UN 203: How the Metro Tunnel could aid bayside bus reform

The upgrade of the Sandringham line to every 10 minutes weekdays interpeak as will  happen when the Metro Tunnel opens could make bus reform in the area easier and cheaper. Why? More frequent trains mean greater flexibility for bus frequencies. Which means more efficient scheduling according to network role, usage, available buses and run times. 

Routes 600/922/923 are a confusing mess that has flummoxed bus users between St Kilda, Sandringham and Southland for more than 20 years. Two of those three routes have long gaps and short operating hours. And they don't go all the way all the week. The Brighton portions of the routes also parallel the train line and doesn't get much use. Their presentation is a mess on the PTV website and the high combined frequency on portions is undersold, lessening potential usage.

So there's a big argument for reform, especially if you can do it without spending much money. Which you wouldn't want to anyway as there are stronger patronage and social needs justifications for radically boosting buses in areas like Springvale and Dandenong versus the likes of Brighton or Beaumaris. 

I covered the 600/900/923 mess in detail nearly 5 years ago, presenting a simplified network featuring a Route 600 every 15 (instead of every 30) minutes as the main service through the Beaumaris area. That required some offsetting cuts, eg reducing the 825 from every 20 to every 30 minutes so it was vaguely self-funding, especially if reforms were made to the large number of lightly used north-south routes in the Brighton area that paralleled the train.  

Route 600 is not that strongly used that it needs a 15 minute interpeak service. But, as the main route in the area and to deliver a service upgrade, leaving it at every 30 minutes (like the abandoned 2015 Transdev greenfields network tried to do) was inadequate. 20 minutes is probably the 'sweet spot' but it  doesn't mesh with trains currently every 15 minutes at Sandringham. Maybe this was one of the reasons why fixing Route 600 and related routes has occupied the 'too hard' basket for a decade since? 

Can the Metro Tunnel help?

In Perth when they do a major rail project they comprehensively reform most of the buses that connect to the line being extended or altered. Examples include Airport line, Yanchep extension, Morley-Ellenbrook line, Thornlie - Cockburn line, Byford extension and more. And when they do works necessitating long rail shutdowns (like the Armadale line) they will use this as an opportunity to do bus reform, some of which is likely to endure after rail services resume. 

With minor exceptions involving a handful of routes the Victorian DTP of 2025 is less reform-capable than its Perth counterparts. And even where more routes are involved, such as associated with the recent and welcome Ballarat line weekend frequency upgrade, the job might only be half-done. For example leaving weekday bus timetables in areas like Melton untouched, sometimes with lower frequencies than on weekends.

Could a revitalised DTP do better, and thus widen the benefits of the government's considerable rail investment program? Keep reading for one of many potential examples. 

The Metro Tunnel associated rail network changes starting later this year gives such an opportunity to break a decade of inaction regarding the Route 600 and related others near the Sandringham line.

How? It's all to do with a cascading effect that even affects the previously splendidly isolated Sandringham line. 

In the south-east this starts with the lines to Dandenong being taken out of the City Loop and routed through the Metro Tunnel to Footscray and the Sunbury line. This creates an empty City Loop portal that is occupied by the reconfigured Frankston line. These services are no longer formed by Werribee/Williamstown and/or Laverton trains which will now operate to Sandringham.

Trains on the west side operate every 20 minutes each whereas the Sandringham line is every 15 minutes weekday interpeak. To ensure reliable timetabling the Sandringham line will be upgraded to a 10 minute frequency so that two out of every three interpeak weekday trains through Newport run through to Sandringham. Basically replicating what happens now with Frankston on the cross-city group. 

This ten minute frequency for Sandringham gives some extra choices with regards bus frequencies, with 10, 20 or 30 minutes all harmonising with trains.

Having a choice of bus frequencies is good because it means that there's more flexibility to pick service levels that best meet a route's network role and patronage needs while still connecting with trains. There are also scheduling efficiencies as bus layovers can be optimised to be neither too tight to be unreliable nor too slack to be wasteful for a given route length. 

