You need to be signed in to add your comment.

Corridor options

about 2 years ago

After reading our studies and looking at what we know so far about the four corridors, join the conversation and let us know what you think. 

What do you think about our findings so far? Are we measuring what's important to you? Have we missed anything? Share your thoughts in the discussion forum below.

The discussion forum will close on Monday 18 September 2017. From there, we'll use what we've heard to help us keep investigating each of the four corridor options.


This stage of community engagement for North East Link has finished. We'll be reporting back to communities what we heard in October. If you have questions about the project you call us on 1800 941 191 or write to us at community@northeastlink.vic.gov.au

  • Chuckles about 2 years ago
    I think Option A should be developed as an interim measure to provide a bypass of Rosanna Rd with no major upgrade of the Eastern Fwy. Option D should be developed soon after as the ultimate ring road with a direct connection to the Maroondah/Melba Hwys to provide better access to the North east as well. Consideration could be given to develop a North/South Highway through the 'C' corridor by extending Springvale rd north to Wattle glen
  • kw3106 about 2 years ago
    Corridor A makes the most sense and will probably cost the least and take the least amount of construction time . Although , all traffic light intersections along it will need to be grade separated . This could start now , with the M80/Greensborough bypass and Grimshaw St/Greensborough bypass intersections being done first .
    • Gorman about 2 years ago
      As a local resident, Corridor A makes the least sense. An local trip will become significantly longer because residents will be forced to go to Grimshaw St or Lower Plenty Rd to cross the freeway as Greenborough Hwy is effectively gone.Corridors B and C make the most sense as they cause the least disruption to residents and go through growth areas.
      • Ringo about 2 years ago
        Sorry Gorman, I disagree with you assumption that Greensie Hwy will be "gone" with Option A. My understanding is that the freeway will travel parallel to this, meaning the Hwy and Rosanna Rds will shrink in congestion and we locals will still be able to use them freely.
        • Gorman about 2 years ago
          There is not enough room for the NorthEast Link and Greensborough Hwy to co-exist. VicRoads currently owns the properties on the east side of Greensborough Hwy past the 6 lane divided section which is enough to expand the existing road to 6 lanes but not enough for another separate 4 lane road. I expect there will be a series of small service roads to link existing streets and for homes on the west side of the current Greensborough Hwy however for intense and purposes Greensborough Hwy will be consumed by NorthEast Link and cease to exist. Local residents will be forced through the back streets of Watsonia, Macleod and Yallambie to get to either Lower Plenty Rd or Grimshaw St to make the crossing to other side of the suburb and these streets will become rat runs for those that don't want to pay the toll.
          • AtoB about 2 years ago
            Greensborough Hwy isn't going to be consumed for NEL....the NELA have responded to this several times, without tip-toeing around the issue. There's no way they can take that road away from the locals living on its west side. For what it's worth, I wonder if we'll see something like this (1988 Melway, just prior to the construction of the 6-lane divided section of Greensborough Rd): https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/bitstream/handle/11343/54762/UDS2013221-12-0049-wm.jpg?sequence=49&isAllowed=y. Not to say they could re-create this exactly, especially with Watsonia Station, but something like this, using the service roads/ 'Old' Greensborough Rd, would not only keep the community connected, but may actually improve it. For what it's worth, VicRoads actually own a 'Reserve Licence' for a piece of road that forms a part of the former Greensborough Rd.
            • Gorman about 2 years ago
              If NELA wish to respond this this thread stating that or if someone can point me to a definitive statement from them that there will be no detrimental impact to the existing Greensborough Hwy, I am happy to concede the point. I would then question their wording in the Corridor A description and their maps which could leave people with the impression that the freeway is practically replacing Greensborough Hwy.
              • AtoB about 2 years ago
                The maps weren't meant to be definitive I don't think, pretty sure they said - maybe at information sessions - that these were indications and that alignments could change as they took feedback and learnt more from their drilling work etc. The maps do give the impression, yes, as you say, but I don't think any authority will be stupid enough to use the part of Greensborough Rd where there are residences as part of the NEL. They've been persistently saying that it will be a 'new road'.
                • Gorman about 2 years ago
                  Ignoring the maps, their own statement on the page for Corridor A page says the opposite. "This 11 kilometre corridor would follow the Greensborough Highway south using existing road reserve and connect with the Eastern Freeway near Bulleen Road". Note their wording "using existing road reserve". That more likely means "replace the existing road" not "build a new road next to the existing road" as this would involve purchasing new road reserve as there is currently not enough land to have both roads even with the reserve VicRoads currently owns. This it at odds with their next statement "Greensborough Highway and Bulleen Road would be retained for local use." How to they intend to achieve this without purchasing new land for the road? The two statements contradict each other. I guess I am a sceptic and am after some reassurance. I have lived through one of these types of freeway build some years back and promises made never exactly represented what actually happened. Again, if anyone wants to point me to a black and white statement or NELA wish to comment on this thread and categorically state that Greensborough Hwy will still exist as it does today when the NorthEast Link is built, I am quite happy to concede the point.
            • Ringo about 2 years ago
              This is great thinking, AtoB. I agree with you completely here. With the map you mention, the new construction was meant to finish just before Simpson Barracks. If they just continue this along the front of the barracks, we have plenty of space for new freeway with minimal home acquisitions
              • AtoB about 2 years ago
                Thanks. That's precisely what I, and many others, expect. The NELA said (as per the video link I posted in the comment above) that Greensborough Rd won't be used. Technically they'd still be telling the truth if they were to re-create something like the former alignment - local access is maintained...via the old Greensborough Rd. May be a bit of a challenge, but I'm sure something along these lines is achievable. At least this maximises existing infrastructure. Many homes are also VicRoads-owned along there, so acquisitions not a huge factor (if at all) along this part of the corridor at least.
    • Dr Andy about 2 years ago
      LOL. It's not just about the costs and the construction time. This affects the lives of the many residents who live in Bulleen/Balwyn North/Kew.
  • Simon M about 2 years ago
    One of the criteria for assessing the options is capacity to take trucks off residential streets in the northeast. What measures are contained in option a to ensure that additional and increasing traffic volumes and trucks do not move from option a to residential streets in north Balwyn and boorandarra?Will proper noise abatement measures for the additional lanes and traffic volumes on the eastern freeway between chandler highway and Doncaster road be included in the costings and final budget in the event that option a is selected? Will proper noise abateness measures be included in the costings and final budgets of the other options in the event that they are selected?
  • sum1 about 2 years ago
    Hi NELA, any chance of extending this forum? Lots of great and really valid contributions that I hope you'll take on board and I'm sure they'd be many more if this forum was ongoing.
  • Stvalgirl about 2 years ago
    I think the North East Link have picked the right option. If its going to be cheaper, use the rest of the money that would have been built on Option B-D and build the doncaster rail link, even if it runs underground down Eastern Freeway or along side it. That would be money better spent.Also don't toll trucks above a certain size to use the proposed freeway, encourage them to use it
  • MJH1 about 2 years ago
    Glad to see so much interest in this topic, and a range of cogent arguments have been well put. I'm from the outer east and regularly travel all across and through MelbMetro and so experience the best and the worst of the road network. Ring roads exist in just about every other nationally important city across the world and provide benefits to both residents and travelers alike, so the key seems to be not only dealing with "hot spots" but also the bigger picture of travelling amenity in a large city. My major concerns for the Corridor A option include the extensive and expensive disruption of existing infrastructure (Eastern Fwy upgrade) as well as too much concentration of network infrastructure around inner MelbMetro. Option C works to drag the traffic away from inner Melbourne (always a good thing), and thus provides a more balanced approach to sourcing traffic from outer NE and other E and SE areas, ultimately providing a more future proofed travel solution with greater overall amenity especially given our burgeoning population growth right across the metropolitan areas and in these areas particularly.
