Public Transport Services Service Standard Report...• 84.40% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area,

Public Transport Services

Service Standard Report January - March 2014

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

Service Incident Notifications - Bus 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 January and 31st March 2014; • 2,199 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. • 198 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. • 241 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 23 370 366 7,705

Light CityBuses Outer North East 313 31 28 372 368 8,429

Light City Buses North South 317 32 28 377 372 11,277

Southlink Hills 303 19 11 333 331 2,350

SouthLink Outer South 308 31 29 368 361 6,226

Torrens Transit East West 318 32 29 379 376 17,015

RailCommissioner Train 128 36 34 198 182 2,795

Rail Commissioner Tram 172 34 35 241 238 1,116

TOTAL 2,179 242 217 2,638 2,594 56,913

2,199

*Please note: Due to Tonsley line closure entire quarter and Seaford, Belair and Outer Harbor timetable updates 23/02/2014 the Rail Commissioner

Train quota was adjusted.

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 January - March 2014;

• 84.40% of services audited were on time. • 13.74% of services audited were late. • 1.78% 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 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 January - March 2014;

• 9.7% of services audited were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. In January - March 2014;

• 99.5% 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

Prescribed Officer Decal

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

Page 5

Main Findings - Bus

DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. In January - March 2014;

• 99.8% acknowledging passengers. • 100.0% 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. • 0.1% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. • 98.7% acceptable uniform. • 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. • 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. In January - March 2014;

• 99.2% displayed destination sign. • 96.4% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In January - March 2014;

• 100.0% displayed prescribed officer decal. • 99.2% displayed metroticket fare schedule. • 99.9% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION In January - March 2014;

• 5.23% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion increased by 3.74%

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 minutes 59 seconds late. • 87.88% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 0.51% of services. • Late running was 11.62%. • 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 97.4%. • 2.6% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Driver and Automated Station Announcements; • In 98.7% of situations, the Station Announcements were made by the driver or automated system 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 4.2% 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 5.51%. When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion decreased by 0.78%

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 min-utes and 59 seconds late. • 87.55% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 6.22% of services. • Late running was 6.22%. • 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 98.0% 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 14.71%. When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion decreased by 0.85%

Main Findings - Tram

Page 8

Bus On Time Running

1.77%

84.40%

13.73%

0.09%

1.19%

84.53%

14.15%0.14%

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 2014; • 84.40% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 87.69% on time running. • Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 74.27%. • Early running occurred on 1.78% of services. • Late running was 13.74%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.09%.

Table 1.3

Figure 1.1

October - December 2013 January - March 2014

On-Time Running - Bus Total All Contract Areas Best Performing

Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

10+ min early 0.00% 0.00%

3-9 min early 0.14% 0.23%

1-2 min early 1.05% 1.55%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 84.53% 84.40% 90.66% 87.69% 78.36% 74.27%

5-6 late 4.61% 3.55% HILLS HILLS E.W. N.S.

6-9 min late 6.80% 7.05%

10+ min late 2.74% 3.14%

Did Not Run 0.14% 0.09%

Bus arrival time

10+ min late 1.60% 1.96% 0.00% 0.81% 4.81% 2.93%

Bus departure time

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

229 100.0% 19

507 100.0% 17

682 100.0% 16

545 100.0% 11

559 100.0% 11

737 100.0% 11

646 100.0% 10

141 100.0% 9

333 100.0% 9

415 100.0% 9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

All Areas On Time Running

Percentage

Page 10

2.6%

88.2%

9.2%0.0%

Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.6%

81.9%

17.4%

0.1%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Connections - Bus

Table 1.5

In January - March 2014; • 9.7% of services (213) were required to connect, with 99.5% of these connections successfully occurring.

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus

Figure 1.4

January - March 2014 October - December 2013

Table 1.6

In January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Outer North, Hills and Outer South, Light City Buses 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 8.5% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 91.5% 90.3%

Mode

Bus 98.4% 98.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 1.6% 1.9% 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 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 97.6%

No 0.0% 0.5% ALL

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

N.S., O.S. HILLS

If No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.1% 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% 99.9% 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% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 99.9%

Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas


Vehicle exterior clean

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

Excellent 0.6% 2.6%

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

HILLS,O.S.

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

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

Good 81.9% 88.2%

Fair 17.4% 9.2%

Poor 0.1% 0.0%

Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Page 11

In January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%. • 0.5% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Hills was the Best Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.

