|
SUMMARY
This report summarises the engagement outcomes from the
public exhibition of the Lilyfield Road Cycleway detailed concept design. The
project aims to deliver a separated cycling infrastructure along Lilyfield
Road, improving pedestrian and bicycle connections between the Bay Run, Green
Way and Sydney CBD via Anzac Bridge, while introducing traffic calming and
revised parking arrangements. Public consultation was conducted from 9 March
to 6 April 2026 through YourSay Inner West, stakeholder correspondence and a
face‑to‑face community session, with feedback indicating majority
support for the proposed cycleway and associated safety improvements.
Officers Recommendation:
That design for the Lilyfield
Road Cycleway and angle parking between Maliyawul Street Lilyfield and
Victoria Road, Rozelle, including a new bidirectional cycleway, shared path,
raised crossings, kerb buildouts and blisters, speed cushions, a roundabout,
and angle parking, be approved as per Attachment 1.
LTF Advice:
Public Speaker Sander Ottes entered the meeting at
11.14 am.
Mr Ottes supported the proposal, noting that the proposed
cycleway will encourage less confident cyclists to cycle in the area. Mr
Ottes noted that the concept design drawings show the cycleway widths of 2.8m
near Rozelle Parklands, 3m in the middle section of the cycleway and 2.6m on
the steep western section of the route. He notes from the report that the
final design will deliver a 2.4m wide cycleway and requested clarification
from Council to confirm if the widths shown in the concept designs will be carried
through to the detailed design. He also suggested that the southern parking
lane on Lilyfield Road on the western section of the cycleway be reduced from
2.4m to 2.1m to remain consistent with the standard parking width used
throughout this project.
Public Speakers Terry Freshwater, Bruce Ashley, Robert
Moore, Ben Brander, Todd Napthali, Ann King, Leonie Derwent, Melissa McIntosh
and Emmanuel Christou entered the meeting at 11.17 am.
Mr Freshwater supported the proposal, noting that the
cycleway will provide a safe and direct route for cyclists travelling from
the Inner West to the Sydney CBD. It was noted that the current
infrastructure on Lilyfield Road often discourages cyclists due to the narrow
sections, risk of impact from car doors, peak hour traffic, heavy vehicles,
difficult intersections and poor road surface and that the proposal will
alleviate the current issues. Mr Freshwater noted that the current widths of
certain sections of the cycle are below the recommended minimum width of 3m
and requested that the widths of the cycleway be increased to a minimum of 3m
where feasible.
Mr Ashely agreed with Mr Freshwater’s comments
regarding the cycleway and suggested that it be extended onto Lilyfield Road
to the proposed speed hump west of Maliyawul Street and that the 10km/h
Shared Zone be extended to include Canal Road allowing cyclists to go in any
direction.
Mr Moore supported the proposal and agreed with Mr
Freshwater’s suggestion of additional width to the cycle paths where
possible throughout the whole route. It was noted that 3m is the desirable
minimum for bidirectional cycle paths on flat roads and further noted that a
300m long incline is present on the western end of the route with an 8%
average gradient and that additional width should be provided as a safety
precaution. Mr Moore suggested that additional width could be provided if
some parking spaces were removed on the southern side from James Street down
to Maliyawul Street. He also requested that the Road User Space Allocation
principles be applied, which gives priority to pedestrians and cyclists over
cars.
Mr Brander raised concerns regarding the safety of loading
and unloading children into vehicles adjacent to a cycle path. It was noted
that the proposed 0.4m strip between the cycle path and the parking spaces
will be insufficient to safely open a car door without blocking one side of
the cycleway. Mr Brander also noted his concerns regarding the width of the
cycle path on the western end of the route, noting that cyclists descend at
high speeds, posing a safety risk. Mr Brander noted that the current arrangements
with the linemarked cycle lanes uphill and a mixed traffic downhill work well
for the community.
Mr Napthali raised concerns that the proposed cycleway
would impact on suppliers wanting to access properties to deliver orders and
materials. Mr Napthali noted that using truck-mounted cranes for material
delivery will be costly, requiring permits and traffic management plans. He
states that this would negatively impact construction, as costs would
increase due additional permits and labour. Mr Napthali also noted that he
measured 12.75m as the road width which differs from the 13m shown on the
concept plans. Mr Napthali noted that there will be 25 driveways
impacted on his side of the road, and residents will have difficulty
accessing their properties, as it will be challenging and dangerous to
reverse out of the driveway onto the footpath, then the cycle path and onto
the road.
