bus industry quinquennial report 2014-2018...bus industry report– august 2019 9 4.2 accreditations...

November 2019

Bus Industry Compliance Statistics and Trends Report

DISCLAIMER

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) publishes statistical data to disseminate information and provide transparency for the benefit of the public.

Roads and Maritime has taken care to ensure that data published is correct and accurate as possible. However, Roads and Maritime does not warrant, represent or guarantee the accuracy or suitability for any purpose of the information published within this report.

Roads and Maritime does not accept any legal liability for any loss or damage arising directly or indirectly from the use of data published within this report.

Roads and Maritime recommends that users exercise their own skill, care and judgment with respect to their use of data published including by evaluating the relevance of the material within the report for their purpose.

Date: November 2019 Branch: Compliance and Regulatory Services Division: Safety Environment and Regulation

Bus Industry Report– August 2019 2

Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4

2 Key statistics and findings ....................................................................................... 5

3 Bus operator profile ................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Definitions................................................................................................... 7

4 Bus operators and accreditations ............................................................................ 9 4.1 Operators and accreditations ...................................................................... 9 4.2 Accreditations by fleet size ....................................................................... 10 4.3 Operator accreditations ............................................................................ 11 4.4 Operator location by postcode .................................................................. 12

5 Registered buses .................................................................................................. 14 5.1 Vehicle age by usage code ....................................................................... 14

6 Bus driver authorities ............................................................................................ 15 6.1 Age and gender of bus drivers .................................................................. 17 6.2 Gender split .............................................................................................. 18 6.3 Bus driver location by postcode ................................................................ 19

7 Compliance ........................................................................................................... 21 7.1 Vehicle unit inspection notice compliance rate .......................................... 22 7.2 Major and major grounded defect notices ................................................. 22 7.3 Defect fault breakdown ............................................................................. 23 7.4 Mechanical issue breakdown .................................................................... 25

8 Independent audit results ...................................................................................... 27 8.1 BOAS rationale ......................................................................................... 27 8.2 Purpose of the audits ................................................................................ 27 8.3 Audit categories and process.................................................................... 27 8.4 Number of independent audits .................................................................. 28 8.5 Independent audit deficiency rates ........................................................... 28 8.6 Audit deficiencies...................................................................................... 29

9 Annual Self-Assessment Reporting results ........................................................... 31 9.1 Drug and alcohol testing ........................................................................... 31 9.2 Bus safety employees tested with positive results .................................... 32

10 Bus incident reporting ........................................................................................... 33 10.1 Incidents categorised by incident type ...................................................... 33 10.2 Collision incident type by description ........................................................ 35 10.3 Collisions incident type by cause .............................................................. 36 10.4 Fire on bus incident type ........................................................................... 37 10.5 Assault and offensive behaviour incident type .......................................... 39 10.6 Threatening and intimidating behaviour incident type ............................... 41 10.7 Medical incident type not resulting in a collision ........................................ 42 10.8 Fatality ...................................................................................................... 42 10.9 Antisocial behaviour ................................................................................. 43

10.9.1 Top four antisocial behaviour by location .................................... 45

11 Glossary................................................................................................................ 46


1 Introduction Roads and Maritime Services regulate bus operators and drivers under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 and associated regulations. In addition, we regulate buses and coaches as heavy vehicles under the Road Transport legislation.

Our vision for the bus sector is to work with the bus industry, co-regulators and other agencies to improve bus safety in NSW with the aim of safe journeys by ensuring safe bus drivers, operators and buses.

Our purpose is to work together to protect everyone on our roads. Everything we do aims to reduce deaths and serious injuries on NSW roads. Our safety commitment means a safer NSW – for every individual and the community.

As a regulator, our role is to ensure and promote safe and efficient journeys through safer drivers, safer vehicles, and safer operators.

On 1 July 2005, as part of an accreditation reform the Bus Operator Accreditation Scheme (BOAS) was introduced to achieve a number of aims.

Visit the Buses Section of our website for more information www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/buses/index.html.

From 1 November 2017, a new regulatory framework for passenger services provided by any vehicle with 12 seats or less (including the driver) was introduced and is overseen by the Point to Point Transport Commissioner.

Visit their website for more information https://www.pointtopoint.nsw.gov.au/.

The purpose of this report is to identify how BOAS is performing and to highlight key statistics and trends about bus compliance in the five years to 2018.

Note: some statistics in this report are only available for the previous four years.

It has been announced that Roads and Maritime and Transport for NSW will be merged to create one organisation. The merger will formally take place following amendments to the Transport Administration Act 1988 which were still pending when this report was published.

Safer vehicles

Safer operators

Safer drivers


http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/business-industry/buses/index.html

https://www.pointtopoint.nsw.gov.au/

2 Key statistics and findings


Key findings between 2014 and 2018 are:

the number of bus operators has decreased by 13 per cent from 1,522 in 2015 to 1,318 in 2018

accreditations have decreased by 12 per cent from 2,078 in 2015 to 1,825 in 2018

the total number of buses as of 2018 is 11,584. This is a 19 per cent increase when compared to the 9,753 recorded in December 2014.

driver authorities have increased 2 per cent in the five years with 28,594 driver authorities in 2018

between 2014 and 2018 on average 64 per cent of bus drivers were over the age of 50

the number of bus drivers over the age of 70 has increased 34 per cent between 2014 and 2018, however, as a proportion of total bus drivers those over 70 years have increased by 2 per cent

females consistently represent 9 per cent of total bus drivers

the number of buses inspected during 2018 was 22,066

registered long distance, tourist and charter buses have shown a 9.9 per cent increase in compliance since 2014

registered regular passenger services have shown a 6.2 per cent increase in compliance since 2014

a total of 2,323 independent operator audits were reviewed with an average of 464 audits each year

the largest deficiency identified during bus operator independent audits relates to the reporting of incidents in the Bus Incident Management Database (BIMD)

the total number of ‘fire on bus’ incidents recorded were 167 with zero fatalities

physical assaults on bus drivers have increased by six per cent since 2014

bus incidents have increased by 4.9 per cent from 8,105 in 2015 to 8,526 in 2018

more bus safety employees have returned positive results to drug testing (1.2%) than alcohol testing (0.3%)

one pedestrian on average per week is hit by a bus not resulting in a fatality

on average there have been six fatalities per year


3 Bus operator profile1 The Bus Operator Accreditation Scheme (BOAS) was introduced on 1 July 2005 and comprises of the following key elements:

