THE Napthine Government’s own Health Department is pressing for more details on the impact of the East West Link project on local residents.

Potential for more road crashes, disruption to key public transport services and reduced ability for cycling and walking have been highlighted in the department’s submission to the project’s assessment committee.

The $6-8 billion tunnel is a key plank of the Government’s re-election campaign, but is facing stiff political opposition from Labor, some inner-city councils and affected residents.

Relying on data provided by the Linking Melbourne Authority, the submission said there would be significant traffic impacts during construction, including closure of the Upfield rail line, disrupted tram services through Royal Park and bus services on Hoddle St.

The Upfield rail line is to be taken out of service for an extended period to enable construction. This is going to cause major disruption.

With the #Vline shutdown of the Bendigo line this week I have work colleagues who are working from home due to the extended travel times to and from the office. These shutdowns do have an impact on productivity.

Regards
Brian

Apparently the old chimney on Alexandra Pde could be structurally compromised by the EW link.
Closing the Upfield line while also shutting down trams thru Royal Park would be diabolical IMO.

As for this week's shutdown - I ended up driving to Melb....

The Upfield rail line is to be taken out of service for an extended period to enable construction. This is going to cause major disruption.

Upfield was also out for a long time during the construction of CityLink as I recall.

Residents who use Royal Park on a regular basis have a right to be annoyed - it will be half dug up during construction not to mention the bulldozing of quite a few colonial-era trees.

I am certain the upcoming Victorian election will be about transport and in particular the east west link which I read is being challenged in the courts.

Get the hint Crapthine, no one wants the pointless waste of money.

That's a grand generalisation Braddo. SOME people may not want East West link to proceed, just like SOME may not want Metro Rail to proceed, myself included. Just because the people opposed to East West link like to make public nuisances of themselves and are vocal, does not mean they are the overwhelming majority.

That's a grand generalisation Braddo. SOME people may not want East West link to proceed, just like SOME may not want Metro Rail to proceed, myself included. Just because the people opposed to East West link like to make public nuisances of themselves and are vocal, does not mean they are the overwhelming majority.

A recent Age Poll on the East West Link found 2/3 of those polled do not want the project.  That is a majority.

A recent Age Poll on the East West Link found 2/3 of those polled do not want the project. That is a majority.

A Poll on the Age is hardly a good measure of what the general feeling is.  The East-West link is a vital piece of infrastructure that Melbourne needs.  To have the Eastern Freeway ending at a set of traffic lights is just stupid.

I am over the the argument that the East-West link and Doncaster Rail/Metro Rail Tunnel are mutually exclusive.  That argument is like saying the Westgate Bridge should not have been built because of the City Loop or vice-versa.  Melbourne needs both.

To have the Eastern Freeway ending at a set of traffic lights is just stupid.

Why?

I am over the the argument that the East-West link and Doncaster Rail/Metro Rail Tunnel are mutually exclusive.  That argument is like saying the Westgate Bridge should not have been built because of the City Loop or vice-versa.  Melbourne needs both.

They are mutually exclusive because the transport budget is limited.

Hence it should not be wasted on rubbish projects like the East West link or Doncaster rail.

bevans, I'm sorry, but its always the same weak argument. The Public Transport advocates always try and use it too.

You say 2/3 of an age poll showed people didn't want East West link. So how many people were polled? 1,000 people? So out if the 4-5 million people in Melbourne, and 7-8 million in Victoria you poll 1,000 people and claim a majority don't want East West link?
I'm sorry, just no.

Maybe poll 100,000 people and you've got a start. 1,000,000 people and you're getting a fair idea. 1,000 is piss in the wind.

Unfortunately the Federal government strategy to manage urban congestion is to support state governments that build more roads.
It's a 1960's 'solution' that hasn't worked in any Australian city.

You just have to look at the cost of the East-West Road Tunnel and compare with how many people benefit from it.  Considering how roads merely shift congestion elsewhere rather than reducing it and new railways reduce congestion I would suggest the vast majority of people either don't support it or aren't properly educated of this fact.

It doesn't give very good figures, but an RACV poll from apparently 2 million residents states the preferred solution to congestion is better public transport over improved roads - http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/public-transport-preferred-to-eastwest-link-survey-reveals-20130723-2qfmw.html

You just have to look at the cost of the East-West Road Tunnel and compare with how many people benefit from it. Considering how roads merely shift congestion elsewhere rather than reducing it and new railways reduce congestion I would suggest the vast majority of people either don't support it or aren't properly educated of this fact.

