Practices to Protect Bus Operators from Passenger Assault (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.

33 Technology, including onboard technologies, operator bar- riers, and information management are covered in this chapter. Onboard technologies such as radio or phone communications and emergency communications—silent alarm/panic button and an electronic distress sign linked to panic buttons—are installed in most North American bus fleets and are helpful to operators in summoning assistance. Video surveillance was cited by survey respondents as one of the most effective security measures. Video surveillance systems can deter crimes against operators as well as pas- sengers and help police identify and prosecute assailants. Recordings are used for incident review and training pur- poses. Profile participants noted the versatility of the mea- sure and its ability to effectively address multiple issues. Audio surveillance systems have similar benefits and also assist police and agency management in determining what was said during verbal altercations. There is a trend toward the use of digital video and audio surveillance systems and wireless uploading of recordings. A few agencies also have the capability to stream real-time video and audio to police cruisers. In the past decade or so, AVL deployment has increased significantly; AVL systems shorten response times by providing the exact location of a bus to dispatch or police. Barriers have not been used extensively in transit buses in North America except in a few cities. Miami–Dade Tran- sit, one of the two early adopters of the security measure, reported that barriers installed in its bus fleet have been very effective in preventing operator assault, even though the barrier provides only partial protection. Recently, sev- eral transit agencies have begun testing and installing them. The results of the tests, and agency and bus operator feed- back, are included in this section. Full-compartment designs in use in European systems have not yet been evaluated by bus transit systems in the United States as of the writing of this report. Information management assists transit police and law enforcement in addressing and solving crime and in strategically allocating resources. Information manage- ment includes crime management and information/data analysis by monitoring trends in assault types and perpetra- tors, intelligence gathering, and assessment. CompStat uses information management tools to manage and monitor police officers. BARRIERS Barriers shield the bus operator from passengers and are believed to be useful in protecting bus operators against pas- senger assault. Partial barriers have been used and are being tested by U.S. and Canadian agencies. These barriers are usu- ally made from Plexiglas. Plexiglas is a clear, lightweight material, which is thermoplastic (flexible and elastic in high heat). It is characterized by high-impact strength and shatter- resistant properties, which make it an ideal substitute for glass. However, the one factory in the United States that manufac- tures Plexiglas has been out of commission for almost a year, causing difficulties for transit agencies to procure Plexiglas barriers. Full-compartment barriers are being used by some European systems. The first adopters of operator barriers in the United States were Miami–Dade Transit and San Francisco MUNI. Miami–Dade Transit has had a positive experience with barriers and believes the barriers have been very effective in protecting its bus operators against assault, even though it only provides partial protection. It is important that in the design of the barriers, appropriate SAE standards and recom- mended practices be consulted, including SAE J833 Human Physical Dimensions. APTA’s bus procurement guidelines contain sections on the operator’s area, objects and instru- ments within the area, and barriers between seated passengers and the operator. Though these guidelines do not specifically address barriers between the operator and boarding passen- gers, they can also help agencies develop a request for pro- posal (RFP) that includes specifications for these barriers. The importance of minimizing glare in the operator’s work area and reducing the reflection of light onto the windshield is clearly stated in the guidelines. The section on “Driver Area Barrier” TS 73.1 between the operator and the front passenger seat notes that “the barrier shall minimize glare and reflections in the windshield directly in front of the barrier from the inte- rior lighting during night operation.” In addition, the section states that “location and shape must permit full seat travel and reclining possibilities that can accommodate the shoulders of a 95th-percentile male.” Isolation of the panel for noise control is also mentioned (24). Several agencies have pilot-tested or have recently installed barriers. Glare and the reflection of the shields in operators’ mirrors and windows were mentioned as con- cerns by the profile agencies. The second concern is related CHAPTER FOUR OPERATOR PROTECTION MEASURES:TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

to customer service. Bus operators typically communicate with passengers using gestures to help convey information and use visual cues from customers to better understand their questions or issues. Also, operators often assist passengers experiencing problems with the fare payment system by showing them how to swipe the smart card or doing it for them. This aspect of customer service would therefore be hin- dered by the physical barrier between the operator and pas- senger. In addition, some bus operators have reported feelings of anxiety and claustrophobia. They have also expressed con- cerns that partial barriers may allow a determined attacker to slide open the barrier or go around it to reach the operator. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages • Bus operator perspective—increased perception of secu- rity and management support for operators. • Availability of optional barriers—operators who believe they are more secure using the barriers can use them, whereas those who dislike them have the option of not using them. Disadvantages • Bus operator perspective—feelings of confinement, glare and reflection, noise. • Customer service—communication barrier between operators and customers, operators may be less able to assist customers with fare payment. • Perception of security—public and passenger percep- tion of bus security may diminish: if barriers are needed to protect bus operators, the passengers may start to question their own security. Agency Experience Miami–Dade Transit, Miami, Florida Miami–Dade Transit (MDT) is Florida’s largest transit agency, serving Miami, the fifth largest urbanized area in the United States. Some 741 buses delivered 29.2 million revenue-miles and produced more than 83 million passenger trips in 2007. MDT’s bus enclosures were deployed as a response to a rash of assaults in the late 1990s. The assaults involved punching, spitting, and urine being thrown at the operator. MDT noted that the barriers were their most effec- tive security measure against bus operator assault and men- tioned that “the compartment door provides only partial protection, but serves as a good deterrent.” The partial enclo- sure, shown in Figure 14, is attached to the operator’s mod- esty panel in the form of a hinged door made of metal and Plexiglas. The enclosures cost $1,600 to $1,900 per bus, including installation, and are built into each bus purchased by MDT according to its specifications. 34 MDT Operator Enclosure Specifications are as follows: An operator’s area enclosure shall be provided for the operator’s security and personal protection. The enclosure shall prevent pas- sengers from reaching the operator or operator’s personal effects. A rear barrier between the operator and the left front passenger seat shall extend from the floor level to the ceiling. A side barrier shall be located on the right side of the operator’s area extending from the rear barrier forward. The exterior skin of the rear and side barrier shall be constructed of stainless steel with a slight corru- gated texture. It shall be constructed so as to prevent unauthorized entry or intrusion into the operator’s area, yet allow the operator to converse with passengers. All passenger seat positions shall be visible to the operator either directly or by mirror. The barrier shall not hinder the operator’s performance in any manner. It shall not be a source of any rattling or noise. A door, which can be secured from the inside, shall allow for easy access into and out of the operator’s area. The handle to open the enclosure door shall be flush-mounted so that clothing or other articles cannot be caught on it. The upper portion of the enclosure door shall be a fixed 1⁄2 ″ polycarbonate window [that] must not interfere with the opera- tor’s view through the front windshield or the rearview mirrors. The window shall be covered on both sides with a removable, clear scratch guard, Lexan Nu-View or approved equivalent. Operator’s area trim must be satin black. San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, San Francisco, California The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SF MUNI) in San Francisco, which carries 200 million customers annually, is another early adopter of barriers. The implemen- tation of the barriers took place with the input of MUNI’s operators. They are currently installed on 10% of the buses and are available at the request of the operator (see Fig- ures 15 and 16). MUNI bus operators are satisfied with them. No study has been done by MUNI with regard to the actual effectiveness of the barriers at preventing operator assaults. Milwaukee County Transit System, Milwaukee, Wisconsin The Milwaukee County Transit System (MCTS) serves the city of Milwaukee and its suburbs, and has 429 buses and FIGURE 14 Miami–Dade Transit barrier. (Courtesy: Miami– Dade Transit.)

