passenger perceptions of personal security on the...

Passenger perceptionsof personal security on

the railwaysMarch 2009

3

4

6

8

10

11

13

14

15

ContentsChairman’s introduction1

What passengers tell us2

Cause for concern3

The role of staff4

Security after dark5

Types of station6

CCTV and remedial action7

Conclusions8

Recommendations9

3

In July 2007 Passenger Focus asked passengers what they wanted to seeimproved on the railway. The research highlighted issues such as value

for money, punctuality and getting a seat but it also revealed the continuingimportance of personal security. Out of 30 separate station, and train-basedcategories, security on trains and on stations received the tenth and eleventhhighest priorities respectively1.

Although the general trend in recent years has been one of steady improvementin passengers’ satisfaction with security, the latest (Autumn 2008) results fromthe National Passenger Survey reveal that there is still considerable room forimprovement. Passengers have continued to express their concern at the anti-social behaviour of others and at the lack of visible staff across the rail network;particularly so when travelling after dark.

The current economic recession creates further challenges for the industry.Newspaper headlines continue to highlight actual and potential reductions intrain company staffing, and there have been attempts to reduce booking officeopening hours.

Passenger Focus has therefore explored the aspects of security in which theindustry needs to focus on in order to ensure that the trend of improvementdoes not falter. If this is not done, passengers’ perceptions of their securitymay decline and some passengers may choose not to travel by rail as a result.Passenger Focus is keen that the industry should revisit the issue of personalsecurity and build further on the substantial gains that have already beenmade, rather than allowing the impetus to be lost.

Colin Foxall CBEChairmanPassenger Focus

Passenger perceptions of personal security on the railways1

Chairman’sintroduction

Colin Foxall CBE

1 Passenger priorities for improvements in rail services, Passenger Focus (July 2007)

4


What passengers tell us

Over the past four years the generaltrend has been one of improvement inpassengers’ satisfaction with their personalsecurity. The most recent wave of theNational Passenger Survey (NPS Autumn2008) demonstrates that whilst this trendcontinues, satisfaction with security2 is stillwell below overall satisfaction levels.

2 National Passenger Survey results do not typically include late-evening journeys.Specific research looking at journeys after 20.00 is covered in section 5

National Passenger Survey

100

80

60

40

20

0

Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut Spr Aut04 04 05 05 06 06 07 07 08 08

– Overall satisfaction with journey– Train – your personal security whilst on board– Station – your personal security whilst using

%sa

tisfie

d

When asked about security on stations only 63% of passengerssaid that they were satisfied, placing it a lowly ninth out oftwelve station-related attributes.

Similarly, in the same survey, 72% of passengers expressedsatisfaction with on-train security, placing it eighth out of 19train-related attributes. This indicates that passengers’ concernregarding their security at the station is greater, despite the factthat most of them spend more time on the train than at the station.

5

Those who travel most frequently, i.e. commuters, are the leastsatisfied with security on the train (67%) and at the station(59%), particularly those travelling in London and the South East.

Security is an important aspect of the service passengersreceive. Their relatively low levels of satisfaction with it, bothon trains and stations, suggest that the industry could do moreto make passengers feel that their security is safeguarded.Although the railway does not operate in isolation, and tacklingthe issue of security is part of a wider societal challenge, thereare a number of steps the industry could take to improve thepassenger experience.

This paper therefore seeks to explore what passengersperceive the problem to be and where we believe the industryshould concentrate its resources.

Satisfaction/personal security at stations

Request to staffInformation times/platformsConnections public transportTicket buying facilitiesCleanlinessAttitude/helpfulness of staffOverall environmentUpkeep of buildings/platformsPersonal securityAvailability of staffFacilities and servicesCar parkingAutumn 2008 % satisfied 0 20 40 60 80

8479

73717070

6565

6358

5044

Satisfaction/personal security on train

Scheduled journey time (speed)Punctuality/reliabilityEase of getting on/offFrequency of trainsUpkeep and repairCleanliness of the trainConnections other train servicesPersonal securityCleanliness of the insideCleanliness of the outsideComfort of the seating areaProvision of imformationSufficient room to sit/standHelpfulness and attitude of staffSpace for luggageValue for moneyAvailability of staffHow we deal with delaysToilet facilitiesAutumn 2008 % satisfied 0 20 40 60 80

