Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I object to the environmental destruction, the loss of habitat along the engravings track (a very important historical site for the Gadigal people), the damage to flora and fauna and the destruction of their habitat, the pollution that will be pumped into the sky and settle over areas where children play sport and also over Manly Dam which is one of the last dams in NSW that is swimmable. I also object to the irreversible damage that will be done to Burnt Creek - without a doubt one of the most beautiful parts of North Balgowlah and Seaforth. How can a project of such magnitude continue until the dust settles on covid and what the new normal will be for working.

As I parent and local I OBJECT to this proposal.

This proposal will cause more traffic to flood onto streets on North Sydney where I work and the ramp into the city from Miller St will no longer be in use adding time to the journey to the airport (in usual times I travel a lot for work).

Importantly, my children attend schools in the area and the unfiltered stacks will effect their health. There are 12 schools in the area that will be adversely impacted by this. The health of our children is paramount and this proposal should not go ahead if we value future generations.

We should be investigating public transport options and not putting more cars on roads. At a time when climate change is ever important we should be looking at greener transport solutions and not just resort to more tunnels and roads.

Furthermore the proposal will ruin the village atmosphere of Cammeray where I live as more cars will driving on the freeway resulting in much more noise and pollution.

The beaches link will only moderately improve travel times. Surely public transport is a better, cheaper and cleaner option?

I object to the Beaches Link for the following reasons:
Firstly, there seems to be no consideration for the level of noise between the North Balgowlah and Seaforth sound walls. Currently, there is a large gap between the two walls which creates a sound tunnel through the Burnt Bridge Creek. Based on the new plans, this sound issue is only set to increase, not only during the construction phase but given the entrance of the tunnel has now moved further up the hill, this will most definitely create additional noise. Secondly, I have reviewed the App G Noise and vibration - Part 2 report and I am confused why my property has not been marked for sound consideration as compared with my neighbours. The data does not add up to the reality of the situation. I currently hear the traffic on the east and southern end of my house and am somewhat confused that the report states 'No' to further noise treatment. All houses on Serpentine Crescent backing on to the Burnt Bridge Creek requires additional consideration for the increased noise level, which has currently not been factored into the project. There should be no reason why an end to end sound wall should not be included as part of the project to cater for all houses impacted by the sound tunnel created by this gap.

I am writing regarding the proposed Beaches Link tunnel.

I object to the proposal for numerous reasons, but have chosen to focus on the simple fact that the tunnel does not have a defensible business case.

The proposal is trying to cater for increased traffic flow in the coming decades. However RMS data contradicts that underlying assertion. Rather than an increase in traffic, the data shows that the number of vehicles using the Spit Bridge per day has stagnated for almost a decade before dropping significantly in the past several years.* Please note that this drop started prior to the pandemic.

Perhaps more people are working from home. The current pandemic has changed the way people work. Numerous reports are suggesting that this change is permanent.** Under these circumstances it would be irresponsible to continue with this outdated proposal.

Perhaps there are more car-pooling and ride-sharing services. Certainly, Roy Morgan research states that 20% of Australians have used ride-sharing in the past 3 months. With the rapid advances in technology, it is reasonable to expect that single-car, single commuter usage will continue to fall. The electrification of our fleet (and subsequent cost reduction) will only improve this further. In this case, there is no benefit to a tunnel.

Perhaps more people are taking public transport. Of course this is to be encouraged. Significantly less money could be spent to improve public transport infrastructure and services. This would not only reduce traffic but also our environmental and economic costs. The Northern Beaches community is widely recognised as progressive in these areas. In this case, there is also no benefit to a tunnel.

Regardless, the data shows a fundamental shift in the way that people travel. Given these rapidly improving alternatives, the premise of the proposal is antiquated and invalid.

It’s not just the Spit Bridge traffic flow data that damns this proposal. The same RMS website shows that of the 66K daily users of the Spit Bridge in 2017, less than a quarter continued to Wakehurst Parkway. Why are commuters being spat out at a location that most of them don’t want? It seems absurd but the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no other location. The genuine needs of the commuters are effectively being ignored to suit a flawed proposal.

As a result of this (at best) obsolete proposal, it should be noted that I have no confidence in its recommendations regarding Environmental Impact, Cost, Timelines or Road Safety.

