4. Enabling climate resilient infrastructure
   1. Enabling resilient infrastructure must consider the concept of ‘infrastructure for resilience’, which views the contribution of road asset infrastructure in the broader context of community and a region’s unique landscape. It means listening to our communities and understanding the context of road infrastructure in the resilience of our socio-economic fabric.[1]
   2. Building resilience in our infrastructure, communities, and businesses requires an urgent understanding of Australia’s current and future landscape, to rethink and adapt design and construction practices. Roads Australia stated:

We are at the confluence of climate, carbon reduction and resilience. We have to step back from practices we’ve used over the last 30 or 40 years. We have to consider the new landscape that we operate in, which is one that is affected by climate, one that is affected by 2030 and 2050, and our desire to be carbon neutral, and one that actually demands that we look at our infrastructure in completely different ways. Whilst ever we continue to put a bandaid on top of a bandaid on top of a bandaid, we will simply get this Frankenstein, if you will, of the way in which we go about maintaining our great infrastructure assets.[2]

Lifting road infrastructure resilience standards

Road asset engineering and construction standards

4.3State and territory governments generally develop their respective road engineering and technicalconstruction standards, based on Australian standards and jurisdictional requirements. Transport for NSW has a range of standards which draw technical expertise and best practice from Austroads Guides, international and Australian standards, and internally developed technical standards, specifications, and guidelines.[3]

4.4Similarly, the Victorian Government Department of Transport and Planning (VDTP) has developed jurisdictional requirements, alongside national standards, and contributes to the development and implementation of standards, codes, and guides through its participation as an Austroads member agency.[4]

4.5An extensive range of guides are available concerning road design and construction, including publications from Austroads and the National Transport Research Organisation (NTRO). Austroads is the collective of the Australian and New Zealand transport agencies, representing all levels of government, and produces the Austroads Guides to promote a nationally consistent approach to the design, maintenance, and operation of road networks, incorporating impacts of extreme weather events. The Guides are used extensively by state and territory and local governments.[5]

4.6The NTRO produces best practice guides to assist governments with design, maintenance and the use of appropriate materials supported by contemporary research.[6] Additionally, the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning (ATAP) guidelines provide a framework for land transport planning and assessment of project proposals.[7]

Issues with existing engineering and construction standards

4.7Evidence revealed different views around the value and suitability of existing engineering and construction standards in addressing climate-related weather requirements. However, there was strong evidence supporting the need to embed flexibility in the standards to incorporate evolving technologies and recycled materials, current and future road use trends, and future climate changes.

4.8For example, Roads Australia stressed the critical need to view the nation’s current road infrastructure issues and construction specifications through a different lens:

We now have to take a position that says we have different risks, we have different priorities, and we have a different landscape in the context of 2030-2050, and that must drive us to change the way in which we develop specifications, and the way in which we deal with user expectation of the network, and the way that we educate and communicate all of these things around the road infrastructure.[8]

4.9Furthermore, road design and construction specifications need to maintain flexibility to use technologies and materials appropriate to local areas, or options to modify and enhance local and existing materials to achieve optimal outcomes.[9]

4.10Road infrastructure is a long-lived investment, with roads typically having design lives of 20 to 40 years. Bridges have typical design lives of 100 years. However, the original specifications and standards used to design and construct much of Australia’s existing road networks are not consistent with changing climate conditions and road infrastructure requirements.[10]

4.11The Bureau of Meteorology advised that, while trends over recent decades have shown increases of around 10 per cent in some regions in the severity and frequency of heavy short-duration (hourly) rainfall events, these have not been considered in road construction design specifications.[11] While standards draw on design rainfall data, there is an opportunity to review standards to ensure they integrate climate scenarios and updated hydrological modelling to inform infrastructure design and construction.[12] Climate trends and scenarios are discussed under Chapter Two.

4.12Rural Works Pty Ltd further noted that:

…most of the current road network was built and developed from the 1950’s through to the 1980’s and was originally designed for a 30 to 40 year life. Hence these roads are well beyond their original design life notwithstanding rehabilitation works undertaken in the intervening period…It should be noted that concrete bridges are designed for a nominal life of 100 years and timber bridges for 80 years and there are still many timber bridges on the local road network.[13]

4.13Additionally, the Research Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation (rCITI) argued that standards and guidelines for the design of road infrastructure and materials are based on outdated empirical and laboratory analyses of conditions existing 10 to 15years ago, whereas standards need to allow for projected conditions over the next 30 to 50 years.[14]

4.14The NTRO further noted that road construction standards require a more resilient focus and need to incorporate the use of innovative materials and methodologies to enhance asset resilience.[15] The Transport Research Centre of the University of Technology (UTS), Sydney, echoed this position, noting existing disparities between contemporary research and current construction practice, and stressed the need to revise Australian standards and design guides.[16]

4.15Engineers Australia observed that two levels of work are required to lift road infrastructure resilience through engineering and construction standards. Firstly, engineering and design principles need to incorporate resilience and circular economy principles. Secondly, standards need to reflect supporting science around climate risks.[17]

4.16Engineering and construction company, Laing O’Rourke, noted that construction standards vary across jurisdictions and may favour commonly used methodologies, rather than best practice, and called for a system of national road construction standards to ensure broader consistency across states and territories.[18]

4.17Conversely, the Rural City of Wangaratta argued that current construction standards are adequate, asserting that the main cause of road asset infrastructure degradation arising from severe weather events is attributed to a failure of regular and adequate maintenance regimes due to insufficient funding.[19]

4.18The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) also contended that road engineering and construction standards are generally sound and regularly reviewed. IPWEA suggested that the state of the road network is more directly related to industry capability in applying the standards. IPWEA further maintained that reduced upfront capital investment expenditure in favour of short-term, lower cost investment decisions, along with increased heavy vehicle usage, will significantly increase road asset renewal demands over future years. IPWEA encouraged consideration of Standards Australia’s ‘AS5334-2013: Climate change adaptation for settlements and infrastructure – A risk based approach’ as part of design and construction standards.[20]

4.19Austroads informed the Committee that it cannot compel its member agencies to build to a certain standard. Members build to appropriate and feasible standards, having regard to modelling and cost-benefit analyses considering the type and utility of infrastructure, and flood immunity. Austroads further advised that the Austroads Guide to Road Design has been updated to include guidance on flood levels based on research undertaken by Geoscience Australia around increasing and changing effects of rainfall and run-off. Further work to support resilience includes significant review of the guidance on the effects of hydrology on roads and design elements of embankments, among other infrastructure considerations.[21]

4.20The NTRO recommended undertaking a review of existing standards to adopt updated specifications around materials and best practice with a focus on resilience, road safety, journey quality, cost effectiveness, and utility.[22]

Designing resilience

The unseen asset is in the design

4.21The Committee heard that upfront investment in the design process is critical to maximising long-term road infrastructure resilience, effective maintenance regimes, and cost benefits. As Transport for NSW stated:

The unseen asset is, in fact, in the design…The intelligence behind the design, the transfer of that design and the way that we should operate to maintain that asset over its life are critical to our success. It’s critical to getting all of the value from the construction there. I’ll give you a really good example. You can have a top-flight asset in construction and everything else. But if that drainage design isn’t right and isn’t something that we can easily maintain because it’s got a particular type of culvert structure or something like that, then…If I’m going to have to do a lane closure and operate in live traffic to clean a drain, the cost of cleaning that drain could be $10,000. If it’s designed in such a way that I can do that passively without having to do a lane closure and without doing anything, it could cost me a couple of hundred dollars. So, design of the operation of the asset is absolutely critical to success.[23]

4.22Transport for NSW further elaborated on the importance of understanding the interdependencies between key road network corridor assets, such as pavements, drainage, bridges, culverts, slopes, embankments, road barriers, signage and interchanges, and taking a holistic approach to target capital investments, shifting from a ‘resilient infrastructure’ to an ‘infrastructure for resilience’ outlook. This approach involves considering risks and mitigation as part of the design process, having regard to a region’s unique characteristics, susceptibility to natural hazards, the ability of a transport network to function when parts of the system have failed, evacuation routes, and local resource capacity to repair and restore networks to support connectivity.[24]

4.23Designing high-risk sections of road networks to fail in a controlled manner would allow other parts of the network to remain functional during and immediately following severe weather events. Engineers Australia noted innovative design solutions would assist asset repair and recovery by increasing predictability of failures and ensuring planned reconstruction measures are in place to aid expedient reconstruction.[25]

4.24However, the Australian Logistics Council (ALC) advised that redundancy of parts of the road network requires consideration of other transport modes and routes to ensure freight chain supply and community connectivity. The ALC emphasised the importance of viewing resilience through a multi-modal transport lens.[26] This issue is explored further in Chapter 5.

