VAGO to audit Victoria's Bus Plan

The Victorian Auditor-General has included a performance audit of Victoria's bus planning in his 2025-26 annual plan tabled in state parliament last week. VAGO's review will examine the performance of Victoria's bus services, including if the Bus Plan is on track to achieve its intended objectives and targets.

Other transport topics to be examined include myki ticket modernisation, the progress of major projects, road maintenance and customer service of outsourced Vicroads functions like driver licensing. A follow-up of the audit on integrated transport planning is also pencilled in for 2027-28. 

An audit is timely

Back to buses. An auditor-general review of bus services is both desirable and due. One was proposed six years ago but got put off. However, with it being nearly 1500 days since Victoria's Bus Plan was announced sufficient time has elapsed for an auditor to form an opinion on its effectiveness or otherwise.

Not only that but the dollar amounts involved are, in auditor-speak, material. Victoria spends the better part of $1 billion each year to run bus services, mostly through payments to private bus operators. Unlike train and tram contracts (which appear to have got more generous over the last 20 years) payments to bus operators per service kilometre delivered appear to have been fairly constant relative to CPI.

Just because we're getting a reasonable amount of service kilometres per dollar for bus does not mean that these bus and driver resources are optimally deployed to be useful to the most number of people for the most number of trips. The key determinant of this is how well routes and timetables are planned and meet the public's travel needs. 

With routes and timetables for maybe two-thirds of Melbourne's bus network substantially unchanged for 15 - 40 years, network reform (the first priority of the Bus Plan) has a far greater bearing on the value we get from buses than certain other initiatives (eg fleet electrification that may have merit for other reasons). The 'health checks' I've done on the bus network are here and here, with only a slow rate of improvement between them. 

The extent and quality of bus network reform can be difficult to measure but is easy to obfuscate. This makes it vital for an independent party like the Auditor-General to properly examine the performance record here.  

link to count-up Bus Plan clock

Audit role

What might the audit cover? VAGO audits don't always cover everything some would like. It's worth taking a step back to understand why this is.   

Different independent institutions established by parliament to monitor the executive have different  roles and emphases as set out briefly below.

The deliberations of parliamentary committees like Parliament's Accounts and Estimates Committee are shaped by the politicians on them. The Independent Broad-based Anti-Corruption Commission (IBAC) is a specialist corruption investigator with quasi-judicial powers. The State Ombudsman is a 'last resort' complaints investigator, although they may also comment on policy, especially where it may be improved. Infrastructure Victoria is a major giver of advice on transport policy (including through the media where it is more open than DTP) but this does not extend to cases where the policy has been adopted by government. Thus you won't find IV commenting about the merits or otherwise of the Suburban Rail Loop (a project of this government). Indeed their reports tend to avoid even mentioning the SRL unless necessary. 

Then there's the Auditor-General, the oldest government accountability office dating way back to Victorian self-government in 1851. Being independent and being seen to be independent is central to how auditors general do their work. They are in the camp of institutions who do not analyse or comment on government policy. But they are very interested in it being well carried out.  

The pitfalls of those who are not ministers commenting on policy are explained here

 

The difference between the policy of administration (a political responsibility) and the administration of policy (a job for bureaucrats to do and auditors to review) is explained here

Potential audit topics and departmental responses

When asked about their record, the government and DTP can (and likely will) rattle off a long list of bus service upgrades that it attributes to Victoria's Bus Plan. They represent, with few if any exceptions, progress.

But something being good might not entirely satisfy a probing auditor if the methods used to determine priorities have not been robust. 

I have suggested that past departmental secretaries might have used counting methods of doubtful rigour to exaggerate their achievements in bus network reform when under scrutiny. Including from PAEC, which is the same committee the Auditor-General reports to. I would expect that the appropriateness of performance metrics would feature in a performance auditor's test program. 

