Skip to main content

State Significant Infrastructure


Western Harbour Tunnel & Warringah Freeway Upgrade

North Sydney, Inner West

Current Status: Determination

Interact with the stages for their names

  1. SEARs
  2. Prepare EIS
  3. Exhibition
  4. Collate Submissions
  5. Response to Submissions
  6. Assessment
  7. Recommendation
  8. Determination

A new crossing of Sydney Harbour involving twin tunnels connecting WestConnex at Rozelle and the existing Warringah Freeway at North Sydney, and upgrade of the Warringah Freeway to connect with the Beaches Link and the Gore Hill Freeway Connection.



Application (1)

Scoping Report

SEARs (1)

Issued SEARs

EIS (73)

Part 1 – Contents, certification and glossary
Part 2 – Executive summary to Chapter 4
Part 3 - Chapter 5
Part 4 – Chapters 6 to 7
Part 5 – Chapters 8 to 10
Part 6 – Chapters 11 to 13
Part 7 – Chapters 14 to 18
Part 8 – Chapters 19 to 21
Part 9 - Chapter 22
Part 10 – Chapters 23 to 29
Contents, certification and glossary
Chapter 0 - Executive summary
Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Assessment process
Chapter 3 - Strategic context and project need
Chapter 4 - Project development and alternatives
Chapter 5 - Project description
Chapter 6 - Construction work
Chapter 7 - Stakeholder and community engagement
Chapter 8 - Construction traffic and transport
Chapter 9 - Operational traffic and transport
Chapter 10 - Construction noise and vibration
Chapter 11 - Operational noise and vibration
Chapter 12 - Air quality
Chapter 13 - Human health
Chapter 14 - Non-Aboriginal heritage
Chapter 15 - Aboriginal cultural heritage
Chapter 16 - Geology soils and groundwater
Chapter 17 - Hydrodynamics and water quality
Chapter 18 - Flooding
Chapter 19 - Biodiversity
Chapter 20 - Land use and property
Chapter 21 - Socio-economics
Chapter 22 - Urban design and visual amenity
Chapter 23 - Hazards and risks
Chapter 24 - Resource use and waste management
Chapter 25 - Sustainability
Chapter 26 - Climate change risk greenhouse gas
Chapter 27 - Cumulative impacts
Chapter 28 - Synthesis of the environmental impact
Chapter 29 - References
App A - SEARs checklist
App B - EPA Reg 2000 checklist
App C - Environmental risk analysis
App D - Utilities management strategy
App E - Community consultation framework
App F - Traffic and transport (part 1)
App F - Traffic and transport (part 2)
App G - Noise and vibration (part 1)
App G - Noise and vibration (part 2)
App G - Noise and vibration (part 3)
App H - Air quality (part 1)
App H - Air quality (part 2)
App I - Health impact assessment
App J - Non-Aboriginal heritage
App K - Maritime heritage
App L - Cultural heritage assessment report
App M - Contamination
App N - Groundwater
App O - Surface water quality and hydrology
App P - Hydrodynamics and dredge plume modelling
App Q - Marine water quality
App R - Flooding (part 1)
App R - Flooding (part 2)
App S - Biodiversity development assessment report
App T - Marine ecology
App U - Socio-economic assessment
App V - UDCLCVIA (Part 1)
App V - UDCLCVIA (Part 2)
App V - UDCLCVIA (Part 3)
App W – Arboricultural impact assessment
App X - Climate change and greenhouse gas
App Y - Compilation of EMMs

Response to Submissions (14)

Request RTS_15042020_054347
Table of contents and glossary
Executive summary
Part A Introduction and overview
Part B Response to key stakeholder submissions
Part C Response to key community submissions
Part D Revised environmental management measures
Appendix A Environmental risk analysis
Appendix B Archaeological site inspection
Appendix C Sediment and marine water quality
Appendix D Probable Maximum Flood mapping
Appendix E Groundwater memorandum
Appendix F Highly Noise Affected receivers
Appendix G Little Zak's Academy noise assessment

Agency Advice (3)

Chief Health Officer Statement - WHTBL
ACTAQ Review of EIS WHBL - ventilation
Chief Scientist Ventilation Review - WHTBL

Determination (6)

Notice of Decision - SSI-8863
Assessment Report - SSI-8863
Instrument of Approval - SSI-8863
Independent Peer Review - Air Quality
Independent Peer Review - Surface and Groundwater
Independent Peer Review - Traffic & Transport

Approved Documents

Management Plans and Strategies (102)