Given the continuing reduction in Spit Bridge traffic, ever-changing work habits since the pandemic, the way that technology is changing transport, and the false premises of the proposal, it would be irresponsible to continue with it. The EIS claim that alternate proposals ‘require considerable changes in social attitudes, travel behaviour and government policy’ is manifestly out-of-date and no longer valid. These changes have already occurred. It’s time to look again.

This proposal has no valid business case, is obsolete, and I stridently object to it.


* Source: RMS Traffic Volume Viewer: https://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/about/corporate-publications/statistics/traffic-volumes/aadt-map/index.html#/?z=16&id=34001&hv=0 (Select “Spit Road (34001) Data”)
** For example, University of Sydney Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies: https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2020/09/28/australians-want-to-work-from-home-more-post-covid.html

I have questions as a Seaforth resident and my mother lives at the Kirkwood St where she is greatly affected.EIS is a crystal ball in someways.

What is going to be the firm data on the Kirkwood St End of works, construction site and office? To even issues of parking on local roads, where other projects to no parking near site for working is ignored and not policed. How is it going affect say owners that rent out? If they lose their tenants how is the government going to assist people lost of income for example. How is tunnelling vibration going to affected and monitored say from Kirkwood St, shallow point to Clontarf St where we I live?

Ok the big issue for me is the exhaust stacks. Unfiltered stacks goes against what the NSW and National Chief Scientists has been reported. Sure the concentrate of exhaust and other vehicle particulates that are highly carcinogenic in any manner unfiltered that is captured in a few points across a journey need to be captured or filtered for the benefit of the residence. No filters must go against health benefit factors for the residence, rate payer and that's right voters. To use third world practices is sub optimal. The government need to look at best practices for health benefits and reduce the pollutions on a whole. The opportunity is there to capture easily and reduce pollution that in the end of the day will save society money that would be spent on medical respiratory issues. I believe Bally Boys has been given the same static's as other schools considering its one of the closest affected. Please explain and have someone to contact me to discuss further.

Look forward to been contacted.

Thank you

To whom it may concern,
I would like to add to my previous submission for this project which was an objection to it, by objecting to a few more specific features. As I have read more on this project, I am more and more displeased with how my community will fare over the next 5 years. There are no positives for us at all and many many negatives.
I object to this project due to
● Pollution
● Contamination Risks
● Safety
● Noise
● Loss of Green Spaces
● Community fragmentation
● Financial Stress

I object to dredging of middle harbour and the contamination it will cause. There are many businesses and individuals that will be devastated - the northbridge baths will be polluted, kayakers, sailers and swimmers will not be able to do their normal activities. This is not acceptable.

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.

I object to the contamination that will resurface - as there is High level contaminents found in Flat Rock and Middle Harbour - groundwater, surface water and in Middle Harbour and the risk assessment has not been completed before going to public consultation. I object to dredging of middle harbour.
Contamination can put communities, environments and workers at risk and cause major cost blow outs and delays in the project.Cammeray Golf Course, Flat Rock Gully, Spit Reserve, Middle Harbour and Wakehurst Parkway all have confirmed contamination. Flat Rock Gully is a legacy Landfill site and this should not be dug up or used as a dive site at all. It should be moved to Artarmon industrial site or even better, there should not be one at all!
I object to:
Over 3 Million Tonnes of ground-based spoil will be removed as part of the Beaches
Link Project, trucked through our area and dumped at an unknown location.
● 153, 000 cubic meters of sediment from Middle Harbour will be dumped at sea
● 10,000 cubic meters of contaminated sediment will be barged out under the Spit
Bridge, past beaches and dried out at an unknown location
● 900 additional vehicle movements per day will service the Flat Rock Drive site and
590 at Cammeray
● 500m3 of spoil is permitted under the EIS to be stored outside of sheds at Flat Rock
and 4500m3 at Cammeray - this presents a significant dust risk to the area
Drawdown of groundwater, quality of groundwater
● The EIS estimates that the drawdown in Northbridge as a result of the project will be
28m, in Flat Rock reserve 21m and at Willoughby Leisure Centre 22m, resulting in
water stress/death for plants and trees and potential settlement issues
● Groundwater dependent ecosystems are located at the upper reaches of Flat Rock
Creek & Quarry Creek such as the rare turpentine scrub and these will be impacted.



