Note: This is my second blog post on this project. If you are missing context, have a read of Another broken WestConnex promise: secret Sydney Park Junction design changes.
Edit 2024-11-29: ChatGPT 4o’s answer when asked if the project is still going ahead:
“…In summary, while the Sydney Park Junction project is moving forward, the extent to which it will align with the original 2021 design remains uncertain. Ongoing community engagement and monitoring are essential to ensure that the project’s outcomes meet the initial commitments and community expectations.”
At 3:04:27pm on November 11th 2024, TfNSW (the state transport department) updated the Sydney Park Junction project website page. Apart from removing any mention of creating “a people-friendly place with more open areas for people” and “create dynamic community spaces”, there was only one notable addition: “The project is being delivered in stages and we will keep the community informed as the designs for the remaining stages are finalised”.
Unless you were lucky enough to get the email to selected stakeholders on the same day, you wouldn’t know that “Transport for NSW will continue to progress the final design of the Sydney Park Junction project, which includes a new cycle path connection between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway” (emphasis mine). Nowhere is it mentioned – not on the project page, not in the stakeholder email, not even in the slides of the September 19 TfNSW briefing to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office – that the now overturned “Sydney Park Road scope reduction was approved by the Ministers Office” one year ago in November 2023.
TfNSW originally stated in a 5th August 2024 presentation that scope reduction of this project was required as the “project estimate exceeded the allocated budget”. What budget? The value of this budget (or the estimate) was never made public.
This cycle path connection is now back in the project scope because of community outrage. In case you missed my previous blog post (which was the first the public learned of this issue), the cycleway connection that was deleted makes up a “major design feature” (Review of Environmental Factors, PDF pg. 68) and acts on a “key consideration of the proposal” (Submissions report, PDF pg. 35) of a condition of consent (B50, B51) of a portion of the WestConnex urban motorway project – which the government sold to Transurban in transactions totalling $20.4 billion dollars in 2021 (estimated in 2018 by Dr Christopher Standen as a “financial return of 34 cents for every dollar spent” and a spend including associated works of AU$23 billion).
You would be mistaken for thinking TfNSW will implement the original September 2021 design after the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Minister Jo Haylen directed TfNSW to “abandon the reduced plan” and “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021”.
However, in a 20th November briefing with the Friends of Erskineville, TfNSW would still not rule out the removal of several major aspects of the 2021 project design and requested the group share elements of the project that are “super important” or features “you want the team to consider” – suggesting not all features would be included. On the same day Jenny Leong (Greens Member for Newtown) asked a number of questions to the Minister for Transport in the NSW Parliament to clarify what is included in the scope, and by the 25th of December the public should receive these answers along with timelines and additional insights of how the project went off track (unless TfNSW manages to obfuscate the answers).
If TfNSW is this desperate to reduce the scope and cost of the project, after Clover Moore requested “the design for the Sydney Park Junction project that was exhibited in September 2021”, after two excellent Sydney Morning Herald articles, and after an intervention by the Minister for Transport, it appears evident a significant increase in active transport funding is required.
TfNSW is not short of money – for road projects at least. As Clover Moore’s 5th September letter stated TfNSW “is continuing to allocate significant funding and resources to develop the Western Distributor Road Network Improvements project, even though the safety and transport arguments justifying this project are highly questionable” – the 1950s style project that involves cutting down 71 trees and removing multiple zebra crossings and pedestrian signals to funnel even more cars into inner city streets. TfNSW also found $0.8 billion to fund an update to Elizabeth Drive (half funded by the federal government), duplicating the new M12 motorway and which TfNSW’s own traffic modelling shows is not required. Is TfNSW willing to break promises to the community on the Sydney Park Junction scope to free funding for new road projects?
How much is the $20.4bn WestConnex sale figure? While the Executive Director at Business Sydney is wondering (and Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph is publishing) “So, have we blown many millions of dollars on seldom used CBD bike lanes while forcing motor vehicles into traffic snarled narrow corridors?”, the active transport budget for the entire state of NSW was $38.5 million in 2022/2023 – 0.2% of all the total NSW transport funding over the same duration, and 0.188% of the WestConnex motorway sale figure. The UN recommends we spend 20% of transport funding on active transport. That is 100 times more than we currently do in NSW.
