Ask yourself this.
At what point do you say that a bus route has so few passengers that you stop running it?
a. Usage of one-quarter the network average?
b. Usage of one-tenth the network average (including many empty trips)?
c. Or you keep it running on principle that buses are a public rather than a commercial service?
If you answered c. would you change your answer if the bus hours you saved was put towards a 'greater good' improvement that carried 5 or 10 times as many passengers in the same area that the quiet route was cut from?
The above is not an academic question, however much new service funding you wish would come.
We live under a state government that has invested heavily in major infrastructure but has presided over stagnant or declining service per capita on most metropolitan public transport modes.
Notwithstanding its privileged institutional position as adviser to government, DTP has a record of writing business cases that don't win funding. GAIC (ie limited term growth area bus funding issued under tight conditions) has been almost its only bright spots in 2023 and 2024.
DTP must get the hint. Firstly it needs to get better at writing submissions this government likes. Secondly it must more aggressively find ways to cut 'fat' to internally fund high priority service improvements so more happen during this period of relative service parsimony.
The government for its part needs to be less risk averse and more open to reform ideas from DTP, including more easily making available the (very small) one-off capital funds needed each time a route gets a new timetable or minor alignment change. Some comfort for the government could come if the department streamlined its slow internal processes so that if a genuine problem did arise with a new network then it could be attended to without too much political damage.
A recent success
The very successful Manningham area bus timetable reforms of January 2025 can be held up as a recent model for what I was talking about above. It just needs to be done on a bigger scale in more areas.
If you answered c. would you change your answer if the bus hours you saved was put towards a 'greater good' improvement that carried 5 or 10 times as many passengers in the same area that the quiet route was cut from?
The above is not an academic question, however much new service funding you wish would come.
We live under a state government that has invested heavily in major infrastructure but has presided over stagnant or declining service per capita on most metropolitan public transport modes.
Notwithstanding its privileged institutional position as adviser to government, DTP has a record of writing business cases that don't win funding. GAIC (ie limited term growth area bus funding issued under tight conditions) has been almost its only bright spots in 2023 and 2024.
DTP must get the hint. Firstly it needs to get better at writing submissions this government likes. Secondly it must more aggressively find ways to cut 'fat' to internally fund high priority service improvements so more happen during this period of relative service parsimony.
The government for its part needs to be less risk averse and more open to reform ideas from DTP, including more easily making available the (very small) one-off capital funds needed each time a route gets a new timetable or minor alignment change. Some comfort for the government could come if the department streamlined its slow internal processes so that if a genuine problem did arise with a new network then it could be attended to without too much political damage.
A recent success
The very successful Manningham area bus timetable reforms of January 2025 can be held up as a recent model for what I was talking about above. It just needs to be done on a bigger scale in more areas.
The 280/282 or 'Manningham Mover' was a route put in by the Brumby government when it was feeling the heat on not providing Doncaster Rail but at that stage was unwilling to invest seriously in more rail-like frequent and direct buses. It involved the removal of some other bus routes to fund, introduced wasteful overlaps of its own and was never a patronage success.
Neither did it help the Brumby government's political problems regarding transport in the area. So a few months before the 2010 state election the government had another go with Manningham buses, this time introducing the direct and frequent DART routes 905 906 907 and 908.
While the DART routes succeeded, usage on the still remaining Manningham Mover continued to languish at around 6 boardings per hour - well below average for a Melbourne bus route. And there were higher bus needs in the area. So in January 2025 its weekday timetable was cut from every 30 to every 60 minutes. Because 280/282 are long routes, that freed up a lot of service kilometres per week.
While the DART routes succeeded, usage on the still remaining Manningham Mover continued to languish at around 6 boardings per hour - well below average for a Melbourne bus route. And there were higher bus needs in the area. So in January 2025 its weekday timetable was cut from every 30 to every 60 minutes. Because 280/282 are long routes, that freed up a lot of service kilometres per week.
That got recycled to boost four busier routes with between 2 and 7 times the boardings per hour. The medium usage routes 284 and 285 gained new Sunday service. The high usage 905 joined the exclusive club of buses running every 15 minutes or better 7 days. And the even busier Route 907 got its existing 15 minute weekend service extended over more hours. There were also some small consistency changes involving routes 207 and 309. Overall there were a lot of wins with few complaints about the reduced 280 / 282 timetable as its use was so low.
More examples
The 280/282 aren't the only bus routes understood to be very quiet. There are some short weekday shopper style routes that also don't carry many. But their running costs are low and little is saved by cutting them. And they can be surprisingly resilient, like the (then) DoT's abandoned attempt to delete the 706 between Mordialloc and Chelsea.
