National Academies Press: OpenBook

Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems (2015)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Small- and Medium-Sized Transit Agency Security Environment
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22115.
×
Page 24

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.

17 C H A P T E R 3 The following chapter presents profiles of the 2 types of agencies surveyed for this research— small- and medium-sized transit agencies. For the purpose of this report, a small transit agency is defined as serving a population of less than 50,000 people whereas a medium agency serves a population of between 50,000 and 200,000 people. (See Figure 3.1.) As noted in Figure 3.1, 180 small- to medium-sized public transit agencies from across the U.S. were surveyed about their assets, identified and historic security risks, as well as physical and operational countermeasures. Questions about assets included size of fleet by mode, physical structures (e.g., office building, maintenance garage), infrastructure (e.g., bridges, tunnels), and security personnel. One hundred and six (106) large agencies were also surveyed for comparative purposes; however, completing profiles for these agencies was outside the scope of the research. Risk questions pertained to the incidence of homeland security-related events, felony and mis- demeanor crimes, and quality-of-life offenses committed within the past year. Agencies were also asked to report on incidents of suspicious activity, packages, persons, bomb threats, and evacuations based on these suspicious circumstances. In terms of countermeasures, agencies were asked about access control, barriers, berms, surveillance equipment, security public awareness campaigns, and security planning. Forty-two (42%) percent of small-sized and 44% of medium- sized transit agencies do not have an annual budget for security operations. Comparatively only 10% of large agencies report not having a budget for security operations. (See Figure 3.2.) Survey questions varied from yes/no, Likert Scale, to short answer. The results discussed are based on significant answers; agencies that responded “unsure” were not included. Researchers received 70 responses from small transit agencies and 110 responses from medium-sized transit agencies. (See Tables 3.1–3.5.) Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles

18 Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems Size of Area (Populaon) Number of respondents Survey Group 1 (Large) Greater than 200,000 106 Survey Group 2 (Medium) Between 50,000 – 200,000 110 Survey Group 3 (Small) Less than 50,000 70 Table 3.1. Survey groups. Agency Informaon: What is the size of your community, as measured by the populaon of your service area? Answer Opons Response Percent Response Count Small (serving a populaon less than 50,000) 38.9% 70 Medium (serving a populaon 50,000 - 200,000) 61.1% 110 Large (serving a populaon over 200,000) 0.0% 0 Unsure 0.0% 0 answered queson 180 skipped queson 0 Agency Information: What is the size of your community, as measured by the population of your service area? Small (serving a population less than 50,000) Medium (serving a population 50,000 - 199,999) Figure 3.1. Agency size. No Budget Less than 25k $ 26k - $ 75k $ 76k -$ 150k 42 14 3 0 44 34 14 2 10 14 11 15 Annual Budget for Security Operaons Small - 70 Medium - 110 Large -106 Figure 3.2. Security operations budget.

Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles 19 (continued on next page) Profile Survey Response Populaon Served Small transit agencies are defined as serving a populaon of less than 50,000 people Service Area 48.6% of the small transit agencies reported 0-100 square mile service areas Passenger Miles The majority of agencies (64%) served less than 250,000 passenger miles one- way annually, with 37% serving less than 100,000 passenger one-way miles. Fleet Size Small transit agency respondents in the survey largely reported having a fleet of 1-10 buses, fewer than 25 paratransit vehicles, no rail or trolley buses Buildings One administrave building, 1 maintenance facility, and somemes a staon or an intermodal center Other Infrastructure Most small agencies did not report owning infrastructure. None of the small transit agencies reported owning tunnels, bridges, subways, or power substaons Security Budget/Staffing 69% of small transit agencies report that they do not have a budget for security. An addional 23% have security budgets under $25,000. A majority of small transit agencies reported no dedicated security personnel (87%). Terrorism and Homeland Security—Risk Characterized As Very Low Arson No reported incidents with a connecon to terrorism or homeland security. Ninety-six (96%) percent of small agencies indicated no reports of suspicious acvity of any kind were received from passengers or employees within the past year. Agencies listed zero evacuaons due to suspicious acvity in the past year. Small-sized agencies most frequently reported relaonships with the state/local authories (81%) and FTA (76%). Some reported relaonships with DHS, TSA, FBI, and the FRA. Explosives Weapons of Mass Destrucon (WMDs) Violent Confrontaons/ Hostage Situaons Tampering Power Loss Transit Vehicle as a Weapon Network Failure/Cyber Aack Felony Crime—Risk Characterized As Very Low Homicide Major crimes occur infrequently on small transit systems. One respondent reported a homicide in the past year. Three respondents reported robberies, 2 on board buses and 1 in a parking lot. Four respondents reported felony aggravated assaults, 2 on board buses and 2 in staˆons. Only a handful of small transit agencies report having an in-house computerized crime reporˆng system (4%), or crime-mapping (3%). Half of agencies surveyed did report providing crime data to law enforcement (50%) and management (53%). One-third reported crime to the NTD (32%). Robbery Rape Aggravated Assault Larceny Auto The Arson Burglary Other Crime—Risk Characterized As Very Low Pick Pocket/Snatch and Grab Lesser Crimes involving the from passengers rarely occur on small transit systems. Only 3 agencies reported any incidents. The of company property was reported at 19% of the agencies. Metal thes were low. Fare evasion incidents occur at about half of the agencies; however, 15% of those reporŠng indicate repeated incidents ranging from a low of 11 to a high of 100. Minimal drug acŠvity. The of Company Property The from Vehicle Scrap or Metal The Fare Evasion Trespassing Drug Offense Table 3.2. Security risk profile—small-sized transit agencies.