35 operates 55 routes. In 2008, average weekday ridership was 140,000. MCTS has been testing operator barriers, with the MCTS Maintenance Director leading this program. With input from its bus operators, the agency developed the prototype, ordered supplies, and constructed and installed 25 barriers on MCTS buses in March 2009. The shields, which cost $650 each, were evaluated by more than 600 bus operators over a 6-month period. A survey of operators and passengers indi- cated that the shield needed to be extended, the latch needed improvement, and a magnetic catch installed to reduce vibra- tion of the shields. Glare concerns were expressed by 40% of the survey respondents, even though an adhesive glare- control window film had been added. To address these con- cerns, the barriers were extended by 18 in., the angle of the bar- rier was changed, and vertical slots were added, as shown in Figure 17. The slots are expected to improve noise and ventila- tion issues. The improved prototypes were developed and eval- uated in September 2009. Although the glare concern had been addressed, the union requested further changes to the hinge and magnetic latch. Further testing is currently being conducted. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Rochester, New York The Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) serves a seven-county area with a population of 1.2 million in Rochester, New York. The Authority has a 400- bus fleet, 800 employees, and an annual ridership of 15 mil- lion. RGRTA has installed barriers in some of its buses, as shown in Figures 18 and 19, in response to the homicide of an operator. The cost of the barrier was $1,317 per bus, includ- ing installation. One manufacturer used by RGRTA was able to provide the barriers according to RGRTA’s specifications, whereas another was not able to. RGRTA has also fabricated its own barrier for its newly acquired articulated buses. The RGRTA mandates use of the barrier and discourages the tie- back of the barrier, which its operators do at times with garbage bags. NYC Transit, New York, New York New York City Transit (NYCT), the largest transit agency in the United States, operates more than 4,500 buses, has 12,500 bus stops, 208 local and 36 express routes, and serves 2.3 million customers on an average weekday in New York City’s five boroughs. After the brutal murder of bus operator Edwin Thomas by a passenger angry about not receiving a transfer, NYCT decided to test operator shields. In 2009, several NYCT buses in the Flatbush Depot were outfitted with test barriers from different manufacturers developed with input from a safety committee of about 15 operators from the TWU Local 100. The latest test barrier FIGURE 15 SF MUNI barrier. (Courtesy: SF MUNI.) FIGURE 16 SF MUNI barrier, upper portion. (Courtesy: SF MUNI.)

is made of glass because the factory producing Plexiglas sus- pended production. The testing of the glass barrier has been completed and the procurement process is slated to begin soon. NYCT plans to install these barriers on all new buses, although older ones may be retrofitted. Once installed, the barriers will be mandatory. The operator feedback was mixed, with some feeling more secure with the barriers, whereas others felt 36 uncomfortable and had feelings of claustrophobia. The Local did not consider any of the tested barriers to be fully effective against assaults because there is space above the farebox area that makes it possible for an assailant to attack the opera- tor. Therefore, the Local prefers implementation of a full enclo- sure, similar to the one used in Lisbon, Portugal, which offers operators the option of keeping it open. As shown in the photos in Figures 20 to 22, this barrier is a full enclosure extending from the floor of the bus to its ceiling. It has a sliding partition, allowing the operator the option of keeping the enclosure open or opening a small “window” to assist and interact with pas- sengers, and provide transfers. The “window” moves up and down at the option of the bus operator. It is usually left open until a threat is perceived by the bus operator; then it is closed, and the police called if needed. Coast Mountain Bus Company, British Columbia, Canada Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC) provides 700,000 daily trips on 201 bus routes and serves the 1,800-km2 Greater Vancouver region, the largest transit service area in Canada. The key issue for CMBC has been the glare in oper- ator mirrors caused by the barriers. Secondary issues for operators have included the reduced ability of operators to communicate with passengers, ventilation restrictions, dis- comfort, and fear that they might become trapped. An agency concern was that barriers might cause operators to become more aggressive. The glare issue in operator mirrors was addressed by trimming the barriers. CMBC evaluated the New Flyer’s prototype shield and determined that it does not have the capability to prevent assaults. The shield would have cost $1,000 to $1,200 each. CMBC has not been able to find a product meeting their needs despite extensive commu- nications and visits with other transit agencies and vendors. CMBC has decided to work directly with a plastics fabrica- tion company to design a shield that will meet the agency’s specifications. FIGURE 17 Milwaukee County Transit System prototype barrier with slots. (Courtesy: Milwaukee County Transit System.) FIGURE 18 Rochester Genesee RTA barrier, closed. (Courtesy: Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority.) FIGURE 19 Rochester Genesee RTA barrier, open. (Courtesy: Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority.)

