southlink service standard report - adelaide metro · page 5 hills - main findings driver quality...

SouthLink

Service Standard Report April - June 2013

Sample and Methodology 3

Hills—Main Findings 4-5

Outer North—Main Findings 6-7

Outer South—Main Findings 8-9

HILLS

On-Time Running 11

Connections 12

Vehicle Condition—Exterior/Interior 12-13

Driver Quality—Courtesy/Safety/Appearance/Special Needs/Driver Response 14-16

Process Compliance—Signage 17

Signage—Onboard 18

Ticketing 19

Test Ticket Information 20

Fare Evasion 21

OUTER NORTH

On-Time Running 23

Connections 24





Ticketing 31


Fare Evasion 33

OUTER SOUTH

On-Time Running 35

Connections 36





Ticketing 43


Fare Evasion 45

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 April - 30th June 2013;

• 1070 audits onboard SouthLink services.

• 365 audits in the Outer South contract area.

• 374 audits in the Outer North contract area.

• 331 audits in the Hills contract area.

The trips audited represent 6.6% of the 16,218 trips supplied (defined as the number of trips available for five weekdays, plus a

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

on PTS approved timetables submitted by SouthLink.

Sample and Methodology

Table 1.1

Contract Area Weekday Trips Audited Saturday Trips Audited

Sunday Trips

Audited Trips Audited Trips Supplied

SouthLink Outer South 308 29 28 365 6,263

SouthLink Outer North 324 27 23 374 7,695

Southlink Hills 301 18 12 331 2,260

TOTAL 933 74 63 1,070 16,218

Hills - 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 2013;

• 90.63% of services audited were on time.

• 9.06% of services audited were late.

• 0.30% 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.


• 100% service connections.

VEHICLE CONDITION

Compliance with processes determined in accordance within the contract.


• 99.7% acceptable interior cleanliness.

• 100.0% acceptable exterior cleanliness.

Hills - 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.

• 99.7% 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



• 100.0% displayed destination sign.

• 97.6% displayed shift number.

SIGNAGE - ONBOARD


• 100.0% displayed ‘Welcome Aboard’ sign.

• 100.0% displayed concession pass schedule.

• 100.0% displayed metroticket fare schedule.

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

FARE EVASION


• 1.41% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for special

passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100% bus trips

Further breakdowns can be found throughout the report.

Outer North - Main Findings ON-TIME RUNNING







TRIPS RUN










VEHICLE CONDITION





Outer North - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY









• 0.0% use of personal equipment whilst driving.




PROCESS COMPLIANCE





SIGNAGE - ONBOARD






FARE EVASION



The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for

special passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100%

bus trips


Outer South - Main Findings ON-TIME RUNNING







TRIPS RUN










VEHICLE CONDITION





Outer South - Main Findings DRIVER QUALITY









• 0.0% use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving.




PROCESS COMPLIANCE





SIGNAGE - ONBOARD






FARE EVASION



The reported level of fare evasion is based on Auditor sightings of non validation. No allowance has been made for

special passes nor has machine failure been attributed. Above all, the percentage shown is not representative of 100%

bus trips


Hills


April - June 2013

On-Time Running

Table 2.1

Hills On Time Running

0.30%

90.63%

9.06%

0.00%0.30%

93.35%

6.34%

0.00%

Early

On time

Late

Did not run

Figure 2.1

Figure 2.2

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

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

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.05%

1-2 min early 0.30% 0.30% 0.64% 1.41%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 93.35% 90.63% 84.84% 83.97% 93.40% 90.63% 69.50% 68.70%

5-6 late 0.91% 3.32% 3.01% 3.78%

6-9 min late 3.93% 3.93% 7.31% 6.65%

10+ min late 1.51% 1.81% 3.97% 4.01%

Did Not Run 0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.14%

10+ min late 1.81% 1.21% 2.52% 2.87% 0.50% 0.55% 8.60% 9.60%

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

Southlink Hills Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing Contract

Area

Worst Performing Contract

Area

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 and 59 seconds late.


• 90.63% of services departed on time.

• Early running occurred on 0.30% of services.

• Late running was 9.06%.

• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.00%.

January - March 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Jul-Sep-11 Oct-Dec-11 Jan-Mar-12 Apr-Jun-12 Jul-Sep-12 Oct-Dec-12 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

On-Time Late Departing Early Departing

Hills On Time Running

Percentage


• Acceptable ratings for exterior cleanliness were 100.0%.