Hence a Route 600 bus every 20 minutes could meet every second train off-peak. The same could happen in the peak period with a 15 minute bus frequency meeting trains every 7.5 min. On weekends a 20 minute bus frequency could meet every train at Sandringham. Overall it looks a very neat arrangement. 

Network concept

The map below shows the concept. It includes not just the 600 but other potential network changes involving north-south routes in the area.  

The 600 has the same alignment as current between Southland and Sandringham. To bring it nearer to shops on Hampton Rd I've terminated it at Hampton Station, where there is a small bus interchange.

Service would be much simplified compared because for most of the corridor the higher frequency on the 600 would replace the confusing 600/922/923 trio. However coverage of areas away from the 600 would be maintained through a new local route that I've called 608 between Southland and Mentone.   

To facilitate connectivity between those who might wish to travel north of Hampton, this network option has the existing Route 603 starting at Hampton rather than Brighton Beach. Hampton is a much stronger terminus with local shops and other buses. Also on weekdays interpeak Route 603 would operate at the same frequency as the 600, potentially permitting a consistent timed connection if planners considered this important enough. There may even be scheduled through trips for school traffic if needed (with the implications of the free under 18s travel next year an influencing factor). 

Bus routes are thinned out a bit in the Brighton area compared to now. Currently there is a large number of bus routes that run north-south, parallel to the train (which will gain increased frequency on weekdays). Usage is not particularly high. If retention of a bus on St Kilda St is considered important options here include adding a kink to Route 603 or extending Route 626 from Brighton via there to Elsternwick (which would also provide connectivity to shops at Brighton). 

Off the map but very significant is a major boost for Route 606. Currently this unevenly overlaps the 600/922/923 through the Elwood area with Route 600 at certain times not operating. This is swept away in favour of a consistent, more frequent and longer operating hours Route 606 operating every 20 minutes or so all week. All the routes mentioned are run by Kinetic except 606 and 626 which are CDC. Reform in the Elwood area might also be done in conjunction with providing a stronger western terminus for Route 630. 

To summarise the network outcome could be something like:

* 600 Hampton - Southland every 20 min 7 days with a 15 min service in weekday peaks 
* New 608 Southland - Mentone local route every 60 min to replace parts of 922 and 923
* Extend 603 to Hampton
* Upgrade 606 to every 15-20 min weekdays, every 20 min weekends with longer hours
* Potential St Kilda St coverage retained by either modified 603 or extended 626.

A potential redistribution of services could be along these lines: 

Conclusion 

The Metro Tunnel opening can provide opportunity for bus network reform in the most unlikely of places. 

Melbourne does not have as strong a record as say Perth when it comes to maximising the benefits of infrastructure builds to reform bus networks. 

However it is something we should be starting to do better.

Addressing long-standing network complexities such as on this bayside corridor could be a good start. 

Comments on this network concept are appreciated and can be left below. 

Index to Useful Network items here

What passengers really think about Victoria's PT network

 

They're improving at publicly reporting some things (eg bus reliability a few years back and  patronage more recently) but Victoria's Department of Transport & Planning still operates under the presumption that much other network performance information should be kept to itself.

This sensitivity is despite (a) the taxpayer paying the overwhelming bulk of operating costs for public transport (especially in this age of 'free' or nearly free travel for more and more trips) and (b) at least some of what the department doesn't want us to see being pretty benign, hardly embarrassing and sometimes even praiseworthy. Not that embarrassment should be a criteria for data being withheld. 

Could commercial confidentiality be an issue? 

Even arguments over commercial confidentiality due to private operators don't hold as much water any more (if they ever did). This is because pretty much every renegotiation of the public transport operating franchises (we're up to MR5) in the last 20 years has transferred risk from the franchisee (the private operator) to the franchisor (the state). Examples of risks reverting to the state include patronage and fare revenue. And low performance penalties may be capped rather than open-ended.

This may be because, as the pandemic showed, risk is extremely difficult to cost. If the government underestimates risks or costs relative to what they pay the operators then the operators either walk out (eg National Express in 2002) or perform very badly (eg Transdev for buses in 2017). In both cases the government had to intervene. Or if the government overestimates risk relative to what they pay the operators then the operators get an unearned windfall gain. In both cases taxpayers carry the bill.  

