TT 197: Manningham's four big weekend bus upgrades and the slow dismantling of "austerity scheduling"

A modestly-titled item on the PTV website, titled Doncaster Park and Ride timetable changes, is proposing substantial (by Melbourne standards) bus timetable reform in the City of Manningham.

Not only that but it starts to dismantle an undeclared but pervasive timetabling doctrine that makes public transport less useful than it should be. Our practice of "austerity scheduling" holds that not even Melbourne's busiest trains, trams and buses deserve a frequent service for more than nine hours per day (typically 10am to 7pm) on weekends. This approach, based on official deprecation of non-peak travel ("nobody uses it") and the votes of people who do ("they don't count"), is so hard-coded in timetables that it deserves a name (the "nine hour rule").  

More on that later but let's first look at what's changing. 

280/282 ('Manningham loop')

Here's the bad news. These changes need to be paid for by a cut. The very long but poorly used Route 280/282 loop (known, when it started, as the Manningham Mover) will have its weekday frequency reduced from 30 to 60 minutes as per the advice below: 

What do I mean by poorly used? 2022 data I obtained from DTP shows that both 280 and 282 attracted around 6 boardings per service hour on weekdays. At around one-third the average for Melbourne buses this puts these routes in the quietest 10% of metropolitan bus routes. Part of this low usage is because parts of the 280 and 282 overlap other routes. This change reduces timetables but does not go as far as to reform the route to remove inefficient overlaps.  

The new timetables, which start on 12 January, are already on the PTV website. When you look up those for the 280 and 282 you will see that it's a Monday to Friday only timetable. Which is a problem given that 280 / 282 currently run seven days. One hopes this is a data oversight otherwise the 280 / 282 cut may be more severe than advised.

905 Pines to CBD

The biggest winner is the 905 SmartBus between The Pines and the CBD. This will have its weekend frequency doubled from 30 to 15 minutes over most of both days. This includes a span of over 13 hours on Saturdays and about 12 hours on Sundays.  

The upgrade makes the 905 bus nearly as useful on weekends as it is during the week. This is because so many more return trips won't involve one or both legs that require detailed planning (or a lot of luck with connections) to avoid long waits.  

907 Mitcham to CBD

The even more popular Route 907 also gains with a weekend timetable that's even better than the improved 905's. 

Since the timetable changes of late 2021, Route 907 has operated every 15 minutes on weekends. That got funded by cutting service on quieter routes (for which there didn't seem to be many complaints).

The catch is that the 2021 upgrade delivered frequent weekend service only over a 9 or 10 hour span, with a 30 minute service before and after. Unless you were making a short trip in the middle of the day there was a fair chance that either your away or return trip was going to be made when the timetable was a less attractive half-hourly service. In Melbourne that's not just a bus thing; the same approach is used when scheduling weekend trains and trams, particularly on Sundays. 

The new weekend timetables for both routes 905 and 907 largely fix that, unless  you are returning late. In both cases these add shoulder service so that the 15 minute frequency operates over about 13 to 14 hours, substantially equalising maximum waits with weekdays. As well it can be claimed that both these routes have better service levels than some train lines (eg Upfield and Glen Waverley) at pretty much all times. That's rare for buses in Melbourne.   

The all-pervasive nine hour rule 

You need to have reviewed all weekend train, tram and bus timetables to appreciate how rare having high weekend frequency over a 14 (or even 12) hour span is in Melbourne. That is even if you draw the line at every 20 rather than at every 15 minutes (which not even US transit planners working in their service-starved cities consider frequent). 

Across all modes weekend timetables on the best served routes build up to reach their maximum frequency around 10 am. This typically continues until 7pm with a sharp fall-off after. That's a span of nine hours, hence me calling it the "nine hour rule". It is rarely challenged since inertia is a more powerful force in service planning than patronage trends or community needs in Melbourne. 

Depending on when you want to start your history you could say it dates back to postwar evening and weekend tram frequency cuts, the 1978 evening rail frequency reduction or when decisions were made on the time-span of off-peak and Sunday frequency boosts in the 1990s. 

The original 1996 Kennett government promise was for Sunday train and tram timetables to be the same as Saturdays, all day. This was partly delivered in 1999. Then Saturday frequencies were applied to the Sunday timetables on all metropolitan train and tram lines for the busiest nine hours of the day (10am - 7pm). 

Outside those times service remained at the then existing 30 to 40 minute frequencies. One cannot be too harsh on this as that doctrine was an improvement in its time; on trains and trams it replaced another to the effect that "no one uses public transport on a Sunday and thus minimal service shall be provided". For buses then it was often still a case of no service. That became 'minimum service standards' from 2006 when the MOTC plan funded many (but not all) bus routes to operate at least hourly until 9 pm, 7 days a week.  

