TT 230: Maximum waits for Australian trams compared

Yesterday Daniel Bowen cited statistics that showed that Australia's busiest tram lines were no longer in Melbourne. Indeed three of the top four top performers were new systems in Sydney and the Gold Coast. See Daniel's item for some possible reasons for this. 

Benefits of frequent all week service

The ideal for any major public transport line is that you should be able to turn up at any reasonable time (that I will define as 6am to midnight 7 days) and expect a service to arrive within a short time without checking a timetable. The February 2026 timetable introduced this concept for the central section of the Metro Tunnel between Dandenong and West Footscray. The 22 stations in this section enjoy a timetabled maximum wait of 10 minutes or less for 130 hours of the week. 

This 'always there' frequent service encourages a completely different attitude towards public transport by transforming the user experience. This includes including it being useful for trips more diverse than the weekday peak period city commute (which has long been declining as a proportion of all trips). 

On a broader level a frequent network can shape investment and personal decisions like where people choose to live and how many cars households own (which further grows patronage). Much more than in cities like Perth, Melbourne has a significant inner suburban demographic that would be favourably disposed to not driving if public transport was reasonably frequent over wide hours. For such a group maximum waits (even at 11pm) are likely to have an out-sized influence on their decisions. And maximum waits are relatively cheap to reduce, especially if they need only a few hours extra per week of one or two extra trips per hour to cut. 

Everyone will have different views as to what comprises 'turn up and go'. Factors like the length of the trip, if a connection to another route is involved, willingness to walk and the availability of alternatives are all important. But, with one big city exception, there is, based on what currently operates, general agreement on what the maximum wait should be for light rail routes in Australian cities. 

Do you know what it is?

To help I've reproduced the tram route patronage graph with maximum waits annotated.

The above excludes suburban rail and BRT systems. But if you counted them you would find that most Sydney lines have 15 minute maximum waits from first to last. As do the inner sections of three rail corridors in Perth and Brisbane's BUZ bus corridors. 

Melbourne stands out as the exception in all this. Its midday tram frequencies are comparable to the other lines. But after dark and (especially) on Sundays they collapse to 30 minutes, even on its busiest tram lines. Whereas, just like is done for their trains, Sydney has a maximum wait of half that or 15 minutes. The same is true for the Gold Coast and Canberra.

While I've marked Newcastle harshly (as their 30 minute gaps are at the extremities of the day) if anything I've been generous to Melbourne because many of their trams start after 6am on Sundays, particularly in the outbound direction (although six routes run 24 hours under Night Network). Also Melbourne has more lines than other cities with a more frequent service available on some inner area overlaps. 

Reasons for Melbourne's long maximum waits

Sundays are one key reason for Melbourne's longer maximum waits than other cities. Take those away and maximum waits drop to 20 minutes (the standard service for most routes on Monday to Saturday evenings). That's Adelaide type maximum waits. 

The 30 minute Sunday morning gaps reflect a history of opposition to Sunday service by the Protestant-dominated Tramways in the first third of last century. In the face of public pressure and a leadership change limited Sunday morning service based on 30 minute headways commenced in 1936 as a six month trial. Those same 30 minute headways have stuck for 90 years on most routes. 

Sunday evenings, that other important time where most Melbourne trams run only every 30 minutes, have a different history. The churches were much more concerned about preserving the Sunday morning Sabbath than Sunday evenings. Sunday evening trams in Melbourne used to run as frequently as Sydney's, Gold Coast's and Canberra's do now but unreversed 1950s and 1960s service cuts ended that.

Melbourne's timetables have remained time capsules for decades due to historically low political interest in upgrading service levels for many years. Especially the type of service levels that could have been upgraded within existing infrastructure and fleet constraints. 

Recent action to cut maximum waits

There have been no significant tram service cuts for a long time. There have even been some minor frequency improvements (most notably Friday and Saturday nights) on some routes. But these have not been enough to reverse the long-term (and continuing) per capita reduction in tram service levels.

