Friday, May 08, 2020

Building Melbourne's Useful Network Part 44: Better buses in Melton township

Average house prices are a rough measure of a suburb's desirability. For a given distance from the Melbourne CBD west is cheaper than east and north is (mostly) cheaper than south. If you're after a house on a full sized block the suburbs around Melton (specifically Melton South) is normally the cheapest. Next cheapest is Werribee. Further up the price scale is Sunbury. 

All three clusters are on major radial rail and freeway corridors. Melton and Sunbury are about 40km from the Melbourne CBD and were classified as satellite cities in the 1970s. Werribee is closer in at 30km out, about half way to Geelong.


The fallen satellite?

By almost all urban measures Melton is the runt of this trio. You could even describe it as a 'fallen satellite'. About the only area where Melton can be considered successful is population growth and that is due to its low house and land prices. A recent parliamentary representative considered life there so burdensome that he claimed a living away from home allowance for a coastal property. Alan Davies suggested some reasons for Melton's failure as a satellite centre here. More here, here, here and here (from p344). 

Let's look at employment. The City of Melton has few local jobs relative to its population. And they're not very diversified. Most of Melton's working population must travel long distances outside it each day. More than any other part of Melbourne. The concept of a satellite city where commutes were shorter due to local jobs whose workers could live nearby hasn't really worked out here.

Then there's education. You'd think that a suburb with a surging youth population would be an attractive place to put a higher education campus. Unfortunately Melton (and Sunbury) got the not-very-rich Victoria University which abandoned its outer campuses some time ago. Public libraries are rare with just two in the entire municipality. Other municipalities with less population have two or three times the  number of libraries. Secondary education is also lacking; Berwick and Werribee got government select entry high schools but Melton missed out. In fact missing out to Werribee is a common theme for Melton as you'll see later, especially with regards to transport.  

Melton lacks a substantial hospital the size you see in places like Clayton, Sunshine/St Albans or even Werribee. Instead its nearest is at Bacchus Marsh, dating from when it was a country town. Even retail is limited. Unlike main streets in Werribee and Sunbury (which abut rail) Melton's has had its life sucked out of it by the expanding Woodgrove centre. That almost has a monopoly with very few secondary centres nearer peoples homes.

Politically Melton used to be regarded as safe Labor. However complacency can set in with past MPs not  seen to be working for their area as hard as (say) marginal seat holders in the south-east. It's also fair to say that government investment has not reflected population growth as much as in other comparable areas, such as Wyndham. While the rest of the state swung towards Labor in the 2018 state election, Melton went the other way, retaining Labor with a slimmer majority. Melton's current member is Steve McGhie MP.

Melton the transport laggard

Werribee got rail electrification in the 1980s. Sunbury got it in 2012, albeit at half frequency. Werribee (or more strictly the City of Wyndham) gained a second line when Geelong V/Line diesel trains were sent via new stations at Wyndham Vale and Tarneit.

However in 2020 Melton is still waiting for its electrification or even, as a precursor, a regular 20 minute seven day service with diesel trains. Not having this makes it harder to justify the 20 minute bus frequencies required for a Useful Network. Instead its local bus routes almost all operate every 30 or 60 minutes, even during peak periods. 

In the last five years buses have been added or extended to serve the large urbanising area between Deer Park and Melton. These normally follow the opening of stations at locations such as Caroline Springs and Cobblebank. However Melton township, today's focus, has had no network-wide reviews. Its most recent changes have been the introduction of a new Route 454 to Cobblebank and a Route 459 extension providing increased coverage.

This is a big difference to the City of Wyndham which got a completely redesigned ('greenfields') bus network with improved coverage, directness and frequency. This has occurred in several stages since 2013, spurred on largely by new rail infrastructure, and, later overcrowding on successful new routes.  

Melton township has not been without rail service upgrades. However they have not been of the level that triggered bus network revamps in other places. Not that it would be particularly easy; for reasons of geometry and bad previous road planning Melton is a difficult area to provide frequent, direct and efficient bus routes that give good coverage. This is even when compared to suburbs of similar age, density and social characteristics such as in the City of Wyndham.


The maps below compare Melton's accreted-over-time routes with Wyndham's modern bus network. If you follow where the routes go you will see that Melton's routes are almost all indirect even though there are some straight main roads. None operate very frequently.

