Southlink Service Standard Report Jan-Mar 2013 · Page 5 Hills - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance

SouthLink

Service Standard Report January - March 2013

Page 2

Sample and Methodology 3

Hills—Main Findings 4-5

Outer North—Main Findings 6-7

Outer South—Main Findings 8-9

HILLS

On-Time Running 11

Connections 12

Vehicle Condition—Exterior/Interior 12-13

Driver Quality—Courtesy/Safety/Appearance/Special Needs/Driver Response 14-16

Process Compliance—Signage 17

Signage—Onboard 18

Ticketing 19

Test Ticket Information 20

Fare Evasion 21

OUTER NORTH

On-Time Running 23

Connections 24





Ticketing 31


Fare Evasion 33

OUTER SOUTH

On-Time Running 35

Connections 36





Ticketing 43


Fare Evasion 45

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 2013;

• 1068 audits onboard SouthLink services.

• 368 audits in the Outer South contract area.

• 369 audits in the Outer North contract area.

• 331 audits in the Hills contract area.

The trips audited represent 6.4% of the 16,571 trips supplied (defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a

Saturday and Sunday) in all contract areas for one whole week Sunday to Saturday. The sample base is selected from trips listed

on PTS approved timetables submitted by SouthLink.

Sample and Methodology

Table 1.1

Contract Area

Weekday Trips

Audited Saturday Trips Audited

Sunday Trips

Audited Trips Audited

Trips

Supplied

SouthLink Outer South 307 35 26 368 6,641

SouthLink Outer North 320 27 22 369 7,695

Southlink Hills 300 20 11 331 2,235

TOTAL 927 82 59 1,068 16,571

Page 4

Hills - 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 January - March 2013;

• 93.35% of services audited were on time.

• 6.34% of services audited were late.

• 0.30% 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.


• 100% service connections.

VEHICLE CONDITION

Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.


• 99.7% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

Page 5

Hills - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY

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


• 100.0% 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.

• 0.3% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.

• 100.0% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE



• 99.4% displayed destination sign.

• 97.0% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed ‘Welcome Aboard’ sign.

• 100.0% displayed concession pass schedule.

• 100.0% displayed ticket validation instructions.

• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

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

FARE EVASION


• 1.01% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

Page 6

Outer North - Main Findings ON-TIME RUNNING







TRIPS RUN










VEHICLE CONDITION





Page 7

Outer North - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY









• 0.0% use of personal equipment whilst driving.




PROCESS COMPLIANCE





SIGNAGE - ONBOARD







FARE EVASION




Page 8

Outer South - Main Findings ON-TIME RUNNING







TRIPS RUN










VEHICLE CONDITION





Page 9

Outer South - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY









• 0.5% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.




PROCESS COMPLIANCE





SIGNAGE - ONBOARD







FARE EVASION




Page 10

Hills


Page 11

Hills On Time Running

0.3%

93.4%

6.3%

0.0%0.0%

94.0%

6.0%

0.0%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

October - December 2012 January - March 2013

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 and 59 seconds late.


• 93.35% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 0.30% of services.

• Late running was 6.34%.

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

On-Time Running

Table 2.1

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

10+ min early 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3-9 min early 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1-2 min early 0.0% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 94.0% 93.4% 82.7% 84.8% 94.0% 93.4% 61.4% 69.5%

5-6 late 1.2% 0.9% 3.6% 3.0%

6-9 min late 3.6% 3.9% 7.8% 7.3%

10+ min late 1.2% 1.5% 4.2% 4.0%

Did Not Run 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2%

10+ min late 1.2% 1.8% 2.8% 2.5% 0.6% 0.8% 8.4% 7.8%

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

Southlink Hills Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing Contract

Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

Hills On Time Running

Percentage

Page 12

Hills Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

10.6%

88.2%

1.2%0.0%

19.8%

79.3%

0.9% 0.0%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.


Connections

Vehicle Condition - Exterior


• 6.0% of trips were required to connect to another service, with 100.0% of these connections successful.

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Figure 2.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 7.5% 6.0% 5.3% 5.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 92.5% 94.0% 94.7% 94.2%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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%

I f No, why not?