0.2% is so little that TfNSW denied Get NSW Active funding for over 74% of active transport projects that NSW councils requested this year (258 of 346). Our local communities are desperate for improvements in safety for pedestrians and cyclists – as tank-sized SUVs further take over our streets precariously close to vulnerable pedestrians at dangerous speeds and people attempt to follow the slivers of life-saving bike lanes (~0.8% of road network by length in Greater Sydney) so they don’t die on their trip to work (or your home with a food delivery – when I cycled through Chalmers St and Cleveland St on November 23rd 2020 as I did twice per day, fragments of the customer’s food were still remaining on the asphalt alongside pieces of crushed grey helmet. I will spare you the photo).
As per the second recommendation TfNSW made to the Minister on the 19th of September 2024 to “note the opportunities and funding requirements to improve active transport outcomes”, Minister Haylen should rightfully seek 20% of transport funding allocated towards active transport as recommended by the UN (as Ireland has done) – or at least 10% as recommended by the October 2024 Australia Institute report (as Scotland have). Such guaranteed funding would enable TfNSW to at least meet the original scope of this project, parts of which make up a condition of consent for a section of WestConnex.
Every person deserves to be (and feel) safe on every street they may walk, cycle, or dwell on – and as George Street, Pitt Street Mall and mountains of peer-reviewed evidence show, “walkable and bikeable streets are good for business”. (Title of factsheet by Committee for Sydney & AECOM, November 21st 2024).
This is my last of 8 blog posts this year. If you’d like to follow what I write (and build) in 2025, subscribe to my mailing list below.
Table of contents
- Overview
- Maps
- Friends of Erskineville TfNSW briefing
- Why did the 19th September 2024 TfNSW briefing not mention the Minister's Office approved the scope reduction in November 2023?
- Will the new cycle path connection be built as originally designed, or perhaps destroy trees to preserve space for cars?
- What's in scope, out of scope or unclear?
- An unofficial timeline of the Sydney Park Junction project
- Appendix
Overview
The Sydney Park Junction project should be implemented as per the original September 2021 project scope. Additionally, the portion of NSW transport funding for Active Transport should be increased from 0.2% substantially to ensure situations like this do not occur again.
The following sections of this include further analysis on briefings documenting the secret scope reduction of the project in November 2023, what the current promised scope of the project is, and a timeline to try and help you make sense of it all!
Thanks very much to all the folks in active transport advocacy (especially Bicycle NSW), community groups, government (especially Clover Moore, City of Sydney and Jenny Leong MP, Greens Member for Newtown) and the media that have pushed for these improvements to be implemented in full to improve safety and connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. I hope this analysis is a useful resource for other advocates as well as to inform the public – there hasn’t been a community update regarding the project design or scope since March 2022!
My background is in computer science and I work as a software engineer – I am not a traffic engineer and this analysis is a side project. Please let me know of any mistakes, corrections, improvements or constructive criticism in the comments below, via Mastodon, Bluesky or privately to [email protected]. I have redacted the names of individual community members in letters from the community (published with permission) and if I publish any briefing minutes I will also redact the name of all staff and community members present.
Maps
Friends of Erskineville TfNSW briefing
The Friends of Erskineville (FoE) community group took up the invitation for a briefing on the project on November 20th 2024. After refusing to confirm any original project scope elements (that had been deleted in secret) would be included in the current/future project scope, TfNSW communications & project management personnel requested the group shared elements of the project that are “super important” or features they wanted the [TfNSW] team to consider.
Considering that the Sydney Morning Herald published the quote that “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021” (November 10th, 2024), I believe that attempting to solicit acceptance of continued scope reduction, in private, is unacceptable.
New insights from this meeting are detailed in the scope and timeline tables below, including construction of the pop-up cycleway replacement to start from mid-December, and a community consultation (or “engagement piece”) from “early next year”.
Why did the 19th September 2024 TfNSW briefing not mention the Minister’s Office approved the scope reduction in November 2023?
As the Sydney Morning Herald reported on Oct 7th 2024 (Archive.org link), Minister Jo Haylen rightfully “directed” TfNSW to “abandon the reduced plan” for Sydney Park Junction 5 days (2 business days) after the September 19th letter Bicycle NSW addressed to Minister Haylen, which among many good points included a link to my previous blog post. This direction also took place 5 days after a TfNSW briefing to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office on active transport, speed reductions & vibrant streets – advising on “projects” where active transport has been de-scoped or reduced and why. Sydney Park Junction is one project.
All this briefing stated on historical timelines was that “Revised project scope was approved by the Minister’s Office mid-2024 with the project to be delivered in stages”. This aligns with Clover Moore’s September 5 letter: “As recently as July, the project was further reduced to remove the critical cycling connection at the western end of Sydney Park Road (connecting to King Street) between Sydney Park Road and the existing cycleway on Mitchell Road, leaving gaps in the bike network” (emphasis mine).
