By email
Shed 39, 2 Fryat Quay
Pipitea, Wellington 6011
PO Box 11646
5 December 2018
Manners Street
Wellington 6142
T 04 384 5708
File Ref: OIAP-7-8541
F 04 385 6960
www.gw.govt.nz
Hugh Davenport
[FYI request #9014 email]
Dear Mr Davenport
Request for information 2018-325
I refer to your request for information dated 7 November 2018, which was received by Greater
Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) on 7 November 2018. You have requested the following
information:
“I would like information regarding cancellation of bus services for the last year.
Could you please provide the following information, split into categories described below:
1. The raw number, and percentage of cancelled bus services over:
a) The whole metlink network
b) Each route
c) The whole metlink network broken down into months
d) Each route broken down into months
2. In regards to the above numbers, the number of those cancelled bus services that were incorrectly
displayed on RTI display boards, with the same break down a, b, c, d.
3. In regards to the numbers from section 1. The average number of complaints for each cancelled
service, with the same break down a, b, c, d.
4. In regards to the numbers from section 2. The average number of complaints for each cancelled
service, with the same break down a, b, c, d.
5. In regards to the numbers from section 1. The average number of passengers who boarded the
next non-cancelled service on the same route, with the same break down a, b, c, d. This information
should be available via fare records, including snapper data.
6. In regards to the numbers from section 5. The average number of passengers who had concession
cards (child, secondary student, tertiary student, eldery (supergold), disabled, any other
concessions), split into each concession category, and further split with the same break down a, b, c,
d.
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-325
7. In regards to the numbers from section 1. The average number of passengers who would normally
have boarded at the same time/day as the cancelled service, and at the same time as the next non-
cancelled service for that route, with the same break down as a, b, c, d. This information should be
available via fare records, including snapper data.
8. In regards to the numbers from section 7. The average number of passengers who had concession
cards (child, secondary student, tertiary student, eldery (supergold), disabled, any other
concessions), split into each concession category, and further split with the same break down a, b, c,
d.”
GWRC’s response follows:
The following provides the information you have requested for a period between 1 October 2017
and 31 October 2018:
1.
Number and percentage of cancelled bus services for:
a)
The whole Metlink network: The datasheet ‘a-Whole network’ in
Attachment 1 contains the
information that shows approximately 0.81% of total scheduled bus services (9,313 out of
1,150,712), were cancelled over the reporting period.
b)
Each route: The datasheet ‘b-By route’ in
Attachment 1 provides the number and percentage of
cancelled bus trips against the scheduled bus trips for each bus route.
c)
The whole Metlink network broken down into months: The datasheet ‘c-Network by month’ in
Attachment 1 provides the total number and percentage of cancelled bus services by month.
d)
Each route broken down into months: The datasheet ‘d-Route by month’ in
Attachment 1
provides the number and percentage of cancelled bus services broken down by route and month.
2. Cancelled bus services incorrectly displayed on Real Time Information (RTI)
The Metlink RTI system is set up so that any bus service that is recorded in the RTI system as
‘Cancelled’ would be displayed accordingly (correctly) on the RTI board after cancellation,
unless there was a fault with RTI board.
The Metlink RTI system that records instances of cancelled bus services, does not record the
instances of faulty RTI display boards. Therefore, the available information does not identify the
linkage between the faulty RTI boards and cancelled services.
This part of your request is refused in accordance with section 17(e) of the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act) on the basis that the information requested
does not exist.
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-325
PAGE 2 OF 5
3. Average number of complaints for cancelled services, for:
a)
The whole Metlink network: The datasheet ‘a-Whole network’ in
Attachment 2 contains the
information that shows the number of complaints recorded against sub-code ‘Cancelled
Services’ and ‘Cancelling’ in the GWRC's Customer Response Management System (Resolve).
b)
Each route: The datasheet ‘b-By route’ in
Attachment 2 provides the number of complaints by
route recorded against “Cancelled” and “Cancelling” sub-codes in ‘Resolve’ system.
c)
The whole Metlink network broken down into months: The datasheet ‘c-Network by month’ in
Attachment 2 provides the number of complaints by month recorded against “Cancelled” and
“Cancelling” sub-codes in ‘Resolve’ system.
d)
Each route broken down into months: The datasheet ‘d-Route by month’ in
Attachment 1
provides the number of complaints by route and month recorded against “Cancelled” and
“Cancelling” sub-codes in ‘Resolve’ system.
