Public Transport Services Service Standard Report · Main Findings—Bus 4-5 Main Findings—Train...

Public Transport Services

Service Standard Report April - June 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 April and 30th June 2013; 2,196 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. 108 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 324 27 23 374 366 7,695

Light CityBuses Outer North East 310 32 28 370 367 8,140

Light City Buses North South 315 33 29 377 373 12,187

Transitplus Hills (Metro) 301 18 12 331 329 2,260

SouthLink Outer South 308 29 28 365 363 6,263

Torrens Transit East West 318 32 29 379 376 16,905

RailCommissioner Train 72 18 18 108 106 2,810

Rail Commissioner Tram 162 35 32 229 229 1,064

TOTAL 2,110 224 199 2,533 2,509 57,324

*Please note: Due toTonsley line closure 27th February 2012 Rail Commissioner Train quota was adjusted. 2,196

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 April - June 2013;

83.97% of services audited were on time. 14.44% of services audited were late. 1.46% of services audited were early.

TRIPS RUN A vehicle embarks on a scheduled trip from a terminus not later than the time stated in the timetable for the departure of the next scheduled service on the same route. In April - June 2013;

0.14% of services audited did not run.

CONNECTIONS ACHIEVED A vehicle in the course of a scheduled trip arrives at a place indicated in the timetable with words such as “connect” or “transfer passengers to” or a symbol representing a connection, and meets the connecting service. In April - June 2013;

100.0% service connections.

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

99.5% 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

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

Main Findings - Bus

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

99.9% acknowledging passengers. 100.0% response to passenger enquiries. 99.8% smooth ride. 100.0% compliance with road rules. 99.8% bus parked close to kerb as possible. 100.0% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving. 0.1% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. 99.8% acceptable uniform. 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

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

99.5% displayed destination sign. 95.9% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In April - June 2013;

99.9% displayed concession pass schedule. 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule. 99.9% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION In April - June 2013;

1.47% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for special passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100% bus trips

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

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. 91.67% of services departed on time. Early running occurred on 0.00% of services. Late running was 8.33%. 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 Driver Station Announcements; In 100.0% 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 8.3% of cases in which the PSA used a PRD to check tickets. In relation to Fare Evasion; Fare evasion for trains for the April – June 2013 quarter is approximately 8%. This is based on observed non-validations by passengers and takes into account that, while passengers may be observed by auditors not validating tickets (approximately 24% of passengers), all passengers boarding and alighting at the Adelaide Railway Station are required to validate at the station gates, resulting in a very low fare evasion rate to and from the city (less than 1%). As 70% of all rail passengers travel to and from the city, the actual rate of fare evasion between stations is approximately 8% which reflects the remaining 30% of passengers who travel between stations only. To address fare evasion across the rail and tram network, 32 special revenue protection activities were conducted during this period. This included roving squads travelling between stations on various lines and the closure of stations to check tickets of all passengers entering and exiting the station. As part of these activities, 139,694 tickets were checked resulting in the detection of 1,262 ticketing and behavioural offences. Overall 0.90% of passengers were detected for fraud on the train and tram network. Detected offences are reported and forwarded to Prosecutions to determine if an expiation notice will be issued.

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. 89.96% of services departed on time. Early running occurred on 2.18% 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 99.6%. 0.4% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; In 99.3% of cases, Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers. In relation to Fare Evasion; Overall observed Fare Evasion on the tram system was 14.44%. Observed fare evasion for the April – June quarter for trams was 14.44%, a decrease from 15.19% in the January– March quarter. Tram services were included in the revenue protection activities described below. To address fare evasion across the rail and tram network, 32 special revenue protection activities were conducted during this period. This included roving squads travelling between stations on various lines and the closure of stations to check tickets of all passengers entering and exiting the station. As part of these activities, 139,694 tickets were checked resulting in the detection of 1,262 ticketing and behavioural offences. Overall 0.90% of passengers were detected for fraud on the train and tram network. Detected offences are reported and forwarded to Prosecutions to determine if an expiation notice will be issued.

Main Findings - Tram

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 April - June 2013; 83.97% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 90.63% on time running. Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 68.70%. Early running occurred on 1.46% of services. Late running was 14.44%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.14%.

Table 1.3

Figure 1.1

January - March 2013 April - June 2013

On-Time Running - Bus

Bus On Time Running

1.46%

83.97%

14.44%

0.14%0.7%

84.8%

14.3%0.2%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

Bus On Time Running

1.46%

83.97%

14.44%

0.14%0.68%

84.84%

14.29%0.18%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

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

10+ min early 0.00% 0.00%

3-9 min early 0.05% 0.05%

1-2 min early 0.64% 1.41%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 84.84% 83.97% 93.40% 90.63% 69.50% 68.70%

5-6 late 3.01% 3.78% HILLS HILLS N.S. N.S.

