public transport services service standard report...• 84.40% of adelaide metro bus services...
TRANSCRIPT
Public Transport Services
Service Standard Report January - March 2014
Page 2
Sample and Methodology 3
Main Findings—Bus 4-5
Main Findings—Train 6
Main Findings—Tram 4
On-Time Running—Bus 8-9
Top Ten Routes for On-Time Running 9
Connections 10
Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness 10-12
Driver Quality—Courtesy—Bus 13
Driver Quality—Safety—Bus 14
Driver Quality—Appearance—Bus 15
Driver Quality—Special Needs—Bus 16
Driver Quality—Driver Response—Bus 16
Process Compliance—Signage—Bus 17
Signage—Onboard—Bus 18
Ticketing—Bus 19
Test Ticket Information 20
Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion 21
Fare Evasion 21
Service Incident Notifications - Bus 21
Contents
Page 3
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 January and 31st March 2014; • 2,199 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. • 198 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. • 241 audits onboard Adelaide Metro tram services. • Services were audited in all metropolitan Metroticket contract areas. The number of bus trips audited represents a 95% Confidence Interval with a maximum Margin of Error of +/- 5% (of the trips supplied). Trips supplied is defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a Saturday and Sunday in all contract areas for one whole week. The sample base is selected from trips listed on PTS approved timetables submitted by SouthLink, Light City Buses, Torrens Transit and Rail Commissioner.
Table 1.1
Sample and Methodology
Contract Area
Weekday Trips
Audited Saturday Trips Audited
Sunday Trips
Audited
Total Trips
Audited
Sample
Required
Trips
Supplied
SouthLink Outer North 320 27 23 370 366 7,705
Light CityBuses Outer North East 313 31 28 372 368 8,429
Light City Buses North South 317 32 28 377 372 11,277
Southlink Hills 303 19 11 333 331 2,350
SouthLink Outer South 308 31 29 368 361 6,226
Torrens Transit East West 318 32 29 379 376 17,015
RailCommissioner Train 128 36 34 198 182 2,795
Rail Commissioner Tram 172 34 35 241 238 1,116
TOTAL 2,179 242 217 2,638 2,594 56,913
2,199
*Please note: Due to Tonsley line closure entire quarter and Seaford, Belair and Outer Harbor timetable updates 23/02/2014 the Rail Commissioner
Train quota was adjusted.
Page 4
Table 1.2
Main Findings - Bus
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 January - March 2014;
• 84.40% of services audited were on time. • 13.74% of services audited were late. • 1.78% 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 January - March 2014;
• 0.09% 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 January - March 2014;
• 9.7% of services audited were required to connect.
VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. In January - March 2014;
• 99.5% acceptable interior cleanliness. • 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.
OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH HILLS OUTER SOUTH EAST WEST
ON TIME RUNNING
Vehicle ex terior
Vehicle interior
Destination Display ed
Shift number
Prescribed Officer Decal
Fare schedule
Priority Seating
Acknow ledging passengers
Response to inquiries
Board or alight at safe locations
Smooth ride
Compliance w ith road rules
Parked close to kerb
Unsteady passengers seated
Use of electronic equp w hilst driv ing
Driv er phy sically alert and prepared
Uniform
Personal appearance
Personal behav iour
DRIVER APPEARANCE
DRIVER COURTESY
PASSENGER SAFETY
VEHICLE CLEANLINESS
ROUTE & SHIFT NO DISPLAY
INTERIOR SIGNAGE
Page 5
Main Findings - Bus
DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. In January - March 2014;
• 99.8% acknowledging passengers. • 100.0% response to passenger enquiries. • 99.9% 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. • 0.1% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. • 98.7% acceptable uniform. • 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. • 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.
PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. In January - March 2014;
• 99.2% displayed destination sign. • 96.4% displayed shift number.
SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In January - March 2014;
• 100.0% displayed prescribed officer decal. • 99.2% displayed metroticket fare schedule. • 99.9% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.
FARE EVASION In January - March 2014;
• 5.23% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.
When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion increased by 3.74%
Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.
