TT 212: Metro Tunnel timetable implementation sequencing

 

The public does not yet know much about the new timetables associated with the Metro Tunnel Project.

The state government has said multiple times that Metro Tunnel service will start later this year (2025). Presumably to demonstrate their management credentials, they have especially stressed about this being earlier than the 2026 proposed in the Business Case from 2016.

Reported delays to parts of the project have tested hopes for a 2025 commencement. And government messaging for a while was patchy. Articles like this June 28 2025 item in The Age gave rise to time pressure speculation, including the possibility of an awkward off-peak only service at the new stations to start off with. Then the government reasserted its late 2025 start aim and things went quiet. 

2025 vs 2026? It doesn't really matter. What's most important is that we get a consistent, frequent and reliable service good enough for the Metro Tunnel to truly transform transport in Melbourne.

My view, informed by the Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail), is that this needs to include:

* A 5 minute all day core frequency operating through the new Metro Tunnel stations
* 10 minute all day frequencies on main connecting suburban lines, and
* Complementary tram network reform

If we don't get all three within a reasonable time of the Metro Tunnel opening then the project would not represent value for money as the realised benefits are just too small. I'm talking value (or what we get) here, whereas much commentary about major projects just dwells on cost (or what we pay).  

The above are pretty basic specifications. They are as important as the number of exits a station has. And far more important than station architecture or art. Yet so far we don't know much about the service we'll be getting, fostering an environment of speculation in the media and elsewhere. 

In the two months since The Age article came out construction has progressed well. Anzac, Arden and State Library stations are pretty much complete. There have been public tours and events involving these stations. Work on Town Hall is apparently progressing fast. And trains have been doing test runs in preparation for service. It was possible to observe these test runs from public locations to get an idea of potential frequencies operated. The government reaffirmed a 2025 start of service. 

A few days ago a Herald Sun article returned to the theme of the Metro Tunnel's opening schedule. There is still mention of a 'soft' start but in a more sensible manner than the off-peak suggestion in June. Here's an excerpt:   

The tunnel remains on track for a “soft” launch that could be as soon as late November, but is more likely to be in December, with new services initially limited during peak hours to assess and manage the new line ahead of full services." 

"This could potentially see Metro’s capability ramped up in three phases;

the first being to switch on for use,

the second to increase peak period services, and

a third to overhaul the state’s public transport timetables to fully maximise benefits across Melbourne.

The third point about the overhaul is of most interest to anyone who wants Metro Tunnel project benefits to spread as widely as possible. 

On Melbourne's peak-heavy network the biggest transformation for the least amount of extra trips added is to cut off-peak maximum waits from 30-40 min to 20 min. 

This got funded for the Craigieburn and Upfield lines in the 2025 state budget. However so far nothing has been said for the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups. 

One hopes that addressing these is within scope of the third phase overhaul. Map below is what is needed to get to a maximum 20 min wait across the network (with minor exceptions). 

Around 5% more weekly trips scheduled could go a long way to addressing this, so let's hope it happens! 

After that then the next logical step is a progressive move to ten minute off-peak frequencies on key lines such as Craigieburn and a greenfields timetable on the Burnley group that has too many stopping patterns and low evening and Sunday morning frequencies. I discussed priorities last week here.

Only with subsequent CBD tram reform and a 5 minute core frequency, will the Metro Tunnel become the genuine game changer for public transport it should and deserves to be. 

Index to Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 210: Twelve years of retrospective items added: 2006 - 2018

Something different. Instead of writing much for today, I've been posting on the 2006 - 2018 era with items backdated. A time that started with Connex scrambling to keep up with surging rail patronage and ending with a low interest rate spell when building almost anything seemed possible, affordable and 'the right thing to do'.  

Check the listing of previous posts in the period 2006 - 2018 (on the right if viewing on a desktop computer) for more than 20 additions in the period. You will find coverage of important events in Melbourne public transport, including major rail, tram and bus service changes. Most items have links to archived websites where you can read what was said at the time. 

I wrote about the transport policy context of this era here. Priorities were different and in many respects the reverse of today. Large (or even small) infrastructure projects seemed impossible. But train and bus service reforms were both more possible and daily business.

If Melbourne had a decade of service in public transport then 2006 to 2015 would be it. Note that this emphasis was bipartisan, covering spans of both Labor and Coalition governments. That decade became two decades for V/Line trains, whose service levels continues to expand today, thanks to the benevolent then minister and now Premier Jacinta Allan, who happens to be regionally-based.

Metropolitan train and bus service matters stopped being a political priority in about 2015, with infrastructure builds taking centre stage. So much so that even when projects were completed hoped for service boosts either didn't happen or were underwhelming.

There are however early indications of revived government interest in service with the 2025 state budget funding some promising frequency boosts for the Craigieburn and Upfield lines (albeit short of what was envisaged in the 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case) as well as some good bus improvements in the west and north.  

With that in mind it's worth recalling some of the key milestones from this earlier more service conscious period to get an idea of what was possible and done. Here's a few: 

* June 18, 2007 An item saying that 34 bus routes had been upgraded to minimum service standards between April and June 2007 as part of the Meeting our Transport Challenges upgrade program (Phase 2). These (and later) upgrades were successful with bus usage rising in line with service. The pace of bus service upgrades has fallen since with significant political campaigning needed to get even one bus route upgraded to run 7 days. 

* October 10, 2010 285 extra weekly train services with a pre-election off-peak frequency boost for the Frankston line with interpeak services going from every 15 to 10 minutes. But there was a catch. Half the services would retain their operation via the City Loop with the other half operating direct to Flinders Street. Presumably to get passengers used to direct operation which would later apply for all Frankston trains (but not until a lot of political argy-bargy over many years). Werribee, Craigieburn and Sydenham got extra peak trains while other lines went from 3 to 6 carriages on weekends.  

* May 8, 2011 This was when 635 extra weekly services were added to the metropolitan rail network then operated by Connex. This increased total weekly services to 14 000, ie an increase of 5% in one timetable change. Metro currently run 17000 weekly services, so barely keeping up with population.

An equivalent 5% uplift today (ie about 850 extra services) would be enough to cut maximum waits across the entire network from 30-40 to 20 minutes at all but a few stations so asking why this has not been a priority is a fair question given that Melbourne's off-peak rail frequencies increasingly lag Sydney and even Perth.  

* April 22, 2012 A revolutionary day for weekend train travellers in Melbourne's east and south with Ringwood, Dandenong and Frankston getting weekend trains boosted from every 20 to every 10 minutes between approximately 10 am and 7pm. Nothing bigger has happened to weekend timetables since anywhere in Melbourne. Although the Frankston line got its evening and Sunday morning maximum waits cut from 30 to 20 min much later (in 2021).   

* December 23, 2013 This was a bit of a schmozzle. Metro announced a reduced service summer timetable with big peak period gaps that in my view (I was there at the time) should never have been approved by PTV. It was particularly a problem after mid-January by which many had returned to work. Melbourne has varied in its approach to reduced summer timetables. Connex actually stopped doing them in 2007 but at some point they reappeared under Metro, only to later disappear. 

* July 27, 2014 Basically a summary item for what was possibly the biggest service reform package for public transport across many modes. Item has links to posts I'd previously made detailing parts of this package. You really need to read the full item to appreciate the amount of what was done - the less service focused DTP of today would throw up its hands and say 'no can't do' as it was so big. 

* October 12, 2014 Another pre-election sweetener for the Frankston line with some peak trips added. V/Line had some major changes including new stations opening. Plus the restoration of the controversially deleted express 303 bus route to Ringwood North.  

