Transportation Resilience

infrastructure for a dynamic city and has to be protected from .... streets on the periphery is given to other bodies. ... transport, creaLng accessibility to address.
872KB taille 114 téléchargements 347 vues
Transportation Resilience, planning land use and mobility management for unpredictable events

Briefing
paper
contribu0ng
to
“Urban
Resilience
:
what
can
Urban
Governance
contribute
?”
 superintended
by
Michaela
Hordijk,
Isa
Baud

Wawira
Njoka Emmanuel
Raoult 25/03/2009 - page 1

Introduction Clues of change : a connected economy and car dependency In
 our
 contemporary
 society
 based
 on
 informa0on
 and
 communica0on
 technologies
 (ICT),
 individuals 
 are
 s0ll 
 moving
 more
 and
 more,
 and
 transporta0on
 has
become
a 
great
 part
 of
 our
 lives,
 especially
 as 
the 
number
 of
 megaci0es
increases.
 The
 globalisa0on
 of
 the
 economy,
 especially
 outsourcing
 or
 goods
 exporta0ons,
 shows 
 how
 companies
 rely
 on
 the
 transporta0on
 system
 globally
 but
 also
 locally.
 People
 in
 the 
 ci0es 
 are
 coming
 from
 distant
 places,
 oNen
far
suburbs,
to
work
or
 to
 use
 recrea0onal
 facili0es.
 The
 lack
 of
 proper
 transporta0on
 services
in
 these
giant
 ci0es 
in
 turn
makes
urban
areas
vulnerable 
to
shocks 
in
 the
system,
 reducing
 the 
city’s 
resilience.
 The
 transporta0on
 system
 is
 then
 a 
 basic
 infrastructure 
for
 a 
dynamic
 city
 and
has 
to
be
 protected
 from
 hazards
 like
 riots,
 strikes,
 network
 accident,
 oil
 shortage,
 earthquake,
 storms 
or
 floods.
 Due 
to
the
past
 50
 years
of


planning,
 the 
 car
 dependency
 is 
 threatening
 the
 transporta0on
 system
 resilience
 by
 increasing
isola0on
and
vulnerability
 of
people
 not
 owning
 a
 car
 and
 by
 crea0ng
 huge
 conges0on,
which
has
proved
to
be 
dangerous
 during
 the 
 Rita 
 hurricane 
 for
 example.
 Delhi
 (India)
 is
 inves0ng
 in
 an
 electric
 rail 
 system

 which
will 
enable 
60%
of
the
city
 to
be
within
 15
 minutes 
 walking
 distance
 from
 a 
 sta0on
 (Newman,
2009),
to
enhance
accessibility.
This
 shows 
 the
 shiN
 in
 transporta0on
 policies
 in
 order
 to
 promote 
 its 
 resilience 
 by
 improving

 the 
 public
 transport,
 road
 usages 
 and
 eventually
 reducing
 car
 reliance.
 This 
 would
 also
reduce
the
energy
dependence
in
terms 
of
 fossil 
 fuel.
 Doing
 so,
 the
 environmental
 footprint
of
the 
system
will
decrease
and
help
 reduce 
vulnerability
 to
climate
change
hazards
 at
a
global
scale.

Transportation Resilience definition from articles Foster
says 
that
the
Resilience
in
an
urban
transport
context
could
be 
described
as
“the
capacity
 to
 absorb
 shocks 
gracefully”
 (Foster,
 1993).
 From
 this
 cita0on
 and
 according
 to
 Bertolini,
 we
 will
 understand
 Transporta0on
 Resilience
 as 
 resilience
 (capacity
 to
 absorb
 shocks)
 and
 adaptability
 (capacity
of
change,
facing
the
unpredictable
even). According
 to
 Murray‐Tuite’s 
 ar0cle 
 (Murray‐Tuite,
 2006),
 the
 transporta0on
 resilience
 can
 be
 understood
through
ten
dimensions: 
 mul0ple
components
serve
the
same
func0on • Redundancy
:
 
 components
are
func0onally
different
example:
mul0plicity
of

road
 • Diversity:

 
 
 
 
 
 use
(Newman,2009) 
 input/output
ra0o
op0misa0on • Efficiency
:
 
 • Autonomous
components:

ability
to
operate
separately 
 ability
to
withstand
an
event • Strength
:
 
 Collabora0on
:

 
 informa0on
and
resources
shared
among
components • 
 flexible
system,
capable
of
learning
from
past
experiences • Adaptability:

 
 reach
a
chosen
des0na0on
with
an
acceptable
level
of
service • Mobility
:
 
 
 
 expose
less
users
to
hazards • Safety
:
 Ability
to
recover
quickly:
 level
of
service
restored
quickly •

25/03/2009 - page 2

Another
 ar0cle
 links
 the
 transport
 resilience 
to
 our
 inability
 to
 predict
 future
 and
 addi0onally
 defines 
it
by
these
fields
(Online
TDM
Encyclopaedia,
2008)


