Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I object to the project for many reasons, primarily the impact on health and environment. There is no safe level of pollution and the government should be doing more to reduce the need for people to travel by car. The impact of construction will be devastating for the waterways of Middle Harbour and Burnt Bridge Creek and at Seaforth, Balgowlah and Cammeray. Having 500 truck movements per day in Balgowlah during construction will significantly increase pollution and congestion for these neighbourhoods, including many schools. How can you think it is acceptable? The government should be solving congestion by reducing the number of vehicles on the road, particularly single occupant vehicles. This is the reason for congestion. The solution is not more roads. Please learn from what other countries are doing and remove motorways in cities. COVID has accelerated the opportunity to change how we live for the better. Decisions need to have more emphasis on health and environment outcomes. Please do not miss this opportunity. Please do not proceed with this project.

I object to the Beaches Link. It will not solve traffic problems, will destroy local native habitats and will increase greenhouse gas emissions. Other solutions like a metro would be much better. A new EIS needs to be issued for public consultation with a complete public transport options analysis that compares pre-construction and post-construction traffic and environmental implications.

Please see the attached document.

More specifically, I object to the design changes of the project, which have moved the Beaches Link Tunnel entrance in Balgowlah directly parallel with Seaforth Public School, other nearby schools (Balgowlah Boys) and our homes. While I am making this submission in my personal capacity, I should note that I am also the President of the Seaforth Public P&C.

I am deeply concerned about the plans for the Beaches Link Tunnel and how they impact the Seaforth Public School community and surrounding areas.

Earlier plans for the tunnel – shared with the Seaforth Public school community – indicated that the tunnel entrance would be further from the school. Now the Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the tunnel entrance,including 12 lanes of traffic, smoke stack and related construction works, with impacts for air quality, noise and vibration, will be directly parallel with the school.

This goes against assurances given to the school community after engaging constructively in the community consultation process.

There is a lack of clarity on which route spoil trucks will take, though there is clarity about their massive volume – as frequently as one every 1-2 minutes at peak construction. This could be disruptive for learning at Seaforth Public and other nearby schools, such as Balgowlah North Boys, where my son could be attending at the height of construction. It also raises traffic safety concerns, with so many young families in the area and children walking to schools. This is only exacerbated by a recent retrenchment of school buses in the area.

Most importantly, while modeling indicates air quality may improve slightly for the school area, that is based on expected traffic patterns. Actual traffic patterns will depend on many factors, such as whether good public transport options are created through well-designed and well-used express bus services through the tunnel, which have yet to be determined. The planned privatisation of NSW bus services adds more uncertainty and cause for concern for that factor.

International studies have shown the dangers to health, particularly in children, of being near many open lanes of traffic. This includes increases in asthma (link below) and impacts on child brain development (link below). This project would increase traffic lanes from 6 to 12 near the school, including a traffic light, and add a nearby smoke stack. While we are told road gradient changes will offset this impact, it is hard to fathom an improvement in air quality with a doubling of open road traffic from 6 to 12 lanes.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-pollution-brain-development-idUSKBN1ZR2KG
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47882038

We should not roll the dice when it comes to the health and safety of children in our community. This was the position taken by Planning Minister Rob Stokes, when he was Education Minister, stating: “I won’t be party to putting stacks near kids … There is no way in hell that I’d support any development­ that would put the lives of pupils, teachers and parents at risk”. (link below)
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/manly-daily/exhaust-stacks-wont-be-near-schools-says-stokes/news-story/403aed0865801ab88f413aea19dc63a9

I expect the Minister Stokes and the NSW Government to live up to that commitment. I expect the NSW Department of Transportation, Roads Authority and Project Team to live up to that commitments made to us during the consultation process.

Earlier plans, noted in the Environment Impact Statement, make clear that alternative arrangements are possible that position the tunnel entrance further North up Burnt Bridge Deviation. Those plans would ensure that all traffic is within the tunnel before it reaches the school, helping to ensure air quality safety no matter what the eventual traffic patterns will be.

