Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I object in every way to the Northern Beaches Link Tunnel and I have documented my reasoning in the attached submission.

Thank you.

Hopefully we will all see sense soon and deal with our growth agenda in more creative and innovative ways.

Don't agree to any waste water to be dispose of to Clontarf reserve or any other waterways.

Submission from a resident of Audrey Street, Balgowlah , regarding minimum measures that would need to be introduced in the event that the construction of the Northern Beaches Tunnel (“NBT”) is given planning approval.
Currently a significant proportion of those living in the potentially directly affected local community remain working from home and are highly likely to remain doing so for the foreseeable future, as will much of the Northern Beaches with the advent of COVID19. Therefore the fundamental premise of any travel time benefits achieved from the NBT and ultimately any return on investment needs to be re-calculated to warrant the resultant public spend burden.
Therefore, Transport for NSW (“TfNSW”) needs to take into account the impacts that the NBT project might have, not only upon our community, amenity, home environment, but also our newly adapted work environments which are now frequently one and the same.

Required minimum measures if construction of the NBT proceeds:
1. Measures to prevent Audrey and surrounding streets becoming a localised "traffic rat-run" for the avoidance of the NBT and in the initial period its Balgowlah construction site, turning into Audrey Street from Wanganella and Maretimo Streets must be prohibited at all times, with Resident traffic exempted.
2. Respite periods – especially during noisy works phases. These respite periods must be communicated in advance to the Residents to allow for planning of business calls / zoom meetings / child sleep periods etc.
3. All construction traffic must be fitted with noise and pollution control devices (including quackers to reduce the impact of tonal reversing alarms).
4. No construction vehicles must be permitted to wait or idle on Audrey or surrounding streets or other local roads.
5. All staff, workers and contractors must only park in designated parking hubs (away from residential areas) with a regular shuttle service to the Balgowlah construction envelope.
6. The vehicles of all construction workers are to be clearly marked and identifiable.
7. Construction workers must, as part of their engagement contract, be prohibited from parking outside of designated parking hubs and be required to comply with local road and traffic rules, with a suitably deterrent penalty system put in place for any breaches reported by members of the public.
8. Appropriate onboarding/induction/orientation for all Construction Workers to educate them around local road structure and both school zones and the loacl preschool on Sydney Rd. This induction needs to be maintained throughout construction phase of the NBT.
9. A site-specific construction 24/7 hotline and website (“Balgowlah NBT Website”) must be established for the receipt of complaints and breach reports from members of the public (“Complainant”). As part of this process there also needs to be a formal complaint handling mechanism in place requiring:
1. responses to be provided to Complainants within 5 business days of receipt of a complaint / breach report, detailing what investigative, remedial or penalty action has been taken, or is to be taken (and when);
2. penalties to be applied if the response time limit in a) above is not met; and
3. a designated department within TfNSW be given responsibility for the escalation of complaints or breach reports (where a similar transparent complaints handing mechanism must be implemented).
10. The emission stacks must be filtered. This is non-negotiable.
11. Improved and compliant health protection measures must be implemented for the control of silica dust created from the tunnelling through sandstone. The current measures proposed are patently inadequate.
12. Air Quality Monitors need to be installed and operated 24/7 at both ends of Audrey Street, near St Cecilia's & Balgowlah Boys campus, with real time readings to be publicly available on the internet and a system for text alert notifications to be automatically sent to Residents if pollutant safety levels are exceeded. Clear suitably deterrent penalties must apply for every occasion when pollution level limits are exceeded.
13. All penalties relating to the NBT project that are imposed as a result of pollution, complaint time limits, parking, or other road or traffic infringements must be published on the Balgowlah NBT Website.
Thank you for your consideration of our submission.

Overview:
After living for some 40 years on the northern beaches and happily commuting by bus, I have recently found myself struggling to get to the major North Shore hospital where I work at due to sudden changes to local bus timetables. Given that bus services were slashed without any prior consultation at the same time as the EIS was published, it is hard to avoid concluding that Transport for NSW is using a ‘push’ mechanism to encourage more people into private vehicles.

