On Tuesday last week, Transport for NSW (TfNSW) closed feedback^[1] on the Botany Road and McEvoy Street intersection upgrade, a multi-million dollar project to widen an inner-Sydney 4-lane road, just 400 metres from the Waterloo Metro station^[a]. With transit-washing features like a bus lane away from the CBD during morning peak hour, perhaps your read about it in the Declan Bowring’s ABC article this morning^[3] – with some cracking quotes from Eamon Waterford, Jamie van Geldermalsen (WalkSydney), Jennifer Kent, and Clover Moore: “It’s so disappointing the government is pursuing a road-widening project under the guise of bus improvement.” Botany Road needs bus lanes on both sides – without widening the road.

If you made one of perhaps ~127 submissions^{[4]: view-source: line 382 col 141050} to oppose this WestConnex zombie project^[5], desecrating every Government policy you can point at, you’ll know you weren’t asked about trees. That’s because TfNSW appears to have deleted the question “I’m worried about tree impacts” less than 2 weeks before the form launched.^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.surveyPage[9]} It seems like TfNSW is worried about tree impacts too.

But the 9 trees – and additional 7 TfNSW murmured “may be trimmed”^[6] but really “may require pruning or removal“^[7]: p.38 – are the least of this project’s problems. While TfNSW promised your feedback would “inform the next stage of design”^[1] the “100% DETAILED DESIGN” plans were actually issued over 9 months ago^{[7]: PDF pp. 216-258} and the detailed design contract ended 2 days after the end of the (publicly known) feedback period.^[8]: web So much for TfNSW^[9] (or Austroads^[10]) consultation policy: not a single member of the public made a submission with a complete understanding of the project.^[b]

So, dear reader – to inform your much needed submission to the Minister for Roads Jenny Aitchison and “share all relevant information to help the community’s understanding”^[9] – given TfNSW GIPA staff previously described me as a “community advocate regarding the transport network” who has “contributed towards community consultation on issues of importance to members of the public”^[11] – here’s an in depth analysis of the 258 pages of unpublished documents.^[12] Read on to understand how TfNSW will try to rationalise this project in their upcoming Review of Environmental Factors “still being finalised”.^[13]

This is a project that Deanne Forrest told a conference in July would go to market by Q3 of calendar year 2026^[14], of which a February NSW Government report claimed “completion expected in 2026”^[15], that NSW Government Planning currently claims is already under construction^[16], that DPHI would waste millions on because someone is absurdly pretending it supports 10,000 homes which is 600 more^[17] than the current ‘Woollahra train station rezoning’, which drew the uncharacteristically blistering attack “I am concerned the Network Operations Team responsible for this project appear to be operating in isolation from broader State Government objectives” from Clover Moore, and which has modelling predicting the road-widening “component” “impact” makes congestion worse.^[c] Modelling documents detailing this must be in the public interest. TfNSW should have published it before asking what you thought – even the Epping Bridge consultation included the modelling.^[18][d]

I’m not surprised they wanted to keep this modelling a secret. It predicts-and-provides more space for cars, with traffic survey data for this intersection taken before the Metro was even open.^{[12]: p.19 (PDF 25)} In case you weren’t already aware, Network Operations have unchecked power over every traffic signal approval and every traffic signal timing in the state.^[e]

Much like the partly-dead^[23][f] Western Distributor (WD) vehicle capacity upgrade and the TfNSW Pyrmont-Ultimo Transport Plan – at “cross purposes”^[28] to each other – “Transport for NSW is at odds with its own vision”. Bicycle NSW wrote about that WD project that “There’s a fundamental disconnect inside Transport for NSW … However, a powerful but fossilised group continues with the car-first mantra.”^[29] If you accidentally subscribed to the feedback form twice, even the message you see is “it appears you have already subscribed. Contact westerndistributor@transport.nsw.gov.au if there are any issues.”^[30] (per the public source code).

In the mighty ABC-printed words of a previous Minister for Planning, Minister for Transport and Roads, and Minister for Infrastructure – there are “two clans” in TfNSW, one “very people-focused, then there were those who were almost vehicle-focused”.^[31] This project is as “vehicle-focused” as you get, with a side of transit-washing. The other quotes by this Minister were even more concerning. To be extremely clear, I’m making no suggestion of corruption regarding this project or any individuals involved. $20m is crumbs against “$62.3 billion for roads” over the next 4 years.^{[32]: 2:38 [g]}

Go to drinks with any transport professionals (or enthusiasts) in Sydney, and it’s a matter of time until you hear a variation of ‘we just need to wait for these dinosaurs to retire’^[h]. Waiting is not a strategy – we have waited an awfully long time: “Many senior officers are due to retire within the next 18 months and it is possible that things might then change for the better.” (~1971, papers of George Clarke, re. the DMR).

Less than a year ago, the Herald reported nearly half of TfNSW staff are reluctant to speak up about tough issues, which may “range from alleged corruption or malpractice to workplace matters”. More than three-fifths of staff felt burnt out.^[33] There are so many dedicated staff in TfNSW, who do their best to implement excellent TfNSW policy, while navigating layoff after layoff and reorg after reorg – in workplace conditions that have landed even the most battle-hardened engineers on mental healthcare leave – who deserve so much better than this. TfNSW staff deliver world-class stuff when given the resources and institutional support of their leaders.

Professional engineers, heed Murray: “If something does not seem right, speak up”.^[32] Every “city agency has its malcontents and its idealists and its malcontent-idealists”.^{[34]: p.1582} If things are not improving – get your tips safely^[35] to the ABC or Aston Brown, who prints bangers like “You’ve got very powerful roads bureaucrats inside Transport for NSW that think big roads are the solution to every problem” (from staff who have spent over two decades inside the beast… and years at Transurban), and “In an internal email from January 2025, obtained under freedom of information laws, a traffic management director at Transport for NSW, Shane Schneider, said the department was not acting on any request for a 30km/h zone in Sydney’s CBD because of the government’s opposition to reducing speeds.” in The Guardian.^[36] I hope it’s clear I have adherence to good policy and the public interest at heart.

It’s time to let the Minister know what you think.

Thank you to Eamon Waterford, Jamie van Geldermalsen and Jennifer Kent for your comments on this project in the ABC.^[3] Thank you Better Streets^[37], WalkSydney^[38], No WestConnex (NoWPT)^[39], Alexandria Residents’ Action Group^[40], Friends of Erskineville^[41] for campaigning against this, including folks across transit advocacy and housing supply side reform circles – who recognise road widening for cars is a terrible way to support more density. For anyone with a platform – nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ministers/minister-for-roads-regional-transport is the call to action. Even a sentence or two is enough.

Can’t be bothered to read this post? I get it, the length is nuts. Treat the table of contents as the article, and click through if you want. I wrote this whole thing, unpaid, at reputational risk, and don’t even live near the proposal – because it’s important and advocates (and staff) are sick of this pattern from TfNSW. Any errors are my own, and this was hastily assembled to inform you – please email me if you spot any errors (and don’t be surprised if this page changes). Policy analysts, journalists, and search engines – this one’s for you.

Overview: how did we get here, and how does this modelling work?

As I detailed in my opening-shot 3 weeks ago (Just one more lane: TfNSW revives WestConnex zombie Alexandria to Moore Park road project) TfNSW have been thinking about this road widening for a very long time – since they were the DMR. It’s the intersection of both the Southern Arterial Route (~13,000 words, 168 references) and the Alexandria to Moore Park Project (~3,500 words, 80 references).

And this TfNSW-proposed project is a shocker. The project page says the bus lane is AM only because it was found to have “lower impacts on the wider road network than would occur in the afternoon peak”. Wouldn’t want to bother some private cars with a bus lane!

TfNSW requested ‘feedback’ for two weeks, with zero documents to rationalise it, saying the feedback would inform designs while modelling and detailed plans were finished months beforehand. It was clear some modelling must exist, given phrases like “57 vehicles would be spread across the alternative routes during the AM peak hour…”.^[6] Eventually Clover published a letter naming a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA)^[42] and off went my GIPA.

This post has as much as I could figure out from these documents^[7] before the ‘new’, non-public, consultation end date of Friday 9 October.^[13] You will also notice a terrific ABC article by Declan Bowring, published this morning.

What’s wrong with this modelling?

What is a Transport Impact Assessment (TIA), and why is this one no good? If you own land and want to build something big that might affect others, you have to file a Development Application (DA), and sometimes look at how it might affect nearby traffic patterns (the Impact). This TIA is to assess the government’s own proposal, to analyse the impacts of a transport infrastructure proposal. It’s important to remember the study does not propose the changes so is limited in suggesting alternatives; additionally the nature of a TfNSW-commissioned study to approve its own work comes with other hazards of course.

This TIA appears to have been started a while ago, before the Waterloo Metro opened, with haphazard dates on which traffic was surveyed between 2022 and 2025. Perhaps because it began some time ago, it uses an outdated TfNSW traffic forecasting model (STMv3.91 using TZP22), and the project doesn’t meet current TfNSW policy at all.

There are some concerning features of the modelling. In cases where future traffic volumes are negative (predicted to drop), it sets these growth rates to 0% – to take “a conservative approach” – where “conservative” means more likely to support the road widening.

It does some strange maths – like taking the number of cars at intersections from before the metro opened, taking TfNSW’s (outdated) yearly forecasts of increased car volumes, and apparently multiplying to arrive at how many cars will arrive at each intersection 10 years in the future. The dates are hard to keep track of – TZP22 data for growth factors “estimated by taking the difference between the 2021 and 2041 forecast years” (20 years), then 10-year and annual average growth percentages “vs. base” reported (and anything negative becomes 0). But some intersections have a 2021 base scenario, some have a 2022 one, and some have the May 2024 physical layout.^[4]: 20 Remember we’re in 2026 and if it gets built in 2027, that means we’d be (2027-2022)/10 = 5 years into the estimated 10 year growth rates – and chances are that hasn’t actually happened.

Why not one more lane?

The just one more lane‘ mentality often parodied, and for good reason. It’s called “predict-and-provide” transport modelling, and the path is such a well-trodden fallacy that NSW Government policy^[22][43] no longer allows it. Assume vehicle numbers will go up to argue more road capacity is needed, build more road capacity, then lo and behold – the predictions come true (requiring more roads to fix it, of course: “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.“^[44])

But when you don’t build, as Clover’s letter pointed out regarding the predictions of WestConnex-caused carmageddon^[42], the predictions don’t come true – forgetting for a minute the foregone conclusion of why build a road… if it requires you to build another one to fix it. There are software packages in which you punch in such demand numbers and out comes a letter ranking – like a school report card – the weaponised technocratic method to argue something must be done. How could one argue against a calculator, especially when the numbers are secret – and better things to do with your time like me writing this page?

But like predicting growth rates of water flow, and the nature of water filling a pipe – filling a road to more than 100% capacity just is not possible (or more precisely, queues form and downstream intersections have lower demands). This is the sleight of hand of modelling road intersections independently – if one upstream intersection output limits the input of another intersection, the model wouldn’t know. Enough constrained inputs – and you end up with the Sydney CBD. You can’t have too much traffic if you can’t get a car in to cause it, and to state the not-obvious-enough: it’s challenging to get too much traffic on a bus lane (or two if necessary), and… you can’t have too much car traffic on our pedestrianised George Street.

Streets, and transportation, are for people

The problem with dismally predicting the future is forgetting our streets are malleable, and our government is elected with agency. In the clearest case, the predicted 255 cars/hour on Raglan Street between 8:45am-9:45am would be impossible in 2032 if we closed the road to cars! This is exactly what we now know TfNSW requested on Raglan Street just months ago, but was not popular.^[45] Closing McEvoy and Botany is obviously extreme – but there’s no reason we can’t have a 24-hour bus lane along them both (TfNSW could always explain why they couldn’t). We must not forget the goal of big transport projects is not to move as many cars as possible, it’s to move people. Movement for the sake of it isn’t always necessary: there’s no need to decentralise Sisyphus down the hill and spend billions on wider roads (or high speed rail) to roll it back up, a downstairs coffee shop in an apartment only creates elevator traffic, and just existing on George Street or Strøget is a wonderful way to spend an afternoon.

Seeking feedback from the community without telling them enough about a project isn’t just rude, it’s against policy. This project’s modelling – let alone the existence of it – wasn’t made available to the public. Neither was the fact that a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) is being prepared. How the TIA and REF interact is anyone’s guess. Perhaps we should be grateful the public was asked for feedback at all.

Personally, I don’t want to be consulted only for TfNSW to ignore me – I want TfNSW to follow their own damn (good) policy. More consultation isn’t the solution here. This is why policy exists – for it to be followed when we’ve collectively agreed beforehand what needs to be done.

This long document outlines why it misses the mark. If it feels like you’ve read it all before, you have. I’m getting tired of it – and others have been repeating these points for a lifetime before I started.

Issues with the proposed project or modelling

The place of a TIA is stated earlier – this is an external analysis of a TfNSW proposal, so likely has limited range to suggest alternatives.

The TfNSW proposal is not in line with TfNSW policies

The proposal is inconsistent with a range of NSW Government policies and strategy objectives that seek to reduce car dependence, increase walking, cycling and public transport, create safer and more attractive places, and support sustainable urban growth.^[42]

In the current TfNSW Connecting NSW strategy^[43], one of the 6 priorities is “Reimagine road space to drive model shift”. It states:

In the past we have invested in additional capacity. While this approach can provide short-term relief, in the absence of providing attractive alternatives to driving, we often see the congestion return. We need to reimagine how we think about and use road space.^[43]: p.26

Most critically, it states (emphasis mine):

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.^[43]: p.27

How does the TIA respond to this priority “Reimagine road space to drive mode shift”? It doesn’t – it only claims to address “Restore reliability and build resilience”:

The proposed bus lane is expected to increase bus reliability and is aligned with the priority “restore reliability and build confidence”.^[12]: p.12

It then responds to this with “The proposed bus lane is expected to increase bus reliability and is aligned with the priority “restore reliability and build confidence”.”^[12]: p.12 I think it’s quite clear the right turn ban has very little to do with bus priority measures.

The South East Sydney Transport Strategy (Transport, 2020) “envisions that “People travelling to, from and within South East Sydney choose walking, cycling and public transport” and identifies rapid bus infrastructure on Botany Road as part of its desired transport future.”^{[12]: p.12 [i]}

The TIA finds TfNSW’s proposal does not consider or prioritise people walking or cycling first

The Existing performance and operations section assesses “Vehicle delay and intersection capacity”, “Bus on-time running” and “Road user safety”.^[12]: p.12 Performance of the intersection for people walking or cycling is not assessed.^[12]: p.12

Walking space on every single footpath adjacent to traffic on Botany Road and McEvoy Street is at Walking space LOS F – the lowest possible rating, even while “disregarding frequent obstacles such as street trees, lighting poles, bus stops, rubbish bins, and other utilities”.^[12]: p.7

The signal wait times aren’t much better: even though “controlled crossings are spaced closely on McEvoy Street”, the “long traffic signal cycles yield a rating of D for the Austroads pedestrian crossing delay or detour level of service on the two blocks of McEvoy Street adjacent to Site 3” (Botany Road / McEvoy Street, aka TCS 45, 1940-11-25).^[12]: p.8 On Botany Road the “Controlled crossings are spaced far apart”, resulting in a rating of “LOS E- for crossing delay or detour”.^[12]: p.8

Cycling isn’t any better: “Dedicated cycling infrastructure is not provided on either Botany Road or McEvoy Street”.^[12]: p.9 The TIA does appear to recognise the existing footpaths are too narrow to safely be designated as shared paths:

Cycling is not permitted on the adjoining footpaths for people over the age of 15 and should not be permitted within the existing road space allocation as the adjoining road related areas are not consistently wider than four metres, the minimum width for a shared path stipulated by Transport’s Cycleway Design Toolbox.^[12]: p.9

The TIA finds TfNSW may be overstating project safety benefits

Of the four proposed changes, the TIA identifies two are likely to modify crash risk^{[12]: p.65 (PDF 71)}; there are 5 mechanisms within these two changes^{[12]: p.65 (PDF 71)}, and only 1 of the 5 conditions is included in the Austroads Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors (AP-T151-10).^{[12]: p.65 (PDF 71)}

The Austroads’ Road Safety Engineering Risk Assessment Part 6: Crash Reduction Factors (AP-T151-10), where adding a right-turn lane is described as “intersection – right turn lane”, estimates a reduction in crashes by 30-35% in an urban signalised intersection, but confidence in this estimate is low.^{[12]: p.65 (PDF 71)}

The TIA notes evidence from North America reports of a statistically significant association between increased crossing distance and increased pedestrian casualty risk after controlling for pedestrian and vehicle volumes.^[47]

The TIA notes that superseded RTA guidance^[48] states that fully protected right turns are likely to significantly reduce crashes between opposing vehicles turning and marginally reduce crashes with people walking. The TIA finds:

However, the more recent Austroads guidance does not adopt these estimates as the evidence for these estimates (which is not presented in the superseded RTA guidance) is not strong enough to quantify their effect based on crash type.^{[12]: p.65 (PDF 71)}

It then concludes:

In sum, there is not enough scientific evidence to confidently quantify the expected impact of the Proposal on crash risk at the site. It is probable that the Proposal will reduce the risk of vehicle-vehicle crashes by some degree, but it is unclear what impact the Proposal will have on the safety of people walking, who are currently the only road user type represented in trauma at Site 3.^{[12]: p.65 (PDF 71)}

I expect TfNSW may call on the Pedestrian Protection Program (PPP) findings to draw safety conclusions.^{[49][50][51][52]}, with statistical analysis by Monash University^[53]

I am not aware of any substantive critique of this analysis – but the analysis did find at some intersections:

Further, it was revealed that delay treatments are more effective than adding arrows to control traffic movements. This is a positive finding given that changing the signal phasing to provide a timed delay for pedestrians to cross is easier to implement and less costly than changing the infrastructure to add turn arrows.

The project is not aligned with City of Sydney policy

The proposal is inconsistent with City of Sydney policies and strategy objectives that seek to reduce car dependence, increase walking, cycling and public transport, create safer and more attractive places, and support sustainable urban growth.^[42]

While the project includes a southbound, away-from-city, AM-peak bus lane and road widening, it could narrowly be interpreted as aligned with the City’s strategy to Reallocate Street Space^{[12]: p.6 (PDF 12)}:

The Access Strategy and Action Plan Continuing the Vision (CoS, 2023) explains the City of Sydney’s approach and commitments to managing access and transport to support environmental, social and economic outcomes.

The proposed bus lane is aligned with Strategy B Reallocate Street Space, a principle of which is to reallocate street space to space-efficient users including public transport.^{[12]: p.6 (PDF 12)}

To be clear, Strategy B: Reallocate street space in the Access Strategy includes in principle B1 “We will work to provide street space for the most economically important and space-efficient users, especially people walking, cycling and on public transport.”^[54]: p.17

In a cruel twist, the City’s Access Strategy republishes a map from Transport’s 2021 Tech Central Place-Based Transport Strategy^[55][j] – labelling Botany Road with “Time-sensitive opportunities to reallocate road space”, specifically “2026 (post opening of Western Harbour Tunnel)”.^{[55]: p.29 [54]: p.18 [k]}

Adding McEvoy St turn bans to increase private vehicle capacity along a road without a single bus route, and widening a road – then adding a bus lane away from the city during morning peak hour – is not reallocation!

The traffic forecasting model doesn’t even include local streets, for diverted cars

The Traffic Forecasting Model (STFM) used (STMv3.91, TZP22) does not include local roads. Local government is responsible for around 90% of the NSW road network by length.^[56] The TIA predicted redistribution of trips from arterial roads to local roads. “more localised trips which may not be fully represented in STFM due to the simplified network representation.”^[12]: p.44

To address this concern, the TIA recommends local roads are studied by TfNSW before the project is initiated, and monitored for impacts.^[12]: p.63 I fear such impacts might be interpreted like Sydney Metro C&SW CoA D12^[57] (and perhaps around every Metro West station captured by CoA E126 and E124) as ‘measuring and preserving the Level of Service. We know what sort of projects that leads to – you’re reading about it now.

The project does not even consider implementing safer speeds

More broadly, cities which have achieved Vision Zero^[58][59] do not seek to maximise private vehicle road capacity by implementing turn bans and such, but – in the words of previous NSW Road Transport Minister Andrew Constance in a 2019 Norway visit – approached road safety in a “very different way”.^[58]: web

There is excruciatingly clear evidence that reducing urban speed limits increases road safety, among many other benefits. I note that:

• the current speed limit is 50 km/h
• The Alexandria to Moore Park project proposed to increase speed limits to 60 km/h.^[60]
• In August 2018, the City of Sydney was urging the state government to implement a 40 km/h speed limit across the A2MP project.^[61]
• TfNSW stated in April 2020 they would initiate a review to reduce the speed limit to 40 km/h after the opening of the New M5 and St Peters Interchange (WestConnex) “to support the government’s commitment to Vision Zero.”^{[62]: 47 (PDF 56)} – yet the WestConnex M8 opened in July 2020.^[63]
• the speed limit changes in November 2024 that included “St Peters and Alexandria” excluded the state roads making up A2MP.^[64]
• As of current OpenStreetMap data, the speed limit on McEvoy Street^[65] and Botany Road^[66] here is 50km/h.

