These are not great metrics, but are useful heuristics – including for verifying and comparing claims of density and network length metrics per council (a pertinent topic!) with deterministic, open source calculations on human-verified consensus-based data (OpenStreetMap – which I contribute to almost daily).

A better metric, perhaps the most important, is cycling access using safe streets and cycleways – and one I am deeply passionate about. Affordable homes where people want to live need safe access to destinations people want to visit (without burning oil). Measuring this metric is important – almost as important as increasing it.

UrbanSpectra is open to work for evaluating, modelling, visualising and communicating urban data – and has an exciting product in development. If your private or public organisation is looking for rigorous analysis or tools using such data, or is interested in an early demo of this product – get in touch!

UrbanSpectra‘s capability statement is published at urbanspectra.com/capability-statement/

The post Updates to Australian Cycleway Stats first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

It’s a long one – TLDR; we support it! I hope the citations may be of enduring value for the context and history of these intersections (if you’re a Wikipedia editor, contact me if you’d like the Wikitext to save rewriting references). It was originally published on the Better Streets website, and was submitted as a PDF.

I sought open review from Better Streets members and it was approved by Better Streets leadership. Thanks very much to all the very talented reviewers (from diverse professional backgrounds) for their valuable input, advice, and review.

Better Streets strongly supports the proposed concept design for walking and cycling improvements between South Eveleigh and Waterloo Metro.^[1][2] Planting new street trees, widening the footpath, and providing a dedicated bus stop platform outside the Waterloo Metro station will greatly benefit the local community, visitors, commuters, and future residents.

The implementation of a separated cycleway along Henderson Road will complete the essential missing link from the existing Henderson Road cycleway to George Street. This link will measurably improve safety and access for people cycling between Erskineville, Waterloo Metro Station, and the George Street Cycleway.

The proposed walking and cycling improvements between South Eveleigh and Waterloo Metro will improve bus prioritisation, improve safety, and provide a critical connection for people riding bikes.

This submission details opportunities for improving the experience and safety of people walking and riding, by:

• Improving bus reliability to make public transport more convenient
• Reducing traffic signal delays for people walking and riding
• Streetscape improvements for the Botany Road shopping street; and
• Suggestions for walking and cycling prioritisation on SP2 land

Together, these improvements will begin to repair decades of damage caused by a dangerous, high-traffic arterial corridor, and will improve the well-being of the community, economy, and environment.

Better Streets is a national registered charity and Australia’s peak body advocating for safer, healthier, and more sustainable streets.^[3] It is made up of a coalition of over 130 member organisations.^[4][5][6] It is volunteer-driven, does not receive government funding, and is funded by membership and donations from the public.^[7] This submission was informed and reviewed by a number of transport professionals within Better Streets.

Quick position summary

Better Streets is supportive of measures that improve the experience of people walking, cycling, and resting on streets, including widening footpaths, building safe separated cycleways, bus priority measures, planting more trees, and reducing private car parking on public road space to encourage mode shift. We encourage shorter waiting times at signalised intersections for people walking and riding, and support 30km/h speed limits on local streets.^[8][9] We oppose measures to increase private vehicle road capacity in built-up areas.

Bus prioritisation

Better Streets supports the bus prioritisation measures on Raglan Street east of Botany Road. Such measures could reduce traffic intrusion into the existing and proposed residential neighbourhoods along Raglan Street and in Waterloo. Improving the on-time running of buses will encourage people to use public transport, and will enable new housing without debilitating vehicle traffic.

We support the footpath extensions and an appropriate floating bus stop treatment as implemented on the newly completed Oxford Street cycleway.

Streetscape improvements should proceed regardless of bus priority improvements

The streetscape improvements should proceed regardless of the bus prioritisation improvements. It would be a huge loss for the community, environment, and Transport for NSW (TfNSW) / City of Sydney (CoS) to not improve the streetscape.

The bus improvements were not included in the Chatswood to Sydenham Metro (EIS Technical Paper 1^[10], CoS-commissioned 2021 Cattell Cooper Report^{[11]: 44, 45, 46}, Get NSW Active 2023-24 description^[12], or action C5 of the Waterloo Station Interchange Access Plan^[13], so we assume this is an improvement based on considerations of the Road User Space Allocation Policy (RUSAP) as bolstered by the Connecting NSW strategy.^[14] Alternative explanations for its inclusion could be that it addresses a regression regarding Condition D12 of the Sydney Metro City & Southwest (C&SW) Conditions of Approval (CoA)^[15], frees up temporal capacity at the traffic signal TCS47 (aka. WLO01 or S.ID 54) to permit the project through the TCS approval gauntlet^[16], or – could advertently impede project implementation.^[a]

Shorter traffic signal cycle times improve bus operations

Improving signal phasing by lowering traffic signal cycle times would significantly reduce delays for people walking and riding bikes. Such changes would also improve bus reliability and shorten trips.

According to the TfNSW study on the broad 2018 Sydney CBD traffic signal cycle time changes, reducing the maximum traffic signal cycle time by 20 seconds had a neutral to positive impact on bus operations^[17] and “no measurable impacts on traffic operations”.^{[18]: (A) (vii)}

The study observed “Buses continued to operate normally”^[19][20], on most streets they ran faster, and on one street they arrived an average of 3.6 minutes earlier^{[21][20]: 5} – so much faster bus drivers were apparently unable to drive slowly enough to meet the old timetable. Only one of the streets analysed had slower buses (with less than 50 seconds average delays behind the timetable).

This evidence can help address the recurring concerns about traffic signal timing negatively impacting bus operations, and whether delays could impact commercial operation arrangements.^[c]

In any case, from first principles – if buses are provided with a dedicated lane, and no split failures at signals occur in the bus lane (i.e. as long as there isn’t a line of 10 buses trying to get through!), more frequent green lights would benefit buses and people walking and riding a bike.

Road space should be reallocated as necessary to ensure buses operate more efficiently. Implementing a dedicated bus lane along the paired one way roads – Harris Street, Regent Street, and Botany Road southbound; Henderson Road, Wyndham Street, Gibbons Street, Regent Street, Cleveland Street, Abercrombie Street, and Wattle Street northbound (known as the Southern Arterial Route) – would increase the people-moving capacity of the road and support the delivery of much needed housing supply of all types.^[14][35][36]

Southern Arterial Route

Better Streets does not support extending the Southern Arterial Route^[37] paired one-way roads (or increasing private vehicle traffic capacity in this corridor) to Green Square or further south – either as part of the development of the Henderson Road Cycleway or in the future.^{[38][d][e][f]} Each of these roads should be two-way, including the future O’Riordan Street realignment at Green Square station.^[g]

The Henderson Road Cycleway directly intersects with the Southern Arterial Route at two intersections. Henderson Road functions as the current terminus of the “Claytons” freeway.^[45]

These two intersections have strategic and historical significance – as the proposed terminus in the (rejected) 1987 “Wyndham Street Residents’ Alternative”^[46]: 102, the terminus of the Stage 2 works in 1992, and subsequent abandonment of Stage 3 in 1993. Long signal cycle times have been documented at these intersections.^{[47][48][49]: 8} The implementation of Stage 2 created so much traffic congestion that it led people to support Stage 3 on the grounds that it would abolish the bottleneck at Henderson Road.^[39]: 1 The 1993 Citizen’s Advocate Report stated “Ideally we need a solution to the problems of Stage 2 which does not involve the evils of Stage 3.”^[39]: 1

“It’s crazy to bring more traffic into the city” (Margaret Barry, 1988).^[50] We trust times have changed since 1993.^[e]

Safety

Streetscape improvements will improve safety for people walking and riding bikes

Better Streets does not support outdated and pedestrian-hostile measures such as widened traffic lanes or pedestrian fencing, and opposes the installation of such measures in conjunction with streetscape works for this project. Adding a separated cycleway and widening footpaths will improve the safety of people walking and riding (vulnerable road users). Better Streets notes part of Henderson Road makes up a 2-star AusRAP segment.^[51][h]

The opening of Stage 2 of the Southern Arterial route in 1992 turned Henderson Road into an extremely dangerous corridor.^[51][52][49] “Mike”, who lived on a busy corner of Wyndham ran “a kind of unofficial St John’s Ambulance station from his house”, coming out to look after the victims lying on the road. He said in 1993 “Since I’ve lived here I’ve lost 5 blankets.. and saved two lives.”. In December 1992 a car crashed into his house. Mike stated “They are crucifying the people who live here”.^[39]: 9

If it is to be redeveloped, SP2 zoned land on the west side of Botany Road (south of Henderson Road) should be utilised for cycling or walking infrastructure to serve new housing, not to add private vehicle lanes or parking outside a metro station.^[i]

Better Streets also encourages future consideration of making Railway Parade one-way between Erskineville Road/Swanson Street and Sydney Lane, as Raglan Street east of Botany Road will effectively become a modal filter. This would unlock space for a separated cycleway rather than a shared path, reducing conflicts with pedestrians.

Remove heavy and hazardous vehicles from residential streets

Dangerous traffic should not travel adjacent to or interact with residents and people walking and cycling in a dense urban area. Redirecting appropriate heavy and hazardous traffic into underground tunnels would deliver significant safety and amenity benefits. “Realising the benefits of WestConnex and Sydney Gateway … will be important to reducing heavy vehicle traffic on the Botany Road Corridor”.^[11]: 29

Now that WestConnex has been built, heavy or hazardous freight traffic should be diverted to underground tunnels and away from residential areas and vulnerable road users.

Botany Road, Regent Street and Gibbons Street are classified as Dangerous goods corridors^[53], necessitating use of Henderson Road – which is adjacent to the proposed Henderson Road cycleway and residential buildings, where people live, walk to school, and work. Heavy vehicles in local streets result in oversized intersections, which encourage fast vehicle movements just outside a metro station and high-rise housing.

The policy to permit hazardous freight traffic to operate near people on residential streets rather than distanced in fire-suppressed tunnels was identified as a problem by the Inner Sydney Regional Transport Group in 1986, by residents in 1993, and re-confirmed by Cattell Cooper consultants in 2021. This is in line with the 1993 RTA finding that “the societal impact of a tunnel incident involving dangerous goods was preferable to a dangerous goods incident on the alternate route which ran past schools and hospitals”^{[11]: 29 [54]}, which led to the M5 East tunnel being designed to permit use by vehicles carrying dangerous goods.

“New Zealand and Australia are established world leaders in the use of FFFSs [fixed firefighting systems] road tunnels” (US Federal Highway Administration)^[55] Austroads notes “The current specifications adopted for Australasian tunnels are of world class standards, and “In almost all cases, the performance of Australasian tunnels exceeded the performance of international tunnels.”^[56] “Large bulk quantities of dangerous industrial chemicals moving at high speed with commuter traffic through city streets create the potential for major disaster (Inner Sydney Regional Transport Group, 1986).^[57]: 4

When I put it to her that the Southern Arterial was the preferred truck route rather than South Dowling because you couldn’t transport dangerous/noxious goods that way because of the tunnels and what would happen if there was an accident in the tunnels, her reply was: “so it’s all right if it happens outside our homes rather than in their tunnels, so it’s our problem not theirs. What kind of logic is that?” – Carol, of Wyndham Street (1993).^[39]: 8

Removal of the one-way pair will support road space reallocation to public and active transport

Better Streets supports increasing the road corridor people-moving capacity through the reallocation of road space and provision of public and active transport. This is not a radical view – it is (excellent) TfNSW policy^[14] and supported by the Grattan Institute.^[35]

We note the proposal does not reallocate any road space for general vehicle traffic travelling westbound on Henderson to northbound on Wyndham. Removal of the one-way pair would offer the opportunity to reconfigure and reduce the private vehicle traffic lanes on Henderson Road.^[11]: 44

We support the long-standing^{[58][59][60][61][62]} and more recently proposed^[11][63] conversion of Botany Road north of Raglan Street from one-way to two-way operation.

The Henderson Road cycleway will connect South Eveleigh to Waterloo and beyond, repairing the severance identified before the Alexandria Goods Yards were even developed.^{[57]: 20, 21} The Botany Road “shopping centre” / “shopping arcades” (or “Waterloo shopping centre” – described as the intersection of Regent/Botany/Raglan/Henderson) has been struggling since 1992^{[39]: 17 [49]: 3} as predicted.^[64] Walkable and bikeable streets are good for business.^[65]

Implementing a cycleway along Henderson Road does not appear to, and should not, preclude future traffic-calming, transit or safety improvements on Botany Road.

Traffic signal operation

Traffic signals and signal phases have an impact on the economy and the experience of people walking and cycling. Any plans to improve the environment around Henderson Road should prioritise the Level of Service (LoS) for people walking and cycling.

We encourage TfNSW Network Operations to use the minimum possible cycle time to prioritise the Level of Service for people walking and cycling.

We are unaware of any mechanism for the City of Sydney to influence traffic signal cycle times and to ensure pedestrian and cyclist LoS is prioritised.^[18] The effects of this post-installation control are visible in the experience of Green Square^[29], an otherwise notable urban infill precinct which may see future comparison with Nordhavn.

For future stages, we urge the traffic modelling and analysis to focus on the LoS for people walking and riding. This is as per TfNSW’s mandatory RUSAP, which states temporal allocation should consider pedestrians before cars (and all other modes)^[66][j]

Statements such as “Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) [TfNSW predecessor] is responsible for traffic signals and by their operation they generally give priority to motor vehicles over pedestrians” (unanimously approved City of Sydney motion^{[18]: (A) (iv)}) is of great concern and demonstrates parts of the organisation did not consider people walking as important as people driving.

Sydney Metro Condition of Approval interpretation may contradict RUSAP

Better Streets is concerned a Sydney Metro Condition of Approval contradicts the Road User Space Allocation Policy (RUSAP)^[66], constraining improvements at intersections in this project. Condition D12 states:

D12: Traffic on local roads around each station must be monitored 12 months before the CSSI commences operation and for a period of no less than 12 months after commencement of operation. If monitoring indicates unacceptable traffic intrusion on local roads/streets as a result of operation of the CSSI beyond those that could reasonably be predicted in the EIS and/or Interchange Access Plan(s) in Condition E92, appropriate traffic management measures to mitigate the monitored impacts must be implemented following consultation with the Sydney Coordination Office and Relevant Road Authorities.^[15]

This requirement was interpreted in the Block 1 Report^[67] as measuring and preserving the Level of Service metric of vehicles at nearby intersections (including TCS47 and TCS55) at the expense of other modes.

A possible (and greatly concerning) interpretation is that Condition D12 locks in prioritisation of general vehicle traffic (rather than preventing ‘traffic intrusion’) – against TfNSW’s own policy – over all other modes at many intersections in this project. It is unclear whether this condition extends to 12 months after the completion of the Bankstown link conversion.

It would be absurd if this condition provides cover for the “vehicle-focused” “clan” within TfNSW^[68] around every C&SW Metro station (and every Metro West station captured by CoA E126 and E124) – especially in the context of abysmal CoA compliance for active^[69][70][71] and public transport reparations^[72] in major road projects.

Better signal timing would improve temporal allocation of road space

The TfNSW Network (SCATS) Operations team must adopt its own Road User Space Allocation Policy which outlines the allocation of “physical and temporal road user space”, and where the priority of people walking and cycling is considered before general traffic. This policy is mandatory^[66] though only sometimes followed.^[73]

As fewer individual vehicles will need to be accommodated, we expect the bus-only segment at Raglan Street would free up temporal capacity at Botany Road and Henderson Road (TCS 47), with little-to-no concern of split failures of buses. In line with best practice road space reallocation from general vehicle lanes, TfNSW should reallocate any spare temporal capacity to pedestrians and cyclists through reducing cycle times.

TfNSW does not publish minimum possible traffic cycle times – or as-run cycle times. The gap between minimum and actual cycle times are a quantitative indicator of the government’s prioritisation of active/public transport versus general vehicle traffic.

In contrast with physical road space reallocation, traffic signal cycle times are a trivially revertible, zero-cost, continuous variable – rather than quite literally set-in-concrete discrete step function of physical capacity (the curb!). If SCATS is capable, this could be changed slowly rather than as an immediate step function. Such adjustments are well known to software engineers as “progressive rollouts” as a technique to avoid disruption. Such changes, like physical changes, dial up and down road capacity and therefore demand^[k] (and is a proven measure to improve pedestrian safety at intersections^[76] to get back on track for Vision Zero).

By design, SCATS ‘predicts and provides’ temporal road space to accommodate as much unconstrained private vehicle traffic as it can^[18] up to the cycle time limit (in the absence of demand pricing and ambitious road user charging reform^[77][78][79]). The RUSAP review noted “…temporal considerations of road space allocation are rarely discussed in the road space allocation conversation.”^[73]: 21 – all this damning review could do was point a finger at the topic: it wasn’t even able to level criticism at signal timing due to the lack of transparency. This would be like stating ‘public authorities are rarely discussed in the power structure conversation’ in a history of New York – an oversight (and understatement) so damning it’s effectively admitting blindness (without even touching on the concerning possibility state control could re-route through TCS approvals^[16] in the post Traffic Committee delegation era^{[80][81][82][83]}).

If SCATS cannot “support the NSW Government’s “movement and place” policy” or RUSAP there should be “a review of the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System to support the NSW Government’s “movement and place” policy in relation to improvements or alternatives to better serve pedestrians.” (unanimously approved CoS motion by Philip Thalis, Australian Institute of Architects 2024 Gold Medallist ^{[18]: (B) (iii)}) SCATS customers are surely watching if it can rise to the challenge. If it can implement NSW Government Policy – we are awaiting evidence.^[32]

Better Streets (and other groups) continue to advocate for traffic signal operation transparency and open signal phasing data to monitor this progress.

East-west private vehicle capacity

Pitt St & McEvoy Street should not be opened for private vehicle traffic

Better Streets supports the proposed bus-priority works to prevent private vehicle traffic intrusion into residential areas, and supports the continued closure for private vehicles at Pitt Street & McEvoy Street to similar effect.^[d]

The original proposal to open McEvoy to Pitt Street for private vehicles^{[84]: 873 (PDF 59), 905 (91)} was a major issue raised by residents.^[85] Better Streets is aware of community concern this proposal represents an opportunity for this intersection to be re-evaluated.^[86][a]

After hearing community feedback^[87] (and “in a community win”^[88]) the Department of Planning and Environment “decided to extend Pitt Street but keep it closed to traffic at McEvoy Street, to make it safer and easier for local residents to walk and cycle.”^{[87][89][90][91]} Keeping Pitt Street South closed for private vehicles and allowing flexibility to achieve tall building design outcomes are “key features of the latest plan for Waterloo South following community feedback.”^[87]

A2MP must not be justified by bus priority works

Better Streets rejects any future suggestions that east-west bus priority works on Raglan Street would necessitate works to increase private vehicle capacity at McEvoy Street & Botany Road^[92]: 13 or complete the Alexandria to Moore Park (A2MP) Project.^[93][94] A2MP construction would require the “bulldozing” of homes and businesses from Alexandria to Waterloo.^[95]

The A2MP project is currently “In progress” according to the TfNSW website.^[96] “The effects of the [A2MP] upgrade on the Botany Road corridor upstream in the north-south direction are currently unknown.”^[53] “TfNSW has not provided a timeframe for the compulsory acquisition process or road widening, and alignment works.” (September, 2025)^[97]

The Infrastructure Opportunities Plan – released 6 days ago – includes $18 million for “Improvment (sic) work at McEvoy Street and Botany Road”, with “planning and design underway” for completion this year.^[92][98] Increasing capacity for dangerous freight traffic towards dense Waterloo neighbourhoods and Henderson Road is bad policy and suggests “vehicle-focused” “very powerful vested interests”.^[68] Those funds could have gone to reopening a (flat) Glebe Island Bridge^[99] – once again, this is ‘freeways by stealth’.^[100] The dedicated left-turn bay from McEvoy Street into Botany Road should be reallocated to footpaths and parklands.^[53]

Such destruction would squarely fall on the legacy of WestConnex Network Integration works^[101], the “vehicle-focused” “clan” within Transport for NSW^[68][d] and the long and horrifying history of proposed resumption, demolition and widening of the arterial route along the McEvoy Street corridor from Sydney Park Road to Moore Park (1951^[103] (1945/1948^{[104][105][106]}), 1958^[107], 1961-1969^[108], 1967-1968^{[109][110][111]}, 1971^[112], 1980^[113][114], 1981^{[115][46]: 2}, 1987^[46]: 112, 1998^[116], 2007^[61], 2017^[117], 2023^[94]) – and not due to a short bus-only street or a ~2m wide cycleway.

“The DMR has a long memory and has at last talked the government around to the plans it has always had its heart set on” (Stephen Harris, Senior Lecturer in Town Planning, UNSW, 1986).^[40][e] “All the pieces are sitting in someone’s desk. It is time they came out.”^[100]

