Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

My objection is contained in the attached submission which relates to the fact that a Business Case for the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection has not been made available to the public for assessment.

I am a resident of Balgowlah that strongly objects to the appalling and catastrophic impacts of The Beaches Link Tunnel.

There has been a severe lack of consideration in EIS regarding the destruction of the native environment. The sickening destruction of the lake in Balgowlah golf course as well as surrounding vegetation and habitat that is a valuable green corridor for animals, including endangered species, is frightful to say the least. While the EIS states that the creek is “vital”, the construction and tunnelling activities are projected to reduce the natural water flow of the creek by 79%. This will have a devastating effect on the plants and animals that currently rely on the creek.

With no dedicated bus lane this tunnel is promoting and facilitating private cars and individual transport. There are no plans to promote effective public transport. This is a big oversight.

There is also inadequate planning to cope with the expected influx of additional traffic onto local roads and a failure to take measures to reduce the pollution for the exhaust stacks. This is nonsensical.

In conclusion, I implore you to stop and consider these disastrous ramifications leading to destruction of my suburb including the eradication of native and endangered flora and fauna from Manly Dam to Duffy’s Forest, to the inundation of cars causing widespread traffic congestion on Sydney Road through to Manly, and the unfiltered stacks polluting the air to a degree that poses serious health risks.

Please stop this madness, before it goes to far.

Please do more to minimise the environmental impact:
* Do more to protect local fauna and flora by reducing project footprint and proactively protecting where possible.
* Design Wakehurst widening to preserve natural aesthetic as much as possible.
* Reduce duration of roadworks on Wakehurst Parkway, especially during peak hours.
* Ensure workers don't need to park in suburban streets by providing more parking and/or other measures.
* Shift focus to public transport vs private car transport.

I object to this project for these main reasons:

1. Increasing and encouraging private car drivers to use their vehicles.
Why is Sydney trying to put more cars on the road, when the rest of the world is trying to reduce the use of private cars? There is so much written about options for reducing traffic e.g. https://www.smartertransport.uk/smarter-cambridge-transport-urban-congestion-enquiry/. In this article congestion reduction measures fall into two categories: temporary and virtuous. Temporary measures free up road capacity that is soon filled by induced demand: people adapt their lifestyles to prevailing road conditions. Such measures are therefore worth pursuing only if they either buy time or lay the foundations for more radical interventions. They state that measures in this category should not be considered as solutions.
Virtuous measures start a feedback loop that induces more and more people to make a modal shift away from driving. Making a bus service more convenient or cheaper will increase patronage, which means that the service can be run more frequently and for longer hours, making it convenient and attractive to more people. These are the changes transport policy must support.
The Northern Beaches have recently been adversely affected by an extensive reduction in the number and frequency of buses to the suburbs. We understand that this is yet another misguided effort by the state government to privatise the public transport system. Your $10 billion could be spent on upgrading the public transport system and penalising the use of private cars

2. Sacrificing the health of our young people.
On Wednesday the 17th February Gladys Berejiklian said: “The first thing we ask ourselves is what can we do to keep the people of New South Wales safe?” This was said in the context of Covid-19 however Gladys cannot be thinking about the safety of the people of the Northern Beaches when an unfiltered exhaust stack 20 metres high will be constructed 200 metres from a secondary school with an enrolment of over 1000 pupils. Not only will these students of Northern Beaches Secondary Campus Balgowlah be exposed to constant car emissions from the exhaust stack, they will also be exposed to years of construction noise from the estimated 795 heavy vehicles and 1850 light vehicles working day and night throughout their school day. This will create an estimated increase of 16-21 decibels of noise above normal levels every day and all day. My son will be doing his HSC when construction commences and given the noise level will be that of a loud television I imagine this will not be conducive to his efforts to learn and study effectively.

3.Increasing the congestion and risk of accidents in the local area.
I live on Sydney Road near the cross streets of Rickard and West streets. My immediate vicinity will become avenues for rat runs. These streets are extremely narrow and I hold concerns for the safety of their residents and all pedestrians and drivers passing through these streets as people try to either avoid the congestion that the construction will bring or try to access the tunnel entrance once it is completed.