The TfNSW-commissioned modelling uses outdated predict-and-provide methodology

Fundamentally, the Transport Impact Assessment is technically flawed, and not aligned with current TfNSW guidance. It must be noted TfNSW commissioned this modelling, it was likely conducted some time ago under older guidance, and it mentions a 2025-10-13 discussion between Arup and Transport resulting in agreement for intersections to be modelled in isolation.^[12]: p.25

The TfNSW Transport Modelling Guidelines define ‘Predict and Provide’ traffic modelling as modelling “which extrapolates historical trends and allocates capacity to meet the projected demand.”^{[22]: p.175} This is exactly how the intersections have been modelled: “To estimate future traffic volumes, growth factors have been assumed” from the (outdated) base scenario, calculated from (outdated) forecasts, and then increased in cases where negative traffic demand is expected.^[12]: p.41

According to the 2025 Guidelines, “Vision and Validate” model states that if the answer to the question “Does the project fit the broader strategic vision for the city?” is no – the proponent should go back to the “Start”.^[22]: p.34 To illustrate the contrast, the outstanding example Project Objective in the 2025 Transport Modelling Guidelines is to “increase public transport mode share to the CBD in the AM peak hour”.^[22]: p.34 The irony is not lost on me that this example goal of current best practice is literally in the opposite direction to the bus lane in this project.

A fudge factor of a “2% annual growth rate” is added on top of the vehicle growth volume for pedestrian volumes, to “account for any additional pedestrians that may travel through the intersection due to development in the surrounding area.”^[12]: p.42 I don’t know about you, but I see a lot more people walking out of the Waterloo Metro station than cars.

The feature which appears to most increase private vehicle intersection capacity – the right hand turn ban – routes traffic onto local streets. The strategic traffic model doesn’t even include local streets, and microanalytical simulation is explicitly not suitable for “studies with alternative paths, diversion via “rat-runs”, or downstream bottlenecks that influence arrivals.”^{[22]: p.175} Microanalytical simulation is not suitable when there is “multi-intersection coordination”, for which “whole corridor evaluations are required”.^{[22]: p.175} TfNSW keeps SCATS signal phasing secret, but I expect it is highly unlikely signals along both arterials are ‘divorced’ (to use outdated SCATS terminology) and therefore not coordinated. The C in SCATS stands for coordinated, and this typically increases private vehicle capacity.^[l]

TfNSW model outputs predict increasing vehicle growth

The current Connecting NSW strategy states “we need to stabilise traffic growth in our cities and suburbs”.^[43]: p.26 The very first measure, or performance indicator, of achieving “Reimagine road space to drive mode shift” is a reduction in “Private vehicle kilometres travelled in urban areas”.^[43]: p.38

Meanwhile, the TIA states “To estimate future traffic volumes, growth factors have been assumed”.^{[12]: p.41 (PDF 47)}

The modelling ensures it won’t achieve a reduction in “Private vehicle kilometres travelled in urban areas”, as “A conservative approach has been taken and all growth rates have been floored at zero.” That is, in any case where the (at least 4-year-old) Strategic Traffic Forecasting Model^[m] predicted negative vehicle volume growth – it is changed to be 0!

At one point, Raglan Street wouldn’t had no cars

To illustrate the futility of assuming continuously increasing vehicle volume demands at intersections – only 7 months ago there was a proposal to ban cars on Raglan Street (at Henderson/Botany/TCS 47).^[68]

No alternative is modelled that doesn’t involve road widening

To “better understand the impact of the individual components of the Proposal” the TIA also models two alternative options, along with the ‘do nothing’ scenario (Future base) and the Proposal.

The Road widening is present in every single option (apart from ‘do nothing’). The Bus Lane is only present in the Proposal.

See page numbers for per-approach values.

I wish to direct your attention to how little the modelled outputs change with the proposed road widening.

Inexplicably, the modelled 2032 AM-peak Degree of Saturation suggests more private vehicle congestion in the AM peak if the road is widened, than if nothing is done at all (‘do nothing’ 0.836^{[12]: PDF 128}, option 2 0.88^[12]: p.67). Am I getting that right – what’s going on there?

Note for Option 1 in the PM peak, “the only sensitivity test is against Option 2 where the right-turn ban is removed.”^[12]: p.67

Is a 24 hour bus lane without widening feasible?

After speaking with “a few people familiar with this part of the network and the project”, Ben Wood (board member of the Transport Professionals Association) raised concern that more ambitious reallocation would unacceptably impact private vehicle congestion. After discussion, I think the strongest point raised was potential delays for southbound buses turning right onto McEvoy.^[69]

While there are southbound buses that need to turn right onto McEvoy Street, only 2 of 30 bus services in peak hour^{[4]: p. 10; §Table 5}, of the “four bus routes” considered in the analysis^[4]: 10, are southbound & right turning^{[4]: p. 30; §Figure 23} I expect (and hope) for bus volumes on all legs of this intersection to increase.

Unfortunately, given the tight ‘feedback’ timeline I haven’t had the chance to suggest or draw up or evaluate alternative design proposals – but there is absolutely nuance in how best to reallocate road space for public and active transport.

If vehicle volumes are suitably modelled (perhaps not microscopic, isolated intersection^[12]: 62 and fixed-demand, and in alignment with evaluating policy-aligned proposals), perhaps further interventions may be required to reduce southbound private-vehicle volumes to ensure turning buses are not delayed. To reduce southbound private vehicle demands, the reversion of Botany Road to two-way operation through Redfern, as previously requested by the City of Sydney (and even the Redfern-Waterloo Authority)^{[70][71][72][73][74][75][70]}, would have significant benefits. Given the need for increased people moving capacity, I do not see why there should not be a bus lane all the way up and down the Southern Arterial Route from the (destroyed) Allen Street pedestrian crossing – as suggested by Hassell in 2020^[76] and TfNSW in 2024.^[77]

TfNSW wrote in the community notification the project “allows us to improve bus reliability with lower impacts on the wider road network … while continuing to investigate broader bus priority opportunities”.^[78] Unfortunately, the word “opportunities” is too often wielded to do nothing a all. If this project is indeed the “first stage” of changes, it it greatly concerning other parts of A2MP Stage 1 are more likely than bus lanes. It must be noted bus lanes were considered outside the scope of the A2MP Stage 1 REF.^{[62]: pp.40,41 (PDF 49,50)} There is little visibility of what comes next for the corridor.^[69]: web

I do not accept preserving, or increasing private vehicle capacity, is the best way to service new density.^[69]: web I do not accept the project does not attempt to preserve or increase private vehicle capacity.^[69]: web

I await further evidence of the safety impacts of dedicated right turn lanes on pedestrian safety, considering the guidance cited in the TIA.^{[12]: p65;§7.4 Road Safety}

The AM peak is when a bus lane is needed least on Botany Road

The first objective given on the project website is for ‘efficient bus services’^[6] – so does this project deliver this goal optimally?

“Buses travelling in a southbound direction through the corridor exhibit a much higher OTR [On Time Running] proportion”^[12]: p.31, however this may be due to some services (306,310) having a Redfern start location.^[12]: p.31The On Time Running percentage of buses drops when running in both directions^[12]: p.31, suggesting a northbound bus lane is required.

Between 53% and 82% of northbound bus services in the AM peak are not on time^[12]: p.31, yet no northbound bus lane is proposed. This suggests not only is a northbound bus lane required here – but also earlier in the route of such services.

In the AM peak, the OTR proportion for southbound services decreases by 15% from stops 1-3^[q], and in a northbound direction the OTR drops by 18%^[r]. That is, in the AM peak – when TfNSW is proposing a southbound bus lane – a greater percentage of northbound buses are getting delayed than southbound buses.

On time running is lower in the PM peak than the AM peak^[12]: p.31, while a bus lane is only proposed in the southbound direction. Examining services which “all travel north/south along the length of the corridor”:

The worst bus delays appear to be northbound northbound, but analysis was out of scope

Why does the 30% to 18% OTR for NB1-NB4 in the PM peak for routes 306/309/310 not get a single mention? It notices “Similarly, in the PM peak, we see a reduction from 83% to 81%.”^[12]: p.33, but it doesn’t say anything like – perhaps because “Given this study is focused on the potential inclusion of southbound bus lanes, all subsequent analysis will focus on southbound bus stop and routes” – that “In the PM peak, we see a reduction from 30% to 18%, a 12% reduction in on time running between 3 stops.”? 60% of northbound buses in the PM peak become late when using Botany Road – yet TfNSW does not even consider the need for a northbound bus lane. The “most noticeable change is for route 306 in the PM peak”, which progresses from 88% on time to 83% on time – 5% more late running services – over just 2 stops.^[12]: p.34

The TIA finds the most variable bus is the famed 370 – but no delays are quantified

The change in On Time Running numbers do not include the famously late 370 bus, which “shows the most variability, with a significant proportion of early services in the AM peak, and high proportion of both early and late services in the PM peak (with just 59% OTR)”.^[12]: p.34

This is because the 370 only uses one stop on Botany Road, SB_3 201714 – Yudi Gunyi School, Botany Rd, WATERLOO.^[12]: p.33

The amount of delay that the most-variable bus service suffers on this street is not calculated or shown. If the TIA cannot measure the amount of delay suffered by a bus running along a corridor, because it only stops once on the corridor^[12]: p.35, then the TIA is not viable.

Northbound bus delays are not analysed in detail

After finding that AM peak northbound buses are getting delayed more than southbound ones:

Given this study is focused on the potential inclusion of southbound bus lanes, all subsequent analysis will focus on southbound bus stop and routes.^[12]: p.33

No graphs of On Time Rates for northbound buses are shown, even though the largest change in On Time Rate is the northbound PM services. There is a “4.2.4.3 Southbound OTR by route” heading, but no “Northbound OTR by route” heading.

No bus delays on McEvoy Street are modelled

The project – recognisable as part of the Alexandria to Moore Park Corridor – at no point recognises that there is no bus route that uses McEvoy Street both east and west of Botany Road.^[12]: p.30 How could a bus lane be required on McEvoy Street if there are no bus routes that run late – because there are none?! If TfNSW holds SP2 land reservations ready to widen McEvoy Street in desperation to increase the capacity of this street – why are there no bus routes and bus lanes?

Perhaps there’s a good reason why there are no bus routes that use McEvoy Street, perhaps from Alison Road to Euston Road and beyond. I don’t know of one.

I note that while consideration was requested,^{[62]: 40 (PDF 49)} dedicated bus lanes and “Reallocation of road space for public transport priority at key intersections along the corridor” were considered outside the scope of Stage 1 the Alexandria to Moore Park project. The Submissions Report stated road space reallocation would instead be considered as part of planning for “new major transport projects” such as the Waterloo Metro station or Eastern Transit Corridor.^{[62]: 41 (PDF 50)} The report pointed out “There is no bus route that travels along the full extent east-west extent of the proposal area.”^{[62]: 40 (PDF 49)}

The modelling uses outdated traffic volume data, mostly before the Metro opened

It is challenging to figure out exactly what data was captured when. See the timeline for more items. The oldest data of all surveyed sites is for the project site.

Issues with project governance

The detailed design contract blew out to 3x the cost and more than 3.5x the duration

The Detailed Design of Botany Road and McEvoy Street Intersection Upgrade contract was originally scheduled to run from 2024-03-06 to 2024-12-04^[8], a duration of 273 days.

The earliest Internet Archive capture (2026-03-12) of the detailed design contract page shows an Amended Contract Duration of 2026-03-31, and estimated (detailed design) cost of $740,754.30.^[79]

At the time of writing, the Amended Contract Duration has a value of 2026-10-30 with an estimated cost of $2,195,737.97.^[8] This is 695 days since the original contract end date of 2024-12-04, and 968 since the original contract start date of 2024-03-06. This represents an extension of the contract duration from 273 days to 968 days. It also represents a change in detailed design cost from $740,754.30 to $2,195,737.97, an increase in $1,454,983.67.

Put another way, the detailed design has taken more than 3.5 times longer than originally planned, and nearly 3 times as expensive as originally estimated. Some plans are also labelled revision 24.

I’m unsure if this is normal, but it hints suggestions plenty of churn behind the scenes.

It is not mentioned plans are prepared for the Easing Sydney’s Congestion team

The (secret) 100% detailed design was “PREPARED FOR: EASING SYDNEY’S CONGESTION SYDNEY PROJECT DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PLACE”.^[7]

As of 2026-09-27, the TfNSW Easing Sydney’s Congestion project page, which claims it has not been updated since 2026-04-01, makes no mention of the project^[80] and neither does the project page.^[6]

This project/department is well-known for their prior hits, like the Pinch Point Program^[81] and increasing road capacity at Pitt Street and the Great Western Highway. My eagle-eyed readers will recognise that Pitt Street and the Great Western Highway is the second trial site of the ‘Manly AI camera’ – this time with the ability to detect vehicles.^{[82][83][84][85][86][87][88][s]}

Another suggestion this project is related to the Pinch Point Program is the TIA states TfNSW identified the intersection as a key pinch point in Sydney’s road network^{[12]: p.2 [12]: p.1} I have not found such a statement in any public documents.

The Pinch Point Program is misaligned with current TfNSW policy

TfNSW states all Pinch Point Programs aim to^[81]:

• Improve the operational efficiency of Sydney’s road transport network
• Improve traffic flow and maximise use of road space
• Help ease traffic congestion and improve the consistency of travel times for motorists, particularly during peak hours
• Result in the better management of responses to incidents and planned events
• Improve access of information to motorists while they are travelling on our road network

These aims are not in line with the Connecting NSW strategy, Movement and Place or the Road User Space Allocation Policy (RUSAP).

TfNSW has acknowledged Pinch Point Projects induce demand

A secret TfNSW report, studying the effects of Pinch Point Projects on traffic congestion, found the congestion “change is not stationary over time” which “may be due to the induced demand effect”.^[89]: 16

SCATS data has been used to evaluate how infrastructure delivered under the “Pinch Point Program”^[90] increased vehicle traffic flow and reduced congestion.

SCATS collects and stores a high volume of network efficiency operation data during normal SCATS operation, which is “readily available”.^[89]: 10 This data was used to construct the Fundamental diagram of traffic flow to evaluate if an intervention increased the flow of vehicle traffic and a reduction in congestion.^[89]: 11

Issues with the project page and feedback process

The project page includes a Project documents section without any documents

As of 2026-10-06, the Project Documents section on the website does not show any documents.

In response to my GIPA 26T-0120 (FOI request) requesting details of the Epping Bridge traffic modelling, the staff member found:

…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…^[11]

The feedback form claims it would “inform the next stage of design” but TfNSW held 100% detailed designs

Some of the 100% detailed project designs are dated 2025-12-12 and 2024-09-25.^[7]

As of 2026-10-03, there is no mention of any traffic modelling documents on the project page.

There is also no mention that TfNSW is preparing the “The Review of Environmental Factors (REF)”, which “will include the assessments and supporting technical information relevant to the proposal”. The REF is currently being finalised.^[13] There is no public mention a REF is being created, and I was not aware one was being prepared prior to this email.

The form does not ask if respondents support the road widening

As of 2026-09-28, the “Botany Road Feedback Form”^[t] included the following questions^[4][u]

• I wish to subscribe to construction updates (Boolean yes/no, mandatory)
  • Please provide your email address so we can keep you updated
  • Email, mandatory
• Pick what best applies to you (multiselect^[v])
  • I live nearby / I drive here / I work nearby / I get the bus / I own a business or property nearby / I ride or walk past / Other (Other (please specify))
• What areas are most relevant to you? (multi checkbox)
  • Botany Bus Lane / Botany Bus Stop Relocation / Botany & McEvoy Intersection Upgrade / Right-Turn ban from McEvoy onto Botany / Tree Removal or Environmental Concerns / Construction Concerns / Parking Issues / Other
• Looking at the proposal, what is your opinion on the following elements?
  • The bus lane
    • Definitely agree / Somewhat agree / Neither agree nor disagree / Somewhat disagree / Definitely disagree / Unsure
  • The new right turn lane
    • Definitely agree / Somewhat agree / Neither agree nor disagree / Somewhat disagree / Definitely disagree / Unsure
  • Relocating the bus stop
    • Definitely agree / Somewhat agree / Neither agree nor disagree / Somewhat disagree / Definitely disagree / Unsure
  • The right turn ban from McEvoy
    • Definitely agree / Somewhat agree / Neither agree nor disagree / Somewhat disagree / Definitely disagree / Unsure
  • I wish the scope was bigger
    • Definitely agree / Somewhat agree / Neither agree nor disagree / Somewhat disagree / Definitely disagree / Unsure
• Please provide your feedback (textbox, max 2000 characters)
• Please provide your phone number so we can contact you directly as appropriate (textbox, max 12 characters, not mandatory)

Note that the form states “please provide your phone number” so TfNSW can contact respondents directly.

Multiple questions in the feedback form include considerable ambiguity

Let’s say you want the bus lane in the northbound direction, but don’t want the road to be widened. Let’s try and fill in the form together!

How would you answer “what is your opinion on” “The bus lane”? Definitely agree or definitely disagree?

Good thing there’s an opinion question on “I wish the scope was bigger”. How would you answer that? How would the “roads-focused” “clan”^[92] interpret it?

Survey question “I’m worried about tree impacts” was deleted from the form

The TfNSW survey source code even shows the question “I’m worried about tree impacts” was perhaps deleted from the survey at 2026-09-02T13:51:34+10:00^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.surveyPage[9]}, with “Relocating the bus stop”^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.statements.1667719} and “I wish the scope was bigger”^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.statements.1667720} added the same second and updated 3 seconds apart about 8 minutes later.

Looks like TfNSW were worried about tree impacts too!

The project page / form do not mention the A2MP stage 1 REF, or if a REF is being prepared

My last blog post assumed this project would not require consultation, given this project was included in the A2MP scope, and that A2MP Stage 1 was approved and is still “in progress”.^[5]

Initially I was planning to critique the project page and the feedback form not mentioning the A2MP Stage 1 REF approval at all – but now I also critique the project page does not once state feedback will contribute to – or that there are even plans for – a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the ‘Botany Road Project’^[13].

The feedback form did not state this – it stated feedback would “inform the next stage of design”^[1], and as discussed under the designated section – 100% designs existed months ago.

Issues with TfNSW transparency

Apart from the obvious points made in the introduction:

TfNSW have not published Strategic Travel Model details in 14 years

The growth rates underpinning the entire modelling are the outputs of a TfNSW model. The published outputs haven’t been updated since 2012.^[93] Yet they’re available on request you say – I wrote to the listed email address on the website asking for a copy of the technical documents: “The email address you entered couldn’t be found”.

Why isn’t this open data? A reminder that data available on request, perhaps with a query of ‘what will you use this for’, is not open data.

TfNSW have not released SCATS-derived signal phasing or volume data relating to the project

Why shouldn’t the public have access to government data about traffic signal operation? As printed by Declan Bowring in the ABC

“I think signal timing data should be as public as a public train network timetable,” Mr Coppinger said.”^[94]

Did you know in 2009 RailCorp threatened software developers with legal action over breaches of Crown copyright, because they made an electronic train network timetable, and the government had “concerns over the potential inaccuracy of timetable data on the apps”! By 2012 Gladys said “Obviously if we do embark on that in the future we want to make sure the organisation we are dealing with is going to respect the integrity of the data we are providing them and is going to make sure that they are used in a good way that’s going to help people.”^[95] There’s even a paper on this – how have I not come across this!^[96]

I’ve written plenty on signal timing data, so I won’t repeat myself. Don’t worry, you’ll have some very interesting things to read soon.

• 2025-09-24: Green Lights More Often: The Secret 2018 Study of Sydney’s Traffic Signals
• 2025-05-15: No Signal for Pedestrian Safety: TfNSW Refuses Signal Data During National Road Safety Week
• 2024-08-22: Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road…
• 2025-07-01: Preliminary Analysis of Better Intersections Data
• 2023-07-10: Shining a Light on the Traffic Signals of Sydney
• 2023-06-12: Mapping pedestrian traffic light timing in Sydney, Australia
• 2022-12-19: Sydney CBD is bringing back pedestrian “beg buttons”

On politics, and housing

I want to make it clear I don’t oppose this project in an underhand way to oppose new housing^[97]: web – like some perhaps oppose sewage network upgrades^[98][99] – I oppose it because reallocating road space can support more housing.^{[43][100][101]} I show up for more homes – including in my neighbourhood – while keeping space for constructive critique and improved design, especially in the space between buildings.

In fact, it appears a strategic way to oppose housing is to commission private car LoS-focused modelling not unlike this modelling. This has been effectively weaponised to argue more than 3,600 homes further east means carmageddon.^[102] If you want to fight new housing take note: assume people will drive, keep your SIDRA files and data under wraps while wailing about vehicle Levels of Service, and voila: closed source computer model says no.

Density dumping, often on the worst state roads, is unfortunately the path of least political backlash.^[97]: web Thalis said the state plan for Woollahra “needs to be much much better”^{[103]: 2:40 [w]} – and you know what, it probably could be. While the plan legalises tall buildings to fund a new train station about 3km from Australia’s largest city with an ambition recently unheard of, TfNSW writes “a key challenge” to building walking and cycling infrastructure is “Road width constraints and on-street parking may limit potential upgrades.“^{[104][104]: 6} Backlash to a forest of towers, yet TfNSW considers on street parking a challenge for cycleways and footpaths – are you kidding me?! It seems TfNSW buried the PBN well: “Based on the strategic cycleway corridors planned by Transport, no future strategic corridors have been identified for Woollahra”.^{[104]: p. 30  [x]}

But someone in TfNSW also wrote “…the provision of homes in Edgecliff and Woollahra results in a net reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled by car across the GMA, when compared to a base case where this growth might have taken place in locations further away from public transport and amenities. This is illustrative of the potential benefits of transport oriented development as opposed to ‘organic’ growth in areas less well served by existing public transport and amenities.“^{[104]: p. 97} – and they’re right! We need denser cities and reduced vehicle kilometres travelled.

