I highly oppose this tunnel, there is no need for it. We need to think of more sustainable transport options rather than cars for the future of our planet. The cost to the environment, the local communities and wildlife is not justified by this project.

I object to the tunnel construction on the basis of environmental impact. Construction of the Beaches Link Tunnel will result in the permanent loss of up to 96% of the base water flow of the Burnt Bridge Creek, effectively ending its life and that of all the creatures great and small that rely upon it. This means significant impact to vegetation and the potential collapse of ecosystems along the watercourse from Seaforth to Manly Lagoon and Beach.

Project Benefit Objections
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Reduce pressure on the congested Spit Road/Military Road corridors – leading to faster and more reliable journeys to, from and around the Northern Beaches and North Shore
Objection:
In 1994, the UK Government Department of Transport released the “TRUNK ROADS AND THE GENERATION OF TRAFFIC. The Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment”. This highlighted the phenomenon on induced traffic demand as a result on increased road infrastructure. This has been verified in recent reviews in other countries (van der Loop et al. (2016) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.008). This would predict that traffic congestion will INCREASE on both the new infrastructure, in the areas leading to the tunnel portals and the existing roads. This is effect is particularly evident when new infrastructure opens up new opportunities for development, which is clearly proposed for the Northern beaches.
In the absence of a co-existing intelligent traffic management proposal, the traffic bottleneck will be predicted for the lead up to the tunnel portals.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Enable local businesses to have better and more efficient access to Greater Sydney, making it easier to move goods and provide services, as well as bringing employees and businesses closer together.
Objection:
Heavy transport vehicles do not form the major contributing factor to the congestion issues on this transport route.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Provide a step-change in public transport journey times, reliability and connectivity by providing a new underground bypass route to enable express bus services between northern beaches and strategic centres across Sydney, including North Sydney, the Harbour CBD, St. Leonards and Macquarie Park.
Objection:
There is no accompanying public transport proposal for consideration of the validity of this benefit. An increased number of buses would be required to accommodate the demand from the Northern Beaches and the by-passed areas on Military road including Cremorne, Mosman and Neutral Bay.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Contribute to an integrated transport network by enabling direct bus access to North Sydney and an efficient transfer to the Victoria Cross metro station
Objection:
Given the current bottleneck on the Harbour Bridge access to the CBD for buses, it is likely this will be replicated at any additional transport hubs.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Return local streets to communities by moving traffic underground, freeing up local streets for local traffic and supporting the sustainability of local town centres
Objection:
This prediction is unlikely to eventuate given the increased pressure on the tunnel portal access, the shifting of bottlenecks, and the predicted shift to alternative runs with the increased car journeys.
Stated Proposal Benefit:
• Opportunities to enhance the local community by improving active transport (pedestrian and cyclist facilities) connections and providing new public open space and recreation facilities
Objection:
There is no accompanying plan outlining the details of a commuting cycling infrastructure. The planned recreational spaces are re-purposed from pre-existing green space at the expense of sensitive environment destruction.
Economic Objections:
As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald (20 Dec. 2020) “Sydney University transport economist Professor David Hensher estimates Greater Sydney has more toll-road kilometres than any other urban area in the world.” While introduction of tolls has been used as a mechanism for decreasing traffic congestion by decreasing car journeys, this is only valuable when applied to existing infrastructure, and is not a priority for a commercial/private enterprise. The tolls on the proposed tunnel will penalise financially disadvantaged residents, or could disincentivise use of the tunnel, reverting pressure to the existing arterial roads.
Environmental impact objections:
As highlighted in Appendix C: Environmental Risk Analysis, Categories BIODIVERSITY and IMPACT ON GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS AND THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES.
Pre-mitigation risks were assessed as HIGH (MAJOR consequence, LIKELY) for both these categories during the construction and operation stages. With mitigation, this was still assessed as MODERATE (MODERATE consequence, LIKELY). This is an unacceptable risk for a unique area of bushland with recognised endangered species and a richness of biodiversity that is part of the social fabric of the area. Risk of destruction of such an area is out of step with current values demanding the preservation of diminishing nature corridors. Such areas cannot be rehabilitated, as ecosystems evolve over long time periods.