An audit might also be interested in monitoring operational characteristics such as bus route patronage and acting on the data received to optimise resourcing. An examination will likely find that such data is collected (though one might query its accuracy). The department could give legitimate examples where resources have been transferred between routes (mostly involving Transdev/Kinetic routes) for an overall greater good.

Although they will probably cite new bus contracts as making this easier, DTP might find it harder to argue that this is being done in a particularly systematic way (eg tackling low productivity and/or duplicative routes first) even though the Bus Plan flagged resourcing/patronage productivity mismatches as an issue. 

Auditors (especially) hate things being funded without an implementation plan. Even if what gets funded is sensible, likely consistent with what a plan would recommend and proves successful in practice.

They're not fans of 'bait and switch' either. That is if a department would promise something (as being consistent with the plan), not continue with it but switch to doing something else. The party being audited may claim that that something else was consistent with the plan. Or they could just write a plan that is so vague that almost anything could count as being consistent with it, with the real detail coming later.  

DTP may have left itself exposed here as it:
(a) failed to produce the Bus Plan's promised Bus Reform Implementation Plan by its 2023 deadline (with a weak answer from then Secretary Younis when quizzed here),
(b) apparently stalled on the North, North-East and Mildura bus reviews promised before the 2022 state election, and
(c) ran trials that either had no apparent progress (eg Rapid Running being extended to more routes) or were reasonably foreseeable duds (eg FlexiRide) that distracted attention from beneficial bus network reform or service upgrades (such as Greensborough will finally get after flip-flopping on FlexiRide).   

Scale is important when planning transport in a big city. One or two little route upgrades might be successful but you need to replicate it across hundreds to have a metropolitan-wide effect. Has bus plan facilitated reform to the scale needed and that it aspired to? The record so far is that it has not, with the pace of reform both slower than other cities (eg Perth) and our own record in the 2006-2010 period. Achieving the aspired pace of reform requires changes within DTP as current processes have more in common with cottage industries than the mass production needed for large-scale delivery.  

The government releasing the Bus Plan without substantial funding in 2021 and the department's inability to argue its case for this in the 2023 and 2024 state budgets wouldn't have helped its standing either. Rather than being a substantive program or project (like the WGT or SRL), the Bus Plan has been demoted to be more a thinking approach to be applied if or when the government wants to do things with buses.

Essentially the Bus Plan has been an unloved orphan for most of its first four years. There are welcome signs of revived government interest in buses in the 2025 state budget, though many are more 'catch-up' growth area additions than established area network reform as envisaged in the Bus Plan. 

Conclusion 

The audit's findings are a matter for the Auditor-General after weighing all evidence.

However based on what is known publicly I would imagine its conclusions may be more than a 'good job keep it up' type result. After all VAGO performance audits almost always find something that can be improved, even if minor. 

Consequently the Bus Plan audit promises to be interesting with meaty recommendations that could give the department some worthwhile guidance on improved performance. Especially if laced with big helpings of reality from auditors who are not so remote as to forget to occasionally GOTB! 

Regional Rail Link turns 10 / Metro Tunnel testing

Today is a super important date in transport for two reasons. One related to the past, the other for the future. 

Regional Rail Link & reformed buses

Firstly regional Rail Link turns 10 today. This transformed transport in Melbourne's west and Geelong with the new Regional Rail Link starting, bringing rail to new stations at Wyndham Vale and Tarneit. We had built new stations and extended electrification but this was a completely new line on a completely new alignment.

While the intent was to provide a bypass to free up rail capacity in western Melbourne, the new stations became massively busy in their own right due to them serving huge growth area catchments popular with migrants seeking new affordable housing. Tarneit, for example, is now V/Line's busiest station outside Southern Cross. This 2010 Paul Mees ATRF paper, throwing shade on the Regional Rail Link, has not aged well given the undoubted patronage success of its stations; it is now impossible to see western Melbourne without it. 

