UN 215: What makes bus plans succeed (or fail)?

Executive summary: Too many plans for bus upgrades fail. Strike while the iron is hot - make yours succeed by having it ready to fund when political will is highest. And always prefer a staged program of quick wins with well-communicated successes over cumbrous and potentially controversial reviews that are rarely completed before political will and funding opportunities evaporate.      

"If only we had an integrated transport plan" you hear some cry. It is an article of faith amongst transport planning professionals that Melbourne should have an integrated transport plan. Not only that but it is mandated in the Transport Integration Act 2010. 

The Auditor-General called out the government for not having such an overarching plan back in 2021. The government rejects this by saying it has a lot of smaller plans and pointing to their record infrastructure spend, overwhelmingly on a small number of very large road and rail projects. 

Many economists, academics and transport planning professionals distrust the current government's project-first approach. Some privately consider that more planning could have got better value for money. However unless retired or otherwise financially independent they are too dependent on government employment or contracts to look a gift horse in the eye. 

Others in urban planning and housing have different views. They contend that projects like the Suburban Rail Loop are exactly what we need as for too long transport has lagged rather than shaped development. This government agrees, with it describing the SRL as both a transport and urban planning project. Preferring to get their advice from elsewhere, they have basically sidelined what you might call the old transport planning establishment, possibly due to past bad experiences when they did trust the department. DTP and its predecessors have also had periods of pretty uninspiring leadership since.    

That debate is not today's topic though. Instead I'm more interested in whether the plans that exist succeeded or failed. That's important because there's many smart and engaged people who invest a lot of energy into saying "we need a plan" only for numerous said plans to gather dust, unloved and largely unimplemented. 

Even comprehensive plans may hold the government's interest for a couple of years before priorities shift. Conversely there are initiatives that don't seem to be part of a wider plan yet get done and are successful.   

Various plans

I'll run through the plans that cover buses but will veer into trains and trams occasionally as well. 

* 1988 MetPlan

Unfortunate timing contributed to making this plan, which had many good features, fail. Within eighteen months of its release the state's public finances were in crisis and there were cuts not boosts. The minister's claim that a commitment to improvement had replaced the atmosphere of decline and decay soon proved false.  However some of the directions in it (eg orbital buses) did end up happening much later. 

* 2006 Meeting Our Transport Challenges

While covering all modes of transport, the most enduring part of Peter Batchelor's MOTC was a program of bus service additions that has never been equalled since. The three main bus components were: 

* Service upgrades and extensions for local routes, notably the addition of Sunday and evening service (to 9pm) through a program of minimum service standards. 

* Expansion of the SmartBus network featuring more frequent service and longer hours on key routes, especially orbitals.  

* A series of local area bus network reviews across Melbourne. 

MOTC can claim to be the most successful metropolitan bus plan of those reviewed here. Receiving its first serious funding in the 2005 state budget upgrades continued to be rolled out until 2010 (when the government lost office). However momentum slowed from about 2008 as political priorities switched to fixing rail's numerous problems. About 60 to 70% of the minimum service upgrades and SmartBus was implemented with patronage rising in step with service. 

The local area bus network reviews took a fair while to do. They were the least successful bus component of MOTC with only about 20% of recommendations implemented as funding was drying up when the reports were completed. 

* 2012 Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail) 

While a rail service plan with an aim to get all lines to run simpler connected timetables that were either ever 10 minutes (main lines) or 20 minutes (branch lines) all day, the NDP (Metropolitan Rail) did include a multimodal coordination framework that included a service hierarchy for buses. This included main routes every 10 minutes and other important routes operating every 20 minutes to mesh evenly with trains and trams. 

There was never a publicly released NDP (Metropolitan Bus). But there was significant bus network reform along principles that would likely have been in such a plan. This included a radical new bus network in Point Cook that started when Williams Landing Station opened in 2013. 27 July 2014 was a particular high point with major bus network reforms for Brimbank, Melbourne Airport, the south-east and the Transdev network. No other day since has seen a comparable large change to buses across so many areas. 

One effect of this was an increase in the number of bus routes operating every 20 minutes as I discussed here. Since that item was written (2019) there have been further additions to the '20 minute club' with service boosts on buses in Fishermans Bend, Craigieburn and Werribee. Fishermans Bend even gained two routes every 10 minutes on weekdays. 

As for the rail component, that was moving forward until 2014. But it got a major setback in 2015 as the new government ditched all interest in metropolitan service uplifts in favour of infrastructure builds. However small elements of it were implemented on 31 January 2021. And the 10/20 min pattern will guide the planning of the Metro Tunnel timetable from 1 February 2026 along with the mid 2026 timetables for Sandringham (every 10 min maximum waits weekdays), Craigieburn and Upfield (maximum 20 minute waits). 

* 2014 Labor's plan for Victoria's Bus Network 

Unlike the other plans this one was developed by a political party as an election policy. In this case by Labor who won that year's state election. It was somewhat patchy with the specifics favouring outer suburbs around Cranbourne and Epping. A relatively high proportion of promises were implemented, as discussed here. 

* 2015 Transdev Greenfields bus network 

Unlike the first stage implemented in July 2014, this bold plan that included splitting the SmartBus orbitals never got implemented. It was not without strengths but poor public consultation, development by a single operator without reference to other operator's routes and service cuts in some areas were significant flaws. Developed under the previous Coalition government the proposal was scrapped by new minister Jacinta Allan who would be less accepting of bus network reform than her predecessor.  

* 2016 Regional Network Development Plan

While the public transport record of the post 2014 Labor government has overwhelmingly been about building infrastructure rather than adding service, this is really only the case in metropolitan Melbourne. 

All four of the last Labor premiers can claim a stronger personal attachment to regional Victoria than areas like Tarneit, Craigieburn and Dandenong. The public transport agenda of this government is overwhelmingly driven by a vision of statewide equity. That is you get the same flat fare cap to travel on services that are at least every hour (and increasingly every 40 minutes) across Melbourne and major regional cities. 

A consequence of this is that when infrastructure is upgraded you are far more likely to get a large rail service uplift on regional lines than you are on metropolitan lines. Not only that but when regional lines like Ballarat and Gippsland have their timetables upgraded there are cascading upgrades for buses including service additions. This typically does not happen for metropolitan timetable changes which may get (at best) minor cost-neutral bus timetable tweaks as part of 'recoordination' (not that some routes were necessarily coordinated to start off with!). 

