Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

Dear Sir/Madam,

My family and I live in North Balgowlah. I am writing to voice my concerns around the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel and the affect it will have on our community and the local environment.

In the first place I would like to ask that you reconsider the justification / need for a tunnel in the first place.

I assume that the plan for a tunnel connecting the Northern Beaches has been around for years if not decades. And yet isn’t there a strong case to be made that patterns of movement and the “daily commute into the CBD office” routine have changed since the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 - and aren’t necessarily coming back.

Coronavirus lockdowns seem to have achieved for remote working what years of IT upgrades and “agile working” initiatives failed to do. For example, I used to commute 5 days a week into a CBD office - and yet now go into the office 1 or 2 days at most. I’m sure my experience is far from unique throughout the Northern Beaches.

I note that Viable Transport Solutions are asking the government to halt the development process to allow for a suitable review, and to then publicly release the results of the review. Please can this be considered?

About the project itself I have three major concerns:

Concern 1: Construction impact

The construction phase of the project will undoubtedly impact North Balgowlah residents with dust, noise, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic in the area. North Balgowlah will have construction surrounding most of the suburb and the EIS indicates that during construction there will be.

Over 3,000 vehicles per day across all sites.

1,690 vehicles per day at the Balgowlah Golf Course site alone.

1.5 heavy vehicles every minute or 4.5 vehicles (total) every minute.

Over 4,000 homes subjected to excessive noise

Construction work to proceed 24/7 for up to 7 years.

Can I request that you reconsider how to ensure that the impact of trucks/vehicles is not felt on the suburban streets that are already hard to navigate with local traffic and buses. Can you also seek to ensure areas around schools and parks are not impacted and are safe for families and children to walk or ride around the local community. And in the longer term, how do you plan to disincentivise commuters from using North Balgowlah’s residential streets as a rat run to save time from congestion and money from using the toll roads.

Concern 2: Ventilation stacks

Health experts agree that pollution from traffic exhaust poses serious health risks. Emissions include nitrous oxides and particulate matter that, when breathed into the lungs, causes respiratory diseases such as asthma and emphysema, and cancer. There are several schools, preschools, childcare centres, and sporting fields within the vicinity of all the proposed ventilation stacks and from a parent's point of view, the increased level of pollution is unacceptable. Balgowlah Boys school, which is where our son is likely to go to school, looks as though it will be one of the worst-affected. We can’t afford the fees for private schools, leaving us few other options. We are very concerned about the impact that the nearby construction site, and then the ventilation stacks, will have on his health.

If the tunnel were to go ahead, please can you ensure that the stacks are properly equipped with full filtration to minimize these impacts. At the very least the air pollution is kept at the current levels.

Concern 3 - 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:

Movement of contaminated sediment to Clontarf and Middle Harbour (The Spit) potentially causing pollution of the neighbouring beaches.

Destruction of Burnt Bridge Creek and surrounds (e.g., bushland, wildlife etc) due to a possible 96% reduction in water flow.

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.

Pollution of Manly Dam reserve, resulting in the potential extinction of rare flora and fauna and the last remaining areas of Duffy’s Forest, and meaning that one of the only swimmable dams in NSW is no longer safe for public use.

Loss of recreational activities with the mountain bike trails that are used for riding, walking, and running.

Can you provide assurances that future generations get to experience the natural wonders of the area in all its glory.

What is the point of making the northern beaches more accessible if the very heart of what makes the northern beaches so special is destroyed?

Given that it is a toll road I'm not confident it will have the effect on traffic as advertised. I haven't seen any information about a dedicated bus lane or public transport plans and am concerned this will just send more cars to the city, increasing emissions and creating more traffic. I think the priority should be creating better public transport options rather than encouraging people to keep using their cars. I'm also concerned about the reduced water flow to the creek and the damage it will do to the ecosystem. For these reasons, I oppose this project. If these issues are addressed I'm open to changing my mind as I agree something needs to be done about the traffic on Military Rd. But I think public transport needs to be the focus.

I wish to object to the proposed project on a number of areas covering both (a) objection to the creation of a tunnel for the Northern Beaches at all, and (b) if it is to go ahead, objections to a number of the currently planned details of its construction and creation.

Firstly I object to the creation of the tunnel link overall.

At a recent public web forum the NSW Government representatives presented a graph showing the number of vehicles using the Spit Bridge had remained fairly constant over a recent 5 year period (i.e. not increasing): in addition, whilst another graph suggested "peak time" traffic levels had returned to pre-COVID volumes, this data seemed to be at odds with the actual experience of myself and a number of other road users I have discussed this will - I find there to be significantly less traffic when I drive across Spit Bridge at 8am on a weekday than in pre-COVID times.

