London Councils’ TEC Executive Sub
Committee
London Assembly Investigation into
Item no: 11
Combating Crime and Disorder on the
Bus Network
Report by:
Ruth Bradshaw
Date:
13 September 2007
Contact Officer:
Ruth Bradshaw
Telephone:
020 7934 9909
Summary
Job title:
Email:
Transport and Planning Section Manager
[email protected]
The London Assembly Transport Committee is currently investigating
crime and disorder on London’s buses. On 12 July 2007, London Councils
TEC Executive members received a report on crime and anti-social
behaviour by young people on buses and agreed to gather evidence on
this problem to submit to the London Assembly investigation.
This paper provides details of the proposed London Councils’ evidence to
be submitted to the Assembly’s investigation.
Recommendations
The Committee is recommended to comment on and agree that the
paper in Appendix 1 be submitted as evidence to the London Assembly
investigation into combating crime and disorder on the bus network.
Background
1. The London Assembly Transport Committee is currently investigating crime and disorder on
London’s buses. Further details on this investigation can be downloaded from:
http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/transport/2007/jun07/item07.pdf
2. The terms of reference for the investigation are:

to conduct a review of the measures TfL have put in place to deal with crime and anti-social
behaviour on the bus network and the extent to which they help passengers feel safe; and
 to establish what staffing and technological measures would make people feel safer on the
bus network and the extent to which these correspond to TfL’s current policies towards the
allocation of such resources.
3. The investigation does not focus specifically on the behaviour of young people. However, at
their meeting on 12 July 2007, London Councils TEC Executive members received a report
on crime and anti-social behaviour by young people on buses and agreed to gather
information on this problem to submit to the London Assembly investigation. The report
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page 1
discussed concerns about the increase in criminal and anti-social behaviour by young
people on buses and the Mayor’s free travel scheme for young people. It also looked at
some of the measures to address young people’s behaviour on buses.
4. The London Assembly has written to TEC requesting a written submission to the
investigation. They are particularly interested in TEC’s views on the following questions:

TfL have recently brought in a variety of measures designed to make the bus
network safer, such as CCTV and Safer Transport Teams. Are these the right
measures to ensure people feel safe when using buses?

Do you think TfL have the right mix of measures (in terms of staffing and
technology) on the bus network to reduce anti-social behaviour and create a
pleasant travelling environment?

Are there any examples of best practice you know of that could be applied to the
bus network? Examples could include initiatives from other parts of the country or
other modes of transport other than buses.

What more needs to be done to ensure passenger safety and perceptions of safety
on the bus network?
5. London Councils asked transport policy officers and community safety officers in boroughs
for their views on these questions and other evidence they would like to submit to the
Assembly’s investigation. Responses were received from Bexley, Bromley, Camden,
Havering, Islington, Merton, Richmond, Southwark and Wandsworth.
6. The Assembly has also written to London Councils Social Policy and Grants Division (as
they have policy responsibility for Chiildren and Young People’s services), with a separate
set of questions. This response is in preparation and London Councils officers will ensure
that the two responses are consistent.
Main issues to be covered in London Councils’ submission to the Assembly
7. London Councils’ draft submission to the Assembly is attached as Appendix 1. The main
points that London Councils will be emphasising are as follows:
 Providing free travel for young people: There are clearly benefits to allowing
young people to use the bus network for free in terms of allowing them to access
opportunities they would not otherwise have. However, several boroughs expressed
concerns about some bus routes being overtaken by young people. London
Councils welcomes the changes being introduced to the policy on withdrawal of free
travel but believes that this will only be effective if TfL takes swift action against the
minority of young people who are causing trouble and prevent them from using the
network. Young people are themselves being deterred from travelling and the
majority will benefit from measures to tackle troublemakers as they are
disproportionately likely to be the victims of crime by other young people. Evidence
provided by Islington CID (based on data from crimes which are ‘flagged’ and
therefore not definitive) shows that the victims of crimes by young people are most
likely to be aged between 11-25. Young people need to be made clearly aware that
free bus travel is a privilege not a right and will be removed if they engage in antisocial behaviour. London Councils believes that, in consultation with young people,
there may be a case to impose time limits on the use of free Oyster cards.