A consequence of this approach is that regional areas get service upgrades whereas outer metropolitan areas (many in historically taken for granted Labor 'safe' seats) do not despite metropolitan routes having higher patronage productivity. The most recent Gippsland bus upgrades have been so great that at midday on a weekend the back streets of Moe gets buses as frequent as busy Bell Street near Bell Station (in both cases a 40 minute frequency). Such Moe routes also run 7 days unlike routes in similar low income but metropolitan neighbourhoods like Campbellfield and Dandenong North. Major routes have similar disparities; Route 1, the Latrobe Valley intertown route is now every 20 minutes on weekends versus 30, 40 and 60 minute gaps on main highway Melbourne bus routes on weekends.  

Regional service provision remains with some gaps (Wodonga, Shepparton and Mildura still need town bus network reform and upgrades) but the general story for regional network development is one of major investment in public transport service that has exceeded that applied in major parts of metropolitan Melbourne, especially on a per-capita basis. Consequently the Regional Network Development Plan can be considered the one bus and train service-related plan that has had unwavering support for almost the entire life of this government. 

* 2021 Victoria's Bus Plan

This plan was released in 2021 by the enthusiastic minister Ben Carroll. There were initial signs of renewed interest, including before the 2022 state election with major bus network reviews for Melbourne's north, north-east and Mildura publicly announced. About two years of planning work was done but Cabinet scrapped the reviews in late 2023 with other priorities apparently being more important. 

While there have been some bus service improvements, there haven't been nearly as many as under the much more successful MOTC plan of 2006. Network reform is slower too, especially when compared to the pace achieved during the 2013 - 2014 era when both PTV leadership and the minister were supportive. Victoria's Bus Plan may well inspire future large service upgrades and reform like MetPlan did. But until this happens it can reasonably be regarded as a failure.  

* 2023 Melbourne's Tram Plan

There's been developments regarding the new G Class trams and the Maribyrnong depot but little has been said or funded on the service side with the plan being fairly vague. Some tram service boosts have happened but DTP is weak at promoting them. Trams' low political profile may be partly because both major parties consider outer suburbs more important than inner suburbs with a Labor example below:    

Summary and success tips

There have been several attempts to reform bus services over the last four decades. Success has varied. 

It is common for the government to lose interest within two years of a plan being released. The 1988 and 2021 plans were the biggest victims of such changing budgetary and political priorities. 

The 2006 MOTC plan was subject to similar forces but not before large parts were implemented. An early emphasis on simple service upgrades (such as seven day service) and a minister able to secure Cabinet approval for substantial budget funding out to 2010 contributed to its success. 

While it didn't have a lot of detail, the Regional Network Development Plan stands out as being the one that has retained political support the longest. I suspect this has a lot to do with the central role of regional Victoria in Labor's leadership with vocal support for fishing and acceptance of recreational hunting part of the same "see, we're not inner-city Greens" political thinking most personified by the premier's husband's background.   

Lower budget 2010s era bus network reforms were done without an overarching plan, although there was a planning culture in the then PTV. They succeeded due to supportive leadership in the PTV bureaucracy (under Ian Dobbs) and at ministerial level (by Terry Mulder). 

PTV successfully implemented Labor's 2014 plans after the change of government. But present a more radical proposal to a more wary minister and bus reform can die, like happened with the scrapped 2015 Transdev network. Especially if the department gets to be led by people who cannot sell public and political benefits.  

Even a plan to revive bus reform (as done in 2021) might fail if it proposes a strategy that takes too long to make the first steps, bites off more than it can chew, cannot be scaled, is potentially controversial, is not well sold by the department and/or lacks premier and Cabinet support. 

People can spend a lot of effort lobbying for 'a transport plan'. But the record of implementation when we've had such plans has been mixed. Even successful plans rarely hold the interest of their political masters for more than a couple of years before something else captures their attention and budgets. The rare exceptions resonate politically with the government, for instance the priority this one gives to certain provincial areas. 

Otherwise time is of the essence. By all means have a plan but develop it quickly. Be clear in what you want. Be able to implement quickly. Get as much funding locked in as early as you can.

Do the 3 Ms: Market Upgrades, Measure Results and Message Success to build political capital for future stages. Have a Secretary who can argue a case and a minister with weight in Cabinet. As seen recently, squandering the precious first two years on ponderous reviews risks nothing being done as political priorities change and funding interest wanes. 

And even if the prevailing political environment does not have much interest in an overarching plan or tip in much new funding it is still possible for good bus reform to happen with the right leadership in the department and a supportive minister.  

Index to other Useful Network items here

TT 216: 86 & 96's undersold tram service upgrade

Last weekend marked the commencement of upgraded timetables for tram routes 86 and 96. 

The upgrades, which Transport Victoria meekly described as run(ning) more often at busy times, reduced  waiting times on the busier evenings and early Sunday mornings. That's important because Melbourne trams have traditionally dropped to every 20 minutes at night and 30 minutes on Sunday mornings and evenings. This is even on routes (like 86 and 96) that serve destinations (like St Kilda) that are busy right when trams are at their least frequent, especially in the warmer months. 

The informal nine hour rule stipulates that (especially on weekends) even our major train, tram and bus lines operate frequently for a minority of the time and definitely not at night. Like restricted Sunday morning timetables it is a planning and operating culture most pervasive in Melbourne for reasons going back a century. Sydney does not suffer from it to anywhere near the same extent with their trains (for example) running every 15 minutes or better for almost 20 hours a day all week. 

The 86 and 96 tram timetable changes, like the Metro Tunnel timetable for Watergardens - Dandenong starting next February, represent a small loosening of this rule to suit modern wider span travel and working patterns. It's a substantial win for peoples' access to jobs, events and tourism, which has long been hamstrung by infrequent evening and weekend timetables. That's even on trams, which is the mode closest to having a turn-up and go service during most daylight hours.  

The Public Transport Users Association praised the upgrades on its Facebook page as follows:

As PTUA mentions the 30 minute Sunday evening gaps remain in place. However they didn't specifically mention the Sunday morning boosts. These improve frequency from every 30 to every 15 to 20 minutes.