Figure 1.5

Table 1.7

January - March 2014 October - December 2013

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 0.6% 2.4% HILLS HILLS O.N. O.N.

Good 83.0% 80.9%

Fair 15.6% 16.2%

Poor 0.8% 0.5%

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract

Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

2.4%

80.9%

16.2%

0.5%0.6%

83.0%

15.6%

0.8% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Page 12

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

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

Page 13

Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus

Table 1.8

Figure 1.8

In January - March 2014; • Acknowledging Passengers was 99.8%. • Response to Passenger Inquiries was 100.0%. • Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 94.6% did so at safe locations.


Acknowledging passengers


Excellent 4.8% 4.1%

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

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

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

HILLS N.S. N.S.

Good 69.2% 74.9%

Fair 25.9% 20.8%

Poor 0.1% 0.2%

Response to passenger enquiries*

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

Excellent 4.9% 7.1%

O.N.,N.S.,

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

Good 79.0% 76.6%

Fair 15.9% 16.3%

Poor 0.2% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 86.2% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 71.4% 70.0%

No 13.8% 12.5% O.S.,E.W. O.N.,E.W. HILLS O.S.

If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

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

No 5.4% 5.4%

O.N,N.S,

HILLS,O.S.

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

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

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base


30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


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 January - March 2014; • 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


Smooth ride


Excellent 1.8% 2.2%

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

HILLS,E.W.

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

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

Good 85.1% 87.2%

Fair 13.0% 10.5%

Poor 0.1% 0.1%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 1.2% 2.1% O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS

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

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

Good 95.8% 95.4%

Fair 2.8% 2.4%

Poor 0.2% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible

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

Excellent 1.7% 2.0% ALL

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

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

Good 90.9% 92.3%

Fair 7.4% 5.6%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving


Excellent 4.2% 2.2%

O.N,O.N.E,

HILLS, O.S.

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

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

Good 84.8% 86.1%

Fair 10.9% 11.6%

Poor 0.1% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 99.9% 99.9% O.N.E,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

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

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 99.6% 99.1% 100.0% 99.7% 99.2% 98.7%

No 0.4% 0.9% HILLS O.N. O.S. N.S.


95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100


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 January - March 2014; • Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 98.7%. • Personal appearance category was 100.0%. • Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.


Uniform

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 98.7% 100.0% 99.7% n/a 98.1%

Excellent 3.8% 2.8% ALL E.W. O.N.,N.S.

Good 95.6% 94.7%

Fair 0.7% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 1.3%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 2.9% 2.6% ALL ALL

Good 96.8% 96.2%

Fair 0.3% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 2.0% 1.4%

O.N.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W.

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

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

Good 95.9% 96.0%

Fair 2.1% 2.6%

Poor 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%

No

99.8% 99.9% O.N.,O.N.E,

HILLS, O.S.

O.N.E,N.S.,

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

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No

99.7% 99.7% O.N,O.N.E.,

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

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

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

No

100.0% 100.0% ON.,O.N.E.,HILLS,

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

Driver stop for personal business

Yes 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.9% 1.6%

No

99.3% 99.3% O.N.,O.N.E.,

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


Page 16

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 2.5% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 97.5% 97.4%

Driver assisted

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

No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL

Reason

Pram 11.1% 8.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 44.4% 53.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 14.8% 10.7% 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 22.2% 12.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 7.4% 14.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 24.9% 23.8% 27.5% 29.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% E.W. E.W.

N/A 75.1% 76.2%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS,O.S. O.N.,HILLS

N/A 99.8% 99.9%

Timetables available

Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% O.S. HILLS

N/A 99.8% 99.9%



Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3%

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

N/A 99.6% 99.5%



Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

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

No 100.0% 100.0%

If Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a 0.0% N.S. E.W.


Page 17

Figure 1.10

In January - March 2014; • 99.2% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. • Light City Buses Outer North East and Torrens Transit’s East West was the Best Performing Contract Areas with 99.7%. • Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 96.4% of cases. • The Best Performing Contract Area was Torrens Transit’s East West which achieved 98.2%.

Table 1.15

Process Compliance - Signage - Bus

On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Destination Sign

Yes 99.3% 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9% 98.4%

No 0.5% 0.4% O.N.E. O.N.E.,E.W.

O.N.,N.S.,

E.W. N.S.

