APPENDIX 5
Memorandum sumbitted by the Cyclists Touring
Club (CTC)
The CTC has since 1878 provided a voice for
cyclists in shaping transport policy and provision, and today
represents some 70,000 members and affiliates mostly based in
the UK. The use of the bicycle as transport, and its value as
a complementary mode to rail travel are key areas in which CTC
and its members press for recognition and implementation of policy
and projects
The bicycle delivers a number of key benefits
in moving people in large numbers and to diverse destinations,
and it has great use in this respect for bringing passengers—especially
commuters to and from rail interchanges. It equally delivers at
the level of individual trips, and has a local impact on a par
with that of walking, with minimal demand on resources and infrastructure,
and with immediate use of almost all available roads, tracks and
paths, yet with a demand for services purchased and delivered
locally.
Government policy on transport recognises the
effectiveness of cycles and rail as an integrated transport package,
and, given that there is no capacity to take bikes on commuter
trains at peak times, the solutions of cycle parking and cycle
hire are promoted. For the most part, to date, the emphasis has
been on cycle parking, and a very basic need for those making
regular commuting journeys is for robust security, for bikes which
are left all day or overnight, and often all weekend at the same
location.
Naturally the introduction of portable items,
which belong to members of the public into a station area raises
the issue of management to ensure that the potential for any security
risk does not arise—measures such as requiring all bags
to be kept with their "owner" deals with luggage, and
similarly the management of vehicle parking and access, essential
for the operation of any station, can be set up in ways to minimise
risk, and ensure rapid checking in the event of any alert.
CTC has worked with Transec and BT Police over
the years to promote good practice in the management of cycle
parking, and the current guidance permits cycle parking of most
kinds at all security-ranked categories of station, with various
safeguards built in to the management of the facilities, and identification
of the cycles and users in some circumstances.
However we seem continually to encounter the
mis-interpretation of Transec guidance and the failure of some
operators—or specific station or area management to manage
elements of their station inventory—like the cycle parking—effectively.
As noted the cycle parked regularly for long
periods in the same area of open parking stands is vulnerable
to theft and vandal attack. Because most cyclists in this group
are regular travelers, solutions such as secure parking lockers
or restricted access compounds, are a popular solution, which
we will give examples of later.
For the occasional or casual user, it is unlikely
that they will want to register with a station as a regular user,
and so management of open access parking, if this is separately
provided from a secure facility equally requires a robust regime.
Nature, as is often quoted, abhors a vacuum, and in the absence
of properly installed and managed cycle parking cycles will be
attached to any fixed object conveniently located for onward access
to the station.
Fortunately, most station management has got
past the crude "no bikes here" signs which gave no additional
advice or even penalty for parking. (see notes on best practice).
Higher security is available from cycle lockers,
and these can be managed effectively, and even remain in use when
(as happened in Exeter) a Royal visit to the site took place—because
users are registered and use monitored. Transec guidelines spell
this out, and regimes such as that set up by GMPTE, endorsed by
BT Police and Transec, hire out lockers on several important stations
in the GMPTA area, including Stockport, Wigan, Bolton, and I believe
Manchester Piccadilly. However the pattern of railway management's
decision making when considering security, and directives from
Transec, does not have a very good record, when it comes to cycle
parking.
EXAMPLE—EDINBURGH
HAYMARKET STATION
Perhaps the first instance of a poor management
interpretation and execution of a Transec directive, which lead
to a serious engagement between CTC and Transec to get guidance
set down and available for those planning cycle parking at stations.
Interpreting a Transec directive, a team went
to Edinburgh's Haymarket Station with no advance notice, and removed
two Glasdon BR64 racks, which were popular, and located on Platform
1 (the platform least used by passengers). Local station staff
were not consulted about ownership of bikes, most of which were
used by regular commuters. Cycles were removed from the racks
and dumped in a pile—at least two were reported stolen,
and the racks placed in the car park—with little change
in any risk of a bike carrying a package, as the location was
simply on the outside of the same wall—if anything a worse
condition, as the previous location had regular surveillance from
platform staff and passing passengers. The lack of sufficient
parking at this station sees bikes locked to street furniture
around the station entrance, and high demand for taking bikes
on the trains
EXAMPLE—NOTTINGHAM
STATION—DESCRIBED
IN DETAIL
BY PEDALS
SUBMISSION
The cycle lockers in place to the south of Platform
6 at Nottingham Station were installed in 2001 by Central Trains
with financial assistance from Nottingham City Council. Their
arrival follows a long saga of cycle locker provision running
since 1980 and failures which seem largely to link back to a station
management which does not take note of advice offered by local
cyclists on how best to manage the installation, and fails to
find the resources to do this. The current lockers are not signed
from the main station, and the access arrangements were poor,
with the announcement that the locker operation would be suspended
"for security reasons". The poor management extends
to the cycle stands in the Porte Cochere where Pedals report vandalised
stands and abandoned/wrecked cycles. This is surprising, given
the management claim that the station has a high security rating—the
excuse to suspend locker use.