While they are only a few extra trips per week they significantly improve the convenience of catching these tram routes as well as the network more generally when connections are involved. And given the rarity of tram frequency upgrades (tram service kilometres have actually declined on a per capita basis in the last 20 years) it is historically significant too. 

Promotion

How has what is a very good service upgrade been promoted?

Yarra Trams mentioned the upgrade once on their Facebook page. This linked to the Transport Victoria website item. 

The operator did what they were required to do - since the Metlink days marketing for public transport services has typically been the job of what you might call the integrated transport brand, agency or department (ie Metlink, PTV and now TV/DTP).

Below is what appeared on the Transport Victoria website (click for a better view or see). 

Vague and underwhelming, isn't it? With zero appeal to any passenger segment likely to benefit. 

Transport Victoria's Facebook page had no mention at all, not even just before the weekend the upgraded timetable started.  Nothing on their Instagram or YouTube either. Local MPs like Nina Taylor whose Albert Park seat benefits thus had nothing to share on their social media. DTP's inertia here meant that a great opportunity to generate political capital was lost with this being just one of many cases.  

Whereas if this was a transport infrastructure project like the Metro Tunnel or even a local level crossing removal there would be all sorts of 'sneak peek' open days, community festival attendances, show bags,  coffee vouchers, social media, staff to explain, exquisitely-staged sequential messaging and more. You wouldn't hear the end of it. 

A huge contrast, even allowing for the differences in project sizes and budgets. 

A matter of leadership

In my view this comes down to leadership.

Major infrastructure project agencies have CEOs who understand the need to know and sell benefits to win public goodwill. Executives are also cognizant of the need for the government to feel that a project has built it political capital. This leads to the project being considered a success and for governments to complete it and then fund more like it.   

In contrast transport service planning projects had Paul Younis. 

Mr Younis led DTP for most of the last seven years. Amongst his virtues, communications and sales ability are not necessarily the first that spring to mind. Neither did he exude a patronage growth mindset, even pre-pandemic. Some department staff do value promotion and patronage but this would have to come from their own reasoning rather than be reinforced by the Secretary.

The public promise of major bus network reform only for it to be rejected by Cabinet in late 2023 may or may not have been for reasons to do with Mr Younis. 

However it is beyond doubt that under his watch DTP has been habitually poor at promoting previous public transport service upgrades. This would not assist government MPs (including Cabinet ministers) see community benefits or political capital in such added services. That might reduce goodwill towards supporting future service improvements, especially amongst non-transport portfolio ministers who have issues in their own department they would want funded first. 

Jeroen Weimar has led DTP for nearly 9 months. 

In that period there has been a rebranding from PTV to TV. 

However, as proved just recently with the 86 and 96 tram upgrades, the general DTP culture when it comes to promoting what should be good news service additions appears unchanged from the stagnant years of Younis. 

That can not and should not continue. 

Instead Mr Weimar might do well to push new thinking in the department so that DTP stops being viewed as a less favoured 'B team' punching below its weight when compared to the infrastructure project construction bodies. The government's rhetoric of 'switching on the Big Build' has even been favourable since the time Ben Carroll was minister but DTP has so far made nothing of it. 

Such renewal could include a rediscovery of the importance of promotion to build success and then political capital for more service by kick-starting a virtuous cycle such as below. 

Secondly DTP needs to become a trusted delivery partner with improved capacity to reliably deliver service upgrades as soon as possible after they are budgeted. Unlike its promotion efforts DTP has made progress with small bus service upgrades done much quicker today than two years ago. However it still needs better processes for larger additions or reforms. It remains extraordinary that Melbourne takes more time to add or reform bus routes than doing complex capital works like removing level crossings and building new stations.    

Thirdly, if achieving the above requires a refresh of DTP executive ranks then so be it. Opportunities may exist with Silver Review executive thinning. Though one must be careful that this does not force the better people out earlier, leading to regress not progress from the 'left behinds'.

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

Coalition serves up new shadow PT minister

Last week the Coalition announced a new shadow cabinet. The most significant change for those following public transport has been Sam Groth taking over from Matthew Guy as shadow minister for public transport. Also notable is that Matthew Guy takes over major projects from Evan Mulholland. That includes the Suburban Rail Loop East, which will almost certainly be past the point of no return by the 2026 election if it isn't already.   

Success requires work

Government ministers are pretty much forced to put in a certain minimum amount of effort. In government there is a department to run, bucket loads of correspondence, decisions to make and questions to answer. There's a lot of structure and if you don't perform there's others who want your job. 

Whereas if you are an opposition shadow minister how (or how much) you do your job is more up to you. Especially if you have enough seniority or party standing to guarantee your position. 

Either you just coast along or, lacking the staff and departmental resources of government, work harder than your opponent minister to develop policy, expose mismanagement and generally hold them to account. Maintaining such energy may be harder if party morale is low, although the best people are driven internally or consider it their mission. 

Measuring the productivity of individual politicians is difficult. Some policies are team affairs so to attribute credit (or blame) on one person may be unfair. You can use quantitative measures like questions asked but that doesn't necessarily imply quality or impact. Still, scale is important; if you don't do the quantity then quality has little impact if the matter is narrow or trifling. 

Questions asked

Earlier this year I analysed who asked the most questions on transport matters in parliament. As expected opposition members asked more on average than government members. There were also differences between the houses, possibly as the Legislative Council is a house of review and in which governments rarely hold a majority.

If you use questions asked as a criteria the Coalition's best performers sit in the Legislative Council. Some of their Legislative Assembly colleagues pull their weight but not all. Matthew Guy has been a particular disappointment in this term, asking just seven questions on transport, despite this being one of his shadow portfolios. 

Does being an active parliamentary questioner help promotion prospects in Brad Battin's Coalition team? It seemed to help. The three new October 2025 entrants to the Shadow Cabinet (Nicole Werner, Richard Welch and Nick McGowan) were all above average question askers. 

Media releases

Asking questions isn't the only thing an opposition member can do to hold the government to account, especially if they are shadow minister. Media releases is another. The Liberals have all theirs (and some from their Nationals coalition partners) from 2023 here. 

The number of releases per year for transport and planning related topics is graphed below. Coalition interest in public transport (if measured by media releases) has crashed, with just 5 issued in 2025 to date compared to 20 in 2023. Interest in roads is also less than in 2023. Release volumes in Planning and Housing peaked in 2024 while 2025 has been a top year for releases on major projects. 

