Saturday, March 09, 2024

How healthy are our bus routes? (1000 day Bus Plan special)

Today marks 1000 days since Victoria's Bus Plan was launched. It ably diagnosed what was wrong with buses and outlined what improved services might look like. But it lacked specifics on what was to be done. That was meant to be covered in a later Bus Reform Improvement Plan that we all politely waited for. 

After an initially promising start in 2021 and further wins thanks to the 2022 state budget a large scale bus network review was announced for Melbourne's north and north-east two months before the state election.

However momentum had waned by early 2023 with warnings and then the reality of a tough 2023 state budget with very little new for buses. This caused me to query the health of the Bus Plan in June 2023 with a grim prognosis, even as others like Infrastructure Victoria, the Committee for Melbourne and Friends of the Earth were stepping up their bus research and advocacy.  

2023's end saw no apparent revival. It was then 931 days since the release of the Bus Plan. Not even the Bus Reform Implementation Plan had come out. So I devised an online clock to see if we'd see movement within 1000 days. That raised significant interest, with '1000 days since the bus plan' quoted by campaigns and in parliament. Which is actually today. 


To mark the occasion I did a desktop health check of all 349 regular (ie non Night Network) bus routes in Melbourne. Such a check, accompanied by punctuality data, patronage data and much more, would be a necessary prelude to any implementation plan. So what you read here is just a start. 

Method

The check is crude. It's based on existing routes, not peoples needs. There are just two measures: timetable and route. Both are judged on a yes/no basis with the result added. Thus the only possible scores for a route are 0, 50 or 100% even though it's more nuanced for each route. Still, adding the results of 349 quick tests is enough to convey a fair picture of the bus network's health which is what we want today.  

Timetables are mainly assessed by whether they meet 2006's minimum service standards. That is 7 day service at least hourly until 9pm, with 6, 8 and 9am starts for weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays respectively. Not a high bar but it is a service standard on which significant progress was made (though not recently).

I also compared timetables across days of the week, especially for busier or main road routes. If a major shopping centre route ran every 15-20 minutes Monday to Saturday but dropped to hourly on Sundays then I would mark it down as a major issue. As I would for a route whose frequency was irregular, was unharmonised with trains or over-serviced for its catchment. All of these would count as a major timetable issue.

On the other hand a peak, university, industrial or limited shopper route that lacked weekend service would not be marked down given their peripheral network role. Neither did I much consider overcrowding, appropriateness of run times or punctuality (though you can check the latter here). So don't be too surprised if I didn't pick up a timetable issue on routes you know there's problems with.   

Routes were rated on many factors including excessive indirectness (some being necessary for coverage), complex loops, deviations, weak termini and duplication with other routes. Minor problems were overlooked but your judgement may differ from mine in a particular instance. Overall I've erred on the 'soft' side; like with timetables there will be routes with issues that my desktop check still gave a 100% rating to (when 70% might be fairer). 

Still, this exercise should give an idea of whether bus reform is justified and an idea of its potential gains.  

Data summary

One third (116) of Melbourne's 349 bus routes had no major timetable or route alignment issues identified. The remaining two-thirds did.

Of those about 40% (ie 94 or 27% of the total) had both timetable and route issues. Especially where routes can be made more direct or duplication lessened this presents an opportunity for cost-effective  timetable upgrades with freed-up service kilometres.   

67 routes (or just under 1/5) had timetable issues only. Fixes could be anything from extending hours to minimum standards, adding weekend service or harmonising headways with trains for improved connectivity. While some funding is likely needed for the extra drivers and route kilometres timetable only upgrades are relatively easy with no public consultation or even extra buses needed (if done at off-peak times). Occasionally the problem is overservicing with a potential to transfer service kilometres to routes or time periods that need them more. 

72, the remaining fifth, largely need route reforms. Examples include removing a deviation, making service more direct, removing duplication or extending to a logical terminus like a nearby station or shopping centre. Cost-effective opportunities for improved service may be possible where multiple routes inefficiently overlap. 