  • Caroline about 2 years ago
    Option C is a far more sensible option. Option A is a typical quick fix for a government that lacks experience and competence in strategic infrastructure investment.
  • Rosanna about 2 years ago
    Option C is the best solution for the future transport needs of Melbourne – it provides a true orbital road around densely populated areas – not through the middle of them. Trucks and traffic would be dispersed over a greater area and could provide the outer areas with some much needed local road upgrades. A brand new road is what is needed – less disruption during construction to existing routes being used and a continuation of the Ring road with no need to accommodate a right or left hand turn at Greensborough.Of concern, should Corridor A be seen as the ‘preferred’ route, is why trucks (especially owner / drivers) and commuters would use a toll road (the tolls of which would presumably be high as it will be a tunnel) when there are free to use roads (G’Boro Hwy, Rosanna Rd, Bulleen Rd) to get them to the Eastern anyway. Who can afford to pay a toll - return trip x 5 days a week ? What also needs to be considered in the densely populated areas are the potential health risks - air quality and noise- to the residents as a result of the volume of traffic expected to be using the NE link –its unfortunate that these won’t be assessed until after the decision has been made.The natural environment around Heidelberg, Bulleen and surrounds is so important to the local residents and this should not be underestimated. A major concern is the potential for damage either during construction or afterwards. The area is a great mix of native flora and fauna and also amenities which are used by many of the residents as well as schools groups.
  • Mitch about 2 years ago
    As residents of Warrandyte, the environmental and social impacts the North East link would place on this sensitive green wedge is of paramount importance to us. We have chosen to live in Warrandyte for the peaceful lifestyle it offers, with kangaroos in our backyards and sightings of koalas and indigenous birds on a daily basis. Having access to bushlands, walking tracks and parks, and a village rich with artists, restaurants and the Yarra River at our doorstep are further reasons why we call Warrandyte home. We moved away from the traffic and busy roads to live next to nature, accessing the environment in a peaceful manner, like living in the country. Often referred to as the lungs of Melbourne, Warrandyte offers fresh air, a magnificent stretch of the Yarra River, expansive bushland, all within 25kms of Melbourne’s CBD. Where else is there in Melbourne that boasts this idyllic semi-bush lifestyle?The proposed B and C corridors, look to negatively impact our lifestyles and that of Warrandyte’s identity. Listed below are our primary concerns:• If our homes were to be acquired, there is no more land available for purchase, and minimal properties on the market in Warrandyte. Everything we have worked for, to have our homes in a unique environment will be gone. We wouldn’t be able to match the lifestyles we have come to love. • As a resident in a body corporate, we have adhered to strict requirements from the Manningham Council in the construction of our home to protect the environmental overlay and impact on nature. How is it possible that a freeway can be built in this sensitive environment?• How is the project team addressing the vulnerable and endangered flora in Warrandyte? the Box-Ironbark Forest, Gully Woodland, Plains Grassy Woodland, Creekline Herb-rich Woodland and Swampy Riparian Complex to name a few. • What significant action are you providing to protecting endangered animals in Warrandyte? The Eltham Copper Butterfly, Powerful Owl, Masked Owl, Swift Parrot, Painted Honeyeater, Regent Honeyeater, Brush-tailed Phascogale, Common Bent-wing Bat, Australian Grayling, for examples. • What steps will be made to preserve our bushland, home to hundreds of wildlife? T
    • Doug about 2 years ago
    • MattB about 2 years ago
      I'm with you Mitch on Warrandyte (wife and I hope to move there once all the kids are driving), however few are interested in the NIMBY argument. This road needs to serve a larger purpose, though NELA does understand the massive challenges involved with green wedges, terrain, et el. When the full costs are realised, the treasurer may decide it's all too hard and that may be even worse for Warrandyte as it's bridge (half-baked upgrade not withstanding) clutters up even more. There's an extra 100,000 people/80,000 vehicles *annually* coming to Melbourne. If option A does goes ahead, option B, C or D will definitely be needed by mid-century. Change is inevitable, sadly. Too much growth...
  • MattB about 2 years ago
    As a poster from day one, it's great to see all the commentary from new posters, though it's a shame we're in the last hours of this forum. Nearly 2000 comments is not enough, particularly as 1500 of them are from perhaps 20 individuals (I'm one of them), however they have been largely thoughtful. Still, would have been great to read perhaps "10,000-plus comments"; that would've sent a definite message to NELA and government that the community is paying attention (for the most part they're not). PS. Now this forum is closed, I guess we have a breather and wait until the *one* Corridor is selected (if it's option A, I for one will quickly lose interest however). NELA, best wishes and good luck. Cheers and signing off (again), MattB from Heathmont.
  • kewres about 2 years ago
    Option A appears to be a short sighted and band aid solution to fixing Rosanna Rd congestion but not addressing the need for a ring road. The duplication of the Eastern from the Chandler to Springvale Rd will involve significant compulsory acquisition of land & impact on parkland - where is the financial cost of that calculated? Forcing freight and other vehicles trying to avoid the city all the way to Bulleen Rd seems crazy. I note the acknowledgment that the Mullum Mullum tunnels will need to be duplicated to cope with the extra traffic. Other options on the other side of the tunnels would avoid this. Hard to accept that it won't push more traffic towards the city on the Eastern - build it and they will come regardless of what traffic studies say & what are they proposing as a fix for Hoddle St? All options will have an environmental impact on their local area but to threaten the limited parkland/open space/wildlife corridors along the Yarra around Kew, North Balwyn, Bulleen is a terrible idea for Melbourne's long term future.
  • Franci about 2 years ago
    I think Option A is totally ridiculous. A massive interchange at Bulleen Road which is only 15 km from the CBD doesn't make any sense. Melbourne is sprawled across a wide area, we need to push the road out further and give ourselves room for growth. It looks like Option A will destroy the largest number of homes. Where will these people move to? They will have to find housing elsewhere and therefore push house prices up even more. I don't like to see anyone lose their home but for the above reasons I would err towards Option B or C. C seems better long term as it will continue on the Bypass.
