Which MP is Victoria's transport question king?

Which state politician asks the most questions about transport in parliament? 

Keep reading and you'll find out who is Victoria's transport question king. 

At their best, questions asked in parliament are meant to hold the government to account. 

At other times they may be theatre. They may be intended to embarrass more than seek elucidation if coming from the non-government side. Or if from the government side they may be sympathetic 'Dorothy Dixers' used to highlight some good news, announce some funding or parade some achievement.   

The Victorian Parliament website has a searchable questions section. There you can see how many questions each MP has asked on which portfolios. 

I decided to do this exercise for the 60th parliament - that is the time from after the 2022 state election to now (4 June 2025 when this data was collected). I counted only questions asked for the transport portfolio (1988 in total). That needed six boxes ticked due to machinery of government changes introduced part way through the term. 

Counting questions asked in parliament is just one measure of how active MPs are and/or their interest in transport matters. Note the emphasis. Different MPs have different representation styles. Some, especially on the government side, prefer to press their area's needs through personal meetings with the minister. There may also be liaison at electorate officer/ministerial adviser levels to refine proposals. 

Much of a diligent MP's time is away from parliament, often in their electorate, showing up to things and talking to constituents. An MP that only asks a few questions is not necessarily lazy; indeed some work hard and can claim significant wins for their seat through more effective means. Indolent or self-serving MPs do exist but it is unfair to use questions asked as a sole gauge of this. 

Having got these caveats out of the way, here are the lists of MPs by house in descending order of questions asked. As Question Time is supposed to be a means for the parliament to hold the executive to account, all those asking questions are non-ministers. Where MPs have left or been expelled from parties, I've listed the party they represented at the 2022 election first. Government and non-government parliamentarians are separated as their need and propensity to ask questions is different, especially in the Legislative Council. 