4. Removing the area’s green space.
Plans for the Beaches tunnel include the decimation of Burnt Creek and the subsequent wiping out of the endangered grey flying fox population; the removal of thousands of trees to put in a six lane freeway along Wakehurst Parkway; the pollution of Middle Harbour with the heavy metals and pesticides that construction will wash into our pristine waterways and the removal of Balgowlah’s popular green spaces – the Balgowlah golf course and the Balgowlah Oval. How can this be justified? Climate change is upon us and we know the causes and we know the antidotes. Increasing fossil fuel emissions and pulling up trees and green spaces is simply stupid and shows complete disregard for the health of our planet and our people.

Please DO NOT go ahead with the construction of this tunnel. There are better options available, put forward by people far more experienced that I. I am simply a local resident who believes strongly that this plan is foolhardy and ill conceived. We need to devise ways to get people out of their cars and improving the health of our environment, not the exact opposite, which this plan is clearly conceived to do.

I object to the lack of decent environmental controls and the issues the tunnelling will create to the local environment. We do not need a tunnel, we need more public transport.
I object to the untold damage this tunnel will do to the reason we live on the Northern Beaches - the beautiful environment, Manly Dam, the bush land along Wakehurst Parkway, the Burnt Bridge Creek, the flora, the fauna, we love to mountain bike along the tracks. The list goes on. Although the EIS is extremely long, and some of the critical impacts to the environment are listed, it appears as though they have decided the alternatives are too hard. Once destroyed, it can never be replaced.

I have been reviewing the EIS and noted there is no plan to modify existing noise barriers where they are of insufficient height despite the widening of the road by two or more lanes. The existing sound wall along the section of Serpentine Crescent which is parallel and adjacent to burnt bridge creek deviation is of an inadequate height such that it does not obstruct the line of sight from homes and thus noise of the traffic. See attached photos showing windows of homes visible from the road. The widening of Burt Bridge Creek Deviation will further increase the noise from heavy vehicles due to new bus lane and trucks and motorcycles etc entering these houses unless the wall is raised to intercept the soundwaves.

Noise currently travels unobstructed from the existing 6 lanes of Burnt bridge deviation which will be converted to 12 lanes. Additionally, without adequate design consideration and planning ours and our neighbours' outlook is such that our front windows will overlook the tunnel entrance,12 lanes of traffic and a new major intersection. The doubling of lanes and introduction of a new major intersection and ramps in and out of the tunnel will significantly increase noise levels at the properties along Serpentine visible in the photo.

This is an existing situation that has not been addressed despite residents highlighting the issue and the problem will only get far worse with the Beaches Link Tunnel proposal without early implementation of adequate engineering and design solutions. The inaction by RMS to address the issue has already caused people on the street to sell their homes, for others, like us, that option is not feasible.

Elsewhere along the length of Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation the walls are sufficiently high to create a sight and sound barrier to residents. Additionally, all other areas adjacent to the road have been landscaped, planted and maintained with significant trees as an additional measure (at least visually as I understand vegetation is ineffective in reducing traffic noise). The low shrubs planted on Serpentine is a far cry from the plantings and maintenance elsewhere (e.g. Dudley St see attached image) and most plants have died (see attached photo looking towards area of Burt Bridge deviation proposed for widening).

I have inspected the length of Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation and nowhere else is there unobstructed views of houses to and from the road. Furthermore we have a growing family and need additional space so will need to add a second storey to our bungalow. This will further exacerbate the noise via unobstructed sound waves and view of road due to the low wall and lack of tall planting. Does RMS plan to provide residents with financial assistance purchasing and installing acoustic glass windows?

I have marked up figure 11-2 attached with red box showing houses not identified, red arrow showing source of noise to the residences and a green line indicating where I additional height is required to the wall and tall planting is required to reduce noise and visual impacts to the residents of this portion of North Balgowlah. See photos also.