However, in addition to including the dot point “Revised project scope on Princes Highway including staged project delivery was approved by the Minister’s Office mid-2024”, the 5th of August TfNSW presentation also included an additional dot point: “Sydney Park Road scope reduction was approved by the Minister’s Office in November 2023”. I’m sure the Minister was busy in November 2023, but this suggests she was at least aware of the changes – at least 8 months before cycling advocacy stakeholders were notified (by omission) in the August 1st City of Sydney Cycling Advisory Meeting (in the same month construction was due to begin as recorded in the slides of this meeting), and almost 10 months before directing TfNSW to abandon the reduced scope.
By omission (again!) the September 19th briefing to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office suggested the “Sydney Park Road scope reduction” was approved in mid-2024 and not in November 2023. Perhaps this was an honest mistake or conveyed verbally – however the Lord Mayor’s September 5th letter suggests the actual timeline could have been obscured more widely, and rock bottom public trust on this project does not inspire charitable interpretations.
“As recently as July, the project was further reduced to remove the critical cycling connection at the western end of Sydney Park Road (connecting to King Street) between Sydney Park Road and the existing cycleway on Mitchell Road, leaving gaps in the bike network”
Lord Mayor’s September 5th letter
Misleading the public by announcing by omission is now known, but could TfNSW have misled ministers and councillors?
Will the new cycle path connection be built as originally designed, or perhaps destroy trees to preserve space for cars?
While “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021” (SMH, Nov 10th), the Nov 11th TfNSW email states “Transport for NSW will continue to progress the final design of the Sydney Park Junction project”. Between the promise in this email that the final design “includes a new cycle path connection between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway” and Nov 11th text on the project page stating “we will keep the community informed as the designs for the remaining stages are finalised”, this suggests that TfNSW is attempting to change the design further.
If the final design was (or could be) the same as publicly exhibited in 2021, it seems logical that TfNSW would simply announce this, mitigate another bruising round of community consultation (or a “community engagement piece”) early next year, avoid the cost of further design work and end this saga. Unless the original design is somehow no longer feasible to piece together under a staged delivery approach required due to already signed contracts for the pop-up replacement, we can reasonably assume the future design is intended to be a lower cost or more desirable than the original. Desirable to TfNSW that is – perhaps to preserve vehicle level of service at the Sydney Park Road to Mitchell Road intersection contrary to TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy.
If all the above is correct, either the SMH comments by Haylen’s office were false, or TfNSW is not following Haylen’s direction for the upgrades to “take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021”.
Why redesign a cycleway that already received glowing feedback from Bicycle NSW? How else could you build a cycleway between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway?
My concern is an alternative design would involve building it on the existing verge (ie. between the kerb and adjacent buildings), requiring the removal of mature trees, purely to preserve an extra turn lane for vehicles.
Perhaps this is paranoid, but we know TfNSW preserves road capacity for cars even when it requires narrowing of a footpath in the middle of the Sydney CBD. Stranger things have happened.
The community is likely to receive a response to this question by the 25th of December 2024 as a result of Jenny Leong (Greens Member for Newtown in the NSW Parliament) asking questions to the Minister for Transport regarding the project, which included:
(3) Can you confirm if existing road space will be reallocated for the cycleway linking Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Road, rather than using the grass verge which would require the removal of a large number of mature trees?
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/papers/pages/qanda-tracking-details.aspx?pk=101985
Tree roots may hinder future development of path: WestConnex Mitchell Road Safety Audit, A18
The Mitchell Road Safety Audit (2017) includes under reference A18 that “Tree roots may hinder future development of path” (see PDF page 110 for this mention, page 111 for the map of where this applies – the entirety of the west side of Mitchell Rd). This suggests there is not sufficient space for a cycleway to be implemented within the existing curb (ie. on the grass) without removal of these trees.
TfNSW could argue planting new trees is a sufficient “offset”, however the NSW Government Biodiversity Policy states TfNSW will have only met “no net loss” if they have “avoided biodiversity impacts to the fullest extent reasonably practicable”. Such a rationalisation to the contrary would have to be published in another Review of Environmental Factors.
Environmental impact assessments including those undertaken as part of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) projects must demonstrate the actions taken to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on biodiversity as far as practicable.
NSW Government Biodiversity Policy (CP22004), under heading 3.1
TfNSW policy and an extra turning lane
Building the cycleway on the kerb would allow a dedicated vehicle turn lane. Implementing a dedicated turn lane could be rationalised by increasing the vehicle level of service rating, though with the plentiful queuing capacity on Sydney Park Road eastbound perhaps it could not even be rationalised in this manner.