The trend for Metro rail services has been more encouraging. For the first time in a while we're seeing concerted action to cut maximum waits to 20 minutes. This includes a start made to cut 30 and 40 minute maximum waits to 20 minutes for Pakenham, Cranbourne and Sunbury in the February 2026 Metro Tunnel timetable.

This will be followed by the implementation of similar for Craigieburn and Upfield (funded in the 2025 state budget). And then the 2026 budgeted upgrades including weekends on the Clifton Hill group and weeknights for the Burnley group. 

By 2027 Melbourne's despised 40 minute gaps should be eliminated on all but the outer Hurstbridge line on the Metro network and weekends on the Melton line for V/Line. The main outstanding matters then become 30 minute maximum waits for the Clifton Hill group on weeknights, the Burnley group on weekend evenings and Sunday mornings and Belgrave / Lilydale for midday weekdays. 

Trams and major bus routes could do with the same too! 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 233: Six steps for better public transport to the new Footscray Hospital

Summary: Despite having a tram and several bus routes nearby, public transport access to the new Footscray Hospital is slower, less direct and less frequent than it should be. While the hospital has been under construction for years no opportunity was taken to revamp surrounding buses in time for its opening. This item proposes several cost-effective measures that could improve public transport access to the hospital for both visitors and staff. 

A new study, published in the June 2026 Journal of Transport and Health, finds significant geographical inequality across Melbourne in terms of public transport access to hospitals. This was found to affect health outcomes. Outer suburbs typically fared worse due to inferior public transport longer distances to the main teaching hospitals. 

Existing transport to Footscray Hospital

I examined public transport services to hospitals (including the then Footscray Hospital) back in 2022. The previous year I looked at PT services in the wider Maribyrnong area. Both glances indicated a network less capable than is possible despite the concentration of population and major destinations in the area. 

Hospital moved and opened (18 February 2026)

Since then the hospital has moved eastward with the yellow star on the map below showing the new site. It's nearer to Footscray station but still beyond its pedshed for many, making 'last mile' transport important to reach it.  

The TV map shows tram and bus routes in the area. The last significant network change was back in 2008 when Route 409 was extended from Footscray to Highpoint to serve Edgewater Estate.  

Trams improving (and more to come)

While tram service levels in Melbourne are typically the slowest changing of any mode, the historically infrequent Route 82 tram has almost caught up to other routes. Weekday interpeak improved from every 20 to every 15 minutes came a few years ago. Some evening frequency boosts came later. More is in store for the 82 including G class trams and accessible stops on Droop Street. The 82 tram operates a somewhat indirect route between Footscray and Moonee Ponds, going quite near Highpoint.

Bus stops scattered across Footscray 

On paper bus service to the hospital area is amazing, especially from Footscray Station. Combined service from there is around 12 buses per hour Monday to Saturday, dropping to a still high (for Melbourne) 7 buses per hour during the day on Sundays. 

In practice few benefits of this high on-paper frequency are realised. One reason is because service is scattered across multiple uncoordinated routes that depart from various locations in Footscray. Some of the most frequent buses like 223 and 472 depart from stops furthest from the station. An attempt by Augustus Brown to document where buses leave from at Footscray is here. 

No one route is consistently frequent all week

While combined frequencies are high, no one route is consistently direct and frequent across the week. Service levels are largely a function of historical legacy, including whether a bus route once ran as a tram (as 223 did). This explains why non-Tramways Board private bus routes 406 and 472 finish earlier and have longer Sunday waits than the 223.

More recent changes, while beneficial, have added complexity due to limited scope. For example 406 is the only route in the area that runs 24 hours on weekends yet remains with a 9pm finish on other nights. 406's 40 minute Sunday frequency also does not match its role as a major connector to the busy Highpoint Shopping Centre and compares poorly with its 20 minute Saturday frequency.  Meanwhile the 404, a direct route between two strong termini is infrequent, has short operating hours and doesn't run Sundays. 

Connections between trains and buses/trams are basically random. This is because Metro trains (every 10 minutes) and V/Line trains (every 20 minutes) do not harmonise with trams and buses that commonly run every 15 minutes.  