 : • The
connec0vity
of
the
system • Improvising Catering
for
vulnerable
people • • resource
management,
priori0zing • Evalua0on,
feedback
and
early
detec0on • mobility
 • Timeliness This 
mobility
 is 
underlined
as
seen
as 
the
community’s
overall
resilience 
and
is 
then
a 
key
element
 of
transporta0on
resilience. Addi0onally,
when
evalua0ng
transport
resilience
several
levels
could
be
iden0fied: everyday
day
decisions
we
make
on
the
mode
of
transport
to
use. • Individual
level:
 basic
accessibility
and
choices
of
transport
to
members
of
a
community • Community
:

 • Infrastructure
design
:
leaving
open
possibili0es
for
future
transport
alterna0ves how
are
funds
priori0sed
and
for
what
purpose. • Economic
level:
 transporta0on
system
can
meet
long‐term
economic,
social
and
 • Strategic
level:
 
 
 
 environmental
goals
under
a
wide
range
of
unpredictable
future
condi0ons. This 
 last
 strategic
 level
 is
 developed
 in
 the
 ar0cle
 about
 Amsterdam
 (Bertolini,
 2005)
 the
 author
characterises 
an
urban
transport
system
 as 
 evolu0onary
 and
 complex
 as 
it
 alternates
 quan0ta0ve
and
qualita0ve 
changes,
 it
is 
path
 dependent,
 it
 can
 have
 unpredictable
 outcomes
during
change
phases 
even
if
policies
 can
 strongly
 influence
 them.
 Resilience
 and
 adaptability
have 
then
to
be
increased
to
face
 this 
unpredictable
part,
by
 proposing
a 
specific
 transporta0on
 network
 shape,
 land
 use
 regula0on
or
mobility
management
measures.

*** This 
 paper
 will
 first
 analyze
 Transporta0on
 Resilience 
from
long
term
and
short
term
point
 of
 view.
 This 
will 
 give 
 us
 an
 overview.
 Using
 some 
key
case
studies,
issues
and
outcomes 
 of
 transporta0on
resilience
in
urban
areas
will 
be
 highlighted.
In
the 
second
part,
we
will 
propose
 a 
 s e t
 o f
 m e a s u r e s
 t o
 e n h a n c e 
 t h e
 Transporta0on
 Resilience 
 by
 Decision
 Making
 guidelines
and
evalua0ng
‐
forecas0ng
tools.

25/03/2009 - page 3

Analysis Long term resilience Due 
to
rising
social 
resistance 
and
financial
and
 fiscal 
constraints 
on
 infrastructure 
 expansion,
 the
“predict
and
provide”
approach
is
no
longer
 an
 op0on
 for
 transporta0on
 systems.
 These
 uncertain0es
 could
 be 
 understood
 as 
 risks,
 structural
 uncertain;es
 or
 unknowables
 (Bertolini,
 2005).
 These 
 2
 last
 uncertain0es
 become
predominant
 in
the
long
term,
 as
the
 system
 increases 
 in
 complexity.
 Because
 of
 these
unpredictable 
parameters,
 it
 is
 virtually
 impossible
 to
 forecast
 correctly
 changes
 that
 will
occur
in
the
transporta0on
field
within
20
 years.
 However,
 Land
 Use
 and
 Transport
 Interac0on
 (LUTI)
 models 
 and
 Transporta0on
 Planning
 Models 
(TPM)
will 
be 
discussed
 later
 as 
 forecas0ng
 solu0ons 
 to
 help
 decisions
 makers. Bertolini 
 proposes 
 the
 evolu;onary
 approach
 t o
 h e l p
 c r e a t e 
 m e t h o d s 
 f o r
 u r b a n
 transporta0on
 planning
 to
 improve
 resilience.
 Let’s 
review
 why
 the 
transporta0on
 system
 is
 an
 evolu0onary
 system
 and
 then
 how
 resilience
 policies
 are 
 important
 to
 design
 a
 beier
 transporta0on
 system.
 An
 evolu0onary
 approach
 to
 resilience
 recognizes
 the
 complexity
 of
 social 
 systems 
 and
 their
 interdependency.
 The
 evolu0onary
 economics
 theory
 is 
then
quite
interes0ng
 here,
 as
firms
 use
 both
 a
 rou;ne,
 that
 is
 redundant
 organiza0on,
 and
 a
 research
 of
 alterna;ve
 methods
 to
 create
 or
 sell 
 new
 products 
 and
 services.
 The
 selec;on
 environment
 is
 supposed
to
choose
the 
most
efficient
solu0on,
 rou0ne 
 or
 alterna0ve.
 This 
could
 be
 seen
 as
 analogue
to
 a
resilient
 system,
 which
 consists
 in
 func0oning
 in
 the
face
 of
 changes,
 and
 to
 adaptability,
 which
 defines
 the
 system's
 capacity
 to
change
itself
on
its 
own.
 “Because