  • YCAT about 2 years ago
    Option A, one of the proposed North East Link options looks alarming for Collingwood, Fitzroy, Carlton & Clifton Hill residents, as it involves not constructing the remainer of the ring road, but building a freeway between Bulleen and Greensborough.Option A: the shortest, most direct and, almost certainly, the cheapest - connecting to the Eastern Freeway, will bring a huge amount of traffic into the city and could appear to be another attempt to ‘justify’ everyone’s least favourite zombie project, East West Link.Other North East Link options would keep east-west traffic out of the city, obviously we do not support their construction, but they won’t threaten the inner suburbs the way Option A could.If built, Option A would create more traffic at Alexandra Parade at Hoddle Street, stretching beyond the existing peak commute times.Concerns include: Up to ten years of construction along the Eastern Freeway,- More congestion, pollution and noise for the inner suburbs,- Possibility of the Eastern Freeway being tolled,- More traffic into the Eastern Freeway - is this building the case, by stealth, for yet another version of the East West Link, to potentially connect with proposed West Gate Tunnel? - Proposed Option A route is through environmentally sensitive areas (one of Melbourne "green wedges') and will severely impact upon numerous homes, businesses and heritage areas in Bulleen, Bellevue, Balwyn North, Kew East.- Possible removal of the Doncaster Rail reserve along Eastern Fwy and future East Kew and Bulleen Station sites.Obviously the current state government has learned nothing from the massive community reaction (2013-2015) against the rushed & badly planned East West Link What's overdue by decades is a cohesive transport plan for all of Melbourne that provides it's residents and businesses real long term options for personal travel, freight and public transport, not more roads, congestion, car dependency, air pollution, property acquisitions, environmental damage and tolls.
  • Inch about 2 years ago
    It makes no sense to invest in Option A because:It has been predicted that Melbourne is going to overtake Sydney’s population as soon as early 2030s. With this growing rate and the fact that more and more Melbournians are now settling in outer suburbs, shouldn’t we be looking at a bigger and more effective ring road that links more outer suburbs, such as Option B or C rather than a quick solution such as Option A? And have this congestion problem all over again in 5-10 years time?And, having the link so close to the CBD, Option A is least effective in solving congestion problems as this is basically re-directing traffic to the eastern freeway without actually creating any new routes for road users. This will also put more pressure onto the already heavily congested Hoddle street/Alexandra Parade bottle-neck. Besides, Melbourne is crowned the world’s most liveable city in the world in consecutive years, whilst our peer cities in Canada such as Vancouver and Toronto are looking to invest in a more walkable, healthy living and environmental friendly city plan, why are we looking to disrupt the well balanced country and city living of leafy suburbs such as Bulleen, Kew East, and Balwyn North? With Option A, the state’s prestige school grounds (Carey, Trinity, Marcellin) and cultural hub (Heide Museum of Modern Art) within these areas will also be heavily affected.Option A might be the shortest in distance but it is a short-sighted option with much more hidden and opportunity cost, which contributes no future benefit.
    • Doug about 2 years ago
      I was in Vancouver and Toronto earlier this year and traffic is very congested, no solutions there. Schools and museums could be moved/modified to make way for 120,000 people per day. Clearly, any missing link option needs a continuous corridor so some existing, valuable facilities may need to give way to the greater good.
  • Cmoc73 about 2 years ago
    Option A is not desirable. It is not the cheapest, need to add the cost of widening the eastern freeway, which will just create bottlenecks in both directions at bulleen Rd. No government has ever delivered anything on budget anyway. The protected land in the area is at risk, and the parklands for our suburbs to enjoy. Compulsory acquistions in the area will cost more than the project, current values in Bulleen are 1 million plus. Option B or C are the preferred options, will get the trucks off Rosanna Rd and Bulleen Rd( leave it for local users) and still accomodate population growth in the outer eastern areas, simple.
  • mike.t about 2 years ago
    Basically for anyone who will have to actually travel on this new freeway we all know that option A is the WORST choice by far!Running a freeway straight down the inner suburbs WILL be a disaster!
  • BennyHills about 2 years ago
    As a long term resident (30yrs+) of the north-east, what is obvious with the opening of Eastlink is that there was an immediate and significant increase in traffic through the corridor from the Ring Rd in Greensborough to the Eastern Freeway. This has been a significant problem for peak hour traffic on the Eastern Freeway.The immediate difference was the appearance of the numerous trucks (many of which are B-doubles), and which appear to be travelling from interstate and northern regional Victoria (evident from the writing on the side panels) presumably from the Hume Hwy via the Ring Rd.If these trucks (and no doubt many cars) appeared with the opening of Eastlink it should be obvious to select a route that bypasses the Eastern Freeway. The obvious choice should be an orbital route to cater for traffic that as described above predominantly wants to connect from the Ring Rd to Eastlink. Why pour more traffic onto an already congested Eastern Freeway? Option A would be devastating to many local communities at the proposed junction in Bulleen/Balwyn North and a significant population all along the Eastern Freeway via increased noise, increased pollution (including diesel emissions from more freight vehicles) and the significant daily commuting burden from the increased traffic.Furthermore, Yarra Flats, Bulleen Park including numerous sporting grounds, archery range, aeromodelling club, Golf Course and Boroondara Tennis Centre are very popular recreational areas and vital to the people of the inner north-east and will almost certainly be devastated by Option A.Option C via the existing high voltage power line reserve, which for the most part is wider than the 1977 section of the Eastern Freeway, is the more sensible solution which will adequately distribute the traffic flow and allow the local North-East roads including Eastern Freeway to operate efficiently as they did before Eastlink was opened.
    • Protect parklands about 2 years ago
      Well Said. Corridor A also damages Banyule in a similar fashion Communities, neighbourhood amenity, schools, sporting facilities, parklands of state and national significance damaged, creeks destroyed, livability and well being trashed.
      • MattB about 2 years ago
        Option C requires a major upgrade to Sprinvale Rd and construction of the Northern Arterial Rd. That's tens of thousands of additional vehicles through residential areas. There's much to think about.
      • Doug about 2 years ago
        Lots of talk about 'damaging' communities but no acknowledgement of the improvement that will occur when lots of vehicles move from local roads to the new freeway.
        • BennyHills about 2 years ago
          You are right Doug the freeway will remove many vehicles off local roads and lead to improvements to many local communities and as in all cases of projects of this nature it will be to the detriment of other communities. However the important question is, will the proposed freeway be for the benefit of a more efficient road system for all Melbournians? The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Option A will not provide efficiency but rather add to the current problem to what is a vital arterial of the Eastern. This is overwhelmingly confirmed by NELA who have stated the Eastern will need to be widened by an additional 4 lanes (2 inbound and 2 outbound) to cope with what will be multiples of additional vehicles. I suggest that the freeway needs to be widened now to cope to with what is currently a fraction of the forecast orbital traffic.For those of you living in and around Eltham wanting Option A for a fix for your city access issues, I say careful what you wish for. Think of the current traffic backing along Bulleen Rd due to traffic clogged on the Eastern. And with a fraction of the projected link traffic merging with the eastern currently causing evening peak hour traffic chaos imagine what a direct link with multiples more of vehicles merging to the eastern would cause to peak hour traffic. If you all have any doubt this is about orbital traffic I offer you this. Look at Google Maps satellite view and zoom out to a overall view of Melbourne. There are 3 major industrial areas in Melbourne including, the western near Laverton, the northern near Campbellfield and the South Eastern near Dandenong. To the 3 can be added a more important fourth which is the freight coming from the north including regional Victoria and the northern states. The western and northern areas are currently connected by the ring Rd. The south-eastern industrial area has no link to the west and north and hence this urgent need for the "missing link" to get the large freight vehicles off the local roads. Notably this freight burden will only increase as the population increases and with proposals to locate Melbourne's port to the south-east this orbital route will be very important.However make no mistake, this is about communities. The logical proposal Option C, which would be a true orbital link, runs through several of the wealthiest suburbs in Melbourne. And many things have been put in place to ensure that no freeway will run through Templestowe, Donvale and Park Orchards. It will be the poorer communities of Rosanna, Bulleen "South", Doncaster, Box Hill North that will bear the disproportionate burden of the orbital traffic that this new road should serve. But more importantly ultimately it will also be a far wider population of Melbourne that relies on the Eastern Freeway for their daily commute that will be affected.
