light city buses service standard report...between the 1st april 2013 and 30th june 2013; • 747...

Light City Buses

Service Standard Report April to June 2013

Sample and Methodology 3

North South—Main Findings 4-5

Outer North East—Main Findings 6-7

NORTH SOUTH

On-Time Running 9

Connections 10

Vehicle Condition—Exterior 10

Vehicle Condition– Interior 11

Driver Quality—Courtesy 12

Driver Quality—Safety 13

Driver Quality—Appearance 13

Driver Quality—Special Needs 14

Driver Quality—Driver Response 14

Process Compliance—Signage 15

Signage—Onboard 16

Ticketing 17

Test Ticket Information 18

Fare Evasion 19

OUTER NORTH EAST

On-Time Running 21

Connections 22

Vehicle Condition—Exterior 22

Vehicle Condition—Interior 23

Driver Quality—Courtesy 24

Driver Quality—Safety 25

Driver Quality—Appearance 25

Driver Quality—Special Needs 26

Driver Quality—Driver Response 26

Process Compliance—Signage 27

Signage –Onboard 28

Ticketing 29

Test Ticket Information 30

Fare Evasion 31

Contents

Table 1.1

Sample and Methodology

The sample size was derived from the number of trips supplied in any given week, with separate sample sizes defined for each

contract area, given the sample size the number of trips deemed appropriate to give a valid sample is stratified across the day

types based upon their respective proportion in a given week.

Between the 1st April 2013 and 30th June 2013;

• 747 audits onboard Light City Buses services.

• 377 audits in the North South contract area.

• 370 audits in the Outer North East contract area.

The trips audited represent 3.7 % of the 20,327 trips supplied (defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a

Saturday and Sunday) in both contract areas for one whole week Sunday to Saturday. The sample base is selected from trips

listed on PTS approved timetables submitted by Light City Buses.

Contract Area

Weekday Trips

Audited Saturday Trips Audited

Sunday Trips

Audited Trips Audited

Trips

Supplied

Light City Buses North South 315 33 29 377 12,187

Light CityBuses Outer North East 310 32 28 370 8,140

TOTAL 625 65 57 747 20,327

North South - Main Findings ON-TIME RUNNING

A vehicle in the course of a scheduled trip departs from a place nominated in the timetable (Timepoint) not more than 59 seconds

before and not more than 4 minutes and 59 seconds after the time stated in the timetable as the relevant departure time.

In April - June 2013;

• 68.70% of services audited were on time.

• 28.91% of services audited were late.

• 2.12% of services audited were early.

TRIPS RUN

A vehicle embarks on a scheduled trip from a terminus not later than the time stated in the timetable for the departure of the next

scheduled service on the same route.

In April –June 2013;

• 0.27% of services audited did not run.

CONNECTIONS ACHIEVED

A vehicle in the course of a scheduled trip arrives at a place indicated in the timetable with words such as “connect” or “transfer

passengers to” or a symbol representing a connection, and meets the connecting service.


• No services audited were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION

Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.


• 99.7% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 99.7% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

North South - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY

Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required.

In April-June 2013;

• 100.0% acknowledging passengers.

• 100.0% response to passenger enquiries.

• 99.5% smooth ride.

• 100.0% compliance with road rules.

• 98.9% bus parked close to kerb as possible.

• 99.7% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving.

• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.

• 99.2% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE



• 98.9% displayed destination sign.

• 97.3% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed ‘Welcome Aboard’ sign.

• 99.5% displayed concession pass schedule.

• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

• 99.7% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION

In April-Jun 2013;

• 2.77% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for special

passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100% bus trips.

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

Outer North East - Main Findings ON-TIME RUNNING

A vehicle in the course of a scheduled trip departs from a place nominated in the timetable (Timepoint) not more than 59 seconds

before and not more than 4 minutes and 59 seconds after the time stated in the timetable as the relevant departure time.

In April-June 2013;

• 85.41% of services audited were on time.

