Which MP is Victoria's transport question king?

Which state politician asks the most questions about transport in parliament? 

Keep reading and you'll find out who is Victoria's transport question king. 

At their best, questions asked in parliament are meant to hold the government to account. 

At other times they may be theatre. They may be intended to embarrass more than seek elucidation if coming from the non-government side. Or if from the government side they may be sympathetic 'Dorothy Dixers' used to highlight some good news, announce some funding or parade some achievement.   

The Victorian Parliament website has a searchable questions section. There you can see how many questions each MP has asked on which portfolios. 

I decided to do this exercise for the 60th parliament - that is the time from after the 2022 state election to now (4 June 2025 when this data was collected). I counted only questions asked for the transport portfolio (1988 in total). That needed six boxes ticked due to machinery of government changes introduced part way through the term. 

Counting questions asked in parliament is just one measure of how active MPs are and/or their interest in transport matters. Note the emphasis. Different MPs have different representation styles. Some, especially on the government side, prefer to press their area's needs through personal meetings with the minister. There may also be liaison at electorate officer/ministerial adviser levels to refine proposals. 

Much of a diligent MP's time is away from parliament, often in their electorate, showing up to things and talking to constituents. An MP that only asks a few questions is not necessarily lazy; indeed some work hard and can claim significant wins for their seat through more effective means. Indolent or self-serving MPs do exist but it is unfair to use questions asked as a sole gauge of this. 

Having got these caveats out of the way, here are the lists of MPs by house in descending order of questions asked. As Question Time is supposed to be a means for the parliament to hold the executive to account, all those asking questions are non-ministers. Where MPs have left or been expelled from parties, I've listed the party they represented at the 2022 election first. Government and non-government parliamentarians are separated as their need and propensity to ask questions is different, especially in the Legislative Council. 

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Government

Will Fowles (ALP/Ind, MLA) 25

Sarah Connolly (ALP, MLA) 18

Luba Grigorovitch (ALP, MLA) 16

Kathleen Matthews-Ward (ALP, MLA) 16

Nathan Lambert (ALP, MLA) 14

Anthony Ciaflone (ALP, MLA) 13

Paul Hamer (ALP, MLA) 10

Juliana Addison (ALP, MLA) 10

Mathew Hilakari (ALP, MLA) 10

Jackson Taylor (ALP, MLA) 10

John Mullahy (ALP, MLA) 9

Iwan Walters (ALP, MLA) 9

Alison Marchant (ALP, MLA) 8

Dylan Wight (ALP, MLA) 7

Tim Richardson (ALP, MLA) 7

Kat Theophanous (ALP, MLA) 7

Martha Haylett (ALP, MLA) 7

Daniela De Martino (ALP, MLA) 7

Bronwyn Halfpenny (ALP, MLA) 6
Lauren Kathage (ALP, MLA) 6

Josh Bull (ALP, MLA) 5

Gary Maas (ALP, MLA) 5
Emma Vulin (ALP, MLA) 5

Paul Mercurio (ALP, MLA) 5

Jordan Crugnale (ALP, MLA) 5

Nina Taylor (ALP, MLA) 4
Matt Fregon (ALP, MLA) 4

Katie Hall (ALP, MLA) 4

Michaela Settle (ALP, MLA) 4

Ella George (ALP, MLA) 4

Meng Heang Tak (ALP, MLA) 3

John Lister (ALP, MLA)* 2

Eden Foster (ALP, MLA)* 1

Pauline Richards (ALP, MLA) 1
Steve McGhie (ALP, MLA) 1

Paul Edbrooke (ALP, MLA) 1

Darren Cheeseman (ALP/Ind, MLA) 1

Nick Staikos (ALP, MLA) 1

Vicki Ward (ALP, MLA) 0

Chris Couzens (ALP, MLA) 0

Non-Government

Annabelle Cleeland (Nat, MLA) 81

Nicole Werner (Lib, MLA) 58

Danny O'Brien (Nat, MLA) 55

Tim Read (Grn, MLA) 52

Cindy McLeish (Lib, MLA) 52

Tim Bull (Nat, MLA) 43

Ellen Sandell (Grn, MLA) 41

Bridget Vallence (Lib, MLA) 32

Kim O'Keeffe (Nat, MLA) 30

Kim Wells (Lib, MLA) 30

Wayne Farnham (Lib, MLA) 29

Brad Rowswell (Lib, MLA) 25

Martin Cameron (Nat, MLA) 21

David Southwick (Lib, MLA) 19

Bill Tilley (Lib, MLA) 19

Tim McCurdy (Nat, MLA) 18

Roma Britnell (Lib, MLA) 15

David Hodgett (Lib, MLA) 14

Richard Riordan (Lib, MLA) 14

Sam Hibbins (Grn/Ind, MLA)* 13

Jade Benham (Nat, MLA) 13

Sam Groth (Lib, MLA) 11

Brad Battin (Lib, MLA) 9

James Newbury (Lib, MLA) 9

Matthew Guy (Lib, MLA) 7

Michael O'Brien (Lib, MLA) 7

Peter Walsh (Nat, MLA) 7

Emma Kealy (Nat, MLA) 4

de Vietri (Grn, MLA) 3
Chris Crewther (Lib, MLA) 3
John Pesutto (Lib, MLA) 3

Rachel Westaway (Lib, MLA)* 1

Ryan Smith (Lib, MLA)* 0

(*) Member has not been present for full period of the 60th parliament (due to resignations or by-election wins). 

As you might expect the most persistent questioners did not sit on the government benches. Possibly less expected was that members of smaller parties like Nationals or Greens punched above their weight relative to many Liberals. Not surprisingly, given the areas they represent, maintenance of country roads was a top concern for National MPs. 

On the government side the most active questioners were metropolitan members from the west and along the Ringwood line (the latter of which has been marginal for Labor). Quieter Labor MPs (at least on transport) are found around Geelong and parts of the south-east. 

You would expect that non-government members who hold their parties' transport portfolios would be particularly active questioners on the topic. The numbers do not show that. 

David Southwick (who had the transport infrastructure role until January 2025) asked 19 questions. Matthew Guy (who had public transport since October 2023) asked 7 questions. The Greens Sam Hibbins (who had his party's transport spokesperson role until claimed by scandal) was more active but still below average with 13 questions asked.

Previous shadow transport ministers in the Legislative Assembly (David Hodgett and Richard Riordan), each with 14 questions, do not stand out although one MLC does as mentioned later. Transport was also rarely top of mind for current Liberal leader Brad Battin (9 questions) and former leader John Pesutto (3 questions).  

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL


Government

Michael Galea (ALP, MLC) 19

Ryan Batchelor (ALP, MLC) 8

John Berger (ALP, MLC) 6

Sheena Watt (ALP, MLC) 5

Tom McIntosh (ALP, MLC) 4

Sonja Terpstra (ALP, MLC) 3

Jacinta Ermacora (ALP, MLC) 2

Lee Tarlamis (ALP, MLC) 0

Non-Government

David Davis (Lib, MLC) 194

Evan Mulholland (Lib, MLC) 100

Wendy Lovell (Lib, MLC) 90

Richard Welch (Lib, MLC)* 52

Aiv Puglielli (Grn, MLC) 41

Trung Luu (Lib, MLC) 39

David Ettershank (Can, MLC) 35

Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell (PHON, MLC) 35

Katherine Copsey (Grn, MLC) 32

Joe McCracken (Lib, MLC) 32

Nick McGowan (Lib, MLC) 31

Bev McArthur (Lib, MLC) 26

Gaelle Broad (Nat, MLC) 23

Ann-Marie Hermans (Lib, MLC) 21

Renee Heath (Lib, MLC) 20

David Limbrick (LP, MLC) 20

Moira Deeming (Lib, MLC) 19

Melina Bath (Nat, MLC) 18

Samantha Ratnam (Grn, MLC)* 17

Sarah Mansfield (Greens, MLC) 13

Rachel Payne (Can, MLC) 13

Matthew Bach (Lib, MLC)* 9

Georgie Purcell (AJP, MLC) 9

Georgie Crozier (Lib, MLC) 7

Anosina Gray-Barberio (Grn, MLC)* 4

Adem Somyurek (Ind, MLC) 3

Jeff Bourman (SFF, MLC) 2

(*) Member has not been present for full period of the 60th parliament (due to resignations or Legislative Council appointments). 

