Western Harbour Tunnel & Warringah Freeway Upgrade

I would prefer project is cancelled as there is insufficient local space to cope with building works and key amenities eg Birchgrove Ferry wharf and Yurulbin Park will be closed to the public for unacceptable years!! Noise, pollution and disruption in this densely populated residential area far far outweighs any perceived benefit (perceived by govt only). Frequent ferry services from Balmain East Balmain and Yurulbin Point to both North shore and Circular Quay would be far more desirable for Balmain and for the planet!!!
If we have to have a tunnel
- as deep as possible,
- increase affected zone to 250m (not 50m) either side as in Victoria
-construct real tunnel way off site eg Port Kembla and barge it up NOT to be constructed in Glebe or White Bay...….horrific idea!
- ALL smoke stacks MUST BE FILTERED
-real tunnel NOT a pipe in a trench
I hate this tunnel proposal . I am so tired of living in a city which is being dug up at every turn.

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!

The environmental and traffic impacts are excessive.
The project does not utilise available technologies to mitigate environmental impacts such as filters on air stacks.
The impacted areas include a number of schools and parks.
The project is not forward looking - assumes continued reliance on cars for transportation. Investment should be in public transport instead.

Hi,
I am excited by this project but I believe the traffic flows that you are proposing will impact the residents of Short Lane & Byrnes Avenue, Neutral Bay and it is possible that you have not considered these. I have attached a document that illustrates how that traffic flows during normal hours to access the tunnel and bridge. I have also proposed a simple solution (in my view anyway) that can potentially resolve the issue at hand as well as improve today's current difficulties.

The problems are not caused by your project. The problems are caused by too many cars traveling to fast with little consideration for people entering from a sidestreet. The proposal is to move an existing pedestrian traffic light westward 100m and synchronise it with a set of traffic lights 200m away so that traffic can flow without risk of crashing onto Tramway Lane and then to Military Rd giving them the ability to choose either Bent St, the bridge or the tunnel. This will alleviate unnecessary traffic that now flows onto Ernest St and decrease a ratrun used by us locals through Moodie St, cammeray to access the entrance ramp to the northbound freeway. In a nutshell, crossing Military Rd to access Tramway Lane is not for the faint hearted, it can be a terrifying prospect, so we have no choice but to instead stick to the left and go up Park Avenue to Ernest St. The attachment explains it better. Please feel free to discuss with me if you need further clarifications or have an even better idea. Thanks for listening !!!

short term solution to car traffic flow problem will result in huge public expense for very limited short term gain. public transport not included and should be a priority. proposed route does not appear to be the most direct one. disturbance to harbour sediment which contains toxic substances resultant from 100+ years of industry near the harbour at Balmain. potential damage to property from tunnelling especially as depth below homes shallow in some sites. Dilapidation reporting should apply to properties within 200m distance from proposed tunnel NOT within mere 50 metres. Yurulbin Point worksite will destroy natural rock formations that cannot be re-instated and destroy large mature trees that would take many years for replacements to grow to the same size as existing. worker parking in area near yurulbin point will cause major problem for local residents who only have street parking. extended absence of Birchgrove ferry service not acceptable. no public access to Yurulbin Point park for 4.5 years not acceptable. construction of huge worksite shed in this park very ugly beside beautiful harbour site. This area is registered as being of Aboriginal significance with middens and rock drawings nearby. Effect of unfiltered exhaust stacks is proven internationally to be dangerous for public health. NSW state government insistence that such stacks in communities near schools, etc is not harmful is totally false and short-sighted. Although I live in Birchgrove I have a home where my daughter lives that is directly opposite the unfiltered Northconnex exhaust stack at Wahroonga. The construction activity and noise there have been very disruptive and the ugliness of the stack will not be screened by the vegetation even when mature. NSW govt ignored local resident protests and petitions and to a petition by 250 + medical doctors who objected to the unfiltered stack as potential risk to health based on Australian and international research. I fear that the same result will apply to the Western Harbour Tunnel. Citizen protest against other projects like Sydney Stadium demolition and construction of the Randwick light rail have been similarly ignored. Consultation usually appears to be only lip service and the projects bull-dozed through anyway because the government has already made up its mind! In addition the initial projected costs of these projects are often totally incorrect and the final cost blows out enormously.

