UN 227: Melbourne Bus Advocacy Mentorships now available

Would you like to get improved 7 day buses for your local area? 

You might have occasionally contacted a politician but nothing got done. 

Maybe you’ve almost given up. 

Well I have some news for you.

Today I'm proud to announce the availability of ten Bus Advocacy Mentorships across Melbourne. 

These are for people or groups wanting better buses in their area.

Why a Bus Advocacy Mentorship

With a template drawn from Dandenong’s successful Fix800Bus campaign, a mentorship will add energy to your advocacy, boosting its chance of success. 

Here’s four reasons why: 

• Timing. The mentorship is in 2026. A state election year here in Victoria where politicians and candidates will be most receptive to advocacy from people like yourself. Cost of living pressures and high fuel prices have increased the community’s appetite for better public transport. 

• Targeting. Mentorships are available for specific routes only. One route per mentorship. Yes it's strict but it also gives focus that maximises success. You can always move onto other routes after succeeding with the first. Each route is vetted for usage potential, social benefits and low cost of upgrading to maximise your campaign's success.     

• Experience. Your campaign will benefit from my experience – both on the government side as a bus planner and the community advocacy side.  

• Ongoing Support. Each mentorship will be for 2026 – basically between now and the state election. You will get an information pack to help start you off with facts about your bus route and advocacy approaches. And you’ll have someone at call who can give you tips and ideas during this time. 

A mentorship can be highly satisfying. You will meet people who share your passion for the power of improved public transport. You can make a real difference in your community. And if you succeed you can point to a boosted bus route or timetable and say "I made this happen".

The 2024 end of year video for #Fix800Bus shows what a successful bus campaign can look like.  

Who can apply?

All mentorships are for routes short enough for one person to effectively campaign on, though having two people is handy to share work. I’d also welcome interest from community, sporting, environmental, church or cultural groups wanting to take on bus advocacy as a project. Are you studying transport, urban planning or community engagement? If so a mentorship could be an interesting ‘extra curricular’ activity. 

You don’t need to live exactly on the route you’re advocating for. But it needs to be conveniently accessible as the best campaigning involves in-person and/or letterboxing activity. Also campaign posters, flyers and social media content require some computer and online skills. 

Everyone will do their campaign differently. But our experience is that the 4 Cs below are critical:    

• Community focus. You will never lose sight that the purpose of your campaign is to make peoples lives better through the success you obtain. More useful public transport meets a common good and helps people manage cost of living. Each mentorship is based on one service initiative that can make a big difference to people so is easy to communicate. 

• Concentration. As a campaigner you will be aware that there are many legitimate bus issues that need fixing. But, at least initially you will focus on the bus route in your mentorship. Success there gives confidence and you can then move on to advocate for other bus routes or even train services.       

• Cooperation. You will be operating in a diverse community. The passengers you'll be conversing with have many backgrounds and experiences. They will vary from wildly supportive to unengaged. As will the political candidates you'll be seeking to influence. You may have views on various matters not shared by everyone you talk to. But as a campaigner with a message you need a professional approach with all sides. The aim being to win support from all candidates and parties for at least the bus improvement in your mentorship and preferably others.    

• Commitment. Winners are people in for the long haul. Many campaigns might have a big splash, not get what they want and vanish. It may be hard getting traction initially but if you persist you signal to them that "you are not going away any time soon" which is incredibly powerful. Thus demonstrating that persistence by being visible to the public and the politicians you seek to influence is massively important.  

Maximising your success

Each mentorship is about getting improved 7 day service on one popular high needs bus route. As the same 'specific, high-benefit and affordable' formula that got the 800 bus upgraded, this has the maximum chance of success. Especially as government now knows the incredible patronage growth possible even just from modest upgrades to existing route and that it has an established capability to do it. 

Not having to buy new buses nor do public consultation (as timetable upgrades disadvantage no one) makes service upgrades more attractive to governments than more complex bus network reviews. You just need a strong enough campaign to to tap this goodwill and succeed, assisted by this being an election year and renewed interest in public transport due to high fuel prices. 

Available mentorships    

The ten available mentorships and details on each are below:

Advocacy Mentorship 1: Kensington/Ascot Vale

New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 404 between Footscray and Moonee Ponds

An upgrade arising from your advocacy would provide nearby 7 day public transport to a section of Kensington Banks without it. It would also cut travel time for those travelling between the major centres of Footscray and Moonee Ponds. It connects the Sunbury and Craigieburn lines, a connection that has been made more important since Sunbury trains were routed away from North Melbourne station. The patronage case for a Sunday service is strong as this route is Melbourne's 5th most productive route (measured on a Saturday) currently lacking 7 day service. 

Advocacy Mentorship 2: Essendon/Moonee Ponds/Ascot Vale
New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 468 between Essendon and Highpoint

The most direct bus connector between Highpoint Shopping Centre and the busy Craigieburn line, a seven day upgrade would connect people to shopping and jobs. As Melbourne's 9th most productive bus route without Sunday service this upgrade 'stacks up' on usage grounds. Route 468's high productivity,  low cost of service boosts and localised catchments all add to this mentorship's appeal.   

Advocacy Mentorship 3: Broadmeadows/Glenroy/Oak Park 

New Sunday service and longer hours on Route 542 between Broadmeadows and Oak Park

The only bus route in Melbourne's middle suburbs where one half operates seven days but the other half does not. A successful campaign would result in the entire Roxburgh Park to Oak Park route operating every day, better connecting people to stations at Broadmeadows, Glenroy and Oak Park. This upgrade has a good case on coverage grounds as much of its catchment is hilly and/or unserved by other routes.  

Advocacy Mentorship 4: Campbellfield

New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 538 between Broadmeadows and Campbellfield

Residential Campbellfield is a diverse, predominantly low income neighbourhood severed from surrounding suburbs by creeks and busy roads. It is served by two limited service bus routes operating 5 or 6 days per week over limited hours. Your successful campaign will get the 538 bus upgraded to run 7 days with longer hours, providing an all week connection to jobs, services, shops and trains at Broadmeadows. This route is quieter than some others here but this upgrade still has a solid case on social equity grounds and because it is cheap (due to the route being short). 

Advocacy Mentorship 5: Thomastown/Lalor
New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 559 between Thomastown and Lalor

A circular route connecting the eastern part of Lalor and Thomastown with Mernda line train stations and the busy Lalor shops that everyone loves. An upgraded service will improve access to local stations day and night. Has a good case on social equity and patronage grounds with this route the 14th busiest  (out of about 60) that does not run on Sundays. The route's shortness makes campaigning easier. 

