Jump to content

Talk:EastLink (Melbourne)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some Problems[edit]

  • The tollway vs tolled freeway argument must be finalised, it appears there are no more arguments against the use of the term tollway.
  • Where has the information regarding naming history of this tollway gone?
  • On a retrospective note, why are so many of us so passionate and motivated to take so many photos and invest so much time into a piece of non-sustainable private automobile infrastructure that will not outlive mass transit, while our native bushland reserves and parks, our rivers and creeks, our mountains, our bays and oceans and beaches, our world, gets a fraction of the attention we give to something as short term as the subject matter of this article? Nick carson (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tollway Vs. Freeway - Are we still going on about this? It is "finalised", until we get a decent reason to change "tolled freeway" to something else. So far, that hasn't happened. Here's why: Tollway just means tolled road - that's all (it says so in the Tollway article). It means money is charged, and nothing more. The term Tollway does not describe the physical characteristics of the road - and a road is a physical entitty after all! If you feel that is not the case, you will need to argue that over in the Tollway article, not here. Tolled Freeway is a much better description for Eastlink, because it tells you what standard it is built to, and that it is tolled road. --Commking (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the "naming history" section that was mysteriously deleted... --Commking (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues must be addressed[edit]

I have taken the time to contribute information regaurding namming history and some environmental issues. I also added bits and pieces and edited out maybe 2 or 3 words. I do realise this article is written in a majorly not Neutral Point of View way, but that is the nature of the issue! If somone could take the real issues, and all of them, not editing things to make them appear as though they dont exist because most of them do, that would be much apreciated.

If anyone has any problems with any issues or anything AT ALL regaurding this article, please refer them to me so we can discuss them openly and sort out fact from fiction and get this article happening properly.

I'm not affraid to say that I can't write about this article in a non-NPOV way, but with some help and some major feedback, major referencing work, and sorting out every issue, we'll get this article written properly... Once it is I'll gaurd it with my life from vandalisation, certain issues surrounding this project need to be adressed correctly.

Thanks Nick carson 07:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolled freeway vs expressway vs tollway[edit]

"tolled freeway"? Isn't that an oxymoron? ozzmosis 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEITA are calling it an expressway... ozzmosis 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Tolled freeway" isn't an oxymoron, because a freeway doesn't refer to the cost of driving on it (otherwise the back street I live on is a freeway), but the absence of stops and the higher speed. Still, the normal way of referring to a "tolled freeway" in colloquial Melburnian speech is "tollway". (Note the CityLink article calls City Link a "tolled freeway", too.) —Felix the Cassowary 08:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, tollway sounds clearer. ozzmosis 09:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who says freeways have to be free? I thought the are freeways because they allow for the "free" flow of traffic? --Commking 20:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my thinking too. But many people tend to read only the word "free" in something and assume it's free in every aspect! "Tollway" is not as ambiguous. --Evan C (Talk) 07:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've always considered the "free" to mean both "not tolled" and "no stopping". YMMV ;-) --ozzmosis 07:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's like the "free dress days" you would have at school. You were free to wear (almost) anything you please, but most often you have to pay a donation. Ie; freedom, but not free. --Evan C (Talk) 07:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At my school they were called "casual clothes days", never "free days"! :) --ozzmosis 08:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why! Semantics can just get so... confusing! --Evan C (Talk) 08:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikipedia article, Freeway: A freeway (also superhighway, expressway or motorway as further explained below) is a multi-lane highway (road) designed for high-speed travel by large numbers of vehicles. Freeways have no traffic lights, stop signs, or other regulations requiring vehicles to stop for cross-traffic. Nothing there about a toll-free requirement? I still reckon this idea of a freeway having to be toll-free is a recent made up idea, and has no actual basis in anything real, and nobody has presented anything to show otherwise. The Westgate Freeway was always known as that, even when it had tolls. --Commking 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Commking 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is called the EastLink Tollway. Same with CityLink Tollway. In Melbourne, we don't use the words 'expressway' or 'motorway' or any of the words Sydney and America use. Lakeyboy 10:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true - We've do use some words the Americans use. We have used the term 'Freeway' for many, many years here in Melbourne. In fact, we have ONLY used the term Freeway, not Tollway. Expressway or any other similar term. As I pointed out earlier, we have already had a tolled freeway earlier in Melbourne's history (The Westgate), and it was still called a Freeway. You say it's called the EastLink Tollway - where exactly? --Commking 10:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I have to agree with Commking. The Westgate Freeway has always been called that, and nowhere is EastLink being referred to (officially) as a "tollway". And yes, tollway is a term that's only been used recently - "expressway" is no less Melburnian than tollway. --Evan C (Talk) 11:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall the only part of the Westgate that was tolled was the bridge itself, not the entire road. I could be wrong though. --ozzmosis 11:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised. It's not called an 'anything'way. It's just simply EastLink. Thats also what CityLink is called. Just The word. I guess the government doesn't want people to think the roads are really tollways hence, that's why Steve Bracks changed the name from Mitcham - Frankston Tollway to EastLink. And also, it was just the West Gate bridge that had tolls. The rest of the freeway was free. Lakeyboy 11:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true, but it needs to be described as something. SEITA call it an expressway... And the West Gate example still stands - in the 'States people often call bridges with tolls "Tollbridges" - the West Gate was never called the "West Gate Tollbridge". --Evan C (Talk) 12:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a look at the CityLink article and it describes it as a 'Tolled Freeway'. Maybe it should be the same for EastLink as well. Lakeyboy 12:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I didn't realise I was restating the above! But maybe it should be left just as that.