37 Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto, Canada The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) serves the greater Toronto metropolitan region. TTC has approximately 12,000 employees, 1,644 buses, 140 bus routes, and operated 124 million bus kilometers in 2010. TTC began installing barriers in 2009, so its entire bus fleet could have them by the end of 2010. The lower portion is metal and the upper portion is Plexiglas, as shown in the photo in Figure 23. Because the union was not in favor of mandatory barriers, TTC decided to make the barriers optional—although the bottom half of the barrier is closed during revenue service, the top half can be opened or closed at the discretion of the operator. There have been concerns noted by the opera- tors about glare in the front and side windows caused by the barriers. Winnipeg Transit, Manitoba, Canada Winnipeg Transit serves Winnipeg, the capital of Manitoba, an ethnically diverse city. Winnipeg Transit is evaluating various safety barriers, including a sliding barrier and enclo- sures. Many of Winnipeg’s operators have voiced various con- cerns about shields and do not currently support the installation of the barriers. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND CRIME ANALYSIS Information management includes intelligence gathering, crime data analysis, and strategic resource allocation. Although many transit agencies perform some type of crime monitoring, as noted in TCRP Synthesis 80, the larger transit agencies tend to employ more advanced crime management and analysis procedures such as CompStat (COMParative STATistics) to manage crime in a systematic manner. Comp- Stat is a crime management tool that uses crime mapping technology, crime data analysis, and accountability meetings to identify trends and areas of potential incidents and hotspots. The effectiveness of various policing measures and relative performance of precincts or units can be assessed using CompStat. FIGURE 20 Lisbon enclosure, passenger service window open. (Courtesy: Dr. Frank Goldsmith, TWU Local 100.) FIGURE 21 Lisbon enclosure. (Courtesy: Dr. Frank Goldsmith, TWU Local 100.)

Advantages • Intelligence and crime analysis allow for more efficient and effective resource allocation, including officer deployment throughout the system. • Crime analysis provides insights into crime trends, spe- cific crime categories, hot spots, problematic time peri- ods, and perpetrators; use of specific algorithms/models may help law enforcement predict crime hotbeds. • CAD systems incorporate mapping technology to dis- patch units to incidents, keep track of ongoing inci- dents, and provide officers with remote access to the systems. Agency Experience Edmonton Transit System, Alberta, Canada Edmonton Transit System (ETS) is one of the larger transit systems in Canada, with 900 buses, more than 6,200 bus stops, 189 routes, and a light rail system. ETS has a service area of 700 km2 and a service area population of 782,439. Two serious incidents in 2004 prompted ETS to conduct a 38 thorough security review. A crime analysis unit was initiated as part of a larger information management strategy. The Daily Crime Forecast, which was implemented in January 2006, provides actionable intelligence in a user-friendly for- mat. The forecast analyzes 12 months of data to identify trends and patterns, and uses spatial hot spots optimized for time of day, day of week, day of month, and month. The fore- cast, automatically updated daily, includes the latest trends and focuses on all crime types for which there is an identified incident time. The forecast is based on the notion that it is more prudent to send officers to locations/times with higher crime predictability, and incorporates a predictability crime score. Although overall crime rates did not change signifi- cantly after the implementation of this information manage- ment strategy, the manner in which officers responded to incidents did. There was a 52% decrease in reactive calls for service. There was a proportionate increase in officer- initiated calls, where officers intervene before a call for service was made. Early intervention means that criminal activity, including operator assault, and level of violence are minimized. ETS has received a Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) award for these efforts. ETS Records Management System and Security Portal— ETS uses an electronic records management system that captures all relevant incident information and FIGURE 22 Lisbon enclosure. (Courtesy: Dr. Frank Goldsmith, TWU Local 100.) FIGURE 23 Toronto Transit Commission barrier. (Courtesy: Toronto Transit Commission.)

