Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I object to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) lodged by Transport for NSW (Proponent / TfNSW) for the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project #SSI-8861 (Beaches Link Project)

Please understand, I believe my community should be prepared to put up with negative project impacts for a greater good. However, in the absence of the Beaches Link Project lodging a business case, and no adequate consideration of a public transport option, especially a Dee Why to Chatswood rail link, I cannot yet see a greater good.

Accordingly, I object to the EIS on the grounds of:
1. Lack of consultation
The EIS was lodged during the school holidays with a lack of community explanations and consultation.

2. Negative impact on Middle Harbour and its surrounds
a) Impact on water activities and aquatic life. There has been no health assessment undertaken of the impact of the dredging on the regular users of Middle Harbour (water access and swimming water activities) nor on aquatic life.
b) Loss of bushland - Flat Rock Gully. The dive site will destroy vegetation that has taken 30 years to grow since rehabilitation of the underlying rubbish tip, and is expected to disrupt the water table. The EIS has not considered the aims of the SEPP Bushland in Urban Areas
c) Potential destruction of Aboriginal rock art sites - Clive Park

3. Contamination risks in dredging Middle Harbour
The EIS shows that contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in sediment sampling in Middle Harbour and that many of these contaminants are dangerous to human health as they have been found above ‘safe levels’ and mentions a high probability of acid sulphate soils. The proposed mitigating silk curtains are inadequate and the disposal site of removed contaminated soil is not revealed.
There is no consideration of SREP Sydney Harbour Catchment 2005 requirements nor the planning principles for land within the Sydney Harbour Catchment.

I strongly believe the government should look into alternate solution like improving public transport instead of building the tunnel
I object to the the tunnel being built as it is very costly,outdated design tunnel, has huge impact on the environment , huge disruption to the local community & create huge traffic jam while it is being built
We shall lost the open space provided by the golf course
Most important of all I object to the unfiltered stacks which is harmful to the people living around

I object to this project as it is going to do major damage to the bushlad and animals in the area. The increase of cars in the area will affect the infrastructure we don't have. And the pollution from the exhaust fans will effect local arears.
This tunnel is not the solution for our area.

Please refer to the attached document, strongly opposing the project on behalf of the Balgowlah Residents Group.

I object to this project. The business case should be released for public consideration. The case justifying why this project should be approved should include detailed assessments of traffic on local roads, parking considerations, the travel times / savings and expected demand for the routes chosen and the cost of treatment of spoil and contamination. There has been insufficient justification of the risks and a complete lack of consideration of public transport options. Allowing diesel vehicles in a tunnel of this length with unfiltered stacks borders on criminal. How can there be a justification for that into such a heavily populated area with so many schools being affected?

I write as a long term resident of Northbridge and now Castlecrag - and a member of Northbridge Sailing Club - first as a member as an adolescent n the early 1970s. I have been a member at the club for the last 20 years, including Commodore. I am fortunate to have three adult children that all sail and like me, have contributed to this community and the proud legacy of the club.
I do not seek to oppose progress and recognise that Sydney (and Australia's success) is dependent on a growing economy. However - this progress must take into account the key stakeholders of any community. Should the tunnel go ahead, I believe it is critical that the needs of the club be considered by
1/ providing sufficient space during construction to enable the Club's racing to continue, 50m is not sufficient.
2/ that due consideration be provided to the re-positioning of any moored boats, which already encroach on the racing area to provide a

Should that not be feasible, it is only reasonable that the club be compensated recognising that the absence of sailing poses a significant risk to the ongoing viability of a community club, operated by volunteers
Upper Middle Harbour is a natural asset that is fundamental to the enjoyment of the many suburbs that border this water way.
I trust NSW Government will give due consideration to the needs of voters in this community
Thank you for consideration of this submission.
Tony Stephens

I’m concerned about Northbridge Sailing Club (NSC) sailing area being greatly compromised by the construction work, specifically the maritime exclusion zones between Seaforth Bluff and Clive Park associated with the submerged tunnel works. This will make sailing, especially racing, from the club less viable - the exclusion zone cuts our main racing courses in half. My son recently started sailing at NSC - the friendly nature of the club and especially the Live-In week have allowed him to gain newfound confidence at a time when Covid have made transitioning to High School a real challenge.
I fear the impact on our club and community will be profound. With the sailing degraded we will lose members and be less able to attract new members, which affects the club’s viability. As a club that depends heavily on volunteers for maintenance and improvements, this loss of members will leave less of a critical mass to regenerate the club following the Beaches Link construction.
Whilst understanding the need for the innovation of the Beaches Link, and that progress will always have some impact, I hope that TfNSW minimize the impact of maritime restrictions by urgently consulting in good faith with Northbridge Sailing Club, to help assist in retaining and regaining NSC’s viability.