8481

78767373737272706967

6460

5046

403736

Source: NPS Autumn 2008

Satisfaction/personal security at station

LeisureBusinessCommuterAll

Long-distanceRegionalAllLSE off-peakLSE peak

0 20 40 60 80Autumn 2008 % satisfied

6764

5963

7066

6361

59


Satisfaction/personal security on train

LeisureBusinessCommuterAll

Long-distanceRegionalAllLSE off-peakLSE peak


7775

6772

8278

7271

65


Source: NPS Autumn 20083, 4 National Passenger Survey Autumn 2008, Passenger Focus (2009)

6


Cause for concern

With security clearly having an impacton the experience of passengers whentravelling across the rail network, it isimportant to ascertain why they areconcerned, what problems are beingexperienced, and by whom. Only throughdoing this is it possible to identify whichareas the industry should be targeting,in order to have the most positive impact.

Of those passengers that actively voice concern about stationsecurity, most attribute this to having witnessed anti-socialbehaviour by other people at the station5:

When comparing the reasons which passengers give for theirconcerns over security on trains and at stations, the similaritiesare overwhelming; anti-social behaviour and a lack of stationstaff are the main reasons for concern6.

Similarly, when asked about the area in the station vicinity,anti-social behaviour by others also came top of the list ofsources of concern.

5 National Passenger Survey Autumn 2008, Passenger Focus (2009)6 National Passenger Survey Autumn 2008, Passenger Focus (2009)

Cause for concern with personal security

at the station

Lack of station staffLack of other passengersPoor on-station lightingLack of informationAnti-social behaviour*Saw vandalism/violence**Fear of terrorismOther

0 20 40 60 80Autumn 2008 % concerned

*By other people on the station**Witnessed this actually on the station

4722

1913

1166

77



on the train

Lack of staffLack of other passengersPoor on-train lightingLack of informationAnti-social behaviour*Saw vandalism/violence**Fear of terrorismOther


*By other people on the train**Witnessed this actually on the train

4720

410

1176

76



within the station vicinity

Station in isolated locationPoor lighting around stationInsecure station car parkAnti-social behaviour*Vandalism or violence**Fear of terrorismOtherDon’t know / no answer


*By people in the neighbourhood**Witnessed this actually in the neighbourhood

1724

1139

48

41


Research7 by the Department for Transport asked railpassengers about their perceptions and experiences of crimeand antisocial behaviour on public transport (NB not just on rail).Of more-frequent (i.e. at least monthly) rail users, 89% hadwitnessed some form of individual anti-social behaviour, suchas noisy passengers (75%), drunks (61%), fare dodging (42%),begging (36%) or smoking (28%); 34% had seen people beinginsulted, 17% had seen them being harassed, and 4% beingspat at. Attacks had been witnessed by 4% and theft withoutviolence by 4%. In terms of passengers’ actual experiences29% had been the victim of some form of intimidating behaviourand 3% of theft, but only 1% had directly experienced violenceor any form of sexual offence.

Analysis of the demographics of those reporting crimes onthe railway shows that those who are most likely to be a victimare men and women under the age of 268.

Delving deeper into the statistics reveals that young men fromthe same age bracket are most likely to be victims of violentcrime and robbery.

Reported crime on the railway

7

School children and male students, are particularly worried aboutthe possibility of being assaulted, whilst the fear of being robbedand concern about sexual assault is felt disproportionately highlyby women9. Across all groups, the greatest fear amongstpassengers is of being robbed, which is felt by 23%10.

Given that only a small number of passengers havewitnessed vandalism or been victims of assault, in contrast withthe high figures for witnessing anti-social behaviour, it seemsthat it is the sense of isolation and the absence of effectiveauthority which play the greatest part in fuelling passengers’concern for their personal security.

