Please see attached document

I object to the Western Harbour Tunnel WHT project because of:
- Increased traffic. Proposed changes to roads will create significant increased congestion in the North Sydney / Neutral Bay area. This will cause severe impacts on quiet suburban streets as people create 'rat runs' to avoid congestion on main roads
- Pollution. I am concerned about the pollution from the ventilation stacks impacting on nearby residents.
- Green house emissions. We should be building better public transport systems not more freeways. More roads = more cars.
- North Sydney will be dislocated. Making Berry Street a 4 lane highway and greatly increasing traffic flow on Miller St, will dissect the North Sydney CBD precinct and make it difficult for pedestrians to move around. North Sydney Council had great plans to enliven the North Sydney CBD - this vision will not be realised if these proposed road changes and increases to traffic density proceed.
- Changes to Ridge Street bridge. I use this bridge every day. I don't want a long windy ramp. I want stairs to remain in same location.

I request that the period of consultation be extended. Due to COVID 19 many people were unable to focus on this March 30 deadline. North Sydney Council did not even have a quorum at the meeting scheduled to discuss the EIS due to social distancing concerns. Please give the community more time.

I object to the WHTBL proposal because of the terrible impact it will have on the North Sydney Local Government Area.

It is clear from Appendix F of the EIS, which considers the impact on local traffic, that there are winners and losers in this project from a traffic congestion perspective. The “winners", if you exclude the significant expense of the tolls they will be paying, are those making longer journeys predominantly by tolled motorway. The “losers” – again from a traffic congestion perspective (as all of us will be losers from the years of disruption, the increased pollution in the North Sydney LGA and the waste of taxpayer money) – will be the majority of North Sydney residents who live in what is euphemistically referred to as an “interface precinct”.

At a high level, the WHTBL/WFU project is designed to reduce congestion on major motorways, thereby reducing travel time. All the examples cited – Sydney Olympic Park to North Sydney; Leichhardt to North Sydney; North Sydney to Airport – involve extensive use of tolled motorways and have start/end points at or close to motorway entrances/exits.
As a consequence, while motorway journey will be faster, depending on where you live, you might have to travel further from the motorway exit to get home. This will have a significant impact on local roads: for example, Berry Street will become a four-lane highway feeding the Harbour Bridge, the WHT and the BL, and the Pacific Highway will be clogged with traffic seeking to enter the motorways. The trip distribution strategy would require local residents to exit motorways at points far from where they live, so the time they save on the motorway would be lost on local roads. This would in turn have a negative impact on those North Sydney residents who don't use the roads, as we would be dealing with clogged local roads and increased pollution. At the very time that the NSW Government is seeking to encourage active transport usage and is building a new metro line, it proposes that those coming out at the Victoria Cross station would have to cope with a vast increase in traffic along Berry Street.

There are dozens of other examples of how the WHTBL project sacrifices the amenity of the people of North Sydney at the altar of faster travel times on freeways that, as has been proven over and over again, fail to achieve their stated purpose because they induce traffic onto our roads. It should be clear to all that mass transit options such as trains and metro lines are the only viable way forward for Sydney.

In the unfortunate event that the NSW Government were minded to continue with this hopelessly flawed project notwithstanding the absence of a business case for it, it should proceed only after reconsidering the ways in which the proposed motorway tunnels interact with the North Sydney Local Government Area, which is a place where many people live and is not and should not become a super highway.

I object to the WHTBL project due to the high carcinogenetic impact of vehicle exhaust emanating from diesel vehicle trips in both the construction phase and operational phases of the project. I am concerned with other health impacts of exhaust on children. Even current levels of exhaust injure vulnerable children and cause 600+ adult deaths each year in Sydney. Recent research confirms that children will suffer severe respiratory illness (e.g. asthma, infection and reduced lung development), potentially diminished brain/intellectual development, cardiovascular concerns and, vitally, psychological impacts (absorbing adult anxiety at home and at school, reduced activity, a diminished environment during and after the construction).