EIS to be reissued for public consultation with a
1) A full Phase 2 Contamination Assessment completed
2) A comparative mass transit alternative assessment
3) A business case which justifies travel times claimed, re-assesses surface traffic impact and includes fully scoped costs.

I would also like to request for an additional 2trees to replace every tree that is being knowcked down to do the project.

The project will have a significant and damaging impact on the environment, with little discernable benefit to the community. The cost of the tunnel both financially and environmentally is not viable. There may not be the traffic volume travelling in either the north to city, or city to north directions to support its use and the massive cost also there appears to be little or no consideration for increased public transport. Considering the environment impact both the construction will have in the short term, and the pollution from the stacks will have in the long term.
However I would support the project if more consideration was placed on preserving the maximum amount of the environment including the Burnt Bridge Creek and also improved filtration of the stacks
We owe it to future generations to built infrastructure that will support the needs of Sydney in the future without damaging our environment.
Public transport options MUST be considered and implemented.

I object the proposed Northern Beaches Tunnel.
The environmental impacts, including the widening of the Walehurst Parkway, damage to manly dam and other aquatic environments and particularly the emissions. The benefits from tunnel do not match the ecological and economic cost. The WFH environment has changed the way the city commute occurs with noticeably less traffic. Work should instead be done on incentivising public transport

As a resident i fully appreciate the issues of traffic congestion. However to implement a tunnel with so many flaws and gaps in the analysis and consideration is simply not acceptable, this includes:
1. limited consideration for public transport is a major oversight and simply not aligned to how we should be growing the city. I recognise train is likely far more expensive, but not to allocate priority T3 or bus lanes within the tunnel or additional capacity for a dedicated bus lane is just going to put more cars on the road long term.
2. no filtration on the stacks concentrating fumes across numerous residential areas but also include many schools. as a data analyst, the modelling seems to be flawed not considering peaks and focusing on averages which disguises significant peaks in pollutants. without this understanding it cannot be concluded the impact is not material to the health of residents.
3. the unprecedencted events of covid have drastically changed traffic and working patterns and should be considered in updated analysis, which has a knock on impact on a number of states about volumes and reductions for which the tunnel project is meant to deliver/remediate
4. it appears there is a flaw in the analysis suggesting EIS considers various scenarios however it seems that analysis of the western harbor tunnel without beaches link is missing
5. it seems consultation has been lacking given not all questions are answered in online / virtual sessions, and with overwhelming opposition to 2018 consultation (2243 against v 184 for)
6. seems to be a lax approach to minimising and ensuring monitoring and controls of pollution
local road impacts are dismissed as council requirement to remediate however no considration for the costs and ability of the council to action.
7. as someone who has recentlly been drastically impacted by 3rd party contractors flouting rules associated with a nearby construction in my old residence (Manly flats), with no real consequence nor enforcement (early morining starts, late night works etc), I'm concerned about use of 3rd party contractors and no control over contract discretion to operate outside of standard hours.
7. given issues with north connex and findings from recent review stating inadquate noise mitigation measures, this should not proceed without proper investigation and understanding of the measures that will be provieded incluiding independent assessment and ongoing monitoring and reporting.
8. worker parking has been a huge issue for us at at other worksites (see prior example, and my experience around barangaroo). we need guarantee about not consuming scarce street parking and improved parking facilities for workers
NOTE: given the recent cuts to north balgowalh buses, this is going to have the knock on impact for workers attmpeting to get to north balgowlah/seaforth from other areas of the city

I object to the Northern Beaches Link upgrade on behalf of myself and my children. This submission outlines my specific objections, where the EIS should be revisited and mitigations should this project go ahead.

This submission is in three sections: 1. Objections; 2. Revisit the EIS; and 3. Mitigation and Conditions of Approval.

1. Objections
My objections are due to:
1.1 Climate Change, Sustainability, Accessibility, Liveability
1.2 Health and Safety
1.3 Green Space

Although, i can understand the overall concept of the Northern beaches tunnel project may add value I do not support the current design. I have taken part in the community consultation process in recent months (which to be honest wasn't a consultation process, it was the people from the design team telling us what was going to happen - there was nothing consultative about it at all) and nothing that has been suggested here in these sessions have served to change my opinion. I object to the current design and would like to see changes to the design that take into account the local community.