We therefore call for much greater effort to
deliver the needed cycle parking in a more consistent and robust
way to meet both security requirements and government policy on
sustainable and integrated transport, so that the term "Transec
requirements" is not used as a pretext for inaction and incompetence
of the station management. The term "Transport Security"
should take account of the security of parked bikes (and other
station users' vehicles), and preventing their theft and vandalism,
not just security in terms of reducing the risk of terrorist bomb
attacks.
EXAMPLE BIKEAWAY
LOCKERS
The manufacturer developed a two-stage locking
system, where the user locks through an external hasp using their
own padlock, but the hasp is mounted on a lockable shaft to which
only the station management or security officers have a master
key. Lockers can thus be inspected at any time using a restricted
issue lock system, whilst providing for a variety of operating
systems.
The manufacturer has additionally incorporated
viewing holes in the sides and door, in consultation with Transec,
and offers a management pack for a new user to set up locker rental
with the new installation. Other manufacturers have followed suit
but few to the comprehensive level which Bikeaway is offering.
EXAMPLE THE
RISKS POSED
BY CYCLES
Our research suggests that since 1939 there
have been four bombs connected with parked or moving bicycles
on the UK mainland. Two detonated and one had fatal consequences.
In every case the explosive devices were not part of the bicycle,
but in the loads being carried. This points to the main risk connected
with parked cycles being luggage left on the bike.
Most cycle—based bombs are set off when
the bike is moved, and thus the encouragement of cycle parking
in formal areas delivers bikes which are unlikely to be pushed
aside by passing traffic—that noted there is a need for
places to lean a bicycle where tickets are sold and proper provision
here will deal with the potential for nuisance, and safety problems
of having a random placement of cycles, in a busy booking hall.
I can think of Ashford International, Doncaster,
Edinburgh Haymarket, Nottingham, etc but also of the GMPTE work
with BT Police and Transec for their Bicycle Locker Users Club
(BLUC) which uses tagged bikes, and user details on record. Equally
on the positive side we can note the work of manufacturers such
as Broxap, Lock-it Safe, Cycleworks and Bikeaway with Transec
to develop locker designs which can be inspected but also provide
secure parking. (Haymarket saw the cycle parking removed arbitrarily
without any notice, or consulting even the local station staff,
and bikes dumped in a heap—at least two were stolen)
EXAMPLE—ABERDEEN
In Aberdeen the cycle parking was provided,
under cover and convenient for access adjacent to the archway
which was used by wheeled traffic—mainly to get in to the
car park—on the area at the North end of the station. On
the pretext of complying with security issues the cycle rack was
removed and placed away from the main concourse behind the waste
compactor unit—hardly a pleasant place and certainly not
secure of convenient. Cars, which are not inspected, continue
to park in the area, whilst cyclists use any available fixed objects,
except for rail staff who lock bikes to the ticket barrier or
to the stair railings in the stair well leading up to the main
station offices. The need is emphasised by the signs at the BT
Police office to stop cycles being locked to the rails set (U-hoops)
outside the door to keep the area clear.
CYCLE PARKING—BEST
PRACTICE SHOULD
INCLUDE SECURITY
MANAGEMENT
Formal cycle parking should, just as car parking,
have clear conditions for use posted which, for open access cycle
stands need to include the following:
1. A liability waiver.
2. Where security rankings are high there
is a need to spell out the requirement to remove luggage or leave
baskets and attached items empty and open.
3. A notice that abandoned bicycles
(which have not moved for xx weeks)—and damaged bicycles
will be removed, and dealt with by (a procedure—CTC recommends
putting the bikes into the existing lost and found property system,
which disposes of them after a set period).