The actual level, danger and distribution of toxic vehicle exhaust chemicals is only now becoming clear. Earlier "safe" limits are likely too high for young children (and vulnerable elders). Personal measurement studies indicate higher exposure with travel through the city, at school drop off/pick up points, near main roads and often indoors. This will only worsen as more cars, particularly diesel powered, travel longer distances as the city expands.

Of the many toxic constituents of vehicle exhaust (especially diesel, even with exhaust modification), perhaps the most concerning are PM 2.5 and ultrafine particles (<0.01 microns), with a core of back carbon, carrying a payload of adherent noxious poisons. Black carbon itself is a known carcinogen, as are PAHs and many volatile substances. These particle flow into the alveoli of children and babies (plus adolescents and adults) causing dangerous immunological events, leading to acute illness or chronic (unmonitored) lung function damage or delayed serious morbidity. UFPs and some displaced chemicals are absorbed into the circulatory system leading to systemic toxicity, particularly cardiovascular and cerebrovascular (brain). Children may therefore be unable to reach their full- potential physical and mental development.

In the unfortunate event that the NSW Government were to decide to press ahead with the massively-flawed WHTBL project, it should only do so after introducing the world's most stringent emission control standards. This would render all but electric vehicles ineligible to use the roads, and the concerns re toxic emissions and greenhouse gases would be unfounded. Lest the Government's response be that such an outcome is impracticable, it should reflect on how it would have reacted two months ago if someone had suggested that it would ban public gatherings of more than two people, that Australia would be in a deep recession by March 2020 and that the world economy would be in almost complete shutdown. Dramatic responses are required for extraordinary challenges. We face an extraordinary challenge today due the emergence of a virulent and fast-spreading virus to which no-one has immunity. We face ongoing and equally extraordinary challenges in respect of the toxic impact of vehicle emissions on our health and the disproportionate contribution such emissions are making to global warming. Not proceeding with the WHTBL project at all - or doing so only once the world's most stringent emission standards were in place - are the only sensible options available to any Government that values the people it represents.

SUBMISSION:

1. I OBJECT: To the Western Harbour Tunnel (WHT) and Warringah Freeway (WF) upgrade on a number of grounds. This is an unwanted, flawed, unnecessary piece of infrastructure at great expense to the tax-payer’s health and hip pocket. Radio host Mr Alan Jones slammed the business case for the proposed tunnel saying WHY has an extensive ROAD ONLY project been chosen over much wanted PUBLIC TRANSPORT options, or any other option?
I REQUEST full disclosure and would like to see published the BUSINESS CASE outlining WHY the WHT and WF Upgrade has been chosen over ALL other options. EG: An extension of the B-Line, a rail line from Dee Why to Chatswood and other public transport options. As taxpayers we have a right to know HOW and WHY our taxpayer funds are being spent. The purpose of this very expensive piece of infrastructure is to REDUCE congestion and EASE traffic flow. More roads mean more cars, increased pollution and increased traffic. A public transport option would move many more thousands of people per hour in comparison to numbers via a road. Failure to release the business case shows blatant lack of respect for tax-payers dollars.

2. I OBJECT to the PROJECT on grounds of COST!! The cost of WHT and WF Upgrade is a dual project with the Beaches Link. The current cost is quoted as $16 billion – which could blow out to $20 - $26B. If this project goes ahead - I believe the amount spent on each resident in the Northern Beaches is $53k. This is an excessive amount per resident, in an area of Sydney where population (compared to Western Sydney) is relatively stagnant. I also understand that there will be tolls both ways on the Harbour Bridge, as well as for the new tunnels and connections. Sydney already has the most expensive tollway system in the world. Not only do taxpayers have to pay for the building of this unwanted infrastructure BUT we have to pay per-use! Instead we should be investing in upgrading rural and regional train lines across Sydney. We should be FIXING existing problems, not building more roads. Problems such as Neutral Bay Public School (the most overcrowded school in the state per square metre). There are plans for this school to become a state-of-the-art learning centre. At present there is not enough classrooms to accommodate the children currently enrolled. These plans have been shelved. Tax-payers money should be spent on our kids education - NOT on infrastructure that will DAMAGE their health and well-being.