• 12.70% of services audited were late.

• 1.89% of services audited were early.

TRIPS RUN

A vehicle embarks on a scheduled trip from a terminus not later than the time stated in the timetable for the departure of the next

scheduled service on the same route.

In April-June 2013;

• 0.00% of services audited did not run.

CONNECTIONS ACHIEVED

A vehicle in the course of a scheduled trip arrives at a place indicated in the timetable with words such as “connect” or “transfer

passengers to” or a symbol representing a connection, and meets the connecting service.

In April-June 2013;

• No audited services were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION


In April-June 2013;

• 100.0% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

Outer North East - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY

Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required.

In April-June 2013;

• 100.0% acknowledging passengers.

• 100.0% response to passenger enquiries.

• 100.0% smooth ride.

• 100.0% compliance with road rules.

• 100.0% bus parked close to kerb as possible.

• 100.0% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving.

• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.

• 99.7% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE


In April-June 2013;

• 99.7% displayed destination sign.

• 93.2% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD

In April-June 2013;

• 100.0% displayed ‘Welcome Aboard’ sign.

• 100.0% displayed concession pass schedule.

• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

• 100.0% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION

In April-June 2013;

• 1.32% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for special

passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100% bus trips.

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

North South

Service Standard Report April - June 2013

North South On Time Running

2.12%

68.70%

28.91%

0.27%

1.33%

69.50%

28.65%

0.53% Early

On time

Late

Did not run

With the commencement of the new contracts, a bus is considered to be on-time if it departs a time-point along a route no more

than 1 minute early and no more than 4.59 minutes late.

In April-June 2013;

• 68.70% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 2.12% of services. • Late running was 28.91%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.27%.

On-Time Running

Table 2.1

Figure 2.1

April - June 2013 January - March 2013

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3-9 min early 0.27% 0.27% 0.05% 0.05%

1-2 min early 1.06% 1.86% 0.64% 1.41%

On-time (

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.7% . • 0.3% of services were recorded as poor.

Vehicle Condition - Exterior

Connections

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

In April-June 2013;


January - April 2013 April – June 2013

Figure 2.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 94.2% 94.3%

Mode

Bus 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

Yes n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

No n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%

I f No, why not?

Bus arrived late n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train departed early n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train not seen n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Insufficient transfer time n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not applicable n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Passengers asked to re-validate at terminus on change of route number

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Worst Performing


Vehicle exterior clean

Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 99.7% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%

Excellent 0.8% 0.0% 2.6% 0.7%

Good 90.3% 84.8% 92.0% 90.6%

Fair 8.6% 14.9% 5.3% 8.6%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%


North South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.0%

84.8%

14.9%

0.3%

0.8%

90.3%

8.6%

0.3% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.7%. • 0.3% of services were recorded as poor.

Figure 2.4

April - June 2013

Vehicle Condition - Interior

January - March 2013

Figure 2.5

Table 2.4


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 0.5% 0.0% 4.1% 0.5%

Good 82.2% 82.1% 81.5% 88.0%

Fair 17.0% 17.6% 14.2% 10.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)

North South Cleanliness

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories

included Excellent/Good onlyJan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair included.

North South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.0%

82.1%

17.6%

0.3%

0.5%

82.2%

17.0%

0.3%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 100.0%.

• Response to passenger enquiries category was 100.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.

Table 2.5

Figure 2.6

Driver Quality - Courtesy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair) Willingness to Load/Unload Belongings (Exc/Good/Fair)

North South Driver Courtesy

Willingness to Load/Unload Belongings not reported on f rom April-June 2012 onwards


included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.



Excellent 1.9% 3.5% 6.1% 8.3%

Good 68.9% 61.6% 74.7% 68.6%

Fair 28.9% 34.9% 19.1% 23.0%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Excellent + Good + Fair 97.9% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% N/A

Excellent 6.3% 8.8% 13.9% 11.1%

Good 81.3% 64.9% 73.8% 72.1%

Fair 10.4% 26.3% 11.5% 16.8%

Poor 2.1% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 87.5% 100.0% 93.8% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 66.7%

No 12.5% 0.0% 6.3% 8.5%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 50.0%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*


Driver Quality - Safety


• Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 99.5%.

• Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%.

• Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 99.7%.

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.2%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride


Excellent 3.0% 2.9% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 81.9% 80.5% 83.9% 85.3%

Fair 14.9% 16.0% 11.0% 10.1%

Poor 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.2%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 2.4% 3.2% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 95.1% 92.8% 92.8% 93.4%

Fair 2.4% 4.0% 2.2% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 98.9% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 98.9%

Excellent 2.4% 3.2% 5.1% 4.3%

Good 93.0% 87.7% 92.1% 92.0%

Fair 4.6% 8.0% 2.8% 3.4%

Poor 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.2%


Excellent 3.8% 1.3% 6.1% 3.3%

Good 87.3% 88.8% 88.8% 90.8%

Fair 8.9% 9.6% 5.0% 5.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5%

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 99.9%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%


Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving


Uniform


Excellent 11.4% 9.6% 12.6% 11.9%

Good 88.4% 89.1% 87.3% 87.5%

Fair 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4%

Poor 0.3% 0.8% 0.0% 0.2%

Personal appearance

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

Excellent 13.2% 12.8% 14.1% 13.7%

Good 86.2% 86.9% 85.6% 86.2%

Fair 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 7.0% 2.9% 9.2% 5.1%

Good 91.6% 95.2% 89.6% 93.7%

Fair 1.1% 1.9% 1.1% 1.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 99.5% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A 0.3%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Driver stop for personal business

Yes 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 99.5% 99.5% 99.9% 99.9%

Light City Buses North South Best Performing Worst Performing Total All Contract Areas

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 2.8

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 2.11


Assistance Required

Required 1.6% 2.4% 1.9% 1.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 98.4% 97.6% 98.1% 98.2%

Driver assisted

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Reason

Pram 33.3% 11.1% 9.5% 10.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 0.0% 44.4% 69.0% 64.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 33.3% 33.3% 9.5% 15.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 33.3% 11.1% 9.5% 7.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 8.4% 15.2% 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 91.4% 84.8% 92.0% 85.7%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% N/A N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%

Timetables available

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Light City Buses North South

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas


Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 99.2% 99.5% 99.7% 99.6%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing



Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

Yes n/a 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% n/a n/a 0.0%

No n/a 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


In April-June 2013;

• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 98.9% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 97.3% of services.

Figure 2.7

Table 2.12

Process Compliance - Signage

On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Destination Sign

Yes 98.9% 98.9% 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Shift Number

Yes 93.8% 97.3% 95.2% 95.9% 98.9% 98.7% 90.7% 93.2%

No 4.1% 1.9% 3.0% 3.1%

Wrong No 2.2% 0.8% 1.8% 0.9%


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

North South Route/Shift Number Displayed

In April-June 2013;

• Concession pass schedules were correctly displayed on 99.5% of vehicles.

• The Metro ticket fare schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 99.7% of vehicles.

Table 2.13

Table 2.14

Figure 2.8

Signage - Onboard

In April-June 2013;

• The ‘Welcome Aboard’ signs were correctly displayed on 100.0% of services.


Yes 99.7% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Welcome Aboard sign

Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Yes 99.5% 99.5% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5%

No 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Yes 100.0% 99.7% 99.4% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1%

Concession Pass Schedule

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

98.2

98.4

98.6

98.8

99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

North South Signage

4 exterior Metro Stickers

excluded from Oct-Dec 2011

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

During April - June 2013;

• 8.3% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 16.7% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 1.6% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 50.0% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

In April-June 2013:

• In 0.0% of trips the driver was reconciling cash or tickets while the bus was in motion.

