Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

While I do not object to the Beaches Link Tunnel as a whole, I do object to and have serious concerns about the following aspects of the project:-
1) The placement of a link road through one of the few large open green spaces that exist within the Balgowlah local area (Balgowlah Golf Course)
2) The risk that the project as currently designed will result in rat-running and congestion of traffic and parking in local roads around the Balgowlah / Balgowlah Heights area, both during construction and on completion of the project
3) The effects of the tunnel on the air quality and water quality in the local area

More Specifically:

1. Balgowlah Link Road
The Balgowlah Golf Course is a highly valued area of green space that is open to the local community to enjoy. While there are suggestions in the design planning that this space will be passed back to the community, there are no adequate safeguards that the area will be designed to maximise local community benefit. In any case, it is highly doubtful that the area will be valuable as community open space given the presence of a main road running through the middle.
Further, the location and construction of the emissions stacks is a matter of significant concern. The ‘artists impression’ of the stacks in the EIS statement was potentially misleading and not reflective of likely outcomes, when considering other similar historical projects. This failed to provide local residents with a realistic representation of the likely result of the project, and as such feels like an attempt to conceal the negative aspects of the project.
Finally, while I’m sure it is not considered a top priority by the project but the loss of public golfing facilities represents another loss for the local area, and is a general area where Northern Beaches residents are under-served. Local public courses are already crowded, and loss of another facility will serious reduce the ability of local residents to play the game.

Conditions – should the Link Road not be deleted from the design
• Safeguards need to be included in the overall design to guarantee the timely return of the open space to the community, with proper consultation on the final design & layout
• Safeguards need to be included in the overall design to ensure that design of any emissions stack causes minimal visual loss of amenity to local residents, and does not act as a scar on the local skyline. The final design should be reviewed with and approved by the local communities impacted before development commences.
• Loss of the Balgowlah Golf Course should be offset by investment in a new golf facility within a reasonable distance.

2. Traffic Impact
I am surprised that traffic modelling concerning the overall viability of the project has not been re-factored to account for the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which will more than likely alter the way that we live & work forever. The justification for such a large road project surely needs to be reconsidered in the light of these changes to behaviour rather than blindly ploughing ahead without considering new information
Nevertheless, my much greater concern is the lack of obvious safeguards in the plan to prevent local streets around Seaforth and Balgowlah Boys School becoming severely congested and significantly adversely affecting the day-to-day lives of the residents with extra traffic and associated noise and pollution. There are a large number of children in the local area, both attending local schools and residents, and extra traffic needs to be discouraged.
Local beaches are already at capacity – with huge congestion in peak months. The extra traffic in local areas will only further damage the amenity of these beaches to local residents and existing visitors from outside of the local area. It is unclear where the extra traffic will go once it arrives on the northern beaches or where it is expected to park.


Conditions should the link road not be deleted from the final design
• A number of traffic control measures will be required including, but not limited to:
o Preventing access to the Link Road and Tunnel directly from Maretimo Street.
o Turning from Wanganella Street onto Audrey Street, Violet Street, and other local roads which cannot sustain extra traffic and contain large numbers of children must be prevented at all times.
• Proper modelling needs to be carried out to consider the impact on local streets as well as main arterial roads (which the published EIS seems to have ignored)
• Live electronic signage should be available at North-bound exits of the tunnel indicating the amount of available parking in Manly, Clontarf and other local beaches – these are locations which are already at capacity and huge volumes of extra traffic will only damage the local area.
3. Environmental Impact on Air & Water Quality
Despite the numerous claims to have engaged with and listened to the local communities, I remain at a loss as to why there is an ongoing refusal to incorporate air filtration within with emission stacks. Despite promises and assurances around ‘modelling’, this is a repeated area of concern to all local communities within close proximity to these structures, including residential areas, outdoor areas and schools. The unwillingness to take these concerns seriously, and fit filtration to the proposed stacks in line with other similar projects internationally, suggests that community consultation has not been done in good faith.
The environmental impact on Burnt Bridge Creek seems unacceptable – both destroying natural native habitats with dumping activities and long-term reducing the flow of the creek to near zero – this is another significant loss to the local area which is not otherwise being compensated elsewhere in the design.
The plan needs to also include greater security around the impact of toxic waste being uncovered in Middle Harbour – this is an area of outstanding natural beauty and a natural habitat that we simply cannot risk losing under any circumstances.
Finally, the risk of dust clouds, including Silica Dust and Sandstone Dust being created during tunnelling does not appear to have been mitigated seriously in the final design.
Conditions to be attached to the final design
• Air quality filtration must be installed on any proposed emission stacks. This should be considered a non-negotiable aspect of the design.
• The final contracts for the final construction need to include failsafe protections for local waterways to prevent any damage caused by the uncovering of toxic waste or dredging, including harsh penalties for any failures
• Significantly improved safeguards need to be put in place to protect the local area from dust created during tunnelling.

