I'm writing to you with regard to the planned upgrading of the M4 motorway to six lanes and the effect this will have on myself and other cyclists who use this road. This matter requires your urgent attention. It is no exaggeration that cyclists' lives will be put at risk by recent RTA decisions. These decisions must be overturned as quickly as possible.
Over several months members of Bicycle New South Wales (BNSW), including myself, have been consulting with officers of the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) regarding the arrangements for cyclists on the M4 motorway during the forthcoming upgrade program.
It is a matter of concern and regret that under current RTA proposals bicycle users will be effectively denied access to the M4 during the reconstruction period. Please note that reconstruction of the M4 will take anywhere from seven months to two years.
I have attached copies of correspondence I have sent and received concerning this matter but I believe it will be helpful if I give you a summary of what has occurred.
I attended two meetings with the RTA on the 17-Jul-1996 and the 7-Aug-1996. These meetings were called in the wake of the May 1996 Value Management Study on the Upgrading of the M4 Motorway which identified cyclists as one of the groups that would be affected and who needed to be accommodated. I came away from the meeting on 7-Aug-1996 with a strong feeling of disillusionment after entering the first meeting on 17-Jul-1996 with a strong (and obviously naive) sense of optimism.
The 17-Jul-1996 meeting began with what I thought was a willingness by the RTA to accommodate cyclists even though they presented a "problem" for them. The participants (including RTA engineers and a NSW Police representative) discussed and quickly dismissed the idea of shunting cyclists onto the Great Western Highway (GWH) because of its inappropriate lane widths and intersection treatments, poor surface condition and cost. (The cost consideration was based on the outlays required to make the GWH "cyclesafe".)
The cyclists at the meeting were strongly against being forced onto the GWH and wanted to ensure they had continued access to the M4. We tried to make clear that the prime reason why bicycle users choose to use freeway and motorway shoulders is that it offers a higher level of service and safety that the alternative main roads, such as the GWH. Most main roads in this state do not cater for cyclists. There are no lanes or intersection treatments which offer bicycle road users a degree of safety and comfort so naturally where a good facility is provided (such as on freeway and motorway shoulders) cyclists will tend to use them.
Discussions then focused on what measures could be put in place which would enable cyclists to safely travel along each 5km upgrade section. It was proposed that cyclists be permitted to ride through the works area but this was discounted due to strong opposition from the State Wide Roads representative and several RTA officers.
A proposal for a 3m contraflow lane was discussed in detail and seemed the best of a bad set of options. In this proposal cyclists heading east and west would travel in the same 3m lane on the opposite side of the upgrade area. Although there were logistical problems involved, for example, getting cyclists from one side of the M4 over to the contraflow lane, it offered the best hope of providing a relatively safe passage along the M4 through the area being upgraded.
The cyclists (including myself) ended up supporting the proposal even though it did not include adequate provision for separating cyclists and motorists. However, a bad idea is still a bad idea even when it's presented as being "good" in comparison to other proposals.
The day after the meeting I wrote to the RTA to advise them that the proposal for cyclists to use a contraflow lane with minimal separation from fast moving oncoming traffic had serious problems with regard to cyclists' safety. The only circumstances under which the proposed contraflow lane could operate safely would be if there was a physical barrier between the traffic lane and the shoulder. I stated that the minimal acceptable barrier from the point of view of cyclists' safety would be a new jersey barrier.
At the meeting on 7-Aug-1996 we were informed there was little chance of the contraflow proposal (with the provision of 5km of new jersey barricades) being accepted by the RTA. The new jersey barricades would not be provided because:
To justify this, we were 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. I could see where this was leading. 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. There was no way the RTA would consider spending $55000 (1.6x10**6 / 29) per cyclist. One would need a 55 fold increase in cyclist usage before the numbers begin to become equivalent. The RTA officers (and I assume the rest of the M4 project management group) were clearly skeptical they would find 1600 cyclists using the M4 each day.
I have attached the letter I wrote to the project manager for the M4 Upgrading Project in which I asked if the RTA had done a comprehensive survey along the entire length of the M4 to determine how many cyclists make use of it each day, or whether it had based its decision on a single, inadequate, skewed survey. I have not received a response, nor do I expect one in the near future.