Service upgrades over time

In November 2008 I checked the progress of the Meeting Our Transport Challenges program of minimum service standards for buses released in mid-2006. There had been some Sunday service additions in 2002 but evening service to 9pm remained rare in 2006, with only 13% of routes having it. MOTC upgrades had more than tripled this to 44% of routes in less than 3 years. This growth from 40 to 137 routes means an average of 50 routes per year gained minimum service standards during this period. For context Melbourne's metropolitan population was just under 4 million in late 2008. 

Where are we over 15 years later? We now have about 1.3 million more people and 40 more bus routes (rising from 309 to 349). The proportion of that 349 meeting minimum standards (including 7 day service to 9pm) stands at 61% (ie 213 routes). Or 63% if we are generous by discounting weekday only peak and university routes that you'd never run weekends. 

The gain from 137 to 213 (ie 76 routes) represents just 5 routes per year gaining minimum service standards between 2008 and 2024. In other words the rate that Melbourne upgraded bus service slowed by about 90% compared to 15 years ago.

 
Note: Contains only one intermediate data point. Thus the 2008 - 2024 trend will vary in rate. 
For example there were significant improvements in 2009-2010. And others in 2013-2016. 

Annual scheduled service kilometres is even better in that it counts all bus service initiatives. The 2015-16 budget papers reported that metropolitan buses had 110.8 million km per annum projected to be scheduled at the end of the 2014-2015 financial year (ie before the current government was elected). The 2023-24 budget papers had 129.3 million km per annum as a target for that financial year. This  does represent service growth in absolute terms.

However Melbourne's population grew even faster, by nearly a million, over that time (from 4.3 to 5.2 million). That means there is less bus service per capita now than in 2014. That would put Melbourne in a per capita bus service recession. Similar comments likely apply for metropolitan train or tram but not V/Line whose services have grown the fastest of all modes.      

It is in this less than buoyant context that recent statements from the Minister for Public and Active Transport with regards to her government's record on public transport service should perhaps be viewed. 


Some more numbers

Below is a table I've made of the raw spreadsheet data (which you can download here). I've already discussed the first data column re MOTC minimum standards compliance. N/A means routes like university shuttles that I excluded from the survey as they are not expected to run 7 days. 

There's a stack of routes that run 7 days but don't meet MOTC standards. This is mainly because they start too late or finish too early to qualify, especially on weekends. These would be very cheap and beneficial upgrades, especially where they include popular but underserved routes like the 630 on North Rd. 

While one could argue that not all quieter routes should run 7 days or MOTC hours, there's enough 'have not' routes (124) to demonstrate that a large number (at least half) should get upgrades on pretty solid patronage or social need grounds. Examples include key routes like 237, 281, 284, 404, 414, 468, 503, 506, 536, 546, 548, 549, 612, 800, 802, 804, 814, 844, 885 etc. 

The third column deals with timetable issues. Nearly half the timetables were identified as such. As noted before these might include not only non-adherence to minimum service standards but also other factors like headways unharmonised with trains or a big drop-off in weekend (especially Sunday) frequency versus other days. This (and the next) column is less objective than the first two so your judgement on this will vary from mine. This column forms half the final score. 

The last column on the routing forms the other half of the score. Again I saw serious issues in the alignment of nearly half Melbourne's bus routes. This includes cases where the route is sound but there's enough duplication with others to query the network's efficiency.   
 
 


Data


The above charts and tables are based on spreadsheet data that you can download below. 


This includes comments for most routes to justify their scoring. 


Conclusion

This desktop review of all Melbourne's 349 regular bus routes shows a strong need for bus network reform. Most routes had issues with their timetables, alignment or both.

In addition the data presented indicates the extent to which 7 day bus upgrades have almost stalled since the MOTC program despite our city adding 1.3 million people in the interim. We've added service but  it's not been enough to keep up with population.

A failure to add sufficient service kilometres also harms the prospects for the sort of network reform envisaged in Victoria's Bus Plan. A major lesson from Auckland's success is that bus network reform is harder without extra service kilometres because you can't limit political risk by, for example, retaining some less direct / less frequent coverage style routes in high needs areas.

