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

Should Melbourne ditch train and tram franchising?

Whether Melbourne's trains and trams are government or privately operated has long been controversial.

Ardent proponents of either exaggerate claims about the benefits of their proposal and the pitfalls of the opposite. Both are often wrong; examples of both good and bad operations exist for both private and government operation. In the 'real world' considerations other than operator ownership tend to be more important to whether the service provided is good and efficient. 

Last weekend's state Labor Conference had a motion from the ALP-affiliated Rail Tram and Bus Union that proposed a path to government operation for our trains and trams. It passed unanimously. 

The politics

The Labor government does not necessarily agree with or implement policy motions passed at the party's state conference. However this motion passing strengthens the hands of those who want franchising ditched. Also the government is facing a state election next year. 

Taking back train and tram operations, like reviving the SEC and working from home, is the sort of policy that both appeals to the party's base yet does not repel centrist swinging voters. Like these it's also bold enough to generate headlines and discussion. 

Opposition may be weak or easily countered with only an older minority of voters remembering the 1990 era industrial unrest that plagued our (then) publicly operated transport. And an appeal to the base would be particularly valuable right now to enthuse supporters to hand out and scrutineer given falling branch memberships (an issue across both major parties). 

If public operation can be established to not cost any more (a claim made by SA's electorally successful Labor government when it reversed rail privatisation) then reversing privatisation might, unlike other policies like schools and hospitals that do include spending, be sellable as being financially responsible while furthering 'Labor values'.

However there is potential tension as the RTBU will ultimately want more than a zero cost basically symbolic change. That is for state operation to come with leverage in the form of greater influence with management and more favourable conditions for its members.

Such increased influence may not always be consistent with what provides best value for passengers and taxpayers. NSW and Qld have potential examples including opposition to Sydney's very successful driverless metro and Brisbane's high rail staffing to passenger ratio. But as an efficient counter example, Perth's state-run trains have a much lower staff to passenger ratio than Brisbane's while operating twice as frequently, carrying more people and delivering the highest customer satisfaction. If we were to go for state operation then a condition of it should be to import Perth's methods rather than Brisbane's, even if it requires poaching their managers. 

Under government operation the life of a Labor transport minister may become harder, as demonstrated by the fast turnover of them during the Cain-Kirner era and more recent strikes on Sydney's rail network. Indeed, prior to Gladys Berejiklian in NSW and Jacinta Allan here, being a transport minister was almost a poisoned chalice for the leadership hopeful.

DTP, having got comfortable with private franchising, would likely prefer the minister to keep it; not least as franchising has spawned its own sub-industry of franchise management advisers, bureaucrats and bid-writers whose elite swap between operators and regulators. It may also prefer a buffer, such as a private operator, to keep its planning work separate from industrial considerations.  

Older party members will warmly welcome government operation as a winding back of 'Kennettism'. Younger members will value it as an example of Labor acting on something that neither the 'Greens Political Party' nor the Victorian Socialists cannot as neither is a party of government.

Amongst voters there is a soft cynicism towards privatisation which works in Labor's favour. However there is also a dislike of extreme union militancy and protests especially in more temperamentally conservative north-west, north-east and eastern suburbs with comfortably-off middle-aged demographics. That can work against Labor if it is seen as being weak in countering unrest or disruption to services.   

Weigh these up and ditching the private transport operators certainly wows the party and union faithful. Less so for the bureaucracy and minister. But if the politics is compelling enough then maybe it's something that a twelve year old government might consider to show it's still energetic and producing ideas.  

Policy pros and cons

Something might be good politics but it might not be good policy. So let's look at that in more detail. 

If the motion encourages the government to scrutinise the value for money we are getting from our private operator franchise agreements then it may have done some good. It may be that, especially given it's public money involved, too many things are 'commercial in confidence'. Someone needs to sit down to see how much service we're getting per dollar we're getting and how this compares across other cities. 

What we do know is that (through the fault of government, not the private franchisee) that Melbourne's asset utilisation on its metropolitan rail network is poor with only about half the lines only getting a frequent service a few hours a day with 20, 30, 40 and even 60 minute gaps at other times. This is increasingly out of kilter with modern travel patterns with greater evening and weekend activity. 

If savings are identified my first choice is that they get used to fix Melbourne's notoriously infrequent off-peak train timetables. Although you'd also be expecting the unions to push for their members to get this instead for example through increased staffing or pay.    

What are other pros and cons of private franchise versus government operation for our trains and trams? I sum them up in this video. 

To summarise, the bar to justify a change from the transport operation status quo on policy merit (as opposed to political feels) grounds is very high.

Unless either service quality or value for money is poor, changing from what you have currently (whether public or private operation) risks having so few benefits that it's not worth the trouble.

And there may be opportunity costs due to the process wasting everyone's time, 'crowding out' genuinely useful improvements that actually make a real difference to the passenger experience. 

For more background see my history of train and tram franchising. The continual (and wasteful) rebranding associated with early franchising can be read about here. 

Comments are welcome and can be left below. 

Public Transport to this weekend's Victorian Labor Conference

If you're a Labor Party hack, hopeful or has-been, there's no bigger weekend in the year than this.

Today, Saturday and Sunday hundreds of you will gather at Moonee Valley Racecourse for a weekend of  deliberations, deals and debates.  

Climbing careerists will be there for the schmoozing, seeking selfies with former and current premiers and sounding out preselectors for potential vacant 'safe' seats in 2026.

Otherwise forgotten 1970s and 1980s backbenchers will be catching up with old cronies, swapping stacks of factional war stories (no Bill Hartley mentions please!) or sharing the latest bereavement. 

The Coopers, Fishers, Milleners and Electroplaters Union will be seeking party resolutions on their industries' extreme state significance as evidence of their might within government to take back to members.  

School cleaners will seek more pay and transport unions will want trains back in public hands. If they are young, scheming delegates may be sussing-out numbers for future pre-selections. Or the more mature might prefer angling for a cruisy advisory board or super fund gig. 

Star ministers may publicly love the attention but will be privately relieved when it's over. To them conference success means nothing happening after rousing leader speeches. That is no passing of uneconomic or controversial left-field motions. Although if any do get passed then expectations of implementing them must be hosed down. 

Getting there and getting home

What is of interest here is how delegates can reach the venue from across Melbourne and across the state by public transport. Especially given that the conference spans both weekdays and weekends. 

I'm going to guess that a fair number will stick around well in to the evening with formal or informal stand-up socialising and strategising. Whether it's pub or parliament there's never enough seats for those you wish to please, no matter how big the house.

