Corridor C

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

You can view an interactive version of this map here.

This 26 km corridor would provide a direct connection from the M80 to EastLink. It would not require upgrades to the Eastern Freeway.

We've been assessing how well this corridor performs across a range of measures. A few areas you've told us are important to you are shown in the table below.

Area of interest

Score
This corridor is likely to...

Reducing congestion in the north-east
Reduce congestion on some key north south roads such as Rosanna Road and Fitzsimons Lane.
Getting trucks off residential roads in the north-east

Offer an opportunity to get a limited number of trucks off roads in the north-east such as Rosanna Road and Fitzsimons Lane.
Connecting more people to jobs and education

Deliver better access to jobs and education.
Connecting businesses
Provide good access to businesses located in major urban centres and for those in the wider metropolitan area but only marginally improve access to key existing and emerging employment areas.
Making freight move more efficiently
Provide ability to reduce truck travel times however would likely have long inclines which would slow trucks down and reduce efficiency overall.
Improving public transport connections and travel times

Offer some opportunities to improve public transport by reducing congestion on roads used by public transport.
Improving connections for pedestrians and cyclists
Offer potential to divert trucks away from road cycling routes and places where people shop and work however have limited opportunity to provide new or enhanced walking and cycling paths.
Ability to protect the environment, culture, heritage and open spaces

Offer opportunities to protect some sensitive areas including the Yarra River by tunnelling but would involve some environmental impacts associated with surface works.
Ability to minimise impacts from construction-related traffic.

Involve disruptions to the transport network from works at EastLink, Springvale Road and Reynolds Road and upgrades to Ryans Road.


Key

Performs very well

Performs well

Neutral

Performs poorly

Performs very poorly


How can I find out our more?

Get involved

  • If you have a specific question about Corridor C, please ask us below
  • Join the corridors discussion forum to tell us what's most important to you, if there is anything we've missed and to hear what other people are saying.


You can view an interactive version of this map here.

This 26 km corridor would provide a direct connection from the M80 to EastLink. It would not require upgrades to the Eastern Freeway.

We've been assessing how well this corridor performs across a range of measures. A few areas you've told us are important to you are shown in the table below.

Area of interest

Score
This corridor is likely to...

Reducing congestion in the north-east
Reduce congestion on some key north south roads such as Rosanna Road and Fitzsimons Lane.
Getting trucks off residential roads in the north-east

Offer an opportunity to get a limited number of trucks off roads in the north-east such as Rosanna Road and Fitzsimons Lane.
Connecting more people to jobs and education

Deliver better access to jobs and education.
Connecting businesses
Provide good access to businesses located in major urban centres and for those in the wider metropolitan area but only marginally improve access to key existing and emerging employment areas.
Making freight move more efficiently
Provide ability to reduce truck travel times however would likely have long inclines which would slow trucks down and reduce efficiency overall.
Improving public transport connections and travel times

Offer some opportunities to improve public transport by reducing congestion on roads used by public transport.
Improving connections for pedestrians and cyclists
Offer potential to divert trucks away from road cycling routes and places where people shop and work however have limited opportunity to provide new or enhanced walking and cycling paths.
Ability to protect the environment, culture, heritage and open spaces

Offer opportunities to protect some sensitive areas including the Yarra River by tunnelling but would involve some environmental impacts associated with surface works.
Ability to minimise impacts from construction-related traffic.

Involve disruptions to the transport network from works at EastLink, Springvale Road and Reynolds Road and upgrades to Ryans Road.


Key

Performs very well

Performs well

Neutral

Performs poorly

Performs very poorly


How can I find out our more?

Get involved

  • If you have a specific question about Corridor C, please ask us below
  • Join the corridors discussion forum to tell us what's most important to you, if there is anything we've missed and to hear what other people are saying.


CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
  • In terms of impacts on environment, culture and heritage both routes A and C attract the same comment "This corridor would involve some environmental impacts associated with surface works"... however for some reason in the case of Option A this is categorised as 'neutral' whereas for Option C it is categorised as 'performs poorly'. This type of inconsistency needed to be better explained and should not have been included in your consultation material as it creates an apprehension of bias.

    Walker asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Walker,

    Thanks for the feedback. More information about what our investigations for each of the corridors is available in our technical summary here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/publications

    To identify areas of high ecological value we used the Department of Land, Water and Planning’s NaturePrint Strategic Biodiversity Values map. This tool identifies priority areas for protection and is recommend to be used in the early stages of infrastructure projects such as North East Link. The figure below shows that Corridors B, C and D travel through greater areas of highest biodiversity than Corridor A and accounts for the different performance levels for the corridors.

    Thanks for letting us know you would have liked to have seen this level of detail and explanation in the newsletter too.



  • i personally think that if we are thinking for the future the option c is the better as it allows people to consider moving further out, but still close to transport, as our population in melbourne is always increasing, there is no point in adding traffic to the problem areas , we need to remove the traffic, so doing option a , is not fixing the problem , but just putting a bandade of it, we really should look at expanding area so they are accessable to all areas

    silvia asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Silvia,

    Looking at where people are predicted to be living and working as Melbourne continues to grow is an important part of our early planning work for North East Link.

    Future population growth in the east is constrained by the Urban Growth Boundary and our population is growing along four main corridors in the north, south-east, west, and north-west. These are the dark grey areas marked in the map below. The areas within the Urban Growth Boundary are light grey.