6-9 min late 7.31% 6.65%

10+ min late 3.97% 4.01%

Did Not Run 0.18% 0.14%

Bus arrival time

10+ min late 2.52% 2.87% 0.50% 0.55% 8.60% 9.60%

Bus departure time

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract

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

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

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

All Areas On Time Running

Percentage

Route Early On time Late

Trips

sampled

411 (inc 411B + 411U) 100.0% 31

507 100.0% 18

565 100.0% 15

451 (inc 451A) 100.0% 14

G40 (inc G40M) 100.0% 14

749 (inc 749A + 749G) 100.0% 13

503 100.0% 13

740 (inc 740A) 100.0% 12

401 100.0% 11

747 (inc 747A and 747B) 100.0% 10

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST

NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST

Top 10 Routes by Contract Area

0.7%

90.6%

8.6%0.1%

Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

2.6%

92.0%

5.3%0.1%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Connections - Bus

Table 1.5

In April - June 2013; 5.7% of services (126) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus

Figure 1.4

April - June 2013 January - March 2013

Table 1.6

In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.9%. 0.1% of services were recorded as poor. SouthLink’s Hills, Outer South, 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 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 94.2% 94.3%

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

If No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.0% 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 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

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

No 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0%



Vehicle exterior clean

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

Excellent 2.6% 0.7% O.N.E,HILLS,E.W.

O.N.E.,HILLS,

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

Good 92.0% 90.6%

Fair 5.3% 8.6%

Poor 0.1% 0.1%

Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.5%

88.0%

10.9%0.5%

4.1%

81.5%

14.2%

0.3% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%. 0.5% of services were recorded as poor. Light City’s Outer North East Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.

Figure 1.5

Table 1.7

April - June 2013 January - March 2013

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 4.1% 0.5% E.W. O.N.E. O.S. O.S.

Good 81.5% 88.0%

Fair 14.2% 10.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.5%

Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas

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.

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

Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus

Table 1.8

Figure 1.8

In April - June 2013; Acknowledging Passengers was 99.9%. Response to Passenger Inquiries was 100.0%.

Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 93.0% did so at safe locations.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


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

All Areas Driver Courtesy

Percentage

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




Acknowledging passengers


Excellent 6.1% 8.3%

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

O.S.

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

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

Good 74.7% 68.6%

Fair 19.1% 23.0%

Poor 0.1% 0.1%

Response to passenger enquiries*

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

Excellent 13.9% 11.1%

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

E.W. ALL N.S. N/A

Good 73.8% 72.1%

Fair 11.5% 16.8%

Poor 0.8% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

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

No 6.3% 8.5%

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

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

If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

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

No 0.0% 7.0% ALL

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

HILLS. O.S.

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base


Driver Quality - Safety - Bus

Table 1.9

In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 99.8%. Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%. Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.

Figure 1.9


Smooth ride


Excellent 4.9% 4.4% O.N,O.N.E.,HILLS. O.N,O.N.E,E.W. N.S,O.S, E.W. N.S.

Good 83.9% 85.3%

Fair 11.0% 10.1%

Poor 0.1% 0.2%

Compliance with road rules

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

Excellent 4.9% 4.4%

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

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

Good 92.8% 93.4%

Fair 2.2% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible

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

Excellent 5.1% 4.3% ALL

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

E.W. N.S.

Good 92.1% 92.0%

Fair 2.8% 3.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.2%

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 99.7%

Excellent 6.1% 3.3% ALL

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

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

Good 88.8% 90.8%

Fair 5.0% 5.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 99.7% 99.9% O.N,E.W. O.N,O.N.E,

N.S,HILLS,O.S.

O.N.E. E.W.

Driver physically alert and prepared

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

No 0.1% 0.0% O.N,N.S,HILLS, O.S. ALL O.N.E, E.W. N/A

Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

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



Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus

Table 1.10

In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.8%. Personal appearance category was 100.0%. Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.


Uniform


Excellent 12.6% 11.9%

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

O.S,E.W

O.N,HILLS,

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

Good 87.3% 87.5%

Fair 0.1% 0.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.2%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 14.1% 13.7% ALL ALL

Good 85.6% 86.2%

Fair 0.3% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 9.2% 5.1%

O.N.,

HILLS,O.S,E.W.

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

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

Good 89.6% 93.7%

Fair 1.1% 1.2%

Poor 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

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

No

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

O.S,E.W

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

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

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No

99.9% 99.9%

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

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

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

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

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

No

100.0% 100.0%

ALL

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

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

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.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S,E.W.

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

O.S. N.S. N.S.


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 1.9% 1.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 98.1% 98.2%

Driver assisted

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

No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL

Reason

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

Wheelchair 69.0% 64.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 2.4% 2.6% 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 9.5% 15.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a

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



Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.1% 0.1% O.S. O.S. N.S. O.N.

N/A 92.0% 85.7%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

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

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS N/A N/A N/A

N/A 99.8% 100.0%

Timetables available

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

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS O.N,HILLS,E.W. N/A N/A

N/A 99.8% 99.9%



Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

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

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

N/A 99.7% 99.6%



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

N.S.