The topicality of issues as well as the shadow minister involved likely affects the volume of releases (noting that we are only measuring output, not whether the media runs with it).

I used Parliament's website as a source of portfolios held and tabulated them below. Click for a better view.  

Not all releases in a portfolio are from that shadow minister - other senior members may also issue releases on a topic. Radio interviews or social media posts may not be captured. Still, one can discern clear links between people and media release output. For example Richard Riordan in Public Transport, James Newbury in Planning and Evan Mulholland in Major Projects rank amongst the more active.

Conversely Matthew Guy, public transport's recent shadow, has been associated with a diminishing and now low level of media release activity. Which (unhelpfully for the Coalition's profile in transport) matches inactivity in Question Time mentioned before. 

Opportunities to roast the government on areas where it is vulnerable (such as inadequate public transport services including for major events, abandoned bus reform, continual rail shutdowns and rolling bus strikes) have conspicuously gone unexploited, much to the minister's joy. 

Others on public transport

Mr Guy has not been the sole or even dominant voice from the Coalition side on public transport.

Liberal MLCs in areas that are almost entirely represented by Labor in the lower house have a particular opportunity. This has been exploited by Evan Mulholland in Northern Metropolitan and Moira Deeming in Western Metropolitan. Some regional MPs have also been prominent. 

Trung Luu in Western Metropolitan is less publicly known but had a major recent success in getting numerous internal DTP documents tabled, thus exposing the government's ditching of promised bus  plan network reform. Such bus reform could have increased patronage by about 80 million passenger trips per year by 2030, making it bigger than what we think of as being major projects such as North-East Link, West Gate Tunnel and the Suburban Rail Loop East. 

I should also mention others supporting bus upgrades in the underserved Dandenong area before the government latched on. That includes the 2022 state and 2023 Mulgrave by-election plus more recent supportive speeches from Ann-Marie Hermans. 

The consistent pattern is that a backbencher may say or get something something in parliament but without weight, support and persistence from the shadow minister the matter just dies. Or, at best, such as happened in the 2022 state election campaign the Coalition had a significant bus service policy but it didn't get the promotion it deserved.     

The new shadow

On 11 October 2025 incoming shadow Public Transport Minister Sam Groth issued a statement on his Facebook page welcoming his appointment to the role. That statement included mention of the lack of public transport options in his seat of Nepean that he wanted to address as a priority. 

His prior record includes asking 11 questions on transport matters. Not the most active but not the least active either. And more questions than then public transport's shadow minister. 

From December 2022 to October 2025 Mr Groth held a range of shadow tourism, sport and recreation portfolios. This matched his sporting background and his seat of Nepean. While normally a junior portfolio sport has been particularly prominent given the government's bungling of the 2026 Commonwealth Games bid. This contributed to a high amount of media release activity from him. 

His prior question and media release activity give some hope that we might hear more from the Coalition on public transport in the next year than we have in the last two.

Also Mr Groth can take heart from the fact that despite the political fashion to declare oneself a gunzel, this is not a pre-requisite for success and could even be a hindrance. Instead, as he may have already learned in sport, there is no substitute for the will to work and win for success in public transport politics. 

UN 214: 15 years since Melbourne's first 10 minute frequent Metro timetable

 

Executive summary: Today marks 15 years since the first every 10 minute off-peak Metro train line started in Melbourne. We've only added one more all week turn-up-and-go line since. But with the Metro Tunnel starting soon, there's prospects for the next decade to have more in store.  

There's been a lot of Metro Tunnel discussion this week.

But today I want to talk about the transformative timetable that arguably started it all. Commencing 15 years ago today, it introduced passengers to the idea that you could rock up at a station in the middle of the day and have a train within 10 minutes.

Every 10 minutes is the sort of frequency that would induce people to 'turn up and go' and not worry too much about timetables. And for Melbourne, where 15, 20, 30 and even 40 minute midday metropolitan train frequencies were (and still are) the norm, it marked a big break from the past in the traditionally slow-moving world of rail network planning. 

Faster change was driven by surging patronage taxing a fragile and unreliable metropolitan rail network that frequently made headlines for the wrong reasons. Off-peak train timetables were last significantly upgraded in the 1990s with particular gains for Sandringham, Frankston, Pakenham/Cranbourne, Alamein and Upfield on weekdays and network-wide on Sundays (in 1999). They had been stagnant for nearly a decade since. 

That drought ended, firstly with shoe-horning extra peak trips into existing timetables and then some wider rethinking that addressed root issues. Here's a look at what happened when.   

2009

It was thought that operationally grouping lines to isolate disruptions would improve reliability. An early example was the 2009 Werribee timetable that took their trains out of a crowded City Loop portal that was shared with the then Sydenham, Craigieburn and Upfield lines.

As this was viewed as potentially controversial some extra off-peak trips (running express) were added as sweeteners. That proved successful - Werribee trains were removed from the loop with minimal controversy and ultimately improved reliability. While the extra trips resulted in Werribee (for a time) having 6 trains per hour interpeak on weekdays the intervals were irregular so it never qualified as a true 10 minute service. 

2010

The honour of being the first instead went to Frankston with the timetable for that starting 15 years ago today. Frankston was neither then nor now the busiest line on the network. If you were going to introduce a 10 minute service on any one corridor then picking Ringwood or Dandenong would have benefited more passengers. However the Frankston line was unreliable and politically sensitive. And if you were planning wider network reforms then, like succeeded with Werribee, some increased frequency could be a sweetener. 

So it came to be that on October 10, 2010 the Frankston line gained increased weekday off-peak frequencies. Services improved from every 15 to every 10 minutes between the peaks and from every 30 to every 20 minutes for much of the evening. 

For more background on this see the 2019 retrospective that I wrote on this timetable's 9th birthday. 

2011

While trains ran a regular every 10 minutes between Frankston and Richmond, they had a messy alternating pattern beyond there. Half ran via the City Loop (as all previously did when service was every 15 minutes) and the other half went direct to Flinders Street. So if you were coming from the CBD end you did not have the benefit of a consistent 10 minute timetable. 

That required another timetable to fix. This happened on May 9, 2011 with my 8th anniversary item on that here. This effectively created the cross-city group with trains every 10 minutes between Frankston and Newport (before fanning out).

