UN 222: Wollert/Epping North bus network consultation starts

News earlier in the week with the state government announcing consultation on an expanded bus network for Wollert in Melbourne's outer north.

Funding, service planning and political context

With funding allocated in the May 2025 state budget, this network has a very good chance of actually happening. And of the various funding sources, budget funding is the 'gold standard' as GAIC (ie growth area contribution) is time-limited and highly constrained. 

This is just as well for the state Labor government as its record on public transport services in Melbourne's growing north could be described as mediocre (if you sympathise with the government) or abysmal (if you don't) given the area's fast population growth and densification in middle suburbs.  

Route 390 and Craigieburn local buses have been two of the few bright spots in the last five or so years. Away from Craigieburn buses the more common experience has been expectations raised and then dashed for both train and bus. 

For instance Mernda and Hurstbridge lines got nothing out of the so-called 'Big Switch' despite the premier promising 'new timetables everywhere'. Similarly Craigieburn and Upfield lines were meant to get 10 minute off-peak service under the Metro Tunnel but didn't, though a smaller set of improvements from last year's state budget is proposed for later this year. 

Back to buses the north and north-eastern suburbs got promised large-scale bus reform before the 2022 state election but, with the government safely returned, this was abandoned the following year. Two valuable years was squandered on the ill-advised Greensborough FlexiRide before they realised that upgraded fixed routes were better after all, though resource allocation was misplaced on the latter with buses on busy Bell Street actually made more complicated. 

Given this patchy record bus advocates should not be satisfied with promises of network reviews from political parties in the coming election campaign - instead they should insist on specific measures whose honouring or otherwise is a yes or no answer. 

Politically Melbourne's north has been dominated by Labor that now has the baggage typical of long-term governments. Greens are competitive in southern inner areas, socialists are competing in diverse working class 'middle north' areas like Broadmeadows and Reservoir and the long-term drift away from the major parties leaves the door open to local independents. The Liberals, racked by disunity and with a weak local membership base, fancy their prospects in some higher income/big house areas like Greenvale but are likely to be most influential in where their preferences flow. 

Given previous disappointments with transport in the north and this being an election year, all eyes will be on this government to make this network a success rather than a fizzer. 

Proposed network

The upgrade is based on extending three existing bus routes north from Epping further into Wollert growth areas (356, 357, 358), adding a new bus route north from Epping (355) and creating a simpler largely east-west route (335) that replaces parts of existing routes 357 and 577 between Thomastown, Epping and South Morang. Serving a fast growing part of Melbourne's outer north, it will add bus coverage to a population of 21 000. 

The new network means that three of the four Wollert/Epping North routes intersect Route 390, as opposed to none before. Route 390 is an east-west bus between Craigieburn and Mernda that has enjoyed several rounds of service upgrades. 

The proposed network is very close to that which I speculated on here. Possibly its most controversial feature is that the east-west Lyndarum Drive loses its buses. Instead people will need to walk to north-south routes for which higher frequency is promised, at least on weekdays. I wrote more on Epping Rd, identifying it as a potential frequent bus corridor, more than 6 years ago. 

Something else that will no doubt be raised is access to Epping Plaza and Northern Hospital from a section of Epping Rd (which contains some low income apartments). Residents there have a choice of Route 356 to Epping Station or Route 357 that not only goes to the station but also beyond to the plaza and hospital. The proposed network replaces 357 with the new route 355 that, like 356 also terminates at the station. Thus bus users will need to change buses to make a relatively short local trip unless there is some sort of through-routing arrangement where arriving 355s and 356s form departing 357s and 358s. 

What is more certain is that those on the existing 577 are undoubted winners with the new 335, with this serving the plaza, hospital and beyond.   

The proposed network, with a handy slider map to compare with with the old, can be found here.

Service levels

Bus routes in the area typically operate every 20 minutes peak periods and 40 minutes off-peak weekdays and weekends. The main exception is Route 577 which has an uneven interpeak weekday service since its two buses per hour cannot regularly connect with the typical 20 minute train frequencies at Epping and South Morang. 

The notes for Routes 356, 357 and 358 have this somewhat vague statement: "We’re proposing to improve the frequency of peak-hour and weekday daytime services."

Thus we can expect weekend frequencies to remain the same. It is not known whether operating hours will be extended like they have recently been on some routes in Craigieburn, Werribee and Tarneit. 

 What will be a higher peak hour frequency for these buses? Trains at Epping are uneven but are roughly every 6 to 9 minutes in the peak. A bus frequency of around 15 minutes will connect with about every second train.

As for off-peak service, the current 40 minute service harmonises with every second train, a 30 minute service would offer recurring connections only hourly while a 20 minute service could connect with every train in at least one direction. 

Epping Road will have both 355 and 356 overlapping south of Hayston Rd to Epping Station. If both are every 40 minutes the ideal scheduling would see them spaced 20 minutes to provide an even headway connecting with every train at Epping. However if both are every 20 minutes then there is either the choice of two buses every 20 minutes to preserve train connectivity or 10 minute spacing to provide a frequent corridor with one route not meeting trains. Upgrading the Mernda line upgraded to run every 10 minutes off-peak would be ideal so this trade-off wouldn't need to be made.  

It has (commendably) become common for growth area bus routes to be upgraded to or even start with a 20 minute off-peak service at least on weekdays. As opposed to the previously typical and unexciting 40 to 60 minute frequencies. 

Examples can be found in Werribee, Tarneit, Craigieburn, Diggers Rest, Cranbourne and Clyde. The treatment of weekends varies for no reason I can discern. 20 minute weekend service is found on some Werribee, Tarneit and Cranbourne routes whereas Craigieburn and Diggers Rest passengers must make do with a 40 minute weekend service. It looks like Wollert will be following the 20 minute weekday/40 minute weekend pattern, with this known for the new Route 335 and possibly also for 355, 356, 357 and 358 (if these get a 20 minute weekday off-peak service). 

Another good feature of some new and upgraded routes is wider operating hours, with buses finishing at around midnight instead of 9pm on most nights of the week. This is most notable in Werribee, Tarneit and Craigieburn. 

The website does not state whether Wollert routes will get similar operating hours extensions. Neither does it mention the fate of Night Network services which currently operate on Route 357. This is particularly interesting as this proposal breaks the 357 up into multiple routes so there is a chance that some areas could gain Night Network while others lose it. Night Network is relevant not just for party goers but also early weekend morning travellers due to most regular bus routes starting late on weekends, particularly Sundays.

Survey

The consultation includes an online survey and meetings. Respondents will be asked about their bus usage and whether this is likely to increase under the new network.  Consultation finishes March 8, 2026.

Wider network implications

This revised network includes both established and new suburbs. In the former is Route 577 which will become a part of the new 335 route which will operate at a higher frequency along Findon Rd. Approximately 600m south of Findon Rd is McDonalds Rd which has the 901 SmartBus. In between is a residential area of indirect streets that is penetrated by the Route 556 dogleg discussed here. 

As well as taking people out of their way and wasting a lot of time the 556's run time has led to it (and possibly other routes like the 555) having an unmemorable and unharmonised with trains 22-24 minute headway. Basically this loop sabotages what could be a simpler, more direct and better connected route running every 20 minutes over a wide catchment. 