4.25Austroads stressed the importance of taking a holistic approach to road infrastructure planning and design:

It’s about how you prioritise those investments. Again, it’s not just about the cost-benefit analysis…The things that are important relate to the size of the community; the need to make sure that they’re connected is important. One of the terms of reference talks about new technology. When they’re built, it’s about not just aiming to a higher standard; when you have roads that suffer inundation, it's about getting back onto them quickly.[27]

4.26Austroads added that a holistic approach to infrastructure lifecycle design and management involves considering and integrating a range of complex factors including increased traffic volumes, freight loadings, increases in population trends, and impacts from severe weather events.[28]

4.27Similarly, Roads Australia called for a strategic, holistic approach to the design and management of the road network, noting that while parts of the network are managed by different jurisdictions, road users use all parts of the road network, including local, arterial and national roads. Therefore, planning and design must consider a road’s function within the network, including traffic volumes, freight task, and local requirements.[29] Roads Australia called for Australian Government investment in fit-for-purpose design and construction standards that lift resilience on road sections of strategic importance.[30]

4.28Ultimately, state and territory and local governments become the asset owners once roads are constructed. The Queensland Government Department of Transport and Main Roads (QTMR) advised the Committee that research to develop and improve specifications comes to the government for guidance as the asset owner.[31]

4.29The VDTP noted that collaboration between states and territories ‘will be critical to an integrated approach to improving the overall resilience of the road network through the development of new technical standards and deployment of new technologies for road design, construction, and maintenance’.[32]

4.30The East Gippsland Shire Council stated that there ‘is a need to invest in new standards and technologies to address the impact of those severe and changing weather events on roads and drainage, and we believe it’s unreasonable to expect these standards to be changed locally’.[33] Furthermore, methodologies to assess the implications of climate change at the local level to inform road upgrades and maintenance ‘would logically fall to the Australian Government to set those methodologies and to fund the assessment work to ensure that consistency’.[34] The Council further emphasised the importance of road design standards being climate change ready to allow for future weather events.[35]

Entrenching betterment in the design process

4.31Austroads emphasised that betterment is an essential requirement in road design and construction standards to ensure road infrastructure withstands the impacts of natural disasters.[36]

4.32The Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA) explained that betterment ‘is often about better handling of water and reducing the impact of water on the asset’.[37] Drainage has been a major focus of many betterment projects, ensuring that moisture ingress is avoided in over 90 per cent of events.[38]

4.33The QRA contended that betterment treatments are dependent upon the location and terrain, for example, betterment may include sealing a road to ensure community access. In other areas, betterment may involve realigning a road to move it away from a river and out of harm’s way.[39] Raising bridges and increasing culvert sizes were also provided as betterment examples.[40]

4.34Transport for NSW were of the view that betterment opportunities involve a range of resilience measures, including road shoulder widening, road realignment, improved drainage systems, enhanced bridge construction methods, extended road slopes, and the use of more resilient materials such as asphalt or concrete on sections of bitumen sealed roads prone to flooding.[41]

4.35The Local Government Association of Queensland stressed the importance of well-designed drainage systems to ensure flood resilience.[42] The East Gippsland Shire Council agreed that effective drainage was crucial:

…effective drainage to protect roads from inundation is one of the most important elements of the road network. New design and technologies are required to support areas that are now experiencing more regular and, in our experience, more intense and high levels of rainfall. The recent summer flooding of northern Victoria demonstrated that inadequate drainage and floods have contributed significantly to road damage and repair costs in our situation.[43]

4.36The Mitchell Shire Council called for road engineering and construction design standards to focus on improving drainage systems in existing and growth areas, including upgrading existing networks, constructing new systems, and ensuring adequate design of road slopes to facilitate water flow away from roads.[44]

Embedding heavy vehicle technology

4.37A number of submitters raised concerns that heavy vehicles and freight loadings were negatively impacting the road network.[45] The Murrindindi Shire Council raised concerns about the impact of increasingly frequent heavy freight traffic on the Shire’s ageing timber bridge network.[46] The Strathbogie Shire Council[47] and the Towong Shire Council[48] echoed these concerns, citing the impact of heavy agricultural and forestry vehicles on road networks not designed to carry such capacities.

4.38The WALGA noted that:

The impacts of additional heavy vehicle traffic on shortening road life and increasing maintenance requirements are greater for roads that were not designed and constructed for this purpose, which is the case for most Local Government roads.[49]

4.39The UTS asserted that current design standards are based on superseded traffic conditions, therefore the intensity and frequency of heavier loadings on road infrastructure significantly shortens the life of pavement material.[50] The rCITI added that the existing standards have not allowed for the impact of heavy vehicle technologies on road infrastructure, including the accelerated deterioration of pavement materials following water ingress.[51] Both the UTS and the rCITI stressed the need to incorporate heavy vehicle loadings and future technologies in design standards.[52]

Incorporating local knowledge

4.40The importance of working with local councils and communities to inform resilience planning was also raised throughout the inquiry. The QRA stressed the need to harness local understanding and knowledge of appropriate asset resilience planning, rather than states and territories imposing immunity standards or specifying betterment requirements that are not fit-for-purpose.[53]

4.41The Indigenous Reference Group (IRG) further emphasised the need for planning and design standards to consider place-based strategies based on local knowledge of community needs, and Indigenous knowledge of the natural flows of the terrain, particularly in remote locations, to build back better.[54]

4.42Furthermore, the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE) strongly recommended engaging Indigenous communities at the commencement of infrastructure planning and design to ‘learn from the deep knowledge that they have about this country and the way it works and traditional land and water management techniques’.[55]

4.43The ATSE elaborated:

That means understanding where the floodplains are over centuries rather than decades, for example. It means understanding bushfire patterns. These pieces of knowledge are incredibly useful to us as we plan for a resilient future, and there are existing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] professionals who have both traditional knowledge and more modern knowledge and qualifications as professors or associate professors.[56]

Fit-for-purpose design standards

4.44Submitters were supportive of establishing fit-for-purpose design and construction standards that consider local community needs, varying landscapes, and access to materials, as opposed to a higher level national set of standards. The Committee heard that understanding the specific issues facing local government areas is equally important as addressing engineering problems across the respective road networks.[57] The NTRO advised that different outcomes are required for various locations noting that community connectivity may be a higher requirement in one region, compared to freight task in another area. Therefore, road networks need to support the respective needs of each location.[58]

4.45State and territory government design and construction standards are at a higher level than required for most local government road functionality, presenting a barrier to uptake of recycled technologies as local governments have no suite of standards to include in procurement documents. Given geographical and geological differences across regions, standards need to be fit-for-purpose for a range of locations and climates. The NTRO stated that specifications need to consider local naturally available materials, while also incorporating newer technologies.[59] They noted that they had written a local government standard for Victoria to incorporate the use of crumb rubber in asphalt pavements, adapting fit-for-purpose resilience measures for regional areas, and demonstrating opportunities for standards across each state and territory.[60]

4.46Roads Australia believed that specifications need to account for access to appropriate local materials, or the ability to modify and enhance local materials to deliver required outcomes.[61] The Australian Local Government Association stated that as road construction materials vary widely across locations due to the quality or type of materials locally available, national standards would be impractical for local governments.[62]

4.47Along with access to materials, a local area’s terrain must also factor into design standards. The Western Queensland Alliance of Councils (WQAC) noted that roads in regional areas historically tend to follow waterways and the vertical geometry of the terrain, making them more susceptible to floods. Furthermore, the WQAC argued that design standards have customarily adhered to a one-size-fits-all approach, whereas modified standards need to consider affordability, local materials, and align with local requirements.[63]

4.48Roads Australia advised that pavements should be constructed as fit-for-purpose for time and place, allowing flexibility to add layers as usage evolves over time, taking into account higher traffic loads and heavier vehicles, and adaptation to changing climate conditions. This approach builds in flexibility to evolve with newer technologies to support ongoing resilience, while allowing for the application of circular economy principles as materials are recycled with each modification.[64]

Investment versus immunity

4.49Weather-proofing the totality of Australia’s road network to ensure immunity against severe weather events is not economically feasible.[65] However, trade-offs between investment and immunity, where factors such as the strategic importance, demand and service level of parts of the road network are identified, would enable targeted investment in resilience measures.[66]

4.50For example, Austroads advised the Committee that while it is not possible to construct the entire road network to a flood immunity level:

…it’s about how you best manage the situation to protect your roads so that, when the inundation clears you can get trucks, machinery and other things in to help the recovery. It’s about how a community can live with a period of isolation and how quickly, once the water recedes, you can do the assessment, allow the roads to reopen and allow the recovery to start….It’s about how you prioritise those investments.[67]

4.51Investment considerations also need to understand the surrounding environment and use of that landscape. The WQAC explained that a common issue in agricultural areas involves tensions between achieving road immunity, such as road realignment/raising, and maintaining overland flow required to fill dams and grow feed for cattle on floodplains. Raising road formation height and protecting defined water crossings with structures, rock and concrete would increase resilience, however, raising a road by even 100 millimetres (mm) may prevent overland flow during small and medium floods. The costs of achieving flood resilience while maintaining overland flow (such as culverts and bridges) is prohibitive over hundreds of kilometres (km) of floodplains and alternative fit-for-purpose methods are required.[68]

Assessing risk in design and planning

4.52The Committee heard that gaps in risk perception, assessment, and mitigation significantly impact the resiliency of road networks and communities. The rCITI observed that:

…there is a fundamental gap in the perceptions of risk and objective risks which we observe, and it has systematic and systemic impacts on communities as well. There are two aspects of creating resiliency. One is investing in self-resiliency, where are you investing in prevention. The second is when you are investing in vulnerability and after an event. That gap in perception systematically reduces our ability to invest in strategies that might impact long-term resiliency.[69]

4.53The Great South Coast Councils believed that existing road design methodologies did not consider the interaction between climate events and road infrastructure resilience or provide guidance on managing risk.[70] They called for design standards to integrate risk-based approaches to assist local governments to identify risk and prioritise preventive maintenance for assets vulnerable to adverse impacts arising from heat, rainfall, and water inundation.[71]

4.54The ATSE suggested that a whole-of-system approach that integrates climate and hydrology data into engineering design standards is required to inform risk assessment and proposed a risk-based approach incorporating probabilistic risk assessment tools to measure infrastructure resilience through modelling and risk ratios. The ATSE maintained that, given the increasingly random nature of extreme climate events, infrastructure design standards must include tools that assess the probability of an event’s occurrence.[72]

4.55Engineers Australia strongly emphasised the importance of understanding risk and designing for risk levels, stating that quantifying design conditions for any given risk is critical and dependent upon supporting science:

There are several elements to the risks. There’s obviously the probability of an event, and then there’s consequences of the event. To deal with that we need to understand where they might happen and model the expertise in what could happen.[73]

4.56Citing the 2022 flood events in Victoria that subsequently flowed into South Australia, Engineers Australia explained:

You had one big rain event which affected the best part of 800 or 900 kilometres of the landscape. The ‘what if’ scenarios are very important in that element. When we understand those things better, we can then deal with those design elements. Engineers Australia further qualified ….if the risk of a certain level of flood event is changing, we need to know the extent of that so that we can design the infrastructure accordingly.[74]

4.57However, Engineers Australia further asserted that the known climate risk profile is changing over time, therefore, to understand the magnitude of risks and their probabilities to inform engineering design standards[75], the level of climate science in Australia needs a coordinated and accelerated approach.[76]

Considering climate prediction uncertainty in risk assessment and mitigation

4.58As discussed in Chapter Two, a paucity of climate prediction data, particularly at the regional level, has been identified as a barrier to longer-term risk mitigation planning. Updated climate data modelling and predictions would inform preventive and adaptive asset management plans, particularly in areas subject to flooding and inundation. Climate data is desirable for predictive scenario modelling, informing betterment requirements, and identifying climate resilient corridors.[77]

4.59The National Emergency Management Agency highlighted the need for sufficiently localised decision-support tools to incorporate climate scenarios to inform infrastructure priorities, risk mitigation and planning.[78]

4.60However, the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (ARCCECE) asserted that while climate data can inform design standards with regard to possible future scenarios, quantitative data modelling at a local level or for climate corridors is not possible in most circumstances.[79]

4.61The Committee heard that probabilistic risk assessments incorporating climate data may be used to inform infrastructure planning, based on a likelihood of events occurring. While the ATSE acknowledged the current scientific uncertainties of predicting changing climate behaviour, it contended that weather and climate variables may be integrated into the design process.[80]

Challenges strengthening engineering and construction standards

4.62The Committee heard that measures to strengthen engineering and construction standards to promote climate resilience will need to address the tension between specifying climate resilience criteria and allowing for the uncertainty of future climate change predictions. Engineers Australia noted that while criteria need to be established to promote climate resilient design and construction standards, there are inconsistencies on how the design for future climate change is specified. Clarity around definitions of climate resilient criteria is needed at the national level to ensure consistency[81] and limit the potential risks of overinvestment or underinvestment in resilience.[82]

4.63Similarly, Transport for NSW highlighted the complexities integrating future climate trends into engineering standards, noting that a resilience framework is required to provide guidance on managing risks, and evaluating and prioritising investments to promote resilience outcomes. Furthermore, standards would need to be underpinned by a regulatory climate change adaptation framework to evaluate resilience performance over an asset’s lifecycle. However, further climate research and development is required, and expertise translating climate modelling into useful datasets to inform risks and develop meaningful standards.[83]

4.64Furthermore, while the Austroads Guide to Road Design has been updated on hydrology and drainage, the evolving climate conditions require ongoing research and updates to keep pace.[84] Austroads commented that while state and territory and local governments largely apply the Austroads guides and standards, part of the issue is usability of its suite of 11 guides:

To rebuild something, you might need to look at various different chapters…We are considering how to bring them together [digitally]. That would make it easier for governments to understand and, hopefully, for industry. Industry would have to do the work and then have standardised drawings which they can incorporate into their own drawing and design technology.[85]

4.65The Smart Pavements Australia Research Collaboration (SPARC) Hub told the Committee that, historically, there has been limited coordination between research programs for road pavement materials to support design standards. The SPARC Hub, which is based at Monash University, explained it is the first university-led research program for road pavements. It called for a national centre for transport infrastructure to facilitate a collaborative, coordinated road technology research and development effort.[86]

4.66The ALC stated the need to redefine the statistical understanding of climate related impacts. For example, one-in-100 (1:100) year events are now occurring three times per year in some areas, therefore the climate problem needs redefining to fully appreciate and consider the risks.[87]

4.67The rCITI added that:

…there’s a fundamental gap…about the one-in-100-year flood. That concept doesn’t make sense to the normal public. We need to rethink how we define and are communicating probabilities and outcomes to the general public and industry.[88]

4.68Economic and funding implications of strengthening engineering and construction standards were raised. The Tasmanian Government Minister for Infrastructure and Transport stressed that additional funding would be required to enhance road construction resilience standards, which may not be sustainable over the long-term.[89] The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland further noted that road design and construction in regional areas is limited by funding constraints.[90]

4.69The Rural City of Wangaratta commented that increasing road construction standards ‘would only have a detrimental impact on what it currently costs to build roads to the current standard’.[91]

4.70Additionally, the City argued that increased standards would impose a financial burden on industry manufacturers, noting that:

…unless we’ve got asphalt mills here or are prepared to produce the asphalt or concrete that we need, or we’re funding our quarries to be able to produce the material to a higher standard, we’re not going to see that change.[92]

Maintenance and data collection

Maintaining resilience

4.71Evidence received strongly contended that regular and preventive maintenance practices are vital to supporting asset resilience.[93] Furthermore, Rural Works Pty Ltd noted that:

The impact on the road and bridge network of the current severe weather event has been greatly exacerbated due to historical and ongoing lack of routine maintenance and rehabilitation works. Upgrading the design standards will help improve the durability of the network at considerable cost. However, the development of higher design standards and practices will not solve the current deterioration issues if the current lack of maintenance and rehabilitation continues.[94]

4.72As discussed in Chapter Three, a significant maintenance backlog exists across state and territory and local governments. Austroads noted that:

Where there is a challenge in building these better, stronger roads is in the maintenance expenditure. A couple of things have happened. Importantly, maintaining roads keeps its life longer. It is great to spend a lot of money on a road but then you have to maintain it to a standard so that it has a 40, 60, or 100-year life, depending on what type of asset it is. I know that has slipped.[95]

4.73Roads Australia asserted that a significant issue across regional, rural, and remote road networks was insufficient maintenance of road shoulders, drainage systems and culverts, further exacerbated by extreme weather events, heavy freight vehicles and inadequate vegetation management.[96]