January - March 2013 April - June 2013

Connections

Vehicle Condition - Exterior


• 8.5% of trips were required to connect to another service, with 100.0% of these connections successful.

Table 2.2

Table 2.3

Figure 2.3


Bus required to connect

Yes 6.0% 8.5% 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 94.0% 91.5% 94.2% 94.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 8.5% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 91.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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%

I f No, why not?

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

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

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

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

Not applicable n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Passengers asked to re-validate at terminus on change of route number

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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Southlink Hills Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract Worst Performing Contract

Hills Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

3.3%

96.1%

0.6%

0.0%10.6%

88.2%

1.2%

0.0%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


Vehicle exterior clean

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

Excellent 10.6% 3.3% 2.6% 0.7%

Good 88.2% 96.1% 92.0% 90.6%

Fair 1.2% 0.6% 5.3% 8.6%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%



Area


Area


• Acceptable ratings for interior cleanliness were 99.7%.


Vehicle Condition - Interior

Table 2.4

Figure 2.4

Figure 2.5


Vehicle interior clean


Excellent 12.1% 2.7% 4.1% 0.5%

Good 80.1% 94.3% 81.5% 88.0%

Fair 7.6% 2.7% 14.2% 10.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5%



Area


Area

Hills Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

2.7%

94.3%

2.7%

0.3%

12.1%

80.1%

7.6%0.3%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

90

92

94

96

98

100


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

Hills Cleanliness

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012

categories included

Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards

categories Excellent/Good/Fair

included.


• Acceptable ratings for acknowledging passengers was 100.0%.

• Response to passenger enquiries category was 100.0%.

• Drivers who allowed boarding or alighting between stops 90.9% did so at safe locations.

Driver Quality - Courtesy

Table 2.5

Figure 2.6



Excellent 15.1% 22.1% 6.1% 8.3%

Good 77.3% 69.8% 74.7% 68.6%

Fair 7.6% 8.2% 19.1% 23.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

Excellent + Good + Fair 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% N/A

Excellent 29.7% 22.7% 13.9% 11.1%

Good 67.6% 72.7% 73.8% 72.1%

Fair 2.7% 4.5% 11.5% 16.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%

Board or alight between stops*

Yes 100.0% 90.9% 93.8% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 66.7%

No 0.0% 9.1% 6.3% 8.5%

I f Yes, board/alight at safe locations*

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 50.0%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%

Acknowledging passengers

Response to passenger enquiries*

* Not applicable cases have been excluded from the percentage base


50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Hills Driver Courtesy

Prior to Jan-Mar 2012 categories

included Excellent/Good onlyJan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

included Excellent/Good/Fair.

Table 2.7

Driver Quality - Safety


• Acceptable ratings for smooth ride were 99.7%.

• Compliance with road rules category was 100.0%.

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

Table 2.6

Driver Quality - Appearance


Smooth ride


Excellent 9.7% 10.6% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 88.5% 86.1% 83.9% 85.3%

Fair 1.8% 3.0% 11.0% 10.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Compliance with road rules


Excellent 11.8% 10.3% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 87.9% 89.4% 92.8% 93.4%

Fair 0.3% 0.3% 2.2% 2.2%

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% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 98.9%

Excellent 10.0% 10.3% 5.1% 4.3%

Good 89.7% 88.5% 92.1% 92.0%

Fair 0.3% 1.2% 2.8% 3.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%


Excellent 11.2% 7.3% 6.1% 3.3%

Good 87.0% 91.2% 88.8% 90.8%

Fair 1.8% 1.5% 5.0% 5.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Use of personal electronic equipment whilst driving

Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5%

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.7% 99.9%

Driver physically alert and prepared

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%


Ensured unsteady passengers seated before driving


Uniform


Excellent 12.1% 16.0% 12.6% 11.9%

Good 87.9% 84.0% 87.3% 87.5%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Personal appearance

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

Excellent 12.1% 15.1% 14.1% 13.7%

Good 87.9% 84.9% 85.6% 86.2%

Fair 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 13.6% 13.6% 9.2% 5.1%

Good 85.8% 86.4% 89.6% 93.7%

Fair 0.6% 0.0% 1.1% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Driver eat whilst vehicle in motion

Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Driver drink whilst vehicle in motion

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

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 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

Southlink Hills Best Performing Contract Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas


• Acceptable ratings for driver uniform was 100.0%.

