Are you being served? Commentary on the service aspects of public transport in Melbourne, Australia. Covers networks, routes, timetables, planning, co-ordination, information, marketing and more.
Another day. Another big planning document. This time it's from Infrastructure Victoria who has released its draft 30 year infrastructure strategy. IV is governments planning advisory body.
It proposes rail upgrades, tram extensions and bus rapid transit. Also service frequency improvements such that 80% of the populations of Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo are within 800 metres of public transport every 20 minutes or better.
Let's start with service (as no one else seems to!). The every 20 min within 800m of 80% of the population service standard is very good. I've been advocating such a frequency measure for years and it's great they've listened. 6am - 11pm buses also decent. As I noted a few days ago, Plan for Victoria did not have a robust PT frequency aim like this (but should have).
I'd have liked IV to go harder on a 10 min core frequent network, with Metro trains, trams and key buses upgraded to that. That for trains was found feasible in the NDP Metropolitan Rail so there is no reason not to. And IV should really be very interested in maximum utilisation of assets which all day frequent train networks would further. It is a serious indictment that, with gaps between trains of up to 40 min, Melbourne does not have a comprehensive all week frequent rail network like Sydney or even Perth has. The only reason we don't is not the infrastructure but due to a political choice not to run more trains.
Similar for buses. IV could have advocated (say) 30 or 40 top bus corridors that justified route simplification to deliver service every 10 minutes or better 7 days. That would have been transformative. The strongest of those could have got BRT-type infrastructure upgrades to improve speeds and reliability. Or even be tests for the tram extensions IV propose.
IV is (mostly) going for a lot of small rather than a few big infrastructure items. So there's a lot of tram extensions proposed for the inner and middle suburbs. Think Arden, Fishermans Bend, Batman, Moorabbin, Hughesdale, Burwood East, etc. They mention the relationship with housing which is topical given recent government planning announcements.
Major rail upgrades in the west are proposed including Melton electrification and more stations such as at Mt Atkinson and Thornhill Park. In a big win for middle suburban connectivity in Altona North they also want a rebuilt Paisley.
Clyde & Kalkallo electrification also backed but only as a 'future option'. Thus the outer north and outer south-east are not considered as urgent as Melton and the outer west. I think some will argue that these areas have been equally short-changed. The City Loop reconfiguration also on this 'future option' list.
This draft strategy continues IV advocacy for bus rapid transit, something we don't have much of in Melbourne. These corridors are mostly middle and outer suburbs, with some radial and others orbital.
Freight: Chief recommendations include a rail freight plan and delivering more stuff outside peak hours.
What does and doesn't IV talk about? The word 'frequent' gets mentioned 49 times. Big contrast to other material like Plan for Victoria that de-emphasises service. However 'Suburban Rail Loop' get mentioned just 6 times and 'Metro 2' 5 times. I suspect the SRL and its advisability is a sensitive matter within IV given that while they may have their own views they can't really comment on something that is actual government policy and is being built.
Fares: IV propose lower off-peak fares and simpler fare zones in regional areas. Early Bird Metro Train only would be replaced with cheaper outside peak fares. IV has commendably de-emphasised their silly mode-based fare plans (that would have made bus reform harder). It's mentioned but something to consider later.
That's just a quick skim. There are many other non-transport recommendations. Eg more libraries and aquatic centres in outer suburbs. And phasing out stamp duties in favour of land tax. More affordable housing. Tree canopy cover. Electrification. And more.
Plan for Victoria is based on five pillars. These are:
* Self-determination and caring for Country
* Housing for all Victorians:
* Accessible jobs and services
* Great places, suburbs and towns
* Sustainable environments
Common words
Here's a count of some key transport and planning words:
Activity centre 31 Buses 2 Canopy 17 Cycling 19 Density 4 Freight 11 Frequency 1 Frequent 2 Homes 105 Housing 118 Infrastructure 61 Jobs 49 Land 97 Network 22 Planning 140 Public transport 45 Rail 11 Roads 4 Trains 2 Trams 3 Transport 98 Walking 8 Water 46
This crude analysis indicates a very strong housing emphasis. Some things in previous plans are dead. For example there is zero mention of the '20 minute neighbourhoods' that were prominent in Plan Melbourne. But the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road makes it onto the maps (with more precision than the roughly drawn Suburban Rail Loop portion from Sunshine to Werribee).
The 22 actions
The plan has 22 actions. Those with the biggest implications for public transport are highlighted with a few more words said about them.
1. Housing targets for LGAs The emphasis here is to provide for a variety of denser housing in established areas that already have infrastructure including public transport lines and services. This is as opposed to only having housing in fringe greenfield suburbs and high-rise CBD apartments in CBD and nearby areas. Densing up established areas may increase catchments and thus potential patronage for public transport routes. However a challenge will be managing increased traffic that can slow buses and trams without effective priority. I discussed better transport for the first 25 housing priority areas here.
2. Streamline planning in activity centres This is all about the government's announced plans to cluster denser housing around train stations. That should have an effect on public transport patronage and the viability of rail-based centres.
The stated outcome is that the introduction of new planning controls in and around the 60 identified
Activity Centres will unlock supply for 360,000 new homes in well-located
areas close to services and jobs, along train and tram lines across
Melbourne.
3. Manage sprawl You'd hope this will lead to less 'leapfrog' development where housing estates are built without a proper connector road network, thus precluding viable and effective bus routes.
4. More social & affordable homes
5. Parking choice for new builds in well served areas Regulations that mandate parking requirements add unnecessary cost to housing borne by those who don't own as many cars as the rules say they 'should' own. There is also a relationship between car ownership and usage. Thus making car parking a matter of choice rather than compulsion, especially in walkable areas near public transport, can have a positive effect on public and active transport usage.
