Memorandum from Passengerfocus (TS 44)
1. SUMMARY
— Passenger Focus believes that the
safety and security of passengers is of paramount importance.
— Results for Autumn 2005 National
Passenger Survey (NPS)—which measures passenger satisfaction—show
that 59% of those polled declared themselves to be satisfied with
security at stations, and 69% with security on trains.
— There is some evidence to suggest
that passengers feel more concerned about anti-social behaviour
and the lack of staff than about the fear of terrorism.
— Staff and police presence clearly
plays an important role in reassuring passengers. Staffing is
clearly a greater cost over time than some other expedients, often
depending on how they are deployed—but it is the one which
passengers consistently expect. Questions of station staffing
need to be addressed through the franchising process. Greater
effort also needs to be made in providing another human presence
at stations, such as offering more commercial lettings of station
buildings.
— Staff, passengers and police acting
in partnership is of crucial importance. To achieve this it is
necessary to ensure that all staff are clear as to their role
in respect of security—eg awareness of threats, what to
do, and whom to contact—and that passengers are given every
opportunity (and encouragement) to report suspicious objects and
patterns of behaviour.
— CCTV is important. There is a need
for an industry/police compatible standard for CCTV installation
with clear operational requirements for any system. Real-time
monitoring of such systems, rather than only recording, is important,
as is ensuring that recordings made are of prosecutable quality.
— The deployment of security technology
(eg scanners) must be balanced against the need to ensure the
smooth movement of passengers throughout the rail network. Airport
style security screening—involving tight management of access
and security screening—is not viable on the rail network.
— The provision of information to passengers
in the aftermath of a serious incident is very important. There
is a need to review the capacity of websites to ensure that they
can cope with high demand in emergencies. This is potentially
something that could be funded by Government.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Passenger Focus believes that the safety
and security of passengers is of paramount importance. While we
take a keen interest in this issue we do not profess to be experts
in terrorism and, as such, do not feel able to address some of
the specific questions raised by the Committee. The points that
follow, therefore, focus on the general passenger perception of
security, and on measures which passengers have told us make them
feel safer.
3. PASSENGER
PERCEPTIONS
3.1 The only quantified country-wide index
of rail users' views is the National Passenger Survey (NPS), originally
commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) and now produced
and published twice-yearly by Passenger Focus. This is based on
the results of polling more than 28,000 passengers twice a year
in the course of journeys made on the National Rail network. The
results include security at the station and on-board trains. The
most recently published wave of results covers Autumn 2005 period
(NB. the fieldwork for this was carried out after the July 2005
bombings).
3.2 Security at rail stations
3.2.1 In the Autumn 2005 results, 59% of
those polled declared themselves to be satisfied with security
at stations, placing it only ninth out of 12 station-related service
attributes covered (1). This compares to a satisfaction rating
of 56% in the Autumn 2004 wave of surveys. Leisure users are most
likely to be satisfied with station security (65%), followed by
business users (59%), while commuters' satisfaction rating was
only 55%. Frequent users have more negative perceptions than those
who travel occasionally.
3.2.2 Those who did voice concern about
station security (less than a quarter of the total) were invited
to indicate their reasons. A new category—fear of terrorism—was
added to the survey given the events of 7 July 2005. While this
will provide a baseline for future surveys it does mean that there
is no comparable data for previous years. The principal reasons
given are presented below in descending order of frequency with
those on fear of terrorism highlighted for ease of reference.
57% Saw rowdy behaviour by other people on
station
43% Lack of station staff
20% Lack of other passengers
18% Poor on-station lighting
11% Saw actual vandalism or violence
3.2.3 Respondents where also asked about
their reasons for being concerned with personal security in the
vicinity of stations. The same respondents' answers were:
23% Poor lighting around station
19% Lack of other people in the neighbourhood
16% Station in an isolated position
11% Insecure station car park
9% Saw vandalism or violence in neighbourhood
3.3 Security on the train
3.3.1 In the Autumn 2005 NPS, 69% of those
polled declared themselves to be satisfied with their personal
security on the train—compared to 66% in the Autumn 2004
survey. Leisure users are again most likely to be satisfied (75%),
followed by business users (71%) and commuters (62%). Again, frequent
users have more negative perceptions than those who travel occasionally.
