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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accuracy and language

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

Review of media coverage of the death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSW Police Press Release

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

Daily Telegraph

First article

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

Second article

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

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

Sydney Morning Herald

Breaking news article

Digital (2025-12-02)

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

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

Print (2025-12-03)

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

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

Editorial article (2025-12-03)

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

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

I include criticism of this article in the initial section.

Opinion Article (2025-12-03)

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

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

Breaking news article (2025-12-04)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekend Opinion Article (2025-12-06)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was published after this blog post.

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

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

I appreciate this addition.

Australian Associated Press

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

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

The Daily Mail

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

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

The Guardian

Live blog

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

Article

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

Sunrise (Seven Network)

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

ABC News

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

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

The Nightly

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

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

7 News

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

Crash site on 2025-12-03

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

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

Broadway / Parramatta Road is unsafe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Good morning, Ben.

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

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

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

Jim (caller)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

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

(discussion on coal fired power station)

Footnotes

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

Maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) What is the expected delivery date?

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

Estimated completion date of construction is not specified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) 50+ new trees?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Sydney recommended in April 2020:

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

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

From the Beyond the Pavement TfNSW standard:

Consider road width narrowing

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

Safely introduce tree planting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. GIPA 25T-1420 includes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Transport Minister Jo Haylen promise the original REF design?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

How did these scope cuts get approved?

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

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

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

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

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

Are any features beyond Stage 1 scope funded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the words of the Inner West council:

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

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

Note this does not state it is part of WestConnex.

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

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

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

It also includes on the same page:

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

Original text of approval conditions

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

B44

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

B50

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

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

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

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

B51

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

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

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

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

The state of cycleway and footpath funding

The active transport budget for the entire state of NSW was $38.5 million in 2022/2023 – 0.2% of all the total NSW transport funding over the same duration, and 0.188% of the WestConnex motorway sale figure.   On the 13th of February 2025, the Parliament of New South Wales released the report of an inquiry into “Use of e-scooters, e-bikes and related mobility options”, which included this recommendation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of the project

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

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

Site photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview

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

My background is in computer science and I work as a software engineer – I am not a traffic engineer and this analysis is a side project. Please let me know of any mistakes, corrections, improvements or constructive criticism in the comments below, via Mastodon or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com.

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

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

1. What are the current plans?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As recently as July, the project was further reduced to remove the critical cycling connection at the western end of Sydney Park Road (connecting to King Street) between Sydney Park Road and the existing cycleway on Mitchell Road, leaving gaps in the bike network. TfNSW will also not plant street trees on the south side of Sydney Park Road and have limited speed reduction to 40 km/h along Princes Highway, which will reduce safety and amenity for all road users in the area.

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

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

Damningly, it stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The item comments include:

The proposal includes the provision of a Shared Path on the western side of Mitchell Road between Sydney Park Road and the access to Sydney Park Village, a private road. As part of future proposals to upgrade Sydney Park Road, through the King Street Gateway project, the separated cycleway in Sydney Park Road will connect to the proposed cycleway on Mitchell Road.

Item 19, “Traffic Treatment – Separated Cycleway – Mitchell Road and Huntley Street,
Alexandria”, Background PDF page 3, City of Sydney Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Committee meeting 17 March 2022.

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

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

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

It was not yet marked on:

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

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

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

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

The 1.8 metre wide concrete footpath does not meet the required width for a footpath, let alone a shared path in this busy location connecting dense residential neighbourhoods and the third-largest park in inner-city Sydney. The Walking Space Guide Summary states a “Main street footpath – Medium activity / Local footpath – High activity” with 70 or more people per hour at peak times should have a minimum target width of 3.2 metres, and an intervention trigger width of 2.2 metres.

The TfNSW “Shared Paths: Discussion of research findings and key safety issues” report (August 2015) states “The recommended minimum [shared] path width is between 2.5 and 3.0 metres“. The TfNSW Cycleway Design Toolbox (PDF page 50) states that the “desired minimum width of a shared path is 4.0m“. The Austroads “Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Paths for Walking and Cycling” (AGRD06A-17, 2017) states that 3.0m is a workable minimum in a location like this (heading A.2, Figure A2: “Shared path operation”, PDF page 90, document page 83).

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

The high pedestrian and cyclist activity at the King Street/Sydney Park Road, Princes Highway/May Street and Mitchell Road/Sydney Park Road intersections, as well as along King Street to access St Peters Station and Sydney Park, is one of the key considerations of the proposal, as noted above and discussed in Sections 3.3, 4.3.2 and 5.2.5 of Appendix C (Traffic and transport assessment) of the REF.

March 2022 Submissions report, TfNSW, PDF page 36

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

The policy states among other requirements that Transport must:

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

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

4. Why make these changes to the design?

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

TINSW advised the City that it is unable to fund the previously agreed and exhibited design. Meanwhile, it is continuing to allocate significant funding and resources to develop the Western Distributor Road Network Improvements project, even though the safety and transport arguments justifying this project are highly questionable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Approval conditions for the M8 motorway (Westconnex)

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

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

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

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

Page 33 of the Sydney Park Junction Review of Environmental Factors

5.1 M8 approval condition B50

Condition B50 states:

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

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

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

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

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

5.2 M8 approval condition B51

Condition B51 states:

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

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

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

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

Approval condition B51, M8 Motorway Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.2.1 Endorsement of B51

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

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

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

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

6. Undermining confidence in TfNSW following Rozelle Interchange inquiry recommendations

This change has occurred in fresh memory of the damning July 2024 “Impact of the Rozelle Interchange” inquiry report where inquiry participants raised a “lack of transparency regarding decisions made by the government following consultation” (paragraph 5.3, PDF pg. 97) and made recommendations:

• …that there is greater transparency, accessibility and accountability of community consultation processes. (Recommendation 5)
• That the NSW Government ensure that all future road-based projects prioritise the inclusion of safe and accessible active transport infrastructure.” (Recommendation 15)

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

7. A brief history of broken Westconnex promises

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

Parramatta Road

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

Victoria Road

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

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

Paragraph 4.48, PDF page 86, Footnote 405.

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

8. What can I do about this?

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

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

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

9. Appendix

9.1 Safety risks on Mitchell Rd

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

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

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

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

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

Architecture

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

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

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

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

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

Overpass queries

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

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

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

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

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

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

New contraflow cycling in the City of Sydney

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

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

What makes a safe contraflow street?

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

The TfNSW technical direction specifies:

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

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

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

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

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

TTD 2014/002 Signposting for contra-flow bicycle facilities

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

Streets that currently allow contraflow cycling

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

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

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

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

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

View/edit query

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

Previously approved but not yet built contraflow streets

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

View/edit query

Potential future contraflow streets

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

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

View/edit query

A proposal of streets that may be suitable contraflow streets

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

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

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

Other notes

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

Appendix

More maps

Contraflow permitting streets globally

Potential future contraflow streets globally

All the Overpass queries!

Query: CSV of candidates of contraflow lanes

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

Note:

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

Query: Current streets allowing bicycle contraflow

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

Query: Streets that CoS will turn into contraflow

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

Query: Potential future contraflow streets

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

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

  ->.ways;
);

.ways out geom;

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

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

Other useful data

Ethan’s Sydney Bike Map

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

Possible further work

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

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

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

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

In this blog post I:

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

To support my analysis I;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents:

Modifying or removing infrastructure?

Misleading FAQ section

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

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

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

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

Why is Council proposing to modify the cycleway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharrows or painted bicycle icons are not bicycle infrastructure!

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

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

Changes to the council website

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

The website has replaced the word removal with modification.

However, more has changed.

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

A hidden traffic report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion of report

Introduction to body of report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each of these paragraphs comes up in a different context.

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

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

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

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

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

Flaws in arguments of report body

2.2 Adequate Clearances to Obstructions / Road Line-marking

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

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

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

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

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

2.4 Approach Sight Distances (ASD)

This section claims:

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

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

give way, for a driver or pedestrian, means—

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

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

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

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

The text is very similar to the text of 2.2

2.5 however includes an sentence at the bottom.

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

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

Overview of report findings & conclusions

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

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

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

Analysis of flaws in findings

Report finding 1

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

Report finding 2

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

(emphasis mine)

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

Report finding 4

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

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

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

Analysis of flaws in conclusions

Conclusion 1

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

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

Conclusion 2

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

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

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

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

• works assessed have by-large introduced new risks … sight lines…
  • No part of the report other than this finding mentions reduced sight distances at driveways
  • In case it isn’t obvious – the cycleway is flat, and the concrete bollards are ~15cm tall. Any sightline impact is due to private car parking on the public road, which could be reduced or moved with the stroke of a paintbrush.

Other comments

On-street parking availability

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

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

As mentioned above, I welcome any comments, contributions, constructive criticism or feedback either via comments below, on Mastodon, or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com.

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

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

Further reading

Heath St cycleway

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

Relationship between lane width and safety

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

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

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

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

This technical guide details how you can create your own orthorectified (aka satellite view/bird mode) imagery, point clouds and 3D models of streets with nothing but a 360 degree camera mounted on bicycle helmet, and the open source photogrammetry software OpenDroneMap.

Why might you want to do this? With your own up-to-date and highly detailed orthorectified imagery you could:

• quantify and communicate inefficient road space allocation
• record necessary infrastructure repairs
• take measurements such as lane and cycleway widths
• measure footpath obstructions in 3D and rate pedestrian amenity
• map kerb features on OpenStreetMap
• survey street parking using the new OSM spec: wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Street_parking
• 3D print a model of your home street!

Drones are great for surveying and mapping things on the kerb (parking/public space/road widths/building shadows) but there are a lot of places you can’t fly a drone.

OpenDroneMap is usually used to combine a set of geotagged drone images into one coherent 3d model, but it can also be used with any geotagged images.

Roughly the process is as follows:

• Take spherical images on a 360 degree camera
• Import the files from the camera
• Optional: Convert the photos into rectangular, spherical images (for GoPro: convert from the proprietary GoPro format to standard spherical images using GoPro Fusion v1.2)
• Start/login to WebODM, upload the images with fisheye lens setting for 180 degree images or spherical for rectangular 360 degree images and generate imagery & model

Please comment any projects you make after reading this guide, or if you have any questions! There are certainly issues with this process with I’ve added under Limitations.

Table of Contents

Buying a 360 degree camera

360 degree cameras can be very expensive (the ones mounted on Google Street View cars are possibly $45,000!), but GoPro makes relatively affordable models. See https://help.mapillary.com/hc/en-us/articles/115001465989-About-360-cameras for more suitable cameras. One common second hand (and now unsupported) model is the GoPro Fusion, which I’ll base this guide on.

Note: Seth Deegan has written a PowerShell script for using Insta360 cameras with ODM. I haven’t tried it but it seems worth a look: https://github.com/lectrician1/Insta360-2-ODM

To generate a detailed model you will need to capture enough images close together. You could mount it to the top of your car, but unless you bought an expensive elevated mount much of the image would just be your car roof!

Some advantages of taking imagery from a bicycle:

• The unobstructed field of view is larger so ODM gets more data for a better model
• The average speed is lower permitting more photos (the maximum self timer frequency of this camera is 2 shots/second)
• You can capture images from different places in the street for more data, such as the road, footpath and bike lanes
• If you’re putting in this much effort to study public space and urban planning you probably like bikes

You’ll need to buy a helmet mount for the GoPro or your chosen camera. GoPro makes a bicycle helmet mount: https://gopro.com/en/us/shop/mounts-accessories /vented-helmet-strap-mount/GVHS30.html (though many non-branded mounts exist on eBay/Amazon too). Be aware a camera mounted on a bicycle helmet is possibly a safety risk to yourself if you crash – be careful.

If you have the ability to mount the camera on a long pole above your head, this will increase the unobstructed field of view and improve the perspective of the street which will improve the results. I imagine this would attract even more attention! If you have tips for building rigs like this please leave a comment. Andrew Harvey wrote an OpenStreetMap diary entry on his setup here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/aharvey/diary/42139

GoPro Fusion specific tips

Set the camera to:

• Timelapse photo mode (icon of camera & timer circle)
• Image frequency to 0.5 seconds
• Enable GPS geotagging

Mount the camera to the helmet, wait until the GPS location icon turns solid, and start capturing! Sometimes the first few shots don’t have any location in the EXIF data but this doesn’t seem to confuse WebODM, you can check this with identify -verbose image or your metadata viewer of choice.

Preprocessing the images

The GoPro Fusion will output two 180 degree “fisheye” images to two separate SD cards. Copy all these images to a folder onto your computer.

For an alternate method, see instructions under the generating equirectangular image heading.

Unfortunately, only the “front” images have geotagged information, so you’ll need to copy the exif data from each “back” image to each similarly named “front” image.

A quick and dirty way of doing this is generating a list of terminal commands, that copies all exif tags from each “front” to each “back” photo:

ls -l | grep "GF" | sed -E "s/^.* GF(.*).JPG*/exiftool −overwrite_original_in_place -gps:all -tagsFromFile GF\1.JPG GB\1.JPG/g" > script.sh

I’m sure there are better and easier ways of doing this, please let me know if you come up with one.

Generating the model and orthorectified imagery with Web OpenDroneMap

WebODM (https://opendronemap.org) is an absolute marvel of open source engineering. Unfortunately, generating 3D models takes some serious computing horsepower. You can either use the paid cloud version (WebODM Lightening) at https://webodm.net/ (fast) or run the software on your own computer (a few hours/overnight/days depending on the number of images).

You can directly upload images to WebODM Lightening to process, however you don’t get some friendly/useful features like a browsable map and 3d model viewer. I recommend setting up WebODM locally and adding WebODM Lightening as a “processing node”, so you get the power of the cloud and the extra features of WebODM.

Setting up WebODM locally

Running the software using Docker is a breeze. Install Docker from https://www.docker.com/ (or your preferred method), allocate as much memory & CPUs as you can, and then:

git clone https://github.com/OpenDroneMap/WebODM --config core.autocrlf=input --depth 1
cd WebODM
./webodm.sh start 

See https://github.com/OpenDroneMap/WebODM#getting-started more more details including GPU acceleration.

You’ll now be able to open WebODM on http://localhost:8000

Optional: Adding WebODM lightening as a processing node

Click lightening network in your WebODM sidebar and login.

Generating the model & selecting the correct options

Add a new project, click “Select images & GCP”, select your images, then you will see options for processing your imagery. If you’re using WebODM Lightening, make sure to set the Processing Node appropriately.

Some options I’ve found are required:

If you are using the raw 180 degree “fisheye” images straight out of the GoPro Fusion, set camera-lens to fisheye (this is critical). If you are using equirectangular images set to spherical. WebODM seems to be unable to auto-identify the lens type in both cases.

• enable sky removal – this uses AI to mask out the sky in each frame so that there are less artifacts in the final model
• enable auto-boundary
• enable bg-removal

This is just from my trial and error, there may be better option configurations.

You will likely need to enable “resize images” to 2000px or it is very easy to run out of memory.

Though it is out of scope for this article, you can also set up a VPS instance to speed up the process if you don’t want to use the hosted cloud processing tool. Ive tried this, but it’s probably more effort than it’s worth unless you’re making a business out of this.

Even with an EC2 instance with 124GB of RAM and 324 images at 5760 × 2180 pixels I ran out of memory – remember to enable some swap space if you want to run at full size: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-add-swap-space-on-ubuntu-18-04

Output accuracy: taking measurements

OpenDroneMap can make measurements of the 3D model. I’ve found these are usually quite accurate; they may have small “measurement” errors due to artifacts or distortion but will tend towards the correct value – GPS coordinates ensure the scale is correct.

For example, measuring the width of the green paint of the cycle path:

Large path:

• OpenDroneMap: 4.54 metres
• Tape measure: 4.56 metres

Small path:

• OpenDroneMap: 1.89 metres (though this varies slightly due to distortions)
• Tape measure: 1.89 metres

Alternative: Generating and processing equirectangular spherical images

I’m currently unclear whether this method is faster or produces better results than the raw 180 degree images. I’m very interested to hear if you have experience (and I’ll update this if I get more evidence). I believe the GroPro Max generates these images in camera, so this won’t be required.

If you use the GoPro Fusion, unfortunately because this camera is no longer supported GoPro discontinued the software: https://gopro.com/en/au/news/fusion-end-of-life

You’ll (unfortunately) need to use the proprietary GoPro Fusion software to generate spherical images. I’ve found on an M1 Mac (Monterey) the only version that still runs is 1.2, 1.4 just crashes. The least dodgy download I can find is https://macdownload.informer.com/fusion-studio/1.2/.

If you make an open source solution (maybe building from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37796911/is-there-a-fisheye-or-dual-fisheye-to-equirectangular-filter-for-ffmpeg) please let me know! Edit: Looks like this repo will do it. https://github.com/trek-view/fusion2sphere

This camera has two SD card slots – one for the front facing camera, and one for the back facing camera. Sometimes only one camera works for part of the shoot and the proprietary software refuses to stitch any of the photos at all! The only way I’ve found to combat this is to format the card in camera before each shoot. Spending more on a GoPro Max may solve a lot of headaches!

Limitations

Little helmets appear! I’ve tried some techniques but haven’t found a proper solution that doesn’t degrade the model/orthophoto structure.

Appendix: Things that didn’t work

Removing helmet artifacts by cropping

I tried using the convert and mogrify tools (part of the amazing open source ImageMagick suite) can crop the spherical photos and retain the geographical information! The cropping works great, but OpenDroneMap doesn’t seem to be able to understand a cropped equirectangular image. If you’d like to try to get this working, here are the steps I took.

First install ImageMagick (sudo apt-get install imagemagick on Linux/brew install imagemagick on macOS).

The general syntax is:
convert -crop {x_size}x{y_size}+{x_offset}+{y_offset} inputfile outputfile

See https://deparkes.co.uk/2015/04/30/batch-crop-images-with-imagemagick/ for more detail and helpful diagrams.

Helpfully, the helmet artifact is always at the bottom of frame, so the x offset and y offset will be zero.

To crop 700 pixels off the bottom of a spherical image, you can use

convert -crop 5760x"$((2880-700))"+0+0 inputfile outputfile

To batch convert a number of files, where the input files are in ./input/, and you have made an output directory ./output/, you can use:

mogrify -monitor -crop 5760x"$((2880-700))"+0+0 -path ./output ./input/*

Removing helmet artifacts by adding a mask

Adding custom drawn masks, either covering just the helmet or also the surrounding black “void” either:

• removed the helments but caused extra “holes”/missing segments in the ground
• didn’t remove the helmets

I think this may be due to clashing behaviour of the bg-removal and sky-removal flags with manual masks.

ODM requires a mask image for every image with _mask.{EXT} as a suffix (where EXT replaces the original extension).

The two mask types I tried:

If you know what may be happening please let me know!

Further research/experimentation

• How many “capture lines” per street are necessary to make a decent model? I didn’t have any luck with one but it may have been my settings. I used ~4 for the above model.
• How much better are models when the camera is on a stick?
• Improved WebODM settings for generation

Prior art

• “A Satellite in Your Pocket: Ground Based Action Cameras to Create Aerial Perspective for OSM Editing”. This was recorded at OpenStreetMap US: Connect 2020 by Sean Gorman. The company Pixel8 doesn’t appear to exist any more.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfab-iuWlsQ
• Twitter thread by @klaskarlsson (@klaskarlsson@fosstodon.org on Mastodon) on creating a model of his house using a “GoPro on a stick”: https://twitter.com/klaskarlsson/status/1583401741386936320
• “Create aerial imagery base on 360° pictures” – discussion in the OpenDroneMap community: https://community.opendronemap.org/t/create-aerial-imagery-base-on-360-pictures/12339

The post Creating aerial imagery with a bike helmet camera (GoPro) and OpenDroneMap first appeared on Jake Coppinger.