2010年-世界发展银行全球_Reestablishment_of_Transport_Systems_After_an_Earthquake_and_Establishment_of_Lifeline_Systems_12页_750kb

EAP DRM KnowledgeNotes Summary

Core Content

This document outlines the key lessons learned from earthquake recovery efforts in the United States, focusing on the reestablishment of transport systems and the establishment of lifeline systems. It serves as a reference for disaster risk management in East Asia and the Pacific, particularly in the context of post-disaster recovery following the Wenchuan Earthquake in 2008.

Main Case Studies and Key Findings

Loma Prieta Earthquake (1989)

• Location: San Francisco Bay Area, California
• Magnitude: 6.9 on the Richter scale
• Impact: 67 deaths, 3,757 injuries, 8,000 homeless
• Damage: 18 bridges closed, significant highway damage
• Lessons:
  • Preparation and implementation of seismic retrofitting reduced damage.
  • Peer review processes delayed recovery due to lack of pre-selection.
  • HAZUS software was used for damage estimation but had limitations.
  • Effective communication and coordination were essential.

Northridge Earthquake (1994)

• Location: Los Angeles, California
• Magnitude: 6.7 on the Richter scale
• Impact: $15 billion in damages, 72 deaths, over 12,000 injuries
• Damage: 6 bridges failed, 4 required replacement
• Lessons:
  • Pre-existing seismic retrofitting significantly reduced damage.
  • The ICS (Incident Command System) provided a robust framework for coordination.
  • Emergency powers and streamlined processes accelerated recovery.
  • HAZUS helped in identifying damage but overestimated losses.
  • Traffic management centers and preselected detours were crucial.
  • Use of time and materials contracts, and flexible bidding methods, expedited reconstruction.

Nisqually Earthquake (2001)

• Location: Seattle, Washington
• Magnitude: 6.8 on the Richter scale
• Impact: No deaths, ~400 injuries
• Damage: Minimal, with most bridges only briefly closed
• Lessons:
  • Prior seismic retrofitting (e.g., the Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program) limited damage.
  • HAZUS overestimated losses due to inaccurate parameters.
  • Comprehensive damage assessments across multiple agencies ensured data accuracy.
  • A centralized electronic bridge inventory (WSBI) improved coordination.

General Approach to Earthquake Recovery

• Prioritization:
  • Public safety
  • Protection and preservation of facilities
  • Reopening transport systems as quickly as possible
• Preparation and Planning:
  • Implementing seismic design standards and retrofitting programs
  • Conducting vulnerability analyses and using seismic instrumentation
  • Developing and testing emergency response plans through simulated exercises
• Emergency Response:
  • Immediate response requires on-site expertise (e.g., structural engineers)
  • Clear communication channels (radios, cellular phones, landlines) are essential
  • Establishing a single point of contact for coordination
• Traffic Management:
  • Use of preselected detours and real-time traffic monitoring
  • Coordination among multiple agencies (federal, state, local, and industry)
  • Preference for vanpools and carpooling on limited-capacity routes
  • Temporary railway stations were constructed to alleviate traffic congestion

Key Recommendations

• Establish seismic policies and goals
• Conduct periodic simulated training exercises
• Implement seismic safety reviews for key structures
• Utilize HAZUS for initial damage assessments, but supplement with multiple data sources
• Maintain trained personnel and volunteer engineers
• Develop shared databases and backup command centers
• Streamline processes and use emergency powers to expedite permits
• Use innovative contract methods (e.g., time and materials, flexible bidding)
• Ensure redundancy in transport corridors to maintain mobility
• Invest in multimodal transport systems to provide alternatives

Technical Challenges and Solutions

• Reconstruction of damaged infrastructure:
  • In Loma Prieta, complete reconstruction was required due to significant failures.
  • In Northridge, in-place and in-kind replacements minimized environmental and right-of-way impacts.
• Use of as-built plans and updated data:
  • Expedited the design and bidding process.
• Legislative support:
  • Existing laws favored restoring pre-earthquake conditions, which were not always safe.
  • Flexibility in policies is recommended for improved seismic resistance in future projects.

Conclusion

Earthquake recovery involves a complex interplay of infrastructure, planning, and coordination. The case studies demonstrate that advance preparation, redundancy in transport systems, and effective communication are critical to minimizing damage and accelerating recovery. The use of HAZUS and other tools, combined with a hands-on approach and streamlined administrative processes, has proven to be effective in managing post-earthquake transport reestablishment. These lessons can be applied globally, especially in the East Asia and Pacific region, to improve disaster resilience and response efficiency.

References

• Deyle, R. et al. (1988). Policies for Guiding Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery Reconstruction
• State of California (1990). Competing Against Time: Report to Governor George Deukmejian
• Cooper, J. et al. (1994). The Northridge Earthquake: Progress Made, Lessons Learned
• Geotechnical Board, National Research Council (1994). Practical Lessons from the Loma Prieta Earthquake
• Schiff, A.J. (Editor) (1997). Northridge Earthquake: Lifeline Performance and Post-Earthquake Response
• Baxter, J. (2000). Response and Recovery
• Eberhard, M.; L. Lowers, and J. Stanton (2001). The Nisqually Earthquake of 28 February 2001
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (2008). HAZUS-MH Overview
• Wikipedia (2008). 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1994 Northridge Earthquake, 2001 Nisqually Earthquake