Could you also please explain why my and my neighbours houses are not shown in figure 11-2 when houses either side of us show cumulative level exceedances and eligible for consideration of additional noise mitigation? How are our houses excluded when we are in a worse location than the neighbouring properties and have recorded greater traffic noise levels?

I have spoken with acoustic engineers who inform me that even the Perspex acoustic sheets added to the top of the noise walls can significantly reduce the decibels reaching residences by simply blocking the direct line of travel of the sound waves. Why would this not be considered to reduce the clear increase in traffic noise due to the widening of the road? Additional noise abatement measures must be implemented.

I have also attached a snip from a figure in the EIS showing a large unidentified structure on Serpentine Crescent in place of my and my neighbours house. Please explain what this structure is.

It would be ideal if some foresight could be implemented so that if and when the tunnel works commence that a sound wall of sufficient height and established and mature trees could be in place to reduce the impacts to residents of Serpentine Crescent.

Will disrupt the community of Northbridge

I strenuously object to the Northern Beaches Tunnel (NBT) for the following reasons:

1. Public transport is ignored:
The current NBT plan fails to appropriately prioritise public transport.
It is clear that TfNSW is focused on building projects for private car journeys instead of public transport. This is demonstrated through the failure to provide for a designated bus lane in the NBT and an unwillingness within TfNSW to test the effectiveness of the demand management measures or other initiatives referred to in point 2 above (many of which would have the added bonus of encouraging greater usage of public transport).
The B-line service is a great success and its routes should be expanded to include a service from Manly and another service through Seaforth. Instead, the EIS simply discounts the effectiveness of such express services in the future on the basis of the forecast capacity restraints of the existing arterial road network.
What is worse is that TfNSW appears intent on making its forecast capacity issues a reality by cancelling many of the exiting bus services that Northern Beaches residents had relied upon, thereby forcing them back into private vehicles.

2. Habitat destruction:
The EIS has identified a number of the serious negative environmental impacts upon the flora and fauna in and around Balgowlah and Wakehurst Parkway.
The projected reduction of water flow in the Burnt Bridge Creek will effectively mean the extinction of the ecosystem that currently exists in and around it.
Further, the widening of the Wakehurst Parkway with the consequential loss of bushland (including almost 2,000 established trees) and the installation of new lighting, will all have a permanent detrimental impact upon the local wildlife and surrounding bushland.
While these issues have been noted to some degree in the EIS, it fails to propose any effective solutions.

3. Inadequate testing / modelling:
The EIS is also flawed in a number of material respects, including:
a) The traffic modelling represented in the EIS is unrealistic. The project related induced demand (new trips) is estimated to be 0.3% of additional daily trips in the Sydney metro area in 2037. Now this may be true for weekday traffic (provided we ignore the higher density living that will be imposed on the Northern Beaches in order to justify the project), however it cannot possibly have factored in the considerable additional traffic volume as a consequence of the Northern Beaches becoming the most accessible beaches for most Western Sydney residents. Given that the existing local road network is already proving to be grossly inadequate, the influx of additional traffic into the area post-NBT will be a disaster.
b) The failure to station a community receiver/receptor in or about Balgowlah Boys High School (with over 900 students) which is located:
- ~ 300m from the Balgowlah emission stack;
- around the same height as the top of the stack, and
- in line of the prevailing winds from that stack,
is a gross dereliction of the TfNSW’s duty to ensure that it undertakes all reasonable measures to investigate the potential health impacts of this proposed project upon children in the local area.

4. Pollution is disregarded:
The failure to plan for filtration of the emission stacks is simply penny pinching. TfNSW has assessed the pollution risk to the surrounding community as ‘minimal’. Had I moved into the area when the stacks were already in place then it is clear I would have accepted that risk. However, that is not the case. I do not want to be exposed to any additional pollution coming from the emission stacks, no matter how low TfNSW might consider those associated health risks might be. As with cigarette smoke, there is no safe level of exposure to these pollutants.