          • MattB about 2 years ago
            You ask an important question, Benny... "Will the proposed freeway be for the benefit of a more efficient road system for all Melbournians?" I'd like to add to that by asking, "What sort of road system should we have in place by 2050 when Melbourne's population hits 8million?". Infrastructure Victoria has published a paper on our sustained-growth challenges and the discussion with the public needs to be had today. Option A, more or less, was proposed decades ago (Melways edition 4, see map 32... https://digitised-collections.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/23955) and I hope this becomes a wake up call for governments to act far more quickly. It won't of course, but one can only hope...
    • AtoB about 2 years ago
      All routes could lead to detrimental effects to local communities (D is the most different, if anything). An 'orbital' route like B/C would be a straight-forward choice if Melbourne's outer north-east was like the outer south-east...except it's not (in many ways, almost the opposite). I don't discount this concern, but those near Corridor A are not the only ones with them. I hope these issues are as thoroughly accounted for as possible - tunnelling to avoid acquisitions of houses/schools/recreational areas etc will help. Perhaps the M3 junction around Bulleen/Balwyn North could also be spread out along the Eastern Fwy, as ramps emerging from tunnels to preserve as much as possible above-ground AND avoid concentrating infrastructure near the existing Bulleen Rd/M3 junction.
    • Ringo about 2 years ago
      Benny, you raise some valid points. However, without Option A, the trucks, etc that are wishing to travel towards the city will continue to clog Greensborough/Rosanna Rds, making Options B to D pointless. They will still travel towards the city. It is up to our politicians then to modify the Bulleen entrance to accommodate any increased traffic. With Option A, trucks travelling on this route that are heading for southeast can simply turn left at the Eastern. Surely a long enough left-turning feeder lane would avoid this traffic adding to the Bulleen Rd entrance that may be queuing for the city in peak hour? I can't see how they will negatively affect Eastern Freeway as these would be going the opposite direction in peak hours.
      • BennyHills about 2 years ago
        Ringo, the orbital freight traffic does not have a peak hour. It is constant. It needs to get to the south-east during all hours. The merging traffic from Bulleen Rd already affects peak hour traffic on the Eastern, particularly in the evenings. This is an almost daily feature of the evening traffic report. Traffic currently backs to Burke Rd and Chandler Hwy. And currently this is only with a fraction of the traffic that is projected will need to merge on the Eastern with Option A. So where then does the traffic jam go back to, Hoddle St? Carlton North? Melbourne Zoo? So they are creating a new bigger problem. And their solution is to widen the Eastern...... Good luck with that
  • QwertyFitzroy about 2 years ago
    None of the options serve any interests other than the freeway builder companies. This money should be directed to better public transport. Freeways do not address car congestion - they create it.
    • MattB about 2 years ago
      Actually it's the 100,000-plus extra Melbournians and 80,000-plus (?) additional registered vehicles *year-on-year* that create the mess. Our current thinking says, "Build more infrastructure" rather than addressing the problem at the core: unchecked growth. There's even basic maths involved. But no-one wishes to talk about that, because no-one does maths and our leaders constantly tell us, "Growth is good". Honestly, there's no simple answer anyway. We just have to suck it up.
    • Doug about 2 years ago
      Lets all move to Fitzroy so house prices and rents there double. I'm sure there is room on the trams for lots more people.
  • Ring In about 2 years ago
    There seems to be a view that Vicroads owns most of the properties to the north of Simpson Army Barracks. This is simply not true. Vicroads publishes its property portfolio online, and it is easily accessible. At no point on the route of option A, is an easement/property ownership wide enough to build the new tollway owned by Vicroads. Overall, they own about 1% of the total land required. NELA has stated that the above ground sections of route A will allow a B-Triple to travel at 100km/h (excluding ramps and tunnel portals). The bend radius required for this is just under 1km. There is no room for this at the northern end (where the existing ring road ends) If Option A is selected there will be massive compulsory acquisitions. Go to the website and see for yourself. http://vicroadsmaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d1867641251c47de8097d4da80cdc130
    • MattB about 2 years ago
      Yes, bend radius'! Both Vicroads and NELA don't like high-speed, nail-biting changes of direction. History shows that high-loads and unfavorable weather (and perhaps a dollop of over-enthusiasm?) on too tighter entry/exit ramp can result in roll-over. Here's the M31 (Hume fwy) joining the M80, a desirable design... https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-37.6879523,144.9850062,16z. It will be similar to Option A joining the Eastern. By studying the scale, it's easy to understand footprints are rather large these days. An important point, Ring In!
    • DeeEss about 2 years ago
      NELA are designing to a minimum bend radius of 550m, one of the reasons the Eastlink through Doncaster will need some extra lanes/straightening.
    • DeeEss about 2 years ago
      The NELA told me the state gov does own the properties north of the army barracks including the shell servo. Maybe they're own by a state body other than vicroads.
      • AtoB about 2 years ago
        Their property portfolio does indeed show that they own these properties - the cafe, servo, plus a few houses. Interestingly, there are other state govt. owned houses in the area, further east of the potential alignment. In a particular block (East of Gborough Rd / Nth of Lenola St / West of Frensham St / Sth of - but not including - Elder St), nearly half of the houses - 60 of 129 - are 'social housing'. This can be found on atlas.id.com.au/banyule, under 'Housing Tenure / Rent Social Housing'. What it doesn't show is the specific housing tenure of each individual house within a block. Interesting nonetheless - I wonder if several of these 60 houses are those close to Greensborough Rd, i.e., near the Service Rd.
      • Ring In about 2 years ago
        How many properties did they say they own? They do own 'some' properties there, but only a tiny fraction of what they need. Simpson barracks is pretty much surrounded by soldiers accommodation, and none of them are government owned. They are all either owned by the soldiers themselves, or by private investors (the DHA regularly advertises for investors.)
        • AtoB about 2 years ago
          Soldiers properties? They appear to be just off the proposed alignment. Plus, I'd hardly describe the barracks, at least anywhere near Greensborough Rd, as being 'surrounded' by these properties. Anyway, from a couple of posts on here, it seems as if the tunnel is likely to begin from around Erskine Rd, which is approximately where this block of houses begins.
        • AtoB about 2 years ago
          As for how many homes VicRoads own? According to their online property portfolio, they own all 14 from Lenola St southwards all along the east side of Greensborough Rd, plus 1 on the cnr of Sarong/Watson St. Of these 10 are leased, 4 'incapable of lease' and 1 unleased. Also, they own the land (appears to be considered as 7 properties) on the cnr of Grimshaw St/Greensborough Rd (think it's a bricks and pavers place). There's also a 'VicRoads Reserve Licence' for a bit of road at Watsonia Station directly behind the transmission pylons. In addition, they also appear to own 9 plots of land in Borlase Reserve down on the corner of Lwr Plenty Rd, i.e., most of Borlase Reserve. Not to say they won't acquire a few more, I would think that this is all at least more than a 'tiny fraction' of what they need.
          • MattB about 2 years ago
            So Option A is in the bag? That's a shame for those in the East/South East.