I strongly object to this project (and to the NBL). I am a medical oncologist of 37 years experience and am particularly concerned with the high carcinogenetic potential of vehicle exhaust emanating from the innumerable diesel vehicletrips in the construction phase (on suburban streets) and from tunnel traffic and the undoubted increased surface traffic re-filling transiently de-congested roads. I am concerned with other health impacts of exhaust on children and worsening of climate change. Even current levels of exhaust injure vulnerable children and cause 600+ adult deaths each year in Sydney. Recent research confirms that children (including unborn fetuses) will suffer severe respiratory illness (eg asthma, infection and reduced lung development), potentially diminished brain/intellectual development, cardiovascular concerns and , vitally, psychological impacts (absorbing adult anxiety at home and at school, reduced activity, a diminished environment during and after the construction).
The actual level, danger and distribution of toxic vehicle exhaust chemicals is only now becoming clear. Earlier "safe" limits are likely too high for young children (and vulnerable elders). Personal measurement studies indicates higher exposure with travel through the city, at school dropoff/pick up points, near main roads and often indoors. This will only worsen as more cars, particularly diesel powered, enter our traffic nightmare, travelling longer distances as the city expands, but at slower pace. Recent evidence that public transport is not coping will divert customers into their cars, often 7 days a week.
Of the many toxic constituents of vehicle exhaust (especially diesel, even with exhaust modification), perhaps the most concerning are PM 2.5 and ultrafine particles (<0.01 microns), with a core of back carbon, carrying a payload of adherent noxious poisons. Black carbon itself is a known carcinogen, as are PAHs and many volatile substances. These particle flow into the alveoli of children and babies (plus adolescents and adults) causing dangerous immunological events, leading to acute illness or chronic (unmonitored) lung function damage or delayed serious morbidity. UFPs and some displaced chemicals are absorbed into the circulatory system leading to systemic toxicity, particularly cardiovascular and cerebrovascular (brain). Children may therefore be unable to reach their full potential physical and mental development.
But this not all! There is more unattended catastrophe - climate change, which will exacerbate the countless consequences of vehicle pollution, rendering the lives of most citizens particularly hazardous, again especially, the unborn, babies, children and the increasing number of our elderly folk. We will be exposed to more toxic wildfire smoke, recently at internationally alarming levels), but to return regularly, as temperatures rise further with past weather patterns in disarray. The future we are consigning to our children is abominable. Life will become increasingly indoors. With the vast loss of forest and our native animal population, on land in our rivers and at sea the psychospiritual impact will become intolerable for many, if not most. Thus the infliction of the malignant freeway/motorway infrastructure including the WHT, WFU and NBL is inexcusable. We should be steadily reducing private vehicle and other petroleum fuel use, aiming radically to halve current consumption by 50% by mid-decade. Obviously other specific and powerful measures are required urgently to drawn down CO2 and the wide array of other green houses gases.
It is important, indeed vital, that we awaken from our collective trance.

