Western Harbour Tunnel & Warringah Freeway Upgrade

Objection: Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade - SSI-8863

I object to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway upgrade.

I began reading the confusing and overwhelming 10,000-page EIS document while Australia was burning and in drought. I have them attempted to plough through the rest while locked in a house trying to keep my job and school my small children – it’s been highly stressful. Its disrespectful to ask us to come out to meetings to understand what this is about while the very person in charge of this is insisting, we stay home.

The EIS has been made as difficult as possible to follow and its astounding that the other part of this project is being held back, yet large portions are being included in this EIS. An underhanded tactic from the government.

In summary, this is why I strongly object to the project:
- I OBJECT because of the significant risk to the health and safety – especially to the long-term health of our children through a loss of precious local green space, trees, water resources and ADDED pollution
- I OBJECT because of the environmental impacts – the harbour, the loss of green space, the removal of precious water resources, the NOISE. This is not what we should be doing while we live in a time of such fragility
- I OBJECT because there have been no public transport options proposed and the modelling for this project is OLD (it is out of date legally and should be re-done)
- I OBJECT because there is going to be an increase in rat running on our local streets as cars navigate through trying to get to a freeway entrance/exit
- I OBJECT to the unfiltered smokestacks which have been moved away from private schools and towards public schools – PRIMARY ones to that. My children, age 4 and 6, deserve to grow up with clean air. The modelling on these stacks is questionable –
o 2 km Lane Cove tunnel – when you add the Beaches Link this will stretch to over 15kms with more lanes
o Short term impact studies
o There are NO long tunnels being built around the world without filtration. The one that keeps being quoted in Sweden has a stack every 1.5 – 2kms. My children will receive the full brunt of 2 long tunnels.
- I OBJECT to the noise my children are going to have to suffer 24/7 while trying to learn and study. Their futures are at risk. And once the noise subsides – in 10 years when you tack on the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel – they will be left reliant on emission creating cars, with no public transport, less green space and a lot of air pollution
- I OBJECT to this project because it takes you nowhere
- I OBJECT because the justifications for this project are at best a stretch – especially as there is no published and clear business case. It features low on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list and the EIS lacks some significant detail. The outcomes seem, at best, poor
- I OBJECT to having $16-$20 billion of my tax payed dollars put into this project while there are tens (hundreds?) of thousands without jobs, communities trying to re-build after unprecedented bushfires and no long term plan to future proof our water supply – other than crossing our fingers
- I OBJECT to the hold that Transurban has on our road network – they have already expressed interest in this road. Are we doing this to pay back for the disaster of Westconnex?
- I OBJECT to jobs being advertised before the EIS has been closed. Could this be explained to me in writing?

I live 300 metres from this project in a kind-hearted, close knit community. We came to Cammeray for the access to green space, good schools and its community spirit – so our kids could grow up in a safe environment. There is nothing for Cammeray to gain out of this project – nothing at all. It, and the surrounding suburbs are going to be torn apart long term for absolutely no gain.

My street – Amherst – already suffers from a lot of traffic and this is going to clog it up. People will – as proven before – use back streets to avoid tolls. We don’t need more tolls and cars – we need a decent public transport network. Time and time again it has proven that roads called induced demand. Studies this year have already shown that building public transport also creates demand – people want it.

I already worry about the future our children have in Australia. Of our poor approach to lowering our environmental footprint. Projects like this should not go ahead – they are not helping.

I ask that this project is HALTED immediately so an alternative public transport feasibility study be published before any further planning occurs so that impacts and outcomes can be fairly compared. This project is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city with a strong public transport system.

I ask for a full response to my objections. I agree to having my submission published without my address, email and phone number.

Yours sincerely,
Samantha Philp

Samantha Philp
78 Amherst Street
Cammeray
2062
[email protected]
0410 696 730

Attention: Director, Transport Assessments
Planning & Assessment, Department of Planning
Industry and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124

March 29th 2020

Objection: Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade - SSI-8863

I write to express my objection to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade. I have done my best to read the extensive EIS documents at this very difficult time. I have significant concerns about the justification for this project particularly given that there is no published business case, it is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list and that the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety while delivering poor outcomes.

Firstly, I object to this project continuing to be placed on exhibition during the COVID-19 Crisis. This project impacts the largest precinct of schools in Australia and passes through highly residential areas. Families, community groups and schools have been under a huge amount of strain throughout the exhibition stage. Meetings have had to be cancelled and we have been social distancing as instructed. Trying to read these documents has created more anxiety. The project should be re-exhibited well after the COVID-19 crisis has passed and when normal life returns.

Secondly, I object to the project due to the poor climate and sustainability outcomes and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces.

• I object to the emissions increase around the Cammeray Golf Course area and the total Surface area of Emissions. I also object to the loss of trees overall as there is limited natural green space and it will effect the immediate local environment and be detrimental to health.
Thirdly, I object to the project due to the poor Traffic and Congestion outcomes.

• I object to the increased traffic and congestion in Cammeray and North Sydney. This will affect my children travelling independently to school and High School and will contribute to a poor health environment. I also strongly object to the Congestion and Traffic outcomes in the following areas: Miller Street/Warringah Freeway off ramp (morning peak) • Miller Street/Falcon Street (morning peak) • Military Road/Ben Boyd Road (evening peak) • Mount Street/Arthur Street (evening peak) • Pacific Highway/Berry Street (evening peak) • Pacific Highway/Bay Road (morning peak) • Ernest Street/Ben Boyd Road (morning and evening peak).
• I object to the duration of years that this impact will have on our daily commute from Mosman to North Sydney for Primary School, involving driving for drop off and collection, plus the daily commute to High School for a new Year 7 student, getting used to independent travel and facing this for the duration of their entire high school years.
Lastly, the construction and operational risks are far too high for residents and school children along the route

I object to the construction as the construction risks and operational risks are far too high and for far too long a duration of years to be acceptable for Primary School and High School students learning to commute independently. The risk for their health from pollution and traffic and for the end result is too high.

I object to the project as it does not seem necessary and money would be far better spent on improved public transport. This project seems to be going against all the other project focus in Sydney on light rail, more ferries and trams in the other parts. It is not responsible to the environment and health of the community.

This project is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city with a strong public transport system. 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,

Name witheld.

Declaration of any reportable political donations
made in the previous 2 years e.g. I have not made any reportable political donations in the past two years.

I am a resident in Balgowlah, and will therefore be impacted by the "Beaches Link" project. I object in the strongest possible terms to the project, which appears to be fundamentally flawed.

Others have written about the lack of a business case for the project; in fact, some of my fellow residents who are skilled financial and economic modellers have prepared their own, which appears to demonstrate the infeasibility of the project. An infeasible project still risks being built if the government is willing to go out on a limb and subsidise its construction. I object to that as a taxpayer as well as a resident - that is not a good use of tax income. However, as the document is an EIS, I also object on an environmental basis: a project without a sound financial case, needs to be justifiable on some other basis, and this project simply fails on environmental grounds. It is an enormous construction project with a very long (and still uncertain) timeframe which will disrupt the lives and livelihood of residents, to the detriment of their health both mental and physical. The increased traffic throughout the construction period will impact the suburb day and night, imposing more car fumes and noise, and construction dust and noise. And once built, the increased traffic induced by the added road capacity provided by the tunnel will rapidly erode any temporary traffic congestion, instead resulting in more cars on the road. All this instead of a properly designed public transport system which will not only be better for the environment, it will undoubtedly cut congestion as well.

This is not a project which should be built because it is visionary. It is the very opposite of that. It is outmoded thinking from a bygone age. My personal view is that the only reason it has gone this far is that the "magic maths" of infrastructure finance and the science of induced traffic result in roads projects being supremely attractive to governments. In other words, the tunnels as a road project appeal because they can be built and readily sold to the private sector, with the illusion being that the taxpayer is better off, when in fact the taxpayer is still paying taxes, but now he also needs to pay for his roads. If the project offered a genuine solution to congestion, instead of relying on congestion to fund it, I might have been supportive of the project as a "visionary" one to improve our city. Instead, we the taxpayers are being asked to underwrite the construction of a financially infeasible project, at a time when the economy is taking an immense, once in a generation hit from COVID-19. It is irresponsible. The project should be shelved and reassessed properly.

Impact on Traffic Once Constructed
1) The traffic modelling is hopelessly optimistic and misleading, and does not appear to satisfy the requirements of the project study. In Chapter 9, there is only one reference to the phrase "induced traffic" (Table 9-1, p 9-2), despite the phenomenon being a well-known problem when attempting to solve traffic problems by building more roads. Nowhere in the EIS is there a detailed description of the impact constructing the tunnels will have on the overall traffic levels, when this should be a basic requirement of any such study. It is very well accepted that constructing more roads generates an increase in overall traffic levels, and therefore an eventual return to the congestion which incited the project in the first place. As this document is an EIS, it is a huge mistake to allow any further study of the project to proceed without addressing induced demand. If it is accepted that cars are generally more polluting per passenger than public transport, then a road tunnel, particularly without an explicit public transport component to its planning, is going to result in a worse environmental outcome than doing nothing. The tunnel will simply result in more cars on the road, not less, to the detriment of every single Sydneysider.
2) The traffic modelling has inadequately considered local effects. Figure 9-2 in Chapter 9 illustrates the"Operational Road Traffic Modelling Area". In my suburb, Balgowlah, the highlighted streets include only Sydney Road, the Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation, Condamine Street and Kitchener Street. This is hopelessly inadequate to properly assess traffic movements using Spit Bridge now, and conceptually using the tunnel at a later date. The modelling has not considered the rat-running which already takes place during the commuting hours, which will only get worse with increased traffic loads on streets during and after construction. A large number of local schools, both primary and secondary, are located on main roads (e.g. Balgowlah Boys) and parallel routes (St Cecilia's Catholic School, Balgowalah North and Manly West). It is unconscionable that no consideration has been given to the safety and health of the children attending these schools resulting from increased traffic flows around their schools, and in particular the dangers posed by rat-running commuters. Even if the traffic improves post construction - and I firmly believe it will be worse - then these kids face faster traffic flowing past their schools. The approach is irresponsible at best. As I have typed this email, four cars have shot past my house on a quiet street in the suburb, blatantly exceeding the speed limit. I live on the same road as a primary school, and I am typing this while working from home during the COVID-19 crisis. Imagine how much worse this will be with a return to normal traffic levels.


