Executive summary: The state government risks setting the Suburban Rail Loop up to fail if it takes advice from a planning committee that has a poor understanding of the bus services needed to effectively get people to its stations. It should instead heed those with an understanding of multimodal public transport planning to be assured of maximising the patronage and mode shift benefits of the SRL.
An expert committee set up to advise the Planning Minister on the Suburban Rail Loop and its precincts has published a series of reports on certain topics of importance to the role and success of the project.
SRL East Precincts Standing Advisory Committee
Planning Minister Sonya Kilkenny referred several matters to the Suburban Rail Loop East Precincts Standing Advisory Committee (SRLEPSAC) in July 2025.
One of those matters is mode shift. Which is effectively SRL's ability or otherwise to transform transport from being driving-dominated to a pattern that is more multi-modal with higher shares for public and active transport.
The Committee includes one Lead Chair, nine (!) Deputy Chairs and fourteen other members. They are heavily drawn from urban planning and legal backgrounds with a few engineers thrown in. Many have worked for local government or as private consultants. However public transport operations or planning backgrounds appear rarer, something that may be influential as you'll see later.
It has published nine reports so far. This includes overarching reports for (a) Summary and approach, (b) Common issues and (c) General matters plus specific reports for each of the six proposed SRL stations.
These reports give an idea on official thinking and advice to the Planning Minister. So they need to be scrutinised for rigour and appropriateness, especially as their subject matter includes transport planning.
I'll review the General Matters report later after setting the scene.
Transport and planning policy development
While by name a transport project the state government has stressed that the Suburban Rail Loop is as much if not more about planning and housing.
The Committee includes one Lead Chair, nine (!) Deputy Chairs and fourteen other members. They are heavily drawn from urban planning and legal backgrounds with a few engineers thrown in. Many have worked for local government or as private consultants. However public transport operations or planning backgrounds appear rarer, something that may be influential as you'll see later.
It has published nine reports so far. This includes overarching reports for (a) Summary and approach, (b) Common issues and (c) General matters plus specific reports for each of the six proposed SRL stations.
These reports give an idea on official thinking and advice to the Planning Minister. So they need to be scrutinised for rigour and appropriateness, especially as their subject matter includes transport planning.
I'll review the General Matters report later after setting the scene.
Transport and planning policy development
While by name a transport project the state government has stressed that the Suburban Rail Loop is as much if not more about planning and housing.
Possibly because bringing in the planning dimension allows potential land use changes and value uplifts that (some hope) could part fund SRL through value capture. The housing element taps into current concerns about a tight and expensive rental market. And reframing SRL as a broader project subverts critics who regards it as poor value from a purely transport perspective.
The recent megaproject era also coincides with some change in policy thinking. This is exemplified by the merging of the Planning and Transport departments (as DTP) and the preference for transport to be planned in a wider context.
Hence specific rail, tram and bus plans have withered. They have struggled to attract substantial funding despite tens of billions going to stand-alone 'Big Build' infrastructure projects. There is also no overarching transport plan, something the Auditor-General noted as a Transport Integration Act requirement in 2021. Instead some transport themes (such as the publication of a map of strategic bus corridors) will be picked up in the broader Plan for Victoria.
If this approach drives DTP organisational structures, there is a chance that the staff resourcing for individual modal planning relative to broader precincts planning might change as the department faces pressure to deliver Silver Review cost savings.
If poorly done this poses risks including a loss of internal transport planning expertise and capacity to implement the greenfield rail timetables and bus network reform still needed to realise Big Build benefits. A DTP that is big but weak also risks it having insights that do not sufficiently flow to major projects such as the SRL.
If this approach drives DTP organisational structures, there is a chance that the staff resourcing for individual modal planning relative to broader precincts planning might change as the department faces pressure to deliver Silver Review cost savings.
If poorly done this poses risks including a loss of internal transport planning expertise and capacity to implement the greenfield rail timetables and bus network reform still needed to realise Big Build benefits. A DTP that is big but weak also risks it having insights that do not sufficiently flow to major projects such as the SRL.
The Transport Integration Act 2010 is relevant here. Points that stand out include efficiency, seamless travel within and between modes, integrated decision making and the user experience.
In principle they like the early delivery of bus transport and infrastructure improvements.
BUT
Without evidence the Committee asserts that "many of the precincts are already particularly well served by well-established bus networks".
Essentially they are saying is that buses around the SRL stations already pretty good. And that it's not worth investing more in them to deliver mode shift. So it was preferable to direct resources to active transport instead.
There is no doubt active transport is important, should be improved and that its returns per dollar spent are high (likely more than the SRL itself). The same goes for bus reform. You'll get some benefits from an SRL without bus upgrades but they are limited. Add bus reform and the benefits multiply.
If you were given a choice of three projects (a) SRL only, (b) SRL plus bus reform or (c) bus reform only, no SRL then the case for the last two could be argued but there are no circumstances that an SRL only would represent good value. Essentially upgraded buses is a necessary condition for SRL to succeed with analysis by Mohan Wadia available here.