6. Revise apartment design standards
7. Public transport planning. This action item proposes something so radical for buses that it risks blowing up in the government's face and sabotaging prospects for future bus network reform. That needs discussing in detail so I will do so below.
The Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development has a target that 95% of residents are within 400 metres of public transport services. This came out in Jim Betts time - around the time of Meeting our Transport Challenges and the fast roll-out of minimum standards (including 7 day service) for buses.
The Meeting our Transport Challenges plan of 2006 envisaged a two tier bus network comprising PPTN SmartBuses (every 15 min weekdays, 30 min weekends over long hours) and local routes operating at least hourly until 9pm.
That's not a bad mix, though evening and weekend PPTN/SmartBus frequencies do not meet current needs. Current usage and proposed housing densities make a better SmartBus service offering desirable, eg maximum 10-15 minute waits at most times such as apply on premium bus routes in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. Local routes could also be made more frequent (eg every 20 minutes all day), as is already now the case for some growth area routes in Tarneit, Craigieburn, Sunbury and Cranbourne.
Plan for Victoria proposes the following:
Our aim is for most people in Melbourne and the regional cities to live within a 10-minute walk (800 metres) of public transport.
Plan for Victoria accepted this (and then some) with its greatly pared back coverage aim. 'Most people' could theoretically be 51%. Well down on 95% in the current guideline. And the distance is doubled from 400 metres to 800 metres.
Saying that 800 metres translates to a 10 minute walk is a 'one size fits all' approach that won't go down well. Some (especially older people) walk slower. Unresponsive traffic signals can mean multiple long waits to cross roads. Even worse is that 95% bus stops on main roads (where the more direct routes would go) have no nearby crossing points according to a Victoria Walks study.
I would endorse Plan for Victoria's 800 metre coverage aim if it said 'frequent public transport', with the implication that most people would have a local route somewhat closer. But it doesn't say that.
Instead all you appear to get is a sparse grid network with routes spaced 1600 metres or 1 mile apart. That's not unlike the worthy but undeveloped Principal Public Transport Network with corridors protected in planning schemes for bus priority. It's a good network centrepiece but not necessarily enough on its own.
Presumably the service would be faster (with bus priority corridors) and more frequent (though Plan for Victoria doesn't say the latter). The good thing about that is that it will make increased frequency cheap to provide as you are ripping out a heap of local bus routes to help fund. The bad thing is that in the pure form presented here it may be politically impossible to implement.
The first version of the John Stone network for Melbourne's west as championed by the Sustainable Cities campaign had a network vision not unlike Plan for Victoria. However (unlike Plan for Victoria) it was commendably explicit on frequency with every 10 minutes proposed. It did however assume flexible routes for fill-in coverage. However flexible routes are inefficient, unreliable and expensive per passenger carried.
I fear that Plan for Victoria's recipe of an 800 metre maximum walk to buses indiscriminately applied might be a step too far. Adelaide attempted something like it metropolitan-wide for buses in 2020. The effort failed spectacularly with the new network cancelled and the transport minister leaving politics. A similarly ham-fisted approach here risks wrecking the acceptance of bus reform so that it never happens, and our 30 year reform backlog becomes more like 40 or 50 years. That is in no one's interests.
To safeguard against that I instead recommend a Toronto-style tiered network. This would be based around a direct PPTN-style 7 day frequent network (ideally every 10 minutes but no worse than every 15 minutes) and reformed mid-level routes every 20 minutes similar to the Useful Network. In some cases there would also be local routes operating to minimum service standards. Roll-out could be staged by area with several areas being done at once to speed implementation so it matches best practice in Perth or Auckland. Such a network represents good practice in the frequency versus coverage trade-off and is something that Plan for Victoria should have aimed for.
Capacity gets mentioned as an aim. But frequency, equally important for connectivity and usage, was neglected as an objective. Despite this being (a) a key trade-off benefit of people walking further to a stop and (b) the 'What you told us' highlighting better frequency as a need, "You want public transport to be more frequent and better connected".
New housing is considered something that you can put near frequent public transport. But there appears little interest in making the frequent network bigger to serve more than the current minority of train and bus lines. This downplaying of frequency's importance is consistent with the current government's record of devoting about 99% of public transport policy initiatives on infrastructure builds and only about 1% on frequency.
The concentration of housing along certain train lines means that off-peak rail frequencies should be never worse than 10 minutes and definitely 5 minutes or better all week on corridors like the Metro Tunnel between Sunshine and Dandenong. However the need for this is not mentioned.
8. Release of industrial & commercial land. This pulls in the opposite direction to the clustering of housing around stations as even many existing industrial sites have no or limited public transport. Making housing more dense (one of the previous aims) can only increase car traffic volumes if the jobs people need to get to are unserved by public transport. This is a high risk for industrial jobs since the performance measure is simply supply of industrial land (regardless of if it has transport access).
9. Streamline developer contributions More detail is needed here but changes here has implications for growth areas whose new bus routes are often funded by GAIC (a highly conditional, limited term funding source) rather than consolidated revenue. There may however be potential benefits for transport in densifying established areas if the pilot extensions of developer contributions to infrastructure in these proves successful.
10. Recognise Traditional Owners rights
11. Coordinate public infrastructure & service delivery for more homes. This is important but often ignored. For example areas like Moonee Ponds has had huge increases in population density but its basic train frequencies have been unchanged for half a century or more. Bus reform is likely too slow and there is little linkage between denser housing (for instance along Albion St, Brunswick West) and bus timetables (that may not even run 7 days such as Route 503 on Albion St).
12. Protect tree canopies. This is a benefit for shade, lessening of heat islands and thus walkability including to public transport. Stronger protections are essential here as some LXRP projects (such as at Chelsea) have significantly reduced tree cover and shade in activity centres.
13. Minimum standards for open space
14. Make best use of land at train stations. This must include consideration of parking versus other uses, potential for larger role for buses & active transport as access modes.
