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.

Agency policies and legislation can be effective in mitigating operator assaults. Suspension-of-service policies against those who assault operators and violate agency rules serve to ex- clude dangerous individuals from using the system and may deter potential criminals or rules violators from committing criminal acts. These policies may require changes to state and/or municipal laws so that those who have been excluded from the system would be legally prevented as well from using the system. Although passing new legislation can take time and effort, agencies that have participated in such efforts believe that it is a worthwhile initiative. Legislation for en- hanced penalties for operator assaults has been enacted in almost half of U.S. states. Workplace violence policies establish the importance of addressing and eradicating all types of work- place violence and put in place good response and reporting practices as well as a comprehensive interdepartmental support system to provide helpful resources to workplace violence vic- tims. Fare payment policies contribute to disputes between operators and passengers, and these disputes can lead to oper- ator assaults. Fare enforcement issues were cited as a leading contributor to operator assaults by survey respondents. In cases where the fare payment process occurs off-board the transit vehicle, or the fare payment process is not otherwise identified with the operator, operator assaults caused by fare disputes are minimal. BRT systems are the prime example of this prac- tice. Employee assistance and trained supervisors are help- ful to victims of assaults, and mitigate the negative impact of the assaults on the employee and his or her coworkers. Pas- senger outreach initiatives can deter assaults and make the public and passengers more aware of incidents against opera- tors and the agency’s commitment and support of its employ- ees. School and community outreach programs are also believed to be useful as a longer-term method to protect operators against violence. As a reminder, the definition of assault used in this study is: Overt physical and verbal acts by a passenger that interfere with the mission of a bus operator—which is to complete the scheduled run safely—and that adversely affect the safety of the operator and customers. SUSPENSION-OF-SERVICE POLICY Suspensions of service or passenger bans demonstrate the agency’s commitment to improving the security of bus service. These suspension-of-service policies have been implemented at agencies such as Capital District Transportation Authority in Albany, New York; Metro Transit in Madison, Wisconsin; 58 Montgomery County Transit in Maryland; Las Vegas RTC; Pierce Transit; SUN METRO in El Paso, Texas; and the Edmonton Transit System in Canada. These were reported to be effective in reducing repeat offenders. The transit agencies worked with their municipalities to adopt laws that enable them to exclude individuals who violate their fare payment and other policies or codes of conduct. Any excluded individual who attempts to board a bus would be considered trespassing on agency property. This policy deters potential offenders through the threat of not being allowed onto the transit system. Other agencies, such as CATS in Charlotte, North Carolina, have established ordinances that prohibit violations of agency rules. Advantages • Bus operator perspective—increased perception of secu- rity and management support for operators; lets bus ope- rators know that management is serious about their security. • Customer perspective—lets customers know that the agency is serious about security and might not allow violations of their codes of conduct. • Does not require significant investments in equipment or security personnel. Disadvantages • Agency perspective—agency needs to change the municipal or provincial ordinance to introduce legisla- tion stating that an individual violating an agency’s code of conduct might be banned from accessing the transit system for X days. This may take time and effort. • Without support of legal system and prosecutors in ensur- ing that offenders who try to access the system might be charged, the policy may not be effective. • Larger systems may have difficulty enforcing the pol- icy because identifying the banned individuals could be problematic. Agency Experience Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, New York CDTA instituted a suspension-of-service policy for patrons on CDTA buses and facilities in April 2009. New York State CHAPTER SIX OPERATOR PROTECTION MEASURES: AGENCY POLICIES AND LEGISLATION

59 legislation 21 NYCRR 5300 states that the “provisions of section 1307(4) of the Public Authorities Law provide CDTA and its subsidiaries with power to make rules and regulations governing the conduct and safety of the public in the use and operation of the transit facilities of the authority and its sub- sidiaries.” When an individual violates CDTA Rules of Con- duct or the laws of New York State, the bus operator, super- visor, or other CDTA employee or law enforcement officer has the authority to enforce this policy. No court order is re- quired because the suspension policy is allowed by state law. Violators who violate the suspension are subject to trespass- ing charges. Twenty persons have been suspended by CDTA so far, and not one of them has been found to have violated the terms of their suspension, which may be attributed to the establishment of the CDTA Suspension-of Service-program. Prosecution of offenders became easier for CDTA after the Rules of Conduct was legislated into state law. The program, especially in combination with the enhanced NYS penalties, sends a strong message to the public that CDTA does not tol- erate offenses. Furthermore, this legislation demonstrates CDTA’s commitment to the safety of its employees. Fines and penalties include ejection from the facility or convey- ance at the time of the violation and/or criminal prosecution for trespass and/or the violation, in the criminal court of the jurisdiction where the violation occurs. The complete policy, rules, and procedures are included in Appendix A of this Synthesis report. The CDTA Rules of Conduct are similar to those of many transit systems. The rules include fare payment, no assaults or other interferences against the operator, no vandalism, no alcohol consumption, and no smoking. Bus operators initially attempt