Impact of Construction Traffic on the Suburb:
1) The EIS states (p e-18) that the intention is to minimise traffic disruptions by "scheduling of haulage and deliveries outside of peak periods", in other words during periods when suburb residents can reasonably be expected to be peacefully enjoying their property. The impact of nightwork and heavy construction noise on the health - physical and metal - of suburb residents has been given scant consideration.
2) The EIS states - glibly - that there will be "temporary" impacts on bus services involving longer travel times and slower speeds. "Temporary" involves disruption to public transport throughout construction, an issue which has been irresponsibly poorly communicated
3) The impact of construction traffic during the construction period will materially disadvantage those to whom the project appeals the most - those who either rely on public transport for work (delivery drivers, tradesmen etc) or choose to commute by car. They will be stuck in traffic for longer over the multi-year construction period, which is likely to account for a material proportion of their working lives. Again, the illusory long-term gain has been highlighted over the extreme short term pain for everyone.

Lack of consideration given to public transport solutions
1) The EIS states glibly (pE-12) that "The need for additional core motorway capacity at the crossings of Middle and Sydney Harbour was identified as key to development of an appropriate multi-modal Sydney transport network in the NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (Transport for NSW, 2012) and subsequent Future Transport Strategy 2056 (NSW Government, 2018)." Yes, that's a long sentence to be described as glib. But it captures the inadequacy of the EIS, which seeks to take on as a fait accompli the concept of a road-only solution.
2) The road only solution is worsened by the cavalier attitude to public transport, which is not adequately catered for in the project. Buried deep in Appendix F, the EIS admits that bus travel times are "largely unchanged" along Military Road. So, if there is no incentive to use public transport in the shape of shorter travel times, then what are the public supposed to do? Well, your plan purports to offer better travel times by car, so people will drive. I refer you to my comment on induced demand, and ask that the topic be properly addressed.

I Object strongly to this project.
There is a lack of strategic justification for the project.
No feasible alternatives have been developed or assessed.
The overwhelming and established community support for Public Transport systems as an alternative to roads was never considered.
This Environmental Impact Statement does not safeguard communities, in particular it permanently ravages the North Sydney LGA for no benefit.
It is a toll road project made for big business, searching for a rationale.
There will be major permanent impacts on the North Sydney LGA (projected 80% increase in daily traffic) and failure of local key intersections. The EIS also forecasts major impacts on Bus travel time and reliability. In fact the Project will result in slowing down Public Transport particularly on the homeward journeys in peak hour.
The EIS does not adequately account for impacts on health and air quality. The EIS identifies two UNFILTERED Exhaust Stacks combined as one in ONE single location at Cammeray.
In addition local surface roads will be widened and traffic volumes will increase heavily.

The NSW Government has missed a great opportunity to be truly visionary, recognising and embracing technological change that offers the potential to revolutionise urban travel, support economic agglomeration and deliver on health and wellbeing outcomes.
Instead the people of NSW will be left with an intrusive inner city motorway that escalating tolls will make unpopular and technological change will render redundant.
Other global cities are investing in fast and efficient public transport that truly connects homes and jobs, supports the decentralisation of commercial investment and develops a resilient and equitable city for future generations.

There is NO Business Case for this juggernaut of a project, nothing to explain the vast expenditure & some would argue waste of billions of dollars.

Rather than ease congestion the project is likely to reduce the availability of funds for projects that enable that genuinely reduce congestion (road pricing), give priority for high productivity road users such as delivery and service vehicles or genuinely avoid congestion (public transport in separate corridors/lanes).

The EIS narrowly defines congestion as ‘traffic congestion' rather than delays to reliable and efficient access to human capital, goods and services which reduces economic activity and productivity. This results in an incorrect and misleading assessment.
The method and logic used to develop and assess the Project is similar to methods that have delivered numerous motorways around Australia that have not only failed to ease congestion, but have made it significantly worse.

There is no reliable evidence presented (or available) that building motorways reduces traffic congestion over the long term. No major urban arterial road project, without carefully considered and implemented pricing signals, has succeeded in easing congestion for more than a few years. This is universally acknowledged in planning disciplines, and is replicated by the Future Transport website, has been stated by the current Minister for Transport and the current Premier (during her time as Shadow Minister for Transport).

There is no evidence of scenario modelling being used to allow testing the ability of different packages of integrated transport measures to achieve outcomes. The Long Term Transport Masterplan states that integrated approaches are required to manage congestion. The NSW Minister for Transport claims that we “have to get more people on public transport.”

Local Councils have no say over Construction..in fact North Sydney Council wasnt even given a copy of the EIS for itself just one for public display.

Only Partial construction impacts have been assessed. The EIS focusses on the impact of construction traffic during commuter peak-hours. Given the EIS notes that construction-related vehicles will be limited during peak-hours, information should be provided on the impact of construction-related vehicles when both traffic volumes are higher – in particular during weekday lunch peak and Saturday lunch peak.

The traffic modelling approach is fundamentally flawed & inadequate. 2016 data was used and the modeling fails to take into account real traffic flows and traffic pinch points. The traffic modelling process used to develop the Project is fundamentally flawed because:
-Traffic projections are likely to be significantly different to the actual traffic on the street network
-Traffic volumes projected in the model are in numerous instances well above the physical capacity of the road network.
-There is no statement on the level of accuracy and reliability of the traffic modelling process. This is a major shortcoming and is contrary to the Secretary’s Environmental Assessments Requirements.
- The WHT traffic modelling relies on implausible traffic volumes that exceed the capacity of the road links and intersections at several key locations.
-The underlying traffic modelling and outputs was insufficient to:
Demonstrate the need for the project.
Understand impacts of dispersed traffic on connecting roads, such as the Pacific Hwy, Miller & Berry Streets, and whether they have available capacity to meet the predicted traffic discharge. Any congestion on exits has the capacity to negate all travel time savings to the exit point, given the small predicted benefits.

The strategic model (whole system) inputs traffic volumes that simply cannot be accommodated in the road interchanges and feeder routes. It is physically impossible to fit that amount of traffic on a local road.
Assessment of the project’s traffic impacts on other parts of the street network is inadequate and simply not considered relevant in the EIS..its the Local Council's problem.

For all these reasons I am unable to support this Project.

I write at this time with significant concern for the sustainable well-being of Sydney residents, for our efforts to combat climate change, and for the opportunity ahead of us to deliver a world class transport option for all. My concerns are specifically in relation to the EIS for the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade.
Whilst I understand that a new approach is needed to support Sydney’s traffic requirements;

- I strongly object to the current approach which puts lives in danger:
o Unfiltered smokestacks put residents, particularly children (including but not limited to the 9000 children in school in Cammeray and North Sydney), the elderly, and those with fragile respiratory systems in danger.
o When this issue was raised at a local consultation, the response provided was that ‘within 10 years everyone will be driving electric cars’; we know this will not be the case, especially as NSW/Australia do not have a comprehensive commitment to make this affordable and possible through decreasing costs of cars, increasing recharging stations etc. Your public are offended when we are ‘brushed off’ in this manner. We care, and we ask you to care as well.
o I demand that conditions of approval of the scheme include:
 A. That the scheme be redesigned to ensure exhaust and fresh-air stacks be built no more than 4-5km apart, like the Stockholm E4 bypass tunnel
 B. That all exhaust stacks be filtered to significantly reduce the toxic pollution which will damage the health of tens of thousands of Australians.
 C. That the scheme, including tunnels and the freeway be closed to all traffic on days when the air quality index reaches the danger level of 200 or more (science has predicted larger and increasing bushfires – our safety in relation to air must be accommodated within this proposal which predicts significant increase in air pollution which is damaging to our health).

