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 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.