The nine hour rule persisted when weekend train services to Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston were improved from every 20 to every 10 minutes in 2012. The previous 20 minute frequency applied over a 9 hour span, as did the 10 minute frequency that replaced it. The lower frequencies outside that 9 hour window remained unchanged. Thus if you look at a Dandenong line weekend timetable (the network's busiest) there is a sudden cliff from 10 to 30 minute frequency around 7pm. Ditto for Ringwood. Only the politically marginal Frankston line (the quietest of the three) got maximum wait improvements, about nine years later. 

This pattern has persisted in the 2020s with the evening and Sunday morning upgrades (to 20 min) on the Werribee, Williamstown and Frankston lines in 2021 being partial exceptions. They reduced maximum waits over a wide span but the Frankston line's 10 minute frequency still obeyed the nine hour rule. Every crowded after 7pm tram, train or rail replacement bus is testament to the influential falsehood that "no one uses public transport at night and thus minimal service shall be provided".  

The 10am to 7pm thing even carried across to buses in the occasional cases they got upgraded frequency, such as with the Route 234 and 907 improvements in 2021. Weekend service outside those times generally remained every 30 minutes. The result was that while people making short midday trips enjoyed the frequent service there and back, trips with longer time away (including work commutes and many day trips) often had 30 minute gaps apply for one and sometimes both legs. 

The nine hour rule is unique to Melbourne. It lags Sydney, whose population we have just exceeded. Sydney trains operates a twice as generous nineteen hour rule at most stations, with their 15 minute frequency applying from before 5 am to midnight, even on Sundays. Almost no matter what trip you make you will have a frequent service. Their 'All Day Frequent Network' buses vary more (10 min day, 20 min night) but the latter is still better than the 30, 40 and even 60 minute gaps that Melbourne's key routes have at certain times.

Auckland and Perth, both smaller than Melbourne but with conspicuously active and competent service planning cultures, have cultivated their frequent networks such that they operate at least 12 and sometimes 14 hours on all days of the week. Even US cities like Atlanta and Los Angeles, not know for their transit-mindedness, have better evening rail frequencies than Melbourne. All this adds up to Melbourne being an outlier with regards to its restrictive nine hour rule though change may now be in the air. 

The first welcome sign that, after a quarter century, Melbourne is taking steps to progressively ending its prohibition of frequent weekend service outside the narrow 10am to 7pm band came from an unexpected place. To be exact the revised December 1 Geelong V/Line timetable that I discussed here. This is based on its weekend 20 minute frequency operating between 7am and 9pm, ie about 14 hours. This is better than both the Geelong line weekday pattern and even most Metro train lines. 

As noted before, route 907 already operates every 15 minutes on weekends, though again only over a 9 or 10 hour span, with a 30 minute service before and after. The new weekend timetable adds shoulders so that the 15 minute frequency operates over as long as 14 hours, substantially equalising frequencies with weekdays.  

Thus it, and the 905 timetable, have given sustenance to what could be a new rule; one that allows frequent service to operate for around 14 hours on Saturdays and 12 hours on Sundays.

All eyes will be on future timetable releases (including those related to the Metro Tunnel) to see if the concept of the 14 hour (or better) rule takes hold beyond these few examples. But for now they have set a welcome precedent that frequent service should operate from 7am to 9pm on all main routes across all modes all week. All that remains is for timetables for other routes to follow suit, a process that will take decades at the current rate of timetable reform. 

284 Box Hill - Doncaster Park & Ride

This Monday to Saturday routes gains a new Sunday service.

Route 284 is one of a growing number of bus routes that is more productive on Saturdays than it is on weekdays. This bodes well for strong usage on Sunday as routes with high Saturday usage are typically also popular on Sundays. Box Hill is a particularly strong destination on Sundays. 

Like with the recently upgraded Route 612 (which also serves Box Hill) the new Sunday timetable is just a copy+paste of the Saturday timetable. This means an hourly 7am to 6pm service. Thus it's 7 days but doesn't meet the 9pm minimum service standards finish usual for local bus routes.

Route 284 isn't the busiest Melbourne bus route that lacks 7 day service, though it is in the top 50 per cent. It has the benefit of being operated by Kinetic who run all the routes whose timetables are being reformed here.

More than most other bus operators in Melbourne Kinetic's network had some 'fat' of well serviced but poorly used routes from which service kilometres could be pulled to boost service on more popular routes. This is partly a result of its government bus heritage (timetables on its routes were cut less during the big timetable purges of the early 1990s than on private operator routes) and subsequent service uplifts as a result of a political wish to 'do something' if governments weren't willing to fund rail to Doncaster.

Reallocating bus service kilometres within the one bus company (and especially the one depot) is far easier than transferring resources from one bus operator to another that true needs-based bus planning would entail. Hence though the 284 upgrade is still good, the confining of resources within artificial bus company boundaries presents an opportunity cost. Here it is that routes in less well-off areas, like Glenroy's 536 or Dandenong North's 802 and 804 continue to lack 7 day service despite having a stronger equity and patronage case to upgrade sooner than the 284. 

