Bridging the Gap

Preparing for Long-Term Infrastructure Disruptions
  • Rasmus DahlbergEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 185)


The fixed link between Denmark and Sweden connects two busy cities and a large international airport with many of its travelers and employees. 18,000 vehicles and 160 passenger trains transport each day more than 70,000 people across the combined road and rail Øresund Bridge and through the Øresund Tunnel, approximately 25,000 of them critical to the regional work market. Even though the risk analysis states that the likelihood of a long-term closure (100+ days) is very low Danish and Swedish transport authorities have demanded that the infrastructure operator conducts a survey of the preparedness plans already in place and map possible alternate travel routes for people and freight in case of long-term disruptions. This paper (a) delineates the concept of infrastructure, (b) describes the proceedings of the Work Group for Øresund Preparedness 2014–2016, and (c) discusses the findings presented in its final report to the Danish and Swedish transport authorities while drawing upon experiences from two recent comparable cases of infrastructure disruptions: The Champlain Bridge (2009) and the Forth Road Bridge (2015).


Infrastructure Disruption Resilience Contingencies Preparedness Transport Possibilism 



The author wishes to thank Professor Kathleen Tierney, Natural Hazards Center, University of Colorado Boulder, Professor Henning B. Andersen, Technical University of Denmark, Head of Division Mads Ecklon and Head of Section Maximilian Ritzl, Center for Preparedness Planning and Crisis Management, Danish Emergency Management Agency, Ulla V. Eilersen, Safety Manager, Øresundsbron, and Strategic Consultant Henrik Andersson, Sweco Society AB, for useful comments to a draft of this paper. A special thanks to Ladimer Nagurney and Leif Vincentsen for directing the author’s attention towards the two recent cases of infrastructure disruption.

This research was carried out with funding from the READ-project (Resilience Capacities Assessment for Critical Infrastructures Disruptions), funded by the European Commission DG Home.


  1. APWA Reporter, July 2013Google Scholar
  2. Arbetsgruppen för Öresundsberedskap: Beredskap för trafiken vid ett långvarigt trafikavbrott på Öresundsbron (2016)Google Scholar
  3. BBC: Forth Road Bridge to be closed until new year,, December 4, 2015. (2015b). Accessed 2 Feb 2016
  4. BBC: Why is the Forth Road Bridge Closed?,, December 4, 2015. (2015a). Accessed 2 Feb 2016
  5. Biringer, B., Vugrin, E., Warren, D.: Critical Infrastructure System Security and Resiliency. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2013)Google Scholar
  6. Blom Andersen, N.: Analysing communication processes in the disaster cycle: theoretical complementarities and tensions. In: Dahlberg, R., Rubin, O., Vendelo, M.T. (eds.) Disaster Research: Multidisciplinary and International Perspectives. Routledge, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  7. Boin, A., McConnell, A.: Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: the limits of crisis management and the need for resilience. J. Conting. Crisis Manag. 15(1), 50–59 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breed, J.A.: The Loss of the Lake Champlain Bridge: A Traveler’s Story. Bloated Toe Publishing, Adirondack (2011)Google Scholar
  9. Brown, K.A.: Critical Path: A Brief History of Critical Infrastructure Protection in the United States, Fairfax. Spectrum, Fairfax, UA (2006)Google Scholar
  10. Carrell, S.: Scotland scrambles for extra trains after Forth Road bridge closure., December 4, 2015. (2015). Accessed 17 Feb 2016
  11. Chang, S.E.: Infrastructure resilience to disasters. Bridge 39, 36–31 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, L.: Possibilistic thinking: a new conceptual tool for thinking about extreme events. Soc. Res. 75(3), 669–690 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. Dahlberg, R.: Resilience and complexity: conjoining the discourses of two contested concepts. Cult. Unbound 7, 541–557 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahlberg, R., Johannesen-Henry, C.T., Raju, E., Tulsiani, S.: Resilience in disaster research: three versions. Civil Eng. Environ. Syst. 32(1–2), 44–54 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dahlberg, R., Rubin, O., Vendelø, M.T.: Disaster Research: Multidisciplinary and International Perspectives. Routledge (2015)Google Scholar
  16. Dunn-Cavelty, M., Suter, M.: Public-private partnerships are no silver bullet: an expanded governance model for critical infrastructure protection. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. Protect. 2, 179–187 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kozine, I., Andersen, H.B., Trucco, P., Petrenj, B.: Framework to address transboundary Critical Infrastructure Disruptions in the Emergency Management cycle (Deliverable 1). EU Project READ. Available at (2015)
  18. Larkin, B.: The politics and poetics of infrastructure. Ann. Rev. Anthropol. 42, 327–344 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levitt, T.: The Marketing Imagination: New, Expanded Edition. The Free Press (1986)Google Scholar
  20. Magnusson, E.: Gränskoll kan bli bromskloss: ‘Kraften i regionen kan gå förlorad’,, January 23. (2016). Accessed 25 Feb 2016
  21. McPherson, G.: Vital work shelved due to funding costs, Forth Road Bridge inquiry hears,, January 28. (2016). Accessed 17 Feb 2016
  22. NYSDOT: The Lake Champlain Bridge Emergency Replacement Project. New York State Department of Transportation, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  23. Paulsson, U.: Supply Chain Flows in and Across Öresund Before and After the Öresund Link – Facts, Risks and a Risk Analysis Model. Lund University, Lund (2003)Google Scholar
  24. Petrenj, E.L., Trucco, P.: Information sharing and collaboration for critical infrastructure resilience – a comprehensive review on barriers and emerging capabilities. Int. J. Crit. Infrastruct. 9(4), 304–329 (2013)Google Scholar
  25. Rasmussen, D.: 25 centimeter lang revne i brofag lukker Storstrømsboen for tog. ingeniø, October 19. (2011). Accessed 25 Feb 2016
  26. Ridley, G.: National security as a corporate social responsibility: critical infrastructure resilience. J. Bus. Ethics 103, 111–125 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rodin, J.: The Resilience Dividend: Managing Disruption, Avoiding Disaster, and Growing Stronger in an Unpredictable World. Profile Books, London (2015)Google Scholar
  28. Simon, H.: A behavioral model of rational choice. Q. J. Econ. 69, 99–118 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Star, S.L.: The ethnography of infrastructure. Am. Behav. Sci. 43(3), 377–391 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vespignani, A.: The fragility of interdependency. Nature 464, 984–985 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walker, J., Cooper, M.: Genealogies of resilience: from systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Secur. Dialogue 42(2), 143–160 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K.M.: Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2015)Google Scholar
  33. Yanotti, A.P.: Lake Champlain Bridge: decision for closure and response to a crisis. Presentation given at The Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University of Buffalo, 18 April 2011Google Scholar
  34. Donald Rumsfeld Unknown Unknowns! (2007). Accessed 23 Feb 2016
  35. Zio, E., Pedroni, N.: Possibilistic Methods for Uncertainty Treatment: An Application to Maintenance Modeling. FonCSI (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Copenhagen Center for Disaster ResearchUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Danish Emergency Management AgencyBirkerødDenmark

Personalised recommendations