public transport services service standard report...light city buses north south 316 32 29 377 374...

Public Transport Services

Service Standard Report January - March 2013

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 22

Contents

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 2013; • 2,190 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. • 111 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. • 229 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 22 369 367 7,695

Light CityBuses Outer North East 309 32 28 369 366 8,341

Light City Buses North South 316 32 29 377 374 13,751

Transitplus Hills (Metro) 300 20 11 331 330 2,235

SouthLink Outer South 307 35 26 368 362 6,641

Torrens Transit East West 319 31 26 376 375 15,147

RailCommissioner Train 74 19 18 111 108 1,709

Rail Commissioner Tram 162 35 32 229 229 1,064

TOTAL 2,107 231 192 2,530 2,511 56,583

*Please note, due to whole network rail closure in January and Noarlunga/Belair closure for the full quarter, rail comm sample size was adjusted. 2,190

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 2013;

• 84.84% of services audited were on time. • 14.29% of services audited were late. • 0.68% 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 2013;

• 0.18% 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 2013;

• 100.0% service connections.

VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. In January - March 2013;

• 99.7% acceptable interior cleanliness. • 99.9% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST

ON TIME RUNNING

Vehicle ex terior

Vehicle interior

EXTERIOR SIGNAGE Welcome aboard sign

Destination Display ed

Shift number

Concession pass

Ticket v alidation instructions

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 elec equipment 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

Main Findings - Bus

DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. In January - March 2013;

• 99.9% acknowledging passengers. • 99.2% 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. • 0.3% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. • 100.0% acceptable uniform. • 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. • 99.9% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. In January - March 2013;

• 99.4% displayed destination sign. • 95.2% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In January - March 2013;

• 99.9% displayed ‘Welcome Aboard’ sign. • 99.8% displayed concession pass schedule. • 100.0% displayed ticket validation instructions. • 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule. • 99.4% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION In January - March 2013;

• 1.67% of passengers boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

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. • 84.68% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 0.00% of services. • Late running was 15.32%. • 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 99.1%. • 0.9% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Driver Station Announcements; • In 97.3% of situations, the Station Announcements were made by the driver 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 23.1% 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 26.88%.

Main Findings - Train

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. • 87.34% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 4.80% of services. • Late running was 7.86%. • 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 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; • In 97.9% 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 15.19%.

Main Findings - Tram

Bus On Time Running

0.7%

84.8%

14.3%

0.2%

1.5%

82.7%

15.7%

0.2%

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 2013; • 84.84% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 93.35% on time running. • Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 69.50%. • Early running occurred on 0.68% of services. • Late running was 14.29%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.18%.

Table 1.3

Figure 1.1

October - December 2012 January - March 2013

On-Time Running - Bus

Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

10+ min early 0.0% 0.0%

3-9 min early 0.3% 0.0%

1-2 min early 1.2% 0.6%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 82.7% 84.8% 94.0% 93.4% 61.4% 69.5%

5-6 late 3.6% 3.0% HILLS HILLS N.S. N.S.

6-9 min late 7.8% 7.3%

10+ min late 4.2% 4.0%

Did Not Run 0.2% 0.2%

Bus arrival time

10+ min late 2.8% 2.5% 0.6% 0.8% 8.4% 7.8%

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area

Bus departure time

Table 1.4

Figure 1.2

On-Time Running - Bus

Top Ten Routes for On-Time Running

Figure 1.3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

All Areas On Time Running

Percentage

Route Early On time Late

Trips

sampled

225 100.0% 30

507 100.0% 15

543 100.0% 15

838 100.0% 13

522 100.0% 12

645 100.0% 12

740 100.0% 10

99C 100.0% 10

837 100.0% 9

172 100.0% 8

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST

NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST

Top 10 by Contract Area-Adjusted

2.6%

92.0%

5.3% 0.1%

Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

18.7%

75.0%

6.2% 0.1%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Connections - Bus

Table 1.5

In January - March 2013; • 5.8% of services (127) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus

Figure 1.4

January - March 2013 October - December 2012

Table 1.6

In January - March 2013; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.9%. • 0.1% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Hills, Light City’s Outer North East and Torrens Transit’s East West contract areas were the Best Performing

Contract Area achieving 100.0%.


Bus required to connect

Yes 5.3% 5.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 94.7% 94.2%

Mode

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

Train 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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

No 0.0% 0.0%

O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S. O.N.,HILLS,O.S.

If No, why not?

