Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

To Whom It MAy Concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
1. the EIS is not current and much of it was written before covid. therefore the facts and data it contains are irrelevant to current situation eg with respect to travel time data, post covid - there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. thus a new, up to date post-covid EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.
2. the 'beaches tunnel' has been declared "worlds best practice', however, this is untrue, as 'world's best practice' would include filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks. as plainly stated in the eis, these will NOT be filtered, therefore this plan for beaches tunnel is NOT worlds best practice, therefore, until it can be deemed, "worlds best practice', it should NOT go ahead.
3. the name 'beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel goes to Balgowlah. not to the beach. thus, this is false marketing and false representation of a state significant project and as such should be addressed with a name more representative of what it actually is.
4. the original document signed by Mike Baird when he was premier clearly stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along military rd and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. This is a blatant abuse of the investigative process and thus excluded from the start, any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. thus, the basis of the project is biased and non-scientific and illogical from the start. therefore, the project needs to stop until a full investigation into public transport options, especially rail from dee why-chatswood can be evaluated and compared to the proposed $15,000,000,000 stretch of road /tunnel that is the .beaches link. also, there has been some mention that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from this project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and also may have struck a deal to provide mike board with a post political job within the transport industry, therefore, the project begun with a false and seemingly biased , even corrupt selection process that excluded any consideration of public transport - especially trains in its analysis of best solution to traffic congestion.
5. at $15,000,000,000 this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines and thus must be analysed further wrt to cost-benefit. however, since the travel data contained within the EIS is out of date by up to 5 years, this is not possible, and thus such expenditure can not be justified.
6. this project is unethical as it uses public money to make a private Toll road and as such is not for the benefit of the wider community. The tolls will be too expensive for most and this will encourage rat-racing and more traffic on local roads. thus the road/tunnel will never achieve its aim of reducing traffic.
7. due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand' , whereby in the absence of viable public transport options, such a project will only increase car travel and thus any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. thus, this project is ill conceived, short sighted, un ethical and nonsensical.
8. this project actually encourages car travel and further tolling in sydney. major cities around the world have all shown the negative effects of car congestion in their cbds yet this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's cbd. this is irresponsible planning and not in sydney's long term interests.
9. the non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of cammeray and nearly north sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. this is unacceptable since the increased car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain several extremely toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health. this effect is heightened in the bodies of young children, thus it is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks be not-filtered and located in such close proximity to schools.
10. the primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. flat rock gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA.
plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable, plus further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable.
11. the proposed coffer dam to go in water off northbridge is unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. the dredging will alter silt tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters. the waters have only recently returned to a high state of cleanliness as evidenced by recent sightings of seals and even a whale a few years back. dredging these water will disturb decades old layers of harbour sludge containing toxic sediments. the toxic fallout from digging in these waterways will result in closing down valuable public amenities such as northbridge baths, and northbridge sailing club. any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.
12. the government has recently declared am 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. this project is not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully to make way for dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses eg cammeray and balgowlah.
13. the advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. however, i was told by an engineer at a northbridge information session at our local golf club that the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. therefore, the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and as such, has not been providing accurate information for community consultation. this is highly inappropriate for a state significant project, its false and misleading information and as such, the project should be halted until such time that the EIS traffic data is current, covid-relevant and accurate with respect to whether or not buses will be able to travel in it.
14. the plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation.
15. the prime objective of population growth via immigration must now be re-assessed , given that we are now living with the ongoing threat of covid. therefore, the projected need for the tunnel is lessened and thus the business case weakened in current covid - times. the EIS makes no mention of current work travel time changes due to covid and is thus out-of-date and irrelevant on many counts.
in conclusion i object to this 'beaches Tunnel' project going ahead on several counts. namely the EIS is out of date, the business case doesn't hold up, the primary objective for the tunnel is biased away from public transport options and the project is too expensive and environmentally damaging fro sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
i recommend a complete review of the original process in which ALL options are considered and compared to find the best way to approach perceived traffic congestion. i suggest that train options be reviewed and considered as a priority. i recommend an investigation into the original conception of the idea from Mike baird's time as premier and any undue bias towards road/tunnel projects over more viable public transport options, particularly rail. i strongly oppose Flat rock gully as main dig site as it has undergone amazing regeneration the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected.
i strongly oppose the high cost of this project , especially when the net outcome of relatively small reductions in travel times data is evident. i recommend that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling eg buses and trains, at a fraction of the $15 billion cost. also, if the prime objective is to on sell this road/tunnel to a large transport toll company like transurban - then the basis for this project is unjust as transurban holds a monopoly over tolled roads in sydney and thus there is no assurance of best value spending of public money - this is negligent and irresponsible. this project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. this project os narrow minded and its focus too short term to have any lasting positive impact.

I have purchased the residence that I presently live in after working for over thirty years to protect the environment with NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and also receiving a National Medal for fire fighting and protecting the environment I strongly object to the destruction of the environment in the local area for a project that by the time it is finished will not benefit the community and the local environment will be destroyed forever

Hi there,
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I am writing to express my strong objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. After reading the EIS documents, I have significant concerns about the justification for this project. A few top line reasons are – there is no published business case, it is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list, the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety an alternative public transport option has not been fully scoped and compared. These reasons in themselves are compelling, however I'd also like to ask why dig up an established toxic tip site and put our environment, waterways and health at risk? Why build two tunnels worth of traffic into one of the busiest road corridors on the North Shore? Why induce more car reliance and parking problems in already space constrained areas? Now we as a nation are starting to experience the devastating effects of climate change why aren't we exploring more sustainable transport options? We should be getting less cars on the roads not more. It doesn't make economic sense, nor environmental sense nor even sense from an infrastructure point of view. I will now list out some of my specific concerns and objections –

