Public Transport Services Service Standard Report April - June 2013
Public Transport Services
Service Standard Report April - June 2013
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 22
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 April and 30th June 2013; 2,196 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. 108 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. 229 audits onboard Adelaide Metro tram services. Services were audited in all metropolitan Metroticket contract areas. The number of bus trips audited represents a 95% Confidence Interval with a maximum Margin of Error of +/- 5% (of the trips supplied). Trips supplied is defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a Saturday and Sunday in all contract areas for one whole week. The sample base is selected from trips listed on PTS approved timetables submitted by SouthLink, Light City Buses, Torrens Transit and Rail Commissioner.
Table 1.1
Sample and Methodology
Contract Area
Weekday Trips
Audited Saturday Trips Audited
Sunday Trips
Audited
Total Trips
Audited
Sample
Required
Trips
Supplied
SouthLink Outer North 324 27 23 374 366 7,695
Light CityBuses Outer North East 310 32 28 370 367 8,140
Light City Buses North South 315 33 29 377 373 12,187
Transitplus Hills (Metro) 301 18 12 331 329 2,260
SouthLink Outer South 308 29 28 365 363 6,263
Torrens Transit East West 318 32 29 379 376 16,905
RailCommissioner Train 72 18 18 108 106 2,810
Rail Commissioner Tram 162 35 32 229 229 1,064
TOTAL 2,110 224 199 2,533 2,509 57,324
*Please note: Due toTonsley line closure 27th February 2012 Rail Commissioner Train quota was adjusted. 2,196
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 April - June 2013;
83.97% of services audited were on time. 14.44% of services audited were late. 1.46% of services audited were early.
TRIPS RUN A vehicle embarks on a scheduled trip from a terminus not later than the time stated in the timetable for the departure of the next scheduled service on the same route. In April - June 2013;
0.14% of services audited did not run.
CONNECTIONS ACHIEVED A vehicle in the course of a scheduled trip arrives at a place indicated in the timetable with words such as “connect” or “transfer passengers to” or a symbol representing a connection, and meets the connecting service. In April - June 2013;
100.0% service connections.
VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. In April - June 2013;
99.5% acceptable interior cleanliness. 99.9% acceptable exterior cleanliness.
OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST
ON TIME RUNNING
Vehicle ex terior
Vehicle interior
EXTERIOR SIGNAGE Welcome aboard sign
Destination Display ed
Shift number
Concession pass
Fare schedule
Priority Seating
Acknow ledging passengers
Response to inquiries
Board or alight at safe locations
Smooth ride
Compliance w ith road rules
Parked close to kerb
Unsteady passengers seated
Use of electronic equp w hilst driv ing
Driv er phy sically alert and prepared
Uniform
Personal appearance
Personal behav iour
DRIVER APPEARANCE
DRIVER COURTESY
PASSENGER SAFETY
VEHICLE CLEANLINESS
ROUTE & SHIFT NO DISPLAY
INTERIOR SIGNAGE
Page 5
Main Findings - Bus
DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. In April - June 2013;
99.9% acknowledging passengers. 100.0% response to passenger enquiries. 99.8% smooth ride. 100.0% compliance with road rules. 99.8% bus parked close to kerb as possible. 100.0% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving. 0.1% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. 99.8% acceptable uniform. 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.
PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. In April - June 2013;
99.5% displayed destination sign. 95.9% displayed shift number.
SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In April - June 2013;
99.9% displayed concession pass schedule. 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule. 99.9% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.
FARE EVASION In April - June 2013;
1.47% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.
The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for special passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100% bus trips
Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.
