Friday, November 28, 2025
Thursday, November 20, 2025
UN 218: Three ideas for fairer fares
Before 'Big Build' transport infrastructure projects assumed centre stage just over 10 years ago, too much of public transport management's time was wasted on matters that were at worst trivial (eg rebranding) and at best second-order (such as fares/ticketing). I discussed that last year.
That's a problem because executives can only juggle a few balls at once. If they pick the wrong balls then time gets wasted on fruitless dead ends to the exclusion of what can make a real difference.
That's a problem because executives can only juggle a few balls at once. If they pick the wrong balls then time gets wasted on fruitless dead ends to the exclusion of what can make a real difference.
For example DTP leaders squandered critical years on unproductive FlexiRide bus schemes while Cabinet support for transformative bus network reform flipped from support in early 2022 to rejection in late 2023. That basically killed the centrepiece of Victoria's Bus Plan launched two years prior. To save face the government now refers to any bus initiative, whether good or bad, as 'Delivering on Victoria's Bus Plan'.
Media attention can also skew perceptions of what is considered important. The commentariat loves Melbourne Airport rail but it's not the sort of whole-network game changer that western and northern rail plans, Metro train frequency upgrades and widespread bus reform would be. The latter three would benefit many people every day while not many would use airport rail more than a few time a year.
Fares is another hot topic. It's reached some prominence lately for several reasons. For example:
(i) Brisbane's experience with 50 cent fares (which have led to some patronage but not mode share growth on a network notorious for terrible service levels)
(ii) the pandemic experience which has led to the MR5 tram and soon to be train contracts effectively become simple 'fee for service' contracts with the government assuming all fare risk,
(iii) potential increased flexibility with myki's replacement as regards to the fare types available,
(iv) the coming state election campaign where there is a chance that parties enter in a 'race to the bottom' on fares rather than a 'race to the top' on service quality with regards to public transport (as also happened in 2022)
Opportunity cost of free or deeply discounted travel
Too much debate focuses on existing public transport passengers making existing trips. In other words instead of passengers paying $5 odd for a trip they might only pay 50 cents if fares were cut like in Queensland.
Less attention is given to the fact that the most expensive trips are those that aren't reasonably possible on public transport due to the latter's limited route coverage, hours and frequency. Such trips might cost $20 or more if taken by taxi or rideshare. Adding service so that more of these trips can be made by public transport results in even bigger savings than the first example.
Some might argue we should do both - ie cut fares and increase service. Victoria has most notably done that with V/Line. However while it has higher subsidies per passenger, V/Line longer distance trips are still relatively small in number meaning that the overall subsidy may be affordable. That is less so for more numerous metropolitan area trips which attract higher overall revenue.
Adding service and cutting fares is vastly better than just cutting fares but it still carries some opportunity cost; if fares were not cut even more service could be added. There may well be cities where there is already so much service that adding more is unnecessary but Melbourne is a long way from being one of them.
Because of this I have written far more about what's most important (the service) than what's less important (fares). Victoria is not the UK that combines insanely expensive spontaneous trip rail fares with generally low incomes. Our fare system is not without problems but caps provide a safety net to ensure that travel is never excessively expensive over the course of a year, something that could be strengthened if they were made weekly.
That makes fares a second order issue relative to service basics like operating hours, frequency, speed, reliability and connectivity whose absence can push travel on vastly more expensive travel modes. That's especially a problem if trips need to be made frequently, such as travel to evening or industrial area jobs (that aren't necessarily very high paying). The best way to make choosing the most expensive travel means an option rather than a necessity is to work our existing trains and buses harder across the week to deliver a more useful 'job ready network' such as I discuss here and here. The sort of bus routing, hours and frequency changes that have happened in parts of Wyndham this year are exactly the sort of job-ready reforms needed but far more of this is required across the whole metropolitan area.
Notwithstanding fares being a generally second-order issue, there are undoubtedly value for money issues that may have an outsized impact for specific trips. As well there are some perverse incentives and inequalities.
With fare structure reform back on the government's agenda, Below are some examples.
Fare reform priorities
While free or deeply discounted fares have significant opportunity costs so are not advocated, there are still cases where some existing trips are poor value for money. The perception that generates might even discourage travel amongst the honest and encourage fare evasion amongst the rest. Touch-on rates are low (especially on buses) with ignoring it appearing as an 'unofficial official' stance with a low chance of detection.
