Vital lifelines in the event of a disaster, transportation networks support evacuation activities, emergency logistics, and the restoration of daily activities. The rapid recovery of surviving transportation network operations immediately after a disaster is critical for the well-being of communities. The focus here is on planning highway operations in the recovery period after a disaster. A bilevel network design model with choice inter-dependencies was developed for choosing the strategies necessary to maximize the performance of a surviving highway network. A genetic algorithm was coupled with a traffic assignment procedure to solve the associated problem. Results on a real-size network in Greece under two disaster scenarios indicate both adequate computational performance and significant improvement in network performance indicators.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PeetaS., SalmanS., GunnecD., and ViswanathK.Pre-Disaster Investment Decisions for Strengthening a Highway Network.Computers and Operations Research, Vol. 37, No. 10, 2010, pp. 1708–1719.
2.
DuL., and PeetaS.A Bilevel Stochastic Optimization Model to Enhance Transportation Network Survivability and Reduce Response Times Under Disasters. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
3.
KarlaftisM. G., KepaptsoglouK. L., and LambropoulosS.Fund Allocation for Transportation Network Recovery Following Natural Disasters.Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 133, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1–7.
4.
IidaY., KurauchiF., and ShimadaH.Traffic Management System Against Major Earthquakes.IATSS Research, Vol. 24, No. 2, 2000, pp. 1–9.
5.
Ben-AyedO., BoyceD. E., and BlairC. E.A General Bi-level Linear Programming Formulation of the Network Design Problem.Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 22, No. 4, 1988, pp. 311–318.
6.
WallerS., and ZiliaskopoulosA. K.Stochastic Dynamic Network Design Problem. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1771, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 106–113.
7.
YinY., and IedaH.Optimal Improvement Scheme for Network Reliability. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1783, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 1–6.
8.
DimitriouL., TsekerisT., and StathopoulosA.Evolutionary Combinatorial Programming for Discrete Road Network Design with Reliability Requirements. In Applications of Evolutionary Computing: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Volume 4448 (GiacobiniM., BrabazonA., CagoniS., Di CaroG. A., DrechslerR., FarooqM., FinkA., LuttonE., MachadoP., MinnerS., O'NeillM., RomeroJ., RothlaufF., SquilleroG., TakagiH., UyarA. S., and YangS., eds.). Springer, Berlin, 2007, pp. 678–687.
9.
AltayN., and GreenW. G.IIIOR/MS Research in Disaster Operations Management.European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 175, No. 1, 2006, pp. 475–493.
10.
HopkinsD. C., LumdsenJ. L., and NortonJ. A.Wellington's Lifeline in Earthquakes Project: An Outline of a Major Review.Lifeline Earthquake Engineering: Proceedings of the 3rd U.S. Conference (CassaroM. A., ed.). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va.,1991, pp. 774–804.
11.
ChurchR., and ScaparaM. P.Analysis of Facility Systems’ Reliability When Subject to Attack or a Natural Disaster. In Critical Infrastructure Reliability and Vulnerability (MurrayA. T., and GrubesicT. H., eds.). Springer, Berlin, 2007.
12.
ChangS. E., and NojimaN.Measuring Post-Disaster Transportation System Performance: The 1995 Kobe Earthquake in Comparative Perspective.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 35, No. 6, 2001, pp. 475–494.
13.
Murray-TuiteP. M., and MahmassaniH. S.Methodology for Determining Vulnerable Links in a Transportation Network. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1882, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 88–96.
14.
SohnJ.Evaluating the Significance of Highway Network Links Under the Flood Damage: An Accessibility Approach.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 40, No. 6, 2006, pp. 491–506.
15.
JeneliusE., PetersenT., and MattssonL.-G.Importance and Exposure in Road Network Vulnerability Analysis.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 40, No. 7, 2006, pp. 537–560.
16.
UkkusuriS. V., and YushimitoW. F.A Methodology to Assess the Criticality of Highway Transportation Networks.Journal of Transportation Security, Vol. 2, No. 1-2, 2009, pp. 29–46.
17.
PoorzahedyH., and BushehriS.Network Performance Improvement Under Stochastic Events with Long-Term Effects.Transportation, Vol. 32, No. 1, 2005, pp. 65–85.
18.
HadasY., and LaorA.Network Design Model with Evacuation Constraints.Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2013, pp. 1–9.
19.
El-AdawayI., and El-AnwarO.Developing Optimal Hazard Investment Strategies.Proc., Construction Research Congress: Innovation for Reshaping Construction Practice (RuwanpuraJ., MohamedY., and LeeS., eds.), Banff, Alberta, Canada, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Va., 2010, pp. 420–429.
20.
HeaneyJ. P., PeterkaJ., and WrightL. T.Research Needs for Engineering Aspects of Natural Disasters.Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2002, pp. 4–14.
21.
WangZ., LumW., ShantzT., and RobleeC.Earthquake Planning, Response and Recovery Research Needs: CALTRANS's Perspectives.Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2002, pp. 46–51.
22.
KalafatasG., and PeetaS.Planning for Evacuation: Insights from an Efficient Network Design Model.Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2009, pp. 21–30.
23.
YaziciA., and OzbayK.Evacuation Network Modeling via Dynamic Traffic Assignment with Probabilistic Demand and Capacity Constraints. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2196, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 11–20.
24.
XieC., LinD.-Y., and WallerT. S.A Dynamic Evacuation Network Optimization Problem with Lane Reversal and Crossing Elimination Strategies.Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2010, pp. 295–316.
25.
NgM., and WallerT. S.Reliable Evacuation Planning via Demand Inflation and Supply Deflation.Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 46, No. 6, 2010, pp. 1086–1094.
