GAIC comes good on bus funding

Growth areas will get a bus boost with developer contributions from GAIC (Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution) going into community infrastructure and services including buses. 

The details of which areas will get what were announced on Wednesday April 24, 2024 (premier's release here). It follows media reports last year of growth area funds being collected but not spent. 

Bus services in the cities of Cardinia, Casey, Hume, Wyndham will gain from the funding. As will some active transport connections. 

 In summary the bus upgrades will be (direct quotes in red, followed by my comments): 

Cardinia

* New and extended bus services to the growth area of Cardinia around Officer – routes 925, 928 – $22,619,000

There haven't been bus upgrades in this area for many years so these are very welcome. With any luck the short-stopping 925 finally gets extended to Cardinia Rd station that opened in 2012. Given mention of Officer, I'd expect 928 to be extended west. Also welcome due to the need for coverage. With gaps of nearly 70 minutes in the weekday peak the 926 needs boosted service but this wasn't mentioned. Also keep an eye on East Pakenham as the new station will open in June and governments are generally pretty good about having at least one bus route running to new growth area stations on Day One, with Caroline Springs and Cardinia Rd being precedents.    

Casey

* Extended bus service on Bells Road in Casey – Route 831 – $23,670,000

* Bus service extension to Clyde North via Hardys Road in Casey – Route 798 – $16,227,000

Both are needed growth area extensions. 831 adds a handy connection to Berwick from the south. Route 798 has better than average frequency for a growth area route so if this is maintained this will vastly improve services in the eastern part of developing Clyde North. 

Hume

* Sunbury Station car park and access paths upgrade – $1,867,000

* Roxburgh Park Train Station upgrade – $331,347

* Bus service extension – Route 543 to Craigieburn Central – $13,145,597

* New bus service – Kalkallo to Olivine via Donnybrook Station – Route 524 – $16,406,739

The Mickleham Rd corridor hasn't had a lot of love with regards buses so it's good this is getting a Craigieburn connection. Though some might be asking for this to continue through to the station. The job asked of 525 in the Donnybrook area is now too much for a single route so the introduction of the new 524 will be a positive, especially for isolated Olivine.  

Wyndham

* Williams Landing Station upgrade – $4,552,596

* A new bus connection between Harpley Estate and Cornerstone Estate communities, and Wyndham Vale Station – $21,473,000

* Delivery of a fixed route services to residential areas currently reliant of the Tarneit North FlexiRide which is over capacity. The modified route will also provide a link between Tarneit Station and the employment area of Laverton North – $39,732,000

Very welcome. Parts of Harpley are a fair walk from the 192 and Cornerstone/Mambourin currently has nothing. It's visible from the Geelong train but the proposed Black Forest Rd station remains pending. Some in Harpley may be hoping the new route continues through to Werribee but this is not mentioned in the description. For some time Tarneit North FlexiRide has been insufficient for the area's population.  Tarneit North should probably have had a fixed route from the beginning but at least it's getting it now. Out of my 5 step wish list for buses in the City of Wyndham this package delivers on two and a bit (scrapping FlexiRide, a Tarneit - Laverton North industrial area connection and some growth area coverage).   

Other comments

What's missing? Not all growth areas got bus funding from this package, with Melton, Whittlesea and Mitchell missing out. Melton's Deanside residents might have reasonably hoped for something along Taylors Rd connecting into the Caroline Springs area. There are also coverage gaps in Mt Atkinson and Thornhill Park. This is a recurring pattern with Melton generally faring worse than Wyndham in PT. However all areas except Mitchell received GAIC money for active transport connections. 

The funding dollars for GAIC look impressive but is only for the first five years' worth, ie it is not ongoing. That will need to come from future state budgets. However precedent is that if a route has been funded by GAIC it generally does continue under budget funding. 

When will the new services start? I examined this last year. As a rule of thumb, if it's a simple service upgrade it takes about a year after funding is confirmed. If it's a new route like some of these will be it will take longer - say two years. So all should be running by mid 2026 (a state election year). 

GAIC funding criteria are strict. It is easier to add a route in a growth area (over an existing network) than to reform a local bus network, which may have wider implications (including areas not funded by GAIC). This is an issue in the Clyde area where many routes have been added but some still have weak termini and there aren't through connections between key centres such as Cranbourne to Berwick. Hence it is highly desirable that reviews be done as soon as possible to simplify and connect local networks. 

Conclusion 

This is a good set of what should be 'business as usual' type bus service upgrades in our suburban growth areas. Better late than never, they will make a big difference to many peoples' lives. 

What might an SRL precursor SmartBus look like?

I (and a few others) have sometimes mentioned the desirability of establishing a premium bus route as a precursor to long-term rail projects such as Sunshine - Melbourne Airport and the Suburban Rail Loop. 

While slower and with less capacity than rail, precursor buses would bring some project benefits forward by 10 to 30 years. It would also make the project appear more tangible and build confidence amongst those making location decisions, whether it is to live, work or invest. 

For brevity I've called this concept (for the Suburban Rail Loop) 'SRL SmartBus'.

This is largely because SmartBus remains the nearest there is to a widely recognised premium bus brand in Melbourne. From a car driver's point of view, there is nothing more powerful than a convoy of 12 metre long moving billboards saying 'SmartBus' going faster than them in its own lane.

Unfortunately such sights no longer exist because DoT/DTP retired the special SmartBus livery. And no more SmartBus routes have been added for 13 years despite some having sufficient service to basically qualify already (eg 216, 220, 234, 235, 246 etc). This deprecation (by a department notoriously lacking marketing skills) has in my view has been a mistake given the especially low social licence of buses in Melbourne versus other cities, but I digress.

So what is SmartBus and why should we continue to be inspired by it? Operating on nine routes, SmartBus services feature earlier starts, later finishes and more frequent service than average for buses in Melbourne. They also have real time passenger information and more distinct stops. Its three orbitals made circumferential travel easier while freeway expresses greatly improved all-day connectivity to the Doncaster area. SmartBus has been a success and contributed, along with the roll-out of more 7 day service on local routes, to the large increase in bus patronage between 2006 and 2011. 

Today I will go into more detail on what form an SRL SmartBus (or better) might take. I will concentrate on SRL East (ie Box Hill - Southland) as this is the first stage with occasional remarks for  later sections of SRL (which also need benefits brought forward with upgraded buses).  

Bronze: precursor SRL bus at SmartBus standards

To its credit the government has made a start here, with the 2022 state budget funding improved frequency on Routes 733 and 767. Implemented last year, these have been appreciated by passengers.  

