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 27
27 this question intend to include plans for video surveillance In general, onboard surveillance appears to have become in all new station designs. far more common since a 2001 TRCP synthesis. Yet direct comparisons are difficult because of the dissimilarity in TABLE 3 the population surveyed. In that study, Electronic Surveil- DO ALL NEW STATION DESIGNS INCLUDE PLANS FOR lance Technology on Transit Vehicles, Maier and Malone VIDEO SURVEILLANCE? (2001) queried 32 agencies. Although 14 of the 30 largest Video Surveillance? No. U.S. transit agencies participated, only 16 were rail agencies (6 operated heavy rail and 11 provided light rail service). Yes 35 In addition to those that reported having onboard surveil- No 3 lance, some agencies were planning to install it; others were in test mode and the systems were not yet operational. Of the agencies that responded that they had surveillance onboard ONBOARD RAILCARS vehicles, 11 of 23 indicated that less than 25% of their rail- cars were equipped with this technology and only 3 reported The second most frequent area where surveillance is that between 76% and 100% of vehicles had cameras. At that employed is onboard railcars, an issue that was addressed time, both BART and the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) by three survey questions. Respondents who indicated they indicated that all new vehicles would be equipped with sur- used surveillance onboard vehicles were asked to specify veillance systems but they did not specify whether these whether this was in passenger areas, in the operator/cab would include cameras in operator areas/cabs. area, or in both. They were also asked to indicate what per- centage of their vehicles had surveillance devices. In replying to the current synthesis questionnaire, BART was less definitive as to whether all vehicles would be so Of the 33 agencies that reported having onboard surveil- equipped while CTA continued to indicate that it anticipated lance of passenger areas, 11 indicated it was also employed installing surveillance in passenger and operator/cab areas in operator/cab areas. There are considerable differences of all new vehicles. The length of time between the two stud- among modes in the availability of onboard surveillance. ies may account for the change in BART's response but also Only two agencies with heavy rail vehicles indicated that indicates that multi-year implementation plans may change more than 76% of their railcars had video surveillance; an as budgets change or as new priorities develop. additional agency reported that new cars would include cameras. Six agencies with commuter railcars indicated that Overall, the number of agencies committed to equipping more than 76% of their railcars were equipped with video all new railcars with surveillance technology had increased surveillance, while 16 light rail systems indicated that more substantially since the earlier study (Table 5). Although vehi- than 76% of their LRVs had surveillance cameras (Table 4). cle manufacturers are now able to routinely accommodate orders for onboard surveillance, fewer agencies reported that their plans called for surveillance on new vehicles than those TABLE 4 reporting the same for station design plans. AGENCIES REPORTING MORE THAN 76% OF RAILCARS ARE MONITORED BY VIDEO SURVEILLANCE TABLE 5 Type No. WILL ALL NEW VEHICLES INCLUDE SURVEILLANCE Heavy Rail 2 VIDEO ONBOARD? Commuter Rail 6 Surveillance Onboard? No. Light Rail 16 Yes, Plans Call for Surveillance: 29 In passenger areas only 13 Passenger areas and operator/ cab areas 14 It is difficult to account for the vast difference among modes without further study, but some conjecture is pos- No, Plans Do Not Call for 10 Surveillance sible. Heavy and commuter rail, with a few exceptions, are generally older systems located in larger cities. Older sys- tems are more likely to have railcars that were purchased Onboard surveillance systems have a longer history on before onboard surveillance was readily available prein- buses than on railcars; many of the systems that pioneered stalled by vehicle manufacturers. The costs of retrofitting their use on railcars were multimodal agencies that expanded these vehicles could be too high and may not be cost-effec- surveillance to railcars after successful applications on tive depending on whether there are plans to purchase new buses. For instance, the Bi-State Development Agency in vehicles. It is more likely that newer agencies, which most St. Louis, Missouri, had installed surveillance systems on often are light rail systems, obtained LRVs with preinstalled both buses and its LRVs primarily to curb disruptive behav- surveillance capabilities. ior by juveniles. Because Bi-State's MetroLink security staff