The newly updated Road User Space Allocation Policy states “Transport must allocate road user space based on the following principles”
…
TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy, heading 3.1 (Principles)
allocate road user space based on the network vision and road functions, considering all road users in order of:
1. walking (including equitable access for people of all abilities)
2. cycling (including legal micro-mobility devices)
3. public transport
4. freight and servicing
5. point to point transport
6. general traffic and on-street parking for private motorised vehicles.
Under “To give effect to the principles, Transport must” … “adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to protect or maintain private vehicle level of service”. (3.2, “Requirements”. pg 3, dot point 7)
It also includes “where reasonably practicable and feasible” that “The loss of native and amenity trees, green space and other amenities then alternative provision must be allocated in accordance with the Transport’s Biodiversity Policy” (3.2, Requirements). As discussed above, it would not be allocated in accordance if TfNSW does not avoid “biodiversity impacts to the fullest extent reasonably practicable”.
These provisions suggest that removing mature trees to protect or maintain private vehicle level of service with a dedicated turning lane is not compatible with following the Road User Space Allocation Policy – but it wouldn’t be the first time TfNSW has not followed its own (excellent) policy.
Besides – it would be extremely unpopular with locals (or users of the third-largest park in inner-city Sydney).
What’s in scope, out of scope or unclear?
Since September 2021, TfNSW has not publicly announced any scope changes. As per the timeline below, we may receive an announcement “early next year” (2025).
Answers to most of these questions are expected in response to Jenny Leong’s (Greens Member for Newtown in the NSW Parliament) questions to the Minister for Transport regarding the project. “Answer due on 25 December 2024”.
The Sydney Morning Herald quoted that “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021”.
| Project feature (present in September 2021, depicted in 2022 community notification) | Confirmed in post-Nov 2023, pre-24 Sep 2024 scope | Confirmed in scope (as of publishing) | Source (post-Nov 2023, pre-24 Sep 2024 scope) | Source (current scope) |
| Replacement of pop-up cycleway with separated cycleway | Yes | Yes. Construction approx 4 months (TfNSW email to stakeholders, FoE briefing) Under stage 1A, starts construction mid-December 2024 (FoE briefing) | 1st Aug 2024 CoS Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting | 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE TfNSW (Marjorie O’Neill MP) letter, 19/11/2024 TfNSW Email to stakeholders Nov 11 2024 |
| Separated cycleway connection from Sydney Park Road to Mitchell Road | No | Yes | November 2023 Minister’s Office approval of scope reduction. By omission, 1st Aug 2024 CoS Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. Map in TfNSW letter to Bicycle NSW. | SMH article 2 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE Marjorie O’Neill letter to community member, 19/11/2024 |
| Missing crossing at Mitchell Rd & Sydney Park road | No | Yes | By omission in map in response to Bicycle NSW letter. Perhaps by omission in Aug 1st CoS 2024 Cycleway Advisory Committee slides) | Map & verbally in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE |
| …and bicycle lantern and treatment at above crossing | No | Unknown | Map in response to Bicycle NSW letter. Perhaps by omission in Aug 1st 2024 CoS Cycleway Advisory Committee slides | Not mentioned in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE or on supplied map. Josh Murray letter to Bicycle NSW, 2024-11-25 does state “Widened shared pedestrian and bike crossings at the intersection of King Street and Sydney Park Road.” |
| Separated cycleway on Sydney Park Road from Mitchell Road to Euston Rd | No | No | By omission, 1st Aug CoS Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. Map in TfNSW letter to Bicycle NSW. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map and declined to confirm verbally. |
| Separated on-road cycleway on King Street/Princes Highway between the intersection of Sydney Park Road and May Street | Yes | Yes | Map from response to Bicycle NSW letter, 6th September 2024. | Marjorie O’Neill letter to community member, 19/11/2024: Design includes “A new permanent, two-way, separated on-road cycleway on King Street/Princes Highway between the intersection of Sydney Park Road and May Street” Josh Murray letter to Bicycle NSW, 2024-11-25: “New permanent, two-way, separated on-road cycleway on the western side of King Street/Princes Highway between the intersection of Sydney Park Road and Barwon Park Road.” |