            • AtoB about 2 years ago
              Not sure that this guarantees Corridor A MattB, however it definitely shows that it's been at least 'loosely planned' for a long time. VicRoads own far less around Bulleen, four houses on Templestowe Rd just before it becomes Bulleen Rd, plus 3 lots on the cnr of Bridge St/Bulleen Rd (southern side), but that's about it. The only other stretch they own which forms a part of a proposed corridor is the land reservation through St Helena, between the Greensborough Bypass & Ryans Rd in Diamond Creek (i.e., a very small part of C & D). That's about it.
              • MattB about 2 years ago
                The underlying issue for me is "growth" itself. There's basic maths attached to growth that few appreciate because people don't do maths. Government, big business and really anyone wishing to get ahead by trading shares or investments or otherwise motivated (that's most of us) all push for/desire "sustainable annual growth". But what are the long term effects? 4% annual growth is a nice number for various reasons, but there's a caveat with that: Every 17 years there's a doubling effect (two times, four times, eight times). Imagine, fifty years or so from now the Australian economy might be eight times larger than it is today. How might that work? Is it even achievable? What are the limits? No doubt my core principal is at odds with a road-building forum (and dismissed as waffle), however I'm convinced it's intricately linked. Should our paradigm of "having more" continue for several more decades we'll need far more than a 47-year old proposal (Melways edition 4 - "Lock in 'A', Eddy") to make sense of it all.
                • AtoB about 2 years ago
                  Completely agree with you on this...it's actually true. The problem for mine is the seemingly confined nature of our proposed 'growth' in capital cities like Melbourne, with limited growth proposed for 2nd-tier/regional cities. Australia has scope for growth, but it can't keep happening in the form of big-city sprawl that strains infrastructure and decreases liveability. I guess it's critical to ask, how will Australia sustain an economy eight-times larger than it is today? Surely this lies in regional cities, in some instances transforming them. Geelong has made efforts to transform post-manufacturing into a tech hub, as an example. Ipswich in QLD is apparently growing fast, too. Perhaps affordability in the 'big smoke' will drive people to these regional centres and initiate change, including change in perceptions - attracting people to places other than Sydney/Melbourne is a big part of the issue. Of course, a lack of big cities in Australia (compared with, say, the US) doesn't help. Anyway, back to road-building...indeed, I certainly noticed the proposed Corridor A route in the 1970 Melway and tend to agree that this is the (very) comfortable frontrunner. Even looking at the Greensborough Rd alignment from back then shows that what are now service roads just south of Grimshaw St today actually formed part of the previous main G'borough Rd alignment, while the 'proposed fwy' alignment between Grimshaw St & Powley Pde is actually the current G'borough Rd alignment (joining the Bypass north of Grimshaw). In essence, you can see where changes to the road are likely with Corridor A going ahead. Plus, that 'VicRoads Reserve Licence' near Watsonia Station is also convenient. Overall, I've always felt the engineering of this area pointed to this corridor being chosen, as I'm sure I wrote at some point in the earlier days in this forum. I agree that we'll need more than this - whether Doncaster Rail or 'Busway' can work in conjunction with this proposal I'm not sure, but it would help if it were possible. Some sort of transformative PT is undoubtedly vital. Hopefully the NELA nail the design/construction of whichever route they choose.
                • DeeEss about 2 years ago
                  The traffic modelling didn't take into account any changes to the urban growth boundary. Given the modelling was done out to at least 2036 it's an unlikely event.
    • Ringo about 2 years ago
      Ring In, I think there will need to be a large amount of acquisitions either way. A considerable part of this in Option A could be the front section of the Simpson Barracks anyway which would not affect so many private residences.
    • mike reece about 2 years ago
      The assumption about the NEL is that the road will be built at grade, ground level, or in a tunnel(s) however there is third option which is to build an elevated road i.e. "skyroad" and minimise the disruption at ground level. Yep, there will be concerns as witnessed with "Skyrail" through Oakleigh and beyond, but it is can be cheaper and less disruptive, when the demolition of homes is an issue and certainly faster, as piers and roadway are built off site and assembled on site, like Lego. All options should be considered.
  • BennyHills about 2 years ago
    The freeway will remove many vehicles off local roads and lead to improvements to many local communities and as in all cases of projects of this nature it will be to the detriment of other communities. However the important question is, will the proposed freeway be for the benefit of a more efficient road system for all Melbournians? The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Option A will not provide efficiency but rather add to the current problem to what is a vital arterial of the Eastern. This is overwhelmingly confirmed by NELA who have stated the Eastern will need to be widened by an additional 4 lanes (2 inbound and 2 outbound) to cope with what will be multiples of additional vehicles. I suggest that the freeway needs to be widened now to cope to with what is currently a fraction of the forecast orbital traffic.For those of you living in and around Eltham wanting Option A for a fix for your city access issues, I say careful what you wish for. Think of the current traffic backing along Bulleen Rd due to traffic clogged on the Eastern. And with a fraction of the projected link traffic merging with the eastern currently causing evening peak hour traffic chaos imagine what a direct link with multiples more of vehicles merging to the eastern would cause to peak hour traffic. If you all have any doubt this is about orbital traffic I offer you this. Look at Google Maps satellite view and zoom out to a overall view of Melbourne. There are 3 major industrial areas in Melbourne including, the western near Laverton, the northern near Campbellfield and the South Eastern near Dandenong. To the 3 can be added a more important fourth which is the freight coming from the north including regional Victoria and the northern states. The western and northern areas are currently connected by the ring Rd. The south-eastern industrial area has no link to the west and north and hence this urgent need for the "missing link" to get the large freight vehicles off the local roads. Notably this freight burden will only increase as the population increases and with proposals to locate Melbourne's port to the south-east this orbital route will be very important.However make no mistake, this is about communities. The logical proposal Option C, which would be a true orbital link, runs through several of the wealthiest suburbs in Melbourne. And many things have been put in place to ensure that no freeway will run through Templestowe, Donvale and Park Orchards. It will be the poorer communities of Rosanna, Bulleen "South", Doncaster, Box Hill North that will bear the disproportionate burden of the orbital traffic that this new road should serve. But more importantly ultimately it will also be a far wider population of Melbourne that relies on the Eastern Freeway for their daily commute that will be affected.
  • Omegaville about 2 years ago
    Option C would be the least disruptive, closely followed by option B. By disruptive, I mean least impact on existing housing and amenities. Both also show the possibility of building the "Northern Route" which has been planned since the late 1970s (extension of Reynolds Rd to Maroondah Hwy at Chirnside Park) - this would be another vital link in a growing area.Option A looks cheap and nasty, and has a major flaw: if Bulleen Rd and Greensborough Hwy are to be retained, how would a freeway slot in when there's no room? Elevated perhaps? Totally underground? Plus people will use it as a new city-bound freeway - more gridlock. If chosen, it cannot have city-facing ramps at the Eastern. Option A would also abandon any plans for a Doncaster railway via the freeway (or busway or tramway).Option D is nice and scenic but not overly practical. It might have some tourism benefits (freeway link to Yarra Valley) but that's about it.So yeah, definitely Option B or C. Let's do this thing properly, not on the whims of a constructor.
  • kev2343 about 2 years ago
  • MattB about 2 years ago
    *Forum Closing Tomorrow*! Any last thoughts from anyone before NELA winds this up?