3.3.2 As with the question on stations,
those who voiced active concern about security on board the train
(less than a quarter of the total) were invited to indicate their
reasons.
60% Saw rowdy behaviour by other people on
station
47% Lack of station staff
11% Saw actual vandalism or violence
4% Poor on-train lighting
3.4 It is important to stress, however,
that the NPS data does not address:
— the views of non-passengers who may
be deterred from rail travel because of a perceived lack of security
on the system; and
— the measures open to the industry
which would be likely to raise satisfaction levels, and the cost-effectiveness
of these.
4. PASSENGER
PRIORITIES
4.1 Although the NPS gives a valuable snapshot
of how passengers in general perceive the level of security currently
achieved on stations and on trains and the reasons underlying
the dissatisfaction of those who believe it is inadequate, it
does not give any direct indication of the importance ascribed
to improving personal security relative to other service attributes.
4.2 We are aware of research conducted by
the SRA in May 2005 (2) which ranked different journey elements
to show their priorities for improvement—personal security
at stations came only 16th out of 30. This provides a useful look
at passenger perceptions prior to the events of 7 July.
4.3 Research undertaken by LUL (3) in October
2005 looked at the customer perceptions of security on the tube
post 7 July. Respondents were asked about deterrents to using
public transport more often. Fear of terrorism was tenth out of
12 prompted categories and came behind overcrowding and, significantly,
well below concern over the anti-social behaviour of others. Indeed,
57% of respondents said they were more concerned with crimes such
as muggings and assaults than the threat of terrorism. LUL also
found that 71% of passengers who used the tube prior to 7 July
would continue to use it at about the same level. Of this 71%
the two main reasons quoted were the need to get to work (28%)
and the fact that the incident didn't affect them (27%). Those
who claimed they would use the tube less included: females, those
not working full time, less frequent users and users for leisure
only.
5. PASSENGER
ASPIRATIONS
5.1 Staffing and policing
5.1.1 In June 2005 the then Rail Passengers
Council (now Passenger Focus) published "What passengers
want from stations" (4) —a report based on a series
of focus group studies conducted in various parts of the country.
The report found that staffing was the single most effective means
of making passengers feel safer at stations. It recommended that
staff should be visible, easily recognisable, trained in the skills
necessary to exercise authority when required and invested with
necessary legal powers. They must also patrol frequently. It also
concluded that the presence of retail facilities in the station
can also lead to a higher perception of security and act as point
of help if it should be required.
5.1.2 Crime concern research in 2002 also
indicates that staff presence is the favourite security measure
favoured by passengers (35% of passengers in Greater London thought
staff were single most effective security measure compared to
25% outside London). (4)
5.1.3 In research conducted by LUL (2) in
the aftermath of 7 July, 71% of respondents said that the recent
(higher) level of policing on the tube had been reassuring, as
against 14% who felt it had caused undue concern.
5.1.4 Staff presence, therefore, clearly
plays an important role in reassuring passengers. Staffing is
clearly a greater cost over time than some other expedients, often
depending on how they are deployed—but it is the one which
passengers consistently expect.
5.1.5 Questions of station staffing need
to be addressed through the franchising process. To this end there
seems to be merit in examining the role and effectiveness of "travel
safe officers", as pioneered by South West Trains. Greater
effort also needs to be made in providing another human presence
at stations, such as offering commercial lettings of more station
buildings. Pilot schemes have been undertaken for various situations;
these should be evaluated and where successful, implemented more
widely and good practice shared.
5.1.6 It is very important, however, that
all staff are clear as to their role in respect to security—eg
awareness of threats, what to do, and who to contact—and
that passengers are given every opportunity (and encouragement)
to report suspicious objects and patterns of behaviour. Staff,
passengers and police acting in partnership is of crucial importance.
