State Significant Infrastructure
Western Harbour Tunnel & Warringah Freeway Upgrade
North Sydney
Current Status: Determination
Interact with the stages for their names
- SEARs
- Prepare EIS
- Exhibition
- Collate Submissions
- Response to Submissions
- Assessment
- Recommendation
- 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.
Consolidated Approval
Modifications
Archive
Application (1)
SEARs (1)
EIS (73)
Response to Submissions (14)
Agency Advice (3)
Determination (6)
Approved Documents
Management Plans and Strategies (146)
Community Consultative Committees and Panels (5)
Reports (4)
Independent Reviews and Audits (6)
Notifications (1)
Other Documents (25)
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.
Complaints
Want to lodge a compliance complaint about this project?
Make a ComplaintEnforcements
There are no enforcements for this project.
Inspections
There are no inspections for this project.
Note: Only enforcements and inspections undertaken by the Department from March 2020 will be shown above.
Submissions
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Why are we even building a road tunnel ?
The most comprehensive source of information on current and future air pollutant emissions in the Sydney area is the emissions inventory compiled periodically by the EPA.
For 2016, the emissions inventory identifies that road transport was the second largest contributor to emissions of CO (34 per cent) and the largest contributor to oxides of nitrogen (NOX) (47 per cent) in Sydney.
The sector was also responsible for substantial proportions of emissions of volatile organic compounds (13 per cent), PM10 (nine per cent) and PM2.5 (10 per cent).” Western Harbour and Warringah Freeway Upgrade EIS Jan 2020; Chapter 12.4.2
How then is another long urban road tunnel even worth getting off the drawing board?
REGISTRY PRECINCT
Object
REGISTRY PRECINCT
Message
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE LACK OF FILTRATION IN THE EXHAUST STACKS FOR THE WESTERN HARBOUR TUNNEL & BEACHES LINK.
There will be 2x Tunnel Exhaust Stacks in the North Sydney area alone, which is the largest education district in NSW.. (there are 21 schools within the North Sydney council area). Anzac Park Public school (APPS) is already next to a 10 lane freeway.
We estimate that the school is currently impacted by the pollution of a 375m stretch of those 10 lanes (from the Ernest St overpass to the Miller St overpass). So currently (pre-stacks) about 3.75km of polluting road.
The two Tunnel Exhaust Stacks that will be built for the Northern Beaches tunnel and the Western Harbour Tunnel will pump out 7km x 3 lanes each. They will both be located (per Roads and Maritime Services advice) within the 500m impact zone.
So that means an additional 42km of polluting road impacting the school directly. In other words, there will be more than 12 times the current pollution impacting these children. Or put another way, the school might as well be next to a 120 lane freeway! There are many other schools and number of children in the catchment ?Impact Zone as well!
Cammeray Public School is in the Impact Zone of one of the stacks. They might as well be next to a 60 lane freeway. Same for our new local high school, Cammeraygal.
They filter all long urban road tunnels overseas from Japan, to Hong kong, Spain, etc or ban diesel in these tunnels as in Turkey for the safety of their citizens as a preventative Measure.
We as members of this community vehemently OBJECT to this lack of safety & planning.
We urge the Government /Department Of Planning to reject this proposal as it stands and instal Filtration for the health & safety of our children, elderly and all in our community.
M.DeSouza
Co Chair Registry Precinct
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Julie Waddington
Object
Julie Waddington
Message
Michael Murray
Object
Michael Murray
Message
The EIS is hugely complicated and for private citizens who work 5 days a week to not only absorb the information but to put together coherent responses before March 12 is unfair.
I ask that the timeframe be increased by at least 3 months.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
As Sydney continues to grow a Train /Metro network is the most sustainable option & would receive the greatest stakeholder support. The North Western Metro has had minimal construction complaints & has been well received by Sydney travellers. The current Sydney Metro between Sydney - Chatswood construction activity is broadly supported because it provides a long term solution & has minimal construction impacts because it is not on to of existing expressway infrastructure.
Metro networks & stations additions provide a positive catalyst for sustainable growth & investment along the line. Metro networks expansion & stations are far less disruptive , produce less local pollution. Expressways & unfiltered ventilation stacks add nothing to the communities in which the traffic flow. The concentration of extra traffic into these corridors also increases local noise , dangerous emissions , reduces AQ & increased negative health on the people closest to these large expressways & tunnel outlets compared to a public Metro/train line.
