light city buses service standard report apr -jun 2014 webpub · january - march 2014 april - june...
TRANSCRIPT
-
Light City Buses
Service Standard Report April - June 2014
-
Page 2
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
-
Page 3
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 April 2014 and 30th June 2014;
• 746 audits onboard Light City Buses services.
• 375 audits in the North South contract area.
• 371 audits in the Outer North East contract area.
The trips audited represent 3.8 % of the 19,707 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 315 32 28 375 11,277
Light CityBuses Outer North East 312 31 28 371 8,430
TOTAL 627 63 56 746 19,707
-
Page 4
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 April - June 2014;
• 80.00% of services audited were on time.
• 17.07% of services audited were late.
• 2.94% 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.
In April - June 2014;
• 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.
In April - June 2014;
• 0.8% of services audited were required to connect.
VEHICLE CONDITION
Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.
In April - June 2014;
• 98.7% acceptable interior cleanliness.
• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.
-
Page 5
North South - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY
Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required.
In April - June 2014;
• 100.0% acknowledging passengers.
• 99.0% 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.
• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.
• 99.7% acceptable uniform.
• 100.0% acceptable personal appearance.
• 100.0% acceptable personal behaviour.
PROCESS COMPLIANCE
Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.
In April - June 2014;
• 99.2% displayed destination sign.
• 98.1% displayed shift number.
SIGNAGE - ONBOARD
In April - June 2014;
• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.
• 99.5% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.
FARE EVASION
In April - June 2014;
• 1.88% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.
Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.
-
Page 6
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.
In April - June 2014;
• 86.52% of services audited were on time.
• 10.78% of services audited were late.
• 2.70% 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.
In April - June 2014;
• 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.
In April - June 2014;
• 1.9% of audited services were required to connect.
VEHICLE CONDITION
Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.
In April - June 2014;
• 100.0% acceptable interior cleanliness.
• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.
-
Page 7
Outer North East - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY
Driver standards are audited in relation to courtesy, safety, appearance and assistance required.
In April - June 2014;
• 99.5% 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.
• 0.0% 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 April - June 2014;
• 99.7% displayed destination sign.
• 97.8% displayed shift number.
SIGNAGE - ONBOARD
In April - June 2014;
• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.
• 100.0% displayed stickers for disability/elderly priority seating.
FARE EVASION
In April - June 2014;
• 0.80% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.
Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.
-
Page 8
North South
Service Standard Report April - June 2014
-
Page 9
North South On Time Running
2.93%
80.00%
17.07%
0.00%
5.04%
74.27%
20.69%
0.00% 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.
In April - June 2014;
• 80.00% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 2.94% of services. • Late running was 17.07%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.
On-Time Running
Table 2.1
Figure 2.1
April - June 2014 January - March 2014
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3-9 min early 0.80% 0.27% 0.23% 0.18%
1-2 min early 4.24% 2.67% 1.55% 1.32%
On-time (
-
Page 10
North South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness
1.1%
92.5%
6.4%
0.0%
1.1%
86.1%
12.5%
0.3%Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Bus required to connect
Yes 0.8% 0.8% 9.7% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 99.2% 99.2% 90.3% 90.3%
Mode
Bus 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 96.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Train 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.8% 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% 99.5% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 97.6% 96.8%
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4%
I f No, why not?
Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 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
Not applicable 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 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% 0.1% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0% . • 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.
Vehicle Condition - Exterior
Connections
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
In April - June 2014;
• 0.8% of audited services were required to connect.
Figure 2.3
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Vehicle exterior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9%
Excellent 1.1% 1.1% 2.6% 4.2%
Good 86.1% 92.5% 88.2% 88.4%
Fair 12.5% 6.4% 9.2% 7.1%
Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
January - March 2014 April - June 2014
-
Page 11
North South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness
0.8%
82.1%
15.7%
1.3%
1.1%
74.4%
24.0%
0.5%Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 98.7%. • 1.3% of services were recorded as poor.