Well, as a) that's what I had waaaay back when I updated the article, and b) there's precedent, I think we ought to change it to that. --Evan C (Talk) 12:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that now. In identical format to CityLink's reference. --Evan C (Talk) 12:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of this talk from SEITA and Citylink and Eastlink is just marketing speak, and it doesn't actually change what the final product is. My local greengrocer can say he sells sustainable & eco-friendly nutrition solutions but at the end of the day he sells just plain vegies. --Commking 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different people call it different things, and companies are worse. My view is:

  • Citylink and Eastlink are not tolled freeways because that is an oxymoron. A Freeway and a Tollway are seperate things (tollway being a freeWAY + TOLLS, thus tollway. tolled freeway is comparable to say; Melbourne Tunnel Bridge, its just stupid.
  • The West Gate Freeway was always a freeway, the only part that was tolled was the bridge, so therefore the term tollbridge would have probably been acceptable. The Gateway Bridge isnt called the gateway tollbridge because one day there won't be any tolls anymore, thats why the weat gate bridge was originally named west gate bridge, man I feel like I'm talking to primary school children.
  • There is no argument, tolled freeway is stupidity, its isnt even just wrong or incorrect, its just plain stupidity.

I think I'll change it, and if anyone has any issues they can talk to me on my talk page or here on the discussion page rather than edit it back to tolled freeway. Nick carson 14:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An external source states that:

  • Freeways - Those roads having full access control and grade seperated intersections, with the primary function of servicing high volume traffic movements. VicRoads is the responsible authority (in Victoria).
  • Tollways - Those roads having full access control and grade seperated intersections, with the primary function of servicing high volume traffic movements. A fee is payable on these roads.