Well known events demonstrate that getting home is more important to get right than getting there. 

Drinking and driving is not advised lest that earns you tomorrow's front page. 

You don't want to become the Tim Smith of the party do you? 

And even if you don't crash, doing the Groth thing with a government car will just get you served with the Steve Herbert treatment, which, trust me, is not what you want in this stage of your career. There's always someone who knows, and, chances are, they are in your own party. 

A quiet Uber ride home is the safe 'faceless men' option. Maybe that's fine for a low profile MLC whose main needed skill is to raise their hand when requested. 

But it's the selfie on public transport that can really do wonders for your 'person of the people' image on your socials. As is needed to build the personal brand that signals that you are on the way to better. That you'll walk and wait in the cold also reassures your factional backers you have what it takes for survival in 2026. Hence this guide.  

PT in Moonee Ponds

Below is a rough map showing public transport routes near the conference venue at the racecourse. Buses stop outside, tram is a short walk with trains only slightly longer. 

First of all Friday (that is today). You're not going to have any problems getting there. The 59 tram from Elizabeth St is every few minutes. The 82 is an option if coming from Footscray. The buses are pretty good being every 15-20 minutes on main routes. Trains are every 20 minutes during the day (better in peaks) so do check the timetable if in a hurry. Maybe allow 15 minutes walk from the racecourse to the station. 

Some MPs get a one-seat ride from their office. Eg Ben Carroll can get the 59 tram, Katie Hall has the 404 bus, Melissa Horne the 472, Sheena Watt 504, Kat Theophanous the 508 and Kathleen Matthews-Ward the Craigieburn line train to name a few. Josh Bull can even take the fast 483 bus from Sunbury. But Danny Pearson is the luckiest, being walking distance. 

Getting home? Your options depend on how late you linger. Before 7pm everything's running. But much after then service really thins out. The 404 bus, quicker and more direct to Footscray than the 82 tram, runs its last trip at 7:20pm. The 506 right outside the venue drops off to every 40 minutes with last bus at 8:50pm. Unlike the lucky Frankston line the Craigieburn line falls back to a 30 minute frequency after 7:35pm from Moonee Ponds into the city. So plan carefully or just get the slower but closer and more frequent 59 tram. Most bus routes finish around 9pm. 

Small hours party animal raconteurs do have some ways out, it being a Friday when Night Network (a 2016 Labor creation) is running. Options here are Craigieburn trains every hour or the 959 bus (which sort of replicates the 59 tram).  

 
On Saturday all bus routes are running. Frequencies drop back a bit. Late stayers need to be particularly mindful of the 404 and 506 due to their early finishes  (7:20 and 6:00pm respectively). Trams are frequent during the day. The Craigieburn line will run every 20 minutes during the day, dropping to the usual 30 minutes at night. This compares to every 15 minutes for an equivalent line in Sydney. This should however be the last conference the 30 minute frequency applies as evening trains will go to every 20 minutes following a 2025 budget funding package for the Craigieburn and Upfield lines. 

Night Network will operate much as it does on Friday night though the Metro website advises of a short duration bus replacement during the very wee hours. 

Getting there on Sundays is where PT to Moonee Ponds really falls down. It's currently sparse with the Craigieburn line trains only every 40 minutes in the morning. That's especially a gamble if you're connecting from another train or bus (which is probably also only every 30 to 60 minutes). You might also want V/Line from Geelong or Melton to start earlier, depending on your planned arrival. 

As for the 59 tram, the Robert Risson terminus at the bottom end of Elizabeth St isn't the most salubrious place on a Sunday morning. Tram 59 leaves there every 30 minutes, later improving to every 20 and then every 12 minutes. For an arrival before 8am, even though broad daylight, you're in Night Network territory with the 959 bus from the city your choice for a continuous trip.  

Buses? The minister might well say that 'the time for bus is now' but current timetables at Moonee Ponds reflect a very distant yesteryear. Routes 404, 483 and 506 do not run at all on Sundays. Despite 506 being Melbourne's busiest bus without Sunday service and 404 being a potential direct link to Footscray via Kensington Banks. 

The main route 508 from Alphington and Brunswick has a 40 minute wait if you just miss one. That gets super crowded on weekends with its timetable unchanged for many many years. 472 is another with a stuck in the past timetable; whereas it runs every 15 minutes on weekdays it drops to an unmemorable every 50 minutes on Sundays. The first full length trip arrives Moonee Ponds at 9:50, making it unsuitable for those with early starts.  

Better conference connections next year?

The Craigieburn line will have been boosted with maximum waits dropped from 40 to 20 minutes by the time of next year's conference. That's a worthwhile improvement for evening and Sunday morning travellers. However it is short of the 10 minute daytime off-peak service as proposed in the 2016 Metro Tunnel business case and as justified by existing patronage. 

So far there's no word on bus and tram improvements. The most notable ones (which would be smart inclusions in the 2026 state budget) include: 

* 7 day service on Routes 404 and 506 with wider operating hours
* Route 508 weekend frequency boosted from 30-40 to 20 min with wider operating hours
* Tram 59 and 82 evening and Sunday morning frequencies boosted from 30 to 20 min

None of the above require additional rolling stock. They are also routes with high existing patronage and even stronger potential with better 7 day service. Plus they would benefit Moonee Ponds which has dense (and densifying) housing with disproportionately low PT frequency.  

With suitable action like the above maybe delegates at next year's state conference will be in a position to move a motion praising the state government for the significant public transport service upgrades implemented at Moonee Ponds?  

UN 209: How much time will SRL East save?

Last month the state government released estimates for travel time reductions attributable to the Suburban Rail Loop (East). These were welcomed by Monash University, who highlighted the improved accessibility to its Clayton campus.   

What will the Suburban Rail Loop East do?

The SRL (which in all cases here means just Suburban Rail Loop East) will do three main things:
* 1. It adds rail coverage at Burwood and Monash, feeding existing radial train and tram lines.
* 2. It increases the number of rail-rail connection points on the network.
* 3. It will massively speed certain cross-suburban trips compared to current train, bus and driving options in Melbourne's east and south-east. 

Everyone understands coverage. Not so many appreciate the importance of connection points as Melbourne has none outside the CBD with good 90 degree line geometry, consistently high frequency and ease of physical interchange. Neither do many Melburnians understand the transformative power of speed because they are conditioned to their public transport being slow and/or infrequent for all but CBD direction peak period train trips.  