Figure 2.4
April - June 2014
Vehicle Condition - Interior
January - March 2014
Figure 2.5
Table 2.4
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Vehicle interior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.5% 98.7% 99.5% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 97.0%
Excellent 1.1% 0.8% 2.4% 2.7%
Good 74.4% 82.1% 80.9% 81.8%
Fair 24.0% 15.7% 16.2% 14.5%
Poor 0.5% 1.3% 0.5% 1.0%
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)
North South Cleanliness
-
Page 12
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 100.0%.
• Response to passenger enquiries category was 99.0%.
• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops, 92.9% did so at safe locations.
Table 2.5
Figure 2.6
Driver Quality - Courtesy
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.2% 100.0% 99.8% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2%
Excellent 2.4% 2.9% 4.1% 3.0%
Good 67.6% 74.1% 74.9% 78.9%
Fair 29.3% 22.9% 20.8% 17.8%
Poor 0.8% 0.0% 0.2% 0.3%
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.0%
Excellent 4.6% 5.1% 7.1% 7.0%
Good 75.9% 74.5% 76.6% 72.3%
Fair 19.4% 19.4% 16.3% 20.5%
Poor 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Board or alight between stops*
Yes 81.3% 93.3% 87.5% 89.8% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 75.0%
No 18.8% 6.7% 12.5% 10.2%
I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*
Yes 100.0% 92.9% 94.6% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 87.5%
No 0.0% 7.1% 5.4% 3.8%
Acknowledging passengers
Response to passenger enquiries*
* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair)
North South Driver Courtesy
-
Page 13
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Uniform
Excellent + Good + Fair 98.1% 99.7% 98.7% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.5%
Excellent 1.6% 0.8% 2.8% 1.6%
Good 95.2% 97.9% 94.7% 97.8%
Fair 1.3% 1.1% 1.2% 0.4%
Poor 1.9% 0.3% 1.3% 0.1%
Personal appearance
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
Excellent 1.6% 0.5% 2.6% 1.3%
Good 97.3% 98.9% 96.2% 98.4%
Fair 1.1% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Personal behaviour
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 1.3% 0.5% 1.4% 0.5%
Good 96.3% 97.6% 96.0% 98.2%
Fair 2.4% 1.9% 2.6% 1.2%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3%
No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%
Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.8% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3%
No 99.2% 100.0% 99.7% 99.8%
Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.3%
No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Driver stop for personal business
Yes 1.3% 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1%
No 98.7% 99.5% 99.3% 99.5%
Light City Buses North South
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Smooth ride
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 0.5% 2.1% 2.2% 1.3%
Good 81.9% 80.3% 87.2% 87.7%
Fair 17.6% 17.6% 10.5% 11.0%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Compliance with road rules
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 0.5% 1.3% 2.1% 1.0%
Good 95.2% 93.6% 95.4% 96.2%
Fair 4.3% 5.1% 2.4% 2.7%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 0.3% 1.3% 2.0% 0.8%
Good 89.6% 88.0% 92.3% 93.2%
Fair 9.9% 10.7% 5.6% 5.9%
Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 1.3% 1.9% 2.2% 1.3%
Good 79.5% 82.7% 86.1% 88.8%
Fair 19.2% 15.5% 11.6% 10.0%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%
No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8%
Driver physically alert and prepared
Yes 98.7% 99.5% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7% 100.0% 98.7% 99.5%
No 1.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3%
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving
Driver Quality - Safety
In April - June 2014;
• 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%.
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 99.7%.
• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.
• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.