285 Doncaster Park & Ride - Camberwell

Many similar comments to 284, though usage isn't quite as strong, particularly on Saturdays. Thus of the two routes the 284 is likely to be the busier one on Sundays. 

The timetables show that weekend service patterns are similar to the 284, ie hourly until 6pm with the same times applying both days.  

Other timetable and infrastructure changes

Route 207 gets a small cut. Currently Night Network trips extend to Box Hill. This is different to the Doncaster terminus used on all other trips. This change standardises the pattern so that all trips finish at Doncaster. 

The consequential infrastructure change is the closure of Doncaster Park & Ride for three years and associated rerouting of buses. Those who use Park and Ride to change between routes may be walking further to make their connection. This is important as some routes, like 284 and 285 terminate at Park & Ride which is otherwise not a strong terminus. 

Unfortunately the PTV website is vague on the new stopping locations - they should really have published a map to explain. More on how PTV could have done better in this Philip Mallis item here. 

Opportunities for more?

These are just timetable changes. The area has significant route alignment issues that these changes don't address. This affects some route that have quite high patronage potential. Examples include the following: 

* Route 279. Opportunity could have been taken to remove the Blackburn deviation in this round of changes. This would provide a consistent 15 minute weekday frequency along its trunk. Ultimately you would also want to remove the hourly Templestowe variation but this may need to be done in conjunction with reform to other routes. 

* Route 281 and 293. Scope exists to consolidate into a single route for improved legibility. This has other dependencies, eg local routes around Greensborough/Eltham and (especially) the alignment of the SmartBus 901 and 902 (both of which are suboptimal since neither, unlike the 293, offers a direct Shoppingtown - Greensborough connection). 

* Routes 280 and 282. While their timetables got cut the routes did not. This is despite significant overlaps with other routes. Only tourists go around in circles, not people getting from A to B, so there is little value in the route remaining circular. Future reform will surely have to split this into shorter routes that are easier to understand and don't duplicate others. These routes are unlikely to have high patronage potential but reform to them could facilitate the emergence and further upgrade of routes that do. 

Summary

This is a good set of changes that are not without pain but will advantage far more trips than they disadvantage.

They also offer an insight into current DTP bus planning thinking. Because there is no publicly available service planning manual nor bus reform implementation plan this information can only come from watching what they do (or don't do). 

Themes that arise include: 

* More 7 day frequent routes: The upgrade of 905 increases the number of Melbourne bus routes operating every 15 minutes or better during the day from four (234, 246, 732 (short section only) and 907) to five (In contrast Auckland, a smaller city, has 40, working at ten times our rate to roll them out). 

* A new 14 hour rule: Frequent weekend service on main routes should run over a 12 to 14 hour span, and not just 9 hours, such as has restricted service across all modes for years. 

* Saturday and Sunday timetables should be the same, at least for local routes: This has applied for new or upgraded routes 612, 452 and now also 284 and 285. The most notable effect of this is that Sunday service starts around 7am instead of the more typical 9am as is the pattern of minimum standards upgrades. 

* The 2006 minimum service standards are not sacrosanct, especially with regards evening finish times: You can see evidence of this in that the upgraded 612, 284 and 285 got Sunday daytime service but not evening service extensions. Thus they remain with finishes around 6 or 7pm. Even the upgraded Route 800 has a final departure before 9pm on Sunday from Dandenong.       

* There is greater boldness at reducing service levels on poorly used routes like 280 / 282: A less bold approach could have been to reduce service from 30 to 45 minutes. However a bolder cut to 60 minutes was made, allowing bigger upgrades on busier routes. This point would be stronger if it is true that 280 / 282 lose weekend service as the new timetables as currently available seem to indicate. 

* Service trade-offs are kept within the same operator and preferably within regions: This is apparent in that the resources freed from the 280 / 282 cuts were reinvested into Kinetic routes like 284 and 285. Though upgrades to these are welcome, routes in other areas have higher justification for 7 day service on both patronage and social needs grounds. But because they are not run by Kinetic they miss out. 

* Even small route reforms remain hard: All but one of these changes (the 207 Night Network variation) are timetable only or are necessary to reflect the closure of the Park and Ride. Even if still gradual a faster rate of network simplification would be desirable especially if they can be made cost-free. For example removing 279's Blackburn deviation. 

* One arm of DTP/PTV doesn't know what the other is doing: Text, maps and timetable data appear done by different departments. Hence website text may not include maps or videos even if essential to help passengers navigate a change to routes around a key interchange point. And even if timetable data is online there may not be reference to it in the text. Neither is there necessarily cross-checking to avoid salient points being missed (eg 280 / 282 timetables being out of kilter with the text).   

Other Timetable Tuesday items are here

35 years of public transport policy - a potted history

If you wanted to do a history of public transport policy you'd go through numerous budgets, annual reports, media articles and more. That would give you a chronology that you could distil to draw out the main themes. 