Another group of routes potentially worth looking at is our dedicated Night Network routes. That is special routes that only operate 1-5am Saturday and Sunday. They are typically longer than short shopper routes. And, because they operate on weekends at unsociable hours, their driver costs are likely higher, especially relative to passenger loadings.
Another group of routes potentially worth looking at is our dedicated Night Network routes. That is special routes that only operate 1-5am Saturday and Sunday. They are typically longer than short shopper routes. And, because they operate on weekends at unsociable hours, their driver costs are likely higher, especially relative to passenger loadings.
Tracing their history back to the NightRider buses from the late '90s, there used to be a lot more of these, especially when Night Network (involving trains and trams) started in 2016. However reforms in 2021 saw most replaced with extra trips on 21 regular routes. That made travel simpler for passengers and gave some bus served areas 24 hour weekend service. An added benefit for weekend morning travellers is, Good Friday and Christmas Day excepted, they resolve the late starts that some of these routes previously had.
The remaining thirteen dedicated Night Network only routes are numbered 941 - 982. Most are listed on PTV's website here (967 is missing) and dotted on local area maps. These are the ones that I'll talk about today.
Options for quiet Night Network bus routes
Three years ago I looked at whether those thirteen routes could be folded into improved services on existing regular routes. That would improve legibility but there would be a cost involved. Not least because you'd be wanting to add 9pm - midnight and 5am-7am service to deliver true 24 hour weekend service similar to the 21 regular routes already operating.
Another approach (with a smaller budget) is to consider an area's existing service levels and consider whether Night Network services are the best use of bus resources. Especially if (i) their usage is very low and (ii) they ply streets that don't get a proper daytime service.
The latter is more common than you might think. For example, over 70 routes don't run during the day on Sundays, with some not operating Saturday afternoons. There are busy streets in Melbourne that have buses at 2am on a Sunday but not 2pm on a Sunday. Nor even 2pm on a Saturday (eg Jacksons Rd Noble Park North). There's also parts of main roads where service at 2am on weekends is more frequent than at any time during the day (eg Scoresby Rd).
'Greater good' service reforms
It may be that if you have a neighbourhood with a combination of (i) high productivity but limited service regular routes and (ii) very quiet Night Network routes there may be an argument to shift resources from the latter to the former if you can demonstrate that (say) 90% of passengers will be better off.
You might start by reviewing usage patterns of lower productivity routes. There may well be route reforms you can do. And/or timetable adjustments that release resources for 'greater good' service upgrades on higher productivity routes. One order of doing things might be to tackle the widest productivity gaps first as that maximises the ratio of those who gain versus those who might lose.
This is shown below, where routes are ordered from least to most productive, left to right (although proper analysis would look at day and preferably trip level boarding data).
This is shown below, where routes are ordered from least to most productive, left to right (although proper analysis would look at day and preferably trip level boarding data).
On the other hand you might opt for a lower (but still large) gap, especially if the resources freed from a timetable reduced route are not large and you might only have budget for a few trips on a long route.
That alternative is shown by dotted lines pointing to still popular but underserved routes in low income areas. These stack up because of (i) the significant social benefits derived from Sunday service and extended hours and (ii) the low cost due to the route's shortness (Brunswick's 503, Glenroy's 536, Thomastown's 559 and Dandenong's 844 are all good examples).
You can do this with any set of quiet and busy routes in an area. But since Night Network routes are concentrated at the low usage end of the scale they may well be some of the first a planning agency like DTP might consider if they need to find underused service kilometres for desired service improvements.
The patronage uplift of upgraded routes would need to attract a high multiple of the Night Network route's patronage to justify the change and make it politically defensible in terms of increased benefit. That is the donor route and the recipient route are widely spaced on the diagram above.
The Manningham network transferred resources from the quiet 280/282 to routes that were 2 to 7 times as productive. If you were planning to remove a route (rather than just cut its timetable) you might have a higher threshold, eg a minimum 3 times as productive before you would consider it. A high threshold focuses priorities, maximises early gains and improves return for the small capital costs involved (largely removing and installing stop timetables and adjusting flags). Both 2 and 3x benefit thresholds are also strong relative to big infrastructure build BCRs that can excite people even if as low as 1.1.
That alternative is shown by dotted lines pointing to still popular but underserved routes in low income areas. These stack up because of (i) the significant social benefits derived from Sunday service and extended hours and (ii) the low cost due to the route's shortness (Brunswick's 503, Glenroy's 536, Thomastown's 559 and Dandenong's 844 are all good examples).