Table 2.6
Table 2.7
Driver Quality - Appearance
-
Page 14
Driver Quality - Special Needs
Table 2.8
Table 2.9
Table 2.10
Driver Quality - Driver Response
Table 2.11
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Assistance Required
Required 4.0% 1.6% 2.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Not Required 96.0% 98.4% 97.4% 98.1%
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 20.0% 0.0% 8.9% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wheelchair 40.0% 50.0% 53.6% 43.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shopping Cart 6.7% 0.0% 10.7% 0.0% 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 20.0% 33.3% 12.5% 31.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other 13.3% 16.7% 14.3% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange
Yes 28.8% 25.9% 23.8% 23.9% 29.3% 26.5% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 71.2% 74.1% 76.2% 76.1%
Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website
Yes 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 1.0% 0.3% 2.4% n/a 0.3%
No 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 98.9% 99.9% 98.9%
Timetables available
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 2.7% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.3%
Light City Buses North South
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service
Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3% n/a
No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
N/A 99.2% 100.0% 99.5% 99.6%
Light City Buses North South
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Did any passenger display anti-social or
offensive behaviour?
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8%
I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in
applicable cases?
Yes n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a
No n/a n/a 0.0% 0.0%
Light City Buses North South
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas
-
Page 15
In April - June 2014;
• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 99.2% 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 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Destination Sign
Yes 98.4% 99.2% 99.2% 99.3% 99.7% 100.0% 98.4% 98.6%
No 1.1% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%
Wrong No 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3%
Shift Number
Yes 98.1% 98.1% 96.4% 96.8% 98.2% 98.9% 92.2% 92.9%
No 1.1% 1.6% 2.5% 2.6%
Wrong No 0.8% 0.3% 1.1% 0.6%
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Destination Displayed Shift Numbers
North South Route/Shift Number Displayed
-
Page 16
In April - June 2014;
• The Metro ticket fare schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% 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 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Yes 98.4% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% n/a
No 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Yes 99.5% 99.5% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5%
No 0.5% 0.5% 0.1% 0.1%
Metroticket Fare Schedule
Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
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
-
Page 17
During April - June 2014;
• 16.7% of drivers issued a problem slip.
• 8.3% of passengers purchased another ticket.
• 9.1% of drivers asked passenger to validate.
• In 34.1% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.
In April - June 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
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Faulty ticket
Pass. purchased another ticket 50.0% 8.3% 38.3% 14.1%
Issued problem slip 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 3.8% n/a 16.7%
Wrote on ticket and returned 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.3%
Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 25.0% 41.7% 11.7% 33.3%
Observed ticket: no action 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% 5.1%
No action taken 25.0% 16.7% 25.0% 24.4%
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%
Drivers view obscured including hearing 0.0% 16.7% 15.0% 16.7%
Non validation of ticket
Asked to validate 4.8% 9.1% 2.8% 5.0% 7.1% 9.1%
Driver ignored passenger 35.7% 14.8% 32.9% 15.9%
Drivers view obscured 21.4% 19.3% 21.3% 24.7%
Driver not on board 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1%
Driver had no change 1.2% 5.7% 1.7% 3.7%
Driver observed slip / ticket 16.7% 34.1% 16.4% 24.9%
Passenger had no money 17.9% 14.8% 22.0% 21.8%
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 1.1% 0.7% 1.1%
Driver view of senior passenger obscured 1.2% 1.1% 0.5% 0.8%
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.2% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1%
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Light City Buses North South Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%
No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%
Light City Buses North South
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing
Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas
-
Page 18
North South Test Ticket
5.0%
45.0%
50.0%
Validator not functioning
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated)
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated)
3.3%
53.3%
43.3%
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 April - June 2014;
• Of the total trips audited, 8.0% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 30 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:
• The validator was not functioning in 3.3% of trips.
• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 53.3% of trips.
• In 43.3% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.
Table 2.16
Figure 2.9
April - June 2014
Test Ticket Information
January - March 2014
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Validator not functioning 1 5.0% 1 3.3% 0.3%
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 9 45.0% 16 53.3% 4.2%
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 10 50.0% 13 43.3% 3.4%
Total 20 30 377 8.0% 6.0%
2.7%
Test TicketsNorth South North South Percentage of Total North South
Services AuditedJan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
0.4%
2.8%
All Contract Areas % of Total
Services Audited
Percentage Percentage
-
Page 19
In the Light City Buses’ North South contract area, 1.88% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.