In theory you could jump on a train at a station like South Yarra or Richmond and have a one-seat ride through the CBD to North Melbourne, Footscray, Newport or beyond. Not only that but it would be a turn-up-and-go service thanks to the 10 minute frequency. This would provide the sort of cross-city access that passengers in cities such as Sydney, Perth and Brisbane routinely enjoyed (as did Melbourne though at lower frequencies before the City Loop).

It's a great idea but the doctrine that 'every train terminates at Flinders Street' remains embedded in operating culture and passenger information so transposals and inconsistencies in information remain common.

Credit however should be given as the timetable changes above reduced interactions and knock-on delays. They contributed to a huge rebound in metropolitan rail reliability. An almost continuous 8 year fall between 2003 and 2011 was arrested with vastly better reliability by 2013. 

2012

The next frequency upgrade was not (as you might expect) weekdays on busy corridors like Ringwood and Dandenong but weekends on those lines plus Frankston. Introduced in April 2012, new timetables upgraded weekend service from every 20 to every 10 minutes to the above between 10am and 7pm. That 10am - 7pm slot actually originated with the 1999 Kennett era Sunday upgrades which boosted service in that 9 hour span but not outside it. 

Weekend evening services remained at every 30 minutes, with a sharp fall-off after 7pm. 30 minute gaps also remained on Sunday mornings with sleepy ~8am starts not addressed until Night Network started in 2016 (though they remain an issue on Good Friday and most Christmas mornings when Night Network doesn't run). 

After this change Frankston became the first line to enjoy a 10 minute daytime frequency on all days of the week. Dandenong and Ringwood also had this but only on weekends. 

NDP

The Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail) of December 2012 proposed a program to spread 10 minute Frankston-style frequent all day timetables across the network. Had it been followed the busiest lines would have got frequent service by 2016 with most of the rest done by 2021. The Metro Tunnel would thus have commenced in a context where lines feeding to it were already running frequently all week. 

2014 

The very large bus, train and tram timetable upgrade of 27 July 2014 also included the Dandenong line going from every 15 to 10 minutes on weekdays interpeak with Pakenham and Cranbourne going from 30 to 20 minutes. By that time Dandenong had become the busiest line, overtaking Ringwood. This was a well-received upgrade with Dandenong joining Frankston as being being one of Melbourne's two long rail corridors with seven day frequent service (though weekend evenings and Sunday morning service remained limited at every 30 minutes). 

2015 - 2025 (a lost decade for service)

There was a change of government late in 2014. 

Political interest swung from service to infrastructure builds, unlike Sydney which managed to do both. 

No major rail corridors gained 10 minute 7 day service. 

This made 2015 - 2025 virtually a lost decade for service, with large scale frequency upgrades for metropolitan rail, metropolitan tram and bus reform all basically stalling, particularly after 2016 (V/Line trains and regional buses got a lot though). 

2026 - 

The next year is already looking more promising than the last decade.

At least one more line will get frequent 7 day service. This will be the Sunbury line (as far as Watergardens) in February 2026 when full service on the Metro Tunnel starts. 

This will be followed (in mid 2026) when the Sandringham line goes to every 10 minutes on weekdays. This upgrade will be integrated with a restored cross-city line to Newport and beyond. Craigieburn and Upfield will have maximum waits cut from 40 to 20 minutes while Werribee will gain some peak upgrades. 

Much more roll-out of 10 minute 7 day service is needed just to catch up on the previous lost decade.

There's been no announcements or even promises. I would suggest these as the top five front-runners (in about this order):

* Ringwood: busy line, marginal seats, needs peak stopping pattern reform, very poor Belgrave and Lilydale frequencies, cheap to do as weekends mostly already done. 

* Craigieburn: busy but currently infrequent, outstanding from Metro Tunnel business case, growth area pressures. 

* Mernda: high usage potential but currently infrequent, large densifying catchment, growth area pressures. 

* Werribee: good usage, potential to relieve busy Geelong line, potential speed boosts, growth area pressures. 

* Sandringham: requires finishing off with frequent weekend service and Sunday am boost.  

Let's hope they happen! 

Index to other Useful Network items here

Metro Tunnel opening - What's happening when?

Yesterday we were told the most important date associated with the Metro Tunnel. 

Sunday, February 1, 2026 

This is the first day that a full service timetable will operate on Metro Tunnel stations. 

The government is calling it The Big Switch. 

Sunbury and Pakenham/Cranbourne line trains will shift out of separate City Loop portals to being joined via five new stations at Arden, Parkville, State Library, Town Hall and Anzac. That will form a through line underneath the CBD with frequent service. 

How frequent? We are told every 3 to 4 minutes in peak periods. Not a lot different to now, especially from the Dandenong side. I would expect that there will be some use of the West Footscray turnback. 

Outside peaks a service will operate every 10 minutes or better from first to last train between West Footscray and Dandenong stations. That's good for suburbs like Dandenong but is a bit light on for the inner core where a 5 minute service would be much more compatible with Metro-style high volume short trip needs. Without such a frequent core you can't really do tram reform and thus reap the full cascading benefits of the Metro Tunnel project.  

East of Dandenong trains are likely to alternate between East Pakenham and Cranbourne, to provide the outer portions with a 20 minute service. That compares to now where gaps can be 30 minutes at night and as long as 70(!) minutes on Sunday mornings. The other great thing is that forced transfers will be pretty much a thing of the past for Pakenham and Cranbourne passengers with the trunk almost always double the frequency of the branches.

Something that's not clear is Night Network. If they stick with the network-wide hourly frequency then that could feature hourly trains from Sunbury to either East Pakenham or Cranbourne with the other line getting a shuttle from Dandenong. Although if they were feeling generous then they could avoid that by running a half-hourly service to Dandenong with trains alternating east.   

On the west side some trains will terminate at West Footscray, some at Watergardens and others at the end of the line at Sunbury. The termini will alternate between Sunbury and Watergardens most of the time, with Sunbury generally getting a 20 minute service and Watergardens a 10 minute service. 

However the latter won't be to last train; in something bound to annoy after 9pm travellers half the trains will finish at West Footscray. Hence the premier's media release saying that the frequent service to Watergardens is 6am to 9pm only. Still, the every 20 minute late evening frequency that Tottenham - Sunbury will get is better than the current 30 minute gaps.  