In other cases the fare system may have perverse incentives, such as encouraging station car parks to fill up earlier than they should or encouraging driving to the CBD fringe. There are also needless complexities such as some regional fares being cheaper and having different validity periods.
Certain groups get awarded free or deeply discounted fares based on who they are rather than due to any greater need than others who pay more.
Learn about the complexity of current fares and ticketing across the state in official publications here.
1. Need for a more progressive fare structure
The most glaring issue is that short trips are relatively dear compared to longer trips, with this perception being exacerbated by the government's statewide fare cap. As an example a short bus, train or tram trip in Zone 1 costs $5.50. Zone 2 metropolitan only trips are a bit cheaper ($3.50) but posters at stations take a Zone 1 centric view, and ignore mention of this.
That's particularly expensive if couples, groups or families are travelling. Taxis/rideshare may even be more competitive for some group trips that are not often made.
To be fair the Victorian government sought to address this for families with children. But they chose the most expensive means possible - that of making all travel for children fare free anywhere in the state from 2026. The family travel issue was known in the 1980s with their fix being free weekend travel for families accompanying one 'breadwinner' who had a periodical ticket.
While short trips are relatively dear the largely flat fare structure and the statewide fare cap make long distance trips insanely cheap. People are often swayed by relativity between prices rather than their absolute level. Thus very cheap long distance fares may have the unintended consequence of making fares for short trips look worse value for money than they are. Especially when government-published material actually fails to mention cheaper fares applicable, as per the Zone 2 station poster example above.
A fairer fare structure would restore some form of progression so that longer trips cost more than shorter trips. One option is some sort of short trip ticket. This should be multimodal and not penalise transfers (like some previous iterations did).
Another option could be to extend to two hour period to three hours to increase the number of short errands possible without hitting the daily cap. That alone could halve the cost of some trips, even before considering off-peak reductions.
The Infrastructure Victoria proposal to break up the multimode fare system to make bus fares cheaper should however be opposed as this introduces unnecessary complexities and makes bus network reform politically more difficult.
2. Scrap perverse incentives and complexities
The Early Bird allows early morning weekday workers travelling before 7:15am to get free travel on Metro trains. This was introduced to address crowding by seeking to spread the peak. However it is not valid for use on trams or buses. Neither can V/Line passengers on lines like from Melton or Wyndham Vale use it. This is highly inequitable and may be less relevant than in the past due to more working from home. A fairer approach may be to replace Early Bird with some form of cheaper off-peak fare applying across all modes.
Another example of single mode fares is the CBD free tram zone. This encourages people to drive to the CBD edge as well as discouraging train and bus use. It also limits tourism to areas outside the CBD and contributes to tram crowding in the city. The Free Tram Zone should be abolished to help pay for other fare reforms discussed here.
One complexity is the after 6pm offer where a 2 hour fare applies the whole evening. It is not clear how many people this benefits. There would be some (including evening workers) who would need to start their travel before 6pm so would still pay for a full day's travel. On balance there would likely be an overall greater good if this concession was replaced with some form of relative reduction in off-peak fares.
The $11 statewide fare cap has been overlaid on some complexities with regards to regional fares. There is likely scope for these to be simplified with fewer fare zones. There is also scope to harmonise with fares in Melbourne as different rates apply to create a true unified system.
Payment methods bring additional complexity, especially for honest occasional riders that current arrangements discourage. We went backwards when we removed the ability to manually top up a myki on buses during the pandemic with fare evasion ballooning afterwards. Moving to credit/debit card payment may help address this though the culture of fare evasion that has taken root in the meantime will make a compliance culture hard to restore.
3. Greater equity across types concession passengers
Victoria's Seniors Card is not means tested. A professional consultant working 30 hours per week qualifies while a PAYE earner working 38 hours per week does not. Despite that it offers more generous fare concessions than concession holders (whose concession travel rights are based on a genuine need).
The Seniors Card is socio-economically regressive, and, noting increasing community concern over intergenerational inequalities, should probably be means tested. Regardless of whether that happens or not (and it would be a courageous move), travel concessions that Seniors receive should not be more generous than the general concession conditions.