Bus arrived late n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

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

Insufficient transfer time n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Area


Area


Vehicle exterior clean

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.7%

Excellent 19.8% 10.6% 18.7% 2.6%

Good 79.3% 88.2% 75.0% 92.0%

Fair 0.9% 1.2% 6.2% 5.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%



Area


Area

Page 13

Hills Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

12.1%

80.1%

7.6%

0.3%

34.5%

61.0%

3.3%1.2%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.7%.



Vehicle Condition - Interior

Table 2.4

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 34.5% 12.1% 25.9% 4.1%

Good 61.0% 80.1% 61.3% 81.5%

Fair 3.3% 7.6% 12.3% 14.2%

Poor 1.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%



Area


Area

90

92

94

96

98

100


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

Hills Cleanliness

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012

categories included

Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards

categories

Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.

Page 14


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 100.0%.

• Response to passenger inquiries category was 100.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops 100.0% did so at safe locations.

Driver Quality - Courtesy

Table 2.5

Figure 2.6



Excellent 16.8% 15.1% 8.5% 6.1%

Good 69.4% 77.3% 67.9% 74.7%

Fair 13.8% 7.6% 23.5% 19.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 97.9%

Excellent 31.9% 29.7% 17.4% 13.9%

Good 63.8% 67.6% 66.0% 73.8%

Fair 4.3% 2.7% 16.6% 11.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 77.8% 100.0% 76.1% 93.8% 94.7% 100.0% 50.0% 75.0%

No 22.2% 0.0% 23.9% 6.3%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger inquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base



Area


Area

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Hills Driver Courtesy

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

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories

included Excellent/Good onlyJan-Mar 2012 onwards categories


Page 15

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 100.0%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride


Excellent 12.0% 9.7% 6.4% 4.9%

Good 85.3% 88.5% 85.7% 83.9%

Fair 2.7% 1.8% 7.8% 11.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 12.0% 11.8% 7.2% 4.9%

Good 86.8% 87.9% 90.7% 92.8%

Fair 1.2% 0.3% 2.1% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

Excellent 14.4% 10.0% 9.5% 5.1%

Good 85.0% 89.7% 87.7% 92.1%

Fair 0.6% 0.3% 2.7% 2.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


Excellent 11.1% 11.2% 8.8% 6.1%

Good 84.7% 87.0% 86.6% 88.8%

Fair 3.9% 1.8% 4.4% 5.0%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 100.0% 99.7% 99.8% 99.7%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%



Area


Area

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving


Uniform


Excellent 13.2% 12.1% 14.2% 12.6%

Good 86.8% 87.9% 85.6% 87.3%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 13.8% 12.1% 14.6% 14.1%

Good 86.2% 87.9% 85.2% 85.6%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 12.9% 13.6% 12.9% 9.2%

Good 87.1% 85.8% 86.0% 89.6%

Fair 0.0% 0.6% 1.0% 1.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%

Driver stop for personal business

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Southlink Hills


Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Page 16

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 2.8

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

Table 2.11


Assistance Required

Required 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 98.2% 98.2% 98.0% 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 16.7% 0.0% 13.6% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 83.3% 100.0% 54.5% 69.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 2.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 0.0% 0.0% 15.9% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Area


Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 7.5% 7.3% 5.2% 7.9% 8.2% 12.3% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

N/A 92.5% 92.7% 94.7% 92.0%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.3% 0.9% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 99.1% 99.7% 99.8%

Timetables available

Yes 0.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.1% 99.4% 99.8% 99.8%

Southlink Hills


Area




Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.8%

Southlink Hills


Area




Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%

Southlink Hills


Area



Page 17


• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 99.4% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 97.0% of services.

Process Compliance - Signage

Table 2.12

Figure 2.7

On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Destination Sign

Yes 99.7% 99.4% 99.5% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.5%

Wrong No 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Shift Number

Yes 96.4% 97.0% 94.8% 95.2% 99.2% 98.9% 90.3% 90.7%

No 2.1% 1.8% 4.0% 3.0%

Wrong No 1.5% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8%



Area


Area

95

96

97

98

99

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

Hills Destination/Shift Number Displayed

Page 18


• Concession pass schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• Ticket validation instructions were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• The Metroticket fare schedules, were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

Signage - Onboard

Table 2.13

Table 2.14

Figure 2.8


• The ‘Welcome Aboard’ signs were correctly displayed on 100.0% of services.


