Planning is underway to complete the "missing link" between the eastern end of the Metropolitan Ring Road and EastLink at Ringwood:

http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/

Does anyone know if CityLink (Transurban) is entitled to compensation? I've had a look on the net but can't find anything.

Planning is underway to complete the "missing link" between the eastern end of the Metropolitan Ring Road and EastLink at Ringwood:

http://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/

Does anyone know if CityLink (Transurban) is entitled to compensation? I've had a look on the net but can't find anything.

I don't think so as it incorporates an interchange to their road so will lead to more traffic volumes for them.  They need vehicles to be moving so they can toll more of them.  

Transurban can't change the road (such as add or remove lanes, change ramps etc) without permission and negotiation which is how the agreement gets extended and government money appears to assist to fix the non-toll portions.  Some of the restrictions in the original agreement have been removed and are in the public domain but have never been mentioned in press releases so never reported - the removal of the ban on an airport rail link is one of them. It was removed as part of the negotiations for the Tulla-Calder merge project

Shorter Western option (Bulleen) or longer Eastern option (Etham)

I suspect the Western option Bulleen to Greensborough Incorporating a major upgrade of the existing Greensborough highway.

I don't think so as it incorporates an interchange to their road so will ...........

Thanks. As you say I haven't seen any relaxation of restrictions mentioned in press releases.

Shorter Western option (Bulleen) or longer Eastern option (Eltham)

I suspect the Western option Bulleen to Greensborough Incorporating a major upgrade of the existing Greensborough highway.

The Western option will require significant widening of the eastern section of the Eastern Freeway and, if it is possible, the Eastlink tunnels. In the PM peak east-bound traffic already slows to a crawl between Bulleen Road (the proposed joining point) and the Ringwood Interchange. I haven't experienced it, but I would image there is a similar problem in the AM peak for west-bound traffic east of the tunnels on Eastlink and Maroondah Highway. Any connection to Eastlink and Maroondah Highway needs to be east of the tunnels. The Eastern option fulfils this.

The Western option will require significant widening of the eastern section of the Eastern Freeway and, if it is possible, the Eastlink tunnels. In the PM peak east-bound traffic already slows to a crawl between Bulleen Road (the proposed joining point) and the Ringwood Interchange. I haven't experienced it, but I would image there is a similar problem in the AM peak for west-bound traffic east of the tunnels on Eastlink and Maroondah Highway. Any connection to Eastlink and Maroondah Highway needs to be east of the tunnels. The Eastern option fulfils this.

I see there Is a far Eastern route via Chirnside Park been floated !


New major urban roads will never reduce traffic congestion, only attract more traffic to them.

The idea must be to out even more traffic onto the ring road which is already a nightmare so how will this project benefit the average punter?

Can't wait to read the doctored business case.

Do these business cases get audited by anyone with a view to understanding if the financials and benefits have been met after build?

Even though its a freeway, not all against this project. May as well finish the road link, public transport (e.g. Doncaster rail) would be the better alternative but it would require Metro 2 project to happen. The most logical route is connect the ring road it at Ringwood, then it is actually a proper ring road. Yes it will provide only benefits in short term as more traffic will back it up, means more pressure to build rail in the long awaited Doncaster rail and metro 2 to provide the capacity relieve.

It would relieve local roads in that area and means more people will use public transport instead. Then they are able to put more buses on the local roads since they are less busy. Also they could make provision for the rail tunnel beside the freeway.

unfortunately our planners all seem to think everyone wants to go to the CBD and our current road, rail and tram networks all work on that same assumption.

putting this link in will get all the existing traffic heading from the east/south east to the North or north east off the congested roads to the CBD.

it seems strange that people see an over-full train as a sign of success but an over-full road as a sign of failure yet both are indicators of lack of capacity.

If we could get the single occupant vehicles that don't really need to be there (eg the people that drive to work as they carry a briefcase and a laptop) then those that need vehicles (eg tradesmen with tools, couriers, etc) would have the space to get their jobs done. Being caught in traffic is costing them productivity and money.

I see there Is a far Eastern route via Chirnside Park been floated !

Proposed by the trucking industry to eliminate the need for tunnels and allow relatively few dangerous-goods vehicles to use it. For most users it would be the equivalent of making an unnecessary journey from Ringwood to Chirnside Park and back on each trip. (More toll revenue perhaps?)

