UN 196: FlexiRide - How productive is it really?

(scroll down if you just want to read about Tarneit) 

Why productivity matters

Economic efficiency and productivity matter. They affect whether we can have the things and services we want. Wealth accumulated from a period of growth does not imply wisdom to spend it beneficially, sustainably or fairly but at least gives you the choice. 

Also note the power of compounding, which Einstein described as the eighth wonder of the world. Small differences in growth rates between countries can compound to big differences over time. Consider this quote from US economist Tyler Cowen. 

Had America grown one percentage point less per year, between 1870 and 1990, the America of 1990 would be no richer than the Mexico of 1990. 

Australia, like many other countries, have had declining labour productivity growth in the last decade or so. Productivity growth doesn't automatically mean that the worker gets a fair share of it. But not having productivity growth makes it harder for economies to achieve a 'sweet spot' of low inflation, low unemployment and real wage rises. 

Australia went through a national conversation about productivity in the 1980s and 1990s. You had Paul Keating on the macroeconomic levers including dollar floating, wages policy, budget balancing and tariffs. Then bodies like the Productivity Commission lectured us about industry competitiveness and micro-economic reform. That is making various sectors of the economy more efficient with competition and choice (rather than planning and regulation) the preferred levers.

It wasn't all good; at their 1990s height the more extreme competition fiends had universal prescriptions that failed to account for differences between industries. Just as blunt as communists who saw state ownership and operation as a cure for everything. That's demonstrably untrue at least for public transport, with examples of both good and bad in both private and public operations readily available.  

High productivity for public transport is good..

Productivity is what you get out versus what you put in. A typical measure for public transport is passenger boardings per kilometres of service operated, though you could use other measures like passenger kilometres instead.

More people on public transport is generally a good thing, especially where service is good enough to be a popular alternative to car driving (and all the negative externalities that go with it). 

If you want public transport to meet more of peoples' needs for more trips then whatever you propose needs to be affordably feasible for the scale needed - not just for a few people or a small section of the city. As staff costs are such a high proportion of overall costs this means a high number of passengers carried per public transport employee. If you want the latter to be fairly paid then productivity is important.

.. but very high productivity might not be

If high productivity is good, shouldn't very high productivity be better? Right? Wrong!

Though in one sense a 'good problem', very high productivity is bad as it represents a network doing less than it should of the transport effort. This is because it signifies underinvestment where overcrowding on individual services and lower than possible network patronage both coexist. The latter also means low public transport mode share despite the crowded passenger experience. Add road congestion (as there are no good alternatives to driving) and you have a spiral where buses are unreliable (such as the notorious Route 525 in Donnybrook/Craigieburn and other routes in similarly underserved growth areas) and no transport mode in the area is good (a bit like Melbourne Airport but for different reasons). 

A solution is to invest in service hours and frequency even beyond the point where productivity peaks (but remains above average) as you are then maximising patronage. It's at this high patronage point, not the maximum productivity point, that the usage of and thus benefits of public transport are highest as explained here. Due to high fixed infrastructure and staffing costs this is even more so with rail; there you can simultaneously have crowded trains and a poor return on fixed infrastructure if frequency is kept low. The latter has been been especially so under the current state government that has fed infrastructure but starved service, with this declining per capita for metropolitan train and tram.  

There is a productivity 'sweet spot' in public transport. Too high is bad since it represents both overcrowding on individual services combined with lower than potential network usage. But too low is also bad since it limits community benefits from the network relative to what it pays. There is no denying that large parts of the transit network should be more productive than it is, with this being an essential planning and management focus.   

Institutional advocates for productivity in PT

Prescriptions for public transport reform from some 1990s era market economy evangelists seemed more ideological than pragmatic. And they didn't deliver all promised savings. For example the benefits and cost-savings of transport franchising were exaggerated with the first version of rail franchising needing a government bail-out. Though to be fair the advocates of state operation also over-state their case; there have been good and bad examples of both state and private operations in Australia. And sometimes it can be hard to fairly attribute cases of genuine productivity reform where this has been achieved within an organisation with little hoopla as it's just regarded as good day to day management. 

