Corridors, found
Find the corridor the city is already asking for.
Urban Pathways screens a city’s street field to identify practical surface-transit corridors.
Explore the model →Screens the whole network in one pass
Ranks corridors with a confidence tier attached
Costs the fleet whole-of-life, per corridor
A pathway surfaces
from the field
Why a screening layer, not another planning tool
The first cut, done systematically
Detailed transport modelling — four-step, activity-based, corridor feasibility — is thorough, but it has to be pointed at a shortlist before it starts, and drawing that shortlist has historically been a matter of planner judgement or whoever is loudest at a public meeting. Urban Pathways replaces that first cut with a systematic, repeatable scan of the whole network, so the expensive modelling that follows is aimed at the corridors most likely to justify it. That scan runs on Surface Corridor Prioritisation, a published five-factor method weighted 30/25/20/15/10 across demand potential, transport gap, travel-time competitiveness, infrastructure feasibility and regulatory ease — the full method is on How it works.
Each screening hands back three decisions at once: which corridors are worth funding, ranked on one comparable basis with a confidence tier attached; the mode and fleet size to run on each, from diesel bus to trackless tram; and whether that fleet should stay diesel, electrify in place, or electrify with the vehicle size re-optimised. Each path is costed whole-of-life per boarding over a twenty-year horizon, present value reported at seven and ten per cent, with carbon priced at seventy dollars a tonne. It is a screening and prioritisation step, not a demand forecast, and not a substitute for four-step or activity-based transport modelling. Request a screening →
Proof, not promises
An illustrative Sydney pilot, shown at its real confidence tier
Our illustrative Sydney pilot screened 211 activity centres and 4,780 candidate corridors, of which 4,184 were found currently unserved by existing routes, on a screening run as at 28 August 2026. Every result in that pilot carries an explicit confidence tier — it sits at Level 2, indicative screening, with domain-panel verification still pending. The demand input behind that ranking correlates with observed Sydney bus boardings at Spearman 0.31 (p<0.001, roughly 339 areas) — a moderate correlation, and the reason the tier sits at Level 2 rather than higher. We show that tier prominently because restraint, not certainty, is the basis on which we ask to be trusted. See the Sydney example.