You need to be aware that this is a government whose record is to love spending on capex (ie building stuff) but hate opex (ie running stuff). Largely as new hospitals and stations can be built on borrowed money and opened with ribbons while nurses and service frequency need funds raised from taxes (or efficiencies) and are less visible.

A period of low interest rates made the skew even more notable, though it is probably fair to say that without it the Metro Tunnel that we can talk about today would not have been built. But conversely it meant that various attempts to add service hatched within the department (eg 2012's Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail), the 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case and bus reform in 2015 and 2023) were either canned entirely or happened in much reduced form. Sydney, in contrast, continued to invest in frequency, leading to a widening Sydney - Melbourne gap in public transport service levels.  

Having said that the need for better service over longer 7 day spans is an enduring truth that occasionally sees the light of day, even if behaves like a recessive gene compared to infrastructure builds. One such understanding is the 14 hour rule - that is public transport should operate at a relatively high frequency for about 14 hours a day, every day. That is significantly better than current rail timetabling practice (particular on weekends) where even our best served lines see frequent service for only about 9 hours (comparing unfavourably with both Perth and Sydney).

When DTP is asked to plan things you sometimes do get longer periods of frequent service specified or happening. The Metro Tunnel Business Case (which was heavily informed by the NDP) typically specified 10 minute service on main lines for all but late night periods. And recently tabled bus reform documents define a 6am to 10pm (actually 16 hours) core period where rapid and connector buses should run every 10 minutes. While that plan's bold bus reforms were rejected, the idea of running frequent service for more of the day did guide some things that did happen.

Notable recent examples that continued relatively frequent service into the mid-evening include bus upgrades like for 905 and 907 in Manningham, 170, 180 and 192 in Wyndham, and most recently a selection of Craigieburn routes funded in the 2025 state budget.

You'll be able to add the Metro Tunnel to that next year. Tottenham to Watergardens will enjoy a 10 min or better service from 6am to 9pm. That is 15 hours which while inferior to Dandenong (18 hours) and Sydney (20 hours) still beats any Melbourne line today (including Frankston).    

It's not just the Sunbury, Pakenham and Cranbourne lines that are changing. 

A big justification for the Metro Tunnel is the cascading effect where it frees up capacity. In this case the Frankston line returns to operating via the City Loop, like it did 15 or so years ago. Like the Pakenham and Cranbourne line it will be running anti-clockwise all day. 

The February 1 2026 changes are summarised on the Big Build website and below. 

The 1000 weekly services on the Sunbury line largely comprise off-peak frequency boosts that add 3 trains per hour each way as far as Watergardens to double frequency from 20 to 10 minutes. Half of those will extend to Sunbury, doubling their 40 minute frequency to 20 minutes. Evenings also gain an upgrade from every 30 minutes to every 20 minutes at worst and every 10 minutes at best. There will likely be some Sunday morning uplifts improving to 20 minute maximum waits. 

The 100 extra weekly services at the Dandenong end will largely be additions to cut maximum waits to 20 minutes for Pakenham and Cranbourne. The main times to benefit are after 7pm weekends and Sunday mornings. As an example improving from 30 to 20 minutes requires 1 train each way per hour extra. Multiply by 2 (for return trip) and by 2 again (for both lines), then by 10 (for number of week you are upgrading) and you get 40. Fixing up early weekend mornings and adding shoulder peaks would likely get you to 100, noting that counting trains is a poor measure as lengthening runs to avoid transfers and improve frequencies from Dandenong inwards is not rewarded.   

There may be other changes but they're not mentioned above (or on the interactive map), even though they have been the subject of public announcements. I'm talking about things like already funded Werribee, Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham timetable upgrades. And also what happens to the generally neglected but potentially convenient cross-city group (which shows as broken on the map in this video). More on them later. 

December 2025

The next date, though sooner, isn't known precisely yet. But we do know it will be in early December 2025.

That was announced yesterday at 7:01am via social media. That's the exact same time and means that the Suburban Rail Loop was announced in 2018.

Major rail openings involving the public most commonly take place on a Sunday so December 7 is a likely hot favourite, though checks and sign-off need to be done first.

The government is calling this the Summer Start, that is the commencement of public services through the Metro Tunnel. You could call it a 'soft opening'. Basically a limited frequency, limited hours service mainly for testing but also for the curious to see the new stations for themselves.

It's a showground ride more than serious transport but it helps people get used to navigating the new stations and features new to Melbourne such as platform screen doors. Timed to suit Christmas shopping, it might even draw people into the city and allows the government to claim that they opened the Metro Tunnel early.

All these have benefits but as I say it's not practical transport for most. For that you should keep using existing services on existing timetables as you currently do.  

The government will be hoping that there will be minimal disruption to existing travel patterns as the new trips will operate in addition to existing unchanged routing and timetables on all lines.

Two months of free statewide weekend travel will be offered, starting from when the Metro Tunnel opens in early December.  

Mid 2026

Now we move to a mid-2026 date that the government is even vaguer about. Indeed it's not in the media release. To the contrary, that leads one to the view that everything will be happening on February 1 2026 with quotes like "A new timetable will be in place everywhere – including buses, trams, regional and metropolitan trains".

However The Age carried an article stressing a third, mid-2026 timetable change with more service improvements. 

These may well include the May 2025 state budget upgrades, including peak boosts for Werribee,  and reduced maximum waits for Craigieburn and Upfield. 

A Sandringham line weekday upgrade to 10 min frequencies was also funded. That would be frequency harmonised with lines from the west such as Werribee and Williamtown. And it would partly compensate South Yarra station for the frequency it lost when Dandenong trains were rerouted to skip it.

This is one of the big uncertainties of the Metro Tunnel project - will the cross-city service continue beyond February 1 or will it be broken (with all trains terminating at Flinders Street) only to be potentially restored mid-year? Not taking it seriously may be one of those cases where operational ease may take a higher priority than passenger convenience.

An up side, as I noted here, the Metro Tunnel experience of seamless cross-city travel, something that Melbourne has so much more difficulty than other cities in mastering, may force an expectation that the cross-city group should be more seamlessly and reliably operated. There is also hope in that the network map the minister is holding in this Reddit thread has a Werribee - Sandringham line in a uniform pink colour, unlike this Metro Tunnel video whose map has them separate.  