I call on you to keep your commitment to the school and local community and change to other design options that ensure child and community safety.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Mark Connelly

I object to the tunnel as it does not provide an environmentally appropriate solution for the 21st century. Traffic data that it was modelled on is out of date and needs to be reviewed, post the movement towards working from home, along with the positive impact that the B-line made in reducing traffic.
Modern cities across the world are implementing public transport solutions to take cars off the road- Sydney seems to be 20 years behind and happy to leave citizens to drive in their cars. As a minimum there should be a dedicated bus lane (or even better electric tram) lane within the tunnel, however even this is not as progressive as it needs to be. A rail link from the CBD, via North Sydney, to Manly Vale, Frenchs Forest and further north would take thousands of cars off the road every day.
Environmentally the build of the tunnel will be destructive to so many wildlife colonies, Manly Dam, flying fox colonies, waterways and impact so much nature and wildlife that will never recover.
I also strongly object to the construction of two unfiltered exhaust stacks which my house is sandwiched in between. As a condition of approval these exhaust stacks must be filtered. There is not an acceptable level of these toxins that will spew out of the stacks, yet thousands of kids who live in the area or attend the many schools will breathe in dangerous fumes and chemicals. The emissions pose a huge health risk to the population- something which is being well recognized across the world, yet again Australia seems to be oblivious to the dangers of traffic pollution.

I also object to the huge numbers of spoil trucks that will be driving on local roads. Restrictions must be put in place to ensure they do not drive down local streets and these must be monitored by TFNSW.
As part of the conditions of approval it is imperative that tunneling is only permitted within the sheds. This also must be monitored by NSW officials. As someone who works in construction I am extremely aware that contractors often flout restrictions and can get away with it.

TfNSW must upgrade local roads and add in speed bumps to the local roads around Balgowlah and North Balgowlah to deter people using them as rat runs. They must also add in parking restrictions and resident parking permits across the area to prevent workers form the Balgowlah golf course site looking for parking.

In summary I believe that the data which validates the need for a tunnel is reviewed- times have changed since this project was proposed and I strongly believe the people living on the northern beaches will never return in the masses to working in the city five days per week. I also strongly suggest that Sydney turns its heads to other cities within the world and review the implementation of improved public transport. Lessons can also be learnt from the success of the B-line and the North West metro- please review more options such as these.
We do not need to build a hugely destructive tunnel, kill much wildlife and natural environment, to assist people to remain in their cars. The tunnel will have a huge impact on the Northern Beaches and to my suburb and impact the health of my children and their friends from the increased traffic and car fumes which will be emitted from the exhust stacks.

As a resident of North Balgowlah I truly believe that our community is set to be the sacrificial lamb of the Northern Beaches tunnel. I feel that the planners have absolutely not given due thought and consideration to both the short and long term impacts that will be felt by our residents. Your plan will have a massive detrimental on the physical and mental wellbeing of our residents and I would urge the planners to consider how they would feel if this project were planned for the area in which they live?

My concerns cover the community and environmental impacts and can be summarised as follows:

Community Impact
1. Exposure to significant levels of noise, vibrations and dust which will be caused by 24 / 7 tunnelling, which is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the physical, emotional and mental health of neighbouring residents;
2. Significant traffic congestion surrounding the suburb, which may result in any increase in accidents, as well as an increase in noise and car emissions;
3. Rat run traffic through the suburb and past our school as commuters try to avoid the congestion around the construction sites, which we consider is highly likely to result in an increase in accidents involving children;
4. Increased on street parking from the workers of particularly the Kirkwood Street site where there is no facilitation of parking for the large number of workers visiting the site daily, this in turn will add to both the rat run risk and the safety concerns for children in our area;
5. Pollution from the unfiltered smokestacks that will be either side of our suburb and envelope the suburb.
6. Risk of movement and damage from digging such as when the Lane Cove tunnel was built and an apartment building collapsed due to vibrations. Balcony collapses into tunnel hole - ABC News


Environmental Impact
We are fortunate to live in an area that incorporates some spectacular bush land, reserves and beaches and would urge that further consideration is given to the major environmental impacts, including but not limited to:
1. Movement of contaminated sediment to Clontarf and Middle Harbour (The Spit) potentially causing pollution of the neighbouring beaches;
2. Potential destruction of Burnt Bridge Creek and surrounds (e.g. bushland, wildlife etc) due to a possible 96% reduction in water flow;
3. Discharge of 428,000 L per day of wastewater into Queenscliff Lagoon & Beach, resulting in health hazards for people and animals who swim in the waterways; and
4. Pollution of Manly Dam reserve, resulting in the potential extinction of rare flora and fauna and the last remaining areas of Duffys Forest, and meaning that one of the only swimable dams in NSW is no longer safe for public use.