Further, modelling as to whether the tunnel is needed at all appears to have been based on data before the B1 B-Line bus was introduced (and hence the benefits of B1 B-Line reducing car volumes is not included in consideration for whether tunnel needed).

Also, data presented by planners of the project at various public forums seems to suggest that any time-saving benefits (after 5-7 years of construction disruption) is likely to be lost within 2-3 years of tunnel completion: so 5-7 years of significantly worsened traffic flow due to construction, will be negated 2-3 years later.

Therefore, I personally consider the decision as to whether there is a need for a tunnel at all needs to be completely re-evaluated based on more up-to-date data, and full consideration of impact on traffic flows in the next 5-7 years (from construction impact and disturbance of traffic flows), and what modelling shows for travel times in 10 years time of "without tunnel" and "with tunnel". This needs to happen to ensure there is full justification for such a major project exceeding $10bn BEFORE any construction commences, and before any contracts for this project are signed

If the project does go ahead, then other key matters I object to are:
1. Proposal for unfiltered exhaust stacks - I consider this poses a huge health risk for local schools and residents in areas around the exhaust stacks. Rather than the pollution from vehicle exhausts being spread along the route of the tunnel, all of this pollution will now be concentrated solely at the exhaust stacks. Whilst I understand the use of unfiltered stacks has occurred in other projects around NSW, use of such unfiltered stacks does not match international standards. From my research nowhere else in the First World has a tunnel of this length supported been by a single unfiltered stack - they either use filtered stacks or many multiple stacks along the tunnel route. The concentration of traffic pollution poses a significant health risk to those in the area in which the stack fumes will be spread - especially to those school-children attending nearby schools. The exhaust stack must therefore be fully filtered.

2. Traffic disturbance during the construction phase - mitigation of expected traffic problems is inadequate. The EIS notes 2.5 trucks per minute onto Sydney Road and Wakehurst Parkway - this level of trucks would bring traffic on the Northern Beaches area to a standstill, which along with the recent cancellation and changes to public bus routes will create significant and major delays and grid-lock over the many years of construction (not just a problem for a few months - but for many, many years). This level of traffic disturbance is unacceptable for such a long period. Additionally such a high volume of trucks creates major risk for students at Balgowlah Boys High and all motorists along the Wakehurst Parkway and the Spit and Sydney Road.

3. Volume of proposed removal of trees at golf course, and other construction areas. I strongly consider action needs to be taken to retain as many trees as possible - their removal is extremely likely to increase water run-off in storms, and retaining them should assist with mitigation of dust produced during the build.

4. Environmental - I understand that during and/or by the end of the project, the water flow in Burnt Creek will be reduced by 95%. I also understand that during the construction phase up to half a million litres of wastewater will be pumped into the Queenscliff Lagoon catchment daily, contaminating the lagoon and beaches. Both these will have a significant impact on the ecosystem, and to my mind is unacceptable. Further, the proposed widening of the Wakehurst Parkway highly likely to lead to impact on the Manly Dam catchment area, along with threatening the balance of local flora and fauna (including the climbing fish that have only been rediscovered recently) - with such work simply moving traffic bottle-necks to a most likely different 'pinch' point.

I therefore strongly object to the project proceeding at all - I consider there has to be a full and transparent revised business case presented to the NSW electorate to justify such a massively expensive project BEFORE proceeding further, based on latest data of traffic flows and revised forecasts for future traffic flows that take into account all matters raised in objections (including concerns about data assumptions that do not appear to align to local knowledge of how and where traffic flows). Plus, if decision is to proceed, then other matters and objections raised above require full and further consideration and appropriate remedy and changes to proposal to address them.

I do not believe that the environmental impacts of this project have been adequately considered and have certainly not been suitably dealt with. The effect on the Burnt Bridge Creek - to name one area of significant impact - is not appropriate. The loss on water to this creek and its resulting impact on vegetation and wildlife is significant and Transport NSW should look to finding a solution to this issue prior to any further action on the tunnel. The same concerns exist in the Wakehurst Parkway area where the tunnel will have similar impacts.
I am also concerned about the impacts on the street where I live - Serpentine Crescent. The current noise wall along the Burnt Bridge deviation has a gap which allows noise and light pollution to currently filter through to Serpentine Crescent. This also should be addressed prior to any construction.
Obviously, my location also gives rise to concerns about the exhaust stack which is unfiltered. This is totally unacceptable and should be immediately rectified to bring this project in line with other similar projects globally.
I also query the long term effectiveness of a tunnel in this location. It will funnel traffic to an area that is already congested rather than reducing the volume of traffic. Surely a better public transport system to encourage people to leave their cars at home would be a better solution. The B-line is a start, however if I choose to use it I face 2 problems - the car park at Manly Vale fills quickly and many buses are full by the time they reach this stop. Would a train line linking Dee Why and Chatswood be a better solution? This would allow public transport to link to many other areas, not just the city.
I hope that before this project commences there is better consideration of these and many other concerns for local residents.