• Personal appearance category was 100.0%.

• Personal behaviour category was 100.0%.

Driver Quality - Special Needs

Table 2.8

Driver Quality - Driver Response

Table 2.9

Table 2.10

Table 2.11


Assistance Required

Required 1.8% 0.9% 1.9% 1.8% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Not Required 98.2% 99.1% 98.1% 98.2%

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% 0.0% 9.5% 10.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Wheelchair 100.0% 66.7% 69.0% 64.1% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Shopping Cart 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 2.6% 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% 33.3% 9.5% 15.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Other 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 7.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a



Knowledge of basic routes and Interchange

Yes 7.3% 13.3% 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 92.7% 86.7% 92.0% 85.7%

Direct to Adelaide Metro Infoline, Centre or Website

Yes 0.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% N/A N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.1% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%

Timetables available

Yes 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.4% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9%

Southlink Hills


Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas


Informing Passengers of any disruptions to normal service

Yes 0.0% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 99.1% 99.7% 99.6%

Southlink Hills


Area


AreaTotal All Contract Areas


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 0.0% 100.0% n/a n/a 0.0%

No n/a n/a n/a 100.0%

Southlink Hills Best Performing Contract Worst Performing Contract Total All Contract Areas


• Vehicle destination signs were correctly displayed on 100.0% of services.

• Correct shift numbers were displayed on 97.6% of services.

Process Compliance - Signage

Table 2.12

Figure 2.7

On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Destination Sign

Yes 99.4% 100.0% 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.6% 0.0% 0.5% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%

Shift Number

Yes 97.0% 97.6% 95.2% 95.9% 98.9% 98.7% 90.7% 93.2%

No 1.8% 1.5% 3.0% 3.1%

Wrong No 1.2% 0.9% 1.8% 0.9%



Area


Area

95

96

97

98

99

100


Destination Displayed Shift Numbers

Hills Destination/Shift Number Displayed


• Concession pass schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

• The Metroticket fare schedules, were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.

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

Signage - Onboard

Table 2.13

Table 2.14

Figure 2.8


• The ‘Welcome Aboard’ signs were correctly displayed on 100.0% of services.


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Welcome Aboard sign



Area


Area

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

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%

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.4% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%

Concession Pass Schedule

Metroticket Fare Schedule

Stickers for Disability/Elderly Priority Seating



Area


Area

99

99.1

99.2

99.3

99.4

99.5

99.6

99.7

99.8

99.9

100


Interior Signage Exterior Signage

Hills Signage

4 exterior Metro Stickers

excluded from Oct-Dec 2011

Ticket Validation Instructions excluded from

interior signage Apr-Jun-2013

Ticketing


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

Table 2.15

Table 2.16


• 25.0% of drivers issued a problem slip.

• 8.3% of passengers purchased another ticket.

• 1.4% of drivers asked passenger to validate.

• In 26.1% of cases the driver observed the slip or ticket.

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Faulty ticket

Pass. purchased another ticket 14.3% 8.3% 12.3% 14.7%

Issued problem slip 19.0% 25.0% 22.6% 16.0% 35.7% 32.3%

Wrote on ticket and returned 4.8% 25.0% 11.6% 14.7%

Observed ticket: no action 19.0% 8.3% 23.9% 17.3%

No action taken 33.3% 8.3% 14.8% 16.0%

Driver observed senior card and issued ticket 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

Driver ignored senior free 4.8% 0.0% 3.9% 1.3%

Driver sighted senior card no action 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 1.3%

Drivers view obscured including hearing 4.8% 25.0% 8.4% 18.7%

Non validation of ticket

Asked to validate 2.1% 1.4% 0.9% 2.5% 2.8% 4.1%

Driver ignored passenger 18.8% 4.3% 11.1% 11.5%

Drivers view obscured 27.1% 55.1% 15.6% 31.9%

Driver not on board 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0%

Driver had no change 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 3.2%

Driver observed slip / ticket 31.3% 26.1% 47.6% 29.2%

Passenger had no money 14.6% 10.1% 13.9% 18.2%

Driver did not issue "00" ticket (free seniors) 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 1.0%

Driver view of senior passenger obscured 6.3% 2.9% 5.4% 2.0%

Senior did not validate their "00" ticket 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.5%

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

Southlink Hills Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Contract


Ticket/cash reconciliation whilst in motion

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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%

Southlink Hills Best Performing Contract Area Worst Performing Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas

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 2013:

• Of the total trips audited, 4.8% resulted in information displayed incorrectly on the test ticket. This resulted in 16 issues in

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

• The validator was not functioning in 18.8% of trips.

