Roads into the 21st century - balancing the demands of 'growth' against our obligation to 'preserve'

In line with demands of the population for increased mobility, the road network in Queensland expanded rapidly in the 1960's and early 1970's. However, this network is now becoming increasingly old, while at the same time demands for expansion of it shows no signs of abating. This combination of need, together with the fact that road funding levels have not kept pace with these trends, have created a need for development of a defensible Road Network Strategy to lead us into the next century. We must ensure that the optimum choices are made between the competing obligations of preserving our asset and of providing new or extended road space for the growth in demand. The declared road system alone in Queensland has a replacement value estimated at about $15B. Total funding allocation for preservation and extension of that asset is of the order of $500M per annum, with the current demands for extension taking more than half of those funds. The need for a statewide strategy is obvious, and the Department is in an advanced stage with its development. This paper outlines the process used to develop that strategy to its present stage, which includes first pass draft strategies for each of the four non-metropolitan regions. It has been recognised that a Road Authority has an obligation to provide at least a level of service to all road users. Everyone is entitled to basic mobility and level of road condition. These Community Service Obligations or minimum tolerable conditions can be defined by maximum allowable pavement roughness, maximum allowable traffic volumes for given road standards, intolerable accident histories and flood immunity. These limits make up the first set of deficiency - termed minimum tolerable deficiency criteria. They are greatly dependent on community expectations and the funding the community is providing to roads. A second, less stringent, set of deficiency are used to define those road sections and bridges which would desirably (for economic/safety/comfort reasons) be upgraded if sufficient funds were available. These are termed engineering deficiency criteria and are used to identify (ie needs other than tolerable needs, and which would be addressed if funding were adequate).