Download - Combined Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Light Trial ......Combined Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Light Trial – Ref; 5289 Taverner Research, Level 2, 88 Foveaux St, Surry Hills,

Taverner Research, Level 2, 88 Foveaux St, Surry Hills, NSW, 2010, Australia

t +61 2 9212 2900 f +61 2 9212 3920 www.taverner.com.au

CONFIDENTIAL/DISCLAIMER NOTICE

The information contained herein is confidential and has been supplied under a confidentiality agreement. If you

are not authorised to view or be in possession of this document you are hereby notified that any dissemination,

distribution or duplication of this document is expressly prohibited. If you receive this document in error, please

notify Taverner Research immediately on +61 2 9212 2900.

Research Report:

Combined Pedestrian and

Bicycle Crossing Light Trial

Roads & Maritime Services (RMS)

November 2017

Project Reference: 5286

RMS Contact: Lyndall Johnson

Taverner Contact: Connie Jansen

Combined Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Light Trial – Ref; 5289

Taverner Research, Level 2, 88 Foveaux St, Surry Hills, NSW, 2010, Australia t +61 2 9212 2900 f +61 2 9212 3920 www.taverner.com.au

5286 Crossing Light Report_V04_Final of 30

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................ 5

2. Project Background ............................................................................... 7

3. Methodology ........................................................................................... 9

4. Findings ................................................................................................... 13

Symbol Recognition ........................................................................................ 13

Knowledge of Meaning .................................................................................. 20

5. Conclusions & Recommendations .................................................... 23

6. Appendix - Questionnaire ................................................................... 24

7. Appendix - Locations ........................................................................... 26




Table of Figures Figure 1: Pre Treatment Crossing Light ............................................................. 7

Figure 2: Post Treatment Crossing Light ............................................................ 7

Figure 3: Survey Sample by Location ............................................................. 10

Figure 4: Demographic Breakdown of Survey Sample ............................... 11

Figure 5: Refusal Rate ........................................................................................ 11

Figure 6: Symbol Recognition .......................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Symbol Recognition by Location ................................................... 14

Figure 8: Symbol Recognition by Location & Lantern Type ....................... 15

Figure 8: Symbol Recognition by Location & Lantern Type ....................... 16

Figure 9: Symbol Recognition by Lantern Type (Post Treatment Only) ... 17

Figure 10: Symbol Recognition by Demographic ........................................ 18

Figure 11: Symbol Recognition ........................................................................ 19

Figure 12: Knowledge of Meaning of Green Light ...................................... 20

Figure 13: Knowledge of Meaning of Green Light by Respondent Type 21

Figure 14: Knowledge of Meaning of Green Light by Gender & Age..... 22




1. Executive Summary Taverner Research was commissioned by Roads and Maritime Services

to undertake pre and post treatment intercept interviews as part of a

combined Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossing Light Trial. The aim of the trial

is to test pedestrian and bicycle rider reactions to combined pedestrian

and bicycle lanterns to determine if the symbols can be adequately

seen and what they understand the lanterns to mean.

A total of 2,242 interviews were conducted including:

� 844 pre treatment interviews at three (3) locations with side by

side pedestrian/bicycle crossing lights

� 1,387 post treatment interviews at nine (9) locations (including

the pre treatment locations) with combined pedestrian/bicycle

crossing lights

Respondents were asked two main questions regarding the crossing

light which related to symbol recognition and the meaning of the lights

turning green. The main findings of this research are as follows:

Symbol Recognition

� The majority of respondents were able to identify both a

pedestrian and a bicycle in both the pre (98%) and post (90%)

treatment signals. However significantly fewer post treatment

respondents identified both symbols, with 5% saying they could

not make out the symbols.

� Symbol recognition was consistent at the three (3) pre treatment

locations ranging from 97% to 99% of respondents identifying

both the pedestrian and bicycle. However correct symbol

identification at post treatment locations varied significantly

from 77% at Broadway, Chippendale to 98% at Flinders & Albion,

Surry Hills.

� A possible explanation for the variation in symbol recognition at

post treatment locations is that three different types of lanterns,

were installed at three intersections each. The symbol

recognition for each lantern type was as follows:

o A - 84% to 95%

o B - 91% to 98%

o C - 77% to 82%

� There was not a clear relationship between distance from the

crossing light and symbol recognition with the locations with

highest and lowest level of recognition both being 25 metres or

more.