- I strongly object to the current approach which permanently damages our environment and our wellbeing:
o Public green space will be lost; At least 100’s of trees will be removed, the underground reservoir beneath Cammeray golf course will be lost parkland/golf course will be covered in structures or cement, the seabed floor in Middle Harbour will be damaged. These proposed changes affect our health and wellbeing and will significantly and negatively affect the health of the local environment.
o So far, comparative advantages of increasing public transport routes and hubs have not been assessed (or released to the public). Australia has long noted the abuse of our environment linked to our habit of driving our own cars. Sydney could be ahead of the Australian curve, and join international progressive cities by introducing effective and efficient public transport systems that minimise impact on the environment, and reduce isolation for those who can’t drive (due to health, age etc) or can’t access a car (due to economy).
o Excessive noise will impact negatively on 5000 residences during the 6+ years of build for the tunnel, again interrupting wellbeing, including sleep (figure proposed by the EIS).
o Vibration levels are predicted to be above acceptable levels up to 300 metres from the construction work, possibly causing damage to the natural environment, property and wellbeing.
o Should our public expect to have their health jeopardised? Can our health system cope with an increasing number of residents being unwell? No! Surely we can design a scheme that improves health, combats climate change, and provides sustainable transport solutions to our population – we are here for them first and foremost and this must be central in any decision making.
o I demand that conditions of approval of the scheme include:
 A. The same amount of greenspace, and trees, lost during construction be reinstalled during and or after the implementation field.
 B. A strict 6pm curfew be policed (with fines for those who abuse) on noisy activities on weekdays, 1pm on Saturdays, and a total ban on medium to high noise activities on Sundays.
o I demand that approval of the scheme only be considered:
 Once an EIS considers the impact of the B1 and proposed B2 bus links on traffic in the suburbs affected by the scheme. These successful interventions have proven that people can and will take public transport when it meets their needs, and consequently noise and air pollution is reduced.
 A full review of public transport options be made available for public consultation. We must learn from those who are more progressive than us, and not suffer from making cowardly decisions based on aged information that favours stakeholders who are not putting public health and climate change resilience first. Can income from a new light rail system compensate the government/public for the scheme (rather than increased tolls go to the pockets of private actors who are interested in profit, rather than building the health and wellbeing of our environment and our people?).
 A commitment is made to compensate any resident, whose residence is damaged by this scheme, including through vibrations caused during the construction.
Finally, I object to the very short period of time the public have been afforded to review the 9000pp+ EIS, especially as we are aware that, despite significant responses from the public to previous petitions, we believe we have been ignored. Please listen to those whose lives are affected by your decisions.

- Please ensure that the consultation period for the EIS is extended to May 3. In particular, this will allow those of us who are responding to disruption related to COVID 19, adequate time to engage. I myself am a CEO of a charity focused on supporting a workforce to transition to home office whilst juggling a projected drop in public income (across the charity sector) of 20-50% in the coming year. We should not be penalised for our good efforts.

Thank you, and trusting that you will consider this submission.

I object to this project on the grounds of it's extremely poor Climate, Biodiversity and Sustainability Scorecard. In particular the Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link will create additional emissions above and beyond what would be produced via natural traffic growth if we did nothing.
1. Diesel carries a significant health risk as it is a Group 1 Carcinogen (WHO). Surface Works are predominantly taking place along the Warringah Freeway from Kirribilli to Willoughby at various stages along school zones. The Warringah Freeway needs a high level of re-work to fit in 4 tunnel ports, 2 stacks and create flow management to safely accommodate additional traffic. Choosing an alternate route ie) bypassing the Warringah Freeway would have reduced this impact and resulted in a far better climate outcome. A public transport tunnel would also achieved a much improved result.
2. The proponent has decided to use an immersed tube methodology to build the tunnel across the harbour - this necessitates dredging at one of the most
contaminated points and puts water quality and biodiversity at significant risk. The risks of contaminated sediments being disturbed is high. With mitigation the documents say that the risk becomes low however this means that this (and many other aspects of the project) are highly dependent on contractors doing the right thing. Where other options are available, they should be fully explored rather than implementing a high-risk project.
3. There are a number of threatened flora species at risk in the construction footprint, and threatened fauna species including Eastern Bentwing-Bat, Grey-headed flying fox and white bellied sea eagle and the endangered little penguin. Again the project is highly dependent on mitigation to ensure threatened species are not further harmed. There are many “measures” that are not included in the EIS and will be developed as part of detailed planning. Given the high risk of toxins.
Cammeray dam - given we have just been through extreme drought and with climate change, reduced rainfall is a danger we are facing, it's just irresponsible to remove Cammeray Dam - We will lose the watering system for our parks. A plan to ensure our parks stay usable has not been worked out as part of the EIS. Using drinking water is not a responsible solution. An enormous amount of water is required for these works to proceed. Again, the quantity of water needed is a direct result of the construction
methods and route chosen for the project. Public Transport tunnels require far less concrete and therefore far less water and would not require the Warringah
Freeway to be re-built.
4. The project area covers a historic area where farms, industry and a quarry was located. Soil sampling has revealed the presence of Heavy Metals and
other containments. Disturbing these in a residential area close to major catchments that lead into Middle Harbour presents a significant risk to our waterways
and health. See: https://majorprojects.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/mp/01/getContent?AttachRef=SSI8863%2120200116T053321.586%20GMT for more details.
5. Waste generated - A large amount of waste is generated due to the decision to a) Build a road tunnel which are far larger than metro/ train tunnels; b) link tunnels into
the Warringah Freeway which requires near complete reconstruction; c) The choice of an immersed tube construction method which requires the Harbour to be
dredged. Of particular concern is the amount of contaminated waste to be removed and the amount to be dumped out to sea. This project claims to meet
sustainability goals.
6. Access to Green Space and loss of access - Access to the following parks will be restricted during construction, we are due to lose over 7 Ha permanently. Parks will also be impacted by dust, noise and 6000+ construction vehicle movements during construction. With schools at capacity across the area and very little playground space, access to clean green space is critical. For our community. Removal of green space will also add to urban heating and with over 600 trees due to be impacted/ removed and far more concrete going in we can expect greater heat issues in and around the Freeway corridor. The EPA states that “Elevated temperatures from urban heat islands, particularly during the summer, can affect a community’s environment and quality of life.” There is no plan within the EIS to replace green space or
gift more to the community elsewhere. There is a suggestion that a land-bridge at Anzac Park may go some way to address the visual amenity issues however
this would not replace usable green space for schools and sporting groups during construction or after.
7. Project does not meet sustainability requirements under the act - The precautionary principle has not been taken in terms of the sensitivity of the foreshore environments, the presence of contamination risks, or the construction method chosen or the fact that no alternative public transport analysis has been completed. Intergenerational equity is not achieved as future generations will have less green space with a higher population, the project induces demand and encourages more car use, the project demonstrates that areas around the project footprint will experience higher levels of congestion and pollution. Given the risks to threatened species and the high reliance on complies and wide-ranging mitigation measures which have not been fully scoped as part of the EIS it is difficult to claim that biodiversity and ecological integrity is
being maintained by this project. There is no evidence that there is improved valuation of environmental resources. In fact, placing an unfiltered pollution stack
and creating more traffic in and around parks significantly devalues these resources for the community.


Emissions from Project: Construction Total 784 000 Tonnes CO2e Appendix X Table 3-16
Emissions during construction: diesel 42 083 Tonnes CO2e Diesel* Appendix X Table 3-16
Emissions total during operations by 2037 1 035 968 CO2e Tonnes per year Appendix X Table 3-26
Emissions increase during operations (caused by the project by 2037 over and above “doing minimum” ie) no tunnel project)
31 651 Tonnes CO2e additional per year** Appendix X Table 3-26
Waste generated Ø 6 + Million Tonnes total EIS Appendix Table 3-9
Amount of waste to be dumped at sea 1 219 200 Tonnes total EIS Appendix Table 3-9
Water Usage: per day 1 327 000 Litres per day*** EIS Chapter 6-90
Area Harbour to be dredged 10.51 Ha soft sediment removed EIS Chapter 19
No. of threatened species assessed as occurring in the project footprint 26 (The EIS identifies impact to sea horses, sea eagles, eucalypts,
micro bats, fish species, little penguins and more)
EIS Chapter 19 Amount of Green Space Lost 7.29 Ha EIS Chapter 19, Table 19-12
No. of Trees to be destroyed/ impacted 687 Trees Appendix W -17

I do not object in principal to the creation of another harbour crossing to ease congestion (though whether the focus should be on this or improved public transport and rail freight infrastructure is questionable, appreciating the Metro tunnel already underway). However, it is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE for contaminated waste dredged from the bottom of Sydney Harbour (with toxic material having been deposited this stretch of the harbour by many years of previous heavy industry) to be deposited on the dock side at White Bay, extremely close to medium-high density housing, home to many families of young children, and directly next to cruise ships which regularly dock at the (completely inadequate) White Bay Cruise Terminal.
As I previously mentioned when I attended the information session held previously at Balmain Town Hall, the minimum that could be done would be to move the toxic sludge dump to Glebe Island. An even safer alternative for the health of the numerous local residents and visitors to the area would be for it to be shipped directly out of Sydney Harbour and processed for transfer to land transport in an unpopulated, industrial port, such as Port Kembla.
Understanding that if the Dredge Material Handling Area is moved to Glebe Island then it is still relatively close to the same populated areas in this part of Balmain. Therefore it should also be handled in a covered shed purpose built on site, as is being done for many other locations in the project (albeit often for noise abatement in those cases, while this would need to prevent the escape of any toxic particles from this facility).
This needs to be addressed urgently before the project progresses any further.
I am looking forward to hearing your proposed rectification to this issue.
Regards,
Brendan Harber