of
 this,
 urban
 transporta0on
 policies 
need
 to
 focus
 on
 enhancing
 the
 resilience 
 and
 the
 adaptability
 of
 the 
 system”
 (Bertolini,
 2005).
 The
 author
 illustrates
 these
 hypothesis 
 by
 analysing
the 
post‐war
 era 
in
Amsterdam.
 The
 following
are
the 
three 
main
features 
of
these
 hypothesis. Quantitative change period and transition qualitative period The
qualita0ve 
period
is
linked
to
the
nature
of
 the
development
and
not
to
its 
amount.
These
 transi0ons
can
have
different
origins: • Social‐demographic
 transi0ons:
 the
 decline
 then
 rise
 of
 the 
 popula0on
 in
 Amsterdam
city
centre. • Economic
 transi0on
 :
 from
 an
 industry
 economy
to
a
services
based
economy • Land
use 
policy
 transi0on
:
 planning
 of
 the
historic
centre,
development
failure
 of
a 
misplaced
Central 
Business 
Centre,
 suburbs 
growth
and
appari0on
 of
 new
 city
centers • Transport
transi0on
:
from
a 
motor‐way
 policy
to
accessible
local
alterna0ves Path dependency Social
 resistance 
and
 market
 preferences
 can
 help
 preserving
 historical 
 centers
 or
 building
 new
 or
 renewed
 urban
 areas.
 Several
 land
 reserva0ons
 since 
 the 
 1900's
 lead
 to
 new
 transporta0on
 system
 alterna0ves
 in
 Amsterdam.
This
new
transports 
impacted
the

 global 
 urban
 form.
 Finally,
 a
 Na0onal
 infrastructure
 plan
 also
 influenced
 the
 transporta0on
 planning
 in
 this 
 city.
 This
 different
 elements
 show
 the
 historical
 background
 and
 local
 culture
 and
 habits
 are


25/03/2009 - page 4

highly
 responsible
 of
 the 
 transporta0on
 present
and
future
status. Unpredictability The
 youth
 community
 which
 fought
 for
 the
 conserva0on
of
the
historic
urban
centre
in
the
 1960's 
 and
 economic
 turbulence 
 eras 
helped
 planners
 to
 propose
 qualita0ve
 changes 
 in
 Amsterdam.
The
conserva0on
of
the
historical
 centre
finally
 drove 
the
emergence 
of
tourism
 and
 leisure
 economy,
 to
 the
 crea0on
 of
 new
 urban
development
 areas
leading
 to
new
 city
 centers.
 These 
great
 outcomes
from
 the 
past
 events
 were
 quite
 unpredictable
 at
 the 
 0me
 things
were
planned. 
 
 
 *** Planners
contributed
to
this 
change
in
an
other
 way:
 by
 freezing
 the 
main
 urban
frame,
 they
 have
given
the 
real 
estate
market
the
freedom


of
 reshaping
 it
 at
 the
micro
 level.
 This 
shows
 how
we 
can
imply
deep
changes 
without
heavy
 infra‐structural 
 changes.
 However,
 some
 outcomes
 are
 s0ll
 partly
 unpredictable 
 and
 highlight
 the
 need
 of
 resilience 
 and
 adaptability
policies. The power of policy makers The
role
of
planners 
and
relevant
technical 
staff
 in
urban
 transport
 planning
 is
important.
 The
 varia0on
in
private
transport
and
fuel
usage
of
 84
 ci0es
 studied
 was 
largely
 due
 to
 physical
 planning
 decisions
made
by
 those
ci0es
(Peter
 Newman,
 2009).
 Planners 
 ability
 to
 facilitate
 resilience
goals
should
be
used
and
improved.
 There
needs 
to
be
a 
shiN
 in
the
percep0on
of
 their
role
from
being
a 
facility
developer’s 
to
a
 community
developer’s
(Peter
Newman,
2009).
 This 
 could
 facilitate
 the 
 par0cipa0on
 of
 the


Case
 study
 :
 transporta0on
 planning
 processes
in
the
post‐war
Amsterdam The 
 major
 turn
 in
 transporta0on
 planning
 is 
located
between
1970‘s 
and
 the
 1990‘s.
 ANer
 the
 oil 
 crisis,
 Amsterdam
is
experiencing
a 
lost
of
20%
 of
 its 
popula0on.
 At
 the
same
moment,
 a 
growing
suburbaniza0on
process
arise
 and
 the 
 highway
 na0onal 
 plan
 is
 incremented.
 Locally,
 a
complex
 debate
 appeared
 concerning
 the
 underground
 and the infrastructure in the Amsterdam railway
 and
 urban
 highways 
 projects.
 Changes in the built-up area region, 1967 - 2001 This 
 unpredictable 
 opposi0on
 for
 the
 transi0on
 to
 a 
 services
 economy,
 despite
 preserva0on
 