In contrast Wyndham has a two tier network. The straight routes along main roads run more frequently (some every 20 minutes off-peak) with less direct, less frequent routes (typically every 40 min) in between the main roads. Their function is to provide coverage to areas away from the main roads and/or to connect to locations, such as shopping centres, that the nearest direct route does not serve. Had Melton got a whole revised network, and not just an additional route then it too could have got some more direct routes.



The map below shows how remote Melton is from Melbourne's Useful Network and how poorly it compares to better served areas such as Wyndham.


How productive are Melton's existing bus routes? Partly for network topology reasons mentioned later, they are generally less used on a boardings per hour basis than bus routes in the City of Wyndham. Overall they are about average or slightly below for a Melbourne bus route. Route 458 has the highest at 21 boardings per hour on a weekday. This is closely followed by 456 (mostly outside Melton township) on 20 and 459 on 17. 457, 453 and 455 closely follow. Saturday boardings per hour numbers are about 80% of the weekday total though note that all routes drop to an hourly frequency then rather than the mix of 30 and 60 minute services on weekdays.

Melton is not a place where much happens on a Sunday; bus loadings tend to be about half (or slightly more) than that encountered on Saturdays. Apart from an area around Brookfield 453 has little unique coverage and has particularly low usage on weekends.

A new Useful Network for Melton township

As mentioned before it's harder to plan bus networks for Melton than even other similar areas such as Wyndham. This is for the following reasons. 

* Melton's town centre is remote from the station. As is its main shopping centre. The current network is based on all local routes (except the new 454) serving all three destinations (even if indirectly). Werribee and Sunbury are much better off with strong main street shopping near their station. For Melton there may be community resistance to new networks that force transfers, especially if the routes involved are infrequent. Having direct routes that still permit one-seat rides to many destinations is difficult but not impossible as you'll see later. 

* Melton's bus routes often lack strong anchors at their ends. This contrasts with Wyndham where two train lines provide logical termini. This is operationally efficient because buses in both directions can feed trains and attract passengers. In contrast bus routes with dead end termini tend to be busy in one direction but quiet in the opposite direction. We can't quickly build a second train line for the Melton area. But we can minimise dead end termini and make trips in the counter-peak direction provide useful access to some destinations that would not otherwise have one-seat rides.

* Melton's street layout is terrible for simple and direct bus routes. Wyndham has pockets like that but Melton is worse, with the railway and indirect streets preventing efficient route alignments or even a viable service in some areas.

* Melton is pedestrian hostile. People can't easily cross main roads. People need to be able to do this to reach bus stops. A revised more direct bus network on main roads also needs improved pedestrian access which will help local walking trips as well.

* Trains really need to have a consistent 20 minute frequency off-peak to provide consistent connections for the main bus routes described.

Is there hope for buses in Melton? Potentially there is. Although there will need to be extra resources to provide better than sparse service on at least some corridors. 

Below is a revamped network concept for Melton township. Like the successful Wyndham system it is a two tier network with more direct and more frequent service on main roads. Where the centre of development is away from the main road and a clear path through its centre exists then the route may follow that.  


Three of the four more frequent routes serve Melton Station or Woodgrove Shopping Centre. Two serve town centres at High St Melton and the proposed town centre near Cobblebank Station. All are direct and all run to a train station.

Routes 450 and 451 operate as a pair. Arriving Route 450 services form Route 451 services at the northern terminus (see the arrows) and vice versa. The rationale of this is that passengers on the 451 can get a one-seat ride to Woodgrove Shopping Centre. Similarly those on the 450 can travel to the town centre. This provides the directness of a new network's routes with the one-seat rides of the current network. It is similar to what currently happens on the successful 494/495 pair at Point Cook.

454 is an extension and upgrade of this newly introduced route. It provides a more frequent service to Brookfield and a connection to Woodgrove. The It serves new housing areas south of the railway near Cobblebank and west in the Brookfield area. Woodgrove provides an attractive local terminus.

The last Useful Network route, the 455, has several roles. These include a simple direct service between Woodgrove Shopping Centre, Melton Town Centre and the industrial area to the east and a local route for fast-developing Arnolds Creek. The latter gets access to Woodgrove, the Melton town centre and trains at Cobblebank. This connection will become more important as Cobblebank develops as a town centre.