  • If the main reason is to divert traffic from Ring road, why not consider option C. The long term and strategic plan seems to be option C as this is the end of Eastern Freeway and the join to East Link. This will mean traffic from the Ring road traffic can join East Link direct and easier and traffic from the south of East Link has the option to choose Eastern Freeway or travel further north to use the Ring road. Note that there will be more congestion at earlier part part of Eastern Freeway if option A or B is selected. It is about time the government think about long term plan rather than robbing Peter to save Paul way of easing traffic from one area by diverting to other ends.

    Heng asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for the suggestions Heng.

    We have a number of strategic objectives and principles for the North East Link project. These include areas like reducing congestion in the north-east, getting trucks off residential roads and minimising impacts on the environment and communities. You can read more about these objectives and principles and tell us which are most important to you here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/shape-north-east-link

  • Option C makes the most sense. There needs to be serious thought about how many lanes in each direction will be available at the time of building and for future expansion.

    BanyuleResi asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for the feedback BanyuleResi.

  • Who from the NELA project has driven through all the streets where homes will be acquired in options B and C? Warrandyte's beautiful bush is the reason why many people have moved to the area and choose to live in an area away from traffic, to appreciate the flora and fauna and peaceful lifestyle it offers.

    scornishsmith asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi scornishsmith,

    Thanks for the questions. 

    Two of our guiding principles for North East Link are to minimise impacts on the environment and to minimise impacts on communities. This includes minimising acquisition where possible. One of the ways we are looking at doing this is by tunnelling under urban and sensitive environmental areas.

    Our teams have made multiple visits to the project area over the last few months to meet with local residents and community groups across the north-east to hear what they value about where they live. We are also seeking further feedback through this website so we can hear more about what communities want North East Link to achieve and what impacts people think are most important to minimise.

    In addition to speaking with communities we are also working on a range of desktop, field and techncial studies as we continue investigate the different corridor options.


  • Interesting that NELA claims that Corridor C will have an impact on trucks their speeds and will not conform with international best practice. If our government can drill a tunnel beneath Melbourne's CBD (including all our heritage assets and important public health and education assets) then I am sure that an authority like NELA claiming to be adopting best practice standards could make Corridor C work in a way that is efficient and managed to achieve long-term gains for Melbourne as a city. Corridor A seems a short-sighted low cost solution. Given that our government made a great profit from the sale of our port, it seems fitting that some of this money is pumped into ensuring that our freight infrastructure is properly catered for going forward many years. Further, this road arguably forms part of a NATIONAL freight route. How much input is Infrastructure Australia and the Fed Government having on this project. Our federal government needs to finance a hefty part of this project given the productivity of the Victorian economy and the growth in our population. Settling for a cheaper option, such as Corridor A doesn't address the freight issues. Make Corridor C work and get the Feds on board. Let the Turnbull and Andrews government know we are all watching them. The public is sick of political outcomes that don't serve the community long term.

    Walker asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Walker,

    Thanks for your comments. 

    A key outcome for North East Link is to help freight move more efficiently. As part of our early planning work for the project we are undertaking a range of traffic studies and surveys as well as consulting with the freight and logistics industry to understand changes in freight accessibility to key freight areas, freight fleet requirements and freight travel time reliability. We are completing further engineering work to better define the details of corridor grades and their impacts on traffic flow and freight costs. We will also be consulting with state and federal government agencies.

  • In relation to this option, I see that one of the major draw backs is thetunnelling required and the steep incline that will result from a tunnel under the Yarra. Why has a bridge solution not been considered? I would imagine an aesthetically pleasing suspension bridge designed with an integrated sound barrier, could address environmental and aesthetics concerns while being a cheaper and flatter solution and would be more suitable to the freight transport. This would address one of the main stated negatives of this route. I note that this route loosely follows the path of the 500kV power lines, and so the visual profile and flora is already affected by infrastructure. In my mind, this further diminishes the priority of tunnelling under the Yarra in an effort to reduce environmental impact. It is already impacted. Regards, Julian

    Julian asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Julian,

    Thanks for your feedback. Two of our guiding principles for the North East Link project are to minimise impacts on communities and to minimise impacts on the environment. Tunnels are one of the ways we are looking to achieve this. 

  • I live in the area near where B & C cross Tindals road in Warrandyte. There are hundreds of Kangaroos in this area & Koalas are regularly sighted in the trees all around here. Are you prepared for the massive protests that I am sure will happen if you decide to push a freeway through this beautiful environmentally sensitive Green Wedge area. Are you also aware that you have now left thousands of people in limbo (especially people who were looking at selling properties) until you decide which route you will decide on. If this project goes through this area it will be political suicide for the Andrews Govt.

    Graeme Parry asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Graeme,

    Thanks for the feedback. Minimising impacts on the environment is one of four guiding principles for the North East Link project. Our technical teams are looking closely at the environmental sensitivities for the corridor options. Findings from a wide range of studies will help inform which corridor is recommended as the preferred option, as well as possible design solutions. We are very keen to minimise impacts on the environment. One of the ways we are looking at this is by using tunnels.

    We are involving communities in this very early stage of the project to give people a chance to get involved as soon as possible. We appreciate this means that there are questions we aren’t able to answer right now and some uncertainty until we can recommend a preferred corridor. We’ve taken your concerns for the environment in your local area on board but also encourage you to get involved further by completing the surveys and joining the discussion forums on this site.