Remember other important dates for the network? Please share your memories in the comments below. 


See other Useful Network items here

TT 211: Trains and People - Who gets the most service in the suburbs?

ONE MINUTE EXECUTIVE TAKEAWAY Last year I established that there is little relationship between a line's patronage and whether it was likely to have frequent all day service. Lines like Craigieburn had double the waits of the Frankston line yet carried similar numbers. The difference in all week frequent service was even starker with Frankston getting 90 hours per week versus 20 to 30 hours for Werribee and Craigieburn. Both the latter will get added trips when the Metro Tunnel opens but this won't materially change the all week ratio.

Today I check catchment population versus off-peak service levels for middle and outer suburban stations across Melbourne. Again there are big disparities. Popular stations on less served lines get just one-ninth the service relative to population versus stations on the best served line.

Both exercises support the view that Melbourne's Metro network lacks funded and implemented master timetable planning that aligns all day rail frequency with objective criteria such as usage or catchment population. Instead historical inertia and political factors have been most powerful in determining the service that suburban stations on electrified lines get.

If you don't want to read tedious station by station comparisons just scroll to near the end for the pre and post Metro Tunnel animated frequency map. There's an action plan to fix this right at the end.  

  

 Approaches to planning suburban rail frequencies

There's at least three approaches to deciding how frequently suburban trains should run. The transport authority (which in our context includes the state government and DTP) could: 

a. Operate a decent minimum service level (say every 15 min) on all lines across the week. That has the virtue of simplicity - rock up at any station at any time and you'll have a train soon. The idea that supply (in this case frequent service) is a major driver of public transport demand so it should be high, especially given that most railway costs are fixed and the marginal cost of off-peak frequency is low. This is basically what Sydney and Perth do with minor imperfections (Sydney not quite all stations, Perth not after 9pm). Both networks are good patronage performers relative to their size and historically. 

b. Operate a low network-wide minimum service standard (eg every 30 min) and run only the densely populated section of the network network frequently all day with most of the rest frequent in peak times only. This is based on the idea that public transport usage is demand-led so it is futile to give everyone a good service all day. Brisbane does this. It's a failure with low patronage relative to both network size and (even more so) rail employee numbers. 

c. Similar to b. above but have an even lower minimum service standard (eg every 40-60 min) with history or electoral politics determining which stations get all week frequent service. This is what Melbourne has allowed to happen. That wording is deliberate because my hypothesis is that metropolitan electrified rail service planning is a spasmodic set-and-forget affair that lacks an annual funded continuous improvement program that targets the highest needs first. 

Weak patronage rebound for Metro network

While usage of Melbourne's large rail network remains substantial, BITRE reports that it has been the slowest to bounce back in patronage since the pandemic. Contributing factors likely include frequent construction shutdowns, our high working from home rate and long waits at the very times travel activity has grown fastest due to a lack of service reform. 

There has also been a structural shift in that we have effectively paused rail electrification to growth suburbs with V/Line diesel trains increasingly taking on the growth area suburban transport task in the west and north. Unlike Metro, V/Line does have a strong and continuous program of proportionately large frequency improvements with these often being (honoured) election promises. The same BITRE  report says that V/Line has the fastest growing patronage of Australia's regional rail operators. 

Subsequent comments here apply most to metropolitan electrified services. 

Method 

Today I'll look at the 5km population catchment of metropolitan stations relative to the service it gets.

I used the Population Around a Point website by Tom Forth to calculate station population catchments. The service is midday weekday trains per hour. That off-peak measure is good for many reasons including off-peak frequency being a better proxy of a line's usefulness for diverse trips all day, the growing relative importance of off-peak versus peak travel and off-peak's higher patronage/service elasticity. 

So that these circles (mostly) capture only a single train line and do not have a tram option, I picked a ring of suburban stations about 20 to 40km out from the city. Most circles contain several stations but these are on the same line so typically get the same waits between trains.  

Below are the two most contrasting examples. Williams Landing on the Werribee line has a high catchment population but gets few trains while Carrum on the Frankston line has one-fifth the population but has twice the train frequency. Together that makes over a 9:1 disparity in service per person in Carrum's favour.    

Williams Landing is a comparatively new station, opening in 2013. The Werribee line on which it is situated has generally had a fixed 20 minute midday service for much longer. This compares to the Frankston line which also ran every 20 minutes until it was upgraded to every 15 minutes in the 1990s and every 10 minutes in the 2010s. On the population side, Williams Landing's catchment has gone from mostly open space to heavily populated in the last thirty years.

Today's 9:1 disparity is directly due to the less populated line getting lots more midday service while the more populated line stayed stagnant regarding midday service.  

Least to most served stations by service / population

I've already discussed the extremes of Williams Landing (lowest service per head) and Carrum (highest service per head). This is my list with twelve more. Each person represents 20 000 people within a 5km radius of the state station. Below is a list of all fourteen stations I reviewed with comments below each one. 

Werribee line. Discussed above. Top ranked due to its high population density with only a basic 20 minute midday frequency on the Werribee line. Laverton to Werribee portion serves a fast growing catchment.

Sunbury line. Similar story to Williams Landing with high population but only basic midday service. Middle Footscray to St Albans section densifying, Watergardens is the nearest station to some growth areas. Metro Tunnel timetable will soon double its midday frequency to 10 minutes to provide a service that better reflects usage.

Pakenham line. Like stations in the west and north this outer south-east station combines a high population catchment with a 20 minute service midday service. Station is beyond the split at Dandenong which enjoys a 10 minute midday service. This service commenced in July 2014 with midday trains previously only every 15 minutes to Dandenong and every 30 minutes on the branches. Should gain from Metro Tunnel with frequency improvements most likely evenings and Sunday mornings (not midday).

 

Geelong line. Busiest V/Line station apart from Southern Cross. Growth area catchment. Midday trains every 20 minutes which is sometimes better than some peak period gaps. This is a new station on a new section of line that did not exist before 2015. Timetable has larger evening gaps than Werribee line and late morning starts on weekends. 

Lilydale line. Not particularly densely populated but this and the Belgrave line has some of Melbourne's longest gaps between midday trains with Adelaide or Brisbane style 30 minute headways. Waits are already longer than at more distant stations such as Melton and Geelong with Sunbury to surpass Croydon's service levels when the Metro Tunnel opens. Midday weekday service levels have been unchanged for many decades though weekend trains got improved to every 20 minutes in 2012. This make the Lilydale line (along with Belgrave) alone in having a better midday weekend service than weekday service for no rational service planning reason except inertia. More details on the More Trains Melbourne's East Facebook page. 

Belgrave line. Everything said above for Croydon station applies to Boronia on the Belgrave line. Both lines lag the similarly configured Pakenham and Cranbourne branches which enjoy a higher (20 min) interpeak weekday service.  

Mernda line. Has the typical 20 minute frequency common on northern and western suburban lines as has remained for decades. Line is continuously populated in Melbourne with stations to the south having densifying catchments and stations from Epping to Mernda with growth area catchments including Wollert (which will soon be getting upgraded feeder buses). Line has no infrastructure limitations preventing it going to every 10 minutes. Liberals promised to introduce a 10 minute midday service on the (then) South Morang line in 2014 but lost government. There have been negligible timetable upgrades in the decade since with evenings and Sunday mornings remaining at every 30 and 40 minutes respectively.  

Werribee line. Major centre with growth area catchment. See Williams Landing above. 