The submission to construct the Western Harbour Tunnel and the process of community consultation are both flawed on a number of fronts.
I object to the submission for the following reasons:
1.Whilst 3 different excavation sites on the northern side of the harbour were considered, the preferred site is a public space that is pristine in nature, environmentally unique and provides critical outdoor leisure space in an otherwise highly dense urban area. To hijack the areas of Balls Head and Waverton Park for up to five years is simply unforgiveable. This will remove access for the public to critically important recreation space that is utilised for a myriad of activity from walks to sport for children through to adults. This it tantamount to AGAIN prioritising money over the environment.
2. The location of the recommended Northern Tunnel site will irreversibly impact local wildlife that the community has worked tirelessly to re-establish. From the frogs and water dragons to the birds that nest and grace the Balls Head peninsula, including Waverton Park, this is inexcusable.
3. The location of the tunnelling and recommended northern site will exponentially increase heavy traffic in a residential and school area. This is completely unsafe for children and their families from a physical safety perspective, and an emotional and mental health perspective. In addition, learning will be disrupted for the 800+ children of North Sydney Demonstration School.
4. There were two other northern harbour sites considered for the excavation work. These are both closer to the existing Warringah Freeway and, should the development proceed, should be utilised as individuals and families moved to that area in the knowledge the freeway and associated works was close by. Truck regularly utilised roads near the existing freeway and this would not result in the same impact as it would to a quiet area that is dominated by natural environment.
5. Furthmore, I object to the process that has been utilised to build this infrastructure. Privatising large roads and giving private consortia the ability to destroy our communities and natural landscapes is not why the government was given support by the community lead the state. There has been insufficient listening to public concerns and I expect all political interests to be communicated and made public in this process.
6. I object to my elected leaders completely ignoring the community of Waverton.
7. I object to more of the limited number of harbour foreshore parks being grossly negatively impacted in the name of progress when other options could be followed.

Bus lane attached to Alfred St North – “Falcon St Interchange Orbit”
It is unclear why this bus lane needs to be elevated and attached to Alfred St North. To achieve you propose the removal of 47 regularly utilised parking spaces from Ridge St pedestrian bridge to Merlin St while carving away the rock wall to widen the freeway. It is proposed that the raised bus lane will operate 24 hours/daily thus greatly increasing noise for the approximately 300 residents between Falcon and Rose Streets. In addition, residents will have constant illumination from the buses on the raised lane. Currently noise and illumination is greatly buffered by a solid rock cutting.

Should it be proposed that Alfred Street North is reopened to local traffic, the bus lights will affect them as the vehicle ascends the steep hill northwards, directly towards the lights of the southbound buses.

WE OBJECT STRONGLY to the loss of the 47 car spaces in Alfred St North from Ridge to Merlin Streets.

Removal of parking spaces in Alfred Street North
In your proposed plan, it appears 47 or more parking spaces between Wyagdon St and Ridge Street will be removed. At the North Sydney Council February meeting, when querying your representative about this huge loss, he replied: ‘in adjoining streets’. I would recommend you to check a UBD map….we have no adjoining streets.

It is estimated there are some 300 units and approx. 20 family homes in the precinct west of Bent St, (Alfred St North, Winter Ave, Rose Ave, Wyagdon and Merlin Streets). The buildings in our area are predominantly pre1990s built with one car space per unit and no visitor parking. Therefore, units with more than one bedroom, dual occupancy and for visitors to any of the buildings in this area, the loss of so many parking spaces is critical.

WE OBJECT UNRESERVEDLY to the loss of so many vital car spaces along Alfred St North.

Merlin Street Compound – WFU07
Not only is it planned for 47 parking spaces to be removed, but you plan to construct a compound on our small patch of residential green space, to be used for up to six years. It is noted that while no ‘heavy’ vehicles will use this compound, there will be approximately 150 vehicles entering/exiting this daily. Where will the workers using this compound park their vehicles? “In the adjoining streets” as your representative advised the February meeting at North Sydney Council. There are NO ADJOINING streets with parking available for your work force.

There appears to be no traffic management logistics in your EIS. Where Alfred St North becomes Merlin St, there is a tight right then a blind left bend, just where the WFU07 compound is to be located. There is already a steady flow of resident vehicles going to their ONLY exit to Falcon Street. Adding a further 150 vehicles will of course increase the congestion at this already short ‘green light’ onto Falcon Street. That will only serve to back up traffic down Alfred St North more than it is already.

Your morning traffic flow plan shows this as “B” for the current traffic conditions however it has a FAIL with Build WHT ‘only do something’. The afternoon traffic plan in your document shows all options as FAIL.

WE OBJECT STRONGLY TO YOUR PROPOSAL as it will affect the 300 residents using this access. It appears there has been no modelling has been undertaken for the impact on Falcon St/Military Rd.

In addition, it is likely there will be regular night works for the proposed elevated bus lane. Such close proximity, this will affect approximately 300 residents who live in Merlin and Wyagdon Streets and Rose Avenue. I OBJECT STRONGLY.

I was flabbergasted to note that there are NO PLANS or funding for RETURNING this compound and any other associated work depots, to the community. You take our green space and build a monstrosity and leave us with What?
THIS IS UNACCEPTIBLE and WE OBJECT STRONGLY and request that our green space be returned with the demolition of WFU07 compound.
Alfred St North closure for bus lane construction
Your statement indicates ‘temporary long-term closure’ of Alfred St North for construction, however there is no breakdown area/timeline. This will affect residents from Kurraba Road all the way north to Merlin St. And while different sections are likely to be affected at different times, there is no indication for those residents from Rose Avenue to Wyagdon St, as to how they will access their homes during this long drawn out construction.
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE LACK OF INFORMATION TO RESIDENTS AFFECTED

Access to Wyagdon St from Warringah Freeway southbound
Your EIS (pg9-28) indicates that “access would be removed from the Alfred Street North southbound off ramp to Alfred Street North in the northbound direction. Traffic would be required to exit the Warringah Freeway at Falcon Street or continue on to High Street and travel via the local road network to access Alfred Street North”.

It appears your plan for Wyagdon St access when coming off the Warringah Freeway southbound and onto Falcon St eastward, will require using the short Tramway Lane and then cross Falcon Street, without traffic signals. Falcon Street has multiple westbound lanes and to access the far south lane in order to turn left into Merlin Street is already dangerous with a limited sight in a small vehicle of the westbound Falcon St traffic before crossing four lanes of traffic. We already have many accidents on this blind corner. Appears you’ll be adding more.

I would appreciate your providing the plan you envisage for ‘travel via the local road network to access Alfred Street North’. It is missing from the EIS. With the increase in traffic using these local roads, you are setting up a rat run situation in already narrow streets filled with parked vehicles. As the only access for Wyagdon and Rose Streets is via Falcon St, this adds further traffic congestion to an already constant Falcon St. Using Bent St and the super narrow Winter Avenue to access Alfred St North at the newly installed STOP sign and raised ramps, will cause major congestion in the narrow Winter St.

Your third alternative for Wyagdon St residents is via High Street. There is NO local road access so recommend you review your design.

It appears you are cutting off the Wyagdon/Merlin/Alfred Street North precinct at both ends – Alfred Street north hairpin AND Merlin/Falcon Streets AND adding in your own compound traffic to the already bustling local traffic causing even more congestion at the traffic lights for exiting the precinct.

WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE CLOSURE of the hairpin exit off the Warringah Freeway

Tunnel Exhaust stacks
The EIS indicates an exhaust stack will be located next to Cammeray Golf Course. There is great concern that this will be UNFILTERED. No matter which direction the wind blows, exhaust will invade the clean air of the area.

Residents living around the M5 fought for filtration so I’m greatly surprised that this EIS is not making amends for past errors early. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE if you must take our green space, at least have the courtesy of allowing us clean air to breath. No everyone using those tunnels is in a position to buy an electric car immediately so it will take a lifetime for your claim that microscopic particles will diminish with that introduction.

This could be better managed by removing diesel trucks from the tunnels (and assist with congestion when the drivers don’t bother to adhere to height regulations). However I feel sure they’re just return to Military Road and cause more accidents and congestion than there is already.

Alternatively instead of building this tunnel, NSW Government could build a light rail – as was originally proposed – that would move people far quicker and cleaner than this proposed tunnel system.

WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE LACK OF FILTRATION IN THE PROPOSED STACKS

Intersection at Merlin and Falcon Streets
The video of your proposed plan indicates that residents of Wyagdon St, whose only exit is Alfred Street North/Merlin St (ie 22 multi storey buildings with approximately 300 units and around 20 houses from Bent to Falcon Street), can only make a left turn onto the Warringah Freeway southbound. There appears to be a concrete barrier preventing westbound travel down Falcon Street to Crows Nest/St Leonards. Access to the lane to travel north on the Warringah Freeway also appears blocked. Further your video prevents travel eastbound from the Merlin/Falcon Street exit due to a concrete barrier. How do Wyagdon St residents to Crows Nest, Cammeray, Cremorne or any other destination than south on the expressway?

Residents travelling south on the Expressway is now forced to exit onto an already congested Falcon St, crossing four busy lanes of traffic at a blind corner in order to ‘slip over’ to the southern lane to turn left into Merlin St. No traffic lights to aid that merge and greater potential for accidents.

It is alarming to note that the RMS traffic tables in the EIS indicates current operations as ‘reasonable/satisfactory’ in morning/afternoon operations. However once the proposed works have been implemented, the Merlin/Falcon St intersection rates a FOUR FAILS for residents returning home. They have no other access to their homes.