5. Risks to public safety:
Increasing the volume of heavy vehicle (HV) traffic on what is already a congested road network, and very close to a number of schools, poses an unacceptable risk to the public.
The EIS acknowledges that along Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation, Sydney Road and Spit Road, HV traffic only accounts for between 13% to 7% of total traffic in AM peak and between 7% to 4% in PM peak, yet in the period 2014 to 2019, HVs were involved in a disproportionate number of the accidents in these areas including:
- 45% of accidents on Burnt Bridge Creek Deviation;
- 22% of accidents on Sydney Road, and
- 26% of accidents on Spit Road.
The EIS also identifies the high crash rate on Sydney Road as a key road safety issue. However, with the exception of the new lights at the intersection with Maretimo Street, no risk mitigation measures appear to have been proposed.
The EIS attempts to claim that the NBT will lead to a reduction of vehicle accidents once it is completed, However, it fails to note the high probability that during the construction of the NBT there is likely to be many more traffic accidents involving HVs due to the increased volume of HVs on the road. Given that the primary HV entrance to the NBT construction site is located directly opposite one of the largest boys’ schools on the Northern Beaches (900+ students), we can only hope there will be no fatalities.

I object to the Beaches Link & Gore Hill Freeway Connection because a business case has not been released to justify the enormous expense of public moneys.
I object to the Beaches Link & Gore Hill Connection due to the loss of local amenity in Naremburn and Flat Rock Gully.
Continuing with 20 year old toll roads infrastructure plan without a business case accessible to the public and updated for public transport options is not acceptable.
As the Covid vaccine rollout starts, public transport can be seen to be viable again and assessed as an option to this toll road.

Loss of amenity in the Naremburn includes the destruction of a significant area of Flat Rock Gully and 40 years of regeneration work, the environmental impact of the works and works runoff through Flat Rock Gully will substantially degrade the area affecting our amenity and environment. The selected dive site is totally inappropriate.
"Estimated" 5 years of disruption in the Naremburn area for no local benefit.
Naremburn looses access to and from the freeway connections. Local traffic impacts on West & Amherst Sts, Miller St & Amherst/Ernest/Falcon/Berry all estimated to be classed as fail during peak periods. North Sydney CBD town planning is divided and conquered by through traffic.

regards,
Rob Armstrong.

I do not think the water runoff to Manly lagoon from the project has been well conceived, nor do I think the management of traffic during the project has been well considered.

Attention: Director, Transport Assessments
Planning & Assessment, Department of Planning
Industry and Environment
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124


Objection: Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Upgrade – SSI_8862

I write to express my objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project. I’ve attempted to find information of interest from the EIS documents posted online but have found relevant parts overwhelmingly difficult to find. The areas of particular concern to me are the destruction of significant areas of our natural assets, features which are unique to Sydney and which are world-renowned. Direct destruction will be followed by subsequent indirect destruction through follow-on effects.

I object to the project for the following reasons:

1. I object to the project due to the contamination risks presented in the EIS. Our harbour and steams are relatively unpolluted at the moment because undisturbed for many years. Disturbance will cause long-contained pollutants to re-emerge, causing loss of whole eco-systems, both marine and estuarine.

My local park is Flat Rock Gully. This is one of the areas zoned for destruction. This area has been lovingly nurtured for years by Willoughby Council, supported by locals and volunteer bushcare workers, with the result that wild-life is flourishing. It is in constant use for walking, biking and passive recreation. I’m also aware of its origins as a tip and object to those pollutants being released and potentially impacting on people’s health, let alone the wild-life that live within it.

2. I also object to the project’s effects on groundworks as this is a heritage area and there is a risk of damage to these homes, including mine.

3. I object on the grounds that we will suffer a major loss of Quality of life from noise, vibration, and increased traffic congestion.


4. I object to the project on the grounds that other alternative Methods of transport have not been offered for public perusal or comment.
We already pay a lot in motor-way tolls. People naturally tend to avoid tolled roads creating more congestion on untolled roads. And that means more congestion around Naremburn/Cremorne where I live. Could not the bus system work better. It already has improved matters along Military Road. What about a Metro like is being built in many other places.