The Legislative Council is quite different to the Legislative Assembly. It is explicitly meant to be a 'house of review'. And it has fewer members, meaning that members who choose to get to ask more questions. It may also help that the government lacks a majority here. 

Most notable (unlike in the Legislative Assembly) is the strength of the Liberals. Most notably David Davis, Evan Mulholland, Wendy Lovell and Richard Welch. All asked over 50 questions with the Suburban Rail Loop a popular topic. Greens, Legalise Cannabis and One Nation MLCs feature in those who asked over 30 questions.

Unlike in the Legislative Assembly those who were or are transport spokespeople for their party (David Davis and Katherine Copsey) were active question askers. 

With few exceptions, Labor Legislative Councillors rarely ask questions, unlike their counterparts in the Legislative Assembly. Of the Labor MLCs Michael Galea stands out, with most others asking five questions or fewer. 

Conclusion

MPs vary greatly in their tendency to ask questions in parliament. 

As might be expected non-government MPs ask more than government MPs. 

There are more questions asked in the Legislative Council than the Legislative Assembly.

Liberals dominate questioning in the Legislative Council whereas the biggest questioners in the Legislative Assembly are Nationals and Greens. 

Labor Legislative Councillors rarely ask questions whereas Labor MLAs do more often. Possibly as MLCs are effectively party appointees who rarely get large personal votes. Whereas MLAs are expected to (within limits) represent their single-member seat, including sometimes asking questions.  

The opposition tends to be the reverse; Liberal MLAs under-ask relative to their counterparts in the Legislative Council. 

It is one of the latter, David Davis MP, who is unmasked as Victoria's transport question king by asking 194 questions so far this parliament. 

Perhaps more MPs, especially Liberals in the lower house and Laborites in the upper house, should have more of what he's drinking. 

TT 205: More Trains More Often - How is the government going & Metro Tunnel prospects

Last week and this has been the budget estimates hearings. The time when ministers explain and are asked questions on the recent state budget and the government's record generally. Sometimes additional information can come out or fine points get clarified. 

For example last Thursday we learned that the Metro Tunnel will open with all stations operating (there was some media speculation that this wouldn't be so) and that the 463 bus would be extended to Caroline Springs. Watchers also heard the customer experience jargon term 'hypercare' in relation to getting people used to the Metro Tunnel. 

Also of interest was the government defending its record on Metro train service frequency. In a nutshell it hasn't been good, with falling service per capita. The big picture is this: 

Melbourne's population grew 18% since 2015
Metro train service only grew 9% since 2015

Every time people have asked for shorter gaps between trains (like Sydney or Perth already have) the government has said that this or that infrastructure project must be done first. Or that it will all be amazing after the Metro Tunnel opens - people just need to be patient. 

But there's only so long that the government can string people along, and ten years is more than enough. Endless line shutdowns and few if any service improvements at the end of them is wearing thin with passengers. Even the cheapest timetable upgrades that would halve the longest waits on key lines got pushed into the never-never as government interest in Metro frequency improvements collapsed after 2015-2016.   

Anyway that's the narrative you've read about here and elsewhere. 

More trains more often - the record

What does the government say about this?  

Last Thursday the minister showed a slide depicting its record of train service additions over the last decade. These are shown in the small circles (blue for Metro, purple for V/Line). The larger circles represent initiatives funded in last month's budget (to be implemented).

The numbers are weekly services added. That can make even small service additions look big. For example adding one return trip per day on one line is 14 extra trips per week. Multiply by 15 lines to get a massive 210 trips per week. 

That's a handy trick to make it look a big deal. Until you realise that because Metro runs over 15000 trips per week, that's just a 1.4% uplift in service. Helpful but not revolutionary.   

The asterisked note at the bottom left is hard to read but says that 50 of the 200 weekend services funded in the 2022-23 budget are still in delivery and are not shown. These include additional weekend V/Line services for Seymour, Shepparton, Traralgon and Bairnsdale. 

You could try clicking on the screenshot below but it may still be unclear. So I'll go through it below, starting with the ten year record. 

2015 - 2024 service additions

Below I'll explain what the Metro network got over the last decade in terms of service. 

First let's look at what the whole network got thanks to Night Network in 2016. This added hourly weekend trips on all lines between about 1am and 5am Saturdays and 1am to 7am Sundays. That's roughly 24 trips per week added on every line (about 6 each way multiplied by 2 for return, multiplied by 2 again for each day).

Thus if a line has about this number of trips added between 2015 and 2024 you can attribute its entire increase to this one Night Network initiative. This applies on the Belgrave (+18), Alamein (+23) and possibly Glen Waverley (+30) lines. You could say that leaving aside Night Network service on these lines has been stagnant over the last decade. 

Now to other lines. Sunbury line got 68 extra trains per week. Over 40 of these would be non-Night Network. Some could have been evening extensions circa 2016 (previous to that about half the evening trains terminated at Watergardens, giving Sunbury only an hourly service) with the others being some extra peak or shoulder peak runs. The best is still to come for Sunbury with this line likely to be the biggest proportional beneficiary from the new Metro Tunnel timetable. 

Also awaiting the Metro Tunnel are the Pakenham and Cranbourne lines. These got a combined 201 extra trips per week. Subtracting Night Network drops this to about 150 trips per week extra. Examples of additions include (i) just after the opening of Skyrail in 2018 (more weeknight trips), (ii) some further boosts in 2020 and (iii) 50 more weekly services when the Cranbourne duplication got done in 2022. None of these changed maximum waits (30 min weekend evenings and up to 70 min Sunday mornings) but expectations are high that the Metro Tunnel timetable starting later this year will shorten these.  

Upfield can claim 57 extra trips over the decade to 2024. Subtracting Night Network that's about 30 trips per week or 3 each way per weekday. These contributed to some minor peak frequency upgrades (ie from every 20 to every 15 min approximately). 

Werribee / Williamstown / Frankston - meant to get a boost in 2015 to coincide with RRL but didn't with some argy-bargy over Frankston trains running direct or via the loop (or maybe half and half - which was tried and proved a mess).

It stalling on the Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail) was the single biggest reason for this government's record on Metro train frequencies being so undistinguished to date. Anyway things finally got tidied up in 2021 with evening and Sunday morning maximum waits cut to 20 minutes on all three lines and peak services for Altona and Williamstown restored from 22 to a simpler 20 minute headway. This and other boosts gave Werribee 186 extra weekly trips, Williamstown 119 extra and Frankston 117 more. 

After the 2025-budgeted Upfield and Craigieburn boosts happen the Mernda and Hurstbridge lines will stand out as having the longest waits outside the peaks, particularly on Sunday mornings. This is notwithstanding previous gains for Mernda (175) and Hurstbridge (75 weekly trips). This is because, Night Network excepted, all these increases were on weekdays, mostly peak and shoulder peak, after duplication works in 2023. The government can claim a major achievement in 2018's Mernda electrification, but it missed the opportunity then to add the relatively few weekly trips needed to cut maximum waits on the rest of the line. 

The Burnley group has had a lot of level crossing removals such that the Lilydale line is now level crossing free. This included a consolidation of stations with Surrey Hills and Mont Albert combined into the new Union station. Peak timetables remain complex with numerous stopping patterns and interpeak gaps beyond Ringwood remain at 30 minutes - longer than two regional lines. Box Hill has built up but its train timetable has remained basically stagnant, inferior at night to even Fawkner Cemetery once the Upfield line gets its evening frequency boost. In the decade from 2015 Lilydale gained 45 services per week, or approximately 2 each way trips per weekday after the Night Network trips are excluded. It's not a lot, especially as the Burnley group now has a lot of marginal seats along it and Box Hill is now densely populated and high-rise. 

Train services versus population growth 

Below is all the implemented Metro service gains put on a table. They add to 1252 per week. Is this a big or a small service uplift, noting that we are talking about ten years worth? To know we need to know how many services Metro run to arrive at a percentage increase. Metro currently claim 'over 15000 weekly services' on their Linked-In. 

Comparing the 1252 trips with an assumed 14000 base in 2015 we arrive at a 9% increase across the Metro network.  In contrast population grew by 18% over that time. Thus we can say that Metro service provision has grown at only half the rate of population. In other words a significant fall in service per capita and a lag behind cities such as Sydney and Perth whose stations typically enjoy more hours of frequent service per week.  