• a requirement to apply for accreditation and renew accreditations every three years

• a requirement that only licensed (MVRIA) repairers perform safety critical work on buses (brakes, suspension and steering)

• Annual Self-Assessment Reports (ASAR)

• independent audits

• a comprehensive audit tool

• a Safety Management System (SMS)

• drug and alcohol programs.

Operators can apply for regular passenger services bus operator accreditation or long distance, tourist and charter bus operator accreditation or both.

3.1 Definitions

Regular Passenger Service (RPS) A regular passenger service (RPS) is a public passenger service conducted according to regular routes and timetables, but does not include a long distance, tourist or charter service.

A RPS operator must hold a service contract with Transport for NSW, or be the sub-contracted operator of a service contract holder.

Long Distance, Tourist and Charter Services (LDTC)

Long distance service A long distance service is a public passenger service conducted according to one or more regular routes where each passenger is carried for a distance of no less than 40 kilometres.

Tourist service A tourist service is a public passenger service, that is a:

a) pre-booked service designed for the carriage of tourists to destinations listed on a publicly available tour itinerary

b) service designed for the carriage of tourists where all passenger journeys have a common origin or a common destination, or both.

1 Data Source: Transport Information Management System (TIMS) as at 8 January 2019 Bus Industry Report– August 2019 7

Charter service A charter service is a public passenger service that is pre-booked for hire to take passengers for an agreed fee, but only if, according to the terms of the hire:

a) the hirer is entitled to determine the route for the journey and the time of travel

b) all passenger journeys have a common origin and/or common destination

c) individual fares are not payable by the passengers (either to the operator of the service or to the driver of the vehicle)

d) the service is not provided according to regular routes or timetables.


4 Bus operators and accreditations 4.1 Operators and accreditations

There are currently 1,318 bus operators, a decrease of 204 operators (13%) since 2015.

The number of accreditations has decreased by 253 (12%) since 2015.

The decrease may be attributed to the new regulatory framework for passenger services provided by any vehicle with 12 seats or less (including the driver) introduced in November 2017, which has transitioned to the Point to Point Transport Commissioner.

One operator can hold both a long distance tourist charter and a regular passenger service accreditation.

Of the total number of bus operators in 2018, 811 (62%) hold only one accreditation type with the remaining 507 (38%) holding both accreditation types.

31-Dec-15 31-Dec-16 31-Dec-17 31-Dec-18Total Accreditations 2,078 1,997 1,908 1,825Current operators 1,522 1,418 1,358 1,318

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2015 - 2018 total operators and accreditations

Graph 1


4.2 Accreditations by fleet size

As of 2018, there were 1,825 accreditations compared to 2,078 in 2015. This represents a 12 per cent decrease in accreditations.

When reviewing accreditations by fleet size, we see that:

• the majority of bus accreditations (77%) are approved to operate less than ten buses

• about 10% can operate 10-19 vehicles

• about 13% can operate 20 or more vehicles. Graph 2

0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-99 >100Long Distance Tourist Charter 917 117 47 26 17 17 7 2 2 3 25Regular Passenger Service 482 46 28 24 13 10 7 4 2 3 26

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000Number of accreditations by fleet size


4.3 Operator accreditations

LDTC accreditations have decreased by 197 accreditations (14%) in the four years to 2018.

RPS has decreased by 56 accreditations (8%) in the same period.

LDTC accreditations make up 65 per cent of total accreditations, with RPS making up the remaining 35 per cent.

Graph 3

2015 2016 2017 2018LDTC 1,377 1,325 1,253 1,180RPS 701 672 655 645Total 2,078 1,997 1,908 1,825

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

2015 - 2018 Operator accreditations


4.4 Operator location by postcode

The map below provides an indication of the number of accreditations by postcode.

Figure 1


The most accreditations for 2018 were located within the postcode 2480-Lismore area followed by 2340-Tamworth and 1805- Burwood.

A single postcode has been used as operators can have multiple addresses recorded in the database, e.g. a postal address and a number of depot addresses.

As mentioned earlier, one operator can hold more than one accreditation.

One postcode can cover multiple suburbs in the same area.

Table 1

Top 10 postcodes by number of accreditations

Rank Postcode Suburb(s) No. of bus accreditations

1 2480 Lismore, Modanville,

Goolmangar, South Lismore, Tregeagle, Goonellabah, Numulgi

29

2 2340 Tamworth, Nemingha, Nundle, Loomberah, Dungowan, Manilla

Hallsville 23

3 1805 Burwood 22

4 2594 Young, Bribbaree 21

5 2400 Moree 18

6 2795 Kelso, Bathurst, Laffing Waters, Meadow Flat 16

7 2567 Mount Annan, Narellan, Smeaton Grange, Harrington Park 15

8 2358 Uralla, Kingston 15

9 2582 Yass, Bowning 15

10 2671 West Wyalong, Wyalong 15


5 Registered buses2 There are currently 11,584 registered buses of which 91 per cent are classified as a heavy vehicle.

Registered buses are categorised by two usage codes: CBUS and RBUS/OMNI.