7 Experiences and perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour on publictransport, Nat Cen Omnibus for the Department for Transport (September 2008)8Crime statistics supplied by British Transport Police for calendar year– 01/01/08-31/12/089, 10 Fear and experience of passengers from assault, Rail Safety Standards Board (2004)

Source: British Transport Police,figures for calendar year 2008

Age of victims� Below 16� 16-25� 26-34� 35-44� 45-54� 55-59� 60-64� 65-69� 70-80� 81+� Not stated

Passenger Focus welcomes and encourages theactive participation of the rail industry in initiativessuch as the local Community Safety Partnerships, andhas supported the successful introduction of anti-social behaviour orders on the railway. We have alsowelcomed the work being done by the Rail Safety andStandard Board’s Rail Personal Security Group withthe Crown Prosecution Service and the Crown Officeand Procurator Fiscal Service to increase judicialawareness of the seriousness of assaults on staff.In order to dispel the sense of isolation andabandonment that some passengers feel, we arekeen that in their plans for station regeneration,Network Rail and station operators should encouragethe use of station precincts for a range of activities.These need not be directly rail-related, and can beused to encourage a continuous flow of peoplethrough the station and surrounding area.

Passenger Focus believes that there should bea clearly located source of authority within theindustry partnerships charged with the responsibilityof championing such activity in each region, and thatpromoting specific security initiatives (includingstation staffing) should become obligatory uponoperators through the franchising process. Wewarmly welcome the priority given to this facet ofpassenger service in the franchising regimeintroduced by Transport for London on the LondonOverground (formerly Silverlink Metro) routes.

As those under the age of 26 are most likely tobe a victim of crime on the railway it would be prudentfor the Industry to consider what it can do to reassurethese groups in particular. Advice, aimed at thoseunder 26, on crime prevention and what to do whenconfronted with examples of anti-social behaviourmight be beneficial.

Personal security initiatives

Victims of violent crime on the railway

Below 16

16-25

26-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-80

81+

Not stated

% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Source: NPS Autumn 2008

Age

grou

pof

vict

ims

Gender� Male� Female

8


The role of staff

In the case of both of on-train and of at-station security, passengers cited the lackof staff as the second most significantreason for their feelings of concern overpersonal security. Passengers consistentlyidentify a staff presence as important toproviding reassurance to those travellingon the railway11. The industry thereforeneeds to give serious consideration tohow it can best deploy staff across therail network to meet this need.

It is notable that some operators have already started toaddress this issue by contracting security personnel or guards

to complement the role of more traditional transport staff.The aim has been to enhance the security of both staff andpassengers, and has been particularly evident on local serviceswithin Greater London and other cities. For example, inNovember 2002 South West Trains deployed travel safe officers(TSOs) (now renamed rail community officers) on its networkwith the aim of improving levels of customer service and ofgenerating an improved sense of personal security forpassengers on trains and at stations. The TSOs were trainedto communicate with the public, enforce byelaws and offersupport/reassurance to passengers in difficult situations12.

Passengers are aware of the increased numbers of staffdeployed on the railway, for reassurance and enforcement, buthave suggested that they are often unsure ‘who was who’ andwhat remit and powers each member of staff have. Some staffhave also expressed dismay with what they perceive to be apaucity of powers to carry out the job effectively13. Therefore,whilst most passengers generally feel that the level of staffingon the railway needs to be increased, sheer numbers alonewill not provide the solution.

Opinions about the effectiveness and attitude of rail staffare often mixed. Passengers believe that all staff need theappropriate training to help them deal with the difficult

circumstances they have to work in and to ensure that theyrespond to passengers appropriately14. They recognise thedifficulties which staff face, but want them to be proactive intheir approach to the public – making visual and verbal contactwith passengers to demonstrate that they are ‘there for them’15.If staff fail to do this, and cannot easily be recognised (becausethey need to be clearly identified by their uniform) then their rolein providing reassurance will be undermined. A limiting factorcould be the experiences of staff and perceptions that they haveof risks to their own safety, which can impact on their willingnessto engage with the public at problematic times and take actionto deter or defuse situations16.

