I rode along the M4 from Strathfield to Penrith recently and I have some queries with regard to the work being carried out on those sections that are being widened from four to six lanes. (I would like to point out that even in its current highly degraded state, the M4 is still safer to ride along than the Great Western Highway.)
The first matter I would like to address is the shoulder on the section of the M4 west of Prospect. This is where roadworks began and it appears that upgrading along this section of the M4 has been completed. The final smooth asphalt layer has been applied and Vibraline has been installed. Unfortunately, unlike the base layers, this final layer has not been extended all the way across the shoulder to the edge of the carriageway.
As a result of this decision, there is a sharp (approx.) six to seven centimetre drop from the edge of traffic lane to the shoulder area. Can cyclists expect this to be the final configuration along for the entire length of the M4 after its "upgrading"? If so, it would be a matter of extreme regret and anger within the cycling community because it will mean that cyclists will have worse and more dangerous, not better and safer, conditions with which to contend, despite $90m of public funds having been spent.
Along the above mentioned section of the M4 cyclists often encounter parked vehicles in the shoulder area. How are cyclists meant to safely go around cars parked in the shoulder? They cannot pass on the left because there is often insufficient room or they encounter bicycle unfriendly drainage grates. They certainly cannot wait for a break in the traffic and smoothly ride around the obstacle as they could in the past.
Surely you (and the RTA) are aware of how difficult it is to manoeuvre a bike up and over such a high obstacle, especially when one has had to essentially stop and only has a few seconds in which to safely occupy the traffic lane. I cannot understand how a supposedly competent engineering organisation which professes to have a concern for the needs of cyclists could adopt, let alone countenance, such a retrograde, cycling-hostile design.
If this configuration is to be the norm, what are cyclists travelling along the M4 to do when they encounter the numerous entry and exit ramps along the M4? Please note that at these points, the raised traffic lane crosses the shoulder. Essentially cyclists must stop in order to avoid running into the shoulder/traffic lane ridge and going over the handlebars or damaging their wheels. This particular configuration represents a degradation of road conditions for cyclists; hardly what one would envisage after a supposed upgrading of a facility. It is also totally at odds with the assurances that you offered to cyclists (including myself) that conditions on the M4 would improve as a result of the upgrading.
I should point out that the M4 is largely unlit. How are cyclists supposed to recognise the coming discontinuity in the road surface until they ride into it? Is the RTA comfortable with the image of a cyclist riding into an unexpected shoulder/traffic lane ridge and being thrown over their handlebars into the path of oncoming traffic entering/exiting the M4?
It is a fact that motorists travel at high speeds when entering and, especially, leaving the M4. There is often only limited opportunity for cyclists to cross at the entry/exit lanes. By not extending the final layer across the carriageway, the shoulder/traffic lane ridge makes it very difficult for cyclists to quickly get up speed to cross the lane(s). This is dangerous and I find it difficult to understand why the RTA has ignored the safety of cyclists by choosing to do this. As well as contending with motorists exiting the M4 at over 100km/h, cyclists will have to worry about hopping over obstacles. This unnecessarily and dangerously complicates what is already difficult enough due to the RTA's unconscionable refusal to provide properly grade separated facilities for cyclists.
In past discussions with RTA officials I understood that one of the advantages of extending the road surface completely across the shoulder to the edge of the carriageway is that it helps to avoid breakup from heavy vehicles at the edge of the road surface thereby reducing maintenance costs. Won't the RTA be throwing away this benefit? It appears that even in terms of basic road engineering practice, this is an extremely poor decision.
Under the present arrangements, we will have heavy trucks travelling close to the edge of the carriageway. Won't this quickly lead to a break up of the edge of the top layer? Won't this result in more debris in the shoulder? Won't this make conditions more dangerous for cyclists? Won't this reduce the life of the traffic lanes? Won't this increase the RTA's own maintenance costs?
The second major issue I wish to address is an important, but easily achieved, enhancement of cyclists' safety. The M4's upgrading offers the RTA the opportunity to address the issue of lane markings on the M4's entry and, especially, exit ramps. The RTA should be aware that there is a need to ensure there is a sufficiently wide shoulder for cyclists to safely wait for the opportunity to cross the ramp. All of the M4's entry and exit points should be surveyed and re-marked to ensure that space is allocated on the carriageway to enable cyclists to wait safely to cross, or continue along the ramp. For example, a shoulder of 0.25m (or even 0.5m) is not sufficient when faced with large trucks passing by at 100km/h. At the very least, the RTA should adopt the shoulder widths specified in Ausroads 14. I would like to note that cyclists were informed by you that the upgraded M4 would have 3m shoulders. This is not the case leading up to the Roper Road exit.
I would also advocate, in the strongest terms possible, the avoidance of multi-lane exit ramps. This is extremely important from a safety viewpoint for cyclists. Multi-lane exit ramps are by far the most dangerous and stressful facilities encountered by cyclists using the M4. This is because, firstly, motorists are often still travelling over 100km/h when they enter the exit ramp. Secondly, motorists do not always indicate when exiting from the M4. Therefore there is a combination of two wide lanes to traverse, lethal approach speeds, and the absence of clear intent on the part of motorists.
Once past the bicycle crossing point, multiple lanes can be marked in the exit ramp, but before the bicycle crossing point, there should only be a single exit entry lane. The removal of multiple exit lanes at bicycle crossing points coupled with wide shoulders would greatly improve safety for cyclists travelling along the M4. I strongly urge you to adopt this proposal.