Failure is insufficient for an institutionally-supported intellectual or policy movement (like those who would have over-sold rail franchising in the '90s) to just die. Their competition-cheering ideological heirs remain in parts of government, large corporations, private consultancies, think tanks and bodies like Infrastructure Victoria.

They may still advocate prescriptions based on theory applied where it shouldn't. For example Infrastructure Victoria retains a mental model of public transport modes competing against one another. This doctrine was tried in the early 2000s but resulted in operators publishing fragmented information only showing (for example) maps of their half of the rail network. The failure of this was sufficiently apparent for the government to broker the Melbourne Passenger Growth Initiative which ultimately became Metlink with more integrated information published.

Of course this was before IV was established but this over-application of competition theory remains a doctrine in the blood of its staff as evidenced by their advocacy (sensibly ignored by the state government) for modally-based fares. Even though this is an example of competition undermining (rather than reinforcing) productivity because (i) one train driver can carry far more passengers at a faster speed than one bus driver and (ii) efficiency-enhancing bus reform is made politically harder if not impossible as some trips involving a change of modes become relatively dearer. 

So you can't rely on IV to be as consistently supportive of productivity in public transport as one might think, even though it has good ideas about bus reform and (likely) efficient infrastructure utilisation.

Similarly with DTP; the Bus Plan says the right things but implementation has been embarrassingly slow. DTP's internal processes have been a problem as has its difficulties in successfully advocating within government for it. Also, as mentioned later, parts of DTP have wasted time on forms of transport that are inherent low productivity, despite this being tested and known beforehand. Plus its leaders appear to lack performance incentives that might encourage productivity, such as a part of the Secretary's pay being dependent on mode share for public and active transport modes.     

Productivity successes

If you want reform and productivity on public transport it probably worth looking at successes both elsewhere and here. I'd nominate the mid-late 1990s and again about a decade later as being when the biggest recent patronage productivity gains in Melbourne public transport happened. I won't discuss V/Line much here except to say it's had strong recent growth, largely due to a tendency for the government to rely on it, rather than an extended electrified Metro network, for transport in the fast-growing west and north.  

The 1990s 'from a system to a service' reforms under minister Alan Brown cut staffing to save money. However reliability improved and at least some of the savings were returned to the system in the form of better service. Most notable of these were off-peak boosts (from 20 to 15 minutes) on the Frankston and Dandenong lines, the restoration of a full service on the Upfield line, and, biggest of all, the doubling of Sunday train and tram frequency between 10am and 7pm. Even though these were made during a time of relative parsimony in public finances, the relative size of these service upgrades has exceeded anything that has happened under the current government for metropolitan (but not regional) trains (and trams). This type of productivity gain was largely done by cutting costs, patronage rose but not very quickly. 

In contrast the 2000s increase was basically a result of surging patronage at a time where service growth was only a little better than flat for trains and trams. In a few years from about 2004 patronage was growing massively, aided by CBD development, high fuel prices and general population growth in Melbourne. Bus usage also grew greatly but in this case there was also a large service growth for a few years from the 2006 MOTC plan. Bus usage closely matched service increase. That's good by industry standards but it could have been higher if more bus network reform was done. 

Higher patronage is good for productivity because fixed costs are distributed over more passengers. But, as Melbourne found out, it can also lead to overcrowding and falling reliability unless other improvements are made. 

Desirable for rail include better maintenance, better scheduling, more off-peak frequency, higher capacity signalling and (on busy corridors) new tracks to reduce the knock-on effects of disruptions and increase capacity. Tram and bus would most benefit from on-road priority, network and timetable reform and larger vehicles (so one driver can carry more passengers). 

On the other side of the coin, if you want high productivity then you should avoid networks dominated by indirect bus routes with little unique coverage. Nuance here is important and productivity is best measured on a network rather than route basis. For example a two-tier network with four very direct, frequent and productive routes and two less direct, less productive routes may be more productive overall than a network with eight somewhat indirect and infrequent routes with only middling productivity. Such understanding can be lost if you try to split the network into profitable and non-profitable routes, such as was done in some countries where public transport was deregulated. 