 of
 the
historical
centre
lead
the
 planners
 effort
 to
 move
 the
 offices 
 at
 the 
 IJ
 urban
transporta0on
planners 
to
redesign
their
 banks,
these
were
sepng
up
in
the
south
of
the
 projects.
 In
 1975,
 a
 local
 circula0on
 plan
 set
 city,
 next
 to
 the 
 airport.
 The
 unexpected
 the
first
 elements
of
transporta0on
resilience,
 outcome
was 
the
crea0on
of
a 
polycentric
city,
 like
 coarsening
 the
 network
 and
 building
 with
 many
 centre
 areas.
 However,
 the
 bicycle
lanes. planners’
 policy
 on
 land
 use
 also
 helped
 in
 The
outcomes 
of
this 
new
 transport
 structure
 plan,
 like
 a
 raise 
 of
 bike 
 use
 and
 tourism
 economy,
 came 
much
later.
 During
 this 
era 
of


building
 transporta0on
resilience 
as 
it
 favored
 micro
 city
 renewal 
and
 did
 not
 disturb
 much
 the
city’s
transporta0on
system.

25/03/2009 - page 5

community
 in
 transport
 planning
 in
 the
 early
 stages 
 a 
 project.
 Planners 
 and
 policy
 makers
 can
 benefit
 from
 this 
 informa0on
 enabling
 them
 to
 plan
 from
 par0cular
 problems,
 for
 instance 
 isolated
 areas,
 while
 keeping
 their
 general
plan
in
focus.
 Furthermore,
 the
urban
 community
 will 
 have
 more 
 ownership
 of
 the
 environment
they
 live
in
and
this
could
help
in
 future
 maintenance
 of
 the 
 services
 provided.
 Addi0onally,
 urban
 community
 par0cipa0on
 has 
 the
 possibility
 of
 fostering
 cohesion
 amongst
 individuals 
 in
 the 
 urban
 area.
 None
 cohesive
communi0es 
are
a 
vulnerability
to
the
 urban
 area 
 and
 are
 prone
 to
 violence
 and
 internal
wars
amongst
its
members.
 The
density
 and
form
of
the 
urban
area 
needs
 to
 be
 considered
 when
 planning
 for
 future
 transports.
 High
 density
 areas 
 are
 easier
 to
 plan
 mobility
 around
 public
 transport,
 pedestrian
 and
 cycling
 paths.
 This 
 is 
 also
 feasible 
 for
 low
 density
 areas 
 focused
 along
 corridors.
 However,
 for
 low
 density
 areas
 without
 this 
quality
 (focused
 along
 corridors)
 public
 transport
 cannot
 compete
 with
 private
 cars 
as
 a
 means
 of
 mobility
 (Peter
 Newman,
 2009).
 The
form
of
the
urban
area 
needs 
to
be
seen
as
 a 
 “public
 space”
 (Peter
 Newman,
 2009)
 with
 streets 
 as 
 the
 most
 social 
 part.
 Streets
 are
 where
most
face
to
face 
contact
in
urban
areas
 takes 
place.
This
is 
a 
hint
that
planners 
need
to


take
 a 
 border
 picture
 when
 planning
 for
 transport.
There
is 
a 
tendency
 for
 planning
 to
 be
 road
 focused
 mostly
 designing
 for
 road
 capacity
 while
beau0fica0on
 (incorpora0on
of
 tree
 plan0ng),
 aesthe0cs 
 and
 inclusions 
 of
 streets 
 on
 the
 periphery
 is 
 given
 to
 other
 bodies.
 Urban
transport
policy
needs
to
move 
from
car
 planning
 to
 people
 planning.
 The
 concept
 of
 people 
 mobility
 is
 important.
 Here 
 planners
 and
policy
 makers
alike 
could
look
at
the
how
 to
 move 
 people
 faster
 and
 safer
 from
 des0na0on
to
des0na0on.
This 
would
bring
the
 importance
of
public
 transport
 into
focus;
 the
 example
of
Delhi
given
earlier.
 Excluded
or
 isolated
urban
areas 
area 
a 
source
 of
vulnerabili0es 
for
the
city.
In
0me
of
disaster
 such
 as
 the
 Hurricane 
 Katrina 
 there
 were
 logis0cal 
 problems
 when
 trying
 to
 evacuate
 people 
in
these
areas.
In
the 
case 
of
hurricane
 Rita
 evacua0on
 was 
 made
 worse
 by
 the 
 car
 dependence 
of
the
city.
 Since 
most
people
are
 using
private 
transport,
 public
 transport
is
leN
 to
 service 
 a 
 few
 who
 tend
 to
 live
 on
 the
 isolated
areas
of
the
city
 and
thus 
it
 makes 
it
 hard
for
to
jus0fy
 the 
public
service,
from
and
 economic
 view
point.
As 
a 
result
the
transport
 networks
 in
 these
 areas 
 were
 not
 well
 developed
which
led
to
the
logis0cal
problems
 of
 evacua0on.
 Apart
 from
 providing
 good
 transport,
 crea0ng
 accessibility
 to
 address
 vulnerable
people
is
another
 cri0cal 
factor
 for
 considera0on.