Ticketing

Table 2.16

Table 2.15

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 14.3% 16.7% 12.3% 14.7%

Issued problem slip 35.7% 8.3% 22.6% 16.0% 35.7% 30.0%

Wrote on ticket and returned 14.3% 0.0% 11.6% 14.7%

Observed ticket: no action 17.9% 25.0% 23.9% 17.3%

No action taken 10.7% 25.0% 14.8% 16.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 3.6% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%

Driver sighted senior card no action 3.6% 8.3% 1.9% 1.3%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 0.0% 16.7% 8.4% 18.7%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 2.8% 1.6% 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 4.7%

Driver ignored passenger 14.1% 11.5% 11.1% 11.5%

Drivers view obscured 14.1% 23.0% 15.6% 31.9%

Driver not on board 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Driver had no change 2.8% 3.3% 1.4% 3.2%

Driver observed slip / ticket 50.7% 50.0% 47.6% 29.2%

Passenger had no money 9.9% 10.7% 13.9% 18.2%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.0%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 2.0%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 5.6% 0.0% 1.7% 0.5%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas Best Performing


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Light City Buses North South Best Performing Worst Performing Total All Contract Areas

On boarding a vehicle the Service Standard Officer will use a “Test Ticket” to assist in verifying the validity of trip data as set up

by the driver on the vehicles “Bus Control Unit” (BCU). The information stamped on the test ticket is checked to ascertain that it

contains the correct trip information including route and section information.


• Of the total trips audited, 7.4% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 28 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 21.4% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 39.3% of trips.

• In 39.3% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Table 2.17

Figure 2.9

April - June 2013

Test Ticket Information


North South Test Ticket

18.7%

0.0%

81.2%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not

Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not

Updated)

21.4%

39.3%

39.3%

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 3 18.8% 6 21.4% 1.6%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 0 0.0% 11 39.3% 2.9%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 13 81.3% 11 39.3% 2.9%

Total 16 28 377 7.4% 5.1%

2.2%

Test TicketsNorth South North South Percentage of Total North South

Services AuditedJan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun - 13

0.7%

2.2%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

Percentage Percentage

In the Light City Buses’ North South contract area, 2.77% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Table 2.18

Fare Evasion

Bus Fare

Evasion

Light City Buses

North South

Apr-Jun-10 0.42%

Jul-Sep-10 3.11%

Oct-Dec-10 0.76%

Jan-Mar-11 2.33%

Apr-Jun-11 2.22%

Jul-Sep-11 1.72%

Oct-Dec-11 4.22%

Jan-Mar-12 4.06%

Apr-Jun-12 5.85%

Jul-Sep-12 3.83%

Oct-Dec-12 3.78%

Jan-Mar-13 1.63%

Apr-Jun-13 2.77%

Outer North East

Service Standard Report April - June 2013

Outer North East On Time Running

1.89%

85.41%

12.70%

0.00%0.81%

86.18%

13.01%0.00%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

Table 3.1

With the commencement of the new contracts, a bus is considered to be on-time if it departs a time-point along a route no more

than 1 minute early and no more than 4 minutes 59 seconds late.

In April-June 2013;

• 85.41% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 1.89% of services. • Late running was 12.70%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

April - June 2013

Figure 3.1

On-Time Running



10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.05%

1-2 min early 0.81% 1.89% 0.64% 1.41%

On-time (

Table 3.3

Vehicle Condition - Exterior

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• No services were recorded as poor.

Connections

Table 3.2

In April-June 2013;



Figure 3.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 94.2% 94.3%

Mode

Bus 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

Yes n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

No n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%

I f No, why not?

Bus arrived late n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train departed early n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train not seen n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Insufficient transfer time n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not applicable n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Passengers asked to re-validate at terminus on change of route number

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Light City Buses

Outer North East Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing Contract

Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area


Vehicle exterior clean


Excellent 0.8% 0.3% 2.6% 0.7%

Good 96.2% 95.4% 92.0% 90.6%

Fair 3.0% 4.3% 5.3% 8.6%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Outer North East Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.3%

95.4%

4.3%

0.0%0.8%

96.2%

3.0%

0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 3.4

Table 3.4

Figure 3.5

Vehicle Condition - Interior

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.


