Evacuation Routing

Max-flow · shortest path · time-expanded networks

A hurricane is making landfall in 18 hours; a wildfire is closing a canyon; a chemical-plant release is moving downwind. The operational question: how fast can we move the endangered population to safety through the available road network? The classical framework is Ford & Fulkerson's 1962 max-flow on a time-expanded network — one copy of the road graph per time step, with capacities on arcs and intermediate vertices (Hamacher & Tjandra, 2002). The literature extends to dynamic, stochastic, and contraflow variants.

Educational resource. This page describes mathematical models used in evacuation-planning research. It is a teaching tool, not operational emergency-management guidance. Real evacuations involve live decision-making by public-safety officials, real-time traffic data, household compliance variance, and meteorological uncertainty that no static optimisation captures.

Problem context

Max-flow meets the clock

The quickest-flow problem asks: what is the minimum time T such that all evacuees can reach safe zones if arcs are traversed at their given capacities? On a static network this is ill-defined (flow has to respect time); the trick is to build a time-expanded network with one copy of each vertex for each time step, and arcs connecting (v, t) to (u, t+τ) where τ is the travel time on (v, u). Max-flow on this time-expanded network gives the maximum total evacuation throughput by time T; binary search over T finds the quickest flow.

Key contributions include Ford & Fulkerson (1962)'s original dynamic-flow treatment, Burkard, Dlaska & Klinz (1993) on quickest flow, Hamacher & Tjandra (2002)'s canonical earliest-arrival and quickest-transshipment formulations, and Cova & Johnson (2003)'s adaptation to road-network evacuation with intersection capacity. For major-metro evacuation planning (hurricanes, wildfires, nuclear-plant exclusion zones), these tools provide lower-bound feasibility analysis but real operations rely on traffic simulation (Chiu et al. 2007; FEMA planning guidance).

Multi-stakeholder framing

Residents
Must evacuate; compliance depends on trust, mobility, vehicle access, disability, household structure.
Transit-dependent populations
Without a car in hurricane zone — New Orleans Katrina showed what happens when evacuation planning assumes universal vehicle access.
Emergency managers
Call evacuation orders; manage shelters; coordinate across agencies.
Transportation agency
Owns the road network; operates contraflow, signals, dynamic lane assignments.
Shelter operators (NGO / gov)
Red Cross, local government, faith-based; receive arrivals; manage capacity and supplies.
Nursing homes / hospitals
Special-needs evacuation — far harder than general population, often the binding constraint.

Mathematical formulation

Max-flow on time-expanded network; contraflow extension

SymbolDefinitionDomain
G = (V, E)Road networkdirected
ceCapacity of arc e (vehicles/period)ℝ⁺
τeTravel time on arc eℝ⁺
S ⊆ VThreat (source) zones; dv evacuees at v
T ⊆ VSafe (sink) zones (shelters); kv capacity
TmaxEvacuation deadline (time horizon)
fe(t)Flow on arc e starting at time tℝ⁺₀
Quickest flow (Hamacher-Tjandra, 2002) Build time-expanded network GT: vertex (v, t) for v ∈ V, t ∈ {0, ..., Tmax};
arcs ((v, t), (u, t+τe)) for each e = (v, u), capacity ce;
hold-over arcs ((v, t), (v, t+1)) if waiting allowed.
Super-source connects to (s, 0) for each s ∈ S with capacity ds.
Super-sink receives from (t, *) for each t ∈ T with capacity kt.

max total flow from super-source to super-sink // evacuees delivered by T
s.t. flow conservation at every intermediate (v, t)
     fe(t) ≤ ce   ∀ e, t // capacity

// Quickest flow: binary search on T_max for minimum T such that all d_s are served.

Contraflow extension For each undirected corridor, binary decision to reverse one direction's capacity.
Solution is MILP; often used in hurricane evacuation (Kim, Shekhar & Min 2008).

Complexity Max-flow on time-expanded graph is polynomial in |GT|, but GT has |V| × Tmax vertices — a factor Tmax blow-up.
Ford-Fulkerson O(|E| · max-flow); Dinic's O(V2E); practical for |V| × T up to ~106.

Interactive solver

Max-flow from threat zone to shelters

Evacuation Max-Flow Solver

12 nodes · 1 source · 2 shelters
20 nodes · 2 sources · 3 shelters
32 nodes · 3 sources · 4 shelters
Edmonds-Karp (BFS augmenting)
Dinic (layered graph)
Choose scenario and algorithm, then click Solve. Computes max-flow from threat source(s) to shelter sink(s). Time-expanded dynamic variant not demonstrated (requires Tmax parameter) — extended formulations are available in the literature.

Solution interpretation

Capacity, bottlenecks, min-cut

Reading the output

Max-flow value is the maximum evacuees/period who can reach safety through the current network. Adding shelters or widening corridors raises this; closing a corridor lowers it.

Min-cut (by max-flow min-cut duality) identifies the set of arcs whose removal disconnects source from sink and whose total capacity equals max-flow. These are the bottlenecks: the highest-leverage arcs for contraflow reversal or capacity augmentation.

Time-expanded extension: once the static max-flow is saturated, a dynamic formulation reveals whether the capacity is reachable in the available evacuation window. If not, the planner is looking at a quickest-flow answer rather than a static one.

Limitations & Critique

What the network-flow model does not see

Household compliance is stochastic

Models assume everyone evacuates when ordered. In practice, compliance is 50-80% (Baker 1991); the people who don't evacuate are disproportionately low-income, elderly, or distrustful of authorities. Static capacity models overstate actual evacuation volume.