CBUS Charter/airways vehicle used for hire

RBUS/OMNI Bus/tourist vehicle used for hire

Of those registered buses, there are currently:

• 9,025 buses with usage code RBUS/OMNI

• 2,259 buses with usage code CBUS.

CBUS 2,259

RBUS/OMNI 9,025

5.1 Vehicle age by usage code

There are currently:

• 3,899 (43%) RBUS/OMNI less than 10 years old

• 1,234 (48%) CBUS less than 10 years old

• 2,210 (40%) RBUS/OMNI and CBUS over 20 years old.

Table 2

Vehicle age by vehicle usage code

Vehicle age CBUS CBUS % RBUS/OMNI RBUS/ OMNI %

0-4 Years 537 21% 1,626 18%

5-9 Years 697 27% 2,273 25%

10-14 Years 541 21% 2,380 27%

15-19 Years 221 9% 1,099 12%

20+ Years 563 22% 1,647 18%

TOTAL 2,259 100% 9,025 100%

2 Source DRIVES database Bus Industry Report– August 2019 14

5.2 2014 – 2018 bus registrations

In 2014 there were a total of 9,753 RBUS, OMNI and CBUS registrations compared to 11,584 in 2018. This is an increase of 1,831 registrations (19 per cent).

Table 3

2014 – 2018 bus registrations by type and year

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

CBUS 1,805 2,020 2,207 2,339 2,559

RBUS/OMNI 7,948 8,015 8,276 8,478 9,025

Total 9,753 10,035 10,483 10,817 11,584

The number of RBUS/OMNI registrations has increased by 14 per cent from 7,948 in 2014 to 9,025 in 2018.

The number of CBUS registrations has increased 42 per cent from 1,802 in 2014 to 2,559 in 2019 however CBUS registrations continue to make up about 20 per cent of registrations.

Graph 4

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018RBUS/OMNI 7948 8015 8276 8478 9025CBUS 1805 2020 2207 2339 2559

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2014 - 2018 number of registered buses


6 Bus driver authorities3 All drivers of public passenger buses seating 13 or more (including the driver) must be authorised under the Passenger Transport Act 1990 or 2014.

In 2018 there were 28,594 driver authorities, which is consistent with the past five years, although there was a slight drop in numbers in 2017 from previous years.

From 2017 to 2018 there was an increase of 1,040 drivers, with 2018 recording the highest ever number of bus driver authorities.

This may be attributed to the establishment of the Point to Point Transport Commissioner and Point to Point laws.

Graph 5

3 Data Source: Transport Information Management System (TIMS) as at 8 January 2019

31-Dec-15 31-Dec-16 31-Dec-17 31-Dec-18Current drivers 28,534 28,186 27,554 28,594

20,000

21,000

22,000

23,000

24,000

25,000

26,000

27,000

28,000

29,000

Number of bus driver authorities


6.1 Age and gender of bus drivers

The industry’s workforce is aging with the majority of bus drivers over the age of 50 years. Between 2014 and 2018 the per cent of drivers over the age of 50 remained steady at 64 per cent. It is worth noting that the number of bus drivers over the age of 70 increased 34 per cent between 2014 and 2018, from 1,398 to 1,875 respectively, however, as a percentage of total bus drivers, the increase was more moderate at 2 per cent.

Drivers over the age of 60 are required to have annual medical assessments.

It is forecast that in the next five years, there will be an additional 5,124 drivers who will be required to have yearly medical assessments.

Drivers over the age of 60 are required to complete a medical assessment every three years.

Those with a medical condition are required to have an annual medical assessment.

In November 2018, the medical assessment process was streamlined for bus drivers to avoid duplication and save customers time and money.

Drivers over the age of 60, or who have a medical condition, now require just one medical assessment that covers both their driver licence and driver authority.

Transport for NSW is working with the industry by allowing doctors to now complete the medical assessment form online.

Medical assessments for bus drivers are now aligned to drivers’ birthdays.

Graph 6

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89F 13 43 114 160 266 404 462 552 348 147 82 32M 108 520 1,410 1,934 2,179 3,064 3,679 4,572 3,992 2,752 1,315 395 45 6

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

Bus driver authorities by age group and gender


Graph 7

6.2 Gender split

Females consistently represent nine per cent of total bus drivers in the past five years.

Graph 8

20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-892014 123 661 1,411 1,858 2,785 3,441 4,600 4,901 4,190 2,683 1,065 294 37 22015 128 730 1,461 1,918 2,730 3,519 4,573 4,971 4,253 2,737 1,154 317 40 22016 128 661 1,450 1,936 2,576 3,536 4,379 4,939 4,212 2,698 1,263 358 47 12017 105 527 1,413 1,918 2,352 3,394 4,051 4,954 4,227 2,805 1,359 406 38 42018 121 563 1,524 2,094 2,445 3,468 4,141 5,124 4,340 2,899 1,397 427 45 6

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Bus driver authorities by age group and gender

2,555

25,495

2,601

25,931

2,588

25,596

2,503

25,050

2,622

25,971

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

F M F M F M F M F M

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Bus driver authorities by gender


6.3 Bus driver location by postcode

The highest number of bus driver authorities for 2018 were located within the 2148 postcode, followed by the postcode 2170 and 2145.

Please note that one postcode may cover multiple suburbs in the same area.