● Luna Park fault zone going through Northbridge and Middle Harbour needs More definition on this fault zone .
● Disturbance of the water table can lead to instability because of the fault zone,
which may alter the tunnel route and depth. When there is a change proposed that
change is analysed and stakeholders consulted before the change proceeds

I object due to:
The bushland at Flat Rock Gully has been targeted for destruction on the basis that it is ‘only’
regenerated bush. This regeneration is the result of 25 years of work by WCC and bush care
volunteers. Most of the plantings were propagated from local indigenous plants.
A full study of wildlife has
Risks to heritage sites have been identified at Clive Park (incl. Aboriginal), Flat Rock
Gully (1 Aboriginal), Cammeray (1 Built) and Artarmon due to vibration
● Residents around the Northbridge peninsular (around Clive Park) will experience
vibration above screening levels as a result of the Middle Harbour crossing works
● Naremburn is one of the oldest suburbs of Willoughby with many homes built in the
1800’s. Vibration and drawdown has a risk of creating property damage.
● Widespread substratum acquisition is intended according to the EIS, 50mtr’s either
side of the twin tunnel route and ramps. The route can however change after
approval due to the uncertain geology of the area.

Flooding
● The flood study fails to recognise that water and sediment may be from a contaminated
source.

Utilities that may conflict with the tunnels proposed route and services have not
been fully assessed.

Conditions I would like to ask for:

Include clear strategies in the EIS to counteract the release of contaminants into Middle
Harbour following storms or due to silt curtain damage during construction.
● If the proposal is approved, it is vital that, at the end of the project, the construction site in Flat
Rock Gully is restored to bushland consistent 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.
Consider ecologically sustainable alternatives to the car tunnel. Fully scope alternative public
transport options.
Undertake full bush regeneration and provide three for one tree plantings as required by the
local vegetation strategy.


● Contaminated spoil not to be stored onsite in Flat Rock Gully or Cammeray. The spoil
should be immediately be sealed and carried away from residential areas or stored
underground
● Improve the site, remediate better than before, to compensate for pain and
suffering during the 5 years of construction and restore ecosystems. This was done
at Bangaroo. No contaminated soil to remain onite, site rehabilitated back to
bushland in FRG, improved walking tracks and bicycle paths and ecosystems restored
● Silica dust created by tunnelling sandstone more adequately dealt with than just a
water cart and covering the load.
● Real time monitoring and alerts around air quality at The Baseball Diamond and
Netball courts at Flat Rock Gully, and northbridge schools as they do in the Hunter Valley near mine sites for
recreational users of adjoining ovals, recreation fields, towns etc
Groundwater drawdown, quality of groundwater -
● Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem –provide an additional study to confirm the
importance of the ecosystem to local community in the EIS. Argument that it is in an
area that is contaminated therefore not worth keeping has lots of examples where
residents have managed to show importance of ecosystems in disturbed areas
● Groundwater contamination as confirmed in the EIS, including Flat Rock Gully,
Quarry Creek, Tunks Park - ask for ongoing ground water quality monitoring and not
just during the early operation of the tunnel.
● Contaminants from Flat Rock Reserve, Willoughby Leisure Centre etc may be
mobilised with change in groundwater (through drawdown or surface water).
● Water monitoring station results to be made publicly available and placed
downstream of the dive site
● Groundwater improvement strategies over the long term implemented. Suggested in
EIS Chapter 16 - modelling of tunnel lining for a 300m section under FRG reduces the
drawdown by 8m, this lining could extend along the route of the tunnel and
especially around Flat Rock Gully and under the Conservation Area of naremburn
where properties are at greater risk of subsidence.
● Request a resident review/consultation ongoing review forum – e.g. regular
meetings, with key stakeholders, including residents to discuss results from
monitoring and mitigation. There should be a portal where information can be
accessed in real time
● The method of wastewater treatment needs clarification - where will they be placed,
how long will they be there, what level will they treat the water to.

C. Settlement - conditions
● Tunneling induced movement - compensation for house cracking and settlement
even if slight - currently up to 50mm which means a 5cm crack in houses not
repaired. This criteria is unacceptable for the majority of homeowners in the area

● Further investigation needed on the definition of the Luna Park fault zone required
and instability toward Clive Park.

Utilities that may conflict with the tunnels proposed route and services have not
been fully assessed. This can have major implications in terms of cost, delays and
local impact. No utilities have been assessed under the Northbridge peninsular and
the very substantial Northside (Sewage) Storage Tunnel running across the Long Bay
Catchment with an outlet at Tunks Park has not been assessed.