39 makes it immediately available to all other users of the system. This type of information sharing has assisted ETS police in apprehending assailants and other crim- inals, and bringing them to justice. The system utilizes a customized web portal to streamline its intelligence dissemination process. The intelligence disseminated includes the daily forecast, daily security highlights, Be on the Lookout For (BOLF) bulletins with infor- mation about missing and wanted persons, information about individuals who have been banned from ETS and modifications to those bans, street information reports with reports of suspicious activity, special duty calendar, special events calendar, special projects, dis- cussion board for officers, monthly security incident summaries, and administrative links and forms. ETS CAD system—ETS Computer Aided Call-Taking and Dispatch (CAD) system allows security resources to be dispatched to incidents, viewing of unit status updates, clearing units from incidents, and updating incident type or location. The CAD “intelligent” map- ping and data-entry system seamlessly integrates an interactive, real-time map display with call handling, dispatching, records and information management, remote access, and mobile data. Front-line officers on the street have remote access to the CAD system and have secure access to live information and the ability to search for needed information. It is the same CAD software in use by the Edmonton Police Service. Trespasser Tracker—There are, on average, more than 125 persons banned from the system at any one time. To assist officers in tracking and locating banned individu- als, the Trespasser Tracker application was created. It provides photos of the individuals and information about where the offender is likely to be, and when. This information is ranked by how reliable it is. Scheduling software—ETS Security uses a custom-built shift scheduling software application allowing peace officers to manage shift coverage and record time worked for payroll generation. ETS Security also uses a custom-built employee database containing officer information. In addition, a Fare Evasion Database was developed specifically to address fare evasion monitoring requirements. CompStat—ETS Security adapted the CompStat process that was originally created by NYC Transit Police and subsequently adopted for use by NYPD for the entire city of New York in the mid-1990s. To facilitate CompStat’s crime management process, in 2004 to 2005 ETS Security developed performance measures that are presented in a dashboard format. The follow- ing performance measures are used to motivate and monitor performance of their security unit, officers, and officer teams: • Crimes per 1 million riders, percent difference from previous year categorized into violent crime, prop- erty crime, and other crime; • Percent correlation between incidents and deploy- ments; • Hot spot ratio—the amount of time officers spend in hot spots divided by the amount of time hot spots exist during the officers’ shifts; • Reporting—the amount of time, in days, it takes to complete a report; • Officer-initiated reporting (street information checks and trespass reports); and • Number of reports submitted by officers. Another transit agency currently using CompStat is the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Other agencies use selected elements of these crime manage- ment techniques. Incident mapping, for instance, is a com- pelling and easily implementable way to understand the geographical location of crimes and is also used by transit agencies such as the TTC to map assaults and distribute the information to operators. VIDEO SURVEILLANCE Video surveillance is widely used by transit agencies and is believed to address a number of important issues, including crime and terrorism, accident and incident investigations, and passenger injury claims. Video surveillance was considered the most effective technology by survey participants in the pre- vention of operator assaults. Although the capital expenditure to deploy video surveillance for a bus fleet can be significant, its versatility and ability to meet multiple needs of transit agen- cies make video surveillance a desirable security measure. Agencies have been moving toward wireless systems that enable easy uploading of video recordings. The systems also offer the ability to set up real-time transmission of video to a dispatch vehicle or police cruiser. However, this capability is not being widely utilized owing to the additional costs and complexity of adding this functionality. Intelligent video ana- lytics are under study by transit agencies for use by rail modes and for transit facilities; they have the potential to be used in onboard bus applications to automatically identify and alert dispatchers or law enforcement of suspicious behavior. Privacy concerns by operators have been successfully addressed by informing operators of the primary non- disciplinary purpose of the surveillance or by configuring the system so the cameras are not directed towards operators. Many disputes and incidents, however, occur near the operator’s seat- ing area and would not be captured with this configuration. Sev- eral agencies noted that their operators and unions were initially against the installation of video surveillance technology, but after implementation, operators realized the usefulness of the system and have now accepted it. Privacy concerns by the pub- lic can be addressed by placing appropriate signage visible to passengers as they board the bus. Because video surveillance is now prevalent in many public places, the public has become accustomed to video surveillance and many passengers wel- come it. One agency noted that because only a portion of their fleet is equipped with video surveillance, they assign buses so equipped to routes with higher incidences of crime.

Advantages • Agency perspective—serves multiple purposes, includ- ing the deterrence of assaults and crime, provision of legal evidence, and facilitation of the disposition of cases/incidents. Significant savings can be realized by eliminating or mitigating fraudulent claims. Video is also useful as a training and post-incident analysis tool. Wireless systems are able to transmit performance reports of equipment to the agency and can automati- cally save tagged video to the agency server. In addition, video systems are scalable—the number of cameras on each bus and the number of buses with cameras can be increased as needed when budget allows. • Bus operator perspective—increased perception of secu- rity; video recordings can support their version of an inci- dent, and can be used to support worker’s compensation claims. If an operator is physically assaulted or verbally threatened, the video provides legal evidence of the attack and can be used to identify and prosecute the attacker. • As noted by an agency, their bus operators who have reminded aggressive or threatening passengers that they are being recorded have been able to stave off the escalation of disputes. • Customer perspective—increased perception of security. Disadvantages • Bus operator perspective—feelings of invasion of pri- vacy, feelings of unease about video being used for disci- plinary purposes, and questionable effectiveness against assaults that are spontaneous in nature. • Customer perspective—feelings of invasion of privacy. • Requires substantial capital investment and yearly operations and maintenance (O&M); requires time and effort to transfer video from a bus to a central server, especially if the system is not wireless; also, time and effort are needed to tag/store video and retrieve video. • Other requests, including those for public disclosure, may increase. Agency Experience Greater Bridgeport Transit Authority, Bridgeport, Connecticut Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) provides local, regional, and express bus services in the Bridgeport metropolitan area, including Milford, Norwalk, Derby, and Monroe. GBT uses video surveillance but does not record audio, because Con- necticut state law requires consent of both parties to record audio. The video surveillance system was installed 6 to 7 years ago and has been very beneficial in reducing false lia- bility claims and deterring assaults. If there is an incident, the operator tags the video by pressing a button. The video is then uploaded manually onto a PC after the bus returns to the 40 depot. Currently, wireless uploading is not possible because of bandwidth issues. Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Rochester, New York The video system installed in 2005 in most of the RGRTA fleet is a mobile digital video recording system. According to the RGRTA risk manager, the RGRTA’s video system is extremely cost-effective. Because 75% of its lawsuits are friv- olous, fraudulent, or exaggerated, the agency saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by using video evidence to eliminate or effectively address these claims. Video evidence has allowed RGRTA to institute a no-pay policy for nuisance and fraudu- lent claims, and has helped RGRTA resolve more than 50 false liability claims out of court and successfully defended itself against another 25. One case alone can amount to $15,000 for defense, $7,000 for medical expenses, and $100,000 for a set- tlement in the absence of the video evidence. With regard to the impact on the assault rate, the overall impact is unchanged at this time because the routes that have not been equipped with video surveillance are the ones that serve Rochester schools and have the highest assault rates. RGRTA had originally equipped its standard-sized buses with five cameras, but added three more to capture incidents occurring outside the bus. RGRTA operators or staff tag video for uploading when there is an assault and in response to customer complaints, accidents, slips and falls, and onboard incidents. The download process occurs at the depot and is efficient because it uses a wireless system. RGRTA works with law enforcement to locate and iden- tify the assailant and provides police with still images of the assailant. Once caught, the assailant is aggressively prose- cuted. Video recordings are provided to the district attorney’s office. To ensure that the video recording can be used as legal evidence, the video needs to be time- and date-stamped, and a chain of custody established for pulling and storing it. RGRTA’s transit staff are prepared to attest to the authentic- ity of the video evidence and explain how the system records and stores video. The new digital video system provides more coverage of the operator. Initially, the union was concerned, but the agency assured the union that video would only be pulled in event of an incident. Operators now accept the video system and are open to using it as a training tool. Many who see themselves on video during an incident are shocked by their own behavior. King County Metro Transit, Seattle, Washington Metro Transit serves King County residents with a fleet of 1,300 vehicles within a 2,134 mi2 service area. Currently, Metro Transit has 275 buses with cameras and is expecting to