Addressing school travel: Residents from several boroughs have indicated that
they do not like using public transport when school pupils are about, due to their
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
rude and inconsiderate behaviour which can sometimes cause delays to buses. In
addition, evidence provided by Islington CID (based on data from crimes which are
‘flagged’ and therefore not definitive) shows that the peak time for offences is
between 1600-1759, co-inciding with the after school travel period. London Councils
believes that the targeted use of school buses by TfL could reduce a significant area
of friction and the wider benefits for all bus passengers would justify the cost
associated with providing dedicated vehicles. Those boroughs where there is
already work with local schools recognise the benefits this brings in terms of
providing greater awareness to young people of how they should behave on buses
and the consequences of not behaving. TfL should expand its work with schools
and should introduce some form of recognition for students with good behaviour on
buses to encourage schools to get involved. The London Councils draft evidence (in
Appendix 1) includes a number of examples of initiatives with schools.

The need for increased staffing on buses: It is clear that the best way to combat
crime and anti-social behaviour is to have a greater staff presence on buses.
London Councils believes that the selective re-introduction of bus conductors would
provide a number of advantages. Not only would it enhance people’s safety and
perceptions of safety but there would also be benefits in terms of customer service,
revenue protection and heightened awareness of potential acts of terrorism. The
London Councils draft evidence provides a number of other suggestions for an
increased staff presence on the bus network.

Data on incidents on the bus network: Concerns have been raised about the
accuracy and quality of the database used to record incidents on the buses. It has
been reported that there are still considerable difficulties in verifying the data that is
stored, particularly in terms of the location of incidents and identifying which
borough they take place in, for example, where only a road name is supplied and
that road crosses a borough boundary. Although there are plans to improve the
sharing of data across agencies, particular concern has been expressed about the
London Analyst Support Site (LASS) which records all incidents on buses. It has
been reported that this is constantly out of date, with the most current data running
up to August 2006 which creates difficulties in proactively responding to crime
trends. The police in one area are going to introduce mandatory flagging for all bus
related crime so that there is a clearer picture of the extent of the problem. TfL
should be encouraging this to take place across all boroughs.
Timetable
8. London Councils has agreed a deadline of 14 September 2007 for submitting evidence to
the London Assembly’s investigation. The London Assembly Transport Committee will be
holding hearings in connection with this investigation on 30 October and 21 November with
the aim of publishing a report of its findings early in the New Year.
Recommendation
9. The Committee is recommended to comment on and agree that the paper in Appendix 1 be
submitted as evidence to the London Assembly investigation into combating crime and
disorder on the bus network.
Financial Implications for London Councils
There are no financial implications for the boroughs or London Councils arising from this report.
However, if the free travel scheme were to be removed, there may be an increase in the costs that
boroughs have to pay for school journeys where pupils are eligible for statutory school transport.
Legal Implications for London Councils
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
There are no legal implications for the boroughs or London Councils arising from this report.
Equalities Implications for London Councils
There is some evidence that young people from low income families have benefited the most from
the free travel scheme and would, therefore, be the ones who would lose out if the scheme was
withdrawn or time limits imposed.
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
Appendix 1: Draft evidence to be submitted to the London
Assembly Transport Committee
Roger Evan AM
Chairman of the London Assembly
Transport Committee
City Hall
The Queen’s Walk
London
SE1 2AA
Contact:
Direct
line:
Fax:
Email:
Nick Lester
020 7934 9905
020 7934 9932
[email protected]
.uk
Our
070913 TEC EXEC
reference:
Your
reference:
Date:
13 September 2007
Dear Mr Evan
Combating crime and disorder on the bus network
Thank you for your letter of 31 July 2007. London Councils is pleased to take up this opportunity to
submit written evidence to your Committee’s investigation into crime and disorder on London’s bus
network. London Councils Transport and Environment Committee (TEC) is a statutory joint
committee representing all 32 London boroughs and the City of London. In addition, Transport for
London is a member of London Councils TEC. It is the main voice of the London boroughs and of
their electorates on a wide range of issues relating to transport and the environment in London and
related matters of concern to Londoners. It also carries out a number of statutory functions and
works closely with the Local Government Association and with many private, voluntary and public
sector bodies.
The attached annex contains London Councils’ response to the questions in your letter. We would
particularly like to highlight the following issues:
 Providing free travel for young people: There are clearly benefits to allowing young
people to use the bus network for free in terms of allowing them to access opportunities
they would not otherwise have. However, several boroughs have expressed concerns
about some bus routes being overtaken by young people. There is some evidence from
consultation by boroughs showing that people are less likely to use buses now as they feel
that young people travelling in large groups are likely to cause trouble. There is also
anecdotal evidence of gang fights taking place on buses. London Councils welcomes the
changes being introduced to the policy on withdrawal of free travel but believes that this will
only be effective if TfL takes swift action against the minority of young people who are
causing trouble and prevent them from using the network. Young people are themselves
being deterred from travelling and the majority will benefit from measures to tackle
troublemakers as they are disproportionately likely to be the victims of crime by other young
people. Evidence provided by Islington CID (based on data from crimes which are ‘flagged’
and therefore not definitive) shows that the victims of crimes by young people are most
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
likely to be aged between 11-25. Young people need to be made clearly aware that free
bus travel is a privilege not a right and will be removed if they engage in anti-social
behaviour. London Councils believes that, in consultation with young people, there may be
a case to impose time limits on the use of free Oyster cards. The technology should allow
this to be done an age basis e.g. 14 year olds would not be allowed to travel after 10pm.