  • I believe that Corridor C is the best option as it allows for future expansion and creates a "ring". Just make it at least 4 lanes each way or we will have a bottle neck like at Furlong road. Regards Bill

    BillandDee asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Bill and Dee,

    Thanks for letting us know that planning for Melbourne's growth is important to you.

    As part of planning for North East Link we're looking closely at where people are predicted to be living and working as Melbourne's population continues to grow.

    Melbourne's growth will be concentrated in four key corridors. There is one in the north, one in the south-east, one in the west and one in the north-west.

    The Urban Growth Boundary will remain in place until at least 2050 and continue to restrain growth in the city's green wedge to the east.

    Melbourne's growth corridors are shown in the map below.


  • This option will achieve the overriding objective of removing the huge volume of heavy industrial traffic transitting from the ring road to Eastlink via Greensborough Highway, Rosanna Rd, Banksia St, Bulleen Rd. This is the overwhelming priority - all other objectives can be achieved through other means!

    jimmy asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Jimmy,

    Thanks for letting us know servicing trucks on this route is the most important outcome you want from North East Link.

  • The importance of this route is that it by-passes Ringwood and the tunnels at Ringwood.

    klo7 asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for letting us know this is important to you klo7

  • The outer ring road should be completed using Corridor C. I disagree with the analysis of performing poorly on the “Making freight move more efficiently” area of interest. It should be a tick. The maximum gradient is 4 in this corridor compared to 5.5 on the Mullum Mullum tunnel. I have spoken to many of my truck driver friends who drive semis and B Doubles. They all advise that these gradients would not be an issue. On the “Ability to protect the environment, culture, heritage and open spaces” this is given a red cross on the basis that it would involve some environmental impacts associated with surface works. “ Surely this is the case with all options. However Corridor A is given a neutral whereas it is passing through a far more environmentally sensitive area. Similar subjective assessments are given for Option A to make it appear more attractive. There is no analysis on the Eastern Freeway widening for option A. However this is essential to make Option A work from a traffic perspective. Most importantly Option C provides an emergency exit from Eltham and other surrounding bushfire prone areas. This should be a quadruple tick as in 2009 Eltham escaped due to a wind change from Black Saturday. East West Link also needs to be built to provide for the completion of the inner freeway link. Our forebears knew that the route for the outer ring road should be roughly along the corridor C route. Tunnel it as much as possible to overcome any environmental issues but it should be commence now.

    road123 asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi road123,

    Thanks for letting us know you think an emergency evacuation route for Eltham and surrounding suburbs is something you would like considered as we continue to investigate how the different corridor options perform.

    Thanks also for the questions about grades and the environment.

    The Austroads Standard guidelines for Road Geometry and Tunnels have been upgraded since those tunnels were designed and constructed. We need to ensure North East Link meets the new standard requirements. From a technical perspective, as well as previous studies and reviews of existing tunnels in Australia and overseas, grades of more than 4% impact truck operations and performance. As part of planning for North East Link we are adopting a best practice approach, including for truck efficiency and productivity. We’re also consulting with the freight industry to understand how best to design North East Link for trucks.

    Our early work has used the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s NaturePrint Strategic Biodiversity Values Map. The map helps to identify how development projects can be designed to have the least impact on biodiversity assets and is recommended to be used in the early stages of major infrastructure projects like North East Link.

    You can view the sensitive areas on page 64 or of our technical report here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/publications


    Should Option A proceed, complementary upgrades to the Eastern Freeway would likely be required. These are being considered as part of our investigations for this corridor.


  • I like option C. With current traffic management issues in the southern end of the Ryans road catchment would it be feasible to close the access at Wattletree rd to permanently fix the issues we have now.

    David K asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi David K,

    Thanks for letting us know this is something you would like considered as part of the North East Link project. 

    We're looking closely at what complementary works to the existing road network would be required to make North East Link work most effectively. Once we reach detailed design stage we'll be talking more with communities to seek further input from locals and road users.

  • Hi, I like option C, but would like to see an interchange in Ringwood on the basis that a lot of development has occurred in and around Eastland to capture the access which Eastlink / Eastern Freeway provide. My broad suggestion would be to see the Ringwood Bypass upgraded (which is going to be needed to support Eastlink) with additional links being made to/from Northeast link. Thanks

    JamesR asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for the feedback JamesR

  • After considering at length, weighing up all options, with the available evidence presented, conversations with East link reps, a truck driver who spends a lot of time on these roads, media reports of the truck industry's needs and preference, neighbours and others; I conclude that the most effective Option is C. Complete the 'ring road'. The gradient 'issue' in option C is less then the gradient of 5.5 in the Mullum Mullum Tunnel, so I confident this issue can be sorted. Option A is a short term fix only, less costly in the short term only, and most likely cause an increase in traffic disruption in the future as traffic continues to increase. Option A serves only as a bandaid method for the long term future for effective traffic mobilisation in greater Melbourne. There are many other concerns with choosing A. Greensborough Hwy is already heavily congested, & I am abhorrent to the fact that we could have a 13 lane section of highway on the lower portion of Greensborough Hwy. Alterations to the roads in our neighbourhoods to reduce the amount of trucks & 'through traffic' through built up areas, should have their neighbourhoods quality of living protected as much as possible as precedence, otherwise you end up with a population with mental health issues. Option D should have merit sometime in the future.

    Chris Granter asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback Chris.

