NTA Mystery Shops Bus Éireann - National Transport

1y ago
21 Views
1 Downloads
944.57 KB
40 Pages
Last View : 3d ago
Last Download : 4m ago
Upload by : Azalea Piercy
Transcription

NTA Mystery ShopsBus ÉireannQuarter 3 201841300195

Outline of PresentationBackground to ResearchSection 1: Stop Maintenance Performance (SI)Section 2: Customer Information Performance (CI)Section 3: Bus Driver Performance - D.1Section 4: Bus Equipment Performance - E.1Section 5: Cleanliness Performance - C.2: Station CleanlinessSection 6: Cleanliness Performance - C.1: Bus CleanlinessSection 7: Customer Service Performance (CS)2

Background to ResearchThis research programme monitors service, quality and compliance with contractual Bus Éireann requirements, throughutilising “mystery shopping‟ surveys to measure key aspects of service delivery (i.e. the driver and the vehicle)This mystery shopping programme was designed to provide robust and actionable data to the National Transport Authorityto measure the overall service performance of Bus Éireann through the eyes of its ‘customers’.192 mystery shops (including additional Q2 mop ups plus 8 bus station boosts) were conducted from mid June to earlySeptember as mystery shoppers acted as passengers while waiting for and on board selected Bus Éireann around thecountry. Different Bus Éireann services were included such as city services, town services, Dublin Commuter services andlong distance interurban services. These were all conducted across different days of the week and times of the day.The mystery shops were carried out by trained Millward Brown interviewers, following an initial pilot on Dublin Bus andbriefing session. These interviewers use portable HAPI (HandHeld Personal Interviewing) devices which enable both discreetand effective interviewing before, when boarding, on board the buses and after alighting.Quarter 3 2018: June 18th – Sep 9th 2018We have used the following symbols to indicate significant differences versus the previous quarter i.e. Qtr 2 April – June 2018Q2 or versus the same quarter last year i.e. Qtr 3 July – Sep 2017 Q3.Significant differences are tested at 95% confidence and above.3

Section 1:Stop Maintenance & Performance

Advertising on Shelter or Bus Stop: There were minimal instances of commercialadvertising present on bus stops this quarter, particularly on shelter glass which has shownimprovement year on year.Base: IF YES TO BUS SHELTER Q30/1 (88) / (65) YES TO BUS STOP POLE AND FLAG Q29/141% observed a Bus Stop Pole & 50% observed a shelter at the stopQ 37 Additional CommercialAdvertising on Shelter Glass(88)%0Q38 Third Party CommercialAdvertising on Bus Stop Pole(65)%22YesYesNoNo98(88) Q398 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q25Q37 Is there additional commercial advertising on the shelter glass outside the designated advertising or travel information and timetable panels?Q38 Are there any third party commercial advertisements or notices (excluding graffiti, stickers, or bus operator related advertisements) on the operator’s bus pole?

Bus Shelters: 3 in 5 interviewers found the bus stop poles to be in good condition; while over a third saw signs ofmoderate damage, a significant uplift versus last year. Reports of more hazardous damage have declined year on year. 4in 5 interviewers felt that the bus shelters were in good condition with just under 1 in 5 reporting more moderatedamage to shelters.Base: (88), IF YES TO BUS SHELTER Q30/1 (65) IF YES TO BUS STOP POLE AND FLAG Q29/1Q29b Condition of theBus Stop Pole & Flag?(65)%Good conditionQ31 Condition of theBus Shelter?(88)%6084Good conditionModerate damage35Scratches/graffitiHazardous damage6(15) Q3(11) Q3 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q26Q29b What is the condition of the bus stop pole and flag?Q31 What is the condition of the bus shelter?Moderate damage16Hazardous damage-

Timetable: 3 in 5 interviewers noted a printed timetable present, with no significant movementsobserved.Base: (65) IF YES TO BUS STOP POLE AND FLAG Q29/1Q34 Printed Timetable Present(65)%38Yes62 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q27Q34 Is there a printed timetable, for the route you are using, on display at the bus stop pole or bus shelter?No