� The ability to identify the symbols in the pre treatment survey was

consistent across gender, age and respondent type. However,

only 75% of respondents age 65 and over were able to correctly

identify the symbols in the post treatment survey compared to

88% to 92% of other age groups.

� 94% of respondents who were not able to identify the symbols in

the post treatment lights were able to correctly do so when

shown a picture of the pre treatment crossing light.

Knowledge of Meaning

� 43% of all respondents knew bicyclists could ride across the

street when the light turned green. 33% of all respondents

thought bicyclists must walk across the street.

� Significantly more post treatment respondents (12%) were unsure

what the green light meant compared to pre treatment

respondents (6%).

� 74% of bicyclists either definitely knew or thought they knew that

they could ride across the street with a bicycle crossing light

compared to 47% of pedestrians.

Conclusions & Recommendations

� Significantly fewer post treatment respondents identified both

symbols compared to pre treatment respondents. However, the

type of post treatment lantern that was installed had a

significant impact on the ability to identify the symbols. A review

of the quality and performance standards imposed on

manufacturers is therefore recommended.

� There is a lack of understanding of the meaning of the bicycle

crossing light, specifically that bicyclists can ride across the street

when the light is green. This indicates that both pedestrians and

bicyclists require more education on the use and rules of shared

paths and bicycle crossings.




2. Project Background Regulations require that where shared paths are installed at traffic

signals, bicycle crossing lights must be installed to permit bicycle riders

to ride across the marked foot crossing. Current practice for bicycle

crossing lights is to mount the bicycle signal beside the pedestrian

crossing lights (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Pre Treatment Crossing Light

However, depending on the site this configuration can be cost-

prohibitive for some councils. As an alternative, RMS Network

Operations proposed a trial of combined pedestrian and bicycle lights

(Figure 2) that are used in several European countries. The aim of the

trial is to test pedestrian and bicycle rider reactions to combined

pedestrian and bicycle lanterns to determine if the symbols can be

adequately seen and what they understand the lanterns to mean.

Figure 2: Post Treatment Crossing Light




Current road rules1 regarding riding on a pedestrian crossing state:

� You can only ride your bicycle across a crossing where bicycle

crossing lights are installed

� At a red bicycle crossing light:

o You must stop before the crossing and only proceed if

the bicycle crossing light changes to green or is not

showing red

� At a green bicycle crossing light:

o You may proceed through the crossing area exercising

caution if there are also pedestrians. In addition to

bicycle crossing signals, you must obey any traffic signals

or signs, as would other road users

� If there is no bicycle crossing light, you must dismount and walk

across the crossing.

1 http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roads/bicycles/safety-rules/road-rules-for-bicycle-riders.html




3. Methodology Taverner Research conducted pre and post treatment intercept

interviews. The pre-treatment survey took place at one (1) location in

each of three (3) Local Government Areas (LGAs) which had separate

lights for pedestrians and bicyclists.

For the post-treatment survey the combined lantern lights were installed

at nine (9) locations across the three (3) LGAs including the pre-

treatment survey sites.

The original fieldwork plan was to conduct four (4) interviewer shifts at

each of the pre treatment sites and two (2) interviewer shifts at each of

the post treatment sites. However the post treatment lights were

installed at the Parramatta and Penrith sites prior to the pre treatment

survey. This was not realised until after the four pre treatment shifts were

completed. As a result the completed interviews were treated as post

treatment surveys and the pre treatment lanterns were re-installed at

these locations and two (2) shifts were conducted at each site to

complete the pre treatment survey.

Interviewing took place during morning (7:00am to 2:00pm) and

afternoon (12:00pm to 7:00pm) shifts. The morning and afternoon shifts

at each location were conducted on different days so shifts did not

overlap.

Interviewers posted signage which read “Traffic Safety Survey - Please

stop and tell us what you think!” to encourage both pedestrians and

bicyclists to stop and complete an interview.

The questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of two main and a few

demographic questions. The pre and post treatment survey were the

same although they referred to different lantern displays.

The survey was administered on electronic tablets (Android based) with

data automatically uploaded allowing Taverner Research to monitor

results in real-time throughout the fieldwork.