5. I object to the project giving no obvious consideration to climate change mitigation. This, by its emphasis on roads and cars instead of public transport.

I would ask that this project be re-thought entirely. There are grounds for objection at many levels. Sydney’s qualities as a city still connected to the natural world are being compromised with the current plan.


Yours sincerely,
Diana Weston
334 West St Naremburn, 2065

I am not affiliated with any political party, nor made any donations

I made a submission concerning the EIS noting my concerns with the impact on cycling. Having now had a chance to look at other impacts, I make a further submission.
I object to the The Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection EIS (Beaches Link) and recommend refusal on the grounds attached.
I am bitterly disappointed that more time could not have been given for submissions considering that Willoughby City Council will not have the ability to even meet to discuss their submission before the closing date. Willoughby will suffer huge negative impacts from this project and none of them have been adequately covered in this EIS.

Please see formal letter of objection attached

We are very disappointed that the tunnel will be going ahead. People here on the northern beaches in particular are very environmentally conscious, firstly the disruption to the wildlife and natural creek is unacceptable and really VERY unnecessary.
Secondly why would you think parents are going to want their children playing sports next to a polluted smoke stack spewing out emissions all over our kids???!? Just not clever planning at all.
Love the idea of sport redevelopment of fields etc but not the way you have planned it.

My greatest concern is our community’s children at the schools surrounding the what will be filthy, dusty noisy building site - FOR YEARS causing dreadful air pollution - don’t deny it the trucks coming and going are hardly going to be electricity run vehicles. Seaforth public, st Cecilia’s and Balgowlah boys not to mention the day care centres and homes in the area have all deserve better - YOU HAVE DROPPED THE BALL - lives that I feel have not been considered.

Finally, aren’t we as a nation supposed to be moving away from this kind of thing? With far more of us now working from home more often, times have changed.... Shouldn’t we be encouraging public transport and environmentally friendly forms of transport. Put the money towards that - not a bloody tunnel that will end up costing more than planned, taking longer than planned and be the usual balls up that always happens with roadworks and planning in NSW.

Sort it out Govt of NSW, locals don’t want it!

I support the project to ease the traffic congestion between thye Northern Beaches and the city. It is a solid solution to the problems.

This submission contains my objection to the fact that the ventilation stacks from the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection tunnels will be unfiltered.

