Service Standard Report

Transcription

1 Public Transport Services Service Standard Report October - December 2012

2 Contents 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 Route Groups for On-Time Running 9 Connections 10 Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness 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 Attachment 1 - Train Service Standard Report Attachment 2 - Tram Service Standard Report Page 2

3 Sample and Methodology 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 October and 31st December 2012; 2,194 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. 178 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. 229 audits onboard Adelaide Metro tram services. Services were audited in all metropolitan Metroticket contract areas. The trips audited represent 4.5% of the 57,214 trips supplied (defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a Saturday and Sunday) in all the contract areas for one whole week Sunday to Saturday. The sample base is selected from trips listed on PTS approved timetables submitted by SouthLink, Light City Buses, Torrens Transit and Rail Commissioner. Weekday Trips Audited Sunday Trips Audited Total Trips Audited Sample Required Trips Supplied Contract Saturday Trips Audited SouthLink Outer North ,695 Light CityBuses Outer North East ,341 Light City Buses North South ,751 Transitplus Hills (Metro) ,235 SouthLink Outer South ,641 Torrens Transit East West ,147 RailCommissioner Train ,340 Rail Commissioner Tram ,064 TOTAL 2, ,601 2,579 57,214 Table 1.1 Page 3

4 Main Findings - Bus OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST ON TIME RUNNING Vehicle ex terior VEHICLE CLEANLINESS Vehicle interior EXTERIOR SIGNAGE Welcome aboard sign Destination Display ed ROUTE & SHIFT NO DISP Shift number INTERIOR SIGNAGE DRIVER COURTESY PASSENGER SAFETY DRIVER APPEARANCE Concession pass Ticket v alidation instructions 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 equipment w hilst driv ing Driver physically alert and prepared Uniform Personal appearance Personal behav iour Table 1.2 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. 82.7% of services audited were on time. 15.7% of services audited were late. 1.5% 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. 0.2% 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 % service connections. VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. 99.5% acceptable interior cleanliness. 99.9% acceptable exterior cleanliness. Page 4

5 Main Findings - Bus DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. 99.9% acknowledging passengers % response to passenger enquiries % smooth ride % compliance with road rules. 99.8% bus parked close to kerb as possible. 99.8% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving % acceptable uniform % acceptable personal appearance % acceptable personal behaviour. PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. 99.5% displayed destination sign. 94.8% displayed shift number. SIGNAGE - ONBOARD 99.8% displayed Welcome Aboard sign % displayed concession pass schedule. 99.2% displayed ticket validation instructions. 99.8% displayed metroticket fare schedule. 99.7% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating. FARE EVASION 2.25% of passengers boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket. Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report. Page 5

6 Main Findings - Train 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. 89.3% of services departed on time. Early running occurred on 0.0% of services. Late running was 10.7%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.0%. 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 99.4%. 0.6% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Driver Station Announcements; In 99.7% 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 9.1% of cases in which the PSA used a PRD to check tickets. In relation to Fare Evasion; Overall Fare Evasion on the rail system was 20.72%. Page 6

7 Main Findings - Tram 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 minutes and 59 seconds late. 94.3% of services departed on time. Early running occurred on 1.7% of services. Late running was 3.9%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.0%. 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 98.3%. 1.7% of services were recorded as poor. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; In 99.4% of cases, Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers. In relation to Fare Evasion; Overall Fare Evasion on the tram system was 13.41%. Page 7

8 On-Time Running - Bus Bus departure time 10+ min early 0.0% 0.0% 3-9 min early 0.2% 0.3% 1-2 min early 1.2% 1.2% On-time (<4.59 min late) 82.0% 82.7% 92.8% 94.0% 62.2% 61.4% 5-6 late 4.2% 3.6% HILLS HILLS N.S. N.S. 6-9 min late 7.8% 7.8% 10+ min late 4.2% 4.2% Did Not Run 0.3% 0.2% Bus arrival time 10+ min late 2.6% 2.8% 0.6% 0.6% 8.4% 8.4% Table 1.3 With the commencement of the new contracts, effective 1 July 2011, a bus is considered to be on time if it departs a time - point along a route no more than 59 seconds early and no more than 4 minutes 59 seconds late (previously 5 minutes 59 seconds late). 82.7% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. SouthLink Hills Contract was the, with 94.0% on time running. Light City Buses North South contract area only recorded 61.4%. Early running occurred on 1.5% of services. Late running was 15.7%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.2%. Bus On Time Running 16.3% 0.3% 1.4% 0.2% 1.5% 15.7% 82.0% 82.7% July - September 2012 October - December 2012 Figure 1.1 Page 8

