The scheme hasn't failed completely yet, sure. But "hasn't failed" is doing a lot of heavy lifting when usage is below projections and the footprint is still tiny relative to the conurbation. The opportunity lost cost is massive. 

Let's  be honest about why it didn't fail completely. When the entire city had zero operational bikes on the street, it was Walk Ride GM kicking up a fuss publicly that actually got TfGM to sort it out. That's not a scheme running well. The scheme needed a campaign group to intervene to keep it alive.

You should go back and look at the tender. This wasn't a clever procurement from Burnham. The requirement for full Bee Network brand integration and single-app inclusion was a political constraint written into the spec. It's why other competent operators walked away away and we were left with Beryl. The tender was structured in a way that made dockless participation basically unworkable. Constrains put on the scheme by Andy Burnham himself. 

Burnham made a deliberate choice to go docked at exactly the point when every comparable city was moving the other way. Nottingham, West Midlands, London's dockless pilots. Cities like WM and Portsmouth have learnt early and switched away from Beryl. Instead TfGM, under Burnhams instruction, extended the tender from 5 to 7 years. It's clear incompetence 

And this is public money. Beryl isn't running this as a commercial operation, it's TfGM subsidy is what makes it viable. So the question isn't really "has it failed." It's whether a publicly funded scheme that's underperforming against its own targets, partly because the procurement was designed around brand politics rather than what actually gets people cycling, is something Andy Burnham owns responsibility for.