15. Revise design guidelines for public places
16. More use of Traditional Owners knowledge & for place names
17. Encourage walking and cycling with active transport strategy.This is important to prioritise infrastructure that enables direct and safe active transport access to public transport.
18. More environmentally sustainable and climate resilient development
19. Better manage flood, fire & climate risks
20. Reflect Country in planning
21. Protect the Yarra
22. Have boundaries for regional cities and towns to retain land for food production
Measures and outcomes
The plan has short-term measures and outcomes for each of the 22 objectives. Notable measures include:
* Percentage of homes with good access to opportunities and services (1) * Percentage of long-term public transport network serviced (7) * Level of access to opportunities and services in growth areas (11) * Mode used for station access (14) * Percentage trips by active transport (17)
The measure from point 7 implies that some sort of long-term network development plan for public transport exists. This is reinforced by the outcome "Planning decision makers and developers will have clarity about where improved bus networks, and other public transport improvements are proposed so these can be protected in planning schemes and progressively delivered in structure planning processes.". A long term network development plan for public transport is not something that has been public for a long time.
Relationship with other plans
How does Plan for Victoria sit with other plans?
Appendix 2, starting on p70, gives some tips.
On bus network reform, nothing much happened after early 2023 according to the page linked. This is likely due to the 1357 day-old Bus Plan lacking 2023 & 2024 state budget backing.
This is a timely reminder that no matter how good the plan it is better to judge governments by what they fund in their budgets rather than what they say in plans.
On this the next state budget will be Tuesday May 20.
Some real transport plans
Plan for Victoria is very much a housing and development focuses plan. It is very much in the tradition of Melbourne 2030 from 2002 with its major activity centres. Melbourne 2030 was likewise about development visions. It had a 'principal public transport network' between the activity centres but lacked details on when and how this would be delivered.
Public forums requested better metropolitan public transport to be a part of Melbourne 2030. But the Bracks government ignored these calls. Instead its priorities were getting Metcard to work properly, making rail franchising sustainable and boosting regional rail that was so important to its 1999 regional Victoria pitch that won it office. Labor under Bracks and Brumby was also hamstrung in what it felt it could responsibly spend; with memories of Cain-Kirner still fresh it had to reassure the public that it was financially responsible and deserved to govern.
This (then) nearly seven year government didn't seriously invest in upgraded metropolitan transport until Meeting our Transport Challenges in 2006 (for buses) and various panicked responses to rail overcrowding and system breakdowns in the 2008-2010 period (including the 2008 Eddington study and 2010's Victorian Transport Plan). The latter wasn't soon enough to save the Brumby government, which, like the Andrews-Allan government in 2025, had been in office over ten years.
Plan for Victoria should have at least had a frequent network vision. Rather than just being the radial rail network (and the Suburban Rail Loop at a handful of centres) this should include a turn-up-and-go tram and bus grid from multiple directions linking each centre with those adjacent. It alludes to this but by talking about high capacity but not high frequency the plan's authors do not or will not acknowledge the central role of frequency in making a public transport network useful. A good measure for this could be the percentage of the population within (say) 800 metres of public transport every 10 minutes or better operating over a wide span of hours. However the plan as published wants people to walk further but gives no indication of whether they'd get better frequency.
If you want an actual transport plan that puts service first for the most Melburnians at the lowest cost then you won't find it on any government website. For rail there are projects but nothing as coherent or service-oriented as 2012's NDP Metropolitan Rail. Buses had a plan in 2021 and trams in 2023 but both documents are vague, substantially unfunded and lack maps. Thus neither can be considered successes yet.
For a real public transport plan that puts service first see the Future Frequent Network (with interactive maps) instead.
Or if brevity is your thing then my five word public transport plan is a bigger, bolder yet more stageable vision than almost anything else official.
(scroll down if you just want to read about Tarneit)
Why productivity matters
Economic efficiency and productivity matter. They affect whether we can have the things and services we want. Wealth accumulated from a period of growth does not imply wisdom to spend it beneficially, sustainably or fairly but at least gives you the choice.
Also note the power of compounding, which Einstein described as the eighth wonder of the world. Small differences in growth rates between countries can compound to big differences over time. Consider this quote from US economist Tyler Cowen.
Had America grown one percentage point less per year, between 1870 and 1990, the America of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990.
Australia, like many other countries, have had declining labour productivity growth in the last decade or so. Productivity growth doesn't automatically mean that the worker gets a fair share of it. But not having productivity growth makes it harder for economies to achieve a 'sweet spot' of low inflation, low unemployment and real wage rises.
Australia went through a national conversation about productivity in the 1980s and 1990s. You had Paul Keating on the macroeconomic levers including dollar floating, wages policy, budget balancing and tariffs. Then bodies like the Productivity Commission lectured us about industry competitiveness and micro-economic reform. That is making various sectors of the economy more efficient with competition and choice (rather than planning and regulation) the preferred levers.
It wasn't all good; at their 1990s height the more extreme competition fiends had universal prescriptions that failed to account for differences between industries. Just as blunt as communists who saw state ownership and operation as a cure for everything. That's demonstrably untrue at least for public transport, with examples of both good and bad in both private and public operations readily available.
High productivity for public transport is good..
Productivity is what you get out versus what you put in. A typical measure for public transport is passenger boardings per kilometres of service operated, though you could use other measures like passenger kilometres instead.
More people on public transport is generally a good thing, especially where service is good enough to be a popular alternative to car driving (and all the negative externalities that go with it).
If you want public transport to meet more of peoples' needs for more trips then whatever you propose needs to be affordably feasible for the scale needed - not just for a few people or a small section of the city. As staff costs are such a high proportion of overall costs this means a high number of passengers carried per public transport employee. If you want the latter to be fairly paid then productivity is important.
