Are you being served? Commentary on the service aspects of public transport in Melbourne, Australia. Covers networks, routes, timetables, planning, co-ordination, information, marketing and more.
Especially in the established suburbs that don't depend on it daily, V/Line has long had a better reputation than the metropolitan rail operator. Its trains are smoother, have nicer seats and are staffed with conductors. Some remember times (admittedly about 10-15 years ago) where V/Line trains were visibly better maintained than Metro's then dirty and graffitied fleet.
The V/Line brand has endured for decades, with particularly high recognition in regional Victoria. No city bureaucrat dared touch it as they pointlessly rebranded metropolitan operations multiple times. As for privatisation, Labor quickly re-nationalised V/Line after the collapse of National Express while retaining private franchising for the metropolitan network. Thus people in the country (more inclined to support parties ideologically disposed to privatisation) got the public operator while those in Melbourne (whose inner north includes a cohort of anti-Labor green and socialist activists) got the private operator(s).
What do the performance standards say?
V/Line's reliability target is that 96% of trains run and that 92% of services are on time. This is defined as being within 5:59 min for shorter distance services and 10:59 min for longer distance services. Metro has two sets of targets. That in the MR4 franchise is for a 98% delivery and a 90% punctuality (now defined as within 4:59 min). However Metro's Customer Compensation Code has a tougher 98.5% delivery and a 92% punctuality standard.
So despite the lore, V/Line's delivery and punctuality targets are looser than either of Metro's, both in relation to the percentages and the definition of on-time. Even though, as you'll see later, the basis for this may not be strong.
What about actual performance, which is what really counts? Does this support or debunk the general perception of V/Line being better? And is reliability likely to be improved if outer suburban lines serving fringe areas like Melton, Wyndham Vale and Wallan ever got electrified?
First of all percent of scheduled trains delivered and cancelled. These are separate entries in both V/Line and Metro which I've tabulated below.
The operator known as Metro (MTM) didn't start until 2009 but here I will use it as short-hand to refer to The Met, Bayside Trains, Hillside Trains and Connex that operated 2001-2009.
For V/Line the cancellation percent is 100 minus the per cent delivered. For Metro it is around 0.3% less, especially in recent years. Both show excellent delivery until 2002 and a deterioration since.
A rarely told story is these numbers is the widening divergence between V/Line and Metro. The relativities (ratio number above) are graphed below:
The data has three phases. Roughly these can be divided as pre-Regional Fast Rail, post Regional Fast Rail and post Regional Rail Link. These were major projects intended to improve the capacity and reliability of rail services.
Before 2006 (about when Regional Fast Rail started) V/Line cancelled the same or a lower proportion of its trains relative to Metro.
Then V/Line's cancellation rate steadily rose to around 20 - 50% higher than Metro's up to 2011. This was a time when both metropolitan and V/Line rail were under pressure.
There was a faster rise after 2011 such that by 2016 V/Line was cancelling 3.2% of its services, or three times the proportion of trains that Metro was. This was contrary to the expectation that by providing alternative train paths, Regional Rail Link (which opened in mid-2015) would enable improved V/Line performance. V/Line CEO Theo Taifalos resigned in January 2016 with minister Jacinta Allan saying that the government had some concerns about the operational capacity within V/Line.
The management turmoil did not stop there. October 2016 saw the appointment of James Pinder as V/Line CEO. Initially it seemed a good choice with cancellations down to 2.3% in 2017. But Pinder's luck didn't last. V/Line cancellations hit 3.8% (or four times that of Metro from which he came) in 2018. Even worse (for him) was being terminated and charged following corruption allegations as part of IBAC's Operation Esperance.
What's happened since? Ignoring the pandemic and lockdown years of 2020 and 2021, V/Line's 2022 - 2025 cancellation rate has hovered around three times that of Metro and a similar percent to that which preceded Taifalos' departure and government concerns in 2016. As I noted in 2022, this government kept most of its 2014 promises on transport, but improving V/Line service delivery was not one of them.
Punctuality
25 years of annual results are tabulated below (click on it for better view):
Like service delivery, punctuality for both operators was good in the early 2000s. Metro were reliably over 95% while V/Line was a percent or two lower.
V/Line's punctuality fell faster earlier from 2004 while Metro's fall was similarly large but a bit more gradual.
However V/Line did not share in Metro's punctuality rebound, with Metro's proportion of punctual trains often 5 to 8% higher than V/Line between 2012 and 2018.