Advocacy Mentorship 6: West Heidelberg/Bellfield
New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 549 between Northland and Ivanhoe

A handy connector to the Northland Shopping Centre whose popularity on Sunday guarantees strong patronage if Route 549 was also operated then. A seven day upgrade would also reduce social isolation exacerbated by Banyule Council closing the Olympic Leisure Centre pool in Heidelberg West. Those accepting this mentorship will have their case strengthened by the area's high social needs and strong Saturday usage of the route (8th most productive out of routes that do not run 7 days).   

Advocacy Mentorship 7: Box Hill North/Templestowe
New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 281 between Templestowe and Box Hill

Route 281's limited 6-day timetable does not reflect its popularity as an important north-south route linking major destinations at Box Hill, Box Hill hospitals, Doncaster and Templestowe Lower. It also has significant densifying residential catchment. These combine to make it Melbourne's second most productive Saturday bus route that does not run Sundays (important because routes that are busy on Saturdays are almost always busy on Sundays too). With other recently upgraded bus routes in Box Hill  recording good patronage growth, a good campaign assisted by this mentorship has an excellent chance of success, particularly in a state election year. 

Advocacy Mentorship 8: Mulgrave

New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 885 between Glen Waverley and Springvale

Route connects residential Mulgrave with major stations and shopping destinations at Springvale and Glen Waverley. As the third most productive Saturday bus route that does not run Sundays a local campaign can highlight the route's usage as a justification for a seven day upgrade. The area that would most benefit from improved services is around Wanda St, Mulgrave. 

Advocacy Mentorship 9: Doveton
New Sunday service and longer operating hours on Route 844 between Dandenong and Doveton

Route 844 is the nearest public transport for much of Doveton, connecting it with jobs, shopping, services and trains at Dandenong. It also serves the local swimming pool. Its timetable hasn't had a single trip added for decades with limited operating hours (including a 3pm Saturday finish). Doveton has high social needs with the lowest average incomes in Melbourne's south-east. This, the route's above average usage and the low cost of an upgrade, arms you as a campaigner strong evidence to justify a service upgrade. This mentorship would be in conjunction with Fix Dandy Buses, which has already done some campaigning in the Doveton area. 
 

Advocacy Mentorship 10: Frankston South 
New Sunday service with longer operating hours on Routes 772 between Frankston and Frankston South

Large parts of Frankston South have limited hours bus services with timetables unchanged for many decades on routes 772, 773 and 774. This mentorship is based on upgrading the 772 (as the widest coverage route of the three) to operate 7 days. This would assist access to Frankston station, jobs, shopping and services including the newly rebuilt Frankston Hospital.  

If you're not quite sure where each route goes or its service levels you can look these up at Transport Victoria timetables or Transport Victoria local area maps. 

Other routes?

What if you are keen on a bus route not listed here? Please send me a message to discuss prospects for it.

I have generally avoided routes covered by other campaigns such as Sustainable Cities in the west or various climate action groups in the north. I’d encourage you to volunteer directly with them if that’s where your routes of interest are. 

Mentorships are for upgrades to existing high potential but low service routes in established areas that can be upgraded by working the existing bus fleet harder. Other selection criteria include patronage potential, social need and a major self-evident service gap (eg short operating hours and lack of seven day service). I've also skewed the list towards short but relatively direct routes that are easy to campaign on and cheap to upgrade. 

Compared to simple operating hours upgrades to existing routes, new routes in growth areas cost more to provide and have longer lead times due to the need to buy buses. My experience has not been in advocating for such routes. Instead I suggest involvement in local residents associations or forums. As well as bus expansions such groups typically also advocate for trains, roads, schools and other services in their community. 

Where to from here?

Pick a mentorship opportunity you’re keen on, email me at fix800bus@internode.on.net and we can take it from there. Queries are also welcome if you are not ready to take on a mentorship just yet or need to know more first. 

See other Building Useful Network items here

TT 226: Melbourne train timetables to be heritage listed

Parts of metropolitan train timetables that have not had significant frequency changes for 30 years will be heritage listed, the state government quietly let be known today. 

Heritage protection means that existing gaps between trains will be preserved, with any headway shortening requiring Heritage Victoria approval. It is understood that a line simply being busy would be insufficient grounds for approval, with parallel buses recommended instead for overflow passengers taking advantage of this month's free travel.  

In a note slipped into the little-read private advertisements section of Government Gazette (issued late last night when most lines were running to 30 minute heritage headways) Heritage Victoria Executive Director Dr Ava Long-Waite said that old timetables preserved social, industrial and labour history, notably on Sunday mornings. 

"As the West Footscray to Dandenong line through the Metro Tunnel transitioned to all week turn up and go frequency earlier this year, it was increasingly important to preserve remnants of the rail network where people carefully timed their movements according to when the train came".

"Just like bowing and curtsying in past centuries, presenting oneself at a station just before the train came was a social artform that today's youth would be unable to imagine if it wasn't for the preservation of heritage frequencies on the network".  

Long headways also conserved energy, something vitally important in these uncertain times. "Regardless of propulsion method, the most energy efficient train was one sitting unused in stabling", Dr Long-Waite observed. Maintenance costs were also reduced while significant non-driving times in each roster could please un-named industrial stakeholders while maintaining industrial peace and the mental health of members.  

Lower frequencies would preserve the centrality of "the timetable" in passengers' experience. For younger readers this was a list of train times posted on the wall of stations and available in paper booklet form to take home. These were fast disappearing, especially in the last few months. 

40 minute train frequencies were of particularly high heritage value, now being extinct on every Australian rail system bar Melbourne's. Here they remain prevalent at certain times on the Sandringham, Hurstbridge, Mernda, Upfield, Craigieburn and Ballarat lines. They "really give a timetable character", Dr Long-Waite added. 

Sunbury lost its 40 minute gaps when the the Metro Tunnel started, a move labelled as "regrettable" by Heritage Council Chair Professor Keepit Same. Professor Same said that such timetables encouraged social connections at stations as bored passengers would sometimes talk to one another, grumbling about missed trains. It also provided rare space for personal reflection, though he conceded that "young people today"' were more likely to be doom-scrolling on their phones. 

However Prof Same praised the preservation of existing headways on non-Metro Tunnel lines despite 2016 business case threats for the Craigieburn and Upfield lines to run at a "soul-less" 10 minute frequency that broke the peace of surrounding urban villages with noisy train horns. 

He also welcomed the spread of 40 minute service in other parts of the state. Just in the past year or two 40 minute service had been instituted on the Gippsland line to Traralgon, most Latrobe Valley bus routes, the Ballarat line and many connecting bus routes in Ballarat and Melton. Although the Sandringham line was due to go to a 10 minute weekday service later this year, the heritage 40 minute Sunday morning headway would remain. While some deride 40 minute headways as "non-clock face" this declined as an issue as clock faces themselves were increasingly rare.  