.. but very high productivity might not be
If high productivity is good, shouldn't very high productivity be better? Right? Wrong!
Though in one sense a 'good problem', very high productivity is bad as it represents a network doing less than it should of the transport effort. This is because it signifies underinvestment where overcrowding on individual services and lower than possible network patronage both coexist. The latter also means low public transport mode share despite the crowded passenger experience. Add road congestion (as there are no good alternatives to driving) and you have a spiral where buses are unreliable (such as the notorious Route 525 in Donnybrook/Craigieburn and other routes in similarly underserved growth areas) and no transport mode in the area is good (a bit like Melbourne Airport but for different reasons).
A solution is to invest in service hours and frequency even beyond the point where productivity peaks (but remains above average) as you are then maximising patronage. It's at this high patronage point, not the maximum productivity point, that the usage of and thus benefits of public transport are highest as explained here. Due to high fixed infrastructure and staffing costs this is even more so with rail; there you can simultaneously have crowded trains and a poor return on fixed infrastructure if frequency is kept low. The latter has been been especially so under the current state government that has fed infrastructure but starved service, with this declining per capita for metropolitan train and tram.
There is a productivity 'sweet spot' in public transport. Too high is bad since it represents both overcrowding on individual services combined with lower than potential network usage. But too low is also bad since it limits community benefits from the network relative to what it pays. There is no denying that large parts of the transit network should be more productive than it is, with this being an essential planning and management focus.
Institutional advocates for productivity in PT
Prescriptions for public transport reform from some 1990s era market economy evangelists seemed more ideological than pragmatic. And they didn't deliver all promised savings. For example the benefits and cost-savings of transport franchising were exaggerated with the first version of rail franchising needing a government bail-out. Though to be fair the advocates of state operation also over-state their case; there have been good and bad examples of both state and private operations in Australia. And sometimes it can be hard to fairly attribute cases of genuine productivity reform where this has been achieved within an organisation with little hoopla as it's just regarded as good day to day management.
Failure is insufficient for an institutionally-supported intellectual or policy movement (like those who would have over-sold rail franchising in the '90s) to just die. Their competition-cheering ideological heirs remain in parts of government, large corporations, private consultancies, think tanks and bodies like Infrastructure Victoria.
They may still advocate prescriptions based on theory applied where it shouldn't. For example Infrastructure Victoria retains a mental model of public transport modes competing against one another. This doctrine was tried in the early 2000s but resulted in operators publishing fragmented information only showing (for example) maps of their half of the rail network. The failure of this was sufficiently apparent for the government to broker the Melbourne Passenger Growth Initiative which ultimately became Metlink with more integrated information published.
Of course this was before IV was established but this over-application of competition theory remains a doctrine in the blood of its staff as evidenced by their advocacy (sensibly ignored by the state government) for modally-based fares. Even though this is an example of competition undermining (rather than reinforcing) productivity because (i) one train driver can carry far more passengers at a faster speed than one bus driver and (ii) efficiency-enhancing bus reform is made politically harder if not impossible as some trips involving a change of modes become relatively dearer.
So you can't rely on IV to be as consistently supportive of productivity in public transport as one might think, even though it has good ideas about bus reform and (likely) efficient infrastructure utilisation.
Similarly with DTP; the Bus Plan says the right things but implementation has been embarrassingly slow. DTP's internal processes have been a problem as has its difficulties in successfully advocating within government for it. Also, as mentioned later, parts of DTP have wasted time on forms of transport that are inherent low productivity, despite this being tested and known beforehand. Plus its leaders appear to lack performance incentives that might encourage productivity, such as a part of the Secretary's pay being dependent on mode share for public and active transport modes.
Productivity successes
If you want reform and productivity on public transport it probably worth looking at successes both elsewhere and here. I'd nominate the mid-late 1990s and again about a decade later as being when the biggest recent patronage productivity gains in Melbourne public transport happened. I won't discuss V/Line much here except to say it's had strong recent growth, largely due to a tendency for the government to rely on it, rather than an extended electrified Metro network, for transport in the fast-growing west and north.
The 1990s 'from a system to a service' reforms under minister Alan Brown cut staffing to save money. However reliability improved and at least some of the savings were returned to the system in the form of better service. Most notable of these were off-peak boosts (from 20 to 15 minutes) on the Frankston and Dandenong lines, the restoration of a full service on the Upfield line, and, biggest of all, the doubling of Sunday train and tram frequency between 10am and 7pm. Even though these were made during a time of relative parsimony in public finances, the relative size of these service upgrades has exceeded anything that has happened under the current government for metropolitan (but not regional) trains (and trams). This type of productivity gain was largely done by cutting costs, patronage rose but not very quickly.
In contrast the 2000s increase was basically a result of surging patronage at a time where service growth was only a little better than flat for trains and trams. In a few years from about 2004 patronage was growing massively, aided by CBD development, high fuel prices and general population growth in Melbourne. Bus usage also grew greatly but in this case there was also a large service growth for a few years from the 2006 MOTC plan. Bus usage closely matched service increase. That's good by industry standards but it could have been higher if more bus network reform was done.
Higher patronage is good for productivity because fixed costs are distributed over more passengers. But, as Melbourne found out, it can also lead to overcrowding and falling reliability unless other improvements are made.
Desirable for rail include better maintenance, better scheduling, more off-peak frequency, higher capacity signalling and (on busy corridors) new tracks to reduce the knock-on effects of disruptions and increase capacity. Tram and bus would most benefit from on-road priority, network and timetable reform and larger vehicles (so one driver can carry more passengers).
On the other side of the coin, if you want high productivity then you should avoid networks dominated by indirect bus routes with little unique coverage. Nuance here is important and productivity is best measured on a network rather than route basis. For example a two-tier network with four very direct, frequent and productive routes and two less direct, less productive routes may be more productive overall than a network with eight somewhat indirect and infrequent routes with only middling productivity. Such understanding can be lost if you try to split the network into profitable and non-profitable routes, such as was done in some countries where public transport was deregulated.