The above for Seniors is unlikely to happen - if anything policy trends have been going the other way towards more concessions to an (on average) asset rich and numerically increasing cohort (which makes clawing back excessive benefits politically harder). As an example Seniors got free weekend travel some time ago for travel in two adjoining zones some years ago with this to be extended to all trips statewide in 2026.
Seniors vary significantly in their financial means yet the trend has been to apply benefits universally, with age rather than need or means (unfairly) being a criterion for concession carve-outs. Not just here but overseas with the UK's 'triple lock' being one egregrious example while no such protections exist for the living standards of those who are younger and working.
Summary
Public transport fares is a politically fraught issue even though fiddling with them is less important than making services more useful when it comes to delivering genuine cost of living savings.
Reform of fares has winners, losers and opportunity costs. Presented are some ideas above that could address some of the perverse inequalities and incentives in our current fare structure.
See other Useful Network items here
Media attention can also skew perceptions of what is considered important. The commentariat loves Melbourne Airport rail but it's not the sort of whole-network game changer that western and northern rail plans, Metro train frequency upgrades and widespread bus reform would be. The latter three would benefit many people every day while not many would use airport rail more than a few time a year.
Fares is another hot topic. It's reached some prominence lately for several reasons. For example:
(i) Brisbane's experience with 50 cent fares (which have led to some patronage but not mode share growth on a network notorious for terrible service levels)
(ii) the pandemic experience which has led to the MR5 tram and soon to be train contracts effectively become simple 'fee for service' contracts with the government assuming all fare risk,
(iii) potential increased flexibility with myki's replacement as regards to the fare types available,
(iv) the coming state election campaign where there is a chance that parties enter in a 'race to the bottom' on fares rather than a 'race to the top' on service quality with regards to public transport (as also happened in 2022)
Opportunity cost of free or deeply discounted travel
Too much debate focuses on existing public transport passengers making existing trips. In other words instead of passengers paying $5 odd for a trip they might only pay 50 cents if fares were cut like in Queensland.
Less attention is given to the fact that the most expensive trips are those that aren't reasonably possible on public transport due to the latter's limited route coverage, hours and frequency. Such trips might cost $20 or more if taken by taxi or rideshare. Adding service so that more of these trips can be made by public transport results in even bigger savings than the first example.
Expressed in another way, the biggest benefits of just cutting fares accrue to those in areas already well served and whose residents have higher capacities to pay (typically affluent inner suburbs) while the big benefits of adding service come to residents whose current public transport services are limited and whose average trip distances are longer (typically less affluent outer suburbs).
Cutting fares is also more likely to result in less cycling and walking whereas making service better is more likely to result in mode shift from driving.
Cutting fares is also more likely to result in less cycling and walking whereas making service better is more likely to result in mode shift from driving.
Some might argue we should do both - ie cut fares and increase service. Victoria has most notably done that with V/Line. However while it has higher subsidies per passenger, V/Line longer distance trips are still relatively small in number meaning that the overall subsidy may be affordable. That is less so for more numerous metropolitan area trips which attract higher overall revenue.
Adding service and cutting fares is vastly better than just cutting fares but it still carries some opportunity cost; if fares were not cut even more service could be added. There may well be cities where there is already so much service that adding more is unnecessary but Melbourne is a long way from being one of them.
Because of this I have written far more about what's most important (the service) than what's less important (fares). Victoria is not the UK that combines insanely expensive spontaneous trip rail fares with generally low incomes. Our fare system is not without problems but caps provide a safety net to ensure that travel is never excessively expensive over the course of a year, something that could be strengthened if they were made weekly.
That makes fares a second order issue relative to service basics like operating hours, frequency, speed, reliability and connectivity whose absence can push travel on vastly more expensive travel modes. That's especially a problem if trips need to be made frequently, such as travel to evening or industrial area jobs (that aren't necessarily very high paying). The best way to make choosing the most expensive travel means an option rather than a necessity is to work our existing trains and buses harder across the week to deliver a more useful 'job ready network' such as I discuss here and here. The sort of bus routing, hours and frequency changes that have happened in parts of Wyndham this year are exactly the sort of job-ready reforms needed but far more of this is required across the whole metropolitan area.
Notwithstanding fares being a generally second-order issue, there are undoubtedly value for money issues that may have an outsized impact for specific trips. As well there are some perverse incentives and inequalities.
With fare structure reform back on the government's agenda, Below are some examples.