The difference narrowed during the pandemic but widened to the 5 to 6% range after 2023. Very roughly you are twice as likely to encounter a late train if catching V/Line than Metro. And this is even without factoring in the slacker V/Line standard (1 minute more for short trips, 6 minutes more for long trips).
Conclusion
V/Line has had no discernible improvement on service delivery in the last decade. If you narrow your eyes and tilt your head you might discern some progress on punctuality but you need to be a good gymnast to say for sure. It can't be blamed on V/Line being a diesel operator with Metro being electric (except Stony Point) as the early 2000s numbers were good for both.
This government has become more accepting of sustained low V/Line performance than the current premier was as minister in 2016. This has been a long-term weakening. Rail trouble-shooter Simon Lane noted that rail contract managers in the 1990s were tougher than they were in 2015, something that might have aided the good early 2000s results.
Fairness requires acknowledgement that V/Line is carrying more passengers than ever before, with service growth far outstripping Metro. Credit should be given to the step-change in V/Line's operations unseen on any other regional railway in the country. Far more passengers are western and northern outer suburban, with Tarneit, V/Line's second busiest station, on a line that did not even exist 15 years ago.
However V/Line's emergence as a major suburban operator reflects a reluctance to electrify outer suburban lines (eg Melton) that previous government may have done if faced with today's populations. Such delays in electrification have implications for carbon emissions, fossil fuel dependency and (apparently) operational performance.
The paradox is that although V/Line operations have become much more Metro-like, with suburban-type frequencies to Melton and Geelong, V/Line's cancellation performance has gone from being better to three times worse than Metro in the last 25 years.
It's fair for people to be asking why.
Especially those on lines like Melton and Wyndham Vale, who could now be enjoying two-thirds fewer cancellations had their lines been electrified and operated by Metro.
Three weeks ago I presented a modal shift pyramid to make our transport less dependent on imported fossil fuels, thus reducing pressure on critical industries (such as agriculture) where a fast switch is much less practical.
It included things like questioning whether a trip was necessary, considering whether it could grouped with other trips plus shifts from driving to active or public transport. Since then the state government announced a month's fare free public transport and the federal government announced fuel tax reductions.
The Labor-aligned Dunn Street Socially Democratic podcast recently interviewed economist Adam Triggs on Australia's economic challenges. It's a long but worthwhile listen (available below).
A stand-out message for me was that no matter what happens we're likely to be stuck with high fuel prices for a while yet. With the spectre of 1970s-style stagflation. So it makes sense to think about how we can best respond, including in transport policy.
In this spirit I offer five tips to encourage a shift to less oil-intensive public and active transport. I'll translate them into policies, like next month's state budget could do well to fund, later.
1. Electrification
Melbourne is fortunate to have a large suburban electrified rail and tram network. Regional V/Line trains and a majority of suburban buses rely on diesel.
Increasing occupancy on all these can be a significant help. Signs are that the free travel month has done that (especially for V/Line) but from a fuel resilience point of view it is essential that most of this new demand comes from forgone car trips rather than mode shift from active transport or even new travel demand created.
Our state government was wise to ignore Infrastructure Victoria's proposal to disintegrate fares to make bus travel cheaper than trains or trams. That could have shifted passengers from electric to (mostly) diesel transport, reduced passenger/driver ratios, made bus network reform harder than it already is, and very relevant today, made public transport more diesel dependent than it should be.
But it could do more to encourage a shift to electrified PT, including measures like more frequent service on electrified modes like trains and trams and better use of electrified buses all week (ie unlike the electrified Ivanhoe bus depot where most routes don't even run Sundays).
Longer term there is a need to electrify rail to our fast growing outer suburbs including Melton, Wyndham Vale, Wallan and a reinstated line to Clyde.
2. Larger public transport vehicles
We need to run longer trains and get more articulated buses on popular routes. These reduce fuel used per passenger and address crowding issues. You always want some spare capacity as reliability suffers when this is maxed out and you cannot win more modal share from driving.
3. Routes optimised for high occupancy
This can include measures like improved directness, routes going to the right destinations and a better match between service levels and usage potential.
The orbital SmartBus network, while a good concept at the time, is notorious for having sections that are excessively serviced relative to their patronage while other parts justify more frequency. Of even more interest for efficiency maximisers are the extent to which orbitals (especially 903 in the north and west) inefficiently overlap other routes, with uneven frequencies and long waits despite having a high number of buses per hour. An example of a corridor with high mode-shift potential is the Coburg - Northland - Heidelberg corridor with a concept described here. Millers Rd in Altona North is another example where route consolidation could provide a simpler more regular frequent service.