Flexible route buses can be even less productive than even meandering fixed routes. How much less productive? Let's look at what's been stated to be the heaviest used flexible bus route in Melbourne.
Tarneit FlexiRide case study
Starting in October 2022, the Tarneit FlexiRide commenced as techbro-inspired flexible transport mania was sweeping Department of Transport executives (remember the 'mobility as a service' hype?). DoT had developed FlexiRide as a new brand, taking over from Telebuses in some outer eastern suburbs. And it did seem to have a theoretical advantage in growth areas; a flexible route service with a small bus could be rolled out faster than a fixed route with stops, poles and timetables.
FlexiRide is wonderful if you are the only passenger. Unfortunately it also maxes out if lots of people want to use it at once. Somewhere in between should be a 'sweet spot' where it can carry a reasonable number of people with reasonable reliability at an acceptable cost per passenger. Ideally this sweet spot should be over a wide range of usage numbers. But if it isn't then the scope for flexible bus routes to be affordably useful is narrow; perhaps only for less mobile people with special needs.
Back in February 2023 the Wyndham Star Weekly carried an article on Tarneit FlexiRide, describing it as the most successful in the state. This had been achieved in its first 90 days of operation.
But are FlexiRide's numbers actually that good and how do they compare with fixed routes in the area?
The abovementioned article said that Tarneit FlexiRide was attracting 210 to 220 rides per day. The service runs about 15 hours per day (slightly more on weekdays, slightly less on weekends) so that's about 14 riders per hour.
If that good or bad? We can't really tell unless we know how many buses are needed to run the FlexiRide service.
Tarneit FlexiRide uses 18 seater Hino Poncho buses. The fleet list for CDC's Wyndham depot show six buses with chassis dates in June or July 2022. Let us assume that one is a spare so five would be on the road, at least during peak times. One might also speculate that a smaller number than five is on the road outside peak times. If you were to spread that 14 riders per hour across (say) 4 buses then you'd get an average of around 4 boardings per bus per hour. Given that Tarneit FlexiRide is the most popular other FlexiRides are likely to be less productive.
How does FlexiRide's performance compare with regular routes?
My most recent data (obtained from DoT via request) is from Spring 2022. It shows that the quietest fixed route in Wyndham (153) had around 11 to 13 boardings per bus hour. Because Wyndham buses are such good patronage performers there's a lot of other routes getting 30 to 40 boardings per hour. Even on weekends.
In both cases FlexiRide is much less used. FlexiRide gets roughly one-third the passenger boardings of a quiet local fixed bus route. And compared to a busy route FlexiRide only attracts one-ninth the boardings. And bear in mind that both FlexiRide and regular bus routes require a driver, which is the most expensive part of running a bus service.
OK, you might say that these are early figures and FlexiRide will grow with time. Maybe I should have given it a chance to grow rather than comparing it with established routes.
This indicates that FlexiRide has already 'hit the wall' and prospects for further growth, at least in peak times are low. It appears to max out at a low level of productivity. That shows that FlexiRide is unsuitable in high travel demand/high growth areas like Tarneit and Melton.
The then DoT and the government were incorrect to go with FlexiRide (rather than originally proposed fixed routes) in 2022. However to their credit they've realised this and will be replacing Tarneit FlexiRide with fixed routes. Hopefully Melton, the second busiest FlexiRide, will soon follow.
Conclusion
In public transport what doesn't scale doesn't count if you want to provide service to the most people for an affordable expenditure. That's especially so in growth areas where service provision often trails settlement.
If you want productivity then FlexiRide and like services are not your friends. But if your objectives are different, your target market is very small, you are not interested in connections to trains or other buses AND you are willing to tolerate high costs per passenger trip (possibly due to passengers having special needs) then flexible routes may be worth considering. But that's a different item to mass transit and is rarely a reliable and economical substitute.
Victoria's Bus Plan notwithstanding, recent state government budgets have been quite parsimonious for new, extended or reformed services. However some funding has come from the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution, a levy on developments to fund infrastructure and services in the first few years of a new estate. While fixed term and highly conditional it's better than nothing.
There are GAIC funding rounds each year. I wrote about last April's announcement here. That didn't have much detail. Today, thanks to maps available, we can learn more about what's in store.
154 Tarneit - Laverton
Route 154 will be a welcome replacement for the unreliable and maxed-out Tarneit North FlexiRide. Equally important is that it will provide the first direct connection between Tarneit and the Laverton North industrial area.
The benefits of this cannot be overstated; current travel to this major employment area from Tarneit station involves a bus to Williams Landing, a train two stations to Laverton and the infrequent and indirect Route 417 to Laverton North. The new route won't serve all jobs but it should still help a lot of people with a more direct connection to employers including the K-mart distribution centre on the currently unserved Leakes Rd.
GAIC routes are typically overlaid over the rest of the bus network. This is partly because funding is both conditional and fixed term. However opportunities for network reform should still not be ignored.
A rerouting of Route 400 to Williams Landing would connect a lot more buses (including several from Tarneit) than its current terminus at Laverton. However this reform would require another route to retain coverage of Dohertys Rd, making a network review, potentially involving a two-way Route 417 extended to either Williams Landing or Tarneit, desirable.
194 Werribee - Wyndham Vale
The houses of Mambourin are visible looking west from the Geelong train but it's a long walk to the nearest bus (Route 192) east of the line. That won't be a problem anymore when the new Route 194 starts. Harpley Estate will also gain with an alternative to the mostly 40-minutely Route 192. It's mostly mapped below though the Werribee end is unclear.
