Video Surveillance Uses by Rail Transit Agencies (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

57 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS nation or in transition. The most common special fea- tures were 24-hour recording, existence of a secondary power source, and low-light resolution. Recent media attention to video analytics is not yet reflected widely in transit agencies’ technology. • Almost half the agencies assign personnel to monitor video cameras on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis. The most common staffing configuration is a combina- tion of police/security and rail operations personnel. Agencies that do not monitor their cameras regularly or at all indicated that personnel costs were the major determining factor. • A majority of agencies archive video images, although the retention periods differed substantially from a few days to a year or more. Similarly, access to images is controlled by the agencies. The most common limita- tion is “designated individuals only,” which most often includes police/security personnel, rail operations supervisors, and risk management personnel. • The two most common applications of video surveil- lance were crime/vandalism prevention and acci- dent investigation; the least common application was employee monitoring. • Few agencies had surveyed patrons on whether the use of video surveillance added to their perceptions of security. Fewer still had measured employee percep- tions or had consulted employee groups in the decision to install surveillance systems. • Agencies provided their percentage of funding for sur- veillance systems from various sources; they were not asked to provide actual dollar amounts of the funds received. The largest current funding source for sur- veillance systems is DHS; the next largest funding source was the FTA grant program. Several major conclusions can be drawn from these findings: • Reliable funding sources are necessary to assist agencies in making more effective use of available grants to upgrade security systems. The process for obtaining funding for initial purchases or upgrading existing video surveillance systems is complex and time-consuming. Many agencies rely primarily on DHS for all or most of their funds. The funding pro- cess involves a number of agency offices—most often This synthesis presented a current snapshot of the use of electronic video surveillance technology by passenger rail agencies. It placed that usage in a historical context and discussed new technology involving video analytics and sensors and emerging issues such as video surveillance pro- tection of the right-of-way (ROW). It presented numerous findings, including the following: • The overwhelming majority of passenger rail transit agencies rely on electronic video surveillance some- where on their property. • Despite the focus on electronic video surveillance systems in the context of terrorism since September 11, 2001, most passenger rail transit agencies have employed surveillance on their systems since the 1990s, and some as early as the 1970s. • The largest single set of locations where electronic video surveillance cameras were used was stations, station platforms, and shelters. Unsurprisingly, sys- tems that came into existence in the past 10 years are more likely to make greater use of video surveillance than older systems. • More than half the respondents (28 agencies) employed video surveillance cameras in their patron parking areas. • The same number of agencies (28, though not all the same agencies) employed surveillance cameras onboard vehicles; fewer than half of these (11) indi- cated its use in operator/cab areas. • More than half the respondents relied on video surveil- lance in storage yards, administrative areas, or other nonpublic areas. • Of the uses presented, right-of-way (ROW) surveil- lance was used least frequently and was most likely to be installed near stations. • Light rail systems were more likely to employ onboard video surveillance than heavy or commuter rail sys- tems; many respondents indicated that at least 75% of their vehicles had cameras. This difference can be attributed to the age of these systems. Newer systems were more likely to have had video surveillance cam- eras installed by the railcar manufacturer and were more likely to indicate that all new vehicles will have video systems pre-installed. • More than half the video surveillance systems are digital rather than analog, but most are either a combi-

58 police/security, safety, risk management, information technology, finance, and grant application personnel— which results in a large amount of employee collabo- ration. However, because funds must be applied for on a yearly basis, it is difficult to anticipate the suc- cess of and even more difficult to plan for multiyear projects. Presently, DHS is seen as the largest single source of funding for security training and equipment purchases, and as a result it has a large influence on decisions made by transit agencies regardless of size, location, or mode. • Agencies are seeking forums to share ideas and best practices. Despite large expenditures for design and purchase of surveillance equipment, transit agencies are highly dependent on vendor claims and on proce- dures that may require selection of the lowest bidder. Agencies would benefit from a forum to share tran- sit-specific requirements and experiences to balance against unsubstantiated claims. This role could be filled by the U.S.DOT or by one or more transit-specific professional associations. • Policies on image access and retention are inconsis- tent. Transit agencies follow a variety of procedures in these areas. Some are guided by state laws pertaining to records maintenance and access but there is little overall guidance in establishing access and retention policies. The forum described previously could provide guidance and uniformity in these areas. Transit police/security