Revisiting the tunnel justification
I feel that many of the assumptions for traffic used as justification of the build in the EIS have not factored in changes to travel habits and working from home due to COVID-19 and into the future, treating COVID-19 as having only a “temporary” impact". There are many new data points to factor in given the impact of COVID-19 on lifestyles long term and I stand with Viable Transport solutions in asking the government to halt the development process to allow for a suitable review, and to publicly release the results of the review. The figures put forward in the EIS indicate only a minimal reduction in the traffic flowing through Mosman for a significant and disproportionate use of public funds. I am also concerned that whilst conditions may be attached to the development approvals to mitigate some of the impacts, similar conditions have been shown to have been breached in nearby infrastructure projects with minimal penalty or recourse.


Ultimately I would love to see the tunnel plan stopped entirely however, should that not be possible then I would I request that you:
• Halt the process and amend the current plans and design to properly and sympathetically address community concerns and minimise the negative impacts on the local community and environment, rather than rush the process in order to get everything through before the next election; and

• Revisit the assumptions for tunnel justification based on living in a post COVID-19 world.

Traffic bottlenecks from the Northern Beaches through the Spit Bridge need to be addressed but the construction of a tunnel is not the solution.

In 2021 we need to be smarter than to build yet another road particularly when that road will have significant deleterious effects on the environment and community. How often have we seen roads built only for them to become clogged polluting failures a few years later. (Consider the M5 East tunnel.)

The long-term environmental impacts of the project, particularly with regard to the placement of exhaust stacks and their lack of filtration do not appear to have been thought through at all. Pumping unfiltered exhaust pollution into the atmosphere is unacceptable. The local effects around schools such as Balgowlah Boys High both during and after construction are almost too distressing to contemplate.

Similarly, the impact during construction on the environment particularly in the sensitive ecological areas of Manly dam and the Garigal National Park, and the impact on local waterways, such as Burnt Bridge Creek and Middle Harbour appear to have been ignored. That is unacceptable.

The solution to Northern Beaches traffic congestion must be an infrastructure project that is future proof and prioritises public transport solutions.

I am writing this objection for myself and my extended family of 8 adults and 5 children who live,or spend a good deal of time in the Balgowlah area.
I have lived here for more than 30 years and have gradually watched the streets get more and more congested with vehicular traffic.
A tunnel will bring more people and traffic into the area and create many "rat runs" in nearby streets as people try to get into the tunnel or avoid it.
Why has the Government turned its back on an affordable public transport system that would take vehicles off the road?
A light rail system has been proposed that will guarantee travel times( tunnel cannot because of likely congestion) and give people an affordable alternative to driving. This would be much cheaper to build without damaging the environment as much and preserve the green area of the Balgowlah golf club and creek.
What does the government get out of this deal, that seems to be just a way for a big road making\ toll operating company to gouge a bit more money out of us? I pay tax to the Government to build roads and I object to having to pay to use them.
Seven years to build? Try 10 years of noise , dust, trucks ,poor air quality ,crowded roads.
The Exhaust Stacks - we have been told the expelled air will be too costly to filter.
Are you crazy? THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL of breathing these pollutants.
IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO FILTER IT - DON'T BUILD IT!
Are you seriously considering dropping this "muck"on the local Primary and High Schools, Kindergartens , sports people, and your innocent public?
If you tried to foist the "too expensive" excuse in a civilized country you would be lynched!
Explore the alternatives to building a tunnel more closely - change your agenda and keep this area beautiful and pollution free.
Don't be remembered as the Government that polluted a paradise.