The next logical step would be a further upgrade to SmartBus standards, notably longer hours and better weekend frequency. The routes that would be front runners for this include the busiest portions of the 733, 737 and 767 for SRL East. 733 would also need extending to at least Southland/Sandringham.

SRL North is best addressed by upgrading the existing 902 SmartBus with a 901 swap at Greensborough and again at Broadmeadows to provide, like the SRL plan, a Doncaster - Melbourne Airport portion. This is zero operational cost but misses La Trobe University, which could get other upgrades.

Melbourne Airport - Sunshine needs a new route as there is none existing to modify.  The western portion is likely best addressed by upgrading popular Werribee - Tarneit routes including 170 (via Werribee Plaza) and some others either side. Labor's 2022 election promise of Geelong weekend trains being boosted from 40 to 20 minutes would also help orbital trips here.  

Silver: precursor SRL bus at above SmartBus standards

While SmartBus was a big step forward for Melbourne at the time, it is well short of what a premium bus service looks like in other cities. For example it mostly lacks the consistently high 7 day frequency as found on Brisbane's BUZ routes or Perth's High Frequency Buses. The gap is most notable on weekends (30 versus 15 minutes) and to some extent evenings. Also most SmartBus routes shut down at 9pm Sundays. Good 7 day service with longer hours, such as offered on other cities' routes, would be highly desirable for an SRL precursor route. 

As for speed, this comes with frequency, directness, widely spaced stops and priority over other traffic. Freeway SmartBuses to the Doncaster area are quite fast but large parts of other routes are not. Good speed is also important if you want a bus to be a credible precursor to what will (still) be a much faster SRL. 

One could increase spacing between SmartBus stops but there are portions of SmartBus routes that are very heavily used. Longer stop spacing reduces in-vehicle travel time but may increase walking distance. This is significant given that a high proportion of bus trips, including on the long SmartBus orbitals, are relatively short and expressing wouldn't necessarily save much time. Given that SRL stations will be a long way apart there will still need to be substantial bus services from various directions, including potentially parallel to the SRL line.

Overall the main way to get to a silver level of SRL SmartBus service is to boost weekend (and preferably evening) frequencies from 30 to 15 minutes and add Sunday evening service. Two routes that got upgrades along these lines include the 234 and 907 in 2021, so there is precedent. Sydney has recently gone one better with their key eastern suburbs routes being boosted to every 10 minutes 7 days a week.   

Gold: precursor SRL bus with 2 tier express/all stops route

Toronto has several cross-radial bus routes that could inspire a 'gold standard' SRL SmartBus. And other middle and outer suburban orbital corridors that lack a public transport equivalent of EastLink or the M80. 

Finch Avenue East, like the Suburban Rail Loop, is in Toronto's established middle suburbs, about 15km north of downtown. Route 39 is the all stops east-west route. It runs every 10 minutes or better from early morning to late at night. Its consistency of frequent service is not matched by any single train, tram or bus line in Melbourne. It feeds the subway and numerous other bus lines it intersects with. 

Overlapping the 39 is the 939 express route. It runs all day from before 7am to 1am on weekdays and approximately 8am to 10pm on weekends. Service is normally every 10 minutes 7 days, improving to about 5 minutes in the peak.

Thus unless it is very early or late at night a two tier service, comprising the 39 all stops and the 939 express is available on Finch Avenue at excellent frequencies almost unknown of in Melbourne outside CBD trams.  

The 39/939 runs a similar distance from Toronto's downtown as the SRL operates from Melbourne CBD (at Box Hill). It intersects the U-shaped subway Line 1 at two major stations and suburban centres (as the SRL intends to do at Box Hill, Clayton and Southland). Development density along Finch Av varies, with it being highest near subway stations. Thus its service pattern is a good match for at least the Clayton - Box Hill/Doncaster portion of our Suburban Rail Loop as a precursor service.  

Below is a possible Melbourne/SRL adaption of the TTC Finch Avenue service model. Based on an extended and upgraded two tier Route 733, it would provide an excellent precursor service.

The red line is the limited stop route, which I've called 733E (although it could, to borrow Toronto practice, be the 933). This would operate a frequent service 7 days and offer substantial travel time savings for those making longer trips. There may be more stops than indicated, for example the Monash Medical Centre and Warrigal Rd (for a Route 903 connection). There is also scope for it to be extended north to Doncaster, though there are already other routes (including the 903) that already operate there. 

The orange line is the 733, serving all stops. This would operate from Box Hill to Clarinda. This is a minor change to the existing 733 which finishes at Oakleigh (after paralleling other routes on Centre Rd). Major stops between Box Hill and Clarinda would get 12 buses per hour as both this and the 733E would stop. This is considered justified due to higher population density and trip generation compared to the Clarinda - Southland portion which will be covered by local routes. 

Something should be said about the two SRL East locations not served by the above 733/733E. Deakin University already has a frequent connection to Box Hill via the rerouted 903 and the 201 university shuttle. Connectivity to the south could be improved if at least the Box Hill - Chadstone section of the 767 is upgraded. Monash - Glen Waverley connectivity could be improved through a frequency upgrade to Route 737 which could also provide a direct connection to Knox City and even further east. The other gap is between Glen Waverley and Deakin University. A potential connection could be possible by extending 766's currently weak terminus to Deakin and then to Glen Waverley via Highbury Rd, though it would be less frequent than the other routes discussed. 

Network transition post SRL 

Unlike (say) a railway to Doncaster, the SRL won't exactly replace an existing bus route. However its success is predicated on excellent access to its relatively small number of stations. This is where good feeder services come in. 

The Gold standard SRL East precursor bus above featured a two tier service with both limited stop and local routes operating frequently for long hours all week. The SRL will replace the need for the express 733E service, however a frequent all stops service will need to be kept to operate as a feeder. On the map above the 733E might be removed with the 733 extended to Sandringham via Southland to retain connectivity for those in Clarinda. 

Bus and driver hours resources from the 733E could be put towards delivering an upgraded SRL East feeder bus network as discussed here (though many upgrades are justified beforehand). 

Conclusion

All three levels of upgrade will require significant additional bus vehicle and driver hours. And the Gold standard will need new buses too, especially for the express route. However the ability to bring many of SRL's benefits forward by between one and three decades should be regarded as a major countervailing gain.

It would also be a good proof of concept for other bus corridors such as boosted Warrigal, Springvale and Stud Rd orbitals, growth area Taylors Rd and Wollert links and a potential future western orbital. Such high order routes would also be fully consistent with the post 2023 mass transit role for buses identified in Victoria's Bus Plan (now 1045 days old with no implementation plan sighted yet). 