3. I OBJECT to the dire implications of reconfiguring the WF alone (to accommodate two tunnels, ventilation outlets, ramps and flow management) is now revealed. 26 schools across the tunnel route border the WF. This is the largest school district in Australia. The safety and welfare of children is of the upmost concern. The damage to the health of residents across the route is far-reaching. This needs proper and careful community consultation. Add to this a wide ranging and high impact 5-6 year construction project (which carries well documented risks) is exacerbating anxiety for many. This is preventing genuine engagement and consultation. In the light of all that has occurred this year and the complexity and impact of this project - I ask that the RMS and Department of Planning formally suspend the EIS process (and that of the Beaches Link EIS) until after the virus crisis has passed and families can return to normal life. A suspension is in the best interest of our community and our school children.

4. I OBJECT to the deliberate publishing of incorrect information in the EIS. Incorrect figures & terminology used to downplay the damage caused by the tunnel. The EIS states that each school is estimated to have 100 children. Not true! Primary schools in the area have closer to 1000 children (not 100). High schools in the area, are over 1000 students each. The TERM: “Community Receivers” is used in the EIS when referencing those MOST affected by this project. We all KNOW this should read: “school children". The use of vastly incorrect figures (school numbers) and the use of incorrect terms - shows one of two things; 1. To bias the EIS in favour of the WHT and WF upgrade. 2. Lack of time the government had to prepare the EIS. All proving that this project is being unnecessarily rushed through. PLEASE amend the EIS and all results to show correct figures and plain English. The EIS stack height is only 20m, and this was chosen for aesthetic reasons. The EIS models show there would be LESS pollution if the stacks were 40m. There would ALSO be LESS pollution if the stacks had best practice filtration. I object to the number of support sites needed and scale of work required and major changes to road routes and access.

5. I OBJECT to the disruption of traffic. 6000 construction movements per day and night - needed to keep the Freeway operational during the construction period. This will cause great disruption to the movement of traffic. This will greatly disrupt school-childrens’ journey to school, and will FORCE construction traffic and local traffic onto local streets, which is unsafe for pedestrians. In North Sydney there are already pedestrian crossings that are at a fail level. Please address how will this be mitigated and pedestrians and cyclists and all road users kept safe and moving?

6. I OBJECT – to this project due to fears for the health and well-being of my child. The double unfiltered ventilation stack very near schools in this area are of grave concern to me. It is unacceptable to have unfiltered stacks in longitudinal tunnels. It is unprecedented in the world. The North Sydney area is already highly polluted and the unfiltered double stack will increase pollution levels as more cars use the infrastructure. Our school children have the right to breathe clean air. Due to bushfires last summer there were many days when air pollution was well in excess of recommended safe levels. We have a commitment to reduce our carbon footprint, not to increase it!

7. I OBJECT to the LACK OF TIME given to respond to this devastating project. One of the reasons is the consultation time occurred at the start of school term – traditionally a time of much upheaval in a family. The other reason is due to COVID19 pandemic. Due to this - school communities and parents (such as myself) have been increasingly stressed adjusting daily activities to best protect children and our communities. COVID19 has placed more stress on families who are challenged to find time to review the EIS. As we are now bracing for the full impact of COVID 19 and still recovering from bushfires and floods - we have too much to contend with. We need more time to review the EIS - as it is clear this is a far larger project with much broader ramifications than originally advised. (Reference Design Plan). The EIS documents are lengthy (with over 9000+ pages including appendices) and complex. We need more time to comprehend the long-term effects and respond accordingly. The community has requested clarification on the complex descriptions in the EIS in early March 2020. With a high proportion of working parents struggling due to the virus, (extra responsibility such as working from, home-schooling, taking care of elderly parents) there is no time to ponder the EIS. Families have already faced so much this year - with the impact of bushfire smoke (kids with asthma), severe storms which have damaged homes - now followed by COVID-19. The crisis is having a huge impact on people’s ability to engage with and understand this complex project. All of this has had a cumulative effect on stress-levels. We need more time.