4.74The NTRO advised that regular maintenance regimes, modified as necessary to address asset challenges and reflect evolving climate conditions and risks, and informed by asset condition data, will promote resilience. Predictive maintenance regimes need to incorporate resilient solutions, including strategic use of locally available natural materials and fit‑for‑purpose marginal (non-standard) materials, more frequent/skilled intervention, and alternative treatment options.[97]

4.75Furthermore, the NTRO recommended reimagining road management, including better data collection to inform the frequency of asset maintenance regimes, and the use of innovative and recycled materials, along with knowledge sharing, to promote evidence-based best practice and improve road asset resiliency.[98]

Data collection and sharing

4.76The Committee heard that understanding the road network asset condition and environmental conditions must form the foundation of developing appropriate best practice road management, including maintenance protocols and relevant climate resilient solutions.[99]

4.77The Western Australian Local Government Association advised that data also provides an objective measure of current conditions, suitability for freight task, and degree of community safety.[100]

4.78The NTRO collects data for state and territory transport agencies on a fee‑for‑service basis via its Intelligent Pavement Assessment Vehicle (iPAVE) technology, which measures road conditions, along with survey vehicles used on unsealed roads. Data includes road strength and condition—cracking and rutting, which exposes roads to water ingress and compromises road safety—and road profiles. The iPAVE technology identifies areas of pavement subject to failure, assisting government prioritisation of maintenance expenditure.[101]

4.79Evidence also highlighted emerging technologies including vehicle-mounted cameras[102] and aerial footage via drones and satellite imagery[103], which significantly increase the efficiency of data collection over manual methods.

4.80However, evidence strongly indicated significant data gaps across road asset collection, harmonisation, and sharing. While the NTRO collects standardised performance data on state and territory and federal highway networks, it noted that the largest gaps are within local government road networks due to insufficient funding.[104] Austroads noted inconsistencies across data collection standards, with data held in disparate systems.[105] The SPARC Hub indicated that while road pavement data is collected, it may not be leveraged sufficiently to inform sound asset management practice.[106]

4.81Similarly, the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (BITRE) discovered data gaps across Australia’s freight network, with issues around inconsistency and accessibility. The BITRE also identified disparate systems of collection and storage, and lack of sharing capacity due to incompatible data platforms.[107]

4.82With regard to road asset data sharing, the Committee heard that state and territory governments are willing to share[108], however, the challenge reverts to data gaps and lack of standardised data across jurisdictions.[109]

4.83The NTRO advised that the Australian Government is attempting to collect nationally-harmonised road network datasets through the National Service Level Standards (NSLS). However, challenges include disparate data collection requirements and practices across jurisdictions, along with inherent data harmonisation inaccuracies, compared to standardised data collection.[110]

4.84The Committee heard that Austroads is developing a road asset data standard, which will use consistent counting rules across Australia.[111] The Road Asset Data Standard (RADS, AP-R6733-22) will create a common definition of road asset data, ensure consistency in collection and format, automate recording methods, and guide Austroads members on data exchange and availability.[112]

4.85However, the Committee also heard that sophisticated survey and modelling technologies are cost prohibitive for many local government councils. The Victorian Greenhouse Alliances (VGA) noted that insufficient funds to use survey technologies means that reactive repair work, rather than preventive maintenance, is more within their remit. The VGA advocated for a collective of councils to share technology and equipment costs, training, skills, and knowledge to access predictive technology asset assessments.[113]

Road assets and road safety

4.86Road safety concerns featured prominently in evidence to the inquiry, which noted that unsealed road surfaces on high-speed roads, particularly motorcycle routes, and tourists unfamiliar with local road conditions, pose a significant risk.[114] Maintenance backlogs and substandard road conditions further raised safety concerns for state and territory and local governments.[115] Furthermore, the Australian Flexible Pavement Association (AFPA) pointed out that:

The ongoing viability, level of service and safety is entirely dependent on the significant contributions of all levels of Government to new projects and maintenance of the existing network…

A renewed approach to road safety and stability means not only ensuring roads are maintained now but that we instate a proactive approach to future-proofing our roadways.[116]

4.87The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) noted that impaired transport infrastructure arising from severe weather events impacts road user safety and travel efficiency, and increases costs, particularly in the disaster recovery phase. According to the AAA, higher quality road construction and maintenance standards would ensure safer roads for community and industry. The AAA called for transparency of infrastructure investment and national road safety data to inform transport resilience and road safety planning and recommended that Australian Government funding for jurisdictions be conditional upon the provision of road safety data.[117]

4.88The Australasian College of Road Safety noted that the choice of materialsused on upgraded and new road asset works needs to account for usage by motorcyclists, pedestrians, and cyclists, and that safety elements, such as skid-resistant surfaces, should be employed in the design process.[118]

4.89The NTRO advised its NetRisk2.0 tool combines road data star ratings with an assessment of road risk factors, allowing engineers to determine the safety risk for road construction works and implement improvements, such as shoulder widening, lane widening, or shoulder sealing. The NTRO encouraged use of the tool by all jurisdictions.[119]

Climate resilient corridors

4.90Transport corridors provide vital connectivity for communities, businesses and industry. Transport for NSW stated that the critical role of transport corridors was highlighted in the 2022 Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements Report, noting consequences of prolonged road and rail closures and risks to supply chains, due to bushfires, floods and other weather events.[120]

4.91Further, limited alternative access routes disrupt communities and detours add significant time and distance, particularly across larger landscapes. There are limited alternative access routes in the Northern Territory if main highways are closed, necessitating lengthy detours where roads are passible. However, there is generally no suitable alternative and access routes are generally unsealed and of much lower standard than the national network.[121]

4.92The Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics (NTDIPL) stressed the need to prioritise flood immunity across the National Land Transport Network and National Key Freight Route networks across the Northern Territory, Western Australia, South Australia, and Queensland. These included the Stuart Highway from Darwin to South Australia, the Victoria Highway from Katherine to Western Australia, and the Barkly Highway from the Northern Territory to Queensland. The Department called for the Australian Government to implement a Q100 (1 in 100-year) flood immunity standard across the national highway network.[122]

4.93Vulnerability of key freight routes was examined by the BITRE’s Road and Rail Supply Chain Resilience Review – Phase 1, which found that supply chains in north and central Australia were more vulnerable to climate risks, with flooding posing the highest risk. Phase 2 of the Review will develop options to strengthen resilience of road and rail networks against climate risks.[123] The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) Transport Network Strategic Investment Tool mathematical model of supply chains and freight routes analysed network resilience of 52 key freight routes as part of the Review.[124]

4.94The ALC emphasised the importance of considering the bigger picture, of community connectivity and import and export trade routes. When considering redundancy and road corridors, it is crucial to consider other transport modes and alternative freight supply routes when climate events impact the transport network.[125]

4.95The Committee heard about state and local government initiatives to assess existing road networks and identify climate resilient corridors for future investment. For example, Transport for NSW assessed corridor resilient case studies using the NSLS to measure natural disaster exposure and investigate opportunities to integrate resilience planning into the NSLS road network performance levels. The NSLS model determines the magnitude of deficiency of road network disruptions and identifies and prioritises interventions. Transport for NSW found that, while the NSLS framework could assist prioritising transport networks, additional work would be required to measure resilience at a corridor and transport route level.[126]

4.96The Tasmanian Government Minister for Infrastructure and Transport noted that future state road improvement projects are now channelled through the state’s Corridor Strategy initiative to identify resilient corridors for road construction projects. For example, the Corridor Strategy has identified road corridors vulnerable to rising sea levels and coastal inundation and is considering a range of options, including realignment and resilient road and bridge designs to improve immunity.[127]

4.97A Road Network Route Hierarchy and Funding Prioritisation Map is being finalised by the WQAC to promote a strategic, coordinated approach to identifying and prioritising resilient road corridor investment. The WQAC recommended a similar approach be established across all levels of government to identify and prioritise resilient corridors.[128]

4.98The Mitchell Shire Council called for a collaborative approach across all levels of government to identify climate resilient corridors in regional areas, bringing together climate data analysis, road corridor suitability assessments, stakeholder engagement across communities, environmental groups, and industry, and risk assessment, such as flood immunity.[129]

4.99The Committee heard that road corridor planning needs to incorporate social issues, such as communication, education, community access and economic sustainability. For example, the IRG stressed the importance of community connectivity, advising that many residents require arterial access roads to purchase food due to high costs in some remote locations, and to participate in social and community activities.[130]

4.100Engineers Australia recommended undertaking an evaluation of the resilience of the current road network to inform risk mitigation and climate corridor assessment.[131] When asked about the potential timeframe and costs, Engineers Australia noted that the evaluation would need to be performed at a regional level, using local knowledge, and undertaken by the relevant jurisdiction’s road agency, but ideally coordinated federally to ensure consistency and agreement on levels of risk. However, such a task assumes climate data exists in updated formats and reliably represents current risks.[132]

Paving the way

4.101This section discusses the key issues around practical requirements to addressing road infrastructure resilience through:

• pavement materials and construction costs
• access to road pavement materials
• innovative pavement technologies
• barriers to uptake of innovative technologies.