Fare reform priorities
While free or deeply discounted fares have significant opportunity costs so are not advocated, there are still cases where some existing trips are poor value for money. The perception that generates might even discourage travel amongst the honest and encourage fare evasion amongst the rest. Touch-on rates are low (especially on buses) with ignoring it appearing as an 'unofficial official' stance with a low chance of detection.
In other cases the fare system may have perverse incentives, such as encouraging station car parks to fill up earlier than they should or encouraging driving to the CBD fringe. There are also needless complexities such as some regional fares being cheaper and having different validity periods.
Certain groups get awarded free or deeply discounted fares based on who they are rather than due to any greater need than others who pay more.
Learn about the complexity of current fares and ticketing across the state in official publications here.
1. Need for a more progressive fare structure
The most glaring issue is that short trips are relatively dear compared to longer trips, with this perception being exacerbated by the government's statewide fare cap. As an example a short bus, train or tram trip in Zone 1 costs $5.50. Zone 2 metropolitan only trips are a bit cheaper ($3.50) but posters at stations take a Zone 1 centric view, and ignore mention of this.
That's particularly expensive if couples, groups or families are travelling. Taxis/rideshare may even be more competitive for some group trips that are not often made.
To be fair the Victorian government sought to address this for families with children. But they chose the most expensive means possible - that of making all travel for children fare free anywhere in the state from 2026. The family travel issue was known in the 1980s with their fix being free weekend travel for families accompanying one 'breadwinner' who had a periodical ticket.
While short trips are relatively dear the largely flat fare structure and the statewide fare cap make long distance trips insanely cheap. People are often swayed by relativity between prices rather than their absolute level. Thus very cheap long distance fares may have the unintended consequence of making fares for short trips look worse value for money than they are. Especially when government-published material actually fails to mention cheaper fares applicable, as per the Zone 2 station poster example above.
A fairer fare structure would restore some form of progression so that longer trips cost more than shorter trips. One option is some sort of short trip ticket. This should be multimodal and not penalise transfers (like some previous iterations did).
Another option could be to extend to two hour period to three hours to increase the number of short errands possible without hitting the daily cap. That alone could halve the cost of some trips, even before considering off-peak reductions.
The Infrastructure Victoria proposal to break up the multimode fare system to make bus fares cheaper should however be opposed as this introduces unnecessary complexities and makes bus network reform politically more difficult.
2. Scrap perverse incentives and complexities
The Early Bird allows early morning weekday workers travelling before 7:15am to get free travel on Metro trains. This was introduced to address crowding by seeking to spread the peak. However it is not valid for use on trams or buses. Neither can V/Line passengers on lines like from Melton or Wyndham Vale use it. This is highly inequitable and may be less relevant than in the past due to more working from home. A fairer approach may be to replace Early Bird with some form of cheaper off-peak fare applying across all modes.
Another example of single mode fares is the CBD free tram zone. This encourages people to drive to the CBD edge as well as discouraging train and bus use. It also limits tourism to areas outside the CBD and contributes to tram crowding in the city. The Free Tram Zone should be abolished to help pay for other fare reforms discussed here.
One complexity is the after 6pm offer where a 2 hour fare applies the whole evening. It is not clear how many people this benefits. There would be some (including evening workers) who would need to start their travel before 6pm so would still pay for a full day's travel. On balance there would likely be an overall greater good if this concession was replaced with some form of relative reduction in off-peak fares.
The $11 statewide fare cap has been overlaid on some complexities with regards to regional fares. There is likely scope for these to be simplified with fewer fare zones. There is also scope to harmonise with fares in Melbourne as different rates apply to create a true unified system.
Payment methods bring additional complexity, especially for honest occasional riders that current arrangements discourage. We went backwards when we removed the ability to manually top up a myki on buses during the pandemic with fare evasion ballooning afterwards. Moving to credit/debit card payment may help address this though the culture of fare evasion that has taken root in the meantime will make a compliance culture hard to restore.
3. Greater equity across types concession passengers
Victoria's Seniors Card is not means tested. A professional consultant working 30 hours per week qualifies while a PAYE earner working 38 hours per week does not. Despite that it offers more generous fare concessions than concession holders (whose concession travel rights are based on a genuine need).