That doesn't mean you should give up on bus service reform. To the contrary. The more you pay attention to duplicative or overserviced routes the more 'greater good' improvements you'll be able to do. I described this more in Bus upgrades for a broke government. And if you've got processes to make several timetable adjustments in a year (rather than it taking it several years for one) you can follow the steady Perth approach of eventually getting what you want (ie simpler frequent routes) with a minimum of political backlash. 

Opportunities are especially high due to Melbourne's bus reform backlog. That can be demonstrated by the continued existence of embarrassments like routes 558, 566, 624 and 800 with severe alignment and/or timetable problems persisting for decades. Yet the record points to a reform stalemate, with the rate of even simple timetable optimisation exercises lagging cities like Perth.

It can't all be down to money; organisation and efficiency play a part too. Not only does Perth have more effective institutional frameworks and political support for improved buses but they also tolerate operational inefficiency and fare revenue loss less. Despite DTP having had a dedicated bus reform team there is as yet no sign of the promised Bus Reform Implementation Plan (that on March 6 was asked about in parliament). And, despite warnings, DTP has pursued failures like FlexiRide that have increased rather than decreased the cost per passenger carried, especially in high patronage areas like Tarneit where services commonly max out

Having now entered the Victorian Bus Plan's second thousand days, we hope that achievements in this period will greatly reverse the stagnation of its first three years and the per-capita service fall going back even further.

With a tough state budget mooted, network and service reform is perhaps the last and so far largely untapped hope for cost-effective improvements in public transport. However for this to happen political will and delivery capacity both need to be vastly better than now.

The ball is now in your court ministers Pearson and Williams.   

Tuesday, March 05, 2024

How will the Metro Tunnel benefit your line?


The Metro Tunnel, our most anticipated suburban rail project since the City Loop, is due to commence service next year. If amply scheduled its effect could be transformative; not just for travel on the lines linked by the tunnel, but for benefits cascaded across other lines due to freed up capacity and overdue frequency upgrades. 


Except for assurances of 'more trains across Melbourne', the public doesn't yet know the services they will be getting. While you can appreciate sensitivities over peak service levels and stopping patterns, even broad specifications like maximum waits at various times of day have yet to be released. Sydney, in contrast, tends to be more open about this sort of stuff.

The nearest we have (which may or may not reflect current thinking) is the Day 1 service plan in the 2016 Business Case, with the important table 2-2 reproduced below.

 
Off-peak was really good in some respects (6 trains per hour for Sandringham, Craigieburn and part of Upfield) but niggardly in others (eg 3 trains per hour service beyond West Footscray). The table doesn't list six lines (Mernda, Hurstbridge, Belgrave, Lilydale, Alamein and Glen Waverley), so presumably there was then no intent to revisit their timetables (30 or 40 min maximum waits notwithstanding). Or it assumed there'd have been faster progress on the 2012 Network Development Plan than there was.  

While Melbourne doesn't have a great record of backing infrastructure with service, short-changing Sunshine, a station with comparable patronage to Dandenong, with half a service (ie 20 min gaps) seems implausible. Even for us. Also pandemic-driven working patterns have lowered the commuter peaks, especially on Mondays and Fridays. And Airport rail (aka SRL Airport for a while) was off, on, then now apparently off. Anticipation with regards to the Western Rail Plan and Geelong Fast Rail has also been on and off. 

Thus the Business Case specification represents guidance from a different time. The timetable ultimately adopted may well be different to that envisaged 8 years ago. Although given that it is part of the pitch to justify public funding one would hope that any revised specification would have similar if not better distributed community benefits. I speculated on the Metro Tunnel timetable a few days ago, giving three options of what frequency might be like at various times of the day.

My emphasis then was on off-peak service and maximum waits. Such improvements could have been done on most of the existing network without the Metro Tunnel. Victoria's emphasis on infrastructure  before (or even without) service artificially extended waits for the latter, as opposed to delivering service when the capacity existed to do so (the NDP - Metropolitan Rail approach). 