I request these conditions:
Greenspace - ensure all landfill exposed by tunneling is capped at the end of tunnelling and
reinstate crushed sandstone as a contoured base for re-establishment of locally indigenous
vegetation and habitat. Remove all temporary structures (including noise mitigation sheds).
Decision making about the future of the dive site at FRG should not be left to the end of the
consultation process and should involve the community. The EIS should confirm its
rehabilitation and return to bushland
● Active transport links between Artarmon, Naremburn, Cammeray and the City should be
made seamless and improved as a result of this project to compensate in part for
community construction fatigue.. The current active transport links are fragmented at best
and construction will make this worse with no clear plan to improve it.

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). Local tree policies are required
by the NSW Government to reflect the needs of different areas for tree canopy and wildlife
habitat. These should not be overridden by the NSW State Government.

Thank you for your time and I do hope that you listen to our communities concerns and act responsibly.

Regards
Greta Hearle

I strongly 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.
• The destruction of our environment through the loss of Balgowlah Golf Course and more than 15 hectares of bushland; 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 run-off water from construction onto Queenscliff Beach
• Years of traffic disruption during construction
• 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 – I am one of those workers who no longer travels to the city and instead works from home
- It fails to consider public transport options
- It fails to consider the fact that the Northern Beaches Peninsula 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 and also to Planning Minister Rob Stokes’ recent words to Parliament about “the future of our precious parkland in Sydney” and the “need to work together to protect our current, and future, public green space”.

For reasons of damage to the environment and waterways I object to the tunnel. As communities re evaluate the need to work in the CBD (I can work at home in an executive role paying over $285k) we don’t need this tunnel. We need better public transport that in post Covid times is not a B line turning away passengers in Manly Vale. More frequent public transport is needed.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to voice my sincere concerns around the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel and its impacts on our school, the
wider community, and the local environment.

The figures put forward in the EIS indicate only a minimal reduction in the traffic
flowing through Mosman for a significant and disproportionate use of public funds.
I feel that many of the assumptions for traffic used as justification of the build in the EIS
have not factored in changes to travel habits and working from home due to COVID-19 and
into the future, treating COVID-19 as having only a “temporary” impact".

The construction phase of the project will undoubtedly impact North Balgowlah
residents with dust, noise, vibration, and heavy vehicle traffic in the area. North Balgowlah
will have construction surrounding most of the suburb and the EIS indicates that during
construction there will be.
• Over 3,000 vehicles per day across all sites.
• 1,690 vehicles per day at the Balgowlah Golf Course site alone.
• 1.5 heavy vehicles every minute or 4.5 vehicles (total) every minute.
• Over 4,000 homes subjected to excessive noise
• Construction work to proceed 24/7 for up to 7 years.

I urge you to reconsider how to ensure that the impact of trucks/vehicles is not felt on the
suburban streets that are already hard to navigate with local traffic and buses. Ensure areas
around schools and parks are not impacted and are safe for families and children to walk or
ride around the local community. Disincentivise commuters looking to use our streets as a rat
run to save time from congestion and money from using the toll roads.

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

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

I believe the potential upside of the tunnel pales in significance to the huge environmental loss that would be caused as a result to our region. The destruction of the Burnt Bridge creek alone would impact a beautiful park that I walk my dog in every day, and admire how lucky we are to have on our doorstep.

Regards
Brianna Vidal
0403904912

As a long term resident of N. Balgowlah and living on Burnt Bride Creek i don't think there has been enough information to address what will become of the creek? This section of walking/cycling track has become a main stay for the local residents and part of what makes N. Balgowlah so appealing. What is the estimated reduction in water flow once the project starts? What is the estimate upon completion of the project? How much toxic runoff will there be from the tunneling? Any studies done on impact to the established plants and wildlife along the creek if water flow ceases?

My family and I have lived in North Balgowlah for more than 20 years. I have raised my children here and fully appreciate the precious natural beauty and wildlife of the area on a daily basis. I adore Manly dam and its wonderful flora and fauna seeing goanna, echidnas and stunning water birds on my regular walks. Also Burns creek which residents have worked do hard to protect and clean over the years is a delight to walk beside although it already struggles with run off pollution. Why are you set on destroying this area by digging it up for a car tunnel? Why a car tunnel in this day and age? We should be discouraging cars not encouraging them and ending up a smog filled car park like Los Angeles. Where do all the extra cars go once they leave the tunnel in North Balgowlah? The roads further north on the northern beaches can barely cope with the amount of traffic now! What about the existing residents, the waterways and the wildlife? Indigenous people understand the importance of nature and place and its time governments took note of their wisdom and deep connection and respect for the land instead of paying lip service to it with meaningless propaganda. On the one hand the government preaches about respect for indigenous values but then bulldozers their values as it always has. Can we not be more enlightened and protect nature over profit and so called progress and keep the area beautiful for our children and the flora and fauna? I implore the NSW government from the heart to not go ahead with this mass destruction. Find another solution, Lay on more B line buses which are popular and cost effective. If you insist on building a tunnel make it a train tunnel and stop encouraging people to drive cars and create a reliable public transport system so that people don't need cars but, ideally don't build a tunnel at all and keep the northern beaches beautiful for residents and visitors to share.

