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

TT 234: How often? A look at the midday frequencies of Melbourne's buses

Most cities have bus routes that vary from infrequent to frequent. While the majority of routes may be infrequent and a minority frequent, you will typically find it is the frequent network that caters for a disproportionate number of trips. Either due to them serving a popular or densely populated corridor or because their better service induces higher usage. 

The quieter less frequent routes tend to have a 'safety net' coverage function while the busier frequent routes present a stronger case for further service and infrastructure upgrades that further boost usage. Examples include higher frequencies, wider operating hours along with reinforcing land use policy such as location of major destinations, denser housing, road space allocation and parking requirements.  

Frequent routes are are also more marketable - something important for cities that wish to grow bus usage. Marketability is one reason transit agencies may differentiate frequent routes from the others. Examples of differentiation may include special bus livery, better bus stops, greater prominence on network maps, and/or distinctive route numbering.  

Route number memorability and frequency

Last week Adam Bain discussed whether some route numbers are more memorable than others and whether the more memorable numbers also happened to be the more frequent routes. This analysis included a chart colour coding each route, listed in order, by its midday weekday frequency. 

High frequency routes included the high frequency university shuttles (mostly x01 numbers), Smartbuses (900-908), inner urban routes (mostly 200s). Distinctive patterns were noted for 20 minute headways (some middle northern, middle south-eastern and outer suburbs), 30 minute intervals (north, east and south-east) and 40 minute gaps (outer suburbs). 

My video here talks you through this in more detail. 

The frequency of frequencies

While people sometimes describe public transport networks in terms of number of routes, that tells us nothing about how long and how frequent each route is (and thus its population catchment and usefulness).

As I mention here fairer metrics to give a high level idea of the network's usefulness include annual service kilometres and the proportion of people near frequent service. Dividing annual service kilometres by metropolitan population tells you about service intensity provided while patronage (and especially patronage productivity) data reveals something about whether the service provided is being used. 

Last week I looked at the patronage productivity of various bus routes in Melbourne. Amongst the most productive bus routes were often those that were more frequent. From this you could deduce a non-linear relationship between service levels and patronage. Not only do frequent routes carry more passengers as they are frequent but because they are also more productive the number of passengers is disproportionately higher. 

That causes you to get a pattern where a small proportion of bus routes (say 20% - I haven't crunched the numbers) account for say half or more of bus passengers. And in Melbourne's case it's helped but not entirely due to our three very long orbitals. (Those who study tax systems would likely find a similar pattern with income taxes - in a progressive system most taxes come from the top 10 or 20% of regular wage earners, not only due to their higher incomes but also because they pay a higher proportion).  

Jarrett Walker often mentions that under conditions of constrained resources a bus network optimised for coverage has a high number of infrequent routes while one optimised for frequency might sacrifice coverage for frequency. Most cities would have bus networks that sit somewhere in between these extremes with a mix of frequent and infrequent routes.

One (admittedly imperfect) way of analysing a bus network is to examine the number of routes in each frequency band. That helps you understand the character of a network, ie one that's simple, direct, frequent (and possibly more widely spaced) versus one that is complex, indirect, infrequent but with short walking distances to the nearest (sometimes poorly used) route. 

Through manual counting I converted Adam's coloured chart to a frequency distribution for midday weekday bus routes in Melbourne (below). 

The big picture is that Melbourne has very few all day frequent bus routes. The network is characterised by a large number of infrequent routes, a feature which marginalises buses compared to trains and trams despite the bus network's extensive coverage.  

Most notable is the dominance of routes operating in the 31 to 60 minute frequency range. The vast majority of these are either 40 or 60 minutes with 40 minutes far more common than 60 minutes. Melbourne (and Victoria's) love of 40 minute bus frequencies is notable compared to Brisbane and Perth which have a lot of weekday 60 minute frequencies. 

Frequent routes running every 15 minutes or better are uncommon in Melbourne, accounting for just 7% of the total on weekdays. On weekends this slumps to under 2% of routes with only the 234, 246, 732 (part), 905 and 907 complying. 

While it is common for cities to have more infrequent routes than they do frequent routes, Melbourne's fall-off is particularly extreme. This can be put down to:

(a) Some skewing of data due to the use of trams on corridors that in other cities would be frequent buses and our long orbital bus routes.

(b) Our weaker political and institutional support for bus reform than Auckland and Perth who prioritised the creation of frequent routes from multiple less frequent routes. This reluctance has caused us to have fewer 10 minute frequency routes than is otherwise possible within existing budgets. 

(c) A tendency to favour 20 over 15 minute frequencies, largely due to our base 10/20/40 minute headway hierarchy on most railway lines. 20 minute service is a big improvement over 30 or 40 minute service but does not generally qualify as turn-up-and-go frequent service like 15 min might and 10 min probably will.  

On weekends this is the most influential of the lot: 

(d) legacy of a 'small city' bus funding culture that like Adelaide (but not Sydney, Brisbane or Perth) schedules even main routes at half frequency on Saturdays and (even moreso) Sundays. 

