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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quick position summary

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

Bus prioritisation

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

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

Streetscape improvements should proceed regardless of bus priority improvements

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

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

Shorter traffic signal cycle times improve bus operations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southern Arterial Route

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

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

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

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

Safety

Streetscape improvements will improve safety for people walking and riding bikes

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

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

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

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

Remove heavy and hazardous vehicles from residential streets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Traffic signal operation

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney Metro Condition of Approval interpretation may contradict RUSAP

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

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

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

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

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

Better signal timing would improve temporal allocation of road space

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

East-west private vehicle capacity

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

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

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

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

A2MP must not be justified by bus priority works

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

powered by Advanced iFrame

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accuracy and language

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

Review of media coverage of the death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSW Police Press Release

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

Daily Telegraph

First article

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

Second article

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

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

Sydney Morning Herald

Breaking news article

Digital (2025-12-02)

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

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

Print (2025-12-03)

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

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

Editorial article (2025-12-03)

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

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

I include criticism of this article in the initial section.

Opinion Article (2025-12-03)

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

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

Breaking news article (2025-12-04)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekend Opinion Article (2025-12-06)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was published after this blog post.

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

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

I appreciate this addition.

Australian Associated Press

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

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

The Daily Mail

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

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

The Guardian

Live blog

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

Article

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

Sunrise (Seven Network)

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

ABC News

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

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

The Nightly

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

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

7 News

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

Crash site on 2025-12-03

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

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

Broadway / Parramatta Road is unsafe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Good morning, Ben.

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

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

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

Jim (caller)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

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

(discussion on coal fired power station)

Footnotes

References

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

Overnight, traffic signals across the core of Sydney’s CBD were reprogrammed to show a green light more frequently – at least every 90 seconds. This reduced the maximum wait time by a full 20 seconds (from the previous maximum cycle time of 110 seconds) for every pedestrian, cyclist and motorist.

TfNSW studied traffic patterns for 3 months afterwards in unpublished daily qualitative observation reports, sent out traffic survey experts to walk laps of streets with a stopwatch, and record any bus delays…and those results were unbelievably positive for everybody – people walking, buses and vehicles:

• People walking spent up to 40% less time waiting at traffic lights on average on some streets, and over 18% improvement on every measured street^[1]: 1 (92% of trips within the Sydney city centre are on foot^[2])
• “Buses continued to operate normally”^[3][4], on most streets they ran faster, and on one street they arrived an average of 3.6 minutes earlier ^[5][4]: 5 – so much faster bus drivers were unable to drive slow enough to meet the old timetable! (only one of the streets analysed had slower buses, with <50s avg. delay behind timetable)
• Within only 8 weeks^[4]: 4, car traffic had apparently evaporated (traffic evaporation^[6] is the opposite of induced demand, as per the Law of Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion (1962)^[7][8]), the “Network worked well”^[4]: 4 and “General traffic vehicle travel times were operating as normal with the exception of a couple locations in the CBD”^[3].
• “The project has been a success”^[4].

With such impressive results and a successful permanent implementation for a subset of the CBD, why doesn’t TfNSW run more cycle time reduction trials? Why not for the whole inner city, as Clover Moore formally requested almost 7 years ago?^[9] Why not on every high pedestrian activity area in NSW, including urban arterials?

The number of people being killed while walking is increasing. As of 2025-09-23, pedestrian fatalities are rising 27% year on year in NSW^[10] (rising over three times faster than car driver fatalities). More people walking are killed in the City of Sydney than any other LGA in NSW^[11]: 6, but the council has no power to reduce speed limits or change signal operation.^[11]: 19

Despite clear evidence that shorter signal cycles reduce wait times and improve safety for pedestrians^{[12][13][14][15]}, and in their own words “Shorter wait times…could potentially reduce the risk of jaywalking and pedestrian crashes”^[16][17], TfNSW has not expanded this successful program beyond the CBD in the City of Sydney. Along with the desperately needed reduction of urban state road speed limits to 40km/h^[11]: 12, why hasn’t TfNSW doubled down on this proven solution? Why isn’t TfNSW writing papers on pedestrian wait-time reduction, similar to the recent award winning study from Manchester by Josef Whitfield?^[18]

Walkable and bikeable streets are good for business.^[19] Improved access brings agglomeration productivity benefits: improving pedestrian connectivity and “prioritising pedestrian crossings” is action 4D of the Tech Central Economic Strategy (released this month).^[20]

Improving life between buildings with walkable streets make dense neighbourhoods not just possible, but desirable. Our streets and public spaces determine whether dense development enhances or diminishes quality of life. Legacy traffic modelling recommended against pedestrianising George Street^[21]: 34, now perhaps Sydney’s greatest street.^[22]

TfNSW’s Road User Space Allocation Policy states that temporal allocation should consider pedestrians before cars (and all other modes). This policy is mandatory^[23] though only sometimes followed.^[21] The Roads Act 1993 Review^[24] should formalise the road user hierarchy into the objects and intent of the Act.^{[25][26][27][28][29]} TfNSW could highlight the results of this project to show their international customers that the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) system is able to be “policy responsive” (per their sales materials^[30]).

We don’t need to wait another quarter-century to stop killing people walking on local streets – Oslo^[31] (which typically uses even shorter cycle times of ~50 seconds^[32]) and Helsinki^[33] have already achieved zero pedestrian fatalities in one year, likely as a result of 30km/h urban speed limits, fewer cars, and shorter signal cycle times. If we want a different outcome we have to do something different – and these documents uncover just how great the change is.

The GIPA^[a] 25T-1151 material suggests prioritising pedestrians can deliver measurable economic and safety benefits at minimal cost – and who doesn’t want to wait less at traffic lights?