Nick Shorter and family

Executive Summary - full submission attached
Members of the Baringa Bush Residents’ Group have reviewed the EIS, liaised with Northern Beaches Council, submitted multiple questions to Transport for NSW, attended TfNSW information sessions and have sought the input of independent scientific, planning and transport experts. We believe the environmental, health, community and economic costs of the project are unacceptably high and the benefits questionable. The constant use in the EIS of terms such as ‘negligible’ as well as various promises of ‘feasible and reasonable mitigation measures’ to address impacts have no basis in science. Such subjective terms provide neither the accurate nor robust information residents are entitled to, nor any reassurance that impacts have been properly identified and understood – and greatly underestimates the scientific literacy of affected communities.
The BBCG considers the EIS
• Highlights devastating and permanent losses of otherwise protected and irreplaceable tracts of bushland and ground water resources with dire consequences for communities and local ecosystems, including numerous endangered flora and fauna species.
• Fails to make the case for the Beaches Link as a ‘congestion busting’ solution for the Northern Beaches LGA
• Ignores majority support for public transport solutions and the contribution of local traffic to congestion (which the tunnel would not address)
• Ignores recent shifts in working patterns to include hybrid commuting/work from home model (WFH), decentralisation and a shift of emphasis for city planning away from cars and towards the preservation of green space (Stokes, Feb 26)
• Reveals serious risks to the health, safety and amenity of local residents during both construction and operation
• Fails to provide accurate air quality data

I am supportive of the project but have the following comments with regards to traffic impacts, active transport routes in the Balgowlah precinct and impacts to mountain biking trails east and west of the Wakehurst Parkway.

General Notes/Requests
TfNSW to audit informal trails adjacent to the project along the western and eastern sides of Wakehurst parkway and liaise with NBC with respect to trail audits they are currently undertaking to better understand the impacts the project will have on community created trails and off-road single track trails for mountain bike riders and trail runners. This will enable the project team to better understand the loss of tracks to the community and enable better dialogue with NBC and NPWS for suitable replacements to be funded by the project.

Request that the project provides support and funding to upgrade and re-align where necessary the existing track that connects the Engravings track to Seaforth oval as this appears to be impacted by the project in particular the tunnel facilities building. The track is currently severely degraded and only usable as a shared track by mountain bikes in a south to north direction and as a result an additional trail was created by the community to allow an alternate route for riders in a north to south direction (Cuff link, refer to Trailforks). To minimise the overall impact on the bush and environment it would be beneficial to upgrade this track to current mountain bike trail standards for shared use and bi-directional travel to enhance and maintain off-road tracks and connectivity for the community on the Western side of the Wakehurst parkway.

The Manly Dam Mountain bike trail (11km) only has a small amount single-track making up the formal loop approximately 26.25%. The single largest continuous section of this is 1.5km along the western boundary of the park adjacent to the Wakehurst Parkway closest to the project. The defining features of this section of trail is the narrow winding trail alignment through the bushland. Currently the bushland is sufficiently dense to create a good buffer between the trail and the road even at it's closest points such that the rider feels disconnected from the urban environment and important aspect of mountain bike riding. In addition to the direct impacts of the project foot print overlapping the current trail alignment, I'm concerned that even where existing alignments are retained the bush land within the construction areas will have been degraded and no longer provide the buffer from noise and urban environment once the project is completed, resulting in a degradation of the riding experience in this area. What measures and re-alignments can the project implement to ensure rider experience is at the very least maintained?

All trail re-alignments should be designed and implemented by nationally recognised trail building companies that specialise in creating mountain biking and walking trails to ensure the trails are fit for purpose and meet the needs of end users .

Chapter 8
How will active transport on shared use path be impacted and managed during construction due to the Kitchener Street Support site BL11?

There are temporary changes to the Manly Dam Mountain bike trail alignment noted, what impacts will the construction activities have on the bushland in these areas and will there be a loss of amenity arising from the construction activities that once complete the mountain bike trail will no-longer be in the bush but on the verge of a busy road detracting from user experience? It would appear that better and permanent trail re-alignments would be a better outcome for the community. The trail has between 6,000 to 10,000 mountain bike user laps alone counted per month in this section and therefore must be maintained and open at all times, any new or temporary works must be completed prior to closing the existing alignments

The EIS has not acknowledged the presence of numerous informal community built trails along Wakehurst parkway corridor that have been developed by the community to address the lack of off-road cycling single-track in the area to link mountain bike trail assets in Garigal National Park and Manly Dam Park. These trails need to be acknowledged by the project and replaced as a result of consequential loss where impacted by the project to retain the function and amenity they provide the community. These trails are currently enjoyed by mountain bikers of wide age groups and demographics and trail runners.