Many thanks

Northern Sydney's iconic bushland is treasured by so many locals and those who visit. The impacts of this project on bushland and biodiversity are too high. I am particularly concerned about impacts to Manly Dam and adjoining bushland. These areas have extraordinary plant and animal diversity and this must be protected, not eroded through clearing habitat and noise, light and traffic pollution. More tunnels and cars is not the solution. I object to the project and hope it does not proceed. If it does, it must have maximum protections and protect local biodiversity at all costs.

I object to many aspects of the project
- the degradation of green space and natural beauty and wildlife in the Willoughby / Northbridge area and the site at flat rock gully
- the lack of a mass transit option
- Hazardous waste, toxic fumes and noise pollution
- degradation of middle harbour , impact on water recreation and sport
- no benefit to the neighborhoods bearing the brunt of the impact
- huge financial cost for a project with no business case and not providing scope for future population growth, keeping cars on road instead of a mass transit alternative
- encourages greater greenhouse gas emissions by not providing public transport options
- increases debt and benefits a definite minority of the state population

I strongly object to this project and the way in which it has been undertaken.

To Whom It May Concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel based on the following points ; -
1. the EIS is not current and much of it was written before the impacts or opportunities covid created for flexible work, therefore the facts and data it contains are irrelevant to current situation eg with respect to travel time data, post covid - there is much less dependency on peak hour travel. many more people are working from home and will continue to do so as workplaces have become more flexible. thus a new, up to date post-covid EIS needs to be written and re submitted for community consultation. We know post covid public transport usage is -40%, if we fix this first it will help.
2. the 'beaches tunnel' has been declared "worlds best practice', however, this is untrue, as 'world's best practice' would include filtration of the tunnel ventilation/emission stacks. as plainly stated in the eis, these will NOT be filtered, therefore this plan for beaches tunnel is NOT worlds best practice, therefore, until it can be deemed, "worlds best practice', it should NOT go ahead.
3. the name 'beaches link' is a misnomer as the tunnel goes to Balgowlah. not to the beach. thus, this is false marketing and false representation of a state significant project and as such should be addressed with a name more representative of what it actually is.
4. the original document signed by Mike Baird when he was premier clearly stated that in finding a solution to traffic congestion along military rd and this corridor that public transport options NOT be considered. This is a blatant abuse of the investigative process and thus excluded from the start, any real objective research into the best solution for the traffic congestion problems identified. thus, the basis of the project is biased and non-scientific and illogical from the start. therefore, the project needs to stop until a full investigation into public transport options, especially rail from dee why-chatswood can be evaluated and compared to the proposed $15,000,000,000 stretch of road /tunnel that is the .beaches link. also, there has been some mention that Mike Baird was prompted to exclude public transport option from this project plan because large transport companies like Transurban were major political party donors and also may have struck a deal to provide mike board with a post political job within the transport industry, therefore, the project begun with a false and seemingly biased , even corrupt selection process that excluded any consideration of public transport - especially trains in its analysis of best solution to traffic congestion.
5. at $15,000,000,000 this project is unjustifiably expensive for the 16 km stretch of road/ tunnel that is outlines and thus must be analysed further wrt to cost-benefit. however, since the travel data contained within the EIS is out of date by up to 5 years, this is not possible, and thus such expenditure can not be justified.
6. this project is unethical as it uses public money to make a private Toll road and as such is not for the benefit of the wider community. The tolls will be too expensive for most and this will encourage rat-racing and more traffic on local roads. thus the road/tunnel will never achieve its aim of reducing traffic.
7. due to the phenomenon of 'traffic demand' , whereby in the absence of viable public transport options, such a project will only increase car travel and thus any short term reduction in traffic congestion along military rd and similarly congested roads will soon be reversed. thus, this project is ill conceived, short sighted, un ethical and nonsensical.
8. this project actually encourages car travel and further tolling in sydney. major cities around the world have all shown the negative effects of car congestion in their cbds yet this project aims to increase car travel into sydney's cbd. this is irresponsible planning and not in sydney's long term interests.
9. the non-filtered emission stacks will spew forth the products from the 15 km tunnel over the suburbs of cammeray and nearly north sydney where there is a high concentration of preschool, primary and secondary schools. this is unacceptable since the increased car and diesel truck exhaust fumes contain several extremely toxic substances including tiny particles that are hazardous for human respiratory and circulatory health. this effect is heightened in the bodies of young children, thus it is unacceptable that the tunnel emission stacks be not-filtered and located in such close proximity to schools.
10. the primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. flat rock gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA.
plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable, plus further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable.
11. the proposed coffer dam to go in water off northbridge is unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. the dredging will alter silt tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters. the waters have only recently returned to a high state of cleanliness as evidenced by recent sightings of seals and even a whale a few years back. dredging these water will disturb decades old layers of harbour sludge containing toxic sediments. the toxic fallout from digging in these waterways will result in closing down valuable public amenities such as northbridge baths, and northbridge sailing club. any risk of contamination to these waterways is unacceptable and thus the tunnel must not proceed through this route.
12. the government has recently declared am 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. this project is not in alignment with this policy as this project will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully to make way for dig site and truck turning circle, plus destruction of various golf courses eg cammeray and balgowlah.
13. the advertising material and marketing brochures for this tunnel clearly depict a bus travelling through it. however, i was told by an engineer at a northbridge information session at our local golf club that the tunnel would be too steep to allow buses to travel in it. therefore, the promotional material for the tunnel has been misleading and as such, has not been providing accurate information for community consultation. this is highly inappropriate for a state significant project, its false and misleading information and as such, the project should be halted until such time that the EIS traffic data is current, covid-relevant and accurate with respect to whether or not buses will be able to travel in it.
14. the plans for the tunnel are less than 50 % complete at this time, therefore the EIS can not provide a comprehensive impact study, therefore the EIS must be re-done and submitted for further consultation.
15. the prime objective of population growth via immigration must now be re-assessed , given that we are now living with the ongoing threat of covid. therefore, the projected need for the tunnel is lessened and thus the business case weakened in current covid - times. the EIS makes no mention of current work travel time changes due to covid and is thus out-of-date and irrelevant on many counts.
in conclusion i object to this 'beaches Tunnel' project going ahead on several counts. namely the EIS is out of date, the business case doesn't hold up, the primary objective for the tunnel is biased away from public transport options and the project is too expensive and environmentally damaging fro sydney's precious natural habitat and waterways.
i recommend a complete review of the original process in which ALL options are considered and compared to find the best way to approach perceived traffic congestion. i suggest that train options be reviewed and considered as a priority. i recommend an investigation into the original conception of the idea from Mike baird's time as premier and any undue bias towards road/tunnel projects over more viable public transport options, particularly rail. i strongly oppose Flat rock gully as main dig site as it has undergone amazing regeneration the past few decades to the extent that is now a native wildlife corridor of major significance and as such should be protected.
i strongly oppose the high cost of this project , especially when the net outcome of relatively small reductions in travel times data is evident. i recommend that similar traffic travel data outcomes could be achieved by improving current roads and public transport scheduling eg buses and trains, at a fraction of the $15 billion cost. also, if the prime objective is to on sell this road/tunnel to a large transport toll company like transurban - then the basis for this project is unjust as transurban holds a monopoly over tolled roads in sydney and thus there is no assurance of best value spending of public money - this is negligent and irresponsible. this project does not have the best interests of the general public in mind. this project os narrow minded and its focus too short term to have any lasting positive impact.

i understand progess is without some pain. but spending billions of tax payers money on a toll road is not the answer. public transportation is what people want then less traffic. the noise and pollution increase direct to my kids school s and home is not acceptable that is asside from the 4 to 6 years of traffic and trucks and mayhem


1. The proposed dam Northbridge is unacceptable, as is the dredging in that area to make way for the semi-submerged tunnel. the dredging will alter silt tidal patterns and damage the seagrasses and delicate marine ecosystems located in these waters.

2. Flat Rock Gully as the primary dig site is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of decades old dump site contaminated substances. the land will contain asbestos, toxic gases and other unknown items that were legally allowed to be dumped there last century. digging at this site will also release noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. the numbers of truck movement along flat rock drive is dangerous for other drivers on the road. Flat Rock Gully is home to several protected and endangered species including small bird populations, rock wallaby, powerful owl, lizards and many more creature catalogued by willoughby wildlife group WEPA. Plus the risk of contaminating nearby and downstream flat rock gully native wildlife corridor is unacceptable. Further downstream contamination risk of Tunks park waters is unacceptable and will destroy waterlife and recreational fishing.

government's 'open space' initiative/policy in which it seeks to protect precious open green spaces. This project is in direct violation of the Open Space policy as it will result in bulldozing at flat rock gully . Restoration of the area is not outlined in the current plan.

