Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 26


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 25
25 TABLE 1 Among older, heavy rail systems, both WMATA and WHERE ELECTRONIC VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IS USED MARTA have had surveillance capabilities at all their sta- Where No. tions since their inception. However, surveillance systems are not static and need to be upgraded over time. In 2009, for Onboard Vehicles In passenger areas 33 instance, WMATA announced that it would upgrade its cam- In operator/cab area 11 eras on buses, in ventilation shafts, at station entrances, and Stations, Station Platforms, 40 near the ends of platforms by using funding that included a Shelters DHS grant of almost $28 million. Of the total amount, about Elevators Only 10 $7 million was set aside to add surveillance inside railcars, Parking Facilities 28 in part because the agency viewed the improvements pri- marily for crowd control even though most of the money Along the ROW 11 came from security grants (Harwood 2009). In Storage/Other Yards 26 In Employee/Administrative Areas 20 An older system that added cameras well after its initial Other 8 operations was Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA, known locally as the T).According to TCRP's Tran- sit Security Update, MBTA, a multimodal system, installed STATIONS, STATION PLATFORMS, AND SHELTERS cameras in all subway stations in conjunction with its instal- lation of automatic fare collection equipment (Nakanishi As indicated, the largest locations for electronic video sur- 2009). Although the T began to install cameras around 2000, veillance were stations, station platforms, and shelters. Forty in 2002 it began to upgrade to a fiber-optic network funded agencies said they used cameras to observe these areas. Ten in part by $23 million from DHS. The higher resolution pro- agencies reported that they employed surveillance only vided by the new cameras resulted in positive media attention in elevators, but this information contradicted their other when a man accused of robbing a passenger at gunpoint at the replies. Considering the totality of responses, it appears that busy Back Bay station was identified based on a description no agencies employ surveillance only in elevators and that that included a tattoo that matched a surveillance image of cameras in elevators are part of the overall placement of the man entering the station at about the time of the robbery cameras elsewhere in stations, station platforms, and shel- (Daniel and Smalley 2007). Currently, more than 500 cam- ters or parking facilities. eras have been installed in T stations and in trains; they are monitored in real time at a number of locations by both police Although the most common use of video technology is to department and rail operations personnel. At least some of observe stations, station platforms, and shelters (which may the cameras will rely on analytic software ("smart" video) to or may not include elevators), the percentages of such pas- identify suspicious behaviors and/or objects. MBTA notifies senger areas covered by surveillance differed greatly. Using patrons that cameras are in use. categories of under 25%, 25% to 50%, 51% to 75%, and 76% or more, the findings indicated that the newer the transit In Portland, Oregon, Tri-Met video cameras moni- agency, the more likely that all stations, station platforms, tor shelters and stations in the Portland Mall area, known and shelters were observed by video cameras as part of over- locally as the transit mall. The installation, part of a 2-year all crime prevention efforts (Table 2). Each of the 40 agen- improvement plan in conjunction with the MAX Green Line, cies reported the percentage of its stations, station platforms, added to a network of cameras that covers most stations and and shelters that were covered by its video surveillance sys- all parking garages and elevators. Another light rail system tems. Because a number of systems were multimodal, the that had earlier benefited from area-wide improvements, San percentages are not broken down by mode, but newer rail Diego's Trolley, operated by the Metropolitan Transit Sys- systems (which are often all or primarily light rail systems) tem, was able expand its surveillance network at its C Street tended to fall in the highest category. Station through a public/private partnership that included the C Street Task Force providing time and material valued at more than $100,000 toward the installation and operation TABLE 2 of eight cameras ("Security Cameras..." 2006). PERCENTAGE OF STATIONS, STATION PLATFORMS, AND SHELTERS MONITORED BY VIDEO SURVEILLANCE The Maryland Transit Administration, as part of its over- Category No. all security and emergency preparedness planning, is adding Less than 25% 8 cameras at those Metro subway stations and platforms that 2650% 4 were not included in earlier installations and also in a number of light rail and commuter rail stations. Similar expansion of 5175% 8 video surveillance can be observed around the nation; com- 76100% 20 monly, such announcements are made by the transit agency,

OCR for page 25