Outer North East Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.0%

91.9%

8.1%0.0%

1.4%

81.8%

16.5%

0.3% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 1.4% 0.0% 4.1% 0.5%

Good 81.8% 91.9% 81.5% 88.0%

Fair 16.5% 8.1% 14.2% 10.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100


Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)

Outer North East Cleanliness



Jan-Mar 2012 onwards

categories Excellent/Good/Fair

Driver Quality - Courtesy

Table 3.5

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers were 100.0%.

• Response to passenger enquiries category was 100.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.

Figure 3.6



Excellent 3.0% 3.2% 6.1% 8.3%

Good 75.3% 75.9% 74.7% 68.6%

Fair 21.7% 20.8% 19.1% 23.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%


Excellent 5.7% 5.1% 13.9% 11.1%

Good 71.4% 72.9% 73.8% 72.1%

Fair 22.9% 22.0% 11.5% 16.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 100.0% 66.7% 93.8% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 66.7%

No 0.0% 33.3% 6.3% 8.5%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 50.0%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair)

Outer North East Driver Courtesy



Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair included.

Driver Quality - Safety

Table 3.6

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%.

• Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%.

• Ensuring passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.

Table 3.7

In April-June 2013;

• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.7%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride


Excellent 1.1% 1.6% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 90.5% 88.6% 83.9% 85.3%

Fair 8.4% 9.7% 11.0% 10.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 0.5% 1.4% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 96.7% 97.0% 92.8% 93.4%

Fair 2.7% 1.6% 2.2% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible


Excellent 0.8% 2.4% 5.1% 4.3%

Good 95.1% 95.9% 92.1% 92.0%

Fair 4.1% 1.6% 2.8% 3.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%


Excellent 1.1% 2.4% 6.1% 3.3%

Good 95.9% 92.4% 88.8% 90.8%

Fair 3.0% 5.1% 5.0% 5.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

Yes 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5%

No 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 99.9%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 99.7% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Light City Buses



Area


Area


Uniform


Excellent 5.1% 8.4% 12.6% 11.9%

Good 94.6% 90.8% 87.3% 87.5%

Fair 0.3% 0.5% 0.1% 0.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%

Personal appearance

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

Excellent 6.2% 11.1% 14.1% 13.7%

Good 93.5% 88.9% 85.6% 86.2%

Fair 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 3.5% 2.4% 9.2% 5.1%

Good 95.1% 96.8% 89.6% 93.7%

Fair 1.1% 0.8% 1.1% 1.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 99.5% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A 0.3%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Driver stop for personal business

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 3.8

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 3.9

Table 3.10

Table 3.11


Assistance Required

Required 2.4% 1.4% 1.9% 1.8% n/a n/a n/a n/aNot Required 97.6% 98.6% 98.1% 98.2%

Driver assisted

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Reason

Pram 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 10.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 77.8% 100.0% 69.0% 64.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 11.1% 0.0% 2.4% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 11.1% 0.0% 9.5% 15.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 7.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Light City Buses



Area


Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 4.9% 15.7% 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 95.1% 84.3% 92.0% 85.7%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% N/A N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%

Timetables available

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area




Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.6%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area




Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

Yes n/a n/a 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% n/a n/a 0.0%

No n/a n/a 0.0% 100.0%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area



Figure 3.7

Table 3.12

In April-June 2013;

• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 99.7% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 93.2% of services.