It would be desirable if the Wollert changes also simplify buses in this part of Epping. Options might include outright removal of the 556 dogleg, or, noting that the area is quite pedestrian hostile, its replacement by a local coverage-style South Morang to Epping route every 40 to 60 min in the Derby Dr area. 

See other Useful Network items here

TT 222: What's coming after the Metro Tunnel timetables?

A few bits and pieces arising from the start of Metro Tunnel services on Sunday February 1. There was comment from people we don't often hear from. And some of the articles might give an idea of official attitudes towards any future timetable changes. And you'll find some attempts from me to read between the lines too.  

1. Big Switch starting

Sunday February 1 marked the Big Switch with the full Metro Tunnel timetable starting. This was arguably the biggest change to metropolitan public transport services since the July 2024 train, tram and bus reforms. 

I have updated my daytime frequent network maps accordingly with a new frequent rail corridor to Watergardens and the new 241 bus on weekdays. Updated evening maps to follow. Extract for off-peak daytime frequencies showing 10, 15 and 20 min rail networks below (click for a better view). 

2 Service frequency graphic

Alan Thomas has made this great graphic on how Melbourne metropolitan rail frequencies have changed since the 1930s. It's right up to the minute including the Metro Tunnel timetable. Some frequencies are better than they have ever been (eg the Frankston line) while other busy stations at certain times (eg Box Hill at night) have lower frequencies than they did in the 1930s and 1970s. I wrote about 1939's generally more frequent inner area train network here. 

3. Media coverage 

Scouring this is handy to get a clue as to the government's thinking for what's next. Especially given it raised and then dashed expectations of service improvements on non Metro Tunnel lines when the timetables came out. And we hear rare quotes from DTP insiders and the shadow minister. I've inserted some of my analysis of these media comments. 

* 30/1/2026 Age Inside the mission to fix Victoria’s commute times 

Quotes DTP executive director of modal planning Stuart Johns saying that the timetable development started 3.5 years ago based on VISTA demand modelling. Said the Metro Tunnel will provide capacity to add trains "for decades to come".

Here's a direct quote from the article: "He said the world was different to what the Metro Tunnel business case had imagined a decade ago, but one of its most exciting features was a “turn up and go” service along the lines that use the tunnel where commuters at most stations don’t have to look at the timetable to know a train is less than 10 minutes away."

Saying "the world was different" gives a fair justification for the peak frequencies being operated being lower than envisaged in the Business Case. Also noted was "turn up and go service along the lines that use the tunnel". As I warned back in 2021 the original business case service plan was deficient with regards to service west of West Footscray.

My hunch was that there was a wish to leave the door open for rail extensions or electrifications to at least one and possibly more of Melbourne Airport, Melton or Wyndham Vale. The BCRs of these could be assisted if increased frequencies for Sunshine was a part of those (rather than the Metro Tunnel) projects. Especially for Airport Rail which as a politically popular but expensive and somewhat marginal project probably needed all the BCR help it could muster, even if it needed to be poached from other projects. The Network Development Plan of 2012 had a similar approach of other lines getting 10 minute frequencies before stations beyond Sunshine did. 

However rational it might have seemed at the time to have left better frequencies on the table for these other rail projects, they did not happen, unlike the Metro Tunnel that the Andrews Labor government enthusiastically got on with building. 

Given that Dandenong already had a 10 minute 7 day frequency (introduced by the Liberal government in 2014) it would have been indefensible for the business case timetable that short-changed Sunshine with a substandard 20 minute service (ie little better than was then current) to have proceeded given it would perpetuate existing historical east-west divides in service levels that ceased being justifiable years ago. Thus the stations from Tottenham through to Watergardens rightly got a much better all day timetable than the business case envisaged. An "exciting feature" for "all different types of travel patterns, not just the traditional AM and PM peak" in Mr Johns' words.

Another part of this "different world" was that train patronage had not fully recovered since the pandemic due to widespread working from home. Peaks might still be busy but may only be experienced for 3 rather than 5 days per week. This could be used to defend the less than envisaged peak frequency on non-Metro lines. Not to mention that schedulers were dealt a hand inferior to that in the business case due to the project's descoping of turnbacks at Essendon and Gowrie. 

Less defensible features of the new timetables were the off-peak frequencies on Craigieburn and to a lesser extent Upfield lines, with both keeping their 20 to 40 minute off-peak gaps. Craigieburn line residents have every right to feel jibbed by this timetable that perpetuates the north-south divide of having more patronage but twice the waits of the historically politically privileged Frankston line that enjoys trains every 10 minutes 7 days.

The state government would appear to be sensitive to this with 2025 state budget funding for improved services. The new timetable commencing "later this year" will see maximum 20 minute waits first to last train for both Craigieburn and Upfield. However true service equality that reflects usage requires a 10 minute 7 day service as the business case proposed, especially for Craigieburn. 

You can compare the business case with what we got with regards to all day frequencies in the animation below. As you can see the "Big Switch" timetable provided the network with 10 minute service at 64 stations versus the 95 envisaged (although it will be up to 75 on weekdays when Sandringham happens mid-year). 

Minister Gabrielle Williams described the February 1 timetable as "only the beginning", raising expectations of more service upgrades to come. Hopefully these will go beyond the 2025 budget commitments with the pre-election 2026 budget a big test of this. It's helpful noting that relatively modest increases (eg 1 to 3% more trains scheduled per week) are enough to shorten the longest waits, especially on the Burnley and Clifton Hill groups that the "Big Switch" excluded. 

The minister's "only the beginning" statement is a slightly different message to that of the final-sounding "Big Switch" branding and the premier announcing a "new timetable in place everywhere" back in October. At best this latter messaging has not gone well for the government. And in some cases it has been straight out wrong, with the article acknowledging complaints from lines in Melbourne's East that got nothing (along with the Clifton Hill group).  

Taitset/Philip Mallis video discusses 'Big Switch" timetable

* 31/1/2026 Herald Sun Metro Tunnel ‘Big Switch’ delivers huge train boost for some but ’big let down’ for those left behind

Stresses the differences between the timetable delivered and the higher frequencies for Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham in the Business Case. Refers to descoping of turnbacks on the Upfield and Craigieburn lines and that some lines get nothing. Most of the new stations, including Parkville near the hospitals, will not be open for Night Network. 

Article has quotes from a government spokeswoman about enabling further increases and "this is just the beginning" similar to the Age article above. The less-often-quoted-than-expected Opposition public transport spokesman Matthew Guy even got a word in, saying that “Labor’s big talk for the big switch has proven to be a big let down”. A fair comment especially for those hoping for the full implementation of the business case service frequencies on lines like Upfield and Craigieburn. 

A direct quote from the article: "Labour (sic) sources say some gaps may be addressed in coming months but downplayed the need for sweeping boosts after the “Big Switch” on February 1 given patronage levels and other Budget priorities while money is scarce."

Above may give an insight into official thinking which, in contrast to the optimistic "just the beginning" remark hoses down expectations. Some elements in Labor seem to love building transport assets (all those construction sector jobs!) but downplay the need to work them hard with frequent service (despite involving RTBU and TWU jobs) to realise their full benefits.