Prior to fieldwork a small pilot test was undertaken of the field instrument

to ensure the questionnaire had been set-up correctly and that

respondents comprehended the questions. As a result additional codes

were added to Question 3 so results could differentiate between those

respondents who were confident as to the correct answer and those

who indicated that while they were not absolutely sure if bicyclists could

ride or must walk across the street they were able to indicate what they

thought was the correct answer.

Also, during the first shift at Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith, only 3 interviews

were conducted in the first two hours. Due to the low pedestrian/cyclist

traffic the interviewer was relocated to High & Mulgoa, Penrith for the

remainder of the shifts.




The total number of interviews conducted at each location is shown in

Figure 3.

Figure 3: Survey Sample by Location

Survey Sample

Pre Treatment Survey # %

Broadway, Chippendale 581 75

O’Connell & George St, Parramatta 201 24

High & Mulgoa St, Penrith 73 9

Total Pre Treatment 855 100

Post Treatment Survey

Lang & Anzac, Randwick 171 12

Flinders & Albion, Surry Hills 205 15

Broadway, Chippendale 188 14

O’Connell & George, Parramatta 241 17

Station & Parkes, Parramatta 222 16

Marsden & Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford 133 10

Jaminson & Mulgoa, Penrith 89 6

High & Mulgoa, Penrith 135 10

Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith* 3 <1

Total Post Treatment 1,387 100

Total 2,242 N/A

*Interviewer moved to High & Mulgoa due to lack of pedestrian/cyclist traffic.




The demographic breakdown of the sample is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Demographic Breakdown of Survey Sample

Pre Treatment

Survey

Post Treatment

Survey Total

# % # % # %

Gender

Male 416 49 685 49 1,101 49

Female 439 51 702 51 1,141 51

Age

Under 25 315 37 325 23 640 29

25 to 44 344 40 688 50 1,032 46

45 to 64 164 19 293 21 457 20

65 and over 32 4 81 6 113 5

Respondent Type

Bicyclist 86 10 197 14 283 13

Pedestrian 769 90 1,190 86 1,959 87

Total Sample 855 100 1,387 100 2,242 100

Figure 5 shows that 88% of pedestrians and bicyclists approached

completed an interview.

Figure 5: Refusal Rate

Contact Result # % of contacts

Total interviews completed 2,242 88

Refused-completed before 114 4

Refused other reason 206 8

Total contacts 2,562 100




Interpreting Data and Table Figures

The sum of individual item percentages within tables presented in this

report may not be equal to 100% due to rounding.

Differences between groups are described as significant differences if

they reached statistical significance using an error rate of α=0.05. This

means that if repeated independent random samples of similar size

were obtained from a population in which there was no actual

difference, less than 5% of the samples would show a difference as

large or larger than the one obtained. Figures in this report show

significant differences as follows:

� = Significantly less at the 0.05 level

�= Significantly greater at the 0.05 level

As mentioned previously, due to the low pedestrian/cyclist traffic at the

Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith test site, the interviewer was relocated to

High & Mulgoa for the remainder of the shifts. Only 3 interviews were

collected at this site. The results of these interviews have been shown in

figures, but not referred to separately in text due the very low sample

size.




4. Findings Respondents were asked two main questions regarding the crossing

lights which related to symbol recognition and the meaning of the lights

turning green.

Symbol Recognition

When asked what symbols they saw in the crossing lights the majority of

respondents were able to identify both a pedestrian and a bicycle in

both the pre and post treatment signals (Figure 6). However significantly

fewer post treatment respondents (90%) identified both symbols, with 5%

saying they could not make out the symbols. Incorrect responses

included seeing just the pedestrian or just the bicycle (2% each). The

main “other” response was seeing a person riding a bicycle.

Figure 6: Symbol Recognition

Q1. Can you look at the crossing light over there and tell me what

symbols you see?

Base: All respondents (Pre: n=855, Post: n=1,387)

98

1

0

0

0

90

5

2

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pedestrian and cyclist

Cannot see / make out symbols

Pedestrian figure

Bicycle

Other

Percentage

Pre Treatment

Post Treatment




Figure 7 shows that symbol recognition was consistent at the three (3)

pre treatment locations ranging from 97% to 99% of respondents

identifying both the pedestrian and bicycle.