managers might also consult with local police in their jurisdictions for additional information because having similar policies may be useful if local prosecutors or civic groups question their existing procedures. • ROW surveillance is an emerging issue. Relatively few agencies provide any surveillance of their ROWs; those that do provide it primarily immediately adjacent to stations. Though the reasons for this appear to be primarily cost-related, there are also issues pertaining to ownership of the ROW and adjacent areas; how and by whom surveillance equipment would be installed, monitored, and archived; and a number of other unan- swered questions. • Publicizing successful applications of video surveil- lance may result in diversifying funding sources for system installation and upgrading. Because crime/ vandalism prevention remains the single largest use of video surveillance by transit systems, agencies might work more closely with local media when malefactors are observed and caught in the act of committing a crime or when video images play a role in post-event investigation of a crime. Publicity given to these types of events may assist agencies in obtaining local fund- ing for installation and upgrading of video systems, resulting in less reliance on the competitive grant structure developed by DHS. However, media attention may result in criticism by groups opposed to the expan- sion of surveillance systems in public spaces. Although many conclusions are possible based on the analysis of the questionnaire data, the literature review, and other research sources, a number of important areas that require additional study have been developed. This section briefly expands on the areas for future study enumerated in the summary. • Measuring the value of surveillance systems in enhanc- ing patrons’ perceptions of security in transit stations, platforms, or shelters and onboard railcars. The major application of video surveillance systems is for crime/ vandalism prevention, but few agencies have surveyed patrons on whether the systems add to their feelings of security. Studies could gauge patron awareness of the use of surveillance, whether it adds to their feel- ings of security, and whether it influences their deci- sions on whether to ride masstransit. Related to this are questions of whether patrons should always be informed that such systems are in use, how they would be informed of this, specific wording that meets any existing local or state legislative mandates and legal requirements, and the best methods for creating such awareness (i.e., public address announcements, sig- nage, seat notices, and/or local media coverage). An indirect benefit of such studies might be to establish a cost/benefit methodology for determining either the intrinsic or psychological value of whether install- ing surveillance systems directly or indirectly affects patronage, particularly ridership. • Measuring employee responses to surveillance systems. This synthesis found that few transit agencies have included employee representatives in decisions involv- ing surveillance applications or in their perceptions of whether such systems are to their benefit or exist pri- marily to oversee and report on their activities. Further study could help to determine how employees perceive surveillance systems in their work locations and, if their perceptions are that surveillance enhances their safety and security, whether they might be encouraged to become involved as advocates for surveillance system expenditures. By contrast, if employees are found to per- ceive surveillance systems negatively (e.g., existing pri- marily to enhance disciplinary proceedings), joint labor/ management committees might be formed to create a more positive image of the value of video surveillance as a workplace safety and security feature. • Policy development in the area of image access and retention, and on legal issues surrounding pub- lic access to images. One of the largest variations in replies to survey questions was in the areas of image access and retention. Retention ranged for virtu- ally none at all unless something exceptional was observed to more than a year, including up to 3 years in one agency. Similarly, although most agencies indi- cated that only “designated individuals” could access images, the list of such individuals was broad. Of the

59 41 agencies that answered the specific question on pub- lic access policies, 17 indicated they had none. Many civil liberties groups have filed or indicate that they are planning to file lawsuits on the proliferation of sur- veillance systems in public areas. A review of existing laws, court decisions and pending litigation, and any existing model policies in these areas would provide much-needed guidance to transit agencies and could preclude costly and time-consuming litigation. • Establishing forums to share best practices and assess equipment performance. This synthesis found what appear to be insufficient opportunities to share best practices. Two-pronged research is suggested. An ini- tial study might consider what departments or officers within an agency are internal stakeholders in the pur- chase or expansion of surveillance systems and delve into how participants decide from whom to seek fund- ing. Among those that might be surveyed are police/ security, safety and risk management, rail operations, information technology, purchasing, and service and maintenance. With this information, further study could develop recommendations for an appropriate forum or forums for stakeholders to share information on best practices to assess the performance of particu- lar equipment in the transit environment. • Leveraging internal stakeholder input. Each case study agency reinforced that obtaining funding for surveil- lance installation and upgrading required an agency- wide effort. Internal stakeholders include police/ security, safety, risk managers, information technol- ogy, and