44147-6, Available: http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175488.aspx

ELWIS, 2016. Elektronischer Wasserstraßen – Informationsservice, Available:

https://www.elwis.de/Aktuelles/index.html.

EUCC-D, 2013. Coastal & Marine, Coastal Climate Change, Ports and renewable energies: impacts, vulnerabilities and

adaptation, Volume 22, No:1.

EUROCONTROL, 2008. Performance Review Report 2007: An Assessment of Air Traffic Management in Europe during

the Calendar Year 2007, EUROCONTROL Performance Review Commission, Brussels

Eurostat, 2017. Maritime ports freight and passenger statistics, Available: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php/Maritime_ports_freight_and_passenger_statistics

Ferrell, S.M., and Lautala. P.T., 2010. Rail Embankment Stabilization on Permafrost – Global Experiences. Available:

http://www.arema.org/files/library/2010_Conference_Proceedings/Rail_Embankment_Stabilization_on_Permafrost-

Global_Experiences.pdf.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2006. Freeze Thaw Resistance of Concrete with Marginal Air Content.

Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/pccp/06117/06117.pdf.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2011. Impact of Design Features on Pavement Response and Performance

in Rehabilitated Flexible and Rigid Pavements. Available:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/10066/10066.pdf.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2012a. Climate Change & Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment

Framework, Available:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/publications/vulnerability_assessment_framework

/fhwahep13005.pdf

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2012b. Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts, Third Edition (HDS-05).

Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/hydraulics/library_arc.cfm?pub_number=7&id=13.

FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), 2013. Road Weather Management Program. Accessed August 12, 2013.

Available: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/q1_roadimpact.htm

Project 603864 41

Fowler, H. J. , Ekstro¨m, M., Blenkinsop, S. and Smith, A. P., 2007. Estimating change in extreme European

precipitation using a multimodel ensemble, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D18104,

doi:10.1029/2007JD008619

Frei, C., Scho, R., Fukutome, S., Schmidli, J. and Vidale,P. 2006. Future change of precipitation extremes in Europe:

Intercomparison of scenarios from regional climate models, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D06105, doi:

10.1029/2005JD005965

FTA (Federal Transit Administration), 2011. Flooded Bus Barns and Buckled rails: Public Transportation and Climate

Change Adaptation. August 2011. Available: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_0001_-

_Flooded_Bus_Barns_and_Buckled_Rails.pdf

Haveman J.D., Shatz H.J., 2006. Protecting the nation's seaports: Balancing security and cost. Available:

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/r_606jhr.pdf.

Heathrow, 2011. Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Progress Report. Available:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566147/climate-adrep-

heathrow.pdf

Heathrow, 2016. Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Progress Report. Available:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566148/climate-adrep-heathrow-

appendix.pdf

Hendrickx, C., Breemersch,T., 2012. The effect of climate change on inland waterway transport. Transport Research

Areana-Europe 2012, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 48, 1837 – 1847.

Hippe, A., Becker, A., Fischer, M., Schwegler, B., 2015. Estimation of Cost Required to Elevate US Ports in Response to

Climate Change: A Thought Exercise for Climate Critical Resources, CIFE Working Paper #WP138, December

Hitchcock, W.A., S. Nunez, and S. Watson, 2008. Emergency Reconstruction of Critical Transportation Infrastructure.

Prepared by the University Transportation Center for Alabama (UTCA). December 2008.

ICF (ICF International), 2008. Potential Impacts of Global Sea Level Rise on Transportation Infrastructure; prepared by

ICF International for U.S. DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting.

IFC (International Finance Corporation), 2011. Climate Risk and Business: Ports - Terminal Marítimo Muelles el

Bosque Cartagena, Colombia.

ICF (ICF International), 2013. A Vulnerability and Risk Assessment of SEPTA’s Regional Rail: A Transit Climate Change

Adaptation Assessment Pilot. May 2013. Produced for US Department of Transportation Federal Transit

Administration.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2012. Special report on managing the risks of extreme events

and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.

