TT 235: Bus frequency of frequencies and the weekend cliff

Last week I graphed the frequency of Melbourne bus routes at midday weekdays, aided by data from Adam Bain's Frequency Finder. 

Matching the common reputation of Melbourne buses, this graph showed that just 7 out of over 350 routes ran every 10 minutes or better while a further 18 ran every 15 minutes. More ran every 20 minutes but the vast majority were still every 30 or 40 minutes. 

However that data didn't tell us whether weekday peak service is much better than off-peak. Or how weekends fare. 

Fortunately Adam has since added peak and weekend charts to his item on bus route numbers. So I'm back to look at what these tell us about the frequency of bus frequencies at these times. 

Weekends (every 40 minutes is king)

Below shows number of bus routes in each frequency band at midday. It's like the graph last week but I've added Saturdays and Sundays plus a 'No service' grouping. 

You will notice that while the 31 - 60 minute grouping was tallest on weekdays there was still a substantial number of routes in the 21 - 30 and 16 - 20 minute frequency bands. 

That is not so on weekends. On Saturday and (especially) Sunday most frequent and semi-frequent weekday bus routes become infrequent. That introduces an inconsistency of service that is not present with trams and trains.  

For example on Saturdays the 31 - 60 minute column is five times taller than the next. This overwhelmingly comprises routes either every 40 or 60 minutes. Even semi-frequent service is rare on Sundays, with barely 10% of the total (or 38 routes) operating every 30 minutes or better versus nearly double that (78) not operating at all. For some reason the 901 and 902 orbitals (nominally every 30 min) made the 31 - 60 minute grouping on Sunday, possibly due to a slightly uneven timetable. 

Personally I'd have split the 31 to 60 minute groupings so that 40 and 60 minute frequencies were in different ranges. If this was done you would find that 40 minute column is tallest, ie it becomes the mode (ie most common) off-peak frequency for Melbourne's buses. This would likely apply on both weekdays and weekends though there are routes that are every 40 min on weekdays but 60 min on weekends, especially Sundays. 

Be aware that this generalised data also doesn't tell us the very large differences between routes. On some service levels collapse between weekdays and weekends, others are frequent Monday to Saturday, collapsing on Sundays while a third group run the same frequency all week.

Examples of routes (that mostly but not always have legacy timetables) with sharp weekend frequency falls include 410, 472, 828 and even the new 241. All these drop to one-third or one-quarter weekday frequencies on weekends, particularly on Sundays. 

Drops to half frequency are common on most SmartBuses that drop from every 15 to every 30 minutes on weekends. Similar applies to new or upgraded growth area routes in Craigieburn, Diggers Rest, Melton, Mt Atkinson, Cairnlea and Clyde where every 20 minutes weekday, 40 minutes weekend is the standard pattern.  

Conversely some of the newer or recently upgraded Wyndham area routes (eg 153, 154 and 182) have their flat 20 minute frequency operating 7 days to late with no weekend service 'cliff'. Similar (but at lower service level) applies in areas such as Pakenham and Mornington where a flat hourly service all week is the norm as can be seen from Adam's new interactive interchange and service map (with context here). 

Peaks (a little better than interpeak)

If midday weekends get far fewer buses than midday weekdays, what happens during the weekday peaks? This is the most challenging time to run buses, especially in the morning where school and commuter peaks coincide. Traffic volumes also make for longer or more variable run times, making it harder to schedule efficient yet reliable timetables. The graph below is the previous one with peak columns added for each frequency range. 

The range of frequencies operated in peak is flatter than midday weekdays and (especially) weekends. Most notably there is a substantial number of routes operating in the three 16 - 60 minute frequency ranges with 30 minutes being a fairly average frequency. However this is not quite 'turn up and go' with  only a lucky few enjoying 10 or 15 minute peak frequencies.

Many bus routes in established areas had higher peak frequencies prior to large service cuts in the early 1990s. Many have gained (or had restored) evening and weekend service but not all peak service has yet been restored. This goes some way to explaining why about 100 bus routes are still infrequent in the peaks.

Like with weekends there are variations. A welcome new trend on some new growth area routes (eg 154, 405, 451 and 475) is to run a 20 minute frequency peak and off-peak. In contrast some earlier routes (eg 150, 160, 182, 494, 495, 497 etc) have a ~20 min peak service but only a 40 minute off-peak service. The fact that these rate amongst the most productive bus routes in Melbourne make a 20 minute off-peak frequency a better fit. 