From the EIS, it appears the residents living in the Alfred St North/Rose Avenue, Wyagdon and Merlin Streets precinct have been put in the ‘too hard basket’ while those local narrow streets east of High Street will become an accident waiting to happen with the much increased additional traffic.
If there were ever a major incident, fire/gas explosion/medical emergency, the changes planned both for access and exit would render the situation even more dangerous. During peak hour now there is often traffic jammed all the way up Alfred Street North when there is an incident on the freeway going north or often just with heavy traffic on the freeway.

WE OBJECT STRONGLY to your proposed routing for Wyagdon St residents

See attachment.

Document text only

Attention: Director, Transport Assessments
Objection to Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade (Project ID: SSI 8863)

Name: Aisling Kelly
Address: 24 Grove St, Birchgrove (not for publication)
Declaration: I have made no reportable political donations in the past 2 years

30 March 2020
Dear Director, Transport Assessments,

I wish to register my opposition to the Western Harbour Tunnel (WFH) and Warringah Freeway Upgrade project. My objection is threefold: 1) concern for human and environmental health; 2) projects strengthening Sydney’s public transport network should be prioritised for public funds over those which cater primarily to private vehicles; and 3) WHT reports are written in an inaccessible manner and with a lack of transparency.

1) Concern for human and environmental health

Many people swim and fish recreationally in Birchgrove waters, including young children and teenagers, local residents and non-residents who visit Birchgrove to fish and relax (Figure 1). From speaking to some of these recreational fishers, it is evident that some collect their catch without regard for fish species or safe/ legal consumption guidelines. Thus, any elevation in contaminant levels arising from disturbed sediments during WHT construction is of serious concern to human health.

Furthermore, the positive impacts of improving water quality on the inner harbour ecosystem have become evident in recent years. Anecdotally, over the last two-to-three years sightings of sea eagles over Birchgrove are not uncommon, where previously they were not seen. I take sightings of apex predators in the inner harbour as a positive sign for the improving health of the local ecosystem. I am concerned that disturbing toxic sediments in the process of the WHT construction, which have the potential to react with each other and amplify negative impacts, will set us back years in terms of water quality and ecosystem health. This in turn may have knock-on effects to human health or restrict recreational activities which the public can feel safe partaking in in the Birchgrove area.

2) Projects focusing on improving Sydney’s public transport network should be prioritised over those which cater primarily to private traffic.

It is clear that as Sydney’s population grows and as we approach a tipping point in global carbon emissions that Sydney must place far greater emphasis on public transport, providing incentives for taking public transport and disincentives for driving private vehicles. The WHT will be more heavily used by private than public traffic and thus is not the project most deserving of public funds. Each day I commute 1.25 hours to get from Birchgrove to my workplace in Parramatta, a commute which would be reduced to 35 minutes when driving via WestConnex, a project which I note did nothing to improve public transport options. Instead of building new roads which confer more benefit to private than public traffic, I suggest investing in improving public transport options for Sydney residents: strengthening the rail network by adding additional lines, allocating more bus lanes throughout and between our Sydney CBDs, increasing ferry services and providing safe cycle lanes. I note that some of these alternatives are reviewed in 4.3.5; however I remain unconvinced of the merit of this project over other options with a stronger focus on improving Sydney’s public transport services.

3) The report is written in an inaccessible manner and lacks transparency

The WHT EIA is written in an unnecessarily lengthy and inaccessible manner, which seems likely to disempower many people from reading and understanding the project and its potential implications for human and environmental health. As an example of the report’s lack of transparency I would cite the difficulty of finding detail on heavy metal contamination. The main chapter (Ch 17: Hydrodynamics and water quality) refers only to ‘High levels of heavy metals’ in general and does not specify specific contaminants or contaminated sites. Instead this information is relegated to the final pages of Appendix M, and even here locations are provided as codes and contaminant levels as ‘high’ or ‘low’ (Figure 2). No key is provided to indicate exactly what level ‘high’ and ‘low’ is for different contaminants.

In summary, given the potential risks to human and environmental health, the fact that the project confers greater benefit to private than public traffic, and noting that the EIA written in a manner which may disempower members of the public from accessing important information, I object to Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade project.

I write to object to the Western Harbour and Warringah Freeway Upgrade EIS.
The current tunnel plans would not solve the problem of increasing travelling times for citizens. Throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at the building of road tunnels is not the best approach to the problem. It may result in a short-term alleviation of congestion, but the number of vehicles using any new tollway tunnel would gradually increase. Within a brief period, travelling times would return to what they are now and the only change would be a massive depletion in public funds, adverse effects on the environment, destruction of trees and publicly used green spaces and a nice profit for the private operator of the toll roads.
Better public transport is the answer. A metro or train tunnel would be a much better option than a road tunnel.
1. Emissions
Construction of the project would generate 784,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). Diesel emissions during construction would be 42,083 CO2e (diesel is a group 1 carcinogen). The emissions total during operations by 2037 would be 1,035,968 CO2e tonnes per year, which is an additional 31,651 tonnes CO2e per year over and above not doing the tunnel. At a time when the state and the country must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, this is not a positive move.
2. Waste
The amount of waste generated (much of it contaminated) would be 6 million tonnes of which 1.2m tonnes would be dumped at sea. The area of Sydney Harbour where soft sediment would be removed is 10.5 Ha. This dredging would occur at one of the most contaminated points of the harbour and have a massive impact on water quality and marine life in the harbour. Mitigation strategies outlined in the EIS are totally dependent on contractors doing the right thing. Where other options are available, they should be explored rather than blindly blundering into a high-risk project.
3. Biodiversity
In terms of the impact on biodiversity, the EIS identifies 26 threatened species in the project footprint and estimates 687 trees would be destroyed or impacted and 7.29 Ha of green space would be lost.
4. Water
A huge quantity of water would be required for this project. It would use 1.327m litres of water per day (including 837 kL of potable water per day). Public transport tunnels would require far less concrete and therefore far less water and would not require modifications to the Warringah Freeway.
5. Water quality
The project poses real risks to the water quality of Willoughby Creek, Quarry Creek and Flat Rock Creek. Soil tested in proposed dig sites has shown high levels of heavy metals (including lead), asbestos and nutrient concentration as well as microbiological contamination. The strategies outlined in the EIS do not adequately mitigate this risk.
6. Parks
Access to parks in Birchgrove and on the north shore would be restricted during the proposed construction and over seven hectares would be lost forever. Parks would also be impacted by dust, noise and vehicle emissions from construction vehicles. Removal of green space and over six hundred trees and the addition of more concrete surfaces would add to urban heating.
7. Ecologically sustainable development
Despite the claim that ‘the principles of ecologically sustainable development have been an integral part of the design and assessment of the project’, I strongly disagree that the proposed project meets the four principles set out in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW). Specifically:
a) The precautionary principle has not been met in terms of the sensitivity of the foreshore environments, the contamination risks or the construction methods proposed. Critically, no public transport alternative has been prepared.
b) Intergenerational equity is not achieved because future generations in the areas affected by the project would have less green space, more car use and higher levels of congestion and pollution.
c) Biological diversity and ecological integrity are put at significant risk rather than being maintained.
d) There is no evidence of improved valuation and pricing of environmental resources. In fact, the proposal to place an unfiltered pollution stack and create more traffic in and around parks would significantly devalue these resources for the community.
8. Traffic
The proposed project does not demonstrate a net improvement in traffic outcomes across the area. In Willoughby were I live, I would lose connectivity and traffic volumes would significantly increase on the already congested section of Willoughby Road heading north between the Naremburn exit from the Gore Hill Freeway and Mowbray Road.
9. Infrastructure Australia priority list
The WHTBL project sits amongst 32 other projects in the bottom category of the Infrastructure Australia list. Infrastructure Australia has earmarked it as a possible priority under the condition that a valid business case be submitted for assessment. A business case has not been published. The NSW Upper House has called for the business case on several occasions and it has not been presented to Parliament, Infrastructure Australia or the public. There are 16 other higher priority projects in NSW many of which have assessed business cases and several of which are located in Western Sydney and regional areas – areas that most need the government’s investment following drought, bushfires and the impact of COVID-19.
10. Air quality - unfiltered pollution stacks at tunnel exit points.
There are expected to be three pollution stacks in the North Sydney area, which is the largest education district in the state (there are 21 schools within the North Sydney council area). Anzac Park Public School (APPS) is already next to a 10 lane freeway. The school is currently impacted by the pollution of a 375m stretch of those 10 lanes (from the Ernest St overpass to the Miller St overpass). So currently (pre-stacks) about 3.75km of polluting road.
The two pollution stacks that are expected to be built for the Northern Beaches tunnel and the Western Harbour tunnel would pump out 7km x 3 lanes each. They would both be located (per Roads and Maritime Services advice) within the 500m impact zone. So that would mean an additional 42km of polluting road impacting the school directly. In other words, there would be more than 12 times the current pollution impacting these children. Or put another way, the school might as well be next to a 120 lane freeway!
Cammeray Public School is in the impact zone of one of the stacks. They might as well be next to a 60 lane freeway. It is the same for the new local high school, Cammeraygal.
As a member of this community I object to this lack of safety & planning
Thank you for considering my submission.
Diane Robertson
14 Salisbury Rd
Willoughby 2068

Western Harbour Tunnel Submission March 2020

I am a professional & landowner in Balmain in NSW, who - as a taxpaying resident- continue to strongly oppose government divesting us of our public spaces and investing public money into a private road toll, for private profit. Westconnex as a toll road network unfairly bring a structural change that will only serve to prise open the gaps between our socio-economically society. As a Balmain resident, the recent removal of our overpass, is a clear and graphic demonstration how government continues to prise apart our local community – severing much needed pedestrian and cycle linkage between us. I demand that you cease and freeze any funding and reject any extensions now.