The basic off-peak weekday service to South Geelong started as every 20 minutes, versus the hourly provided under the old alignment via Werribee. Patronage boomed with this link becoming crowded shortly after opening. Weekend service started at hourly on opening. However crowding forced that to every 40 minutes. That wasn't enough so some extra trips were slotted in to provide some 20 minute intervals. Finally last December a 20 minute 7am - 9pm weekend timetable was instituted with more trips extended to Marshall. 

The Regional Rail Link has one 'good' problem -  it has become a victim of its own success. There is massive demand for more than the original two stations. There's been talk of extra stations but none have opened in RRL's first decade. Although West Tarneit is under construction with an opening due next year.

Reluctance to add new stations may be due to a view that this will crowd trains and unacceptably slow travel for Geelong passengers. RRL's future is clearly a two-tier service, with an intensive (possibly electric) service to Wyndham Vale and express services to Geelong/Marshall/Warrnambool. There also needs to be a westward extension of Werribee Metro electrification with a new station at Black Forest Road.  

Wider network reforms - varying prospects

Regional Rail Link in 2015 was not just a V/Line rail upgrade project. As originally conceived it was also going to be the centrepiece of massive multimodal Metro train and bus network revamps across Melbourne. Planning for this had been done but their fates varied.

While the new Labor government pursued its infrastructure program with gusto, it resisted adding Metro service, especially if new timetables would affect travel for some in (then) marginal seats on the Frankston line. Thus the proposed 2015 Metro timetable was ditched, setting rail service reform back years, with elements not picked up until 2021 (and again likely late 2025). This delay meant that some anticipated benefits of RRL, that of freeing space for more Werribee line Metro services, were not realised as soon as they could have been, as the Auditor-General noted in 2018. A decade on we're still waiting for some, though last month's state  budget has funded some welcome Werribee peak uplifts.   

The government wasn't just shilly-shallying on Metro rail service reform. The proposed 2015 Transdev greenfield bus network was also scrapped . Although some reasons for not proceeding with some of this were sound, a promised later review did not happen and the cause of bus reform was put back years.  

Fortunately the radically reformed RRL-related bus networks designed for Geelong and Wyndham survived. Geelong's new 'greenfields' network featured simpler more direct routes running at higher frequencies. Apart from isolated and minor objections this simplified Geelong bus network has proved successful with operating hours its main outstanding concern. 

RRL could have opened without the Geelong bus changes. But the bus revamp enabled PTV to present a compelling multimode package to the public on Day One. This is a recipe Perth's Metronet routinely follows with new bus networks for Airport, Yanchep, Ellenbrook and Thornlie-Cockburn. Melbourne's record here is only sporadic; if we were as good as Perth now (or our own record with Geelong in 2015) our Metro Tunnel would get a radically revamped bus network between at least Watergardens and Dandenong along these lines along with reformed CBD trams. The indications so far are not strong for sweeping changes here, although some smaller bus reforms around Parkville happened last year. 

Wyndham also got a brand new bus network on this day in 2015. In contrast to Geelong that had to happen as otherwise there would have been few if any routes properly serving the new stations at Tarneit and Wyndham Vale. That would have caused massive parking pressures and jeopardised public goodwill towards the RRL.

The 2015 Wyndham bus network comprises a two-tier network with more frequent main road routes and neighbourhood style coverage routes. While service levels aren't yet as high as they need to be the network has been extremely successful with Wyndham bus routes ranking amongst the most productive in Melbourne. This has set up Wyndham buses on a path of continuous improvement, as opposed to the network atrophy seen in other areas (eg Melton town, Broadmeadows, Preston - Epping, Ringwood, Knox, Greater Dandenong, Frankston etc). The latest Wyndham bus boost will start in less than two weeks, with improved timetable for four routes starting on July 1.  

See my 4th anniversary write-up here for more about the Regional Rail Link. 

Metro Tunnel's full day test

This one's about the future. 

Rail officials and enthusiasts alike are out and about all day today to watch a full day's testing of the Metro Tunnel timetable. 