Table 4

Top 10 postcodes with bus driver authorities

Rank Postcode Suburb(s) No. of bus driver authorities

1 2148 Blacktown, Kings Park, Maryong, Prospect 388

2 2170 Casula, Chipping Norton, Hammondville, Liverpool,

Lurnea, Moorebank, Mount Pritchard, Prestons, Warwick Farm

359

3 2145 Constitution Hill, Girraween, Greystanes, Mays Hill, Pemulwuy, Pendle Hill, Wentworthville, Westmead 260

4 2761 Colebee, Dean Park, Glendenning, Hassall Grove, Oakhurst, Plumpton 228

5 2560

Airds, Ambarvale, Appin, Blair Athol, Bradbury, Campbelltown, Englorie Park, Glen Alpine,

Leumeah, Rosemeadow, Ruse, St Helens Park, Woodbine

214

6 2250

Gosford, Erina, Holgate, Kariong, Kulnura, Lisarow, Mangrove Mountain, Matcham, Narara, Niagara Park, Peats Ridge, Point Clare, Point Frederick,

Somersby, Springfield, Tascott, Wyoming

207

7 2770 Bidwill, Blackett, Dharruk, Emerton, Hebersham,

Lethbridge Park, Minchinbury, Mount Druitt, Shalvey, Tregear, Whalan, Willmot

203

8 2099 Cromer, Dee Why, Narraweena 197

9 2480 Booyong, Caniaba, Clunes, Dorroughby, Lismore,

Federal, Goonellabah, Modanville, Nimbin, Richmond Hill, Tregeagle, Tullera

188

10 2259

Chain Valley Bay, Gwandalan, Hamlyn Terrace, Jilliby, Kanwal, Lake Munmorah, Mannering Park,

Mardi, South Tacoma, Summerland Point, Tuggerah, Tuggerawong, Wadalba, Watanobbi, Woongarrah,

Wyee, Wyong, Wyongah, Yarramalong

181

10 2166 Cabramatta, Canley Heights, Canley Vale, Lansvale 181

The map over the page shows the location of bus driver authorities by postcode.


Figure 2


7 Compliance4 As part of the BOAS accreditation scheme, public passenger buses are required to be inspected biannually.

In the past five years:

• more than 17,000 notices were issued to RBUS/OMNI and CBUS, which is 3.5 per cent of all notices issued to heavy vehicles greater than 4.5 tonnes

• notices issued to RBUS reduced by 30 per cent while CBUS remained consistent

• RBUS/OMNI were more compliant than CBUS

• RBUS/OMNI average compliance rate* of 87.6 per cent is considerably higher than the CBUS average compliance rate of 62.6% and the overall heavy vehicle (HV) industry of 81%

• CBUS compliance rate has steadily increased from 57.1 per cent in 2014 to 67 per cent in 2018

• RBUS/OMNI compliance rate has increased by 6.2 per cent from 2014 to 2018.

* Compliance rate includes Heavy Vehicle Inspection Scheme (HVIS), Heavy Vehicle Safety Station (HVSS), On Road Enforcement (ORE) and Special Operations.

Table 5

Compliance Statistics

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

CBUS

Units inspected 3,285 3,661 4,162 4,336 4,703

Notices to vehicle units 1,410 1,450 1,556 1,483 1,554

Compliance rate 57.1% 60.4% 62.6% 65.8% 67.0%

RBUS/OMNI

Units inspected 15,313 15,488 15,839 16,521 17,363


Compliance rate 83.5% 86.8% 88.1% 90.0% 89.7%

HV industry

Units inspected 523,231 525,360 543,364 528,988 494,426


Compliance rate 80.8% 81.4% 81.2% 81.1% 80.4%

4 Data Source: VROP (Vehicle Regulation Operations database) Bus Industry Report– August 2019 21

7.1 Vehicle unit inspection notice compliance rate

Graph 9

The compliance rate is the per cent of vehicle units inspected that are compliant.

RBUS/OMNI has an average compliance rate of 87.6 per cent in the past five years, which is considerably higher than CBUS and the heavy vehicle industry.

The reason behind the compliance rating is that RBUS/OMNI holds a contract with Transport for NSW while CBUS is a long distance, tourist and charter service.

The difference in compliance rate may be attributed to RBUS/OMNI:

• having a vehicle age limit requirement resulting in the operation of newer vehicles

• KPI requirements that include service reliability, incomplete trips, contract bus maintenance major defects and contract bus maintenance minor defects as part of their contract.

However, CBUS continues to improve annually with a 10 per cent increase in the past five years, while RBUS/OMNI has recorded a six per cent increase.

7.2 Major and major grounded defect notices

Operators are responsible to ensure vehicles meet the prescribed standards and mechanical conditions. If a bus is found to be non-compliant a defect notice is issued. Defects identified are recorded based on safety risk. The National Heavy Vehicle law identifies three main categories for defects, Formal Warning (Self Clearing), Minor and Major with a sub category of Major Grounded.

Major and major grounded defects are most severe. These defects are likely to cause a serious crash or fatality.

The majority of buses do not receive major and/or major grounded defects.

During 2018:

• 22,066 buses were inspected

• 126 major and major grounded defect notices were issued

• the most notices for major and major grounded defects related to brakes (27.1%) followed by ancillary equipment (19.1%).

67.0%

89.7% 80.4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018*

Notice to inspection compliance rate

CBUS RBUS/OMNI HV Industry


The past five years’ trend saw: • an average compliance rate for RBUS/OMNI of 99.6 per cent

• an average compliance rate for CBUS of 98.1 per cent

• RBUS/OMNI and HV industry remain stable, while CBUS fluctuated slightly.

Graph 10

* Compliance rate includes Heavy Vehicle Inspection Scheme (HVIS), Heavy Vehicle

Safety Station (HVSS), On Road Enforcement (ORE) and Special Operations.