The state seems to have increasingly recognised that. As risk is notoriously hard to cost the state has kept most of it to itself. When you're as big as the state self-insurance is not a bad approach. It also reduces uncertainty for private operators.    

That should have a cash value in the sense that the state should be able to demand lower margins as operator payments are easier to calculate and modest profits are pretty much guaranteed. One hopes that DTP negotiators exploit their monopsony position to squeeze as much service kilometres per dollar as possible out of our transport operators while keeping maintenance, operating and customer service standards.

These changed circumstances also mean that DTP/PTV (a) needs to be better at service innovation, marketing  and growing patronage (as operators have few levers or incentives to do this themselves) and (b) can ease off in using 'commercial in confidence' as an excuse to deny reasonable requests for information. DTP's performance on both is debatable but that's another story. 

Key points from the report

Now back to what passengers think. 

DTP commissions quarterly surveys to track customer attitudes to public transport and its service delivery. These Klein Research reports are treated as internal documents. 

The Public Transport Users Association lodged an FOI request to see one. DTP refused.

However PTUA successfully appealed to the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner . 

As a result everyone can read the CXI Quarterly Report Q3 FY24 on the Right to Know website here. 

I recommend you read it.

Below are some of the take-away messages I found: 

* Passenger safety and customer service were network strengths. Disruption information, service (in)frequency and ticketing ease were pain points.

* All regional modes met the main targets. As did Metro Trains. But Yarra Trams and (especially) metropolitan bus are performing below target.

* Metropolitan bus vies with metropolitan tram for the mode with the least satisfaction over information. One of the reasons (in my view) is we do poorly with maps and network information at interchanges compared to cities like Perth. 

* Information on delays and cancellations was lowly rated for all metropolitan modes but especially metropolitan bus. This is a particular problem as buses are (on average) the least frequent mode, often with long gaps to the next service. I've also found bus tracking on Google maps is pretty unreliable when there are delays. 

* A similar pattern regarding delay and cancellation information applied for regional modes. V/Line trains performed worse than Metro here (with similar issues to metropolitan buses with generally lower frequencies or fewer alternatives available).

* Customer satisfaction for service characteristics across different modes was graphed. Not surprisingly frequency on metropolitan buses got the lowest positive score on this cross-modal comparison.

* Also not surprisingly (due to outrageously cheap fares) the regional modes scored highest for ticketing and value. Metropolitan tram rated the lowest. Possibly as (i) you can't buy a ticket on board and (ii) fares are comparatively high for short non-CBD trips due to our nearly flat statewide fare system.  

* In a finding that some may find surprising, personal security rated well across all modes.

* Which line has the happiest Metro passengers? The answer is Sandringham. They'll have more reasons to smile when the Metro Tunnel timetable starts as they'll be getting a 10 min interpeak weekday service.

* What were the main issues with buses? Low frequency, reliability and fullness were cited in the comments.

Improvement priorities

What has this report taught us about priorities for customer experience improvements, starting with fixing the worst? 

The high level summary at the start of the report is a good guide. These points are: 

* Better and more accurate disruption information (especially for buses and regional trains)

* Better service frequency (especially for buses) 

* Better ticketing ease. Will hopefully come with Myki's replacement offering credit and debit card payment. Also political gimmicks over the last decade or more has led to a fare system that overcharges for many short trips and undercharges for long trips. A return to a more progressive fare structure could improve perceived fairness (and probably overall patronage).  

Summary

These customer experience reports give interesting perspectives on passenger views towards the public transport system. They should be a regular publication rather than something kept internally. 

TT 204: PTV info caught short in bus strike bungle

Top investor Warren Buffet famously said that "Only when the tide goes out do you discover who's been swimming naked".

Right now the Department of Transport and Planning through the PTV website is completely starkers. 

Good passenger information is a 'nice to have' when everything is running normally.

