Southlink Service Standard Report Jul-Sep 2014-F...In July - September 2014; • 1.63% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket. Further breakdowns can be found

SouthLink

Service Standard Report July - September 2014

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 July - 30th September 2014;

• 1062 audits onboard SouthLink services.

• 364 audits in the Outer South contract area.

• 367 audits in the Outer North contract area.

• 331 audits in the Hills contract area.

The trips audited represent 6.4% of the 16,556 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 306 30 28 364 6,499

SouthLink Outer North 320 26 21 367 7,695

Southlink Hills 303 18 10 331 2,362

TOTAL 929 74 59 1,062 16,556

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 July - September 2014;

• 94.56% of services audited were on time.

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.


• 100.0% 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.

• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.

• 100.0% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE



• 99.4% displayed destination sign.

• 97.9% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

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

FARE EVASION


• 0.76% 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









• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.




PROCESS COMPLIANCE





SIGNAGE - ONBOARD




FARE EVASION




Page 10

Hills


Page 11

Hills On Time Running

1.21%

94.56%

4.23% 0.00%

1.50%

88.02%

10.48% 0.00%Early

On time

Late

Did not run

July - September 2014

On-Time Running

Table 2.1

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14

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

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.30% 0.18% 0.23%

1-2 min early 1.50% 0.91% 1.32% 1.38%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 88.02% 94.56% 85.64% 91.92% 90.24% 95.05% 80.00% 85.75%

5-6 late 4.19% 1.21% 3.46% 2.11%

6-9 min late 5.39% 2.42% 6.61% 3.17%

10+ min late 0.90% 0.60% 2.73% 1.10%

Did Not Run 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.09%

10+ min late 1.50% n/a 1.87% n/a 1.50% n/a 2.40% n/a

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

Southlink Hills Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing Contract

Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area

April - June 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

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

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

Hills On Time Running

Percentage

Commencing 1 July 2014 the methodology applied to on-time running changed to consider the average on-time running at time

points across the entire trip, excluding the terminus arrival time. Should the average return a late running component greater than

4 minutes and 59 seconds that trip will be recorded as late and a bus running more that 59 seconds early at any time point except

the terminus arrival time will be recorded as early running.


• 94.56% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 1.21% of services.

• Late running was 4.23%.

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

Page 12

Hills Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

15.5%

78.2%

6.4% 0.0%

17.1%

82.0%

0.9%

0.0%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Bus required to connect

Yes 10.5% 4.2% 9.7% 6.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 89.5% 95.8% 90.3% 93.1%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 96.2% 99.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

Able to transfer

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.8% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

I f No, why not?

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

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

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

Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a


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

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

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0%



Area


Area


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.

April - June 2014 July - September 2014

Connections

Vehicle Condition - Exterior


• 4.2% 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


Vehicle exterior clean

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

Excellent 17.1% 15.5% 4.2% 6.0%

Good 82.0% 78.2% 88.4% 85.6%

Fair 0.9% 6.4% 7.1% 8.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%



Area


Area

Page 13

Hills Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

13.6%

78.5%

7.6%

0.3%

12.9%

83.5%

3.3%0.3%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.7%.


April - June 2014 July - September 2014

Vehicle Condition - Interior

Table 2.4

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 12.9% 13.6% 2.7% 3.1%

Good 83.5% 78.5% 81.8% 82.4%

Fair 3.3% 7.6% 14.5% 13.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 1.0% 1.3%



Area


Area

90

92

94

96

98

100


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

Hills Cleanliness

Page 14


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 100.0%.

• Response to passenger enquiries 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 5.7% 4.8% 3.0% 3.4%

Good 87.7% 82.4% 78.9% 77.9%

Fair 6.6% 12.7% 17.8% 18.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%

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

Excellent 10.0% 8.7% 7.0% 4.6%

Good 78.8% 88.4% 72.3% 79.4%

Fair 11.3% 2.9% 20.5% 16.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 88.9% 75.0% 89.8% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 75.0%

No 11.1% 25.0% 10.2% 9.4%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 87.5% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% n/a

No 12.5% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base



Area


Area

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100


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

Hills Driver Courtesy

Page 15


• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

Table 2.7

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%.

