adelaide metro - bus, train and tram timetables - public transport adelaide - light city buses...

Light City Buses

Service Standard Report January - March 2014

Sample and Methodology 3

North South—Main Findings 4-5

Outer North East—Main Findings 6-7

NORTH SOUTH

On-Time Running 9

Connections 10

Vehicle Condition—Exterior 10

Vehicle Condition– Interior 11

Driver Quality—Courtesy 12

Driver Quality—Safety 13

Driver Quality—Appearance 13

Driver Quality—Special Needs 14

Driver Quality—Driver Response 14

Process Compliance—Signage 15

Signage—Onboard 16

Ticketing 17

Test Ticket Information 18

Fare Evasion 19

OUTER NORTH EAST

On-Time Running 21

Connections 22

Vehicle Condition—Exterior 22

Vehicle Condition—Interior 23

Driver Quality—Courtesy 24

Driver Quality—Safety 25

Driver Quality—Appearance 25

Driver Quality—Special Needs 26

Driver Quality—Driver Response 26

Process Compliance—Signage 27

Signage –Onboard 28

Ticketing 29

Test Ticket Information 30

Fare Evasion 31

Contents

Table 1.1

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 January 2014 and 31st March 2014;

• 749 audits onboard Light City Buses services.

• 377 audits in the North South contract area.

• 372 audits in the Outer North East contract area.

The trips audited represent 3.8 % of the 19,706 trips supplied (defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a

Saturday and Sunday) in both contract areas for one whole week Sunday to Saturday. The sample base is selected from trips

listed on PTS approved timetables submitted by Light City Buses.

Contract Area

Weekday Trips

Audited Saturday Trips Audited

Sunday Trips

Audited Trips Audited

Trips

Supplied

Light City Buses North South 317 32 28 377 11,277

Light CityBuses Outer North East 313 31 28 372 8,429

TOTAL 630 63 56 749 19,706

North South - Main Findings 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 January - March 2014;

• 74.27% of services audited were on time.

• 20.69% of services audited were late.

• 5.04% 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.


• 0.00% 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.


• 0.8% of services audited were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION

Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.


• 99.5% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 99.7% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

North South - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY

Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required.


• 99.2% acknowledging passengers.

• 100.0% response to passenger enquiries.

• 100.0% smooth ride.

• 100.0% compliance with road rules.

• 99.7% bus parked close to kerb as possible.

• 100.0% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving.

• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.

• 98.1% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE



• 98.4% displayed destination sign.

• 98.1% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed prescribed officer decal.

• 98.4% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

• 99.5% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION


• 2.93% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion increased by 1.44%

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

Outer North East - Main Findings 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.


• 85.75% of services audited were on time.

• 11.83% of services audited were late.

• 2.15% 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.


• 0.27% 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.


• 0.5% of audited services were required to connect.

VEHICLE CONDITION



• 99.5% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

Outer North East - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY

Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required.


• 100.0% acknowledging passengers.

• 100.0% response to passenger enquiries.

• 100.0% smooth ride.

• 100.0% compliance with road rules.

• 100.0% bus parked close to kerb as possible.

• 100.0% ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving.

• 0.5% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.

• 98.4% acceptable uniform.

• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.

• 99.7% acceptable personal behaviour.

PROCESS COMPLIANCE



• 99.7% displayed destination sign.

• 98.1% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed prescribed officer decal.

• 98.4% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

• 100.0% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.

FARE EVASION


• 2.56% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

When comparing the October—December 2013 quarter to the January— March 2014 quarter, fare evasion increased by 0.95%

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

North South


North South On Time Running

5.04%

74.27%

20.69%

0.00%

0.53%

80.05%

19.15%

0.27% Early

On time

Late

Did not run

With the commencement of the new contracts, a bus 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 4.59 minutes late.


• 74.27% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 5.04% of services.

• Late running was 20.69%.

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

On-Time Running

Table 2.1

Figure 2.1

January - March 2014 October - December 2013

Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3-9 min early 0.27% 0.80% 0.14% 0.23%

1-2 min early 0.27% 4.24% 1.05% 1.55%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 80.05% 74.27% 84.53% 84.40% 90.66% 87.69% 78.36% 74.27%

5-6 late 4.52% 4.24% 4.61% 3.55%

6-9 min late 7.98% 10.88% 6.80% 7.05%

10+ min late 6.65% 5.57% 2.74% 3.14%

Did Not Run 0.27% 0.00% 0.14% 0.09%

10+ min late 4.81% 2.93% 1.60% 1.96% 0.00% 0.81% 4.81% 2.93%

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing Contract

Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Figure 2.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

North South On Time Running

North South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

1.1%

86.1%

12.5%

0.3%

0.3%

77.8%

21.9%

0.0% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 99.7% .

