As I was sitting down to find a topic for this issue’s editorial, the latest International Transport Forum publication, Transport System Resilience, popped into my inbox. How timely, I thought, considering the extent to which ‘infrastructure’ and ‘resilience’ have dominated New Zealand’s headlines, conferences and general conversation recently. [On that point, you’ll want to turn to page 102 and read what Peter Brown from NZTA Waka Kotahi had to say at the Teletrac Navman TMS Conference.]

While we, and the ITF report, focus on the areas of infrastructure that relate to or impact the road transport industry, the country’s infrastructure problem has leached far and wide. Our old mate Nick Leggett, in his latest capacity as chief executive of Infrastructure New Zealand, is quoted as estimating New Zealand’s infrastructure deficit at just over $200 billion – including costs to build the projects we need and carry out the required maintenance on what we already have. That’s just under half of the country’s 2022 GDP. Words such as ‘substantial’ and ‘frightening’ are mere understatement.

As far as transport systems are concerned, though, at least New Zealand isn’t alone. The ITF report discusses the results of an ITF roundtable on the subject, which brings together international experts from the Forum’s 66 member countries. So, as New Zealand grapples with its own challenges regarding transport infrastructure and resilience, what might we learn from our international counterparts?

It might seem obvious, but the key messages of ‘Transport networks are vulnerable’, ‘Disruptions have spill over effects’, and ‘Be systematic about resilience’ ring true. On that last point, the ITF says: “The concept of transport resilience must be built into national-level policies, long-term plans, appraisal procedures, competition policies and transport indicators.” On the face of it, the current coalition government seems to be on point with that recommendation, if a little impulsive in some of its recent decisions – Interislander, anyone? Still, it’s early days yet…

The report notes that huge uncertainty exists on where disruptions might occur in future. Of course, we witnessed exactly that with the likes of Covid-19 and Cyclone Gabrielle. More worryingly, though, it also states that “despite progress in risk assessment, few governments currently use existing tools to identify potential risks”.

The ITF suggests an important distinction is between a system’s robustness, or mitigation – “the extent to which disruption reduces the functioning of the system” – and its capacity to recover or adapt – “the time needed to return to business as usual”. Improving robustness can be considered a form of mitigation, whereas recovery capacity can be obtained through adaptation measures … But how do we actually implement ‘resilience’?

It’s advised that resilience should be a core objective and an integral part of transport policy. We should develop analytical tools that help reduce uncertainty about future disruptions, and develop guidance for policy- makers on how to prepare for transport system disruptions. That involves estimating the costs of disruption, mitigation and adaptation, and embedding concepts such as redundancy. And finally, the report suggests learning how to deal with disruptions from other nations.

In fairness, I suspect little of this would be a revelation for the likes of the New Zealand Transport Agency, which seems to be aware of its role and responsibilities in keeping the nation moving, if traditionally a little hamstrung. As Diane Edwards, the New Zealand president of CILT, said at the TMS Conference: “The real problem is the fact we have a three-year government cycle.” Yes, it’s the politicians for whom this may well make good bedtime reading.

Wouldn’t that be a sweet dream?