It may also be that at least some of the "new timetable in place everywhere" may be implemented in the mid-year tranche rather than 1 February, though again we don't know. The government is talking up the effort this involves. But unless there is a mystery bucket of money it is unlikely that recoordination can be any more than minor tweaks here and there. Although you never know - the recent Ballarat and Gippsland line bus recoordinations are examples where significant sums from unknown sources were found with substantial service increases delivered. 

As we get nearer the start dates more details about the various service levels and patterns will likely come to hand.

Know anything else? Please leave them in the comments below. 

TT 215: Finding old website material for past PT service changes

Executives and their subservient operatives who implement rebrands work in the 'here and now'. They may be forced by their masters to be ahistorical philistines who trash posterity as they roll out the new corporate image. 

Especially if it includes a renaming, rebrandings often break website links and remove important material. Thus making it harder for both insiders and others to reconstruct and understand history. That can lead to mistakes being made and no one having the background to call them out. 

This is particularly topical for public transport administration and operation in Victoria. This is because, unlike in some more sensibly run states, every change of government in the last half century has involved at least one, and sometimes several, rebrands of its public transport. I documented the consequent online history of this here (though that item predates the currently happening PTV to Transport Victoria rebrand). 

Fortunately, for those studying what happened under previous brands, much online posterity is captured in the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. This is an amazing tool, provided you know previous website links. 

To save you the trouble, here are some links to start your search for timetable and network history. 

Buses

HISTORIANS NOTE: PTV's website removed older (2021-2024) bus news items in Nov 2024. Compare:

* Nov 15 2024 archives (items back to Aug 2021) https://https://web.archive.org/web/20241115043745/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/bus-and-coach/ * Nov 27 2024 (items back to Jul 2024) https://web.archive.org/web/20241127042532/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/bus-and-coach/

For a bit earlier see: 

* Aug 17 2021  https://web.archive.org/web/20210817052610/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/bus-and-coach/

* March 5 2021 (items back to Feb 2020) https://web.archive.org/web/20210305031909/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/bus-and-coach/

* March 17 2020 (items back to March 2019) https://web.archive.org/web/20200317090928/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/bus-and-coach/

Want even earlier? Information on the large number of 2000s era bus upgrades is here.

Trains and trams

You can do similar for trains and trams here:

Trains https://web.archive.org/web/20201001000000*/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/train-and-rail/

Trams https://web.archive.org/web/20201001000000*/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/tram/

Stations:  https://web.archive.org/web/20201001000000*/https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/train-stations/


Current versions of the abovementioned pages can be found at: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/about-ptv/improvements-and-projects/

Want even earlier? The most important train, tram and bus service changes in the 2009 - 2018 period are described in items I retrospectively added. Some of these link to archived Connex and Metlink website stories. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 213: Fishermans Bend Integrated Transport Plan

Executive Summary: A new transport plan for Fishermans Bend proposes some good ideas. Genuine transformation requires large investment in public transport to overcome the area's poor accessibility and low business confidence that is hampering development. Otherwise it may be better to channel activity into areas that already have superior transport access.  

The Fishermans Bend Integrated Transport Plan was quietly released last Friday on the Grand Final eve public holiday. Taking the (probably fair) view that people are only interested in actions and not plans, there was no government media release as it features no major project announcements.    

Background and transport accessibility

Fishermans Bend is a large slab of underutilised land quite near but poorly connected by public transport to surrounding areas such as Melbourne CBD, Docklands, the inner west and the inner south. I've written about it here and here. 

Melbourne University bought land to build a campus there as the centre of what the government hoped would be the Fishermans Bend Innovation Precinct. But a month ago the university announced it had paused work on the Fishermans Bend campus. 

Another statement said that "The University remains committed to the precinct" but pointedly added that "this decision will allow it to better align with the timing of key government and industry investments necessary to develop the Fishermans Bend precinct." 

In other words the university wants others to invest first. 

That's understandable because Fishermans Bend is currently a dog of a place to get to from most directions by public transport. With few direct links to surrounding areas travel there involves a backtrack and/or a transfer, as seen below. 

The only good link to Fishermans Bend is from a single direction - Southern Cross Station. But even this will become less useful later this year when the busy Sunbury, Pakenham and Cranbourne lines move to using the Metro Tunnel. This will necessitate an extra transfer to reach Fishermans Bend on an already indirect trip. 

To be fair, public transport access to Fishermans Bend used to be worse. The 2021 SNAMUTS map showed Fishermans Bend as being the only sizeable land parcel near the CBD with public transport access below its minimum standards. Indeed Fishermans Bend doesn't even feature as a node. 

Since that map got done the government greatly improved services on bus routes 235, 237 and 606. These get good usage, though there remain issues with traffic delays during peak times.

A victim of geometry

The other problem Fishermans Bend has is network geometry. While it has direct freeway access from west, north and south, public transport access is not as developed, with frequent buses from one direction only.

Not only that but all bus routes are dead ends, terminating rather than passing through Fishermans Bend. That makes Fishermans Bend a cul de sac, peninsula or dead end. Access from most directions requires backtracking and/or forced transfers. To quote Jarrett Walker: 

If I could put one sentence about transit in the mind of every developer, every land use planner, indeed anyone who makes a decision about where to locate anything, the sentence would be this:  Be on the Way!  

I don't know if Melbourne University read this but their decision to suspend their Fishermans Bend project is certainly compatible with it. Especially since their existing campus will go from being (largely) a peninsula at the end of several tram routes to being on the way when Parkville station on the Metro Tunnel opens. And if them or some other developer wanted a new site then locations like Arden, North Melbourne, Footscray or even Sunshine offer good on the way accessibility from multiple directions.   

What about a tram?

Would a tram fix things? Not if the network geometry remains bad.

The 2021 SNAMUTS map below shows relative access to people and jobs from each node. Largely due to being connected to other nodes via higher speed transit, locations near inner area train station are the most accessible. CBD area tram junctions are next most accessible. Connectivity falls off at stub ends of tram routes, such as Waterfront City and Port Melbourne, where it is 8 to 10%, due to these being not on the way to anywhere. And even this is an overestimate if you were to count people and jobs between nodal catchments. 

Waterfront City has, like Fishermans Bend wants, a tram. It is closer to the CBD. However, as noted above, it is not on the way to anywhere. It has significant housing but this is insufficient for The District shopping centre to be a commercial success. 