Notes

References

1. ↑ “Have your say on walking and cycling improvements between South Eveleigh and Waterloo Metro”. City of Sydney. Archived from the original on 2026-03-02. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
2. ↑ “Concept design – South Eveleigh to Waterloo Metro walking and cycling improvements” (PDF). City of Sydney Council. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-03-02.
3. ↑ “Better Streets Australia”. Better Streets.
4. ↑ “Better Streets Board for 2025–26”. Better Streets. 2025-11-25.
5. ↑ “Coalition partners”. Better Streets.
6. ↑ “Coalition Members”. Better Streets.
7. ↑ “Membership”. Better Streets.
8. ↑ “Better Streets Safe Speeds position paper”. Better Streets.
9. ↑ “POSITION PAPER – Safe Speeds” (PDF). Better Streets. February 2026.
10. ↑ A new on-road cycle route would be provided along Raglan Street and Henderson Street, between George Street to the east and the shared path through the Vice Chancellors Oval to the west. This would provide direct access past the station entrance, connecting existing cycle route facilities to the east and west of the station.
    Jacobs (May 2016). “CHATSWOOD TO SYDENHAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT – TECHNICAL PAPER 1: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT” (PDF). Sydney Metro. p. 210. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-07-25.
11. ↑ ^{11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4} Cattell Cooper (April 2021). “Botany Road Corridor – Transport and Traffic” (PDF). City of Sydney. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-10-29.
12. ↑ “Get NSW Active 2023-24 Project List – Tranches 1 & 2” (PDF). Transport for NSW. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-12-09. Henderson Rd and Raglan St cycleway – Separated Bike Path Design – $580,000 (Funding Amount) – A separated cycleway link between Henderson Rd cycleway and George St cycleway at Waterloo Metro station.
13. ↑ “Investigate extending the cycling connection on Henderson Road to the George Street cycleway” – Timing (start to finish) 2021-2030
    “Interchange Access Plan” (PDF). Sydney Metro. July 2021. p. 50. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-06-30. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
14. ↑ ^{14.0 14.1 14.2} We will rebalance road investment, from providing additional capacity for general traffic (such as through road widening), to reallocating of existing road space for public transport and active transport alternatives. More space for buses can lead to fewer vehicles moving more people.
    The reallocation of road space will be required for high quality, frequent, turn-up-and-go bus services which can support the delivery of more diverse, ‘missing middle’ housing in areas closer to existing infrastructure, services and jobs.
    Transport for NSW (October 2025). “Connecting NSW Strategy – Priorities for Transport” (PDF). New South Wales Government. p. 27. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-11-01. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
15. ↑ ^{15.0 15.1} “Sydney Metro City & Southwest Chatswood to Sydenham Conditions of Approval” (PDF). NSW Government. p. 32. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-09-24.
16. ↑ ^{16.0 16.1} “Installation of Traffic Control Signals (ILC-ITS-TP0-003)” (PDF). Transport for NSW. March 2015. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-09-12.
17. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2025-09-24). “Green Lights More Often: The Secret 2018 Study of Sydney’s Traffic Signals”. jakecoppinger.com.
18. ↑ ^{18.0 18.1 18.2 18.3 18.4} Philip Thalis (2018-09-17). “Pedestrian Signals (Item 12.4, S129265)”. City of Sydney. Archived from the original on 2019-06-18.
19. ↑ Transport for NSW. ““Improved pedestrian accessibility in the CBD”, Briefing: Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, FOR INFORMATION” (PDF). files.jakecoppinger.com. p. 7.
20. ↑ ^{20.0 20.1} Transport for NSW. “25T-1151 – ITEM 3 – Info for Release – Presentation” (PDF). files.jakecoppinger.com.
21. ↑ Transport for NSW. “Doc B – Bus Travel times” (PDF). files.jakecoppinger.com. p. 273.
22. ↑ Roy Brown (SCATS Director Technology and Product, Transport for NSW) (2025-10-15). “2025-10-15: SCATS traffic signal extracts from panel discussion at Highways AU”. Jake Coppinger.
23. ↑ Rajnath Bissessar; Masoud Ramezani. “Signal Phase and Timing (SPaT) Data Policy Considerations” (PDF). ITS Canada. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-08-12.
24. ↑ “Real-Time Traffic Signal System Performance Measurement Phase II: Data And Functionality Enhancement, Large Scale Deployment, Connected And Autonomous Vehicles Integration” (PDF). NJDOT Technology Transfer. NJDOT Research Showcase: NJDOT Bureau of Research, Innovation & Information Transfer. p. 23. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-10-16.
25. ↑ ^{25.0 25.1} “Everything You’ve Ever Wanted To Know About ATSPMs: Harnessing The Power Of Automated Signal Performance Metrics For Your Agency” (PDF). The Eastern Transportation Coalition. 2022-11-09. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-09-24.
26. ↑ Peter J. Jin, Ph.D.; Tianya Zhang; Thomas M. Brennan JR., Ph.D., P.E.; Mohammad Jalayer, Ph.D. (May 2022). REAL-TIME TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT PHASE II: DATA AND FUNCTIONALITY ENHANCEMENT, LARGE SCALE DEPLOYMENT, CONNECTED AND AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES INTEGRATION FINAL REPORT VOLUME II (PDF) (Report). New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). pp. 58, 59, 60, 61. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-03-22.
27. ↑ Jake Coppinger; Tegan Mitchell (President of WalkSydney); Sara Stace (President of Better Streets) (2025-08-04). “Request for Public Access of SCATS Signal Phasing Data across one weekday for all NSW signals” (PDF). walksydney.org. Letter to Josh Murray, Howard Collins. p. 3.
28. ↑ “Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About ATSPMs: Harnessing the Power of Automated Signal Performance Metrics for Your Agency – November 9, 2022 (Question and Answer Summary)” (PDF). The Eastern Transportation Coalition. 2022-11-09. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-09-24.
29. ↑ ^{29.0 29.1} “Green Square signals fail active transport”. Bicycle NSW. 2024-07-05.
30. ↑ …Following decades of road rules and policies that put cars at the centre of urban life, cities across the globe have spent much of the past 20 years attempting to give pedestrians a greater influence on the street….
    …The push for improved walking spaces came to a head in 2023 when Sydney software engineer Jake Coppinger began crowdsourcing a survey of the worst pedestrian wait times at local intersections…
    Anthony Segaert (2025-01-31). “The change to our traffic lights that could make you happier”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-12-26.
31. ↑ “I hope having public data will give advocates an opportunity to help make Sydney a better place to walk and cycle,” Mr Coppinger said.
    …”I think signal timing data should be as public as a public train network timetable,” Mr Coppinger said…
    Declan Bowring (2023-09-25). “Better Intersections website gathers data on long pedestrian wait times in Sydney”. ABC News. Archived from the original on 2025-11-24.
32. ↑ ^{32.0 32.1} Yvonne (2025-09-20). “Why won’t Transport for NSW share SCATS Traffic Signal Phasing Data?”. WalkSydney.
33. ↑ Principle A2: … We will advocate for improving pedestrian priority at signals including: a maximum wait time of 45 seconds and a target of 30 second at all signals…
    ‘A City for Walking’ Strategy and Action Plan – Continuing the Vision (PDF) (Report). City of Sydney. 2024-07-05. p. 21. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-07-09. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
34. ↑ TransportCamp. Sydney. 2025.
35. ↑ ^{35.0 35.1} …Congestion is best managed in our cities using other policies, such as road-user charging, and the effective provision of public transport, which also becomes cheaper at higher densities.
    Brendan Coates; Joey Moloney; Matthew Bowes (November 2025). “More Homes, Better Cities: Letting more people live where they want” (PDF). Grattan Institute. p. 34. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-03-01.
36. ↑ Initiatives like transit lanes, bus priority lanes, and bus rapid transit can make buses faster and more reliable, and so entice onto public transport many people who would otherwise drive. Such measures can restrict road space and risk worsening traffic for remaining cars, but they usually allow a higher total number of people to travel.
    “Building more homes where infrastructure costs less” (PDF). NSW Productivity Commission. August 2023. p. 28. Retrieved 2026-03-03. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260214114101/https://www.productivity.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/202308_NSW-Productivity-Commission_Building-more-homes-where-infrastructure-costs-less_accessible-v2.pdf
37. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2026-02-04). “Have you heard of the Southern Arterial Route?”. jakecoppinger.com.
38. ↑ “Extension of the Botany Road / Wyndham Street one-way pair to Mascot (via O’Riordan Street / Botany Road)” is part of the “Transport Network Assumptions”
    SGS Economics and Planning (August 2020). “Future Transport 2056: South East Sydney Transport Strategy” (PDF). Transport for NSW. p. 29. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-11-08. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
39. ↑ ^{39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5} Hall Greenland (1993-06-30). “Citizen’s Response to the proposed Stage 3 of the Southern Arterial (Citizen’s Advocate Report)” (PDF).; “3.2.3 Commercial transport (freight) Botany west transport study summary report on community”. City of Sydney Archives.
40. ↑ ^{40.0 40.1} Stephen Harris (1986-08-17). Stop Them Resurrecting Askin’s Freeways – Background Issues and Concerns (Report). Inner Sydney Regional Transport Group. p. ii.; Stephen Harris (1986-08-17). Notes from Address. Inner Sydney Regional Transport Group Public Meeting.
41. ↑ Frank Sartor (2006-12-22). “South Sydney Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Amendment No 17) – Green Square Town Centre” (PDF). City of Sydney. p. 14. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-06-26.
42. ↑ City of Sydney; McGregor Coxall (2013-03-25). “Town Centre Public Domain Strategy” (PDF). p. 57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-04-05.
43. ↑ ^{43.0 43.1} “DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: 1 O’RIORDAN STREET ALEXANDRIA” (PDF). City of Sydney. 2009-11-17. pp. 1, 7, 10, 11, 13, 20, 28, 29. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-04-04.
44. ↑ Additionally the Planning Proposal will zone the site at 2A Bourke Road, Zone SP2 Road, as this lot is required for the realignment of O’Riordan Street, regional traffic management and will facilitate redevelopment of the Green Square Railway Station site at 312-318 Botany Road. The lot is identified in the Land Acquisitions Map.
    “Planning Proposal: Green Square Town Centre LEP 2010” (PDF). City of Sydney Council. March 2012. pp. 23, 81. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-01-14.
45. ↑ “The southern arterial route from Darling Harbour to the south-west, opposed by the elected City Council, is a “Claytons” freeway, cutting a swathe through Pyrmont, Ultimo and Redfern and Waterloo, and causing major environmental problems and destroying historic buildings.”
    Clover Moore (1988-03-03). “What the candidates said – Election Highlight: Transport”. The Sydney Morning Herald. p. 11. Archived from the original on 2025-12-12.
46. ↑ ^{46.0 46.1 46.2} MacDonald Wagner (February 1987). Pyrmont-Alexandria Traffic Management Proposal – Environmental Impact Statement. Macdonald Wagner for Department of Main Roads. ISBN 0730545490.
47. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2024-08-22). “Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road…”. jakecoppinger.com.
48. ↑ Because of the twin pair arterial roads and the station location, to get to ATP pedestrians will need to cross three streets (Raglan or Henderson, Botany Road and Wyndham Street). On a 120-second cycle, it will take up to 6 minutes waiting to “cross the road”. This is not a pedestrian friendly precinct for many who will live or arrive at the Metro Quarter.
    Geoffrey Turnbull (REDWatch). “RE: Submission on Waterloo Metro Quarter State Significant Precinct Planning Controls and State Significant Development Applications SSD 18_9393”. Letter to The Department of Planning. p. 6. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03.
49. ↑ ^{49.0 49.1 49.2} The intersection of Regent St and Henderson Rd with the dog leg turn into Gibbons St is considered to be a nightmare intersection both for pedestrians crossing, and traffic conflicting. (pg. 2)
    Altogether fifteen people made comments concerned with the Henderson Rd intersection. Eight people in favour of the road in agreement with the road mentioned it as a problem to be solved and another five people opposed to Stage 3 commented on the dangers or the delays at this crossroads. Several more commented on the issue of east west traffic conflict with the Southern Arterial. (pg. 8)
    Stage two has created problems (heading): Two commented that traffic has increased in Raglan St – “too much traffic, noise, pollution and speeding, especially trucks from Henderson Rd and Botany Rd – someone is going to get killed soon” (pg. 10)
    The Public Practice (1993). Southern Arterial Stage 3 EIS Summary of Public Comments (PDF).; “3.2.3 Commercial transport (freight) Botany west transport study summary report on community”. City of Sydney Archives.
50. ↑ Catherine Lumby (1988-09-15). “Road Plan Will Divide Redfern”. The Eastern Herald (The Sydney Morning Herald). p. 3. Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.; “Road Plan Will Divide Redfern” (OCR Text). Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.
51. ↑ ^{51.0 51.1 51.2} “NSW AusRAP map (Road Name ‘0000170-BOTANY RD’ Section 2)”. Transport for NSW. 2016-11-03. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
52. ↑ Waterloo was also one of the poorest suburbs in Sydney and had a large number of elderly residents, many of them public housing tenants, whose lives would be endangered by increased pollution and traffic, he [Jack Carnegie] said.
    Steven Long (1992-05-28). “Road ‘will cut Redfern in two’“. The Eastern Herald (The Sydney Morning Herald). Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.; “Road ‘will cut Redfern in two’“ (OCR Text). Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.
53. ↑ ^{53.0 53.1 53.2} “Transport, Heritage, Environment and Planning Committee – Post Exhibition – Planning Proposal – Botany Road Precinct – Sydney Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Sydney Development Control Plan 2012 Amendment” (PDF). City of Sydney Council. June 20, 2022. p. 140 (PDF pg. 7).
54. ↑ Riskcorp (November 1993). Review of Dangerous Goods Transportation Through Tunnels for the Proposed M5 East Motorway (Report).
55. ↑ Ernst, Steve L.; Bergeson, William; Harelson, Steve; Williams, Dan; Bilson, Matt (2018-09-01). “Tunnel Fire Protection Using Fixed Firefighting Systems: Advanced Practices from Australia and New Zealand”. United States Federal Highway Administration.
56. ↑ Bruce Dandie (2019-06-13). Dangerous Goods in Tunnels: Literature Review (Report). Austroads. p. 19. ISBN 978-1-925671-87-2.
57. ↑ ^{57.0 57.1} “The proposal to create a one-way pair system will divide South Sydney: … the proposed Department of Housing development on Alexandria Goods Yards will be isolated from all services and the rest of the community.” (pg. 20,21)
    Deborah Carbon (May 1986). Submission to the ‘Roads 2000’ Task Force Inquiry (Report). PO Box A.555 Sydney South 2000: Inner Sydney Regional Transport Group.
58. ↑ Redfern Waterloo Authority (February 2006). “Draft Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan (Stage One)”. REDWatch. Archived from the original on 2025-04-05.
59. ↑ “Redfern Waterloo Authority Draft Employment and Enterprise Plan Submission by the City of Sydney” (PDF). City of Sydney. 2006-03-20. p. 6.
60. ↑ Trevor Davies (December 2006). “The divisions over Regent Street changes: Council and RWA support it, RTA is against it”. South Sydney Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-04-28.
61. ↑ ^{61.0 61.1} The arterial network is under the care and control of the RTA which has future plans to complete the Southern Arterial route. This should improve north-south traffic capacity in the Redfern West Precinct.
    The RTA also has future plans to widen McEvoy-Lachlan Street which should improve the east-west traffic capacity for the Redfern East Precinct and the developing Green Square area. However the timing of these road upgrade projects is uncertain.
    (RECOMMENDATION F): the Chief Executive Officer write to the RTA seeking to return Regent, Gibbons and Chalmers Streets to two-way traffic flow and ask the RTA to consider the various state road issues raised by residents.
    “REDFERN EAST AND REDFERN WEST LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SCHEME REVIEWS (PLANNING POLICY SUB-COMMITTEE)” (PDF). City of Sydney. 2007-04-30. p. 4. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-10-30.
62. ↑ Elizabeth Rush, Senior Transport Planner; Andrew Thomas, Acting Director City Strategy and Design (2010-06-16). “Information Relevant To Item 9.2 – Newtown Erskineville Camperdown and Darlington Pedestrian Cycling Traffic Calming Plan at the Planning Development and Transport Committee” (PDF). Letter to Lord Mayor and Councillors. City of Sydney. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-05. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
63. ↑ Tonkin Zulaikha Greer Architects (March 23, 2021). “Botany Road Corridor Urban Design Study”. Zulaikha Greer Architects (for City of Sydney). Archived from the original on 2022-03-27. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
64. ↑ “Route opposed (News in brief)”. The Eastern Herald (The Sydney Morning Herald). 1987-03-12. p. 3. Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.; “Route opposed (News in brief)” (OCR Text). Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.
65. ↑ AECOM; Committee for Sydney (November 2024). Walkable and bikeable streets are good for business (PDF) (Report). Committee for Sydney. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-12-17.
66. ↑ ^{66.0 66.1 66.2} …This policy sets out the mandatory principles and requirements Transport staff must follow when allocating physical and temporal road user space safely and equitably to support the movement of people and goods and place objectives…
    …Transport must: … allocate road user space based on the network vision and road functions, considering all road users in order of: 1. walking, 2. cycling … 6. general traffic…
    …Transport must: … adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to ‘protect or maintain private vehicle level of service…
    Transport for NSW (July 2024). “Road User Space Allocation Policy” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-07-25.
67. ↑ “Block 1 Report – Sydney Metro C&SW – Traffic and Interchange Monitoring” (PDF). AECOM. August 11, 2023. p. 28. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-09-24.
68. ↑ ^{68.0 68.1 68.2 68.3} Aston Brown; Declan Bowring (2026-02-09). “Cyclists slam ‘nightmare’ shared path at new Sydney Fish Market”. ABC News.
69. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2024-09-09). “Another broken WestConnex promise: secret Sydney Park Junction design changes”. jakecoppinger.com.
70. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2024-11-26). “Sydney Park Junction: TfNSW Won’t Commit to Original Scope Despite Ministerial Intervention”. jakecoppinger.com.
71. ↑ “Not enough funding for Sydney Park Junction – Addendum REF to cut scope”. jakecoppinger.com. 2025-05-27.
72. ↑ Jacob Saulwick (2019-04-15). “‘Clearly in breach’: WestConnex public transport conditions not met”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-03-07.
73. ↑ ^{73.0 73.1} Transport for NSW (December 2023). “Road User Space Allocation Policy Implementation Review Report” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-09-11.
74. ↑ David M. Levinson (2026-02-19). “Seeking causality in transport research”. Transportation Research Today. doi:10.1016/j.trt.2026.100001.
75. ↑ Mark Russell; Henrik Malker (11 November 2014). “Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement Plan Review of Environmental Factors Volume 2 – Appendices” (PDF). Transport for NSW. ISBN 978-1-925217-60-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-03-20.
76. ↑ Josef Whitfield (2025). Pedestrian Wait-Time Reduction: A Vast Improvement to the Pedestrian Experience on a Shoestring Budget. Transport Planning and Modelling (TPM) Conference. Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM). Archived from the original on 2025-09-25.
77. ↑ Terrill, M.; Moran, G.; Ha, J. (October 2019). Why it’s time for congestion charging: Better ways to manage busy urban roads (PDF) (Report). Grattan Institute. ISBN 978-0-9876359-6-9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-03-21.
78. ↑ Marion Terrill; James Ha (2019-10-14). “Why congestion charging is fairer than you might think”. The Grattan Institute. doi:10.64628/AA.wrjuh7nxm. Archived from the original on 2025-04-30.
79. ↑ Transurban (2026-02-19). “1H26 Results” (PDF). p. 11. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-02-20.
80. ↑ “The problem with Local Traffic Committees”. Bicycle NSW. 2023-09-14. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03.
81. ↑ “Big changes for local transport planning”. Bicycle NSW. 2025-08-23. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
82. ↑ “The Authorisation & Delegation Instrument – (ii) What has changed?” (PDF). Transport for NSW. August 2025. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-03-03.
83. ↑ Navreet Virdi (October 2025). “Transport Modelling Guidelines”. Transport for NSW. p. 187. Archived from the original on 2025-11-21.
84. ↑ NSW Government Department of Planning Industry & Environment (April 2020). “Planning Proposal Report – Waterloo Estate (South) – Land and Housing Corporation (Attachment B2)” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-03-03.
85. ↑ Geoffrey Turnbull (June 2022). “REDWatch Submission on Planning Proposal Waterloo Estate (South) PP-2021-3265 (SUB-1701)” (PDF). p. 16 (PDF pg. 375). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-04-15.
86. ↑ Text of sign advertising 2026-03-05 community meeting:
    If motor vehicles cannot use Raglan St as proposed above, traffic will be diverted to Wellington St, requiring a re-evaluation of whether Pitt St should be opened to McEvoy St. Council and the Consortium have been invited to discuss this and other bike, bus, pedestrian and traffic issues with the community.
    REDWatch (n.d.). Planning Roads, Cycleways and People Movement in Waterloo (title of A4 sign). Cope & Raglan Street.
87. ↑ ^{87.0 87.1 87.2} “Community feedback shapes future of Waterloo South”. Department of Planning and Environment. 2022-08-05. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03.
88. ↑ Geoff Turnbull (2022-08-02). “Waterloo Estate will be developed”. The South Sydney Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-10-30.
89. ↑ NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (January 2022). “Waterloo South planning proposal – Summary of community information sessions”. redwatch.org. Archived from the original on 2026-02-08.
90. ↑ “Streets and traffic flow – Waterloo south”. 2023-05-04. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
91. ↑ In direct response to public submissions where concerns were raised around the proposed opening of the Pitt Street extension to McEvoy Street, Bitzios Consulting was re-engaged to prepare an addendum updated transport assessment. This assessment investigated the impacts that would likely result on the traffic network within the precinct if the proposed Pitt Street extension did not allow vehicular movements on to or from McEvoy Street.
    The work found that alternative access and egress routes are available and not opening Pitt Street would be appropriate. This change was supported by Transport for NSW.
    “Waterloo South Post Exhibition Report & Proposal Amendments Guide”. n.d. Archived from the original on 2026-01-18. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
92. ↑ ^{92.0 92.1} Transport for NSW is delivering intersection upgrades at McEvoy Street and Botany Road in Waterloo to support 10,000 dwellings, with planning and design underway and completion expected in 2026. The project is funded through the Accelerated Infrastructure Fund Round 3 – Tranche 2, with a total cost of $18 million.
    Infrastructure Opportunities Plan – Greater Sydney (PDF) (Report). NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. 2026-02-26. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-02-26.
93. ↑ David M Levinson (2018-11-12). “The Alexandria – Moore Park Disconnector”. WalkSydney.
94. ↑ ^{94.0 94.1} Transport for NSW (2023-01-31). “Alexandria to Moore Park Project”. Archived from the original on 2025-10-14. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
95. ↑ Nigel Gladstone (2017-11-08). “Alexandria Roads a ‘cancerous mess’“. The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2026-03-03.
96. ↑ “Project finder (filter by Alexandria to Moore Park Project)”. Transport for NSW. Archived from the original on 2026-03-02. Retrieved 2026-03-03.
97. ↑ Ava Tan, Connor Hoang (2025-09-24). “224-234 Young Street, Waterloo Transport Impact Assessment”. ason group.
98. ↑ Member for Heffron, Ron Hoenig (2023): “These improvements at McEvoy Street and Botany Road will help to ease traffic gridlock that is already taking a toll on Waterloo and Alexandria as a result of WestConnex.” “We need to future-proof this intersection in order to get more housing supply where it makes sense.”
    Chris Minns; Paul Scully (2023-07-23). “NSW Government investing $40.9 million to fast-track critical infrastructure in high growth communities” (Press release). NSW Government. Archived from the original on 2026-01-17.
99. ↑ “Reopen the Glebe Island Bridge”. Kobi Shetty. Archived from the original on 2026-01-22.
100. ↑ ^{100.0 100.1} “Glebe Island Bridge… there is concern about the impact of the new bridge.”
     “Alderman Margaret Barry said there was no question that the Department of Main Roads had picked up again the freeway plans of the Askin Government which were abandoned by the Wran Government in 1976.”
     “They’re not being called freeways and they are not being built in one strip,” Alderman Barry said. “We are getting different names. We have the Eastern Distributor, the Glebe Island Arterial, the Western Distributor, the Harbour tunnel and the paired routes of the Southern Road from Pyrmont to the Princes Highway at St Peters. It’s going up in little bits almost entirely on the routes proposed by the Askin Government or a few streets removed. It is freeways by stealth.”
     Alderman Ross Bonthorne (Lib) said Sydney’s road plans were a jigsaw. “It’s a new highway game, better than Trivial Pursuit,” he said. “All the pieces are sitting in someone’s desk. It is time they came out.”
     Michael Grealy (1986-05-22). “‘Freeways by stealth’ charge”. Sydney Morning Herald. p. 4. Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.; “‘Freeways by stealth’ charge” (OCR Text). The Sydney Morning Herald. 1986-05-22. Archived from the original on 2025-10-26.
101. ↑ Audit Office of New South Wales (2021-06-17). “NSW Auditor-General’s Report to Parliament – WestConnex: changes since 2014 – Appendix two – Network integration works” (PDF). p. 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-08-06. Audit Office of New South Wales (2021-06-17). “WestConnex: changes since 2014”. p. 39. (PDF page 6) Alexandria to Moore Park – Stage 1 – To address increased traffic flows from St Peters Interchange to the east (and vice versa) for M8 generated traffic until M4/M5 link opens. – E40 b) iii)
102. ↑ Matt O’Sullivan (2025-10-27). “Public servants reveal reluctance to speak up at scandal-hit transport agency”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-11-13.
103. ↑ Cumberland County Council (1951). “County of Cumberland planning scheme … a representation of the … ordinance 27 June 1951 [cartographic material] / compiled by Cumberland County Council”. State Library of New South Wales.
104. ↑ Few practitioners in Sydney would be aware that the early investigations underpinning the 1951 Plan were in fact undertaken more than a decade earlier by the then Department of Main Roads.
     Philip Brogan (Maunsell Australia); Brian Watters (RTA) (2002). “Developer Contributions and the Containment of Urban Expansion in Sydney” (PDF). p. 6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2023-03-10.
105. ↑ Prior to this bodies such as the Department of Main Roads had already given consideration to issues affecting the development of the regional area. For example, that Department’s 1945 report – ‘The County of Cumberland Main Road Development Plan’ – was apparently incorporated with little alteration into the Cumberland County Council’s plan in 1948.
     Hon. Justice Michael Barker President, WA State Administrative Tribunal (2007-05-04). How Planning and Environmental Law Has Shaped Our Cities (PDF). 2007 Planning Institute of Australia National Congress. p. 8. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-04-06.
106. ↑ The results of these investigations were detailed in the Department’s comprehensive report, issued in 1945 and entitled “The County of Cumberland Main Road Development Plan”…
     …The Metropolitan Plan of the Cumberland County Council was not greatly different in general extent and with reference to general land use, from the outline plans prepared by the Department. Consequently, the Department’s road planning required little alteration before being incorporated in the Council’s plan.
     Department of Main Roads NSW (1976). “The Roadmakers – A History of Main Roads in New South Wales” (PDF). p. 204 (PDF pg. 223). ISBN 0 7240 0439 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-04-26.
107. ↑ “City of Sydney Planning Scheme, 1958”. City of Sydney Archives. 1958-12-15.
108. ↑ “Waterloo Park. Proposed Acquisition of portion by Dept of Main Roads for widening of McEvoy Evoy [sic] St, 14th August 1961 and 25th June 1969”. City of Sydney Archives. 1961–1969.
109. ↑ “Government plan: Plan of realignment in accordance with the provisions of the Main Roads Act 1924”. City of Sydney Archives. 1967–1968.
110. ↑ “Government plan: Proposed widening of part of McEvoy St – Sheet 1 of 2 – Waterloo [Land bound by Elizabeth St, Kensington Ln, McEvoy St, Kensington St, McEvoy St, Morshead St & Hunter St] [M-CRS99]”. City of Sydney Archives. 1967–1968.
111. ↑ “Government plan: Plan of realignment in accordance with the provisions of the Main Roads Act 1924 as amended in connection with the proposed widening of McEvoy St – Waterloo [Land bound by McEvoy St, Moorehead St & Young St] [M-CRS99]”. City of Sydney Archives. 1967–1968.
112. ↑ “Government plan: Plan of realignment in accordance with the provisions of the Main Roads Act 1924”. City of Sydney Archives. 1970–1971.
113. ↑ “Government plan: Proposed widening of part of McEvoy St – Alexandria [Land bound by Bowden St, Fountain St, McEvoy St & Stokes Ave] [M-CRS99]”. City of Sydney. 1972–1974.
114. ↑ “Notification of Approval of Governor to Plan of a Proposal for Realignment under Division I of Part Vb of the Main Roads Act, 1924, at Waterloo in the Municipality of South Sydney”. Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales. National Library of Australia. 1980-10-31. p. 5675.
115. ↑ Pak-Poy & Kneebone (1981). South Sydney Municipal traffic study: final report. City of Sydney Archives.
116. ↑ “SOUTH SYDNEY LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN 1998 (AS AMENDED)” (PDF). City of Sydney. February 1998. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-03-03.
117. ↑ “Alexandria to Moore Park Connectivity Upgrade, community update June 2017” (PDF). Roads and Maritime Services. June 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017-06-24.

The post Better Streets Submission for Walking and Cycling Improvements between South Eveleigh and Waterloo Metro (Henderson Road) first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

Have you heard of the Southern Arterial Route in Sydney? I hadn’t either – but you won’t be able to unsee the scar through Ultimo, Chippendale, Redfern and Waterloo. Here’s a ~12,000-word Wikipedia article with 153 references – with page numbers, for every sentence – to bring you and your search engine up to speed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Arterial_Route?useskin=vector

Only a few years after the Erskineville Uprising of 1985 there were substantial protests against this urban arterial road. Clover Moore opposed it in her 1988 campaign for the Bligh electorate and described it as a “Claytons freeway” – 38 years ago. 150 people attended a meeting to fight against it, and there were direct action protests after the opening, with 60 demonstrators in the street blocking Redfern traffic for an hour. “Guerilla acts hit the DMR” said the headlines. There were at least 36 Sydney Morning Herald articles on the development. It’s hard to oppose something if you don’t know the name of it.

After the partial opening in 1992 there was a “dramatic increase in traffic”. The traffic was so heavy residents’ walls cracked and caused structural damage to several homes. Noise interfered with conversations inside homes and disturbed sleep of residents. Crossing the street became difficult “in particular for children, the aged, disabled and mentally ill”. Residents moved out due to high lead levels in the blood of their daughter. The supermarket suffered a 30% decline. A resident was told their house value dropped by $50,000 in 1993 dollars (when the median Sydney house price was ~$188,000). The principal of the Alexandria Public School (Alexandria Park Community School) stated he was “not game” to have his pupils tested for lead levels in their blood – “if they’re high over in Balmain, there’s no way they aren’t going to be as high here”.