UN 172: More guessing on our post Metro Tunnel timetables

It's not yet out but we're starting to get more hints of what the post Metro Tunnel metropolitan train timetables might look like.

That's important because it is, in minister Danny Pearson's words, "the biggest change to metropolitan timetables since the '80s". Even much smaller changes have been rare because Andrews/Allan government public transport policy has been 99% about building infrastructure and maybe only 1% about service. 

Inattention to service matters has led to continued complex peak timetables on some lines, widespread 30-40 minute gaps between trains and per capita service declines on Melbourne's busiest transport modes (metropolitan train and tram).

The stagnation has been particularly notable during off-peaks, evenings and weekends - the very times that have become more important due to changed post-pandemic travel patterns. It has also left us lagging Sydney, which since service boosts in 2017 now often has 10 to 15 minute maximum waits for trains (6am - midnight / 7 days) versus double or more for Melbourne.   

When asked about service matters ministers and premiers might deflect to 'Big Build' projects such as the Suburban Rail Loop and Metro Tunnel. Or claim that "it will be a "decision of the train timetablers". Even though the schedulers' brief will include a service specification that includes maximum waits. That will have come from the department, and by extension the government. 

If pressed further on service ministers might reaffirm improved timetables when major projects are completed. This bundling has raised expectations about what we'll eventually get. Especially as there has been such a service drought in the years preceding. Key benefits like off-peak frequencies could have been independently delivered across the network sooner, but apart from 2021's upgrades, largely were not. Such a 'service first' approach was proposed in the Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail and got fully implemented on one line only - the then politically marginal Frankston line.  

Will the 2025 Metro Tunnel and associated timetables finally 'bring home the bacon' (as Paul Keating would say) on public transport service across Melbourne? Or will its benefits be largely confined to one corridor and a handful of new CBD fringe stations?

I'll discuss this further here, though it should be emphasised that even in the most limited case we're likely to be in for a welcome and historically large boost in Metro rail service.  

Business case service plan - pros and cons

The Day 1 service plan attached to the 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case would help spread the project's benefits from a corridor to a network. If implemented we would have 7 day 10 minute daytime service to Newport, West Footscray, Craigieburn, Upfield or Gowrie, Clifton Hill, Dandenong, Frankston and Sandringham.

Maximum waits at other times like evenings and Sunday mornings would not exceed 20 minutes on most of these lines. This is a bit under half the network, with Craigieburn, Sandringham and at least part of Upfield being the main winners. A substantial gain, especially since off-peak Metro rail frequencies outside the south-east have been stagnant for years. 

The service plan's key omission is that, like the 2012 Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail from which it was possibly derived, it would have left busy stations like Sunshine, St Albans and Watergardens with a second-rate 20 minute off-peak daytime frequency. That's no better than today, would reinforce existing west-east inequalities in transport service and shower (deserved) ridicule on the project.   

2022 state budget staff and driver funding

Funding for 'nearly 300 new drivers and station staff' was provided in the 2022 state budget. This is  key to the Metro Tunnel getting service to match the infrastructure.

What difference to service can one train driver make? My guesstimate is 647 additional service hours per year. It's a lot. Because cutting maximum waits from 30-40 to 20 minutes requires so few extra trips per week, if they're not able to deliver at least this to most stations then something seems wrong.

Indeed it could be possible to get more lines up to a 10 min off-peak daytime service all week. Ringwood is the front-runner on cost grounds (with not many extra service km needed) while Craigieburn looks the leader on patronage and 2016 business case grounds. A strong justification also exists for other lines like Mernda and Werribee (with the former actually a Coalition 2014 election promise).   

Will we get business case service levels on all lines?

Sunshine's short-changing is one good reason for the government to deviate from the business case service plan, in this case delivering more than envisaged. However the opposite can also happen, eg a descoping if costs blow out or to operations after completion. So it can sometimes be a case of 'swings and roundabouts'. 

Speaking more generally, when major projects are being developed there is pressure to look wide and high for benefits to strengthen their business case (since each project competes with numerous others for funding). That may include cost-effective add-ons that, while not strictly necessary for the project and possible independently beforehand, may add disproportionate benefit or political acceptance (eg new freeways getting parallel bike paths). So they get included. 

Examples for public transport projects could include service upgrades on intersecting lines with 'network effect' connectivity and patronage gains. However once funding is secured there are likely few consequences for government (except possibly political) if there is a subsequent de-scoping. Given the time elapsed between project development and delivery, changed circumstances (eg altered pandemic travel patterns) or budget priorities can be claimed as reasons to modify what's delivered.

In other words it is not implausible that the service levels we get next year are different from the outline contained in the Day 1 (2026 opening) service plan attached to the Metro Tunnel Business Case prepared nearly 10 years earlier.

It could also be worth comparing services against the peak capacity uplifts claimed on the Big Build website (though as peak service is dearer to add and patronage is less elastic it is fair to run this below capacity on Day 1).

Peak frequency

We do however already have an idea of Metro Tunnel's peak frequency. On March 5 2024, minister Gabrielle Williams told Parliament that Metro Tunnel trains would run every 3 minutes (presumably during peaks). 

This matches (allowing for rounding) the 18 trains per hour as successfully tested. Such a frequency is somewhat better than what currently runs from Dandenong and much better than which runs in from Sunshine.

In all cases a solid turn-up-and-go peak service, so the main effect will be to make certain trips quicker, especially those to destinations around Parkville and St Kilda Rd. And boost capacity massively, thanks to the new longer trains. 

Off-peak frequency

All-week all-day frequency has potential to be the really transformative thing about the Metro Tunnel and allied timetables. It determines whether people can use trains all week without a timetable. And even live reasonably without a car. The latter can bring housing supply, jobs, entertainment and cost of living benefits.  

Things are less clear here. Especially on related lines cited in the Business Case but not directly served by the Metro Tunnel.

Later last month, in a report about Melbourne's declining per-capita public transport service, The Age reported the following statement on Metro Tunnel timetables: 

Only those lines? What about the Sandringham, Craigieburn and at least part of the Upfield lines cited in the 2016 Business Case as getting a 10 minute interpeak service? 

DTP, who undersold the new 475 bus, aren't the sharpest of marketers. But one would expect better from their political masters. After all their decade-old government is known for its messaging prowess and dominance over a weak opposition. Either not all the Business Case off-peak frequency upgrades on non-Metro Tunnel lines are going ahead or they, like Christopher Pyne, are withholding details to make it a surprise. 

