Corridor Assessment - ROADS FinalFinaldocuments.rec.org/projects/Annex1_OrientEast-MedCorridor... · 2017-01-24 · 1 | P a g e ORIENT/EAST -MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT Corridor Assessment

1 | P a g e

ORIENT/EAST-MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT

Corridor Assessment Orient/East-Med Corridor

(Serbia/ Kosovo*/The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)

Key findings

• The TEN-T Orient-East Med Corridor incorporates Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, while the Nis-Merdare-Pristina section links Kosovo* to the corridor in Serbia (as

shown above).

• Expert contributions within Section 2 reveal the usability of the motorway stretches along the

corridor to be satisfactory. Cracking and embrittlement remain the main problem along the

corridor while there are also instances of deep ground subsidence that have considerable

impact on human and road safety. On-going construction along sections of the corridor seek to

upgrade parts of it to full motorway status, or rehabilitate others with new asphalt.

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of

Independence.

2 | P a g e


• The region is particularly vulnerable to warm temperature extremes, drought (decrease in

summer precipitation) and flash floods (from intense heavy showers, according to Section 3 i†

which will impact on the quality of the corridor’s roads.

• According to our three sub-corridor surveys, reflected in Section 3.ii, there are presently no

extreme threats while all those identified fall within a second tier of risk within the completed

consequence/likelihood scatter charts (where consequence = 3 from a max. of 4 and likelihood

is 4)‡. However, fluvial flooding due to heavy showers is a threat perceived throughout the

entire corridor.

• Under the foreseen (and more extreme) climate conditions, discussed in Section 3 iii, heavy

showers are expected to cause greater erosion and slide of embankments throughout the entire

corridor, as well as increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport

infrastructure on parts of it§. Snowfall and blizzards are expected to take a higher toll on the loss

of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control, while more frequent prolonged periods of rain

will lead to failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes, embankment and infrastructure

collapse, mudslides, ground subsidence, and slide or collapse on the inland transport

infrastructure. Curiously, despite warm temperature extremes being perhaps the major future

climate problem, it and its effects were not universally perceived as a key (top five) threat,

despite the current challenges of cracking and embrittlement (the conclusion being that short-

term repairs should be undertaken with long term solutions). Nevertheless, in Kosovo*, it was

explicitly flagged. Increased fog also emerged as an issue in Kosovo* and in The former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia.

• Survey groups typically recommended geotechnical, biotechnical and hydro-technical measures

to adapt local surrounding objects and terrain (e.g. stabilize embankments), besides redesign

and road ground works (even implementation of, for instance, in Kosovo*) in order to ensure

faster drainage of surface water, stabilization of ground and embankments. Enforcing standards

too was mentioned, so as to ensure there is no violation during the construction phase!; better

and effective maintenance of water flows and flood control systems (cleaning of canals,

removing obstacles and construction of additional flood barriers) was suggested, besides raising

awareness of the dangers of inappropriate measures or maintenance; use of snow barriers, an

automatic road surface salting system besides an early warning Intelligent Transport System,

including Euro-standard Variable Message Signs (VMS), for both users and authorities was

mentioned. Furthermore, besides the use of new and improved materials and state of the art

technology and standards in road construction, in Kosovo* the introduction of heavy load truck

axes weight measurement was proposed. Furthermore, the transfer of knowledge and

experience from countries in warmer climate zones was welcomed. Finally, in Kosovo* a

recommendation was also made for a guidebook on innovative technological solutions. Detailed

recommendations for each threat in particular are presented in section 4 of this report.

† Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012. An indicator-based report. EEA Report No 12/2012. European Environment Agency, 2012. Pg.

56, 62, 112. Online here. ‡ Scatter charts for each territorial segment of the corridor are available in the sub-corridor reports in Appendix II. § As per sub-corridor reports available in Annex II to this report. 33 respondents filled in the online survey (15 in Serbia, 12 in Macedonia, 6 in Kosovo*).

52 participants attended the validation and recommendation workshops (24 in Serbia, 9 in Macedonia, 19 in Kosovo*). All project participants were

stakeholders in project implementation, i.e. infrastructure practitioners, transport demand management experts, Climate Change Experts, Local and

national/territorial decision makers in the field of Transport, Environment, Water, and others, NGOs, Transport associations, PhD Students in the field.

3 | P a g e


1. Introduction

The TEN-T Orient-East Med Corridor connects Central Europe with the Aegean Ports and Middle East,

inter-connecting Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, while the Nis-Merdare-Pristina

section links Kosovo* to the corridor in Serbia. In terms of traffic, it is one of the region’s most important

road and rail axes. It is a legally and practically integrated part of the EU Transport network too, which

supposes the same level of responsibility towards achieving the EU’s transport policy objectives,

including increased climate sensibility. In the past years, however, some Western Balkan states have

been severely affected by floods. In 2014, and to a lesser extent in 2015 and 2016, Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Serbia experienced heavy floods and thus have put significant efforts and resources

(including some of their national IPA allocations) into the rehabilitation of the destroyed road and rail

infrastructure. Flood remains one of the highest risks for the transport infrastructure, causing drastic

interruption of the transport services along the mentioned corridors. For this reason, a solid plan on

future maintenance and rehabilitation must be put in place, taking into account technology, materials

and measures that will assure road resilience to the projected climate changes, but also that the current

vulnerable sections which are in medium and poor condition are properly addressed.

REC led on the rapid assessment of climate impacts of the TEN-T Orient-East Med Corridor between July

and December 2016, according to a methodology first developed under a predecessor project financed

by the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment as a contribution to the United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe and its Group of Experts on Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation

for Transport Networks and Nodes. That methodology is described in Appendix I, but briefly, is

structured around three phases of activities performed within each participating economy: surveying, a

validation workshop, and corridor reporting inclusive of recommendations for adaptation measures. The

ClimaCor II project was implemented by the Regional Environmental Center (REC) for Central and

Eastern Europe, in partnership with the South East European Transport Observatory and co-financed by

the Regional Cooperation Council.