Flexible route buses can be even less productive than even meandering fixed routes. How much less productive? Let's look at what's been stated to be the heaviest used flexible bus route in Melbourne. 

Tarneit FlexiRide case study

Starting in October 2022, the Tarneit FlexiRide commenced as techbro-inspired flexible transport mania was sweeping Department of Transport executives (remember the 'mobility as a service' hype?). DoT had developed FlexiRide as a new brand, taking over from Telebuses in some outer eastern suburbs. And it did seem to have a theoretical advantage in growth areas; a flexible route service with a small bus could be rolled out faster than a fixed route with stops, poles and timetables. 

FlexiRide is wonderful if you are the only passenger. Unfortunately it also maxes out if lots of people want to use it at once. Somewhere in between should be a 'sweet spot' where it can carry a reasonable number of people with reasonable reliability at an acceptable cost per passenger. Ideally this sweet spot should be over a wide range of usage numbers. But if it isn't then the scope for flexible bus routes to be affordably useful is narrow; perhaps only for less mobile people with special needs. 

Back in February 2023 the Wyndham Star Weekly carried an article on Tarneit FlexiRide, describing it as the most successful in the state. This had been achieved in its first 90 days of operation. 

But are FlexiRide's numbers actually that good and how do they compare with fixed routes in the area? 

The abovementioned article said that Tarneit FlexiRide was attracting 210 to 220 rides per day. The service runs about 15 hours per day (slightly more on weekdays, slightly less on weekends) so that's about 14 riders per hour. 

If that good or bad? We can't really tell unless we know how many buses are needed to run the FlexiRide service. 

Tarneit FlexiRide uses 18 seater Hino Poncho buses.  The fleet list for CDC's Wyndham depot show six buses with chassis dates in June or July 2022. Let us assume that one is a spare so five would be on the road, at least during peak times. One might also speculate that a smaller number than five is on the road outside peak times. If you were to spread that 14 riders per hour across (say) 4 buses then you'd get an average of around 4 boardings per bus per hour. Given that Tarneit FlexiRide is the most popular other FlexiRides are likely to be less productive. 

How does FlexiRide's performance compare with regular routes? 

My most recent data (obtained from DoT via request) is from Spring 2022. It shows that the quietest fixed route in Wyndham (153) had around 11 to 13 boardings per bus hour. Because Wyndham buses are such good patronage performers there's a lot of other routes getting 30 to 40 boardings per hour. Even on weekends.

In both cases FlexiRide is much less used. FlexiRide gets roughly one-third the passenger boardings of a quiet local fixed bus route. And compared to a busy route FlexiRide only attracts one-ninth the boardings. And bear in mind that both FlexiRide and regular bus routes require a driver, which is the most expensive part of running a bus service. 

OK, you might say that these are early figures and FlexiRide will grow with time. Maybe I should have given it a chance to grow rather than comparing it with established routes.

However in December 2022 I tried to plan peak trips using Tarneit FlexiRide. Even then it had maxed out, with the app suggesting a long walk to fixed route buses. 

This indicates that FlexiRide has already 'hit the wall' and prospects for further growth, at least in peak times are low. It appears to max out at a low level of productivity. That shows that FlexiRide is unsuitable in high travel demand/high growth areas like Tarneit and Melton.

The then DoT and the government were incorrect to go with FlexiRide (rather than originally proposed fixed routes) in 2022. However to their credit they've realised this and will be replacing Tarneit FlexiRide with fixed routes. Hopefully Melton, the second busiest FlexiRide, will soon follow.  

Conclusion

In public transport what doesn't scale doesn't count if you want to provide service to the most people for an affordable expenditure. That's especially so in growth areas where service provision often trails settlement.

If you want productivity then FlexiRide and like services are not your friends. But if your objectives are different, your target market is very small, you are not interested in connections to trains or other buses AND you are willing to tolerate high costs per passenger trip (possibly due to passengers having special needs) then flexible routes may be worth considering. But that's a different item to mass transit and is rarely a reliable and economical substitute. 
 

