Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Melbourne / Victoria Transport Discussion

Moderator: MAN 16.242

User avatar
MAN 16.242
Moderator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:12 pm
Favourite Vehicle: M.A.N SL200
Location: The People's Republic of Darebin

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by MAN 16.242 »

Fleet Lists wrote:
MAN 16.242 wrote: And this is confirmed on transdev website
http://www.veoliatransdev.com.au/busine ... melbourne/
Not quite -it is a Sunday.
Sorry, meant to say it confirms the fact, that the take over is on the 4th of August, but yes you're right it is a Sunday.
User avatar
Buzztop
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:44 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Anything that drives properly
Location: North of Fitzroy

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by Buzztop »

Oh gosh, someone will have to buy some more chairs, as they reduced them when 903 departed last time. And our car park will be a mess again!!
Looking forward to seeing some old mates again though
User avatar
Alstom 888M
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 7:50 pm

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by Alstom 888M »

How many Smartbuses will return to North Fitzroy? There doesn't appear to be much spare room.
All my posts on this board represents my personal views and opinions only. They may not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or values of those of my family, friends, colleagues, or employer.
User avatar
Buzztop
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 11:44 pm
Favourite Vehicle: Anything that drives properly
Location: North of Fitzroy

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by Buzztop »

I could only assume 11. That's how many went to Ivanhoe. Room wise, we shouldn't have any trouble as we've got no new buses since they left. Plus the few old Ivanhoe buses in the corner will be going.
User avatar
Matty G
Posts: 344
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:45 am
Favourite Vehicle: B10M
Location: Reservoir

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by Matty G »

Also CONFIRMED this week is that Transdev will be taking up residence at Reservoir Bus Company (or whatever you want to call it now)- at least in the short term.
The East West Smart buses that are currently based at Dysons Bundoora will also be moving across to Reservoir.

---
User avatar
MAN 16.242
Moderator
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 7:12 pm
Favourite Vehicle: M.A.N SL200
Location: The People's Republic of Darebin

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by MAN 16.242 »

Some may find this article on competitive tendering and Transdev Melbourne issues interesting.
https://www.busnews.com.au/industry-new ... ingresults
Competitive tendering hasn't delivered for public transport, so why reward poor performance?
Is competitive tendering delivering results?
Competitive tendering hasn't delivered for public transport, according to Janet Stanley of the University of Melbourne

The government appears willing to roll over the contract with the operator of a third of Melbourne’s buses despite poor performance. Bus Association Victoria, used with permission, writes Janet Stanley, University of Melbourne