4 | P a g e


2. Current Conditions

The road infrastructure under this study’s review is that part of TEN-T Orient/East-Med Corridor in South

East Europe that begins in Belgrade and crosses Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

(Macedonia) to the Greek border. The stretch from Pristina links Kosovo* to the corridor (Fig.1).

In Serbia, the route examined stretches from Belgrade to the border of The former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia (total length about 370 km) as well as that from the city of Niš to Merdare, the

administrative boundary with Kosovo* (total length about 77 km) and on to Pristina. From Belgrade to

Bogoroditsa there is typically a full highway profile which is physically divided for each of the directions

and has three lanes each, except that part which runs through the gorge of Grdelica close to the

Macedonian border which is under construction and upgrading. The route which runs from Niš-Merdare

(Route 7) is a single lane road in either direction which is in poor condition. This part of network is

planned for future investment and upgrading to highway level.

In The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the corridor segment runs from Tabanovce bordering

Serbia in the north to Bogoroditsa bordering Greece, totalling 174 km. The remaining ~30 km section of

the Macedonian corridor (Demir Kapija – Smokvica) is being upgraded to full motorway profile.

Within Kosovo*, Route 7 is important at regional level**. The segment from Pristina to the boundary at

Merdare which connects Vermica (Врбница), Prizren (Призрен), Prishtina (Приштина), and Podujevë

(Подујево) is 26.5 km which is also single lane road in either direction and in poor condition.

** http://www.seetoint.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/01/Kosovo_Multimodal-Transport-Strategy-2012-2021.pdf

Fig. 1. South East Europe core road links, encircling the segment under review stretching from Belgrade (Serbia) to the Bogoroditsa border

crossing within The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as well as Route 7 Niš (Serbia) – Pristina (Kosovo*). (Source: SEETO)

Segment

under review

5 | P a g e


The terrain where the corridor and the

connected Route 7 passes is diverse

(Fig.2). It includes flatlands in valleys

of rivers (Danube, Great Morava,

Southern Morava, Llap), hilly areas

(around Belgrade (Serbia), in close

proximity to Deligrad (Serbia), to the

south of Niš (Serbia), and around

Pristina (Kosovo*), as well as heavy

terrain (south of Leskovac, Serbia) to

the Macedonian border, including

most of the segment within The

former Yugoslav Republic of

Macedonia, as well as the segment

along route 7 from Kuršumlija (Serbia)

to the boundary with Kosovo*.

Detailed topography (including maps)

is presented within the sub-corridor reports in Appendix II.

The overall quality assessment of the state of usability of the motorway segments in Kosovo*, The

former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia is satisfactory. There is a relatively small number of

hot-spots of ground subsidence with greater depth that are having considerable impact on the human

and road safety. However, cracking and embrittlement remain the main problem of the motorway

segment under review.

As far as Route 7 is concerned, the Serbian

segment is in poor condition with significant

infrastructure constraints and heavy terrain,

while traffic flow between Prokuplje (33 km

southwest of Niš) and Merdare (common

crossing point between Kosovo* and Serbia) is

relatively low. For the Merdare – Pristina

segment, the quality of the existing road is

average, but traffic congestion is a major

concern.

In addition to Average Annual Daily Traffic

(AADT) visible as high particularly on Serbian

segment of the motorway, this road also has

commercial importance for transiting Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV).

According to SEETO (Fig.3), average annual density of traffic (AADT) is highest along the corridor X

between Belgrade and Niš, somehow lower between Niš and Skopje, further decreasing After Skopje,

and reaching minimum before the border with Greece, as well as between Niš and Mardare. This part of

network is planned for future investment and upgrading to highway level.

Fig. 2. Topography of the area where corridor X

and connected Route 7 are located.

Fig. 3. Traffic density along the SEE Core Road Network,

including Corridor X. (Source: SEETO)

Corridor X

6 | P a g e


The South-East Europe Transport Observatory’s

Comprehensive network and Core network

mapping indicates completed roads and planned

future investments in Fig. 4. Detailed information

on future investments for the territorial segments

of the corridors are available in Appendix II.

3. Future Concerns

i) Foreseen climate conditions in the western Balkans

South eastern Europe will experience more extreme

weather conditions over the next ten years as can be

seen from this simple graphic right (Fig.5).††

According to a 2015 article by the European

Environment Agency, called ‘Are we ready for climate

change?’ higher temperatures and reduced rainfall will

mean that many areas in southern Europe might face

droughts, especially in summer.‡‡ The largest

temperature increases during the 21st century are

projected over southern Europe in summer with

extremes projected to become more frequent and last

longer. Less rainfall will cause droughts that will impact

(i.e. decrease) river flow and these are projected to

further increase with prolonged and more extreme

droughts in southern and south-eastern Europe.§§

Figure 6 overleaf shows three distinct zones in south

eastern Europe vis-à-vis climate change and its impacts: central and eastern Europe (green), mountain

areas (pink) and the Mediterranean region (orange). Regarding those corridors under examination

within ClimaCor II, we can see that all lie in the ‘green’ central and east European region. That foresees:

†† European Union’s science and knowledge service: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/more-intense-floods-and-droughts-europe. ‡‡ Are we ready for climate change? Article | Signals — Living in a changing climate. European Environment Agency, 2015 §§ Climate change, impacts and vulnerability in Europe 2012. An indicator-based report. EEA Report No 12/2012. European Environment Agency, 2012.

Pg. 56, 62, 112. Online here.

Fig. 4. Completed roads and planned future investments

concerning SEETO Comprehensive network and Core

network. (Source: SEETO)

Fig. 5. Summary of the changes in extreme river

discharges over a 10 year period under a +2°C global

warming scenario. Red means that (i) flood magnitude

changes with more than 5 %, (ii) drought intensity

changes with more than 5 %; and (iii) drought duration

changes with more than 5%. (Source: EU Science Hub)

7 | P a g e


• Increase in warm temperature extremes

• Decrease in summer precipitation

• Increase in water temperature

• Increasing risk of forest fire

• Decrease in economic value of forests

In Fig. 6 we have enlarged the region and indicated key settlements where Blue = Sava/Danube rivers

and Red = Corridor X (ten), including Route 7 to be constructed between Nis (3) and Pristina (4).