Should my new I hour and 40 minute bus commute, up from about 45 mins, push me into my car I would become a traffic statistic used to justify the need for the supposedly ‘congestion busting’ tunnel. Private car travel, however, would never be a solution for me and many other workers as driving – via surface roads or a tunnel -- would leave us with another problem; a lack of parking at our destination. As I work in a busy hospital, there is never any on street local parking and limited paid private parking. To add the cost of private parking onto a new toll would, in my case, be prohibitive.

As a transport model, merely funnelling more and more cars into various CDB areas via a tolled tunnel simply creates more congestion as those cars look for parking. Likewise, as the tunnel will bypass various roads to offer more direct access to the beaches from the western suburbs we can anticipate large numbers of cars spilling out on weekend without parking available and, hence, generating local congestion.

For public transport users in my suburb the tunnel is a faux ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ many of us did not have until the bus changes of December, 2020. I would prefer to continue to use public transport and it is clear that more public transport, not less, would encourage people to leave their cars at home, hence achieving reductions in traffic and congestion - but without the huge costs the tunnel will impose on taxpayers, on the residents, children and workers of Seaforth, Balgowlah and surrounding areas and to our wonderful natural environment.

I believe the EIS for the Beaches Link project highlights numerous unacceptable impacts and fails to detail mitigating actions that would reduce health risk and stresses on residents, students and local workers and prevent damage to the environment.
Full submission attached:

I fundamentally object to this project and see no business case to support it. Please see attached submission.

I and my family were very very concerned to hear of the damage to local flora and fauna. With particular attention to the pathway along the creek near the public school. Although I am a believer in the tunnel, I really don’t think this sacrifice should be made. I would also be keen to hear of the scientific research on impact of pollution.

I object to the project proceeding without further consideration given to the impact upon students at Northern Beaches Secondary College Balgowlah Boys Campus.
So far there has been insufficient impact analysis carried out that specifically focuses on the school, which I fear from reading are all high will be hugely affected by noise, air quality, vibration and traffic all disrupting normal schooling.

I ask that analysis be done and mitigating measures be taken.

Reference the Flat Rock/Brook Street access point and the impact of project traffic on the residents of Brook Street. A better solution needs to be identified and implemented that shares the traffic/noise and pollution impact across the community.

The EIS and Traffic Management plan identifies that Flat Rock gully has been chosen as one of the access building points and that this will require work at the site, which will introduce some 545 heavy vehicle movements daily for a period of up to 4 years. All the traffic traversing Brook Street and Flat Rock Drive. This is an unacceptable level of traffic increase into what is an already congested roadway.

As a resident of Brook Street, the thought of these additional vehicles on the road from 6am to 8pm Monday to Friday and on Saturdays provides an extremely high level of concern and to be honest anxiety as to the implications on the quality of live for myself and family and the impact on the house due to the heavy vehicles’ vibrations, dust and fumes.

If the project is to go ahead, the project needs to consider and implement alternative traffic management plans that shares the load across other roadways, not concentrating all traffic through a single outlet. In line with these concerns, I have some questions and look for answers on:

- what is the proposed noise abatement plan for the street?
- what plans are in place to monitor and remediate the increased noise and vibration impact on properties in the street?
- the inclines of Flat Rock drive will put increase demands on the truck engines, how will the increased noise that they will introduce be managed?
- what are the plans to manage increase dust that will be introduced by the trucks carrying soil?
- what are the plans to manage the increased fumes/pollution introduced by the 545 daily truck movements and the impact to the residents and children living in the street?
- what are the plans to measure/monitor and if needed penalise increased noise pollution, especially idling trucks and airbrakes?
- what reporting will be provided to the community on monitoring of increased noise and dust pollution?
- what mechanisms are available for the community to report issues?

Propose that the project considers:
- allowing vehicles to access the Flat Rock site from both sides, i.e., Alpha road and Brook Street, sharing the load across the community.
- minimise the hours of operation to 7am-6pm, Monday to Friday, minimising the impact on the community and providing some level of quality of life.
- mandate that trucks do not use airbrakes, reducing the impact of noise on the community.