Pavement materials and construction costs

4.102Water ingress is the most significant threat to pavement performance and integrity. Preventing water ingress and minimising crack formation is highly dependent upon the type of pavement seal used. 90 per cent of Australia’s sealed road network comprises thin, permeable seals, typically 20 mm, with underlying unbound granular, crushed rock layers. These pavements are vulnerable to moisture, temperature, and flooding. Heavier vehicle traffic loadings exponentially increase the damage. While this method of construction has been cost-effective in Australia, it has not withstood recent severe weather events.[133]

4.103The other 10 per cent of roads are main freeways, engineered to a higher level, using thick asphalt pavements to support heavily trafficked areas.[134] However, these pavements can be susceptible to high temperatures, leading to cracks and water ingress.[135]

4.104The Committee heard that higher upfront investment in thicker, double sprayed seals (around 40 mm) compared to thin spray seals will be more cost-effective in the long-term, creating more durable pavements.[136]

4.105SPARC Hub provided a breakdown of sealed and unsealed roads within Australia’s total 874,143 km road network:

• sealed roads comprise 381,185 km, or 44 per cent
• unsealed roads comprise 492,958 km, or 56 per cent
• sprayed sealed roads are equivalent to approximately 90 per cent of the total length of the sealed road network
• sprayed sealed roads are equivalent to approximately 39 per cent of the total length of the Australian road network.[137]
  106. In addition to the above, 60 per cent of the road network comprises unsealed roads, which are more vulnerable to erosion, corrugations, and rutting.[138]
  107. SPARC Hub provided estimated costs[139] for materials and construction of varying pavement surface layers per lane-km:

Source: SPARC Hub, Supplementary submission 84.1, p. 2.

4.108The Committee heard that, where the average cost of sealing a road was $1million dollars per km, this has now increased by about 30 to 40 per cent over the past few years, driven by the inflationary environment. For example, the NTDIPL advised that sealing a road is currently around $1.3 million to $1.4 million per km, using the Tanami Road upgrade as an example.[141]

4.109The Scenic Rim Shire Council advised that some of their road construction projects have cost in excess of $2 million dollars per km depending on the nature of the subgrade soil.[142]

4.110Transport for NSW noted that construction costs relating to pavement type are influenced by a range of factors, including traffic volumes and environmental elements such as subgrade geology and soil stability.[143]

Access to road construction materials

4.111Challenges accessing suitable pavement construction materials and haulage was a recurring theme throughout the inquiry. The NTDIPL advised the Committee that access to materials is a significant challenge in remote areas, particularly where those materials are located on Indigenous lands, and therefore access must be negotiated.[144] Furthermore, due to finite supplies of quality natural materials and the remote location of road projects, new quarries need to be established to manufacture gravel, rather than using ready-made materials from existing quarries, substantially increasing construction costs.[145]

4.112The Rural City of Wangaratta noted that while there are a limited number of concrete or asphalt plants nearby, they cannot afford to stop manufacturing existing products to produce new materials. Furthermore, haulage distances from other plants would reduce the cost-effectiveness of using innovative materials.[146]

Innovating road construction

4.113The Committee heard evidence of several technologies that are successfully used to improve road pavement quality, performance and resilience. For example, Engineers Australia noted that porous technologies such as foamed bitumen can be more cost effective, with strength capabilities resilient to extreme heat and floods.[147]

4.114Similarly, the VDTP highlighted cost and performance benefits of foamed bitumen, ‘providing a suitable intermediate option between traditional sprayed seal and hot-mix asphalt roads’.[148] Used in conjunction with recycled materials, the product may prove more cost effective. Further, foamed bitumen is more resilient, and allows earlier traffic access without rehabilitation following flood events. The VDTP noted that test sites in the state have demonstrated performance improvements with foamed bitumen, compared to granular sprayed seal roads.[149]

4.115Crumb rubber added to bitumen seals was consistently promoted as a high-performing pavement material for use on high water roads due to its crack-resistant properties[150]. Austroads noted that:

…crumb rubber modified binders are gaining popularity across Australia as a sustainable and resilient technology that can provide improved performance when used in sprayed seals and asphalt, especially in severe and challenging locations.[151]

4.116The Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CRJO) advised that crumb rubber is universally used and readily available, and therefore it may routinely be specified as a requirement in tender contracts.[152] The CRJO noted that engineers and local governments are sometimes risk averse when trialling new pavement materials, due to community backlash in the event of road network failures. Nevertheless, independent research and advice provided by organisations such as the NTRO encourages greater confidence and uptake of innovative solutions.[153]

4.117Similarly, the AFPA noted that crumb rubber ‘can extend the life of a spray seal significantly, and it can improve the performance of the spray seal and its broader effectiveness significantly’.[154]

Laying the foundation

4.118Resilient road asset infrastructure is dependent upon a solid foundation to ensure long-term benefits.[155] The quality, performance and resilience of a road is reliant upon good-quality, sound construction and base compaction. The National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE) referenced Intelligent Compaction Technology (ICT), a new system where a plant’s existing rollers are fitted with a GPS, a measuring sensor, and display screens, providing real-time feedback on the level of compaction, improving construction quality and uniformity.[156] Regarding costs, the NACOE advised that:

…to retrofit an existing roller with the technology…you’re looking at between $20,000 and $30,000 for a typical rural highway project to include the GPS and accelerometer technology. Then in total you’re looking at about $100,000 for the whole process on a project.[157]

4.119ICT establishment costs are high given the new technology is not currently widely available in Australia. However, the technology and equipment is an option in some of the QTMR’s specifications.[158]

Barriers to uptake of innovative technologies

4.120Along with challenges accessing materials and haulage costs, recurring themes around barriers to uptake of innovative materials included cost, lack of awareness and education, and negative perceptions. Engineers Australia noted that lack of awareness of available materials and appropriate methods of construction, along with negative perceptions, risk aversion, and insufficient supply were primary barriers to uptake of innovative technologies.[159]

4.121Furthermore, Engineers Australia noted that the financial cost of resilience and insufficient funding arrangements often limit the uptake of new technologies by designers and planners, calling for funding allocations to reflect the role of new technologies in improving road asset resilience.[160]

4.122The VGA noted that ‘implementation of new alternative materials into road construction is not a simple process and may be considered to be more expensive than business as usual’.[161]

4.123Similarly, the WQAC noted that the use of waterproofing products is cost prohibitive, given the scale of the Queensland road network. Therefore, typical methods such as sealing unsealed roads and improving shoulder alignment are likely to be more robust, practical, and cost-effective across regional, rural, and remote areas. Waterproofing materials could be applied to vulnerable sections of priority roads, until the cost effectiveness of new technologies improves.[162]

4.124The Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT) further raised the issue of the scale of the Northern Territory network, noting additional funding is required to implement resilient technologies.[163] The LGANT called for government support for councils in trialling new construction methods and materials.[164]

Driving a circular economy

4.125Roads Australia emphasised the benefits of circular economies in building flexibility and longer-term cost benefits into road asset construction and investment, stating that:

You need to keep a very agile view of how you build infrastructure. This goes back to the whole point around circular economies. What can I do with that material in its second life? What can I do with that material in its third life? You have to start thinking about that now and taking this long-term view of the asset, because we really don’t know what’s even five or ten years down the track. I think we’ve got to think about pavements and infrastructure in the most flexible and agile way we possibly can to meet a future use that we mightn’t quite understand right now.[165]

4.126Recycled and reused materials promote sustainability, while strengthening road resiliency, durability and performance. Tests of a Victorian-developed asphalt mix composed of recycled glass, plastic and reclaimed asphalt has heightened asphalt longevity, resistance to cracking and resilience compared to traditional road pavement materials.[166]

4.127The NTRO noted that recyclable materials improve the durability of roads and ‘reduce the materials we send to landfill which will result in much better environmental outcomes’.[167] The use of recycled materials, in some cases up to 100per cent where appropriate, provides sustainability benefits, significantly reducing construction and demolition waste diverted from landfill.[168]