9 On-Time Running - Bus Percentage 100 All s On Time Running On-Time Late Departing Early Departing Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Figure 1.2 Top Ten Route Groups for On-Time Running Route Group Early On time Late Table 1.4 Trips sampled % , % ,155,156, % % 8 893, % 6 521, % 5 600, % 4 861,863,9 99.0% % ,507,595, % OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST Top 10 by Contract -Adjusted NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST Figure 1.3 Page 9

10 Connections - Bus Bus required to connect Yes 5.2% 5.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a No 94.8% 94.7% 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.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.S. O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS,O.S. If No, why not? Bus arrived late 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 Bus, train not seen 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 Not applicable 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% n/a n/a n/a n/a No 0.0% 0.0% N/A 100.0% 100.0% Table % of services (116) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring. Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus Vehicle exterior clean Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5% Excellent 18.3% 18.7% O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.E.,N.S,HILLS,E.W. N.S.,E.W. O.N. Good 76.0% 75.0% Fair 5.5% 6.2% Poor 0.2% 0.1% Table 1.6 Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.9%. 0.1% of services were recorded as poor. SouthLink s Hills, Light City s Outer North East and North South and Torrens Transit s East West contract areas were the achieving 100.0%. Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 5.5% 0.2% 18.3% Excellent Good Fair 6.2% 0.1% 18.7% Poor 76.0% 75.0% July - September 2012 October - December 2012 Figure 1.4 Page 10

11 Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus Vehicle interior clean Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 98.8% Excellent 21.4% 25.9% HILLS,E.W. N.S. N.S. HILLS Good 59.5% 61.3% Fair 18.8% 12.3% Poor 0.3% 0.5% Table 1.7 Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%. 0.5% of services were recorded as poor. Light City s North South Contract was the achieving 100.0%. Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 0.3% Excellent Good 0.5% Fair 18.8% 21.4% Poor 12.3% 25.9% 59.5% 61.3% July - September 2012 Figure 1.5 October - December 2012 Page 11

12 Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus All s Cleanliness Percentage 100 Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair incuded. 86 Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Figure 1.6 Percentage 100.0% Bus Vehicle Cleanliness by Contract Vehicle exterior clean Vehicle interior clean 99.8% 99.6% 99.4% 99.2% 99.0% 98.8% 98.6% 98.4% 98.2% 98.0% SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer North East Light City Buses North South Southlink Metro Hills SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West Figure 1.7 Page 12

13 Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus Acknowledging passengers Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5% Excellent 9.0% 8.5% O.N,HILLS,E.W. O.N.,HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S. O.N.E. Good 76.2% 67.9% Fair 14.6% 23.5% Poor 0.3% 0.1% Response to passenger inquiries* Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% N/A Excellent 16.4% 17.4% O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS,E.W. ALL O.S. Good 71.1% 66.0% Fair 12.2% 16.6% Poor 0.2% 0.0% Board or alight between stops* Yes 89.9% 76.1% 100.0% 94.7% 86.2% 50.0% No 10.1% 23.9% O.S. E.W. O.N.E. O.S. If Yes, board/alight at safe locations* Yes 99.0% 96.1% 100.0% 100.0% 94.7% 85.7% No 1.0% 3.9% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. O.N.,HILLS,O.S.,E.W. N.S. O.N.E. * Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base Table 1.8 Acceptable ratings for Driver Courtesy increased in two of the three categories. Acknowledging Passengers was 99.9%. Response to Passenger Inquiries was 100.0%. Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 96.1% did so at safe locations. Percentage 100 All s Driver Courtesy Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Inquiries (Exc/Good/Fair) Willingness to Load/Unload Belongings (Exc/Good/Fair) Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair Willingness to Load/Unload Belongings not reported on April- June Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Figure 1.8 Page 13