Given that no money would be available for a physical barrier to separate cyclists and motorists, we asked that lane widths along the 5km section being upgraded be reduced to 2.75m (from 3.0m) and a speed limit of 40km/h be imposed. Reducing the lane width to 2.75m would have provided an extra 0.5m to be added to the planned 0.5m shoulder giving a 1.0m shoulder for cyclists.
We asked for the lower speed limit because a 1.0m shoulder is very narrow and we were told (by the RTA and Police representatives) that motorists will inevitably drive at the nominal speed limit plus 20km/h. A 1.0m shoulder with cars and trucks effectively travelling at 80km/h is unsafe, while a 1.0m shoulder with cars travelling at 60km/h is (barely) within the Austroads 14 recommendation.
We pointed out that it takes 5 minutes to travel 5km at 60km/h and 7.5 minutes to travel 5km at 40km/h. A whole 2.5 minutes extra. The RTA officers said there was little possibility of this being accepted because motorists would not be willing to reduce their speed. They argued that motorists have a "freeway mentality" and would refuse to slow down when they are on a freeway. We suggested speed cameras be installed to deter motorists (and generate some revenue for the Government). The suggestion was not taken seriously.
It therefore came as no surprise when I was informed that no adequate provision will be made for cyclists during the M4 upgrade. No money will be spent on new jersey barriers or making the Great Western Highway cyclesafe. The RTA's expenditure will be limited to installing a few signs along the M4 and the GWH and placing some notices in newspapers. It will be recommending that sport and recreational cyclists not use the M4 and that commuting cyclists essentially fend for themselves. It is interesting to note that I've heard of no proposal from the RTA that it will encourage motorists to use alternate forms of transport during the upgrading of the M4 (eg, suggesting that commuting motorists who normally drive should catch the train instead.)
It is especially galling to be told by the RTA that insufficient numbers of cyclists use the M4 to justify spending money on measures to safely accommodate cyclists during the upgrading program. The RTA is the body which effectively controls the number of cyclists on our roads by the way it plans, designs and builds roads. Few journeys are undertaken by bicycle compared to cars because the RTA has planned it that way. When one considers how much money has been spent on motorists compared to cyclists by the RTA over the last twenty years, the extreme parsimony of the RTA in the matter of the M4 is all the more infuriating.
In Holland, one third of journeys are undertaken by bicycle. This is not because the Dutch are an especially civic minded or environmentally sensitive people, it's because their Government (and their version of the RTA) has spent the money to make it feasible for them to do so. As in Australia (and in particular in Sydney), their behaviour has followed the money. Unfortunately, in Sydney that has meant car-based transport to the exclusion and detriment of bicycle-based transport.
I can understand the political imperative of the Government in deciding to upgrade the M4 to six lanes as a way of assuaging the anger of voters in the wake of its broken promise to remove the tolls on the M4 and M5. What I cannot understand is why cyclists should be put at risk of death or serious injury as a consequence of this decision. It is grossly unfair for cyclists to lose access to the M4 and to be forced to use a patently dangerous and inadequate road (The Great Western Highway) while the RTA tries to save the ALP's political bacon in the Western Suburbs.
I believe there has been a moral failure on the part of the RTA (and indirectly the Government which it serves, and of the parliamentarians who bear final responsibility for the decisions taken). In the letter I have attached from the project manager of the M4 Upgrading you will note that the first option considered was the provision of a narrowed road cross section past the construction zone. At $600,000 this was dismissed as too expensive. This from the same organisation which, I understand, spent at least $600,000 refurbishing the offices of its former CEO Mr Max Moore-Wilton.
It appears the RTA believes it is acceptable to spend $600,000 so its CEO could have (among other things) nice glass doors, but it is unwilling to spend $600,000 so that cyclists are not put at risk of being smeared all over the M4 and Great Western Highway. This is outrageous and morally wrong.
The loss of the M4 represents a major downgrading of the level of service and access the RTA provides to bicycle road users throughout this corridor and should be unacceptable to the Government. This has been coupled with a callous disregard for the needs of cyclists as legitimate road users.
The RTA has done all it can to ensure that inconvenience to motorists will be kept to an absolute minimum during the M4 upgrading. Cyclists have been shown no such consideration. The decisions taken by the RTA with regard to safe access for cyclists along the M4 during its upgrading must be reversed before someone is killed or seriously injured.
Because the upgrading is due to begin any day now (preparations are well advanced), I strongly urge you to give this matter your prompt attention and to take this matter up with the Minister for Roads, the Hon. Michael Knight as a matter of urgency.