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Government

Will Fowles (ALP/Ind, MLA) 25

Sarah Connolly (ALP, MLA) 18

Luba Grigorovitch (ALP, MLA) 16

Kathleen Matthews-Ward (ALP, MLA) 16

Nathan Lambert (ALP, MLA) 14

Anthony Ciaflone (ALP, MLA) 13

Paul Hamer (ALP, MLA) 10

Juliana Addison (ALP, MLA) 10

Mathew Hilakari (ALP, MLA) 10

Jackson Taylor (ALP, MLA) 10

John Mullahy (ALP, MLA) 9

Iwan Walters (ALP, MLA) 9

Alison Marchant (ALP, MLA) 8

Dylan Wight (ALP, MLA) 7

Tim Richardson (ALP, MLA) 7

Kat Theophanous (ALP, MLA) 7

Martha Haylett (ALP, MLA) 7

Daniela De Martino (ALP, MLA) 7

Bronwyn Halfpenny (ALP, MLA) 6
Lauren Kathage (ALP, MLA) 6

Josh Bull (ALP, MLA) 5

Gary Maas (ALP, MLA) 5
Emma Vulin (ALP, MLA) 5

Paul Mercurio (ALP, MLA) 5

Jordan Crugnale (ALP, MLA) 5

Nina Taylor (ALP, MLA) 4
Matt Fregon (ALP, MLA) 4

Katie Hall (ALP, MLA) 4

Michaela Settle (ALP, MLA) 4

Ella George (ALP, MLA) 4

Meng Heang Tak (ALP, MLA) 3

John Lister (ALP, MLA)* 2

Eden Foster (ALP, MLA)* 1

Pauline Richards (ALP, MLA) 1
Steve McGhie (ALP, MLA) 1

Paul Edbrooke (ALP, MLA) 1

Darren Cheeseman (ALP/Ind, MLA) 1

Nick Staikos (ALP, MLA) 1

Vicki Ward (ALP, MLA) 0

Chris Couzens (ALP, MLA) 0

Non-Government

Annabelle Cleeland (Nat, MLA) 81

Nicole Werner (Lib, MLA) 58

Danny O'Brien (Nat, MLA) 55

Tim Read (Grn, MLA) 52

Cindy McLeish (Lib, MLA) 52

Tim Bull (Nat, MLA) 43

Ellen Sandell (Grn, MLA) 41

Bridget Vallence (Lib, MLA) 32

Kim O'Keeffe (Nat, MLA) 30

Kim Wells (Lib, MLA) 30

Wayne Farnham (Lib, MLA) 29

Brad Rowswell (Lib, MLA) 25

Martin Cameron (Nat, MLA) 21

David Southwick (Lib, MLA) 19

Bill Tilley (Lib, MLA) 19

Tim McCurdy (Nat, MLA) 18

Roma Britnell (Lib, MLA) 15

David Hodgett (Lib, MLA) 14

Richard Riordan (Lib, MLA) 14

Sam Hibbins (Grn/Ind, MLA)* 13

Jade Benham (Nat, MLA) 13

Sam Groth (Lib, MLA) 11

Brad Battin (Lib, MLA) 9

James Newbury (Lib, MLA) 9

Matthew Guy (Lib, MLA) 7

Michael O'Brien (Lib, MLA) 7

Peter Walsh (Nat, MLA) 7

Emma Kealy (Nat, MLA) 4

de Vietri (Grn, MLA) 3
Chris Crewther (Lib, MLA) 3
John Pesutto (Lib, MLA) 3

Rachel Westaway (Lib, MLA)* 1

Ryan Smith (Lib, MLA)* 0

(*) Member has not been present for full period of the 60th parliament (due to resignations or by-election wins). 

As you might expect the most persistent questioners did not sit on the government benches. Possibly less expected was that members of smaller parties like Nationals or Greens punched above their weight relative to many Liberals. Not surprisingly, given the areas they represent, maintenance of country roads was a top concern for National MPs. 

On the government side the most active questioners were metropolitan members from the west and along the Ringwood line (the latter of which has been marginal for Labor). Quieter Labor MPs (at least on transport) are found around Geelong and parts of the south-east. 

You would expect that non-government members who hold their parties' transport portfolios would be particularly active questioners on the topic. The numbers do not show that. 

David Southwick (who had the transport infrastructure role until January 2025) asked 19 questions. Matthew Guy (who had public transport since October 2023) asked 7 questions. The Greens Sam Hibbins (who had his party's transport spokesperson role until claimed by scandal) was more active but still below average with 13 questions asked.

Previous shadow transport ministers in the Legislative Assembly (David Hodgett and Richard Riordan), each with 14 questions, do not stand out although one MLC does as mentioned later. Transport was also rarely top of mind for current Liberal leader Brad Battin (9 questions) and former leader John Pesutto (3 questions).  

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL


Government

Michael Galea (ALP, MLC) 19

Ryan Batchelor (ALP, MLC) 8

John Berger (ALP, MLC) 6

Sheena Watt (ALP, MLC) 5

Tom McIntosh (ALP, MLC) 4

Sonja Terpstra (ALP, MLC) 3

Jacinta Ermacora (ALP, MLC) 2

Lee Tarlamis (ALP, MLC) 0

Non-Government

David Davis (Lib, MLC) 194

Evan Mulholland (Lib, MLC) 100

Wendy Lovell (Lib, MLC) 90

Richard Welch (Lib, MLC)* 52

Aiv Puglielli (Grn, MLC) 41

Trung Luu (Lib, MLC) 39

David Ettershank (Can, MLC) 35

Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell (PHON, MLC) 35

Katherine Copsey (Grn, MLC) 32

Joe McCracken (Lib, MLC) 32

Nick McGowan (Lib, MLC) 31

Bev McArthur (Lib, MLC) 26

Gaelle Broad (Nat, MLC) 23

Ann-Marie Hermans (Lib, MLC) 21

Renee Heath (Lib, MLC) 20

David Limbrick (LP, MLC) 20

Moira Deeming (Lib, MLC) 19

Melina Bath (Nat, MLC) 18

Samantha Ratnam (Grn, MLC)* 17

Sarah Mansfield (Greens, MLC) 13

Rachel Payne (Can, MLC) 13

Matthew Bach (Lib, MLC)* 9

Georgie Purcell (AJP, MLC) 9

Georgie Crozier (Lib, MLC) 7

Anosina Gray-Barberio (Grn, MLC)* 4

Adem Somyurek (Ind, MLC) 3

Jeff Bourman (SFF, MLC) 2

(*) Member has not been present for full period of the 60th parliament (due to resignations or Legislative Council appointments). 

The Legislative Council is quite different to the Legislative Assembly. It is explicitly meant to be a 'house of review'. And it has fewer members, meaning that members who choose to get to ask more questions. It may also help that the government lacks a majority here. 