As a regular user of Middle Harbour, the local marinas and retail area, the Northbridge Baths and Clive Park foreshore area, my family and I are deeply concerned with the prolonged construction period, the disruption to the normal use of Middle Harbour and to waterway users, and the potential re-animation of currently stable toxins and contamination (real and potentially heavy metals and PFAS) within the Middle Harbour sediments.

The EIS, as currently drafted and notified, does not address consultation with the local community (it was notified over the Xmas period and during a northern beaches Covid-19 lock down), targeted to minimize public review and provide affected parties with limits time to access and review the documentation and supporting materials.

The EIS does not adequately address the 3.5-4yrs loss of public waterway use and the potential disruption to existing maritime users and the public at Clive Park beach. RMS should be required to provide the public with alternatives for the 3.5-4yrs waterway loss (e.g. TBM tunnelling, with nil/limited contaminate dredging risk), they should be required to mitigate and recompense the local community facilities operators, that will be significantly impacted by construction activities,construction noise and maritime restrictions to their normal activities.

Of major concern to my family, is the complete lack of technical support (e.g. topographical survey, geotechnical investigation, geological mapping or structural assessment) of existing site conditions at Clive Park (the confluence of road header tunnelling, foreshore and rock shelf demolition works, and coffer dam construction), where RMS wish carryout tunnelling directed beneath listed Aboriginal Heritage caves/shelter, artifacts and artworks.

Our family objects to this project in its current form.

There is absolutely no benefit or proof that this will be getting people into the city quicker. You are destroying the northern beaches and environmentally causing a disaster.

The potential dive site on bushland east of Flat Rock Drive poses a contamination risk and bushland and marine habitats will be destroyed. The site is a previous dumping ground so contaminants will be disturbed. Flat Rock Gully will be upturned to toxic waste, native fauna and flora will disappear and polluted run-off will go into Middle Harbour. The precious green corridor will be replaced by a giant shell . Flat Rock Gully and Tunks Park is heavily used and loved area for toddlers through to the elderly not to mention all the dogs that use the off-leash Tunks Park. It is hugely sad that we are losing this oasis with no guarantee Flat Rock Gully will be returned.

My husband and I live at Wanganella St in Balgowlah and we vehemently object to the construction of the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection for the following reasons:
- Destruction of the local environment caused by the dredging of Middle Harbour and removal of trees and native habitats including the unique bat colony located near Kitchener St
- Air and noise pollution caused directly by the construction of the tunnel in our local area for many years to come, and air pollution from increased traffic and unfiltered ventilation stacks
- We have grave concerns for the students who attend the schools located very close to the construction site - particularly Balgowlah Boys and St Cecilia's Primary School - impacts of which will disrupt the education of these students and also cause lifelong health issues for these children due to increased air and noise pollutants
- The high cost to use the tunnel when completed, as not everyone can afford to pay tolls and will instead continue to use local roads (the tunnel will not solve congestion issues for Northern Beaches residents)
- Induced demand for driving - instead of facilitating better public transport options and liveable / walkable cities, the road tunnel will induce Northern beaches residents to continue to rely on driving and car commuting, increasing the number of cars on the road for years to come (so the road tunnel doesn't solve long term traffic and congestion issues)
- The road tunnel is not public transport like a metro or train line, which would move a lot more people and is desperately needed in the busy road corridors running from North Sydney to Spit Junction (Mosman) and between Dee Why and Chatswood
- There will be less congestion and traffic in the future as more workers will continue to work from home
- Increasing public transport options such as more express bus services throughout the northern beaches and lower north shore, light rail / metro and ferry services (at the Spit, etc.) haven't been trialled first before billions are spent constructing a road toll tunnel that would forever leave a massive scar through our local community
- A road tunnel is not needed anywhere near the Seaforth / Balgowlah and Manly areas as congestion issues are primarily to the north (around Dee Why / Frenchs Forest) and between Neutral Bay and Spit Junction / Mosman (so why are we being punished with years of construction, destruction of our local environment and unfiltered vent stacks???)
- Simply put, this project will make Sydney into another Los Angeles - a city dependent on cars roads and more cars - NO THANKS - what we want is better public transport services, a liveable and walkable clean BREATHABLE city - we DO NOT WANT our local environment, our health and our community destroyed with an unnecessary road tunnel!