• An incorrect route was stamped on the test ticket in 37.5% of trips.

• In 43.8% of trips the test ticket contained Incorrect Section information.


Test Ticket Information

Table 2.17

Figure 2.9

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Validator not functioning 0 0.0% 3 18.8% 0.9%

Incorrect Route (BCU not Updated) 4 50.0% 6 37.5% 1.8%

Incorrect Section (BCU not Updated) 4 50.0% 7 43.8% 2.1%

Total 8 16 331 4.8%

All Contract Areas % of Total

Services AuditedApr-Jun - 13

Percentage Percentage

2.2%

5.1%

2.2%

0.7%

Test TicketsHills Hills Percentage of Total Hills

Services AuditedJan-Mar-13

Hills Test Ticket

18.8%

37.5%

43.8%

0.0%

50.0%50.0%

Validator not functioning

Incorrect Route (BCU not

Updated)

Incorrect Section (BCU not

Updated)

In the Hills contract area, 1.41% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Table 2.18

Bus Fare

Evasion

Southlink

Hills Metro

Apr-Jun-10 0.37%

Jul-Sep-10 0.77%

Oct-Dec-10 2.01%

Jan-Mar-11 1.49%

Apr-Jun-11 1.77%

Jul-Sep-11 1.41%

Oct-Dec-11 2.03%

Jan-Mar-12 1.56%

Apr-Jun-12 1.71%

Jul-Sep-12 1.72%

Oct-Dec-12 1.16%

Jan-Mar-13 1.01%

Apr-Jun-13 1.41%

Outer North



than 1 minute early and no more than 4 minutes and 59 seconds late.





• Services reported as Did Not Run was 0.53%.


On-Time Running

Table 3.1

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer North On Time Running


1.34%

88.77%

9.36%

0.53%

0.3%

99.7%

0.0%

0.0%

Did not run


0.54%

88.89%

10.30%

0.27% Early

On time

Late

Did not run

Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

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

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.05%

1-2 min early 0.54% 1.34% 0.64% 1.41%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 88.89% 88.77% 84.84% 83.97% 93.40% 90.63% 69.50% 68.70%

5-6 late 2.71% 4.01% 3.01% 3.78%

6-9 min late 6.50% 4.55% 7.31% 6.65%

10+ min late 1.08% 0.80% 3.97% 4.01%

Did Not Run 0.27% 0.53% 0.18% 0.14%

10+ min late 1.09% 0.81% 2.52% 2.87% 0.50% 0.55% 8.60% 9.60%

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

SouthLink Outer North Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Outer North Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.3%

89.5%

9.9%

0.3%

0.5%

91.3%

7.9%

0.3% Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor



• 0.3% of services were recorded as poor.



Connections


• 9.7% of trips were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Figure 3.3



Yes 13.6% 9.7% 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 86.4% 90.3% 94.2% 94.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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%

I f No, why not?

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

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

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

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

Not applicable n/a n/a 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a


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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

SouthLink Outer North Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Worst Performing




Excellent 0.5% 0.3% 2.6% 0.7%

Good 91.3% 89.5% 92.0% 90.6%

Fair 7.9% 9.9% 5.3% 8.6%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Outer North Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.3%

87.6%

11.6%

0.5%

1.9%

79.6%

18.3%

0.3%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor




April - June 2013 January - March 2013


Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5




Excellent 1.9% 0.3% 4.1% 0.5%

Good 79.6% 87.6% 81.5% 88.0%

Fair 18.3% 11.6% 14.2% 10.9%

Poor 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Table 3.4

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Outer North Cleanliness


categories included

Excellent/Good only


categories

Excellent/Good/Fair






Table 3.5

Figure 3.6



Excellent 1.9% 5.9% 6.1% 8.3%

Good 75.2% 71.5% 74.7% 68.6%

Fair 22.9% 22.6% 19.1% 23.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%


Excellent 9.7% 7.7% 13.9% 11.1%

Good 64.5% 69.2% 73.8% 72.1%

Fair 25.8% 23.1% 11.5% 16.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%


Yes 100.0% 87.5% 93.8% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 66.7%

No 0.0% 12.5% 6.3% 8.5%


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 50.0%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.0%





0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer North Driver Courtesy


included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair incuded.