Table 2.6

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride

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

Excellent 3.0% 2.1% 1.3% 1.7%

Good 93.1% 93.6% 87.7% 84.5%

Fair 3.9% 4.2% 11.0% 13.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 2.7% 2.1% 1.0% 1.4%

Good 97.0% 97.9% 96.2% 95.7%

Fair 0.3% 0.0% 2.7% 2.9%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible


Excellent 1.2% 1.8% 0.8% 1.1%

Good 97.0% 97.6% 93.2% 91.6%

Fair 1.8% 0.6% 5.9% 7.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%


Excellent 2.4% 2.4% 1.3% 1.3%

Good 93.7% 95.5% 88.8% 87.0%

Fair 3.9% 2.1% 10.0% 11.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%

Driver physically alert and prepared

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

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%



Area


Area

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving


Uniform

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

Excellent 4.5% 1.8% 1.6% 2.2%

Good 95.5% 98.2% 97.8% 97.0%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Personal appearance


Excellent 3.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.7%

Good 96.7% 98.8% 98.4% 97.8%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 1.2% 1.8% 0.5% 1.3%

Good 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 97.1%

Fair 0.6% 0.0% 1.2% 1.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

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%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Driver stop for personal business

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.6%

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 0.3% 0.9% 1.9% 2.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 99.7% 99.1% 98.1% 97.7%

Driver assisted

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 83.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9%

Reason

Pram 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 5.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 100.0% 33.3% 43.9% 54.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 3.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

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

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 0.0% 0.0% 31.7% 19.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 0.0% 33.3% 12.2% 15.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Area


Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 24.0% 20.9% 23.9% 29.9% 26.5% 36.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 76.0% 79.1% 76.1% 70.1%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 2.4% 2.4% 1.0% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 0.3% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 97.6% 97.6% 98.9% 98.8%

Timetables available

Yes 2.7% 3.3% 0.7% 0.8% 2.7% 3.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 97.3% 96.7% 99.3% 99.2%

Southlink Hills


Area




Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.4% 99.7% 99.6% 99.6%

Southlink Hills


Area




Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

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

No 100.0% 99.4% 99.8% 99.7%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Southlink Hills


Area



Page 17


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

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 97.9% of services.

Process Compliance - Signage

Table 2.12

Figure 2.7

On the exterior of Vehicle Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14

Destination Sign

Yes 99.7% 99.4% 99.3% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.6% 98.6%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

Shift Number

Yes 96.7% 97.9% 96.8% 97.1% 98.9% 98.4% 92.9% 92.3%

No 2.4% 0.3% 2.6% 1.7%

Wrong No 0.9% 1.8% 0.6% 1.2%



Area


Area

95

96

97

98

99

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

Hills Destination/Shift Number Displayed

Page 18


• 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

Figure 2.8

On the interior of Vehicle Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14

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%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%

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

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded from

interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-Sep

2013

Page 19

Ticketing


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

Table 2.14

Table 2.15


• 0.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 30.8% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 6.1% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 3.0% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 11.1% 30.8% 14.1% 31.5%

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

Wrote on ticket and returned 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 3.1%

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 44.4% 7.7% 33.3% 27.7%

Observed ticket: no action 0.0% 23.1% 5.1% 5.4%

No action taken 22.2% 15.4% 24.4% 22.3%

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

Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%

Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 7.7% 1.3% 0.8%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 22.2% 15.4% 16.7% 8.5%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 0.0% 6.1% 5.0% 1.9% 9.1% 6.1%

Driver ignored passenger 12.5% 21.2% 15.9% 20.5%

Drivers view obscured 37.5% 30.3% 24.7% 26.1%

Driver not on board 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%

Driver had no change 0.0% 0.0% 3.7% 4.5%

Driver observed slip / ticket 10.0% 3.0% 24.9% 14.1%

Passenger had no money 37.5% 27.3% 21.8% 30.7%

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

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 2.5% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 0.0% 12.1% 1.1% 1.3%

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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Southlink Hills


Area



Page 20

Hills Test Ticket

0.0%

38.5%

61.5%

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 July - September 2014:

• Of the total trips audited, 3.9% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 13 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 38.5% of trips.

• In 61.5% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.