Craigieburn line. Another continuously populated line this is another northern suburb line that has lacked significant service uplifts for many decades with its 20 minute midday headway seemingly stuck in stone. Possibly now Melbourne's most crowded, the line serves growth areas north of Craigieburn. Metro Tunnel Business Case envisaged midday service would improve to every 10 minutes but government appears to have walked back on this, with 2025 budget funding aiming only to get maximum waits down to 20 minutes from their current evening and Sunday morning 30 to 40 minutes. 

Cranbourne line. Large growth area catchment with many residents hoping for an extension to Clyde. Beyond the branch at Dandenong. Midday 20 minute service commenced in 2014 with this being an upgrade on the previously 30 minute intervals. Everything said for Narre Warren also applies here. 

Hurstbridge line. Inner portion of line to Eltham has a similar basic service level as Mernda, including 20 minute midday headways. Similarly its timetable has been largely stagnant over many years. 

Ballarat line. As part of the V/Line network, Melton has enjoyed a stronger trajectory of service improvements than most Metro lines. That includes midday weekday services improving from approximately one to three trains per hour. Weekend services have also improved but not by as much with the most recent improvement from every 60 to every 40 minutes. The line serves one of Melbourne's fastest growing corridors and significant further investment in improvements is envisaged. 

Pakenham/Cranbourne line. One of a string of very busy station between Caulfield and Dandenong. Currently enjoys a 10 min midday service with likely evening and Sunday morning gains after the Metro Tunnel opens. Had a 15 minute midday service prior to the 2014 upgrade. Arguably now justifies a 5 min midday service which would be assisted by its (now) lack of level crossings. 

Frankston line. Discussed extensively before, Carrum enjoys suburban Melbourne's highest train service level with trains consistently every 10-20 minutes at all times but in early hours of Sunday morning. This was not always the case with a steady stream of upgrades basically doubling service since the 1990s, assisted by the line having several political swing seats. Bayside placement and inland Green Wedge contributes to catchment population of less than 60 000. But even doubled population would retain Carrum's spot as Melbourne's highest served station for its distance from the CBD. 

Discussion of results

There is no connection between a metropolitan train station's catchment population and how frequently its midday trains run. 

The most important factors appear to be (i) population distribution of 30 or 40 years ago and (ii) political priorities including the distribution of historically marginal and safe seats.

Inertia in metropolitan (though not regional) rail frequencies has been king for much of the last decade. The threshold to trigger a metropolitan service upgrade (even the cheapest types) is high. You basically need middle class commuters left behind on platforms to get a substantial change to train timetables, such as occurred about 10 to 15 years ago. 

The 2025 state budget may represent a turning point with exactly the required lower cost upgrades being funded along with Metro Tunnel operations. That will deliver a major all week frequency upgrade for Watergardens, the second ranked station here. And at least Williams Landing, Narre Warren, Werribee, Broadmeadows, Cranbourne and Springvale should get some gains at other times. However several more like it will be needed before we can say it represents a decisive change from the 'infrastructure over service' stance that dominated this government's first decade. 

The bigger picture

Here's a map showing the Metro network with the most and least amount of frequent service across the day. Black lines have no frequent service, brown lines are frequent in peaks only while green lines are frequent in the off-peaks too. It alternates between existing pre-Metro Tunnel and what I understand will be the service levels post-Metro. Click map for better view.  

Frequent is defined as every 15 minutes, a common threshold and base frequency for Australian transit systems. The thickest green lines are frequent seven days. Everything is daytime only as no single route or line in Melbourne has consistently frequent evening service (although some overlaps do).  

You can see massive service disparities across Melbourne. In a nutshell the west+north get a peak only frequent service while many lines in the east+south enjoy a frequent service all day on weekdays and sometimes also weekends (more here). It's a network of haves and have nots, as then Opposition transport spokesman David Hodgett said in 2016. 

The Metro Tunnel timetable will give the west its first ever individually frequent all week line (to Watergardens). Craigieburn and Upfield (who see their maximum waits reduced from 40 to 20 min) and Werribee (extra peak trips) also get handy gains. But the overall distribution of who gets all day frequent service remains very skewed. Want this fixed? Keep reading!   

Potential 'Big Service' Metro upgrades 

Existing high usage and high catchment populations are both good reasons to boost train frequencies at midday and other times. What are the best lines to start with? 

1. Belgrave/Lilydale lines - every 10 min to Ringwood, every 20 min Belgrave & Lilydale

On the basis of cutting the longest waits first and being the cheapest to do, a Belgrave/Lilydale timetable rethink could be a good starting point. Key priorities for a Burnley group greenfields might include 20 minute maximum waits for Belgrave and Lilydale, a 10 minute maximum wait at Ringwood and simplified peak timetables with fewer stopping patterns.

However this doesn't fix the east-west divide, which needs the next steps listed to address. 

2. Craigieburn line - every 10 min midday

Craigieburn line passengers pay the same fare as Frankston line passengers yet have double the waits, half the service and more crowded trains with higher unique section line ridership. The Metro Tunnel's business case from 2016 was based on the Craigieburn line operating every 10 minutes. This need remains today with its catchment population growing strongly, exacerbated by limited V/Line service at Donnybrook. Scheduling work may be simpler than a Burnley group greenfields timetable so there may be potential for this to be done first. 

3. Werribee line - every 10 minutes  midday

Though it has fewer stations, Werribee is another strong contender for better midday service. The line also serves a growth area. An upgrade would take some stress off the under pressure Geelong line at Wyndham Vale and Tarneit, especially if weekends used the express line like weekdays do. 

4. Mernda, inner Hurstbridge and Sandringham lines - maximum waits cut from 40 to 20 min

A package of low budget evening and Sunday morning upgrades that replicate what the 2025 state budget funded for Craigieburn and Upfield. Sandringham would be especially cheap since it requires a handful of trains added per week. Mernda and Hurstbridge (to Eltham) upgrades are best done simultaneously as part of a Clifton Hill group package, which if split could see Sunday mornings and evenings until at least 10 pm done as the first phase.

Due to relatively simple scheduling and the few extra trips needed the government may wish to make this first priority to provide early and widely spread benefits on lines long neglected. 

5. Mernda and inner Hurstbridge lines - every 10 minutes midday

Doubling of daytime service to reduce waits from 20 to 10 minutes. Serving a growth area the Mernda line is the most important but a decision may be taken to deliver similar to part of the Hurstbridge line as part of a Clifton Hill group upgrade. A 10 minute frequency would make train travel more popular in densifying inner areas where passengers must currently choose between slow frequent trams or faster but infrequent trains. It would also encourage bus reform and speed access to La Trobe University (via the existing 301 shuttle). 

Other off-peak frequency upgrades not discussed here but which could be desirable are those associated with the Upfield, Glen Waverley, Melton and Geelong lines. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

The mysterious DTP - How is it structured and who is new?

The Department of Transport and Planning is, to outsiders, a mysterious organisation. 

That may be for several reasons, eg: 

* They used to (but no longer) publish an organisation chart on their website. Unlike other big departments like Education and Health that do, complete with names of executive directors and higher officials. 

* A significant proportion of its activities (notably operating public transport services) are outsourced to private operators under multi-billion dollar contracts. Claims of "commercial confidentiality" may restrict information available. Hence the successful RTBU motion at the last Labor State Conference.

* Major construction projects are typically hived off to dedicated authorities with their own senior management and contract supervision structures. Leaving people to wonder what's left for DTP to do with its still large 4760-strong staffing establishment. 

* The department has had so many restructures, renamings and rebrandings that people to lose track. There are very few times where it's been more than a year after or before one of the above. Right now the public facing public transport element is in the throes of changing from Public Transport Victoria to Transport Victoria. Implications for public understanding include websites being changed, links being broken and historical information being lost.  