I also have compiled information on the definition of every type of road in Victoria. Nick carson 15:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite your external source? I can't find that text anywhere on the VicRoads site. This official interactive map[1] deems all of CityLink as "freeway". This VicRoads page [2] calls CityLink a "freeway tollway" (indicating that it is both). Another VicRoads page [3] calls the Exhibition St extension (Batman Avenue) a tollway. It's certainly not designed for a high volume of traffic, and has a few sets of lights, too.
For the basic definition, tolled freeway seems to me to be the most descriptive, unambiguous term we could use - it is not an oxymoron (which you even contradicted yourself on, by more or less stating (and quoting definitions that support) that tollways are a subset of freeways).
Is this a political thing? --Evan C (Talk) 06:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My external source is the Melway (Greater Melbourne Street Directory). It combines all of the authorites, every local council/shire authority, they do they're own surveying and research which is backed up and updated by readers, it combines authorities such as VicRoads and works closely with Federal, State and Local Governments to obtain the required information. It is one of the best sources of information I've come across, ever. The declaration that CityLink is a freeway is misinformed. I agree that to someone who knows nothing about roads would find "tolled freeway" easier to understand, but I don't feel it warrants the misuse of information for simplicity. A Tollway is a Tollway, I've put links from tollway to "toll road" so if people are confused they will only be so for as long as it takes them to read about toll roads. Because there is no universal agreement it makes things complicated and sometimes confusing especially initially, but the fact remains that in Australia they are tollways, just as freeways are freeways. I believe my comparison was an apeal to ignorance but an accurate one none the less. Lets get it right from the start. Nick carson 12:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the Melway is an excellent source of information - in most cases, I find it to be the best. However, Melway's purpose is very different to ours. Terminology used by Melway needs to be brutally concise, instantly recognisable, and describe things as they are most practically - superficially, even. "Tollway" suits this. Conversely, we need to describe it in the fullest way possible, whilst remaining to-the-point. "Tolled freeway" suits this - and is not intrinsically incorrect (unless you'd like to prove otherwise).
Additionally, the Toll road article does not accurately describe the nature of EastLink (it hardly even discusses the nature of tolling on EastLink); the Freeway article is much more appropriate. Freeway even states that "Despite the name, a freeway can be a toll road.", and has a picture of CityLink in its gallery! Whilst it does say that "The word freeway is also used to describe a highway without tolls.", that is by no means an exclusive statement - far from it.
At any rate, the only official sources I have found that shed light on what we should call it are the Vicroads links I posted above - pretty convincing, I would've thought. --Evan C (Talk) 13:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A tolled freeway is what it is. Nick, you have no consensus - as Evan points out, Melway is not an official source, nor an authority on what roads should be called. May I also point out that there is no Wikipedia article for Tollway - it is simply a term coined by the media. Please don't edit the article again with your personal opinions, without a consensus. Thanks. --Commking 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point of the argument.
  • Consensus is suseptible to being incorrect, so it is not the be all and end all.
  • The Melways is as good a source as any, I'm not a melways advocate, it dosent take a degree to understand that the melways is the best source of compilled information concerning urban areas as far as transportation is concerned in Australia.
  • Tollway is not a term coined by the media. It is a combination of the words "freeway" and "toll" equalling "tollway". Terms such as Mitcham - Frankston Freeway are typical of those coined by the media.
  • There isn't a wikipedia article on me but that dosent mean I don't exist.
  • I won't edit the article again without consensus. It seems at least ozzmosis understands where I'm comming from.
  • Wikipedia is a chance to do things the right way from the beginning to eliminate confusion. Tolled Freeway is an oxymoron. Tollway is not. If "acceptible sources" or even relevant authorities don't do it the best way that dosent mean we have to follow suit, we should do things the right way. For example: SEITA calls the entire project an expressway. Must I reitterate further? Nick carson 12:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An Oxymoron? I think your idea of what a Freeway is is wrong. It's not called that because it's free of tolls or charges - It's free because of the physical design and construction of the road, allowing "free" flow of traffic. No stops, no intersections, no traffic lights. If you put a toll on it, it's still a freeway, just a tolled freeway. See the Freeway article for more info --Commking 02:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastlink uses the term motorway rather than freeway - "tolled motorway" is more appropriate. - "With 39km of motorway, by-passing at least 45 traffic lights, EastLink will create new opportunities for saving time. Use EastLink, and your time will be better spent." from http://www.eastlink.com.au/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Victoria, nobody calls a road a "motorway" - it's a freeway. Maybe Eastlink have a kiwi or someone from Sydney writing their marketing material. Motorway, Expressway, Freeway are all accepted terms in common use that describe the same physical type of road - but they are known as "Freeways" in Victoria. I also note that the article is full of references to the other Freeways Eastlink connects to - not motorways. Best to keep the article consistent for easier reading and to avoid potential confusion, using a term that is locally relevant, in addition to be recognised worldwide. --Commking (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "term" motorway has come into use in other Australian cities in more recent years, where once "freeway" was the standard, particularly for toll roads. It is also the basis for the route numbering of freeway-grade roads in Victoria, e.g. M1, M3 NOT F1, F3. Noting these changes in usage in Australia, if it is being referred to as a "motorway" on its own website then surely that is the term that should be used here, even if other roads (e.g. Monash Freeway, Eastern Freeway) use a different name for essentially the same thing. (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what happens in other states, the road is in Victoria. Regardless of what Eastlink call it, it is a freeway standard road according to the Wikipedia definition of a freeway. Please take a look at this article and see what I mean. And in Victoria, it's a freeway; not an expressway, not a motorway, not a superhighway, not an autobahn - Freeway is the accepted and common term used in the state of Victoria for this type of road. Let's not allow marketing to become a benchmark? Should we also say that Telstra's NextG network is not a mobile phone network, but a "NextG" network? If you can explain how a motorway is somehow a different or a better term than freeway; or a more proper name somehow, please go ahead. If you believe freeway is not a proper term, perhaps you can take it up in the freeway article? --Commking (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Equally it would fit the definition of a motorway and if that is what ConnectEast calls it then so should we - this is quite different to the Telstra example as motorway is a widely used term. As for comprehension by Victorians, there should be no problem as motorway is widely used around the world and is used often enough in Victoria as a generic term to include Freeways, Tollways etc., especially since the introduction of the "M" designation. Freeway was at one point the generic term across Australia and thus at some point in the other states the term motorway must have been introduced for certain roads (notably toll roads) - they have coped with having more than one term for essentially the same thing and undoubtedly Victorians will as well. If it's called a motorway, and as long as it fits a motorway's technical description, we should call it a motorway. Mastronarde (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, edit wars are not how things are done here on Wikipedia. If there is a disagreement, we resolve it here first. Tolled freeway is what has been agreed here in the past - so if you want to challenge that, that's fine, you are welcome, but you need to get it resolved here first, THEN it gets changed. Next, the term motorway is not in common use at all in Victoria - it just isn't - they are called freeways there. Eastlink's marketing department isn't the authority here. What happens in other states and countries around the world is also not relevant. Even if it was, why Motorway, and not Autobahn, Interstate or Expressway, Autostrada or Turnpike? Obviously, different locales have their own terms in use - just like Victoria. There is no central authority for the universe to decide that one particular term is the "correct" one. Check the freeway article, and you will find Eastlink meets that criteria. I think the best result here is that the article reflect the fact that Eastlink refer to their road as a Motorway - or more accurately, most of their web site refers to it as just plain Eastlink. Motorway hardly gets a mention there at all.... --Commking (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motorway seems most appropriate, even if it is the less common term in Victoria. The term is certainly not unknown in Victoria and if Connect East says it's a motorway then Wikipedia should refer to it in this manner - it certainly fits the description of a motorway. Vox latina (talk) 13:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I think we should make sure that the article is consistant. If you have a look at CityLink, it has been written out as "Tolled Freeways" and in that case, this article should follow the same manner, I think we should leave it as it is at the moment of "Tolled Freeway". Another reasoning is that in Victoria, we don't have any road specifically called "Motorway", they are all either highways or freeways. If Eastlink was in Sydney, then yes, I would have no problem with it being called a Tolled Motorway, as Sydney have freeways which are free, then freeways that are technically called motorways, which are tolled. If here in Melbourne we had roads eg. Monash Motorway, then yes, it should be "Tolled Motorway". Mal1988 (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connect East calls it a motorway, SEITA calls it an expressway and Thiess John Holland calls it a bypass and a motorway. Encyclopedias don't follow misinformity. The Eastern Ring Road is a Tollway.
  • It is the use of the term 'tolled freeway' in both the Citylink and Eastlink articles that is being discussed here.
  • The term 'Tolled freeway' is an accurate but inapropriate term as another term already exists in 'Tollway'.
  • The term 'Tollway' is accepted by Vicroads, the Melways street directory and wikipeida (see: Tollway)
  • I would like to hear some valid reasons from wikipedia editors as to why the use of the term 'Tollway' is aparently inappropriate for an article about a tollway. (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment has not been replied to since it was posted in early April, it's now late September, if we have established that there are no arguments against the use of the term tollway then it should be changed within the Citylink and Eastlink articles and tolled freeway removed. Nick carson (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Non-NPOV shifted here for reference restoring article's neutrality:

  • The freeway was previously planned to operate without tolls, and half of the construction costs was to come from the Federal Government. In fact, one of Steve Bracks' election promises during the 2002 state election was that the road will remain toll-free. However, disputes between the State and Federal Governments in 2003 over funding issues saw the Federal Government withdraw from funding the project. Unwilling (or unable) to fund the whole road by itself, the State Government announced that a toll will be imposed on the road when it opens, though it is widely believed that a very substantial proportion of the road will still need to be funded by state taxpayers.
  • Previous 1999 work by the Department of Infrastructure estimated that 55 per cent of motorists would use local roads such as Stud and Springvale Road in preference to a Tollway.
  • The cost of the project has risen from $880 million to $2.6 billion, and it is believed it will climb further. The offer from the Federal Government increased during the 2004 election campaign from $441m to $565m, approximately 1/5th the estimated project cost.
  • Some view the construction of the freeway as unnecessary, arguing that public transport in the area should be improved instead. The 1998 Environmental Effects Statement found that a 2% increase in public transport patronage would deliver equivalent benefits to traffic to those caused by the Scoresby Freeway. But once this became apparent, road bureaucrats overseeing the study dropped the "public transport upgrade" option from the study to prevent it "winning".
  • Some see the construction of the freeway as a not-so-secret agenda by VicRoads to complete the Melbourne Ring Road. Signs on existing major roads still refer to the project as "Eastern Ring Road (Scoresby Section)"
  • The only remaining section of the Ring Road left to be constructed would be the most environmentally damaging section, through the extremely sensitive Yarra Flats, between the Eastern Freeway and the Northern Ring Road, either via Eltham or Heidelberg. The standard tactic in such situations is to build a less controversial freeway that funnels massive amounts of traffic onto local roads, then watch the traffic chaos and wait for the locals to beg them for a freeway around their suburb. The tactic worked well in East Malvern, and numerous other controversial locations around Melbourne.
  • Justice Gray of the Federal Court accepted an argument along those lines in a recent court case.

Glad you removed it - its a bunch of very left-wing assertions - similar sort of people run the local council in Richmond that refuses to widen roads to ease bottlenecks - and no i don't live in Richmond i just hate left wing kooks. PMA

No, its a bunch of things that have happened. It was an election promise, and the promise was broken. The cost of the project has risen by that much. Of course it is being built to complete the entire ring road, that is not an "agenda" however, it is somthing that needs to be done unless we pass a law banning all automobiles. I cannot comment on the public transport issues as I cannot confirm they are true or not, nor can I comment on the connection of the eastern ring road to the northern ring road... This has not been proposed on paper, only in theory, and I know that if one day they were to connect the two, the majority of it would be a tunnel, and it would pass through and/or under Eltham/Greensborough area. Nick carson 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These controversial points have a place in the article. But not without some references and citiations. --Commking 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Mitcham-Frankston Freeway now called EastLink, at least by Premier Bracks? -EuropracBHIT 02:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Yes, EastLink is now its commercial name, although its correct name is the Eastern Ring Road. Although now that its not a freeway anymore and its a tollway, i suppose EastLink might be its correct name afterall. Who voted for Labor anyway??? Victorians kill me somtimes with their stupidity. Nick carson 06:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the removal of the controversies - this article needs its controversies replaced in order to be factual. While actual views don't need to be expressed, the controversy itself is real, a reportable historical component of the road's development, yet not mentioned once in the article. The result to a casual reader like myself is that the article does not seem to reciprocate well with other Victorian articles such as Steve Bracks. That said, other facts about its benefit would also be useful, such as estimated travel times - passerby Adam 22:47, 9 Jun 2005

The first paragraph in the Controversies section is not NPOV and needs revision.

  • More detail is needed on the reasons that the State Government gave for tolling the road. The reason the road is tolled is the Government had to choose between not building the road at all (due to a lack of funds), going into debt to build the road without tolls, or building a toll road. All these required the breaking of an election promise, so the Government chose to build the road without tolls.
  • Saying "much anger" is strongly POV, as is the assertion that everyone in Melbourne is angry about it. This is not the case. Such claims need references or should be removed, and opposing points of view must be stated.
  • There's no similar Controversises section in the CityLink article. CityLink also had its share of controversial issues, such as the inclusion of publicly-funded road sections in the tollway (Monash, Tullamarine), and the closure or narrowing of sections of road designed to funnel traffic onto the tollway.
  • No mention is made on allegations of astroturfing being done in relation to this issue. On many occasions prominent Opposition politicians have been seen at anti-toll rallies. Was this all above-board or were some of the rallies organised by the Liberal party as some have alleged? --B.d.mills 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the first paragraph to be more neutral and less POV, although I think "much anger" is not inaccurate as such. It is true there is no Controversises section in CityLink, but I reckon it could definitely use one, or do you mean the EastLink one should be removed? Not sure what you mean by Astroturfing, if you are referring to the Libs and some councils milking the issue for all it is worth, you are correct. It is particularly ironic considering the Libs have said they would also toll the road, while objecting to the Bracks govt. toll at the same time. I'd prefer the article didn't get too political, so not sure how to introduce that without thinking about it... --Commking 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Astroturfing for a definition. Astroturfing is likely to be going on here, because it is unusual for activism over a broken electoral promise to continue for so long. It's not as if people are going to be forced to use the road, after all.
We should explore in more depth the political reasons behind the Liberal federal government withdrawing funding from this project run by a state Labor government. Would this have happened had the Victorian state government been a Liberal government? Unlikely. It's the workings of party politics in action. I think the best way to examine this issue would be to mention that the Victorian state government is Labor, the Federal government is Liberal, and that attaching (possibly ex post facto) conditions to Federal road funding and the subsequent withdrawal of such funding is unusual. Then people can draw their own conclusions.
Controversies in both articles should be given similar treatment because to do otherwise is partisan and therefore POV. The CityLink article should have a Controversies section added. The decision to charge a toll was considered controversial at the time, as were the road closures and the imposition of tolls on publicly-funded roads.
--B.d.mills 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Controversies section to citylink. --Commking 12:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fan-bloody-tastic! :) It should be noted that history is written by the winners. This does not have to be the case here. Its a great chance to write an article that is factual and includes all information regaurding the subject, not just the info that everyone remembers a few years afterwards. This I think happened to Citylink, there was so much crap going on that many people have forgotten about simply because its old news and all we see today are the tolls and the new roads, tunnels and bridges, so thats all we seem to remember. No matter how menial you think something is, share it in the discussion here (thats what this place is for) and if we can satisfy wikipedia policy, we can actually include some of the facts in the article itself! Wow! Nick carson 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image requested[edit]