There were so many car crashes “Mike”, who lived on a busy corner of Wyndham, ran “a kind of unofficial St John’s Ambulance station from his house” – coming out to look after the victims lying on the road. He said “Since I’ve lived here I’ve lost 5 blankets.. and saved two lives.” – before a car crashed into his own house. Mike stated “They are crucifying the people who live here”.

The Southern Arterial Route should not be extended (as assumed in Future Transport 2056). “if people count, Stage 3 of the Southern Arterial will not be built” (Citizen’s Report for proposed Stage 3, 1993). It should be at least partially reverted, per the 2021 Botany Road Corridor Urban Design Study (or perhaps even more ambitiously). The Citizen’s Report for the unbuilt stage 3 continued “on the same grounds, Stage 2 will be undone or significantly modified.”

Reviewers considered the draft neutrally written. In the spirit of Wikipedia, I hope you may agree the facts speak for themselves.

After two rounds of peer review through Wikipedia’s Articles for Creation review process (it was initially light on secondary references), my draft received a B-Class quality rating, placing in the top 4% of accepted articles. Personal compliments are not permitted on Wikipedia; review feedback included the article “…is, to say the least, very well documented”.

But now – this page is yours! If you spot any errors, notice something I missed, or find something I didn’t, hit that edit button! (you don’t need an account and your IP address isn’t even shown) It hopefully won’t remain only my writing for long. In the AI era, Wikipedia has never been more valuable. Thanks so much to the pseudo-anonymous editors who reviewed it and have made corrections.

This route threads the histories of the Green Bans and Wran’s 1977, Clover’s 1988 political campaign and the Darling Harbour opening that year, Anzac Bridge, the growth of Green Square and ongoing story of urban renewal in Waterloo.

Construction of the Southern Arterial potentially made traffic worse than doing nothing at all. The “Wyndham Street Residents’ Alternative” proposal, dismissed in the 1987 EIS but approximately matching the as-built design today, performs “significantly worse” (for cars) than if it was never implemented at all (according to the traffic modelling). The implementation of Stage 2 created such congestion that it drove people to support Stage 3 on the grounds that it would abolish the bottleneck at Henderson Road/Raglan Street/Wyndham Street. At this intersection it can be faster to catch the metro from Central to Waterloo than walk across this road, due to traffic signals timing. (Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road…”, 2024)

More recently there have been proposals to partially revert the damage. Improvement seems politically or organisationally challenging – even the Redfern Waterloo Authority, created by “the most draconian and arrogant bill” Clover had ever seen and the “most draconian” agency she had encountered, was not able to wrestle the Roads & Traffic Authority to improve the street. The Citizen’s Advocate for the proposed Stage 3 claimed in 1993 that “some RTA personnel” have confidence that “not enough people care enough for there to be any danger of their plans not being realised.” I hope times have changed.

Keep the Southern Arterial in mind when you are late to uni and seemingly wait forever at the Broadway traffic lights, as you queue outside Radio Taco, as you risk your life crossing Cleveland Street mid-block amid missing crossings (or just give up visiting businesses on the other side), as you exit ABC’s headquarters looking up to the UTS pedestrian overpass, as you awkwardly balance on your bike waiting to cross from Mary Ann St to the Kelly Street cycleway, as you emerge from a carpark labyrinth in an uphill slog on Allen Street and face a (new) fence on Ultimo St, take a breather late at night on the Abercrombie Hotel balcony overlooking over that strange triangle island (perhaps during a dystopian city concept album), and when you pass the vacant shop fronts on Regent Street and Botany Road.

The proposal for this high-traffic, one-way pair urban vehicle arterial along urban shopping streets (a stroad) seems to have resurfaced every few years since at least 1969. It was resuscitated after the Wran government’s 1977 sell-off of road reservations put to rest terrifying plans to raze vast tracts of inner city housing to build surface expressways, Robert Moses-style. It appears the city council pushed for the arterial as an alternative to stave off these horrifying expressway plans (see 1974). As plans for road widening requiring “extensive property resumption” the council pushed a one-way scheme instead (1983). Eventually the DMR moved forward (1987) with such proposals, and there was opposition from a (perhaps transformed) council (1988).

The Pyrmont-Alexandria Traffic Management Proposal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was approved in 1987 “amid controversy” (SMH), seemingly intentionally the least worst option against an alternate elevated expressway callously struck through the heart of Redfern (The Public Transport Option was dismissed as “Diversion of car drivers and passengers to the existing rail network is not considered likely”) and because “neither rail or bus public transport satisfies the objectives of the Proposal”.

The immensely unpopular project was never completed and seems to have lurked just under the surface in the state roads department ever since. The unstoppable force of road building met an immovable object in the 1990s recession (with the official reason being uncertainty of the M5 exit blocking traffic modelling for the EIS) – only to re-emerge in a 2003-2006 gasp for air (I don’t know what happened in 2006 – let me know or even better, edit the page).

Plans to expand this arterial perhaps still lurk in the deep. There are lukewarm public documents published within the last 6 years which assume extension of this urban high-vehicle-capacity arterial. The unbuilt Stage 3 extension of the Southern Arterial was predicted to cut average delays by only 12 seconds, from 24 to 12 seconds (and rising from 12 to 25 seconds by 2005). Such numbers remind me of the modelling to increase vehicle capacity at Epping Bridge, causing induced demand.

As recently as 2023 the state government removed a pedestrian crossing at Allen Street and Harris Street against their policy – to save motorists an estimated 8 seconds in the AM-peak (according to the modelling). In January 2025 even more slip lanes were added at Cleveland Street and Regent Street with unclear consultation, but in 1987 this wasn’t just an intersection: “A focus on city views” was emphasised on a drawing titled St. Paul’s Place. The polluted confluence of the Cleveland Street and Regent Street traffic sewers was a public square/place, but this non-place still has a name. This urban arterial has flown under the radar for far too long.

Wyndham Street residents – cling to your zebra crossings! The Southern Arterial does, after all, take in one of only two ‘unimproved’ surface AusRAP 2-star segments in the City of Sydney (the other one, City Road and Newtown’s King Street, will be a “traffic nirvana” any day now). History is not over.

On the sunny side, there are also proposals floating out there to partially revert the damage and turn the Regent Street stroad back into lively shopping street – and improve the amenity for the substantial density of new housing being constructed nearby. Further north, perhaps the long-overdue removal of the Wentworth Park greyhound track and new homes nearby will spur a rethink of Wattle Street. Currently this road cuts residents off from their hard-won parkland (so dangerous the adjacent school needs an overpass). Perhaps it’s time for road-space reallocation for buses (and active transport) with safer speed limits, now we have a parallel heavy rail, metro, a second airport, no more Port Jackson freight, and of course – WestConnex.

The least we owe the residents of Redfern and Waterloo is to improve the safety and amenity of this street.

You might like to check out the Sydney Morning Herald Archives site. For a very reasonable fee you get time-limited search access to some fascinating history, and the results are still accessible for free afterwards. The (newly renovated) State Library is a wonderful place – I’d like to spend more time there. I’ve learned a lot about Sydney’s planning and transport history and why things are the way they are. I was originally going to publish this last year, but terrible events occurred so I postponed.

Wikipedia is wonderful – it’s like OpenStreetMap but an encyclopaedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Arterial_Route?useskin=vector

After four weeks of talking to people and reviewing the evidence, my chief
conclusion is simply this: if people count, Stage 3 of the Southern Arterial will not be built. Further, on the same grounds, Stage 2 will be undone or significantly modified.

This inclusion of Stage 2 is important for the reason that abandonment of Stage 3 alone will not solve the traffic problems in this area. The implementation of Stage 2 to the Henderson Road/Raglan Street intersection has, for example, created such ugly congestion, especially in Wyndham Street, that it drives people to supporting Stage 3 on the grounds that it will at least abolish this awful bottleneck. Stage 3 (in its unimplemented form) can appear as the lesser of two evils. Ideally we need a solution to the problems of Stage 2 which does not involve the evils of Stage 3.

Hall Greenland (1993-06-30). “Citizen’s Response to the proposed Stage 3 of the Southern Arterial (Citizen’s Advocate Report)”.

powered by Advanced iFrame

The post Have you heard of the Southern Arterial Route? first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

On Tuesday, a man in his 30s riding a Lime e-bike, motor-limited to 25km/h, was struck^[1][2][a] by a 28-year-old man driving a garbage truck at Little Regent Street and Broadway, Ultimo – and died at the scene.^[3][4][5][6] This is a legal e-bike – and the man was just a few hundred metres from Sydney’s Central Station – so why did the man die? Why aren’t the media calling for safety improvements to Broadway – an 8 to 9 lane dual-carriageway TfNSW-controlled state road without any bike lanes, just a few hundred metres from the Sydney CBD and Central Station, and on the doorstep of the Tech Central precinct hosting some of Australia’s most successful tech companies?^[7]

Not a single one of the articles, from SMH (news^[8] or editorial^[9]), ABC News^[10], The Guardian^[11], AAP^[2], 9 News^[12], Pedestrian^[13], Sunrise^[14], 7 News live blog^[5], News.com.au^[4], The Daily Telegraph^[1], Sky News^[15], The Daily Mail^[16], or The Nightly^[17], mentions that there is no protected bike lane on George Street / Parramatta Road / Broadway, or that the man who died was on a legal, 25km/h limited Gen4 Lime e-bike.

In fact, most of these articles give the impression that the rider was on an illegal or high-powered e-bike travelling at high speed. Safe cities which have achieved Vision Zero (yes, they exist^[18][19]) do not ban e-bikes – they make streets safer so that people aren’t killed by motor vehicles. Of the 205 pedestrian deaths recorded across Australia in the year ending 31 July 2025^[20], WalkSydney is aware of two that are confirmed to have been caused by people using e-mobility devices.^[21]

Wednesday’s Sydney Morning Herald editorial^[9] titled “We need to rethink the use of e-bikes, especially by children”^[b] went so far as to say “even drivers” need to be protected from e-bikes, and that “delivery drivers who rely on these machines must follow road rules” – no mention of the mass of the vehicle involved or that Little Regent Street is one-way southbound at that intersection^[22] (SMH even deleted the exact location of the crash from the first article version at 10:45am – in print you wouldn’t know what street it was on). While Everybody Limes^[23], gig economy delivery riders are in one of the most vulnerable economic positions in our society.^[c] Too often it feels like media coverage depicts delivery riders as villains, singling them out for special treatment. In Australia we pride ourselves on a safe workplace environment as a given.

Where are the bike lanes? Why is funding for safe cycling and walking infrastructure ~0.2% of total NSW transport funding? (has any journalist even written^[d] what percentage it is?) Why isn’t it 20% as recommended by the UN^[25], as per recommendation 16 of the Parliament of NSW inquiry into “Use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options”^[26] which the NSW Government “Support in principle”?^[27] Why was the federal $100m active transport fund at least 10x oversubscribed^[28], and ~74% of Get NSW Active grants rejected?^[c] Where is the focus on Western Sydney access inequality?^[30][31][32] Why is TfNSW so resistant^[32] to road space reallocation on state roads (when supported by councils^[33], their own strategy^[34] and supported by that Grattan report^[35][36])? Why does Paul Nicolaou publicly argue against safer 30km/h speed limits on high streets^[37][38] when a previous Business Sydney report stated^[39] it would be beneficial for businesses? (even 2GB agrees 30km/h is “going to be safer”^[40]) Where is the TfNSW PRUAIP^[41][42] post-Westconnex or PUTP C6^[43][44]? In other words, where is the detailed journalism? I write this with the utmost respect for the craft, of reporters who are “in their late twenties or early thirties”^[45], are “young enough to breathe that kind of air”^[45] and go up against “unmovable forces”^[45] (as surely the “Boulevard of broken dreams”^[46][47] and traffic signal prioritisation are^[48]) – but this isn’t it.

In my downtime, I have been maintaining a detailed list of every pedestrian and cyclist fatality in NSW in 2025 (with 292 references and counting), because even our beloved ABC “inaccurately suggested that e-scooters and e-bikes played a significant part in the rise in pedestrian deaths”, when “the fatalities were in fact the riders of e-scooters” (ABC Correction^[49]). I am not a journalist, and this is not my job. It has been harrowing sitting down each morning to read the TfNSW “NSW Road Toll [sic] – Daily” report – which TfNSW removes access to daily – and NSW Police news reports – which seemingly disappear after some months. These systems make it almost impossible to keep a contemporary record of crashes and road trauma using official statistics and Police information. Quite frankly, I wish an actual journalist did this instead of me – I am exhausted.

This man and anyone else in his position deserved to get to his destination safely, and to his family for the holidays. The NSW Government wants walking and bike riding to be the preferred way to make short trips and a viable, safe and efficient option for longer trips.^[50] So why isn’t it, and why aren’t we talking about that? Not only has our state government failed to make Parramatta Road / Broadway safe for anyone outside a car, and perhaps most inner city state roads (Oxford Street excluded), but the media has also failed to call this out. The least we owe this man is to address the root cause. In ‘world cities’ like London, Paris, Helsinki, Oslo and Copenhagen people even can even ride safely without helmets thanks to safe streets and protected separated cycleways.

I’m not interested in laying blame on involved individuals; I want to support systemic change so people walking or riding safe bicycles aren’t killed on our local streets – so that I or someone I care about won’t die on this street one day.

I dare you to go for a bike ride down Broadway (or Parramatta Road, or Cleveland Street^[c], or King Street (Newtown), or Victoria Road, or the Southern Arterial Route) and tell me e-bikes are the problem.

Journalists: please seek advice, background or quotes from Bicycle NSW, Better Streets, WalkSydney, or the Committee for Sydney on stories about road safety. They will be more than happy to assist you with best-practice, policy-informed, evidence-backed commentary.

Accuracy and language

If you have any concerns, feedback, corrections or additions regarding this post, please contact me at jake@jakecoppinger.com. I have disabled comments. While I am not a journalist, I have made every effort to use accurate, factually correct and appropriate language, and have followed Australian and international road safety communication guidelines.^{[51][52][53][54][55][56]} Any corrections or suggestions on language are much appreciated.

Review of media coverage of the death

Note: See full list of every pedestrian, cyclist and personal mobility device road deaths in NSW in 2025 here: https://jakecoppinger.com/2025/11/list-of-pedestrian-cyclist-and-personal-mobility-device-road-deaths-in-nsw-in-2025/

News that this death was a person on an e-bike appeared to reach the NSW Premier Chris Minns while he was live, mid-interview^[e], on 2GB radio (see transcript below). This was to announce a pre-planned and reasonable proposal to reduce the maximum power of legally purchased e-bikes in NSW to 250 watts, in line with European standard EN-15194^[58] and other Australian states.^[57] This import rule change was reported by ABC News on the 27th of November.^[58]

The media then proceeded to link, without presenting evidence, this death of an e-bike rider (on a legal, 25km/h limited Lime bike) to the proposal to reduce the maximum power of legally purchased e-bikes in NSW.

While “It is unclear how fast the rider and garbage truck were travelling in Tuesday’s incident.” (an earlier, now deleted sentence from a Sydney Morning Herald article^[8]) and “We don’t know the circumstances of that crash”^[57], the title of several news articles made possibly misleading inferences about this death of a person riding a legal e-bike:

• Speed limits urged after e-bike rider dies in crash (AAP News)^[2]
• NSW Premier Chris Minns considers reducing e-bike speed limits after fatal Sydney crash (9News)^[12]
• E-bike laws: Chris Minns announces 250-watt limit after rider killed in Sydney’s CBD after collision with garbage truck (webpage title / previous article title), ‘Terrible’: Minns announces 250-watt e-bike limit after rider killed in Sydney CBD (early home page title^[59]), E-bike power limits to be halved after rider dies in Sydney crash (article and home page title as of 2025-12-02 17:51) – Sydney Morning Herald^[8]
• NSW considering plan to halve power and top speed of ebikes as rider dies in collision with garbage truck (The Guardian)^[11]
• NSW Premier Chris Minns flags new e-bike regulations after man killed in ‘terrible’ collision with garbage truck in Sydney (Sky News)^[15]

A Lime e-bike (appearing to be a Gen4) was at the scene with the front wheel separated from the front fork.^[2] The bike was taken away from the scene on a truck.^[11] Gen4 Lime e-bikes have a maximum continued power rating of 350W and have a power assist speed limiter at 25km/h.^[60]

Sunrise (Liam Tapper) stated the person on the bike was “potentially a delivery driver”^[c] and “…a man believed to be in his 30s, a delivery driver, …”. The Police press release does not mention this, and with the exception of an image caption on The Nightly, no other news outlets reported this.^[14]

NSW Police Press Release

The NSW Police press release is dated 07:13:46am.^[3] It states the crash occurred at “about 6am”. While light on details, it is factual and uses accurate and appropriate language, as one would expect.

Daily Telegraph

First article

The Daily Telegraph published an article titled “Man dies after being struck by garbage truck while riding an e-bike in Sydney’s inner city” at 7:10am, by authors William Tyson and Rory Williams.^[1]

Second article

The Daily Telegraph published a second article at 6:35am on the day after the crash^[61] (authors Eliza Barr, James O’Doherty, Josh Hanrahan, Amy Jackson, Jordan Miller). This article was published on the front page, and titled “Cycle of Madness”, “Fresh calls to curb out-of-control e-bikes”. ^[62]

The Daily Telegraph reported the death alongside comments from Harold Scruby, who called for banning under 17-year-olds from riding e-bikes, while the man who died was in his 30s. It included “Calls for tougher rules came as a Lime bike rider was killed after being hit by a garbage truck in the CBD.”^[61](this was not an illegal or unsafe e-bike). It also included “In the wake of the death, Pedestrian Council of Australia CEO Harold Scruby called for under 17-year-olds to be banned from riding e-bikes.” (however, this death was of a man in his 30s). The Daily Telegraph states “It’s understood the garbage truck had been collecting bins on Little Regent St before pulling out onto George St, where it collided with an e-bike rider.”^[61]. Little Regent Street is a one-way street southbound at the intersection of George Street (Broadway).^[22] It includes “…calls for tougher rules to keep riders and motorists have been sounded, after a Lime bike rider was killed in a CBD crash.” The exclusion of the word “safe” in that byline appears to be a typo. Motor vehicles cause the overwhelming majority of road deaths and serious injuries in Australia and internationally.

Sydney Morning Herald

Breaking news article

Digital (2025-12-02)

The Sydney Morning Herald (Jessica McSweeney) published an article on the crash, titled “E-bike rider killed in Sydney’s CBD after collision with garbage truck” at 8:19am.^[8] At 10:45am the article was updated , titled “E-bike power limits to be halved after rider dies in Sydney crash” (as of the `20251202062725` snapshot) to remove most details about the crash, appearing to link the death to the e-bike power limits announcement, and removing the sentence “It is unclear how fast the rider and garbage truck were travelling in Tuesday’s incident.” The only remaining mentions of the crash in the 14 paragraphs are “The announcement was made just hours after an e-bike rider in his 30s was killed in a collision with a garbage truck in Ultimo on Tuesday.” and “After Tuesday’s fatal crash between the e-bike rider and a 28-year-old garbage-truck driver, police said it was believed the rider was not wearing a helmet. A report will be prepared for the coroner.”

The current Sydney Morning Herald article as of 2025-12-02 17:51 shows an unrelated photo of teenagers safely riding in a bike lane on an unnamed (unrelated) street. It does not even mention the street the crash was on, let alone identifying systemic issues which may have contributed to the crash.

Print (2025-12-03)

The 2025-12-03 Sydney Morning Herald print article was titled “Power cuts ahead for the state’s easy riders” and displayed at the top of the front page. The photo is captioned “”Fat tyre” e-bikes on the streets of Kurnell, Photo: Janie Barrett”. The subtitle is “Maximum e-bike speeds will be slashed from 60 to 30km/h under new laws to make the streets safer”, prompting the reader to turn to page 4 (no article text is displayed on the front page). Note that Chris Minns’ 2GB interview did not state a 30km/h limit, but implied bikes with 250W would likely not make it up to 60km/h.^[57]

On page 4, the article is the first on the page (top left). It is titled “E-bike power to be halved after fatality”. It included the Harold Scruby quote.

Editorial article (2025-12-03)

Wednesday’s Sydney Morning Herald editorial^[9] was titled “We need to rethink the use of e-bikes, especially by children”. The title in the SMH source code, perhaps a prior print or A/B tested title, is “E-bikes in NSW: As Chris Minns cuts maximum power and speed, we still need to think about the children who ride them”.

In print, this editorial appeared on page 18, under Opinion, and was titled “Rethink e-bike use, especially for children”.

I include criticism of this article in the initial section.

Opinion Article (2025-12-03)

On Thursday, the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion article titled “An e-bike for Christmas? That would be a big fat no” at 5am. (author Alexandra Smith, State Political Editor).^[63]. It states:

“On Tuesday, Premier Chris Minns promised he would bring NSW in line with the rest of the country and halve the maximum battery power from 500 watts to 250 watts and reduce the top speed to 30km/h. He made the comment just after an adult e-bike rider was killed by a garbage truck in Ultimo.”^[3]

Breaking news article (2025-12-04)

On Thursday, the Sydney Morning Herald published a breaking news article titled “Man critical after being knocked off e-bike” (author Jack Gramenz).^[64]

Knocked off by what? According to the Northern Beaches Advocate, “multiple Triple Zero (000) calls were made to report a man riding an e-bike had been hit by a four-tonne (4t) delivery truck”.^[65] Why is four-tonne truck not in the title, or in the first paragraph?

“The white 2022 Hino 300 delivery truck was driven by a man in his 20s, and was in the kerbside lane travelling at approximately 60 km/h down Newport Hill, when it has impacted a Dirodi Rover e-bike ridden by a 55-year-old man. The significant force of the impact ripped the rear wheel from the e-bike. The truck is then believed to have gone over the e-bike, with the rider going under the wheels.”^[65]

Why is the title not something like “Man driving four-tonne truck strikes bike rider on 6 lane road”? This could have been any bike rider on this road; this could have been me. Barrenjoey Road at Grandview Pde is a 6 lane (dual-carriageway) 60km/h road with no separated cycleway and there is no viable alternative route for cyclists^[f] travelling to/from the entire Palm Beach peninsula. From personal experience on a non-electric bike (3 months ago) this road is terrifying to cycle on.

As of midday Friday (5th December) the man remains in a critical condition in intensive care.^[65]

The article includes “Premier Chris Minns on Tuesday announced plans to halve the power limit on bikes sold in NSW to 250 watts, hours after a rider in his 30s was killed in a collision with a garbage truck.”^[64]

Weekend Opinion Article (2025-12-06)

On Saturday, the Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion article titled “That $4000 e-bike for your teenager almost killed me (but worry most for your kid)”^[66][g] (author Malcolm Knox). While raising reasonable and important concerns around gig-economy delivery app policies, and risks of illegal or high-powered e-bikes (which, as I have mentioned, is absolutely irrelevant to the fatality on Tuesday), this article also included othering of e-bike riders and unverified assumptions. Unhelpful and unnecessary comments such as:

“[safety] Concern for helmetless teens doubling or tripling on a $4000 gift from their parents does not come automatically.”

Why does the presence of a helmet^[h], or two people on a bike^[i], or the price of the bike, or the wealth of the parents qualify the journalist’s empathy? Is the death of someone not worthy of empathy or compassion if their bike costs $4000? Of the 205 pedestrian deaths recorded across Australia in the year ending 31 July 2025^[20], WalkSydney is aware of two that are confirmed to have been caused by people using e-mobility devices.^[21] Concern over “nearly getting bowled over” is reasonable, but this insensitivity was not necessary. I expect this from the dregs of the Facebook comments section, not from the good people at the Sydney Morning Herald – and certainly not from a two-time Walkley Award winning journalist.

“It’s important to distinguish between two kinds of e-bike riders. One is the adult food delivery rider… e-bikes are the conveyance of choice for your incoming pizza or pad thai. Riders, already exploited by the services that use them, are often the victims in incidents where car and truck drivers aren’t used to, or prepared to put up with, sharing the road … The other e-bike riders are children with parents wealthy enough to let them risk their lives on what are in effect ridiculously expensive unlicensed motorcycles.” (emphasis mine)

This is extremely reductive, to temper my language, to state there are only “two kinds” of e-bike riders – a “conveyance” for “your incoming pizza or pad thai” [sic] or children with “parents wealthy enough”. Have you not been to school drop off in the Inner West or on Bourke Street, or cycled around the city center or in Green Square? Or even just to the unbelievably cool showroom down at Omafiets? Have you not heard of people living with a disability who struggle to walk due to pain and use e-bikes as an accessibility device, of parents riding their kids to school – or I don’t know – a commuter? Stop othering people who ride e-bikes.

“Riders … are often the victims in incidents where car and truck drivers aren’t … prepared to put up with sharing the road.”

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “put up with” as “to accept or continue to accept an unpleasant situation or experience, or someone who behaves unpleasantly”.

If I rephrase this sentence using active voice, it comes out something like “Car and truck drivers often crash into people riding bicycles because they don’t accept the unpleasant situation of sharing the road with cyclists.”

I really hope the author is not excusing this behaviour as acceptable and to be tolerated. If not, perhaps condemnation of this mentality should be in the first paragraph. There are reams of papers on the dehumanization of cyclists.

“In New York, newly elected mayor Zohran Mamdani aims to regulate the unreasonable demands on food-delivery riders that prompt them to ride recklessly. We could do with similar protections. This week’s announcement followed the death of a man in his 30s when his e-bike collided with a garbage truck.”

We absolutely could do with more protections – but this week’s announcement had nothing to do with food-delivery rider reform, and as this post discusses elsewhere, the announcement was not in response to this fatality.