Specific areas i object to include:

- The main tunnel portal on the Wakehurst parkway is too close to homes, only 300m to the nearest house and not much more 500m from my house - i would suggest that this could and should be much further up the Wakehurst parkway potentially as far north as the Warringah road interchange which would much less impact on all resident of this lovely local community. I understand this would come at additional cash cost but i still cannot understand why this is not being considered.
- Where the current Wakehurst parkway tunnel portal is situated provide no benefit to the people of Seaforth / North Balgowlah and is primary providing benefit to those further north in the northern beaches. We have no access to this tunnel portal but we are wearing the brunt of the pain in construction.
- Up to seven years of of construction work in our local areas is just far too long and will impact the lives of the local to greatly, only to end up with motorway next door
- I have significant concerns about the the contribution period in terms of noise, pollution, traffic, local parking, vibration etc
- I also have serious concern about the air quality issues with the exhaust stakes being in such close proximity to our house and the local neighborhood including the school which my children attend.

Whilst the concept makes a lot of sense and i cannot support the current design and changes which take into account the local opinion need to be made.

I object to the project on the following grounds:
1. The NSW Government has failed to provide a business for this state significant piece of infrastructure. In my view, whatever business case existed prior to the CoVid 19 pandemic is now under even greater pressure due to the irreversible impact of the pandemic on office based work practices noting that it is reasonable to assume that a large percentage of the traffic that was expected to use the tunnel in the weekday morning and evening peaks is commuting to the city to work in office. What is now becoming obvious is that office based employees will increasingly take advantage of employer introduced flexible working arrangements. It is likely that office employees will work from home up to 2 days a week which will reduce weekday use of the proposed tunnel by 40%. This will likely be the outcome over the life of the tunnel. This will make the tunnel unbankable and will require an even greater NSW Government underwrite? This cannot be the best use of taxpayers money i.e. an asset that taxpayers will not use
2. There has been no attempt to demonstrate the feasibility of public transit alternatives. This is despite the apparent success of the North West Metro project noting that that project will also likely suffer reduced patronage as a result of the changing practices discussed in point 1 above. The project must consider the viability of other alternatives prior to any decision – there should be a process that is similar to the RIT – T test in the energy sector where the purpose of the RIT-T is to identify the transmission investment option which maximises net economic benefits. In other words, what consideration has been given to whether a tunnel is the best outcome?
3. In the event that the NSW Government chooses to proceed in any case, the proposed Flat Rock Road site should be moved to the Artarmon Industrial Estate for the obvious reason that it is already an industrial estate meaning that there will be no impact to flora, fauna, residential neighbours, residential streets. The main tunnels go through the industrial estate in any event so I do not understand why it is not feasible to have the access site there?

Save the wild life!

To Whom It MayConcern,

Please refer below to my objections to the beaches link tunnel:

1. The EIS is not current. Most of it was written before covid and does not take into account the changed world with hybrid working becoming the norm. With new ways of working this has drastically affected travel data including time and quantities. A new post-covid EIS needs to be written and re-submitted for community consultation.
2. The tunnel does not sufficiently seek to mitigate environmental impacts. It lags behind worlds best practice by excluding filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emissions stacks. The non-filtered emission stacks will spew the byproducts from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of Cammeray and North Sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. This is unacceptable as car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health, with the effect heightened in young children.
3. The tunnel only goes to Balgowlah, thus the name ‘beaches link’ is misguided and misrepresentative.
4. The original document signed by Mike Baird when Premier, clearly stated that public transport not be considered when assessing solutions for traffic congestion on Military Road. As such the basis of the project is biased and a full investigation into all potential solutions should be launched. This includes a full investigation and cost analysis into public transport options, including a rail link from Dee Why to Chatswood. There have also been reports that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from the project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and may also have proposed a deal to provide Mike Baird with a post political job within the transport industry. Therefore the project may be subject to false, biased and corrupt selection process.
5. At $15,000,000,000 the project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlined and a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis must occur. As 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. The private toll road 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. Combined with reduced road traffic due to new ways of working, triggered by COVID, the project’s negative impacts and costs will outweigh any suggested benefits.
7. Due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand', whereby the absence of viable public transport options, increases car travel, any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. As a result the project is short sighted.
8. The project promotes car traffic in the city. 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 does not align with the City of Sydney’s plan to create more pedestrian ways in the CBD and divert traffic away from the city.
9. The primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it entails digging through an old contaminated dump site. The land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped last century. Digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. The number of truck movements along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road.
10. 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. The risk of contaminating the area and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor and Tunks Parks waters is unacceptable.
11. The proposed coffer dam off Northbridge is unacceptable. 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 and 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 an 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. The project is not in alignment with this policy as it will result in bulldozing at Flat Rock Gully to make way for the dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses.
13. The advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. However, an engineer at a northbridge information session advised the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. If this is the case the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and not provided accurate information for community consultation.
14. The plans for the tunnel are less than 50% complete, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, and must be re-done and submitted for further consultation.