Click here for more Useful Network items

UN 195: 2024 funded growth area buses - more details

Victoria's Bus Plan notwithstanding, recent state government budgets have been quite parsimonious for new, extended or reformed services. However some funding has come from the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution, a levy on developments to fund infrastructure and services in the first few years of a new estate. While fixed term and highly conditional it's better than nothing. 

There are GAIC funding rounds each year.  I wrote about last April's announcement here. That didn't have much detail. Today, thanks to maps available, we can learn more about what's in store. 

154 Tarneit - Laverton

Route 154 will be a welcome replacement for the unreliable and maxed-out Tarneit North FlexiRide. Equally important is that it will provide the first direct connection between Tarneit and the Laverton North industrial area.

The benefits of this cannot be overstated; current travel to this major employment area from Tarneit station involves a bus to Williams Landing, a train two stations to Laverton and the infrequent and indirect Route 417 to Laverton North. The new route won't serve all jobs but it should still help a lot of people with a more direct connection to employers including the K-mart distribution centre on the currently unserved Leakes Rd. 

GAIC routes are typically overlaid over the rest of the bus network. This is partly because funding is both conditional and fixed term. However opportunities for network reform should still not be ignored.

A rerouting of Route 400 to Williams Landing would connect a lot more buses (including several from Tarneit) than its current terminus at Laverton. However this reform would require another route to retain coverage of Dohertys Rd, making a network review, potentially involving a two-way Route 417 extended to either Williams Landing or Tarneit, desirable. 

194 Werribee - Wyndham Vale

The houses of Mambourin are visible looking west from the Geelong train but it's a long walk to the nearest bus (Route 192) east of the line. That won't be a problem anymore when the new Route 194 starts. Harpley Estate will also gain with an alternative to the mostly 40-minutely Route 192. It's mostly mapped below though the Werribee end is unclear. 

524 Donnybrook Station Loop via Olivine and Peppercorn Hill

This one is actually starting in less than a month. Thus the map and timetable are already online. It provides much needed coverage to northern suburbs growth areas (tend to be more haphazardly planned and sprawly than those in Wyndham). Due to incomplete roads and a desire to do a lot with one route the 524 map looks messy with unidirectional loops. However this is likely still more efficient than a FlexiRide would be, especially given the low train and bus frequencies at Donnybrook this route connects to. 

The timetable is mostly your standard Melbourne outer suburbs offering. That is service every 40 minutes with peak service a bit better at every 30 minutes. Similar to some recent upgrades the Sunday timetable is the same as Saturdays, including an earlier than average start (before 7am). However this is at the cost of evening service with the last departures before 7pm, thus not meeting the 9pm minimum service standard for local Melbourne bus routes.    

The PTV website item foreshadows a future extension north to Kalkallo. 

543 extension to Craigieburn Central

Getting from Greenvale to Craigieburn Central Shopping Centre currently requires getting a bus to Roxburgh Park, then a train and then a bus. This will be replaced by a one-bus trip when the 543 extension commences service. Not only that but residential areas will gain stops on local streets back from the walking-hostile Mickleham Rd. Local MPs including Iwan Walters and Evan Mulholland have previously advocated for this extension which will make a lot of difference for a lot of people. 

As mentioned before GAIC funding is conditional and route upgrades sometimes reflect this. The 543, for instance, could benefit from a further extension to Craigieburn station. The most non-duplicative way of doing this may be via the Route 537 alignment, with passengers along the latter gaining access to more destinations.  

798 extension to Clyde North 
831 extension to Clyde

These are two extensions in the outer south-east.

Route 798 is notable for its higher than average frequency (every 20 min 7 days) and longer than normal operating hours. It started as a short route from Cranbourne to Selandra Rise but will be substantially extended. Keep your eyes peeled - the start of this might not be very long away.  

Route 831 is currently a very short route running from Berwick to Berwick Hospital. The extension will quadruple its length. Berwick is a significant destination so this route will improve north-south connectivity. Its terminus though appears to be a dead end; it seems amazing that although there have been a significant number of bus routes added there is not yet one that offers a continuous ride from Berwick to Cranbourne.  

925 extension to Officer South

Cardinia Road station opened in 2012. Bus reform in Pakenham has been so slow that the 925 bus never got extended to terminating there. Thus people wishing to use the 925 to catch a train have to backtrack to Pakenham, adding significant time to their journey. 