  • I would like to vote for Option C. I feel that this would better accommodate residents evenly over the areas. The other options would not elevate traffic in the outer areas of the Nillumbik and Banyule zones, the land is there to be utilized and can be completed accordingly with the environment in mind. regards Rhonda Procida

    rprocida@optusnet.com.au asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Rhonda,

    Thanks for your feedback. We are not recording votes for particular options. We are most interested to know whether communities feel we are measuring the right things to investigate how the corridors perform and whether communities feel that our investigations so far have missed anything that matters to you.

    Looking at how the different options would likely relieve congestion in the north-east is something we are looking closely at. We've noted that relieving traffic congestion in Nillumbik is an outcome you would like from North East Link. 

  • Best option by far! Reduces traffic congestion by completing the "ring". Any one with the smallest amount of common sense can see that this option meets all the criteria. I travel the eastern from Ringwood to Kew five days a week and the congestion is unbearable between Springvale rd and the Bulleen rd exit. Option A doesn't tick any boxes for me or any other user. We are all being conned into thinking we have a choice and our opinion counts. Go ahead, build option A and waste more taxpayer's money.

    HelenJ asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback Helen,

    We're looking at travel patterns across the entire road network to look at how we can best ease congestion.

    Should Option A be built, it would likely require upgrades to the Eastern Freeway.

  • In my opinion 2 of these routes need to be constructed at the some time. Route A and C would really complete the missing links that the whole of the area desperately needs

    brad asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback Brad.

  • Hi, for option C, has there or will there be any studies around the expected traffic load on Wattletree Road? If traffic is expected to increase, this may then require the use of traffic lights and sound barriers, which will add to the overall cost

    Freddo asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Freddo,

    Thanks for the question. Our early work for North East Link has been looking at how each corridor option would likely change traffic conditions on the existing road network and what complementary upgrades would likely be required. One of the requirements we have set for this project is to not create new problems in solving the ones we’ve identified. 

    Our traffic modelling so far has found that should Option C be built, traffic on Wattletree Road would likely decrease.

    The decrease is due to the interchange at Ryans Road which would provide better access to vehicles travelling to/from locations north of Diamond Creek Road such as Diamond Creek, Hurstbridge and Doreen.

    Without the project, these vehicles would likely travel through North Eltham to cross the Yarra River via Fitzsimons Lane.

    With the Ryans Road connection, these vehicles are provided a better connection to the freeway network, removing them from other roads.

    Should Option C be built, upgrades to the northern end of Ryans Road would likely be required.

    For Option C we have identified that upgrades to northern end of Ryans Road would likely be required.

    Option A, B and D would likely not have a significant impact on Wattletree Road.


  • Where in Ringwood is the road going through/coming up ,the map needs to show more detail How many homes are going to affected

    Cathie asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Cathie,

    Because we do not yet know where NEL will be built, nor how it will be designed, we are not in a position to understand what properties will be potentially affected. We'll be able to share more detailed maps as the project progresses. 

    We are very keen to minimise impacts on the environment and to limit impacts on local neighbourhoods. One way we will be doing that is by looking at how tunnels can be used. 

    If you are worried now, please contact our team on 1800 941 191 or at community@northeastlink.vic.gov.au so we can take your contact details and stay in touch as the project progresses.

  • I like this option best

    sonyavelo asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback Sonyavelo. 

    We encourage you to let us know more about what you think about Corridor C by completing our survey here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/take-our-quick-survey


  • I prefer corridor "C" as I think it will get a lot of trucks and through traffic off of local streets and help make traffic run smoother form the east to the north and vice a verse a,

    Jean asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback Jean.

  • Hi North East Link, In all due respect I know it's early days and you are still investigating all options. However can I ask why on earth you would consider coming out of a tunnel at Warrandyte road and run above ground next to Currawong Bush park all the way through to Tindals Road. After so much tunneling through Lower Plenty (option b) and Eltham (option c) wouldn't it make sense to keep it all underground until the Reynolds Road interchange? The whole Currawong bush park area is full of native wildlife. Kangaroos graze under the power line easement and to the east of it. The area next to the power lines is also very steep and not suited to trucks. Please stay underground until the Reynolds road, then come above ground at Reynolds Road at the interchange. Save the wildlife, save the environment and keep the trucks underground and away from steep inclines. PLEASE!

    Dean Calapai asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Dean,

    Thanks for your feedback. The sections of tunnel marked on the indicative routes are minimum lengths only. They are subject to further studies and community consultation.

    The kind of comments you've given us are very helpful. If you'd like to tell us more about what you think of what our early studies have found so far, and more about your local area, we encourage you to complete the short survey here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/take-our-quick-survey 

  • Corridor C is a clear winner to complete the "ring". It will divert some truck traffic to the outer ring freeway which will reduce traffic to the built up area at inner/mid north-east. Wondering why not make the corridor C to travel a little bit further east at Research before it turn south?which will track around the urban growth boundary and not pass through the built up area to minimize impact to any local residents and potentially reduction of tunnel length. I don't think Corridor A should be an option at all. It will only bring even more traffic and pollution to Rosanna Macleod Watsonia area, it will create more bottle neck to already congested eastern freeway exit, and bring even more traffic to the already busy eastern freeway. It will also affect all residents along the Corridor A freeway, should Corridor A is a must, tunnel should be started well before Greensborough Road to maintain the quiet neighborhood.

    E asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback E.

  • This C option is the obvious choice

    Camo asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your feedback Camo. 

    We encourage you to let us know more about what you think about Corridor C by completing our survey here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/take-our-quick-survey

  • I think option C is the best overall long term option but the best outcome for everyone would be for both options A and C to be built. Are we limited to just one corridor because by the time one of the is completed we will need the other one. So my question is, can we have two of them? Everyone's concern with the proposed Eastwest link was that it would destroy the eastern freeway by piling trucks onto it and you would simply have another truck laden Monash instead of the Eastern.

    Bob2022 asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Bob,

    We'v been asked by the Victorian Government to recommend the best link between the M80 Ring Road and the Eastern Freeway or EastLink.

    As part of this, we're looking at what complementary upgrades would likely to be required to the existing road network to make a North East Link freeway work most effectively.

  • I'm looking at purchasing a house in Eltham and I'm concerned about the implications of the proposed tunnel in corridor C to my family. Some of the houses we're interested in sit between 300 and 600m west of the proposed tunnel in Corridor C. I'm primarily concerned about: 1. The noise and environmental impact. 2. The potential health impacts of pollution. 3. The loss of property value due to 1 and 2. I understand that we need the NE link, and that there will be some impact, so I'm not firmly against corridor C (although I do prefer Corridor A), but I want to understand the implications. I also understand that it's early days, and there is no definitive answer yet, but hoping to receive an informed opinion. 1. What are the chances of Corridor C going ahead, but with only a partial or no tunnel through Eltham? Is there any scenario where a ground-level freeway would be built through the Eltham section of Corridor C? 2. If the tunnel is built at the proposed length and location, where could the ventilation stacks be located? At a tunnel of that length, how many, and at what distance, would be required? 3. Have there been any studies done about the impact on the health of residents within close proximity to the ventilation stacks? 4. Besides the entrance and exit to the tunnel, does any vehicle noise escape the tunnel? If a house is >1km away from an entrance/exit/ventilation stack, and is 300m from a section tunnel, would any noise or vibration be able to be detected (naturally, without any devices)?

    future_eltham_res asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Future Eltham Resident,

    Thanks for your questions. We’ve answered each of them below.

    1. At this stage of the project we’ve identified areas where minimum tunnel lengths would be required to minimise impacts on the environment and communities. Should Option C be built, the sections you can see marked as tunnel now, would be tunnel.

    2. Because we don’t yet know where North East Link could be built, nor how it could be designed, it’s too early for us to know where ventilation structures would be required. From previous projects we do know that they are most often located at the entrances and exits of tunnels.

    3. Any structures would need to meet stringent Environmental Protection Authority requirements and be designed to fit in with the local landscape. Air quality would be monitored both before and after the construction of the road tunnel to ensure EPA guidelines are met. Air quality for Melbourne’s CityLink and EastLink tunnels is continuously monitored and results show air quality in surrounding areas is not affected by the tunnels.

    4. There are thousands of road tunnels operating around the world, including some in Melbourne. These tunnels are built deep underground and are designed so that people living and working above the tunnels don’t even notice that they are there. Once North East Link is operating, people above the tunnel will not notice any noise or vibrations.


  • I strongly support option C. This aligns to what has been planned in the Melways for the last 30 years! Also this option allows for the increasing growth in population that is occurring in the north. I hope future population growth is being considered as surely usage of 100,000 cars per day of the north east link is more than likely to increase in coming years. When will official costs be released for the options presented to date? Thanks

    Zkeen asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Zkeen,

    As part of the business case we are developing we are looking very closely at where people will be living and working as Melbourne continues to grow. Thanks for letting us know that this is an area that is important to you in planning for North East Link.

    The business case will include estimated costs for the options, but we still have more work to do in this area.

  • To elaborate on my prior question (which I can't do in a threaded manner - and I have already done the survey). One of the advantages of routes C and D that A and B do not have is they accomodate movements from Diamond Creek to Doncaster. This would ease congestion on Wattle Tree Rd, Main Rd, Bolton St, Fitzsimmons Lane etc. more than routes A and B. This benefit could be achieved with routes A and B as well if a high quality connection to Diamond Creek was added to A/B that made the slight back tracking a worthwhile time saving. Is this being considered? I think including it as an option would allow a more even comparison between routes.

    EasternGrey asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi EasternGrey,

    As part of our early work we're looking at how all options for North East Link could help integrate with the existing transport network to ease congestion. Thanks for your feedback and suggestion on the northern end of the options. It's very helpful. 

  • Corridor A - What updates are involved on the Eastern freeway? Last we want is congestion with trucks all over the place like M1. Toll still starts from Springvale road onwards? Corridor B or C - What potential updates are involved on Springvale Road? If tunnel doesn't help freight move efficiently, does that mean we expect more trucks on Springvale Road? Thank you.

    Phoebe asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Phoebe,

    Should Option A be built, upgrades to the Eastern Freeway would most likely involve widening the road by adding additional lanes between North East Link and EastLink, upgrading bridges and installing signals to help improve traffic flow - including measures to help vehicles enter and exit the freeway. North East Link will be tolled, but you would still be able to drive on the routes you use now without paying new tolls.

    Should Corridor B or C be built, Springvale Road would likely need to be upgraded to cater for additional traffic using this road to access North East Link. Because we don't yet know where North East Link could be built, nor how it would be designed, we still have more work to do before we know exactly what upgrades would likely be required for Springvale Road.

