§ Viscount Chandos
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What targets London Transport has been set for 1998–99.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)
Tables showing the targets London Transport has been set for 1998–99 are below. All targets relate to average performance throughout the year.
London Underground 1997–98 1998–99 Excess journey time: (mins) N/A 6.251 Escalators: % of scheduled service hours operated 93.0 91.42 Lifts: % of scheduled service hours operated 96.0 93.82 Reliability of service: % of kilometres operated 96.9 96.9 Train service regularity: % planned intervals achieved 95.9 N/A Ticket Purchase: % of customers queuing less than 3 minutes 98.0 N/A Customer satisfaction ratings train and station cleanliness 69 69 security safety 83 83 staff helpfulness and availability 70 70 train and station information 75 75 train service 77 77 Financial targets operating costs per train km3 [note5] £10.28 LUL gross margin4 [note5] £310.0m 1 This is a new target replacing previous targets on train service headways and ticket office queues. See note below for details. 2 See below for explanation of lower targets in 1998–99 than in 1997–98. 3 Costs per operated train kilometre to exclude depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs. 4 LUL gross margin before depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs. 5 Financial targets were set in 1996 over a three year period i.e. to be achieved in 1998–99. The figures shown in the 1998–99 column reflect the original targets, revalued at 1998–99 prices.
LT Buses 1997–98 1998–99 Reliability of service: % kilometres operated 99 99 Excess wait on high frequency routes (mins) 1.5 1.4 Departures on time: % on low frequency routes 74 77 Early departures: % on low frequency routes 4.0 3.4 Night bus: % departures on time 65 70 Customer satisfaction ratings6 Condition of bus stops and shelters 57 76 Internal cleanliness of buses 63 83 External cleanliness of buses 55 78 Staff helpfulness 66 87 Bus station environment 71 76 Bus station information 68 68 Financial targets subsidy per bus km7 [note5] not more than 6.53p LT Buses gross loss8 not more than [note5] £21.7m 6 These targets have been recalibrated for 1998–99 and so are not directly comparable to previous years. 7 Net subsidy per operated bus kilometre before depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs. 8 LT Buses gross loss before depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs.
Other Services 1997–98 1998–99 Customer satisfaction ratings Travel information call centre: ease of reaching Enquiry service n/a 77 Travel information call centre: operator helpfulness n/a 91 Dial-a-Ride: percentage of calls answered first time n/a 20 Dial-a-Ride: percentage of punctual arrivals n/a 93 Financial targets Group services gross loss9 [note5] not more than £23.4m Property rental income growth10 [note5] IPD index Dial-a-Ride cost per trip [note5] £10.80 9. Includes Victoria Coach Station, Unit for Disabled Passengers, PASS and LT Museum but excluded Bus Insurance Liability costs. To be amended to reflect transfer of PASS to the private sector following the signing of Prestige. 10. To be at least as good as the average shown by the IPD index, (Investment Property Databank Index) on a three year rolling basis.
Lifts and escalators
1. This year's targets for lift and escalator availability on the Underground are lower than last year. That reflects the short term impact of the increased levels of investment in the Underground following the announcement of an extra £365 million of funding for the Underground. We will be expecting improvements in future years as the benefits of the investment programme become apparent.
Journey time metric
2. This year's targets include a new target for excess journey time. This is based on a new measure LT have introduced-the journey time metric. The journey time metric is a system developed for measuring customers'
NHS unqualified nursing staff and healthcare assistants in specific areas* of work by NHS regions As at 30 September of each year. whole-time equivalents English Regional Health Authority areas 1993 1994 English NHS Executive Regional Office areas 1994 1995 1996 1997 Northern 5,840 6,010 Northern & Yorkshire 11,970 11,980 12,760 12,970 Yorkshire 6,310 6,300 Trent 10,160 10,490 10,800 11,330 Trent 9,810 10,160 Anglia & Oxford 9,330 9,470 9,940 9,800 East Anglia 4,380 4,480 North Thames 10,740 11,680 12,050 12,400 North West Thames 4,990 5,160 South Thames 11,470 11,570 11,920 12,000 North East Thames 5,910 6,280 South & West 14,550 14,370 14,560 14,110 South East Thames 5,700 6,020 West Midlands 9,500 9,500 10,570 11,130 South West Thames 5,350 5,360 North & West 13,430 13,370 13,890 14,170 Wessex 7,140 6,850 Other 1,400 2,250 2,190 2,230 Oxford 4,370 4,070 South Western 7,920 7,750 West Midlands 9,900 9,510 Mersey 4,470 4,340 North Western 8,740 8,900 Other 1,120 1,360 England 91,950 92,550 92,550 94,690 98,670 100,130 Scotland 17,360 17,140 17,140 17,040 16,590 16,230 Wales 7,520 8,420 8,420 8,020 6,270 7,890 Northern Ireland 3,310 3,210 3,210 3,250 3,310 3,210
1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten.
2. Figures for England from 1995 and for Wales from 1996 are not directly comparable with those for earlier years because of changes to the classification of non-medical staff.
* Figures exclude HCAs working in support of therapy staff and other non-nursing areas of work.124WA
overall journey time on the network. It breaks down a journey into its component parts (ticket purchase time, access time to platforms, platform waiting time etc.) and measures them in a way which reflects customer's perceived time rather than actual time. This is done by the application of weightings. For example, people dislike waiting for trains, therefore a weight of 2 is applied to the actual wait time (doubling the figure for time spent waiting on platforms).
3. LT use this measure to build up a scheduled journey time, reflecting the amount of time a journey should take in free flow conditions, when there is no queuing, every train runs precisely to timetable, and there is no disruption. The excess journey time is then calculated by observing the difference between the scheduled journey time and the observed journey time. Both measures have the relevant weightings applied, and the difference between them will be the excess journey time.