Last week, nearly 200,000 Californians were asked to evacuate their homes after workers at the Oroville Dam noticed the emergency spillway was severely damaged. The spillway was activated in response to rapidly rising water levels in the Oroville reservoir. While the dam was never in danger of collapsing, the failure of a vital failsafe and the subsequent mass evacuation serves as a reminder of the dire state of American infrastructure.

In its 2013 Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the nation’s infrastructure a D+, citing “a significant backlog of overdue maintenance across our infrastructure systems” and “a pressing need for modernization.” While both Democrats and Republicans recognize the need to improve the nation’s infrastructure, there is debate on how these public works projects should be carried out. Any comprehensive infrastructure program must work to consider and shape long term environmental conditions.

The Oroville Dam overflow is demonstrative of how existing infrastructure is unsuited to changing climatic conditions. Since 2011, the state of California has been battling an intense drought and Oroville was not immune. However, snow melt and heavy rainfall over the past week caused water levels in the Oroville Reservoir to rise rapidly.

https://twitter.com/erbrod/status/831151275387531265

There is indisputable causal evidence linking climate change, drought conditions, and floods. According to the Climate Reality Project, as global temperatures rise, the atmosphere is able to hold more moisture at a given time. This leads to less regular but more intense downpours. Infrequent rain leads to more frequent droughts. When downpours finally occur over drought stricken land, the unsaturated soil is unable to absorb the deluge, meaning much of the water simply runs off into streams, rivers, lakes and oceans.

The Oroville Dam incident is just one example of how climate change is expected to exacerbate weather conditions. The Department of Transportation has released a number of reports in which it identifies climate change as a major threat to infrastructure. The country’s crumbling infrastructure is incapable of withstanding extreme weather conditions and future projects must acknowledge these climatic realities. Furthermore, the prioritization of certain infrastructural policies over others could either ease or worsen the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

President Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan promises $1 trillion worth of investment, places an emphasis on mass transit and high speed rail projects, and includes a plan for a modest increase in green energy investment. Nonetheless, the president might struggle to get congressional approval for his plan as it will likely not sit well with some of his fellow Republicans. The Republican establishment has traditionally called for smaller infrastructural spending packages and has resisted the expansion of public transport and green energy projects. Even if Trump’s infrastructure plan gets the green light, any gains made in public transport and green energy are likely to be offset by his overt hostility toward the environment and environmentalist work. The Untied States’ aging infrastructure is unequipped to deal with climate change, and the president refuses to admit climate change is an issue.

While it can be easily ignored, infrastructure shapes everything from socioeconomics to environmental conditions. The Oroville Dam incident reminds us that while investment in infrastructure is a necessity, new projects must not only by equipped to tolerate extreme climatic conditions, but should also work as tools that mitigate anthropogenic environmental impacts.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oroville Dam Overflow: The Environment and Failing Infrastructure appeared first on Law Street.

Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx recently promised to close the Washington D.C. Metro system unless it complied with safety requirements. How did it get to this point where the nation’s second-largest mass transit system is on the verge of being shuttered due to safety concerns and a series of mishaps?

Read on to find out more about the history of the Washington D.C. metro system, how safety concerns have been postponed, the recent spate of issues leading up to its current situation, and the future of the Metro in this uncertain climate.

The History of the Metro

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known locally as the Metro, was an ambitious project dreamed of by local residents going back all the way to the beginning of the 20th century. Residents hoped for a public transit system on par with other major northeastern cities. This hope finally started to come to fruition in 1959 when the first concrete plans for a rail system in the nation’s capital were drafted. After a bill allowing its construction passed Congress in 1965, work was finally under way.

Initially, the system was meant to serve only the capital so as not to compete with new freeways, however, it was later expanded to parts of the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia as well. Completion of the first segments occurred in 1976, but tracks and routes were changed to meet proximity requirements for important areas like the National Mall. Only in 2001 were all the originally planned tracks finished. Upon completion, the Metro became one of the largest public works undertakings ever completed, stretching 103 total miles and serving the second most people of any rail system in the U.S., following only New York City. The completion of the Metro required the input of politicians, architects, construction workers, and engineers with the end goal of creating a system acceptable to everyone while also being aesthetically pleasing.