My emphasis today is what the Metro Tunnel enables with regards to peak service. Key benefits include (a) new rail access at Arden, Parkville and Anzac, (b) rapid transit under the Swanston St corridor that enables cascading tram upgrades, (c) improved core network robustness and (d) support for a growing CBD by adding capacity (likely the project's main justification). 

Benefits by line

The Big Build website lists claimed benefits per line.  I will discuss peak service levels in more details here.

As with my notional off-peak service levels there will be a bit of speculation without there being published up to date service specifications to go on, though I've tried to stick to published material as much as possible.

I will use current (2024) timetables as references rather than older ones that might have been used as references in earlier material. I think that is fair since today's timetables incorporate reforms (eg the 2021 Caulfield and cross-city changes) that get more out of our existing pre-Metro Tunnel network.

Also, for maximum rigour (as opposed to attributing or inflating claimed benefits to bolster a case for a project) analysis of what benefits new infrastructure will provide should be based on optimally using existing infrastructure (ie a higher base) than an existing perhaps less efficient use of what we have (ie a lower more favourable base).  


Craigieburn and Upfield

Considered together due to their sharing of the City Loop. 

The reference to the project 'creating room for 54 000 passengers per week' for the Craigieburn line implies a focus on peak capacity. That's 10 800 per weekday which they put at 27% more capacity. This gain would come from Sunbury line trains being removed from the City Loop. 

Upfield would gain a 71% increase in capacity, or 9 000 passengers per weekday (45 000 per week). Like with Craigieburn this gain would come Sunbury line trains being removed from the City Loop. 

The current (2024) timetable records 18 Sunbury line trains arriving at Flinders St between 7:00am and 8:59am. Similar arrival numbers for Craigieburn and Upfield are 17 and 7 respectively in two hours. 

Adding 27% to Craigieburn's 17 arrivals gives 22 trains. Adding 71% to Upfield's 7 gives 12 trains. That's adding 10 arrivals in those two hours. That allows room to grow since fewer are added than the 18 Sunbury line trains removed. Totalling this gives 34 trains, or less than two minutes between trains. There are however capacity constraints elsewhere on the Upfield line as this video highlights so we may not get all of the promised increase.

Craigieburn should see an average of 5.4 minutes between trains in its busiest two hours, with the Upfield line having 10 minute headways. There will be some unevenness due to the Craigieburn line needing to slot in V/Line services and leave gaps for the Upfield services in the City Loop. But overall it should be a solid turn-up-and-go service during the peaks except (probably) for the last few stations of the Upfield line.  

Table 2-2 in the 2016 Business Case's service plan gives higher capacity numbers. In the am peak two hours it has 28 trains for Craigieburn and 12 trains for Upfield, making a total of 40 for the 'Northern Loop'. In both cases not all trains would necessarily start at their outer termini. 

As for the people count, does one passenger count twice if they take the train home? It would seem so. As the number of people who can fit on a train is nearer to 1000 than 2000, if we're adding 10 arrivals across both lines then 10 000 makes more sense than 20-odd thousand. 


Sunbury and Cranbourne/Pakenham

Considered together due to their connection through the Metro Tunnel. 

I mentioned before the current 18 Sunbury line trains. The Big Build website claims a rise of 60% in capacity, or 113 000 more passengers per week (22 600 per day). Such an increase could mean 29 trains, or a shade over 2 minutes between trains. But that doesn't factor in the higher capacity of the HCMTs which will increase people throughput even if the number of trains remains unchanged. However you calculate it it will be a good turn-up-and-go peak service for the whole line, even if some trips start at Watergardens.  

The Table 2-2 tally is 31 Metro services, including 7 for the West Footscray turnback. Presumably 6 of those 7 are reserved for extension to Melbourne Airport given Melbourne Airport Rail's projected 10 minute frequency. Unless priorities are shuffled and Melton or Wyndham Vale electrification happens first. 

