Are you being served? Commentary on the service aspects of public transport in Melbourne, Australia. Covers networks, routes, timetables, planning, co-ordination, information, marketing and more.
Another day. Another big planning document. This time it's from Infrastructure Victoria who has released its draft 30 year infrastructure strategy. IV is governments planning advisory body.
It proposes rail upgrades, tram extensions and bus rapid transit. Also service frequency improvements such that 80% of the populations of Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo are within 800 metres of public transport every 20 minutes or better.
Let's start with service (as no one else seems to!). The every 20 min within 800m of 80% of the population service standard is very good. I've been advocating such a frequency measure for years and it's great they've listened. 6am - 11pm buses also decent. As I noted a few days ago, Plan for Victoria did not have a robust PT frequency aim like this (but should have).
I'd have liked IV to go harder on a 10 min core frequent network, with Metro trains, trams and key buses upgraded to that. That for trains was found feasible in the NDP Metropolitan Rail so there is no reason not to. And IV should really be very interested in maximum utilisation of assets which all day frequent train networks would further. It is a serious indictment that, with gaps between trains of up to 40 min, Melbourne does not have a comprehensive all week frequent rail network like Sydney or even Perth has. The only reason we don't is not the infrastructure but due to a political choice not to run more trains.
Similar for buses. IV could have advocated (say) 30 or 40 top bus corridors that justified route simplification to deliver service every 10 minutes or better 7 days. That would have been transformative. The strongest of those could have got BRT-type infrastructure upgrades to improve speeds and reliability.
IV is (mostly) going for a lot of small rather than a few big infrastructure items. So there's a lot of tram extensions proposed for the inner and middle suburbs. Think Arden, Fishermans Bend, Batman, Moorabbin, Hughesdale, Burwood East, etc. They mention the relationship with housing which is topical given recent government planning announcements.
Major rail upgrades in the west are proposed including Melton electrification and more stations such as at Mt Atkinson and Thornhill Park. In a big win for middle suburban connectivity in Altona North they also want a rebuilt Paisley.
Clyde & Kalkallo electrification also backed but only as a 'future option'. Thus the outer north and outer south-east are not considered as urgent as Melton and the outer west. I think some will argue that these areas have been equally short-changed. The City Loop reconfiguration also on this 'future option' list.
This draft strategy continues IV advocacy for bus rapid transit, something we don't have much of in Melbourne. These corridors are mostly middle and outer suburbs, with some radial and others orbital.
Freight: Chief recommendations include a rail freight plan and delivering more stuff outside peak hours.
What does and doesn't IV talk about? The word 'frequent' gets mentioned 49 times. Big contrast to other material like Plan for Victoria that de-emphasises service. However 'Suburban Rail Loop' get mentioned just 6 times and 'Metro 2' 5 times. I suspect the SRL and its advisability is a sensitive matter within IV given that while they may have their own views they can't really comment on something that is actual government policy and is being built.
Fares: IV propose lower off-peak fares and simpler fare zones in regional areas. Early Bird Metro Train only would be replaced with cheaper outside peak fares. IV has commendably de-emphasised their silly mode-based fare plans (that would have made bus reform harder). It's mentioned but something to consider later.
That's just a quick skim. There are many other non-transport recommendations. Eg more libraries and aquatic centres in outer suburbs. And phasing out stamp duties in favour of land tax. More affordable housing. Tree canopy cover. Electrification. And more.
Plan for Victoria is based on five pillars. These are:
* Self-determination and caring for Country
* Housing for all Victorians:
* Accessible jobs and services
* Great places, suburbs and towns
* Sustainable environments
Common words
Here's a count of some key transport and planning words:
Activity centre 31 Buses 2 Canopy 17 Cycling 19 Density 4 Freight 11 Frequency 1 Frequent 2 Homes 105 Housing 118 Infrastructure 61 Jobs 49 Land 97 Network 22 Planning 140 Public transport 45 Rail 11 Roads 4 Trains 2 Trams 3 Transport 98 Walking 8 Water 46
This crude analysis indicates a very strong housing emphasis. Some things in previous plans are dead. For example there is zero mention of the '20 minute neighbourhoods' that were prominent in Plan Melbourne. But the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road makes it onto the maps (with more precision than the roughly drawn Suburban Rail Loop portion from Sunshine to Werribee).
