Public Transport Services Service Standard Report · Service Standard Report July ... Bus ON-TIME...

Public Transport Services

Service Standard Report July - September 2014

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

Contents

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 and 30th September 2014; • 2,178 audits onboard Adelaide Metro bus services. • 202 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.

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 320 26 21 367 366 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 18 10 331 331 2,362

SouthLink Outer South 306 30 28 364 363 6,499

Torrens Transit East West 317 31 28 376 376 16,955

RailCommissioner Train 138 32 32 202 189 3,160

Rail Commissioner Tram 172 34 34 240 238 1,116

TOTAL 2,181 232 207 2,620 2,603 57,494

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 July - September 2014;

• 91.92% 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. In July - September 2014;

• 0.09% 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 July - September 2014;

• 6.9% of services audited were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION Compliance with interior and exterior vehicle cleanliness in accordance within the contract. In July - September 2014;

• 98.7% acceptable interior cleanliness. • 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST NORTH SOUTH HILLS OUTER SOUTH EAST WEST

ON TIME RUNNING

Vehicle ex terior

Vehicle interior

Destination Display ed

Shift number

INTERIOR SIGNAGE 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

Main Findings - Bus

DRIVER QUALITY Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required. In July - September 2014;

• 99.8% acknowledging passengers. • 100.0% response to passenger enquiries. • 100.0% smooth ride. • 99.9% compliance with road rules. • 99.9% 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 Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract. In July - September 2014;

• 99.4% displayed destination sign. • 97.1% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD In July - September 2014;

• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule. • 99.8% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION In July - September 2014;

• 1.36% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

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. • 88.9% of services departed on-time. In relation to Cleanliness; • 97.9% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness. • 97.4% 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 95.9% 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 7.0% of cases. In relation to Fare Evasion; • Overall Fare Evasion on trains was 5.66%.

Main Findings - Train

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. • 98.8% of services departed on-time. In relation to Cleanliness; • 100.0% of services had acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness. • 99.2% 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 13.20%.

Main Findings - Tram

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. In July - September 2014; • 91.92% of Adelaide Metro bus services departed on time. • SouthLink Outer South Contract Area was the Best Performing Contract Area, with 95.05% on time running. • Light City Buses North South contract area recorded 85.75%. • Early running occurred on 1.61% of services. • Late running was 6.38%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.09%.

Table 1.3

Figure 1.1

April - June 2014 July - September 2014

On-Time Running - Bus

Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

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%

3-9 min early 0.18% 0.23%

1-2 min early 1.32% 1.38%

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

5-6 late 3.46% 2.11% O.N. O.S. N.S. N.S.

6-9 min late 6.61% 3.17%

10+ min late 2.73% 1.10%

Did Not Run 0.05% 0.09%

Bus arrival time

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

Bus departure time

Bus On Time Running

1.61%

91.92%

6.38%0.09%

1.50%

85.64%

12.81%0.05%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

0

2

4

6

OUTER NORTH OUTER NORTH EAST

NORTH SOUTH OUTER SOUTH HILLS EAST WEST

Top 10 Routes by Contract Area

Table 1.4

Figure 1.2

On-Time Running - Bus

Top Ten Routes for On-Time Running

Figure 1.3

Route Early On time Late

Trips

sampled

734 100.0% 32

681 100.0% 28

174 100.0% 20

725 100.0% 19

868 100.0% 18

557 100.0% 17

229 100.0% 17

401 100.0% 16

150 100.0% 15

600 100.0% 15

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

All Areas On Time Running

Percentage

Connections - Bus

Table 1.5

In July - September 2014; • 6.9% of services (150) were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness - Bus

Figure 1.4

July - September 2014 April - June 2014

Table 1.6

In July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%. • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor. • SouthLink’s Hills and Outer South, Light City Buses Outer North East and North South and Torrens Transits East West

contract areas were the Best Performing Contract Areas achieving 100.0%.


Bus required to connect

Yes 9.7% 6.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 90.3% 93.1%

Mode

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

Train 3.8% 0.7% 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 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.8% n/a

No 1.4% 0.0%

O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS

O.N.,

HILLS,O.S. O.N.

If No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.2% 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 99.8% 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 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS

N/A 100.0% 100.0%

Best Performing Contract Area

Worst Performing Contract

AreaTotal All Contract Areas


Vehicle exterior clean

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

Excellent 4.2% 6.0%

O.N.E.,

N.S.,HILLS,O.S.

O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N. O.N.