I’m greatly concerned about the impacts to public and community use of the waterways of Middle Harbour. In particular, Northbridge Sailing Club and Northbridge Scouts are both going to be badly affected. The coffer dams, the highly restricted access between Seaforth Bluff and Clive Park, and the temporary re-location of yacht moorings will seriously impact on-water activities for both of these highly active groups.

Northbridge Sailing Club (NSC) is a significant part of Northbridge community life. The works will effectively divide Middle Harbour into two parts, and I believe will make sailing at NSC unfeasible. I expect sailing to be seriously impacted or to stop, membership to fall, and community health to be badly impacted for local youth and adults.

Northbridge Scouts is located next door to NSC. Young people are usually Scouts from 11-14 years, so since this work will happen over about 4 years, it will damage or stop sailing and other water activities for a full generation of Scouts.

I know that neither of these organisations has any direct contact from NSW Govt on this matter, which is both disappointing and wrong. Effected community groups should be engaged with before such plans are even proposed. I request that the NSW Government stop and rethink the approach to engineering of this tunnel before continuing.

I object to the destruction of the Burnt Bridge Creek.
I object to emissions stacks releasing poisonous fumes into my outdoor garden and space.
I object to the placement of emission stacks anywhere in the vicinity of North Balgowlah.
You need to find an alternative solution to emissions stacks.

The current EIS should be withdrawn due to outdated and incomplete data and the absence of detailed evidence-based mitigation measures for numerous serious immediate and long term impacts. These impacts will impose heavy burdens on residents, schools and businesses over many years and lead to irreversible environmental losses on the northern beaches. A new EIS should be undertaken using up to date data and responding to the many concerns raised during this consultation process.

This project is too important to rush through with such an unprofessional ‘she’ll be right’ attitude as it will irrecoverably change the face of the northern beaches through increased development and with it, the natural environment, that currently characterises the LGA.

My submission is neither for, nor against, a tunnel per se. It is, however, strongly opposed to the project as described in the EIS. The EIS demonstrates that the impacts of the planned tunnel have not been properly and rigorous investigated, and many of the impacts described are not countered with evidence-based mitigation measures.

The current EIS refers to many significant impacts – from years of noise, dust and congestion to threats to local ecosystems – but the document is peppered with vague comments such as ‘TfNSW will implement mitigation measures ‘wherevever feasible and reasonable’ or that TfNSW will undertake ‘additional studies’ or ‘further monitoring’.

Likewise, TfNSW’s online information sessions deflected the community’s genuine and informed concerns with similar promises of unidentified mitigation measures, again if ‘feasible and reasonable’. Questions submitted to TfNSW by email or the portal elicited inadequate responses, many merely referring affected communities back to the same incomplete information in the EIS that had sparked the query.

This is a very large, very important project that has the status of State Significant Infrastructure, enabling it to bypass many laws and regulations that would otherwise protect communities and the environment. This means every single impact must be rigorously and transparently studied and that mitigating measures must be detailed, transparent and evidence-based so that communities know exactly what will, or will not, be done to offset identified risks and losses.

The current EIS does not commit TfNSW to essential mitigating actions and fails to provide the robust evidence-based analyses and recommendations that would be expected of any professionally-prepared EIS.
Full submission attached

I am extremely concerned about the safety and viability of the proposed alternative bike route through Artarmon for the estimated 4 years of the life of this project.
My 7 friends and I – all between 65-75 years of age - ride the Artarmon route frequently as part of our keep fit and healthy, in body and mind, program. We use it for recreational rides, but just as importantly, to fulfil our regular activities such as going to shops and appointments between Waverton and Chatswood, Lane Cove, Roseville and beyond. This has become significantly more important as we attempt to stay out of our cars and even trains, and keep moving.
The two sections of concern are the current shared route alongside the motorway around the back of Artarmon, and the section through Flat Rock Creek.
There is no way in the world we could safely navigate the streets of Artarmon as proposed. Some of the roads proposed are too narrow for bikes and cars, let alone trucks. The back streets of Artarmon/St Leonards, as we all know, is heavily industrial and there are some serious trucks moving around there. The route is also replete with hilly terrain, with many intersection on your proposed route requiring riders to navigate cross-roads by stopping and starting on a hill while also trying to avoid heavy traffic. It just won’t work – at least we’re not far from a hospital!!
If the project were to only be for a short period of time, say a few months, we would be able to accommodate this proposal, but 4 years requires a solid alternative to be established.
I propose the footpath along the Pacific Highway be remodelled as a shared path, with each side being one way. There is minimal foot traffic on this path, and I doubt that many of the people who currently use the Artarmon shared path as an exercise footpath will move to this alternative as it won’t be a particularly pleasant route. However it would be pretty safe, and that’s what we want. Safety!!
I’m not proposing a grand construction. There’s lots of shared paths that are not highly engineered. But being allowed to use this path legally would be such a relief. While it’s not particularly pleasant, it does the job of enabling riders to travel safely between St Leonards and Lane Cove and could be employed as a simple shared path for minimal cost but be quite effective. I’m planning to use it – and would prefer to not be concerned about incurring fines.
Thank you for your consideration of my submission.