Currently the peak am two hours have 25 arrivals from the Cranbourne/Pakenham direction. A 45% increase is stated for Cranbourne/Pakenham. This is 121 000 passengers per week, or 24 200 per weekday. A 45% increase on 25 arrivals could mean 11 trains added though one must note that the new HCMTs in service have already significantly increased peak capacity. 

Table 2-2 in the Business Case service plan has 35 Metro trips and 4 V/Line trips in the am 2 hours. 


Sandringham and Werribee/Williamstown

The Sandringham line currently has 15 arrivals at Flinders St in the peak morning two hours. The Big Build website's 48% increase means 22 arrivals, or an increase of 7 trips. Either of these represents a pretty good peak service (ie every 8 vs every 5.4 minutes). This would create room for 72 000 passengers per week or 14 400 per weekday. This video queries whether that 48% is correct given terminating capacity constraints at Sandringham. 

This is similar to the Business Case plan which shows 21 arrivals (excluding South Yarra turnbacks). This also shows the Sandringham line replacing Frankston as the eastern portion of the cross-city group. The scheduling and operations of this will be critical to deliver fast cross-city travel that those used to the Metro Tunnel will expect on this group too. Although the cross-city group was meant to offer this in theory, actual reliability for what should be simple fast trips like South Yarra to North Melbourne is currently poor with trains often terminating, dwelling too long, turning back or transposing at Flinders Street.  

There are 24 arrivals from the Werribee side in the 7 - 8:59am slot at Flinders Street. This comprises 12 of these are from Werribee, 6 from Laverton and 6 from Williamstown. In other words current frequencies are 10, 20 and 20 minutes respectively. 

The Business Case's 24% increase would bring that up to 30, while Table 2-2 has 36 trips in the two hours. In any event I would expect most if not all of the increase would be starters from Werribee since that contains the group's busiest stations and has the highest growth prospects. 


Frankston line

The Frankston line currently has 23 arrivals in the am peak two hours at Flinders St. A significant proportion originate at Carrum. A 15% rise on that means 26 or 27 arrivals. 

The Frankston line enjoys a lot of service but loadings are less than other lines, especially post pandemic. Reasons could include factors like: a. demographics (a mix of white collar CBD workers with WFH options and local workers who largely drive is less conducive to high patronage), b. endless line shutdowns and bus replacements eroding rail as an option, c. the Mordialloc Freeway increasing driving's attractiveness, d. Often poor or unreliable feeder buses, exacerbated by b above. Frankston also typically enjoys double the frequency of lines with more favourable catchment, especially Craigieburn but also Mernda due to serving historically marginal electoral seats.   

Still this is not a reason to write off Frankston line usage post Metro Tunnel. Removing Cranbourne and Pakenham trains from South Yarra, Richmond, Parliament, Flagstaff and Southern Cross will likely mean more changing at Caulfield station to the Frankston line.

It won't all be one way though as some Frankston passengers for Anzac, Parkville and possibly other stations may switch to ex-Dandenong trains to save about 15 minutes. Although those who value the seat they probably have will likely stay on until Flinders Street, especially given Caulfield's unfitness as an efficient high capacity interchange station. 

Sandringham passengers will likely switch to Frankston trains at South Yarra to access the City Loop. There may also be some changing to/from the Burnley group at Richmond, depending on travel directions.   

Overall these changes should mean that the Frankston line in from Caulfield has high passenger growth while its outer half grows by much less, at least while intermittent shutdowns continue. For the next few years optimising the timetable against usage might mean that more peak trains start (and finish) at locations like Mordialloc, Moorabbin or even Caulfield rather than Carrum or Frankston. The attractiveness of scheduling such a more intensive inner service could increase given that Frankston will become Melbourne's only line that gets a City Loop portal all to itself.  




Mernda/Hurstbridge and Belgrave/Lilydale/Alamein/Glen Waverley lines

These do not gain services from the Metro Tunnel or the resultant cascading of capacity. However the project benefits page cites 5 to 10 minute travel time savings for trips to new station precincts such as around Anzac and Parkville (with major health and education destinations).

