Want to read a bold public transport plan for Melbourne but concerned the state government hasn't written one for many years? The Rail Futures Institute has stepped into the breach with its 30 year plan out to 2060.
Read the overview (4 pages, 3 MB pdf)
Read the plan (34 pages, 7 MB pdf)
Order a hard copy ($40 posted)
In the last decade Melbourne has spent record amounts on transport megaprojects. Car drivers are now much less likely to be stopped at railway boom gates and have the West Gate Tunnel available as an alternative to the West Gate Bridge. Train passengers can board at a rebuilt station and travel from south-east to north-west under the CBD via the Metro Tunnel.
However congestion and management of expected urban growth remain hot issues. Inner suburban trams are amongst the slowest in the world, the fastest growing areas are still on diesel trains and many suburban buses are only every 40 minutes, especially on weekends.
Road maintenance issues are acute, bicycles too often mix with increasingly heavy cars and construction costs have spiralled. Public transport services have actually declined per capita in most Melbourne municipalities.
Politics might change, premiers come and go but the enduring truth is that a growing city needs better transport infrastructure and services. We can't build our way out of congestion, and even if we could the cost would be huge.
Never has it been more important that not only are projects built efficiently but the right projects are chosen to start with. Which requires a transport plan of the sort we haven't had for a while.
Need for an integrated transport plan
The Transport Integration Act 2010 required that there be an integrated transport plan. The Auditor-General found that there wasn't one. And that having smaller plans or a list of projects, did not, contrary to executive government's view, qualify. Monash Mayor Cr Stuart James made a strong case for an integrated transport plan here.
Transport Planning has not been particularly influential lately. Parts of the bureaucracy that might have produced such a plan, such as the Department of Transport or Infrastructure Victoria, tended to be sidelined, ignored or even abolished (as has been recently announced for Infrastructure Victoria).
Not assisting the cause was a general sense of cynicism about planning. Some earlier plans, especially those covering public transport, were not implemented. Certain past governments gained a record for being more interested in commissioning feasibility studies than project delivery.
Pretty much every aspirant for premier in the last 50 years promised rail to places like Melbourne Airport and Rowville, only for them to leave office without a sod being turned. And deals on controversial projects signed at the wrong time can be annulled by a successor government, in some cases at considerable cost.
Road maintenance issues are acute, bicycles too often mix with increasingly heavy cars and construction costs have spiralled. Public transport services have actually declined per capita in most Melbourne municipalities.
Politics might change, premiers come and go but the enduring truth is that a growing city needs better transport infrastructure and services. We can't build our way out of congestion, and even if we could the cost would be huge.
Never has it been more important that not only are projects built efficiently but the right projects are chosen to start with. Which requires a transport plan of the sort we haven't had for a while.
Need for an integrated transport plan
The Transport Integration Act 2010 required that there be an integrated transport plan. The Auditor-General found that there wasn't one. And that having smaller plans or a list of projects, did not, contrary to executive government's view, qualify. Monash Mayor Cr Stuart James made a strong case for an integrated transport plan here.
Transport Planning has not been particularly influential lately. Parts of the bureaucracy that might have produced such a plan, such as the Department of Transport or Infrastructure Victoria, tended to be sidelined, ignored or even abolished (as has been recently announced for Infrastructure Victoria).
Not assisting the cause was a general sense of cynicism about planning. Some earlier plans, especially those covering public transport, were not implemented. Certain past governments gained a record for being more interested in commissioning feasibility studies than project delivery.
Pretty much every aspirant for premier in the last 50 years promised rail to places like Melbourne Airport and Rowville, only for them to leave office without a sod being turned. And deals on controversial projects signed at the wrong time can be annulled by a successor government, in some cases at considerable cost.
Various civil society groups involved in planning and transport (who can say out loud what some departmental insiders privately think) have long bemoaned what they call 'the lack of an integrated transport plan'. But they, the Auditor-General and Infrastructure Victoria got short shrift from a self-confident government that, for over a decade, regarded their list of mega projects as the plan and their parliamentary majority as public legitimacy and proof that these projects were wise.
Some recently wrote to the Premier calling on the Major Projects Royal Commission to not just examine corruption in the construction sector but also broader transport planning issues. Their thinking? Building the wrong projects, due to vested political and commercial interests shaping the agenda, could cost at least as much to the community as the widely reported corruption allegations.
One of the signatories, the Rail Futures Institute, had previously decided that if the government wasn't going to produce a long-term integrated public transport plan then it should do one. In early 2024 RFI established a small team with professional backgrounds in transport planning and management to write the report. Just over 30 months later the result is available for you to read.
