Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective
Recent earthquake disasters have caused major damage to transportation networks, leading to significant economic disruption. While this suggests the need to evaluate total system performance in transportation risk assessment, in addition to examining the vulnerability of individual components such as bridges, no appropriate measures currently exist. This paper develops post-disaster system performance measures and applies them to the urban rail and highway transportation systems in the Kobe, Japan, region devastated by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. Performance is evaluated in terms of network coverage and transport accessibility. Performance degradation was much more severe for highways and railways than for other lifeline infrastructure systems. Both transportation systems fared poorly in the disaster but service restoration proceeded much more rapidly for rail. The restoration of highway system performance correlated closely with the recovery of highway traffic volumes. The paper further develops a measure of subarea transport accessibility and applies this to Kobe's constituent city wards. Results indicate substantial spatial disparity that is maintained throughout the restoration period. Comparisons with the 1989 Loma Prieta and 1994 Northridge earthquakes in the US show that although these disasters caused notable damage to highway bridges, system performance degradation was small in comparison with the Kobe experience. The paper argues that explicitly measuring transportation system performance can greatly facilitate both understanding the effects of historic disasters and preparing for future hazard events.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 35 (2001)
Issue (Month): 6 (July)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- F Bruinsma & P Rietveld, 1998.
"The Accessibility of European Cities: Theoretical Framework and Comparison of Approaches,"
Environment and Planning A,
, vol. 30(3), pages 499-521, March.
- F Bruinsma & P Rietveld, 1998. "The accessibility of European cities: theoretical framework and comparison of approaches," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 30(3), pages 499-521, March.
- G H Pirie, 1979. "Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal," Environment and Planning A, Pion Ltd, London, vol. 11(3), pages 299-312, March.
- Allen, W. Bruce & Liu, Dong & Singer, Scott, 1993. "Accesibility measures of U.S. metropolitan areas," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 439-449, December.
- G H Pirie, 1979. "Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 11(3), pages 299-312, March.
- Pooler, James A., 1995. "The use of spatial separation in the measurement of transportation accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 421-427, November. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)