11, 12 Experiences and perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour on public transport,Nat Cen Omnibus for the Department for Transport (September 2008)13 Evaluation of different staffing options for personal security over the whole journeyusing public transport, Stafford and Peterson (2005)

14 Fear and experience of passengers from assault, RSSB (2004)15, 16, 17, 18 Evaluation of different staffing options for personal security over the wholejourney using public transport, Stafford and Peterson (2005)

9

Train operators have adifficult balance to strikebetween providing deterrenceto one (unwanted) section ofthe public and reassurance toanother. Whilst passengerswant to be able to rely onstaff being present to providereassurance, patrols or thepresence of staff are moreeffective deterrents whentheir time and routes arenot regular or predictableto troublemakers17. Whendeploying staff, trainoperators therefore need todecide on which function theemphasis should be placed.Train companies also needto give consideration to howthey monitor the actualperformance of staff e.g.are on board staff checkingtickets and makingthemselves visible, as theyare supposed to be doing,throughout the journey.

In terms of improvingon-train security, 75% of passengers believed that staff walkingthrough the train would be effective; followed by 61% whocalled for a no-drunks policy and 50% who believed CCTVwould make a positive difference.

Research has shown that those who travel without a ticketare often associated by some passengers with misuse of publictransport, vandalism and anti-social behaviour. Deployment ofstaff on trains is therefore identified as having the dual role ofincreasing revenue and preventing misuse18. The revised SouthWest Trains Passengers’ Charter contains a commitment toretain guards on all trains throughout the life of the franchise.This is significant for three reasons:

1 the operator has accepted that there is a continuing rolefor on-board staff even if some of their historic functions(notably checking and signalling that it is safe to depart)can now be performed in other ways.2 they are described as “guards” – a term which clearlydenotes their protective role.3 this policy is one which the operator sees benefitin actively communicating.

It is difficult to believe that there are not lessons in thisfor other operators.

Passenger Focus is a strong supporter of staffingat stations. This is not only to provide tickets andinformation, and to protect revenue, but equally tooffer a reassuring human presence which enhancespassengers’ perception of security and acts as adeterrent to crime and disorder. However to achievethis staff must be visible and approachable. A balanceneeds to be struck between undertaking frequentpatrols, which provide reassurance to passengers,and being wholly predictable, which lessens theireffectiveness as a deterrent. Staff must be trainedin the skills necessary to demonstrate through theirpresence, appearance and demeanour that they arefully in command of the premises. They should beinvested with the legal powers (e.g. under the policeaccreditation scheme) necessary to allow themto discharge this role effectively.

We are aware of and welcome the initiatives takenby various operators to provide a dedicated staffingresource directed specifically at enhancing security.These include rail community officers on South WestTrains (SWT), police community support officers onSouthern, rail enforcement officers on Southeastern,and commercial security guards on Merseyrail. Weacknowledge that the deployment of such personnelat critical times and in critical locations can bring realbenefits. But the need to provide reassurance andclear evidence that the railway is a managedenvironment arises everywhere and at all times.Providing surveillance and a sense of security topassengers should be part of the “day job” for allstation staff, not left to specialist teams whosemembers are necessarily restricted in their number.

Train operators and security

10


Security after dark

Travelling after dark also has an impacton passengers’ journey experience. Whenasked to compare journeys that they hadmade before and after 20:00, passengerstold Passenger Focus that they were farless satisfied with personal security andthe availability of staff when travellingafter this time.

Satisfaction with personal security dropped 12% points, from61% to 49%, whilst satisfaction with the availability of staff

fell from 48% to 37%19. Reassuringly, when asked directly whetherthey would feel safe travelling by train during the day, 98% ofpeople said that they would. But this figure dropped dramaticallyto 64% when thinking about train travel after dark20. Passengerswho felt unsafe after dark were more likely to do so while waitingat a station than when travelling on a train21.

This provides a clear indication that those passengers whochoose to travel after 20:00 feel that their personal safety is lesssecure. What is less clear is the extent to which these fears actuallydeter or prevent people from travelling.