Most notable (unlike in the Legislative Assembly) is the strength of the Liberals. Most notably David Davis, Evan Mulholland, Wendy Lovell and Richard Welch. All asked over 50 questions with the Suburban Rail Loop a popular topic. Greens, Legalise Cannabis and One Nation MLCs feature in those who asked over 30 questions.

Unlike in the Legislative Assembly those who were or are transport spokespeople for their party (David Davis and Katherine Copsey) were active question askers. 

With few exceptions, Labor Legislative Councillors rarely ask questions, unlike their counterparts in the Legislative Assembly. Of the Labor MLCs Michael Galea stands out, with most others asking five questions or fewer. 

Conclusion

MPs vary greatly in their tendency to ask questions in parliament. 

As might be expected non-government MPs ask more than government MPs. 

There are more questions asked in the Legislative Council than the Legislative Assembly.

Liberals dominate questioning in the Legislative Council whereas the biggest questioners in the Legislative Assembly are Nationals and Greens. 

Labor Legislative Councillors rarely ask questions whereas Labor MLAs do more often. Possibly as MLCs are effectively party appointees who rarely get large personal votes. Whereas MLAs are expected to (within limits) represent their single-member seat, including sometimes asking questions.  

The opposition tends to be the reverse; Liberal MLAs under-ask relative to their counterparts in the Legislative Council. 

It is one of the latter, David Davis MP, who is unmasked as Victoria's transport question king by asking 194 questions so far this parliament. 

Perhaps more MPs, especially Liberals in the lower house and Laborites in the upper house, should have more of what he's drinking. 

TT 205: More Trains More Often - How is the government going & Metro Tunnel prospects

Last week and this has been the budget estimates hearings. The time when ministers explain and are asked questions on the recent state budget and the government's record generally. Sometimes additional information can come out or fine points get clarified. 

For example last Thursday we learned that the Metro Tunnel will open with all stations operating (there was some media speculation that this wouldn't be so) and that the 463 bus would be extended to Caroline Springs. Watchers also heard the customer experience jargon term 'hypercare' in relation to getting people used to the Metro Tunnel. 

Also of interest was the government defending its record on Metro train service frequency. In a nutshell it hasn't been good, with falling service per capita. The big picture is this: 

Melbourne's population grew 18% since 2015
Metro train service only grew 9% since 2015

Every time people have asked for shorter gaps between trains (like Sydney or Perth already have) the government has said that this or that infrastructure project must be done first. Or that it will all be amazing after the Metro Tunnel opens - people just need to be patient. 

But there's only so long that the government can string people along, and ten years is more than enough. Endless line shutdowns and few if any service improvements at the end of them is wearing thin with passengers. Even the cheapest timetable upgrades that would halve the longest waits on key lines got pushed into the never-never as government interest in Metro frequency improvements collapsed after 2015-2016.   

Anyway that's the narrative you've read about here and elsewhere. 

More trains more often - the record

What does the government say about this?  

Last Thursday the minister showed a slide depicting its record of train service additions over the last decade. These are shown in the small circles (blue for Metro, purple for V/Line). The larger circles represent initiatives funded in last month's budget (to be implemented).

The numbers are weekly services added. That can make even small service additions look big. For example adding one return trip per day on one line is 14 extra trips per week. Multiply by 15 lines to get a massive 210 trips per week. 

That's a handy trick to make it look a big deal. Until you realise that because Metro runs over 15000 trips per week, that's just a 1.4% uplift in service. Helpful but not revolutionary.   

The asterisked note at the bottom left is hard to read but says that 50 of the 200 weekend services funded in the 2022-23 budget are still in delivery and are not shown. These include additional weekend V/Line services for Seymour, Shepparton, Traralgon and Bairnsdale. 

You could try clicking on the screenshot below but it may still be unclear. So I'll go through it below, starting with the ten year record. 

2015 - 2024 service additions

Below I'll explain what the Metro network got over the last decade in terms of service. 

First let's look at what the whole network got thanks to Night Network in 2016. This added hourly weekend trips on all lines between about 1am and 5am Saturdays and 1am to 7am Sundays. That's roughly 24 trips per week added on every line (about 6 each way multiplied by 2 for return, multiplied by 2 again for each day).

Thus if a line has about this number of trips added between 2015 and 2024 you can attribute its entire increase to this one Night Network initiative. This applies on the Belgrave (+18), Alamein (+23) and possibly Glen Waverley (+30) lines. You could say that leaving aside Night Network service on these lines has been stagnant over the last decade. 