The Seniors Card is socio-economically regressive, and, noting increasing community concern over intergenerational inequalities, should probably be means tested. Regardless of whether that happens or not (and it would be a courageous move), travel concessions that Seniors receive should not be more generous than the general concession conditions.
The above for Seniors is unlikely to happen - if anything policy trends have been going the other way towards more concessions to an (on average) asset rich and numerically increasing cohort (which makes clawing back excessive benefits politically harder). As an example Seniors got free weekend travel some time ago for travel in two adjoining zones some years ago with this to be extended to all trips statewide in 2026.
Seniors vary significantly in their financial means yet the trend has been to apply benefits universally, with age rather than need or means (unfairly) being a criterion for concession carve-outs. Not just here but overseas with the UK's 'triple lock' being one egregrious example while no such protections exist for the living standards of those who are younger and working.
Summary
Public transport fares is a politically fraught issue even though fiddling with them is less important than making services more useful when it comes to delivering genuine cost of living savings.
Reform of fares has winners, losers and opportunity costs. Presented are some ideas above that could address some of the perverse inequalities and incentives in our current fare structure.
See other Useful Network items here
Tuesday, November 18, 2025
Eastern Transport Coalition's 2026/27 Budget Submission for better transport
Executive summary: The Eastern Transport Coalition proposed some worthwhile transport upgrades in its 2026-27 state budget submission. But it could have gone further as the group's first contribution to the agenda for next year's election campaign. Its submission had nothing for rail and was patchy on buses. Earlier release and more promotion may also have increased its impact.
Local councils sometimes form groupings to jointly advocate to state and federal governments for transport upgrades. This is sensible because major roads, railways and bus routes typically serve multiple local government areas.
Such groupings have waxed and waned in influence. Activity heavily depends on the involvement of dedicated campaigners who can either be councillors or council officers. Other factors depend on council priorities (they may tend to prioritise within-council functions) and the perceived probability of success (especially if there are state or federal elections soon). Some groups engage professional support for secretarial or lobbying purposes though the cost effectiveness of this varies.
One such grouping, comprising several councils in Melbourne's East, is the Eastern Transport Coalition. ETC goes back to at least 2007, then having Dandenong, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Monash, Whitehorse and Yarra Ranges as members. That membership remained in 2024 but had shrunk by 2025, with Whitehorse and Maroondah dropping out. Membership of organisations like ETC involves a cost which can be an issue if member councils don't see value in it and/or would prefer to advocate alone.
So far we've seen advocacy from various groupings in Melbourne's west and north. ETC posted its submission for the 2026-27 state budget on its website on 27 October 2025.
2026's main political events include the state budget in May and the state election in November. That makes this next budget a pre-election budget. Those writing submissions should be mindful of this, noting that even if a project request does not win budget funding it may be picked up by one or several political parties as policy a few months later, and with luck be funded later.
Pre-election budget submissions should be written with this in mind. That might include asking more than what you might normally request and proposing measures that have electoral appeal.
ETC's submission
Such groupings have waxed and waned in influence. Activity heavily depends on the involvement of dedicated campaigners who can either be councillors or council officers. Other factors depend on council priorities (they may tend to prioritise within-council functions) and the perceived probability of success (especially if there are state or federal elections soon). Some groups engage professional support for secretarial or lobbying purposes though the cost effectiveness of this varies.
One such grouping, comprising several councils in Melbourne's East, is the Eastern Transport Coalition. ETC goes back to at least 2007, then having Dandenong, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Monash, Whitehorse and Yarra Ranges as members. That membership remained in 2024 but had shrunk by 2025, with Whitehorse and Maroondah dropping out. Membership of organisations like ETC involves a cost which can be an issue if member councils don't see value in it and/or would prefer to advocate alone.
So far we've seen advocacy from various groupings in Melbourne's west and north. ETC posted its submission for the 2026-27 state budget on its website on 27 October 2025.
2026's main political events include the state budget in May and the state election in November. That makes this next budget a pre-election budget. Those writing submissions should be mindful of this, noting that even if a project request does not win budget funding it may be picked up by one or several political parties as policy a few months later, and with luck be funded later.
Pre-election budget submissions should be written with this in mind. That might include asking more than what you might normally request and proposing measures that have electoral appeal.
ETC's submission
This is a concise 6 page document that lists transport priorities by mode after a one page introduction. There are sections for bus services, shared user paths, walking and roads.