Fig. 6. Key

settlements

along the

corridor to be

affected by

foreseen

climate risks

Fig. 7. Spatial distribution of projected extreme heat waves in Western

Balkans. (Source: GRID-Arendal)

8 | P a g e


In its ‘Outlook on Climate Change

Adaptation in the Western Balkan

Mountains’ GRID-Arendal reveals the

projected extreme heat waves between

2020 and 2052 within two scenarios,

where: a) greenhouse gas emissions peak

around 2040, then decline and b)

emissions continue to rise throughout

the 21st century. It also warns of the risk

of increases in the frequency and

intensity of wildfires, a result of rising

temperatures and diminished

precipitation.***

According to the South-East Europe

Transport Observatory, droughts in the

last decade have severely affected the

state of the region’s inland waterways.

Coupled with low river maintenance by

national funds and lack of dredging and

riverbed surveying, it has resulted in an

increase of critical shallow waters on

certain sections of the Danube and Sava

Rivers (key international waterborne

arteries), impeding safe navigability along

the rivers.††† GRID-Arendal too observes

that for the western Balkans, there will

be “decreasing annual river discharge and low flow periods”.‡‡‡ Harsh weather conditions during winter

months have also led to disruption of navigation due to river surface icing or thick fog.§§§ Not

surprisingly, snow cover (as opposed to snowfall) will also diminish,**** with a projected decline in days

with snow cover for the 2050s. Furthermore, the western Balkans will witness a significant decrease in

overall annual precipitation (Fig.8). The annual number of rainy days could decrease by 10–20 days in a

medium emission scenario by the end of the twenty-first century. Heavy precipitation will increase in

the mountains and the region in general in winter and in summer. Flooding too is predicted to become

more frequent due to more precipitation in winter causing spring floods.††††

Extreme precipitation events are already evident. In recent years, some Western Balkan states have

been severely affected by floods. In 2014, (and to a lesser extent in 2015 and 2016), Bosnia and

Herzegovina and Serbia experienced heavy floods and have thus put significant efforts and resources

into the rehabilitation of destroyed road infrastructure.‡‡‡‡ Flood remains one of the highest risks for the

transport infrastructure, causing drastic interruption of the transport services along the mentioned

corridors.§§§§

*** Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, Pg. 37, Pg. 6 ††† SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org ‡‡‡ Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, Pg.6 §§§ SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org **** Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.18 †††† Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.17 ‡‡‡‡ SEETO Comprehensive Network Development Plan -Five Year Multiannual Plan (MAP) 2015, www.seetoint.org §§§§ Outlook on Climate Change Adaptation in the Western Balkan Mountains by GRID-Arendal, pg.38

Fig. 8. Projected precipitation

change in Western Balkans

(Source: GRID-Arendal)

9 | P a g e


ii) Current threats, consequences, likelihood, risks.

This section details current climate change threats and their ranking according to survey respondents

within different territorial segments of the corridor. Note: A full explanation and illustration of the

threat coding (e.g. T3 or T5) is given in Appendix I, following the methodology.

Most

popular

threats*****

Corridor section by participating economies

and percentage of respondents who chose that specific threat

Serbia The former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia Kosovo*

1

T3 - Increased ground subsidence,

rock fall, landslide, or collapse on

transport infrastructure due to heavy

showers – 93%

T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy

showers (overland flow after

precipitation, groundwater level

increase) – 58%

T2 - Erosion and slide of

embankments due to heavy showers

– 83%

2




increase) – 73%

T3 - Increased ground subsidence, rock

fall, landslide, or collapse on transport

infrastructure due to heavy showers –

50%

T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy

showers – 67%

3

T38 - Reduced ability to perform

general maintenance due to

snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice

removal) – 73%

T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to

thermal expansion; Migration of liquid

asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heat

waves – 50%

T8 - Failure of flood defence systems

of rivers and lakes due to long

periods of rain in catchment area–

67%

4



– 67%

T2 - Erosion and slide of embankments

due to heavy showers – 42%

T10 - Ground subsidence, slide, or

collapse on the inland transport

infrastructure due to long periods of

rain in catchment – 67%

5


thermal expansion; Migration of

liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to

heat waves – 60%

T9 - Erosion or slides of infrastructure

and embankment due to long periods

of rain in the catchment area – 42%

T5, T6, T9, T11, T14, T18, T38†††††

share the same level of popularity,

i.e. they were each chosen as

important by 50% of respondents

• The analysis shows that threat T3 - Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on

transport infrastructure due to heavy showers is of concern for most of those who filled in the

survey in Serbia (93%), while most respondents from Kosovo* (82%) considered T2 - Erosion and

slide of embankments due to heavy showers as being the nr.1 concern. In The former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, the most popular threat (58%) is T5 - Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers

(overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)

• T2, T5 and T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt,

asphalt rutting due to heat waves are currently of concern throughout all the territorial segments

of the motorway.

• While for the Serbian and Kosovo* segment of the corridor, threat T38 - Reduced ability to perform

general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice removal) made the top five priority

list, it is not the same for The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. But T3 - Increased ground

subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers is of

concern to both the Serbian and Macedonian sectors of the motorway only, while T9 - Erosion or

slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in the catchment area is of

concern to Macedonian and Kosovo* sectors only.

***** Most popular threats are the top 5 threats that were considered as most important by most of the participants in the survey conducted as part of

the assessment. Full list of threats, their description and visual illustration is available in Annex 1. ††††† Full description and illustration of threats is available in Annex 1

10 | P a g e


Of the 10 most “popular” threats in each participating economy, those considered to have the most

severe Consequences were examined. The table below illustrates the current situation. The values next

to the threats are explained in the attached Key for estimating consequences of threats (Fig.9).

Fig. 9. Key for estimating consequences of threats on route availability and on human and route safety.