to enforce the suspension by asking the suspended individual to leave the bus; if the individual fails to do so, the police are called, and he or she may be arrested. CDTA mails the individual a notice and the duration of suspension, rule or law violated, and an explanation of CDTA’s internal review and hearing process. Barring a successful appeal, the suspen- sion becomes effective. The time period of the suspension varies based on the number of violations within a 5-year period: a 7-day suspension for the first violation, 30 days for the sec- ond violation, 90 days for the third violation, and 180 days for each successive violation. Madison Metro Transit System, Madison, Wisconsin Metro Transit’s Rules of Conduct and Inappropriate Conduct Transit Exclusion Procedure was adopted on July 12, 2005, and prohibits individuals from engaging in inappropriate conduct on buses and other facilities. Individuals who do en- gage in “repeated or serious incidents of inappropriate con- duct” can be excluded from Metro’s services. Inappropriate activity is defined as any activity “disruptive or injurious to other individuals lawfully using Metro facilities or services; damaging or destructive to transit facilities or services; or disruptive, harassing, threatening or injurious to transit em- ployees.” An individual may be excluded from Metro Tran- sit services even if he or she is not charged or convicted. If an individual who has received an exclusion order boards a bus, the individual will be subject to arrest for trespassing under Madison City Ordinance 23.07 (2). The entire text of the rule can be found on Metro Transit’s website at: http:// www.cityofmadison.com/metro/HowToRide/TransitExclu- sionPolicy/TransitExclusionPolicy.htm. Inappropriate conduct is grouped into the following three categories: • Level I inappropriate conduct includes willfully refus- ing to pay a fare or show specific fare media to the oper- ator, eating or drinking, having distracting conversa- tions with the bus operator, and otherwise disorderly or inappropriate conduct. For these behaviors, a warning is provided by the operator. If further warnings are re- quired, a supervisor may be called to the scene. If the supervisor asks the passenger to leave the bus and he or she refuses, the passenger is subject to arrest and pros- ecution for trespassing and/or disorderly conduct. Con- tinuous infractions may result in exclusion for at least 7 days and a maximum of 6 months. • Level II inappropriate conduct includes fighting, bring- ing on board dangerous items such as weapons, threat- ening behaviors, and drinking or possessing open con- tainers of alcoholic beverages. For level II violations, the operator or supervisor can tell the individual to leave the bus immediately, and call for police assistance when necessary. • Level III inappropriate conduct or emergency situations is the most serious level and includes assault or threat of assault, use of counterfeit or stolen fare media, obstruct- ing or interfering with the operator’s safe operation of the bus, indecent exposure, and lighting an incendiary device, including a match. The operator is authorized to request police assistance in these cases. Once it is determined that an individual should be excluded from transit services, the transit service manager issues a writ- ten exclusion letter that includes a description of the appeals process. Montgomery County Transit, Montgomery County, Maryland Montgomery County Transit’s Disruptive Behavior policy is believed to discourage repeat violations of agency rules. Indi- viduals who violate the disruptive behavior rule by engaging in prohibited behavior are subject to a 90-day suspension of service and/or fines or imprisonment for up to 6 months. Pro- hibited behaviors include interfering with the operation of the vehicle, eating/drinking/smoking, fighting, spitting, yelling, threatening the driver or others on board, tossing or throwing articles or projectiles, and unwanted touching or conversation with another passenger. The exclusion is enforced by transit

60 supervision with assistance from local law enforcement when needed. The policy signage, shown in Figure 30, is displayed in Montgomery County buses. Pierce Transit, Lakewood, Washington Pierce Transit’s Passenger Exclusion Program has been estab- lished as a means to modify behavior that is unacceptable in the transit environment. In addition to being arrested (if the behavior is criminal), the individual causing the disruption is also served with an exclusion order that lasts no less than 90 days. The exclusion may be permanent if the act is violent. The program also has an appeals process that allows for due process. Pierce Transit has issued 3,000 exclusion orders since the program’s inception and maintains a recidivism rate of less than 2%. Periodic enforcement operations targeting rules vio- lators are performed. In fall 2009, for instance, a 3-week enforcement operations called “not on our bus” focused on bus routes, bus stops, and transit centers near high schools. Offi- cers conducted spot checks, and violators of agency rules were subject to immediate exclusion from Pierce Transit services for at least 90 days. SUN METRO, El Paso, Texas SUN METRO has had their refusal-of-service policy in place for at least 20 years. The Passenger Rules ordinance states “an operator may refuse to transport any person whose ob- served conduct or behavior constitutes a violation of this sec- tion.” SUN METRO’s Passenger Rules state that the follow- ing acts on board a bus or streetcar transporting passengers are considered illegal: 1. Smoke or carry any lighted or smoldering pipe, cigar, or cigarette in or upon any such vehicle; 2. Consume food or drink in or upon any such vehicle; 3. Discard, throw, or place any litter or trash in or upon any such vehicle; 4. Operate any radio, cassette recorder, or any such device, except where such device is connected to an earphone that limits the sound emitted therefrom to the individual user; 5. Carry, possess, or allow to be kept any flammable or combustible liquids, explosives, acids, live animals, birds or reptiles, or any item inherently dangerous or offensive; provided, that this prohibition shall not apply to seeing-eye dogs properly harnessed and accompanied by a blind passenger; 6. Stand in front of any white line marked on the forward end of the floor of any such vehicle, or otherwise obstruct the view of the operator