Outside that though the Metro Tunnel project's benefits for the remaining 6 out of 15 train lines are slim. Though this needn't be the case if a network rather than a project-based approach to service is taken. 

As mentioned last week the Metro Tunnel risks becoming a project of division rather than (deserved) pride if it creates a two class 'haves and have nots' metropolitan rail network. In this case the haves could get all day turn-up-and-go 10 minute service while the have nots remain saddled with widespread 30 to 40 minute waits, even at busy stations like Box Hill. Especially for people changing from the Metro Tunnel to one of the less served lines the customer experience of potential unaddressed 30-40 minute waits risks lowering the entire network's standing. 

How do we overcome this without spending much?  

The answer is the selective pursuit of something almost unspeakable in Melbourne public transport policy, that is increased service frequency. Instead of something that governments only grudgingly add when overflowing train loads threaten to roast them at the ballot box, frequency needs to be reimagined as a necessary feature of a connected and more useful network. This has the potential to transform rail travel, especially if accompanied by a vastly simpler weekday timetable on the Burnley group

As mentioned in More Frequency More Go, the cheapest and best way to do it is to start by eliminating 40 minute waits (~0.2% more trips per week needed) and then 30 minute waits (~5% more trips per week needed with more manageable smaller steps for a staged program possible). Again, as with Frankston, it may be possible to reduce implementation costs with 'swings and roundabout' changes that have some small minuses for a few stations but generate overwhelming gains for the majority. 


Together such initiatives halve maximum waits across the network from 40 to 20 minutes 7 days per week from early morning to late at night. This is a major usability gain for not much money. A further roll-out to 10 minute maximum waits would have further benefits with weekday interpeaks for Ringwood and at least shoulder peaks on lines like Mernda and Craigieburn (if not otherwise upgraded) being priorities. 

The Metro Tunnel project's benefits could be extended if its timetables, especially in the peaks are carefully examined. The aim here could be to see if there is scope to spread service hours more widely across the network, potentially almost doubling the lines that would directly benefit with more services. There may be cases were cutting out one or two peak trips and shuffling other trips may result in an almost unnoticed frequency drop. Yet shifting those service hours to off-peaks to cut maximum waits to 30 or preferably 20 minutes during a key time period would have a large and very noticeable gain.  

Conclusion

The Metro Tunnel promises to be transformative for our train and tram networks. Key gains include new stations, reduced travel times, connectivity across a growing city and freed-up capacity with benefits extending to the metropolitan fringe.   

The main uncertainty at this stage is the service levels of the Metro Tunnel-associated timetables. Above anything else this indicates how serious Melbourne is about becoming a city with public transport useful for diverse trips. And they determine whether the Metro Tunnel delivers its full potential or not. 

For example, will the improvements be concentrated in the peak or be spread across the week as modern travel trends demand? Will it be only Metro-Tunnel related lines that gain, creating a two tier haves vs have nots network? Or will benefits be more widely distributed, with the network's 30 - 40 minute maximum waits, stubborn for decades, finally slashed? 

There's one thing for sure, we'll be in for an interesting ride as we find out. And I intend to be there for the journey. 

Sunday, March 03, 2024

The 'One Million Club': Melbourne's busiest suburban stations (and how the Metro Tunnel could benefit them)


Last year I got some annual 2022-23 station entry train patronage stats from DTP. What stuck out was a small number of high patronage stations, which I've defined as exceeding 1 million passenger entries in the year. 

Here they are, roughly grouped in clockwise order. The first numbers after them are million entries per year. They're followed by service levels. These are Weekday interpeak frequency/Weekend frequency/Maximum waits (all in minutes).