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Welcome Aboard sign



Area


Area

On the interior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.2%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.6% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.6%

Concession Pass Schedule

Ticket Validation Instructions

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating



Area


Area

99

99.1

99.2

99.3

99.4

99.5

99.6

99.7

99.8

99.9

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

Hills Signage

4 exterior Metro Stickers

excluded from Oct-Dec 2011

Page 19

Ticketing


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

Table 2.15

Table 2.16

During In January - March 2013;

• 19.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 14.3% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 2.1% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 31.3% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 7.7% 14.3% 7.1% 12.3%

Issued problem slip 46.2% 19.0% 22.4% 22.6% 46.2% 35.7%

Wrote on ticket and returned 19.2% 4.8% 19.0% 11.6%

Observed ticket: no action 11.5% 19.0% 23.8% 23.9%

No action taken 7.7% 33.3% 13.8% 14.8%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.6%

Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 4.8% 1.4% 3.9%

Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 1.9%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 7.7% 4.8% 10.0% 8.4%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 0.0% 2.1% 2.2% 0.9% 5.0% 2.8%

Driver ignored passenger 13.7% 18.8% 11.8% 11.1%

Drivers view obscured 2.0% 27.1% 13.2% 15.6%

Driver not on board 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.2%

Driver had no change 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 1.4%

Driver observed slip / ticket 52.9% 31.3% 52.5% 47.6%

Passenger had no money 9.8% 14.6% 11.8% 13.9%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 0.0% 3.2% 1.2%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 21.6% 6.3% 1.7% 5.4%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.7%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8%

Southlink Hills


Area



Page 20

Hills Test Ticket

0.0%

50.0%50.0%

0.0%

50.0%50.0%

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 January - March 2013:

• Of the total trips audited, 2.4% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 8 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 0.0% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 50.0% of trips.

• In 50.0% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.


Test Ticket Information

Table 2.17

Figure 2.9

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 4 50.0% 4 50.0% 1.2%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 4 50.0% 4 50.0% 1.2%

Total 8 8 331 2.4%

2.1%

2.1%

0.3%

Percentage

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

4.6%

Test TicketsHills Hills Percentage of Total Hills

Services AuditedOct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13

Percentage

Page 21

In the Hills contract area, 1.01% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Table 2.18

Bus Fare

Evasion

Southlink

Hills Metro

Jan-Mar-10 0.17%

Apr-Jun-10 0.37%

Jul-Sep-10 0.77%

Oct-Dec-10 2.01%

Jan-Mar-11 1.49%

Apr-Jun-11 1.77%

Jul-Sep-11 1.41%

Oct-Dec-11 2.03%

Jan-Mar-12 1.56%

Apr-Jun-12 1.71%

Jul-Sep-12 1.72%

Oct-Dec-12 1.16%

Jan-Mar-13 1.01%

Page 22

Outer North


Page 23

Outer North On Time Running

0.5%

88.9%

10.3%

0.3%

1.6%

88.1%

10.3%

0.0% Early

On time

Late

Did not run


1.6%

88.1%

10.3%

0.0% Early

On time

Late

Did not run


than 1 minute early and no more than 4 minutes and 59 seconds late.







On-Time Running

Table 3.1

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2


10+ min early 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3-9 min early 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1-2 min early 1.4% 0.5% 1.2% 0.6%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 88.1% 88.9% 82.7% 84.8% 94.0% 93.4% 61.4% 69.5%

5-6 late 3.8% 2.7% 3.6% 3.0%

6-9 min late 5.4% 6.5% 7.8% 7.3%

10+ min late 1.1% 1.1% 4.2% 4.0%

Did Not Run 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

10+ min late 0.5% 1.1% 2.8% 2.5% 0.6% 0.8% 8.4% 7.8%

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

SouthLink Outer North Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




Page 24

Outer North Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.5%

91.3%

7.9%

0.3%

22.2%

67.6%

9.7%0.5% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor






Connections


• 13.6% of trips were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Figure 3.3



Yes 10.5% 13.6% 5.3% 5.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 89.5% 86.4% 94.7% 94.2%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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%

I f No, why not?