• I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces specifically in relation to Middle Harbour and Flat Rock Gully. I regularly enjoy these spaces with my family and having this areas contaminated or taken away from us because of this project is disheartening to say the least. Effectively my children's leisure activities and quality of life will be impacted severely for many years, potentially up until their own adulthood. Robbing the children of Northbridge and surrounding areas of their green spaces and waterways is diabolical if not criminal. The proposed project counteracts the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) which declares that the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be of fundamental consideration (PEAA Act Part 3(2)(c)). Over 390 trees are targeted for potential destruction at Flat Rock Gully – only two-thirds will be replaced. Willoughby City Council (WCC) tree policy requires that 3 trees be replaced for each removal (WCC, Vegetation Management Strategy 2020). These policies should not be overridden by the NSW State Government. Furthermore, biodiversity is poorly scoped in the EIS. The bulk of the biodiversity assessment concentrates and comments on 23 threatened species only. It ignores the many hundreds of species which will lose their habitat, be driven away or bulldozed under including a wide range of bird species, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals. I request a full assessment is carried out of the biodiversity in and around the area to be destroyed in Flat Rock Gully. Check trees for hollows across the gully area. Carry out fish and macroinvertebrate sampling in creeks and waterways. Engage wildlife professional to deploy mitigation strategies.

• As I live in Northbridge, I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on my family's Quality of Life of residents during the tunnel construction. Anecdotal evidence of friends who live in the inner west and were negatively impacted by the Westconnex construction gives me serious concerns about my own health being impacted by noise pollution, dust particulates contaminating the air and my house being structurally damaged by underground tunnelling. Currently there is inadequate information in relation to health impacts (secondary to landfill gas and odours) of proposed tunnelling works at Flat Rock Drive. A Phase 2 assessment is needed to check for contaminants and quantify risk. Approval should not proceed until the risks are known and mitigation possibilities scoped. Testing around the freeway and at Cammeray site has also confirmed contamination. Serious consideration of the cost/benefits of the project in light of the risk to residents and children as well as the cost to mitigate and remediate sites should be given. Contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in Middle Harbour – these contaminants are dangerous to human health - and many of them have been found above ‘safe levels’(Table 1, Annexure C, Appendix F). Very limited sampling was conducted and further testing was not continued when levels of contaminants were found that are harmful to human health. Contaminants have been found in groundwater and surface water around the tip site in Flat Rock Gully and there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully as work proceeds. Contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in Middle Harbour – these contaminants are dangerous to human health - and many of them have been found above ‘safe levels’(Table 1, Annexure C, Appendix F). Very limited sampling was conducted and further testing was not continued when levels of contaminants were found that are harmful to human health.
Contaminants have been found in groundwater and surface water around the tip site in Flat Rock Gully and there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully as work proceeds.
Large amounts of wastewater will be produced from both construction and operational activities. Wastewater will be treated and flushed down creeks for example 117,000 L per day will be released down Flat Rock Creek via Tunks Park and 296, 000 L down Willoughby Creek from the Cammeray Site via Primrose Park. Specific methods regarding how the water will be treated given the contaminants detected and listed as likely ie) asbestos is not clear.
10,000m3 of contaminated sediment will be barged out of Middle Harbour past Clontarf and Balmoral Beaches to be dried out before being trucked to a licenced facility. The drying point is not yet known or the disposal site. Object to contaminated sediment being barged past beaches and the risk of spills. There is no remediation plan or budget for compensating for spills or accidents

• I object to the project as it is a tolled road and there is little evidence that it will alleviate current congestion. The EIS confirms the Beaches Link is a Toll Road but there are no costings as yet. Costing and placement of toll gantries is essential to modelling traffic flows and predicting toll avoidance. Toll avoidance could become an issue as per the Inner West. Only a low level of induced demand has been included in the modelling - research demonstrates that a higher level of induced demand is generally used for new expressways (up to 10%) which calls the modelling into question.
The only local entry points for the Beaches Link are via Artarmon and Berry St North Sydney – no local time saved: 10mins to get to entry, 10 mins in tunnel, 10 mins to Dee Why or Manly = 30 min journey time. The EIS makes it clear that this is not a local congestion solution – several local intersections fail or will experience a worse level of service both during and after construction as a result of the project.

Despite the obvious environmental concerns such a project entails, I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS seem to far outweigh the benefits. If you will not acknowledge a compelling environmental argument for stopping this project from going ahead, at least consider the economic one. The EIS also fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which poses a risk to the project.
In my opinion, this project is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city with a strong public transport system. The EIS demonstrates that this toll road will be extremely expensive to build and high risk with little benefit. 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.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Hearle

