Child safety and protection

Let's talk about the next generation. Are they not precious to us? The proposed tunnel will see kids having to walk and cycle on busy Sydney road instead of safely on the cycle path for a period of 8 years. This would be bad enough, but the project will actively add 100s of trucks a day to the roads these kids will now be forced to use. I can imagine you wonder why these kids are not taking the bus. I will tell you, government policy is such that after yr 3, the distance kids are expected to walk/cycle increases making them ineligible for school subsidised Opal cards. I live on Dudley Road and last year my son was denied an opal card because he was deemed close enough to Manly West Primary school to walk or ride his bike. But previous years he was eligible. And his younger brother was eligible. When I contested the decision I was told he was old enough to walk this distance and the government had deemed it safe because of the pathway by Burnt Bridge creek deviation. Ironically, the school won't let him ride his bike for several more years. So what a lose lose situation for parents and kids.
I watch so many kids ride up my street to go to Balgowlah Boys for school. They are independent and happy. This will disappear with the tunnel construction. Not only will the pathway disappear, but the noise and dust pollution will be so bad that parents won't want to have their kids outside riding to school. And let us remember this is not a few months, but years! If construction started tomorrow, it would mean my son's entire school career from this day forward would not include riding or walking to school. 8 years. A whole childhood gone and lost. We all only get one. Please do not take this from our children. Even if they walked another route, wore masks, or risked biking on the road, the risk to injury and loss of life due to increase in truck traffic is high.

Drive you child to school you say? oh right, I forgot that the proposed tunnel is trying to increase road usage as opposed to reduce it. Funny how this is contrary to state and federal policy and commitments.

It isn't a hard decision to make. The EIS outlines the impact to the community. From my reading of the document, the negative impact significantly outweighs the proposed positive outcomes. You do not need to be good in maths to realise this means the numbers do not add up. You asked for our feedback and opinions. You said that if the impact was too high, then the project would be adjusted or not proceed. No amount of adjustments will bring the negative impact down to a level that will make the project ultimately positive in nature. Therefore, the project should be scrapped. Spend the money elsewhere to benefit society. This tunnel is not needed nor wanted. I strongly object to its construction.

I object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Upgrade – SSI_8862

I have lived in Seaforth for 48 years and expected to continue to do so. Since I heard of the projected Beaches Link tunnel I have attended multiple information sessions, provided by the RMS and community groups before the pandemic. Since then I have attended all sessions via zoom.

In addition I have attempted to read and digest as much of the E.I.S released at the end of December 2020 as I was able. It was an outrageous affront to release that report at Christmas time in the midst of a pandemic and indeed as it happened a lock down on the Northern beaches, knowing perfectly well ordinary members of the public would not have the time or knowledge to read and digest it by March 1st.
It was thanks to local community members giving their time and expertise to provide a synopsis that I read as much as I did.

I have not seen or heard anything in the last 3 years that convinced me this project is necessary nor suitable for the Northern Beaches.

I therefore object to this project on the following grounds;

Above all the disruption, noise, pollution and destruction of the local area.

Noise from constant tunnelling under people's homes. There is no plan explanation of what will be used for noise mitigation.
And removal of the so called spoil.

Wakehurst parkway to be widened, involving trucks going in and out of the working area 24/7 travelling through residential areas,near schools, potentially putting children at risk. As there is no explanation in the EIS to say which directions spoil trucks will go I don't think proper consideration has been given to this aspect at all.
I live near Frenchs Forest Rd which contains a primary school and an aged care development,a narrow winding street that would be dangerous for all road uses if spoil trucks will be travelling constantly.

Balgowlah golf course is to be all but destroyed and turned into another works area. That is directly opposite Balgowlah boys high school, current enrolment around 900. If this project were to go ahead that means some children will spend their entire secondary school life in the middle of a construction zone.

Workers parking in local streets. I live in Seaforth, an old suburb with narrow streets and little parking. What are locals expected to do if construction workers are occupying all street parking? The EIS mentions Pickworth St as a parking area for them. The noise you now hear is locals laughing. Pickworth is always full. This points up how little consideration has really been given to how local residents would be impacted by the project.

There would be a huge impact on fauna at Burnt Bridge Creek and Manly Dam and on the Wakehurst Parkway.

Toxic sludge disturbance in Middle Harbour is already a problem. And just last week a report in the Sydney Morning Herald reported on the extent of same at Berry's Bay. Not enough research has gone into dealing with this issue.

The State Govt is proposing to spend upwards of 15 BILLION on a tunnel that will take at least 7 years to build. Causing noise, pollution and disruption to people's lives and health, putting children and the elderly at risk from heavy trucks passing through residential areas,near schools. And in the end, it would achieve very little. According to traffic experts from UTS the time saving bypassing Military Rd would be minimal.

If this project were to go ahead, it would be an appalling waste of public money.

The last year has proved many workers can work effectively from home and want to continue doing so. If there was ever a demand for a road tunnel it no longer exists.

What is needed is better public transport not a road tunnel.

I object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Upgrade – SSI_8862

Gladys Berejiklian stated that pollution ventilation shafts would have additional filtering particularly where they would impact school, parks and children. For the health and safety of the population living, attending school and working nearby, all these ventilation shafts require filtering and then constant monitoring for any dangerous pollutant levels particularly during highest use periods. The filtering and pollutant monitoring results must be made transparent and available to the whole of the affected community.

I have objected on the following grounds:
- I am completely against this project because of environmental impacts it will have on my local community.
- The pollution it will create in the harbour as a result of dredging releasing contaminants will have an effect on not only marine life but popular children friendly harbour beaches e.g. Clontarf. In addition, 428,000 litres of waste water pumped into Queenscliff each day which is a popular area for swimming by locals.
- Destruction of habitat - there have been 23 species detailed as under threat in the EIS but there will be many more. This is tragic to the ecosystems and natural wildlife in our neighbourhood.
- Burnt Bridge Creek will probably dry up due to a potential 96% reduction in water flow. This will further impact local wildlife.
- As a resident close to the wakehurst parkway construction site, I am very concerned about the construction noise, vibration and increase in works traffic impacting me at home. I will be subjected to this for the next 7 years!!!
- The use of unfiltered stacks on the health of my local community. In particular as these are in such close proximity to schools e.g. North Balgowlah Public School where my children attend, Seaforth public school and several childrens daycares. Gladys herself objected to the use of unfiltered stacks in the Lane Cove Tunnel, calling the filtration of stacks "Ethically right in the interests of health". Yet, she has changed her mind on the northern beaches where they are in close proximity to public schools and daycares.
- Since covid more and more people have had to work from home. Despite easing of restrictions, many people have been supported to continue to work part of their hours at home. With less commuter traffic on the roads can the financial and environmental justifications of this project be justified - I would say not.

