Objective rankings of the criticality of transportation network infrastructure are essential for efficiently allocating limited adaptation resources and must account for network connectivity and travel demand. Road link criticality can be quantified by the total travel delay caused when the capacity of a road segment or link is disrupted or removed. These methods can use standard travel demand models, but the exclusion of lower-volume roads and the aggregate nature of traffic analysis zones may distort resulting criticality rankings. To test the impact of link exclusion and demand aggregation, the authors applied the network robustness index, a well-established link criticality measure, to a hypothetical network with varying levels of network resolution and demand aggregation. The results show a statistically significant change in criticality rankings when demand is aggregated and especially when links are excluded from the network, suggesting that criticality rankings may be distorted when estimated with typical demand models. Application to a road network in Vermont supports the finding on the impact of network resolution on criticality rankings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DowdsJ., and Aultman-HallL.. Barriers to Implementation of Climate Adaptation Frameworks by State Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2532, 2015, pp. 21–28. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/2532-03.
2.
Climate Change and Extreme Weather Vulnerability Assessment Framework. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2012.
3.
Cambridge Systematics. Addressing Climate Change Adaptation in Regional Transportation Plans: A Guide for California MPOs and RTPAs. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2013.
4.
MeyerM. D., RowanE., SnowC., and ChoateA.. Impacts of Extreme Weather on Transportation: National Symposium Summary. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2013.
5.
Aultman-HallL., and DowdsJ.. The Role and Position of Local Agencies in Climate Adaptation Planning. Presented at 95th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016.
6.
ScottD. M., NovakD. C., Aultman-HallL., and GuoF.. Network Robustness Index: A New Method for Identifying Critical Links and Evaluating the Performance of Transportation Networks. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2006, pp. 215–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2005.10.003.
7.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2005.11.003.
8.
ReggianiA., NijkampP., and LanziD.. Transport resilience and vulnerability: The role of connectivity. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 81, 2015, pp. 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.12.012.
9.
MattssonL.-G., and JeneliusE.. Vulnerability and Resilience of Transport Systems—A Discussion of Recent Research. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 81, 2015, pp. 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.06.002.
10.
ErathA., BirdsallJ., AxhausenK., and HajdinR.. Vulnerability Assessment Methodology for Swiss Road Network. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2137, 2009, pp. 118–126. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/2137-13.
11.
SullivanJ. L., NovakD. C., Aultman-HallL., and ScottD. M.. Identifying Critical Road Segments and Measuring System-Wide Robustness in Transportation Networks with Isolating Links: A Link-Based Capacity-Reduction Approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2010, pp. 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2010.02.003.
12.
NguyenA., DixB., LaClairJ., LoweL., YokoiS., and FaheyR.. Adapting to Rising Tides: Transportation Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Pilot Project. Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco, Calif.; California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2011.
13.
ICF International and PB Americas. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Transportation Systems and Infrastructure: Gulf Coast Study, Phase 2—Task 1: Assessing Infrastructure Criticality in Mobile, AL. Publication FHWA-HEP-11-029. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2011.
14.
FaturechiR., and Miller-HooksE.. Measuring the Performance of Transportation Infrastructure Systems in Disasters: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2015, p. 4014025.
15.
SullivanJ., NovakD., and Aultman-HallL.. Identifying Network Representation Issues with the Network Trip Robustness. TRC Report 12-004. University of Vermont Transportation Research Center, Burlington, 2012.
JeneliusE., and MattssonL.-G.. Road Network Vulnerability Analysis: Conceptualization, Implementation and Application. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 49, 2015, pp. 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.02.003.
18.
LeurentF., BenezechV., and SamadzadM.. A Stochastic Model of Trip End Disaggregation in Traffic Assignment to a Transportation Network. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 20, 2011, pp. 485–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.08.055.
19.
JafariE., GemarM. D., JuriN. R., and DuthieJ.. Investigation of Centroid Connector Placement for Advanced Traffic Assignment Models with Added Network Detail. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2498, 2015, pp. 19–26. https://dx-doi-org-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3141/2498-03.
20.
FotheringhamA. S., and RogersonP. A.. GIS and Spatial Analytical Problems. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, 1993, pp. 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799308901936.
21.
ChangK., KhatibZ., and OuY.. Effects of Zoning Structure and Network Detail on Traffic Demand Modeling. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2002, pp. 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2742.
22.
VovshaP., HicksJ. E., PaulB. M., LivshitsV., ManevaP., and JeonK.. New Features of Population Synthesis. Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015.
23.
ChristallerW.Central Places in Southern Germany. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 1966.