Project Benefit Objections
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Reduce pressure on the congested Spit Road/Military Road corridors – leading to faster and more reliable journeys to, from and around the Northern Beaches and North Shore
Objection:
In 1994, the UK Government Department of Transport released the “TRUNK ROADS AND THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC. The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment”. This highlighted the phenomenon on induced traffic demand as a result on increased road infrastructure. This has been verified in recent reviews in other countries (van der Loop et al. (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.008). This would predict that traffic congestion will INCREASE on both the new infrastructure, in the areas leading to the tunnel portals and the existing roads. This is effect is particularly evident when new infrastructure opens up new opportunities for development, which is clearly proposed for the Northern beaches.
In the absence of a co-existing intelligent traffic management proposal, the traffic bottleneck will be predicted for the lead up to the tunnel portals.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Enable local businesses to have better and more efficient access to Greater Sydney, making it easier to move goods and provide services, as well as bringing employees and businesses closer together.
Objection:
Heavy transport vehicles do not form the major contributing factor to the congestion issues on this transport route.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Provide a step-change in public transport journey times, reliability and connectivity by providing a new underground bypass route to enable express bus services between northern beaches and strategic centres across Sydney, including North Sydney, the Harbour CBD, St. Leonards and Macquarie Park.
Objection:
There is no accompanying public transport proposal for consideration of the validity of this benefit. An increased number of buses would be required to accommodate the demand from the Northern Beaches and the by-passed areas on Military road including Cremorne, Mosman and Neutral Bay.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Contribute to an integrated transport network by enabling direct bus access to North Sydney and an efficient transfer to the Victoria Cross metro station
Objection:
Given the current bottleneck on the Harbour Bridge access to the CBD for buses, it is likely this will be replicated at any additional transport hubs.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Return local streets to communities by moving traffic underground, freeing up local streets for local traffic and supporting the sustainability of local town centres
Objection:
This prediction is unlikely to eventuate given the increased pressure on the tunnel portal access, the shifting of bottlenecks, and the predicted shift to alternative runs with the increased car journeys.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Opportunities to enhance the local community by improving active transport (pedestrian and cyclist facilities) connections and providing new public open space and recreation facilities
Objection:
There is no accompanying plan outlining the details of a commuting cycling infrastructure. The planned recreational spaces are re-purposed from pre-existing green space at the expense of sensitive environment destruction.
Economic Objections:
As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (20 Dec. 2020) “Sydney University transport economist Professor David Hensher estimates Greater Sydney has more toll-road kilometres than any other urban area in the world.” While introduction of tolls has been used as a mechanism for decreasing traffic congestion by decreasing car journeys, this is only valuable when applied to existing infrastructure, and is not a priority for a commercial/private enterprise. The tolls on the proposed tunnel will penalise financially disadvantaged residents, or could disincentivise use of the tunnel, reverting pressure to the existing arterial roads.
Environmental impact objections:
As highlighted in Appendix C: Environmental Risk Analysis, Categories BIODIVERSITY and IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS AND THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
Pre-mitigation risks were assessed as HIGH (MAJOR consequence, LIKELY) for both these categories during the construction and operation stages. With mitigation, this was still assessed as MODERATE (MODERATE consequence, LIKELY). This is an unacceptable risk for a unique area of bushland with recognised endangered species and a richness of biodiversity that is part of the social fabric of the area. Risk of destruction of such an area is out of step with current values demanding the preservation of diminishing nature corridors. Such areas cannot be rehabilitated, as ecosystems evolve over long time periods.

I object to the tunnel construction on the basis of environmental impact. Construction of the Beaches Link Tunnel will result in the permanent loss of up to 96% of the base water flow of the Burnt Bridge Creek, effectively ending its life and that of all the creatures great and small that rely upon it. This means significant impact to vegetation and the potential collapse of ecosystems along the watercourse from Seaforth to Manly Lagoon and Beach.

I highly oppose this tunnel, there is no need for it. We need to think of more sustainable transport options rather than cars for the future of our planet. The cost to the environment, the local communities and wildlife is not justified by this project.

Please see the attached PDF.

7 Water Reserve Road
North Balgowlah, 2093
New South Wales

29 Feb 2021

To whom it may concern
I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel and the dire impact it is going to have on my home, my neighbourhood, my community and my local environment.
The plans for Beaches Link need to urgently be looked at through the 2021 eyes of a post pandemic world. This is the world that now has to consider the careful balance between progress, economic recovery and the health of our people. NSW has done the most tremendous job of getting this juggle right through a pandemic, and we are so proud of our leaders, their ability and vision to make this work for us all, like no other part of the world. This way of thinking now needs to be applied to way we move forward and plan our future - the careful balance must be the overriding objective of all large decisions going forwards. If anyone can do this, the leaders of NSW can.
Firstly, I am very concerned about 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, 5 heavy vehicles every minute or 4.5 vehicles (total) every minute, over 4,000 homes subjected to excessive noise for the duration of the long build time. The period of this construction time is 24/7 for up to 7 years, this is no way for a community to live.
I am also terribly concerned about the pollution from the traffic exhaust that will come with the completed tunnel. This poses serious health risks to all who live in the surrounding areas, not to mention the environment. From what I have read and understand emissions will include nitrous oxides and particulate matter that, when breathed into the lungs, causes respiratory diseases such as asthma and emphysema, and cancer. The site of the tunnel impacts several schools, preschools, childcare centres, and sporting fields, not to mentioned many many homes - within close vicinity of all the proposed ventilation stacks. There is no way this can be claimed as “safe” and acceptable levels of pollution for such high density city living.
Lastly the environment impact from such a project is significant and will cause major damage to our natural environment. Face. This particular area includes bushland, reserves and of course most famously the beaches. Particular Environment impacts I am concerned about are; the movement of contaminated sediment to Clontarf and Middle Harbour (The Spit) potentially causing pollution of the neighbouring beaches, the destruction of Burnt Bridge Creek and surrounds (e.g., bushland, wildlife etc) due to a possible 96% reduction in water flow AND the 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. These are going to be the very same people using the tunnel to get to these pristine beaches. Ironic. What is the point of making the northern beaches more accessible if the very heart of what makes the northern beaches so special is to be polluted, destroyed and no longer the pride of Sydney?
We have seen the power of a state pulling together in a pandemic, something we could never have imagined before, and I am hopeful this same coming together can be used to plan growth and development for NSW without the dire consequences I have outlined above.

Yours sincerely,
Pippa Bonifant

I do not support this application.
1) Pollution concerns:
Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced in July 2018 that “the proposed ventilation stacks are now away from schools, away from where people live”. Education minister Rob Stokes has said there is “no way in hell he will countenance exhaust stacks being built anywhere near a school”.
However the facts are that unfiltered exhaust stacks for this project will be very close to homes and schools, located:
on Balgowlah Golf course (within 100m of homes, 300m of schools, child care facilities and aged care)
near Kirkwood Ave, Seaforth (within 300m of homes) at Ernest St, Cammeray (within 100m of homes, and 300m of Anzac Park Public School).

2) Environmental concerns:
An access road is planned for Balgowlah Golf course, requiring new traffic lights to be installed in the middle of Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation, and at Sydney Rd / Maretimo St. Whilst the government promise to re-build sports fields after construction, the green space will be smaller, golf course gone, and over 400 established trees removed, including a large fig tree approximately 150 years old.
The construction will involve diverting diverting a section of Burnt Bridge Creek, removing the lake, and removing surrounding vegetation and habitat that is a valuable green corridor for animals, birds and aquatic life. Critically endangered plant species growing on the site are the Seaforth Mintbush and Magenta Lilly Pilly, and endangered birds such as the Australasian Bittern and Red Knot also visit the site. Recent sightings of small mammals have included bandicoots and echidnas in the area.

