Executive Summary: RMIT research has found that as few as 40 extra full-time train drivers could massively increase the number of train stations enjoying off-peak service every 10 minutes or better. This would make the network more resilient, better connected and stem Melbourne's per capita decline in public transport service under the current government.
SNAMUTS maps have become a recognised way to see how cities are progressing to maximise the proportion of residents near reasonable public transport. Cluster people around a station, extend a train line or upgrade bus frequency and the scores get better. Encourage sprawl, don't boost train frequency and let bus networks atrophy to make the indicators worse.
The maps show inequality in public transport access and service within and between cities. They show progress over time with Melbourne maps available for 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021. You can also compare Melbourne's performance with other cities in Australia and abroad.
When teamed up with an understanding of what happened when you can see the effect of various government policy settings over the last 20 years. For example the effects of the Brumby-era SmartBus upgrades are discernible when comparing 2011 with 2006 maps. As are the mix of population growth, sprawl but service stagnation between 2016 and 2021 under premier Andrews.
The recent record
The Andrews-Allan recipe was one of massively building infrastructure but stalling on service, even that which did not depending on new infrastructure or rolling stock to operate. Whenever people asked about service levels premiers and ministers would list their 'Big Build' achievements, saying these would enable future service uplifts.
Notwithstanding the stagnation in service levels (which the SNAMUTS 2011 - 2021 data shows) we were told the Metro Tunnel would be worth it at the end with, to quote then premier Jacinta Allan, "A new timetable in place everywhere - on our trains on our trams on our buses".
The maps show inequality in public transport access and service within and between cities. They show progress over time with Melbourne maps available for 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021. You can also compare Melbourne's performance with other cities in Australia and abroad.
When teamed up with an understanding of what happened when you can see the effect of various government policy settings over the last 20 years. For example the effects of the Brumby-era SmartBus upgrades are discernible when comparing 2011 with 2006 maps. As are the mix of population growth, sprawl but service stagnation between 2016 and 2021 under premier Andrews.
The recent record
The Andrews-Allan recipe was one of massively building infrastructure but stalling on service, even that which did not depending on new infrastructure or rolling stock to operate. Whenever people asked about service levels premiers and ministers would list their 'Big Build' achievements, saying these would enable future service uplifts.
Notwithstanding the stagnation in service levels (which the SNAMUTS 2011 - 2021 data shows) we were told the Metro Tunnel would be worth it at the end with, to quote then premier Jacinta Allan, "A new timetable in place everywhere - on our trains on our trams on our buses".
Comments like these along with language like Big Switch raised expectations as to what service we'd get on Day One of the Metro Tunnel (ie Feb 1 2026).
But when the new timetables came out in January it felt like an anti-climax with fewer lines than expected getting service upgrades. While good by Melbourne standards, even the 10 minute service through the core of the Metro Tunnel feels underwhelming. Outside the peaks five new stations feel like giant caverns with just two frantic exchanges of passengers every ten minutes and silent waiting in the remaining eight. Far short of the continuous all day movement that a major rail tunnel project needs to justify its costs and even the five minute midday frequencies enjoyed at the core of rail networks like Perth and Sydney.
Tacitly recognising that it might have oversold the new timetable and with an election approaching, the government changed its tune. Then transport minister Gabrielle Williams redefined the Day One timetable as only the beginning with further service uplifts to come (which indeed they did in August 2026 with more planned for 2027).
As for buses 2021 had hopes raised and then dashed with promises broken on bus network reform. The 2023 and 2024 state budgets were particularly sparse. Nevertheless there were still some bus upgrades in areas like Werribee, Tarneit and Dandenong with growth area contributions and community campaigns playing a significant role. These upgrades included both new routes and service upgrades to existing routes. Some of the latter were sufficient to tip them over SNAMUTS' cut-off for a minimum standard service (every 20 min weekdays and 30 min weekends). Such upgrades have the effect of reducing the black urbanised but unserved parts of the main SNAMUTS composite map.
