Melbourne Airport to City for under $3!

Get from Melbourne Airport to the city for just $3 via a 15 minute bus ride that not even many locals know about! 

With tap and go credit/debit card payment enabled from today this bus-train option is easier than ever - no myki card required. 

Learn more here.

UN 240: The Suburban Rail Loop's Bus Problem

Executive summary: The state government risks setting the Suburban Rail Loop up to fail if it takes advice from a planning committee that has a poor understanding of the bus services needed to effectively get people to its stations. It should instead heed those with an understanding of multimodal public transport planning to be assured of maximising the patronage and mode shift benefits of the SRL.     

An expert committee set up to advise the Planning Minister on the Suburban Rail Loop and its precincts has published a series of reports on certain topics of importance to the role and success of the project.

SRL East Precincts Standing Advisory Committee 

Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny referred several matters to the Suburban Rail Loop East Precincts Standing Advisory Committee (SRLEPSAC) in July 2025. 

One of those matters is mode shift. Which is effectively SRL's ability or otherwise to transform transport from being driving-dominated to a pattern that is more multi-modal with higher shares for public and active transport. 

The Committee includes one Lead Chair, nine (!) Deputy Chairs and fourteen other members. They are heavily drawn from urban planning and legal backgrounds with a few engineers thrown in. Many have worked for local government or as private consultants. However public transport operations or planning backgrounds appear rarer, something that may be influential as you'll see later.  

It has published nine reports so far. This includes overarching reports for (a) Summary and approach, (b) Common issues and (c) General matters plus specific reports for each of the six proposed SRL stations. 

These reports give an idea on official thinking and advice to the Planning Minister. So they need to be scrutinised for rigour and appropriateness, especially as their subject matter includes transport planning.

I'll review the General Matters report later after setting the scene. 

Transport and planning policy development

While by name a transport project the state government has stressed that the Suburban Rail Loop is as much if not more about planning and housing. 

Possibly because bringing in the planning dimension allows potential land use changes and value uplifts that (some hope) could part fund SRL through value capture. The housing element taps into current concerns about a tight and expensive rental market. And reframing SRL as a broader project subverts critics who regards it as poor value from a purely transport perspective. 

The recent megaproject era also coincides with some change in policy thinking. This is exemplified by the merging of the Planning and Transport departments (as DTP) and the preference for transport to be planned in a wider context. 

Hence specific rail, tram and bus plans have withered. They have struggled to attract substantial funding despite tens of billions going to stand-alone 'Big Build' infrastructure projects. There is also no overarching transport plan, something the Auditor-General noted as a Transport Integration Act requirement in 2021. Instead some transport themes (such as the publication of a map of strategic bus corridors) will be picked up in the broader Plan for Victoria.

If this approach drives DTP organisational structures, there is a chance that the staff resourcing for individual modal planning relative to broader precincts planning might change as the department faces pressure to deliver Silver Review cost savings.

If poorly done this poses risks including a loss of internal transport planning expertise and capacity to implement the greenfield rail timetables and bus network reform still needed to realise Big Build benefits. A DTP that is big but weak also risks it having insights that do not sufficiently flow to major projects such as the SRL.  

The Transport Integration Act 2010 is relevant here. Points that stand out include efficiency, seamless travel within and between modes, integrated decision making and the user experience. 

Inside the General Issues Report

Of most interest is SRLEPSAC's General Issues Report. Mode shift gets about 20 pages. 

I was particularly interested in what it said about access to stations (important if they are to get much use since there are only six on a 26km long line) and the role of various transport modes to enable this.

Bus services already good - no improvements needed?

The first mention of buses comes on page 15 of the General Issues report.   

In principle they like the early delivery of bus transport and infrastructure improvements. 

BUT

Without evidence the Committee asserts that "many of the precincts are already particularly well served by well-established bus networks".

Essentially they are saying is that buses around the SRL stations already pretty good. And that it's not worth investing more in them to deliver mode shift. So it was preferable to direct resources to active transport instead.  

There is no doubt active transport is important, should be improved and that its returns per dollar spent are high (likely more than the SRL itself). The same goes for bus reform. You'll get some benefits from an SRL without bus upgrades but they are limited. Add bus reform and the benefits multiply.

If you were given a choice of three projects (a) SRL only, (b) SRL plus bus reform or (c) bus reform only, no SRL then the case for the last two could be argued but there are no circumstances that an SRL only would represent good value. Essentially upgraded buses is a necessary condition for SRL to succeed with analysis by Mohan Wadia available here.

SRLEPSAC's view is basically the opposite. They don't see buses as an important part of the SRL project. Their comments about the areas around the SRL stations being "particularly well served" by buses are only tenable if they looked at a bus network map, counted the routes and were content at that. As opposed to examining matters such as route directness, operating hours, frequency and legibility to get a fairer assessment. 

If the learned planners who comprise SRLEPSAC did not deign to examine timetables for their widespread hour gaps or (horrors!) try riding some buses, they could have checked recent analysis from reputable sources for an informed view on the bus network.  