Test Ticket Information

Table 2.16

Figure 2.9

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 7 50.0% 5 38.5% 1.5%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 7 50.0% 8 61.5% 2.4%

Total 14 13 331 3.9%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services AuditedJul-Sep-14

Percentage Percentage

2.0%

4.7%

2.7%

0.1%

Test TicketsHills Hills Percentage of Total Hills

Services AuditedApr-Jun-14

April - June 2014

Page 21

In the Hills contract area, 0.76% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Page 22

Outer North


Page 23

Outer North On Time Running

1.63%

92.10%

5.99%0.27%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

Did not run


0.27%

90.24%

9.49%

0.00% Early

On time

Late

Did not run

On-Time Running

Table 3.1

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2


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

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.27% 0.18% 0.23%

1-2 min early 0.27% 1.36% 1.32% 1.38%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 90.24% 92.10% 85.64% 91.92% 90.24% 95.05% 80.00% 85.75%

5-6 late 2.71% 1.36% 3.46% 2.11%

6-9 min late 4.07% 3.81% 6.61% 3.17%

10+ min late 2.71% 0.82% 2.73% 1.10%

Did Not Run 0.00% 0.27% 0.05% 0.09%


Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

SouthLink Outer North Total All Contract Areas


Area


Area

July - September 2014 April - June 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100





points across the entire trip, excluding the terminus arrival time. Should the average return a late running component greater

than 4 minutes and 59 seconds that trip will be recorded as late and a bus running more that 59 seconds early at any time point

except the terminus arrival time will be recorded as early running.






Page 24

Outer North Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

3.8%

84.3%

11.5%

0.3%

1.4%

83.9%

13.6%

1.1% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor





Connections


• 13.5% of trips were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Figure 3.3



Yes 16.9% 13.5% 9.7% 6.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 83.1% 86.5% 90.3% 93.1%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 96.2% 99.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Able to transfer

Yes 96.8% 100.0% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.8% n/a

No 3.2% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

If No, why not?







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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Area


Area




Excellent 1.4% 3.8% 4.2% 6.0%

Good 83.9% 84.3% 88.4% 85.6%

Fair 13.6% 11.5% 7.1% 8.3%

Poor 1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0%



Area


Area


Page 25

Outer North Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.3%

79.7%

15.9%

4.1%0.0%

80.1%

18.8%

1.1%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor





Figure 3.5




Excellent 0.0% 0.3% 2.7% 3.1%

Good 80.1% 79.7% 81.8% 82.4%

Fair 18.8% 15.9% 14.5% 13.2%

Poor 1.1% 4.1% 1.0% 1.3%



Area


Area

Table 3.4


Figure 3.4

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Outer North Cleanliness

Page 26






Table 3.5

Figure 3.6



Excellent 2.4% 1.9% 3.0% 3.4%

Good 77.7% 78.0% 78.9% 77.9%

Fair 19.0% 19.8% 17.8% 18.4%

Poor 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%


Excellent 14.3% 3.6% 7.0% 4.6%

Good 50.8% 79.5% 72.3% 79.4%

Fair 34.9% 16.9% 20.5% 16.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


Yes 91.7% 84.6% 89.8% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 75.0%

No 8.3% 15.4% 10.2% 9.4%

If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%






Area


Area

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100



Outer North Driver Courtesy

Page 27

Table 3.6








• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Table 3.7




Smooth ride


Excellent 0.8% 1.1% 1.3% 1.7%

Good 87.7% 82.1% 87.7% 84.5%

Fair 11.4% 16.8% 11.0% 13.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



Excellent 0.5% 0.5% 1.0% 1.4%

Good 97.0% 96.7% 96.2% 95.7%

Fair 2.2% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%



Excellent 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 1.1%

Good 92.4% 92.0% 93.2% 91.6%

Fair 6.8% 8.0% 5.9% 7.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%


Excellent 0.8% 0.3% 1.3% 1.3%

Good 90.2% 85.7% 88.8% 87.0%

Fair 9.0% 14.0% 10.0% 11.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


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

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%


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

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%



Area


Area



Uniform


Excellent 0.3% 1.1% 1.6% 2.2%

Good 99.2% 98.1% 97.8% 97.0%

Fair 0.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8%

Poor 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Personal appearance


Excellent 0.3% 0.8% 1.3% 1.7%

Good 99.5% 98.1% 98.4% 97.8%

Fair 0.3% 1.1% 0.3% 0.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 1.3%

Good 99.2% 97.8% 98.2% 97.1%

Fair 0.5% 1.9% 1.2% 1.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


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 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%


