I strenuously object to the Beaches Link Tunnel on the grounds that it is based on flawed perceived benefits.
1) Travel Times. The future forecast time savings are highly unlikely to materialise. At present a 56 minute time saving from Dee Why to the airport in peak hour would represent a travel time of less than 18 minutes. Outside of peak hour the travel time would be around 8 minutes to cover the 27 km to the airport. These figures use the State Governments Trip Planner as a source. The projected time savings are clearly based on the assumption that current traffic congestion will continue to grow at the rate experienced over the previous decade or so. The figures do not allow for improvements in public transport, the increase in people working from home, the decline in demand for city centric offices or the rise of alternative means of transport eg cycling, individual personal transport. The same argument can be applied to the other projected time savings ie Balgowlah to CBD and Frenchs Forest to Rozelle. The time saving from Manly to Macquarie Park largely reflects the existing lack of concentric public transport links which has been a failure of transport planning across the network for generations. Traffic in the new tunnel will increase to the point where time savings are no longer occurring as has happened with every other motorway built to date. Just ask the commuters on the M2, M5 or any other tollway.
2) The projections for reduced traffic. These traffic reductions can be achieved by improved public transport, increasing access to transport for school children so that parents do not have to drive them to and from school (the current restrictions have been in place for decades and no longer reflect the needs of children/parents in terms of safety or accessibility). Indeed the 10% reduction in Military Road traffic is already evident in school holidays!
3) While the promise of 5 km of new cycle ways/paths is welcome it would appear to be nothing more than a public relations exercise given the multi billion dollar price tag of the project.
4) The destruction of Balgowlah Golf Course. This iconic facility is 90 years old and is used extensively from daylight to dusk by large numbers of people, something which few other parks can lay claim to. Indeed in my observations, most urban parkland areas are under used, while purpose built facilities such as golf course are busy.
5) I find it ludicrous that the Business Case for this and other major and minor projects are not made public. The argument that releasing the Business Case would jeopardise the integrity of the procurement process is simply saying that the Government is not prepared to allow public scrutiny of its business dealings. An open and fair tender process, subject to the normal checks and balances of the democratic system would at least give the tax paying public some assurance that the Beaches Link does indeed represent value for money for the people of NSW. The government’s record to date with major projects such as the Sydney Light Rail, the Football Stadium, the Powerhouse fiasco and the destruction of Parramatta pool do little to engender faith in the Government to bring this project in on time and under budget, thereby committing residents and commuters to years of pain during construction.
6) Tolls. The cost of commuting in Sydney is already amongst the most expensive in the world. Another toll road/tunnel which I suspect commuters will be funneled into, will be yet another financial burden, unless of course a rebate scheme is introduced to prevent political backlash; at the same time largely negating any profitability for the people of NSW.
7) The Northern Beaches area does deserve better transport links to the rest of the Sydney area. Rail links stretching from Newport to Chatswood and via Manly to the city with an interchange at Dee Why or Mona Vale would be the ultimate long term solution. Building more roads based on a tolling system merely benefits construction companies, toll road operators and developers and provides only short term relief. The Northern Beaches and indeed all of greater Sydney deserves better from our elected representatives.

Regards Peter Cooper-Southam
Frenchs Forest

I am very concerned about the many years of high impact construction work - on water quality and wildlife in the harbour, on biodiversity and wildlife in Flat Rock Gully construction site, and the noise, vibration and traffic impacts on the residents of Northbridge. There is no benefit to Northbridge from the project, only significant burden, and I have not seen any convincing business case for the project as a whole - it seems to be development for development's sake. We need to be focussing on getting traffic off our roads through decentralisation of facilities and improved public transport, not facilitating more traffic by building more roads. The money, inconvenience and cost to the environment does not match the dubious business case.