| Pedestrian crossing in front of Sydney Park Brick Kilns | No | No | Clover Moore letter 5th Sep 2024. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map and declined to confirm verbally. |
| Removal of slip lane into Barwon Park Road instead of removing it | No | No | Clover Moore letter 5th Sep 2024. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map and declined to confirm verbally. |
| New street trees south of Sydney Park Road | No | No | Clover Moore letter 5th Sep 2024. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map and declined to confirm verbally. |
| 40kmh speed reduction on Princes Highway within project bounds | “Limited” | Maybe? | Clover Moore letter 5th Sep 2024. | 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE map technically doesn’t rule in 40kmh for Syndey Park Road (ie. it’s stated as existing feature but not confirmed to remain). |
| …building dynamic spaces for recreation and entertainment along King Street and Princes Highway | No | Likely not | By omission in 1st Aug 2024 Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. | On Nov 11 TfNSW removed the text: – “a people-friendly place with more open areas for people” and – “create dynamic community spaces” from the project website, suggesting these features will not be included (or not guaranteed in the best case). |
| Redirecting freight vehicles off the Princes Hwy and Sydney Park Rd, to use Campbell Road and Euston Road | No | No | By omission in 1st Aug 2024 Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map and declined to confirm verbally.. |
| Reducing lanes from six to four on Princes Highway between Campbell Street and Goodsell Street | No | No | By omission in 1st Aug Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map and declined to confirm verbally.. |
| Reducing lanes from four to two on Sydney Park Road | Likely yes | Yes | Pop-up cycleway replacement with separated cycleway likely required same reduction in lanes – no new reduction in lanes from current state | Map presented at 20th Nov (FoE briefing) confirms lane reduction. |
| Upgrading bus stops on Sydney Park Road and Princes Highway | No | No | By omission in 1st Aug 2024 Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map. |
| Improving landscaping from Princes Highway to Sydney Park Road through to Euston Road. | No | No | By omission in 1st Aug 2024 Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. | Not in 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE: not on presented map. |
| Development of St Peters Square | No | Yes | By omission in 1st Aug 2024 Cycleway Advisory Committee meeting. | Marjorie O’Neill letter to community member, 19/11/2024: Design includes “Development of St Peters Square, with widened shared pedestrian and cyclist crossings at the intersection of King Street and Sydney Park Road” |
An unofficial timeline of the Sydney Park Junction project
This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Please get in contact if you have any corrections or additions to make. Please share a link to this page rather than copying this table in case I make corrections or add new information.
| Date | Event | Source |
| 2017-03-08 | Revision A (unpublished) of Sydney Park Road separated cycleway design | Appendix 5, “Sydney Park to Alexandria to Moore Park”, “B51 report” PDF page 168. Revision A is dated 8/3/17. https://www.westconnex.com.au/media/f4kh4v1u/cyclist-0573syd_westconnex-atn-st2_b51-report_redacted-small.pdf |
| 2017-05-17 | Pedestrian and Cycleway Network Review report (as required by B50 M8 (Westconnex) condition of consent) published | https://www.westconnex.com.au/media/f4kh4v1u/cyclist-0573syd_westconnex-atn-st2_b51-report_redacted-small.pdf |
| 2017-09-10 | Design of Mitchell Road to Sydney Park Road separated cycleway (Westconnex (M8) condition of consent B51 report) | Appendix 5, “Sydney Park to Alexandria to Moore Park”, “B51 report” PDF page 168. Revision A is dated 8/3/17, revision F (depicted) is dated 10/9/17. https://www.westconnex.com.au/media/f4kh4v1u/cyclist-0573syd_westconnex-atn-st2_b51-report_redacted-small.pdf |
| 2019-02 | WESTCONNEX ATN ST2 PLANNING CONDITION B51 – Pedestrian & Cycle Implementation Strategy | https://www.westconnex.com.au/media/f4kh4v1u/cyclist-0573syd_westconnex-atn-st2_b51-report_redacted-small.pdf |
| 2021-08-19 | 19th of August 2021 the City of Sydney Local Pedestrian and Cycling Traffic Calming Committee exhibited plans for the Mitchell Rd cycleway The engineering plans did not include shared path | 19th of August 2021 the City of Sydney Local Pedestrian and Cycling Traffic Calming Committee (item 44): https://meetings.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138&MId=3808&Ver=4 |
