public transport services service standard report · service standard report july ... bus on-time...
TRANSCRIPT
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
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 July and 30th September 2014; • 2,178 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. • 202 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. • 240 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 26 21 367 366 7,695
Light CityBuses Outer North East 311 30 27 368 368 8,430
Light City Buses North South 314 31 27 372 372 11,277
Southlink Hills 303 18 10 331 331 2,362
SouthLink Outer South 306 30 28 364 363 6,499
Torrens Transit East West 317 31 28 376 376 16,955
RailCommissioner Train 138 32 32 202 189 3,160
Rail Commissioner Tram 172 34 34 240 238 1,116
TOTAL 2,181 232 207 2,620 2,603 57,494
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 July - September 2014;
• 91.92% of services audited were on time.
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 July - September 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 July - September 2014;
• 6.9% of services audited were required to connect.
VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. In July - September 2014;
• 98.7% 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
INTERIOR SIGNAGE 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
Page 5
Main Findings - Bus
DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. In July - September 2014;
• 99.8% acknowledging passengers. • 100.0% response to passenger enquiries. • 100.0% smooth ride. • 99.9% compliance with road rules. • 99.9% bus parked close to kerb as possible. • 100.0% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving. • 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. • 100.0% acceptable uniform. • 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. • 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.
PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. In July - September 2014;
• 99.4% displayed destination sign. • 97.1% displayed shift number.
SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In July - September 2014;
• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule. • 99.8% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.
FARE EVASION In July - September 2014;
• 1.36% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.
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 5.59 minutes late. • 88.9% of services departed on-time. In relation to Cleanliness; • 97.9% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness. • 97.4% of services had acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness. In relation to Station Announcements; • Station announcements were made by the driver or automated announcements were made for all stations in 95.9% of
situations.
In relation to PSAs’ Customer Service; • PSAs used Portable Reading Devices (PRDs) when checking tickets in 100.0% of cases. • PSAs were rated as having been polite when asking to check passengers tickets in 100.0% of cases. • A ticket offence report was issued in 7.0% of cases. In relation to Fare Evasion; • Overall Fare Evasion on trains was 5.66%.
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 5.59 minutes late. • 98.8% of services departed on-time. In relation to Cleanliness; • 100.0% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness. • 99.2% of services had acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; • Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers in 100.0% of cases. In relation to Fare Evasion; • Overall Fare Evasion on trams was 13.20%.
Main Findings - Tram
Page 8
Commencing 1 July 2014 the methodology applied to on-time running changed to consider the average on-time running at time points across the entire trip, excluding the terminus arrival time. Should the average return a late running component greater than 4 minutes and 59 seconds that trip will be recorded as late and a bus running more that 59 seconds early at any time point except the terminus arrival time will be recorded as early running. In July - September 2014; • 91.92% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Outer South Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 95.05% on time running. • Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 85.75%. • Early running occurred on 1.61% of services. • Late running was 6.38%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.09%.
Table 1.3
Figure 1.1
April - June 2014 July - September 2014
On-Time Running - Bus
Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing
Contract Area
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
10+ min early 0.00% 0.00%
3-9 min early 0.18% 0.23%
1-2 min early 1.32% 1.38%
On-time (<4.59 min late) 85.64% 91.92% 90.24% 95.05% 80.00% 85.75%
5-6 late 3.46% 2.11% O.N. O.S. N.S. N.S.
6-9 min late 6.61% 3.17%
10+ min late 2.73% 1.10%
Did Not Run 0.05% 0.09%
Bus arrival time
10+ min late 1.87% n/a 1.50% n/a 2.40% n/a
Bus departure time
Bus On Time Running
1.61%
91.92%
6.38%0.09%
1.50%
85.64%
12.81%0.05%
Early
On time
Late
Did not run
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
734 100.0% 32
681 100.0% 28
174 100.0% 20
725 100.0% 19
868 100.0% 18
557 100.0% 17
229 100.0% 17
401 100.0% 16
150 100.0% 15
600 100.0% 15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
On-Time Late Departing Early Departing
All Areas On Time Running
Percentage
Page 10
Connections - Bus
Table 1.5
In July - September 2014; • 6.9% of services (150) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.
Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus
Figure 1.4
July - September 2014 April - June 2014
Table 1.6
In July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Hills and Outer South, Light City Buses Outer North East and North South and Torrens Transits East West
contract areas were the Best Performing Contract Areas achieving 100.0%.
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Bus required to connect
Yes 9.7% 6.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 90.3% 93.1%
Mode
Bus 96.2% 99.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Train 3.8% 0.7% 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 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.8% n/a
No 1.4% 0.0%
O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS
O.N.,
HILLS,O.S. O.N.
If No, why not?