Sydney’s Harbour is its crowning glory, and the prospect – outlined in the recent Sydney Morning Herald - of unnecessarily raising ‘142,500 cubic metres of toxic sludge containing cancer-causing chemicals is set to be dug up from the bed of Sydney Harbour near Birchgrove for this tunnel’ is simply, abhorrent, and the toxicity it will cause - in the harbour water and in the air – poses a severe risk to my and my family’s public safety.

More than ever, our clean public environment is essential to our wellbeing. The Coronavirus has underscored further how precious our waterways and shoreline reserves and public parks are, yet Westconnex is taking our vital parks and shorelines and accessways, and has become the single biggest threat to climate and environmental destruction in Sydney, and now is northward bound.

We have taken pride in the Parramatta River Catchment project, and am disgusted to consider that government would severely place under risk our health of our waterways and this visionary initiative. Iron Cove region is not a line on a map, but a massive waterway that is direct feeder riverway into the Parramatta catchment area http://parramattariver.org.au/?page_id=119. This initiative to clean our environment is part of a vision of sustainability and healthy environments, yet you want us to go back to pollution, debt, and public risk.






I oppose the continuation of WCX in any form, including the latest WHT&WF Upgrade:

You are taking away our cycle ways and pedestrian ways, literally prising community apart
Our family live on the Balmain ridgeline and is sensitive to the excessive noise, air and vibration pollution than comes across the waterways, such as White Bay and Rozelle, so any continuation of the WCX severely affects our wellbeing - capacity to breathe fresh air, sleep at night, and enjoy our local park/accessways/waterways - the extension of WCX will only prolong the risks and problems we face in our daily living as construction invades our public and private space and access

There is no effective plan to mitigate against dust, including concrete dust. I have already had to report to onsite managers several times about dust being blown onto me and the pathetic dribble of water from the end of hoses that has been the poor excuse for dust management practice.

The truck movements already have placed me under risk as a cyclist and road user. It has also created long lag times, where i can have extra 5-10 minutes added to a 10-15 min commute, as I am held up on construction vehicle and driven trucks plus on-street truck parking taking over our vital road access, eg along Lilyfield Rd, city, and other locations

The likely health risks of sediment dredging that will damage human and marine species along immediate and adjacent interconnecting waterways

Loss of greenspaces and native habitat and trees - you even strip trees that are not required stripping/removal

Loss of ferry amenities such as Birchgrove stop that impacts on how we can commute within our own neighbourhood

WCX as a road toll system ignores the OECD standards about fuel efficiency and increases our carbon pollution

It is totally reprehensible that vital data and analysis of potentially damaging chemical pollutants is lacking in the EIS

We have fought for White Bay air and noise pollution to stop damaging our community, and our fight continues as Port Authority will be pushed again by residents to institute monitoring, inspection, and fines for any breaches to standards. Many large company of White Bay cruise ships who have breached safety standards have now been subjected to heavy fines by Port Authority, and we will continue to be vigilant and place pressure on Port Authority in relation to WCX invasion of our rights

WCX construction has become a permanent eyesore in the once beautiful Sydney harbour

No safe levels of particulate matter is shocking disregard for public health of thousands of residents in the immediate area, let along the Sydney basin once WCX begins operation - it should simply not continue.

Actually, it is still an abomination of our democracy that there still is NO benchmarking of WCX as a road toll system against the greater benefits of public transport systems.

Just when community wants to go forward, government and Westconnex want to take us backwards…. Yesterdays retrograde toll roads, its noise and carbon pollution - for tomorrow!

Instead of wasting public money on a private toll that relies on unsustainable road system, I urge you invest all efforts and time into our sustainable, public transport systems.



As the Coronavirus has forced current change in peoples lives, we can see the roads clear, and people severely reviewing the lifestyle they want – embracing home based work, coming to terms with under/unemployment, and confining to local consumers. This crisis has become the trigger for a major mindshift and practice for Sydneysiders and beyond, focused on local community based live/work/play. A large viral network like Westconnex becomes even less relevant as we enter the era of sustainability, of embracing community.

Don’t leave us with a dinosaur toll network… we simply want it stopped now.

I am a resident and owner of Waverton and have major concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Beaches Link (the Tunnel). I have seen the Scoping Report/EIS.

1. I object to the depth of the proposed tunnelling under Larkin Street, Waverton and the surrounding areas as it appears to be as little as 15 metres below the surface. I am concerned that the Tunnel will have an impact on the structural integrity of my house and that of my neighbours.

I suggest that the route of the Tunnel be positioned under open space or under freeways, roads and other such no -residential structures.

2. I strongly object to the lack of filtration in the exhaust stacks for the Tunnel. Air quality is the most frequent problem raised by communities in proximity of unfiltered exhaust stacks. As North Sydney LGA has the highest concentration of schools and child-care centre in Australia the proximity of unfiltered exhaust stacks poses an unacceptable risk to our children and general community. We need to be creating a child-friendly and safe walking environment and not prioritising cars over people. The proposal to funnel more cars onto North Sydney streets reduces pedestrian amenity and safety for students and workers.

3. I strongly object to the WH Tunnel EIS because the traffic impact on local streets is unacceptable and unsustainable. The EIS shows clearly that the intersection performance of many critical intersections along the Pacific Highway, Miller street and Military Road will have a ‘F’ rating which means that traffic could not get any worse especially at peak hour and this will significantly impact the McMahon’s Point and Ball Head communities.

4. I strongly object to the EIS due to the further permanent loss of public space. I want to see a significant increase in open, green space once the project is complete not a loss of green space as occurred with the construction of the Warringah Freeway at Cammeray. I also object to the construction of the Machinery Shed for the ventilation stacks being above ground at Cammeray instead of underground as in Rozelle.

5. I strongly object to the lack of plans and funding for the return of the construction sites and work depots to the community.

6. I object to the lack of planning for the increase in the increase in workers who would potentially take up the already reduced number of parking places available in my immediate are around Waverton Station.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
As a formal CONDITION of any approval for these projects I insist on the following:
1. A significant increase of the depth of the proposed tunnel by at least 15 metres and its redirection away from the houses in Larkin and Woolcott Streets, Waverton
2. The placing of the machinery for the ventilation stacks underground in Cammeray.
3. Agreed plans and funding for what construction areas and works depots throughout the LGA (Berry Bay, Cammeray Golf Course, Cremorne Point) will look like once the construction is done.
4. The creation of land bridges at multiple locations across the Warringah Freeway to facilitate 'green grid connectivity' and provide for new walking paths, cycle ways, sports fields and parklands.
5. Full air filtration on all ventilation stacks.
6. The construction of a steady angle cycleway from Falcon Street/Military Road to Milson's Point (the Harbour Link' proposal).
7. No clause in any sale/lease contract preventing development of public transport or mass transport options on route served by/parallel to the tunnel (unlike the M2 arrangements that prevented the North West Metro for 20 years).
8. Euro6 vehicle emissions and fuel standards to be implemented as a matter of priority in conjunction with the Federal Government and a transition to electric vehicles/low emissions vehicles developed and implemented.
9. Noise abatement during construction for sensitive receivers (residences and schools) are not just assessed on operational impact of increased traffic. Anzac Park School and others have an atrium structure so noise can get in easily.
10. The provision of shuttle bus transport to work sites and designated off-site parking for workers so local residents and businesses do not loose access to their on-street parking.
11. The urgent review of the proposed traffic system flows detailed in the North Sydney Area particularly streets like Berry, Falcon, Ernest Streets and Pacific Highway.
12. The more thorough and rigorous review and redesign to reduce the impending high levels of congestsion on local roads under the EIS plans.

I object to the totally inadequate depth of the twin tunnels at Waverton Park and Woolcott Street
- At just over 20 metres, the depth of the road surface of the tunnel is totally unacceptable in terms of noise, vibration and danger of cracking and subsistence damage to homes in Woolcott St.
- The EIS states that controlled underground blasting may be used; however, no details are provided and this is only to be confirmed with detailed construction planning. The topography in the residential areas along Woolcott St is characterised by 2 - 4 metre-high cliffs in places and rock falls are possible due to vibration during tunnelling and the use of underground explosives.

As a formal condition of any approval for the project I insist on the following:
o An increase in tunnel depth to at least 35 metres below the surface at Waverton Park.
o A pre-tunnel inspection and geotechnical assessment paid for by the NSW Government of the residences which directly overlie the tunnels crossing Woolcott St.
o An independent process to assess any resulting subsistence damage to residences and other affected buildings, and payment of rectification costs by the NSW Government.

I object to the permanent negative impact on local traffic and pedestrian safety
- The North Sydney LGA has the highest concentration of schools in Australia and is a busy business hub. Progressive global cities are restricting or reducing the growth of road traffic in favour of public transport and it is important we create a child friendly and safe walking environment.
- The proposal to funnel more cars onto North Sydney streets will reduce pedestrian amenity and the safety of students and workers. A tunnel by-passing Berry St which feeds traffic onto the Harbour Bridge and the Western Harbour Link is essential if the North Sydney CBD is to retain any pedestrian amenity.

