I object to the Beaches Link project due to the resultant increases in traffic through Artarmon Village and Artarmon Industrial Area. The EIS traffic data shows that the performance of the intersections of Reserve Rd / Dickson Ave and Reserve Rd / Barton Rd will decrease significantly as a result of the project. Also, there is no improvement to what is currently a poorly performing intersection at Reserve Rd / Gore Freeway despite the addition of an additional lane on Reserve Rd as part of the project. The measures proposed in the EIS to minimise this impact are not adequate and I support the implementation of the additional traffic improvement measures included in the Artarmon Progress Association's submission regarding this EIS dated 1st March 2021. The project will further encourage traffic via the Artarmon Village and residential areas, because of the inadequacies of the Pacific Hwy / Mowbray Rd intersection, especially the lack of a right turn from Mowbray Rd West onto the Pacific Hwy southbound.

As a member of the Northbridge Sailing Club I strongly protest the construction constrictions associated with this project. These constrictions have the potential to half the sailing area that the club currently has. This area decease will lead to a concentrated number of boats in a substantially smaller space which will have a major affect on the safety and wellbeing of the sailors. New and less experienced members could easily end up in extremely high risk situations in this type of situation.
This will also have a huge impact on the club itself. With a lack of space to properly enjoy sailing, it is predicted many members will leave and find a more suitable sailing club. Without a steady member base there is a high chance the club will no longer be able support itself financially and thus will have to close down.
It is requested that the Transport for NSW initiates a consultation with the Northbridge Sailing Club prior to any advances on the project to ensure we are able to negate these issues.
Thank you.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to lodge my strong objection to the beaches link tunnel. Before we spend upwards of $10billion of taxpayers money and potentially destroy our valued native landscape, fauna and flora we need to consider the following;
• COVID has changed the way we live, work and think. More people are working from home, working flexible hours and commuting less.
• We are using a local green spaces more and the tunnel destroys a significant amount of green space with no plan of how it will be returned.
• Public transport options should be further explored
• The EIS should be updated with current data as it is using out of date figures especially due to the pandemic. A post COVID EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation.
The entire project has had a real lack of engagement from the community and I believe if the community was engage, we would be able to find a solution that works for everyone.
Design faults
1. Taking the fastest route
It is proposed that cars travelling north to Manly will exit the Balgowlah tunnel at a set of lights at the Link Road. They will then travel through 8 sets of lights down Sydney road before getting to a parking station in Manly.
A car seeking the fastest route would travel through the tunnel to Kenneth Road and travel to Manly beach having travelled through only 2 sets of lights.
2. Why the Link Road?
It is most likely that:
I. all residents from Warringah Road North are most likely to take the Wakehurst Parkway tunnel,
II. all residents South of Warringah Road to Condamine Street will take the Balgowlah tunnel; and
III. all residents of Seaforth, Balgowlah, Balgowlah Heights, Clontarf, Fairlight, Manly (Harbour side) and anyone not wanting to pay the toll will continue to use the Spit Bridge.

3. Public Transport design thinking not included
There is no inclusion in the design on how public transport from the Harbour side suburbs ((III) above) are expected to use the tunnel. One would expect a hub and spoke junction at some point for residents to be able to access West bound public transport.
Given the communities continued request for improved public transport one would expect that this should all be included in the design phase.
Local traffic problems
• The EIS does not include impact on local roads, instead it has left this to Northern Beaches Council. There are already issues with local traffic that haven’t been resolved these should be looked at in consultation with the tunnel project
• It is expected that up to 40,000 more cars will be coming to the beaches in our local area Balgowlah heights and Clontarf we already have huge traffic congestions issues in small narrow streets over the summer.
o Clontarf’s local streets this summer was closed on several occasion due to an unprecedented number of cars coming from out of area and traffic gridlock with no parking
o Manly already doesn’t have enough parking to service its current users
o These issues should be considered in the EIS along with council submissions so that they are planned for in advance. Local public transport options should be considered.
Condition to be included as part of project:
● Tunnel Project, after engaging with NB Council, include in the design the impacts on local traffic and a public transport solution for Harbour side residents.
● NB Council/Tunnel Project include in the design, an electronic board at tunnel exit detailing real time parking availability at local Beaches. Beach goers would then seek a beach further up the Northern Beaches and not compromise local roads should parking not be available.