This is how we reduce VKT and emissions, this is how we increase walking per Vivendi’s modelling^[109], this is how we get out of the doom loop of widening/building 76.5 km of “magnificent” new roads in south-west Sydney^[110], this is how we ensure a compact city – and I haven’t even mentioned housing supply. We can’t afford to keep spending billions on freeways to the greenest of koala habitat greenfields to satisfy the midcentury decentralisation dreams^[111][112] of planning academics who would be the last to leave Sydney – I wouldn’t want to leave either. Decentralisation is cities for other people.

We should not blindly follow the car-obsessed, “roads-focused” TfNSW “clan” and their road widening agenda. If TfNSW won’t get with the program, DPHI should ignore them – if they haven’t figured this out already.^[113] We must be ambitious in our road space reallocation for bus lanes and active transport – for climate, for housing, for fiscal prudence, for road safety, for equity.

Appendix

How many responses did TfNSW receive?

The source code also showed “responsesCount” was (timestamps in GMT unless stated): (right click > view source -> Cmd/Ctrl+F):

• 111 by 2026-09-25 02:54:04 GMT
• 115 as of 2026-09-25 15:58^[y]
• 120 by 20260927022613
• 127 by 20260928020446^[4]
• 129 by 2026-09-28 10:07 Sydney time.^[y]
• 133 by ~2026-09-28 22:53 Sydney time.^[y]

Note the feedback form closed at some time on the 29th, while I received a letter on 2026-10-02 that feedback may be received until 2026-10-09.^[13]

Documents

Proper citations are included under References.

• Project page – Botany Road and McEvoy Street intersection and bus corridor improvements^[6]
  • Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) – Botany Road bus lane and McEvoy Street intersection upgrade^[12]
    • Botany Road Subscription Form (linked after feedback closed).^[91]
    • Community notification^[78]
• Policies / guidelines
  • Connecting NSW^[43]
  • TfNSW Transport Modelling Guidelines^[22]
  • TfNSW Stakeholder and community engagement guidelines^[9]
  • Tech Central Camperdown-Ultimo Place-based Transport Strategy (2021)^[55]
  • Austroads Guide to Project Delivery Part 2 – Planning and Control^[10]
  • City of Sydney Access Strategy and Action Plan – Continuing the Vision^[54]

• Assorted information
  • Infrastructure Opportunities Plan – Greater Sydney (PDF, February 2026)^[15]
  • NSW Department of Planning – Accelerated Infrastructure Fund (Website)^[16][z]
  • NSW Government Transport Infrastructure Industry Portal^[114]
  • Minor Projects presentation (Deanne Forrest)^[14]
  • Secretary Josh Murray opening address^[32]
  • Detailed design contract (Buy.nsw).^[8]
• Other media
  • Woollahra Rezoning Fiasco? (The Sydneyist)^[103]
• TfNSW Reply to Jake Coppinger, 2026-10-02^[13]
• Prior blog post by Jake Coppinger: Just one more lane: TfNSW revives WestConnex zombie Alexandria to Moore Park road project ^[5]
• Notice of decision, GIPA 26T-0120 (Epping Bridge).^[11]

Clover Moore’s letter

The following 3-page letter was published on Facebook and Instagram.^[42] I republish the OCRed text here, on an easily indexable and crawlable site, for the benefit of search engines.

—

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Mayor of Sydney

CLOVER MOORE AO

10 September 2026

The Hon. Jenny Aitchison MP

Minister for Roads

52 Martin Place

Sydney NSW 2000

Dear Minister

Botany Road Bus Lane and McEvoy Street Intersection Upgrade

I write about the NSW Government’s proposed Botany Road Bus Lane and McEvoy Street Intersection Upgrade. I am deeply concerned about this proposal and how it will impact traffic, transport and amenity in south Waterloo.

A history of overestimating traffic demand

In 2017, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) put forward the Alexandria to Moore Park Road Connectivity Upgrade proposal to widen Euston Road, McEvoy Street, Lachlan Street, Dacey Avenue and Anzac Parade. The proposal was in response to RMS predictions that traffic on the corridor would increase by 50% or more by 2021.

On the City of Sydney and community’s urging, the NSW Government wisely did not proceed with this proposal. This avoided untold social, health and amenity impacts on Alexandria and Waterloo, as it would have severed the neighbourhood with a six lane highway.

The traffic volumes have decreased in the 10 years since RMS’s original predictions.

The modelling approaches used for such projects are not fit for purpose in inner-City locations that are well served by public transport, people walk more, and where the City has been building alternative options through our successful cycling network.

The Transport Impact Assessment for this latest proposal for Botany Road makes no compelling case for investment in the project, which would have significant impacts on amenity and safety in the local area.

Could you please reconsider this project in light of the evidence that increasing road capacity can induce additional traffic demand, in an area where the priority should be enhancing pedestrian amenity rather than further diminishing it?

Questionable improvements to bus services

While presented as a bus improvement project, the changes proposed primarily benefit private vehicles through increasing the road capacity. This will encourage more drivers to use this route while doing little to improve bus priority in the peak direction. You will be aware that the proposal is that the southbound bus lane would operate only in the morning – that is, in the counter peak direction – and operate as an additional travel lane for the remainder of the time.

Further, the Transport Impact Assessment does not provide an adequate assessment of current bus performance and issues, and fails to show how the proposal will improve bus services against Transport for NSW’s (T/NSW) key customer requirements of reliability and travel times.

I ask that you please get TfNSW to provide a robust justification for how this project responds to any counter-peak bus service problems of reliability and travel time.

Diverting regional traffic into local streets

The proposed turn bans will divert traffic from state roads into local streets, increasing traffic volumes and reducing safety and amenity in residential neighbourhoods. Local streets are for local access, and we have worked hard in our area to create safe, liveable streets where people want to walk, cycle and spend time. People living in the City are extremely sensitive to their streets being used as a ‘relief valve’ for the state road network.

I am strongly opposed to the assumption that local streets can be used to enable greater capacity on the state road network and ask that you consider the impact on the local community.

Compromising pedestrians for more traffic

The proposal includes road widening at several locations in Botany Road, significantly narrowing verges and footpaths near the McEvoy intersection. The wider roads, longer pedestrian crossing distances and wide radius corners will increase vehicle speeds and put people walking at higher risk. While the City supports real prioritisation of buses, this project does not offer any tangible priority for peak period bus customers, and should not come at the expense of footpath and trees.

I ask that you work with the City to look at how we can facilitate movement without increasing traffic capacity or compromising residential and pedestrian amenity.

Poor strategic alignment

The proposal is inconsistent with a range of NSW Government and City of Sydney policies and strategy objectives that seek to reduce car dependence, increase walking, cycling and public transport, create safer and more attractive places, and support sustainable urban growth.

It is also at odds with the NSW Government’s vision for enhanced liveability and placemaking in the renewal of Waterloo South and the significant investment in enhanced public transport through the delivery of the Waterloo Metro.

I am concerned the Network Operations Team responsible for this project appear to be operating in isolation from broader State Government objectives.

The City’s own vision for the Botany Road Enterprise Area is for a high-quality public space along Botany Road to support people accessing much denser employment and commercial uses, rather than increased traffic volumes.

I request an urgent meeting to discuss the above issues.

I have also written to the Minister for Transport on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Clover Moore AO

Lord Mayor of Sydney

Timeline

Note: This timeline is incomplete. All dates in this page are in ISO8601 for easy searching / ordering.

• 1940: MRDP Part 1 (unpublished)^[115]
• 1961-08: De Leuw Cather (DLC) Geometric Design Study^[116]
  • This report proposed a new “east-west” route, similar to the 1974 Midwestern Expressway,^{[117]: II – 22 (PDF 87)} to take pressure off the proposed (and unbuilt) Ultimo Interchange (in Glebe).
• 1974: Sydney Area Transportation Study (SATS)
  • Recommended “Dacey Avenue/Lachlan Street/McEvoy Street/Copeland Street/Swanson Street” route be developed to a “major regional road standard with six traffic lanes” from Anzac Parade to King Street, Newtown, as work to be done 1975-2000.^{[117]: II 41 (PDF 106)}
  • Also recommended a “Midwestern Highway”, a “major artery” including a segment from Alexandria to Anzac Parade, from Johnston’s Creek Route, with 4 through lanes of expressway standard, suggested phased opening from 1991 to 2000, utilising Erskineville Road, Swanson, Copeland, Fountain, McEvoy and Lachlan Streets and Dacey Avenue.^{[117]: II – 22 (PDF 87)})

• 1981: Recommendation for existing arterial routes, including Botany Road and Mitchell Road/McEvoy Street, be “reinforced” in preference to the development of new freeway systems.^{[118][119]: 2}
• 1981-04: Recommendation a route following O’Dea Avenue and Allen Street (via Short Street Reserve) to link with McEvoy Street/Euston Road, as preferred to upgrading McEvoy Street to an arterial road.^[120]: 7/2 (McEvoy Street was considered a major barrier for access to Waterloo Oval.^[120]: 7/2)
• 1987-02: Pyrmont – Alexandria traffic management proposal EIS (Southern Arterial Route Stages 1-3): Wyndham Street Residents’ Alternative included “…To maximise efficiency at the Botany Road/McEvoy Street intersection, the proposed widening of McEvoy Street between Wyndham Street and Botany Road”^[119]: 112
• 2004-11-05: GSTC Masterplan (for CSPC) External State Arterial Road (RTA) study, including an east-west relief route from Botany Road to Bourke Street to relieve pressure due to Green Square generated traffic on the Botany Road / Bourke Street intersection., considered to be a critical element of the proposed Green Square Town Centre road system.^{[121]: p.32}
• 2016-12: Matt O’Sullivan scoop on upcoming Duncan Gay-backed project for “traffic funnelled from the WestConnex motorway”. “Mr Gay accused Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore of approving thousands of high-rise apartments in the inner south “with little thought about the impacts to the local road network and the families…”.^[122]
• 2019-07-08: A2MP scaled back temporarily.^[123][124]
• 2022-11-23 (Wednesday) The traffic survey at Botany Road / McEvoy Street.^[12]: p.20. This is 1,391 days before public announcement of the current project, or about 3.8 years.
• 2024-05-21 (Tuesday): A traffic survey was undertaken at Botany Road / Bourke Street / O’Riordan Street (TCS 346)^[12]: p.25 and SCATS data^[12]: p.26
• 2024-05-21: (Tuesday): Traffic survey^{[12]: p.14 (PDF 20)} and SCATS data for Botany/Raglan (TCS 47).^{[12]: p.15 (PDF 21)}
• 2024-08: Waterloo Metro opening, as noted in the report.^[12]: p.13
• 2026-08-27: TIA version B date.^[12]
• 2026-07-27T16:29:55+10:00: Feedback form created.^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.createdAt}
• 2026-09-02T13:39:20+10:00: Creation of survey question “I’m worried about tree impacts”.^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.surveyPage[9]}
• 2026-09-02T13:51:34+10:00: “Updating” of survey question “I’m worried about tree impacts”; perhaps deletion (the question is currently recorded with "deleted": true,.^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.surveyPage[9]}), creation of survey question “Relocating the bus stop”^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.statements.1667719} and “I wish the scope was bigger” ^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.statements.1667720}
• 2026-09-08T16:26:50+10:00: Most recent feedback form update as of 2026-09-25.^{[1]: props.pageProps.initialState.survey.updatedAt;props.pageProps.initialState.survey.modifiedAt [aa]}
• 2026-09-09 12:46+10:00: yoursay.transport.nsw.gov.au/botany-bus-improvements published.^[ab]
• 2026-09-28/2026-09-29: Closing of feedback form^[4]
• 2026-09-30: End date of detailed design contract.^[8]
• 2026-10-09: Closing of (privately announced) feedback period^[13]
• 2026 “Q3”: McEvoy Street and Botany Road, Waterloo Intersection Improvements “Detailed Design – confirmed”^[114]
• 2026 “Q4” – 2027 “Q3”: “Construction Procurement – confirmed”^[114]
• 2027 “Q3” – 2029 “Q1”: “Construction – confirmed”^[114]
• 2026-09-14: Public project announcement.^[126]
  • botany-rd-and-mcevoy-st-map.jpeg^[127]
• 2028: “Estimated completion”: NSW Government Accelerated Infrastructure Fund website.^[16]

Traffic signal cycle times

Considering how secretive Network Operations is about signal timing data – I highlight relevant data from the TIA for the record:

• Traffic signal cycle times
  • TCS 45 (McEvoy/Botany) “the average cycle time was 119 seconds during the AM peak hour and 118 seconds during the PM peak hour.”^{[12]: p.21 (PDF 27)}
  • TCS 346 (Botany / Bourke) “average cycle time was 107 seconds during the AM peak hour and 98 seconds during the PM peak hour.”^{[12]: p.27 (PDF 33)}
  • TCS 47: “average cycle time was 114 seconds during the AM peak hour and 111 seconds during the PM peak hour.”^{[12]: p.15 (PDF 21)}

• At TCS47, “On Tuesday 21 May 2024, the average cycle time was 114 seconds during the AM peak hour and 111 seconds during the PM peak hour.”^[12]: p.15
  • Phase B (Botany Rd southbound + south-east green for cars, north/south pedestrian green) ran in approximately 67% of cycles during both the AM and PM peak hours, all other phases were called in 100% of cycles.^[12]: p.15 The inclusion of phase B is driven by pedestrian demand on the western side of the intersection”.^[12]: p.16
  • While the report notes neighbouring intersections are 40-50m from TCS 346 (Botany / Bourke), it mentions a 2025-10-13 discussion between Arup and Transport resulted in agreement for intersections to be modelled in isolation.^[12]: p.25

Notes

References

1. ↑ ^{1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12} “View source: Botany Road Feedback Form”. yoursay.transport.nsw.gov.au. Transport for NSW. 2026-09-08 [created 2026-07-27T16:29:55+10:00; updated 2026-09-08T10:14:54+10:00]. Retrieved 2026-09-25.
2. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2024-08-22). “Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road…”.
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Decland Bowring (2026-10-07). “Transport for NSW’s proposed southbound AM peak bus lane draws ire of Sydney’s Lord Mayor”. ABC News.
4. ↑ ^{4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7} “Botany Road Feedback Form”. Transport for NSW. __NEXT_DATA__.props.pageProps.initialState.survey.survey.responsesCount. Archived from the original on 2026-09-28. Retrieved 2026-09-28. “responsesCount”: 127
   Access timestamp 20260928020446 (2026-09-28 02:04:46 GMT
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1 5.2} Jake Coppinger (2026-09-15). “Just one more lane: TfNSW revives WestConnex zombie Alexandria to Moore Park road project”. jakecoppinger.com.
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4} “Botany Road and McEvoy Street intersection and bus corridor improvements”. Transport for NSW. 2026-09-14. Archived from the original on 2026-09-14. Retrieved 2026-09-27.
7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4} Arup (2025-12-12). ACCELERATED INFRASTRUCTURE FUND 3 MCEVOY STREET AND BOTANY ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE 100% DETAILED DESIGN WORK PACKAGE 1 WG01.001 – 528 – MCEVOY STREET MCEVOY STREET AND BOTANY ROAD INTERSECTION UPGRADE – WORK PACKAGE 1 (Report). B. Transport for NSW. Drawing set No: DS2024/00132. DRG No. AIF3MEBRDD-ARUP-NWW-GN-DRG-000001, EDMS No. SF2023/226283. (TIA PDF p.225)
   Note: I am not interested in critiquing individual technical staff – it was commissioned by TfNSW.
8. ↑ ^{8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4} “Detailed Design of Botany Road and McEvoy Street Intersection Upgrade – RMS.23.0000139276.1817”. buy.nsw.gov.au. NSW Government. Retrieved 2026-09-27.
9. ↑ ^{9.0 9.1 9.2} “Stakeholder and community engagement guidelines” (PDF). Transport for NSW. January 2023. We strive to share all relevant information to help the community’s understanding …
   We report engagement outcomes in a clear and timely way and explain how stakeholder input is being used or why it was not used “Community engagement”. Transport for NSW. n.d. Environmental impact assessment documents are generally placed on public exhibition during the planning phase of our projects. The community and stakeholders are invited to review these reports and provide comments in writing.
10. ↑ ^{10.0 10.1} Raw Brown; Paul Robinson; Peter Letts; Colin Mackay; Elisa Casey (January 2014) [October 2007]. Guide to Project Delivery Part 2 – Planning and Control (PDF) (Report). Austroads. p. 23 (PDF 29). ISBN 978-1-925037-39-5. AGPD02-14. It is important to make boundaries clear to the community i.e. what areas are open to negotiation/discussion, and what matters have already been ‘locked in’…
11. ↑ ^{11.0 11.1 11.2} Melissa Armstrong (2025-08-28). “Notice of decision on your access application under the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) (26T-0120)” (PDF). Letter to Jake Coppinger.
    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.
    
12. ↑ ^{12.000 12.001 12.002 12.003 12.004 12.005 12.006 12.007 12.008 12.009 12.010 12.011 12.012 12.013 12.014 12.015 12.016 12.017 12.018 12.019 12.020 12.021 12.022 12.023 12.024 12.025 12.026 12.027 12.028 12.029 12.030 12.031 12.032 12.033 12.034 12.035 12.036 12.037 12.038 12.039 12.040 12.041 12.042 12.043 12.044 12.045 12.046 12.047 12.048 12.049 12.050 12.051 12.052 12.053 12.054 12.055 12.056 12.057 12.058 12.059 12.060 12.061 12.062 12.063 12.064 12.065 12.066 12.067 12.068 12.069 12.070 12.071 12.072 12.073 12.074 12.075 12.076 12.077 12.078 12.079 12.080 12.081 12.082 12.083 12.084 12.085 12.086 12.087 12.088 12.089 12.090 12.091 12.092 12.093 12.094 12.095 12.096 12.097 12.098 12.099 12.100 12.101 12.102 12.103} Arup (2026-08-27) [2026-07-31]. Botany Road bus lane and McEvoy Street intersection upgrade (Report). B. 299844-00.
    Revision A (Description Consolidation of transport impact assessment reports).
    Revision B (Description Review of TIA).
    Pages 2-6 (PDF) dated 2026-07-31, remainder 2026-08-27.
    Note: I am not interested in critiquing individual technical staff – it was commissioned by TfNSW.
13. ↑ ^{13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6} Botany Road Project Team (2026-10-02). “RE: Automatic reply: Informal request: Botany / McEvoy traffic modelling documents”. Letter to Jake Coppinger.
    “The project’s traffic modelling and associated technical documents are currently not available to the public. The Review of Environmental Factors (REF) for the project will be published at a later stage and will include the assessments and supporting technical information relevant to the proposal. As the REF is still being finalised, they are not currently being made available as part of the feedback process.
    In relation to your other questions, feedback received during consultation, including questions, is not addressed individually as it is received. Rather, all feedback is consolidated and provided to the project team for consideration. This feedback will be considered as part of the development of the REF.
    I note that you may still wish to provide feedback on the proposal. While the online survey has now closed, you may still submit your opinion piece or any other comments for inclusion in this process. If you wish to do so, please provide your feedback by Friday 9 October.”
14. ↑ ^{14.0 14.1} Deanne Forrest, Executive Director, Sydney & Active Transport Hub (2026-07-27). Minor Projects. ICC Pyrmont Theatre: NSW Government Transport Infrastructure Industry Portal – via Vimeo.
    From 33:36:
    Slide text: What is coming to Market
    * Intersection upgrade Princes Hwy / Waratah St – Q3 2026
    * Intersection upgrade McEvoy St / Botany Rd * Q3 2026
    * Safety Barrier Program – Target Q3, 2026
    * Appin Rd / St Johns Rd intersection main works – Q4 2026
    Speech: For an example, these are a just a few of the minor projects that I’ve got coming to the market over the next 6 months. So we have the intersection of Princes Highway and Waratah Street. McEvoy Street and Botany Street is also another intersection upgrade. We’ve got a safety barrier program, which is looking at wire rope barrier across Sydney, but we’ve got a rolling program that we’re starting to implement. And St Johns Rd intersection, that’s the main works, we actually also have a small package coming out as well on Appin Road very shortly as well, so we’ve got a bit of different work. With these coming to market we are also looking at how we design a number of our packages, so we will come back to industry, especially our design consultants, we’re looking at developing a 400 series design specification to be able to put the right level of effort into design for these projects. So we’re acknowledging that our processes and our current specs are not really fit for some of our smaller projects, so we are looking at working with industry on how to make those more efficient for us and yourselves in delivering these projects.
15. ↑ ^{15.0 15.1} 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.
    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. 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. Retrieved 2026-09-27.
    Go on, run the diff on each version’s pdftotext output.
16. ↑ ^{16.0 16.1 16.2} “Accelerated Infrastructure Fund”. NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. Archived from the original on 2026-09-09. Retrieved 2026-09-27.
    Project: McEvoy Street and Botany Road, Waterloo intersection improvements
    Delivery agency: TfNSW
    Round: 3 – tranche 2
    Project scope: Improvment [sic] work at McEvoy Street and Botany Road.
    Current stage: Construction
    Estimated completion: 2028
    Local government area: City of Sydney
    Grant funding: $13,500,000.00
    Funds released to date: $13,500,000.00
    Total project cost: $18,000,000.00
    Co-contribution: $4,500,000.00
    Total dwellings supported: 10,000
    Project type: Roads
    
