Light City Buses Service Standard Report Apr -Jun 2014 Webpub · January - March 2014 April - June...

Light City Buses

Service Standard Report April - June 2014

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 2014 and 30th June 2014;

• 746 audits onboard Light City Buses services.

• 375 audits in the North South contract area.

• 371 audits in the Outer North East contract area.

The trips audited represent 3.8 % of the 19,707 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 32 28 375 11,277

Light CityBuses Outer North East 312 31 28 371 8,430

TOTAL 627 63 56 746 19,707

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 2014;

• 80.00% of services audited were on time.

• 17.07% of services audited were late.

• 2.94% 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.


• 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.


• 0.8% of services audited were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION

Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.


• 98.7% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

North South - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY

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


• 100.0% acknowledging passengers.

• 99.0% 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



• 99.2% displayed destination sign.

• 98.1% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

• 99.5% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION


• 1.88% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

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.


• 86.52% of services audited were on time.

• 10.78% of services audited were late.

• 2.70% 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.


• 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.


• 1.9% of audited services were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION



• 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.


• 99.5% 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.

• 100.0% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE



• 99.7% displayed destination sign.

• 97.8% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

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

FARE EVASION


• 0.80% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

North South


North South On Time Running

2.93%

80.00%

17.07%

0.00%

5.04%

74.27%

20.69%

0.00% 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.


• 80.00% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 2.94% of services. • Late running was 17.07%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

On-Time Running

Table 2.1

Figure 2.1

April - June 2014 January - March 2014

Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

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

3-9 min early 0.80% 0.27% 0.23% 0.18%

1-2 min early 4.24% 2.67% 1.55% 1.32%

On-time (

North South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

1.1%

92.5%

6.4%

0.0%

1.1%

86.1%

12.5%

0.3%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Bus required to connect

Yes 0.8% 0.8% 9.7% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 99.2% 99.2% 90.3% 90.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 96.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Able to transfer

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 97.6% 96.8%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4%

I f No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

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

Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.1% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%

Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing Contract

Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0% . • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.

Vehicle Condition - Exterior

Connections

Table 2.2

Table 2.3



Figure 2.3


Vehicle exterior clean

Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9%

Excellent 1.1% 1.1% 2.6% 4.2%

Good 86.1% 92.5% 88.2% 88.4%

Fair 12.5% 6.4% 9.2% 7.1%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

January - March 2014 April - June 2014

North South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.8%

82.1%

15.7%

1.3%

1.1%

74.4%

24.0%

0.5%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 98.7%. • 1.3% of services were recorded as poor.

Figure 2.4

April - June 2014

Vehicle Condition - Interior

January - March 2014

Figure 2.5

Table 2.4


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 1.1% 0.8% 2.4% 2.7%

Good 74.4% 82.1% 80.9% 81.8%

Fair 24.0% 15.7% 16.2% 14.5%

Poor 0.5% 1.3% 0.5% 1.0%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

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

North South Cleanliness


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 100.0%.

• Response to passenger enquiries category was 99.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 92.9% did so at safe locations.

Table 2.5

Figure 2.6

Driver Quality - Courtesy



Excellent 2.4% 2.9% 4.1% 3.0%

Good 67.6% 74.1% 74.9% 78.9%

Fair 29.3% 22.9% 20.8% 17.8%

Poor 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.0%

Excellent 4.6% 5.1% 7.1% 7.0%

Good 75.9% 74.5% 76.6% 72.3%

Fair 19.4% 19.4% 16.3% 20.5%

Poor 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 81.3% 93.3% 87.5% 89.8% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 75.0%

No 18.8% 6.7% 12.5% 10.2%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 92.9% 94.6% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 87.5%

No 0.0% 7.1% 5.4% 3.8%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


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

North South Driver Courtesy


Uniform


Excellent 1.6% 0.8% 2.8% 1.6%

Good 95.2% 97.9% 94.7% 97.8%

Fair 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 0.4%

Poor 1.9% 0.3% 1.3% 0.1%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 1.6% 0.5% 2.6% 1.3%