thereof; 7. Board any such vehicle through any rear-exit door, unless so directed or authorized by the operator; 8. Fail or refuse upon request of the operator to move further back in the vehicle so as to make room for other passengers in the front; and 9. Use loud or abusive language toward passengers or the operator, which interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle. SUN METRO’s Reinstatement Policy contains a provi- sion for individuals to appeal refusal-of-service decisions. The provision requires a written statement containing the fol- lowing: reason(s) for restoration of use of service; commen- tary explaining why the event(s) that led to being refused service may now be disregarded going forward; commitment in writing that the event(s) in question will not happen again. Also required is a restitution for any damage or harm result- ing from the event(s) that led to the refusal of service as well as an acknowledgement that should another event result in refusal of service, a lifetime ban from use of SUN METRO Transit services will be imposed. The provision letter notes that “our Operators are recognized as the passengers’ great- est and immediately available asset; and as such, our Coach Operators should be treated with courtesy and respect. . . .” Edmonton Transit System (ETS), Alberta, Canada As part of the ETS zero tolerance policy that began in late 2009, 125 individuals have been banned from ETS for fare evasion and other rules violations. Repeat offenders receive a 1-year ban. Their photos, obtained from the CCTV cameras on buses, are provided to all bus operators and ETS peace officers. Although Edmonton police are very cooperative and ETS Security has developed the Trespasser Tracker applica- tion to help officers track and locate frequent offenders, this ban has been difficult to enforce. Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte, North Carolina Although CATS does not have a suspension-of-service pol- icy, it instituted a change in the municipal law to prohibit inappropriate acts on their transit buses and light-rail vehi- FIGURE 30 Montgomery County Transit’s suspension of service policy signage. (Courtesy: Montgomery County Transit.)

61 cles. The law allows CATS to issue a civil penalty of $50 or arrest individuals who commit these acts. According to Char- lotte Code Sec. 15-272 and 15-273, prohibited acts include: • Riding a CATS or LYNX vehicle without paying the proper fare; • Smoking; • Consuming any alcoholic beverage or possessing an open container of any alcoholic beverage; • Engaging in disruptive, disturbing behavior including: loud conversation, profanity or rude insults, or operat- ing any electronic device used for sound without an ear- phone(s); • Carrying, possessing, or having within immediate access any dangerous weapon; • Littering; and • Excreting any bodily fluid or spit upon or at another person. Advantage • Zero tolerance–type policies reflect the agency’s serious- ness about enforcing agency rules and policies. Demon- strating intolerance of even minor rules violations by excluding violators from the transit system can deter seri- ous violence from occurring. Disadvantages • Enforcing exclusion policies may be challenging for larger transit systems. • Legislative changes may be needed to establish an exclu- sion or suspension-of-service policy. These changes may require considerable time and effort. WORKPLACE VIOLENCE POLICIES States are required to establish workplace violence standards at least as effective as Occupational Safety and Health Admin- istration standards; some states have established stricter stan- dards. Transit agencies set policies that meet or exceed these standards that are believed to prevent and address all types of violence against operators and usually establish a clear re- sponse mechanism. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington, D.C. WMATA has established a zero tolerance workplace violence policy. WMATA’s policy specifically states that the agency “has zero tolerance for workplace violence in whatever form it may take.” WMATA defines workplace violence as including, but not limited to, “behavior occurring in the workplace that results in violent, harassing, intimidating, or other dis- ruptive behavior that communicates a direct or indirect threat of physical or emotional harm, property damage, and/or dis- ruption of the Authority’s business operations.” The full work- place violence policy may be found on WMATA’s website at: http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/pi_7_33_0.pdf. These policies clearly state the roles of each staff member, the definition of workplace violence, and the proper responses to incidents of workplace violence. The employee’s responsi- bility is to report any alleged incident immediately, ensure that the report is documented and submitted to the Workplace Violence coordinator, and cooperate in investigations. Emer- gencies must be reported to the Metro Transit Police Depart- ment (MTPD). The policy states that employees who report incidents must not be retaliated against. Supervisors and managers are required to provide needed medical attention, notify family members, complete the reporting form and sub- mit it to the Workplace Violence coordinator, and coordinate investigations with him or her, ensuring that each alleged incident is investigated, evaluated, and resolved by imple- menting appropriate disciplinary actions and a remedial plan to address workplace violence. Pierce Transit, Lakewood, Washington Pierce Transit’s Workplace Violence Policy defines work- place violence as “physical or verbal behavior that endangers or harms another employee, customer, contractor, or vendor, or that a reasonable person would constitute a threat of harm.” Examples are cited: “Deliberate actions or behavior resulting in a physical assault against a person or property, such as hit- ting, pushing, holding/restraining, spitting on, or blocking the movement of another person. Verbal or written threats communicated directly or indirectly that a reasonable person would perceive to intimidate, frighten or otherwise cause fear of physical or emotional harm. . . . Inappropriate verbal or physical behavior that causes a reasonable person to feel unsafe, such as angry outbursts, throwing things, or expres- sions of hostility.” The policy is included in Appendix A of this report. It clearly states that all reported incidents will be investigated and that retaliation against employees reporting workplace violence is prohibited. Advantages • Encourages entire organization (all divisions of an agency) to take violence against operators seriously. • Enhances operator perception of management support. FARE POLICY Fare policy, including fare payment and enforcement, is im- portant because it can contribute to fare disputes between the operator and passenger. Complex fare structures and transfer policies can cause confusion on part of both the passenger and operator, and lead to disputes. Also, agencies that have strict fare policies believe that these policies minimize