Page 6
In relation to On-Time Running; A train 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 5 minutes 59 seconds late. • 87.88% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 0.51% of services. • Late running was 11.62%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%. In relation to Vehicle Exterior/Interior; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 97.4%. • 2.6% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Driver and Automated Station Announcements; • In 98.7% of situations, the Station Announcements were made by the driver or automated system for all stations. In relation to PSAs’ Customer Service; • PSA’s used Portable Reading Devices (PRDs) when checking tickets in 100.0% of cases. • PSA’s were rated as having been polite when asking to check passengers tickets in 100.0% of cases. • A ticket offence report was issued in 4.2% of cases in which the PSA used a PRD to check tickets. In relation to Fare Evasion; • Overall Fare Evasion on the rail system was 5.51%. When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion decreased by 0.78%
Main Findings - Train
Page 7
In relation to On-Time Running; A tram 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 5 min-utes and 59 seconds late. • 87.55% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 6.22% of services. • Late running was 6.22%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%. In relation to Vehicle Exterior/Interior; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.6%. • 0.4% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; • In 98.0% of cases, Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers. In relation to Fare Evasion; • Overall Fare Evasion on the tram system was 14.71%. When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion decreased by 0.85%
Main Findings - Tram
Page 8
Bus On Time Running
1.77%
84.40%
13.73%
0.09%
1.19%
84.53%
14.15%0.14%
Early
On time
Late
Did not run
With the commencement of the new contracts, effective 1 July 2011, a bus is considered to be on time if it departs a timepoint along a route no more than 59 seconds early and no more than 4 minutes 59 seconds late (previously 5 minutes 59 seconds late). In January - March 2014; • 84.40% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 87.69% on time running. • Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 74.27%. • Early running occurred on 1.78% of services. • Late running was 13.74%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.09%.
Table 1.3
Figure 1.1
October - December 2013 January - March 2014
On-Time Running - Bus Total All Contract Areas Best Performing
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
10+ min early 0.00% 0.00%
3-9 min early 0.14% 0.23%
1-2 min early 1.05% 1.55%
On-time (<4.59 min late) 84.53% 84.40% 90.66% 87.69% 78.36% 74.27%
5-6 late 4.61% 3.55% HILLS HILLS E.W. N.S.
6-9 min late 6.80% 7.05%
10+ min late 2.74% 3.14%
Did Not Run 0.14% 0.09%
Bus arrival time
10+ min late 1.60% 1.96% 0.00% 0.81% 4.81% 2.93%
Bus departure time
Page 9
0
2
4
6
OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST
NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST
Top 10 Routes by Contract Area
Table 1.4
Figure 1.2
On-Time Running - Bus
Top Ten Routes for On-Time Running
Figure 1.3
Route Early On time Late
Trips
sampled
229 100.0% 19
507 100.0% 17
682 100.0% 16
545 100.0% 11
559 100.0% 11
737 100.0% 11
646 100.0% 10
141 100.0% 9
333 100.0% 9
415 100.0% 9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
On-Time Late Departing Early Departing
All Areas On Time Running
Percentage
Page 10
2.6%
88.2%
9.2%0.0%
Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness
0.6%
81.9%
17.4%
0.1%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Connections - Bus
Table 1.5
In January - March 2014; • 9.7% of services (213) were required to connect, with 99.5% of these connections successfully occurring.
Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus
Figure 1.4
January - March 2014 October - December 2013
Table 1.6
In January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Outer North, Hills and Outer South, Light City Buses Outer North East and Torrens Transit’s East West
contract areas were the Best Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Bus required to connect
Yes 8.5% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 91.5% 90.3%
Mode
Bus 98.4% 98.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Train 1.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Able to transfer
Yes 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 97.6%
No 0.0% 0.5% ALL
O.N.,O.N.E.,
N.S., O.S. HILLS
If No, why not?
Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bus, train departed early 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bus, train not seen 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not applicable 100.0% 99.9% 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% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.1%
N/A 100.0% 99.9%
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Vehicle exterior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 0.6% 2.6%
O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N, E.W. N.S.