This GAIC funded extension addresses this while also adding coverage to Officer South. It is not yet known whether the extension will come with improved frequency; as it stands the 925 does not meet minimum service standards with gaps of up to 70 minutes between buses. 

Pakenham has grown sufficiently that it needs a full bus review, rather than just tacked-on GAIC extensions. Its greatest need is likely a more direct and more frequent Route 926, done in conjunction with reform to more local routes. 

928 extended to Berwick via Officer South

Apart from the 926 to Fountain Gate and the infrequent 840 to Gembrook, the Pakenham bus network is  quote isolated. The extended 928 will reduce this, with a bus paralleling the railway between Berwick and Pakenham. In this manner it will have a similar function to the 926 north of the line. As well as the new coverage of parts of Officer, this upgrade will improve connections to jobs, education and health services in the Berwick area. 

In 2020 I described a similar concept for an extended 928 but only going as far west as Officer. However it was based on a 20 minute frequency. It remains to be seen how frequent this 928 upgrade will be given that, like all buses in Pakenham, it is currently infrequent with gaps of up to 70 minutes.  

Conclusion 

This is a summary of pending GAIC-funded new or extended bus routes from last year. Implementation will make a significant difference for the tens of thousands of people in the areas that will gain. 

Applications for the 2025 round are open until the end of this month. So don't be surprised if an announcement on these is made shortly after. Noting also that the other avenue for bus upgrades, the state budget, is planned for Tuesday May 20.   

 

Click here for more Useful Network items

UN 194: What has Victoria's Bus Plan done for Melbourne's west and north?

State Labor is reeling from big swings against them in the previously safe seat of Werribee in Saturday's by-election.

Ministers publicly defend the government's record in the west but the average resident, either stuck 40 minutes in traffic or having about that long between buses, often begs to differ. So does pollster Kos Samaras who said that Labor's strategy was focusing on marginals at the expense of safe seats. 

The Liberal opposition was not as strong an alternative as it could have been. It was late in selecting a candidate, didn't have specific policies on public transport and avoided a public forum on the topic. Matthew Guy, its shadow public transport minister, represents an eastern suburbs seat with the best bus service in Melbourne. He has yet to demonstrate that his party is genuinely engaged on suburban public transport issues and has a will to win in this policy area (like it did in 2010). Less than a quarter of the 17% who abandoned Labor in Werribee directly voted Liberal.

Instead most of the swing went to independents and smaller parties notably Paul Hopper independent, Greens, Legalise Cannabis and Victorian Socialists (who, unlike the majors, attended last Wednesday's bus forum). With less than 60% voting for either the two major parties, Werribee is now a marginal seat with no victor yet declared at the time of writing. 

Political context

Similar demographic and political dynamics to Werribee exist in fast-growing ethnoburbs that now ring Melbourne to its west, north and outer south-east (which I won't cover today). While not right at the bottom of the income scale, high rent, mortgage, family and car ownership expenses have made cost of living a hot issue in these areas.

There's also concerns over crime and having transport that works. In these areas 30 to 40 minutes often represents not a total travel time but how long it takes to just get onto the freeway or the gap between buses. People aren't always clear on solutions but they do know if something's not working for them. Such sentiment can endanger long-term governments not seen to be sufficiently responsive, even if oppositions are uninspiring. 

Government's Bus Plan record

Then DTP Secretary Paul Younis, cannot be faulted for his loyalty to the government. As I pointed out at the time he presented in a way that overstated the government's achievements on buses, especially in written answers to questions on notice at PAEC last year. That was done by (a) counting even minor bus stop moves at rebuilt stations as reforms, (b) counting routes that have been deleted as reforms and (c) including typically one trip each way school bus services to give an inflated impression of Bus Plan activity. Take these out and the number of routes reformed shrink by about two-thirds. 