"Sweeping boosts" could mean 10 minute service and/or upgrades on other line groups like Clifton Hill and Burnley which have got and may continue to get nothing more. The "some gaps in coming months" might just be the Upfield, Craigieburn, Werribee and Sandringham changes that we already know about as they were funded in the 2025 state budget. 

It is true that Melbourne's peak-heavy rail network has not recovered in patronage since the pandemic as fast as other systems (which tend to have higher all day frequencies so are more generally useful for diverse trips). But it's largely peak usage that's suffered (notably Mondays and Fridays) less than off-peak whose usage remains constrained by low service levels across both train and bus. 

As for "money being scarce", this is largely a function of rising costs and/or interest bills on major infrastructure projects (think WGT, NEL, LXRP, SRL Metro Tunnel etc). A key justification of these was to unlock more peak capacity but off-peak service could have been added at any time since it was (on the vast majority of the network) not constrained by infrastructure. It would be unfortunate if the costs of infrastructure 'crowds out' funds that could have provided service, and thus realise more of the benefits, now. 

It would seem that if the community was to apply pressure on the government to boost Metro rail services the approaches with the highest chances of success are the cheap/high impact measures like cutting waits from 30-40 to 20 minutes on the rest of the network and then starting on 10 minute roll-outs. Ringwood is relatively cheap and could be a by-product of closing Belgrave and Lilydale's 30 minute weekday gaps while the busy Craigieburn line could be tackled by working inwards by broadening shoulder peaks (the first step of which was promised in 2025).   

 * 1/2/2026 ABC Hundreds of new train services added as Melbourne lines switch to new Metro Tunnel

Describes the changes in significant detail. PTUA mentions issues with unchanged timetables on the Clifton Hill and Burnley groups as well as new stations being closed for Night Network. Similar to the Age article it quotes DTP on the development of the timetables. 

* 1/2/2026 Social media post from minister Gabrielle Williams. Mentions the next round of upgrades for Werribee, Sandringham, Craigieburn and Upfield coming "middle of year". 

"Middle of year" is a bit more specific than "later this year", which is welcome. 

4. First weekday's operation

Metro Tunnel line services themselves seemed to run well yesterday. But the Upfield line had some major problems with short-shunting during the morning peak. The Frankston line was also hit by cancellations. Caulfield station as currently is proved its unsuitability as a large scale interchange point, although some of this may be first day issues that will become less acute as some find changing at alternative stations like Malvern and in the CBD more convenient. Passengers interviewed in the media gave mixed impressions though some convoluted two-change trips could have been simplified by going a different way.   

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

TT 221: A hypothetical graph - complaints versus service frequency

The graph below is a hypothesis rather than anything that's been measured.

It seeks to show the relationship between service levels and complaints received regarding frequency at off-peak times on the Melbourne metropolitan rail network. 

X axis is service frequency, Y axis is volume of complaints related to frequency. 

Click graph above to enlarge

The red line is the cost of running the service by frequency. This is assumed to be fairly proportional to the service level added until you hit constraints such as rolling stock, signalling and line capacity in which case the marginal cost of adding extra frequency can become extremely expensive and not quick to do. So expensive that you instead think about alternatives like adding carriages, price signals like incentives to travel off-peak, diverting passengers onto parallel quieter lines etc.  

Conversely if service is already frequent except for some narrow time bands (eg Sunday mornings or evenings) then the marginal cost of adding frequency in those time bands is small. When expressed in terms of maximum waits the cost of halving maximum waits on some lines can be tiny as only a few percent more trains need adding to the timetable. 

The blue line is more speculative. For a suburban rail system where trip lengths of 30 to 60 minutes are common, it makes the assumption that basically no one would complain about a 10 minute frequency (unless it's peak times and even this is insufficient to avoid crowding). 

Whereas 30, 40 and 60 minute frequencies are universally despised. Especially in cases where you don't have full control over your arrival time due to having just come off another train, tram or bus or having an activity such as work that finishes at a particular time. 

Note that these curves would be system and trip specific. Frequency is less important on regional train networks with high average speeds and long trip distances. On the other hand for metro systems it is more important with even 10 minute headways contributing to excessive variability for large volumes of short trips. What you see above is a 'best guess' average for the Melbourne suburban system. Much of it is based on social media and other posts about train frequencies. That is you rarely hear objections to high frequencies but you often do for low frequencies such as the 30 or 40 minute gaps that exist on most of the suburban network at certain times. 

If this holds true then some great opportunities present themselves. Going from every 40 to every 20 minutes is adding 1.5 trains per hour each way. Going from every 30 to every 20 or every 20 to every 15 minutes is adding 1 train per hour each way. In all cases maximum waits (and thus travel time variability) is greatly reduced, as are likely complaints. 

In contrast, going from (say) 9 to 12 trains per hour is more expensive (3 trains per  hour more) and is unlikely to make as big an inroads into complaints (unless the higher frequency is required to relieve crowding). 

The moral is that governments wishing to generate goodwill in an election year would do well to start by cutting the maximum waits across the whole network first. After they are low then you can consider other frequency upgrades. This has lessons for the current government that has tended to avoid even small frequency boosts with the new Metro Tunnel timetable getting a less warm reception than it might have due to previous over-selling coupled with under-delivery of service on less favoured lines where 30 and 40 minute gaps remain common. 

The recommendation going forward is to get as many train lines as possible down to a 20 minute maximum wait - as opposed to the widespread 30 or 40 minutes. This was done for Werribee, Williamstown and Frankston in 2021. There wasn't anything more on Metro lines for 5 years but the 2025 state budget funded Craigieburn and Upfield with implementation later this year. 

This then leaves Mernda, Hurstbridge and Sandringham (maximum 40 minute gaps) and Belgrave, Lilydale, Glen Waverley, Alamein (maximum 30 minute gaps) to resolve. For context Sydney has a maximum 15 minute wait at most stations while Perth's maximum is 15 minutes at every station during the day all week, dropping to 30 min after about 8 or 9pm. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

UN 221: New era for rail travel in Melbourne - Introducing Metro Frequent 130

Melbourne is getting its first day and night frequent rail line on February 1. 

Trains run every 10 minutes or better for over 130 hours of the week at 22 stations. 

I've called the concept 'Metro Frequent 130'. 

Learn about its benefits and extension prospects here.

See other Useful Network items here

TT 220: Bonuses and blunders in Metro Tunnel bus timetables

The Metro Tunnel and other train timetables came out a week ago with bus timetables a little later. 

Four are of special interest. Here's my quick run through them. 

New east-west Route 241

Parkville was the main area that got bus reform to tie in with the new station there. In 2024 there were major frequency upgrades for the 505 and 546. Coming up on February 1 is the new route 241. This replaces the now redundant 403 Footscray - Parkville university shuttle and the less important 401 and 202 routes with a new Route 241, which unlike the others, also runs weekends. Route 241 is effectively a longer merging of the 401 and 202 with the offspring inheriting 202's 10 minute service but lacking 401's very high frequency (which was less necessary given the Footscray - Parkville option provided by the Metro Tunnel). 