I'm supportive of the additional under passes and bridges proposed that will greatly improve the safe crossing of pedestrians and cyclists across Wakehurst Parkway. But I have concerns that the construction of the underpasses in particular will prevent access along the Bantry Bay fire trail during construction of the underpass near Curl Curl Creek Fire trail. Preventing riders returning north to Frenchs Forest after completing the Gahnia mountain bike trail which is a one way track. How will the project ensure access is maintained for users at all times?

Chapter 9 Operational Traffic and Transport

With the project creating increased traffic demand through Balgowlah, what considerations has the project made to traffic congestion on Condamine street at the Kenneth Rd intersection which is already a major bottle neck for traffic flow?

Details and diagrams of active transport provisions are poorly described and documented in chapter 9.
Balgowlah area active transport detailed design needs to look at alternatives to signal crossings at grade of the access road to improve cycling efficiency and mitigate cueing at intersection. Needs to consider box culvert alternative?

The proposed shared path on the Eastern side of the Wakehurst Parkway will result in the loss of single track trails within and outside of the Manly Dam park. Mountain Biking is primarily a recreational activity and any loss of single track needs to be replaced with fit for purpose mountain bike trail. The shared pathway is not that, and therefore can't be part of your solution.

I write to object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. I am deeply distressed at the prospect of this project going ahead. I cannot believe that the estimated cost of 14 billion dollars (which is sure to blow out to much more) is justified, and I am even more certain that the human and the environmental costs make this project unviable. I also believe there are alternative options that have not been fully explored.

Before I offer my major objections (I only wish I had the time and the expertise to address all of my concerns), I need to say this. Covid-19 has had a significant effect on my mental well-being, especially during the recent Northern Beaches cluster, which effectively isolated me from most of my family over the Christmas, New Year and holiday period. The timing of the EIS release could hardly have been worse for me, and, I suspect, for many others. I am making this submission under considerable time pressure, but I make it because I feel so strongly about my concerns for my own health, well-being and safety, and the health, well-being and safety of my local community, including our natural environment and wildlife. I fear that many others, equally concerned, will just not have the time to do this.

1. As a climate activist for many years now, I object, first and foremost, about the effects that this project will have on our emissions, at a time when we need to be doing everything we can to reduce them. The construction of the tunnel itself will necessarily generate emissions on a large scale (I am sorry, I am not a scientist and cannot be more precise), but long-term this road project will encourage increased use of cars and trucks, and will increase pollution in highly populated residential areas.

2. Following on from my first point, I object to the fact that there has been no serious consideration given to alternative public transport options. Studies have shown that the B-line buses have successfully reduced congestion. Mass transit alternatives that have been considered in the past should be seriously reconsidered as options that would have a much lighter ecological impact and be far more effective in reducing road congestion.

I no longer own a car (for ecological reasons) and rely on good public transport, which I use nearly every day of the week. Our public money would be far better used to create public transport infrastructure that provides frequent and reliable services across the city. Recent changes to Sydney’s bus services have sent us in the opposite direction, with fewer, less frequent, less reliable services. Building this Beaches Link which prioritises and encourages private car use will only exacerbate the situation.

I would ask that the government provide for a study of all the options available.

3. As a resident of Naremburn, I object to the enormous impact that the construction of this tunnel will have on the amenity and quality of life for myself, my family, and my local community. Noise pollution is a serious concern for me, as I am often at home, though I am unsure of how or how long I may be impacted. Of greater concern is the issue of safety. I often walk to Cammeray, which means crossing Flat Rock Drive, where there will be considerable movement of trucks carrying material that may be significantly contaminated. Of greater concern is the number of Naremburn families that need to cross this street to access local schools.

If this work goes ahead, the safety issues could be mitigated in two ways. The first would be to create a safe crossing for Flat Rock Drive/Brook St, either by way of an overhead bridge or an underpass. The second would be to establish better public transport routes, so that one could easily get from Naremburn to the adjacent suburbs of Cammeray and Northbridge. This is especially important for school children, who, if they live in Naremburn, have to get to and from Cammeray every day.