Now to other lines. Sunbury line got 68 extra trains per week. Over 40 of these would be non-Night Network. Some could have been evening extensions circa 2016 (previous to that about half the evening trains terminated at Watergardens, giving Sunbury only an hourly service) with the others being some extra peak or shoulder peak runs. The best is still to come for Sunbury with this line likely to be the biggest proportional beneficiary from the new Metro Tunnel timetable. 

Also awaiting the Metro Tunnel are the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines. These got a combined 201 extra trips per week. Subtracting Night Network drops this to about 150 trips per week extra. Examples of additions include (i) just after the opening of Skyrail in 2018 (more weeknight trips), (ii) some further boosts in 2020 and (iii) 50 more weekly services when the Cranbourne duplication got done in 2022. None of these changed maximum waits (30 min weekend evenings and up to 70 min Sunday mornings) but expectations are high that the Metro Tunnel timetable starting later this year will shorten these.  

Upfield can claim 57 extra trips over the decade to 2024. Subtracting Night Network that's about 30 trips per week or 3 each way per weekday. These contributed to some minor peak frequency upgrades (ie from every 20 to every 15 min approximately). 

Werribee / Williamstown / Frankston - meant to get a boost in 2015 to coincide with RRL but didn't with some argy-bargy over Frankston trains running direct or via the loop (or maybe half and half - which was tried and proved a mess).

It stalling on the Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail) was the single biggest reason for this government's record on Metro train frequencies being so undistinguished to date. Anyway things finally got tidied up in 2021 with evening and Sunday morning maximum waits cut to 20 minutes on all three lines and peak services for Altona and Williamstown restored from 22 to a simpler 20 minute headway. This and other boosts gave Werribee 186 extra weekly trips, Williamstown 119 extra and Frankston 117 more. 

After the 2025-budgeted Upfield and Craigieburn boosts happen the Mernda and Hurstbridge lines will stand out as having the longest waits outside the peaks, particularly on Sunday mornings. This is notwithstanding previous gains for Mernda (175) and Hurstbridge (75 weekly trips). This is because, Night Network excepted, all these increases were on weekdays, mostly peak and shoulder peak, after duplication works in 2023. The government can claim a major achievement in 2018's Mernda electrification, but it missed the opportunity then to add the relatively few weekly trips needed to cut maximum waits on the rest of the line. 

The Burnley group has had a lot of level crossing removals such that the Lilydale line is now level crossing free. This included a consolidation of stations with Surrey Hills and Mont Albert combined into the new Union station. Peak timetables remain complex with numerous stopping patterns and interpeak gaps beyond Ringwood remain at 30 minutes - longer than two regional lines. Box Hill has built up but its train timetable has remained basically stagnant, inferior at night to even Fawkner Cemetery once the Upfield line gets its evening frequency boost. In the decade from 2015 Lilydale gained 45 services per week, or approximately 2 each way trips per weekday after the Night Network trips are excluded. It's not a lot, especially as the Burnley group now has a lot of marginal seats along it and Box Hill is now densely populated and high-rise. 

Train services versus population growth 

Below is all the implemented Metro service gains put on a table. They add to 1252 per week. Is this a big or a small service uplift, noting that we are talking about ten years worth? To know we need to know how many services Metro run to arrive at a percentage increase. Metro currently claim 'over 15000 weekly services' on their Linked-In. 

Comparing the 1252 trips with an assumed 14000 base in 2015 we arrive at a 9% increase across the Metro network.  In contrast population grew by 18% over that time. Thus we can say that Metro service provision has grown at only half the rate of population. In other words a significant fall in service per capita and a lag behind cities such as Sydney and Perth whose stations typically enjoy more hours of frequent service per week.  

2025's funded upgrades (and the Metro Tunnel) 

Signs that this government may finally be taking service frequency seriously appeared in last month's state budget. As you can read here this funded a decent package of Metro train and bus service boosts in Melbourne's north and west plus an interpeak boost on the Sandringham line. 

The annotated map tabled in PAEC listed gains for Werribee, Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham lines. As already publicised, Werribee will gain higher peak frequencies with 20 trips added. 20 trips per 5 day week is 4 per day. Two trips per hour extra are needed to boost peak frequency from 6 to 8 trains per hour (ie the 10 to 7.5 min frequency improvement promised). That 4 extra trips per day means the boosted peak service applies for one hour in both directions or two hours in the peak direction only (if train numbers and stabling permits this). 