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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area




Excellent 22.2% 0.5% 18.7% 2.6%

Good 67.6% 91.3% 75.0% 92.0%

Fair 9.7% 7.9% 6.2% 5.3%

Poor 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Page 25

Outer North Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

1.9%

79.6%

18.3%

0.3%

25.9%

54.6%

18.6%

0.8% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor




Table 3.4

January - March 2013 October - December 2012


Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5




Excellent 25.9% 1.9% 25.9% 4.1%

Good 54.6% 79.6% 61.3% 81.5%

Fair 18.6% 18.3% 12.3% 14.2%

Poor 0.8% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

90

92

94

96

98

100


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

Hills Cleanliness


categories included

Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards

categories


Page 26






Table 3.5

Figure 3.6



Excellent 6.8% 1.9% 8.5% 6.1%

Good 65.9% 75.2% 67.9% 74.7%

Fair 27.3% 22.9% 23.5% 19.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%


Excellent 14.8% 9.7% 17.4% 13.9%

Good 59.3% 64.5% 66.0% 73.8%

Fair 25.9% 25.8% 16.6% 11.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%


Yes 54.5% 100.0% 76.1% 93.8% 94.7% 100.0% 50.0% 75.0%

No 45.5% 0.0% 23.9% 6.3%


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0%





Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100



Hills Driver Courtesy

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


included Excellent/Good onlyJan-Mar 2012 onwards categories


Page 27

Table 3.6









Table 3.7




Smooth ride


Excellent 4.1% 2.5% 6.4% 4.9%

Good 88.1% 84.5% 85.7% 83.9%

Fair 7.6% 13.1% 7.8% 11.0%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%



Excellent 4.1% 1.4% 7.2% 4.9%

Good 93.8% 95.9% 90.7% 92.8%

Fair 1.9% 2.7% 2.1% 2.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



Excellent 4.9% 1.4% 9.5% 5.1%

Good 94.1% 96.2% 87.7% 92.1%

Fair 0.5% 2.5% 2.7% 2.8%

Poor 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


Excellent 7.3% 3.8% 8.8% 6.1%

Good 91.1% 92.4% 86.6% 88.8%

Fair 1.6% 3.8% 4.4% 5.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


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

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.7%


Yes 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Uniform


Excellent 8.6% 6.8% 14.2% 12.6%

Good 91.1% 93.2% 85.6% 87.3%

Fair 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal appearance


Excellent 8.9% 9.3% 14.6% 14.1%

Good 90.3% 90.7% 85.2% 85.6%

Fair 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 7.8% 4.6% 12.9% 9.2%

Good 90.8% 94.3% 86.0% 89.6%

Fair 1.4% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%


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

No 100.0% 99.7% 99.9% 99.9%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%


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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

SouthLink Outer North

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Page 28

Table 3.11


Table 3.8


Table 3.9

Table 3.10


Assistance Required


Not Required 97.6% 98.4% 98.0% 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 11.1% 0.0% 13.6% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Other 11.1% 0.0% 6.8% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Yes 2.2% 6.8% 5.2% 7.9% 8.2% 12.3% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

N/A 97.8% 93.2% 94.7% 92.0%


Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 99.8%


Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 99.7% 99.8% 99.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing




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

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 99.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing





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

No 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0%


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%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


Page 29




Table 3.12


Figure 3.7


Destination Sign

Yes 99.2% 98.9% 99.5% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 98.9%

No 0.3% 1.1% 0.2% 0.5%

Wrong No 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Shift Number

Yes 90.3% 92.9% 94.8% 95.2% 99.2% 98.9% 90.3% 90.7%

No 7.6% 3.8% 4.0% 3.0%

Wrong No 2.2% 3.3% 1.2% 1.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer North Route/Shift Number Displayed

Page 30


• Concession pass were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.