• 0.3% of services were recorded as poor.

Vehicle Condition - Exterior

Connections

Table 2.2

Table 2.3



Figure 2.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 0.8% 0.8% 8.5% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 99.2% 99.2% 91.5% 90.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% 98.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Able to transfer

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 97.6%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

I f No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train departed early 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train not seen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area


Vehicle exterior clean

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.7% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%

Excellent 0.3% 1.1% 0.6% 2.6%

Good 77.8% 86.1% 81.9% 88.2%

Fair 21.9% 12.5% 17.4% 9.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

October - December 2013 January - March 2014

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


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

North South Cleanliness

North South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

1.1%

74.4%

24.0%

0.5%

0.3%

77.3%

21.9%

0.5%Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%.


Figure 2.4

January - March 2014

Vehicle Condition - Interior

October - December 2013

Figure 2.5

Table 2.4


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 0.3% 1.1% 0.6% 2.4%

Good 77.3% 74.4% 83.0% 80.9%

Fair 21.9% 24.0% 15.6% 16.2%

Poor 0.5% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 99.2%.

• Response to passenger enquiries category was 100.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.

Table 2.5

Figure 2.6

Driver Quality - Courtesy



Excellent 2.4% 2.4% 4.8% 4.1%

Good 60.7% 67.6% 69.2% 74.9%

Fair 36.1% 29.3% 25.9% 20.8%

Poor 0.8% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2%

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

Excellent 6.1% 4.6% 4.9% 7.1%

Good 75.5% 75.9% 79.0% 76.6%

Fair 18.4% 19.4% 15.9% 16.3%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 76.9% 81.3% 86.2% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 71.4% 70.0%

No 23.1% 18.8% 13.8% 12.5%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 94.6% 94.6% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% 83.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 5.4%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair)

North South Driver Courtesy


Uniform

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 98.1% 100.0% 98.7% 100.0% 99.7% n/a 98.1%

Excellent 2.7% 1.6% 3.8% 2.8%

Good 96.5% 95.2% 95.6% 94.7%

Fair 0.8% 1.3% 0.7% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 1.3%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 1.1% 1.6% 2.9% 2.6%

Good 97.6% 97.3% 96.8% 96.2%

Fair 1.3% 1.1% 0.3% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 0.5% 1.3% 2.0% 1.4%

Good 95.7% 96.3% 95.9% 96.0%

Fair 3.5% 2.4% 2.1% 2.6%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 1.1% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%

No 98.9% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.8% 0.8% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%

No 99.2% 99.2% 99.7% 99.7%

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

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

No 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Driver stop for personal business

Yes 1.9% 1.3% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.9% 1.6%

No 98.1% 98.7% 99.3% 99.3%

Light City Buses North South


Area

Worst Performing

Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas


Smooth ride


Excellent 1.3% 0.5% 1.8% 2.2%

Good 77.0% 81.9% 85.1% 87.2%

Fair 21.7% 17.6% 13.0% 10.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 1.3% 0.5% 1.2% 2.1%

Good 93.6% 95.2% 95.8% 95.4%

Fair 5.1% 4.3% 2.8% 2.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible


Excellent 1.3% 0.3% 1.7% 2.0%

Good 85.8% 89.6% 90.9% 92.3%

Fair 12.8% 9.9% 7.4% 5.6%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%


Excellent 2.4% 1.3% 4.2% 2.2%

Good 78.3% 79.5% 84.8% 86.1%

Fair 19.0% 19.2% 10.9% 11.6%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 99.7% 98.7% 99.6% 99.1% 100.0% 99.7% 99.2% 98.7%

No 0.3% 1.3% 0.4% 0.9%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Driver Quality - Safety


• Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%.

• Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%.

• Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.


• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 98.1%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Table 2.6

Table 2.7

Driver Quality - Appearance

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 2.8

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 2.11


Assistance Required

Required 3.7% 4.0% 2.5% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 96.3% 96.0% 97.5% 97.4%

Driver assisted

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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Reason

Pram 21.4% 20.0% 11.1% 8.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 35.7% 40.0% 44.4% 53.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 14.3% 6.7% 14.8% 10.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 28.6% 20.0% 22.2% 12.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 0.0% 13.3% 7.4% 14.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 25.9% 28.8% 24.9% 23.8% 27.5% 29.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 74.1% 71.2% 75.1% 76.2%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Timetables available

Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%



Area

Worst Performing



Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 99.5% 99.2% 99.6% 99.5%



Area

Worst Performing



Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a n/a n/a 0.0%



Area

Worst Performing



• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 98.4% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 98.1% of services.

Figure 2.7

Table 2.12

Process Compliance - Signage

On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Destination Sign

Yes 98.9% 98.4% 99.3% 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9% 98.4%

No 1.1% 1.1% 0.5% 0.4%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.4%

Shift Number

Yes 98.9% 98.1% 96.1% 96.4% 98.9% 98.2% 91.3% 92.2%

No 1.1% 1.1% 2.8% 2.5%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.8% 1.1% 1.1%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

North South Route/Shift Number Displayed


• Prescribed officer decal were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• The Metro ticket fare schedules were correctly displayed on 98.4% of vehicles.

• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 99.5% of vehicles.

Table 2.13

Figure 2.8

Signage - Onboard

On the interior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Yes n/a 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a

No n/a 0.0% n/a 0.0%

Yes 100.0% 98.4% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 98.4%

No 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.8%

Yes 100.0% 99.5% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5%

No 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%



Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Prescribed Officer Decal

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

North South Signage

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer

Audited Jul-Sep-2013

During January - March 2014;

• 0.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 50.0% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 4.8% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 16.7% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

In January - March 2014:

• In 0.0% of trips the driver was reconciling cash or tickets while the bus was in motion.

Ticketing

Table 2.15

Table 2.14

Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 22.2% 50.0% 32.0% 38.3%

Issued problem slip 11.1% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 14.3% n/a

Wrote on ticket and returned 5.6% 0.0% 6.0% 1.7%

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 5.6% 25.0% 11.0% 11.7%

Observed ticket: no action 5.6% 0.0% 5.0% 8.3%

No action taken 27.8% 25.0% 12.0% 25.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0%

Driver sighted senior card no action 5.6% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 16.7% 0.0% 23.0% 15.0%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 1.4% 4.8% 0.8% 2.8% 2.1% 7.1%

Driver ignored passenger 27.8% 35.7% 20.5% 32.9%

Drivers view obscured 19.4% 21.4% 25.5% 21.3%

Driver not on board 1.4% 0.0% 0.8% 0.7%

Driver had no change 5.6% 1.2% 3.9% 1.7%

Driver observed slip / ticket 23.6% 16.7% 21.6% 16.4%

Passenger had no money 18.1% 17.9% 23.1% 22.0%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.7%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.0% 1.2% 1.0% 0.5%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 2.8% 1.2% 1.3% 0.7%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%



Area

NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1%

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.8%



Area

Worst Performing


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, 5.3% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 20 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 5.0% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 45.0% of trips.

• In 50.0% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.

Table 2.16

Figure 2.9


Test Ticket Information


Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 2 8.3% 1 5.0% 0.3%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 12 50.0% 9 45.0% 2.4%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 10 41.7% 10 50.0% 2.7%

Total 24 20 377 5.3%

0.4%

2.6%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

Percentage Percentage

Test TicketsNorth South North South Percentage of Total North South

Services AuditedOct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

2.8%

5.8%

North South Test Ticket

8.3%

50.0%

41.7%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not

Updated)

5.0%

45.0%50.0%

In the Light City Buses’ North South contract area, 2.93% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Outer North East


Outer North East On Time Running

2.15%

85.75%

11.83%

0.27%

1.89%

84.05%

13.78%

0.27%Early

On time

Late

Did not run

Table 3.1

With the commencement of the new contracts, a bus 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 4 minutes 59 seconds late.


• 85.75% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 2.15% of services.

• Late running was 11.83%.

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.27%.

