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 28
28 did not regularly ride the light rail system, the agency pro- cab area, or violating other FRA safety regulations. Metro- vided images obtained from the video cameras of problem link installed two cameras that observe cab activities; the activities to school officials so that individuals responsible cameras remain despite a lawsuit filed by the Brotherhood of for causing problems could be identified and disciplined Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen to have them removed. through the school system. NFTA in Buffalo, New York, If upheld, this safety regulation would exceed those in air- also relied on surveillance to curtail unruly student behavior craft, where cockpits are not under constant surveillance for on its buses but not on its railcars. NFTA indicated for this safety rule violations but are equipped with voice recorders synthesis that surveillance was employed in onboard passen- used to investigate accidents. Because Metrolink, a com- ger areas and that new vehicles would be similarly equipped, muter rail agency, is regulated by the FRA rather than the although there were no plans for operator/cab surveillance. FTA, it is unclear whether the regulations could ultimately apply to FTA-regulated agencies. Maier and Malone (2001, pp. 1417) found that in Phila- delphia, SEPTA also recorded the interior of buses for after- Pending resolution of the litigation, in May 2010, Metro- incident reviews of its video images but did not do so in its link barred one engineer from operating trains and another railcars. SEPTA's dual interests were in curtailing the behav- was under investigation for having allegedly tampered with ior of unruly teens and also reducing fraudulent claims. To the surveillance cameras. The allegations involve attempts achieve these goals, the introduction of surveillance was at blocking the cameras' view. Indicating how easily expen- widely publicized through the local media, resulting in sive, sophisticated equipment can be outwitted, the charges what SEPTA considered a significant reduction in claims in one case involved clipping a paper to a visor to block the of approximately $15 million per year compared with 1991 camera and in the other case involved turning the camera data. Another multimodal system with cameras on buses and putting a visor in front of it to block its view. The union but not railcars was CTA, which hoped to curtail bus crime, contended that the actions were taken because sun visors graffiti, and scratchiti, and planned to use the video for post- that were moved to accommodate the cameras make it more incident review. Neither system was considering similar difficult for engineers to see clearly when there is a glare. experiments for its railcars. Metrolink has countered this claim by noting that it has issued engineers sunglasses and that visors are still avail- Tri-Met, another bus/rail agency, decided to install video able ("Metrolink Says..." 2010). The United Transportation on its railcars based on the success of its pilot program on its Union (UTU) gave the matter prominent coverage on its buses. Tri-Met had piloted the use of cameras on three buses website, noting, somewhat ironically, that the actions that in 1987; by the early 1990s about 40 buses had been equipped led to action against the engineers had been captured by the and at the time of Maier and Malone's study the agency had cameras that are the focus of the dispute. The union does budgeted $1.2 million for a surveillance systems on 72 of its not accept the agency's viewpoint that there is "no expecta- LRVs, hoping to rely on the video not only for deterrence tion of privacy in a locomotive cab" ("Metrolink Engineers and for post-incident investigation, but also to provide evi- Probed..." 2010). How the courts resolve this dispute will dence in civil (tort) cases involving passenger injury claims. have an impact on the use of video images in internal disci- By 2010, Tri-Met noted on its website that all MAX/WES plinary matters and will be likely to influence a number of trains, most train stations, and all parking garages and eleva- administrative issues discussed in chapter four. tors were equipped with surveillance. As indicated in Table 5, only a small number of agencies PARKING FACILITIES employed video surveillance in operator/cab areas. An even smaller number anticipated that all new railcars would have Surveillance is common at parking facilities; 28 agencies this preinstalled. Whether this will change cannot be antici- indicated they employed cameras in these locations. Installa- pated, but the federal government has shown interest in this tion of video surveillance in parking facilities, whether open issue following the crash of a Southern California Regional lots or multistory structures, provides assurance to patrons Rail Authority (Metrolink) commuter train in Chatsworth, that they and their vehicles are safe while in the facility. Rail California, in 2008. Twenty-eight people were killed in that lines that rely on riders who park in the morning and leave incident, including the engineer, who, later investigation their vehicles until they return at the end of the work day must determined, was composing a text message when he ran a be particularly careful to assure patrons that their vehicles are red signal and collided with a freight train. safe from theft and vandalism. Because vehicles parked in one spot all day are typically targets for theft or vandalism, In early 2010, the NTSB recommended that cameras be parking facility security also has wide-ranging implications required in all locomotives as a management tool to ensure for risk management as patrons are likely to report these vio- that operators are not sending text messages, talking on cell lations to the transit or local police and to their insurance car- phones, sleeping, admitting unauthorized persons into the riers to claim reimbursement for loss or damages.
OCR for page 29
29 Parking lot crime can also result in damage to an agency's image. Such crimes are likely to gain considerable media attention, particularly on commuter blogs. BART became an example of this when the EastBay Express article "Lots of Trouble" reported on a series of parking lot crimes in summer 2007. In one case, three teenagers attacked a man and fled with his cell phone and laptop; in another, six men attacked another man, hurling him to the ground and demanding money (Atlas 2008). Protecting the "Whole Journey" FIGURE 2 Cameras are often placed adjacent to Although in these cases both the victims were men, the fears stations near malls, tourist attractions, or college campuses. This camera placement at the light rail surrounding what has come to be termed "the whole journey" station near Denver's Metropolitan College campus have been associated with the fears expressed by women. The is designed to blend into campus design elements. whole journey concept goes beyond the stations, platforms, Photo courtesy of Dorothy M. Schulz. shelters, and railcars themselves to include public bus shel- ters, parking lots, and even the walk or ride to or from home to the transit station. In their study, How to Ease Women's Fears of Transportation Environments, Loukaitou-Sideris, and col- leagues (2009, p. 50) found that security measures in the more enclosed and easily controllable parts of the transportation system (defined as the buses, trains, and station platforms) and the relative neglect of the more open and public parts (bus stops and parking lots) did not serve women's needs. This is because women were more typically fearful at desolate bus stops or walking through parking lots devoid of human activ- FIGURE 3 Denver's RTD places cameras near ity than they were once on their buses or trains. handicapped access ramps. Photo courtesy of Dorothy M. Schulz. Although conceding that transit agencies lacked the resources to assign police officers throughout the system, Houston METRO is one of a large number of agencies the researchers pointed out that the installation of cameras, that monitor park-and-ride facilities to prevent a variety of while less popular with patrons than uniformed officers, was crimes, including vehicle thefts and thefts from vehicles. less expensive and was a more likely response to such fear. Cameras also can be used to observe that patrons are not According to Norman D. Bates, president of a risk manage- annoyed by panhandlers or do not become the victims of ment consulting firm, women's fears are not unfounded. He more serious crimes. Staff members who are monitoring the has estimated that as many as 40% of rapes and assaults cameras are often able to communicate with drivers in the take place in parking lots (Atlas 2008). In addition to the parking facilities and to control a number of lots' electronic risk this presents it has profound implications for transit rid- gates through their central operations center (Nakanishi ership; those who are overly fearful of having to retrieve 2009, p. 23) their vehicles from parking facilities are unlikely to consider using mass transit. Lighting and the color of ceilings and walls can also influ- ence camera placement. Another decision point is whether Camera Placements the cameras are primarily for patron and vehicle safety or whether they are placed to observe payment booths to Outdoor parking facilities in areas without extreme climate minimize the possibility of people parking without paying. changes may be fairly easy to protect, but indoor multistory Focusing a camera on the entry/exit booth may also allow lots require more planning than merely placing cameras any- the transit agency to observe whether booth attendants are where on any floor. Denver's RTD, for instance, places its properly charging patrons and recording the fees. Camera cameras so that the areas under observation include elevator placement may also be influenced by whether the booth waiting areas and emergency telephone locations, among oth- attendants need to be protected so that they do not become ers (Figures 2 and 3). crime victims.