Heritage Victoria describes itself as a regulator within the Department of Transport and Planning. Its placement there "allowed a more integrated approach in preserving disappearing heritage including transport timetables", according to Dr Long-Waite.

Continued public experience of them in day-to-day operations, as opposed to just seeing old timetable posters in rarely visited museums was key to implementing the "Living Heritage" theme in our triennial 2026 - 2029 Corporate Plan, she added, describing the decision as a "fantastic win" after a false start in 2024.

Heritage isn't just about old buildings. It's also about experiences. Waiting 40 minutes for a train was as much a uniquely Victorian heritage experience as visiting Sovereign Hill. "Both should be celebrated", she said from her salary-packaged Tesla. 

A spokesperson from the premier's office denied that heritage listing old timetables would have any effect on services for passengers, saying that "We were never going to change them anyway". 

They pointed to the government's steadfast record of retaining historic headways on most metropolitan train lines, despite fears they may be lost when level crossings were removed and timetables rewritten.

"We can rebuild infrastructure while preserving historic timetables" they proudly said. "We stand in contrast to the Liberals (who hacked heritage headways by halving gaps, especially on weekends) or the Greens Political Party (who advocated 10 minute frequencies in 2022)."  The Belgrave and Lilydale lines, with 30 minute midday heritage headways remaining were cited as examples. 

But in a rare show of bipartisanship, and breaking his party's record when in government, the shadow minister backed the move, saying that the "vibe around Newport when news of heritage listing of timetables broke was amazing" and that heritage frequencies matched the party's intention to rebrand "train and tram housing zones" as "train and tram heritage zones" should it win office. 

Protected headways are in the appendix below. A media conference has been scheduled for this morning to provide additional clarification. It will start at 11:20am and conclude at noon sharp.  

APPENDIX: HERITAGE HEADWAYS TO BE PROTECTED 

Every 40 min
M-F interpeak: Hurstbridge
Sunday am: Mernda, Hurstbridge, Sandringham
Weekends: Ballarat line (and connecting buses)
All week: Gippsland line (and connecting buses)
All week: Most buses in Melbourne's west and north

Every 30 min 
M-F interpeak: Belgrave, Lilydale
Sunday am: Belgrave, Lilydale, Alamein, Glen Waverley
Evenings: Mernda, Hurstbridge (to Eltham), Belgrave, Lilydale, Alamein, Glen Waverley

Every 20 min
M-F interpeak: Werribee, Williamstown, Craigieburn, Upfield, Mernda, Hurstbridge (to Eltham)

Every 15 min
M-F interpeak: Ringwood, Glen Waverley

(Above reflect historic headways in force for at least 30 and sometimes 50 years)

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

TT 225: Not your every day bus routes

From today Victorians get a month's free public transport. The state government is billing it as a cost of living relief measure that they hope will get people, including those who previously didn't think much about using public transport, out of their cars. 

Tasmania is doing a similar thing until July while SA and NSW (both with Labor premiers more popular than Victoria) have held off. NT has been fare free for a while, Qld almost so with their 50 cent fares while WA introduced a fare cap of $2.80 for 3 hours on January 1. Meanwhile the federal government is halving fuel excise for three months. 

The usefulness of measures like these depend on whether people have a usable public transport service nearby. Most Melburnians don't have a train or tram in walking distance but, suburban fringe coverage gaps aside, do have a bus.

Whether the bus runs when people need to travel is another matter. Especially because while trains and trams all operate long hours each day the same cannot be said for  buses. Intervals between trips can vary from a few minutes to several hours. And, notwithstanding some recent seven day upgrades, almost 80 bus routes in Melbourne remain without 7 (and in some cases 6) day service.

A good case does exist for some of those 80-odd routes not to run 7 days. A few are commuter peak only or university shuttle services that serve areas that have full-time service on other routes. Others are suburban fringe type shopper services with very low usage. 

But there would be maybe 50 residential area bus routes that don't run 7 days simply because they missed out on the 2006 Meeting our Transport Challenges program that provided minimum service standards on buses across Melbourne. High patronage potential examples serving busy weekend destinations include routes like 281, 404, 414, 468, 503, 506, 549, 802, 804, 814, 844, 885 etc. 

Apart from the 802 in Dandenong, notable residential area routes only running 5 days include 237, 511, 531, 675, 680, 757, 758, 787, 823 and more. Also non-inclusion on the list is no guarantee that service is particularly useful. As an example routes like 384 in Kinglake and 479 in Sunbury run on weekends but with only a handful of trips. Less severely there are around 50 bus routes that run 7 days but over hours shorter than minimum service standards that require service until at least 9pm. 

Unresolved quirks often make buses confusing to use. Some have been inherited from bus timetables neglected for decades (such as some routes operating Saturday mornings only, reflecting pre-1980s shop trading or early 1990s cuts) while others (like 513's non-running that condemns busy sections of Bell St to just one bus every 40 minutes on weekends) have been very recent creations.

Slow progress on standardising public holiday arrangements has led to anomalies remaining. Two routes (681 and 682) run 7 days but not public holidays while other routes run 6 days but do run most public holidays. That contrasts with 407, 414, 415, 490, 526, 536, 538, 548, 549, 550, 559, 671, 672, 677 that run Saturdays but not public holidays. However to the government's credit the 503 and 506, which previously did not run public holidays, have recently become routes that now do. 

7 day bus gaps

The distribution of buses without 7 day service is uneven across Melbourne. There are concentrations in high patronage potential areas such as Greater Dandenong and inner to middle western and northern suburbs. The north was meant to get a bus network reform to tidy many loose ends but the government backed out after doing a lot of work on it. Other notable areas with sparse 7 day bus coverage include the outer east around Knox/Croydon and around Frankston. 