2030 - 2060 plan overview
The plan anticipates Melbourne's continued growth to a population of around nine million by 2060. "Business as usual" conditions, with the vast majority of trips made by private car, were considered neither affordable, sustainable nor desirable.
There had to be a substantial swing towards higher public (and active) transport usage. Which necessitated a network that not only got peak period commuters to the CBD but was also fit for a much broader variety of trips across the week.
While Melbourne had some enviable foundations, notably a strong CBD, a large rail network and a street grid conducive to direct tram and bus routes, aspects of how the network was being planned and operated held usage back.
Particular issues included often infrequent trains outside peak periods, trams stuck in traffic and a largely legacy bus network that had good coverage but indirect routes and low frequencies.
Some recently wrote to the Premier calling on the Major Projects Royal Commission to not just examine corruption in the construction sector but also broader transport planning issues. Their thinking? Building the wrong projects, due to vested political and commercial interests shaping the agenda, could cost at least as much to the community as the widely reported corruption allegations.
One of the signatories, the Rail Futures Institute, had previously decided that if the government wasn't going to produce a long-term integrated public transport plan then it should do one. In early 2024 RFI established a small team with professional backgrounds in transport planning and management to write the report. Just over 30 months later the result is available for you to read.
2030 - 2060 plan overview
The plan anticipates Melbourne's continued growth to a population of around nine million by 2060. "Business as usual" conditions, with the vast majority of trips made by private car, were considered neither affordable, sustainable nor desirable.
There had to be a substantial swing towards higher public (and active) transport usage. Which necessitated a network that not only got peak period commuters to the CBD but was also fit for a much broader variety of trips across the week.
While Melbourne had some enviable foundations, notably a strong CBD, a large rail network and a street grid conducive to direct tram and bus routes, aspects of how the network was being planned and operated held usage back.
Particular issues included often infrequent trains outside peak periods, trams stuck in traffic and a largely legacy bus network that had good coverage but indirect routes and low frequencies.
A multimodal frequent network with great connectivity
The answer to many of these issues did not necessarily require a lot of new infrastructure construction, such as had almost exclusively occupied the government's transport agenda. But it did require a new focus on using what infrastructure and rolling stock we had more intelligently to form a better connected multimodal Frequent Network.
That meant higher all day rail frequencies, tram priority over car traffic and bus network reform and service increases. Improved physical interchange would also be required to convert the current disjointed system into a frequent web suitable for both CBD and cross-suburban travel. Cost-effectiveness of such a network could be higher; adding service multiplies connections and thus the number of trips that public transport can better compete with driving.
Converting our heavy rail to Metro lines
The above optimisation, while necessary and extremely cost-effective, can only go so far given Melbourne's anticipated growth. This is why the Melbourne Public Transport Plan also has a significant infrastructure program.
Priorities will be informed by a desired network operating style. In the case of our suburban heavy rail this means conversion to a more frequent, higher capacity Metro-style system with turn-up-and-go service available all week.
The first steps involve off-peak frequency upgrades, consistent 'greenfields' timetables and electrification of outer suburban V/Line services. Capacity upgrades on the Upfield line and at Burnley Junction would prepare for future improvements.
Also envisaged are extensions to Melbourne Airport, Clyde, Wyndham Vale - Werribee, Wallan, Bacchus Marsh, Wollert and Knox City. These would increase the rail network's reach, especially in growth areas.
Higher capacity signalling, automated operation and a reconfigured City Loop (essentially a through track pair between Richmond and North Melbourne via Parliament, Melbourne Central and Flagstaff) would greatly increase core capacity. Some passengers will need to change trains to reach some CBD stations but the trade-off is improved frequency, directness and a host of new cross-city trips that become possible in the one seat. Reconfiguration, which has been supported by Infrastructure Victoria, makes the rail network more useful for short trips within the CBD and surrounds rather than purely as a commuter feeder from the suburbs to the CBD.
The single biggest rail project is Melbourne Metro Two (MM2), a Metro-style railway that is considered necessary to accommodate passenger demand from the Melton and Wyndham growth areas. Trains would originate at Melton or Werribee and operate via Fishermans Bend, Southern Cross, Flagstaff and Parkville to terminate at Victoria Park. MM2 would support redevelopment of Fishermans Bend and improve CBD east-west connectivity.
The above optimisation, while necessary and extremely cost-effective, can only go so far given Melbourne's anticipated growth. This is why the Melbourne Public Transport Plan also has a significant infrastructure program.
Priorities will be informed by a desired network operating style. In the case of our suburban heavy rail this means conversion to a more frequent, higher capacity Metro-style system with turn-up-and-go service available all week.