Good 81.9% 88.2%
Fair 17.4% 9.2%
Poor 0.1% 0.0%
Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Page 11
In January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%. • 0.5% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Hills was the Best Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.
Figure 1.5
Table 1.7
January - March 2014 October - December 2013
Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Vehicle interior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.2% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 98.9%
Excellent 0.6% 2.4% HILLS HILLS O.N. O.N.
Good 83.0% 80.9%
Fair 15.6% 16.2%
Poor 0.8% 0.5%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness
2.4%
80.9%
16.2%
0.5%0.6%
83.0%
15.6%
0.8% Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Page 12
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.7
Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)
All Areas Cleanliness
Percentage
98.2%
98.4%
98.6%
98.8%
99.0%
99.2%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%
100.0%
SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer North East
Light City BusesNorth South
Southlink Metro Hills SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West
Vehicle exterior clean Vehicle interior clean
Bus Vehicle Cleanliness by Contract AreaPercentage
Page 13
Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus
Table 1.8
Figure 1.8
In January - March 2014; • Acknowledging Passengers was 99.8%. • Response to Passenger Inquiries was 100.0%. • Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 94.6% did so at safe locations.
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Acknowledging passengers
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2%
Excellent 4.8% 4.1%
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS N.S. N.S.
Good 69.2% 74.9%
Fair 25.9% 20.8%
Poor 0.1% 0.2%
Response to passenger enquiries*
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0% n/a
Excellent 4.9% 7.1%
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. ALL O.N.E.
Good 79.0% 76.6%
Fair 15.9% 16.3%
Poor 0.2% 0.0%
Board or alight between stops*
Yes 86.2% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 71.4% 70.0%
No 13.8% 12.5% O.S.,E.W. O.N.,E.W. HILLS O.S.
If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*
Yes 94.6% 94.6% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% 83.3%
No 5.4% 5.4%
O.N,N.S,
HILLS,O.S.
O.N,O.N.E.,N.S,
HILLS,O.S. O.N.E. E.W.
* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair)
All Areas Driver Courtesy
Percentage
Page 14
Driver Quality - Safety - Bus
Table 1.9
In January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 99.9%. • Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%. • Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.
Figure 1.9
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Smooth ride
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.7%
Excellent 1.8% 2.2%
O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,E.W.
O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS O.S. O.S.,E.W.
Good 85.1% 87.2%
Fair 13.0% 10.5%
Poor 0.1% 0.1%
Compliance with road rules
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.7%
Excellent 1.2% 2.1% O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS
O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S. O.S. E.W.
Good 95.8% 95.4%
Fair 2.8% 2.4%
Poor 0.2% 0.0%
Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.7%
Excellent 1.7% 2.0% ALL
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,O.S.E.W. N.S.
Good 90.9% 92.3%
Fair 7.4% 5.6%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 4.2% 2.2%
O.N,O.N.E,
HILLS, O.S.
O.N,O.N.E,N.S.,
HILLS, O.S. N.S.,E.W. E.W.
Good 84.8% 86.1%
Fair 10.9% 11.6%
Poor 0.1% 0.0%
Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving
Yes 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%
No 99.9% 99.9% O.N.E,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.N.,E.W. O.N.E.
Driver physically alert and prepared
Yes 99.6% 99.1% 100.0% 99.7% 99.2% 98.7%
No 0.4% 0.9% HILLS O.N. O.S. N.S.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Smooth Ride (Exc/Good/Fair) Road Rules Compliance (Exc/Good/Fair) Ensured Passengers Seated Before Driving
All Areas Passenger Safety
Percentage
Page 15
Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus
Table 1.10
In January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 98.7%. • Personal appearance category was 100.0%. • Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Uniform
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 98.7% 100.0% 99.7% n/a 98.1%
Excellent 3.8% 2.8% ALL E.W. O.N.,N.S.
Good 95.6% 94.7%
Fair 0.7% 1.2%
Poor 0.0% 1.3%
Personal appearance
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
Excellent 2.9% 2.6% ALL ALL
Good 96.8% 96.2%
Fair 0.3% 1.2%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Personal behaviour
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 2.0% 1.4%
O.N.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W.