7.3 Defect fault breakdown

In the past five years, ancillary equipment (e.g. light, mirror, marking, etc.) remains the most common defect fault for both RBUS/OMNI and CBUS at 27.8 per cent followed by brake related defect faults at 19.2 per cent.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018*CBUS 98.0% 97.7% 98.2% 98.0% 98.5%RBUS/OMNI 99.4% 99.6% 99.6% 99.7% 99.7%HV Industry 98.3% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2% 98.2%

95%96%97%98%99%

100%

Compliance rate for major and major grounded defect notices


Table 6

Defect faults by registration

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

CBUS RBUS/ OMNI

CBUS

RBUS/

OMNI CBU

S

RBUS/

OMNI CBU

S

RBUS/

OMNI CBU

S

RBUS/

OMNI

Ancillary equipment 794 1,128 864 904 921 774 927 775 856 814

Brakes 555 930 557 750 578 664 486 531 503 498

Oil and fuel leaks 304 522 293 376 335 378 331 289 323 312

Suspension 285 460 280 449 309 385 247 332 274 300

Body and chassis 239 424 253 340 259 313 220 228 245 275

Steering 169 332 162 241 166 240 143 197 144 181

Other 240 239 243 201 235 180 191 165 211 164

Wheels and tyres 170 182 170 151 194 129 190 143 184 144

Exhaust and noise 101 189 124 130 107 95 100 91 93 97

Tow couplings 61 15 58 16 52 12 57 9 43 7

In reviewing the five year trend, we can see that for:

RBUS/OMNI

• the five year average for the number of ancillary equipment defect faults was 879

• in 2018, 814 ancillary equipment defect faults were recorded, which is 65 less than the five year average

• the number of brakes defect faults for 2018 was 498, which is 176 lower than the five year average of 675.

CBUS

• the five year average for the number of ancillary equipment defect faults was 872

• in 2018, 856 ancillary equipment defect faults were recorded, which is 16 less than the five year average

• the number of brake defect faults for 2018 was 503, which is 32 lower than the five year average of 536.


7.4 Mechanical issue breakdown

In the past five years, the top three mechanical maintenance issues identified for RBUS/OMNI, and CBUS were:

1. Engine oil leaks

• five year average was 210 records

• in 2018, 177 were recorded, which is 33 less than the five year average

2. On axle 2 - more than 30 per cent break imbalance between wheels

• five year average was 68 records

• in 2018, 59 were recorded, which is nine less than the five year average

3. Transmission oil leak

• five year average was 54.4 records

• in 2018, 34 were recorded which is 20.4 less than the five year average.

More information is available in the table on the next page.


Table 7

Top mechanical issues

Fault description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Grand Total

Engine oil leaks 285 184 213 189 177 1,048

On Axle 2 -- more than 30% brake imbalance between wheels 63 71 80 69 59 342

Transmission oil leak 80 54 55 49 34 272

Windscreen is damaged / cracked 43 41 38 50 48 220

ADR 35 system fault with one tank drained and when service brake is applied, maxi brake automatically applies

37 43 36 27 29 172

ADR 35 System to operate correctly 34 43 28 26 30 161

Windscreen washers are inoperative / incorrectly aimed 43 21 28 32 33 157

Fire extinguisher insecure 25 24 22 26 23 120

Reverse light inoperative 27 22 24 27 20 120

Windscreen washers are inoperative 22 19 32 16 27 116

Number plate light/s inoperative 37 21 18 20 17 113

ADR35 system fault when one air reservoir is drained, both circuits drain rendering service brakes inoperative

28 27 16 16 20 107

On Axle 2 -- service brake/s uneven efficiency (left side low) 24 23 19 22 17 105

Drag link end excessive play / movement (rear end) 32 13 20 23 16 104

Note: data has been extracted where the total count on the mechanical fault is more than 100


8 Independent audit results5 8.1 BOAS rationale

On 1 July 2005, as part of an accreditation reform the Bus Operator Accreditation Scheme (BOAS) was introduced to:

• apply for reaccreditation and renew accreditations every three years

• allow only licensed (MVRIA) repairers to perform safety critical work on buses (brakes, suspension and steering)

• complete an Annual Self-Assessment Report

• carry out an independent audit every three years

• develop a comprehensive audit tool

• develop a Safety Management System

• develop a drug and alcohol program.

The major objectives of BOAS are to:

• provide safe and reliable public passenger bus services

• ensure bus operators comply with the requirements of the scheme

• improve the effectiveness and efficiency of bus operations as a result of the accreditation process.

8.2 Purpose of the audits

The objective of the audits is to confirm:

• compliance with BOAS pursuant to the Act

• conditions of accreditation are being met

• systems are tested and checked

• bus operators understand their obligations under BOAS.

8.3 Audit categories and process

Accredited bus operators are subject to an Annual Self-Assessment Report (ASAR) and an independent audit every third year:

• An ASAR is conducted by an operator of their accreditation system using our form to determine compliance and must be conducted annually.

• An independent audit is a review of an accredited operator’s compliance with the legislative requirements of BOAS.

Roads and Maritime Services requires accredited bus operators to submit an independent audit of their BOAS at least once every three years during the period of accreditation.

5 Data source: Independent Audit Deficiency spreadsheet as at 21 January 2019 Bus Industry Report– August 2019 27

Roads and Maritime Services will advise operators when their independent audit is due and provide them with a list of qualified independent BOAS auditors.

Operators can select the auditor of their choice from the approved list and engage them at their own expense to perform the audit.

All audits are returned to Roads and Maritime Services for review and assessment.

Requests for further information or appropriate action may be taken based on audit results to ensure compliance.

An accredited operator may be audited at any time by a Roads and Maritime Services program auditor.

This auditor will use the same audit tool as an independent auditor.

8.4 Number of independent audits

Table 8

Number of independent audits

Year RPS

accreditation audits LDTC

accreditation audits Operator audits*

2014 154 284 346

2015 230 455 565

2016 228 425 502

2017 202 362 426

2018 208 432 484

Total 1,022 1,958 2,323

* One operator can hold both a LDTC and a RPS accreditation.

A total of 2,323 independent operator audits were reviewed in the five year reporting period with an average of 464 audits each year.

The total figure includes a small number of audits performed by Roads and Maritime Services auditors.