The guessing

Metro Tunnel services

My best guess on the service we might get for the Metro Tunnel lines (ie Sunbury, Pakenham, Cranbourne) is in the right hand column below: 
 

One tick indicates expected service matches the business case. Two ticks indicates a better service than the business case. Either due to a higher frequency or it being delivered to more stations.

The main difference between the two is that I have assumed that the busy Watergardens - West Footscray section gets full service, and not half service as proposed in the 2016 Business Case. I suspect the latter may have been due to a wish to leave room for electrified rail to destinations like Wyndham Vale, Melton and/or Melbourne Airport. Since the Metro Tunnel has beaten them all, I've assumed that it will run a full service to Watergardens. Anything else would be an embarrassment that would only entrench perceived (and real) east-west divides in public transport service. 

'Other off-peak' would be evenings and Sunday mornings. Currently the Dandenong line has a well used 10 minute service until relatively late on weeknights. And there is high usage of the currently half-hourly Sunday morning service. Not to mention weekends, where there's a huge (10 to 30 min) service cliff after 7pm. 

So I'm going to assume generosity including a 10 minute Dandenong - Watergardens service to late at night (if not last service) and it starting earlier than now on Sunday. Doing this would create a genuine Metro type service (with maximum 10 minute waits) with almost all Pakenham and Cranbourne off-peak services running straight through Dandenong, even at night. This would make the Metro Tunnel line the most frequent on the network, outstripping the Frankston line, which runs its 10 minute service until about 7 or 8 pm only. 

A real European (or even Canadian) style metro would have better than 10 minute frequencies on at least its core section off-peak at least during the day. Parts of Perth's rail network enjoys a 7.5 minute midday frequency. While shoulders might be better than today I'm going to guess we're not going to get this. With 10 minute service still relatively rare, Melbourne has not developed the culture to go higher outside the peaks. Even with trams, where frequent service is most prevalent, the culture is to get bigger vehicles rather than increase frequencies (which have been unchanged for years). 

While a 10 minute off-peak train service is amazing for a Melburnian it still represents a 20 minute gap if one train is cancelled or a 15 minute gap if one is slightly delayed. And even if everything runs on time a 9 minute gap (and the walk down to the platforms) is a significant transfer penalty. This means that those making short trips in the CBD will continue to use the trams, especially given the 'Free' Tram Zone's financial incentive for some. However the Metro Tunnel should still take some load off trams for Parkville and Anzac station passengers coming from or going to the suburbs. 

Non Metro Tunnel lines

The government quote didn't mention the non-Metro Tunnel lines. The two lines most at risk of missing out if the Business Case upgrades are not implemented in full are Craigieburn and Upfield. 

If this eventuates it would limit the Metro Tunnel's benefits. While services on the core Tunnel section may be frequent at all hours, a risk is that people step from a frequent Metro Tunnel train to one on another line that may still only be running every 20, 30 or even 40 minutes. 

High all-week frequency is the entry price for full participation in a transit network. If you don't have that then you only have a series of lines that people are wary to change between without detailed trip planning. Much-vaunted apps and journey planners are no substitutes for a frequent service that people know is always coming soon. 

I would be happy to be pleasantly surprised. Without inside information my expectations of off-peak frequencies on the lines listed in the Business Case are as follows. 

Whereas I'm optimistic for the Metro Tunnel lines, I am less so for the other lines. This is even though lines like Craigieburn and Mernda have amongst Melbourne's longest waits (twice that of Frankston most times) and cutting 30 to 40 minute waits to 20 minutes requires a trivially small number of  extra trips in the timetable.

These low expectations are based on government and DTP lacking a robust service frequency culture. This is exemplified by a record of rarely backing infrastructure builds with service, particularly off-peak, despite this being proportionately more important post-pandemic. The contrast with Sydney has widened hugely since about 2017, with that city having a stronger frequency improvement culture and funding across all modes.  

Sandringham's position is interesting. It replaces the Frankston line as the eastern end of the cross-city group in the Business Case. For this to happen its current 15 minute weekday interpeak frequency would likely need to be harmonised to 10/20 minutes like the Frankston line currently is.

Hence the 2016 Business Case service plan mention it as getting an upgrade to every 10 minutes. But this is also not backed by the latest statement reported in The Age. If its service was to be maintained at its current 15 minutes there would be variable wait times and inconsistent patterns over what forms what at Flinders Street if there is through running. I'm going to give the government the benefit of the doubt here so have put a question mark on the table above. As for the other off-peak, Sandringham's evening service is already the planned 20 minutes so it's only really the early weekend morning timetables (notably Sundays where it's a 40 minute service) that need boosting.  

While Sandringham isn't the busiest Metro line off-peak there is a possibility of the Metro Tunnel still upgrading this line's services to enable (admittedly troubled and transposal-ridden) cross-city group operation. Despite its lower frequency the Craigieburn line actually carries more passengers than the Sandringham line and has higher growth prospects. Thus if Sandringham deserves a 10 minute day service (with a maximum 20 minute wait at other times) then so does at least Craigieburn on equity and patronage grounds.  

Conclusion

The above is some speculation on what we might see in the new Metro Tunnel and related timetables. They should represent a very worthwhile service uplift on at least three and possibly up to six lines.

Only time will tell how well spread the improvements are throughout Melbourne and whether we'll get the big reductions in maximum all-week waits our trains need to form a truly useful network.  

Index to Building Melbourne's Useful Network items

PT service lagging apartment builds (RMIT research)

Nothing from me today but there doesn't need to be. 

Instead I recommend this RMIT paper by Chris De Gruyter, Steve Pemberton and Eric Keys tracking apartment growth versus public transport service growth. 

https://cur.org.au/cms/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/longitudinal-analysis-working-paper-final-april-2024.pdf

Interactive dashboard at https://apartments-melb.shinyapps.io/dashboard/

It reaches similar conclusions to me, when I noted Melbourne was in a per capita service recession for its busiest modes (Age article here). 

The moral is that public transport service counts, and can make or break a network. 

Welcome to new readers

A warm welcome to those seeing Melbourne on Transit for the first time due to The Age article examining Melbourne's public transport service levels over time. 

If you'd like to learn more about these trends, including viewing some tables and graphs, then please head over to PT service levels - Are we better served now?

Once done there browse the rest of this blog, which has items going back nearly 20 years. If you live on a quirky bus route the chances are I'll have written somewhere about it - the search function could be useful. 

At other times I describe public transport services in an area and examine how they might be improved, with an emphasis on cost-effective bus upgrades. You'll also find profiles of various transport ministers, reporting on state budgets, examinations of hour other cities do transport planning and much more. 