* Its staff (not through their own fault) have a reputation amongst stakeholders (eg local government) as being remote or non-committal. Possibly as one of the biggest crime a bureaucrat can do is to raise expectations  that something will happen or be funded - when this is entirely a matter for the minister and government. Minimising interactions is one way to manage this risk, with media relations either being handled by the minister's office or the more loquacious but less influential Infrastructure Victoria. This blog's readership is also probably higher because of this.  
     

* It has had recent leaders not widely known for their outgoing or public-engaging nature. Although that may be by design due to the view that such interaction is more for the minister than for the department. 

A thirst for knowledge about DTP

What I can say with certainty is that there is a thirst for knowledge about DTP that is not being filled by anything from it. Instead people are searching more widely and finding this blog. 

Amongst its highest read items was Who Runs DTP? a profile of its senior management done last June. Other items about DTP's leadership were also very popular. 

Some things have changed since I looked at DTP management. The Silver Review promises more changes. So I thought it was worth a quick check of the department's current structure.   

As it turns out, at least one part of DTP wasn't that mysterious. That is its organisation chart. You just need to ask and they will email you one. Very quick, very efficient and no messing around with FOI requests. 

This chart has assisted me with much that follows.  

DTP leadership

First of all the ministers. There are four.

* Gabrielle Williams (Transport Infrastructure, Public & Active Transport)
* Harriet Shing (Suburban Rail Loop, Development Victoria, Housing)
* Sonya Kilkenny (Planning)
* Melissa Horne (Roads, Road Safety, Ports, Freight)

Assisted by parliamentary secretaries Josh Bull and Bronwyn Halfpenny. 

Enter Secretary Weimar

Not long after my executive profile from last year news emerged that then Secretary Paul Younis was leaving. While he led the state's controversial pandemic response and the committee for the ill-fated Melbourne 2026 Commonwealth Games, his extensive previous experience in transport made Jeroen Weimar a front-running successor candidate as secretary. As it turned out to be with him commencing in January 2025.    

The inner circle

A tight group of executives work in the office of the DTP Secretary. Two (Lachlan McDonald - intergovernmental relations and Jo Weeks - Communications and Customer Experience) have stayed put. 

Another of this group (Rob Pearce - Legal Counsel) remains in the department but now sits in the renamed and broader People, Legal and Governance Division about which there will be more later.

Last time I did not (but should have) mentioned the Director Strategy role that is also in the Secretary's office. Until May 2025 that was occupied by Patrick O'Neill (whose new role sees him chasing dodgy builders and tradies in the new Building and Plumbing Commission). The role has been slightly renamed to Integrated Strategy, with Cameron Robinson the acting executive director.  

As the first new name here, Mr Robinson needs introducing. His Melbourne University education was in commerce and economics. With time at both the ACTU and Oxford (albeit later in life at an affiliated business school), he shares some commonalities with Bob Hawke. 

His four years as an ACTU economist was followed by seven years advising Bracks and Brumby government ministers in primary industry, police and emergency services portfolios. Election losses can be a problem for now ex ministerial advisers but Mr Robinson soon found a role in the CFA. That was rounded out by stints in economic and policy consultancy with the all-reaching PwC.

As well as both public and private experience, the executive on the up often seeks international opportunities. In rail transport, especially, there is a very wide two-way door between the UK and Australia. Three years of doing economics for the HS2 project added transport sparkle to Mr Robinson's previously vanilla 'hacksultant' resume. That gave him an express ticket to advance in the Department of Transport back here in Victoria from 2018.    

I also didn't mention last time that the Secretary's Office itself has/had a director. This is Rebecca Trott who previously advised both Daniel Andrews (as opposition leader) and Jacinta Allan (as Transport Minister). Her name appears in the 2023-2024 DTP annual report but not on the current DTP executive organisational chart.  

The divisional structure

DTP's structure has changed a little in the last year or so with some divisions staying the same while others got name changes. Here's a summary:  

* Four (Planning and Land Services, Network Design and Integration, Transport Services, Investment and Technology) retained their name.
*  Two changed their name. Strategy and Precincts changed to Housing, Building and Land Delivery. Basically sharper words to focus harder on the government's housing growth agenda. Less significantly, People and Business Services became People, Legal and Governance to reflect Legal moving out of the Secretary's office.  

Two of the six divisions are from the planning side. These are Housing Building and Land Delivery and Planning and Land Services.  The organisation chart has 4 reports to each deputy secretary. 

The next three are largely transport functions. These are Network Design and Integration, Transport Services and Investment and Technology. These three have 26 executives reporting to the three dep secs. The Transport Services deputy secretary also has delegated functions and powers of Head, Transport for Victoria that you may see referred to in legislation (see p174 2023-24 annual report).   

Finally there is People, Legal and Governance who provide services to and administer both. The deputy secretary there has six named people reporting to her according to the organisational chart.  

DTP's Annual Report is here. Page 10 has a sort of organisational chart but in very abbreviated form, going no lower than the deputy secretary level. 

New deputy secretaries

Last time I reviewed the backgrounds of six DTP deputy secretaries. What's since happened to them? 

* Two (Natalie Reiter and Melinda Collinson) have resigned, leaving the department
* Two (Andrew McKeegan and Fiona Adamson) remain in their existing roles
* One (Dean Tighe) remains in his current role but is currently acting in the role vacated by ..
* One (William Tieppo) got promoted to the senior but sometimes controversial role of V/Line CEO

If you've been keeping tabs, that means three new dep sec names to learn about. 

Stuart Moseley leads Housing, Building and Land Delivery. He headed the Victorian Planning Authority for nearly eight years. Like fellow dep sec Andrew Keegan he is a South Australian. Background there includes having a planning degree, topped up later by public administration graduate diploma and an MBA. He has held executive level positions for some time, including City of Adelaide's CEO, SA's Dept Planning Transport & Infrastructure and a short time in Queensland. This was interspersed with private consultancy in the early 2010s.  

Jacinda de Witts heads DTP's internal affairs including HR, governance and the recently added legal. The latter becomes more understandable when you look at her background - Ms de Witts has been a lawyer since the 1990s including 12 years as partner at Minter Ellison. That was followed by 5 years as Royal Childrens Hospital Director and 8 years at the Department of Health with the last period at that in a dep sec role similar to her current DTP position. 

Shaun Condron is acting in Dean Tighe's Investment and Technology role as the latter acts in Mr Tieppo's old role in Network Design and Integration.  Mr Condron's thing is finance, having completed a degree in that from RMIT. We don't know much about his early jobs but he had four years as chief finance office for the Department of Primary Industry from 2003. A transfer to a similar role in the Justice and Community Safety department proved rewarding with eventual elevation to Deputy Secretary rank. In 2019 he reverted to being Chief Financial Officer but this time in transport with a gain to his current Acting role in August 2025. 

As noted last time, it is common for DTP deputy secretaries to be transferees from other departments. Thus their backgrounds tends to be legal or financial rather than transport operations or engineering. 

All currently serving of the above, whether the Secretary, deputy secretaries and executives in the Secretary's office are defined as Key Management Personnel. As are the heads of certain administrative offices, mostly associated with major projects (See DTP 2023-24 Annual Report p 174). 

Executive numbers

Below the deputy secretaries are several layers of executives. 

DTP alone had 191 executives in 2024 out of a total of 4760 staff. Of the 191:

* 104 were SES band 1
* 78 SES band 2 and
* 9 SES band 3

This 191 does not include the broader transport and planning portfolio outside the department proper. When you include that the number of executives more than doubles. Much of that is in the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority (156) and portfolio agencies (263). Then there are outsourced functions (eg train, tram and bus companies) that have their own executive structures, effectively taxpayer subsidised. 