When comparing the levels of concern over security betweenusers and non-users, it is evident that non-users are more likely tobe deterred from travelling after dark. Of existing rail passengers,who have a low level of concern about travelling during the day,a moderate 18% would not travel, or travel alone, after dark. Incontrast, when asked the same question, more than a third (38%)of non-users reported that they would not travel at this time of day22.

In identifying why many passengers are more concerned aboutsecurity after dark, a clear picture is available from the researchconducted by Passenger Focus and other industry bodies. Ofgreatest concern to passengers travelling after dark is the timespent waiting at the station for their train. When asked why this is,commuter and business passengers often cite their experiencesat smaller stations, which they consider to be “lonely places” and“dangerous” to leave at night23. More generally the main concernsover station security after dark relate to the following factors24.• No staff or supervision at the station when returning home late• Ticket office closed• Gangs of youths hanging around the stationor in the waiting rooms drinking• Lack of people• Lack of adequate lighting in stations and in car parks• Bushes and foliage along walkways/exits

Passengers believe that staff are the most effective way ofimproving security at night, and that stations should be staffedwhenever trains call at them25. They also believe that the presenceof open retail facilities can lead to a higher perception of security,retailers being seen as a source of help, should it be required.

Both passengers and staff recognise that the emphasis onthe role of station staff to provide customer care shifts to one ofsecurity/assurance after dark. Despite this, there is little evidenceof these priorities being reflected in the job descriptions or in theinduction training of those staff who work both during daytimehours and after dark26.

There is a difference of opinion about how the desired securityand assurance should be provided. Some passengers believe staffare neither visible enough nor in sufficient numbers when they aremost needed; such passengers favour a uniformed presence thatactively denies access to – or moves on – troublesome people.Staff, on the other hand, give this particular role low priority27. Thereis recognition amongst passengers that whilst they want staff to takepreventative measures and be deployed in areas/on services wherethey feel most at risk, taking action against troublesome individualsor groups is difficult, particularly when staff are working alone28.

The level of satisfaction with security on the railwayis affected by whether a journey is made before orafter dark, and by the presence or absence of staffthough the strength of these relationships is variable.Passenger Focus believes that the deployment ofstaff at critical times and locations can bring realbenefits to the perception of security amongstpassengers. The need to provide reassurance andclear evidence that the railway is a managedenvironment arises everywhere and at all times.We are therefore supportive of passenger calls forstations to be staffed throughout the day.

Security satisfaction

19 Evening Rail Travel, Passenger Focus (April 2008)20, 21 Experiences and perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviour on public transport,Nat Cen Omnibus for the Department for Transport (September 2008)22 Fear and experiences of passengers from assault, Rail Safety and Standards Board (2004)23, 24, 25What passengers want from stations, Passenger Focus (2005)26, 27, 28 Research findings on evaluating the different staffing options for improvingpersonal security on the whole journey – overview of evidence, Stafford and Petersonfor the Department for Transport (Jan 2005)

11


Typesof station

Within the rail industry there are sixcategories of station, which broadlycorrespond to their level of use. Majortermini, for example, are found in band A,while unstaffed halts are found in band F.When passengers’ views were analysedby reference to the band of station theystarted their journey in, a steady reductionin satisfaction with on-station securityfrom the highest to lowest was revealed.Band A stations scored 68%, while thosein band F only scored 39%29.

When asked about their experiences passengers oftenspeak about smaller, unstaffed stations being particularly

unpleasant and in some cases passengers have described howthey will take significant detours to avoid these stations, whichinadvertently contributes to the problem30.

Minimum station standards are currently ill-defined and thereis no consistent level of provision applied system-wide, sopassengers do not know what they are likely to find at aparticular category of station unless they make enquiries beforethey travel. The government has acknowledged that at lightly-used stations there are low cost measures that could be taken toreduce crime and the fear of crime. These include:

• Good lighting• Clear signage• A well-maintained environment• Up–to-date information• Clear sightlines

It has been suggested that standards at stations are unlikely tobe driven up in the absence of an enforcement regime and thatthe absence of a single organisation co-ordinating thedevelopment of stations and the facilities at them has nothelped31. The service quality incentive regime (SQUIRE) used inScotland and the English Passenger Transport Executive areas,i.e. the major conurbations outside London, has indicated a needfor effective monitoring of station standards32.