But when the new timetables came out in January it felt like an anti-climax with fewer lines than expected getting service upgrades. While good by Melbourne standards, even the 10 minute service through the core of the Metro Tunnel feels underwhelming. Outside the peaks five new stations feel like giant caverns with just two frantic exchanges of passengers every ten minutes and silent waiting in the remaining eight. Far short of the continuous all day movement that a major rail tunnel project needs to justify its costs and even the five minute midday frequencies enjoyed at the core of rail networks like Perth and Sydney.
Tacitly recognising that it might have oversold the new timetable and with an election approaching, the government changed its tune. Then transport minister Gabrielle Williams redefined the Day One timetable as only the beginning with further service uplifts to come (which indeed they did in August 2026 with more planned for 2027).
As for buses 2021 had hopes raised and then dashed with promises broken on bus network reform. The 2023 and 2024 state budgets were particularly sparse. Nevertheless there were still some bus upgrades in areas like Werribee, Tarneit and Dandenong with growth area contributions and community campaigns playing a significant role. These upgrades included both new routes and service upgrades to existing routes. Some of the latter were sufficient to tip them over SNAMUTS' cut-off for a minimum standard service (every 20 min weekdays and 30 min weekends). Such upgrades have the effect of reducing the black urbanised but unserved parts of the main SNAMUTS composite map.
The final 2026 analysis is awaiting land use data from the census taken earlier this year. However RMIT's Jan Scheurer presented some preliminary findings at the Melbourne Transport Camp held on October 9. These include all the public transport service changes up to August 2026.
Read the preliminary findings here.
Here are some key points arising from this analysis.
* Service intensity continues to fall
Melbourne's public transport service per capita has continued to fall from its 2011 peak. In short our population has grown faster than public transport service. The February and August Metro Train timetables increased service but not at a pace sufficient to catch up on stagnation in previous years. Similar comments apply to buses.
Had the state government retained 2026 service intensity at 2021 levels we could have had not only 10 minute midday frequency on the Craigieburn, Mernda, Ringwood and Glen Waverley lines but also further bus upgrades. We did not get this as political fashion favoured new over better used infrastructure.
The preliminary findings identify the SmartBus roll-out as contributing to the last big increase in service intensity between 2006 and 2011. Since then the SmartBus program has atrophied with no new routes created and buses losing their distinct livery. In contrast, Sydney, with more wider-ranging public transport improvements, has increased its service intensity.
* Network coverage improving
This is the proportion of people in jobs near what you might call useful or medium frequency public transport. Unlike service intensity this has gradually risen. 2006 - 2011 was a large rise due to the SmartBus roll-out. 2016 - 2021 was a slow rise, probably because the government didn't do much with buses. However the rate picked up since 2021, reaching 53.8%.
The reason why this number trails behind the 90-odd per cent you might see elsewhere is that the typical Melbourne bus route only runs about every 40 minutes, excluding it from this analysis. I wrote more about that here and here.
There has been accelerated recent rolling out of more bus routes running every 20 minutes on weekdays in growth areas. Some (mainly around Werribee) also run every 20 minutes on weekends while others (especially in the northern suburbs) are only every 40 minutes on weekends. SNAMUTS would recognise the former but not the latter as 40 minute gaps fail its 30 minute weekend cut-off.
Had the state government retained 2026 service intensity at 2021 levels we could have had not only 10 minute midday frequency on the Craigieburn, Mernda, Ringwood and Glen Waverley lines but also further bus upgrades. We did not get this as political fashion favoured new over better used infrastructure.
The preliminary findings identify the SmartBus roll-out as contributing to the last big increase in service intensity between 2006 and 2011. Since then the SmartBus program has atrophied with no new routes created and buses losing their distinct livery. In contrast, Sydney, with more wider-ranging public transport improvements, has increased its service intensity.