The idea must be to out even more traffic onto the ring road which is already a nightmare so how will this project benefit the average punter?

Can't wait to read the doctored business case.

Do these business cases get audited by anyone with a view to understanding if the financials and benefits have been met after build?

Connects two freeways. At present most traffic uses Greensborough Highway, Rosanna Road, Banksia Street, Bulleen Road and the Eastern Freeway to connect between the Metropolitan Ring Road and Eastlink. As has been reported in the press numerous times, the traffic congestion in this area is some of the worst in Melbourne. Rosanna Road, because of its narrow lanes, is quite dangerous.

The project is on the radar of Infrastructure Victoria and Infrastructure Australia, although both are awaiting the detailed business case. The timeline is for the proposal to be finalised by the end of next year and put to the electorate at the State election, although there is no reason the LNP couldn't take it up should it win. From what I can gather the North-East Link is now back as part of the LNP platform, it having been dropped in the Bailleu days.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

Doncaster rail not going to happen for another 100 years, at best it may get a proper BRT system, or a light rail extension.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

Doncaster rail not going to happen for another 100 years, at best it may get a proper BRT system, or a light rail extension.

You'd still need the Eastern Freeway reservation for BRT or Light Rail.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

Doncaster rail not going to happen for another 100 years, at best it may get a proper BRT system, or a light rail extension.

You'd still need the Eastern Freeway reservation for BRT or Light Rail.

Yep. That's my point. Once you lose that reservation, it is gone forever. You'd need the BRT first to get the passenger numbers up before any rail line.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

Doncaster rail not going to happen for another 100 years, at best it may get a proper BRT system, or a light rail extension.

You'd still need the Eastern Freeway reservation for BRT or Light Rail.

Maybe for BRT, but not for Light Rail. Light rail can be done as an extension and upgrade of Route 48.

You'd still need the Eastern Freeway reservation for BRT or Light Rail.

Maybe for BRT, but not for Light Rail. Light rail can be done as an extension and upgrade of Route 48.

Upgrade Route 48 to Light Rail standard? That'd mean turning every road and street on the route east of the Yarra into a clearway, put barriers up to prevent car intrusion and install superstops everywhere. That's a laughable idea in the abstract, but it's made more preposterous because those roads run through Hawthorn, Kew and Balwyn North. Any premier who proposed that would face an aristocratic 'upper middle class' revolt.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

Doncaster rail not going to happen for another 100 years, at best it may get a proper BRT system, or a light rail extension.

You'd still need the Eastern Freeway reservation for BRT or Light Rail.

Maybe for BRT, but not for Light Rail. Light rail can be done as an extension and upgrade of Route 48.

How would you do this? I can't see how you'd push light rail through Kew Junction.
Paving the middle of the Eastern would be much cheaper. You'd extend the 48 to where Doncaster rd crosses the freeway, and the other one (I forget the number) all the way up Burke rd, as feeders on to the BRT. With 24/7 clearways on Hoddle st, it becomes as close as we will get to a train line for a long time.

The biggest concern for this project, is that if they go with the Eastern Freeway option A, it is the permanent death of Doncaster rail. I can't see how you'd ever get the line past Bulleen rd with a freeway junction in the way. NELA has also made no commitment to preserve the proposed station sites.

Doncaster rail not going to happen for another 100 years, at best it may get a proper BRT system, or a light rail extension.

You'd still need the Eastern Freeway reservation for BRT or Light Rail.

Maybe for BRT, but not for Light Rail. Light rail can be done as an extension and upgrade of Route 48.

How would you do this? I can't see how you'd push light rail through Kew Junction.
Paving the middle of the Eastern would be much cheaper. You'd extend the 48 to where Doncaster rd crosses the freeway, and the other one (I forget the number) all the way up Burke rd, as feeders on to the BRT. With 24/7 clearways on Hoddle st, it becomes as close as we will get to a train line for a long time.

If needed you could do the same thing they did on Victoria Street (Richmond) - raise the road to create platform stops. no need to do anything to the tracks.