See the DTP Annual Report for further details on executive numbers. There should be a new one out in the next couple of months or so (possibly not coming on the same day as all the others this year). 

DTP has copped criticism that it has too many executives. The government-commissioned Silver Review terms of references called out executive numbers as an issue. The Gold Review published by the A Voice for Members faction of the CPSU is more expressive, proposing 'trimming the bloated executive layer of the VPS' and other measures as alternatives to staff cuts at lower levels.  

DTP's key divisions for transport

I mentioned the six divisions, each headed by a deputy secretary, before. Three seem of most interest to us in transport, being:  

* Network Design and Integration
* Transport Services
* Investment and Technology

Very roughly (and there would be exceptions) the three could be summarised as (i) Planning/implementation, (ii) Operations/maintenance/franchise management/customer service, and (iii) Finance/procurement/data. More educated guesswork is attempted in red below.

As work progresses it would be passed between areas, often multiple times. For instance a new, revised or upgraded bus route would be designed with a service specification and costing done. Various approvals would be necessary, including on funding (key sources are the state budget or GAIC for growth area services) and implementation timing. It would move from planning to procurement then implementation to operation. The latter two would also have significant technology functions for instance location data, timetable information, maps and passenger information.  

The organisation chart has boxes in each division with each headed by an executive director. These boxes comprise:

Network Design and Integration 

- Assets and Engineering

- Freight Victoria

- WGTP/NELP Integration preparation for West Gate Tunnel & North East Link opening

- Major Projects Development and Integration
- Modal Planning bus and rail service planning

- MTP Network Readiness preparation for Metro Tunnel opening
- Network Pipeline and Program
- Road Safety Victoria
- Rolling stock and ticketing new trains, trams and ticketing upgrade 

Transport Services

- Inner Metro region role - largely roads based
- Greater Metro region role - largely roads based
- Barwon South West and Grampians region role - largely roads based
- Loddon Mallee and Hume region role - largely roads based
- Gippsland and Capital Delivery region role - largely roads based

- Heavy Rail relationship with Metro Trains

- Operational Readiness MTP more preparation for Metro Tunnel opening
- Network Operations 
- Network Change disruptions and changes
- Registration and Licensing management old Vicroads function

Investment and Technology

- Finance
- Budget Strategy and Portfolio Assurance
- Procurement early work on purchases
- Enterprise Technology 
- Commercial Advisory 
- Refranchising MR5 project trams done, next one Metro trains
- Data and Digital IT systems, website, timetable data and real-time info

I've probably missed a couple but those in bold are probably of most interest to readers here. If you had more time you could probably find the executive directors of most of them in Linked In. Or get your own organisational chart. 

Silver Review and its politics

The above structure is very likely to change in the next year or two. The premier foreshadowed savings earlier this year, with the Silver Review commissioned. In July it was said that it would be released in coming months. More recently we were advised that it will be out this year. 

As for where the Silver Review cuts will be, the government has said it will be targeting inefficiency and lower priority programs. This could mean administration, support roles and service delivery considered less critical. There have already been reports about fisheries inspectors and museum staff roles being cut. In the transport portfolio extreme care will be required to ensure that service planning and delivery capability isn't gutted given that DTP has known weaknesses here, including in cases where network reform is needed to improve efficiency. 

The government will have one eye on the upcoming state election. Absolutely no one will be wanting to sack nurses. Road maintenance is a big issue in the country and without reasonable performance here the government loses its social licence for big freeway and rail projects in the city.

Except perhaps for sections of the private or home schooling right, state school teachers have broad public support. Minority groups like socialists, anarchists and anti-lockdown libertarians distrust Victoria Police. But their position is safe given that the opposition is almost certain to make 2026 a 'law and order' election with government  already on the defensive. Besides, if the 'new tougher' bail laws are effective (in the sense of keeping more people locked up for longer) there will need to be more staff not fewer. The premier's release announcing the Silver Review says that frontline workers like the above are not in scope. 

The Silver Review is less certain for the large number of lower and middle level public servants (including many CPSU members) who are not nurses, teachers or police. This is a significant political constituency Labor will need to manage. Many (at least in Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo) would be existing Labor voters, with substantial Green support amongst the younger or inner suburban set. More could vote Green or Socialist as a protest. However the currently disunited Liberals will have a battle to get this group to preference them above Labor. 

While some would be personally known to ministers, the group of public servants with the least electoral influence would be the senior executive ranks. Good executive leadership is undoubtedly essential. But in abstract executives have the least goodwill from the wider community, including from private sector taxpayers and even public servants several levels lower. Likely generous redundancy payments should insure against immediate poverty but even if these didn't exist it's hard to feel for $250k earners lacking a private saving or income protection plan. The government would also lose no sleep from a hypothetical tabloid headline like below and might even regard it as positive.   

Even if some less senior public service positions do get cut (as seems likely) it would still assist morale and perceptions of fairness within the VPS if the government can demonstrate that this is a last resort, with the bulk of savings coming from executive redundancies or reduced use of consultants. And endless organisational restructuring (like rebrandings!) can unhelpfully distract from the core business of efficient service delivery.   

Summary 

The above has hopefully given a snapshot of DTP's insides. Those wanting to know more will no doubt be awaiting their 2024-25 annual report with interest. Upcoming restructuring associated with any machinery of government changes, the Silver review and normal attrition will likely mean that what's covered here will be out of date in a year or two.   

UPDATE 12/9/2025: The high level executives discussed here feature in the DTP Strategic Plan. That page is about the only useful part of this document. 'Elephant' is mentioned more times than 'bus' and their 17 priorities for the next four years glaringly omit service or service reform matters. 

TT 210: Success and failure - Two bus reform attempts in Melbourne's north

Same government, same department, similar parts of Melbourne. Yet very different network outcomes. This is a story of how bus reform can go right - and wrong - in Melbourne's northern suburbs.
And how despite good intentions there's still big service planning quality differences in 2025.  
There may be lessons for your area too, so keep reading. 
About one success story and one failure story.

Route 390's start, rise and rise 

Four years ago, if you wanted to travel from Craigieburn to Mernda by public transport you would have needed to get a train, bus and then another train. As well as the double changing there was a lot of pot luck with waiting times. That's because neither the 20 minute Craigieburn nor Mernda train frequencies harmonised with the Route 901 bus that came every 15 or 30 minutes. 

The train and 901 timetables haven't substantially changed but you can now get a direct bus between Craigieburn and Mernda, saving time and transfers. And connecting the fast growing frontier suburb of Wollert in the middle. 

Labor (or for that matter the coalition) didn't say much about bus or train services in the 2018 state election campaign. In a low interest rate financial environment that screamed 'borrow borrow borrow' this was the peak of 'Big Build' mania with the North-East Link and Suburban Rail Loop added to the government's already underway level crossing removal program. However local Labor members, who had an above average record at getting new bus services added, managed to get a Craigieburn to Mernda bus added to the party's 2018 re-election platform.  

Route 390 born

The government was returned with an increased majority. The promised Craigieburn - Mernda bus was funded in the 2019 state budget. There would have been planning work later that year and in 2020. Tenders were called in early 2021, with the service starting in October 2021 as Route 390. The first timetable had off-peak services every 40 minutes and a peak service every 30 minutes. However morning operating starts were a little late. 