But it becomes an essential when services are disrupted and passengers have to leave earlier, travel at another time or seek alternative transport. 

Unless a last-minute deal is reached, drivers for CDC and Dysons, two of the state's largest bus operators, will strike tomorrow (May 28, 2025). The outcome for passengers will be routes that do not run or, at best, operate with reduced timetables. Including, on at least one route, no after midday services at all.  

The TWU Vic/Tas side is presented on their Facebook page. This ABC report has the operators' story. 

Today I'll just cover the passenger information aspect, notably PTV's role. 

PTV probably thought it has done its job by posting a website news item on its website on May 23 with the original URL (now broken) here. That was a brief note just listing the operators affected. Not very helpful for those who can't recite their bus route's operator. 

So yesterday (26 May) PTV moved that item to a new link with drop down lists of bus routes affected. That should have been more helpful. 

The problem is that a lot of it contains errors. Or is likely incomplete. PTV has shown, in a moment that its information was most needed, to be unreliable with regards to providing accurate data to passengers. 

You could write a whole thread on where PTV slipped up. Indeed I did last night. Here's some excerpts (click images for clearer view):

1. Route 900 is run by two operators (CDC and Ventura). Ventura drivers are not striking. Presumably some Route 900 trips will run (although there are likely to be uneven gaps). This has big implications for transport to Monash Clayton given that neither the frequent Route 601 shuttle nor the 630 on North Rd will be operating.  

2. Tarneit FlexiRide missing even though this is run by CDC. But 400, run by another operator, is listed.

3. Routes not listed in order.

4. Some very old route lists used. Some haven't been running for 8 or so years. A bit of a worry if PTV can't find a list of currently running bus routes! 

5. Some route descriptions are wrong too. 

6. Another route missing from the list and a wrong description for another. 

7. Risk that 546 isn't correct as it now has weekend service. 

8. Not an error as the 558 genuinely lacks Saturday afternoon service. This 40 year old timetable means that tomorrow morning will have buses in Reservoir north-west but none will run in the afternoon. But missing Route 559 (which also doesn't run Saturday afternoons) from the list could be an error. 

This cacophony of cock-ups reveals serious management and process issues within DTP/PTV. 

PTV is supposed to be in the business of passenger information. It is an inheritor to Metlink, which was formed when even the private operators realised that information was too fragmented for passengers to understand. 

The problem is that PTV isn't very good at passenger information during disruptions. It has proved itself untrustworthy when most needed.

Anticipating crises (eg strikes) and knowing exactly what to do is not just important preparation for investors and companies (hence the Warren Buffet quote above) but also for outfits like PTV who need internal capability to respond to network crises like strikes. It's not as if there wasn't warning; on May 13 TWU publicly advised that their Dyson members voted to strike - giving sufficient notice for PTV to at least collate an accurate list of routes that could be affected. 

How then was so much of what was published wrong? Either PTV didn't confirm what operators sent is correct or they were unable to generate current accurate route lists themselves that can be pulled out at short notice if needed. How else can you explain route lists with wrong descriptions or long-retired route numbers? 

Furthermore, PTV lack proper processes to verify that what they publish is correct. They have especially failed to have suitably trained staff in the right places to identify and stop errors being published.

This is not just a one-off event. Shortcomings in passenger information, weak marketing and data inaccuracy is a recurring pattern of behaviour that highly-paid DTP executives have as yet been unable to fix.

The result is needlessly misled, stranded and angry passengers. As this reflects on the state government's service delivery, improving PTV's game, given the long record of subpar performance, should be a matter of immediate political and ministerial interest.


UPDATE 27/5/2025 11:20am: Shortly after this blog appeared PTV corrected many errors on its route list. While the corrections are welcome the 'publish unchecked nonsense first, rely on Twitter gunzels for corrections later' method is not a respectful way to treat passengers nor run a credible transit agency. Props to the headless chooks there correcting stuff so quickly but you most need good executives able to put in the processes to get it right from the start. Improving capability while simultaneously pruning executive staffing costs is particularly topical with the Silver review into Victoria's public service due to report next month.  

See other Timetable Tuesday items here