If maps are more your thing, you might like the Frequent Network Maps for Melbourne's public transport. These show you which areas get the best service on various days of the week and times of day. This is handy for anyone from home hunters to demographers in examining the differences in transport service across Melbourne's suburbs. 

Also, while less prolific than this blog, I also have a small YouTube channel with nearly 100 videos on various aspects of public transport in Melbourne.

Finally, for a bit of fun enjoy this Public Transport marketing ads video playlist and the recent '40 minute city' Metro Tunnel April Fools gag that apparently got a few people. 

The '40 minute city': A look at Melbourne's new Metro Tunnel timetables

Last month Minister Williams confirmed in Parliament that trains will operate every 3 minutes through the Metro Tunnel. Being the first public indication of what part of the new Metro Tunnel timetable might look like, this was a noteworthy statement. 

What about the rest of the Metro Tunnel timetable? While key to how people use a rail network, its development, like most transport service planning in Victoria, was done in high secrecy. Not even have broad specifications, like maximum headways at various times, been released.

Several of my usual internal sources separately hinted that the timetable is pretty much finalised but gave nothing away. Thus all I could do last month was to speculate on three options with the middle (reference) choice most plausible most of the day.

All that's just changed. It is my pleasure that you will be the first to know the contents of this radical document that will transform the way millions move around Melbourne. 

A draft obtained

It was very late Good Friday evening outside the Banana Alley vaults. More than a few rungs below the Qantas lounge, it is not the most salubrious place to do business. Anyone there at a small hour would be on a mission, probably nefarious. The normally rumbling viaduct had just the occasional night train passing over.

At this spot two men exchanged several boxes of 7-Eleven sprinkled donuts for a nondescript four ring binder with white, yellow and green pages. They shook hands and parted. The man with the binder loosely wrapped it with a kebab-stained Herald Sun fished off Elizabeth Street - apparently its cover was sensitive. With obscured binder under shoulder, the intermediary, known to mingle in rail planning circles, made haste past the Milk Dock to just make an hourly night train to a second, suburban handover destination. 

That's the background on how an 'advanced draft' of Metro Tunnel Group Working Timetable 2025 Day 1 came to reach my hands. But content is king so that's what will be discussed next. 

The timetable's peak service reflects the minister's undertaking so needn't be shown. But below is an off-peak extract. Most notable is the 40-minute off-peak interval on this and all other lines. "Unbelievable!" you might say? No, there's reasons for this so good that DTP hopes will make you not just a convert but an evangelist for a new way of experiencing Melbourne.  

Melbourne the 40 Minute City

Just like the Suburban Rail Loop is considered more a 'city building' than purely a rail project, the same applies to the proposed Metro Tunnel timetable. It's part of a plan to make Melbourne a 40 Minute City, with synchronised public transport all running once every 40 minutes. 

Unlike Victoria's money-hungry Bus Plan, the 40 Minute City is actually money saving with nothing to stop it happening. For example, a huge slice of Melbourne's transit already runs every 40 minutes. This includes Ballarat weekday and Geelong weekend trains, most buses in Melbourne's west and north plus Sunday morning Metro timetables on the Sunbury, Craigieburn, Upfield, Mernda, Hurstbridge and Sandringham lines. 

Most SmartBuses on weekends are close, with their timetable just needing to be tweaked from every 30 to every 40 minutes. That frees resources to upgrade hourly local buses to every 40 minutes, which will become the new service standard. A state government spokesperson added that a flat statewide 40 minute frequency complemented the flat statewide fares introduced last year in furthering its transport equity objectives. "City fares with Country service" was how they put it. 

"Current off-peak timetables, notably the 10 minute all-day frequency the Frankston line enjoys, were unfair to passengers on other lines like Craigieburn and Mernda", they remarked. "Frankston's generous timetable also required replacement buses we don't have on the many days its trains don't run. Thus every 40 minutes to everywhere makes a lot of sense".      

With such solid arguments and a widespread precedent, it was logical that the Metro Tunnel also runs every 40 minutes outside the peak. That would move us towards 'One Network, One Frequency' (ONOF) and thus deliver 'simple, safe connected journeys'.  As opposed to the current cacophony of 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 60 minute headways that plague our network. 

Frequency-based marketing is something that only the Swiss have done well, in conjunction with their Taktfahrplan. The Metro Tunnel Day One Communications Plan brings such best practice to Melbourne.  It suggests the slogan 'Life begins at 40' to sell the new rail headways (and appeal to Gen Ys). 

Service rationale

The pink explanatory pages for the working timetable quote Deputy Secretary Service Planning Mr Ray James, who said that the worth of 40 minute headways was demonstrated by their persistence in Melbourne timetables for over 40 years. "If there was something wrong with them they'd have been fixed. But there's not so they stay.".  

DTP considered that every 40 minutes was adequate for Melbourne's low density since we were not Paris and loved our cars. The Dep Sec also wrote that "by lacking 40 minute train headways cities like Sydney and Perth had no idea what they were missing out on".

"Just like any living being has just one pulse, so should a transit network". It was also a matter of city pride. "With other Australian cities basing their trains and buses on 15, 30 and 60 minute headways, nothing screams Melbourne more than service every 40 minutes. Thus 40 it is.". 

City of Melbourne councillors, who received a private briefing last week, are said to be strongly backing the move. Lord Mayor hopeful Darren Hunch added that off-peak trains every 40 minutes will supercharge CBD commerce at a much needed time, especially if the Free Tram Zone was made the Free Train Zone and extended to Pakenham East. With council elections soon lord mayoral candidates are starting a bidding war over policies they don't control, with the Lord Mayor incumbent firing the first salvo on cheap fares last month via the Herald Sun. 

A senior Melbourne council officer explained their thinking as follows: 

Managing expectations

PTV realises that the way passengers use a train line that operates every 40 minutes is different to one with services every 5 or 10 minutes. Accordingly it has hired user experience professionals to develop a 'perception management plan'. This would help passengers manage and eventually modify 'unrealistic' expectations with regards to train waiting times that they might have picked up in Europe, Asia or even Sydney. 

During a transition period labour hire staff (dubbed "Forty Minute Friends") will be on platforms to offer tips on journey planning, fun activities while waiting and time management. Rail photographer Marcus 'everywhere' Wong just happened to get this shot of a training exercise at Southern Cross. 

Zen Buddhists and yogis will also be engaged to help those who panic if the train they are connecting to does not arrive within a few minutes. It turns out that the singing PTV funded last year was a test exercise for such diversions.  