8.5 Independent audit deficiency rates

The performance of several audit components remains steady; however, there are significant increases in deficiencies relating to Safety Management Systems (Section 10) and Management Information Systems (Section 7).

The significant rise in both section 10 and section 7 is a result of changes made to the way data was being recorded.

The top five audit component deficiencies observed in the past five years remains consistent and include:

1. management information system

2. vehicle maintenance and heavy vehicle inspection scheme

3. bus operator management and records

4. safety management system

5. buses.


Graph 11

8.6 Audit deficiencies

The top three audited deficiencies with the highest increase in the past five years were:

1. bus incident reporting (Have notifiable crashes or incidents been reported via the bus incident management database as required?)

2. registration usage (Are the vehicles registered according to Roads and Maritime requirements by usage code?)

3. vehicle maintenance (Is the maintenance carried out by the operator’s maintenance schedule? The independent auditor will select a sample of vehicles to make sure the maintenance is carried out as required by the manufacturer standards.)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Independent audit deficiencies by audit component

Management Information SystemVehicle maintenance and Heavy Vehicle Inspection SchemeBus operator management and recordsSafety Management SystemBusesRecords managementDrug and Alcohol


Table 9

Top 10 independent audit deficiencies in 2018

Rank Audit Section Audit Question 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

1 10.7.3

Have notifiable accidents or incidents been reported via the Bus Incident Management Database as required?

2 2 2 97 210

2 8.7

From a sample of maintenance records, is the maintenance carried out in accordance with the operator’s maintenance schedule?

25 64 71 121 147

3 7.5

Are the vehicles registered according to Roads and Maritime requirements ie CBUS or RBUS?

80 136

4 12.1 Have records been maintained in English and held for at least five years?

27 26 49 59 89

5 10.5.1

Can the operator demonstrate via documented evidence they ensure that all drivers who drive a bus in a connection with the service have an appropriate and current driver licence and driver authority

23 60 70 55 77

6 8.3 Provide the dates of SMS audits conducted during the last three years.

18 28 33 65 55

7 10.8.3 Provide the dates of SMS audits conducted during the last three years.

9 19 13 20 28

8 7.2

Can the operator provide evidence that the insurance policies are current? Obtain copies of certificate of currency or confirmation of insurance issued not more than seven days prior to the date of the audit.2

4 18 14 9 27

9 11.1 Do all buses have accreditation details displayed appropriately? 6 12 17 13 23

10 DA1 Has the operator conducted a risk assessment? 0 11 18


9 Annual Self-Assessment Reporting results6 ASAR is one component of the three part audit approach in use to monitor the bus industry.

It is intended that the ASAR independent audits and Roads and Maritimes Services conducted audits are used together to monitor emerging issues within the industry and ensure third party providers are compliant under their respective schemes.

An ASAR is conducted by an operator of their accreditation system using our form to determine compliance and must be conducted annually, under section 9 of the Bus Operator Accreditation Package.

It requires providers to assure they are meeting their obligations through a series of questions.

In addition, ASAR can be used by bus operators as a self-checking system to assess various aspects of their operation, identify where weaknesses and deficiencies may exist and work towards eliminating these before they become issues.

9.1 Drug and alcohol testing

Drug and alcohol testing is not a compulsory operating requirement for bus operators.

Bus operators are required to carry out a risk assessment of their business to determine whether drug and alcohol testing is a necessary part of their compulsory drug and alcohol program.

Self-assessment results are captured from 14 September 2015 onwards.

Although 2015 results are included in the analysis below, it is not for a full calendar year.

Before this, only positive results were being recorded. Table 10

Annual self-assessment audit (ASAR) drug and alcohol results

Year

Drug Alcohol

Total Audits Tests

Conducted Confirmed

Positive Drivers Tested

Tests Conducted

Confirmed Positive

Drivers Tested

2015* 232 4 238 3,332 15 1,292 238

2016 5,989 35 3,015 33,687 10 10,950 1,432

2017 4,175 36 3,410 25,087 12 6,640 1,300

2018 3,647 38 2,593 47,110 33 7,032 1,233

* From 14 September 2015

6 Data source: ASAR deficiency spreadsheet as at 24 January 2019 Bus Industry Report– August 2019 31

9.2 Bus safety employees tested with positive results

A bus safety employee includes anyone who is a paid employee, contractor, or volunteer of the accredited operator when involved in:

• driving or operating buses, loading/disembarking passengers, or the movement of buses

• repairing, maintaining or upgrading buses, bus terminals or bus maintenance facilities

• developing, managing or monitoring safe working systems for bus services.

The number of bus safety employees* tested for alcohol in the past four years is 25,914.

The number of bus safety employees tested for drug use is much lower at 9,256.

Many more bus safety employees are tested for alcohol use rather than drug use however, there are still more positive results found in drug testing.

The number of positive alcohol tests returned for the four years is 70.

The number of confirmed positive drug results for the same period is 113.

Note: one test can have more than one bus driver and one driver can be tested more than once.

Graph 12

0510152025303540

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2015 2016 2017 2018

No.

of P

ositi

ve R

esul

ts

No.

of D

river

s Te

sted

Annual self assessment audit results: drivers tested v positive results

Drivers Tested: Drug Drivers Tested: Alcohol

Confirmed Positive: Drug Confirmed Positive: Alcohol


10 Bus incident reporting7 Bus Operators are required under Clause 88 of the Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017 to notify us when they become aware that a bus being used to provide the service has been involved in a crash or incident that resulted:

• in a person being injured

• in preventing the bus from continuing its journey

• in the reasonable opinion that the operator of the service, otherwise likely to arouse serious public concern.

In 2009, to streamline reporting requirements, we developed an online bus incident reporting facility, the Bus Incident Management Database (BIMD).

The database allows operators to electronically report a bus incident directly to us, Office of Transport Safety Investigations and Police Assistance Line, replacing the existing manual reporting.