Image: Page 5 of the presentation

Image: NSW Fatalities 12-month moving total – 2020 to date (2025-09-23)

Overview

This analysis is a personal side-project. I initiated the information request on February 3rd 2025^[34] and proceeded with the release at a personal cost of $441.

I am not a traffic engineer! If you have corrections, suggestions or constructive criticism I would greatly appreciate it. Feel free to drop a comment below or email me privately at jake@jakecoppinger.com. I have released all documents and code openly for further analysis, reproduction, and research (OCR / perceived congestion git repo, Observable visualisation notebook).

Live in Australia and want to improve your local streets? Run out of Not Just Bikes episodes to watch and want to learn how change actually happens? Join Better Streets! Drop me an email – I’ll invite you to the Slack (where the magic happens) and point you to the communities and individuals in your city/suburb to learn from and collaborate with. See their views, recommendations (and 114 business and community organisation partners so far) at https://www.betterstreets.org.au/coalition.

I worked for the past 5 years as a full-stack software engineer at Atlassian. I’m currently working on a commercial project with an organisation I’m very excited about – I’m looking forward to showcasing that work in the coming months.

I’m planning to build more commercial software in the walking / cycling / planning space. I’m pretty passionate about these fields if you didn’t gather from this blog post! See a summary of side projects I’ve worked on in the past ~5 years here.

Get in touch at jake@jakecoppinger.com or on Mastodon at @jakecoppinger@mastodon.social.

Maps

Map of Original CBD Signal Phasing Times

This map is dated 2017-11-29.^[35]

Map of Revised CBD Signal Phasing Times

I previously published this map (CCO_604/005/05APR18) as a vector PDF^[36] in “Shining a Light on the Traffic Signals of Sydney” (2023).^[37]

Analysis 1: How much shorter could traffic signals run through their cycles in Sydney’s CBD?

One of the documents in GIPA^[a] 25T-1151 is an audit of traffic signal cycle times dated November 2017.^[38] This document includes a Min. time column, which appears to be the minimum possible cycle time for each signal.

Minimum cycle times specify how low cycle times can be while ensuring a safe amount of time is provided to each phase. By design, SCATS increases signal cycle time to accommodate detected vehicle volumes, until the maximum cycle time is reached. The maximum cycle time is an arbitrary ceiling set in the SCATS software to limit worst case outcomes for pedestrians and cyclists. Maximum cycle times settings of traffic signals are a numerical representation of the prioritisation of different modes of transport.

A claim advocates often hear is that traffic signal cycle times are already as low as they can be. However, this document suggests otherwise.

This analysis of TfNSW data suggests over 85% of signal sites within the CBD study area have minimum cycle times less than sixty seconds, significantly lower than the current maximum cycle time of 90 seconds (excluding sites definitely changed since 2017). In other words, most signals in the Sydney CBD could show a green light more often. It suggests TfNSW could further reduce cycle times of signals in the Sydney CBD. There is no public data showing otherwise. TfNSW has refused^[39] to publish timing data on signals for anywhere in NSW – “As previously advised, Transport for NSW does not publish the SCATS Signal Phasing data you requested and currently has no plans to make this information publicly available.” (Howard Collins, Coordinator-General TfNSW, 2025-08-25^[40]).

All data in this section is from 7 years ago, but it’s more than the public has ever seen before. While specific charts imply which signals have likely changed or remain the same, the only way to understand how the current situation has changed is open data on traffic signals timing in NSW.

An early draft of this analysis was presented at the 2025 TransportCamp Sydney one-day ‘unconference’^[41]. Thanks to all those who have provided feedback!

I was told at this conference by a TfNSW employee that one sensitivity of open signal data was the perceived risk of private bus operators initiating legal action in the case of missed on time running targets. If a valid risk, this is certainly a perverse outcome of private bus operator contracts. I hope the (positive) results showcasing that buses ran earlier addresses this concern. In any case, from first principles – if buses are provided with a dedicated lane and there are no split failures at signals for the bus lane (i.e. as long as there isn’t a line of 10 buses), more frequent green lights should benefit buses just like pedestrians. If a bus route often runs late, buses should be provided with a dedicated lane. Such changes only require paint and software tweaks, not concrete.

Methodology

Data meaning

Above is a screenshot of a subset of the source data.^{[38] : 259}

The minimum cycle time is not filled for all rows. These are likely outside the study area. We can’t calculate minimum cycle times by summing phase times if some are missing, however when all phase times are present, their sum equals the minimum cycle time specified. The value under “Available green time at” … “90” … “Cycle”, when subtracted from 90, equals the minimum cycle time specified (though note when intersections are double cycled).

Without intersection diagrams, it’s impossible to know which pedestrian phases run in parallel, and with which vehicle phases.. Note Victoria^[42] and WA^[43] publish such diagrams openly for every single signal, and Western Australian (WA) publishes actual (as run) phase timing for throughout the day in monthly GeoParquet data dumps^[44], so the resultant cycle time (including min & max) can be estimated with a high degree of accuracy.

Data extraction

The tabular data in the GIPA result was not machine readable and not easily copied/exported into a structured spreadsheet for analysis. I have generated structured JSON data from this document ^{[38]: 258–269} using LLM-powered OCR against a TypeScript interface. I have published the the code (and output) in a git repo – it may contain errors. PRs much appreciated!

Note there are some apparently incorrect dates in the daily report titles. On some documents it appears the day was updated but the month was not. See the README.md for details on this.

All JavaScript calculations for these charts are open, reproducible, and editable on the Observable notebook for your review or further analysis.^[45]

See the appendix for Overpass Turbo queries utilised for this analysis.

Interpreted data

Results / graphs

This analysis suggests over 85% of signal sites have minimum cycle times less than sixty seconds, significantly lower than the current maximum cycle time of 90 seconds (excluding sites definitely changed since 2017).

This may have changed since, perhaps due to more protected phases which may increase minimum cycle times – but there is no open data, so it is impossible for the public to confirm.

Minimum cycle times for traffic signals in the Sydney CBD

Note: as discussed above, not all of these crossings are still present (see further charts guessing at which ones are no longer present).

Histogram of minimum signal cycle times in the Sydney CBD

What percentage of signals could run faster than 90 seconds?

This table shows what percentage of signals, of this potentially valid sample (i.e. signals in the study area, excluding George St, and excluding signals where TCS site IDs no longer exist in OSM), have a cycle time less than x seconds.

Map of minimum cycle times by status in the study area

Where have signals likely changed in design since the 2017 analysis?

How many signals in the study area could still be accurate?

There is currently no open dataset of post Nov-2017 signal timing data for the study area in the Sydney CBD, so we can not tell which signals have been physically redesigned or reprogrammed.

We can reasonably assume signals have likely been redesigned (but not confirm they haven’t been) when:

• The TCS site number no longer exists (i.e. the TCS site no longer exists in OpenStreetMap)
• the intersection is on George St, which has likely been changed as a result of the light rail

This chart visualises different signal groups. These groups attempt to infer which signal sites may still be present since the 2017 data. Of course, the only way to be sure of the current signal sites, their phasing and minimum duration – is to have more recent open data.

Key meaning:

• “On George St, but still in OSM”: A signal that is located on George St, and TCS site ID matches an existing relation in OpenStreetMap (OSM) – i.e. The TCS site still exists, but we the intersection has likely been redesigned.
• “Removed from OSM & on George St”: A signal that is located on George St, but the site ID is not in OSM – so likely has been removed (eg. completely removed signal sites)
• “Site in OSM & not on George St”: TCS site present in OSM, signal not on George Street. This indicates the signal is likely to still be present. Elsewhere in this report “potentially still remaining” or similar terminology refers to this subset.
• “Site removed from OSM, but not on George St”: TCS site id not in OSM, site not on George St. Signals have likely been removed.

Do mid-block / pedestrian only signals have a lower cycle time than intersections of two roads?

Yes – see the difference in distributions for pedestrian only intersections in the dataset.

Note there are still plenty of intersections of two roads with low minimum cycle times.

Which intersections have a minimum cycle time between 80 & 90 seconds?

Does the number of phases influence the minimum signal cycle time?

In theory, yes – more phases take more time to run.

How much available green time do signals have at 90s with current double cycling?

Note: This is a different distribution to the minimum cycle time chart, as an intersection that is currently double cycled will have a much smaller available green time than 90s minus the minimum cycle time.

Minimum cycle time for intersections to be double cycled

Double cycling means two pedestrian phases can be run in one cycle, reducing the pedestrian delay (think subdividing in musical terms).

Pedestrians are guaranteed to receive a green signal at least once per cycle for some of the Sydney CBD during daylight hours (automatic introduction), however this excludes specific state roads, the locations are which are publicly unknown.

Min time for double cycling is calculated using an unknown method and stored in the source document under DC Threshold (stored under the double_cycle_cycle_length_threshold key in this export).

Map of number of phases per signal

Map of “pedestrian sites” (eg. mid-block pedestrian crossings)

Analysis 2: Graphing qualitative congestion after CBD Cycle Time reductions

By week 8 (26 Feb – 2 Mar) of the signal cycle time reduction study, the only notes for the AM and PM peaks were that the “Network worked well”^[4]: 4. Every single prior week noted perceived (qualitative) traffic or congestion issues in both AM and PM peak periods. This suggests traffic evaporation, or the inverse of induced demand, occurred after 8 weeks.

This may be comparable to the duration following the opening of the Rozelle Interchange. A 2024-02-16 NSW Government press release^[46] stated that “average travel time on Victoria Road between Lyons Road at Drummoyne and Anzac Bridge during the morning peak” had dropped from 62 minutes “the first week after Rozelle Interchange opened” (opening 2023-11-26, week after 2023-11-27 – 2023-12-01), to 30 minutes the week before this press release (2024-02-05 to 2024-02-09): a period of 10 weeks. Unfortunately the dashboard has since been hidden from public view – “Access denied” (HTTP 403) as opposed to “Page not found” (HTTP 404).

The difference between signal cycle times reductions and physical reallocation of road space is that cycle times are a continuous (and trivially revertable variable) rather than a (quite literally) set in concrete step function – and if SCATS has the technical software capability, could be changed slowly rather than as an immediate step function. Such adjustments are well known to software engineers as progressive rollouts as a technique to avoid disruption.

But can we graph this change in perceived congestion?

Method

Qualitative congestion data

Unfortunately, this analysis took place before connected-vehicle telematics data was more widely available. ITEM 2 DOC A^[47]is titled “Traffic Volume” (same title in the Decision^[48]), has a y-axis labelled “Traffic Volume” (seemingly a veh/hr scale), however it only includes data between 2018-01-08 and 2018-01-25 – it doesn’t include data before cycle times were changed. Traffic volumes in these graphs don’t visually appear to significantly increase or decrease, however less than one month of data was included. The source of traffic volume in this figure is unclear; I assume it is SCATS-derived (loop detector derived) volumes.

The only supplied material in the documents is daily qualitative observation reports, occasionally with photos from traffic cameras or Google Maps congestion colouring.

All input data is LLM OCRed (which may contain errors) of perceived qualitative perceived congestion. This is far from a rigorous analysis.

Scoring

To attempt to graph the change in perceived congestion through the trial from the daily qualitative observation reports, I wrote a simple function to map keywords to a score.

This code has been published as open-source. See the git repo and Observable notebook for futher reproduction, analysis and improvement.

The specific function for evaluating the score (as the critical code) is included in this blog post under the appendix heading below (as well as in the repo).

Results / graphs

AM+PM Summed Arbitrary Perceived Congestion values (daily)

AM+PM Summed Arbitrary Perceived Congestion values (weekly average)

AM, PM, AM+PM Summed Arbitrary Perceived Congestion values

Policy landscape and lack of transparency

2018 request to expand 90 second phasing

Eight months after the change, the City of Sydney Council unanimously resolved to ask the Roads Minister to expand “90 second signal phasing to the whole City of Sydney local government area”^[2](motion by Philip Thalis, recent Australian Institute of Architects 2024 Gold Medallist). Clover Moore wrote to the Roads Minister (Melinda Pavey) to request a broader rollout on the 8th of November 2018^[9] (as discussed in the media^[49][16]), but the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the 19th that “A spokesman for Ms Pavey declined to comment, saying the minister’s office had not yet received the lord mayor’s letter.”^[16] I am not aware of a reply to this letter or any TfNSW consideration of a broader rollout in the City of Sydney.

The 2018 Transport for NSW Road Safety Progress report (under the “Pedestrian safety” section) even counted “Six hundred Look Out Before you Step Out pavement vinyls were installed across Sydney”, but didn’t have a single mention of this signal timing change.^[50]

I am not aware of an official record identifying other 90-second timing areas elsewhere in NSW. Advocates have been told of a few locations in meetings^[51]: 2, though validating this is impossible as data on signal timing is not published.^[39] Advocates have resorted to crowdsourcing signal timing, spearheaded by yours truly.^[52] Wouldn’t you like to know if intersections on your local high street, or next to your children’s school, or outside your nearest hospital, have been made safer – and if not, why?

Government policy states TfNSW must “document road user space trade-off decisions, providing evidence and reasons”, and to “adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to protect or maintain private vehicle level of service.”^[23] Signal timing data is not published in NSW. As discussed in my prior analyses, ^{[53][54][37][55][39]} access to traffic signal data is prohibitively expensive ($200 per intersection^[56]), for seemingly no logical reason. Other states demonstrate that publishing phase/timing data openly is feasible (“There is nothing particularly tricky happening here”^[51]: 3 – WA Network Operations Analysis Manager, personal correspondence, 2025-06-06)

Temporal allocation is too important to be hidden from the public, however the December 2023 implementation review of the Road User Space Allocation Policy noted that “…temporal considerations of road space allocation are rarely discussed in the road space allocation conversation.” Finding 4.11 a) was “Our current tools and processes focus on measuring vehicle movements, and benefits such as travel time savings and safety, making it difficult to fairly assess trade-offs”, and 4.11 b) was “There was a reported lack of maturity in tools to trade-off or quantify impacts of changes to road space allocation for non-car modes”^[21]

Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of good governance. Without access to data, the public cannot learn whether outcomes are improving. This is government data – taxpayers have already paid for the infrastructure and expertise that generates this data.

Formal requests for open signal phasing data

In April 2025, I wrote to TfNSW on behalf of WalkSydney (co-signed by the Presidents of WalkSydney and Better Streets) requesting publication of signal-timing data.^[57] After two^[58] responses^[59] declining release (with factual errors we addressed in reply^[60]), we met with TfNSW officers (who did not have authority to release the data).

Concerns were raised about releasing “raw” data and about complaint risk. We reiterated our view that “transparent access to data assists and is critical for citizens to understand how the Government is implementing its policies eg: TfNSW Movement & Place policy”, and that prioritisation debates should be resolved by policy, not by making changes behind closed doors.

In a subsequent letter to the we requested data for just one weekday^[51].

We received a response from the Coordinator-General of Transport for NSW (Howard Collins) that “…Transport for NSW does not publish the SCATS Signal Phasing data you requested and currently has no plans to make this information publicly available.”^[40]

This correspondence has been described on the WalkSydney blog.^[61]

Current TfNSW initiatives to enhance pedestrian environments and improve signal priority for people walking

This response^[40] outlined work-in-progress efforts to improve pedestrian priority at signals, though some have limited public visibility into their progress or data on their outcomes:

1. Trial site in Manly using video density detection to dynamically extend the Green Pedestrian Symbol,
   • I hope a public outcomes report is published at the conclusion of the trial. No public data of the extension in green interval amid large crowds is currently published. Keep an eye on Better Intersections at the site. I have so far measured an extension of only 3 seconds after a ferry arrived, though this was off-peak.
   • 2025-10-19 edit: By detecting how many people are waiting and and prompting “longer or more frequent green signals for pedestrians”, this trial has found “in terms of safety outcomes, we’ve already seen that that’s made a 34% decrease in risky crossing behaviour.” It is the first time pedestrian measures have been used within the SCATS network to influence signal phasing.^[62][63] This is an incredible result. It begs the question: what would be the safety benefit across Sydney if pedestrian signals were given longer crossing times or shorter wait (cycle) times with similar ambition to this 2018 trial?
     • The Manly trial “technology would have little applicability in the CBD or areas where the maximum cycle time is very close to the minimal safety signal times permitted”^[64], however this analysis page casts doubt on the claim that CBD cycle times cannot be reduced below 90 seconds. In any case, there are plenty of intersections across Sydney where additional time could be given to pedestrians without waiting for camera technology – the unstated assumption of this trial is to prioritise vehicle level of service over pedestrians when the number of pedestrians is not deemed significant (above an unpublished threshold) or where such a camera is not present: “…But it adapts back; if there’s nobody waiting, it goes back to a normal walk time, which then allows the vehicular traffic to go through.”^[63]
     • Sharing phasing data – as is clearly possible (“We also have a product that provides the signal phase and timing of each individual intersection and broadcasts it”^[63]) but has been apparently been delayed for commercial reasons (“So we’ve got the way to do it now, the business model and how to do it is a different question”^[63]) – would clear up this doubt on what can or can’t be done.
     • While one expressed view is that reselling phasing data through brokers may be faster (“…I think it absolutely makes sense that there’s one source of data, but I think there are commercial imperatives that might make, that might be faster. I don’t want to cast any aspersions on the speed with which traffic authorities move”^[63]), WA Main Roads released over 8GB of signal data in GeoParquet format an impressive 76 days after deciding to do so.^{[60]: 6 [39]} I have no doubt in the technical ability of our road agencies, such ability has been acknowledged since the 70s: “the Department of Main Roads, for example (and it is typical of many others) are exceptionally well-equipped to analyze the engineering aspects of any problem”.^[65]: 35 Planning decisions “…are not simply technical decisions but have environmental, social and redistributive effects which require not only technical and engineering analysis but also the broader type of policy analysis…” (1978)^[65]: 34, a sentiment which still echos today^[21]: 7.
     • The Committee for Sydney also published a report on the critical role longer crossing times has for older people, carers with prams, and anyone moving with reduced mobility.^[66]
2. Pedestrian Protection Mass Action Program to reduce conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians at signalised intersections,
   • The 2023 Summary Report on the program is much appreciated, and highlights some impressive improved safety outcomes.^[67] (I was previously unaware of some the useful information in this report and regret not including this earlier). There is no public information about the timeline of this program, where pedestrian protection is missing, and where they will be installed in future. I am unsure if/when unprotected pedestrian crossings with long green durations (as common in Copenhagen, Paris) are/become unsafe (eg. 85th percentile speed, vehicle volumes?)
3. Ongoing review and optimisation of signal timings to minimise pedestrian wait times where feasible, and
   • There is no public data on when, where, how often, or the outcome of how signal timings are adjusted. There is a widely held scepticism in advocacy circles that many signals are being reviewed. In contrast, Transport for London undertakes “annual timing reviews at 1,200 signal junctions and crossings”, with reducing pedestrian wait times a (measured) objective since 2018 (7 years ago). In 2017, “TfL reduced the wait times for people walking at 200 crossing locations close to schools, hospitals and transport hubs”, published a map of the locations of these intersections, and “over 94 per cent now run a cycle time of less than one minute”, with a maximum wait time of “40 seconds or less”.^[68]
4. Installation of over 30 missing marked pedestrian crossings at signalised intersections in the past two years.
   • This is in line with Movement and Place Policy, however signalised crossing legs are still being removed (Harris St and Allen St, in late 2023^[69]), and slip lanes are being expanded (Cleveland and Regent Street^[70]).

An Auckland traffic engineer documented in 2022 that SCATS does not natively show pedestrian delay. “data can be viewed in the Event log in SCATS history but it requires exporting and manipulation to get any usable data”.^[71]

Community interest and safety context

Frustration with long pedestrian waits is well-documented. The public^{[55][72][73][74][75][76][77]}, a wide range of good-governance groups^{[78][26][79] [80]} , media^[16][81][49], councils^{[82][83][84][85][86]}, urban strategy firms^[87]and evidence-based urban policy think tanks^[88] are calling for improvements.

The latest road safety data is a disaster: As of 2025-09-23, pedestrian fatalities are rising 27% year on year in NSW^[10] (rising over three times faster than car driver fatalities). More people walking are killed in the City of Sydney than any other LGA in NSW^[11]: 6, but the council has no power to reduce speed limits or change signal operation.^[11]: 19

In 2018 SMH reported “Transport for NSW previously said the shorter 90-second wait times had kept pedestrians moving and could potentially reduce the risk of jaywalking and pedestrian crashes.”^[16] A direct TfNSW spokesperson quote of “Shorter wait times have kept pedestrians moving and could potentially reduce the risk of jaywalking and pedestrian crashes” was published in 2019.^[17]

Against the direction of world cities, TfNSW (with direction from Chris Minns^[89]) has refused requests from councils to allow reduction of speed limits to 30km/h on local roads. Under the previous executive director Katherine O’Regan, Business Sydney described the benefits in 2020: “At 30 the amenity killing noise finally becomes acceptable for outdoor dining, public space activation and encourages people spurs economic activity by encouraging people to linger longer to enjoy what the Street has to offer.”^[90]

The NSW Government 3 Star AusRAP target has been achieved or exceeded on all streets in the City of Sydney, yet people walking and riding are still being killed and injured. More people walking are killed in the City of Sydney than any other LGA in NSW. The City of Sydney is unable to change speed limits – the City of Sydney is advocating for TfNSW to set 40km/h on state roads in the local government area.^[11]

Economic analysis indicates that pedestrian signal delay has significant costs. One study estimated that a 10% increase in pedestrian delays in central Melbourne would impose approximately $2.1 billion in additional time costs — about a 6.6% reduction in CBD economic output.^[91][92]

Sydney Metro Conditions of Approval relation to traffic signals

Note that Sydney Metro Condition of Approval D12^[93] Block 1 – 4 data includes minimum actual cycle times during AM & PM weekday peaks and weekend peaks, however these periods are likely run close to the maximum cycle time. Signal data as part of these reports is not currently public. This requirement was interpreted in the Block 1 Report^[94] as measuring and preserving the vehicle Level of Service metric at nearby intersections at the expense of other modes (which, if you are a keen observer, is against the guideance of the RUSAP^[23]), several of which are within the study area (CBD). Both reports contain nominal cycle times supplied for SIDRA modelling at intersections outside metro stations. Pedestrian Movement Performance levels of service output by SIDRA modelling are not discussed or included in the evaluation of intersection performance.

Advocates should be aware of Sydney Metro West CoA E126 and E124^[95] and how they may interact.

US Automated Signal Performance Metrics (ATSPMs)

A transcript of the Q&A discussion^[96] after a presentation hosted by The Eastern Transportation Coalition contains some great insights into the benefit of public traffic signal data and performance metrics based on such data.

The 2022 presentation was titled “Everything You’ve Ever Wanted To Know About ATSPMs: Harnessing The Power Of Automated Signal Performance Metrics For Your Agency”^[97].

Q: Jeremy Borden (Alabama DOT): What is the benefit of sharing ATSPMs [Automated Signal Performance Metrics] with the public? Seems like it invites a lot of unnecessary discussions and public signal experts.

A: Mark Taylor (Utah DOT): One of the things that we are always reminded of by our director at UDOT is we are working for the public. Our revenue in government is how much the public trusts us. We try to be as transparent as we can and if there’s any data that’s not personal, we give it to the public.

A: Joanna Bush (Mead and Hunt): It’s a time saver. As a public agency, it’s your responsibility to provide this information if the public asks for it. Our signal engineers would spend a lot of time packaging crash information at signalized intersections. Instead, you can point the public to one place to get information. As Kelly said, in the end, everybody benefits from it. You’re getting free services. Somebody is looking at your efficiencies without you having to spend time analyzing them.

FAQs

Note: many signal-related FAQs are answered on my blog post “Shining a Light on the Traffic Signals of Sydney”.^[37]

Why did TfNSW take the initiative to reduce cycle times?

I don’t know! None of the documents reference the light rail installation, so it doesn’t appear to be related to that.

In 2007, the public spaces and public life study by Gehl Architects included that the second highest problem in the pedestrian landscape was “Unacceptable long waiting times at intersections”. Problem #3 was “Push buttons at every intersection” and problem #4 “Unacceptable short periods for crossing streets”^[98]

The TfNSW Sydney City Centre Access Strategy (2013)^[99] includes “…there will be reduced waiting times for pedestrians at traffic lights”^[99]: 3 and a “Key Consideration” is that “Minimising signal cycle times at intersections by simplifying intersections in terms of the turning movement required”^: 28

In 2014, Alex Greenwich moved a motion that the Sydney City Centre Access Strategy is supported, and priority is given to pedestrians, including that he supports pedestrian improvements including “reducing waiting times at traffic lights”.^[100]

The TfNSW Movement & Place framework and Road User Space Allocation Policy didn’t exist in late 2017, so there was no specific policy recommending temporal street space is reallocated for pedestrians.

A TfNSW spokesperson stated in a 2018 SMH article that “Shorter wait times have kept pedestrians moving and could potentially reduce the risk of jaywalking and pedestrian crashes”^[101].

Transport for NSW’s coordinator-general, Marg Prendergast stated in a 2018 Guardian article that “The wait times were reduced to keep pedestrians moving and help reduce the risk of jaywalking and pedestrian crashes”^[81]

In 2020 Gehl Architects included this in their 2020 Public Space & Public Life Study:^[87]: 142

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.

Philip Thalis’ 2018 motion in the City of Sydney council mentioned “research by Transport for NSW in 2011 showed that pedestrians wait on average 50 per cent longer than motor vehicles at intersections in the city centre”^[2]. Clover Moore’s letter mirrored the requests in this motion.^[9]

See the Timeline section below for a brief timeline of events.

Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement Project

The 2017 briefing note to “To inform both Ministers of a planned evaluation of improved pedestrian” stated:^[102]

Since 2014, Transport Coordination and Roads and Maritime have worked to deliver a number of initiatives to improve traffic flow within the core of the Sydney CBD, which has included:

• Tomorrows Sydney Campaign.
• Travel Choices (Travel Demand Management).
• Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement project – Improve traffic flow on the outer perimeter of the CBD to prioritise the CBD core for pedestrians and public transport.

Over that period, there has been a continued reduction in private vehicle trips entering the CBD core in the morning peak period, which has improved traffic flow in the Sydney CBD and has enabled the proposed reduction in traffic signal cycle times.

The ‘Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement project^[103][104] was particularly contentious. It was explicitly designed to increase road capacity for private vehicles (in the title).

It planned to “achieve equivalent throughput” at east-west signalised intersections, to create additional north-south capacity, with “The primary objective of schemes proposed is to provide additional intersection capacity”, discussing traffic signals only in the context of maintaining private vehicle capacity.^[104]: 76

In a remarkably enlightening statement, it claims “The reduction in demand within the city centre would be negated by the reduction in capacity”^[104]: 72 – which forgets to mention the reason for (vehicle) demand reduction. The overwhelming evidence is that reduction in road capacity causes the reduction in demand.^[6][105]

How did you find out about this 3-month study?

I found this interesting footnote in an NRMA document^[106].

Reducing the waiting time for pedestrians to cross at a signalised intersections can help to reduce the risk of jaywalking and pedestrian crashes, with minimal impact on traffic congestion. From 7 January 2018, Transport for NSW with the Roads and Maritime Services introduced 90 second pedestrian cycle times across the Sydney CBD. Monitoring was undertaken for a three month period to assess impacts across the network and the wait time was tweaked for certain streets. The change in cycle times has reduced waiting times for pedestrians at signals, meaning more frequent safe crossing opportunities.¹⁴

Footnote 14 is referenced as “Transport for NSW (2019). Personal correspondence”. The GIPA^[a] officer was not able to find this correspondence^[48]: 5

Note: This report unproductively focuses on victim-blaming ‘distracted’ pedestrians for the continued increase in fatalities due to car drivers killing people walking, which is still increasing this year. Research from the NYC Department of Transportation found “little concrete evidence that device-induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries”^[107]

Timeline

• 2006-02: TfL: Factors Influencing Pedestrian Safety Literature Review (> 30 seconds waits hazardous)^[12]
• 2007: Gehl Architects: Public Spaces and Public Life Study, with recomendations for reducing wait times^[98]
• 2011-04: NZ Transport Agency: Reducing pedestrian delay at traffic signals report^[13]
• 2014-03-27: Alex Greenwich: motion to reduce wait times at traffic lights^[100]
• 2014-11: TfNSW: Sydney City Centre Capacity Improvement Plan Review of Environmental Factors^[103]
• 2017-11-24: TfNSW: CBD Pedestrian Times Review^[38]
• 2017-11-29: TfNSW: Map of CBD area for cycle time evaluation^[35]
• 2018-01-07: TfNSW: Sydney CBD cycle times reduced from 110 to 90 seconds^[102]
• 2018-09-17: CoS: Thalis motion to reduce wait times at traffic lights across council area^[2]
• 2018-11-08: Clover Moore, Lord Mayor of Sydney: “Optimising Pedestrian Movement in Central Sydney”^[9]
• 2018-11-19: SMH: Quote: “the minister’s office had not yet received the lord mayor’s letter”^[16]
• 2018: TfNSW: Road Safety Progress Report does not mention cycle time reduction program^[50]
• 2019: SMH: Oslo achieves 0 pedestrian and cyclist road deaths^[31]
• 2020: Gehl Architects: Second City of Sydney Public Space and Public Life Study, with recomendations that more can be done on wait times^[87]
• 2021: TfNSW: RUSAP introduced^[21]
• 2022-12-19: Jake Coppinger: Blog post on “beg buttons”
• 2023-06-12: Jake Coppinger: Blog post on measuring pedestrian wait times with Better Intersections^[54]
• 2023-07-10: Jake Coppinger: Blog post on “Shining a Light on the Traffic Signals of Sydney”^[37]
• 2023-12: TfNSW: RUSAP Implementation Review Report^[21]
• 2024-06: Updated (strengthened) RUSAP^[23]
• 2024-11: CfS: “Walkable and bikeable streets are good for business” factsheet^[19]
• 2025-08-02: Politico: Helsinki achieves Vision Zero, with 0 traffic fatalities^[33]
• 2025: Josef Whitfield: “Pedestrian Wait-Time Reduction: A Vast Improvement to the Pedestrian Experience on a Shoestring Budget” wins ‘Best Paper at the Conference’ at 2025TPM^[18]
• 2026: TfNSW: Roads Act 1993 Review carried out until 2026^[21]

Appendix

Documents

I personally paid $441 to obtain and release these documents. If you find them useful, please let me know!

• GIPA^[a] Correspondence
  • 25T-1151 Ack.pdf^[34]
  • 25T-1151 Extending Decision Date of your GIPA Matter.pdf^[108]
  • 25T-1151 GIPA Act advance deposit letter 18022025 (redacted).pdf^[109]
  • 25T-1151 Decision.pdf^[48]
  • IR Ack.pdf^[110]
  • IR decision^[111]
• Documents released:
  • ITEM 1 – Briefing Notes: (25T-1151 ITEM 1 – Briefing notes_Redacted.pdf^[112]), containing:
    • DOC A – Improving pedestrian accessibility in CBD^[113]
    • DOC B – Reducing pedestrian waiting times in the CBD^[102]
    • DOC C – DRAFT – Improved pedestrian accessibility in the CBD^[3]
  • 25T-1151 ITEM 2 – Statistical reports.pdf^[1]
    • Pedestrian surveys and summary
    • CBD pedestrian times & CBD Pedestrian Times Review^[38], CBD Traffic Volume ^[47], Bus travel times comparison^[5], single trip / multi days^[114] and by scheduled hour band^[115] comparisons.
  • 25T-1151 ITEM 2 – Statistical Reports – Brodie BOAM February 2017.xlsm^[116]
    • 2017 Bus Opal Assignment Model data
  • 25T-1151 ITEM 2 – Statistical Reports – Brodie BOAM February 2018.xlsx^[117]
    • 2018 Bus Opal Assignment Model data
  • ITEM 3 – Presentations: 25T-1151 ITEM 3 – Presentations.pdf^[4]
  • ITEM 4 – Email correspondence: 25T-1151 ITEM 4 – Emails_Redacted.pdf^[118], containing:
    • BATCH A – Traffic reports discussing 90 second trial
    • BATCH B – 90 second impacts correspondence and attachment
    • BATCH C – 100 second locations
  • ITEM 5 – Email correspondence with NRMA: “Not held”
  • ITEM 6 – Meeting Minutes: “Not held”
  • ITEM 7: Daily Summary Reports: 25T-1151 ITEM 7 – Daily Summary Reports.pdf^[119]

Analysis 1 Appendix

Overpass Turbo queries utilised

• Signals query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1OF5
• CoS relation: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1OF8
• Ways: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1OF7
• CoS CBD ways: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/289A
• Sydney CBD relation query: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/289y

If you want to find the coordinates of a TCS signal ID, this is the query you need: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/2bRJ

Thanks very much to the OSM contributors importing traffic_signal site refs and start_date‘s – I couldn’t have done this without you!

OpenStreetMap intersections missing ref values

Most OSM site=traffic_signals relations in the City of Sydney have a ref attribute, so they can be matched against this dataset, but this is not guaranteed.

In such cases, the dataset we plot on maps (as lat and lon come from OSM data) doesn’t necessarily contain all sites from the TfNSW signal audit.

Use this Overpass query to identify and fix these sites missing a ref: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/289G. Use this Overpass query to identify and fix potential signal sites, that don’t have a site=traffic_signals: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/289I

I have looked through all the sites in the survey area and they all appear to be complete. Therefore sites missing lat (i.e. an OSM attribute decorated/added in the “join”) have likely been removed from OSM.

Analysis 2 Appendix

Scoring function

I whipped this analysis piece up quickly – it’s not my best work or production code!

The scores themselves are arbitrary; and so is this keyword analysis, but I found it interesting to see the change over the trial.

Further interesting work on this topic could include evaluating descriptors against Austroads Level of Service (LoS) descriptors, however I think it would be more worthwhile to undertake quantitative analysis of the bus data.

See the git repo for the full code. As this is the ‘critical path’ I thought I’d also include it here.

export function inferCongestionFromReport(descriptor: string | undefined):
  number | undefined {
  // If no note has been made, consider there to be no congestion.
  if (descriptor === undefined) {
    return 0;
  }
  const text = descriptor.replace(/\n/g, ' ').toLowerCase().trim();
  const ratings: number[] = [];

  const zeroRatingStrings = [
    'no issue',
    'no issues',
    'lighter than usual',
  ];

  const oneRatingStrings = [
    'some delays',
    'no major issues',
    'no major concerns',
    'usual congestion',
    'reasonable performance',
    'traffic significantly lighter',
    'noticeably lighter',
    'significantly lighter than previous',
    'intermittently queuing',
    'not as busy as previous',
  ];
  const twoRatingStrings = [
    'some queuing',
    'queues were observed',
    'some delays experienced',
    'some local congestion',
    'reasonable congestion',
    'generally observed to be clearing the intersections',
    'slightly heavier',
    'heavier than previous weeks',
    'some congestion',
  ];
  const threeRatingStrings = [
    'appeared heavier',
    'noticeably heavier',
    'general traffic was also queued',
    'noticeably heavier than previous',
    'reasonably heavy',
    'generally heavy',
    'heavy congestion although not as bad',
    'heavy but flowing',
  ];

  const fourRatingStrings = [
    'heavy traffic',
    'heavy general traffic',
    'heavy congestion',
    'congestion very heavy',
    'severe congestion',
  ];

  /** Used only if no matches found in the above mappings */
  const ifNoMatchesMappings: { key: string, value: number }[] = [
    { key: 'very heavy', value: 4 },
    { key: 'queuing', value: 2 },
    { key: 'heavy', value: 3 },
    { key: 'congested', value: 1 },
    { key: 'congestion', value: 1 },
    { key: 'busy', value: 1 },
  ];

  if (text === '' || zeroRatingStrings.some(str => text.includes(str))) { ratings.push(0); }
  if (oneRatingStrings.some(str => text.includes(str))) { ratings.push(1); }
  if (twoRatingStrings.some(str => text.includes(str))) { ratings.push(2); }
  if (threeRatingStrings.some(str => text.includes(str))) { ratings.push(3); }
  if (fourRatingStrings.some(str => text.includes(str))) { ratings.push(4); }

  if (ratings.length === 0) {
    for (const { key, value } of ifNoMatchesMappings) {
      if (text.includes(key)) {
        ratings.push(value);
        // Only use the first match - we don't want to double count based on single words that aren't
        // highly specific.
        break;
      }
    }
  }

  if (ratings.length !== 0) {
    if (ratings.length !== 1) {
      // console.warn(`Multiple ratings (${ratings.join(', ')}, using 1st) for: ${descriptor})`);
    }
    return ratings[0];
  }
  if (!descriptorReport[text]) {
    descriptorReport[text] = ratings[0];
  }
  return undefined;
}

Meta notes on my drafting process

I welcome any feedback on this blog post format, or any corrections or constructive criticism, as always!

Drafting in Wikitext

I’ve tried out drafting this blog post in Wikitext as I greatly appreciate Wikipedia-style citations. I’d usually draft in Markdown (for source control) and then export to WordPress for finalising formatting working with images (I’ve previously run my own blog templating engine with a custom srcset generation implementation, it was not fun!).

At first I wrote an HTML transformer (operating on a virtual DOM using JSDOM) to remove some Mediawiki-specific elements. As WordPress strips li id‘s on paste (and strips paragraph elements if they are the only child of a list element) I “rendered” the ordered list elements to actual paragraphs with numbers in them (moving list id‘s to the corresponding paragraph for citation anchor links). I found that WordPress HTML sterilisation still ran on superscript element id‘s, and raw HTML blocks are only available as block elements (forcing in-text citations onto their own lines), so I resorted to using one HTML block for the entire page. I’m still using JSDOM transformation for some minor tweaks, such as removing [ edit | edit source ] from titles.

I added few tiny CSS/JS snippets for Wikipedia-style citations-on-hover to my WordPress installation, showing a tooltip at the bottom of screen on mobile on click. Please email me if you notice any usability issues on your device/browser in this functionality.

I was initially drafting in the Wikipedia sandbox but I wanted to enable the `$wgRawHtml` setting to enable embedding the iframe tags for the Observable chart embeds (I didn’t want to have to copy them in one-by-one (or copy text around them) for updates). I ended up spinning up a local Mediawiki instance to draft in. Let me know if you’d like a copy of my LocalSettings.php to get this running, along with the minimal list of Template: and Module: pages I had to export/import to get inline citations running.

If anyone has been tinkering on rendering Wikitext citations in the sidebar or has other ideas for better Wikitext citation rendering, I’d love to chat! I’m on Mastodon at @jakecoppinger@mastodon.social.

Text fragment hyperlinks

In many cases I’ve hyperlinked with #page=NUMBER or #:~:text=QUOTE affixed so that clicking on the link takes the user to the exact page or paragraph, except when a reference is reused by multiple mentions, in which I use ^: PAGE_NUM. This functionality is currently only supported in some browsers (https://caniuse.com/url-scroll-to-text-fragment), and is described in this draft W3C Draft Community Group Report. Urls will load normally in all browsers.

Footnotes

References

The post Green Lights More Often: The Secret 2018 Study of Sydney’s Traffic Signals first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

Maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) What is the expected delivery date?

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

Estimated completion date of construction is not specified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Can you confirm if existing road space will be reallocated for the cycleway linking Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Road, rather than using the grass verge which would require the removal of a large number of mature trees?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) 50+ new trees?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Sydney recommended in April 2020:

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

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

From the Beyond the Pavement TfNSW standard:

Consider road width narrowing

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

Safely introduce tree planting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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