Rail vandalism can cause a variety of social, time and monetary impacts on rail operations. In 2019, MTM estimated that $10 million is spent annually on tackling vandalism across the rail network (MTM 2019).
Rail vandalism can cause a variety of social, time and monetary impacts on rail operations. In 2019, MTM estimated that $10 million is spent annually on tackling vandalism across the rail network (MTM 2019). This expenditure is not limited to the cleaning, repair or replacement of rolling stock and infrastructure. It also encompasses security measures, including implementing CCTV, installing fences and employing security staff. Administering fines and arresting perpetrators again increase the resources required, both human and capital. Vandalism-related disruptions that lead to missed performance targets can also result in significant revenue loss.
Table 1 below lists the types of costs associated with rail vandalism.
Upon review of prominent international and local cases relating to reducing vandalism, with a focus on rail environments, deterrence measures fell largely within six key areas: maintenance; materials and design; technology; authority and law enforcement; community involvement; and holistic approaches. The most common methods in each of these areas are detailed in Table 2 below. Approaches embedded in a holistic framework, partnered with a core understanding of underlying motivations and culture, yielded the most effective results. To be financially viable, these approaches also need to be tailored towards long-term results, rather than quick fixes.
Preventive, immediate and proactive responses can also reduce vandalism. Enlisting wider community support helps address the issue from multiple angles, while engaging both first-time and repeat offenders helps break the cycle of behaviour. Introducing innovative materiality and design choices, coupled with smart technology systems, can also greatly assist in developing targeted responses.
Beyond understanding the culture and motivations of vandalism, ten prominent strategic lessons emerged from the literature review. These should, where possible, be incorporated into future abatement programs and are detailed in Table 3 below.
When considering these lessons, questions arose regarding what additional research was required to better inform future prevention, intervention and reactive strategies in the context of Melbourne’s rail environment. This included identifying gaps in knowledge as well as the opportunities surrounding current approaches.
The review of common mitigation techniques and available MTM data confirmed two prominent gaps in knowledge surrounding existing vandalism-deterrence approaches.
The first gap was that mitigation techniques often aim to protect a wide scope of targets in an affected area, rather than having a narrow focus such as a single asset. Protecting an at-risk asset, or a discrete set of assets, may instead provide a more targeted and sustained approach in reducing the effects of vandalism. Such at-risk assets can be identified through their links to high-consequence outcomes, such as those which result in train delays and/or cancellations. A targeted approach was, therefore, hypothesised to have a high cost–benefit ratio. The second gap was a lack of understanding of how this issue can be addressed with a design intervention or set of interventions.
Identifying the rail asset at risk of causing the greatest operational impact (delays and/or cancellations) when vandalised was explored through both qualitative and quantitative research methods, as shown in Table 4.
During a semi-structured group interview with MTM subject matter experts, the term “critical fault” was introduced – that is, a fault that results in the removal of a service. One prominent critical fault includes types of vandalism that affect the windscreen, particularly those that impinge on the driver’s line of sight or eliminate their ability to operate the train safely. Even small amounts of graffiti or other types of vandalism to the windscreen can cause significant disruptions to service, with such types highly reported in incident-response data – with graffiti represented most heavily.
Upon identifying the windscreen as the at-risk asset, it was important to determine what makes it susceptible to vandalism. Observations from the semi-structured group interview and maintenance facility inspection noted that vulnerabilities in this area were largely linked to accessibility, materiality and surveillance. Of particular note was the rail coupler, which provides a flat, accessible surface to stand or crouch on, with the open cavity surrounding the windscreen wipers affording a secure level of grip, as shown in Figures 5.
The insights gained from exploring best practices in deterrence approaches guided the design phase. These were distilled into three primary design objectives:
To meet these objectives, concept ideation was divided into two streams: physical interventions; and system-based interventions. Physical interventions took prominence, the designs of which sought to shift the reactive approaches commonly taken by rail operators to more effective, proactive responses. This addressed the accessibility and detection vulnerabilities identified in the data collection and analysis stage.
Accessibility was addressed by limiting proximity to the windscreen, including reducing physical affordances with regards to stance and grip. The next initiative sought to reduce the length of time vandals could remain unnoticed by security, should they successfully access the windscreen. This included detecting the vandals’ presence, while also alerting both vandals and operators to this detection.
The security afforded by an intervention can be perceived in a number of ways. Although its level of security is easy to assess from a technical standpoint, evaluating it from an aesthetic viewpoint proves more problematic. While target-hardening approaches are often intended to engender a sense of safety, they may instead induce anxiety and fear in the public by drawing attention to the idea that their security is at risk (Coaffee et al. 2009). Furthermore, overt deterrence measures may be viewed by potential offenders as a direct challenge, while also identifying assets as targets by highlighting their presence. Considering this, there is a delicate balance to strike when evaluating the aesthetics of the proposed design interventions. This balance may lie in the application of “stealthy security measures” (Coaffee et al. 2009) that is, measures visible to the public and potential offenders but not identified as being primarily for security. Such approaches were, therefore, implemented during concept development. Figure 6 describes the aesthetics of security.
The next stage involved presenting the concepts to MTM stakeholders, who assessed their suitability and recommended modifications based on MTM’s evaluation criteria. Their feedback was incorporated into design revisions and prototyping techniques were then implemented, including a proof-of-concept prototype.
A six-axis CNC robot arm then fabricated the design interventions and exterior shell (the yellow fiberglass component attached to the front of the driver’s cabin) from expanded polystyrene (EPS), as shown in Figures 7 below. This 1:1 scale prototype meant the design interventions could be more fully realised, which assisted in evaluating their efficacy and communicating important details and features. Using 1:1 scale for the prototype also assisted in providing proof-of-concept, demonstrating the concepts’ feasibility and practical potential.
Two refined retrofit interventions emerged from the prototyping and evaluation processes. The first intervention, a protective coupler cowl, greatly reduces access to the windscreen. Its angled design was trialled through user testing (as shown in Figure 8 below), confirming its effectiveness in limiting balance when standing or crouching. Should vandals access the cowl, weight-detecting sensors alert both the vandal through a visual alarm, and operators through an incident-alert system. The second intervention, a protective, automated cowl, encloses the open cavity surrounding the windscreen wipers. This ensures that the windscreen wipers cannot be leveraged for grip, while also protecting them when not in use.
A selection of final detailed renders can be seen in Figures 9. These images are in relation to the immediate-focussed retrofit interventions only.
Lastly, to provide a holistic solution, a system-based intervention was developed, guided by the third design objective: involve the users through smart technology systems. This objective lent itself to the creation of a community reporting app, which the MTM semi-structured group interview had also encouraged. At present, the connection between users, mobile apps and assets appears limited within the context of public transport operations in Melbourne. Upon review, many apps within this space are centred around providing users with information to navigate the network and its services, rather than allowing active participation from an operations perspective.
An example of the app’s interface is shown in Figure 10.
By taking a coordinated approach to tackling rail vandalism, the project acknowledged it as a multifaceted and complex issue and that, as such, it was essential to consider redesigns both in the context of the rolling stock and the wider context of this behaviour. Interventions, therefore, sought to integrate the assets, the users and the operators within a proactive and holistic mitigation framework.
Reducing vandalism to at-risk assets increases the reliability and efficiency of services, which in turn assists MTM in reducing maintenance efforts and meeting performance targets. When considering the costs around fabricating and integrating new components, it is worth contextualising them with the level of impact caused by vandalism that targets the windscreen. For example, the 164 incidents recorded in relation to this at-risk asset delayed services by 2181 total minutes and 1,677,157 total passenger weighted minutes (PWM) from 19 March 2015 to 25 May 2016. The 124 incidents caused by graffiti alone, as largely targeted through the retrofitted interventions, delayed service by 1700 total minutes and 1,407,457 total PWM. Additionally, redesigning vulnerable rail components would largely benefit the general public; aesthtically, reducing vandalism creates a cleaner, more visually appealing rail environment while instilling a sense of pride in the community. Lowering the frequency and/or salience of vandalism incidents lessens the perception that there is no authority over the network while cultivating a more positive journey experience for commuters. Lastly, by providing reliable and efficient services, the overall satisfaction of commuters with both the network and its operators is further improved.
The author wishes to thank Metro Trains Melbourne for their funding of this research through the provision of an industry scholarship. Special thanks also go to Brendan Connors of MTM, who provided invaluable guidance and support throughout the duration of the project.