The EIS states that Burnt Bridge Creek is “a vital ecological corridor of regenerated habitat that provides a range of important habitats for a diversity of local flora and fauna”(9). Despite describing the creek as “vital”, the construction and tunnelling activities are projected to reduce the natural water flow of the creek by 79%. This will have a devastating effect on the plants and animals that currently rely on the creek. As part of construction, approximately 400,000 litres of wastewater per day will be discharged into the creek from the site that will run into Queenscliff lagoon.
The site is categorised as flood-prone, and it is unacceptable for any waste water, pollutants or contamination by construction soils to enter the creek system and impact all catchment areas downstream.

The site is also in close proximity to the threatened Grey-Headed Flying Fox colony in Balgowlah, and any disturbance by construction noise, destruction of significant numbers of trees they feed on, or polluted sediment in the creek system poses a severe risk to these threatened animals.
The EIS has summised that, whilst only 120 metres from the construction footprint, the flying fox colony is within an urban environment so an “increase in noise and vibration is not expected to have a significant impact”(3). This is despite predicted noise levels exceeding 75dB(A) and the awakening reaction level for people at nearby residences, particularly during night roadworks.
An expert in flying fox behaviour is required to asses the colony periodically during the breeding season, with powers to temporarily stop work if construction causes harm, but the point at which this is triggered is unknown.

I am deeply concerned for the pollution and environmental impact on my community.

Yours sincerely,
North Balgowlah resident

To whom it may concern,
I do not support this application.
1) Pollution concerns:
Premier Gladys Berejiklian announced in July 2018 that “the proposed ventilation stacks are now away from schools, away from where people live”. Education minister Rob Stokes has said there is “no way in hell he will countenance exhaust stacks being built anywhere near a school”.

However the facts are that unfiltered exhaust stacks for this project will be very close to homes and schools, located:
on Balgowlah Golf course (within 100m of homes, 300m of schools, child care facilities and aged care)
near Kirkwood Ave, Seaforth (within 300m of homes) at Ernest St, Cammeray (within 100m of homes, and 300m of Anzac Park Public School).

2) Environmental concerns:
An access road is planned for Balgowlah Golf course, requiring new traffic lights to be installed in the middle of Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation, and at Sydney Rd / Maretimo St. Whilst the government promise to re-build sports fields after construction, the green space will be smaller, golf course gone, and over 400 established trees removed, including a large fig tree approximately 150 years old.
The construction will involve diverting diverting a section of Burnt Bridge Creek, removing the lake, and removing surrounding vegetation and habitat that is a valuable green corridor for animals, birds and aquatic life. Critically endangered plant species growing on the site are the Seaforth Mintbush and Magenta Lilly Pilly, and endangered birds such as the Australasian Bittern and Red Knot also visit the site. Recent sightings of small mammals have included bandicoots and echidnas in the area.

The EIS states that Burnt Bridge Creek is “a vital ecological corridor of regenerated habitat that provides a range of important habitats for a diversity of local flora and fauna”(9). Despite describing the creek as “vital”, the construction and tunnelling activities are projected to reduce the natural water flow of the creek by 79%. This will have a devastating effect on the plants and animals that currently rely on the creek. As part of construction, approximately 400,000 litres of wastewater per day will be discharged into the creek from the site that will run into Queenscliff lagoon.
The site is categorised as flood-prone, and it is unacceptable for any waste water, pollutants or contamination by construction soils to enter the creek system and impact all catchment areas downstream.

The site is also in close proximity to the threatened Grey-Headed Flying Fox colony in Balgowlah, and any disturbance by construction noise, destruction of significant numbers of trees they feed on, or polluted sediment in the creek system poses a severe risk to these threatened animals.
The EIS has summised that, whilst only 120 metres from the construction footprint, the flying fox colony is within an urban environment so an “increase in noise and vibration is not expected to have a significant impact”(3). This is despite predicted noise levels exceeding 75dB(A) and the awakening reaction level for people at nearby residences, particularly during night roadworks.
An expert in flying fox behaviour is required to asses the colony periodically during the breeding season, with powers to temporarily stop work if construction causes harm, but the point at which this is triggered is unknown.
Yours sincerely,
Justin

I object to the current plans for the Beaches Tunnel and have some serious concerns about some of the impacts outlined in the EIS. It seems that this project is being rushed through, without the right level of due diligence. The current plans pose significant risks to both the local environment and the local community of Balgowlah and Seaforth. My key objections are outlined below:
1) Pollution - specifically the installation of unfiltered ventilation stacks that will be positioned close to thousands of homes, multiple schools, pre schools, ovals etc. Experts agree that these pose serious health risks, and in other countries where similar length tunnels have been built, they have all been ventilated. To claim that they will have a "negligent" impact on the air quality is ridiculous. The intent is for hundreds of thousands of cars to use this tunnel and to claim they won't have exhaust fumes is ridiculous. If the government can't afford to install filters, then quite simply they can't afford to build the tunnel. Have you modelled the costs of the potential health litigation / compensation cases that are likely to arise in the future? In addition, in reading the EIS there is inconsistency in the air quality monitoring for RWR receptors. How is the community supposed to trust this assessment?
2) Ecological destruction - the EIS clearly outlines the potential destruction of the Burnt Bridge Creek and surrounds due to a possible 96% reduction in base flow. This would destroy a huge amount of flora and fauna, and an area that provides clean, shaded space for walking, bike riding etc. This applies to other areas including Manly Dam, Possoms Trail, Duffys Forest etc. The current plans have the potential to destroy a much loved and needed local environment, that has people need for both their physical and mental well being. These plans need to be amended to protect, not destroy, our local environment.
3) Pollution of the local waterways - movement of contaminated sediment to Clontarf and the Spit - both popular swimming areas for families. Experts of said that the proposed sediment curtain is unlikely to be effective in preventing this movement. Discharge of 428,000L per day of wastewater into Queenscliff Lagoon and Beach - ruining another part of the natural environment and impacting on both the local community, visitors to the beaches and the local marine life.
4) Traffic congestion during the long construction period - the EIS indicates that there will be over 3000 vehicles per day across all sites, 1690 per day at the Balgowlah site alone. This is a significant amount of traffic - equating to 1.5 heavy vehicles every minute or 4.5 vehicles in total every minute. These will be running past schools eg Seaforth Public School and posing significant risks for our children. In addition, this will create rat run traffic through suburbs such as North Balgowlah as people try to avoid the congestion. This will in turn create heavy traffic flow around Balgowlah North Public School.
5) Excessive noise and vibrations including tunneling 24 hrs per day, 7 days per week for approx. 3 years. How are residents supposed to live through this?
I object to the current plans as outlined above, I believe they will destroy our local environment and pose significant health risks (physical and mental) to our community. I agree we do need a traffic solution for the future, but these plans are short sighted and need much further rigour applied to ensure they are both safe and sustainable. I ask that this project be slowed down to ensure that the due diligence is done to create a positive outcome for everyone.

