IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v35y2001i6p475-494.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Stephanie E.
  • Nojima, Nobuoto

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Stephanie E. & Nojima, Nobuoto, 2001. "Measuring post-disaster transportation system performance: the 1995 Kobe earthquake in comparative perspective," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 475-494, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:35:y:2001:i:6:p:475-494
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965-8564(00)00003-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. G H Pirie, 1979. "Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 11(3), pages 299-312, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cascetta, Ennio & Cartenì, Armando & Montanino, Marcello, 2016. "A behavioral model of accessibility based on the number of available opportunities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 45-58.
    2. Gutiérrez, Javier & Condeço-Melhorado, Ana & López, Elena & Monzón, Andrés, 2011. "Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 840-850.
    3. Hawas, Yaser E. & Hassan, Mohammad Nurul & Abulibdeh, Ammar, 2016. "A multi-criteria approach of assessing public transport accessibility at a strategic level," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 19-34.
    4. Meng, Xuechen & Lin, Shanlang & Zhu, Xiaochuan, 2018. "The resource redistribution effect of high-speed rail stations on the economic growth of neighbouring regions: Evidence from China," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 178-191.
    5. Mohíno, Inmaculada & Ureña, José M. & Solís, Eloy, 2016. "Transport infrastructure and territorial cohesion in rural metro-adjacent regions: A multimodal accessibility approach. The case of Castilla-La Mancha in the context of Madrid (Spain)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 115-133.
    6. 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.
    7. Jen-Jia Lin & Chi-Hau Chen & Tsung-Yu Hsieh, 2016. "Job accessibility and ethnic minority employment in urban and rural areas in Taiwan," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(2), pages 363-382, June.
    8. Jesus Gonzalez-Feliu & Aurélie Mercier, 2013. "A combined people-freight accessibility approach for urban retailing and leisure planning at strategic level," Post-Print halshs-00919537, HAL.
    9. David Levinson & David Giacomin & Antony Badsey-Ellis, 2014. "Accessibility and the choice of network investments in the London Underground," Working Papers 000124, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    10. Román, Concepción & Espino, Raquel & Martín, Juan Carlos, 2007. "Competition of high-speed train with air transport: The case of Madrid–Barcelona," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 277-284.
    11. Jiao, Jingjuan & Wang, Jiaoe & Jin, Fengjun & Dunford, Michael, 2014. "Impacts on accessibility of China’s present and future HSR network," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 123-132.
    12. Dong, Xiaojing & Ben-Akiva, Moshe E. & Bowman, John L. & Walker, Joan L., 2006. "Moving from trip-based to activity-based measures of accessibility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 163-180, February.
    13. Ruqin Yang & Yaolin Liu & Yanfang Liu & Hui Liu & Wenxia Gan, 2019. "Comprehensive Public Transport Service Accessibility Index—A New Approach Based on Degree Centrality and Gravity Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-20, October.
    14. Buczkowska, Sabina & de Lapparent, Matthieu, 2014. "Location choices of newly created establishments: Spatial patterns at the aggregate level," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 68-81.
    15. Recker, W. W. & Chen, C. & McNally, M. G., 2000. "Measuring the impact of efficient household travel decisions on potential travel time savings and accessibility gains," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1qq2t12b, University of California Transportation Center.
    16. Moyano, Amparo & Martínez, Héctor S. & Coronado, José M., 2018. "From network to services: A comparative accessibility analysis of the Spanish high-speed rail system," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 51-60.
    17. Jasper Willigers, 2003. "High-speed railway developments and corporate location decisions. The role of accessibility," ERSA conference papers ersa03p61, European Regional Science Association.
    18. Souche-Le Corvec, Stéphanie & Mercier, Aurélie & Ovtracht, Nicolas & Chevallier, Amandine, 2019. "Urban toll and electric vehicles: The winning ticket for Lyon Metropolitan Area (France)," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 17-33.
    19. Ahmed El-Geneidy & David Levinson, 2011. "Place Rank: Valuing Spatial Interactions," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 643-659, December.
    20. Hao Wu & David Levinson, 2020. "Unifying Access," Working Papers 2022-01, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:35:y:2001:i:6:p:475-494. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.