No 0.0% 100.0% O.N. 100.0%


Figure 1.10

In April - June 2013; 99.5% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. Southlink’s Hills was the Best Performing Contract Area with 100.0%. Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 95.9% of cases. The Best Performing Contract Area was Torrens Transit’s East West which achieved 98.7%.

Table 1.15

Process Compliance - Signage - Bus

Figure 1.11

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

75

80

85

90

95

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

All Areas Route/Shift Number Displayed

Percentage

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

Destination Sign

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

No 0.5% 0.3% O.N.E. HILLS. O.N,N.S. N.S.

Wrong No 0.1% 0.2%

Shift Number

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

No 3.0% 3.1% E.W. E.W. O.S. O.N.E.

Wrong No 1.8% 0.9%


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 f rom Oct-Dec 2011

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

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

No 0.1% 0.0% O.N.E,HILLS, O.S. ALL O.N,N.S,E.W. N/A

Worst Performing Contract

Area

Welcome Aboard sign

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

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

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

No 0.2% 0.1%

O.N,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W.

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

O.S.,E.W.

O.N.E. N.S.

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

No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL

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

No 0.6% 0.1% N.S,HILLS.

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

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

Concession Pass Schedule

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating


Worst Performing Contract

Area

Figure 1.13

Figure 1.14

Table 1.18

Ticketing - Bus Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 12.3% 14.7%

Issued problem slip 22.6% 16.0% 35.7% 30.0%

Wrote on ticket and returned 11.6% 14.7% N.S. O.N.

Observed ticket: no action 23.9% 17.3%

No action taken 14.8% 16.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.6% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 3.9% 1.3%

Driver sighted senior card no action 1.9% 1.3%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 8.4% 18.7%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 4.7%

Driver ignored passenger 11.1% 11.5% N.S. O.N.E.

Drivers view obscured 15.6% 31.9%

Driver not on board 1.2% 0.0%

Driver had no change 1.4% 3.2%

Driver observed slip / ticket 47.6% 29.2%

Passenger had no money 13.9% 18.2%

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

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 5.4% 2.0%

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

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

17.3%

16.0%

0.0%

1.3%1.3%

18.7%

0.0%

2.5%

11.5%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

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate

Driver ignored passenger

Faulty Tickets

2.5%

11.5%

31.9%

0.0%3.2%

29.2%

18.2%

1.0%

2.0%0.5%

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

13.3%

43.4%

43.4%

7.0%

46.0%

47.0%

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 April - June 2013; Of the total trips audited, 5.1% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 113 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: The validator was not functioning in 13.3% of trips. An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 43.4% of trips. In 43.4% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Figure 1.15

Table 1.19

January - March 2013 April - June 2013

Test Ticket Information - Bus

Test Tickets

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun - 13

Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

Validator not functioning 7 15 3 0 6 3 3 0 15

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 46 49 12 12 11 6 4 4 49

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 47 49 10 13 11 7 4 4 49

Total 100 113 25 25 28 16 11 8 113

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Percentage of

Total Services

Audited

Validator not functioning 7.0% 13.3% 12.0% 0.0% 21.4% 18.8% 27.3% 0.0% 0.7%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 46.0% 43.4% 48.0% 48.0% 39.3% 37.5% 36.4% 50.0% 2.2%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 47.0% 43.4% 40.0% 52.0% 39.3% 43.8% 36.4% 50.0% 2.2%

Total 5.1%

North South Hills Outer South East West

Total - All Contract Areas

Outer North Outer North East

Total Services

Audited with

Incorrect

Ticket

In April - June 2013; 1.47% 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


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

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

No

99.8% 99.9%

N.S.,HILLS,O.S,

E.W.

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

O.S, E.W.

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


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

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%

Apr-Jun-13 0.90% 1.32% 2.77% 1.41% 1.75% 0.74% 1.47%

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%

In April - June 2013; 787 issues warranted Service Audit Reports. 4.8% related to Driver Quality. 0.5% related to Signage. 15.0% 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 365 352 46.7%

On Time Running-Arrival 64 63 8.4%

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 2 2 0.3%

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 16 11 1.5%

Driver Quality—Courtesy—Bus 6 6 0.8%

Driver Quality—Safety—Bus 13 12 1.6%

Driver Quality—Appearance—Bus 13 13 1.7%

Driver Quality—Special Needs—Bus 0 0 0.0%

Driver Quality—Driver Response—Bus 5 5 0.7%

Process Compliance—Signage—Bus 102 100 13.3%

Signage—Onboard—Bus 4 4 0.5%

Ticketing—Bus 76 73 9.7%

Test Ticket Information 121 113 15.0%

Connections 0 0 0.0%

Total 787 754

Public Transport Services Service Standard Report · Main Findings—Bus 4-5 Main Findings—Train...

Documents

Transcript of Public Transport Services Service Standard Report · Main Findings—Bus 4-5 Main Findings—Train...