Jacobs was engaged to undertake Austroads project FS2029 to develop a Risk Indicator to support the evaluation of ‘Life Line’ freight routes. These are road routes that typically do not deliver highly positive outcomes under traditional benefit-cost ratio project priority analyses based on AADT measures of road use, but are of high value to the local communities and regions they support. The project has been undertaken in parallel with work being overseen by the Australian Transport and Infrastructure Council (the Council) to implement the recently released National Remote and Regional Transport Strategy. The second key action under this strategy involves exploring ‘alternative models’ for considering the priority for investment in remote and regional roads. As a part of this work the Council has committed to reviewing the Australian National Guidelines for Transport System Management to ‘investigate and consider approaches to the appraisal of remote and regional transport infrastructure projects, that better capture wider long term social benefits of investment1.’ There is a significant opportunity for this project to inform the update of these guidelines to better capture and value the importance of ‘Life Line’ routes, leading to appropriate priority for projects that enhance the reliability and resilience of these routes. New Zealand’s RiskScape tool provides a well-developed modular approach to assessing risk from many natural event hazards, assets that could be affected and the extent of impact of specific events on assets. Roads are one class of asset included, and work is ongoing to develop the application of RiskScape to meet NZTA’s needs. This report summarises all work undertaken as part of developing the Risk Indicator: • Investigation of Australasian practices against best international practices. • Exploration and description of the concept behind ‘Life Line’ route Risk Indicator, intended to separate routes which are genuine ‘Life Lines’ from those that are not, despite having some similar characteristics. • Development of risk indicator characteristics and scoring method: — The size and needs of the communities and establishments they service — Availability of alternative routes which could be used if the route in question is unavailable — Length and convenience of alternative routes, including distance, time and classes of vehicles that can use the route — The likelihood that the alternative route/s are also closed — Historic incidence and duration of events that close or restrict operations on the route — Assessment of responses to previous events, including cost and impacts in the regions serviced. • Testing and refining the Risk Indicator on two routes from each jurisdiction, identified by transport agencies and local government, to ensure it reliably distinguishes ‘Life Line’ from non ‘Life Line’ routes. After testing and some modification, the tool proved satisfactory in discriminating between roads considered to be ‘Life Line’ routes from roads which were not, despite having some similar characteristics. The tool is primarily recommended for use by road managers to establish: • Whether a route is a ‘Life Line’ as a means to providing additional supporting evidence that these routes have greater justification for upgrade funding than assessments based on AADT measures and benefitcost ratios • Which routes have the greatest claim for project funding based on ‘Life Line’ needs, when funding for these purposes is available. (Author/publisher)
Abstract