Craigieburn and Upfield are shown with 100 trips added to deliver a 20 min maximum wait. However I'm not sure about the workings - just to get rid of the 30-40 min evening and Sunday morning gaps would likely require 70 more trips per week on each line. And that doesn't count the shoulder peak uplifts that the Craigieburn line will be getting. So the actual increase may be more than indicated. Unless something creative is done like spreading some peak trips into the shoulder peaks and evening. 

The Sandringham line gets an interpeak weekday uplift from 4 to 6 trains per hour. The number of increased trips is not readable. But you can work out that it's 4 trips extra per hour (accounting for both directions) over a 6 hour span and 5 day week then it's in the region of 120 trips per week added. 

The above adds to roughly 250 weekly trips funded in the budget on lines other than the Metro Tunnel. That is just under a 2% increase on Metro's current 15 000 weekly trips.

That 250 trips leaves about 1000 more weekly trips needed for Melbourne to return to the per capita Metro service that this government inherited when it won office in 2014. 

When it faces the people in November 2026 will this government even be able to claim that they maintained per capita Metro train service? With the per capita decline to date, the answer depends heavily on the service rebound the Metro Tunnel timetable will deliver later this year.   

That wasn't on the minister's budget estimates presentation slide. Hence the absence of big blobs near Sunbury and Dandenong. But they will likely exceed the ~250 increase. Some hypothetical back-of-envelope examples:  

BASIC METRO TUNNEL SERVICE
(Watergardens - Dandenong every 10 min day/20 min night with higher peak frequency)

* Boost Sunbury line interpeak weekday services from every 20 to every 10 min: ~200 extra trips per week (+3 trains per hour over 6 hours x2 for each way x 5 days of the week)  

* Double Sunbury line weekend services: ~200 trips (based on doubling current service of approx 50 trips each way each weekend day).  

* Boost Sunbury line weeknight services from every 30 min to every 20 min: ~40 trips (+1 train per hour over 4 hours x 2 for each way x 5 days of the week) 

* Boost Cranbourne & Pakenham weekend evening & Sun am from every 30 to every 20 min: ~60 trips (+1 train per hour over 5 hours x 2 for each way x 2 nights of the week x2 lines & Sunday am uplift)

Total ~500 extra trips per week

Any Metro Tunnel timetable that does not deliver at least the Basic service above will be laughed at. The government should be smart enough to know this given its political and financial investment in the project over its entire decade in office. Demonstrated success with the Metro Tunnel switch-on will also boost its credibility with regards to other transport projects, particularly the Suburban Rail Loop, which it needs right now. Furthermore, in addition to the ~250 weekly Metro services on other lines that this year's budget funds, the 750 trip total will deliver more then half the service needed to return to 2014's  Metro service per capita number. 

Want the Metro Tunnel to be world-class? Or even Sydney class? It wouldn't be a great reward for taking some of the southern hemisphere's longest escalators if you've got another 9 (or 19) minutes to the next train if something like the basic minimum above was implemented. We also wouldn't compare well with the 5 minute service on Sydney's Metro or even the 7.5 minute interval common at inner Perth stations. 

Justifying the Metro Tunnel's construction costs, maximising land use and development synergies and unlocking the wider CBD benefits of complementary tram network reform all require something better with high all week frequencies like we've never seen before. Potential ingredients of such an enhanced timetable (and the approximate number of weekly trips added) are below. 

ENHANCED METRO TUNNEL SERVICE 
(Watergardens - Dandenong every 5 min day/10 min night with higher peak frequency)

All the above plus: 

* Boost Watergardens - Dandenong weeknight service to every 10 min to late: ~200 trips (+3 trains per hour over 3 hours x 2 each way x 5 days per week x 2 lines) 

* Running Metro Tunnel central section every 5 min 10am-4pm weekdays: ~360 trips (+6 trains per hour over 6 hours x2 each way x 5 days of week)

* Running Metro Tunnel central section every 5 min 9am - 9pm weekends: ~300 trips (+6 trains per hour over 12 hours x2 each way x 2 days of week) 

* Peak upgrades as needed to address crowding (not counted) 

* Upgrades and reforms to connecting trains, trams and buses to improve network effects (not counted)  

Total ~ 1400 extra trips per week (including 500 from basic option above)


The 1400 extra trips plus the 250 on other lines is a total of 1750 extra trips.