| 2021-09 | Design finalised. Still the latest publicly available design published by TfNSW. | Clover Moore letter Sep 5th states “publicly exhibited in September 2021 as part of the Review of Environmental Factors”: https://files.jakecoppinger.com/sydney-park-junction/O+OLM2024004516+GRAHAM.PDF As depicted in September 2021 community update: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/rww/projects/01documents/sydney-park-junction/sydney-park-junction-community-update-09-2021.pdf |
| 2022-03-17 | Mitchell Road cycleway approved by CoS Traffic Committee, which included shared path Mitchell Rd to Sydney Park Rd | Item 19, “Traffic Treatment – Separated Cycleway – Mitchell Road and Huntley Street, Alexandria”, Background PDF page 3 City of Sydney Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Committee meeting 17 March 2022. |
| 2022-03 | TfNSW Community Update. Amendments to design after community consultation Some changes were:All motorists can turn right from Mitchell Road to Sydney Park Road.25 new parking spaces to the Princes Highway. | https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/rww/projects/01documents/sydney-park-junction/sydney-park-junction-community-update-03-2022.pdf |
| 2023-11 | TfNSW slides, “Sydney Park Junction Project – Sydney Park Road Permanent Cycleway”, 5 August 2024 “Sydney Park Road scope reduction was approved by the Ministers Office” | |
| 2023-12-13 | Community member: “By the end of 2023, observing and hearing nothing, interested groups and individuals naturally started to seek updates. The essence of the department’s responses was always that ‘the project is still going ahead’ (e-mail to me from the TfNSW ‘Project Team’ dated 13.12.23) and any delays were due solely to ‘the details … still being worked out with City of Sydney and Inner West Council’ (ibid.).” | https://files.jakecoppinger.com/sydney-park-junction/Transport%20Minister%20Sydney%20Park%20Junction%20300924-1%20(redacted).pdf |
| 2024-04-18 | “The community member recalls the TfNSW staff member dismissing his concern about the project being cancelled, then confidently stating: “I wish I could tell you more, but there will be news very, very shortly”” | Phone call from TfNSW to community member https://jakecoppinger.com/2024/09/another-broken-westconnex-promise-secret-sydney-park-junction-design-changes/#:~:text=will%20be%20news-,very%2C%20very%20shortly,-%E2%80%9D. |
| 2024-05-7 | Letter (7th May 2024), Marjorie O’Neill to community member Reply to 22 March 2024 letter. Includes: ‘I appreciate it may have appeared that the project had been delayed’ and ‘this project has not been cancelled’. | Shared publicly on Elon Musk’s X https://x.com/FriendsOfErko/status/1801460141625380899/photo/1 Archived at https://archive.is/lvkGw |
| 2024-06 “mid 2024” | End of total full scope project construction originally promised | 2022-03 TfNSW community update https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/rww/projects/01documents/sydney-park-junction/sydney-park-junction-community-update-03-2022.pdf |
| 2024-07-15 | “Impact of the Rozelle Interchange” inquiry report in which inquiry participants raised a “lack of transparency regarding decisions made by the government following consultation” (paragraph 5.3, PDF pg. 97) and made recommendations:…that there is greater transparency, accessibility and accountability of community consultation processes. (Recommendation 5)That the NSW Government ensure that all future road-based projects prioritise the inclusion of safe and accessible active transport infrastructure.” (Recommendation 15) | https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3029#tab-reportsandgovernmentresponses https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/3029/Report%20No.%2023%20-%20Portfolio%20Committee%20No.%206%20-%20Transport%20and%20the%20Arts%20-%20Impact%20of%20the%20Rozelle%20Interchange_.pdf |
| 2024-08-01 | August 1st 2024 City of Sydney Cycling Advisory Committee meeting | |
| 2024-08-05 | “Sydney Park Junction Project – Sydney Park Road Permanent Cycleway” presentation presented to unknown audience | |
| 2024-08-09 | Bicycle NSW letter to Josh Murray (Secretary, Transport for NSW) First map of the reduced scope available publicly (but not published by TfNSW). Appears identical to map in 5th August 2024 TfNSW slides (4 days prior) | https://bicyclensw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/240809-Bicycle-NSW-to-TfNSW-Sydney-Park-Road-cycleway.pdf |
| 2024-08-30 | TfNSW updates Sydney Park Junction project page | Depicted in Sep 5 archive.org snapshot: https://web.archive.org/web/20240905033651/https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/sydney-park-junction |
| 2024-09-05 | Clover Moore letter to John Graham (Minister for Roads) and Jo Haylen (Minister for Transport) requesting the project proceeds with the September 2021 design | https://files.jakecoppinger.com/sydney-park-junction/O+OLM2024004516+GRAHAM.PDF (published with permission) |
| 2024-09-06 | TfNSW response to Bicycle NSW letter (Steven Issa Executive Director Planning & Programs) | https://bicyclensw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/240906-Josh-Murray-to-Bicycle-NSW-Sydney-Park-Road-cycleway.pdf |