As a formal condition of any approval for the project I insist on the following:
o The addition of an underground by-pass of the North Sydney CBD to funnel vehicles going south onto the Bridge, and going north onto the Western Harbour Link and the Warringah Expressway, so that Berry St, North Sydney, is not used for this purpose.
o The construction of a steady angle cycleway from Falcon St/Military Rd to Milson’s Point (the ‘Harbour Link’ proposal).

I object to the quality and accuracy of some of the maps and the figures presented in the EIS document and the fact that the document is user-unfriendly and information often hard to find
- The document (including appendices) is thousands of pages long. It is extremely difficult to find specific information e.g., number and movements of construction trucks in a particular area. The routes of the tunnels appear to differ on some maps and numbers on figures are often hard to read.

As a formal condition of any approval for the project I insist on the following:
o A navigation pane be linked to the report to allow the reader to obtain a detailed overview of the information presented.
o Where the proposed route crosses Woolcott St and Waverton Park, inclusion of a detailed map which clearly shows the location of the proposed tunnels and the properties affected, numbered (e.g., 32, 30, 28, 26, 24, 22 and 20 Woolcott St).
o Correction of the location of the potentially misleading blue route in Figures: E-9, 4-5 and 4-10.
o Addition of a scale bar, both horizontal and vertical to Figure 4-13.
o Changes to Figure 4-16 to:
- Extend the cross section to the right a few centimetres (at the scale of the current map) and annotate the section with main streets, including Woolcott Street, and roads so people affected can see their properties.
- Mark the vertical scale with lines going across the section to assist readers to better comprehend the figure.

Letter of Objection and Request for Precision in terms of Vibration monitoring for Heritage Item: Raywell, 144 Louisa Road Birchgrove: State Heritage Registered (SHR) Property

Objection
1) Current route along Louisa Road is longer than direct route under Snails Bay. Relocation would save money and straighten route – with significant reduction in vibration and potential damage to properties
2) NSW has a 50 metre liability zone (Victoria has a 200 metre zone) Why?
3) The narrow ridge of Louisa Road has been substantially excavated in the past and damage is likely to be greater than slightly deeper tunnelling under an alternative route which is more direct via Snails bay. Cost savings of direct route and opportunity cost of greater house damage not clearly defined or evaluated.
4) The current EIS states that damage to heritage items will be insignificant. I dispute that assertion. My property SHR Raywell is at the end of Louisa Road and its front sandstone fence is fragile. No evaluation of the potential damage to it - or heritage neighbouring houses - from potential subsidence or cracks from vibration, has been made.
5) Jobs listed for project by TFNSW before Community Consultation completed before Parliamentary evaluation. Was this consultation or a fait accompli?
6) The tunnel appears to be 25-30 metres wide – 6 lanes of traffic – the route is NOT plotted accurately to ascertain where the edge of the tunnel will be in relation to houses sited along Louisa Road. The precise edges of the tunnel are too vague and easy for bureaucrats to say “your house is outside the 50 metre liability zone”!
7) Noise mitigation. A real concern and choices of times not deliniated. Community consultation with residents affected to ensure Rock- hammering can be either coordinated on one day or at lunchtime. Request: consult affected houseowners before bureaucratic decision taken
8) Louisa Road is only supposed to be used by the chosen independent contractor to the project, under Emergency conditions. PLEASE DEFINE EMERGENCY. What is the obligation on the contractor NOT to use this narrow road for trucks and personal?

Request for State Specified Conditions covering SHR "Raywell":
1) That the vibration standard set for SHR "Raywell" be of the more onerous level set for NSW heritage items when potentially affected by construction (I think it is 2.5mm) and not just the standard vibration monitoring level
2) AND that monitoring is clearly undertaken at the time when the piles are being driven into the ground,and is clearly specified. And if vibration levels are exceeded there be immediate notification to both house-owner and authorities - and stopping of works until rectification. (NSW delegates all these functions to independent contractors. How will quick coordination and decisions be taken between monitoring persons, authorities and contractor - if excess vibration occurs?)
3) That the prior assessment and specification of current condition of Raywell be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Council’s requirements - and that a State heritage architect undertakes both the prior Condition report and subsequent Evaluation of possible damage via cracking to house and front fence

I am a local resident of Cammeray and my children have attended local schools. I object to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade, on a number of grounds
1. the lack of transparency of the business case for the project- where is it and why haven't , we, the residents and tax payers been able to see this ? It's our 14 billion plus that's going to be spent and the lack of a business case raises suspicions of corrupt and unconscionable behaviour at worst or ineptitude at best. Neither are acceptable.
2. the flawed assumptions of the project - the public Do Not want more toll roads, congestion and air pollution, with the unfiltered stacks adding to pollution in the Sydney basin- especially in our summers, and when the bushfire seasons are starting in Aug. The Metro uptake has been so succesfull, why has this option not been considered ?
3. the lack of consideration of any other options other than a paid toll road. What about a Metro from Dee Why to Chatswood ? or a rail line ?
4. the location of air stacks near schools and child care centres. This unfiltered air will carry fine particulate vehicle emissions that will deposit in the lungs permanently!. This proposed tunnel - N Beaches 7.5km , 3 lanes each way, Cammeray to Seaforth and the W Harbour tunnel 7km 3 lanes each way, will produce 43.5 km of air pollution to Cammeray and North Sydney . The WHO deems there is no safe minimum level of particulates. FILTER the STACKS
5.given the lack of effort to compare this option to any others eg Metro - I object on the grounds that there will be zero benefits to any residents , whether they live in the N Beaches or anywhere along the route affected by the proposed project. Instead, it will be a minimum of 6 years of widespread disruption to road access and routes, major construction works, poorer air quality, health impacts on the young, elderly and immunocompromised, the loss of green space and amenity at Cammeray Golf Course and St Leonards park to name but 2 - increased congestion in local streets , and traffic jams in local streets when the tunnel users emerge onto local streets, the harbour dredging opens up contamination risks, major noise impacts in high density residential areas - especially those living close to the Warringah freeway who will have to endure night time road works, and the storage of dangerous goods
Proposal:
Scrap this plan and start again, and this time consider public transport options that DON'T involve a toll road or 6 years of misery for the benefit of a private company
What about a tram/Metro on the Eastern side of the Harbour bridge ? This would be more cost effective, decrease pollution and congestion and it can be retrofitted .

As part of the Warringah Freeway Upgrade Transport NSW is proposing to object to widen the freeway and construct a designated bus lane by narrowing Alfred Street North from the current pedestrian overpass all the way up to Rose Street creating a single lane road only with no on-street parking. I strenuously object to the widening of the freeway and removal of the on-street parking on the basis of no provision for parking, no provision for disabled parking and increased road noise from freeway as it will be closer to our residence.

I live in Winter Avenue near the intersection of Winter Ave and Alfred Street North. Winter Ave is a narrow one-way lane that is shared with pedestrians, cyclists and cars and no on street parking whatsoever. Currently the only option for residents of Winter Ave up the Alfred Street North End of Winter Avenue for visitors (be they friends or family visiting, contractors / trade persons, removalists, delivery vans or cleaners etc) is to park in Alfred Street North in the section on Alfred Street North to Rose Avenue. This is precisely the area that off street parking is proposed to be removed.

Most of my visitors are elderly with a good portion of these entitled to use disable parking. You cannot expect elderly visitors to park above Rose Avenue, walk down hill to Winter Avenue and then walk down Winter Avenue. That is assuming they can find a park in a street with many units blocks that have lack of parking available onsite. In fact, in will be incredibly difficult to locate a park in first instance that will likely result in a further distance to travel. There is no thought by Transport NSW of the elderly and disabled in wishing to widen the freeway and remove parking that service Winter Avenue and that of Alfred Street North units. It seems farcical that Transport NSW has requirements on buses and trains for elderly and disabled passengers, seats close to doors, accessibility issues for toilets for disable etc... yet they propose to do exactly the opposite to the elderly and disabled when it comes removing the off-street parking between the pedestrian footbridge and Rose Avenue. It is discriminatory, ill considered and grossly unfair and I request that it no be permitted.

With respect to Noise - being at the very western end of Winter Ave and approximately level with the freeway my house is already heavily impacted by freeway noise. The Noise level is already above the level that the NSW government agrees require a premises to have noise insulation and bringing to freeway even closer is going to make it even more noisy. There is no wall whatsoever to deflect or reduce the noise - just bring the freeway closer. Let's throw a exhaust stack in as well, construction noise and pollution from construction as well. Its not a step too far it is a leap too far. You must not permit the freeway to be widen at this point to add further noise to my house that has stood for more than 100 years. I have a nice garden but won't be able to enjoy it due to added noise - not allowed to build on it due to LEPP codes but will be prevented from enjoyment of using it.

In summary, I am serverly affected by the Warringah Feeway Upgrade already. There will be construction site, noise from Construction sites, increased trucks on the roads directly around me, affected by an unfiltered exhaust stack because the government does not wish to set a precedent that would require other tunnels to have filters fitted, please do not add further noise and remove offstreet parking that will make me a hermit as no one will be able to visit me. In my opinion, if Transport NSW was dong its job they promote a rail link to the Northern Beaches rather than facility more traffic and reduced parking on the roads.

