Refer to the attachment

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

It is important to note that the perceived need for a tunnel is based on the now outdated business case of relatively large numbers of commuters travelling to and from business centres such as the Sydney CBD.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

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

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

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

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

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

I Object to the proposal on the following grounds.

TRAFFIC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


ENVIRONMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our family objects to this project in its current form.

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