The first steps involve off-peak frequency upgrades, consistent 'greenfields' timetables and electrification of outer suburban V/Line services. Capacity upgrades on the Upfield line and at Burnley Junction would prepare for future improvements.
Also envisaged are extensions to Melbourne Airport, Clyde, Wyndham Vale - Werribee, Wallan, Bacchus Marsh, Wollert and Knox City. These would increase the rail network's reach, especially in growth areas.
Higher capacity signalling, automated operation and a reconfigured City Loop (essentially a through track pair between Richmond and North Melbourne via Parliament, Melbourne Central and Flagstaff) would greatly increase core capacity. Some passengers will need to change trains to reach some CBD stations but the trade-off is improved frequency, directness and a host of new cross-city trips that become possible in the one seat. Reconfiguration, which has been supported by Infrastructure Victoria, makes the rail network more useful for short trips within the CBD and surrounds rather than purely as a commuter feeder from the suburbs to the CBD.
The single biggest rail project is Melbourne Metro Two (MM2), a Metro-style railway that is considered necessary to accommodate passenger demand from the Melton and Wyndham growth areas. Trains would originate at Melton or Werribee and operate via Fishermans Bend, Southern Cross, Flagstaff and Parkville to terminate at Victoria Park. MM2 would support redevelopment of Fishermans Bend and improve CBD east-west connectivity.
(Download the plan for a clearer view of this and later maps)
New Light Metros to connect the suburbs
Possibly the most radical part of this plan is the introduction of a fourth mode - Light Metro. Similar to Vancouver's Skytrain, lines would be driverless and frequent to offer high capacities despite short train lengths.
Short trains, especially if surface or elevated, lower construction costs compared to tunnelling. The lower the construction cost the more can be built, with RFI recommending light metro networks in parts of Melbourne's west, north and east. The Suburban Rail Loop North would be a constructed as a Light Metro between Melbourne Airport and Box Hill under this concept.
Short trains, especially if surface or elevated, lower construction costs compared to tunnelling. The lower the construction cost the more can be built, with RFI recommending light metro networks in parts of Melbourne's west, north and east. The Suburban Rail Loop North would be a constructed as a Light Metro between Melbourne Airport and Box Hill under this concept.
Higher performance trams
The main challenges facing Melbourne's trams include low speeds (due to mostly running in mixed traffic), poor accessibility and a legacy network that misses many potential connection points. By providing high capacity movement under the Swanston St spine, the Metro Tunnel project was intended to unlock the potential for tram network reform to better serve the greater CBD area but this has not yet happened.
Notable central network reforms proposed include a connection to Anzac Station via Park Street and new connections to Arden Station via Spencer and Victoria Streets. CBD-fringe L-shaped routes would reduce the need to change. In addition suburban extensions would extend dead-end termini to better meet trains. Most of these are in the east but there is also a new route that connects Highpoint with Sunshine by tram.
Trams would be more accessible and faster with improved priority. Time is money when running trams and as well as making travel more attractive shorter run times enables a higher frequency / higher capacity service to be operated.
A concept tram network is shown below but I suggest looking at the plan itself for a better view (link later).
The main challenges facing Melbourne's trams include low speeds (due to mostly running in mixed traffic), poor accessibility and a legacy network that misses many potential connection points. By providing high capacity movement under the Swanston St spine, the Metro Tunnel project was intended to unlock the potential for tram network reform to better serve the greater CBD area but this has not yet happened.
Notable central network reforms proposed include a connection to Anzac Station via Park Street and new connections to Arden Station via Spencer and Victoria Streets. CBD-fringe L-shaped routes would reduce the need to change. In addition suburban extensions would extend dead-end termini to better meet trains. Most of these are in the east but there is also a new route that connects Highpoint with Sunshine by tram.
Trams would be more accessible and faster with improved priority. Time is money when running trams and as well as making travel more attractive shorter run times enables a higher frequency / higher capacity service to be operated.
A concept tram network is shown below but I suggest looking at the plan itself for a better view (link later).
More frequent and better connected buses
Reformed and upgraded buses is a major part of the RFI Melbourne Public Transport Plan. Reformed bus networks can convert the network from a CBD-centric asterisk to a more connected grid. This is key to making public transport work for a wide variety of trips, not just the minority involving travel to and from the CBD.
Despite being the most cost-effective way to extend frequent public transport to the millions of Melburnians beyond walking distance of trains and trams, the state government's record on buses has been mixed. Network reform to the scale envisaged in 2021's Victoria's Bus Plan has not taken place, with the Auditor-General warning that Bus Plan objectives won't be achieved if progress continues at the current pace.