I object to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection project for a number of reasons:
1. Business case – the complete business case has not been shared appropriately which makes my alarm bells go off. The numbers in the published EIS report doesn’t align with the reality. If improved commute and growth in the area are the drive for the project a more modern solutions needs to be reviewed, not spending $14b dollars to increase the number of lanes. Data from similar projects clearly shows that adding more roads and lanes, will only increase the traffic. Adding more lanes is not a sustainable option to support growth in the area. The recent opening of the new Metro line in the western Sydney shows that if available, people will utilise public transport. Building more private toll roads is simply not the infrastructure that the Northern Beaches residents want or needs.

2. Environmental - it's just inconceivable that this project is still being considered. $14b for two tunnels - why is this money not being invested in sustainable public transport and more important public infrastructure like proofing our city and state for climate change. We don’t want more cars and trucks on the road. We want less - so invest our money in more suitable infrastructure projects.

3. Our health – the proposal to build two un-ventilated stacks in close proximity near schools is pure madness and is something that I could perhaps anticipate in a developing country, but not the 5th richest country in the world. With Sydney enduring days and days of poor air quality, how can you justify enabling even more pollution and emissions?
This entire proposal is just so short-term thinking that will benefit very few people but have a very negative impact for just as many, not taking into account the long-term environmental impact especially around Burnt Bridge Creek

Nicole Antonini
12 Cairo St
Cammeray NSW 2062

The Hon Robert Stokes
Minister for Planning Industry and Environment
4 Parramatta Square, 12 Darcy Street, Parramatta NSW 2150

Attention: Ms Belinda Scott

1 March 2021

Objection to State Significant Infrastructure Application No. SSI-8862
Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Connection

As a local for over almost 40 years, I am writing to voice my strong objections to these projects for many reasons. I have a young family and am well rooted in the local area. Picking up and moving as so many have already done is simply not an option for me or my family.

Extension for Submissions
Firstly to have this so called “consultation” over the Chrismas period while we all still coping with the new world of Covid is unbelievable. It has made the chances to attend consultations and have questions answered limited and incredibly difficult to impossible for some. It has already been an incredibly stressful year and trying to navigate this enormous EIS document that has taken a professional team months on months to prepare over this Christmas period has been near on impossible for many. The least that could be given to the public who have had no time to navigate, comprehend or digest the enormity of this EIS is an extension.

Public Transport
The lack of alternative options explored such as public transport is greatly concerning. In this day and age, while our city grows to actively ignore public transport options beggars belief. There is no room to retrofit these tunnels to take metro or other such modes. At $16 billion minimum I’d like to understand why even a metro from Dee Why to Chatswood via the new hospital at Frenchs Forest hasn’t been optioned. The cost would be minimal and would connect the beaches to Chatswood CBD, Macquarie CBD and various others. Public transport on the North Shore is up and numbers will only increase if a reliable public transport system is available. I believe not exploring public transport options is just one an example of failure to meet the requirements of SEARS (Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements). Not to mention the fact that the EIS is littered with numerous mistakes and inaccuracies in various technical reports.

Business Case
With no business case released to justify the huge costs. In the impending expectation of a recession I find it hard to believe many would have the funds to travel on these never ending web of toll roads. Sydney is the most tolled city in the world.

Loss of Green Space
With a constant push for higher density living I find any loss of green space completely unacceptable. We are talking about the lungs of our area while we are given in return more pollution to breathe. With a permanent loss of 28,896m2 of land in Cammeray Park alone. A Park that was ear marked to become more playing fields something desperately needed in this area. The loss of the dam that residents have paid for that waters our green spaces and helps deal with water from flash storms in a time when water is so valued is plainly wrong. The chipping away of St Leonards Park (both it & Cammeray Golf Course grounds were gifted to the people of North Sydney). Both these green spaces were already greatly diminished for the Warringah Freeway. It is simply not fair that one portion of the community continue to have it’s assets diminished especially in circumstances that will deliver no long term reward to anyone but the Toll owners.

This is not to mention the devastation to Flat Rock. An area that volunteer bush carers have been nurturing and restoring for 40years after being a tip for decades. Not only the loss of this area but the wash off of all the toxins in the soil being washed down stream into the valley – an area of vital bushland for wildlife and a refuge for city dwellers so incredibly important for mental health that has never been so evident as it has been since the start of the pandemic.

Environmental impacts

I am greatly concerned with the method of construction of the submerged tunnel across Middle Harbour that requires significant dredging and sediment disturbance of the harbour floor.

