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

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

That may be for several reasons, eg: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

A thirst for knowledge about DTP

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

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

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

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

This chart has assisted me with much that follows.  

DTP leadership

First of all the ministers. There are four.

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

Assisted by parliamentary secretaries Josh Bull and Bronwyn Halfpenny. 

Enter Secretary Weimar

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

The inner circle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The divisional structure

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

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

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

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

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

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

New deputy secretaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive numbers

Below the deputy secretaries are several layers of executives. 

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

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

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

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

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

DTP's key divisions for transport

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

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

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

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

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

Network Design and Integration 

- Assets and Engineering

- Freight Victoria

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

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

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

Transport Services

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

- Heavy Rail relationship with Metro Trains

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

Investment and Technology

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

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

Silver Review and its politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary 

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

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

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

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

Route 390's start, rise and rise 

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

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

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

Route 390 born

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

Subsequent upgrades

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

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

2025 budget delivers for Wollert buses

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

The planned decline of Bell Street's 513 bus

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

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

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

Route 513 history

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

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

513 becomes complex (mid 1970s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bus planning battles

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three failures in six months

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What would optimised service frequency look like?

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2025 513 / 514 / 517 changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Service outcomes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future options

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

A potential basic alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A potential enhanced alternative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

513 Bell St SmartBus operating frequently 7 days

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

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

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

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

Summary 

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

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

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

Who lobbies for whom?

If you win a big public transport operating contract in modern Victoria you've got it made.

A prestigious client with a great credit rating, little commercial risk and billions in revenue over the multi-year life of the contract. You have to be pretty greedy, stupid or negligent to stuff it up.

Even then about the worst that normally happens is non-renewal. Sure, franchise agreements do have penalty, call in and early termination provisions but Victoria's Department of Transport (or equivalent) as contract owner is apparently pretty forgiving nowadays .

Arguably it's hard for them to be otherwise when (a) it's the government's own construction agenda that forces some lines to be more replacement buses than trains and (b) there hasn't been much progress on  factors, such as a lack of priority, that cause trams and buses to get stuck in traffic and run late through no fault of the operator. 

The train and tram franchises have always been big. More recently the bus ones have become so. The new ZEB bus contracts finally realise the 'Grow or Go' dream of 1980s transport bureaucrats. That is buses are run by five or six big operators with small family companies basically squeezed out. If you wish to enter the industry you basically now have to get a job with a big, often multinational, operator rather than buy a small company's routes and try to expand from there.  

The state government is a monopsony buyer of public transport services. Given their size and duration, the stakes are high if you are a current operator wishing to get a contract extension or an aspirant wishing to set up in Victoria.

There is a whole bidding and lobbying industry around winning and keeping public transport contracts. The next franchise to come up is the biggest of the lot - the right to run Melbourne's Metro trains (Metro being a brand name owned by the State Government). 

This is known as MR5 (Metropolitan Rail Franchising 5). This will be the fifth iteration of public transport franchising with themes explained here. There was already an MR5 for trams (with KDR losing to Transdev) but MR5's start for trains was delayed to enable a smooth start to Metro Tunnel operations under the current operator MTM. 

Though union and Labor party members back increased scrutiny of franchises and a reversion to public operation, all indications so far are that MR5 refranchising will proceed as envisaged. Indeed  just yesterday DTP advertised for an MR5 Transition Officer. 

Incumbent and would-be rail operators are sharpening their knives and pencils right now too.

How do we know? A company wishing to bid to run our trains will be setting up an office and wanting to know the locals. They may poach senior staff from incumbent franchisees or DTP, the franchisor. It's a bit of a risk for them so their pay offer may need to be generous.

However the Silver Review threatens staff cuts across Victoria's government sector, including DTP. Things are already in a state of flux with some recent departures from DTP. So expect some former DTP people to to pop up working for or advising private operators. Indeed varied experience across both government and operators is highly valued when you examine the career paths of senior managers like Warwick Horsley and Alan Fedda. TfNSW has announced staff cuts, things are pretty crook in the UK and our big infrastructure pipeline is slowing so the transport labour market may weaken for a while (unless bosses want to drive buses on one-third pay).  

But back to MR5. As well as stationing would-be managers here, aspirant operators will have engaged government intelligence, advisory and lobbying outfits. Essentially they are buying local knowledge and connections given that the typical lobbying firm will be staffed by people who worked in media, a political party, ministerial or premiers office. A LinkedIn search of their profiles will prove interesting.

It's no surprise then that 2024-2025 has seen increased activity on the Victorian Lobbyists Register with regards to transport operators due to bus and then rail franchises coming up.  

To answer the question "Who lobbies for whom?", here's what I've been able to glean: 

* Anacta Strategies Has been engaged by Downer EDI Rail since March 2024. 

* Counsel House Keolis Downer has used their services since March 2025, although Keolis bought out Downer's share more recently. Keolis Downer won the tram franchise in 2009 (as MR3), retained it under MR4 but lost the MR5 franchise to Transdev. Also works with automotive bodies. 