14 Driver Quality - Safety - Bus Smooth ride Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.7% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS,O.S Excellent 8.0% 6.4% E.W.., E.W. O.S. O.N. Good 85.3% 85.7% Fair 6.6% 7.8% Poor 0.1% 0.0% Compliance with road rules Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS,O.S Excellent 8.1% 7.2% E.W.., E.W. N.S.,O.S. O.N. Good 89.7% 90.7% Fair 2.1% 2.1% Poor 0.1% 0.0% Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.N.E.,HILLS,E.W. Excellent 9.9% 9.5% E.W. N.S. O.N. Good 87.4% 87.7% Fair 2.5% 2.7% Poor 0.1% 0.2% Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving Excellent + Good + Fair 99.5% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.5% Excellent 8.5% 8.8% HILLS,O.S. O.N.,O.N.E.,E.W. N.S. N.S. Good 86.2% 86.6% Fair 4.9% 4.4% Poor 0.5% 0.2% Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving Yes 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% No 99.9% 99.8% O.N.E,N.S., HILLS,O.S. N.S.,HILLS. O.N.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E.,O. S.,E.W. Driver physically alert and prepared Yes 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 99.7% No 0.0% 0.2% ALL O.N.E,O.S. O.N.,N.S., HILLS,E.W. Table 1.9 Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%. Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%. Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 99.8%. All s Passenger Safety Percentage 100 Smooth Ride (Exc/Good/Fair) Road Rules Compliance (Exc/Good/Fair) Ensured Passengers Seated Before Driving Jan-Mar-12 Ensured passengers seated before driving applied to unsteady passengers only Not reported on in Oct- Dec-11 quarter. Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories included Excellent/Good only Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories Excellent/Good/Fair incuded. 80 Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Figure 1.9 Page 14

15 Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus Uniform Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A Excellent 11.1% 14.2% O.N.,N.S.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. ALL O.N.E Good 88.8% 85.6% Fair 0.0% 0.2% Poor 0.0% 0.0% Personal appearance Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A Excellent 12.1% 14.6% ALL ALL Good 87.9% 85.2% Fair 0.0% 0.2% Poor 0.0% 0.0% Personal behaviour Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS, N.S. E.W. Excellent 11.2% 12.9% O.S.,E.W. O.S. Good 86.7% 86.0% Fair 2.1% 1.0% Poor 0.0% 0.0% Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% N/A No 100.0% 100.0% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. ALL N.S. N/A Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion Yes 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 99.9% 99.9% O.N.,O.N.E.,HILLS, No O.N.,N.S.,HILLS, O.S. O.N.E.,O.S., E.W. N.S.,E.W. Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle Yes 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.3% No 100.0% 99.9% ALL O.N.,N.S.,O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.,HILLS Driver stop for personal business Yes 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.5% 100.0% 99.9% No ALL O.N.,HILLS,O.S., E.W. N.S. Table 1.10 Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%. Personal appearance category was 100.0%. Personal behaviour category was 100.0%. Page 15

16 Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus Assistance Required Required 2.4% 2.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a Not Required 97.6% 98.0% Driver assisted Yes 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% N/A No 3.8% 0.0% O.N.E.,N.S.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. ALL O.N. N/A Reason Pram 13.5% 13.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a Wheelchair 51.9% 54.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a Shopping Cart 1.9% 4.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a Suitcase 1.9% 4.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 17.3% 15.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a Other 13.5% 6.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a Table 1.11 Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange Yes 13.5% 5.2% 19.5% 8.2% N/A 0.3% No O.N.E.,N.S., 0.0% 0.2% E.W. E.W. O.S. N/A 86.5% 94.7% Direct to Adelaide Metro Info Line, Centre or Website Yes 0.3% 0.3% 0.8% 0.5% N/A N/A No 0.0% 0.0% O.N.E. O.S.,E.W. N/A 99.7% 99.7% Timetables available Yes 1.1% 0.2% 5.7% 0.9% 0.3% N/A No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS O.S. N/A 98.8% 99.8% Table 1.12 Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service Yes 0.3% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% No N.S. N.S.,O.S.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E., O.N.,N.S. 0.0% 0.1% O.S.,E.W. N/A 99.7% 99.8% Table 1.13 Did any passenger display anti-social or offensive behaviour? Yes 0.00% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a No % 100.0% If Yes, did driver act appropriately in applicable cases? Yes n/a 100.0% n/a 100.0% n/a n/a No n/a 0.0% O.S. Table 1.14 Page 16

17 Process Compliance - Signage - Bus All s Route/Shift Number Displayed Percentage Destination Displayed Shift Numbers Front Route sign changed in Oct-Dec-11 to include all Destination signs Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Figure % of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. SouthLink s Outer South and Torrens Transit s East West contract area were the with 100.0%. Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 94.8% of cases. The was Torrens Transit s East West which achieved 99.2%. On the exterior of Vehicle Destination Sign Yes 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% 99.2% No 0.3% 0.2% HILLS O.S,E.W. N.S. O.N.,N.S. Wrong No 0.3% 0.3% Shift Number Yes 92.8% 94.8% 98.5% 99.2% 87.6% 90.3% No 5.8% 4.0% HILLS E.W. O.N. O.N. Wrong No 1.5% 1.2% Table 1.15 Percentage 100% Destination Sign/Shift Number Displayed by Contract Destination Sign Shift Number 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer Light City Buses North East North South Southlink Metro Hills SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West Figure 1.11 Page 17

18 Signage - Onboard - Bus Percentage All s Signage Interior Signage Exterior Signage exterior Metro Stickers excluded from Oct-Dec Jan-Mar-11 Apr-Jun-11 Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Figure 1.12 On the exterior of Vehicle Welcome Aboard sign Yes 99.7% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9% No 0.3% 0.2% O.N.,HILLS, O.S.E.W. O.N.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. N.S. N.S. Table 1.16 On the interior of Vehicle Concession Pass Schedule Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A N/A No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL Ticket Validation Instructions Yes 99.7% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% 95.6% O.N.,N.S.,HILLS, HILLS,O.S,E.W. O.N.E. O.N.E. No 0.3% 0.8% O.S.,E.W. Metroticket Fare Schedule Yes 99.6% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 98.7% 99.5% O.N.,O.N.E. O.N.E,N.S,HILLS,E.W. N.S. O.N,O.S. No 0.4% 0.2% Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating Yes 99.2% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 97.6% 99.5% O.N.E,N.S, No 0.8% 0.3% N.S. HILLS,E.W. O.N. O.S. Table 1.17 Page 18

19 Ticketing - Bus Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Faulty ticket Pass. purchased another ticket 6.9% 7.1% Issued problem slip 29.3% 22.4% 53.6% 46.2% Wrote on ticket and returned 12.2% 19.0% HILLS HILLS Observed ticket: no action 26.0% 23.8% No action taken 12.6% 13.8% Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.4% 1.0% Driver ignored senior free 2.0% 1.4% Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 1.4% Drivers view obscured including hearing 10.6% 10.0% Non validation of ticket Asked to validate 1.7% 2.2% 4.7% 5.0% Driver ignored passenger 9.9% 11.8% E.W. O.N. Drivers view obscured 9.6% 13.2% Driver not on board 0.7% 0.5% Driver had no change 3.9% 2.2% Driver observed slip / ticket 56.1% 52.5% Passenger had no money 9.1% 11.8% Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 3.3% 3.2% Driver view of senior passenger obscured 3.3% 1.7% Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 2.4% 0.9% Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies Table 1.18 Faulty Tickets 1.4% 1.4% 1.0% 13.8% 10.0% 7.1% 22.4% Pass. purchased another ticket Issued problem slip Wrote on ticket and returned 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 23.8% 19.0% Figure % 0.9% 0.0% 3.2% 2.2% Non Validations 11.8% 11.8% Asked to validate 13.2% Driver ignored passenger Drivers view obscured Driver not on board Driver had no change 0.5% 2.2% 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 52.5% Figure 1.14 Page 19

20 Test Ticket Information - Bus Test Tickets Total - All Contract s Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Outer North Outer North East North South Hills Outer South East West Total Services Audited with Incorrect Ticket Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Validator not functioning Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) Incorrect Route and Section (BCU not Updated) Total Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage of Total Services Audited Validator not functioning 11.6% 10.2% 17.1% 14.3% 13.2% 0.0% 5.9% 0.0% 0.6% Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 17.1% 20.4% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0% 29.4% 39.1% 1.3% Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 39.2% 41.6% 37.1% 57.1% 47.4% 40.0% 35.3% 34.8% 2.6% Incorrect Route and Section (BCU not Updated) 32.0% 27.7% 17.1% 28.6% 39.5% 20.0% 29.4% 26.1% 1.7% Total 6.2% Table 1.19 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. Of the total trips audited, 6.2% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 137 Service Audit Reports (SAR s), of the SAR s raised: The validator was not functioning in 10.2% of trips. An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 20.4% of trips. In 41.6% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information. 27.7% of trips stamped showed both incorrect route and section information. Bus Test Ticket Validator not functioning Incorrect Route (BCU not updated) Incorrect Section (BCU not updated) 11.6% Incorrect Route and Section (BCU not updated) 10.2% 32.0% 27.7% 17.1% 20.4% 39.2% 41.6% July - September 2012 October - December 2012 Figure 1.15 Page 20

21 Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3% No HILLS,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,HILL O.N. E.W. 99.7% 100.0% S,O.S. Fare Evasion - Bus Table % of passengers were observed boarding a vehicle without validating a ticket. SouthLink Outer North Light City Buses Outer North East Table 1.21 Light City Buses North South Southlink Hills Metro SouthLink Outer South Torrens Transit East West System Average Bus Fare Evasion Oct-Dec % 0.6% 0.4% 1.0% 0.4% 0.5% 0.62% Jan-Mar % 0.5% 1.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3% 0.51% Apr-Jun % 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.53% Jul-Sep % 0.6% 3.1% 0.8% 0.9% 0.5% 1.13% Oct-Dec % 0.6% 0.8% 2.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.46% Jan-Mar % 1.2% 2.3% 1.5% 5.8% 1.9% 2.44% Apr-Jun % 1.7% 2.2% 1.8% 4.4% 1.6% 2.32% Jul-Sep % 4.8% 1.7% 1.4% 8.3% 1.4% 3.09% Oct-Dec % 2.2% 4.2% 2.0% 4.7% 1.2% 2.65% Jan-Mar % 3.3% 4.1% 1.6% 3.6% 2.5% 3.01% Apr-Jun % 2.8% 5.8% 1.7% 4.3% 2.5% 3.44% Jul-Sep % 3.0% 3.8% 1.7% 2.9% 1.6% 2.77% Oct-Dec % 1.8% 3.8% 1.2% 2.7% 1.3% 2.25% Bus Fare Evasion 3.60% 3.20% 2.80% 2.40% Benchmark is 2.0% 2.00% 1.60% 1.20% 0.80% 0.40% 0.00% Figure 1.16 Page 21

22 Service Incident Notifications - Bus 949 issues warranted Service Audit Reports. 4.3% of these issues related to Driver Quality. 3.7% related to Signage. 10.7% related to Test Ticket information. Problem No. of issues No. of issues % of total SARs within SAR's within SAR's (Unadjusted) (Adjusted) On Time Running- Departure % On Time Running-Arrival % Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness % Vehicle Interior Cleanliness % Driver Quality Courtesy Bus % Driver Quality Safety Bus % Driver Quality Appearance Bus % Driver Quality Special Needs Bus % Driver Quality Driver Response Bus % Process Compliance Signage Bus % Signage Onboard Bus % Ticketing Bus % Test Ticket Information % Connections % Total Table 1.21 Page 22