41 have another 100 buses equipped by end of 2010 and another 200 in the next few years. Therefore, by end of 2012, over half of the fleet of 1,400 buses should have video and audio sur- veillance. Metro Transit’s video surveillance system consists of four to eight cameras per bus—on 60-ft buses, six to eight cameras and on 40-ft buses, at least four cameras. Rapid Ride System buses have 10 cameras. The system has been useful for multiple purposes, including capturing and prosecuting assailants who attack Metro Transit operators and the mitiga- tion of purse snatchings. Instances in which it has been used include the following: • An intoxicated person boarded the bus and took a seat without paying and was asked for the fare by the opera- tor. By the time he located his fare, another passenger was boarding. The intoxicated individual became impa- tient and belligerent, and when the operator asked him to exit the bus, he punched the operator on the side of his head. When the photo of the individual taken from the video camera was provided to the Department of Cor- rections, they immediately identified him. He was taken into custody and is now serving 41 months in prison. • One night in January 2010, the operator was following the policy of keeping the back door of the bus closed during evening and late-night hours. When she refused to open the back door, teenage passengers on the bus became angry and beat her to unconsciousness. The video recording of the assault enabled police to identify and capture her attackers. IndyGo, Indianapolis, Indiana IndyGo provided more than 8 million passenger trips in 2009, has 481 employees, 28 fixed routes, and more than 5,000 bus stops within the city of Indianapolis. IndyGo utilizes both video and audio recording devices on each bus. The equip- ment has wireless functionality, allowing wireless uploading of recordings. IndyGo has had several instances (supported by video evidence) where the operator has reminded trouble- some or unruly passengers that they are being recorded, and the hostile threats from the passengers have stopped. In the last year, IndyGo has had only two operator assaults. IndyGo’s union grieved the installation of the equipment and the use of the equipment to be used in matters of discipline after the fact. Significant time and effort was expended on this matter. The arbitrator ruled in IndyGo’s favor, noting that the agency man- agement has the full right to pull video at any time, and any operator can be disciplined based on findings from the video. However, IndyGo management decided to pull video only to investigate customer complaints, accidents, and other reported problems; IndyGo managers still keep a log showing the rea- son each piece of video is pulled. In general, bus operators have now accepted the video surveillance system. IndyGo has not had any chain-of-custody issues. When the police request video for evidence, IndyGo provides them with the original hard drive and retains a copy of it. Additionally, the system data is “water-marked” so IndyGo can prove that video and audio have not been altered. Each bus has signage inform- ing passengers that video and audio recording is taking place, and that passengers who do not wish to be recorded can choose not to use IndyGo. IndyGo has also extensively communicated the existence of the video and audio recording technology to its riders and to the general public. Public perception of the tech- nology has been excellent. The cost was about $6,000 per bus, and O&M cost is $170,000 per year for 220 buses. The O&M contract provides for the complete replacement of defective parts and a full-time on-site technician. Miami–Dade Transit, Miami, Florida MDT operates more than 1,000 buses and started deployment of video surveillance on its buses in 1999 as a response to the increase in assaults that had occurred in the early to mid-1990s. About 80% of the bus fleet now has digital video surveillance—there are five cameras on each bus; new buses have six cameras. There are also three cameras on the outside of the bus. Concurrent audio recording also takes place from one of the channels from the DVR in the bus operator’s com- partment. The most recent 75 buses and future purchases have cameras that face the operator. Concerns about the surveil- lance system were voiced by the union some time ago, but now the union and operators acknowledge the effectiveness of the cameras in deterring assaults against bus operators and other crime. In 2005 to 2006, MDT began installing a new video surveillance system in its new buses and started replac- ing its older devices as warranties expired. MDT also pur- chased a GPS option that allows it to identify the location and speed of the vehicle for tagged video. Legacy DVRs had required MDT staff to board the bus to upload video and make changes at the start and end times of Daylight Savings Time. For MDT, the primary issue concerning the video systems revolves around the amount of additional work and effort needed to make good use of the video. The effort involves a considerable amount of labor in terms of staff to burn, store, track, view videos and write reports on a daily basis. In addi- tion, further investigations of some of the incidents need to be conducted, and copies may need to be made for local law enforcement or for departments within the agency for inter- nal use. The newer buses have wireless uploading capabil- ity that reduces the workload on the staff. As the buses pull into the depot, the video recordings for the day are automat- ically uploaded onto a main server. MDT is working toward the ability to view video from its surveillance cameras in real-time. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg, Florida Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) serves 12.2 mil- lion riders a year. Pinellas Transit’s entire bus fleet has four to