The second tier of service comprises local routes 456, 457, 458 and 459, shown as fine lines. Except for 456 these are nothing like the existing local routes that have these numbers. 457 and 458 operate as an interlined pair, similar to the 450/451 example. Again this permits access to Melton's three main destinations without change. In addition, passengers living near the northern part of the route have the option of catching either route at Melton Station for a ride home.  If trains operate every 20 minutes these local routes might operate every 40 minutes interpeak with the potential for increased peak service depending on demand.

Conclusion

This is a potential revised bus network concept for much-neglected Melton town. What do you think? Would it make an improvement? Or could other things be done? Please leave any comments you have below.

PS: An index to all Useful Networks is here.


Tuesday, May 05, 2020

Timetable Tuesday #73: NQR: Endeavour Hills' new bus timetables for 843 845 861



Just over two months ago I reviewed the new Endeavour Hills bus network. It's quite a rare thing, being a review of bus services in an established area. The general conclusion is that reforms could have gone further (eg like this) but it represents a worthwhile improvement over what runs today. For example it provides improved access to Dandenong Hospital and TAFE, there are (generally) longer operating hours and frequencies are better. It's also quite a cost-effective network change with many of the resources of the improved frequencies coming from a reduction in the number of Dandenong - Endeavour Hills routes from four to three. 

The new network starts at the end of this month. Timetables and maps (also reproduced below) are on the PTV website. 


Department of Transport's service standards

The Department of Transport (DoT) is the state government management and planning agency for train, tram and bus services in Victoria. It oversees contracts with operators and plans new routes. While it doesn't directly schedule the times of every train, tram and bus in Melbourne, it produces specification documents for timetables, especially if they are for new or amended bus routes. These specifications cover matters such as operating days, operating hours, frequencies, connections with trains and public holiday services. Bus companies (or specialists engaged by them) draw up timetables that meet these specifications with the DoT meant to check compliance before approving them.

The biggest change to what runs when came in 2006 with Minister Batchelor's Meeting Our Transport Challenges plan. This set minimum service standards for buses. These included a service every 60 minutes or better between the following hours.

Mon - Fri: 6am - 9pm
Sat: 8am - 9pm
Sun: 9am - 9pm
Public holidays: Saturday timetable applies except Good Friday & Christmas Day (Sunday timetable).

These upgrades were important because, with their archaic 7pm weekday and 1pm Saturday finish times, most buses did not run when people needed them. You can see the state of play in early 2006, before MOTC was released, here. Substantial improvements had been made by 2008 as per this count. In addition new bus routes, introduced as part of the local area bus reviews then going on, would almost all operate to minimum standards.

The minimum standards program was a great success. Along with the new SmartBuses it made the network more useful. Patronage rose about as much as service (about 25% in a few years). That was a good result given that the local network reviews of the time did not always attack instances of inefficiency and duplicative routes.

The above operating hours weren't perfect but they made buses more useful for many more trips. Their main remaining shortcoming was the late start on weekends. Often people want to reach their destinations before the buses have started. It is not uncommon for the heaviest used Sunday trip on a route to be the first service, indicating likely high demand for an earlier start. The institutional bias against good early weekend morning services afflicts both trains with their limited frequencies and buses with their late starts, especially on Sundays. The problem was made worse because MOTC's standards were unevenly interpreted by operators, with Sita and Moorabbin Transit (eg 472 and 825) opting for a late start/late finish pattern despite less Sunday demand at 10pm than 9am.

The Department wised up to this about 5 or 6 years ago, at least for new routes. Instead of starting at 8 and 9 am Saturday and Sunday new routes would start at a more useful 7 and 8 am. You can see this if you look at timetables for newly reviewed areas like Werribee, Epping North, Cranbourne and Doreen area and some new routes like 627 and 760 with the 863 (also serving Endeavour Hills) being an exception. Bear these comments in mind when you read what follows.

The new Endeavour Hills timetables

The new timetables are a big improvement on the infrequent service that previously ran. But are they up to the standards of other new routes? This is what I'll discuss here.

The 843/845 combined corridor

Currently all four Dandenong - Endeavour Hills routes run via Doveton before turning north. These provide 6 buses per hour interpeak with each route every 40 minutes. The new network, with two routes every 30 minutes, reduces this to 4 buses per hour on weekdays over the common section. This frequency also operates on Saturdays with 3 buses per hour on Sunday.