The 22 actions
The plan has 22 actions. Those with the biggest implications for public transport are highlighted with a few more words said about them.
1. Housing targets for LGAs The emphasis here is to provide for a variety of denser housing in established areas that already have infrastructure including public transport lines and services. This is as opposed to only having housing in fringe greenfield suburbs and high-rise CBD apartments in CBD and nearby areas. Densing up established areas may increase catchments and thus potential patronage for public transport routes. However a challenge will be managing increased traffic that can slow buses and trams without effective priority. I discussed better transport for the first 25 housing priority areas here.
2. Streamline planning in activity centres This is all about the government's announced plans to cluster denser housing around train stations. That should have an effect on public transport patronage and the viability of rail-based centres.
The stated outcome is that the introduction of new planning controls in and around the 60 identified
Activity Centres will unlock supply for 360,000 new homes in well-located
areas close to services and jobs, along train and tram lines across
Melbourne.
3. Manage sprawl You'd hope this will lead to less 'leapfrog' development where housing estates are built without a proper connector road network, thus precluding viable and effective bus routes.
4. More social & affordable homes
5. Parking choice for new builds in well served areas Regulations that mandate parking requirements add unnecessary cost to housing borne by those who don't own as many cars as the rules say they 'should' own. There is also a relationship between car ownership and usage. Thus making car parking a matter of choice rather than compulsion, especially in walkable areas near public transport, can have a positive effect on public and active transport usage.
6. Revise apartment design standards
7. Public transport planning. This action item proposes something so radical for buses that it risks blowing up in the government's face and sabotaging prospects for future bus network reform. That needs discussing in detail so I will do so below.
The Public Transport Guidelines for Land Use and Development has a target that 95% of residents are within 400 metres of public transport services. This came out in Jim Betts time - around the time of Meeting our Transport Challenges and the fast roll-out of minimum standards (including 7 day service) for buses.
The Meeting our Transport Challenges plan of 2006 envisaged a two tier bus network comprising PPTN SmartBuses (every 15 min weekdays, 30 min weekends over long hours) and local routes operating at least hourly until 9pm.
That's not a bad mix, though evening and weekend PPTN/SmartBus frequencies do not meet current needs. Current usage and proposed housing densities make a better SmartBus service offering desirable, eg maximum 10-15 minute waits at most times such as apply on premium bus routes in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. Local routes could also be made more frequent (eg every 20 minutes all day), as is already now the case for some growth area routes in Tarneit, Craigieburn, Sunbury and Cranbourne.
Plan for Victoria proposes the following:
Our aim is for most people in Melbourne and the regional cities to live within a 10-minute walk (800 metres) of public transport.
Plan for Victoria accepted this (and then some) with its greatly pared back coverage aim. 'Most people' could theoretically be 51%. Well down on 95% in the current guideline. And the distance is doubled from 400 metres to 800 metres.
Saying that 800 metres translates to a 10 minute walk is a 'one size fits all' approach that won't go down well. Some (especially older people) walk slower. Unresponsive traffic signals can mean multiple long waits to cross roads. Even worse is that 95% bus stops on main roads (where the more direct routes would go) have no nearby crossing points according to a Victoria Walks study.
I would endorse Plan for Victoria's 800 metre coverage aim if it said 'frequent public transport', with the implication that most people would have a local route somewhat closer. But it doesn't say that.