Subsequent upgrades

Unlike most other bus routes, the 390 bus has got successive service upgrades in most years since. Handily timed to start before the 2022 state election, this one modestly improved peak frequency and extended operating hours.  

The 390 was clearly on an upward trajectory with another service uplift starting on January 7 2024. Added trips again extended evening operating hours and fixed the late weekday morning starts I flagged earlier as needing attention.   

2025 budget delivers for Wollert buses

After a couple of lean state budgets for buses in Melbourne's north, May 2025's brought further news for the 390 along with other routes in the Wollert area. We didn't get a lot of details then but more came later from local MPs. It was clear Wollert was getting a significantly extended bus network, with my best guess from last month here. 

Of note for the 390 is that instead of local routes from Epping stopping short of it, at least three of them would be extended to cross it, creating potential interchange opportunities for those going to Craigieburn or Mernda. As route extensions these typically take longer than simple off-peak frequency boosts due to the extra buses needed. 2 years from budget funding is a historically normal lag time but the government may seek to have them running by the November 2026 state election. 

What we do know is that the 390 frequency upgrades funded in the May 20, 2025 budget will commence on September 7, 2025. In other words a lead time of 3 1/2 months or 14 weeks. This is faster than most recent past bus frequency upgrades with typical lag time dropping from 12 months in 2023 and over 6 months in 2024. 

  

What will September's timetable bring? Most notable is that the 390 will join the growing club of routes that runs every 20 minutes off peak during the day on weekdays. This is common in Craigieburn but not many other places in the north. Secondly the trend to later operating hours will continue with a midnight Monday to Saturday finish.

Like other Craigieburn routes, weekend frequency will remain at every 40 minutes. Also, like the recently upgraded Werribee routes, peak intervals remain longer than 20 minutes, presumably due to a wish to not increase peak bus requirements. 

To summarise, the 390 has been a story of a new direct and increasingly frequent bus route that has  averaged about one service upgrade per year. That's more than any other bus route in Melbourne, some of which have lacked upgrades for 30 years.

Implementation has been without fuss and the 390 is now a successful part of the northern metropolitan bus network. Success begets success as they say.

The upcoming Wollert route extensions and upgrades should increase 390's role further as connectivity to it becomes possible at more points and with less waiting. Hopefully after then it will see further upgrades, such as weekends going to every 20 minutes and weekday peaks going to every 15 minutes.  

The planned decline of Bell Street's 513 bus

A few long-standing main road bus routes have almost iconic status. The 246 down Punt Rd, 465 on Buckley St, 788 down the peninsula and 800 along Princes Hwy are all examples. All are more direct, more frequent and busier than surrounding routes. 

Network planning decisions can sometimes remove these routes. For example the 903 orbital subsumed the famous 700 down Warrigal Rd. That's not so bad if the service level is maintained. But sometimes it isn't. For example the frequent and high profile Route 600 from Sandringham lost status when about half its trips were transferred to infrequent 922 and 923 routes during an ill-advised network restructure in 2002 (that has never been reversed). Save the thought as similar is happening right now as you'll soon learn.   

Bell Street in the north is the equivalent of Warrigal Rd in the east, with it roughly separating pre from post war suburbia. And, like Warrigal Rd it has (or had) an iconic bus route - the 513. For many decades if you were walking or driving along Bell St and saw a bus the chances were high that it would be the 513.  

Route 513 history

What we now know as Route 513 dates back at least 70 years with a detailed description below. Then known as the 6A, it ran more frequently than today's 513, especially on Saturdays when a 15 minute frequency operated until 11:30pm. The route was simple, starting at Glenroy then Coburg and then straight down Bell St to Heidelberg. 

The route became the 513 in 1971 when Melbourne buses were overhauled to a three digit system. The alignment was unchanged with the map below showing how simple it then was.    

513 becomes complex (mid 1970s)

When development spreads there is sometimes a temptation to extend a bus route. This is what happened to the 513 in an eastward direction. A problem here is that the catchment to the east has lower population density and patronage potential compared to the existing busy catchment along Bell St. It was also dispersed, going out in several corridors from an existing terminus. Such corridors may already have buses, like you can see with the 519 and 520 at the far right of the above map. 

For possibly understandable reasons the old routes 519 from Eltham via Lower Plenty and the 520 from Eltham via Greensborough were merged with the 513 at Heidelberg sometime in the mid 1970s. This gave those passengers a one seat ride to destinations on Bell Street. You can see this on the 1978 network map. 

However merging added confusion for those taking the 513 eastward. This is because although all trips went to Eltham, some trips went there via Greensborough and others went via Lower Plenty. Thus a simple and legible route with high patronage potential via Bell Street became complicated. Unlike (mostly radial) routes that share a common corridor and fan out to different destinations you couldn't just look at the buses destination and be sure you were on the right one. 

The Glenroy - Bell St - Rosanna portion of the 513 ran every 15 minutes peaks and 20 minutes interpeak. The eastern portions gained half that service, partly reflecting its low patronage potential, at least for the Lower Plenty section. When minimum service standards came in the 513 had half frequency on weekends - that is every 40 minutes on the Bell St section and every 80 minutes on the eastern legs. The latter did not meet the 60 minute minimum service standards then being rolled out but that was quietly ignored especially as sections were overlapped by other routes. 

The 1970s alignment with its complicated alternating Greensborough / Lower Plenty routing stayed intact for over 40 years. Some background is in my 2019 write-up here.

However change was soon to happen. Would it simplify the 513 or sow the seeds for something worse in the future? I'll answer that after covering the forces driving (or blocking) bus network reform at the time.  

Bus planning battles

Ben Carroll was an ambitious rising minister who gained the public transport portfolio in 2020 in the ministerial reshuffle following the Adem Somyurek affair. Management through the pandemic dominated state government activities including in transport. When normality returned he was keen to pursue a reform agenda in public transport services - something that had been side-lined under previous ministers Jacinta Allan (whose love was infrastructure builds) and the then inexperienced Melissa Horne. 

However not all under him were paddling in the same direction.  

Simplifying complex but high patronage potential main road bus routes like the 513 were prime aims for various Infrastructure Victoria papers on buses as well as Victoria's Bus Plan from 2021. For a while it looked as if something big was going to happen with an implementation plan promised and a bus reform team set up in the Department. I generally like this approach provided it is done in manageable clusters similar to past Useful Network items. 

But others had different visions for buses. They wanted fixed routes to be replaced with flexible routes summoned through an app. The idea of a bus on demand (with the impression gained that this was on your terms, not theirs) proved alluring, especially to those who hadn't researched the history and past poor records of similar schemes. I am not sympathetic to this approach as it is neither economical, efficient nor helps as many people as fixed route reform could.  

Another view, favoured by some in academia, was that flexible routes (which are inherently low productivity) could produce savings that could enable more frequent main routes operating on a sparse grid for an overall greater good. Again I am wary, especially in densely populated or high social needs areas where even neighbourhood fixed routes are more productive than any flexible route can be.  

The department at the time did not have a secretary good (or allowed to be good) at gardening; that is one ruthless enough to kill the weeds so that the desired productive crop could flourish. That may have led to the following: 

Three failures in six months

The above intellectual currents gave traction to divergent ideas for buses in 2022, which also happened to be a state election year. Those directly relevant to the future of Route 513 included: 

* The May 2022 state budget that funded a FlexiRide route for Greensborough with significant public consultation and analysis work documented here. 

* The decision to split the 513 into two Glenroy to Eltham routes commencing on 3 July 2022. 

* The September 2022 announcement that there would be large bus network reviews across Melbourne's north and north-east. 