My general comment is that I have not been provided with enough evidence to say whether the project has been fully explored
For example
1. Have sufficient studies been done on other alternatives - say public transport
2.. Is it in the right location
3. Is it the right type of crossing
4. Has a proper AND IMPARTIAL cost benefit analysis been done.
4. Why are we sending all vehicles to the Rozelle Interchange. The area is currently grid locked. West Connex will be adding additional traffic loads AND now you want more.
5. Most overseas cities I have visited have a ring road system. They try to keep traffic away from the centre. Our planning and thinking is wrong
6. This project is being looked at in isolation. It does not address the future. A comprehensive study on Sydney's traffic plans for the next 50 years should be initiated,, and when that is resolved you should start planning the specific projects

As regards the current proposal some comments are:
1. The cut and cover across the Harbour should be abandoned. By having the one and continuous tunnel linking Rozelle to Cammeray you have no need to destroy Yuralbin Point for upto 4 years. There is no need for a casting yard in White Bay. Problems with a contaminated seabed go away (as it is not touched) The seabed environment is left untouched.
2. Unfiltered exhaust stacks IS A NO NO in our society. Why would you slowly poison the health of a community
3. The use of the Balmain Leagues Club site needs to be rethought. Upto 600 movements per day in and out of the site onto Victoria Rd will surely make Victoria Rd a carpark. we have all seen and witnessed how long it takes a truck to enter and leave a site when we have these wonderful lolipop warders stop the traffic and restart. Some movements will take upto 2 minutes to complete. This may add say 4 hours per day where one side (outgoing) is closed to traffic. UNACCEPTABLE
4. The "zone of influence" of 50m is unacceptable. It should be a minimum of 250m

In summary, take a deep breath, rethink the current proposal and if you cant do that, then please consider the specific concerns raised above.

As well, having previously worked on Government projects, I am making myself available to discuss these aspects with you.

Regards

Garrett Dwyer

If ventilation outlets are designed to eject tunnel emissions high into the atmosphere, ensuring they are dispersed and diluted then why would the design have two motorway tunnels (Western harbour and beaches link) using the same spot for a ventilation stack thus doubling the pollution dumped onto one area which is close too many susceptible receptors? If the ventilation stacks need to be near the tunnel exits then why are the western harbour and beaches link exits and entrances on top of each other and causing a bottle neck?

Please attachment for detailed objections.

DPIE Crown Lands has no comments for this project.

I have lived in this beautiful pocket of the world called Cammeray since 2006. Every single friend or family member, even work colleagues, comment on how amazing it is, tucked away, so much so, that these people didn't even know it was there.
It really is a very special place. Unique is the only word for it.
So much green, so much bio-diversity.
The thought of you taking a large piece of the golf course, floods me with negative thoughts and feelings. The sensible thing to do, would be to acquisition some of the land next to the freeway, between the golf course and miller st. And its not very hard to keep the poor people getting kicked from their home happy. Its called a more than fair money settlement, so they can buy equal to or better in Cammeray. Second to that, its public land. Now i dont remember being asked for permission, and i certainly havnt seen anything resembling monies.
On that topic, i would propose building over the freeway, from Miller St all the way down to Pacific Hwy. This would tie the golf course, and Nth Sydney Oval together as a massive green belt. And further down, adjoining the Nth Syd CBD , office workers and everyone else for that matter, can simply stroll out of the concrete urban jungle and slip straight into green space. Government can make monies from event bookings, fireworks tickets etc
My stance at present, i will not allow this needless destruction of the golfcourse.
Unless,
The above mentioned green space over the freeway is included in the project.
Then i move to the unknown quantities of poisons and other hazardous materials which will be set free into our beautiful oasis of Tunks Park, Long Bay, and the surrounding bushland. Not to mention all the people who live adjoining. If you look at the photos of the past, it is a very deep ravine/valley, and it is full of fill. And the fill is hazardous. I know you say you will use this method or that technique to contain it, but hey, im in the building game, and i know how much gets through. And to execute this process precisely, takes too much time, which is too much money. Again, its cheaper to make very generous money offers to some individuals, and there is little risk of a poison catastrophe.
I now feel this is turning into a novel.
Some other points which the locals object to,
- unfiltered smoke stacks. This is an outrage.
- extra traffic that cammeray will be bombarded with.
I dont want to harp on any further, my baby girl just spewed everywhere Gastro.
In essence, The main topics that i request to be reviewed are,
- The golf course
- Flat rock gully
- unfiltered smoke stacks
There are very easy solutions to these three issues.
I hope you dont have to see me doing the eco warrior special, or the Mad Max Tribute.
Thankyou for your time.