ITF, 2016, Adapting Transport to Climate Change and extreme Weather: Implications for Infrastructure Owners and

Network Managers, ITF Research reports, OECD Publishing Paris, Available:

http://www.oecd.org/publications/adapting-transport-to-climate-change-and-extreme-weather-9789282108079-

en.htm

Project 603864 42

Jonkeren, O., Rietveld, P. and van Ommeren, J., 2007. Climate Change and Inland Waterway Transport - Welfare

Effects of Low Water Levels on the river Rhine, Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 41, 3, pp. 387–411

Koetse, M.J., and Rietveld, P., 2009. The impact of climate change and weather on transport: An overview of

empirical findings, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(3), 205–221.

doi:10.1016/j.trd.2008.12.004

Larsen, P.H., S. Goldsmith, O. Smith, M.L. Wilson, K. Strzepek, P. Chinowsky, and B. Saylor, 2008. Estimating future

costs for Alaska public infrastructure at risk from climate change. Global Environmental Change. Available:

http://www.climatechange.alaska.gov/aag/docs/O97F18069.pdf.

Ludvigsen, J., Klæboe, R., Nokkala, M., Hietajärvi, A.-M., Leviäkangas, P., Oiva, K., Athanasatos, S., Michaelides, S. and

Papadakis, M. , 2012. Costs and consequences of extreme weather on European freight and logistics industries and

supply chains. EWENT project working memo D4.4. Available at www.ewent.vtt.fi.

Lutch, R.H., D.K. Harris, and T.M. Ahlborn, 2009. Causes and Preventative Methods for Railseat Abrasion in North

America’s Railroads. Available: http://www.mtti.mtu.edu/alaskarail/pubs/CREC_Paper.pdf.

Makkonen, L., Ruokolainen, L., Räisänen, J. and Tikanmäki, M, 2007. Regional Climate Model Estimates for Changes in

Nordic Extreme Events, Geophysica, 43(1–2), 25–48

Meehl, G.A., T.F. Stocker, W.D. Collins, P. Friedlingstein, A.T. Gaye, J.M. Gregory, A. Kitoh, R. Knutti, J.M. Murphy, A.

Noda, S.C.B. Raper, I.G. Watterson, A.J. Weaver and Z.-C. Zhao, 2007. Global Climate Projections. In: Climate Change

2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Solomon, S. et al. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United

Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 2014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States:

The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change Research Program, 841 pp. doi:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Mills, B., and J. Andrey, 2002. Climate Change and Transportation: Potential Interactions and Impacts. In The

Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Federal Research Partnership Workshop, October 1-2, 2002,

Summary and Discussion Papers. Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and

Environmental Forecasting, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Global Change Research Program of the

U.S. CCSP, and U.S. Department of Energy. Available:

http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/workshop.pdf.

MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority), 2012. Overview of Subway and Bus Preparations, Impact, and Recovery

(Presentation. NYCT Committee Meeting. November 26, 2012.

Nemry, F, Demirel, H., 2012. Impacts of Climate Change on Transport: A focus on road and rail transport

infrastructures, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, ISBN 978-92-79-27037-6 (pdf)

Nicholls, R. et al. 2008. Ranking Port Cities with High Exposure and Vulnerability to Climate Extremes: Exposure

Estimates, OECD Environment Working Papers, No. 1,OECD Publishing, Paris.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/011766488208

Project 603864 43

Nicholls, R.J.,Brown, S., Hanson, S. and Hinkel, J., 2010. Economics of coastal zone adaptation to climate change,

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / World Bank 48pp. , Washington, US(World Bank Discussion

Papers,10).

Nikulin, G., Kjellström, E., Hansson, U., Strandberg, G. and Ullerstig A., Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and

Hydrological Institute, Sweden, 2011. Evaluation and Future Projections of Temperature, Precipitation and Wind -

Extremes over Europe in an Ensemble of Regional Climate Simulations, Tellus, 63A, 41–55

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), 2006. Performance of Physical Structures in Hurricane Katrina

and Hurricane Rita: A Reconnaissance Report. NIST Technical Note 1476. Gaithersburg, MD. June 2006.

NJTC (New Jersey Transit Corporation), 2012. Resilience of NJ Transit Assets to Climate Impacts. June 2012. Available:

http://dng.northjersey.com/media_server/tr/2012/12/25climatereport/climatereport.pdf.

Nokka, M., Leviakangas, P., Oiva, K., 2012. The costs of extreme weather for the European transport systems EWENT

project D4, ISBN 978-951-38-7853-5, Available: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2012/T36.pdf

NOAA, US Climate Resilience Toolkit, 2015. Available here:https://toolkit.climate.gov/tool/transportation-climate-

change-sensitivity-matrix

NOAA and San Francisco BCDC (San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission). 2013. Oakland

International Airport Vulnerability and Risk Profile. Adapting to Rising Tides. Available:

http://www.adaptingtorisingtides.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/AirportProfileSheet_20130326.pdf.