Level ROUTE AVAILABILITY/USABILITY HUMAN & ROUTE SAFETY HAZARD

1 Negligible impact (a few hours) Negligible impact (light material damage, light

injuries)

2 Minimal negative impact (a day) Accidents causing temporary loss of health

(material damage, slight injuries)

3 Serious impact (several days, up to a month) Accidents causing permanent loss of health

(serious material damage, heavy injuries)

4 Catastrophic impact (> a month of) Catastrophic influence, deadly danger (serious

material damage, heavy injuries, casualties)

• Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5) is relatively popular in all three participating

economies and can prevent the usability of the road for between several days and a month that

can lead to accidents that cause permanent loss of health, serious material damage and heavy

injuries.

• Other threats that are perceived as having the most severe consequences and are shared between at

least two countries are T40 - Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to

snowfall/blizzards, T38 - Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards

(snow and ice removal), T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid

asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heat waves, and T2 - Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy

showers.

Ranking of

threats by

severity of

consequence


and the respective level of severity



1




increase) – 3



– 3.1

T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy

showers – 3.2

2

T40 - Loss of driving ability due to

reduced vehicle control due to

snowfall/blizzards – 2.8

T9 - Erosion or slides of infrastructure

and embankment due to long periods

of rain in the catchment area – 3.0




increase) – 3.1

3




removal) – 2.7




increase) – 2.9




removal) – 3.0

4



transport infrastructure due to heavy

showers – 2.7


collapse due to deforestation caused

by wildfires due to heat waves – 2.8



– 3.0

5


thermal expansion; migration of


heat waves – 2.6





thermal expansion; migration of


heat waves – 2.9

11 | P a g e


• Looking at individual economies, within Serbia, a specific threat with the one of the greatest

consequences is T3 - Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport

infrastructure due to heavy showers. Within Kosovo*, it is T1 - Bridge scour due to heavy showers,

while within The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia there are two specific threats with greatest

consequences: T9 - Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in

the catchment area, and T23 - Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse due to deforestation caused by

wildfires due to heat waves.

Separately, the Likelihood of each threat occurring was surveyed under current climate conditions. The

values below accompanying those threats are explained in the Key for estimating consequences of

threats (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10. Key for estimating likelihood of occurrence of threats under current climate conditions.

• The top likelihood of threats differs for the 3 countries, which might be due different terrain, climate

conditions and socio-economic capacity.

Ranking of

threats by

likelihood of

occurrence


and the respective level of likelihood



1 T2 - Erosion and slide of embankments

due to heavy showers – 3.9





showers, and T10 - Ground

subsidence, slide, or collapse on

the inland transport infrastructure

due to long periods of rain in

catchment: same level of

likelihood of occurrence – 3.3

2






transport infrastructure due to

heavy showers – 3.0

T1, T2, T6, T9, T11, T14, T18 and

T38 share the same level of

likelihood of occurrence under

current climate conditions – 3.0

3 T37 - Damage to energy supply, traffic

communication networks due to


T41 - Cracking, embrittlement due

to frost heave and thermal

expansion due to snowfall/blizzards

– 3.0

4 T8 - Failure of flood defence systems

of rivers and lakes due to long periods

of rain in catchment area – 3.2

T2, T18, T22 and T23 share the

same level of likelihood of

occurrence under current climate

conditions – 2.8

5 T6 - Loss of driving ability due to

reduced visibility and vehicle control


Level LIKELIHOOD

1 Very seldom (once every 50 years)

2 Seldom (once every 10 to 50 years)

3 Sometimes (once every 3 to 10 years)

4 Often (more than once every 3 years)

12 | P a g e


• The results reveal that the Serbian segment of the corridor is most frequently exposed to erosion and

slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2), which happens more than once every 3 years in

some of the hot-spots‡‡‡‡‡, while Macedonian sector to the loss of driving ability due to reduced

vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40) (once in every 3 to 10 years). The same threat is

shared by the Serbian sector of the corridor with equal level of likelihood. For Kosovo*, fluvial

flooding due to heavy showers (T5) and ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport

infrastructure due to long periods of rain in catchment (T10) are equally likely to happen most often

(once in every 3 to 10 years, as well).

• While erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2) is most likely to happen once in

3 years, the other top threats are likely to happen once in every 3 to 10 years.

• For Kosovo* and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, a bigger number of threats are equally

likely to happen once in every 3 to 10 years.

By weighting the severity of both the consequence and likelihood from an occurrence under current

climate conditions, the ‘Risk’ can be calculated. The maximum value of the risk, with the highest

likelihood and highest consequence would be 16. Thus, the current risks on the 3 sub-corridor segments

are presented below.

Ranking of

threats

according by

degree of risk

under current

climate

conditions


and the respective level of risk



1 T2 - Erosion and slide of


– 9.5







increase) – 10.7






– 8.8



snowfall/blizzards – 10

3




increase) – 8.5

T9 - Erosion or slides of

infrastructure and embankment due

to long periods of rain in the

catchment area – 7.9




removal) – 9

4 T37 - Damage to energy supply,

traffic communication networks due

to snowfall/blizzards – 8.3


collapse due to deforestation caused

by wildfires due to heat waves – 7.8

T11 - Pluvial flooding due to long

periods of rain in catchment

(overland flow after precipitation,

groundwater level increase) – 8.7


reduced visibility and vehicle control





increase) – 7.2


embankments due to heavy

showers – 8.2

• There are presently no extreme threats, while all identified threats fall within the second risk tiers of

the completed consequence/likelihood scatter charts (where consequence = 3 from a max. of 4 and

likelihood is 4). However, fluvial flooding due to heavy showers is a threat perceived throughout the

entire corridor.

‡‡‡‡‡ for specific location of the hot-spots, see the Serbian sub-corridor assessment in Appendix II.

13 | P a g e


• The highest two risks: Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2) and Loss of

driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40) – are the same for

Serbian and Macedonian sectors of the corridor.

• Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)

(T5) is again a threat that poses a high risk throughout the entire corridor, albeit with slightly

different values.