Good 97.3% 98.9% 96.2% 98.4%

Fair 1.1% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 1.3% 0.5% 1.4% 0.5%

Good 96.3% 97.6% 96.0% 98.2%

Fair 2.4% 1.9% 2.6% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 99.8%

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 1.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1%

No 98.7% 99.5% 99.3% 99.5%

Light City Buses North South


Area

Worst Performing

Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas


Smooth ride

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a

Excellent 0.5% 2.1% 2.2% 1.3%

Good 81.9% 80.3% 87.2% 87.7%

Fair 17.6% 17.6% 10.5% 11.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 0.5% 1.3% 2.1% 1.0%

Good 95.2% 93.6% 95.4% 96.2%

Fair 4.3% 5.1% 2.4% 2.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible


Excellent 0.3% 1.3% 2.0% 0.8%

Good 89.6% 88.0% 92.3% 93.2%

Fair 9.9% 10.7% 5.6% 5.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Excellent 1.3% 1.9% 2.2% 1.3%

Good 79.5% 82.7% 86.1% 88.8%

Fair 19.2% 15.5% 11.6% 10.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 98.7% 99.5% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7% 100.0% 98.7% 99.5%

No 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Driver Quality - Safety


• Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%.

• Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%.

• Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.


• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.7%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Driver Quality - Appearance

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 2.8

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 2.11


Assistance Required

Required 4.0% 1.6% 2.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 96.0% 98.4% 97.4% 98.1%

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 20.0% 0.0% 8.9% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 40.0% 50.0% 53.6% 43.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 6.7% 0.0% 10.7% 0.0% 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 20.0% 33.3% 12.5% 31.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 13.3% 16.7% 14.3% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 28.8% 25.9% 23.8% 23.9% 29.3% 26.5% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 71.2% 74.1% 76.2% 76.1%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 1.0% 0.3% 2.4% n/a 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 98.9% 99.9% 98.9%

Timetables available

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 2.7% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.3%



Area

Worst Performing



Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3% n/a

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

N/A 99.2% 100.0% 99.5% 99.6%



Area

Worst Performing



Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%



Area

Worst Performing



• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 99.2% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 98.1% of services.

Figure 2.7

Table 2.12

Process Compliance - Signage

On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

Destination Sign

Yes 98.4% 99.2% 99.2% 99.3% 99.7% 100.0% 98.4% 98.6%

No 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Wrong No 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%

Shift Number

Yes 98.1% 98.1% 96.4% 96.8% 98.2% 98.9% 92.2% 92.9%

No 1.1% 1.6% 2.5% 2.6%

Wrong No 0.8% 0.3% 1.1% 0.6%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

North South Route/Shift Number Displayed


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

• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 99.5% of vehicles.

Table 2.13

Figure 2.8

Signage - Onboard

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

Yes 98.4% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% n/a

No 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Yes 99.5% 99.5% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5%

No 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

North South Signage

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer

Audited Jul-Sep-2013

During April - June 2014;

• 16.7% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 8.3% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 9.1% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 34.1% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

In April - June 2014:

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

Ticketing

Table 2.15

Table 2.14

Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 50.0% 8.3% 38.3% 14.1%

Issued problem slip 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 3.8% n/a 16.7%

Wrote on ticket and returned 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.3%

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 25.0% 41.7% 11.7% 33.3%

Observed ticket: no action 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 5.1%

No action taken 25.0% 16.7% 25.0% 24.4%

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

Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

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

Drivers view obscured including hearing 0.0% 16.7% 15.0% 16.7%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 4.8% 9.1% 2.8% 5.0% 7.1% 9.1%

Driver ignored passenger 35.7% 14.8% 32.9% 15.9%

Drivers view obscured 21.4% 19.3% 21.3% 24.7%

Driver not on board 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1%

Driver had no change 1.2% 5.7% 1.7% 3.7%

Driver observed slip / ticket 16.7% 34.1% 16.4% 24.9%

Passenger had no money 17.9% 14.8% 22.0% 21.8%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 1.1%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 1.2% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.2% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%



Area

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


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%



Area

Worst Performing


North South Test Ticket

5.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated)

3.3%

53.3%

43.3%

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, 8.0% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 30 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 3.3% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 53.3% of trips.