Ms King stated the lack of notice residents were given
regarding the proposal being considered at the Local Transport Forum and
questioned if all submissions were taken into consideration, as the report
had been completed a week after submissions had closed. She raised concerns
regarding the removal of slip lane at Mary Street and Lilyfield Road signals
and the impacts it will have on traffic on nearby streets during peak hours
and weekends. Ms King noted that the stagnant traffic would cause frustration,
and impatient motorists may try illegal manoeuvres, compromising safety. Ms
King agreed with the concerns raised by the previous public speakers
regarding the width of the bidirectional cycleway on the western end of the
route. She suggested that alternative solutions be considered, such as having
the bidirectional cycleway start on Lilyfield Road east of Catherine Street
towards the city.
Ms Derwent raised concerns regarding the consultation
processes that were taken for this project, noting that some had additional
time to submit their feedback compared to the residents in the area. She
noted that the proposal highlights additional parking spaces; however, they
were not relevant as they are located almost 15-20 minutes away on foot.
Additionally, there were concerns regarding the accuracy and clarity in the
plans, noting inconsistencies with parking removal as some spaces were marked
on the plans and some spaces were only noted. Residents were previously
advised that no trees would be removed as part of this project; however, the
report states that ‘trees will be retained where possible’. Ms
Derwent noted that there would be loss of parking opposite to her home and
that the current ‘No Parking’ zone in front of her property was
not reflected in the plans. She also noted her disappointment in the level of
engagement for this proposal.
Ms McIntosh opposed the proposed bike path, noting the
need for a peaceful and safe neighbourhood instead of a thoroughfare culture.
She noted that if the proposal proceeds, parents will be unloading their
children onto a bike path, which would put both cyclists and children at
risk. The removal of trees and the nature strips will contribute to
environmental degradation and decrease social participation, as residents
often gather with their families on nature strips. She noted that the
existing cycleway is mostly quiet and that bikes and cars generally get along
and that safety could be improved with cheaper and less disruptive solutions
such as road repairs, updating existing linemarking and signage.
Mr Christou raised concerns regarding the safety of the
bidirectional cycleway. Mr Christou noted he is a cyclist who is comfortable
riding on the road, but he is not comfortable with using the proposed
bidirectional cycleway. It was noted that part of the proposed cycleway falls
under the Austenham Estate Conservation area, meaning that the trees are
protected by the Heritage Act. Mr Christou noted that the current cycling
layout is working well and that road surface repairs would be sufficient to
satisfy cyclists and that structural changes to the existing infrastructure
were not required. Mr Christou suggested that alternative routes be reviewed.
Public Speakers Sander Ottes, Terry Freshwater, Bruce
Ashley, Robert Moore, Ben Brander, Todd Napthali, Ann King, Leonie Derwent,
Melissa McIntosh and Emmanuel Christou left the meeting at 11.51 am.
Council Officers noted that the Lilyfield Road cycleway
project began in approximately 2016 and envisaged a cycleway from the Bay Run
to Victoria Road, Rozelle. Traffic conditions along the route were different
when this was first considered and the designs at the time was not supported
by the community due to the impacts of the proposal which included the loss
of parking and traffic redistribution due to introduction of one-way
movements. Since then, traffic conditions have changed in the area, including
the removal of some bus routes on Lilyfield Road, removal of the pedestrian
and cyclist bridge over Victoria Road and the delivery of the Rozelle
Parklands which includes a Shared User Path that connects Lilyfield to the
City via the ANZAC Bridge.
As such a new design has been developed which addresses
many of the previous challenges. This proposal provides for a bidirectional
cycleway which minimises the loss of parking, retains two-way traffic
movements and connects the Bay Run to the Rozelle Parklands and City via
Lilyfield Road. It was noted that there was stronger support for this design
compared to previously iterations.
Council Officers noted that overall parking has increased
by 47 spots along the route due to the introduction of angled parking along
the frontage of Rozelle Parklands.
Council Officers noted Ms Derwent’s comments
regarding loss of parking outside her property and that extra parking spots
were gained approximately 40-50m from that particular location to offset the
parking loss. Council Officers acknowledged there were minor inaccuracies in
the plans, such as the ‘No Parking’ zone near 182-188 Lilyfield
Road not being represented in the plans; however, as part of the cycleway
project, Council does not plan to change the existing parking’
restriction in the area.
Council Officers noted clarified the route widths on page
38 and 39, noting that the parking lane on the southern side is 2.1m and the
cycleway on the northern side is 2.8m (comprising of a 2.4m wide path and a
0.4m buffer between the cycleway and parking lane) and a 5.8m two-way
carriageway. The Representative for the Member of Balmain questioned whether
the parking lanes could be reduced from 2.1m to 2m. Council Officers noted
that 2.1m was the minimum parking width, however, this will be reviewed in
the detailed design stage.