Route by route descriptions

Some brief comments on routes without every day service are below:

201 Deakin University shuttle. Overlapped by other routes that do run 7 days.
236 Albert Park/Port Melbourne coverage route.
237 Fishermans Bend route serving densifying area.
273 Doncaster East feeder route with a kink.
281 Key route to Box Hill Hospital with high patronage potential. 
301 La Trobe University shuttle overlapped by 7 day 561. 
303 Commuter peak express service in Manningham area.
309 Commuter peak express service in Manningham area. 
318 Commuter peak express service in Manningham area. 
343 A route compensating for infrequent Hurstbridge trains. 
350 La Trobe University bus from CBD. 
389 Mernda residential coverage route going opposite way to 388. 
404 Direct Footscray - Moonee Ponds link with high patronage potential. 
407 Coverage route for Avondale Hts also serving Highpoint. 
414 Old Geelong Rd route serving Brooklyn and Laverton. High social needs catchment. 
415 Williamstown - Laverton route with some unique catchment.
417 Laverton industrial route.
431 Kingsville residential route. Significant catchment remote from train. 
468 Short but potentially important Highpoint - Essendon connector. High patronage potential. 
482 Industrial route near Melbourne Airport. 
483 A fast freeway connection from Moonee Ponds to Sunbury. 
490 Gowanbrae's flexible route bus to Airport West.
503 Popular east - west route on Albion St Brunswick. High residential catchment. 
506 Melbourne's busiest bus without 7 day service. Also Brunswick area. 
509 Shopper style service on Hope St Brunswick. 
511 Mandalay Estate - Craigieburn bus. Very limited service. 
512 Coburg area east-west bus.
513 Major route on Bell St. Overlapping 514 every 40 min runs on weekends. 
526 Coburg - Newlands Estate route. 
531 Sydney Rd bus serving Campbellfield. High social needs catchment. 
536 Popular Glenroy - Gowrie bus funded to go 7 days. 
538 Campbellfield - Broadmeadows feeder. Very high social needs catchment. 
542 Southern Broadmeadows - Oak Park section lacks 7 day service. 
548 Potentially handy cross-suburban link hampered by limited service and weak termini. 
549 Bellfield and Heidelberg West connection to Northland. High social needs catchment. 
550 Northland - LaTrobe University route. 
551 Heidelberg - LaTrobe University route. 
558 Melbourne's most confusing bus route serving north-west Reservoir. 
559 Circular feeder route to shops and trains at Thomastown/Lalor. 
601 Monash University shuttle. Overlaps 7 day 630 and 900. 
609 Limited service and weak termini but high patronage potential Chandler Hwy route. 
671 Croydon North area feeder.
672 Croydon North area feeder.
675 Mooroolbark - Chirnside Park route. 
677 Lilydale area feeder. 
680 Lilydale - Mooroolbark area feeder. 
681 Rowville - Knox area circular route. Already 7 days - just needs public holidays. 
682 Opposite direction to 681. Already 7 days - just needs public holidays. 
689 Montrose - Croydon feeder. 
694 Quiet and largely duplicative Sherbrooke Forest route.  
695F Unusual Fountain Gate variation of 695.
696 Quiet shopper route in Dandenongs. 
697 Belgrave South feeder.
699 Confusing Upwey feeder.
705 Industrial route in Braeside area. 
706 Occasional shopper bus with some unique Aspendale coverage. 
740 Peak service in Mitcham/Vermont South area. 
745 Four variations with one trip per variation in Knox area. 
757 Scoresby/Knox area shopper route. Limited service. 
758 Scoresby/Knox area shopper route. Limited service. 

772 Frankston South feeder route. 
773 Frankston South feeder route. 
774 Frankston South feeder route. Limited unique coverage.
776 Frankston / Pearcedale route. 
777 Karingal shopper route. 
778 Industrial route but potential east-west connection to Carrum Downs shopping centre. 

783 Frankston - Hastings route that partly overlaps seven day 782. 
786 Mornington Peninsula local route. 
787 Mornington Peninsula local route. 
795 Cranbourne/Western Port route. 
802 Popular Chadstone/Monash/Mulgrave/Dandenong North/Dandenong route. 
804 Popular Chadstone/Monash/Mulgrave/Dandenong North/Dandenong route. 

814 Popular Springvale/Dandenong area route. High social needs. 
823 Southland/Nepean Hwy route. High patronage potential if extended to Elsternwick. 

838 Emerald - Fountain Gate rural shopper style route. 
840 Gembrook - Pakenham rural fringe shopper style route. 
842 Endeavour Hills - Fountain Gate shopper style route. 
844 Doveton - Dandenong feeder. Very high social needs catchment. 
857 Part industrial/part residential route serving Patterson Lakes.
885 Popular Glen Waverley - Mulgrave - Springvale feeder. 

These descriptions should be helpful in determining which routes most justify 7 day service. 

Conclusion 

There's a lot more to do with regards to public transport that's available all days of the year. Operating hours extensions would make buses much more of an option for those who might wish to switch to public transport in these high fuel price times but find existing timetables don't meet their travel needs.  

Many of the routes that could benefit from an upgrade are relatively short. Those with high patronage potential or high social needs catchments would be particularly good 'bang for buck' to upgrade. Especially as the buses to operate them already exist idle in depots. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here

Free public transport as a response to the fuel crisis?

A great video from Express Transit on the pros and cons of making public transport free in Melbourne and alternatives that could have a bigger impact. It's only 3 minutes so watch it!   

The first example was a Box Hill to Glen Waverley trip. That's currently much slower by public transport than driving. So much so that it's an unattractive option even if free. The Suburban Rail Loop would fix that but that's at least a decade away. 

I have suggested precursor SRL SmartBus routes be introduced much sooner. They will never be as fast as SRL station to station but would still deliver substantial improvements in connectivity, especially for the majority of people not right at a train station. Also when the SRL opens the precursor routes would be useful retaining as feeders (possibly with more stops added) as the stations are widely spaced. 

Victoria's Active Transport Plan released

 

Released without fanfare, parliamentary speeches or even a media release, Victoria's Active Transport Plan supplements earlier people transport modal plans for bus and tram. 

The term 'active transport' wasn't really a thing years ago. But past plans have dealt with walking and cycling. For example 2010's Pedestrian Access Strategy that I reviewed here. And a cycling strategy before that. 

The Transport Integration Act 2010 requires that the State Government prepare and periodically revise the transport plan for Victoria. The Auditor-General investigated this in 2021, finding that there was no overall integrated transport plan. When challenged the state government is generally nonchalant, typically (i) defining its agenda of "Big Build" projects as its plan, and (ii) pointing out its series of smaller plans (like for buses, trams and this one for active transport) that it deems as sufficient.  

You can read this latest plan here on the Transport Victoria website: https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-and-active-transport/active-transport/victorias-active-transport-plan . Its presentation is about as deadpan as it can be - there's no text or video summary for example. This shows the varying emphasis given on communications and public engagement across the transport portfolio, with a summary below. 

Even in the policy and administration space DTP seem to lag others in government. For instance the Auditor General has video summaries of all their reports, such as this recent one on Myki modernisation. As I've said before there are A and B teams in the transport portfolio, with the "Big Build" projects getting all the razzamatazz and resourcing.

So much for communications and profile. Now to content. Following are a few points I found interesting though it is not a detailed analysis. 

The 76 page plan aims to get more people using active transport for more of their trips by removing barriers. It describes itself as a "unified framework for action". It sets down a target of 25% as a mode share for active transport by 2030. 