confusion on part of both the operator and passenger and pre- vent assaults against operators. Strategies that attempt to dis- associate the operator with fare enforcement include auto- mated fare reminders and supervision intervention with unruly passengers. NYC Transit, for example, provides automated fare reminders and is testing a public address system that allows the dispatcher to directly address the passenger. TTC policy was changed in April 2010 to provide more supervi- sor support to operators. Operators are now able to deflect issues to supervisors who are assigned to particular locations and can be summoned in a timely manner. Other strategies include fare-free systems and off-board payment systems, which mitigate most fare-related disputes. Standard Fare Payment Systems The typical fare payment system requires operators to take some type of action if a passenger does not pay the proper fare. Operator training is important in ensuring that the oper- ator understands agency policies and procedures with regard to fare payment and enforcement. Although some agencies provide the benefit of the doubt to a customer, others have zero tolerance approaches. Also some agencies place more responsibility on the operator than others agencies do with regard to fare collection. There are pros and cons associated with each of these agency policies. TTC, recognizing that fare issues are bound to arise because TTC has a relatively complex fare system, instructs operators to “read” the situa- tion. For example, if there is a rainstorm and the bus is very late, the operator may conclude that, in this situation, most passengers are already frustrated and agitated. Therefore, the operator may provide the benefit of the doubt to passengers who do not pay the proper fare. Off-Board Fare Payment Systems In North America, some BRT systems have off-board pay- ment systems, whereas regular bus transit systems do not. Some BRT systems offer customers a choice of either off- board or onboard fare collection. Customers purchase tickets or pay the fare at off-board payment sites and may board the transit vehicle using any of its access points. They have no interaction with the operator with regard to fare payment and simply retain the ticket or receipt while on board as proof of payment. Off-board payment systems contribute to increased customer satisfaction by facilitating the boarding process, reducing dwell times, and increasing vehicle speeds and reli- ability; off-board payment also decreases the likelihood of fare disputes and, in turn, mitigates operator assaults. Before deciding on a fare payment policy, transit agencies need to consider both the benefits and costs of the policy. Major costs involve the installation and maintenance of ticketing machines in station-stops and the initiation and expenses related to fare inspection. Instituting fare inspection requires hiring or trans- ferring and training personnel and may also require changes in local or state laws authorizing enforcement. A TCRP syn- 62 thesis study focusing on off-board fare payment for BRT and LRT systems, initiated in the fall of 2010, is expected to more closely explore the impact of these systems on operator assaults. Fare-Free Systems Goals of fare-free systems and agencies that offer fare-free zones include transit promotion, mobility, support of the local economy, and congestion reduction. Because fare pay- ment has been eliminated as a source of operator–passenger disputes, these systems may be expected to experience fewer operator assaults compared with similar systems that do charge fares. At the same time, issues such as overcrowding and delays owing to excessive demand, an increase in problem riders, operator dissatisfaction, and a decrease in revenues have arisen in these systems. Fare-free systems include Chapel Hill, North Carolina’s fixed-route buses; Clemson, South Carolina’s bus service for area universities; and Amherst, Massachusett’s bus service for its colleges and communities. Some limited fare-free systems, such as King County Metro in Seattle, Washington, do not necessarily reduce the numbers of oper- ator assaults. King County Metro has a fare-free zone in the downtown Seattle area. Passengers traveling to outlying points need to pay at their destinations. This has caused concern for operators because they are more vulnerable to assault in these areas with fewer riders and police. A TCRP synthesis study examining successes and challenges of a fare-free policy was initiated in the fall of 2010. Agency Experience MAX Line, the first BRT in North America, began service in Las Vegas in June 2004. It is operated by Veolia Transporta- tion on behalf of the Regional Transit Commission or RTC. The MAX has 2.5 million riders a year, and part of its route is on the heaviest ridership corridor in the system, the 7.5- mile Las Vegas strip from Las Vegas Boulevard to North Las Vegas. All MAX vehicles have AVL/CAD systems and traf- fic signal prioritization that gives MAX buses green-light pri- ority through intersections, increasing reliability of its transit service. Most assaults occurring in the system have been caused by fare payment issues. Because fare payment for the MAX Line is processed completely off-board, MAX Line operators are less associated with fare payment than opera- tors of regular buses with onboard fare payment. Further- more, because there are recorded announcements on the MAX Line about fare payment, operators do not need to directly remind passengers about the fare. As a result, the number of operator assaults on the MAX Line is much lower than the rate for regular bus service. Greater Cleveland RTA (GCRTA) has a BRT system with off-board fare payment. However, GCRTA generally has few assaults, so the impact of the fare payment system on operator assault is difficult to assess.