17. ↑ “Edgecliff-Woollahra”. planning.nsw.gov.au. NSW Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. Retrieved 2026-09-27. The draft proposal will enable: approximately 9,400 new homes …
18. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2024-10-09). “Better Streets submission to the Epping Bridge Project”. jakecoppinger.com.
19. ↑ Howard Collins (2025-08-25). “Re: Request for Public Access of SCATS Signal Phasing Data across one weekday for all NSW signals” (PDF). Letter to Jake Coppinger. Transport for NSW.
20. ↑ Jake Coppinger (2025-05-15). “No Signal for Pedestrian Safety: TfNSW Refuses Signal Data During National Road Safety Week”. jakecoppinger.com.
21. ↑ Yvonne (2025-09-20). “Why won’t Transport for NSW share SCATS Traffic Signal Phasing Data?”. WalkSydney.
22. ↑ ^{22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7} Navreet Virdi (October 2025) [November 2024]. Transport Modelling Guidelines (PDF) (Report). TfNSW. TS 05461.
23. ↑ “Western Distributor Road Network Improvement Project – Update following project review” (PDF). Transport for NSW. March 2026. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-03-18. Following an analysis of traffic patterns and further stakeholder engagement changes have been made.
    What’s changing?
    • The Pyrmont Bridge Road and Bank Street intersection upgrade will not proceed. As a result, the 501-bus route and access to Bank Street from the Pyrmont Bridge Road off-ramp will remain unchanged.
    • The proposed Darling Harbour weave ramp will also not proceed.
    • The remaining work at the Allen Street and Harris Street intersection will continue. These improvements will support reliable access to the new Sydney Fish Market, particularly during periods of congestion on the Pyrmont Bridge Road off-ramp.
24. ↑ “The Western Distributor Network”. 2024-03-18. Archived from the original on 2025-09-25. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
25. ↑ “Have your say – Harris Street bus stop relocation Western Distributor Network Improvements” (PDF). Transport for NSW. October 2023. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-01-19. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
26. ↑ ^{26.0 26.1} “Western Distributor Road Network Improvements”. Transport for NSW. 2026-03-17. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
27. ↑ “Western Distributor Road Network Improvements (Archive)”. 2023-11-06. Archived from the original on 18 November 2023. Retrieved 18 March 2026.
28. ↑ Sarah Bickford; Peter McLean (2023-11-21). “Re: Pyrmont-Ultimo Transport Plan” (PDF). Letter to Pyrmont Peninsula team, Trudi Mares. p. 3. Concern 3: PTUP and the Western Distributor ‘improvements’ are at cross purposes
29. ↑ “Motorway mangles Pyrmont”. BicycleNSW. 2023-11-23.
30. ↑ https://yoursay.transport.nsw.gov.au/botany-bus-improvements/surveys/botanyroad_subscribe1, line 259, column 140324
31. ↑ Brown, Aston; Bowring, Declan (2026-02-09). “Cyclists slam ‘nightmare’ shared path at new Sydney Fish Market”. ABC News. Archived from the original on 2026-02-08. Former Liberal transport minister Rob Stokes said the project’s final design reflected “very ingrained views” inside some quarters of government that backed road traffic over pedestrians and cyclists.
    Mr Stokes said “two clans” existed within Transport for NSW.
    “There were those who were very people-focused, then there were those who were almost vehicle-focused,” he said.
    “I think a lot of the decisions that had gone into the cycle infrastructure around the fish market had been made by the latter group.”
    Mr Stokes also described “very powerful vested interests” — due to a revolving door between government and the private sector — that prioritised large road and rail projects over active transport infrastructure.
32. ↑ ^{32.0 32.1 32.2} Josh Murray (2026-07-27). Secretary Josh Murray opening address (09:50). ICC Pyrmont Theatre: InMotion 2026 – via Vimeo. If you work with Transport you’re also expected though to meet the standards in our statement of our business ethics. Please, if something does not look right, speak up. If you see a conflict, declare it. If you’re asked to cut a corner, refuse.
    Via industry.transport.nsw.gov.au/tfnsw/tiip/inmotion-2026
33. ↑ O’Sullivan, Matt (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.
34. ↑ Robert A. Caro (September 1974). “Chapter 43. Late Arrival”. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York (PDF). p. 1582. ISBN 0-394-72024-5. But still, the most significant fact about the series was that it ran at all. Investigative reporters quickly become aware of a phenomenon of their profession: information so hard to come by when they are preparing to write their first story in a new field suddenly becomes plentiful as soon as that first story has appeared in print. Every city agency has its malcontents and its idealists and its malcontent-idealists —officials and aides and clerks and secretaries unhappy with the philosophy by which it is being run or the payoffs that are being made within it—who have been just waiting, for years, for the appearance of some forum in which their feelings can be expressed. When they realize that there is one at last—when they see that first story— they cannot get their information to its writer fast enough. Scores of city employees—men and women angry for personal or philosophical reasons at the inside workings of the Moses empire—and hundreds if not thousands of city residents whose homes or neighborhoods had been destroyed for his Title I projects, and who then had watched vainly for years for the projects to be built, had been looking for such a forum. They had been desperate for one. They had almost given up their hopes of finding one.
35. ↑ “Confidential Tips”. ABC News.
36. ↑ Aston Brown (2026-07-05). “Reducing speed limits in cities can save lives. Why is Australia still reluctant?”. The Guardian.
37. ↑ “Just one more lane won’t solve it”. Better Streets. 2026-09-20.
38. ↑ Jamie van Geldermalsen (2026-09-28). “Opposing the widening of Botany Road, Alexandria”. Letter to. WalkSydney.
39. ↑ “Untitled Facebook post”. 2026-09-15. The WestConnex ‘just one more lane will fix it’ crew are still in charge at TfNSW. Worth making a submission by Monday 28 September.
40. ↑ “‘Bus Improvement’ Project – McEvoy St & Botany Rd”. Alexandria Residents Action Group. 2026-09-20.
41. ↑ Friends of Erskineville (2026-09-16). “Untitled Facebook post”. Facebook.
42. ↑ ^{42.0 42.1 42.2 42.3 42.4} Clover Moore (2026-09-10). “Botany Road Bus Lane and McEvoy Street Intersection Upgrade”. Letter to Jenny Aitchison. City of Sydney. Clover Moore [@clovermoore]; (2026-09-05). “We know Botany Road needs work, but this is a step backwards” – via Instagram. (images 7-9)
43. ↑ ^{43.0 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 43.7} Connecting NSW Strategy – Priorities for Transport (Report). Transport for NSW. October 2026. ISBN 978-1-923242-23-4. TS216.
44. ↑ The Premier; Minister for Planning and Public Spaces (2023-07-23). “NSW Government investing $40.9 million to fast-track critical infrastructure in high growth communities” (Press release). Archived from the original on 2026-01-17. “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.
45. ↑ “Engagement report – South Eveleigh to Waterloo Metro walking and cycling improvements” (PDF). City of Sydney. March 2026. p. 7 (PDF 8). The bus only section was included at the request of Transport for NSW, in part to enable longer pedestrian crossing times at the intersection with Botany Road.
46. ↑ 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 2025-09-03.
47. ↑ National Cooperative Highway Research Program. 2008. Pedestrian safety prediction methodology. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/data-analysis- tools/rsdp/rsdp-tools/pedestrian-safety-prediction-methodology
48. ↑ RTA’s superseded Accident Reduction Guide, DCA codes 202-206
49. ↑ “Evaluation of the NSW Pedestrian Protection Program Summary Report” (PDF). Transport for NSW. September 2023.
50. ↑ Prabhakharan, P; Sterling, K; Baker, J (2022). Evaluation of the NSW pedestrian protection program (PDF). Australasian Road Safety Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand. p. 545. doi:10.33492/ARSC-2022 (inactive 20 November 2025). ISBN 9780648184850. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-10-28.
51. ↑ Prabhakharan, P; Stephan, K; Lawrence, B; Newstead, S (2023). NSW Pedestrian Protection Program: improving pedestrian safety at signalised intersections (PDF). Australasian Road Safety Conference. Cairns, Queensland, Australia. doi:10.33492/ARSC-2023 (inactive 20 November 2025). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-06-06.
52. ↑ Jonah Chiarenza; Annisha Borah; Mary Geschwindt; Larissa Ireland; Yu Jin Kim; Noah Levine; Hoamy Tran (June 2023). “Improving Pedestrian Safety on Urban Arterials: Learning from Australasia” (PDF). US Department of Transportation. p. 43.
53. ↑ Newstead, Stuart; Stephan, Karen; Lawrence, Brendan (2022). “Statistical analysis to support the NSW Pedestrian Protection Program Evaluation”. Monash University.
54. ↑ ^{54.0 54.1 54.2} Access Strategy and Action Plan Continuing the Vision (PDF) (Report). Final. City of Sydney. November 2023.
55. ↑ ^{55.0 55.1 55.2} “Tech Central Camperdown-Ultimo Place-based Transport Strategy” (PDF). October 2021.
56. ↑ “Roads and Transport”. Local Government NSW. n.d.
57. ↑ “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.
58. ↑ ^{58.0 58.1} Julie Power (2020-01-13). “Oslo cut road deaths to one in 2019. Can Sydney do the same?”. Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-15.
59. ↑ Aitor Hernández-Morales (2025-08-02). “Helsinki just went a full year without a single traffic death”. Politico. Archived from the original on 2025-09-13.
60. ↑ Alex Greenwich (2018-03-07) [2017-03-06]. “Alexandria to Moore Park (Private Members’ Statement, 6 March 2017, Legislative Assembly, NSW Parliament)”.
61. ↑ “August 2018 Sydney City News” (PDF). City of Sydney. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-06-19.
62. ↑ ^{62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 62.4} Alexandria to Moore Park Stage 1 Submissions Report (PDF) (Report). Transport for NSW. April 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-10-14.
63. ↑ McCallum, Jake (3 June 2020). “WestConnex: motorists first look inside M8 tunnels, opening date revealed”. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 4 June 2020.
64. ↑ “Speed limits – Sydney Region – 28 November 2024”. Transport for NSW. 28 November 2024. Archived from the original on 2025-12-20. Retrieved 2026-03-18.
65. ↑ “Way: McEvoy Street (440882189)”. OpenStreetMap. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
66. ↑ “Way: Botany Road (252129991)”. OpenStreetMap. Retrieved 2026-10-06.
67. ↑ David Ballm, Director Network Operations (September 2026). Traffic Lights for Pedestrians – City of Sydney LGA as a case study in Urban Mobility Transformation. Signals NZ User Group (SNUG). p. 16. Operations – Divorce isn’t always Bad!
    Even in dense CBD networks with intersections only 50 metres apart, reducing LK values can allow corridors to operate independently and respond to local demand. This creates opportunities to prioritise pedestrians beyond peak periods, rather than optimising signals primarily for a few hours each day.
    “2026-09-17 SNUG-2026 Programme (2026-SNUG Workshop 2026 Wednesday 23rd – Friday 25th September 2026)” (PDF). snug.org.nz. Signals NZ User Group (SNUG). September 2026. p. 3. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-10-03. 14:45, 15:15, 30 min, Sydney CBD Urban Transformation, Dave Ballm
68. ↑ ^{68.0 68.1} Jake Coppinger (2026-03-04). “Better Streets Submission for Walking and Cycling Improvements between South Eveleigh and Waterloo Metro (Henderson Road)”. jakecoppinger.com.
69. ↑ ^{69.0 69.1 69.2 69.3} Ben Wood (2026-10-08). “Untitled LinkedIn post”. LinkedIn. When I first heard about this proposal I was also disappointed. Viewed purely as a bus improvement project, its hard to call this progress. But is that the right lens, or are there other needs it solves that we need to be cognisant of? I spoke to a few people familiar with this part of the network and the project, and looked at the data, including GTFS. It has challenged my initial assumptions, and reinforced how complex decisions about improving our network are.
70. ↑ ^{70.0 70.1} 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. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-05. Retrieved 2025-11-07.
71. ↑ Cattell Cooper (April 2021). “Botany Road Corridor – Transport and Traffic” (PDF). City of Sydney. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-10-29.
72. ↑ 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.
73. ↑ Redfern Waterloo Authority (February 2006). “Draft Redfern-Waterloo Built Environment Plan (Stage One)”. REDWatch. Archived from the original on 2025-04-05.
74. ↑ “Redfern Waterloo Authority Draft Employment and Enterprise Plan Submission by the City of Sydney” (PDF). City of Sydney. 2006-03-20. p. 6.
75. ↑ 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.
76. ↑ Hassell (July 2020). Pyrmont Penninsula Place Strategy (PDF) (Report). Volume II Strategic Framework) (Draft for public exhibition) Part B. p.34 (2.7 Direction 7). 014942. 5. Investigation of a new street-based public transport link (eg bus or light rail) along Harris Street, providing connectivity along the Innovation Corridor (from the Bays to Central/Redfern
77. ↑ Pyrmont-Ultimo Transport Plan May 2024 (PDF) (Report). Transport for NSW. May 2024. p.41 (PDF 47); §5.1.5. ISBN 978-1-922875-95-2. S29: Determine medium-term bus plan in the Precinct and investigate new bus routes within the Precinct, including services linking to the new Metro station. Potential routes include a rapid bus route to the Parramatta Road corridor via RPA Hospital and through Glebe and Forest Lodge along Bridge Road and Pyrmont Bridge Road and a rapid bus route connecting Pyrmont to Redfern and South Eveleigh via Harris Street. Investigate bus priority on Pyrmont Bridge Road and Harris Street for these future rapid bus routes
78. ↑ ^{78.0 78.1} “Botany Road and McEvoy Street (September 2026 community notification)” (PDF). Transport for NSW. September 2026. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-10-01. Note: The “September 2026 community notification (PDF, 1.74 MB)” (…2026-09.pdf), states the project team “would be happy to hear from the community with any questions”, and that the public may contact the team via projects@transport.nsw.gov.au. This notification, published publicly for the first time at “2026-09-01T15:00:32+1000″, states “Please contact us by Monday 28 September“. I do not accept this notification was widely available.
79. ↑ “Detailed Design of Botany Road and McEvoy Street Intersection Upgrade – RMS.23.0000139276.1817”. buy.nsw.gov.au. NSW Government. RMS.23.0000139276.1817. Archived from the original on 2026-03-12. Retrieved 2026-03-12.
80. ↑ “Easing Sydney’s Congestion”. transport.nsw.gov.au. Transport for NSW. 2026-04-01. Retrieved 2026-09-27.
81. ↑ ^{81.0 81.1} “Pinch Point Programs – Easing Sydney’s Congestion Program Office”. transport.nsw.gov.au. Transport for NSW. 2023-02-06. Retrieved 2026-09-27.
82. ↑ Minister for Roads (2025-11-28). “Wait less, walk safer: AI trial slashes risk at major pedestrian crossing by more than 30 per cent”. New South Wales Government. Archived from the original on 2025-12-05.
83. ↑ Donna Davis MP (2025-12-05). “Untitled Facebook post”. facebook. Archived from the original on 2025-12-05.
84. ↑ “Have Your Say – Proposed intersection improvements along the Great Western Highway at Pitt Street and Marsden Street, Parramatta” (PDF). Roads & Maritime NSW. August 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-05-20.
85. ↑ “Pitt Street to Marsden Street, Parramatta”. Transport for NSW. Archived from the original on 2024-04-25.
86. ↑ “Project update – Intersection improvements along the Great Western Highway at Pitt Street and Marsden Street, Parramatta” (PDF). Transport for NSW. November 2017. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2024-05-17.
87. ↑ “Great Western Highway at Pitt Street and Marsden Street, Parramatta” (PDF). Transport for NSW. July 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-12-05.
88. ↑ “Great Western Highway lane changes and T-Way bus stop relocation, Parramatta from Sunday 18 May 2025” (PDF). Transport for NSW. May 2025. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-05-15.
89. ↑ ^{89.0 89.1 89.2} Roy Wilson (Australian Centre for Commercial Mathematics); Gordon Farrelly (RMS); Christian Chong-White (RMS) (August 2014). Methods For Assessing Traffic Flow Improvement Using SCATS Data. AITPM. Archived from the original on 2026-04-19.
90. ↑ “Pinch Point Programs – Easing Sydney’s Congestion Program Office”. Transport for NSW. 2023-02-06.
91. ↑ ^{91.0 91.1} “Botany Road Subscription Form”. Transport for NSW. Retrieved 2026-10-03. Hello,
    Our consultation on this project has closed.
    Providing your details means that our engagement team can contact you with updates via email.
    Kind Regards,
    Botany Road Project Team
92. ↑ Brown, Aston; Bowring, Declan (2026-02-09). “Cyclists slam ‘nightmare’ shared path at new Sydney Fish Market”. ABC News. Archived from the original on 2026-02-08.
93. ↑ “Strategic Travel Model Standard Outputs”. Transport for NSW. 2012-02-01. To obtain a copy of the STM technical documents, please contact us at TPA@transport.nsw.gov.au
    Current version
    Strategic Travel Model Standard Outputs 2012
94. ↑ Declan Bowring (2023-09-23). “Better Intersections website gathers data on long pedestrian wait times in Sydney”. ABC News.
95. ↑ Andrew Botros (n.d.). “Why Sydney’s transport apps took years, not days”.
96. ↑ Maria Katsonis; Andrew Botros (2015-03-04). “Digital Government: A Primer and Professional Perspectives”. Australian Journal of Public Administration. 74 (1): 48. Year 2009 was challenging for the open data movement in New South Wales. RailCorp, a controlled entity of Transport for NSW (TfNSW, a statutory authority), threatened a number of software developers with legal action over breaches of Crown copyright when the developers used train timetable data from RailCorp’s public website in their own apps (Moses 2009a).
    RailCorp cited concerns over the accuracy of third-party timetable information, and stated that licences to use the timetable data were unavailable while RailCorp developed its own mobile development strategy (Braue 2009). No such strategy ensued. The software developers appealed to the premier of New South Wales directly, who brokered a trial data feed under strict contractual terms for the developers (Moses 2009b). Access to static timetables was granted, but the real-time locations of trains and buses were withheld.
97. ↑ ^{97.0 97.1} Elizabeth Farrelly (2023-05-20). “IT’S NOT ABOUT SUPPLY, STUPID”. Substack.
98. ↑ Heath Aston (2016-12-18). “Raw sewage released near Bondi as decades of government dithering runs on”. Sydney Morning Herald. There has also been concern that an upgraded sewerage system could trigger a demand for denser development in those exclusive suburbs. … If the decrepit system was plugged into Bondi’s deep ocean outfall, the theory went, Woollahra and Waverley councils could be ordered to allow higher, denser development in suburbs where most houses still had gardens and a backyard. In other words, the discharge of four million litres of raw effluent from a cliff in their neighbourhood had a silver lining for those residents not wanting to see change.
99. ↑ Michael McGowan (2023-12-11). “Minister reveals why Sydney’s eastern suburbs were spared housing density push”. Sydney Morning Herald. There are parts of Sydney’s east that are currently limited in additional growth because of limited sewer and water infrastructure. Edgecliff as just one example is one of those.
100. ↑ …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.
101. ↑ 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 (PDF). Retrieved 2026-03-03. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
102. ↑ SCT Consultants (2026-07-03). Edgecliff-Woollahra Precinct State-led Rezoning Traffic and transport review – Scenario 3 (rev 1.0) (PDF) (Report). Woollahra Council. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2026-09-08.
103. ↑ ^{103.0 103.1} Presenter Elizabeth Farrelly; guests Andrew Andersons, Philip Thalis, Sarah Dixson (2026-09-24). “Woollahra Rezoning Fiasco?”. The Sydneyist. Sydney. Eastside Radio 89.7FM. Retrieved 2026-09-26.
104. ↑ ^{104.0 104.1 104.2 104.3} Edgecliff-Woollahra State-led Rezoning Transport Management and Accessibility Plan (PDF) (Report). Transport for NSW. August 2026.
105. ↑ Manish Anand. “Release – “HCLTech and Transport for NSW to explore AI-powered traffic insights for India”“ (PDF). hcltech.com. Letter to National Stock Exchange of India.
106. ↑ “NSW pushes for more trade and investment with India” (Press release). NSW Government. 2026-09-01. Earlier, the Premier and Treasurer witnessed the signing of an agreement between Transport for NSW’s Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) and HCLTech to explore using AI to make NSW-developed traffic technology easier to use across India’s diverse language markets. SCATS is already used around the world and the partnership creates an opportunity to sell more NSW-owned technology into India, generating revenue that can be reinvested in transport back home.
107. ↑ Novin Wijesundara (2026-10-03). “Last week I presented at SNUG (Signals New Zealand User Group) to councils and traffic authorities from across New Zealand, on Phoenix, the Agentic AI system we’re building within SCATS…” LinkedIn. Archived from the original on 2026-10-03. Additional archives: archive.today.
     “Last week I presented at SNUG (Signals New Zealand User Group) to councils and traffic authorities from across New Zealand, on Phoenix, the Agentic AI system we’re building within SCATS (Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System) at Transport for NSW.
     Phoenix turns natural language into SQL, so traffic engineers, councils and network operations officers can ask questions of the traffic network in natural language and get answers in seconds, with no manual querying required.
     This gives government agencies a clearer view of their road network, helping them optimise signalised intersections and corridors, plan infrastructure and improve safety of all road users.”
108. ↑ Novin Wijesundara (2026-09-24). Unified data model, APIs and AI agents – Turning SCATS data into an asset anyone can use (SCATS Phoenix Project). Wellington: Signals NZ User Group (SNUG). p. 4 §speaker notes. Frame it as ‘four design choices we made’. WHAT and WHY, not HOW. Example line:
     ‘We deliberately kept it open and cloud-agnostic — because we’re building a product we can put anywhere our clients need it.’
     Plant the commercial seed here: ‘single point of access’ is the thing we can sell.
     “2026-09-17 SNUG-2026 Programme (2026-SNUG Workshop 2026 Wednesday 23rd – Friday 25th September 2026)” (PDF). snug.org.nz. Signals NZ User Group (SNUG). September 2026. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-10-03. 11:25, 15 min SCATS Presentation – Unified Data Model, APIs & AI Agents – Turning SCATS into an asset anyone can use, Novin Wijesundara
109. ↑ Yvonne Poon; Josephine Roper; Jamie Van Geldermalsen; Tegan Mitchell. “Putting our best foot forward – A checklist for walkable density” (PDF). Committee for Sydney. p. 6. If these factors aren’t in place, densification is the next once-in-a-generation chance to retrofit these – with the ability to reshape street patterns, create new through-block links and change land-use. {{cite web}}: Missing |author4= (help); More than one of |author1= and |author= specified (help)
110. ↑ Minister for Roads. “The magnificent seven: Plan for widening of the seven key road arteries in Sydney’s expanding south west revealed” (Press release). NSW Government. The expanded South West Sydney Roads – Planning Project aims to ease traffic congestion, improve road safety, and support ongoing housing and job growth in Sydney’s Greater Macarthur and South West regions.
     Business cases and planning investigations will be prepared for the seven priority corridors, which together comprise some 76.5 km of roads that carry more than 100,000 vehicles daily.
111. ↑ Design for living – post-war. Cinesound. 1946. Cinesound Review No. 672.
112. ↑ Tom Zubrycki, Margaret Barry (1981). Waterloo. We didn’t plan and we got bottlenecks of traffic congestion … Here’s what we could do now. Plan satellite towns on the fringe of the big ones. Sydney for instance.
113. ↑ “State Environmental Planning Policy Amendment (Concurrences and Consultations) 2026 under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979” (PDF). Department of Planning, Housing and Infrastructure. 2026-06-19. pp. 35, 44, 46. Section 5.14 Matters for consideration – Omit “, the requirements of TfNSW concerning” from section 5.14(b). … Section 2.122(3) – Omit “TfNSW” wherever occurring. Insert instead “Development Coordination Authority”. … Schedule 3 Traffic-generating development to be referred to TfNSW—Chapter 2 – Omit the schedule.
114. ↑ ^{114.0 114.1 114.2 114.3} “Transport Infrastructure Industry Portal”. NSW Government. July 2026. Retrieved 2026-09-27. “State Budget pipeline now live: minor projects added for first time”. industry.transport.nsw.gov.au. NSW Government. 2026-07-23. Retrieved 2026-09-27. Projects added to the pipeline (under $20m) – McEvoy Street and Botany Road, Waterloo Intersection Improvements
115. ↑ Main Road Development Plan for Sydney Metropolis and County of Cumberland – Part 1 Investigations Relating to the Present and Future Extent and Pattern of the Metropolis. Department of Main Roads NSW. 1940.
116. ↑ De Leuw Cather (August 1961). Report on Geometric Design Study: Sydney Area Expressways.
117. ↑ ^{117.0 117.1 117.2} Sydney Area Transportation Study – Volume 3 – Passenger Transport Systems. 1974. Archived from the original on 2024-04-26.
118. ↑ South Sydney Municipal traffic study: final report. Pak-Poy & Kneebone Consulting Group. 1981.
119. ↑ ^{119.0 119.1} MacDonald Wagner (February 1987). Pyrmont-Alexandria Traffic Management Proposal – Environmental Impact Statement. Macdonald Wagner for Department of Main Roads. ISBN 0730545490.
120. ↑ ^{120.0 120.1} South Sydney Committee of the Australian Assistance Plan (April 1981). Traffic and Transport in South Sydney.
121. ↑ “GREEN SQUARE TOWN CENTRE DRAFT MASTERPLAN AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN AND RELATED MATTERS – INFORMATION REPORT” (PDF). City of Sydney. 2004-11-05. GSTC2.DOC005.
122. ↑ Matt O’Sullivan (2016-12-06). “WestConnex spawns major upgrade to congested road corridor in inner Sydney”. The Sydney Morning Herald.
123. ↑ Matt O’Sullivan (2019-07-08). “Sydney CBD bypass plans to be scaled back to allay residents’ concerns”. Sydney Morning Herald.
124. ↑ David Levinson (2018-11-13). “Traffic connector, community disconnector: increased traffic and pedestrians don’t mix”. Foreground. Archived from the original on 12 March 2026.
125. ↑ “Botany Road”. yoursay.transport.nsw.gov.au. Transport for NSW. 2026-09-09. Retrieved 2026-09-25. Page published: 09 Sep 2026, 12:46 PM
126. ↑ “Botany Road and McEvoy Street intersection and bus corridor improvements”. Transport for NSW. 2026-09-14. Archived from the original on 2026-09-14. Retrieved 2026-09-14.
127. ↑ “botany-rd-and-mcevoy-st-map.jpeg”. Transport for NSW. Archived from the original on 2026-09-14.