2025's funded upgrades (and the Metro Tunnel) 

Signs that this government may finally be taking service frequency seriously appeared in last month's state budget. As you can read here this funded a decent package of Metro train and bus service boosts in Melbourne's north and west plus an interpeak boost on the Sandringham line. 

The annotated map tabled in PAEC listed gains for Werribee, Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham lines. As already publicised, Werribee will gain higher peak frequencies with 20 trips added. 20 trips per 5 day week is 4 per day. Two trips per hour extra are needed to boost peak frequency from 6 to 8 trains per hour (ie the 10 to 7.5 min frequency improvement promised). That 4 extra trips per day means the boosted peak service applies for one hour in both directions or two hours in the peak direction only (if train numbers and stabling permits this). 

Craigieburn and Upfield are shown with 100 trips added to deliver a 20 min maximum wait. However I'm not sure about the workings - just to get rid of the 30-40 min evening and Sunday morning gaps would likely require 70 more trips per week on each line. And that doesn't count the shoulder peak uplifts that the Craigieburn line will be getting. So the actual increase may be more than indicated. Unless something creative is done like spreading some peak trips into the shoulder peaks and evening. 

The Sandringham line gets an interpeak weekday uplift from 4 to 6 trains per hour. The number of increased trips is not readable. But you can work out that it's 4 trips extra per hour (accounting for both directions) over a 6 hour span and 5 day week then it's in the region of 120 trips per week added. 

The above adds to roughly 250 weekly trips funded in the budget on lines other than the Metro Tunnel. That is just under a 2% increase on Metro's current 15 000 weekly trips.

That 250 trips leaves about 1000 more weekly trips needed for Melbourne to return to the per capita Metro service that this government inherited when it won office in 2014. 

When it faces the people in November 2026 will this government even be able to claim that they maintained per capita Metro train service? With the per capita decline to date, the answer depends heavily on the service rebound the Metro Tunnel timetable will deliver later this year.   

That wasn't on the minister's budget estimates presentation slide. Hence the absence of big blobs near Sunbury and Dandenong. But they will likely exceed the ~250 increase. Some hypothetical back-of-envelope examples:  

BASIC METRO TUNNEL SERVICE
(Watergardens - Dandenong every 10 min day/20 min night with higher peak frequency)

* Boost Sunbury line interpeak weekday services from every 20 to every 10 min: ~200 extra trips per week (+3 trains per hour over 6 hours x2 for each way x 5 days of the week)  

* Double Sunbury line weekend services: ~200 trips (based on doubling current service of approx 50 trips each way each weekend day).  

* Boost Sunbury line weeknight services from every 30 min to every 20 min: ~40 trips (+1 train per hour over 4 hours x 2 for each way x 5 days of the week) 

* Boost Cranbourne & Pakenham weekend evening & Sun am from every 30 to every 20 min: ~60 trips (+1 train per hour over 5 hours x 2 for each way x 2 nights of the week x2 lines & Sunday am uplift)

Total ~500 extra trips per week

Any Metro Tunnel timetable that does not deliver at least the Basic service above will be laughed at. The government should be smart enough to know this given its political and financial investment in the project over its entire decade in office. Demonstrated success with the Metro Tunnel switch-on will also boost its credibility with regards to other transport projects, particularly the Suburban Rail Loop, which it needs right now. Furthermore, in addition to the ~250 weekly Metro services on other lines that this year's budget funds, the 750 trip total will deliver more then half the service needed to return to 2014's  Metro service per capita number. 

Want the Metro Tunnel to be world-class? Or even Sydney class? It wouldn't be a great reward for taking some of the southern hemisphere's longest escalators if you've got another 9 (or 19) minutes to the next train if something like the basic minimum above was implemented. We also wouldn't compare well with the 5 minute service on Sydney's Metro or even the 7.5 minute interval common at inner Perth stations. 

Justifying the Metro Tunnel's construction costs, maximising land use and development synergies and unlocking the wider CBD benefits of complementary tram network reform all require something better with high all week frequencies like we've never seen before. Potential ingredients of such an enhanced timetable (and the approximate number of weekly trips added) are below. 

ENHANCED METRO TUNNEL SERVICE 
(Watergardens - Dandenong every 5 min day/10 min night with higher peak frequency)

All the above plus: 

* Boost Watergardens - Dandenong weeknight service to every 10 min to late: ~200 trips (+3 trains per hour over 3 hours x 2 each way x 5 days per week x 2 lines) 

* Running Metro Tunnel central section every 5 min 10am-4pm weekdays: ~360 trips (+6 trains per hour over 6 hours x2 each way x 5 days of week)

* Running Metro Tunnel central section every 5 min 9am - 9pm weekends: ~300 trips (+6 trains per hour over 12 hours x2 each way x 2 days of week) 

* Peak upgrades as needed to address crowding (not counted) 

* Upgrades and reforms to connecting trains, trams and buses to improve network effects (not counted)  

Total ~ 1400 extra trips per week (including 500 from basic option above)


The 1400 extra trips plus the 250 on other lines is a total of 1750 extra trips.

If implemented this would mark a significant acceleration of Metro service uplift given that the government only added 1250 trips in its first decade.

On a 2015 base of 14000 trips, this uplift of 3000 to 17000 trips would be a rise of 21%. That would slightly exceed the 18% population growth since then. Then the government can claim to have increased per capita Metro services, which it cannot at the moment.

Regardless of the service we get from the Metro Tunnel, there will still be big service inequalities between lines. That includes lines that are (a) busy, (b) serve growing or densifying areas, (c) serve populations with high social needs and (d) all three. That makes further frequency uplifts desirable so that you can rock up at any station (within the urban growth area) and not have up to 40 minutes between trains. That way a Metro train would signify a frequent all week service, similar to how trams do now. Prospects and priorities post-Metro Tunnel (and the next state election) are discussed  next. 

2026 and beyond

The minister at Estimates encouragingly last week said that the 2025 budget service improvements was just the 'first stage' of Metro service uplifts. This may indicate that there's more to come in the (pre-election) 2026 state budget. This could mark a welcome revival of political interest in public transport service, noting that neither the 2018 nor 2022 election campaigns had significant metropolitan rail frequency promises from either major party. 

Ms Williams also said that infrastructure was not something built for its own sake but as a means to ends like service uplifts. This is sensible; having infrastructure construction subservient to other goals is essential to ensure the right things get built and maximum value is extracted from what we do build. As opposed to setting your mind on a particular project before clarifying the problem it is meant to solve. 

Before we think about next year, let's go back a decade or so. 

If not quite 'projects first', Labor's 2014 policy was certainly 'project jobs first'. This had its genesis in Project 10000, a 2013 plan to create 10000 construction jobs hatched when in opposition. As well as pleasing key unions this reassured the construction industry that there would be continued work, especially desired as Labor needed an alternative to the Liberals' East-West Link.

The emphasis was always on the jobs and building; the benefits were a welcome politically saleable by-product. Project 10000 was realised as level crossing removals, the Metro Tunnel, West Gate Distributor and other road upgrades. More of the latter were added, including the West Gate Tunnel, North East Link and further level crossing removals when in office. The enthusiasm for major projects peaked in 2018 when the program was packaged as the Big Build, culminating in the announcement of the Suburban Rail Loop a few months before that year's state election.

While projects were popular there were not always evaluations of whether similar benefits were possible for less money with a different suite of projects. Also many opportunities to improve service or increase active transport connectivity that were not dependent on big infrastructure builds were either not taken or got deferred, possibly to magnify projects' BCRs through artful bundling. 

Furthermore, low interest rates made major capital projects both financially and politically attractive, especially relative to ongoing budget spending on services. Hence major works was not just a Victorian Labor thing; the same conditions encouraged similar mega-projects in other states too. Although Sydney and Perth were better at doing both service and infrastructure than Brisbane and Melbourne have been, thus maximising benefits.  

Today's situation is different. Higher interest rates, tighter government finances, soaring construction costs and increased interest in non-transport construction, notably housing, has made transport megaprojects harder to justify. The transport construction frenzy has given us a huge amount of relatively new but still underutilised assets, notably on the rail network. So now is a good time to work them hard to realise their benefits. 