I strongly object to the tunnel project on the following grounds:
1) The business case has not been released. How can we know that this is the best solution?
2) No alternatives have been considered. Why was mass transit not considered? How can the government claim that this is the best solution when it is the only one presented?
3) The environmental cost of the project is extremely large. Dredging through contaminated sludge on the bottom of Middle Harbour, digging through an old tip in Flat Rock Gully. Destruction of green spaces. Enormous usage of water, extremely high waste generation. Road tunnels are larger than rail tunnels leading to higher pollution than if a rail alternative was chosen. No filtration of the tunnels is proposed leading to huge amounts of air pollution in a densely populated area with a very high number of school children (including my children). How can this be the best solution?
4) The project is not a traffic solution. The document suggests a 10% reduction in travel time along Military Road. How is it worth spending $15 billion for a mere 10% improvement that will soon be absorbed by more cars using the local roads due to induced demand and toll avoidance.
5) Impact on local roads. It is plain that our local roads will be severely negatively impacted by construction vehicles during the building stage and by extra cars coming in after construction combined with toll avoidance, as has been demonstrated in the Westconnex project area. Many of our local intersections are predicted to fail under the EIS. How is this a beneficial or efficient solution?
6) Cities in other countries are actively discouraging road traffic with congestion charging, higher taxes and incentivising usage of mass transit options. Why are we going for cars when it is not a long term solution?
I would like the following conditions imposed:
1) Release the business case for the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway connection
2) Perform a full reassessment of the traffic flows to and from the Northern Beaches which needs to include data collected after 2016 (as has been used in the current EIS). This is particularly important in the light of increased working from home in the past year.
4) Undertake a re-assessment of surface level traffic with all major local roads included in the operational modelling ie) Eastern Valley Way, the full span of Military Rd and Willoughby Rd need to be included. The surface road traffic assessment should then inform the pollution impact of the project as the pollution contribution is not only limited to the stacks.
5) The dive site along Flat Rock Drive should be reconsidered due to the conflict between children and trucks and risks associated around safety, noise, dust, traffic etc. If this cannot be done, then there needs to be an overpass or underpass on Brook St to allow children to get safely to school. Consideration needs to be given to exclusion of trucks from the road during school bus times and pollution/ noise mitigation devices need to be prioritised.
6) A comparative public transport options analysis must be published (via a reissuance of the EIS for public consultation) that compares the traffic implications both during and after construction of a mass transit solution. Within the re-issued EIS provide a comprehensive alternatives analysis which clearly demonstrates the project's superiority over the Dee Why to Chatswood mass transit alternative or other viable mass transit option detailing all sustainability and climate impacts for comparison.

I Object to the proposal on the following grounds.

TRAFFIC:

Time savings for drivers are clearly wrong. Residents experience 30 and 35 minute journeys during peak hours to drive into the city from Balgowlah and Fairlight respectively. Modelling forecasts that by 2037 drivers will save 30 minutes to drive to the city from Brookvale or Balgowlah must therefore be questionable - at best. Claims that the Link Tunnel is needed to alleviate traffic on the Spit bridge route between the Northern Beaches and the city are therefore equally questionable.

Time-savings errors cast serious doubt on the financial benefit claims in both the Benefit Cost ratio and Cost Analysis. The consequent financial implications for both government and toll operator are serious. This has already been demonstrated in earlier tunnel/toll projects in Sydney. It is unacceptable to keep falling back on re-negotiating poorer terms.

It is curious, alarming and clearly wrong that Chapter 4 of the EIS equates more buses with more congestion. How odd then that the government has had success with its B-Line introductions and the planned route between Dee Why and Chatswood has been so warmly welcomed. Residents have confirmed they will return to public transport (especially to and from the city) once COVID restrictions no longer apply.