Or you could do a 'seat of your pants' tour based on one's memory of what seemed most pressing at the time. That's what today's screed is all about. It's based on the idea that transport departments can only juggle a few balls at once. At any one time only a few are in the air with the rest on the ground. And if they choose to pick up a new ball they must drop another. 

Here's a graph of the latter since 1990. I've taken six pretty influential themes over the last 35 years and attempted to plot their relative importance. That qualifier is important; there have been times where the agenda has been thin but something quite small looks relatively big because not much else has happened. Conversely something might appear to be in relative decline but may still be increasing absolutely if other areas are rising faster.  

Recession

Victoria started the 1990s in a financial mess. That led to cost-cutting and a political malaise that led to lasting damage to the public transport network. Some country centres lost their rail service while a heap of metropolitan bus services lost peak, after 7pm and Sunday service. On the latter Route 800 only had its 7 day service restored a few weeks ago while 536 in Glenroy is still waiting. 

So it's not surprising that the start of the graph is dominated by cost-cutting. Along with ticketing, which would go on to have several bouts of prominence (firstly the failed scratch tickets, then Metcard, Myki and now post-Myki).  Any correlation between ticketing systems with the 11 year solar cycle is accidental but it makes a nice graph, so here it is below. 

 

Franchising and branding (but stagnation elsewhere)

Financial and ticketing crises crowded out pretty much everything else at the start of the 1990s. But they were soon joined by contract / franchising issues after the election of the Kennett government. Firstly for Met buses and then for rail and tram.

It was thought that private operation could cut union militancy and save costs. The latter didn't happen since most costs had already been cut during state operation (reported by the Auditor General in his 'From a system to a service' report). Franchising was also accompanied by multiple rebranding frenzies that cost untold millions for no benefit. We thought Metlink would be enduring but we then got PTV (whose scope was wider, including many buses), an aborted short-lived 'Transport for Victoria' and then the current emphasis of debranding. 

Like rebranding and ticketing, there were bouts of franchising and refranchising. Most notable years were 2009 (when both incumbent train and tram operators got replaced, including the 'on the nose' Connex) and 2013 when the government chose (what turned out to be) a cheap and nasty offer from Transdev to run our busiest bus routes under the Metropolitan Bus Franchise. That led to skimping on service delivery, bus presentation and safety, culminating in a fleet maintenance crisis in 2017. Transdev lost the bus contract to Kinetic a few years later but has returned recently to run Melbourne's trams. 

It's worth reflecting on which emphases and efforts were unambiguously beneficial for passengers. These come down to just two of the six - service and infrastructure. In about the first half of the 35 years they were very much a minority of the emphasis. However they were to become more prominent in the last half. 

Service

Service has been in fits and starts. Often gains in a period were confined to one or two modes. Notable examples include the substantial weekday interpeak frequency gains for metropolitan rail in the south-east under Kennett in 1996. As a sweetener for franchising both rail and trams got a big Sunday service upgrade in 1999. 

2002 had a little bit for metropolitan buses (SmartBus pilots and some limited growth area and Sunday upgrades). The later Bracks and early Brumby period was largely about regional rail with big timetable gains under Regional Fast Rail.

While under-appreciated buses were also strongly funded from 2006 with the transformative MOTC plan making 7 day bus services the rule rather than an exception in metropolitan Melbourne. In a few short years the pace of service uplift was about 10 times that which happened in the years subsequent. The Brumby government also presided over a large and successful SmartBus roll-out (mostly in the eastern suburbs) and a less-implemented series of local bus network reviews. However metropolitan rail service and reliability were neglected; something that would have major political implications for it a few years later. 

From about 2010 there was a partial pivot in service priorities from metropolitan bus to metropolitan rail. Timetable upgrades happened under both parties when in government with significant frequency upgrades, especially in the south-east. The investment in metropolitan rail eventually resulted in improved reliability under the new franchisee MTM but this came two or three years too late to save Labor in 2010. Neither did it seem to help the Coalition in 2014 who lost that year's election to Labor after a single term. 

Having said that, while the Coalition didn't increase overall bus service kilometres very much, it did preside over a lot of sensible bus network reform in 2014 along with the planning for what was to be rolled out in 2015. Add rail service upgrades and 2014 shows up as an epic year that saw a level of metropolitan service reform that no successive government has since matched. 

The infrastructure boom (when nothing else counted)

At most times two or three emphases vied for attention. However after mid-2015 (when there were big Regional Rail Link-associated V/Line train and feeder bus upgrades) all emphasis turned to infrastructure builds such as level crossing removals and the Metro Tunnel. This accelerated activity became a frenzy just before the 2018 election when even more projects like the Western Rail Plan, Geelong fast rail, airport rail, Rowville tram and Suburban Rail Loop were announced. 

If it wasn't infrastructure it didn't matter in those low interest rates/cheap money times. Metropolitan service was especially de-emphasised with the per-capita decline that started in 2011 continuing.  For example a proposed simplified Metro train timetable in 2015 didn't happen (though we got parts later introduced in 2021). Bus reform was also basically ditched in 2015 with Transdev's (arguably ill-advised) greenfields timetable vetoed by the minister and no substantial alternative implemented.