The Chairperson noted his concerns regarding residents
accessing their driveways and questioned if there was enough turning space
between the driveways and parking. Council Officers noted that the driveway
splays can be reviewed and widened where possible.
The Chairperson questioned whether there would be changing
path levels along the bicycle route at driveways, as experienced in previous
cycleway projects. Council Officers noted that as part of the next stage of
design work, the team will ensure that the path levels will be reviewed to
address crossfall, drainage and rider experience throughout the route.
The Chairperson noted the residents' concerns regarding
difficulty receiving deliveries over the cycle path and questioned if
additional permits would be required for delivery to their property. Council
Officers advised that permits are already required to operate across
footpaths.
The Representative for the Member of Balmain supported the
cycleway, noting that Lilyfield Road is challenging now even for experienced
cyclists. It was noted that the separated bidirectional cycleway will
encourage more riders and that it is an important connection between the Bay
Run, the Greenway and the Rozelle Parklands. The Representative noted that
there were many children in the area who walk and cycle to school, and that
the proposal will increase the safety for school students. The Representative
for the Member of Balmain also noted her support for the removal of the slip
lane on Mary Street and Lilyfield traffic signals. Council Officers
noted that they have retained a left turn lane to maximise efficiency of the
intersection but have proposed to close off the slip lanes to enhance safety
for pedestrians and cyclists. It was also note that the proposed traffic
signal changes will require Transport for NSW approval and further analysis
would be done as part of this process.
The Representative for the Member of Balmain questioned if
Transit Systems had provided any feedback regarding the proposed closure of
the slip lane. Council Officers noted that no feedback had been received to
date, however, the design will accommodate bus movements.
The Representative for the Member of Balmain questioned if
Council could liaise with utility companies along the route if some services
could be located underground, whilst Council builds the cycleway, as the
power poles are pinch points for cyclists. Council Officers advised that they
could write to the utility companies to seek their feedback.
Council Officers tabled comments from a resident opposing
the proposal, noting their concerns regarding the risks between cyclists,
vehicles and pedestrians. It was noted that the consultation process appears
to be imbalanced, with advocacy groups being consulted prior to the public
notification being released and residents being offered limited consultation
opportunities. The resident suggested considering alternative and safer
routes such as through Callan Park and part of Balmain Road with no residential
driveways. It was also noted that there were concerns regarding a lack of
detail and noise and amenity impact on properties, and that residents were
not given sufficient details to understand how the proposal will impact them.
With regard to the short time between the close of
engagement and finalization of a report, Council Officers noted that they had
prioritised this project and they had been collating and reviewing the
feedback throughout the exhibition period to improve efficiency.
Additionally, Council Officers tabled comments from a
resident regarding concerns about the proposed bus parking opposite Hutcheson
Street. It was noted that they often experience issues with vehicles idling
in the nearby ‘No Stopping’ zones, causing noise impacts to
nearby properties and that having a bus parking zone will exacerbate existing
concerns.
Council Officers noted concerns regarding westbound
cyclist speeds descending on Lilyfield Road from Mary Street and advised that
confident riders may continue to cycle on the traffic lane, custom signage
will be prepared to assist cyclists understand that there will be an on-road
and separated cycleway option available to cyclists in this section.
Additionally, Officers advised that the current design does not propose the
removal of existing trees or nature strips. Additionally, floodlights will
only be installed at the pedestrian crossings and that any additional
lighting along the cycleway may need to be assessed.
The Representative for the Member of Balmain requested
that the speed limit be changed to 30km/h on Lilyfield Road. The
Representative for Transport for NSW advised they are currently reviewing
InnerWest@40 and will have to finalise the review before considering further
speed limit changes.
The Committee requested that the recommendation be updated
to note the correct parking lane and cycle lane widths on the section of
Lilyfield Road, from the Bay Run to James Street and also note that there
will be no tree removals or loss of the grass verge as part of this proposal.
No further advice provided by LTF members.
RECOMMENDATION:
That:
1.
The design for the Lilyfield Road Cycleway and angle parking
between Maliyawul Street Lilyfield and Victoria Road, Rozelle, including a
new bidirectional cycleway, shared path, raised crossings, kerb buildouts and
blisters, speed cushions, a roundabout, and angle parking, be approved as per
Attachment 1.
2.
The proposed parking lane and cycle lane widths on Lilyfield
Road, from the Bay Run to James Street be corrected to 2.1m and 2.8m
respectively
3.
It be noted that the current design does not result in the
removal of existing trees or grass verge.
|