Fare Evasion
-
Page 20
Outer North East
Service Standard Report April - June 2014
-
Page 21
Outer North East On Time Running
2.70%
86.52%
10.78%0.00%
2.15%
85.75%
11.83%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.
In April - June 2014;
• 86.52% of services departed on time. • Early running occurred on 2.70% of services. • Late running was 10.78%. • Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.
Figure 3.1
On-Time Running
January - March 2014
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
10+ min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
3-9 min early 0.27% 0.81% 0.23% 0.18%
1-2 min early 1.88% 1.89% 1.55% 1.32%
On-time (
-
Page 22
Outer North East Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness
1.4%
93.8%
4.9%0.0%
1.1%
91.1%
7.8%0.0%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Table 3.3
In April - June 2014;
• 1.9% of audited services were required to connect.
Vehicle Condition - Exterior
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.
• No services were recorded as poor.
Connections
April - June 2014 January - March 2014
Figure 3.3
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Bus required to connect
Yes 0.5% 1.9% 9.7% 9.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 99.5% 98.1% 90.3% 90.3%
Mode
Bus 100.0% 100.0% 98.1% 96.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Train 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 3.8% 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% 99.5% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 97.6% 96.8%
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 1.4%
If No, why not?
Bus arrived late 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 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
Not applicable 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8% 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% 0.1% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0%
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Vehicle exterior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 98.9%
Excellent 1.1% 1.4% 2.6% 4.2%
Good 91.1% 93.8% 88.2% 88.4%
Fair 7.8% 4.9% 9.2% 7.1%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3%
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Table 3.2
-
Page 23
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Exterior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair) Interior Cleanliness (Exc/Good/Fair)
Outer North East Cleanliness
Outer North East Vehicle Interior Cleanliness
0.0%
84.9%
15.1%0.0%
0.5%
84.9%
14.1%
0.5% Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Figure 3.4
Table 3.4
Figure 3.5
Vehicle Condition - Interior
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 100.0%.
• 0.0% of services were recorded as poor.
April - June 2014 January - March 2014
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Vehicle interior clean
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.5% 100.0% 99.5% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 97.0%
Excellent 0.5% 0.0% 2.4% 2.7%
Good 84.9% 84.9% 80.9% 81.8%
Fair 14.1% 15.1% 16.2% 14.5%
Poor 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0%
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
-
Page 24
Driver Quality - Courtesy
Table 3.5
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers were 99.5%.
• 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
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 99.5% 99.8% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.2%
Excellent 1.6% 1.9% 4.1% 3.0%
Good 80.5% 77.9% 74.9% 78.9%
Fair 17.8% 19.7% 20.8% 17.8%
Poor 0.0% 0.5% 0.2% 0.3%
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.0%
Excellent 4.8% 4.1% 7.1% 7.0%
Good 79.5% 71.4% 76.6% 72.3%
Fair 15.7% 24.5% 16.3% 20.5%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Board or alight between stops*
Yes 85.7% 100.0% 87.5% 89.8% 100.0% 100.0% 70.0% 75.0%
No 14.3% 0.0% 12.5% 10.2%
I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 94.6% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 83.3% 87.5%
No 0.0% 0.0% 5.4% 3.8%
Acknowledging passengers
Response to passenger enquiries*
* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
95
96
97
98
99
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Acknowledging Passengers (Exc/Good/Fair) Response to Passenger Enquiries (Exc/Good/Fair)
Outer North East Driver Courtesy
-
Page 25
Driver Quality - Safety
Table 3.6
In April - June 2014;
• 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
In April - June 2014;
• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%.
• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.
• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.
