These are not great metrics, but are useful heuristics – including for verifying and comparing claims of density and network length metrics per council (a pertinent topic!) with deterministic, open source calculations on human-verified consensus-based data (OpenStreetMap – which I contribute to almost daily).

A better metric, perhaps the most important, is cycling access using safe streets and cycleways – and one I am deeply passionate about. Affordable homes where people want to live need safe access to destinations people want to visit (without burning oil). Measuring this metric is important – almost as important as increasing it.

UrbanSpectra is open to work for evaluating, modelling, visualising and communicating urban data – and has an exciting product in development. If your private or public organisation is looking for rigorous analysis or tools using such data, or is interested in an early demo of this product – get in touch!

UrbanSpectra‘s capability statement is published at urbanspectra.com/capability-statement/

The post Updates to Australian Cycleway Stats first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accuracy and language

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

Review of media coverage of the death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NSW Police Press Release

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

Daily Telegraph

First article

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

Second article

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

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

Sydney Morning Herald

Breaking news article

Digital (2025-12-02)

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

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

Print (2025-12-03)

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

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

Editorial article (2025-12-03)

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

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

I include criticism of this article in the initial section.

Opinion Article (2025-12-03)

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

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

Breaking news article (2025-12-04)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weekend Opinion Article (2025-12-06)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article was published after this blog post.

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

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

I appreciate this addition.

Australian Associated Press

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

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

The Daily Mail

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

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

The Guardian

Live blog

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

Article

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

Sunrise (Seven Network)

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

ABC News

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

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

The Nightly

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

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

7 News

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

Crash site on 2025-12-03

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

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

Broadway / Parramatta Road is unsafe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

Good morning, Ben.

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

Ben Fordham (Host)

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

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

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

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

Jim (caller)

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

Chris Minns – Premier of NSW

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

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

(discussion on coal fired power station)

Footnotes

References

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

I’m pleased to share the completion of a recent commercial engagement with the Heart Foundation: the Community Walkability Map, a new interactive tool designed to help communities understand and advocate for more walkable, healthier neighbourhoods.

Table of contents

About the Project

The Heart Foundation has a longstanding commitment to environments that support heart health, physical activity, and healthy living. As part of this mission, they commissioned a user-friendly platform that visualises pedestrian access to everyday destinations – empowering residents, advocates, and planners alike to identify opportunities for improvement in the built environment.

The map allows users to drop a pin anywhere in Australia and visualise accessible destinations within 5, 10, 15, and 20-minute walk catchments. These walkability catchments are not based solely on distance – they account for real-world walking conditions including path connectivity, barriers such as highways, and signal timing delays.

This map is now a central feature of the Heart Foundation’s Community Walkability website, which also includes community checklists, fact sheets, planning guides, and a Supporters’ Toolkit for professionals in the built environment sector.

A Data-Driven Tool for Policy and Advocacy

A key innovation of this project is the integration of traffic signal delay-aware isochrone modelling – a methodology that highlights delays to people walking at crossings, often overlooked in conventional walking catchment calculations.

Built using open-source OpenStreetMap data, the tool translates complex urban transport data into an intuitive, map-based interface that supports both strategic communication and policy engagement.

From a technical perspective, I led all aspects of the solution design and delivery, including:

• Co-design and scoping with the Heart Foundation team
• Project management and delivery oversight, using an incremental approach with regular status updates
• Backend isochrone algorithm development, implementing signal delay estimation
• Geospatial data integration and transformation
• Serverless backend development
• Graphic design
• Frontend software engineering

The end result is a tool that blends open data, urban analytics, and visual storytelling to support healthier, more walkable communities.

Data Sources

The map’s core walkability modelling is based on OpenStreetMap (OSM) data. Where possible, users are encouraged to contribute updates to OSM or via the Mapbox contribution portal.

Additional datasets integrated under agreement with the Heart Foundation include:

• Street lighting data from Ausgrid and Citipower
• Tree canopy coverage from the NSW DPHI (CC BY 4.0)
• Traffic signal delay data from Better Intersections (ODbL licensed), supplemented with interpolation or estimated averages in data-sparse areas

Users can explore data attributions directly via the map interface and are welcome to contribute additional signal timing measurements here.

Reflections

It was a pleasure to work closely with Anna Gurnhill and the broader Heart Foundation team throughout this project. Their vision, clarity of purpose, and genuine commitment to creating healthier, more accessible communities made this a rewarding collaboration.

What’s Next?

If you have an interesting challenge in the urban analytics, planning or community consultation space and would like to collaborate – let’s chat.

You can also read more about my background, including my five years as a full-stack engineer at Atlassian, open source work and policy advocacy here. I’ll have more to share on a new commercial entity soon.

I’m looking to further explore the potential of traffic signal-aware isochrone analysis to quantify urban accessibility and support data-driven planning and placemaking initiatives.

I’m particularly interested in applying similar methodologies to cycling network analysis.

I retain ownership of the underlying IP developed in this project and am open to discussing its further application in other domains.

This blog post has been reviewed with the client before publication.

The post Introducing the Heart Foundation’s Community Walkability Map first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

This week is National Road Safety Week. Traffic injury is the biggest killer of Australian children under 15 and the second-biggest killer of all Australians aged between 15 and 24 (NRSW). 50 people walking are killed on NSW roads and streets every year and this figure is trending up. Many of these people are killed waiting at signals or taking risks to cross streets because signal wait times are too long.

Traffic signals are quite literally at the intersection of our urban spaces, transport policy, and pedestrian safety. I wrote directly to the Secretary of Transport for NSW (TfNSW) Josh Murray “on behalf of WalkSydney to request that Transport for NSW make SCATS [Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System] traffic signal phasing data publicly accessible in the interest of transparency, better planning, and inclusive transport outcomes”. My letter was co-signed by the President of WalkSydney (Tegan Mitchell) and President of Better Streets (Sara Stace).

On the 13th of May I received a reply to my request, which along with factual errors and misrepresentations stated:

Transport also does not plan to establish a scheme or arrangement for the publication of that data for the NSW road network and signalised intersections.

Brenda Hoang (Deputy Secretary, Finance Technology and Commercial Division, Group Chief Financial Officer, TfNSW), on behalf of the Secretary for Transport (Josh Murray)
Letter (OTS25/01450) dated 2025-05-09 (received 2025-05-13)

This blog post reproduces my response letter in full (which corrects factual errors and misrepresentations in the response I received) along with my initial request letter and TfNSW’s initial response. I hope you may learn something interesting from them.

Data recently presented to the TfNSW Active Transport Community of Practice (2024-06-20) documented higher rates of unsafe crossing in the City of Sydney due to dangerously long waits at signals, aligning with international evidence (Martin, A. (2006. Factors influencing pedestrian safety: a literature review (No. PPR241). Wokingham, Berks: TRL (Transport for London), Baass K G (1989). Review of European and North American practice of pedestrian signal timing. Prepared for RTAC Annual Conference Calgary, Alberta.)

People walking and using other active modes in NSW often face long and unpredictable waits at intersections. This is well understood – a 2020 report by Gehl Architects on Sydney stated “The reduction in waiting times has improved pedestrian amenity, however further improvements can be made”. Improvement in priority for pedestrians is listed as action 7 of focus area 5.1 of the current TfNSW Active Transport Strategy:

Action 7: Improve priority for walking trips in centres, towns and villages, such as reallocating road space to widen footpaths and providing more frequent and longer duration pedestrian crossing phases at traffic signals.

Action 7, of focus area 5.1 “Enable 15-minute neighbourhoods”, current TfNSW Active Transport Strategy 2022 (pg 14). Listed as an “Immediate actions (completed or initiated within 5 years)”

Understanding signal timing is crucial for the public to evaluate progress toward this action, to evaluate signal timing against the City of Sydney’s excellent target of “A maximum wait time at intersections of 45 seconds for people walking with a target of 30 seconds” and to assess compliance with the updated mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy.

Without access to data, the public cannot learn whether outcomes are improving.

I have previously written on the design and politics of traffic signals and how they affect people walking and riding in Sydney:

• Sydney CBD is bringing back pedestrian “beg buttons” (2022-12-19)
• Mapping pedestrian traffic light timing in Sydney, Australia (2023-06-12)
  • Better Intersections, crowdsourced signal timing map (2023-06-12 – present)
    • Coverage on ABC News
    • Linked from the Sydney Morning Herald
• Shining a Light on the Traffic Signals of Sydney (2023-07-10)
• Preliminary analysis of Better Intersections data (2024-07-01)
• Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road… (2024-08-22)

Table of contents

WalkSydney Letter, 2025-05-14

(Original letter PDF: https://files.jakecoppinger.com/tfnsw-open-signal-data/2025-05-14 Reply – Outgoing corro to Brenda Hoang (TfNSW) SCATS data release.pdf)

2025-05-14 

Transport for NSW 
231 Elizabeth Street 
Sydney NSW 2000 

brenda.hoang@transport.nsw.gov.au 

cc. 

Josh Murray (josh.murray@transport.nsw.gov.au)
Roy Brown (roy.brown@transport.nsw.gov.au) 

Re: Public Access to SCATS Traffic Signal Phasing Data 

Dear Brenda Hoang, 

Thank you for your considered response. 

I appreciate your open invitation of further correspondence and for myself, WalkSydney, and other interested parties to meet with your Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) team. 

I have a strong appreciation of the challenging work undertaken by the TfNSW Network Operations team in designing, operating and managing the complex trade-offs required to serve the diverse stakeholders of signal timing (which I have previously stated publicly). 

However, we are disappointed to learn that “Transport also does not plan to establish a scheme or arrangement for the publication of that data for the NSW road network and signalised intersections.”, and we request a reconsideration of this position. 

1. What We Are Requesting 

We are requesting that Transport for NSW (TfNSW) begin regularly publishing historical signal phasing data – for example, on a monthly basis – for signalised intersections across NSW. 

Specifically, we seek the cycle time of each intersection, for each cycle that runs, and the time allocated to each signal phase. 

We do not request: 

• Traffic volume data 
• Interpretations or analysis of the data 
• Guarantees of data accuracy 
• Internal decision-making rationale 
• Algorithmic details or communication protocols 
• Technical drawings of physical infrastructure 

This is about transparency, not intellectual property or cybersecurity. The data we request consists of outcomes, not inputs or methods. 

2. Why you should release this information 

Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of good governance. The public has already paid for the infrastructure and expertise that generates this data. The information belongs to the people of NSW. There is a strong public interest in understanding how traffic signals affect mobility and safety – there have been several recent media articles, including from the Sydney Morning Herald and ABC. 

People walking and using other active modes often face long and unpredictable waits at intersections. Improvement in priority for pedestrians is an action 7 of a focus area 5.1 of the current TfNSW Active Transport Strategy: 

Improve priority for walking trips in centres, towns and villages, such as reallocating road space to widen footpaths and providing more frequent and longer duration pedestrian crossing phases at traffic signals.

Action 7, of focus area 5.1 “Enable 15-minute neighbourhoods”, TfNSW Active Transport Strategy (pg 14) 

The updated TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy states it must be followed when allocating temporal road user space: 

This policy sets out the mandatory principles and requirements Transport staff must follow when allocating physical and temporal road user space safely and equitably to support the movement of people and goods and place objectives. (emphasis mine) 

Transport must allocate road user space based on the following principles:
…
– allocate road user space based on the network vision and road functions, considering all road users in order of: 

1. walking (including equitable access for people of all abilities)
2. cycling (including legal micro-mobility devices) 
3. public transport 
4. freight and servicing 
5. point to point transport 
6. general traffic and on-street parking for private motorised vehicles. 

Signals are explicitly defined as in scope for temporal allocation: 

Temporal allocation: Optimising how space is allocated throughout the day, week or year. This includes the dynamic control of space, access, level of priority, speed and kerbside use through signage, signals, and other technology  

(7. Definitions, pg. 6. TfNSW RUSAP. Emphasis mine.) 

We are grateful that, as you stated TfNSW “…remain committed to our purpose to make NSW a better place to live, work and visit by delivering a safe, reliable and sustainable transport network”. 

It is currently the National Road Safety Week. We note that data recently presented to the TfNSW Active Transport Community of Practice (2024-06-20) documented higher rates of unsafe crossing in the City of Sydney due to dangerously long waits at signals, aligning with international evidence (Martin, A. (2006. Factors influencing pedestrian safety: a literature review (No. PPR241). Wokingham, Berks: TRL (Transport for London), Baass K G (1989). Review of European and North American practice of pedestrian signal timing. Prepared for RTAC Annual Conference Calgary, Alberta.) 

50 people are killed on NSW roads and streets every year, this figure is trending up – and many of these people are killed waiting at signals or taking risks to cross streets because signal wait times are too long. 

We believe releasing such signal timing data is in the public interest of transparency, better planning, and inclusive transport outcomes which could reduce harm and assist the shift to sustainable modes. 

Understanding signal timing is crucial for the public to evaluate progress toward action 7 of focus area 5.1 of the TfNSW Active Transport Strategy, and assess compliance with the mandatory Road User Space Allocation Policy. Without access to data, the public cannot assess whether outcomes are improving. 

3. Factual errors and misrepresentations 

4. Further context of Australian precedent of releasing open signal data 

WA Main Roads previously published a real-time websocket feed of signal timing. I understand that in December 2024 they were undertaking a significant upgrade of their IT infrastructure and systems. To continue to support the SCATS Open Data Feed, an upgrade and migration of all its components would be necessary. Such a solution was deemed to be time-consuming, costly, require a complete re-write of the underlying solution and result in ongoing overhead. 

I proposed that WA Main Roads consider providing regular monthly exports of the previously streamed real-time signal data. This approach offers lower ongoing maintenance than a live feed while preserving the public benefits of transparency and improved planning. 

By 2025-01-21, the WA Main Roads Open Data Governance Committee had decided to pursue this suggestion, initially through monthly data dumps, with the potential for automated weekly updates in future. By 2025-04-07 they had published over 8GB of GeoParquet data – an impressive 76 days later. I greatly appreciate their leadership in open data governance and technical excellence. 

I look forward to your response. 

Kind Regards, 
Jake Coppinger 
on behalf of WalkSydney 

Jointly signed by 

– Tegan Mitchell, President of WalkSydney 

– Sara Stace, President of Better Streets 

WalkSydney is the peak body advocating for walking in the Greater Sydney Region. 

WalkSydney’s vision is for walking to be the first choice for short trips around Sydney. 

WalkSydney has three key asks: 

• 30 km/hr urban default speed 

• streets that are safe and easy to cross 

• pedestrian priority over cars 

WalkSydney is a member of the Better Streets coalition, an collection of hundreds of community organisations advocating for better streets in Australia 

TfNSW Letter OTS25/01450 (received 2025-05-13)

(Original letter PDF: https://files.jakecoppinger.com/tfnsw-open-signal-data/OTS25_01450 – SCATS traffic signal phasing data release.pdf)

Transport for NSW

Mr. Jake Coppinger

The WalkSydney Organisation
Level 4, 68 Wentworth Ave
SURRY HILLS NSW 2010

Via email jake@jakecoppinger.com
OTS25/01450

Re: SCATS traffic signal phasing data release 9 May 2025

Dear Mr. Coppinger,

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the Secretary of Transport for NSW and for sharing your advocacy on behalf of people walking and riding in Greater Sydney. In this instance the Secretary has asked me to respond to you on his behalf.

Currently, Transport for NSW (Transport) does not routinely publish traffic signal phase and timing information. Transport also does not plan to establish a scheme or arrangement for the publication of that data for the NSW road network and signalised intersections.

The Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS), which controls signal phase selection and timing for each individual intersection, operates as a coordinated and adaptive system. This means that each intersection has varying timing and phase selections that are based on the vehicle and pedestrian demand, the time of day, and the minimum safety parameters of each intersection in the NSW road network. With more than 4,500 intersections, configurations change minute by minute as each phase is altered, extended, shortened or skipped in response to real time demands. SCATS uses machine learning principles to update the timing and phase selections in real-time to optimise traffic flow. Any publication of this data will be outdated by the time it is released.

The relationship between the volume, vehicle and pedestrian demand and responsive signal phase and timing is governed by SCATS central optimisation algorithm and by any manual interventions or configurations performed by Transport road network operators. As such, the optimisation algorithm and related information form part of the intellectual property at the core of the SCATS product and is considered commercially sensitive information.

Additionally, for cybersecurity reasons, SCATS cannot provide detailed information on how the algorithm-driven optimisation messages are communicated to the physical infrastructure. That information is kept confidential to protect the safety critical systems that control the signal phases and timing in NSW intersections from cyberattacks.

We also note that the last published set of ‘signals data’ from WA Main Roads, a customer of SCATS, is from October 2023. As such, it is historical and not maintained as a real-time or near real-time dataset.

Data on traffic volumes is available for a cost-recovery fee from Transport. If you are interested in a traffic signal report, data or service, please complete the relevant form, by following the link below. You can also view the schedule of fees for specialist services provided by the Network Operations on the form page.

Traffic signal request form – https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/trafficsignal

We remain committed to our purpose to make NSW a better place to live, work and visit by delivering a safe, reliable and sustainable transport network. To that end, we welcome further correspondence
and share an open invitation for The WalkSydney, Mr. Coppinger and any other interested members to meet with our SCATS team and further understand the system and the way Transport applies its
capabilities.

If you have any further questions, please contact Roy Brown, Director Technology SCATS from our Finance, Technology & Commercial Division at Roy.Brown@transport.nsw.gov.au.

I hope this has been of assistance.
Sincerely,
Brenda Hoang

Deputy Secretary, Finance Technology and Commercial Division
Group Chief Financial Officer

Cc:
Roy Brown Roy.Brown@transport.nsw.gov.au
Tegan Mitchell, President of WalkSydney tegan.mitchell@walksydney.org
Sara Stace, President of Better Streets sstace@betterstreets.org.au

OFFICIAL
231 Elizabeth St, Sydney NSW 2000
(02) 8202 2200
PO BOX K659 HAYMARKET NSW 1240

WalkSydney Letter 2025-04-16

(Original letter PDF: https://files.jakecoppinger.com/tfnsw-open-signal-data/Outgoing corro to TfNSW Secretary SCATS data release.pdf)

Secretary 
Transport for NSW 
Level 31, 320 Pitt Street 
Sydney NSW 2000 

josh.murray@transport.nsw.gov.au 

Dear Mr Murray, 

Re: Public Access to SCATS Traffic Signal Phasing Data 

We are writing on behalf of WalkSydney to request that Transport for NSW make SCATS traffic signal phasing data publicly accessible in the interest of transparency, better planning, and inclusive transport outcomes. 

As you know, the Sydney Coordinated Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS) plays a central role in managing vehicle movements across Sydney’s road network. However, despite its scale and impact, there is limited public visibility into how signal phasing decisions are made, particularly in relation to how these choices affect people walking, riding, and accessing public transport. 

In contrast, the Western Australian Government has taken a significant step forward by publishing SCATS signal phasing data online — free and accessible to all. This openness supports evidence-based advocacy, allows communities and researchers to understand trade-offs, and ensures accountability for how public infrastructure serves all users of the street network. We believe signal timing should be as public as a train or bus timetable. 

We believe similar access in New South Wales would be an important step toward aligning with Government commitments to Vision Zero, Net Zero, and modal shift. 40% of people in NSW don’t have a driver licence, and more than that don’t drive, but we don’t have those stats. 

Right now, the needs of people walking and riding are not meaningfully represented in the SCATS framework. Advocates and planners lack the information needed to make the case for safer, more equitable signal timing — especially for children, older adults, people with disabilities and everyone in between.  

We understand from conversations with TfNSW staff that there is a historic reason for SCATS data being charged – and that was to suppress the number of requests and therefore administration costs, in an era before the Open Data Hub. We believe this is no longer valid, as it places an unfair administrative and financial cost on the public, compared to providing the data on the portal. 

We therefore respectfully request that Transport for NSW: 

1. Provide public access to SCATS traffic signal phasing data across the network, or 

2. Publish a roadmap outlining how and when this data will be made available, and 

3. Engage with advocates and accessibility groups on opportunities to make SCATS more responsive to the needs of vulnerable and active transport users. 

We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and work collaboratively to ensure our traffic signal system reflects the priorities of a modern, inclusive transport network. 

Yours sincerely, 
Jake Coppinger 
on behalf of WalkSydney 

Jointly signed by 

– Tegan Mitchell, President of WalkSydney 

– Sara Stace, President of Better Streets 

WalkSydney is the peak body advocating for walking in the Greater Sydney Region. 

WalkSydney’s vision is for walking to be the first choice for short trips around Sydney. 

WalkSydney has three key asks: 

• 30 km/hr urban default speed 

• streets that are safe and easy to cross 

• pedestrian priority over cars 

WalkSydney is a member of the Better Streets coalition, an collection of hundreds of community organisations advocating for better streets in Australia

The post No Signal for Pedestrian Safety: TfNSW Refuses Signal Data During National Road Safety Week first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

This is a lightly edited submission for the Epping Bridge Project concept design and Review of Environmental Factors that I wrote in collaboration with volunteers on behalf of Better Streets.

Corrections, comments, and constructive criticism is much appreciated – either as a comment below, via Mastodon or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com. Thanks very much to all the volunteers, wider advocacy groups and Better Streets leadership who reviewed this submission.

Better Streets does not support the concept design of the Epping Bridge Project. It is first and foremost a road widening project (5 car lanes to 7 car lanes). It does not follow Transport for NSW’s own Road User and Space Allocation Policy or Movement & Place design framework, and at $220 million costs double the allocation for active transport for the entire state over the next 4 years! It is alarming that TfNSW is not following their own excellent policies – the local community would be the beneficiaries.

The Transport Impact Assessment explains “The Australian and NSW governments are jointly funding the replacement of Epping bridge (the bridge) to ease congestion, improve connectivity, and improve safety for road users in North-West Sydney”.

The FAQ document states: “Extra capacity is being provided through the provision of an additional westbound traffic lane into Beecroft Road and an additional right turn lane southbound into Blaxland Road. The additional two lanes of traffic will ease congestion in both directions across the bridge, resulting in travel time savings for road users.”

The only problem – it won’t work! The project’s own modelling shows adding lanes will not ease congestion and travel time savings will not persist beyond 2029. Anyone paying attention to transport policy this century knows widening a road will not reduce congestion long term (“How to Fix Traffic Congestion In Australia”, Utopia, 2023. Page 897, The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York Caro, Robert, 1974)

Modelling predicts that after five disruptive years of construction, the average network speed would increase by a single km/h in the AM and PM peaks in 2029 – followed by a 8 km/h (31.8 percent) drop in the PM peak network speed within a decade.

Average vehicle delay is modelled to drop from 148.8 seconds to 134.4 seconds (a 14.4s drop) in the morning peak and from 141.3 to 131.4 seconds (just a 9.9s drop) in the afternoon peak after construction.

It’s completely nonsensical – and temporary. Modelling suggests the PM peak average network delay will increase to 235.1 seconds by 2039 (an increase of 131.4s after a decade). This is 13.2 times or 1320% the network delay saving anticipated by 2029. That is, in 2039, the celebrated 2029 PM peak delay saving will be eroded twelve times over.

But what would happen in 2039 if the project wasn’t built? We don’t know – because modelling was not done (or is redacted and secret). We can only assume it is not supportive of the project. How much would the bridge cost if it is rebuilt but not widened? We don’t know – costing was not published.

The Transport Impact Assessment itself admits that the project will not prevent congestion increases past 2029, but that mode shift to public and active transport would help mitigate the congestion increases (PDF page 36).

This report details criticism of the report, analysis and errors in the modelling results, and recommendations to increase mode shift to public and active transport – based on best practice policy and still delivering the political promises to widen the bridge and reduce congestion. Feel free to jump to the Recommendations section.

Better Streets is Australia’s peak body for safer, healthier and more sustainable streets. The Better Streets coalition includes a large number of volunteers and organisations – our aims are listed at betterstreets.org.au and coalition members are listed at https://www.betterstreets.org.au/coalition

This report was written (in their leisure time) by Jake Coppinger in collaboration with Better Streets volunteers and reviewed with Better Streets leadership. All authors are volunteers and do not have a traffic engineering background. Corrections, comments, and constructive criticism is much appreciated – please forward to jake@jakecoppinger.com. Thanks very much to all the volunteers and wider advocacy groups who helped review this document.

Table of contents

The design will not achieve the project goals

The road will not ease congestion or meaningfully reduce travel times

Relevant policies and studies on induced demand

In the spirit of the outdated predict & provide approach, the project seeks to reduce congestion and increase motorist traffic flow by adding more road lanes. Easing congestion or reducing travel times for motorists should not be primary goals of a transport project this century, but this section demonstrates it fails to achieve even that.

The 2011 Epping Town Centre Study itself acknowledged demand management is more critical than increasing capacity: “In congested urban areas in particular it is widely recognised that strategies to manage demand will be more critical to transport operations than strategies to increase the capacity of existing roads.”

Similarly the Engineers Australia Urban Transport systems 2023 Policy and planning advice report describes the policy failure of road widening projects:

Too much emphasis and funding has been directed to road widening projects to the detriment and serviceability of other modes of transport. While car drivers have a good choice of travel on a connected road network, potential walkers and cyclists are significantly constrained, due to a lack of safe routes and road crossings. Public transport users are impacted by inadequate network connectivity and proximity to services in outer areas and a lack of priority routes in congested inner areas

Our research has found that the phenomenon known as induced demand influences how people travel. It also influences the effectiveness of infrastructure designed to increase capacity and reduce congestion. When a road or freeway is widened, or a new road is built, in an area where roads are congested or near capacity, induced traffic on the widened road increases traffic on the surrounding roads that have not been widened, resulting in system wide increased congestion.

Induced demand is not limited to cars – this report also describes the effect on building cycleway infrastructure:

Induced demand also occurs when improvements are made to public transport and cycling (Richardson and Burgess, 2005)

Curiously, the Transport Impact Assessment does not provide any 2039 modelling if the project does not go ahead, so it’s impossible to quantitatively measure benefits of the project past 2029. This is a concerning lack of transparency regarding the modelling information on one of the most crucial pages of the most crucial report, and suggests the numbers are not favourable to the project going ahead. Better Street’s volunteer Jake Coppinger made a request for this data on Tuesday Oct 1st and has not yet received it. We look forward to seeing this data published.

The project will only increase network speed by 1 km/h to 2029 and a 32% drop after a decade in the PM peak

The “Operational Performance With & Without the Proposal” table (Figure 4-1, PDF page 36) of the Transport Impact Assessment states that the average network speed would increase by a single km/h in the AM and PM peaks by 2029 (22 to 23 km/h) as a result of the $200 million upgrade project.

Below the table is the statement “Average vehicle speeds are increased by 6.5% and 4.5% in the 2029 AM and PM peaks, respectively”.

One of these statistics appears to be incorrect – the table describes the project increasing the AM peak average vehicle speed from 22 km/h to 23 km/h, an increase of 4.5%. 6.5% would necessitate the average speed increase to 23.43 km/h. Other rows use decimal places (such as fractional durations of seconds) but the speed figures are whole numbers.

Increasing the speed of cars by 1km/h (or maybe a secret extra 0.43km/h) doesn’t have any meaningful impact.

It predicts the average PM peak network speed with the project will drop from 23 km/h in 2029 to 15 km/h in 2039, a drop of 31.8 percent.

If the report is claiming that increasing average network speeds by 1 km/h in 2029 will  ease congestion and improve travel times, then it should highlight that within the decade this will drop 31.8%.

Easing congestion or reducing travel times for private vehicle motorists should not be primary goals of a transport project this century, but spending $220 million, increasing vehicle speeds by 1 km/h, saving only up to 14 seconds and still suffering a 31.8% reduction in average network speeds within a decade is a terrible outcome for even the most predict & provide thinking, car focused traffic engineer. 

Average vehicle network delay will only drop by 10 seconds in the PM peak

The proposal claims below Fig 4-1 that “Average vehicle delay is reduced by 9.7% and 7.0% in the 2029 AM and PM Peaks, respectively”.

In the 2029 AM peak, the project is forecasted to reduce vehicle delay from 148.8 seconds to 134.4 seconds, a reduction of 14.4 seconds.

In the 2029 PM peak, vehicle delay is forecast to reduce from 141.3 to 131.4 seconds, a reduction of 9.9 seconds.

To put these numbers in perspective, a car driving at the predicted increased travel speed (23 km/h) for 9.9 seconds would cover an additional 23 / 60 / 60 * 9.9 * 1000 = 63 metres. Under the current proposal, in 2029 you could expect your car to be 63 metres further ahead in the afternoon traffic jam (moving 1km/h faster) on average.

By 2039, the modelling suggests that the PM average network delay will increase to 235.1 seconds, an increase of 131.4 seconds from the 2029 with project modelling estimate. 131.4 seconds is 131.4 / 9.9 = 13.2 times or 1320% the network delay saving anticipated by 2029. That is, in 2039, the celebrated PM peak delay saving in 2029 will be eroded twelve times over.

How does the 2039 with project case compare to the do nothing scenario? We don’t know – because modelling was not done, or is redacted and secret (refer to Fig 4-1 of the Transport Impact Assessment).

In a particularly insightful paragraph, the Transport Impact Assessment (pg 36) concedes the project will not mitigate increased congestion past 2029, but that modal shift to public and active transport could:

It must be noted that 2039 modelling with proposal has decreased average network speed compared to 2029 without proposal in the PM peak and network delay will increase past the 2029 without proposal.

However, this is subject to anticipated growth used in modelling. There is potential that future modal shift, public and active transport, would limit the delay increase.

Another way to put these network delay numbers in perspective is to compare them to the delays faced by pedestrians. Crossing the 3 traffic signals where there is a missing traffic signal crossing takes 270 seconds. The east and south traffic signals currently operate on a 130 second cycle time, so with the standard 6 seconds green time that’s a 124 second wait. The modelling assumes a 140 second cycle. Even just moving the bus stops 48.5 metres north adds an additional 40 seconds walking time for those switching to or from a bus at the station. This may seem minor, however it is 40/9.9 = 4x or 400% larger than the celebrated reduction in PM peak average vehicle delay.

Furthermore, referencing tables 4-2 of the Transport Impact Assessment document (PDF page 36) & table 6-11 of the Epping Bridge Project Review of Environmental Factors document (pg 75) access to the Epping town centre for all traffic is drastically reduced in some cases or not improved at all in others as the following intersections degrade 

• Carlingford Road, Ray Road and Rawson Street all retain a Level of Service (LoS) of F in both tables
• Beecroft Road and Carlingford Road retain their respective LoS in both tables
• Bridge Street and Rawson Street according to table 4-2 the AM performance goes E to F in 2039 with the proposal. While Table 6-11 has the intersection AM performance remaining at a C LoS it shows the PM peak hour LoS to degrade from C to E in 2039 with the proposal
• Epping Road, Blaxland Road and Langston Place according to both tables in 2039 with the proposal having been implemented LoS is E
• Epping Rd & Essex St according to table 4-2 do not improve. However, looking at table 6-11 the LoS changes from D to C and remains so in 2039
• Beecroft Road, High Street and Bridge Street according to table 4-2 marginally improve from B to A in the AM peak but there is no improvement in 2039 with the proposal implemented. Table 6-11 conflicts with table 4-2 as it suggests that this intersection will remain with a LoS of A in the AM peak & also that in 2039 with the proposal implemented that there will be an improvement from D to C LoS

There is little evidence the project will improve road safety

The project page states the project is “Providing a new, wider, safer and more efficient bridge”.

While it is understood the bridge requires significant maintenance or replacement due to its age and structural condition, unless it is at imminent risk of collapse it is not increasing road safety (the Review of Environmental Factors (REF) states (PDF pg 24) that “Inspections carried out by Transport in October and November 2022 indicated that it requires significant maintenance or renewal.” and “Sydney Trains Bridge Examination Report from 2022 concluded that the bridge is in a deteriorated condition”, however we have not found the report itself). This section will focus on how the project will reduce the risk of injury or death to motorists and vulnerable road users.

Crash data presented (REF PDF pg. 60) showing 4 serious injury crashes, 10 moderate injury crashes and 15 minor or other injury crashes within 5 years to 2022.

The only analysis in the REF is:

Spatial grouping of crashes suggests that there are safety concerns associated with eastbound movement on Epping Road, all movement along Beecroft Road, and westbound movements on Carlingford Road.

In the Transport Impact Assessment, a 64 page document, the entirety of the text in the Safety section (“3.10 Safety”, PDF pg. 31) is:

Crash data statistics for the project area was sourced from the NSW Centre for Road safety website (https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety). These reports provide information on casualties and crashes in NSW over a 5-year period 2018 to 2022.

> A summary of the injury crashes is presented in Table 3-10 and a plot of the crash locations is provided in Figure 3-11.

The central raised median may increase average vehicle speeds due to additional separation negating any safety benefits. It would not be required if the speed limit is lowered (see below section). Raised zebra crossings (that do not follow the pedestrian desire line) and a highway median are insufficient scope for a $220 million project to claim improving road safety is a project goal, especially when an explicit goal is to increase the volume of and reduce congestion for motor vehicles.

The speed limit in the area should be permanently reduced from 60 km/h to 40 km/h (at least)

TfNSW didn’t even consider reducing the speed limit of the street as part of this project. Thankfully, we can see what the impact would be on travel times as it will be lowered during construction.

Lowering the speed limit would not just increase the safety of the local road network, but make the surrounding environment more pleasant for pedestrians, cyclists and local businesses.

Under “Construction speed limits” (REF pg. 68) it is stated that reducing speed limits from 60 to 40 km/h on a total of 1340 metres (1.3 km) of road including the bridge and surrounding roads “would impact free-flow traffic speeds” by “increasing travel time by approximately 26 to 29 seconds per vehicle”.

In “Table 6-5 Proposed road and traffic diversions per traffic stage and their anticipated impact” of the REF (pdf page 64) the impact “Reduced speed and lane closures off peak to remove central medians and splitter islands.” would result in an “Average Network Delay increase from 2023 baseline” of 8.8 seconds.

How 8.8 seconds differs so much from 26 to 29 seconds (even when the 8.8 second figure includes the impact of lane closures) is not clear, and suggests that as traffic rarely flows at free flow speeds, reducing the limit to 40km / h would result in a single digit second delay to motorists.

The average PM peak network speed in 2039 with the project is predicted to be 15 km/h anyway. Additionally, the bridge currently has an advisory speed limit of 25 km/h navigating the turn along Beecroft Rd west/northbound. There is also an advisory speed limit of 25 km/h over the bridge in both directions (Google Street View photo) (the supports for the advisory sign at the south-western corner of Blaxland Rd and Epping Rd (westbound) narrow the footpath further for pedestrians)

TfNSW’s own “Speeding” page states that in a crash between a car and pedestrian at 50 km/h, there is a 90% probability the pedestrian will be killed. At 40 km/h this drops to a 60% probability, and to 10% for 30 km/h. The risk of killing a pedestrian in a 60 km/h crash is so high that it isn’t even included on this page.

The speed limit on Langston Place should also be changed to 40km/h. While a high pedestrian activity study doesn’t seem to have been conducted there is an advisory sign that the area is a high pedestrian activity area (Google Street View photo). Parts of Rawson street, Bridge street, and Oxford street should also be subject to any future high pedestrian activity studies.

The reference for TfNSW’s risk data is Wramborg, P 2005, ‘A new approach to a safe and sustainable road structure and street design for urban areas’, Road safety on four continents conference, 2005, Warsaw, Poland, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), Linkoeping, Sweden.

The shared path will not improve safety for pedestrians, and marginally improve safety for cyclists

Adding a short section of shared path adjacent to a 7 lane road is not a satisfactory active transport outcome for a $220 million project adjacent to a major Metro and Sydney trains interchange. This is not sufficient safe cycling infrastructure.

By definition, adding cyclists to a path shared with pedestrians inherently increases risks to pedestrians. How much of an increase this risk is depends on the path width, volume of pedestrians and cyclists, and general design. Critically, there is no proposal to have physical protection for cyclists or vulnerable road users that prevents them from falling into a traffic lane like is found elsewhere on Epping road in the form of fencing. 

There is no evidence presented the raised central median will have on safety

If head-on collisions are a significant risk, then a low cost solution that retains more precious street width (for more vulnerable road users) is reducing the speed (as described in above section).

Reducing speeds, lane widths or providing wider footpaths would achieve meaningful safety improvement for vulnerable road users. Implementing safety screens is a good upgrade but should not be considered a major safety feature. 

The project does not deliver value for the taxpayer’s money

While it is hard to separate the cost of the necessary bridge replacement and the potentially unnecessary expensive changes in addition (moving the chiller unit from north to south end of the South Services building, bridge widening, signal reconfiguration), $220 million is almost double the entire state’s NSW Get Active (active transport) budget for the next 4 years. Bicycle NSW noted only 25% of 346 eligible projects received funding from this year’s $60 Million Get NSW Active allocation.

A southern station entrance would be welcome but no consideration for it is found in the project documents. 

No costing is provided among bridge replacement options for a replacement of a similarly sized bridge without additional lanes for cars.

“Improving access” to Epping town centre is a project objective but it reduces access for pedestrians

There are no new pedestrian access links, and there will be an additional signal pedestrians must wait for when crossing Epping Road. Better Intersections data shows traffic signal timing on state roads is not friendly to pedestrians.

The project is missing the blaring obvious – an additional signalised pedestrian crossing on the west side of the bridge. It is a disappointment that motor vehicles have been prioritised so through the Epping town centre that adding a missing crossing is not even considered. Appendix B of the mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy (pg 8) states that an example consideration for “walking” on “main streets” is to “Provide dedicated or shared walking space & crossings (avoiding severance)“.

The 2013 Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Structure Plan appears to show (page 21) an improved pedestrian link between Bridge St and Epping Rd (across the north side of Epping Bridge) “subject to investigation”. This would suggest a signalised pedestrian crossing on the west side of the bridge.

The “Epping Bridge Project Overview Video” shows (at 1:50) a large volume of pedestrians on the north side of the bridge. How would they cross to High Street to shop at local businesses? They must feel like they’re in a Geoffrey Smart painting.

If TfNSW was serious about improving access to Epping Town Centre and following international best practice the project would include (in order of idealism):

• an explicit goal to reduce traffic speed to 30 km/h (or at least 40 km/h) and volume along the bridge and the Beecroft Rd shopping precinct (the advisory speed limit on the bridge is currently 25 km/h)
• adding the missing signalised crossing leg to the east of Blaxland Rd as per the TfNSW Movement & Place design solution “appropriate” for arterial high streets
• removal of all slip lanes (Beecroft to Langston, High St, Bridge St) which prioritise motor traffic volume and encourage higher cornering speeds
  • and narrowing of the Epping Rd to Blaxland Rd turn radii as it’s currently designed like a slip road
• installation of continuous footpath treatments or raised zebra crossings at High St and Bridge St in alignment with the existing footpath, not set back and disrupting the desire path of pedestrians and cyclists
• Installation of a raised zebra crossing to ensure that the shared path on Bridge street continues across the Rawson street roundabout intersection 
• Ensuring pedestrian protection in traffic signal phasing so no motorists can turn when pedestrians are still crossing the road
• adding a signalised crossing at the west side of the bridge to enable pedestrians and cyclists to access High St and Bridge St (and all of western Epping) from the Langston Place bicycle shed and Beecroft Rd northbound bus stands
• ensuring all pedestrian signals have a max wait time of 30 to 45 seconds (rather than the current 124 seconds) as per international best practice and the City of Sydney’s excellent Walking Strategy & Action Plan
• Adding a signalised crossing in parallel to the Beecroft Rd pedestrian bridge (with a 30s max pedestrian wait) so that pedestrians can cross from the bus stands to the local shops effortlessly
  • This would provide redundancy in the case of lift failures
• using congestion pricing to reduce demand for single occupancy vehicles where there is limited road capacity, as there is roughly parallel commuter rail, driverless metro, the M2 motorway and potential bus routes

That these features or goals appear so lofty and idealistic shows how out of step this project is with international best practice and TfNSW’s own policy on prioritising pedestrians and cyclists.

Videos and measurements of experienced pedestrian delay and accessibility

Pedestrian delay at traffic signals (to one decimal place)

The public shouldn’t have to capture this data – it should be provided in the Transport Impact Assessment.

See all data (or more recent measurements at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/?lat=-33.7735&lon=151.0827&zoom=17.3532

Measured durations to cross the street

Any corrections, improved measurements or additional location measurements are greatly appreciated.

There are no promises given on reducing signal cycle time or wait time for pedestrians

In fact, the proposal is modelling using a 140 second cycle time (Transport Impact Assessment, PDF page 33), a 10 second increase on the current measured cycle time in the PM peak!

Split signalised crossing east of Epping road would likely increase pedestrian wait times

The signalised pedestrian crossing across Epping Rd east of the bridge is currently a single stage crossing – that is, when the pedestrian light turns green you walk across the complete width of Epping Rd. The cycle time was measured as 130 seconds, a maximum pedestrian wait time of 124 seconds, and is an unprotected crossing (cars have a green signal to turn while pedestrians have a flashing red signal and are completing their crossing)

The project includes a staged crossing here as a feature, and features prominently in the video. The REF states (pg. 36):

The staged crossing allows greater flexibility with signal phasing at the busy intersection and safer pedestrian movements.

The below photo depicts the current crossing:

However the proposed changes to the bridge show the following:

• They move the pedestrian crossing eastwards on the south east side 
• The crossing lines are also no longer aligned

An additional staged crossing likely means pedestrians (and cyclists) will have to wait an additional signal phase to cross the second half of the road. This would increase the max wait time from 124 seconds to potentially much longer.

If safer pedestrian movements are desired, the traffic signals can be reprogrammed to not display a green light for cars when pedestrians are still completing their walk. The phrase “greater flexibility with signal phasing” makes it clear this modification is designed for the benefit of increasing traffic flow for cars and not because it is an improvement for pedestrians.

The staged pedestrian crossing is required due to changes to prioritise motor vehicles above pedestrians and cyclists

The Transport Impact Assessment (pg. 40) states under 4.4 “Active Transport”:

The proposal requires changes to the layout of the pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Epping Road and Blaxland Road and Langston place.

The REF states under 3.2.2 “The staged crossing allows greater flexibility with signal phasing at the busy

intersection and safer pedestrian movements” and the Transport Impact Assessment states under 4.4.1 (page 40): “The crossing, as proposed in the Definition Design was more than 32m long”.

Why does it require these changes that widen the road? It is not stated anywhere. The proposal does not include any new lanes added to Epping Rd east of the intersection so there is no “necessary” widening of Epping Rd. 

It does not state the current width of the crossing, but given the crossing lantern for pedestrians was measured to flash red for 19.5 seconds, and signal timing assumes a pedestrian speed of 1.2m/s, we can estimate the crossing is 23.2 metres wide – almost 2 full metres narrower than the design threshold stated requiring an island:

When crossings exceed 25m in length, it is a design requirement to provide a median refuge area, with push-button, in case a slow walker fails to complete their crossing in the standard clearance time and becomes stranded

In either case – the media refuge area could be provided in addition to retaining a single phase for pedestrians to walk across the road in one go, and the signals could not allow cars to filter until the end of the flashing red light. TfNSW is implicitly choosing not to provide these pedestrian affordances to prioritise motor vehicle traffic at the expense of pedestrian safety.

During this time, traffic exiting Langston place is held up by the red arrow pedestrian protection requirements. This extension of the C- Phase for Langston Place traffic movements would be at the expense of more important traffic movements. 

The red arrow pedestrian protection should be present for the entire duration of the green and flashing red time, not just the start.

Not only is this sentence explicitly stating that preserving the minimum amount of safety for pedestrians would impact “more important traffic movements” (that is, motor vehicles movements are considered more important than pedestrians, contrary to TfNSW policy), but “held up” motor vehicles is no way to talk about pedestrian access and safety.

Pedestrians should not be “held up” by unnecessary long traffic signals directly outside a Metro station, across from a bike shed and lockers, and between two R4 zoned high density residential areas.

With a single crossing, active transport users can only start their crossing in the first part of C-phase. That is a short 6-second ‘Walk’ window in a total cycle time of 130 seconds. The staged crossing provides more windows of opportunity to cross, particularly in the northbound direction.

If Transport for NSW really wanted to give pedestrians more opportunities to cross just 6 seconds out of every 130, they could increase the green time and reduce the traffic signal cycle time. Not doing so is prioritising motor vehicle traffic ahead of pedestrians.

The TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Procedure explicitly states the task (Allocation of modes within the road/street)  “Are there opportunities to allocate road user space temporally to reduce physical requirements or facilitate use by high priority modes?”. It states that pedestrians are the highest priority mode.

This intersection will be directly adjacent to 5-8 story apartment buildings

Little note in the project is given to the pedestrian amenity for the buildings to be developed on Epping Rd and Blaxland Rd.

Page 36 of the REF states

> However, the amalgamated residential lots have a deferred commencement for 5-8 storey apartment buildings, which will result in a more built-up urban character

There will potentially be a large increase in the volume of pedestrians crossing at this location.

This does not even include a number of other nearby approved or under construction developments:

• Approved – 48-54 Rawson street, 300m from the bridge  – https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/planning-panel/mixed-use-2 
• Being built – Cielo (37-41 Oxford St) – 400m – https://www.theurbandeveloper.com/articles/triguboff-meriton-parramatta-court-win-carparking
• 2-4 Cambridge Street, Epping NSW 2121 – Epica Epping – https://www.epicaepping.com.au/
• Likely redevelopment of 59-77 & 72 Beecroft road as DA/135/2024 / PAN-413534 granted approval to demolish the buildings

It also left out the Pre-Exhibition planning proposal for 53-61 Rawson street Epping (https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/ppr/pre-exhibition/53-61-rawson-street-epping). 

Improving connectivity for cyclists is a project objective but it does very little

The REF states under “Proposal objectives” (heading 2.2, page 31) that specific objectives include:

• provide for future cycle and pedestrian connectivity through the town centre
• improve access to the town centre for the local community, road users and businesses
• improve cyclist and pedestrian safety through the delivery of a pedestrian and bicycle shared path, and new bridge safety screens

The REF states “The existing pedestrian network within this study area allows for adequate connectivity and accessibility around the precinct.” under 3.4 “Active Transport (PDF pg. 21). This is false. Four paragraphs later it states “Apart from the east-west off-road shared path along Epping Road and Bridge Street, there are limited cycle facilities provided in the station precinct”.

The short section of shared path on the south side of the bridge is welcomed, but it is insufficient considering the size of the project ($220m) and scale of the works.

The Transport Impact Assessment states (under heading 3.4, page 21):

Apart from the east-west off-road shared path along Epping Road and Bridge Street, there are limited cycle facilities provided in the station precinct. It is also noted that the Epping Road shared path does not connect with the secure bike parking facilities, to the north, in Langston Place (34 parking spaces and 20 lockers).

The existing bicycle parking has only 3 horizontal bike racks offering 6 bike places (~17%) and 28 vertical bike racks (82%). As per the TfNSW “Bicycle Parking Facilities” standard (T MU SS 90007 ST, 2018), the preferred split between horizontal and vertical bike parking is 50%.

Criticism related to pedestrian amenity at signals also apply to cyclists (missing crossings, cycle times etc).

Additionally, while there are cyclist lanterns for the south and eastern legs of the Epping Rd / Blaxland Rd intersection, there is no lantern for the northern leg of this intersection. It is shameful that the Transport Impact Assessment does not identity this flaw and pretends the northern leg doesn’t exist (under 3.4 Active Transport, page 21):

The eastern shared path is directed north, across Epping Road, to Langston Place, at the Blaxland Road and Epping Road signalised crossing. Both pedestrian and cycle lanterns have been provided at this crossing point.

The Transport Impact Assessment notes that cyclist volumes on the southern footpath are currently low (two cyclists per hour), but neglects to mention that cycling across this path is illegal. This is a path directly adjacent to an important interchange Metro station, in between Epping Town Centre, future high density development and parkland (Forest Park).

The project goals are flawed

“Increasing road capacity” by adding more general car lanes should not be a goal and it not in line with TfNSW policy

The mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy states explicitly states “When allocating road user space, the following outcomes are to be avoided”, “…where reasonably practicable and feasible” – “an overall increase in general traffic lanes for private motorised vehicles” (heading 3.2, pg 3)

The 2013 Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Planning Report states on PDF page 52, under “9.3 Capacity of the road network”:

The traffic study acknowledges that although these works will assist traffic flows, strategies to manage demand by reducing car usage will be more critical than strategies to increase capacity of existing roads. Encouraging people to use alternative modes of transport in order to relieve congestion is a priority

Specifically, PDF page 34 of the Transport Impact Assessment boasts an increase in the number of vehicles eastbound of 580 vehicles/hour along Beecroft Road and Carlingford Road and 230 vehicles/hour on Carlingford Rd eastbound 

Epping station alone had 6,688,540 passengers in 2023 (Data source). That is roughly 18,324 passengers a day. The train and metro services that pass through Epping, in a similar fashion to vehicles driving over the bridge, carry a lot more passengers. For example, in the first week of the Sydney Metro’s M1 Northwest city connection being opened 1.4 million trips were recorded with the most busy day having 220,000 trips taken (source).

Level of Service for car metrics should not underpin a project adjacent to a major train station

The mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy states “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.

(under 3.2, Requirements, page 3)

The TfNSW Movement and Place framework explicitly encourages usage of the ‘Vision and Validate’ methodology:

Vision and validate diverges from traditional ‘predict and provide’ approaches which have dominated planning for transport, land-use and infrastructure over the last century. Predict and provide approaches use current trends to predict future needs. This can result in reinforcing unsustainable transport and land-use patterns.

89% of trips crossing the bridge are through trips that do not start or end at Epping Town Centre

One of the stated positive contributions of this proposal is that it would “increase westbound lane capacity through the town centre”. However, it is questionable as to if this is desirable as Rawson Street is the main street of the western side of Epping.

According to the NSW Movement and Place Design Guide main streets need to “Provide safe and comfortable conditions for walking and cycling” and as part of this “design measures should prioritise reducing the speed and volume of vehicles and encourage mode shift to sustainable modes.”

Noting that the 28 May 2018 Parramatta Council meeting agenda including the following from the 2017 EMM Interim Traffic Study (2017) (page 850):

Approximately 89% of trips that cross the bridge are through traffic trips where the origin and destination of the trip is outside the Epping Town Centre.

…

The increasing road traffic congestion occurring in the Town Centre area, is adversely affecting both the regional through traffic movements and local traffic accessibility to the major road network.

And according to the Traffic Impact Assessment for 53-61 Rawson Street Epping (PDF): 

The surveys found that during the AM period (6:30am to 9:30am) and PM period (3:00pm to 7:00pm), around 71 and 39 per cent of traffic originates from external to the town centre respectively. Further, during the specific peak hours identified in Section 2.3.1, 67 per cent and 43 per cent of traffic originates from external to the town centre. These results indicate that Rawson Street is currently used as a rat run for vehicles external to the town centre to turn onto Carlingford Road and travel south towards Epping Road/ Blaxland Road, particularly during the AM peak period. 

The project does not consider connection to the parkland or unbuilt high density housing

The Epping Town Centre Urban Activation Precinct Structure Plan (PDF page 25) states that the land on the corner of Epping Rd and Blaxland Rd is zoned R4, with a floor space ratio of 4.5 (page 26).

Aside from the problematic Sydney pattern of placing high rise towers directly adjacent to major arterial roads, the amenity of this new housing has not been given any consideration in the proposal (eg. see “Improving access” to epping town centre is a project objective but it reduces access for pedestrians”)

The project does not follow TfNSW policy

The project does not follow the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy

The newly updated 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.

Under “3.2 Requirements”, TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy, PDF page 3

The policy explicitly states “When allocating road user space, the following outcomes are to be avoided”, “…where reasonably practicable and feasible” – “an overall increase in general traffic lanes for private motorised vehicles” (heading 3.2, pg 3)

It also includes:

• as a road user space allocation principle: “consistent with the road function being performed, we aim for the overall reduction of the mode share of private motor vehicle trips within built-up areas”

As per heading 4 “Compliance and breach”:

Compliance with this policy and related procedure/s is mandatory.

Projects may be subject to audit for compliance with the Policy

The Epping Bridge Project does not appear to be compliant, and it should be audited for compliance.

The project is not compliant under the NSW Net Zero and Climate Change Policy

The Review of Environmental Factors (Page 146) states

> Improvements to active transport through upgrades to the bridge’s shared path may increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists through to the town centre and subsequently reduce the amount of fuel consumed by private motor vehicles, with a corresponding relative reduction in associated greenhouse gas emissions in the local area. Once operational, the Proposal would produce minimal carbon emissions from traffic and street lighting. 

This claims that improvements to active transport (by adding a shared path) may improve the mode share which would “subsequently reduce the amount of fuel consumed by private motor vehicles”. This sentence completely fails to grasp that the project has a stated aim of increasing road capacity and provides a tiny amount of new cycling infrastructure. As Bicycle NSW noted, $220 millions is double the allocation for active transport for the entire state over the next 4 years! Only 25% of 346 eligible projects received funding from this year’s $60 Million Get NSW Active allocation.

The NSW Net Zero and Climate Change Policy includes under “3.2 Resourcing and uplifting” (page 3):

• promoting a shift to zero or low emissions transport modes, including public and active transport, and multimodal mobility

• stabilising vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT) in Greater Sydney through effective travel demand management and improving public and active transport provisions

The Transport Impact Assessment states the project will result in an increase in the vehicle kilometres travelled from 9844 in the 2029 AM peak to 10084 in 2039, and 9894 in the 2024 PM peak to 10060. 

This project will not reduce the vehicle kilometres travelled in the decade after completion, and is not promoting a shift to public or active transport. Prioritising active transport and reallocation road space to public transport (ie. dedicated bus lanes) would. It does not appear compliant with the NSW Net Zero and Climate Change Policy.

The project does not meet the “Signalised crossings on all intersection legs” Movement & Place design solution

The TfNSW Movement and Place design solution “Signalised crossings on all intersection legs” states “Allow people walking and cycling to more easily continue to their desired destination by incorporating crossing on all legs of an intersection.”

Beecroft Road is a destination high street or arterial high street (a stroad, if you will) – and this design solution is designated an appropriate treatment for these street types.

Recommendations

1. Review and publish how the project performs against the TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy

The project does not mention the mandatory TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy once.

It states: 

To give effect to the principles, 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.

Under “3.2 Requirements”, TfNSW Road User Space Allocation Policy, PDF page 3

Transport should review this project to enable monitoring against the policy and publicly document road user space trade-off decisions (providing evidence and reasons).

2. Increase bridge capacity using mode shift and dedicated bus lanes, not adding more lanes for cars

If the bridge is to be widened, the additional width should be utilised for bus only lanes or widened footpaths / cycleways to meet TfNSW’s mode shift and climate objectives.

Adding bus lanes on both sides of the bridge would mean that TfNSW (and Labor) still meet the election promise (building a new bridge + fixing congestion +  increasing capacity) but would not induce new motor vehicle traffic right on the doorstep of the Epping Town Centre (of which 89% of trips are through traffic). It is understood from the in person consultation that TfNSW is considering a bus lane only on the south side of the bridge – this is insufficient.

The Future Transport Strategy document (PDF) suggests that in the future there could be a rapid bus service that travels between Epping and Macquarie Park. Such a service would likely make use of the bridge. It is unbelievable that a $220 million project is proposed to reduce road congestion without new or improved services (only the 550 is provided) to drive mode shift to public transport (let alone prioritised).

The TfNSW Future Transport Strategy states (page 29):

> Bus lanes and signal priority at intersections provide bus customers with quicker and more reliable journey times, greater customer satisfaction and increased public transport patronage. Transit ways and short bus-only links can provide more direct routes compared with general traffic, reducing journey times, and increasing public transport appeal and patronage. Prioritising more road space for public transport, pedestrians, cycling and micromobility can make cities more efficient and significantly boost economic activity.

In a particularly insightful paragraph, the Transport Impact Assessment (pg 36) concedes the project will not mitigate increased congestion past 2029, but that modal shift to public and active transport could:

> It must be noted that 2039 modelling with proposal has decreased average network speed compared to 2029 without proposal in the PM peak and network delay will increase past 2029 without proposal.

However, this is subject to anticipated growth used in modelling. There is potential that future modal shift, public and active transport, would limit the delay increase.

This paragraph plainly concedes the project will not mitigate increased congestion past 2029, but that modal shift to public and active transport could.

It also acknowledges that mode shift can absorb traffic when it becomes excessive (page 15):
> At some point, forecast traffic growth exceeds the capacity of the upgraded road network, which results in traffic delay. When this delay becomes excessive, it triggers traffic re-routing, mode shift or peak spreading behaviours and an equilibrium is then reached which balances travel utility.

3. Narrow the width of the general traffic lanes

Another busy urban high street, Oxford Street in the City of Sydney (a Classified Road controlled by TfNSW) is being built with 3.0 metre lane widths (an increase from the current 2.5 metre wide lanes), and 3.2 metre bus lanes (under FAQ on the TfNSW project page).

Reducing the width of general traffic lanes (counterintuitively) improves safety by slowing motorists

• A National Investigation on the Impacts of Lane Width on Traffic Safety, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2023 (129 page report): https://narrowlanes.americanhealth.jhu.edu
• Karim, Dewan & Eng, P & PTOE,. (2015). Narrower Lanes, Safer Streets. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277590178_Narrower_Lanes_Safer_Streets

If design standards do not allow safer, narrower lanes, TfNSW could make use of an “expanded design domain”. This would include a risk assessment including their internal standards team and considering the implications of wider lanes that induce faster driving behaviour that correlates to more frequent crashes. If this solution is not feasible, the risk assessment should be published explaining why. The signposted speed limit may need to be reduced for narrower lane widths (noting the bridge already has a 25 km/h advisory speed limit.

4. Remove the Langston Place slip lane

According to the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads as published in their Intersection – Pedestrian Slip lanes fact sheet (PDF)  – “For pedestrians with vision impairment, unsignalised slip lanes can be particularly difficult to navigate” & “For drivers, their attention might be focused at oncoming traffic from the right and, therefore, they may fail to observe pedestrians wanting to cross the slip lane.”

Additionally, the Queensland Supplement to Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 4A: Unsignalised and Signalised Intersections document states

> “At intersections on urban roads where people are likely to be walking or cycling, high-entry angle treatments and free-flow acceleration lanes can result in conflict, therefore in such situations consideration should be given to alternative turn treatments. Transport and Main Roads Guideline Selection and Design of Cycle Tracks presents intersection forms which mitigate the risk associated with conflicts for cyclists. If a left-turn slip lane is deemed necessary, it should either be signalised or have a wombat crossing (raised zebra) provided.”

In the Macquarie Park Detailed Precinct Transport Study document:

> The additional pedestrian crossings and removed slip lanes will increase safety and accessibility for walking, cycling and public transport

5. Close High St to through traffic and open it to pedestrians and cyclists

It is understood from the in-person consultation that Transport are considering closing High Street to through traffic. This would improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the south side of the bridge and potentially contribute to improving mode share for active transport modes.

Appendix

Assorted errors / issues in the Transport Impact Assessment

Missing 2039 “without proposal” modelling

Table Table 4-1 (Operational Performance With & Without the Proposal) includes a 2039 AM and PM peak “with proposal” calculation for a number of traffic planning metrics, but does not include any “without proposal” numbers.

Austroads suggests 1800 vehicles per lane per hour of green time is an optimistic assumption

The modelling assumes 1800 vehicles per lane, per hour of green-time (Transport Impact Assessment, pg 33).

The 2015 paper “Impacts of On-street Parking on Road Capacity (Sahan Wijayaratna, AECOM Australia) presented at the Australasian Transport Research Forum 2015 states (PDF page 4):

Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 (2008) states that lane capacity of an urban road under ideal conditions is 1800 vehicles per hour. However a number of factors such as roadway conditions, geometric design, traffic control measures and other physical elements could affect the capacity of a transport corridor. Austroads (2008) has identified the following factors that could influence the capacity of an urban road: traffic lane widths; shoulder widths and/or lateral clearances; design speed; terrain conditions (horizontal and vertical alignment of the road); traffic composition (percentage of heavy vehicles); driver behaviour; control conditions (traffic lights and other traffic management measures); pedestrian and bicycle facilities. To account for these factors Austroads (2008) has provided ‘correction factors’ or adjustment factors when estimating road capacity.

This 1800 figure appears to only be accurate if the lane width is 3.7m (0.7 wider than Oxford St, CoS) and 2 metres of lateral clearance on each side.

“lateral clearance” appears to mean clear width to nearest barrier on each side:

> Lateral clearance is the distance between the extreme edge of the carriageway to the face of the nearest support whether it is a solid abutment, pier or column.

(from https://law.resource.org/pub/in/bis/irc/translate/irc.gov.in.054.1974.html)

Following the provided correction coefficients supplied in this paper after the above paragraph, with 0m lateral clearance, and lanes half way between 2.7m and 3.2 metres (if aiming for 3.0m lanes), Austroads appears to specify capacity as roughly 1800 * ((0.6 + 0.5) /2) = 990 under ideal conditions (without accounting for design speed, terrain conditions, traffic composition, etc.).

This is almost half of the assumed capacity per lane. As we are not traffic engineers we do not have the expertise to understand what (if any) result this would have on the modelling results.

The REF and Transport Impact Assessment claim different LOS metrics for the same intersection

The Review of Environmental Factors and Transport Impact Assessment appears to show conflicting Level of Service metrics for the Bridge Street and Rawson Street intersection performance.

The REF states under table 6-11:

Which is correct? Are other LoS metrics incorrect? They both tell very different stories – that the intersection “improves” in 2029 and then declines in the PM peak, or it doesn’t improve in 2029 and then improves in the PM peak.

The Transport Impact Assessment contains errors referencing LOS metrics

One of the four benefit points for intersection performance appears to be an error

• It states “Intersection performance in the PM peak is forecast to increase from level of service D to E from 2029 opening year to 2039 project year.” (PDF page 37).
• It doesn’t specify which row (which location) has an increased performance.
• Also, a change from LoS D to E is not an improvement (as your grade dropping from a D to E wouldn’t be).
• Additionally, it appears to be comparing “Epping Rd, Blaxland Rd & Langston Plc” 2029 without proposal to 2039 with proposal, which makes no sense at all.

Postscript: Documents on updated modelling

TfNSW summarised and responded to community feedback in the REF Determination Report (2025-05). A “review” of the traffic modelling was carried out, resulting in a revised Transport Impact Assessment. This review …“identified some modelling discrepancies requiring adjustments to model inputs and parameters, as well as opportunities to further optimise future signal coordination”.

TfNSW had not published what input and parameter “adjustments” were made that result in the new modelling predicting an 82.7% higher network speed (AM peak) and 57% drop in average network delay (PM peak) compared to the previous modelling, so I asked. I did not receive any response until making a Government Information Public Access (GIPA) application. I retracted my initial application and filed a second after reading “This revision of the technical note included updates to the calibration of the SIDRA modelling documented in Section 4.3, in response to TfNSW comments raised on 11 February 2025”.

Newly released documents include:

“It has come to our attention that a 2039 “Do Minimum” (without project) scenario has not been modelled

It appears the vector for such attention was this blog post (and associated formal submission on behalf of Better Streets). It also mentions:

…The REF may therefore be in error.

Email, 2025-02-11. GIPA 26T-0120, page 2. (emphasis mine)

The GIPA officer acknowledges my advocacy: that I am a “community advocate regarding the transport network”, and that I “have contributed towards community consultation on issues of importance to members of the public” – which I quote below.

Newly released documents

• 2025-07-27 Email response from project team: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/2025-07-27 Email – RE – Epping Bridge transport modelling concerns – Jake Coppinger.pdf
  • Attachment: Appendix A, Base Year Technical Note, dated 17 March 2025 (Rev D OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001): files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/Appendix+A+-+Base+Year+Model+Technical+Note.pdf
• TfNSW GIPA 26T-0120
  • Notice of decision: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120%20Decision%20(redacted).pdf
  • Information for release (files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120+Information+for+release.pdf), including:
    • Email from TfNSW to Mott Macdonald, dated 11 February 2025
    • Base Year Technical Note, dated 25 July 2025 (Rev C OFFICIAL, Rev C OFFICIAL, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001)
    • Options Testing Technical Note, dated 9 April 2025 (Rev E OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TF-RPT-000004)

2025-07-27 Email from project team

From files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/2025-07-27%20Email%20-%20RE%20-%20Epping%20Bridge%20transport%20modelling%20concerns%20-%20Jake%20Coppinger.pdf

Note: Included hyperlinks are original – some are broken as URLs have slightly changed. See web.archive.org to view these links.

Parramatta Parramatta@transport.nsw.gov.au
17 July 2025 at 15:59
To: Jake Coppinger jake@jakecoppinger.com
Cc: Parramatta Parramatta@transport.nsw.gov.au

Dear Jake,

Thank you for your further feedback on the Epping Bridge Project and for your questions regarding the Transport Impact Assessment and refined modelling. Our responses are as below.

Q1) What modal shift assumptions have been made? 

The mode shift assumptions and assumed future external network upgrades did not change as part of the recent model update.

Q2) Which modelling inputs were changed? How were they changed?

The changes to the VISSIM modelling were mostly operational in nature. Additional ‘Do Minimum’ scenario for 2039 was also developed to address previous public concerns regarding inaccuracies in the travel time savings assessment. The changes focused on optimisation of signal timings and traffic signal coordination. These optimisation strategies were suggested by the TfNSW signals team, to maximise the future benefits of the proposal. Additionally, the TfNSW modelling team adopted some minor updates and modifications were made to resolve discrepancies to the model coding of some node/link arrangements, where traffic behaviour was not performing as would be expected.

Further information on the refined modelled traffic data can be found in the updated Transport Impact Assessment and section 3 of the Determination Report. Section 3 of the Determination Report provides a summary of the changes between the original and refined modelling.

Q3) Which modelling parameters were changed? How were they changed?

As above, the modelling parameters that changed included signal timings and traffic signal coordination, additionally model coding of some mode/link arrangements were adjusted.

Q4) Which “future network upgrades within the surrounding network” were included in the updated modelling?

The mode shift assumptions and assumed future external network upgrades did not change as part of the recent model update. Any mode shift or route choice expected through the study area were captured in the underlying forecasts derived from the 2021_ STFM_STD model, dated 23/10/2023 (TZP22STMV3.91). These forecasts were not changed as part of the recent model update.

Please refer to pages 67-68 within the attached Appendix A: Base Year Model Technical Note for more information.

Q5) Have any bus lane changes been made in such modelling?

No changes were made to the bus lane assumptions in the recent model update.

Q6) Given the NSW legislation to reduce carbon emissions, and the latest reports showing that target is not on track, how does TfNSW reconcile the project outcome of increasing VKT?

The main reason for the increase in Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) is due to the constraints of the road network. Epping Bridge is the only rail crossing point in the precinct, so there is little to no route choice. An increase in network capacity, in this instance, results in more trips passing through model, which leads to increased VKT. It is important to remember that VKT alone is not a good measure of the proposal outcomes. The primary benefits of the proposal include:

• increased road capacity, improved traffic flow and travel times
• improved road safety
• improved connectivity to Epping Town Centre, Epping Station and bus interchange for all modes of transport
• enhanced pedestrian and cyclist safety and mobility
• reduced bridge maintenance and operational costs.
• Increased Safety in Rail Operations
• Increased Rail Corridor maintenance efficiency. 

The aim of the Epping Bridge Project is to replace the existing bridge with a new, wider bridge that would unlock vital road capacity and keep the approximately 63,000 vehicles that use the bridge each day moving quickly, safely and efficiently.

Overall, the refined traffic modelling of the road network and performance analysis of key intersections found that the project would generally improve or maintain traffic movements both the 2029 and 2039 AM and PM peak periods. Key outcomes of the updated traffic data from the proposal include:

• improvements in all network performance indicators (including average speed, average vehicle delay, completed trips, unreleased trips and average number of vehicle stops) in both the 2029 and 2039 AM and PM peaks
• reduced travel times in both the 2029 and 2039 PM peak periods, including time savings of eight minutes and 52 seconds in 2029 and 13 minutes 49 seconds in 2039 for the Beecroft Road to Blaxland Road southbound route
• reduced travel times for all routes in 2029 and reduced travel times in 2039 excluding the Carlingford Road and Epping Road westbound route which will experience a minor increase in travel time in 2039
• increased or maintained intersection Level of Service for all intersections in both the 2029 and 2039 AM and PM peak periods.

Transport sent a formal response to Better Streets Australia’ssubmission on Tuesday 24 June. A response to Better Streets Australia’s submission can also be found in Section 2.3, Table 2.2 Response to other stakeholder submissions within the Determination Report and specifically on pages 53-56.

We hope this additional information is of assistance and thank you for your interest in the project.

For further information on the Epping Bridge Project please visit the project webpage and interactive portal. 

Thank you again for your feedback and interest in the Epping Bridge Project.

Kind regards,

Epping Bridge Project

Parramatta and Cumberland Place team, Central River City

Sydney Integration & Place

Planning, Integration & Passenger

Transport for NSW

Extract from GIPA 26T-0120 Notice of Decision

4.6 In addition to the general public interest in favour of disclosure, I find the following considerations in favour of disclosure relevant to your application:

• Disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to inform the
  public about the traffic modelling considerations, analysis and discussion
  between TfNSW and Mott Macdonald for the Epping Bridge Project.

4.7 I have applied moderate weight to this consideration in favour of disclosure, noting that there is interest generally in infrastructure projects that affect local communities in NSW. In the case of the Epping Bridge Project, disclosure of the associated traffic modelling considerations, analysis and discussion would inform the public of the underlying data that was used to support agency decision-making (being the concept design of the new Epping Bridge) as seen in the Traffic Impact Assessment.

Personal factors of the application
4.8 Under section 55 of the GIPA Act, I can also take into account any personal factors of your application. I have considered that you are a community advocate regarding the transport network and that you have contributed towards community consultation on issues of importance to members of the public.

Extract from Notice of decision, GIPA 26T-0120, Senior Advisor, Access Applications. Emphasis mine.

Further reading

• Epping Bridge Project Page: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/epping-bridge-project
• Epping Bridge Concept Design Transport Impact Assessment, August 2024: https://media.caapp.com.au/pdf/6mywbd/23d13968-a703-467c-9933-917612014f55/Transport%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf
• Review of Environmental Factors: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2024/Epping-Bridge-Project-Review-of-Environmental-Factors.pdf
• Transport Impact Assessment
  • 2025-08-24: Epping Bridge Concept Design Transport Impact Assessment, Rev C: https://media.caapp.com.au/pdf/6mywbd/23d13968-a703-467c-9933-917612014f55/Transport%20Impact%20Assessment.pdf (https://media.caapp.com.au/6mywbd.pdf)
  • 2025-08-24: Epping Bridge Concept Design Transport Impact Assessment, Rev E: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/system/files/media/documents/2025/Epping-Bridge-Transport-Impact-Assessment-Revised-May-2025_1.pdf
• Chris Topher YouTube video, 23 Apr 2023: Epping Road Bridge does NOT need Widening (CONSULTATION OPEN SEP-OCT 2024)
• Alan Mascarenhas tweet regarding the bridge: https://archive.is/7Lee4 (https://x.com/alanmasc/status/1639105012231192577)
• August 2014 TfNSW map titled “Epping Town Centre Road and Intersection Improvements”: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/documents/rww/projects/01documents/epping-town-centre/epping-town-centre-community-map-august-2014.pdf
• “Epping Town Centre road and intersections upgrades. Project 2, Epping Road upgrade between Blaxland Road and Essex Street, Epping : community consultation report”: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-319321429/view
• “Transcript – Press conference – Epping Bridge, Sydney”. Joint media release: Jerome Laxale MP, Member for Bennelong, Joint Release with The Hon Jo Haylen MP NSW Transport Minister. https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/c-king/interview/transcript-press-conference-epping-bridge-sydney
• “Sydney motorists to be promised $220m upgrade for Epping Station bottleneck”, Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sydney-motorists-to-be-promised-220m-upgrade-for-epping-station-bottleneck-20220509-p5aju7.html
• 2025-07-27 Email response from project team: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/2025-07-27 Email – RE – Epping Bridge transport modelling concerns – Jake Coppinger.pdf
  • Attachment: Appendix A, Base Year Technical Note, dated 17 March 2025 (Rev D OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001): files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/Appendix+A+-+Base+Year+Model+Technical+Note.pdf
• TfNSW GIPA 26T-0120
  • Notice of decision: files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120%20Decision%20(redacted).pdf
  • Information for release (files.jakecoppinger.com/epping-bridge/26T-0120+Information+for+release.pdf), including:
    • Email from TfNSW to Mott Macdonald, dated 11 February 2025
    • Base Year Technical Note, dated 25 July 2025 (Rev C OFFICIAL, Rev C OFFICIAL, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TP-RPT-000001)
    • Options Testing Technical Note, dated 9 April 2025 (Rev E OFFICIAL, 703100907, EBP150523-MOTTM-EPG-TF-RPT-000004)

The post Better Streets submission to the Epping Bridge Project first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

Sydney’s phenomenal new metro takes only ~100 seconds (1m40s) to travel from Central Station to the new Waterloo Station.

However, you could be stuck waiting up to ~111 seconds (1m 51s) to cross Botany Rd just outside the Waterloo metro station when you arrive! (see the signal timing map at Better Intersections)

Don’t believe me? Here’s a video in realtime showing both journeys: one 11 metres across a 4 lane 50km/h stroad, one about 1.7 kilometres underground:

That is, the time between the start of the flashing red pedestrian signal and the next green (between which you would be crossing illegally if you started walking) is measured on Better Intersections as 93 to 111 seconds. There is no open government data on traffic signal timing in Sydney or NSW. Signal programming can be purchased for AU$200 per intersection (in a proprietary format and under a restrictive license) or AU$400 for historical signal timing. Better Intersections currently includes crowdsourced measurements for over 420 intersections.

This Tuesday, the Sydney Morning Herald published Dr Christopher Standen’s excellent letter which linked to Better Intersections. Dr Christopher Standen is a research fellow at UNSW Sydney specialising in health and urban/transport planning.

Sydney Metro certainly does make you feel like a VIP (“May Sydney’s future citizens never know pain of sitting in soul-crushing traffic”, August 20). But that feeling quickly dissipates when you step outside the stations. To access our local station, Waterloo, we must cross four sets of traffic lights, each with a waiting time of up to two minutes. These can almost double the time needed to walk to or from the station. And no one likes waiting next to a noisy road inhaling fumes. Transport for NSW sets these excessively long waiting times to allow for more road traffic, but this means thousands fewer residents can access stations within an acceptable walking time. Metro has put a massive dent in the state’s finances, so you’d think Transport Minister Jo Haylen would want to maximise its benefit by making station catchment areas as large as possible. Prioritising road traffic over people using public transport shows she still wants the latter to feel like second-class citizens, not VIPs.
Chris Standen, Erskineville

Finally, an end to a 50-year wait for a metro line, Sydney Morning Herald, August 20, 2024. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/finally-an-end-to-a-50-year-wait-for-a-metro-line-20240820-p5k3qi.html (Archive.org link)

This got me thinking – perhaps you can travel to the next metro station faster than you can cross the adjacent road. I noticed the Waterloo Station to Central Station trip duration is timetabled as 2 minutes (120 seconds), however in reality is even faster. There are plenty of traffic signals in Sydney that have a maximum wait time (start of flashing red to next green) or cycle times around this duration.

A world-class metro, but dangerous streets

What use is Sydney having a world-class metro system when our streets are so hostile to people exiting it? While our new metro is genuinely cutting edge, our streets are falling behind best practice cities around the world.

Traffic signal cycle times

While this Botany Rd intersection has a measured cycle time between 100 and 120 seconds and maximum wait times between 93 seconds and 111 seconds, the City of Sydney’s excellent ‘A City for Walking’ strategy and action plan advocates that TfNSW set a maximum pedestrian wait time (flashing red + red signal duration) of 45 seconds with a target of 30 seconds.

Copenhagen has a 70 second cycle time as the maximum, and high pedestrian usage areas have cycles of 48-60 seconds (Gehl Architects, Public spaces & public life: Sydney 2007 (part 1), page 142).

The London Cycling Design Standards states that “junctions with pedestrian crossing facilities, signal cycle times should only exceptionally be longer than 90 seconds.” and The Urban Street Design Guide by the (USA) National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends cycle times of 60-90 seconds in urban areas.

Urban speed limits

This Botany Rd intersection has a 50km/h speed limit. According to TfNSW – who sets speed limits on state roads – there is a 90% probability a car crashing into a pedestrian at this speed will kill them. This drops to 10% at 30k/h.

While international cities like London and Paris have reduced urban speed limits to 30km/h (or 20mph) boosting local business and cycling, and the City of Sydney’s ‘A City for Walking’ strategy and action plan recommends speeds of 30km/h on city centre and high streets (among others), the NSW Premier Chris Minns recently said increasing the number of 30km/h roads in Sydney was over the top. He falsely claimed: “You could walk quicker than that.” and that the Sydney CBD “shouldn’t be treated as if it were a country town”.

Transport for NSW however assumes an 85% percentile pedestrian speed of 1.2 metres/second (4.32km/h) when designing signal crossing timings (Traffic Signal Design – Section 2 Warrants, Version 1.4, PDF page 9, Roads and Traffic Authority, 2008). This would be comedic if the stakes weren’t so high: the NSW Government’s goal is zero deaths on NSW roads, however there were 352 lives lost in the 12 months prior to this article and 10,555 serious injuries to Dec 2023.

The Waterloo estate project isn’t expected to start until 2027 and could take up to 15 years – that’s 8 years shy of 2050. We’re supposed to be at net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050! Better, safer streets suitable for walking and active transport can’t wait until then, and our urban speed limits and traffic signal design can’t either. Installing new speed limit signage is relatively low cost, and reprogramming signals is free.

Is this the only case of long pedestrian wait times next to a metro station?

Likely not! The Victoria Cross to Crows Nest trip is timetabled as 2 minutes, however the traffic signal crossing the Pacific Highway is even worse than this one, with a measured cycle time of ~130 seconds and maximum wait times of 125 seconds! To add insult to injury, the pedestrian traffic signals crossing the Pacific Highway just north and south of Hume Street (at the other end of the station) are completely shut down due to nearby construction works, requiring a long walk to nearby intersections.

How can I contribute traffic signal measurements?

Know of other dangerous crossings near metro stations? Contribute some measurements!

Head to betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com, and follow the Contribute Measurement link under the ‘read more’ menu! There are over 420 intersections with a measurement as of August 2024. Thank you to all those who have contributed measurements so far!

Preliminary analysis of this data is published at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/analysis, and all the data can be downloaded as a CSV or JSON at https://betterintersections.jakecoppinger.com/about.

The post Why Did the Chicken Catch the Metro? Because It Was Faster Than Crossing the Road… first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

The concept designs were created in the context of challenging constraints from council (18 car parks, possibly expanding to 20) and TfNSW (need to fit in 4 full size articulated buses with required pedestrian sightlines for zebra crossing, large bus turning circles at each end).

I welcome constructive criticism or any other insights you might have, either as a comment below, via Mastodon or privately to jake@jakecoppinger.com.

Better Streets supports the improvements of the North Bondi Shops and Bus Terminus Upgrade with changes. The existing infrastructure is woefully inadequate, unsafe and not fit for purpose for the safety and accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists, which also impacts local businesses. We welcome many positive improvements however also detail concerns below.

Better Streets is Australia’s peak body for improving our streets. The Better Streets coalition includes a large number of volunteers and organisations – these members and our aims are listed at betterstreets.org.au.

Better Streets supports all the stated project aims with the exception of “Retain the number of existing parking spaces”. Reasoning based on peer reviewed evidence with references to TfNSW guidelines and Austroads specifications is provided below.

Assuming all motorists use the free parking for the maximum amount of time, there are 20 available sessions of 30 minutes per car park per day. This means the 18 retained car parks potentially only service 360 car drivers per day. Bondi Beach (120 metres away) receives up to 40,000 visitors per day and while Opal patronage per bus stop is not available, it is the terminus of a bus route that in 2019 carried an average of 22,000 people per day, 8.7 million commuters per year, the busiest in NSW. This is a terribly inequitable use of at least 155 square metres of public land with views of Bondi Beach.

1. Footpaths and walking

Better Streets welcomes improvements to the footpaths and walking amenity in this area, however the proposed design does not meet TfNSW guidelines for walking space for this street type.

The project says it aims to:

• Improve pedestrian safety throughout the village
• Create a contemporary village atmosphere that encourages dining and shopping

This section of Campbell Parade is not only a busy terminus bus station but a small commercial centre.

Dimensions of the footpaths are not specified on the concept diagram (it is after all a concept design) however the footpaths appear so narrow at parts there is no way to meet the TfNSW guidelines without a considerable redesign.

To estimate the proposed footpath widths of the concept model and take other comparisons, LiDAR scans on an iPhone were taken at 5cm resolution of both footpaths along with the street cross section at the specified location.

After scaling the concept image and NSW DCS imagery to match the 3D models assembled in 3D modelling software, the following are the estimated widths of various features.

• Clear footpath width at NW bus stop (figure 3): ~2.4m
• Clear footpath width between fig 3 bus stop edge and kerb: ~0.6m
• Total footpath width at fig 3 including bus stop: ~4.7m

• Car road lane width: 3.2m

• Car park width (line centreline to centreline): 2.7m
• Car park height: 5.3m
• Car park height (curb to road lane edge): 7.8m

• Brighton Boulevard continuous footpath kerb to kerb width (figure8): 5.9m
• Min footpath width, kerb to shopfront, figure 9: 4.8m
• The road appears to rise 5 metres over 84 metres in a north-easterlydirection, a gradient of ~6%

These detailed 3d meshes and 3d model file with image overlays are available to download to reproduce these measurements.

Categorising by the TfNSW Walking Space Guide Summary the street should meet Type 5 criteria, which take the typical description of “Main street footpath — Very high activity”. The required clearance for Type 5 footpaths is 4.5 metres effective clearance (which excludes obstructions and the Kerbside Traffic Buffer).

The recommended Kerbside Traffic Buffer for a traffic speed limit of 50km/h is 1.65m, leading to a required total footpath width of 4.5 + 1.65 = 6.15m.

The Waverley’s People, Movement & Places — Strategy Report states a key issue identified is “Insufficient space for pedestrians on footpaths”, and a key action area is “Widen footpaths along Campbell Parade and directly adjacent streets, including median widening on Campbell Parade.”

This street serves dual functions as a bus terminus and commercial retail street. Any decision to implement footpaths narrower than the TfNSW Walking Space Guide should be made with a very good reason stated publicly. Preserving 18 perpendicular car parks at the end of the busiest bus route in NSW is not a sufficient reason to contravene best practice TfNSW policy.

1.1 Continuous footpath treatments

Better Streets supports the implementation of continuous footpath treatments to improve street safety, however intersection widths may need to be revised.

At Brighton Boulevard, the continuous footpath kerb to kerb width (at figure 8) is 5.9m.

Brighton Boulevard is currently a one way street north-east bound (and there is no indication of this changing), so while a contra-flow bicycle facility should be implemented, the road width should be narrowed for traffic calming. The concept design also displays a car facing in the wrong direction crossing this intersection. Depiction of this intersection as two way appears to be a mistake.

It is understood from the in-person consultation session that the continuous sidewalks on the right side of the concept are proposed to be 150mm above road level with a suitable gradient.

Bollards may create an ambiguous message contradicting that pedestrians have right of way on continuous footpaths, and should be removed if public safety can be preserved through other treatments.

The existing condition of crossings is in a dire and outdated state of repair, impacting accessibility and safety.

1.2 Zebra crossings and traffic calming

It is understood from the in-person consultation session that the entire patterned section of Campbell Parade is intended to be raised at 150mm (potentially with a cobblestone or other patterned treatment) with the footpath gradually rising to provide 150mm at bus stop boarding. The bus-only lanes opposite Campbell Parade are not currently proposed to be raised.

Better Streets supports a 30 kph speed limit in residential areas or areas with high pedestrian activity.

Better Streets supports raised zebra crossing treatments. We also support Campbell Parade being raised to signal it as a pedestrian focused space.

See the cycling section below for criticism regarding suitability as cycling infrastructure.

The Sydney Morning Herald’s article Why locals are fighting against a council’s plan to plant trees at North Bondi, Andrew Taylor, June 11, 2023 included the following on a previous draft design of the project:

Proposed traffic-calming measures such as a raised pedestrian crossing are also opposed by some councillors. “We believe that this would exacerbate an existing bottleneck, further increasing traffic congestion in one of three entrances into and out of Bondi Beach,” Goltsman said.

The Our Liveable Places Centres Strategy 2020 – 2036 suggested actions under “access” should include “Reduce and calm traffic movements to create safe pedestrian environments”

If the area is to maximise public space, create a contemporary village atmosphere that encourages dining and shopping, and improve pedestrian safety throughout the village, traffic calming should be a goal. Traffic calming and pedestrianisation has a positive impact on local businesses (Drennen, Emily. Economic Effects of Traffic Calming on Urban Small Businesses. 2003) (Hass-Klau, Carmen. “Impact of Pedestrianization and Traffic Calming on Retailing: A Review of the Evidence from Germany and the UK.” Transport Policy, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct. 1993, pp. 21–31).

Zebra crossings should be raised as traffic tables (or as a raised section) with a suitable incline for buses (to minimise discomfort and noise), speed limits should be reduced from 50kmh to 30kmh, and a separated cycleway should be installed (see below cycling section).

3. Car parking

Better Streets does not support the central car parking bays.

The implementation of these car parks also runs counter to the project goal of “Maximise areas for new public space”.

Section 3.1 shows this is a busy terminus and is well serviced by transit. 3.2 shows issues with perpendicular parking, including safety and future road space reallocation concerns. 3.3 discusses the safety risk of a wider road width. 3.4 discusses the merits of pricing parking at its true cost if any is retained. 3.5 shows misguided opinions of local businesses and demonstrates a lack of engagement with local businesses on how public space improvements, cycleways and transit improve business far more than car parking.

This proposal including 18 car parks appears to be a concession due to misplaced community concern that removing car parking would impact business.

Replacing on street parking with safe bike lakes has positive local economic impacts, and it is the job of governments and leaders to commuicate this. (Lee, Alison, and Alan March. “Recognising the Economic Role of Bikes: Sharing Parking in Lygon Street, Carlton.” Australian Planner, vol. 47, no. 2, June 2010, pp. 85–93) (Arancibia, Daniel, et al. “Measuring the Local Economic Impacts of Replacing On-Street Parking With Bike Lanes: A Toronto (Canada) Case Study.” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 85, no. 4, Oct. 2019, pp. 463–81) (Jeffe, Eric. “The Complete Business Case for Converting Street Parking Into Bike Lanes.” Bloomberg CityLab, 13 Mar. 2015) (Clifton, Kelly, et al. Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices: A Focus on Cyclists and Pedestrians. 2013)

This appears to be the latest of a large number of proposals, including 3 new concepts presented in 2023 and a 2016 consultation:

Fellow Liberal councillor Angela Burrill echoed the same sentiment when she spoke with City Hub, stating that the “3 new concepts are much the same as previously rejected by businesses in Council’s 2016 consultation.” “Concerns were raised about loss of parking and large palm trees blocking beach vistas,” Cr Burrill said. “7 years later and we’re back to square one with no clear plan to upgrade this important local centre.” (CityHub)

3.1 This is the terminus of the busiest bus route in NSW

The 333 is the busiest route in the entire state of NSW. In the year to September 2019, the route carried 8.7 million commuters, averaging 22,000 people per day. The southern end of the site is 120 metres from the sand of Bondi Beach with an estimated peak of 40,000 visitors per day in summer. Between the terminus interchange for such a busy bus route and a “contemporary village atmosphere that encourages dining and shopping” is not a suitable location to sandwich 18 perpendicular car parks.

3.2 Issues with perpendicular parking

The “Our Liveable Places Centres Strategy 2020 – 2036” suggested actions under “public realm” should include “Temporary activation such as pop-ups/ parklets”. Perpendicular bays in the centre of the road prevent road space reallocation adjacent to local businesses in future (unless at great cost).

The central car parking bays appear to be non-compliant with Austroads as they’re too long.

ABC News has reported (What’s with reverse angle parking in so many country towns?) that:

The Australian Standard for On-street parking spells out how each different arrangement should be laid out and the road widths required for each type. It lists 90 degrees as the angle that provides the most number of car parking spots, however the greater the angle, the greater the road width needed. The document says “all forms of angle parking present a greater hazard to road users than parallel parking” and the use of angle parking “may need to be considered in conjunction with other measures designed to lesson the adverse effects”.

The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 11: Parking (2017) states under 8.5:

More roadway width is required for angle parking bays and associated parking manoeuvres. This requirement may present a problem for commercial vehicle parking as the increased length of those vehicles may encroach into traffic lanes. Hence adequate parallel parking space should be provided for those vehicles. All angle parking presents a greater hazard to road users than parallel parking. This situation is mainly due to the fact that parking at an angle always requires reversing which causes bottleneck effects in the moving traffic and may lead to collisions directly involving the reversing vehicle. There can be sight/visibility issues and increased conflict with pedestrians crossing midblock.

This information suggests 90 degree parking has been chosen to maximise car parking spaces at the expense of pedestrian safety, and road collision risk.

3.3 The large perceived road width will increase driver speed and crash risk

The long length of the car spaces (~7.8m including buffer space) will make the road reserve appear wider to drivers. When the road is perceived as wider, drivers increase speed, and thus crash risk increases (Road design factors and their interactions with speed and speed limits, Monash University Accident Research Centre – Report # 298, Jessica Edquist, Christina M. Rudin-Brown and Michael Lenn, 15 May 2009). This space should be given to footpath space instead.

3.4 If parking is retained, it should be paid

Parking spaces are currently signposted as 1/2 P 9am – 7pm (free parking, 30 minutes maximum).

If some car parking is retained, it should be paid parking to reflect the high demand in this location with a price set based on regular surveys to ensure a maximum 85% occupancy rate (Austroads, 2017).

Assuming all motorists use the free parking for the maximum amount of time, there are 20 available sessions of 30 minutes per car park per day. This means the car parking potentially services only 360 vehicles per day. Bondi Beach (120 metres away) receives up to 40,000 visitors per day and while Opal patronage per bus stop is not available, it is the terminus of a the very busy 333 route.

This is a terrible waste of at least 155 square metres of real estate with views of Bondi Beach in this very busy location.

Free parking has numerous negative externalities and a price would reflect this (“The High Cost of Free Parking.” Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 17, no. 1, Sept. 1997, pp. 3–20, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701700102](https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9701700102)

The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 11: Parking (2017) states:

As pay parking generally results in reductions in car use and traffic congestion among other environmental benefits, it is one of the essential transport measures necessary to ensure the long-term viability of commercial centres.

“For traffic management — peak period fees should be high enough to encourage a shift in travel modes or times.” and “For parking management — fees during peak demand periods and at the most convenient locations should be high enough to generate a maximum 85% occupancy rate. If prices are too low, parking becomes saturated causing motorists to cruise around in search of a space. The target is to ensure that at times of peak demand, 15% of spaces (one in seven) are available.”

3.5 Car parking concerns in the media demonstrate a lack of engagement with local businesses

It is extremely common for local businesses around the world to “substantially misjudge customer travel modes, underestimating transit and active modes and overestimating automobile use” (Von Schneidemesser, Dirk, and Jody Betzien. “Local Business Perception vs. Mobility Behavior of Shoppers: A Survey from Berlin.” Findings, June 2021).

The Sydney Morning Herald reported on concerns of local businesses in response to 3 previous draft plans in mid 2023 which appears to have proposed removing parking (Why locals are fighting against a council’s plan to plant trees at North Bondi, Andrew Taylor, June 11, 2023.

This latest plan appears to be the latest in a succession of proposals. These previous draft plans do not appear to be public, and were unable to be found in the June 2023 or other months of Waverley council meeting agendas.

Quotes included:

Fellow councillor Leon Goltsman also said the options for the area included ideas such as fewer parking spaces and palm trees that have previously been rejected. “Wider footpaths? Yes. Palm trees blocking views? No,” he said. “Most importantly, let’s not cut parking and put our local businesses in a bind.”

Ropers Seaside Pharmacy owner John Roper said the retail strip needed to be tidied up and made safer for pedestrians, but the council’s plans would “basically do away with the business precinct”. Shops would be hidden behind nature strips, car parking spaces would be removed and “people will simply not be able to come here”, Roper said. “There won’t be anywhere to stop.”

Cafe Bondi owner Danny Macri said the shopping strip needed more, not less, car parking.

North Bondi Precinct convenor Peter Quartly said any reduction in car parking spaces would face opposition from residents. “The old chestnut that residents use buses is wrong,” he said. “The buses are crowded especially during peak hours and there is nowhere to house any additional buses in the area.”

These quotes demonstrate a lack of engagement with local businesses of the benefits of removing car parking to implement wider footpaths, outdoor dining spaces and safe separated cycleways.

There is no evidence presented suggesting the majority of business customers arrive by car, and if there was there is no evidence this demand could not be shifted to walking/buses/cycling. This is lazy reporting by the Sydney Morning Herald to present these quotes without including the multitude of research papers across the last few decades regarding parking near high street businesses.

More confoundingly, survey after survey has shown that business owners overestimate how many of their customers drive to their stores, versus walking or biking. In a study of the effects of street improvements on a shopping corridor in Los Angeles published in 2012, more than half of the store owners on the bike-laned part of the boulevard thought most of their customers drove. The actual number was 15%. (Business Insider, 2024)

The quote from the North Bondi Precinct convenor claims that residents do not use buses, and in the next sentence that the buses are crowded especially during peak hours. In case this claim isn’t immediately identified as invalid, this is a terminus bus station – a terminus station means bus users must be local residents.

4. Cycling

Section 4.1 shows that Waverley council has endorsed policy itself to prioritising bicycles as a travel mode above private vehicles. Section 4.2 shows that this road is a critical segment of multiple priority designated bicycle routes across the council. Section 4.3 shows there is an existing “car door lane” painted cycleway. Section 4.4 shows why the street does not meet that TfNSW quietway facility type as described in the TfNSW Cycleway Design Toolbox. Section 4.5 shows that there are 18 car parks marked on the concept design and no bicycle parking.

Based on these reasons, Better Streets believes a safe separated cycleway should be implemented on the street to meet endorsed council transport policy and TfNSW guidelines. Additionally, sufficient bicycle parking should be provided at a minimum (guidelines and best practice suggest “lockable enclosures, shelter or compound” should be provided).

4.1 Expectation of safe cycling infrastructure

The project say it aims to:

• Implement sustainable elements where feasible

Waverley Council’s transport plan Waverley’s People, Movement and Places: where we go and how we get there was endorsed in December 2017. It states:

We will prioritise travel modes in the following order:

• Pedestrians
• Bicycles
• Public Transport
• Service vehicles and shared mobility
• Private vehicles

4.2 Place in cycling network road hierarchy

The current cycling map on the Waverley council website cycling page (with a copyright year of 2007!) states the north bondi shops portion of Campbell Pde makes up a segment of the “Coastline Cycle Route – South Head to Botany Bay” and is a designated “Local bicycle route on high-traffic street”.

This section of Campbell Pde is on Council’s priority routes in the Waverley Bike Plan 2013 and forms segments of the Priority Waverley Bicycle Routes Route 1 and Route 6. North Bondi is marked as a “Destination Point” in this plan.

The current Waverley’s People, Movement and Places report, drafted in mid 2017 and endorsed in December 2017 states “The Waverley Bike Plan 2013 forms the core of Waverley’s current cycling infrastructure network but needs to be much more ambitious to achieve our community’s request for more separated safe cycling infrastructure.” – so the 2013 plan should be considered a minimum target rather than aspiration target.

The Our Liveable Places Centres Strategy 2020 – 2036 suggested actions under “18.5.3 Transport and Accessibility” include: “Improve cyclist safety: Improve local cycle route to create safer movement corridors for cyclists down Military Road, through North Bondi and towards Bondi Beach. Improve driver awareness and markings on road, and investigate the provision of a separated cycleway.”

It also states “For every person who commutes by bicycle to work or study, there is one less car on the road or taking up a bus seat. Whilst separated cycle lanes may take some on-street car parking spaces, when a bike rider reaches their destination they leave ample room for others to park their cars instead.” (pg. 20)

The Waverley’s People, Movement & Places — Strategy Report states a key issue identified is “Bondi Beach has very high mode share of bicycle riding, and would benefit from separated, high quality cycle paths along key routes.” with an action area of “Provide separated cycleways along routes of high demand (e.g. Campbell Parade)…”

4.3 Existing cycleway

This section of Campbell Parade currently includes a painted bicycle lane.

Cycling infrastructure must not only be safe but should also be perceived to be safe so that people of all ages and abilities feel comfortable using the facilities.

This lane is right outside the car door zone which is not perceived or practically safe to ride in.

Paint is not infrastructure: it does not function as a safe cycleway and does not promote cycling, and also creates a perception that bicycles are not allowed to cycle in the traffic lane outside the dangerous door zone.

Additionally the lane ends abruptly, throwing cyclists into an unsigned merge into heavy traffic on a steep gradient.

4.4 Why the street isn’t suitable as a quietway facility type

It is understood from the in-person consultation session that the entire patterned section of Campbell Parade has the potential to be surfaced with a cobblestone or another patterned treatment and a reduced speed limit.

The quietway facilty type described in the TfNSW Cycleway Design Toolbox states several considerations for whether a quietway is suitable safe cycling infrastructure:

Low volume (>2,000 passenger car unit/day) and speed of motorised traffic Unsuitable on roads that carry a significant amount of through traffic, commercial vehicles or trucks, or are positioned along bus routes

• This road appears to have a high volume of vehicles, however councilhas not provided traffic counts

Not suitable as part of a high priority commuter cycling route unless key design elements are applied to provide crucial visual cues to all road users on appropriate speeds and behaviours

Quietways should be located on roadways with gentle (ideally flat) gradients as steep uphill sections would cause conflicts between motor vehicles and people cycling.

• The street has a considerable gradient, possibly 5 over 84 metres(6%) in a north-easterly direction

These factors suggest this street is not suitable to meet the requirements of a “quietway” facility type, so this does not function as safe cycling infrastructure (in the absence of a separated cycleway).

Cobblestone or other rough road treatments do not support cycling. They also increase road noise, which should be minimised so the street can function as “…a contemporary village atmosphere that encourages dining and shopping”

4.5 The design doesn’t include any bicycle parking (but includes 18 car parks)

The proposed concept plan has 18 car parks (covering over 155 square metres based on the estimated measurements) and no marked bicycle parking – let alone bicycle lockers, wide parking for cargo bikes or E-bike chargers. The Waverley Council: Our Liveable Places Centres Strategy 2020 – 2036 states that increased bicycle parking reduces the need for car-parking:

“For every person who commutes by bicycle to work or study, there is one less car on the road or taking up a bus seat. Whilst separated cycle lanes may take some on-street car parking spaces, when a bike rider reaches their destination they leave ample room for others to park their cars instead.” (pg. 20)

The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 11: Parking (2017) states: “Bicycle parking facilities should be provided in small clusters within 100 m of common commuting and recreational destinations of bicycle trips such as schools, shopping centres, railway stations, bus terminals/interchanges, workplaces, sportsgrounds etc.”.

Table C9 1: Classification of bicycle parking facilities states for “Bike-and-ride commuters at railway and bus stations” the parking classification is “Fully enclosed individual locker”, and for “Regular employees, students regular bike-and-ride commuters” the facility description is “Lockable enclosure, shelter or compound fitted with class 3 facilities where cyclist is responsible for locking their bicycle within the communal enclosure”.

Along with ample supply of bicycle stands to support short trips to the local shops, more substantial bicycle enclosures, shelters or lockers should be considered for commuters. The Our Liveable Places Centres Strategy 2020 – 2036 suggested actions under “18.5.3 Transport and Accessibility” include: “E-bike chargers: Provide e-bike chargers and share bike pick-up/drop-off zones.”

The post Better Streets submission to the North Bondi Shops and Bus Terminus Upgrade first appeared on Jake Coppinger.

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

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

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

and

upgrading existing paths and streets for better walking and cycling experiences

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

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

Fully automatic crossings during the pandemic

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sydney – Public Space Public Life, 2007, Gehl Architects

TfNSW removing automatic operation

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

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

TfNSW Argument 1: More efficient intersection operation

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

TfNSW Argument 2: Reducing overnight noise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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