    • MattB about 2 years ago
      I'll kick it off... There won't be much change from $20billion for any of these options, once all associated works are factored in. Hopefully the $100million NELA has been given to present a business case is well spent.
      • AtoB about 2 years ago
        Agree. One thought I probably neglected to put forward here is a very early one actually....that Options like D, with estimates as high as $23 billion, possibly are only put forward to ensure that a blowout from something like Corridor A can be justified. I don't doubt/disagree with the notion that Corridor A will likely exceed $6.1 billion, though even if it blows out, there's every chance it could come in at around the same cost as the next most affordable (say, $15 billion). Essentially, the most expensive options may well merely represent a 'buffer' for the govt. Overall, I'm pretty sure that if A was the option to get the go-ahead, there will be extra care taken (e.g., more tunnelling, maybe further eastwards/westwards along the M3 - after all, the initial maps do only show the MINIMUM required). Let's remember that when contemplating loss of housing/facilities. The govt. / NELA can't afford the reactions that would ensue if they didn't. In the end, I just hope this really is underpinned by common sense whatever route is chosen.
        • Ring In about 2 years ago
          When you add the widening to the Eastern, economic cost of the disruption, longer tunnels than were planned in 2008, another set of tunnels in Ringwood after NEL opens, A is almost certain to be in the range of $20-30bn. In 2008, the cost for the version with less tunnels was $8-10bn. The $20-30bn doesn't even take into account the upgrades to roads in the north east that will be required due to there still being no nearby freeway in a growth area. It doesn't account for the additional cost that East West Link will bear, because the easiest land to expand the Eastern in will have already been taken. The long term cost of option A may actually be north of $30bn.
          • AtoB about 2 years ago
            Agree on your point about disruption, would be a significant challenge to negotiate (plenty of night works for sure in that case). It seems also that there'll be additional tunnels heading into Eastlink. As for the north-east and growth though, I think that'll be dealt with by the E6 freeway (part of the outer ring road proposal), so a separate project. Fingers crossed that this is more like $20 billion than $30 billion. Also, do we think EWL will still actually happen?
    • Dr Andy about 2 years ago
      Well Matt, I've contributed my 2 bobs worth in a separate thread above. Having seen NSW government stuffed it up with urban planning, I would hate to see the Vic government follow suit and muck up The Most Liveable City in the World. For me, Option A just makes no sense from the get go - it ought not to have been conceived as an option at all.
  • Sab about 2 years ago
    NELA’s Option A ‘Analysis’ is fundamentally flawed as “A” is certainly not the shortest. I believe it is highly misleading to state that Option A is the shortest option, e.g. 11 kilometres, without taking into account the length of the Eastern Freeway where widening works are indicated between Chandler Highway and Springvale Rd. Option A is not & will never achieve an effective Ring Road and is the least effective corridor option to achieve a Ring Road.
    • MattB about 2 years ago
      Folk also need to consider the massive upgrade to Springvale Road and construction of the Northern Arterial Road for options B & C (there'll be no interchange between Reynolds Rd and Canterbury Rd). All additional $$$. Frankly, Option D looks better all the time and it's only seven minutes longer to travel than A (from Boronia Rd).
  • Dr Andy about 2 years ago
    Option A should NEVER have been conceived as an option at all. It makes no sense whatsoever to re-direct traffic from the North East through a route that's so close to the city, and then joining the already congested part of Eastern Freeway. This also destroys the existing environment in the process e.g. Koonung Creek Reserve, green spaces around Bulleen Road etc. Schematically, the ring road runs peripherally around Melbourne...so let's keep it this way. Many campuses such as universities have ring roads that run this way, because this makes sense. Option A DOES NOT make sense and it DOES NOT complete the ring.From the information session held recently, it is clear that the community does not trust that the viability of Option A has been fully assessed, including its impact on the environment and the surroundings, and its ability to satisfy the key objectives. In fact, impact on noise pollution has not been assessed at all! I feel that Option A was conceived because there are green spaces readily available to be taken up (i.e. destroyed) by this project - it's the easy way out.The objectives are themselves debatable. But more importantly, the decision making process shouldn't be based on a corridor's ability to satisfy criteria or key objectives alone. It also has to MAKE SENSE, because the END DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. Not everything is quantifiable. Learn from Sydney's mistakes and make the right call.
  • David B about 2 years ago
    Option B, or option C. Definitely not option A. The idea of a ring road is to keep the traffic out of the city and inner suburbs. Allow people like me in the east of Melbourne to travel to areas in the north and north west of Victoria without adding to Melbourne's inner suburban congestion. Allow trucks to go from Frankston, Dandenong or Gippsland to travel around the city of Melbourne to other freeways or warehouses on the northern and western fringes of the metropolitan area. The Eastern Freeway is already congested, both in and outbound. If a link is needed in the Bulleen Road area do that later. Just complete the ring road properly.
  • Heathr about 2 years ago
    Option A doesn't work for me. If that is the option that is chosen I will probably continue driving through Eltham to Greensborough on my way to the northern section of the ring road. I would use the completed ring road to travel towards the Hume freeway, Calder freeway and to access other highways out of Melbourne to the rest of Victoria. I want to avoid the inner suburbs. The Eastern Freeway is already too busy, and not just inbound. Additional lanes are likely to fill faster than they are built. Just complete the ring road (as a ring). Option B (or if not that one, option C). Ringwood to Greensborough!
  • Ross Higgins about 2 years ago
    Option C seems to be the best to link the ring road and east link. Extensive tunneling is a good solution. Option A seems bad as it hooks traffic down into inner suburbs unnecessarily.Ross
  • Rosanna1 about 2 years ago
    It is acknowledged that there is a need to connect the freeways.Any option will have pros and cons but the aim of NELA should be to minimise the negative impacts on the communities and environment using a reasonable budget. Options B, C and D are looking at creating new roads through Warrandyte or Kangaroo Ground. Any such roads, even if sections are tunnelled, will result in additional access roads, exhaust fume stacks and noise pollution to the area. The North East has the last vestiges of the natural environment that existed in Melbourne prior to settlement. The natural forestation and wildlife that exist in the area provide Melbourne with access to the natural beauty that would otherwise only be available further out in the country, beyond the reasonabe reach of the urban dweller. This is the reason why many Melbournians visit the area each week, their only opportunity to experience the natural environment.However, options B and C, in particular, will change all of this. The roads coming through Warrandyte will destroy the local environment through the exhaust fumes, land clearing and noise. The linking of the two freeways will result in more traffic using these freeways, which in turn would pass through Warrandyte. Even if the roads were to be tunnelled the exhaust stacks will release toxic fumes which would destroy the trees, bird and other fauna. The land-clearing for access roads would devastate the habitat resulting in the extermination of a large number of animals, birds and insects. Is the destruction of the green wedge the aim of the NELA project? Options B and C, as well as Option D do this. Option A runs along existing roads and would only require upgrades to existing routes. As a Warrandyte resident, I would strongly urge Corridor A to be selected so as to protect the remaining woodland and the wildlife it supports in the green wedge for future generations.
    • Doug about 2 years ago
      Appeals to save the natural environment would be more believable and supportable if the surrounding suburbs were filled with indigenous native gardens supporting native birdlife and providing wildlife corridors. It would be hypocritical to make emotional appeals to save the native environment and grow exotic plants or just lawn in your own garden.