Werribee/Williamstown/Sunbury

Footscray 4.0 <10/<10/<20
Sunshine 1.6 20/20/40
Williams Landing 1.2 20/20/20
Newport 1.1 <10/10/20
Watergardens 1.0 20/20/40

Craigieburn/Upfield

Essendon 1.2 20/20/40
Craigieburn 1.1 20/20/40

Mernda/Hurstbridge
-

Belgrave/Lilydale/Alamein/Glen Waverley

Box Hill 1.9 15/10/30
Glenferrie 1.7 15/10/30
Camberwell 1.6 15/10/30
Ringwood 1.3 15/10/30
Glen Waverley 1.3 15/20/30

Pakenham/Dandenong/Frankston/Sandringham

Caulfield 2.7 5/5/20
Dandenong 1.7 10/10/30
Springvale 1.2 10/10/30
Clayton 1.2 10/10/30
Oakleigh 1.3 10/10/30
Huntingdale 1.1 10/10/30
Frankston 1.0 10/10/20

CBD area (largely not discussed here)

Flinders St 18.8
Southern Cross 10.9
Melbourne Central 8.6
Parliament 4.7
Richmond 3.1
Flagstaff 2.8
South Yarra 2.8
North Melbourne 1.1


I'd query some numbers. Some stations, like CaulfieldFootscray and Newport, require exiting the fare paid area to change between some platforms. That may inflate numbers. There will also be variations such as changed travel patterns when buses are replacing trains. Still it does show that some lines have more super-busy stations than others. 

The Clifton Hill group had no entries in this class, though it had a reasonable share of middling well-used stations like Reservoir, Heidelberg and more that exceeded 500 000 boardings pa. Significantly, nearly half (9/19) of the 1 million plus suburban stations will be served by the Metro Tunnel when that opens. 

Busy stations with high maximum waits

Stations with 30 or 40 minute maximum waits are shaded. 4 out of the 19 busiest suburban stations had a 40 minute maximum wait (between approx 6am and midnight, 7 days) while a further 10 had a 30 minute maximum wait.

That makes 14 out of 19 with 30 minute or more maximum waits. This can be attributed to past resourcing decisions which placed a higher priority on boosting service on the electorally critical Frankston line over the lines to Ringwood and Dandenong which had more busier stations.  

Footscray and Caulfield, by virtue of being on multiple lines, had the shortest waits. However even here intervals are irregular as lines through them operate at frequencies unharmonised with one another (with a mix of 20, 30 and/or 40 minutes common evenings and/or Sunday mornings). 2012's Network Development Plan - Metropolitan Rail would have had this fixed by now if service reform (most of which didn't need to wait for the Metro Tunnel) had been accorded a higher priority.

The silver lining is that the timetables associated with the Metro Tunnel offer a great opportunity to catch up on what has been almost a lost decade in metropolitan rail service improvement. Let's now look at some exciting service upgrades which could be ahead.  


Effect of 2025 Metro Tunnel associated timetables

Seven of the shaded low service but busy stations will be served by Metro Tunnel services. These include Watergardens, Sunshine, Huntingdale, Oakleigh, Clayton, Springvale and Dandenong.

If well-scheduled the 2025 Metro Tunnel timetable will cut maximum waits at these stations from their current 30 or 40 minutes. In addition two other stations (Footscray and Caulfield) that already have frequent service will gain further. As mentioned before that means that nearly half of the busiest 19 suburban stations could directly benefit from the Metro Tunnel. 

Right now we can only guess the extent of the Metro Tunnel's benefit as its timetable (or even service specification) isn't public yet. But I would expect that planning would be guided by a. 2012 Network Development Plan - Metropolitan Rail, b. 2016 Business Case and c. recent rail planning practice, notably the 2021 Caulfield and cross-city group timetable revamp

This has informed the hypothetical frequency plan below.    

(click above for better image)

I would not expect much use of the bare-bones A pattern, except possibly early Sunday morning. You'd pick C if core frequency, including relieving trams to enable a reconfigured network, was a priority. B, the middle option, gives a turn-up-and-go service for medium to longish trips, while offering excellent legibility and one-seat rides.

A and B are poor for asset utilisation given Metro Tunnel's construction cost. Still, getting something like B for most off-peak periods (including weekends and evenings) with A applying early weekend mornings would still represent a large uplift in service. Hence I will assume this is about what we get.

With that sorted we can now discuss the other busy stations and their prospects for better service.  