It will join the exclusive club of 7 day bus routes that enjoy a 10 minute or better service on weekdays (the only others being 235, 246 and 402). And by rolling three five day routes into one seven day route there's a welcome improvement in network legibility. 

Route 241 becomes the southernmost inner northern east-west route with eventual connections to trains across Melbourne on all but two groups. Weekend service on the 241 is provided with a 30 minute service during the day. This is average to above average as far as Melbourne weekend bus frequencies go. However it does not evenly mesh with most train lines that are typically every 20 minutes. Its early finish also means that it does not meet the 9pm minimum service standard for buses, especially on weekends. 

What really stands out with Route 241 is that most of Melbourne's train and tram network is just one change away from it. Few people will travel end to end but it should get substantial usage for short trips in a high demand area that had poor east-west transport. And its 10 minute frequency will make such short trips practical on weekdays (less so weekends due to its lower frequency). Still it should be a patronage success that gets it further service upgrades.   

More night trips on the 402

Long-established route that gains a new rail connection at Parkville. One of Melbourne's three (now four) seven day routes that run every 10 minutes on weekdays, the 402 gains some extra later evening trips. These add trips on all days of the week. Key improvements include later Monday to Saturday finishes with service extended to nearly 11pm. In addition weekend evening frequency improves from every 40 to every 30 minutes while Sunday morning service starts a little earlier. 

The 402 is bit like the new 241 in that it connects a huge number of train and tram lines across Melbourne's inner inner north from Footscray to East Melbourne. It has enjoyed a welcome trajectory of service improvements in the last 10-15 years with this being just the latest. 

The botched 250 and 251 timetable 

250 and 251 are long-established routes that overlap between the CBD and Northcote. From there they branch off with 250 going to La Trobe University and 251 to Northland. A staple feature of their timetable had been even spacing to provide a combined 10 minute frequency on weekdays, 15 minutes on Saturdays and 20 minutes on Sundays on the substantial common section (partly an old cable tram route). 

Unfortunately the February 1 timetable destroys this with the Saturday timetable (for example) having two buses every 30 minutes rather than the previous even bus every 15 minutes, effectively halving the service and reducing bus occupancy. The new timetables haven't started yet but politicians are already starting to get complaints about them.   

With poor punctuality there may have been a case to retimetable these routes. However Transport Victoria should have specified (and ensured) that the existing offset so important to provide a frequent service was preserved. 

It's not often that Transport Victoria gets timetables so badly wrong but they did in this case. Hopefully it gets changed soon to restore the even service frequency on this popular corridor*). The last major metropolitan error (in my view) was last year's 513/514 timetable changes that made catching buses on Bell St (one of Melbourne's main roads) more complicated. 

(*) Postcript 1 February 2026: The timetable did get changed to make spacing more (but not completely) even. 

Other buses and coaches

Kinetic routes 246 and 350 will also get new timetables on February 1. Apart from that the vast majority of bus time changes on that date will be regional in areas like Bendigo, Castlemaine, Gippsland and more. Amongst other things this change restores connectivity in the Churchill area that got broken in the previous timetable change.  

We don't hear much about V/Line coaches but a large number of routes also get time changes. This makes sense as connections between (typically less frequent) regional trains and coaches are absolutely critical (rather than 'nice to haves') so it's understandable these get first priority. 

We are promised more metropolitan bus timetable changes later this year. To quote from that "We'll link more buses between Melbourne's outer and middle suburbs, and improve connections across the network.". Its curious wording that may leave the door open for not just timetable changes but route changes too. The phased sequencing of these changes may be similar to what was done in early 2021 where revised bus timetables came in three stages.

All up changes to more than 270 bus and coach timetables are proposed to better coordinate with Metro Tunnel services. 

Trams too?

There is not currently news of any tram timetable changes happening on Big Switch Day (or any day thereafter). Trams generally do not currently coordinate with train timetables. For example it is common for trams every 20 min at night to intersect with trains every 30 min, meaning the best connections repeat only hourly. And there are a lot of 12 minute tram headways. 

Back in October the premier greatly talked up the 'Big Switch' timetable changes, saying that tram timetables were part of it so news of these may well come out later. Watch her announcement in the first minute of this Taitset/Philip Mallis video.  

On the other hand there may be a case to 'wait and see' to examine the effect that the Metro Tunnel has on tram usage (especially the Swanston and Elizabeth St corridors) and, armed with this data, adjust timetables then.  

Summary

These bus changes involve one big good thing (the new 241), one small good thing (the 402 upgrade) and one big bad thing (the 250/251 timetable). They are not however transformative on a metropolitan-wide scale. But future changes may or may not be. We await with interest. 

See all Timetable Tuesday items here

TT 219: Metro Tunnel timetables released

The new Metro Tunnel timetables were released yesterday. They can be viewed on the Transport Victoria or Metro Trains website (select a date from Feb 1). The premier's media release is here. 

What's in it for Metro tunnel lines

They were pretty much as people expected - that is a 10 min maximum wait through the Metro Tunnel core with no more than 20 minute waits at the Pakenham, Cranbourne and Sunbury ends. The actual limits of the 10 minute service from first to last train is Dandenong to West Footscray, as mapped below. The 130 hours per week of frequent service on this section will be far more than on any other line.  

The feared West Footscray turnback is (thankfully) inactive most of the day. But it comes out to play its ping-pong game at nights and on Sunday mornings. Thus Tottenham to Watergardens (including the much-hyped Sunshine Super Hub) has frequent service during the day but not at night or Sunday mornings. At these times train termini alternate between Sunbury and West Footscray (not Watergardens).

The Tottenham - Watergardens portion gets about 90 hours worth of frequent service per week. That's 40 hours less than West Footscray but about the same as the Frankston line gets now. It's a big step up from the current 30 to 40 minute maximum waits but doesn't quite give the full frequent service day and night Metro Tunnel experience. At 15 hours the weekday frequent service on this section slightly exceeds the gradually emerging 14 hour rule for span of frequent service. Weekends though is much less with 9 hours of frequent service offered (approximately 10am - 7pm).  Booting passengers off every second train arrival at West Footscray at night will become a less enjoyable part of the Metro driver and staff work there.    

Town Hall will be open and served by all Metro Tunnel trains. The Night Network will operate through the Metro Tunnel but will skip Arden, Parkville, State Library and Anzac. Tram options are available nearby but this presents a legibility issue, especially for those needing to travel before about 7:30am on Sundays. Expect calls for at least Parkville and possibly Anzac to open earlier on Sunday mornings due to significant resident and/or hospital worker populations. And there is precedent - when it opened and for many years after not all City Loop stations were open on weekends whereas now they all are (although not for Night Network). 

These blemishes aside, these are historically big service changes on a network that has had too few of them in the last decade or so. This timetable adds the first new 7 day frequent rail corridor to the network since 2014 and the first in Melbourne's west. Weekday peaks will be even more frequent at most stations. This will transform the way people use trains on a major corridor and (hopefully) start a chain of upgrades on other lines.

The 'Big Switch' may be better thought of as switching on a series of service upgrades rather than transforming everything in one go as the premier's release of 7 October 2025 (in my view ill-advisedly) raised expectations about. Minister Gabrielle Williams has made encouraging noises about future service increases on this Reddit thread (that attracted responses wanting more frequency across the network). 