Figure 3.1

On-Time Running



10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

3-9 min early 0.27% 0.27% 0.14% 0.23%

1-2 min early 1.62% 1.88% 1.05% 1.55%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 84.05% 85.75% 84.53% 84.40% 90.66% 87.69% 78.36% 74.27%

5-6 late 4.05% 3.76% 4.61% 3.55%

6-9 min late 7.84% 4.84% 6.80% 7.05%

10+ min late 1.89% 3.23% 2.74% 3.14%

Did Not Run 0.27% 0.27% 0.14% 0.09%

10+ min late 0.81% 1.89% 1.60% 1.96% 0.00% 0.81% 4.81% 2.93%

Light City Buses

Outer North East Total All Contract Areas


Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

Figure 3.2


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

Outer North East On Time Running

Outer North East Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

1.1%

91.1%

7.8%

0.0%

0.0%

84.6%

15.4% 0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Table 3.3

Vehicle Condition - Exterior


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.

• No services were recorded as poor.

Connections

Table 3.2




Figure 3.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 0.3% 0.5% 8.5% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 99.7% 99.5% 91.5% 90.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% 98.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Able to transfer

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 97.6%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

If No, why not?

Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train departed early 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Bus, train not seen 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Insufficient transfer time 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 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% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9%

Light City Buses



Area


Area


Vehicle exterior clean


Excellent 0.0% 1.1% 0.6% 2.6%

Good 84.6% 91.1% 81.9% 88.2%

Fair 15.4% 7.8% 17.4% 9.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

98

100


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

Outer North East Cleanliness

Outer North East Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.5%

84.9%

14.1% 0.5%

0.0%

84.8%

14.9%

0.3% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 3.4

Table 3.4

Figure 3.5

Vehicle Condition - Interior


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.5%.




Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 0.0% 0.5% 0.6% 2.4%

Good 84.8% 84.9% 83.0% 80.9%

Fair 14.9% 14.1% 15.6% 16.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Driver Quality - Courtesy

Table 3.5


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers were 100.0%.

• Response to passenger enquiries category was 100.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 100.0% did so at safe locations.

Figure 3.6



Excellent 3.8% 1.6% 4.8% 4.1%

Good 70.2% 80.5% 69.2% 74.9%

Fair 26.0% 17.8% 25.9% 20.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%

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

Excellent 2.0% 4.8% 4.9% 7.1%

Good 77.6% 79.5% 79.0% 76.6%

Fair 19.4% 15.7% 15.9% 16.3%

Poor 1.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 80.0% 85.7% 86.2% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 71.4% 70.0%

No 20.0% 14.3% 13.8% 12.5%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 87.5% 100.0% 94.6% 94.6% 100.0% 100.0% 87.5% 83.3%

No 12.5% 0.0% 5.4% 5.4%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base

95

96

97

98

99

100


Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair)

Outer North East Driver Courtesy

Driver Quality - Safety

Table 3.6


• Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 100.0%.

• Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%.

• Ensuring passengers seated before driving category was 100.0%.

Table 3.7


• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 98.4%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 99.7%.

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride


Excellent 0.5% 1.1% 1.8% 2.2%

Good 88.6% 89.7% 85.1% 87.2%

Fair 10.8% 9.2% 13.0% 10.5%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 0.0% 0.8% 1.2% 2.1%

Good 98.4% 96.5% 95.8% 95.4%

Fair 1.6% 2.7% 2.8% 2.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%

Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible


Excellent 0.8% 0.5% 1.7% 2.0%

Good 92.7% 95.1% 90.9% 92.3%

Fair 6.5% 4.3% 7.4% 5.6%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Excellent 3.8% 0.3% 4.2% 2.2%

Good 84.3% 90.0% 84.8% 86.1%

Fair 11.9% 9.7% 10.9% 11.6%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

Yes 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.5%

No 100.0% 99.5% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 99.5% 98.9% 99.6% 99.1% 100.0% 99.7% 99.2% 98.7%

No 0.5% 1.1% 0.4% 0.9%


Area

Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving

Light City Buses



Area


Uniform


Excellent 2.7% 1.9% 3.8% 2.8%

Good 96.7% 94.3% 95.6% 94.7%

Fair 0.5% 2.2% 0.7% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.3%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 3.0% 1.1% 2.9% 2.6%

Good 97.0% 97.6% 96.8% 96.2%

Fair 0.0% 1.4% 0.3% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 1.6% 0.5% 2.0% 1.4%

Good 96.5% 97.0% 95.9% 96.0%

Fair 1.6% 2.2% 2.1% 2.6%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8%

No 100.0% 99.5% 99.7% 99.7%

Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Driver stop for personal business