Wouldn't work. Kew junction is 6 lanes wide if you count the tram tracks, and is a very messy intersection. The raised platforms wouldn't work there. You'd have to take a car lane out each way too. A single lane doesn't work when you have 4 possible turn directions.
The only realistic rapid transport option in the area, is the Eastern Freeway BRT, and eventually Doncaster Rail. Both of these die if North East Link Option A is constructed.

Wouldn't work. Kew junction is 6 lanes wide if you count the tram tracks, and is a very messy intersection. The raised platforms wouldn't work there. You'd have to take a car lane out each way too. A single lane doesn't work when you have 4 possible turn directions.
The only realistic rapid transport option in the area, is the Eastern Freeway BRT, and eventually Doncaster Rail. Both of these die if North East Link Option A is constructed.

No you wouldn't. You clearly have not read my post properly.

Wouldn't work. Kew junction is 6 lanes wide if you count the tram tracks, and is a very messy intersection. The raised platforms wouldn't work there. You'd have to take a car lane out each way too. A single lane doesn't work when you have 4 possible turn directions.
The only realistic rapid transport option in the area, is the Eastern Freeway BRT, and eventually Doncaster Rail. Both of these die if North East Link Option A is constructed.

No you wouldn't. You clearly have not read my post properly.

Read it three times. Still doesn't make sense. Clearly I'm not as smart as you. Please explain further.

Wouldn't work. Kew junction is 6 lanes wide if you count the tram tracks, and is a very messy intersection. The raised platforms wouldn't work there. You'd have to take a car lane out each way too. A single lane doesn't work when you have 4 possible turn directions.
The only realistic rapid transport option in the area, is the Eastern Freeway BRT, and eventually Doncaster Rail. Both of these die if North East Link Option A is constructed.

No you wouldn't. You clearly have not read my post properly.

Read it three times. Still doesn't make sense. Clearly I'm not as smart as you. Please explain further.

Take a look along Victoria St Richmond to see what they've done.

Wouldn't work in Kew Junction. You'd have to have people crossing 3 lanes to get to the tram, slowing the whole intersection down.
A car 3 lanes across with a truck between it and a tram isn't going to see pedestrians, and will have trouble knowing when to take off. It's a dangerous scenario.
Even with that, you still don't have a proper light rail connection for the rest of the route without reducing the rest of the route to 1 car lane in either direction, else you are still sharing with cars, defeating the purpose. Can't see that happening either.
Hence why either a BRT, light rail, or heavy rail up the Eastern are the only serious contenders. You'd probably extend the 48 up to Shoppingtown too, and the 72 from Whitehorse rd to the Eastern freeway as feeders onto it.

Wouldn't work in Kew Junction. You'd have to have people crossing 3 lanes to get to the tram, slowing the whole intersection down.
A car 3 lanes across with a truck between it and a tram isn't going to see pedestrians, and will have trouble knowing when to take off. It's a dangerous scenario.
Even with that, you still don't have a proper light rail connection for the rest of the route without reducing the rest of the route to 1 car lane in either direction, else you are still sharing with cars, defeating the purpose. Can't see that happening either.
Hence why either a BRT, light rail, or heavy rail up the Eastern are the only serious contenders. You'd probably extend the 48 up to Shoppingtown too, and the 72 from Whitehorse rd to the Eastern freeway as feeders onto it.

Doesn't matter. You still need to do something otherwise you are not DDA compliant.

Besides, I still don't get why you'd build a whole new light rail line when the #48 already runs most of the way?

Are you seriously suggesting that a rail/light rail line is not needed in a place where the bus services are not coping because they are used by a number of volume of people more commonly seen on a train line, just because there is a parallel tram line that moves at a snails pace 1-3km away?
I'd expect this kind of comment on a Herald Sun thread full of people wanting to carpet Melbourne in bitumen. But on a rail site? Wow.

Are you seriously suggesting that a rail/light rail line is not needed in a place where the bus services are not coping because they are used by a number of volume of people more commonly seen on a train line, just because there is a parallel tram line that moves at a snails pace 1-3km away?
I'd expect this kind of comment on a Herald Sun thread full of people wanting to carpet Melbourne in bitumen. But on a rail site? Wow.

Heavy rail, maybe. Light rail as I said can simply be formed by an extension of Route 48, longer vehicles and tram priority at the bare minimum which would be significantly cheaper than building a whole new line.