| 2024-09-09 | Jake Coppinger blog post 1 (Scope reduction shared with the public for the first time) | https://jakecoppinger.com/2024/09/another-broken-westconnex-promise-secret-sydney-park-junction-design-changes/ https://old.reddit.com/r/sydney/comments/1fd4nyn/another_broken_westconnex_promise_secret_sydney/ |
| 2024-09-13 | Bicycle NSW blog post | https://bicyclensw.org.au/another-broken-promise-from-transport-for-nsw/ |
| 2024-09-19 | Bicycle NSW addressed letter to Jo Haylen | https://bicyclensw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/240919-Bicycle-NSW-to-Transport-Minister-Sydney-Park-Road-cycleway.pdf |
| 2024-09-19 | Roads Minister & Transport MO, Briefing – Active Transport, Speed Reductions & Vibrant Streets, 2024-09-19 Recommendation that the Minister for Roads and transport “2. Note the opportunities and funding requirements to improve active transport outcomes.” | |
| 2024-09-24 | Jo Haylen “directed the department to look again at their plans” | SMH article 2 (date listed), SMH article 1 as “Bicycle NSW chief executive Peter McLean wrote to Haylen to share “deep community concern” five days [2024-09-19] before she compelled her department to abandon the downgraded plans.” |
| 2024-09-30 | Community member letter to Jo Haylen (name redacted) | https://files.jakecoppinger.com/sydney-park-junction/Transport%20Minister%20Sydney%20Park%20Junction%20300924-1%20(redacted).pdf Published with permission of community member (name redacted) |
| 2024-10-07 | First Sydney Morning Herald article First public announcement of Jo Haylen directing TfNSW to abandon scope reduction on 2024-09-24. | https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/sydney-park-junction-upgrade-should-be-finished-instead-it-s-back-to-the-drawing-board-20241002-p5kfaw.html |
| 2024-11-10 | Second Sydney Morning Herald article “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021…” | https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/in-a-silently-uploaded-document-a-major-sydney-intersection-lost-its-upgrade-20241103-p5knhq.html |
| 2024-11-11 | TfNSW updates Sydney Park Junction project page (current as of time of publishing) | https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/sydney-park-junction |
| 2024-11-11 | TfNSW email to stakeholders | https://mastodon.social/@jakecoppinger/113467321390892575 |
| 2024-11-19 | TfNSW (Marjorie O’Neill MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Transport) letter to community member, Ref: 02227147 (reply to 2024-09-30 letter) | http://files.jakecoppinger.com/sydney-park-junction/response_2024-11-13+10-53+%28redacted%29.pdf Published with permission of community member (name redacted) |
| 2024-11-20 | Jenny Leong (Greens Member for Newtown in the NSW Parliament) asks questions to the Minister for Transport regarding the project. Answer due on 25 December 2024 | https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/papers/pages/qanda-tracking-details.aspx?pk=101985 |
| 2024-12 (“mid December” 2024) | Works to start of SPJ stage 1A, which only includes the pop-up cycleway (the scope the project team didn’t manage to de-scope before public outrage) | 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE |
| 2025 (“early next year”) | Update coming from TfNSW coming with more information. Not confirmed if this will include community consultation or community engagement | 2024-11-20 TfNSW project briefing to FoE |
| 2025-03 | Estimated end date of SPJ stage 1A (pop-up cycleway replacement) – 4 months after 2024-12. | TfNSW email to stakeholders 2024-11-11 https://mastodon.social/@jakecoppinger/113467321390892575 |
Appendix
TfNSW suggested a shared path that does not meet TfNSW design standards is safe
Since the Nov 10 Sydney Morning Herald article a separated cycleway link between Mitchell Road and Sydney Park Road has been confirmed as in scope. The section and titles below outline flaws in documents rationalising the now-cancelled scope reduction of this section.
TfNSW claimed the existing shared path is safe on the slides of the 19th of September presentation to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office. They claimed:
- That the City of Sydney have raised safety concerns regarding the existing shared path
- There are currently no crash incidents since the installation of the pop-up cycleway in July 2020 along the length of the Sydney Park Road
- That there was a low volume of cyclists around the corner of Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Rd
- That a Road Safety Audit would be undertaken to confirm the permanent cycleway and connections are safe
If you read that sentence carefully, it doesn’t even specify there haven’t been any crashes on the shared path between the Sydney Park Road pop-up cycleway and Mitchell Road cycleway (though I’m not aware of any).