Hi,

I am a Seaforth resident with kids going to Seaforth Public school and I object the proposed Beaches Link Tunnel due to the following reasons:
- Biodiversity:
o The tunnel will cause a permanent loss of up to 96% of the base water flow of the Burnt Bridge Creek which means there will be no creek left. My family uses the cycle and walk way at least twice a month for recreational purposes, either walking or cycling, to visit Manly and Balgowlah. The pathway along the creek provides shade and being away from the traffic and major roads allows us to take our smaller children. The ecological impact of the tunnel on the Burnt Bridge Creek is huge and will impact all the vegetation, flora and fauna. It’s also unacceptable that the Balgowlah Golf Course construction support site (BL10) will discharge 428,000l of waste water to the local storm water system Burnt Bridge Creek before it comes out at Queenscliff Lagoon, a place where we currently go to the beach sometimes. This again will destroy this ecosystem. Another route and way to source water for tunneling needs to be found, it’s not acceptable that the tunneling will draw from our ground water risking all vegetation and flora along the Seaforth to Manly Lagoon corridor! There needs to be a review assessing the impact the reduced baseline flows in Burnt Creek will have on the ecosystem and vegetation.
- Contamination of Middle Harbour and Clontarf Reserve: There is a significant risk to Middle Harbour from disturbance of sediment. The sediment is known to contain unsafe levels of heavy metals, lead, hydrocarbons, pesticides, and other toxins. The EIS states that sediment curtains will be used to attempt to restrict sediment spread during construction, however Bill Maher, professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology, has stated “I personally have never seen a sediment curtain that’s worked 100 per cent”. This means that sediment leaks are inevitable, and the impact on aquatic life including endangered marine species as well as people like us enjoying swimming, at Clontarf, will be severe. We go to Clontarf every second week during summer and to know that the beautiful water will be contaminated is unacceptable. I request that a review of this impact is done to assess how exactly water quality will change during and after construction and that a monitoring hotline will be available for residents to find out water quality at Clontarf. I also request an alternative design such as tunneling under the harbour side the same as under land is to be considered so we’d not need coffer dams and a construction site at Spit Reserve West.
- Health impacts:
o Chapter 10 of the EIS states that up to 532 residential receivers could be exposed to ground-borne noise levels above 45 dB(A) for a number of weeks on multiple occasions. The potentially affected residential receivers are mainly within Seaforth and in particular in NCA 53.3 where we live. This is unacceptable especially considering NCA 53.3 is not considered for at-property noise treatment. As tunneling will be taking place 24/7 this will impact sleep and cause increased stress levels, especially as also after Covid, my husband and I will be working from home for the majority for the time and we have 2 school aged children who need to do their school work at home. We expect mitigation strategies like double glazing to our windows. I am also concerned that tunneling close to our house will result in structural damages to the house. Residents near the tunnel need to be provided with a free structural assessment prior, during and after the construction takes please to ensure we will be compensated if the tunneling causes damages to our properties.
o On top of that Seaforth Public School will endure increased noise levels through-out the construction, so both of my kids will be exposed to an increase of noise for years. The school needs to be upgraded with double glazed windows to allow for better learning and concentration. Indoor halls need to be updated / build to allow kids to play inside during construction if the dust coming from the Balgowlah golf course construction site is bad. An independent dust and noise monitor station need to be installed during construction which will alert parents when the air quality measures exceed what is considered safe and healthy.
o Poor air quality once the tunnel is completed due to unfiltered ventilation stacks. My son is currently attending Seaforth Public School and then might transition to Balgowlah Boys High School. It is unacceptable building unfiltered stacks so close to so many schools, with Bally Boys being one of them. On top of that, we will live in the middle of both ventilation stacks so no matter the wind direction will be impacted by the ventilation stacks. These stacks need to be filtered and the argument that air quality will only worsen a little bit and it’s much better still than in other parts of the world doesn’t count since as a civilized and modern society we should not strive to match worse but always should look for ways to improve the status quo. On tunnel- completion, independent and regular (at least 4 times a year) monitoring of the air quality around Seaforth Public and Balgowlh Boys High School need to happen for at least 5 years to ensure the air quality is safe for children. Independent air quality monitoring also needs to be done throughout Seaforth for at least 5 years to ensure measures are not exceeding what’s been proposed in the EIS (which is bad enough).
o Increased noise and danger due to a massive increase in light and especially heave vehicle movements. The EIS states that it is up to the contractor later to organize what route the heave vehicle trucks will take to move the spoil away. So there’s a risk trucks leaving the Balgowlah golf course construction site will move through Seaforth. This needs to be avoided as Frenchs Forest route and the roundabout at Seaforth Village would not cope with that, particularly not during school drop-off and pick-up times as the corner at Frenchs Forest and Bangaroo Street already experiences high traffic volume during those times with lots of children around. Adding 40-50 heavy vehicles an hour to this scenario will cause accidents and chaos during this time. NSW Transport needs to provide regulations on what way and at what times these tracks can move during Seaforth. Furthermore, there needs to be independent monitoring of construction and truck movements with a reporting hotline as well as independent monitoring of operation and publicly available data.
- Traffic impacts:
o Spit Reserve West, Wakehurst parkway, Burnt Bridge Deviation are all planned to become construction sites for the tunnel, during the 6 years of construction, we will be completely caught amid 3 construction sites unable to move in and out of Seaforth. On top of that we have a major increase of heavy vehicle movement, on the days we do have to go the office, how are we meant to commute to the city or elsewhere.
o In the EIS it states that in 2027 on tunnel completion it is estimated that the commute from Seaforth to Frenchs Forest will increase by 10min. My daughter was meant to go to Forest High so will be impacted immensely by this. So albeit the tunnel is meant to improve traffic, locally it does the reverse. We’ll have longer wait times on Sydney Road intersection, a longer commute to Warringah Mall and to Frenchs Forest and anywhere locally just to be able to commute quicker further away, i.e. the city.
o Local roads will not cope with the increased traffic the tunnel will bring. Parking and traffic on weekends at Clontarf is chaotic already and bringing more people in without adequately updating local roads, facilities and parking lots at Clontraf, Manly, and most of the other Northern Beaches will create chaos. I demand that an impact study is done which reviews the impact on the local Northern Beaches roads, to Clontarf, Palm Beach and Ku-Ring-Ghai National Park as it’s questionable to build a tunnel but not update the rest of the local road network.