You can do this with any set of quiet and busy routes in an area. But since Night Network routes are concentrated at the low usage end of the scale they may well be some of the first a planning agency like DTP might consider if they need to find underused service kilometres for desired service improvements.
The patronage uplift of upgraded routes would need to attract a high multiple of the Night Network route's patronage to justify the change and make it politically defensible in terms of increased benefit. That is the donor route and the recipient route are widely spaced on the diagram above.
The Manningham network transferred resources from the quiet 280/282 to routes that were 2 to 7 times as productive. If you were planning to remove a route (rather than just cut its timetable) you might have a higher threshold, eg a minimum 3 times as productive before you would consider it. A high threshold focuses priorities, maximises early gains and improves return for the small capital costs involved (largely removing and installing stop timetables and adjusting flags). Both 2 and 3x benefit thresholds are also strong relative to big infrastructure build BCRs that can excite people even if as low as 1.1.
Here's a quick run through each special Night Network route. If analysis confirms low usage for the Night Network route and there are high usage regular routes operate nearby then it might be worth investigating 'greater good' improvements for the latter.
* Night Network 941 Sunshine Station – Watergardens Station
Investigate boosting frequency and/or hours on regular Route 419. Eg Saturday and preferably also Sunday service from every 60 to every 40 min.
* Night Network 943 Watergardens Station - Melton
Suggested retain as V/Line trains do not operate all night on weekends.
* Night Network 947 Footscray -Newport Station
Potentially replace with later evening finishes or wider weekend span on Route 411 and/or 412 which have above average usage.
* Night Network 949 Williams Landing Station - Altona Meadows
Potentially replace with longer span on Route 494 and/or 495 on more nights of the week (even if it was just a single trip departing Williams Landing at around 10-11pm on all weeknights). Some catchment would also gain from 411/412 improvement above. Both 494 and 495 have above average usage.
* Night Network 951 Brunswick Station– Glenroy Station
Potentially replace with 7 day service on Route 503 along Albion St. Route 503 has above average patronage, serves dense housing development but has early evening finishes and no Sunday service.
* Night Network 953 Broadmeadows Station - Craigieburn HIGH
Potentially replace with longer span on Route 541 which is main north-south bus between Broadmeadows and Craigieburn.
* Night Network 959 City – Broadmeadows Station
Suggested retain as may be busier than most other Night Network routes and is effectively a replacement for 59 tram (that is not a Night Network route).
* Night Network 965 Lilydale - Healesville Loop HIGH
Potential to replace with longer hours on popular Route 683, especially extra early weekend morning trips. Potentially 685 also.
* Night Network 967 Glen Waverley - Croydon
Potential to reform in conjunction with Knox area bus network review that adds a route on Scoresby Rd. Currently Scoresby Rd gets a better service around 2-3am weekends than at any other time.
* Night Network 978 Dandenong Station - Clayton Station HIGH
* Night Network 979 Clayton Station – Dandenong Station HIGH
Potentially replace with 7 day service and longer operating hours on 814. Route 814 covers most catchment of 978 and 979, has very strong patronage but very short operating hours (including a 1pm Saturday finish and no Sunday service).
Route 814 is indirect with a weak western terminus. It disobeys all of the attributes of a well planned bus route. Yet, thanks to its strong demographic catchment (around Springvale/Dandenong) it has significantly above average usage of around 25 boardings per hour Monday to Saturday. Because there is an almost perfect correlation between Saturday and Sunday bus patronage, you can be confident that a 7 day Route 814 will be strongly used on Sunday with around 20 boardings per hour. Potential network reform could even involve the 814 being run to Noble Park station to reduce costs and provide a new local connection.
Route 814 is indirect with a weak western terminus. It disobeys all of the attributes of a well planned bus route. Yet, thanks to its strong demographic catchment (around Springvale/Dandenong) it has significantly above average usage of around 25 boardings per hour Monday to Saturday. Because there is an almost perfect correlation between Saturday and Sunday bus patronage, you can be confident that a 7 day Route 814 will be strongly used on Sunday with around 20 boardings per hour. Potential network reform could even involve the 814 being run to Noble Park station to reduce costs and provide a new local connection.
* Night Network 981 Dandenong Station – Cranbourne
* Night Network 982 Dandenong Station – Cranbourne
Potentially replace with 7 day service on 844, later trips on one Endeavour Hills route and/or simplify Route 894.
HIGH priorities for consideration are due to factors like (i) a regular route covering a large proportion of a Night Network route, thus minimising the catchment that gains nothing, or (ii) the regular route being productive but having low service levels, in some cases even lacking Saturday afternoon and Sunday service.