63 King County Metro Transit is planning to initiate BRT service and expects that its off-board fare payment system will lessen the likelihood of operator assaults. Coast Mountain Bus Company in British Columbia, Canada, introduced the Fare Paid Zone initiative in 2007 to transfer the proof of payment and any fare enforcement responsibility from the bus operator to a member of the Tran- sit Police or security staff. By 2009, the bus operator assault rate had significantly decreased. However, because this ini- tiative was integrated with other security measures, it is not possible to determine what impact this particular initiative had on the assault rate. LEGISLATION INCREASING PENALTIES FOR OPERATOR ASSAULTS The transit community (ATU and transit agencies) has been advocating for tougher penalties against those who assault transit operators. It is believed that this legislation, when well publicized and enforced, can deter assaults. The TWU, how- ever, has questioned the effectiveness of the legislation. According to a TWU representative, assailants do not con- sider the consequences of their actions and it has not been proven that assaults have been prevented as a result of the legislation. At the time of this synthesis publication, almost half of all U.S. states have enacted stronger penalties. See Appendix A for a list of the states, provisions, and penalties. A few localities and states mandate the posting of signage regarding the enhanced penalties. For example, Illinois requires a notice to be prominently displayed in each vehicle used for the transportation of the public for hire stating, “Any person who assaults or harms an individual whom he knows to be an operator, employee or passengers of a trans- portation facility or system engaged in the business of trans- portation for hire and who is performing in such capacity or using such public transportation as a passenger, if such individ- ual is assaulted, commits a Class ‘A’ misdemeanor, or if such individual is harmed, commits a Class 3 felony.” Many agencies within these jurisdictions display signage regarding enhanced penalties in their buses, even if they are not required to do so by law. Agency Experience CT Transit, Hartford, Connecticut CT Transit, in conjunction with other transit agencies in Con- necticut, worked with its union to pass legislation making bus operator assaults a felony. This legislation mandates “an enhanced penalty for specified criminal acts committed on a transit worker performing his or her duties.” It requires the offender to be fined or imprisoned up to 150% of whatever the maximum fine or prison term would be for the subject crimi- nal act. Criminal acts subject to the enhanced penalty include murder, manslaughter, assault in the first degree, assault with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, sexual assault, robbery, threatening in the second degree, and kidnapping. WMATA, Washington, D.C. Metrobus operators experienced fewer assaults in 2009 than in 2008. WMATA reports that the decrease is believed to have been the result of more stringent penalties for assaulting operators in D.C., and the elimination of paper transfers. The penalties vary by state. For instance, in Oklahoma and New Mexico, verbally threatening the operator with intent of seizing control of a bus is considered a felony. In New Jersey, a simple assault against an operator is upgraded to third-degree aggravated assault if the operator is injured and to fourth degree if the operator is not injured. In Col- orado, interfering with a transit employee in the proper dis- charge of his duties is a misdemeanor. Maximum prison times and fines also vary considerably. In Georgia and Okla- homa, the perpetrator may be imprisoned up to 20 years for aggravated battery and/or fined up to $20,000 in Oklahoma. In Rhode Island, a bus operator assault is a felony that may be punishable by up to 3 years in prison, a $1,500 fine, or both. In South Carolina, a bus operator assault is a misde- meanor that may be punishable by up to 1 year in prison, up to $1,000 fine, or both. NYC Transit places appropriate signage regarding the law near bus doors and inside buses. EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE As noted in the workplace violence literature, employee assis- tance and support are important in the aftermath of an assault. Encouraging bus operators to report all incidents, including verbal threats or intimidation, can be a deterrent and can assist law enforcement in proactively policing buses and bus routes. Because a series of minor incidents has the potential to result in a major assault, addressing them promptly can prevent a serious crime from happening. Transit officers and security personnel can also encourage operators to report all incidents and assist them in reporting details of an incident, which can help identify the assailant. Support after an assault occurs can help the operator heal more rapidly from any emotional or psychological effects of the incident. Immediately after an assault, the operator could receive prompt medical treatment and care, and support from supervision. Agencies generally offer support to their employees after an assault by offering counseling and other forms of assistance. Trained supervision can help operators in various ways after an assault, including provision of training or retraining operators on customer rela- tions and how to deal with difficult individuals. This training may assist operators who have been victims of multiple as- saults. Legal support is also important. Informing operators of the legal process and the results of the process (e.g., disposi- tion of the legal case) is helpful. Aggressive prosecution of