WFU Stage 1A & 1B Local Roads Approval Letter Rev 15 20221215
CPAS Revision J Addendum letter 20221221
WFU Stage 2 CPAS Rev J Approval Letter 20221216
WFU Stage 2 CPAS Rev J
WFU Stage 2 Local Roads - Portal Precinct Rev C
WFU Stage 2 Local Roads - Portal Precinct Approval Letter 20221204
Stage 3A Construction Environmental Mgt Plan (CEMP) - DPE Approval Letter 20221121
3A CGMP & GWMP - DPE Approval Letter 20221121
3A CSSWMP & CSWMoP - DPE Approval Letter 20221121
C9 3A Construction Noise & Vibration Mgt Plan (CNVMP) & Noise & Vibration Monitoring Program (CNVMoP), v02 - 02112022
3A CNVMP & CNVMoP - DPE Approval Letter 20221121
WHT Stage 3A CAQMP, CAQMoP & COHWP - DPE Approval Letter 20221121
WHT Stage 3A CTTAMP - DPE Approval Letter 20221121
Construction Environmental Management Plan
C3 Stage 1B CEMP and Sub-Plans, Rev 7 dated 20 Jul 2022
C9 Stage 1B SWMP Rev 7 dated 9 Jun 2022
CoA E132 letter rectified
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_08072021_030048
WHTWFU Noise Insulation November 2022 Version 9
WFU Stage 2 Falcon St Alternative Crossings E200
CEMP Rev 5
Traffic and Transport Management Plan Rev 7
Acknowledgement of TTAMP Rev 5 updates
Acknowledgement of ER approval
NVMP Rev 7
WHT Stage 3A - Sustainability Strategy E126
WHT Stage 3A - Water Reuse Strategy - E127
Alternate ER nomination letter
Stage 1A Revision 8 Local Roads Approval Letter
Stage 1A Revision 8 Local Roads Approval
WHT Stage 3A CPAS Rev 04 Approval 20221215
E126 Sustainability Management Plan , vE - DPE Aknowledgement letter - 18052022
WHT Stage 3A CPAS Rev 04
CCS Rev 6 Approval Letter
Acknowledgement letter Stage 2 – Construction Water Reuse Strategy
E126 Sustainability Management Plan, vE - 09052022
Staging Report Revision 4 Approval letter
Stage 2 – Construction Water Reuse Strategy
Staging Report Revision 4
CCS Revision 6
Stage 2 CTTAMP Revision 1
Noise Insulation Program Acknowledgement letter
Stage 1A CPAS Revision 7 Approval Letter
Stage 1A CPAS Revision 7
Local roads Revision 7 Approval Letter
Noise Insulation Program Rev 8
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study_07072022_052423
Unexpected Finds Procedure Acknowledgement letter
WFU_Stage 1A & 1B_Local Road Approval_Rev 15_23102022
Unexpected Finds Procedure
C9 Stage 1B Construction Traffic, Transport & Access Management Plan (CTTAMP), v5 - 28062022
Construction Parking and Access Strategy (Revision 4) Approval Letter
E132 Stage 2 Local Roads Plan, vD - DPE Approval Letter 30052022
E140 Stage1C Construction, Parking and Access Strategy (CPAS), v4 - DPE Approval Letter - 06042022
E140 Stage 1A Construction Parking and Access Strategy (CPAS), Rev 9 - DPE Approval Letter 30092022
Staging Report Revision 2 Approval letter
Approval of Plan Strategy or Study CPAS Rev F
E132 - Stage 2 Local Roads Plan, vD - 17052022
C9 C18 3A Construction Groundwater Mgt Plan (CGMP) & Groundwater Monitoring Program (CGWMP), v02 - 17102022
Stage 2 CPAS
Staging Report Revision 2
CPAS Approval Letter
Construction Parking and Access Strategy (Revision 4)
Local Roads Approval Revision 7
C9 C18 Construction Soil & Surface Water Mgt Plan (CSSWMP) & Surface Water Monitoring Program (CSWMoP), v01 - 24102022
Stage 1C CEMP Approval Letter_
Stage 2 CAQMP Revision 1
Stage 1C TTAMP
E140 Stage1C Construction, Parking and Access Strategy (CPAS), v4 - 06042022
CPAS - Rev 2
Noise and Vibration Management Sub Plan
E140 Stage 1A Construction Parking and Access Strategy (CPAS), Rev 9 - 30092022
CCS Approval Letter
C9 Stage 3A Construction Air Quality Mgt Plan (CAQMP) & Air Quality Monitoring Program (CAQMoP), v02 - 03112022
Stages 1A and 1B Local Roads Approval Letter
Community Communication Strategy
C3 Stage 2 - Flora and Fauna Management CEMP Sub plan, Rev 1 - 28012022
Local roads approval letter Stage 1C
Stages 1A and 1B Local Road Approval Revision 13
Approval of Stage 1B CPAS Rev 7
Stage 1B CPAS Rev 7
Local roads approval Stage 1C
C9 3A Construction Transport, Traffic and Access Mgt Plan (CTTAMP), v02 - 31102022
C3, C9, C18 and E69 Stage 1B CEMP and Sub plans, Rev 7, dated 20 jul 2022 - DPE Approval 12 Aug 2022
Stage 2 HMP Revision 2
Traffic, Transport and Access Management Sub-plan
Condition C3 CEMP Stage 2 Approval Letter
CEMP Approval Letter
C9 Stage 1B NVMP Rev 5 dated 6 Jul 2022
Condition C3 CEMP Stage 2 Revision 2
C3 3A Construction Environmental Mgt Plan (CEMP) v02 - 17112022
Stage 1C CEMP Approval Letter_
Approval letter of ASEMP
Stage 1C Appendix B2 NVMP
Stage 2 CNVMP Revision 3
Stage 2 CSSWMP Revision 2
C9 Stage 1B Construction Flora & Fauna Management Plan (CFFMP), v8 - 20072022
Stage 1C CEMP Approval Letter
Stage 1C CEMP