Sunrise said verbally the person was “potentially” a delivery driver (and wrote “believed to be a delivery driver”) in the video description.^[14] While the SMH editorial included a hyperlink with the text “a delivery rider died”^[9], the SMH article this text links to (ie. the breaking news article) does not mention delivery rider (in either the 8:19am or 10:45am version).^[8] ABC^[10], AAP^[2] (who were present early enough to photograph the blue tent being erected) and The Guardian^[11] either (very reasonably) did not consider it relevant if the man who died was a delivery driver, or did not consider it was confirmed. I do not consider it sufficiently established as fact to write (or imply) if this man was a delivery driver.

Perhaps as the author only identifies “two kinds” of e-bike rider, and the rider who died wasn’t a child with “parents wealthy enough”, they assumed this man was a delivery driver. We should expect better journalism, and at the very least basic fact checking from the highly-respected and “most widely read masthead in the country”.

(among other measures, Mamdani’s “Regulating Delivery Apps & Protecting Delivery Workers” policy platform includes “improve street infrastructure”^[69] and “support street design strategies to improve cycling and e-bike safety”. To “create safer streets for deliveristas and all New Yorkers, the Mamdani administration will … Invest in and expand DOT’s e-bike programs, … Invest in and expand DOT’s innovative street designs to improve e-mobility and deliverista safety, such as: wider/additional bike lanes, passing zones, bicycle speed signal timing progressions (e.g. greenwaves), bike parking, and more.”^[70])

Please also note: In between the Chris Minns announcement and this opinion article, on Thursday (2025-12-04) a man driving a four-tonne truck struck a man riding an e-bike in Mona Vale. The man was critically injured. Barrenjoey Road at Grandview Pde is a 6 lane (dual-carriageway) 60km/h road with no separated cycleway and there is no viable alternative route for cyclists^[f] travelling to/from the entire Palm Beach peninsula. From personal experience on a non-electric bike (3 months ago) this road is terrifying to cycle on. As of midday Friday (5th December) the man remains in a critical condition in intensive care.^[65]

Warning on illegal e-bikes (2025-12-07)

On Sunday, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article titled “Doctors urge parents to stop buying illegal e-bikes as children’s injuries double” (authors Jessica McSweeney and Mostafa Rachwani).^[71]

This article was published after this blog post.

While it doesn’t discuss what percentage of walking or cycling fatalities are caused by motor vehicles (Motor vehicles cause the overwhelming majority of road deaths and serious injuries in Australia and internationally) or the lack of safe infrastructure for cycling, it does include this sentence I haven’t seen in any other article this week:

“Last Tuesday, Premier Chris Minns announced e-bike power limits would be lowered from 500 watts to 250 watts in NSW. The announcement came in the moments after a share-bike rider was fatally hit by a garbage truck at Haymarket. There is no suggestion the e-bike rider was speeding or riding an overpowered bike.” (emphasis mine)

I appreciate this addition.

Australian Associated Press

AAP News published an article at 10:25am (author Kat Wong)^[2]. Changes AAP News made at 1:14pm include (view Internet Archive diff from above the loginwall):

• changing the title from “Speed limits urged after e-bike rider dies in crash” to “E-bike rider killed in crash as safety warning sounds”
• replacing the text “An e-bike rider has died after slamming into a garbage truck, fuelling calls to regulate the increasingly popular form of transport.” to “An e-bike rider is dead after being hit by a garbage truck as authorities sound the alarm on the increasingly popular form of transport.”
• Inserting as a third paragraph “A man in his 30s was not wearing a helmet when he attempted to cross the road on an e-bike.”

The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail published an article titled “Sydney CBD traffic grinds to a halt after e-bike rider dies in crash with garbage truck” at 7:49am (author Kylie Stevens).^[16]

International road collision reporting guidelines state “Be mindful if reporting on traffic delays not to overshadow the greater harm, of loss of life or serious injury, which could trivialise road death.”^[72][73]

The Guardian

Live blog

There were two entries in The Guardian’s Live blog. The first, dated 7:54am, was titled “Ebike rider dies after collision with garbage truck in Sydney CBD”.^[74] The second was “Chris Minns says NSW considering ‘serious’ change to maximum power of ebikes amid safety concerns” at 8:59am (updated at 09.22am).^[75]

Article

The Guardian published an article titled “NSW considering plan to halve power and top speed of ebikes as rider dies in collision with garbage truck” at 10:27am (authors Nick Visser and Daisy Dumas).^[11] It stated “New South Wales is considering a plan to halve the maximum power and top speed of ebikes, after a rider died in a collision with a garbage truck in central Sydney.”

Sunrise (Seven Network)

The Sunrise segment spent a significant amount of time focusing on traffic disruption.^[14] At least one live broadcast was around 10:08am.^[j]

ABC News

ABC News published an article currently titled “E-bike rider killed in collision with garbage truck in Sydney CBD as NSW premier announces new legislation” (author Miriah Davis) at 12:18pm, and updated it at 1:34pm.^[10]

This article did, however, describe “He [Chris Minns] described today’s incident as a “tragedy” but reiterated the changes had already been commissioned…” (emphasis mine).

The Nightly

The Nightly published an article currently titled “Ultimo: Traffic chaos after e-bike rider killed in garbage truck collision near Sydney’s Central Station” (author Amy Lee) at 2025-12-01T20:39:55.000Z, and modified at 2025-12-01T22:34:23.608Z.^[17]

As with the Daily Mail article, the Nightly headline focused on the traffic impact before even mentioning the rider’s death.

7 News

7 News published a video segment titled “NSW pushes e-bike crackdown after fatal crash” at 7:16am on 2025-12-03.^[76] The segment started “Calls for a crackdown on dangerous e-bikes are growing louder and louder by the minute aren’t they after yet another crash claimed a life of a rider in Sydney.”

Crash site on 2025-12-03

By the day after, there was not a single indication someone had died. No 30km/h Emergency Street (as studied by Meredith Glaser and Kevin J. Krizek^[77][78] and presented at the USyd Festival of Urbanism in September^[79]), no temporary traffic-calming tools, no road closure, no flowers^[k].

Apart from a few people stopping and gesturing to their partners when crossing at the intersection, there was no sign anything had ever happened.

Broadway / Parramatta Road is unsafe

Note: This is far from a detailed or bullet-proof analysis. I hope a journalist might write one.

Parramatta Road has been dubbed the “boulevard of broken dreams”.^[46][47] I am not aware of a detailed analysis of crashes along the corridor, however it lights up like a Christmas tree on road crash maps (https://crashmap.carto.au/nsw, https://crashdash.crowdlab.com.au/app) Along the roughly one-thousand metres of Broadway/George Street from City Road to Lee Street, CrowdLab’s CrashDash shows 33 crashes (10 minor, 22 serious, 1 fatal) in just 3 years (Jan 2022 – Dec 2024).

“Enhance active transport experience along and across Broadway” is a goal of the TfNSW Pyrmont-Ultimo Transport Plan May 2024^[43]. “Action C6 is to “Investigate feasibility of cycleway connection along Broadway”.^[43] The Committee for Sydney also recommends a bike lane along the street.^[80], along with the stunning City of Sydney Access Strategy and Action Plan.^[81] The authority for Parramatta Road is TfNSW (the NSW State Government).

While Broadway sits in the middle of the economic powerhouse of Australia, walking along it is also a harrowing experience for people walking. Huge numbers of people walking to multiple universities are squeezed onto narrow footpaths. Improving pedestrian connectivity and “prioritising pedestrian crossings” is action 4D of the Tech Central Economic Strategy.^[82] I myself have felt unsafe on multiple occasions whilst walking as a pedestrian in the area and have noted and reported multiple near misses.

Sometime between 08:00 – 09:59 in Apr 2020^[l] a “light truck” reversing in a southbound direction on Little Regent Street (at Broadway) seriously injured a pedestrian (crash id 1231369).^[83] I have not found media reports on this, and as NSW Police press releases are deleted after some months I am unable to verify if there was a Police media release detailing the crash.

People walking along Broadway must wait multiple minutes to cross traffic signals at the Southern Arterial Route – another indicator of how our government prioritises cars over people walking.^[m] Fences are installed^[84] to stop people crossing mid-block, while in Hobart increasing the number of pedestrians crossing mid-block is considered a success metric indicating perceived safety.^[85] Traffic cycle times are typically over 110 seconds (almost 2 minutes) along all of Broadway. Giving people more time or opportunities to cross at traffic lights can reduce unsafe crossing by 34% – we don’t need an expensive sensor to tell us this. “Any delays in excess of [30 seconds] are not just inconvenient; they are hazardous.”^[86][87]

Just over 200 metres from the crash site, concerns were raised about pedestrian safety at the left-turn slip lane from Broadway into Wattle Street, Ultimo over at least 15 years or more. In the five years to June 2012, there were 32 reported crashes at the intersection of Wattle St and Parramatta Rd.^[88]. The RTA added more pedestrian signals rather than remove the slip lane because “of the unacceptable congestion and delays” (for cars).^[89]

Transcript of Chris Minns interview on 2GB, 2025-12-02

Segment titled “EXCLUSIVE – Speed limits coming for electric bikes”. This extract from the radio show does not state the start (wall clock) time of the segment.^[57] It references a NSW Police press release, titled “Parents urged to only buy legal e-bikes this Christmas” and published 09:05:25am.^[90] Transcribed using OpenAI Whisper Large v2 (offline), verified manually word-by-word. Punctuation is arbitrary.

Ben Fordham (Host)

Well there’s a warning for parents today. If you’re thinking of buying your kids an e-bike for Christmas, make sure it’s a legal one. Police are urging families to do their research and buy reputable e-bikes. The popularity of those ‘fat boy’ bikes has spiked over the past few years and that’s due to boost in numbers as well this Christmas.

And there’s a warning from police, there’s a growing number of dodgy e-bikes doing the rounds. The Police Assistant Commissioner Dave Driver says high-powered and illegal e-bikes are a big problem. He says what we want as Christmas approaches is that parents only purchase bikes that comply with New South Wales law. He’s told the Daily Telegraph we don’t want someone to make a mistake on an e-bike that they’ve never ridden before, we don’t want that mistake to cost them their life. So it’s a timely reminder as we make our way into Christmas because the cheaper alternatives can be unreliable when it comes to safety and they’re more likely to lead to fires when batteries are being charged.

And we understand the New South Wales Government is in fresh talks to introduce some new e-bike regulations, that’s what we’re being told. And the New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, is live in the studio right now. Premier, good morning to you.

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Good morning, Ben.

Ben Fordham (Host)

Have you bought your kids an e-bike for Christmas?

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

No, I haven’t. No, I haven’t. And I worry about them. I’ve driven, we spend a lot of time on the road in my job and I’ve seen some particularly young kids on bikes that are more like motorbikes. There’s very little pedalling going on. They seem to be keeping up with the traffic which means that they’re traveling at 50 or 60 kilometers an hour and I suspect that there’s the limiters have been removed but in some cases they’re legally sold e-bikes it’s just that we’ve got a far higher limit in New South Wales compared to every other jurisdiction in the country.

Ben Fordham (Host)

We went out to Maccas recently for Mac Happy Day and we were dining in and we were there with the kids and I noticed and I said to my wife Jodie at the time I went look at the bikes turning up at Maccas every three or four minutes another e-bike turning up, parking, going inside, getting their food, really young kids on them and they do move quick and don’t get me wrong – I’ve had a go on one riding around a park not far from my place there a lot of fun but I would be really worried if it was one of my kids on one of those unregulated bikes.

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Yeah that’s right and as a result we are contemplating a pretty serious change. New South Wales is the only state where you can legally purchase an e-bike with 500 watts of power and we want to make a change to reduce that to 250 watts. It’s a significant change but it means that the highest limit that you can travel at is between currently between 50 and 60 kilometres an hour. That’ll be reduced to 25 and 30 kilometres an hour using pedal power. Every other state, Queensland, Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia has removed, limited to that model, the 250 watt model. We think we need to do it in New South Wales too.

Ben Fordham (Host)

So our bikes are traveling faster, legally they’re allowed to than in other states at the moment.

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Yeah that’s right, I mean there’s two variations, there’s the hotted up ones where the limit has been removed and they can travel incredibly quickly, far faster than moving traffic. They’re currently illegal but even legally purchased, in some cases ‘fat bikes’ have a 500 watt limiter which means that they can go as fast as a car, and as a result people are going to get hurt.

Ben Fordham (Host)

This has just come through right now and it’s timely considering the conversation we’re having. This is New South Wales Police communicating to us that an e-bike rider has just died in a collision involving a garbage truck in Sydney CBD this morning. So that’s the one that I mentioned just after 6 a.m. We’re now being told that an e-bike is involved. Emergency services were called to the intersection of Little Regent Street and George Street, Ultimo. Following reports of a crash, officers from Surrey Hills have attended. They found an e-bike and a garbage truck has collided. The e-bike rider, a man in his 30s, was treated by paramedics but died at the scene. The driver of the truck, a 28-year-old man, taken to hospital. Police have established a crime scene. A report will be prepared for the coroner.

It just underlines the point. We don’t know the circumstances of that crash, but it underlines the dangers out there right Premier?

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Yeah I think that’s right I mean this is obviously terrible and your..your heart goes out to that man’s family on the eve of Christmas for this to happen. Um. I mean it underlines the point, these are…these can be very dangerous there’s young kids that are using them. We want to make sure that people are safe particularly during the holiday period.

I mean don’t get me wrong Ben, obviously we want children out of the house, we want them off electronic devices, we want them playing with their friends but if they’ve got hotted up bikes that are as quick as a motorbike it can be incredibly dangerous.

Ben Fordham (Host)

So will you be seeking support from your opposite number Kelly Sloan in the opposition and other crossbench MPs to say if we want to change this we need your help or are you just able to do it yourself as Premier?

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

I’m told when it comes to this one we can do it via regulation, so it doesn’t require legislation.

Ben Fordham (Host)

When do you expect that you’d be able to do it?

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

In the coming months. I mean there’s obviously…there’s obviously a situation where people have legally bought bikes in good faith thinking that they’re completely compliant and they were so we’ll have to grandfather the scheme in, but I don’t want perfection to be the enemy of the good here. We do need to make a change and we want to do it.

Ben Fordham (Host)

Premier Chris Mins is with us live in the studio. If you’d like to ask him a question, you can dial the number 131873.

I’ve got Jim who wants to ask you something. If you want to throw your headphones on Premier.

And Jim, you can go right ahead because Chris Mins is listening.

You want to ask a question about e-bikes, do you? Go right ahead.

Jim (caller)

Yeah, good morning, Premier. I’d like to know when is the government going to get fair dinkum and introduce registration and insurance for these things?

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Well, Jim, I think we got fair dinkum about five minutes ago. I mean, that’s a big change for New South Wales. It puts us in line with the other states and we think it’s a necessary change.

Registration and insurance is incredibly expensive and timely. I’d rather do this in a stepped way. At the moment, the last thing New South Wales needs is more regulation. If you speak to most people in the state, they’ll say to you, We have to fill in a form to basically do everything in New South Wales. To add another registration for riding a bike, it seems like a step too far for me, but that doesn’t mean we’re not doing anything. This is a big change that I’m announcing today.

(discussion on coal fired power station)

Footnotes

References

The post Why Won’t the Media Report Accurately on Road Deaths? first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

Note: This is my third blog post on this project. If you are missing context, have a read of Another broken WestConnex promise: secret Sydney Park Junction design changes (2024-09-09) and Sydney Park Junction: TfNSW Won’t Commit to Original Scope Despite Ministerial Intervention (2024-11-26).

On the 20th of November 2024, Jenny Leong (the Green’s MP for Newtown) asked the State Minister for Transport 21 detailed questions in NSW Parliament regarding the status and fate of the infamous TfNSW Sydney Park Junction project (more details of which the Sydney Morning Herald published this morning).

The public received a response from the Minister for Transport on the 20th of December 2024, which only included answers for 3 of the 21 questions (and one of them could be misleading – see section below “(f) Reducing the design speed in the project area to 40 km/h or below?”).

A local community member was so disappointed with this lack of transparency they made a successful Government Information Public Access (GIPA) request to TfNSW regarding the status of the project. You can read the full PDF here.

Thanks to their work the public now has a more complete picture. So complete in fact, I’m going to have a crack at answering the questions Jenny Leong asked, based on information documented to be available within TfNSW months before the Minister’s response. These questions were asked in NSW Parliament – detailed, accurate and straightforward answers are clearly in the public interest.

We now have a new Minister for Transport and Minister for Roads, and I hope John Graham and Jenny Aitchison are across this project.

I have made every effort to provide accurate hyperlink references for every statement. If you notice any errors or misinterpretations, please drop a comment below or contact me privately at jake@jakecoppinger.com. This analysis is a side project.

Table of contents

To long to read? Ask your favourite AI model with search mode enabled.

Maps

A brief recap – what is this and how did we get here?

The original plans for the Sydney Park Junction project were ambitious and well-received. In 2021 Bicycle NSW commented “The project will be of enormous benefit to the community” and that “This project sets an exciting precedent for better place outcomes throughout Sydney.”

In September 2024 I alerted the public to the concern that while the project hadn’t been cancelled, significant scope cuts were being made in private – within a month of construction starting. This blog post was followed by two excellent Sydney Morning Herald articles. My November 2024 article detailed how, after refusing to confirm any original scope elements would be included (that had been deleted), TfNSW communications & project management personnel requested Friends of Erskineville share elements of the project that are “super important” or features they wanted the TfNSW team to consider.

In the second Sydney Morning Herald article the Minister’s Office…

…confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021, including a cycleway to link Sydney Park and Mitchell roads and a new bus stop and pedestrian crossing to access Sydney Park.

“In a silently uploaded document, a major Sydney intersection lost its upgrade”, Daniel Lo Surdo, November 10, 2024, Sydney Morning Herald

Before this confirmation, TfNSW was drafting an Addendum Review of Environmental Factors (Addendum REF) to permit significant scope changes to be made (“Spreadsheet regarding Sydney Park Junction Project, dated 31 October 2024”, 25T-1420 Decision), and changes to scope requiring “Additional assess.” (and whether covered by Addendum REF draft) continued to be discussed afterwards (Presentation titled “Sydney Park Junction: Changes to Scope”, “Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated 14 November 2024”, 25T-1420 Decision).

One agenda item of a briefing to the Minister’s Office (“dated October 2024”) was “Changes to Design since REF Determination”, which described 5 significant “Changes to design since REF Determination” (including “Removed extension of cycleway between Mitchell Road to Euston Road”). However, it neglected to mention the scope exclusions made for cost cutting reasons documented that same month in an internal spreadsheet.

Earlier in the month, a similar internal presentation noted a next step as “Concurrence on the estimate to be undertaken – noting scope exclusions/inclusions” – highlighting the cost estimate of changed scope hadn’t yet been made. (“Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024”). The “next step” of “MO briefing to endorse way forward” appears to confirm this was an earlier meeting.

In fact, there were so many scope changes, that a spreadsheet dated 31st October 2024 was created to keep track of them all. By the 14th of November 2024, it appears there was an effort to count them all – a report noted that “14 changes to scope since the project was assessed have been identified” (out of 33 “key features”) (pg. 9). Some “key features” aren’t mentioned here (“Relocating existing VMS and CCTV camera” is listed as a “key feature” of the 2021 REF (pg. 26,27) and it is not counted in this report – so perhaps 14 changes is an underestimate. Additionally, not all scope reductions are captured as a key feature removal – for example, the 2021 REF included “On the western side of Mitchell Road between Sydney Park Road and the limit of the proposal area, a new off-road separated cycleway would be provided.” (pg. 69)

Please refer to the source documents as there are too many scope changes to easily summarise here.

The community will not be consulted on the Addendum REF (“6. Next Steps”, slide from “Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024”, GIPA 25T-1420 page 45).

How did this public confirmation from the Transport Minister in the “most widely read masthead in the country” that “upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021” turn into almost half of all key features being modified or removed due to “Funding constraint (utility impacts)” and “…funding constraints (associated drainage, utility and pavement works)”? (GIPA pg. 33)

If funding for active transport within TfNSW was increased from the 0.2% of all the total NSW transport funding to 20% as recommended by the UN, as per recommendation 16 of the Parliament of NSW inquiry into “Use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options” (2025-02-13) which the NSW Government “Support in principle” (2025-05-13), and as per the second TfNSW recommendation to the Transport Minister on the 19th of September 2024 (“note the opportunities and funding requirements to improve active transport outcomes”) – perhaps these scope changes made without public consultation behind closed doors would not be necessary.

I don’t believe there has been any significant increase in state or federal funding for active transport announced (let me know if I’ve missed something!)

More detailed answers to Jenny Leong’s questions in NSW Parliament

I am thankful for the initiative and excellent questions asked by Jenny Leong in the Legislative Assembly of NSW Parliament 2024-11-20: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/papers/pages/qanda-tracking-details.aspx?pk=101985

The Minister’s response only seems to concretely answer 3 of the 23 questions.

This lack of detail raises questions: Was the Minister fully informed about the changes? Did TfNSW provide comprehensive advice regarding the project’s scope alterations?

The limited information provided suggests potential gaps in communication between TfNSW and the Minister.

1. Regarding the revision of plans for Sydney Park Junction:

(a) What is the updated timeframe for revising the plans?

An Addendum REF to rationalise the reduced scope (which will not go through community consultation) is due Q1 2025 (Slide “Staged delivery, page 24, Sydney Park Junction – MO Update, October 2024, GIPA 25T-1420)

I directly asked TfNSW when the Addendum REF is due in the 2025-05-01 City of Sydney Cycleway Advisory Meeting (which I attend on behalf of Better Streets), and the answer of the representative was they do not know (as documented in minutes).

(b) What is the expected delivery date?

“Start Construction – Q3 2025”. In Phase 2, stage 1B estimate, Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024. GIPA 25T-1420 page 24.

Estimated completion date of construction is not specified.

(c) Are any elements of the project still being considered for removal by Transport for NSW?

Yes, plenty – too many for me to easily summarise. An internal TfNSW presentation (item 3) states (page 9):

14 changes to scope since the project was assessed have been identified.
Changes were identified by comparing the project’s 33 key features in the Submissions Report with the current scope of the project, and the IFT2 drawings were compared to the latest IFT drawings to visualise the changes.

Page 9, Sydney Park Junction: Changes to Scope, Item 3 (“dated 14 November 2024”), GIPA 25T-1420

I think this figure might actually be higher – for example, “Relocating existing VMS and CCTV camera” is listed as a “key feature” of the 2021 REF (pg. 26,27) and it is not counted in this report.

Changes to scope are detailed on page 12 (Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated 14 November 2024). See also the spreadsheet from page 4 (item 2).

(d) Is the revision happening due to funding shortfalls as stated by Transport for NSW and, if so, how much additional funding is needed to complete the plans as they were exhibited in 2021?

Yes.

The comment on the plan to retain the existing Mitchell Rd intersection (ie. a creative way of saying removing plans for the protected bicycle intersection) includes “Funding constraint (utility impacts).”

Regarding landscaping: “Landscaping removed on Sydney Park Road due to funding constraints (associated drainage, utility and pavement works)”

(Slide titled “Appendix A: Changes to Design since REF Determination”, Briefing to MO regarding Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024, page 33, item 4). That is – the Ministers Office was briefed on this.

Additionally in CoS document “TRANSPORT FOR NSW’S CONCEPT DESIGN PLANS (5 MARCH 2020) CITY OF SYDNEY’S COMMENTS Actions for Transport for NSW 23 April 2020”, regarding Sydney Park Road:

The aim of this was to reduce the extent of works in order to stay within TfNSW budget.

How much additional funding is needed to complete the plans as they were exhibited in 2021? I haven’t been able to find any budget information.

2. Has the Road User Space Allocation Policy been corrected applied at the intersection of Sydney Park Road with Mitchell Road and what was the process of checking the compliance of the de-scoped project with other Transport for NSW strategies including the Walking Space Guide, the NSW Movement and Place Framework and the Cycleway Design Toolbox?

The GIPA docs don’t really address this, however it may be of interest that the removal of signalisation on Barwon Park Road has the comment “This is a community request and aligned with movement and place guidelines” (page 7, item 2)

Additional context of this community request is supplied on page 44:

This was to address IWC and Crown Street resident’s concerns regarding rat running due to signalisation. Providing an unsignalized intersection at Barwon Park Road is aligned with Transport’s Road User Space Allocation Policy and with place and movement functions.

(Slide “5. Recent Stakeholder Concern”, Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024 GIPA item 5, GIPA 25T-1420)

I haven’t dived into this but I’m unsure if this claim is correct.

Note also that the right hand side cuts off of the image on page 13 – the original design (IFT2) had signals on both sides of Barwon Park Rd, just out of frame, and close to where the mid block crossing has been moved. This may imply a reduction in Sydney Park Rd crossing points from four to two.

(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?

It appears so – an on road cycleway seems to be the preferred plan (page 21). However “Appendix D: Connecting to Mitchell Road Cycleway” (page 55, Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024 GIPA item 5) shows 2 options, option 2 of which is so vague the design is a pink cloud around where it might land!

The spreadsheet on page 5 (GIPA Item 2, Spreadsheet regarding Sydney Park Junction Project) has unclear headings, but mentions under “Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Road intersection” both an on road facility and shared crossing option with “Retain existing lane configurations”

(4) Is the Government still intending to deliver all elements of the approved project scope including:

(a) New bus stop at Sydney Park Rd/Mitchell Rd intersection?**

No. As TfNSW is not building the cycleway between Mitchell Rd and Euston Rd, they don’t believe they need to relocate the existing bus stop from there:

“Bus relocation not required as cycleway no longer impacts it”, page 33

“No longer providing new bus facility on SPR due to no impact on the existing location. Bus Stop on Princes Highway near the Short Street intersection – still to be relocated” (page 5)

(b) Pedestrian crossing on western arm of the Sydney Park Rd/Mitchell Rd intersection?

