Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

I volunteer at Northbridge Sailing Club (NSC), the community organisation most affected by the maritime works of the Beaches Link tunnel. I am the Principal of the Sailing School at NSC and a member of the managing committee. So I am responsible for arranging dinghy sailing lessons for around 50-70 kids each year, plus a dozen or so adults. That is a substantial fraction of the influx of new sailors into the sport in the Sydney area. These aren't megayachts with champagne glasses and paid skippers in white jackets - they are small dinghies which unceremoniously toss sailors making mistakes into Middle Harbour. Our sailors receive their prizes whilst dripping water from their wetsuits on our floor, and with pride in their accomplishments, not dressed in dinner suits.

I sail at Northbridge, and more importantly my two children are growing up in that wonderful environment that is enabled by NSC. They, like most of our youths, have matured immensely as citizens from their sailing activities, and I have every confidence that NSC's sailing has given them the positive mental attitude and confidence to be valuable citizens in future.

However I fear all this is at risk. The proposed Beaches Link maritime restrictions (both the exclusion zones around construction works, and the relocation of moorings) make it almost impossible to have a sensible sailing program for either sail training, or experienced sailors. Sailing boats can't sail directly into the wind, and so need lateral distance to maneouvre (tacking). Narrow channels and moorings obstructing large portions of the harbour are not conducive to sailing, and it is entirely possible that NSC suffers a catastrophic loss of members. This isn't just a financial problem for the club; almost all sail training (of new juniors) is performed by teenage volunteer instructors who are primarily motivated by giving back to the community and by the sailing opportunities at NSC. The likely loss of teenagers means no new junior member influx for several years, and the inevitable loss of viability as a club.

And yet, significant amelioration would seem possible. (1) The exclusion zone between Clive Park and Seaforth could be relaxed on Spring/Summer/Autumn Sundays (the club's normal sailing day) to allow a wider channel - after all construction is only intended during "standard" Monday through Saturday hours. Allowing sailboat passage through a wider channel on Sundays would allow the club to maintain most of its viability (2) avoiding temporary mooring relocation to the proposed area west of Seaforth (which congests the harbour width between Castlecrag and Seaforth). These moorings could be placed in Long Bay if the exclusion zone in (1) cannot be moderated, or elsewhere (NSC can suggest suitable areas). Alternatively, although less suitable, would be to allow dinghy racing inside the mooring fields (racing dinghies are highly manouevrable and this poses insignificant risk).

It may be possible to save Northbridge Sailing Club, but only with what I believe would need to be considerable ongoing consultation with the Club and the provision of a range of financial and infrastructure assistance. I note that the EIS mentions several times the need to consult with NSC; I would urge that consultation to immediately commence (it hasn't yet), and continue during the construction period.

Northbridge Sailing Club is an iconic sailing and Sydney institution. It is globally famous amongst sailors, as it has gestated highly popular dinghy designs (including the Olympic 49er skiff design). The Beaches Link tunnel effects on Northbridge will be felt in a much greater area than might be imagined, as Northbridge contributes to the events held by other clubs (our members travel widely - in the last three weeks alone many of our members have particpated in regattas at Port Kembla, Hunters Hill, Jervis Bay, Pittwater and Lake Macquarie), and in dinghy class associations organising State and National championships - we are often the backbone of sailing organisation.

The club is perhaps the perfect community association, with members contributing to the greater good and assisting each other. Its mental health benefits must be profound (certainly amongst its membership, but likely well beyond). We have survived Covid-19 safely (not surpisingly, as sailing is a very socially-distanced, outdoor sport), despite the usual difficulties that any sporting club would have experienced in these pandemic times, and were planning a resurgence in the near future.

All this is at risk, and the club needs TfNSW to help it survive a rather unexpected reversal in fortunes that will result from the Beaches Link construction. Please cooperate with us.

When the tunnel project was initially proposed we watched with great interest.
This could be good but over time have realized the damage to the area's environment and amenity is far to great for minimal gain.
To see the impact in the smaller Balgowlah/Seaforth area with so many narrow residential streets is hard to imagine unlike NorthConnex. The area along Burnt Bridge Creek is an important ecological corridor with many endangered flora and fauna relying on it for their survival. We object strongly to any reduction in bushland and water level in this environment because of its impact on the diversity of wildlife there. We have lived in this area for 65 years and know that many walkers, cyclists, nature lovers use this area regularly for exercise and enjoyment . Please reconsider your plans for changes in this extremely sensitive environment around Burnt Bridge Creek.