Community Consultative Committees and Panels (5)

TfNSW WFU IPIAP Nomination (E111)
WHT Stage 3A IPIAP Members E111
ER and AA Approval Letter
E174 Stage 2 Design Review Panel Terms of Reference - DPE letter 15 Aug 2022
A24.A26. ER nomination stages 1D,1E and 3 - DPE approval 27 Jun 2022

Reports (2)

20221216 _WHT Stage 3A_A36

Independent Reviews and Audits (2)

Independent auditor approval A37
Community Complaints Mediator Approval Letter

Notifications (1)

WHT tunnel package commencement Nov 2022

Other Documents (13)

WHT Stage 3A - Project ID on Heavy Vehicles - DPE Approval 20221207
Staging Report
PDLP structural works E177 Letter 20221220
E40 Biodiversity Credit Fund Payment - DPE Acknowledgement Letter- 01072022
Staging Report Acknowledgment Letter
WFU Alfred St Parking Extension of Time
Condition E83 Consultation Summary Report
A30. A32 Nomination of AA - DPE Approval 27 Jun 2022
PDLP Retaining Walls - E180 Letter 20221219
A47, Stage 2 WHTWFU Project Identification on Heavy Vehicles - DPE approval 15 Aug 2022
Alternate ER Approval Letter
Ridge St DSI Report

Note: Only documents approved by the Department after November 2019 will be published above. Any documents approved before this time can be viewed on the Applicant's website.


Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?

Make a Complaint


There are no enforcements for this project.


There are no inspections for this project.

Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.


Showing 1 - 20 of 1454 submissions
Name Withheld
NEUTRAL BAY , New South Wales
I object to this project for a number of reasons:
1. Business case - the business case for this project, in particular, the Western Harbour Tunnel, does not make sense - why has public transport not been considered. This is not a sustainable option to support growth in Sydney - the recent opening of the new Metro line shows that if available, people will utilise public transport. Building more private toll roads is simply not the infrastructure that Sydney needs to support growth - we need more, faster and reliable public transport, in particular trains or metro - why is a Metro line not being built to the Beaches?

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 dont want more cars and trucks on the road. We want less - so invest our money in more suitable infrastructure projects