It has been proven that the environmental impacts associated with dredging and cofferdam
construction in the harbour are significant, this method is unnecessary and will result in adverse impacts on water quality and marine biodiversity.
The proposal will have devastating negative impacts on the environment including:
• disturbance to the Middle Harbour floor and consequential impacts on maritime ecology and heritage;
• water quality in Middle Harbour and throughout the entire catchment along the tunnel corridor, marine biodiversity, foraging habitat as well as known roosting sites of threatened species;
• loss of North Sydney Councils stormwater harvesting and filtration facility in Cammeray Park;
• on-going impacts of “induced demand” only increasing congestion issues, over time.
Heritage
The EIS acknowledges impacts on Aboriginal heritage and heritage items and proposes inadequate management strategies that cannot be relied upon to protect and preserve heritage along the tunnel corridor.
The proposal should be refused as a result of the unacceptable and significant impacts upon, numerous Heritage items of State and Local Significance including a devastating impact on a number of items of Aboriginal heritage and numerous other remnant evidence of first inhabitants as well as items of maritime and convict heritage.
These alone are grounds for refusal of the application.


Traffic & Travel Times
With Warringah Freeway already cutting a scar through our communities, connecting with other local areas can already be a challenge. With the removal/changing of so many access points on the freeway it severely limits local connectivity. RMS staff openly admitted that local traffic around our areas will increase. I’m at a loss to understand how a 5 minute time saving (if they are lucky) for a northern beaches resident to reach the city should mean that our local streets that are already congested should suffer more traffic and rat running.

No real travel time benefits with questionable evidence that has been provided.
For example in the EIS document it claims that there will be a time saving of 56mins from Dee Why to Sydney Airport, however Google maps currently states the trip time as between 47mins and 1hr 15mins. I’m at a loss to understand how the EIS can suggest the possible travel time (30km) between Dee Why and the Airport could be completed in 19min.
This EIS document is littered with such examples of inaccuracies.

Air Quality
I am greatly concerned for the health of my family. With two children under 5 years old that will live and go to school a few hundred metres from stacks billowing unfiltered pollution into the air is completely unacceptable. No other developed country in the world are building tunnels of this length unfiltered. The health implications for thousands of school children, elderly residents and those with compromised health issues makes this project completely unacceptable especially considering that alternative travel options were deliberately ignored.


For all these reasons and many more I implore you to reject this application and go back to the drawing board. Sydney is in great need of congestion solutions but building more tunnels & toll roads at the expense of tax payers and the community is not the solution.

Yours faithfully

Nicole Antonini

I am a resident of Serpentine Crescent where currently, there is a 40 metre gap between the noise walls at the creek where noise already funnels into Serpentine Crescent along the creek impacting residents. A major piece of infrastructure is now being proposed which will further amplify the noise and light coming through this gap. I request as a minimum, the construction of a noise wall to minimise noise levels and light pollution for the residents of Serpentine Crescent. Please see attached full details of case

I am opposed to this project. I don’t think there has been enough community consultation. There are big environmental and health risks to the community. The old tip was used for all sorts of poisons and hazardous materials - it should not be disturbed. Unfiltered stacks are irresponsible in this densely populated area.
A link between these areas is not necessary.
I would be more amenable to this project if the link was for public transport use only rather than private cars. Let’s get people off the roads and improve our public transport.

I support the Northbridge 202 submission and am deeply concerned about the impact of the beaches link construction to the health and well-being of those dwelling in Northbridge, in particular, the future generation.

I object to tunnel and the needs for it to proceed or at least in its current format. Improved public transport links are a preferred option, even if eventually in the form of a tunnel. An improved mass transport link or other forms of public transport will discourage private vehicle transport, reduce the need for tunneling and service a wider community need.

In addition I am a member of Northbridge Sailing Club, and in this capacity I’m greatly concerned about the club’s sailing area being greatly compromised by the proposed tunneling works. 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. Similarly, it is requested 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.

The project is unnecessary and will be under utilised. There are no cost effectiveness studies. Traffic congestion will merely move closer to the Harbour Bridge. Construction will result in noise and possible structural damage to residents. Flat Rock Gully will be disturbed reducing the green space and amenity to residents.