I will focus on the public transport components only. I have identified four key issues with it below:
They didn't ask for enough
That's my first thought. Even if you don't get it all funded in 2026 a submission like this is a great opportunity to give stakeholders (who are about the only people who read these documents) a taste of the bigger things you want in the hope that it gets adopted as an election promise from one (or preferably all) parties.
You don't want to go the other extreme either, blinding people with a shopping list of fine details on 50 bus routes. But asking for a few more high impact initiatives would have made the submission better.
I will focus on the public transport components only. I have identified four key issues with it below:
They didn't ask for enough
That's my first thought. Even if you don't get it all funded in 2026 a submission like this is a great opportunity to give stakeholders (who are about the only people who read these documents) a taste of the bigger things you want in the hope that it gets adopted as an election promise from one (or preferably all) parties.
You don't want to go the other extreme either, blinding people with a shopping list of fine details on 50 bus routes. But asking for a few more high impact initiatives would have made the submission better.
Nothing for rail
The big omission is there's nothing for rail. That might be understandable given that the southern part of the ETC area is served by the Dandenong line. The CBD - Dandenong portion is already every 10 minutes or better most of the week with times that it is not (weekend evenings and Sunday mornings) likely to be fixed in the Metro Tunnel timetable starting in February 2026.
But the northern part of the ETC area (notably Yarra Ranges and Knox) is served by the Burnley group whose trains east of Ringwood are amongst the least frequent on the metropolitan network, with 30 minute gaps common. Midday frequency upgrades on those would be highly cost-effective with big benefits over a huge catchment.
The submission should have advocated at least that, like Maroondah has done so individually. Maybe ETC didn't consider it important as two of the three municipalities that would have most benefited (Whitehorse and Maroondah) no longer appear to be members. However the City of Monash is still a member and would have benefited from frequency upgrades on the Glen Waverley line.
A few good bus initiatives
The big omission is there's nothing for rail. That might be understandable given that the southern part of the ETC area is served by the Dandenong line. The CBD - Dandenong portion is already every 10 minutes or better most of the week with times that it is not (weekend evenings and Sunday mornings) likely to be fixed in the Metro Tunnel timetable starting in February 2026.
But the northern part of the ETC area (notably Yarra Ranges and Knox) is served by the Burnley group whose trains east of Ringwood are amongst the least frequent on the metropolitan network, with 30 minute gaps common. Midday frequency upgrades on those would be highly cost-effective with big benefits over a huge catchment.
The submission should have advocated at least that, like Maroondah has done so individually. Maybe ETC didn't consider it important as two of the three municipalities that would have most benefited (Whitehorse and Maroondah) no longer appear to be members. However the City of Monash is still a member and would have benefited from frequency upgrades on the Glen Waverley line.
A few good bus initiatives
The stand-out here is an upgrade to the Doncaster Rd corridor served by the popular bus route 907. This is also backed by Infrastructure Victoria in its recent 30 year strategy.
The Templestowe Rd Heidleberg - Pines bus concept is also good. This requires significant bus network reform for maximum effect but is potentially possible for no net cost.
Support is given for the Bus Network Review in the North-East. This will require the government to revive the review and reform plan to 2031 that Cabinet dumped in late 2023. But the concept of frequent direct routes, including a bus along the Suburban Rail Loop corridor, is good.
The Templestowe Rd Heidleberg - Pines bus concept is also good. This requires significant bus network reform for maximum effect but is potentially possible for no net cost.
Support is given for the Bus Network Review in the North-East. This will require the government to revive the review and reform plan to 2031 that Cabinet dumped in late 2023. But the concept of frequent direct routes, including a bus along the Suburban Rail Loop corridor, is good.
Some mediocre or low impact bus initiatives
Other initiatives have potential but in my view are over-complicated, too expensive and/or are not the highest priorities for their areas.
A route for the part of Scoresby Rd without service from Bayswater is definitely needed. However the ETC proposal has this going to the smaller and more distant centre of Stud Park rather than the closer and busier centre of Knox City. The former would have this new route overlap other routes (eg 753, 755) which would require substantial reform if major inefficiencies are to be avoided. I discussed simpler options here.
Also advocated is a connection to Tram Route 75 incorporating reform of Route 745 (which is just four trips per day across all its variants). A 'nice to have' but providing a simpler consistent network that runs 7 days would be a higher priority.