3. Our health - you are proposing to build two ventilation stacks right near our schools. 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 - it's not what the majority of NSW wants - this is catering to an elite few. We want environmentally friendly public transport, not enabling more polluting cars/trucks with a private toll road.
Christopher Taylor
ENFIELD , New South Wales
I think this road network upgrade will benefit the whole of Sydney and make the northern beaches more accessible to all Sydneysiders and with the future electrification of personal road transport this will make the exhaust stack redundant hopefully by the end of this decade.
I completely support this project and suggest we need more major investments like this in other large towns like Newcastle and Bathurst.
Daniel McMillan
NORTH SYDNEY , New South Wales
While i am generally in favour of the proposal, i am concerned that the area in which i live will be subject to increased traffic noise and hasn’t been considered for protection from such. The noise from the freeway (to which we have direct line of site currently with no noise walls) has been growing each year, and i note that the Alfred st off ramp will be subject to increased traffic with traffic able to flow through to the Cahill expressway from the off ramp. I request that the off ramp and freeway beside the off ramp be considered for noise walls. I have attached a diagram showing where i think the noise is excessive currently and will get worse (in green shading) and where i think the noise walls should be (in yellow). I think it’s extraordinary that it is considered reasonable for in excess of 17 lanes of traffic to have line of site to over 100 houses without protection. Please consider this amendment.
Myles Holloway
BEACON HILL , New South Wales
I have taken an interest in the atmospheric emissions that will come about once the project is completed. Air pollution has been extensively modeled and it is believed that the project will reduce carbon emissions due to removing the need for cars to stop and start as often. That's good, however I see an opportunity to install carbon capture technology at key ventilation points across the project. Previously air filtration technology such as ESP has been used to capture NO2 and CO in the M5 tunnel however the cost was very high due to lack of foresight and deemed unviable. This may not be true for this project and may not be true for CO2, which is easier to capture using other methods of air treatment such as a carbon scrubber.
If carbon could be captured from key ventilation points it could be argued that using the tunnel is a greener alternative to driving on the roads as your car's emissions would be physically captured by the system.
I hope this may be taken into consideration.
Regards - Myles
Brendan Harber
BALMAIN , New South Wales
I do not object in principal to the creation of another harbour crossing to ease congestion (though whether the focus should be on this or improved public transport and rail freight infrastructure is questionable, appreciating the Metro tunnel already underway). However, it is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE for contaminated waste dredged from the bottom of Sydney Harbour (with toxic material having been deposited this stretch of the harbour by many years of previous heavy industry) to be deposited on the dock side at White Bay, extremely close to medium-high density housing, home to many families of young children, and directly next to cruise ships which regularly dock at the (completely inadequate) White Bay Cruise Terminal.
As I previously mentioned when I attended the information session held previously at Balmain Town Hall, the minimum that could be done would be to move the toxic sludge dump to Glebe Island. An even safer alternative for the health of the numerous local residents and visitors to the area would be for it to be shipped directly out of Sydney Harbour and processed for transfer to land transport in an unpopulated, industrial port, such as Port Kembla.
Understanding that if the Dredge Material Handling Area is moved to Glebe Island then it is still relatively close to the same populated areas in this part of Balmain. Therefore it should also be handled in a covered shed purpose built on site, as is being done for many other locations in the project (albeit often for noise abatement in those cases, while this would need to prevent the escape of any toxic particles from this facility).
This needs to be addressed urgently before the project progresses any further.
I am looking forward to hearing your proposed rectification to this issue.
Brendan Harber
Kealan Coleman
LILYFIELD , New South Wales
I am providing comments of concern around this project, mainly founded on the lack of transparency, honesty, and broken promises with the Westconnex project, which no doubt has lots of the same stakeholders, and therefore will probably have a similar outcome. It's very disappointing to be on the losing end of the flawed public consultation process for the Westconnex project and to see it be disregarded so blatantly for commercial and political gain, and not for the public's interests. I don't feel that the government is empowering itself adequately to protect the public nor the government against commercial interests and pressure and wish that my words and actions could have some meaning, but unfortunately, my faith in the process is weak. I hope that enough stakeholders with a moral conscience can actually stand up for what is right in this project and not just allow another project to happen "just because it can." As a father of three, a local community member, and a strong supporter of democracy, I hope that things can be different here.
Victoria Watson
NAREMBURN , New South Wales
The project will have a significant and damaging impact on the environment, with no discernable benefit to the communities. The cost of the tunnel both financially and environmentally is not viable. There is not the traffic volume travelling in either the north to city, or city to north directions to support its use. Considering the environment impact both the construction will have in the short term, and the polution from the stacks will have in the long term, it is inconcievable that such a project is even in consideration.
We owe it to future generations to built infrastructure that will support the needs of Sydney in the future without damaging our environment.
Public transport options MUST be considered and implemented.
I strongly object to this project.
Sue Anderson
Clareville , New South Wales
I object to the Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade for the following reasons:
- It will be very expensive and within a short time will become another traffic congestion problem
- Better public transport systems would be more acceptable
- The construction will destroy valuable bushland and water catchments
- The amenity of beautiful bushland areas will be damaged for both people and animals
- Possible damage to Aboriginal heritage sites and these are irreplaceable.
Ken Wilson
WILLOUGHBY , New South Wales
I've received an EIS notification for the Western Harbour tunnel component and in the EIS they now talk about two options. "Do something" and "Do something Cumulative".