I support the submission of the Northbridge Progress Association. In addition I would note that the International's Panel for Climate Change (1.5 degree report) concluded that a) net zero carbon emission needs to be achieved between 2040 and 2055 and b) that every year of delay in reducing global emissions from 2019 reduces that time frame by 2 years (a point that governments that target net zero emissions by 2050 fail to disclose to the general public). It would be optimistic to assume that global emissions would reduce before 2025 based on current global action and even in that scenario the IPCC's report therefore implies the world could well need to achieve net zero emissions between 2030 and 2045 or even earlier. Important to note, therefore, is that the realistic timeframe based on the IPCC's report assumptions for achieving net zero emissions is likely well before the payback period of investment in this freeway connection. The proposed motorway, which will encourage increased vehicle use, means that NSW will not be able to achieve net zero emission in this time frame. In other words proceeding with the project is consistent with global warming greater than 1.5 degrees and probably greater than 2.0 degrees, unless the government has supporting policies and incentives that ensure the complete electrification of transport via renewable sources (or else the adoption of green hydrogen in transport, say) within the next 10-15 years. The weight of the absence of such policies and incentives needs to be considered therefore in the assessment of this project, the imposition of conditions on this project or alternatives to this project.

Harbour tunnel objection

I object to the Beaches Link Tunnel. My objection is based on the following grounds:

1. The Beaches Link Tunnel will not reduce the volume of traffic in the surface roads that it is designed to take traffic away from. The EIS confirms that the volume of traffic on the surface roads will return to close to the current volumes in their predictive models. It is therefore not an effective solution, it will not create enough capacity and the project should not go ahead.

2. Giving the residents of the Northern Beaches just one transport solution is not fair. Why have the results of investigations into alternative solutions not been made available? The cloak and dagger approach taken by Transport for NSW creates an environment of mistrust and pertains to an approach that is putting the financial interests of TfNSW and Transurban ahead of residents.

3. Unfiltered smoke stacks releasing poisonous fumes in residentially dense areas. There is much research quoted that you will have been in receipt of that states that no amounts of pollutants caused by the emissions of road vehicles is safe. Indeed, you only need to look at the warning signs in the Sydney Harbour Tunnel that advises people not to have the windows open when using the tunnel - if the fumes are harmless then why are drivers advised to shut their windows when using the tunnel? The increased volume of poisonous emissions caused by road vehicles using both the proposed tunnel and the surface roads (more than the current level of emissions) will poison residents who live in close proximity to both stacks.

Solution:
Locate the stacks away from residential areas. Move the majority of northbound bound traffic fumes towards the Wakehurst Parkway exit but instead of releasing the fumes at the proposed stack location, use a pipeline system (used currently in Australia’s gas transmission pipeline system) and release the fumes at a location in the Wakehurst Parkway that is safer and not directly next to residents, say 2km away for example. The Parkway is big enough and level enough to support this type of pipeline system and will alleviate much of the concern about the unfiltered stacks which is predicated on the proximity to households.

4. Balgowlah exit and impact of the increased volume of traffic entering already busy local roads in Manly Vale, Brookvale and Dee Why. The current levels of traffic in these 3 suburbs is already an issue, with traffic deadlocks occurring throughout the week and particularly at the weekend. Travelling north from Balgowlah to Dee Why and further north is already hampered by the number of traffic lights leading to congestion. These problems will be exacerbated by the increase in the volume of cars coming into the area as a result of the tunnel. The tunnel will make these current problems worse. For comparison, the number of traffic lights along Pittwater Road through Manly Vale, Brookvale and Dee Why is comparative to the number of traffic lights along the Military Road that is so often referenced.

Solution:
Additional entry/exit point is required and should be located near Dee Why. This will allow the tunnel users to bypass 2 busy corridors of traffic lights (highlighted above) and avoid the congestion problems that the tunnel will add to in the Balgowlah, Manly Vale and Brookvale areas. This tunnel will not need to be 3 lines, therefore the Dee Why extension would be cheaper and quicker to build.

5. Rat runs in Wanganella Street, Balgowlah as highlighted in the EIS report. Commuters travelling from north Seaforth and North Balgowlah will need to use Wanganella Street to enter the Balgowlah entrance/exit.

Solution:
Have a local sliproad to allow entry/exit in the Wakehurst Parkway area to support residents in north Seaforth and North Balgowlah to enter and exit the tunnel from this point, which is quicker and easier for them and reduces rat run traffic on Wanganella Street.

I write to express my objection to the Beaches Link and Gore Hill Freeway Project.

My concerns about this project stem from:
• No published business case
• Low ranking on Infrastructure Australia’s priority list
• Its likely social, emotional and economic impact for residents on Sydney’s Lower North Shore, namely Naremburn
• The significant health and safety issue demonstrated in the EIS
• Its poor risk assessment
• Failure to consider alternative public transport options/ comparisons.