SRLEPSAC's view is basically the opposite. They don't see buses as an important part of the SRL project. Their comments about the areas around the SRL stations being "particularly well served" by buses are only tenable if they looked at a bus network map, counted the routes and were content at that. As opposed to examining matters such as route directness, operating hours, frequency and legibility to get a fairer assessment.
All revealed serious problems but also great opportunities for a revived bus network, many at low cost. This is directly relevant to the SRL East because, with only 6 stations along its 26km length, many will need to rely on feeder transport such as buses to reach stations (remembering there will be no extra car parking and many live beyond both rail and convenient active transport reach of the SRL stations).
Potential for bus network patronage growth (which addresses both SRL station access and the mode shift question) was further expressed in a speech by then department Secretary Paul Younis who suggested that reformed buses across Melbourne had potential to carry as many people as trams.
This could include matters such as bus stops being located as near as possible to SRL (and other) stations, sufficient capacity for expected service levels (even if not all provided immediately), convenient stop locations in the SRL area (noting that catchments can be 1.6km from stations) and, critically, provision for efficient through routes in multiple directions with strong bus priority.
The latter is extremely important and often overlooked; interchanges that require a bus to backtrack (eg Glen Waverley currently for key routes) waste thousands of hours that is better spent speeding travel and increasing service frequency.
There is only one good answer to the last point about early delivery of bus infrastructure - yes! Because if it is not delivered first-up it never gets done. Which puts a permanent choke on the capacity and catchment of SRL stations and thus the SRL's usage and mode shift potential. Those wishing to take advantage of the SRL's activity centres to live a convenient low-car life are also affected if buses to surrounding local destinations are substandard.
Bus infrastructure requires some idea of a future bus network to define some high capacity corridors. This part under 8.6.3 identifies work done.
Conclusion
Inside the General Issues Report
Of most interest is SRLEPSAC's General Issues Report. Mode shift gets about 20 pages.
I was particularly interested in what it said about access to stations (important if they are to get much use since there are only six on a 26km long line) and the role of various transport modes to enable this.
I was particularly interested in what it said about access to stations (important if they are to get much use since there are only six on a 26km long line) and the role of various transport modes to enable this.
Bus services already good - no improvements needed?
The first mention of buses comes on page 15 of the General Issues report.
The first mention of buses comes on page 15 of the General Issues report.
In principle they like the early delivery of bus transport and infrastructure improvements.
BUT
Without evidence the Committee asserts that "many of the precincts are already particularly well served by well-established bus networks".
Essentially they are saying is that buses around the SRL stations already pretty good. And that it's not worth investing more in them to deliver mode shift. So it was preferable to direct resources to active transport instead.
There is no doubt active transport is important, should be improved and that its returns per dollar spent are high (likely more than the SRL itself). The same goes for bus reform. You'll get some benefits from an SRL without bus upgrades but they are limited. Add bus reform and the benefits multiply.
If you were given a choice of three projects (a) SRL only, (b) SRL plus bus reform or (c) bus reform only, no SRL then the case for the last two could be argued but there are no circumstances that an SRL only would represent good value. Essentially upgraded buses is a necessary condition for SRL to succeed with analysis by Mohan Wadia available here.
SRLEPSAC's view is basically the opposite. They don't see buses as an important part of the SRL project. Their comments about the areas around the SRL stations being "particularly well served" by buses are only tenable if they looked at a bus network map, counted the routes and were content at that. As opposed to examining matters such as route directness, operating hours, frequency and legibility to get a fairer assessment.
If the learned planners who comprise SRLEPSAC did not deign to examine timetables for their widespread hour gaps or (horrors!) try riding some buses, they could have checked recent analysis from reputable sources for an informed view on the bus network.
Indeed Victorian government agencies outside the SRL silo were continually churning out material indicating the need for improved bus services from 2021. Examples include:
Indeed Victorian government agencies outside the SRL silo were continually churning out material indicating the need for improved bus services from 2021. Examples include:
* 2021: Victoria's Bus Plan
* 2022 Announcement of major bus network reform (which in this form later got shelved)
* 2023 Infrastructure Victoria report on buses
* 2024 Detailed bus network analysis by DTP and consultants with this tabled in Parliament
* 2026 VAGO performance audit on bus planning
* 2022 Announcement of major bus network reform (which in this form later got shelved)
* 2023 Infrastructure Victoria report on buses
* 2024 Detailed bus network analysis by DTP and consultants with this tabled in Parliament
* 2026 VAGO performance audit on bus planning
All revealed serious problems but also great opportunities for a revived bus network, many at low cost. This is directly relevant to the SRL East because, with only 6 stations along its 26km length, many will need to rely on feeder transport such as buses to reach stations (remembering there will be no extra car parking and many live beyond both rail and convenient active transport reach of the SRL stations).
Potential for bus network patronage growth (which addresses both SRL station access and the mode shift question) was further expressed in a speech by then department Secretary Paul Younis who suggested that reformed buses across Melbourne had potential to carry as many people as trams.
Real world evidence of such growth exists too. Route 800 Saturday usage rose 200% when its previously limited timetable was upgraded. And routes such as 733 and 767 (both of which serve SRL stations) had strong ridership increases when their services were modestly increased to 15-20 min on weekdays and 30-40 minutes on weekends in 2023.
