Are you referring to the IA report? It's rather loose and shallow. The one to read is the TTF study. The IA report recommends Melbourne as a best practice example whereas the TTF study says that the Melbourne system is in need of review. It makes you wonder whether IA referenced the TTF study at all. Typical sloppy work you get from government bureaucracy nowadays. There's no doubt about the need for this changeover to operational contracting, but it needs to be done properly and, most importantly, with competent and proper oversight by the relevant state agency. I'd nominate Perth as the local best-practice example.

Tony P

---InTramsDownUnder@..., <danielbowen@...> wrote :

Be sure to read the actual report, not just the executive summary.

IMHO the exec summary makes a number of bold claims about savings, but the report itself totally fails to back them up.
On 26 May 2017 at 13:42, prescottt@... mailto:prescottt@... [TramsDownUnder] TramsDownUnder@... mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com>; wrote:

More background:

http:// infrastructureaustralia.gov. au/news-media/media-releases/ files/Customer_Focused_ Franchising.pdf http://infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/files/Customer_Focused_Franchising.pdf

This earlier study is also useful reading:

http://www.ttf.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2016/06/TTF- On-The-Buses-Report-2016.pdf http://www.ttf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/TTF-On-The-Buses-Report-2016.pdf

Tony P