• It is important to keep in mind that the value of risk is calculated based on the severity of impact

(likelihood and consequence), which additionally considers a weighting assigned during the detailed

analysis that respondents from each participating economy attach to route availability vs route

safety. Thus, we see that Serbia ranks safety as of greater importance than availability (5.3 vs 4.7),

whereas in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, it is much more important than availability

(6.5 vs 3.5). In Kosovo*, on the other hand, route availability is more important than route safety (6.7

vs 3.3) (Fig.12).

iii) Future threats.

So far we have considered current threats and their risk. However, we also asked survey respondents to

complete the same analysis above in light of the foreseen climate conditions described in Section 3 i.

The greatest risks foreseen for the surveyed threats are thus presented in the table below for each sub-

corridor segment under the columns: “Pre-Workshop”. Because those events were undertaken to

validate survey results, and often led to a re-ranking of the findings, workshop participants’ conclusions

appear under the columns “Post-Workshop”.

c) Kosovo* a) Serbia b) former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Fig. 12. Relative importance of route availability vs route safety in Serbia (a), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

(b) and Kosovo* (c).

14 | P a g e


Ranking of threats by degree of risk

under foreseen climate conditions

(1 – highest)

Corridor section by participating economies and the respective level of risk


Republic of Macedonia Kosovo1

Pre-

workshop

Post-

workshop

Pre-

Workshop

Post -

workshop

Pre-

Workshop

Post-

workshop

1 T40 – (10.2)

T3 T40 – (10)

Tx T5 – (10.7) Ty

2 T5 – (10) T40 T2 – (9.8) T40 T38 – (10) Tz

3 T2 – (9.9) T2 T5 – (9.3) T2

T10 – (9.2) T5

4 T8 – (9.4) T8 T9 – (8.4) T5

T9 – (8.9) T38

5 T38 – (9.2) T38 T15 – (8.1) T9 and

T15

T2 and T1 –

(8.2)

T10, T9, T2,

T1

• During each workshop, participants in Serbia and The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

displaced the top ranked threat, loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to

snowfall/blizzards (T40) with a new threat that in one case was on the list and in two

participating economies was not (in Kosovo*it was Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (T5)).

• Thus, while for Serbia an existing threat, increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or

collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers (T3) was introduced as the foremost risk

under future climate conditions, in The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo* new

risks have been identified and introduced in the top of the ranking.

Threat

Number Threat Description

T1 Bridge scour due to heavy showers

T2 Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers

T3 Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to heavy showers

T5 Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level increase)

T8 Failure of flood defence systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area

T9 Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in the catchment area

T10 Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long periods of rain in catchment

T15 Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased variability in warm/cool

days

T38 Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice removal)

T40 Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards

Tx Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility due to fog

Ty Embankment and infrastructure collapse and mudslides caused by flash flooding

Tz Embankment and infrastructure collapse and mudslides from prolonged periods of heavy rain

15 | P a g e


• For the Macedonian segment of the corridor, a new risk Tx - Loss of driving ability due to reduced

visibility due to fog – has been identified and ranked by participants in the validation workshop as

the foremost risk under foreseen climate conditions, despite not being previously included in the

methodology. Indeed, Tx was also flagged in Kosovo* in autumn and winter also.

• For the Kosovo* segment of the corridor, two new threats were identified and ranked by participants

in the validation workshop as the top foreseen risks. These are Ty - Embankment and infrastructure

collapse and mudslides caused by flash flooding, and Tz - Embankment and infrastructure collapse

and mudslides from prolonged periods of heavy rain.

• Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level

increase) (T5) and erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2) are those threats

that are expected to become more common across all the segments of the corridor but to varying

degrees within. These drop to third or fourth rank as a result of the workshop results.

• Failure of flood defence systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area

(T8) remains a foreseen threat along the Serbian section of the corridor.

• Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased

variability in warm/cool days (T15) is a future risk specific for Macedonian section of the corridor.

• Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long periods of

rain in catchment (T10) is a future risk specific for Route 7 on the segment passing through Kosovo*.

• Curiously, despite warm temperature extremes being perhaps the major future climate problem, it

and its effects were not perceived by the group as a key (top five) threat throughout the survey,

despite the current challenge posed by cracking and embrittlement§§§§§ (the conclusion being that

short-term repairs should be undertaken with long term solutions). Nevertheless, in Kosovo*, it was

listed as an additional threat and a corresponding remedy flagged.

§§§§§ T18 - Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting due to heatwaves (roads)

16 | P a g e


During the workshops, we invited participants to ‘map’ the foreseen threats’ specific locations****** and

these are illustrated in Fig.13 (note the map has been rotated 90 degrees anti-clockwise, therefore the

north-south orientation is from left to right).

****** The workshops only looked at future threats given that we are looking towards the future with respect to planning, rather than the

present.

Location of key future risks:

- in Serbia

- in Kosovo*

- in The former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia

- territorial borders

- administrative line

- Orient/East-Med Corridor

Kosovo*

N

S

Map Key

Доње Љупче Доње Љупче

17 | P a g e


4. Recommendations

During the workshops participants were invited to recommend adaptation measures to reduce the

vulnerability of the given road infrastructure to the highest ranked threats foreseen in the identified

locations (see Fig.13). Their suggestions were as follows:

SERBIA

• Aleksinac, Begaljičko brdo, Grdelica

Increased ground subsidence, rock fall, landslide, or collapse on transport infrastructure due to

heavy showers (T3)

- Solution: Geotechnical and hydro-technical measures for adaptation of local surrounding objects

and terrain besides redesign and road ground works in order to ensure faster drainage of surface

water, stabilization of ground and embankments.

• Medveđa, Ražanj

Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40)

Solution: Constructing snow barriers, installing early warning system, which would inform both

road users and road authority ensuring fast and reliable meteorological information and

predictions, traffic information, two-way information transfer, multi-channel information

distribution (radio, internet, dedicated information signs, special communication lines, public media

etc.). The use of new and improved materials for salting (built-in systems for road salting, new

materials for faster defrosting of the roads) in winter conditions.