Yes. One of the few things mentioned in Haylen’s response

Transport for NSW is liaising with City of Sydney and Inner West Council to finalise the design for the project, which includes the delivery of a new cycle path connection between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway, as well as a pedestrian crossing on the western leg of the Sydney Park Road intersection.

(c) Dynamic community space for parklets on both sides of Princes Highway?

No. In some areas this will be widened footpaths instead (which personally, I think is a positive change – but a scope change nonetheless). The dynamic community spaces seemed too easy to turn into car parking – in fact, for one segment they are being turned into parking (south of Short St, page 15).

• “Dynamic Community Spaces were removed as Council asset team did not want to maintain it (page 33)
• “Landscaping removed on Sydney Park Road due to funding constraints (associated drainage, utility and pavement works)” (page 33)
• “Designed assuming WC would provide ‘parklets’ which could be removed for e.g. food trucks during events.” (page 14)
• “Was to be managed by Inner West Council (IWC) with use at their discretion. IWC did not want to take on asset management.” (page 14)

Slight concession:
“Providing an additional landscaping pit between Barwon Park Road and Short Street mid-block intersection and on Sydney Park Road between the indented bus bays and through lanes.” (page 7)

However: “Parking instead of footpath widening Footpaths up to Short Street and cycleway to May Street. (page 4)

(d) Landscaped buildouts on Sydney Park Road and Princes Highway?

No. “Landscaping removed on Sydney Park Road due to funding constraints (associated drainage, utility and pavement works)”

(Slide titled “Appendix A: Changes to Design since REF Determination”, Briefing to MO regarding Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024, page 33, item 4). That is – the Ministers Office was briefed on this.

(e) 50+ new trees?

I’m unable to answer this – I didn’t spot any mentions in the GIPA, and otherwise haven’t heard any information regarding this.

(f) Reducing the design speed in the project area to 40 km/h or below?

On the Princes Highway – yes – I think. Both the scope spreadsheet (page 5), and retained features list (page 10) suggest this change will still be included:

Reducing the posted speed limit on Princes Highway from 60 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour from Campbell Street to Goodsell Street (page 5, GIPA Item 2, Spreadsheet regarding Sydney Park Junction Project, dated 2024-09-31).

Though alarmingly there is a comment in the same spreadsheet stating “Check if it is extending down to Campbell Street” (ie. the full extent of the scope).

It’s unclear if this is a guarantee of implementation, or a promise to review the speed limit upon completion. In a slide titled “5. Recent Stakeholder Concerns” (page 43) in the “Sydney Park Junction Internal Update” (October 2024) there is this row from a table:

Date: September 2024 From: Lord Mayor Clover Moore Concerns: Princes Highway no longer reduced to 40km/hr Comments: As per the REF display 2021, Transport for NSW will extend the 40km/hr on Princes Highway to Short Street following a speed review upon completion of Sydney Park Junction project.

However, there’s also something strange going on here. The Minister’s response to Jenny Leong’s question included:

“Transport for NSW has already redirected freight traffic and reduced speeds to 40 km/h on the Princes Highway to King Street and Sydney Park Road corridors”

This is a terribly challenging sentence to parse – what does it mean?

Does it mean that the speed limit has been changed to 40km/h through the intersection from the Princes Highway to King St / Sydney Park Road? That was completed a few months before November 2021 according to OpenStreetMap edit history – before the start of the project.

Does it mean that the speed limit is now 40km/h on the Princes Highway?

Well – by that interpretation – the statement is false. I checked on the 16th of May 2025 – the speed limit is still 60km/h on the Princes Highway between Campbell St and a few metres south of Goodsell Street. If you care to check the coordinates of the speed sign on OpenStreetMap you can do that here (see Mapillary info on the same date for more street imagery). This also aligns with the data on the TfNSW speed zones interactive map: https://opendata.transport.nsw.gov.au/data/dataset/speed-zones/resource/5c81e2c6-c153-41e7-8d1f-49ff1d920643

In this case, it appears TfNSW mislead the Minister. A slide titled “Communications and Engagement Strategy” of the Ministers Update presentation (page 28, MO Update October 2024) states:

To date, as part of the Sydney Park Junction project, Transport has: implemented new speed limits of 40km/h on the Princes Highway between Campbell Street and May Street …

Unless the speed limit was temporarily changed before October 2024 and later reverted, the available data does not support this claim.

While it may appear minor, this point constitutes a substantial portion (perhaps one-third) of the Minister’s response and merits clarity.

(g) Removing the slip lane at Sydney Park Rd/Princes Highway intersection?

No. It appears TfNSW is not redesigning it because they don’t have permission or it costs too much to relocate the Transurban owned Variable Message Sign.

“VMS sign relocation – owned by Transurban and there is no location to move” and “No longer relocating VMS” on page 16.

(h) New mid-block pedestrian crossing on Princes Highway north of Short Street?

I think so. I assume this exists in the current plans, but it is not shown in the IFT4/current scope plans because it isn’t changed (“A new signalised pedestrian crossing on Princes Hwy north of Short St to improve access across Princes Hwy” is under “Key features maintained within the scope” on page 10).

(i) New mid-block pedestrian and cyclist crossing on Princes Highway between May Street and Goodsell Street?

Moved I think. “Relocated mid-block intersection to south of May Street – Short Street mid-block intersection will be provided”

(j) Separated cycleway on the western side of King Street between May Street and St Peters square?

Yes.

“Separated cycleway on Princes Highway between Sydney Park Road to Barwon Park Road with a mid-block crossing past May Street”

(Current Project Scope, page 41, slide “2. Project Objectives”, “Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024
GIPA item 5″.

(k) Separated cycleway on the southern side of Sydney Park Road between Princes Highway and Mitchell Road?

Not on the southern side, but the temporary popup cycleway on the north side was retained in stage 1 and is complete.

(l) Separated cycleway on the western side of Mitchell Road between Sydney Park Road and existing cycleway?

I think this is considered part of the Mitchell Rd & Sydney Park Rd intersection, and so refer to answer for 4a. The cycleway north of the intersection has already been built by the City of Sydney.

The Addendum REF proposes to exclude any civil works on East of Mitchell Road (on Sydney Park Road)

The lack of any civil works east of Mitchell Road means any road space reallocation must be done with paint – which is not in line with the City of Sydney’s recomendation or TfNSW Beyond the Pavement standard.

This also results in the removal of hundreds of metres of cycleway, which even if they couldn’t connect to any cycleways at Euston Road – would greatly benefit residents along the medium density development in the area.

The City of Sydney recommended in April 2020:

Retain car parking lane and as per previous discussions include new street trees at 14 metre centres, in line with the parking bays – see Attachment 2. This helps to visually narrow the road and reduce speeds in line with the Beyond the Pavement to make self-explaining road environments.

CoS comments on TfNSW concept design plans (23 April 2020, on plans dated 5 March 2020)

From the Beyond the Pavement TfNSW standard:

Consider road width narrowing

Consider the potential for transferring traffic lanes (particularly ones that were historically added as the traffic volumes increased) to footpath space, parking and cycle ways and the potential for incorporating trees. A narrower road carriageway creates a strong visual cue as to the speed drivers should travel.

Safely introduce tree planting

Consider the potential for tree planting in towns as visual cues to encourage slower speeds but also create a cooler environment and improve the overall liveability. Slower speeds and road narrowing create opportunities for canopy cover over road and footpath space, and create a street atmosphere less dominated by traffic.

From “3.8.6 Considerations for bypassed roads”, “Beyond the Pavement” standard, TfNSW Standards Portal

Why do the October 2024 internal TfNSW slides mention “Descoped as approved by MO Nov 2024”?

Item 5, titled “Internal Update … October 2024” includes “Western leg crossing at Mitchell Road and Sydney Park Road intersection” …”Descoped as approved by MO Nov 2024 and in July 2024.” (page 44). 

“MO briefing to endorse way forward” is on the next page as a “Next step”, which I assume refers to the Item 4 presentation (as presentation is titled MO Update and was dated the same month).

The item 4 presentation (marked October 2024) included “RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Minister for Transport: 2. Approves the staged delivery of Sydney Park Junction”.

The timeline of decision-making remains unclear. It’s possible these comments were prepared in anticipation of a Ministerial decision.

Was the Mitchell Road and Sydney Park Road intersection re-included in scope due to community concerns?

Yes. GIPA 25T-1420 includes that:

Due to community concerns on the 1.8m shared path width. Transport is investigating cycleway connection options between Sydney Park Road to Mitchell Road on-road cycleway.

Slide titled “5. Recent Stakeholder Concerns”, GIPA item 5, “Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project” dated October 2024, page 44, GIPA 25T-1420

Was the Mitchell Road intersection (and other scope beyond the popup cycleway implementation) always planned to be implemented?

No. As of October 2024, not even the contract for design work for any scope beyond Stage 1A had been signed. That this design work could be a variation suggests it was not originally intended to be done before the public backlash or ministerial intervention.

Remaining design works (Stage 1B and Stage 2) to be undertaken by Jacobs as a variation/new contract or within Transport – TBC Timing to be confirmed by I&P

• Slide titled “6. Next Steps”, GIPA item 5, “Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project” dated October 2024, page 44, GIPA 25T-1420

Note that Stage 1A is “Two-way separated cycleway on Sydney Park Road (extent of existing pop-up cycleway) connecting to existing shared path at either end with a wide flared ramp entry”.

Did Transport Minister Jo Haylen promise the original REF design?

Yes.

See the Sydney Morning Herald article on this 2025-05-27: “The transport minister made a safety promise. Four days later, it was torn apart”.

On November 10th, 2024, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that

Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021, including a cycleway to link Sydney Park and Mitchell roads and a new bus stop and pedestrian crossing to access Sydney Park.

It remains unclear whether the deviations from the initial proposal since this statement resulted from miscommunication, lack of directive authority, or other factors.

An “Internal presentation of Sydney Park Junction Project” dated 14 November 2024 (GIPA item 3, GIPA 25T-1420 page 8) states that 14 changes to scope since the project was assessed have been identified. It details that changes were identified by comparing the project’s 33 key features in the Submissions Report with the current scope of the project.

How did these scope cuts get approved?

According to these new documents “Descoped Sydney Park Road approved by MO [ministers office] Nov 2024 and in July 2024.” (page 44, GIPA 25T-1420).

The following quote from an opinion piece – if referring to this project – suggests that the Minister was not told.

A motorway project which included active transport links had all of those important details removed without the Minister being told, and this has exposed some of the people who aren’t following what the policies say or what the Minister wants.

Fiona Campbell, interview: “How Sydney has rebranded itself from the “city that hates bikes”, Zag Daily, Sela Musa, 13 December 2024

It remains unclear how these scope changes were processed and whether full Ministerial oversight was maintained (if referring to this project).

Are any features beyond Stage 1 scope funded?

As of October 2024 – no. Funding for any design work beyond Stage 1A does not appear to be confirmed, let alone construction.

Remaining design works (Stage 1B and Stage 2) to be undertaken by Jacobs as a variation/new contract or within Transport – TBC Timing to be confirmed by I&P

Slide titled “5. Next Steps”, item 4, “Briefing to MO regarding Sydney Park Junction Project, dated October 2024”, GIPA 25T-1420 page 45

Another page in these documents states “Stage 2 if approved will result in scope similar to REF display on Princes Highway.”

Is Barwon Park Road slip road being retained due to Transurban-owned Variable Message Sign?

Unclear. Comments in GIPA 25T-1420 suggest this intersection is not being redesigned into a signalised, non-slip lane intersection because TfNSW does not have permission, funding, or location to move the sign to.

See “VMS sign relocation – owned by Transurban and there is no location to move” and “No longer relocating VMS” on page 16.

Is the Sydney Park Junction project a requirement of the WestConnex conditions of approval?

Yes. If B51 states, “All identified works arising from this condition are to be implemented by the Proponent.”, and B50 states “The Review must identify (and consider), but not be limited to: … (c) the King Street Gateway Project, including potential Princes Highway traffic calming initiatives;”, then a reasonable person would consider the Sydney Park Junction Project (the new name for the King Street Gateway Project) to be a requirement of the WestConnex conditions of approval.

If B51 does not “identify” the “King Street Gateway Project”, then condition B51 does not meet the condition of approval of B50. Logically, for B50 and B51 both to be met, the Sydney Park Junction Project must be “implemented by the Proponent”.

In the words of Clover Moore: “The project is a condition of consent for WestConnex.” (Letter, 5th September 2024)

In the words of the Inner West council:

The project is not part of WestConnex, but is a requirement of New M5 Condition of Approval B44, which states: “The SSI [State Significant Infrastructure] must be designed to not preclude delivery of the King Street Gateway Project. Consultation with the relevant council(s) must be undertaken during detailed design of the SSI to facilitate integration of the two projects. Current traffic modelling and assessment, and the results of the Road network Performance Review Plan as required in Condition E40 wherever applicable, must be provided to the relevant authority and used in the development of the King Street Gateway Project.”

Notes from meeting between Inner West Council (IWC) & Roads & Maritime Services (RMS) re King Street Gateway project (WestConnex New M5) 27 April 2017 11am-12noon at Leichhardt Service Centre

Note this does not state it is part of WestConnex.

TfNSW claims delivery of the Sydney Park Junction Project is not a WestConnex Ministers Condition of Approval

The delivery of the Sydney Park Junction Project (also known as King Street Gateway Project) is not a WestConnex Ministers Condition of Approval as stated in B44, B50 and B51.

Slide titled “1. Ministers Condition of Approval (B44 & B50 & B51)”, Page 38, Sydney Park Junction Internal Update (October 2024), TfNSW, GIPA 25T-1420

It also includes on the same page:

The determined Sydney Park Junction REF states the following “The proposal is consistent with approval conditions B44, B50, B51 of the M8 Motorway (Stage 2) project by providing traffic calming initiatives along King Street/Princes Highway and Sydney Park Road and upgrading pedestrian and bicycle pathways within one kilometre of the St Peters Interchange.”

Original text of approval conditions

Referring to the original approval conditions (WestConnex Stage 2 – New M5, SSI 6788, including Mod 1-6, https://www.linkt.com.au/content/dam/linkt/sydney/westconnex-m8/WestConnex_M8_New_M5_CoA.pdf)

B44

The SSI must be designed to not preclude delivery of the King Street Gateway Project. Consultation with the relevant council(s) must be undertaken during detailed design of the SSI to facilitate integration of the two projects. Current traffic modelling and assessment, and the result of the Road Network Performance Review Plan as required in condition E40 where applicable, must be provided to the relevant authority and used in the development of the King Street Gateway Project.

B50

The Proponent must undertake a Pedestrian and Cycleway Network Review. The Review must be prepared and approved by the Secretary within six months from the date of this approval (or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary) to identify pedestrian and cycle facilities that are to be provided by the Proponent as part of the SSI. The Review must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) that has been approved by the Secretary. The Review must be undertaken in consultation with the relevant councils and Bicycle NSW and address the matters raised during consultation. The Review must identify (and consider), but not be limited to:

(a) current and future land use and associated pedestrian and cycle demand and needs;
(b) pedestrian and cycle impacts associated with the project;
(c) the King Street Gateway Project, including potential Princes Highway traffic calming initiatives;
(d) Alexandra Canal initiatives;
(e) regional and local pedestrian and cycling strategies;
(f) pedestrian and cycle safety, accessibility and connectivity, including to the public realm;
(g) intersection and signal phasing opportunities to reduce waiting and crossing times for pedestrians and cyclists;
(h) provision of upgraded cycle and pedestrian facilities within 1,000 metres of the boundary of the St Peters Interchange, apart from the areas addressed in conditions B62(c) and B64; and
(i) concept designs for pedestrian and cycleway infrastructure and implementation timeframes.

The Review is also to consider the delivery of the ‘M5 East Green Link’ between Kingsgrove and Mascot approved as part of the M5 East Motorway project. The review shall address past constraints to the delivery of this project and options to overcome these constraints.

The Review must not result in a reduced level of cycle and pedestrian infrastructure as identified in the documents referred to in condition A2, unless required by these conditions.

B51

A detailed Pedestrian and Cycle Implementation Strategy must be submitted to the Secretary within 12 months of the date of this approval (or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary) and implemented at the commencement of project operations, except as permitted by this approval. The strategy must be prepared in consultation with relevant councils and Bicycle NSW. The Strategy must be consistent with the approved Pedestrian and Cycleway Network Review and include:

(a) pedestrian and cycle engineering and safety standards;
(b) a safety audit of existing and proposed pedestrian and cycle facilities to address the above standards (including the shared path audit undertaken for the King Georges Road Interchange Project SSI-6547);
(c) details of selected routes and connections to existing local and regional routes; (d) timing and staging of all works;
(e) infrastructure details, including lighting, safety, security, and standards compliance;
(f) signage and wayfinding measures; and
(g) details of associated landscaping works.

The Strategy shall be endorsed by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) approved by the Secretary. The endorsement shall address each of the listed matters in this condition.

All identified works arising from this condition are to be implemented by the Proponent.

The state of cycleway and footpath funding

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.   On the 13th of February 2025, the Parliament of New South Wales released the report of an inquiry into “Use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options”, which included this recommendation:

That the NSW Government, in allocating funds to active transport in the NSW Budget, ensure better alignment with the proportion of active transport trips taken and the United Nations recommendation for active transport to be allocated 20 per cent of transport budgets.

Recommendation 16, Parliamentary Inquiry into “Use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options”, NSW Legislative Council, Final report, 2025-02-13.

The NSW Government delivered a response Tuesday 13th May 2024 that they “Support in principle” this recommendation (which even included “The NSW Government is also delivering improvements to Transport assets, by doing things like improving traffic signals to better prioritise pedestrians…” – perhaps one day this will be verifiable with open data)

Jenny Aitchinson’s comments in the recent ROM cycling and micromobility plan are encouraging:

Safe infrastructure designed for children benefits all riders, making cycling more accessible for people of all ages and abilities. To achieve this, we need increased investment in safe and connected active transport infrastructure.

Ministers’ foreword (pg. 4), Regional and Outer Metropolitan Cycling and Micromobility Plan 2025-2035, May 2025

Timeline of the project

See timeline at https://jakecoppinger.com/2024/11/sydney-park-junction-november-2024/#aioseo-an-unofficial-timeline-of-sydney-park-junction-project

I directly asked TfNSW when the Addendum REF is due in the 2025-05-01 City of Sydney Cycleway Advisory Meeting, and the answer of the representative was they do not know.

Site photos

The post Not enough funding for Sydney Park Junction – Addendum REF to cut scope first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

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

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 jake@jakecoppinger.com. 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”

…
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.

TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy, heading 3.1 (Principles)

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?

Edit/note: I do not consider this table up to date.

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”.

An unofficial timeline of the Sydney Park Junction project

Note: This table has been updated since this blog post was published with new rows, and minimal changes to existing rows.

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.

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.

The post Sydney Park Junction: TfNSW Won’t Commit to Original Scope Despite Ministerial Intervention first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

This is a lightly edited submission for the Epping Bridge Project concept design and Review of Environmental Factors that I wrote in collaboration with volunteers on behalf of Better Streets.

Corrections, comments, and constructive criticism is much appreciated – either as a comment below, via Mastodon or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com. Thanks very much to all the volunteers, wider advocacy groups and Better Streets leadership who reviewed this submission.

Better Streets does not support the concept design of the Epping Bridge Project. It is first and foremost a road widening project (5 car lanes to 7 car lanes). It does not follow Transport for NSW’s own Road User and Space Allocation Policy or Movement & Place design framework, and at $220 million costs double the allocation for active transport for the entire state over the next 4 years! It is alarming that TfNSW is not following their own excellent policies – the local community would be the beneficiaries.

The Transport Impact Assessment explains “The Australian and NSW governments are jointly funding the replacement of Epping bridge (the bridge) to ease congestion, improve connectivity, and improve safety for road users in North-West Sydney”.

The FAQ document states: “Extra capacity is being provided through the provision of an additional westbound traffic lane into Beecroft Road and an additional right turn lane southbound into Blaxland Road. The additional two lanes of traffic will ease congestion in both directions across the bridge, resulting in travel time savings for road users.”

The only problem – it won’t work! The project’s own modelling shows adding lanes will not ease congestion and travel time savings will not persist beyond 2029. Anyone paying attention to transport policy this century knows widening a road will not reduce congestion long term (“How to Fix Traffic Congestion In Australia”, Utopia, 2023. Page 897, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York Caro, Robert, 1974)

Modelling predicts that after five disruptive years of construction, the average network speed would increase by a single km/h in the AM and PM peaks in 2029 – followed by a 8 km/h (31.8 percent) drop in the PM peak network speed within a decade.

Average vehicle delay is modelled to drop from 148.8 seconds to 134.4 seconds (a 14.4s drop) in the morning peak and from 141.3 to 131.4 seconds (just a 9.9s drop) in the afternoon peak after construction.

It’s completely nonsensical – and temporary. Modelling suggests the PM peak average network delay will increase to 235.1 seconds by 2039 (an increase of 131.4s after a decade). This is 13.2 times or 1320% the network delay saving anticipated by 2029. That is, in 2039, the celebrated 2029 PM peak delay saving will be eroded twelve times over.

But what would happen in 2039 if the project wasn’t built? We don’t know – because modelling was not done (or is redacted and secret). We can only assume it is not supportive of the project. How much would the bridge cost if it is rebuilt but not widened? We don’t know – costing was not published.

The Transport Impact Assessment itself admits that the project will not prevent congestion increases past 2029, but that mode shift to public and active transport would help mitigate the congestion increases (PDF page 36).

This report details criticism of the report, analysis and errors in the modelling results, and recommendations to increase mode shift to public and active transport – based on best practice policy and still delivering the political promises to widen the bridge and reduce congestion. Feel free to jump to the Recommendations section.

Better Streets is Australia’s peak body for safer, healthier and more sustainable streets. The Better Streets coalition includes a large number of volunteers and organisations – our aims are listed at betterstreets.org.au and coalition members are listed at https://www.betterstreets.org.au/coalition

This report was written (in their leisure time) by Jake Coppinger in collaboration with Better Streets volunteers and reviewed with Better Streets leadership. All authors are volunteers and do not have a traffic engineering background. Corrections, comments, and constructive criticism is much appreciated – please forward to jake@jakecoppinger.com. Thanks very much to all the volunteers and wider advocacy groups who helped review this document.

Table of contents

The design will not achieve the project goals

The road will not ease congestion or meaningfully reduce travel times

Relevant policies and studies on induced demand

In the spirit of the outdated predict & provide approach, the project seeks to reduce congestion and increase motorist traffic flow by adding more road lanes. Easing congestion or reducing travel times for motorists should not be primary goals of a transport project this century, but this section demonstrates it fails to achieve even that.

The 2011 Epping Town Centre Study itself acknowledged demand management is more critical than increasing capacity: “In congested urban areas in particular it is widely recognised that strategies to manage demand will be more critical to transport operations than strategies to increase the capacity of existing roads.”

Similarly the Engineers Australia Urban Transport systems 2023 Policy and planning advice report describes the policy failure of road widening projects:

Too much emphasis and funding has been directed to road widening projects to the detriment and serviceability of other modes of transport. While car drivers have a good choice of travel on a connected road network, potential walkers and cyclists are significantly constrained, due to a lack of safe routes and road crossings. Public transport users are impacted by inadequate network connectivity and proximity to services in outer areas and a lack of priority routes in congested inner areas

Our research has found that the phenomenon known as induced demand influences how people travel. It also influences the effectiveness of infrastructure designed to increase capacity and reduce congestion. When a road or freeway is widened, or a new road is built, in an area where roads are congested or near capacity, induced traffic on the widened road increases traffic on the surrounding roads that have not been widened, resulting in system wide increased congestion.

Induced demand is not limited to cars – this report also describes the effect on building cycleway infrastructure:

Induced demand also occurs when improvements are made to public transport and cycling (Richardson and Burgess, 2005)

Curiously, the Transport Impact Assessment does not provide any 2039 modelling if the project does not go ahead, so it’s impossible to quantitatively measure benefits of the project past 2029. This is a concerning lack of transparency regarding the modelling information on one of the most crucial pages of the most crucial report, and suggests the numbers are not favourable to the project going ahead. Better Street’s volunteer Jake Coppinger made a request for this data on Tuesday Oct 1st and has not yet received it. We look forward to seeing this data published.

The project will only increase network speed by 1 km/h to 2029 and a 32% drop after a decade in the PM peak

The “Operational Performance With & Without the Proposal” table (Figure 4-1, PDF page 36) of the Transport Impact Assessment states that the average network speed would increase by a single km/h in the AM and PM peaks by 2029 (22 to 23 km/h) as a result of the $200 million upgrade project.

Below the table is the statement “Average vehicle speeds are increased by 6.5% and 4.5% in the 2029 AM and PM peaks, respectively”.

One of these statistics appears to be incorrect – the table describes the project increasing the AM peak average vehicle speed from 22 km/h to 23 km/h, an increase of 4.5%. 6.5% would necessitate the average speed increase to 23.43 km/h. Other rows use decimal places (such as fractional durations of seconds) but the speed figures are whole numbers.

Increasing the speed of cars by 1km/h (or maybe a secret extra 0.43km/h) doesn’t have any meaningful impact.

It predicts the average PM peak network speed with the project will drop from 23 km/h in 2029 to 15 km/h in 2039, a drop of 31.8 percent.

If the report is claiming that increasing average network speeds by 1 km/h in 2029 will  ease congestion and improve travel times, then it should highlight that within the decade this will drop 31.8%.

Easing congestion or reducing travel times for private vehicle motorists should not be primary goals of a transport project this century, but spending $220 million, increasing vehicle speeds by 1 km/h, saving only up to 14 seconds and still suffering a 31.8% reduction in average network speeds within a decade is a terrible outcome for even the most predict & provide thinking, car focused traffic engineer. 