For context, Melbourne has about 350 bus routes. Victoria's Bus Plan came out in 2021 (1340 days ago). Most of the changes made were not large and, with no 2023 or 2024 state budget funding, the northern, north-eastern and Mildura bus reviews that could have implemented more far-reaching reform have effectively stalled. Not even the promised Bus Reform Implementation Plan is known to have been produced. Thus by any fair account the Bus Plan cannot be considered transformative although some good things have happened under it as listed here. 

Where were the Bus Plan initiatives? 

I divided the remaining 57 metropolitan non-school bus routes that had some form of reform (which could include trips added, extension or even deletion - since DTP figures counted those) by geographical area. Roughly one-third were in Melbourne's west and north, one-quarter in inner suburbs and the remaining five-twelfths in the east and south-east.  

The eight examples in the west included: 
- Merging of two routes in Maddingley (Bacchus Marsh) 
- Ongoing funding for GAIC-funded routes 152 and 182 in Tarneit
- New route 475 between Sunbury and Diggers Rest
- New Tarneit North FlexiRide
- Added trips on Route 215 between Highpoint and Caroline Springs
- New Melton South FlexiRide

The ten examples in the north included: 
- New route 501 Craigieburn - Donnybrook shuttle
- Major Craigieburn area frequency upgrades on routes 390, 525, 528, 529, 533 and 537
- New route 390 between Craigieburn and Mernda
- Route 538 made more direct with Saturday afternoon service added
- Improved frequency on Route 546 between Parkville and Heidelberg

The majority involved new routes in fringe areas, ie coverage extensions to 'catch up' with growth.

The main exception, which did involve genuine network reform and a substantial frequency uplift involved the local network in Craigieburn (where routes were upgraded to run every 20 min interpeak weekdays with some longer operating hours). Had these upgrades extended to weekend frequencies and similar scale upgrades done in (say) six or seven clusters across Melbourne then the Bus Plan's achievements could be widely celebrated rather than dismissed. 

The Route 546 boost is also notable, bringing 7 day service to the paper mill apartments at Alphington, which previously lacked it. It was bundled with upgrades for Route 505 (which I classified as Melbourne inner) that will feed the Metro Tunnel station at Parkville. 

Like the tally DTP supplied to PAEC, the above numbers do not include the routes that were part of the 2021 Night Network reform that saw some regular routes upgraded to operate 24 hours on weekends. Neither do they include some later measures listed here or some to start initiatives funded under GAIC (though note this is only a temporary funding stream with tight conditions that limit network reform). I also have queries about DTP's counting methods (eg counting deleted routes as being reformed and the double counting involving the Clarinda 631/821 changes) so the numbers here are rubbery and should be treated as a guide only.   

Trains and trams

This item is about buses but let's say a little about train and tram upgrades too.

The main rail service development for the west and north has been December's upgrade of the Geelong line from every 40 to every 20 minutes on weekends. This has benefited busy stations like Tarneit and Wyndham Vale. Last year also saw the inner west gain from the Route 82 tram getting extra evening and Sunday morning trips.

The main prospects in the future for the west are (i) what will happen on the Sunbury line when the Metro Tunnel commences service later this year and (ii) the delivery of Labor's 2022 promise to boost Melton trains from every 60 min to a still inadequate every 40 minutes on weekends.

The north has seen basically nothing for service levels with multi-decade old 30 to 40 minute gaps between trains in the evenings and on Sunday mornings remaining and no clarity of knock-on gains under the Metro Tunnel. Victorian governments have a habit of building infrastructure but not exploiting capacity gains when it opens; an example was the Werribee line having to wait until 2021 for modest service gains that should have been introduced in 2015 when Regional Rail Link started.  

Conclusion

Some welcome improvements have happened with buses in Melbourne's west and north as per the lists above. However they have been both slow and small. Especially relative to population growth and the need for efficient public transport alternatives given road traffic congestion. 

Especially in the north, prospects for a needed acceleration appear low. That's because the government has effectively shelved its promised bus network reviews for the north and north-east and potentially also all-week Metro Tunnel train frequency gains for Craigieburn and Upfield.

Convoluted DTP internal processes (that make bus upgrades take longer than removing a level crossing) make substantial bus improvements unlikely before about 2028. That includes lower budget 'quick wins' as DTP works slower than counterparts elsewhere even for smaller timetable only or minor route reforms.

