1 / 22

North Carolina Hazardous Materials Transportation Route Optimization

North Carolina Hazardous Materials Transportation Route Optimization. Shelby Rushing The Pennsylvania State University GEOG 596A Spring 2014 Advisor: Dr. Patrick Kennelly. Introduction. 2.2 billion tons of HazMat transported each year in the U.S. 15,424 incidents in 2012

shel
Download Presentation

North Carolina Hazardous Materials Transportation Route Optimization

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. North Carolina Hazardous Materials Transportation Route Optimization Shelby Rushing The Pennsylvania State University GEOG 596A Spring 2014 Advisor: Dr. Patrick Kennelly

  2. Introduction • 2.2 billion tons of HazMat transported each year in the U.S. • 15,424 incidents in 2012 • Risk increases in highly populated areas and around critical facilities • Thoughtful route planning reduces risk

  3. Regulations • Chemical transport routes not regulated • Exception: Certain tunnels • Radioactive material routes are regulated • Voluntary compliancehelps companies avoid negative publicity

  4. Cost/Benefit • Route planning must balance economic and safety concerns • Longer routes add cost • Shorter routes may increase population exposure risk • Optimal routes must consider both cost and safety

  5. Project Background • IEM has partnered with the State Hazardous Materials Task Force since 2009 • Produced statewide hazard profiles for use by Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) • Data collection and hazard identification

  6. NC DPRs

  7. Phased Study Coverage

  8. Data Collection Methods • “Clicker Counts” • High costs, limited sample size • Limited value • Collect data directly from manufacturers • Produce linear features for aggregated shipment volumes and routes

  9. Sketch Maps

  10. Flow Maps

  11. Study Chemicals

  12. County Profile Maps

  13. Next Phase – Risk Assessment • Formal risk assessments in major metro areas • Review hazard mitigation options with local officials • 2013 Pilot in Wake County (Raleigh area) • Upcoming phase will cover Cumberland, Johnston, and New Hanover counties

  14. Study Areas

  15. Risk Assessment Objectives • Examine potential impact of spills on: • Populations • Critical facilities • Suggest alternate routes using Network Analyst • Use protective action buffers

  16. Population Density

  17. Population at Risk

  18. Critical Facilities at Risk • Plot critical facilities on map • Overlay transportation corridor buffer zones • Tally number of facilities that fall within each buffer • Use facility buffers in network analysis

  19. Route Optimization With optimization Without optimization

  20. Anticipated Results • Many current routes will not be optimal • Maps with additional travel time vs. reduced exposure potential • Potential exposure numbers by city, county, and region • Useful to LEPCs, responders, emergency planners, and zoning boards

  21. Schedule • Data collection: May 2014 • Analysis/Development: June-July 2014 • Submit Report: August 2014

  22. Questions?

More Related