JAMES CONGDON DRIVE

  In reply to Hon. SANDRA KANCK (2 July).
  The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW:
 1. No. The warrant for a pedestrian actuated crossing stipulated in Australian Standard AS1742.10 is used only as a guide to determine if installation of such a facility is justified. Other factors such as the type of pedestrians crossing in a given area are also taken into consideration. The needs of the three most `at risk' pedestrian groups, ie young children, the elderly and people with disabilities, receive increased and more explicit recognition. This is achieved by weighting their observed numbers in pedestrian surveys by a factor of 1.5.
 The Code of Practice for the installation of traffic control devices in South Australia actually uses a lower warrant than that used in other States for a pedestrian crossing. This enables Transport SA to better meet the needs of pedestrians as this crossing warrant requires fewer pedestrians to be present in the area for the warrant to be met.
 Transport SA has installed pedestrian crossings where the warrant has not been met if there have been other compelling factors, eg problems with sight distance or where a retirement village or school is in close proximity.
 2. An objective warrant does need to be applied to balance both the needs of pedestrians and motorists and to help define which of the many requests for pedestrian crossings should receive approval.
 Transport SA also gives consideration to providing alternative pedestrian safety measures wherever a pedestrian crossing can not be justified, eg a pedestrian refuge in a road without a central median, or a pedestrian walk through and hand rails in a road with a central median. Therefore, I am confident that the current assessment procedures are adequate.
 3. I have given an undertaking to attend this site.