Good 88.4% 85.6%

Fair 7.1% 8.3%

Poor 0.3% 0.0%


AreaTotal All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area

6.0%

85.6%

8.3%0.0%

Bus Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

4.2%

88.4%

7.1%0.3%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

In July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 98.7%. • 1.3% of services were recorded as poor. • Southlink Hills and Torrens Transit East West were the Best Performing Contract Areas achieving 99.7%.

Figure 1.5

Table 1.7

July - September 2014 April - June 2014

Vehicle Interior Cleanliness - Bus


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 2.7% 3.1% O.N.E. HILLS,E.W. O.S. O.N.

Good 81.8% 82.4%

Fair 14.5% 13.2%

Poor 1.0% 1.3%

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area


Area

Bus Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

3.1%

82.4%

13.2%

1.3%

2.7%

81.8%

14.5%

1.0% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7

Vehicle Exterior/Interior Cleanliness - Bus

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100


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

All Areas Cleanliness

Percentage

93.0%

94.0%

95.0%

96.0%

97.0%

98.0%

99.0%

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 AreaPercenta

Driver Quality - Courtesy - Bus

Table 1.8

Figure 1.8

In July - September 2014; • Acknowledging Passengers was 99.8%. • Response to Passenger Enquiries was 100.0%. • Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.


Acknowledging passengers


Excellent 3.0% 3.4% N.S.,HILLS HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N. O.N.E.

Good 78.9% 77.9%

Fair 17.8% 18.4%

Poor 0.3% 0.2%

Response to passenger enquiries*

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

Excellent 7.0% 4.6%

O.N,O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W. ALL N.S.

Good 72.3% 79.4%

Fair 20.5% 16.0%

Poor 0.2% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

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

No 10.2% 9.4% O.N.E. E.W. O.S. HILLS

If Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

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

No 3.8% 0.0%

O.N,O.N.E.,

O.S.,E.W. ALL HILLS

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base



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)

All Areas Driver Courtesy

Percentage

Driver Quality - Safety - Bus

Table 1.9

In July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%. • Compliance with road rules category was 99.9%. • Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.

Figure 1.9


Smooth ride

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

Excellent 1.3% 1.7% ALL

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.

Good 87.7% 84.5%

Fair 11.0% 13.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 1.0% 1.4%

O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W

O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W. O.N. O.N.E.

Good 96.2% 95.7%

Fair 2.7% 2.9%

Poor 0.0% 0.1%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible



O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S. E.W.

Good 93.2% 91.6%

Fair 5.9% 7.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.1%

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving



O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W. O.N.E.

Good 88.8% 87.0%

Fair 10.0% 11.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

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

No 99.8% 100.0% O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS

O.N.,O.N.E.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

O.S. N.S.

Driver physically alert and prepared

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

No 0.3% 0.0% O.N.E.,O.S. O.N.,N.S.,HILLS,O

.S.,E.W.

N.S.,E.W. O.N.E.



Area

95

95.5

96

96.5

97

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100


Smooth Ride (Exc/Good/Fair) Road Rules Compliance (Exc/Good/Fair) Ensured Passengers Seated Before Driving

All Areas Passenger Safety

Percentage

Driver Quality - Appearance - Bus

Table 1.10

In July - September 2014; • Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%. • Personal appearance category was 100.0%. • Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.


Uniform

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

Excellent 1.6% 2.2%

O.N.E.,HILLS,

O.S.,E.W. ALL O.N.

Good 97.8% 97.0%

Fair 0.4% 0.8%

Poor 0.1% 0.0%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 1.3% 1.7% ALL ALL

Good 98.4% 97.8%

Fair 0.3% 0.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour

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

Excellent 0.5% 1.3%

O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S., ALL E.W.

Good 98.2% 97.1%

Fair 1.2% 1.7%

Poor 0.0% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

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

No

99.9% 100.0% O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,E.W. ALL O.N.E.,O.S.

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No

99.8% 100.0%

N.S.,HILLS

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

O.N.,O.N.E.,O.

S.,E.W. O.N.E.

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

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

No

100.0% 100.0% O.N.,O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,E.W.

O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W. O.S. O.N.

Driver stop for personal business

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

No 99.5% 99.6% HILLS O.N.,HILLS,O.S. O.N.E. O.N.E.



Area

Driver Quality - Special Needs - Bus

Table 1.11

Driver Quality - Driver Response - Bus

Table 1.12

Table 1.13

Table 1.14


Assistance Required

Required 1.9% 2.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 98.1% 97.7%

Driver assisted

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

No 0.0% 3.9% ALL

O.N.,O.N.E.,

HILLS,E.W. O.S.

Reason

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

Wheelchair 43.9% 54.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 0.0% 3.9% 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 31.7% 19.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 12.2% 15.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Best Performing Contract Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

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

No 0.0% 0.0% O.N.E. E.W.