However, correct symbol identification at post treatment locations

varied significantly from 77% at Broadway, Chippendale to 98% at

Flinders & Albion, Surry Hills.

Figure 7: Symbol Recognition by Location

Identified Pedestrian & Bicycle

Locations Pre Treatment

Survey

%

Post

Treatment

Survey

%

Lang & Anzac, Randwick -- 88

Flinders & Albion, Surry Hills -- 98�

Broadway, Chippendale 98 77�

ALL SYDNEY LOCATIONS 98 88

O’Connell & George, Parramatta 99 91�

Station & Parkes, Parramatta -- 95�

Marsden & Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford -- 82

ALL PARRAMATTA LOCATIONS 99 93

Jaminson & Mulgoa, Penrith -- 91

High & Mulgoa, Penrith 97 84

Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith* -- 100

ALL PENRITH LOCATIONS 97 87

All Locations 98 90

*n=3 as interviewer moved to High & Mulgoa due to lack of pedestrian/cyclist traffic




A possible explanation for the variation in symbol recognition at post

treatment locations is that three different types of lanterns were installed

at three intersections each. Figure 8 shows that lantern type:

� A had mixed correct symbol recognition (84% to 95%)

� B had the highest correct symbol recognition (91% to 98%)

� C had the lowest correct symbol recognition (77% to 82%)

Figure 8: Symbol Recognition by Location & Lantern Type

Identified Pedestrian

& Bicycle

Type Locations Post Treatment Survey

%

A Station & Parkes, Parramatta 95�

A Lang & Anzac, Randwick 88

A High & Mulgoa, Penrith 84

A ALL TYPE A 90

B Flinders & Albion, Surry Hills 98�

B O’Connell & George, Parramatta 91�

B Jaminson & Mulgoa, Penrith 91

B ALL TYPE B 93

C Marsden & Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford 82

C Broadway, Chippendale 77�

C Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith* 100

C ALL TYPE C 84

All Locations 90

*n=3 as interviewer moved to High & Mulgoa due to lack of pedestrian/cyclist traffic




Distance is another possible possible explanation for the variation in

symbol recognition at post treatment locations. Figure 9 shows the

distance from where respondents were interviewed and the crossing

signal they were asked about. We note there were up to three crossings

of varying distances at some locations and where there large variations

in distances the interviewers were ask what proportion of interviews

were conducted at each distance.

There was not a clear relationship between distance and symbol

recognition with the locations with highest and lowest level of

recognition both being 25 metres or more.

Figure 9: Symbol Recognition by Location & Distance

Identified

Pedestrian &

Bicycle

Type Locations Post Treatment

Survey

%

Distance (s)

A Station & Parkes, Parramatta 95� 29.4

B Flinders & Albion, Surry Hills 98� 14

B O’Connell & George, Parramatta 91� 17.5, 15.7

B Jaminson & Mulgoa, Penrith 91 26.5, 19, 13

A Lang & Anzac, Randwick 88 22.5, 101

A High & Mulgoa, Penrith 84 27.4, 20

C Marsden & Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford 82 19.8, 6.3, 5.22

C Broadway, Chippendale 77� 25

C Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith* 100 n/a

All Locations 90

*n=3 as interviewer moved to High & Mulgoa due to lack of pedestrian/cyclist traffic 1Lang & Anzac, Randwick-interviewed at both distances equally 2Marsden & Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford-approx. 90% interviewed at shorter distance




Figure 10 shows that respondents at lantern type C locations were more

likely to say they could not see the symbols (9%) or to incorrectly identify

the symbols. We note that six (6) respondents at type C locations said

they saw a person on a bicycle.

Figure 10: Symbol Recognition by Lantern Type (Post Treatment Only)

Q1. Can you look at the crossing light over there and tell me what

symbols you see?

Base: Post treatment respondents (n=1,387)

90

6

2

2

0

93

2

2

1

1

84

9

1

3

3

90

5

2

2

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pedestrian and cyclist


Pedestrian / human figure / person /

stick man

Bicycle

Other (specify)

Percentage Idendifying Pedestrian and Bicycle

Type A

Type B

Type C

All




The ability to identify the symbols in the pre treatment survey was

consistent across gender, age and respondent type (Figure 11).