Environmental Concerns
Our community values our very sparse native green space including Burnt Bridge Creek, Garigal National Park, Bantry Bay and Manly Dam Reserve. This has become all the more apparent since the pandemic and our concern over climate change impacts.
We need to seriously consider the future ramifications of losing waterways and ecosystems for more traffic. These native bushlands, mature trees and ecosystems need to be held in trust for our children. Felling 150year old trees is irreplaceable in our children’s lifetime.
The EIS states there will be up to 96% reduction in baseflow in the Burnt Bridge Creek with permanent loss of the fauna and flora that live off and around it, yet there is no suggestion on how this impact can be deterred, as though it is inconsequential.

Condition to be included as part of project:
● The Tunnel Project provide a solution to save the Burnt Bridge Creek and dependant ecosystem.
● The remaining native green space on the Northern Beaches be kept in trust so as not to be further compromised at the whim of State government, and local council.

We object to the Beaches Link project and provide that attached documentation supporting our standpoint.

Construction of the road will have a significant detrimental impact on me and my family. I have 2 children - my son will be taking his HSC next year and my daughter will be taking her HSC in 2024. The noise that will continue day and night throughout this project will effect study concentration as well as sleep. I suffer anxiety depression and this will also have a significant effect on my health as sleep deprevation triggers my illness. My daughter has already expressed major concerns over the noise throughout her most significant school years.
The increased traffic on the road after completition will also impact us. The recent construction of the sound wall has only made a minor reduction in noise due to the fact that our house is very low in a "gully". The road on either side of us is higher than our house and hence the noise travels in a vertical direction directly towards us. That coupled with the 2 gaps in the sound wall either side of us. The widening of the road will occur very close to our house and the smoke stack will be positioned where it will severely reduce our air quality. Again due to the house being topically low we will have light polution and noise pollution far greater than most in the area. Heavy plant and machinery will no doubt be parked on Serpentine Crescent, due to the long stretch of road closest to the sound wall with no houses in front. This stretch of road is directly in front of my house. The bedrooms of my house are also all road side. The noise in my back garden is actually worse than the noise in the house that is closest to the wall and we have a clear view of Burnt Bridge Deviation from Serpentine Crecent - with sight comes sound. The value of my house has decreased since this project came to light as there are so many unknowns still along with a definite deterioration in being able to enjoy our garden. Being so close to the works it will be very hard to sell over that period and no doubt after the fact. Before the project came to light in the media I was settling on a seperation from my husband and the value of the house at my settlement was greater than it is now and hence I have already suffered a financial loss because of this. I am now left with a property that will be very difficult to sell during this period.
The losses to me are health, finacial and enjoyment of my home and life. If this project is to be continued, I would expect consideration to those significant factors be taken into account.

I live in Fromelles Ave, Seaforth. I strongly oppose the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel for many reasons.

(1) Two unfiltered smoke stacks which will be within close range of Balgowlah and Seaforth.
(2) Damage to the environment including the loss of local flora and fauna.
(3) The stress that a 6+ year build will have on people who live in the local area.
(4) As we saw with the West Connex the potential damage to houses where the tunnel runs directly beneath close to the surface. Some of these houses were 40m above the tunnel and developed major structural damage.
(5) The fact that a select few from Northern Beaches would actually use it.
(6) Despite the projected time savings along Military road, in my opinion traffic will stay the same as people will refuse to pay the excessive tolls.
(7) The bottle neck that will be created at Manly Vale at the Tunnel entrance and exit.
(8) The EIS acknowledges there will be increased congestion on Wakehurst parkway.
(9) No public transport solutions.

It is my belief that a better transport system is what the people of the Northern Beaches want not more cars and traffic. If this tunnel is approved I am sure that numerous housing developments will be slated to increase population density all over the Northern Beaches changing its character forever.

Please leave the Northern Beaches as it is. The last thing we want is more overdevelopment resulting in concrete structure after concrete structure whilst destroying the environment.

Finally, will the tunnel cure the choking local traffic through areas such as Manly Vale, Brookvale, Dee Why, Narrabeen, Warriewood, Mona Vale etc. particularly on weekends? No. The tunnel will make it worse.

Please don’t quote more statistics in response.

Cheers
Werner Hoffmann.

I object to the project for a number of reasons
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. Additionally, at least one of the ventilation stacks, in Cammeray, is next to a school, potentially harming our children's lungs for a generation.
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 Baird 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 for sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
16. the volume of trucks in Cammeray, causing pollution, noise pollution and increased traffic is estmated at almost 1000 a day for 8 years - this is unacceptable
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 - and ruyns the risk of significant toxic pollution as it used to be a tip.
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.