524 Donnybrook Station Loop via Olivine and Peppercorn Hill
This one is actually starting in less than a month. Thus the map and timetable are already online. It provides much needed coverage to northern suburbs growth areas (tend to be more haphazardly planned and sprawly than those in Wyndham). Due to incomplete roads and a desire to do a lot with one route the 524 map looks messy with unidirectional loops. However this is likely still more efficient than a FlexiRide would be, especially given the low train and bus frequencies at Donnybrook this route connects to.
The timetable is mostly your standard Melbourne outer suburbs offering. That is service every 40 minutes with peak service a bit better at every 30 minutes. Similar to some recent upgrades the Sunday timetable is the same as Saturdays, including an earlier than average start (before 7am). However this is at the cost of evening service with the last departures before 7pm, thus not meeting the 9pm minimum service standard for local Melbourne bus routes.
The PTV website item foreshadows a future extension north to Kalkallo.
543 extension to Craigieburn Central
Getting from Greenvale to Craigieburn Central Shopping Centre currently requires getting a bus to Roxburgh Park, then a train and then a bus. This will be replaced by a one-bus trip when the 543 extension commences service. Not only that but residential areas will gain stops on local streets back from the walking-hostile Mickleham Rd. Local MPs including Iwan Walters and Evan Mulholland have previously advocated for this extension which will make a lot of difference for a lot of people.
As mentioned before GAIC funding is conditional and route upgrades sometimes reflect this. The 543, for instance, could benefit from a further extension to Craigieburn station. The most non-duplicative way of doing this may be via the Route 537 alignment, with passengers along the latter gaining access to more destinations.
798 extension to Clyde North 831 extension to Clyde
These are two extensions in the outer south-east.
Route 798 is notable for its higher than average frequency (every 20 min 7 days) and longer than normal operating hours. It started as a short route from Cranbourne to Selandra Rise but will be substantially extended. Keep your eyes peeled - the start of this might not be very long away.
Route 831 is currently a very short route running from Berwick to Berwick Hospital. The extension will quadruple its length. Berwick is a significant destination so this route will improve north-south connectivity. Its terminus though appears to be a dead end; it seems amazing that although there have been a significant number of bus routes added there is not yet one that offers a continuous ride from Berwick to Cranbourne.
925 extension to Officer South
Cardinia Road station opened in 2012. Bus reform in Pakenham has been so slow that the 925 bus never got extended to terminating there. Thus people wishing to use the 925 to catch a train have to backtrack to Pakenham, adding significant time to their journey.
This GAIC funded extension addresses this while also adding coverage to Officer South. It is not yet known whether the extension will come with improved frequency; as it stands the 925 does not meet minimum service standards with gaps of up to 70 minutes between buses.
Pakenham has grown sufficiently that it needs a full bus review, rather than just tacked-on GAIC extensions. Its greatest need is likely a more direct and more frequent Route 926, done in conjunction with reform to more local routes.
928 extended to Berwick via Officer South
Apart from the 926 to Fountain Gate and the infrequent 840 to Gembrook, the Pakenham bus network is quote isolated. The extended 928 will reduce this, with a bus paralleling the railway between Berwick and Pakenham. In this manner it will have a similar function to the 926 north of the line. As well as the new coverage of parts of Officer, this upgrade will improve connections to jobs, education and health services in the Berwick area.
In 2020 I described a similar concept for an extended 928 but only going as far west as Officer. However it was based on a 20 minute frequency. It remains to be seen how frequent this 928 upgrade will be given that, like all buses in Pakenham, it is currently infrequent with gaps of up to 70 minutes.
Conclusion
This is a summary of pending GAIC-funded new or extended bus routes from last year. Implementation will make a significant difference for the tens of thousands of people in the areas that will gain.
Applications for the 2025 round are open until the end of this month. So don't be surprised if an announcement on these is made shortly after. Noting also that the other avenue for bus upgrades, the state budget, is planned for Tuesday May 20.
State Labor is reeling from big swings against them in the previously safe seat of Werribee in Saturday's by-election.
Ministers publicly defend the government's record in the west but the average resident, either stuck 40 minutes in traffic or having about that long between buses, often begs to differ. So does pollster Kos Samaras who said that Labor's strategy was focusing on marginals at the expense of safe seats.
The Liberal opposition was not as strong an alternative as it could have been. It was late in selecting a candidate, didn't have specific policies on public transport and avoided a public forum on the topic. Matthew Guy, its shadow public transport minister, represents an eastern suburbs seat with the best bus service in Melbourne. He has yet to demonstrate that his party is genuinely engaged on suburban public transport issues and has a will to win in this policy area (like it did in 2010). Less than a quarter of the 17% who abandoned Labor in Werribee directly voted Liberal.
Instead most of the swing went to independents and smaller parties notably Paul Hopper independent, Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Victorian Socialists (who, unlike the majors, attended last Wednesday's bus forum). With less than 60% voting for either the two major parties, Werribee is now a marginal seat with no victor yet declared at the time of writing.
Political context
Similar demographic and political dynamics to Werribee exist in fast-growing ethnoburbs that now ring Melbourne to its west, north and outer south-east (which I won't cover today). While not right at the bottom of the income scale, high rent, mortgage, family and car ownership expenses have made cost of living a hot issue in these areas.
There's also concerns over crime and having transport that works. In these areas 30 to 40 minutes often represents not a total travel time but how long it takes to just get onto the freeway or the gap between buses. People aren't always clear on solutions but they do know if something's not working for them. Such sentiment can endanger long-term governments not seen to be sufficiently responsive, even if oppositions are uninspiring.
Government's Bus Plan record
Then DTP Secretary Paul Younis, cannot be faulted for his loyalty to the government. As I pointed out at the time he presented in a way that overstated the government's achievements on buses, especially in written answers to questions on notice at PAEC last year. That was done by (a) counting even minor bus stop moves at rebuilt stations as reforms, (b) counting routes that have been deleted as reforms and (c) including typically one trip each way school bus services to give an inflated impression of Bus Plan activity. Take these out and the number of routes reformed shrink by about two-thirds.