Bus arrived late n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

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

Insufficient transfer time n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not applicable n/a n/a 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% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0%



Area


Vehicle exterior clean

Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.7%

Excellent 18.7% 2.6%

O.N.E.,N.S,HILLS,

E.W

O.N.E.,HILLS,E.W O.N. O.N.,N.S.,

O.S.

Good 75.0% 92.0%

Fair 6.2% 5.3%

Poor 0.1% 0.1%


AreaTotal All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

4.1%

81.5%

14.2%

0.3%

25.9%

61.3%

12.3%

0.5%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

In January - March 2013; • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.7%. • 0.3% of services were recorded as poor. • Torrens Transit’s East West Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.

Figure 1.5

Table 1.7

January - March 2013 October - December 2012

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 25.9% 4.1% N.S. E.W. HILLS O.S.

Good 61.3% 81.5%

Fair 12.3% 14.2%

Poor 0.5% 0.3%



Area

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7

Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100


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

All Areas Cleanliness

Percentage

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories

included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.

99.1%

99.2%

99.3%

99.4%

99.5%

99.6%

99.7%

99.8%

99.9%

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

Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus

Table 1.8

Figure 1.8

In January - March 2013; • Acknowledging Passengers was 99.9%. • Response to Passenger Inquiries was 99.2%. • Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


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

All Areas Driver Courtesy

Percentage

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

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories

included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.


Acknowledging passengers


Excellent 8.5% 6.1%

O.N.,HILLS,O.S.,

E.W.

O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S. O.N.E. E.W.

Good 67.9% 74.7%

Fair 23.5% 19.1%

Poor 0.1% 0.1%

Response to passenger inquiries*

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 97.9%

Excellent 17.4% 13.9% ALL

O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

E.W. N.S.

Good 66.0% 73.8%

Fair 16.6% 11.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.8%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 76.1% 93.8% 94.7% 100.0% 50.0% 75.0%

No 23.9% 6.3% E.W.

O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS.,

E.W. O.S. O.S.

If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% n/a

No 3.9% 0.0%

O.N.,HILLS,O.S.,E.

W. ALL O.N.E.

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base



Area

Driver Quality - Safety - Bus

Table 1.9

In January - March 2013; • 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

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100


Smooth Ride (Exc/Good/Fair) Road Rules Compliance (Exc/Good/Fair) Ensured Passengers Seated Before Driving

All Areas Passenger Safety

Percentage

Not reported on in Oct-Dec-11 quarter.

Jan-Mar-12 Ensured passengers seated before driving applied to unsteady passengers only

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.


Smooth ride


Excellent 6.4% 4.9%

O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS,

O.S., E.W. O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS O.N. N.S.,O.S.,E.W

Good 85.7% 83.9%

Fair 7.8% 11.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.1%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 7.2% 4.9%

O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS,O

.S., E.W.

O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,E.W. O.N. O.S.

Good 90.7% 92.8%

Fair 2.1% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible

Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

Excellent 9.5% 5.1%

O.N.E.,HILLS,E.W.

ALL O.N.

Good 87.7% 92.1%

Fair 2.7% 2.8%

Poor 0.2% 0.0%

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

Excellent 8.8% 6.1% O.N.,O.N.E.,E.W. ALL N.S.

Good 86.6% 88.8%

Fair 4.4% 5.0%

Poor 0.2% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

Yes 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.8%

No 99.8% 99.7% N.S.,HILLS. O.N.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E.,

O.S.,E.W.

O.N.E.

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%

No 0.2% 0.1% O.N.E,O.S. O.N., N.S., HILLS,

O.S.

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,E.W.

O.N.E.,E.W.



Area

Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus

Table 1.10

In January - March 2013; • Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%. • Personal appearance category was 100.0%. • Personal behaviour category was 99.9%.


Uniform

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.7%

Excellent 14.2% 12.6% ALL

O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W. N.S.

Good 85.6% 87.3%

Fair 0.2% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 14.6% 14.1% ALL ALL

Good 85.2% 85.6%

Fair 0.2% 0.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 12.9% 9.2%

O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,

O.S.

O.N., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. E.W. O.N.E.,N.S.

Good 86.0% 89.6%

Fair 1.0% 1.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.1%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.5%

No

100.0% 99.9%

ALL

O.N., O.N.E.,HILLS.,

O.S.,.E.W. n/a N.S.

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No

99.9% 99.9% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S. N.S.,HILLS.,O.S.,E.W.

N.S.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E.

