22 February 2012

UIC / UITP Performance Conference

Summary

Yarra Trams at a glance

Our challenges

PRIDE – our performance philosophy

Some analytical examples

Network change reviews

Our key findings

Yarra Trams at a glance

Our Tram Network

The ‘largest’ operating network in the world with 250 kilometres of double track

1770 tram stops

487 trams

27 tram routes & the free City Circle tourist tram

2000 staff, including 1200 drivers, from 50 nationalities

185 million trips in 2011

8 years Contract (2009-2017) with extensions possible to 15 years

Melbourne and its trams grew together

Our Challenges

Citadis (2001)

B & B2 class (1984)Z1 Z2 & Z3 class (1975)

Combino (2002)

W class (1945) A class (1984)

Bumblebee (2008)

Heterogeneous fleet

> And the future E class

Ageing Fleet

>Rolling stock average age is 25 years

Ageing Fleet - Important Rolling Stock Issues

Ageing infrastructure

> An unusual combination of new, old and historic elements

Poor safety record

> Over 1,000 collisions with road vehicles annually

Growing traffic & accessibility issues

> Weekday average tram speed is 16km/h overall &11km/h in CBD

Unique context of shared road space

Tram Priority

Insufficient tram priority international comparison of time spent a traffic signals

% of journey time at signals

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

Melbourne

Budapest

Karlsruhe

Sheffield

Paris T3

Nottingham

Le Mans

Lyon

Bordeaux

Moving79%

Signals1%

Passengers20%

Moving65%

Signals17%

Passengers14%

Operator3% Rest

1%

Bordeaux (Keolis operated network) Melbourne

Use of journey time

Unprecedented patronage growth

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190Ju

n-05

Sep-

05D

ec-0

5M

ar-0

6Ju

n-06

Sep-

06D

ec-0

6M

ar-0

7Ju

n-07

Sep-

07D

ec-0

7M

ar-0

8Ju

n-08

Sep-

08D

ec-0

8M

ar-0

9Ju

n-09

Sep-

09D

ec-0

9M

ar-1

0Ju

n-10

Sep-

10D

ec-1

0M

ar-1

1Ju

n-11

Sep-

11

Mill

ions

Tram patronage estimate

October 2010 load breaches

Yarra Trams PRIDE

Introduction – What is PRIDE?

•Punctuality, Reliability, Incident and Delay Evaluation

•To instil a positive performance culture

•A continuous improvement framework

•Based in part from the Keolis approach used successfully elsewhere

Introduction – What is PRIDE?

Punctuality, Reliability, Incident and Delay Evaluation

• Investigating incidents where delays have occurred• Documenting major incident service recovery to share lessons

learned• Providing feedback to staff involved• Establishing root causes of incidents• Improving attribution of PWM• Establishing trends in performance• Devising plans to reduce delays and incidents for the future• Liaising with the Performance Team to perform more in-depth

analyses

Definition of Performance Management

•Where efficient production or service is a key driver of business success.

•“High performance” = reaching and exceeding 'stretching targets' in the delivery of productivity, quality, customer service, growth, profits and shareholder value.

•Performance management : gives an understanding about what is to be achieved, develops the capacity of the people to achieve it, and it provides the support and guidance people need to deliver high performance ("making good better").

Definition of Performance Management

A three-part process(1) Strategic planning(2) Performance monitoring(3) Reporting

The Tools

Four Tools

1. Benchmarking

2. KPIs

3. Goals, Objectives, Targets

4. Analytical Resources

The Process

•Generally follows a PLAN–DO–CHECK–ACT cycle.(illustrated is basic form)

The Process•The cycle can be built upon. (illustrated is British Standard for Asset Management PAS 55:2008)

The Process

•Another customisation, this time for benchmarking.•(benchmarking of PT efficiency and quality)

Real World Examples

Hong Kong, Singapore, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur.

•All four cities visited follow a common model of performance management:

Real World Examples

Asset Management Evaluation Framework for London Underground

• Evaluation framework into what makes 'good practice' in asset management.

• Two dimensions 1. ‘management process elements’2. ‘success enabling elements’

• Consider its maturity in each of the elements. (Is appropriate for the business? Needs to improve?)

Yarra Trams Performance Organisation

Yarra Trams some analytical examples

A) Slippery Tracks & Wheel Flats

•Year 2011 was worse than the previous two years for both ‘slippery tracks’ and ‘rolling stock flats’

•Availability was adversely impacted by a backlog of trams awaiting wheel lathe work

•Poor availability was leading to operational performance impacts

•Result: » Understand the seasonality of the leaf-fall wheel-flats (when it

starts, when it peaks, when it returns to normal) to allow for forward planning.

» PRIDE actions to mitigate 2012’s leaf-fall season (improved track sweeping program via truck modifications)

A) Slippery Tracks & Wheel Flats

A) Slippery Tracks & Wheel Flats

A) Slippery Tracks & Wheel Flats

•Refer Handout 1

A) Slippery Tracks & Wheel Flats•Our new truck modification

Zurich Melbourne

Before Cleaning

After one pass of cleaning

B) Timetable Review Review

•Review the impact of recent timetable reviews on Punctuality and PWMs (also with respect to DoT target impacts)

•Result: » Better implementation of future timetable

reviews. » Better able to weigh cost/benefit of journey time

changes or regularity of timetable reviews

B) Timetable Review Review

Change in Annual Performance Target (Unplanned) due to service frequency changes: + 1,556,847 PWMs Change in Annual Performance Target (Unplanned) due to journey time changes: – 3,412,945 PWMs Net Target Change: – 1,856,098 PWMs

PWMs accrued during Mar/Apr/May (90 days, excluding Easter Monday + Anzac Day): 13,779,604 (2011 actual) versus 10,568,664 (target) = 3,210,939 penalty 12,834,888 (2010 actual) versus 10,229,949 (target) = 2,604,938 penalty Net Penalty Change: + 606,001 PWMs

Punctuality over Mar/Apr/May (90 days, excluding Easter Monday + Anzac Day): 82.26% (2011) versus 82.45% (2010) = 0.19% worse

B) Timetable Review Review

B) Timetable Review Review

B) Timetable Review Review

B) Timetable Review Review

Yarra Trams network change reviews

Clearways Rollback: Sydney Road›Refer Handout 2›Sectional analysis of travel time & variability

›Increased travel time in all affected periods

›Up to 8% increase in journey time and 29% increase in variability

Kew Triangle

›Refer Handout 3›Sectional analysis of travel time, variability, reliability and deviation to schedule

›Up to 38% journey time reduction in the section and 51% decrease in variability

Looking Forward‘Moving the tram to a modern light rail service (…) so that it

becomes the best way to move around in the inner suburbs.’Victorian Transport Plan, Department of Transport

•Safe•Reliable•Fully accessible•Sustainable•Fully segregated•Full priority at signals•Intermodal•Intuitive and informative•Comfortable & clean

The vision

From a “tram” to a “light rail”

New Trams, new depot(s)

Our Key Findings in Performance Management

›Data is the basis

›Articulate the Methodology for Performance Management (underpinned by theory)

›Think Organisation (systems, resourcing & structure)

›Think Process (who does what & when. SPA)

›Define it, Own it & Share it

Thank You

Duncan SmithNetwork Development & Performance Director

11- 29 Eastern RoadSouth Melbourne VIC 3205

E duncan.smith@yarratrams.com.au

yarratrams.com.au