    • MattB about 2 years ago
      Don't worry, Option A will get the thumbs up (unfortunately), but it won't prevent Warrandyte congestion worsening. Melbourne is expanding by 100,000 plus every year and expected to double in size by mid-century. That's 8,000,000 (eight *million*) plus people living in this city, all wanting to get from A to B in gosh-knows how many vehicles as quickly/most directly as possible. The scary thought is that Option A - which as NELA have verbally stated includes a major upgrade to the Eastern and eventual duplication of the Mullum Mullum tunnels - may suffer a cost blow-out that gets a thumbs down from the Treasurer (he's the one that signs off on this); there's so many major projects "in the pipeline" demanding attention (and money) and a $20billion road won't cut it. There's more to consider than you think and I personally give it a 30% chance the NEL will stay missing. Time will tell. No doubt the Warrandyte township is unique - my wife and I put an offer on a property there recently, we love the place - but sadly there's no dodging the future. As for the Warrandyte Bridge upgrade........ Blimey, what a fiasco; when's that going to happen?
    • Momoko about 2 years ago
      If option A built, according to Vicroads 2040 plan next is option D. Do you understand what you really supporting when you saying A?
  • Gaynor about 2 years ago
    As a Warrandyte resident I'm wanting the option that has the least impact on our unique community. It seems option A is the best choice for our community. Traffic has increased dramatically since the opening of Eastlink and our roads can't take any more especially during peak hours. Please add our concerns to the mix of responses you'll receive.
    • flyfisherman about 2 years ago
      Removed by moderator.
    • flyfisherman about 2 years ago
      Lots of other residents affected by all of the options are also concerned about the effects on their communities so lets not build anything, maybe we all have to suffer a bit for the greater good.
    • Ring In about 2 years ago
      Options B, C and D use an existing road easement for part of the route. There is no easement for A. There would need to be far more people loding their homes for A. There would be compulsory acquisitions in many placed all along the Eastern freeway too.
      • AtoB about 2 years ago
        Um, literally every single building lying in the path of Corridor A between the M80 and Lower Plenty Road is actually Vicroads-owned already...so no acquisition required. Essentially, that's half the easement. Then there's a few more km of tunnelling until somewhere in Bulleen. Any further acquisitions (if there would even need to be) may be necessary after the road re-surfaces there. Either way, not only would there not be "far more people loding their homes for A" than for B or C at all, but I'd suggest quite possibly less, particularly if there's an above-ground section as speculated around Warrandyte.
        • Ring In about 2 years ago
          They don't own any of the land at the southern end. The Balwyn north side is redidential right up to the eastern freeway fence in places. Nor what they would need to expand the eastern and rebuild all the bridges. NELA have made it clear there is not allowed to be a bridge in Warrandyte.
          • AtoB about 2 years ago
            I was talking about the northern half. I'm well aware of Balwyn North and haven't imagined them widening the freeway on that side of Bulleen Rd btw....just where there is existing space. Anyway, my point was that from a pure acquisition perspective, Corridor A probably isn't the worst of the options.
            • Dino about 2 years ago
              Corridor A is NOT a new route. It's Greensborough rd and Bulleen road with just a bypass of Rosanna rd. It will be a disaster for Boroondara. It's only 9km from Bulleen rd to the South Eastern. Goggle maps will actually direct traffic from the Southeastern through Boroondara to Corridor A as no or less tolls and shorter to Hume. Boroondara will become same problem Banyule and Manningham is now. Corridor A is only half a North South link leaving North Balwyn and the rest of Boroondara with the traffic problem. Corridor c or b are new routes that take traffic away and completes the ring.
              • AtoB about 2 years ago
                Dino it is a new road actually (the maps may just make it appear otherwise)....at least that's what NELA have made clear on several occasions. As for heading through Boroondara from Corridor A....I'm not sure how easy this will actually be. Surely this road wouldn't offer connectivity to Bulleen Rd into Balwyn North - it would probably be too messy/hard and I doubt that will happen. So, for people to cut through to the Monash, it would most likely be indirect and hardly worth the trouble. In addition, it would mean using more of the Monash Fwy in lieu of traversing Eastlink, to head to the south east. There's an info session next week (Sept 7, I think?) in North Balwyn - might pay to check it out and ask about this specific concern.
                • Dino about 2 years ago
                  I didn't say it is not a new road. My comment was "it is NOT a new route". Even though it will be a new Freeway the existing roads will stay. Corridor B, C and D are new routes, ie there are no existing roads through those corridors unlike Corridor A.I actually did google map travelTime and found that if corridor A was there now goggle maps would direct traffic off the south eastern freeway and up through Boroondara to corridor A to go to the Hume or even the airport during curtain times. Of course reverse travel would apply as well. There also seems to be many north east residents that currently train to city that now see corridor a as a car alternative. Objective of the NEL is to take vehicles off roads not off SEF onto local roads in Boroondara or commuters off rail into cars.
                  • AtoB about 2 years ago
                    True, you did say 'route' as opposed to 'road'. It's a duplication of the existing route I guess. Intrigued by your Google Maps analysis....I've checked it out for myself. From the Burke Rd exit inbound on the Monash there could be 2 ways to access the hypothetical Corridor A NE Link. One is to access the link from an inbound direction on the Eastern - 13km via Burke/Canterbury/Balwyn/Doncaster Roads. The other, potentially is to access the link from an outbound direction on the Eastern, IF the NEL is indeed connected to the Eastern Fwy in a city-bound direction (something almost everyone seems to be blindly taking for granted). That route too is 13 km, via Burke Rd/Harp Rd/Earl St & the Chandler on-ramp. From the exit at Warrigal Rd, it's about 16 km. Travel times seemingly vary from 20 mins off-peak to 45 mins on-peak. The 9km distance along Burke Rd between the Monash & Eastern is almost certainly irrelevant - drivers won't be able to connect straight across to the NE Link.
                    • Dino about 2 years ago
                      Yes you finally understand. Its actually 9km along Bourke rd then Doncaster Rd then Bulleen rd to NEL. here are also lots off other rd combinations. I expect that if Corridor A goes ahead part of the Eastern works will be Bourke Rd eastern off and on ramps so easier access to and from NEL (this was discussed as a strong possibility at the Ivanhoe session). Corridor A will be just 6 min from Greensborough bypass to Nth Balwyn for 11km at 100 km. big reduction to current north/south travel. Hence any business, residents or customers around Northern ring rd or further north eg Craigieburn etc (a very big area/population) who trade with business, residents or customers around the sth eastern at Glen Iris through to Springvale rd or subs south of these (also a very big population) use Corridor A and Boroondara rather than M1/M2 or Eastlink/Eastern.Corridor A will be great if its just part 1 of North/SOUTH link to South Eastern otherwise if they stop at Nth Balwyn it will take vehicles off the freeways to go though suburban roads in Boroondara just like they do now in Banyule and Manningham.It is extremely unlikely they will subsequently complete a North/SOUTH link if they go ahead with Corridor A as cost and people displacement would be too big. Hence any of B, C or D significantly better than A. I personally favour C but do feel that the design could be improved to make C more practical for heavy vehicles.
                      • AtoB about 2 years ago
                        Who was discussing the strong possibility of on/off ramps from Burke Rd at the Ivanhoe session? Assume you mean an outbound on-ramp & inbound off-ramp. I don't think this would be sensible at all - it would duplicate the intention of the NE Link
                      • AtoB about 2 years ago
                        I perhaps take a different view to the notion that they'll make it easy for people to connect to the streets of Boroondara - it doesn't align with the stated objective of the project.