Marketing

Marketing will be a joint venture between the City of Melbourne, Visit Victoria and PTV. Tourists will be urged to try a slower approach to life, including embracing our 40 minute waits between trains and for coffee and airport taxis. It is understood that this will give Melbourne a major point of marketing difference over Sydney and other cities that are more rush-rush-rush. Expect to see the logo below around the CBD and beyond as a symbol to attract longer staying higher-value visitors.   

Demonstrating its astute commercial acumen, the Department plans to use $500k (a repurposing of almost the entire Bus Plan budget) to buy the rights of the under-appreciated 1983 NZ No 1 hit Life Begins at 40. It believes that playing this after each off-peak train at Metro Tunnel stations will lift the spirits of late-arriving passengers who have 40 minutes until the next.  

Frank talk on the Suburban Rail Loop

The 40 Minute City is not just about Metro Tunnel off-peak timetables. It is also a game changer for the Suburban Rail Loop, ensuring the project's survival amid recent uncertainty over state finances.

During a tense pre-Budget meeting with Treasury officials, who, as the Grattan Institute's biggest private fans, never really liked the SRL, project head Ms Carol Frank reached an agreement that would save the massive project. Economies included shortening the tunnelling to run more directly via Mt Waverley instead of Glen Waverley and consolidating Clayton and Monash stations into one under the Monash Childrens' Hospital.

These changes would cut journey time from 22 minutes to 18 minutes, increasing speed yet massively reducing costs. For example value engineering would reimagine the SRL from two tracks / twin tunnel to single track / single tunnel. Portions could be elevated due to the reduced width. 

In a major reduction of project risk, the need for signalling would vanish since the SRL's new 40 minute headway could be run with a tight but doable 2 minute turnaround time using a single 2-car set, much like current operations on the Stony Point line. That works because if there's no other trains to collide with you just need a single track, no signalling and only half the tunnelling. Also the proposed Heatherton stabling yard would become a minor siding for the one train plus spare, assuaging most local concerns. 

A crack team of Spanish and South Korean project managers would speed construction to ensure completion by the 2030 state election so we'll get SRL benefits sooner.  Overall about $15 billion could be shaved off the SRL's cost, making it cheaper than the North-East Link and contributing to budget repair. 

Ms Frank is understood to be delighted that the SRL could participate in the 40 Minute City program by adjusting its frequency to the new network standard. Preserving the state's finances while still building the SRL was considered a win-win. The agreement also protects thousands of jobs whose workers and families would have otherwise faced a bleak Christmas.   

User reaction

In contrast to support from local and state governments, passengers have slammed the proposed 40 minute frequencies, calling it a 'Poor Useless' plan that only Spring Street bureaucrats could dream up. Here's the Public Transport Users Association's reaction, as exclusively captured by 6 News.  

Conclusion

The 40 Minute City and resultant off-peak intervals between trains is possibly not what many were expecting from the Metro Tunnel. However it is consistent with present widespread operational practice and 'infrastructure first' state government priorities, so no one should be too surprised. 

We'll know in a year how this pans out. It is understood that the Metro Tunnel will commence service (for a free family fun day) on the morning of Tuesday April 1, 2025. 'Metro Tuesday' will be proclaimed as a one-off public holiday given the significance of the Metro Tunnel's opening for all Melburnians.

Just remember to plan travel carefully as, in a nod to some historic (and still current) public holiday bus timetables, there will be no afternoon service. More so than other cities, Melbourne loves to preserve its past while building the future and its Metro Tunnel timetables will be no exception.  

UN 171: New Route 475 - another weekday Useful Network addition

The latest 2022 state budget bus initiative to be funded started last Sunday, March 24. It is the new Route 475, a bus serving growth areas between Diggers Rest and Sunday. 

You might expect this to be the standard every 40 minute affair as we're so used to seeing with local buses. However you'd be wrong. And pleasantly surprised. Because not only will the 475 run every 20 minutes in the peaks but also weekday interpeak and early evenings too.

Operating hours meet and in some cases slightly exceed MOTC minimum standards for local routes. Weekend frequency is typically every 40 min during the day and 30 min at night, with both matching train frequency.  

Run time is approximately 23 minutes. On its own this isn't an efficient fit for a bus route that at most times runs either every 20 or 40 minutes. Fortunately the route has gone to the local Sunbury bus operator which runs other routes from the station. Hopefully it's been possible to find scheduling efficiencies through interlining with one or more of these routes. 

The 475's 20 minute interpeak frequency is actually better than the (Metro) train, which is currently every 40 min at both Diggers Rest and Sunbury. However I'm going to hazard a guess and say the latter is short-lived as Sunbury should get trains every 20 minutes or better when the Metro Tunnel  opens in 2025. 

Route number familiar? You're not mistaken. The previous 475 ran in the Keilor East area. It got replaced by the new route 469 and changes to the 476 in 2020. 

Passenger information and what this reveals

Firstly the good.

PTV were prompt to update its revised local area maps for Melton and Sunbury that feature the new route. PTV's website announcement presents a map of the route, such as one (should) see at bus stop timetables. Also good as it's not always done; PTV information work is sometimes done in silos with little use of material that may be produced elsewhere in the organisation despite potential usefulness for customers. Hence notices for bus changes at Yarra Valley and Donnybrook don't have maps on their main page, whereas those for Broadmeadows and Clarinda do.  

In 475's case those who write copy for PTV website didn't read (or lacked access to) the timetable. Hence when the 475 was advised it stated that it is 'every 20 minutes during peak hours on weekdays' when actual service is much better (extract below). 

People rely on DTP/PTV as a reliable source and widely repost its material. Thus if PTV gets it wrong misinformation can propagate.

Below is an excerpt from Sunbury MP Josh Bull's Facebook page about the 475 bus. Posted on March 26, the item perpetuates PTV's underselling with explicit mention of a 40 minute interpeak frequency.    

 

The above is no criticism of Mr Bull (who also happens to be Parliamentary Secretary for Transport). With information from a source that should be reliable he did his duty in informing constituents of an important new bus service. Unfortunately DTP too often lets MPs and other stakeholders down by providing incorrect or incomplete information.    

The above story is not a one-off omission to be casually shrugged off. It happens too many times for that. Rather it indicates an ingrained systemic tendency to not understand and then to undersell services on the part of PTV/DTP.