* Network coverage improving
This is the proportion of people in jobs near what you might call useful or medium frequency public transport. Unlike service intensity this has gradually risen. 2006 - 2011 was a large rise due to the SmartBus roll-out. 2016 - 2021 was a slow rise, probably because the government didn't do much with buses. However the rate picked up since 2021, reaching 53.8%.
The reason why this number trails behind the 90-odd per cent you might see elsewhere is that the typical Melbourne bus route only runs about every 40 minutes, excluding it from this analysis. I wrote more about that here and here.
There has been accelerated recent rolling out of more bus routes running every 20 minutes on weekdays in growth areas. Some (mainly around Werribee) also run every 20 minutes on weekends while others (especially in the northern suburbs) are only every 40 minutes on weekends. SNAMUTS would recognise the former but not the latter as 40 minute gaps fail its 30 minute weekend cut-off.
* Contour catchment falling or stagnating
Public transport in Melbourne is slow while the city and its attractions are sprawling. This means that we can get to a lower proportion of them within 30 minutes than 15 or 20 years ago. However the last 5 years saw a levelling off, possibly due to the Metro Tunnel introducing some countervailing speed and connectivity improvements for some trips. The more densely settled Sydney has done better here with such improvements happening on a much larger scale and being associated with several projects, not just one.
* Increasing friction to move around (closeness centrality)
Declining tram speeds are a contributor. As is our low rail frequencies, tram routes that stop 1km short of train stations and a refusal to substantially reform buses in inner and middle suburbs. The latter means that certain adjacent major nodes (eg Caulfield - Camberwell, Greensborough - Doncaster or Highpoint - Essendon) that should be an easy connection on a frequent direct bus route are not.
Another factor that drags down the average are new, often outer, nodes that come about due to service improvements. While transport to them has improved, their inclusion affects the average. A noteworthy addition in 2026 was Springvale Junction on Princes Hwy, made possible by the Bus 800 weekend upgrade that met the SNAMUTS standard.
Public transport in Melbourne is slow while the city and its attractions are sprawling. This means that we can get to a lower proportion of them within 30 minutes than 15 or 20 years ago. However the last 5 years saw a levelling off, possibly due to the Metro Tunnel introducing some countervailing speed and connectivity improvements for some trips. The more densely settled Sydney has done better here with such improvements happening on a much larger scale and being associated with several projects, not just one.
* Increasing friction to move around (closeness centrality)
Declining tram speeds are a contributor. As is our low rail frequencies, tram routes that stop 1km short of train stations and a refusal to substantially reform buses in inner and middle suburbs. The latter means that certain adjacent major nodes (eg Caulfield - Camberwell, Greensborough - Doncaster or Highpoint - Essendon) that should be an easy connection on a frequent direct bus route are not.
Another factor that drags down the average are new, often outer, nodes that come about due to service improvements. While transport to them has improved, their inclusion affects the average. A noteworthy addition in 2026 was Springvale Junction on Princes Hwy, made possible by the Bus 800 weekend upgrade that met the SNAMUTS standard.
* Network resilience
If you thought the Melbourne PT system was fragile you'd be right. The 2026 analysis shows declining resilience to growth, describing it as worriesome. We have gone from being more robust than Sydney to being less robust. Better rail frequencies, tram network reform and some improved bus links around the core are suggested to improve resilience.
* Nodal connectivity
Some good news with a steady improvement since 2006. But it could and should progress faster.
What if?
The 2026 SNAMUTS numbers show that certain measures such as public transport network service intensity, friction and resilience have deteriorated in the last five years.
This is the product of opposing forces. The Metro Tunnel and its timetable brought improvements for some areas. However these were outweighed across much of Melbourne by continued outward sprawl (which imposes its own under-realised motoring costs including a major road maintenance backlog), political resistance in both 2015 and 2023 to reform bus services and a reluctance to simplify metropolitan train timetables and boost frequencies.