5.2 Security technology
5.2.1 Staff presence must be complemented
with the appropriate technology.
5.2.2 While RPC's "What Passengers
Want" report found that the introduction of CCTV and
panic buttons would do little to improve personal security, participants
still thought they should be fitted as standard, even if stations
are staffed. The benefits of CCTV were thought to be that film
could be used for identification purposes. We believe real-time
monitoring of such systems, rather than only recording is important,
as is ensuring that recordings made are of prosecutable quality
and are linked to Local Authority and other systems.
5.2.3 Earlier this year, the Transport Committee
of the London Assembly published the findings of its own scrutiny
of Crime and Safety at London's Suburban Railway Stations
(5). This report was critical of the lack of integration between
CCTV systems operated by local authorities and those found on
the railway. We believe that there is a need for an industry/police
standard for CCTV installation with clear operational and compatibility
requirements for any system.
5.2.4 We are also aware of the trial of
new screening techniques on the national rail and London Underground
network—including the first use on the UK railway of body
scanners using millimetre wave technology which enables security
staff to check for objects concealed under clothing. However,
we believe that the development of such equipment must be balanced
against the need to ensure the smooth operation of the rail network.
Airport style security screening—involving tight management
of access and security screening—is simply not viable on
the rail network. We await the outcome of this trial with interest.
5.3 Information
5.3.1 Events on 7 July also point to the
need to consider the provision of information to passengers in
the aftermath of a serious incident. Network Rail commissioned
research (via RPC) (6) to measure which sources of travel information
rail passengers used on Thursday 7 July, Friday 8 July and Thursday
21 July, and establish passengers' preferred means of communications
for emergencies.
5.3.2 The survey found that the key to providing
good travel information is making sure the information is up-to-date,
relevant and accurate and easy to access. On the whole people
used a variety of methods to obtain exactly such information.
There are clear patterns in how people want such information,
depending on their circumstances. At home they will use TV, radio
and the web; on route they will rely on their mobile phones and
at work they use web, their mobiles and a phone line. This means
the rail industry needs to be able to communicate via a variety
of media and ensure each is updated often and accurately.
5.3.3 The survey found that only 7% of those
using any source of travel information rated the source as poor.
Poor ratings tend to be where the information was not up-to-date
or correct or the passenger could not find the relevant information
they needed.
5.3.4 71% said their journey home was affected
on 7 July—the main issues were closed stations or train
delays and cancellations. A third (33%) of those who normally
travel in on Fridays did not do so on Friday 8 July. A further
fifth (19%) either had to use a different station to normal or
a different means of transport. Half were unaffected.
5.3.5 The research found that people obtained
most information on their journey through websites, the most popular
being TfL, followed by the BBC and National Rail enquiries. We
would therefore suggest that all organisations review the capacity
of their websites to ensure that they can cope with high demand
in emergencies. This is potentially something that could be funded
by Government.
5.3.6 It is also important to ensure that
correct information concerning what transport options are currently
available is given to the general public at such times. One suggestion
is that an additional "ticker tape" display is provided
at the bottom of TV broadcasts to convey this information. Network
Rail and the TOCs also need to ensure that staff are kept as up
to date as possible on the situation and are extremely clear on
what they can say to members of the public. Training may be required
to ensure that this happens.
REFERENCES:
(1) National Passenger Survey—Wave
13—Autumn 2005—Consultees Report. Passenger Focus
(2006).
(2) Passenger Expectations and Priorities
for Improvement (research summary RS0501). Continental Research
for Strategic Rail Authority (May 2005, unpublished).
(3) LU Strategic Services Development:
Customer and stakeholder insight—Personal security results
2005.
(4) What passengers want from stations.
Rail Passengers Council (June 2005).
(5) Crime and Safety at London's Suburban
Railway Stations. London Assembly Transport Committee (January
2006).
(6) July 7 Travel information Survey.
Network Rail. 2005.
April 2006
| 