Beceause this article could really do with an image, I have emailled SEITA and ConnectEast requesting that one or two be released for Wikipedia. Will add any responses I receive here. --Evan C (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could help out seeing as I live only a few hundred metres from Eastlink. I could take some pictures of current construction and post it up here but I think it's the best we are going to get. Also, if someone can make a simple route map that would be useful for the article. I'm good at manipulating maps but not creating them so any map I upload would probably be against the law! :) Lakeyboy 10:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

Oh, please. This isn't exactly NPOV writing! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:42, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's not pretending to... that's why it's still a stub; please contribute to the article, especially on the freeway's advantages. --spacehunt 04:41, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Environmental issues[edit]

The whole 'environmental issues' section needs to be sourced. it is written as if it is fact whereas it is a point of view. Many anti-roads academics would argue that the induced traffic phenomenon will lead to more vehicles using the road without any environmental gains. If anybody is interested in presenting both sides to the argument and writing a NPOV article then you may want look up some of the work done by Dr Paul Mees of Melbourne University on the issue. There is quite a bit online if you google Paul Mees and Scoresby, EastLink or related words. In the meantime, would it be appropriate to add one of these tags to the section to indicate that it provides only one point of view and is unreferenced? -- Adz|talk 06:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so, Paul Mees should not be listened to about anything :) --Evan C (Talk) 11:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote it - hopefully it's OK now. It's more concise, too. I'll reference it when I have some more time (there are a number of news links on the SEITA website for it, and I remember reading a few articles of note, too). --Evan C (Talk) 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taht looks better. Thanks. I've removed the tag. If you wanted to put the second paragraph first and the first paragraph lower down that would be fine too. -- Adz|talk 05:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this paragraph: "The option chosen - for two long tunnels - was the most expensive, but most environmentally friendly." is misleading. option 3 was the most expensive option (short term costs only), with the longest tunnel length, but I believe option 2 was chosen[4][5] instead. The environmental impact on the freeway to the Mullum Valley has still been significant (sorry no references yet). --Brian May 04:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's it now? It's interesting, though - I only ever read on the VicRoads website of three options - the surface, the short tunnels, and the long tunnels (which they claimed to be the chosen option). Funny how those details get left out, eh? --Evan C (Talk) 05:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better, Thanks. --Brian May 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for removal of this paragraph which can be found in the Environmental Issues section of this article:

However, this positive effect could well be negated in the long run by additional traffic being encouraged onto the roads by the reduced travel times.
Reason: The more cars that are travelling at higher more efficient speeds reduces the ammount of cars travelling at lower inefficient speeds. The only negative effect is one that exists with or without the tollway; as the number of cars existing increases, so does the release of damaging gasses such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The positive effect will not be negated just because people forego public transport because they can get there quicker on the new eastern ring road. It may have a small affect but not enough to negate the positive efficency of cars opperating at the speeds seen on this new tollway. Please Note: If I had my way there'd be no cars, but you can't ignore the fact that cars travelling at higher speeds opperate more efficiently. Nick carson 13:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cars are going to be driving faster? Like they were supposed to on Citylink you mean? Why do you think that this will be the first freeway in the history of the world not to suffer from congestion, and that traffic will always be going fast? The truth is freeways attract traffic, or even generate traffic, and the speed benefits are going to be shortlived, just like Citylink. --Commking 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they move at all, it'll be an improvement on the existing situation. --Evan C (Talk) 10:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It will be an improvement of course - a big one - but not a fix. It will bog down eventually, and in the morning peak it will do so from day one. Making driving easier and more attractive just encourages more cars on to the road - everyone wants the other guy to use public transport, not themselves. What we need is a rail line out to Rowville, Doncaster, Wantirna.. dream on! --Commking 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I admit that I would rather a rail line built to serve the Knox area, there is no doubt that it will help improve traffic flow in the eastern suburbs. The only downsides is it's just going to get more congested at the end of the Frankston Freeway (which is why they need to construct the Frankston Bypass) and at the end of the Eastern Freeway (which is also why they need to construct a tunnel to the Tulla Freeway. If you have ever travelled down Stud Road or Springvale Road (Like I have countless times during my life), Stud Road is hell during peak hours. With the 3 lane, 2 Lane, 3 lane etc situation not helping either. Springvale Road is chaotic 24/7. Major Intersections, 2 very busy level crossings and over 100 traffic lights from Edithvale to Donvale. Now don't tell me that these roads are still going to be hell when EastLink opens. --Lakeyboy 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Citylink went in, Dandenong Road got better but was no means a dream run. Now, it's almost at pre-SE Eastern Fwy levels. I suspect the same will happen to Stud Road - It'll be nice for a while, and it will fill up again slowly... --Commking 02:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Train line closed[edit]

Connex did try to warn commuters about the train line being closed - via signs posted at all stations, radio annoucements, and an annoucenment on their website. However, the warning was not carried accross to the Metlink website, and no information was provided via the SMS service. In the notification (which no longer appears to be available), from memory, they the trip was expected to take up to 30 minutes longer (which was wrong - I was delayed closer to 1 hour 45 minutes). I don't know what time these warnings were posted; I heard the radio announcement at about 7:35am. As such, as much as I don't like Connex, I think it is unfair to say "the line was closed for the morning with no effort to alert commuters of the closure", so I changed it. --Brian May 23:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Also, it's my understanding that at least some people were notified via SMS of delays (either anticipated or current), but I don't know about the timing of the events. --ozzmosis 03:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That whole section is really rather non-NPOV in its wording. I'll clean it up when I get a chance, with refs. --Evan C (Talk) 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tollway vs. Freeway[edit]