4.128The CRJO advised the Committee of its $1.5 million investment into circular economy materials such as plastic, glass, and rubber and opportunities for use in public infrastructure, including road assets. The CRJO is preparing business cases with a view to public and private investment.[169]

4.129According to the Hiway Group, on site recycling is becoming more mainstream, which involves rehabilitating sections of pavement by introducing dry powder, polymer, or bituminous binders, eliminating moisture sensitivity and increasing pavement strength. The method reduces waste and is used as maintenance rehabilitation, providing carbon reductions of around 40 per cent.[170]

Reducing carbon emissions

4.130It is essential that circular economy principles be viewed through the lens of reducing climate change impacts and the frequency and severity of weather events. Engineers Australia advised the Committee that:

…as a profession, and, more critically, as a society, we need to look at how circular economy principles can be incorporated into road design, and we need to look at how we can decarbonise our infrastructure and the economy to reduce these severe weather events.[171]

4.131Additionally, Roads Australia stated that:

We know what has to be done. But then to break through the barrier, through the bureaucracies, to get those specification changes, to get people to think differently about what it is that we’re doing, to use alternate materials, to be prepared to take a couple of risks and step away from something they think has worked for many years, albeit the environment has changed. We’re trying to get to carbon neutrality.[172]

4.132Importantly, the AFPA drew the connection between the nation’s extensive maintenance backlog and increased carbon emissions, noting that the:

…lack of resilience in the network and the backlog of maintenance of our network means that we have rougher roads and poorer conditions that are typically more susceptible to damage, which typically means that we create more carbon emissions in having to fix them… we’ve missed the maintenance treatments, we’ve seen the damage and the solutions to fix that road are much more expensive, require much more raw material and you get much more emissions when actually doing the work.[173]

Barriers to uptake of recycled materials

4.133Frequently raised barriers to uptake included a lack of awareness and education[174], lower confidence in emerging technologies, including insufficient evidence relative to long-term performance, and disproportionate market demand and supply.[175] Additional barriers for rural and regional areas include material affordability and availability and the distance and cost of transporting materials from recycling facilities.[176]

4.134The Hiway Group noted that a lack of cross-industry consistency around recycling design protocols and specifications and the perceived risk of implementing new practices and materials were significant barriers to uptake of on-site recycling methods.[177]

Workforce issues

4.135Engineers and contractor workforce shortages, along with skills shortages within the construction sector were recurring themes throughout the inquiry. The CRJO advised the Committee that the engineering shortage is the leading skill shortage in Australia, presenting challenges for local governments competing for scarce resources against higher paid, more flexible working arrangements under state agencies.[178]

4.136Engineers Australia emphasised the gravity of the current engineering skills shortage, noting the critical need to ensure skills are available to manage assets throughout the life cycle, particularly in regional Australia. Furthermore, digital engineering skills are needed to accommodate new and evolving technologies such as digital asset management tools.[179] Reductions in the flows of skilled overseas labour have exacerbated the crisis.[180]

4.137The AFPA reflected on the relationship between workforce shortages and the ongoing decrease in maintenance spending, stating that:

In the last 10-plus to 15 years, we’ve seen that the private sector has predominantly pulled away from a decentralised regional approach. As the maintenance spend in regional Australia has continued to decline, they’ve got to a level where it wasn’t that sustainable for them to maintain a high-investment footprint in regional Australia.[181]

4.138Ongoing maintenance work programs form the training ground for construction workers, leading to the next generation of skilled workers.[182] This is particularly important with an ageing workforce and loss of skill sets, reducing local councils’ ability to perform in-house construction projects.[183]

4.139The SWEK explained that engaging contractors to undertake works in remote areas is frequently problematic, with contractors often charging a ‘Kimberley Factor’, for mobilisation and demobilisation costs. The SWEK noted that the Rawlinsons Construction Cost Guide indicates Kimberley construction costs are 140 per cent over Perth costs. However, the SWEK advised that actual costs are closer to about 300 per cent in the Kununurra town and inner region, and closer to 400 per cent in the outer more remote regions.[184]

4.140The NTRO recommended pilot programs delivered in regional areas, facilitating contractor education and training on the use of new materials to build a skilled workforce able to undertake fit-for-purpose work projects in local council areas.[185]

4.141The NTRO also recommended local governments be supported through education and training programs in best practice methodologies in the application of recycled materials and innovative technologies.[186]

Procurement drivers

4.142The Committee heard that government procurement processes are well placed to facilitate uptake of innovative technologies and recyclable materials. For example, since 2022, the Victorian Government has required tenderers and contractors to maximise their use of recycled materials, increasing circular economy demand and workforce capability.[187]

4.143The AFPA encouraged all levels of government to foster uptake of renewable engineering materials through construction project tendering specifications.[188]

4.144The ARRB/NTRO 2022 report Best Practice Advice on Recycled Material Use in Road and Rail Infrastructurereviewed government policies and actions to support a transition to a circular economy using recycled materials in road and rail infrastructure. The report examined the application of recycled materials, emerging opportunities, market maturity, and supply.[189]

4.145The report found that state and territory government waste policies and targets are driving demand and supply of recycled materials, creating new market opportunities, and helping deliver a circular economy. However, there is a need for more quantifiable targets to increase the use of recycled materials by both government and industry.[190]

4.146Moreover, while the Australian Government’s Sustainable Procurement Guide recommends setting mandatory, minimum or desirable requirements for the use of recycled materials in project planning, only Victoria and South Australia provide explicit guidance, with remaining jurisdictions’ guidance provided as desirable procurement outcomes.[191]

4.147While many recycled materials are widely used, there are opportunities to increase usage of existing materials and uptake of emerging technologies, supported by policy and procurement drivers and updated design specifications.[192]

Committee comment

4.148Enabling climate resilient infrastructure is predicated upon the fundamental elements of design, engineering and construction standards that adapt to our evolving climatic environment. However, much of Australia’s road network has been designed and constructed to superseded traffic volumes, freight loadings, populations, and climate conditions.

4.149Collaboration and coordination between the Australian Government, state and territory governments, the scientific community, and industry is needed to revise national design and construction standards to reflect Australia’s changing socio-economic and climatic environments. The standards also need to reflect a considered approach, lifting resilience on strategically important road corridors, while also allowing for fit-for-purpose designs to account for varying community and geographical landscapes.

4.150Road network expenditure should maximise value for money. Road construction costs and materials have increased under the existing inflationary environment. Road design and engineering standards must reflect contemporary design and construction methodologies that enable cost-efficiencies through the use of innovative materials and enable long-term road asset durability.

4.151It is essential that the revised standards are supported by sound evidence-based research incorporating the use of innovative road asset materials and methodologies to strengthen resilience and embed sustainability through recyclable materials.

4.152While resilient infrastructure must be adaptive to the changing climate, the contribution of transport infrastructure to climate change must be considered and remediated through circular economy principles in road asset construction. Procurement processes that specify requirements for the use of innovative technologies and recycled materials will assist uptake and support sustainability and a circular economy.

4.153However, ongoing maintenance of Australia’s road infrastructure assets, incorporating evidence-based practices and reflecting increased risk, must be prioritised to reduce climate impacts and support longer-term asset life and resilience.

4.154Collaboration between the Australian Government and state and territory governments is required to facilitate revision of our road design and construction standards to enable the construction, upgrade and maintenance of our road assets to adapt to a changing climate. Revised standards that reflect contemporary and adaptive designs and methodologies would maximise value for money on future government road infrastructure investments. With local governments owning, maintaining, repairing and upgrading the majority of the national road network it is vital that federal and state and territory governments facilitate access to innovative technologies and recycled materials which can potentially reduce short- and long-term costs and improve network performance.

4.155The Committee recommends that the Australian Government collaborate with state and territory governments, the scientific community, and industry to revise national road infrastructure design and construction standards, allowing for:

• state and territory and place-based resilience requirements
• contemporary and adaptive engineering and design principles
• innovative and recycled technologies
• local government assistance to access innovative technologies and recycled materials
• consideration and identification of climate resilient corridors, including through the Australian Government’s Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport and Research Economics’ Road and Rail Supply Chain Resilience Review.

It is expected that the standards would be informed by Austroads Guides, National Transport Research Organisation research, Bureau of Meteorology and Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation research, and industry standards.

4.156The current National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects’ co-funded investment objectives considers climate and disaster resilience and environmental sustainability as part of its assessment process. Embedding requirements for adaptive engineering design and minimum construction standards into procurement processes under the new Federal Funding Agreements Schedule would support government planning and investment into climate resilient infrastructure.

