ДСТУ CEN/TR 14383-7:2014
Завантажити документ
Формат .docx · доступно зареєстрованим користувачам
en: Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part 7: Design andmanagement of public transport facilities
uk:
ICS 03.220.01; 13.310; 91.040.20
English Version
Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part7: Design and management of public transport facilities
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 21 March 2009. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 325.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
Management Centre: Avenue Marnix 17, B-1000 Brussels
Contents Page
Foreword 3
Introduction 4
1 Scope 7
2 Normative references 7
3 Terms and definitions 7
4 Design and management processes for transport-dedicated areas 7
4.1 General 7
4.2 Organization of the contracting authority and the stakeholders 8
4.2.1 General 8
4.2.2 Contracting authorities 8
4.2.3 Contract partners 8
4.2.4 Specialists who bring their expertise to the project 8
4.2.5 Customers, commercial partners and staff 9
4.2.6 The project managers 9
4.3 The core stages of a project 9
4.4 Creating a new location 10
4.5 Location management 10
5 Analysis, actions and assessment: question-asking methods 10
5.1 General 10
5.2 Crime, antisocial behaviour and fear of crime 11
5.3 General principles on security-related questioning 11
5.4 Desig n strateg ies 12
5.4.1 General 12
5.4.2 Anticipation on location management 12
5.4.3 Space usage 12
5.4.4 Legibility 14
5.4.5 Location compatibility with security measures 15
5.5 Management strategies 15
5.5.1 General 15
5.5.2 Responsive location management policy 15
5.5.3 Regulating space usage 16
5.5.4 Legibility and orientation 17
5.5.5 Location compatibility with security measures 17
Annex A (informative) Types of crime against people (including staff) and buildings 19
A.1 Offence against person 19
A.1.1 Assault with physical violence (without theft) 19
A.1.2 Assault without physical violence (without theft) 19
A.1.3 Sexual assault 19
A.1.4 Theft against person 19
A.2 Assault against companies, properties and plants 19
A.2.1 Assault against properties and plants by damage and /or destruction 19
A.2.2 Theft against companies 19
A.2.3 Threat 20
A.2.4 Trespass 20
A.3 Other offence relative to public transport rules and antisocial behaviour 20
A.3.1 Behavioural offence 20
A.3.2 Traffic offence 20
Annex В? (informative) Summary of the process 21
Foreword
This document (CEN/TR 14383-7:2009) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 325 “Prevention of crime by urban planning and building design”, the secretariat of which is held by SNV.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
The status of Technical Report (CEN/TR) was proposed to give all countries the opportunity to compare experiences and to harmonise procedures.
This Technical Report is one of a series for the “Prevention of crime by urban planning and building design”, that consists of the following Parts:
—? Part 1: Definition of specific terms
—? Part 2: Urban planning
—? Part 3: Dwellings
—? Part 4: Shops and offices
—? Part 5: Petrol stations
—? Part 8: Protection of buildings and sites against criminal attacks with vehicles Introduction
The public transport system has to meet the citizen’s mobility needs under the most advantageous economic, social and environmental conditions for the community. It is an instrumental factor in national unity and solidarity, national defence, economic and social development, in balanced strategic land use planning and sustainable development, and in driving international exchanges, particularly towards European partners.
In meeting these needs, it is equally important to comply with objectives on minimising or reducing risks, accidents, nuisance (particularly sound pollution), pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions by implementing measures designed to reinforce the application of the legal right of all public transport users, including disabled or handicapped people, to move freely and to choose the means they wish to use, and to exercise their legal entitlement to transport their property themselves or to commission the services of a company or institution of their choice to do so.
The success if this kind of service hinges on:
- the strength of social ties in public transport areas, which are in fact a community resource (respect for others, for community values, voluntary sharing of community resources, respect for rule of law, etc.);
- the efficiency of the production facilities (integrity of the technical and financial assets, the physical protection provided by the transport, a regular and reliable quality service, etc.), which are by definition a source of regular contact with the population and are thus embedded in the urban fabric.
Any unruly, aggressive or assaultive behaviour will by its very nature have a negative knock-on effect on public trust in the service. More generally, public trust can be eroded by an environment left to degrade (dirt, poor lighting, graffiti, etc.) and by repeated unruliness. The erosion of public trust can foster avoidance' behaviour from customers (drop in traffic) and staff (strikes, skipping ticket checks, etc.) alike. Crime often also targets the production facilities (equipment, buildings, infrastructure, information systems, etc.), thus causing financial losses, equipment breakdowns, service delays, malfunctioning customer service devices, or even generating traffic safety risks (accidents, derailments, etc.).
Hence, crime, whether carried out or perceived, threatens the fundamental policy issues of any public transport system, i.e. public trust and efficient production facilities, with significant economic and social consequences.
Crime problems require action, on the individuals involved, on the organizations and structures that manage community activity, and on the locations housing the activity.
Pre-planning for, or “designing-out”, crime and disorder often adds little or no additional cost to the project, but can save large amounts of money in the long run. Returning to a location to “retro-fit” crime prevention measures is always more expensive than designing the location properly in the first place.
All public transport systems in industrialized countries face these same issues. There are numerous examples of where public transport companies have undertaken crime prevention actions, many of which have entailed heavy funding. We can now draw upon a significant pool of experience and best practices. Indeed, public transport facilities are fast developing towards intermodal services and expanding out to European scale. This has prompted the need to draft a set of risk analysis procedures complete with guidelines.
Developments in problem orientation
Recent trends in mass transport project characteristic have to be taken in account, before identifying appropriate recommendations for the design, the management and the planning process.
Below, four trends in mass transport project characteristic are discerned.
Trend 1: More and more huge and multifunctional mass public transport projects
Railway stations in big cities and at airports, in order to fulfil their desired function as “multiservice areas” often become “mega structures” where all kind of functions are integrated: transport, shopping and leisure. The transport function is just one of the other present functions of the whole structure.
In order to emphasize its huge size and importance, architects of these mega structures often propose impressive, challenging forms and constructions. These structures become regional or even national icons.
However, to structures of this kind, special points of attention apply for security design and management.
These points are:
- their huge size make people feel get lost soon if the concept of the structure is complex, the orientation on passenger routes towards the goal is limited, and the signage is incomplete;
- different functions in the same structure mean different proprietors and different managers; if the demarcation of the areas (what belongs to whom) is not clearly defined, if managers use different rules for the public, different security systems (every function its own surveillants and CCTV system) the management of the total structure will not as effective as it could be and should be;
- big structures are more different to connect to their environment properly; there is a greater danger that they become and remain isolated, internally oriented blocks, which often make an unfriendly impression to their direct environment. From the outside, you mainly see blind walls and huge car parks;
- different functions mean different opening times when it is not possible to close off the not-in-service parts (for example the shopping mall in the late evening) and offer alternative routes to transport passengers, the latter will have to walk long routes through scary, unsurveilled corridors
- different functions have different peak hours; but if more functions have a peak at the same time of the day and all corridors have to be designed on this maximum flow of visitors, these corridors will be far too big for the silent hours and the visitors will feel lost there.
This document give recommendations for not only regular and simple transport facilities, but also recommendations that take into account the specific design and management attention points as mentioned for