Making service reform happen faster is something that the government could usefully be working with new Secretary Jeroen Weimar to overcome. Especially given that (a) even nominally safe seats that feel neglected could turn against them as the Werribee result shows, (b) improved and reformed public transport services that better use existing infrastructure change lives and save people money and (c) budget constraints are reducing the appetite for 'big build' projects.

The government's political survival in 2026 might just depend on the action it takes now on transport and other local services.  


More Useful Network items here

By-election forum calls for better Werribee bus services

Amongst the audience it was a full house at last night's Werribee by-election transport forum put on by the Friends of the Earth's Sustainable Cities 'Better Buses' campaign. 

Credit to the following candidates or representatives who attended:

* Rifai A. Raheem - Victorian Greens

* Sue Munro - Victorian Socialists 

* Xavier Menta - Legalise Cannabis Party

* Joe Garra on behalf of Paul Hopper - Independent 

* Aijaz Moinuddin - Independent 

Liberal or Labor? They neither came nor sent a representative. More on that later. 

What happened

The evening started with accounts from three Werribee residents on the inconveniences of current public transport and how improvements could benefit them. A few of the differences that better bus coverage, frequency and operating hours could make include (i) money saved on uber/taxi fares or multiple car ownership, (ii) personal safety, especially at night and for women, and (iii) improved access to jobs and education. 

Then John Stone, long associated with the campaign, presented a vision for frequent and direct buses operating on a grid network. The vision is unchanged but the way of getting there has been revised since previous presentations. Instead of removing local routes and replacing them with flexible routes (which perform poorly on costs per passenger, capacity and reliability), the local bus network would largely be retained, with new frequent routes layered over the top.

My personal view on this? It's a good approach for Melton town, which has few direct bus routes. Whereas Wyndham and Brimbank already have direct and popular routes with frequency and operating hours their main shortcoming. My view is that while there are some cases of new routes being needed,  you're mostly better off just doubling (and in some cases quadrupling) frequencies on selected existing direct routes along the lines of the W-network. Such an approach would also likely be cheaper, simpler, faster to implement and less politically controversial. 

The overall cost of the Stone package for Melbourne's west has been estimated at $95m per year, along with $200m for one-off capital costs. For context, the latter is the cost of just one level crossing removal. 

Most of the evening was Q & A between the 5-candidate panel and the audience. There was general consensus on the need for buses that were more frequent, more reliable ran longer hours or simply existed (which isn't the case in areas like Mambourin). Some candidates also said they wanted fares cheap or free. 

Watch the recording of the whole session below.  

Major parties not there

As noted before, there was no one from the Liberal or Labor parties present. Labor is in government and currently holds Werribee. Opinion polls haven't been favourable for them lately, with crime, living costs, health and other local services widely cited issues.

Governments (regardless of party) tend to be reluctant to participate in community forums. Governments instead have other means to get 'good news' stories to people eg via direct mail and social media. Whereas a single government speaker would likely be outnumbered by non-government candidates at public forums and may not like forums being given added legitimacy by their presence. The government candidate may also not have anything new to promise, especially if it's a by-election that doesn't threaten the government's majority in the house. 

While the non-appearance of a government representative may make their side look contemptuous, they may have calculated that since the overwhelming majority of voters neither attend nor watch forums the risk from being an apology is less than any potential embarrassments suffered if attending.  

Less understandable are oppositions being 'no shows'. Especially the Liberals in 2025 Victoria. Relative demographic decline in their eastern heartland and growth in the north and west has made a reorientation essential for them to gain and retain office. The erosion of Labor's primary vote in the north and west potentially presents an opportunity for them. But power won't be attained if support for minor parties continues to rise and the Liberal primary vote remains weak. 

Oppositions often complain about governing parties receiving more donations and them able to exploit taxpayer-funded advertising to promoted implemented policies. Oppositions may not be happy about media being more likely to report a government announcement than something from them. MP coverage is also an issue; At the moment Melbourne's northern and western regions have close to 8 times as many Labor MPs than they do Liberal MPs. Lower MP coverage means fewer office resources too. Falling party membership has made the role of paid 'hacktorate officers' (doing party work in what is supposed to be their own time) increasingly important in maintaining the MP's standing in the community.  