Driver Quality - Appearance
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Smooth ride
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 1.1% 0.3% 2.2% 1.3%
Good 89.7% 88.4% 87.2% 87.7%
Fair 9.2% 11.4% 10.5% 11.0%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Compliance with road rules
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 0.8% 0.5% 2.1% 1.0%
Good 96.5% 97.0% 95.4% 96.2%
Fair 2.7% 2.4% 2.4% 2.7%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Bus parked Close to Kerb as possible
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 0.5% 0.3% 2.0% 0.8%
Good 95.1% 93.5% 92.3% 93.2%
Fair 4.3% 6.2% 5.6% 5.9%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% n/a
Excellent 0.3% 0.5% 2.2% 1.3%
Good 90.0% 88.4% 86.1% 88.8%
Fair 9.7% 11.1% 11.6% 10.0%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving
Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%
No 99.5% 100.0% 99.9% 99.8%
Driver physically alert and prepared
Yes 98.9% 100.0% 99.1% 99.7% 99.7% 100.0% 98.7% 99.5%
No 1.1% 0.0% 0.9% 0.3%
Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Uniform
Excellent + Good + Fair 98.4% 100.0% 98.7% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% n/a 99.5%
Excellent 1.9% 0.0% 2.8% 1.6%
Good 94.3% 99.7% 94.7% 97.8%
Fair 2.2% 0.3% 1.2% 0.4%
Poor 1.6% 0.0% 1.3% 0.1%
Personal appearance
Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
Excellent 1.1% 0.3% 2.6% 1.3%
Good 97.6% 99.5% 96.2% 98.4%
Fair 1.4% 0.3% 1.2% 0.3%
Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Personal behaviour
Excellent + Good + Fair 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.7%
Excellent 0.5% 0.0% 1.4% 0.5%
Good 97.0% 98.9% 96.0% 98.2%
Fair 2.2% 1.1% 2.6% 1.2%
Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3%
No 100.0% 99.7% 99.9% 99.9%
Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion
Yes 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.3%
No 99.5% 99.7% 99.7% 99.8%
Driver smoke whilst on board the vehicle
Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% n/a 0.3%
No 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Driver stop for personal business
Yes 1.6% 1.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.1%
No 98.4% 98.9% 99.3% 99.5%
Light City Buses
Outer North East
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
-
Page 26
Driver Quality - Special Needs
Table 3.8
Driver Quality - Driver Response
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Assistance Required
Required 1.4% 1.9% 2.6% 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/aNot Required 98.6% 98.1% 97.4% 98.1%
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 0.0% 28.6% 8.9% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Wheelchair 60.0% 28.6% 53.6% 43.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Shopping Cart 20.0% 0.0% 10.7% 0.0% 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 0.0% 42.9% 12.5% 31.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Other 20.0% 0.0% 14.3% 12.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange
Yes 22.4% 26.5% 23.8% 23.9% 29.3% 26.5% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 77.6% 73.5% 76.2% 76.1%
Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website
Yes 0.0% 0.8% 0.1% 1.0% 0.3% 2.4% n/a 0.3%
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 99.2% 99.9% 98.9%
Timetables available
Yes 0.0% 0.5% 0.1% 0.7% 0.6% 2.7% n/a n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N/A 100.0% 99.5% 99.9% 99.3%
Light City Buses
Outer North East
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service
Yes 1.1% 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.3% n/a
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
N/A 98.9% 99.5% 99.5% 99.6%
Light City Buses
Outer North East
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Did any passenger display anti-social or
offensive behaviour?
Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% n/a n/a n/a n/a
No 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 99.8%
I f Yes, did driver act appropriately in
applicable cases?
Yes n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a
No n/a 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Light City Buses
Outer North East
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
-
Page 27
Figure 3.7
Table 3.12
In April - June 2014;
• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 99.7% of services.
• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 97.8% of services.