  • I am a resident of north-east Eltham concerned with the design of the proposed route C. I was at the meeting tonight (Aug 15) and this point was raised but answered poorly - I am looking to clarify it. The picture of the route C tunnel under Eltham from the Technical Summary has a discrepancy with the same segment of route C pictured in the online interactive guide. You will notice the interactive guide appears to show that the tunnel ends and the highway appears to run on the surface along the transmission line easement from approximately the east most end corner of Frank street to almost Main Road before becoming a tunnel once again. This would effectively place a 6 lane tunnel exit 150m from my home, with obvious heavy pollution due to venting and of course high levels of noise. Given the elevation changes across this particular hill and the gulleys to the south and north of it, I can't see exiting the tunnel, running along the surface then re-starting the tunnel to work without rapid grade changes. This would also severely impact the quality of life for the nearby residents of Frank St, Ashdale Grove, Milbourne Cres and many other surrounding streets. Since there is a discrepancy between the maps regarding this significant detail, can you please clarify which one is correct? Will the tunnel end south of Main Road?

    Concerned on Frank asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Frank. 

    Because we are at business case stage of this project, the routes we are using to assess how the corridors would perform are indicative only. They aren't exact or final in any way and are subject to further technical and other studies.

    We're working to minimise impacts on the environment and communities and have identified some sections that would be required for each option as minimum tunnel lengths.

    Should Option C be built, the section of tunnel that starts further east of the proposed Ryans Road interchange would very likely not emerge to the surface until near Heidelberg-Warrandyte Road. 

    It would most likely be a continuous section of tunnel that would pass deep underneath Main Road and there would not be a tunnel entrance near Frank Street. 

    The maps in the technical summary and on our website show the same indicative route. The slightly longer dash you can see on the online map just after Main Road is caused by the way our computer program handles curved lines. We've asked our mapping team to see if they can refine the line render so the length of the dashes stays consistent around the bends.


  • Corridor A delivers the best outcomes on most metrics, does so at the lowest cost and can be completed in the shortest time. It also more directly addresses the growth to the North requiring CBD access. Surely from the current and future-projected data presented in the technical guide, Corridor A is a no-brainer? Corridor B overall scores worse than A and costs substantially more, and C impacts the green wedge substantially while offering less benefits for those living in it than A does in terms of CBD access and local traffic congestion reduction (while costing even more again). We need corridor A built, and built ASAP.

    Concerned on Frank asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Frank - thanks for your feedback.

  • Why is the common section of corridor C/D from diamond creek not also part of corridor A/B? Surely including this would help meet the roads aims of connecting the NE? It needs to connect with the M80 but it does not need to be the terminus.

    EasternGrey asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi EasternGrey,

    We're interested to know more about your comments. Can you tell us more about what problems you want North East Link to achieve by joining the discussion forum here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/corridor-options 

  • I believe that Corridor C will be less invasive to the Eastern Freeway and East Link. The last thing we need is congestion like on the M1.

    pj asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your comments pj.

  • I am a resident of Park Orchards and I am pleased that this corridor is being considered. Whilst I see benefits in more than one corridor, I would be in favour of this one as a resident of Park Orchards.

    Roselyn Owen asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Roselyn,

    Thanks for your feedback. We're interested to know more about what you would like North East Link to achieve, and what benefits you would like it to deliver.

    We encourage you to complete the survey and join the discussion forums on this site so we can understand more about what's important to you.

  • After going through all four corridors, I have a strong feeling for Corridor "C". This is going to take a lot road congestion pressure off from most disadvantageous Northern Suburbs to get to South suburbs and so on. Hope it happens soon. Thomas Johns

    Thomas asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your comments Thomas

  • We live on hillview court croydon hills, on the urban edge. We can see the potential upgrade as a problem to us. What are the likely hood of the potential upgrade going through after initial corridor C is completed. Also a rough timeline. How many lanes to the potential upgrade section. Will it have walls? is it only 2 lanes?

    Hubbard asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Hubbard,

    Because we don't yet know where North East Link could be built we still have a lot more work to do before we will know exactly what upgrades to connecting roads will be required and how they could be designed. We'll know more once a preferred corridor is recommended and we move into design stage.

  • Why is there not an option between C and D that goes further out into Kangaroo ground around Research and closer to North Warrandyte without tunnelling under Eltham or going all the way to Lilydale. Surely a route between Park Orchards and Donvale can be created to avoid any need for tunnels which make most of us uneasy and claustrophobic. If there is ecology to protect the occasional bridge to link sides of an excavation like overseas green overpasses could be used and not tunnels. Why are existing gaps in development not being targetted within gaps in the residential growth areas, transmission reserves and avoiding tunnels a priority. Tunnels to protect environemental issues are costly to build and maintain / consume water supply to prevent cracking; electricity to exhaust fumes and create no advantages to areas that it cuts through. Off ramps provide ecomony to outer areas. Tunnels take traffic from one place to another with no economic benefit. Tunnels prevent aerial surveillance or evacuating via air ambulance. Stop pandering to all the butterflies; special grass and bullfrogs they will adapt as all other species did when roads were first built. Build the sensible route that is direct and along the gaps and gt on with it.

    Cammac asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Cammac. Thanks for the question. One of our guiding principles for North East Link is to minimise impacts on the environment and communities which is why we are proposing to build large portions of North East Link using tunnels. We have taken your comments about tunnels on board so they can be considered together with other feedback we are receiving from communities about what North East Link should achieve.

    We looked closely at using power line easements and talked with AusNet and power specialists. We haven't ruled them out entirely but there are quite a few issues. The easements aren't wide enough for both the road and the power lines. The bigger power lines (500 KvA) could not be put underground without the easements being made wider than they are now for safety reasons. We also couldn't put a surface road in most of the area because it's too hilly. We need to accommodate trucks and they are most efficient on surface roads.