26 the funding agency, or in some cases the vendor selected to light rail system. In this case, the officials found the officers' install the surveillance network. actions over-zealous; in the other situation, although the security guards did what their job description required their Local media coverage of the expansion of surveillance actions were seen as too placid. In Seattle, video showed a often includes information about particular crimes or situ- 15-year-old girl being beaten by other teenagers in front of ations where the cameras played a role in apprehension of three security officers in the Downtown Transit Tunnel. After suspects or in resolution of problems surrounding disorderly considerable public outcry, King County Metro announced it behavior, often by teenagers using public transportation to would reexamine its policy forbidding its unarmed security or from school. The Boston case where the forensic evidence guards from physically intervening in criminal or suspicious provided by the camera resulted in an arrest is typical. behavior (Westerman 2010; Stelter Feb. 22, 2010). These cases are examples of how the installation of sur- One of the most controversial video-based cases did not veillance technology serves a number of overlapping goals. involve surveillance cameras directly but occurred when a Although DHS funding is primarily based on terrorist- shooting by a BART police officer was photographed by a related concerns, once cameras are installed they are likely number of patrons on their cell phones. In that case, in the to assist in fare collection efforts as well as in crime preven- early morning hours of January 1, 2009, the officer fatally tion and detection. This is particularly so if they produce shot a patron on the Fruitville station platform in Oakland, images that are sufficiently detailed to provide a basis for California, following a fight that involved a number of men post-incident investigation and subsequent prosecution. This on the train and spilled out onto the platform. The officer was type of overlapping function extends beyond transit. In Pitts- charged with second-degree murder; as the trial began in June burgh, Pennsylvania, for instance, a $2.4 million DHS grant 2010, a number of legal experts predicted that its outcome in 2008 that was aimed at protecting the city's waterways, would provide insight not only into the jury's attitudes toward ports, and rivers resulted in Mayor Luke Ravenstahl submit- police brutality, but also into the latest legal thinking on the ting a federal grant application for funding to install more issues of video evidence (Wood 2010). On July 8, the officer than 220 cameras to cover nearly all of the city's neighbor- was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a lesser charge hoods (Wilkinson 2010). (See the chapter five case study for than the one originally brought against him. In November he a discussion of Pittsburgh's surveillance plans.) was sentenced to 2 years in prison, a verdict that angered the community and resulted in protests in Oakland. Video of patrons' actions may help to mitigate a transit agency's liability by showing the patrons as partially respon- The possibility of this type of surveillance of police sible for the event that led to their injury or loss claim. For behavior has been a concern to police for a number of years. example, in 2009 in Melbourne, Australia, a 6-month-old In a review of the pros and cons of surveillance, Ray Surette boy escaped with only scratches after his baby carriage (2007, p. 155) cited a British study in which nearly one- rolled onto the tracks and was struck by a train that dragged fourth of police officers queried saw as a major disadvantage the child about 100 ft before coming to a stop. The mother, of surveillance cameras that they were often the ones under who was could be seen screaming on the video, had also surveillance. The police believed that many low-visibility been seen on the video letting go of the pram just before it arrests that previously went unnoticed would now receive rolled onto the tracks (Sweeney 2009). In yet another fall supervisory attention and could provide an independent onto rail tracks that received widespread coverage less than a review of their activities that would challenge their version month later, an intoxicated woman was seen falling onto the of events internally and possibly in court proceedings. tracks on Boston's T. Although Boston's video cameras are not linked to an automatic train control system, the woman Although this study referred specifically to police, the was not hit because the train driver saw passengers on the use of video surveillance to observe employee behavior is platform frantically waving their arms and was able to stop not new and has played a role in managing internal fraud her train in front of the woman, who later admitted to hos- and misconduct of employees for many years. Video sur- pital authorities that she had been drinking ("Train Stops veillance systems provide protections for employees, par- Short . . ." 2009). ticularly those working in remote locations at night or on weekends, but their installation is often met with resistance Video cameras at stations have also captured behavior because employees suspect that anything observed on the that has brought bad publicity and most likely added liabil- video is as likely to be used to criticize their activities as to ity to transit agencies and local authorities. Two incidents in protect them from harm. 2010 illustrate these unintended consequences. In Portland, Oregon, two city police officers were suspended after their Whatever the possible downsides of video surveillance police chief and commissioner indicated they were "trou- may be perceived to be, responses from agencies as to plans bled" by the officers' handling of a situation that began on for its use indicate a strong belief in its positive attributes. As the street but was videoed when it moved onto the MAX Table 3 shows, the vast majority of agencies who answered