offenders serves as a deterrent to these and potential assailants and assures the operator that the agency stands behind its employees. Advantages • Bus operator perspective—increased perception of man- agement support for operators. • Agency perspective—the Employee Assistance pro- grams can help operators recover and return to work sooner; the programs are relatively inexpensive and can create goodwill between the agency management and operators; they also demonstrate to the community that the agency cares about its workers. Agency Experience CTTRANSIT, Connecticut CTTRANSIT Hartford operates more than 30 local and 12 express bus routes, serving 26 counties in the Hartford capi- tal region. CTTRANSIT New Haven operates over 22 routes, and CTTRANSIT Stamford operates 15 routes. CTTRAN- SIT has been committed to supporting operators after an assault and creating a culture of “trust” so that operators can feel comfortable turning to the agency for help and support after an incident. CTTRANSIT’s Employee Assistance Pro- gram provides its transit workers with any necessary coun- seling and legal assistance after an assault has occurred. Many years ago, a female operator was sexually assaulted and needed several months of psychological counseling and support before she felt ready to return to work. The support included actions that specifically addressed the operator’s need for reas- surance about her personal safety; her supervisors monitored her progress until she was ready to resume her job. Once she returned to work, supervisors periodically checked on her to ensure her safety. CTTRANSIT management and the union encourage oper- ators to report all incidents. Operators may also be motivated to report an incident to protect themselves against a customer complaint. Management believes that there is 100% report- ing of serious incidents. However, minor incidents, including verbal assaults, may be underreported. When an incident oc- curs, the operator completes a form describing the incident to formally report an incident. Reporting incidents allows CTTRANSIT to address each incident by taking action to seek out and capture the perpetrator and by using the incident to train other operators so that a similar incident does not occur again. Pierce Transit, Lakewood, Washington Pierce Transit established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the agency and the ATU Local 758. The MOU 64 indicates that the agency supports its employees, will take every measure to ensure their safety, provides an Employee Assis- tance Program, and indicates that the Union (ATU) supports additional training of its members in personal protection and safety and in techniques in conflict resolution. Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), Toronto, Canada TTC has had an employee assistance program since the 1960s. Victims are offered trauma counselors and are provided on-site intervention by division managers, referral to the Employee & Family Assistance Program, follow-up through manage- ment contact from incident to court disposition, and referral to a Court Support/Employee advocate. TTC has initiated a study with St. Michael’s hospital to provide effective treatments and return-to-work approaches for acute traumatic events. TTC’s court support elements include the following: • Contact the victim and provide court system information; • Prepare victim for court and “Victim Impact Statements”; • Attend Court for bail hearings and trial/sentencing hearings; • Consult with Crown Attorney to ask that Operator as- saults be treated more seriously; • Track case dispositions and ongoing investigations; • Maintain contact with victim regarding case investiga- tions and/or court dispositions until conclusion; and • Report to Commission Prosecutor/Court Liaison. PASSENGER OUTREACH Passenger outreach efforts, including media campaigns and the placement of prominent signage regarding the penalty for operator assault on buses, affirms to the operators that the agency stands firmly behind them and cares about their well- being. Some states and cities mandate the placement of these signs on buses; agencies contacted indicated that they would use this signage even in the absence of these laws. The sign- age also discourages passengers from assaulting operators, although the extent to which they are a deterrent has been questioned. A TWU representative noted that the majority of assaults are not premeditated and may not be influenced by signage. Media campaigns against operator assault demon- strate agency support for their employees and generate good- will among operators toward management and within the community as well. Advantages • Operator perspective—goodwill among operators is cre- ated through management support of operators by demon- strating that management is concerned and serious about their security.

65 • Public perspective—promotes the image that the agency is a good employer that cares about its workers. • Is relatively inexpensive. Agency Experience NYC Transit and NJ Transit display clear signage on buses indicating penalties associated with an assault on a bus oper- ator. NYC Transit also provides fare information on the left hand side of the bus exterior adjacent to the front door, clearly visible to passengers as they board (see Figures 31 to 33). Additionally, NYC Transit has automated announce- ments reminding customers about fare payment, which min- imizes the potential for fare-related disputes. Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, New York CDTA has a security awareness program for their passengers and their operators. Signage stating “if you see something, FIGURE 31 NYC Transit bus signage. (Courtesy: Dr. Yuko Nakanishi.) FIGURE 32 NYC Transit assault penalty bus signage. (Courtesy: Dr. Yuko Nakanishi.) TRANSIT The Way To Go. FIGURE 33 NJ Transit assault penalty signage. (Courtesy: NJ Transit.)