Table 3.6









Table 3.7


Driver Quality - Safety Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

Smooth ride


Excellent 2.5% 1.3% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 84.5% 90.1% 83.9% 85.3%

Fair 13.1% 8.6% 11.0% 10.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2%



Excellent 1.4% 1.6% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 95.9% 95.2% 92.8% 93.4%

Fair 2.7% 3.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



Excellent 1.4% 1.6% 5.1% 4.3%

Good 96.2% 96.2% 92.1% 92.0%

Fair 2.5% 2.2% 2.8% 3.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%


Excellent 3.8% 2.4% 6.1% 3.3%

Good 92.4% 94.6% 88.8% 90.8%

Fair 3.8% 3.0% 5.0% 5.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.9%


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%




Uniform


Excellent 6.8% 5.4% 12.6% 11.9%

Good 93.2% 94.4% 87.3% 87.5%

Fair 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Personal appearance


Excellent 9.3% 7.0% 14.1% 13.7%

Good 90.7% 92.7% 85.6% 86.2%

Fair 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 4.6% 1.9% 9.2% 5.1%

Good 94.3% 96.2% 89.6% 93.7%

Fair 1.1% 1.6% 1.1% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%


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

No 99.7% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%


Yes 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A 0.3%

No 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0%


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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

SouthLink Outer North

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract AreaTotal All Contract Areas

Table 3.11


Table 3.8


Table 3.9

Table 3.10


Assistance Required


Not Required 98.4% 98.4% 98.1% 98.2%

Driver assisted

Yes 100.00% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Reason

Pram 0.0% 0.0% 9.5% 10.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Other 0.0% 16.7% 9.5% 7.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a




Yes 6.8% 10.2% 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 93.2% 89.5% 92.0% 85.7%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% N/A N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%


Yes 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 99.7% 99.8% 99.9%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing




Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 99.6%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing





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

No 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


applicable cases?

Yes 100.0% n/a 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% n/a n/a 0.0%

No 0.0% n/a 0.0% 0.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing





Table 3.12


Figure 3.7

On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

Destination Sign

Yes 98.9% 99.5% 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 1.1% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Shift Number

Yes 92.9% 94.6% 95.2% 95.9% 98.9% 98.7% 90.7% 93.2%

No 3.8% 3.8% 3.0% 3.1%

Wrong No 3.3% 1.6% 1.8% 0.9%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer North Route/Shift Number Displayed


• Concession pass were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.



Signage - Onboard

Table 3.14

Table 3.13

Figure 3.8



On the exterior of Vehicle Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

Yes 99.7% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Welcome Aboard sign


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

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%

Yes 98.9% 99.7% 99.4% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%

No 1.1% 0.3% 0.6% 0.1%





Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

98.8

99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100



Outer North Signage

Metro Stickers excluded

from exterior signage

Oct-Dec-2011

Ticket Validation Instructions

excluded from interior signage

Apr-Jun-2013

Ticketing



Table 3.15

Table 3.16






Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13 Jan-Mar 13 Apr-Jun 13

Faulty ticket





No action taken 19.0% 0.0% 14.8% 16.0%

















SouthLink Outer North Total All Contract Areas Best Performing



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

No 99.5% 99.5% 99.8% 99.9%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing













Table 3.17

Figure 3.9





Total 14 25 374 6.7%

2.2%

5.1%

Test TicketsOuter North Outer North Percentage of Total Outer North

Services AuditedJan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun - 13


Services Audited


0.7%

2.2%

Outer North Test Ticket

12.0%

48.0%

40.0%

0.0%

57.1%

42.9%



Updated)


Updated)

In the Outer North contract area, 0.90% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Table 3.18

Bus Fare

Evasion

SouthLink

Outer North

Apr-Jun-10 0.72%

Jul-Sep-10 0.70%

Oct-Dec-10 2.23%

Jan-Mar-11 2.99%

Apr-Jun-11 3.31%

Jul-Sep-11 2.72%

Oct-Dec-11 2.52%

Jan-Mar-12 3.24%

Apr-Jun-12 3.31%

Jul-Sep-12 3.89%

Oct-Dec-12 3.11%

Jan-Mar-13 1.17%

Apr-Jun-13 0.90%

Outer South


January - March 2013


than 1 minute early and no more than 4 minutes and 59 seconds.