five cameras in each bus and external cameras as well (one forward-facing camera and, for half of the fleet, a curbside camera; in the future, a driver-side camera will be added). Real-time wireless transmission capability, though desired, is not possible at this time because of bandwidth issues. Wire- less uploading of video and audio recordings will be possible with the new system. Pinellas Transit also cooperates with St. Petersburg, Clearwater, and other local law enforcement by making video and audio recordings available to them upon request. Because the recordings have been requested fre- quently for all types of crime, addressing these requests has been time-consuming for Pinellas transit staff. The surveil- lance system recordings have been used on a daily basis by the agency for incidents between operators and passengers, passenger complaints, accident investigations, and liability claims and have been useful in prosecuting criminals. PSTA’s new video and audio surveillance system cost less than $1 million and will have wireless download capability. This system will be funded through stimulus grants. Coast Mountain Bus Company, British Columbia, Canada Since the first phase of camera installation was completed in 2009, benefits in terms of identifying, locating, and prose- cuting operator assailants have been seen by CMBC. There have also been numerous requests from various jurisdictional police for video clips of criminals. In addition, the video footage has facilitated accident investigations and passenger and driver claims. Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto, Canada Video cameras (see Figure 24) were installed in the entire TTC fleet between 2005 and 2006 at a cost of $17 million. The deployment of the surveillance system was prompted by increased violence in the system, in particular, the wounding of a girl in 2004, and the shooting of an operator in 2005. When a crime occurs on TTC buses, the photo of the assailant is obtained from the video recording and posted in TTC’s operating divisions (depots). There are five cameras in each bus, and one forward-facing camera on the windshield (see Figure 25). Video serves as legal evidence and has been extremely useful in prosecuting assailants. Also, operators have a favorable opinion of the video system because the technology is able to support their versions of incidents. AUDIO SURVEILLANCE Studies have shown that verbal assaults can often be precur- sors to physical assaults (25). Therefore, addressing verbal assaults can prevent physical attacks, provide data on the types of verbal assaults that are occurring, and help create training content and response strategies for bus operators. Typically, video surveillance systems also offer audio sur- 42 veillance capability. There are two “live” microphones within the bus, each attached to one of the cameras. One is usually near the operator’s seating area and the second one may be placed in the middle of the bus. Legal issues may arise in states in which two-party consent is necessary for audio recordings. For instance, Connecticut state law requires con- sent of both parties to record audio; this dissuaded GBT from pursuing audio surveillance. Agencies in these states that decide to implement audio surveillance have addressed the legal concerns by posting appropriate signage about the audio surveillance on their buses. Advantages • Agency perspective—serves multiple purposes, includ- ing the deterrence of assaults and crime; provision of legal evidence to help identify, capture, and prosecute offenders; and the efficient disposition of cases/incidents. Significant savings can be realized by eliminating or mitigating fraudulent claims. Audio is also useful as a training and post-incident analysis tool. If video surveil- lance system is already installed, audio capability should be present and does not require the installation of addi- tional equipment. Wireless systems are able to transmit performance reports of equipment to the agency and can automatically save tagged audio to the agency server. FIGURE 24 Video cameras in TTC buses. (Courtesy: Toronto Transit Commission.)

43 FIGURE 25 Images from four of the six video cameras in a TTC bus. (Courtesy: Toronto Transit Commission.)

• Bus operator perspective—increased perception of secu- rity; audio recordings can also support their version of an altercation or incident. If they are physically assaulted or verbally threatened, the recording can help law enforcement identify and capture the perpetrator. • Customer perspective—increased perception of security. Disadvantages • Bus operator perspective—feelings of invasion of pri- vacy, feelings of unease about audio being used for dis- ciplinary purposes. • Customer perspective—feelings of invasion of privacy. • Requires time and effort to transfer audio from a bus to a central server, especially if system is not wireless; also, time and effort are needed to tag, store, and retrieve audio. • Other requests, including those for public disclosure, may increase. Agency Experience Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority, Cleveland, Ohio GCRTA has installed digital video and audio surveillance on 21 of its 500 buses. Also, all future bus purchases will have both video and audio surveillance. Within the first week of use of the surveillance system, a GCRTA passenger sliced another passenger’s throat. Although the video recording had image clarity problems, the audio recording was instrumental in identifying, locating, and prosecuting the assailant. Metro Transit, Madison, Wisconsin Madison Metro serves the Madison, Wisconsin area. Metro recently completed installing a digital video and audio sys- tem on all of its 211 buses. Signage about the audio and video surveillance system is posted on Madison’s buses. Compared with the older super-8 system, the new digital system is sig- nificantly better in terms of video and audio quality and stor- age capacity. Inside the bus, the system has four cameras along with four audio microphones. The audio records simul- taneously with the video. The DVR stores up to 160 GB or about several days of information. When a driver or police reports an incident, agency staff manually obtains the data from the DVR by connecting it with a PC—this requires two full-time staff members. The surveillance system has been used frequently for multiple purposes—identifying and pros- ecuting assailants and other criminals, determining what occurred during an incident (e.g., disputes between operator and customer), facilitating accident investigations, assessing liability claims. Archived recordings, both audio and video, can be reviewed by police or others authorized to access the system. An incident that occurred on April 20, 2010 involved a middle-aged man who started fighting with a 15-year-old 44 boy. The operator succeeded in breaking up the fight, and the man exited the bus. However, he returned and assaulted the operator. The audio and video surveillance recording is being used to identify and prosecute the perpetrator of this incident. About a decade ago, when Metro’s original surveillance sys- tem was installed, unions and operators were apprehensive about it, fearing that it might be used to discipline operators. Therefore, the agency informed their operators that the sys- tem will not be used for disciplinary purposes and has been careful not to do so. The operators now perceive the system to be a positive one and support its use. King County Metro Transit, Seattle, Washington All King County Metro Transit buses with video surveillance also have audio surveillance. Because the state of Washington requires second-party consent for recordings, signs alerting customers to the video and audio surveillance system are posted on the bus. Passengers, however, are not often aware of the signage. Therefore, bus operators are taught to inform prob- lem passengers about the video and audio surveillance system and that their behavior and speech are being recorded. This has helped stop conflict situations from escalating into assaults. IndyGo, Indianapolis, Indiana IndyGo utilizes audio recording devices that are attached to video surveillance equipment on each bus. Each IndyGo bus is equipped with two audio microphones. There is a micro- phone at the front of the 40-ft bus that captures audio between the operator and passengers, and one near the center of the bus that captures conversations in the back portion of the bus. The audio records simultaneously with the video. IndyGo has not experienced any legal issues surrounding the use of audio surveillance equipment. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg, Florida PSTA installed audio along with video surveillance in its bus fleet in 2004. One microphone is attached to each camera, and uploading of video and audio recordings is wireless. To address the legal department’s concerns about the use of audio surveillance, signage regarding video and audio recordings was placed on all buses. VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, Texas VIA provides transit service to the San Antonio area, which spans 1,226 mi2. VIA served 46.8 million passengers in FY 2007–2008. VIA provides audio as well as video surveillance on board its buses. A separate audio system is connected with VIA’s video surveillance system. Recordings have been used by the agency and police to identify and prosecute offenders,