O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.,N.S. O.N.E.
Good 95.9% 96.0%
Fair 2.1% 2.6%
Poor 0.1% 0.0%
Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%
No
99.8% 99.9% O.N.,O.N.E,
HILLS, O.S.
O.N.E,N.S.,
HILLS, O.S.,E.W. N.S. O.N.
Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%
No
99.7% 99.7% O.N,O.N.E.,
HILLS HILLS,O.S. E.W. N.S.
Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a
No
100.0% 100.0% ON.,O.N.E.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W. ALL N.S.
Driver stop for personal business
Yes 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.9% 1.6%
No
99.3% 99.3% O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS O.N.,HILLS N.S. O.N.E.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Page 16
Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus
Table 1.11
Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus
Table 1.12
Table 1.13
Table 1.14
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Assistance Required
Required 2.5% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not Required 97.5% 97.4%
Driver assisted
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL
Reason
Pram 11.1% 8.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wheelchair 44.4% 53.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shopping Cart 14.8% 10.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 22.2% 12.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other 7.4% 14.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange
Yes 24.9% 23.8% 27.5% 29.3% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% E.W. E.W.
N/A 75.1% 76.2%
Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website
Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS,O.S. O.N.,HILLS
N/A 99.8% 99.9%
Timetables available
Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.6% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% O.S. HILLS
N/A 99.8% 99.9%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service
Yes 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3%
No 0.1% 0.1% O.N.,N.S. O.N.E. O.N.E.,E.W. N.S.,HILLS
N/A 99.6% 99.5%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Did any passenger display anti-social or
offensive behaviour?
Yes 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 100.0% 100.0%
If Yes, did driver act appropriately in
applicable cases?
Yes n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
No n/a 0.0% N.S. E.W.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Page 17
Figure 1.10
In January - March 2014; • 99.2% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. • Light City Buses Outer North East and Torrens Transit’s East West was the Best Performing Contract Areas with 99.7%. • Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 96.4% of cases. • The Best Performing Contract Area was Torrens Transit’s East West which achieved 98.2%.
Table 1.15
Process Compliance - Signage - Bus
On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Destination Sign
Yes 99.3% 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9% 98.4%
No 0.5% 0.4% O.N.E. O.N.E.,E.W.
O.N.,N.S.,
E.W. N.S.
Wrong No 0.2% 0.4%
Shift Number
Yes 96.1% 96.4% 98.9% 98.2% 91.3% 92.2%
No 2.8% 2.5% N.S. E.W. O.N. O.N.
Wrong No 1.1% 1.1%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
75
80
85
90
95
100
Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Destination Displayed Shift Numbers
All Areas Route/Shift Number Displayed
Percentage
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer North East
Light City BusesNorth South
Southlink Metro Hills SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West
Destination Sign Shift Number
Destination Sign/Shift Number Displayed by Contract Area
Percentage
Figure 1.11
Page 18
Figure 1.12
Table 1.16
Signage - Onboard - Bus
On the interior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Yes n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
No n/a 0.0%
O.N,O.N.E.,
HILLS, O.S.,E.W.
ALL N.S
Yes 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 98.4%
No 0.0% 0.8%
ALL O.S. O.N.E.,N.S.
Yes 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5%
No 0.1% 0.1%
O.N.,O.N.E.,
N.S.,HILLS
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S.,E.W. N.S.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Prescribed Officer Decal
Metroticket Fare Schedule
Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating
98.0
98.2
98.4
98.6
98.8
99.0
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100.0
Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Interior Signage Exterior Signage
All Areas Signage
Percentage
Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-Sep 2013
Page 19
2.8%
32.9%
21.3%
0.7%1.7%
16.4%
22.0%
0.7%
0.5%
0.7%
0.2%
Asked to validate
Driver ignored passenger
Drivers view obscured
Driver not on board
Driver had no change
Driver observed slip / ticket
Passenger had no money
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors)
Driver view of senior passenger obscured
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket
Non Validations
Figure 1.13
Table 1.17
Ticketing - Bus Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Faulty ticket
Pass. purchased another ticket 32.0% 38.3%
Issued problem slip 5.0% 0.0% 14.3% n/a
Wrote on ticket and returned 6.0% 1.7% O.N.
Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 11.0% 11.7%
Observed ticket: no action 5.0% 8.3%
No action taken 12.0% 25.0%
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0%
Driver ignored senior free 3.0% 0.0%
Driver sighted senior card no action 3.0% 0.0%
Drivers view obscured including hearing 23.0% 15.0%
Non validation of ticket
Asked to validate 0.8% 2.8% 2.1% 7.1%
Driver ignored passenger 20.5% 32.9% E.W. O.S.
Drivers view obscured 25.5% 21.3%
Driver not on board 0.8% 0.7%
Driver had no change 3.9% 1.7%
Driver observed slip / ticket 21.6% 16.4%
Passenger had no money 23.1% 22.0%
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 1.6% 0.7%
Driver view of senior passenger obscured 1.0% 0.5%
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.3% 0.7%
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.2%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Figure 1.14
38.3%
0.0%
1.7%
11.7%
8.3%
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.0%
Pass. purchased another ticket
Issued problem slip
Wrote on ticket and returned
Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action
Observed ticket: no action
No action taken
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket
Driver ignored senior free
Driver sighted senior card no action
Drivers view obscured including hearing
Faulty Tickets
Page 20
Bus Test Ticket
6.3%
44.9%
48.8%
6.6%
43.8%
49.6%
Validator not functioning
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated)
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 January - March 2014; • Of the total trips audited, 5.8% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 127 issues in
Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: • The validator was not functioning in 6.3% of trips. • An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 44.9% of trips. • In 48.8% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.
Figure 1.15
Table 1.18
October - December 2013 January - March 2014
Test Ticket Information - Bus Test Tickets
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
Validator not functioning 8 8 4 2 1 1 0 0 8
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 53 57 14 5 9 10 9 10 57
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 60 62 15 10 10 7 11 9 62
Total 121 127 33 17 20 18 20 19 127
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
Percentage of
Total Services
Audited
Validator not functioning 6.6% 6.3% 12.1% 11.8% 5.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 43.8% 44.9% 42.4% 29.4% 45.0% 55.6% 45.0% 52.6% 2.6%
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 49.6% 48.8% 45.5% 58.8% 50.0% 38.9% 55.0% 47.4% 2.8%
Total 5.8%
Total Services
Audited with
Incorrect
TicketOuter North Outer North East North South Hills Outer South East West
Total - All Contract Areas
Page 21
In January - March 2014; • 5.23% of passengers boarded a vehicle without validating a ticket.
Fare Evasion - Bus
Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus
Table 1.19
Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14
Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion
Yes 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1%
No
99.8% 99.8%
O.N.E.,O.S. O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,E.W.
E.W.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Service Incident Notifications - Bus In January - March 2014; • 1288 issues warranted Service Audit Reports. • 10.9% related to Driver Quality. • 14.1% related to Signage. • 15.6% related to Test Ticket information.
Problem No. of issues No. of issues % of total SARs
within SAR's within SAR's
(Unadjusted) (Adjusted) (Adjusted)
On Time Running- Departure 383 343 42.1%
On Time Running-Arrival 53 43 5.3%
Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 2 1 0.1%
Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 15 11 1.4%
Driver Quality—Courtesy—Bus 9 8 1.0%
Driver Quality—Safety—Bus 26 26 3.2%
Driver Quality—Appearance—Bus 259 53 6.5%
Driver Quality—Special Needs—Bus 0 0 0.0%
Driver Quality—Driver Response—Bus 2 2 0.2%
Process Compliance—Signage—Bus 108 96 11.8%
Signage—Onboard—Bus 20 19 2.3%
Ticketing—Bus 283 85 10.4%
Test Ticket Information 128 127 15.6%
Connections 0 0 0.0%
Total 1288 814
Table 1.21