The post Unpublished WestConnex zombie project docs demand ministerial intervention first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

You read that right – just yesterday^[a] TfNSW announced a proposal^[3] to widen an inner Sydney road and demolish footpaths and trees (map^[4]). In the year 2026. We desperately need more homes, we need more bus lanes, we need to ‘fix’ traffic – but this should be done by reallocating road space – per TfNSW’s great policy. The TfNSW fever dream of ”just one more lane” of urban road capacity will induce more vehicles, and will not ‘fix’ traffic.^[5]

Some historical context: this is the intersection of both the Southern Arterial Route (~13,000 words, 168 references) and the Alexandria to Moore Park Project (~3,500 words, 80 references).^[b] Let’s not pretend this is about buses – this is a smokescreen for a classic road widening project. The southbound AM peak bus lane is proposed precisely because that’s when there’s less southbound car traffic – because most folks are heading into the city for work. The word for this, is misdirection.

The project page includes a “Project documents” heading yet TfNSW couldn’t find any documents to put there. Would you get away with spending $22 million of taxpayer money without providing a decent reason? The time for attributing to stupidity is long gone: $22 million to build more lanes without a PM peak bus lane out of the CBD – is malice.

Where’s the evidence? Perhaps some bus delay data? Modelling of a bus lane all the way from that pedestrian crossing TfNSW ripped out at Harris St and Pyrmont Bridge Road^[7][8][c][d] all the way down to Green Square – or am I dreaming? Imagine TfNSW openly releasing signal phasing, let alone vehicle volumes – the stuff of fantasy! Does anyone seriously believe the point of spending $22m is an AM peak-only bus lane away from the CBD? Is suffixing “…and bus corridor improvements” on a project really going to sneak this past the Ministers? This wouldn’t be the first time.^{[12][13][14][15][16]}

What transport study found “57 vehicles would be spread across the alternative routes during the AM peak hour…“^[3][e] I’ve made an informal^[17] request to TfNSW for any transport studies or impact assessments – given a GIPA^[f] wouldn’t arrive in time before the ‘feedback’ deadline. Join my blog mailing list if you want those cold hard PDFs as soon as I get them.

Make no mistake; this is a horrifying WestConnex project. ‘Improving’ this intersection was “Major design feature 4” in the November 2019 Alexandria to Moore Park Stage 1 REF^{[19]: 6 : 44 (PDF 62)}, with the aim of “Improving intersection capacity”^[19]: 5 (for cars). A2MP Stage 1 was carried out under WestConnex planning condition E40 b iii^[g] and A2MP Stage 1 sits under the TfNSW Network Integrations team.^{[25]: 39 (PDF 41)} Worse than a WestConnex project, the Government offloaded soaring spending onto the TfNSW Network Integration Program (the taxpayer)^[h] – according to none other than the NSW Audit office in their scathing assessment.^[26] Integration meaning getting cars in and out of WestConnex; this team was previously the WestConnex Enabling works.^{[26]: p. 12 (PDF 16)} Who exactly is behind the now-dead WD weave^{[25]: 36 (PDF 38)} and this project? My call out to Journalists: it seems that not even a painful reorg can fix this cyclic pattern – start digging here.

Where are we talking about? 400 metres from the Waterloo Metro station, one block from Waterloo renewal project and spitting distance from high density Green Square.^[i] Only a dinosaur of a road engineer would seriously believe adding more car lanes here is the best way to support 10,000 homes.^[31]

The Southern Arterial has already left a scar through Redfern / Waterloo. Do we really need to deepen the wound?

TfNSW wrote they considered alternatives to a right turn ban – by demolishing private houses and felling even more trees.^{[3]: §Right turn removal [j][k]} This reminds me of the 1980s argument against alternatives for the Southern Arterial threatening housing destruction.^{[34]: p. 107 [l]} Presenting diabolical alternatives to rationalise action is some Department of Main Roads-era rubbish.

Ron Hoenig supported this ‘upgrade’ when it got on the AIF books in 2023, claiming increasing this intersection capacity (for cars) would ease traffic induced by WestConnex (“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.”^[35]). One more lane will fix it! It’s a mystery why he supports this now, given he opposed the Alexandria to Moore Park project (A2MP) in the past^[36][37] – along with Matt Thistlethwaite^[38], Alex Greenwich^[39][40][41], Marjorie O’Neill^[42], Jenny Leong^[40], “mobilised” councillors across Randwick, Waverley and Woollahra^[36], Clover Moore^[36], and News Corp.^[38][36][43]

It seems TfNSW picked good timing. The CEO of the Kinchela Boys Home Aboriginal Corporation, at the very corner of this project is apparently away until next week, and the staff there hadn’t heard of this (nor any business owners I chatted to, except the newsagent).^[44] With only 2 weeks of “feedback” – the word “consultation” doesn’t appear once on the project page^[3] feedback form^[45] or on the project timeline – it seems this project is already approved and a fait accompli.

And why would it need consultation or approval anyway? A2MP Stage 1 was approved and is still “in progress” as of yesterday.^[46] While A2MP plans were “scaled back” in 2019^[47][48], the December 2016^[49] and June 2017 Community Updates^[50] remain the “Ultimate Concept Design”, for which the “staged process will now allow additional review”.^{[51]: 82 (PDF 91)} There’s no sign TfNSW is giving up road widening further east (outside the childcare centre^[52]), and potentially private property demolition. Remember when Graham had to stop TfNSW from demolishing 200 homes on Parramatta Road just 2 years ago?^[53]

What do we have to do to stop TfNSW continuing with these insane urban road widening projects? This corridor has been on the books for at least half a century (perhaps originating from the mythical unreleased 1940 MRDP Part 1^{[54][55][56]: 2 [57][58][59][m]} and De Leuw Cather from August 1961^[66][n]). The DMR has a long memory (1986^[o]), but Wikipedia has a longer one. How do those dinosaurs in the “vehicle-focused” “clan”^[68] outlive every TfNSW reorg? I don’t want to be consulted; I want the department to follow their own damn (good) policy.

Is the word reallocation that hard to comprehend? Do we really need another TfNSW strategy^[69] to tell themselves what to do^[p] Or another Grattan^[71] or NSW Productivity Commission report^[72]? Ministers, anyone pushing this agenda are playing you for fools.

Policy thinktanks, urbanist advocacy organisations, local resident and community groups, supply-side reformers: I am calling on you to kill this road widening project for good. Increasing private vehicle capacity – “providing a more efficient connection for drivers travelling through the area.”^{[3]: §Right turn removal [q]} – through car-focused modelling is not the way to service more housing.^[73] If a bus lane is needed (it is) – paint the damn lane red and save the $22 million (~$20k/metre^[4]).^[r] We need “dedicated bus lanes” for “bus priority”^[75] and “active transport links”^[75][76][77]

There’s a consultation feedback form, but once you’ve angrily filled that out – let the Ministers responsible know how you feel: John Graham and Jenny Aitchison.

Note: if you spot any errors, please let me know – I whipped up this blog post on the afternoon/evening of 2026-09-14. I include quotes and page numbers (including PDF page numbers) for your verifiability.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Gone by next year. Photographed 2026-09-14.

One more lane will fix it. Looking north along Botany Road at McEvoy Street. Photographed 2026-09-14.

Notes

References

The post Just one more lane: TfNSW revives WestConnex zombie Alexandria to Moore Park road project 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.

I built it to quickly compare and contrast Australian cities with their international counterparts. Clicking on any statistic opens an Overpass Turbo query displaying the relevant data.

I previously wrote a blog post on turn-by-turn bicycle navigation apps that use this data at The Best Apps for Bicycle Directions (2020).

Architecture

The website is a simple frontend React Typescript app, however the data is statically compiled into a large JSON blob.

Generating the JSON blob requires thousands of Overpass Turbo requests. These requests are cached at build time on the filesystem using a hash of the query string as a key. This currently requires clearing the cache to completely regenerate data to fetch new updates from OpenStreetMap. When generating data for Australian councils I use a self-hosted Overpass server (also improving speed dramatically), while using overpass-api.de for the few international examples.

I could achieve a faster first paint by async loading this JSON blob at runtime but I haven’t yet implemented this.

Population counts are sourced from Wikidata (and pregenerated in the JSON blob) based on the wikidata tag on OpenStreetMap relations.

When area names have a non-english name (identified by a name:en tag present), both English and local names are displayed.

Overpass queries

Overpass queries are written in https://github.com/jakecoppinger/australian-cycleway-stats/blob/main/static-backend/src/utils/overpass-queries.ts and are somewhat complex. They contain some “opinionated” tradeoffs (informed by policy) in what roads are considered safe (<= 30kmh) and what is considered a dedicated and shared cycle path. Improvements or questions are welcome!

The post Which Australian councils are building the most cycleways? first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

A street is defined as ‘contraflow’ or two-way for cyclists (and in some cases pedestrians) where people on bikes (or on foot) are legally able to travel in both directions on a street designated a one-way for motor vehicles. Suitable streets typically have low traffic volumes and low speeds, with one (or no lanes) marked, sufficient width and may already be designated as a shared zone (the Australian term for a living street).

In 2014, the state agency Transport for NSW issued a technical direction permitting contraflow bicycle travel on suitable streets if approved signs and markings are allowed. When provided on suitable roads, these simple street treatments create safe new routes for cyclists with an incredible value for taxpayer funds.

The TfNSW Technical Direction (TTD 2014/002) describes contraflow cycling facilities as “a cost-effective treatment that enhances the cycling experience by improving the permeability of neighbourhoods and by reducing bicycle trip lengths”.

This is by no means an argument against more substantial investment in separated cycleways. The Queensland Government found cycling infrastructure has a 5 to 1 return on investment, and the UK Government found with beneft-to-cost ratios in the in the range of 5:1 to 19:1 – some as high as 35.5 to 1 (that is, a return on investment of up to 3550%). These benefits include improved public health, reduced emissions, reduced traffic, and reduction in expensive taxpayer funded road maintenance (road wear is proportional to the 4th power of axle weight). We can’t afford not to invest in dedicated cycling infrastructure.

New contraflow cycling in the City of Sydney

The City of Sydney has recently approved 159 suitable streets across 24 suburbs, which will greatly improve the network of legal cycling routes in inner city Sydney. The implementation will proceed as soon as budget and works capacity allows.

This blog post is a proposal of additional streets which may be suitable for basic contraflow cycling infrastructure that the council could install in future, with a focus on the utility of OpenStreetMap for researching potential streets.

What makes a safe contraflow street?

Most streets can become contraflow streets with the right infrastructure (a separated cycleway), but this blog post focuses the extremely cost efficient cases where they are feasible with only a sign and/or painted markings.

The TfNSW technical direction specifies:

Contra-flow bicycle facilities should be assessed as a potential treatment on all local low speed, low volume one-way streets, including shared zones.

Ideally, all contra-flow bicycle movements will be delineated by a bicycle lane. A bicycle lane must be installed in locations where:

• Sight distances are restricted due to bends in the road or other features.
• Motor traffic volumes or speeds present a safety risk.
• Bicycle traffic volumes or speeds present a safety risk.
• The gradient and/or other road geometry increase the risk of collisions or unsafe driving or riding behaviours.
• The number or location of driveways present a safety risk.

Note: The NSW Road Rules prohibit parking in signposted bicycle lanes.

If the road space is too narrow to permit a marked bicycle lane and there is good sight distance, motor traffic volumes and speeds are low and the road geometry does not present an unacceptable safety risk, the contra- flow movement can be provided by signage alone.

TTD 2014/002 Signposting for contra-flow bicycle facilities

With this in mind, OpenStreetMap does not include traffic volumes, however by filtering out multi lane roads, roads with high speed limits and roads that are designated as important to the motorway network we can remove from our query most high volume roads and identify further potential candidates for contraflow cycling facilities.

Streets that currently allow contraflow cycling

Below is a map of current streets that permit contraflow cycling. All maps are generated just for you as you load this page – so it’s always up to date.

I make use of open source OpenStreetMap (OSM) data which is a rich data source of cycling and road infrastructure. OSM is collaborative – if you notice any errors you can edit the map, and they will show up here. The dataset is heavily used (and improved) by commercial entities including Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, TomTom, Uber, Strava, Citymapper and government entities such as the Transport for NSW Trip Planner and the Victorian Department of Transport and Planning (who recently made the strategic decision to use OSM as their foundational mapping data source).

A technical note: these maps are using Overpass Ultra – a brilliant, open source, vector map powered OpenStreetMap query engine by Daniel Schep (on Mastodon), inspired by Overpass Turbo. Overpass Turbo shows dots for small details by default which are not possible to disable in a shared map.

You can click on highlighted streets to view more data, such as:

• name
• lane count
• road classification
• whether it’s a shared zone / living street

View/edit query

(note: some of the map embeds are currently broken, please follow the “View/edit query” links)

Previously approved but not yet built contraflow streets

Below is a map of streets where the contraflow infrastructure (signs and/or road markings) is approved but under construction, or not yet built (previously approved). I have mapped them on OSM with oneway:bicycle=construction.

View/edit query

Potential future contraflow streets

Below is an automated query of streets that are potential contraflow street candidates. As the data is automated there may be streets not suitable, such as circular one-way service roads. The intention of this queried data is to provide a helpful starting point, from which to filter for potential candidates, through use of the easily accessible, open source data. You can run the query yourself here and modify it if desired. See the wiki for the available OSM tags relevant to bicycles to filter by.

You can read the full query on which roads are shown in the appendix below.

View/edit query

A proposal of streets that may be suitable contraflow streets

These are a non-exhaustive manual selection of streets from the above query (in no particular order). Some I have taken width measurements using Lidar on an iPhone.

I’ve excluded lanes that appear to be very narrow and lanes where an alternative is very close (eg. William Ln & Corfu St).

There may be errors or other reasons they aren’t suitable – any feedback or corrections is welcome in the comments below!

Other notes

• Devonshire St would be very useful, but a paint & sign treatment likely not sufficient
• There are plenty of one way segments on the pedestrianised George St which would be perfect for cycling – the cycling situation on George St likely needs it’s own blog post

Appendix

More maps

Contraflow permitting streets globally

Potential future contraflow streets globally

All the Overpass queries!

Query: CSV of candidates of contraflow lanes

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1ytu

Note:

• See the OSM Wiki for what tags mean
• This is an automated query of open source data – there may be errors

Query: Current streets allowing bicycle contraflow

[out:json];
(
  // Relation 1251066 is COS boundary:
  // https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1251066
  rel(1251066);map_to_area->.region;
  way(area.region)["highway"]
  ["oneway:bicycle"="no"]->.ways;
);
.ways out geom;

Query: Streets that CoS will turn into contraflow

[out:json];
(
  // Relation 1251066 is COS boundary:
  // https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1251066
  rel(1251066);map_to_area->.region;
  way(area.region)["highway"]
  ["oneway:bicycle"="construction"]->.ways;
);
.ways out geom;

Query: Potential future contraflow streets

[out:json][timeout:25];
(
  // Relation 1251066 is COS boundary:
  // https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1251066
  rel(1251066);map_to_area->.region;
  
  // Select roads
  way(area.region)["highway"]
  
  // Only roads which are marked one way,
  // and don't allow bicycle contraflow
  ["oneway"="yes"]
  ["oneway:bicycle"!="no"]
  
  // Exclude already approved contraflow lanes
  ["oneway:bicycle"!="construction"]
  
  // Excluded roads under construction
  ["highway"!="construction"]
  
  // Excluded proposed roads
  ["highway"!="proposed"]

  // Exclude driveways
  ["service"!="driveway"]
  
  // Don't include roads that are bidirectional,
  // but are separated (and appear to be one way)
  ["dual_carriageway"!="yes"]
  
  // Don't include if a cycleway is already mapped as separate
  ["cycleway"!="separate"]
  ["cycleway:left"!="separate"]
  ["cycleway:right"!="separate"]
  
  // Don't include if a cycleway already present
  ["highway"!="cycleway"]
  
  // If a road is customers only it's likely
  // in a parking lot
  ["access"!="customers"]
  
  // Don't include roads where public access not allowed
  ["access"!="no"]
  
  // Don't include link roads (on ramps/slip roads)
  ["highway"!="motorway_link"]
  ["highway"!="primary_link"]
  ["highway"!="secondary_link"]
  ["highway"!="tertiary_link"]
  
  // Don't include major roads
  ["highway"!="primary"]
  ["highway"!="secondary"]
  
  
  ["lanes"!=2]
  ["lanes"!=3]
  ["lanes"!=4]
  ["lanes"!=5]
  ["lanes"!=6]
  
  ["access"!="private"]
  
  // Don't consider parking isles
  ["service"!="parking_aisle"]
  
  
  

  ->.ways;
);

.ways out geom;

Query: All streets with bicycle contraflow allowed, including outside City of Sydney council

[out:json][timeout:25];
(
  way["highway"]
 
  ["oneway:bicycle"="no"]
  
  ({{bbox}});
);
out body;
>;
out skel qt;

Other useful data

Ethan’s Sydney Bike Map

One of the best OpenStreetMap powered maps of cycling infrastrure, including proposed and under construction paths: https://sydneybikemap.ethan.link/

Possible further work

• Categorising sightlines of road segments computationally to narrow down the list of possible candidates
• Creating an Overpass Turbo query of manual candidates

The post Contraflow streets in the City of Sydney first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

This blog post provides an overview of traffic signal operation in Sydney (focusing on the inner city), based on technical documentation, conversations with government & industry experts and data I’ve collected after building Better Intersections.