None of the three can be considered successes when measured against Bus Plan objectives of creating a simpler, more direct and more useful bus network, although the network reviews had potential to be. Here's what happened to each:

The Greensborough FlexiRide proposal was abandoned, but not before years of indecision. Significant development work and consultation was wasted to arrive at an outcome that could reasonably have been foreseen. As a result people in the area have gone without public transport improvements that could have been implemented two years ago.   

The bus network reviews for the north and north-east appear dead. The timing of their announcement and the lack of funding in the 2023 and 2024 state budgets make them look like a pre-election ruse. As they involved multiple complex networks totalling at least 100 routes the government may have bitten off more than they could chew. Smaller more focused reviews involving one or two high-patronage/high benefit routes and maybe three or four local services may have had a greater chance of success, especially if several could be done at once in different parts of Melbourne. 

Then there's the 513 split of July 2022. That was basically a route numbering change so that the via Greensborough variant of Route 513 got renumbered as 514. Arguably it aided legibility but it also added complexity for the majority of passengers who only use the route's busiest portion between Heidelberg and Glenroy. This is because instead of one route every 20 minutes there are now two route numbers, each every 40 minutes on weekdays, to look up. That adds space on signage and means there are more stop timetables to look up on the website and at stops. The reduced service also erodes the profile of the long-standing Route 513 as the Bell St bus without sound rationale. 

The clutter of excessive routes is particularly extreme just west of Coburg with the problem getting worse over time. For instance the 1971 map had just a single route (the 513) operating along Bell Street there. Unlike in the south-east the 903 orbital SmartBus was layered over existing routes including the 513. A bit later the 561 was extended west to Pascoe Vale, without reforms to existing routes. 

Then in 2022, contrary to the simplification ethos of the Bus Plan and reports from people like IV, the 513 was diluted with frequency halved to accommodate the new 514, making the network even more complex with an even more confusing array of low frequency routes. The result is that, especially on the weekends, buses come at uneven intervals with no route better than every 30 minutes with 40 minutes more typical. In contrast, a genuinely reformed network would likely reduce the number of routes to maybe one or two but with each running every 10-15 minutes over wide operating hours all week. 

Even if you weren't going to do the above more radical reform immediately, was the 2022 513 / 514 split a step that would make it easier? Unfortunately it wasn't. Indeed it was arguably counterproductive due to the extra route number on Bell Street and a bad choice on which eastern section became the 514 and which remained as 513.  

What would optimised service frequency look like?

As was understood in the 1970s (even though the solution chosen then to have two eastern legs of the 513 as the same route number was not elegant) it was fair for the Glenroy and Bell St sections to run more frequently than the quieter eastern portions. This is due to reasons including population density, demographics, usage and overlaps from other routes. 

Assisted by the stop usage map from Philip Mallis, I compiled a service and needs analysis for the 513 and 514 corridor between Glenroy and Eltham (click image below for a better view). 

The result is that you run the Glenroy to Heidelberg portion as frequently as you can afford while each section east of Heidelberg gets a minimum standard type service (but not more) that is well coordinated with trains. 

In more detail, the St Georges Rd - Oriel Rd section of Bell St (especially) deserves higher frequency as 513/514 is the unique route in the area. But the eastern section of the routes has many overlaps including the 513 between Viewbank and Eltham and the 514 between Greensborough and Eltham. The latter is particularly notable as the route it overlaps with is the much more frequent 902 SmartBus. While 513/514 also overlaps with other routes in the Coburg area the difference is the eastern sections have much lower boardings per bus stop so the eastern overlaps have less justification to exist. 

Existing 513/514 service levels are sort of consistent with that. The busier section (where both routes overlap) runs every 15 min peak, 20 min interpeak and 40 min weekends. Each of the quieter eastern portions has twice those gaps.

Key issues are the low weekend frequency on all sections of the route. Every 40 minutes is inadequate for a main road bus corridor. And the 80 minute frequencies on the quieter sections do not meet minimum service standards.  Hold those thoughts as we look at what's planned to start next month. 

September 2025 513 / 514 / 517 changes

Emerging from the ruins of Greensborough's ill-advised and now aborted FlexiRide was the will and funding to upgrade bus routes 513, 514 and 517 instead. In theory that's a good idea as I said at the time.

Back then I didn't have the details apart from an assumption that planning would be vaguely sensible. That is most resources would go to where they would be most beneficial, even if there were still political and minimum service standards imperatives to improve all sections of the routes. And that complex variations would be avoided given that network simplification is a core Bus Plan aim. 

The 517 was indeed sensibly planned with the improvement to an even 20 minute weekday headway that harmonises with trains likely to be successful. Especially in its high needs Northland to Rosanna segment and to some extent parts of Greensborough. So I'll mainly discuss the 513/514 changes which are so complex that not even PTV understands them. 

When first published on August 15, 2025 (and still uncorrected 11 days later on August 26 when last checked) the Transport Victoria website item has both omissions and errors for the 513 and 514 as below.  

The above claims more weekday service than actually runs on each route while failing to mention the weekend frequency boost at the Eltham end of both routes. 

Meanwhile PTV posters at stops on Bell Street are whipping up false fears that they're taking half your weekend buses away by failing to mention the 514 service increases (photo below 22/8/2025). 

While PTV sometimes lacks sufficient understanding to accurately communicate bus service changes, with underselling rife, the root cause in this case arises from the routes being made unnecessarily complex.  

A close inspection of the September 7 timetables (which PTV apparently didn't do before writing its website and poster material) would reveal that the changes involve one of the routes being chopped up. That's not necessarily bad, and can sometimes be good, especially on long routes that have reliability issues or different service level needs.

The problem is that this piece of butchering is different across the week, confusing not just PTV but passengers too. Currently both routes 513 and 514 operate their full length seven days per week between Eltham and Glenroy. While Route 513 will continue to operate its full length on weekdays, these changes shorten it on weekends to operate between Eltham and Heidelberg only. The missed section includes Bell Street, hence the stop notice above. 

That leaves Bell Street with just the 514 on weekends, except for two Saturday morning trips that operate as the 513. The first and shortest of those trips can be just a short 514 trip but for some reason appears in the 513 timetable. However what the stop notice neglects to mention is that the deleted 513 trips are replaced by extra 514 services, thus maintaining (but not increasing) the 40 minute weekend frequency on the busy Bell St - Glenroy section. Still the westbound bus stop timetables on Bell Street and up to Glenroy will look really strange with just two early trips shown on the Saturday 513 timetable.

The sorry mess the 513 is to become is annotated here: 

Essentially this change reverts to the sort of crazy weekday / weekend variations that we mostly but not entirely ditched about 15-20 years ago. Its introduction on a new timetable is inconsistent with Victoria's Bus Plan that sought simpler, not more complex, bus routes.

PTV/TV are rarely inclined to explain things with maps or diagrams. Notwithstanding ministerial statements like "The time for Bus is Now", communicating bus service changes appear a low organisational priority. Maybe it's just as well as such a diagram might look like this embarrassment:   

Compared the the timetable this diagram highlights another complexity in that Heidelberg Station is a part-time (weekends-only) stop for the 513. Part-time bus stops are, as a rule, horrid and should be eliminated. But this network change creates a new one. 

Service outcomes 

What is the rationale for this extra complexity? Who benefits?

It's all about the weekends; the weekday pattern doesn't change with both routes continuing all the way. 

On weekends everyone along 513 or 514 gets a 40 minute frequency. That's an improvement for those on the Lower Plenty and Greensborough portions that currently get a 40 min weekday / 80 min weekend frequency.