Addressing school travel: Residents from several boroughs have indicated that they do
not like using public transport when school pupils are about, due to their rude and
inconsiderate behaviour which can sometimes cause delays to buses. There are regular
requests from residents for more school buses at sites where high numbers of pupils
overwhelm scheduled services at the end of the school day. Some elderly residents state
that they feel excluded from using bus services during these times for fear of being knocked
over. In addition, evidence provided by Islington CID (based on data from crimes which are
‘flagged’ and therefore not definitive) shows that the peak time for offences is between
1600-1759, co-inciding with the after school travel period. London Councils believes that
the targeted use of school buses by TfL could reduce a significant area of friction and the
wider benefits for all bus passengers would justify the cost associated with providing
dedicated vehicles. Schools should be more involved with their pupils’ behaviour on the bus
system and providing dedicated vehicles would encourage this as the buses would be
linked to a particular school. Those boroughs where there is already work with local schools
recognise the benefits this brings in terms of providing greater awareness to young people
of how they should behave on buses and the consequences of not behaving. TfL should
expand its work with schools and should introduce some form of recognition for students
with good behaviour on buses to encourage schools to get involved. The issue of behaviour
on buses should also be addressed as part of school travel plans. The annex includes a
number of other suggestions for addressing school travel.

The need for increased staffing on buses: It is clear that the best way to combat crime
and anti-social behaviour is to have a greater staff presence on buses. London Councils
believes that the selective re-introduction of bus conductors would provide a number of
advantages. Not only would it enhance people’s safety and perceptions of safety but there
would also be benefits in terms of customer service, revenue protection and heightened
awareness of potential acts of terrorism. The annex provides a number of other
suggestions for an increased staff presence on the bus network.