Insert even one fast and frequent corridor into a network and things starts to change. Fast frequent lines widen possibilities. They compress space-time. They have a habit of drawing people in to them, aiding trips that you thought were outside their catchment, even if one or even two extra changes are required. That's just in the short-run; these patterns conducive to a city taking transit for more of its trips can be reinforced by housing and development later. Just like how road projects like Eastlink and the M80 have shaped Melbourne in the opposite direction (ie in favour of more driving and sprawl).   

Outstanding examples of transformative public transport include the Metro in Sydney and the Yanchep - Mandurah line in Perth. Plan various trips to see how often segments of these lines appear on 'fastest time' itineraries, even for locations away from these lines. 

The Metro Tunnel and Suburban Rail Loop will also get to be in this class provided that: 
* High frequencies on intersecting lines ensure minimal waits at any time
* Good design ensures that physical interchange is short, direct, sheltered and within the fare paid area

Better than the City Loop

Proponents of the Suburban Rail Loop (and the Metro Tunnel) like making comparisons with the City Loop. The implication being that the City Loop succeeded despite intense criticism and cost blow-outs. And that the newer projects will too so critics don't have a leg to stand on.  

My view is that proponents of both are selling themselves short if they are comparing their projects with the City Loop.

This is because, despite its three new stations (which were worthwhile), I regard the City Loop as designed and built not fully suitable for a modern multi-purpose transport network. 

I define the latter as a all week frequent network useful for diverse trips in multiple directions. Except for Sunday morning travel, Melbourne's pre WWII network was good in this regard within about 10km of the CBD (especially the inner north which had frequent east-west buses supplementing the north-south trains and trams). 

We dropped the ball on that for about 50 years as our idea of public transport's role narrowed. The City Loop as built and still operates today reflects the narrow commuter mindset that was pretty much the only politically resonating justification for rail investment from the 1960s to early this century. That is to support a small CBD area by getting people from suburbs there in the morning and back again in the afternoon. 

Other potential uses for the railway, including off-peak, weekend or cross-city travel, were either discounted or degraded by the time the City Loop opened. That placed excessive burden on the tram network that was already suffering from mounting car traffic congestion. 

The City Loop's main success was activating development around today's Flagstaff, Melbourne Central and Parliament stations. However the City Loop's insistence on one-seat rides to all CBD stations, while possibly necessary for the project to win Bolte's political backing and thus get built, came at a huge opportunity cost that we are still paying now.

One of those included the complex operating patterns (including midday reversals) that effectively make City Loop stations no-go places for tourists or others who want simple reliable travel. For a long time  travel between a Loop station and Southern Cross was difficult at certain times and frequencies are still not consistently high. The geometry is also poor with the City Loop actually making many trips slower by taking people the 'long way around' and underutilising capacity. Fast growing CBD fringe areas like Southbank and Docklands are, if anything, penalised by the City Loop. 

The one-seat ride mentality caused the City Loop to be over-built with its stations featuring four portals over two levels. The equivalent of billions could have been saved, and travel made simpler, had the new stations just been two platform affairs on a new through track pair between North Melbourne and Richmond similar to the 1929 plan's Northern City Railway.

Everyone has now learned this is how to do it. Whether it's Perth's linking of the Joondalup and Mandurah lines, Sydney's Metro or Melbourne's Metro Tunnel, there is now consensus that frequent cross-city through services are good and CBD rail loops are bad. If you want better coverage without building a loop, just build another cross-city line and have good interchange arrangements, like we are doing with the Metro Tunnel. 

When Melbourne does need more CBD rail capacity, Infrastructure Victoria has found that the most cost-effective way to do this is to break open the City Loop so that two of its platforms become a bidirectional through pair as first envisaged nearly a century ago. 

Only when that and more frequent all week timetables happen will we have finally exorcised the 1960s commuter mentality which held the rail network back for decades since, resulting in Melbourne's rail patronage being only about 60% of Sydney's despite ours having more stations. 

Fortunately the Network Development Plan (Metropolitan Rail) of 2012 marked an official revival of the thinking required with its all-day rail frequency boosts and multimodal coordination framework. Unfortunately, with 20 to 40 min frequencies still widespread on the network, implementation has been nearly a decade slower than envisaged. However the Metro Tunnel interchanges and associated timetables offer hope for at least some parts of the network. 

To summarise, saying your rail project is as good as the City Loop is a low bar for what we want a future transformed rail network to do. Leaving aside other concerns (that may be legitimate) both the Metro Tunnel and (especially) the Suburban Rail Loop offer superior geometry to the City Loop. This means that both have a chance to succeed for new and diverse trips, especially those involving connections, in a way that the City Loop did not. 


SRL's travel time estimates - general comments

The Suburban Rail Loop project has provided 43 examples of such new and diverse trips that would get easier and faster with SRL East. This lists the SRL's travel time savings relative to existing public transport and driving. This has provided the basis for messaging in the last few weeks promoting the project. Comparisons against potential alternative packages of public transport improvements were outside the scope of this work. 

The introduction does not tell us how they chose the trip origin and destination pairs. Knowing this method is important to be assured that there is some science to it (eg population densities, demographics, proposed housing strategies) rather then them being cherry picked to make the SRL look good.  

About 60% of the destinations are universities, mostly Monash and Deakin, which are on or near the Suburban Rail Loop. Other hospitals and shopping centres near Box Hill, Clayton and 'Cheltenham' also feature. One trip is even to the special event station of Showgrounds, presumably to highlight the SRL's  potential usefulness for non-commute trips. Destinations that are conspicuously under-represented include shopping centres along Burwood Hwy, non-university locations in the Monash precinct and jobs in the Moorabbin industrial area, even though SRL East may benefit access to these from some directions, provided 'last-mile' feeder transport is up to scratch.   

Origins are, if anything, less representative. They are pretty much all train stations. Hence we don't see locations like St Kilda, Carrum Downs, Clarinda, Aspendale Gardens, Forest Hill, Wantirna or Doncaster East. Even though such residents are more likely to work or study in the SRL East catchment than those living in Laverton or Williamstown. Trips like Preston - Monash Uni would however greatly benefit from the full Suburban Rail Loop - maybe that's why they were included to help explain the case for SRL North. 

The SRL East may still benefit some public transport trips made from western and northern origins, but only marginally. If you want larger gains for people in the north and west then improving the network near them will have the biggest benefits, including for trips to the CBD, east and south. One such local network improvement starting soon will be Metro Tunnel directness and frequency benefits for the Sunbury line. Revamped bus networks will also be critical to maximise benefits for those not near stations.  