Indeed Victorian government agencies outside the SRL silo were continually churning out material indicating the need for improved bus services from 2021. Examples include:  

* 2021: Victoria's Bus Plan
* 2022 Announcement of major bus network reform (which in this form later got shelved)
* 2023 Infrastructure Victoria report on buses 
* 2024 Detailed bus network analysis by DTP and consultants with this tabled in Parliament 
* 2026 VAGO performance audit on bus planning

All revealed serious problems but also great opportunities for a revived bus network, many at low cost.  This is directly relevant to the SRL East because, with only 6 stations along its 26km length, many will need to rely on feeder transport such as buses to reach stations (remembering there will be no extra car parking and many live beyond both rail and convenient active transport reach of the SRL stations).

Potential for bus network patronage growth (which addresses both SRL station access and the mode shift question) was further expressed in a speech by then department Secretary Paul Younis who suggested that reformed buses across Melbourne had potential to carry as many people as trams. 

Real world evidence of such growth exists too. Route 800 Saturday usage rose 200% when its previously limited timetable was upgraded. And routes such as 733 and 767 (both of which serve SRL stations) had strong ridership increases when their services were modestly increased to 15-20 min on weekdays and 30-40 minutes on weekends in 2023. 

Additional rail (such as SRL) can increase rather than reduce bus trip making due to increased connection opportunities. This is demonstrated in cities such as London where, despite large Tube and Overground systems, bus ridership exceeds either individually. Versus the Melbourne case where, despite their much larger catchment area, bus ridership is lower than either trams or Metro trains. 

That the SRLEPSAC appeared so uninformed about the bus network and its potential for mode shift either indicates a lack of rigour leading to potentially poor advice to the minister. The result could be decisions (eg underprovisions for fast direct bus routes and poor interchanges) that result in the SRL failing to deliver its potential network benefits as part of the connected transport system envisaged in the Transport Integration Act. 

Bus infrastructure

The committee report considers bus infrastructure.

This could include matters such as bus stops being located as near as possible to SRL (and other) stations, sufficient capacity for expected service levels (even if not all provided immediately), convenient stop locations in the SRL area (noting that catchments can be 1.6km from stations) and, critically, provision for efficient through routes in multiple directions with strong bus priority.

The latter is extremely important and often overlooked; interchanges that require a bus to backtrack (eg Glen Waverley currently for key routes) waste thousands of hours that is better spent speeding travel and increasing service frequency. 

There is only one good answer to the last point about early delivery of bus infrastructure - yes! Because if it is not delivered first-up it never gets done. Which puts a permanent choke on the capacity and catchment of SRL stations and thus the SRL's usage and mode shift potential. Those wishing to take advantage of the SRL's activity centres to live a convenient low-car life are also affected if buses to surrounding local destinations are substandard.  

Bus infrastructure requires some idea of a future bus network to define some high capacity corridors. This part under 8.6.3 identifies work done. 

So far so good. Until we get to this, which immediately follows:

Mr Gnanakone is a professional traffic engineer and transport planner. Earlier he said that it was critical that active transport improvements be delivered early to achieve mode share targets. He was also supportive of early bus network improvements. However he warned that the timing for most bus improvement works was medium to long term, and even after SRL East was operational.

This should not be regarded as an inevitability; a benefit of buses is their ability to respond quickly and scale up to changing travel needs so it is purely a political choice that bus service upgrades and network reform have historically been so slow with multi-decade lags in some cases.  

Unfortunately the Committee does not take Mr Gnanakone's advice regarding the need for early delivery of bus upgrades on board. They are pretty soft, saying it is merely desirable rather than an essential of equal if not greater importance than the SRL itself. 

As noted before SRLEPSAC (wrongly in my view) thinks the existing bus network is fine and overlooks the need to make provision for the sort of fast and frequent bus networks SRL stations will need. 

I agree with Mr Gnanakone about timing of bus improvements. Buses should be upgraded as precursors to the SRL, not as something that *might* be done afterwards. Only this sequencing can bring forward SRL benefits early and maximise mode shift. 

Conclusion

It is concerning that the Suburban Rail Loop East has a committee of planning experts, intended to advise the minister on matters such as transport mode shift, that apparently: 

* Thinks that existing bus services are good enough ('particularly well-served' in their words)
* Has not considered others' analysis and policy eg DTP's Bus Plan, IV or VAGO reports
* Does not see buses as an essential means to get people to SRL stations or a contributor to mode shift
* Has rejected advice from transport professionals on the importance of bus access 

If this committee's advice on buses is followed then the SRL risks being a stand-alone project poorly connected to feeder transport that does not deliver anywhere near the patronage or mode shift possible if a more connected multimodal approach was taken. 

The Committee may well be good at town planning but for buses (and other SRL feeder modes) both the Planning and Transport ministers might do well to seek advice from elsewhere. 

As a reminder their General (and other) papers can be read here. 

See other Useful Network items

TT 235: Bus frequency of frequencies and the weekend cliff

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

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

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

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

Weekends (every 40 minutes is king)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peaks (a little better than interpeak)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trams (the mode is the service)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 (*) Sunday mornings and evenings excepted. 

Trains (mostly every 20 minutes BUT)

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

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

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

The data behind the graph is below. 

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

See other Timetable Tuesday items here