The EIS has not taken into account the current and future changes to the way people now work and spend leisure time. To claim this is temporary and traffic will return to pre-pandemic numbers is at best wishful thinking. It certainly flies in the face of the global evidence and research as well as history. Work From Home (full-time or hybrid) has been embraced by workers and employers alike because they recognise financial and social benefits for themselves. This includes government departmental staff and managers.

Proceeding with this project will significantly increase the uptake of Work From Home numbers as construction disrupts more and more routes. Temporaries Become Permanents and this will increase Work From Home and WFH Hubs changing the future shape of transport needs. Currently more than 50-percent of those living on the Northern Beaches stay within that zone for their work and leisure activities. The Beaches Link Tunnel throughout construction and beyond will raise that figure.

As with every other Toll Road built in this State, Transport for New South Wales admits there will be significant traffic congestion increases from the time construction begins and continuing into the future upon completion of the tunnel. Why then build a Tunnel that makes matters worse not better?

Rat Runs to avoid paying tolls have become a nightmare for residents across Sydney pushing congestion into narrow suburban streets. This has been and continues to be a major problem created by the State government. Yet another reason why this project is unnecessary and destructive.


Widening roads fail to mitigate traffic congestion. They increase congestion then move it along rather than mitigate it. Roadworks aim to increase population density. Congestion is therefore exacerbated not alleviated. This Tunnel proposal is a massive problem not a solution. It is clearly an effort to minimise public transport options and maximise individual transportation by car and truck. There is not even provision for public transport to access the Tunnel.

There appears to be no Business Plan for this project. Unsurprisingly as there is an obvious absence of science-based evidence to support the EIS. Science-based evidence around permanent environmental damage to large areas of threatened and endangered flora and fauna species has been ignored or deliberately minimised. So too the lack of evidence supporting the current Beaches Link Tunnel proposal as the only transport option for the Northern Beaches. Even the claims it will substantially benefit Mosman and Cremorne Military Road traffic lack science-based evidence. I believe it is clearly and totally politically driven.


ENVIRONMENT

There are serious threats to rare and endangered fauna species throughout the construction period of the Tunnel Link with permanent, irreversible consequences.

Transport for New South Wales admits it cannot control polluted water flowing into Manly Dam and thence into Bantry Bay. The only population left in Sydney of Gondwanan Climbing Galaxias fish in Manly Creek is likely to be wiped out as a consequence of water quality loss from runoff flowing from construction activity on the Wakehurst Parkway ridges and slopes. The TNSW EIS confirms it cannot control this during heavy rain. Claims the biodiversity is 'pollution tolerant' are incorrect. There has been considerable community work to protect this area and its species. The EIS would destroy that work.

The Bantry Bay reservoirs bushland at Kirkwood Avenue is home to the threatened Eastern Bent-wing bat (not listed in the Beaches Link EIS), the equally threatened and fragile Pygmy Possum, rare bushland and fauna biodiversity. All were identified by the 2018 Sydney Water Total Earth Care Biodiversity Study.

The NSW Government has already failed to meet its promise to return land intact and in its original condition to the Manly Warringah War Memorial Park after the expansion of the Manly Vale Public School. The Government is now promising to re-vegetate and return land to the Park after the Link Tunnel work is complete. This assurance is hollow and cannot be trusted. As well, requirements to swap equivalent bush on a like-for-like basis is impossible. There are no known equivalent land areas with the range of fauna and flora slated for destruction by Transport for New South Wales. Claims this can and will be done are spurious. They are yet more evidence of the EIS inability to provide science-based evidence to back its findings.

This project is seriously flawed and must be returned to the drawing board.

The proposed Beaches Link will negatively impact the Balgowlah/Seaforth/ North Balgowlah communities in a number of ways and I strongly object to the construction of this tunnel.

It is important to note that the perceived need for a tunnel is based on the now outdated business case of relatively large numbers of commuters travelling to and from business centres such as the Sydney CBD. This model is now changing with an increasing number of people working from home part or full-time with reduced reliance on a commute. The project is not making Sydney future-ready and money would be better spent on infrastructure to enable new ways of working rather than encourage road traffic. The actual need for a tunnel needs to be re-evaluated.

The project also presents limited benefits to the local area, other than perhaps some recreational facilities in Balgowlah. The downsides of the project include:

1. Air quality:
- Regardless of the control measures put in place, the air quality will be impacted even if pollutants can be maintained within World Health Organisation suggested limits. Why should we accept a reduction in air quality?
- Parts of the North Balgowlah community and surrounding areas will be subject to two ventilation stacks and their discharges, in addition to the larger pollution generated by the increased traffic on Wakehurst Parkway and Burnt bridge creek deviation
- the Balgowlah stack is located in a valley, effectively reducing its effectiveness by exposing dwellings and school located on higher ground to polluted discharges. Some studies on this topic (e.g. Technical Paper TP05: Road Tunnel Stack Emissions) look at dilution with a stack surrounded by flat land, which is not the case here. The North Balgowlah community will be directly affected by this plume. What are the impacts of that stack?
- There are known issues with control of pollutant discharges on existing tunnels. Examples of pollutant design levels being exceeded around stack discharges exist, and regardless of mitigation and control measures in place. Why should we accept such a high risk on people's health?

2. Visual impact
- Stacks can be as high as 35m i.e. taller than a 10-storey building. This is visually very intrusive and will be an eye-sore in an area where planning regulations limit dwelling to a 2-storey height and very close to a vast expanse of bushland. Both the Balgowlah and North Balgowlah stack will be very visible. Why should this be considered acceptable?
- Those stacks would be in place for decades, regardless of becoming effectively redundant as the country transitions to electric vehicles.

3. Increased traffic in local area
- Negative impact of the Balgowlah access rd and traffic lights on the already congested Sydney Rd (increased travelling time for Sydney Rd users between Seaforth and Manly

4. Other environmental impacts
- Traffic noise higher than current due to increased volume of vehicles. This will impact both populated areas as well as the peaceful Manly Dam bushland
- Water runs-offs to Manly Dam during construction and in operation.
- Discharge of the water collected by the tunnel drainage system
- Local reconfiguration of Wakehurst parkway and encroachment on Manly Dam: reduces bushland, impact on popular mountain biking and walking trails
-Potential impact on Manly Dam, one of the rare swimmable bodies of fresh water in Sydney

Refer to the attachment

As a long term resident of North Balgowlah with a young family I am deeply concerned on a number of levels. Firstly that virtually no consideration has been given to the long term health impacts of unfiltered ventilation stacks that concentrate carcinogenic pollution on a residential area that includes 2 primary schools. If this was not enough (and I’d be interested in how the government will pay out compensation in the years to come for health conditions arising directly from tunnel related air pollution - is there a duty of care here?). Secondly the impact of the construction work itself for the same pollution issue but also for the noise and vibration and potential for structural damage to our property. Balgowlah North is a quiet, family based, residential suburb, this will represent 7 years of concentrated industrialisation turning this quiet suburb into a constant and intrusive building site. Are our children safe on the roads? how will local traffic management be achieved when traffic from further up the Northern Beaches and Frenchies Forrest try to find its way around the construction and “rat runs” through local streets? The first child killed by a lorry or car as a direct result of the increase traffic will be one too many. How will traffic safety be assured? I would also wonder what the economic value actually is for this tunnel. Assuming like most tunnels (Lane Cove as a prime example) a majority of drivers try to avoid during commuting given the punitive costs of tolls, won’t the tunnel simply drive up the congestion through Mosman? And where is all this traffic going? There are already major traffic jams across the bridge and in the tunnel, and nowhere to park once in Sydney, so what exactly is the point? I understand that deals have been done with developers and we will see a massive explosion of houses in key areas of the Northern Beaches, and the tunnel is there to service the increased commuter traffic. Does this not simply mean massive congestion at Brookvale or Deewhy and Mona Vale? In the age of global warming this project seems to be 20 years out of date, why not a pure public transport solution if it’s people we are shifting, private cars are fundamentally uneconomic. So it really points to the question of why? What problem are we trying to solve here? As this seems like a politically motivated solution to a problem we simply don’t have. And post COVID pandemic the work life balance will mean for most, particularly in areas of socioeconomic levels such as the Northern Beaches, commuting is no longer necessary, so what value does the tunnel provide? It is very likely to turn into a massive economic “white elephant” given the toll returns will not meet current economic projections, then what? Or is that filed under “not my problem”? Most first world countries, Europe being a prime example, are seeing 40-50% drop (if not more) in commuting, with many people looking to move further out from city centres as there is no need to commute, work from home is here to stay. Even if the population of the Northern Beaches were to dramatically increase over the next 10 years, there will be no corresponding increase in CBD daily commuting. It is far more likely that we will need distributed work hubs and technology capability rather than a 19th century industrial revolution style approach to modern living. This project reflects poor and outdated approaches to modernisation. It would be a tragic misappropriation of public funds.