Instead all you appear to get is a sparse grid network with routes spaced 1600 metres or 1 mile apart. That's not unlike the worthy but undeveloped Principal Public Transport Network with corridors protected in planning schemes for bus priority. It's a good network centrepiece but not necessarily enough on its own.
Presumably the service would be faster (with bus priority corridors) and more frequent (though Plan for Victoria doesn't say the latter). The good thing about that is that it will make increased frequency cheap to provide as you are ripping out a heap of local bus routes to help fund. The bad thing is that in the pure form presented here it may be politically impossible to implement.
The first version of the John Stone network for Melbourne's west as championed by the Sustainable Cities campaign had a network vision not unlike Plan for Victoria. However (unlike Plan for Victoria) it was commendably explicit on frequency with every 10 minutes proposed. It did however assume flexible routes for fill-in coverage. However flexible routes are inefficient, unreliable and expensive per passenger carried.
I fear that Plan for Victoria's recipe of an 800 metre maximum walk to buses indiscriminately applied might be a step too far. Adelaide attempted something like it metropolitan-wide for buses in 2020. The effort failed spectacularly with the new network cancelled and the transport minister leaving politics. A similarly ham-fisted approach here risks wrecking the acceptance of bus reform so that it never happens, and our 30 year reform backlog becomes more like 40 or 50 years. That is in no one's interests.
To safeguard against that I instead recommend a Toronto-style tiered network. This would be based around a direct PPTN-style 7 day frequent network (ideally every 10 minutes but no worse than every 15 minutes) and reformed mid-level routes every 20 minutes similar to the Useful Network. In some cases there would also be local routes operating to minimum service standards. Roll-out could be staged by area with several areas being done at once to speed implementation so it matches best practice in Perth or Auckland. Such a network represents good practice in the frequency versus coverage trade-off and is something that Plan for Victoria should have aimed for.
Capacity gets mentioned as an aim. But frequency, equally important for connectivity and usage, was neglected as an objective. Despite this being (a) a key trade-off benefit of people walking further to a stop and (b) the 'What you told us' highlighting better frequency as a need, "You want public transport to be more frequent and better connected".
New housing is considered something that you can put near frequent public transport. But there appears little interest in making the frequent network bigger to serve more than the current minority of train and bus lines. This downplaying of frequency's importance is consistent with the current government's record of devoting about 99% of public transport policy initiatives on infrastructure builds and only about 1% on frequency.
The concentration of housing along certain train lines means that off-peak rail frequencies should be never worse than 10 minutes and definitely 5 minutes or better all week on corridors like the Metro Tunnel between Sunshine and Dandenong. However the need for this is not mentioned.
8. Release of industrial & commercial land. This pulls in the opposite direction to the clustering of housing around stations as even many existing industrial sites have no or limited public transport. Making housing more dense (one of the previous aims) can only increase car traffic volumes if the jobs people need to get to are unserved by public transport. This is a high risk for industrial jobs since the performance measure is simply supply of industrial land (regardless of if it has transport access).
9. Streamline developer contributions More detail is needed here but changes here has implications for growth areas whose new bus routes are often funded by GAIC (a highly conditional, limited term funding source) rather than consolidated revenue. There may however be potential benefits for transport in densifying established areas if the pilot extensions of developer contributions to infrastructure in these proves successful.
10. Recognise Traditional Owners rights
11. Coordinate public infrastructure & service delivery for more homes. This is important but often ignored. For example areas like Moonee Ponds has had huge increases in population density but its basic train frequencies have been unchanged for half a century or more. Bus reform is likely too slow and there is little linkage between denser housing (for instance along Albion St, Brunswick West) and bus timetables (that may not even run 7 days such as Route 503 on Albion St).
12. Protect tree canopies. This is a benefit for shade, lessening of heat islands and thus walkability including to public transport. Stronger protections are essential here as some LXRP projects (such as at Chelsea) have significantly reduced tree cover and shade in activity centres.