29 National Passenger Survey, Passenger Focus (Autumn 2008)30 Fear and experiences of passengers from assault, Rail and Safety Standards Board (2004)

31, 32Maintaining and improving Britain’s railway stations,National Audit Office (2005)

Satisfaction with personal security

at stations

Category ACategory BCategory CCategory DCategory ECategory F


6867

6156

3954


Sta

tion

cate

gory

12


At present, Network Rail and most train operating companiesparticipate in the Secure Stations scheme, designed to improvesecurity standards at rail stations. The government has asked anumber of franchise bidders to achieve Secure Stations schemeaccreditation. In doing so bidders are asked to present a schemethat covers 80% of passenger usage, and to have a pricedoption to achieve a higher level of coverage, if it provides valuefor money and is affordable. Passenger Focus supports this.

The industry’s support for the scheme had previously beenpatchy, as the procedural costs of securing accreditation werewidely regarded as disproportionate to any reputational benefitthat might accrue from it. However, since overhauling theadministration costs, the Department for Transport has lessenedthe expense train operators incur when applying foraccreditation.

Unfortunately passenger awareness of the Secure StationsScheme is low and, as a result, its effectiveness in changingpassenger perceptions of crime at stations is limited33. One ofthe difficulties faced by the industry is that although the recordedlevels of crime are highest at the busiest stations, passengers’concern for their security is greatest at relatively quiet stations34.

Passenger Focus would like to see franchisespecifications made more prescriptive in respectof station standards and more use made of ServiceQuality Management Systems to drive up the qualityof service offered. Station operators need to beincentivised through the terms of their franchisesto deliver enhanced levels of security, as measuredthrough the systematic tracking of users’ perceptions.

We support both the secure stations and securecar parks schemes but believe their effectiveness (andentitlement to accreditation) should be intrinsicallylinked to the measured impact that they have onpassengers’ perceptions of security. We are thereforereassured that the criteria for accreditation include:• The design of the station, which must conform tostandards judged by the local British Transport PoliceCrime Reduction Officer to prevent and reduce crimeand improve passenger’s perception of stationsecurity• The management of the station must also enablethe train operator to take steps to prevent crimes,respond to incidents and communicate effectivelywith passengers• Crime statistics for the station over the twelvemonths prior to the inspection must show that thestation operator is managing crime• A survey of users must show that, on the whole,passengers feel secure when using the station

It is pleasing that a question in the National PassengerSurvey (NPS) that asks passengers to rate the stationthey are using in terms of personal security is used togauge passengers’ perceptions of security at stations,and that operators are encouraged to reflect NPSmethodology in any passenger surveys that theyconduct35. However, where value for money allows,Passenger Focus would encourage train operatorsto delve deeper into passengers’ perceptions andexperiences of personal security at ‘problem’ stations.We would also urge the industry to consider how itcould raise passengers’ awareness of the scheme,so that they know of the efforts being made toimprove security.

Passenger Focus endorses the recommendationmade by the Rail Safety Standards Board in 200436 thatthe Home Office’s fear of crime matrix (in a suitablymodified form) could be a useful tool to help railcompanies develop strategies and priorities for action.

Secure stations andsecure car park schemes

33, 34Maintaining and improving Britain’s railway stations, National Audit Office (2005)

35 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/crime/sss/securestationsscheme?page=6#a103236 Fear and experiences of passenger from assault, Rail and Safety Standards Board (2004)

13

37 What passengers want fromstations, Passenger Focus (2005)38 Passenger perceptions of personalsecurity, Independent Social Research

for the Department for Transport (2008)39 Experiences and perceptions of crime and anti-social behaviouron public transport, NatCen Omnibus (2008)

40 Evaluation of different staffing options for personal security over the whole journeyusing public transport, Stafford and Pettersson (2005)


CCTVand remedial action

Given the importance attached to thepresence of staff it would be easy to forgetthe impact that closed circuit television(CCTV) and other options, such as improvedlighting, can have on improving perceptionsof security amongst rail passengers. Whilstopinion is mixed about the effectivenessof CCTV and panic buttons in improvingpersonal security most passengers believethat stations should have CCTV installedas standard, even if they are staffed37.