Process Compliance - Signage
On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Destination Sign
Yes 99.7% 99.7% 99.2% 99.3% 99.7% 100.0% 98.4% 98.6%
No 0.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4%
Wrong No 0.3% 0.0% 0.4% 0.3%
Shift Number
Yes 98.1% 97.8% 96.4% 96.8% 98.2% 98.9% 92.2% 92.9%
No 1.9% 2.2% 2.5% 2.6%
Wrong No 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.6%
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Destination Displayed Shift Numbers
Outer North East Route/Shift Number Displayed
-
Page 28
Table 3.13
Figure 3.8
Signage - Onboard
In April - June 2014;
• The Metro ticket fare schedules, were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.
• Stickers for disability/elderly priority seating were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.
On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Yes 98.4% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.4% n/a
No 1.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%
Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.5% 99.5%
No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%
Metroticket Fare Schedule
Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
Area
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jul-Sep-13 Oct-Dec-13 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
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
-
Page 29
Table 3.14
In April - June 2014;
• 0.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.
• 0.0% of passengers purchased another ticket.
• 4.9% of drivers asked passenger to validate.
• In 19.5% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.
Ticketing
In April - June 2014;
• In 0.3% of trips the driver was reconciling cash or tickets while the bus was in motion.
Table 3.15
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Faulty ticket
Pass. purchased another ticket 30.0% 0.0% 38.3% 14.1%
Issued problem slip 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% n/a 16.7%
Wrote on ticket and returned 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 1.3%
Metrocard failed-driver took appropriate action 20.0% 15.4% 11.7% 33.3%
Observed ticket: no action 20.0% 0.0% 8.3% 5.1%
No action taken 10.0% 30.8% 25.0% 24.4%
Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Driver ignored senior free 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 7.7% 0.0% 1.3%
Drivers view obscured including hearing 20.0% 46.2% 15.0% 16.7%
Non validation of ticket
Asked to validate 1.3% 4.9% 2.8% 5.0% 7.1% 9.1%
Driver ignored passenger 55.3% 12.2% 32.9% 15.9%
Drivers view obscured 22.4% 51.2% 21.3% 24.7%
Driver not on board 3.9% 2.4% 0.7% 1.1%
Driver had no change 1.3% 0.0% 1.7% 3.7%
Driver observed slip / ticket 3.9% 19.5% 16.4% 24.9%
Passenger had no money 9.2% 7.3% 22.0% 21.8%
Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 2.4% 0.7% 1.1%
Driver view of senior passenger obscured 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8%
Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 1.3% 0.0% 0.7% 1.1%
Driver took money and issued "00" ticket 1.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0%
NB - Sample sizes in the abov e categories are small and may account for statistical anomalies
Light City Buses
Outer North East Total All Contract Areas
Best Performing Contract
Area
Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14 Jan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion
Yes 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.3%
No 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 100.0%
Light City Buses
Outer North East
Best Performing Contract
Area
Worst Performing Contract
AreaTotal All Contract Areas
-
Page 30
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 April - June 2014:
• Of the total trips audited, 7.8% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 29 issues in Service Audit Reports (SAR’s), of the SAR’s raised:
• The validator was not functioning in 13.8% of trips.
• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 41.4% of trips.
• In 44.8% of trips, the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.
January - March 2014
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Validator not functioning 2 11.8% 4 13.8% 1.1%
Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 5 29.4% 12 41.4% 3.2%
Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 10 58.8% 13 44.8% 3.5%
Total 17 29 370 7.8%
2.7%
6.0%
Test TicketsOuter North East Outer North East Percentage of Total ONE
Services AuditedJan-Mar-14 Apr-Jun-14
0.4%
2.8%
All Contract Areas % of Total
Services Audited
Percentage Percentage
April - June 2014
Outer North East Test Ticket
13.8%
41.4%
44.8%
11.8%
29.4%
58.8%
Validator not functioning
Incorrect Route (BCU not
Updated)
Incorrect Section (BCU not
Updated)
-
Page 31
In the Light City Buses’ Outer North East contract area, 0.80% of passengers boarded the vehicle without validating a ticket.
Fare Evasion