Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kräfte bündelnJoining Forces
Quality in contractsQuality in contractsfor public transportfor public transport
Brussels, 29.06.2005
Stuttgart Region within Germany
France
Switzerland Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
CzechRepublik
Poland
Denmark
Lux.
North Sea Baltic Sea
Hamburg
Berlin
BonnFrankfurt
MunichRegion
Stuttgart
Integration area: 3,012 km2
Inhabitants: 2.366 million
Employees: 0.9 million
Cities and villages: 141
26 years of experience with integration
One integration company for - hosting the sharing of the revenue - informing passengers about timetables and fares
Integration area
Integration system
• Full integration
- zone system for determination of the ticket fare
- one ticket for all modes
- same fare for all modes
- several interchanges are possible
- fare is not depending on number of interchanges
Transport performance
Passengers per Year
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
non frequent users commuter pupils Pass Orange seniors disabled people others
Mio
Operators in the Region
1. German Rail: Regional Rail + S-Bahn
2. WEG (Connex): Regional Rail
3. SSB (Operator of the City of Stuttgart): Light Rail, Trams and Buses
4. 40 more or less private bus operators: regional buses
The PTAs in the Stuttgart Region
1. State of Baden-Württemberg: all regional trains despite:
2. Stuttgart Region: S-Bahn + some regional trains within the region
3. 4 districts: regional buses
4. City of Stuttgart: light rail, tram and city-buses
The Suburban Rail System S-Bahn
1. 6 lines
2. 248 line-km
3. 8.5 million train-km/year (plus 0.4 mn train-km for regional trains)
4. Total costs around 140 million Euro
5. Subsidies: around 50 million Euro
6. Duration of contract : 01.07.2003 – 12/2013
Quality in the S-Bahn contract
Objectives of the quality chapter
1. Get an overview if there is a (major) gap between the quality delivered and the quality as contracted.
2. In case of a major gap: in which field of the quality does it exist?
3. Find out if it is only a problem of the operator or a sytematic one (f.ex. bad infrastructure). In the latter case: What can we do to minimize the gap (based on the malus-payments)?
Indicators included in the contract ITotal amount for bonus/malus: 954.677 €
subjective 286.403 €
30%
objective 668.274 €
70%
Indicators included in the contract II
Cleanliness in trains167.068 €
25%
Funciton of ticket machines100.241 €
15%
Management of complaints
66.827 €10% Punctuality
334.137 €50%
Objective indicators
peak-time max 3 min delay; 53.462 €
off-peak max 3 min delay
113.607 €
peak-time max 6 min delay; 53.462 €
off-peak max 6 min delay
113.607 €
1
Indicators included in the contract IIISubjective indicators
Cleanliness in trains; 28.640 € ; 10%
Security in trains; 28.640 € ; 10%
Supply of seats in trains; 28.640 € ; 10%
Passenger information (normal case); 28.640 €
; 10%
Are trains damaged?; 28.640 € ; 10%
Passenger information in case of delay; 71.601
€ ; 25%
Punctuality; 71.601 €
25%
Method of measurement of the indicators IObjective:
• Punctuality: complete inventory count on at least 3 stations for each train
• Cleanliness: 4 waves with total 220 trains per year, trained personnel
• Management of complaints: complete inventory count of complaints and time for answering
• Function of ticket machines: 4 waves with 2 days per wave, personnel of DB
Method of measurement of the indicators II
Subjective:
• 6 waves per year
• 640 passengers are interviewed
• external personnel
Method of computation of bonus and malus
• if measured value is outside field of tolerance: bonus (if better) or malus has to be paid
• amount is rising linear
• bonus/malus is cut off at defined levels
• all in all the operator can not realize a bonus; bonus is only for minimizing the malus (in the best case to 0 €)
• trains that don‘t run are outside this malus-system and don‘t have to be paid by the PTA
70,00%
75,00%
80,00%
85,00%
90,00%
95,00%
100,00%
Jan
02
Mrz
02
Mai
02
Jul 0
2
Sep 0
2
Nov 0
2
Jan
03
Mrz
03
Mai
03
Jul 0
3
Sep 0
3
Nov 0
3
Jan
04
Mrz
04
Mai
04
Jul 0
4
Sep 0
4
Nov 0
4
Jan
05
Mrz
05
Mai
05
peak <3 min
peak <6 min
Linear (peak <6 min)
Linear (peak <3 min)
Punctuality in Peak-time 2002 - 2005
Results of measuring punctuality
Results of objective measurements
50,00%
55,00%
60,00%
65,00%
70,00%
75,00%
80,00%
85,00%
90,00%
95,00%
100,00%
Sauberkeit im Zug Schadensfreiheit der Züge Fahrgastinformation im Zug Beschwerdemanagement Funktionsfähigkeit derAutomaten
2002 2003 2004Toleranzfeld
Results of subjective measurements
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
Pünktlichkeit Sauberkeit der Züge Sicherheit im Zug Schadensfreiheit derZüge
Sitzplatzangebot imZug
Information imRegelfall
Information zuStörungen
2002
2003
2004
Passsengers satisfaction with quality
B SUNO
M A L U S
Conciliation procedure
• conciliation procedure is only defined for the rest of the contract but not for the quality measurement system, for every step is clear and the maximum penalty is defined
• reality shows that in case of any irritations the operator and the PTA are talking to each other for solving it