With a start made on 'more trains more often' in the 2025 state budget and the Metro Tunnel operating, what should 2026's budget feature to spread service uplifts to more lines?

Here's some tips, starting with the cheaper and easier uplifts that cut the longest waits first. 

Smaller

* 20 min maximum waits on the Sandringham line: Boost Sunday mornings from 40 to 20 min and an early Saturday morning boost (if not already done with the Metro Tunnel timetable). Approx 10 more services per week required.  

* 20 min maximum waits to Mernda and Eltham: Boosts Sunday morning service on each line from every 40 to every 20 min, evenings from 30 to 20 min. Similar package as 2025 funded for Craigieburn and Upfield involving 60-70 extra weekly services per line. This uplift would give all stations to Clifton Hill a 10 minute or better service from 7am to midnight 7 days. 

* Shoulder peak weekday upgrades on the Craigieburn, Werribee and Mernda lines: Increase the hours per day a frequent service applies, starting with busiest lines.  

Larger

* Greenfields timetable for Burnley group: A major revamp including (a) fewer peak stopping patterns (b) 20 min maximum interpeak weekday waits for Belgrave and Lilydale, (c) Sunday morning boosts from 30 to 20 min, (d) Reduced evening maximum waits from 30 to 20 min on all lines, (e) 10 min service to Glen Waverley (daytime) and Ringwood (day and night). 

* Weekday interpeak and weekend frequency upgrades from 20 to 10 min on Craigieburn, Werribee, Mernda, inner Hurstbridge and Upfield lines, roughly in that order, building on previous shoulder peak upgrades. 

* Finishing the job on Metro Tunnel upgrades if the Enhanced service option is not already running.

* V/Line service uplifts including upgrading Melton to every 20 min weekends, higher Wyndham Vale frequencies and improved Seymour line service. 

* A complementary rail infrastructure program driven by service and capacity needs for the west, north and outer south-east. (the need to boost service, then enabling infrastructure, then service again was cited by the minister in Estimates)

Conclusion

To summarise, Metro (as opposed to V/Line) train service has lagged population growth in the current government's first decade. This has led to Melbourne having rail service levels inferior to that of other cities, with frequent service largely confined to peaks on most lines.

Long waits at night and weekend mornings also reduce the ability of trains to support major events and commutes for retail, food, hospitality, health and event workers.

There is also a large geographic inequality, unrelated to patronage, between busy poorly serviced lines like Craigieburn and highly serviced lines like Frankston. 

The 2025 state budget has funded welcome service upgrades we know about on some lines with others (we don't yet know) coming on the Metro Tunnel lines.

Also welcome is the minister flagging the possibility of further Metro service upgrades in 2026. It is hoped that these will be spread widely across more of Melbourne, including the Clifton Hill and Burnley groups which were out of scope of the Metro Tunnel related service upgrades. 

A robust program of rail service uplifts will enable the government to tell a good story on both rail infrastructure and service, especially if investment in the latter enables a substantial per capita rebound.   


Index to other Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 203: How the Metro Tunnel could aid bayside bus reform

The upgrade of the Sandringham line to every 10 minutes weekdays interpeak as will  happen when the Metro Tunnel opens could make bus reform in the area easier and cheaper. Why? More frequent trains mean greater flexibility for bus frequencies. Which means more efficient scheduling according to network role, usage, available buses and run times. 

Routes 600/922/923 are a confusing mess that has flummoxed bus users between St Kilda, Sandringham and Southland for more than 20 years. Two of those three routes have long gaps and short operating hours. And they don't go all the way all the week. The Brighton portions of the routes also parallel the train line and doesn't get much use. Their presentation is a mess on the PTV website and the high combined frequency on portions is undersold, lessening potential usage.

So there's a big argument for reform, especially if you can do it without spending much money. Which you wouldn't want to anyway as there are stronger patronage and social needs justifications for radically boosting buses in areas like Springvale and Dandenong versus the likes of Brighton or Beaumaris. 

I covered the 600/900/923 mess in detail nearly 5 years ago, presenting a simplified network featuring a Route 600 every 15 (instead of every 30) minutes as the main service through the Beaumaris area. That required some offsetting cuts, eg reducing the 825 from every 20 to every 30 minutes so it was vaguely self-funding, especially if reforms were made to the large number of lightly used north-south routes in the Brighton area that paralleled the train.  

Route 600 is not that strongly used that it needs a 15 minute interpeak service. But, as the main route in the area and to deliver a service upgrade, leaving it at every 30 minutes (like the abandoned 2015 Transdev greenfields network tried to do) was inadequate. 20 minutes is probably the 'sweet spot' but it  doesn't mesh with trains currently every 15 minutes at Sandringham. Maybe this was one of the reasons why fixing Route 600 and related routes has occupied the 'too hard' basket for a decade since? 

Can the Metro Tunnel help?

In Perth when they do a major rail project they comprehensively reform most of the buses that connect to the line being extended or altered. Examples include Airport line, Yanchep extension, Morley-Ellenbrook line, Thornlie - Cockburn line, Byford extension and more. And when they do works necessitating long rail shutdowns (like the Armadale line) they will use this as an opportunity to do bus reform, some of which is likely to endure after rail services resume. 

With minor exceptions involving a handful of routes the Victorian DTP of 2025 is less reform-capable than its Perth counterparts. And even where more routes are involved, such as associated with the recent and welcome Ballarat line weekend frequency upgrade, the job might only be half-done. For example leaving weekday bus timetables in areas like Melton untouched, sometimes with lower frequencies than on weekends.

Could a revitalised DTP do better, and thus widen the benefits of the government's considerable rail investment program? Keep reading for one of many potential examples. 

The Metro Tunnel associated rail network changes starting later this year gives such an opportunity to break a decade of inaction regarding the Route 600 and related others near the Sandringham line.

How? It's all to do with a cascading effect that even affects the previously splendidly isolated Sandringham line. 

In the south-east this starts with the lines to Dandenong being taken out of the City Loop and routed through the Metro Tunnel to Footscray and the Sunbury line. This creates an empty City Loop portal that is occupied by the reconfigured Frankston line. These services are no longer formed by Werribee/Williamstown and/or Laverton trains which will now operate to Sandringham.

Trains on the west side operate every 20 minutes each whereas the Sandringham line is every 15 minutes weekday interpeak. To ensure reliable timetabling the Sandringham line will be upgraded to a 10 minute frequency so that two out of every three interpeak weekday trains through Newport run through to Sandringham. Basically replicating what happens now with Frankston on the cross-city group. 

This ten minute frequency for Sandringham gives some extra choices with regards bus frequencies, with 10, 20 or 30 minutes all harmonising with trains.

Having a choice of bus frequencies is good because it means that there's more flexibility to pick service levels that best meet a route's network role and patronage needs while still connecting with trains. There are also scheduling efficiencies as bus layovers can be optimised to be neither too tight to be unreliable nor too slack to be wasteful for a given route length. 

Hence a Route 600 bus every 20 minutes could meet every second train off-peak. The same could happen in the peak period with a 15 minute bus frequency meeting trains every 7.5 min. On weekends a 20 minute bus frequency could meet every train at Sandringham. Overall it looks a very neat arrangement. 

Network concept

The map below shows the concept. It includes not just the 600 but other potential network changes involving north-south routes in the area.  

The 600 has the same alignment as current between Southland and Sandringham. To bring it nearer to shops on Hampton Rd I've terminated it at Hampton Station, where there is a small bus interchange.

Service would be much simplified compared because for most of the corridor the higher frequency on the 600 would replace the confusing 600/922/923 trio. However coverage of areas away from the 600 would be maintained through a new local route that I've called 608 between Southland and Mentone.   

To facilitate connectivity between those who might wish to travel north of Hampton, this network option has the existing Route 603 starting at Hampton rather than Brighton Beach. Hampton is a much stronger terminus with local shops and other buses. Also on weekdays interpeak Route 603 would operate at the same frequency as the 600, potentially permitting a consistent timed connection if planners considered this important enough. There may even be scheduled through trips for school traffic if needed (with the implications of the free under 18s travel next year an influencing factor). 