The Monday to Saturday services could either be evenly offset to maximise frequency to Dandenong (an even 15 minutes) or offset unevenly by 10 and 20 minutes to provide a predictable connection with trains (10 minute basic service). It's simpler for most of the day on Sundays where a combined 20 minute service could connect evenly with every second train.

What was done? Weekday and Saturday midday combined timetables have roughly 10 and 20  minute offsets. As noted above this ensures more even connections with trains but detracts from the possibility of having an even 15 minute corridor. The latter could be considered 'turn up and go' by some and is the better option for those finishing their trip at Dandenong or changing to a SmartBus (which has a 15/30 min service pattern). Changes to or from other bus routes would also on average be better due to the shorter maximum waits that an even 15 minute service would provide. To summarise,

I can see why a 10/20 min offset was thought desirable (for train connectivity) but my guess is that most passengers travelling during the interpeak would have preferred the even 15 minute frequency. The problem doesn't arise for most of the day on Sunday. There the two 40 minute routes have been almost perfectly offset to provide a combined 20 minute service.


Timetables above show am time for arrival at Dandenong and pm times for departures to reflect dominant passenger flows. If you want to see them all visit 843, 845 and 861 on the PTV website. 

Early finishes on weekends

Now to something you can't argue with. The new timetables do not meet the 2006 minimum service standards for a 9pm finish on weekend evenings. And it's not for a lack of funding either.

The last departures from Dandenong for Route 845 are 8:35pm on Saturday and 8:15 pm on Sunday.  Route 843 more than meets the standard on Saturday with a 9:31pm departure. However its last Sunday trip is even earlier at 8:01pm which does not meet the standard. The last new Saturday inbound trips are all earlier than the current timetable that has an inbound 845 departure at 10:00 pm arriving Dandenong at 10:32pm.

The other thing to be aware of is that Saturday times are unevenly offset with two buses sometimes meeting the one train. For example both routes depart within a few minutes of each other from 8:01 and 8:31pm. Note that the 843 has a 30 minute service until last bus despite its early Sunday finish.

The Department of Transport audit of the draft timetables should have detected these early finishes and almost simultaneous departures so they could be fixed before going public. A possible cost-effective solution could have been to drop the weekend evening frequency of both routes to hourly with departures offset by 30 minutes until the last trips at approximately 9:05 and 9:35pm. The route with the most unique coverage or patronage potential should operate the last trip.

What about 861 from the TAFE and hospital? This too isn't up to scratch. Its last departure from Dandenong is 8:43pm on weekdays and 8:06pm on weekends. The departure before that on weekends is 7:41pm. Delaying the last weekend departure to connect with the 8:26pm train (ie approx 8:35pm departure) would have brought it closer to minimum standards.

Good operating spans are particularly important in places like Endeavour Hills which is remote from alternative transport with longer hours such as trains and SmartBuses. 843 and 845 also serve parts of Doveton which contain many people on low incomes less able to run cars or afford taxis.

Late starts on weekends

For a while it looked as if DoT 'got it' with regards to the need for earlier weekend start times. However they've dropped the ball on Endeavour Hills. While the starts of the new routes are better than what's there now, they are still too late, in some cases not even meeting the original 2006 standards.

As an example the first Saturday 843 arrives at Dandenong at 8:41am. This compares with 7:56am for the first 845 and 8:26am for the first 861. Those getting the first 843 would be unable to get to anything in the CBD much before 9:30am on a Saturday.

On Sundays the sequence is 9:06 (843), 9:23 (861) and 9:26 (845). You could argue that these meet the 2006 standards (depending on how you interpret them). However they do not meet more recent  planning practice of 8am starts. Because Dandenong trains operate every 30 minutes on Sunday mornings, a way to deliver earlier Sunday starts could be to lengthen morning headways to hourly to provide an earlier start.  It would be desirable for the first 843 or 845 to connect with the 8:41 (or preferably the 8:11) am train at Dandenong with a half-hourly offset until the combined 20 minute service kicks in later in the morning.

The need for the revised start time is demonstrated by the high patronage often on the first bus of the day on Sundays. Weekend bus start times are a particular issue for people needing to get to casual jobs at big shopping centres etc.

Public holidays

The new Endeavour Hills routes operate to the standard public holidays pattern. The occasional and unloved Route 842 to Fountain Gate finally gets an upgrade to hourly interpeak. As a weekday only service it never operates on public holidays (not even during the Boxing Day sales).

However the powers that be have yet to get the communication of this right with a cryptic note on 842's website timetable (and likely also at stops when these get installed soon).