What is the price we put on the health of our children, our personal well-being and the health of our environment for both the current population and for future populations?

We do not know the real cost as there is no transparency or business case. The alternatives to improve access to the Northern Beaches have not been considered or alternatives costed. The route has been determined considering only the shortest route and the easiest for drivers. It will be tolled and many drivers will avoid this and this will lead to increased traffic in local streets.

We do however know what the costs will be:

• Contamination of Flat Rock Creek and Middle Harbour. The area of Flat Rock Gully was used as a garbage tip from 1937 until the 80’s. Level playing fields were created on top of the waste. From 1983, more fill was added and the bush regenerated to create Bicentennial Park and the Flat Rock Gully bushland reserve. For 40 years the Bushcare Volunteers have cared for this area and made sure the tip was capped. Now this area is planned to be the dive site for the Beaches Link and the toxic dump will be disturbed, and high-level contaminants will poison the waters of the creek and Middle Harbour. Our harbour has been cleaned up in recent decades and whales even visit, Contamination will put Sydney Harbour at risk.

• Flat Rock Gully is part of a linkage of habitats from Artarmon Reserve, Bicentennial Reserve and Tunks Park. It has Wildlife Protection status with its population of small birds, reptiles and frogs. It allows for and ecological linkage between Lane Cove River catchment and Park and Middle Harbour. There is remnant Blue Gum High Forest near Artarmon Park and the regenerated bush of Flat Rock Gully also has Sydney Blue Gums. We cannot afford the cost of this loss of habitat.

• Flat Rock Gully is a green oasis between Cammeray and Northbridge and used by residents for the simple recreations of walking, jogging and cycling and will as the more active pursuits on the playing fields and courts of Bicentennial Park. In 2020 regular sport stopped due to Covid and the wide shared pedestrian/cycle path from Artarmon Reserve to Flat Rock Gully allowed many local residents to exercise safely close to home. I personally had major surgery in February 2020 and a formal rehabilitation programme stopped due to Covid rules. The Flat Rock Gully path allowed me to manage my rehabilitation while socially distancing even though there were many people using this path. Losing this will have an impact on the Quality of Life of residents. We need parks and nature to help us deal with the stresses of modern life.

• Another cost will be the huge resources needed for this project. The tunnelling will have an impact on local roads with damage due to the huge number of truck movements. The truck movements will also have a high carbon footprint and belch their fumes and exhaust into the air- also poisoning the local environment. How does this project address New South Wales’ climate goals?

There needs to be adequate analysis of alternatives such as a Metro which does not require such a wide corridor and requires fewer natural resources to construct and is less polluting.

• The costs to the local communities under which the tunnel will be built have also not been quantified. We are told tunnelling will continue 24/7. The tunnel will go directly under Northbridge so many of us will be disturbed by the noise and vibration and the risk of cracking of our houses. It will go directly under my street. The ventilation stacks will be close to schools and sporting fields so there will be a cost to the health of children and nearby residents. Meanwhile what be the benefits to the local community? Even the EIS estimates that the Tunnel will only lead to a 10% decrease in traffic on congested Military Road. We will also have to put up with congestion caused by the truck movements and then when it is finally finished, the extra traffic as people try to avoid the toll.

How can proposed “offsets” possibly compensate for the costs of this project? Owls and bandicoots have no use for money! Attempts to “restore” the natural environment we will lose during this project will not be restored or compensated for in my lifetime. It took 40 years to rehabilitate the Flat Rock Gully area last time.

This project should not go ahead on the proposed route.
Look for alternatives which will have less costs for the climate, wildlife and the community.

I strongly object to this project.

Our parks, waterways and natural green spaces have seen us through Covid and the sanctity of our homes has become more important than ever. Our quality of life is compromised by these projects during years of construction and into the future.

All options should be explored before deciding on this destructive path.