I write to you this day, to formally request an extension of time to dissect the rather large Environmental Impact Statement.
Thankyou in advance.

This submission relates to the impact of the Western Harbour Tunnel on Waverton.
1. It is of fundamental importance to the integrity of the environmental impact process that the route of the Western Harbour Tunnel (as it passes under Waverton) not be changed from the route highlighted in Figure 20-4 on page 20-13 of the EIS. This route is consistent with advice given by the Major Projects team at the time my family purchased our property in Waverton last year. It is extremely important that the route not now be changed, as a number of other residents have relied upon this advice in recently purchasing their respective properties in Waverton. We have all relied upon the route passing under the upper section of Carr Street and then following Bay Road until it approaches the Pacific Highway. More specifically, it is very important that the tunnel not be shifted any further south or east from its current route. It is logical that the tunnel follows Bay Road, as this is likely to have the lowest impact upon neighbouring residents.

2. It is also important that the construction support site at Berrys Bay (WHT7) be designed to allow residents to have ongoing access to Carradah Park, as this park forms part of a very popular walk which starts at Waverton Park and continues through Carradah Park and ends at the Coal Loader on the far side of Balls Head Reserve. If it is impractical to provide ongoing access through Carradah Park along the waterfront, it is very important that another walkway be created or maintained behind the construction support site, in order to provide residents with ongoing access from Carradah Park to the Coal Loader.

I strenuously object to the entire project.

I am a Structural Engineer with over 40 years experience of design and supervision of construction of all manner of infrastructure and building projects. I have a Masters in Engineering and a Grad Dip in Fine Arts. In this last degree I have studied Urban Planning, Placemaking and City building. The firm I co-founded 6 years ago, Cultural Capital, is a member of the Committee for Sydney and I regularly attend events on how to make Sydney a better place to live, work and play.

My objection is the short-sightedness of this project. Bradfield (one of the heroes in the Engineering world) looked very much to the future and designed the Harbour Bridge with a capacity for a time FIFTY YEARS IN THE FUTURE. His bridge cost $1.5B in today's money. The Western Harbour Tunnel will cost much more than that, yet has the same degree of future-proofing been applied? Where will the individual vehicle be in 2070? No-one knows but what we can say is that it will be a totally different scenario than today. Simply ratcheting up the existing situation will not work. Disruptive technologies like autonomous vehicles and driverless taxi services will also not solve our future transport needs (it simply means there will be more cars on the road). They may provide a temporary fix, but not for the longer term, and cannot justify the enormous expenditure of public money proposed here.

I have lived in London and Paris and have experienced the efficiency, speed and comfort of their Metro systems. We are now belatedly creating our own. Certainly if we wish to become a 'mega-city' of over 6 million people, the only feasible and possible to move us around will be by mass public transport.

Therefore I believe it is an extremely shortsighted solution to the problem of the Spit Bridge and Military road congestion. I have heard that the main reason for this new infrastructure is to feed more cars into the WestConnex to help pay its way. I don't know if this short-term, fiscal approach is true or not, but it does sound plausible.

I write this without hope as I know the political and commercial momentum that builds up to push this type of decision forward. I suspect this public engagement exercise will be just that - an exercise. Maybe a few little tweaks to pacify, but who in a leadership position has the courage and moral integrity to stand up for a better transport solution - a Metro - for my children and grandchildren? No-one I know in current politics or the bureaucracy.

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.

In principle, I agree that we need a second harbour crossing that will take traffic off the Sydney harbour bridge and bypass the CBD to get to the inner western suburbs. However, I have significant reservations, about the route of the proposed tunnel through the Waverton peninsula, and specific concerns about the amount of vibration and noise related to the construction phase including the traffic on surface streets. After the tunnel is built I have concerns about the amount of ongoing traffic noise from the tunnel as well as subsidence in soil directly above and surrounding the tunnel.