I attribute this to the following:   

a. Blindness to opportunity and the lack of a patronage growth mindset, despite usage being central to PT's community benefits, business cases for funding and even existence 
b. Retention of a commuter mentality that ignores the role of PT for the diverse trips that form the bulk of today's travel, despite the post-pandemic WFH revolution that has flattened travel patterns. 
c. A bias against buses. Because of its CBD location most DTP staff are inner suburbs dwellers who only use trains or trams.  
d. An unwillingness or inability to learn a product's benefits and features (eg flexible travel enabled by a frequent all-day timetable) when introducing it to the public 
e. Poor sales abilities and ability to inspire allies (including stakeholders like time-poor local MPs who are happy to sell initiatives that benefit their seat if presented the facts). In 475's case the MP is Josh Bull, the Parliamentary Secretary for Transport. 

All five are limiting beliefs that are restricting DPT's view of public transport, its potential for benefit and thus ability to drive growth. 

You can be sure that others in transport, whether it be Transurban, Melbourne Airport, the Level Crossing Removal Program or the Suburban Rail Loop Authority, do not box themselves in like DTP does. 

If DTP/PTV isn't getting into peoples' ears then others will be, with different agendas. It's perhaps no accident that if the government wants something big done in transport they will go to others (who think bigger and act faster) before the meek and constrained DTP. 

Wider implications for transport policy and priorities

What are some wider implications? Let's jump from one little bus route to the way tens of billions in transport funding is committed to in this state. Leadership might be a good place to start.   

The DPT Secretary's background is local government, not transport. This experience may be adequate to lead an administrative department but is perhaps less suited to be basically the network head. A role in which other cities might have the likes of an Andy Byford or even a Jeroen Weimar performing but which we effectively abolished when PTV was folded into DoT (later DPT). 

Why do I bring this up? Public transport exists in a competitive budgetary environment in which most proponents most of the time return home empty-handed. The government works within broad budgetary parameters such as income, expenditure and ability / willingness to borrow. That might have been forgotten in 2018 but is painfully obvious in 2024. 

Some expenditures are unavoidable and fixed while new initiatives are optional, more variable and often debated. There are many more requests for funding than will ever be granted. And some big commitments may put us on a path that may be favourable or unfavourable for other transport  initiatives. 

Aided by a supportive premier, transport infrastructure can claim to have done extraordinarily well in the last decade or so. 'Big Build' projects are typically overseen by separate bodies that are most certainly not apologetic about their existence or their projects' worth. Ken Mathers, for one, definitely wasn't. SRLA's Frankie Carroll or RPV's Nicole Stoddart regularly use LinkedIn to inspire staff and associates to convey a sense of joint mission. With a static page, DTP's Paul Younis does not use this channel despite its potential for good.   

Small infrastructure and service initiatives, despite high BCRs, have been much less funded. The much meeker DTP has carriage of these. As noted above it doesn't always sell the few service initiatives it does win funding for particularly well.

This occasionally frustrate ministers who've after fighting to get funding reasonably expect a publicity and ideally political dividend in return. The minister may put themselves out on a limb by publicly releasing plans (like for bus and tram), hoping the department's secretary would effectively advocate them. But if opportunities are not seized plans may fail to win funding and sink almost without trace (such as with the bus plan and possibly also the tram plan).

Whether you wish to sell something good you're doing, share a vision across your people and wider government or even get a minor bus timetable change done quicker than a level crossing removal, then DTP as it currently stands may not be the best equipped for the job. Other projects might cost more and have less merit but still win support with better organised backing.     

DTP institutional weakness risks creating a network comprising underutilised rail infrastructure and infrequent buses of limited usefulness due to the diverse travel patterns that modern cities demand. As we approach another time of budget stringency (partly due to high borrowings and subsequent interest payments for major infrastructure) a department that is almost apologetic for itself won't necessarily be the best equipped to win or even retain funding for the services a growing Melbourne needs. 

Update: Better late than never

The above regarding PTV underselling 475's off-peak frequency applied up to and after the service started running. It lingered long enough for it to be propagated by the local MP as recently as March 26. But, to its credit, PTV belatedly revised the wording on their website item (see below). 

This revised wording acknowledges the 20 minute all day frequency. And the reference to 'most of the daytime' is correct as there are some 23-24 minute gaps in the pm peak (defensible as pm peak train arrivals at Diggers are uneven).

However the reference to 40 minute evening frequencies still sells the service short as it is more like 30 minutes, especially on weekend evenings. That's an important distinction as many people would know that evening trains at Diggers operate every 30 minutes, making a timetable that remains coordinated until last bus a large user benefit.

While the new wording is much better than the old, there's still underselling. Hence the comments above about this being a feature of DTP's culture, at least with regards to buses, remain valid.

Given successive ministers' interest in promoting buses as a transport option, this is a restrictive mindset that they need to challenge the DTP Secretary to do better on.     

Conclusion

Route 475 is a welcome addition to the network in an area that hasn't seen changes to buses for years. 475's above average weekday frequency and operating hours should be attractive and ideally would set a precedent.

Earlier provision of buses in growth areas reduce cost of living pressures and contribute to long term patronage as fewer households will have needed to buy multiple cars even for basic trips.

The government has collected significant GAIC funds from developers of new estates. Hopefully some of these will find their way to funding the additional transport services so many of these areas need.

The weekday Melbourne Frequent Network Map has been updated to reflect this addition.

Other Useful Network items are here

Slow transport to fast cars: Learning from the Grand Prix weekend

In 1997 premier Jeff Kennett decided to privatise trains and trams after strikes disrupted public transport to that year's Formula 1 Grand Prix. Say what you like about him but that was how important he thought that working transport was for a government-defining event he snatched from Adelaide. 

In 2023 a state government-commissioned Ernst and Young report claimed that the Grand Prix delivered $268m in economic benefits, or a return of $2.66 per dollar spent, to the state (others disagree but we'll accept it for today's exercise). Gross attendance exceeded 444 000 people over the event's four days.  

Just last month Taylor Swift attracted 288 000 fans over three nights at Melbourne in her biggest ever shows. Public transport contributed hugely to the tour's success with thousands using the frequent trains added to the timetable. 

Then this last weekend was the 2024 Melbourne Formula 1 Grand Prix. They recommend use of public transport to get there, warning there was no public parking at the venue.  

Information focused on the 'last mile' transport to Albert Park from surrounding suburbs, with the pamphlet even titled Yarra Trams Travel Brochure (whose single mode title warns of what to come - but more on that later). This may be suitable for tourists staying in the CBD but not for those staying or living in most suburbs who might also have wished to attend.  

The Grand Prix is the sort of event (like football, cricket and concerts) that attracts occasional users to our public transport, including those who ordinarily drive for all their other trips. Melbourne generally has a good reputation for event transport that assists its standing as an event and sporting capital. Was this upheld during the weekend? Keep reading! 