Some upgrades would need funding supplemented from other sources (eg timetable reforms on regular routes). But the greater good framework identified above could remain valid. There may also be issues if Night Network routes are not operated by the same bus company that runs regular routes.
Conclusion
Identified above are cases where a review of bus resourcing for Night Network versus regular routes may result in some significant overall benefits for bus passengers.
These benefits are likely to be greatest in parts of Melbourne where the network is least developed, eg on routes that lack 7 day service and/or where productivity warrants improved service.
Winning public support or at least acceptance is also made easier with widely agreed points that more people will be needing buses at 2pm on a Saturday or Sunday than 2am on those days. Especially if corroborating data can be produced showing the much lower use of Night Network routes versus regular routes that are proposed for upgrade.
2 comments:
The more I look at and think about the night network routes, the more I think there's a solid case for replacing some of them with flexiride.
Digging through the list;
941 really should be an extended 419, rerouted through via the sunshine segment of the 408, to pick up Sunshine Hospital. Probably would have the same amount of fleet usage, better on the coverage.
943. I'd debate replacing this threefold - either a night 460 + coaches from City to Melton, a night 460 + 456, or some combination of other options. It probably has some of the strongest potential out of the existing routes, just needs some extra refining.
947. I feel night service on 411 is probably the best move here still. Whether there's benefit of cutting the Williamstown shuttle, moving the costs of that over to a night 471, not sure. Either way the 947 is one of the weaker night network routes I feel.
949. I'm leaning toward this being replaced by a night 494/5 loop, however through routed to Tarneit or Werribee Plaza.
Wyndham really needs to be reconsidered regardless when it comes to night network anyway, there's a strong case for night coaches (at least) all night to Tarneit/WV.
951. As I've said elsewhere. Needs cutting, replacing with night 508. No question.
Flexiride out of Coburg/Essendon/Glenroy might be okay for Hadfield, but realistically, I don't see much patronage there.
953. I'll back up night 541, however I feel beyond Highlands, night 533 for legibility and connectivity, may be a move.
It may be a candidate for flexiride however, with a zone replacing the Broadmeadows to Roxburgh Park segment (with extensions to Greenvale and Coolaroo), and night 544/533/529 replacing it, but cost wise, not sure if it's worth it.
959. I feel there's a case for night 59 trams, always have, with a shortened night 477 taking the outer section. If not, keep as is, maybe consider an airport deviation if hours allow out of the removal of 951/953.
965. Agreed. Chop. Replace with night 683/685, two hourly. Even as low as only services until 3am on each. Not sure there'll ever be a huge demand to the Yarra Valley after midnight, they used to occasionally get used, but only the first two trips, savings could be easily had.
967. I'd lean toward cut and replace with a night 737 for legibility, at least to GW, potentially full route to Monash.
Ferntree Gully/Kilsyth, I'm not sure why it has night network, nor why it should over other areas, other than being a holdover of 968. Realistically needs chopping.
978. I feel 978's biggest issue is that it misses two major-ish generators, in Monash and M-City. I feel there also may be a case to replace it with night 850, GW being a busier night economy.
Otherwise, a flexiride zone based out of GW, Springvale or Noble Park would probably be enough to suffice.
979. Cut. No replacement. Keysborough possibly could get a flexiride, but even then, not really, I don't see huge demand.
Night 813 might be an outside chance, but there's much better places to use those saved hours.
981/2.
The flaw I see with these two, is they somewhat duplicate the train.
If the Cranbourne shuttle wasn't around, I'm sure that they'd both get higher patronage.
Could probably drop it to one route (845+863+897), and some kind of flexiride filling in the Berwick gap, but even then, not sure that's even worthwhile.
*981/2 continued;
Even then not sure that's worthwhile. 981 is probably the weaker of the two routes, and coverage really hasn't kept up where it's needed.
Potentially cut at the expense of having a flexiride replacement.
The other issues that currently affect night network, are a lack of promotion, and poor train frequencies on some core lines. Is it time to go back to the drawing board, and reassess with a 2025 lens? Probably.
I feel something much better can be done now, something that makes more sense and is less haphazard.
It's also worth bringing the AO night buses into the same context. Some of those routes had potential, as better options to deal with night network, and should be considered in any future solution.
Whilst yes, they were a pure bus replacement option, and didn't cover every single section of the city, some routes could be adapted as such.
Do I think night network is a complete loss now? No.
Do I feel better options could be made, going forward? Yes.
Post a Comment