 Conclusion

The Department of Transport used to be fairly good at introducing bus routes that met minimum  service standards. Unfortunately this example with Endeavour Hills demonstrates that internal processes to ensure a good result each time may not exist. Whether it's an inadequate service specification or insufficient review of submitted timetables, the result is a substandard bus network that does not operate over the time spans that people need.


Melbourne on Transit bookshop

Favourably reviewed books about transport and cities. Purchases via these links support this blog and its independent reporting (at no extra cost to you).   












Friday, May 01, 2020

Victoria's transport ministers: Inheritances, legacies and messes


This is a quick look at Victorian transport ministers over the last 60 plus years and the legacies they left for public transport. As well as the errors they made.

Credit and blame

A reasonable question is the extent to which a minister's success is within their control. It is never completely though some ministers made a better fist of the circumstances they faced than others. Two examples were Kennan vs Brown who both presided in difficult times. Kennan had no successes to speak of and won the opprobrium of many from his own side while Brown's successes in stabilising the system afterwards privately earned the respect of people such as the PTUA's Paul Mees.

Bigger shifts, often over several decades and outside their direct control, can change how we view ministers. For example the move from rail to road as people bought cars and settlement spread  reduced rail's viability. Especially where management and unions resisted reform this set up a vicious cycle of declining revenue and service that one might blame the minister for. Hence the trend to shift management of the railways more directly to the bureaucracy, then managers recruited from outside and later the private sector.

More recently we've seen how growth can cause its own challenges. Increasing crowding and decreasing reliability became particularly apparent about 10 to 15 years ago as CBD employment grew and inner suburbs densified. This changed how we saw certain governments and ministers as they scrambled to respond to these pressures.

Ministers with good intentions can be cut down by bigger matters, such as the state's industrial relations and economic conditions. Problems here can cause services to be less reliable and less in number due to line closures and timetable cuts. Governments may centralise power in (say) Treasury or the premier's office, reducing what a transport minister can do. Although transport is normally a fairly senior portfolio, parts of it can fall to a newcomer with less sway in the cabinet than someone who has been around for longer.  

Still, one should not regard ministers as passive victims of circumstance. There are things that state governments and ministers can directly control. For example ministers could have chosen to resist the advances of information technology charlatans (known for over-promising and under-delivering), not  to sign ticketing system contracts with inexperienced parties nor agree to unsustainable rail and bus franchise contracts due to their greed for a cheap deal. And they could be more wise to waste such as duplicative bus routes that could have funded network upgrades within existing expenditures.

Some advice could have been followed sooner. Earlier action on boosting metropolitan rail capacity may have saved the Brumby government from defeat in 2010 for example. Promising too much can cause ministers to appear failures, such as the inability of successive Cain government transport ministers to honour grand rail network expansion promises made in 1982. Then there's plain sloppiness such as what appeared to spark the contracts dispute that stymied bus network reform for years.

In transport the customer is always right. Most will use whichever mode is best for them. That is determined by the relative quality of available choices for the trips they make. Which government and ministerial decisions in areas like planning, infrastructure and service can certainly affect. But only if they stick to the core of what running a good service requires.

Focus on what matters

Ministers and their departments can get distracted by side-issues that diverts them from working on the things that matter. That was a particular problem in Victoria during the 1990s and 2000s. Then the ministers had their bureaucrats obsess over three things: (a) ticketing systems, (b) operator franchising, and (c) rebranding. These diverted attention from the really important things like network reform, reliability and service levels that govern whether the service is useful or not. 

While work on ticketing, franchising and branding is obviously needed, other cities managed to give it a proportionate attention that never distracted them from the main game of planning useful, frequent and reliable services. 

Take Perth which has resolved these matters with a fraction of the drama that we had in those  two decades. For instance the Transperth network brand was established in 1986. With only minor and low cost evolutionary changes since it enjoys excellent recognition. Compare that to Melbourne with its numerous rebrandings since The Met yet still missing a proper system name. Same with ticketing. Perth got smart card tickets before Melbourne. It has fewer features than our myki but got introduced without the controversy, big delays and cost over-runs. As for private operators, these were brought in (for buses) without drama in the early 1990s, with the contract model able to retain integrated network planning and coordination between modes. The trains remain state-run but in an efficient manner with a higher passengers per staff ratio than (say) Brisbane's and generally better 7-day frequencies than on most Melbourne lines. These arrangements have been stable and settled for many years. 