Additional rail (such as SRL) can increase rather than reduce bus trip making due to increased connection opportunities. This is demonstrated in cities such as London where, despite large Tube and Overground systems, bus ridership exceeds either individually. Versus the Melbourne case where, despite their much larger catchment area, bus ridership is lower than either trams or Metro trains.
That the SRLEPSAC appeared so uninformed about the bus network and its potential for mode shift either indicates a lack of rigour leading to potentially poor advice to the minister. The result could be decisions (eg underprovisions for fast direct bus routes and poor interchanges) that result in the SRL failing to deliver its potential network benefits as part of the connected transport system envisaged in the Transport Integration Act.
Bus infrastructure
That the SRLEPSAC appeared so uninformed about the bus network and its potential for mode shift either indicates a lack of rigour leading to potentially poor advice to the minister. The result could be decisions (eg underprovisions for fast direct bus routes and poor interchanges) that result in the SRL failing to deliver its potential network benefits as part of the connected transport system envisaged in the Transport Integration Act.
Bus infrastructure
The committee report considers bus infrastructure.
The latter is extremely important and often overlooked; interchanges that require a bus to backtrack (eg Glen Waverley currently for key routes) waste thousands of hours that is better spent speeding travel and increasing service frequency.
There is only one good answer to the last point about early delivery of bus infrastructure - yes! Because if it is not delivered first-up it never gets done. Which puts a permanent choke on the capacity and catchment of SRL stations and thus the SRL's usage and mode shift potential. Those wishing to take advantage of the SRL's activity centres to live a convenient low-car life are also affected if buses to surrounding local destinations are substandard.
Bus infrastructure requires some idea of a future bus network to define some high capacity corridors. This part under 8.6.3 identifies work done.
So far so good. Until we get to this, which immediately follows:
Mr Gnanakone is a professional traffic engineer and transport planner. Earlier he said that it was critical that active transport improvements be delivered early to achieve mode share targets. He was also supportive of early bus network improvements. However he warned that the timing for most bus improvement works was medium to long term, and even after SRL East was operational.
This should not be regarded as an inevitability; a benefit of buses is their ability to respond quickly and scale up to changing travel needs so it is purely a political choice that bus service upgrades and network reform have historically been so slow with multi-decade lags in some cases.
Unfortunately the Committee does not take Mr Gnanakone's advice regarding the need for early delivery of bus upgrades on board. They are pretty soft, saying it is merely desirable rather than an essential of equal if not greater importance than the SRL itself.
As noted before SRLEPSAC (wrongly in my view) thinks the existing bus network is fine and overlooks the need to make provision for the sort of fast and frequent bus networks SRL stations will need.
I agree with Mr Gnanakone about timing of bus improvements. Buses should be upgraded as precursors to the SRL, not as something that *might* be done afterwards. Only this sequencing can bring forward SRL benefits early and maximise mode shift.
This should not be regarded as an inevitability; a benefit of buses is their ability to respond quickly and scale up to changing travel needs so it is purely a political choice that bus service upgrades and network reform have historically been so slow with multi-decade lags in some cases.
Unfortunately the Committee does not take Mr Gnanakone's advice regarding the need for early delivery of bus upgrades on board. They are pretty soft, saying it is merely desirable rather than an essential of equal if not greater importance than the SRL itself.
As noted before SRLEPSAC (wrongly in my view) thinks the existing bus network is fine and overlooks the need to make provision for the sort of fast and frequent bus networks SRL stations will need.
I agree with Mr Gnanakone about timing of bus improvements. Buses should be upgraded as precursors to the SRL, not as something that *might* be done afterwards. Only this sequencing can bring forward SRL benefits early and maximise mode shift.
Conclusion
It is concerning that the Suburban Rail Loop East has a committee of planning experts, intended to advise the minister on matters such as transport mode shift, that apparently:
* Thinks that existing bus services are good enough ('particularly well-served' in their words)
* Has not considered others' analysis and policy eg DTP's Bus Plan, IV or VAGO reports
* Does not see buses as an essential means to get people to SRL stations or a contributor to mode shift
* Has rejected advice from transport professionals on the importance of bus access
* Thinks that existing bus services are good enough ('particularly well-served' in their words)
* Has not considered others' analysis and policy eg DTP's Bus Plan, IV or VAGO reports
* Does not see buses as an essential means to get people to SRL stations or a contributor to mode shift
* Has rejected advice from transport professionals on the importance of bus access
If this committee's advice on buses is followed then the SRL risks being a stand-alone project poorly connected to feeder transport that does not deliver anywhere near the patronage or mode shift possible if a more connected multimodal approach was taken.
The Committee may well be good at town planning but for buses (and other SRL feeder modes) both the Planning and Transport ministers might do well to seek advice from elsewhere.
As a reminder their General (and other) papers can be read here.
See other Useful Network items
The Committee may well be good at town planning but for buses (and other SRL feeder modes) both the Planning and Transport ministers might do well to seek advice from elsewhere.
As a reminder their General (and other) papers can be read here.
See other Useful Network items
No comments:
Post a Comment