Bus routes are thinned out a bit in the Brighton area compared to now. Currently there is a large number of bus routes that run north-south, parallel to the train (which will gain increased frequency on weekdays). Usage is not particularly high. If retention of a bus on St Kilda St is considered important options here include adding a kink to Route 603 or extending Route 626 from Brighton via there to Elsternwick (which would also provide connectivity to shops at Brighton). 

Off the map but very significant is a major boost for Route 606. Currently this unevenly overlaps the 600/922/923 through the Elwood area with Route 600 at certain times not operating. This is swept away in favour of a consistent, more frequent and longer operating hours Route 606 operating every 20 minutes or so all week. All the routes mentioned are run by Kinetic except 606 and 626 which are CDC. Reform in the Elwood area might also be done in conjunction with providing a stronger western terminus for Route 630. 

To summarise the network outcome could be something like:

* 600 Hampton - Southland every 20 min 7 days with a 15 min service in weekday peaks 
* New 608 Southland - Mentone local route every 60 min to replace parts of 922 and 923
* Extend 603 to Hampton
* Upgrade 606 to every 15-20 min weekdays, every 20 min weekends with longer hours
* Potential St Kilda St coverage retained by either modified 603 or extended 626.

A potential redistribution of services could be along these lines: 

Conclusion 

The Metro Tunnel opening can provide opportunity for bus network reform in the most unlikely of places. 

Melbourne does not have as strong a record as say Perth when it comes to maximising the benefits of infrastructure builds to reform bus networks. 

However it is something we should be starting to do better.

Addressing long-standing network complexities such as on this bayside corridor could be a good start. 

Comments on this network concept are appreciated and can be left below. 

Index to Useful Network items here

What passengers really think about Victoria's PT network

 

They're improving at publicly reporting some things (eg bus reliability a few years back and  patronage more recently) but Victoria's Department of Transport & Planning still operates under the presumption that much other network performance information should be kept to itself.

This sensitivity is despite (a) the taxpayer paying the overwhelming bulk of operating costs for public transport (especially in this age of 'free' or nearly free travel for more and more trips) and (b) at least some of what the department doesn't want us to see being pretty benign, hardly embarrassing and sometimes even praiseworthy. Not that embarrassment should be a criteria for data being withheld. 

Could commercial confidentiality be an issue? 

Even arguments over commercial confidentiality due to private operators don't hold as much water any more (if they ever did). This is because pretty much every renegotiation of the public transport operating franchises (we're up to MR5) in the last 20 years has transferred risk from the franchisee (the private operator) to the franchisor (the state). Examples of risks reverting to the state include patronage and fare revenue. And low performance penalties may be capped rather than open-ended.

This may be because, as the pandemic showed, risk is extremely difficult to cost. If the government underestimates risks or costs relative to what they pay the operators then the operators either walk out (eg National Express in 2002) or perform very badly (eg Transdev for buses in 2017). In both cases the government had to intervene. Or if the government overestimates risk relative to what they pay the operators then the operators get an unearned windfall gain. In both cases taxpayers carry the bill.  

The state seems to have increasingly recognised that. As risk is notoriously hard to cost the state has kept most of it to itself. When you're as big as the state self-insurance is not a bad approach. It also reduces uncertainty for private operators.    

That should have a cash value in the sense that the state should be able to demand lower margins as operator payments are easier to calculate and modest profits are pretty much guaranteed. One hopes that DTP negotiators exploit their monopsony position to squeeze as much service kilometres per dollar as possible out of our transport operators while keeping maintenance, operating and customer service standards.

These changed circumstances also mean that DTP/PTV (a) needs to be better at service innovation, marketing  and growing patronage (as operators have few levers or incentives to do this themselves) and (b) can ease off in using 'commercial in confidence' as an excuse to deny reasonable requests for information. DTP's performance on both is debatable but that's another story. 

Key points from the report

Now back to what passengers think. 

DTP commissions quarterly surveys to track customer attitudes to public transport and its service delivery. These Klein Research reports are treated as internal documents. 

The Public Transport Users Association lodged an FOI request to see one. DTP refused.

However PTUA successfully appealed to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner . 

As a result everyone can read the CXI Quarterly Report Q3 FY24 on the Right to Know website here. 

I recommend you read it.

Below are some of the take-away messages I found: 

* Passenger safety and customer service were network strengths. Disruption information, service (in)frequency and ticketing ease were pain points.

* All regional modes met the main targets. As did Metro Trains. But Yarra Trams and (especially) metropolitan bus are performing below target.

* Metropolitan bus vies with metropolitan tram for the mode with the least satisfaction over information. One of the reasons (in my view) is we do poorly with maps and network information at interchanges compared to cities like Perth. 

* Information on delays and cancellations was lowly rated for all metropolitan modes but especially metropolitan bus. This is a particular problem as buses are (on average) the least frequent mode, often with long gaps to the next service. I've also found bus tracking on Google maps is pretty unreliable when there are delays. 

* A similar pattern regarding delay and cancellation information applied for regional modes. V/Line trains performed worse than Metro here (with similar issues to metropolitan buses with generally lower frequencies or fewer alternatives available).

* Customer satisfaction for service characteristics across different modes was graphed. Not surprisingly frequency on metropolitan buses got the lowest positive score on this cross-modal comparison.

* Also not surprisingly (due to outrageously cheap fares) the regional modes scored highest for ticketing and value. Metropolitan tram rated the lowest. Possibly as (i) you can't buy a ticket on board and (ii) fares are comparatively high for short non-CBD trips due to our nearly flat statewide fare system.  

* In a finding that some may find surprising, personal security rated well across all modes.

* Which line has the happiest Metro passengers? The answer is Sandringham. They'll have more reasons to smile when the Metro Tunnel timetable starts as they'll be getting a 10 min interpeak weekday service.

* What were the main issues with buses? Low frequency, reliability and fullness were cited in the comments.

Improvement priorities

What has this report taught us about priorities for customer experience improvements, starting with fixing the worst? 

The high level summary at the start of the report is a good guide. These points are: 

* Better and more accurate disruption information (especially for buses and regional trains)

* Better service frequency (especially for buses) 

* Better ticketing ease. Will hopefully come with Myki's replacement offering credit and debit card payment. Also political gimmicks over the last decade or more has led to a fare system that overcharges for many short trips and undercharges for long trips. A return to a more progressive fare structure could improve perceived fairness (and probably overall patronage).  

Summary

These customer experience reports give interesting perspectives on passenger views towards the public transport system. They should be a regular publication rather than something kept internally. 

TT 204: PTV info caught short in bus strike bungle

Top investor Warren Buffet famously said that "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked".

Right now the Department of Transport and Planning through the PTV website is completely starkers. 

Good passenger information is a 'nice to have' when everything is running normally.

But it becomes an essential when services are disrupted and passengers have to leave earlier, travel at another time or seek alternative transport. 

Unless a last-minute deal is reached, drivers for CDC and Dysons, two of the state's largest bus operators, will strike tomorrow (May 28, 2025). The outcome for passengers will be routes that do not run or, at best, operate with reduced timetables. Including, on at least one route, no after midday services at all.  

The TWU Vic/Tas side is presented on their Facebook page. This ABC report has the operators' story. 

Today I'll just cover the passenger information aspect, notably PTV's role. 

PTV probably thought it has done its job by posting a website news item on its website on May 23 with the original URL (now broken) here. That was a brief note just listing the operators affected. Not very helpful for those who can't recite their bus route's operator. 

So yesterday (26 May) PTV moved that item to a new link with drop down lists of bus routes affected. That should have been more helpful. 

The problem is that a lot of it contains errors. Or is likely incomplete. PTV has shown, in a moment that its information was most needed, to be unreliable with regards to providing accurate data to passengers. 

You could write a whole thread on where PTV slipped up. Indeed I did last night. Here's some excerpts (click images for clearer view):

1. Route 900 is run by two operators (CDC and Ventura). Ventura drivers are not striking. Presumably some Route 900 trips will run (although there are likely to be uneven gaps). This has big implications for transport to Monash Clayton given that neither the frequent Route 601 shuttle nor the 630 on North Rd will be operating.  

2. Tarneit FlexiRide missing even though this is run by CDC. But 400, run by another operator, is listed.

3. Routes not listed in order.

4. Some very old route lists used. Some haven't been running for 8 or so years. A bit of a worry if PTV can't find a list of currently running bus routes! 