Hi there,
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I am writing to express my strong objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. After reading the EIS documents, I have significant concerns about the justification for this project. A few top line reasons are – there is no published business case, it is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list, the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety an alternative public transport option has not been fully scoped and compared. These reasons in themselves are compelling, however I'd also like to ask why dig up an established toxic tip site and put our environment, waterways and health at risk? Why build two tunnels worth of traffic into one of the busiest road corridors on the North Shore? Why induce more car reliance and parking problems in already space constrained areas? Now we as a nation are starting to experience the devastating effects of climate change why aren't we exploring more sustainable transport options? We should be getting less cars on the roads not more. It doesn't make economic sense, nor environmental sense nor even sense from an infrastructure point of view. I will now list out some of my specific concerns and objections –

• I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces specifically in relation to Middle Harbour and Flat Rock Gully. I regularly enjoy these spaces with my family and having this areas contaminated or taken away from us because of this project is disheartening to say the least. Effectively my children's leisure activities and quality of life will be impacted severely for many years, potentially up until their own adulthood. Robbing the children of Northbridge and surrounding areas of their green spaces and waterways is diabolical if not criminal. The proposed project counteracts the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development in the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991 (NSW) which declares that the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be of fundamental consideration (PEAA Act Part 3(2)(c)). Over 390 trees are targeted for potential destruction at Flat Rock Gully – only two-thirds will be replaced. Willoughby City Council (WCC) tree policy requires that 3 trees be replaced for each removal (WCC, Vegetation Management Strategy 2020). These policies should not be overridden by the NSW State Government. Furthermore, biodiversity is poorly scoped in the EIS. The bulk of the biodiversity assessment concentrates and comments on 23 threatened species only. It ignores the many hundreds of species which will lose their habitat, be driven away or bulldozed under including a wide range of bird species, frogs, reptiles, mammals and aquatic animals. I request a full assessment is carried out of the biodiversity in and around the area to be destroyed in Flat Rock Gully. Check trees for hollows across the gully area. Carry out fish and macroinvertebrate sampling in creeks and waterways. Engage wildlife professional to deploy mitigation strategies.

• As I live in Northbridge, I object to the project due to the unreasonable level of impact on my family's Quality of Life of residents during the tunnel construction. Anecdotal evidence of friends who live in the inner west and were negatively impacted by the Westconnex construction gives me serious concerns about my own health being impacted by noise pollution, dust particulates contaminating the air and my house being structurally damaged by underground tunnelling. Currently there is inadequate information in relation to health impacts (secondary to landfill gas and odours) of proposed tunnelling works at Flat Rock Drive. A Phase 2 assessment is needed to check for contaminants and quantify risk. Approval should not proceed until the risks are known and mitigation possibilities scoped. Testing around the freeway and at Cammeray site has also confirmed contamination. Serious consideration of the cost/benefits of the project in light of the risk to residents and children as well as the cost to mitigate and remediate sites should be given. Contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in Middle Harbour – these contaminants are dangerous to human health - and many of them have been found above ‘safe levels’(Table 1, Annexure C, Appendix F). Very limited sampling was conducted and further testing was not continued when levels of contaminants were found that are harmful to human health. Contaminants have been found in groundwater and surface water around the tip site in Flat Rock Gully and there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully as work proceeds. Contaminants such as heavy metals and PFAS have been detected in Middle Harbour – these contaminants are dangerous to human health - and many of them have been found above ‘safe levels’(Table 1, Annexure C, Appendix F). Very limited sampling was conducted and further testing was not continued when levels of contaminants were found that are harmful to human health.
Contaminants have been found in groundwater and surface water around the tip site in Flat Rock Gully and there is a risk identified that these may move down the gully as work proceeds.
Large amounts of wastewater will be produced from both construction and operational activities. Wastewater will be treated and flushed down creeks for example 117,000 L per day will be released down Flat Rock Creek via Tunks Park and 296, 000 L down Willoughby Creek from the Cammeray Site via Primrose Park. Specific methods regarding how the water will be treated given the contaminants detected and listed as likely ie) asbestos is not clear.
10,000m3 of contaminated sediment will be barged out of Middle Harbour past Clontarf and Balmoral Beaches to be dried out before being trucked to a licenced facility. The drying point is not yet known or the disposal site. Object to contaminated sediment being barged past beaches and the risk of spills. There is no remediation plan or budget for compensating for spills or accidents

• I object to the project as it is a tolled road and there is little evidence that it will alleviate current congestion. The EIS confirms the Beaches Link is a Toll Road but there are no costings as yet. Costing and placement of toll gantries is essential to modelling traffic flows and predicting toll avoidance. Toll avoidance could become an issue as per the Inner West. Only a low level of induced demand has been included in the modelling - research demonstrates that a higher level of induced demand is generally used for new expressways (up to 10%) which calls the modelling into question.
The only local entry points for the Beaches Link are via Artarmon and Berry St North Sydney – no local time saved: 10mins to get to entry, 10 mins in tunnel, 10 mins to Dee Why or Manly = 30 min journey time. The EIS makes it clear that this is not a local congestion solution – several local intersections fail or will experience a worse level of service both during and after construction as a result of the project.

