Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
15 throughout the transit industry. By the 1990s, surveillance serve more appropriately as a post-crime investigative tool had become a fairly regular feature in stations, employee than as a crime deterrence or prevention mechanism. The facilities, and parking lots. Its installation on railcars and role of video for either prevention or post-crime investiga- along ROWs was and continues to be far more limited. tion may be less relevant for terrorism than for traditional crime, particularly where suicide bombers are unconcerned In addition to WMATA and MARTA, other urban transit with the consequences of their actions and may actually systems made use of video surveillance in passenger stations hope for recognition as a way to further their cause. as early as the late 1970s and early 1980s; today almost all do. One early adopter, Chicago's Metra, monitored several At the time of the July 7 bombings, the approximately stations with a system that was originally intended to protect 275 LU stations were observed by more than 6,000 cam- TVMs, again illustrating the overlap of fraud detection with eras; that number was expected to double by 2010. By the crime prevention. Metra officials found the cameras acted end of 2005, the British Transport Police, which is respon- as a significant crime deterrent, which led to retrofitting sible for rail policing in England, Scotland, and Wales, them with wide-angle lenses to include larger sections of the comprised about 650 officers and was expected to hire stations. Both the St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency about 100 additional officers in 2006. These figures are (MetroLink) and Cleveland's GCRTA reported successful difficult to substantiate, but both the numbers of cameras applications of video monitoring at key rail stations. The and of police officers have grown. GCRTA also used video to monitor revenue facilities. The Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority (NFTA, Buffalo, The original purpose of the LU's video system was to New York) used surveillance to view more than 90 of its assist station personnel monitoring crowd control. It was locations. Although at this time, most of the in-vehicle moni- introduced on the Victoria Line in 1968 and spread with toring took place in buses rather than on railcars, the NFTA the introduction of one-person train crews. There was at reported some success with cameras to deter incidents on that time relatively little interest in and little thought given some light rail vehicles (LRVs) (Gilbert 1995, p. 22). to observing individuals within the crowd (Butcher 1990). By the 1980s, crime on the LU had become a political issue just as it had in large cities in the United States and Canada. THE LONDON UNDERGROUND'S INFLUENCE ON Added to the concerns were fears of Irish Republican Army TRANSIT SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS bombings, which eventually included the deaths of three people on the rail system, one at Victoria Station in 1991 and To most North American transit managers, the transit sys- two on the Docklands Light Railway in 1996. tem most closely associated with the introduction of video surveillance is the London Underground (LU) in the United Despite this prevailing fear of terrorism, the primary pur- Kingdom. One of the first systems to employ video surveil- pose of the LU surveillance video network was to continue lance, the LU's vast network of cameras attracted worldwide its original purpose, namely to alert staff to dangerous build- attention in the aftermath of the attacks on July 7, 2005, when ups of passengers at escalators and other strategic points, not suicide bombers who claimed an association with al Qaeda set to catch criminals. Any thoughts of catching criminals were off three bombs in LU trains and on one London bus, killing limited to the view that if station staff observed a crime, they 52 people and wounding more than 700. Two weeks later, on would call police or use the public address system to inter- July 21, terrorists planted an additional three bombs on the LU vene by vocally drawing attention to the crime. and on another London bus, but this time the devices failed to detonate. Fennell Report on the King's Cross Station Fire By the time of the second attempt, authorities had already The vast expansion of surveillance equipment in the LU identified the first set of bombers based in part on a closed- came not because of fears of terrorist attack or of crime, but circuit television (CCTV) image of the four men at the Luton as a direct result of a massive fire at King's Cross Station train station, about 50 miles north of London, at about 7:20 in November 1987, the same station that was the scene of a.m. on the day of the attacks. The black-and-white photo the July 7 bombing. The fire started in one of the station's showed all four men carrying backpacks; additional evi- four escalators and spread throughout the ticket hall and the dence indicated they had traveled together to the King's station within minutes at the end of the evening rush hour, Cross Station. The wide publicity given to the video image of resulting in 31 fatalities, including 1 employee. Because of the four men by the London Metropolitan Police, in what the the chaotic conditions and the lack of an emergency evacu- Canadian Broadcasting Company on Aug. 11, 2005, called ation plan, the number of injuries was never tallied. The fire "the largest crime scene in British history," ("London police spread rapidly owing to the draft created by the train move- investigation timeline," 2005) has influenced at least part of ments, the steep incline of the escalators, and the station the current push to increase the use of video in U.S. tran- itself, including its design and the existence of old paint on sit systems. Yet this instance also reinforced that video may the walls that burned quickly.