1

Partnerships to reduceimported risk

Aidan NelsonInternational Railway Safety ConferenceDenver, October 8th, 2008

Daily individual fatalities

2

Public behaviour has potentiallycatastrophic consequences

3

On Britain’s railways….

Staff are assaulted, perhaps, every couple of hoursSuicide is a near daily experienceAn adult trespasser dies weeklyRoad vehicles are struck on level crossings twice a

monthPerhaps monthly, a pedestrian is killed on a level

crossingRoad vehicle occupants are killed on level

crossings several times a yearA child dies trespassing once or twice each yearAnd, perhaps once a decade, passengers and on-

train staff are killed when a road vehicle is struck by a train

Why is there a problem?

Railways divide communitiesAuthorised crossing points are limitedDevelopment creates desire lines that are

not satisfied by authorised crossing pointsRailway lands are a destination for play

and criminal activitySocietal predilection for the short cut, anti-

social behaviour and crimeWe all think we are invincible when

driving!

Why a partnership approach?

The underlying causes of these issues all originate in the wider community

In Britain, transport providers have a statutory duty to work with agencies to address wider community safety issues

Rail-only approaches have limited impact on risks and effects on:Rail servicesCustomer satisfactionRail industry [and other agency] costs of

negative public behaviourFeeds back to consumers and tax payers

The rise of community safety

A concept from the early 1990sHolistic, multi-agency approach covering

situational and social dimensionsQuality of life as well as crime reductionSix elements crucial to multi-agency crime

reduction work:structure, leadership, information, identity,

durability and resourcesAn early initiative “safer cities” had limited

rail involvement

Local priorities

Central to community safety concept is role of local communities in setting local priorities for action

Legislation in late 1990s began to enshrine principle of local multi-agency approach

Railway boundary is an artificial divide that has constrained thinking in:Rail businessesThe wider communityPublic agencies tasked with addressing

community safety risks including highway safety

External to rail developments

Legislation in 1998 required local authorities and police to work together: develop a strategy lead development of multi-agency approaches to

identified local prioritiesNew Crime and Disorder Reduction

Partnerships (CDRPs) did not exclude the railway But not recognised by an insular rail sector

Many CDRPs ignored the issues – often the same – that sat inside the railway boundary

Engaging transport providers

Legislation in 2002 specifically referenced the role of transport providers

Six years on, only limited recognition of obligations placed on rail businesses

Where engagement is occurring the British Transport Police (BTP) is generally the catalyst

But, engaging with all CDRPs would swamp BTP and rail businesses

Need for rail to:Prioritise on the basis of industry “black spots”Think as one at local level

Neighbourhood policing

Rolled out nationally by 2008Local communities identify issues

Then tackle together with police, public service providers and other partners

BTP are included - good progress in developing neighbourhood policing teams

National arrangements can now be seen as having fully embraced the railway environment

However, the reciprocal is not yet universal

Rail CDRPs

Emerged because of lack of industry buy-in to broader community safety concept

Pilot rail CDRPs now operational on the national network with BTP engaging rail businesses as partners

Too early to determine community safety benefits from this approachBut - where rail CDRPs are in place a greater

common ground between BTP and rail businesses More effective local tasking

Transport for London (TfL)

TfL has embraced national model Routinely considers impact of decisions on crime,

disorder and wider community safetyThis feeds through to doing all that it reasonably

can to prevent: crime (including trespass) and disorder substance misuseanti-social behaviour

Community safety strategy and supporting plan follow the national model

An exemplar approach for main-line rail to consider

Islands of good practice

Adopt-a-station schemesDiversionary tactics like No Messin!Teaching Zone

But no new developments in two yearsTeachers looking elsewhereBusinesses more inclined to go-it-alone

School visits programmeRestorative justice initiativesCDRP engagement; e.g. Safer Leeds partnershipPilot Road – Rail Partnership Groups

14

Safer roads

Principle of partnership adopted at county levelToo often focused on photo-enforcement?Transport for London see as in scope of their

community safety strategyEstablish road – rail partnership sub-groups

However, many in the roads sector see level crossings as purely a rail sector issue

But, decisions to abuse level crossings start on the public highway

Enable, Engineer, Educate, Enforce [Evaluate]

Headline statistics

Road deaths (2006, source ETSC): France 4,709 / 75 per million population Germany 5,091 / 62 per million population United Kingdom 3,300 / 57 per million population Sweden 445 / 49 per million population Netherlands 730 / 45 per million population

Level crossing deaths ( 2004-5, source ERA): Sweden 14 / 1.54 per million population Netherlands 18 / 1.11 per million population France

38 / 0.61 per million population Germany 45 / 0.55 per million population United Kingdom 7 / 0.12 per million population

16

A rail perspectiveCollisions with road vehicles on level crossings

are at or close to being the top train accident risk on railways worldwide

Profile of this issue rises as railways reduce the risks within their direct control

Level crossing risks are shared between the interfacing modes but too often seen as a railway risk

Catastrophic accidents at level crossings in Great Britain: Hixon (1968), Lockington (1984) and Ufton Nervet (2004)

17

A roads perspectiveCollisions with road vehicles on level crossings

are near the bottom of the risk on the country’s roads

Profile of this issue will remain low as the numbers killed on the roads is so high

Level crossing risks may be shared between the interfacing modes but they are predominately a railway risk

In the four years since a train occupant died in a level crossing accident 12,000 have died on the roads

18

Schizophrenic attitudes

We’re a rich country, we can afford to make our railways totally safe

I’m invincible when behind the wheel of my carA train driver ran a red light: disgustingA car driver ran a red light: we all do it, don’t

we?3,500 killed on the roads: minor newsOne passenger killed in a train accident: front

page news for days

19

The challenge:Coalitions of the willing

National drive + local response In Europe opportunity for multi-national drive

Players: Department for Transport Rail / highways / Planning authorities Accident investigation bodies Local and railway police Commercial operators of road vehicles / farmers Professional & amateur road vehicle drivers Road vehicle and driver licensing authorities Cyclists / Pedestrians / Mobility impaired Suppliers / researchers / innovators Responsible media and advertisers

20

Patagonia to the UK

Contact

aidannelson@comsafetypartners.com

Office: +44 1904 448439Cell: +44 7939 546980