This project is a complete waste of public money and disastrous for the local community with the cycle lanes unusable for 4 years. Please revert to a public transport solution.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to submit my concerns, uncertainty and overall objection to the Beaches Link Tunnel proposed by Transport for NSW.
There is enormous impact to local communities with the shock and subsequent decline of environment, the increased local traffic congestion and parking issues, water and air pollution as well as noise pollution. All of which is due to occur both during construction and operation of the proposed tunnel. This simply does not make logical sense when placed against huge expenditure of public funds for projected minimal gains for a very small area.
I have detailed my objections as follows:
• The desired outcome for the project is to reduce traffic congestion south of the Spit Bridge and hasten commutes. I object to the forecast of the benefits of the proposed tunnel as they were based on 2016 surveys. This therefore did not take into account the current global Covid 19 pandemic and its changed landscape for commuter’s vehicular use nor did it address the recent and successful introduction of B-line services. Less commuters due to the ability and desire of workers to work from home at least a few days a week, will obviously alleviate some traffic congestion. This ‘new normal’ presents an ill-advised and indeed foolish notion to take on this tunnel without investigating trends post 2020
• The traffic impact for the Balgowlah, Seaforth and Manly Vale communities are enormous. If the proposed tunnel goes ahead traffic and congestion will be hellish. This will be due to the construction site bringing slowed traffic conditions, large trucks entering and exiting sites, large trucks attempting tight corners, random stop-starts by manual traffic wardens, parking of contractors and workers, lack of parking for locals, and increased congestion to the already busy Condamine Street, Sydney Road and surrounding roads. Traffic impact alone gives way to greater carbon emissions, impedes current traffic flow and will cause an increase in danger to both vehicles and pedestrians
• I object to the smokestacks not being filtered. I am shocked and dismayed how this has even been approved given the proximity to local schools. Previously smokestack filtration has not been deemed financially viable compared to the health impacts. The exponential growth in respiratory conditions such as cancer, asthma attacks, emphysema, bronchiectasis and decreased lung capacity has been well documented in residential areas surrounding smokestacks, such as the M5 at Arncliffe. Failure to filtrate smokestacks considering a respiratory pandemic the world is facing is negligent. The future health care costs are not only monetary, but concern morbidity and mortality. To date, this has not been adequately addressed and needs to be thoroughly considered
• I object to the noise pollution from these works. As someone who has recently lost a significant amount of hearing due to sudden pathology, I do not wish the remainder of my precious hearing to be affected further by the proposed works. Decibel levels have been proposed to be unhealthy for kilometres surrounding the work site and operational site
• I object to the impact on no fewer than six schools in the immediate vicinity of the proposed work and operational site. Hundreds of children will be negatively affected. The noise and air pollution caused both during construction and during operation will directly affect these children’s learning and health. Personally, it would impact my child who has additional needs – the distraction of noise will impair his focus on his studies and learning – something we have worked VERY hard to achieve thus far
• I am concerned for my children who walk to school. The growth of rat runs of those vehicles wishing to get to the tunnel or indeed to avoid it; the rush of these commuters through residential streets, poses a danger to my children’s life as they walk to their places of learning
• I object to the artwork provided not being to scale, thus giving a false impression to those viewing it. It is misleading and deceptive
• I object to the complete lack of communication to local residents. Despite chapter 7 suggesting that information to stakeholders has been timely and accurate with provision of opportunities for the community to have their questions answered. I find this to be false. I am a stakeholder as I both live and work within the Balgowlah community. I have not received adequate nor timely information, or actually any information. It was a public schools community group that alerted me to this tunnel proposed project and EIS document NOT any official NSW government source. As a local health care worker I see a variety of locals daily. I am simply stunned by the general ignorance of the community to the tunnels proposal, its plans, the projects impact and cut-off dates for community to be involved. This could only be attributed to a severe lack of communication and education to the community stakeholders in which this proposed tunnel will mostly effect
• I object to the environmental impact on Burnt Creek. The loss of waterways to almost 96% during operation of the proposed tunnel will greatly impact the fragile environment including mature flora and fauna such as an endangered bat colony and its habitat
• I am concerned with the impact on middle harbour, Manly Dam and Manly Lagoon due to run-off from the project. I have not seen the effect on the health of these local waterways, beaches and recreational areas being thoroughly addressed
• I question, if the government is dedicated to climate change and carbon emission goals; surely there would be a view to make this tunnel not for vehicles, but rather for a train or tram infrastructure. This would increase the use of public transport, thereby decreasing traffic on the military road (probably by more than the 10% the current billion-dollar tunnel is proposing), decrease operating emissions from smokes stacks, increase speed of commute to the city and be an overall a compromise for the entire plan. I feel there needs to be more time in planning and optimal use of the tunnel discussed
• I am concerned for the value of my property. I am truly fortunate to live in a lovely area such as Balgowlah. Unfortunately with the proposed tunnel, I will lose value on my home due to the dramatic loss of local environment including creeks, walking paths and greenery, the increase of traffic congestion around my street, the increase in noise pollution from the construction, the operation and the rat racing cars due to horns being blown at all hours.
My rates are about to increase in the local council, but the environment I’m paying for is being dramatically changed for the worse.
Overall the proposed gains and benefit of the tunnel infrastructure is miniscule in comparison to the concerns addressed above.

