24 Apr 2007: ISS Today: Security on Trains: Does Metrorail (South Africa) Take Its Responsibility Seriously?

24 April 2007: Security on Trains: Does Metrorail (South Africa) Take Its Responsibility Seriously?

 

There are some things in life that we seem to accept no matter how wrong they may be.  One such example is the standard of safety provided for train commuters.  It appears that we have assumed that using a train is generally risky and that commuters should find ways of dealing with this problem.  Thus, when using a train regular commuters would give tips to others as to what routes to use to avoid crime.

 

In many places, there are many routes that lead to the train station.  Many of these take one straight to the railway line thereby resulting in an illegal crossing.  Before one gets hard on the commuters who break the law by crossing the railway line, the real issue is the availability of legal crossings – bridges or subways. A number of legal crossing avenues are not user-friendly as they require one to traverse a longer distance just to reach them.  Obviously, the planning of such legal crossings was not done in such a way that it would accommodate today’s commuter.   The Constitutional Court(1) helps us—in some way—to understand the reason for this.  According to the court the rail system was established to cater for black commuters who travelled long distances from their workplace.  From that angle, therefore, it is a plausible argument that the planning that went into the system was not aimed at providing a city transport network and the was done at the time when the safety and security of the identified commuters was not a priority.

 

The train commuting environment is conducive to crime.  It is fair to say that until the commuter gets to the train station, he/she is completely unprotected.  The stark contrast to this commuter vulnerability is that—if one takes Kempton Park station (Gauteng) as an example—one sees a lot of police visibility by both members of the South African Police Services (SAPS) and the Metro Police.  But once one moves off the main road -- a necessity for a train commuter—one enters no man’s land.  

 

While the route to the station is undoubtedly not policed, it is more disturbing that even after reaching the station and after boarding the train the situation does not improve much.   Until recently, safety on trains was left to security officers employed/contracted by Metrorail.   However, these officers were more likely to be found in the first class compartments of the train, where there is relative comfort in comparison with the ordinary coach.   Moreover, these security officers were not known for passion, skill or innovation in crime prevention or response.  

 

It would appear that Metrorail fails to take seriously its responsibility of protecting its customers.   This conclusion is based not only on the reality that confront commuters daily, but on Metrorail’s own views.   Many would have been surprised when Metrorail declared, in court, that it was not their responsibility to protect commuters on their trains.  The courts, rightly, disagreed.   The point, however, is: even after the courts have declared the Metrorail responsible for the safety of commuters, is this organisation taking its responsibility seriously?  It would seem not.

 

Evidently, SAPS takes commuter safety more seriously than does Metrorail.  SAPS has re-introduced railway police, for example.  These railway police, however, cannot adequately provide the necessary security on the trains.  While indications are that their efforts are bearing fruit (as suggested by an assessment from the Western Cape where it started), the situation can be improved only when Metrorail takes its ‘complementary role’ seriously.   Doing so would entail going beyond issuing of customer tips that advise commuters to be ‘vigilant when travelling alone or after dark, whenever possible travel in groups and arrange to be met at the station. Avoid travelling with valuables and/or cash’.(2)

 

As Metrorail admitted in court, crime is a problem on trains and as is evident from its own advice to travellers this is also a problem en route to and from the train station.   While the introduction of SAPS railway police is welcome and will hopefully improve the situation for the commuter while on board the train or at the station, their success could also have unintended adverse consequences for the commuter.  For someone who has been making a living by robbing people on the train or at the station, the presence of effective policing could just result in him/her doing his/her business far from the station and the train.  There is therefore an ever present risk of effective policing on the trains displacing crime to the routes leading to the station that are, as stated above, already problematic. 

 

The challenge for the Metrorail and the SAPS is to plan their crime prevention/combating initiatives further than the train and the train station.   Good intelligence is necessary followed by rigorous law enforcement.   If it is known that crime is committed en route to and from the station, why not gather intelligence and deal with the problem effectively?

 

Boyane Tshehla, Crime and Justice Programme, ISS Tshwane (Pretoria)