How would a greater attention to service frequencies have affected results? Suppose 2021's per-capita service was largely retained in 2026 (ie a drop from 13.2 to 13.1 instead of the actual 12.8). That would have bought enough service kilometres to operate four more train lines every 10 minutes, with Craigieburn, Mernda, Ringwood and Glen Waverley chosen for easiest implementation.
This extra frequency would have led to an increase in ease of movement over 2021 (rather than the decrease) and lowed the weakening of resilience. The higher frequency would also have improved connection between nodes (and modes) at a high proportion of the 80 stations that would benefit.
The number of suburban stations that would benefit on each line would be as follows:
* Craigieburn 15
* Mernda 24
* Belgrave/Lilydale 28
* Glen Waverley 13
The 80 total is more than one-third of the stations across the Metro network. Waits would be cut to turn-up-and-go levels at some of network's busiest including Box Hill, Ringwood, Essendon and Craigieburn. While Belgrave and Lilydale would finally be rid of their 30 minute midday gaps which has been a feature of its timetables for at least 50 years. Furthermore connections to trams and buses would be improved at dozens of locations across Melbourne's north and east.
The cost? The research estimates that approximately 40 extra full time train drivers could run this boosted service. Naturally there would also be additional maintenance, power and other expenses involved in running the more frequent service.
The gains arising from a service boost like this for rail (and similar for buses) would be substantial.
Such a program can be done progressively as drivers can be trained and rostered, with scope for some quick wins by boosting some lines from 20 to 15 minutes like Joan Kirner did for Sandringham in 1992 and Jeff Kennett for Frankston and Dandenong in 1996. On a cost/benefit basis it would compare favourably with large infrastructure builds (which are often highly desirable but are expensive and entail substantial borrowings).
Indeed due to its weak record on adding metropolitan public transport service in its first ten years, the Andrews-Allan government has left so much PT service fruit on the table that the next government would be mad not to take it, even if it needs some revenue measures and cost restraints to fund.
This is the product of opposing forces. The Metro Tunnel and its timetable brought improvements for some areas. However these were outweighed across much of Melbourne by continued outward sprawl (which imposes its own under-realised motoring costs including a major road maintenance backlog), political resistance in both 2015 and 2023 to reform bus services and a reluctance to simplify metropolitan train timetables and boost frequencies.
How would a greater attention to service frequencies have affected results? Suppose 2021's per-capita service was largely retained in 2026 (ie a drop from 13.2 to 13.1 instead of the actual 12.8). That would have bought enough service kilometres to operate four more train lines every 10 minutes, with Craigieburn, Mernda, Ringwood and Glen Waverley chosen for easiest implementation.
The number of suburban stations that would benefit on each line would be as follows:
* Craigieburn 15
* Mernda 24
* Belgrave/Lilydale 28
* Glen Waverley 13
The 80 total is more than one-third of the stations across the Metro network. Waits would be cut to turn-up-and-go levels at some of network's busiest including Box Hill, Ringwood, Essendon and Craigieburn. While Belgrave and Lilydale would finally be rid of their 30 minute midday gaps which has been a feature of its timetables for at least 50 years. Furthermore connections to trams and buses would be improved at dozens of locations across Melbourne's north and east.
The cost? The research estimates that approximately 40 extra full time train drivers could run this boosted service. Naturally there would also be additional maintenance, power and other expenses involved in running the more frequent service.
The gains arising from a service boost like this for rail (and similar for buses) would be substantial.
Such a program can be done progressively as drivers can be trained and rostered, with scope for some quick wins by boosting some lines from 20 to 15 minutes like Joan Kirner did for Sandringham in 1992 and Jeff Kennett for Frankston and Dandenong in 1996. On a cost/benefit basis it would compare favourably with large infrastructure builds (which are often highly desirable but are expensive and entail substantial borrowings).
Indeed due to its weak record on adding metropolitan public transport service in its first ten years, the Andrews-Allan government has left so much PT service fruit on the table that the next government would be mad not to take it, even if it needs some revenue measures and cost restraints to fund.
No comments:
Post a Comment