Signage - Onboard

Table 3.14

Table 3.13

Figure 3.8




Yes 100.0% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Welcome Aboard sign


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.2%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Yes 99.7% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.6% n/a

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Yes 99.5% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

No 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Yes 99.7% 98.9% 99.7% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%

No 0.3% 1.1% 0.3% 0.6%

*Note: Ticket validation instructions audited to 28/11/2012


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area





98.8

99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100



Outer North Signage

Page 31

Ticketing



Table 3.15

Table 3.16







Faulty ticket





No action taken 10.3% 19.0% 13.8% 14.8%


















Best Performing

Contract Area




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

No 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 99.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


Page 32

Outer North Test Ticket

0.0%

57.1%

42.9%20.7%

34.5%

44.8%



Updated)


Updated)












Table 3.17

Figure 3.9





Total 29 14 369 3.8%

Percentage

0.3%

2.1%

4.6%

2.1%


Services Audited

Percentage

Test TicketsOuter North Outer North Percentage of Total Outer North


Page 33

In the Outer North contract area, 1.17% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Table 3.18

Bus Fare

Evasion

SouthLink

Outer North

Jan-Mar-10 0.21%

Apr-Jun-10 0.72%

Jul-Sep-10 0.70%

Oct-Dec-10 2.23%

Jan-Mar-11 2.99%

Apr-Jun-11 3.31%

Jul-Sep-11 2.72%

Oct-Dec-11 2.52%

Jan-Mar-12 3.24%

Apr-Jun-12 3.31%

Jul-Sep-12 3.89%

Oct-Dec-12 3.11%

Jan-Mar-13 1.17%

Page 34

Outer South


Page 35

Outer South On Time Running

0.3%

90.2%

9.2%

0.3%

0.5%

87.1%

12.3%

0.0%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

October - December 2012


than 1 minute early and no more than 4 minutes and 59 seconds.






On-Time Running

Table 4.1

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

January - March 2013


10+ min early 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

3-9 min early 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%

1-2 min early 0.5% 0.3% 1.2% 0.6%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 87.1% 90.2% 82.7% 84.8% 94.0% 93.4% 61.4% 69.5%

5-6 late 3.8% 3.0% 3.6% 3.0%

6-9 min late 6.3% 4.1% 7.8% 7.3%

10+ min late 2.2% 2.2% 4.2% 4.0%

Did Not Run 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2%

10+ min late 1.6% 0.8% 2.8% 2.5% 0.6% 0.8% 8.4% 7.8%

SouthLink Outer South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer South On Time Running

Page 36

Outer South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

3.3%

91.6%

4.9%

0.3%

29.6%

62.7%

7.4%

0.3%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor






Connections


• 15.5% of trips were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Figure 4.3



Yes 14.0% 15.5% 5.3% 5.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 86.0% 84.5% 94.7% 94.2%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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%

I f No, why not?







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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area




Excellent 29.6% 3.3% 18.7% 2.6%

Good 62.7% 91.6% 75.0% 92.0%

Fair 7.4% 4.9% 6.2% 5.3%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Page 37

Outer South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

4.9%

80.4%

14.2%

0.5%

37.3%

54.2%

8.2% 0.3% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor






Table 4.4

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.5




Excellent 37.3% 4.9% 25.9% 4.1%

Good 54.2% 80.4% 61.3% 81.5%

Fair 8.2% 14.2% 12.3% 14.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Outer South Cleanliness


included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories


Page 38






Table 4.5

Figure 4.6



Excellent 8.5% 8.2% 8.5% 6.1%

Good 71.8% 74.9% 67.9% 74.7%

Fair 19.7% 16.9% 23.5% 19.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%


Excellent 15.4% 11.3% 17.4% 13.9%

Good 76.9% 79.2% 66.0% 73.8%

Fair 7.7% 7.5% 16.6% 11.5%

Poor 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.8%


Yes 50.0% 75.0% 76.1% 93.8% 94.7% 100.0% 50.0% 75.0%

No 50.0% 25.0% 23.9% 6.3%


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area




0

20

40

60

80

100



Outer South Driver Courtesy

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


categories included

Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012

onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair

incuded.