If implemented this would mark a significant acceleration of Metro service uplift given that the government only added 1250 trips in its first decade.

On a 2015 base of 14000 trips, this uplift of 3000 to 17000 trips would be a rise of 21%. That would slightly exceed the 18% population growth since then. Then the government can claim to have increased per capita Metro services, which it cannot at the moment.

Regardless of the service we get from the Metro Tunnel, there will still be big service inequalities between lines. That includes lines that are (a) busy, (b) serve growing or densifying areas, (c) serve populations with high social needs and (d) all three. That makes further frequency uplifts desirable so that you can rock up at any station (within the urban growth area) and not have up to 40 minutes between trains. That way a Metro train would signify a frequent all week service, similar to how trams do now. Prospects and priorities post-Metro Tunnel (and the next state election) are discussed  next. 

2026 and beyond

The minister at Estimates encouragingly last week said that the 2025 budget service improvements was just the 'first stage' of Metro service uplifts. This may indicate that there's more to come in the (pre-election) 2026 state budget. This could mark a welcome revival of political interest in public transport service, noting that neither the 2018 nor 2022 election campaigns had significant metropolitan rail frequency promises from either major party. 

Ms Williams also said that infrastructure was not something built for its own sake but as a means to ends like service uplifts. This is sensible; having infrastructure construction subservient to other goals is essential to ensure the right things get built and maximum value is extracted from what we do build. As opposed to setting your mind on a particular project before clarifying the problem it is meant to solve. 

Before we think about next year, let's go back a decade or so. 

If not quite 'projects first', Labor's 2014 policy was certainly 'project jobs first'. This had its genesis in Project 10000, a 2013 plan to create 10000 construction jobs hatched when in opposition. As well as pleasing key unions this reassured the construction industry that there would be continued work, especially desired as Labor needed an alternative to the Liberals' East-West Link.

The emphasis was always on the jobs and building; the benefits were a welcome politically saleable by-product. Project 10000 was realised as level crossing removals, the Metro Tunnel, West Gate Distributor and other road upgrades. More of the latter were added, including the West Gate Tunnel, North East Link and further level crossing removals when in office. The enthusiasm for major projects peaked in 2018 when the program was packaged as the Big Build, culminating in the announcement of the Suburban Rail Loop a few months before that year's state election.

While projects were popular there were not always evaluations of whether similar benefits were possible for less money with a different suite of projects. Also many opportunities to improve service or increase active transport connectivity that were not dependent on big infrastructure builds were either not taken or got deferred, possibly to magnify projects' BCRs through artful bundling. 

Furthermore, low interest rates made major capital projects both financially and politically attractive, especially relative to ongoing budget spending on services. Hence major works was not just a Victorian Labor thing; the same conditions encouraged similar mega-projects in other states too. Although Sydney and Perth were better at doing both service and infrastructure than Brisbane and Melbourne have been, thus maximising benefits.  

Today's situation is different. Higher interest rates, tighter government finances, soaring construction costs and increased interest in non-transport construction, notably housing, has made transport megaprojects harder to justify. The transport construction frenzy has given us a huge amount of relatively new but still underutilised assets, notably on the rail network. So now is a good time to work them hard to realise their benefits. 

With a start made on 'more trains more often' in the 2025 state budget and the Metro Tunnel operating, what should 2026's budget feature to spread service uplifts to more lines?

Here's some tips, starting with the cheaper and easier uplifts that cut the longest waits first. 

Smaller

* 20 min maximum waits on the Sandringham line: Boost Sunday mornings from 40 to 20 min and an early Saturday morning boost (if not already done with the Metro Tunnel timetable). Approx 10 more services per week required.  

* 20 min maximum waits to Mernda and Eltham: Boosts Sunday morning service on each line from every 40 to every 20 min, evenings from 30 to 20 min. Similar package as 2025 funded for Craigieburn and Upfield involving 60-70 extra weekly services per line. This uplift would give all stations to Clifton Hill a 10 minute or better service from 7am to midnight 7 days. 

* Shoulder peak weekday upgrades on the Craigieburn, Werribee and Mernda lines: Increase the hours per day a frequent service applies, starting with busiest lines.  