Wrong No 0.2% 0.4%

Shift Number

Yes 96.1% 96.4% 98.9% 98.2% 91.3% 92.2%

No 2.8% 2.5% N.S. E.W. O.N. O.N.

Wrong No 1.1% 1.1%


75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Figure 1.11

Page 18

Figure 1.12

Table 1.16

Signage - Onboard - Bus

On the interior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Yes n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a

No n/a 0.0%

O.N,O.N.E.,

HILLS, O.S.,E.W.

ALL N.S

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

No 0.0% 0.8%

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

Yes 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5%

No 0.1% 0.1%

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

N.S.,HILLS

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

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

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area

Prescribed Officer Decal

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


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

All Areas Signage

Percentage

Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-Sep 2013

Page 19

2.8%

32.9%

21.3%

0.7%1.7%

16.4%

22.0%

0.7%

0.5%

0.7%

0.2%

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

Figure 1.13

Table 1.17

Ticketing - Bus Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 32.0% 38.3%

Issued problem slip 5.0% 0.0% 14.3% n/a

Wrote on ticket and returned 6.0% 1.7% O.N.

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 11.0% 11.7%

Observed ticket: no action 5.0% 8.3%

No action taken 12.0% 25.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 3.0% 0.0%

Driver sighted senior card no action 3.0% 0.0%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 23.0% 15.0%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 0.8% 2.8% 2.1% 7.1%

Driver ignored passenger 20.5% 32.9% E.W. O.S.

Drivers view obscured 25.5% 21.3%

Driver not on board 0.8% 0.7%

Driver had no change 3.9% 1.7%

Driver observed slip / ticket 21.6% 16.4%

Passenger had no money 23.1% 22.0%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 1.6% 0.7%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 1.0% 0.5%

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

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

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

Figure 1.14

38.3%

0.0%

1.7%

11.7%

8.3%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

15.0%

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

Page 20

Bus Test Ticket

6.3%

44.9%

48.8%

6.6%

43.8%

49.6%

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 2014; • Of the total trips audited, 5.8% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 127 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: • The validator was not functioning in 6.3% of trips. • An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 44.9% of trips. • In 48.8% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Figure 1.15

Table 1.18

October - December 2013 January - March 2014

Test Ticket Information - Bus Test Tickets

Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

Validator not functioning 8 8 4 2 1 1 0 0 8

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 53 57 14 5 9 10 9 10 57

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 60 62 15 10 10 7 11 9 62

Total 121 127 33 17 20 18 20 19 127

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Percentage of

Total Services

Audited

Validator not functioning 6.6% 6.3% 12.1% 11.8% 5.0% 5.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 43.8% 44.9% 42.4% 29.4% 45.0% 55.6% 45.0% 52.6% 2.6%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 49.6% 48.8% 45.5% 58.8% 50.0% 38.9% 55.0% 47.4% 2.8%

Total 5.8%

Total Services

Audited with

Incorrect

TicketOuter North Outer North East North South Hills Outer South East West

Total - All Contract Areas

Page 21

In January - March 2014; • 5.23% of passengers boarded a vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion - Bus

Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus

Table 1.19


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

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

No

99.8% 99.8%

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

HILLS,O.S.

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,E.W.

E.W.


Service Incident Notifications - Bus In January - March 2014; • 1288 issues warranted Service Audit Reports. • 10.9% related to Driver Quality. • 14.1% related to Signage. • 15.6% related to Test Ticket information.

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

within SAR's within SAR's

(Unadjusted) (Adjusted) (Adjusted)

On Time Running- Departure 383 343 42.1%

On Time Running-Arrival 53 43 5.3%

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 2 1 0.1%

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 15 11 1.4%

Driver Quality—Courtesy—Bus 9 8 1.0%

Driver Quality—Safety—Bus 26 26 3.2%

Driver Quality—Appearance—Bus 259 53 6.5%

Driver Quality—Special Needs—Bus 0 0 0.0%

Driver Quality—Driver Response—Bus 2 2 0.2%

Process Compliance—Signage—Bus 108 96 11.8%

Signage—Onboard—Bus 20 19 2.3%

Ticketing—Bus 283 85 10.4%

Test Ticket Information 128 127 15.6%

Connections 0 0 0.0%

Total 1288 814

Table 1.21

Documents

Public Transport Services Service Standard Report...• 84.40% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area,