I object to the Beaches Link tunnel because:

1. Chapter 4, page 4-4

‘In 2017 the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches link program of works is identified in the strategy as a ‘committed project’ (that is, within the next 0-10 years, subject to a final business case)’
We are still awaiting the final business case.

2. Chapter 3.1, page 3-2 last parra.
‘In Greater Sydney, traffic levels on most roads have returned to those experienced before NSW Government restrictions for COVID-19 were put in place. This indicates a relatively rapid response to the event by the city, and suggests that the movement of people, goods and services and demand for road capacity is returning to conditions similar to those prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.’
• Clearly this is not true. A major effect has been the reduced level of people using public transport and using their cars an alternative during the Covid crisis.
• A further ‘long term’¬¬¬¬¬¬ effect will be the practise of working from home.

These two points will have considerable effect on existing transport estimates.
Reduced future traffic demand can delay the need for the beaches link tunnel and a rethink of a more viable solution.
In addition, with time, an increased population density will be better suited to high-frequency, mass transit modes

3. Executive Summary, pages E 22
‘Key results of construction noise modelling include:
• Airborne noise from the project temporary construction support sites would generally be within the noise management levels with the exception of early works, site establishment (including cofferdam construction), site restoration works and out of hours concrete deliveries, when the noise management levels may be exceeded at some receivers for short periods
• Airborne noise levels from surface road works would generally be within the relevant noise management levels, with the exception of the operation of high noise generating equipment such as rock-hammers or concrete saws or when noisy works occur close to sensitive receivers, and works required outside of standard construction hours. Where airborne noise management levels are exceeded, there would be a requirement to implement reasonable and feasible noise mitigation
• Most of the ground-borne noise generated by roadheader tunnelling would be within the noise management levels. The use of rock-hammers for tunnelling activities has the potential to exceed noise management levels at various locations; however, such activities would be scheduled outside evening and night time periods (where feasible and reasonable) to avoid or reduce ground-borne noise level exceedances on receivers
• Vibration from tunnelling works would be generally within the vibration limits for human disturbance at most receivers. Some receivers have the potential to experience vibration levels above the human comfort criteria when rock-hammers are operating nearby. Several heritage listed structures would be within the vibration minimum working distance for cosmetic damage for an unsound heritage structure during the use of large rock hammers. For these receivers, further assessment would be carried out to determine the susceptibility of the structure to be potentially damaged by vibration, and mitigation measures from the Construction Noise and Vibration Guideline (Roads and Maritime, 2016) would be implemented”
All of these statements are vague There is no real protection against noise generated from the construction of the tunnel and the roadworks
4. Chapter 5, Project Description Page 5-48



Noise attenuation measures Noise attenuation measures as part of the project at Balgowlah would include noise attenuators fitted on axial fans within the motorway facilities.
No new noise barriers are proposed. The two existing noise barriers on Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation northbound would be maintained at the existing extent and height.


No new noise barriers are proposed, surely they will be needed to reduce noise levels.
5. No reference to the increased numbers of cars likely to exit the tunnel in summertime creating a disaster in summer at peak heat times.

6. Because roads around the exit to the tunnel in Balgowlah are left to the local council to resolve there will be rat runs and congestion. Any time saved by the tunnel will be lost by waiting in long ques to enter the tunnel via a minimum of 2 sets of traffic lights.

In Summary:
Un suitable Transport Solution:
• There was no community consultation on the reason for the road tunnel in comparison to rail or other public transport alternatives.
• The justification used to choose an additional transport route to alleviate traffic along Military road is fraught with questionable assumptions and provides only a 10% traffic reduction.
• There is no proper business case to justify the $12 billion cost estimate.
• The tunnel encourages induced traffic demand rather than using public transport.
• The potential for an additional 40,000 cars to travel to the local beaches during summer causing numerous beach closures and loss of street parking, already happening on hot summer days.
• The introduction of expensive tolls $7-8 each way.
• Potential for tunnel avoidance due to tolls affecting traffic along Military road
• The saved time of travel to the city during peak time will be lost due to local traffic congestion.
• The introduction of new traffic lights in Sydney road and at the entrance to the tunnel will impact on current traffic flow along Sydney Road and Burnt bridge creek bypass.
• The tunnel will cause extreme local traffic bottlenecks and road rat runs in Balgowlah and Manly vale.

Effect on the Environment:
• The provision of unsightly, unfiltered exhaust stacks 8 – 10 stories high exhausting air from a 7km tunnel near schools and public playing fields.
• The loss of a popular golf course and the loss of green space
• The loss of 420 mature trees and potential impact of a further 150.
• The reduction in property values.
• The loss of nearly 2000 mature trees along Wakehurst parkway.
• The possible detrimental effect of runoff from the widening of Wakehurst parkway into Manly Dam.
• The loss of indigenous heritage and endangered Flora and fauna.