5. Some route descriptions are wrong too. 

6. Another route missing from the list and a wrong description for another. 

7. Risk that 546 isn't correct as it now has weekend service. 

8. Not an error as the 558 genuinely lacks Saturday afternoon service. This 40 year old timetable means that tomorrow morning will have buses in Reservoir north-west but none will run in the afternoon. But missing Route 559 (which also doesn't run Saturday afternoons) from the list could be an error. 

This cacophony of cock-ups reveals serious management and process issues within DTP/PTV. 

PTV is supposed to be in the business of passenger information. It is an inheritor to Metlink, which was formed when even the private operators realised that information was too fragmented for passengers to understand. 

The problem is that PTV isn't very good at passenger information during disruptions. It has proved itself untrustworthy when most needed.

Anticipating crises (eg strikes) and knowing exactly what to do is not just important preparation for investors and companies (hence the Warren Buffet quote above) but also for outfits like PTV who need internal capability to respond to network crises like strikes. It's not as if there wasn't warning; on May 13 TWU publicly advised that their Dyson members voted to strike - giving sufficient notice for PTV to at least collate an accurate list of routes that could be affected. 

How then was so much of what was published wrong? Either PTV didn't confirm what operators sent is correct or they were unable to generate current accurate route lists themselves that can be pulled out at short notice if needed. How else can you explain route lists with wrong descriptions or long-retired route numbers? 

Furthermore, PTV lack proper processes to verify that what they publish is correct. They have especially failed to have suitably trained staff in the right places to identify and stop errors being published.

This is not just a one-off event. Shortcomings in passenger information, weak marketing and data inaccuracy is a recurring pattern of behaviour that highly-paid DTP executives have as yet been unable to fix.

The result is needlessly misled, stranded and angry passengers. As this reflects on the state government's service delivery, improving PTV's game, given the long record of subpar performance, should be a matter of immediate political and ministerial interest.


UPDATE 27/5/2025 11:20am: Shortly after this blog appeared PTV corrected many errors on its route list. While the corrections are welcome the 'publish unchecked nonsense first, rely on Twitter gunzels for corrections later' method is not a respectful way to treat passengers nor run a credible transit agency. Props to the headless chooks there correcting stuff so quickly but you most need good executives able to put in the processes to get it right from the start. Improving capability while simultaneously pruning executive staffing costs is particularly topical with the Silver review into Victoria's public service due to report next month.  

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

Are there too many rail shutdowns?

Having a dependable 'always there' service is the first requirement if you want people to use rail and, longer term, build their housing and other land uses around it.

This requires a 'show must go on' culture amongst those who oversee and operate rail.  

The strength of this culture has varied over the decades and is certainly weaker here than in say Japan. 

Why have trains not run?

What have been the main causes of Melbourne's rail network not being dependable?

It's varied over the decades. 

Strikes

For several decades up to the early 1990s rail strikes were not uncommon. 

That and the prevailing politico-economic fashion led to a stack of reform including splitting suburban rail into business units and franchising to private operators. Reliability improved in the last few years of Met Trains and the first few years of franchising (from the late 1990s to 2003). Around 2000 I remember generally successfully making 0 minute cross-platform interchanges from up Frankstons to down Dandenongs at Caulfield when trains on both lines came every 30 minutes. 

Picking up the pieces from franchising's collapse

However Franchising Mk 1 was not financially sustainable and collapsed with National Express walking out. Then faddish competition theory doctrine usurped common sense and divided the network. And at least National Express skimped on driver recruiting and training. That led to a staff shortage and thus an upsurge in delays and cancellations from late 2003. 

Patronage pressures, infrastructure issues and bad scheduling

Then surging CBD employment, fuel prices led to a patronage boom on a network poorly equipped to cope. Crowding, an infrastructure maintenance backlog and unsuitable timetables put reliability into freefall for nearly a decade, with frequent cancellations and delays.

Officialdom washed their hands of this, blaming the private operators but passengers were not fooled. Privateers do what privateers do (ie maximise returns to shareholders) so contract oversight is essential for good performance. Rail trouble-shooter Simon Lane blamed weak departmental management for shortcomings here.  

Rail reliability had become a hot-button political issue with a general political consensus to fix it. Enough had been done by 2012-2013 for reliability to rebound to almost 2003 levels. That Coalition government did not get much political credit for this and associated frequency increases. Apart from this government's generally well received PSO program it was most known for studying various rail extensions but not actually building much (though it inherited and continued - at reduced scope - the construction of the Regional Rail Link). 

Big Build disruptions

Big Build projects have not been without benefits. You need to crack eggs to make an omelette as they say. But they are also now a major cause of many trains not running with shutdowns needed to facilitate construction. In duration these range from a few hours in an evening to a weekend to several weeks or more.  

Regardless of them being planned rather than unplanned, there is no question that with many hours of extra travel and waiting added per week, protracted rail replacements have been highly disruptive for those not in cushy desk jobs with work from home options. Doubly so for those working nights or weekends due to Melbourne's notoriously low rail frequencies then. 

And just when people thought it was safe to go back to using the train there'll likely be another shutdown. They can cascade such that they become an expectation rather than an exception over five years or more. If you have an event or work roster change coming up you cannot assume that trains will be running to get you there. 

This unreliability has erased trains from many peoples' mental maps as a practical transport option. That's significant because, especially for car owners, reliability is a major reason for choosing rail. The cause may be different but the damage to rail's standing is similar to the 1970s-1990s period due to strikes or about 15 years ago due to recurring network meltdowns.

Frequent occupations may be one reason that lines like Frankston have yet to recover to their pre-pandemic patronage levels. When you compare the huge rail patronage growth projections made circa 2015 with the 'lost decade' we subsequently got, business cases for huge capital projects weaken. Especially when compared against the benefits from fully utilising our existing rail assets (which Melbourne, unlike Sydney, isn't very good at).  

Do we need so many bus replacement events? 

This Taitset video says we probably don't. There have been instances where major works have been done with only minimal bus replacements. It recommends 'service first' with bus replacements being a last rather than a first option.  

Could replacement buses be better? 

Another Taitset video with some ideas on improving the experience. 

Could more frequent train and bus timetables help?

The short answer is yes. Replacement buses typically operate at the same frequency as trains, especially at night and on weekends. In Melbourne we have busy lines that have low frequencies outside peak, for example Craigieburn, Mernda and Werribee. Low frequencies increase maximum waits if replacement buses arrive early or late to the station from which connecting trains depart. The state budget earlier this week has commendably funded removal of 30-40 min waits on the Upfield and Craigieburn lines but this is needed on the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups too. 

Even though it has a lot of bus replacements its better frequency is why catching substitute buses is less chancy on the Frankston line than some others. This is because apart from early weekend mornings the longest you'll wait for a Frankston line train is 20 minutes, with a 10 minute service running for much of the day. In contrast waits on busy lines like Craigieburn are normally double with typical 40 minute Sunday morning, 30 minute evening and 20 minute day. Boosting all day rail frequencies is thus one way of making the bus replacement experience better on the less served lines.  

Improved frequencies on regular bus routes has a stack of benefits. One that's often overlooked is their ability to help with planned or unplanned rail disruptions. Many planned disruptions are done on the weekends - the precise time when buses are least frequent in Melbourne. Reformed more direct bus routes with higher 7 day frequencies and longer operating hours provide alternatives for some passengers to get trains across to parallel train lines that may still be running. This could relieve stress on rail replacement buses.  

Conclusion

Organisational power relations in public transport need a reset if metropolitan rail patronage is to break out of its post-pandemic flatlining and the Metro Tunnel is to achieve full usage potential. More specifically a restoration of the "show must go on" service culture is needed. That could include rail occupations being a last rather than a first resort, with DTP more active in refusing some and seeking ways to shorten others.

It is understood that rail disruptions before the 2010 state election did not help the Brumby government. If the (by then 12 year old) state government wants to get full credit for its project builds in the 2026 election then it could do better than show there's "light at the end of the tunnel" by prioritising reliable and frequent service.

Victorian state budget 2025: What did PT get?

The Victorian State Budget was presented this afternoon by Treasurer Jacklyn Symes.  