Also I Specifically object to the tunnelling under 3 Heritage houses in the crossing of Carr street (see my street address and the 2 properties opposite) these are all listed under R2 Low Den Res Registered. My property is listed for historical, aesthetic and representativeness and has many original features such as stained original windows, original plaster work timber work and sandstone foundations. Further details can be provided. All of which could be damaged by even low level vibration or subsidence. We have gone to great effort and expense to restore and preserve the heritage factors, I am very concerned that 3 beautiful properties will be damaged due to vibration and settlement during construction of the tunnel and the subsequent traffic going through tunnels at a depth of less than 50m.

The proposed tunnel route should be moved to the northern side of Bay road which will actually provide a more direct passage and elevation for the tunnel or alternatively it should be at a depth of equal to or greater than 50m to alleviate problems of noise and vibration and potential damage of these historic properties.

Also, I object to the amount of increased traffic on bay road Bay /Balls head road and potentially Carr street during the construction phase of the project. Bay road is already not coping with the significant amount of traffic due to the HMAS Waterhen as well as visitors using the Coal loader/Balls head reserve, any additional heavy traffic would increase the safety hazards. I would request the inclusion of speed governors (e.g. speed bumps) on Bay road and Balls Head road and that any heavy traffic be limited to business hours and that they be noise limited.

We ask that all the above be considered and an alternative to the proposed route or the depth of the tunnel be specified at 50meters, and this be discussed and decided prior to the construction. We are happy to provide more details and to discuss these objections constructively.

I sincerely object to the proposal for yet another toll motorway in Sydney. I can appreciate the need to reduce congestion in Sydney's road network, but the answer to this problem is not through more motorways. Transport planning research and academia has indicated for quite some time now that the best way to reduce congestion and traffic is by enhancing public transport infrastructure. Providing residents of Sydney with an incentive to get out of their cars and catch a bus, train, light rail or ferry is the only way we will reduce congestion on Sydney's road network. This multi-billion dollar project will only provide more of an incentive to drive in this city. I would also like to note that the projected vehicle use of the Western Harbour Tunnel is 67,000 vehicles per day (37,000 northbound and 30,000 south bound). This data is highly questionable considering data from other motorway tunnels around the world. For example, the Queens-Midtown tunnel in New York City carried 73,470 vehicles per day in 2016. To suggest that a tunnel in Sydney could carry similar vehicular traffic quantities to that of New York City is ridiculous. The Yamate Tunnel in Tokyo (opened in 2008) carried just 34,000 vehicles per day in the year it opened. Both New York City and Tokyo have populations over two times that of Sydney. I strongly question the data used to justify this project. It would appear that the New South Wales Government is making the same error that the Queensland Government made in justifying the Clem7 tunnel and Airport Link tunnel by exaggerating the projected traffic counts to make the project more appealing to prospective companies considering purchasing the project.
I would like to see an independent analysis on the projects viability and impact on the road network before it is approved. I would also like to see serious consideration by the government into allocated the billions of dollars invested in this project into alternative public transport solutions. I implore the planners at the NSW Department of Environment and Industries to listen to what academics and transport planners have been saying for years; that new roads and motorways are not the solution to congestion and traffic.

I object to the following aspects of the project:

- potential impact of construction on my property. My house appears to be just outside the 50m zone of influence for the project. I understand that the alignment of the tunnel in the EIS is indicative and the final design may differ from the EIS, so we may end up being closer or further away. I am very concerned about reports of residents affected by other tunnelling projects suffering damage to their properties and being denied compensation. I am also concerned about the burden of proving causation should there be damage to my property.