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. 91.67% of services departed on time. Early running occurred on 0.00% of services. Late running was 8.33%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%. In relation to Vehicle Exterior/Interior; Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 100.0%. 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Driver Station Announcements; In 100.0% of situations, the Station Announcements were made by the driver for all stations. In relation to PSAs’ Customer Service; PSA’s used Portable Reading Devices (PRDs) when checking tickets in 100.0% of cases. PSA’s were rated as having been polite when asking to check passengers tickets in 100.0% of cases. A ticket offence report was issued in 8.3% of cases in which the PSA used a PRD to check tickets. In relation to Fare Evasion; Fare evasion for trains for the April – June 2013 quarter is approximately 8%. This is based on observed non-validations by passengers and takes into account that, while passengers may be observed by auditors not validating tickets (approximately 24% of passengers), all passengers boarding and alighting at the Adelaide Railway Station are required to validate at the station gates, resulting in a very low fare evasion rate to and from the city (less than 1%). As 70% of all rail passengers travel to and from the city, the actual rate of fare evasion between stations is approximately 8% which reflects the remaining 30% of passengers who travel between stations only. To address fare evasion across the rail and tram network, 32 special revenue protection activities were conducted during this period. This included roving squads travelling between stations on various lines and the closure of stations to check tickets of all passengers entering and exiting the station. As part of these activities, 139,694 tickets were checked resulting in the detection of 1,262 ticketing and behavioural offences. Overall 0.90% of passengers were detected for fraud on the train and tram network. Detected offences are reported and forwarded to Prosecutions to determine if an expiation notice will be issued.
Main Findings - Train
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. 89.96% of services departed on time. Early running occurred on 2.18% of services. Late running was 7.86%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%. In relation to Vehicle Exterior/Interior; Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.6%. 0.4% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; In 99.3% of cases, Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers. In relation to Fare Evasion; Overall observed Fare Evasion on the tram system was 14.44%. Observed fare evasion for the April – June quarter for trams was 14.44%, a decrease from 15.19% in the January– March quarter. Tram services were included in the revenue protection activities described below. To address fare evasion across the rail and tram network, 32 special revenue protection activities were conducted during this period. This included roving squads travelling between stations on various lines and the closure of stations to check tickets of all passengers entering and exiting the station. As part of these activities, 139,694 tickets were checked resulting in the detection of 1,262 ticketing and behavioural offences. Overall 0.90% of passengers were detected for fraud on the train and tram network. Detected offences are reported and forwarded to Prosecutions to determine if an expiation notice will be issued.
Main Findings - Tram
Page 8
With the commencement of the new contracts, effective 1 July 2011, a bus is considered to be on time if it departs a timepoint along a route no more than 59 seconds early and no more than 4 minutes 59 seconds late (previously 5 minutes 59 seconds late). In April - June 2013; 83.97% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. SouthLink Hills Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 90.63% on time running. Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 68.70%. Early running occurred on 1.46% of services. Late running was 14.44%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.14%.
Table 1.3
Figure 1.1
January - March 2013 April - June 2013
On-Time Running - Bus
Bus On Time Running
1.46%
83.97%
14.44%
0.14%0.7%
84.8%
14.3%0.2%
Early
On time
Late
Did not run
Bus On Time Running
1.46%
83.97%
14.44%
0.14%0.68%
84.84%
14.29%0.18%
Early
On time
Late
Did not run
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
10+ min early 0.00% 0.00%
3-9 min early 0.05% 0.05%
1-2 min early 0.64% 1.41%
On-time (<4.59 min late) 84.84% 83.97% 93.40% 90.63% 69.50% 68.70%
5-6 late 3.01% 3.78% HILLS HILLS N.S. N.S.
6-9 min late 7.31% 6.65%
10+ min late 3.97% 4.01%
Did Not Run 0.18% 0.14%
Bus arrival time
10+ min late 2.52% 2.87% 0.50% 0.55% 8.60% 9.60%
Bus departure time
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Page 9
Table 1.4
Figure 1.2
On-Time Running - Bus
Top Ten Routes for On-Time Running
Figure 1.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13
On-Time Late Departing Early Departing
All Areas On Time Running
Percentage
Route Early On time Late
Trips
sampled
411 (inc 411B + 411U) 100.0% 31
507 100.0% 18
565 100.0% 15
451 (inc 451A) 100.0% 14
G40 (inc G40M) 100.0% 14
749 (inc 749A + 749G) 100.0% 13
503 100.0% 13
740 (inc 740A) 100.0% 12
401 100.0% 11
747 (inc 747A and 747B) 100.0% 10
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST
NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST
Top 10 Routes by Contract Area
Page 10
0.7%
90.6%
8.6%0.1%
Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness
2.6%
92.0%
5.3%0.1%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Connections - Bus
Table 1.5
In April - June 2013; 5.7% of services (126) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.
Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus
Figure 1.4
April - June 2013 January - March 2013
Table 1.6
In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.9%. 0.1% of services were recorded as poor. SouthLink’s Hills, Outer South, Light City’s Outer North East and Torrens Transit’s East West contract areas were the Best
Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Bus required to connect
Yes 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 94.2% 94.3%
Mode
Bus 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Train 0.0% 0.0%
Not applicable 0.0% 0.0%
Able to transfer
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.,HILLS,O.S.
If No, why not?
Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bus, train departed early 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Bus, train not seen 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not applicable 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Passengers asked to re-validate at terminus on change of route number
Yes 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 100.0%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Vehicle exterior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 2.6% 0.7% O.N.E,HILLS,E.W.
O.N.E.,HILLS,
O.S,E.W. O.N, N.S, O.S. O.N, N.S.
Good 92.0% 90.6%
Fair 5.3% 8.6%
Poor 0.1% 0.1%
Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Page 11
Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness
0.5%
88.0%
10.9%0.5%
4.1%
81.5%
14.2%
0.3% Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%. 0.5% of services were recorded as poor. Light City’s Outer North East Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area achieving 100.0%.
Figure 1.5
Table 1.7
April - June 2013 January - March 2013
Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Vehicle interior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9%
Excellent 4.1% 0.5% E.W. O.N.E. O.S. O.S.
Good 81.5% 88.0%
Fair 14.2% 10.9%
Poor 0.3% 0.5%
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Page 12
Figure 1.6
Figure 1.7
Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13
Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)
All Areas Cleanliness
Percentage
Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only
Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.
98.2%
98.4%
98.6%
98.8%
99.0%
99.2%
99.4%
99.6%
99.8%
100.0%
SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer North East
Light City BusesNorth South
Southlink Metro Hills SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West
Vehicle exterior clean Vehicle interior clean
Bus Vehicle Cleanliness by Contract AreaPercentage
Page 13
Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus
Table 1.8
Figure 1.8
In April - June 2013; Acknowledging Passengers was 99.9%. Response to Passenger Inquiries was 100.0%.
Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 93.0% did so at safe locations.
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13
Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair) Willingness to Load/Unload Belongings (Exc/Good/Fair)
All Areas Driver Courtesy
Percentage
Willingness to Load/Unload Belongings not reported on f rom April-June 2012 onwards
Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only
Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Acknowledging passengers
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.2%
Excellent 6.1% 8.3%
O.N,O.N.E.,HILLS,
O.S.
O.N,O.N.E.,N.S,
HILLS,O.S. E.W. E.W.
Good 74.7% 68.6%
Fair 19.1% 23.0%
Poor 0.1% 0.1%
Response to passenger enquiries*
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% N/A
Excellent 13.9% 11.1%
O.N,O.N.E.,HILLS,
E.W. ALL N.S. N/A
Good 73.8% 72.1%
Fair 11.5% 16.8%
Poor 0.8% 0.0%
Board or alight between stops*
Yes 93.8% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 66.7%
No 6.3% 8.5%
O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
E.W. N.S,O.S,E.W. O.S. O.N.E.
If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*
Yes 100.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 50.0%
No 0.0% 7.0% ALL
O.N,O.N.E,N.S,
HILLS. O.S.
* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Page 14
Driver Quality - Safety - Bus
Table 1.9
In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 99.8%. Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%. Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.
Figure 1.9
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Smooth ride
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5%
Excellent 4.9% 4.4% O.N,O.N.E.,HILLS. O.N,O.N.E,E.W. N.S,O.S, E.W. N.S.
Good 83.9% 85.3%
Fair 11.0% 10.1%
Poor 0.1% 0.2%
Compliance with road rules
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A
Excellent 4.9% 4.4%
O.N,O.N.E.,N.S.,
HILLS,E.W. ALL O.S. N/A
Good 92.8% 93.4%
Fair 2.2% 2.2%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 98.9%
Excellent 5.1% 4.3% ALL
O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
E.W. N.S.