I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
1. the EIS is not current and much of it was written before covid. therefore the facts and data it contains are irrelevant to current situation eg with respect to travel time data, post covid - there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. thus a new, up to date post-covid EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.
2. the 'beaches tunnel' has been declared "worlds best practice', however, this is untrue, as 'world's best practice' would include filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks. as plainly stated in the eis, these will NOT be filtered, therefore this plan for beaches tunnel is NOT worlds best practice, therefore, until it can be deemed, "worlds best practice', it should NOT go ahead.
3. the name 'beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel goes to Balgowlah. not to the beach. thus, this is false marketing and false representation of a state significant project and as such should be addressed with a name more representative of what it actually is.
4. the original document signed by Mike Baird when he was premier clearly stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along military rd and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. This is a blatant abuse of the investigative process and thus excluded from the start, any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. thus, the basis of the project is biased and non-scientific and illogical from the start. therefore, the project needs to stop until a full investigation into public transport options, especially rail from dee why-chatswood can be evaluated and compared to the proposed $15,000,000,000 stretch of road /tunnel that is the .beaches link. also, there has been some mention that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from this project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and also may have struck a deal to provide mike board with a post political job within the transport industry, therefore, the project begun with a false and seemingly biased , even corrupt selection process that excluded any consideration of public transport - especially trains in its analysis of best solution to traffic congestion.
5. at $15,000,000,000 this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines and thus must be analysed further wrt to cost-benefit. however, since the travel data contained within the EIS is out of date by up to 5 years, this is not possible, and thus such expenditure can not be justified.
6. this project is unethical as it uses public money to make a private Toll road and as such is not for the benefit of the wider community. The tolls will be too expensive for most and this will encourage rat-racing and more traffic on local roads. thus the road/tunnel will never achieve its aim of reducing traffic.
7. due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand' , whereby in the absence of viable public transport options, such a project will only increase car travel and thus any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. thus, this project is ill conceived, short sighted, un ethical and nonsensical.
8. this project actually encourages car travel and further tolling in sydney. major cities around the world have all shown the negative effects of car congestion in their cbds yet this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's cbd. this is irresponsible planning and not in sydney's long term interests.
9. the non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of cammeray and nearly north sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. this is unacceptable since the increased car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain several extremely toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health. this effect is heightened in the bodies of young children, thus it is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks be not-filtered and located in such close proximity to schools.
10. the primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. flat rock gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA.
plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable, plus further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable.
11. the proposed coffer dam to go in water off northbridge is unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. the dredging will alter silt tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters. the waters have only recently returned to a high state of cleanliness as evidenced by recent sightings of seals and even a whale a few years back. dredging these water will disturb decades old layers of harbour sludge containing toxic sediments. the toxic fallout from digging in these waterways will result in closing down valuable public amenities such as northbridge baths, and northbridge sailing club. any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.
12. the government has recently declared am 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. this project is not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully to make way for dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses eg cammeray and balgowlah.
13. the advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. however, i was told by an engineer at a northbridge information session at our local golf club that the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. therefore, the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and as such, has not been providing accurate information for community consultation. this is highly inappropriate for a state significant project, its false and misleading information and as such, the project should be halted until such time that the EIS traffic data is current, covid-relevant and accurate with respect to whether or not buses will be able to travel in it.
14. the plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation

As a resident of Balgowlah I strongly object to this project for the following reasons:

The community consultation process has been extremely poor. To expect residents to be able to read a 12,000 page document in the time frame given factoring is not acceptable. The expectation that we are able to read and understand the detail of such a document is also completely unreasonable. I have had to rely on other community members to help me understand the impact this project has on me.
-Living in a home that backs onto Balgowlah golf course, the impact during construction is going to be detrimental to my life. I have young children sleeping during the day and playing in the garden. They will be impacted by noise and dust from construction.
- Unfiltered smoke stacks in the immediate vicinity of an area filled with families and elderly people, as well as school and child care facilities is completely unacceptable. Any stack must be filtered. Even our premier said in 2008 that world best practice is to filter stacks. She is now backtracking on her earlier comment, when the cost will be from her government.
- With 3000 workers located at the Balgowlah golf course work site, this will put pressure on street parking. Wanganella street is already congested as a result of commuters parking there, we cannot sustain that level of workers in the area. Suggestions that they will be brought in buses in are unrealistic. How will this be monitored and policed?
- The loss of flora and fauna in the Burnt Bridge Creek in Manly Dam areas is unacceptable. As well as the downstream impact to Queenscliff and environmental impact at Middle harbour.
- This project has not been compared to alternate public transport measures. We are living in a world where climate change is real. Why are we building more roads to encourage more people to drive? Any forward thinking country in the world is doing the opposite. We should be investing in public transport, not a tunnel. We have a responsibility to our children and our children's children to protect and retain this beautiful place that we live in. This project goes against this completely. I object to it and urge the State Government to reconsider.
- The business case for this project has not been published. As taxpayers we should be entitled to know how much this is going to cost us. I object to our money being spent this way and believe that public transport would not only be beneficial for our environment but also save the taxpayers billions of dollars.

The basis is set out in the attached submission of today's date.

This is going to be far too detrimental to our environment, traffic and lifestyle

Years and years of construction for little benefit, in the meantime wildlife in the Flat rock gully will be destroyed never mind school children’s possible health issues caused by an exhaust, toxic substance may be leaked to the harbour by disturbing the old landfill ground. We don’t see any upside at all of this project. We could only see handful of people benefiting hugely from this project, on enormous sacrifices of local community.