The first option only includes the WHT. (does not include the Beaches Link)
I had understood they would only do these projects together, I reckon if they just do the first one then they will move the bottle neck from the Anzac Bridge (caused by West connex stage 3) to the Warringah Freeway at Cammeray. If the government then runs out of money (a likely scenario) or loses the next election (another possibility) then the new bottle neck will become permanent.
According to the EIS Operational traffic and transport (chapter 9) travel times for traffic going to the city will improve because some of the cars will move to the western tunnel. While this may be true for single occupant cars over the complete distance I think times will be slower coming up to the new tunnel entrance at Cammeray (as motorists work to save travel times by using the WHT rather than other roads such as the Gladesville bridge) and quicker after that. But the EIS does not offer a separate analysis for buses which is strange because they account for most of the people travelling over the bridge each morning on the road. I reckon buses will also go slower coming up to the new tunnel entrance but as they currently have a bus lane after that, and there is no plan for extending it past the tunnel entrance the buses will overall have longer travel times under the new "Do something" option.

So I simply cannot see anything but increased misery for public transport users with this idea. Currently we have no bus services in the sydney harbour tunnel so why does the EIS have a picture of a bus going express to chatswood in a tunnel? Yes if public transport uses the tunnels it might be quick but the tunnels don't have bus stops so I would be very surprised if the buses ever user the WHT. If the beaches link is built they may use it in peak hour for express services but that is not part of the "Do something Option"

I also think the pictures of buses in the tunnel are misleading. Bus transport typically avoids long tunnels as there are no bus stops and unless there are plans to include bus services in the WHT I don't believe the proponents are being unrealistic by drawing buses, saying that if they use the tunnel they will have quicker travel times and concluding that the proposal will benefit public transport users, especially as it appears that (particularly on its own without the BL) they have made no other effort to back their case that it will.
Mary Irvin
ARTARMON , New South Wales
This is a very large transport project. Any transport project should include an analysis of its impact on carbon emissions and climate change and ways that the project has addressed these matters in a positive way.
Transport emissions make up a large proportion of the total emissions from Greater Sydney. Effective reduction in transport emissions will require a shift from the private car to sustainable modes of travel: walking, cycling and public transport. This shift relies on changes in how transport projects are prioritised and delivered to enable changes in travel behaviour. This project gives a very real opportunity to incorporate good sustainable modes of travel in the plan.
There is a real need in Sydney to have an integrated cycling network, one where it is safe for both the cyclist and the motorist. In the plans I saw today there is one very small cycle route that will be provided from Falcon St. to Miller St. mainly on the temporary construction site.
This is a perfect opportunity to provide a robust system of off-road cycle paths.
While some tunnels would be unsuitable for cycling because of fumes and poor ventilation, if you are able to get the ventilation issues under control there is really no reason why separated cycle paths could not be incorporated into this design.
Another alternative would be to follow what Melbourne is doing with the West Gate Tunnel Project. This Project will deliver more than 14 kilometres of new and upgraded paths, making it safer and easier for more people to walk or cycle. It includes some magnificent elevated veloways to give cyclists a journey completely separated from traffic, and pedestrian and cycling bridges. The Victorian Government and Melbourne City have embraced sustainable means of travel and this is evident by the number of cyclists using the cycling infrastructure.
I therefore call on the NSW Government to include cycling infrastructure into this project. If safe infrastructure is provided, cyclists will use it.
Andrew Waugh
MOSMAN , New South Wales
Whilst I support the overall project, the information provided regarding the operation of the very complex Falcon St interchange is far too limited. The current interchange is already a significant bottleneck and the proposed design may worsen the situation. Concerns include:
1. The diamond arangement sees east-west traffic cross paths twice which, without further detail regarding traffic light sequencing, would seemingly make that route significantly more time consuming
2. There appears no way to use the western harbour tunnel if driving to/from Neutral Bay, Cremorne or Mosman via Military Road
Would NSW Major Projects provide more details on the design and operation of this key interchange.
Andrew Waugh.
michael chapman
NEUTRAL BAY , New South Wales
We are affected by this proposal.
and have reviewed the proposal and EIS so far as it relates to us
Thank you for the opportunity to comment

Maintain existing traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing of Alfred Street North at Bayer building to Mount Street overpass. This safe crossing is essential for residents to access North Sydney business and shopping precinct and North Sydney rail station

The row of Plane Trees in Alfred Street and Alfred Street North be preserved to provide summer shade, green space and absorption of carbon dioxide from high density traffic

New/additional plantings of mature trees and shrubs as barrier to elevated traffic noise and screening to visual impact of overhead concrete structure in residential area.
Provide additional tree canopy

Be slimline columns rather than "brutalist" square section piers

Design to include opaque noise walls on the eastern side which allow light but reduce noise (example M7)
"Quiet Pavement" surface for bus lane