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

Yes 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a

No 99.9% 100.0% O.N.,N.S.,O.S.,E.W. ALL O.N.E.,HILLS

Driver stop for personal business

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

No

99.9% 99.9% O.N.,HILLS,O.S.,

E.W.

O.N.,O.N.E,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W. N.S. N.S.

Best Performing Contract Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus

Table 1.11

Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus

Table 1.12

Table 1.13

Table 1.14


Assistance Required

Required 2.0% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 98.0% 98.1%

Driver assisted

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

No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL n/a n/a

Reason

Pram 13.6% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 54.5% 69.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 4.5% 2.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Suitcase 4.5% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 15.9% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 6.8% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 5.2% 7.9% 8.2% 12.3% 0.3% 0.3%

No

0.2% 0.1% E.W. O.S.

O.N.E.,N.S.,

O.S. N.S.

N/A 94.7% 92.0%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Info Line, Centre or Website

Yes 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% O.S.,E.W. HILLS

N/A 99.7% 99.8%

Timetables available

Yes 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS

N/A 99.8% 99.8%



Area


Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.1% N.S.,O.S.,E.W. O.S.,E.W O.N.,N.S. N.S.

N/A 99.7% 99.8%





Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.05% 0.05% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 99.95% 99.95%

If Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No 0.0% 0.0% O.S. O.N.


AreaTotal All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Figure 1.10

In January - March 2013; • 99.4% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. • Light City’s Outer North East contract area was the Best Performing Contract Area with 100.0%. • Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 95.2% of cases. • The Best Performing Contract Area was Torrens Transit’s East West which achieved 98.9%.

Table 1.15

Process Compliance - Signage - Bus

Figure 1.11

75

80

85

90

95

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

All Areas Route/Shift Number Displayed

Percentage

86%

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

On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Destination Sign

Yes 99.5% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 98.9%

No 0.2% 0.5% O.S,E.W. O.N.E. O.N.,N.S. O.N.,N.S.

Wrong No 0.3% 0.1%

Shift Number

Yes 94.8% 95.2% 99.2% 98.9% 90.3% 90.7%

No 4.0% 3.0% E.W. E.W. O.N. O.S.

Wrong No 1.2% 1.8%



Area

Figure 1.12

Table 1.16

Table 1.17

Signage - Onboard - Bus

98.0

98.2

98.4

98.6

98.8

99.0

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100.0


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

All Areas Signage

Percentage

4 exterior Metro Stickers excluded from Oct-Dec 2011

On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Yes 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%

No 0.2% 0.1%

O.N.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.,HILLS, O.S. N.S. O.N.,N.S.,E.W


Area

Welcome Aboard sign


On the interior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Yes 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.2%

No 0.0% 0.2%

ALL O.N., HILLS,

O.S.,E.W.

O.N.E.

Yes 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.6% n/a

No 0.8% 0.0%

HILLS,O.S,E.W. ALL O.N.E.

Yes 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

No 0.2% 0.0%

O.N.E,N.S,HILLS,E.

W.

ALL O.N,O.S.

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

No 0.3% 0.6% HILLS,E.W. N.S.,HILLS.

O.N.E,N.S,

O.S. O.N.



Area

Concession Pass Schedule

Ticket Validation Instructions

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

Figure 1.13

Figure 1.14

Table 1.18

Ticketing - Bus Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 7.1% 12.3%

Issued problem slip 22.4% 22.6% 46.2% 35.7%

Wrote on ticket and returned 19.0% 11.6% HILLS N.S.

Observed ticket: no action 23.8% 23.9%

No action taken 13.8% 14.8%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 1.0% 0.6%

Driver ignored senior free 1.4% 3.9%

Driver sighted senior card no action 1.4% 1.9%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 10.0% 8.4%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 2.2% 0.9% 5.0% 2.8%

Driver ignored passenger 11.8% 11.1% O.N. N.S.

Drivers view obscured 13.2% 15.6%

Driver not on board 0.5% 1.2%

Driver had no change 2.2% 1.4%

Driver observed slip / ticket 52.5% 47.6%

Passenger had no money 11.8% 13.9%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 3.2% 1.2%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 1.7% 5.4%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 0.9% 1.7%

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


NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies

12.3%

22.6%

11.6%

23.9%

14.8%

0.6%

3.9%

1.9%

8.4%

Pass. purchased another ticket

Issued problem slip

Wrote on ticket and returned

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

0.9%

11.1%

15.6%

1.2%

1.4%

47.6%

13.9%

1.2%

5.4%1.7%

0.0%

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

Bus Test Ticket

7.0%

46.0%

47.0%

10.6%

43.9%

45.5%

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 2013; • Of the total trips audited, 4.6% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 100 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: • The validator was not functioning in 7.0% of trips. • An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 46.0% of trips. • In 47.0% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Figure 1.15