A few routes are listed as having no service in both weekday peaks and midday periods. The former are shopper type routes that don't run peaks while the latter are commuter peak only routes. 

A table showing the numbers in the above graph is below. 

Trams (the mode is the service)

Trams have a distinctive operating culture including operating over long hours and at generally high frequencies all week in a manner that buses do not. This is made graphic below (Sunday shown as a 'worst case' - better views of this and other days here). 

The diagram shows that all trams run every 10-15 min (or better) during the day all week (with lower Sunday morning frequencies). No buses have 10 minute maximum waits (white bar). And just 4 (out of over 350) have 15 minute maximum midday waits across the week. These are buses 234, 246, 905 and 907. 

The graphic doesn't analyse evening frequencies but if it did trams would look even better. Whereas trams have a maximum evening wait of 20 minute Monday - Saturdays, the figure for the above four routes is 30 minutes with 234 and 246 finishing much earlier on Sunday than trams. 

Buses 234, 246, 905 and 907 are the only ones that have somewhat tram-like frequencies on all days of the week. All are east or south of Melbourne CBD, none north or west (apart from part of 246). The one bus that offers a tram equal service is the small segment of the 732 between Vermont South and Knox City that was instituted to partly meet a 1999 political promise to extend the 75 tram to Knox City.  

This consistently high service is a major contributing factor to why the tram network, despite it serving only a small part of Melbourne, carries tens of millions more people per year than buses, which serve  millions more homes. With wide hours, decent daytime frequencies and a rarely broken 20 minute maximum wait*, trams have a sort of dependability built into the timetable that Melbourne buses lack. This regular service induces more routine usage for a wide variety of trips that buses could have but don't due to their often more limited hours and frequency. 

The tram/bus inequality demonstrates the significant gaps between inner/tram and middle-outer/bus suburbs in their public transport provision. This includes busy middle-suburban destinations (eg Box Hill/Chadstone/Monash) and denser outer areas (eg Tarneit and Craigieburn) that strongly justify frequent tram-like bus service all week compared to their existing back-street type service levels, particularly on weekends. 

 (*) Sunday mornings and evenings excepted. 

Trains (mostly every 20 minutes BUT)

Adam's analysis did not assess trains but there's not many lines so I made a frequency of frequency table for completeness (excluding peaks due to complex stopping patterns on some lines). 

There is overwhelmingly a concentration of service around every 20 minutes midday. Unlike buses, there is no pronounced weekend service fall-off on most lines. Indeed Belgrave and Lilydale enjoy better midday weekend service (every 20 min) than on weekdays (every 30 min). 

Why are 21 lines shown when our metropolitan rail network has only 15? Firstly I've included the two heavily outer suburban Geelong and Melton lines. Secondly I've doubled up on lines like Sunbury, Hurstbridge, Belgrave/Lilydale and Pakenham/Cranbourne that have outer suburban branches or frequency fall offs to convey a fairer impression of frequency much of their catchments have.

The data behind the graph is below. 

Metropolitan train stations mostly (but not always) have a 'safety net' 20 maximum wait, at least during the day. The major exceptions are Belgrave and Lilydale on weekdays and Melton on weekends with 30 and 40 minute gaps respectively. The quieter outer part of the Hurstbridge line also has a lower service.  

The biggest gap between trams and trains are the latter's 30 (and sometimes 40) minute intervals at nights and on Sunday mornings. 2025 and 2026 state budget measures will go part way to closing these gaps to 20 minutes on the Craigieburn and Upfield lines (all times), Mernda and inner Hurstbridge (weekends) and Belgrave, Lilydale, Alamein and Glen Waverley (weeknights). There has so far been no commitment to closing the 30 minute weekday gaps for Belgrave and Lilydale and the 40 minute weekend gaps for Melton. 

Summary

This data says several things about buses in Melbourne. The typical route runs every 30 minutes in peak and about every 40 minutes off-peak. Many Melbourne bus timetables have a weekend cliff where services are much less on weekends than weekdays with a significant minority still not running seven days.

In addition there is not a large defined group of frequent all week routes with similar service levels to trams. Instead only a handful run frequently seven days with the most common pattern being frequent weekdays and infrequent weekends, particularly Sundays.

Melbourne's lack of a premium bus network of maybe 50 main road bus routes operating at tram-like frequencies seven days (as proposed in the Bus Reform implementation approach that the Auditor-General said was unachievable at the current rate of progress) remains (along with low all day frequencies on certain train lines) the biggest block on patronage growth. 

