Partnerships to reduce imported risk

1. Partnerships to reduceimported risk Aidan Nelson International Railway Safety Conference Denver, October 8th, 2008 1

2. Daily individual fatalities 2

3. Public behaviour has potentiallycatastrophic consequences 3

4. On Britain’s railways…. Staff are assaulted, perhaps, every couple of hours Suicide is a near daily experience An adult trespasser dies weekly Road vehicles are struck on level crossings twice a month Perhaps monthly, a pedestrian is killed on a level crossing Road vehicle occupants are killed on level crossings several times a year A child dies trespassing once or twice each year And, perhaps once a decade, passengers and on-train staff are killed when a road vehicle is struck by a train

5. Why is there a problem? Railways divide communities Authorised crossing points are limited Development creates desire lines that are not satisfied by authorised crossing points Railway lands are a destination for play and criminal activity Societal predilection for the short cut, anti-social behaviour and crime We all think we are invincible when driving!

6. 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 effectson: Rail services Customer satisfaction Rail industry [and other agency] costs of negative public behaviour Feeds back to consumers and tax payers

7. The rise of community safety A concept from the early 1990s Holistic, multi-agency approach covering situational and social dimensions Quality of life as well as crime reduction Six elements crucial to multi-agency crime reduction work: structure, leadership, information, identity, durability and resources An early initiative “safer cities” had limited rail involvement

8. 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 businesses The wider community Public agencies tasked with addressing community safety risks including highway safety

9. 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 priorities New 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

10. 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

11. Neighbourhood policing Rolled out nationally by 2008 Local 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

12. 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 approach But - where rail CDRPs are in place a greater common ground between BTP and rail businesses More effective local tasking

13. Transport for London (TfL) TfL has embraced national model Routinely considers impact of decisions on crime, disorder and wider community safety This feeds through to doing all that it reasonably can to prevent: crime (including trespass) and disorder substance misuse anti-social behaviour Community safety strategy and supporting plan follow the national model An exemplar approach for main-line rail to consider

14. Islands of good practice • Adopt-a-station schemes • Diversionary tactics like No Messin! • Teaching Zone • But no new developments in two years • Teachers looking elsewhere • Businesses more inclined to go-it-alone • School visits programme • Restorative justice initiatives • CDRP engagement; e.g. Safer Leeds partnership • Pilot Road – Rail Partnership Groups 14

15. Safer roads Principle of partnership adopted at county level Too often focused on photo-enforcement? Transport for London see as in scope of their community safety strategy Establish 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]

16. 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

17. A rail perspective Collisions 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

18. A roads perspective Collisions 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

19. 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 car A train driver ran a red light: disgusting A car driver ran a red light: we all do it, don’t we? 3,500 killed on the roads: minor news One passenger killed in a train accident: front page news for days 19

20. 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

21. Patagonia to the UK

22. Contact aidannelson@comsafetypartners.com Office: +44 1904 448439 Cell: +44 7939 546980