Short term resilience As 
men0oned
previously,
 the 
term
of
 risk
has
 to
be
linked
to
Short
Term
Resilience.
Transport
 Demand
 Management
 (TDM
 encyclopaedia,
 2008)
 is 
 an
 interes0ng
 tool 
 to
 assess
 the
 transport
 planning
 effects 
 on
 short
 term

 resilience.
 Using
 this 
 tool
 transport
 can
 be
 evaluated
at
several
levels. The
individual
level
TDM
accesses
the
everyday
 day
 decisions
urbani0es 
make
on
the 
mode 
of
 transport
 to
 use 
 or
 if
 they
 have
 access 
 to
 transport
 to
 choose
 from.
 The
 cri0cal 
choice


here
 is
 between
 public
 and
 private 
transport
 and
 the
 op0ons 
within
 the
 variety
 for
 public
 services
 provided.
 When
 making
 a
 decision
 between
 private
 and
 public
 transport
 individuals
look
to
the 
accessibility,
the
/me
it
 takes 
 to
 use
 public
 means,
 as 
 opposed
 to
 private
transport,
and
the
quality
of
the 
public
 service. The
 community
 level
 refers 
 to
 the
 basic
 accessibility
 of
 transport
 to
 members
 of
 a
 community,
 the
 transporta0on
 choices 
 they


25/03/2009 - page 6

have
 and
 how
 it
 affects
 their
 lives
 and
 the
 effect
of
their
collec/ve
decisions.
 The
design
 level
evaluates
if
 the
urban
design
 meets 
 current
 needs 
 leaving
 enough
 manoeuvrability
for
future
designs.
 The
strategic
level
of
the
transporta0on
system
 is 
 assessed 
 on
 its
 poten0al 
 in
 mee0ng
 long‐ term
economic,
social 
and
environmental
goals
 under
 a
 wide
 range 
 of
 unpredictable
 future
 condi0ons
or
risks. Lastly,
the
economic
level
looks 
at
priori0sa0on
 and
 purpose
 of
 funds
dedicated
to
transport.
 The
 TDM
 concept
 emphasises 
 the
 need
 to
 generalise 
 risk
 in
 order
 to
 find
 categories 
 of
 vulnerabili0es
in
the
system
as
done
above.
 An
 important
 aspect
 of
 TDM
 is 
con/ngency‐ based
 planning.
 It
 is
 a 
 planning
 process 
that
 develops 
 solu0ons 
 on
 a
 needs
 basis
 and


enables 
beier
change 
over
0me 
in
response
to
 future
needs.
The 
steps 
in
evalua0ng
transport
 resilience
using
this
method
include; • Define
 the
 system;
 here
 planners 
 or
 policy
 makers 
can
define
 what
 type 
of
 density
 the 
urban
area
is 
and
from
the
 device
 suitable
 approaches 
 to
 service
 provision.
 • Next
 iden0fy
 cri0cal
 func0ons 
 of
 the
 transport
 system
 such
 as
 who
 it
 is
 catering
for. The 
 vulnerabili0es 
 of
 the 
 urban
 • transport
are
also
assessed.
 These
may
 be
 unique 
for
 each
 urban
 locus 
 while
 others
as
global
or
regional
in
nature. • Finally,
 ways
to
increase
resilience
and
 security
 are
 iden0fied
 aNer
 evalua0ng
 the
informa0on
in
the
previous
steps.

Case
study
Katrina
and
Rita

was
due
to
lack
of
 transporta0on
and
unwillingness
 to
 leave
 homes 
 and
 property
 and
 lack
 outbound
 roadway
 capacity.
 This
 showed
 the
 officials
 and
 planners
are
not
in
touch
with
the
community
they
 serve
 and
 their
 needs.
 It
 would
 be
 interes0ng
 to
 note
the
changes
that
the
city
will
make
to
correct
 this
serious
laps
in
planning
 for
the
vulnerable
and
 needy.


Katrina 
hit
the
Gulf
 Coast
 August
29th
 2005,
which
 lead
 to
 infrastructure
 damage,
 flooding,
 civil
 disorder,
 fires,
 toxic
 chemical
 dispersion,
 disease
 risk
and
thousands
of
 people
isolated
without
food
 or
 medical
 care.
 
 The
 evacua0on
 plan
 mainly
 focused
 on
 users
 with
 motor
 vehicles.
 The
 plan
 involved
 using
 all
 lanes
 on
 major
 highways
 to
 accommodate
 outbound
 vehicle
 traffic.
 This
 was
 well
 thought
 out
 and
 published
 (Wolshon,
 2002).
 Although
many
motorists
were
able
to
flee
the
city,
 conges0on
resulted
in
very
 slow
traffic
speeds
and
 some
cars
run
out
of
 fuel
or
developed
mechanical
 problems.
However
no
effec0ve
plan
was
made
for
 those
who
 had
 no
cars
and
were
 public
 transport
 dependent
 or
 in
 isolated
 areas.
 The
 system
 was
 based
on
car
dependence
and
thus 
only
planed
for
 car
mobility.
 Of
 the
1.4
million
people
in
 the
high‐ threat
 areas,
 it
 was
 assumed
 only
 approximately
 6 0 %
 o f
 t h e
 popula0on 
 will
 want
 or
 be
 able
 to
leave
the
city.
 T h e
 r e a s o n s
 were
 numerous,
 h o w e v e r
 t h e
 primary
 reason


Hurricane
 Rita
 hit
 the
Coast
 September
 24th
 2005
 and
had
the
 opposite
problem.
 