I also have concerns for my mental health. I know from long experience (the construction of the Gore Hill Freeway being one of them) that long-term construction works in one’s immediate local area, with all the disruption that they entail (safety issues, dust, noise, pollution worries) do have an adverse impact on one’s sense of well-being. I love my local area, I spend a lot of time in it, walking in the bushland, visiting friends, sitting in cafes outdoors. I have no doubt that all these activities will be adversely affected. In addition, there is the heartache of all that stands to be lost in Flat Rock Gully – not only the biodiversity of plants and animals, but just the sheer pleasure of walking in that area and enjoying nature. It will be devastating.

I understand that at this stage there is no plan for rehabilitation of the bushland at Flat Rock Gully. I think this is unacceptable for a community which has succeeded over decades in regenerating land that was once a rubbish tip. There needs to be community consultation to agree on a plan for rehabilitation and a commitment in the EIS to carry this plan out.

However, of course I would prefer not to lose this precious green space, which is the closest bushland to me and which I can easily reach by walking. I will leave it to others more knowledgeable to make the case against using a contaminated area for a dive site. For me, it is simply the case that green space is not only precious in its own right, it is an increasingly scarce commodity in an area that is also increasing in population density. I would recommend that Flat Rock Gully NOT be used as a dive site.

4. From the EIS, we can gather that at the very least:

• The Beaches Link will negatively impact significant wildlife corridors, including Flat Rock Drive, and marine ecosystems at the Spit and Middle Harbour.
• 23 threatened species will be negatively impacted. Hundreds of other species will also lose their habitat, be cut off from bushland, or be driven away - birds, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals.
• There are NO adequate offsets – there WILL be wildlife extinctions.
• 390 trees will be destroyed at Flat Rock Gully.
• Flat Rock Gully is part of a network of wildlife corridors designed to protect biodiversity, yet 6.77 hectares of bushland there will be flattened for the construction project.

Heartache and distress at these losses cannot be scientifically measured, and therefore never figures in calculations of loss to be weighed against any potential benefits. Yet I can assure you that there is already much heartache and distress at the prospect of Flat Rock Gully being devastated for 5 years at the very least, during which time pleasant bushland strolls in the adjacent area will become all but impossible.

I am one of many who has planted grasses and trees in that area to regenerate the land. I will mourn the loss of the trees, the loss of bushland to walk in and enjoy, the loss of wildlife that will inevitably occur.

I urge you again to consider alternatives to this tunnel. Common sense and reason suggest many public transport alternatives, so I would expect people with expertise to be able to come up with much better solutions.

However, if the project must go ahead, then there should be stringent conditions with respect to biodiversity, including:
• A full assessment of the biodiversity present in Flat Rock Gully
• A comprehensive set of mitigation measures to protect wildlife from the effects of noise, traffic and light
• Provide alternative habitats for displaced wildlife before construction begins
• Commit to complete bush regeneration after construction is finished, and provide three tree plantings for every one destroyed, in accordance with Willoughby City Council’s Vegetation Management Strategy 2020.

I have many more objections that relate to contamination, especially contamination from Flat Rock Gully and Middle Harbour, but I do not have the time nor the expertise to address these.

From my understanding of the EIS, I believe that this toll road will be prohibitively expensive to build, with all risk and little benefit. I will reiterate what I have already said several times in my submission: let a study of alternative public transport infrastructure options be published before any more progress is made on this project. In that way, the public can make an informed comparison on cost, benefit and risk.

I have two concerns about this project.
1. Burnt Bridge Creek is an excellent walking track and provides some necessary shade in the warmer months. It is also a place where animals such as Bush Turkeys can live. I have heard that the creek is under threat due to disruption of the catchment and that the natural environment here will not survive or remain healthy.
2. Exhaust stacks from the tunnel will not be filtered. The air we breath is a crucial factor in people's health. This needs to be remedied.

I object to the Northern Beaches Tunnel on environmental and health grounds. I have serious concerns about the loss of greenspace and how that in conjunction with the unfiltered smoke stack will lead to an increase in mortality and morbidity rates. I believe a more cost effective and agile approach to dealing with congestion issues would be to make public transport and active transport more available and easier to use. The construction of the tunnel will also have major impacts on the area in the short to medium term, which is also a concern.

As longtime resident of the Northern Beaches and concerned citizen I strongly object to the current proposal (Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway EiS application number SSI-8862).