* DH Consulting Has worked for ComfortDelGro Corporation (better known as CDC) since February 2025. CDC was a big winner from the Zero Emissions Bus franchise, gaining operation of buses in Melbourne's north to supplement its existing western Melbourne and regional city routes. CDC hopes to bid for MR5 through Melbourne One Rail, with this name added to the register in May 2025. 

* Fitzpatrick and Co A very new outfit with just one client, it has advised MTR Corporation since August 2025. MTR is the current operator of Metro Trains. Their main job will likely be to ensure that MTR retains the franchise under MR5.  

* John-Paul Blandthorn Has advised National Trunk Rail since February 2025. 

* Philip Reed Kinetic Group since November 2019. Kinetic is the long-term operator of SkyBus and won the franchise for Melbourne's busiest bus routes (including SmartBus orbitals) from Transdev in January 2022. More recently Kinetic gained some routes in this year's Zero Emissions Bus franchises. Has been engaged by CDC Victoria since December 2020. Also Conduent Transportation Solutions (the myki replacement people) since October 2021. Associated with The Agenda Group. 

* PRX Been doing Puffing Billy's political lobbying since June 2020. Puffing Billy is a major tourist attraction that sometimes gets government grants. Has  been engaged by Dysons, a major bus operator in Melbourne's north-east, since July 2025. Other transport-related clients also include the Victorian Transport Association and TWU Super. 

* RedBridge Group Kinetic group was added in August 2020 (see previously for more). Also Avalon Airport since September 2021. The Go Ahead Group was a previous client but the association ceased in June 2025. More on them below. 

* The Agenda Group Has a long list of clients including many local government groupings that advocate state and federal government on matters including transport. They have also been advising Pacific National since March 2024. Most notable for us though is Go-Ahead who were added in March 2025. Go-Ahead is an international rail operator who has recently opened an office in Melbourne, with MR5 their  likely first target. 

Are there any aspirant operators without lobbyists appointed? French operator RATP Dev recently advertised for a commercial manager in Melbourne so they could be one to keep an eye on. 

Any I've missed? If so, please leave them in the comments below. 

UPDATE: August 22, 2025 announcement on MR5 commencement for metropolitan trains.

TT 209: Brunswick's woeful Sunday bus service

A theme raised in the now 1521-day old Victoria's Bus Plan is the mismatch between service levels and a bus route's network role or patronage productivity (either existing or potential). 

While the state government (to its credit) has been funding growth area bus network additions (either through the budget or GAIC mechanisms) the more something looks likes reform the faster it will run away from it. Even if previously promised. Hence the apparent collapse of the northern and north-east area bus network review promised before the 2022 state election. And when asked about bus reform at PAEC the DTP secretary may present information that conveys an impression of greater activity than has actually occurred. 

On the positive side some needed upgrades to existing high patronage routes have occurred. Examples include the 905 and 907 in Doncaster (funded from cuts to some very quiet routes), 733 from Box Hill, 800 on Princes Hwy and the recent Werribee boosts involving 170, 180, 190 and especially 192. These typically work the existing fleet harder on the existing network with an emphasis on improved weekend service and longer hours.

Some more local routes have also gained Sunday service including 284, 285, 293, 612 and the to be implemented 536 in Glenroy.

Melbourne's high patronage / low service areas

If a bus route is busy on Saturday it almost certainly means it will be popular on Sunday. Therefore, as a minimum, all routes that are well used on Saturday should operate on Sunday. Below are the most productive 20 bus routes that lacked Sunday service in 2022. Four of these have since had Sunday service implemented or funded. 

Productivity numbers here are passenger boardings per live bus operating hour with the median being 13. Thus everything listed is an above average patronage performer. With the top ones like 800 and 506 being nearly three times busier.   

The high productivity/low service combination is not evenly distributed. Certain areas were more overlooked by past 7 day bus upgrade programs than others. 

Greater Dandenong features highly, especially in the top 10. And that's not including the weekday-only 802 which would probably feature if it ran Saturdays. Greater Dandenong is the sort of area whose people have a thirst for bus service. If you run a bus in people will use it in above average numbers, even if its route is convoluted like the 814. I discussed Dandenong in more detail here. 

If we're talking about just one suburb, Brunswick in Merri-bek is the next most prominent. The demographics are different to Dandenong but are still mixed. There are many renters, people without cars and others who would use public transport if it was better. The area is generously served with north-south train and tram lines but east-west transport is all bus. 

The map below shows Brunswick's bus 'black hole' on a Sunday. More than half the routes do not operate on a Sunday. It's not even a case of 'walking slightly further to a frequent route' as proponents of bus reform often like us to do. That's because there is no frequent Sunday bus route in Brunswick with even major routes like the 508 only every 40 minutes to timetables substantially unchanged in years. 
  

To get anything better you need to walk north to Bell Street Coburg. There you will find a cacophony of overlapping routes, with 903, the most frequent, being every 30 minutes on weekends. With a mix of 30, 40 and 80 minute frequencies on a corridor whose buses have only got more complex over time, you are likely to see two buses and then a long gap. This is because when Bell Street gets a new route (like the 903 orbital, 561 extension or 514 creation) the wider network is never reappraised to permit simpler and more frequent service for a given budget. 