N/A 76.1% 70.1%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

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

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS N.S.

N/A 98.9% 98.8%

Timetables available

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

No 0.0% 0.0% HILLS HILLS

N/A 99.3% 99.2%



Area


Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

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

No

0.0% 0.0%

HILLS O.N.,O.N.E.,

N.S.,E.W.

N/A 99.6% 99.6%



Area


Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

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

No 99.8% 99.7%

If Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No

0.0% 0.0%

O.N.,O.N.E.,

O.S.,E.W.

O.N.,O.N.E.,

N.S.,HILLS



Area

Figure 1.10

In July - September 2014; • 99.4% of services displayed correct Vehicle Destination Signs. • Torrens Transit’s East West and Light City Buses Outer North East were the Best Performing Contract Areas with 100.0%. • Correct Shift Numbers were displayed in 97.1% of cases. • The Best Performing Contract Areas were Light City Buses Outer North East and North South which achieved 98.4%.

Table 1.15

Process Compliance - Signage - Bus

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

Destination Sign

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

No 0.4% 0.3% E.W. O.N.E.,E.W. O.N.,O.S. O.N.

Wrong No 0.3% 0.3%

Shift Number

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

No 2.6% 1.7% E.W. O.N.E.,N.S. O.N. O.N.

Wrong No 0.6% 1.2%

Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract

Figure 1.11

75

80

85

90

95

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

All Areas Route/Shift Number Displayed

Percentage

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

Figure 1.12

Table 1.16

Signage - Onboard - Bus

On the interior of Vehicle 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% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0%

ALL ALL

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

No 0.1% 0.2%

O.N.,O.N.E.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

O.N.E.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W. N.S. O.N.



Area

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

98.0

98.2

98.4

98.6

98.8

99.0

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100.0


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

All Areas Signage

Percentage

Exterior Signage no longer audited Jul-Sep 2013

Figure 1.13

Table 1.17

Ticketing - Bus

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

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 14.1% 31.5%

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

Wrote on ticket and returned 1.3% 3.1% N.S.

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 33.3% 27.7%

Observed ticket: no action 5.1% 5.4%

No action taken 24.4% 22.3%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.8%

Driver sighted senior card no action 1.3% 0.8%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 16.7% 8.5%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 5.0% 1.9% 9.1% 6.1%

Driver ignored passenger 15.9% 20.5% N.S. HILLS

Drivers view obscured 24.7% 26.1%

Driver not on board 1.1% 0.5%

Driver had no change 3.7% 4.5%

Driver observed slip / ticket 24.9% 14.1%

Passenger had no money 21.8% 30.7%

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

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.8% 0.3%

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

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0%


Figure 1.14

31.5%

0.0%3.1%

27.7%

5.4%

22.3%

0.0%

0.8%

0.8%

8.5%

Pass. purchased another ticket

Issued problem slip

Wrote on ticket and returned

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action

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

Faulty Tickets

1.9%

20.5%

26.1%

0.5%4.5%

14.1%

30.7%

0.0%

0.3%

1.3%

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

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, 4.7% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 104 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised: • The validator was not functioning in 1.9% of trips. • An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 41.3% of trips. • In 56.7% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Figure 1.15

Table 1.18

April - June 2014 July - September 2014

Test Ticket Information - Bus Test Tickets

Apr-Jun-14 Jul-Sep-14

Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number Number

Validator not functioning 9 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 62 43 8 7 14 5 3 6 43

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 60 59 10 13 18 8 5 5 59

Total 131 104 18 21 33 13 8 11 104

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage

Percentage of

Total Services

Audited

Validator not functioning 6.9% 1.9% 0.0% 4.8% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 47.3% 41.3% 44.4% 33.3% 42.4% 38.5% 37.5% 54.5% 2.0%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 45.8% 56.7% 55.6% 61.9% 54.5% 61.5% 62.5% 45.5% 2.7%

Total 4.7%

Total Services

Audited with

Incorrect

TicketOuter North Outer North East North South Hills Outer South East West

Total - All Contract Areas

Bus Test Ticket

1.9%

41.3%

56.7%

6.9%

47.3%

45.8%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated)

In July - September 2014; • 1.36% of passengers boarded a vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion - Bus

Ticket/Cash Reconciliation Whilst In Motion - Bus

Table 1.19


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

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

No

100.0% 100.0%

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

O.N.,N.S.,

HILLS,O.S.,E.W.

O.N.E. O.N.E.



Area

Public Transport Services Service Standard Report · Service Standard Report July ... Bus ON-TIME...

Documents

Transcript of Public Transport Services Service Standard Report · Service Standard Report July ... Bus ON-TIME...