I request that the zone of influence is increased to at least 250m, or more. If there is genuinely no impact to properties beyond 50m, then the widening of the zone of influence should be inconsequential - the cost of dilapidation reports for extra properties is negligible in a project of this size. Conversely, the impact of preventing residents genuinely impacted by the project from seeking compensation is severe. I also request that modern methods, such as satellite imaging, are used in dilapidation surveys and for monitoring during construction. I request provisions are made for more detailed monitoring of impact of noise, vibrations and ground movement are made on individual property level. Monitoring in all properties within the zone of influence as the tunnelling plant passes underneath should be feasible, and should help prove or disprove causation if damage occurs.

- destruction of Yurulbin Park. Using the Yurulbin Park site as a temporary construction site is likely to require extensive removal of trees. I understand that the park will be 'rebuilt' at the conclusion of the project. However, nothing can replace the loss of mature trees. Trees that will be planted will take decades to grow to the size of the current trees. Parks are not 'built' - parks grow. What makes Yurulbin Park special is dappled light filtering through the mature canopy of trees. Thinking that we can simply 'remove' and then 'rebuild' a park is an example of human hubris. This is the one point about the entire project that makes me genuinely angry.

- impact of dredging up contaminated sediment. The EIS present a very rosy picture around pollution caused by disturbing the contaminated sediment. The conclusions are based on modelling and averages. I am skeptical about whether it is possible to nearly completely eliminate the possibility negative impact to water quality, as the EIS suggests. I frequently come in contact with water in the harbour, both at Birchgrove Oval beach, and at Dawn Fraser Baths. What sort of measures will be in place to ensure that users of open spaces around the construction site are alerted in real time to health issues? And is there a better method of building the harbour section of the tunnel, one that does not necessitate dredging and removal of Yurulbin Park?

- the decision not to include any air filtration technologies. I understand that in-tunnel or in-stack filtration technologies cost money and is not perfect. However, that is not a reason not to include it in this project. We should learn from the past mistakes (i.e. allowing portal emissions) and be striving to build state of the art infrastructure, that will remain adequate for decades to come. Don't build something that will be overloaded and outdated in a few years.

Regards,

Filip

Sydney needs a public transport driven policy not more and more private toll roads. The demand for public transport is increasing more rapidly than your own predictions and without a public transport focus congestion will not be eased. Road users are already avoiding toll roads and using local roads again, due to the cost of the tolls. This will continue to happen until you address the problem at the root.
Tax payer funds should be directed to the areas of the city with the highest population growth, such as the south west - they urgently require more funds.
With the recent disastrous summer Australia has faced from an environmental perspective, the environmental footprint of this project just can not be allowed to go ahead. Air quality in Sydney has been among the worst in the world, any risk of increasing this, especially around schools can not be allowed to proceed.
Sydney has very few public green spaces, far less than many other large cities - the idea of removing any of these spaces,either for a number of years, or permanently as in Cammeray Golf Club can not be allowed to proceed. You are turning the city into an ugly concrete jungle.

The proposed tunnel lacks a sound business case, good governance and is at odds with the need for investment in public transport. At a time when the state government will be incurring substantial additional costs as its other infrastructure projects run significantly over budget, it is an inappropriate use of public money to pursue the Western Harbour Tunnel. The Tunnel is not wanted by citizens and offers no benefits. Instead, it risks significant damage to homes and will have negative effects on the wider built environment, public health, quality of life, and the marine environment of Sydney Harbour. The project is irresponsible. Should the government proceed, it must consider an alternative cross-harbour route that has less impact on homes and property (much of which is Victorian era), widen the recognised impact zone to at least 250 metres consistent with conventional practice, have filtered exhaust stacks to reduce the health effects of pollution, and dig a below-surface sea tunnel to avoid the disturbance of toxic sediment on Sydney Harbour. It is unacceptable to have the state government act against the wellbeing of its citizens in such a fundamental way as choosing to expose them to property damage, toxins and environmental destruction on the scale that will be wrought by the Western Harbour Tunnel.