The approach is informed by these five pillars:
1. accessibility and inclusion,
2. places and neighbourhoods,
3. integrated transport and safe street improvements,
4. health and wellbeing and
5. climate response 

The first few pages give examples of walking and cycling improvements. The executive summary describes how active transport features were embedded in major projects like level crossing removals and the Suburban Rail Loop. 

Public transport planners will be interested to know that 400 metres is given as a maximum walking distance to a local bus or tram with 800 metres to a train or express bus (p39). 

Page 41 has a strategic cycling corridor map. This is an advance on the Bus and Tram plans that did not have significant map content. 

Responses are as follows: 

1. Embed active transport as a core component in the planning and delivery of thriving and liveable suburbs and towns.

2a. Consistently adopt the implementation principles of attractive, safe and connected active transport networks to increase the number, diversity and frequency of people using active transport to meet their daily needs. 

2b. Neighbourhood active transport networks must be attractive, safe and connected to address key barriers to participation and enable more people to choose walking and riding for daily activities.

3. Prioritise investment by targeting locations across Victoria with the greatest uplift potential to achieve our 25 per cent mode share commitments.

4. We’ll address barriers to active transport through a whole-of-system response that aligns with the five pillars and supports behaviour change

The plan is better described as a high level strategy or framework. That's because there is no detailed budget or project list. Part of this is because many projects are small, dispersed and would require liaison with local government to deliver.

So it's more of an approach with page 67 giving a series of (not quantified) KPIs to measure success towards the 25% by 2030 active transport mode share target. And it's much longer than 2021's 17-page Victoria's Bus Plan. The latter shunted the main detail off to a Bus Reform Implementation Plan that did get prepared but was ultimately rejected by Cabinet in late 2023. What ultimately proved more important for buses was not its modal plan but funding found through processes such as GAIC and the State Budget.  

What do stakeholder groups and others think? Two mode-specific stakeholders get mentioned in the plan. Bicycle Network welcomed the plan but urged the government to clarify specific priorities and any timetables for delivery. Victoria Walks said on Facebook that it’s great to see walking recognised as a key part of how we get around. Other opinions on r/MelbourneCycling (Reddit). 

Comments from practitioners in the field (such as seen on LinkedIn) saw Victoria's Active Transport Plan as advancing their work and setting down good principles.

Whether its measures get translated into widespread implementation remain to be seen.  

Your thoughts are appreciated and can be left below. 

26% to run Myki? VAGO reports on Myki modernisation

This state Auditor-General report is about the much-anticipated (and now under trial) move towards credit card acceptance on myki readers and an eventual transition to account based ticketing. It was tabled on Wednesday. 

Read the report here: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/modernising-myki

My top 4 take-aways:

- The project is on track to its revised time-line after previous delays (due to contracting squabbles) and a cost increases ($137m more).

- 26% of revenue collected by the ticketing system goes to run it. VAGO puts that number at $2.96 out of a $11.40 full daily fare which seems high. If you looked at it differently (eg attributed a flat amount from each passenger to run the ticketing system) there'd be some ticket types (eg the $3 concession daily for a short regional trip) where the fare hardly offsets myki running costs. And note that this report was done before under 18s got free travel so ticketing system cost will be spread over even fewer paying passengers. 

- Verifying concession entitlements is complex and high-risk. It will be done in later stages after the system is up and running for full fare passengers travelling in the existing Myki area. In other words full fare passengers will be able to pay with credit or myki cards but concession passengers will just have myki for a while yet. 

- VAGO found that DTP couldn't really quantify benefits or demonstrate value for money. Thus continuing a tradition of haphazard administration going back at least 35 years with four ticketing systems under eight premiers. 

There is a much better summary than the above and some discussion on the Reddit thread below: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/MelbourneTrains/comments/1rwzyks/victorian_auditorgenerals_office_modernising_myki/

Where to from here for modernised Myki?

History almost always repeats with public transport ticketing systems in Victoria. No other Australian state has made heavier weather of rolling out new ticketing systems than Victoria. Symptoms include much-publicised project time and cost blow-outs. And megalitres of newspaper headline ink. 

There have also been performance issues but efforts to fix them for both Metcard and Myki made reliability at least acceptable in the last few years before the next system took over. In contrast scratch tickets were never successful (except for fare evaders) so the system got replaced. 

The above did not mean that there were not some functionality limitations that the subsequent ticketing system tried to fix. And one poor decision can set a bad path that ripples for years. 

Myki was intended to be a dual ticket system. Regular passengers would have durable cards that they could top up while occasional passengers would have a disposable short term ticket option.

They could have gone two ways with the short term ticket. Either it could be an expensive to produce cardboard ticket with the electronic smarts to open station barriers or a cheap paper ticket that needed to be shown to an attendant.

The project opted for the electronic cardboard ticket. Which came into use when myki started in Geelong. There was a time that you could see discarded short-term Mykis on the ground there. Their  spiral antennas were visible when you held them up to the light. Short-term tickets worked but were expensive to produce, especially relative to concession fares. 

The Myki project was then in a lot of trouble, frequently making headlines for cost and time blow-outs. Premier John Brumby later said that he received wrong advice from the then DoT regarding the choice of KAMCO to deliver and regretted not challenging it.

The incoming Baillieu Coalition government of 2010 reviewed the Myki project. The project too far advanced to scrap, it proceeded in a reduced scope form. The cut meant that some parts of the state would not get Myki. There would also be no Myki ticket vending machines on trams and no short-term ticket option.

Hence even casual travellers would have to find a Myki outlet, pay for a piece of plastic they might never use more than once and then top it up with enough to pay the fare. And it would be awkward if they wanted to get a refund of unused credit or return their card.

The descoped Myki was fine for regular train commuters but a pain for tourists and other occasional users. Myki's clunkiness won it no friends amongst various civic and opinion leaders (the same people who also gripe about our lack of airport rail).

A bidding war during the 2014 election campaign led to the (counterproductive) CBD free tram zone being created, possibly exacerbated by Myki's issues. And the state government contracted with Conduent to update myki to allow credit card and mobile payments - something else that would help visitors and occasional users. 

Unlike trams, Myki card top-ups were offered on buses. But that was suspended during (and not resumed after) the pandemic. With paying hard and evasion easy, fare dodging went through the roof with DTP's attitudes towards evasion oscillating between denial and apathy. 

Things might have worked out differently had paper been chosen for the short-term ticket medium. Per-ticket costs (a few cents) would have been lower. Thus it might have escaped the descoping under the Coalition. There would have been fewer hassles for occasional travellers, less fare evasion on buses and likely less of a perceived need for updates to support credit card payments.

