Advertisement

Vulnerability Discussion in Multimodal Freight Systems

  • Saniye Gizem AydinEmail author
  • Pakize Simin Pulat
Chapter
  • 1.8k Downloads
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 200)

Abstract

Transportation systems constitute a significant part of the global economy, specifically in relation to the efficient movement of goods and services. In this chapter, we discuss the vulnerability of the transportation infrastructure to extreme events. Concepts such as reliability, vulnerability, risk, and resilience are developed and their relationships are discussed for multimodal transportation systems. These concepts are further illustrated using Hurricane Katrina’s impact on the freight flow transportation on the roadway network within a state and in the USA. A discussion on the vulnerability analysis of the multimodal transportation systems to extreme events is followed by suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Extreme Event Transportation System Transportation Infrastructure Service Layer Freight Transportation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aydin SG, Pulat PS, Shen Q (2011). A framework to analyze extreme events with case studies, Working Paper, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OKGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball MO, Golden BL, Vohra RV (1989) Finding the most vital arcs in a network. Operations Research Letters 8:73–76Google Scholar
  3. Bell MGH (2000) A game theory approach to measure the performance reliability of transport networks. Transportation Research Part B 34(6):533–545Google Scholar
  4. Bell MGH, Iida Y (1997) Transportation network analysis. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Berdica K (2002) An introduction to road vulnerability: What has been done, is done and should be done. Transp Policy 9:117–127Google Scholar
  6. Chen A, Yang H, Lo HK, Tang WH (2002) Capacity reliability of a road network: An assessment methodology and numerical results. Transportation Research Part B 36:225–252Google Scholar
  7. Clark SD, Watling DP (2005) Modeling network travel time reliability under stochastic demand. Transportation Research Part B 39:119–140Google Scholar
  8. Curtis SA. (2007). Hurricane Katrina damage assessment: Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi Ports and Coasts. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil EngineersGoogle Scholar
  9. DesRoches R (2006). Hurricane Katrina: Performance of transportation systems. Reston: ASCE Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  10. D’Este GM, Taylor MAP (2003) Network vulnerability: An approach to reliability analysis at the level of national strategic transport networks. In: Bell MGH, Iida Y (Eds.) The network reliability of transport. Pergamon-Elsevier, Oxford, pp 23–44Google Scholar
  11. EuroStat. (2011). EU transport in figures: Statistical pocketbook 2001. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm http://ec.europa.eu/trans- http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm port/publications/statistics/pocketbook-2011_en.htm.Google Scholar
  12. Fritz C (1961) Disaster. In: Merton RK, Nisbet RA (Eds.) Contemporary social problems. Harcourt Press, New York, pp 651–694Google Scholar
  13. Garrison WL (1960) Connectivity of the interstate highway system. Pap Reg Sci 6:121–137Google Scholar
  14. Jenelius E, Petersen T, Mattsson LG (2006) Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy Practice 40(7):537–560Google Scholar
  15. Knoop V, Zuylen H van, Hoogendoorn S (2008) The influence of spill back modeling when assessing consequences of blockings in a road network. European Journal of Transportation Infrastructure Research 8:287–300Google Scholar
  16. Kurauchi F, Uno N, Sumalee A, Seto Y (2009) Network evaluation based on connectivity vulnerability. Transportation and Traffic Theory 2009: Golden Jubilee: Papers selected for presentation at ISTTT18: 637–49. Springer, ISTTT Series. Dordrecht and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Matisziw TC, Murray AT (2009) Modeling s–t path availability to support disaster vulnerability assessment of network infrastructure. Comput Oper Res 36:16–26Google Scholar
  18. Murray AT, Grubesic TH (2007) Reliability and Vulnerability in Critical Infrastructure: A quantitative geographic perspective. Springer, Berlin HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  19. Murray AT, Matisziw TC, Grubesic TH (2008) A methodological overview of network vulnerability analysis. Growth Change 39(4):573–592Google Scholar
  20. MW (Meriam-Webster) Dictionary (2008)Google Scholar
  21. NERC (2004) Final report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)Google Scholar
  22. Nicholson A, Du Z-P (1994) “Improving transportation system reliability: A framework”, 17th ARRB Conference, Gold Coast, Queensland, pp. 1–17Google Scholar
  23. Nicholson A (2003). Transport network reliability measurement and analysis. Transportes, XI, 49–62Google Scholar
  24. NGA. (2009). Hurricane Katrina remote sensing data. FEMA Mapping and Analysis Center. http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/2005pages/rsdrkatrina.shtm. Accessed 10 Mar 2009
  25. Peek LA, Mileti DS (2002) The history and future of disaster research. In: Bechtel RB, Churchman A (Eds.) Handbook of environmental psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 511–524Google Scholar
  26. Ratliff HD, Sicilia GT, Lubore SH (1975) Finding the n most vital links in flow networks. Manage Sci 21:531–539Google Scholar
  27. Renesys C (2004) Impact of 2003 blackouts on internet communications. Retrieved from www.renesys.com/wp-content/uploads/.../Renesys_BlackoutReport.pdf
  28. Schmidtlein MC, Deutsch RC, Piegorsch WW, Cutter SL (2008) “A sensitivity analysis of the social vulnerability index”. Risk Analysis 28(4):1099–1114Google Scholar
  29. Szeto WY, O’Brien L, O’Mahony M (2007) Generalization of risk averse traffic assignment. In: Allsop RE, Bell MGH, Heydecker BG (Eds.) Transportation and traffic theory. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 127–153Google Scholar
  30. van Nes R (2002) Design of multimodal transport network, Civil Engineering. Delft Technical University, Delft, p. 304Google Scholar
  31. Vos F, Rodriguez J, Below R, Guha-Sapir D (2010) Annual disaster statistical review 2009: The numbers and trends. CRED, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. USDOT BTS (2004) Transportation statistics annual report. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. USDOT BTS (2009) Transportation statistics annual report. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Wakabayashi H, Iida Y (1992) Upper and lower bounds of terminal reliability of road networks: an efficient method with Boolean algebra. Journal of Natural Disaster Science 14(1):29–44Google Scholar
  35. WEF (2011) Global risks 2011—a global risk network report. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2011/
  36. Yang H, Bell MGH, Meng Q (2000) Modeling the capacity and level of service of urban transportation networks. Transportation Research Board B 34:255–275Google Scholar
  37. Zhang P, Peeta S (2011) A generalized modeling framework to analyze interdependencies among infrastructure systems. Transportation Research Part B 45:553–579Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringThe University of OklahomaNormanUSA
  2. 2.School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringThe University of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations