By Janet Oakley, Convenor Transport and Traffic Subcommittee, June 2025, from Bulletin 4/2025
Work is currently being undertaken in Bridge Road. It commenced on 10 May. No estimate of the duration of work has been provided. The standard construction hours are 7 am to 6 pm on Mondays to Fridays and 8 am to 1 pm on Saturdays. In addition to these periods, noisy night work may be carried out up to three nights per week.
Nature of Work
It is difficult, if not impossible to ascertain the precise nature of the work and why it is being carried out.
The only detail available as to the work is the following map, which gives no particulars of the proposed design and scope of work. It makes no reference to trenching or surface milling, which will apparently be included in the work. It is assumed that the proposed permanent cycle path with have concrete barriers on both sides of the road but the height, width and precise location of those barriers is not provided.
The flyer that has been distributed lists the staging of work:
Stage 1: Trenching and backfilling
- excavating trenches
- backfilling and restoration
Stage 2: Milling, resheeting and line marking
- milling the road surface to remove the top layer of asphalt to create a level base for the new asphalt layer
- resheeting the road, which involves adding a new layer of asphalt on the road surface
- painting temporary line markings to ensure there is safe and clear access for people walking, riding bikes and driving
- installing new raised pedestrian crossings to maintain safe access.
Stage 3: Line marking, signage and installing concrete barriers
- installing concrete cycleway barriers
- painting permanent line markings
- removing temporary signage and installing new permanent signage.
Stages 1 and 2 do not appear to relate to the Cycleway. Instead that work seems to involve electrical supply to the Fish Markets.
Disruptive and noisy work was undertaken last year to boost the supply of electricity to the new Sydney Fish Market. The legacy of that work was that the surface of busy Bridge Road was severely compromised. Quite why trenches need to be re-dug and re-filled has not been revealed and nor has the reason why it is being carried out under the label of the Bridge Road Cycleway.
The contractor is Ferrycarrig. When expressions of interest for the work were called for, the scope of works was available only to preferred suppliers and not to the public. Although the Minister, in his response to our local member’s question on notice, said that the contractor and the value of the contract has been revealed on the BuyNSW website, those details do not appear on the website.
The upshot is that residents have not been informed of the precise nature of the work to be carried out on Bridge Road nor for how long work will be carried out.
Cycleway Issues
The only community consultation that was undertaken about the Bridge Road Cycleway was a survey undertaken in 2021. There are serious concerns about that survey. It was an online survey open between 15 and 29 March 2021 and was not well publicised. The report of the survey was not published until March 2022 (Bridge Road Cycleway Community Consultation Report – Transport for New South Wales). Interestingly, the actual questions are not reproduced in the report. The questions could not be said to be neutral and were directed to cyclists rather than generally. Questions such as What do you see as the greatest benefit of the cycleway remaining were included. There were 1,083 responses received of whom 714 were cyclists. Little opportunity was given for participants to give a negative response to the Cycleway proposal.
Notwithstanding the limitations of the survey, only 389 participants provided the answer keep the cycleway/support.
Safety concerns about the current Pop-Up Cycleway have been raised, particularly in an expert report commissioned by local residents collectively known as Bridge Road Friends. This report has been provided to transport for NSW. Recently, local member Kobi Shetty asked a number of questions on notice of the Minister for Transport. Questions concerning the independent report were:
(3) What, if any, concerns were raised for Transport for NSW by the Bridge Road Friends report where it concluded that the proposed permanent cyclist facilities along Pyrmont Bridge Road would ‘not create a reasonably safe environment for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists’?
(4) What, if any, concerns were raised for Transport for NSW by the Bridge Road Friends report where it concluded that the proposed permanent cyclist facilities along Pyrmont Bridge Road ‘is likely to increase the conflict, number of incidents, and ultimately the chance of potentially severe collisions’?
(5) What, if any, concerns were raised for Transport for NSW by the Bridge Road Friend report where 14 of the 15 safety issues identified were referred to as high or extreme?
(6) What, if any, action has Transport for NSW taken to amend the design following safety concerns that have been raised in the Bridge Road Friends report?
(7) If any amendments have been made to the design, have these been published, exhibited or notified?
(8) Is the proposed cycleway width less than 1.2 metres in parts of the design when gutters are taken into account?
(9) What advice, if any, has the Government or Transport for NSW obtained in relation to its legal liabilities or potential liability arising from the safety issues identified in the Bridge Road Friends Report that have been brought to their attention?
The Minister’s responses to those questions were:
(3) The Road Safety Audit submitted by the Friends of Bridge Road raised concerns with lane widths (both cycleway and general traffic), priority at pedestrian crossings, signage and line marking, sight distance for motorists turning into Bridge Road, bike rider interactions at bus stops, street lighting and use of footway by bike riders.
(4–6) Transport for NSW has undertaken a review of all the items raised in the Friends of Bridge Road’s submission and identified several points of difference. After four years of operation, the road safety data available for the existing pop-up implementation cannot reasonably support either the likelihood or the severity of risk assessed within the Friends of Bridge Road’s submission. Several amendments were made to resolve the Friends of Bridge Road’s concerns, particularly relating to signage and lane markings. A further independent Road Safety Audit will be undertaken prior to opening the permanent cycleway.
(7) Amendments to an approved project’s design are ordinarily only re-exhibited or publicly displayed when those changes meaningfully alter that design. Minor signage amendments were made that did not fundamentally alter the functionality of the intersection or cycleway itself. As such these changes were not publicly communicated.
(8) The gutter is included in the effective width of the cycleway. The minimum effective width of the cycleway is 1.2 metres.
(9) Transport for NSW has established frameworks to manage risk and liability, including on any new road arrangements. In any case, Transport for NSW would promote the new road arrangements through an awareness campaign to ensure road users are aware of the changes, in line with business-as-usual practice.
The Minister response to questions about accidents along the route of the cycleway was to that those questions should be directed to the Minister of Health.
Conclusion
There is no doubt that any public works involve a balancing the interests of different parties affected. In the case of Bridge Road there are interests of residents, drivers of powered vehicles, cyclists, e-bike riders, pedestrians, emergency vehicles and service vehicles to take into consideration.
Because of the lack of transparency in disclosing the nature and timing of the work to be carried out, the disregard of the (flawed) consultation process and the very limited regard paid to the independent expert’s concerns it is difficult to have confidence that a balance between these interests has been achieved.
There are no comments yet. Please leave yours.