Trespass and vandalism has long been a problem for rail operators … from our December 2002 issue.
Not only does stock get damaged – meaning replacement costs – but trains are delayed – another cost. In London, managers on the Underground who have responsibility for security work in the same office alonside British Transport Police officers. The story of how they identified a ‘hot-spot’ and tackled it shows the importance of working with as many people as possible, and canny use of resources and the mass media.
First, know your problem. Underground and police on the Crime and Disorder Partnership Unit looked not only at police crime reports but data not used before, such as reports from depots,. loss control and daily log incident reports. Rail staff did not report all incidents to police, because they felt that police only responded to the more serious incidents. When all the information was overlaid, the true extent of anti-social behaviour, damage, track obstruction, stone-throwing and trespass became apparent. Disruption to services and damage to rolling stock was worst not on some inner city track, but on the fringes of the Tube network, on the District line between Barking and Upminster. There, vandalism and anti-social behaviour were everyday affairs.
Next, the unit interviewed train drivers (who feared broken windows caused by items thrown at passing trains) and station staff; spoke to other train operating companies, who share this section of track; went to community meetings; looked at the previous year’s crime and arrest reports and offender profiles; the case disposal of reported and charged offenders; complaints from the public; and accident and injury data. The unit identified 17 hot-spots, and looked at them further. Where private properties backed onto the railway, residents were visited. Users of parks and allotments next to the track were approached. The unit carried out crime pattern analysis, to ask: was there any link between behaviour on the railway and in the locality? The offending profile revealed that offenders were mainly male, aged between nine and 19. School holidays saw more incidents – stone thrown at trains and obstructions on the track – though such incidents happened all the year. In one case, metal bars were thrown on the line, which had self-welded to the power conductor rails. Train drivers often removed old bicycles and bricks from the rails.
The previous year’s damage to stock across London Underground ran to £1.5m – £1m of that was from the District section under investigation. That’s not counting the operational cost of delays, estimated at £1.2m. However, the consensus on the ground was that it was impossible to do much, because of the distance between Barking and Upminster (eight and a half miles). The traditional response had been high-profile policing; talks to schools; and fencing provided by the Underground, which had to be repaired often because of cuts and breaks.
Research of the surrounding area showed the trespassers’ point of entry was via a housing area for elderly people. Their lives were affected by anti-social behaviour and threats.
The unit aimed to reduce the number of incidents. The traditional response had had a limited impact over the years. It called for a different approach – effective without being resource-intensive. Limited police numbers meant it was not practical to deploy police at each hot-spot. What was needed was a response from each partner which, when combined, would have a significant impact. The response was six-fold: problem-solving, working with the community and rail staff; crime reduction techniques; police deployment; media education and awarenessl and development of an information cycle. A map of the Barking to Upminster track with each hot-spot marked and given a letter of the alphabet was given to every train driver, local police patrol cars, Metropolitan Police and BTP control centres, and the Met’s Air Support Unit. That way everyone knew what hot-spots a report was talking about.
Any use of the Met ASU helicopter would rely on officers on the ground to make arrests – very resource-intensive, and besides the helicopter running costs are £1,000 an hour. Rather than use the Essex-based ’copter to detect incidents, the unit had the idea of using it as a crime rediction tool. At minimum cost it could drop to 2,000 feet and fly over the hot-spots on returning to base – at random times, most days. To have an effect, this approach needed publicity – saying that air patrols would spot problems up to a mile away, before the copter could even be spotted. The unit used posters, and leaflets, with a contact freephone telephone number, easy to memorise (0800 40 50 40). Residents around the hot-spots had visits, to explain what the unit was out to achieve, and to head off complaints of low-flying. Rail staff such as drivers are kept up to date in staff magazines, and union reps are briefed regularly. The local press and community meetings brief residents. Qualified teachers from the London Transport Museum visit schools where offenders were pupils. The unit reached parents, with local authority backing, via 18,000 letters to parents in sealted envelopes with a school’s annual report. As for the media, BBC South East gave air time. BTP dog handlers in plain clothes blended into a park near a hot-spot – as reported by the media.
The research showed that few offenders were caught, and those that were got penalties that did not reflect the seriousness of the offence. Hence the unit briefed local magistrates. At one hot-spot, police, various local authority workers and residents associations met. It led to environmental changes – benches were removed, security devices installed for residents, trees cut down where the offenders had used them to access the railway over fencing, and hawthorn bushes were planted to help prevent access to the track. Police visited the parents of known key offenders. The unit says there havebeen no more reports of offences at this hot-spot.
BTP and the Underground are still evaluating the project. They say it is difficult to measure the impact of any particular response, though reported incidents have nearly halved – meaning about £0.5m less in damage, and another £0.5m less lost through delayed services.
Thanks to Mark Lewis, London Underground Security Programme Development Manager, for help with this article.