13. Minimum standards for open space
14. Make best use of land at train stations. This must include consideration of parking versus other uses, potential for larger role for buses & active transport as access modes.
15. Revise design guidelines for public places
16. More use of Traditional Owners knowledge & for place names
17. Encourage walking and cycling with active transport strategy.This is important to prioritise infrastructure that enables direct and safe active transport access to public transport.
18. More environmentally sustainable and climate resilient development
19. Better manage flood, fire & climate risks
20. Reflect Country in planning
21. Protect the Yarra
22. Have boundaries for regional cities and towns to retain land for food production
Measures and outcomes
The plan has short-term measures and outcomes for each of the 22 objectives. Notable measures include:
* Percentage of homes with good access to opportunities and services (1) * Percentage of long-term public transport network serviced (7) * Level of access to opportunities and services in growth areas (11) * Mode used for station access (14) * Percentage trips by active transport (17)
The measure from point 7 implies that some sort of long-term network development plan for public transport exists. This is reinforced by the outcome "Planning decision makers and developers will have clarity about where improved bus networks, and other public transport improvements are proposed so these can be protected in planning schemes and progressively delivered in structure planning processes.". A long term network development plan for public transport is not something that has been public for a long time.
Relationship with other plans
How does Plan for Victoria sit with other plans?
Appendix 2, starting on p70, gives some tips.
On bus network reform, nothing much happened after early 2023 according to the page linked. This is likely due to the 1357 day-old Bus Plan lacking 2023 & 2024 state budget backing.
This is a timely reminder that no matter how good the plan it is better to judge governments by what they fund in their budgets rather than what they say in plans.
On this the next state budget will be Tuesday May 20.
Some real transport plans
Plan for Victoria is very much a housing and development focuses plan. It is very much in the tradition of Melbourne 2030 from 2002 with its major activity centres. Melbourne 2030 was likewise about development visions. It had a 'principal public transport network' between the activity centres but lacked details on when and how this would be delivered.
Public forums requested better metropolitan public transport to be a part of Melbourne 2030. But the Bracks government ignored these calls. Instead its priorities were getting Metcard to work properly, making rail franchising sustainable and boosting regional rail that was so important to its 1999 regional Victoria pitch that won it office. Labor under Bracks and Brumby was also hamstrung in what it felt it could responsibly spend; with memories of Cain-Kirner still fresh it had to reassure the public that it was financially responsible and deserved to govern.
This (then) nearly seven year government didn't seriously invest in upgraded metropolitan transport until Meeting our Transport Challenges in 2006 (for buses) and various panicked responses to rail overcrowding and system breakdowns in the 2008-2010 period (including the 2008 Eddington study and 2010's Victorian Transport Plan). The latter wasn't soon enough to save the Brumby government, which, like the Andrews-Allan government in 2025, had been in office over ten years.
Plan for Victoria should have at least had a frequent network vision. Rather than just being the radial rail network (and the Suburban Rail Loop at a handful of centres) this should include a turn-up-and-go tram and bus grid from multiple directions linking each centre with those adjacent. It alludes to this but by talking about high capacity but not high frequency the plan's authors do not or will not acknowledge the central role of frequency in making a public transport network useful. A good measure for this could be the percentage of the population within (say) 800 metres of public transport every 10 minutes or better operating over a wide span of hours. However the plan as published wants people to walk further but gives no indication of whether they'd get better frequency.
If you want an actual transport plan that puts service first for the most Melburnians at the lowest cost then you won't find it on any government website. For rail there are projects but nothing as coherent or service-oriented as 2012's NDP Metropolitan Rail. Buses had a plan in 2021 and trams in 2023 but both documents are vague, substantially unfunded and lack maps. Thus neither can be considered successes yet.
For a real public transport plan that puts service first see the Future Frequent Network (with interactive maps) instead.
Or if brevity is your thing then my five word public transport plan is a bigger, bolder yet more stageable vision than almost anything else official.