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

No 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0%


Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.5% 99.6%

SouthLink Outer North


Area



Page 28

Table 3.11


Table 3.8


Table 3.9

Table 3.10


Assistance Required


Not Required 98.9% 98.4% 98.1% 97.7%

Driver assisted

Yes 100.00% 100.0% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 83.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.9% 0.0%

Reason

Pram 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 5.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Other 25.0% 16.7% 12.2% 15.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Area


Area



Yes 16.9% 22.5% 23.9% 29.9% 26.5% 36.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 83.1% 77.5% 76.1% 70.1%


Yes 1.4% 0.5% 1.0% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 0.3% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 98.9% 98.8%

N/A 98.6% 99.5% 98.9% 98.8%


Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.7% 0.8% 2.7% 3.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.5% 100.0% 99.3% 99.2%



Area





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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 99.5% 99.6% 99.6%



Area






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

No 99.7% 99.5% 99.8% 99.7%


applicable cases?

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.5% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 99.5%



Area



Page 29




Table 3.12


Figure 3.7


Destination Sign

Yes 98.6% 98.6% 99.3% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.6% 98.6%

No 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3%

Shift Number

Yes 92.9% 92.3% 96.8% 97.1% 98.9% 98.4% 92.9% 92.3%

No 4.6% 4.7% 2.6% 1.7%

Wrong No 2.5% 3.0% 0.6% 1.2%



Area


Area

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer North Route/Shift Number Displayed

Page 30




Signage - Onboard

Table 3.13

Figure 3.8


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%

Yes 100.0% 98.9% 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%

No 0.0% 1.1% 0.1% 0.2%





Area


Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer North Signage

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer

audited Jul-Sep 2013

Page 31

Ticketing



Table 3.14

Table 3.15







Faulty ticket






No action taken 35.7% 50.0% 24.4% 22.3%



















Area




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

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%



Area



Page 32












Table 3.16

Figure 3.9





Total 22 18 374 4.8%

2.7%

4.7%

Test TicketsOuter North Outer North Percentage of Total Outer North

Services AuditedApr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14


Services Audited


0.1%

2.0%

April - June 2014

Outer North Test Ticket

0.0%

44.4%

55.6%

13.6%

45.5%

40.9%




Page 33

In the Outer North contract area, 1.32% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Page 34

Outer South


Page 35

Outer South On Time Running

1.37%

95.05%

3.57%

0.00%0.82%

87.43%

11.48%

0.27%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

On-Time Running

Table 4.1

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2



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

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.27% 0.18% 0.23%

1-2 min early 0.82% 1.10% 1.32% 1.38%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 87.43% 95.05% 85.64% 91.92% 90.24% 95.05% 80.00% 85.75%

5-6 late 4.37% 0.82% 3.46% 2.11%

6-9 min late 6.01% 2.75% 6.61% 3.17%

10+ min late 1.09% 0.00% 2.73% 1.10%

Did Not Run 0.27% 0.00% 0.05% 0.09%


Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

SouthLink Outer South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

April - June 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer South On Time Running


points across the entire trip, excluding the terminus arrival time. Should the average return a late running component greater

than 4 minutes and 59 seconds that trip will be recorded as late and a bus running more that 59 seconds early at any time point

except the terminus arrival time will be recorded as early running.






Page 36

Outer South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

2.2%

87.4%

10.4% 0.0%

1.9%

86.0%

12.1%

0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor






Connections


• 23.9% of trips were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Figure 4.3



Yes 29.0% 23.9% 9.7% 6.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 71.0% 76.1% 90.3% 93.1%

Mode

Bus 92.5% 98.9% 96.2% 99.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 7.5% 1.1% 3.8% 0.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Able to transfer

Yes 99.1% 100.0% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.8% n/a

No 0.9% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0%

I f No, why not?







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

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area




Excellent 1.9% 2.2% 4.2% 6.0%

Good 86.0% 87.4% 88.4% 85.6%

Fair 12.1% 10.4% 7.1% 8.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

April - June 2014

Page 37

Outer South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.5%

79.4%

18.4%

1.6%

0.8%

75.6%

20.5%

3.0%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor






Table 4.4

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.5




Excellent 0.8% 0.5% 2.7% 3.1%

Good 75.6% 79.4% 81.8% 82.4%

Fair 20.5% 18.4% 14.5% 13.2%

Poor 3.0% 1.6% 1.0% 1.3%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

April - June 2014

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Outer South Cleanliness

Page 38






Table 4.5

Figure 4.6



Excellent 1.6% 4.7% 3.0% 3.4%

Good 77.5% 76.9% 78.9% 77.9%

Fair 20.5% 18.4% 17.8% 18.4%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2%


Excellent 5.4% 5.0% 7.0% 4.6%

Good 76.3% 79.0% 72.3% 79.4%

Fair 18.3% 16.0% 20.5% 16.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%


Yes 75.0% 92.3% 89.8% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 75.0%

No 25.0% 7.7% 10.2% 9.4%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%





Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100



Outer South Driver Courtesy

Page 39

Table 4.7

Table 4.6










• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.


Smooth ride


Excellent 0.5% 3.6% 1.3% 1.7%

Good 87.7% 81.6% 87.7% 84.5%

Fair 11.8% 14.8% 11.0% 13.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



Excellent 0.0% 2.7% 1.0% 1.4%

Good 97.3% 94.5% 96.2% 95.7%

Fair 2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.9%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%



Excellent 0.0% 1.9% 0.8% 1.1%

Good 95.6% 92.9% 93.2% 91.6%

Fair 4.4% 5.2% 5.9% 7.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%


Excellent 1.4% 1.9% 1.3% 1.3%

Good 87.9% 84.9% 88.8% 87.0%

Fair 10.7% 13.2% 10.0% 11.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


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

No 99.5% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%


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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Uniform


Excellent 1.9% 2.5% 1.6% 2.2%

Good 97.8% 97.0% 97.8% 97.0%

Fair 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Personal appearance


Excellent 1.6% 2.2% 1.3% 1.7%

Good 97.8% 97.5% 98.4% 97.8%

Fair 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 0.5% 2.2% 0.5% 1.3%

Good 97.0% 95.6% 98.2% 97.1%

Fair 2.5% 2.2% 1.2% 1.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


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%


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

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%


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

No 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

No 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 99.6%

SouthLink Outer South

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Page 40


Table 4.8


Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.11


Assistance Required


Not Required 97.3% 98.4% 98.1% 97.7%

Driver assisted

Yes 100.0% 83.3% 100.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 83.3%

No 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 3.9%

Reason

Pram 0.0% 0.0% 12.2% 5.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Other 10.0% 16.7% 12.2% 15.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Yes 24.9% 32.4% 23.9% 29.9% 26.5% 36.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 75.1% 67.6% 76.1% 70.1%


Yes 0.5% 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% 2.4% 2.4% 0.3% n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.5% 98.6% 98.9% 98.8%


Yes 0.5% 0.3% 0.7% 0.8% 2.7% 3.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.5% 99.7% 99.3% 99.2%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing




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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.5% 100.0% 99.6% 99.6%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing





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

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.7%


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 98.6% 99.5% 99.3% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 98.6% 98.6%

No 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Shift Number

Yes 96.2% 98.1% 96.8% 97.1% 98.9% 98.4% 92.9% 92.3%

No 3.6% 1.4% 2.6% 1.7%

Wrong No 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 1.2%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

70

75

80

85

90

95

100



Outer South Route/Shift Number Displayed

Page 42




Signage - Onboard

Table 4.13

Figure 4.8


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%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%




Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer South Signage

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded from

interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-

Sep 2013

Page 43

Ticketing



Table 4.14

Table 4.15







Faulty ticket






No action taken 30.8% 8.0% 24.4% 22.3%


















Best Performing

Contract Area




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

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing


Page 44

Outer South Test Ticket

0.0%

37.5%

62.5%

0.0%

40.0%

60.0%















Table 4.16

Figure 4.9





Total 10 8 365 2.2%

2.7%

Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14

4.7%


Services AuditedTest TicketsOuter South Outer South Percentage of Total Outer South

Services Audited


0.1%

2.0%

April - June 2014

Page 45

In the Outer South contract area, 1.63% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Documents

Southlink Service Standard Report Jul-Sep 2014-F...In July - September 2014; • 1.63% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket. Further breakdowns can be found