Information Display: 2 in 5 interviewers saw an information display present at the bus stop, while athird saw a small panel on the pole, a significant uplift from last quarter. 4 in 5 interviewers found theinformation displays to be fully legible and clean.Base: (146) IF POLE OR SHELTER AT Q28CQ28e* Information displayed (124)%Q28d* Information Display (146)%Small Panel on PoleLong panel on pole34409None15 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q28Q28d What type of information display was there present at the stop?Q28e How would you describe the condition of this information display?83Fully legible and clean8Obscured by condensation5Information panel on shelterTFI Pole with information panel(16) Q2Damaged or torn2Obscured by dirt / etching / graffiti /2Not mounted correctly4*New for Q1 2018

Section 2:Customer Information Performance (CI)

Fares Displayed: Almost all interviewers found fares were displayed clearly at theentrance to the bus, a significant uplift versus last year.Base: (118), Routes with Fares Displayed at the EntranceQ50 Were the fares displayed clearly at the entrance?%(27) Q3Yes892 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q210Q50 Were the fares displayed clearly at the entrance? (question filter changed in Q3)(73) Q3No

Timetable: Of the 9 in 10 interviewers who had time to assess the bus stop before the arrival of the bus, themajority found the bus stop numbers to be clearly visible a significant increase vs last year, whilst 3 in 5 saw a printedtimetable present. Half of interviewers were able to observe the operative date on the timetable.Q34 Printed Timetable Present(65)%Base: (192)Q28 Did you have time to assess bus stopbefore arrival of bus(192)(20) Q3 %Q32 Bus Stop Number Visible(65)%Yes38No628YesNoYes435792NoQ36 Operative Date Present(40)%Yes5(80) Q345No50 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q2Q34Q2811 Q32Did you have time to assess bus stop before arrival of busIs the bus stop number visible on the bus stop flag? This is an up to 4 digit number (6 for Bus Eireann).Q36Is there a printed timetable, for the route you are using, on display at the bus stoppole or bus shelter?Is there an 'Operative Date' (Dublin Bus) or 'Valid From' date (Bus Éireann) writtenon the timetable?Present butcould not read

Section 3:Bus Driver Performance – D1

Driver Interaction: There was 1 instance of a driver dispute recorded this quarter overa buggy or wheelchair issue.Base: (192)Q103 Any Disputes with Passengers/ Other Road Users(192)%99NoYes - faresYes - bus didn’t stop when expectedYes - buggy or wheelchair issueYes - Dispute with other road users/pedestriansYes - Drunk or abusive passengersYes - otherCould not observe1- Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q213Q103Did you notice any disputes between driver and passengers or other road users ?

Driver Assessment: Drivers continue to be very positively regarded in terms of bothattitude & presentationBase: (192) Questions to DriverHow much is it to ?Can I pay with a note?Does this bus go to ?Q51 Helpful%Q54 Driver Wearing Uniform%27YesYesNoNo9893Q52 Polite%Q55 Driver Well Presented%-1YesYesNoNo9999 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q214Q51Q52Was the driver helpful in response to your question?Was the driver polite in response to your question?Q54Q55Was the driver wearing uniform?Was the driver well presented?

Bus Safety: Encouragingly, almost all interviewers reported comfortable journeys with minor instances ofharsh braking, accelerating & moving off too early; nobody felt it was dangerous. However, instances of driversoccasionally braking too harshly have significantly increased versus this time last year.Base: (192)*Q94 Driver AcceleratedSmoothly(192)%Yes, felt comfortableOccasionally felt tooharsh – minor discomfortFrequently too harsh- Serious discomfortFelt it was dangerous9343-*Q95 Driver BrakingSmoothly(192)%Yes, felt comfortableOccasionally felt tooharsh – minor discomfortFrequently too harsh– serious discomfortFelt it was dangerous Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q215Q94Q95Q96Generally, did the bus driver accelerate smoothly?Did the bus driver brake and take corners smoothly?Did the driver give passengers adequate time to find their seats or hold on?908--(3) Q3Q96 Did the driver givepassengers adequate time to findtheir seats or hold on?(192)%Yes94Occasionally movedoff too earlyFrequently moved off too earlyFelt it was dangerous6--* Question amended in Q2 2016