However, only 75% of respondents age 65 and over were able to

correctly identify the symbols in the post treatment survey compared to

88% to 92% of other age groups. Nearly one in six (17%) of those age 65

and older said they could not see the symbols in the post treatment

survey.

Figure 11: Symbol Recognition by Demographic

Identified Pedestrian &

Bicycle

Respondent

Pre

Treatment

Survey

%

Post

Treatment

Survey

%

Gender

Male 99 89

Female 97 90

Age

Under 25 98 92

25 to 44 98 91

45 to 64 99 88

65 and over 97 75�

Respondent Type

Bicyclist 100 90

Pedestrian 98 90

Total Sample 98 90

Respondents aged 65 and older were less likely to identify the symbols in

all three post treatment lantern types, as follows:

� Type A – 77%

� Type B – 86%

� Type C – 83%




Respondents who could not correctly identify the symbols on the post

treatment lights where shown a picture of the pre treatment light and

asked what symbols they could see. Figure 12 shows that 94% of this

group could correctly identify the pedestrian and bicycle in the pre

treatment crossing light picture.

Figure 12: Symbol Recognition

Q2. Looking at these crossing lights what symbols do you see?

Base: Could not identify post treatment symbols (n=72)

94

4

1

0 20 40 60 80 100

Pedestrian and bicycle


Pedestrian figure

Percentage




Knowledge of Meaning

Respondents were read out two options and asked to indicate which

they thought was correct behaviour when crossing lights turn green:

1) Pedestrians and bicyclists can both now cross, but bicyclists must

walk across the street

2) Pedestrians and bicyclists can both now cross, but bicyclists can

ride across the street

As noted in the Project Background Section, NSW Road Rules state that

bicyclists can ride across a crossing where bicycle crossing lights are

installed. Figure 13 shows that significantly more post treatment

respondents (12%) were unsure what the green light meant than pre

treatment respondents (6%).

However, less than half of all respondents knew bicyclists could ride

across the street and one in three thought bicyclists must walk across

the street.

Figure 13: Knowledge of Meaning of Green Light

Q3. What do you think it means when the light turns green?

Base: All respondents (Pre: n=855, Post: n=1,387)

45

7

34

7

6

42

9

32

6

12

43

8

33

6

10

0 20 40 60

Pedestrians and bicyclists

can both now cross, but

bicyclists CAN RIDE across

the street

Not sure but think

bicyclists CAN RIDE



bicyclists MUST WALK

across the street

Not Sure but think


across the street

Not sure / Don’t know

Percentage

Pre Treatment

Post Treatment

All Respondents




Bicyclists were more likely than pedestrians to know they could ride

across the street at a bicycle crossing light with 74% of bicyclists

knowing or thinking they could ride compared to 47% of pedestrians.

Over one in three pedestrians (35%) said that bicyclists must walk across

the street at a bicycle crossing light (Figure 14.)

Figure 14: Knowledge of Meaning of Green Light by Respondent Type

Q3. What do you think it means when the light turns green?

Base: All respondents (Bicyclists: n=283, Pedestrians: n=1,959)

69

5

17

3

5

39

8

35

7

10

0 20 40 60 80



bicyclists CAN RIDE across

the street

Not sure but THINK/GUESS

bicyclists CAN RIDE




across the street

Not sure but THINK/GUESS


across the street

Not sure / Don’t know

Percentage

Bicyclist

Pedesterian




Figure 15 shows that respondents aged 25 to 44 (48%) were most likely

to know bicyclists could ride across the street than were older

respondents (35% for age 45 to 64 and 27% for age 65 and over).

Figure 15: Knowledge of Meaning of Green Light by Gender & Age

Bicyclists

CAN RIDE

across the

street

Not sure

but

THINK/GUE

SS bicyclists

CAN RIDE

Bicyclists

MUST

WALK

across the

street

Not sure

but

THINK/GUE

SS bicyclists

MUST

WALK

Not sure /

Don’t know

Gender

Male 43 9 32 6 10

Female 43 8 33 7 9

Age

Under 25 44 8 31 8 9

25 to 44 48� 8 31 6 8�

45 to 64 35� 9 38� 7 12

65 and over 27� 4 42 4 23�

Total Sample 43 8 33 6 10




5. Conclusions & Recommendations We present the following conclusions and recommendations based on

the findings:

� Significantly fewer post treatment respondents identified both

symbols compared to pre treatment respondents. However, the

type of post treatment lantern that was installed had a

significant impact on the ability to identify the symbols. A review

of the quality and performance standards imposed on

manufacturers is therefore recommended.