What's in it for other lines 

The Werribee, Craigieburn and Frankston line get a few extra trips with the latter returning to the City Loop. Upgrades to Werribee, Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham lines as funded in the 2025 state budget are not a part of these timetables but will be delivered in the middle of the year. 

The Mernda, Hurstbridge, Belgrave, Lilydale, Alamein and Glen Waverley timetables are not changing. These have some of the longest waits on the network with notable examples including Belgrave and Lilydale (30 min gaps midday on a weekday) and Mernda and Hurstbridge (40 min gaps on Sunday morning).

Unlike Perth, where every station has maximum 15 minute gaps Monday to Sunday during the day, Melbourne has an increasingly two tier rail network with some parts frequent and other parts not. Level crossing removals raised expectations of significant service uplifts but these remain unfulfilled to the extent that when the government tries to sells its other rail projects (including the Metro Tunnel) there's a chorus crying 'What about us?' . All eyes will be on the 2026 state budget for at least a Clifton Hill and Burnley group rail service upgrade package with the busy Craigieburn line also having a strong case.  

This map is a rough summary of the Metro train changes (click for better view). 

There are some V/Line service increases. The new Route 241 bus starts with its routing confirmed as being North Melbourne to Yarra Bend via Arden, Parkville and Victoria Park. Replacing 202, 401 and 403, it will run every 10 minutes weekdays and 30 minutes weekends. Many other bus and coach routes will have time changes with some to happen later in the year. 

Daniel Bowen has gone through many of the details here. Also read the comments. 

Messaging

Given community expectations (often raised by the government itself) it is understandable that early commentary from some has been that the timetables (especially on the non-Metro lines) are underwhelming. 

The government has been calling this timetable change the 'Big Switch', as if everything was going to be rosy after February 1. While it is undeniable that many timetables are changing and it is a huge workload for the department, it is also true that the impact on services for those away from lines served by the Metro Tunnel range between nil and modest.

Transport Victoria is promoting the timetables under the 'More Ways to Move' slogan with a video summarising them here.  

Wider benefits and delivery of Business Case service plan

Something I got from the above video was that the Metro Tunnel's wider network benefits are framed in terms of more reliability and less platform crowding. As opposed to freeing up space for higher frequency services on other lines, which despite this being a major rationale for the project, is mostly not happening (at least in this timetable change). 

Have we got from this timetable what was proposed in the Business Case? It depends. The Business Case relied on the substitution of trips from other modes such as driving and trams and network effect to justify the project's construction. Network effects are maximised if intersecting lines operate frequently enough to enable always good connections. If intersecting lines are not boosted or trams are left as they are then the Metro Tunnel can't realise all its expected benefits.  

Consequently the 2016 Business Case included not just frequent service on the busy central part of the Metro Tunnel's own line but also on other lines including Craigieburn, Upfield and Sandringham. It did not provide for frequent service between West Footscray and Watergardens, possibly because there would have been a wish to keep options open for Sunshine including Airport Rail and V/Line electrification to Melton and/or Wyndham Vale. The Business Case was also done a few years after the Network Development Plan. That was based on continuing metropolitan rail timetable upgrades that, apart from some modest improvements in 2021, were not of interest to a government preferring to build infrastructure first. 

Yesterday's Metro Tunnel timetable takes a different tack. The Metro Tunnel ended up being completed before any of the various airport rail, Melton or Wyndham Vale schemes that otherwise would have used train paths between Sunshine and the CBD got off the ground. Thus, unlike the NDP, the Business Case or the worries I expressed here, the Metro Tunnel timetable does included ten minute frequencies to Watergardens (for most of the day, Monday to Sunday). This is a big win on a busy section of the network. The government was right to insist on this otherwise it would have been an embarrassment.   

However other parts of the Business Case plan to expand the 10 minute frequent network aren't happening. Craigieburn and Upfield were removed from the lines slated to get a 10 minute frequency. Assisted by funding in the 2025 state budget, Sandringham will happen but not on Day 1 due to a wish to through-route to Newport whose lines are currently the subject of level crossing removal works. 

Taking all that into account means that on February 1 some 35 fewer stations will have off peak service every 10 min or better than was envisaged in the Business Case. However when Sandringham comes on stream in mid 2026 that gap will drop to 22 fewer. Click below for more details. 

Conclusion

To sum up the more frequent Metro Tunnel timetable is at least as significant as the new stations in making the Sunbury, Pakenham and Cranbourne lines much more useful.

West Footscray to Dandenong will become Melbourne's first frequent train corridor to operates every 10 minutes or better first to last train, that is about 18 hours a day including weekends. This is truly big - existing frequent corridors such as to Frankston and Dandenong feature such frequent service over only about a 8 or 9 hour span, meaning that there would be a lot of trips that people would enjoy frequent service in one direction but not both.   

The expansion of the frequent network gives some needed momentum that will hopefully generate upgrades on other lines. And the simple through-running free of loop reversals or transposals will hopefully set the standard for other lines, especially the cross-city group when that revives as Sandringham to Newport in a few months, then greenfields timetables on other groups and finally the City Loop Reconfiguration. 

Index to Timetable Tuesday items here

EVERYTHING I've written about the Metro Tunnel

Excitement is building over the 'real' Metro Tunnel opening - that is when it becomes part of the regular rail network with frequent service day and night - on February 1, 2026.

Why the anticipation?

There is a particularly high anticipation with regards to the timetables we will get. I put this down to these reasons:

a. The government has been cagey about releasing even basic service specifications for the frequencies we'll get (the most official thing we've had to go on is the service plan 2016 Metro Tunnel Business Case which was done pre pandemic under a very different transport patronage and policy context).  

b. Low frequencies on most of the Metro network most of the day that shape its role and how useful it is. Going from 2 to 6 trains per hour or 14 to 18 trains per hour is the same service increase but the former is transformative while the latter merely adds some capacity. Timetables are thus more important on less frequent lines. 

c. The government's decade-long record of growing Metro service frequencies at a rate slower than population increase, as if they were hoarding them for something big later. That also means pent up expectations for when boosts do happen. 

d. Official communication that attributes the Metro service increases that happened to the infrastructure program  (even off-peak ones that did not need said infrastructure to implement)

e. Government advertising and media building up expectations such as posters saying 'more trains more often across Melbourne' and the premier promising a new timetable everywhere,  

Varying expectations

My observations when talking to people is that expectations on the service we'll get after the 'Big Switch' on February 1 vary greatly.

Those close to the project or who follow state transport and politics closely have had their expectations tempered. They may shrug their shoulders but won't be too surprised when the February 1 'Big Switch' timetables come out. After all peak travel patterns (especially) have changed since the pandemic and Melbourne's commuter-oriented and often bus replaced train network has been slow to build back patronage. This government also has a reputation for adding about the least amount of Metro service it can get away with after previous infrastructure works (although V/Line has fared much better). 

However those not close to the project or the industry (ie the 'punters' and 'normies') take promises at face value, hope that big projects will 'do the right thing' and only 'tune in' occasionally. Their expectations have not been tempered like insiders' have. So they may turn angry if what was perceived as a promise ends up not happening, even if those closer knew this all along. 

