I object to the Western Harbour Crossing and Warringah Freeway Upgrade totally.

I vehemently object to the Planning Department refusing to allow extra time for
examining the EIS (which is not available to read in hard-copy form as libraries have
been shut due to Covid 19), thus making it impossible for some residents and
businesses to make submissions; and for continuing to proceed as though life was
normal.

We are currently living in extraordinary times and yet no consideration has been
given to members of the public. This is frankly undemocratic.

I object to the Western Harbour Crossing and Warringah Freeway Upgrade totally.

Should this scheme be given the green light from the Planning Department, I wish to
object strongly to the proposed closing of parts of the Warringah Freeway which will
severely disrupt travel and will divert traffic to nearby (often residential) roads and
add unacceptable levels of noise and vibrations.

In addition, the "upgrade" - ie, demolition in some cases and rebuilding of the High
Street, Falcon Street, Ernest Street and Miller Street bridges over the freeway - will
cause chaos not only locally but over a wide nearby areas as traffic is diverted. All of
this will add to the night time noise and vibration and severe discomfort to local
residents.

I demand that a condition is imposed pending the approval of the scheme that far
better solutions are found for the above problems and that Transport for NSW should
be required to consult widely with residents and local business before work is allowed
to start.

I object to the Western Harbour Crossing and Warringah Freeway Upgrade totally.

I object strongly to the gross overstatement of timesaving that is suggested in the
Environmental Impact Statement. It is suggested there is time saving if driving from
eg Mosman or Willoughby to the Sydney Fish Market or Leichardt (hardly regular
commuting routes) but ignores completely the miniscule time savings - and in fact
possibly causing extra time - that ordinary commuters will experience when travelling
to and from the CBD, North Sydney, or Chatswood. These routes being, of course,
used far more by regular business people. The fact is that Miliary Road, Miller Street
and other local main road will quite probably become more congested and not less,
during rush hours.

I would strongly request that the Department of Planning demands a more realistic
traffic and journey-time analysis before they approve this scheme.

I object to this project as our state of NSW and our Australia cannot justify the expense with bushfires and COVID-19..it is not the right time. The money needs to be spent on regional infrastructure and not on an enormous road project. Plus we need to spend more money on our teachers and nurses!
Our climate and waterways will suffer with the digging and dredging in Middle Harbour. This is a stunning part of Sydney and a whale and seals have been spotted here - plus other sealife. Also the tunnel will go under Clive Park in Northbridge which is an important historical Indigenous area..
There is real concern with the health of communities at the exhaust areas - especially in Cammeray near large schools.
We need to think outside the box with delayed start times at work to ease peak traffic, efficient bus services from the northern beaches and other transport alternatives. With Covid-19 many will now work from home after we get out of the other side of this disaster. We need a society who can be inventive and re-think how we do things - like we are doing right now with Covid-19.
The Northern beaches tunnel will just "spew out" traffic at a new bottle neck.
The Government is spending billions of dollars to try and bolster the economy due to fires and Corona disaster, so the Western Harbour Tunnel should not go ahead.

I object to the Western Harbour Crossing and Warringah Freeway Upgrade totally.
If this scheme goes ahead I object to the fact that thousands of tons of toxic sludge
which contains cancer-causing chemicals is set to be dug up from the bed of Sydney
Harbour in order to build the Western Harbour Tunnel. Plans that do not protect the
public, which includes fisherman and families who swim in harbour pools.

It appears that the NSW Government have ruled that a report with the above
information will not be released or made public on the basis that it is "commercial in
confidence". This is frankly just wrong. The Planning Department are duty bound to
ensure that this report is made public and sufficient time is allowed for this to be read
and commented upon before any decision is made.

Due to this gross lack of transparency, I demand that this is corrected and made
public, as a condition for approval of the scheme.

I object to the Western Harbour Crossing and Warringah Freeway Upgrade totally. It
is a gross waste of public money and is a scheme which has been poorly thought
out, poorly researched and unfairly presented to the general public who ultimately will
be paying for this development with both their health and their money.

If this scheme goes ahead I object to it on the basis that even Transport for NSW in
the Environmental Impact Statement has predicted that many areas and roads in
North Sydney will suffer moderate to high impact. Specifically Alfred Street North &
Kurraba Road; High Street (North Sydney), Cammeray, North Cremorne and Neutral
Bay. In general Jefferson-Jackson Reserve; Anzac Park, Cammeray Avenue;
Rosalind Street, Ernest Street; Morden Street, Warringa Road; Carter Street;
Cammeray Golf Course, Merlin Street.