Most
residents
of
 Huston
fled
this
danger
zones
using
their
own
cars.
 This
led
to
 a
massive
conges0on
problem.
The
city
 planners
did
not
make
 use
of
 the
high‐occupancy‐ vehicle
lanes 
and
 inbound
lanes 
of
 highways
 un0l
 very
 late.
 Harris 
 County
 emergency
 management
 coordinator
 Frank
 E.
 Gu0errez
 explained
 their
 evacua0on
 models
 envisioned
 0.8
 to
 1.2
 million
 people
 but
 more
 than
2.5
million
fled
 Rita.
 This
 is 
 only
 a
 small
 part
 of
 what
 can
 go
 wrong
 when
 a
city
is
not
planned
 for
 every
 ci0zen
 to
 face
possible
threats
 a n d
 l a c k
 o f
 accoun0ng
for
the
vulnerable
people.

25/03/2009 - page 7

Resilience 
 for
 transporta0on
 is 
 basically
 defined
as 
the
capacity
 to
 adapt
 to
 hazard
 in
 order
 to
 “maintain
 an
 acceptable
 level 
 of
 service”.
 The
 TDM
 focuses
 on
 4
 of
 the
 10
 dimensions 
proposed
to
define 
Transporta0on
 Resilience: • mobility • safety
 • adaptability • ability
to
recover
quickly Murray‐Tuite’s
 ar0cle
 proposes
 to
 measure
 resilience
 and
 these
 4
 fields 
 through
 the
 impact
of
traffic
assignment. The
 author
 reviews
 measurements 
 of
 resilience,
 especially
 for
 infrastructures 
 like
 water,
 communica0ons
 or
 electricity
 grid.
 C o n c e r n i n g
 t ra n s p o r t a 0 o n
 re s i l i e n c e


quan0fica0on,
 the 
 ar0cle
 uses 
 travel 
 0me
 losses
and
capacity
varia0ons. The
evalua0on
of
the
resilience
quality
is 
based
 on
 the
 comparison
 of
 two
 scenarios 
 :
 the
 System
Op0mum,
 which
minimizes 
travel
0me
 for
all
vehicles,
and
the
User
Equilibrium,
which
 minimize
 travel 
 0me
 for
 individuals.
 This
 forecast
 model 
is
based
on
 the
 graph
 theory,
 and
 assigns 
 capaci0es 
 and
 speed
 limits
 parameters 
as
arc
parameters
and
vehicle
flows
 to
nodes
(see
page
9
of
this
ar0cle). However,
the 
final 
results 
table 
does 
not
show
 an
 advantage
 for
 one 
 or
 an
 other
 scenario
 when
 lis0ng
 the
 evalua0on
 criterions.
 This
 could
 show
 then
 the
 importance
 of
 overall
 planning
 versus 
 local
 traffic
 assignments
 
 to
 increase
transporta0on
resilience.

Solutions Proposing land use policy, mobility management and community actions Here
 are 
 some 
 ideas 
 that
 policy
 makers 
 and
 planners
can
do
to
increase
their
resilience; Land use policy • The
 popula0on
 density
 of
 the
 urban
 area 
 should
 be
 a 
 cri0cal
 factor
 in
 designing
transporta0on
systems. Mobility Management • Tr a n s i t
 t r a n s p o r t a 0 o n
 s y s t e m s
 especially
 in
 high
 density
 ci0es
should
 be
 addressed.
 This
 can
 prove 
 very
 useful 
in
0mes
of
disasters 
where
mass
 people 
mobility
from
areas 
of
disaster
is
 needed. • Timeliness 
 and
 capacity
 of
 public
 transport
 is 
another
 cri0cal 
factor
 that
 can
 influence
 the
 decisions 
individuals
 make
 when
 choosing
 between
 public
 and
private
transport.
 • The
basic
accessibility
and
quality
of
the
 public
 transport
 should
 be
 considered
 in
planning. • Vulnerable 
and
disabled
people
need
to


be
included.
They
tend
to
be 
a 
minority
 in
the 
popula0on
who
are
not
 catered
 for
 in
 the
 design
 and
 accessibility
 of
 public
transport. Community planning • Planners
need
to
be 
familiar
with
needs
 of
 the
 people
 they
 are
 providing
 the
 service 
 for.
 Community
 outreach
 programmes
can
play
a
vital
role
here.
 • Planners
 and
 policy
 makers 
 need
 to
 listen
 to
 the 
people
 they
 are
 planning
 for.
 Strategic Planning • Access 
 to
 informa0on
 and
 how
 it
 is
 communicated
 from
 planners 
 to
 the
 urban
 inhabitants
 is
 vital
 especially
 in
 0mes
of
disaster.
 • Development
 of
 effec0ve
 ways 
 of
 m a i n t a i n i n g
 i n f o r m a 0 o n
 a n d
 communica0on
 systems
 amongst
 the
 various
actors
(Litman,
2006). • Cross‐train
 staff
 to
 perform
 cri0cal