The government has not completed a full options analysis. It needs to look seriously at previously flagged mass transit alternatives ie) Dee Why to Chatswood and Neutral Bay Metro. These projects have a far lighter footprint and would be more effective congestion relievers in the long term.

he EIS confirms very high waste generation, water usage and concrete production volumes. Road tunnels are far larger than Metro and require more resources. They also induce and require (due to toll contracts) increased vehicle usage and produce emissions themselves due to the operations of lights, emergency systems, vent systems etc
This project does not help us meet our climate goals in fact it contributes negatively while increasing pollutants in and around our urban areas and green spaces.

The destruction of Flat Rock Gully and its native flora and fauna is totally objectionable.

​
​

Whilst not a close resident to the project, however as I live in a near suburb, I object to the project.
It is ridiculous that the proposal is to build ventilation stacks so near to a number of schools. Sydney already endures many days of poor air quality, this project will just assist in increasing the number of these days. It would be far more environmentally friendly to build a Metro Line to the Northern Beaches. We owe it to our future generations to build sustainable projects not "Pie in the Sky." A Metro can move more people in a shorter time and is far more friendly to the environment.
The proposal will impact drastically on existing green space at Cammeray Golf Course, Balgowlah Golf Course, St Leonards Park and elsewhere in Neutral Bay, Mosman, Seaforth, Balgowlah to name but a few.
We need less Tollways and more Metro type transport systems that are sustainable now and into the future. This project is very short term thinking and will just be another excessive cost overrun system to hang around our necks and to paid on the Never Never Plan.
Sincerely,
Ken S

This submission contains my objections to the impact on the suburb of Cammeray - the loss of green space; the loss of trees and vegetation; and the negative visual impacts of the motorway facility buildings and the ventilation stacks.

As a young professional who grew up in north Seaforth and now lives in Cammeray, I am directly impacted by the construction of the Beaches Link tunnel. This is not, however, my primary reason for objecting. I understand Sydney needs infrastructure. However, more privately owned toll roads are not, and never have been, effective solutions to congestion. The more roads we build, and the less effective our public transport, the more we force people into cars and back into traffic jams; every city in the world has demonstrated this. And, the more giant private roads and tunnels we build the more we undermine liveability and community cohesion and the more we damage the wonderful natural environment that we should be so proud of in Sydney.

For my generation, Sydney’s existing toll roads are already too expensive to use. We have studied hard to get a good education and we work long hours in jobs that are competitive to get. We earn reasonable salaries but are penalised by high housing costs and are effectively locked out of Sydney’s housing market. Just to go from Cammeray to Rooty Hill where I volunteer one day a week costs me $48.84 return, every single week, in addition to other toll charges of moving around Sydney. To add another toll on to get to my parents’ place on the northern beaches will be just one more charge I can’t afford. I would not use the Beaches Link tunnel.
I do not believe the EIS demonstrates that the Beaches Link tunnel is a viable transport solution. The traffic modelling dates back to 2016, it fails to distinguish between local and commuter traffic and it fails to take into account behaviour change and hybrid working models that are now being formalised in many workplaces. I also believe that it contains many outdated assumptions about ‘future proofing’ Sydney. To understand future proofing means understanding the next generation. As a service design researcher and consultant, I believe it is clear that younger Sydney residents are driving less – many people my age do not own cars but use ride shares, they are seeking to live close to where they work, they are seeking walkable communities with green space and local integration. The Beaches Link tunnel is the antithesis of this – in particular the 12-lane super highway that will forever divide and scar Balgowlah and Seaforth.

I also want to emphasise how much responsibility the current generation of decision makers should have for ‘future proofing’ our environment. This is an emissions-intensive, private-vehicle based, privately owned (after sale) project that in no way addresses goals like ‘zero emissions by 2050’. It is highly, highly destructive of our precious natural environment at Flat Rock Gully and at Manly Dam and Burnt Bridge Creek. How is it possibly justified to damage or destroy these precious areas that should be protected for future generations? For what? A reduction of 10% in traffic on Military Road when we are not even sure what trips we will need to make into the future, now we are all used to working via Zoom and Teams. The many environmental costs outlined in the EIS are far too high a price to pay for any project, least of all a privately-owned toll road.

I strongly object to this project at every level and hope you will consider the of a young Sydney resident who will inherit the consequences.

I am a regular commuter to the City and Airport from North Balgowlah and I am very clear in my absolute disagreement with the construction of this tunnel.