• Begaljičko brdo, Kolari, Grdelica, Kuršumlija, Srpska kuća

Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2)

Solution: Use of different geotechnical, biotechnical and hydro-technical measures and works

aiming to stabilize the embankments, and their sliding and erosion. These solutions include terrain

redesign and ground works in order to ensure faster drainage of surface water, stabilization of

ground and embankments

• Mijatovac, Kuršumlija

Failure of flood defense systems of rivers and lakes due to long periods of rain in catchment area

(T8)

Solution: Better and effective maintenance of water flows and flood control systems (cleaning of

canals, removing obstacles and construction of additional flood barriers) pooled from the

experience of the past few years where one of the main causes of flooding was insufficient capacity

of water flows due to poor maintenance. Looking into alternative routes is also seen as a solution

by bypassing of vulnerable points.

• Bubanj potok, Ražanj

Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice

removal) (T38)

18 | P a g e


Solution: Automatic road surface salting system when snow and ice occur, implementing early

warning system (as described for threat T40 above) and constructing snow barriers (dedicated

barriers for preventing of snow-drifting).

THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

• Section Petrovec – Veles, Section Negotino – Gevgelija, All River Bridges

Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility due to fog (Tx)

- Solution: Better signalization – not required only to cope with the fog threat. Apart from the

standard road signalization, it is proposed to use Variable Message Signs (VMS) and dynamic

signalizations, particularly upfront the critical sections of the Macedonian segment to inform road

users of any irregularity or interested situations on the motorway. Special attention when utilizing

VMS needs to be paid to their harmonization at regional or European level, as they need to be

understood by all motorway users of different nationalities/ethnicities.

• Katlanovo hill (section Veles – Skopje)

Loss of driving ability due to reduced vehicle control due to snowfall/blizzards (T40)

Solution: Improvement of the maintenance in general, and of emergency preparedness of the

relevant public service units in particular, accompanied by the provision of appropriate equipment,

ex. winter service vehicles, snow plough devices, etc.

• Section Demir Kapija – Smokvica, Section Petrovec – Veles

Erosion and slide of embankments due to heavy showers (T2)

Solution: Improvement of project design and implementation by designers and engineers with the

use of state of the art technology and standards. Ensuring there is no violation of these during the

construction phase. Introduction of various technical measures, including setting up of geo- and

bio-stabilizations on the side slopes and embankments.

• Section Skopje – Petrovec, Section Negotino - Gevgelija

Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level

increase) (T5)

Solution: Introduction of the state-of-the-art technical and engineering standards for project

design that would replace the existing. In many cases obsolete ones. In addition, more focus needs

to be put on the improvement of the torrential/river management, primarily by increasing

awareness and understanding of the differences between torrent and river, which often appear to

be the main reason for inappropriate measures or maintenance.

• Section Petrovec – Veles, Section Negotino - Gevgelija

Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in catchment (T9)

Solution: Installation of various protective walls as per specific needs on sections of the route.

• All sections

Shorter maintenance windows, decreased lifetime, increased maintenance costs due to increased

variability in warm/cool days (T15)

19 | P a g e


Solution: Adaptation of the working hours to best fit with the natural condition, as well as the

transfer of knowledge and experience from countries that are in the warmer climate zones to learn

how to deal with the consequences of high temperatures and heat waves. Subsequently, from

colder climate zones to learn how to deal with the consequences of frost heave, snowfall/blizzards,

etc.

KOSOVO*

• Lupç i Poshtëm

Fluvial flooding due to heavy showers (overland flow after precipitation, groundwater level

increase) (T5)

Solution: Protection of river banks, better road drainage systems, increasing the height of the road

bed. Protection from erosion of bridge struts that are submerged in water and which ought to be

reinforced with gabions of 0.5 to 1 m in the river bed 20 m before the pole and 20 m after in the

direction of river flow.

• Segment from Vranidoll to Lupç i Poshtëm

Erosion or slides of infrastructure and embankment due to long periods of rain in catchment (T9)

Solution: Strengthening sloped embankments (constructing protective structures made of

reinforced concrete, protective concrete walls, gabions, pilot foundations), afforestation, geo-

synthetic embankments.

• Segment from Vranidoll to Lupç i Poshtëm

Ground subsidence, slide, or collapse on the inland transport infrastructure due to long periods of

rain in catchment (T10)

Solution: a) reinforcing the road bed with thick layers of gravel and sand; b) putting a reinforced

layer on the deformed road with geo-synthetic materials; and c) raising the road level in order to

improve drainage of run-off.

• Entire route

Cracking, embrittlement due to thermal expansion; migration of liquid asphalt, asphalt rutting

due to heatwaves (roads) (T18)

Solution: Introduction of heavy load truck axes weight measurement, better road bed construction,

adding a lasting layer of high temperature resistant asphalt.

• The whole segment

Reduced ability to perform general maintenance due to snowfall/blizzards (snow and ice

removal) (T38)

Solution: Automatic road surface salting system when snow and ice occur, implementing early

warning system and constructing snow barriers (dedicated barriers for preventing of snow-drifting).

Loss of driving ability due to reduced visibility due to fog during the late autumn and winter

seasons (Tx)

Solution: Better signalization – not required only to cope with the fog threat. Apart from the

standard road signalization, it is proposed to use Variable Message Signs (VMS) and dynamic

signalizations, particularly upfront the critical sections of the Macedonian segment to inform road

20 | P a g e


users of any irregularity or interested situations on the motorway. Special attention when utilizing

VMS needs to be paid to their harmonization at regional or European level, as they need to be

understood by all motorway users of different nationalities/ethnicities.

A recommendation was also made for a guidebook on innovative technological solutions.

Appendix I

The ClimaCor project, an initiative first funded by the Government of the Netherlands and now (second

half of 2016) supported by the Regional Cooperational Council, has developed a draft method to quickly

assess climate change threats to inland transport corridors. The method borrows from existing

approaches from Europe and the United States, with particular reference to methodologies developed

under the ROADAPT†††††† and RIMAROCC‡‡‡‡‡‡ projects. The ClimaCor method differs from these in that it

focuses on an overall assessment of multimodal inland transport corridors, including motorways and

main roads, railways, and inland waterways and ports.