Station posters might say "More Trains More Often". The minister might proclaim that "The time for bus is now" at industry functions. Or there might be worthy words in documents like the 1437 day old Bus Plan, the latest from Infrastructure Victoria or Plan for Victoria. 

But more important than any of these is what gets budget funding. The following is what we know so far (video at bottom if you prefer watching to reading):

Pre-budget announcements

Budget contents are solemnly secret until tabling. However the government will sometimes announce 'good news' items prior to the budget, especially if other aspects of the budget aren't so rosy. 

There were four main announcements in the week leading up to the budget on public transport matters. These included: 

* $4b funding for Sunshine station expansion as a precursor to Airport Rail and Melton electrification

* A preview of some train frequencies associated with the Metro Tunnel timetables including welcome frequency upgrades on the Craigieburn, Upfield, Werribee and Sandringham lines and some frequency or capacity boosts for V/Line. This totals $98.7m with the metropolitan component accounting for $46m (over 3 years). 

* Free weekend statewide travel for Seniors Card holders (this sounds big but doesn't actually cost the budget much as a. Seniors travelling in adjoining zones already get free weekend travel and b. V/Line fares have been extremely low since the statewide fare cap was introduced)

* Free all week statewide travel for under 18s with a new Youth myki, costing the budget $318m over 4 years. This is being sold by the government as cost of living relief for families. But there may be other motivations for it including political payoffs, an admission of defeat against high fare evasion (especially on buses) and expediting Conduent's over time and budget new ticketing system (free tickets being easier than concessions for fare calculation purposes). 

Where to find the budget papers 

First, for some background see what I wrote in 2024. 

The budget papers are available at https://www.budget.vic.gov.au .

Papers 3, 4 and 5 have substantial sections for the transport portfolio.

The department performance statements (transport section - from page 130) for statistics on running costs, passenger boardings and fare compliance (95.9% for bus claimed!). There's been a big reported increase in tram operating expenses with this attributed to the new franchise agreement and changes in farebox revenue spending. We seem good at paying private operators more each time franchises are renegotiated but getting precious little annual service kilometre uplift in return. Value for money is something that a government interested in both good financial management and improving service levels might wish to look harder at.  

It's important to know what is new funding and what are previously committed initiatives. Here are some described here. Also a lot of funding listed as continuation for buses is a transfer from temporary GAIC to regular budget spending. 

Rail service improvements

There is a 'more trains more often' funding program. Here's a direct quote from p88.

More trains, more often

Funding is provided for additional train services across metropolitan Melbourne, following the delivery of the Metro Tunnel including:

• additional peak services on the Werribee Line

• additional inter-peak services on the Sandringham line

• additional inter-peak services on the Craigieburn line

• additional off-peak services on the Craigieburn and Upfield lines.

Funding is also provided for additional train services in regional Victoria including:

• additional peak services on the Seymour corridor

• service capacity uplifts for critical Bendigo weekend services

• additional weekday interpeak services to and from Traralgon, enabled by the Gippsland Line Upgrade.

Funding is also provided to facilitate timetable changes across the public transport network to ensure new services are effectively integrated into the network. 

Most notable (in my view) has been much needed upgrades to Craigieburn and Upfield line train services to be implemented around the time the Metro Tunnel opens (give or take). Maximum waits on these lines fall from 40 min (Sunday mornings) or 30 min (evenings) to 20 min at any time trains run on any day (apart from Night Network where the service remains hourly). In addition the busy Craigieburn line gains some shoulder peak services. These upgrades fall short of the 10 minute daytime frequency proposed in the 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case. But the 20 minute maximum wait still represents the biggest service uplift for many years on these lines. Timetables will no longer be so stuck in the '90s as a recent Age article reported based on my analysis. Indeed Fawkner Cemetery will now get a better evening and Sunday morning service than Box Hill! 

Sandringham line also gets a weekday interpeak uplift from 15 to 10 minutes. This makes the frequency  compatible with the trains that form it from Newport now that Sandringham becomes part of the cross-city group. It does however increase inequalities with Brighton having half the midday waits of Broadmeadows despite the latter being a busier station on a busier line.  

Werribee gains improved peak services, with frequency improving from 10 to 7.5 min. Again this assists scheduling with Sandringham services which these trains may form. 

There are some V/Line improvements including a 40 min weekday frequency for Traralgon, more peak Seymour trips and increased weekend capacity for Bendigo. 

What is out of scope? The Burnley and Clifton Hill groups get no improvements. Thus they remain with their 30 and 40 minute maximum waits respectively with City - Ringwood trains having numerous complex stopping patterns. Also Sandringham, despite it operating every 10 minutes on weekdays, appears to retain its existing (and embarrassing) 40 minute Sunday morning frequency. This needs only  a few extra trips per week to fix but was apparently a bridge too far.

Unlike major construction projects that go through at least the motions of community engagement, rail timetabling in Melbourne has historically been a secretive art done with no public consultation and little political scrutiny. The expedience of amending as few timetables as possible sometimes seems more important than delivering a good all week service offer to passengers. That is unless attention is drawn through campaigns like More Trains Melbourne's North, which may have contributed to the relatively good outcomes likely for Craigieburn and Upfield.  

Bus service improvements

2024's budget was extremely sparse for bus improvements. There was basically just the Route 800 upgrade. The north and west were particularly short-changed. The 2025 budget tips the board the other way. The north and west get many new and upgraded services with the south-east getting one (the new Hastings - Mornington bus whose planning and infrastructure was funded in previous budgets). 

Transport Minister Gabrielle Williams recently said that 'The time for bus is now'. The Sustainable Cities Better Buses campaign has been very active in Melbourne's west. The Werribee by-election was arguably a wake-up call for Labor with its primary vote slumping.   

This budget delivers some very worthwhile bus upgrades in areas like Werribee, Tarneit, Mt Atkinson and Craigieburn. There is also funding for bus network reviews in Victoria's largest regional centres, indicating that the government has heard calls for these from cities such as Ballarat and Bendigo. There are some clusters of improvements in certain areas. This is better than just doing one or two routes per year. But it does not deliver new frequent 7 day routes (eg new SmartBuses) at the rate that would be required to really revolutionise the usefulness of buses in Melbourne. 

All up the Output Initiatives for bus services add to $122.8m over 3 years (See Budget Paper 3, p83). 

Page 84-5 has a summary, as below:

Bus Services

Improving bus and ferry services - Funding is provided to deliver bus and ferry services including:

• a package of new and extended bus routes connecting passengers in growth areas to train stations, including Riverwalk, Kings Leigh, Mt Atkinson, Thornhill Park and Mystique estates

• new and upgraded bus services for the new West Tarneit Station

• bus service uplifts to improve access to the Wyndham Law Courts precinct

• bus service uplifts for Broadmeadows and Mandalay, realigned services to connect Aintree residents to the Metro Tunnel via Watergardens and new bus routes for Cairnlea and Hastings

• continuation of Melton South, Woodend and Yarrawonga FlexiRide bus services and the Merinda Park Station to Clyde North bus service

• continuation of regional bus services in Warrnambool, Cowes, Leongatha, Mildura, Bendigo and Korumburra

• continuation of the Westgate Punt ferry service between Fishermans Bend and Spotswood

• late-night services for select bus routes in areas of Werribee, Tarneit and Craigieburn.

Funding is also provided to undertake a review of the bus network in priority regional areas including Geelong, the Bellarine Peninsula, Ballarat and Bendigo.

The continuation items are typically growth area initiatives that were funded under GAIC (developer contributions). This is a restricted and limited term funding stream. Inclusion in the budget puts them on a similar footing to other regular bus routes. 

The list above does not give full justice to the upgrades. It is in abbreviated form and does not list route numbers or proper descriptions. Some of them amount to packages of up to 7 routes in an area - something we haven't had for a while.  And at least one initiative has been omitted or has been carelessly assigned to the wrong suburb.  

The best place to learn about the various bus upgrades is local MPs social media. You will see posts, website articles, speeches and/or videos describing the new services in more detail than you'll see in the budget papers. 

Some examples of upgrades happening include news from: 

Dylan Wight MP - New route 186 between Tarneit and West Tarneit station, additional night services on routes 170, 180, 190 and 192. Will make a big difference in a high patronage area as these major routes currently finish around 9:30pm on many nights. 