In other cases the existing orbitals might be retained but could justify short workings to boost weekend frequency from 30 minutes to 15 minutes on their busiest portions. Examples could include 901, 902 and 903 around Dandenong, Springvale and Chadstone respectively.
While the above was about buses there may be scope for optimisation for rail as well. A particularly critical eye should be cast over complex timetables with multiple stopping patterns such as operate to Geelong, Belgrave and Lilydale.
4. Public transport frequency and hours
This is a case of building up public transport service to encourage mode shift to already popular routes and/or make service more available all week in underserved neighbourhoods with high cost of living pressures.
5. A larger role for active transport
Both for its own sake and as feeders to public transport. Infrastructure to avoid conflict with cars is key. Economical initiatives could include pop-up cycling lanes to encourage the large number of people who are 'interested but cautious' about cycling, especially women and families. The fast roll-out of zebra crossings, 'missing link' footpaths, tree planting for shade, signalisation of busy roundabouts and adjustment of traffic light cycles to give shorter waits for walkers are key parts of this mix.
Priorities for the 2026 state budget
Service related
(a) Cut maximum waits on the entire Metro train network from 40-60 minutes to 20 minutes between at least 6am to midnight 7 days (possibly staged, starting with 7am - 10pm 7 days).Same for V/Line for Melton and Waurn Ponds. Progressively boost shoulder peaks on key lines such as to Craigieburn, Mernda, Werribee and Ringwood as part of a transition to an eventual 10 minute all day service. Simplify peak stopping patterns where possible.
Starting with cutting the longest waits to 20 min first, priorities for the budget might include:
* Current 40 min gaps: Mernda, Hurstbridge and Sandringham (Sunday morning), Melton (weekends), Waurn Ponds (midday weekdays). * Current 30 min gaps: Belgrave and Lilydale (midday weekdays), Belgrave, Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Alamein (Sunday mornings), Mernda, Hurstbridge, Belgrave, Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Alamein (evenings).
(b) Operating culture, maintenance and investment as necessary to reduce cancellations, boost punctuality and more consistently run longer trains (especially for V/Line which underperforms Metro).
(c) Frequency upgrades on popular already direct bus routes to provide for a maximum 20 minute wait all week with service levels and operating hours similar to that recently implemented on key routes in Wyndham. Revive network reform (starting with tacking existing inefficient overlaps) to create more 10 minute frequent bus corridors such as identified on the Future Frequent Network.
Example routes with good patronage potential worth upgrading in the 2026 state budget include the likes of: 150, 152, 160, 302/304, 390, 406, 408, 418, 420, 460, 472, 494, 495, 497, 508, 527, 529, 532, 533, 541, 561, 606, 623, 630, 670, 693, 708, 733, 737, 791, 811, 813, 824, 828, 833, 841, 850, 900, 901 (part), 902 (part), 903 (part), 926 and more. This is cheaper than it looks as over half already run every 20 min or better on weekdays and may just need some minor operating hours and weekend additions.
(d) 7 day upgrades and longer operating hours on 20 to 30 popular bus routes in high needs but currently underserved areas. These would deliver cost-effective upgrades across Melbourne including suburbs like Laverton, Altona, Brooklyn, Footscray, Kensington, Ascot Vale, Broadmeadows, Campbellfield, Essendon, Coburg, Coburg North, Brunswick, Thomastown, Lalor, Springvale, Mulgrave, Noble Park North, Dandenong, Dandenong North, Doveton and Frankston.
Example 7 day upgrades worth funding in 2026 include: 237, 281, 404, 414, 431, 468, 503, 506, 526, 538, 542 (full route), 549, 559, 675, 680, 772, 787, 802, 804, 814, 844, 857, 885 and more.
Some are already the subject of existing and potential local community campaigns.
Infrastructure related
(a) Rail electrification to our fast growing outer suburbs including Melton, Wyndham Vale, Wallan and a reinstated line to Clyde.
(b) Bus priority to speed bus travel on key routes. Get more articulated buses for busy routes.
(c) Accelerated roll-out of active transport upgrades, noting the recently released Active Transport Plan. Priority should be on large numbers of low cost projects rolled out quickly, with faster approval by DTP of council initiatives in this area. Large roundabouts have similar effects for walkers as rail level crossings do for car drivers so their removal should be treated equally seriously with a large program established.