At the heart of a sustainable modern Sydney must be to reduce motor vehicles numbers significantly to reduce ; traffic congestion, local communities split by road ways, air /noise pollution , parking space demands, unaffordable tollways costs to people, etc. This will only happen if Sydney's public transport & Metro /Train network is greatly expanded & is a real travel option for people around Sydney. This includes the northern beaches of Sydney.
The WHTBL project is out of date by 30 years. It seems driven by Federal gov fiscal infrastructure economic stimulation, solving current transport problems with out of date motor vehicle transport solution, fulfilling the myopic business strategy of building tollways , engaging in highly risky construction activity over the top of existing critical expressways & ignoring the growing body of AQ research that identifies traffic as being a major source of health issues on local people. It seems a poor & risky option.
The B Line bus expansion to the northern beaches also has been well received , supported & alleviates motor vehicle trips.
The WHTBL project should be stopped until all alternatives transport solutions for Sydney are identified by stakeholders & properly assessed in public. These would include non-RMS road building alternatives. I believe the WHTBL >$14B in funds should be directed into expanding the public Sydney Metro/Train & bus networks.
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
I OBJECT to the project in its current form and ask that the below FIVE POINTS are considered for a re-design to the current project.
Point 1; The ventilation stack located in Cammeray MUST BE FILTERED.
This stack will concentrate 14 kilometers of highly toxic PM 2.5 vehicular emissions into a single point, located in Cammeray. This location is central to an extensive number of households and numerous schools.
The height of the stack (at approximately 30 meters & set at a lower ground level to neighbouring buildings) will be significantly below that of neighbouring buildings – the tallest of which is 14 stories tall. This will result in toxic emissions being distributed right into the homes of local residents when the winds are blowing in an easterly direction. As a long-term resident, I can vouch for the strength of the winds at this location being strong enough to cause significant concern for the current design.
The extensive concentration of toxic emissions added to the low height design illustrate why this ventilation stack MUST BE FILTERED. No other design will be deemed acceptable by the impacted residents.
The ventilation stack in its current location and with its current unfiltered design will cause significant reduction to the values of property. Who in their right mind would ever choose to purchase a property next to one of these highly toxic and visually ugly things?
Point 2; Permanent sound barriers MUST BE INSTALLED along the Warringah Freeway at Cammeray.
If the Warringah Freeway were to be constructed today, it would never be approved without a form of permanent sound barrier technology being a part of the design.
Traffic volumes have soared over the last 40 years since the freeway was constructed. The accompanying noise pollution is now at an unacceptable level for neighbouring residents.
The proposed Western Harbour Tunnel and Northern Beaches Link BOTH connect with above ground entry and exist points at Cammeray. This new infrastructure will add significant new volumes of traffic to the local area & accompanying road noise will increase proportionally.
Considering the overall budget for this project, the relatively insignificant investment into permanent sound barriers along the entire length of the Warringah Freeway in the Cammeray location MUST BE CONSIDERED AS A MANDATORY PROJECT REQUIREMENT.
This need is specifically highlighted & requested for the length of the freeway from Ridge St in North Sydney through to the Miller st bridge in Cammeray – AS A MINIMUM. This is the key zone where the new realignment, including entry and exit ramps are located.
Point 3; The entire project should be redesigned to become a MASS TRANSIT SOLUTION.
Numerous advanced cities or nations have stated they will move to either ban outright, or significantly reduce the use of petrol or diesel vehicles in the coming decades.
For example; Copenhagen in 2021, Paris, Madrid Athens & Mexico City have committed to removing diesel cars and vans by 2025, Norway will phase out conventional cars by 2025, followed by France and the United Kingdom.
This project is designed around old technology & will only ADD further to toxic pollutants & harmful greenhouse gasses into the environment.
The only way forward for this project is to redesign it around efficient MASS TRANSIT solutions. These could be either electric trains / light rail or busses which can run on gas or electricity. This would also future proof the project for predictable growth in population, as the capacity per kilometer through-put is significantly greater than personalized vehicular transport.
Point 4; Falcon st temporary worksite – trees & greenspace MUST be maintained
There are a significant number of established trees at the proposed Falcon st temporary worksite (located in the public parkland running parallel to the freeway, between Falcon st and Ernest st on the Moodie st side Cammeray).