Transdev, which operates about one-third of Melbourne’s buses, recently had 33 buses taken off the road due to safety defects.
Transport Safety Victoria’s action coincides with a review of a three-year rollover of the French company’s A$1.7 billion contract. The contract was announced in 2013 following competitive tendering.
This confluence of events raises at least two questions about contracting for transport services. Australian state governments should reflect on whether competitive tendering necessarily delivers the best outcomes for the public, and on the role of operator performance in contract renewal.
DOES COMPETITIVE TENDERING DELIVER?
For private bus operations, the challenge for government is to achieve a contractual arrangement that delivers three things: a quality service for users, a fair price to government, and a viable business for the private operator.
A comprehensive 2008 review found no substantive empirical evidence to support competitive tendering as a superior method of contracting route bus services compared to a performance-based arrangement negotiated between operator and government.
A major risk with competitive tendering is that the pursuit of lower costs to government for service provision are often associated with poorer service quality. Operators look for ways to cut costs to sustain the low bid price needed to win the contract.
Such risks were noted in the media before the Transdev contract was awarded.
This issue is not unique to Melbourne. Five years ago concerns were raised about competitive tendering for about half of Adelaide’s bus routes.
Pioneers of the competitive tendering process for the city’s bus contracts recognised the risk that the lowest-price option could come at the cost of poorer services for passengers. They had argued, unsuccessfully, against further tendering and in favour of negotiated performance-based contracts.
Internationally, the same story is increasingly being heard. For example, a recent analysis of competitive tendering versus negotiated contracts for bus services in Barcelona province found no cost differences. The cost savings argument for competitive tendering is losing traction.
PERFORMANCE FALLS SHORT
Expectations were high when the large bus service contract was awarded to Transdev. The company promised major improvements.
Public Transport Victoria’s then CEO, Ian Dobbs, said Transdev had made it clear its priority was to deliver the highest-quality bus services. It would do this by continuously improving punctuality, reliability, safety, customer service and information, and by increasing bus patronage.
These ambitions appear to not have been achieved. This year, a Freedom-of-Information request by The Age found that Transdev had never met its contracted monthly punctuality target of 85%. The decline in bus users numbers tens of thousands a year.
These service failings are in addition to the safety concerns reported above. Two years into the contract, the Victorian auditor-general reported that it had not delivered value for money.
It would appear that Transdev has largely failed to meet its performance targets. It seems reasonable to ask why the Victorian government would then negotiate to extend or rollover the contract.
DON’T REWARD FAILURE
Meeting performance benchmarks should be a pre-condition for rolling over any contract. And the expectations for extending a contract should be clear and transparent when the contract begins. Accountability demands nothing less.
The 70% of the Melbourne network operated by other bus operators generally continues to perform effectively and efficiency. These services are contracted via a transparent negotiated process. Yet it is reported that the government is considering opening these routes to more competition to improve services.
The Transdev experience, and increasing international evidence about competitive tendering not meeting expectations of service price and quality, cast serious doubt on this approach.
The benefits of competitive tendering of the rights to provide urban route bus services are generally overstated. State governments need to better recognise the societal value-for-money opportunities from negotiated bus contracts.
Passengers, especially those who lack alternatives, need a safe and high-quality transport service. That would encourage greater bus patronage, thus reducing traffic congestion, pollution and carbon emissions and their associated costs.
The ConversationHowever, no matter whether competitive tendering or negotiation is used, operators that do not meet clear and transparent service benchmarks should be shown the door, not have their contracts extended.
Janet Stanley, Principal Research Fellow – Urban Social Resilience, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
With now 4 years into 7 year contract it's interesting to look back and reflect many of comments at time(including this thread). There seem be range of issues ever since contract started and only few areas been success.
Success has seem be so far improving on time running(but still not meet contract target)and fixing some complex route structures i.e Garden City and Latrobe Uni routes pre mid 2014.
But among failures and issues seem be Cleanness, Maintenance(including current fleet crisis), constant bus shortages, the now scrapped greenfield proposal(was meant be at no cost which was reason for not planned cuts), many of contract targets not meet and In case of Transdev there has been couple areas done good, e.g better on time running ex MBL routes and simplifying complex routes structures that some of ex NBC network had i.e Garden City, Latrobe Uni, Kew Routes.

Services improvements at no cost has seem be a big issue in that the 2014 changes used up lot of reallocated resources with fair bit going more running time. And then come Greenfield while still was some resources could reallocate it was start get thin and thus proposal had cuts busy routes too.
It soon comes clear this idea of better services at no extra cost was never going to work. The constant bus shortage part this issue too, trying run more services with no increase in fleet size.
Thankfully Greenfield plan was scrapped and since then improvements seem be target at only select few routes at time and often has now included extra funding to avoids harass cuts.

The ex MBL routes are set for quite few changes with Caroline Springs Network changes due soon and then City splitting next year. Once this is done perhaps attention can be given to Doncaster area and coming with a proposal with out harsh greenfield cuts.
Though doing this way means taking longer see various changes its probably better if it means better service with extra funding given than trying keep improve services at no extra cost.

As for if contract been success? So far seems not or well not huge success with many issues out weighing few areas done well.
User avatar
Heihachi_73
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Ringwood

Re: Melbourne Metropolitan bus franchises (ANNOUNCED)

Post by Heihachi_73 »

All these years and close to half the buses in Victoria are still not even running to the "standard" hours of 6AM until 9PM. Even with their miserable record I would not be putting the blame solely on Transdev. In fact, A small number of Transdev routes actually were upgraded to be more useful, although still nowhere near the actual standard (e.g. 370). This is probably more the government's fault than the operator's. Transdev really only have poor maintenance on their record.
Post Reply

Return to “Discussion - Melbourne / VIC”