The belief is that while CCTV may not deter crime, it canbe used to identify the perpetrators and, if introduced, its

presence should be clearly signposted so that people know thatit is there. There is awareness amongst passengers of help pointsat medium sized stations, but they are often underused becausepassengers often seem to be unsure of their purpose or of whatwould happen if they used one.

Looking at passenger perceptions reveals that althougha visible staff presence is believed to be the most effectivemeans of improving personal security, there are other measuresthat the travelling public look to operators to introduce38:• CCTV – to help create a sense of security• Lighting, good design and visibility – to provide reassurance

• Real time information – to provideconfidence in the system• Publicity and posters aboutsecurity measures – again toprovide reassurance• A quarter of passengers alsothink that clean and well-maintained premises helpimprove perceptions ofsecurity39.

Whilst CCTV is regarded as a significant factor in helpingreduce passenger concerns over security, it is only seen aseffective when accompanied by live monitoring. Without it CCTVis merely a source of evidence after the event; with it passengersdescribe it as “staff a step away”40. The lack of integrationbetween the CCTV systems on the railway and those operatedby local authorities is also a point of concern, as people suspectedof criminal acts cannot be tracked when they leave the station.

Passenger Focus believes that the role of staff shouldbe complemented – not replaced – by technology anddesign (such as clear sightlines and good lighting).Help points (designed both as a means of summoningassistance in emergencies and of obtaining informationat other times) should be conspicuously andconveniently sited at stations and be maintained in goodorder. We support the system used in Scotland and partsof London in which the help point and CCTV system arelinked. CCTV should be actively monitored as well asrecorded, and be of the evidential quality necessary foruse in the prosecution of offenders. Passenger Focuswould also like to see CCTV systems at stations linkedwith those outside so that offenders can be tracked oncethey leave the station. Train running information in tickethalls can reduce the need for passengers to wait longerthan is necessary on unfrequented platforms at lessbusy times.

On trains, Passenger Focus welcomes theintroduction of CCTV, and other innovations such as themore accessible placing and more prominent labellingof security alarms; but again these should be seen asadjuncts to proper staffing cover, not as substitutes for it.

Technology

14


Conclusions

The issue of passengers’ personal securityon the railway has been researchedextensively by a range of organisationsand a number of consistent conclusionshave emerged. Despite this, and a generalincrease in satisfaction with personalsecurity, passengers continue to remainconcerned whilst travelling on the railway.With this in mind, and the fact that somegroups perceive themselves to be moreat risk than others, it is time for the railindustry to regroup and consider whatadditional action it can take to reassurepassengers that it takes their personalsecurity seriously.

The issues that the industry needs to address in attemptingto do this include:• Although passengers generally spend more time on trains,than waiting at stations, it is the latter which attracts the lowersatisfaction scores for from passengers.• Those who travel most often, and passengers in Londonand the Southeast are the least satisfied with personal security,as are those who use smaller stations.• A majority of passengers attribute their concern over personalsecurity to witnessing anti-social behaviour by others and a lackof staff, be that on trains or at stations. Such concerns areheightened after 20:00.• Whilst violent crime is not the most prevalent problem onthe railway, it is most commonly reported by young men underthe age of 26, who unsurprisingly are most concerned aboutbeing assaulted.• The biggest fear amongst passengers overall is of beingrobbed.• Passengers consistently identify a staff presence as beingimportant to provide reassurance to those travelling on therailway. Staff must be trained to cope with the difficultcircumstances in which they are likely to find themselvesworking and be proactive when dealing with everydaypassengers and troublemakers alike.• CCTV is primarily seen as a source of evidence after theevent, but passengers believe it should be standard equipmentat all stations, whether they are staffed or not.• Looking beyond staff and CCTV, there is much that canbe done to improve passenger perceptions of security on therailway through good design and clever use of the areas withinand around stations.