The case for a Route 506 7 day upgrade

Moving back further south, the busiest Monday to Saturday only route is the 506. Not only in Brunswick but also all of Melbourne since the 800 got upgraded. 

This makes its case for a 7 day Route 506 upgrade very strong. Especially as other worthy but quieter routes  have got seven day upgrades. As well as new Sunday service Route 506 also needs operating hours extended to at least the 'minimum standard' of 9pm since the last Saturday bus departs Moonee Ponds at 6pm - still broad daylight in summer. 

Not only that but what is now the 506 used to run Sunday with a 15 minute frequency operating until midnight in 1955 according to gazetted timetables. This started at Balfe Cr Brunswick West as there was not then a direct road connection to Moonee Ponds.  

This 1960s-1970s era timetable did have the route starting at Moonee Ponds. By that time Sunday morning service had been added but Sunday afternoon frequency had been reduced to 25 minutes. Still that's more frequent than all but two bus routes in Melbourne's north on a Sunday (246 & 582 being the exceptions). 

The arrival of Saturday afternoon shopping in the late 1980s led to some bus routes gaining Saturday afternoon service. However this was typically less frequent than Saturday morning service. A couple of years later the savage private operator bus cuts of 1990-91 led to many routes losing much of their already sparse weekend service.

The 1990s parsimony continued after the change of government with the legalisation of Sunday shopping not coinciding with many additions of Sunday bus services. However some routes gained limited Sunday service in 2002.

The much larger Meeting Our Transport Challenges minimum standards program that delivered at least hourly seven day service until 9pm commenced in 2006, benefiting over 100 bus routes. An average of three routes were gaining Sunday service every month between March 2006 and November 2008 - a sustained rate subsequent governments have never approached. By 2010's end most suburbs had Sunday service on at least some routes with some also having orbital SmartBuses. Metropolitan bus patronage rose strongly during this period. However some strongly performing routes that should have been early inclusions, like the 506, 536, 800 and others around Dandenong never got upgrades during this busy period.   

The current Andrews/Allan government has been weaker on bus services than its Bracks/Brumby predecessor. Even though its plans for affordable well-located homes cannot work without good 7 day transport choices including upgraded buses in inner and middle ring suburbs like Brunswick.

The largely unfunded Bus Plan of 2021 has so far been no match for 2006's Meeting our Transport Challenges in its sheer rate of bus network upgrades.

However there are signs of renewed state interest in better 7 day buses with examples listed before. Such a credible program would need to include (a) large weekend and operating hours upgrades for key routes like the 508, (b) completed roll-out of 7 day service on buses without them, starting with those with high patronage or high needs catchments like the 506 and (c) other network reform as required.   

How could 506 bus be upgraded to 7 days?

Its high patronage productivity makes the 506 bus, along with several routes in Greater Dandenong, top priorities for the next round of 7 day upgrades. Opportunities for funding them can come from: 

(i) From internal economies, for instance by cutting service on poorly used or duplicative routes  
(ii) Externally, for instance from budget funding

Our DTP is slower than Perth's PTA at implementing cost-effective bus service network reform as established here. While changing, with new contract arrangements driving most small bus operators out, Melbourne still has a larger number of operators. This is an issue because bus operators vary greatly in their potential to find internal economies from timetable and network reform. And DTP finds it easier to do reforms within one operator's routes than changes that involve several.  

The 506 used to be operated by a small company that had just one other route (the 503 that also doesn't run Sunday). That has only a small opportunity for network reform. The 506 transferred to the much larger Dysons and, just recently, the even larger Kinetic.   

Dyson's bus network has been pretty much preserved in aspic despite many of its routes being indirect, overlapping others or poorly used. The reform story here is weak, even though the north and north-east (which includes many Dysons routes) was identified as a bus review priority area in 2022. The government was returned at that year's election and apparently forgot about its bus review promise. 

In contrast DTP has a pretty strong record of working with Kinetic (and before them Transdev) in implementing bus network reform going back to at least 2014. So maybe, just maybe, 506 has a stronger record of getting 7 day service under Kinetic if economies can be found. 

Failing that there is the potential for state budget funding, such as was provided to upgrade the 800. The 506 stacks up strongly given its extremely strong Saturday usage. As for that matter 508 boosts and a 503 upgrade as a package, though we're concentrating on the 506 here. 

Preparatory work is currently being done on the 2026 state budget. This makes now a good time to be advocating for a Route 506 7 day service upgrade to provide the better east-west transport that Brunswick, Moonee Ponds and Westgarth need.

The aim here is for this to be supported by DTP in their business case (which should be justifiable due to the strong patronage evidence) and then backed by government for funding. 

Sign the petition

A Legislative Council parliamentary petition has been established to get support for a 506 seven day upgrade with longer operating hours. The benefit of this petition is that it is tabled in parliament and the minister must respond. The more signatures from Victorian residents it has the more weight it will carry.  

View and sign the 506 bus epetition here: https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-involved/petitions/more-services-for-bus-route-506/

Updates on the petition and the Route 506 campaign generally can be found on the 7 day 506 Facebook page. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here