FIGURE 35 Edmonton Transit System signage. (Courtesy: Edmonton Transit System.) say something” has been placed on buses. There is also a monetary reward offered to patrons for information regard- ing operator assaults. The signage and the reward offer en- courage patrons to report all crimes, including suspicious incidents. Apprehending criminals and solving open cases are effective in getting potentially violent individuals off the streets and out of CDTA’s system. Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto, Canada The TTC in Toronto communicates the social unacceptabil- ity of operator assaults and its commitment to protect its em- ployees through posters on board buses, signage regarding video surveillance, and aggressive prosecution of offenders. An example of TTC signage is shown in Figure 34. Edmonton Transit System, Alberta, Canada In collaboration with the city of Edmonton and the local police department, ETS initiated a “Zero Tolerance” media campaign in which the mayor and the chief of police partici- pated and proclaimed that the entire city will not tolerate fur- ther assaults on Edmonton bus operators. As part of this cam- paign, “Zero Tolerance” stickers are being placed on all buses (see Figures 35 and 36). Several years ago, ETS cre- ated a BOB persona as part of its Behaviour on Buses (BOB) program. The BOB persona, now well known in the commu- nity, provides friendly reminders to ETS users about positive bus behaviors. The BOB program received the National Transit Corporate Recognition Award for 2006 from CUTA. In 2010, ETS also introduced a Captain Commute character that is knowledgeable about all aspects of ETS and attends school and community events to promote public transit. 66 SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH Community and school initiatives are believed to build stronger relationships between the transit agency and the public. Tran- sit agencies with a relatively high proportion of youths and agencies that transport students to and from their schools experience problems associated with unruly behavior and violence against bus operators. These agencies have initiated various forms of outreach to schools and communities in their service areas. Although it may take time for the benefits of outreach efforts to be realized in terms of operator assault prevention, agencies believe that these efforts are valuable, because increased familiarity and understanding of the transit system and the job of the operator may make operator assaults less likely. Advantages • Operator perspective—goodwill among operators is created through management support of operators by demonstrating that management is concerned and seri- ous about their security. • Public perspective—promotes the image that the agency is a good citizen of the communities it serves. • Agency perspective—is relatively inexpensive and can address multiple objectives (e.g., operator assault, pas- senger safety, passenger security). Disadvantage • Agency perspective—can take time for the positive ef- fects of school outreach initiatives to be seen. Agency Experience Greater Cleveland Regional Transportation Authority, Cleveland, Ohio GCRTA buses are used for transporting high school students to and from their schools. These students have been the source of most incidents. The most problematic time is dur- ing afternoon school dismissal times. To address this issue, GCRTA decided to perform outreach to younger children (first through eighth graders) before they reach high-school age. GCRTA created a special bus that has become an inte- gral part of its outreach efforts and helps GCRTA staff teach FIGURE 34 Toronto Transit Commission zero tolerance signage. (Courtesy: Toronto Transit Commission.) FIGURE 36 Edmonton Transit System signage. (Courtesy: Edmonton Transit System.)

67 younger children how to ride the bus and the importance of good behavior. GCRTA’s marketing, safety, and police divi- sions are all involved in the school outreach effort, which takes place, at a minimum, on a monthly basis. The school bus, shown in Figures 37 and 38, contains computers, a finger- printing device, and other equipment. Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, Virginia HRT serves 1.3 million residents in seven cities in Virginia: Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach. HRT has been providing “how to ride” presentations to community groups, assisted living facilities, organizations catering to people with disabilities, schools, and special events. HRT also plans or participates in various special events designed to raise awareness about HRT services and its safety outreach program. Other community outreach efforts include the creation of a board-sanctioned advisory committee composed of Hampton Roads Transit cus- tomers. HRT is developing an Ambassador Program in which HRT staff will work as liaisons to the community to improve their transit experience. VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, Texas VIA has developed a comprehensive educational outreach program. Its school and community outreach programs are unique in that some of these programs are designed to accom- modate very young (pre-K) children as well as older ones. VIA has a “Classroom on Wheels” safety presentation using a specially designed VIA bus. The 30-min program, which can include a bus ride, is targeted toward pre-K through fifth- grade students and teaches students the benefits of public transportation and bus safety. VIA also provides VIA facil- ity tours to school children. VIA also has a character, Buster, who represents a bus and visits schools and community events to educate school children and the public about VIA (see Fig- ure 39). VIA holds a Youth Art Contest in March of every year for students in pre-K through twelfth grade. Student artwork is displayed inside VIA buses, and contest winners receive sav- ings bonds and recognition. VIA’s Adopt-a-Bus Shelter Pro- gram encourages local groups, including schools, to adopt a bus shelter and help maintain it and, in exchange, VIA rec- ognizes the group by installing a plaque at the bus shelter. Fare discounts encourage children and teenagers to use VIA and become familiar with the system. A Class Pass Program FIGURE 37 GCRTA school outreach. (Courtesy: GCRTA.) FIGURE 38 GCRTA school outreach. (Courtesy: GCRTA.) FIGURE 39 VIA Metropolitan Transit “Classroom on Wheels” video. (Courtesy: VIA Metropolitan Transit.)