I believe that the complaints about length of commute to the city are often exaggerated and I regularly manage to travel there in 35 mins by car, slightly longer by bus.

I also do not agree/buy the suggested time savings of travel by the tunnel as the bottleneck at the city end will be significant.

When I consider the years of construction disruption (and we have recent experience from the much smaller Northern Beaches Hospital/Warringah Road upgrade), the potential pollution close to residential and school grounds from ventilation stacks, the damage to precious bush land around Manly Dam area - including historical Aboriginal sites -, the lack of additional Public Transport options within the tunnel, the massive cost running into the Billions of tax payer dollars (which will inevitably blow out) and compare that to a few minutes “potentially” saved of a trip I cannot in good conscience support this project.

If just a fraction of the planned budget was to go to improving Public Transport or Sustainable Transport options then we would end up with better options for the community and the environment.

We are so fortunate to live in areas with rich biodiversity, cultural heritage and beauty that for sake of the generations to come this project should not proceed.

I object to the Beaches Link Tunnel. Having read the EIS, viewed the webinar and considered it I have the following concerns:

1/ The traffic modelling doesn't consider the impact of WFH. WFH is not temporary, it will be permanent for a slice of the workforce/days. I also can't see any meaningful consideration of public transport options which are preferred by the community and better for congestion and the environment. The tunnel's business case compared to cost and disruption just doesn't stack up. It would be better to invest more in public transport options.

2/ Burnt Bridge creek water flows will decrease substantially during construction and almost completely after that. Burnt bridge creek is a gem in the suburb and is used heavily by the community for exercise, dog walking, playing with kids etc. It will turn into a stagnant smelly drain.

3/ Installing the immersed tubes in the harbour will stir up toxic sludge. I can't see a solid guarantee that it will be contained meaning the spit bridge area, middle harbour and clontarf will be poisoned with toxic water.

4/ My home is on the tunnel pathway. The mitigations to vibration and noise from the tunnelling are not specified clearly. I am concerned that our quality of life and the value of my property will be severely affected. The EIS claims that mitigation will be arranged later. The EIS Chapter 10 states that reasonable and feasible noise mitigation but who decides what is reasonable? An independent assessment of noise and vibration impacts from construction on all surrounding homes with noise and vibration above management levels must be done and provided to property owners before construction commences.

5/ Guarantees need to be provided that workers will not be parking in local streets and that the construction contractor will manage this problem

6/ Air Quality: Unfiltered ventilation stacks will increase the concentration of polluted air in this area. The modelling done in the EIS averages pollution across a 24Hr period which obscures the peak periods of exposure.

7/ The Seaforth Oval is used heavily by my family and others in the suburb. The congestion around it will be high, the trees along the northern side of it will be damaged/removed and there will be an access road encroaching onto the oval. There needs to be another location for the access road - further away from the oval and protecting the trees.

I want more bushland protected on this project!!! Damage to environment must be eliminated

I object to the Beaches Link Tunnel for the reasons set out in the attachment "EIS Submission Beaches Link Tunnel AH"

In this submission I object to the failure of the EIS to acknowledge the reality of ‘induced traffic”.

There has to be a better solution than building a tunnel. The impact of people’s life for the next 10 years disturbing our children schooling and health. Seriously can we not think of a better solution to our traffic.