NRC (National Research Council), 2008, Transportation Research Board Special Report 290: Potential Impacts of

Climate Change on U.S. Transportation. Available: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290.pdf.

OFCM (Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research) 2002. Weather

Information for Surface Transportation: National Needs Assessment Report (No. FCM-R18-2002). U.S. Department of

Commerce / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Ozgan, E., and S. Serin. 2013. Investigation of certain engineering characteristics of asphalt concrete exposed to

freeze-thaw cycles. Cold Regions Science and Technology (85): 131-136. Available: http://ac.els-

cdn.com/S0165232X12001851/1-s2.0-S0165232X12001851-main.pdf?_tid=81957440-fed3-11e2-9d15-

00000aab0f6b&acdnat=1375819694_2a53000db5ff4a34e398ae49b8ec4146.

Ribeiro, K., Kobayashi, S., S., Beuthe, M., Gasca, J., Greene, D., Lee, D. S., Muromachi, Y., Newton, P. J., Plotkin, S.,

Sperling, D., Wit, R., Zhou, P. J., 2007. Transport and its infrastructure. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change [B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Rockel, B., Woth, K., 2007. Extremes of near-surface wind speed over Europe and their future changes as estimated

from an ensemble of RCM simulations, Climatic Change, 81:267–280, DOI 10.1007/s10584-006-9227-y

Rossetti, M.A. 2002. Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Railroads. In The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on

Transportation Federal Research Partnership Workshop, October 1-2, 2002, Summary and Discussion Papers.

Sponsored by U.S. Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting, U.S.

Project 603864 44

Environmental Protection Agency, The U.S. Global Change Research Program of the U.S. CCSP, and U.S. Department

of Energy. Available online at: http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/workshop.pdf.

Schade W, Doll C, Maibach M, Peter M, Crespo F, Carvalho D, Caiado G, Conti M, Lilico A, Afraz N., 2006. COMPETE

Final Report: Analysis of the contribution of transport policies to the competitiveness of the EU economy and

comparison with the United States. Funded by European Commission – DG TREN. Karlsruhe, Germany

Schade W., Senger, F., Rothengatter, W., Rühle, O., Brouwer, I, 2013. TEN-T Large projects, Investments and costs,

Report, Available:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495838/IPOL-TRAN_ET(2013)495838_EN.pdf

Scholten, A. and Rothstein, B., 2016. Navigation on the Danube - Limitations by low water levels and their impacts,

JRC Technical Reports, ISBN 978-92-79-64798-7, doi:10.2788/236234

Schwierz, C., Köllner-Heck, P., Zenklusen, E., Mutter, D., Bresch, N, Vidale,P., Wild, M., Schaer, C., 2010. Modelling

European winter wind storm losses in current and future climate, Climatic Change, 101:485–514, DOI

10.1007/s10584-009-9712-1

Skorseth, K., and A.A. Selim., 2000. Gravel Roads Maintenance and Design Manual. South Dakota Local

Transportation Assistance Program. Available: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/gravelman.pdf.

Smith, O., and G. Levasseur. 2002. Impacts of Climate Change on Transportation Infrastructure in Alaska. Available:

http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/smith.pdf.

Stern, E., and Y. Zehavi. 1990. Road Safety and Hot Weather: A Study in Applied Transport Geography. Transactions

of the Institute of British Geographers, 15(1), 102–111. doi:10.2307/623096

Titus, J, 2002. Does Sea Level Rise Matter to Transportation Along the Atlantic Coast? In The Potential Impacts of

Climate Change on Transportation: Summary and Discussion Papers (pp. 135–150). Presented at the Federal

Research Partnership Workshop, Washington, DC: DOT Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting.

Available: http://climate.dot.gov/documents/workshop1002/titus.pdf.

TRB (Transportation Research Board), 2008. Highway Capacity Manual. National Research Council. Available:

http://sjnavarro.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/highway_capacital_manual.pdf.