One of the Metro’s important goals was the ability to expand and modernize as time went on. Aside from incorporating automated technology, the area covered by the system also expanded to 117 miles served by 91 stations. In addition, the Metro operates a bus system with 1,500 buses, which enables it to serve the region 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The combined system now services an area of approximately 1,500 square miles with as many as 4 million residents. The Metro also recently completed the first phase of the new Silver Line, which will eventually connect the system to Dulles International Airport in Virginia with the second phase currently under construction. Although continued expansion and additional services have been proposed, the system is now faced with a series of long-delayed safety challenges that it must also tackle.

Success Over Safety?

While the Metro was an unqualified success in its first few decades of operation, after that, problems with the system became more apparent. First, was the structure of its governing body–elected officials from each of its four regions control the WMATA and often do not have experience with subway operations.

Also not helping matters is the Metro’s long-term funding plan, specifically, that it has never really had one. In most major cities a large portion of a system’s funding comes from dedicated taxes, often well over 30 percent. In the case of the D.C. Metro, dedicated funding amounts to just 2 percent of its budget. The lack of dedicated funding has essentially left the leadership with the task of fundraising every year to keep the system funded. Raising money became increasingly difficult after the system stopped rapidly expanding, as funds were needed to simply cover costs and maintain the tracks. While funding did continue to increase it was also increasingly siphoned off for other aspects of the Metro system such as the bus network.

As funding became harder to come by, the Metro started to become political. Representatives on the Metro’s board fought for new stations or services in their districts so as to appease their constituencies. They also worked to keep Metro open longer and later, which was met with approval by the riding audience but made routine maintenance harder and harder to complete. The D.C. Metro lacked an additional track as well, something other major systems have to allow trains to bypass maintenance work. Without additional tracks, the Metro is forced to single-track trains while doing maintenance and construction, which causes delays and decreases customer satisfaction.

Incidents

With all these issues plaguing Metro it is no surprise to critics that they started to manifest themselves in the form of accidents. In the early years, these accidents were rare. In 1982, the first major tragedy occurred when a train derailed killing three riders. It was not until 1996 when in another incident occurred when a train skipped a track in the ice and collided with another train, killing the operator. As time went on and the Metro failed to address these issues, the regularity of high-profile accidents began to increase. In 2004, 20 people were injured in a collision. Shortly after, in the span of two years between 2005 and 2007, four workers were killed in accidents. Again in 2007, 23 more passengers were injured in a derailment. The worst accident came in 2009, however, when nine people were killed and over 80 were injured in a crash on the Metro’s Red Line.

This series of embarrassing incidents forced Metro’s hand. The Metro was able to at last secure additional funding to address many of the problems haunting the system. Nevertheless, for all that was seemingly done, the true depth of the problems became clear after track issues continued to plague the rail system. An incident at the L’Enfant Plaza station in 2015 left passengers stuck on a train as it filled with smoke. As a result, one woman died and more than 80 people were taken to a hospital for smoke inhalation. This was followed by a number of different episodes including derailments, oil spills, and more fires.

The situation was so bad, in fact, that the D.C. Metro became the only major rail service in the United States to have its oversight be placed under the direct control of the Federal Transit Administration. Even after this step, though, the problems have endured, with at least eight separate incidents of either smoke or fire causing evacuations or service halts since April 23.

Recent Developments

These repeated episodes seem to have been enough to force authorities to act, but the impetus for the dire threats from Secretary Foxx were not just the incidents described above. After a fire at the McPherson Square Metro stop on March 14, safety inspectors became increasingly concerned that parts of the rail system were unsafe for operation. In an unprecedented move, the entire system was shut down on March 16 in order to conduct emergency safety inspections.