TfNSW’s own report states there is a high level of pedestrian and cyclist activity at Mitchell Rd / Sydney Park Rd
TfNSW’s own Sydney Park Submissions report included that:
The high pedestrian and cyclist activity at the King Street/Sydney Park Road, Princes Highway/May Street and Mitchell Road/Sydney Park Road intersections, as well as along King Street to access St Peters Station and Sydney Park, is one of the key considerations of the proposal, as noted above and discussed in Sections 3.3, 4.3.2 and 5.2.5 of Appendix C (Traffic and transport assessment) of the REF.
March 2022 Submissions report, TfNSW, PDF page 36 (emphasis mine).
The latest Mitchell Rd safety audit was before bicycles were allowed on the existing footpath
Note that in the previous safety audit of Mitchell Road was undertaken in 2017 (PDF page 110 of “WESTCONNEX NEW M5 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE TRANSPORT NETWORK REVIEW” by McGregor Coxall (17 May 2017)). In NSW, it is illegal to cycle on a footpath unless it is designated a shared path using a blue line or signage. This footpath only became a shared path after the 17 March 2022 City of Sydney Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Committee meeting – which included:
The proposal includes the provision of a Shared Path on the western side of Mitchell Road between Sydney Park Road and the access to Sydney Park Village, a private road. As part of future proposals to upgrade Sydney Park Road, through the King Street Gateway project, the separated cycleway in Sydney Park Road will connect to the proposed cycleway on Mitchell Road. (emphasis mine)
Item 19, “Traffic Treatment – Separated Cycleway – Mitchell Road and Huntley Street,
Alexandria”, Background PDF page 3, City of Sydney Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Committee meeting 17 March 2022.
Therefore the existing safety audit would find few bicycle / pedestrian conflicts as cycling on the path was illegal.
What would a safety audit have found if no separated cycleway connection is added?
The 1.8 metre wide concrete footpath does not meet the required width for a footpath, let alone a shared path in this busy location connecting dense residential neighbourhoods and the third-largest park in inner-city Sydney. The Walking Space Guide Summary states a “Main street footpath – Medium activity / Local footpath – High activity” with 70 or more people per hour at peak times should have a minimum target width of 3.2 metres, and an intervention trigger width of 2.2 metres.
The TfNSW “Shared Paths: Discussion of research findings and key safety issues” report (August 2015) states “The recommended minimum [shared] path width is between 2.5 and 3.0 metres“. The TfNSW Cycleway Design Toolbox (PDF page 50) states that the “desired minimum width of a shared path is 4.0m“. The Austroads “Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling” (AGRD06A-17, 2017) states that 3.0m is a workable minimum in a location like this (heading A.2, Figure A2: “Shared path operation”, PDF page 90, document page 83).
If TfNSW undertook a Road Safety Audit to confirm the shared path is safe, they would find that it does not meet design guidelines.
TfNSW was proposing to evaluate the safety of an asset after designing it not to meet their own standards. Imagine designing a car not to satisfy government safety ratings but promising to “audit” that it’s safe afterwards! This would be unthinkable – and it’s only because of media pressure that the safety of pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to a state road are not subjected to this logic. It is unthinkable that TfNSW was proposing this order of activities before the Minister stepped in.
Cycling and walking count dashboard data
While a screenshot of the TfNSW Cycling and Walking Counts dashboard is shown in the 19th September slides claiming low usage of the Sydney Park Road to Mitchell Road shared path, the sidebar highlighting the site name or data timeframe appears to have been cropped out. Additionally, the “Average counts ( per site per day) panel does not appear to include a selected green site dot. The Total counts for the single monitored site specified is 4,620, analysed days is 128, and the graph shows one datapoint before the Apr 2024 dashed vertical line with a gradually decreasing trend. This means the claim of only an average of 36 cyclists per day is not easily reproducible with this dashboard.
36 cyclists per day is definitely wrong and suggests an issue with the detector (the average is closer to 150). If TfNSW knowingly presented a statistic taken during a data outage to the minister to rationalise the original scope reduction that is extremely concerning.
This screenshot must have been taken on or before the 19th of September 2024. As of the time of publishing there appear to be 2 green selected site dots positioned on the shared path corner of this intersection. One of these dots has a number of analysed days 5 more than the other. Counting back the number of analysed days on the live dashboard from the date of writing this paragraph, the first day of measurement for the oldest of these two sites seems to be May 3rd 2024 (perhaps with an off by 1 or 2 error).
This places the screenshot date of this dashboard as perhaps May 3rd + 128 days, or May 3rd + 128 + 5 days – 13th September 2024 or 18th September 2024.
Leave a Reply