Data on incidents on the bus network: Concerns have been raised about the accuracy
and quality of the database used to record incidents on the buses. It has been reported that
there are still considerable difficulties in verifying the data that is stored, particularly in terms
of the location of incidents and identifying which borough they take place in, for example,
where only a road name is supplied and that road crosses a borough boundary. Although
there are plans to improve the sharing of data between agencies, particular concern has
been expressed about the current state of the London Analyst Support Site (LASS) which
records all incidents on buses. It has been reported that this is constantly out of date, with
the most current data running up to August 2006 which creates difficulties in proactively
responding to crime trends. The police in one area are going to introduce mandatory
flagging for all bus related crime so that there is a clearer picture of the extent of the
problem. TfL should be encouraging this to take place across all boroughs.
I hope you find this submission useful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to
discuss any aspect of this submission in further detail.
Yours sincerely
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
Cllr Daniel Moylan
Chair of London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
Annex: Response to the Committee’s questions
1. TfL have recently brought in a variety of measures designed to make the bus
network safer, such as CCTV and Safer Transport Teams. Are these the right
measures to ensure people feel safe when using buses?
London Councils is generally supportive of the measures introduced by TfL, but would like
to see an increased emphasis on crime prevention and tackling anti-social behaviour in the
future. Anti-social behaviour can have a significant impact on passengers’ perceptions of
safety. We would like to make the following points about particular measures:
CCTV - There are mixed views about CCTV. Although it can help people feel safer as well
as contribute evidence to be used in criminal investigations, CCTV does not always
function properly or provide images of sufficient quality and it may have a limited ‘life’. If the
relevant bus is not identified within a few days of an incident then the evidence can be lost
if the tape is reused. In the past, there have been difficulties using CCTV evidence from
buses in the legal system but it is understood that this is no longer the case and this fact
should be highlighted to a wider audience. Some concern has been expressed about the
lack of visibility of CCTV on the upper decks of certain double deck buses. The Bus Tag
database has been highlighted as a good way of publicising the use of CCTV on buses and
it would be good to see this extended further. London Councils believes that CCTV has a
role to play in combating crime but it should not replace or reduce the deployment of police
patrols on the bus network.
Safer Transport Teams (STT) – Although there has not yet been any evaluation of their
effectiveness, those boroughs that already have STT are supportive of the initiative but felt
the existence of the teams needed to be more widely publicised, especially on the vehicles
themselves, with clear contact details for them. It was felt that the numbers of officers
across the network needs to be increased to create a wider feeling of safety and that more
thought needed to be given to the make-up of Safer Transport Teams. In one example
cited, the team had 18 Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), two sergeants and
one constable, making it very difficult for the sergeants to organise their time. There is also
some concern from inner London boroughs about the fact that STTs have been placed only
in the outer London boroughs. London Councils believes that the STT initiative should be
evaluated and, if found to be successful, should be rolled out to all London boroughs and
the number of officers increased, with careful consideration given to the make-up of teams
to ensure they can operate effectively.
2. Do you think TfL have the right mix of measures (in terms of staffing and technology)
on the bus network to reduce anti-social behaviour and create a pleasant travelling
environment?
At the moment, there seems to be too much reliance on technology in the mix of measures
employed and London Councils believes that more needs to be done to increase staffing
levels on the bus network. There is only so much technology can do to enhance people’s
perceptions of safety and improve their travelling experience and an increased staff
presence would make it clear that surveillance is taking place. The removal of conductors
and the introduction of Oystercards means passengers generally have no contact with any
member of staff on board, except possibly on boarding the bus, as most people no longer