While it's a Saturday, Rail Express reports that a weekday timetable will be operating on lines that will use the Metro Tunnel. 

Passengers will need to change at Caulfield or Footscray if travelling through to the city.

This won't matter to observers as they can just find a seat somewhere, grab their watch and tick off train arrival times. While this is normally only an activity undertaken by signalling staff and hard-core gunzels, this time it's of much wider interest. 

This interest is partly because the state government has kept even basic Metro Tunnel frequency information under wraps. 

Despite adding relatively little Metro train service in its first decade, it has raised expectations of the service possible with the Metro Tunnel and other projects. This heightened anticipation has given rise to a lot of guessing and discussion including here.

Speculation on Metro Tunnel service levels intensified last week when PTV's website showed modified timetables for Cranbourne, E Pakenham and Sunbury, applicable for today, that could well be part of a Metro Tunnel weekday timetable.

Daniel Bowen analysed this here . He hoped it was only partial, with the real timetable having more trips. Such a consistently high all-day frequency is key to the sort of multi-directional changing all day activity that is needed to make the Metro Tunnel a patronage success.  

It is also desirable that best endeavours are made for the final timetable to avoid big 'holes' such as the peak period / peak direction 20 minute gap towards Cranbourne shown below.  

The 2012 Network Development Plan - Metropolitan Rail proposed a hierarchy of base all-week frequencies for the rail network, including a 5 min inner core interval. Peak frequencies would be higher. For example it was envisaged that Cranbourne, Pakenham and Sunbury (all Tier 2 stations) would have 5, 9 and 9 trains per hour respectively by 2022 (see Figure 5-8). 

The pandemic and its aftermath have reduced peak period train usage to less than envisaged in the NDP. However a 5 minute all day core frequency between at least Footscray and Caulfield remains essential for the Metro Tunnel to provide a 'big city' metro user experience, justify its construction costs and play its full role in the central area transport network (including enabling cascading tram network reform).   

It will be interesting whether observations people make today tally with published timetables or not. And if any media releases reporting on the success or otherwise of today's trials provide further information on Metro Tunnel service levels.

Any observations on today would be welcome and can be left in the comments below. 

UN 204: Kingston proposes better buses for the south-east

 

The City of Kingston is advocating for better bus services in Melbourne's south-east. It has set up a website listing three major and three longer term advocacy priorities. After public consultation on them finishes next month these will be submitted to Department of Transport and Planning in September. There has already been media coverage of Kingston's bus advocacy including in Australasian Bus & Coach and Dandenong Star Journal. 

This advocacy comes at a desirable time. The 2025 state budget marked a revived interest in bus services though all but one of the new initiatives were in Melbourne's west and north. However 2026, being the last budget before the state election, offers an opportunity for advocates (including councils) to be bolder in what they ask for. With the potential for what doesn't get budget funding to be picked up by one or more of the political parties in the campaign for November's state election. 

Kingston's six route wish-list is mapped below. 

Key and major priorities

Key priority is the east-west Route 828 between Hampton and Berwick via Southland and Cheltenham. This is a long route with a lot of residential catchment and destinations away from the rail network. Not just in the City of Kingston but also in Bayside, Greater Dandenong and Casey. While it runs every 20 minutes on weekdays its weekend service falls off to every 40 minutes on Saturdays and 60 minutes on Sundays. Kingston wants this upgraded to run every 20 minutes every day, working the existing bus fleet harder. 

Route 708 and 903 are described as major priorities. Route 708, operating every 30 min on weekdays and 60 min on weekends, serves nearly all of southern Kingston away from the Frankston line. It also passes near the under-construction Mordialloc Aquatic Centre. Council is seeking a weekend upgrade to every 30 minutes. It would also like to hear views on whether the 708 should be deviated via Aspendale Gardens Shopping Centre, something that would be convenient for some but would slow other peoples' trips. 