Despite the obvious environmental concerns such a project entails, I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case and the costs demonstrated in the EIS seem to far outweigh the benefits. If you will not acknowledge a compelling environmental argument for stopping this project from going ahead, at least consider the economic one. The EIS also fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which poses a risk to the project.
In my opinion, this project is a missed opportunity to transform Sydney into a world class, healthy and sustainable city with a strong public transport system. The EIS demonstrates that this toll road will be extremely expensive to build and high risk with little benefit. 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,

Michael Hearle

I have purchased the residence that I presently live in after working for over thirty years to protect the environment with NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service and also receiving a National Medal for fire fighting and protecting the environment I strongly object to the destruction of the environment in the local area for a project that by the time it is finished will not benefit the community and the local environment will be destroyed forever

To Whom It MAy Concern,
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.
15. the prime objective of population growth via immigration must now be re-assessed , given that we are now living with the ongoing threat of covid. therefore, the projected need for the tunnel is lessened and thus the business case weakened in current covid - times. the EIS makes no mention of current work travel time changes due to covid and is thus out-of-date and irrelevant on many counts.
in conclusion i object to this 'beaches Tunnel' project going ahead on several counts. namely the EIS is out of date, the business case doesn't hold up, the primary objective for the tunnel is biased away from public transport options and the project is too expensive and environmentally damaging fro sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
i recommend a complete review of the original process in which ALL options are considered and compared to find the best way to approach perceived traffic congestion. i suggest that train options be reviewed and considered as a priority. i recommend an investigation into the original conception of the idea from Mike baird's time as premier and any undue bias towards road/tunnel projects over more viable public transport options, particularly rail. i strongly oppose Flat rock gully as main dig site as it has undergone amazing regeneration the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected.
i strongly oppose the high cost of this project , especially when the net outcome of relatively small reductions in travel times data is evident. i recommend that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling eg buses and trains, at a fraction of the $15 billion cost. also, if the prime objective is to on sell this road/tunnel to a large transport toll company like transurban - then the basis for this project is unjust as transurban holds a monopoly over tolled roads in sydney and thus there is no assurance of best value spending of public money - this is negligent and irresponsible. this project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. this project os narrow minded and its focus too short term to have any lasting positive impact.

I object to:
- This project as it goes against Australia's agreement to tackle climate change in line with the Paris agreement: the EIS report proves that the project has paid no regard for climate change with the extra pollution from the open ventilation stacks, toxic chemicals being dredged from the water ways, the major destruction of bushlands and tree canopies
- A poorly designed, hap hazard tunnel design that will not benefit the local community or reduce traffic congestion, it will actually increase traffic congestion
- The project contradicts the government's climate change goals
- Any project designed to put more cars on the road with no public transport options
- The removal of all green space and trees outlined within the project plan
- The design of 6.5 meter unfiltered exhaust stacks and the poor placement in a valley, raising pollution levels across Seaforth, Balgowlah, North Balgowla, Many Vale
- Placing unfiltered ventilation stacks within meters of schools including Balgowlah boys
- The environmental destruction and loss of bio diversity, significant impacts to our natural flora, fauna and waterways at The Golf Course, Burnt Bridge Creek, Wakehurst Parkway, Manly Dam, all the way to Queenscliff due to pumping of wastewater directly into the waterways at Burnt Bridge Creek
- The complete destruction of the water table and planned 96% reduction of water flow planned to occur at Burnt Bridge Creek and beyond, all the way to Queenscliff
- The lack of any business case
- The lack of permanent public transport options such as a dedicated bus lane or light rail to service the northern beaches
- The lack of transparent costs of the project
- The lack of a business case
- The lack of any tangible benefits of the tunnel
- The expected increase in Traffic on Wanganella St Balgowlah including other local streets - Page 302 Appendix F Traffic & Transport part 1
- The project induces demand and vehicle reliance - the EIS confirms that vehicle use will increase along the corridor if the project goes ahead ie) it creates induced demand. Measured in Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT) without the project there would be a future predicted 13 633 873 VKT per day, with the project there would be 13 945 836 and with both the Beaches Link and Western Harbour Tunnel there will be 14 584 266 VKT per day by 2037. This was a key criticism of the Federal Economics Reference Committeewhen looking into Australia’s growing toll roads: “Impacts on environment and health policy: To the extent that toll roads increase the amount of car traffic by both increasing the total number of trips and by substituting for public transport, they increase the difficulty of meeting carbon emissions targets. They may also lead to reduced air quality” and “Motorways may also substitute for walking or cycling, or make walking or cycling more difficult. This has been argued with regard to the Westgate Tunnel project. Most governments aim to promote cycling and walking for health reasons.”

