Jun 26, 2017

Can security bollards be done better?

It's regrettable it seems necessary to install heavy bollards in Australian cities to protect against vehicle attacks. But it could be a way to improve public spaces

Alan Davies — Editor of The Urbanist

Alan Davies

Editor of The Urbanist

There’re plenty of options for the design of bollards. There’s an obvious place in Melbourne where something like this would be an appropriate form… (source: Wausa Made)

There’s plenty of angst in Melbourne over the concrete bollards installed last week in nine major public spaces, including Federation Square, Bourke St mall, and Southern Cross Station. The Age fed the anguish, titling its report, ‘What next – barbed wire?’.

While most reaction seems resigned acceptance, many think the bollards, despite the current retro-fashionableness of architectural brutalism, are ugly. There are also practical concerns like the impact on pedestrian movement and how to give trams and service vehicles access to some areas.

There are those who think the move overstates the risk and will increase social anxiety, and some who charge the state with using fear of terrorism to increase control over citizens. Another argument is it’s pointless because terrorists and psychos will just substitute other means of mass killing for vehicle attacks.

Some matters to consider:

  • It was widely ignored, but the State Government emphasised the bollards installed last week are temporary and will be replaced over the next year with something more attractive. There’s plenty of scope to improve appearance and functionality; for example, bench seats, street art, planter boxes, ponds (useful for isolating tram tracks), terraced walls.
  • Governments have taken this measure following vehicle attacks in Nice, London and in Melbourne’s Bourke St mall. The risk of being a casualty of such an attack seems very low, but that’s also true of airline crashes and high-rise fires. No one really knows what the current level of risk is. We’re deeply worried about fire safety in residential towers at present, so this anxiety isn’t that surprising (see Does the Grenfell Tower disaster mean we should stop building residential towers?).
  • It’s not just about terrorists using vehicles as bombs or as a means of mowing down pedestrians; there’s also a risk that drug affected drivers might deliberately drive into crowds.
  • The experience with both gun control and suicides suggests that limiting opportunities really does reduce casualties (see Do anti-suicide barriers really save lives? Yes!).
  • The economic costs of installing bollards to protect public spaces are vastly lower than the time consuming security procedures associated with air travel. Once they’re in place the operating costs are low.
  • Some of these locations – like Federation Square – already have bollards to prevent parking, albeit daintier ones than the new behemoths.
  • There’s a safety benefit in providing a barrier between moving vehicles and pedestrians. We rely heavily on parked cars to provide a buffer against unintentional crashes, but we’re also reducing the number of on-street parking spaces in the city centre (e.g. like here).
  • The ‘big picture’ solution is to eliminate vehicles in the CBD. That’s desirable and practical for other reasons, but it would take time to implement. It would also be expensive (but not impossible) because service vehicles and public transport still require access to streets. We should nevertheless recognise the risk of vehicle attack adds to the case for removing non-essential vehicles from pedestrian-intensive locations.

In the meantime, we could choose to see this as an opportunity to do more with public spaces. Street art is the default option for improving the appearance of bollards, but there are others. For example, the bollards could be replaced with plinths carrying small statues  of significant historical figures like Jesse Vasey and William Barak. They could be supported by media and they could be themed by location e.g. those around Federation Square might tell the story of Australian art or the story of federation.

(Visited 25 times, 1 visits today)


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 thoughts on “Can security bollards be done better?

  1. Jacob HSR

    All the new bollards should be electronically retractable by emergency vehicles, council, buses, and trams.

    If it means that 4 people are hired 24×7 to operate the bollards, then it is not a bad thing. Only thing I would suggest is the 4 people have to be born in AUS.

    “An immigration department official allegedly ran a migration scam before escaping to India with $1.2m.”

    So you do not want someone who only got an Aussie passport yesterday (as opposed to being born here) to operate the bollards.

  2. Andrew

    Having not long ago returned from Europe, I noticed all sort of different bollards in use, mostly attractive, and perhaps used to stop illegal parking as much as terrorism.

  3. Horst (Oz) Kayak

    Community feedback indicates aesthetically pleasing planter boxes and strategically located seating for the elderly and infirm are some of the most socially acceptable items of road furniture to separate crowded foot-ways from threatening traffic.

  4. Dudley Horscroft

    There are two dangers to protect against.
    1. The drunk, drugged, or just totally incompetent driver. Bollards, pillars or concrete blocks are quite likely to protect the general populace as they reduce the opportunities for things to go wrong.
    2. The determined terrorist – all same those in Nice and London. Since there must be a gap in reasonable cities like Melbourne for the trams to go through – or buses in less enlightened cities – any terrorist will be able to drive through the gap.

    But terrorists can mow down pedestrians in every street where there are pedestrians. Protect against them (half heartedly) – in Bourke Street Mall and they can do it elsewhere. Do we have bollards along every street in Melbourne? Or do we require householders to park their cars in the street so as to protect pedestrians – thinks – narrowing a street is usually a good safety measure against car drivers anyway.

    1. Alan Davies

      Dudley, tram tracks could be isolated by running the tracks over a narrow trench (preferably a pond) or with retractable bollards.

      Yes, it’s impossible to protect most footpaths from vehicle attacks but there’s a benefit in defending places with big crowds that offer a high “pay-off” to attackers. For example, the 2016 Bastille Day truck attack in Nice killed 86 people and injured a further 434.

      Protective measures like bollards would also give some peace of mind to members of large gatherings.

  5. Roger Clifton

    A pillar need not be able to stop a loaded truck, it only has to look like it would. The wayward driver is a fantasist, not an engineer.

    1. meltdblog

      There are retractable bollards entirely capable of stopping heavy vehicles
      But what we have seen installed so far has unacceptably narrow gaps between the placements for accessibility, and the permanent bollards installed around the city make the same mistakes. Making them look nice is good too but the first concern should be for maintaining safe and accessible paths as per the Austroads minimums.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details