Essendon and Craigieburn are the two remaining busy stations with 40 minute maximum waits not on the Metro Tunnel. The Craigieburn Line could have had boosted off-peak services (including closing the dreaded 40 min Sunday morning gaps) at any time since the line opened in 2007 but never did. However the 2016 Metro Tunnel business case proposes a halving of Craigieburn line waits to 10 minutes day/20 minutes nights and Sunday mornings (matching the current Frankston line pattern). Hence there is the possibility (though not a certainty) of next year's Metro Tunnel associated northern group timetable erasing current 30-40 minute waits. The case for this is compelling given the Craigieburn line's high usage and the low marginal cost of halving maximum waits.  

The Upfield and Sandringham lines lack 1m plus stations but the Sandringham line in particular has good average usage per station with none really quiet. Like the Craigieburn line both have 40 minute maximum waits and are listed for improvements in the business case. 

The abovementioned 2016 business case limits its scope to lines that are interdependent with the Metro Tunnel. Hence Table 2-2 in it does not list service levels for the Burnley (ie Belgrave/ Lilydale/ Alamein/ Glen Waverley) or Clifton Hill (ie Mernda and Hurstbridge) group lines. Thus I assume that no improvements are planned for these timetables. To be fair there were minor amendments made last year but none that made inroads into maximum waits or complex service patterns. 

This, coupled with posters like those below, may give rise to a public expectation that timetables associated with the Metro Tunnel will have wide rather than narrow benefits, both in relation to the lines served and the span of hours. 

 


The Burnley group is particularly relevant here because it contains five 'One Million Club' stations with 30 minute maximum waits. These are Glenferrie, Camberwell, Box Hill, Ringwood and Glen Waverley. Of Melbourne's train operating groups, Burnley also has the most need for a simpler greenfields timetable due to its unappetising combination of 30 minute maximum waits (including midday weekdays at outer stations) and
complex peak stopping patterns

Such a reformed schedule could apply the generally superior weekend daytime 10/20 min pattern to weekdays as well (for minimal cost) with this extended as late at night as possible. Doing both interpeak and evenings would give Belgrave, Lilydale and Ringwood service parity with Pakenham, Cranbourne and Dandenong, assuming the Reference Option (B) is chosen for Metro Tunnel services.

If this is not done then the Metro Tunnel risks becoming a project of envy rather than pride as Ringwood passengers find waits between their 30 minute evening trips are triple those enjoyed by Dandenong passengers. Such a 3:1 service disparity is also not justified on patronage and urban development grounds given the usage of and prospects for popular stations like Glenferrie and Box Hill (including the Suburban Rail Loop).     

Finally there's the Clifton Hill group. No stations from it are represented in the 'One Million Club', although Jolimont, assisted by sports crowds, comes close at over 900 000. As mentioned before this group includes moderately busy stations, including Reservoir, Thomastown, Epping, South Morang and Mernda on the Mernda line plus Ivanhoe and Heidelberg on the Hurstbridge line. In addition the power of frequency to draw usage is demonstrated on the combined section of these lines with Victoria Park, North Richmond, Clifton Hill and of course Jolimont the busiest. All the listed stations had over 500 000 annual boardings in 2022-23. 

Conclusion

The Metro Tunnel should directly help cut waits at about half of Melbourne's nineteen busiest suburban railway stations with 1 million or more boardings per pear. Because waiting is such an important component of travel time, especially if changing to other services, this represents a major mobility benefit for passengers. 

Success here requires a 'good service every day' style of timetable being developed with short maximum waits over a wide span all week (even Sunday mornings) being implemented. 10 minutes would obviously be ideal but even getting to 20 minute maximum waits would be a large improvement, reversing the 1978 evening cuts on some lines.

This job would be finished, and the benefits magnified, if similar principles were applied to the remaining busy suburban stations and others mostly on the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups, as is possible for low marginal cost. 

The main gain here would be a spreading of project benefits to aid the whole metropolitan rail (and even tram and bus) network due to vastly improved connectivity and interchange. Only then will the city-shaping potential of the Metro Tunnel be truly unlocked.