The benefit for everyone is that there will be a centralised database of information that can be used to target resources, establish trends and validate response actions for the bus industry.

NSW Police receives daily reports from the database, which enables the development of intelligence and allocation of appropriate resources to prioritise tasks.

We carry out regular quality assurance data checks.

10.1 Incidents categorised by incident type

Incidents are collected within BIMD and categorised by 15 incident types.

Collisions make up more than 50 per cent of the incidents types and continue to be the most common incident type as they include minor incidents such as a broken mirror due to a collision with a pole, vehicle, tree or bus stop.

The second most common incident type is ‘slips, trips and falls’. These are common due to bus drivers braking suddenly to avoid a collision on the road, or if a passenger is not fully prepared once a bus is approaching or leaving a bus stop.

Projectiles have decreased by 158 incidents between 2017 and 2018.

Threatening/intimidating behaviour continues to steadily increase each year.

We are working with NSW Police to reduce the number of these incidents across all transport modes and to assist Police resource allocation.

Vehicle breakdowns have increased by 92 per cent from 2017 to 2018.

The following table highlights the bus incident data captured during the five year period.

7 Data source: BIMD (Bus Incident Management Database) as at 8 January 2019 Bus Industry Report– August 2019 33

Table 11

Count of incident type by year

Incident type 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Total %

Collision 3,643 4,630 4,442 4,493 4,880 22,088 56.7%

Slips, trips and falls 700 882 909 771 665 3,927 10.1%

Projectiles 614 597 654 530 372 2,767 7.1%

Threatening/intimidating behaviour 297 523 560 611 654 2,645 6.8%

Medical incident(no collision) 284 415 451 474 387 2,011 5.2%

Assault and offensive behaviour 375 590 390 284 301 1,940 5.0%

Vehicle breakdown 179 117 102 469 911 1,778 4.6%

Vandalism 97 115 93 89 94 488 1.3%

Bus doors(no collision) 43 76 86 71 76 352 0.9%

Dangerous Behaviour (Driver) 20 29 40 66 42 197 0.5%

Refusal to pay 20 44 20 43 65 192 0.5%

Fire on bus(no collision) 24 30 45 35 33 167 0.4%

Security threat 41 37 40 19 10 147 0.4%

(blank) 97 1 25 20 1 144 0.4%

Dangerous Behaviour (Public) 12 14 13 16 21 76 0.2%

Runaway bus 6 5 13 6 14 44 0.1%

Total 6,452 8,105 7,883 7,997 8,526 38,963 100%

Graph 13

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Collision

Slips, trips and falls

Projectiles

Threatening/intimidating behaviour

Medical incident(no collision)

Assault and offensive behaviour

Vehicle breakdown

Top 7 reported incident types

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018


10.2 Collision incident type by description

The most common incident description for vehicles involved in a collision is with another vehicle and makes up more than 70 per cent of all incidents.

The incident description of hitting tree/ branch was created in 2017 as a result of feedback received from the industry and makes up 9 per cent of collisions in 2018.

The collision description of hitting an animal was added in 2018 due to industry feedback.

This option is more common among rural and regional operators.

In the past five years, on average more than one pedestrian is hit by a bus per week.

Table 12

Incident type collision by incident description

Collision incident description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Another vehicle 2,612 3,311 3,180 3,093 3,298 15,494

Building/structure 606 773 819 942 965 4,105

Other 317 453 358 246 93 1,467

Hitting tree / branch

122 443 565

Pedestrian - adult 77 64 67 58 43 309

Cyclist 21 20 8 21 21 91

Pedestrian - child 10 9 10 11 10 50

Hitting an animal

7 7

Total 3,643 4,630 4,442 4,493 4,880 22,088


10.3 Collisions incident type by cause

Driver behaviour for both buses and road users remains the most common collision incident cause.

The incident cause ‘other’ appears to be entered in place of more appropriate options such as driver behaviour, another driver at fault, or road condition.

We are working with industry to improve our incident cause capturing.

Table 13

Incident type collision by incident cause

Collision incident cause 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Driver behaviour 2,249 2,836 2,608 2,242 2,414 12,349

Other driver at fault 807 780 859 1,722 2,236 6,404

Other 486 901 895 432 108 2,822

Pedestrian behaviour 63 52 51 56 46 268

Road condition 17 22 15 26 58 138

Weather condition 10 25 8 7 13 63

Driver health 4 8 2 4 4 22

Driver drug or alcohol related 2 3 1 1 7

Vehicle brake failure 3 1 1 2 7

Vehicle suspension/tyre or wheel failure 2 1 1 4

Vehicle steering failure 1 1 1 1 4

Total 3,643 4,630 4,442 4,493 4,880 22,088


10.4 Fire on bus incident type

In the five year period, 167 ‘fire on bus’ incidents were recorded specifically:

• 120 mechanical issues

• 45 electrical

• two incidents resulting from passenger behaviour.

Zero fatalities have occurred from incidents recorded as ‘fire on bus’.

Of the 167 incidents, only one has resulted in injuries with the driver of a bus carrying about 30 passengers receiving treatment from the fire.

All incidents recorded indicate that passengers were safely evacuated and transferred when a fire on the bus occurred.

A number of incidents reported under this type include thermal incidents with smoke.

Fires are decreasing with 45 incidents recorded in 2016 compared to 2018, where 33 incidents were recorded, a 27 per cent decrease.