Whereas those on the busier section between Heidelberg and Glenroy retain their existing 40 minute weekend frequency but with trips operated by the 514. In other words the 513 becomes essentially a Monday - Friday only route on this section.

Continuing the weekday pattern where both routes run their full length to Glenroy would have given Bell St the 20 minute weekend service it justifies. However the government was apparently too skint to afford this, nor was willing to find trade-offs elsewhere, so gave us this bodge job instead.

The failure to tackle route reform or timetable trade-offs means that some less populated or patronised areas continue to get more buses than a major section of busy Bell Street. Indeed these changes increase service disparities. For example parts of Lower Plenty get up to triple the service with three routes (including the upgraded section of the 513) providing 4.5 buses per hour in sections. And then there is Route 580 in Eltham that gets a Saturday service every 30 minutes (not meeting trains) versus much busier Bell Street which retains its 40 minute intervals.  

To summarise, next month's 513 / 514 changes appear yet another case of sensible bus network planning and reform in Melbourne's established northern suburbs being pushed out into the never-never. 

They misdirect service to areas where it is less needed while neglecting precincts that need it more.

They are also too complex for PTV to understand, as evidenced by multiple communication errors. 

And by introducing the same sort of weekday/weekend service variations that we were cleaning up 15 to 20 years ago they represent a step back, not a step forward, in bus service planning. 

I would rarely say this, but the 513/514 changes are possibly better dropped than done in their current form. To misquote Sir Rod Eddington, "Doing nothing is not an option".   

There is not even a 'no funds available' defence as a large north-east wedge, including Templestowe, Greensborough and Eltham, has a concentration of poorly used or duplicative bus routes whose reappraisal could have funded genuine bus network simplification and reform.

That such opportunities were not taken arguably represent the first failure of the new ZEB franchises.  The merging of quiet Panorama routes into the Dysons network should have permitted an easier shuffling of resources from low to high patronage routes similar to the successful 2021 and 2025 timetable adjustments on the Manningham Transdev/Kinetic network. 

That they didn't also reflects the fact that just because a revised franchise or a consolidated operator may theoretically facilitate network reform does not necessarily make it happen. The stagnation of ex Reservoir Bus Company routes despite being taken over by a larger operator demonstrates that the low will to simplify bus services in this part of Melbourne has existed for many years.   

Future options

What could alternatives that avoided complexity and focused service upgrades where most needed look like? 

A potential basic alternative

A basic alternative could involve retaining 513 and 514's full length 7 day service but boosting each to every 60 minutes on weekends. Everyone along the route would gain. Bell St and Glenroy would get a lift from 40 to 30 minutes while the eastern segments would go from every 80 to 60 minutes, thus meeting minimum service standards. This is shown below. 

What's wrong with it? Very little. The catchment population benefiting from a frequency uplift is vastly more than under the current arrangement. Plus they are likely to have a higher propensity to use buses so there is likely a fare revenue and patronage benefit. Retaining all week consistency would have made communication easier too as it would just be a routine timetable change. 

The main criticism is that Bell Street's 30 minute frequency is not harmonised with trains every 20 minutes, unlike the current (and proposed) 40 minute frequency. However in practice, as long as you are increasing frequency and it's going to a more legible clockface number (like 30 minutes is) then I would argue there is an overall greater good. This is particularly in cases where: 

(i) a bus route serves stations on many train lines so that a harmonised frequency does not necessarily mean good connections at all stations (some might be consistently bad!) 
(ii) the bus route intersects many tram routes that due to their high frequencies just need the bus to be as frequent as possible 
(iii) the bus route may intersect other bus routes that don't necessarily operate at train harmonised frequencies but people may wish to change to them (eg the 903 SmartBus every 30 minutes) 
(iv) The route has a lot of popular destinations along it so most passengers aren't changing to a train at all 

All these apply very strongly to the 513/514 corridor along Bell St. The best outcome would obviously be weekend buses every 20 minutes such as operate on main routes in other parts of Melbourne and on 513/514 during the week. However, failing that, a 30 minute frequency on Bell St far beats the current 40 minute service. 

In addition the 60 minute headway on the eastern section provides a memory clockface timetable operating to a minimum standard generally considered appropriate for a local route. It's also better than the current 80 minute service. Having said that there may be opportunities to deliver higher frequencies in conjunction with later network reform. 

The above higher benefit concept would require more service kilometres than what is being implemented. However this uplift may be fundable through offsetting adjustments to timetables on low productivity routes such as 578/579, 580 and 582, possibly in that order.  

A potential enhanced alternative

If ambition, including a 20 minute weekend service on Bell Street, is higher then some broader thinking may be necessary to maximise cost-effectiveness and improve network simplicity. 

The concept below has a single Glenroy to Greensborough route operating every 20 minutes (preferably 7 days). I've called this the 513 given the strong historical connection between Bell Street and this iconic route number. 

Funding, especially if a 20 minute weekend service is provided, may require network reforms over and above those flagged above. Possibilities might include: 

* Replacement of Route 514 between Greensborough and Eltham with a slightly realigned 902 (which is far more frequent than the 513/514 ever was) to reduce duplication and provide savings

* A dedicated Heidelberg - Lower Plenty - Eltham route every 40 to 60 minutes that due to its separateness can be more optimally timed to meet trains.  There may also be adjustments to other routes  (eg 293, 582 & 901) with a view to reducing overlaps and extending coverage to unserved corridors eg Bolton St. 

* Shortening of 517 to operate between Northland and Greensborough with the lower patronised St Helena portion served by a new route (labelled 519) carefully timed to meet trains at Greensborough. It may be possible to plan an arrangement where, at least on weekdays, 517 through-routes via Greensborough to form 518 and 519, with both the latter operating every 40 minutes off-peak. 

* Potential rethinking of usage and service levels on other quieter routes such as 381 and 385 subject to this delivering significant 'greater good' benefits. 

513 Bell St SmartBus operating frequently 7 days

Scope may exist for the enhanced network above to have an even more frequent 513 (say every 10 - 15 minutes 7 days) operating between Glenroy and Heidelberg as per the 1971 alignment. This would even better align service levels with the high usage potential Bell St bus.  

A route review in the Coburg area could identify network overlaps whose reduction could enable more frequent and evenly spaced Bell Street bus services that meet Bus Plan aims even more than previous options here. 

Various options exist for retained Heidelberg - Greensborough coverage with a separate local style route timed to meet trains. Potential may exist for this to extend to St Helena to replace the existing 517. Speaking of which, the Northland - Greensborough portion has potential for a higher weekend frequency as indicated on the map above.  

The three options above vary in their features. The basic example is simpler to implement and spreads benefits everywhere. Whereas the later two concepts spread benefits to more people and provide increasingly high legibility. But any of the three would be a step towards reversing the indecision, atrophy and failure that has dogged bus network reform in this part of Melbourne's north over many years.  

Summary 

This has been a look at how one bus route can be introduced, become a success and get further service upgrades. Admittedly the 390 is a direct bus route in an outer housing growth area. Suburbs like Wollert are not unlike Werribee which saw a large anti-government swing in the by-election earlier this year. Thus the 390 (and soon other buses in Wollert) have enjoyed significant political support and thus service funding. 

Conversely we have seen a huge amount of deck chair shuffling that has led to nothing but atrophy on the major bus route along northern Melbourne's most famous east-west road. Whether it's been an ill-advised dalliance with time-wasters like flexible route buses, an over-ambitious but unfunded bus review or successive downgrading of an iconic bus route, all roads taken have so far led to failure or confusion. However this is fixable with some potential concepts outlined and resources available for the taking.  

See other Timetable Tuesday items here