It doesn't give very good figures, but an RACV poll from apparently 2 million residents states the preferred solution to congestion is better public transport over improved roads - http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/public-transport-preferred-to-eastwest-link-survey-reveals-20130723-2qfmw.html

You won't read any stories like this In the Herald Sun !

I think the East West link is needed, just in a slightly different form.

Have it run (underground as much as possible) from the end of the Hume Freeway, down towards an underground interchange near the Eastern Freeway, then west across the north of the city (with the necessary ramps entrance/exits near the docks) joining up with the western ring road.

The East West link is largely being built for the trucking industry. They want north, south and east links to join up with the docks. Taking so much up of the Royal park is just so as to manage the interchanges as cheaply as possible (obviously there is significant engineering reasons why this is so, the rivulet is the most obvious!).

Having an above ground interchange at Citylink is obviously the cheapest option, but far form the ideal one...

I think the East West link is needed, just in a slightly different form.

Have it run (underground as much as possible) from the end of the Hume Freeway, down towards an underground interchange near the Eastern Freeway, then west across the north of the city (with the necessary ramps entrance/exits near the docks) joining up with the western ring road.

So let me see your proposing a Northern link to Thomastown ?

I can see an East - West link stage 3 been lobbied for, going from The Western Freeway at Derrimut to the Princes Freeway at Little River.
The Western Ring Road - Princes Freeway Interchange won't be able to cope with EW Link traffic.

The East West link is largely being built for the trucking industry. They want north, south and east links to join up with the docks. Taking so much up of the Royal park is just so as to manage the interchanges as cheaply as possible (obviously there is significant engineering reasons why this is so, the rivulet is the most obvious!).

Having an above ground interchange at Citylink is obviously the cheapest option, but far form the ideal one...

That was my reading of the Comprehensive Impact Study, too.  All the talk about connecting the docks at the Ports of Melbourne and Hastings and facilitating the use of 'high-productivity' vehicles (ie B-doubles and B-triples).  I don't think that the Eastern suburbs motorists were thinking that this is what they are going to get.  In a recent letter to me from Minister Mulder, he said that they would set tolls to get the level of traffic on the link that they want.  Given that tolls are irrelevant to the road builder (as they get a fixed annual fee for the government to use the road), then the tolls could be 'time of day' or could be reduced to a low figure to drag more traffic onto it.

I recall years ago hearing a justification that there would be less surface traffic through Royal Park with such a tunnel.  The current truth is that, with a freeway interchange next to the Zoo, there will be additional traffic in Royal Park, into and out of the tunnel at that location.

We should invest in those infrastructure projects that give the best return on investment for the state.  The Rail tunnel rated much higher than the road tunnel, so it should go first.  With the current talk of builders bidding for the projects that THEY want to build, the real transport priorities might never get up and the state would be saddled with paying off annual fees for decades to come.

East West Tollway Link to cost Victorian tax payers 2 Billion per year In PPP payments.

Costing $78 per vehicle trip (based on 80'000 vehicles a day)

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/east-west-funding-part-of-a-bumpy-road-for-future-20140507-zr689.html

No wonder the Spin Doctor Is trying to hide the real facts !

East West Tollway Link to cost Victorian tax payers 2 Billion per year In PPP payments.

Costing $78 per vehicle trip (based on 80'000 vehicles a day)

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/east-west-funding-part-of-a-bumpy-road-for-future-20140507-zr689.html

No wonder the Spin Doctor Is trying to hide the real facts !

I think $2B per year is overstating it a bit.  I would estimate that it will be under $1B for both stages.

The government hopes that Stage 1 will only cost about $5B and that by guaranteeing the loans then a low interest rate will be payable by the road builder.  The franchise is likely to be for about 35 years and so the government will probably be paying about $500M per annum to start with (Stage 1).  They will get to keep whatever tolls they collect to offset this, but will have to pay for the costs of operating, maintaining, policing, and then collecting the tolls.  By my sums the government would only recover one-quarter of the annual costs for the traffic volumes and level of tolls mentioned so far (they said it would about the same as current CityLink tolls).  However, they have said that will set tolls to get the level of traffic they want, which could mean time-of-day tolling.

If you take up to $1B a year as a cost to the budget, then you have reduced the ability of any future government to invest in useful public transport.