The results of the inspections prompted system administrators to consider drastic action to ensure track safety and on May 6, the Metro introduced a preliminary SafeTrack plan to complete urgent repairs. The plan, which will begin in June, calls for a series of extended repair surges and the shutdown of several stretches of track for weeks at a time. Just a day before that plan was announced, a third-rail insulator cast doubts on the system. Despite the explosion, the station was not closed until hours later and safety inspectors were not allowed access, raising concerns over the safety training of Metro workers. Unsurprisingly, incidents such as this, along with worsening service and decaying facilities, have led Metro’s weekday ridership to decline by as much as 6 percent since the end of the 2015 fiscal year.

The following video looks at the severity of the problem:

The Future

Some see a silver lining with the SafeTrack plan; the decisive action may mark an important shift in the system’s management. A major aspect of the plan is a series of safety surges, where portions of the system will be aggressively repaired for extended periods of time, meaning either single-tracking or outright closures of entire stations. The plan also calls for a roll back on operating hours, meaning stations and their corresponding lines will be closing earlier, and weekend and special event hours will be rolled back in order for workers to have more time to address issues plaguing the system. As a means to offset all these closures and service reductions, bus service will be expanded and used to service stations during temporary closures.

The accompanying video gives a brief summary of the plan:

But before these plans could even be implemented (in typical Metro fashion) they were put on hold. In this case, the decision came at the discretion of the Federal Transit Administration. Specifically, the FTA is calling on Metro to begin immediate work on three sections in particular. The impetus for this call was the recent track explosion and Metro’s botched handling of it; while these three sections were scheduled for maintenance later in the year, they will now become priorities. While it is reassuring to see work finally underway to address Metro’s core problems, these new contradictory directives also raise more questions over who is in charge and whether there is a complete plan in place going forward.

Conclusion

The Metro was once the pride of Washington D.C., admired by visitors from all over the world. However, due to poor initial planning and an even worse maintenance record, that is no longer the case. Now the Metro is faced with a potential $2 billion shortfall by 2025 due to budget cuts and lost ridership. Couple this with all the accidents, injuries, and even deaths, the Metro now finds itself in a very unenviable position.

But not all is necessarily lost. Other cities such as Chicago and New York faced similar problems and resorted to efforts like town hall meetings and extended track closures to address their problems. Going forward, the Metro can incorporate these methods along with its own ambitious maintenance and rehabilitation plans. Ultimately, the Metro needs to find leadership that is willing to make unpopular decisions and then follow through with them. In the short term, customers will be unhappy about delays and closures, but a late train is still better than one that never arrives at all.

Resources

USA Today: Transportation Department threatens D.C. Metro shutdown if safety doesn’t improve

Center for History and News Media George Mason University: Building the Washington Metro

Metro: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Washingtonian: The Infuriating History of How Metro Got So Bad

The Washington Post: At Least 6 killed in Red Line Crash

The Washington Post: 5 facts about Metro’s ‘Safe Track’ Plan

Greater Greater Washington: The Feds Tell Metro to Rearrange its Maintenance Plan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trouble Below: The Problems Plaguing the Washington D.C. Metro appeared first on Law Street.

There’s been a lot of talk about the qualities the United States needs in its next president. Should he or she be a forceful figure who will lead our country in defeating ISIS? Does it matter if the president is fashionable? A financially savvy leader who can pull us out of debt? How old should the president be? With all these different factors to consider, it’s no wonder Americans are confused about who to vote for.

Have no fear, because one undeniable quality stands alone as the most important: how well does a candidate understand the informal rules and faux pas of New York City? And this week, we found out. In a trip to New York to sway voters before the state’s primary, the candidates were tested on city smarts: whether that be their tunnel talent, as they traveled under the city to get from place to place; their pizza wisdom, as they sat down for a big ol’ slice of pie; or their general understanding of how to be human in a city, in the case of Ted Cruz. Needless to say, some candidates quickly came out on top.

#1… John Kasich

While Kasich may be last in the polls, at least he was first in our hearts when he visited this local deli in the Bronx. With his “can do” attitude–which propelled him to eat two helpings of spaghetti, a personalized sandwich, and more–and a winning smile for the crowd, Kasich was easily the most charming visitor in New York.