If the eastlink is a free way then why when you travel on citylink you notice the signs change from "freeway" to "tollway". This is to advise you that you are entering the tollway section of that road. Therefore Eastlink as it is tolled the whole way is NOT a Freeway it is a Tollway. Have the public relation officers at Eastlink been editing wiki??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JDAY83 (talkcontribs) 00:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that a freeway has to be free of charge. This is not the case, see the Freeway article for the correct definition of what a Freeway is. The road is a freeway because of it meets freeway standards - no intersections, no traffic lights etc.. It allows the FREE flow of traffic. Just because it is tolled, does not change this - it simply makes it a tolled freeway. A tollway just means it has tolls, and so describing Eastlink as a tolled freeway is a more accurate description. Citylink can put a "tollway" sign on their road if they like, but it is still a freeway as it is of freeway standard - just one with tolls. --Commking 01:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Freeway was the American term for a Free highway. They used terms like "turnpike" and "tollway" for tolled roads. There was a continous tradition of toll roads in the United States: they had been replaced in England, and had never existed in Australia. In Victoria, when the Bolte government introduced Freeways on the American model, they copied the term Freeway. In Victoria, there were, and had never been, any turnpikes or tollroads to form a contrast with the freeways, and the term was understood (in Victoria) to apply to the new highways build on the American Freeway model. (And to understand that difference, you have to appreciate that some highways were still unpaved). The English did not have any remaining turnpikes, but, like the Americans and the Australians, they had added a Motorway system to their existing Carrigeway system. In Victoria, when the second Cain goverment came in they renamed the Freeways as Motorways, using the English name. (Under Kerner, that government also renamed all the High Schools, mostly as "Secondary Colleges"). It would be false to read any functional difference into the road renaming, but it did, incidentally, allow subsequent goverements to extend the route numbering system over both Freeways and Turnpikes.
Now that Victoria has both Freeways and Turnpikes, and the route naming system uses the term Motorway to cover both, it makes sense to allow the term Freeway to revert to it's clear meaning, even though that meaning was it's original American meaning, not it's common Victorian meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria did have tollways. One, at least, was the Great Ocean Road. The Kirner government did not rename all the schools, just a lot of them. There are still several High Schools. When you're trying to make a point, getting your facts right is important. HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Ocean Road was a Tollway from 1932 to 1936. The "Several High Schools" that remained were 2: MacRobertsons and Melbourne High, which were unique in several respects, and in no way representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The seita and Eastlink websites make no mention of this road being a "tolled freeway", it is known on these websites as either a tollway or motorway, and the connecteast website describes it as a "freeway standard" tollway, also, the CityLink website and Transurban website refer to CityLink as either a motorway or tollway, no mention of it being a "tolled freeway", whats the difference between a freeway and motorway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispain (talkcontribs) 21:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway and Motorway are pretty much the same type of road. In other places they are called Expressways, Autobahns, Turnpikes, Autostrada, Interstates, and I am sure there are more. Wikipedia does not seem to have a policy where one name is used to describe the same type of road for all roads the world over - I don't think Wikipedia should adopt one over all others, to describe these types of roads. Instead, articles on a particular road use the locally used term. In the state of Victoria, they are known as Freeways, ever since the construction of the first such road in the state. Citylink was a freeway before a toll was placed on it. The physical characteristics of the road didn't change - they just expanded it and put on a toll - it's still a freeway. Like Citylink, Eastlink also meets the description of a freeway in the freeway article, it also has a toll on it. Tollway just means it has a toll on it - it doesn't describe the physical characteristics of the road. The term "Tolled freeway" better and more accurately describes the road in this case. --Commking (talk) 06:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several English dictionaries describe an Expressway (US) and a Motorway (UK) as a high speed divided highway for through traffic with partially or fully controlled access and grade seperated intersections. A Freeway is an Expressway that is toll free and a Tollway is an Expressway where a toll is collected. A Turnpike is a tolled Expressway where a tollgate or pike is lowered to stop traffic in order to pay the toll, this comes from the medievel English word that was used at the time when the Kings Pikemen were used to stop traffic on the Kings Highways to pay a toll to the King for using his roads. Turnpike is only used in the USA today and not in the UK because in the UK turnpikes were dismantled in the late 1800's as a way of competing against the rise of public transport, people would rather travel on trains than pay a toll on the roads. Are we in the State of Victoria using the wrong word to describe an Expressway/Motorway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispain (talkcontribs) 11:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route number[edit]

