thank you for your letter dated 20-Aug-1996 informing me of the RTA's decision with regard to the provision of facilities for cyclists on the sections of the M4 being upgraded.
I have a query concerning the methodology on which the decision appears to have been based. In deciding whether or not cycling usage merited spending the sums quoted in your letter, it appears you (ie, the RTA) have based your decision solely on the survey presented at the meeting on 7-Aug-1996. Was this the case? If not, could you please tell me what other factors were taken into account?
As you will recall, the meeting was presented with the results of a survey of cyclist usage at one point on the M4 for one day. A total of 29 cyclists were counted. We (the cyclists' representatives) could see where this was leading and assumed your reasoning went as follows. The upgrade was costing $100m (1x10**8). The M4 carries 100,000 (1x10**5) vehicles per day. Dividing the two gives $1000 being spent for each vehicle. A figure of $1.6m was quoted for the purchase of 5km of new jersey barricades (this was updated to $2m in your letter). There was no way the RTA would consider spending $55000 (1.6x10**6 / 29) per cyclist. You would need a 55 fold increase in cyclist usage before the numbers begin to become equivalent. Yourself, and I assume the rest of the M4 project management group, were clearly skeptical you would find 1600 cyclists using the M4 each day.
The last conclusion is something I would not necessarily disagree with, though I could not be sure of the exact figures myself. However, it would be nice to know that you knew this to actually be the case, and had based your conclusions on some solid comprehensive evidence instead of the meaningless, skewed survey presented to us.
Given that very little will be done for cyclists during the upgrade could you please tell me what has become of the other issues that were raised during the meeting on 7-Aug-1996? I understand that most of the points (shoulder maintenance, grade separation, motorist education, signage) are not within your area of responsibility. (Is this the case?) However, two of them, "vibra lines" and "push buttons on entrance ramps" may be.
As mentioned in our submission, Vibra Lines are a cheap and effective way of improving cyclist (and motorist) safety on freeways and motorways. They provide a warning to motorists that they are crossing over from the traffic lane into the shoulder section of the road. Motorists are not always sufficiently careful in the way they drive. Whether due to fatigue, intoxication, or inattention (eg, using a mobile phone) they can easily cross over into an undelimited shoulder area with potentially fatal consequences.
Vibra Lines are used in other counties (eg, The United Kingdom and the USA) for precisely the above reason. Although more expensive than painting a line on a road, every accident they help avoid represents a huge saving to the community both in material terms (eg, medical costs) and in human terms (eg, individuals and families spared the pain, trauma and suffering arising from a traffic accident).
The second point concerns push buttons on entrance ramps. Because the M4 has been built without provision for grade separated facilities at its entry and exit lanes, one way of reducing the danger to cyclists as they cross an entry point is to install push buttons which activate a pedestrian crossing at the entry to the ramp. By doing so, gaps are introduced in the traffic flow which permit a cyclist to safely cross the lanes of the entry point.
The impact on motorists would be minimal because typically they would be entering from a section of the road system in which traffic lights are prevalent. Therefore having to stop one final time before entering the M4 would have little effect on their overall travel time.
Would you be able to tell me if funds will allocated for the implementation of the above points?