A number of community members have had responses from the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport, Dr Marjorie O'Neill MP, who has received advice from Transport for NSW. For example:

1 "I can add further that Transport for NSW also reviewed the community developed Bradfield Park Central proposal, which included a looped ramp design and a detailed response was provided on its website about the merits of the proposal in March 2022.”

Transport had no intention of considering the Community Cycle Ramp. On 2 March 2022, Transport sought and met with North Sydney Council. At this meeting Transport advised they would NOT be working with North Sydney Council and the community on the Community Cycle Ramp and were moving forward with an announcement on their winning linear scheme.

2 “The looped proposal would have a far greater impact on the highly valued recreational space at Bradfield Park Central and the iconic views to the south of the bridge and harbour, and the adjoining community building and restaurant would need to be demolished. This area supports a variety of uses by community and sporting groups, school children, the Kirribilli Markets, residents and visitors to the area.”

This is incorrect. The Community Cycle Ramp is designed such that the recreational space (old bowling green) is unaffected by the completed Community Cycle Ramp. It fits beside the viaduct and does not impinge on the southward view to the bridge. Transport made a measurement error, thinking that the bridge height was higher than it is and assumed an exit point off the bridge further south, meaning a much longer spiral ramp was required. The community alerted Transport to this error – rather than correct it, they doubled down and rammed through their linear scheme. This statement is probably using the incorrect height measurement. It is true the old clubhouse would be demolished – but this was always part of North Sydney Council’s plan for the area. 

3 “The loop proposal would also not be as accessible to riders of all abilities, does not connect as well to existing cycling facilities, and would also not resolve a key issue being the conflict point between cyclists and pedestrians at Burton Street and the Station Forecourt area. This issue was identified as a key concern throughout consultation, particularly for local residents and market operators. The looped ramp design would worsen the existing situation by depositing more cyclists at this location, who will have not dismounted and may be travelling at speed as they exit the ramp. “

This is incorrect. The Community Cycle Ramp is accessible to all riders of all abilities. It has been favourably reviewed by an expert in the field. (Barros van den Dool). It complies with all Australian standards. It is sensitive to the place. While the Community Cycle Ramp does meet Burton St, it is a cul-de sac, unlike busy Alfred St. It is available to all riders including those coming from the east – the linear ramp ignores these, who will have to back track past the busy station forecourt, or continue to use the stairs! 

4 “As you are aware, the linear design has now progressed through the planning and heritage approval processes."

This needs closer examination. Transport forced Council to agree as landholder to allow Transport to make the Section 60 application to the Heritage Council. This is not an approval to construct, nor is it an approval to use Council’s land to build upon. Transport breezily assumes it is. Council needs to assert its rights as the property holder, as the land is held by Council IN TRUST for the people of North Sydney. Council cannot deal in the land, contravening the Trust. Council have repeatedly supported the Community Cycle Ramp and rejected a linear ramp.

Only the Community Cycle Ramp offers a Win/Win outcome to providing rideable step free access to the Harbour Bridge at Milsons Point.