Due to the short duration of the ClimaCor project, the developed method had to be simple enough to

execute in a 2-3-month timeframe. This contrasts with previously developed methods, most of them

complex, iterative processes that can take years to complete. The ClimaCor assessment does not delve

into complex data collection and calculations; rather it relies on the subjective assessments of local

experts to identify and prioritize climate threats. It doesn’t size up threats in absolute terms but rather

on relative terms: of a given set of threats, which are the most urgent?

Written for a generalist in the environmental or transport fields, the guidelines outline a process that

can be implemented with the help of local experts in the fields of transport, climate change, economics

and communications. The process includes an initial phase of information gathering in the form of a

survey of threats, their consequences and likelihood, to determine risk, followed by a one-day

‘validation’ workshop where participating experts come to a consensus on the most likely of the

identified risks. The output of the process is a map of those risks along the corridor, and

recommendations on adaptive measures to address them.

Steps of the methodology

1. Survey phase

†††††† ROADAPT (ROADs for Today, ADAPTed for Tomorrow), funded between 2012 and 2015 through the Conference of European Directors of

Roads (CEDR) and it’s Transnational Road Research Programme implemented by Dutch consultancy DELTARES; ‡‡‡‡‡‡ RIMAROCC (Risk Management for Roads in a Changing Climate) Handbook, funded by ERA-NET ROAD in connection with the EU’s 6th

Framework Programme for Research and Development between 2008-2010 and implemented by Dutch consultants, DELTARES

21 | P a g e


1. Desk Research. A first step is to undertake a short desk study

on the foreseen climate change conditions for the region and if

possible the corridor, based on published literature. At the

same time, to collect transport infrastructure data along the

corridor, e.g. topography, usability, i.e. (in)capacity to handle

demand, state i.e. poor/good quality, safety

concerns/vulnerabilities and to a lesser extent, any foreseen

investments. This will be subsequently shared with your

stakeholders.

2. Survey threats: Within roughly one week and via an online

survey (in our case, Google Forms) climate scientists,

environment and transport experts familiar with the transport

infrastructure in focus, are invited to indicate the top ten

climate threats under current climate conditions. This is done by giving the experts an illustrated list

of climate threats and sub-threats (follows) which are unique to both meteorological conditions and

transport infrastructure and do not overlap. Their individual scores are then averaged to generate a

value per threat.

3. Estimate the

consequences

of those ten

climate threats

and sub-

threats. For

each threat,

survey

respondents

then indicate

the severity of its consequences (on a scale of 1-4) to:

i) route availability/usability (Col.B below); and ii) human/route safety (Col.D), and also indicate their

view on the relative importance of availability (Col. C) vs weight (Col. E).

Data collected per threat and for weight are summed and averaged with the resulting consequence

being the factor of both, divided by ten (C+E) to give a score on a scale of 1-4 (Col. F).

4. Indicate the probability

or likelihood of those ten

threats. This step assesses

the likelihood (again on a

scale of 1-4) of each

threat actually occurring

and impacting use of the transport networks in the study area under: i) current

meteorological/oceanic conditions (Col. G); and ii) those foreseen (according to preliminarily

gathered information and shared as part of the survey – see ‘1’ above) due to climate change (Col.

22 | P a g e


H). Again, data collected per threat are summed and averaged to generate the likelihood under

both scenarios.

5. Evaluate and prioritise

risks. In this step, the

previously concluded

assessments of

consequence and

likelihood are combined in

order to rate each threat’s

risk. This can be achieved

by multiplying the consequence (F) and likelihood (G) values of each threat to determine a score

from a maximum possible of 16. The calculation can be performed twice, to appreciate risk under

current conditions as well as climate change conditions. It can also be useful to plot the threats on a

scatter chart with X and Y axes representing consequence and likelihood respectively.

6. Map the location of riskiest threats/sub-threats. Maps can be used to mark those locations where

the top five or more threats/subthreats are likeliest to occur in the studied area. This may depend

on geography (for instance, stretches of road in wooded areas will be more vulnerable to wildfire) as

well as infrastructure-intrinsic factors (for example, “overloading of hydraulic systems crossing the

roads or railways” can only occur where such infrastructure exists). This step can be done during the

workshop after participants have agreed on the ranking of risk that can be seen in the scatter chart.

NB: We have found that the above methodology works best when undertaken by a local

intermediary who can interact with stakeholders in the local language and ‘walk’ them through the

pre-prepared online survey on the phone or via skype.

2. ‘Validation’ Workshop

1. In parallel to the survey, the local intermediary should

prepare for the ClimaCor workshop alongside the

project manager. This requires scheduling event(s),

inviting participants (survey respondents, ministry

representatives), identifying a facilitator, preparing the

necessary materials (powerpoints) and translators.

2. The main agenda points should be as follows:

• Welcoming remarks (host/donor/client)

• Introduction to project and methodology (project manager)

• Present state of the ‘in-focus’ transport infrastructure and foreseen climate change conditions

(transport/climate expert, if not project manager). These can be given via Powerpoint talks and

should include, for example:

- Overview of climate threats to be assessed during the workshop, ideally by a climate scientist

- Overview of geographic scope of assessment, including key transport lines, ideally by a

transport expert or experts.

23 | P a g e


• Present preliminary results (ppt slides) of experts’ survey of current and future threats,

consequences, and their likelihood to the given transport infrastructure incl. scatter chart

(local expert)

• In working groups, review future threats, agree or revise the ranking and map their locations,

before reporting back (host, 2-3 working groups)

- The threats list can be pared down to a subset of most critical. A judgement call will need to

be made concerning the threshold below which threats/sub-threats may be discarded.

• In working groups, prepare recommendations (adaptation measures) on how to tackle the

posed climate threats/challenges through future investments (host, 2-3 working groups)

This step consolidates the previous steps to identify a list of unacceptable risks, and then seeks

to agree on a general set of recommendations to address each risk and threat in turn. In this

step, the expected lifespan of affected pieces of infrastructure must be compared to the time

horizon of expected climate change. For our purposes, we agree that infrastructure whose

lifespan ends within 20 years will not be subject to climate change threats, and is thus out of

the scope of this scan. For a scan, it is enough to agree on general strategic responses such as:

- research and/or monitoring to reduce uncertainty about threat;

- do the minimum (traffic management, business as usual);

- apply mitigating measures, such as

- Update operating procedures to take account of the impact of climate

- Develop contingency plans for being better prepared to manage weather emergencies

- Strengthening preventive maintenance.