Claimed advantages of cardboard short-term tickets opening barriers may have been over-stated as the vast majority of passengers entering stations would be using durable Mykis. Governments could instead have concentrated on matters more central to providing good service, such as not descoping infrastructure on projects such as Regional Rail Link and Metro Tunnel and improved buses, instead. 

Back to today's reality. Below is the time-line from the VAGO report. 

Right now we are in the start of Phase 2, with the full fare paying public invited to try credit card payment on selected V/Line and Metro lines. If results are good this will be extended to all train lines in the existing Myki area. Followed by tram and bus. 

Phase 3 involves extensions to more passengers (concession holders) and more areas (those not in the myki areas). The latter is potentially beneficial for areas like South Gippsland that are relatively close to Melbourne yet are still on paper tickets because their train lines closed years ago all their transport is provided by coach. 

The audit flagged verifying concession entitlements as a complication. That's both for DTP administratively (with 150 agreements needed with concession authorities) and for the customer with use of an online portal involved. The concession platform is expected to cost $34m over 10 years (on top of $1.96b over 15 years for the main contract). 

Then there's the political angle. This is an election year. The current long-standing state government is struggling in the polls. Even though it's generally poor policy, cutting fares has been politically fashionable as a 'cost of living' measure in some states. As has extending 'free' travel to more groups such as this government has done with under 18s (under the "Youth Myki" - confusingly the concession fare "Child Myki" is now just for 18 year-old adults!).

Especially if Myki costs about as much as it recoups in fares for some concession passenger trips the temptation to descope aspects of modernised Myki Phase 3 while also extending free (or very cheap) travel to some groups might just be too tempting for some in or out of government. 

The next several months will be very interesting for transport fares and ticketing in Victoria!

UN 226: The drive to use less fuel - a crisis not to waste

It's been a while since there's been a concerted push to use less fuel. Especially one based on urgent availability considerations. Hence we've had the Victorian Farmers Federation urge (mainly) city dwellers to reduce their use of scarce fuel supplies by switching to public transport. 

Active transport hasn't had so much emphasis with the City of Yarra ripping up bike lanes and the Victorian Greens seeking to remove active transport's relative financial benefits by making public transport free for a month.  

Past fuel supply squeezes have involved policies like speed limit reductions (such as in the US in the 1970s) and odds and evens registration plate rationing at petrol stations. High fuel prices in the 1970s (again due to Middle East instability) led to a revival of inner city living and public transport in some cities. In Melbourne's case it was confirmation that trams were here to stay with new trams being ordered and extensions on routes such as 59, 75 and 86. 

Some 30 years later it was fuel price rises coupled with a strong economy and booming CBD employment led to rail crowding in the 2005-2010 period. Pressures on the network led to a revival of investment in it, with projects such as Regional Rail Link and the Metro Tunnel being the result. Not uncoincidentally researcher Jago Dodson released the VAMPIRE index gauging the vulnerability of Australian suburbs to oil price shocks in 2006. 

Today more of our cars are electric and working from home is more common. There has been population densification in some areas. On the other hand our cities have continued to sprawl. Corner stores have shut in established suburbs while new suburbs never got them. Smaller families, the rise of private schooling, school consolidations, car ownership, both parents working and increased traffic has sharply reduced walking and cycling to schools. 

Then there's the burgeoning delivery economy. Yesterday I received a small (non-essential) item that could have fitted in a padded post bag and put in the letterbox at the start of my driveway by a postie on an electric scooter. Instead it came to me in a huge packing-material filled box from a courier (who was likely not well paid) driven to my door in a big truck. Surely that doesn't make sense in an oil conscious world. 

What are some responses to the pressures to maximise fuel availability for essential uses for which substitution is not easily or quickly possible? 

Below is a personal transport pyramid that I've made. It looks a bit like a food pyramid. To conserve fuel you  want to encourage people to do as much as possible near the base and as little as possible of what's near the top.

Behaviour change might involve sometimes jumping one or two steps to a less energy intensive option. Or it might involve doing the same thing but less often. Eg combining several tasks in a single car trip. If homes have multiple cars you want the ones with the highest fuel usage to hardly ever be driven.  

Many can't or won't make big leaps. But enabling smaller movements might still be desirable. For example someone going from public to active transport during crowded peak periods creates room for someone else to go from driving to public transport. 

Current hybrid commuting patterns may also offer opportunities. Currently Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays are busier than Mondays and Fridays. But are there opportunities to encourage some commuters to switch to the quieter days? That's not to everyone's taste but even if a few people do it there may be a cascading effect where space is freed for others to shift modes.  

Incentives need to have some thought about them and not just be knee-jerk reactions. They need to me mainly about making desired alternatives good, not just cheap. We should emphasise what can be done on a large scale, quickly and cheaply with existing assets. It needs the direct opposite thinking to the "Big Build" approach that has dominated transport planning and depleted our budgets. For example tactical reallocation of road space to favour more energy efficient / higher people throughput transport. 

Pop-up bike lanes, zebra crossings at all busy roundabouts to reduce severance they cause, walker-friendly traffic light signalling, opportunistic land acquisitions to gridify the active transport network, more shade and seating, delivery lockers walkable from all homes and pop-up convenience stores in growth areas without them could all be part of the story. 

Yesterday the state government quietly released Victoria's Active Transport Plan. The release could not have been softer despite active transport being central to reducing non-essential uses for fuel and freeing up supply for harder to substitute for essential uses such as farming. There was no media release, no mention in parliament and (critically) no new funding.

The state might try gentle persuasion to encourage councils to do their share for active transport but something dramatic, like monitoring (or sacking) a recalcitrant council like Yarra for pulling up bike lanes, might send a short sharp message to all councils with regards to expected behaviours in a fuel and climate emergency.  

Perverse incentives need to be avoided, even though they are superficially attractive. And it is essential to offer no less incentives for active transport as may be offered for public transport. If you don't do that you risk the reverse, ie people switching from active to public transport, potentially crowding out those who might be switching to the latter from driving. 

"Free" public transport (like suggested by The Greens) is one example that is likely to attract as many (if not more) people from active to public transport than from driving. Plus its distributional benefits are dubious as it helps those nearest the best service the most while not assisting regional and suburban dwellers with no or sparse service. There may well be an argument to review the equity of fares (especially for shorter trips that we charge quite heavily for versus our insanely cheap entirely diesel long distance V/Line fares) but "free" public transport is not the way to go and could even be counter-productive.

On the other hand service upgrades on routes that are busy and/or serve catchments sensitive to cost of living pressures is likely a better policy response that has a higher potential to attract people from driving. Economy with regards to fuel consumption is likely maximised if bus networks are reviewed to reduce inefficient overlaps.