To beat the odds opposition candidates need to be more opportunistic at showing up to things (even if it's only a handful of people) than government MPs. Being there shows they care - a good perception to have. Continued persistence will eventually lead to victory, especially if the government has made mistakes or is seen as tired. The goodwill with others, including independents whose preferences may be critical, is also valuable.  

Successful community campaigning

Once you've identified a genuine community need (in this case better transport services) and some solutions you need to build support amongst both the public and those with the ability to amplify, influence and implement what you want.

A bit like throwing a stone in a pond and it ripping out, but the ripples also becoming a wave that makes implementation irresistible. In our political system it is generally easy to win the support of independent and minor party candidates. Getting the bigger parties and eventually governments is harder but necessary. The chart shows how a successful campaign might progress. 

Below is the trajectory of some recent transport campaigns. The more widespread and public the support the more likely it will succeed. Hence the need for campaigns to win broad support. Even from parties that many in the campaign may oppose on other matters or which are generally considered weak or poorly led.  

The Werribee Better Buses campaign is currently at level 2. It has wide support from minor parties. Some opposition parties have supported it too in parliament. The next level is to get formal support from either (or preferably both) the Liberal and Labor parties. That will increase its chance of happening. 

Opposition support often vital

Governments are often (but not always) the last to come to the party. For example there was support from smaller and then opposition parties before the government came on board for both the successful Route 800 and the Mernda rail campaigns. When the government has a million demands for funding various projects some opposition support can give a good idea the push it needs to happen.  

Sometimes opposition members can advocate something between elections but their party doesn't take it up as a serious policy to the election. A good example was the Liberals advocacy for trains every 10 minutes all day in 2017. This was proposed by David Hodgett MP during his time as shadow public transport minister.

Neither his shadow successor (David Davis) nor the party leader (Matthew Guy) took it up so it was not adopted as a 2018 election policy. So, though it was a good idea, it died. Service (as opposed to infrastructure construction) has been a major weakness of the current state government but part of its sloth can be put down to a (then) policy-free opposition with no will to win in transport (the Coalition released their 2018 bus policy one day before the election with nothing of substance; their 2022 effort was better but still poorly promoted.  

How serious are the Liberals about the west? 

A similar concern applies today with buses in Werribee, just two days before the by-election. The ideal would have been a bus 'bidding war' between the Liberal and Labor parties. Under a more engaged leadership and shadow minister, the Liberals could have laid down a plan (need only be a one-pager with a few points) and been in a position to attend the forum with a positive message. That might have given them an edge over Labor (especially if the latter didn't attend). But even better would be if it provokes Labor into matching or beating it with their own agenda. 

For whatever reason neither of these have happened. Though there is still a chance of Labor coming good if the seat is made marginal or they lose. The Liberals themselves seem to have a west-east split. Western MLCs have raised the need for better buses in Legislative Council debates. They have also attended previous community forums on buses, such as last year at Williams Landing (which Labor also attended).

However vocal support for better buses in the west has not been forthcoming from their eastern-dominated leadership and shadow. The latter, apparently a rail fan, has not even said much about needed rail infrastructure and service upgrades in Werribee. Despite a media that would be listening more attentively than usual given the by-elections, giving a publicity benefit that oppositions sometimes claim don't often come their way. 

Oppositions routinely pledge to 'hold the government to account'. This opposition has not necessarily done this well on public transport - a key cost-of-living and local service issue that this government is vulnerable on, particularly in the west.  

The Coalition's policy passivity here (which might have also driven their decision not to attend last night) has been a disappointment. It represents a setback to the rebuilding they need to do to take seats from Labor in 2026. For them there is a risk that although Labor may continue to lose primary vote the majority of this drift could go to independents and minor parties, narrowing the Coalition's path to victory, and ensuring Labor holds on.

Regardless of who wins in 2026, a vigilant opposition means better government including improved accountability and faster delivery of the services people need including better buses. The 'test run' in this by-election indicates that the current opposition has a lot of trust winning to do between now and then.