An example is this Radio 3AW story on Belgrave/Lilydale not getting a new timetable that aired on December 30 2025. Insiders could have told you that being separate the Burnley (and Clifton Hill) group were unlikely to get anything during the 'Big Switch' as it's more usual to implement timetables in stages to  match delivery capacity and manage risks. But public perception and expectations may be different, especially if fuelled by the government's own messaging (which as recent as January 3, 2026 said there would be Mernda and Hurstbridge timetable changes). Such over-selling poses a political risk for the government (in an election year no less) if what should be a huge 'good news' story acquires some unnecessary negatives, exacerbated by a - e above.    

For what it's worth, below are my own expectations of what will happen on February 1 (and later in 2026). Click for a clearer view. 

This item is only about scheduled service levels but I should flag reliability as a reputational risk for the Metro Tunnel. Unlike Sydney's Metro (which is an isolated independent system) the Metro Tunnel feeds suburban lines from both directions, so is subject to their problems. While the government has removed level crossings along them, there are still other reliability and infrastructure risks, as we have seen during recent hot weather. And even with relatively small disruptions the continuity of frequent service in the Metro Tunnel is quite fragile as it just needs one train not to run for it to have 20 minute gaps in the middle of the day. 

What I've written about the Metro Tunnel (date order)

If you can only read a few, see these ones first.

9 November 2021 How frequently will Metro Tunnel timetables run?
10 December 2021 The bus and tram network the Metro Tunnel needs (in 3 parts)
6 May 2022 What could we do with 1% more Metro trains? 
27 March 2023 Network Development Plan Metropolitan Rail - 10 years since public release

3 March 2024 Melbourne's busiest stations and how Metro Tunnel could benefit them
5 March 2024 How will the Metro Tunnel benefit your line? (runs through capacity promises by line) 
21 March 2024 PT service levels - Are we better served now?
1 April 2024 Read this one at your own risk!

18 April 2024 More guessing on our post Metro Tunnel timetables (look through the Business Case)
8 May 2024 2024-25 State Budget Special - what PT got
1 October 2024 Busy but service starved - which train lines?
28 November 2024 A look inside Anzac station
5 June 2025 How the Metro Tunnel could aid bayside bus reform

10 June 2025 More Trains More Often and Metro Tunnel prospects
25 September 2025 Werribee Fast Rail - our second Metro?
8 October 2025 Metro Tunnel opening - What's happening when?

10 October 2025 15 years since Melbourne's first 10 min frequent train line (Metro Tunnel will add 2nd)
2 December 2025 Metro Tunnel has opened - some videos (includes my main Metro Tunnel video)
4 December 2025 What to do about Richmond, South Yarra and North Melbourne
1 January 2026 Welcome to 2026

So when will we see the Metro Tunnel timetables? Normally TV's website publishes new timetables early Friday afternoons. With the build up of the Now We're Moving / More Ways To Move campaigns, this Friday (16 January) could be a hot prospect. In past cases there have been media releases the day before new timetables emerge so keep checking the premier's website too. 

Youth Myki is here - but pity about the Transport Victoria website!

Every single state Labor MP up to and including the premier has gone into overdrive promoting the free statewide travel for under 18s that applies from January 1, 2026.

Why wouldn't they? It could save people money and it's an election year after all! 

The problem arises with what happens next. Let's assume people do as the advertising tells them to do and try to learn more on the Transport Victoria website.

Let's also assume this is part of getting ready for the new year. People might start school, change schools, switch jobs, get older and a myriad of other things that causes a change of travel habits with implications for public transport ticketing. There may be non-typical travel such as during holidays and to special events  like the Australian Open. There also needs to be messaging over Christmas and New Years travel arrangements, not to mention the annual 1 January CPI fare rise. 

Most of the above happens every year, though albeit with additional complexities in 2025-26 due to (i) the Youth Myki introduction, (ii) weekend free travel extensions for Seniors and (iii) the Metro Tunnel opening and associated free weekend travel promotions over December-January.

Still, all this was known and planned in advance. So there are no excuses for DTP/Transport Victoria not to get everything sorted, including website information and messaging. Especially given all the media and public interest generated.  

Transport Victoria ticketing website a mess

On this the Myki types section of the Transport Victoria website is an absolute binfire that has only got worse since the January 1 Youth Myki introduction. 

Suppose you are a parent or guardian of three children aged 17, 18 and 19. 

Each should be old enough to work out which myki they need. But for this exercise suppose that you try it. The 17 year old is probably the easiest, the 19 year old's ticket will depend on their circumstances while the 18 year old's arrangements should be much easier to find out about than it is.

Though even for the 17 year old you may still be fumbling. For example if you saw the publicity about free and 17 year old then you might think that clicking free travel myki would help. But no it doesn't. Although 17 year olds get free travel it's not explained here as the Youth Myki they need is somewhere else. It affects only a small minority but the section below on home-schooled students introduces unnecessary ambiguity. 

Then there's the blurb for each myki type you see when deciding which to select. Sometimes that tells you what a ticket does (eg Concession) but in other cases it tells you who it is for. The text for Youth Myki "Choose the myki that best suits your eligibility and travel requirements" is actually duplicated  at the top of the Myki types page so adds no further information. Having 'Mobile Myki' on this page possibly adds another layer of confusion.  

Knowing which Myki to buy should be a 10 second decision. Instead Transport Victoria makes it 10 minutes (or more) with no guarantee people will get it right. 

Transport Victoria's fares and ticketing messaging really needs to be clear and watertight because adverse consequences can result including heavy fines (the human impacts of which should be especially understood post Robodebt).

Other risks can arise from appeals being successful, the poor perception of AOs and fare compliance collapsing (as we have already seen on buses). This has serious consequences for both goodwill and foregone revenue for the public transport network that DTP apparently willingly leaves on the table. 

If the law basically says "ignorance is no excuse" when it comes to fare infractions then there should be a concomitant obligation on DTP to make all reasonable attempts to explain ticketing well.

Even a cursory glance at the Transport Victoria website shows that they have failed here with this becoming more complex in the older teenager range (with youth justice implications here too).

While the legal instrument is the gazetted Victorian Fares and Ticketing Conditions 2026 manual, 99.9% of people will be relying on the above Transport Victoria website, especially given the gradual phase-out of brochures that used to explain ticketing conditions. Those relying on the Transport Victoria website include transport operator staff who may be asked for advice on tickets to buy. As well as others in social and community services who may have a non-transport background. 

The ticket type for you

Having established that Transport Victoria does not do its job of simply and concisely explain suitable Myki card types, is it possible for someone else to have a go?

Sometimes the task is impossible. For example public holiday arrangements for Melbourne buses are inherently so complex that it require a thesis-length essay to explain. Transport Victoria sometimes tries but often get it wrong. TV should do better but the root cause lies in the complexity of arrangements (that no one has yet found the couple of million dollars per year to fix, although 2025-26 finally saw the end of reduced summer weekday timetables with routes 503 and 506 being the hold-outs). 

Happily Myki types are simpler. It's true that there are various non-myki free travel passes and other tickets (mainly used for regional areas). But for overwhelming majority of passengers in places where about 90% of Victorians live it's not too complex. 