- The project contradicts governments climate change goals: the councils along the route have all declared a Climate Emergency and the State government has committed to the goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. There is a strong economic imperative to do so: “CSIRO has estimated that achieving net-zero emissions before or soon after 2050 will deliver ‘higher economic growth’ than more moderate trends (Figure 1). NSW is committed to delivering strong economic growth, and supporting net-zero emissions is consistent with that commitment.” Councils such as Northern Beaches Council have set strong targets around reducing car use in line with this policy. The EIS demonstrates that the reverse will be achieved and this project increases car dependence and trips. With $14bn being allocated to a road option rather than a public mass transit option it is unlikely that there will be a significant mode shift to public transport in future “a shift away from private vehicles requires the provision of convenient, efficient, affordable and appealing alternatives that travellers will choose to take” There is no dedicated bus lane in the tunnel - research shows that where public transport travels at the same or a slower speed as car traffic motorists will choose to drive. The project team have confirmed that the alignment of the proposed tunnel in the EIS cannot be converted to rail due to gradients. The Dee Why to Chatswood corridor has been assessed as being the most viable corridor for a rail (train, metro or light rail) based alternative. The climate impact and sustainability of this corridor needs to be assessed but given the opportunity to travel along established corridors, better avoid complex and contaminated environs and be a far smaller built it is evident that this would be a far more sustainable option than what is currently proposed in and around Flat Rock Gully, Middle Harbour and Manly Dam.

1. Unfiltered stacks - no idea why in this era unfiltered stacks are acceptable
2. Loss of habitat - Flat Rock area how is it ok to remove wildlife corridors within the city
3. Contamination of Middle Harbour why is there no contamination assessment as a Northbridge Baths swimmer for the lat 40 years I find it totally unacceptable that a risk to humans and aquatic life can be taken do lightly.
4. Exposure of previous dump site - exposing hazardous materials from the former dump site is irresponsible asbestos will definitely be present.
5. Additional traffic on Flat Rock will impact the local community for years with no benefit
6. Waste water diverted down Flat Rock Creek will cause contamination of the area and bay.
7. Land subsidence following tunnel construction is detrimental to the area.
8. Why is there no mass transport alternatives?
9. Zero benefit for Cammeray/Naremburn area.
10. Business case has not been provided.

Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Beaches link and Gore Hill Freeway

The EIS already disclosed many adverse conditions about the project. The mean time for motorists is average considering the numerous adverse impacts the project creates and environmental impact of the project upon residents, human health and 'road health' from private motor car emissions. These are major environmental impacts. For the cost of the project certainly outweighs any real consideration for the project where monies and funding could be well spent utilising other areas of freeing up existing motorways and providing education to motorists in economising such as car sharing, more available public transport to avail to tighter more regimental bus services. More building does not necessarily equate to solving the current problem of traffic congestion but in some forms directs traffic to different areas where the environmental impact will be greater. Car sharing and more public transport services with reliable timetabling would be far more economical and stays within the current charm of the area and supports the residents in nearby locations. It allows the beach areas to be free of congested traffic and to retain essential heritage and cultural significance for tourism and residents, and keeps the atmosphere, suburbs including Willoughby to remain 'cleaner'. The noise issues are currently not in line with appropriate noise level measures and the concept of the project should be strongly considered as a poor idea when viewing the EIS and project. The concept of the 'connection' appears to be 'floating' almost an island in itself. It does not fit with the character of the area either. Suburbs are residential zoned areas that have individual character and population influences that are important in maintaining identity, better health standards, and safer areas and roads for our children and pets as well as for residents and motorists, therefore I raise objections to the proposed idea and consider it to be an 'eye-sore' of a project. Monies are better spent updating bus services and timetables and giving motorists better opportunity for in-house projects such as car-sharing. This also strengthens community ties as most residents would likely have family ties with each other and within their communities. The enjoyment of viewing waterways and beaches also would be lost to an eyesore and this would deter tourism not support it. Rock and soil erosion are also huge pollution impacts to waterways and marine biodiversity, this surely could not be contained with such a large and impacting idea. The evidence of traffic has and will always be an issue. Problem solving does not necessarily include vast building work. there are other economical solutions that can be applies. A suggestion would be to consult with ecology, marine biology and science university students who can apply different practical solutions that will not cost millions of dollars and not impact greatly upon human health or the environment. This was an idea that was successfully used by Australian Prime Minster Rudd. Please consider all options and suggestions and alternative solutions opposed to the array of adverse environmental impacts this project will have upon many people and the natural environment.

I object to this project as I am very concerned about the impact on flora and fauna as well as on the waterways (streams, creeks and Middle Harbour). I am concerned that local amenities such as Northbridge Baths and Northbridge Sailing Club could unavailable to local residents both during and after construction of the Beaches Link.
I am concerned about the impact on local traffic, both during construction due to increased vehicular volume particularly of large trucks and after construction with the proposed changes to the existing ramps at Miller and Brook Streets which will increase congestion and travel times for residents of Naremburn, Cammeray and Northbridge.
I object as I believe the incredibly large amount of money being spent on this tunnel and associated works which could be used to improve our public transport system.
This project will cause many years of disruption and will potentially put the health and safety of local residents at risk and yet at the end of it all my neighbourhood will be worse off.