Sincerely

Concerned Resident

The request that the NSW government abandon the Beaches Link Tunnels Project. See attachment below

I object to this project:
1. Absence of transparency: Consistently throughout this proposal, key information has not been made available despite repeated attempts. The business case has not been disclosed, clearly indicating there are known issues that the government does not wished confirmed in the public domain including ultimately the size of the public benefit verse the total cost including environmental and disruption and the timing of same. The government needs to commit to transparency and accountability. It is hard to believe commitments to transparency and accountability during construction when there as been so little to date.

What has not been provided adversely colours both promises and what information has been provided. We don’t know what we don’t know, but the government does.

2. Inadequate Planning: Progress to EIS has occurred with only 25% of the proposed design developed – experts have commented that this is a very low bar and does not enable fair and considered evaluation of impact. Similarly, experts have commented regarding the inadequacy of information provided in the EIS to enable an informed opinion.

3. Alternative transport options not considered and more deserving Projects: Without proper and adequate disclosure, it is impossible to comment of consideration of alternatives. Objectively there seems to be better and more pressing transport options and other more deserving infrastructure projects. It is difficult to see that the tunnel delivers the best option for improved public transportation when no rail is available. NSW cannot fund all good business cases but it should fund the best options and decision making needs to provide disclosure and accountability to ensure this is occurring.

4. All Pain No Gain: I live in Northbridge, a suburb that will be adversely impacted by the proposed development but receive no net benefits. Rather the suburb, the Premier’s suburb no less, will lose out to enable increased development of higher density dwellings in the northern beaches (as I understand 50,000 new dwellings, the consequences of which will be no improvement in travel times after the first few years of completion). There is a transfer of value from Northbridge, Cammeray and other impacted suburbs to the Northern Beaches and we don’t even know that there is a positive net value from the project.

5. Adverse impact on Northbridge growth and vibrancy for years: I understand that at least the Big 4 Banks will impose a construction risk category on all dwellings within 50 metres of the proposed tunnel. This will significantly reduce lending available to acquire premises impacted; this will likely flow through to values. Due to the long, narrow shape of Northbridge and tunnel running the length of the suburb, a significant proportion of the suburb is impacted. This is likely to impact overall values in Northbridge which will be reported as depressed – this risks impacting proposed developments, overall growth and vibrancy of the Suburb. I understand these same premises will carry access easements requiring approval prior to any improvements and/or development. The experience reported from Westconnex indicates approval times are in the range of 4-7 months. The adverse impact on Northbridge is likely to continue not only throughout development but take years to recover from.

The Government could take steps to mitigate loss of vibrancy by investing in the Northbridge Local Centres Strategy.

6. Potential Property Damage: I understand one of the reasons for the higher risk rating imposed by the banks is the risk of property damage and difficulty in securing compensation and/or rectification. Evidence provided by those impacted by Westconnex development flags the difficulties to secure damages and rectification.

Increased guarantees and support structures are required to overcome evidence of experience resulting from other projects, specifically Westconnex.

7. Lack of filtration: Exhaust stacks in Cammeray impact one of, if not the highest densities of schools in Australia. There is no established safe level for fine particulate matter yet 1000’s of children will be exposed in close proximity.

