thank you for your detailed reply (Ref. 95M5082, dated 9 January 1998) to my letter of 9 December 1997. I have several questions and comments in relation to your letter.
I was genuinely surprised to learn that the RTA had never intended to extend the top layer of open grade asphalt across the entire carriageway (including the breakdown lane used by cyclists).
In my discussions with Mr Bernie Chellingworth and Mr Larry Hagerty (SWR) no mention was made of the SWR proposal to lay open grade asphalt over the traffic lanes to 300mm outside the painted edge lines. I was informed (both in meetings and by letter) that cyclists could expect improved conditions by the provision of a 3m shoulder for the entire length of the M4 west of Church St. There was no mention of a 2.7m shoulder coupled with a 35+mm high ridge.
It is a matter of great regret to me and other cyclists that the RTA has decided against extending the open grade wearing course over the full width of the pavement. The stated reason was cost, or more particularly the assertion that it was not "cost effective". I would like to take strong issue with this decision by the RTA.
Just to make things clear (and despite the RTA's assertions to the contrary), riding into a 35+mm high, sharp-edged ridge at over 30km/h every few kilometres most definitely qualifies as a degradation of conditions for cyclists.)
Sydney residents and visitors (ie, tourists) using these maps as a guide will be encouraged to use the M4. Why then has the RTA deliberately sought to provide them with the sort dangerous sub-standard conditions and facilities that I outlined in my letter of 9 December, 1997? Cyclists are not asking for special treatment from the RTA. Merely that they be accorded the same degree of consideration and care enjoyed by motorists.
It may not be cost effective to spend (a claimed) $1m over a short time. However, roads are an important and extremely long-lived part of the community's transport infrastructure. The M4 will be used by cyclists for decades to come and what seems cost-ineffective over the short term will in fact be amortised over a very long period of time.
It appears to me that one M4 user group (cyclists) has been deemed to be less important and less deserving of consideration than other user groups (such as motorists). In my dealings with the RTA, it has become clear that from the very beginning of this project, whenever cost savings have been needed, it has been the interests, safety, and lives of cyclists that have been sacrificed.
In your letter you acknowledge that the standard of work by the contractor with regard to the edge of the open grade asphalt layer has been unacceptable. However, you did not offer any explicit commitment that these deficiencies will be remedied. For example, you state (page 1, paragraph 5) "Means of improving those edges are currently being assessed." Could the RTA please inform me of the state of these assessments? What happens if it is assessed that improving the edges is not deemed to be cost effective? Will the RTA simply throw up its hands and say "tough luck"?
You indicated in your letter (page 3, paragraph 2) that "It is acknowledged that the edge of the open grade wearing course in areas west of Prospect is not satisfactory at present but this will be attended to in the New Year". From what I've been able to determine, nothing has been done as yet. Can the RTA provide me with a date for when it expects the remediation work to be undertaken?
In my previous letter I gave a specific example of the problems cyclists face when they encounter debris and parked vehicles in the breakdown lane. For example, they cannot pass on the left because there is often insufficient room or they encounter dangerous, bicycle unfriendly drainage grates*. Before the M4's "upgrading", when unable to pass on the left, cyclists normally waited for a break in the traffic and smoothly rode around the obstacle.
Given the current state of the edge of the traffic lane, it is extremely difficult to smoothly 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. Can the RTA give me an assurance (and commitment) that the planned remediation of the open grade wearing course's edge will enable cyclists to easily (and safely) move into the traffic lane when required and that it will occur before the M4 upgrading project is deemed completed?
From reading your letter, it is not clear to me that the contractor has in fact accepted that the standard of work is unsatisfactory. Could the RTA please confirm the contractor's acceptance of the stated deficiencies and their agreement to their remediation? Since I wrote to you in December, more sections of the M4 have been completed. It appears to me that the contractor has continued to lay the open grade wearing course in the same manner with the same (unacceptable) edges.
With regard to the proposed improvement to the asphalt shoulder adjacent to the entry/exit ramps (page 2, paragraph 1), will the RTA please ensure that the entire length of the shoulder, from the point at which the edge of the open grade wearing course crosses a cyclist's path in the breakdown lane (ie, from the beginning of the entry/exit ramp), to the point at which the traffic lanes continue past the far edge of the entry/exit ramp, is improved.
Will the RTA please ensure that all entry/exit ramps, from Church Street, Parramatta, to Russell Street, Emu Plains are properly remediated or upgraded according to the procedures described in your letter (page 2, paragraph 1)?
I would also like to emphasise that it is most important the RTA ensures that the placement and rolling of additional asphalt to smooth out the ridges is done carefully and to a high standard. Cyclists need to be able to quickly and smoothly move up onto the traffic lane and then smoothly back down into the shoulder area. Lumps, potholes and ragged, crumbly edges are unacceptable and must be avoided. Put another way, could the RTA please apply the same quality standards to facilities for cyclists that it applies to facilities intended for motorists.
Does the RTA have a date for when it expects the remediation to be started and a date for when it expects it to be completed? (I would like to point out that the RTA wouldn't have to undertake this remedial action if it had chosen to uniformly pave the entire carriageway in the first place.)
With regard to your comments on multi-lane exit ramps (page 2, paragraph 9), you appear to have overlooked the exit ramp at Church St, Parramatta. This exit ramp is also two lanes and like the exit at Roper Road is dangerous and difficult to cross**when travelling east. This section of the M4 is also being upgraded and I strongly urge the RTA to take this opportunity to correct another source of danger for cyclists. Can the RTA please ensure that the exit is remarked to a single lane that extends past the bicycle crossing point?
(*) I note that unless damaged, these grates are not being replaced by
cycle-safe alternatives as part of the M4's "upgrading". This yet
another example of the RTA putting cyclists at risk in order to save a
few dollars.
(**) Please spare me from the usual RTA response that cyclists aren't allowed to travel along the Viaduct and toll plaza sections of the M4 for safety reasons. The reality is that this section of the M4 represents the only safe (in fact existent), practical route between Church Street and Silverwater Road for cyclists.
The recommended RTA route (exit the M4 at Church Street, cross six lanes of traffic, then ride along Parramatta and Silverwater Roads) greatly increases the danger to a cyclist because the conditions along these roads are far worse than those along the M4; indeed the term "death trap" is not an exaggeration. In general the M4 is characterised by relatively wide and safe shoulders and few intersections. Conversely, Silverwater Road and Parramatta Road are characterised by narrow traffic lanes, numerous traffic lights and intersections, no shoulder, drainage grates placed where cyclists normally ride, poor road surface conditions and a heavy traffic load that includes many large trucks.