As a final step, the expert group should discuss and agree by consensus the relative

urgency of each action identified in the previous step.

• AOB incl. feedback on method (host). The goal of this methodology is to agree on general

strategies for mitigation. Detailed plans are not the scope of this project, but hopefully the

ClimaCor Pre-Scan serves to highlight threats that should be further investigated. If participants

feel otherwise, this is the moment to make suggestions.

3. Corridor and Sub-Corridor Assessments

Assessments concerning the corridor will need to be assembled based on the results of the

survey and validation workshop series that will give an overview on corridor vulnerability. This

should not take longer than about two weeks to complete at best.

24 | P a g e


ILLUSTRATIONS OF THREATS LISTED IN THE CLIMACOR II SURVEY

Threat Graphic representation

1. Bridge scour due to

heavy showers (roads,

railways or

waterways)§§§§§§

2. Erosion and slide of

embankments due to

heavy showers (roads or

railways)

3. Increased ground

subsidence, rock fall,

landslide, or collapse on

transport infrastructure

due to heavy showers

(roads or railways)

§§§§§§ This threat refers to bridge scour as a consequence of increased velocity of water caused by intense rainfalls.

Color-coding:

Threats written in orange refer to Roads and/or Railways

Threats written in blue refer to Waterways and Ports (including inland and coast)

Threats written in green refer to Roads, railways and waterways

25 | P a g e


4. Damage to energy

supply, traffic

communication networks

(roads or railways) due to

heavy showers

5. Fluvial flooding due to

heavy showers (overland

flow after precipitation,

groundwater level

increase) (roads)

6. Loss of driving ability

due to reduced visibility

and vehicle control due to

heavy showers (roads)

7. Bridge scour due to long

periods of rain in

catchment area (roads,

railways or

waterways)*******

******* In contrast to threat #1, this threat refers to bridge scour as a consequence of increased volume of water and sediment brought about by

long periods of rain in the catchment area of the river (watershed).

26 | P a g e


8. Failure of flood defence

systems of rivers and lakes

due to long periods of rain

in catchment area (roads

and railways)

9. Erosion or slides of

infrastructure and

embankment due to long

periods of rain in

catchment (roads and

railways)

10. Ground subsidence,

slide, or collapse on the

inland transport

infrastructure due to long

periods of rain in

catchment (roads and

railways)

11. Pluvial flooding due to

long periods of rain in

catchment (overland flow

after precipitation,

groundwater level

increase) (roads)

12. Reduced clearance

under bridges due to

increase in average

seasonal rainfall

(waterways and ports,

including inland and coast)

27 | P a g e


13. Erosion or slides of

infrastructure and

embankment due to

increase in average

seasonal rainfall (roads and

railways)

14. Erosion of

embankments and

foundations due to

increased variability in

warm/cool days (roads and

railways)

15. Shorter maintenance

windows, decreased

lifetime, increased

maintenance costs due to


warm/cool days (roads and

railways)

16. Track buckling due to


warm/cool day (railways)

17. Increased needs for

cooling and, thus, fuel due

to heatwaves (roads,

railways and waterways)

18. Cracking,

embrittlement due to

thermal expansion;

migration of liquid asphalt,

asphalt rutting due to

heatwaves (roads)

28 | P a g e


19. Track buckling,

infrastructure and rolling

stock overheating due to

heatwaves (railways)

20. Shorter maintenance

windows, decreased

lifetime, increased

maintenance costs due to

heatwaves (roads and

railways)

21. Thermal damage to

bridges due to heatwaves

(expansion in bridge joints

and paved surfaces) (roads

and railways)

22. Susceptibility to

wildfires that threaten the

transport infrastructure

due to heatwaves (roads

and railways)

23. Ground subsidence,

slide, or collapse due to

deforestation caused by

wildfires due to heatwaves

(roads and railways)

29 | P a g e


24. Damage to energy

supply, traffic

communication networks,

disruption to operations

due to extreme wind

(roads, railways and

waterways)


due to reduced vehicle

control due to extreme

wind (roads)

26. Damage to traffic signs

and lights, fixtures, noise

barriers, etc. due to

extreme wind (roads)

27. Overvoltage due to

extreme wind (railways)

28. Damages to

installations and overhead

lines to extreme wind

(caternary) (railways)

30 | P a g e


29. Failure of flood defense

systems of rivers and lakes

to extreme wind (roads

and railways)

30. Objects (trees, signs,

etc.) falling on the road /

rail to extreme wind (roads

and railways)

31. Damage to cranes,

storage and loading

terminals to extreme wind



32. Erosion of

embankments and

foundations due to storm

surges (roads and railways)

33. Higher construction,

maintenance, insurance

costs due to storm surges



34. Unusable roads during

storm surges (roads)

31 | P a g e


35. Disruption of train

operation due to storm

surges (railways)

36. Sedimentation in

port/navigation channels;

inability to dock due to

storm surges (waterways

and ports, including inland

and coast)

37. Damage to energy

supply, traffic

communication networks

due to snowfall/blizzards

(roads, railways and

waterways)

38. Reduced ability to

perform general

maintenance due to

snowfall/blizzards (snow

and ice removal) (roads

and railways)

39. Reduced visibility due

to snowfall/blizzards

(roads)

32 | P a g e



due to reduced vehicle

control due to

snowfall/blizzards (roads)

41. Cracking,

embrittlement due to frost

heave and thermal

expansion due to

snowfall/blizzards (roads)

Appendix II

Sub-corridor assessments

• Serbian Segment

• Macedonian Segment

• Kosovo* Segment

Documents

Corridor Assessment - ROADS FinalFinaldocuments.rec.org/projects/Annex1_OrientEast-MedCorridor... · 2017-01-24 · 1 | P a g e ORIENT/EAST -MED CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT Corridor Assessment