For context, Melbourne has about 350 bus routes. Victoria's Bus Plan came out in 2021 (1340 days ago). Most of the changes made were not large and, with no 2023 or 2024 state budget funding, the northern, north-eastern and Mildura bus reviews that could have implemented more far-reaching reform have effectively stalled. Not even the promised Bus Reform Implementation Plan is known to have been produced. Thus by any fair account the Bus Plan cannot be considered transformative although some good things have happened under it as listed here.
Where were the Bus Plan initiatives?
I divided the remaining 57 metropolitan non-school bus routes that had some form of reform (which could include trips added, extension or even deletion - since DTP figures counted those) by geographical area. Roughly one-third were in Melbourne's west and north, one-quarter in inner suburbs and the remaining five-twelfths in the east and south-east.
The eight examples in the west included: - Merging of two routes in Maddingley (Bacchus Marsh) - Ongoing funding for GAIC-funded routes 152 and 182 in Tarneit - New route 475 between Sunbury and Diggers Rest - New Tarneit North FlexiRide - Added trips on Route 215 between Highpoint and Caroline Springs - New Melton South FlexiRide
The ten examples in the north included: - New route 501 Craigieburn - Donnybrook shuttle - Major Craigieburn area frequency upgrades on routes 390, 525, 528, 529, 533 and 537 - New route 390 between Craigieburn and Mernda - Route 538 made more direct with Saturday afternoon service added - Improved frequency on Route 546 between Parkville and Heidelberg
The majority involved new routes in fringe areas, ie coverage extensions to 'catch up' with growth.
The main exception, which did involve genuine network reform and a substantial frequency uplift involved the local network in Craigieburn (where routes were upgraded to run every 20 min interpeak weekdays with some longer operating hours). Had these upgrades extended to weekend frequencies and similar scale upgrades done in (say) six or seven clusters across Melbourne then the Bus Plan's achievements could be widely celebrated rather than dismissed.
The Route 546 boost is also notable, bringing 7 day service to the paper mill apartments at Alphington, which previously lacked it. It was bundled with upgrades for Route 505 (which I classified as Melbourne inner) that will feed the Metro Tunnel station at Parkville.
Like the tally DTP supplied to PAEC, the above numbers do not include the routes that were part of the 2021 Night Network reform that saw some regular routes upgraded to operate 24 hours on weekends. Neither do they include some later measures listed here or some to start initiatives funded under GAIC (though note this is only a temporary funding stream with tight conditions that limit network reform). I also have queries about DTP's counting methods (eg counting deleted routes as being reformed and the double counting involving the Clarinda 631/821 changes) so the numbers here are rubbery and should be treated as a guide only.
Trains and trams
This item is about buses but let's say a little about train and tram upgrades too.
The main prospects in the future for the west are (i) what will happen on the Sunbury line when the Metro Tunnel commences service later this year and (ii) the delivery of Labor's 2022 promise to boost Melton trains from every 60 min to a still inadequate every 40 minutes on weekends.
Some welcome improvements have happened with buses in Melbourne's west and north as per the lists above. However they have been both slow and small. Especially relative to population growth and the need for efficient public transport alternatives given road traffic congestion.
Convoluted DTP internal processes (that make bus upgrades take longer than removing a level crossing) make substantial bus improvements unlikely before about 2028. That includes lower budget 'quick wins' as DTP works slower than counterparts elsewhere even for smaller timetable only or minor route reforms.
Making service reform happen faster is something that the government could usefully be working with new Secretary Jeroen Weimar to overcome. Especially given that (a) even nominally safe seats that feel neglected could turn against them as the Werribee result shows, (b) improved and reformed public transport services that better use existing infrastructure change lives and save people money and (c) budget constraints are reducing the appetite for 'big build' projects.
The government's political survival in 2026 might just depend on the action it takes now on transport and other local services.
Amongst the audience it was a full house at last night's Werribee by-election transport forum put on by the Friends of the Earth's Sustainable Cities 'Better Buses' campaign.
Credit to the following candidates or representatives who attended:
* Rifai A. Raheem - Victorian Greens
* Sue Munro - Victorian Socialists
* Xavier Menta - Legalise Cannabis Party
* Joe Garra on behalf of Paul Hopper - Independent
* Aijaz Moinuddin - Independent
Liberal or Labor? They neither came nor sent a representative. More on that later.
What happened
The evening started with accounts from three Werribee residents on the inconveniences of current public transport and how improvements could benefit them. A few of the differences that better bus coverage, frequency and operating hours could make include (i) money saved on uber/taxi fares or multiple car ownership, (ii) personal safety, especially at night and for women, and (iii) improved access to jobs and education.
Then John Stone, long associated with the campaign, presented a vision for frequent and direct buses operating on a grid network. The vision is unchanged but the way of getting there has been revised since previous presentations. Instead of removing local routes and replacing them with flexible routes (which perform poorly on costs per passenger, capacity and reliability), the local bus network would largely be retained, with new frequent routes layered over the top.
My personal view on this? It's a good approach for Melton town, which has few direct bus routes. Whereas Wyndham and Brimbank already have direct and popular routes with frequency and operating hours their main shortcoming. My view is that while there are some cases of new routes being needed, you're mostly better off just doubling (and in some cases quadrupling) frequencies on selected existing direct routes along the lines of the W-network. Such an approach would also likely be cheaper, simpler, faster to implement and less politically controversial.
The overall cost of the Stone package for Melbourne's west has been estimated at $95m per year, along with $200m for one-off capital costs. For context, the latter is the cost of just one level crossing removal.