Larger

* Greenfields timetable for Burnley group: A major revamp including (a) fewer peak stopping patterns (b) 20 min maximum interpeak weekday waits for Belgrave and Lilydale, (c) Sunday morning boosts from 30 to 20 min, (d) Reduced evening maximum waits from 30 to 20 min on all lines, (e) 10 min service to Glen Waverley (daytime) and Ringwood (day and night). 

* Weekday interpeak and weekend frequency upgrades from 20 to 10 min on Craigieburn, Werribee, Mernda, inner Hurstbridge and Upfield lines, roughly in that order, building on previous shoulder peak upgrades. 

* Finishing the job on Metro Tunnel upgrades if the Enhanced service option is not already running.

* V/Line service uplifts including upgrading Melton to every 20 min weekends, higher Wyndham Vale frequencies and improved Seymour line service. 

* A complementary rail infrastructure program driven by service and capacity needs for the west, north and outer south-east. (the need to boost service, then enabling infrastructure, then service again was cited by the minister in Estimates)

Conclusion

To summarise, Metro (as opposed to V/Line) train service has lagged population growth in the current government's first decade. This has led to Melbourne having rail service levels inferior to that of other cities, with frequent service largely confined to peaks on most lines.

Long waits at night and weekend mornings also reduce the ability of trains to support major events and commutes for retail, food, hospitality, health and event workers.

There is also a large geographic inequality, unrelated to patronage, between busy poorly serviced lines like Craigieburn and highly serviced lines like Frankston. 

The 2025 state budget has funded welcome service upgrades we know about on some lines with others (we don't yet know) coming on the Metro Tunnel lines.

Also welcome is the minister flagging the possibility of further Metro service upgrades in 2026. It is hoped that these will be spread widely across more of Melbourne, including the Clifton Hill and Burnley groups which were out of scope of the Metro Tunnel related service upgrades. 

A robust program of rail service uplifts will enable the government to tell a good story on both rail infrastructure and service, especially if investment in the latter enables a substantial per capita rebound.   


Index to other Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 203: How the Metro Tunnel could aid bayside bus reform

The upgrade of the Sandringham line to every 10 minutes weekdays interpeak as will  happen when the Metro Tunnel opens could make bus reform in the area easier and cheaper. Why? More frequent trains mean greater flexibility for bus frequencies. Which means more efficient scheduling according to network role, usage, available buses and run times. 

Routes 600/922/923 are a confusing mess that has flummoxed bus users between St Kilda, Sandringham and Southland for more than 20 years. Two of those three routes have long gaps and short operating hours. And they don't go all the way all the week. The Brighton portions of the routes also parallel the train line and doesn't get much use. Their presentation is a mess on the PTV website and the high combined frequency on portions is undersold, lessening potential usage.

So there's a big argument for reform, especially if you can do it without spending much money. Which you wouldn't want to anyway as there are stronger patronage and social needs justifications for radically boosting buses in areas like Springvale and Dandenong versus the likes of Brighton or Beaumaris. 

I covered the 600/900/923 mess in detail nearly 5 years ago, presenting a simplified network featuring a Route 600 every 15 (instead of every 30) minutes as the main service through the Beaumaris area. That required some offsetting cuts, eg reducing the 825 from every 20 to every 30 minutes so it was vaguely self-funding, especially if reforms were made to the large number of lightly used north-south routes in the Brighton area that paralleled the train.  

Route 600 is not that strongly used that it needs a 15 minute interpeak service. But, as the main route in the area and to deliver a service upgrade, leaving it at every 30 minutes (like the abandoned 2015 Transdev greenfields network tried to do) was inadequate. 20 minutes is probably the 'sweet spot' but it  doesn't mesh with trains currently every 15 minutes at Sandringham. Maybe this was one of the reasons why fixing Route 600 and related routes has occupied the 'too hard' basket for a decade since? 

Can the Metro Tunnel help?

In Perth when they do a major rail project they comprehensively reform most of the buses that connect to the line being extended or altered. Examples include Airport line, Yanchep extension, Morley-Ellenbrook line, Thornlie - Cockburn line, Byford extension and more. And when they do works necessitating long rail shutdowns (like the Armadale line) they will use this as an opportunity to do bus reform, some of which is likely to endure after rail services resume. 

With minor exceptions involving a handful of routes the Victorian DTP of 2025 is less reform-capable than its Perth counterparts. And even where more routes are involved, such as associated with the recent and welcome Ballarat line weekend frequency upgrade, the job might only be half-done. For example leaving weekday bus timetables in areas like Melton untouched, sometimes with lower frequencies than on weekends.