Bus arrived late 0.2% 0.0% 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 99.8% 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% n/a n/a n/a 0.3%
No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS
N/A 100.0% 100.0%
Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Vehicle exterior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%
Excellent 4.2% 6.0%
O.N.E.,
N.S.,HILLS,O.S.
O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N. O.N.
Good 88.4% 85.6%
Fair 7.1% 8.3%
Poor 0.3% 0.0%
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
6.0%
85.6%
8.3%0.0%
Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness
4.2%
88.4%
7.1%0.3%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Page 11
In July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 98.7%. • 1.3% of services were recorded as poor. • Southlink Hills and Torrens Transit East West were the Best Performing Contract Areas achieving 99.7%.
Figure 1.5
Table 1.7
July - September 2014 April - June 2014
Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Vehicle interior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.0% 98.7% 100.0% 99.7% 97.0% 95.9%
Excellent 2.7% 3.1% O.N.E. HILLS,E.W. O.S. O.N.
Good 81.8% 82.4%
Fair 14.5% 13.2%
Poor 1.0% 1.3%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness
3.1%
82.4%
13.2%
1.3%
2.7%
81.8%
14.5%
1.0% Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Page 12
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.7
Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)
All Areas Cleanliness
Percentage
93.0%
94.0%
95.0%
96.0%
97.0%
98.0%
99.0%
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 AreaPercenta
Page 13
Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus
Table 1.8
Figure 1.8
In July - September 2014; • Acknowledging Passengers was 99.8%. • Response to Passenger Enquiries was 100.0%. • Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Acknowledging passengers
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2%
Excellent 3.0% 3.4% N.S.,HILLS HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N. O.N.E.
Good 78.9% 77.9%
Fair 17.8% 18.4%
Poor 0.3% 0.2%
Response to passenger enquiries*
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0% n/a
Excellent 7.0% 4.6%
O.N,O.N.E.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W. ALL N.S.
Good 72.3% 79.4%
Fair 20.5% 16.0%
Poor 0.2% 0.0%
Board or alight between stops*
Yes 89.8% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 75.0%
No 10.2% 9.4% O.N.E. E.W. O.S. HILLS
If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*
Yes 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% n/a
No 3.8% 0.0%
O.N,O.N.E.,
O.S.,E.W. ALL HILLS
* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-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 July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%. • Compliance with road rules category was 99.9%. • Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.
Figure 1.9
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Smooth ride
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.7%
Excellent 1.3% 1.7% ALL
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.
Good 87.7% 84.5%
Fair 11.0% 13.8%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Compliance with road rules
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5%
Excellent 1.0% 1.4%
O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W
O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W. O.N. O.N.E.
Good 96.2% 95.7%
Fair 2.7% 2.9%
Poor 0.0% 0.1%
Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.5%
Excellent 0.8% 1.1% ALL
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S. E.W.
Good 93.2% 91.6%
Fair 5.9% 7.2%
Poor 0.0% 0.1%
Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.7%
Excellent 1.3% 1.3% ALL
O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.
Good 88.8% 87.0%
Fair 10.0% 11.7%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving
Yes 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3%
No 99.8% 100.0% O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.S. N.S.
Driver physically alert and prepared
Yes 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.7%
No 0.3% 0.0% O.N.E.,O.S. O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,O
.S.,E.W.
N.S.,E.W. O.N.E.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
95
95.5
96
96.5
97
97.5
98
98.5
99
99.5
100
Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-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 July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%. • Personal appearance category was 100.0%. • Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Uniform
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
Excellent 1.6% 2.2%
O.N.E.,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W. ALL O.N.
Good 97.8% 97.0%
Fair 0.4% 0.8%
Poor 0.1% 0.0%
Personal appearance
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
Excellent 1.3% 1.7% ALL ALL
Good 98.4% 97.8%
Fair 0.3% 0.5%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Personal behaviour
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 0.5% 1.3%
O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S., ALL E.W.
Good 98.2% 97.1%
Fair 1.2% 1.7%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a
No
99.9% 100.0% O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,E.W. ALL O.N.E.,O.S.
Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
No
99.8% 100.0%
N.S.,HILLS
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.N.,O.N.E.,O.
S.,E.W. O.N.E.
Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
No
100.0% 100.0% O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,E.W.
O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S. O.N.
Driver stop for personal business
Yes 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%
No 99.5% 99.6% HILLS O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.E. O.N.E.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Page 16
Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus
Table 1.11
Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus
Table 1.12
Table 1.13
Table 1.14
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Assistance Required
Required 1.9% 2.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not Required 98.1% 97.7%
Driver assisted
Yes 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 83.3%
No 0.0% 3.9% ALL
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,E.W. O.S.
