What can we do?

What Can We Do?

Clove Branch Road in East Fishkill

Resilient Ways Forward seeks to improve the resilience of our transportation system by providing decision-makers and agencies with a wide range of adaptation tools and resources. Building on our analysis of climate trends and transportation data, and what we’ve learned from stakeholders and the public, we developed a Draft Transportation Resilience Improvement Plan (RWF TRIP) which includes the following:

  • A toolbox of adaptation measures to reduce the transportation system’s vulnerability to climate hazards
  • A menu of best practice policies to reduce vulnerability and improve resilience
  • Several case studies of Nature-Based Solutions
  • A list of resilience project ideas submitted by infrastructure owners 
  • A set of potential funding sources to move our recommendations forward
  • Implementation and monitoring steps to keep Resilient Ways Forward up to date
 
See below to learn more about the Adaptation Toolbox and policy-based measures,
and check out our Fact Sheet for an overview of all recommendations in the RWF TRIP:
Resilience Recommendations Fact Sheet

Adaptation Toolbox

Our Adaptation Toolbox includes more than 40 measures for infrastructure owners to consider to improve the resilience of their transportation assets and services. Click below to explore!

Launch the Toolbox

Policy-based measures

While our Adaptation Toolbox includes ways to increase the resilience of specific transportation assets and services, these policy-based measures can be applied to improve system-wide resilience. 

Emergency Planning

Implement or improve existing emergency communication systems to alert the public in advance of extreme weather events, paired with guidance on how to respond and stay safe. Many municipalities have existing systems to share emergency alerts, either through email, text, or social media. However, using social media to reach a more broad and diverse audience could be explored, as well as considering how to equip staff to develop the platforms. In addition, it may be helpful to align municipal alert systems with county-level and/or school-district alerts.

  • Planning Leads: County and Local Agencies, First Responders
  • Capital Costs: Low/Moderate – dependent on the types of technologies deployed
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require significant maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – communication systems provides advance notice, allowing community members to prepare and plan ahead. Could reduce loss of lives and property damage.
  • Flexibility: High – can implement or scale as needed
  • Barriers to Implementation: Limited staff, technology, or capacity for implementation
  • Equity: Ensure that warning systems utilize a variety of communication channels (e.g. radio, text message, social media, television) to reach broad and inclusive audiences


References:

Ensure that emergency response teams are identified and adequately prepared and equipped to be deployed in advance of a storm event. Emergency response teams can clear obstructions caused by downed trees and power lines to make roadways accessible for emergency response and transport. Some municipalities in the county have emergency response teams with a few people on-call in advance of extreme weather events; municipalities should ensure that teams are prepared in advance.

  • Planning Leads: County and Local Agencies, First Responders, Utility Providers
  • Capital Costs: Low
  • Operations & Maintenance: Moderate – labor costs; specialized equipment, PPE, etc.
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – timely emergency response may avoid or reduce service disruptions
  • Flexibility: High – flexible and adaptable to different scenarios, can be scaled up or down
  • Barriers to Implementation: Staffing and resourcing constraints at short notice
  • Equity: Ensure equity areas are considered in emergency response areas

Update existing emergency plans to outline recovery steps for extreme events such as floods, landslides, and winter storms. This can include identifying specific clean-up/recovery tasks and which agencies/departments are responsible.

  • Planning Leads: County and Local Agencies
  • Capital Costs: Low/Moderate – resource costs and technical expertise associated with developing plans
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Moderate/High – can help increase the preparedness of agencies/communities to respond to extreme events and help minimize disruptions
  • Flexibility: Moderate – plans and policies can be adjusted on a periodic or as needed basis
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of capacity to update plans
  • Equity: Ensure that plans include equity considerations

Resources:

Community Outreach

Conduct public education campaigns to raise awareness about climate hazards, the dangers they pose, and how communities and individuals can increase their resilience to the associated impacts.

  • Planning Leads: Local Environmental Organizations, County Planning, County Health
  • Capital Costs: Low/Moderate – resource costs and technical expertise associated with developing campaigns
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Low/Moderate – does not directly reduce climate risks but can help increase community awareness and preparedness
  • Flexibility: Moderate – campaigns can be scaled up or down as needed and can be implemented gradually
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of capacity to develop/coordinate campaigns; Variable participation and interest from community members
  • Equity: Ensure that campaigns consider a range of equity areas


References:

Develop trainings and resources for communities to enhance their transportation systems’ resilience to climate impacts. Environmental organizations, in collaboration with local governments, could develop resources on establishing resilience hubs, especially in disadvantaged communities, or guides that summarize available federal and state funding for resilience efforts.

  • Planning Leads: Local Environmental Organizations, County Planning
  • Capital Costs: Moderate – resource costs associated with developing resources and trainings
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low/Moderate – depends how much follow-up would be included
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – can help increase local capacity to implement resilience-related projects
  • Flexibility: High – trainings/resources can be developed as needed
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of capacity to coordinate; Variable participation and interest from community members
  • Equity: Ensure that communities can provide input into resources (for their respective communities) and can access training and resources as needed

References:

Engage directly with communities to understand what projects would be most helpful to increase community transportation resilience

  • Planning Leads: DCTC, County Planning
  • Capital Costs: Moderate – dependent on extent of outreach
  • Operations & Maintenance: Moderate – dependent on extent of outreach
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – important precursor to developing resources that are useful to enhance community resilience
  • Flexibility: High – community outreach can be conducted incrementally and to varying degrees
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of capacity to coordinate; Variable participation and interest from community members
  • Equity: Ensure that communities are adequately represented in engagements and can meaningfully contribute

References:

Local Planning

Update land use regulations, including zoning and building codes, to restrict development in areas with high flood or landslide risk.