Table 1.19

October - December 2012 January - March 2013

Test Ticket Information - Bus Test Tickets

Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

Validator not functioning 13 7 0 2 3 0 2 0 7

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 54 46 8 13 12 4 4 5 46

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 56 47 6 12 13 4 8 4 47

Total 123 100 14 27 28 8 14 9 100

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Percentage of

Total Services

Audited

Validator not functioning 10.6% 7.0% 0.0% 7.4% 10.7% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.3%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 43.9% 46.0% 57.1% 48.1% 42.9% 50.0% 28.6% 55.6% 2.1%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 45.5% 47.0% 42.9% 44.4% 46.4% 50.0% 57.1% 44.4% 2.1%

Total 4.6%

Total Services

Audited with

Incorrect TicketOuter North Outer North East East WestNorth South Hills Outer South

Total - All Contract Areas

In January - March 2013; • 1.67% of passengers were observed boarding a vehicle without validating a ticket.

Figure 1.16

Table 1.21

Fare Evasion - Bus

Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus

Table 1.20

Bus Fare Evasion

SouthLink Outer

North

Light City Buses Outer

North East

Light City Buses

North South Southlink Hills Metro

SouthLink

Outer South

Torrens

Transit East

West

System

Average

Jan-Mar-10 0.21% 0.55% 1.25% 0.17% 0.57% 0.26% 0.51%

Apr-Jun-10 0.72% 0.38% 0.42% 0.37% 0.88% 0.54% 0.53%

Jul-Sep-10 0.70% 0.62% 3.11% 0.77% 0.91% 0.45% 1.13%

Oct-Dec-10 2.23% 0.65% 0.76% 2.01% 1.18% 1.45% 1.46%

Jan-Mar-11 2.99% 1.21% 2.33% 1.49% 5.77% 1.87% 2.44%

Apr-Jun-11 3.31% 1.68% 2.22% 1.77% 4.40% 1.59% 2.32%

Jul-Sep-11 2.72% 4.77% 1.72% 1.41% 8.28% 1.37% 3.09%

Oct-Dec-11 2.52% 2.19% 4.22% 2.03% 4.74% 1.19% 2.65%

Jan-Mar-12 3.24% 3.28% 4.06% 1.56% 3.60% 2.51% 3.01%

Apr-Jun-12 3.31% 2.80% 5.85% 1.71% 4.28% 2.55% 3.44%

Jul-Sep-12 3.89% 2.99% 3.83% 1.72% 2.89% 1.56% 2.77%

Oct-Dec-12 3.11% 1.78% 3.78% 1.16% 2.69% 1.35% 2.25%

Jan-Mar-13 1.17% 2.75% 1.63% 1.01% 2.49% 0.98% 1.67%

0.00%

0.40%

0.80%

1.20%

1.60%

2.00%

2.40%

2.80%

3.20%

3.60%

Bus Fare Evasion

Benchmark is 2.0%


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

No

100.0% 99.8%

O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.

N.S.,HILLS,O.S.,E.W. E.W. O.N.,O.N.E.



Area

In January - March 2013; • 923 issues warranted Service Audit Reports. • 3.9% related to Driver Quality. • 2.4% related to Signage. • 12.8% related to Test Ticket information.

Table 1.21

Service Incident Notifications - Bus

Problem No. of issues No. of issues % of total SARs

within SAR's within SAR's

(Unadjusted) (Adjusted) (Adjusted)

On Time Running- Departure 400 332 42.5%

On Time Running-Arrival 78 55 7.0%

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 5 3 0.4%

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 14 6 0.8%

Driver Quality—Courtesy—Bus 5 5 0.6%

Driver Quality—Safety—Bus 14 13 1.7%

Driver Quality—Appearance—Bus 13 9 1.2%

Driver Quality—Special Needs—Bus 0 0 0.0%

Driver Quality—Driver Response—Bus 4 3 0.4%

Process Compliance—Signage—Bus 141 119 15.2%

Signage—Onboard—Bus 21 19 2.4%

Ticketing—Bus 125 117 15.0%

Test Ticket Information 103 100 12.8%

Connections 0 0 0.0%

Total 923 781

public transport services service standard report...light city buses north south 316 32 29 377 374...

Documents