When Getting on the Bus: Of the 5 instances where the bus did not pull up to the kerb for boarding passengers, 3noted that this was due to no footpath kerb being present, 1 noted another vehicle parked in the way while another felt thatthere was no specific restriction. Of the 9 instances where the bus did not pull up to the kerb for alighting passengers, 6 feltthat there didn’t appear to be any restriction while 3 found there was no kerb present at the destination stop.Base: (192)Q62 Why Not Pulled to Kerb (5) Boarding%Another vehicle was parked in the wayThere were other obstructions such as roadworks at the stopOther bus was in the way-Other vehicles were parked in the way-There were other obstructions-20-No footpath kerb was presentNo specific reason, there didn’t appear to beany restrictionQ93 Why Not Pulled to Kerb (9) Alighting%20Other reasonNo specific reason, there didn’t appear to beany restriction Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q21633There was no kerb at my destination stop60Q92 Did the bus pull up to the kerb at the bus stop sufficiently to allow passengers board and alight from the bus?Q93Why did the bus not pull up to the kerb?67

Driver Actions: All interviewers reported drivers stopping to pick up passengers whensignalled to do soBase: (182), ALL EXCLUDING THOSE NOT REQUESTED TO STOPQ102* Stopped to Pick Up Passengers(182)%YesCould not always stop as bus was fullDid not always stop to pick up, and no evident reason for not stoppingWas not requested during this journey, other than at boarding stop100- Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 2 2017 Mar-JunQ2 – Jan-Mar 2018Q117Q102So far as you could tell, did the driver always stop to pick up passengers when requested?* Question rebased off those whose bus stopped to pick uppassengers

Driver Behaviour: The behaviour of the drivers was very positively regarded overall with minimal mentions ofdrivers using mobile phones or earpieces (only a very small number of instances observed).1 in 5 interviewers observed drivers listening to music while driving, significantly down versus last year, whilst almostall interviewers did not observe the drivers holding any long conversations with others.Base: (192)Q98 Driver Listening to Music/Radio (192)Q97 Did Bus Driver doAny of the Following(192)%Use mobile phone while driving 2Wear an earpiece while driving1Drive the bus in a dangerousmanner-None of these2 20(32) Q3YesNoCould notobserve(65) Q3 78Q99 Driver Hold Long Conversations (192)%97 (100)Q3112Yes with other staffYes with passengersNo97 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q218Q97Q98Q99Did the bus driver do any of the following while driving?Did the driver listen to music or the radio whilst driving?Did the driver hold long conversations with other people on the bus while driving?Could not observe

Leave Bus Unattended: There were 3 instances of drivers leaving buses unattended this quarter; twowere because of the driver going to the shops while the other involved the driving getting out to get fresh airoutside.Base: (192)Q100 Bus Left Unattended (192)%Yes - because of driver change-Yes - to go to shops1Yes - to go to toilet-Yes - some other reason1Yes - don’t know the reason-No Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q219Q100Q101aDid the driver leave the bus unattended at any time?Did the driver turn off the engine when leaving the bus?‘To get fresh air outside’98

Diversion or Terminated Early: For the 4 interviewers who encountered a busdiversion/termination, one was informed by the driver shouting out information while the other three notedthat the driver failed to informed passengers.Base: (192)Q109 Passengers Told Reasonfor Early Termination/Diversion (4)Q107 Bus Diverted/Terminated Early225YesNoNo7598Q108 If Bus Diverted/Terminated Early (4)Announce over PAShout out informationInform passengers in some other way (e.g. tourthe bus)Fail to inform passengers2575 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q220Q107Q108Q109YesDid bus terminate early or divert off course?Did driver .?Were passengers told the reason for early termination or diversion off course?