Regional rail service had better fortunes with higher frequency more faithfully following infrastructure upgrades, notably the abovementioned Regional Rail Link in 2015 and the Ballarat Line Upgrade a few years later (which saw Melton get a 20 minute off-peak weekday service, though weekends remain at stifling hourly frequencies).  

Recent times

Though it was only apparent to most after state Labor was returned in 2022, the infrastructure mania peaked in 2018. This more recent period has seen projects like Geelong fast rail, Rowville tram and airport rail cancelled or deferred as rising interest rates were biting state finances. There was increased activity in bus recontracting, bus electrification, tram construction and tram refranchising while post-Myki ticketing troubles were making a comeback in the news.

A bus plan emerged and then flopped with neither significant budget support in 2023 and 2024 nor the promised implementation plan materialising. Similarly the major northern, north-eastern and Mildura bus reviews were good for a pre-2022 election announcement but these look dead too. About the best you could argue is that the bus plan lives in a post hoc sense. That is what would likely have been done anyway is described as being part of the bus plan. That includes the substantial increase in growth area school bus services (which at one return trip per day is a good way to pad out a list such as a secretary might need to present to PAEC to substantiate their bus reform 'activity'). 

There may be a revival of interest in service when the Metro Tunnel opens next year, though the government is being tight-lipped about even broad specifications of the timetables that will run on these and other lines. If we had a better indication of that then I'd have credited service more on the graph. 

Overall it looks as if we're reverting to a more mixed pattern of what's considered the most prominent policies in transport as infrastructure projects move from construction to operation. Though maybe there'll be some announcements or promises nearer the 2026 state election, especially in outer growth areas. We've already seen some encouraging signs on this with growth area buses funded through GAIC. 

Apart from some potential further growth area works, the government might consider it's done the hard yards on transport infrastructure and it's time for a different emphasis. Within transport it's time to realise infrastructure's benefits, which to date have been far less exploited than what they could be. 

Let's hope that the focus is on productive and beneficial initiatives rather than, as was the case before about 2006, excessive emphasis on peripheral issues like contracting, rebranding and ticketing, which as we have seen can distract from the main games of infrastructure and service. 

[NEWS] Jeroen Weimar new DTP Secretary (and my suggested top 5 PT priorities)

Jeroen Weimar will be the new Secretary of the Department of Transport and Planning according to a report in the Herald Sun and now confirmed by the premier.

He replaces Paul Younis who had held the secretary role for 6 years. Mr Younis has lately enjoyed extended responsibilities with his transport department recently incorporating planning. However it wasn't to last long. News of his departure emerged in September, again via a media report, with a replacement to be nominated later.

Mr Weimar's appointment is likely to be widely welcomed by people in public transport as, unlike some previous department heads and executives, he brings significant operational experience to the role. This experience was gained across multiple public transport modes in both London and Melbourne. You could say that he was a 'transport lifer' with exposure to many aspects of the portfolio. 

Also, unlike the more reserved Mr Younis, Mr Weimar is comfortable in explaining things to people and fronting the media (even under pressure). He has been one of the state's highest profile and controversial public servants, with leadership roles in the pandemic response, preparation for the abandoned Commonwealth Games and latterly housing; basically anything the government regarded as top priority at the time.  

Weimar's rapid chopping and changing may elicit some criticism but his background will be a genuine asset in his new transport and planning role. No one can seriously say he's unqualified for the job. And he's done it before (or at least the transport bit). A formal announcement from the government is expected soon according to the Herald-Sun report. 

Five priorities for the new Secretary

In September I set down five priorities for the incoming DTP secretary with regards to public transport as we transition from construction to the operating phase for many of our major projects. These now become Mr Weimar's responsibility. In brief they are:

1. Sweat the assets / maximise community benefit / frequency first

2. Fix bus services / reform the backlog

3. Rebuild passenger confidence / excel with service / expect better from operators

4. Set a patronage target / promote the network 

5. Defend revenue / Get passengers paying again

I said the new secretary needed to be a 'tough cookie who took the bus'. Read more about the challenges they face here. Plus others I described as ticking timebombs and bus reforms for a broke government. 

Best wishes to both Mr Younis for whatever he does next and to Mr Weimar in his new journey leading Transport and Planning. The appointment commences on 27 January 2025. It could be exciting times. 

UN 192: What really happened to the Bus Reform Implementation Plan? (and more stories from PAEC)

In theory the Victorian Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) is a way for the legislative branch of government (ie Parliament) to hold the executive branch (ie ministers and public service bosses) to account. A creature of the separation of powers doctrine generally common in parliamentary systems it does this by holding hearings, scrutinising budget papers, doing investigations and reviewing auditor general reports. 