The steep service drop-offs show that lack of bus vehicles is not the problem; rather it is the lack of a will to work them harder for more of the week due to recruiting too few drivers. And in some areas there is also significant scope to make better use of existing bus and driver hours by simplifying routes and removing inefficient overlaps.

Attention to these service matters would transform public transport's usefulness in ways that the 'Big Build' so far has not in most suburbs.  

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

SPECIAL: When is your bus going contactless?

On Thursday the state government announced the date of contactless payment 'tap and go' roll-out on Melbourne buses. That date is Sunday 26 July 2026 for everything with some starting tomorrow on the 19th. 

This is a big deal because tap and go makes payment for bus travel easy for any full fare payer with a credit or debit card. Trains and trams have already been contactless for some weeks prior. 

Contactless will remove a significant barrier for spontaneous trips. Right now there is a need to find a Myki outlet, buy a card ($6 before any travel), add some value and then keep it topped up. 

You forfeit the card cost if not making any more trips. And claiming refunds on unused balances is a hassle. Even worse was that buses stopped doing cash top-ups during the pandemic and never resumed them after. Myki's clunkiness (along with relatively high fares for some short trips and insanely cheap V/Line fares) even undermined the social licence of charging and enforcing fares in some peoples' minds. 

Admittedly Android users could have 'Mobile Myki'. But some people prefer to keep their finances and phones separate for security and budgeting reasons so that was never a complete solution. Not to mention it being unavailable for iPhone.  

Summing up, Myki worked well for regular rail commuters but was inconvenient for spontaneous bus and tram travel. Myki arguably depressed both the number and character of bus users. Honest people who were willing to pay but found this inconvenient avoided buses while its inconvenience hardened some into habitual fare evaders who faced little resistance with lax enforcement.

The seeds of this were sown by an early decision in the Myki specification to have expensive to produce cardboard smartcards rather than cheap paper for disposable tickets. After their trial in Geelong (and elsewhere) the former was not proceeded with when the previous government descoped Myki. 

Contactless Tap and Go promises to fix that by restoring an easy payment option across all modes that we haven't really had since cash fares. Trains were first, then trams, and now it's the turn for buses with a phased roll-out. When it's done you'll be able to travel without buying and keeping topped up a Myki card.

An example benefit is being able to travel from Melbourne Airport to the city for under $3, as I discussed with ABC's Charlie Pickering on Thursday 16 July (approx 6 min in). 

Concession passengers should continue to use Myki to get the cheapest fares. Contactless roll-out for concession passengers is complicated as the Auditor-General reported. Though the temporary halving of fares means that general concession payers using contactless to pay full fare are paying the same they did earlier in the year.     

A staged roll-out

The media release places greatest prominence in the 26 July date as this is the one when the roll-out will be complete across all buses. However it lists certain areas that will get Tap and Go a week earlier, ie 19 July.

This advice is safe and simple for the average person. But transport geeks and early adopters will want to know route number level of detail. Especially as it's a bit more nuanced with some services going live sooner. 

You will find this information in a special edition of the Victoria Government Gazette. More precisely No. S 409 Thursday 16 July 2026. From this we learn that roll-out will be by four dates: 19, 21, 24 and 26 July, with this largely ordered by operator.

I've listed the roll-out below with route numbers given for services in the metropolitan series. 

19 July 2026 implementation

Bus routes in Bacchus Marsh, Ballarat, Bendigo, Geelong, Kilmore, Latrobe Valley, Seymour, Warragul. 

Metropolitan numbered routes: 433, 434, 452. 475, 481, 483, 485, 486, 487, 488, 489, 683, 684, 685, 789, 790, 791, 792, 795, 796, 798, 799, 881, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 897, 898 and 965. 

The above are run by operators including Christians Bus, CDC, Cranbourne Transit, McHarrys, McKenzies Tourist Services, Sunbury Coaches and more. 

21 July 2026 implementation

150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 160, 161, 166, 167, 170, 180, 181, 182, 190, 191, 192, 194, 241, 301, 343, 356, 357, 358, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390, 400, 402, 404, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 412, 414, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 428, 431, 432, 439, 441, 443, 444, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 476, 477, 478, 479, 482, 484, 490, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 501, 511, 513, 514, 517, 518, 524, 525, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 536, 537, 538, 540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 554, 555, 556, 557, 559, 561, 564, 566, 569, 570, 577, 578, 579, 580, 582, 601, 605, 606, 612, 623, 624, 625, 626, 630, 941, 943, 947, 949 and Flexiride Rowville, Lilydale, Croydon, Mooroolbark and Melton South.

The above are run by operators including CDC, Dysons, Transit Systems and Ventura. 

24 July 2026 implementation

200, 207, 215, 216, 220, 223, 232, 234, 235, 236, 237, 246, 250, 251, 270, 271, 273, 279, 280, 281, 282, 284, 285, 293, 295, 302, 303, 304, 305, 309, 318, 350, 364, 370, 426, 429, 503, 504, 505, 506, 508, 509, 510, 512, 546, 552, 553, 558, 567, 600, 603, 604, 609, 668, 669, 901, 902, 903, 905, 906, 907, 908, 922 and 923.

The above are run by Kinetic. 

26 July 2026 implementation

201, 526, 527, 548, 549, 550, 551, 627, 631, 663, 664, 670, 671, 672, 675, 677, 679, 680, 681, 682, 688, 689, 690, 691, 693, 694, 695, 695F, 696, 697, 699, 701, 703, 704, 705, 706, 708, 709, 732, 733, 734, 735, 736, 737, 738, 740, 742, 745, 753, 754, 755, 757, 758, 760, 765, 766, 767, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 777, 778, 779, 780, 781, 782, 783, 784, 785, 786, 787, 788, 800, 802, 804, 811, 812, 813, 814, 816, 822, 823, 824, 825, 828, 831, 832, 833, 834, 835, 836, 837, 838, 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 850, 857, 858, 861, 862, 863, 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 899, 900, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 951, 953, 959, 967, 978, 979, 981 and 982.

The above are run by Ventura (partly in 900's case). 

That's the sequence of contactless tap and go roll-out according to Victoria Government Gazette. The big date, as announced, is Sunday July 26th but roll-out on many routes has been gazetted for the days prior. Happy tapping! 

UN 239: Assessing transport projects by interchange point: SRL vs Airport Rail vs Frequency uplifts

Airport rail vs Melton electrification

I've never warmed to the version of airport rail as proposed in Melbourne. 

Sure it connects a major destination (that most people might go to a few times of the year) but it  transforms neither the network nor the city. 

With the likelihood of a premium fare nor it would not have much helped airport workers (most of whom live in surrounding suburbs anyway). Their needs are simpler - decent buses to surrounding areas that run at least semi-frequently over a wide span of hours.  

Before Ben Carroll MP got a Keilor East station added to the plans, Airport Rail, like what got built in Brisbane but unlike Sydney or Perth versions, threatened to be a stub with no wider network benefits. 

Keilor East station would rescue Airport Rail from complete uselessness by providing Metro rail connectivity in a large area without it. There is an additional cost but Airport Rail's value is magnified. But only by a little bit; $12 billion for one (1) extra suburban access point for Metro rail is in no one's world good value.

To bolster its sorry case, the Airport Rail project must put on a marauder's hat and poach benefits that other projects (ill-advisedly for them) have not exploited. 

Such benefits remain on the table due to us not electrifying Melton as early as we could have (although who knows, maybe it will still beat airport rail), not increasing all day suburban frequencies on lines such as Craigieburn to aid connectivity and not exercising the option to run Metro Tunnel every 5 minutes off-peak and thus enable CBD tram reform. 

If we were to do the last with those extra paths going to Airport Rail then most of the benefits stop right there. Whereas if they go to something like an electrified Melton line then the wins ripple much further from their origin. For example the prospect of new suburban stations, relief for the Ballarat line and more balanced loads for trains entering Sunshine.  

Because almost everyone sees themselves as using Airport Rail occasionally (while having some vague faith that it brings business to the state) this, like level crossing removals, has topped public polls on the popularity of transport projects (though to be fair major bus network reform has also rated well).

Melton electrification has historically suffered by its benefits being geographically concentrated. Few from Mornington or Montrose are likely to use Melton rail much. Whereas they might occasionally use Airport Rail. So despite Melton rail upgrades helping thousands of people every day it has made front pages far less than the showy but ultimately less beneficial airport rail. 

However the story is not over. It's a thrilling race. Who gets the spoils of all that unlocked capacity in the Metro Tunnel first? Most would have predicted Airport Rail. But interest has ebbed and flowed. 

Also the political environment has changed. There are no safe seats anymore. The Werribee by-election shocked Labor. And more recently the rise of One Nation in the polls threatens to split the non-Labor (and some of the Labor) vote in regional areas and some outer suburbs. Areas like Melton are in the box seat for some of these forces as a long-term government faces an election in barely four months.

I am often asked my opinion on various transport topics. The two hottest in the last six months have been 'free' public transport and airport rail. My answer to both are the same - both carry massive opportunity costs and there are far better uses for the money (which could fund an amazing network all across Melbourne). 

I can't help thinking that some of the gloss has gone off airport rail. People realise it won't actually save very many much time relative to its cost and greater needs elsewhere. Add population growth and changing politics, I think Melton should get first dibs on funding and train paths.  

Suburban Rail Loop - cheaper per interchange point than Airport Rail?

If $12 billion for what is effectively one new suburban interchange point is poor value where does that leave the Suburban Rail Loop and other initiatives such as rail frequency upgrades and bus reform?

Don't think of the Suburban Rail Loop East as an underground orbital railway for a moment. Instead think of it as six new interchange points. As far as interchange points go they are pretty good; all six are key destinations in their own right, four intersect with Metro lines, two with trams and one with V/Line. 

A crude way of comparing SRL with airport rail is the cost per interchange point created. And by interchange I'm assuming one where there's access to 7 day frequent service for a standard fare. 

Melbourne Airport Rail is like $12b per interchange added whereas SRL is $34.5/6 ie $6b per interchange added. SRL ends up being half the cost per interchange created.

$6b per interchange is still a huge amount of money and it is reasonable to debate the SRL's value, timing and opportunity costs. This is especially when Melbourne must create dozens if not hundreds of interchange points in the suburbs to make PT useful, a feat that is unaffordable at $6b a pop. 

Scalability matters. If we can do more for less then we can have more, with bigger benefits. That's a major need in Melbourne since our network has so few interchange points. And remember adding route coverage linearly increases catchment whereas creating interchange points multiplies travel opportunities so the benefits of the latter are disproportionate. 

Especially given that Melbourne's rail network is so steadfastly radial, an SRL at $6b per interchange point that fundamentally transforms the network is better value than Airport Rail (at $12b per interchange point) which (at best) does not change the network structure and (at worst) takes core area train paths from potentially busier lines such as an electrified Melton.

One can fairly be concerned about SRL in its current form but the also expensive but even lower benefit airport rail (not to mention various large road projects) should also not escape scrutiny.

In my view there is more substance in the view that both Airport Rail and SRL are low priority than the stance, expressed by some SRL opponents, that Airport Rail should be our biggest public transport priority, when in reality it contributes very little benefit to peoples' everyday travel relative to its cost.

Whereas potential exists for a well-designed SRL to have substantial benefits but these would be even greater if a substantial package of other measures (involving a tiny percentage of SRL's cost) were done in the decade leading up to its opening.  

A 5am formula - can it work for SRL?

It's hard to compare project A versus B with a single formula but it might be easier to compare variants of the same project. 

As I mentioned before SRL could be conceived of as six linked interchange points costing $6b each to build. The connections between them will be faster than existing driving or public transport options. This speed has value in extending the range of destinations available within a given time. 

Also of value is the number of interchange points. More interchange points means more origin and destinations possible. And, like how the number of handshakes in a room increases disproportionately with the number of people, the number of potential connections rises in a triangular fashion. But only to a point; have too many interchange points and they eat into each other's catchment and slow travel speed. 

Below was my first attempt to make a formula to reflect this. 

Merit is just a number, not a unit. The higher the better. 

The formula effectively multiples the overall  improvement in speed (which would be end-to-end for a project like the SRL) by the number of interchanges possible for a line with a given number of interchange points (p).  

As an example a new line with three stations (p = 3) has an option of travelling: a. first to middle station, b. first to last station, c. middle to last station. Thus, like handshakes, there are three combinations. But unlike handshakes you can do reverse trips, which I've counted, giving a total of 6. That makes the formula simpler as there is no longer any dividing by 2 as with handshakes. 

Below is a simpler version of the same formula with the speed ratio changed to a time ratio to put it in the denominator. 

The Suburban Rail Loop has 6 stations so that's our value of p. 

The travel time is 22 minutes end to end versus 55 minutes currently, giving a ratio of 0.4. 
The merit number is 30/0.4 or 75. 

What if one were to consider an SRL East variation? It has some long gaps between stations so let's add a few more - say at Warrigal Rd, Clarinda and a second at Monash.