Graph 14

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Passenger behaviour 1 1Electrical 5 6 14 9 11Mechanical 18 23 31 26 22

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Incident type fire on bus by incident cause


Graph 15

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

4

4

2

6

2

1

1

2

3

3

3

1

2

1

2

3

7

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

1

2

2

1

10

4

7

3

2

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

3

2

6

3

1

4

4

2

2

1

2

0 5 10 15 20 25

1987

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

2017

2018Incident type fire on bus by vehicle model and year of manufacture

Austral

BCI

Bustech

Hino

Irisbus

Iveco

Leyland

MAN

Mercedes

Renault

Scania

UD

Volvo


10.5 Assault and offensive behaviour incident type

The number of assault and offensive behaviour incidents between 2015 and 2017 fell.

However, from 2017 to 2018 the number of incident types increased by 6 per cent from 284 to 301.

The five year average is 388 incidents per year.

The two most common assault and offensive behaviour incident description are:

• physical assault on the driver

• physical assault between passengers.

In 2018 these two descriptions made up 80 per cent of all assault and offensive behaviour incidents.

Data quality has improved since 2015 due to increased industry engagement and education by us.

Graph 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Incident type assault and offensive behaviour by incident description

Indecent exposure by a passenger Indecent exposure by the driverPhysical assault between passengers Physical assault by the driverPhysical assault on the driver RobberySexual assault between passengers Sexual assault by the driverSexual assault on the driver Other


Table 14

Incident type assault and offensive behaviour by incident description

Incident description 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total

Physical assault on the driver 131 183 147 111 124 696

Physical assault between passengers 137 192 130 80 117 656

Robbery 52 73 43 52 30 250

Sexual assault on the driver 1 71 26 5 103

Indecent exposure by a passenger 17 29 19 18 12 95

Sexual assault between passengers 11 19 13 12 10 65

Physical assault by the driver 12 9 3 4 7 35

Indecent exposure by the driver 2 9 9 20

Other 12 3 1 16

Sexual assault by the driver 2 1 1 4

Total 375 590 390 284 301 1940


10.6 Threatening and intimidating behaviour incident type

Threatening and intimidating behaviour as an incident type has increased each year with 297 incidents in 2014 and 654 incidents in 2018.

The most significant change in behaviour is physical threat or intimidation between passengers, which has increased from 19 to 312 in the past five years and is the most recorded incident description in 2018, making up 48 per cent of all incident types.

Incident descriptions involving physical threats or intimidation and verbal assaults against the bus driver make up a further 48 per cent of the incident type recorded in 2018.

In 2018, zero incident descriptions were recorded as ‘other’.

This shows operators are making a discerned effort to record threatening and intimidating behaviour incident type by description accurately and that our industry engagement and education has been effective.

Graph 17

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Other 40 42 22 7 0Verbal assault by the driver 7 5 7 4 3Verbal assault between

passengers 24 37 56 43 26

Verbal assault against thedriver 104 218 185 138 146

Physical threat orintimidation by the driver 10 10 14 6 2

Physical threat orintimidation between

passengers19 35 65 261 312

Physical threat orintimidation against the

driver93 176 211 152 165

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Incident type threatening and intimidating behaviour by incident description


10.7 Medical incident type not resulting in a collision

Medical incident type (not resulting in a collision) increased from 2014 to 2016 but declined in 2017 and 2018.

Medical incident type is separated into two incident descriptions:

• passenger health

• driver health.

Driver health incident description increased significantly between 2014 and 2017.

The increase may be attributed to the renewal cycle of bus driver authorities, which are every three years and that drivers under the age of 60 require a medical assessment on renewal.

Graph 18

10.8 Fatality

In the five year period, there has been an average of six fatalities per year.

In 2016, 10 fatalities were recorded, which is the highest recorded in the five year period.

In 2018, nine fatalities were recorded.

In the five year period, pedestrians remain the most common fatality type.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Passenger health 247 350 351 347 294Driver health 36 64 98 126 93

050

100150200250300350400

Incident type medical incident by incident description


Graph 19

10.9 Antisocial behaviour

We are working with NSW Police by providing details of incident types containing incident descriptions relating to antisocial behaviour each month to assist with resource allocation.

The following seven bus incident types are categorised as antisocial behaviour:

• assault and offensive behaviour

• dangerous behaviour (public)

• projectiles

• refusal to pay

• security threat

• threatening/intimidating behaviour

• vandalism.

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Public fatality 1 2 2 3 3Pedestrian School Children fatality 0 0 1 1 0Pedestrian fatality 3 0 4 2 4Driver/ Employee fatality 1 1 1 0 1Passenger fatality 1 2 2 1 1

0123456789

10

Bus incident management database fatalities


Graph 20

20 31 24 24

33 30 24 30 20 18 18

26

26

21 11

37

42 41 48 35

30 36 18

24

54 42 74

62

55

50 37

70

57 51

48

62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2018 antisocial bus incidents

Assault and offensive behaviour Dangerous Behaviour (Public)

Projectiles Refusal to pay

Security threat Threatening intimidating behaviour

Vandalism


10.9.1 Top four antisocial behaviour by location

Graph 21

2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1

1 1

1

5

2

2 2 2 1

2 1

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 Bus incident management database December 2018 - Top 10 incident locations

Assault and offensive behaviour Projectiles

Security threat Threatening intimidating behaviour


11 Glossary

BOAS = Bus Operator Accreditation Scheme

CBUS = Charter/ Airways bus usage – let for hire registration

RBUS/OMNI = Bus/ tourist vehicle used for hire registration and any bus operated by State Transit Authority

RPS = Regular Passenger Service

LDTC = Long Distance and Tourist Charter

ASAR = Annual Self-Assessment Audit Report

SMS = Safety Management System

BIMD = Bus Incident Management Database

TIMS = Transport Information Management System

VROP = Vehicle Regulation Operations database

ORE = On Road Enforcement

HVSS = Heavy Vehicle Safety Station

HVIS = Heavy Vehicle Inspection Station

MVRIA= Motor Vehicle Repair Industry Association


bus industry quinquennial report 2014-2018...bus industry report– august 2019 9 4.2 accreditations...

Documents