I suspect that PTV is the main driver of the debacle, forcing the operator to cut costs which inevitabily results in reduced user amenity.
Actually, much as I think the PTV avoids more blame than it should in this fiasco, this is not something I would entirely blame them for, although it was probably an unrealistic bid / bid requirements. Transdev tendered for the contract with their eyes open. They signed this document outlining what they would do in return for being paid to run the Melbourne Bus Franchise:
http://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/about-ptv/vic ... greements/. I suspect it was on here I read it, but their bid was allegedly somewhat cheaper than the others, thus it can be assumed that is why they won the bid. The usual reason for doing so is:
- There are a lot of costs in the system that can be removed without affecting the service. Allegedly this was the basis on which bidders bid for the tram and train franchises in the late 90s. Unfortunately they found that whilst the DoT at the time may have been supposedly overstaffed, the PTC was fairly lean and mean with little fat to cut. This was one of the factors blamed for the renegotiation of the contracts removing the unrealistic bid profile to eventually make a profit once the opportunity arose after National Express walked off in 2002.
- There is an expectation of pent up latent demand if the service is run better with better customer service, more frequent services, longer hours of operation, etc. Whilst this is probably true in Manningham and possibly in the west, it seems that this is probably not the reason Transdev made the contract it did based on what they have since done with the cutbacks.
- There is an expectation that being the incumbent has advantages should the government wish to change the scope of the operation. The Victorian Ombudsman / Auditor General report on Victorian Government IT contracts I'm pretty sure notes the willingness of companies to put in break even bids, or even bids that initially make a loss, to get in the hot seat so that they can make the real profits when the government inevitably changes the scope (eg Myki). The report can be found at https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getatt ... jects.aspx if it's the one I'm thinking of.
I'll let you judge why Transdev may have put in a low bid that promises to increase services at no cost to the government (read the contract linked above).
In this category I would include the truncation of the 295 and 908 services as well as the demise of the 303 and 286 routes.
If the 903 had gone to 10 minutes when the 295 was truncated as is supposed to happen in the greenfields timetable next year, it would be fair enough. Given there is now only 4 buses an hour along a fairly busy route, cutting the 295 isn't.
Truncating the 207 is fair enough.
Truncating the 908 was madness. As has been pointed out, it makes the already well used 907 overcrowded. It also dilutes what I thought was one of the main benefits of Smartbus - the willingness to alter routes. Whilst I thought the totems / technology was overkill, I liked the aspect that it made Smartbus routes seem like trams - they had expensive infrastructure that meant the routes were unlikely to be easily altered like normal bus routes are perceived to do. The 908 change so soon after introduction killed that perception.
Cutting the 286 should have occurred when the 901 went to 10 minute frequency. It would have been the same or better level of service as existed. The 286 largely duplicated the 901 after the latter's introduction - it was an obvious cut that should have occurred form day 1 of the 901 when it would have been easy to justify.
I can't really comment on the 303. For so few services a day it seems to have attracted the most noise of the lot. Maybe it should be increased if it is that popular?
While the level of suburban service might be "quite good" when compared with the Melbourne average, it should be noted that in Manningham, the buses are the total public transport journey and are not feeders to train stations.
That's actually my concern with Doncaster Rail, and why I easily argue against it with normal people who live in the area. Most rail lines in Melbourne only go to the CBD and run every 20 minutes. The Smartbuses run on almost every major road in Manningham every 15 minutes (soon to be 10), and connect not only to the CBD at this level of service, but also to major activity centres and railway stations via the 901, 902 and 903. Not to mention short trips, eg friend's houses. I have had people say they would like Doncaster Rail, and when I ask why their answer is "it would be great to get to the city quickly". When I point out that Doncaster Rail would go to the Park and Ride, or maybe possibly Shoppingtown, and that any journey not within 800m of those locations would need to catch a bus to the station and interchange, and take longer in doing so, people very quickly change their minds in favour of Smartbus.
Existing bus lanes are not policed or are insufficient to make services reliable. Indeed some planned improvements in Victoria Parade and Hoddle St were dropped after lobbying from "local traders".
And you have just validated the point I made in the other thread about what I think is the real issue, and one that is out of Transdev's control. Although I was glad to see motorcycle police enforcing the Fitzsimmons Lane bus lane 2 weeks ago, so it does sometimes happen!