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

• works assessed have by-large introduced new risks … sight lines…
  • No part of the report other than this finding mentions reduced sight distances 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.

Other comments

On-street parking availability

At the time of survey, there was plentiful on street parking availability in the area. There was so much space that two boats and a caravan were on the adjacent street. The adjacent street width is very wide (10.76 metres).

Any reduction in parking availability on Heath Street would have a low impact on total parking availability in the area.

As mentioned above, I welcome any comments, contributions, constructive criticism or feedback either via comments below, on Mastodon, 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.

Further reading

Heath St cycleway

• https://bicyclensw.org.au/heath-street/
• https://micromobilityreport.com.au/infrastructure/policy-and-funding/new-separated-cycleway-earmarked-for-removal-by-sydney-council/
• https://www.bikenorth.org.au/2023/02/08/keeping-another-bike-lane-open/
• BayBUG Canada Bay Bicycle User Group videos
  • Council forgets about climate emergency in order to bulldoze cycleway for car parking: https://youtu.be/DYcH7I8WnDI
  • What does a successful cycleway look like?: https://youtu.be/H0Pyfl6u4ag
  • Heath St cycleway three minute review: https://youtu.be/vHljtv72_zQ
  • Heath St: https://youtu.be/w12PsLTDHM4
  • Has the Heath St cycleway increased risk or decreased it?: https://youtu.be/B2bNAbzM_iA
  • What are the changes in risk from building the Heath St cycleway – particularly for doorings?: https://youtu.be/CvY6kv9i3qc

Relationship between lane width and safety

• https://www.wri.org/insights/bigger-isnt-always-better-narrow-traffic-lanes-make-cities-safer

• https://grist.org/cities/heres-why-narrower-streets-are-safer/

• https://www.planetizen.com/node/77671

The post Canada Bay Council plans to remove Heath St cycleway due to a misleading traffic report first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

Transport for NSW (TfNSW) has recently installed these around the Sydney CBD – a sticker on top of a pedestrian “beg button” explaining the button must be pressed between 10pm and 6am. Not only does this sticker look like it will last a few weeks, but if you have to explain how something works, it isn’t designed well.

The Active Transport strategy recently released by TfNSW specifically states (on page 12) that key initiatives for metropolitan and urban areas include:

prioritising pedestrian movements at key destinations, including prioritising pedestrians at traffic lights

and

upgrading existing paths and streets for better walking and cycling experiences

This begs the question – if a key TfNSW initiative is to prioritise pedestrians in urban areas, and we’re prepared to automatically give pedestrians a green light every cycle during the day when car traffic volumes are highest – why not prevent the confusion and remove/cover the buttons permanently?

Even more perplexingly – we previously had fully automated buttons and they were accepted (if not widely celebrated by pedestrian & cycling advocates), so why go backwards?!

Fully automatic crossings during the pandemic

From March 2020, pedestrian crossings across the CBD were automated so that touch contact wasn’t required.

At first, no physical alteration was made, however behaviour is hard to change so signs like this were installed:

Eventually blue covers were affixed so pressing the button wasn’t possible, while audio-tactile feedback of the PB/5 units was left uncovered to assist visually-impaired pedestrians.

Not only a sensible decision to reduce physical contact during a pandemic (especially when virus transmission was less understood), you probably aren’t surprised that automatically guaranteeing pedestrians a traffic light cycle makes walking easier and faster.

In 2007, Copenhagen firm Gehl Architects wrote a report for the city of Sydney evaluating public spaces, which specifically highlighted the Australian phenomenon of prioritising motor vehicles at street intersections:

Push buttons are a widespread phenomenon all over Australia and in Sydney, where all crossings are supplied with push buttons. The installation of push buttons is part of State Government law. Here you have to apply to cross the street and if you press the button in time the digital device will give you between 7 and 10 seconds of green light to step off the kerb, before the lights start to flash red to tell you to finish walking across the road. Red periods are long, often lasting between 60 and 90 seconds. This system takes the elderly, children and people with disabilities hostages since they will often not be capable of moving across the streets at the pace needed. It also sends a clear signal that cars have higher priority than people.

Sydney – Public Space Public Life, 2007, Gehl Architects

TfNSW removing automatic operation

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.

TfNSW Argument 1: More efficient intersection operation

Requiring manual pedestrian button operation does improve intersection operation for cars at the expense of all other modes.

However, car traffic volumes are lowest at nighttime and congestion is decreased, so intersection efficiently does not need to be ruthlessly prioritised at those hours.

Remember, the TfNSW Future Transport Strategy states (page 9):

We will focus on getting more out of our existing investments, by reallocating road space to more efficient modes of transport like buses, walking, cycling and micromobility devices.

and

Our vision for transport in NSW “We will stabilise traffic levels in Greater Sydney to improve productivity and manage congestion, ensuring we accommodate growth without sacrificing quality of life.”

So we now have in writing that TfNSW say that they are no longer prioritising traffic volumes at the expense of all else.

Sydney aspires to be a city with a vibrant nightlife, and there are often large pedestrian volumes late into the night and morning. Pedestrians at these hours are also most likely to be under the influence of alcohol and if inconvenienced, may be more likely to “jaywalk”

TfNSW Argument 2: Reducing overnight noise

Noise from the pedestrian buttons “activating” when pedestrians are allowed to cross is an interesting argument. I can emphasise with urban dwellers in noisy environments (I currently live in Inner Sydney), but the automated signal map covers few (if any) streets with low rise residential buildings – this is the centre of the largest city in Australia after all!

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program study Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices, has been adapted by the NCHR into this online best practice resource. It states:

• All devices respond to ambient sound, both for the locator tone and the WALK indication.
• APS [Accessible Pedestrian Signals] are sometimes turned off at night due to neighbors’ complaints about noise.

This implies that the the noise produced is lower at nighttime when there is less traffic noise, and there is already a precedent for pedestrian signals being turned off selectively at nighttime due to noise concerns.

Perhaps it makes more logical sense that only those pedestrian buttons that receive complaints should be set to manual overnight, with a prominent & permanent sign rather than a sticker.

Globally our little PB/5 units are so beloved that they’ve even been bestowed with a Grammy, their design so ubiquitous with simplicity that their main job is to almost blend into their environment, so why not let them and save them from our grubby fingers?

With a simple software update, that was already successfully tested during the pandemic, we can improve the walkability in the City of Sydney – and with any luck, everywhere else!

(…and after that, shorten cycle times and improve light phasing)

The post Sydney CBD is bringing back pedestrian “beg buttons” first appeared on Jake Coppinger.