encourages youth group trips to attractions along VIA bus routes by offering discounted fares. Rochester Genesee RTA, Rochester, New York The Greater Rochester Community Transportation Founda- tion, created by RGRTA in 2000, is the first foundation of its kind (501-C-3, Type 1) in the United States established by a transit agency to provide financial assistance for transporta- tion to youth-oriented groups or organizations. This initiative fosters a positive image of RGRTA within the community and among children and teenagers. GRCTF funds of about $100,000 have helped transport more than 7,500 children thus far to tutoring and support services, college tours, museum visits, and sporting and other activities. For instance, Flower City Soccer, with GRCTF funding, succeeded in getting more than 2,000 inner-city children a year to Recreation Centers to participate in soccer games, which keeps them off the streets. RGRTA’s HONOR Foundation is also the first of its kind in the nation. It is a nonprofit foundation created by a transit agency that assists customers who may experience challenges paying fare for Lift Line services and is based on the belief that, with the availability of dependable and affordable public transportation, individuals with disabilities can participate in community life. More information about these foundations can be found at RGRTA website www.rgrta.com. WMATA, Washington, D.C. On Halloween, WMATA Metro’s “Boo Bus,” along with WMATA police and employees in Halloween costumes and McGruff the crime-fighting dog, entertains children at the Anacostia Metrorail station and gives them Halloween treats. The interior of the “Boo Bus” contains fake cobwebs, ghosts, and other Halloween decorations. This event is sup- ported by donations from Metro employees. This community outreach activity promotes a positive image of WMATA and its employees, and is an effort to discourage assaults and pranks against bus operators on Halloween, when such inci- dents are common. Edmonton Transit System, Alberta, Canada School outreach—The annual First Riders program is de- signed to provide travel and safety information to stu- dents making the transition to junior high school, who will be taking public transit to school for the first time. A Grade 2 Slideshow presentation is offered to second graders on the history of transportation in Edmonton. Community outreach—ETS participates in many commu- nity outreach activities. A community fair is held annu- ally. ETS participates in parades by providing ETS vin- tage and current buses and providing the Pipes and Drums band. The band was initiated in 1964 by ETS 68 operators and became an official city of Edmonton band in 2005. The ETS Street Team showcases the transit life- style and its benefits, and new projects at ETS. The team also submits a monthly commentary article to Metro News. The Donate-a-Ride program is a charitable initia- tive in which farebox donations throughout January and corporate donations throughout the year provide ETS tickets to Edmonton agencies that assist individuals in crisis situations. All proceeds of the popular Christmas Lights Tours, for which ETS employees volunteer their time, go to the Donate-a-Ride program. The Read ’n Ride initiative is a partnership between ETS and the Edmonton Public Library to promote adult literacy and reward readers on ETS buses. When passengers are “caught” reading, they are rewarded with various prizes. Stuff-a-Bus campaign—Each winter since 1995, ETS vol- unteers collect food donations for Edmonton’s Food Bank. Since its inception, the campaign has collected 247,902 kg of food and $297,773 in cash donations to help feed Edmontonians in need. Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago, Illinois CTA operates bus and rail transit systems and serves Chicago and 40 surrounding suburbs. CTA, one of the largest agencies in the United States, makes more than 25,000 bus trips daily, and serves nearly 12,000 bus stops. Operator assaults are a continuing concern for the agency, with teens and preteens instigating many of these assaults. On Halloween, high school students throw eggs and other objects at CTA bus operators. A few years ago, CTA began an initiative to address this issue by starting a school outreach program at high schools. CTA sends representatives to area high schools with high numbers of incidents to speak to the students. King County Metro Transit in Seattle, Washington, has a detective assigned to address school issues and visit Seattle public schools. Pinellas Transit in St. Petersburg, Florida, participates in the Great American Teach-In, which teaches students what it is like to be a bus operator. Coast Mountain Bus Company’s Transit Police in British Columbia, Canada, visits the schools in their service area and discusses any con- cerns or issues with the students and principals. Toronto Transit Commission created a presentation on transit safety for sixth graders, who are also taught to behave and be respectful of others, especially the bus operators. Schools call upon the agency to schedule this presentation. OTHER POLICIES Other policies that are believed to mitigate operator assault are peer feedback and remain-seated policies: • Peer Feedback—Toronto Transit Commission, Toronto, Canada—TTC has been encouraging bus operators to

69 engage in safe behaviors and to become more aware of any unsafe behaviors they may be practicing. This is done through a peer feedback program on a “no-name, no-blame” basis. TTC management worked closely with the union to implement the program and identify the 25 operators who would become peer observers. Feedback is provided by a peer observer to the bus operator immediately after a trip has been completed. An operator–facilitator was appointed and trained on the observation technique by a consultant. The facilitator then trained the other operators. Operator injuries, including those caused by assaults, have decreased by 10% since the inception of this program in 2008. • Operators-to-Remain-Seated Policy, Veolia, Las Vegas, Nevada—Veolia’s policy for its bus operators in Las Vegas is for operators to remain seated when interact- ing with customers, which is believed to prevent some operator assaults. Prior to the establishment of this pol- icy, many assaults occurred when operators decided to pursue fare evaders or arose from their seat during a dis- pute to confront a passenger. Operators are now trained to remain in their seats even if provoked. Assaults includ- ing punches and spitting still take place, but are fewer in number than previously. Other agencies, such as Cal- gary Transit, also instruct their operators to remain seated during customer service.