Section 4:Bus Equipment Performance

Wheelchair Ramp/Lift: Of the 4 interviewers who observed a wheelchair ramp request, allfound that it was activated when necessaryBase: (192), If yes to WHEELCHAIR RAMP OR LIFT REQUEST Q105 (4)Q106 Wheelchair Ramp/Lift Activated Upon Request (4)%100YesNo - driver stated it was broken-No - person requesting was not a wheelchair user-No - driver refused to activate because unsafe todo so at the stop-No - driver stated no wheelchair ramp or lift presenton the bus-No - other reason - please record details-No - no reason given- Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q222Q105Q106Was use of a wheel chair ramp or wheelchair lift requested on your trip?Was the wheel chair ramp or wheelchair lift activated upon request?

Electronic Displays & Announcements: Of those who saw an electronic next stop display present, half sawthat they were working correctly, a significant decline versus last year, while 2 in 5 found that they were turned off ornot working, a significant increase versus last quarter. For those who heard an audio next stop announcement, justunder 2 in 5 found that it was working while half noted that it was not working , a significant uplift from last quarter.Base: (100), ALL WHO COULD SEE A DISPLAY / HEAR AN ANNOUNCEMENT (72)Q80* Electronic Displaysfor Next Stop Working (100)%Yes - working correctlyWorking but not providingcorrect informationDisplay turned off or not workingCannot see a display53Yes - working and volume correct37Yes - working but too loudYes - working but too quiet111(71) Q3(61) Q2839(27) Q2- Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 2 2017 Mar-JunQ2 – Jan-Mar 2018Q123Q81* Audio Announcementfor Next Stop Working (75)%Q80 Are the electronic displays on board indicating what the next stop is working correctly?Q81 Is there an automatic next stop audio announcement working on the bus?No - not working51None on the bus-(28) Q2* Question rebased off those who could see a display / hearan announcement

Route Number and Destination Visible: Almost all interviewers reported seeing both route anddestination numbers on the front and sides of the bus, with no significant movements observed. Of the 12 interviewerswho could not clearly see a route number, 3 noted that the bus appeared to be a replacement bus.Base: (192)Q43 Route No. on Front (192)%Q45 Route No. on Side (192)%9593* Small Base Size** Q added in Q2 2018**Q45a Replacement Bus (12*)YesNot displayedCould not clearly see41Correct route no. displayedIncorrect route no. displayedNo route no, displayedThere was no display panel for the route numberCould not clearly see2495Not displayedCould not clearly see4175YesNoQ87 Route No. on Back (192)%Q44 Destination on Front (192)%Yes25- 511YesIncorrect route number shownNo route number shownCouldn’t seeQ43 Could the correct route number be clearly seen on the front of the bus?Q44 Could the correct destination be clearly seen on the front of the bus?9141 5Q45 Could the correct route number be seen clearly on the side of the bus?Q87 Was the correct route number displayed on the back of the bus?Q45a Does the bus appear to be a replacement bus? Statistically significantdifferences are versusQtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 –Mar-Jun 2018Q2

CCTV: 3 in 5 interviewers who saw a CCTV screen in the stairwell noted that it was turned on and workingcorrectly. A quarter saw no CCTV displays present.Base: (109), ALL EXCLUDING NO STAIRWELL / SINGLE DECKQ82* CCTV in Stairwell (109)%Turned on and working correctly61Turned on, but not working properlyTurned off47No CCTV display present28 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 2 2017 Mar-JunQ2 – Jan-Mar 2018Q125Q82Is there a CCTV screen in stairwell on the bus?* Question rebased off those who could see a CCTV display