The travel time comparisons are based on 8am weekday departures. Compared to if it was done at other times this favours train travel over driving. However the gap is less for public transport trips that have a tram or bus component as these are also slowed by road traffic. It might have been desirable to repeat the trip plans at a small number of other times (including interpeak, evening and weekends) to make comparisons between modes more robust across the week. 

Having said that driving alone can be more stressful and expensive than public transport. There would be a substantial population who would use public transport for a trip even if say 20 or 30% slower than driving provided factors like reliability, frequency and comfort were acceptable. It is also probably true that the existence of fast public transport to a destination can change travel habits, resulting in not only a shift of some trips from driving to public transport but a change in the composition of trips to favour higher activity at locations well served by public transport. At least for a while that frees up road space for car drivers who are not able to change their travel patterns. 

A case where the travel time comparisons between modes are likely to favour public transport is when you jump forward a few years. As noted in the introduction, 2035 SRL travel times are being compared against driving times in 2025. Likely increased traffic congestion may make driving slower in 2035 than now, making more public transport trips that include the SRL faster than driving. Monash Professor Graham Currie endorsed the SRL's comparisons as being 'quite conservative' for this reason.   

Comments on specific trips modelled by the SRL project

(those in red are entirely on SRL)

1. Albion - Monash Uni

The transport project that will have the biggest benefit for this trip (especially for those whose destination is near the existing bus interchange) is not the SRL but the Metro Tunnel. This is because it will provide a one seat ride to Huntingdale where it's an easy change to a 601 express bus every few minutes. The likely improvement in off-peak and evening frequency to Albion will also be a substantial gain.

To make their comparison work the SRL has had to assume that the destination is at the northern side of the campus near where the Monash station will be. This choice excludes the frequent express Huntingdale bus option (which serves the south side) in favour of a longer, slower and less frequent bus from Oakleigh (which serves the north side). A 75 minute current journey is assumed as a base from which to claim a 15 minute time saving post SRL.

However passengers can do the trip to the south side interchange in 73 minutes with that including the diversion via Flagstaff and a change of trains. Take that out post Metro Tunnel and you are likely to speed that to 65 - 70 minutes. Thus SRL's time saving might not then be so high, depending on where on you wish to go on the campus.  Conversely those in nearby student housing will benefit greatly from the SRL, but it is unlikely they will want to go to Albion! 

2. Bayswater - Monash Uni

Unlike Albion, the SRL is a clear travel time reducer versus existing public transport, even if your destination is nearer the south of the campus.

Driving (30 minutes under current conditions) remains quicker, even in peak. But 30 versus 37 minutes is probably not a big deal, especially after parking hassles are counted.

The big problem for off-peak and evening public transport though is frequency. While SRL will be frequent the Belgrave line on which Bayswater sits has 30 minute midday and evening gaps. This was true 40 years ago and is likely to be equally true in ten years given the current slow rate of train timetable reform. 

Bayswater is a large suburb and most of its residents are beyond walking distance of the station. Its bus network has been basically unreformed for many years. As will be a common theme here, the SRL's usefulness for people in outer eastern suburbs like Bayswater will be heavily constrained by low Metro train frequencies and inefficient bus networks. These should have been fixed years ago but the second best time to fix them is now, or at least well before the SRL opens. 

3. Belgrave - Deakin Uni

Unlike the previous Bayswater example, the SRL makes this trip (just) faster than driving if travelling during peak hour. But similar to Bayswater, Belgrave and nearby stations like Ferntree Gully has 30 minute gaps between off-peak trains and generally poor bus services. 

4. Burwood - Box Hill

This trip involves taking the SRL one station instead of having to choose between several less frequent and slower buses (including the 201 express shuttle). You will be able to order food at a Box Hill restaurant, go to Deakin and have returned well before your meal is ready. In other words travel time will be fraction of both driving and the existing buses. It's effectively a wormhole that will revolutionise how people will think of the two locations and travel between them. 

5. Carrum - Box Hill Hospital

The current journey involves changing trains at Richmond. There are orbital SmartBuses that could avoid such an inward trip but they are too slow to save time during the peaks. The orbitals' main virtue is that the fare is cheaper (as the trip is entirely in Zone 2) and they offer some relief from the frequent bus replacements that currently plague the Frankston line. 

The SRL will save time compared to now. A factor that will affect the attractiveness of this trip will be the quality of the interchange at Southland, including directness, shelter and safety at night.   

6. Caulfield - Glen Waverley

Both Caulfield and Glen Waverley are major centres in the south-east. Caulfield is a major rail junction and has a Monash University campus while Glen Waverley has a major shopping centre and apartment complexes. Whatever you might say about some of the other origin-destination pairs in this list, this one is very well chosen. There ought to be efficient transport between the two but there currently isn't. 

The SRL offers a 22 minute travel time between the two. Their claim of 39 minutes existing time (involving the complex and infrequent 624 bus) leads to a 17 minute time saving. However this is conservative; the journey planner result I got was 42 minutes existing time. 

The SRL path involves taking a train to Clayton (going south-east) and then north-east via the SRL. The geometry isn't direct with the SRL's speed contributing to the time saved. Also notable is that it isn't necessary to wait for the SRL to get good connectivity.

Both the Alamein and Glen Waverley lines pass quite close to Caulfield station. It is a major structural network failing that no good connections exist given Caulfield's status as a junction and soon to be connector to the Metro Tunnel. Connections could include a modest Route 3 tram extension to Malvern East, a Route 734 bus extension to Caulfield and/or more frequent buses to the north via Gardiner or Tooronga. They are an example of initiatives that could be done ahead of the SRL to provide an even more robust and direct network.  

7. Cheltenham - Box Hill

Being end to end with no connections needed, the SRL can be expected to do well here and it does. It more than halves travel time compared to either driving or public transport (again, like Carrum a change of trains at Richmond). As mentioned, such extreme speeds greatly changes peoples ideas of where they can go and what they can do. 

A key issue is what happens when you go away from the interchange. Do the benefits dissipate at 2km distant or do they linger for 5 or 10km out? A lot of this is dependent on connectivity such as easy physical interchange, feeder routes and active transport connections. When you've got such high speed between nodes you can add (say) a 20 minutes allowance for feeder access and still get an end-to-end trip faster than driving. This is what made lines in Perth and Sydney so successful but we don't have the same high speed/high frequency combination of transit yet in Melbourne. The SRL may introduce such a connection here, though unlike in the other cities it does not directly serve the CBD. 