In practice hearings may be dominated by (i) non-government members asking sometimes trivial 'gotcha' questions to make the government look bad and (ii) government members asking sympathetic 'Dorothy Dixers' to make the government look good.  Hearings are normally held around May (state budget time - budget estimates) and around November (for financial and performance outcomes). They are live streamed for those who want to watch. 

Despite sometimes inefficient use of committee time, PAEC hearings provide a means for ministers and top bureaucrats (eg DTP secretary Paul Younis) to answer questions on their responsibilities.  The committee comprises government and non-government MPs from both houses. 

Those appearing at PAEC hearings may get their staff to prepare some form of presentation or briefing with answers to likely questions. These can often be anticipated from media reports, known community concerns and previous questions asked in parliament. 

If those appearing don't know the answer to a question they can take it on notice, with a written response provided later. For example, here is DTP's written response to questions asked on the 20 November 2024 hearing. There's some interesting stuff there that I'll go through below. 

Bus Reform Implementation Plan

The Bus Reform Implementation Plan was meant to be the first action of Victoria's Bus Plan, released 1271 days ago today. Because the main bus plan was so lightweight (eg no specifics, no maps and no funding), the implementation plan would have provided critical substance.  

Aiv Puglielli MLC asked a pretty simple question on the status of the promised Bus Reform Implementation Plan. Other MPs (eg Trung Luu) previously asked similar but haven't had a good response. So it was a good question to bring up in PAEC. Here's the transcript (from p26 of DTP written response). 

 

You can see the responses from both Younis and Tieppo were unhelpful. They handball and delay on something they should have been able to answer on the spot. For this deliberately(?) obtuse dissembling duo (who rake in the big bucks courtesy of you and I the taxpayer) saying it's not done yet was apparently not an option. They didn't even say it was being worked on or that X, Y & Z had to happen first. 

The written response from DTP (received 28 November 2024) continues to dodge the question. It does not mention Bus Reform Implementation Plan (the document specifically asked about) once. Their preferred approach is to simply say what they've done (much of which is good, even if some numbers are optimistic and others poor measures, which I'll get to later). Read it below:  

The Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) is continuing to deliver bus network reform in line with Victoria’s Bus Plan.

Since the release of the Bus Plan, DTP has delivered new bus routes, simplified existing routes, and upgraded timetables across approximately 218 public transport and school transport services across Melbourne and regional Victoria, making the network simpler, faster and more reliable. We have introduced, modified and extended school bus services across the state, with a focus on growth areas. This has seen Victorians benefit from about 4,600 additional services running on the network each week.

The first Zero Emission Bus Franchises have been awarded, covering 131 public transport routes and more than 230 school bus services across Melbourne. Over time, these franchises will transition our bus fleet with more modern, zero emission buses, towards a cleaner, smarter fleet, and deliver better value for money from our bus network.

DTP is continuing to improve the passenger experience with trials of Rapid Running on Route 246, removing the need for a timetable and moving towards a headway based turn up and go service. All door boarding is reducing dwell times at stops to improve performance and ensure passengers get to their destination on time. Route network changes to remove duplication and simplify routes is making the bus network easier to understand, making the network more accessible to more people.

With over 4000 buses in the State’s bus fleet, progressive reform will take time, and ongoing reform will be required to respond to changes in technology, travel patterns and to integrate new communities, infrastructure and activity centres into the state’s bus network.

To summarise, mention 'Bus Reform Implementation Plan' and DTP leaders shift the discussion. 

Possibly partly because, GAIC growth area bus funding aside, DTP has difficulty convincing the government to fund service expansion (with the 2023 and 2024 budgets particularly disappointing). Secondly, with rare exceptions, there appears a reluctance to find savings to achieve a higher network aim, as required when doing bus reform in a budget constrained environment. Thirdly DTP lacks the growth mindset and marketing nous to sell the upgrades it does do. For example the wildly successful 7 day Route 800 bus was entirely marketed by operator and community efforts - not DTP's. Fourthly the department plays a weak defence game on revenue, with it even denying the extent of bus fare evasion. 

Without these four pretty basic competencies extending right up to the executive, deputy secretary and secretary levels of the Department you can't have a workable and funded Bus Reform Implementation Plan. It seems pretty clear that buses (and the missing Bus Reform Implementation Plan) aren't keeping the leadership group awake late at night, even though they should. 

Progress on bus priority

A bus carrying 40 or more people can easily be delayed by lines of cars carrying barely one each. Bus priority, including lanes and traffic signals can assist bus movement and improve reliability. Below, from Page 18 is an exchange between Aiv Puglielli MP, Paul Younis and Fiona Adamson (latter two from DTP):

Again a written response was furnished, as follows:  

 Priority bus lanes have been planned or implemented as part of a number of Big Build projects and major network change initiatives. These include Fitzsimons Lane, Mickleham Road, and Hoddle Street.