I have been a resident of North Balgowlah for over 30 years. During that time public transport in the suburb of North Balgowlah has been reduced, even though the population of the area has increased. I cannot understand why public transport is not increased, instead of spending a huge amount of money on more roads. Autonomous Rail Rapid Transit is one example of an electric five-carriage train that does not require a permanent track but can provide an environmentally friendly option to move large numbers of people. The B-line bus has proved a monumental success, proving that residents of the northern beaches are open to using public transport for work and leisure.
I have been working from home since March 2020. Due to the success of the NBN rollout I have carried out my employment duties very successfully and have no intention of returning to the office at Chatswood full-time. My employer is more than happy for me to stay at home 4 days a week as my productivity has increased due to not having to travel to and from the office every day.
Modelling of traffic flow for the Beaches Link Tunnel was carried out prior to the Covid pandemic when most office workers were travelling to and from their office. New modelling is now required, based on the number of people who are now working from home, and who intend to continue working from home.
Burnt Bridge Creek runs through the back of my street. The creek supports a large amount of wildlife and flora, as well as providing a popular walking and cycling track between North Seaforth and Manly. As a consequence of building the Beaches Link Tunnel the groundwater flow into the creek will be reduced by around 80%. This will have a massive impact on the water quality and the surrounding flora and fauna.
Disturbance of the sludge on the bottom of Middle Harbour during construction will distribute toxins in nearby areas where children and adults swim, then carried by the tide to areas all around Middle Harbour. This is unacceptable as marine life will disappear and swimming will be prohibited due to the risk of becoming ill. I am not convinced that any attempt to control movement of the sediment will be successful. The quality of the water in Manly Dam will also be affected by runoff from construction around Wakehurst Parkway.
The construction itself will impact local residents by way of noise, vibration, truck movements and traffic diversions. I understand that tunnel construction will continue 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Building projects in Sydney over the past few years have revealed many incidents of building contractors exceeding guidelines for noise, environmental impact and disposal of waste. There is no incentive for these contractors to obey guidelines and rules as fines are insignificant.
Due to the amount of soil to be removed there will be a constant line of trucks leaving and returning to the construction site through local streets. This will impact residents through added noise and pollution, but most importantly safety is compromised as there are many children and elderly in the area.
My greatest concern is the refusal of the government to provide filtration in the ventilation stacks. These stacks are close to a number of schools and it is unacceptable that filtration has not been considered, regardless of the cost of maintenance. I cannot believe that the government is willing to risk the health of our children for the extra cost of filtration. I would rather have a healthier population than save a few minutes travelling into city by tunnel.

I live on one of the cul-de-sac streets (Brighton St, Paris St) adjacent Balgowlah golf course - east side. I understand a significant part of the golf course will be returned as open space/sporting fields and I appreciate the benefit this will bring to the community. I am however concerned that these 2 streets which may have direct access to this open space, will be burdened with traffic dropping off kids/parents going to sporting matches/training as well as clogging the streets with parked cars. I acknowledge dedicated parking for open space users has been designed, however it is well known that unless measures are taken to discourage parking and drop offs to local surrounding streets, this will be the result.
I request TfNSW consider how this impact can be avoided/managed to avoid turning our quiet peaceful streets into a shortcut to the sporting fields and consequently, a weekend/weeknight traffic jam. The simplest solution may be to have no direct access from Brighton and Paris streets onto the fields.

I’m greatly concerned about Northbridge Sailing Club’s sailing area being greatly compromised. All our sailing courses will be affected by the maritime exclusion zones between Seaforth Bluff and Clive Park associated with the submerged tunnel works across Middle Harbour, and the temporary re-location of yacht moorings into a zone northwest of Seaforth Bluff.

NSC is a significant part of my life. I love sailing, and the works will mean sailing at NSC will become more difficult, less attractive, and even potentially completely infeasible. NSC is a jewel of a club, with an amazing history and a strong community ethos, helping people like myself to sail, a sport which is of particular importance in these Covid-19 affected times, being inherently a socially-distanced, outdoor pursuit that greatly assists with the collective mental health of the community (even in non-Covid times).

The impact on our club and community will be profound. With the sailing degraded we may lose members or be less able to attract new members, which affects the club’s viability. We depend on volunteers for our maintenance and improvements; if membership drops then there is simply less of a critical mass to regenerate the club following the Beaches Link construction.

We request TfNSW minimize the impact of maritime restrictions by urgently consulting in good faith with Northbridge Sailing Club, to help assist in retaining and regaining NSC’s attractiveness/viability.

At what point does greed give way to beauty. Don't do it. Kids love that space. They sail and they watch seals and can breath and have a glimmer of what this planet has to offer.

This submission contains my objections to the disturbance of toxic and contaminated sediments in Middle Harbour at the proposed crossing site of the Beaches Link tunnel.

I have an 11 year old daughter who sails with the Northbridge Sailing Club every Sunday in Middle Harbour, between Northbridge and Seaforth where there is substantial marine construction activity planned for the proposed development. Next summer, my 9 year old daughter will begin sailing at the same location. I have been a regular volunteer at the club for the last three years. Over this period I have seen multiple learn to sail programs being run for approximately 60 kids between the ages of 7 and 12 each summer. These kids are predominately from the local Northbridge community and surrounding areas. These kids develop a huge amount of maturity, confidence and independence from sailing (they are entrusted with the control of their own sailing dinghy in Middle Harbour!), unlike any other sport or activity I or my children have been involved with. They are also mentored by highly competitive young athletes and very experienced senior sailors that also participate in the club's activities.