Traffic signals are quite literally at the intersection of our urban spaces and transport policy. They have a huge impact on city life, pedestrian safety, and the uptake of active transport like walking and cycling. Through the brilliant Movement & Place framework, Transport for NSW has a stated goal of increasing walking and cycling trips and reducing pedestrian wait times at intersections.

Currently there is no open data on traffic light timing programming or timing in Sydney or NSW. Timing programming in a proprietary format can be purchased for AU$200 per intersection with a restrictive license that does not guarantee advocacy organisations would not be faced with legal action. Meanwhile, WA Main Roads publishes monthly exports of past actual cycle time phases in GeoParquet format, and Victoria publishes all their operational sheets under an open CC BY 4.0 license, including > ~10 PDF pages (or HTML sheets) of documentation per intersection (but still don’t include nominal cycle time).

I hope this article demonstrates why signal data should be as public as a train network timetable – and subject to the same public scrutiny and debate as one (even though complex trade-offs are involved). It’s long and dry, but should be a helpful resource for others looking to write more detailed or opinionated analyses.

Note: I am not a trained traffic engineer; my background is computer science and I work as a software engineer. This analysis is a side project. Please let me know of any mistakes, corrections or improvements in the comments below (or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com) and I will update if incorrect.

Table of contents

Maps

Automated pedestrian signals

Above: Map of automated pedestrian signals in Sydney’s CBD, ref GS22402_V006_17JAN23 (Source: TfNSW, supplied. Published with permission.)

In the blue area some major roads (state roads) have the automatic pedestrian signal feature disabled. These exact locations are publicly unknown. 

Earlier automatic signal maps are published as:

• GS22402_V004_15DEC22: https://transportnsw.info/document/6231/gs_2402_automated_pedestrian_crossings_map_v004_15dec22.pdf
• SCO_0573 / 002/ 23MAR20: https://transportnsw.info/document/4897/sydney-cbd-pyrmont-pedestrian-access-automation-map_23mar20.pdf

Above: Map of CBD signal phasing times, 2018 (Source: TfNSW, supplied. Published with permission). Filename CCO_0604_SYDNEY CBD BRIDGE ST TO GOULBURN ST PED EVAL MAP_05APR18_V005.

This map has not previously been publicly available. The above map shows the state of the city in April 2018. The “Study area” border is still a broadly accurate border of the 90 seconds cycle area, with minor changes at the edges (also not publicly available). A number of years ago (I don’t know exactly when) the cycle time was 120 seconds, which had been reduced to 110 seconds.

Some of these intersections (10 or 15) sometimes runs 45 seconds in off peaks. These appear to be intersections with more people, but there is no guidance on how these were selected.

• Map of traffic signals with countdown timers in OpenStreetMap (needs some work, let me know if you know of others): https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1wVx
• Map of scramble crossings in OpenStreetMap (needs some work, let me know if you know of others) https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1wAk

Traffic light cycle times

Why do traffic light cycle times matter?

Walking and cycling are more attractive when you don’t have to wait for minutes at a traffic light. When pedestrians have to wait more than 30 seconds they are more likely to cross on a red light. (Martin, A., 2006. Factors influencing pedestrian safety: a literature review (No. PPR241). Wokingham, Berks: TRL (Transport for London). Longer light cycle times increase car throughput and increase vehicle speeds at the expense of pedestrian & cyclist amenity.

Sydney is an important study location as it is the birthplace and development location of the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (abbreviated SCATS). This traffic management system includes an algorithm that optimises traffic throughput at signals, but it can only measure vehicle volume on the road. I have been told it has been used in Shanghai to measure bicycle volumes to calculate phase times for cyclists, but am unable to verify this.

SCATS does not count people on the footpath, and the crossing phase is only “called” by either a push button or by being automated. It currently does not support a non-binary pedestrian presence – innovative solutions like LiDAR or computer vision need to count pedestrians and then activate a (boolean) sensor value. It is unclear whether in-progress upgrades to SCATS will provide any functionality to measure or prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. Press releases mention prioritisation but previous work to add more interfaces to SCATS has not been widely released (see Future Signal Development section).

The NSW Government sells the system commercially to 30 countries and 200 cities around the world by the NSW Government. We are quite literally exporting our biases (in technical respects like limited pedestrian counting functionality – maximum cycle time and other choices are made by the local operator).

The Transport for NSW (TfNSW) technical guide, “Traffic Signal Design Guide: Section 7 Phasing and Signal Group Display Sequence” (2016) states one of the design objectives of choice of phasing should be to minimise the cycle time (pg 5).

Sydney lags behind best practice signal timing compared to London, Copenhagen and the USA

The Sydney CBD has a 90 second SCATS maximum cycle time which is generally considered short by Australian standards. The CBD cycle time was reduced from 110 seconds to 90 seconds on the 7th of January 2018 (CoS motion 2018-08-17). This achievement was noted in the 2020 report by Gehl Architects 2020:

The reduction in waiting times has improved pedestrian amenity, however further improvements can be made.
…
Transport NSW have reduced pedestrian signal cycle time from 110 seconds to 90 seconds enabling more frequent crossing opportunities for pedestrians.

Further changes will be explored after light rail becomes operational to ascertain further efficiencies.

“Public Space & Public Life Study 2020” Gehl Architects, page 142

TfNSW & the RMS undertook monitoring for a three month period to assess impacts across the network (“Look up: Keeping pedestrians safe, June 2019, NRMA, PDF page 8, in turn referencing “Transport for NSW (2019). Personal correspondence.”) It was reduced from 120 seconds to 110 seconds a few years prior (I do not know when).

Copenhagen has a 70 second cycle time as the maximum, and high pedestrian usage areas have cycles of 48-60 seconds. Gehl Architect’s state “Jaywalking is not a common phenomena in Copenhagen as traffic lights accommodate for reasonable waiting times for pedestrians” (Gehl Architects, Public spaces & public life: Sydney 2007 (part 1), page 142).

The London Cycling Design Standards states “junctions with pedestrian crossing facilities, signal cycle times should only exceptionally* be longer than 90 seconds.” *(emphasis mine).

The 2018 transport for London walking action plan states:

TfL has responsibility for all London’s traffic signals, undertaking annual timing reviews at 1,200 signal junctions and crossings. In 2017, TfL reduced the wait times for people walking at 200 crossing locations close to schools, hospitals and transport hubs (see Figure 8). From 2018 onwards, this will be an objective for all signal timing reviews and, for the first time, ‘pedestrian time saved’ will be measured alongside other performance metrics.

Of the 200 reviewed crossings to date, 94 per cent now run a cycle time of less than one minute, meaning that if a person walking was to arrive just as the red signal for pedestrians came on and traffic was given a green light, they would only wait around 40 seconds or less to cross.

Chapter 6 – Building and managing streets, “Walking action plan – Making London the world’s most walkable city”, Transport for London, July 2018 (PDF page 29)

The Urban Street Design Guide by the (USA) National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends cycle times of 60-90 seconds in urban areas.

See traffic signal cycle times around the world on Better Intersections, and see graphs and charts at betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/analysis.

Open source data collected with Better Intersections

I previously wrote a blog post on a website I built to crowd-source the collection of pedestrian traffic light timings: https://jakecoppinger.com/2023/06/mapping-pedestrian-traffic-light-timing-in-sydney-australia/

The data is licensed ODbL (for you, OpenStreetMap contributors!) and the website is open source too.

It has collected over 800 data points, each with measurements on green duration, flashing red duration, solid red duration, and notes such as whether the crossing is protected or has a countdown timer. Community groups including WalkSydney have expressed interest in involving their members in sourcing measurements.

Max Bo, a software engineer at Canva, has also begun some preliminary analysis of the data using the informational visualisation platform Observable: https://observablehq.com/@mjbo/better-intersections-sydney-traffic-light-timings

Who sets signal cycle times in Sydney?

In NSW the state transport department (TfNSW) builds, maintains, programs and operates all traffic signals. This is the case even on local roads (90% of all roads), where the local council is the authority.

TfNSW Operations has the very challenging task of designing and operating the timing of the network, with many stakeholders and a steady flow of complaints.

At present I understand that there is not a perceived need for the data to be published, however it is not considered to be confidential (see the below section TfNSW reasoning against release of signal timing data in NSW). On the contrary I would like to note the extremely restrictive license conditions upon purchase of traffic data detailed below. From what I can understand, one of the main reasons why the data has not been freely published is that the data export is a manual process. However, no data on minimum or maximum green times is published in NSW, though Victoria (who also use SCATS for their traffic lights) publishes all their operational sheets under an open CC BY 4.0 license.

Many transport advocacy groups, such as WalkSydney and BicycleNSW have attempted to source this data for a number of years for advocacy purposes to further understand how to better support vulnerable road users, but to date have not gained access. The restrictive license on data sourced from the TfNSW Traffic Signal Portal does not make it clear if any use of the data for advocacy purposes would result in legal action by the state.

In the City of Sydney (the CBD) the TfNSW operations team will know in little time if gridlock occurs, either from stakeholders or an extensive network of remotely controlled pan/tilt traffic video cameras (though they’re likely too busy to be watching such feeds unless an issue presents). They have to manage the traffic volume entering the CBD grid from motorway off ramps to prevent the queuing of cars on motorways.

Whilst many cities are demolishing their urban motorways, the recent WestConnex urban motorway project was recently constructed under a public-private partnership between the NSW State Government and Transurban. Transurban is a publicly listed company that after considerable privatisation, has majority ownership of 95 of the 99 kilometres of Sydney’s toll roads.

A given intersection will have a number of phases programmed into SCATS. A phase is a particular movement at an intersection (such as cars green in one direction and red for the other direction).

Note the phases on the left hand side of the SCATS software.

For a deep dive on the SCATS software, see “The New Generation SCATS 6”: https://www.aldridgetrafficcontrollers.com.au/ArticleDocuments/230/Introduction_To_New_Generation_Scats_6_5.pdf.aspx

TfNSW does not currently have a policy on cycle times

Transport for NSW’s Traffic Signal Operation document does not provide specific guidelines on cycle times and only focuses on safety critical timings. This means they do not currently have public guidelines for traffic signal cycle times.

However, “method 3”, page 7 of the Technical Direction on Traffic Modelling (https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/ttd_2018-002.pdf) states

Method 3 (for new signals)
Assume a typical phase configuration and a cycle time of 140 sec (longer or shorter than 140 sec times may be used when accepted by RMS) and calculate phase times using traffic signals software such as SIDRA, LinSig, TRANSYT, etc. Then set initial maximum green times of all phases in the same way as in Method 1.

https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/ttd_2018-002.pdf

This appears to be a statement of an internal policy, but note the words “unless accepted by RMS” (the predecessor to TfNSW).

The TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy provides strategic advice but does not provide any guidelines for cycle times. It specifies the equitable allocation of of temporal and spatial space must consider walking first:

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. (emphasis mine) 

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 RUSAP, page 2

Although there is no policy or commitment to lower cycle times and pedestrian waiting times, it is apparent the lower cycle times are situated in areas of high pedestrian activity.

Note that for coordination, a common cycle time must be used, so generally, intersections in a network or along an arterial road need to have the same minimum and maximum.

I have been told SCATS has a feature of multiple minimum cycle times which are chosen based on the degree of saturation (DS). Switching between such minimums can result in a large drop in cycle time relatively quickly.

How long do pedestrians get to cross the road?

Length of green light

The length of the green pedestrian signal at traffic lights is calculated by summing a minimum value, plus a constant amount predetermined by how many people will cross at the intersection (in theory).

The NSW standard is for a minimum 6 second green light, and then an extra 2 seconds for each additional rank (row of people) above 3. This presumes that 6 seconds is enough to clear 3 rows of people from the adjacent footpath.

This NSW operational theory falls down in the CBD when there are large volumes of people.

Although not formalised the operations team are constantly reviewing intersections in the CBD especially for pedestrians. Furthermore, for major projects such as Sydney Metro or Light Rail, modelling with Pedestrian Comfort Levels as per TfL standards or TfNSW Walking Space Guide is undertaken on nearby footpaths and intersections to ensure reasonable levels of service are maintained.   

In general the length of time is set by manual observation (not real time CCTV or computer vision or anything), and is private. (see below section on SCATS data cost).

Information I’ve not been able to ascertain includes:

• how often measurements of the pedestrian volume are taken;
• what time of day they are taken;
• whether the min/max/avg/85th percentile is used;
• how often they are updated.

In Victoria, Volume 5: Intersection Modelling of the Transport Modelling Guidelines (2020) specifies:

At existing locations, where a revision to the intersection control is proposed, pedestrian crossing counts should be undertaken. These would usually be done as part of video surveys of peak periods (Section 6.6.1.1). This is particularly important where pedestrians will be provided with priority over vehicular traffic as it can have a significant impact on capacity e.g. left hand turn movements. The presence of high numbers of pedestrians may also influence the form of intersection control on safety and amenity grounds. The data collection may involve more than just an aggregate number of people at a site but might identify how pedestrians impact the movement of traffic.

(emphasis mine)

The Victoria Department of Transport even release their manual count data from detector and survey locations, though the link appears to currently be broken.

The Department of Transport have a repository of manual count data from detector and survey locations. For further information and project specific request visit the following link: https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/traffic-and-road-use/road-network-and-performance/road-use-and-performance

When there is no need to make the pedestrian light red (that is, there are no cars to implicitly prioritise and move across the intersection), the pedestrian green light will stay on for as long as possible until the end of the non-conflicting phase (subtracting the time for the flashing red of course).

The green walk period can be extended at schools during school hours, either by time-of-day routine (Personal correspondance, 2025-03). I am unsure of how such locations are specified or how much extension is provided.

SCATS has three methods of controlling the length of the green walk signal:

1. terminate “x” seconds from the start of the phase
2. terminate “x” seconds from the end of the phase
3. walk for green – stay green for as long as possible regardless of phase length

In all cases, the green signal for pedestrians is never be displayed for less than the minimum time as defined in the times setting saved inside the traffic signal controller.

Length of flashing red light

The length of the flashing red light is determined by the road width. People are assumed to walk at 1.2 metres per second (an 85% percentile figure, so about 15% of people walk slower than this), so the road width divided by this figure is used to determine the minimum flashing red time.

When and why are cars allowed to cross when people are still walking?

The flashing red light is legally defined so that pedestrians may not step off the kerb, but may finish their crossing.

Generally cars are allowed to have a green light when a flashing red light exists for pedestrians, and they are meant to yield to pedestrians.

Vehicles turning left or right who enter an intersection on a green roundel must give way to pedestrians on parallel crossings when either the Green man or flashing red man is displayed.   

TfNSW is undertaking a safety program to add red arrows to prevent “green-on-green” occurrences – when pedestrians and cars have a green traffic light which is in conflict.

It is being rolled out at two-phase signalised intersections across NSW, and is being expanded to cover all traffic signals. The modification is mandated whenever major works are undertaken outside the program.

While this program undeniably improves pedestrian safety and is a positive change, it is unclear whether reducing vehicle speeds would be a more cost effective use of taxpayer money than retrofitting thousands of traffic signals in NSW (or could be pursued in addition). I consider this outside the scope of this blog post.

Automated pedestrian traffic signals / automatic introduction

Automated pedestrian traffic signals don’t require a pedestrian to press a button to request to cross the road.

When the pedestrian phase is automated:

• The button does nothing when pressed (placebo)
• The pedestrian phase is never skipped – every SCATS traffic light cycle includes the pedestrian phase

Non-automated pedestrian signals may skip the pedestrian phase if the button is not pressed.

There is no such functionality where holding in a PB/5 pedestrian button extends the green light for pedestrians.

Pressing the request button before the car phase goes red should guarantee the green man for pedestrians (prevent skipping the green pedestrian phase), however this varies depending on the age and model of the controller. I’ve not come across any public information on differences between controllers on this behaviour in my readings thus far.

The actual pedestrian-experienced duration between when you push the button and you can actually cross is a mystery – not public knowledge, and I have not yet implemented the ability to measure this with Better Intersections (PRs welcome!).

Automated pedestrian introduction at traffic signals has existed in some areas in the Sydney CBD since the late 1970s or early 80s.

For certain time periods during the day they are also operating in Parramatta, Redfern, Chatswood, Liverpool, North Sydney, Newtown, St Peters, and numerous isolated intersections (outside of these times pedestrians are still required to press the push button).

To my knowledge there are no publicly available maps of the automated pedestrian signal area until COVID, even though automation has existed since the mid 90s.

Pedestrian crossings during COVID outbreaks

I wrote an article about the situation during the initial COVID outbreaks:
Sydney CBD is bringing back pedestrian “beg buttons” (December 2022).

In summary, more pedestrian signals were automated and covers were placed over the buttons so there was less physical contact.

The locations of all newly automated pedestrian signals programmed during the initial COVID outbreaks was not public, however a 2020 media release mentioned 11 health precincts (TfNSW Media Release, 28/3/2020).

Removal of automated pedestrian crossings after COVID outbreaks

After initial COVID outbreaks:

• the plastic button covers were removed
• a publicly unknown number of crossings at not publicly locations were reverted to non-automatic operation permanently
• the automated crossings that remain are only automated for daylight hours (hours for the CBD is known)

Buttons in the CBD are affixed with an adhesive plastic label explaining the hours of automation which is already coming off in many places.

On Friday the 16th of December, Transport for NSW announced:

From mid-December 2022 Transport for NSW is removing the push button hard covers but maintaining the automation of pedestrian crossings at traffic signals during daytime hours. This is to reduce overnight noise for local residents and allow for more efficient intersection operation for all users when activity is low.

The overnight noise mentioned – the stated reason for removal – was due to many complaints from residents living near signals, where the frequent green pedestrian walk sound disturbed sleep.

I do not know, and it is publicly unknown how many complaints were received. I also do not know why the changes were applied to area where there are few ground floor residents (eg. many streets in the city centre).

It was not uncommon for signals to allow a green phase every cycle (often a 24-36 second cycle due to low traffic volumes). The areas impacted by overnight noise are not publicly known – likely in dense residential areas where homes are very close to traffic signals.

However, the “green walk” sound of the pedestrian signals can be muted. SCATS supports this functionality and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program study “Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices” (https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164696.aspx, DOI: 10.17226/22902), summarised at http://www.apsguide.org/chapter10_australia.cfm states:

APS [Accessible Pedestrian Signals] are sometimes turned off at night due to neighbors’ complaints about noise.

NSW has no crossings where the audio feature is muted. To my understanding the NCHRP guidelines were overridden disallowing selective overnight muting of individual problematic traffic signals in NSW on safety grounds. I do not have context for why this was the case.

Muting of audible traffic signals in Brisbane

There is a 2014 article about Brisbane turning off audible traffic signals for the entire CBD between 9:30pm and 6:30am, with very real impacts on people with a visual impairment.

The current content of the Brisbane City Council website suggests a more case-by-case basis approach to muting traffic signals, however I have not found any recent updates on the current state.

Automatic introduction of pedestrians signals in Melbourne

In Melbourne, automatic introduction currently applies from 5:30 am to 12:30 am every day. This is two hours more each day than in Sydney and there are more people living in the centre of Melbourne.

The automated phases matches the times that tram services are operating.

Automated phases also operate 24/7 crossings of the narrow ‘Little’ streets (where pedestrian lanterns exist) and at the intersections along King St (Flinders Lane to Latrobe St) and along Collins St (Queen St to Exhibition St).”

(Review of Signal Operations for Pedestrians in the City of Melbourne, David Nash, 2014)

Pedestrian priority signals / cars requesting to cross the road

In Sydney there are very few places where cars have to request to cross the intersection, rather than pedestrians and cyclists.

Some of this rare locations are:

• Most of Martin Place
• Carrington St (the eastern bus stops outside Wynyard Station)
• Harbour St near Hay St, Chinatown (multi lane road) – just north of the zebra crossing near the QMS advertising panel
• Somewhere in Chatswood, likely near the station

These locations are where there is very low car volume and high pedestrian volume.

Where they exist a zebra crossing would likely be more optimal, however in NSW zebra crossings are not permitted on roads with more than one lane in each direction for safety reasons.

There are none outside the CBD – although there are many locations where the volume of people could justify this type of intervention (eg: near railway stations, shopping streets or along beach fronts)

Research

Transport for London (TfL) trialled pedestrian priority signals at 18 locations in May 2021, and has published new data that giving priority to people walking, showing them a continuous green signal until a vehicle is detected approaching, resulted in:

Compliance with traffic signals by people walking increased by 13 per cent, reducing the risk of a collision with a vehicle, while compliance by people driving stayed the same. The data also shows that the signals had virtually no impact on traffic, with only minimal changes to journey times for buses and general traffic – the largest increase for buses was only 9 seconds and for general traffic only 11 seconds. Several sites showed improvements in journey times.