In the relevant period, the DTP Signal Network Optimisation Program, which reviews and optimises the metropolitan traffic signal network, has achieved the following related to buses:

• Bus improvements have been made to 731 traffic signals

• 148 traffic signal corridors (a route with multiple traffic signals) have been reviewed and 110 of those included bus improvements

Bus improvements typically consist of operational changes to the traffic signal system that reduce delays to buses.

It would have been good if the time savings were quantified. Eg did bus trips become faster, was variability in travel times reduced and how many bus timetables got rewritten with shorter run times (and ideally higher frequency) enabled by signal retimings?  

How much bus reform?

If forced to choose, I prefer lots of good stuff happening without much of a plan to the reverse of a great plan with little action. We know that the Bus Plan without the Implementation Plan is pretty skimpy but what about the evidence of action on bus improvement and reform?  

The answer you get depends on the measurement method used. I've discussed this several times. Here's a summary: (skip this bit if you just want more PAEC analysis) 

1. Counting annual service kilometres (and assessing trends, especially per-capita)

In March 2024 I discussed trends in public transport kilometres operated per year for each mode. I think this is a very good measure of service provision. Not accidentally it's also the one reported in budget papers so you can do long-term comparisons. It's a robust measure; if you do reforms like splitting routes the service kilometres does not change which is good. Dividing by the metropolitan or state population gets you per capita numbers. This gives insights like the per capita decline in metropolitan train and tram service and buses being about stagnant. Per-capita service trends can be compared between cities, as discussed here.  

Kilometres per year is what the performance indicator wonks call an 'output measure'. It doesn't measure network effectiveness, though you could bring in patronage numbers to get a productivity measure like passenger boardings per kilometre and check trends on that. A great deal of bus network reform, especially when resources are tight, is considering how best to deploy existing service kilometres most efficiently. Reforms may involve things like flattening peaks, straightening routes but then adding more trips, reducing route overlaps where usage is low, making spacing more even on overlapping routes you do wish to retain and more. 

2. Counting number of trips added

This method is fine if you are just comparing service on basically unchanged bus routes. For example you can say that Route 800 had X number of trips added in its recent weekend upgrade. It is also OK to express this as a percentage increase per day or week. Communicating number of trips added is easy and you get some big numbers if you annualise it.

As explained above, the minister has used this method, for instance "adding 20 000 new bus services in 9 years". Unfortunately without knowing the number of trips that already operate we don't know if that's big or small. 

Also, the method becomes misleading if you are reforming routes. You can even change trip counts even if timetables don't. For example if you split one long route into two shorter routes you have immediately doubled the number of trips operated without adding a single service. Conversely if you amalgamate routes you reduce the number of trips operated, but you aren't actually cutting service. Network reform can have similar effects. 

The wildly varying length of bus routes also causes problems, making comparisons meaningless. You can add very short shuttle routes with many trips. That disproportionately increases trip numbers even though it doesn't actually need many buses to run. Conversely adding long routes doesn't increase trip numbers very much, despite them being resource hungry to run. For these reasons I don't recommend this measure unless you are dealing with a simple upgrade to an unchanged route.  

3. Per route health check 

This is based on an itemised spreadsheet that classified each bus route according to whether it had major route issues (eg weak termini, indirectness, backtracking etc), major timetable issues (eg no Sunday service, frequencies worse than 'minimum standards', poor harmonisation with trains etc) or both. Checks could be done at various times to gauge progress. This was the first bus network health check, done when Victoria's Bus Plan turned 1000 days old in March 2024. It found that 33% of bus routes were healthy, without serious problems. 

I followed up with another health check in October 2024. This time 34% of bus routes were rated healthy. By this measure, which I think is pretty good, the current rate of bus network reform is slow. 

4. Bus service change events - activity comparison between cities 

Here I looked at a period of bus service change events for metropolitan bus routes in Melbourne and compared the numbers with Perth. The comparisons, by route, showed that Perth was doing about three times more bus service reform than Melbourne, or on a per capita basis, about 9 times more.

Changes were not weighted by their significance. That wasn't a problem in the Melbourne versus Perth comparison as I was satisfied that the mix wasn't wildly different, or if it was it was in Perth's favour. But otherwise not weighing is a limitation since different changes are differently important to the network. For example a minor rerouting or addition of a couple of trips on a quiet local route is less significant than a big frequency upgrade, a large extension or adding a new route, which typically requires new bus purchases unless there is substantial network reform. 

There is also no equality even if routes added are of a similar length. New school routes are very important as they save families time and may be the only form of transit in a growth area neighbourhood without its own high and sometimes even primary school.

But a new school route is typically one return trip per school day. Whereas even a basic public route may have 20 return trips per day and about 30 times the annual service kilometres per week counting weekends. The lesson is that if the government claims they've added, reviewed or reformed X new bus routes always ask how many are school routes as you may find it's a majority with much less effect on overall service kilometres than the impression conveyed. And you might uncover poor asset utilisation with many buses sitting idle most of the week when they could be carrying people on a public route.  