On-Time Running

Table 4.1

Figure 4.1

Figure 4.2

April - June 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



Outer South On Time Running

Outer South On Time Running

1.37%

90.14%

8.49%0.00%

0.27%

90.22%

9.24%

0.27%Early

On time

Late

Did not run


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

3-9 min early 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.05%

1-2 min early 0.27% 1.37% 0.64% 1.41%

On-time (<4.59 min late) 90.22% 90.14% 84.84% 83.97% 93.40% 90.63% 69.50% 68.70%

5-6 late 2.99% 2.19% 3.01% 3.78%

6-9 min late 4.08% 4.38% 7.31% 6.65%

10+ min late 2.17% 1.92% 3.97% 4.01%

Did Not Run 0.27% 0.00% 0.18% 0.14%

10+ min late 0.82% 0.55% 2.52% 2.87% 0.50% 0.55% 8.60% 9.60%

Bus departure time

Bus arrival time

SouthLink Outer South Total All Contract Areas

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Outer South Vehicle Exterior Cleanliness

0.3%

91.2%

8.5%

0.0%

3.3%

91.6%

4.9%0.3%

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor






Connections


• 17.0% of trips were required to connect, with 100.0% of these connections successfully occurring.

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Figure 4.3



Yes 15.5% 17.0% 5.8% 5.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a

No 84.5% 83.0% 94.2% 94.3%

Mode

Bus 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a

Train 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Not applicable 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Able to transfer

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%

I f No, why not?

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

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

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

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

Not applicable n/a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% n/a n/a n/a n/a


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

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area




Excellent 3.3% 0.3% 2.6% 0.7%

Good 91.6% 91.2% 92.0% 90.6%

Fair 4.9% 8.5% 5.3% 8.6%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area






Table 4.4

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.5




Excellent 4.9% 0.3% 4.1% 0.5%

Good 80.4% 87.9% 81.5% 88.0%

Fair 14.2% 10.7% 14.2% 10.9%

Poor 0.5% 1.1% 0.3% 0.5%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

Outer South Vehicle Interior Cleanliness

0.3%

87.9%

10.7%

1.1%

4.9%

80.4%

14.2%

0.5%

Excellent Good

Fair Poor

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100


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

Outer South Cleanliness


included Excellent/Good only

Jan-Mar 2012 onwards categories

Excellent/Good/Fair included.






Table 4.5

Figure 4.6



Excellent 8.2% 8.2% 6.1% 8.3%

Good 74.9% 68.2% 74.7% 68.6%

Fair 16.9% 23.6% 19.1% 23.0%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1%


Excellent 11.3% 10.0% 13.9% 11.1%

Good 79.2% 78.3% 73.8% 72.1%

Fair 7.5% 11.7% 11.5% 16.8%

Poor 1.9% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0%


Yes 75.0% 100.0% 93.8% 91.5% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 66.7%

No 25.0% 0.0% 6.3% 8.5%


Yes 100.0% 50.0% 100.0% 93.0% 100.0% 100.0% N/A 50.0%

No 0.0% 50.0% 0.0% 7.0%




SouthLink Outer South Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Worst Performing

0

20

40

60

80

100



Outer South Driver Courtesy


categories included

Excellent/Good only


categories Excellent/Good/Fair

included.

Table 4.7

Table 4.6

Driver Quality - Safety











Smooth ride


Excellent 8.2% 7.7% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 79.3% 80.0% 83.9% 85.3%

Fair 12.3% 12.1% 11.0% 10.1%

Poor 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%



Excellent 8.7% 8.5% 4.9% 4.4%

Good 89.9% 89.3% 92.8% 93.4%

Fair 1.1% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2%

Poor 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%



Excellent 9.0% 6.6% 5.1% 4.3%

Good 88.3% 90.4% 92.1% 92.0%

Fair 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% 3.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.2%