New TfL data shows success of innovative ‘pedestrian priority’ traffic signals, 24 February 2022, TfL

Isolated signals

Signals may also operate in Isolated mode, with local vehicle actuation (by detector loops) being the sole operating strategy. In Isolated mode the sequence and the maximum duration of each phase is as specified in the local controller time settings. The local controller may terminate any phase under the control of the local vehicle actuation timers or skip an undemanded phase, unless prohibited by the local controller settings. Isolated mode may be specified as the fallback mode of operation.

The New Generation SCATS 6

This results in faster start to the green pedestrian phase when a button is pressed

SCATS can set any intersection to isolated mode at any time for any reason. It could be based on

• time of day
• day of week
• cycle length
• a low degree of saturation (measure of how much demand there is relative to the capacity)

The decision is up to the signal programming.

A type of isolated signal is known as “Master-Isolated”. These behave like an isolated intersection (where a pedestrian pressing the button may almost immediately get a green), however are under the control of Masterlink (under remote control of SCATS). This gives a pseudo-Isolated operation that’s managed by the SCATS cycle length and plan data. Where designed, it’s usually enabled when the cycle length drops below a pre-defined threshold.

Locations of isolated signals

• The mid-block crossing on Joynton Avenue outside the Gunyama Park Aquatic and Recreation Centre in Green Square
• The mid-block crossing on Chalmers Street (near Central station) outside the swimming pool

Let me know if you know of more!

What sort of “green waves” are used?

A green wave occurs when a series of traffic lights are coordinated to allow continuous traffic flow over several intersections in one main direction.

They are commonly implemented for peak hour vehicle traffic into and out of the city. Where possible, the operations team also attempts to provide a “reverse” green phase in the opposite direction. My understanding is that this is tricky and not always possible.

I’m not aware of a any examples in Sydney of a green wave for cyclists or pedestrian traffic, except in cases where electric bicycles can achieve a similar speed as road traffic for a car-focused green wave (eg. Bridge Rd in morning peak). Cycling southbound along the new Castlereagh Street cycleway can sometimes feel like a green wave, however this is because cyclists may catch the motor vehicle green wave.

When switching between directions of green wave, SCATS rotation can adjust cycle time 20-30% to switch link plans.

Green waves for cyclists in Melbourne

There is a green wave operational on Albert St bike lanes in east Melbourne. It runs 8:00-9:30am inbound and 4-6pm outbound. Few people know that it exists – there are limited public comms. There are no inbuilt progression LED lights built into the pavement due to budget constraints.

There is also a current trial on Rathdowne Street, Carlton, using fisheye cameras. I’m unsure if this is yet integrated with SCATS (and if so, whether it presents a virtual loop or some other integration method)

University of Melbourne is partnering with Cubic Transportation System to roll out a number of smart cameras that watch road users and could control traffic flow accordingly – in real time.

Seven fish-eye cameras will be installed over the next few months above intersections along Rathdowne Street in Carlton as part of the Australian Integrated Multimodal Ecosystem (AIMES), led by Melbourne University professor Majid Sarvi.

https://bicyclenetwork.com.au/newsroom/2020/07/16/melbourne-tests-traffic-controlling-smart-cameras/

On Canning St, the Princes and Johnston St signals are timed to give a good bicycle run in AM & PM peaks. However, it is set to ~23km/h which in practice might be too fast.

Green waves for cyclists in Copenhagen

Meanwhile, the City of Copenhagen established the first green wave for cyclists on Nørrebrogade in 2007, so bicycles travelling at 20kph did not encounter red lights. This system included LEDs embedded in the pavement to help cyclists keep the same pace.

As of 2014, Copenhagen was experimenting with “Green wave 2.0”, a detection system that keeps traffic lights green if there are 5 or more cycling citizens (roughly) cycling together.

The evaluation report on green waves on Nørrebrogade showed that “travel time decreased by 17 percent for a cyclist who cycled out of town at 20 kilometres per hour”. [6] (Centre For Public Impact, 2016).

The complaint process for pedestrian signal timing discourages feedback

Complaining about a long pedestrian wait time at a traffic signal is not an easy process. It takes 7 steps on https://www.nsw.gov.au/transport-for-nsw/contact-roads-waterways/online and it is not clear that this is the correct form for walking related feedback at all:

• Click report an issue -> roads -> management -> set location -> then explain issue.

Operators may sometimes state non-existent policy:

…
the whole principle of pedestrian movements is they are a slave to vehicular traffic.
…
The reason we don’t hold the walk is that we don’t want people running to get the walk because then, quite often, they’re running looking at the signal rather than the traffic, and in some instances, they step off the footpath in front of an oncoming car. So it’s a design standard that’s adhered
…

~5pm on the 28th of August 2024

After further correspondence this was corrected and a “walk for green” was implemented (York St and King Street). Walk for Green” means the green pedestrian light is displayed for only slightly less than the green roundel for vehicles.

Another successful “walk for green” implemented after a phone line complaint (which I have been informed of) is Regent Street at Lawson Street.

Why do traffic signals take so long to implement / redesign?

A consistent thread I have seen mentioned in this space is that the issue of the implementation of new signals or signal redesign is often longest part of any road redesign or cycleway implementation project, often requiring upwards of two years.

I have limited detail on why this is the case, however some contributing reasons may be:

• Design of traffic signals being safety critical, requiring 4 engineers signing off on documents and detailed infrastructure diagrams
• Team busy working on adding red turning filter lights (and associated design) throughout the state along with countdown timers

I received a suggestion that another contributing factor could be loss of experience and expertise as traffic engineers reach retirement age. The sender noted he had worked in DMR/RTA/RMS/TfNSW for over 50 years, and that they knew many others in Australia that have been in traffic nearly as long.

The extremely high cost of purchasing SCATS timing data

Victoria publishes all their operational sheets under a a free and open CC BY 4.0 license, including > ~10 PDF pages (or HTML sheets) of documentation per intersection. This data contains minimum and maximum green times, but doesn’t appear to specify nominal cycle times. In Sydney or NSW, you must pay at least $200 to purchase the programming of a traffic signal for a single intersection under a very restrictive license.

The walk timings (along with target cycle and phase timings) appear to be stored in a plaintext format known as LX, which I’m not currently aware of any open source way to process except https://github.com/johntrieu91/scatsutilities (Python, MIT license).

An incomplete specification of the LX format is detailed at Attachment A (pg 15) of “Traffic Signals in Microsimulation Modelling”, a Technical Direction document by TfNSW. Further documentation is on page 48 of the Signal Data Information for Modelling report (Main Roads WA).

It appears the LX file for a given region can be purchased under restrictive terms and conditions at https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/trafficsignal. The fee schedule is outlined at: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2022/Network_Operations_Schedule_of_Fees_01.08.22.pdf

My understanding is that the export is a manual process an operator must run, followed by manual clean up of the data and sending it.

A few items:

Explanation of Phasing – Detailed lay explanation of traffic signal phasing for a specified date. – $600
SCATS Traffic Counts (TCS graphics plots included): $300
Interpreted SCATS history files (TCS graphics plots included): $400
TCS graphic plots: $200
SCATS Region LX file (all TCS sites on region): $200

An LX file for a single SCATS region costs $220. I’m unsure how many intersections (ie. TCS sites) are in each region, but I know SCATS supports up to 250 intersections per region. I am unsure how many regions cover the City of Sydney for example.

There are also strong terms and conditions, however I see a permitted purpose is “(d) you undertaking traffic modelling or transport related projects,but excludes the right to sell, monetise or commercially exploit the Traffic Signal Information and/or Developed IP (Licence).”: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/trafficsignal/traffic-signal-portal-terms

The SCATS regional traffic control software has a maximum capacity of 250 intersections per region. With a maximum of 64 regions, the total capacity is 16,000 intersections.

I note that on page 13 of “The New Generation SCATS 6” document there is an undated screenshot of a region display:

TfNSW reasoning against release of signal timing data in NSW

Response to my public Q&A question at the “SCATS – What is it and where is it heading” talk on 2025-02-06:

Question: Jake Coppinger, day job at Atlassian, volunteer with Better Streets, but representing myself here.
A question on open data and cycle times: My understanding is from mid-March, WA Main Roads will be able to release monthly dumps of their cycle times that were the real-time cycle time data. Do these upgrades enable that feature in New South Wales, or would we be able to release open data here? Thanks.

Answer: Essentially, the New South Wales government hasn’t determined whether or not we will release information completely on an AI platform on cycle time data.

We will do it at a user pay cost just because that open platform, I think, because that open platform hasn’t been developed yet. So, you know, we will provide that data. The way in which we present it at the moment, again, is very labour intensive, so, we charge for that data. Do we have any real objection to providing that data as operators, to providing that data openly? No, I don’t think so. But exactly what the government and transport at a senior executive level wants to do, obviously that hasn’t been determined yet.

David Ballm (Director, Network Operations, Transport for NSW), transcript of Q&A question asked 2025-02-06 in public Q&A setting (SCATS – What is it and where is it heading?)

SCATS upgrade

SCATS has been installed at more than 60,000 intersections across 200 cities and 30 countries worldwide.

A major upgrade is underway. The upgrade will likely involve a visual facelift, judging by the dated visual language of the diagrams generated, but little additional knowledge of the improvements is public.

There was briefly a desire for a new commercial model however this looks to have been abandoned.

“TfNSW is seeking to implement a new commercial model, with a commercial partner to accelerate innovation and importantly future-proof the SCATS product and business,” tender documents said at the time.
But the department has now ditched that approach, with a new team to be established within TfNSW to accelerate the development of SCATS and expand its commercial activities. (ITNews)

Do buses get signal priority? Which routes and when?

Information from the public “SCATS – What is it and where is it heading?” talk. Corrections are welcome as always.

Bus priority only exists on 5 or 6 bus routes in Sydney:

• Liverpool to Parramatta transitway
• North West Transitway
• A couple on routes on Windsor Road

The tech is relatively scalable – if decision made to give route priority, it can be done without major capital investments

Traffic signals only give priority if the bus is 50% full and are running 2-3 minutes behind the timetable.

I received correspondence that bus priority is also used in Newcastle and Wollongong.

There is, of course, priority for light rail/trams in various cities. In Sydney this proper prioritisation for the L2/L3 came after some time, but that’s another topic in itself.

Future signal development

Media reports on SCATS upgrade

In July 2021, It reported:

A spokesperson told iTnews that “after further work, TfNSW has chosen to proceed with a new structure, which extends on aspects of TfNSW’s original plan in 2019”, part of which will include “working with partners”.
…
Features include better integration with third-party sensors, machine learning-based prediction, sophisticated analytics and performance reporting and a UI/UX refresh.

https://www.itnews.com.au/news/transport-for-nsw-ditches-scats-traffic-system-commercialisation-566722

ARN reported in 2021:

Called the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS), it aims to trim travel time by a third, reduce fuel consumption by 12 per cent and lower emissions by 15 per cent, with more gains yet to be realised as the partnership pans out.

“Thanks to a new partnership with software development company Industrie&Co, our TfNSW development teams will collaborate to deliver the next generation of SCATS,” TfNSW deputy secretary for customer strategy and technology Joost de Kock said.

“SCATS uses algorithms and real-time traffic signal data to help customers get to their destinations faster and advanced sensors will allow cyclist and pedestrian movements to be included…

https://www.arnnet.com.au/article/693549/industrie-co-wins-transport-nsw-deal-new-scats-drive/

My understanding is that SCATs does not currently prioritise cyclist and pedestrian movements using any sensors – merely not skipping this phase when they are present.

https://www.arnnet.com.au/article/693549/industrie-co-wins-transport-nsw-deal-new-scats-drive/

More advanced pedestrian and cyclist detectors

Lidar detectors

In Victoria there is an ongoing trial using Lidar sensors to record road user positions in real time, which does currently feed data into the traffic light system. It can generate bounding boxes for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists in real time and identify queues. I am unclear what the data from this trial will be used for.

My understanding is currently SCATS cannot natively use this Lidar input data as it does not have the capability to – the workaround is creating “virtual loops” that function like a magnetic resonance loop, giving a binary input to SCATS (with the added benefit of being able to create virtual loops for pedestrians). There has been development work on adding new SCATS interfaces but it has not been widely released. It is unclear if this will be included in the new SCATS upgrade.

There are multiple international vendors implementing traffic detection using Lidar, notably Velodyne’s Bluecity product.

Infrared and camera detectors

For pedestrians there is a trial in progress at Manly Wharf. This will likely also be applicable to areas outside schools; where there are usually few pedestrians, then many at once.

Infrared detection will be trialled at Manly Wharf where there is high pedestrian activity. 

This trial seeks to address the requirement to enhance efficiency and safety at intersections with large variable volumes of pedestrian traffic. 

This initiative aims to dynamically adjust intersection crossing times for pedestrians based on real-time detection. By using advanced detectors, we can:

• Identify if a pedestrian is waiting in a designated zone
• Determine the pedestrian volume in the detection zone
• Analyse the demand for pedestrians
• Measure the time it takes for pedestrians to clear the intersection.

“Pedestrian Detectors”, Intelligent Traffic Light Program, TfNSW

There is also an infrared camera trial for cyclists:

This trial aims to assess the performance of infrared cameras as a consistent and reliable method for detecting cyclists. Improved detection is anticipated to improve intersection efficiency and safety by reducing unused green phases and/or stranded riders. 

Transport for NSW is planning to demonstrate the cameras in use at the Future Mobility Testing and Research Centre on the Community Open Day – 31 October 2024.

The proposed trial site is the intersection of Gardeners Road and Bourke Street in Alexandria. 

This is a busy intersection due to the M8 off-ramp feeding into Gardeners Road. The traffic light phases are permanently configured to accommodate bicycles, regardless of their presence, causing unnecessary delays on Garden Road and impacting vehicle traffic flow. These factors make it an ideal testing site for this trial. 

“Bicycle Detectors”, Intelligent Traffic Light Program, TfNSW

Touchless pedestrian activation trial

There are prototypes of touchless buttons with audio feedback when it registers an intention to cross.

In Melbourne there are examples of buttons with an acknowledgement light but no automatic sensor. These lights, with or without the automatic sensor, mean pedestrians know whether they have to press the button or not. There are some disadvantages however:

When automatic introduction is activated, the red ‘wait’ light on the push button assembly is illuminated at all times that the pedestrian signals are not showing a green man (see Figure 1). This is a helpful indicator that the pedestrian does not need to push the button as a ‘call’ is already recorded. In bright sunlight, it can be difficult to see whether the wait light is illuminated or not. In a quick survey of sites in the CBD, it looks like not all push buttons have the ‘wait’ light. At William St/Bourke St, for example, only 1 of the 8 push button assemblies includes a ‘wait’ light.

Review of Signal Operations for Pedestrians in the City of Melbourne, David Nash, 2014

An example of this button is at Henderson Rd & Garden St. Acknowledgement of the intention to cross is displayed with a red light on the button and an audible beep.

Additional notes

The Sydney CBD effectively operates as a fixed time system during peak times

…but without the benefits of a fixed time system, such as pedestrian timers counting down until the end of the red light, rather than until the end of the green light.

SCATS will attempt to increase the length of a green phase for cars to satisfy the demand when the “degree of saturation” is high (as measured by cars travelling over magnetic resonance loops in the ground) – that’s what the “Adaptive” in Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System means. However, SCATS will only increase the green time such that it won’t make the cycle time higher than a given value (the maximum cycle time).

In the Sydney CBD, the 90 second figure is the maximum cycle time. If the SCATS algorithms determine there is no need (for cars), the cycle time will drop lower. Measurements of actual cycle time are recorded and can be accessed in the SCATS software, and to request this data you must pay $400 per intersection – see the section below on SCATS data cost.

With a 90 second cycle in the Sydney city, there usually isn’t any spare time in a cycle for SCATS to adjust the phase length (especially for bidirectional roads with more cycles), and will usually be running constantly at 90 second cycles (unless in off peak periods).

As a result of these decisions, this results in the Sydney CBD effectively operating as a fixed time system during peak – that is, the phase lengths are very similar to the expected, pre-programmed length.

The traffic signals tend to operate a peak of 1.5/2 hours in the morning and 2 – 3 hours in the afternoon.

In off peak periods it can sometimes run down to ~50 seconds.

That’s all folks!

Once again, I hope this article demonstrates why signal data should be as public as a train network timetable – and subject to the same public scrutiny and debate as one (even though complex trade-offs are involved) and I hope this document provides plenty of source material and an overview of the landscape for other advocates to dive into.

Note: I am not a trained traffic engineer; my background is computer science and I work as a software engineer. This analysis is a side project. Please let me know of any mistakes, corrections or improvements in the comments below (or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com) and I will update if incorrect.

Further reading

Apologies for the haphazard referencing!

• ARRB Research Report 123 Traffic Signals: Capacity and Timing Analysis (1981). https://www.sidrasolutions.com/media/189/download
• Pedestrians should get the green light on traffic signal prioritisation, Cecilia Duong https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2021/07/pedestrians-should-get-the-green-light-on-traffic-signal-priorit
• Python implementation of SCATS LX data reading (I haven’t read through), https://github.com/johntrieu91/scatsutilities
• Sydney CBD Cycleways Traffic Signals Optimisation, A Finlay, https://roads-waterways.transport.nsw.gov.au/documents/roads/bicycles/bicycles-sydney-cbd-traffic-signal-optimisation-2009.pdf
• “Traffic Signal Design Guide: Section 7 Phasing and Signal Group Display Sequence” (2016). URL appears to be currently broken (this is an archive link). Unsure if it’s been superseded. Great info on various types of pedestrian phase protection.
• Signal Data Information for Modelling report (Main Roads WA). Page 48 has some info on the LX timing format
• Review of Signal Operations for Pedestrians in the City of Melbourne, David Nash, 2014
• “The New Generation SCATS 6”, date unknown
• New TfL data shows success of innovative ‘pedestrian priority’ traffic signals, 24 February 2022, TfL
• Post metadata image: http://www.jctconsultancy.co.uk/Symposium/Symposium2014/PapersForDownload/A%20Review%20of%20SCATS%20Operation%20and%20Deployment%20in%20Dublin.pdf
• Traffic lights in ’s-Hertogenbosch; an interview, Biycle Dutch: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/traffic-lights-in-s-hertogenbosch-an-interview/
• “The Evolution of Traffic Signal Operations”, TfNSW, March 2024: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2025/Active-Transport-Community-of-Practice-Evolution-of-Traffic-Signal-Operations-March-2024.pdf
• “Pedestrian Safety” brochure, September 2020, TfNSW, https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/Pedestrian%20Safety.pdf (file removed, archived 2025-05-15 from the original https://web.archive.org/web/20250515002811/https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2023/Pedestrian%20Safety.pdf), https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2025/crs_pedestrian_safety.pdf
• “Traffic Signal Operation” (Superseded standard), RTA-TC-106, April 2010 (“First published in this form October 1991, Reformatted October 2000, Revised April 2010”), https://standards.transport.nsw.gov.au/_entity/annotation/6b38b3c7-b835-ed11-9db1-000d3ae011f9
• “Traffic Signal Operation”, TS 05493:1.0, RTA-TC-106, 18 November 2024, Revision 1.0 (replacing First issue as RTA-TC-106 effective 1 April 2010), https://standards.transport.nsw.gov.au/_entity/annotation/5c3b61e9-4ea5-ef11-b8e9-000d3a6b1b0b
• “Staying safe as a pedestrian”, TfNSW (NSW Centre for Road Safety), https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/pedestrians/staying-safe
• “Pedestrian Priority at Traffic Signals”, Network Operations, TfNSW, February 2023, (supplied) http://files.jakecoppinger.com/traffic-signals/Pedestrian+Priority+-+Public+Presentation+V2.pdf

The post Shining a Light on the Traffic Signals of Sydney first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

The Heath Street section was enabled by $7 million grant from the NSW Government (New cycleway to transform the City of Canada Bay, 03 August 2020) as part of the Parramatta Road Urban Amenity Improvement Program (PRUAIP).

Canada Bay Council now plans to remove the cycleway it received state funding for. Cycleways are life saving infrastructure for cyclists and provide numerous positive externalities.

In this blog post I:

• Show the council is removing the cycleway while claiming to “modify” it.
• Show the council is removing the cycleway due to the third-party report.
• Outline errors and flaws in the engineering report prepared by a third party (which has now been hidden from the Canada Bay Council website).

To support my analysis I;

• conducted a drone aerial imagery survey using a commodity drone (following CASA laws)
• used the open-source photogrammetry software OpenDroneMap software to process this aerial survey into a high-accuracy 3D mesh and pointcloud (with 4.2 cm average ground sampling distance)
• used the pointcloud to take measurements on the street in 3 dimensions
• created ortho-rectified aerial imagery from the pointcloud, which I uploaded to OpenDroneMap
• captured on-the-ground imagery using Mapillary
• used the above data to survey the street in OpenStreetMap in high resolution
• released all the above data as open source to enable reproduction & further analysis

Update 30/03/2023, Canada Bay Council voted to remove the cycleway. A summary by David Martin (via BayBUG FB, shared with permission):

Canada Bay Council on Tuesday night voted to accept Traffic Committee’s recommendation to remove the uphill cycleway in Heath St Five Dock, just installed in August 2022.

