Evacuation and traffic management (full report) - FLOODsite

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Task 17 Evacuation D17-1 Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420 DOCUMENT INFORMATION Title Evacuation and traffic management Lead Authors Darren Lumbroso, Eric Gaume, Christiaan Logtmeijer, Marjolein Mens, Marnix van der Vat Contributors Peter Bakonyi, Alfred Olfert, Pierre-Antoine Versini, Bridget Woods- Ballard Distribution Public Document Reference T17-07-02 DOCUMENT HISTORY Date Revision Prepared by Organisation Approved by Notes 12/10/2007 1_0_P01 Darren Lumbroso HR Wallingford Initial draft 30/11/2007 2_0_P01 Darren Lumbroso 12/12/2007 3_0_P01 Darren Lumbroso 20/12/2007 3_1_P01 Darren Lumbroso 04/03/2008 4_0_P01 Darren Lumbroso 06/03/2008 4_1_P01 Darren Lumbroso HR Wallingford Second draft following comments meeting in November in Paris HR Wallingford Third draft prepared after receiving further contributions HR Wallingford Further minor revisions following receipt of additional text and HR Wallingford comments Fourth draft incorporating comments made by the FLOODsite review in February HR Wallingford Further minor revisions to version 4.0 17/03/2008 4_2_P01 Frans Klijn WL Delft Hydraulics Further minor revisions to version 4.1 19/03/2008 4_3_P01 Darren Lumbroso HR Wallingford Minor revisions to version 4.2 07/04/08 4_4_P01 Paul Samuels HR Wallingford Final formatting ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work described in this publication was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme through the grant to the budget of the Integrated Project FLOODsite, Contract GOCE-CT- 2004-505420. DISCLAIMER This document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Community. This work may rely on data from sources external to the FLOODsite project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The information in this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Community nor any member of the FLOODsite Consortium is liable for any use that may be made of the information. © FLOODsite Consortium T17_07_02_Evacuation_and_traffic_management_D17_1_V4_4_P01.doc 19 03 2008 ii
Task 17 Evacuation D17-1 Contract No:GOCE-CT-2004-505420 SUMMARY The report provides a summary of the work that has been carried out in Task 17 under Theme 2 of the EC research project FLOODsite that focused on evacuation modelling and traffic management related to flood events. When flooding of populated areas occurs or is likely a management system for the road network in and around the flood prone areas is useful to carry out the following: • Identify the routes for the safe evacuation of people; • To facilitate the access of the emergency and rescue personnel to the flood prone areas; • To prevent traffic using roads that have a high probability of becoming inundated. There were three pilot sites that were utilised in Task 17 as follows: • The Thames Estuary in the UK; • The Schelde Estuary in the Netherlands; • The Gard Region in France. A review of flood management practice in Europe has been carried out. The conclusions of the review were as follows: • Most countries within the European Union (EU) make a distinction between the organisations that are responsible for water management and those that are responsible for emergency management; • Responsible for emergency plans often takes place at a local authority or local government level; • There is limited experience within the EU of employing systematic approaches and modelling tools to develop evacuation plans for flood event management. With respect to the user requirements for flood event management the following conclusions have been reached: • The timing, speed and method of communication of reports are critical to effective emergency management during a flood; • Robust and integrated communication links between the organisations involved in the response during a flood helps to ensure an effective response; • Organised evacuation is only used as a form of emergency response in very rare circumstances. In most of Europe the authorities have no powers to forcibly evacuate people from their houses during floods and most evacuation is initiated by individuals or households; • There is need for tools and methods to assist in the planning of evacuations and to estimate the optimal use of the transport network and the time required for execution of an evacuation. A review of evacuation models used worldwide for a range of hazards, (including technological hazards such as nuclear accidents), was carried out. There are three main scales at which evacuation models are employed for flood event management as follows: • Micro – This corresponds to a scale where each individual receptor at risk (e.g. person, vehicle or property) is modelled and there is a detailed representation of the evacuation routes; • Meso – This corresponds to a scale that is between a micro and macro-scale. In meso models the receptors are lumped together. The evacuation time is estimated by assessing the demand for and the capacity of the evacuation routes, which are evaluated on a geographical basis; • Macro – In a macro model the receptors are lumped together. The estimates of the evacuation times are based purely on the distance to the exit of the at risk area, the capacity of the route and the average evacuation speed A macro scale model is often used to provide an initial estimate of the evacuation time for a large area. (e.g. at a regional scale). The type of evacuation model that is appropriate for a particular flood risk area will depend on the level of risk and the processes which the evacuation modelling is seeking to inform. Densely populated urban area where the scale of potential evacuation is large may require a detailed simulation model where the traffic and flood hazard is modelled in a truly dynamic way. An understanding of the level of congestion delay that is inevitable under even the most effective traffic management schemes, and also the level of spontaneous evacuation that may occur in advance T17_07_02_Evacuation_and_traffic_management_D17_1_V4_4_P01.doc 19 03 2008 iii
Page 1: Integrated Flood Risk Analysis and
Page 5 and 6: Task 17 Evacuation D17-1 Contract N
Page 53 and 54:
Task 17 Evacuation D17-1 Contract N
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Number of People (Log scale) 100000
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
show all

Evacuation and traffic management (full report) - FLOODsite

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?