Just because you have the SRL coming does not mean you should give up on bus reform, even on routes that roughly parallel the SRL. Due to SRL's wide station spacing such a route is still desirable as a feeder. An example I've mentioned before is Route 733. Linking Box Hill, Monash and Clayton it is the metropolitan bus route most like the SRL. It should be extended to Clarinda, Cheltenham and preferably Sandringham and run at high frequencies to lessen the SRL's drop-off in utility as you get more than walking distance from one of its stations. And, if implemented before the SRL it would help to shape the mindsets needed for the SRL to succeed.  

8. Cheltenham - Deakin Uni

This is another entirely on-SRL trip. It is perhaps a measure of the slowness of buses that although Cheltenham (at Southland bus interchange) already has a one-seat bus ride to Deakin University (the 767 bus) the journey plan forces a more complex trip (involving a train and two buses) to save ten minutes. Even a trip via the more frequent and direct 903 bus was not included.

Even on the basis of that fastest trip, the SRL cuts travel time from 60 to 20 minutes. That travel time reduction is so great that it probably makes up for the convoluted transfer arrangements at Cheltenham if changing from a Metro train. 

9. Cheltenham - M City

Like with Cheltenham - Deakin University there is a route that permits a one seat ride (the 631) but it is indirect and slow. The SRL's existing option has the trip requiring two trains and a bus to take 47 minutes. However when I planned it the 631 option taking 50 minutes (and a cheaper Zone 2 only fare) came up - overall a better / more reliable choice. 

The post SRL plan shortens the trip by 20 minutes. It involves an SRL to Clayton and then a shorter 631 trip to M City. However travel time variability will be high due to the bus' 20 minute frequency (30 min interpeak). Also this option appears to be based on the existing bus network despite the SRL being significant enough to precipitate reform. 

10. Cheltenham - Monash Uni

Another entirely SRL trip. Trip time is cut from a claimed 50 minutes currently to 10 minutes. Like the Albion example this involves a trip to the north side of the campus. If one is happy to travel to the existing main bus interchange on the south side you can get the indirect but one-seat Route 631 from Southland Bus Interchange (not exactly the same location as the station) to Monash in 45 minutes. Part of the reason why it takes a long time is because the route was made less direct after road access was modified and Route 821 was deleted.

This is a little like the Caulfield - Glen Waverley example this is a case where some very cost-effective travel time improvements could be obtained through bus network reform. However unlike the Caulfield - Glen Waverley example there is no way this will deliver the extreme travel time savings that the SRL will, even when you add some walking at both ends. 

11. Coburg - Monash Uni

This is a trip that the completed SRL might save significant time on but not SRL East on its own. The diagram in the existing conditions trip has the train to Oakleigh going clockwise when it's actually anticlockwise via Southern Cross and Flinders Street. Except for the need to change trains at Melbourne Central/State Library, my comments for Albion regarding the benefits of the Metro Tunnel and north versus south side university destinations apply here. In other words this isn't a very good example of time saving for the SRL to use. 

12. Cranbourne - Deakin Uni

Because existing public transport from the south-east to the east is so slow (attributable to limited bus priority and orbital routes having time-consuming deviations like Chadstone, Oakleigh and Glen Waverley) the SRL is bound to deliver big travel time savings. for this trip. Both Monash and Deakin universities gain here. Especially for Monash trips from the east and Deakin trips from the south-east like this one. 

Travel time savings relative to both driving and existing public transport are in the 20 - 30 minute range. By Melbourne outer suburban standards Cranbourne is relatively lucky with buses as most routes operate every 20 minutes during peak and even interpeak times. 

13. Dandenong - Box Hill

Even though the angle between the Dandenong and Ringwood lines is more acute than the approximately 90 degrees between Ringwood and Frankston, the slowness of the orbital SmartBuses in peak appears to be still driving the journey planner to give an indirect via Richmond result for Dandenong to Box Hill travel despite the poor geometry. Again the SRL comes to the rescue with public transport travel time cut in half (from roughly 60 to 30 minutes). And if you are one of the lucky few right near the station then public transport even becomes faster than driving.  

14. Deer Park - Monash Uni

Very similar comments as for Albion and Coburg. The SRL is not going to contribute much reduced travel time. But under current conditions I would do what I could to get to the main bus interchange to have access to express shuttles to Huntingdale station. 

15. Doncaster - Clayton

A significant travel time saving for the SRL as 80% of the trip (Box Hill - Clayton) is on it. It is also faster than driving by 10 minues. 

16. East Pakenham - Box Hill

Around 30 minutes quicker by public transport as the SRL avoids the indirect backtracking via Richmond or the slow 903 orbital from Oakleigh. It also beats driving by about 10 minutes - if you live right at the station. Bad luck if you were hoping to catch a bus from home; Pakenham buses typically operate hourly (or worse) in peaks so SRL or not the service still won't be very attractive. 

17. Essendon - Monash Uni

Similar comments to Coburg and Albion. Again their map gets the City Loop direction wrong. I think they are grasping at straws to claim substantial SRL benefits here. If they want to be helping Essendon passengers, boosting the daytime Craigieburn line service to 10 minutes (like enjoyed on the Frankston line), some bus network reform and airport rail (with a Keilor East station) are all locally more important. 

18. Footscray - Deakin Uni

I wasn't able to get an existing network travel time of 49 minutes for this trip - my answers were nearer an hour. This means that SRL benefits might be higher for this trip than the claimed 6 minutes. This benefit comes from the irresistibly fast access from Box Hill to Deakin University.

However for the benefits of going via Box Hill to be maximised, especially off-peak, there will need to be a simpler and more frequent greenfields Burnley group timetable - something the government has been putting off for over a decade. 

19. Frankston - Deakin Uni

Some similar comments to the previous Cheltenham - Deakin Uni trip except there is a need to negotiate the train - train connection at Southland. Nevertheless SRL provides nearly a 30 minute time saving relative to existing public transport with a time similar to driving. The Frankston line's frequency is good so there are not the connectivity issues going home like there are with Belgrave and Lilydale. Instead, as with Pakenham, the limiting factor is the local bus network with many routes operating hourly and not all running seven days. 

20. Frankston - Monash (sic - should say Monash University)

Very similar comments to the above Frankston - Deakin example. However the existing conditions bus interchange suggestion at Edithvale is poor - the LXRP's rebuilding of the station north broke the short physical connection with the 902 bus that previously existed. Hence Chelsea station is now the better interchange point. 

