TY - JOUR
T1 - Transport network criticality metrics
T2 - a comparative analysis and a guideline for selection
AU - Jafino, Bramka Arga
AU - Kwakkel, Jan
AU - Verbraeck, Alexander
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Transport network criticality analysis aims at ranking transport infrastructure elements based on their contribution to the performance of the overall infrastructure network. Despite the wide variety of transport network criticality metrics, little guidance is available on selecting metrics that are fit for the specific purpose of a study. To address this gap, this study reviews, evaluates and compares seventeen criticality metrics. First, we conceptually evaluate these metrics in terms of the functionality of the transport system that the metrics try to represent (either maintaining connectivity, reducing travel cost, or improving accessibility), the underlying ethical principles (either utilitarianism or egalitarianism), and the spatial aggregation considered by the metrics (either network-wide or localised). Next, we empirically compare the metrics by calculating them for eight transport networks. We define the empirical similarity between two metrics as the degree to which they yield similar rankings of infrastructure elements. Pairs of metrics that have high empirical similarity highlight the same set of transport infrastructure elements as critical. We find that empirical similarity is partly dependent on the network’s topology. We also observe that metrics that are conceptually similar do not necessarily have high empirical similarity. Based on the insights from the conceptual and empirical comparison, we propose a five-step guideline for transport authorities and analysts to identify the set of criticality metrics to use which best aligns with the nature of their policy questions.
AB - Transport network criticality analysis aims at ranking transport infrastructure elements based on their contribution to the performance of the overall infrastructure network. Despite the wide variety of transport network criticality metrics, little guidance is available on selecting metrics that are fit for the specific purpose of a study. To address this gap, this study reviews, evaluates and compares seventeen criticality metrics. First, we conceptually evaluate these metrics in terms of the functionality of the transport system that the metrics try to represent (either maintaining connectivity, reducing travel cost, or improving accessibility), the underlying ethical principles (either utilitarianism or egalitarianism), and the spatial aggregation considered by the metrics (either network-wide or localised). Next, we empirically compare the metrics by calculating them for eight transport networks. We define the empirical similarity between two metrics as the degree to which they yield similar rankings of infrastructure elements. Pairs of metrics that have high empirical similarity highlight the same set of transport infrastructure elements as critical. We find that empirical similarity is partly dependent on the network’s topology. We also observe that metrics that are conceptually similar do not necessarily have high empirical similarity. Based on the insights from the conceptual and empirical comparison, we propose a five-step guideline for transport authorities and analysts to identify the set of criticality metrics to use which best aligns with the nature of their policy questions.
KW - criticality analysis
KW - criticality metrics
KW - multi criteria
KW - transport interventions prioritisation
KW - Transport network
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076893496&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/01441647.2019.1703843
DO - 10.1080/01441647.2019.1703843
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85076893496
SN - 0144-1647
VL - 40
SP - 241
EP - 264
JO - Transport Reviews
JF - Transport Reviews
IS - 2
ER -