As an overall summary, it seems that the only people gaining by the construction of the tunnel are people in Mossman as traffic will decrease by 10% on Military Road. 10% is ridiculous and surely could be achieved by better public transport. Residents around Seaforth will not have easy access to the tunnel but will bear most tunnel construction impacts. It is very disappointing that recent traffic movements at for example Spit Bridge show a decrease of traffic in 2020 and 2021 but have not been properly taken into account for the tunnel planning. The whole project seems to be very rushed and more of a political undertaking than a project which has people’s and the environment’s best interest at heart. Assuming life post Covid will not have an impact on future traffic movements is just short sided. Only time will tell what is to come so to fully understand what will happen this project needs to be given more time and a more thorough review of the status quo in 1-2 years’ time needs to happen instead of using the past as a predictor of the future. Modelled traffic savings, i.e., to save 35 minutes when commuting to Balgowlah to the city in 2037, are not adequate as these models have been done without Covid and a change of working arrangements in mind, plus they are based on worst case scenarios in peak traffic, as well as based on not improving public transport which is very disappointing. Even more disappointing is that it is quite apparent that the recent changes to bus routes 169 and E69 have been made to get more people using their cars so the tunnel can be justified. Why were no other public transport solutions considered instead of the tunnel which will destroy so much fauna and ecosystem, removing 2000 trees, costing an estimated $14 billion, and requiring 6 years of construction.

Unfortunately I am here to object the Beaches Link Tunnel Project - There are so many reasons why this project is of no benefit to the locals and community.

* Transport needs have changed hugely in the last 12months and people are realising the fact that they don't need to be travelling into the city via the beaches.
* Traffic has significantly reduced so the tunnel is of no purpose.
* The proposed tunnel is to be built right on residential areas with all the pollution hits local families and schools.
* There is proposal for unfiltered stacks? How can this be healthy for people in the local area.
* There are 13+ schools in the area that are going to be impacted and affected negatively by not only the construction faze but the tunnel as a whole.
* The B-Line has been designed to take traffic off the roads and is working. Why aren't we looking for grater public transport solutions not billions on a tunnel that will become privatised?
* Public transport is the push for so many progressive nations around the world and this is something we need to focus on too.
*This is not a transport solution - we need a better option for the beaches residence.
* So many local public spaces will be destroyed and negatively impacted.
* The health impacts for locals not only during construction but on going are a major concern for both young families and the older generations.

The list goes on and for these and many other reasons we completely object the project and don't feel it's going to benefit us or our children into the future.

Based on my civil engineering experience on major transport infrastructure (including planning and design - Sydney Harbour Tunnel, Sydney Metro and Northconnex etc) and also local knowledge as a 20 year+ resident of Frenchs Forest.

The environment impact analysis demonstrates a significant loss of bushland including protected species and fauna. In particular the Burnt Creek will be effected by reducing it's waterflow by more than 90% which will result in the creek diminishing and the fauna being destroyed. The environmental impact of the project overall is not sustainable. Overall the tunnel project doesn't promote public transport like all other modern countries, this tunnel project is going backwards promoting cars to the road without considering long term alternative viable solutions like public transport, i.e. increase of busses to take cars off the roads instead.
Hence I object to the project and request for sustainable public transport alternatives.