Response to OIA 2018 253.pdf

By email
Shed 39, 2 Fryat  Quay
Pipitea, Wellington 6011
PO Box 11646
16 October 2018
Manners Street
Wellington 6142
T  04 384 5708
File Ref: OIAP-7-7451
F  04 385 6960
www.gw.govt.nz
Jevon Wright
[FYI request #8722 email]
Dear Mr Wright
Request for information OIA 2018-253
I  refer  to  your  request  for  information  dated  19  September  2018,  which  was  received  by
Greater  Wellington  Regional  Council  (GWRC)  on  19  September  2018.  You  have  requested
the following information:
“Each of these questions relate to the services designated Route 24, in both directions, from 1
September  2017  to  14  September  2017  (inclusive),  and  from  1  September  2018  to  14
September 2018 (inclusive).
1.  How  does  the  Wellington  Regional  Council  determine  whether  a  particular  scheduled
service on Route 24 is running early, is running late, or is cancelled?
2.  What  is  the  total  number  of  services  that  were  scheduled  to  run  on  Route  24  in  both  of
these periods?
3.  Within both of these periods, how many services on Route 24 were (a) early, (b) late, and
(c) cancelled?
4.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  was  the  minimum,  mean,  maximum,  and  standard
deviation  time  difference  (in  minutes)  between  the  scheduled  departure  times,  and  the
observed (real-time information) departure times?
5.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  how  many  of  the  scheduled  services  failed  to  register  any
real-time information (RTI) with Wellington Regional Council?
6.  Within both of these periods, how is the Wellington Regional Council informed of services
that are cancelled by the operator(s) on Route 24?
7.  Within both of these periods, what was Wellington Regional Council's policy of informing
public transport users on cancelled services?
8.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  was  the  minimum,  mean,  maximum,  and  standard
deviation  of  the  period  between  a  service  being  cancelled,  and  news  of  this  cancellation
being shared with the public?
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-253

9.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  were  the  means  that  the  operator(s)  of  Route  24  kept
track of any (a) early, (b) late, and (c) cancelled services?
10. Within both of these periods, how many complaints were raised with Wellington Regional
Council on the performance of any service on Route 24?
11. Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  were  the  performance  parameters  (including
punctuality and reliability) of Route 24, as per the contract signed with the operator(s)?
12. With  each  of  the  contracts  for  both  of  these  periods,  what  means  did  the  Wellington
Regional  Council  have  to  penalise  the  operator(s)  for  failing  to  meet  performance
parameters?
13. Within both of these periods, did the operator(s) of Route 24 fall short of the performance
parameters defined in the contracts signed by the operator(s)?
14. Within both of these periods, if the operator(s) fell short of their performance parameters,
how were the operator(s) of Route 24 penalised?”
GWRC’s response follows:
Interpretation
Please note that the bus route numbered 24 underwent changes between September 2017 and
September 2018. As such, the information provided below for the two time periods requested
is not directly comparable.
1.  How  does  the  Wellington  Regional  Council  determine  whether  a  particular  scheduled
service on Route 24 is running early, is running late, or is cancelled?
2017  –  GWRC  received  this  performance  information  from  the  Real  Time  Information
(RTI)  system,  as  well  as  through  exception  reporting  provided  by  the  contracted  bus
operator.
2018 – GWRC received this performance information directly from the data provided by
our  RTI  system.  Under  the  new  contracts  from  15  July  2018,  GWRC  no longer  receives
exception reports from the bus operators.
2.  What  is  the  total  number  of  services  that  were  scheduled  to  run  on  Route  24  in  both  of
these periods?
2017 – 400 trips
2018 – 706 trips
3.  Within both of these periods, how many services on Route 24 were (a) early, (b) late, and
(c) cancelled?
See Attachment 1.
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-253