It has been added to the article that the tollway will be signed M3 when it opens. Is there a source on this. When Victoria went through the route system changes, I rode down the Eastern Freeway before it opened and all signs were labelled with M3 on them but all got coverplated with 83 before the freeway opened. Was this the reason for it? What are others views on this. --Lakeyboy 09:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering where that came from for a while - Google comes up a blank? I don't think it's very notable anyway - I've never heard anyone say "I have to gome on the M1" for example.. --Commking 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed all route numbers not shown in the current edition of Melway (Ed34/2007). Until an official/published source of some kind is found for each, I would ask that people refrain from adding them. --Evan C (Talk) 11:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE I have now got confirmation that EastLink will indeed be signed M3. If anyone wants proof, go to the city bound onramp entry at Boronia Road and look under the material covering the sign. It says < M3 Ringwood | . Will make changes to the article now. --Lakeyboy 08:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodo - great to finally have an answer! When I get a new bike seat I'll be going along and thoroughly photographing the project, including this. --Evan C (Talk) 10:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just realised that this route numbering decision must have been part of a larger plan. As I said above, before the Eastern Freeway extension opened in late 1997, and I rode down the freeway on my bike to have a look and all the signs had M3 on them but got covered with 83 when the freeway opened (which you can tell by looking at any Eastern Freeway 83 sign with the 83 part stuck over the top of the M3 part). Now the plan has come full circle. Now the question is what will happen to the rest of route 83 east of Hoddle Street and if it will stay as is or will get a different route number. I personally doubt it. --Lakeyboy 06:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not of M route standard. Leaving it as-is seems most likely. --Evan C (Talk) 09:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly become the A3 (from M3) if suburban Melbourne converts over to the alpha-numeric standard, at least until Nicholson St. Although having seen the former Hume Highway/Sydney Road became Metro 55 instead of A31 (or even A55) makes me wonder how long that will be: why bother re-signing a long stretch of road with a blue shield if your streets will be alpha'd anytime soon? --Lordstorm 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be long until a metro MABC conversion is upon us. Found this picture of a Canterbury kilometre distance sign near EastLink stating B34! Why it says B34 instead of B32 is beyond me. Must be a complete overhawl of the route numbering system. Pic here: http://members.optusnet.com.au/mainroadsvic/D/RD1%202008.jpg --Lakeyboy (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do your research! That photo is a fake. - Bricks J. Winzer (talk) 11:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the sign for real but it had 32 on it when I saw it. I just assumed they coverplated it. If it is photoshopped, they did a good job of it, but I knew something was fishy about it. --Lakeyboy (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If suburban Melbourne converts to the alpha-numeric signs, I don't think the Eastern Hwy can become the A3, that would be for the Nepean Hwy, which is currently metro-3, Nepean Hwy would have to become the A3, just like the Princes Hwy (Dandenong Rd) would become the A1? How did Eastlink/Eastern fwy get M3, the original sign for eastern Fwy was F19 and Eastlink was F35. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrispain (talkcontribs) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estimated Completion[edit]

A friend of mine is a councillor for a council along the Eastlink route. He says Eastlink are telling them it'll be done in March 2008. And no, I can't provide references! --Commking 11:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere recently that we can reference. I'll see if I can dig it up. --Evan C (Talk) 03:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"coined by media"[edit]

It says in the article that the media coined "mitcham to frankston freeway". I remember going to the official website for the freeway (before it was called Eastlink) and the website's URL was "www.mitchamfranksstonproject.com.au"... So yeah it makes no sense really. Jamesbehave 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term was in use long before the website (now the SEITA website) was created.
That said, it's hard to verify such a claim, so it may need to go. --Evan C (Talk) 04:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a name created by the govt as The Age (24 September 2002) reported the following:
"Announcing the review yesterday, Mr Batchelor said the combined project would have a single name, the Mitcham-Frankston Freeway. "
--Melb2000 (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Limited access at the Tom Wills (Monash Freeway M1) interchange[edit]

I have added "limited access" to the Monash Freeway interchange because there is no access to the M1 eastbound (towards Dandenong) from the northbound carriageway of Eastlink. Mal1988 (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson/Thompsons Rd Interchange[edit]

If you have a look at the Melway, it actually states that between Patterson Lakes/Mornington Peninsula Fwy and Frankston-Dandenong Road, that it is Thompson Rd, without the "s". This is also where Eastlink's junction is between. The section after Dandenong-Frankston Rd is then named Thompsons Rd with the "s". Do not revert. Mal1988 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Luke, can we have a map made of the route, showing its placement around greater Melbourne?


WikiDon (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to me. I am in the process of making a map for this article, similar to the one on the Dingley Freeway article. Should be up soon. --Lakeyboy (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I recommend that the map be in SVG format? If you need help with saving it in SVG, just let me know. --Evan C (Talk) 11:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well at the moment, I am creating it in Photoshop so it is in a PSD format with layers which is saved in PSD format, which means it is rastered. I then export it to the PNG format with the transparency. If you can convert that to SVG, that would be great but I'm not sure how difficult it would be to do so. --Lakeyboy (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on how the lines are made in Photoshop, it might be a reasonably easy conversion using Illustrator. When you're done, send me an email (I'll PM you my email address on RP) with the PSD, and I'll give it a shot.
My main reason for suggestng SVG is that it's a Wikipedia preferred format for graphics. That, and I'm a vector nut ;) --Evan C (Talk) 14:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that Evan. I will send it over to you when it's complete. I'll try to send it tomorrow (6/4) but I may not get the chance. I'm going to see the pies! --Lakeyboy (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming History[edit]

What is the source for the 'Eastern Ring Road" name. I'm unconvinced this was the 'original' name for the project. (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if there's a citable source for it, but there used to be signs at the sites of a few of the interchanges in the Wantirna-Rowville area stating something along the lines of "Site of Eastern Ring Road - Scoresby Section". A long time ago (pre-2003). --Evan C (Talk) 13:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only credible source that is available is pre 2005 editions of the Melway/UBD. They state that Eastlink was the proposed Eastern Ring Road - Scoresby Section. Mal1988 (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout[edit]

Now that EastLink is open for business, I think that it is the perfect time to organise the article and determine what needs to be included in the article and what gets left out. My inspiration for this is the only Featured Articles on roads on Wikipedia (Interstate 15 in Arizona, Interstate 355, Interstate 70 in Utah, New York State Route 28, New York State Route 32 and New York State Route 174).

This is my first draft of what I think the Table of Contents should look like. This is all coming off the top of my head so don't treat this as the final solution.