This site has been designated as a temporary worksite, presumably for upgrades to Falcon st bridge, Ernest st bridge & the pedestrian path crossing the freeway.
It is IMPERATIVE that the green space, including the established trees are conserved. These trees provide a much-needed visual barrier to the traffic on the freeway. They are decades old and must be preserved. Knocking these down for the construction phase and replacing with junior trees in not an acceptable outcome.
Point 5; Temporary noise and light barriers during construction – on both sides of the freeway
The current design documents illustrate that temporary noise barriers will be established on the eastern side of the project construction site, located in the Golf Course. This will provide some protection for the residents on the eastern side of the freeway. They will provide ZERO protection for residents on the western side of the freeway, located immediately opposite the works.
The noise from activities occurring within this site AND ON THE FREEWAY ITSELF will travel across the freeway and directly impact residents living on the western side (eg. Moodie St).
Temporary noise and light barriers MUST be a part of the project design for the duration of the construction phase of this project – ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FREEWAY.
Attachments
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
I understand that once a major new roadway is approved , constructed & operational it's AQ & Health impacts on close proximity communities are not routinely measured to ensure the EIS AQ & Health assessments are delivered or maintained for the people at greatest risk. Confirming that the EIS methodologies, tools & assumption used to approve the project are valid. Air quality is internally measured inside the tunnel & at the ventilation stacks , this does not cover total pollution in the air that people living within <100m - 300m of these traffic emissions sources. Which NSW government body is responsible for monitoring & reporting on AQ & Health impacts in long day care centres, schools , aged care & residential homes that frequently operate within say 150m of roadways with >50,000vpd in Sydney?
Scientifically speaking , if the actual AQ & Health impacts on local people in the real world, that live in close proximity to new traffic infrastructure is not routinely monitored , assessed & publically released - how go you & the public know if the past or I assume the current EIS AQ & Health methodologies & tools are valid?
Where does it say that the in previous or the current WHTBL EIS process or gov legislation that it is allowed for people living in close proximity to 250,00 vpd Warringah Expressway to be overlooked in terms of modelled or actual long term AQ & health outcomes? The fact that the the busiest (most emissions dangerous) freeway in Australia AQ & Health impacts for the past 60 years has not measured & publically reported on , in spite of growing scientific knowledge of AQ risks , makes the whole RMS EIS AQ & Health impact assessment methodology look dubious. Where is the hard scientific data saying the current EIS AQ & Health assessment tools are delivering clean air to close proximity people most directly affected for years to come?
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Attachments
Katie Moore
Object
Katie Moore
Message
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
“On-road exposure (<10m) is also important for pedestrians, cyclists, and runners, who may experience considerably elevated exposures due to much higher breathing rates while exercising, as well as the lack of sheltering and filtration”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4335686/
What are the current peak hour & total emission AQ exposure levels , doses & health impact on pedestrians, joggers & cyclists that currently use the cycle pathways directly adjacent to parts of the Warringah Expressway that carries 240,000 vpd? What is the current AQ baseline?
What are the predicted peak hour & total emission AQ exposure levels, doses & health impacts on pedestrians, joggers & cyclists that will use the new extended cycle pathway that is adjacent to the Warringah Expressway after completion of the proposed WHTBL project?
Does the WHTBL EIS AQ & health assessment specifically state that the peak hour level of emissions exposure is safe & healthy? This would include the additive impacts from these high pollution concentrations for those people daily exposure healthy limits.
If the AQ on these cycle pathways is unsafe, than the current cycle pathways adjacent to the Warringah Expressway should be closed, & the proposed pathways not constructed as part of the WHTBL proposal.
Adele Geraghty
Object
Adele Geraghty
Message
Christopher and Adele GERAGHTY,
154 West Street,
Crow’s Nest,
NSW, 2065.
17 February 2020.
The Director, Transport Assessments,
Planning Services,
Dept. of Planning, Industry and Environment,
PO Box, 39,
Sydney, NSW, 2001.
RE: Western Harbour Tunnel and Warringah Freeway Upgrade.
Application SSI_8863.
Dear Sir/Madam,
We write to you, in answer to your invitation, to register our objection to the above planning proposal which your team is presently considering.
We live in Crows Nest , and we have two sons and four grandchildren, some of whom live in Cammeray. We have both lived in the North Sydney area for close to fifty years, and own several properties in the area.