A crazy and memorable scene in the Bronx this afternoon as Kasich stopped to chow down on some food at Mike’s Deli pic.twitter.com/FA2F8rQNEB

— Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) April 7, 2016

Unfortunately for Kasich, he doesn’t have a perfect NYC record after a pizza disaster a few weeks ago, in which he was seen eating a slice with a fork and a knife. Come on John, talk about detrimental gaffes!

John Kasich just ate his pizza with a fork and knife pic.twitter.com/KQ0UXCoJjN

— GIF The News (@NowThisGIF) March 30, 2016

Luckily for him, the likable dining-sesh at Mike’s Deli helped New Yorkers forgive and forget when it came to the recent pizz-astrophe, just not quite enough to actually put him ahead of Trump in any of the real polls.

#2… Donald Trump

As one of three candidates with actual ties to New York, Trump was a standout this past week. After repeatedly being attacked by Ted Cruz for his “New York values,” Trump took the opportunity to show exactly what he thinks New York values are. He and his wife, Melania Trump, toured the 9/11 Memorial Museum, also dropping a whopping $100,000 donation to the museum. With his name already all over a lot of the city, thanks to the Trump Tower, this donation just helped Trump secure what was already a pretty striking lead in his home state.

#3… Bernie Sanders

Sanders, another New York native, had a bit more of a rough go this week after he failed to answer some questions about the city correctly. When the Senator was asked to comment on the cheapest way to ride the subway, he jokingly cited jumping over the turnstile as the best way to save a quick buck–how cute! Unfortunately, when pressed a little further on the issue, Sanders showed just how lacking in city smarts he has become since moving to Vermont and working in D.C.:

What do you mean, ‘How do you ride the subway these days? You get a token and you get on.

For those of you who, like Sanders, may not have been on the subway in quite a while, the joke here is that subway tokens haven’t been used in New York in over a decade. Oops! Looks like your age is showing just a tad, Bernie. But, all in all, a valiant effort.

#4… Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s trip to New York may have been the most memorable and newsworthy visit, as it spurred tons of articles, parody videos, and internet memes making fun of her clear inability to use public transportation. For that reason alone, Clinton ranks near the very bottom of the list.

So, what actually happened? When entering any form of a subway system, the most annoying thing that can happen is someone holding up the turnstiles. And that’s exactly what Clinton did. It took not one, not two, but five swipes of her MetroCard to get through the turnstile. Talk about a serious city faux pas!

The good news about this gaffe? Her campaign has turned it into a quite hilarious 404 page on her website. Whenever you click a link or page that no longer exists on Clinton’s website, you are redirected to a gif of her swiping her MetroCard with a message that reads, “trying to get where you want to go? This page isn’t it.” While the campaign may be making light of a potentially negative situation, there’s only so much joking around you can do about a candidate’s ability to handle New York.

Clinton clearly wasn’t ready for the underground travel; how can we be sure she can handle the sad D.C. Metro or the country?

#5… Ted Cruz

Last on the list is Ted Cruz. Not only does this man not know how to act in the city, he straight up insulted NYC in a past debate with Donald Trump. After using “New York values” to insult Trump, Cruz was not welcomed with open arms when he traveled to the Bronx last week. A school in the Bronx canceled a visit from Cruz after the students threatened to stage a walk out because they didn’t agree with his views. Cruz was also heckled out of a restaurant where he was eating by angry protestors who believe that his anti-immigration platform is the opposite of everything people in the Bronx stand for. The Daily News featured nasty slogans, slamming Cruz for his anti-NY sentiment on multiple newspaper covers.

@Nannygal2 @amperg33 @wakeuppeopleSOS @tedcruz DROP DEAD TED! Now polling in NY at 16%!! NY HATES LYING TED!! pic.twitter.com/TuUAHS86jr

— Dawn Murray (@dawnellemurray) April 7, 2016

While there are obviously other factors to take into account when voting for president, these New York successes and failures could be pretty influential in swaying voters one way or another. What the candidates have hopefully learned from their New York trips is that it’s important to respect the places they campaign in and appreciate the diverse groups of people they will represent if elected president. After all, city and travel etiquette can say a lot about a person.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Who Did it Best? The Candidates Take on the Big Apple appeared first on Law Street.