While we're at it let's also replace Glen Waverley with Mt Waverley to improve directness but keep the length the same by terminating it at Doncaster rather than Box Hill. 

This changes the SRL to a 10 station project, undoubtedly adding costs (unless offsetting savings can be found elsewhere). Travel time is slower due to the extra intermediate stations - let's call it 0.5. But it's still very fast. 

That gives a merit number of 90/0.5 or 180, or more than double what we had before. SRL costs would undoubtedly rise with this approach but not double, meaning that an SRL option with more stations could have higher benefits relative to cost. 

Anyone can dream up random formulas at 5am so I'm not going to claim this is particularly rigorous. But I think something like this vaguely makes sense when initially comparing options. 

It should be acknowledged that some of the extra stations (eg Warrigal Rd) are never going to be the busy hubs in terms of land use that say Box Hill or Clayton will be. However they do provide connections with more routes, thus multiplying (not adding) travel opportunities. 

If one was to do a journey plan a huge number of trips would include the SRL, especially one with well planned multimodal interchanges, as one leg of it, even in cases that might not be immediately obvious. This is because its large time savings over existing buses (and for that matter driving) draw a lot of trips (including some induced demand) into it, even if an extra interchange is required. 

How adding frequency can multiply interchange points

The formula isn't just useful for infrastructure-oriented megaprojects.

If you take the view that a location only qualifies as an interchange point if routes intersect at high frequency, have easy physical interchange and the geometry is sound, you will find that the vast majority of potential interchange points are hampered by low frequency and/or poor physical access. 

As an example just four out of nearly 400 bus routes in Melbourne run every 15 minutes or better seven days per week during the day. That figure at night? Zero. 

Boost frequencies and you create reliable interchange points where mere crossings of routes used to be. 

Compared to the SRL the number of interchange points created when you upgrade a bus (especially one that intersects with a large number of already frequent routes such as routes like 241 or 508 in Melbourne's north or 246 in the inner-east) is very high. A snowballing effect starts if you upgrade existing trains and trams as well as parallel lines become a frequent grid. 

It does not require upgrades to that many trains and bus frequencies to create 60 or even 100 new interchange points, ie ten times more than the Suburban Rail Loop. And instead of the cost per each interchange point being $6 billion it is a tiny fraction of that (sometimes even zero), albeit mostly operational expenditure from running that more frequent service. 

Travel speeds uplifts aren't as high for each interchange point created but because you are upgrading so many interchange points (with so many new connection possibilities) for such little cost the scale of benefits if done at scale could easily equal that of a megaproject like SRL and far outstrip any gains from Airport Rail. So much so that 10 min frequencies on multiple lines and routes should be done as soon as bus and train drivers can be recruited. 

Buses are not necessarily directly substitutable for the SRL but their great scalability and very low cost per improvement makes them an important part of any network development strategy. That is because we don't have the capacity to add 100 connection points through SRL like means in the next decade but we certainly can (and much more) with bus and train service upgrades. Also such network reform can complement the SRL and is arguably even necessary for the SRL to work with reasonable usage as it makes getting to its stations easier from a large catchment. 

Conclusion

To summarise, something like the SRL East might be triple the capital cost of Airport Rail but it might benefit many more that in terms of the number of trips. Along with land use influences, which Airport Rail on a premium fare will not at all.

Although this is contingent on really good interchange design across all modes (people have expressed concerns about 'Cheltenham'/Southland in particular) along with bus reform and consistently frequent service on intersecting train and tram lines. 

While they're very different projects to SRL East and Airport Rail, rail and bus frequency increases, and for bus network reform, a method based on interchange points and travel speed savings may still be useful to compare the merit of various network proposals. 

In summary the results from my crude 'analysis' are: 

* Train frequency uplifts, bus frequency boosts, bus network reform: Low cost per interchange point created, making it highly scalable with dispersed benefits. Should be done yesterday, next best time is now. 

* Suburban Rail Loop: You can make good cases either way as it radically changes the network's topology from radial to a web but at substantial cost per new interchange point created, tending to concentrate benefits. Good interchange design is critical. Variants may increase the number of interchange points with higher benefits. 

* Airport rail as currently proposed: Benefits hard to quantify the benefits as it changes neither the network nor the city very much. Individual benefits don't stack up either; saving 2 million people 2 hours each per year rounds to nothing whereas saving 20 000 people 200 hours per year is transformative (even if total hours saved in each case is identical). 

What do you think? Comments are open and I'd love to read them. 

See other Useful Network items