Page 39

Table 4.7

Table 4.6












Smooth ride


Excellent 11.8% 8.2% 6.4% 4.9%

Good 83.8% 79.3% 85.7% 83.9%

Fair 4.4% 12.3% 7.8% 11.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1%



Excellent 14.2% 8.7% 7.2% 4.9%

Good 84.7% 89.9% 90.7% 92.8%

Fair 1.1% 1.1% 2.1% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%



Excellent 17.8% 9.0% 9.5% 5.1%

Good 81.9% 88.3% 87.7% 92.1%

Fair 0.0% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


Excellent 15.6% 8.4% 8.8% 6.1%

Good 81.6% 86.1% 86.6% 88.8%

Fair 2.5% 5.4% 4.4% 5.0%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


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

No 99.7% 99.5% 99.8% 99.7%


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Uniform


Excellent 25.5% 23.4% 14.2% 12.6%

Good 74.5% 76.6% 85.6% 87.3%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal appearance


Excellent 25.2% 26.4% 14.6% 14.1%

Good 74.8% 73.6% 85.2% 85.6%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 24.4% 16.9% 12.9% 9.2%

Good 74.8% 81.7% 86.0% 89.6%

Fair 0.8% 1.4% 1.0% 1.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%


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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%


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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

SouthLink Outer South

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


Page 40


Table 4.8


Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.11


Assistance Required


Not Required 99.7% 98.6% 98.0% 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% 0.0% 13.6% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Other 0.0% 0.0% 6.8% 9.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Yes 5.8% 12.3% 5.2% 7.9% 8.2% 12.3% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1%

N/A 94.0% 87.5% 94.7% 92.0%


Yes 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5% 0.9% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.5% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8%


Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 99.7% 99.8% 99.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing




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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 99.7% 99.5% 99.7% 99.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing





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

No 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


applicable cases?

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

No 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


Page 41





Table 4.12

Figure 4.7


Destination Sign

Yes 100.0% 99.7% 99.5% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.5%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Shift Number

Yes 93.2% 90.7% 94.8% 95.2% 99.2% 98.9% 90.3% 90.7%

No 4.9% 5.4% 4.0% 3.0%

Wrong No 1.9% 3.8% 1.2% 1.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

70

75

80

85

90

95

100



Outer South Route/Shift Number Displayed

Page 42


• Concession pass schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.




Signage - Onboard

Table 4.14

Table 4.13

Figure 4.8




Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Welcome Aboard sign


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.2%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.6% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Yes 99.5% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% n/a

No 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Yes 99.5% 99.2% 99.7% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%

No 0.5% 0.8% 0.3% 0.6%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area





97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100



Outer South Signage

4 exterior Metro

Stickers excluded

from Oct-Dec 2011

Page 43

Ticketing



Table 4.15

Table 4.16







Faulty ticket





No action taken 0.0% 7.1% 13.8% 14.8%


















Best Performing

Contract Area




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

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


Page 44

Outer South Test Ticket

14.3%

28.6%

57.1%

8.3%

41.7%

50.0%



Updated)


Updated)












Table 4.17

Figure 4.9





Total 12 14 368 3.8%


Services Audited

2.1%

4.6%

Percentage Percentage

0.3%

2.1%

Test TicketsOuter South Outer South Percentage of Total Outer South


Page 45

In the Outer South contract area, 2.49% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Table 4.18

Bus Fare

Evasion

SouthLink

Outer South

Jan-Mar-10 0.57%

Apr-Jun-10 0.88%

Jul-Sep-10 0.91%

Oct-Dec-10 1.18%

Jan-Mar-11 5.77%

Apr-Jun-11 4.40%

Jul-Sep-11 8.28%

Oct-Dec-11 4.74%

Jan-Mar-12 3.60%

Apr-Jun-12 4.28%

Jul-Sep-12 2.89%

Oct-Dec-12 2.69%

Jan-Mar-13 2.49%

Documents

Southlink Service Standard Report Jan-Mar 2013 · Page 5 Hills - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance