Service Standard Report

Public Transport Services Service Standard Report October - December 2014

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 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 Page 2

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 2014; 2,178 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. 204 audits onboard Adelaide Metro train services. 240 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. Weekday Trips Audited Sunday Trips Audited Total Trips Audited Sample Required Trips Supplied Contract Saturday Trips Audited SouthLink Outer North 319 26 21 366 366 7,695 Light CityBuses Outer North East 311 30 27 368 368 8,430 Light City Buses North South 314 31 27 372 372 11,277 Southlink Hills 303 19 10 332 331 2,362 SouthLink Outer South 305 30 28 363 363 6,499 Torrens Transit East West 317 32 28 377 376 16,955 RailCommissioner Train 138 32 34 204 189 3,160 Rail Commissioner Tram 172 34 34 240 238 1,116 TOTAL 2,179 234 209 2,622 2,603 57,494 Table 1.1 Page 3

Main Findings - Bus OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH HILLS OUTER SOUTH EAST WEST ON TIME RUNNING Vehicle exterior VEHICLE CLEANLINESS Vehicle interior Destination Displayed ROUTE & SHIFT NO DISP Shift number INTERIOR SIGNAGE DRIVER COURTESY PASSENGER SAFETY DRIVER APPEARANCE 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 whilst driving Driver physically alert and prepared Uniform Personal appearance Personal behav iour Table 1.2 ON-TIME RUNNING 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. 90.86% of services audited were on time. 7.72% of services audited were late. 1.37% 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. 0.05% 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. 6.6% of services audited were required to connect. VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. 99.3% acceptable interior cleanliness. 99.8% acceptable exterior cleanliness. Page 4

Main Findings - Bus DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. 99.6% acknowledging passengers. 100.0% response to passenger enquiries. 100.0% smooth ride. 99.9% compliance with road rules. 99.8% bus parked close to kerb as possible. 99.8% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving. 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving. 99.9% acceptable uniform. 100.0% acceptable personal appearance. 99.9% acceptable personal behaviour. PROCESS COMPLIANCE Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. 99.5% displayed destination sign. 97.0% displayed shift number. SIGNAGE - ONBOARD 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule. 99.9% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating. FARE EVASION 1.48% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket. Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report. Page 5

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 5.59 minutes late. On time running for train services was 91.6% In relation to Cleanliness; 99.5% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness. 100.0% of services had acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness. In relation to Station Announcements; Station announcements were made by the driver or automated announcements were made for all stations in 97.0% of situations. In relation to PSAs Customer Service; PSAs used Portable Reading Devices (PRDs) when checking tickets in 100.0% of cases. PSAs were rated as having been polite when asking to check passengers tickets in 100.0% of cases. A ticket offence report was issued in 22.8% of cases. In relation to Fare Evasion; Overall Fare Evasion was 5.57%. Page 6

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 5.59 minutes late. On time running for tram services was 99.3% In relation to Cleanliness; 98.3% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness. 98.3% of services had acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness. In relation to Conductors Customer Service; Tram conductors achieved acceptable ratings in relation to their acknowledgment of passengers in 100.0% of cases. In relation to Fare Evasion; Overall Fare Evasion on trams was 14.19%. Page 7

On-Time Running - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Bus departure time 10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 3-9 min early 0.23% 0.18% 1-2 min early 1.38% 1.19% On-time (<4.59 min late) 91.92% 90.86% 95.05% 96.69% 85.75% 81.45% 5-6 late 2.11% 2.39% O.S. O.S. N.S. N.S. 6-9 min late 3.17% 3.31% 10+ min late 1.10% 2.02% Did Not Run 0.09% 0.05% Bus arrival time 10+ min late n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Table 1.3 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. 90.86% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. SouthLink Outer South Contract was the Best Performing Contract, with 96.69% on time running. Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 81.45%. Early running occurred on 1.37% of services. Late running was 7.72%. Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.05%. Bus On Time Running 0.09% 1.61% 7.71% 0.05% 1.38% 6.38% Early On time Late Did not run 90.86% 91.92% July - September 2014 October - December 2014 Figure 1.1 Page 8

On-Time Running - Bus All s On Time Running Percentage 100 On-Time Late Departing Early Departing 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Figure 1.2 Top Ten Routes for On-Time Running Route Early On time Late Table 1.4 Trips sampled 722 100.0% 39 411 100.0% 37 560 100.0% 27 229 100.0% 22 733 100.0% 22 225 100.0% 21 541 100.0% 20 565 100.0% 19 837 100.0% 19 838 100.0% 18 6 4 2 0 OUTER NORTH Top 10 Routes by Contract OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST Figure 1.3 Page 9

Connections - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Bus required to connect Yes 6.9% 6.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a No 93.1% 93.4% Mode Bus 99.3% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a Train 0.7% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a Able to transfer Yes 100.0% 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 0.3% 0.3% No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS O.N. N/A 100.0% 100.0% Table 1.5 6.6% of services (144) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring. Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Vehicle exterior clean Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.2% Excellent 6.0% 5.2% O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. N.S.,HILLS,E.W. O.N. O.N. Good 85.6% 85.1% Fair 8.3% 9.5% Poor 0.0% 0.2% Table 1.6 Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.8%. 0.2% of services were recorded as poor. SouthLink Hills, Light City Buses North South and Torrens Transits East West contract areas were the Best Performing Contract s achieving 100.0%. Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness 8.3% 0.0% 6.0% Excellent 9.5% 0.2% 5.2% Good Fair Poor 85.1% 85.6% July - September 2014 Figure 1.4 October - December 2014 Page 10

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus Total All Contract s Table 1.7 Best Performing Contract Vehicle interior clean Excellent + Good + Fair 98.7% 99.3% 99.7% 100.0% 95.9% 98.4% Excellent 3.1% 2.0% HILLS,E.W. N.S. O.N. O.N. Good 82.4% 84.7% Fair 13.2% 12.7% Poor 1.3% 0.7% Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.3%. 0.7% of services were recorded as poor. Light City Buses North South was the Best Performing Contract achieving 100.0%. Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness 13.2% 1.3% Excellent 3.1% Good Fair 12.7% 0.7% 2.0% Poor 82.4% 84.7% July - September 2014 October - December 2014 Figure 1.5 Page 11

Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus All s Cleanliness Percentage 100 99.5 99 98.5 98 97.5 97 96.5 96 95.5 Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) 95 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Figure 1.6 Percentage 100.0% Bus Vehicle Cleanliness by Contract Vehicle exterior clean Vehicle interior clean 99.5% 99.0% 98.5% 98.0% 97.5% 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

Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Acknowledging passengers Excellent + Good + Fair 99.8% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5% Excellent 3.4% 3.6% HILLS,O.S.,E.W. HILLS O.N.E. O.N.E.,N.S., E.W. Good 77.9% 74.1% Fair 18.4% 21.9% Poor 0.2% 0.4% Response to passenger enquiries* Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a Excellent 4.6% 6.1% ALL ALL Good 79.4% 79.7% Fair 16.0% 14.2% Poor 0.0% 0.0% Board or alight between stops* Yes 90.6% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 83.3% No 9.4% 10.0% E.W. HILLS HILLS O.N.,O.S. If Yes, board/alight at safe locations* Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a No 0.0% 0.0% ALL ALL * Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base Table 1.8 Acknowledging Passengers was 99.6%. Response to Passenger Enquiries was 100.0%. Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations. All s Driver Courtesy Percentage 100 99.5 99 98.5 98 97.5 97 96.5 96 95.5 Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair) 95 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Figure 1.8 Page 13

Driver Quality - Safety - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Smooth ride Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7% Excellent 1.7% 2.5% O.N.,N.S., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N.E. N.S. Good 84.5% 82.5% Fair 13.8% 15.0% Poor 0.0% 0.0% Compliance with road rules Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.7% Excellent 1.4% 2.3% O.N.,N.S.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E., HILLS,E.W. O.N.E. N.S.,O.S. Good 95.7% 93.0% Fair 2.9% 4.6% Poor 0.1% 0.1% Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible Excellent + Good + Fair 99.9% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 98.9% Excellent 1.1% 1.3% O.N.,N.S., HILLS,O.S. O.N.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. E.W. N.S. Good 91.6% 89.6% Fair 7.2% 8.8% Poor 0.1% 0.2% Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5% Excellent 1.3% 1.5% O.N.,N.S.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E., HILLS O.N.E. E.W. Good 87.0% 86.0% Fair 11.7% 12.3% Poor 0.0% 0.2% Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% n/a No 100.0% 100.0% O.N.,O.N.E., N.S. HILLS,O.S.,E.W. ALL Driver physically alert and prepared Yes 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5% No 0.0% 0.3% O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S. O.N.E. O.N.E. Table 1.9 Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%. Compliance with road rules category was 99.9%. Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 99.8%. Percentage 100 99.5 99 98.5 98 97.5 97 96.5 96 95.5 All s Passenger Safety Smooth Ride (Exc/Good/Fair) Road Rules Compliance (Exc/Good/Fair) Ensured Passengers Seated Before Driving 95 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Figure 1.9 Page 14

Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Uniform Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.5% Excellent 2.2% 4.3% ALL O.N.,HILLS, O.S.,E.W. N.S. Good 97.0% 92.3% Fair 0.8% 3.2% Poor 0.0% 0.1% Personal appearance Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a Excellent 1.7% 3.8% ALL ALL Good 97.8% 95.3% Fair 0.5% 0.8% Poor 0.0% 0.0% Personal behaviour Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.4% Excellent 1.3% 1.6% ALL O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS,E.W. O.S. Good 97.1% 95.3% Fair 1.7% 2.9% Poor 0.0% 0.1% Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion Yes 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.3% 100.0% 99.8% O.N.,O.N.E., No ALL HILLS, E.W. N.S.,O.S. Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion Yes 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% 100.0% 99.9% O.N.,N.S., O.N.,HILLS, No HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S.,E.W. O.N.E. N.S. Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle Yes 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% No 100.0% 99.8% O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N.,HILLS O.N. O.N.E.,N.S., O.S.,E.W. Driver stop for personal business Yes 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.8% No 99.6% 99.8% O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.E. N.S. Table 1.10 Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.9%. Personal appearance category was 100.0%. Personal behaviour category was 99.9%. Page 15

Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Assistance Required Required 2.3% 2.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a Not Required 97.7% 97.5% Driver assisted Yes 96.1% 98.2% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 90.9% No 3.9% 1.8% O.N.,O.N.E., HILLS,E.W. O.N.,O.N.E., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S. N.S. Reason Pram 5.9% 20.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a Wheelchair 54.9% 38.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a Shopping Cart 3.9% 9.1% 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 19.6% 21.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a Other 15.7% 10.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a Table 1.11 Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange Yes 29.9% 24.6% 36.3% 25.0% n/a 0.5% No 0.0% 0.2% E.W. HILLS N.S.,E.W. N/A 70.1% 75.2% Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website Yes 1.2% 0.6% 2.4% 2.1% n/a n/a No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS N/A 98.8% 99.4% Timetables available Yes 0.8% 1.1% 3.3% 5.4% n/a n/a No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS N/A 99.2% 98.9% Table 1.12 Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service Yes 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% n/a 0.3% No O.N.,O.N.E., N.S. O.N.E. 0.0% 0.0% N.S.,E.W. N/A 99.6% 99.4% Table 1.13 Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Did any passenger display anti-social or offensive behaviour? Yes 0.3% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a No 99.7% 99.8% If Yes, did driver act appropriately in applicable cases? Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a No O.N.,O.N.E., O.N.,O.S., 0.0% 0.0% N.S.,HILLS E.W. Table 1.14 Page 16

Process Compliance - Signage - Bus All s Route/Shift Number Displayed Percentage 100 Destination Displayed Shift Numbers 95 90 85 80 75 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Figure 1.10 99.5% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. Torrens Transit s East West was the Best Performing Contract s with 100.0%. Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 97.0% of cases. The Best Performing Contract was Southlink Hills which achieved 99.1%. Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract On the exterior of Vehicle Destination Sign Yes 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.6% 98.9% No 0.3% 0.4% O.N.E.,E.W. E.W. O.N. O.N. Wrong No 0.3% 0.1% Shift Number Yes 97.1% 97.0% 98.4% 99.1% 92.3% 91.8% No 1.7% 1.9% O.N.E.,N.S. HILLS O.N. O.N. Wrong No 1.2% 1.2% Table 1.15 Destination Sign/Shift Number Displayed by Contract Percentage 100% Destination Sign Shift Number 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 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 1.11 Page 17

Signage - Onboard - Bus All s Signage Percentage 100.0 99.8 99.6 99.4 99.2 99.0 98.8 98.6 98.4 98.2 Interior Signage Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-Sep 2013 Exterior Signage 98.0 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Figure 1.12 Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract On the interior of Vehicle Metroticket Fare Schedule Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.7% ALL O.N.E.,N.S., O.N. No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS,O.S.,E.W. Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating Yes 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.5% No 0.2% 0.1% O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.,N.S., HILLS,E.W. O.N. O.N. Table 1.16 Page 18

Ticketing - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Faulty ticket Pass. purchased another ticket 31.5% 32.6% Issued problem slip 0.0% 1.2% n/a 12.5% Wrote on ticket and returned 3.1% 3.5% O.N.E. Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 27.7% 22.1% Observed ticket: no action 5.4% 7.0% No action taken 22.3% 17.4% Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% Driver ignored senior free 0.8% 0.0% Driver sighted senior card no action 0.8% 0.0% Drivers view obscured including hearing 8.5% 16.3% Non validation of ticket Asked to validate 1.9% 2.9% 6.1% 6.9% Driver ignored passenger 20.5% 14.6% HILLS O.S. Drivers view obscured 26.1% 26.4% Driver not on board 0.5% 0.3% Driver had no change 4.5% 2.6% Driver observed slip / ticket 14.1% 24.8% Passenger had no money 30.7% 25.8% Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 0.0% Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.3% 1.3% Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.3% 1.3% Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% Table 1.17 Faulty Tickets 16.3% Pass. purchased another ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32.6% Issued problem slip Wrote on ticket and returned Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action Observed ticket: no action No action taken 17.4% Driver observed senior card and issued ticket Driver ignored senior free 3.5% 1.2% Driver sighted senior card no action Drivers view obscured including hearing 7.0% 22.1% 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.0% 2.9% Figure 1.13 Non Validations Asked to validate 25.8% 14.6% Driver ignored passenger Drivers view obscured Driver not on board Driver had no change Driver observed slip / ticket Passenger had no money 26.4% Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) Driver view of senior passenger obscured Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 24.8% 2.6% 0.3% Driver took money and issued "00" ticket Figure 1.14 Page 19

Test Ticket Information - Bus Audited with Test Tickets Total - All Contract s Incorrect Jul-Sep-14 Oct-Dec-14 Outer North Outer North East North South Hills Outer South East West Ticket Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Validator not functioning 2 8 0 3 3 0 2 0 8 Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 43 58 7 9 17 2 7 16 58 Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 59 58 8 8 21 2 7 12 58 Total 104 124 15 20 41 4 16 28 124 Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage of Total Services Audited Validator not functioning 1.9% 6.5% 0.0% 15.0% 7.3% 0.0% 12.5% 0.0% 0.4% Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 41.3% 46.8% 46.7% 45.0% 41.5% 50.0% 43.8% 57.1% 2.6% Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 56.7% 46.8% 53.3% 40.0% 51.2% 50.0% 43.8% 42.9% 2.6% Total 5.6% Table 1.18 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, 5.6% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 124 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR s), of the SAR s raised: The validator was not functioning in 6.5% of trips. An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 46.8% of trips. In 46.8% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information. Bus Test Ticket 1.9% Validator not functioning Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 6.5% Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 46.8% 56.7% 41.3% 46.8% July - September 2014 October - December 2014 Figure 1.15 Page 20

Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus Total All Contract s Best Performing Contract Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion Yes 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5% No O.N.,N.S., O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.E. O.N.E. 100.0% 99.8% HILLS,O.S.,E.W. Fare Evasion - Bus Table 1.19 1.48% of passengers boarded a vehicle without validating a ticket. Page 21