Construction Disruption:
• Potentially 7 years of construction starting in 2023.
• The devastation likely to be experienced by Balgowlah, Seaforth and Cammeray surrounds during construction.
• 0ne large truck per minute from Balgowlah using the local roads daily from 7am to 6pm weekdays and 8am to 1pm Saturday also causing additional local road congestion.
• Tunnelling underground 24 hrs a day 7 days a week.
• A large number of properties will experience noise from tunnelling above 35dbA and some 45dbA when tunnelling occurs below them.
• Early hour workers will park in local streets irrespective of site prohibition.
• Excessive noise from drilling, rock crushing and earth removal.
• Uncontained Silica dust generation.
• 400,000 litres of polluting waters from the construction will be directed to the sea via the local creek and Queenscliff lagoon.
• Local marine life may experience contamination.
• Loud construction noises greater than 75db from impact piling of cofferdam walls over 12 months.
• Possible sediment disturbance generating unsafe levels of heavy metals, lead hydrocarbons etc in middle harbour including the Sandy Bay area and Clontarf.

As a local of Naremburn and a parent of a child at cammeray, I’m concerns around the project are the number of trucks traveling through the area and the safe of our children. Normal peak our traffic around the area is already a concern, added hundreds of trucks daily will cause congestion and unsafe roads for our kids.
I’m also concerned about noise and pollution and the impact on our health.
I want our kids and families health and safety to be considered when implementing the project.
I’m all for developing our infrastructure and city, however I am truely concerned about the impact to our community.

As a local resident/residential property owner I strongly object to the project for the following reasons:
1) The area needs more public transport options into the future, such as trains and good combinations of express and local area buses, NOT expensive vehicle toll roads.
2) Air pollution into the surrounding suburbs will be significant, given the distance of the planned tunnel, and the plan for a Triple stack in the Cammeray junction servicing both new tunnels. To not filter these stacks is shows appalling disregard for the community's health, in favour of financial benefits. At the very least diesel trucks need to be banned from using the tunnels and subsidies should be provided to encourage an uptake of electric vehicles. The opposite is the case at present as electric vehicles are priced prohibitively.
3) Traffic congestion in the North Sydney LGA: key intersections are already becoming congested and the EIS has indicated these intersections will fail with the implementation of new tunnels. There will be no benefit to the lower north shore as more rat runs will be created through local suburban roads, with numerous schools in the area being impacted as well.
4) There is a risk of loss of green space for the community both short and long term, eg Cammeray golf course and surrounds.

I object to the project. In particular I object to where it states in the EIS that council will decide the use of the land after the tunneling has finished at Flat Rock Gully. As this is a wildlife protection zone and there are endangered species living in the gully and it is a wildlife corridor it is very important that the dive site once finished with is covered over and then regenerated back to bushland, better than before. All existing shed and structures should be removed. It shouldn't be for the local council to decide whether it is regenerated or whether it be used for recreational facilities as stated in the EIS. The EIS needs to state that the site will be regenerated to bushland. 390 trees will be lost to build the dive site at Flat Rock Gully. Undertake full bush regeneration and provide three for one tree plantings as required by the local vegetation strategy. Each tree should be replaced by three others in the footprint of the Flat Rock Gully dive site. The bushland in the construction site in Flat Rock Gully is restored with the Environmental Conservation zoning of the site and in accordance with the local Urban Bushland Plan of Management and the Flat Rock Gully Reserve Action Plan.

I like the idea to improve traffics flow but I am concerned regarding the direct impact the current project will have on Manly Dam. We have so few beautiful natural reserves left and we need to protect and prioritise them now and for the future.

Direct impact on Manly Dam Reserve
• Wakehurst Parkway cannot be widened to 4-6 lanes without destroying the bush at the top of
Manly Dam and Garigal National Park. The ridge is simply too narrow for such a wide road.
• The edge of the road in many places will be either a steep cliff or artificial slope. It will be higher than the trees and visible throughout Manly Dam Reserve and in a lot of Garigal National Park.
• The road is too wide to have adequate runoff water treatment. Untreated water from the road will pour through the bush, scouring the land and filling streams below with sediment every time there is heavy rainfall.
• Street lighting along Wakehurst Parkway will significantly affect both nocturnal and diurnal
animals, causing them to die out from that area. Pygmy possums will be affected.
• Without street lighting, a 4-6 lane road with trucks, bicycles and pedestrians will be a safety
hazard. If lights are not installed when the project starts, the accidents that follow will lead to street lighting.
• Light from the road will be visible all through Manly Dam and Garigal National Park. The road is on a ridge, so light from the road will be visible for miles around.
• Encouraging articulated trucks and construction vehicles to use Wakehurst Parkway could result in accidents and spills that will have significant environmental impacts on Manly Dam and Garigal National Park. A spill of toxic liquid will pour downhill directly into the bush and be extremely difficult to clean.
• There will be a lot of traffic on Wakehurst Parkway. Heavy construction vehicles going 80km/h will dominate the road for the next 30 years. Traffic noise will be heard all across the bush, particularly at night.
• Construction will destroy a large area of bushland at the top of Wakehurst Golf Course around the two water tanks. This area was declared by Sydney Water to be rich in endangered plant and animal species and worthy of conservation.
• The Aboriginal carvings along Engravings Trail will be under threat from road runoff.

These are just a few of the major concerns. We need to come up with a solution that preserves Manly Dam now and into the future.

Thank you.

As a very concerned local resident, I strongly object to this project. The stated project objectives will not be met and there will be irreversible damages on the environment and residents.

1. Economic: Significant assumptions regarding traffic volume and future projects has been made and factors such as the long term impact from COVID19 has not been taken into consideration which could significant impact the cost/benefit analysis for this $12bn+ project. The EIS states 38 min saving from Balgowlah to the city in 2037, but this trip currently only takes 30 mins. The 2016 baseline should therefore be reset when the future traffic flow is better understood. I also note that traffic flow forecast assumptions from the Lane Cove Tunnel and Cross City Link were significantly different to the actual traffic flows. The economics for this project does not stack up. There is significant environmental and health concerns and together with a $12bn+ cost estimate to achieve a mere 10% traffic reduction along Military road, this project is not necessary.