45 resolve disputes and claims, investigate accidents, and for operator training. AUTOMATIC VEHICLE LOCATION SYSTEM The TCRP Synthesis 73 report on AVL Systems for Bus Tran- sit: Update describes the AVL system “as the central software used by dispatchers for operations management that periodi- cally receives real-time updates on fleet vehicle locations” (26). AVL systems, along with CAD systems, assist dis- patchers in bus fleet management by providing them with real-time information about bus locations. AVL systems typ- ically consist of an onboard computer, GPS receiver, and mobile communications. The older signpost systems are less precise than GPS-based systems and cannot locate a bus that has gone off-route because signposts are only deployed along a bus route. Currently, most AVL systems use GPS systems. On dispatcher displays, buses can be color-coded so that off- route buses and buses that are not on time may be highlighted. TODSS, described in the following section of this report, can provide additional functionality and value to AVL systems. Although AVL systems can be expensive, they afford agencies a wide range of uses and benefits, including faster incident response, accident investigation, adjudication, and policing. If an operator presses a panic button, the dispatcher will know the exact location of the bus in distress. Even if the panic button is not pressed, the dispatcher will be able to rec- ognize a bus that is off-route and send assistance. AVL sys- tems also enhance schedule adherence, provide next-bus information at bus stops and/or through mobile devices, and can work in conjunction with automated bus stop announce- ments. According to TCRP Synthesis 73, for fleets with less than 750 buses, the following equation can be used to esti- mate capital costs for an AVL system: Contract Award = $17,577(Fleet Size) + $2,506,759 Advantages • Location of a bus can be transmitted to central control and security/police in case of an emergency. • Decrease response times to emergencies, incidents. Agency Experience Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority, Cleveland, Ohio GCRTA’s AVL system was installed in GCRTA’s bus fleet several years ago and is used for multiple purposes: incident response, next-bus arrival information, fleet management, improving schedule adherence, determining bus location and speed for accident investigations, and for grievance hearings. Although it is a stand-alone system, dispatchers use it in conjunction with emergency communications and radio system. Both the AVL system and radio system use the 900 MHz frequency. Metro Transit, Madison, Wisconsin Madison Metro’s AVL system was installed in 2004. The AVL system is used to help dispatchers and police respond to incidents and improve bus operations including schedule adherence, and is linked with emergency audio communica- tions. If the operator presses the overt or covert alarm, the AVL system automatically displays a map. In the dispatch center, the bus is shown in flashing red and a loud alarm is activated. In order to deactivate the alarm, the dispatcher is required to take action. The 911 center can access the real-time maps dur- ing emergencies and incidents. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg, Florida PSTA installed an AVL system in 2006 in its fleet of 205 buses at a cost of $5 million. The system uses GPS and is connected with its emergency communications. When the covert or overt emergency button is pressed, the system auto- matically highlights the bus in distress (as a flashing display) on the CAD screen. There is also an audible alarm that sounds in the dispatch center. It has been useful for fast response to general crime as well as to accidents. In one case, an operator had an accident and could not tell the dispatcher her location. The dispatcher was able to determine that the bus was in an accident and the operator had been incapaci- tated. Rapid response was possible because the AVL system informed the dispatcher of the location of the bus, and responders arrived quickly. VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, Texas VIA’s AVL system was installed on VIA’s bus fleet approx- imately 13 years ago. The AVL system, which uses GPS, is integrated with the fleet’s radio communications system. The total cost for both systems was $14 million—the majority of the cost was for the AVL system. The systems were installed in 451 buses, 210 paratransit vans, and 75 service and police vehicles. O&M costs $600,000 to $700,000 per year and includes software upgrades. The AVL system is used on a daily basis for incident response and has greatly shortened response times. There are four communications channels available to the operator—regular, priority, emergency, and covert. Each channel activates an open microphone with the dispatch center. The emergency mode has been used several times over the past 10 years. Dispatchers are able to view the locations of the bus fleet and police vehicles as well, and are able to advise police on the route officers should take to reach the bus in distress. The bus dispatchers and police are located in the same operations center.