5. Chronology of achievements

I did this for Victoria's Bus Plan back in June. This gives a more qualitative impression of what's been achieved. Though unlike the annual service kilometres or health check methods you don't see its significance relative to the whole network. It is desirable to separate out major and minor initiatives. 

6. A network/service approach 

This broad method ignores individual routes and considers metrics like say (a) the proportion of the urbanised population within 400 metres of a service offering a minimum service standard 7 days/week or better and/or (b) the proportion of people within (say) 800 metres of frequent public transport.

DTP isn't very good at making what analysis it does here public. Plus the PPTN (which should guide any Bus Reform Implementation Plan) is in a poor state. But maps done by people like the Climate Council, SNAMUTS and Philip Mallis have filled this gap. Add the change in this map to the health check and per capita service kilometres and you start to get a good picture of the rate of network improvement and if it's keeping up with population growth.  

 
Getting back to PAEC, Page 22 has a request for the number of bus routes that have been simplified. The secretary said the number of routes was 'in the hundreds that we have viewed (sic)' and 'that there are still quite a few to do'. 

'In the hundreds' turned out to be 218 routes. The list is on pages 23 and 24 here. 

Not all those 218 are equal. Most are beyond scope if we're just interested in metropolitan public routes. Others, like the 27 changes to accommodate the rebuilt level-crossing free Croydon stations, represent activity but shouldn't count as real reforms. Unfortunately DTP's list counts them, giving the impression they are doing more bus network reform than they are. 

A slightly lower number ('nearly 200 routes either improved or added') was given by Mr Tieppo in response to a question from Michael Galea MP (see here for the transcript). Again it looks impressive but again counting number of bus routes isn't as good as totting up annual service kilometres added. And the bar for what counts as an 'improvement' can be quite low.  

A fairer indication of the extent of regular bus network reform in Melbourne requires a deeper dive. So I put DTP's data into a spreadsheet. Then I made pages that excluded school services, regional services and small changes like accommodating new station bus interchanges. The result of this is charted below: 

. 

DTP's numbers aren't 100% right as there are over and undercounts. Plus ambiguities like when you simplify 4 routes down to 2 remaining (as happened in Healesville) that gets counted as 4 routes reformed. Maybe that's OK. But I do know if you add 2 new routes and reform 2 others that would be counted as 4. The health check method, which looks at percentages, is possibly fairer here. 

I did note what could be omissions like the 279/293/907 upgrades & 603/604 downgrades of 2021, quantifying the Night Network reform of late 2021 and simplification splits like 380 and 834/835. Personally I'd have included them as they are some of the best (and certainly most cost-effective) bus network reforms DTP has done. However I've just gone with DTP numbers in the above pie chart, though the classifications between major and minor changes (which can be routes and/or timetables) are my own.  

Wearing our metropolitan route bus hat, this analysis cuts the number of reforms from DTP's claimed 218 to 57. Or 43 if we only count the more substantial timetable or route reforms. The more significant of this 43 include a large Craigieburn upgrade package (which saw most routes boosted to every 20 min weekday interpeak), some new routes including the 202 university shuttle and 475 and 501 in northern suburbs, 235, 237 and 605 Fishermans Bend enhancements, and more recently the 603, 604 and 605 reforms. Purists may say that basically just adding trips, like the 800 weekend upgrade, isn't real network reform but I've counted it since service uplifts like it (and even smaller ones) can still transform the network's usefulness.  

To test significance we need to know that Melbourne has about 350 regular bus routes. And that 43 that got done was over three and a bit years. So we're talking about reforms to about 14 public routes per year. When considered in the context of the abovementioned health check that still found issues with 66% or about 230 Melbourne bus routes, the pace of reform of the regular bus network is slow. Especially relative to the school bus network which has seen much more activity.  

This is a different impression to what DTP would want us (and PAEC) to believe. You could reasonably argue the toss regarding school and regional routes but the Secretary's counting of routes that are only changed to enter a new interchange as being 'upgraded and reviewed' is pure spin. Tieppo's 'nearly 200' is nearer the mark. However most work has been in the school route sector, with hardly a dent made into fixing the multi-decade reform backlog that continues to plague much of the regular metropolitan bus network or adding 7 day service kilometres in high-needs working-class areas like parts of Dandenong North, Thomastown and Campbellfield. 

Conclusion

Last month's PAEC hearing has educated us significantly on the changing status of Victoria's Bus Plan. 

The idea that it might have a written implementation plan attached appears all but dead, given repeated DTP failures to find funding, even if on the cheap through internal savings. But there's still been progress for buses, with some welcome though ad-hoc service upgrades and significant advocacy from the community. 

When these happen the government invariably describes them as being part of Victoria's Bus Plan, perhaps to save face. It is this action that is the true Bus Reform Implementation Plan; not a coherent document but whatever the government decides to fund for buses at the moment. And, to the extent that community bus advocacy campaigns are successful, it is these as much as DTP who could be said to have shared in its 'writing' as policy anarchy reigns.  


Other Building Melbourne's Useful Network items are here