I am not an engineer, but a member of Nigeria’s attentive public and a public policy analyst. In that context, I join the debate about the choice of demarcation being introduced by the FGN on the First Niger Bridge between Onitsha and Asaba. I’m a frequent user of that bridge and has been since 1967.
Even with the best of intentions the demarcation/delineators introduced on the bridge is not right for FOUR (4) reasons, which ought to have been obvious and commonsensical:
First, the concrete demarcator adds additional weight to a very old bridge thereby increasing the stress factors and fatigue on the bridge;
Second, the concrete demarcator further increases the chances of catasthrophic failure of the bridge arising from unforseen deadweight overload in the event of a vehicular accident, breakdown or fire on the bridge;
Third, the concrete demarcator constricts the already narrow space on the bridge; allows for no egress and will definitely impede the arrival of towing or emergency vehicles or general evacuation during an accident or fire emergency. These facts makes the bridge a cerfified death trap.
Fourth, The demarcator will most likely increase the lenght of time it takes to cross the bridge span during routine and high traffic or rush hour periods.
In other climes, durable co-extruded, polyethylene impact-resistant delinators are used as lane line demarcators on bridges and turnnels, with the highest safety standards in mind and for effective traffic and vehicular movement control. Our situation should not be any different.
Introducing the concrete demacator on the First Niger Bridge is a bad public policy decision and the consequences will be acknowledged sooner or later. Put bluntly, it might result in needless fatalities. If the proper assessments were made, and not strictly political campaign decisions, an alternative form of demarcators should have been considered. I bet those would also be cheaper.
As things stand, the new demarcators are not and cannot be described as being in the overiding public interest. It will take only one serious nasty accident to prove that the introduction will in the short, medium and long term not be in the best public interest. When that happens let us remember those who are directly or vicariously liable.
I pray that I am wrong.
