Measuring Transport Resilience
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Measuring Transport Resilience A Manawatu-Wanganui Region Case Study Muhammad Imran, Christine Cheyne & John Harold Resource & Environmental Planning Programme School of People, Environment and Planning Massey University, New Zealand Massey University Research Online 2014 Executive summary The resilience of transport networks is attracting greater scrutiny at the international, national and sub-national levels. This research report explores the current state of knowledge about measuring transport resilience and presents a case study to address the question is: How resilient is the road and rail infrastructure in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region? This region in New Zealand’s lower North Island provides an interesting case study due to its strategic location in the North Island’s and indeed New Zealand’s transport network. In addition, it has experienced significant disruptions in the recent past, most notably widespread failures caused by flooding in 2004, and the lengthy closure of a significant inter-regional road connection, the Manawatu Gorge State Highway 3 road, due to a landslide in 2011-2012. It also provides an opportunity to explore this topic outside of a major metropolitan region. The region’s transport networks and infrastructure also have important social and economic functions. This research report is structured around a proposed Transport Resilience Indicator Framework (RIF) which explores six key dimensions of transport infrastructure resilience: engineering, services, ecological, social, economic and institutional. This holistic approach to measuring transport resilience and is envisaged to accommodate both qualitative and quantitative indicators. Within this framework, data were gathered via analysis of secondary sources and nine key informant interviews. The interview participants were from public sector agencies responsible for managing aspects of the region’s transport network, the private sector and one social service provider. The participants had considerable knowledge relating to the planning of the road network and/or its economic and social significance. They also had knowledge of the impacts and/or management of recent disruptions. The institutions responsible for managing the region’s transport network can identify vulnerabilities in the network, but can also collaborate and learn from past disruptions. Concerns were expressed about the level of funding for maintaining and upgrading the region’s transport networks, particularly for territorial authorities with large networks and small rates bases. The region is strongly dependent on the roading network, with limited alternatives during roading network disruptions. It proved difficult to quantify the environmental impacts of transport disruptions. A case study of the response of a local i health shuttle service provided an example of how a community, by drawing on social capital, was able to adapt and respond appropriately to a transport disruption. One key area identified for further research is assessing the capacity of private contractors to respond to natural hazard events of varying magnitudes. The RIF could also be strengthened by the use of indicators based on quantitative data, in addition to qualitative data. It is suggested that one method of achieving this could this could be to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach, drawing on expertise, methods and perspectives from related professions, such as engineering and economics. ii Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial assistance provided by Massey University Research Fund (MURF). We would like to thank transport planners, engineers and other professionals who provided useful information, documents and participated in interviews, particularly working in the Palmerston North City Council, Horizons Regional Council, Tararua District Council, New Zealand Transport Agency, Destination Manawatu, and Kiwirail. We also appreciate the contributions from community groups and logistic companies. Thanks to Jon Yin for assistance in formatting of this report and John Moriarty for proofreading services. Cover photo: Manawatu Gorge Slip in 2011. Photo taken by Muhammad Imran iii List of Figures Figure Title Page Nos. No. 1.1 The Manawatu Gorge landslip photographed during remediation 1 works 1.2 Map showing the State Highway 3 route east from Palmerston 2 North through the Manawatu Gorge 1.3 Map showing the location of key state highways and the 3 Manawatu Gorge in the lower North Island 1.4 Map showing Kiwirail’s North Island network 4 1.5 The composition of the roading network in the Manawatu- 5 Wanganui Region 1.6 Classification of the State Highway network 6 1.7 Proposed road hierarchy in the Palmerston North-Manawatu 7 Strategic Transport Study 2.1 Overall effective FAR rate for Horizons Regional Council and 13 constituent territorial authorities 2012-2013 2.2 Local road network length and population size for the main 16 territorial authorities in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region 2.3 Number of road bridges and population size for the main 17 territorial authorities in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region 2.4 Proportions of the local road network of each major category for 17 the main territorial authorities in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region 2.5 Change in total employment in the distribution and transport 21 sectors in Manawatu and New Zealand, 2000 to 2009 2.6 Transportation Network Resiliency Cycle 27 2.7 Dimensions of resilience and impacts of ex ante and ex post 30 measures 3.1 Proposed Transport Resilience Indicator Framework (RIF) 32 4.1 Quarterly change in domestic visitor spending March 2009 to 50 June 2013 in selected areas of New Zealand 4.2 The 2006 to 2010 average traffic flow (both directions) at 51 selected monitoring sites around Palmerston North iv List of Tables Table Title Page Nos. No. 2.1 Overall emergency works funding assistance rates 2009/10 to 15 2013/14 2.2 Selected approaches to measuring the resilience of transport 24 infrastructure or networks 2.3 Variables and corresponding metrics used to measure transport 25 resilience 2.4 Table of variables used to measure transport resilience 26 3.1 Potential indicators of and data sources for the transport 32 resilience indicator framework v Contents Executive summary .............................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... iii List of figures ..................................................................................................... iv List of tables ...................................................................................................... v 1. Introduction and background ...................................................................... 1 2. Transport resilience - Literature review ...................................................... 9 2.1 Challenges facing transport networks .................................................. 9 2.1.1 Ageing transport infrastructure and funding shortfalls ........................ 110 2.1.2 Demographic and geographic factors ................................................. 18 2.2 Defining resilience in the context of transport ..................................... 20 2.3 Current projects in New Zealand ....................................................... 21 2.4 Research in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region ...................................... 22 2.5 Measuring resilience ........................................................................ 25 2.6 Planning relevance .......................................................................... 32 2.7 Summary ....................................................................................... 33 3. Methodology ............................................................................................. 34 3.1 Proposed Transport Resilience Indicator Framework (RIF) .................... 34 3.2 Data sources .................................................................................. 36 3.3 Limitations ..................................................................................... 38 3.4 Summary ....................................................................................... 38 4. Results ...................................................................................................... 39 4.1 Institutional factors ......................................................................... 39 vi 4.1.1 Identifying vulnerabilities ..................................................................39 4.1.2 Collaboration and learning ................................................................42 4.1.3 Allocation of resources .....................................................................45 4.2 Services .........................................................................................51 4.3 Economic impacts ............................................................................52 4.4 Engineering ....................................................................................57 4.5 Ecological .......................................................................................60 4.6 Social .............................................................................................60 4.7 Summary .......................................................................................61 5. Discussion ................................................................................................ 63 5.1 Institutional indicators ......................................................................63