Baker (1991). Hurricane evacuation behaviour.

Transit-dependent populations

Max-flow on a road network assumes evacuees have vehicles. Hurricane Katrina (2005) demonstrated catastrophic consequences when planning ignored carless households — primarily low-income, elderly, and disabled residents. Modern frameworks explicitly plan bus-based pickups.

Litman (2006). Lessons from Katrina and Rita: What major disasters can teach transportation planners.

Special-needs evacuation

Nursing homes, hospitals, dialysis patients, and disabled residents require medical transport and specialised shelter. These are often the binding constraint on evacuation timing; they do not fit into the generic vehicle-flow model.

Renne, Sanchez & Litman (2011). National study on carless and special-needs evacuation planning.

Traffic dynamics ≠ static capacity

Real road capacity degrades at high utilisation (queueing, accidents). Static max-flow assumes throughput = capacity, which breaks down exactly when evacuation needs it most. Traffic simulation (DynusT, DYNASMART) is used for operational planning; OR max-flow gives feasibility bounds.

Chiu et al. (2007). Simulation-based evacuation modelling.

Geographic shelter inequity

Shelter locations and capacities are typically fixed inheritances; low-income neighbourhoods often have fewer nearby shelters. Optimisation over a given network doesn't fix the underlying siting inequity.

Kolen & Helsloot (2012). Decision-making on mass evacuation.

Meteorological uncertainty

Hurricane tracks shift; wildfire fronts jump; chemical plumes depend on wind. Static evacuation plans assume known threat geography; real decisions are under forecast uncertainty with short lead times. Robust / stochastic evacuation planning is an active area.

Yao et al. (2009). Robust evacuation network design under demand uncertainty.

Extensions & variants

Time, uncertainty, and contraflow

Time-expanded max-flow

Full dynamic formulation over Tmax time steps; Hamacher-Tjandra 2002.

Contraflow

Reverse capacity of oppose-direction lanes during evacuation. MILP formulation; Kim-Shekhar-Min 2008.

Stochastic flow under scenario uncertainty

Hurricane-track scenarios; robust / two-stage stochastic formulations. Yao et al. 2009.

Multi-modal evacuation

Cars + buses + special-needs vans; each with distinct capacity and origin.

Phased / staged evacuation

Evacuate highest-risk zones first to spread demand over time; Liu-Lai-Chang 2006.

Shelter-assignment joint design

Joint shelter siting + evacuee assignment; location-allocation MILP.

Pedestrian evacuation

Building / stadium egress; micro-scale flow models with density-velocity relationships.

Simulation-optimisation hybrids

OR bounds + traffic simulation for operational plans. Common in major-metro planning.

Key references

Cited above

[1]Ford, L. R., & Fulkerson, D. R. (1962).
Flows in Networks.
Princeton University Press. Foundational text; dynamic-flow chapter is the ancestor of time-expanded evacuation models.
[2]Burkard, R. E., Dlaska, K., & Klinz, B. (1993).
“The quickest flow problem.”
ZOR - Methods and Models of Operations Research 37, 31–58. doi:10.1007/BF01415527
[3]Hamacher, H. W., & Tjandra, S. A. (2002).
“Mathematical modelling of evacuation problems: A state of art.”
In Pedestrian and Evacuation Dynamics, Springer, 227–266.
[4]Cova, T. J., & Johnson, J. P. (2003).
“A network flow model for lane-based evacuation routing.”
Transportation Research Part A 37(7), 579–604. doi:10.1016/S0965-8564(03)00007-7
[5]Kim, S., Shekhar, S., & Min, M. (2008).
“Contraflow transportation network reconfiguration for evacuation route planning.”
IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20(8), 1115–1129. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2008.35
[6]Chiu, Y.-C., Zheng, H., Villalobos, J., & Gautam, B. (2007).
“Modeling no-notice mass evacuation using a dynamic traffic flow optimization model.”
IIE Transactions 39(1), 83–94. doi:10.1080/07408170600946473
[7]Baker, E. J. (1991).
“Hurricane evacuation behavior.”
International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters 9(2), 287–310.
[8]Litman, T. (2006).
“Lessons from Katrina and Rita: What major disasters can teach transportation planners.”
Journal of Transportation Engineering 132(1), 11–18. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2006)132:1(11)
[9]Renne, J. L., Sanchez, T. W., & Litman, T. (2011).
“Carless and special needs evacuation planning: A literature review.”
Journal of Planning Literature 26(4), 420–431. doi:10.1177/0885412211412752
[10]Yao, T., Mandala, S. R., & Chung, B. D. (2009).
“Evacuation transportation planning under uncertainty: A robust optimization approach.”
Networks and Spatial Economics 9(2), 171–189. doi:10.1007/s11067-009-9103-1
[11]Edmonds, J., & Karp, R. M. (1972).
“Theoretical improvements in algorithmic efficiency for network flow problems.”
Journal of the ACM 19(2), 248–264. doi:10.1145/321694.321699
[12]Kolen, B., & Helsloot, I. (2012).
“Decision-making and evacuation planning for flood risk management in the Netherlands.”
Disasters 36(4), 610–635. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7717.2012.01277.x

Advising an emergency-management agency
or humanitarian-response project?

Get in Touch
Data and numerical examples are illustrative. This page is an educational tool, not emergency-management or operational advice.
Public Services