Could a revitalised DTP do better, and thus widen the benefits of the government's considerable rail investment program? Keep reading for one of many potential examples. 

The Metro Tunnel associated rail network changes starting later this year gives such an opportunity to break a decade of inaction regarding the Route 600 and related others near the Sandringham line.

How? It's all to do with a cascading effect that even affects the previously splendidly isolated Sandringham line. 

In the south-east this starts with the lines to Dandenong being taken out of the City Loop and routed through the Metro Tunnel to Footscray and the Sunbury line. This creates an empty City Loop portal that is occupied by the reconfigured Frankston line. These services are no longer formed by Werribee/Williamstown and/or Laverton trains which will now operate to Sandringham.

Trains on the west side operate every 20 minutes each whereas the Sandringham line is every 15 minutes weekday interpeak. To ensure reliable timetabling the Sandringham line will be upgraded to a 10 minute frequency so that two out of every three interpeak weekday trains through Newport run through to Sandringham. Basically replicating what happens now with Frankston on the cross-city group. 

This ten minute frequency for Sandringham gives some extra choices with regards bus frequencies, with 10, 20 or 30 minutes all harmonising with trains.

Having a choice of bus frequencies is good because it means that there's more flexibility to pick service levels that best meet a route's network role and patronage needs while still connecting with trains. There are also scheduling efficiencies as bus layovers can be optimised to be neither too tight to be unreliable nor too slack to be wasteful for a given route length. 

Hence a Route 600 bus every 20 minutes could meet every second train off-peak. The same could happen in the peak period with a 15 minute bus frequency meeting trains every 7.5 min. On weekends a 20 minute bus frequency could meet every train at Sandringham. Overall it looks a very neat arrangement. 

Network concept

The map below shows the concept. It includes not just the 600 but other potential network changes involving north-south routes in the area.  

The 600 has the same alignment as current between Southland and Sandringham. To bring it nearer to shops on Hampton Rd I've terminated it at Hampton Station, where there is a small bus interchange.

Service would be much simplified compared because for most of the corridor the higher frequency on the 600 would replace the confusing 600/922/923 trio. However coverage of areas away from the 600 would be maintained through a new local route that I've called 608 between Southland and Mentone.   

To facilitate connectivity between those who might wish to travel north of Hampton, this network option has the existing Route 603 starting at Hampton rather than Brighton Beach. Hampton is a much stronger terminus with local shops and other buses. Also on weekdays interpeak Route 603 would operate at the same frequency as the 600, potentially permitting a consistent timed connection if planners considered this important enough. There may even be scheduled through trips for school traffic if needed (with the implications of the free under 18s travel next year an influencing factor). 

Bus routes are thinned out a bit in the Brighton area compared to now. Currently there is a large number of bus routes that run north-south, parallel to the train (which will gain increased frequency on weekdays). Usage is not particularly high. If retention of a bus on St Kilda St is considered important options here include adding a kink to Route 603 or extending Route 626 from Brighton via there to Elsternwick (which would also provide connectivity to shops at Brighton). 

Off the map but very significant is a major boost for Route 606. Currently this unevenly overlaps the 600/922/923 through the Elwood area with Route 600 at certain times not operating. This is swept away in favour of a consistent, more frequent and longer operating hours Route 606 operating every 20 minutes or so all week. All the routes mentioned are run by Kinetic except 606 and 626 which are CDC. Reform in the Elwood area might also be done in conjunction with providing a stronger western terminus for Route 630. 

To summarise the network outcome could be something like:

* 600 Hampton - Southland every 20 min 7 days with a 15 min service in weekday peaks 
* New 608 Southland - Mentone local route every 60 min to replace parts of 922 and 923
* Extend 603 to Hampton
* Upgrade 606 to every 15-20 min weekdays, every 20 min weekends with longer hours
* Potential St Kilda St coverage retained by either modified 603 or extended 626.

A potential redistribution of services could be along these lines: 

Conclusion 

The Metro Tunnel opening can provide opportunity for bus network reform in the most unlikely of places. 

Melbourne does not have as strong a record as say Perth when it comes to maximising the benefits of infrastructure builds to reform bus networks. 

However it is something we should be starting to do better.

Addressing long-standing network complexities such as on this bayside corridor could be a good start. 

Comments on this network concept are appreciated and can be left below. 

Index to Useful Network items here