25/03/2009 - page 8

management
 and
 repair
 services
 (Litman,
2006).
 • ‘Op0miza0on’
 as 
 a
 goal 
 of
 transport
 planning
should
not
overcome 
the
need
 for
 flexibility
 and
 adap0ve 
 capacity
 of
 the
system.
Seeking
op0miza0on
might


actually
 erode
 
 future
 resilience
 
 :
 technology
 op0misa0on
 could
 be
 dangerous 
as
technology
 could
become
 obsolete.
 Land
 use
 op0misa0on
 does
 n o t
 l e a v e 
 r o o m
 f o r
 a n y
 n e w
 transporta0on
alterna0ves.

Evaluate and forecast In
 order
 to
 decide
 if
 a 
 policy
 decision
 made
 above 
is
“good”,
planners
have
at
their
disposal
 some 
 quan0ta0ve
 measures
 and
 forecas0ng
 tools.
 These
help
the
policy
 maker
 but
 should
 not
be 
taken
as 
an
exact
truth
or
 means 
to
an
 end.
 Quan0ta0ve
 surveys 
 can
 be
 done
 but
 Resilience
issues
need
to
be
qualita0ve. Measures As 
shown
 in
 one
 ar0cle 
[note 
:
 TDM
 ar0cle],
 one 
of
the 
easiest
way
 to
measure
resilience 
is
 to
 s0ck
 a 
 measurement
 to
 each
 dimension
 which
 characterises
 the
 transporta0on
 resilience
: • Diversity
 :
 survey
how
many
 kilometres
 of
 road
 are 
 public
 space 
 share
 or
 dedicated
 to
 cars,
 bikes,
 trains,
 pedestrians... • redundancy
 and
connec0vity
 :
measure
 the
 quality
 and
 capacity
 and
 the
 numbers
of
road
to
 link
the
major
 city
 spots. • strength
 :
 meet
 label 
 requirements
 about
extreme
condi0ons
for
facili0es • adaptability
 :
 assess 
the
system’s 
ability
 to
 iden0fy
 and
 forecast
 problems 
(see
 Morlok
and
Chang,
2004) • mobility
 :
 trip
 0me,
 level 
 of
 service
 (comfort,
clear
informa0on...) • safety
 :
 map,
 using
 Geographical
 Informa0on
 System
 (GIS),
 risk
 areas
 (floods,
classified
industrial
facility...) • ability
 to
 recover
 quickly
 :
 stocks
 of
 buses,
 of
 fuel 
 ;
 quality
 of
 technical
 procedures
and
staff
availability • social
 accessibility
 warranted
 :


characterise
 the
 performance
 of
 the
 local 
 or
 state 
 program
 which
 has 
 to
 insure
 an
 equal 
 access
 to
 resilient
 networks • e v a l u a t e
 t h e
 s e t
 o f
 m e a n s
 t o
 communicate
 on
 long
 and
 short
 term
 basis
with
users. • Test
 the 
 relevance 
 of
 priori0sing
 methods
 for
 transporta0on
 system
 resources As 
 a 
 star0ng
 point
 for
 urban
 planners,
 an
 example
 of
 transporta0on
 indicators
 can
 be
 found
at
www.whistler2020.ca,
using
the
“2020
 Explorer”
tool. Forecasting transportation resilience programs For
short
term
concerns,
resilience
parameters
 could
be
implemented
into
a
traffic
genera0on
 model,
 as
 shown
 in
 the
 Murray‐Tuite
 ar0cle.



transportationʼs resilience evaluation : forecasting evacuation of a flooded area using a graph model

This 
can
help
to
map
resilience
around
the
city.
 This 
models
are
based
on
the 
“graphs 
theory”
 and
 resilience
 could
 be 
then
understood
as
a
 set
of
different
constraints
on
arcs
or
nodes. This 
 will
 not
 be 
 an
 exact,
 precise
 picture 
 of
 what
 could
 happen
 but
 can
 help
 iden0fying
 poten0al
hot
spots
and
conges0on
roads.

25/03/2009 - page 9

Then
 forecas0ng
 long
 term
 resilience 
 measures
 is
 much
 more
 difficult,
 as 
 LUTI
 models
 men0oned
 by
 Luca
 Bertolini
 illustrate.
 These
models 
have
to
 get
 the
 social
 phenomena 
 and
 very
complex
rela0ons.
The 
basic
 func0oning
 scheme
 of
 the
 “UrbanSim”
 soNware
shows
this
 difficulty
 to
 catch
 long
 term
 outcomes...