Reason
Pram 12.2% 5.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wheelchair 43.9% 54.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shopping Cart 0.0% 3.9% 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 31.7% 19.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other 12.2% 15.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange
Yes 23.9% 29.9% 26.5% 36.3% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% O.N.E. E.W.
N/A 76.1% 70.1%
Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website
Yes 1.0% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 0.3% n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS N.S.
N/A 98.9% 98.8%
Timetables available
Yes 0.7% 0.8% 2.7% 3.3% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS
N/A 99.3% 99.2%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service
Yes 0.4% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% n/a n/a
No
0.0% 0.0%
HILLS O.N.,O.N.E.,
N.S.,E.W.
N/A 99.6% 99.6%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Did any passenger display anti-social or
offensive behaviour?
Yes 0.2% 0.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 99.8% 99.7%
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.N.,O.N.E.,
O.S.,E.W.
O.N.,O.N.E.,
N.S.,HILLS
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Page 17
Figure 1.10
In July - September 2014; • 99.4% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. • Torrens Transit’s East West and Light City Buses Outer North East were the Best Performing Contract Areas with 100.0%. • Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 97.1% of cases. • The Best Performing Contract Areas were Light City Buses Outer North East and North South which achieved 98.4%.
Table 1.15
Process Compliance - Signage - Bus
On the exterior of Vehicle Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Destination Sign
Yes 99.3% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.6% 98.6%
No 0.4% 0.3% E.W. O.N.E.,E.W. O.N.,O.S. O.N.
Wrong No 0.3% 0.3%
Shift Number
Yes 96.8% 97.1% 98.9% 98.4% 92.9% 92.3%
No 2.6% 1.7% E.W. O.N.E.,N.S. O.N. O.N.
Wrong No 0.6% 1.2%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Figure 1.11
75
80
85
90
95
100
Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-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
Page 18
Figure 1.12
Table 1.16
Signage - Onboard - Bus
On the interior of Vehicle Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0%
ALL ALL
Yes 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%
No 0.1% 0.2%
O.N.,O.N.E.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W. N.S. O.N.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
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
Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Interior Signage Exterior Signage
All Areas Signage
Percentage
Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-Sep 2013
Page 19
Figure 1.13
Table 1.17
Ticketing - Bus
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Faulty ticket
Pass. purchased another ticket 14.1% 31.5%
Issued problem slip 3.8% 0.0% 16.7% n/a
Wrote on ticket and returned 1.3% 3.1% N.S.
Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 33.3% 27.7%
Observed ticket: no action 5.1% 5.4%
No action taken 24.4% 22.3%
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0%
Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.8%
Driver sighted senior card no action 1.3% 0.8%
Drivers view obscured including hearing 16.7% 8.5%
Non validation of ticket
Asked to validate 5.0% 1.9% 9.1% 6.1%
Driver ignored passenger 15.9% 20.5% N.S. HILLS
Drivers view obscured 24.7% 26.1%
Driver not on board 1.1% 0.5%
Driver had no change 3.7% 4.5%
Driver observed slip / ticket 24.9% 14.1%
Passenger had no money 21.8% 30.7%
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 1.1% 0.0%
Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.8% 0.3%
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.1% 1.3%
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Figure 1.14
31.5%
0.0%3.1%
27.7%
5.4%
22.3%
0.0%
0.8%
0.8%
8.5%
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
1.9%
20.5%
26.1%
0.5%4.5%
14.1%
30.7%
0.0%
0.3%
1.3%
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
Page 20
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 July - September 2014; • Of the total trips audited, 4.7% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 104 issues in
Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: • The validator was not functioning in 1.9% of trips. • An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 41.3% of trips. • In 56.7% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.
Figure 1.15
Table 1.18
April - June 2014 July - September 2014
Test Ticket Information - Bus Test Tickets
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
Validator not functioning 9 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 62 43 8 7 14 5 3 6 43
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 60 59 10 13 18 8 5 5 59
Total 131 104 18 21 33 13 8 11 104
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
Percentage of
Total Services
Audited
Validator not functioning 6.9% 1.9% 0.0% 4.8% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 47.3% 41.3% 44.4% 33.3% 42.4% 38.5% 37.5% 54.5% 2.0%
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 45.8% 56.7% 55.6% 61.9% 54.5% 61.5% 62.5% 45.5% 2.7%
Total 4.7%
Total Services
Audited with
Incorrect
TicketOuter North Outer North East North South Hills Outer South East West
Total - All Contract Areas
Bus Test Ticket
1.9%
41.3%
56.7%
6.9%
47.3%
45.8%
Validator not functioning
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated)
Page 21
In July - September 2014; • 1.36% of passengers boarded a vehicle without validating a ticket.
Fare Evasion - Bus
Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus
Table 1.19
Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14
Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
No
100.0% 100.0%
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.N.,N.S.,
HILLS,O.S.,E.W.
O.N.E. O.N.E.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area