  • Route Description
    • Donvale to Ringwood Basic description of the driving conditions including the tunnels and the Ringwood Interchange and Ringwood Bypass with link to main article of Ringwood Bypass.
    • Ringwood to Dandenong Basic description of driving conditions including points of interest such as the large golf ball net near Canterbury Road, the pedestrian footbridges and the first piece of art, the "Smarties" (Ellipsoidal Freeway Sculpture). Information about the Monash Freeway (Tom Wills) Interchange will also go here. Info will end with the three levels of road at the Princes Highway.
    • Dandenong to Carrum Downs Basic description of the driving conditions including the remaining three major pieces of art as well as a brief description of the Dandenong Bypass with a link to main article of Dingley Freeway. Could include mention of the media coined "Dandy Drag Strip" section (Princes Highway - Cheltenham Road)
  • History
    • Planning history (<2005) How the freeway first emerged in the Melway in the mid-sixties, the environmental and traffic effects, the merging of the Eastern Freeway extension with the project, the backflip on tolls by Labor and the bidding process.
    • Construction history (2005 - Mid 2008) Info about different construction techniques, the break up of construction into different regions, road diversions, speed limit drops, major milestone events (bridge beams lifted, tunnel breakthrough, construction delays (Lilydale rail line bridge delays), dandy bypass opening, naming of road features etc. etc.) the 2 major public open days
    • Operation history (Mid 2008 - ) Could include tolling information, safety systems of the road, effects on traffic patterns throughout eastern Melbourne, media attention and reactions, traffic levels pre-tolls (school holidays and no school holidays) and post-tolls
  • Associated features This section could include information about the EastLink Trail (this will have it's own main article, as per other Melbourne bike trails), the public artworks, upgrades to existing non-eastlink roads (Boronia Road, Ferntree Gully Road, Wellington Road etc), public transport improvements, wetlands and parklands etc.
  • List of interchanges The map of EastLink and the table of exits and major features along the road will go here.
  • References Resources used to support article information
  • External links references to official websites as well as relevent third party links.

What do you all think? What would add/remove/change. I wish to bring this article up to GA and set this article as the standard for Australian road articles on Wikipedia. --Lakeyboy (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New images[edit]

I went out today to take some pics of EastLink and the EastLink Trail between Koomba Park and Springvale Road today. Pictures which I deem worthy of adding to the article will be placed here in a gallery. I have also added lat-long coordinates to the images shown below. --Lakeyboy (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic restrictions on public roads[edit]

There is an item under controversies that states that the State Government will be entitled to revenue from additional traffic onto Eastlink if public roads are restricted. This needs a reference to verify its validity or needs to be removed. I have not been able to verify this and suspect that it is an old rumour. GrahamP (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankston Freeway congestion[edit]

Finally, many in the local area at the Southern end of EastLink argue that EastLink will in fact funnel much more traffic onto the Frankston Freeway...

There is a Herald Sun article today detailing increased traffic congestion on the Frankston Freeway due to Eastlink. [6] Might be able to use it as a reference. --ozzmosis (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now dust has settled, the lead needs a cleanup[edit]

I've just looked at this article for the very first time. The first paragraph reads like a Liberal Party press release form 2004. I acknowledge the issue of tolling WAS a big political one during construction, but it has faded away these days. It certainly deserves a mention in the history and/or controversies sections, but it should not three quarters of the first paragraph. And while noting the extensive discussion above, I live in the eastern suburbs and use Eastlink several times a month and have heard heard or seen the term tolled freeway apart from in this article. It reads like one of those terms designed by committee. HiLo48 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been six months with no comment. I've removed the "controversy" bit from the lead. It's still well covered within the article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EastLink has now been open for 4 years. The ownership structure has changed (ConnectEast is now a private company, not listed on the ASX), traffic has increased to 200,000 trips a day, more than 500,000 Breeze tags have been issued to customers, the first of two BP service stations has opened on EastLink operated by Melbourne company AA Holdings, the new un-tolled Peninsula Link freeway is due to open by early 2013, two new interchanges will open soon (Peninsula Link and Caribbean Gardens), EastLink is one of Victoria's safest freeways in terms of casual accident rates per 100Mkm, two major cycle events are held annually on EastLink (Hanover ConnectEast Ride for Home - the second biggest cycle event in Victoria; and the bike leg of Ironman Melbourne one of the most important Ironman events globally), EastLink sponsors a road safety program with Eastern Football League, Mornington Peninsula Football League and Dandenong Basketball, EastLink also sponsors Frankston Arts Centre and Football Fives at Knox Regional Sports Park.

Please contact Doug Spencer-Roy dsroy@connecteast.com.au for up to date information and photography to assist with updating this wiki entry (including photography of the cycle events), we are very happy to help. Dspencerroy (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment reads like an Eastlink press release, but you knew that already of course. It fails to recognise the functional problems caused by the privatisation of this particular road. Regarding the Liberal party, it had a long tradition of supporting private funding models and user-pays social benefits: it's opposition to this particular corporatisation indicates just how inept the proposal was.
Although the political issue of tolling has faded away, the functional issue remains, as was demonstrated recently by problems introducing bus lanes on Stud road. The Freeway was designed to reduce traffic on Stud and Springvale roads, allowing them to be used for bus lanes and local transit, and allowing the traffic lights to be re-timed, to allow faster East-West traffic to the growing outer-outer-eastern suburbs, and better north-south public transport in the existing outer-eastern suburbs. The functional issue is illustrated by the political issue: in particular, the Federal government funding was withdrawn, because, as a toll road, it would not fullfill these design goals, and did not have any reasonable funding justification. Continuing support for Rowville rail indicates that East-West road travel is still a problem. Failure to complete bus lanes indicates the North-South travel is still a problem. These problems could have been solved by a North-South Freeway.
Yes, Dspencerroy's post reads like a press release. Unfortunately, so does yours (whoever you are). Please stop it. Wikipedia is not a forum. We don't comment on what has happened. We just describe it. (And please remember to sign your posts.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]