21. Frankston - Monash Medical Centre

SRL speeds trip by about 15 minutes as it avoids the backtrack via Clayton. However driving is still faster, possibly due to the relatively new Mordialloc Freeway providing a north-south connection that the public transport network doesn't do very well (the 705 bus from Mordialloc being an industrial route with only a few trips per day that runs to Springvale, not Clayton). 

22. Glen Iris - Monash Medical Centre

Glen Iris isn't exactly a bustling hub but it made it to one of the sample trips. Both pre SRL and post SRL trips have terrible geometry but SRL gets away with it as it is faster, almost matching driving times. 

This is the sort of trip where the best solution is not the SRL but local bus reform. In this case extending the Route 734 bus to Caulfield station would provide a much stronger terminus and facilitate trips such as this. 

23. Glenferrie - Glen Waverley

Sometimes the travel times (based on an 8am departure) do not match the descriptions - in this case students 'catching dinner after class'. This is another case where indirect geometry on both options is trumped by the SRL's superior speed (due to its wide station spacing) to deliver travel time savings. 

24. Glen Waverley - Monash Uni

Very like the Box Hill to Deakin trip where this one station SRL trip is vastly faster than any other option - driving or PT. 

25. Kew - Monash Medical Centre

The post SRL itinerary offers only a minor time saving relative to existing public transport. What is more significant is that it enables the trip to be made with one rather than two changes. Also the interchange conditions may be better since the existing trip relies on a change from the 246 bus to Richmond station which is inconvenient, especially on non-sports days when Richmond's second entrance is closed.  

It's good that the SRL included this trip as it exposes a major gap in Melbourne's network - that of there being no continuous public transport connection on the Burke Rd corridor between Heidelberg, Kew East and Caulfield. This is due to both tram and bus networks in the area being unchanged for decades.

Again, as with a Chandler Hwy route, bus network reform in the area could make a significant difference. There are relatively few bus routes in the area to reform so a very effective 'brute force' method could just be to layer one or two new frequent limited stop north-south bus routes, stopping only near trains and trams, over the existing network.  

26. Kew - Monash Uni

The SRL itinerary is very similar to above example. The poor geometry contributes to the trip via SRL being 12 minutes slower than driving.  But there is still a 19 min saving over the current extremely convoluted public transport trip involving two trams, two trains and a bus. The latter is probably attributable to the lack of useful north-south bus routes in the area, slow traffic on Glenferrie Rd and the SRL's preference for a north rather than south side stop at Monash University.  

27. Laverton - Deakin Uni

Like other itineraries from the west and north to universities in the east, the SRL only gives minor time savings (in this case 10 minutes) relative to existing public transport (which is already faster than driving in the morning peak).

Laverton station does not have a very big pedestrian catchment so this trip example won't be useful for many people. If you were interested in making this (and many other) trips faster for the majority of people who live in areas like Altona Meadows and Point Cook then more frequent and faster local buses will contribute more to shorter door to door travel time than the SRL. 

28. Mentone - Monash Medical Centre

Because this is a trip that is mostly on the SRL, there is a large improvement in travel times by public transport (14 minutes). Furthermore, this improvement is good enough to make it faster than driving.

The blurb refers to a 'simple changeover at Southland' but this requires a short, direct and 100% under cover walk between the two stations to be incorporated in the design. This probably requires a rebuilding (and preferably relocation northwards) of Southland Station whose Platform 2 was carelessly built without shelter where most needed. 

29. Monash - Melbourne Showgrounds

An emphasis on the SRL has been the use of it for diverse trips, not just commutes. This is a good design approach. However Melbourne Showgrounds is an events-only station. A 17 minute travel time saving is claimed but as much of this is likely to be attributable to the Metro Tunnel as the SRL. 

30. Mordialloc - Deakin Uni

This trip is currently possible on the one bus (903) but this is slow due to diversions via Oakleigh and Chadstone as well as general traffic. SRL replaces most of this with a change at Cheltenham. The resultant 35 minute trip is 15 minutes faster than driving. Issues in relation to connectivity at Cheltenham mentioned before apply for this trip. 

31. Narre Warren - Deakin Uni

Another south-east to Deakin University trip sped by the SRL being a much faster alternative to existing bus routes. The travel time saving is 24 minutes compared to the existing train - bus trip. The 21 minute shorter time than driving gives some 'fat' to allow for last-mile bus connections for the vast majority of local residents beyond walking distance from the station.

Like with the Pakenham example, local buses are generally infrequent and follow indirect routes. This means that for the SRL to have maximum benefit the local bus network needs significant upgrading. 

32. Preston - Monash Uni

Like all other western and northern suburb origins, the SRL only slightly improves travel times with an 8 minute claimed gain. Since this is based on access to the station near the north-east of the station the improvement would basically vanish if your destination is nearer the existing bus interchange at the south end of the campus.  

33. Ringwood - Deakin Uni

Pre and post SRL trips are similar, both involving a change at Box Hill. The use of the SRL for the last leg saves 11 minutes, making the trip faster than driving. The SRL will also be more frequent than the 201 express shuttle people currently use. Further travel time improvements (especially off-peak relative to driving) require improvements to local buses. 

34. Ringwood - Monash Uni

The SRL trip itinerary is the same as above except for remaining on the SRL for two more stations. The existing network requires a significant bus trip on the 703 bus. Similar to Cheltenham to Monash on the 631, the one seat ride involving the 742 bus does not figure. While the 15 minute travel time saving may not seem that significant it is notable that travel time variability will be less due to the SRL's immunity to road traffic congestion and its higher frequency than the 703 bus. The result is a car-competitive travel time with the SRL provided you are starting at Ringwood station.  

35. Sandown Park - Box Hill

Travel time more than halved (55 to 25 min) as the SRL offers both a geometry and speed improvement over the existing public transport options of train in then train out (poor geometry but faster) and train then orbital bus (better geometry but slow). Because most of the trip is on the SRL the travel speed is significantly faster than driving.  

36. Sandringham - Glen Waverley

With the SRL comprising most of the travel distance it is not surprising that there is a big reduction in travel time when this becomes available. The existing rail geometry is indirect while the general direction is not very good for driving either.

However the with SRL travel time (36 minutes) is very much a best case scenario as it relies on the 822 bus that is only every 30 minutes, even in peak. Also the current route alignment is indirect, it deviating off Bay Rd to go via the Metro Cheltenham station before going north to Southland. If a 822 bus is just missed the travel time nearly doubles, making it an unreliable trip that is as slow as the existing 66 minutes. 