Process Compliance - Signage


Destination Sign

Yes 100.0% 99.7% 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%

Shift Number

Yes 97.8% 93.2% 95.2% 95.9% 98.9% 98.7% 90.7% 93.2%

No 1.9% 5.9% 3.0% 3.1%

Wrong No 0.3% 0.8% 1.8% 0.9%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

Outer North East Route/Shift Number Displayed

Front Route sign changed in Oct-Dec-11

to include all Destination signs

Table 3.13

Table 3.14

Figure 3.8

Signage - Onboard

In April-June 2013;

• Concession pass schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• The Metro ticket fare schedules, were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

In April-June 2013;

• The ‘Welcome Aboard’ signs were correctly displayed on 100.0% of services.


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Welcome Aboard sign

Light City Buses



Area


Area

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Yes 99.2% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5%

No 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Yes 99.2% 100.0% 99.4% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%

No 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%

Concession Pass Schedule

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

Light City Buses



Area


Area

88

90

92

94

96

98

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

Outer North East Signage

4 exterior Metro Stickers

excluded from Oct-Dec 2011

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Table 3.15

In April-June 2013;

• 13.3% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 6.7% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 4.7% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 26.6% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

Ticketing

In April-June 2013;

• In 0.0% of trips the driver was reconciling cash or tickets while the bus was in motion.

Table 3.16

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 7.1% 6.7% 12.3% 14.7%

Issued problem slip 19.0% 13.3% 22.6% 16.0% 35.7% 30.0%

Wrote on ticket and returned 11.9% 20.0% 11.6% 14.7%

Observed ticket: no action 26.2% 6.7% 23.9% 17.3%

No action taken 14.3% 20.0% 14.8% 16.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 4.8% 6.7% 3.9% 1.3%

Driver sighted senior card no action 2.4% 0.0% 1.9% 1.3%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 14.3% 26.7% 8.4% 18.7%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 0.0% 4.7% 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 4.7%

Driver ignored passenger 10.2% 20.3% 11.1% 11.5%

Drivers view obscured 11.0% 29.7% 15.6% 31.9%

Driver not on board 0.8% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Driver had no change 0.8% 7.8% 1.4% 3.2%

Driver observed slip / ticket 65.4% 26.6% 47.6% 29.2%

Passenger had no money 7.1% 9.4% 13.9% 18.2%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 2.4% 0.0% 1.2% 1.0%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 2.4% 1.6% 5.4% 2.0%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.5%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Light City Buses



Area


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 99.5% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area



Table 3.17

Figure 3.9

April - June 2013

Test Ticket Information

On boarding a vehicle the Service Standard Officer will use a “Test Ticket” to assist in verifying the validity of trip data as set up

by the driver on the vehicles “Bus Control Unit” (BCU). The information stamped on the test ticket is checked to ascertain that it

contains the correct trip information including route and section information.

In April-June 2013:

• Of the total trips audited, 6.8% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 25 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 0.0% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 48.0% of trips.

• In 52.0% of trips, the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.


Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 3 20.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 0 0.0% 12 48.0% 3.2%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 12 80.0% 13 52.0% 3.5%

Total 15 25 370 6.8%

2.2%

5.1%

Test TicketsOuter North East Outer North East Percentage of Total ONE

Services AuditedJan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun - 13

0.7%

2.2%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

Percentage Percentage

Outer North East Test Ticket

0.0%

48.0%

52.0%

20.0%

0.0%

80.0%

Validator not

functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU

not Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU

not Updated)

Table 3.18

In the Light City Buses’ Outer North East contract area, 1.32% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a

ticket.

Fare Evasion

Bus Fare

Evasion

Light City

Buses Outer

North East

Apr-Jun-10 0.38%

Jul-Sep-10 0.62%

Oct-Dec-10 0.65%

Jan-Mar-11 1.21%

Apr-Jun-11 1.68%

Jul-Sep-11 4.77%

Oct-Dec-11 2.19%

Jan-Mar-12 3.28%

Apr-Jun-12 2.80%

Jul-Sep-12 2.99%

Oct-Dec-12 1.78%

Jan-Mar-13 2.75%

Apr-Jun-13 1.32%

light city buses service standard report...between the 1st april 2013 and 30th june 2013; • 747...

Documents