Adding more road capacity is not the way to reduce traffic congestion. Many studies and real-life experiences make it clear that exactly the opposite is always the outcome.

Personally, as a life-long cyclist who commuted to both the CBD and Macquarie Park from Manly Vale for many years - including into my 60s, I am dismayed that little thought has been given to improving cycling routes from the Northern Beaches.

Encouraging even a small number of daily commuters to cycle rather than drive greatly improves traffic flow.

Cycling as a commuter is faster than any other mode of transport, improves performance at work, reduces the negative health effects of a sedentary lifestyle, and saves both the individual and society a very large amount of money and time.

Looking at the proposed development it appears that not only has little consideration been given to cyclists in the long term, but that the current cycleway alongside Burnt Creek will be adversely affected throughout the construction process.

In short: if the government aims to improve the quality of life, reduce traffic congestion and tackle air pollution then providing much better cycling infrastructure is the way to go.

pdf attached

I object to the project in its current form as the ventilation stacks are not planned to be filtered, putting the health of nearby residents, like myself, at risk.

Dear TFNSW,
Burnt Bridge Creek (BBC) is a ground water based ecosystem. During the construction phase Beaches Link intends to reduce the flow of the creek downstream from the Balgowlah site by 96%. This will lead to the degradation of the Grey Headed Flying Fox camp situated next to Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation approximately 300 meters from the construction site.
All flying-fox species are protected under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is also listed as vulnerable to extinction under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Protected species require the habitat management and improvement. Northern Beaches Council is responsible for the management of the Grey Headed Flying Fox Camp. Plans are afoot to progressively restore the site of the camp. These plans do not include the removal of the waterway that the flying foxes need to survive.

Burnt Bridge Creek is home to many species. Another is the Water Dragon. Again, reliant on water to survive, and again, a protected species.

Can you please explain how stopping the flow of Burnt Bridge Creek follows the tenets of the Federal Parks and Wildlife act relating to protected species?

To the planning team and the NSW state government.

I strongly object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection due to following reasons:
I understand that the long term development plan for the Northern Beaches is targeting a 20% growth in development over the next 10 - 15 years. I understand that there is housing demand for affordable housing diversity. I don't agree with the future development of the Northern Beaches because the population growth will not be sustainable on multiple levels:
public schooling
public transport systems
parking
recreation facilities
ratio of green and sealed space
the list goes on...
However in order to manage the planned population growth i would expect the councils and local government to focus on providing sustainable living beyond the next 10+ years by following actions:
improvement of public transport to work and schools
implementing clean energy public transport : invest in electric busses and get these ancient heavily polluting diesel busses with extreme emissions off our roads (Diesel vehicles are banned in other major international cities !)
invest in creating safer roads and designated path's for bikes, electric scooters, or any form of unmotorized method of transport on all major roads. Create Green corridors that are only accessible for non motorized forms of transport.
Discourage the population from driving into the city or to North Sydney, but providing more frequent bus service on smaller busses so the are easier to manoeuvre on narrow streets and up the hill rather than causing road blocks and traffic jams because they can't get up the hill at the Spit.
Reduce the traffic by introducing a traffic system similar to London or Singapore where registered cars can only drive into the city on designated days.
Please look at other international cities in the world and how traffic is managed there, stop throwing billions of dollar into this tunnel but invest in sustainable , clean energy public transport for everyone.

thank you for considering these actions :-)

The projects sustainability and climate profile is poor compared to a public transport alternative. The government hasn't completed a comparative analysis - the closest comparable project is the Sydney Metro Chatswood to Sydenham which transverses approximately the same distance and crosses Sydney Harbour. The project is more sustainable and produces far less emissions during construction and also during operations. The EIS should be reissued for public comment with an alternative mass public transport option fully scoped - including the environmental and climate impacts. Both the Government and Public should be able to be assured that a toll road option is the superior option over a public transport solution given the considerable impacts of the project and limited cost benefits.
Please publish group name only and withhold personal details

I am really concerned about the environmental impacts to our beautiful area, to the flora and fauna. I’m worried about pollution from the emission stacks and the increased noise pollution. Surely there’s another way to solve transport issues in this area that is more forward-thinking.