� There is a lack of understanding of the meaning of the bicycle

crossing light, specifically that bicyclists can ride across the street

when the light is green. This indicates that both pedestrians and

bicyclists require more education on the use and rules of shared

paths and bicycle crossings.




6. Appendix - Questionnaire

S1 Pre or Post Trial

1. Pre Trial

2. Post Trial

Introduction:

Good morning/afternoon/evening.... My name is ____________ from Taverner

Research. We are undertaking a study on behalf of Roads & Maritime Service

about traffic signals. The survey only takes a minute or two to complete.

S2. Record refusals

1. Continue

2. Refused due to completed before

3. Refused other reason

Q1. First, can you look at the crossing light over there [point to

pedestrian/bicycle crossing light] and tell me what symbols you see?

(Multiple response)

1. Pedestrian / human figure / person / stick man

2. Bicycle

3. Cannot see / make out symbols

4. Other (specify)

If Post Trial in S1 and code 3 or 4 in Q1, ask Q2, else skip to Q3

Q2 [Show picture of separate crossing lights] Looking at these crossing

lights what symbols you see? (Multiple response)

1. Pedestrian / human figure / person / stick man

2. Bicycle

3. Cannot see / make out symbols

4. Other (specify)

Q3. What do you think it means when the light turns green? Does it mean…

(READ OUT) (ROTATE)

1. Pedestrians and bicyclists can both now cross, but bicyclists must

walk across the street

2. Pedestrians and bicyclists can both now cross, but bicyclists can ride

across the street

3. (Not sure /Don’t know)

4. (Not sure but think/guess bicyclists must walk across the street)

5. (Not sure but think/guess bicyclists can ride across the street)




D1. Finally, which of the following age groups do you fall into? [Record best

guess if decline or have to leave]

1. Under 25

2. 25 to 44

3. 45 to 64

4. 65 or over

CLOSE-That’s the end of the interview, thank you for your time.

D2. Record gender

1. Male

2. Female

S3. Record respondent type

1. Bicyclist

2. Pedestrian

IF PRE TRIAL in S1 – show only codes 3, 4 & 8 in S4

S4. Record Location

1. Lang & Anzac, Randwick

2. Flinders & Albion, Surry Hills

3. Chippendale & Broadway, Chippendale

4. O’Connell & George, Parramatta

5. Station & Parkes, Parramatta

6. Marsden & Pennant Hills Road, Carlingford

7. Jaminson & Mulgoa, Penrith

8. High & Mulgoa, Penrith

9. Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith

S5. Record Date ___/___/____

S6. Record Interviewer Name




7. Appendix - Locations Code Lantern

Type TCS Location Image

1. A 363 Lang-Anzac, Randwick East leg and slip 4 lanterns

2. B

422 Flinders-Albion Surry Hills West leg only 2 lanterns Adequate ped activity

3. C 295 Broadway,

Chippendale

East leg only

2 lanterns

Pre/post site

22.5

10.0

14.0

25.0




Code Lantern Type

TCS Location Image

4. B 1094 O’Connell & George, Parramatta North, east & south legs 6 lanterns

Pre/post site

5. A 2203 Station & Parkes, Parramatta West leg only 2 lanterns

6. C 560 Marsden & Pennant Hills Road East leg plus 2 slip lanes 6 lanterns

18.3

17.2

15.7

29.4

5.2

6.3

19.8




Code Lantern Type

TCS Location Image

7. B 4287 Jamison & Mulgoa, Penrith North and east legs 4 lanterns

8. A 1267 High & Mulgoa, Penrith East and south plus slip 6 lanterns

Pre/post site

9. C 3916 Forrester & Palmyra, Penrith North, west and south legs 6 lanterns

26.5

13.0 19.0

20.0 6.4

27.4

15.8

17.0

18.3

Taverner Research, Level 2, 88 Foveaux St, Surry Hills, NSW, 2010, Australia

t +61 2 9212 2900 f +61 2 9212 3920 www.taverner.com.au