I object to the beaches link due to the negative environmental and social impacts. The projects expense is not justifiable based on the data supplied. I demand a new EIS is complete and public transport solutions are considered.

I object to the project because the cost of $15 billion to cut 10 minutes off the journey from Brookvale to the city is ridiculously high. Within a few years the traffic will build up again. We need better public transport systems. It is simply bringing more cars to an already crowded area.
As more people now work from home and will continue to do so, this project needs to be reassessed urgently.
I am very concerned about the environmental impacts of the unfiltered exhaust stacks which will be placed at Wakehurst Parkway- North Balgowlah and Seaforth-Manly West and Cammeray. There are many schools in these areas which will be directly effected and I am not satisfied that enough research has been done to protect them.
I am concerned that building the tunnels will take 7 years during which time spoil trucks will be driving backwards and forwards clogging up the roads causing more congestion and pollution.
I am upset that Balgowlah Golf Course and Oval will be badly effected, partly destroyed and some of it permanently lost. Local streets will become parking lots for the workers during the years of construction.
The risks and detrimental effects of this project grossly outweigh the benefits.
I grew up in Seaforth and my family still live there. My elderly parents are concerned about their Physical and mental health, the health of their community and the value of their property being effected.
Please reconsider this waste of money project.

Objection to the Beaches Link EIS
Inadequate Definition of Need
I STRONGLY OBJECT to the Beaches Link EIS because of the negative impacts on environment, community, traffic, biodiversity and sustainability.
Problem:
These issues arise because of lack of transparency and because there is no public business case. In particular:
• There is no cost justification for a minimum spend of $14 billion.
• There is no analysis of feasible alternatives.
• There is no analysis of the multiple negative impacts on the environment, including the loss of green space, the diminished air quality, the Sydney Basin weather effect.
• There is no analysis of the negative impacts on the health of the community of the North Sydney LGA and the largest school community in Australia.
• There are no initiatives that will ameliorate the negative impacts on traffic flows, peak hour failure points, street parking, and pedestrian access in the North Sydney LGA.
• There are no positive “clever” initiatives that will validate the construction, either now or in the future. For example, putting the supporting infrastructure building underground.
• There is very little synergy with other Government planning initiatives, for example, protecting green space, protecting mature trees, providing effective public transport, providing cycleways. The exception is the Greater Sydney Commission’s goal for a greatly increased population in the Northern Beaches.
• There seems very little justification in terms of traffic improvement for those travelling from the Northern Beaches, or along Military Road. Versus the introduction of very adverse conditions for the Northern Sydney LGA, the loss of connectivity and the forcing of local traffic onto longer, more circuitous routes.
• There is no provision for the impact of COVID on the life and work habits of the population.
• There is insufficient analysis of the risks associated with managing the waste associated with the construction. One factor is the potential risk to marine and land eco-systems; the other factor is the potential risks associated with storing and transporting this waste though our suburbs.
Recommendation:
To address this, I recommend that all work ceases immediately and a proper analysis of need, impact, and alternative solutions, is conducted immediately.

I strongly oppose the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection. It is an insult to invite the community to lodge submissions after hearing from Transport NSW that the design process is only 25% completed. No architect would lodge plans only 25% completed to either client or Council - yet we are expected to make decisions based on so little information. Insulting.

It is an outrage that bush land on Flat Rock Drive will be destroyed to make way for a dive site. The community has toiled for many years to rehabilitate this precious site; it is highly valued and well used by many. The plans show no respect for the bush care workers nor to those who recreate in Flat Rock Drive.

Wildlife habitat preservation, particularly post-2020 bushfires, is crucial. Flat Rock Drive and Middle Harbour are unique and valuable ecosystems which make our suburb such a wonderful place. The destruction will be devastating.

The dredging operations and sea bed disturbance, not to mention the noise and contamination threat, are completely unacceptable. The proposal to flush contaminated water into Middle Harbour is just beyond belief. It is almost as if we don’t know the dangers from the spread of contaminants to human health, the marine environment and ecosystems. The NSW Government site reports that the Government values the natural environment - it is about time they showed some regard for it, by discarding this project.

Northbridge residents stand to gain nothing and lose so much from this project. This project may become palatable if public transport, specifically a train service, was planned for the Northern Beaches. Sydney needs no more cars on the roads and is in desperate need of better public transport. The planned unfiltered pollution stacks, especially around an area with many schools, is absolutely against the United Nations charter of rights of the child. Completely unsatisfactory.

I urge you to put the money set aside for this project towards building sustainable public transport networks which would be a wonderful legacy of this government.

I support the submission made by Northbridge Progress Association.