Cheaper to operate electric buses sitting idle in a fuel crisis? Yes it's a thing in Melbourne. For all the hype about electric buses, we are doing a terrible job at using the fleet efficiently to carry the most number of people all week because network reform failed to accompany electrification. For example just 1 in 6 of the bus routes at Ventura's electric Ivanhoe depot operate 7 days.

The one that does (the 527) is only every 50 minutes on Sundays and is inefficiently overlapped by other routes. Scope exists for simplified bus networks to make timetables less lumpy, even out intervals and likely equalise loadings to optimise bus occupancy without overcrowding in high activity areas like Coburg and Preston, with an example involving the 527 presented here. The government got cold feet on northern suburbs bus reform in 2023 but a revival is justified given changed circumstances.   

Another electrified depot, Kinetic's at Preston, is the base of other northern suburbs bus routes like 503, 506 and 508. The first two have short hours and lack Sunday service. 503 is the only public transport directly serving a significant high-rise and social housing area in Brunswick West. 506 is Melbourne's busiest bus route without Sunday service. 508 does have Sunday service but only at 40 minute intervals. As the major east-west route across Melbourne's inner north it has even higher patronage potential than the 506. 

Because the inner and middle north have significant north-south routes (trains and trams) but limited east-west connectivity (entirely mostly infrequent buses) bus route simplification could assist in modal shift as the network transitions to a more versatile grid with more consistently easier connections. 

Opportunities also exist in areas hardest hit by cost of living increases. Noting that higher fuel prices are inflationary, with the effect likely cascading through to essentials such as food. 7 day upgrades to routes like 802 and 804 cut food deserts by enable easier access to fresh food destinations such as Dandenong Market. Similar boosts to limited service routes like 538 (Campbellfield), 559 (Thomastown) and 844 (Doveton) would also deliver gains.

Acceleration of bus roll-outs in unserved growth areas is another winner. Time-lines for implementation are typically long. However at least some of this is a matter of political choice from a government that has got good at removing level crossings in less time than it takes to do the simpler job of adding a new bus route. 

Some potentially redundant or over serviced routes have been rationalised since this item was written in 2020. The soon to happen upgrade of Sandringham line trains to every 10 min weekday off-peak might make the rationalisation of poorly used north-south bus routes in the Brighton area parallel to the train worth doing, especially if it enabled service kilometres to be transferred to higher patronage potential bus corridors in busier, denser or higher needs areas. 

In Melbourne we are not used to upgraded timetables taking much less than 2 or 3 years from planning to implementation. Active transport projects might also take a while to plan. But things can happen much faster when there is the will such as a fuel emergency might encourage. Here this government can draw inspiration from the Bracks-Brumby government that in one 18 month period added a massive 8000 extra bus services per week and what cities like Paris have done with regards to active transport.    

Hopefully 'never waste a crisis' becomes a guiding principle for DTP in the next little while so that a legacy of a better active and public transport network endures even if/when current tensions subside.  

See other Useful Network items

TT 224: What happened to timetables at train stations?

First they came for the fares posters.

Since January 1, 2026 you haven't been able to rock up at a Melbourne train station and instantly see how much a trip, or a day out, costs.

Even though successive governments have reduced the number of fare zones across the state such that it's close to a flat fare (with a few cheaper or free exceptions such as Zone 2 only or before 7:15am).

Even though, especially in this time of surging fuel prices, the fact that you can travel all day anywhere for under $12 full fare, should be seen as a bargain Transport Victoria would want to promote rather than an impost to apologise for. 

And even though because the replacement poster (which requires scanning a QR code with a smartphone to find out fares) has an effective date it is no cheaper to have a poster that omits fares than  display them.   

The usability impact of this is to make finding out fares more complicated, as follows: 

Introducing unnecessary hurdles in finding fares makes passengers less aware of the value of all-day travel and features that should be selling points. Such as mobility across modes and across the state for no extra cost, Zone 2, weekend and after 6pm discounts and free travel period such as Early Bird on weekdays. While doing nothing to arrest rampant fare evasion that parts of DTP choose to deny, thus sapping the system of revenue.   

Timetables

A month later came the "Big Switch" Metro Tunnel timetable with changes for some other lines as well. 

That saw West Footscray to Dandenong get trains every 10 minutes first to last while service to Sunbury, Cranbourne and East Pakenham improved to a maximum 20 minute wait. Most other lines remained with 30 to 40 minute maximum waits with improvements coming later in the year for Upfield and Craigieburn. Gaps can even be 60 minutes on Sunday mornings as late as 9am in outbound directions. 

In other words outside peak times the vast majority of the Metro rail network remains one where passengers need to check train times to avoid significant waits, especially if making connections. This is a peak-heavy commuter/regional railway as opposed to a true 'metro' system. Yet passenger information decisions are based on us having the latter, which is not the case at ~90% of Melbourne suburban train stations due to slow NDP implementation. 

Notwithstanding the continued importance of specific times (as opposed to frequency information) on most lines for most of the day due to aforementioned periods with low frequency, Metro stations that had timetable changes did not get suitably updated wall timetables.  

In case you haven't paid much attention, wall timetables came in two formats. First of all there were the whole line timetables. These showed times for every train at every station on a line. They were handy for working out travel time between two stations on a line. However their print was small so they were probably not as used as they could have been. And the practice of ruling a red line under your station's times to make finding it easier was not always adhered to. These were typically on two sheets, one for weekdays and one for weekends, with these not always being correctly installed next to one another. 

Much easier to read were the large print station specific timetables. These showed departures from each station, not the whole line. That was good for legibility but did not give travel times. However you got a good idea of frequency at the times you were travelling at.

Exact times are particularly important here, because unlike Sydney (where most stations have a maximum 15 minute wait over wide hours) our train frequencies can be 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 or 60 minutes, with many possible on the same line within a short time. Noting that the usability and connectivity of a 10 minute service is vastly different compared to one every 40-60 minutes.  

Also, despite DTP thinking is that real time is always better than printed timetables, not all stations yet have visual PIDs. Displays that exist can be too small to display trains on all lines (particularly at stations served by multiple lines such as Caulfield and Malvern). Reliability can be an issue too, with some displays being broken or partly working for months. 

Even the best (and fully working) displays cater for the 'here and now' traveller. That's a different function to wall timetables that convey time and frequency information for later in the day (or on another day).

Both are needed - the former to help people on their current trip and the latter to open possibilities for future travel. DTP's stodgy anti-growth/anti-business bureaucratic culture generally resists communicating value (like the prior example with fares), selling features of a service (eg frequency) or, more radically, creating demand for something that customers did not previously know they wanted or even knew existed.