15


Recommendations

Passenger Focus believes that the followingwould help increase passenger confidencein their personal security whilst travellingon the rail network.

The role of staff• Regardless of their job title, all customer-facing staff mustbe trained in the skills necessary to demonstrate through theirpresence that the railway is a managed environment at all times.Providing reassurance to passengers would then become ‘partof the day job’ for train and station staff alike. Passengers arenot unrealistic about the world we live in and accept that thereare some situations where staff cannot be expected to risk theirown safety, particularly when they are working alone. Howevera proactive approach, not just to dealing with anti-socialbehaviour but to everyday passenger needs, would havea beneficial impact on passengers’ perceptions.• In the past twelve months (i.e. 2008-09) several trainoperators have published proposals to scale down ticket officeopening hours at selected stations. This has, in part, beenattributed to low frequencies of sales and to other methods ofticket retailing becoming increasingly widespread. In suchcircumstances, Passenger Focus would argue that staff shouldbe re-deployed onto stations so that they can provide help andassistance to passengers, and offer a reassuring presence.This is particularly relevant to smaller stations where there arefewer passengers around and where satisfaction with securityis generally lower.

Technology, design and the station environment• At those stations which cannot be staffed throughout theday, when services are running, Passenger Focus would urgeoperators and Network Rail to look at the ways design can beused to create a more reassuring environment. It is commonsense that the provision of good lighting and clear sight lines willhelp stations seem less threatening places for passengers to wait.• Also important is the general upkeep of the station. Throughhigh quality service contracts, which should ideally be written intothe terms of future franchises, operators can be incentivised toset higher standards of maintenance and cleanliness at stations.The manner in which TfL has set more stringent targets forLondon Overground stations and its efforts to refurbish run-down stations could serve as a valuable test case for assessingthe impact of improving the station environment on passengers’perceptions of security.

• CCTV on its own is far from being the ideal solution.Where it exists on stations Passenger Focus recommendsthat operators look at the possibility of linking it to local CCTVnetworks so that perpetrators of crime can be tracked oncethey have left railway property. Operators should also considerthe possibility of live monitoring, so that CCTV can be usedin conjunction with public address to intervene in real time,rather than simply as a means of gathering evidence forlater use.• Passenger awareness of the Secure Stations scheme isrelatively low, which undoubtedly lessens the impact that it hason improving passenger perceptions of personal security on therail network. The industry therefore needs to make every effortto publicise the action taken at stations in order to achieveaccreditation and any additional initiatives that are beingundertaken. At stations with high levels of crime, and/or lowlevels of passenger satisfaction with security, we wouldencourage the industry to talk both to passengers and non-usersto establish which security issues make them concerned aboutusing their local station/train service. This allows any remedialaction to be tailored to the needs of those that actually use (orwould) use the station.• The sense of isolation which passengers feel at less busystations has a significant impact on their perceptions of security.Where possible, particularly in the case of redevelopments,Passenger Focus would encourage the use of station premisesfor a range of other activities. Retail outlets and other usesor redundant railway buildings/property could be used toencourage a flow of people through the area.

Groups who fear crime the most• The evidence that young men under the age of 26 are mostat risk of violent crime and robbery is clear. Given this, it wouldseem prudent for the industry to consider what it can do toadvise passengers who fall within this category on how tominimise the risk of becoming a victim of crime. For example,there have been efforts to discourage passengers from usingmobile phones as soon as they arrive at their destinationstation (and this is advertising that they are carrying these).

16

Passenger perceptions of personal security on the railways

Contact us

Whittles House14 Pentonville RoadLondonN1 9HF

t 08453 022 022w www.passengerfocus.org.uke [email protected]

Passenger Focus is the operatingname of the Rail Passengers Council

© 2009 Passenger Focus

Design and Print by TU ink www.tuink.co.uk

passenger perceptions of personal security on the...

Documents