All the above streets are residential areas. These residents have not been
adequately consulted and have not been given transparent and truthful information
on the impact of this scheme.

As a result, I demand that these omissions are corrected - and where necessary
acceptable compensation is offered - as a condition for approval of the scheme.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write to express my strong objection to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade. As an Environmental and Marine Scientist, I am deeply concerned about the deleterious long term impact this project could have on all inhabitants of Sydney Harbour. I am troubled by the lack of transparency of the surveys of the proposed development site in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In this letter I highlight my concerns regarding Contamination (Appendix M) and Marine Ecology (Appendix T).
It is public knowledge that the sediments of Sydney Harbour are toxic to the extent that commercial fishing is banned, and recreational fishing is restricted to preserve human and ecological health (NSW Government, 2006). Due to the highly industrial history of Sydney Harbour, the sediment contains metals (Birch et al., 2017), polycyclic hydrocarbons (McCready et al., 2000), organochlorine pesticides (Birch and Taylor, 2000) and dioxins (Birch et al., 2007). These chemicals are highly toxic and are currently non-reactive as they are blanketed by shallow silt curtains (McCready et al 2006). However, during construction this layer of protective silt will not protect against the movement of contaminated particulate fines. This would cause widespread pollution across the Harbour, killing flora and fauna.
It is unsettling that Appendix M of the EIS fails to qualitatively document the presence of the contaminants in the Harbour, despite recent and past well documented research that have quantified contaminant levels in both the Harbour and specially in White Bay where the proposed development is to take place. Table B.1. uses ‘x’ to indicate the level of toxins is inadequate. To meet the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirement concentration levels must be specified and compared with current guidelines (Simpson et al 2013). It must be mentioned that the report refers to the outdated ANZECC (2000) Interim Sediment Quality Guidelines. In an amended report, contaminant levels should be specified and proposed management is to be addressed.
Additionally, the EIS is lacking methods of collection of data, analysis, sample size and location. This is a requirement of all scientific protocols from high school to scientific journals and especially of EIS that have a heavy impact on an ecosystem that is enjoyed by millions of Australians. A deficient methods section is incomprehensible in a document of such importance.
As in Appendix M, Appendix T did not utilise peer-reviewed literature on contaminants and its effect on water quality and ecology of marine species in the Harbour. Along with the sediment contaminant load there is a high likelihood that acid sulphate sediment leachate will be mobilised during construction releasing sulphuric acid into the environment. This would reduce local seawater pH and in turn increase the bioavailability of contaminants. The EIS fails to mention this. This risks the marine life of Sydney Harbour and beyond as contaminants bioaccumulate throughout the food chain and mobile and migratory species transmit it throughout the food chain.
The EIS proposes the use of shallow silt curtains to mitigate the movement of contaminated sediment. This will be insufficient in reducing the transport of these contaminants to popular beaches and into the Parramatta river, not only exposing biota but also humans that reside and utilise these areas for recreation. Full-length silt curtains would be an appropriate alternative and more effective in reducing the impact on the ecosystem. Monitoring of contaminants throughout the construction period is essential.
I believe that the project should not be continued until these points are addressed. Sydney Harbour has only recently started showing very encouraging signs of recovery from the bleak industrial past. It is regularly enjoyed by recreationally by millions of residents, including myself. Loosing this ecosystem would result the loss of a major part of Sydney’s identity. It is important that the concentration of contaminants is being considered and made publicly available with appropriate precautions being taken for this project


Yours sincerely,

Regina Balogh
613B/3 Timbrol Avenue
Rhodes
NSW 2138


References
Birch & Taylor (2000) Distribution and possible sources of organochlorine residues in sediments of a large urban estuary, Port Jackson, Sydney. Aust J Earth Sci 47: 749-756
Birch et al., (2007) The source and distribution of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin and polychlorinated dibenzofurans in sediments of Port Jackson, Australia Mar Poll Bull 54: 295-308.
McCready et al., (2000) The distribution of polycyclic aromic hydrocarbons in surficial sediments of Sydney Harbour, Australia. Mar Poll Bull 40: 999-1006;
McCready et al., (2006) Relationship between toxicity and concentrations of chemical contaminants in sediments from Sydney Harbour, Australia, and vicinity. Env Mon Ass 120: 187-220;
Simpson, Batley & Chariton (2013) Revision of the ANZECC/ARMCANZ Sediment Quality Guidelines. CSIRO

See attachment.