1. I object to the project due to the contamination risks it presents to the environment and to human health and the negative impact on our precious waterways and green spaces. For example:

• My children regularly walk and ride around the proposed Flat Rock Construction site.
• We are active members of the local soccer club. It will not be safe for my children to play on the contaminated sporting grounds at Tunks Park (or at Cammeray Park due to the WHT construction).
• Tunks park is frequented by Cammeray Public School students due to a severe lack of playground space on their school site.
• We use Middle Harbour for water sports.

With limited green space and sporting/recreational amenities in this area, it is not justifiable to use Flat Rock as a construction site. An alternative is the Artarmon industrial area. It has direct access to the freeway and will not destroy precious flora, harm fauna, or contaminate waterways and recreational and green spaces.

I object to the project due to the scale, extent and risk of groundworks in sensitive residential areas and foreshore environments. I am concerned about the impact in heritage sites in Naremburn where tunneling is shallower. I am concerned about the impact on my home from vibration and changes in hydrology. The preferred alternative is to reassess the route, ideally utilising existing commercial and transport corridors. An alternate route should not be in Long Bay’s corridor.

2. I object to the project due to the unreasonable and likely risk to residents, school children and local worker’s health during the tunnel construction and operation. It is a high likelihood there may be some catastrophic impacts such as the death of a child. There will be an unacceptable number of trucks travelling along Brook Street. This is a local street and not a major arterial road.
An alternative is to move the Flat Rock Construction site to the Artarmon Industrial area, which has direct access to the freeway and will not pose health or road safety concerns to residents, especially young children.

If this project proceeds then I request that:
• Cammeray Public and Anzac Park Primary School students are given a safe option to cross under Brook Street, e.g. an underpass under Brook Street.
• Noise reduction measures, such as noise barriers are built on Brook Street.
• All heavy vehicles (not just those carrying soil) are only permitted to travel along Brook Street on Monday to Friday from 7am to 8am, 930am to 2.30pm and 4pm to 6.00pm. This would reduce noise for residents and improve road safety during school hours.
• Cammeray Public School should have its facilities upgraded to include a larger school hall (that meets the needs of its current student population) and classrooms with filtered air-conditioning and improved noise reduction measures.
• Cammeray Public School should have playground space currently taken-up by demountable classrooms reinstated, acknowledging the loss of safe, uncontaminated recreational amenities for its students in their local area.

3. I object to the project as there has been no publicly published business case. It is all pain and no gain, with costs that outweigh the benefits. The EIS fails to fully scope many aspects such as utilities and contamination which pose a risk to the project. Before proceeding, the business case must be released and scrutinised.

I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel for the following reasons:
1. I am a long term northern beaches resident and commuter to the city. The B line and its park and ride stations have made a big difference to the peak hour commute, as has the underpass on Warringah Rd at the intersection of Wakehurst Parkway. I understand the modelling for this $15bn project was done BEFORE these projects and have not been considered in the analysis. Furthermore, COVID working patterns have changed work commute patterns forever and this has not been considered either. It is plainly obvious that this entire project has been modelled on antiquated data and all the outcomes that are assumed to come from this project are incorrect. How can we possibly be asked to assess a project if the inputs are plainly wrong. It stinks of politics and not of rational economic and social prosperity reasons.
2. There are no filtration devices on the exhaust stacks. How can you say this project is worlds best practice? Yes there may be a shift to electric cars in the future and filtration may not be required in 20-30 years time but surely filtration stacks would be best for the environment and peoples health now. A project that pollutes our beautiful sea air on a daily basis and near houses and schools for a questionable travel benefit is not right.
3. More information on the cost/benefit analysis should be made to the public which would highlight the false modelling this project has been based on ie incorrect traffic inputs and assumptions
4. The project encourages more car travel and is a disguise for more future development on the northern beaches.
5. There are 500 heavy vehicles projected to come out of Balgowlah golf course area daily during construction. What are their traffic movements and impact on the local communities? This could cause massive disruption to the road networks and well being of residents.
6. The project does nothing at all to help the congestion within the northern beaches. The corridor between Manly vale and Narrabeen along Pittwater Rd is heavy and will only get heavier with more development that this project will bring. What solution is there to improve that corridor as that corridor needs fixing before the $15bn project to get people into the northern beaches easier but make it even more congested?
7. It appears that Burnt Bridge Creek is being "dried up" for the project and the bat colony destroyed. These are huge environmental impacts that have not seen to be given much weight.
8. I commute daily, both using the bus and car on various days. The traffic from the city coming home in peak time is relatively manageable both by car and bus. However it is heavy in the am peak time. However the huge cost, environmental and social impact does not warrant a 15min saving between Manly Vale and the city. Furthermore, one of the major benefits of the project stated is almost an hour saving between Dee Why and the Airport. Commuting time for 22 hours of the day from Dee Why to the Airport is around 45minutes. How can it be claimed to save almost an hour when for 90% of the day it is around 45 minutes. This is cunning marketing by the advocates of the project and should be spelt out in a more transparent manner.
9. There are inconsistent air quality diagrams in the EIS. The top 10 receptor sites diagram does not agree with the contour drawing.
10. Balgowlah Boys high school and Seaforth Primary School haven been ignored as significant locations for air quality. This is not right.
11. Has modelling been done for the interaction (meeting of the air) for the 2 stacks of Balgowlah and North Balgowlah?
12. There is huge environmental impact on Manly Dam vegetation due to the road widening.
13. Unlikely workers will catch B-line transport to the Balgowlah work site as stated in the EIS as the Bline does not stop at Balgowlah.
14. Tunneling noise underneath the residents will be audible 24hrs a day as it is at the West Connex project. Huge impact on daily lives for residents.
15. Likely high toll price and people will try and avoid it and use rat runs to do so.