While Perth's network is far from perfect, their management's ability to focus on what is important has led to sustained steady service improvements over decades as discussed in 2005 and again in 2019. This is under both Coalition and Labor governments. Perth was able to achieve its operational reforms under rail electrification. And because its were scrapped so long ago Perth never had Melbourne's silly sentimentality over tram conductors. No one in Perth wants to go back to the public transport they had 50 years ago (it was bad!) whereas many Melburnians would say the'd want to. WA also lacks Victoria's culture of militant unionism which occupies so much of our transport ministers' time (and even devoured a few) just to keep services going, let alone improve them. 

We've had our good times too, although with fits and starts. For example the 2006 - 2010 period for buses and a subsequent period where greenfield timetables were introduced on some train lines. There was less money but good network planning for buses in the 2013 - 2016 period. More recently we've been in a service planning stupor with the pace of service and timetable reform dropping on all modes. However, in their defence one could make a case that recent ministers have at least been focused on long-term beneficial infrastructure rather than their predecessors' unproductive sorties into side issues like franchising, ticketing and (re)branding.

I won't attempt to do a best to worst ranking of transport ministers here. But you are most welcome to do so in the comments below. Colours reflect Liberal (Coalition) or Labor governments. 

65 years of Victorian transport ministers

Arthur Warner 1955 - 1962 
Mess inherited: Continued backlog due to Depression and war, patronage falling due to end of petrol rationing and suburban growth beyond trams and between rail lines
Legacy left: Continued modernisation under Operation Phoenix including new trains, more electrification, extra tracks, rebuilt stations and conversion from steam to diesel 
Mess left: vicious cycle of falling patronage, rising costs and multiple rounds of service cuts, ceased production of W-class trams, Footscray and Victorian Railways trams closed, Replaced some Sunday tram services with buses, major strike in 1960 meant no Sunday trains for nearly a year, little new capital spending after Operation Phoenix money ran out.

Edward Meagher 1962 - 1967 
Mess inherited: As above
Legacy left: Some improvements for outer suburban commuters eg electrification extensions, extra tracks and more parking
Mess left: vicious cycle of falling patronage, rising costs and multiple rounds of service cuts (especially trams), little new capital spending as government interests shifted to road

Vernon Wilcox 1967 - 1976 
Mess inherited: As above
Legacy left: Melbourne Underground Railway Loop, New Hitachi trains, New Z-class trams saved network from closure, some improvements for outer suburban commuters eg extra tracks, some new and rebuilt stations, some train service upgrades (eg 1975 timetable), 1969 Melbourne Transport Plan, Operating subsidies for all modes (as fares could no longer pay costs), 1971 tram and bus renumbering and network map 
Mess left: Closure of regional tram systems, vicious cycle of falling patronage, rising costs, industrial disputation and service cuts (commissioned Bland Report)


Joseph Rafferty 1976 - 1978
Mess inherited: As above
Legacy left: Continued arrival of new trains and trams 
Mess left: Vicious cycle of falling patronage, rising costs, industrial disputation and service cuts

Robert Maclellan 1978 - 1982 
Mess inherited: As above
Legacy left: 'New deal' on regional rail, multimodal ticketing, Werribee electrification, Comeng trains, some reduction in industrial disputation
Mess left: Vicious cycle of falling patronage, rising costs, service cuts (incl metropolitan train timetables in 1978 and 1981), Community outrage re Lonie Report

Steve Crabb 1982 - 1985 
Mess inherited: As above
Legacy left: Continuing 'new deal' on regional rail, restored service on some closed lines, Continuation of fare integration with Neighbourhood system incorporating private buses, Organisational integration, some bus reviews, improved bus services in regional cities eg Geelong and Bendigo, start of revival in metropolitan patronage, successive Tram 86 extensions 
Mess left: Industrial disputation, broken promises on metropolitan rail extensions


Tom Roper 1985 - 1987 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Converted Port Melbourne and St Kilda lines to tram, Major bus service upgrades including new routes and extended operating hours, some suburban track amplifications and improved express services, improving patronage 
Mess left: Industrial disputation, rising costs