Yes 0.3% 1.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 1.9% 1.6%

No 99.7% 98.4% 99.3% 99.3%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 3.8

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 3.9

Table 3.10

Table 3.11


Assistance Required

Required 2.7% 1.4% 2.5% 2.6% n/a n/a n/a n/aNot Required 97.3% 98.6% 97.5% 97.4%

Driver assisted

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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Reason

Pram 10.0% 0.0% 11.1% 8.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 50.0% 60.0% 44.4% 53.6% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 0.0% 20.0% 14.8% 10.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Suitcase 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Non-wheelchair bound elderly person 30.0% 0.0% 22.2% 12.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 10.0% 20.0% 7.4% 14.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Light City Buses



Area


Area


Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 26.3% 22.4% 24.9% 23.8% 27.5% 29.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 73.7% 77.6% 75.1% 76.2%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.5% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Timetables available

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.8% 0.6% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area




Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.3% 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 99.5% 98.9% 99.6% 99.5%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area




Did any passenger display anti-social or

offensive behaviour?

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in

applicable cases?

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

No n/a n/a n/a 0.0%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area



Figure 3.7

Table 3.12


• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 99.7% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 98.1% of services.

Process Compliance - Signage

On the exterior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Destination Sign

Yes 100.0% 99.7% 99.3% 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9% 98.4%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.4%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.4%

Shift Number

Yes 96.2% 98.1% 96.1% 96.4% 98.9% 98.2% 91.3% 92.2%

No 3.8% 1.9% 2.8% 2.5%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

Outer North East Route/Shift Number Displayed

Table 3.13

Figure 3.8

Signage - Onboard


• Prescribed officer decals were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• The Metro ticket fare schedules, were correctly displayed on 98.4% of vehicles.

• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

On the interior of Vehicle Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Yes n/a 100.0% n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a

No n/a 0.0% n/a 0.0%

Yes 100.0% 98.4% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 98.4%

No 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.8%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.5%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Light City Buses



Area


Area

Prescribed Officer Decal

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

Outer North East Signage

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded

from interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Exterior Signage no longer audited from

Jul-Sep 2013

Table 3.14


• 0.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 30.0% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 1.3% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 3.9% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

Ticketing


• In 0.3% of trips the driver was reconciling cash or tickets while the bus was in motion.

Table 3.15

Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 38.9% 30.0% 32.0% 38.3%

Issued problem slip 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 14.3% n/a

Wrote on ticket and returned 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 1.7%

Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 5.6% 20.0% 11.0% 11.7%

Observed ticket: no action 5.6% 20.0% 5.0% 8.3%

No action taken 0.0% 10.0% 12.0% 25.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 5.6% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0%

Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 44.4% 20.0% 23.0% 15.0%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 2.8% 2.1% 7.1%

Driver ignored passenger 18.2% 55.3% 20.5% 32.9%

Drivers view obscured 37.7% 22.4% 25.5% 21.3%

Driver not on board 1.3% 3.9% 0.8% 0.7%

Driver had no change 1.3% 1.3% 3.9% 1.7%

Driver observed slip / ticket 14.3% 3.9% 21.6% 16.4%

Passenger had no money 24.7% 9.2% 23.1% 22.0%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 1.3% 0.0% 1.6% 0.7%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.5%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 0.0% 1.3% 1.3% 0.7%

Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 0.2%

Light City Buses



Area

NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 1.1%

No 100.0% 99.7% 99.8% 99.8%

Light City Buses

Outer North East


Area



Outer North East Test Ticket

11.8%

29.4%

58.8%

0.0%

42.3%

57.7%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not

Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not

Updated)

Table 3.16

Figure 3.9

Test Ticket Information

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 January - March 2014:

• Of the total trips audited, 4.6% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 17 issues in

Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:

• The validator was not functioning in 11.8% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 29.4% of trips.

• In 58.8% of trips, the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.


Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 0 0.0% 2 11.8% 0.5%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 11 42.3% 5 29.4% 1.4%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 15 57.7% 10 58.8% 2.7%

Total 26 17 370 4.6%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services Audited

Percentage Percentage

0.4%

2.6%

Test TicketsOuter North East Outer North East Percentage of Total ONE

Services AuditedOct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14

2.8%

5.8%


In the Light City Buses’ Outer North East contract area, 2.56% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

adelaide metro - bus, train and tram timetables - public transport adelaide - light city buses...

Documents