Average vehicle network delay will only drop by 10 seconds in the PM peak

The proposal claims below Fig 4-1 that “Average vehicle delay is reduced by 9.7% and 7.0% in the 2029 AM and PM Peaks, respectively”.

In the 2029 AM peak, the project is forecasted to reduce vehicle delay from 148.8 seconds to 134.4 seconds, a reduction of 14.4 seconds.

In the 2029 PM peak, vehicle delay is forecast to reduce from 141.3 to 131.4 seconds, a reduction of 9.9 seconds.

To put these numbers in perspective, a car driving at the predicted increased travel speed (23 km/h) for 9.9 seconds would cover an additional 23 / 60 / 60 * 9.9 * 1000 = 63 metres. Under the current proposal, in 2029 you could expect your car to be 63 metres further ahead in the afternoon traffic jam (moving 1km/h faster) on average.

By 2039, the modelling suggests that the PM average network delay will increase to 235.1 seconds, an increase of 131.4 seconds from the 2029 with project modelling estimate. 131.4 seconds is 131.4 / 9.9 = 13.2 times or 1320% the network delay saving anticipated by 2029. That is, in 2039, the celebrated PM peak delay saving in 2029 will be eroded twelve times over.

How does the 2039 with project case compare to the do nothing scenario? We don’t know – because modelling was not done, or is redacted and secret (refer to Fig 4-1 of the Transport Impact Assessment).

In a particularly insightful paragraph, the Transport Impact Assessment (pg 36) concedes the project will not mitigate increased congestion past 2029, but that modal shift to public and active transport could:

It must be noted that 2039 modelling with proposal has decreased average network speed compared to 2029 without proposal in the PM peak and network delay will increase past the 2029 without proposal.

However, this is subject to anticipated growth used in modelling. There is potential that future modal shift, public and active transport, would limit the delay increase.

Another way to put these network delay numbers in perspective is to compare them to the delays faced by pedestrians. Crossing the 3 traffic signals where there is a missing traffic signal crossing takes 270 seconds. The east and south traffic signals currently operate on a 130 second cycle time, so with the standard 6 seconds green time that’s a 124 second wait. The modelling assumes a 140 second cycle. Even just moving the bus stops 48.5 metres north adds an additional 40 seconds walking time for those switching to or from a bus at the station. This may seem minor, however it is 40/9.9 = 4x or 400% larger than the celebrated reduction in PM peak average vehicle delay.

Furthermore, referencing tables 4-2 of the Transport Impact Assessment document (PDF page 36) & table 6-11 of the Epping Bridge Project Review of Environmental Factors document (pg 75) access to the Epping town centre for all traffic is drastically reduced in some cases or not improved at all in others as the following intersections degrade 

• Carlingford Road, Ray Road and Rawson Street all retain a Level of Service (LoS) of F in both tables
• Beecroft Road and Carlingford Road retain their respective LoS in both tables
• Bridge Street and Rawson Street according to table 4-2 the AM performance goes E to F in 2039 with the proposal. While Table 6-11 has the intersection AM performance remaining at a C LoS it shows the PM peak hour LoS to degrade from C to E in 2039 with the proposal
• Epping Road, Blaxland Road and Langston Place according to both tables in 2039 with the proposal having been implemented LoS is E
• Epping Rd & Essex St according to table 4-2 do not improve. However, looking at table 6-11 the LoS changes from D to C and remains so in 2039
• Beecroft Road, High Street and Bridge Street according to table 4-2 marginally improve from B to A in the AM peak but there is no improvement in 2039 with the proposal implemented. Table 6-11 conflicts with table 4-2 as it suggests that this intersection will remain with a LoS of A in the AM peak & also that in 2039 with the proposal implemented that there will be an improvement from D to C LoS

There is little evidence the project will improve road safety

The project page states the project is “Providing a new, wider, safer and more efficient bridge”.

While it is understood the bridge requires significant maintenance or replacement due to its age and structural condition, unless it is at imminent risk of collapse it is not increasing road safety (the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) states (PDF pg 24) that “Inspections carried out by Transport in October and November 2022 indicated that it requires significant maintenance or renewal.” and “Sydney Trains Bridge Examination Report from 2022 concluded that the bridge is in a deteriorated condition”, however we have not found the report itself). This section will focus on how the project will reduce the risk of injury or death to motorists and vulnerable road users.

Crash data presented (REF PDF pg. 60) showing 4 serious injury crashes, 10 moderate injury crashes and 15 minor or other injury crashes within 5 years to 2022.

The only analysis in the REF is:

Spatial grouping of crashes suggests that there are safety concerns associated with eastbound movement on Epping Road, all movement along Beecroft Road, and westbound movements on Carlingford Road.

In the Transport Impact Assessment, a 64 page document, the entirety of the text in the Safety section (“3.10 Safety”, PDF pg. 31) is:

Crash data statistics for the project area was sourced from the NSW Centre for Road safety website (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety). These reports provide information on casualties and crashes in NSW over a 5-year period 2018 to 2022.

> A summary of the injury crashes is presented in Table 3-10 and a plot of the crash locations is provided in Figure 3-11.

The central raised median may increase average vehicle speeds due to additional separation negating any safety benefits. It would not be required if the speed limit is lowered (see below section). Raised zebra crossings (that do not follow the pedestrian desire line) and a highway median are insufficient scope for a $220 million project to claim improving road safety is a project goal, especially when an explicit goal is to increase the volume of and reduce congestion for motor vehicles.

The speed limit in the area should be permanently reduced from 60 km/h to 40 km/h (at least)

TfNSW didn’t even consider reducing the speed limit of the street as part of this project. Thankfully, we can see what the impact would be on travel times as it will be lowered during construction.

Lowering the speed limit would not just increase the safety of the local road network, but make the surrounding environment more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and local businesses.

Under “Construction speed limits” (REF pg. 68) it is stated that reducing speed limits from 60 to 40 km/h on a total of 1340 metres (1.3 km) of road including the bridge and surrounding roads “would impact free-flow traffic speeds” by “increasing travel time by approximately 26 to 29 seconds per vehicle”.

In “Table 6-5 Proposed road and traffic diversions per traffic stage and their anticipated impact” of the REF (pdf page 64) the impact “Reduced speed and lane closures off peak to remove central medians and splitter islands.” would result in an “Average Network Delay increase from 2023 baseline” of 8.8 seconds.

How 8.8 seconds differs so much from 26 to 29 seconds (even when the 8.8 second figure includes the impact of lane closures) is not clear, and suggests that as traffic rarely flows at free flow speeds, reducing the limit to 40km / h would result in a single digit second delay to motorists.

The average PM peak network speed in 2039 with the project is predicted to be 15 km/h anyway. Additionally, the bridge currently has an advisory speed limit of 25 km/h navigating the turn along Beecroft Rd west/northbound. There is also an advisory speed limit of 25 km/h over the bridge in both directions (Google Street View photo) (the supports for the advisory sign at the south-western corner of Blaxland Rd and Epping Rd (westbound) narrow the footpath further for pedestrians)

TfNSW’s own “Speeding” page states that in a crash between a car and pedestrian at 50 km/h, there is a 90% probability the pedestrian will be killed. At 40 km/h this drops to a 60% probability, and to 10% for 30 km/h. The risk of killing a pedestrian in a 60 km/h crash is so high that it isn’t even included on this page.

The speed limit on Langston Place should also be changed to 40km/h. While a high pedestrian activity study doesn’t seem to have been conducted there is an advisory sign that the area is a high pedestrian activity area (Google Street View photo). Parts of Rawson street, Bridge street, and Oxford street should also be subject to any future high pedestrian activity studies.

The reference for TfNSW’s risk data is Wramborg, P 2005, ‘A new approach to a safe and sustainable road structure and street design for urban areas’, Road safety on four continents conference, 2005, Warsaw, Poland, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linkoeping, Sweden.

The shared path will not improve safety for pedestrians, and marginally improve safety for cyclists

Adding a short section of shared path adjacent to a 7 lane road is not a satisfactory active transport outcome for a $220 million project adjacent to a major Metro and Sydney trains interchange. This is not sufficient safe cycling infrastructure.

By definition, adding cyclists to a path shared with pedestrians inherently increases risks to pedestrians. How much of an increase this risk is depends on the path width, volume of pedestrians and cyclists, and general design. Critically, there is no proposal to have physical protection for cyclists or vulnerable road users that prevents them from falling into a traffic lane like is found elsewhere on Epping road in the form of fencing. 

There is no evidence presented the raised central median will have on safety

If head-on collisions are a significant risk, then a low cost solution that retains more precious street width (for more vulnerable road users) is reducing the speed (as described in above section).

Reducing speeds, lane widths or providing wider footpaths would achieve meaningful safety improvement for vulnerable road users. Implementing safety screens is a good upgrade but should not be considered a major safety feature. 

The project does not deliver value for the taxpayer’s money

While it is hard to separate the cost of the necessary bridge replacement and the potentially unnecessary expensive changes in addition (moving the chiller unit from north to south end of the South Services building, bridge widening, signal reconfiguration), $220 million is almost double the entire state’s NSW Get Active (active transport) budget for the next 4 years. Bicycle NSW noted only 25% of 346 eligible projects received funding from this year’s $60 Million Get NSW Active allocation.

A southern station entrance would be welcome but no consideration for it is found in the project documents. 

No costing is provided among bridge replacement options for a replacement of a similarly sized bridge without additional lanes for cars.

“Improving access” to Epping town centre is a project objective but it reduces access for pedestrians

There are no new pedestrian access links, and there will be an additional signal pedestrians must wait for when crossing Epping Road. Better Intersections data shows traffic signal timing on state roads is not friendly to pedestrians.

The project is missing the blaring obvious – an additional signalised pedestrian crossing on the west side of the bridge. It is a disappointment that motor vehicles have been prioritised so through the Epping town centre that adding a missing crossing is not even considered. Appendix B of the mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy (pg 8) states that an example consideration for “walking” on “main streets” is to “Provide dedicated or shared walking space & crossings (avoiding severance)“.

The 2013 Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Structure Plan appears to show (page 21) an improved pedestrian link between Bridge St and Epping Rd (across the north side of Epping Bridge) “subject to investigation”. This would suggest a signalised pedestrian crossing on the west side of the bridge.

The “Epping Bridge Project Overview Video” shows (at 1:50) a large volume of pedestrians on the north side of the bridge. How would they cross to High Street to shop at local businesses? They must feel like they’re in a Geoffrey Smart painting.

If TfNSW was serious about improving access to Epping Town Centre and following international best practice the project would include (in order of idealism):

• an explicit goal to reduce traffic speed to 30 km/h (or at least 40 km/h) and volume along the bridge and the Beecroft Rd shopping precinct (the advisory speed limit on the bridge is currently 25 km/h)
• adding the missing signalised crossing leg to the east of Blaxland Rd as per the TfNSW Movement & Place design solution “appropriate” for arterial high streets
• removal of all slip lanes (Beecroft to Langston, High St, Bridge St) which prioritise motor traffic volume and encourage higher cornering speeds
  • and narrowing of the Epping Rd to Blaxland Rd turn radii as it’s currently designed like a slip road
• installation of continuous footpath treatments or raised zebra crossings at High St and Bridge St in alignment with the existing footpath, not set back and disrupting the desire path of pedestrians and cyclists
• Installation of a raised zebra crossing to ensure that the shared path on Bridge street continues across the Rawson street roundabout intersection 
• Ensuring pedestrian protection in traffic signal phasing so no motorists can turn when pedestrians are still crossing the road
• adding a signalised crossing at the west side of the bridge to enable pedestrians and cyclists to access High St and Bridge St (and all of western Epping) from the Langston Place bicycle shed and Beecroft Rd northbound bus stands
• ensuring all pedestrian signals have a max wait time of 30 to 45 seconds (rather than the current 124 seconds) as per international best practice and the City of Sydney’s excellent Walking Strategy & Action Plan
• Adding a signalised crossing in parallel to the Beecroft Rd pedestrian bridge (with a 30s max pedestrian wait) so that pedestrians can cross from the bus stands to the local shops effortlessly
  • This would provide redundancy in the case of lift failures
• using congestion pricing to reduce demand for single occupancy vehicles where there is limited road capacity, as there is roughly parallel commuter rail, driverless metro, the M2 motorway and potential bus routes

That these features or goals appear so lofty and idealistic shows how out of step this project is with international best practice and TfNSW’s own policy on prioritising pedestrians and cyclists.

Videos and measurements of experienced pedestrian delay and accessibility

Pedestrian delay at traffic signals (to one decimal place)

The public shouldn’t have to capture this data – it should be provided in the Transport Impact Assessment.

See all data (or more recent measurements at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/?lat=-33.7735&lon=151.0827&zoom=17.3532

Measured durations to cross the street

Any corrections, improved measurements or additional location measurements are greatly appreciated.

There are no promises given on reducing signal cycle time or wait time for pedestrians

In fact, the proposal is modelling using a 140 second cycle time (Transport Impact Assessment, PDF page 33), a 10 second increase on the current measured cycle time in the PM peak!

Split signalised crossing east of Epping road would likely increase pedestrian wait times

The signalised pedestrian crossing across Epping Rd east of the bridge is currently a single stage crossing – that is, when the pedestrian light turns green you walk across the complete width of Epping Rd. The cycle time was measured as 130 seconds, a maximum pedestrian wait time of 124 seconds, and is an unprotected crossing (cars have a green signal to turn while pedestrians have a flashing red signal and are completing their crossing)

The project includes a staged crossing here as a feature, and features prominently in the video. The REF states (pg. 36):

The staged crossing allows greater flexibility with signal phasing at the busy intersection and safer pedestrian movements.

The below photo depicts the current crossing:

However the proposed changes to the bridge show the following:

• They move the pedestrian crossing eastwards on the south east side 
• The crossing lines are also no longer aligned

An additional staged crossing likely means pedestrians (and cyclists) will have to wait an additional signal phase to cross the second half of the road. This would increase the max wait time from 124 seconds to potentially much longer.

If safer pedestrian movements are desired, the traffic signals can be reprogrammed to not display a green light for cars when pedestrians are still completing their walk. The phrase “greater flexibility with signal phasing” makes it clear this modification is designed for the benefit of increasing traffic flow for cars and not because it is an improvement for pedestrians.

The staged pedestrian crossing is required due to changes to prioritise motor vehicles above pedestrians and cyclists

The Transport Impact Assessment (pg. 40) states under 4.4 “Active Transport”:

The proposal requires changes to the layout of the pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Epping Road and Blaxland Road and Langston place.

The REF states under 3.2.2 “The staged crossing allows greater flexibility with signal phasing at the busy

intersection and safer pedestrian movements” and the Transport Impact Assessment states under 4.4.1 (page 40): “The crossing, as proposed in the Definition Design was more than 32m long”.

Why does it require these changes that widen the road? It is not stated anywhere. The proposal does not include any new lanes added to Epping Rd east of the intersection so there is no “necessary” widening of Epping Rd. 

It does not state the current width of the crossing, but given the crossing lantern for pedestrians was measured to flash red for 19.5 seconds, and signal timing assumes a pedestrian speed of 1.2m/s, we can estimate the crossing is 23.2 metres wide – almost 2 full metres narrower than the design threshold stated requiring an island:

When crossings exceed 25m in length, it is a design requirement to provide a median refuge area, with push-button, in case a slow walker fails to complete their crossing in the standard clearance time and becomes stranded

In either case – the media refuge area could be provided in addition to retaining a single phase for pedestrians to walk across the road in one go, and the signals could not allow cars to filter until the end of the flashing red light. TfNSW is implicitly choosing not to provide these pedestrian affordances to prioritise motor vehicle traffic at the expense of pedestrian safety.

During this time, traffic exiting Langston place is held up by the red arrow pedestrian protection requirements. This extension of the C- Phase for Langston Place traffic movements would be at the expense of more important traffic movements. 

The red arrow pedestrian protection should be present for the entire duration of the green and flashing red time, not just the start.

Not only is this sentence explicitly stating that preserving the minimum amount of safety for pedestrians would impact “more important traffic movements” (that is, motor vehicles movements are considered more important than pedestrians, contrary to TfNSW policy), but “held up” motor vehicles is no way to talk about pedestrian access and safety.

Pedestrians should not be “held up” by unnecessary long traffic signals directly outside a Metro station, across from a bike shed and lockers, and between two R4 zoned high density residential areas.

With a single crossing, active transport users can only start their crossing in the first part of C-phase. That is a short 6-second ‘Walk’ window in a total cycle time of 130 seconds. The staged crossing provides more windows of opportunity to cross, particularly in the northbound direction.

If Transport for NSW really wanted to give pedestrians more opportunities to cross just 6 seconds out of every 130, they could increase the green time and reduce the traffic signal cycle time. Not doing so is prioritising motor vehicle traffic ahead of pedestrians.

The TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Procedure explicitly states the task (Allocation of modes within the road/street)  “Are there opportunities to allocate road user space temporally to reduce physical requirements or facilitate use by high priority modes?”. It states that pedestrians are the highest priority mode.

This intersection will be directly adjacent to 5-8 story apartment buildings

Little note in the project is given to the pedestrian amenity for the buildings to be developed on Epping Rd and Blaxland Rd.

Page 36 of the REF states

> However, the amalgamated residential lots have a deferred commencement for 5-8 storey apartment buildings, which will result in a more built-up urban character

There will potentially be a large increase in the volume of pedestrians crossing at this location.

This does not even include a number of other nearby approved or under construction developments:

• Approved – 48-54 Rawson street, 300m from the bridge  – https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/mixed-use-2 
• Being built – Cielo (37-41 Oxford St) – 400m – https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/triguboff-meriton-parramatta-court-win-carparking
• 2-4 Cambridge Street, Epping NSW 2121 – Epica Epping – https://www.epicaepping.com.au/
• Likely redevelopment of 59-77 & 72 Beecroft road as DA/135/2024 / PAN-413534 granted approval to demolish the buildings

It also left out the Pre-Exhibition planning proposal for 53-61 Rawson street Epping (https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/pre-exhibition/53-61-rawson-street-epping). 

Improving connectivity for cyclists is a project objective but it does very little

The REF states under “Proposal objectives” (heading 2.2, page 31) that specific objectives include:

• provide for future cycle and pedestrian connectivity through the town centre
• improve access to the town centre for the local community, road users and businesses
• improve cyclist and pedestrian safety through the delivery of a pedestrian and bicycle shared path, and new bridge safety screens

The REF states “The existing pedestrian network within this study area allows for adequate connectivity and accessibility around the precinct.” under 3.4 “Active Transport (PDF pg. 21). This is false. Four paragraphs later it states “Apart from the east-west off-road shared path along Epping Road and Bridge Street, there are limited cycle facilities provided in the station precinct”.

The short section of shared path on the south side of the bridge is welcomed, but it is insufficient considering the size of the project ($220m) and scale of the works.

The Transport Impact Assessment states (under heading 3.4, page 21):

Apart from the east-west off-road shared path along Epping Road and Bridge Street, there are limited cycle facilities provided in the station precinct. It is also noted that the Epping Road shared path does not connect with the secure bike parking facilities, to the north, in Langston Place (34 parking spaces and 20 lockers).

The existing bicycle parking has only 3 horizontal bike racks offering 6 bike places (~17%) and 28 vertical bike racks (82%). As per the TfNSW “Bicycle Parking Facilities” standard (T MU SS 90007 ST, 2018), the preferred split between horizontal and vertical bike parking is 50%.

Criticism related to pedestrian amenity at signals also apply to cyclists (missing crossings, cycle times etc).

Additionally, while there are cyclist lanterns for the south and eastern legs of the Epping Rd / Blaxland Rd intersection, there is no lantern for the northern leg of this intersection. It is shameful that the Transport Impact Assessment does not identity this flaw and pretends the northern leg doesn’t exist (under 3.4 Active Transport, page 21):

The eastern shared path is directed north, across Epping Road, to Langston Place, at the Blaxland Road and Epping Road signalised crossing. Both pedestrian and cycle lanterns have been provided at this crossing point.

The Transport Impact Assessment notes that cyclist volumes on the southern footpath are currently low (two cyclists per hour), but neglects to mention that cycling across this path is illegal. This is a path directly adjacent to an important interchange Metro station, in between Epping Town Centre, future high density development and parkland (Forest Park).

The project goals are flawed

“Increasing road capacity” by adding more general car lanes should not be a goal and it not in line with TfNSW policy

The mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy states explicitly states “When allocating road user space, the following outcomes are to be avoided”, “…where reasonably practicable and feasible” – “an overall increase in general traffic lanes for private motorised vehicles” (heading 3.2, pg 3)

The 2013 Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Planning Report states on PDF page 52, under “9.3 Capacity of the road network”:

The traffic study acknowledges that although these works will assist traffic flows, strategies to manage demand by reducing car usage will be more critical than strategies to increase capacity of existing roads. Encouraging people to use alternative modes of transport in order to relieve congestion is a priority

Specifically, PDF page 34 of the Transport Impact Assessment boasts an increase in the number of vehicles eastbound of 580 vehicles/hour along Beecroft Road and Carlingford Road and 230 vehicles/hour on Carlingford Rd eastbound 

Epping station alone had 6,688,540 passengers in 2023 (Data source). That is roughly 18,324 passengers a day. The train and metro services that pass through Epping, in a similar fashion to vehicles driving over the bridge, carry a lot more passengers. For example, in the first week of the Sydney Metro’s M1 Northwest city connection being opened 1.4 million trips were recorded with the most busy day having 220,000 trips taken (source).

Level of Service for car metrics should not underpin a project adjacent to a major train station

The mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy states “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.

(under 3.2, Requirements, page 3)

The TfNSW Movement and Place framework explicitly encourages usage of the ‘Vision and Validate’ methodology:

Vision and validate diverges from traditional ‘predict and provide’ approaches which have dominated planning for transport, land-use and infrastructure over the last century. Predict and provide approaches use current trends to predict future needs. This can result in reinforcing unsustainable transport and land-use patterns.

89% of trips crossing the bridge are through trips that do not start or end at Epping Town Centre

One of the stated positive contributions of this proposal is that it would “increase westbound lane capacity through the town centre”. However, it is questionable as to if this is desirable as Rawson Street is the main street of the western side of Epping.

According to the NSW Movement and Place Design Guide main streets need to “Provide safe and comfortable conditions for walking and cycling” and as part of this “design measures should prioritise reducing the speed and volume of vehicles and encourage mode shift to sustainable modes.”

Noting that the 28 May 2018 Parramatta Council meeting agenda including the following from the 2017 EMM Interim Traffic Study (2017) (page 850):

Approximately 89% of trips that cross the bridge are through traffic trips where the origin and destination of the trip is outside the Epping Town Centre.

…

The increasing road traffic congestion occurring in the Town Centre area, is adversely affecting both the regional through traffic movements and local traffic accessibility to the major road network.

And according to the Traffic Impact Assessment for 53-61 Rawson Street Epping (PDF): 

The surveys found that during the AM period (6:30am to 9:30am) and PM period (3:00pm to 7:00pm), around 71 and 39 per cent of traffic originates from external to the town centre respectively. Further, during the specific peak hours identified in Section 2.3.1, 67 per cent and 43 per cent of traffic originates from external to the town centre. These results indicate that Rawson Street is currently used as a rat run for vehicles external to the town centre to turn onto Carlingford Road and travel south towards Epping Road/ Blaxland Road, particularly during the AM peak period. 

The project does not consider connection to the parkland or unbuilt high density housing

The Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Structure Plan (PDF page 25) states that the land on the corner of Epping Rd and Blaxland Rd is zoned R4, with a floor space ratio of 4.5 (page 26).

Aside from the problematic Sydney pattern of placing high rise towers directly adjacent to major arterial roads, the amenity of this new housing has not been given any consideration in the proposal (eg. see “Improving access” to epping town centre is a project objective but it reduces access for pedestrians”)

The project does not follow TfNSW policy

The project does not follow the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy

The newly updated Road User Space Allocation Policy (July 2024) provides Transport for NSW with a stronger mandate to find a better balance between movement and place, with priority given to people walking, cycling and using public transport.

The policy states among other requirements that Transport must:

• document the strategic intent of all road user space allocations, including all changes
• track how the road space allocation principles are being implemented against the strategic intent and outcomes identified as part of strategies or plans
• document road user space trade-off decisions, providing evidence and reasons
• ensure proper endorsement by the relevant Transport governance body
• demonstrate adherence to this policy as part of internal Transport assurance reviews and INSW reviews for projects proposing changes to road space
• report periodically on all road-related projects to enable monitoring against this policy
• adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to protect or
  maintain private vehicle level of service.

Under “3.2 Requirements”, TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy, PDF page 3

The policy explicitly states “When allocating road user space, the following outcomes are to be avoided”, “…where reasonably practicable and feasible” – “an overall increase in general traffic lanes for private motorised vehicles” (heading 3.2, pg 3)

It also includes:

• as a road user space allocation principle: “consistent with the road function being performed, we aim for the overall reduction of the mode share of private motor vehicle trips within built-up areas”

As per heading 4 “Compliance and breach”:

Compliance with this policy and related procedure/s is mandatory.

Projects may be subject to audit for compliance with the Policy

The Epping Bridge Project does not appear to be compliant, and it should be audited for compliance.

The project is not compliant under the NSW Net Zero and Climate Change Policy

The Review of Environmental Factors (Page 146) states

> Improvements to active transport through upgrades to the bridge’s shared path may increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists through to the town centre and subsequently reduce the amount of fuel consumed by private motor vehicles, with a corresponding relative reduction in associated greenhouse gas emissions in the local area. Once operational, the Proposal would produce minimal carbon emissions from traffic and street lighting. 

This claims that improvements to active transport (by adding a shared path) may improve the mode share which would “subsequently reduce the amount of fuel consumed by private motor vehicles”. This sentence completely fails to grasp that the project has a stated aim of increasing road capacity and provides a tiny amount of new cycling infrastructure. As Bicycle NSW noted, $220 millions is double the allocation for active transport for the entire state over the next 4 years! Only 25% of 346 eligible projects received funding from this year’s $60 Million Get NSW Active allocation.

The NSW Net Zero and Climate Change Policy includes under “3.2 Resourcing and uplifting” (page 3):

• promoting a shift to zero or low emissions transport modes, including public and active transport, and multimodal mobility

• stabilising vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) in Greater Sydney through effective travel demand management and improving public and active transport provisions

The Transport Impact Assessment states the project will result in an increase in the vehicle kilometres travelled from 9844 in the 2029 AM peak to 10084 in 2039, and 9894 in the 2024 PM peak to 10060. 

This project will not reduce the vehicle kilometres travelled in the decade after completion, and is not promoting a shift to public or active transport. Prioritising active transport and reallocation road space to public transport (ie. dedicated bus lanes) would. It does not appear compliant with the NSW Net Zero and Climate Change Policy.

The project does not meet the “Signalised crossings on all intersection legs” Movement & Place design solution

The TfNSW Movement and Place design solution “Signalised crossings on all intersection legs” states “Allow people walking and cycling to more easily continue to their desired destination by incorporating crossing on all legs of an intersection.”

Beecroft Road is a destination high street or arterial high street (a stroad, if you will) – and this design solution is designated an appropriate treatment for these street types.

Recommendations

1. Review and publish how the project performs against the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy

The project does not mention the mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy once.

It states: 

To give effect to the principles, Transport must:

• document the strategic intent of all road user space allocations, including all changes
• track how the road space allocation principles are being implemented against the strategic intent and outcomes identified as part of strategies or plans
• document road user space trade-off decisions, providing evidence and reasons
• ensure proper endorsement by the relevant Transport governance body
• demonstrate adherence to this policy as part of internal Transport assurance reviews and INSW reviews for projects proposing changes to road space
• report periodically on all road-related projects to enable monitoring against this policy
• adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to protect or
  maintain private vehicle level of service.

Under “3.2 Requirements”, TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy, PDF page 3

Transport should review this project to enable monitoring against the policy and publicly document road user space trade-off decisions (providing evidence and reasons).

2. Increase bridge capacity using mode shift and dedicated bus lanes, not adding more lanes for cars

If the bridge is to be widened, the additional width should be utilised for bus only lanes or widened footpaths / cycleways to meet TfNSW’s mode shift and climate objectives.

Adding bus lanes on both sides of the bridge would mean that TfNSW (and Labor) still meet the election promise (building a new bridge + fixing congestion +  increasing capacity) but would not induce new motor vehicle traffic right on the doorstep of the Epping Town Centre (of which 89% of trips are through traffic). It is understood from the in person consultation that TfNSW is considering a bus lane only on the south side of the bridge – this is insufficient.

The Future Transport Strategy document (PDF) suggests that in the future there could be a rapid bus service that travels between Epping and Macquarie Park. Such a service would likely make use of the bridge. It is unbelievable that a $220 million project is proposed to reduce road congestion without new or improved services (only the 550 is provided) to drive mode shift to public transport (let alone prioritised).

The TfNSW Future Transport Strategy states (page 29):

> Bus lanes and signal priority at intersections provide bus customers with quicker and more reliable journey times, greater customer satisfaction and increased public transport patronage. Transit ways and short bus-only links can provide more direct routes compared with general traffic, reducing journey times, and increasing public transport appeal and patronage. Prioritising more road space for public transport, pedestrians, cycling and micromobility can make cities more efficient and significantly boost economic activity.

In a particularly insightful paragraph, the Transport Impact Assessment (pg 36) concedes the project will not mitigate increased congestion past 2029, but that modal shift to public and active transport could:

> It must be noted that 2039 modelling with proposal has decreased average network speed compared to 2029 without proposal in the PM peak and network delay will increase past 2029 without proposal.

However, this is subject to anticipated growth used in modelling. There is potential that future modal shift, public and active transport, would limit the delay increase.

This paragraph plainly concedes the project will not mitigate increased congestion past 2029, but that modal shift to public and active transport could.

It also acknowledges that mode shift can absorb traffic when it becomes excessive (page 15):
> At some point, forecast traffic growth exceeds the capacity of the upgraded road network, which results in traffic delay. When this delay becomes excessive, it triggers traffic re-routing, mode shift or peak spreading behaviours and an equilibrium is then reached which balances travel utility.

3. Narrow the width of the general traffic lanes

Another busy urban high street, Oxford Street in the City of Sydney (a Classified Road controlled by TfNSW) is being built with 3.0 metre lane widths (an increase from the current 2.5 metre wide lanes), and 3.2 metre bus lanes (under FAQ on the TfNSW project page).

Reducing the width of general traffic lanes (counterintuitively) improves safety by slowing motorists

• A National Investigation on the Impacts of Lane Width on Traffic Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2023 (129 page report): https://narrowlanes.americanhealth.jhu.edu
• Karim, Dewan & Eng, P & PTOE,. (2015). Narrower Lanes, Safer Streets. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277590178_Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets

If design standards do not allow safer, narrower lanes, TfNSW could make use of an “expanded design domain”. This would include a risk assessment including their internal standards team and considering the implications of wider lanes that induce faster driving behaviour that correlates to more frequent crashes. If this solution is not feasible, the risk assessment should be published explaining why. The signposted speed limit may need to be reduced for narrower lane widths (noting the bridge already has a 25 km/h advisory speed limit.

4. Remove the Langston Place slip lane

According to the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads as published in their Intersection – Pedestrian Slip lanes fact sheet (PDF)  – “For pedestrians with vision impairment, unsignalised slip lanes can be particularly difficult to navigate” & “For drivers, their attention might be focused at oncoming traffic from the right and, therefore, they may fail to observe pedestrians wanting to cross the slip lane.”

Additionally, the Queensland Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections document states

> “At intersections on urban roads where people are likely to be walking or cycling, high-entry angle treatments and free-flow acceleration lanes can result in conflict, therefore in such situations consideration should be given to alternative turn treatments. Transport and Main Roads Guideline Selection and Design of Cycle Tracks presents intersection forms which mitigate the risk associated with conflicts for cyclists. If a left-turn slip lane is deemed necessary, it should either be signalised or have a wombat crossing (raised zebra) provided.”

In the Macquarie Park Detailed Precinct Transport Study document:

> The additional pedestrian crossings and removed slip lanes will increase safety and accessibility for walking, cycling and public transport

5. Close High St to through traffic and open it to pedestrians and cyclists

It is understood from the in-person consultation that Transport are considering closing High Street to through traffic. This would improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the south side of the bridge and potentially contribute to improving mode share for active transport modes.

Appendix

Assorted errors / issues in the Transport Impact Assessment

Missing 2039 “without proposal” modelling

Table Table 4-1 (Operational Performance With & Without the Proposal) includes a 2039 AM and PM peak “with proposal” calculation for a number of traffic planning metrics, but does not include any “without proposal” numbers.

Austroads suggests 1800 vehicles per lane per hour of green time is an optimistic assumption

The modelling assumes 1800 vehicles per lane, per hour of green-time (Transport Impact Assessment, pg 33).

The 2015 paper “Impacts of On-street Parking on Road Capacity (Sahan Wijayaratna, AECOM Australia) presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum 2015 states (PDF page 4):

Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 (2008) states that lane capacity of an urban road under ideal conditions is 1800 vehicles per hour. However a number of factors such as roadway conditions, geometric design, traffic control measures and other physical elements could affect the capacity of a transport corridor. Austroads (2008) has identified the following factors that could influence the capacity of an urban road: traffic lane widths; shoulder widths and/or lateral clearances; design speed; terrain conditions (horizontal and vertical alignment of the road); traffic composition (percentage of heavy vehicles); driver behaviour; control conditions (traffic lights and other traffic management measures); pedestrian and bicycle facilities. To account for these factors Austroads (2008) has provided ‘correction factors’ or adjustment factors when estimating road capacity.

This 1800 figure appears to only be accurate if the lane width is 3.7m (0.7 wider than Oxford St, CoS) and 2 metres of lateral clearance on each side.

“lateral clearance” appears to mean clear width to nearest barrier on each side:

> Lateral clearance is the distance between the extreme edge of the carriageway to the face of the nearest support whether it is a solid abutment, pier or column.

(from https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/irc/translate/irc.gov.in.054.1974.html)

Following the provided correction coefficients supplied in this paper after the above paragraph, with 0m lateral clearance, and lanes half way between 2.7m and 3.2 metres (if aiming for 3.0m lanes), Austroads appears to specify capacity as roughly 1800 * ((0.6 + 0.5) /2) = 990 under ideal conditions (without accounting for design speed, terrain conditions, traffic composition, etc.).

This is almost half of the assumed capacity per lane. As we are not traffic engineers we do not have the expertise to understand what (if any) result this would have on the modelling results.

The REF and Transport Impact Assessment claim different LOS metrics for the same intersection

The Review of Environmental Factors and Transport Impact Assessment appears to show conflicting Level of Service metrics for the Bridge Street and Rawson Street intersection performance.

The REF states under table 6-11:

Which is correct? Are other LoS metrics incorrect? They both tell very different stories – that the intersection “improves” in 2029 and then declines in the PM peak, or it doesn’t improve in 2029 and then improves in the PM peak.

The Transport Impact Assessment contains errors referencing LOS metrics

One of the four benefit points for intersection performance appears to be an error

• It states “Intersection performance in the PM peak is forecast to increase from level of service D to E from 2029 opening year to 2039 project year.” (PDF page 37).
• It doesn’t specify which row (which location) has an increased performance.
• Also, a change from LoS D to E is not an improvement (as your grade dropping from a D to E wouldn’t be).
• Additionally, it appears to be comparing “Epping Rd, Blaxland Rd & Langston Plc” 2029 without proposal to 2039 with proposal, which makes no sense at all.

Postscript: Documents on updated modelling

TfNSW summarised and responded to community feedback in the REF Determination Report (2025-05). A “review” of the traffic modelling was carried out, resulting in a revised Transport Impact Assessment. This review …“identified some modelling discrepancies requiring adjustments to model inputs and parameters, as well as opportunities to further optimise future signal coordination”.

TfNSW had not published what input and parameter “adjustments” were made that result in the new modelling predicting an 82.7% higher network speed (AM peak) and 57% drop in average network delay (PM peak) compared to the previous modelling, so I asked. I did not receive any response until making a Government Information Public Access (GIPA) application. I retracted my initial application and filed a second after reading “This revision of the technical note included updates to the calibration of the SIDRA modelling documented in Section 4.3, in response to TfNSW comments raised on 11 February 2025”.

Newly released documents include:

“It has come to our attention that a 2039 “Do Minimum” (without project) scenario has not been modelled

It appears the vector for such attention was this blog post (and associated formal submission on behalf of Better Streets). It also mentions:

…The REF may therefore be in error.

Email, 2025-02-11. GIPA 26T-0120, page 2. (emphasis mine)

The GIPA officer acknowledges my advocacy: that I am a “community advocate regarding the transport network”, and that I “have contributed towards community consultation on issues of importance to members of the public” – which I quote below.

Newly released documents

• 2025-07-27 Email response from project team: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/2025-07-27 Email – RE – Epping Bridge transport modelling concerns – Jake Coppinger.pdf
  • Attachment: Appendix A, Base Year Technical Note, dated 17 March 2025 (Rev D OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001): files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/Appendix+A+-+Base+Year+Model+Technical+Note.pdf
• TfNSW GIPA 26T-0120
  • Notice of decision: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120%20Decision%20(redacted).pdf
  • Information for release (files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120+Information+for+release.pdf), including:
    • Email from TfNSW to Mott Macdonald, dated 11 February 2025
    • Base Year Technical Note, dated 25 July 2025 (Rev C OFFICIAL, Rev C OFFICIAL, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001)
    • Options Testing Technical Note, dated 9 April 2025 (Rev E OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TF-RPT-000004)

2025-07-27 Email from project team

From files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/2025-07-27%20Email%20-%20RE%20-%20Epping%20Bridge%20transport%20modelling%20concerns%20-%20Jake%20Coppinger.pdf

Note: Included hyperlinks are original – some are broken as URLs have slightly changed. See web.archive.org to view these links.

Parramatta Parramatta@transport.nsw.gov.au
17 July 2025 at 15:59
To: Jake Coppinger jake@jakecoppinger.com
Cc: Parramatta Parramatta@transport.nsw.gov.au

Dear Jake,

Thank you for your further feedback on the Epping Bridge Project and for your questions regarding the Transport Impact Assessment and refined modelling. Our responses are as below.

Q1) What modal shift assumptions have been made? 

The mode shift assumptions and assumed future external network upgrades did not change as part of the recent model update.

Q2) Which modelling inputs were changed? How were they changed?

The changes to the VISSIM modelling were mostly operational in nature. Additional ‘Do Minimum’ scenario for 2039 was also developed to address previous public concerns regarding inaccuracies in the travel time savings assessment. The changes focused on optimisation of signal timings and traffic signal coordination. These optimisation strategies were suggested by the TfNSW signals team, to maximise the future benefits of the proposal. Additionally, the TfNSW modelling team adopted some minor updates and modifications were made to resolve discrepancies to the model coding of some node/link arrangements, where traffic behaviour was not performing as would be expected.

Further information on the refined modelled traffic data can be found in the updated Transport Impact Assessment and section 3 of the Determination Report. Section 3 of the Determination Report provides a summary of the changes between the original and refined modelling.

Q3) Which modelling parameters were changed? How were they changed?

As above, the modelling parameters that changed included signal timings and traffic signal coordination, additionally model coding of some mode/link arrangements were adjusted.

Q4) Which “future network upgrades within the surrounding network” were included in the updated modelling?

The mode shift assumptions and assumed future external network upgrades did not change as part of the recent model update. Any mode shift or route choice expected through the study area were captured in the underlying forecasts derived from the 2021_ STFM_STD model, dated 23/10/2023 (TZP22STMV3.91). These forecasts were not changed as part of the recent model update.

Please refer to pages 67-68 within the attached Appendix A: Base Year Model Technical Note for more information.

Q5) Have any bus lane changes been made in such modelling?

No changes were made to the bus lane assumptions in the recent model update.

Q6) Given the NSW legislation to reduce carbon emissions, and the latest reports showing that target is not on track, how does TfNSW reconcile the project outcome of increasing VKT?

The main reason for the increase in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) is due to the constraints of the road network. Epping Bridge is the only rail crossing point in the precinct, so there is little to no route choice. An increase in network capacity, in this instance, results in more trips passing through model, which leads to increased VKT. It is important to remember that VKT alone is not a good measure of the proposal outcomes. The primary benefits of the proposal include:

• increased road capacity, improved traffic flow and travel times
• improved road safety
• improved connectivity to Epping Town Centre, Epping Station and bus interchange for all modes of transport
• enhanced pedestrian and cyclist safety and mobility
• reduced bridge maintenance and operational costs.
• Increased Safety in Rail Operations
• Increased Rail Corridor maintenance efficiency. 

The aim of the Epping Bridge Project is to replace the existing bridge with a new, wider bridge that would unlock vital road capacity and keep the approximately 63,000 vehicles that use the bridge each day moving quickly, safely and efficiently.

Overall, the refined traffic modelling of the road network and performance analysis of key intersections found that the project would generally improve or maintain traffic movements both the 2029 and 2039 AM and PM peak periods. Key outcomes of the updated traffic data from the proposal include:

• improvements in all network performance indicators (including average speed, average vehicle delay, completed trips, unreleased trips and average number of vehicle stops) in both the 2029 and 2039 AM and PM peaks
• reduced travel times in both the 2029 and 2039 PM peak periods, including time savings of eight minutes and 52 seconds in 2029 and 13 minutes 49 seconds in 2039 for the Beecroft Road to Blaxland Road southbound route
• reduced travel times for all routes in 2029 and reduced travel times in 2039 excluding the Carlingford Road and Epping Road westbound route which will experience a minor increase in travel time in 2039
• increased or maintained intersection Level of Service for all intersections in both the 2029 and 2039 AM and PM peak periods.

Transport sent a formal response to Better Streets Australia’ssubmission on Tuesday 24 June. A response to Better Streets Australia’s submission can also be found in Section 2.3, Table 2.2 Response to other stakeholder submissions within the Determination Report and specifically on pages 53-56.

We hope this additional information is of assistance and thank you for your interest in the project.

For further information on the Epping Bridge Project please visit the project webpage and interactive portal. 

Thank you again for your feedback and interest in the Epping Bridge Project.

Kind regards,

Epping Bridge Project

Parramatta and Cumberland Place team, Central River City

Sydney Integration & Place

Planning, Integration & Passenger

Transport for NSW

Extract from GIPA 26T-0120 Notice of Decision

4.6 In addition to the general public interest in favour of disclosure, I find the following considerations in favour of disclosure relevant to your application:

• Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the
  public about the traffic modelling considerations, analysis and discussion
  between TfNSW and Mott Macdonald for the Epping Bridge Project.

4.7 I have applied moderate weight to this consideration in favour of disclosure, noting that there is interest generally in infrastructure projects that affect local communities in NSW. In the case of the Epping Bridge Project, disclosure of the associated traffic modelling considerations, analysis and discussion would inform the public of the underlying data that was used to support agency decision-making (being the concept design of the new Epping Bridge) as seen in the Traffic Impact Assessment.

Personal factors of the application
4.8 Under section 55 of the GIPA Act, I can also take into account any personal factors of your application. I have considered that you are a community advocate regarding the transport network and that you have contributed towards community consultation on issues of importance to members of the public.

Extract from Notice of decision, GIPA 26T-0120, Senior Advisor, Access Applications. Emphasis mine.

Further reading

• Epping Bridge Project Page: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/epping-bridge-project
• Epping Bridge Concept Design Transport Impact Assessment, August 2024: https://media.caapp.com.au/pdf/6mywbd/23d13968-a703-467c-9933-917612014f55/Transport%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf
• Review of Environmental Factors: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2024/Epping-Bridge-Project-Review-of-Environmental-Factors.pdf
• Transport Impact Assessment
  • 2025-08-24: Epping Bridge Concept Design Transport Impact Assessment, Rev C: https://media.caapp.com.au/pdf/6mywbd/23d13968-a703-467c-9933-917612014f55/Transport%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf (https://media.caapp.com.au/6mywbd.pdf)
  • 2025-08-24: Epping Bridge Concept Design Transport Impact Assessment, Rev E: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2025/Epping-Bridge-Transport-Impact-Assessment-Revised-May-2025_1.pdf
• Chris Topher YouTube video, 23 Apr 2023: Epping Road Bridge does NOT need Widening (CONSULTATION OPEN SEP-OCT 2024)
• Alan Mascarenhas tweet regarding the bridge: https://archive.is/7Lee4 (https://x.com/alanmasc/status/1639105012231192577)
• August 2014 TfNSW map titled “Epping Town Centre Road and Intersection Improvements”: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/rww/projects/01documents/epping-town-centre/epping-town-centre-community-map-august-2014.pdf
• “Epping Town Centre road and intersections upgrades. Project 2, Epping Road upgrade between Blaxland Road and Essex Street, Epping : community consultation report”: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-319321429/view
• “Transcript – Press conference – Epping Bridge, Sydney”. Joint media release: Jerome Laxale MP, Member for Bennelong, Joint Release with The Hon Jo Haylen MP NSW Transport Minister. https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/interview/transcript-press-conference-epping-bridge-sydney
• “Sydney motorists to be promised $220m upgrade for Epping Station bottleneck”, Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sydney-motorists-to-be-promised-220m-upgrade-for-epping-station-bottleneck-20220509-p5aju7.html
• 2025-07-27 Email response from project team: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/2025-07-27 Email – RE – Epping Bridge transport modelling concerns – Jake Coppinger.pdf
  • Attachment: Appendix A, Base Year Technical Note, dated 17 March 2025 (Rev D OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001): files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/Appendix+A+-+Base+Year+Model+Technical+Note.pdf
• TfNSW GIPA 26T-0120
  • Notice of decision: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120%20Decision%20(redacted).pdf
  • Information for release (files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120+Information+for+release.pdf), including:
    • Email from TfNSW to Mott Macdonald, dated 11 February 2025
    • Base Year Technical Note, dated 25 July 2025 (Rev C OFFICIAL, Rev C OFFICIAL, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001)
    • Options Testing Technical Note, dated 9 April 2025 (Rev E OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TF-RPT-000004)

The post Better Streets submission to the Epping Bridge Project first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

edit: Sydney Morning Herald reported Oct 7th 2024 (Archive.org link) that Minister Jo Haylen “directed” TfNSW to “abandon the reduced plan” for Sydney Park Junction. This reportedly took place 5 days after the September 19th letter Bicycle NSW addressed to Minister Haylen, which among many good points included a link to this blog post.

edit: On Nov 10th SMH published “GIPA Access Application 25T-0513 Page 3 of 15” (a slide part of a briefing on August 5th) which includes “The Sydney Park Junction project will no longer deliver an on-road cycleway connection from the proposed permanent two-way cycleway along Sydney Park Road to the existing cycleway along Mitchell Road.” (SMH article url, Archive.org url). As of 11th Nov TfNSW has still not shared this publicly. On the afternoon of Nov 11th TfNSW confirmed designs for the remaining stages are being finalised (archive.org diff). The reduced scope was never publicly shared.

edit: I’ve written a second blog post on Sydney Park Junction describing developments since this post: Sydney Park Junction: TfNSW Won’t Commit to Original Scope Despite Ministerial Intervention

Ever wondered why there are random dead ends for cycle paths in Sydney? This is a deep dive on how one particular missing link might not get fixed after more than seven years of planning. Let this be a record of how hard it is to get safe cycling intersections built in Sydney, even when the improvements are required approval conditions of a $4.3 billion portion of a motorway project (yes, international readers – Sydney is still building urban motorways this century).

On the 30th of August, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) updated the project page for the improved Sydney Park Junction, a project to “improve the safety, performance and efficiency of the Princes Highway and Sydney Park Road intersection”.

The project was mandated to include “traffic calming initiatives along Princes Highway, improvements in accessibility to Sydney Park and the provision of upgraded cycle and pedestrian facilities” as part of the approval conditions for the M8 Motorway (Westconnex).

This project included a stunning new intersection fixing the infamous missing link – the gap between the Mitchell Road cycleway to the Sydney Park Road pop-up cycleway. In 2021 Bicycle NSW commented “The project will be of enormous benefit to the community” and that “This project sets an exciting precedent for better place outcomes throughout Sydney.”

By fixing this missing link, TfNSW was also improving pedestrian safety by reducing the number of folks cycling on the narrow 1.8 metre wide footpath with blind corners, and adding a missing pedestrian crossing on Sydney Park Road. This is a main entrance to Sydney Park, with a large volume of families, kids and their pets using this thoroughfare every day.

Thanks as always to the Internet Archive, we can see exactly what text TfNSW updated on October 30th 2024:

• “We expect to start construction in mid to late 2024.” has changed to “We expect to start construction in late 2024.”
• “To keep up to date with this project and download the submissions report visit the Sydney Park Junction Portal” has changed to “To keep up to date with this project download the Submissions Report – March 2022 (PDF, 40.18 MB).”

Little does the public know, on August 1st TfNSW (the state transport department) told the City of Sydney’s Cycling Advisory Committee meeting (which I attended as a volunteer of Better Streets) that the cycleway would be implemented “replacing the full extent of the existing pop-up cycleway” – that is by omission, only part of the project was going ahead.

That a “major design feature” (Review of Environmental Factors, PDF pg. 68) or “key consideration of the proposal” (Submissions report, PDF pg. 35) could be deleted in secret, 2 years after going through community consultation, 3 years after the Review of Environmental Factors, 7 years after the initial M8 approval condition B51 concept design, and announced by omission floored everyone in the room.

A City of Sydney employee is recorded in written minutes stating the change was “breaking earlier promises to the City and the community”. Council employees also verbally stated that when designing the Mitchell Rd separated cycleway they were instructed by TfNSW to not build up to the intersection, as TfNSW would fix that gap (the City was instructed to end the cycleway where it is).

Almost a full month later, the 30th of August TfNSW project page update wilfully or negligently misled the public by omitting that the project (stated in TfNSW slides Aug 1st to begin construction in September 2024 – that is, this month!) had secret, major design changes. There has not been any community update since February 2023, and on these this particular intersection since March 2022.

After Bicycle NSW wrote to the Secretary of Transport (TfNSW) seeking direct clarification, the response was a similarly vague response of deletion by omission, with a map as confirmation.

It shouldn’t be this hard to get safe cycleway intersections built in Sydney.

Overview

• Section 1 shows current (secret) plans do not include the design in the Review of Environmental Factors for the project, and leave the option open for it to never be completed
• Section 2 explains the complex history of the shared path that TfNSW is not upgrading
• Section 3 explains that the project does not meet TfNSW policy for prioritising walking and active transport
• Section 4 guesses at why TfNSW would make these changes
• Section 5 drills into the details of the Westconnex approval conditions that mandated a separated cycleway at this intersection
• Section 6 outlines why this change and behaviour is not in line with recommendations made from the “Impact of the Rozelle Interchange” parliamentary enquiry
• Section 7 briefly looks at previously broken promises to the community regarding active transport projects as part of Westconnex
• Section 8 has more info on what you can do to advocate for the original project going ahead
• Section 9 includes photos and tables indicating safety risks of the existing infrastructure

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 or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com.

Thanks to the tireless advocacy of Bicycle NSW and the City of Sydney on this project and other life saving cycleway infrastructure in Sydney. I wrote this over a weekend; they’ve been tackling this for years.

Clover Moore as Lord Mayor of the City of Sydney council has been a considerably outspoken supporter of safe cycling infrastructure and other progressive urbanism even when politically inconvenient, against targeted criticism from conservative tabloid media. She has never lost any state government or council contest and is seeking reelection for a record 6th term, for which she has my full support.

1. What are the current plans?

In short – it is not publicly known, and unclear at best. Below is a timeline of letters that may suggest clues of the current plans.

On the 15th of November 2023 a community member wrote to the TfNSW Network Integration Community Engagement Team requesting an update when construction would begin. The 13th December response stated “details are still being worked out with City of Sydney and Inner West Council” and “we will issue a notification in early 2024 when we have news to share”. The community member did not receive an early 2024 notification (and still hasn’t).

On the 22nd of March 2024 (a full two years since the previous public project newsletter on the cycleway design) this community member wrote to Jo Haylen, requesting confirmation “whether this project has been canceled”. It included:

In the face of silence and inactivity, interested residents and groups have had to resort to private enquiries. The information TfNSW provides in return is scant and unreliable. For example, on 13 October 2022, the Network Integration Community Engagement Team advised me by e-mail that ‘Transport are working with the local councils on finalising the designs’. (This ‘finalising’ was now almost one-and-a-half years ago.) A further twelve months passed, when I contacted the team again. In their response (an e-mail of 13 December 2023), I was advised that ‘we will issue a notification in early 2024 when we have news to share’.

It’s exactly the type of project that TfNSW ought be proud of, and marketing loudly. Instead, nothing further has been heard.

Letter from community member to Jo Haylen, 22nd March 2024

The community member received a response from Marjorie O’Neill (Parliamentary Secretary of Transport) on the 7th of May 2024, which was shared publicly by the Friends of Erskineville organisation on Elon Musk’s X.

It includes:

I am pleased to advise that this project has not been cancelled and that Transport for NSW, the City of Sydney and Inner West Council have been working together to refine the design over the last two years. Construction on this transformative project is expected to start later this year. I also understand that a representative from Transport for NSW contacted you on 18 April 2024 and provided you with a project update.

I appreciate that it may have appeared that the project had been delayed, however, the refinement process is crucial and requires a large investment of time to ensure that the design and implementation of the project are as successful as possible.

You may be assured that once there is new information about this project, it will be shared to the community via print notification, email, Transport for NSW website updates and social media posts.

Letter (7th May 2024), Marjorie O’Neill to community member, shared publicly on X

This reference to ‘contact’ on 18th April 2024 was a phone call from TfNSW. The community member recalls the TfNSW staff member dismissing his concern about the project being canceled, then confidently stating: “I wish I could tell you more, but there will be news very, very shortly”.

As of the time of the original publication of this blog post (September 9th) or this modification to it (September 14th) there has still not been any public project update.

I received consent to publish this correspondence from the community member without their personal details.

Following the August 1st 2024 Cycling Advisory Committee meeting, Bicycle NSW wrote to Josh Murray (Secretary, Transport for NSW) on the 9th of August to seek clarification. This letter expressed disappointment with the design changes and requested evidence that Road User Space Allocation Policy had been applied for the intersection changes.

On the 5th of September, Clover Moore wrote to John Graham (Minister for Roads) and Jo Haylen (Minister for Transport). The letter to John Graham requested the project proceeds with the September 2021 design. I became aware of this letter since the initial publication of this blog post and am unaware of a response. The letter included the following clues:

The pedestrian crossing in front of Sydney Park Brick Kilns, which we are refurbishing and activating for public use, has been removed. TNSW is also retaining the slip lane into Barwon Park Road instead of removing it.

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. TfNSW will also not plant street trees on the south side of Sydney Park Road and have limited speed reduction to 40 km/h along Princes Highway, which will reduce safety and amenity for all road users in the area.

Letter (5th September), Clover Moore to John Graham (Minister for Roads). Letter published with permission.

TfNSW replied to Bicycle NSW in a letter on the 6th of September 2024. The letter did not directly state there was no intersection upgrade, but made it clear by omission.

Damningly, it stated:

Transport acknowledges that the existing shared path connection between the Mitchell Road cycleway and the Sydney Park Road cycleway is narrow and is investigating options to provide improved connectivity between the two on-road cycleways.

Letter: Executive Director Planning & Programs (Greater Sydney) on behalf of Secretary of Transport for NSW, “Re: Sydney Park Road cycleway”, 6 September 2024.

This investigation has already been done in 2017 in the WestConnex M8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transport Network Review as required by the M8 approval condition B50. The result was the design as depicted in the implementation strategy (B51 as required in the M8 approval conditions) and detailed in the 2021 Sydney Park Junction Review of Environmental Factors. It is not clear from this statement (or from the rest of the letter):

• if “investigating options” is within the scope of the project
• if implementation of this investigation is part of this project

Considering the project is due to start this month, I assume not. In any case, it leaves enough ambiguity to drive a bus through.

Another peculiarity in the Secretary’s reply is the mention that the intersection of King Street
and Sydney Park Road would be “consistent with the project Review of Environmental
Factors” – that is, again by omission, the intersection of Mitchell Road and Sydney Park road would not be consistent with the Review of Environmental Factors.

The existing shared path connection does not meet TfNSW design policy (see section 3) and has numerous safety concerns (as detailed in the Appendix at the end of this post).

What else is missing? Potentially lots – the new map doesn’t have the cycleway between Mitchell Rd and Euston Rd (~270m of separated cycleway). Will the Princes Highway mid block crossing remain? Will Princes Hwy still be reduced from 6 lanes to 4? The speed limit for 60 to 40? It’s hard to trust that other aspects haven’t been removed also.

edit: Clover Moore’s 5th September letter suggests at least the Sydney Brick Kilns pedestrian crossing, western end of Sydney Park Road separated cycleway, street trees on the south side of Sydney Park Rd, and some speed limit reductions have been removed in the design.

1.1 A new pedestrian crossing has also been removed from the plan

The supplied map does not include the proposed and approved new pedestrian crossing on the west side of Mitchell Road at Sydney Park Road. This means cyclists as well as pedestrians have to navigate multiple crossings and wait multiple long traffic signal cycles just to get to their local park.

This is reminiscent of the recent TfNSW Western Distributor project that removed the pedestrian crossing at Allen St & Harris St to increase the traffic flow into the city from Anzac Bridge (and the Rozelle Interchange / Westconnex), which Bicycle NSW described as …”out of step with 21st century planning” and WalkSydney also strongly condemned.

2. Was this change brought on by a newly signposted shared path?

This is the only map I know of depicting the post-change design.

The map differentiates between current and proposed on road cycleways (purple vs dark green). It does not include any title, name, caption, date or data source, however some cutoff text is slightly visible below it.

It is unclear whether the map represents the current or future shared paths network (again, ambiguity).

It appears to depict the current network of shared paths, as could reasonably be assumed given future on road cycleways are highlighted, and that a previous paragraph references this “existing shared path connection”.

In the 19th of August 2021 the City of Sydney Local Pedestrian and Cycling Traffic Calming Committee exhibited plans for the cycleway (item 44). The engineering plans did not include shared path linemarking or signage (while they were marked in other areas and were in the map key), while the recommendation text did include “A Shared Path on the western side of Mitchell Road, between Sydney Park Road and the point 54.6 metres north of Sydney Park Road”. At this meeting the decision “This matter was deferred.” As there is no video / audio recording or more detailed minutes I’m not able to see why.

The plans were re-exhibited on the 17th of March 2022 (item 19), where plans were also missing shared path linemarking or signage and the recommendations still included a shared path on the west side, and the item received a “Recommendations Determined”.

The item comments include:

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.

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.

This shows the City of Sydney believed that a state government project would include a future upgrade to a separated cycleway to connect the missing link.

On May 25th, 2023 I surveyed the path and recorded it on OpenStreetMap as a 1.8 metre wide concrete footpath, without R8-2 signage or a blue painted line that would permit cyclists, which would suggest the signage had not yet been installed if I did not make an error: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/1050723997/history/2

On the 8th of September 2024 I noted new shared path signage present and recorded it in OpenStreetMap. It is unclear when it was installed as there has been no Google, Apple or Mapillary imagery since the cycleway or signage was installed. The sign shares a pole with “no stopping” signs, with a “May 2023” label present. There is no blue shared path line marking (which is not strictly necessary) in contrast to the blue line on the Sydney Park Road shared path segment and the east side of Mitchell Park Road.

It was not yet marked on:

• OpenStreetMap (and therefore the TfNSW Trip Planner)
• the TfNSW Cycleway Finder
• Google Maps
• Apple Maps

Could this sign have been the enabling factor of this design regression, even after the City of Sydney stated TfNSW would be upgrading the intersection in the document that permitted it?

3. The design changes are not consistent with the Walking Space Guide or mandatory Road User Space Allocation Policy

Given that the only current TfNSW commitment is “investigating options to provide improved connectivity” which does not have a required deadline (like bus lanes on Parramatta Road didn’t), it is likely future changes will be delayed for some time or indefinitely.

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).

The location has a high level of pedestrian and cyclist activity, and a shared path is not a suitable long term solution, as per TfNSW Cycleway Design Toolbox 3.4.3 (PDF page 50). The March 2022 Submissions report included:

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

As Bicycle NSW noted in their letter, the newly updated the Road User Space Allocation Policy (July 2024) provides Transport for NSW with a stronger mandate to find a better balance between movement and place, with priority given to people walking, cycling and using public transport.

The policy states among other requirements that Transport must:

• document the strategic intent of all road user space allocations, including all
  changes
• track how the road space allocation principles are being implemented against the
  strategic intent and outcomes identified as part of strategies or plans
• document road user space trade-off decisions, providing evidence and reasons
• ensure proper endorsement by the relevant Transport governance body
• demonstrate adherence to this policy as part of internal Transport assurance
  reviews and INSW reviews for projects proposing changes to road space
• report periodically on all road-related projects to enable monitoring against this
  policy
• adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to protect or
  maintain private vehicle level of service.

Not only has compliance against these principles not been published, the design itself is still secret!

4. Why make these changes to the design?

edit: Clover Moore’s 5th September letter (which I was not previously aware) of suggests the project is not going ahead due to funding reasons:

TINSW advised the City that it is unable to fund the previously agreed and exhibited design. Meanwhile, it 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.

Letter (5th September), Clover Moore to John Graham (Minister for Roads). Published with permission.

Short answer (again) – it is not publicly known. TfNSW has not yet stated in direct language that this intersection is not getting built privately, and made no public announcements.

Could it be a cost cutting exercise? If so, given the large ticket cost of Westconnex this leaves a very sour taste.

Could it be a political / local community concession? Considering the community consultation was released two years ago, it seems unlikely.

Could it be be to minimise the project duration? It is well known that traffic signal redesign projects take some time, however considering the original concept was documented in 2017 and construction has not begun this doesn’t make much sense.

Could it be to increase the curve radii? Considering the proposal including the separated cycleway supported turning buses, this seems unlikely.

The most likely explanation seems to be increasing the number of car lanes available, with the vehicle-throughput-maximising side effect of leaving one signalised pedestrian crossing missing.

Perhaps we will get a public update explaining the reasoning and how it implements the mandatory NSW Movement & Place Guidelines, but I’m not holding my breath.

5. Approval conditions for the M8 motorway (Westconnex)

The Sydney Park Junction project (with upgraded cycle and pedestrian facilities) was mandated in approval conditions for a section of Westconnex. The Review of Environmental Factors stated “Approval conditions for the M8 Motorway (Stage 1) project also specify the introduction of traffic calming initiatives along Princes Highway, improvements in accessibility to Sydney Park and the provision of upgraded cycle and pedestrian facilities”. (PDF pg. 33, REF)

The M8 motorway was the second major underground stage of Westconnex. City of Sydney employees were recorded in written minutes of the August 1st meeting that this change was “breaking earlier promises to the City and the community”.

Approval conditions for the M8 Motorway project are located under M8 Environment Documents. The Sydney Park Junction Review of Environmental Factors describes the relevant approval conditions:

The proposal would be consistent with approval conditions B44, B50 and B51 for the M8 Motorway project by providing traffic calming initiatives along Princes Highway, improvements in accessibility to Sydney Park for the residential areas of St Peters, Newtown and Erskineville and the provision of upgraded cycle and pedestrian facilities within one kilometre of the St Peters Interchange.

Page 33 of the Sydney Park Junction Review of Environmental Factors

5.1 M8 approval condition B50

Condition B50 states:

The Proponent must undertake a Pedestrian and Cycleway Network Review. The Review must be prepared and approved by the Secretary within six months from the date of this approval (or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary) to identify pedestrian and cycle facilities that are to be provided by the Proponent as part of the SSl. The Review must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) that has been approved by the Secretary. The Review must be undertaken in consultation with the relevant councils and Bicycle NSW and address the matters raised during consultation.

The Review must identify (and consider), but not be limited to:
a) current and future land use and associated pedestrian and cycle demand and needs;
b) pedestrian and cycle impacts associated with the project;
c) the King Street Gateway Project, including potential Princes Highway traffic calming initiatives;
d) Alexandra Canal initiatives;
e) regional and local pedestrian and cycling strategies;
f) pedestrian and cycle safety, accessibility and connectivity, including to the public realm;
g) intersection and signal phasing opportunities to reduce waiting and crossing times for pedestrians and cyclists;
h) provision of upgraded cycle and pedestrian facilities within 1,000 metres of the boundary of the St Peters Interchange, apart from the areas addressed in conditions 862(c) and 864; and
i) concept designs for pedestrian and cycleway infrastructure and implementation timeframes.

The Review is also to consider the delivery of the ‘M5 East Green Link’ between Kingsgrove and Mascot approved as part of the M5 East Motorway project. The review shall address past constraints to the delivery of this project and options to overcome these constraints.

The Review must not result in a reduced level of cycle and pedestrian infrastructure as identified in the documents referred to in condition 42, unless required by these conditions.

The resulting report is contained in WestConnex M8 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transport Network Review (17 May 2017).

5.2 M8 approval condition B51

Condition B51 states:

A detailed Pedestrian and Cycle Implementation Strategy must be submitted to the Secretary within 12 months of the date of this approval (or as otherwise agreed by the Secretary) and implemented at the commencement of project operations, except as permitted by this approval.

The strategy must be prepared in consultation with relevant councils and Bicycle NSW. The Strategy must be consistent with the approved Pedestrian and Cycleway Network Review and include:

(a) pedestrian and cycle engineering and safety standards;
(b) a safety audit of existing and proposed pedestrian and cycle facilities to address the above standards (including the shared path audit undertaken for the King Georges Road Interchange Project SSI-6547);
(c) details of selected routes and connections to existing local and regional routes;
(d) timing and staging of all works;
(e) infrastructure details, including lighting, safety, security, and standards compliance;
(f) signage and wayfinding measures; and
(g) details of associated landscaping works.
The Strategy shall be endorsed by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) approved by the Secretary. The endorsement shall address each of the listed matters in this condition.

All identified works arising from this condition are to be implemented by the Proponent.

Approval condition B51, M8 Motorway Project

The resulting report of this planning condition is captured as the report titled “WestConnex M8 Pedestrian and Cycle Implementation Strategy ” (or “WESTCONNEX ATN ST2 PLANNING CONDITION B51 – Pedestrian & Cycle Implementation Strategy”), February 2019.

Heading “5.6 SYDNEY PARK – ALEXANDRIA – MOORE PARK” of this report (PDF page 38) contains the following:

The Condition B50 review has identified a gap between the existing shared paths within Sydney Park and the on road cycleway in Belmont St connecting to Alexandria. At the north side of Sydney Park exiting across Sydney Park Road onto Mitchell Road is a proposed off road bike lane. It is associated with road works on the local streets surrounding the St Peters Interchange. It is 3m wide and it turns onto Huntley Street where it remains 3m wide. It connects to Belmont Street which is a council planned regional route, linking to Redfern and Moore Park. The route connects back into Sydney Park which has an existing shared path. Additional parking will be provided along Sydney Park Road, Huntley Street and Belmont Street to maintain the existing amount of on-road parking.

The Belmont Street on road bike path will also connect through to the future shared paths along the north side of Euston Road and McEvoy Street associated with the Alexandria to Moore Park Connectivity Upgrade Project, which is currently in planning phase.

Final concept design for cycle paths on Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Road are in consultation with Councils.

Refer Appendix 05 for detailed drawings of the Mitchell Road separated cycle path.

“5.6 SYDNEY PARK – ALEXANDRIA – MOORE PARK”, “WestConnex M8 Pedestrian and Cycle Implementation Strategy “, PDF page 38

The implementation strategy report goes on to depict the proposed implementation diagram of this cycleway in Appendix 5. It includes “NOTE: Final concept design for cycle paths on Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Road in consultation with Councils”. Revision A is dated 8/3/17, revision F (depicted) is dated 10/9/17.

5.2.1 Endorsement of B51

The B51 approval condition includes that “The Strategy shall be endorsed by a suitably qualified and experienced person(s) approved by the Secretary.”.

This endorsement was made by then managing director of Sustainable Transport Consultants, and detailed in a letter dated 20th September 2017 (listed as Appendix item 15, PDF page 264, in the B51 report). This letter endorses (among other projects) “City of Sydney Regional Cycle Route R8 connection north of Sydney Park”:

The proposal in Section 5.6 of the Strategy provides a separated cycleway link between the intersection of Mitchell and Sydney Park Roads and the intersection of Huntley and Belmont Streets. The concept design shown in Figure 5.12 and Appendix 5 of the Strategy, proposes a separated two-way bicycle path along the northern edge of Mitchell Road between Sydney Park Road and Huntley Street continuing along the northern edge of Huntley Street to Belmont Street.

Paragraph 4.6, “City of Sydney Regional Cycle Route R8 connection north of Sydney Park”, PDF page 267, B51 report. (emphasis mine)

6. Undermining confidence in TfNSW following Rozelle Interchange inquiry recommendations

This change has occurred in fresh memory of the damning July 2024 “Impact of the Rozelle Interchange” inquiry report where 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)

It does not give confidence that TfNSW is learning from the lessons of previous failures around transparent consultation and active transport inclusion in major projects.

7. A brief history of broken Westconnex promises

This is not the first broken promise made to the community as part of the Westconnex project. These are ones that come to mind, but I’m sure this is not exhaustive (comments & feedback on improving this section is welcome).

Parramatta Road

The Sydney Morning Herald article “‘Hollow promises’: Years after opening, WestConnex tunnel conditions still not met” (August 2021) states “More than two years after the first WestConnex motorway tunnel opened in Sydney, the NSW government is yet to meet a condition of approval by dedicating two lanes of Parramatta Road solely to public transport.

Victoria Road

As recorded in the July 2024 “Impact of the Rozelle Interchange” inquiry report:

As promised in the EIS, there should be separated cyclepaths all the way from the beginning of the Rozelle interchange—that’s the junction between Victoria Road and the City West Link—all the way up and over, up Victoria Road and over the top and down the other side to the Iron Cove Bridge. That was promised in the EIS, as was a separate cycleway which I think is over two kilometres along Lilyfield Road. None of those have been built at all.

Paragraph 4.48, PDF page 86, Footnote 405.

That is, a condition of the Environmental Impact Statement of the project was Victoria Road would include a separated cycleway.

8. What can I do about this?

Bicycle NSW published an article on the 13th of September (“Another Broken Promise from Transport for NSW”) about Sydney Park Road utilising research from this article, however they also included some great suggestions on what you can do to make this project happen as originally promised!

See under the “A call to action” header on https://bicyclensw.org.au/another-broken-promise-from-transport-for-nsw/

Their article also details other TfNSW projects that have been neglected or delayed.

9. Appendix

9.1 Safety risks on Mitchell Rd

PDF page 110 of “WESTCONNEX NEW M5 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE TRANSPORT NETWORK REVIEW” by McGregor Coxall (17 May 2017) includes safety risks on the state of Mitchell Rd at the time.

The risk matrix (below) indicates “Moderate” severity indicates injuries requiring hospital admission, and “likely” probability as “Expected to occur at some time”.

The post Another broken WestConnex promise: secret Sydney Park Junction design changes first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

Sydney’s phenomenal new metro takes only ~100 seconds (1m40s) to travel from Central Station to the new Waterloo Station.

However, you could be stuck waiting up to ~111 seconds (1m 51s) to cross Botany Rd just outside the Waterloo metro station when you arrive! (see the signal timing map at Better Intersections)

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video in realtime showing both journeys: one 11 metres across a 4 lane 50km/h stroad, one about 1.7 kilometres underground:

That is, the time between the start of the flashing red pedestrian signal and the next green (between which you would be crossing illegally if you started walking) is measured on Better Intersections as 93 to 111 seconds. There is no open government data on traffic signal timing in Sydney or NSW. Signal programming can be purchased for AU$200 per intersection (in a proprietary format and under a restrictive license) or AU$400 for historical signal timing. Better Intersections currently includes crowdsourced measurements for over 420 intersections.

This Tuesday, the Sydney Morning Herald published Dr Christopher Standen’s excellent letter which linked to Better Intersections. Dr Christopher Standen is a research fellow at UNSW Sydney specialising in health and urban/transport planning.

Sydney Metro certainly does make you feel like a VIP (“May Sydney’s future citizens never know pain of sitting in soul-crushing traffic”, August 20). But that feeling quickly dissipates when you step outside the stations. To access our local station, Waterloo, we must cross four sets of traffic lights, each with a waiting time of up to two minutes. These can almost double the time needed to walk to or from the station. And no one likes waiting next to a noisy road inhaling fumes. Transport for NSW sets these excessively long waiting times to allow for more road traffic, but this means thousands fewer residents can access stations within an acceptable walking time. Metro has put a massive dent in the state’s finances, so you’d think Transport Minister Jo Haylen would want to maximise its benefit by making station catchment areas as large as possible. Prioritising road traffic over people using public transport shows she still wants the latter to feel like second-class citizens, not VIPs.
Chris Standen, Erskineville

Finally, an end to a 50-year wait for a metro line, Sydney Morning Herald, August 20, 2024. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/finally-an-end-to-a-50-year-wait-for-a-metro-line-20240820-p5k3qi.html (Archive.org link)

This got me thinking – perhaps you can travel to the next metro station faster than you can cross the adjacent road. I noticed the Waterloo Station to Central Station trip duration is timetabled as 2 minutes (120 seconds), however in reality is even faster. There are plenty of traffic signals in Sydney that have a maximum wait time (start of flashing red to next green) or cycle times around this duration.

A world-class metro, but dangerous streets

What use is Sydney having a world-class metro system when our streets are so hostile to people exiting it? While our new metro is genuinely cutting edge, our streets are falling behind best practice cities around the world.

Traffic signal cycle times

While this Botany Rd intersection has a measured cycle time between 100 and 120 seconds and maximum wait times between 93 seconds and 111 seconds, the City of Sydney’s excellent ‘A City for Walking’ strategy and action plan advocates that TfNSW set a maximum pedestrian wait time (flashing red + red signal duration) of 45 seconds with a target of 30 seconds.

Copenhagen has a 70 second cycle time as the maximum, and high pedestrian usage areas have cycles of 48-60 seconds (Gehl Architects, Public spaces & public life: Sydney 2007 (part 1), page 142).

The London Cycling Design Standards states that “junctions with pedestrian crossing facilities, signal cycle times should only exceptionally be longer than 90 seconds.” and The Urban Street Design Guide by the (USA) National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends cycle times of 60-90 seconds in urban areas.

Urban speed limits

This Botany Rd intersection has a 50km/h speed limit. According to TfNSW – who sets speed limits on state roads – there is a 90% probability a car crashing into a pedestrian at this speed will kill them. This drops to 10% at 30k/h.

While international cities like London and Paris have reduced urban speed limits to 30km/h (or 20mph) boosting local business and cycling, and the City of Sydney’s ‘A City for Walking’ strategy and action plan recommends speeds of 30km/h on city centre and high streets (among others), the NSW Premier Chris Minns recently said increasing the number of 30km/h roads in Sydney was over the top. He falsely claimed: “You could walk quicker than that.” and that the Sydney CBD “shouldn’t be treated as if it were a country town”.

Transport for NSW however assumes an 85% percentile pedestrian speed of 1.2 metres/second (4.32km/h) when designing signal crossing timings (Traffic Signal Design – Section 2 Warrants, Version 1.4, PDF page 9, Roads and Traffic Authority, 2008). This would be comedic if the stakes weren’t so high: the NSW Government’s goal is zero deaths on NSW roads, however there were 352 lives lost in the 12 months prior to this article and 10,555 serious injuries to Dec 2023.

The Waterloo estate project isn’t expected to start until 2027 and could take up to 15 years – that’s 8 years shy of 2050. We’re supposed to be at net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050! Better, safer streets suitable for walking and active transport can’t wait until then, and our urban speed limits and traffic signal design can’t either. Installing new speed limit signage is relatively low cost, and reprogramming signals is free.

Is this the only case of long pedestrian wait times next to a metro station?

Likely not! The Victoria Cross to Crows Nest trip is timetabled as 2 minutes, however the traffic signal crossing the Pacific Highway is even worse than this one, with a measured cycle time of ~130 seconds and maximum wait times of 125 seconds! To add insult to injury, the pedestrian traffic signals crossing the Pacific Highway just north and south of Hume Street (at the other end of the station) are completely shut down due to nearby construction works, requiring a long walk to nearby intersections.

How can I contribute traffic signal measurements?

Know of other dangerous crossings near metro stations? Contribute some measurements!

Head to betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com, and follow the Contribute Measurement link under the ‘read more’ menu! There are over 420 intersections with a measurement as of August 2024. Thank you to all those who have contributed measurements so far!

Preliminary analysis of this data is published at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/analysis, and all the data can be downloaded as a CSV or JSON at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/about.

The post Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road… first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

It is a “living document” and will change (and hopefully improve!) over time.

See embed of the page at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/analysis below. Please let me know if you spot any errors, bugs, or have suggestions on further charts!

The post Preliminary analysis of Better Intersections data first appeared on Jake Coppinger.