Good 92.1% 92.0%
Fair 2.8% 3.4%
Poor 0.0% 0.2%
Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 99.7%
Excellent 6.1% 3.3% ALL
O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
O.S,E.W. N.S.
Good 88.8% 90.8%
Fair 5.0% 5.8%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving
Yes 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5%
No 99.7% 99.9% O.N,E.W. O.N,O.N.E,
N.S,HILLS,O.S.
O.N.E. E.W.
Driver physically alert and prepared
Yes 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A
No 0.1% 0.0% O.N,N.S,HILLS, O.S. ALL O.N.E, E.W. N/A
Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13
Smooth Ride (Exc/Good/Fair) Road Rules Compliance (Exc/Good/Fair) Ensured Passengers Seated Before Driving
All Areas Passenger Safety
Percentage
Not reported on in Oct-Dec-11 quarter.
Jan-Mar-12 Ensured passengers seated before driving applied to unsteady passengers only
Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only
Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.
Page 15
Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus
Table 1.10
In April - June 2013; Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.8%. Personal appearance category was 100.0%. Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Uniform
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.2%
Excellent 12.6% 11.9%
O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
O.S,E.W
O.N,HILLS,
O.S,E.W N.S. N.S.
Good 87.3% 87.5%
Fair 0.1% 0.4%
Poor 0.0% 0.2%
Personal appearance
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
Excellent 14.1% 13.7% ALL ALL
Good 85.6% 86.2%
Fair 0.3% 0.1%
Poor 0.0% 0.0%
Personal behaviour
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 9.2% 5.1%
O.N.,
HILLS,O.S,E.W.
O.N.E,N.S,HILLS,
O.S,E.W. O.N.E,N.S. O.N.
Good 89.6% 93.7%
Fair 1.1% 1.2%
Poor 0.1% 0.0%
Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%
No
99.9% 99.9% O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
O.S,E.W
O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
O.S,E.W N.S. O.N.E.
Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3%
No
99.9% 99.9%
N.S, HILLS,O.S,E.W.
O.N,O.N.E,N.S,
HILLS. O.N, O.N.E. O.S,E.W.
Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A 0.3%
No
100.0% 100.0%
ALL
O.N.E,N.S,HILLS,
O.S,E.W. O.N.
Driver stop for personal business
Yes 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%
No
99.9% 99.9% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,
O.S,E.W.
O.N.,O.N.E,HILLS,
O.S. N.S. N.S.
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Page 16
Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus
Table 1.11
Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus
Table 1.12
Table 1.13
Table 1.14
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Assistance Required
Required 1.9% 1.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not Required 98.1% 98.2%
Driver assisted
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL
Reason
Pram 9.5% 10.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wheelchair 69.0% 64.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shopping Cart 2.4% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 9.5% 15.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other 9.5% 7.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange
Yes 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%
No 0.1% 0.1% O.S. O.S. N.S. O.N.
N/A 92.0% 85.7%
Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website
Yes 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% N/A N/A N/A
No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS N/A N/A N/A
N/A 99.8% 100.0%
Timetables available
Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% N/A N/A
No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS O.N,HILLS,E.W. N/A N/A
N/A 99.8% 99.9%
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service
Yes 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%
No 0.0% 0.1% O.S,E.W. HILLS N.S. O.S.
N/A 99.7% 99.6%
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Did any passenger display anti-social or
offensive behaviour?
Yes 0.05% 0.05% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 99.95% 99.95%
If Yes, did driver act appropriately in
applicable cases?
Yes 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% n/a n/a 0.0%
N.S.
No 0.0% 100.0% O.N. 100.0%
Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas
Page 17
Figure 1.10
In April - June 2013; 99.5% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. Southlink’s Hills was the Best Performing Contract Area with 100.0%. Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 95.9% of cases. The Best Performing Contract Area was Torrens Transit’s East West which achieved 98.7%.
