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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table of contents

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

Maps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) What is the expected delivery date?

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

Estimated completion date of construction is not specified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(e) 50+ new trees?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The City of Sydney recommended in April 2020:

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

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

From the Beyond the Pavement TfNSW standard:

Consider road width narrowing

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

Safely introduce tree planting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. GIPA 25T-1420 includes that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Transport Minister Jo Haylen promise the original REF design?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

How did these scope cuts get approved?

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

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

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

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

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

Are any features beyond Stage 1 scope funded?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the words of the Inner West council:

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

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

Note this does not state it is part of WestConnex.

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

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

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

It also includes on the same page:

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

Original text of approval conditions

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

B44

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

B50

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

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

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

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

B51

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

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

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

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

The state of cycleway and footpath funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline of the project

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

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

Site photos

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

Edit 2024-11-29: ChatGPT 4o’s answer when asked if the project is still going ahead:
“…In summary, while the Sydney Park Junction project is moving forward, the extent to which it will align with the original 2021 design remains uncertain. Ongoing community engagement and monitoring are essential to ensure that the project’s outcomes meet the initial commitments and community expectations.”

At 3:04:27pm on November 11th 2024, TfNSW (the state transport department) updated the Sydney Park Junction project website page. Apart from removing any mention of creating “a people-friendly place with more open areas for people” and “create dynamic community spaces”, there was only one notable addition: “The project is being delivered in stages and we will keep the community informed as the designs for the remaining stages are finalised”.

Unless you were lucky enough to get the email to selected stakeholders on the same day, you wouldn’t know that “Transport for NSW will continue to progress the final design of the Sydney Park Junction project, which includes a new cycle path connection between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway” (emphasis mine). Nowhere is it mentioned – not on the project page, not in the stakeholder email, not even in the slides of the September 19 TfNSW briefing to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office – that the now overturned “Sydney Park Road scope reduction was approved by the Ministers Office” one year ago in November 2023.

TfNSW originally stated in a 5th August 2024 presentation that scope reduction of this project was required as the “project estimate exceeded the allocated budget”. What budget? The value of this budget (or the estimate) was never made public.

This cycle path connection is now back in the project scope because of community outrage. In case you missed my previous blog post (which was the first the public learned of this issue), the cycleway connection that was deleted makes up a “major design feature” (Review of Environmental Factors, PDF pg. 68) and acts on a “key consideration of the proposal” (Submissions report, PDF pg. 35) of a condition of consent (B50, B51) of a portion of the WestConnex urban motorway project – which the government sold to Transurban in transactions totalling $20.4 billion dollars in 2021 (estimated in 2018 by Dr Christopher Standen as a “financial return of 34 cents for every dollar spent” and a spend including associated works of AU$23 billion).

You would be mistaken for thinking TfNSW will implement the original September 2021 design after the Sydney Morning Herald reported that Minister Jo Haylen directed TfNSW to “abandon the reduced plan” and “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021”.

However, in a 20th November briefing with the Friends of Erskineville, TfNSW would still not rule out the removal of several major aspects of the 2021 project design and requested the group share elements of the project that are “super important” or features “you want the team to consider” – suggesting not all features would be included. On the same day Jenny Leong (Greens Member for Newtown) asked a number of questions to the Minister for Transport in the NSW Parliament to clarify what is included in the scope, and by the 25th of December the public should receive these answers along with timelines and additional insights of how the project went off track (unless TfNSW manages to obfuscate the answers).

If TfNSW is this desperate to reduce the scope and cost of the project, after Clover Moore requested “the design for the Sydney Park Junction project that was exhibited in September 2021”, after two excellent Sydney Morning Herald articles, and after an intervention by the Minister for Transport, it appears evident a significant increase in active transport funding is required.

TfNSW is not short of money – for road projects at least. As Clover Moore’s 5th September letter stated TfNSW “is continuing to allocate significant funding and resources to develop the Western Distributor Road Network Improvements project, even though the safety and transport arguments justifying this project are highly questionable” – the 1950s style project that involves cutting down 71 trees and removing multiple zebra crossings and pedestrian signals to funnel even more cars into inner city streets. TfNSW also found $0.8 billion to fund an update to Elizabeth Drive (half funded by the federal government), duplicating the new M12 motorway and which TfNSW’s own traffic modelling shows is not required. Is TfNSW willing to break promises to the community on the Sydney Park Junction scope to free funding for new road projects?

How much is the $20.4bn WestConnex sale figure? While the Executive Director at Business Sydney is wondering (and Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph is publishing) “So, have we blown many millions of dollars on seldom used CBD bike lanes while forcing motor vehicles into traffic snarled narrow corridors?”, the active transport budget for the entire state of NSW was $38.5 million in 2022/2023 – 0.2% of all the total NSW transport funding over the same duration, and 0.188% of the WestConnex motorway sale figure. The UN recommends we spend 20% of transport funding on active transport. That is 100 times more than we currently do in NSW.

0.2% is so little that TfNSW denied Get NSW Active funding for over 74% of active transport projects that NSW councils requested this year (258 of 346). Our local communities are desperate for improvements in safety for pedestrians and cyclists – as tank-sized SUVs further take over our streets precariously close to vulnerable pedestrians at dangerous speeds and people attempt to follow the slivers of life-saving bike lanes (~0.8% of road network by length in Greater Sydney) so they don’t die on their trip to work (or your home with a food delivery – when I cycled through Chalmers St and Cleveland St on November 23rd 2020 as I did twice per day, fragments of the customer’s food were still remaining on the asphalt alongside pieces of crushed grey helmet. I will spare you the photo).

As per the second recommendation TfNSW made to the Minister on the 19th of September 2024 to “note the opportunities and funding requirements to improve active transport outcomes”, Minister Haylen should rightfully seek 20% of transport funding allocated towards active transport as recommended by the UN (as Ireland has done) – or at least 10% as recommended by the October 2024 Australia Institute report (as Scotland have). Such guaranteed funding would enable TfNSW to at least meet the original scope of this project, parts of which make up a condition of consent for a section of WestConnex.

Every person deserves to be (and feel) safe on every street they may walk, cycle, or dwell on – and as George Street, Pitt Street Mall and mountains of peer-reviewed evidence show, “walkable and bikeable streets are good for business”. (Title of factsheet by Committee for Sydney & AECOM, November 21st 2024).

This is my last of 8 blog posts this year. If you’d like to follow what I write (and build) in 2025, subscribe to my mailing list below.

Table of contents

Overview

The Sydney Park Junction project should be implemented as per the original September 2021 project scope. Additionally, the portion of NSW transport funding for Active Transport should be increased from 0.2% substantially to ensure situations like this do not occur again.

The following sections of this include further analysis on briefings documenting the secret scope reduction of the project in November 2023, what the current promised scope of the project is, and a timeline to try and help you make sense of it all!

Thanks very much to all the folks in active transport advocacy (especially Bicycle NSW), community groups, government (especially Clover Moore, City of Sydney and Jenny Leong MP, Greens Member for Newtown) and the media that have pushed for these improvements to be implemented in full to improve safety and connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians. I hope this analysis is a useful resource for other advocates as well as to inform the public – there hasn’t been a community update regarding the project design or scope since March 2022!

My background is in computer science and I work as a software engineer – I am not a traffic engineer and this analysis is a side project. Please let me know of any mistakes, corrections, improvements or constructive criticism in the comments below, via Mastodon, Bluesky or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com. I have redacted the names of individual community members in letters from the community (published with permission) and if I publish any briefing minutes I will also redact the name of all staff and community members present.

Maps

Friends of Erskineville TfNSW briefing

The Friends of Erskineville (FoE) community group took up the invitation for a briefing on the project on November 20th 2024. After refusing to confirm any original project scope elements (that had been deleted in secret) would be included in the current/future project scope, TfNSW communications & project management personnel requested the group shared elements of the project that are “super important” or features they wanted the [TfNSW] team to consider.

Considering that the Sydney Morning Herald published the quote that “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021” (November 10th, 2024), I believe that attempting to solicit acceptance of continued scope reduction, in private, is unacceptable.

New insights from this meeting are detailed in the scope and timeline tables below, including construction of the pop-up cycleway replacement to start from mid-December, and a community consultation (or “engagement piece”) from “early next year”.

Why did the 19th September 2024 TfNSW briefing not mention the Minister’s Office approved the scope reduction in November 2023?

As the Sydney Morning Herald reported on Oct 7th 2024 (Archive.org link), Minister Jo Haylen rightfully “directed” TfNSW to “abandon the reduced plan” for Sydney Park Junction 5 days (2 business days) after the September 19th letter Bicycle NSW addressed to Minister Haylen, which among many good points included a link to my previous blog post. This direction also took place 5 days after a TfNSW briefing to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office on active transport, speed reductions & vibrant streets – advising on “projects” where active transport has been de-scoped or reduced and why. Sydney Park Junction is one project.

All this briefing stated on historical timelines was that “Revised project scope was approved by the Minister’s Office mid-2024 with the project to be delivered in stages”. This aligns with Clover Moore’s September 5 letter: “As recently as July, the project was further reduced to remove the critical cycling connection at the western end of Sydney Park Road (connecting to King Street) between Sydney Park Road and the existing cycleway on Mitchell Road, leaving gaps in the bike network” (emphasis mine).

However, in addition to including the dot point “Revised project scope on Princes Highway including staged project delivery was approved by the Minister’s Office mid-2024”, the 5th of August TfNSW presentation also included an additional dot point: “Sydney Park Road scope reduction was approved by the Minister’s Office in November 2023”. I’m sure the Minister was busy in November 2023, but this suggests she was at least aware of the changes – at least 8 months before cycling advocacy stakeholders were notified (by omission) in the August 1st City of Sydney Cycling Advisory Meeting (in the same month construction was due to begin as recorded in the slides of this meeting), and almost 10 months before directing TfNSW to abandon the reduced scope.

By omission (again!) the September 19th briefing to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office suggested the “Sydney Park Road scope reduction” was approved in mid-2024 and not in November 2023. Perhaps this was an honest mistake or conveyed verbally – however the Lord Mayor’s September 5th letter suggests the actual timeline could have been obscured more widely, and rock bottom public trust on this project does not inspire charitable interpretations.

“As recently as July, the project was further reduced to remove the critical cycling connection at the western end of Sydney Park Road (connecting to King Street) between Sydney Park Road and the existing cycleway on Mitchell Road, leaving gaps in the bike network”

Lord Mayor’s September 5th letter

Misleading the public by announcing by omission is now known, but could TfNSW have misled ministers and councillors?

Will the new cycle path connection be built as originally designed, or perhaps destroy trees to preserve space for cars?

While “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021” (SMH, Nov 10th), the Nov 11th TfNSW email states “Transport for NSW will continue to progress the final design of the Sydney Park Junction project”. Between the promise in this email that the final design “includes a new cycle path connection between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway” and Nov 11th text on the project page stating “we will keep the community informed as the designs for the remaining stages are finalised”, this suggests that TfNSW is attempting to change the design further.

If the final design was (or could be) the same as publicly exhibited in 2021, it seems logical that TfNSW would simply announce this, mitigate another bruising round of community consultation (or a “community engagement piece”) early next year, avoid the cost of further design work and end this saga. Unless the original design is somehow no longer feasible to piece together under a staged delivery approach required due to already signed contracts for the pop-up replacement, we can reasonably assume the future design is intended to be a lower cost or more desirable than the original. Desirable to TfNSW that is – perhaps to preserve vehicle level of service at the Sydney Park Road to Mitchell Road intersection contrary to TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy.

If all the above is correct, either the SMH comments by Haylen’s office were false, or TfNSW is not following Haylen’s direction for the upgrades to “take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021”.

Why redesign a cycleway that already received glowing feedback from Bicycle NSW? How else could you build a cycleway between Sydney Park Road and the Mitchell Road cycleway?

My concern is an alternative design would involve building it on the existing verge (ie. between the kerb and adjacent buildings), requiring the removal of mature trees, purely to preserve an extra turn lane for vehicles.

Perhaps this is paranoid, but we know TfNSW preserves road capacity for cars even when it requires narrowing of a footpath in the middle of the Sydney CBD. Stranger things have happened.

The community is likely to receive a response to this question by the 25th of December 2024 as a result of Jenny Leong (Greens Member for Newtown in the NSW Parliament) asking questions to the Minister for Transport regarding the project, which included:

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

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/la/papers/pages/qanda-tracking-details.aspx?pk=101985

Tree roots may hinder future development of path: WestConnex Mitchell Road Safety Audit, A18

The Mitchell Road Safety Audit (2017) includes under reference A18 that “Tree roots may hinder future development of path” (see PDF page 110 for this mention, page 111 for the map of where this applies – the entirety of the west side of Mitchell Rd). This suggests there is not sufficient space for a cycleway to be implemented within the existing curb (ie. on the grass) without removal of these trees.

TfNSW could argue planting new trees is a sufficient “offset”, however the NSW Government Biodiversity Policy states TfNSW will have only met “no net loss” if they have “avoided biodiversity impacts to the fullest extent reasonably practicable”. Such a rationalisation to the contrary would have to be published in another Review of Environmental Factors.

Environmental impact assessments including those undertaken as part of a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) and State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) projects must demonstrate the actions taken to avoid, minimise, mitigate and offset impacts on biodiversity as far as practicable.

NSW Government Biodiversity Policy (CP22004), under heading 3.1

TfNSW policy and an extra turning lane

Building the cycleway on the kerb would allow a dedicated vehicle turn lane. Implementing a dedicated turn lane could be rationalised by increasing the vehicle level of service rating, though with the plentiful queuing capacity on Sydney Park Road eastbound perhaps it could not even be rationalised in this manner.

The newly updated Road User Space Allocation Policy states “Transport must allocate road user space based on the following principles”

…
allocate road user space based on the network vision and road functions, considering all road users in order of:
1. walking (including equitable access for people of all abilities)
2. cycling (including legal micro-mobility devices)
3. public transport
4. freight and servicing
5. point to point transport
6. general traffic and on-street parking for private motorised vehicles.

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

Under “To give effect to the principles, Transport must” … “adhere to these principles ahead of any guidance that seeks to protect or maintain private vehicle level of service”. (3.2, “Requirements”. pg 3, dot point 7)

It also includes “where reasonably practicable and feasible” that “The loss of native and amenity trees, green space and other amenities then alternative provision must be allocated in accordance with the Transport’s Biodiversity Policy” (3.2, Requirements). As discussed above, it would not be allocated in accordance if TfNSW does not avoid “biodiversity impacts to the fullest extent reasonably practicable”.

These provisions suggest that removing mature trees to protect or maintain private vehicle level of service with a dedicated turning lane is not compatible with following the Road User Space Allocation Policy – but it wouldn’t be the first time TfNSW has not followed its own (excellent) policy.

Besides – it would be extremely unpopular with locals (or users of the third-largest park in inner-city Sydney).

What’s in scope, out of scope or unclear?

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

Since September 2021, TfNSW has not publicly announced any scope changes. As per the timeline below, we may receive an announcement “early next year” (2025).

Answers to most of these questions are expected in response to Jenny Leong’s (Greens Member for Newtown in the NSW Parliament) questions to the Minister for Transport regarding the project. “Answer due on 25 December 2024”.

The Sydney Morning Herald quoted that “Haylen’s office confirmed the upgrades would take place as the initial proposal publicly exhibited in 2021”.

An unofficial timeline of the Sydney Park Junction project

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

This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. Please get in contact if you have any corrections or additions to make. Please share a link to this page rather than copying this table in case I make corrections or add new information.

Appendix

TfNSW suggested a shared path that does not meet TfNSW design standards is safe

Since the Nov 10 Sydney Morning Herald article a separated cycleway link between Mitchell Road and Sydney Park Road has been confirmed as in scope. The section and titles below outline flaws in documents rationalising the now-cancelled scope reduction of this section.

TfNSW claimed the existing shared path is safe on the slides of the 19th of September presentation to the Roads Minister and Transport Minister’s Office. They claimed:

• That the City of Sydney have raised safety concerns regarding the existing shared path
• There are currently no crash incidents since the installation of the pop-up cycleway in July 2020 along the length of the Sydney Park Road
• That there was a low volume of cyclists around the corner of Sydney Park Road and Mitchell Rd
• That a Road Safety Audit would be undertaken to confirm the permanent cycleway and connections are safe

If you read that sentence carefully, it doesn’t even specify there haven’t been any crashes on the shared path between the Sydney Park Road pop-up cycleway and Mitchell Road cycleway (though I’m not aware of any).

TfNSW’s own report states there is a high level of pedestrian and cyclist activity at Mitchell Rd / Sydney Park Rd

TfNSW’s own Sydney Park Submissions report included that:

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

March 2022 Submissions report, TfNSW, PDF page 36 (emphasis mine).

The latest Mitchell Rd safety audit was before bicycles were allowed on the existing footpath

Note that in the previous safety audit of Mitchell Road was undertaken in 2017 (PDF page 110 of “WESTCONNEX NEW M5 PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE TRANSPORT NETWORK REVIEW” by McGregor Coxall (17 May 2017)). In NSW, it is illegal to cycle on a footpath unless it is designated a shared path using a blue line or signage. This footpath only became a shared path after the 17 March 2022 City of Sydney Local Pedestrian, Cycling and Traffic Committee meeting – which included:

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

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

Therefore the existing safety audit would find few bicycle / pedestrian conflicts as cycling on the path was illegal.

What would a safety audit have found if no separated cycleway connection is added?

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

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

If TfNSW undertook a Road Safety Audit to confirm the shared path is safe, they would find that it does not meet design guidelines.

TfNSW was proposing to evaluate the safety of an asset after designing it not to meet their own standards. Imagine designing a car not to satisfy government safety ratings but promising to “audit” that it’s safe afterwards! This would be unthinkable – and it’s only because of media pressure that the safety of pedestrians and cyclists adjacent to a state road are not subjected to this logic. It is unthinkable that TfNSW was proposing this order of activities before the Minister stepped in.

Cycling and walking count dashboard data

While a screenshot of the TfNSW Cycling and Walking Counts dashboard is shown in the 19th September slides claiming low usage of the Sydney Park Road to Mitchell Road shared path, the sidebar highlighting the site name or data timeframe appears to have been cropped out. Additionally, the “Average counts ( per site per day) panel does not appear to include a selected green site dot. The Total counts for the single monitored site specified is 4,620, analysed days is 128, and the graph shows one datapoint before the Apr 2024 dashed vertical line with a gradually decreasing trend. This means the claim of only an average of 36 cyclists per day is not easily reproducible with this dashboard.

36 cyclists per day is definitely wrong and suggests an issue with the detector (the average is closer to 150). If TfNSW knowingly presented a statistic taken during a data outage to the minister to rationalise the original scope reduction that is extremely concerning.

This screenshot must have been taken on or before the 19th of September 2024. As of the time of publishing there appear to be 2 green selected site dots positioned on the shared path corner of this intersection. One of these dots has a number of analysed days 5 more than the other. Counting back the number of analysed days on the live dashboard from the date of writing this paragraph, the first day of measurement for the oldest of these two sites seems to be May 3rd 2024 (perhaps with an off by 1 or 2 error).

This places the screenshot date of this dashboard as perhaps May 3rd + 128 days, or May 3rd + 128 + 5 days – 13th September 2024 or 18th September 2024.

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

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.