Safety on the system

After a couple of posts with pretty pictures, I hope you don’t mind if I hit you with a wordy post. The topic that I want to discuss to day is public transport security.

As a regular user of public transport I have become very aware of the issue of safety and security on public transport and in particular on the rail network. Many people are afraid to use trains, especially at night, and this fear is not helped by high profile incidents such as this one, where a middle aged man was attacked by a group of youths in on a suburban railway station in full view of a security camera.



One notable trend in many rail systems over the past decade has been one of de-staffing. For reasons of economy, station staff and train guards have been increasingly replaced by technology and driver-only operation.

For example, up to the late 1980s, every railway station in Melbourne was staffed (at least nominally). These staff performed mostly operational tasks, such as issuing tickets (both local and country), checking tickets of alighting passengers, giving out timetables and information, giving the right-away flag to trains and even handling luggage.

In the early 1990s they were nearly all removed, save for those at a handful of “Premium” stations. Ticket machines and validators replaced their ticket issuing activities, an electronic system was introduced which announced arriving trains and an emergency help communication system installed. The staff at the premium stations were isolated behind glass windows, rarely venturing out.

In the same period, Adelaide saw changes of a similar nature. Unlike Melbourne and Sydney, most Adelaide railway stations have been unstaffed for many years, but each train featured a conductor or guard. The job of the conductor was again operational: they would issue (and check) tickets, give the right-away at stations and assist with loading and unloading of passengers. Unlike guards in many other systems, Adelaide trains were designed with the ‘right away’ button located at saloon doors. This meant that the conductor/guard spent most of his time interacting with passengers

In the early 1990s all conductors and guards were removed from Adelaide trains. Drivers took responsibility for operations (with mirrors installed on platforms) and on board ticket machines introduced for ticket sales. Regular ticket checks were replaced with random ticket checks by special teams of inspectors.

This pattern of de-staffing and automation has been repeated many times around the world, and while it has saved some money, in many cases it has had the undesired side-effect on increasing security concerns on the rail systems.

In response, a number of initiatives have become standard. These include

1. improved lighting and design
2. emergency phones and help lines
3. closed circuit security cameras
4. security guards

The Adelaide case was perhaps the most extreme – community backlash against removal of train staff was accompanied by a number of on-train incidents, and so the government soon promised to introduce security guards on trains after dark, and wherever possible during the day. This more-or-less negated any savings from the removal of operational staff.

One big problem is that initiatives 2,3, and 4 may in themselves increase the feeling of insecurity. Nothing says “this place is dangerous” as clearly as boldly placed security cameras and blue-and-white checked emergency phones. Remember, “security” is a subjective emotion, and not based on genuine risk assessment.

Even worse, the guards themselves seem to be increasingly the target of attacks, as these two examples from Perth and the UK show. This quote I find particularly telling:

‘Passenger Gareth Beady told BBC Radio Wales: "Since they put the security guards on the trains a lot of the kids are seeing that more of an opportunity to get a rise out of them.’

(Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/4444768.stm, Published: 2005/11/17 08:52:40 GMT)

It seems that there has been a definite shift here, in that railway staff have ceased to be “helpful people who provide service” - and security as a side effect, to people who travel in groups and whose only task is to “check tickets and annoy you”.

I’m not naïve, and I realize that bringing security to the public transport system is a complex task, and it is a challenge facing railways around the world.

Like many experts, I believe the passive surveillance provide by people to be one of the most important factors in bringing security to places. A busy station with plenty of people around is likely to be safer and felt to be more secure than a deserted halt, no matter what high tech equipment is installed. However, not all parts of the system will always be busy, and it is here that staff come into play. I believe that the trend of replacing operational staff with dedicated security staff is not the way forward. Uniformed security becomes part of the problem: service staff part of the solution.