I REQUEST the plan be amended to INCLUDE the 11 Construction site locations documented in the EIS. The Truck and Parking numbers have been added from the EIS Information Booklet and Construction Chapter. Merlin St and Cammeray Golf Course site (with exit on Earnest St) will have a considerable impact on traffic flows during construction.

I REQUEST MORE TIME - so that due QUALITY time can be given for community consultation! The additional drop-in sessions have not seen a full complement of the community due to social distancing concerns. These need to be re-instated at the time of re-release. The consultation period needs to be extended.

I object to the WHTBL project because of its deleterious impact on North Sydney's scarce open spaces, and in particular on St Leonards Park during and after construction and on Cammeray Park, which would permanently lose almost 30,000 square metres of much-valued open space.

North Sydney is far more densely populated than the places where the vast majority of the future users of the new motorway tunnels live, and it is unreasonable to sacrifice the amenity of one part of Sydney simply to speed up the journey times of those transiting through the area.

Appendix F of the EIS clearly shows that North Sydney's local roads would become heavily congested as a result of the WHTBL project, and it would be a double blow if we were to lose significant amounts of open space as well.

In the unfortunate event that the NSW Government were to proceed with this highly flawed project, which lacks even the most basic business case, it should proceed only on the basis that:

• increased open space in North Sydney - for example, by connecting the two sides of the Warringah Freeway with open, green areas - be a condition precedent to the project;
• the Falcon Street exit of the WHT be swapped for an exit to North Sydney CBD that has no impact on North Sydney residents, thereby obviating the need to occupy St Leonards Park for five years of construction or to replace parts of the park with a widened Falcon Street along the northern boundary of the park. Such a change would have a construction impact on Warringah Freeway, which would be appropriate given that it users of the Warringah Freeway who would, in theory, "benefit" from the motorway tunnels;
• any facilities at Cammeray Park be built underground in such a way that the land above them could be restored as fully-functioning open space; and
• the Council's stormwater harvesting facility at Cammeray golf course be retained.