Most of the evening was Q & A between the 5-candidate panel and the audience. There was general consensus on the need for buses that were more frequent, more reliable ran longer hours or simply existed (which isn't the case in areas like Mambourin). Some candidates also said they wanted fares cheap or free.
Watch the recording of the whole session below.
Major parties not there
As noted before, there was no one from the Liberal or Labor parties present. Labor is in government and currently holds Werribee. Opinion polls haven't been favourable for them lately, with crime, living costs, health and other local services widely cited issues.
Governments (regardless of party) tend to be reluctant to participate in community forums. Governments instead have other means to get 'good news' stories to people eg via direct mail and social media. Whereas a single government speaker would likely be outnumbered by non-government candidates at public forums and may not like forums being given added legitimacy by their presence. The government candidate may also not have anything new to promise, especially if it's a by-election that doesn't threaten the government's majority in the house.
While the non-appearance of a government representative may make their side look contemptuous, they may have calculated that since the overwhelming majority of voters neither attend nor watch forums the risk from being an apology is less than any potential embarrassments suffered if attending.
Less understandable are oppositions being 'no shows'. Especially the Liberals in 2025 Victoria. Relative demographic decline in their eastern heartland and growth in the north and west has made a reorientation essential for them to gain and retain office. The erosion of Labor's primary vote in the north and west potentially presents an opportunity for them. But power won't be attained if support for minor parties continues to rise and the Liberal primary vote remains weak.
Oppositions often complain about governing parties receiving more donations and them able to exploit taxpayer-funded advertising to promoted implemented policies. Oppositions may not be happy about media being more likely to report a government announcement than something from them. MP coverage is also an issue; At the moment Melbourne's northern and western regions have close to 8 times as many Labor MPs than they do Liberal MPs. Lower MP coverage means fewer office resources too. Falling party membership has made the role of paid 'hacktorate officers' (doing party work in what is supposed to be their own time) increasingly important in maintaining the MP's standing in the community.
To beat the odds opposition candidates need to be more opportunistic at showing up to things (even if it's only a handful of people) than government MPs. Being there shows they care - a good perception to have. Continued persistence will eventually lead to victory, especially if the government has made mistakes or is seen as tired. The goodwill with others, including independents whose preferences may be critical, is also valuable.
Successful community campaigning
Once you've identified a genuine community need (in this case better transport services) and some solutions you need to build support amongst both the public and those with the ability to amplify, influence and implement what you want.
A bit like throwing a stone in a pond and it ripping out, but the ripples also becoming a wave that makes implementation irresistible. In our political system it is generally easy to win the support of independent and minor party candidates. Getting the bigger parties and eventually governments is harder but necessary. The chart shows how a successful campaign might progress.
Below is the trajectory of some recent transport campaigns. The more widespread and public the support the more likely it will succeed. Hence the need for campaigns to win broad support. Even from parties that many in the campaign may oppose on other matters or which are generally considered weak or poorly led.
The Werribee Better Buses campaign is currently at level 2. It has wide support from minor parties. Some opposition parties have supported it too in parliament. The next level is to get formal support from either (or preferably both) the Liberal and Labor parties. That will increase its chance of happening.
Opposition support often vital
Governments are often (but not always) the last to come to the party. For example there was support from smaller and then opposition parties before the government came on board for both the successful Route 800 and the Mernda rail campaigns. When the government has a million demands for funding various projects some opposition support can give a good idea the push it needs to happen.
Sometimes opposition members can advocate something between elections but their party doesn't take it up as a serious policy to the election. A good example was the Liberals advocacy for trains every 10 minutes all day in 2017. This was proposed by David Hodgett MP during his time as shadow public transport minister.
Neither his shadow successor (David Davis) nor the party leader (Matthew Guy) took it up so it was not adopted as a 2018 election policy. So, though it was a good idea, it died. Service (as opposed to infrastructure construction) has been a major weakness of the current state government but part of its sloth can be put down to a (then) policy-free opposition with no will to win in transport (the Coalition released their 2018 bus policy one day before the election with nothing of substance; their 2022 effort was better but still poorly promoted.
How serious are the Liberals about the west?
A similar concern applies today with buses in Werribee, just two days before the by-election. The ideal would have been a bus 'bidding war' between the Liberal and Labor parties. Under a more engaged leadership and shadow minister, the Liberals could have laid down a plan (need only be a one-pager with a few points) and been in a position to attend the forum with a positive message. That might have given them an edge over Labor (especially if the latter didn't attend). But even better would be if it provokes Labor into matching or beating it with their own agenda.
For whatever reason neither of these have happened. Though there is still a chance of Labor coming good if the seat is made marginal or they lose. The Liberals themselves seem to have a west-east split. Western MLCs have raised the need for better buses in Legislative Council debates. They have also attended previous community forums on buses, such as last year at Williams Landing (which Labor also attended).
However vocal support for better buses in the west has not been forthcoming from their eastern-dominated leadership and shadow. The latter, apparently a rail fan, has not even said much about needed rail infrastructure and service upgrades in Werribee. Despite a media that would be listening more attentively than usual given the by-elections, giving a publicity benefit that oppositions sometimes claim don't often come their way.
Oppositions routinely pledge to 'hold the government to account'. This opposition has not necessarily done this well on public transport - a key cost-of-living and local service issue that this government is vulnerable on, particularly in the west.
The Coalition's policy passivity here (which might have also driven their decision not to attend last night) has been a disappointment. It represents a setback to the rebuilding they need to do to take seats from Labor in 2026. For them there is a risk that although Labor may continue to lose primary vote the majority of this drift could go to independents and minor parties, narrowing the Coalition's path to victory, and ensuring Labor holds on.
Regardless of who wins in 2026, a vigilant opposition means better government including improved accountability and faster delivery of the services people need including better buses. The 'test run' in this by-election indicates that the current opposition has a lot of trust winning to do between now and then.