Note that TfNSW voted on TC against the recommendation, refuting the arguments put forward (re road width, accessing driveways, sight lines at Heath/Rickard). Transport strongly supported the benefits of the cycleway for bike riders and in slowing motor vehicle traffic on Heath St. Transport “offered design support to assist Council in developing a concept design that balances all user requirements” and that “Council consider deferring the decision on removal of the [cycle] path pending the outcome of a design review conducted in partnership with Council”. This offer was repeated in a motion from Cllr Jago(Greens)during consideration of the TC recommendation but did not receive a seconder. (NB Both Labour councillors were absent.)

There were five speakers against TC’s recommendation: from BayBUG, Bicycle NSW and the [Mortlake-Cabarita]Peninsula Action Group.

The lack of support from the Mayor (Tsirekas) and the TC chair (Cllr Megna) for anything cycling was palpable. After our first speaker presented, the Mayor asked the rest of us whether we really had anything in addition to say. We all claimed our 5 minutes.

Cllr Megna put the formal motion, spoke to it, and in doing so diverted to a rant about cyclists riding across the wombat on Great North Road (at Henry/Barnstaple) and allegedly knocking down old ladies. Tsirekas re-directed him to the Heath St issue. The motion was carried with only Jago dissenting.

This was the most blatant anti-cycling (and active transport) views that I’ve heard from our councillors. It doesn’t augur well for the future.

Also, not to forget that we met with Mayor Tsirekas in February 2018 and he undertook to produce a revised Canada Bay Bike Plan; nothing has eventuated.

Update 11/04/2023: Unconfirmed reports that the demolition of the cycleway has been delayed for a week, or possibly to the end of the month.

I have shared all the data I captured under an open license so that all measurements are reproducible.

• orthrectified imagery (CC BY-NC 4.0): https://map.openaerialmap.org/#/151.1388087272644,-33.8689546011284,17/user/62e7e060d84998000537975e/641e61d31a8878000512120f
• 3D model (.obj) with textures (CC BY-NC 4.0): files.jakecoppinger.com/heath-st-scan/heath-st-textured-model.zip
• pointcloud (.laz) (CC BY-NC 4.0): files.jakecoppinger.com/heath-st-scan/Heath-Street-georeferenced_model.laz

I welcome any comments, contributions, constructive criticism or feedback either via comments below, on Mastodon (@jakecoppinger@aus.social), or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com.

Note: I am not a traffic engineer and I do not currently have any formal geospatial or civil engineering training. However, I am passionate about the safety of people on bicycles, the improvements in urban space their uptake brings and enjoying tinkering with open source geospatial tools & data in my spare time.

People die on Sydney roads because of the lack of safe, separated bicycle infrastructure.

I hope this analysis contributes to the advocacy efforts by BicycleNSW, the Canada Bay Bicycle User Group (BayBUG) and others in retaining this infrastructure paid for by the taxpayers of NSW.

Table of contents:

Modifying or removing infrastructure?

Misleading FAQ section

In the FAQ section, the Canada Bay website currently says this:

Does this mean Council is removing the cycleway?
No. Council is fully committed to delivering the East-West Regional Route, and a cycleway will be maintained on Heath Street. This proposal is to modify the separate cycleway.

https://collaborate.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/ewcycleway/seg1heathst

This suggests the cycleway won’t be removed. However, also in the FAQ sections, the Council states why they will “modify” the cycleway:

Why is Council proposing to modify the cycleway?

Council is responding to local community concerns regarding the dedicated cycleway, which was constructed in late 2022 and potential impacts to other users of the share space. Council received feedback on issues including but not limited to line of site concerns navigating through intersections and access to properties, increasing of traffic congestion on the road users and potential increase of hazards to pedestrians.

Council heard through community feedback, and through our own observations on site, potential increase of risk for some users of the shared space as result of the solution currently built.

Council took the decision to seek independent advice on the as built solution to assess the acceptable level of risk for all users of the as-built solution and provide advice on alternatives.

Council has received and considered this advice and are proposing to address the outcomes by providing a more balanced solution that considers all users of the shared space.

The proposed modifications intend to provide a more balanced outcome for all users while also maintaining cycling infrastructure.

This sentence is demonstrably false: “The proposed modifications intend to provide a more balanced outcome for all users while also maintaining cycling infrastructure.”

Sharrows or painted bicycle icons are not bicycle infrastructure!

Holding all else equal, compared to no bicycle route, a bicycle injury nearby sharrows was nearly twice as likely to be moderate, severe, or critical (adjusted odds ratio 1.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91–4.15).

Wall SP, Lee DC, Frangos SG, et al. The Effect of Sharrows, Painted Bicycle Lanes and Physically Protected Paths on the Severity of Bicycle Injuries Caused by Motor Vehicles. Safety (Basel). 2016;2(4):26. doi:10.3390/safety2040026

Changes to the council website

The Internet Archive (archive.org) Wayback Machine shows this diff of the council website copy.

The website has replaced the word removal with modification.

However, more has changed.

The copy of the “independent specialist consultant” report commissioned in December 2022 to “review and provide advice on the interactions of all users” has been removed from the website, along with any mention of it.

A hidden traffic report

In December 2022 we engaged an independent specialist consultant to review and provide advice on the interactions of all users. This review included residents/pedestrians navigating in and out of properties/carparking, motorists and cyclists using the road and the Regional Cycle away.

https://collaborate.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/ewcycleway/seg1heathst

Council took the decision to seek independent advice on the as built solution to assess the acceptable level of risk for all users of the as-built solution and provide advice on alternatives.

Council has received and considered this advice and are proposing to address the outcomes by providing a more balanced solution that considers all users of the shared space.

From the FAQ section “Why is Council proposing to modify the cycleway?“. Bold text my own highlighting.

The FAQ section makes it clear the “balanced solution” proposed is designed to “address the outcomes” of this traffic engineering report, on the merits of “acceptable level of risk for all users”.

This implies if the report has flaws then the proposed modifications may also have flaws.

As mentioned above, this report is no longer shown on the council website. Fortunately, the Wayback Machine (hosted by the Internet Archive) indexed the council project page 30th Jan 23, showing the now removed report on the right sidebar: https://web.archive.org/web/20230130232813/https://collaborate.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/ewcycleway/seg1heathst

The report link itself was not yet archived, but is still live. I recommend you read it while evaluating the below section: https://collaborate.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/download_file/7173/1457 (it is now archived at https://web.archive.org/save/https://collaborate.canadabay.nsw.gov.au/download_file/7173/1457).

Discussion of report

Introduction to body of report

In 2.1, it’s due to road line marking being offset from the centre of the road. The (sensible) recommendation is to move painted lines approaching traffic islands closer to the centre of the road. I have no concerns with this section.

The following paragraphs appear in sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 respectively of the traffic report.

Under a conservative approach, removal of the western kerbside parking lane would greatly improve the two-way traffic flow and exiting traffic travel lanes; however, traffic volume data could reduce the impact on kerbside parking given a lower-order requirement for passing opportunities; such that the removal of all subject on-street parking spaces would not be required.

Under a conservative approach, removal of the western kerbside parking lane would greatly improve two-way traffic flow, more aligned with the previous environment (but at the loss of on-street parking for residents, visitors and users of Timbrell Park); however, reinstating the previous kerbside parking with a shared two-way carriageway (for both vehicles and bicycles), pending future traffic volume data would be an improved and safer outcome.

Under a conservative approach, removal of the western ‘offset-kerbside’ parking lane (along Heath Street) would greatly improve the sight lines (approach sight distances), more aligned with the previous environment (but at the loss of on-street parking for residents, visitors and users of Timbrell Park). Further, as previously stated, reinstating the previous kerbside parking with a shared two-way carriageway (for both vehicles and bicycles), pending future traffic volume data would be an improved and safer outcome.

The similarity alarms me. The meaning of “conservative approach” is undefined. Each sentence suggests the conservative approach is removing the western kerbsite parking lane (to improve traffic flow and sightlines).

The first paragraph differs to the second and third later in the paragraph. Both the second and third claim that “reinstating the previous kerbside parking with a shared two-way carriageway (for both vehicles and bicycles), pending future traffic volume data would be an improved and safer outcome.”

Each of these paragraphs comes up in a different context.

In 2.2 (Adequate Clearances to Obstructions / Road Line-marking), a series of measurements is used to justify that the as-constructed works “does not provide adequate clearances to obstructions for both travelling vehicles (to parked vehicles) or cyclists.”

In 2.3 (Two-Way Passing / Carriageway Width (Heath Street)), a series of measurements is used to justify that “the depicted 4.2-metre-wide two-way carriageway is fundamentally insufficient for two-way passing/traffic given the context of Heath Street, Five Dock, the kerbside parking environment, Regional Cycleway and residential driveways.”.

In 2.4 (Approach Sight Distances (ASD)), one dash-cam photo, the cycleway width, and the road width are used to justify “As-Constructed works reviewed have reduced the approach sight distances (Image 5), specifically for drivers of vehicles undertaking a right-turn from Richard Street onto Heath Street. MTE witnessed vehicles ‘creeping’ into the intersection (and heard from local residents regarding this and other matters during the site visits), with the Heath Street declining at a gradient of approximately 10% [1:10] towards Timbrell Park being exacerbated by the shifting of the kerbside parking (to accommodate the Regional Cycleway path and 500mm concrete separation median) by approximately 2.25 metres.”

2.5 (Two-Way Passing (Heath Street on Approach to Intersection with First Avenue)) claims some measurements justify “The measured 8.85-metre-wide carriageway (inclusive of kerbside and offset-kerbside parking) within the proximity to the intersection of Heath Street and First Avenue is typically inadequate; however, a traffic volume based analysis should be undertaken given the importance of on-street parking with respect to the residentially and recreationally dense area.”

I now systematically examine flaws in the arguments of each of these sections.

Flaws in arguments of report body

2.2 Adequate Clearances to Obstructions / Road Line-marking

The report states “the As-Constructed works (inclusive of line-marking) does not provide adequate clearances to obstructions for both travelling vehicles (to parked vehicles) or cyclists”

• The creation of a separated cycle lane on Heath Street ensures a safe clearance (width) which cyclists can travel in
• Heath St does not have centre line markings. It functions as a yield street when required.
  • “Depending on the number and arrangement of parked vehicles, they effectively become a single travel lane at certain times and places along the street, requiring slower, cooperative driving: one driver yields to another.” Yield street, NSW Movement and Place guidelines
• Resolving the reduced clearances due to road line marking may not even require the removal of parking spaces pending a traffic volume survey
• No suggestion of removing the cycleway is recommended under 2.2.
• There is a fairly major error in this section: “The northbound exit lane (including the Regional Cycleway and vehicular traffic lane as shown in Image 4) …” under “2.2 Adequate Clearances to Obstructions / Road Line-marking” is actually the southbound exit lane. The caption of Image 4 is “IMAGE 4: HEATH STREET (NORTH FACING) FROM THE INTERSECTION OF HENLEY MARINE DRIVE AND HEATH STREET”

2.3 Two-Way Passing / Carriageway Width (Heath Street)

> Under a conservative approach, removal of the western kerbside parking lane would greatly improve two-way traffic flow, more aligned with the previous environment (but at the loss of on-street parking for residents, visitors and users of Timbrell Park); however, reinstating the previous kerbside parking with a shared two-way carriageway (for both vehicles and bicycles), pending future traffic volume data would be an improved and safer outcome.

• This sentence claims removing the separated cycleway would be an improved and safer outcome. No evidence is presented for this.
• “Improved” in this sentence seems to means the retention of on street parking for private vehicles, not improved safety.
  • Remember, the brief of the report according to the Council FAQ is “to assess the acceptable level of risk for all users of the as-built solution and provide advice on alternatives.”

2.4 Approach Sight Distances (ASD)

This section claims:

MTE witnessed vehicles ‘creeping’ into the intersection (and heard from local residents regarding this and other matters during the site visits), with the Heath Street declining at a gradient of approximately 10% [1:10] towards Timbrell Park being exacerbated by the shifting of the kerbside parking (to accommodate the Regional Cycleway path and 500mm concrete separation median) by approximately 2.25 metres.

• Vehicles “creeping” into give-way intersections is safe and desired lawful behaviour. The NSW Road Rules 2014 on the NSW Legislation website state:

give way, for a driver or pedestrian, means—

(a) if the driver or pedestrian is stopped—remain stationary until it is safe to proceed, or

(b) in any other case—slow down and, if necessary, stop to avoid a collision.

• Suggesting that there is any causal relationship between a 10% incline and motorists unsafely ‘creeping’ into an intersection is, quite frankly, ridiculous
  • The statement “gradient … being exacerbated by the shifting of the kerbside parking … by approximately 2.25 metres.” is not theoretically plausible, possible or backed up by measurement or reason.
    • There is no evidence of the gradient being increased by the shifting of the kerbside parking.
    • Assuming a constant road camber gradient across the ride, shifting the kerbsite parking would not increase the north/south gradient, and would decrease the gradient across the road
• Not only is this casual relationship ridiculous, the stated gradient of 10% is incorrect.
  • The gradient on Heath Street south according to the pointcloud model generated by OpenDroneMap from aerial imagery is approximately 10 metres over 150 metres, or a 6.6% gradient

2.5 Two-Way Passing (Heath Street on Approach to Intersection with First Avenue)

The text is very similar to the text of 2.2

2.5 however includes an sentence at the bottom.

• The measurement of 8.85m street width just south of the traffic calming table may be incorrect
  • > The measured 8.85-metre-wide carriageway (inclusive of kerbside and offset-kerbside parking) within the proximity to the intersection of Heath Street and First Avenue is typically inadequate; however, a traffic volume based analysis should be undertaken given the importance of on-street parking with respect to the residentially and recreationally dense area.
  • “typically inadequate” does not state any relation to AS2890.5:2020 Clause 3.2 Parallel parking
  • “given the importance of on-street parking with respect to the residentially and recreationally dense area” – the importance of on street parking on this street is discussed below under the “On street parking availability” heading

That concludes the analysis of the flaws in the body of the report. I now proceed to analyse flaws in the findings & conclusions of the report.

Overview of report findings & conclusions

• Report finding 1: Alignment issues for vehicles exiting from Henley Marine Drive onto Heath Street and conflicting with the offset-kerbside (western) parking lane;
• Report finding 2: Sight distances for drivers of vehicles exiting the residential driveways along Heath Street have been reduced, or otherwise restricted creating unsafe conditions;
• Report finding 3: Sight distances for drivers of vehicles performing right-turns from Richard Street onto Heath Street have been reduced, or otherwise restricted creating unsafe conditions;
• Report finding 4: The carriageway width of Heath Street has reduced resulting in fewer passing opportunities, restricting two-way traffic flow and creating the potential for hazardous “Head-on” collisions.

“In view of the foregoing, the resultant works have generally reduced the safety of all users for all movements along, across and access (i.e. residential access) via Heath Street. [conclusion 1]

Further, the As- Constructed works assessed have by-large introduced new risks and conflicts (i.e. trip hazards, reduced clearances and sight lines) between drivers of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists between individual properties, public footpaths and the offset-kerbside parking. [conclusion 2]“

Analysis of flaws in findings

Report finding 1

The issue seems sensible, as does the resolution (resolved by repainting lines).

Report finding 2

Sight distances for drivers of vehicles exiting the residential driveways along Heath Street have been reduced, or otherwise restricted creating unsafe conditions;

(emphasis mine)

• No part of the report other than this finding mentions reduced sight distances at driveways
• Report heading 2.4 Approach Sight Distances (ASD) only addresses sight lines at the intersection: “works reviewed have reduced the approach sight distances (Image 5), specifically for drivers of vehicles undertaking a right-turn from Richard Street onto Heath Street”, not at driveways
• In case it isn’t obvious – the cycleway is flat, and the concrete bollards are ~15cm tall. Any sightline impact is due to private car parking on the public road, which could be reduced or moved with the stroke of a paintbrush.

Report finding 4

The carriageway width of Heath Street has reduced resulting in fewer passing opportunities, restricting two-way traffic flow and creating the potential for hazardous “Head-on” collisions.

• There is no evidence presented that reducing passing opportunities reduces the safety of the street
  • Conversely, reducing passing opportunities reduces the potential for “hazardous “Head-on” collisions”
• Reducing lane widths and parking “should be considered” according to the TfNSW NSW Cycleway Design Toolbox (heading 3.1.3, pg 22):
  • > To help achieve the preferred width of a bicycle path, the following measures should be considered to ‘gain width’:
    – Reduce traffic lane width, especially if the road does not service public transport
    – Reduce the number of traffic lanes, removing turning lanes or slip lanes, or introducing one-way traffic
    – Reallocate space used for carparking

• Section 2.2 claims “traffic volume data could reduce the impact on kerbside parking given a lower-order requirement for passing opportunities; such that the removal of all subject on-street parking spaces would not be required”. This implies that if there is a low traffic volume the authors believe there is a “lower-order requirement for passing opportunities”
• There is no evidence presented that “restricting two-way traffic flow” reduces the safety of the street. The report is tasked to discuss safety and does not discuss increased traffic flow as a desired outcome (and nor should it be on a residential street with a cycleway).
• The road width has been reduced. Reduced road widths decrease the average speed of a street (Karim, D.M., 2015, June. Narrower lanes, safer streets. In Proc. CITE Conf. Regina (pp. 1-21). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277590178_Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets. See below extract).
  • If there is a head on collision the speed of the vehicles would likely be lower
  • If there is a head on collision, it is less likely to be between a cyclist and a motorist, as the street now has a separated cycleway.
    • If the risk of head on collisions between motorists is considered too high, reducing the signed limit from 50kmh to 40kmh or 30kmh (as recommended by 30please.org) would reduce the risk
    • If there is a head on collision, cyclists not in the collision are likely to be protected by the parked cars separating the cycleway from the road.

Analysis of flaws in conclusions

Conclusion 1

the resultant works have generally reduced the safety of all users for all movements along, across and access (i.e. residential access) via Heath Street. [conclusion 1]

• The claim that the works have reduces the safety of all users for all movements along, across and access is demonstrably false.
  • The works in introduced a safe separated cycleway, creating a safer environment for some of the most vulnerable road users (cyclists)
  • The works narrowed road lane width. Narrowed road lanes (within reason) often improve safety of motorists and all other road users.
    • Karim, D.M., 2015, June. Narrower lanes, safer streets. In Proc. CITE Conf. Regina (pp. 1-21). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277590178_Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets
      > Given that the empirical evidence favours ‘narrower is safer’, the ‘wider is safer’ approach based on personal or intuitional opinion should be discarded once and for all. The findings acknowledge human behavior is impacted by the street environment, and narrower lanes in urban areas result in less aggressive driving and more ability to slow or stop a vehicle over a short distance to avoid collision. Designers of streets can utilize the ” unused space ” to provide an enhanced public realm, including cycling facilities and wider sidewalks, or to save money on the asphalt not used by motorists.
    • > The ripple effects of carefully designed narrower streets are large (Kenneth and Chen, 2012). Combined with other safer design features (such as a planted median, bump-outs or bulb-outs), narrower lanes in off-peak periods act as defacto psychological design controls, inducing the maintenance of a safer range of vehicle operating speeds.
  • There is no evidence presented for safety of movements across (excluding “residential access”) the street being reduced, or for which modes (pedestrian? cyclist?)
    • A reduction of road width means less distance for a pedestrian to cross
    • The second order effect of road width being reduced likely reduces the average speed of motorists on the road, further increasing pedestrian safety
      • discussion of the safety of residential access & sightlines is below

Conclusion 2

As- Constructed works assessed have by-large introduced new risks and conflicts (i.e. trip hazards, reduced clearances and sight lines) between drivers of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists between individual properties, public footpaths and the offset-kerbside parking. [conclusion 2]”

• works assessed have by-large introduced new risks … trip hazards…
  • there is no other mention in the entire report of trip hazards

• assuming the “trip hazards” here is referring to the concrete islands separating the cycleway and the road:
  • The TfNSW NSW Cycleway Design Toolbox under Heading 3.1.3 (pg 22) states:
    > Kerb treatments provide separation between people walking and cycling. A slanted edge (less than 45-degree angle) is preferred, due to its forgiving design. Vertical edges (90-degree standard kerbs) pose a safety risk to people cycling, but may be considered when using existing kerbs and drainage (to reduce costs) or due to safety considerations for pedestrians (reduce trip hazards).
    • This implies that a 90 degree kerb (as used on Heath St) are preferred over slanted edge kerbs for reducing trip hazards.
  • The concrete islands have a high colour contrast and are unlikely to be missed
  • There are no concrete islands in front of driveways
  • footpaths exist on both sides of the street, so walking north/south would be undertaken on the footpath rather than the road

• works assessed have by-large introduced new risks … reduced clearances…
  • Heading “2.2 Adequate Clearances to Obstructions / Road Line-marking” says
    > “Under a conservative approach, removal of the western kerbside parking lane would greatly improve the two-way traffic flow and exiting traffic travel lanes; however, traffic volume data could reduce the impact on kerbside parking given a lower-order requirement for passing opportunities; such that the removal of all subject on-street parking spaces would not be required.”
    • The report claims the reduced clearances due to road line marking may not even require the removal of parking spaces (let alone the cycleway) pending a traffic volume survey
    • No suggestion of removing the cycleway is recommended under 2.2. The only suggested modification is moving the painted lines to be closer to the centre of the road.
  • The heading also says “the As-Constructed works (inclusive of line-marking) does not provide adequate clearances to obstructions for both travelling vehicles (to parked vehicles) or cyclists”
    • The creation of a separated cycle lane on Heath Street ensures a safe clearance (width) which cyclists can travel in