Fare Payment: Almost all interviewers reported the ticket machine & Leap Card readers were working correctly.The majority of cash payers received either a printed ticket or the correct change where appropriate, with significantdeclines in those not given ticket year on year. 3 in 4 Leap users were able to see what fare they were charged whenboarding the bus, with significant declines amongst those who couldn’t tell what fare they were charged versus last year.Q56 Cash Fare (110)If Cash Fare at R5Ticket Machine Working Correctly%Q58b* Leap Card Reader Presentat Driver Working Correctly (79)%25YesYesNoNo9598Q57b Cash FareIf Cash Fare at R5Given Printed Ticket/Change Receipt (110)%Yes, printed ticket51Yes, printed ticket and correct change48Yes, printed ticket and incorrect changeGot handwritten ticketWas not given a ticket-126Q56Q57bQ59b* Leap Card Reader at DriverSee Fare Charged (51)%(6) Q3Was the ticket machine working correctly for you?Were you given a printed ticket and change?Yes76Don’t know/Couldn’t tellMachine was not working)223 Statistically significantdifferences are versus Qtr 32017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun2018Q2(38) Q3”Question amended in Q2 2016Q58bQ59bDid the Leap Card reader appear to be working correctly?Could you see what fare were you charged?

Interior Lighting and Temperature: Half of interviewers found the interior lighting of the buses to be functioning correctly,declining versus last quarter, with 2 in 5 noting that there was no need for lighting as it was daylight outside, a significant upliftversus last quarter. There were minimal instances of lights flickering / not working. Almost all interviewers found the onboard temperatures on the buses to be; with 7 interviewers feeling the temperatures on board were unreasonable.Base: (192)Q83 Interior Lighting (192)%Q84 Temperature Reasonable (192)%4Yes and functioning correctly52No but it is daylight outsideNo5Yes but some lights flickering or not workingNo and it is dark outsideYes(66) Q296143Q85 Why Temperature Not Reasonable(7)%(28) Q2A cold day with the heating turned on-A cold day with the heating turned off-A cold day - not sure if heating is on-A warm day with heating turned off-A warm day with the heating turned onA warm day - not sure if heating is on Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q227Q83Q84Q85Is the interior lighting on and functioning correctly?Do you consider the temperature on board the bus was reasonable given the weather conditions?IF NO to REASONABLE TEMPERATURE Q.81 Is it ?1486

Section 5:Cleanliness PerformanceC2: Station Cleanliness

Station Seating: The majority of interviewers found the station seats to be clean & wellmaintained; with 1 in 5 noting signs of minor graffiti/defacing.Base: (50), IF ASKED TO ASSESS A BUS EIREANN STATION Q1A(7), IF ASKED TO ASSESS BUSÁRAS Q1AQ1 Graffiti on Station Seats %Q2 Station Seats Damaged %Total(50)Total(50)No graffiti or defacing70(57)No visible damageMinor graffiti or defacingOffensive graffitiHeavy defacing228-(43)Minor damageModerate damageHazardous damage includingseat loose from seat structure90-64(100)Q3 Cleanliness of Station Seats (50)%Total(50)CleanSignificant dust or crumbsGum or other ingrained dirtWet or soiled90(100)64-() Busáras Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q229Q1Q2Q3What best describes graffiti or other defacing on station seats?Were any station seats you observed damaged in any way?What best describes level of cleanliness of station seats?*Caution: Small base size