Eliminate possible "rat runs" particularly Kurraba Road and Alfred Street North

Close Alfred Street North to through traffic so that Kurraba Road west is local traffic only.
Excavation works for construction of bus lane and Alfred Street North overpass to be restricted to daylight hours to minimize disruption to residents.
Provide adequate and timely pre-advice to residents of particularly noisy or dusty activity works.
Manage and enforce parking limits in Kurraba Road because many residents only have on-street parking and must display parking exemption stickers.
Pre-construction works check and photos for cracks in nearby houses and post construction checks; compensation clauses; note that many houses are circa 1910

Ensure no net increase in stormwater run-off down Kurraba Road west. This is a steep street having high risk of flash flooding during storm events (example Sunday 9 February 2020, east coast low)

Please avoid net reduction of parking spaces in North Sydney Parking Precinct #1.

EMAIL [email protected]
PHONE 0408 b164 361
Kyle Patterson
ARTARMON , New South Wales
I strongly object to the entire premise of the Western Harbour Tunnel & Warringah Freway Upgrade. In summary, the project is founded upon assumptions and biases that are strategically, economically and environmentally flawed. So deeply and fundamentally flawed that the EIS is merely a propaganda document to justify the decision-making process. The project starts with the unassailable logic that the motor car is now and will ever be the primary medium of transport in Sydney. This is a collective madness that grips the political process, but your project is supposed to be based on facts, not political fantasy. This thinking is diminishing Sydney's functionality and livability as a major metropolis, yet you claim the opposite; is, the more facilities for car usage will improve quality of life. It cannot! What other options have you explored? For example, the Northern Beaches B-Line buses should have an express, exclusive lane for their entire journey. Instead, the express buses are held up by other stopping-all-stations buses and non-bus users. Cycling is disgracefully ignored in your planning. How can you publish this document while the existing Sydney Harbour cycling lane is interrupted by over 50 steps? Planning for the ramp has been held up for 20 years by North Sydney Council and you expect us to swallow your propaganda. Fix the basics and explore options that do not pander to the car lobby. Save the $25 billion you will spend (hopefully it will only blow out by that much) on this malarkey and invest in real solutions. Regards Kyle Patterson
Name Withheld
In summary I object to this project on many grounds, including: a failure to demonstrate meaningful improvements in travel times, a failure to consider and compare other (public transport) options (without tunnels and tollways), misrepresentation of travel time improvements and the 30-minute City objective, misrepresentation of the resilience benefit when access to the Sydney CBD isn't afforded via the WHT, misrepresentation of the detail analysis in the glossy summaries and not taking community feedback seriously.

I provide specific detailed objections below.

I object to this project because according to the information in Appendix F - Traffic and Transport there is very little improvement in travel times. For example, table 7-19 (morning peak - Warringah Freeway) states the Average vehicle trip time through the network would be 5:37 with the project and 6:01 without.

I object that Transport for NSW has failed to consider other options to achieve a reduction in congestion and improved travel times for the relevant communities. Specifically, I believe a range of options should be analysed that include 1) funding via northbound tolling on the Harbour Bridge and Harbour Tunnel, 2) reduction in capacity allocated to private vehicles (in particular at peak time), 3) greater dedication of capacity to public transport - in particular bus lanes - with a focus on end-to-end trip times for commuters, 4) streamlining of the Warringah Freeway, without the tunnels and tollways. These should be modelled and compared. Instead the gross simplicity of 'Do something' (i.e. the WHT) and 'Do minimum' (i.e. nothing) are presented.

I object that the analysis doesn't identify the origins and destinations of travellers by mode (by time of day) and then seek to optimise the travel times, via consideration of a raft of strategic interventions. The EIS takes the traffic volumes on 'the network' and growth as a given and proceeds from there. Clearly there is an opportunity to shape the way we move around and deliver an improved system outcome, not just to deliver a (tunnel tollway) 'product' between A and B.

I object to the project because it doesn't improve the transport network for the people of the Lower North Shore. There are frequent mentions of the need to improve the resilience of the network, however there are already two crossings (Sydney Harbour Tunnel and Sydney Harbour Bridge). If both of these are blocked then access to the Sydney CBD isn't available. The proposed addition of the WHT doesn't actually help with resilience of access to the Sydney CBD.

I object that the summary information presents a 'spin' on the travel time improvements rather than what the modelling shows and what people can expect. An example is in the Executive Summary E-4 it says "journeys from Dee Why to Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport are expected to be 56 minutes faster" however this isn't shown in the analysis. Without traffic congestion that trip is currently 35-40 minutes by car. At peak time the trip is currently 75 minutes via B Line and Train. If we have a significant increase in the number of people going to the airport then it would make more sense to focus on public transport options to get everyone there faster. If there are a small number of people who insist on travelling by car from Dee Why to the Airport at peak time, then assuming Beaches Link Tunnel is done they could choose to use that on the Brookvale to Cammeray section and perhaps save 10 to 15 minutes. However, from that point they would travel via the Sydney Harbour Tunnel and Eastern Distributor to the airport. So those hypothetical travellers wouldn't actually use the WHT anyway. And this is an EIS for the WHT not the BL.