Unlike Transport Victoria, which shies away from graphics to explain things, I have no such constraints. Here's my go at explaining Myki types available:    

It misses some things (like where to buy Myki cards, non-card options and fare types) but I think it still tells quite a lot. 

If you wanted to distil this down to a series of question (such as if you prefer flow charts or are handling a telephone enquiry) you would start with asking the person's age. 

This narrows it down a lot. Because there are certain age groups (most notably all under 19s) for which there is just one ticket option. That ticket option is a Youth Myki for those under 18 and a Concession Myki for those in the 18 to 19 range, regardless of circumstance. Those turning 19 flip to full fare unless they can demonstrate continued eligibility for concession fares (eg being a local full time student). 

Over 60s are almost as simple. In all but a few cases they would have a Seniors Card and thus the appropriate concession. An even smaller number (not shown) are the full time working Seniors whose income is low enough to get a concession.  

That leaves those between 19 and 60 that are overwhelmingly either full or concession fare myki. This requires further questions, such as asking about student status (mostly for younger people) or various other concession eligibility. And there is what is effectively a subsection of concession fare myki that gives similar free weekend travel privileges that Seniors get. 

Summary

Transport Victoria has excelled in meeting the low expectations people have of its website. 

Especially in public transport fares and ticketing - a high profile area that is politically sensitive and involves legal enforcement.  

As is possible, TV could and should be doing much better in explaining ticketing to people, especially given recent changes, and especially at this time of year. 

UN 220: Welcome to 2026!

Happy new year!

Like this day in 2025 I'll run through what you most liked reading here and then talk about the challenges and opportunities facing the government in public transport for 2026. 

What you liked reading about in 2025

Melbourne on Transit had a record year in 2025. Views over the year reached 669000 - more than double last year's 285000. Despite fewer posts, December 2025 was the busiest month on record, closely followed by November 2025. Thanks all for reading. 

Anticipation about and items on the Metro Tunnel helped drive this readership spike. Possibly assisted by the state government being a bit cagey on the service levels we'll get. That may have led to people looking for alternative sources for information (or even speculation) such as sometimes provided here. 

Notwithstanding that the most read item in 2025 was my Sydney versus Melbourne comparison on who has the better transport. Sydney had been way ahead. The Metro Tunnel will give Melbourne a lift but we're nowhere near to matching Sydney until we boost frequencies across all modes. 

As for the Metro Tunnel's benefits, two items from 2024 were highly read in 2025. These looked at whether the Metro Tunnel benefited service at our busiest stations and Metro Tunnel benefits for your line. An October 2025 item, setting out what's happening when for the Metro Tunnel was also popular. 

Another popular theme was the frequent network. Here I take an integrated approach describing it as a 'thing'. This is a different approach to the current emphasis on major projects with frequency merely being a welcome (but sometimes undersold) by-product that happens if they are feeling generous. The three popular items here are (unsurprisingly) the main landing page for the network frequency maps I maintain, a more visionary item on a future frequent network and a look at why frequency is critical to increasing public transport's currently slow door to door speeds. 

Boosting frequency costs money if extra service kilometres need to be added. But there are cases where you can get effective service boosts by simplifying and reforming bus networks. A 2020 item on how Perth reforms buses at a faster rate than Melbourne remained popular last year. 

Rounding off the most popular reads was my 2024 look at the executives who run DTP. I attribute some of that to bureaucrats reading about themselves (or their bosses). If you liked that item you'll also want to read my 2025 follow-up here as there have been some changes.  


Reflections on 2025

There were three major development in 2025. Let's go through them. 

New infrastructure opened

2025 was the year in which two transport mega projects opened to the public - one road and the other rail. I'm talking about the West Gate Tunnel and Metro Tunnel with videos on the latter here. 

Level crossing removals continued. Amongst other things these proved beyond doubt the superiority of elevated over trench rail in many cases. For example Parkdale's "skyrail" success confounded former critics with the project clearly improving local permeability. Whereas Edithvale, Bonbeach and (especially) Chelsea people a down the line never really warmed to their treeless heat island trenches that replaced one divide with another and needlessly extended walking distances. This record shows that good decisions can sometimes arise from governments courageously ignoring then-conventional wisdom (including from some on their own side).  

Did the new rail infrastructure lead to service increases as was used as justification for these projects getting funding? We don't completely know yet but, with the 'Big Switch' for the Metro Tunnel in one month today we should know in a couple of weeks. More about the future later. 

Setback for transport's biggest project.. but there's hope

2025 was a year in which key events and when we knew about them do not always happen in sequence. Appreciation of the order in which things happen is essential to form correct conclusions. Noting that governments have significant scope to withhold or at least delay information. 

Such a fate befell what I would regard as Melbourne's biggest transport project (as measured by number of trips generated and geographical coverage). Comprehensive bus reform has potential to generate about 80 million annual trips, making projects like North East Link, West Gate Tunnel and SRL East look small in comparison.  

By mid 2023 I had surmised that the most important part of Victoria's 1663 day old Bus Plan (that dealing with bus network reform and service upgrades) was probably dead. This was based on there being no sign of the Bus Reform Implementation Plan that was meant to add meat to what I then said was a vague 'plan for a plan'. 

A year or two prior there was scope for optimism including some bus service upgrades in late 2021, some more funded in the 2022 state budget and finally major bus network reviews across Melbourne's north and north-east announced just before that year's state election. Under Minister Carroll words like 'bus reform' made it into budget documents; something that was not the case under previous ministers Horne and Allan.   

Labor was returned with a big majority in the 2022 election. Nothing more was heard about the bus network reviews. The May 2023 state budget spent more on free car registration for apprentice tradies than on new bus initiatives. 

There was nothing public from the government that they had ditched bus reform but it was fair to conclude this based on what the budget did and did not fund. Such a view was confirmed by 2024's budget that had just one new metropolitan bus upgrade funded (Route 800 in Dandenong). Otherwise it looked as if the Department was unable to win support for the sort of ambitious style of bus network reform that the Bus Plan had raised expectations on just a few years prior.  

The above was previously known but doesn't tell the full story. In 2025 we got to know more thanks to a tabling in parliament of internal DTP bus planning documents following a motion from Trung Luu MLC. The motion was passed in March 2024.

It apparently took 18 months for the department to find and collate the relevant papers for tabling in September 2025. Some documents were partly or entirely Cabinet in Confidence so we don't know everything. Nearly 2000 pages were arranged in three stacks of documents, depending on whether the public could see all of them, parts only or none of them (the latter being Cabinet documents). 

From that I pieced together a chronology of significant developments in bus reform that you can see below (click for a better view).

There were apparently two occasions that bus reform came to Cabinet's attention. That included advice to it in April 2022 and an apparent rejection (possibly as part of wider deliberations for the May 2024 state budget) in late 2023. The eighteen or so months in that period saw significant planning work done by DTP with some farmed out to external consultants.  

Key elements included what was called B1 corridors - bus rapid transit corridors running every 5 - 10 minutes. Adding these fast routes would vastly multiply the number of connection points, making for a more versatile network, especially for cross-suburban travel. 