Here's the PTV website item. It's dated 21 March so there might not have been very much notice given. It's also the first item that comes up when you do a Google search. 

When you start scrolling down you see this in relation to Thursday and Friday. There's a line about train services operating to normal daily timetables. Similar appears for metropolitan buses, regional (V/Line) trains and regional coaches. So there's a pattern - nothing more but nothing less either. Except for trams which do get a lot of changes. 

Say you're interested in the Saturday and Sunday. You keep scrolling down. This time there's no assurance regarding what's running. But the casual user might assume so given (i) what they read above for Thursday and Friday and (ii) it would be unthinkable not to run a full service on a major event weekend.  

 

By this time most will have (thought) they got all the information they need and won't scroll down. But if they did they'd see this unassuming little box near the bottom. 

Clicking on this gives a list of disruptions as long as your arm. However some would have missed seeing it despite its importance.  

Some disruptions are unavoidable features of long term projects. However the major Werribee and Sunbury line shutdowns (which made even Footscray dependent on buses) don't seem to be, with the works described as being for 'maintenance and renewal'. 

Shutting two lines reduces high capacity travel options and puts more pressure on rail substitute buses compared to if only one didn't run. The West Gate Tunnel road works wouldn't have helped either. 

And even if both lines were shut then there may have been a choice to bolster V/Line service (which normally has 40 and 60 minute weekend gaps from Wyndham Vale and Melton respectively) to supplement Werribee Line replacement buses. There may also have been scope to relax archaic V/Line rules about not allowing suburban passengers to board at stations like Sunshine and Footscray, at least for inbound trips. 

The potential for a frequent weekend V/Line service was demonstrated during last year's Avalon Air Show (48 000 attendees over three days) when a special timetable with intervals as close as 10 minutes was run. Such a frequent service from Wyndham Vale and Tarneit direct to Southern Cross would be superior to the Metro rail substitute offering that involved a train to Newport, slow bus (in traffic) to North Melbourne and an indirect (via City Loop) train to Southern Cross.

I received a report of such a trip (from Williams Landing to the Grand Prix) taking 133 minutes for a distance of little more than 20 km, indicating the substantial delays encountered. Even if people needed to take a bus to Tarneit time could have been saved, provided the service was frequent enough. 

The Grand Prix wasn't the only major event taking place over the weekend; there was also the Melbourne International Flower and Garden Show, making this last weekend a particularly poor choice to be doing works. 

Ten recommendations for major events transport

1. The minister seek a briefing from DTP, operators and event organisers on what worked well and what didn't for public transport in the last weekend. This briefing should include input from 'on the ground' staff and passengers.  

2. Have a state-significant events calendar on which preventable occupations (ie bus replacements) are not to be scheduled. A well-informed unit of DTP, working in conjunction with experienced transport operator personnel, Visit Victoria, the City of Melbourne and possibly the Premier's office to be the final arbiter.  

3. Simultaneous occupations on adjacent lines to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Where occupations are necessary service levels on adjacent lines still running are to be increased, with passengers advised. Such adjacent lines could include nearby tram routes and V/Line if present.

4. Modified traffic control and dedicated lanes for replacement buses are a non-negotiable necessity for major occupations, especially for unpreventable ones on major event weekends. 

5. Pick up and set down restrictions on V/Line in the Metro area should be removed for the event duration and eventually permanently in directions and at times where there is no risk of longer distance passengers (who have fewer service choices) being unable to board.   

6. The planning of special event services should be done across all modes with visitors from a wide catchment in mind, and not just those staying in CBD hotels. The weekend's case where no new Metro or V/Line services were added is a poor example here. Ditto for passenger information material. 

7. The transport requirement of event organising staff (who need to be there earlier and finish later than attendees) needs to be a part of planning event transport services. Again it should be assumed they come from a wide area and use a variety of modes. 

8. 'Nasties' in timetables (eg 30 and 40 minute gaps in train and tram timetables and short operating hours for regular buses near the events) should be known so that extra trips can be added on major event weekends. While they may not be strictly necessary on capacity grounds they prevent bad experiences (eg lateness due to missing a Grand Prix Sunday morning train every 40 min or half hour waits at night) and have a relatively low marginal cost. 

9. Cutting maximum waits to make the regular network useful over more of the day and week. This would support major and minor events, regardless of whether services have been added or not. The ultimate aim could be Sydney-style 10-15 minute maximum waits, with the first steps being something like this: 
   
a. Cutting 40-70 min waits on the rail network to 30 minutes maximum. This is mostly Sunday mornings for Metro as well as weekends for Wyndham Vale and Melton V/Line. 

b. Ensuring 7 day service, longer hours and maximum 30 minute waits on key bus routes. 

c. Further cutting the 30 minute maximum rail network waits as achieved in (a) above to 20 minutes, starting with 7pm - 10pm evenings and 7am - 10am Sunday mornings. Followed by 10pm - midnight.  

d. Cutting 30 minute maximum waits on most tram routes to 20 minutes (mostly Sunday mornings and evenings) with similar for major bus routes (mostly evenings and weekends). 

The above would create a vastly more useful and connected network with maximum waits reduced from 40 to 30 and then 20 minutes across the week. This would apply even if rail does need to be replaced by buses as maximum waits would lower. 

10. A stronger operational voice within government that prioritises keeping services running (as opposed to replacing them with buses) with the spine to say no occasionally. It needs to be more widely understood that while often unavoidable, each occupation reduces passenger goodwill and, on major lines, undermines the case to use rail for freight by making it unreliable (with freight users complaining that they get even less consideration than passengers with regards to alternative arrangements).  
 

Conclusion 

In our rush to build things, we also need to be mindful of the need to keep our city moving, including for public transport and major events. While there are new well-funded and effective bodies to push  forward with construction, the institutional voice for reliable operations, as one might have hoped to have been championed by DTP or a railways commissioner of old, has fallen silent or become ineffective. 

Disruptions are inevitable but were best possible endeavours taken to make transport to this year's Grand Prix as good as it can be? Possibly not. For example busy adjacent rail lines were shut down, no attempt was made to add V/Line service and on other lines extra trains were not scheduled, even where regular frequencies were as low as 40 minutes. A consistent failure to upgrade  cheap-to-boost regular frequencies, especially nights and Sunday mornings, entrenches long waits, increases crowding risks and reduces service legibility, especially for new and occasional users.  

We can and should do better if Melbourne is serious about maintaining its 'events capital' title.

If you travelled over the weekend feel free to share your experience below.