I object to the project documents not aligning between detail and summary / synthesis. For example, the detail reveals a huge amount of greenhouse gas impact from the construction and operation. However the summary concludes that this is a sustainable development. It is the antithesis of sustainable development.

This is not a project that Sydney needs. We need to reduce our greenhouse gases and switch to sustainable modes of transport. We should not be building more roads for private cars and inducing more people to enter the road systems in their private cars. We should be favouring public transport, for the vast majority in particular for those travelling at peak times.

I like the 30 minute concept but I think this is misrepresented as favouring the project. Section 7.2.2 is ridiculous. "Access to Sydney CBD would increase as a result of Western Harbour Tunnel, with trips from North Sydney being able to access Sydney CBD within 30 minutes by road". Everyone can already travel from North Sydney to various points in the Sydney CBD via public transport (Train or Bus) in about 10-15 minutes. There is no need to travel by road in a private vehicle. If you did you would have to add a further 10 minutes+ at both ends for parking. It isn't sensible to encourage people to drive into the Sydney CBD.

The 30 minute City is enabled by and is co-dependent on effective public transport. Not on travel by private car, via tunnels and tollways with parking at either end. TfNSW should be thinking of moving people all around between many different community centres, not just between both ends of a new tunnel.

We should allocate main roads capacity to public transport, trades and freight, in particular at peak time. Expansion of the public transport system should take an end-to-end journey time perspective and streamline interchanges.

I object that this project removes the bus layover on the Warringah Freeway - this currently helps the buses meet their timetable expectations. There is no modelling of the consequences of reduced reliability of bus services.

I object that this project doesn't address the complex intermodal / interchange requirements at North Sydney. It focuses on vehicle / network performance and not human travel time and amenity. It suggests that a deterioration of travel experience around North Sydney can be expected. This isn't a good thing! This project originates and pushes West-bound traffic down Berry Street and causes congestion problems. We need to focus on public transport for access to North Sydney and keep the private car volumes to a minimum so we can preserve and improve system outcomes for all.

I object that this project doesn't address the requirements and expectations of integration of travel between North Sydney and the Inner West. It focuses on 'plumbing in' to the M4-M5 road system. Due to the way the project has been sliced into pieces the Rozelle Interchange is already being built assuming the WHT will happen. I object to that approach as it favours further motorway development.

I object that the project will not deliver any benefits during the long construction period. I object that there will be substantial disbenefits / negatives and these will fall hard on our Lower North Shore community. We want improvements now and in the 2020-2025 period.

I object that simpler, less expensive and more scalable solutions could be and should be pursued now. Building on successes such as the B-Line buses.

I object on many other grounds that have been captured in the community consultation chapter and 7.3.1. Although that chapter summarises the feedback and references where in the EIS information is included, it doesn't actually address or respond to the feedback. One example will suffice: "Potential impact on local streets, rat runs, local road safety, construction traffic, impact on parking spaces, congestion, road network performance, local road connections, increased traffic, cumulative traffic impact, travel time". 4023 comments. The EIS presents information that confirms and substantiates the fears and concerns of the community. There will be negative impact on local streets, rat runs, congestion, increased traffic, etc. So why should the project proceed when all those negatives are presented in detail? It shouldn't proceed!
Name Withheld
Naremburn , New South Wales
Insufficient time has been given to review the project documentation given the complexity and risk to sensitive receivers. At least the same amount of time to the consideration of the Reference Design should be given for the community. Five months was given for the Reference Design which was a small document, the EIS is 9000+ pages with extensive technical detail which the community needs proper time for review particularly as there are serious local risks and mitigation to understand. We cannot possibly give quality feedback into the process if we do not have time to process the complex information. Please extend the exhibition stage by at least another 3 months. Thank You
Workfast Marketplace - Labour Hire
We believe this a great infrastructure project and support it whole heartedly.
Michael Tarlinton
CAMMERAY , New South Wales
I object to the limited time available to review and respond to the EIS and request that the closing date for submissions be extended by sixty days (from 12 March 2020).
Name Withheld
NORTH SYDNEY , New South Wales
Subject: Parking on Alfred Street North between Mount Street and Whaling Road.