                        • Dino about 2 years ago
                          What are they going to do? Close the exit ramps on the South Eastern at Bourke, Warringal, Forster high street to stop Boroondara access, I don't think so. They haven't even thought of it. I contacted NELA re this issue and no one knows. They just took note of it.
                          • AtoB about 2 years ago
                            Obviously not....I'm talking about the NEL / Eastern Fwy end of Burke Rd...not the Monash.
                            • Dino about 2 years ago
                              Bulleen rd Nth Balwyn aready has access to the Eastern city bound and east bound via Thompsons. The bridge has 3 lanes each way. Bulleen rd is expected to be connected to Corridor A. Don't know about Thompsons rd. I expect spaghetti junction. If they don't link Bulleen rd to Corridor A they can still link in at the Manningham rd interchange. Are you expecting Bulleen rd to have no access to Corridor A? They haven't done the interchange design yet so you never know.As I noted earlier the current high level plan just looks as resolving the Banyule and Manningham traffic problem without looking at the flow on traffic effect in Boroondara. Everyone I asked about this issue had no answer and just noted the issue. Corridor A is half of a North South link rather than North East link without a resolution for the problem caused in Boroondara. We'll find out more on 7th Sept. at the Nth Balwyn session.
                              • AtoB about 2 years ago
                                Indeed we will learn more. Understand what you mean by a North-South link, something that in an ideal world would work with a tunnel to the Monash & very limited impact to the community. As for connectivity with Bulleen Rd, I'd think it could be possible in a roundabout way via a NEL/Manningham Rd interchange, yes, what I mean is not via a direct NEL/Bulleen Rd connection. Having said that, I wonder where the tunnelled part would begin - maybe from Manningham rd (so perhaps only a half-diamond interchange)? Anyway, regarding the potential spaghetti junction around the Eastern Fwy, I'm none the wiser as to how 'elaborate' it will be, however I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't even CBD-bound access. More access points to the link induces more traffic thus congestion problems etc. Not surprised to hear that you were given no answers, though if they've genuinely noted the issue, perhaps there will be considerations around induced traffic.
                                • Peter Freeman about 2 years ago
                                  I have seen no plans, but I suspect that (a) access to Bulleen Road S of M3 will be provided but only via a retained Bulleen Road, and (b) NEL ramps to M3 city-bound should and will be provided.
                                  • AtoB about 2 years ago
                                    (a) Makes sense, I'd expect this to remain so as long as Bulleen Rd weren't to be consumed by NEL - which it is emphatically said won't happen. (b) seemingly is assumed as a matter of formality...though I've posed the question as to whether it must happen - depends on the actual likely impact at the city end of the M3. CBD access has nothing to do with connecting the North with the East/SE, though will benefit people in Watsonia/Greensborough/St.Helena/Diamond Creek.
                              • 3084_Resident about 2 years ago
                                Dino yes agreed option a is a NORTH SOUTH LINK with the lowest catchment capabilities.
                                • Momoko about 2 years ago
                                  If nort south link and people keep going south, we end up three Rosanna road problems at Burke, Chandler and Bulleen road, because people driving through all the way from Eltham to Monash. North East Link should make traffic better, but A is making worse.
                                  • Peter Freeman about 2 years ago
                                    Momoko, of course people are NOT going to drive from Greensborough to the Monash Freeway via the roads south of here through Bulleen and Balwyn. Those roads, as you allude to yourself, are just not suitable. It's not the same situation as Rosanna Rd, where there is virtually no alternative.
                                    • Dino about 2 years ago
                                      I spoke to an NEL traffic research person at the Nth Balwyn session and asked about the effect on Boroondara traffic between A and M1. Their response was don't know. I showed them my data which showed google map times now and he was a bit non plused and avoided a response. I also spoke to a RACV roadsperson and raise this issue. She commented the she actually lived in Carnegie and certain times she drives through Boroondara to northern ring road to go to airport when M1 & M2 are bad. She understood my concerns and was passing it onto her superior. I also confirmed that Bulleen rd will NOT have direct on off access to A at the Eastern but continue alongside A. Access to A from Bulleen rd will be possible just 1.5 km further up the rd at the Maningham interchange.
                                      • Dino about 2 years ago
                                        BTW when the Eastern 1st finished at Bulleen rd and then at Doncaster Rd before extending to Springvale rd, that is exectly was traffic was doing (driving through of Box Hill Nth Balwyn etc) just to get to city. The roads were upgraded then to cope with the extra traffic. After the Eastern was extended to Springvale rd traffic in the area reduced. So if A goes ahead those N/S rds will see significant increase again for North South commuting.
                                      • AtoB about 2 years ago
                                        Thanks for confirming. That sounds fairly logical. Interesting to see whether the RACV spokesperson escalating the issue you raised has any impact or not on the NELA's planning.
                  • Protect parklands about 2 years ago
                    There is no corridor through Banyule Parklands - only the choked Rosanna Rd, Manningham Rd Bulleen Rds to the Eastern Freeway choke point
              • Protect parklands about 2 years ago
            • Protect parklands about 2 years ago
              Why Comment if you don't know. Eastern Freeway widening would also require public land, community asset and private business and parkway acquisition. What value do we put on this?
        • Protect parklands about 2 years ago
          Do you know something we don't? Is this true? I was told Vic roads sold of land previously required for this corridor - Corridor A
      • Protect parklands about 2 years ago
        Agree no one has assessed the property, parkland, businesses that have to be acquired or the loss of Banyule and Koonung Creeks
        • Doug about 2 years ago
          We need to consider the residents of Greensborough, Rosanna and Bulleen Roads. It is grossly unfair that they have to put up with the noise, fumes, vibration, danger and lack of access to their properties. It is an unfortunate lack of long term planning but it seems some parkland and some existing houses must go. Not to mention the needs of the 120,000 freeway users who waste hours every day stuck in traffic.
          • 3084_Resident about 2 years ago
            If I am critical about people complaining about the commute when they live so far away then I need to be critical living in these roads. In some cases buyer beware; you purchase on a busy main road you will be impacted. If you purchase far away from work etc you will need to travel.
            • Walker about 2 years ago
              3084_Resident. I think you need to understand that the impacts to Rosanna Road have only been made manifest since the opening of the Eastlink and have grown since the opening of the Epping Fruit markets etc. These changes have all come within the past decade. There was certainly no notice provided to residents of the impacts of Eastlink on their day to day amenity. Many residents have been in the area for longer than your 11 years. It is unfair to disregard these residents justified concerns regarding the impacts on their health and amenity as you do (eg buyer beware). That type of logic may work in a scenario where people have purchased close to a longstanding rail line, road easement, port or even petrol refinery. That is not the case here. Further, the impacts of traffic congestion in suburbs like Rosanna are felt by residents that live blocks back from the main congested roads. People need to cross Rosanna Road (which is currently a default freeway) every day to get to the rail station or a school or a kindergarten. It has become a divided suburb and this needs to be fixed. The main issue here is which option will give Melbourne the best result in terms of positive impacts for local residents and benefits for our economy.
              • 3084_Resident about 2 years ago
                Walker - understand and agree with your comments. I can't not see how option a removes or lessons these major problems.