The proposed tunnel has been described as the longest unfiltered tunnel in the world. Travellers on the M5 tunnel are warned to keep their windows closed and air conditioning on recycle. The proposed Beaches Link tunnel is considerably longer and will be a multiple more problematic. People suffering with respiratory health conditions already dislike travelling the M5 tunnel.

Due to poor transparency existing evidence provided on behalf of the project fails to alleviate genuine concerns and the evidence is at odds with other expert evidence and laymen’s common sense.

8. Construction is a big deal, Traffic & noise: Dive sites are not small, they are enormous, noisy constructions with large double load trucks constantly moving in and out. An entire traffic ecosystem will be built to enable easy access for trucks and construction vehicles. Existing traffic has to go somewhere and it is well known that even small increases at peak hour add substantial delays and significant increases in local pollution.

9. Dust & particulate matter during construction: Pictures taken off and around other dive sites contradict promises of covered loads, minimal dust and limited environmental impact. A causal drive past the nearest dive site shows extracted material accumulating in gutters.

10. Contamination & environmental damage, including marine damage: It is well known that the area underlying the proposed Flat Rock Drive contains contaminants as the site was previously a dumping site. I am concerned as to the potential leakage of containments into the surrounding air, water and environment which will impact on closely situated residences, sporting fields and wildlife.

11. Health. I am one of many asthmatics living in Australia: As a chronic asthmatic, I am concerned about air pollution and contaminates both during construction and post construction due to my comprised system. I am also concerned for my children one who is an asthmatic. There are many other at-risk groups that will be impacted by poorer air quality. We can choose not to use the tunnel; it is much more difficult to avoid general air pollution.

Real time air monitoring must be located at, in and around construction sites and when complete exhaust stacks with easily understood longitudinal reporting and underlying data.

12. Road closures and restriction post construction: There is no information on road closures post construction. Experience is that existing transport routes will be blocked or restricted. Residence around the tunnels whilst receiving little to no benefit will likely have their existing transport routes reduced.
More information is required about all aspects of the proposed project sufficient to enable an informed response.

The aggregate total will be significant and sustain loss of amenity for Northbridge, Cammeray and other heavily impacted suburbs. We lose our environment, playing fields, and water ways, we are left to worry about our health and that of our families, we will have our access routes curtailed and/or traffic increased. None of this is good however we don’t know what the benefit will be; certainly not for us, nor residents along the length of the proposed route or for Northern Beach residents who will see greatly increased development but for Sydney more broadly. “All Pain No Gain” is an entirely legitimate catch cry for this proposal. The refusal of the State Government to provide information or to disclose consideration of other alternatives (in particular rail options) need to be reversed. This project should be delayed until reasonable and adequate disclosure is forthcoming to the public.

Fundamentally, I do not believe this project passes the ‘pub test’. I request that:
• the NSW government suspend progress of this project
• make public the business case and evaluations related to this project including public transport alternatives and projected impact of technology on realising benefits
• make public the evaluation of prioritisation of this project over other more essential, higher public benefit projects

I hereby object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection due to the following serious concerns:
1. The massive expense of the project and the fact that it benefits a very small percentage of the population of NSW.
2. The data shows that the reduction of traffic on Military Rd and Spit Rd will be very minimal - the project won't actually fix the problem!
3. Public Transport options were not looked at properly - a Metro or rail link would service the Northern Beached well and would take traffic off the roads immediately.
4. Destruction of our natural environment - we need more green space, not less. More sportsfields on the Lower North Shore and natural environment to enjoy. The pollution during construction and after with the UNFILTERED!! exhaust stacks is a major concern to our health.
5. Not only will the project not fix the problem it sets out to solve, it has MAJOR design flaws. The entry and exit points on the Lower North Shore will make it extremely hard for locals to use the new infrastructure and the local roads will be gridlocked with people trying to get to the correct entry point. The Willoughby Rd interchange in particular will become a major entry/exit point and it is NOT designed to cope with that much traffic. Brook St works well now but will become essentially useless. The design is flawed and the knock on effect will have a massive effect on local Lower North Shore roads.
6. Safety concerns for our local children during and after construction. The number of truck movements is truly staggering. Our primary schools catchments cross the major roads where these trucks will be travelling and the safety of kids walking, bussing and driving to school will be compromised. Cammeray Public School spans Naremburn, Crows Nest and Cammeray and kids will be at risk in each of these suburbs. Cammeraygal High School catchment spans North Sydney, Waverton, Wollstonecraft, Crows Nest, Cammeray, Naremburn, Northbridge and Castlecrag. All of these suburbs will have immense traffic movements by large vehicles inappropriate for our roads.
7. Environmental Impacts are disproportionately high - Flat Rock Gully, Tunks Park, Middle Harbour, St Leonard's Park, The Coal Loader, Sydney Harbour from Waverton to Rozelle not to mention Cammeray Golf Course. TOO MANY IMPACTS! The pollution, the wildlife, the green space, our air quality, noise effects, run-off from the garbage dump in Flat Rock once disturbed.
8. Economic effects - aside from the massive cost of this project, the ongoing cost to the community in tolls will be extortionate. Additional tolls on roads already paid for in full by NSW citizens being tolled again! There will be massive deterrents to owning cars in Sydney, no public transport options and huge roads under-utilised. Covid has taught us we can work from home, or anywhere really. We don't need to be travelling on toll roads!
Please reassess this project and make sensible decisions. Use our state government funds wisely and thoughtfully for the future.This project makes no sense as it stands.

The beaches link and Gore Hill Freeway goes against Climate change and the Governments plan to reduce carbon emissions. removing significant green spaces, trees and nature reserves to build a tunnel and road to encourage more cars on the road and discourage public transport use, including removing bike lanes and green spaces that are used to cycle and walk ( burnt creek deviation).
Loss of natural habitat at Burnt Creek deviation for local wildlife flora and fauna. Destruction if Manly dam and wakehurst parkway also home to vital local eco systems.
Unfiltered smoke stacks polluting local residential areas including at least 4 local schools in direct zone of air pollution, Balgowlah Boys, Seaforth Public, St Cecilias and bordering on Manly West and BNPS.
There is no long term goal to encourage public transport use and sustainable transport options for the increasing number of people on the beaches. This will further encourage more cars and carbon emissions.
The complete destruction of the water table and planned 96% reduction of water flow planned to occur at Burnt Bridge Creek and beyond, all the way to Queenscliff

I object to the destruction and disruption of the wildlife corridor at Flat Rock Gully where the proposed dive site will be. This is irreplaceable bushland on the edge of the exisiting expressway - it is priceless. Disruption to existing buildings and amenities as an alternative would have a short term social and financial cost but that can be overcome. The beauty and biodiversity in the gully may not ever return. I object also to ‘cost saving’ measures like unfiltered stacks. We deserve best-practice engineering taking into account the health of the local families and individuals who live here.
This is a unique part of Sydney, we have wallabies in our backyard! Let’s treasure this for future generations. Build the tunnel, but don’t destroy rare inner city bushland and compromise the health of people in this electorate to do so.

I provide this submission as a North Balgowlah resident and hope the points raised will be factored into justification for and planning of the tunnel should the project end up going ahead.

1 - Is the tunnel justifiable?
Concern - 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. 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".
The extra cost of tolls for local residents is not justifiable or reasonable
It has been widely discussed that if you build roads, cars will fill them up therefore the travel time benefits will only have a short term impact
Future proofing the existing lifestyle of residents in the area should be a priority for planning
Request - There are many new data points to factor in given the impact of COVID-19 on lifestyles long term and we 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.

2. Construction Impact
Concern - The construction phase of the project will undoubtedly impact North Balgowlah residents with dust, noise, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic in the area. North Balgowlah will have construction surrounding most of the suburb and the EIS indicates that during construction there will be.
• Over 3,000 vehicles per day across all sites.
• 1,690 vehicles per day at the Balgowlah Golf Course site alone.
• 1.5 heavy vehicles every minute or 4.5 vehicles (total) every minute.
• Over 4,000 homes subjected to excessive noise
• Construction work to proceed 24/7 for up to 7 years.
Request – Reconsider how to ensure that the impact of trucks/vehicles is not felt on the suburban streets that are already hard to navigate with local traffic and buses. Ensure areas around schools and parks are not impacted and are safe for families and children to walk or ride around the local community. Disincentivise commuters looking to use our streets as a rat run to save time from congestion and money from using the toll roads.

3. Ventilation stacks
Concern - Global health experts agree that pollution from traffic exhaust poses serious health risks. Emissions include nitrous oxides and particulate matter that, when breathed into the lungs, causes respiratory diseases such as asthma and emphysema, and cancer. There are several schools, preschools, childcare centres, and sporting fields within the vicinity of all the proposed ventilation stacks and from a parent's point of view, the increased level of pollution is unacceptable.
Request - If the tunnel were to go ahead that the stacks be equipped with full filtration to minimize these impacts. At the very least the air pollution is kept at the current levels.

