IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i23p15491-d979999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Road Tunnels Operation: Effectiveness of Emergency Teams as a Risk Mitigation Measure

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Borghetti

    (Mobility and Transport Laboratory, Design Department, Politecnico di Milano, Via Candiani 72, 20158 Milano, Italy)

  • Alessio Frassoldati

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Marco Derudi

    (Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy)

  • Igino Lai

    (Strada dei Parchi S.p.A, Via G.V. Bona 105, 00156 Roma, Italy)

  • Cristian Trinchini

    (Strada dei Parchi S.p.A, Via G.V. Bona 105, 00156 Roma, Italy)

Abstract

Managing a major event in a road tunnel requires more resources than an open-air event. In the case of fire, the confined environment of road tunnels can represent a critical situation for both users and rescuers. The safety level of a tunnel can be estimated by using dedicated risk models that consider, on the one hand, the traffic (type, quantity and distribution) of a tunnel and, on the other hand, the structural and plant safety measures. According to the European Directive, road tunnel managers can adopt additional safety measures aimed at increasing the level of safety for users exposed to the consequences of an accidental event. One of these measures is the rapid intervention of emergency teams located in the proximity of the tunnel. These teams use pick-up and scooter vehicles properly equipped to cope with a fire event and have detailed knowledge of the specific tunnel system. A further advantage of the emergency teams is the possibility of supporting the evacuation of tunnel users by providing indications on emergency exits, bypasses and safe places considering the evolution of the specific event. In this perspective, the present research contributes to the evaluation of the emergency teams’ effectiveness. Thus, the emergency team was included as a safety measure within a risk analysis model for road tunnels developed by the authors in previous works. After an analysis of the technical and scientific literature, we focused on 15 interventions carried out on some highway tunnels in Italy between the year 2019 and the year 2021. The intervention times of the teams were analyzed using data provided by Strada dei Parchi S.p.A., a company that manages 14 highway tunnels in Italy. These 14 tunnels range in length from 589 m to 10,121 m and are subject to the European Directive. The observed intervention times of the emergency teams range between 2 min and 10 min with an average value of 5.9 min. Such a short intervention time is possible because emergency teams are in the proximity of the different tunnels. Because of the short intervention time and the training of the personnel, all the fires were properly managed by the teams. Furthermore, considering the results of the scientific literature and the data presented in this work, it was possible to estimate and validate an effectiveness value (higher than 90%) of the emergency teams to be used within the risk analysis model developed by the authors and which can also be used in other risk analysis models.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Borghetti & Alessio Frassoldati & Marco Derudi & Igino Lai & Cristian Trinchini, 2022. "Road Tunnels Operation: Effectiveness of Emergency Teams as a Risk Mitigation Measure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15491-:d:979999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15491/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/23/15491/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Manca, Davide & Brambilla, Sara, 2011. "A methodology based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process for the quantitative assessment of emergency preparedness and response in road tunnels," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 657-664, September.
    2. Reggiani, Aura, 2013. "Network resilience for transport security: Some methodological considerations," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 63-68.
    3. Fabio Borghetti & Boris Petrenj & Paolo Trucco & Veronica Calabrese & Marco Ponti & Giovanna Marchionni, 2021. "Multi-level approach to assessing the resilience of road network infrastructure," International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 17(2), pages 97-132.
    4. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    5. Stan Kaplan, 1997. "The Words of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 407-417, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Three influential risk foundation papers from the 80s and 90s: Are they still state-of-the-art?," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. D E Salazar A & C M Rocco S & E Zio, 2008. "Optimal protection of complex networks exposed to a terrorist hazard: A multi-objective evolutionary approach," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 222(3), pages 327-335, September.
    3. Henrik Hassel & Alexander Cedergren, 2019. "Exploring the Conceptual Foundation of Continuity Management in the Context of Societal Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1503-1519, July.
    4. Barry Charles Ezell, 2007. "Infrastructure Vulnerability Assessment Model (I‐VAM)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 571-583, June.
    5. Zhaohui Yang & Krishna P. Paudel & Xiaowei Wen & Sangluo Sun & Yong Wang, 2020. "Food Safety Risk Information-Seeking Intention of WeChat Users in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15, March.
    6. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2009. "On the Complex Definition of Risk: A Systems‐Based Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1647-1654, December.
    7. Kunovjanek, Maximilian & Wankmüller, Christian, 2021. "Containing the COVID-19 pandemic with drones - Feasibility of a drone enabled back-up transport system," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 141-152.
    8. Roger Flage & Terje Aven & Enrico Zio & Piero Baraldi, 2014. "Concerns, Challenges, and Directions of Development for the Issue of Representing Uncertainty in Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1196-1207, July.
    9. Charles N. Haas, 2002. "The Role of Risk Analysis in Understanding Bioterrorism," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 671-677, August.
    10. Gundula Glowka & Andreas Kallmünzer & Anita Zehrer, 2021. "Enterprise risk management in small and medium family enterprises: the role of family involvement and CEO tenure," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 1213-1231, September.
    11. Benischke, Mirko H. & Guldiken, Orhun & Doh, Jonathan P. & Martin, Geoffrey & Zhang, Yanze, 2022. "Towards a behavioral theory of MNC response to political risk and uncertainty: The role of CEO wealth at risk," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(1).
    12. Ke Zhang & Jae Eun Lee, 2024. "Assessing the Operational Capability of Disaster and Emergency Management Resources: Using Analytic Hierarchy Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-18, May.
    13. S. Cucurachi & E. Borgonovo & R. Heijungs, 2016. "A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(2), pages 357-377, February.
    14. K. Karthikeyan & S. Bharath & K. Ranjith Kumar, 2012. "An Empirical Study on Investors’ Perception towards Mutual Fund Products through Banks with Reference to Tiruchirapalli City, Tamil Nadu," Vision, , vol. 16(2), pages 101-108, June.
    15. Nicola Paltrinieri & Nicolas Dechy & Ernesto Salzano & Mike Wardman & Valerio Cozzani, 2012. "Lessons Learned from Toulouse and Buncefield Disasters: From Risk Analysis Failures to the Identification of Atypical Scenarios Through a Better Knowledge Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1404-1419, August.
    16. Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox, Jr., 2012. "Community Resilience and Decision Theory Challenges for Catastrophic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1919-1934, November.
    17. Chen, Fuzhong & Hsu, Chien-Lung & Lin, Arthur J. & Li, Haifeng, 2020. "Holding risky financial assets and subjective wellbeing: Empirical evidence from China," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    18. Niël Almero Krüger & Natanya Meyer, 2021. "The Development of a Small and Medium-Sized Business Risk Management Intervention Tool," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, July.
    19. James H. Lambert & Rachel K. Jennings & Nilesh N. Joshi, 2006. "Integration of risk identification with business process models," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 187-198, September.
    20. Johnson, Caroline A. & Flage, Roger & Guikema, Seth D., 2021. "Feasibility study of PRA for critical infrastructure risk analysis," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:23:p:15491-:d:979999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.