Table 1.15
Process Compliance - Signage - Bus
Figure 1.11
88%
90%
92%
94%
96%
98%
100%
SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer North East
Light City BusesNorth South
Southlink Metro Hills SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West
Destination Sign Shift Number
Destination Sign/Shift Number Displayed by Contract Area
Percentage
75
80
85
90
95
100
Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13
Destination Displayed Shift Numbers
All Areas Route/Shift Number Displayed
Percentage
On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Destination Sign
Yes 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%
No 0.5% 0.3% O.N.E. HILLS. O.N,N.S. N.S.
Wrong No 0.1% 0.2%
Shift Number
Yes 95.2% 95.9% 98.9% 98.7% 90.7% 93.2%
No 3.0% 3.1% E.W. E.W. O.S. O.N.E.
Wrong No 1.8% 0.9%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Page 18
Figure 1.12
Table 1.16
Table 1.17
Signage - Onboard - Bus
98.0
98.2
98.4
98.6
98.8
99.0
99.2
99.4
99.6
99.8
100.0
Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13
Interior Signage Exterior Signage
All Areas Signage
Percentage
4 exterior Metro Stickers excluded f rom Oct-Dec 2011
On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Yes 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A
No 0.1% 0.0% O.N.E,HILLS, O.S. ALL O.N,N.S,E.W. N/A
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Welcome Aboard sign
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Yes 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5%
No 0.2% 0.1%
O.N,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W.
O.N,O.N.E,HILLS,
O.S.,E.W.
O.N.E. N.S.
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A
No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL
Yes 99.4% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%
No 0.6% 0.1% N.S,HILLS.
O.N.E,HILLS,O.S,
E.W. O.N. O.N,N.S.
Concession Pass Schedule
Metroticket Fare Schedule
Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Page 19
Figure 1.13
Figure 1.14
Table 1.18
Ticketing - Bus Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Faulty ticket
Pass. purchased another ticket 12.3% 14.7%
Issued problem slip 22.6% 16.0% 35.7% 30.0%
Wrote on ticket and returned 11.6% 14.7% N.S. O.N.
Observed ticket: no action 23.9% 17.3%
No action taken 14.8% 16.0%
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.6% 0.0%
Driver ignored senior free 3.9% 1.3%
Driver sighted senior card no action 1.9% 1.3%
Drivers view obscured including hearing 8.4% 18.7%
Non validation of ticket
Asked to validate 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 4.7%
Driver ignored passenger 11.1% 11.5% N.S. O.N.E.
Drivers view obscured 15.6% 31.9%
Driver not on board 1.2% 0.0%
Driver had no change 1.4% 3.2%
Driver observed slip / ticket 47.6% 29.2%
Passenger had no money 13.9% 18.2%
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 1.2% 1.0%
Driver view of senior passenger obscured 5.4% 2.0%
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.7% 0.5%
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0%
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area
NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies
17.3%
16.0%
0.0%
1.3%1.3%
18.7%
0.0%
2.5%
11.5%Observed ticket: no action
No action taken
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket
Driver ignored senior free
Driver sighted senior card no action
Drivers view obscured including hearing
Non validation of ticket
Asked to validate
Driver ignored passenger
Faulty Tickets
2.5%
11.5%
31.9%
0.0%3.2%
29.2%
18.2%
1.0%
2.0%0.5%
0.0%
Asked to validate
Driver ignored passenger
Drivers view obscured
Driver not on board
Driver had no change
Driver observed slip / ticket
Passenger had no money
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors)
Driver view of senior passenger obscured
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket
Non Validations
Page 20
Bus Test Ticket
13.3%
43.4%
43.4%
7.0%
46.0%
47.0%
Validator not functioning
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated)
On boarding a vehicle the Service Standard Officer will use a “Test Ticket” to assist in verifying the validity of trip data as set up by the driver on the vehicles “Bus Control Unit” (BCU). The information stamped on the test ticket is checked to ascertain that it contains the correct trip information including route and section information. In April - June 2013; Of the total trips audited, 5.1% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 113 issues in
Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: The validator was not functioning in 13.3% of trips. An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 43.4% of trips. In 43.4% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.
Figure 1.15
Table 1.19
January - March 2013 April - June 2013
Test Ticket Information - Bus
Test Tickets
Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun - 13
Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number
Validator not functioning 7 15 3 0 6 3 3 0 15
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 46 49 12 12 11 6 4 4 49
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 47 49 10 13 11 7 4 4 49
Total 100 113 25 25 28 16 11 8 113
Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage
Percentage of
Total Services
Audited
Validator not functioning 7.0% 13.3% 12.0% 0.0% 21.4% 18.8% 27.3% 0.0% 0.7%
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 46.0% 43.4% 48.0% 48.0% 39.3% 37.5% 36.4% 50.0% 2.2%
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 47.0% 43.4% 40.0% 52.0% 39.3% 43.8% 36.4% 50.0% 2.2%
Total 5.1%
North South Hills Outer South East West
Total - All Contract Areas
Outer North Outer North East
Total Services
Audited with
Incorrect
Ticket
Page 21
In April - June 2013; 1.47% of passengers were observed boarding a vehicle without validating a ticket.
Figure 1.16
Table 1.21
Fare Evasion - Bus
Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus
Table 1.20
Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13
Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion
Yes 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%
No
99.8% 99.9%
N.S.,HILLS,O.S,
E.W.
O.N.E,N.S.,HILLS,
O.S, E.W.
O.N.,O.N.E. O.N.
Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract
Bus Fare Evasion
SouthLink Outer
North
Light City Buses Outer
North East
Light City Buses
North South
Southlink Hills
Metro
SouthLink
Outer South
Torrens
Transit East
West
System
Average
Apr-Jun-10 0.72% 0.38% 0.42% 0.37% 0.88% 0.54% 0.53%
Jul-Sep-10 0.70% 0.62% 3.11% 0.77% 0.91% 0.45% 1.13%
Oct-Dec-10 2.23% 0.65% 0.76% 2.01% 1.18% 1.45% 1.46%
Jan-Mar-11 2.99% 1.21% 2.33% 1.49% 5.77% 1.87% 2.44%
Apr-Jun-11 3.31% 1.68% 2.22% 1.77% 4.40% 1.59% 2.32%
Jul-Sep-11 2.72% 4.77% 1.72% 1.41% 8.28% 1.37% 3.09%
Oct-Dec-11 2.52% 2.19% 4.22% 2.03% 4.74% 1.19% 2.65%
Jan-Mar-12 3.24% 3.28% 4.06% 1.56% 3.60% 2.51% 3.01%
Apr-Jun-12 3.31% 2.80% 5.85% 1.71% 4.28% 2.55% 3.44%
Jul-Sep-12 3.89% 2.99% 3.83% 1.72% 2.89% 1.56% 2.77%
Oct-Dec-12 3.11% 1.78% 3.78% 1.16% 2.69% 1.35% 2.25%
Jan-Mar-13 1.17% 2.75% 1.63% 1.01% 2.49% 0.98% 1.67%
Apr-Jun-13 0.90% 1.32% 2.77% 1.41% 1.75% 0.74% 1.47%
0.00%
0.40%
0.80%
1.20%
1.60%
2.00%
2.40%
2.80%
3.20%
3.60%
Bus Fare Evasion
Benchmark is 2.0%
Page 22
In April - June 2013; 787 issues warranted Service Audit Reports. 4.8% related to Driver Quality. 0.5% related to Signage. 15.0% related to Test Ticket information.
Table 1.21
Service Incident Notifications - Bus
Problem No. of issues No. of issues % of total SARs
within SAR's within SAR's
(Unadjusted) (Adjusted) (Adjusted)
On Time Running- Departure 365 352 46.7%
On Time Running-Arrival 64 63 8.4%
Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 2 2 0.3%
Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 16 11 1.5%
Driver Quality—Courtesy—Bus 6 6 0.8%
Driver Quality—Safety—Bus 13 12 1.6%
Driver Quality—Appearance—Bus 13 13 1.7%
Driver Quality—Special Needs—Bus 0 0 0.0%
Driver Quality—Driver Response—Bus 5 5 0.7%
Process Compliance—Signage—Bus 102 100 13.3%
Signage—Onboard—Bus 4 4 0.5%
Ticketing—Bus 76 73 9.7%
Test Ticket Information 121 113 15.0%
Connections 0 0 0.0%
Total 787 754