The graph's numbers are tabulated below (with routes every 20 min or better indentified): 

Every 61 min or worse:  34

Every 31 - 60 min: 167

Every 21 - 30 min: 72

Every 16 - 20 min: 56
153 154 170 180 190 200 207 232 250 251 270 390 406 408 420 460 465 467 471 475 477 501 503 505 506 508 510 512 517 527 528 529 533 537 540 541 546 561 570 582 603 604 605 630 732 733 767 791 798 800 825 828 831 893 897 898

Every 11 - 15 min: 18
201 216 220 223 234 305 472 552 670 703 900 901 902 903 905 906 907 908

Every 1 - 10 min: 7
235 237 241 246 301 402 601

Note: 695F excluded, 745 counted as 1, 900 series night network excluded

A reminder that the above relates to midday weekday frequencies. Over half of those listed fall to 30 or 40 minute headways on weekends.

The number of routes that are better than every 15 minutes or better seven days is so low as to be counted on one hand (234, 246, 905, 907 and part of 732). 

Frequency of frequencies with reform 

Bus network reform such as required to massively increase bus usage would almost certainly change the mix of service frequencies. There would be fewer limited service routes with long gaps while more routes would run more frequently. 

The chart below indicates potential directions of change. 

Early priorities would likely concentrate on closing the longest waits, addressing operating hours issues such as early finishes or lack of weekend service and boosting weekend service on otherwise frequent routes.

Weekend services key

While that might not cause the above weekday-oriented graph to change much I would rate the creation of more 7 day frequent routes as being key to to boosting bus usage. Indeed going from 4 to say 40 all week frequent routes would transform the bus network with these routes driving patronage growth. The graph would likely still contain high numbers of less frequent routes but with the majority of bus trips being made on a more defined frequent network with an Auckland-style maximum wait service guarantee the passenger experience would be transformed. 

Network reform and route consolidation

Further gains are possible (with even lower costs per route) with network reform. This would seek opportunities to consolidate routes with overlapping catchment into more direct and frequent routes. The biggest single shift here would likely be the creation of many more 20 minute frequency routes from existing 21 - 30 and 31 - 60 minute routes. Some of this would be straight service upgrades while in other cases network reform would reduce costs.

Going from every 30 to 20 min needs 1 extra bus per hour added. As does moving from 20 to 15 min. Whereas moving from 20 to 10 min needs 3 extra buses per hour. Expressed in another way, assuming you're starting at a 30 minute frequency you can have three times as much route upgraded to run every 20 minutes as every 10 minutes. 

Still the travel experience of 10 min frequencies are so good (and rare for buses in Melbourne) that all opportunities to do it cost-effectively with network reform such as may be possible along corridors like Murray Rd and/or Bell St should be explored, while also reviving probably the single highest patronage potential element of the now sidelined northern and north-east bus reform. 

The above would also be consistent with Victoria's Bus Plan whose priorities were local reform followed by buses being a mass transit option, ie more routes running every 10 minutes seven days. This would be a radical step compared to now where the current network has no seven day routes every 10 minutes or better and just four seven day routes every 15 minutes or better. 

Interaction with train frequencies

Auckland opted to reform their buses before it reformed train frequencies. While some connections were messy (20 min trains to buses every 15 min) the bus reform was an overall greater good with patronage rises. Perth already had 15 minute train frequencies compatible with its 15/30/60 min bus hierarchy (though it now also has some 10 minute bus frequencies). 

In Melbourne's eastern suburbs the potential pace of bus reform is constrained by weekday train timetables which remain on a 15/30 min off-peak pattern, contrary to the 10/20 minute pattern applicable elsewhere (including the Sandringham line from later this year). This is because if trains remain at current frequencies the case for improving their busier bus routes from 30 to 20 min is weaker than with harmonised 10/20 minute frequencies.

There is also a general fall-off in population density when you go more than 1km east of Stud Rd such that it is hard to argue for 10 or 15 minute frequencies but 30 minutes is inadequate. In this context 20 minute bus frequencies on main roads are justifiable especially if supported by similar train frequencies. Which in turn meshes well with the very strong case for stations like Box Hill and Ringwood to have 10 (rather than 15 minute) midday rail frequencies.

The older parts of Melton is a contrasting example. In their case trains got boosted to every 20 min on weekdays. Later its trains got boosted from every 60 to every 40 minutes. No bus upgrades accompanied its weekday train boosts. Thus some buses that had 2 trips per hour were a poor fit for the upgraded 3 trains per hour. The opportunity to upgrade these to 3 buses per hour (as well as simplify routes to run along main roads) was lost, unlike the case of Wyndham in 2015 that got a new bus network when Regional Rail Link commenced.

However much more recently when weekend Melton trains improved there was a genuine attempt at multimodal planning with many bus routes improving from every 60 to every 40 min to harmonise. Creating an interesting case where some bus routes are more frequent on weekends than they are on weekdays (where an hourly service still remains).  

Overall Melbourne has been weak at this sort of multimodal thinking. There have been many cases of infrastructure upgrades (such as level crossing removals) that have not been followed by commensurate rail service boosts or a reappraisal of bus networks to take advantage of road improvements such as grade separations. 

Summary

Melbourne has very few frequent bus routes. Operating more of them, whether through straight service boosts (particularly weekend) or bus network reform is key to unlocking the potential of buses to carry millions more passenger trips per month. 

While it has limitations, analysing frequency data per route can help us quantify the network's extreme bias towards low frequency and less productive services and drive interest in getting more from our investment in bus services.  

See other Timetable Tuesday items here