There is also a messy 12 month pilot program of bus routes in the Dandenongs. Many of these are not that well used and/or may be underserviced. They do deserve a network review but are relatively low impact compared to other potential bus upgrades.
A review of Dandenong CBD bus routes is also worthy in that through-routing could enable more one-seat rides to bring people nearer to shops and Dandenong Market. However bus reviews are time-consuming affairs that can take years after which any initial enthusiasm to do anything has dissipated or been diverted due to 'higher priorities' elsewhere.
There are more specific upgrades possible on existing above average usage routes such as seven day service on services like 802, 804, 814 and 844 as well as higher weekend frequencies on main routes like 828 (advocated by Kingston Council which is not an ETC member), 900 (the bus most similar to the trackless tram ETC backs) and others like 901, 902 and 903. At least sections of these routes can be reasonably upgraded without need for a review. Thus they can be done quicker and likely with high benefit. ETC could have gone harder on these.
A route for the part of Scoresby Rd without service from Bayswater is definitely needed. However the ETC proposal has this going to the smaller and more distant centre of Stud Park rather than the closer and busier centre of Knox City. The former would have this new route overlap other routes (eg 753, 755) which would require substantial reform if major inefficiencies are to be avoided. I discussed simpler options here.
Also advocated is a connection to Tram Route 75 incorporating reform of Route 745 (which is just four trips per day across all its variants). A 'nice to have' but providing a simpler consistent network that runs 7 days would be a higher priority.
There is also a messy 12 month pilot program of bus routes in the Dandenongs. Many of these are not that well used and/or may be underserviced. They do deserve a network review but are relatively low impact compared to other potential bus upgrades.
A review of Dandenong CBD bus routes is also worthy in that through-routing could enable more one-seat rides to bring people nearer to shops and Dandenong Market. However bus reviews are time-consuming affairs that can take years after which any initial enthusiasm to do anything has dissipated or been diverted due to 'higher priorities' elsewhere.
There are more specific upgrades possible on existing above average usage routes such as seven day service on services like 802, 804, 814 and 844 as well as higher weekend frequencies on main routes like 828 (advocated by Kingston Council which is not an ETC member), 900 (the bus most similar to the trackless tram ETC backs) and others like 901, 902 and 903. At least sections of these routes can be reasonably upgraded without need for a review. Thus they can be done quicker and likely with high benefit. ETC could have gone harder on these.
Timing and promotion
There may well have been private approaches to local MPs and ministers but my experience is that many advocates prepare their budget submissions too late to have an impact. Winter is about when local MPs think about what they want in the following year's budget for their area with approaches made after about mid to late September possibly being too late.
ETC don't seem to have promoted requests in this submission very much, especially when compared to groupings in other areas such as Melbourne's west and north or indeed some individual councils such as Kingston.
A search indicates little evidence of media releases being issued. ETC has also not used its social media to promote the submission with its last Facebook page post being 27 June.
There may well have been private approaches to local MPs and ministers but my experience is that many advocates prepare their budget submissions too late to have an impact. Winter is about when local MPs think about what they want in the following year's budget for their area with approaches made after about mid to late September possibly being too late.
ETC don't seem to have promoted requests in this submission very much, especially when compared to groupings in other areas such as Melbourne's west and north or indeed some individual councils such as Kingston.
A search indicates little evidence of media releases being issued. ETC has also not used its social media to promote the submission with its last Facebook page post being 27 June.
Conclusion
The Eastern Transport Coalition has advocated some good things for public transport in its budget submission. We won't know how effective this has been until next year's state budget and the following election campaign.
However it looks to me that they could have asked for bigger transport upgrades (especially in rail) and done more to generate community, stakeholder and political support for same (like councils in other areas are attempting).
Their submission might also have been improved if it had more specific asks on already productive bus routes (which would be simpler to implement and would benefit more people) rather than a concentration on seeking reviews or business cases to sort out indirect and poorly used routes.
However it looks to me that they could have asked for bigger transport upgrades (especially in rail) and done more to generate community, stakeholder and political support for same (like councils in other areas are attempting).
Their submission might also have been improved if it had more specific asks on already productive bus routes (which would be simpler to implement and would benefit more people) rather than a concentration on seeking reviews or business cases to sort out indirect and poorly used routes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)