2 Meeting passengers' needs
5. Insufficient attention has been given to stations
over recent years and limited account taken of passengers' needs
and priorities. The SRA acknowledged that it had given stations
a low priority over recent years, reflecting the government's
emphasis on improving train punctuality and reliability. It agreed
that the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report and the Rail
Passengers Council's Report, What passengers want from stations,
were valuable sources of information as to what the priorities
should be at stations. The Department emphasised that investment
decisions needed to have due regard for value for money, but acknowledged
that more could be done to assess passengers' priorities. There
was considerable scope for improving overall passenger satisfaction
with station facilities and services (Figure 3).[8]
Figure
3: Summary of National Passenger Survey results concerning passenger
satisfaction with station facilities and services, Spring 2004
Source: National Audit Office analysis of the
results of the National Passenger Survey, Spring 2004
6. The provision of some facilities, such as toilets
and waiting rooms, depended on whether such facilities had existed
at stations at the time of privatisation. The subsequent installation
or improvement of such facilities depended on whether enough people
used the station to justify the investment. Some facilities, such
as automatic ticket machines which allowed train guards to spend
more time checking tickets and less time selling them, were easy
to justify on economic and operational grounds. A third of larger
stations, used by significant numbers of passengers were still
without any waiting rooms and 15% without toilets. Vandalism of
toilets was a problem at smaller stations. The installation of
pay-on-entry cubicles, similar to those commonly found on the
high street, could be considered as a means of providing toilet
facilities at any station.[9]
7. Many passengers feel unsafe at smaller stations.
Research for the Department for Transport in 1996 and 2002 suggested
that improvements in personal safety would result in 11% more
journeys by public transport. The presence of staff, good lighting
and CCTV surveillance at stations were the three most important
factors reassuring passengers about their personal safety when
they waited for a train. The installation of CCTV cameras had
been a priority for TOCs, and Network Rail had allocated £50
million a year for enhancements which included station security
measures. Passengers felt least secure at small, often unstaffed
stations, many of which lack CCTV security systems. Few TOCs had
sought accreditation under the Secure Station Scheme and Safer
Parking Award Scheme[10]
run by the Department, the Home Office, the police and other stakeholders,
which promoted good practice in station and car park security.
The improvements needed to gain accreditation, such as the installation
of CCTV cameras, improved lighting and the removal of hiding places,
created a safer environment for passengers and helped to allay
passengers' fears about their own personal safety. The Department
was looking to identify the 100 station car parks with the highest
crime levels with a view to negotiating improvements from TOCs
and Network Rail so that they met the standards of the Safer Parking
Award scheme.[11]
8 Qq 1-2, 6-7, 135-136 Back
9
Qq 13-14, 16, 92-93 Back
10
Formerly known as the Secured Car Parking Scheme. See also 16th
Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Home Office: Reducing
Vehicle Crime (HC 696, Session 2004-05), paras 4, 7 Back
11
Qq 44, 80-82, 147, 158-160 Back
|