I am concerned about the effect of the project on wildlife along Wakehurst Parkway during construction of the widening of the road and when complete.
There has been an increase in larger animals such as Swamp Wallabies being killed along the current Wakehurst Parkway close to Garigal National Park which has happened since the changes made to Warringah Road during the building of the NB Hospital. I believe as a wildlife carer there will be more wildlife killed on the Wakehurst Parkway due to noise, lack of fauna exclusion fencing and before any over or underpasses are completed.
Many animals will be disorientated by the ongoing loud noises of heavy machinery and the bulldozing of many many trees which are habitat for mammals, birds and monotremes eg exhidnas plus reptiles eg goannas and snakes.
It is imperative that there are trained wildlife ‘spotters’ employed on the sites during the long building process to ensure any animals are protected and if required rescued and relocated or taken into care.

I object to the Project for the following reasons:
1. We don't need or want a tunnel. Saving 7 minutes off a commute is minimal and irrelevant. Provide better public transport to get cars off roads. The local 172X bus route has just replaced the 168 and 169 routes, adding an extra 15 minutes to the daily commute.
2. Traffic in local streets will be significantly impacted by the construction and implementation phase.
3. Noise and Vibrarion will cause lical residents to no longer have the enjoyment of their homes, loss of property value and damage to property.
4. Air pollution from the unfiltered stacks will have serious health impacts on the children and elderly who go to school, engage in outdoor activities and live in the local area. In particular the stack in Balgowlah is located in a valley and will not benefit from adequate wind movement to disperse the pollutants and dilute them. The heavy particulate matter, NO and heavy metals will be unable to mix and fallout at maximum concentrations within high residential population between 200 - 1.2k of the stack. The low level temperature inversion in the balgowlah area is above stack height and will prevent the plum of emissiona feom riaing and will force them to return unmixed to the ground.
5. Visual impact - the stack is very ugly and cause visual impact to reaidents and reduce property value.
6.

Whilst supporting the project our Club is concerned about the impact construction will have on our neighbouring sailing clubs as per the attached submission. We are also concerned about the lack of notification about disruption to local waterways . No one from the NSW Government has made direct contact to any specifically affected organisations that use the waterways of Middle Harbour.

I object to the loss of nature, in particular Burnt Bay Creek which provides a safe, and beautiful pathway for our children. Nature on our doorstop outweighs the need for putting more traffic on the road. Another solution must be found.
Do not destroy nature- our environment is paramount to supporting sustainability.

Please see attached document containing my objections to the project.

As a resident just 300m from the ventilation outlets, who plays croquet at the croquet club and walks his granddaughter to and from Anzac Park School I object to the proposed project.

Anzac Park School is now fully operational which has significantly increased pedestrian traffic in Ernest St and surrounding streets. The EIS does not appear to have the correct pedestrian data for Ernest St. There would be at least 150 children walking along Ernest St to and from Anzac Park Public School each day.

There needs to be an analysis of options for local streets as people use alternative routes to access the harbour bridge. Anzac Park Public School drop off and pick up causes major traffic congestion in the morning and afternoon. At these times Ernest St cannot take extra traffic. There is also concern for all the streets in Cremorne and Neutral Bay in particular Merlin St, Lytton St, Moodie St, Park Ave, Sutherland St, Grasmere Rd, Ben Boyd Rd, Grafton St, Amherst St and Cammeray Rd. These roads cannot take extra traffic.

Other issues are:

Construction

• Street Parking needs to be preserved as this is a recreational area for local residents. Workers need to have onsite parking or follow existing parking restrictions. North Sydney Council should have funds to monitor parking on a daily basis
• Truck movements need to be monitored and have strong penalties against the lead contractor should they not be followed. They should not be able to pass the problem on to the individual subcontracted truck driver
• All environmental controls during construction should not be weakened from the standard set in the EIS. There should be strong enforcement and real time publishing of data.
• Tunnel facilities should be underground as far as feasible – at least built into the hill. Car parking should also be underground There should be an offset for the loss of three hectares of green space


Operational
• Ongoing operation requirements should not be weakened during contract negotiation and have strong enforcement
• All data should be available on line in real time
• There needs to be a solution to the treatment of water runoff from the motorway
• Tunnel should not be opened until all environmental requirements are met including motorway water management