Hobart council organised a meeting last week to discuss the traffic calming measures planned for Waterworks Rd. About a dozen Ridgeway residents and two members of the Waterworks Valley community (Steph and Trish) attended; Ald Ron Christie chaired the meeting and Deputy Mayor Eva Ruzika and Ald Elise Archer were also present, as well as Leon Parker, from Hobart Council’s Road Services.
We attended mainly to reassure Ridgeway residents that Waterworks Community was not trying to create and ‘us-vs-them’ situation, and that we weren’t blaming the problems we experience with the road on Ridgeway residents. We also wanted to make it clear that our request for traffic calming was driven by concern for the safety of all road users including, of course, those from Ridgeway.
Mr Parker detailed how the HCC reaches its decision to install speed humps and then went on to explain that Waterworks Rd meets all the criteria required to use such devices to slow down traffic. While he agreed that speed humps are not the ideal scenario and that most transport engineers on the planet and the HCC despise them, he stressed that there is no doubt that they improve safety and that something needs to be done to minimise the risk of injury to pedestrians and motorists on Waterworks Rd.
Objections to the proposed speed humps seem to centre around several key areas: inconvenience to those who commute via the road, whose journeys will be (slightly) longer; concerns about increased response time for emergency vehicles (though Leon Parker indicated that the type of speed hump proposed for Waterworks did not slow down such vehicles); fears that people with neck and back problems would experience pain in crossing the humps; and claims that in concentrating on the humps, drivers would actually be less vigilant and more likely to hit pedestrians, animals, parked cars etc. There were also suggestions that slowing down for the humps and then speeding up would cause increased greenhouse gas emissions, and that humps constituted discrimination against people with small cars.
Interestingly, there were several Ridgeway residents who supported the speed humps. One commented that 50kph was actually too high a limit in parts of our road, and told the meeting that she had been tailgated all the way down Waterworks Rd that morning by two cars, despite driving at that limit. Another suggested that the council look at making the road one lane wide by extending the footpaths into the roadway, making the road one lane wide in parts, hence solving two problems.
The most telling remarks were made at the conclusion of the meeting. A Ridgeway resident recalled the local campaign a few years ago, which succeeded in preventing a development at Ridgeway involving a through road to Kingston. The community acted to retain its status as a ‘cul de sac community where people could walk safely on the roadway and enjoyed a peaceful environment. She suggested that they should all therefore sympathise with our desire for traffic calming measures as they would make our community, currently divided by such a through road, a better and safer place to live.
Some important dates:
• March 28 – the survey of Ridgeway residents closes
• April 14 – special meeting of the Civic Services committee to discuss this issue as, to date, this is the only item on the agenda. Representations from the community may be made and some of the Ridgeway residents who are opposed to traffic calming will attend. It would be worth it for a Waterworks Rep to attend to also speak to the issue, or at least observe. June Stafford at HCC makes appointments for people to speak to this committee for 5 mins max.
• April 30 – General Council meeting where a decision will be made.
Following this the final decision rests with the main roads department (DIER).
6 comments ↓
As we all know, it’s a vocal few residents in Ridgeway who are ‘anti speed humps’. I often wonder if their opinions would be the same if we were dealing with their street and their childrens’ safety.
I’d be happy to attend the meeting in april- a cross section of the street may be a good idea, perhaps use cary’s prominent profile- father of triplets! someone from ‘lower’ ww rd, any other thoughts?
Janine
Thanks to Steph and Trish for attending the meeting and for the update
Sebastian
Has the idea of a forty km speed zone been considered. This, in combination with a few strategically located traffic calming devices (road narrowing) could be an alternative to speed bumps. Who is hte best person to talk to about this?
Russel
At one of our local meetings I circulated 5 copies of a CD ROM showing variety of ways traffic calming can be done. These methods are used extensively in Europe and are much nicer than simply putting humps on the road. But there is usually greater expense doing it better.
I am not sure who has got those CDs now.
Council engineers in Australia prefer the simple solution of speed humps, because they do reduce car speeds.
A major revamp of Waterworks Road would probably be a better solution, but in the shorter term would mean no decision would be made… and thus no traffic calming.
I also like the idea of the trees in the road slowing down cars – thanks for thinking more about it. I am sure we will find a solution to fast cars and unsafe walking/cyling conditions
I like Russell’s idea of the 40kph zone, too, and it was raised at the meeting Steph and I attended, but we were told that’s in the domain of the state government and they won’t come at it. This doesn’t mean we couldn’t run a successful campaign to convince the government, but it would take time and I’d like some measures taken NOW to increase safety on our road!
Leave a Comment