Appreciate that progress must occur; while I have not seen the business case for the Northern Beaches link, assuming that it is viable and the State Government proceeds to implementation, I urge that the project considers the options available to accessing Flat Rock and that heavy vehicle access is shared via multiple points, not just via Brook Street.

I have concerns over the Environmental Impact the development will have on the flow of Burnt Creek. This has the potential to have huge impact on the flora and fauna of the surrounding reserve

Hello,

I'm make a submission on behalf of the TrailCare committee as President and the mountain biking community. This is in regards to the lost and required changes to the mountain bike trail network changes on either side of the Wakehurst Parkway. I have been in contact with James Griffin Manly MP for years about this issue. Now that the EIS has been out on public, I have been in touch with the Comms team and been included in the cycleways and pedestrian meeting and then a separate meeting re mountain biking issues.
This second meeting re mtb issues was positive from the Comms team and we look forward with working with the project team to help great outcomes for tfNSW and the mtb community.
However we are wary due to be left out on the Mona Vale Rd widening project twice on mtb issue which are still up in the air. In view of this I ask for a reply to this submission?
I would like to set up a working group with the correct people in the projects team that includes the adjacent land managers NBC and NPWS so we get the correct outcomes through and after the road widening?
We will need to know the exact boundaries and trail loss asap and start to work on solution for the short-term and long term?
The trail network has great importance for Manly Dam and Bantry Bay trails as connection points and through. However more so the network as connection to further parts in the Northern Beaches. The Manly Dam loop is well used pre COVID about 4000 laps per week and during COVID lock down/ restrictions above 10000 laps , this has reduced over time but still above pre COVID lock down.

Please contact me to discuss further so we can both have great outcomes from these changes to vital mtb mtb trails and connection points.

Kind regards
Paul Lidgard
TrailCare - President

I strongly object to this proposal for a number of reasons:

1. I believe the money spent on this project could be better spent elsewhere for a better result for all of Sydney, for example the development of regional areas and the introduction of a fast train to enable faster connection for Sydney dwellers to commute to further areas in NSW to increase growth further afield.

2. I do not believe the benefit is worth the destruction of existing wild habitats, eg. losing trees and the drying up of water ways will affect the flying fox colony and numerous bird life, frogs, insects, and other animals thriving in our existing community.

3. I do not believe the benefit is worth the years of disruption to our local small businesses as the increase in pollution, increased traffic in our area will deter people from visiting our area during the development and most probably after.

4. Tolls are too expensive; people are already struggling to afford Sydney living. I am a parent of three young adults, and they are most likely never going to be able to afford to buy a home in Sydney.

5. I believe this project will cause even deeper impacts on the already increasing Mental Health statistics - not only from the noise, the dust, the traffic congestion but from the lack of empathy that Government is showing in not hearing the voices of those most affected.

6. The environmental factors on Sydney Harbour, water pollution is a real concern for health and wellness. Again, why overdevelop in Sydney? Why not push out development and work on the fast train to get us all to share the increasing population?

7. I am genuinely concerned that the project is still experimental, on the video links I have watched, the project managers have been unable to answer with full confidence that the tunnel works are going to completely work. They do not have evidence that the gradients will be right in the middle harbour area.

8. As an Asthmatic, the impacts on our environment could have lifelong effects on my health.

9. I strongly object to this project as evidence shows from numerous other tunnel developments that tunnelling over time actually increases traffic rather than creating traffic flow, ultimately tunnelling encourages more cars on the roads - seems so counterproductive to all the campaigns previously run for better public transport. People need to be looking out at trees and nature while travelling, not being tunnelled underground with no natural light or views. Road Rage is bound to increase -So disappointing.

I object to this project for the reasons set out in this response. However, my overriding concern is that the state government is proposing to build a tunnel that will threaten the health of my family and my community and the environment. In addition, it has consistently failed to advise me of the details and the full business case of the proposal

1. Absence of transparency. Consistently throughout this proposal, key information has not been made available despite repeated requests. The business case has not been disclosed, strongly suggestive that there are known issues that the government does not wish disclosed in the public domain including ultimately the size of the public benefit verse the total cost including environmental and health issues and disruption and the timing of same.
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 assessed. 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 benefits. Rather the suburb, is paying the very high cost of 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.