PAGE 2 OF 5

4.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  was  the  minimum,  mean,  maximum,  and  standard
deviation  time  difference  (in  minutes)  between  the  scheduled  departure  times,  and  the
observed (real-time information) departure times?
See Attachment 1.
5.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  how  many  of  the  scheduled  services  failed  to  register  any
real-time information (RTI) with Wellington Regional Council?
See Attachment 1.
6.  Within both of these periods, how is the Wellington Regional Council informed of services
that are cancelled by the operator(s) on Route 24?
2017 – GWRC received cancellation information that was input into the RTI system by the
bus operator, as well as from exception reporting provided by the contracted bus operator.
2018 – GWRC received cancellation updates directly from cancellation information input
into  the  RTI  system  by  the  bus  operator.  Under  the  new  contracts  from  15  July  2018,
GWRC no longer receives exception reports from the bus operators.
7.  Within both of these periods, what was Wellington Regional Council's policy of informing
public transport users on cancelled services?
For both time periods,  GWRC informed public  transport users via  automatically  updated
information  on  the  RTI  screens,  Metlink  website,  and  the  Metlink  App.  Occasionally,
manual push notifications are used to inform MyMetlink registered customers during times
of heightened disruption.
8.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  was  the  minimum,  mean,  maximum,  and  standard
deviation  of  the  period  between  a  service  being  cancelled,  and  news  of  this  cancellation
being shared with the public?
The  time  period  between  the  bus  operator  inputting  the  cancellation  information  into  the
RTI system  and this  information appearing on the RTI screens, Metlink website, and the
Metlink App is not measured as this is an automatic process within the RTI system.
In terms of manual push notifications, that time between input of cancellation information
and subsequent provision to the customer is also not measured.
9.  Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  were  the  means  that  the  operator(s)  of  Route  24  kept
track of any (a) early, (b) late, and (c) cancelled services?
During  both  periods,  the  operators  had  access  to  the  RTI  system;  their  own  driver
management (telematics) systems, and digital radio systems.
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-253

PAGE 3 OF 5

10. Within both of these periods, how many complaints were raised with Wellington Regional
Council on the performance of any service on Route 24?
2017 – 12 performance-related complaints.

2018 – 51 performance-related complaints.

11. Within  both  of  these  periods,  what  were  the  performance  parameters  (including
punctuality and reliability) of Route 24, as per the contract signed with the operator(s)?
For 2017 time period the key performance indicators were:
Punctuality
98% of scheduled services will depart from the origin stop between
59 seconds before to 9 minutes 59 seconds after the scheduled
departure time
Reliability
99% of scheduled services will operate

For  the  2018  time  period  the  key  performance  indicators  are  publicly  available  on
GWRC’s  website  as  part  of  the  representative  contract:  http://www.gw.govt.nz/bus-
contracts/
12. With  each  of  the  contracts  for  both  of  these  periods,  what  means  did  the  Wellington
Regional  Council  have  to  penalise  the  operator(s)  for  failing  to  meet  performance
parameters?
2017  –  For  each  bus  trip  reported  as  failing  either  the  reliability  or  punctuality  KPI,  the
value  of  the  payment  for  providing  that  trip  was  deducted  from  the  relevant  monthly
contract  payment.  Please  note  that  failure  of  the  reliability  KPI  does  not  also  constitute
failure of the punctuality KPI (i.e. there is no double jeopardy applied).
2018 – The penalty regime was not in place during this period. GWRC agreed with the bus
operators, prior to the 15 July 2018 ‘go live’ date, to suspend financial penalties for a short
time in order to focus on addressing early issues with implementing the new network. This
“holiday” phase is a common international contracting practice.  More information on the
contract performance regime and financial incentive  mechanism is available on GWRC’s
website: http://www.gw.govt.nz/bus-contracts/.
13. Within both of these periods, did the operator(s) of Route 24 fall short of the performance
parameters defined in the contracts signed by the operator(s)?
2017 – No, the operator achieved their reliability and punctuality performance parameters.
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-253

PAGE 4 OF 5

2018 – The reliability and punctuality performance of Route 24 for the two weeks between
1 September 2018 and 14 September 2018 is in the two charts below (please note contract
KPIs regime not in place during this period).
Reliability

Punctuality

14. Within both of these periods, if the operator(s) fell short of their performance parameters,
how were the operator(s) of Route 24 penalised?
2017 – No penalties were applied.
2018 – No penalties were applied as the contract penalty regime  was not  in  place during
this period.
If  you have any  concerns  with  the decision(s)  referred to  in  this letter,  you have the right  to
request an investigation and review by the Ombudsman under section 27(3) of the Act.

Yours sincerely

Angus Gabara
General Manager, Public Transport (Acting)

Attachment 1
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-253

PAGE 5 OF 5