“UrbanSim” LUTI model components and data flow

Conclusion and ideas Resilience 
is 
a 
condi0on
for
 adaptability.
These
 two
 elements
 compose
 the
 Transporta0on
 Resilience.
This
kind
of
 resilience
relies 
on
the
 morphology
 of
 the 
 transport
 system
 frame
 (radial/tangent,
 road/rail)
 which
 has 
to
 move
 from
 monocentric
 to
polycentric
 city
 changes.
 Incremental 
 models 
 (history
 of
 the
 city
 had
 influenced
 the
 planning)
 and
 ra0onal 
models
 (planning
by
forecas0ng
what
decision
imply
 as
 outcomes)
are 
essen0al 
issues
to
be
addressed
 by
planners. The
 next
 goal
 for
 planners
 who
 want
 to
 increase 
 resilience
 would
 be
 to
 capture 
 the
 transi0on
 process 
and
integrate 
it
 to
 forecast
 models.
According
to
Christensen
(Christensen,
 1985),
 this 
 involves 
 a
 balance 
 between
 the
 over
 looked
 goals
 and
 the 
 means 
 or
 technologies
to
achieve 
them.
Then
the 
system
 can
 gain
 resilience
 by
 robust
 measures
 and
 adaptability
 by
 keeping
 op0ons
 opened,
 especially
for
technology
solu0ons.

However,
 risk
 taking
 (e.g.
 introducing
 a 
 new
 technology)
 could
 be 
 seen
 as
 a
 leadership
 ac0on
 (From
 the 
 poli0cal 
 point
 of
 view)
 but
 should
be
s0ll 
kept
only
as
a
policy
experiment.
 Following
 the
 spirit
 of
 the 
 Bruntland's
 sustainability
 report,
the
ques0on
is
“how
can
 we
 design
 land
 use 
 and
 transport
 policies
 which
 keep
 open
 mobility
 choices
 for
 next
 genera0ons 
 ?
 (Bertolini,
 2005).
 Currently,
 Indian
Tata 
company
is 
launching
the
cheap
car
 c a l l e d
 N a n o
 i n
 M u m b a i 
 ( B B B
 n e w s ,
 23/03/2009).
 The
 divergent
 policies 
 about
 mobility
 are
 highlighted
 here
 in
 India 
 :
 the
 introduc0on
 of
 the 
 Nano
 aims 
 to
 increase
 overall 
car
ownership
in
already
crowded
ci0es
 while
 planners 
are
 promo0ng
 mass 
transit
 in
 Delhi.
 Planners
 and
 the 
private 
sector
 should
 work
 together
 to
 meet
 the
 long‐term
 urban
 communi0es
well
being...
and
resilience.

25/03/2009 - page 10

References BBC
 news,
 Is 
 the
 Nano
 good
 for
 India?,
 (march
 23,
 2009),
 hip://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/ thread.jspa?forumID=6250&edi0on=2&il=20090324161012 Edward
K.
Morlok
,
David
J.
Chang

(march
2004)
Measuring
capacity
 flexibility
of
a 
transporta0on
 system,
Elsevier
:
Transporta0on
Research
Part
A
38
(2004)
405–420 K
S
Christensen,
1985,
``Coping
with
uncertainty
in
planning''
Journal
of
the
American
Planning
 Associa0on
51
63
‐
73 Pamela
 M.
 Murray‐Tuite
 (2006)
 A
 COMPARISON
 OF
 TRANSPORTATION
 NETWORK
 RESILIENCE
 UNDER
SIMULATED
SYSTEM
OPTIMUM
AND
USER
EQUILIBRIUM
CONDITIONS,
page
1398,
Abstract
 paragraph
one
line Peter
 Newman
 (March
12th
 2009)
 Island
press;
 Solu0ons
that
 inspire
change:
 eco‐compass 
blog,
 Peter
 Newman’s 
 Resilient
 Ci0es:
 The
 Sustainable
 Transport
 City
 [online]
 Available
 at:
 hip:// blog.islandpress.org/325/peter‐newmans‐resilient‐ci0es‐the‐sustainable‐transport‐city [Accessed
20
March
2009] Todd
 Litman
 (April
 13th
 2006)
 Lessons
From
 Katrina
and
 Rita:
 What
 Major
 Disasters
Can
 Teach
 Transporta0on
Planners
[Online]
Available
at:
hip://www.vtpi.org/katrina.pdf
 [Accessed
19
March
2009] Victoria
transport
 policy
 ins/tute
 (Updated
22
 July
 2008),
Online
TDM
 Encyclopaedia,
 Evalua0ng
 Transporta0on
Resilience;
Evalua0ng
the 
Transporta0on
System’s 
Ability
to
Accommodate
Diverse,
 Variable 
and
 Unexpected
 Demands 
with
 Minimal
Risk
[online]
 Available
at:
 hip://www.vtpi.org/ tdm/tdm88.htm
[Accessed
23
March
2009]

25/03/2009 - page 11