have to speak to anyone to pay their fare. More staff on buses would not only reassure
passengers but lead to increased revenue as it would be harder to get away without paying
a fare. TfL should, therefore, consider selective reintroduction of conductors. It is suggested
that the focus should be on high frequency routes served by bendy buses and double
decker buses..
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
Boroughs welcome the fact that officers from the Transport Operational Command Unit
(TOCU) are available on bus routes. However, there is some concern that targeting
services where crime is happening, just moves the problem on to another route and it is
important that additional uniformed staff are deployed selectively across the network to act
as a deterrent. Although the re-introduction of conductors would be London Councils
preferred solution, there are a number of other possibilities for increasing the staff presence
on the bus network. For example, some boroughs are already working in partnership with
TfL to increase the presence of PCSOs on the bus network. In Southwark, community
wardens are prepared to use buses as part of their patrolling function between the hours of
8.30am and midnight. However, this would only be financially viable if the wardens could
travel free of charge. London Councils believes that community wardens in Southwark and
other boroughs that wish to adopt this initiative should be able to travel free of charge on
buses in recognition of the important role that they can play in tackling anti-social behaviour
on the bus network. A short bus ride by a uniformed officer is likely to have a significant
impact on anti-social behaviour on that vehicle.
3. Are there any examples of best practice you know of that could be applied to the bus
network? Examples could include initiatives from other parts of the country or other
modes of transport other than buses.
London Councils would like to highlight one particular example of best practice from a
borough which we believe could be applied more widely across the bus network, with the
right support from TfL. Camden has recently worked with TfL to move and redesign a bus
stop which was felt to be contributing to high crime levels. The bus stop was a major
robbery/theft hotspot where the pavement becomes too narrow due to waiting passengers
standing around and people wanting to go past into a large supermarket. The temporary resiting of the bus stop was agreed on community safety grounds and its design was
reviewed to further reduce the opportunity to commit crime. The new bus stop was located
to the rear of the footway rather than adjacent to the carriageway, its ‘end boards’ were
removed and clear glass rear panels inserted to maintain clear sight lines along the footway
and through the bus stop area. Since the move in March 2007, there has been a reduction
in the number of thefts and it is anticipated that there will be a reduction in other types of
crime too. There are also anecdotal reports from local police and local business and
community representatives of a noticeable improvement in the area. A more detailed
analysis of the impacts of the bus stop move on street based crime and anti-social
behaviour should be available by the end of October. However, this move only came about
after extensive discussions with TfL and a vast amount of partnership working. London
Councils believes that TfL should do more to simplify and speed up the process when a
borough wishes to move a bus stop as a crime reduction measure.
There are also a couple of good examples of boroughs working with schools to address the
issue of young people’s travel. For example, Wandsworth Council has provided secondary
schools with advice on travelling responsibly and safely by bus, with performances by a
theatre company of a show called ‘Driving Ms Daisy’. Wandsworth also encourages primary
schools to book the ‘safety and citizenship’ programme run by the London Transport
Museum as part of their preparation for the journey to secondary school. In Brent, there has
been a successful pilot to reduce anti-social behaviour on local buses used by students
from two local schools. The project included a greater staff presence at the school gates,
the involvement of youth workers on the bus network and engagement with local bus
drivers to ensure their support. It has resulted in a reduction in anti-social behaviour and the
development of a better relationship between young people and bus drivers. Full details of
this project will be included in the response which London Councils’ Childrens Services will
be submitting to this investigation.
London Councils has a range of other suggestions, some of which are based on experience
from other modes or other cities. These include:
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page