4.157The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen procurement requirements under the new Federation Funding Agreements Schedule on transport infrastructure for state and territory government co-funded project proposals to incorporate resilience design, minimum road construction requirements, and performance specifications to enable sustainable long-term resilience over an asset’s lifecycle.

4.158The current National Partnership Agreement on Land Transport Infrastructure Projects’ objectives takes into account climate and disaster resilience and environmental sustainability as part of its assessment process for co-funded state and territory government project proposals. Embedding minimum or preferred requirements for the use of innovative and recycled materials would provide opportunities to increase the use of these materials indirectly driving demand and fostering circular economy principles. The procurement requirements would also maximise value for money in government investments in road asset infrastructure.

4.159The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen procurement project specifications under the new Federation Funding Agreements Schedule for state and territory government co-funded project proposals to include minimum or preferred requirements for the use of innovative road asset technologies and recyclable materials and methodologies to enable sustainable long-term asset resilience and support a circular economy.

4.160Current knowledge of the benefits and application of innovative technologies and recycled materials to enhance road asset resilience is limited across government, particularly some local government areas. Increasing the uptake of recycled materials and enabling circular economy principles requires collaboration across government and industry to support wider awareness and education around the use of these materials to highlight their benefits and reduce any negative perceptions.

4.161The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with its state and territory counterparts and industry to raise awareness and education of innovative technologies and recyclable materials and construction methods to support road asset infrastructure sustainability and support a circular economy.

4.162While road agencies, state and territory governments, and some local government areas collect road asset data, inconsistencies have been identified across data collection standards, with data frequently siloed and held in disparate systems. A standardised data format, including a common definition of road asset data, and data sharing across government would support targeted, evidence-based road infrastructure investment. A standardised road asset dataset would also inform maintenance priorities and best practice asset management, supporting road resilience.

4.163Improved data collection, particularly on road conditions and accidents, would inform and enhance the frequency of asset maintenance regimes to address gaps, especially in local government road networks.

4.164The Committee recommends all levels of Government to undertake a proactive approach to build and strengthen their data skills and capabilities to inform better decisions, particularly on road conditions and accidents.

4.165The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory and local governments and road agencies, including Austroads and the National Transport Research Organisation, to address existing road asset data gaps by developing a comprehensive understanding of the road network condition and standardised road asset dataset, with agreement on the following:

• a common definition of road asset data
• a consistent format across road asset data collection and storage.
  166. Workforce and skills shortages have been raised as a significant issue during the inquiry, with many contractors unavailable to carry out routine maintenance works and other construction projects for local governments. Developing in-house skills would reduce reliance on contractors. However, this approach may be more financially viable under local council collectives in some areas.

4.167The Committee recommends that the Australian Government encourage state and territory governments to work with local governments to develop skills-based networks across council collectives to support asset management training and education to address workforce skills shortages across road construction and maintenance.

Footnotes

[1]Mr Philip Helberg, Chief Executive Officer, Infrastructure WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 2.

[2]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Board Member, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 8.

[3] Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 8.

[4]Victorian Government Department of Transport and Planning (VDTP), Submission 67, p. 6.

[5]Austroads, Submission 10, p. 1.

[6]Mr Michael Caltabiano, Chief Executive Officer, National Transport Research Organisation (NTRO), Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 6.

[7]Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, and the Arts (DITRDCA), Submission 22, p. 5.

[8]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 9.

[9]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 9.

[10]Austroads, Submission 10, p. 6.

[11]Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), Submission 15, p. 2.

[12]BoM, Submission 15, p. 2.

[13]Rural Works Pty Ltd, Submission 8, p. 4.

[14]Professor Vinayak Dixit, Director, Research Centre for Integrated Transport Innovation (rCITI), Committee Hansard, 4July 2023, p. 23.

[15]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 6.

[16]Professor Rujkiatkamjorn Cholachat, Program Leader, Transport Research Centre, University of Technology (UTS), Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 23.

[17]Mr Scott Elaurant, Deputy Chair, Transport Australia Society, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20April 2023, p. 2. See also InQuik Pty Ltd, Submission 55, p. 2.

[18]Laing O’Rourke, Submission 79, p. 2.

[19]Rural City of Wangaratta, Submission 66, p. 2.

[20]Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA), Submission 18, p. 8.

[21]Dr Geoff Allan, Chief Executive, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 3.

[22]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 10.

[23]Mr Thomas Grosskopf, Executive Director, Network and Assets, Transport for NSW, Committee Hansard, 4July 2023, p. 14.

[24]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, pp. 8–9.

[25]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 7.

[26]Dr Hermione Parsons, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Logistics Council (ALC), Committee Hansard, 4July 2023, p. 27.

[27]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 4.

[28]Austroads, Submission 10, p. 4.

[29]Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 5.

[30]Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 8.

[31]Mr Paul Schmidt, Acting Executive Director, Program Management and Delivery, Queensland Government Department of Transport and Main Roads (QTMR), Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 8.

[32]VDTP, Submission 67, p. 9.

[33]Councillor Mark Reeves, Mayor, East Gippsland Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 21.

[34]Councillor Mark Reeves, Mayor, East Gippsland Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 21.

[35]Councillor Mark Reeves, Mayor, East Gippsland Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 23.

[36]Austroads, Submission 10, p. 6.

[37]Mr James Scott, General Manager, Integration and Coordination, Queensland Reconstruction Authority (QRA), Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 8.

[38]Mr James Scott, QRA, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 8.

[39]Mr James Scott, QRA, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 8.

[40]Canberra Region Joint Organisation, Eurobodalla Shire Council, and Wingecarribee Shire Council, Supplementary submission 47.1, p. 1. See also Murrindindi Shire Council, Submission 69, p. 6.

[41]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p.15.

[42]Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), Submission 56, p. 2. See also SPARC Hub, Submission 84, p. 11; Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 7; and Austroads, Submission 10, p. 7.

[43]Councillor Mark Reeves, Mayor, East Gippsland Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 21.

[44]Mitchell Shire Council, Submission 46, p. 4.

[45]LGAQ, Submission 56, pp. 7–8. See also Smart Pavements Australia Research Collaboration (SPARC) Hub, Monash University, Submission 84, p. 6; Mr Nils Hay, Mid West Development Commission, Committee Hansard, 10 August 2023, p. 1; Grain Producers Australia, Submission 40, p. 3; and Great South Coast Councils, Submission 34, p. 4.

[46]Mr Peter Bain, Manager, Sustainability and Assets, Murrindindi Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17July 2023, p. 20.

[47]Councillor Laura Binks, Mayor, Strathbogie Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 26.

[48]Councillor Andrew Whitehead, Mayor, Towong Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 2.

[49]Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA), Submission 90, p. 1.

[50]Professor Rujkiatkamjorn Cholachat, UTS, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 26.

[51]Professor Vinayak Dixit, rCITI, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 26.

[52]Professor Rujkiatkamjorn Cholachat, UTS, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 26. See also Australia Post, Submission 73, p. 2.

[53]Mr James Scott, QRA, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 8.

[54]Mr Troy Fraser, Chief Executive Officer, Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council and Indigenous Reference Group (IRG) member, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 18.

[55]Ms Kylie Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 2.

[56]Ms Kylie Walker, ATSE, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, pp. 5–6.

[57]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 8.

[58]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 8.

[59]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 7.

[60]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 7.

[61]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 9.

[62]Australian Local Government Association, Submission 30, p. 3.

[63]Western Queensland Alliance of Councils (WQAC), Submission 63, p. 2.

[64]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 13.

[65]Dr Hermione Parsons, ALC, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 24.

[66]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, 4 July 2023, pp. 8–9

[67]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February, p. 4.

[68]WQAC, Submission 63, p. 2.

[69]Professor Vinayak Dixit, rCITI, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 23.

[70]Great South Coast Councils, Submission 34, p. 2.

[71]Great South Coast Councils, Submission 34, p. 2.

[72]Ms Kylie Walker, ATSE, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 2.

[73]Mr Chris Baker, Member, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 2.

[74]Mr Chris Baker, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 2.

[75]Mr Scott Elaurant, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 4.

[76]Mr Chris Baker, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 3.

[77]VGA, Submission 32, p. 2. See also LGAQ Submission 56, p. 2; and Mitchell Shire Council, Submission 46, p. 5.

[78]National Emergency Management Agency, Submission 31, p. 8.

[79]Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (ARCCECE), Submission 24, p. 5.

[80]Dr Helen Cleugh, Fellow, ATSE, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 3.

[81]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 6.

[82]Professor Andrew Pitman, ARCCECE, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023,p. 8.

[83]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 9.

[84]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 6.

[85]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 7.