Station Cleanliness: Station walls, floors, ceilings & stairs were found to be generallyclean, with some instances of minor graffiti and litter reportedBase: (50), IF ASKED TO ASSESS A BUS EIREANN STATION Q1A. Base: (7), IF ASKED TO ASSESS BUSÁRAS Q1AQ9 Cleanliness of StationFloors or Stairs (50)%Q4 Graffiti on Walls, PanelsCeilings and other Fixtures (50)No signs*Heavy graffitiobserved inBusáras*Caution: Small base size30(43)122(14)2Q5 Cleanliness of Walls, PanelsCeilings and other Fixtures (50)%No signs of dirtLight dirtModerately dirtyVery dirty*722422Generally Clean(43)Minor graffiti or etchingsHeavy graffiti or etchings*Offensive graffiti or etchings*Droghedastation deemedmoderatelydirty() Busáras84(100)Dirt or liquid spills (wetor partially wet/sticky)Dirt or liquid stains (dried)68Q10 Litter on Seats,Floors or Stairs? (50)%(71)Appeared litter free(29)Q4What best describes level of graffiti or etchings on of walls, panels, ceilings, stairs and other fixturesand fittings?Q5What best describes level of cleanliness of walls panels, ceilings and other fixtures and fittings?86Some litterA lot of litterQ9Q108416-(71)(29)What best describes level of cleanliness of station floors or stairs?Was there litter on station seats, floor or stairs? Statistically significantdifferences are versus Qtr 32017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun2018Q2

Station Windows and Exterior: Station windows were thought to be kept in goodcondition by the majority of interviewers. Outside of the bus station, a third of interviewsreported seeing litter presentBase: (50), IF ASKED TO ASSESS A BUS EIREANN STATION Q1A, Base: (7), IF ASKED TO ASSESS BUSÁRAS Q1AQ6 Graffiti on Station Windows (50)%No signsMinor graffitiHeavy graffitiOffensive graffiti9262Q8 Cleanliness of Station Windows (50)%(14)Q7 What best describes level of etching onstation windows? (50)() BusárasNo signs76(86)Light dirtModerately dirtyVery dirty204-(14)(86)No signs90(71)Minor etchingHeavy etchingOffensive etching82(29)Q11 Exterior Litter Free (50)%Appeared litter free68(86)Some litter24(14)A lot of litter*8*Caution: Small base size31Q6 What best describes level of graffiti on station windows?Q7 What best describes level of etching on station windows?Q8 What best describes level of cleanliness of station windows?Q11 Was the exterior of the bus station building litter free?*Limerickstation thoughtto have a lot oflitter Statistically significantdifferences are versus Qtr 32017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun2018Q2

Station Toilets: Station toilets were seen to be generally graffitiand litter free by themajority of interviewers, with facilities functioning correctly. 1 in 4 saw signs of minor graffitiwhile 1 in 5 saw minor litterBase: (39), IF TOILETS OPEN Q15/2, Base: (4), IF TOILETS OPEN BUSÁRAS Q15/2Q16 Graffiti on Toilet Area (39)%No signs77Q18 Toilets Blocked (39)% (25)3(75)YesNoMinor graffitiHeavy graffitiOffensive graffiti23-97(25)(75)Q19 Flush Working (39)%3Q17 What best describes cleanlinessof toilet area? (39)YesGenerally clean69(50)Q20 Toilet Paper Available (39)%8YesNoNo9297Minor litter on floorsMinor dirt on floor, door or wallsVery dirty*18103*Caution: Small base sizeQ16 What best describes level of graffiti in toilet area?Q17 What best describes cleanliness of toilet area?32(25)(25)*Limerickstation thoughtto be very dirty(100)(100)() Busáras Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 32017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q2Q18 Were any toilets you viewed blocked?Q19 Was the flush working on the toilet(s) you tested?Q20 Was there toilet paper available at the toilet(s) you viewed?