2. Environmental impact: Long lasting damage during and post construction including more than 12 ha bushland destruction for the widening of the Wakehurst Parkway which are home to many birds and animals including the fragile Eastern Pygmy Possum and Eastern Bent-wing bat. Revegetation would not restore this unique bushland.
Water pollution to the Manly Dam, Burnt Bridge Creek and toxic sediment and sludge will adversely impact nature and humans for generations to come. There are no guarantees that floating curtains will control the sediment to nearby Clontarf beach. Sludge from Middle Harbour contains PFAS chemicals and heavy metals such as mercury and lead, and exposure has toxic effects in almost all organs in the human body as lead and mercury are neurotoxic and cardiotoxic in nature which affects the gastrointestinal system and causes respiratory illness, hearing loss, and cancer. The impact to the community are therefore unacceptable.
Furthermore, the impact on water quality in Manly Creek and therefore Manly Dam will make water recreation not safe for humans and have long lasting impact on the wildlife.

3. Air quality: Unfiltered ventilation stacks are planned in highly dense residential locations, including schools and childcare centres. There will be a significant increase in the level of air toxins and there is no safe level of such toxins. A study by The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2010 found a clear link in Sydney between spikes in pollution (NO2) and hospital admissions in 0-14 year olds. Many scientists state that no level of pollution is a safe level when it comes to human health. Just because the measurable concentration of pollutants from tunnel ventilation stacks does not surpass limits, that does not mean they do not cause any harm. The health impact for local residents far outweigh the benefit for this project and will add to incremental health costs to the government in the medium to long term, which will outstrip any benefits this project will achieve. The scope states that the stacks will be unfiltered which is "consistent with most road tunnels around the world". This statement is problematic as the proposed tunnel is very long and many disagree with this practice for long tunnels and there is increasing evidence that there are significant health benefits. It is also noted that Gladys Berejiklian previously argued against the unfiltered Lane Cove Tunnel stacks, on the grounds that they had a negative impact on health. As a condition of approval, the local community health concerns should be addressed by an independent assessment and filtered stack at a minimum should be constructed.

4. Construction: Noise and vibration along the corridor from trucks, drilling, ground works are of significant concern. Other communities who have experienced the type of tunnelling proposed have experienced extreme noise pollution resulting in stress, lack of sleep and illness. The EIS provides no information on the mitigation measures put in place. An independent assessment of noise and vibration impact should be done as a condition of approval, and provided to property owners before construction commences. Mitigation strategies should be implemented before construction commences and where exceedance cannot be eliminated, there should be negotiations with the residents and if no agreement is reach, alternative methods should be undertaken.

5. Community Consultation: The level of consultation has been insufficient for a this project given the significant impact on the local communities. It is recommended an independent assessment is done to understand and address the communities' concerns.

6. Traffic, parking & Safety: Increasing roads to address congestion is the opposite of what large cities around the world are doing as research clearly shows that more roads equal more cars. Our suburbs are already being overwhelmed with commuters and parking is very hard to find around the school and at home. Studies have shown that more road tunnels and expressways increase vehicle use and traffic around portals. Some international cities have moved to remove expressways into the city areas to discourage road use and encourage public transport usage. The push to add tunnels to Sydney to relieve congestion appears to be at odds with planning priorities in other major cities around the world. Traffic congestion in Balgowlah will increase significantly and appears to be a critical omission in the assessment. Local roads should be upgraded and should not be left for the local Council to solve.

I strenuously object to this project based on:
• The serious adverse health impacts on our children and community both during the extended construction period and after completion, namely:
- Poor air quality surrounding the construction site which will adversely affect neighbouring school children and residents. I have three children, one of whom has asthma, and am devastated to imagine what this development will mean for their short- and long-term health and life expectancy
- The proposed use of unfiltered ventilation shafts, which is contrary to world’s best practice
- The ludicrous and irresponsible positioning of the construction site and ventilation shafts within metres of schools
• The wanton destruction of our environment, namely:
- The loss of the green/recreation space that is Balgowlah Golf Course for the duration of construction
- The destruction of more than 15 hectares of valuable bushland, including wildlife corridors and habitat for threatened flora and fauna
- The long-term adverse impacts to groundwater levels at Manly Dam and Burnt Bridge Creek
- The release of toxic sediment into Middle Harbour
- The predicted 97,000L of run-off water onto Queenscliff Beach
• Years of traffic disruption around the construction site and the use of ‘rat runs’ through our local streets in an attempt to avoid this
• This project is a poorly conceived solution to peak-hour traffic congestion and travel times:
- It fails to consider our working arrangements in a post-COVID environment
- It fails to consider public transport; instead it will encourage the increased use of climate-destructive cars
- It fails to consider the fact that the exit on the Northern Beaches Peninsular is a dead end in terms of current road design and capacity, as well as beach parking capacity
• This project is a total contradiction to the Government’s own A Metropolis of Three Cities grand plan for Greater Sydney, which states: “Green infrastructure such as urban tree canopy, green ground cover, bushland, waterways, parks and open spaces will be valued for its economic, social and environmental benefits and will help to establish the Greater Sydney Green Grid, a network of walking and cycling links that will become increasingly important in daily travel arrangements improving sustainability and the wellbeing of residents.”
• This project is in total contradiction to Planning Minister Rob Stokes’ recent words to Parliament, in which he spoke of “the future of our precious parkland in Sydney”, agreeing that “we need to work together to protect our current, and future, public green space”.
I implore the government to reconsider this destructive project in favour of an environmentally and socially responsible alternative. Surely we are better than this antiquated, irresponsible plan.
With climate change well documented and green solutions firmly on world agendas, I ask that you look to these when seeking solutions to our growing city.