Issue: The current alignment of this block of Alfred Street North consists of three lanes of southbound traffic and one lane of parking. The leftmost lane of traffic contains a mandatory left turn into Whaling Road. Today, this lane is too narrow to be safely trafficable and has resulted in many minor accidents, including opening doors being ripped off parked cars, people exiting parked cars being hit by traffic, and cars in the left lane being sideswiped by cars in the next lane as they run out of roadway width. According to the EIS, the re-alignment of this section of road appears to be within the scope of the WHTBL project, but no detail is provided yet regarding the detailed lane alignment.

Request: As part of WHTBL detailed planning, please ensure that all lanes in this block comply with Austroads minimum lane widths. On the existing carriageway footprint, this is likely to only be possible by removing all parking spaces on Alfred Street North between Mount Street and Whaling Road. I encourage RMS to consider this course of action, or any other action necessary to ensure a compliant lane width in this block.


Austroads specify a standard traffic lane width of 3.5m (Reference: Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 3: Geometric Design, section 4.2.4 Traffic Lane Widths, p44, 3rd edition, 2016, as used by RMS.)

The leftmost traffic lane on Alfred Street North narrows substantially from Mount Street as it approaches Whaling road. The lane width in this block is approx 3.0m near the “Bayer” building, narrowing to 2.5m shortly thereafter, and ultimately narrowing to a dangerous width of less than 1.8m immediately before the intersection with Whaling Road. This is less than the width of a typical small car, causing a dangerous traffic situation (see diagram).
Name Withheld
NORTH SYDNEY , New South Wales
Subject: Traffic and parking plans for High Street, North Sydney

Issue: The EIS animation of the High Street Interchange shows three lanes of traffic from Alfred Street North turning right (ie: west) onto High Street and one lane turning left (ie: east) on High Street. However, morning and evening traffic jams at this intersection are mostly caused by a back-up of _eastbound_ traffic on High Street (ie: heading towards Kirribilli, Neutral Bay, Cremorne and Mosman) rather than westbound traffic heading into North Sydney CBD. On morning and evening peaks, back-ups of traffic originating at the intersection of High Street and Clark Road regularly result in traffic being stationery all the way back onto Alfred Street North, and frequently part of the way up the Alfred Street North freeway off-ramp. The root cause of this back-up is the eastbound part of High Street being only a single lane of traffic (the other lane being taken up with parking).

Request #1: Consider re-balancing the lane design of the intersection of Alfred Street North and High Street so that two (2) lanes of Alfred Street North turn left (ie: eastwards) into High Street rather than just one. [see attached image #1.]

Request #2: Consider using RMS’ powers under the Roads Act to make the eastbound side of High Street between Alfred Street North and Clark Road into two trafficable lanes, by removing all parking from this section of High Street. [see attached image #2.]

Detail: (see attached diagrams in pdf.)
Name Withheld
NORTH SYDNEY , New South Wales
Subject: Road Naming

Issue: It is unclear from the EIS what names the RMS intends to use for the new roadways. The EIS identifies proposed road numbering, but not any road names.

Request: For the roadway in the new beaches tunnel, the most appropriate naming would be to name it the Warringah freeway. This would be consistent with existing naming, and honour the original intention of the existing portion of the Warringah freeway (which was intended to go to the Warringah district). RMS is completing an original vision from the 1940s, so such a name would be both geographically logical and also respective of history and heritage.

Detail: The original plan for the Warringah Freeway was proposed by the State in 1948 as part of the County of Cumberland Planning Scheme. [Reference: County of Cumberland Planning Scheme, County of Cumberland, 1948, State Library of New South Wales, file#: FL3744617 Call#: M M3/ 811.1eac/ 1948/ 2. See attached.] This called for a new road linking the Sydney Harbour Bridge with the Warringah district by means of a freeway through North Sydney and then eastwards across Middle Harbour. During construction in the 1950s and 1960s, the initial phase was only funded as far as Naremburn. Changing priorities caused subsequent extensions to turn the freeway westwards, eventually leading to the Gore Hill freeway and then the Hills motorway. However, the original stretch (Milsons Point to Naremburn) still retains the original name of "Warringah freeway", despite going nowhere near the Warringah district.

The WHTBL project would complete the original vision of the Warringah freeway by extending it to the Warringah district. Regardless of which route numbers are assigned to different parts of the route, it would be geographically logical, and historically respectful, to formally name the roadway within the new beaches tunnel with the “Warringah freeway” name.

Supporting reference:


Project Details

Application Number
Assessment Type
State Significant Infrastructure
Development Type
Road transport facilities
Local Government Areas
North Sydney, Inner West
Determination Date

Contact Planner

Daniel Gorgioski