  • Between B and C , C seems more beneficial in overall terms. HOWEVER I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE OVERALL ESTIMATED COST OF CORRIDOR C then i could compare it to B. A is probably the cheapest proposal and regardless of how good B or C is, I can't see governments supporting them due to costs. Therefore on these lines even if D might be the best proposal why will any government support that proposal if it is twice as costly as proposal B or C?

    Theo asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Theo. Thanks for the question. 

    We are at a very early stage of this project and don't know exactly where North East Link could be built, nor how it could be designed. We still have a lot more work to do, including more technical investigations, before we will know how much each of the options is likely to cost. 

    At this stage of the business case we are focused on investigating how each of the corridors could meet the project objectives and principles. These are a set of criteria we have developed to guide how we will recommend the preferred corridor. They include things like helping connect people to jobs and education and making communities in the north-east safer and easier to get around. 

    You can read more about our objectives and principles here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/shape-north-east-link 

    We're working towards recommending the best option for North East Link, not the cheapest.

  • If c used the power line easement already in place by putting power under ground would this not avoid very expensive tunnelling which brings another layer of dander to road users? Use of the power line easement would also provide minimal impact to the environment and state budget.

    RoadRunner asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Road Runner. We've looked closely at the power line easements and talked with AusNet and power specialists about using the easements. We haven't ruled them out entirely but there are quite a few issues.

    The easements aren't wide enough for both the road and the power lines. The bigger power lines (500 KvA) could not be put underground without the easement being even bigger than it is now for safety reasons. We also couldn't put a surface road in most of the area because it is too hilly. We need to accommodate trucks and they are most efficient on more level roads.

  • Given c utilises the original corridor, are the tunnel(s) required for assumed environmental impact or engineering issues? Would a bridge bring a more optimal gradient over the Yarra river as opposed to a tunnel?

    RoadRunner asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Road Runner. Thanks for the question. We're proposing to build a large portion of North East Link using tunnels to minimise impacts on communities and the environment. Long sections of tunnel would likely be required for Corridor C to minimise impacts on sensitive environmental areas and minimise property acquisitions. 

  • Tunnels are against the idea of moving freight/trucks OFF suburban roads - they do not allow placarded loads, so BIG trucks will still be going through suburban main roads. as ALL options involve tunnels ALL options do not help in this regard. Otherwise A is just silly, B is not good enough and D is nuts, only C comes close and it's just deficient planning. Why is raised roadways not considered?

    better design proponent asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi better design proponent. Thanks for your comments and questions. We are proposing to build a large portion of North East Link using tunnels to minimise impacts on communities and the environment. If you would like to provide input on these principles, we encourage you to complete the survey on this site here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/shape-north-east-link

    Tunnel components recommended for the project will consider the benefits and challenges of all design and engineering options, including for placarded loads. Our initial research indicates that placarded loads in the north-east currently represent a small percentage of local truck traffic (about 1%). Many of these are making local deliveries.

  • Options B & C or some variant seem the most sensible. Clearly the impact of tunnels on Over-dimensional vehicles and placarded loads has NOT been considered. These trucks will still use the suburban rat run as they are prohibited from tunnels. I note there are incline issues with B & C. The sensible option would be to construct overhead road to preserve as much as possible the sensitive areas and level the inclines and reduce the costs compared to tunneling. This would also allow the biggest and most dangerous vehicles to use the new road. The interchange with Springvale Rd and the Start of Eastlink should be where the north=-East link would join the current network

    Pilotyoda asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for your comments Piloytoda. 

  • Corridor C. seems to be the most sensible way for the new link. The road was originally shown in the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan as the F35 Freeway. In October 1999 the Brack's Government announced that the freeway had been scrapped. Corridor C. in reasonably the closest to that original plan. Unfortunately after Brack's decision the land was sold off and because of this the Current tax payer has to now suffer the consequences. Surely tunnelling under the newer land development after Brack's decision would be more practical to work beneath and around.Let's follow the Sydney & Europe ideas to put more public roads underground. The route I currently from the East Link to Linking to the M80 is still the most time saving way to go. Diana

    Di asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Diana. Thanks for your comments.

  • Have you done an analysis of where you think the growth suburbs are going to be over the next 20-30 years and which corridor will best support this growth? Benefit analysis should be based on long term not short term.

    shane asked almost 2 years ago

    Thanks for the question Shane. Population growth, including how much and where, is one of the factors we are considering when planning for North East Link.

  • Technically speaking we need BOTH option A and option C (or D). However in terms of priority, I think we need to build option C first. Option A on the other hand would be incredibly short-sighted by its own. Any metropolis needs to have a true ring road - not only to draw traffic away from the CBD but also help to develop a de-centralised Melbourne. No matter what your traffic modelling shows, northern suburban residents WILL access the city via Northeast link if we were go for option A, which would definitely further press Eastlink exit that is already in a terrible situation.

    Lewie asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Lewie. Thanks for your comments. This section of the site is a space for people to ask us questions about Corridor C. If you'd like to join the conversation about the corridors, we encourage you to get involved by joining the forum here https://jointheconversation.northeastlink.vic.gov.au/corridor-options/forum_topics/corridor-options

  • This needs to be the route of choice despite being more expensive than Option A. It's obvious that Options B & D won't be seriously considered by the Government. Option A is incredibly short sighted as it will increase and force traffic into the inner city rather than drawing it away as it won't be a true ring road as would Options B,C or D. It will encourage northern suburban residents to access the city via Northeast link and onto the eastern freeway putting even more pressure at Hoddle Street. Converting Bulleen road to a surface Freeway will destroy the suburb of Bulleen and disconnect it to the parklands along the Yarra River. Will there be more interchanges proposed between Reynolds Road and Ryans Road? Why has there not been an option for a full surface freeway allowing placarded loads?