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.

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, together with adults. The cost of this in future health costs could be astronomical.

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. Both my husband and my son are chronic asthmas and I am extremely concerned about their health given this proposal.

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. This area here is quite beautiful - why are we continuing to destroy our natural heritage?
11. 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 cost will be significant and there will be a sustained 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.

I write to express my objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. I have significant concerns about the justification for this project particularly given that there is no published business case and it is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list. The EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety and the project and an alternative public transport option has not been fully scoped and compared.

I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and the community's health as well as the negative impact on our waterways and green spaces. I object to the ecological destruction of Burnt Creek and damage to Manly Dam, the disturbance of contaminated sediment and toxic sludge and six years of high impact construction noise that will affect our community for little gain and savings in travel time. The significant impact of this project in terms of cost - financial, ecological and emotional wellbeing of those living in the affected communities far outweigh any perceived gains. It is simply not worth it nor is it justified.

Climate and sustainability:
I object to the project as it has a poor climate profile at a time when we should be looking to projects which reduce our emissions. The EIS report confirms the project will have very high waste generation, water usage and concrete production volumes. In short, this project does not help us meet our climate goals. In fact it contributes negatively while increasing pollutants in and around our urban areas and green spaces. The only advantage of this $10-12 billion project will be for those travelling along Military Road with a 10 per cent reduction in traffic time. This is an insignificant and insufficient gain for a project with such major financial, ecological and physical costs. In addition to the extreme and very real risks for the environment, it has shown there will be a major increase in traffic volumes coming to the Northern Beaches resulting in increased congestion in Manly Vale and Balgowlah. This is confirmed by the EIS which states that vehicle use will increase along the corridor if the project goes ahead. This contradicts governments climate change goals with local councils declaring a Climate Emergency and the State government committing to a net zero emissions goal by 2050. The Northern Beaches Council has in fact set strong targets around reducing car use in line with this policy. The EIS demonstrates that the reverse will be achieved and this project will actually increase vehicle reliance and trip volumes in already congested and polluted areas with significant rat runs caused by the new traffic arrangements.

Contamination and risk:
I object to the project due to the scale, extent and risk of groundworks in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments. Of immediate concern is the significant impact of the air pollution that will result from the lack of stack filtering. Particulate matter is already higher than what is recommended or considered “safe” and there is a lost opportunity in not filtering/ treating stack pollution. 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. As my property is located inside the projected reach of air pollution and members of my family have respiratory health issues, this is a serious factor in my desire to remain in the community in which I have lived for over 14 years and which I call home.

Green spaces and biodoversity:
I object to the project due to the threat to our biodiversity and green spaces. More than 12 hectares of high value bushland will be destroyed with the widening of the Wakehurst Parkway. resulting in long-term environmental damage and potential risks to groundwater and flow-on effects for Manly Dam, as well as potentially catastrophic damage to the bush corridor of Burnt Bridge Creek. This includes removing large mature trees and habitat, a water retention dam home to many endangered species and discharge of an estimated half a million litres a day of wastewater that will run into Queenscliff Lagoon. In addition water seeping issues and catchment cross-contamination are also risks to the ecological health of the area.
The Beaches Link will negatively impact significant wildlife corridors, including Flat Rock Drive and Manly Dam bushland, as well as marine ecosystems at Middle Harbour and the Spit. In fact, there are hundreds of other species that will be impacted, significantly more than than the projected 23 threatened species outlined in the EIS. These include birds, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals which will be negatively impacted and will lose their habitat, either through being cut off from bushland, or driven away. Planned offsets will not save local threatened species such as Powerful Owls, micro bats, Little Penguins, seahorses and the White-bellied Sea-Eagle and will put at risk the hundreds of other species, such as birds, possums, bandicoots and echidnas, which make up our biodiverse nature reserves .

Water pollution:
The health of local creeks, waterways and the marine environments are at risk from scouring, elevated salinity, siltation, contamination by disturbed toxic materials from the tip site and accidental fuel or chemical spills. In addition the excavation of Middle Harbour sediment has the potential to release heavy metals, pesticides and tributyltin, a chemical used in cleaning boats, which has been banned since 2008 as it causes sex changes in marine organisms. This toxic sludge needs to be addressed urgently with the planned silt 'curtain' not reaching the bottom of the seabed allowing for toxic sludge to escape and spread. Experts predict some of the sludge contains cancer-causing pollutants up to 20 times the safe level for aquatic life, and a banned chemical at 572 times the safe level. Contamination readings are causing concern amongst marine scientists and recreational harbour users who are worried that the water could become unsafe for swimmers, sailors and divers as stated in the Sydney Morning Herald.
The EIS report reflects a disregard for climate change with the extra pollution from the open ventilation stacks, toxic chemicals being dredged from the water ways and major destruction of bushlands and tree canopies.

Health and well being:
I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on the Quality of Life of residents during the tunnel construction and operation. The Health risk assessment acknowledges construction fatigue, increased traffic and uncertainty will cause significant stress for the population and the community. There will be high levels of noise, dust, heavy vehicle pollution, traffic and increased stress risks to our health during a minimum 5 year construction. Overlapping construction with other major projects will worsen this. As I live near where the tunnel excavation will be occurring I fear for the stability of my property and the ongoing stress caused by constant noise and vibrations. I fear for my family's emotional and physical well being.

Conclusion:
I would ask that an alternative public transport feasibility study be published before any further planning occurs so that impacts and outcomes can be fairly compared. I respectfully request that the following is undertaken as a matter of urgency:
1. A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed
2. A comparative mass transit alternative assessment
3. Travel times, surface traffic changes and costs fully scoped in the form of a business case
4. And at a minimum the EIS is reissued for public consultation
Many thanks for acknowledging and receiving my objections to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway and I heed you give this and other objection submissions the attention they warrant.

I am a resident of Cammeray and have concerns about the health and safety of the emissions for our 2 young children as well as the parking/construction disruption over the next 8 years and how much traffic and chaos will come into Cammeray as a result of this project. Measures for construction chaos and pollution control must be considered and put into motion as the health, safety of our children are at stake.

1. We should be building public transport options, not more toll roads that don’t support long term solutions.
2. The movement of trucks should be limited to working weekdays between 7am - 6pm. Our homes are going to be disrupted enough, we don’t need extended hours of operation.
3. Provide adequate and public monitoring of noise, pollution and vibration before and during the works.
4. Install traffic lights across Slade Street and Grafton Avenue to protect residents who live in the area and will have to contend with heavy vehicles and increased traffic flow.
5. Install proper street side noise abatement program for those around the site as well as those that are going to be affected by the increased noise levels.
6. Compensate local businesses and communities that are forced to shut down or move out due to the works and/or the toxicity caused by the works.
7. Ensure trucks cannot use air brakes and receive fines for using them.
8. Publicly release the traffic impact on local streets in Naremburn, Northbridge and Cammeray for the 8+ years the project is going ahead.
9. Properly assess and define the business case and the longevity of the traffic flows. It’s hard to imagine cutting down travel times by a few minutes is worth $14bn.
10. Develop plans for how the Flat Rock Gully dive site is going to be rehabilitated. It is hard to imagine how it will be possible to restore 20+ years of vegetation growth and native animal inhabitants that will be forced out of their homes.
11. Implement filtered stacks to world standards.

I am deeply concerned about the plans for the Beaches Link Tunnel and how they impact residents like myself of Hope Street, Seaforth as well as my childrens' schools - Seaforth Public and Balgowlah Boys. I am exceptionally disappointed and concerned with the significant divergence from earlier plans shared for the tunnel which kept the tunnel entrance and six years of construction work much further away from residential areas and specifically from my house and my street. I cannot imagine what it is going to be like living for 6 years within metres of this tunnelling and construction work and the detrimental affect to our health and mental wellbeing from air, noise and vibration pollution. 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 Seaforth school and only metres from my own home.

This goes against assurances given to the school community and residents of Hope Street 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 NBSC Balgowlah Boys and for residents of Hope Street.

Most importantly, while modeling indicates air quality may improve slightly for the 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 and impacts on child brain development. This project would increase traffic lanes from 6 to 12 near the school and my home, including a traffic light, and add a nearby smoke stack.

We should not roll the dice when it comes to the health and safety of children and residents 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”.

I expect the Minister Stokes and the NSW Government to live up to that commitment.

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.
Denise Farmer
0468 989481
[email protected]

I object to this project as I am very concerned about the impact on flora and fauna as well as on the waterways (streams, creeks and Middle Harbour). I am concerned that local amenities such as Northbridge Baths and Northbridge Sailing Club could unavailable to local residents both during and after construction of the Beaches Link.
I am concerned about the impact on local traffic, both during construction due to increased vehicular volume particularly of large trucks and after construction with the proposed changes to the existing ramps at Miller and Brook Streets which will increase congestion and travel times for residents of Naremburn, Cammeray and Northbridge.
I object as I believe the incredibly large amount of money being spent on this tunnel and associated works which could be used to improve our public transport system.
This project will cause many years of disruption and will potentially put the health and safety of local residents at risk and yet at the end of it all my neighbourhood will be worse off.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Beaches link and Gore Hill Freeway

The EIS already disclosed many adverse conditions about the project. The mean time for motorists is average considering the numerous adverse impacts the project creates and environmental impact of the project upon residents, human health and 'road health' from private motor car emissions. These are major environmental impacts. For the cost of the project certainly outweighs any real consideration for the project where monies and funding could be well spent utilising other areas of freeing up existing motorways and providing education to motorists in economising such as car sharing, more available public transport to avail to tighter more regimental bus services. More building does not necessarily equate to solving the current problem of traffic congestion but in some forms directs traffic to different areas where the environmental impact will be greater. Car sharing and more public transport services with reliable timetabling would be far more economical and stays within the current charm of the area and supports the residents in nearby locations. It allows the beach areas to be free of congested traffic and to retain essential heritage and cultural significance for tourism and residents, and keeps the atmosphere, suburbs including Willoughby to remain 'cleaner'. The noise issues are currently not in line with appropriate noise level measures and the concept of the project should be strongly considered as a poor idea when viewing the EIS and project. The concept of the 'connection' appears to be 'floating' almost an island in itself. It does not fit with the character of the area either. Suburbs are residential zoned areas that have individual character and population influences that are important in maintaining identity, better health standards, and safer areas and roads for our children and pets as well as for residents and motorists, therefore I raise objections to the proposed idea and consider it to be an 'eye-sore' of a project. Monies are better spent updating bus services and timetables and giving motorists better opportunity for in-house projects such as car-sharing. This also strengthens community ties as most residents would likely have family ties with each other and within their communities. The enjoyment of viewing waterways and beaches also would be lost to an eyesore and this would deter tourism not support it. Rock and soil erosion are also huge pollution impacts to waterways and marine biodiversity, this surely could not be contained with such a large and impacting idea. The evidence of traffic has and will always be an issue. Problem solving does not necessarily include vast building work. there are other economical solutions that can be applies. A suggestion would be to consult with ecology, marine biology and science university students who can apply different practical solutions that will not cost millions of dollars and not impact greatly upon human health or the environment. This was an idea that was successfully used by Australian Prime Minster Rudd. Please consider all options and suggestions and alternative solutions opposed to the array of adverse environmental impacts this project will have upon many people and the natural environment.

1. Unfiltered stacks - no idea why in this era unfiltered stacks are acceptable
2. Loss of habitat - Flat Rock area how is it ok to remove wildlife corridors within the city
3. Contamination of Middle Harbour why is there no contamination assessment as a Northbridge Baths swimmer for the lat 40 years I find it totally unacceptable that a risk to humans and aquatic life can be taken do lightly.
4. Exposure of previous dump site - exposing hazardous materials from the former dump site is irresponsible asbestos will definitely be present.
5. Additional traffic on Flat Rock will impact the local community for years with no benefit
6. Waste water diverted down Flat Rock Creek will cause contamination of the area and bay.
7. Land subsidence following tunnel construction is detrimental to the area.
8. Why is there no mass transport alternatives?
9. Zero benefit for Cammeray/Naremburn area.
10. Business case has not been provided.

I object to:
- This project as it goes against Australia's agreement to tackle climate change in line with the Paris agreement: the EIS report proves that the project has paid no regard for climate change with the extra pollution from the open ventilation stacks, toxic chemicals being dredged from the water ways, the major destruction of bushlands and tree canopies
- A poorly designed, hap hazard tunnel design that will not benefit the local community or reduce traffic congestion, it will actually increase traffic congestion
- The project contradicts the government's climate change goals
- Any project designed to put more cars on the road with no public transport options
- The removal of all green space and trees outlined within the project plan
- The design of 6.5 meter unfiltered exhaust stacks and the poor placement in a valley, raising pollution levels across Seaforth, Balgowlah, North Balgowla, Many Vale
- Placing unfiltered ventilation stacks within meters of schools including Balgowlah boys
- The environmental destruction and loss of bio diversity, significant impacts to our natural flora, fauna and waterways at The Golf Course, Burnt Bridge Creek, Wakehurst Parkway, Manly Dam, all the way to Queenscliff due to pumping of wastewater directly into the waterways at Burnt Bridge Creek
- 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
- The lack of any business case
- The lack of permanent public transport options such as a dedicated bus lane or light rail to service the northern beaches
- The lack of transparent costs of the project
- The lack of a business case
- The lack of any tangible benefits of the tunnel
- The expected increase in Traffic on Wanganella St Balgowlah including other local streets - Page 302 Appendix F Traffic & Transport part 1
- The project induces demand and vehicle reliance - the EIS confirms that vehicle use will increase along the corridor if the project goes ahead ie) it creates induced demand. Measured in Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) without the project there would be a future predicted 13 633 873 VKT per day, with the project there would be 13 945 836 and with both the Beaches Link and Western Harbour Tunnel there will be 14 584 266 VKT per day by 2037. This was a key criticism of the Federal Economics Reference Committeewhen looking into Australia’s growing toll roads: “Impacts on environment and health policy: To the extent that toll roads increase the amount of car traffic by both increasing the total number of trips and by substituting for public transport, they increase the difficulty of meeting carbon emissions targets. They may also lead to reduced air quality” and “Motorways may also substitute for walking or cycling, or make walking or cycling more difficult. This has been argued with regard to the Westgate Tunnel project. Most governments aim to promote cycling and walking for health reasons.”

- The project contradicts governments climate change goals: the councils along the route have all declared a Climate Emergency and the State government has committed to the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. There is a strong economic imperative to do so: “CSIRO has estimated that achieving net-zero emissions before or soon after 2050 will deliver ‘higher economic growth’ than more moderate trends (Figure 1). NSW is committed to delivering strong economic growth, and supporting net-zero emissions is consistent with that commitment.” Councils such as Northern Beaches Council have set strong targets around reducing car use in line with this policy. The EIS demonstrates that the reverse will be achieved and this project increases car dependence and trips. With $14bn being allocated to a road option rather than a public mass transit option it is unlikely that there will be a significant mode shift to public transport in future “a shift away from private vehicles requires the provision of convenient, efficient, affordable and appealing alternatives that travellers will choose to take” There is no dedicated bus lane in the tunnel - research shows that where public transport travels at the same or a slower speed as car traffic motorists will choose to drive. The project team have confirmed that the alignment of the proposed tunnel in the EIS cannot be converted to rail due to gradients. The Dee Why to Chatswood corridor has been assessed as being the most viable corridor for a rail (train, metro or light rail) based alternative. The climate impact and sustainability of this corridor needs to be assessed but given the opportunity to travel along established corridors, better avoid complex and contaminated environs and be a far smaller built it is evident that this would be a far more sustainable option than what is currently proposed in and around Flat Rock Gully, Middle Harbour and Manly Dam.