Sunbury line rail frequencies basically doubled when the Metro Tunnel timetable started. The Metro Tunnel was accompanied by reformed buses at its new stations of Arden, Parkville and Anzac. But established stations on lines feeding the Metro Tunnel got, at best, minor timetable tweaks. That includes Footscray despite it being one of the network's busiest stations, having a legacy bus network unreformed for years and strong needs existing. The new hospital has also apparently been an insufficient impetus for a bus network rethink.   

Indirect routes and weak termini are common 

Bus routes that are indirect or duplicate other routes cost service kilometres that could otherwise be put towards making them faster and/or more frequent.

Changing circumstances that could have triggered network reform (by making it easier to justify) are routinely ignored. The result is that bus routes remain ossified for decades after their original purpose has ceased while the community forgoes service upgrades that are both necessary and affordable.  

Two Footscray area examples are below. 

Route 223 operates unusually frequently and late into the night. Its routing south of Footscray has remained even as trains on nearby lines became amongst the best served in Melbourne with 10 minute 7 day service (firstly to Newport about 10-15 years ago, then to Watergardens earlier this year). Meanwhile the partly overlapping 472 bus, which runs to more destinations and has a bigger catchment, has continued with 40-60 minute gaps on Sunday and short operating hours. 223's alignment and service pattern reflects it being an old tram route dating from an era where trains were less frequent than now. 

Route 406 is an even more egregious example, especially if you wanted to travel directly between Victoria University and Highpoint via a route that isn't every 40 min (eg the 409). It appears to have got its indirectness from going past student housing that closed in 2001. The housing is no longer there but no one got around to removing 406's kink, despite reform possibilities existing when Route 409 was extended in 2008. Still it's never too late and opportunities exist when Route 408 gets its upgrade (as funded in this month's State Budget).

Also notable about Route 406 is its weak northern terminus. By it terminating in residential Keilor East rather than a major destination this reduces the number of people who have a one-seat trip to Footscray Hospital. 

Not mapped above is Route 472. As well as the less convenient (for the station) stop location in Footscray, it suffers from a weak terminus in Williamstown (away from the main street) and a limited Sunday timetable (including a late start and low/uneven frequencies). 

To summarise, tram network planning has responded to the transport needs around Footscray Hospital whereas bus network planning (which is supposed to be more flexible) has not. This is demonstrated by the complex legacy networks and timetables that reflect past travel patterns and operational arrangements.

The latter remains an issue today as bus network refranchising has not simplified operations with three companies (Kinetic, CDC and Transit Systems) running routes in the area. However this should not be a reason for inaction given the success of multi-operator routes on major corridors such as the 900 between Caulfield and Rowville.   

Six steps for improvement

Short term 

* Boost 406 bus to run every 20 min 7 days with later evening finish Sunday to Thursday.

* Boost 472 Sunday frequency to every 20 min with longer operating hours all week. 

* Boost 404 bus to operate 7 days with longer operating hours and a 20 min all week frequency. 

Medium Term

* Boost Route 82 tram frequency to every 10 min daytime, no worse than 20 min at night. This would harmonise with train service levels on all lines into Footscray, providing a more robust feeder. 

* Consolidate routes 223 and 406 into a premium service megabus operating every 10 min or better 7 days to provide a simple and direct connection between Footscray, Victoria University, Footscray Hospital, Highpoint and Milleara Shopping Centre. Likely done in conjunction with Route 409 adjustments to maintain coverage. As a coverage style route the 409 also has the most flexibility to bring closest to the Footscray Hospital precinct for those unable to walk to other routes. 

* Reform Route 220 into a premium service megabus operating every 10 min or better 7 days to provide a simple connection between Sunshine, Victoria University (two campuses), Footscray Hospital, Footscray, Docklands and the CBD. Done in conjunction with adjustments to Routes 216, 410 and potentially a new north-south route connecting densely populated Maribyrnong with trains at the due to be rebuilt Tottenham station via Ashley St.  Local and state government agencies have suggested a trackless tram or light rail along this corridor. 