The next layer down was B2 connector bus routes operating every 10 minutes along a main road grid spaced about 1.6km apart. Most people would be within walking distance of at least one of these faster and more direct routes. 

Both BRT and connector routes would be rolled out over a staged program extending to 2030. New networks in pilot areas in Melbourne's north and north-east would have commenced in early 2025. 

Such a revised network would likely attract new patronage due to longer hours and shorter waits although trade-offs such as increased walking distances and a need to change would exist for some trips. The implications of this were studied as were other topics such as comparative per capita resourcing for bus services across Australia and their low social licence, particularly in Melbourne. 

If implemented this revamped bus network would be easily Melbourne's biggest transport project based on its likely  usage and 4 million-plus geographical coverage. It would make the much debated airport rail, with its two added train stations, look small. My analysis on the tabled documents led to several media appearances, summarised here. 

We may have to wait years until we know Cabinet's reason for not proceeding with large-scale bus network reform as proposed and promised. It could be a wariness of political risk, a lack of funding or thinking that a complex reform takes a long time to do and a different approach could enable roll-out of a more limited set of upgrades before the 2026 election.

However what is known is that not all Cabinet ministers are alive to the potential of improved buses as part of a multimodal public transport network. SRL Minister Harriet Shing's dismissive comment about 'buses not solving any problems whatsoever' in a recent Dunn Street Socially Democratic interview may authentically reflect thinking not uncommon in this government. 

While ambitious bus reform was off the agenda, the government tried to keep up appearances. For example every small change to a bus route or timetable was described as being part of the Bus Plan. Most were good but one or two were not, such as the revised complicated 513/514 timetables that replaced the promised but even sillier Greensborough FlexiRide. 

DTP's canny former Secretary Paul Younis was spinning like a DJ at PAEC, with delays and presentation tricks to foil questioners.  GAIC developer taxes were used to temporarily fund more growth area bus upgrades. Meanwhile the document that really counts, the 2025 state budget, had much more for upgraded metropolitan buses across Melbourne's west and north than austere 2023 and 2024 budgets. 

Thus both can be accepted as correct in 2025:

(i) the state government abandoned promised large-scale bus reform as envisaged in the Bus Plan, and (ii) state government interest in bus service upgrades as demonstrated by the budget for new initiatives was significantly higher in 2025 than it was in the previous two state budgets. 

Also happening in 2025 on the bus scene was continued progress on electrification with new operator contracts that made big companies bigger while squeezing out small operators, especially in northern suburbs. 

The rise of community bus service campaigns

While the government was backtracking on its big bus ideas the community was stepping up. The first of these new breed of area-based campaigns was that from FOE's Sustainable Cities who launched its Better Buses campaign in September 2021. This pivoted to Melbourne's west in 2022. 

Fix800Bus emerged on the other side of Melbourne just before the 2022 state election. That election was not particularly prominent for public transport services with the agenda a mix of big infrastructure (Labor) and crime (Coalition). Labor had its then vague bus plan, Greens had an equally vague bus electrification plan while the Liberals were more specific but did not strongly market the policy. 

So neither campaign got much out of the 2022 campaign that saw Labor win with a large majority. However the resignation of premier Daniel Andrews and treasurer Tim Pallas led to by-elections in Mulgrave (2023) and Werribee (2025). Both campaigns made good use of these by-elections, winning an increased profile and being taken seriously by the state government. This resulted in bus upgrades being funded in 2024 (800 in Dandenong) and 2025 (various Werribee and Tarneit improvements). The upgraded Route 800 has been running long enough to demonstrate that if you upgrade the right routes you can get very strong patronage gains that make the improved funding great value for money. 

More recently there has been increased community interest from the northern suburbs in improved bus services. Possibly as there are some well used routes and the area was snubbed by the proposed but now abandoned bus reviews. Climate Action Merri-bek has stepped up interest in transport and buses too. While transport in the north has historically had a lower profile than the more vocal west, the north got some transport budget wins in 2025 including halved maximum waits for Craigieburn and Upfield line trains, Sunday service on the 536 bus and a significant bus package across Craigieburn, Wollert and Epping. 

The result is that as we come in to 2026 (a state election year) there are established transport campaigns in the west, north and south-east of Melbourne. With a closer election forecast this should put transport advocacy in a stronger position than it was in 2022. 

Challenges and opportunities for public transport in 2026

Metro Tunnel Big Switch

The Metro Tunnel technically opened in 2025 but it's not until this day next month that it will become a full part of the public transport network. 

This will see what the government is calling the 'Big Switch', delivering (at least) major all week frequency upgrades on the Watergardens - Dandenong corridor and full-time rail access to the Parkville, Anzac and Arden precincts. 

The Labor government will be hoping that this (and the also recently opened West Gate Tunnel) restores its popularity as the public experiences the results of its massive infrastructure program and construction disruptions recede into memory.  

The vox pop about 3/4 into this Philip Mallis video confirmed the desirability of high frequency - not just on the Metro Tunnel but also intersecting lines. 

There was an outpouring of excitement on Day 1 of the limited timetable Metro Tunnel on November 30. However even that was slightly tempered due to uncertainty over the service levels we'll get with the 'Big Switch' timetable starting on February 1, 2026. Likely amplified by somewhat variable communication (eg promises of a 'new timetable everywhere') and this government's decade-long parsimony on metropolitan rail frequencies.  

A summary of timetables to change on February 1 is here and tabulated below. 

Radio 3AW did a story on potential 'Big Switch' rail timetables that you can listen to here.

There will no doubt be clarification and then release of the timetables we'll get later this month.

There will likely be people asking about further staged upgrades such as the Werribee, Sandringham, Craigieburn and Upfield improvements funded in the 2025 state budget and hopefully also word of progress on the remaining lines to honour the 'new timetable everywhere' promise.

Opportunities for the government to mention these might come just after the Big Switch, in the May 2026 state budget (which would aid credibility due to actual funding), or, if they are dragging the chain, merely in the form of a promise during the election campaign later in the year. 

Bus and rail service upgrades

Especially in a budget constrained context where there may not be very many (if any) large capital works projects announced, improved bus and train services is a cost-effective way to distribute the benefits of improved transport across a large number of seats (not unlike the level crossing program).

While it involves largely operational rather than capital expenditure, the amounts involved are relatively small, especially if they involve working the existing fleet harder or some judicious reform of overlapping duplicative routes. These days a $2b spend might be a fraction of a major project in one area whereas $100m pa could buy a significant bus upgrade package across Melbourne and/or reduced maximum waits for trains on popular lines.

Community support for some of the above might be aided by the growth of various campaigns mentioned above. Also while the government has been lucky to have had an opposition beset with its own problems, it does have vulnerabilities (including infrastructure in growth areas and transport service levels Melbourne-wide) that any rejuvenated opposition or local independents might challenge them on. 

Summary 

With the Metro Tunnel properly open, a pre-election state budget and then the election campaign itself, 2026 promises to be an interesting year. 

It won't be without challenges with likely continued budgetary pressures. 

Hopefully this means that there'll be less of the gimmicks and more of the substance to make public transport a more useful and popular option that more Victorians will choose to use. 

See other Useful Network items here