Introducing train-station style Help/Emergency Call Points linked to CCTV at bus
stops, perhaps starting with those that have the highest crime rates or where the
fear of crime is greatest.
Taxi Marshals – These have been introduced in Leicester Square and piloted in
other parts of London and around the country. Their role is to manage late-night taxi
queues. A similar scheme could be introduced to manage bus queues at school
closing time and other busy times. Train companies often employ additional platform
staff at busy stations to despatch trains and assist passengers and the same
principle could be applied to buses.
Increasing security staff on night services – Passengers may even be prepared to
pay a premium for such a service. Existing examples include a dedicated University
night service in Brighton and Hove which operates with onboard security marshals.
There are also examples in Manchester and on South West Trains.
Increasing staffing levels generally – in addition to the driver, Amsterdam trams
have an officer on board who checks tickets, gives out information and ensures that
people behave well.
Further use of measures aimed at dispersal and conflict avoidance, including those
designed to deter excessive loitering at bus stations (such as bright lighting or the
playing of certain types of music considered to be “unpleasant” by young people).
An initiative of this type would need to be introduced with careful consideration of
the impacts on residents and businesses in surrounding areas. First, to ensure that
the problem behaviour is deterred and not simply shifted away from the transport
hub to another location and secondly, to ensure that the amenity of the area is not
diminished by increased noise or visual pollution.
Extra training for bus drivers such as the conflict avoidance training for drivers
provided by Travel West Midlands to equip staff with the skills needed to anticipate
and diffuse conflict and the training provided by First Bus to improve driver skills on
bus services used by significantly high numbers of young people. The latter also
involved young people and sought to improve the perceptions which young people
and drivers have of each other.
School visits by TfL/operators’ staff to educate and build bridges with young people,
as happens in the SAFE project in South Yorkshire. This includes the SAFEmarks
awards which are granted to schools that demonstrate concern about and
implement a structured response to their school transport issues.
Competitions for young people: The Home Office has recently run a national
competition asking school students to design publicity material aimed at
discouraging vandalism in their area. Not only has the competition raised
awareness among students of the problems caused by vandalism but it has also
provided the Home Office with new ideas about how to get messages about the
impact and consequences of vandalism across to young people. TfL should
consider running a similar competition in London focused on crime on buses.
4. What more needs to be done to ensure passenger safety and perceptions of safety
on the bus network?
As already discussed above, the key thing that needs to be done is to increase the staff
presence on the bus network and there are initiatives that TfL could introduce to encourage
this, such as providing free travel for community wardens. There is a need for more staff
on the bus network who deal not only with fare evasion but also with community safety
issues. London Councils believes that the re-introduction of bus conductors would provide a
number of advantages. Not only would it enhance people’s safety and perceptions of safety
but there would also be benefits in terms of customer service, revenue protection and
heightened awareness to potential acts of terrorism.
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page
In addition, London Councils would like to see the following issues considered when
identifying measures to ensure passenger safety and perceptions of safety on the bus
network:
 Sanctions against those who commit crime: London Councils welcomes the
changes being introduced to the policy on withdrawal of free travel but believes that
this will only be effective if TfL takes swift action against the minority of young
people who are causing trouble and prevent them from using the network. Young
people need to be made clearly aware that free bus travel is a privilege not a right
and will be removed if they engage in anti-social behaviour. Bus drivers need to be
made aware of the need to be consistent in ensuring the use of Oystercards for free
travel (i.e. requiring all users to ‘touch-in’ for each journey), otherwise there is no
means of enforcing any sanctions on those who abuse their free travel privilege. TfL
also needs to give bus drivers greater support in ensuring the proper use of young
people’s Oystercards. Drivers have a lot of other responsibilities and at busy times
and at times when there is known to be trouble, proper enforcement is likely to
require an additional staff member on the vehicle. It is unfair to expect bus drivers to
deal with disruptive behaviour as well as check passes, sell tickets and drive the
bus. An additional staff presence would be particularly useful on double deck buses,
where misbehaviour tends to be concentrated on the upper deck, away from the
driver.
 Time limits on the availability of free travel: London Councils believes that, in
consultation with young people, there may be a case to impose time limits on the
use of free Oyster cards. The technology should allow this to be done an age basis
e.g. 14 year olds would not be allowed to travel after 10pm.
 Charging a nominal fee for child travel: Even if this was set as low as 20 pence, it
would deter some of the unnecessary trips that are probably being made using the
bus just as a place to “hang out” and would free up space for other passengers.
Placing a value on the journey might also encourage better behaviour.
 Siting and design of bus stops: Bus stops are one of the most common venues for
street crimes to occur and are natural flashpoints but as the Camden example
above shows the siting and design of bus stops can have a significant impact on
crime levels. For example, it is important to ensure that those used by large groups
of schoolchildren or commuters are in locations with plenty of pavement room.
London Councils believes that excessive advertising at bus stops should be avoided
as this can mask antisocial behaviour or hide waiting passengers from wider
surveillance.
 Types of vehicles used: There is extensive anecdotal evidence about the role of
bendy buses as crime generators. In addition, to the ease of fare dodging on such
vehicles, it has been suggested that the ease of access and lack of authority on
board means that criminals can jump on and off undetected.
 More Borough Liaison Officers at TfL: One borough mentioned the important role
that their Borough Liaison Officer plays in dealing with transport safety issues but
were concerned that the Borough Liaison Officer’s workload seemed to be too great
to allow them to do some things that might be particularly useful, such as attending
regular police/council tasking meetings. The appointment of more Borough Liaison
Officers by transferring them from other posts within TfL would allow closer liaison
between TfL and the boroughs and better planning of partnership activities. This
would also allow TfL to provide better feedback to boroughs which was another
concern raised by boroughs who in turn need to be able to feed back to their
residents about the safety concerns they have raised and possible solutions they
may have suggested.
Combating Crime and Disorder on the Bus Network
TEC Executive Sub Committee - 13 September 2007
Agenda Item 11, Page