Route 903 is Melbourne's busiest single bus route with many major destinations en route. Operating from Mordialloc to Altona it is one of our three orbital SmartBuses. Weekday service is every 15 minutes but weekend service has 30 minute gaps - not ideal for a premium route. Kingston wishes to see the busy Mentone - Box Hill section of this route improved to operate every 10 minutes on weekdays and every 15 minutes on weekends.  

These three service upgrades would improve public transport connectivity across a large section of Kingston, particularly on weekends. The main expense would be extra bus driver hours. Routes 828 and 903 (especially) are above average patronage productivity with improved service likely to stimulate further usage growth (as happened when Route 800 on Princes Hwy gained greatly improved weekend service last November). I suggested all three upgrades as bus advocacy priorities for Kingston last year. 

Longer term priorities

The above major priorities are relatively simple to implement as they are upgrades of existing routes. Improvements can happen as little as six weeks after budget funding if there is sufficient political will as seen with Werribee's bus upgrades starting soon.

Adding new routes or reforming existing routes tends to take longer. But this is still important to tackle network gaps or inefficiencies. Kingston has three longer term priorities here, as follows: 

Bay Road corridor bus. Currently there is no direct public transport between Southland Shopping Centre and Sandringham station despite there being a direct road there. Neither does Southland station have bus routes nearby. The closest alternatives are routes 708, 822 and 828 which are both indirect and not consistently frequent. A Bay Rd connection could be formed with a new route or (more economically) rerouting an existing route like the 828 direct from Southland to Sandringham. I have written about the need for a Bay Rd bus many times including in my list of bus advocacy priorities for Bayside. 

Southland - Elsternwick Nepean Hwy bus. Nepean Hwy is a major thoroughfare but significant sections have no bus. Other parts do have a bus but it is the occasional Route 823 from Southland to Brighton once an hour on weekdays only. A reappraisal of the local bus network would likely include a Southland - Moorabbin - Elsternwick bus that would fill this 'missing gap' in the network. Again this route features in the bus advocacy priorities for Kingston I prepared last year. 

Mordialloc - Clayton - Monash University bus. Current public transport access from southern Kingston to the Monash employment and education precinct is very poor. The state government has spent hundreds of millions building the Mordialloc Freeway for these type of trips but has done zero for public transport on this corridor. Access to local jobs is also a problem with Braeside being a public transport desert save for a handful of Route 705 trips a day from Mordialloc (which instead of continuing north to Clayton turns off to Springvale). A new Mordialloc to Monash University bus would be more expensive than some of the other upgrades discussed here but would make many trips faster and easier than now. I investigated the possibility of such a route back in 2019 here.  

What else could have been advocated?

I'd have liked to have seen a Route 733 extension to Southland, Cheltenham or potentially even Sandringham along the lines of the Suburban Rail Loop SmartBus concept. While appealing, the implementation would be slower than straight service upgrades due to the need to tie in with bus network reform in the Oakleigh/Clarinda area.

Other potential inclusions include improved weekend frequencies and simplification of the 811/812, improved Route 824 weekend frequencies in Clarinda and 7 day service for the very infrequent 857  between Chelsea and Dandenong. Better weekend service on the crowded 902 orbital is arguably even more important, though much of it runs on the Springvale Rd border between Kingston and Greater Dandenong, with its busiest portions being in Greater Dandenong and Monash more than Kingston. 

A risk that may have ran through Kingston's mind is that asking for too much can complicate messaging and mean that nothing requested happens. If you accept that then the six options chosen is probably a good balance. 

Conclusion

The City of Kingston has come up with six proposals that if adopted will greatly improve bus travel not only in the City of Kingston but also adjoining municipalities including Bayside, Monash, Box Hill and Greater Dandenong. 

The real test is how the state government reacts. While DTP might back the proposals they would all require budget funding that requires political support.

It is for this reason that I urge people that as well as completing the Kingston bus survey they request the support of state parliamentarians to advocate for. fund and deliver these essential bus service upgrades. 

See other Useful Network items here