I am writing to object to the construction of the Beaches Tunnel Link on three counts:
1. Damage to ecosystems and the data used to calculate financial return on investment not factoring in these impacts.
2. Ability of the proposal to meet objective of reduced travel times.
3. Air quality concerns

The EIS outlined many disturbing aspects of construction, not least the environmental impacts to fragile ecosystems in this area.
1) Damage to ecosystems
Specific aspects of ecosystem concern are:
- The fragile ecosystems of Manly Dam are under threat by the widening of the Parkway to 6 lanes with spoil and wastewater polluting the dam. This is the last swimmable inland body of water in Sydney, and my family and I swim, run, and cycle there regularly, please don’t ruin it.
- Queenscliff Lagoon will have nearly half a million litres of wastewater pumped into it daily, contaminating the lagoon and beaches, which represent considerable tourism revenue.
- Burnt Creek water flow will be reduced by 96% by the end of the project, destroying the ecosystem. This is a beautiful ecosystem and would be disastrous.
- High contamination risk has been cited for heavy metals and organotoxins into Middle Harbour from tunnel dredging, polluting The Spit, Clontarf Beach and other environs in Middle Harbour – another tourism destination.
- The golf course site will be completely cleared of vegetation and native habitats during construction to allow for parking for some of the 3000 workers daily ; enormous road headers ; concrete batch plant ; rock crushers ; movement of double trailer trucks removing spoil ( cited as 2.5 trucks per minute onto Sydney Rd and Wakehurst Parkway sites); acoustic shed; cranes, site buildings etc.

These ecosystems are irreplaceable; we are on the brink of a worldwide ecological disaster and we just can’t afford to lose any more. 38 Australian scientists from 29 universities and government agencies have just released a report detailing 19 ecosystems in Australia alone which are on the verge of collapse. This is a prospect almost too depressing to consider, but we must consider deeply when scientific evidence suggests that healthy ecosystems which support biodiversity may be the most effective way for us to live in a 1.5-degree world.
Currently we don’t have a way to factor in the cost of these biodiversity impacts. But public sentiment has turned, we can’t continue to steal from our children’s natural inheritance. Globally many organisations are working out how to use the money in the world economy to solve the world’s climate issues, and my view is that not far into the construction of this tunnel, there will be a recognised way to value biodiversity and the decision-makers of this project will be derided for the actions that they took without foresight.
2) Ability of the proposal to meet objective of reduced travel times
Travel time estimates were from 2017, outdated since the introduction of B-line and COVID impacts on travel.
Working patterns have changed since COVID; we have proved that we can work remotely, and a small percentage of people will be returning to in the CBD full-time. Has this been factored into calculations?
The current $12bn cost only seems to shave 7 mins of travel time, which will soon be eroded with the extra traffic that this scheme will encourage.
Parramatta is being set up as a 2nd CBD hub and this tunnel won’t resolve transport from the Northern Beaches to Parramatta.
Do we need to take stock of a different way of working, and think through a more innovative solution encompassing more public transport options?
3) Air quality concerns
Not only are the ventilation shafts proposed an eyesore, but they are also not being fitted with filters with a potentially damaging health impact on schools, homes as well as Manly Dam.
In addition, 3000 homes are identified as being significantly affected by the 24-hour site noise, dust and vibration for 5-7 years.

I understand that increase in population forecasts need to managed, and its politically difficult when money has already been spent, there is momentum, and there are expectations from senior politicians, but the bravest decision at this point would be to halt the project and evaluate whether this is the best outcome in a post COVID world.
We need bold leaders now more than ever, why not set an example for others around the world from the Northern Beaches of Australia?
Don’t be the ‘Onceler’ that our kids talk about when they reminisce about the natural beauty that this area once held.

My husband Jon and I are writing in with major concerns surrounding the proposed works on the Beaches Tunnel and Gore Hill Extension that we believe will have major impacts to our overall safety, health and enjoyment of our local area.

We purchased our home at 9 Slade Street, Naremburn almost 2 years ago and have only become recently aware of the proposed works. Our three main areas of concerns are as follows:

Significant increase to traffic (including trucks) on Brook Street. Already a busy road and having witnessed a major accident as well as many near misses we are greatly concerned from a safety perspective of the impact of added traffic including heavy trucks. We use Brook Street daily to walk our son to and from daycare and often make the difficult right turn onto Brook from Slade. We fear the changes will increase the risks of this already dangerous road, resulting in potentially devastating consequences. We believe that control measures should be taken such as limiting the truck movements to weekday working hours, reducing the speed limit on Flat Rock Drive and Brook St, including installing speed cameras along this stretch of road to monitor / control speed limits as well as the addition of traffic lights.

Pollution: We’re concerned about unsafe levels of pollution caused by the works and increased traffic. Our son is scheduled to attend Cammeray Public School from 2023 and we are distressed about his exposure to daily harmful emissions from unfiltered smoke stacks. We believe that filtered stacks need to be implemented to mitigate this exposure.

Impact to Flat Rock Gully: we use the Flat Rock Gully walking track a few times a week. It’s a beautiful, peaceful area and are devastated to think that part of this area will be destroyed if the work proceeds.

Please consider making these necessary adjustments to the project in order to preserve this beautiful community that we love and keep it safe.

- I am concerned for the community, our roads are already jammed and even more so now that Transport NSW in conjunction with the short sidedness of Andrew Constance has removed several services meaning gridlock even before the project has started. Seven long years of construction causing gridlock, congestion and additional work crew’s cars, machinery etc is just not acceptable for our community. What assurances do you have to help our community through this time?

- I am concerned for our community - the emissions, pollution, smoke stacks placed so close to homes and schools. I understand they need to go somewhere, but why there?

- I am concerned for our community because once the tunnel is complete there will be no dedicated bus lane. Why? What does transport NSW gain from if services are forced to sit in gridlock?

- I am concerned for our community because after the seven long years of construction we will be hit with a proposed $20 toll for the pleasure of using said tunnel. Will pricing be re-considered?

- I am concerned for our community because you are removing an oval, a community space for who knows how long for. What guarantees do you have for this?

As someone who lived on Hope Street, Seaforth from 2014-2019 I can confirm that the road traffic was unbearable. I am concerned that 12 lanes of traffic would be unthinkable and that is after the 7 years of construction.