budgetary personnel, as well as those who regularly apply to external funding sources. Many of these individuals meet regularly through existing secu- rity and safety committees. Questionnaire responses indicated that employee organizations are infrequently involved in surveillance utilization decision. Studies focusing on the interrelationships of these groups might bring about more nuanced decisions on how and where to deploy surveillance technology. • Leveraging external stakeholder input. External stakeholders may influence a transit agency’s decision to install or expand its use of video surveillance. No research could be located on how community crime prevention groups, including women’s safety advo- cacy groups, might assist in obtaining funds or mak- ing decisions whether and where to install electronic surveillance systems. Existing research confirms that women are more likely to indicate fear of victimization and that public transit locations rank high on areas they find threatening. Transit agencies might consider part- nering with women’s groups to publicize their crime- prevention efforts through events that could enhance their participation in the local community and lead to ridership increases. • Technical studies of surveillance technology. Transit agency environments differ from office buildings or retail establishments. Weather conditions, varying hours of operation, absence of climate control, lighting levels, and the like add to the technical complexities of selecting and maintaining a surveillance system. A series of studies focused more specifically on systems’ needs and vendors’ claims could minimize expendi- tures and maximize value. Because of the large num- ber of transit agency offices involved in surveillance technology decisions, there is a need to look beyond the decision itself by also considering how the agency will define concepts of value and performance, what expertise exists within the agency to validate vendor claims, and what ancillary benefits are sought (e.g., will the surveillance system be part of an automatic train control system, is it viewed primarily as a secu- rity feature or in terms of fare collection or parking fee collection control, or as part of a more general safety- related risk mitigation system). Answers to these ques- tions are likely to influence the type of technology being considered and to help determine what consti- tutes “value”—a term that has different meanings to different rail agency officials. Some officials may think in financial terms and others may think in terms of less well-defined areas such as patron perception, terrorism or crime prevention, or mitigation against litigation. • Studies specifically on the emerging issues in ROW surveillance. Although relatively few agencies provide ROW surveillance, system liability concerns—par- ticularly in crossing-gate areas or accidents involving light rail vehicles and road vehicles, and the possibility of terrorist-inspired vandalism to tracks—make pro- tecting ROWs an issue to be studied separately from surveillance use in patron and employee areas. There are indications that ROW surveillance will become an issue of increasing focus by transit agencies and by the federal government, including decisions on install- ing video surveillance along key portions of systems’ ROWs. Studies into the costs and related issues involved in protecting ROWs could be undertaken now, before opinions are set based on assumptions rather than on reviews of the legal issues or existing case studies. • Studies focusing on the emerging issue of operator/cab surveillance. The Metrolink directive and subsequent litigation indicate that video surveillance in operator/ cab areas will remain controversial for some time to come. Transit agencies should consider looking into the costs of implementation and labor/management issues, rather than awaiting federal rule-making in this area. • Possibilities for partnering with other transit agencies or railroads. A number of transit agencies have over- lapping jurisdictions with other transit agencies, shar- ing either stations or ROWs. Studies could determine whether agencies might share the costs and respon- sibilities of installation and maintenance of video surveillance systems, particularly where public tran- sit agencies share track with privately owned freight

60 railroads. Research might assist in developing plans for surveillance systems along ROWs that currently depend solely on relatively uncoordinated patrols by law enforcement or security personnel from a num- ber of different jurisdictions. Partnering among tran- sit agencies or with private railroads may also expand funding sources beyond the current dependence on DHS and, to a lesser degree, FTA. • Possibilities for partnering with local government. A number of transit agencies, including case study agen- cies, are located in cities that are vastly increasing their video surveillance networks. Studies of regional traf- fic management plans might assist the transit agencies whose jurisdiction may go beyond the boundaries of a particular municipality to be considered in such plans for surveillance systems, particularly where light rail vehicles share roadway with other vehicles or where grade crossings play a role in overall traffic planning and risk mitigation. Such research might help transit agencies obtain funds as part of municipal planning rather than having to act separately from other govern- ment entities. It might assist the agencies in participat- ing more fully in larger traffic management studies and related funding requests. As with partnering with pri- vate railroads, partnering with local government may expand the funding sources on which rail transit agen- cies have come to depend. These and similar studies would help transit agency man- agers make better use of their existing resources and find imaginative solutions to more efficiently use video surveil- lance technology.