[86]Professor Jayantha Kodikara, Director, Smart Pavements Australia Research Collaboration (SPARC) Hub, Monash University Committee Hansard, 1 June 2023, p. 5.

[87]Dr Hermione Parsons, ALC, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 27.

[88]Professor Vinayak Dixit, rCITI, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023,p. 28.

[89]Mr Michael Ferguson MP, Deputy Premier and Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Tasmanian Government, Submission 11, p. 2.

[90]The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ), Submission 57, p. 3. See also Shire of Pingelly, Submission 12, p. 1.

[91]Mr Marcus Goonan, Director, Community and Infrastructure, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 2.

[92]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 11.

[93]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 1. See also Mr Ross Goyne, Chair, Asset Management Committee, IPWEA, Committee Hansard, 20April 2023, p.11; and Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 9.

[94]Rural Works Pty Ltd, Submission 8, p. 4.

[95]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 7.

[96]Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 9.

[97]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, pp. 3–5.

[98]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 2. See also Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 3.

[99]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 3.

[100]Mr Ian Duncan, Executive Manager, Infrastructure, Western Australian Local Government Association, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 44.

[101]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 3.

[102]VDTP, Submission 67, p. 6.

[103]Mr Steve Brogan, Acting Chief, Policy and Research, Infrastructure Australia, Committee Hansard, 2May 2023, p. 20. See also Canberra Region Joint Organisation, Submission 47, p. 39; and Eurobodalla Shire Council, Submission 35, p. 3.

[104]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 1.

[105]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, p. 3.

[106]Professor Jayantha Kodikara, SPARC Hub, Committee Hansard, 1 June 2023, p. 5.

[107]Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (BITRE), Attachment 1 to Submission 22, p. 13.

[108]Mr Shane Tepper, Project Director, Civil Asset Management, Northern Territory Government Department of Infrastructure, Planning, and Logistics (NTDIPL), Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 3.

[109]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 5.

[110]NTRO, Supplementary submission 20.1, p. 1.

[111]Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16 February 2023, p. 5.

[112]Austroads, Supplementary submission 10.1, pp. 1, 5.

[113]VGA, Submission 32, p. 2.

[114]Murrindindi Shire Council, Submission 69, p. 3. See also Mr Robert Pemble, Executive Director, Civil Services, NTDIPL, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 1.

[115]Mr Matt Fuller, Deputy Secretary, Regional and Outer Metropolitan, Transport for NSW, Committee Hansard, 4July 2023, p. 13. See also Isaac Regional Council, Submission 51, p. 5.

[116]Australian Flexible Pavement Association (AFPA), Submission 9, p. 1.

[117]Australian Automobile Association (AAA), Submission 62, p.3.

[118]ACRS, Submission 65, p. 6.

[119]NTRO, Supplementary submission 20.1, p. 3.

[120]Transport for NSW, Submission 29, p. 11. Citing the 2022 Royal Commission into Natural Disaster Arrangements Report.

[121]Mr Robert Pemble, Northern Territory Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics (NTDIPL), Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 4.

[122]NTDIPL, Submission 26, pp. 4, 5.

[123]DITRDCA, Submission 22, pp. 7–8.

[124]CSIRO, Submission 23, p. 4.

[125]Dr Hermione Parsons, ALC, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 27.

[126]Transport for NSW, Supplementary submission 29.1, p. 2.

[127]Tasmanian Government Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Submission 11, pp. 3–4.

[128]WQAC, Submission 63, p. 3.

[129]Mitchell Shire Council, Submission 46, p. 5.

[130]Mr Troy Fraser, IRG, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 17.

[131]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 4.

[132]Mr Scott Elaurant, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, pp. 3–4.

[133]Professor Jayantha Kodikara, SPARC Hub, Committee Hansard, 1 June 2023, p. 1.

[134]Professor Jayantha Kodikara, SPARC Hub, Committee Hansard, 1 June 2023, p. 3.

[135]SPARC Hub, Submission 84, p. 3.

[136]Professor Jayantha Kodikara, SPARC Hub, Committee Hansard, 1 June 2023, pp. 3–4.

[137]SPARC Hub, Supplementary submission 84.1, p. 1. Citing Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics Yearbook, 2022 (2015 data).

[138]Professor Jayantha Kodikara, SPARC Hub, Committee Hansard, 1 June 2023, p. 2.

[139]Note: estimated costs exclude design expenses, haulage, construction equipment mobilisation, pavement surface condition assessments, project management, and site supervision costs.

[140]One lane-km is equivalent to 3,600m2 area on average; a kilometre-long segment of road that is single land width.

[141]Mr Robert Pemble, NTDIPL, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 2.

[142]Mr Christopher Gray, General Manager, Asset and Environmental Sustainability, Scenic Rim Shire Council, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 34.

[143]Transport for NSW, Supplementary submission 29.1, p. 4.

[144]Mr Robert Pemble, NTDIPL, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 2.

[145]NTDIPL, Submission 26, p. 9.

[146]Mr Marcus Goonan, Rural City of Wangaratta, Committee Hansard, 17 July 2023, p. 9. See also Shire of Wyndham East Kimberley, Submission 42, p. 3.

[147]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 8. See also Dr Geoff Allan, Austroads, Committee Hansard, 16February 2023, p. 4; and NTDIPL, Submission 26, p. 10.

[148]VDTP, Submission 67, p. 7.

[149]VDTP, Submission 67, p. 7.

[150]Mr Des Snook, Chief Operating Officer, Main Roads WA, Committee Hansard, 26 July 2023, p. 9. See also Australian Local Government Association, Submission 30, p. 6; NTRO, Submission 20, p. 6; and SPARC Hub, Submission 84, p. 6.

[151]Austroads, Submission 10, p. 9.

[152]Mr Warren Sharpe, Consultant, Canberra Region Joint Organisation (CRJO), Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 16.

[153]Mr Warren Sharpe, Consultant, CRJO, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 16.

[154]Mr Carlos Rial, Chief Executive Officer, AFPA, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 9.

[155]Associate Professor Colin Saltmere, Chairperson, IRG, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 17.

[156]Mr Johannes Grobler, National Asset Centre of Excellence Agreement Manager, National Asset Centre of Excellence (NACOE), Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 6. See also SPARC Hub, Submission 84, p. 6.

[157]Mr Johannes Grobler, NACOE, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 6.

[158]Mr Johannes Grobler, NACOE, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 6.

[159]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, p. 9.

[160]Engineers Australia, Submission 17, pp. 8–9. See also Mitchell Shire Council, Submission 46, p. 5.

[161]VGA, Submission 32, p. 5.

[162]WQAC, Submission 63, p. 4.

[163]Mr Sean Holden, Chief Executive Officer, Local Government Association of the Northern Territory (LGANT), Committee Hansard, 25 August 2023, p. 5.

[164]Mr Sean Holden, LGANT, Committee Hansard, 25 August 2023, p. 2.

[165]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 13.

[166]VDTP, Submission 67, p. 7.

[167]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 8.

[168]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 8.

[169]Mr Warwick Bennett, Chief Executive Officer, CRJO, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 17.

[170]Hiway Group, Submission 36, p. 3.

[171]Mr Michael Bell, Senior Policy Advisor, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 2.

[172]Mr Sergio Cinerari, Roads Australia, Committee Hansard, 15 June 2023, p. 10.

[173]Mr Carlos Rial, AFPA, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 9.

[174]VGA, Submission 32, p. 3. See also City of Wodonga Council, Submission 7, p. 3; Roads Australia, Submission 50, p. 4; and NTRO, Submission 20, p.7.

[175]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 7.

[176]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 9.

[177]Hiway Group, Submission 36, p. 3.

[178]Mr Warren Sharpe, CRJO, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 14.

[179]Mr Michael Bell, Engineers Australia, Committee Hansard, 20 April 2023, p. 2. See also Professor Rujkiatkamjorn Cholachat, UTS, Committee Hansard, 4 July 2023, p. 24.

[180]AFPA, Submission 9, p. 4.

[181]Mr Carlos Rial, AFPA, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 9.

[182]Mr Carlos Rial, AFPA, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 9.

[183]LGAQ, Submission 56, p. 3.

[184]Mr Paul Webb, SWEK, Committee Hansard, 16 May 2023, p. 7.

[185]Mr Michael Caltabiano, NTRO, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p 7.

[186]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 10.

[187]VDTP, Submission 67, p. 7.

[188]Mr Carlos Rial, AFPA, Committee Hansard, 22 June 2023, p. 3.

[189]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 6.

[190]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 7.

[191]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 7.

[192]NTRO, Submission 20, p. 9.