Objection: Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade - SSI-8863

(continued ) I write to express my objection to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade. I have done my best to read the extensive EIS documents at this very difficult time. I have significant concerns about the justification for this project particularly given that there is no published business case, it is not high on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list and that the EIS demonstrates a significant risk to health and safety while delivering poor outcomes. Firstly, I object to this project continuing to be placed on exhibition during the COVID-19 Crisis. This project impacts the largest precinct of schools in Australia and passes through highly residential areas. Families, community groups and schools have been under a huge amount of strain throughout the exhibition stage. Meetings have had to be cancelled and we have been social distancing as instructed. Trying to read these documents has created more anxiety. The project should be re-exhibited well after the COVID-19 crisis has passed and when normal life returns.
I'd like to add my objections around traffic both during and post the construction period. I live on Alfred St North and the impacts to my home are enormous. I am considering selling my home due to this, however due to Covid-19, I am currently unable to and it is extremely unethical to close response times to the EIS while we are unable to leave our homes, sell or homes etc. This is just appalling.
Specifically, I'd like the following considered:
1. Objection: The alignment of the tunnel projects and the need to re-construct the Warringah Freeway necessitates 12 support sites across the project footprint. These sites are placed in and around schools, businesses and residences. The impact of having more than 6000 construction vehicles on the roads from Rozelle through to Willoughby cannot be underestimated.
2. Objection: There are an excessive number of construction sites and truck movements required in a predominantly residential areas full of schools. Local roads are already severely congested during peak times and children must cross major roads to access schools and sports fields ie) Miller St, Earnest St, Pacific Hwy and Brook St due to catchment zoning. It is expected that travel across the network will be severely impacted for those travelling along Military Rd, Miller St, Pacific Hwy and at times the Warringah Freeway during construction at peak times.
3. Objection: Parking is already an issue across the area with many “put of area” commuters parking in and around local streets. Removing parking spots will put parking under further strain for locals Mitigation: Where parking is removed additional spots should be created temporarily where possible and spots should be returned to the community as a Condition of Approval. If necessary, facilities should be placed underground so as to not take parking spots and amenity from the local community. A parking scheme should be agreed with the 3 local councils involved..
4. Objection: Construction sites will not be able to contain the large number of construction workers required to service the project. Parking is already an issue
5. Objection: the study area has not included key up and down stream impacts. Several of these roads The reference design documents claimed that many of these projects would address i.e. Military Rd, Willoughby Rd and Eastern Valley Way. Mitigation: Provide study data of all up and drown stream impacts factoring in the significant Warringah Freeway changes will make
5. Objection: Once operational a large number of changes to the freeway will be made that will impact accessibility for local traffic. These changes will create additional rat running in local streets and therefore traffic changes and increases which may explain some of the intersection failures. The impact on local traffic is too great– individual intersection improvements won’t make a significant difference.
6. objection: One of the key objectives of the project is to improve public transport travel times however the provided Peak Bus trip times show a significant degradation of service with a 39% increase in travel time journeys overall. reconsider the project as it does not meet it’s stated goals. Local congestion and trips should improve as a result of the project.
7 Objection: The project (Chapter 9) states that Military Rd bus travel will remain unchanged whether the Warringah Freeway or Beaches Link is built contrary to project claims (Chapter 3) which state that users of bus services woulD benefit along the route. Mitigation: Reconsider the project as it does not meet it’s stated goals. Local congestion and trips should improve as a result of the project
8. Objection: The Project claims that Public Transport trips will improve however several key trips will be slower. There is only a very limited number of trips modelled and there are significant concerns about buses terminating in North Sydney – an already congested area which will experience several intersection failures as a direct result of building either tunnel. You are basically forcing me to go via High Street to get to Alfred St North – this is going to be a huge traffic jam and you are just forcing me to sit in traffic to get to my home by removing my access to Alfred St north from the current exit.
9. Two-way tolling is earmarked within the EIS. Given the high price likely paid to use the Western Harbour Tunnel and the fact that other crossings are already being paid for via years of tolling is unfair and the cost of tolls would make access to crossings inequitable for many community members.

I object to the WHTBL proposal because it is based on flawed modelling that fails to take account of induced demand. The Sydney Motorway Planning Model (SMPM), which was developed to assess infrastructure improvements associated with new motorway projects, is clearly not fit for purpose. One of the reasons tolled motorways have failed to reduce congestion in the years following their construction is, as many studies have shown, because the initially-faster commute times following the completion of the project have the effect of inducing those who had previously given up on using their cars – and who had moved instead to trains, buses and ferries or found a job that obviates the need for a long commute – back into their cars and on to the road network. The impact of induced demand is so great that most of the world’s major cities have realised that it is futile to construct more and more motorways. Cities such as London are focusing instead on mass transit solutions and disincentives to driving into the city – congestion charges - as the only viable way to tackle congestion.

The EIS devotes only a couple of lines on page 27 of Appendix F to the issue of “induced demand”. Given the significance of the potential impact of induced demand, the decision to provide so little weight to this factor renders the methodology next to useless.

Further, the methodology does not consider the planned impact of Sydney Metro West or of the potential impact of a Northern Beaches Metro line or any other transformational rail/metro opportunity. Without consideration of the transformational impact new mass transit projects would have in terms of reducing congestion, improving health, reducing pollution and greenhouse gases, and saving the lives of active transport users – to specify just some of the benefits – the methodology is fatally flawed. A proper analysis of the various transport options would in all likelihood have found that new rail and metro links, which can transport many times the volume of people that roads can transport with close-to-zero pollution, would obviate the need for new motorway infrastructure.

In the unfortunate event that the NSW Government were minded to continue with this hopelessly flawed project notwithstanding the absence of a business case for it, it should proceed only after an analysis of the impact of Sydney Metro West and of the potential impact of a Northern Beaches Metro line or any other transformational rail/metro opportunity. The Government should then be required to justify why it has chosen the road option over the public transport option.