4. A reminder of good practice in securing
a bicycle, and where a more secure location is available, details
of how to register, rent or otherwise use it are posted. If a
registration scheme to identify bikes is in operation this can
also be noted.
Note: A National system which delivers
a common standard to register cycles parked at stations should
be considered—to deliver a simple numbered label which can
be affixed to the cycle, and allowing station staff to readily
contact the owner, and embracing the scheme devised by GMPTE (BLUG)
for locker hire.
One effective way of monitoring abandoned cycles
is to attach a parcels label around the tyre, and this is naturally
destroyed if the cycle being checked is used.
A higher level of security both against theft
and damage to the cycles, and providing identification of the
cycles parked, can be achieved by using lockers and secure compounds.
To date the locker systems available have used mechanical locks,
and the first company to engage with Transec on locker design
(Bikeaway) delivered an innovative system where the station management
can by-pass the user's lock and inspect the locker at any time.
This design also includes perforated panels which align to provide
a means of inspection with commonly used equipment, and ground
clearance which allows ventilation without compromising the security.
Cycle locker schemes require a greater commitment to management
than open cycle parking but can be managed on an area-wide basis,
and possibly in the longer term, nationally.
The user "contract" should:
1. Require a regular renewal (research indicates
that most people will pay a reasonable fee for a locker or other
secure or valet parking).
2. A declaration that the user will
use the facility solely for parking a bicycle and associated accessories.
3. A condition that the user is sole
user of the locker or swipe card/key/PIN (for compound access).
4. A termination condition (failure
to renew, breach of conditions of use etc).
5. A failure to provide condition (vandal
attack, closure for works at station etc).
6. Record of the user and their contact
details (ideally for the times when the cycle is parked).
The User contract can additionally:
7. Provide an opportunity to survey the
clients, over a range of factors (socio-economic, cycling skills,
common habits etc).
8. Offer added value to encourage regular
users to register and use formal, managed parking (Third party
insurance, special offers etc).
Notes: Open access, and coin in slot
cycle lockers should be avoided in most situations as they are
readily abused—storing contraband or providing mini-hotels
for those living rough. Electronically controlled locks on secure
rooms or compounds provide an audit trail on use, and experience
with swipe/proximity card operation on a University site has kept
cycle crime down to an almost insignificant level. Compounds with
small groups of parking stands offer a diversity factor (more
users than spaces) and high level of service (rapid access etc).
Where informally parked cycles cause an obstruction
or other nuisance there should be two courses of action. The parked
bikes suggest a demand for parking, and a convenient location,
and the option of arranging formal parking at that location then
takes the management back to (1) or (2). If there is a nearby
formal location, or a formal parking arrangement cannot be put
in at the location the signs which go up should cover the following
points:
1. No bikes to be parked.
2. The nearest place for parking bikes.
3. The action taken against any bikes which
are parked wrongly (noting that simply saying bikes will be removed
without further information to enable its recovery is effectively
saying "we are stealing your bike".
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we call for a review of the remit
of Transec to consider the relevance of management of security
in a wider sense—both preventing terrorist incidents and
the delivery of transport interchanges where the security of individuals
and property is a naturally delivered result through planned measures
which prevent rather than simply record unwelcome events for later
action. We recognise that this will also require a careful defining
of the roles of Transec and BT Police as specially skilled agencies
to deal with security planning and management in the transport
industry.
This should include the education, where necessary,
of "station managers" in delivering a better result
than currently seen at most transport interchanges to provide
cycle parking in a more consistent and secure way. In doing this
the management of parked cycles, as a detail of general security
control should be approached as a scheme, which works to deliver
the customer needs of convenience, and security in an intuitive
way—so that the arriving cyclists naturally goes via the
cycle parking area to enter the station by a direct and convenient
route, and the station staff have where practicable a means to
identify regular users, and manage the recognised risks associated
with luggage attached to cycles, and use of enclosed storage,
both of which can be operated with basic and simple measures,
and in doing so deliver the Government's policy on sustainable
and integrated transport.
In this way we hope that the use of the term
"Transec requirements" is not played as an excuse for
inaction and incompetence of the station management, and that
Transec can offer a more active role in promoting managed secure
cycle parking to a model of best practice, as highlighted in this
submission, which aids their requirement to manage security risks.
| 