26.
XieC., and TurnquistM. A.Lane-Based Evacuation Network Optimization: An Integrated Lagrangian Relaxation and Tabu Search Approach.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2011, pp. 40–63.
27.
ChenY.-W., and TzengG.-H.A Fuzzy Multi-Objective Model for Reconstructing Post-Earthquake Road-Network by Genetic Algorithm.International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1999, pp. 45–55.
28.
TzengG.-H., ChenY.-W., and LinC.-Y.Fuzzy Multi-Objective Reconstruction Plan for Post-Earthquake Road Network by Genetic Algorithm. In Research and Practice in Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Volume 487 (HaimesY. Y., and SteuerR. E., eds.), Springer, Berlin, 2000, pp. 510–528.
29.
Bana e CostaC. A., OliveiraC. S., and VieiraV.Prioritization of Bridges and Tunnels in Earthquake Risk Mitigation Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Application to Lisbon.Omega, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2008, pp. 442–450.
30.
KarlaftisM. G., KepaptsoglouK., and LambropoulosS.Fund Allocation for Transportation Network Recovery Following Natural Disasters.Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 133, No. 1, 2007, pp. 1–8.
31.
OrabiW., SenouciA. B., El-RayesK., and Al-DerhamH.Optimizing Resource Utilization During the Recovery of Civil Infrastructure Systems.Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2010, pp. 237–246.
32.
OrabiW., El-RayesK., SenouciA., and Al-DerhamH.Optimizing PostDisaster Reconstruction Planning for Damaged Transportation Networks.Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 135, No. 10, 2009, pp. 1039–1048.
33.
FengC. M., and WenC. C.Traffic Control Management for Earthquake-Raided Area.Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, 2003, pp. 3261–3275.
34.
FengC. M., and WenC. C.A Bi-level Programming Model for Allocating Private and Emergency Vehicle Flows in Seismic Disaster Areas.Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 5, 2005, pp. 1408–1423.
35.
FengC. M., and WenC. C.A Fuzzy Bi-level and Multi-Objective Model to Control Traffic Flow into the Disaster Area Post Earthquake.Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, 2005, pp. 4253–4268.
36.
SumaleeA., and KurauchiF.Network Capacity Reliability Analysis Considering Traffic Regulation After a Major Disaster.Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2006, pp. 205–219.
37.
LongD., ShiG., and WangY.One-Way Traffic Organization Based on Traffic Load and Road Equity.Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 10, No. 6, 2010, pp. 109–114.
38.
ChaseA., and AvineriE.Maximizing Motorway Capacity Through Hard Shoulder Running: UK Perspective.The Open Transportation Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2008, pp. 7–18.
39.
CohenS.Using the Hard Shoulder and Narrowing Lanes to Reduce Traffic Congestion: Some Lessons from an Experience on the Paris Motorway Network.Proc., 12th IEE International Conference on Road Transport Information and Control (RTIC 2004), London, 2004, pp. 149–153.
40.
VeldR., and TaaleH.Evaluation of Hard Shoulder Running and Other Extra Lanes. EEG/11/7. Directorate General for Mobility and Transport, European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
41.
RiegelhuthG., and PilzA.Temporary Hard Shoulder Use in Hessen—Experiences and Strategic Planning. Presented at i2TERN Conference 2007, Aalborg, Denmark, 2007.
42.
XieC., TurnquistM. A., and WallerS. T.A Hybrid Lagrangian Relaxation and Tabu Search Method for Interdependent-Choice Network Design Problems. In Hybrid Algorithms for Service, Computing and Manufacturing Systems: Routing and Scheduling Solutions (Montoya-TorresJ. R., JuanA. A., HuatucoL. H., FaulinJ., and Rodriguez-VerjanGloria L., eds.), IGI Global, Hershey, Pa., 2012, pp. 294–324.
43.
EibenA. E., and SmithJ. E.Introduction to Evolutionary Computing.Springer, Berlin, 2003.
44.
SyswerdaG.Uniform Crossover in Genetic Algorithms.Proc., 3rd International Conference on Genetic Algorithms (SchafferJ. D., ed.), Morgan–Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco, Calif., 1989, pp. 2–9.
45.
BeasleyJ. E., and ChuP. C.A Genetic Algorithm for the Set Covering Problem.European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 94, No. 3, 1996, pp. 392–404.
46.
GenM., and ChengR.Genetic Algorithms and Engineering Optimization.John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999.
47.
DempeS.Foundations of Bilevel Programming.Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2002.
48.
XuT., WeiH., and HuG.Study on Continuous Network Design Problem Using Simulated Annealing and Genetic Algorithm.Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2009, pp. 1322–1328.
49.
SharmaS., UkkusuriS. V., and MathewT. V.Pareto Optimal Multi-objective Optimization for Robust Transportation Network Design Problem. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2090, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 95–104.
50.
GalloM., D'AciernoL., and MontellaB.A Meta-Heuristic Approach for Solving the Urban Network Design Problem.European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 201, No. 1, 2010, pp. 144–157.
51.
ChakrobortyP.Genetic Algorithms for Optimal Urban Transit Network Design.Computer Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2003, pp. 184–200.
52.
Bar-GeraH.Origin-Based Algorithm for the Traffic Assignment Problem.Transportation Science, Vol. 36, No. 4, 2002, pp. 398–417.
53.
SlavinH., BrandonJ., and RabinowiczA.An Empirical Comparison of Alternative User Equilibrium Traffic Assignment Methods. Presented at 2006 European Transport Conference (ETC), Strasbourg, France, 2006.