• In 43.3% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Table 2.16

Figure 2.9

April - June 2014

Test Ticket Information


Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 1 5.0% 1 3.3% 0.3%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 9 45.0% 16 53.3% 4.2%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 10 50.0% 13 43.3% 3.4%

Total 20 30 377 8.0% 6.0%

2.7%

Test TicketsNorth South North South Percentage of Total North South

Services AuditedJan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

0.4%

2.8%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

Percentage Percentage

In the Light City Buses’ North South contract area, 1.88% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Outer North East


Outer North East On Time Running

2.70%

86.52%

10.78%0.00%

2.15%

85.75%

11.83%0.27%

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.


• 86.52% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 2.70% of services. • Late running was 10.78%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

Figure 3.1

On-Time Running



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

3-9 min early 0.27% 0.81% 0.23% 0.18%

1-2 min early 1.88% 1.89% 1.55% 1.32%

On-time (

Outer North East Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

1.4%

93.8%

4.9%0.0%

1.1%

91.1%

7.8%0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Table 3.3



Vehicle Condition - Exterior


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• No services were recorded as poor.

Connections


Figure 3.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 0.5% 1.9% 9.7% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 99.5% 98.1% 90.3% 90.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 96.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Able to transfer

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 97.6% 96.8%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4%

If No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

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

Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.1% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%

Light City Buses

Outer North East Total All Contract Areas


Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area


Vehicle exterior clean


Excellent 1.1% 1.4% 2.6% 4.2%

Good 91.1% 93.8% 88.2% 88.4%

Fair 7.8% 4.9% 9.2% 7.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Table 3.2

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

Outer North East Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.0%

84.9%

15.1%0.0%

0.5%

84.9%

14.1%

0.5% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 3.4

Table 3.4

Figure 3.5

Vehicle Condition - Interior


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.



Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 2.7%

Good 84.9% 84.9% 80.9% 81.8%

Fair 14.1% 15.1% 16.2% 14.5%

Poor 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Driver Quality - Courtesy

Table 3.5


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers were 99.5%.

• 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 1.6% 1.9% 4.1% 3.0%

Good 80.5% 77.9% 74.9% 78.9%

Fair 17.8% 19.7% 20.8% 17.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%


Excellent 4.8% 4.1% 7.1% 7.0%

Good 79.5% 71.4% 76.6% 72.3%

Fair 15.7% 24.5% 16.3% 20.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 85.7% 100.0% 87.5% 89.8% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 75.0%

No 14.3% 0.0% 12.5% 10.2%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 94.6% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 87.5%

No 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 3.8%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base

Light City Buses



Area


Area

95

96

97

98

99

100


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

Outer North East Driver Courtesy

Driver Quality - Safety

Table 3.6


• 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


• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride


Excellent 1.1% 0.3% 2.2% 1.3%

Good 89.7% 88.4% 87.2% 87.7%

Fair 9.2% 11.4% 10.5% 11.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 0.8% 0.5% 2.1% 1.0%

Good 96.5% 97.0% 95.4% 96.2%

Fair 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible


Excellent 0.5% 0.3% 2.0% 0.8%

Good 95.1% 93.5% 92.3% 93.2%

Fair 4.3% 6.2% 5.6% 5.9%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Excellent 0.3% 0.5% 2.2% 1.3%

Good 90.0% 88.4% 86.1% 88.8%

Fair 9.7% 11.1% 11.6% 10.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 99.5% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 98.9% 100.0% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7% 100.0% 98.7% 99.5%

No 1.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3%

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Light City Buses



Area


Area


Uniform


Excellent 1.9% 0.0% 2.8% 1.6%

Good 94.3% 99.7% 94.7% 97.8%

Fair 2.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.4%

Poor 1.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.1%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 1.1% 0.3% 2.6% 1.3%