I am very concerned by several aspect of the proposed development:
(1) All maritime traffic will be controlled near the Cofferdams, which is an important area for training. It appears likely that the kids will no longer be able to use this area for race or other training and would only be able to transit the area. This would substantially restrict the learn to sail programs.
(2) There is a high level of power boat and yacht activity in middle harbour, particularly on sunny/hot days, that come into close proximity with the many kids learning to sail. It is not unusual for 70 foot, multilevel cruisers to have to maneuver around 20 kids each in their own 7 foot sailing dinghy. This is only just manageable in waters where there is space. However, the proposed development will create a pinch point between the cofferdams (to approximately 220m in the maritime exclusion zone and 100m when silt curtains are in place), where kids in 7 foot dinghies will have right of way over 70 foot cruisers. I can only imagine the level of frustration and anger this might create, and the risk that people take dangerous actions as a result, putting the kids in danger.
(3) It is not clear whether there will be barge movements on Sundays when the kids are sailing. If so, this will create additional risk to the kids, as they are still learning how to sail and control their dinghies, particularly in stronger winds. I cannot imagine barges are particularly good at evasive maneuvers, so with barge movements in the kids training area, there is an increased risk of collision and harm to the children. This wouldn't be a problem if there is no work on Sundays.
(4) While the supporting materials suggest that contaminants mixed into the water by the dredging works are unlikely to travel far from the dredging area, the kids sailing in this area in small dinghies have a very high likelihood of capsizing and entering the water. It is not clear that the applicants have tested whether it is safe for children to be in the water adjacent to the dredging activities, when such contaminants have been mixed into the water. This could obviously be a health hazard for the children.
(5) The navigation impact assessment says that the northbridge sailing club will be substantially impacted and would be consulted during construction planning. While this is promising, that this consultation has not yet happened indicates that the impact of the proposed development is not fully understood. I am particularly concerned that the safety of children sailing (and sometimes capsizing) within the proposed construction area has not been considered. Rather, the focus of the impact assessment appears to be on commercial and recreational vessels controlled by adults.

Without consideration of these issues, it is likely that parents in the Northbridge and surrounding communities will no longer consider sailing for their children to be safe. This would be unfortunate as it would deprive them of a unique activity that builds confidence and independence in young children like no other, and would also threaten the financial viability of the Northbridge Sailing Club, which relies on income from the childrens' programs. Northbridge Sailing Club is run by volunteers, if we lose the club due to this development, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will have the resources or take the risk to reestablish it after construction is complete. That would be a great loss to the community and the children.

I object to the construction of yet another tunnel requiring the payment of tolls in both directions.

As a Northern Beaches resident I fully support the Beaches link project and thank the NSW government and all other parties for their investment in the Northern Beaches. As a long suffering commuter to the CBD via public transport, the link will be a great asset to the area... a game changer.

However there is one aspect of the plan that disappoints me, where the scope is too narrow. I believe there is a great opportunity to remove traffic from the Narrabeen to Manly Vale corridor, ie from Pittwater Road and Condamine Street and from the suburbs along that route.

I would strongly recommend extending the Wakehurst Parkway to four lanes all the way to North Narrabeen and that the plan strongly encourages all traffic from north of Narrabeen to take that Wakehurts Parkway route, including a range of fast bus options that could then be offered.

I believe Dee Why has 15 sets of traffic lights the last time i counted them! let alone Collaroy, Brookvale and Manly Vale. The tunnel will bring extra traffic to the beaches, extra cars and visitors, i welcome this. But we need to be more pragmatic in our planning and thinking to remove some of that bottleneck when that traffic leaves the tunnels. We need to encourage that Wakehurst Parkway exit... imagine one set of lights from there to North Narrabeen! Otherwise I fear the routes to Manly and north from the Burnt Creek exit will simply move the current bottlenecks at Spit Bridge, Spit Junction and Military Road up onto the Northern Beaches.

Thanks in advance for your consideration on this.
CJF