Jim Kennan 1987 - 1990 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Met Plan (mostly not implemented), simplified three zone fare system, removed tram conductors, reduced station staffing
Mess left: Industrial disputation, cost blow-outs, scratch ticketing with mass fare evasion, Mismanaged bus contracts - 'Waverley Transit' case poisoned relationship with bus operators, massive bus service cuts from 1990 with large patronage losses, increased train vandalism and graffiti


Peter Spyker 1990 - 1992 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Sprinter trains ordered for regional lines
Mess left: Out of control costs, industrial disputation, scratch ticketing, depleted service levels, falling patronage

Alan Brown 1992 - 1997 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Controlled costs with further destaffing, improved reliability, metropolitan rail frequency improvements in east, regional rail closures, restored Sunday service on all tram routes, some service frequency cuts, introduced bus operator accreditation, Met Bus privatisation
Mess left: Metcard ticketing over-budget and late (time bomb for future ministers), stagnant private bus system, started fare disintegration by allowing National Bus to issue own section tickets. 

Robin Cooper 1997 - 1999 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Improved Sunday train and tram services, relative industrial peace
Mess left: Metcard ticketing over-budget and unreliable, divided network through rail franchising on unsustainable contracts, stagnant bus system, break-up of Met and lack of network identity


Peter Batchelor 1999 - 2006 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Some (but not all) regional lines promised reopened, Regional Fast Rail, Major improvement in bus services (MOTC plan), reunifying metro train and tram networks with more sustainable (expensive!) contracts, taking back V/Line, making Metcard more useful and workable, start of SmartBus, Metlink with improved passenger information, reversing fare disintegration by removing franchisee-issued train and bus-only tickets. 
Mess left: Left time bomb for successor by signing myki contract, declining rail reliability, fare cut promise leading to patronage pressures


Lynne Kosky 2006 - 2010 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Regional Rail Link, Victorian Transport Plan, improved buses (including SmartBus orbitals) with rising service per capita and strong patronage growth, beginning of greenfield train timetable planning
Mess left: Train and tram crowding, failing infrastructure, falling reliability, myki cost and time blowouts, backlog re implementation of bus reviews


Martin Pakula 2010 - 2010 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: New DART bus system for Doncaster, new orbital SmartBuses, rise in service per capita.
Mess left: unreliable and overcrowded trains, myki, non-implementation of local bus reviews

Terry Mulder 2010 - 2014 
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Higher train frequencies with greenfields timetables on some lines, better rail reliability, relieved train crowding, new local bus networks, creation of PTV with stronger planning capability, continued building previous government's Regional Rail Link (with some changes)
Mess left: Stalling on infrastructure projects, Metropolitan Bus Franchising/Transdev (not apparent at time), falling service per capita, promise of free tram zone which became bipartisan, deteriorating train cleanliness, unnecessary rebranding


Jacinta Allan 2014 - 2018  
Mess inherited: see above
Legacy left: Addressing our rail infrastructure backlog, level crossing removals, Metro tunnel (future), regional rail upgrades, new generation trains, improved train cleanliness, Night Network
Mess left: Stalled bus network reform, Stalled Metro train timetable reform, still falling PT service per capita, tram slowness and crowding (partly due to free tram zone)


Melissa Horne (public transport), Jacinta Allan (transport infrastructure) 2018 - 

Current risks and challenges: Declining rail reliability, little bus network reform, relationships with transport and construction unions, cost blowouts and industrial disputes affecting major projects, 'disruption fatigue' (as so much is happening and disrupted), changed priorities due to COVID-19. More on the current minister Melissa Horne here. 

More detail

The above are brief summaries over nearly 70 years. More detail is available elsewhere. Here's some background reading (mainly from last century)

https://melbourneontransit.blogspot.com/2006/04/review-time-line-history-of-melbournes.html

https://wongm.com/2017/04/hamer-government-public-transport/

https://www.planning.org.au/documents/item/6584



The ideal minister?

Who would be the ideal public transport minister? I'd pick a composite. I'd want the bus resources from a Batchelor, the network planning approach of a Mulder, the infrastructure funding of a Kosky or Allan delivered with the managerial efficiency and reliability of a Brown.

Conversely the worst would combine the closures of a Warner, the blow-outs of a Wilcox City Loop, the service cuts of a Meagher or Maclellan and the management prowess of a Kennan delivered with the diplomacy of a Roper and the credibility of a Crabb.

Please leave your comments below if I've missed anything significant (which I will likely have) or if you wish to comment on significance and record of the governments and ministers mentioned.