The plan makes the point that despite their much larger catchment area than trams, bus ridership in Melbourne is less. This is the result of a largely legacy bus network where just 4 out of 350 routes operate every 15 minutes or better 7 days a week. There are many cases where Melbourne routes are frequent on weekdays but not weekends or service levels do not align with usage or needs. Operating hours are also shorter than trains and trams, reducing the ability of buses to operate as reliable feeders.
The Melbourne Public Transport Plan proposes a tiered hierarchy to replace currently haphazard service levels. The highest level, applicable to the main bus corridors, would provide a service every 10 minutes or better over long hours the whole week. The bus component of the Frequent Network, these are your direct high patronage main road routes.
Potential candidate routes, running every 10 minutes or better most of the week, are below. For context not one bus route in Melbourne meets this service standard in 2026 so implementation of a network like this would be a major advance.
Supplementing the Frequent Bus Network could be a middle 'Connector' tier of services every 20 minutes or better over long hours. Together with Frequent routes, Connector routes would provide long hours coverage every 20 minutes or better within ten minutes walk of most homes. To its credit the State Government has rolled out routes similar to these in some growth areas but gaps elsewhere remain long. Remaining smaller scale transport needs would be met by local (every 30 to 60 min with minimum service standards) or special purpose routes (with service tailored to need).
Implementation
The final chapter proposes a network development strategy to progressively roll out more frequent and better connected service. This would be informed by a network service hierarchy and a program of priority upgrades that maximises the use of existing train, tram and bus assets.
Services can be privately run (as per now) but planning and management should be through a single agency. Implementation plans for Heavy Metro, Light Metro, Trams and Buses would support the network strategy.
Conclusion
Despite being the most cost-effective way to extend frequent public transport to the millions of Melburnians beyond walking distance of trains and trams, the state government's record on buses has been mixed. Network reform to the scale envisaged in 2021's Victoria's Bus Plan has not taken place, with the Auditor-General warning that Bus Plan objectives won't be achieved if progress continues at the current pace.
The plan makes the point that despite their much larger catchment area than trams, bus ridership in Melbourne is less. This is the result of a largely legacy bus network where just 4 out of 350 routes operate every 15 minutes or better 7 days a week. There are many cases where Melbourne routes are frequent on weekdays but not weekends or service levels do not align with usage or needs. Operating hours are also shorter than trains and trams, reducing the ability of buses to operate as reliable feeders.
The Melbourne Public Transport Plan proposes a tiered hierarchy to replace currently haphazard service levels. The highest level, applicable to the main bus corridors, would provide a service every 10 minutes or better over long hours the whole week. The bus component of the Frequent Network, these are your direct high patronage main road routes.
Potential candidate routes, running every 10 minutes or better most of the week, are below. For context not one bus route in Melbourne meets this service standard in 2026 so implementation of a network like this would be a major advance.
Supplementing the Frequent Bus Network could be a middle 'Connector' tier of services every 20 minutes or better over long hours. Together with Frequent routes, Connector routes would provide long hours coverage every 20 minutes or better within ten minutes walk of most homes. To its credit the State Government has rolled out routes similar to these in some growth areas but gaps elsewhere remain long. Remaining smaller scale transport needs would be met by local (every 30 to 60 min with minimum service standards) or special purpose routes (with service tailored to need).
Implementation
The final chapter proposes a network development strategy to progressively roll out more frequent and better connected service. This would be informed by a network service hierarchy and a program of priority upgrades that maximises the use of existing train, tram and bus assets.
Services can be privately run (as per now) but planning and management should be through a single agency. Implementation plans for Heavy Metro, Light Metro, Trams and Buses would support the network strategy.
Rail Futures has, with a small team led by president John Hearsch, produced and released a broad 30 year multimodal public transport plan for Melbourne. It fills a significant gap given the dominance of narrow project-based planning for public transport in recent years.
Implementation would see a transformed public transport network fit for a growing city. And the timing is right as it provides guidance on how to maximise benefits from existing, new or rebuilt transport assets in the interim.
I'm biased* but the state government and those aspiring to govern would do well to draw concepts and policies from it.
I also invite you to read the plan online. Printed copies are available for $40 posted.
And, if you like it, raise its contents with the next political candidate who seeks your vote.
Implementation would see a transformed public transport network fit for a growing city. And the timing is right as it provides guidance on how to maximise benefits from existing, new or rebuilt transport assets in the interim.
I'm biased* but the state government and those aspiring to govern would do well to draw concepts and policies from it.
I also invite you to read the plan online. Printed copies are available for $40 posted.
And, if you like it, raise its contents with the next political candidate who seeks your vote.
(*) as one of the plan's authors.