  • Planning Leads: Municipal Boards
  • Capital Costs: Low/Moderate – resource costs associated with developing regulations
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: High – avoided losses in infrastructure investment from flooding and landslide impacts
  • Flexibility: Moderate – regulations can be adjusted on a periodic basis
  • Barriers to Implementation: Potential pushback from developers and the community
  • Equity: Ensure that marginalized/low-income communities are not planned in high risk areas, particularly as their adaptive capacity is already low


Resources:

Update stormwater management plans to reflect up-to-date climate information and protect moderate-to-highly-critical infrastructure (i.e., through new design standards). For example, the stormwater management plan could include new design standards and green infrastructure practices that account for changing precipitation patterns and larger storms to reduce flood risk to infrastructure and minimize waterway contamination.

  • Planning Leads: County and Local Highway/Public Works Departments
  • Capital Costs: Low/Moderate – resource costs and technical expertise associated with updating plans
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Moderate/High – can help increase the resilience of infrastructure to future flooding
  • Flexibility: Moderate – plans and policies can be adjusted on a periodic or as needed basis
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of capacity to update plans; Potential lack of support from infrastructure owners/planners
  • Equity: Ensure that stormwater management updates consider all equity areas and potential downstream impacts


Resources:

Develop a guidance document or provide recommendations to help municipalities develop transportation resilience plans to reduce their risk to climate hazards. The resilience plans could bring residents, community organizations, and agencies together to improve transportation and ensure that the perspectives of community members are considered.

  • Planning Leads: DCTC, County Planning
  • Capital Costs: Moderate – resource costs associated with developing plans
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – guidance on holistic resilience planning can help increase community-level resilience
  • Flexibility: High – guidance can be provided on a periodic or as needed basis
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of interest from municipalities/communities; Variable participation and interest from community members
  • Equity: Ensure that guidance considers a range of equity areas


Resources:

Establish a program to incentivize resilience work at the local level by designating municipalities as a ‘Resilient Ways Forward Community’. An alternative could be to encourage municipalities to seek certification as a Climate Smart Community. This could encourage municipal boards, elected officials, and even homeowners’ associations to pursue resilience-related projects and policies. DCTC or County Planning could also put municipalities in touch with the county’s Climate Smart Communities Task Force to provide support and resources on becoming a Climate Smart Community.

  • Planning Leads: DCTC, County Planning
  • Capital Costs: Moderate – resource costs associated with developing program
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – designation/certification programs can increase local implementation of resilience projects/policies
  • Flexibility: High – program can be scaled up or down as needed
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of interest from municipalities/communities; Significant effort to set up for new programs
  • Equity: Ensure that the program benefits are equitably distributed across a range of equity areas


Resources:

Develop and track metrics to determine whether adaptation measures are successful. For example, agencies could track the number of resilience projects implemented, the decrease in flood-related impacts, and changes in tree canopy or impervious surface coverage.

  • Planning Leads: All agencies implementing resilience projects
  • Capital Costs: Low/Moderate costs associated with establishing framework
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low/Moderate costs to evaluate progress routinely
  • Effectiveness: Low – does not directly reduce climate risks but can inform future adaptation planning efforts
  • Flexibility: High – monitoring and evaluation criteria can be adjusted as needed
  • Barriers to Implementation: Limited staff capacity and resources for monitoring
  • Equity: Ensure that resilience efforts consider a range of equity areas

Capacity-Building and Collaboration

Leverage existing work groups and standing meetings, such as monthly Highway Superintendent meetings, to promote resilience tools, practices, and funding opportunities with local and state partners 1-2 times per year. These sessions could increase collaboration, facilitate the sharing of best practices for climate adaptation, and better align available resources. Resilience working sessions also provide an opportunity for local and state partners to share updates and lessons learned from their own resilience projects or initiatives. DCTC could also consider combining resilience working sessions with other topics that would encourage more attendance, such as announcing funding opportunities.

  • Planning Leads: DCTC, County Planning
  • Capital Costs: Low – requires limited upfront cost for implementation
  • Operations & Maintenance: Moderate – coordination and communication effort could be high
  • Effectiveness: High – hosting resilience working sessions can help break down silos and facilitate collaboration to increase resilience across the county
  • Flexibility: High – can implement meetings and invite partners gradually
  • Barriers to Implementation: Requires strong coordination capacity; Potential lack of representative participation
  • Equity: Ensure equitable participation and representation of community groups in resilience working sessions


Resources:

Increase collaboration and coordination between municipal boards, planning boards, highway departments, and other relevant departments, especially when updating comprehensive plans and reviewing development proposals. This can help ensure that the highway department and other relevant departments have an opportunity to share any concerns related to new projects, especially those with the potential to worsen climate risks.

  • Planning Leads: Municipal Boards and Departments
  • Capital Costs: Moderate – dependent on extent of outreach/coordination
  • Operations & Maintenance: Low – does not require maintenance
  • Effectiveness: Moderate – increased collaboration across these entities can help ensure that comprehensive plans and new developments incorporate on-the-ground experience from relevant departments to reduce climate-related impacts
  • Flexibility: High – collaboration can be scaled up or down as needed and can be conducted on an as needed basis
  • Barriers to Implementation: Lack of interest from boards/departments; Limited staff capacity
  • Equity: Ensure equity areas are considered when updating comprehensive plans or reviewing development proposals; Ensure equity areas are represented in these collaboration efforts

 

Resilience Project Ideas

As our partners continue to identify ways to address resilience, we will update our priority project list to support applications to the federal PROTECT program (Promoting Resilience Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-Saving Transportation). 

We encourage our partners to submit project ideas using the form below.

Submit a Project Idea
Where are We Vulnerable?
Get Involved