These measures would provide simpler and better connected service with main routes harmonising with trains every 10 minutes across the week. High service levels reflect density of destinations and likely housing development. They would be introduced in conjunction with improved passenger information at major interchanges such as Footscray and Highpoint to guide passengers. 

Note: Above is current TV local network map (dated Feb 2026). But it still shows the old Footscray Hospital location!

Wider train, tram and bus network improvements

The following would boost all week public transport access across Melbourne's west with Footscray Hospital being just one destination to benefit: 

* Extend Sunbury line 10 minute service from West Footscray to Watergardens first to last train (current timetable has 20 minute gaps at night and early weekend mornings). 

* Boost Melton line weekend train frequency from 40 to 20 minutes with earlier morning starts.

* Increase Werribee line off-peak service from 20 to 10 minutes all week. Reinstate station at Paisley. 

* Improved bus connectivity in the Highpoint area by rerouting the 903 orbital via Highpoint and Braybrook (replacing 468 and part of 408) in conjunction with extending the 406 from Keilor East to Sunshine and Route 465 hours and frequency upgrades. 

* Investigate potential and benefits for tram routing reform in the Highpoint area involving 82 and 57. 

Conclusion 

Much of the public transport network around Footscray and Footscray Hospital has not changed for years despite potential triggers such as the Metro Tunnel, rail service boosts, increased Sunday shopping, land use changes and the new Footscray Hospital itself.

A simpler, more modern and more frequent network concept to cater for current and emerging needs is presented above. Comments are welcome and can be left below. 

See other Useful Network items

Meeting Our Transport Challenges turns 20

Twenty years ago on a day like today you wouldn't have been able to catch a bus on any but a few routes in metropolitan Melbourne. That's because it was a Sunday and very few Melbourne buses operated. 

Whereas today around three-quarters of our bus routes feature Sunday service. The same applied if you were one of those unfortunates in need of a bus after 7pm - there was basically no service in a city (then) of nearly four million people. Even if you did have a train or tram nearby about the only trip you could do was one to or away from the CBD, almost never directly across suburbs. 

The policy that changed all that turned 20 today. While its record for rail transport was mixed, Meeting Our Transport Challenges, launched by minister Peter Batchelor on 17 May 2006, was the biggest and most successful bus plan the state had ever produced. A title it retains today - nothing newer has ever come close. 

The lead-up

The Melbourne 2030 plan (based on denser housing around a network of suburban major activity centres and a 20% modal share target for public transport) was meant to be accompanied by transport plans for trains, trams and buses. Planning had been done but not made public. Stakeholders (rightly) scoffed at a metropolitan plan that did not much include transport. 

Amid some disquiet in the planning and transport sectors the Bus Plan was leaked in early 2003. A summary was published in May 2003 PTUA News.  Key points included: 

* Premium services operating with basic 15 minute headway running 5 am until midnight, with genuine traffic priority and real-time passenger information systems

* Local services operating at least 6 am until 10 pm, with “improved frequencies”

* Four new orbital bus routes

* “Small but significant” improvements such as running routes right into railway stations 

The July 2003 PTUA News reported on the Tram Plan while October 2023 News said that the Bus Plan was still unreleased and languishing. 

The government at this time was preoccupied with salvaging train and tram franchising after the exit of National Express, building a new roof for the (then) Spencer Street Station and Regional Fast Rail. There had been many scattered but minor bus upgrades in late 2002 but the pace had slowed since, especially after a large election win by the incumbent government. The Melbourne 2030 Implementation Reference Group called for large investments in public transport infrastructure and services in 2005. 

(If you thought this was familiar, pretty much all the above repeated 20 years later in 2022-2024, including the criticisms)

The plan

Things changed after some quiet years. The 2005 State Budget invested heavily in new bus services. What was previously spoken about as a Transport and Liveability Statement came out in May 2006 as Meeting Our Transport Challenges. You can read it here. 

