Photo by Ochinko. Flickr.
In section 4.5.4 of the EIS, one of the reasons the RMS rejected the retention of the cycleway using an underpass is that an “underpass is undesirable from a personal safety perspective.” I have two problems with that.
Firstly, is this a real risk or an imagined risk? I was talking to somebody about this yesterday and they also voiced concerns about public safety, saying that people avoided using the underpasses at the university roundabout because of fears of being accosted by local hoodlums. This sounds serious, but is it real?
I lived within a few hundred metres of that intersection for 23 years and regularly used those underpasses, and not even once encountered an issue of public safety. For 6 years my cycle commute home from work took me along the path behind Jesmond Park, often after dark in the winter months, and I never saw even an inkling of threat. Now I’m not saying that there is no problem of public safety at these locations, but I’m definitely saying that if there is a problem, it is not a big one.
My second, and more fundamental issue with this supposed concern about the safety of an underpass is that it is merely transferring the problem. One of my pet hates is when someone deals with a problem, not by solving the problem, but by merely moving the problem. A classic, if somewhat trivial example, is at home where Person A can’t find their phone charger, so goes and ‘borrows’ the charger of Person B. They haven’t actually solved the problem of the missing charger, they’ve only transferred the problem to someone else.
The RMS are engaging in exactly this behaviour. If they fail to maintain the existing cycleway because of a perceived issue of public safety, and institute the three crossings across eight lanes of traffic instead, this will encourage cyclists onto the busy road, and encourage pedestrians to cross against the lights. They will have merely moved the problem of safety from the underpass to the road, and it will only be a matter of time before an accident occurs, and the folly of this penny-pinching decision based on shadowy ‘public safety’ concerns will be exposed in tragic circumstances.
At a meeting between cyclist organisations and the RMS on Wednesday 7th Dec a new option was proposed, for an “over under pass”. This option has a bridge over the two low roads, then an underpass under the elevated road. The underpass would be short. The bridge would be not too high. This seems to solve all the problems. There may be other solutions. I think they just havn’t tried very hard yet.
I think an overpass option is much better for public safety, there was a young woman sexually assaulted recently at the boorougal underpass at 5 islands road where it connects to the speers point shared path..
People avoid using the underpasses at the university roundabout because they are 10 times longer than the shortcut across the top of the roundabout. This is the same issue in Jesmond Park : Some people will be put off bicycling because of delays with the 3 sets of traffic lights (even if they align a green wave for them). I will encourage everyone to make a submission to have an underpass shared path wide enough to be separated into pedestrian and bicycle paths.