John Lister MP - improved Route 153 frequency (serves Werribee law courts) and extended Route 441 to serve new Kings Leigh Estate. 

Steve McGhie MP - New Thornhill Park - Cobblebank bus. There is also a continuation of Melton South's GAIC-funded FlexiRide. 

Luba Grigorovitch MP -  new route 140 Rockbank - Mt Atkinson - Tarneit, new route 405 Cairnlea - Deer Park, substantial 444, 461, 463 & 464 reforms. 

Natalie Suleyman MP - New route 405 Cairnlea - Deer Park ($12.1m).

Natalie Hutchins MP - Substantial 444, 461 & 463 reforms with new 464 new east-west connections. Details are sketchy but this looks like a pretty major package. 

Kathleen Matthews Ward MP - 7 day service on 536 bus. A much needed upgrade to services in a high-needs area. The 536 actually ran 7 days in the 1980s but early '90s cuts saw service slashed. This is the only low-cost 7 day upgrade to an established area bus route in the budget (would have liked more). 

Ros Spence MP - Described as afternoon service increases on Craigieburn bus routes 390, 525, 528, 529, 533 and 537 (though might actually be later evening services given what it says in budget papers). Also more trips on the currently very limited service Route 511 and an extension to Craigieburn.  

Sheena Watt MP - train frequency upgrades for Craigieburn and Upfield to a maximum 20 min wait. 

Enver Erdogan MP - train frequency upgrades for Craigieburn and Upfield to a maximum 20 min wait.

Lily D'Ambrosio MP - Wollert area bus upgrades. New route 355. Reforms to bus routes 356, 357, 358 and 577.

Bronwyn Halfpenny MP - Longer hours on bus route 390 from Craigieburn to Mernda. Other upgrades described above. 

Lee Tarlamis MP - Route 881 bus between Merinda Park and Clyde North has its funding transferred from temporary GAIC to an ongoing budget item. 

Michael Galea MP - Route 881 bus between Merinda Park and Clyde North has its funding transferred from temporary GAIC to an ongoing budget item. 

Paul Mercurio MP - Hastings - Mornington cross-peninsula bus 886. The only new bus initiative in the east and south for this budget - builds on funding for planning and infrastructure in prior budgets. 

In addition the tram initiatives I noticed included:

Katie Hall MP - Maidstone Tram maintenance facility at Maidstone and two accessible tram stops on Route 82 at the new Footscray Hospital.  

No doubt more details of alignments, operating hours and frequencies will emerge in due course.

As for how long these service initiatives will take to be implemented the answer is typically "longer than what people would like" given current DTP internal processes and their (now full) agenda. Simple operating hours extensions on existing routes can be done as quickly as 7 months (as Route 800 proved) but for  new and/or reformed routes you're looking at 2 to 3 years, especially if public consultation is done. 

UPDATE: Many (not all) of these initiatives were mentioned on the Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution website for a short time on 22-23 May. See North-Western growth corridor bus package . Package 1 is service increases on existing routes (so is likely to happen sooner) while Package 2 are more complex new and reformed routes. What is listed as new route 335 is (I suspect) 355. However they seem to have been deleted on 23/5/2025. 

This level of synchronised promotion of improved service by government MPs on their social media is almost unprecedented. It's as if there's a new communications coordinator in the premier's office who has told MPs to "sell achievements or lose in 2026". Or maybe there's a new realisation that shorter waits for trains and better buses can be sold as a vote winner. The latter is especially encouraging for advocates who have tried to get the message to MPs that upgraded PT services are sellable (even if PTV aren't the sharpest marketers when they do get improved!).

Meanwhile most of the Liberal Opposition in Victoria (with Evan Mulholland MP being one of the exceptions) has not yet demonstrated their will to win exceeds their internal squabbles. For instance we've heard nothing from them about the budget (a) falling short of the business case frequency upgrades for the Upfield and Craigieburn lines and (b) neglecting bus and most train lines in the east and south-east. 

Which advocates won funding? 

Some of the above upgrades are likely a result of the government accepting DTP business cases for funding. 2025's budget marks a revival in DTP's fortunes. Whereas in the 2023 and (especially) 2024 budgets the department was unable to win much outside temporary GAIC funding. 

This year the government also listened to various community transport campaigns in the north and west, with some of their requests attracting funding. 

Most notably FOE's Sustainable Cities Collective (partly funded by PTUA). It did not get the radical frequent grid bus network it proposed but a large number of bus upgrades in the west did get funding. Including improvements on routes like 170, 180 and 190 that would be part of any sensible grid network.  

2025 was the year that it all came together for Mt Atkinson Advocacy Forum. Its school bus started earlier this year after an earlier successful campaign. This budget saw funding for a public bus in Route 140 which will run between Tarneit and Rockbank. No details of its route alignment yet but it may well be something like my Option 2 discussed here.  

Graeme Blore, a Cairnlea-based transport and environmental campaigner, succeeded in winning funding for better Cairnlea bus coverage with the new Route 405 to Deer Park. Matt Pearse also had a win with a fixed Thornhill Park bus route getting funding. This will offer a more reliable alternative to the existing FlexiRide. 

A 7 day Route 536 bus between Glenroy and Gowrie has been advocated by Climate Action Merribek and the 7 day service on 536 bus campaigns. That too got funded. 

The Public Transport Users Association has long campaigned for improved train frequencies. As have various Upfield line based groups that have also wanted extension and duplication to add capacity. Higher transport frequency has been a Victorian Transport Action Group advocacy priority. And since January 2024 More Trains Melbourne's North has run in-person campaigns at underserved stations in Melbourne's north, notably on the Craigieburn line. All can claim credit for the very good budget decision to cut maximum gaps between Craigieburn and Upfield line trains from 40 to 20 minutes. Especially given that up to now this government has prioritised pouring concrete above frequent service, even where there were no infrastructure impediments to service uplifts. 

Various councils had mixed success in getting their ideas funded. One of those who was successful was Mornington Peninsula Shire, which won budget support for the long-advocated cross-peninsula bus from Hastings to Mornington. 

Those asking for a Sunshine - Melbourne Airport bus did not get budget backing this year. Also,  perhaps compensating for a lack of previous attention, the 2025 budget heavily skewed north and west with regards to new bus services funded. Hence neither Eastern Transport Coalition nor Fix Dandy Buses got any of their wishes funded this year despite outstanding patronage results from the Route 800 7 day boost funded last year. 


DTP administration and value for money

Every dollar spent on a DTP executive's pay is a dollar that can't be put towards funding better buses in overlooked areas that need them such as Campbellfield, Thomastown or Dandenong. Or other transport initiatives that could be thought desirable. 

At the same time the department needs to make its internal processes more efficient given its now bigger agenda implementing this budget's train and bus service upgrades. These reflect both the Metro Tunnel switch-on and heightened activity after lean times for bus funding in the 2023 and 2024 state budgets (recall that last year's budget funded just one new metropolitan bus upgrade - the 800 boost). 

This needs to be done simultaneously with pressure from the Silver Review to reduce VPS numbers to pre-pandemic levels, including with regards to executive numbers. Pages 38 and 39 of the Strategy and Outlook paper give a summary of the Silver Review with this to report by 30 June 2025. And to cap it off one would expect the government would want as much as possible done by next year's state election. 

Video summarising the above

Conclusion

This budget adds much needed growth area bus coverage in Melbourne's north and west, something significantly overlooked in 2024. It also starts to reverse the long-term stagnation of public transport service with encouraging train and bus frequency upgrades.

However its benefits are unevenly distributed; high needs/high patronage areas in the south-east like Greater Dandenong have got nothing from this budget despite the proven patronage success of the Route 800 upgraded last year. Yes Dandenong area stations may benefit from as yet unknown higher frequencies arising from the Metro Tunnel timetable. And the Merinda Park - Clyde bus comes off GAIC and on to regular budget funding. Still more could have been done in the south and east with potential to redistribute service kilometres from quieter routes in lower needs areas to busier routes in higher need suburbs. 

In other areas, the north and north-east bus reviews announced before the 2022 state election appear to have stalled, with no funding initiatives for anything there in the last three budgets. More could also have been invested in low-cost 7 day bus upgrades across popular but limited service routes. 

There are no doubt many aspects of the budget not covered above. Comments on these are welcome and can be left below.