Some individuals in it may be aware but collectively the department has a poor grasp of marketing or behavioural psychology such as promoted by the marketer Rory Sutherland (who cites many transport examples including the use of multimodal transport maps - video below).

This causes DTP to put all its eggs in information systems (such as its app and journey planner) that either undersell the service or, like an old-fashioned general store, relied on customers knowing what they wanted and how to ask for it. As opposed to a supermarket approach that actually expands demand for an item through merchandising. I first identified this as an issue with PTV in 2020.

That mentality, which tends towards decline, continues unchanged today under DTP/TV. It is particularly corrosive today given that, with pressured state budgets emphasis for the next few years needs to shift to maximising the usefulness of our existing transport infrastructure as a first rather than a last resort. Asset utilisation, service levels, network reform and communication, as repeatedly mentioned here, need to become priorities rather than afterthoughts, especially as governments urge a shift to public and active transport as the fuel crisis bites.  

Franchise agreement compliance

Matters like passenger information (whether about fares, routes and timetables) are part of the passenger experience so get mentioned in the Metro Trains Franchise Agreement's Passenger Experience Module. 

At the time of writing this is 'MR4' with the next agreement 'MR5' currently in franchisee selection stage. 

11.6 of the Passenger Experience Module (p25) talks about information to be provided at stations. Requirements include: 

(i) the Master Timetable as it applies to Passenger Services of the Franchisee which stop at that Station or at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas (as the case may be) and each master timetable of such other Train Operators as they apply to passenger services which stop at that Station or at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas (as the case may be); or

(ii) if PTV agrees, a frequency timetable as it applies to Passenger Services of the Franchisee which stop at that Station or at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas (as the case may be) and each frequency timetable of such other Train Operators as they apply to passenger services which stop at that Station or at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas (as the case may be).

Presumably the Master Timetable was the line timetable discussed before. Unlike some tram stops we don't have frequency timetables but that is because no line is yet individually frequent enough to justify them. The station-specific departure times mentioned before would have been a good substitute. 

It then goes on to say: 

(c) For the purposes of this clause 11.6, publish means:

(i) making the information available upon request in one or more booklets or in other similar form at all Staffed Stations and at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas; and

(ii) displaying it on walls or information displays at Stations.

(d) The Franchisee must ensure that each Station and the Southern Cross Station Access Areas have on display:

(i) information on fares;

(ii) a map of the metropolitan fare zones;

(iii) information on other public transport services which operate in the vicinity of the Station or the Southern Cross Station Access Areas (as the case may be); and

(iv) information about the roles, functions and services provided by the PTO, as reasonably requested by PTV, and contact details for the PTO.

(j) The Franchisee must display a local area map at each Station and at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas, provided that PTV may require the Franchisee to utilise the space in which that map is ordinarily displayed to instead display any other notice specified or provided by PTV. The multi-modal public transport map provided by PTV titled 'Getting Around Melbourne', or an equivalent map as notified by PTV, must be displayed at all Stations and at the Southern Cross Station Access Areas. 

11.7 of the Passenger Experience Module (p26) is about printed system information, for example timetables. This must be done by the Franchisee according to the Master Style Guide. 

However there is some flexibility. Eg 11.8 refers to a Practice Note issued by PTV where standards of published information are set down. Also 11.2(c) gives flexibility for PTV to designate any medium for providing Transport Information to passengers either in addition to or as a substitute for any of the existing Transport Information Systems. 

So there may have been some chopping and changing, although the overall effect is that what's at stations is not as comprehensive as 11.6 specifies. Direct information on fares, for example, has been removed. Information on other public transport services are typically not provided right at stations (though they might be outside at bus and tram stops). Also multimodal maps at stations are rare (despite PTV/TV producing them and putting them on their website). 

How station passenger information should be

To maximise both current day utility and future patronage station passenger information should both tell people what they need to know know while widening travel possibilities for later. 

The latter requires what you might call 'push' promotion. This is bold messaging that's unavoidably in your face when you travel the network. This is not something you have to go looking for. Nor is it something only available in small print on your sun-faded phone screen because some overpaid DTP exec (with fewer sales skills than a student casual at JB) thought they were keeping up with technology. 

Minimum standards for passenger information at Metro stations could be along these lines: 

1. Fares displayed. No matter what you need fare information displayed at station in poster form. And we need to go one better than we did in 2025. The information up then failed to display fares for Zone 2 only (which are cheaper than Zone 1). While probably done with good intentions in the name of simplicity, it exacerbated a genuine issue with fares (short trips are seen as too expensive) and ignored that a fair number of passengers living in Zone 2 are under some financial pressure. Having information that overstates what people making Zone 2 only trips need pay is poor on both counts. 

2. Rail network map (as current)

3. Melbourne-wide multimodal frequent network map A new item showing frequent routes only

4. Local area multimode PT map These are already produced by DTP (erroneously called 'bus maps') and are on their website in a not very prominent location. The cost of having them up on stations is tiny but they would greatly assist multimodal connectivity. An example of an underused asset as DTP goes to the work of producing them but does not install them much on the network. Ideally frequent routes would be shown in bold. 

5. Local area walking and cycling catchment map that would also show bus/tram stops and major attractions

6. Station precinct map Already up at some stations but more detail needed including connectivity to nearby trams and buses

7. Large print style station specific train departure timetable Such as at stations prior to 2026

8. Departure lists for buses with times, route numbers and destinations at stations As is standard practice in Perth which has a much stronger multimodal planning, marketing and passenger information culture than Melbourne as its PTA is consistently institutionally stronger than our DTP

9. Disruption advice as currently done

10. Other posters that promote value and opens possibilities for travel

11. Real time displays at station entrances and on platforms sufficient in size to list at least the next two trains of each stopping combination

Conclusion

In 2026 the amount of passenger information displayed at Metro stations has been cut. Rail network maps persist but direct fare information has gone, with the latter replaced by a QR code link to the Transport Victoria website.

Timetable information has also been removed even though all week service upgrades have so far been insufficient to justify alternatives, eg metro style frequency guides, on the vast majority of the network. The existence of timetables are more important at Melbourne stations than those elsewhere due to the wide variations in service frequency across the network, including gaps of up to 60 minutes between trains.  

DTP will no doubt argue that printed timetables are less relevant due to the widespread ownership of mobile phones and more information displays at stations. However the roll-out extent, adequacy and reliability of the latter can vary. Also, due to the lack of a will and culture to grow patronage, the department is not as cognizant as it should be in the need to provide information not just for the trip at hand but also in a manner that fully reflects the network's usefulness and value for money. 

See other Timetable Tuesday items here