Excellent 8.4% 2.7% 6.1% 3.3%

Good 86.1% 91.8% 88.8% 90.8%

Fair 5.4% 5.5% 5.0% 5.8%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%


Yes 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.5%

No 99.5% 100.0% 99.7% 99.9%


Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

SouthLink Outer South Total All Contract Areas Best Performing Worst Performing



Uniform


Excellent 23.4% 20.5% 12.6% 11.9%

Good 76.6% 79.2% 87.3% 87.5%

Fair 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

Personal appearance


Excellent 26.4% 26.3% 14.1% 13.7%

Good 73.6% 73.4% 85.6% 86.2%

Fair 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Personal behaviour


Excellent 16.9% 7.9% 9.2% 5.1%

Good 81.7% 91.0% 89.6% 93.7%

Fair 1.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.2%

Poor 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%


Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.5%

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%


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

No 100.0% 99.7% 99.9% 99.9%


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%


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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9%

SouthLink Outer South

Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing



Table 4.8


Table 4.9

Table 4.10

Table 4.11


Assistance Required


Not Required 98.6% 98.4% 98.1% 98.2%

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% 0.0% 9.5% 10.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a





Other 0.0% 16.7% 9.5% 7.7% n/a n/a n/a n/a


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area



Yes 12.3% 15.9% 7.9% 14.2% 12.3% 15.9% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1%

N/A 87.5% 83.8% 92.0% 85.7%


Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.9% N/A N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0%


Yes 0.3% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.6% 0.3% N/A N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

N/A 99.7% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing




Yes 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3%

No 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.1%

N/A 99.5% 99.2% 99.7% 99.6%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing





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%


applicable cases?

Yes n/a n/a 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% n/a n/a 0.0%

No n/a n/a 0.0% 100.0%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing






Table 4.12

Figure 4.7


Destination Sign

Yes 99.7% 99.5% 99.4% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 98.9%

No 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3%

Wrong No 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Shift Number

Yes 90.7% 94.2% 95.2% 95.9% 98.9% 98.7% 90.7% 93.2%

No 5.4% 4.7% 3.0% 3.1%

Wrong No 3.8% 1.1% 1.8% 0.9%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

70

75

80

85

90

95

100



Outer South Route/Shift Number Displayed


• Concession pass schedules were correctly displayed on 100.0% of vehicles.



Signage - Onboard

Table 4.14

Table 4.13

Figure 4.8




Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% N/A

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%

Welcome Aboard sign


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

On the interior of Vehicle Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Yes 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.2% 99.5%

No 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.1%

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%

Yes 99.2% 100.0% 99.4% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 99.7%

No 0.8% 0.0% 0.6% 0.1%





Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing

Contract Area

97.5

98

98.5

99

99.5

100



Outer South Signage

4 exterior Metro

Stickers excluded

from Oct-Dec 2011

Ticket Validation

Instructions excluded

from interior signage

Apr-Jun-2013

Ticketing



Table 4.15

Table 4.16






Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13 Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun-13

Faulty ticket





No action taken 7.1% 25.0% 14.8% 16.0%

















SouthLink Outer South Total All Contract Areas Best Performing



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

No 100.0% 100.0% 99.8% 99.9%


Best Performing

Contract Area

Worst Performing













Table 4.17

Figure 4.9





Total 14 11 365 3.0%

2.2%

Jan-Mar-13 Apr-Jun - 13

5.1%


Services AuditedTest TicketsOuter South Outer South Percentage of Total Outer South

Services Audited


0.7%

2.2%

Outer South Test Ticket

27.3%

36.4%

36.4%

14.3%

28.6%

57.1%



Updated)


Updated)

In the Outer South contract area, 1.75% of passengers observed boarding the vehicle without validating a ticket.

Fare Evasion

Table 4.18

Bus Fare

Evasion

SouthLink

Outer South

Apr-Jun-10 0.88%

Jul-Sep-10 0.91%

Oct-Dec-10 1.18%

Jan-Mar-11 5.77%

Apr-Jun-11 4.40%

Jul-Sep-11 8.28%

Oct-Dec-11 4.74%

Jan-Mar-12 3.60%

Apr-Jun-12 4.28%

Jul-Sep-12 2.89%

Oct-Dec-12 2.69%

Jan-Mar-13 2.49%

Apr-Jun-13 1.75%

southlink service standard report - adelaide metro · page 5 hills - main findings driver quality...

Documents