Friday 28 August 2015
Media Enquiry from Open Lines Column, Guernsey Press:
Schrodinger's Crossing
Be careful what you wish for! Some people are very good at complaining and some people very loud. Put the two together and you might get change. But that does not necessarily mean good change.
And so it is with the town crossing. To paraphrase Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), 'the deputies, pleased with their efforts, go on to prove that black is white and get themselves killed on the next courtesy crossing'. Except we don't know. We now have a form of Schrodinger's crossing - the deputies may or may not be dead depending on the state of the crossing *. You can't tell until you change the crossing. Which you may or not be able to do. Confused? So are we.
For Schrodinger's cat, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_cat. No cats were harmed in the making of this crossing.
Some deputies are calling it farcical and blaming the Environment Department. There is another line that says the way deputies act is farcical, and then they find someone else to blame when it all goes wrong.
Questions to ask are:
Did Environment know, before they made the change, that in the absence of the single lane that the crossing would have to be removed and if so, was it made properly clear to the House and to the public?
Why didn't Environment commission the report (that said we may or may not be able to have a crossing) before they changed the crossing the first time, and if so, was this made clear?
Was the report only possible once studies had been done on the new crossing (i.e. new information came to light)?
How much were Environment influenced by PSD and Harbours insisting on immediate change due to the imminent start of the cruise season (possibly without time to get proper reports).
Those questions need to be answered very clearly before you can start to assign blame. But too much time has been wasted on this and it would seem emotion has taken over from rational thought.
Personally, I haven't seen much worsening of the problem from before (although the layout and merging lanes is annoying) and it is possible I could be Al Murray's metaphorical voice of the silent majority. Although I am not a heavy user of town at rush hour, I do have an office 100 metres from the crossing and only once (when a cruise ship was in) did I encounter what I considered much worse traffic (it was always pretty bad at certain times of day). I am not a reliable statistical source on my own but I haven't seen any actual stats that show how much better or worse the traffic is since the change (are there any stats?).
But a Friday morning, not long past, I drove at 8:30 in the morning, from St Julian's Avenue, along the front and through the crossing, past two forlorn-looking policemen. There was no cruise ship and there was minimal traffic. And when I said this to my wife she said, oh yes but the schools are off!
So why can't the crossing be manned in the summer months by off-duty lollipop people? We quite rightly trust them with our children!
And there it is in a nutshell - people complain about the crossing, but school traffic and commercial and commuting traffic between Glategny Esplanade and Bulwer Avenue are much worse problems. In particular, there is a strong link between productivity and good transport infrastructure. If the Glategny-Bulwer Avenue traffic flow were improved, the island would benefit greatly. Perhaps mini-buses running every 10 minutes at peak times? A mini-tram system? Who knows? Not me.
But Messrs Stewart and Jones have touched on some valid points, being that it wasn't broke in the first place and that this is the Guernsey way. What is missing is a proper debate on risk, and what level of risk we wish to take as an island, balanced against quality of life. Smoking and alcohol cause far more damage to some people's health than the crossing, but it is similarly acknowledged that a significant proportion of the community and visitors take pleasure from these activities.
We already have some 'crossing risk' (zero risk means closing the road, which was part of Mike Torode's dream but acknowledged for now as impractical). So in debate, deputies should be told the measured risks, and if the vote is for a two-lane crossing then they accept on our behalf that the risk of an accident at the crossing is increased, but that the perceived benefit to our quality of life outweighs this risk.
So deputies, stop casting blame. Get all the facts about the pros and cons, debate them clearly and vote clearly (preferably without stupid amendments).
Environment Department Response:
Your correspondent refers to the crossing by reference to concepts used in quantum mechanics and particle physics. Physics is perhaps an apt science with which to consider the crossing, the Environment Department could draw analogies with Newtons Laws of Motion or Boyles laws of Pressure or perhaps even Reynolds Transport Theorem but perhaps it is best if the Department restricts itself to simply answering the 4 very pertinent questions.
- The Department suspected that the crossing did not meet engineering standards but had not specifically investigated the matter in recent years. The crossing was not, of itself the reason for the move to a single lane. The concept of a single lane sought to deliver wider more pleasant pavements especially on the marina side, a wider area where Al Fresco eating could take place on the landward side, the opportunity to enhance the public realm with improved seating and planting. It also had the potential to deliver a safer crossing.
- The Department did then commission a report which answered the question of whether we could or could not have a crossing. The report commissioned was to examine how a single lane could be delivered and what form the crossing could take within such an arrangement. It was as a result of this report that the Department learnt that due to the high volumes of traffic an informal (as opposed to formal zebra or pedestrian lights crossing) was far from ideal in this location BUT the report advised that if the road was single lane, and the crossing had a central refuge, along with signage etc. then it would be acceptable to retain an informal crossing.
- The advice was revised once the actual volume of cruise ship passengers became known (anticipated average levels had been initially used) associated with the move to the Albert Pier. That more realistic information was relayed back to the engineering advisors who re-evaluated their view point that an informal crossing could be retained. The result was the manning of the crossing on busy days/peak periods.
- As the responses above demonstrate, the single lane concept with the wider pavements and the improved crossing were not driven by the relocation of cruise ship passengers BUT the volume of cruise ship passengers did result in the manning of the crossing and it is patently obvious that without the widened pavements and improved crossing the situation for the pedestrian including the cruise ship passengers would be worse, i.e. the perceived need behind the original concept is only enhanced by the cruise ship passenger relocation. It should be stressed that this was a trial at minimal expense (less than £10,000) to the Department and so all the public realm improvements were not put in place. The intention was that they would follow if the trial was successful.
Matters have moved on since your correspondent wrote and it is conceivable that they would have asked a fifth question had timing been slightly different. Namely "So what has now changed that means we can keep the crossing with the two lanes".
The answer is nothing has changed beyond the fact that evidence has demonstrated that, until a long term alternative is agreed, we need two lanes and we need a crossing. Removing either is clearly as unacceptable as keeping them both. A Joseph Heller Catch 22 if you will.
The Environment Department and Chief Minister's working party have considered and balanced the risks vs benefits issues. The current situation is far from perfect but there is no perfect interim solution and so for the time being we will keep two lanes and the crossing in the knowledge that the benefits to the free flow of traffic come at the reduced convenience to the pedestrian and with an increase in risk. We will install what extra precautions are considered appropriate and reasonable to manage that risk and efforts will continue to focus on finding a long term solution that best meets the needs of the island.
Contact Information:
Steve Smith, Chief Officer
Environment Department
Tel: 717200