    Eric asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Eric. Thanks for your questions. Our traffic modelling so far has found that should Option A be built, most traffic would use North East Link to travel south to the Eastern Freeway, then turn east or south away from the CBD. North East Link would service this demand rather than just provide a new route into the city. You can read more about our origin and destination traffic surveys in our Technical summary here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/124257/170804-NEL_Technical-Summary.pdf .It's also important to note that Bulleen Road will not become North East Link. North East Link will be a new freeway-standard road.

    The routes for each of the four corridor options are indicative only and are in no way exact or final. We are sharing our early findings so we can update communities on what we've found so far and hear what you have to say If you would like to provide feedback on what you think the opportunities and challenges for the different options are, including your feedback about connections to the Yarra Parklands, we encourage you to complete the survey and join the discussion forums on this site.

    One of our guiding principles is to minimise impacts on the environment and communities which is why each option includes extensive tunnelling.

    It was initially thought that Corridor D would be suitable for a road with no tunnel to cater for placarded loads. Preliminary investigations have found that tunnels and bridges would be required to protect sensitive areas for this option.

    Some tunnel designs can accommodate placarded loads, and recommended tunnel components will consider the benefits and challenges of all design and engineering options. Our initial research indicates placarded loads and dangerous goods (such as fuel tankers) in the north-east represent a small percentage of local truck traffic (around 1-4%). Many of these are making deliveries to local petrol stations. 


  • Would it be possible to do option A and option D( as option D appears to be cheaper because its on the edge of the urban boundary. Option A is good as it address's current traffic issues, Option D will address the future issues and provide an alternate route for mernda/Doreen traffic ( down Yan yean road) which is being upgraded to relive plenty road traffic.

    ghorizon asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi ghorizon. We are working towards recommending a preferred corridor for North East Link. We encourage you join the conversation forums on this site to tell is what you want North East Link to achieve.

  • Has any consideration been given to provision of emergency access points for evacuation from bushfires? If we think back to Black Saturday, this area was only saved by a late wind change. Hundreds of lives may have been lost due to poor road access.

    The Talking Horse asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi The Talking Horse, thanks for your question. We’d love to hear more about your concerns – we’re here to find out what the community thinks of our findings so far and if we’re looking at the right things. We encourage you to join the discussion forums on this site to tell us more about what’s important to you.


  • Hopeless. Commuters from the northern suburbs to the city would clog up even more of the Eastern Freeway than they would at Bulleen. The Intersection with the Ringwood Bypass and the East link tunnels would be a nightmare.

    JM asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi JM, thanks for your question. As a continuation of the M80 Ring Road, North East Link will cater for the movement of people and goods around Melbourne rather than in and out of the central city areas. If you would like to read more about our traffic studies, including what North East Link could mean for the Eastern Freeway, we encourage you to read the Technical Summary here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/publications and to join the corridors discussion forums on this site to let us know what you think about what we’ve found so far and what you want North East Link to achieve.

  • What about the East West Link ,that will be required surely otherwise you are just building another huge bottleneck . Same old Labor story as l see it

    Barry J asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Barry, thanks for your question. The North East Link Authority was established to complete the missing link in Melbourne’s road network between the M80 Ring Road and Eastern Freeway or EastLink. North East Link will cater for the movement of people and goods around Melbourne rather than in and out of the central city areas. If you would like to read more about our traffic studies, including what North East Link could mean for the Eastern Freeway, we encourage you to read the Technical Summary here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/publications and to join the corridors discussion forums on this site to let us know what you think about what we’ve found so far and what you want North East Link to achieve.

  • Through Reynolds Rd Eltham, is there going to be protection for native fauna and the green belt area, are you going to tunnel through this area to access across the river. How many properties will be acquisition to fulfil this project. All land has been built on since the last threat a few years ago of extension coming through this area.

    Ian & Margaret O'Shea asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Ian & Margaret, thanks for your question. One of our guiding objectives is to minimise impacts on the environment and communities which is why we’re looking at underground tunnels to protect important areas. We encourage you to read our technical report here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/124257/170804-NEL_Technical-Summary.pdf and to complete the survey and join the discussion forums on this site to tell us what you want North East Link to achieve and what you want us to work to protect in your area.

    You may also like to come to our information session in Eltham next Tuesday 15 August to speak with our technical teams. Details and a link to RSVP are on this site.

    Because we do not yet know where North East Link will be built, nor how it will be designed, we are not in a position to understand what properties will be potentially affected. If you are worried now we encourage you to keep in touch with us as planning progresses. You can reach us on 1800 941 191 or at community@northeastlink.vic.gov.au


  • Why would you not continue the tunnel all the way through Currawong Bush park? This road will be built right behind my house, which is currently back onto the Bush..

    Kathy Bennett asked almost 2 years ago

    Hi Kathy, thanks for your question. At this stage the indicative route is further east than Currawong Bush Park. We encourage you to read our Technical Summary here http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/publications to see what we have found about sensitive areas near each of the corridors so far and to join the conversation forums on this site to tell us what’s important to you. If you have any more questions, we’re here to help.