Consequently while the SRL benefits this trip it is insufficient on its own to offer good quality transport for Sandringham line passengers. This would require the 822 bus to be rerouted directly via Bay Rd to reduce travel time and its frequency boosted to reduce waiting time and its variability. Or, to provide a geometrically better feeder from more directions, a reformed Route 733 or 828 extension to Sandringham would be preferable since the rest of the 822's current alignment is not conducive to it being a high frequency route (whereas both 733 and 828 are). 

37. Springvale - Cheltenham

Benefits from a massively reduced travel time (42 to 16 minutes) due to the SRL's superior geometry and speed. 12 minutes faster than driving. The existing Route 811 bus operates between Springvale and Cheltenham but travel time is approximately 60 minute and the bus is only hourly, making it an inferior option unless you are lucky with the time and your origin and/or destination is away from the station. 

38. Sunshine - Deakin Uni

As with other examples from this direction, the travel time benefits attributable to the SRL are minor and are probably lost in other variables (including the improved frequency that will be delivered as part of the Metro Tunnel project).  

39. Traralgon - Box Hill

SRL's speed and direct geometry enable a similar travel time saving to that for Pakenham or Cranbourne passengers making a similar trip. Still, at around two hours for both driving and SRL, one would not imagine many would make this type of trip a daily habit! 

40. Watergardens - Deakin Uni

The SRL option gives a minor time saving. Some would come from the Metro Tunnel (whose timetable is likely to also deliver shorter off-peak waits for Watergardens) while the rest would arise from the faster Box Hill to Deakin travel.  

41. Waverley Gardens - Cheltenham

The current public transport journey is a one-seat but very slow 74 minute ride on the indirect 631 bus. The SRL saves 30 minutes of this by replacing the Clayton to Cheltenham section with the SRL.

A dramatic improvement but still 11 minutes slower than the 33 minute drive, even in the ideal case of someone living right at the shopping centre and the people they are visiting living right at the station.

The good news is that most of that 11 minutes can be clawed back by reforming bus routes such that Waverley Gardens on Police Rd gets a direct bus route to Clayton station via Centre Rd instead of the current dog-leg via Monash University. This example is one of many that shows that SRL by itself can deliver benefits but these can be magnified with a more direct bus network. 

42. Werribee - Deakin Uni

As with other trip examples from the west, the SRL enables a small travel time saving due to the faster travel between Box Hill and Deakin University. 

43. Williamstown - Deakin Uni

As with other trip examples from the west, the SRL enables a small travel time saving due to the faster travel between Box Hill and Deakin University. 

Conclusions 

These trip comparisons illustrate the varying contribution SRL East makes to network connectivity.

Travel time savings were noted as being: 

* Very high for trips entirely on the SRL due to better geometry and speed versus existing radial rail and tangential bus options. 

* High for Metro Train - SRL trips from (a) the southern or south-eastern suburbs to Deakin University/Box Hill or (b) from eastern suburbs to Monash University, Clayton or Southland. 

* Medium for some other trips where the journey involves the SRL plus a bus or tram component. These trips may be faster than driving for peak periods but during off-peak periods they may be slower, with speed and frequency for connecting modes being important factors along with interchange design. 

* Negligible to low for trips from Melbourne's west or north to SRL-served locations in the east and south. However because a high percentage of the journey is on the radial rail network and geometry is reasonable they can still compare well with driving if originating at a station. 

The SRL East gives some unexpected benefits for some trips from inner suburbs like Kew. This is attributable to (i) the absence or slowness of north-south tram and bus connections in an overwhelmingly radial CBD-based network and (ii) east-west trams that are also too slow or stop just short of stations where a suburban connection to rail could be possible. The CBD rail loop is an effective suburbs to city distributor but is otherwise an impediment to simple, direct and repeatable interchanges between lines. 

Journey time savings attributable to the SRL East are highest for those starting their trip at a station. They quickly dissipate if beyond about 800m (or 10 min walk) from a station. Maximising SRL's benefits to the majority of people who are more than 800m from a station requires more frequent and direct bus networks and continuous active transport links suitable for all ages.  

Increased all-day frequencies on infrequent train lines (like Belgrave and Lilydale with their 30 minute gaps) and numerous bus routes that connect at SRL stations is necessary to reduce travel time variability. Fixing both is key to making the majority of SRL trips (that will involve a connection at one or both ends) reasonably competitive with driving. Without doing this the SRL's benefits will be confined to an unnecessarily narrow range of trips. Due to their large benefits independent of the SRL these service uplifts should be done as soon as possible with the Future Frequent Network a potential model that can be completed well before the SRL starts.  

Comments on the above are appreciated and can be left below. 

See other Building Melbourne's Useful Network items here 

UN 208: Knox Transit Link turns 20

The Victorian Labor Party, led by Steve Bracks, made certain transport and infrastructure promises in its 1999 state election pitch. One of those was an extension of the Route 75 tram further east along Burwood Hwy to Knox City. 

These promises and what Labor called 'a new style of leadership' did the trick. People were fed up with the cuts and perceived arrogance of Jeff Kennett's coalition government. Sufficient time had elapsed and Bracks had successfully reassured people that a returned Labor government would not be a replay of Cain-Kirner's disastrous last years. So in an unexpected result, Bracks' Labor party won enough seats to defeat the Coalition and negotiate a minority government with rural independents.

Then, aware of the importance of winning more eastern suburban seats to achieve majority government, Bracks' pre-election 2002 state budget included funding for the Scoresby Freeway (which was not promised in 1999 but featured in the 2001 federal Aston by-election campaign), some bus upgrades and the part delivery of the Knox tram project. 

Note I said 'part delivery'. Instead of extending to Knox City, as promised in 1999, the funding only got it half way, to the medium-sized shopping centre at Vermont South. A bus (actually short trips on the much longer Route 732) would take passengers the remainder of the distance to Knox City. 

This service, known as the Knox Transit Link, commenced 20 years ago today, just over a year after the first sod was turned and two years after expressions of interests were called. The opening ceremony, featuring minister Peter Batchelor and local MPs, was the previous day, Saturday 23rd July 2005. 

The Route 75 extension was one of four in what was to be a brief revival of interest in tram extensions. The others being the Route 109 extension to Box Hill in 2003 and the Route 48 extension to Waterfront City Docklands in early 2005. A smaller Docklands extension (Collins St) followed in 2009. 