Good 97.6% 99.5% 96.2% 98.4%

Fair 1.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.5%

Good 97.0% 98.9% 96.0% 98.2%

Fair 2.2% 1.1% 2.6% 1.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

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

No 100.0% 99.7% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3%

No 99.5% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8%

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 1.6% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1%

No 98.4% 98.9% 99.3% 99.5%

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 1.4% 1.9% 2.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/aNot Required 98.6% 98.1% 97.4% 98.1%

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% 28.6% 8.9% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 60.0% 28.6% 53.6% 43.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 20.0% 0.0% 10.7% 0.0% 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 0.0% 42.9% 12.5% 31.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 20.0% 0.0% 14.3% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Light City Buses



Area


Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 22.4% 26.5% 23.8% 23.9% 29.3% 26.5% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 77.6% 73.5% 76.2% 76.1%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 1.0% 0.3% 2.4% n/a 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 99.2% 99.9% 98.9%

Timetables available

Yes 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 2.7% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 99.5% 99.9% 99.3%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area




Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

N/A 98.9% 99.5% 99.5% 99.6%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area




Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 99.8%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area



Figure 3.7

Table 3.12


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

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 97.8% of services.

Process Compliance - Signage

On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

Destination Sign

Yes 99.7% 99.7% 99.2% 99.3% 99.7% 100.0% 98.4% 98.6%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%

Wrong No 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%

Shift Number

Yes 98.1% 97.8% 96.4% 96.8% 98.2% 98.9% 92.2% 92.9%

No 1.9% 2.2% 2.5% 2.6%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.6%

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

Table 3.13

Figure 3.8

Signage - Onboard


• 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.

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

Yes 98.4% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% n/a

No 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

Light City Buses



Area


Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

Outer North East Signage

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer audited from

Jul-Sep 2013

Table 3.14


• 0.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 0.0% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 4.9% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 19.5% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

Ticketing


• In 0.3% of trips the driver was reconciling cash or tickets while the bus was in motion.

Table 3.15

Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 30.0% 0.0% 38.3% 14.1%

Issued problem slip 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% n/a 16.7%

Wrote on ticket and returned 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.3%

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 20.0% 15.4% 11.7% 33.3%

Observed ticket: no action 20.0% 0.0% 8.3% 5.1%

No action taken 10.0% 30.8% 25.0% 24.4%

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

Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 1.3%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 20.0% 46.2% 15.0% 16.7%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 1.3% 4.9% 2.8% 5.0% 7.1% 9.1%

Driver ignored passenger 55.3% 12.2% 32.9% 15.9%

Drivers view obscured 22.4% 51.2% 21.3% 24.7%

Driver not on board 3.9% 2.4% 0.7% 1.1%

Driver had no change 1.3% 0.0% 1.7% 3.7%

Driver observed slip / ticket 3.9% 19.5% 16.4% 24.9%

Passenger had no money 9.2% 7.3% 22.0% 21.8%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 2.4% 0.7% 1.1%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.3% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 1.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

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

Light City Buses



Area


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%

No 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 100.0%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area



Table 3.16

Figure 3.9

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 2014:

• Of the total trips audited, 7.8% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 29 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 13.8% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 41.4% of trips.

• In 44.8% of trips, the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.


Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 2 11.8% 4 13.8% 1.1%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 5 29.4% 12 41.4% 3.2%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 10 58.8% 13 44.8% 3.5%

Total 17 29 370 7.8%

2.7%

6.0%

Test TicketsOuter North East Outer North East Percentage of Total ONE

Services AuditedJan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14

0.4%

2.8%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

Percentage Percentage

April - June 2014

Outer North East Test Ticket

13.8%

41.4%

44.8%

11.8%

29.4%

58.8%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not

Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not

Updated)

In the Light City Buses’ Outer North East contract area, 0.80% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Light City Buses Service Standard Report Apr -Jun 2014 Webpub · January - March 2014 April - June...

Documents

Transcript of Light City Buses Service Standard Report Apr -Jun 2014 Webpub · January - March 2014 April - June...