UNCTAD, 2011. Review of Maritime Transport, UNCTAD/RMT/2011 United Nations Publication, ISBN 978-92-1-

112841-3. Available: http://unctad.org/en/Docs/rmt2011_en.pdf

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) 2013. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation for

International Transport Networks, Available:

http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp5/publications/climate_change_2014.pdf

UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), 2012. Policy Implications of Warming Permafrost. Available:

http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf.

U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 2003. Climate Change, Permafrost, and Impacts on Civil Infrastructure. Available:

http://www.arctic.gov/publications/permafrost.pdf.

Project 603864 45

U.S. CCSP (U.S. Climate Change Science Program). 2008. SAP 4.7: Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on

Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase I. Published March 2008. Available:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-7/final-report/.

US.DOT (Department of Transportation), 2014. Climate Adaptation Plan, Ensuring Transportation Infrastructure and

resilience, Available: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2014-%20DOT-Climate-Adaptation-

Plan.pdf

Pelham, D. 2012. Drought, shrinking ground causing cracks, road official reports. Ionia Sentinel-Standard. October 19,

2012. Available: http://www.sentinel-standard.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121019/NEWS/121019356.

Pejovic, T., V.A. Williams, R.B. Noland, and R. Toumi, 2009. Factors Affecting the Frequency and Severity of Airport

Weather Delays and the Implications of Climate Change for Future Delays. Transportation Research Record: Journal

of the Transportation Research Board, 2139(-1), 97-106. doi:10.3141/2139-12.

Peterson, T.C., M. McGuirk, T.G. Houston, A.H. Horvitz, and M.F. Wehner, 2008. Climate variability and change with

implications for transportation. 90 pages. Transportation Research Board. Available:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr290_variability.pdf.

PortofDover, 2015. The Port of Dover’s Climate Change Adaptation Report. Available:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/488087/climate-adrep-dover-

port.pdf

Vallejo, L. and Mullan, M. 2017. Climate-resilient infrastructure: Getting the policies right, OECD Environment

Working Papers, No: 121, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available: http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-

Management/oecd/environment/climate-resilient-infrastructure_02f74d61-en#.WXUfPYiGPIU

Van Den Brink, H. W. KO¨ NNEN, G. P. Opsteegh, J. D. Van Oldenborgh G. J. and Burgers, G. 2005. Estimating return

periods of extreme events from ECMWF Seasonal forecat ensembles, International Journal of Climatology, 25: 1345–

1354

Von Storch, H., Woth, K., 2008. Storm surges: perspectives and options, Sustain Sci 3:33–43, DOI 10.1007/s11625-

008-0044-2

Velegrakis, A.F., 2013. Ports: Range of physical settings and environmental controls, Assessing climate risks for

seaports: Scoping workshop Brussels 4-5 March 2013, https://ec.europa.eu/assets/jrc/events/20130304-sea-

ports/20130304-sea-ports-velegrakis.pdf

Vousdoukas, M., Vousdoukas, E., Mentaschi, L., Dottori, F., Giardino, A., Bouziotas, D., Bianchi, A., Salamon, P.,

Feyen, L., 2016. Developments in large-scale coastal flood hazard mapping, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1841–

1853, 2016 www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/16/1841/2016/ doi: 10.5194/nhess-16-1841-2016

Vousdoukas, M., Mentaschi, L., Voukouvalas, E., Verlaan, M., Feyen, L. 2016a. Extreme Sea level - RCP85. European

Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/a565eea4-5422-4c7d-a000-

2e10ae872da7

Vousdoukas, M., Mentaschi, L., Voukouvalas, E., Verlaan, M., Feyen, L. 2016b. Extreme Sea level - RCP45. European

Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) [Dataset] PID: http://data.europa.eu/89h/e9e42344-119d-479e-9bc7-

57400d12a8a2

Project 603864 46

Vousdoukas, M., Mentaschi, L., Voukouvalas, E., Verlaan, M., Feyen, L. 2017. Extreme sea levels on the rise along

Europe's coasts. Earth's Future. DOI:10.1002/2016EF000505

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000505/full

Zeman, M.C., J.R. Edwards, D.A. Lange, and C.P.L. Barkan, 2009. Investigating the Role of Moisture in Concrete Tie

Rail Seat Deterioration. Proceedings of the 2009 Annual AREMA Conference. Available:

http://ict.uiuc.edu/railroad/CEE/pdf/Zeman_et_al_AREMA_2009.pdf.