Regards

LA James

I strongly object to the lack of air filtration in the tunnels and particularly the exhaust stacks in the EIS because of the decrease in air quality and huge impacts on my health and the heath of all local residents.

My home is less than 1km from the planned exhaust stack which puts me in a high direct impact zone that I am very concerned about as I have high sensitivities when the air quality is poor as it was in the recent bushfires.

The lives of our North Sydney LGA residents are worth the same level of in-vestment as installed in similar projects in Hong Kong, Madrid and Tokyo.
A quotation from at least 2 suppliers for ESP and NOX filtration technology installation for the ventilation stacks must be obtained and made public be-fore any approval of ventilation requirements is made.

The 2018 Joint NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into WestConnex recommended we move to use international level exhaust stack filtration in all new projects. This recommendation needs to be upheld and should be the basis for all future planning.

I strong object to the EIS because it will be far more expensive to retrofit filtration down to the track than it will be to be forward thinking and incorporate it now.

We will most certainly need it as we are not at the Euro 6 vehicle emission and fuel standards, which is assumed in the EIS air pollution modelling and the Federal
Government has indefinitely suspended the adoption of this standard into Australia. All suburbs of the North Sydney LGA included in the EIS modelling are forecast to have increased air pollution levels, yet the background air pollution levels already exceed the NEPM national goal of 8mg/m3.

The proposed Ventilation Stack is less than 1 kilometre from my home and no matter how high, do not allow the particulate material to simply ‘blow away’ due to the all the tall buildings nearby instead it will tend to fall over the surrounding suburbs, particularly within 200m to 2km of the ventilation stack which is directly onto my home. This pollution has known and severe health implications - The World Health Organisation has recently declared that outdoor air pollution is already a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths. This is a short-sighted approach when the surrounding suburbs are the location of a university, high schools, primary schools, and preschools, in Sydney’s largest education precinct- plus a major hospital

I strongly object to the EIS because the proposed tunnel is far too long for the type of ventilation proposed.

It is proposed to install longitudinal ventilation in the tunnel with Exhaust stacks more than 5km from the tunnel entrance - with no filtration of fine particles or gases before the air is dispersed. International best practice in tunnel and stack ventilation proposals sees diesel heavy vehicles banned from tunnels over 4.5km long unless filtration is used (Paris Duplex Tunnel, Istanbul’s Eurasia tunnel), or filters installed and extra air exchange designed ‘in tunnel’ (for example Madrid Calle 30, Tokyo’s Yamate tunnels, Italy’s Casena), or have more exhaust stacks at shorter distances and therefore greater air exchange (e.g. E4 Stockholm has 10 air exchanges on 18km route, an emergency smoke vent and no exhaust stack more than 5km apart).

In comparison the design for the WHLink has the exhausts for the North Sydney and Cammeray mainline exit all at Cammeray unfiltered (7.2km long) less than 1 kilometer from my home and seeks approval for the Beaches Link stack in the same area, which would add a further 8.5km of unfiltered road tunnel pollution from Seaforth to Cammeray out at the same location less than 1 kilometer from my home. The WHLink EIS ventilation design (Arup Report) shows 1 air exchange inlet only at
Cammeray to add fresh air for the drivers continuing to Rozelle or Seaforth but this will do nothing to reduce the concentration of pollution collected in the WHLink tunnel to disperse at Cammeray or collected in the Beaches Link tunnel (if approved) for release at Cammeray less than 1 kilometer from my home.

I object because there is no adequate plan to manage the major noise and dust during the construction phase.

Considering the number of schools, childcare, hospitals and nursing homes in the area it is critical that all mitigation measures contemplated in the EIS actually be conditions in any approval. This means that additional conditions to specifically cover noise abatement for sensitive areas are needed during construction. For example the restriction of truck movements near schools, trucks moving in convoys, trucks not idling outside schools or nursing homes etc. must be in place.

The EIS dust assessment has underestimated the population at schools as 100 each when most schools in the area have 1000 students - so clearly much more care needs to be done about controlling these details.

As a formal CONDITION of any approval for these projects the following Mitigation Measures should be adhered to:

· Full air filtration on all ventilation stacks - every other developed country overseas filters exhaust stacks on long (5km or longer) urban road tun-nels and/ or bans diesel vehicles in tunnels of this length completely.

· Ongoing Air Quality Monitoring in the tunnel and at ambient sites as per the Brisbane Airport Link Tunnel – it is unacceptable to only monitor for 2 years
after the tunnel opens as by that stage the tunnel will in no way be fully trafficked, ambient monitoring will also track impacts of exhaust venting from the tunnel in emergency or unexpected conditions.

· The Ventilation facilities MUST be built with the sufficient capacity to install Filtration Equipment if it is not mandated in the approval conditions.
A condition that the Government must pay for the installation and operation if local particulate air quality (PM2.5) near the ventilation stacks location is above 8 mcg/m3 as motor vehicle emissions are the greatest source of such pollution in Sydney.

· There must be NO provision in any Sale/Lease Clause of the eventual asset that limits in any way the development by the State Government or any other Party of mass transit or Public Transport options that would service any part of the project. The limitation placed on the M2 preventing the development of public transport or mass transport options on routes serviced by/parallel to the route must NOT be repeated with this project as this has stopped a North West Metro line being built.

· Dust Suppression Measures must be a Condition, as within the EIS Dust Analysis the EIS has presumed that schools only have a 100 pupils. There are over 18,000 High Dust Sensitive receivers identified already in the EIS just from the Cammeray Construction site (less than 1 kilometre from my home) without underestimating the school population by several thousand.

· Place the machinery buildings for the ventilation stacks underground in Cammeray, as is being done at the Rozelle site. The last thing we need is to lose parks or golf courses. Interestingly North Sydney has 557 people per hectare while our NSROC neighbours range from just 85 people per hectare in Ku-ring-gai through to 220 in Willoughby. (This does beg the question: why couldn’t the interchange be located in Willoughby?). Incredibly, North Sydney even has more residents per hectare than the densely populated City of Sydney across the bridge.

· Build a dedicated bus lane in North Sydney CBD to service both railway stations (North Sydney and Victoria Cross). This will speed up the B Line buses moving through the North Sydney CBD and exiting the city area.

· Use the international best practice filtration techniques (ESP and NOX filters) in the tunnel exhaust stacks needed to handle heavy trucks and diesel vehicles that are being diverted off existing roads. This is proven, stable technology.

· Ideally install tranverse treated particulate and NOX filtration through tunnels (not just at the end in the stacks) for the safety of drivers and motorcyclists or ban motorcycles from the tunnel (as is done in Istanbul’s unfiltered 6.5 km Eurasia tunnel) who are at particular risk using an unfiltered long road tunnel.

· Using truck convoys during construction where using local roads so that individual streets can be opened (and closed) at reasonably predictable and nominated time, enabling local residents to plan accordingly.

· Providing shuttle bus transport to work site and designated on-site parking for workers so local businesses and residents do not lose access to their on-street parking.

· If exhaust fumes and particulates from the unfiltered smokestacks are added to the air on days where bushfire smoke is already raising the air quality index (AQI) to dangerous levels (as happened over the last Spring and Summer period) the situation will be made significantly worse. Therefore when the AQI reaches its ‘danger level’ of 200, the WHLink tunnels should be closed to all traffic.

· The EIS suggestion of “noise reduction pavement” being included on the Freeway anywhere that lanes are regularly being changed by the vehicles, and at the entry/exit points of all portals.

Yours sincerely

Linda Greene

What can I say? I object 100%!!! I have spent the last 2 weeks working 13 hours a day trying to look after my team while we tackle the Covid 19 pandemic. And yet i am still motivated to spend an hour of my time on a Saturday to ask the government to have a really hard look at themselves and ask themselves why they are thinking of going ahead with this fundamentally flawed project.

It is proven - build more roads & you will get more cars. I live in Crows Nest. My 5 year old son goes to Anzac Park Public School and you are planning on increasing the Warringah freeway to 18 lanes plus add unfiltered chimneys within 200m of our school! Shame on you all!

Why are you not investing in sustainable public transport. How about extending the B Line bus services or building a train line into Chatswood? Gladys herself has admitted that the traffic along Military Road will reduce by 15% and then return to current levels within a few years. so please explain what the point is?

What about the loss of green space. Digging up Flat Rock (which is full of toxins & asbestos) and eating into St Leonards park. I understand that you are planning to lose 26k m2 of recreational space. Have you considered climate change? Is this a very real issue and this tunnel directly goes against what the government should be doing to reduce Pollution!

And dont even get me started on air pollution. Children are massively impacted by air particles which impairs their development. This EIS is a cold, inhuman and utterly deceptive document. The whole process is flawed. How can you expect lay people (most with full time jobs) to digest such a poorly written and confusing document and provide feedback within 6 weeks. Again shame on you.

It seems that you have only planned for the best case scenario (not the worst case). Stop the tunnels collected over 11k signatures but the government process is also flawed as The government are not legally bound to hear it in parliament As they are in the uk. Also this submission process is so complicated. It took me 3 attempts to set up and verify my account. So please dont take the number of submissions as an indication of how pissed off people are about this initiative.

Finally - I want to ask any of you if you have children and if so 'how do you sleep at night'?!? Think of their lungs filling up with fumes as you kiss them goodnight tonight and think about how you would explain to them what you are doing. You have a chance to leave a legacy I beg that you reconsider this project and stop it now!