4. Environmental Impact
Concern - 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:
• Movement of contaminated sediment to Clontarf and Middle Harbour (The Spit) potentially causing pollution of the neighbouring beaches.
• Destruction of Burnt Bridge Creek and surrounds (e.g., bushland, wildlife etc) due to a possible 96% reduction in water flow.
• 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.
• Pollution of Manly Dam reserve, resulting in the potential extinction of rare flora and fauna and the last remaining areas of Duffy’s Forest, and meaning that one of the only swimmable dams in NSW is no longer safe for public use.
• Loss of recreational activities with the mountain bike trails that are used for riding, walking, and running
Request – assurances that future generations get to experience the natural wonders of the area in all its glory. That wildlife can live in the shadows of residential houses, not shadows of construction and pollution. What is the point of making the northern beaches more accessible if the very heart of what makes the northern beaches so special is destroyed? We should be preserving the trees, flora and fauna of the area.
I understand that in life, it is important to move forward, but not at all costs. We have a responsibility to look after what we have got, so we can all live together sustainably, leaving the world in a better place for future generations. I am to be convinced the tunnel is the answer.

I have already made a submission objecting to the works proposed off Clive Park in Northbridge, and the damage it will cause to the communities of Northbridge Sailing Club and Northbridge Scouts. Both groups will be seriously impacted yet neither has had any engagement from NSW Govt.

This is a second and separate submission which I hope doesn't overwrite the first, concerning the impact of the tunnel works to Flat Rock Gully. I object to the proposed works at Flat Rock Gully. The pockets of bushland we have around Sydney are small and precious, and ANY reduction or damage to these environments is not acceptable. By all means take or repurpose land which is already used by humans - perhaps harder work for the project but the right thing to do.
Specifics:
- the access road into Flat Rock Gully from the eastern end of Small St provides important access into the Gully from the North.
- the works plans imply that because the land was re-vegetated over the last 20 years it doesn't really matter if it's destroyed. That's wrong - it doesn't reduce the value or importance of the environment at all, which is mainly populated with native species and represents 20 years of effort by local council and community bushcare groups.
- As a principle, the government should not take from those just because they have no voice, i.e. environment, plants & animals.

I therefore object to this part of the works and request that you reconsider, and find access points from land already allocated to human use.

Objection to the construction of the Northern Beaches Tunnel
I do not believe the tunnel is the best transport solution. In 2020, the traffic situation from the Northern Beaches to the CBD and back changed significantly due to the lock down and companies allowing their employees to Work From Home (WFH). The impact of this new situation on traffic from the Northern Beaches to the CBD is yet to be assessed. The scale of the project, the high costs ($12 billion) and the environmental impact warrant a re-evaluation in the light of WFH.

Cost/benefit and flow on effects
The tunnel is supposed to bring a 10% reduction of traffic on Military Road. This does not sound like a significant reduction. Apparently, the travel time from Balgowlah to the CBD will be reduced by 38 minutes. It currently takes less than 38 minutes to get from Balgowlah to the CBD. An obvious matter of concern with an increased number of cars travelling to the CBD would be traffic within the CBD and parking of vehicles. Estimating the combined costs of toll and parking at around $40 per day and $200 per week, I wonder who the target audience of the tunnel would be. Most people cannot afford paying $200 per week just to get into work. The estimate does not even include petrol and the running costs of a car.

Climate change
The tunnel promotes the use of individual cars and will create induced traffic. People might change travel habits and use the tunnel just because it exits and there is no train or other suitable public transport solution.
The increased traffic will further increase CO2 emissions and thereby the risk of Australia not meeting the targets of the Paris climate agreement. Australia has a vested interest in doing anything possible to prevent climate change which is linked to global warming, draught and increase in bush fires.
How many people lost their lives in the devastating bushfires of the summer 2019/2020? How many lost their homes? How many animals suffered a painful death, had their habitat destroyed and numbers of their species reduced to an alarming level? A joint effort to prevent climate change must be made instead of planning a project that nourishes it.

Decentralisation
An alternative response to transportation problems could be reducing the need to the commute. What has been undertaken to encourage companies to move away from the CBD and build their HQ in a suburb?

In summary, I object to $12 billion of tax payers’ money being used to build a tunnel that encourages commuting by car and does not take into account recent developments such as Work From Home and flexible working hours.

On behalf of the Parents & Friends of St Mary's Campus (Marist Catholic College North Shore) we are lodging our objection to the project as it currently stands.
On behalf of our community we ask that the EIS be reissued for public consultation with a
1) A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed including publicly available testing data (widespread contamination is identified but underassessed)
2) A comparative mass transit alternatives assessment ie an assessment that demonstrates the superiority of this project over a mass transit option
3) A Business Case - which provides data to substantiate the travel time savings quoted, re-assesses the local traffic impacts (as per Willoughby and North Sydney Councils concerns) and more fully addresses costs

Object due to environmental damage and loss of trees and habitat.