Station Washroom Area: Station washrooms are seen to be generally clean but withsome instances of minor graffiti and litter reported. The washroom facilities were thought tobe functioning correctly by the majority of interviewersBase: (39), IF TOILETS OPEN Q15/2, Base: (4), IF TOILETS OPEN BUSÁRAS Q15/2Q21 Cleanliness of Washroom Area (39)%Generally cleanSome litterSome dirt on floors or surfacesVery dirty671518-Q23 Washroom Taps (39)%Yes (both hotand cold)Hot only- 8-Q25 Washroom Dryers (39)%WorkedDid not workCold only(50)(25)(25)92(100)100NeitherQ24 Soap/Hand Cleanser Available (39)%8() BusárasQ22 Graffiti in Washroom Area (39)%(75)Minor graffitiHeavy graffitiOffensive graffiti85(75)15--(25)*Caution: Small base sizeQ21 What best describes cleanliness of washroom area?33 Q22 What best describes level of graffiti in washroom area?Q23 Did the washroom taps you tested work?26No92(100)No signs(100)Q26 Paper Towel Dispenser (39)%Yes Statisticallysignificantdifferences areversus Qtr 3 2017Jun-SepQ3 – MarJun 2018Q2No washroomdryer(25)Q27 Bins Clean (39)%Yes8587Q24 Did the washroom taps you tested work?Q25 Did the washroom dryer(s) you tested work?Q26 Was there a paper towel dispenser?69Overflowing-needed tobe emptied(100)No binspresentQ27 Were the toilet and washroom binsclean?5Yes, withpaper towelsYes, but nopaper towelsNo papertoweldispenser

Section 6:Cleanliness PerformanceC1: Bus Cleanliness

Assessment of Seats: Almost all interviewers found both bus seats & cushions to be clean & well-maintainedwith minimal levels of graffiti or damage observed. The number of interviewers reporting no signs of graffiti on seatshas significantly declined versus last quarter while those reporting minor graffiti has significantly increased.Base: (192)Q69 Graffiti on Seats (192)%No SignsMinor graffiti or defacingHeavy defacingOffensive graffiti811811(92) Q2(8) Q2Q70 Cleanliness of Seats (192)%CleanSignificant dust or crumbsGum or other ingrained dirtWet or soiled86149 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q235Q69Q70Q71How would you best describe graffiti or other defacing on seat cushions or seat structure?What best describes level of cleanliness of seat cushions?Were any bus seat cushions you observed damaged in any way?Q71 Damage to Seats (192)%NoMinor tear, lessthan 2cm in lengthSignificant tearing greaterthan 2cm in lengthModerate damageHazardous damage includingloose from seat structure897131

Bus Interior: The interior of the buses were generally positively regarded with some minor instances oflitter & dirt reported. Encouragingly, there have been significant increases in the number of interviewersreporting litter free interiors both quarter on quarter and year on year.Base: (192)Q75 Cleanliness of Floors and Stairs (192)%Generally clean92Dirt or liquid spillsDirt or liquid stains36No signs StatisticallysignificantMinimal level of litterdifferences areSome litterversus Qtr 3 2017A lot of litterJun-SepQ3 – MarJun 2018Q236Q75Q7695(89) Q3Minor graffiti or etchingsHeavy graffiti or etchingsOffensive graffiti or etchingsQ76 Litter on Seats/Floor or Stairs* (192)%Litter freeQ77 Graffiti of Panels Ceilings, Stairs and other Fixtures/Fittings (192)%70(53) Q3(56) Q2246-(34) Q3(3) Q3(2) Q2What best describes level of cleanliness of floors and stairs?What best describes level of litter on seats, floors or stairs?5Q78 Cleanliness of Panels, Ceilings and other Fixtures/Fittings (192)%No signsLight dirtModerately dirtyVery dirty831061* Question amended in Q2 2016What best describes level of graffiti or etchings on of panels, ceilings, stairs and other fixturesand fittings?Q78What best describes level of cleanliness of panels, ceilings and other fixtures and fittings?Q77

Bus Windows: The majority of interviewers reported no signs of graffiti or etchings on bus windowswhile 1 in 3 observed light dirt. The number of windows seen to be moderately dirty have significantlyincreased both versus last quarter and last year.Base: (192)Q72 Graffiti on Windows (192)%No SignsMinor graffitiHeavy defacingOffensive graffiti955--Q73 Etching on Windows (192)%No SignsMinor etchingHeavy etchingOffensive etching Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q237Q72Q73Q74What best describes level of graffiti on windows?What best describes level of etching on windows?What best describes level of cleanliness of windows)*Q74 Cleanliness of Windows (192)%No Signs61Light dirt2997-3 -Moderately dirtyVery dirty101(4) Q3(2) Q2* Hosepipe ban in place during Q3 fieldwork