Also with a tram (that tramsitioned from a train in the 1980s) is Port Melbourne's Beacon Cove development. This has significant dense housing. It offers a convenient waterfront lifestyle for residents with a nearby retail heart on Bay St and one of Melbourne's best bus services (Route 234). A non-central coastal location and stub public transport routes hampers accessibility. But this is less of an issue as Port Melbourne does not aspire to be anything other than homes, a beach, a cruise ship terminal and a shopping strip suitable for resident and visitor needs.  

A tram to Fishermans Bend might improve connectivity somewhat. But this would only be from one direction and have a similar dead-end geometry as the Waterfront City, Victoria Harbour and Beacon Cove trams. While often talked up, a tram on its own is unlikely to be the stimulus that will get Melbourne University and other developers sharpening their pencils. 

The other options include bus, train and water transport. Together these could connect Fishermans Bend more directly to more of its surrounding areas. What should happen when? This is what this plan fleshes out, with a summary presented next. 

The plan

There are 40 pages, starting with introductions from ministers Shing and Williams. Fishermans Bend is described as Australia's largest urban renewal project with a land area over double that of the CBD. It is proposed that by 2050, Fishermans Bend will be home to 80,000 residents, with 80,000 workers and 20,000 tertiary students travelling to and from it. 

Both ministers cite very high mode share targets for active and public transport given the area's current disconnection from surrounds. These targets are 80 per cent generally with 90 per cent for students. 

A planning approach is defined. There is significant stress on parking policy and behaviour change programs. Levels of services are shown as driving infrastructure investments. This is a different order to the prevailing 'build infrastructure first' tendency, with no or limited attention to service aspects.  
  

There are three horizons in transport network development. These roughly coincide with bus and active transport, trams and, finally heavy underground rail. There are also road and rail freight improvements envisaged to support the Port of Melbourne. 

Horizon One

Described as immediate priorities, this is largely about active transport and bus improvements. 

Active transport improvements include two new bridges for active transport over the West Gate Freeway which currently presents a major barrier to north-south movement. The currently peak-only punt service across to Spotswood will be improved with higher capacity. Existing tram routes in the Montague area will also be enhanced in line with this being the earliest area of development. 

Buses are intended to get significant attention. There will be 'improved reliability and user experience' for the bus to Southern Cross, though the term 'bus lane' does not appear once in the report. But the plan's authors clearly understand the need for connectivity to surrounding areas with a heavy expectation on buses to provide this.

This will be enabled by a new direct bus route to Anzac Station as well as a restored bus link to the western suburbs via the West Gate Bridge. The reason I say restored is that up to 2014 some Route 232 trips from Altona North stopped at Fishermans Bend before all trips were made to run direct to the CBD. The western terminus of the West Gate bridge connection is not clear - potential candidates include the isolated and unpopular Altona North Park & Ride, Newport station and/or Altona Gate Shopping centre via a reformed local network that I proposed here. Speed, frequency and reliability will determine their success of these new connections, noting that existing routes such as 232, 235, 237 are often held up by traffic. 

The plan has maps showing corridors but detail is lacking on where exactly the new bus routes would go. Below is a guess with new routes (dotted lines) overlapping the existing network (solid lines). It is also possible that some existing routes like 234 and 236 would be extended to the innovation precinct.   

The plan hopes that these upgrades would help drive employment to 20 000 jobs. Without explicit mention of exclusive bus lanes on all major approaches (including over the West Gate), I suspect that mode share will likely remain heavily driving-based as end-to-end trip times involving public transport won't be that fast. However the state government has improved bus services faster in Fishermans Bend than in most other suburbs, so there appears genuine will to complete at least Horizon One improvements. 

Horizon Two

A major theme is two new tram lines on Plummer and Turner Street. These will go via the Montague precinct and then via the Spencer St bridge. This is to support the growth of jobs along Turner St and housing on Plummer St. 

Routing via the Spencer St bridge replaces earlier ideas for a new tram bridge further west. Having a tram via a new bridge would have provided improved on the way connectivity from Docklands. However it was opposed by some including owners of boats at the marina and involves significant cost. Infrastructure Victoria plans strongly supported a Fishermans Bend tram connection by 2026.  

The Plummer and Turner St trams will add capacity and coverage but are both stub lines with the geometrical limitations discussed above. The use of an existing (rather than a new and more western) bridge means that the Collins St tram remains a dead end stub too. Public transport networks that force backtracking by avoiding direct connection opportunities and on the way principles risk not being as popular as hoped given that driving will be more, rather than less direct, than taking the tram. 

Active transport from Fishermans Bend to surrounds would however become more direct than now with new bridges north to Moonee Ponds Creek and Docklands. The Docklands connection would be along the same alignment proposed for trams. That risks causing friction with boat owners who in other areas are an influential lobby due to state Labor's keenness to appeal to blue collar aspirations and differentiate itself from its Greens competitors.  However if built such a bridge should make cycling faster and more direct than tram travel between Docklands and Fishermans Bend.  

Employment areas don't necessarily have high rates of self-containment regarding where workers live. Especially for higher paid skilled jobs such as somewhere called an 'innovation precinct' would seek to attract. 

Improved buses, a couple of trams from one direction and active transport connections won't by themselves be enough to attract mode shares that rival the CBD with its vastly better centrality and transport access. We know this because you don't need work very far from a train station for its public transport mode share to collapse. This is where we call in the TBMs for ...

Horizon Three

The centrepiece of this is an east-west metro rail tunnel. This will serve stations at Docklands (near Southern Cross), Sandridge and Fishermans Bend. Trains will go under the Yarra, presumably towards Newport or Spotswood and the Werribee line. 

It is this, much more than anything else discussed before, that will make Fishermans Bend a genuinely on the way place with good connectivity in several (though not all) directions. 

Conclusion

This plan presents some worthwhile transport initiatives for Fishermans Bend. It also has ambitious job numbers and mode share targets. Especially for an area plagued with poor transport network geometry and low business and developer confidence, exacerbated by no date targets. 

These problems won't fix themselves.

A key question for the state government is how much it wants a dense and vibrant Fishermans Bend to succeed. If it is a lot it must lead by building Metro 2, preferably a version with wider network benefits, especially for Melbourne's west.

On the other hand if it doesn't regard Fishermans Bend as important then maybe it should say so, seeking instead to redirect investment, jobs and people to areas with good on the way rail access. 

An index to all Useful Networks is here