Project description

Information published at the time is here. 

Key ingredients included: 

* A 3km extension of Route 75 tram along the Burwood Hwy median with 10 new DDA compliant stops

* An integrated tram/bus interchange opposite the Vermont South Shopping Centre

* An upgraded Route 732 bus between Vermont South and Knox City timed to meet trams

The above link has maps for the tram and bus portions as below (click for a better view):

Achievements

The Knox Transit Link contributed to several improvements to public transport connectivity in Melbourne's east.  

The tram extension extended relatively frequent 7 day public transport to sections of Burwood East and Glen Waverley. This includes better connections to two shopping centres, the Tally Ho Business Park and the Burvale Hotel. This uplift was particularly significant given the notoriously low frequency and short operating hours of Melbourne suburban bus services, especially back in 2005. 

Access to Deakin University from the east benefited. As did Camberwell Junction.

What about Knox City, the major destination that was to get a tram but didn't? The 732 bus still delivered relatively frequent and long hours public transport from one direction (the west) as opposed to no directions previously. The 901 SmartBus added north and south to that some years later, providing benefits for Stud Rd and improving access to Ringwood and Dandenong. 

Springvale Rd was another connection point the tram extension benefited, especially after the 888/889 trial SmartBus got upgraded to become the 902 orbital. It meant that those in the Donvale, Nunawading, Glen Waverley and Springvale areas could get to Deakin University via a change to the tram. However  the physical interchange involved is not direct as the Springvale Rd bus stops were never brought very close to the tram stops on Burwood Hwy. 

Challenges

In theory the Knox Transit Link could have provided an alternative way to travel from Knox City to the CBD. This was certainly a major project objective with 'Linking Knox City to Melbourne' being the first heading on the project website.

However the 75 tram is excruciatingly slow over most of its path to the CBD. A potential alternative, of changing to an Alamein line train to complete the inner part of the trip, is limited by inconvenient station placement, low frequency and sometimes the forced change at Camberwell.

Thus, as demonstrated on the PTV journey planner, a bus and train itinerary not involving the Knox Transit Link is likely to be faster for CBD trips.     

The above PTV journey planner example is a weekday morning peak but similar results apply between the peaks. Knox Transit Link is best thought of as an improver of local connectivity for trips to Camberwell and Deakin University. For CBD travel it only really comes into its own late at night and on weekend mornings when the tram is faster and other options are either infrequent, not scheduled to connect or do not run.  

However even that role has atrophied somewhat. The original idea of every tram being met by a 732 bus got lost when the 75 tram gained 24 hour weekend service in 2016 under Night Network but the connecting 732 bus did not get matching hours extensions. Similarly when 75's Friday and Saturday evening frequency improved from 20 to 15 minutes in April 2025 there was no commensurate 732 bus boost (with its timetable still dated October 2023). Knox Transit Link usage was however understood to be low so few may have noticed this degradation in connectivity. 

Erosion of connections or harmonised frequencies is a real risk in a network with other examples being the 426/456 (previously evenly spaced to meet trains every 20 min) and, much longer ago, buses at Sandringham when the frequent 600 was split into three infrequent routes in 2002. For reasons of robustness in a city with a weak planning culture of minimising waits I therefore now generally recommend a preference towards single frequent routes rather than trying to be too clever with two or three offset routes on a major corridor.   

Another contributing factor to Knox Transit Link's quietness may have been the continued lack of public transport connectivity in the vast majority of Knox east of Stud Road. That's important because not many people are within easy walking distance of the Knox City terminus. Apart from 'minimum standards' service improvements on some local bus routes like the 664 and 737, Knox east of Stud Rd has lacked significant public transport network reform and service uplifts to this day. 

Legacy and inspiration

The tram extension and Knox Transit Link undoubtedly had benefits for the area it served and those with connections to it. But were there wider gains, such as it inspiring similar projects in other suburbs? The answer to date unfortunately has to be no, with it remaining 'one of a kind'. This is in contrast to other projects whose outstanding success drove a hunger to build more like them.  

Key interstate examples include heavy rail in Perth, trams on the Gold Coast and Metro in Sydney. Victorian examples include successive regional rail upgrades and level crossing removals. Also the cluster of small suburban bus upgrades in 2002 may have inspired the much bigger packages between 2006 and 2010. Similar lists compiled in the 1970s and 80s would have included the momentum that saw trams 59, 75 and 86 extended several times.  

Two potential future success trajectories for Melbourne include us being on the cusp of (i) a renewed round of weekend bus frequency upgrades (following the popularity of improvements on routes like 733, 767 and 800) and, more speculatively, (ii) boosted Metro train timetables (assuming success of the Metro Tunnel and the Craigieburn/Upfield frequency boosts).  

In contrast trams have less momentum now than in even the 1970s (which was otherwise a poor decade for Melbourne public transport) or the early 2000s. We tell tourists that we love our trams but rarely express this in budget documents or consider extensions. 

Hence the Metro Tunnel will have neither a tram connection to Arden nor a Park Street link when it opens later this year. Fishermans Bend got improved buses instead while Caulfield - Rowville appears as just the latest on a long list of transport hopes raised and dashed for the Knox area. Progress on tram priority and stop accessibility has been limited. 2023's Tram Plan has some good principles but lacks detail or funding to be really influential.  

Will trams ever get another time in the sun, like buses, V/Line trains and Metro trains have at various times in the last two decades? And if they do are they more likely to be inner, middle or outer suburban?

There may be some grounds for optimism. Many areas that the government has earmarked for denser housing need tram (as well as train and bus) network improvements if these areas are not to become gridlocked nightmares. And opportunities for extensions to improve connectivity still remain abundant in many inner and middle suburbs. 

Mounting debt and steeply rising construction costs has also meant that if the government wishes to still have a capital works agenda in transport it will need to get smarter in what it does to afford them. Instead of a small number of very big projects that struggle to get a BCR much exceeding 1, it may need to become more discerning. For example improve at doing large numbers of smaller scale high-benefit projects at low unit costs. That includes those that might have scoffed at in the Big Build era for being individually too small. 

Cost-effective frequency boosts and network simplification across all modes would need to feature prominently. Short extensions to nearby stations or to improve connections around the CBD fringe may also be in the mix for trams. If it attracts high numbers of people interchanging the Metro Tunnel/tram interchange at Anzac is a potential trigger for wider tram network reform and connectivity initiatives both to this station and others such as Arden. We shall see.    

See other Building Melbourne's Useful Network items here