Front, Side and Rear of Bus: In the majority of instances, buses were thought to be clean at both the front,sides & rear, however this is declining year on year. Most of the dirt observed was mainly thought to have been pickedup during operations that day, however there has been significant increases in heavier dirt observed at the rear of thebuses year on year.Base: (192)*Q47 Cleanliness of Front/Side of Bus (192)%Yes66Light dirt, likely to have been pickedup during operations today27Moderately dirtyVery dirty, likely to haveaccumulated over several days62*Q90 Was the Rear of the Bus Clean? (192)%Yes(76) Q3Some dirt, likely to have beenpicked up during operations today38Heavy dirt, likely to have accumulated overmore than one day’s operation7 Statistically significant differences are versus Qtr 3 2017 Jun-SepQ3 – Mar-Jun 2018Q238Q47 Were the front and side of the bus clean?Q90 Was the rear of the bus clean?55(66) Q3(1) Q3* Hosepipe ban in place during Q3 fieldwork

Section 7:Customer Service Performance (C5)

Travel Centre: Of the 50 interviewers who surveyed a bus sta

5 Q38 Are there any third party commercial advertisements or notices (excluding graffiti, stickers, or bus operator related advertisements) on the operator’s bus pole? Advertising on Shelter or Bus Stop: There were minimal instances of commercial advertising present on bus stops this quarter, particularly on shelter glass which has shown

Related Documents:

qRespiratory Failure (I6300) and § Oxygen therapy while a resident (0100C2) Nursing Component . care for HIV/AIDS patients, the facility will get an 18% increase in NTA category. NTA Case Mix Groups NTA Comorbidity Score NTA Case Mix Group CMI 12 NA 3.25 9-11 NB 2.53 6-8 NC 1.85

Q38 ?Are there any third party commercial advertisements or notices (excluding graffiti, stickers, or bus operator related advertisements) on the operator’s bus pole 5 Advertising on Shelter of Bus Stop: Reports of additional commercial advertising being present on bus

Last Shot: A Final Four Mystery (2005) Vanishing Act: Mystery at the U.S. Open (2006) Cover-Up: Mystery at the Super Bowl (2007) Change-Up: Mystery at the World Series (2009) The Rivalry: Mystery at the Army-Navy Game (2010) Rush for the Gold: Mystery at the Olympic Games (2012) The Triple Threat The Walk On (2014) The Sixth Man (2015)

Q60 Was there an automatic next stop audio announcement working on the bus? . numbers & destinations were clearly visible on the front of the bus. All saw the route number on the side and back of the bus. 11 Statisticall

BMW - MANUAL 1 Series 1983 Shift Boot Collar (NTA) 2 Series 1983 Shift Boot Collar (NTA) 3 Series 1983 Shift Boot Collar (NTA

bus route bus stop pickup time bus route (elos) bus stop (elos) pickup time (elos) 419450 w-28a w soffel ave@n 36th ave 8:12 am w-27ear w soffel ave@n 36th ave 7:06 am 419452 w-26a w le moyne ave@n 38th ave 8:21 am w-27ear w le moyne ave@n 38th ave 6:59 am 420001 w-52a butterfield rd@high

The Mystery of the Screaming clock. Alfred Hitchcock: E 1312: The Mystery of the Shrinking house: Alfred Hitchcock. E 1317: The Mystery of the Silver spider. Alfred Hitchcock: E 870: The Mystery of the Sinister Scarecrow: Alfred Hitchcock. E 1320: The Mystery of the Stuttering Parrot. Alfred Hitchcock .

2 advanced bookkeeping tutor zone 1.1 Link the elements of the accounting system on the left with their function on the right. FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS BOOKS OF PRIME ENTRY DOUBLE-ENTRY SYSTEM OF LEDGERS TRIAL BALANCE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 1 The accounting system Summaries of accounting information