4. Complaints relating to cancelled services incorrectly displayed on Real Time Information
5. Passengers boarding on the next service following a cancelled service
6. Passengers with concessions who boarded the next service following a cancelled service
7. For cancelled services, passengers who would normally have boarded at the same time/day as
the cancelled service, and at the same time as the next non-cancelled service
8. In regards to the numbers above. The average number of passengers who had concession
cards (child, secondary student, tertiary student, SuperGold, disabled, any other concessions),
split into each concession category, and further split with the same break down
We do not record information in the format that you have requested in questions 4 to 8. The
information you are seeking in this case would, therefore need to be extracted and compiled from
our available datasets in order to respond to your request. Compiling such information will require
detailed analysis of the RTI and ticketing data and extensive processing, reclassification and
collation of individual records of complaints. It will also involve quality control to make sure the
compiled information meets acceptable level of data reliability, accuracy and consistency.
For example, producing the information on the average number of passengers who boarded the next
non-cancelled bus service on the same route, with the same break down a, b, c, d would require one-
by-one matching of cancelled services extracted from RTI with the next available bus service on the
same route extracted from RTI and timetables, and mapping the resulting data to boardings extracted
from the boarding data obtained from bus ticketing systems (including Snapper) and the operators of
the service. The resulting information would require quality control for accuracy and consistency.
Likewise, to provide the average number of complaints for each cancelled service incorrectly
displayed on RTI boards, with the same break down a, b, c, d would require detailed examination of
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-325
PAGE 3 OF 5
each record of the complaints to identify the ones that have specifically complained about the
services that were cancelled and not correctly displayed on RTI boards. This would also require an
examination of the source of the issue (i.e. whether it was due to a faulty RTI board or another
factor).
Producing this level of information in an acceptable form and quality would require substantial time
and effort to retrieve and process in addition to the time and effort already expended to answer the
other questions. Our estimate is that it would take up to 12 working days of additional work to
export, analyse, process and collate the volume of data you have asked for.
In addition to the substantial work required, some of the information you have requested contains
personal information with the potential to undermine the privacy and security of individuals.
Furthermore, we do not hold the breakdown of boarding information by concession and fare types
for all bus services for the months prior to introduction of the new bus network from mid-2018.
Some operator information is also protected under commerciality agreements between GWRC and
the operators of the services, and therefore releasing this information would prejudice commercial
position of the bus operators. While we would need to consult with bus operators first, as it currently
stands, your request is likely to be refused in accordance with section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Act.
GWRC has considered whether imposing a charge or seeking a time extension would enable us to
process your requests under questions 4 to 8 as they currently stand. However, we consider the time
estimated to be involved in processing your request to be so great that neither charging nor seeking a
time extension would enable us to process your request in a manner that would avoid an adverse
impact on GWRC’s operations.
GWRC has therefore elected to refuse the information you have requested under your questions 4 to
8 in accordance with section 17(f) of the Act, on the ground that the extensive amount of
information which you have requested cannot be made available without substantial collation and
research.
Alternative option
We would be happy to further talk to you to assist you with refining your request in another manner
so that we can provide you with information in a form which is manageable for us to process.
As previously requested, please telephone Catherine Jones, Public Transport Commercial Manager
on 021 193 4260 to discuss what outcome you want to achieve so that we can consider how we
might process it in a manner that does not unduly disrupt our operations.
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-325
PAGE 4 OF 5
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 Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987.
Yours sincerely
Angus Gabara
General Manager, Public Transport (Acting)
RESPONSE TO OIA 2018-325
PAGE 5 OF 5