I support the submission provided by Northbridge 202 and have concerns about:
- Existing contaminated landfill
- Bushland preservation
- Construction traffic
- Air and water quality
- Access and amenity
- Property impacts
- Lack of considerations of alternative options

Please refer to attached letter of objection

* I totally object to the cost of the tolls that are going to be imposed on drivers. At present, I pay approx $12:20 a day to access the Harbour Tunnel and the ED i.e.$60+ a week = around $2500- $3000 a year. To impose another toll cost of $15 a day (round trip) on top of what is already being payed is beyond comprehension. How will the young people ever be able to afford to pay this, let alone those on lower incomes? Not all jobs are accessible via public transport.
* I believe the tunnel is just going to make more people drive, adding to the congestion. At present as stated above I use the tunnel & ED, which most of the time becomes a car park!
* There are two sites: increase activity from the many workers will add huge pressure and increase usage of the roads around our local streets making them unsafe.
* During the construction process which could span over several years there will be massive disruptions on Wakehurst Park Way & Military Road with the trucks transporting the spoils from the dredging. This will have a huge impact on people's work commitments, school children coming & going to school & everyday life of people living close to the construction site plus those coming from the northern part of the Peninsula.
*Has parking for the workers been allocated? Are the workers going to park in our local streets making them unsafe? There is not enough room for the local people let alone 400 plus workers. Our streets are not wide and there are many young families with small children. The increase road activity will also put an incredible amount of pressure on the local people's metal health.
*The Tunnel solution is not fixing the main issue of Public transport. Public Transport on the northern beaches has always been an issue and adding tunnels is just going to add more cars and more congestion to our already congested roads. Since November a number of bus services have been cut making people including school children look for alternate ways hence some resorting to the 'car'.
I just wonder whether the huge amount of money that is going to be spent and already spent could have been better spent on improving our Public Transport system here on the Northern Beaches.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the beaches link tunnel for the following reasons:
1. the EIS doesn't reflect changes as a result of covid, with much less dependency on peak hour traffic - is there scope to rewrite the EIS to reflect changing patterns. The plans for the tunnel are less than 50% complete which means the full impact of the project is still unknown
2. there is no concession given to public transport - how does building the tunnel assist the government with their environmental policies, it is essentially encouraging more people to drive cars
3. pollution from unfiltered stacks in areas of high concentration of schools and housing - cities such as London are trying to clean up why is Sydney going the other way?
4. why does the project use public money to build the tunnel/road then make it a private toll road, doesn't that mean that for those who helped fund there is a high likelyhood they won't be able to afford it?
5. the primary dig site at flat rock gully is unsuitable as it will entail digging through layers of contaminated substances releasing noxious fumes and contribute to unacceptable levels of air, noise and traffic pollution. Flat rock is also home to many protected and endangered species
6. loss of green spaces - this project doesn't align with the governments 'open space' initiative/policy
7. dredging of middle harbour which is known to have toxic sediment impacting on our waterways, where our children learn to swim and sail
8. with covid impacting on immigration numbers, is the city still expected to grow at the rate initially predicted, if feels like there is time to reconsider looking at improving existing road and improving public transport an essential component in every major city other than Sydney
Lastly I strongly oppose the cost of the project, particularly given the world has changed substantially in the last 12 mths. This project does not have the best interest of those in the community at heart.