We have consulted the lengthy ETS for the Western Harbour Tunnel and the Warringah Freeway Upgrade which was published on your portal on 29 January and which invited submissions to be lodged by 12 March. Considering the serious issues to be addressed and the extent of the ETS (9000 pages), the time allotted to an assessment of the proposal and for lodging submissions is too short. The exercise requires a good deal of thought and community discussion. However, doing the best we can in such a time-frame, we make the following submissions by way of objection.
A. The Present Proposal.
As a general proposition, and on planning and environment grounds, we are opposed to facilitating more motor vehicle traffic in an already over-burdened area of Sydney. Cars now have a limited lifespan in any modern city and are no longer considered environmentally friendly. Large, expanding cities such as Sydney should be discouraging the use of private motor vehicles and encouraging the movement of people by an efficient public transport system. For some curious reason, the ETS has not addressed the possibilities and advantages of a public transport service to the northern beaches.
We object to the construction of a tunnel under the harbour and beneath our suburban living spaces purely to facilitate an outmoded form of private transport. This is a short-term solution to Sydney’s growing traffic problems – too wasteful, too out-of-date and contrary to the settled opinion of urban designers worldwide and traffic control experts.
Though the money already spent on the tunnel proposal is substantial, it is not yet too late to stop and start again to plan an efficient public transport system to service the northern beaches – a monorail system, a metro rail or tramway system under the harbour, or through French’s Forest over to Chatswood to link up with the train system or the new metro rail into the city and beyond. These alternatives were not even presented for consideration.
B. As to some aspects of the Proposed ETS.
1. Experts (environmental, biological and medical) are in general agreement that the exhaust fumes emitted by motor vehicles, but especially by trucks and other diesel-powered vehicles, are toxic and harmful to the population at large, but especially to children under 10 years, and that if these exhaust fumes remain unfiltered, they will inevitably cause serious harm, particularly to those living in the vicinity of the outlets.
Given these simple facts, it is unimaginable that any responsible agency of government could allow a lengthy tunnel to be constructed for the passage of motor vehicles, day and night, without insisting the toxic fumes be filtered to reduce their harmful effect.
It would not have escaped the attention of those planning the project that many schools, including primary schools, are located in the catchment area of the tunnel outlets and that very many young children would be exposed to the unfiltered fumes.
In the past, our Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, has spoken out against smaller unfiltered tunnels and promised to oppose them because of the danger to the health of the community at large. We presume she has not changed her opinion and that she continues to adhere to her earlier conclusions.
In brief, we say a loud NO to toxic toll-roads.
2. Toll-roads are already a heavy financial burden on the community and only exacerbate the already established divide between those who can afford to travel on them and those who cannot. Toll-roads are not an answer to our transport woes. They provide only a quick-fix to a complicated social and environmental problem.
Name Withheld
Comment
Name Withheld
Message
How will traffic coming south from Drummoyne, Rozelle, Balmain access the tunnel?
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
Name Withheld
Object
Name Withheld
Message
With the urgent need of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions , building more infrastructure to accomodate cars makes no sense.. 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 strongly believe that people will start using public transport if the network is available and makes their commute to and from work faster and cheaper than taking the car.
Please focus on improving the public transport network.
The Beeline connection between the Northern Beaches and the city is a positive step in that direction and could be extended massively , without the need of a tunnel.
Isabelle Balde
Object
Isabelle Balde
Message
Angus Laing
Object
Angus Laing
Message
1. As the EIS shows it will increase pollution and will lead to more C02 emissions based on the energy consumption of the project which is not environmentally sustainable, contrary to what the document claims.
2. It prioritizes personal vehicle use which is simply not a workable transport solution for a large city.
3. The funds could be much better spent on public transport but no comparative analysis has been performed
4. It will simply lead to further traffic jams at either end of the project
5. The EIS confirms that the concerns raised by the community with regard to negative impacts on pollution, local streets, rat runs, congestion, more traffic are correct, and the project will deliver these negative outcomes
6. The project fails to substantially reduce travel times, and quotes improvements for the beaches tunnel link, which is not part of this project
Overall there is no justification for this project to proceed on an economic efficiency, environmental or community utility basis therefore it should not go ahead.
Harminder Singh
Object
Harminder Singh
Message
Please provide more info or sketched photos in relation to my house.