Pre-release audio grabs: https://ptua.org.au/posts/2006/tls-pre-audio/

PTUA reaction: https://ptua.org.au/posts/2006/tls-botched/

There were rail plans (eg the 3rd track to Dandenong) but based on what got implemented, MOTC was largely a bus plan. One can very much see that bus elements came from the previous 2003-era planning work. For example the 'Premium services' that were SmartBuses, the local services being extended to operate 7 days until 9pm (ie 'minimum standards') and the four orbital routes. MOTC also included bus network reviews though this was the hardest and least implemented part of the plan. 

Here I described 34 bus routes upgraded in just a few months in 2007: 
https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2007/06/34-melbourne-bus-routes-upgraded-with.html

My progress report from 2008 is at: https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2008/11/meeting-our-transport-challenges-hows.html

Daniel Bowen's 10 year anniversary write-up https://danielbowen.com/2016/05/17/ten-years-since-motc/

A look back from a vantage point of 2019: https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2019/06/service-success-stories-since-2006.html

A more recent item on how they upgraded bus services at a rate that DTP's Network Service Changes pipeline would consider impossible today is here: https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2025/09/tt-213-how-melbourne-added-8000-weekly.html

And finally a look at what makes bus plans succeed or fail. Not everything in MOTC happened but more of it did than most other plans, at least for buses. https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2025/10/un-215-what-makes-bus-plans-succeed-or.html 

Achievements and legacy

MOTC was weak on the rail infrastructure side. Its infrastructure proposals were modest and some, like the third track to Dandenong, were not completed. 

Instead Bracks government politics favoured large spending on rail infrastructure in the regions (Regional Fast Rail to Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Traralgon), showy projects like Southern Cross Station (delivered under a PPP to keep it off the books)  but infrastructure parsimony in Melbourne due to a wish to be seen as responsible financial managers. Just two years later the now Brumby government was forced to be bolder but the benefits came too late to save them at the ballot box in 2010 as rail patronage surged and reliability collapsed. 

MOTC was also weak on the rail service side, even for modest off-peak service increases that are possible with the existing fleet. We are only now starting to get funded (in the 2025 and 2026 state budgets) modest off-peak frequency uplifts (towards 20 minute maximum waits) that we could have had 20 years ago.  

It was really in buses that MOTC shone - for both regional Victoria and metropolitan Melbourne. While not necessarily the sort of thing that large mode shift is made of, the adoption of a 60 minute minimum 'safety net' service standard until 9pm every day of the week for local bus services was a substantial advance. Especially given its fast roll-out involving over 100 routes in just a few years. While a significant backlog remains with some popular routes (eg 281, 404, 468, 503, 506, 549, 844 etc) remaining without Sunday service, MOTC continues to have influence to this day. 

The orbital SmartBuses never got rolled out to the full four route network (we only got 2 3/4 orbitals). It was an attractively simple concept, even if some sections overlapped existing routes and/or traversed areas with weak patronage. Still they were patronage successes, helping to make our network less of an asterisk and more of a grid by enabling cross-suburban travel. Attempts to reform the orbitals remain in abeyance with even busy sections remaining with 30 minute gaps on weekends, poor for a premium route and not consistently connecting with trains that typically run every 20 minutes. The SmartBus network has seen no expansion since 2010 though non-orbitals like 905 and 907 gained improved hours and frequencies and a few (like 235 in Fishermans Bend) are now more frequent than SmartBus.  

As for the other big MOTC bus initiative, that of network reviews, the less said the better. The reviews were done (not all with wise or cost-effective proposals) but implementation was sluggish. A pattern that continues to this day despite potential 'greater good' service uplifts they may enable. 

Despite these limitations, Meeting Our Transport Challenges was huge for buses. It added 25% to service with usage rising by about that amount in just a few years from 2006. There has been no bigger or more influential bus plan than MOTC has been in at least 50 years. And its lessons continue to be fresh for today. 

If someone ever says we can't have fast uplifts in bus services on funding or delivery capacity grounds just point them to the record under MOTC. We did it then and can do it now. All it takes is political will.