Coast Mountain Bus Company, British Columbia, Canada In 2006, CMBC experienced 241 operator assaults. After deployment of the AVL, advanced communications systems, and video surveillance, the number of assaults decreased to 144 in 2009. The reduction in the number of assaults is attrib- uted to the combination of these new technologies. AVL and the advanced communications systems also significantly reduced incident response times, increasing the likelihood of the apprehension of offenders and lessening the severity of attacks. Winnipeg Transit, Manitoba, Canada Installation of the AVL systems was completed in Winnipeg Transit’s fleet of 545 buses as part of iBus in November 2009. iBus includes advanced radio communications, auto- mated real-time schedule tracking, automated next-stop announcements and displays, and a security camera system. The AVL system is already being used for incident response. In December 2009, less than a month after the system was installed, two teens assaulted an operator with pepper spray; passengers were also affected by the spray. The responder, using the AVL system, was able to reach the bus in 3 min. The two assailants were caught within 10 min and were charged with assault with a weapon and breach of probation. The video and audio of the attack were recorded and used to identify and charge the assailants. A bus was hijacked on April 15, 2009, with the hijacker demanding to be taken to a particular destination. The operator immediately exited the bus. Because of the iBus system on the bus, it was found by emergency responders within a short time, and the hijacker was successfully captured and prosecuted. Winnipeg’s iBus system uses GPS-based automatic vehicle location and com- munication systems to monitor the location of each bus, com- pare it to its schedule, and automatically report deviations to Winnipeg’s Transit Control Centre. TRANSIT OPERATIONS DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM TODSS improves the functionality of AVL and CAD sys- tems for dispatchers by addressing information overload. Transit agencies have made significant investments in AVL and CAD systems in the past 10 years. These technologies have helped agencies improve their service effectiveness, response times to incidents, and collection of valuable oper- ating data to make service improvements. At the same time, dispatchers have been overwhelmed at times by large amounts of real-time information they need to evaluate. The activity level is often intense at the dispatch centers, and dis- patchers do not have the time to study and recognize the pat- terns of operational problems displayed by the CAD system. Each vehicle in the fleet routinely sends real-time data that contributes toward information overload. Data messages that 46 provide early notification of a service disruption may go unnoticed. The FTA had published an industry consensus for requirements of a TODSS in 2002, and Pace Suburban Bus was awarded the demonstration project for the TODSS proto- type that has been developed and has been at use at Pace since April, 2009. Pace’s TODSS prototype was recently awarded ITS America’s 2010 Best Project Award. Advantages • Faster incident response. • Better fleet management. • Is adaptable to the operating rules of individual agencies. Agency Experience Pace Suburban Bus, Aurora, Illinois Dispatchers were surveyed and performed field tests before the TODSS project. The results showed that they were using far fewer AVL/CAD functions than expected. They cited the following as reasons for underutilization of the AVL/CAD system: lack of time, high pressure of their job requirements, and lack of training on advanced functionality. TODSS is designed to make better use of Pace’s existing AVL/CAD by evaluating events based on Pace operating rules to determine incident priority. Sources of information are continuously monitored and only those events requiring dispatcher attention are displayed along with corresponding service restoration options. The TODSS guides the dispatcher through the AVL/CAD system to quickly gain situational awareness. TODSS then provides a checklist of action items to perform in order to resolve the incident. External events are integrated into the AVL/CAD by TODSS and communication with other centers and systems is automated through the web, RSS feeds, and e-mail. Through advance configuration of incidents, triggering rules, priority, and restoration strategies that conform to Pace’s operating procedures, the dispatchers are now guided through the AVL/CAD tools and the specific data related to an incident. Pace expects that the amount of data presented to the dispatchers will be reduced; at the same time, the data being evaluated to maintain and restore service will increase, resulting in a more uniform response throughout the system. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS Bus operators typically have within reach of their seats emer- gency panic buttons that open up emergency communication with a dispatch or control center. The communication can be covert or overt. Covert communication is used when the oper- ator is being threatened or otherwise believes that overt contact with a dispatcher or police would not be advisable. To ensure

47 that the dispatcher does not accidentally say something, covert channels are usually one-way—the dispatcher cannot talk back to the operator but can hear the goings-on inside the bus. The covert button may be linked with an electronic distress sign that alerts the public to emergency situations on a bus. Signs usually state “call police” or “call 911.” Overt commu- nication allows two-way communication between the dis- patcher and the operator. A button, either covert or overt, linked with an AVL system would alert the dispatch center about the emergency and provide the dispatcher with the loca- tion of the bus in distress. In some cases, this information may also be delivered directly to the police. Advantages • Operator is able to immediately alert police or dispatch of an emergency. • Communications can be done covertly if necessary. • Response time is reduced. Agency Experience Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority, Cleveland, Ohio GCRTA operators are instructed to utilize the covert emer- gency alarm to notify Transit Police if the operator believes that he or she is in danger. The emergency communications system enables the police dispatcher to hear conversations in the operator’s compartment. Otherwise, operators are instructed to use the overt alarm button, followed by the emer- gency message code for immediate assistance. The overt but- ton allows unrestricted two-way communication between the operator and the police. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, St. Petersburg, Florida When the covert or overt emergency button is pressed, the AVL/CAD system automatically highlights the bus in dis- tress (as a flashing display) on the CAD screen. There is also an audible alarm that sounds in the dispatch center. This sys- tem has been useful in responding quickly to operator assaults, along with general crime and accidents. The emer- gency electronic distress sign on the headboard has been effective in getting the public’s attention. When the operator accidentally hit the panic button and the distress sign “call 911” flashed, the public notified law enforcement right away and police response was very rapid. In such a situation, the SWAT team arrives at the scene and directs the bus to the side of the road. The bus is secured until the team confirms that the driver of the vehicle is indeed the operator assigned to the bus and had unintentionally pressed the button. DNA KITS DNA kits have been typically used by law enforcement agen- cies around the world to address sexual crimes. Samples col- lected from DNA kits can be used to identify and prosecute assailants. They are being used by the Transport for London to identify and prosecute those who spit on bus operators. Lon- don is currently the only city in which the kits are being used for this purpose. In London, the rate of serious attacks on bus operators has been low; however, TFL acknowledges that non- serious incidents can have a significant psychological impact on operators. The most problematic of the nonserious incidents has been spitting. There were more than 1,000 incidents of spitting assaults on London buses, many of them aimed at bus operators. In response, a workplace violence unit has been established to locate assailants of bus operators, and DNA kits have been issued to bus operators. Police use the DNA col- lected by the operators to identify and prosecute individuals who attack operators by spitting on them by comparing the samples with the national UK DNA database. The kits are also being used successfully in London’s subway system—there are DNA kits at every station and these have been used in at least a hundred prosecutions against those who attack subway personnel in the previous year. The use of the kits is followed through by legal team in conjunction with the London Metro- politan Police. Transit industry experts believe that major rea- sons other nations with large national DNA databases are not using these kits is the cost of DNA analysis, along with public concerns about individual rights.