20 Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems Countermeasures Security Ligh ng Many small transit agencies (76%) incorporated ligh ng as security support and crime deterrence. Typically street lights, flood lights, and building lights around office buildings, maintenance facili es, in bus garages, and parking lots. Most agencies (61%) recorded no berms or barriers as an access control to restricted areas/nonpublic places. Small transit agencies used fences (63%) in these areas, primarily chain-link with some barbed wire, oƒen 6-10 feet tall. About half of small transit agencies use close-circuit television (CCTV) video surveillance on their proper es, primarily at office buildings, parking lots, on board buses and paratransit vehicles. Agencies mostly used cameras to record without monitoring or for a playback func on/storage. A few agencies monitored the cameras and recorded the video stream. Some small transit agencies employ electronic security systems or rou ne security prac ces as another means of protec on and preven on. Several agencies listed intrusion detec on equipment at office buildings, sta ons, and maintenance facili es—mostly audible alarms and video mo on detec on. 61% of agencies reported conduc ng security sweeps, generally at garages, parking lots, on buses, paratransit, and in office buildings. Agencies also reported access control at buildings, garages, and parking lots, most frequently fences, key cards, key locks, and key pads. Over half of small transit agencies reported not having emergency phones available (53%). Those agencies that did have emergency phones placed them largely at office buildings. Though many small transit agencies used the “see something, say something” public awareness security campaign, most agencies reported not having public awareness security signage in place (79%). Despite the aforemen oned countermeasures, many small transit agencies lack security personnel, training procedures, a dedicated security budget, or a formal security plan. A majority of small transit agencies reported no dedicated security personnel (87%). Many small transit agencies reported having a security plan (48%) though most were unsure when it was last updated (58%). Most agencies did not provide security training (68%). When agencies did report training it was provided to front-line employees, administrators, operators, dispatchers, and supervisors; focused on security awareness, behavior recogni on, and emergency opera ng procedures. 89% of agencies perform background inves ga ons of employees, however this number falls to less than 40% for contractors granted access to transit property. Barriers and Berms Fencing Video Surveillance Intrusion Detecon Physical Sweeps or Inspecons Passenger Screenings for Firearms, Explosives, WMD Access Control Security Signage Emergency Telephones, Duress Alarms, Assistance Staons Dedicated Security Staffing Security Awareness Training for Employees Security Training, Drills and Exercises Security Plan or Risk Management Framework Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Background Invesgaons for Employees Background Invesgaons for Contractors Quality-of-Life Offenses—Risk Characterized as Low Disorderly Persons Although infrequent unruly, disorderly, or aggressive behavior incidents repeatedly occur at the majority of small transit agencies. 56% percent report between 1 and 10 incidents of disorderly conduct annually. About 1/3 of the agencies have a minor homeless issue consisng of less than 10 incidents occurring annually. Vandalism is reported as low, with 59% reporng no incidents. Homeless/Vagrancy Drunkenness/Liquor Law Violaons Smoking/Eang/ Li—ering/Loud Music Graffi/Vandalism School Related Disorder Table 3.2. (Continued).

Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles 21 Table 3.3. Security risk profile—medium-sized transit agencies. Profile Survey Populaon Served Medium-sized transit agencies are defined as serving a populaon of between 50,000 and 200,000 people Service Area 52% of medium-sized transit agencies reported 0-100 square mile service areas; 16% between 100 and 300; 9% between 300 and 500; and 15% over 500 miles. Passenger Miles Approximately 27% of survey respondents reported their transit agency provided over 750,000 one-way annual passenger miles, 20% between 101,000-250,000 and the remainder providing 251,000-750,000 (28%). 5% were less than 100,000. Fleet Size The medium-sized transit agencies reported larger fleets—most frequently 11-25 buses (46%) and paratransit vehicles (40%). One of these agencies reported having a fleet of 26-50 railcars, and 11 agencies reported having a fleet of 1-10 trolley buses. The majority provided bus (94%) and paratransit (92%). Buildings Most agencies reported having one administrave building (81%) or 2 to 6 buildings (12%). Agencies also reported 1 maintenance facility/rail yard/bus garage (82%) or 2 to 6 facilies (7%). Many agencies had at least 1 passenger staon/terminal (56%) and/or intermodal center (54%). Other Infrastructure Some agencies had elevated structures, bridges, and private right-of-way. One agency reported owning a tunnel and 2 others had power substaons (likely for rail tracon power) Security Budget/Staffing 44% of medium-sized transit agencies report that they do not have a budget for security. An addional 34% have security budgets under $25,000. 17% report dedicated security staff. Terrorism and Homeland Security—Risk Characterized as Very Low Arson No reported incidents with a nexus to terrorism or homeland security. Only 3 agencies reported receiving bomb threats—1 bus threat, and 2 agencies reported receiving staon bomb threats and other threats. 88% of medium-sized agencies indicated no reports of suspicious acvity of any kind were received from passengers or employees within the last year. The most frequently reported was suspicious persons (11), packages (9), and trespassing (6). In fact, out of 110 medium-sized agency respondents, only 7 reported evacuaons due to suspicious acvies. Of those, six agencies reported 1 bus evacuaon, and 1 agency reported 3 evacuaons. Six agencies also reported 1 staon evacuaon, and 1 agency reported 2 evacuaons. One agency each reported a train, paratransit, and trolley evacuaon. Medium-sized agencies most frequently reported relaonships with the state/local authories and FTA. Some reported relaonships with DHS, TSA, FBI, and the FRA. 64% of agencies reported providing suspicious acvity informaon to the DHS. Explosives WMDs Violent Confrontaons/ Hostage Situaons Tampering Power Loss Transit Vehicle as a Weapon Network Failure/Cyber A¡ack Felony Crime—Risk Characterized as Low to Very Low Homicide Major crimes occur infrequently on medium-sized transit systems. None of the medium-sized agencies reported incidents of homicide or rape. 85% of agencies reported no incidents of robbery. Of the agencies that had robberies, 90% reported between 1 and 3 incidents per year. 76% of the agencies reported no aggravated assaults. Similarly many agencies reported no instances of auto the£s Robbery Rape Aggravated Assault (91%), arson (96%), or burglaries (94%). When the crimes were considered by locaon, agencies reported the most incidents on buses. Agencies reported 1-10 assault incidents per year against operators (19%) and passengers (29%). Aggravated assault, robbery, and larceny were also reported at staons. Agencies also reported auto the£ from parking lots, some larceny, robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary. Few medium-sized transit agencies report having an in-house computerized crime reporng system (12%), or crime-mapping (10%). Agencies did report providing crime data to law enforcement (60%), management (70%), and the NTD (72%). Larceny Auto The£ Arson Burglary (continued on next page)

22 Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems Other Crime – Risk Characterized as Low Pick Pocket/Snatch and Grab Lesser Crimes involving the from passengers infrequently occur on medium- sized transit systems. Ten of the agencies reported incidents. The of company property was reported at 17% of the agencies. 12% reported thes from vehicles. Metal thes were low. Fare evasion incidents occur at 64% of the agencies. 20% of those repor‰ng indicated repeated incidents ranging from a low of between 11 and 25 (10 agencies) to a high of greater than 100 (2 agencies). 23% of agencies reported at least 1 incident of trespassing per year including some reports of 4-7 incidents, 8-12 incidents, and over 12 incidents of trespassing. Agencies reported assault against passengers and trespassing in sta‰ons, as well as trespassing and drug offenses in the parking lots. The of Company Property The from Vehicle Scrap or Metal The Fare Evasion Trespassing Drug Offense Quality-of-Life Offenses – Risk Characterized as Medium to Low Disorderly Persons Medium-sized transit agencies occasionally to frequently face incidents of unruly, disorderly, or aggressive behavior. 64% percent report between 1 and 10 incidents of disorderly conduct annually. 56% of the agencies have homeless issues with 5 agencies reporŠng between 11 and 25 incidents, 3 between 26 and 50, 2 between 51 and 100, and 2 with over 100 incidents annually. Half the agencies experience drunkenness/liquor law violaŠons (49%), smoking, eaŠng, li–ering, and loud music (46%). Incidents of graffiŠ or vandalism are reported at approximately 60% of the agencies. Much of the quality-of-life offenses occurred on buses; especially disorderly persons (77%) and drunkenness (56%). The most commonly reported paratransit quality-of-life crimes included disorderly conduct (28 agencies) and smoking/ eaŠng/li–ering/loud music (12 agencies). 78 of 108 agencies reported no incidence of quality-of-life crime on paratransit. Of the few agencies with trolley buses, 4 reported drunkenness incidents, and 3 had homelessness/vagrancy incidents. Numerous agencies reported quality-of-life crimes at staŠons, though fewer incidence of loud music than any other category. Homelessness/ Vagrancy Drunkenness/Liquor Law Viola ons Smoking/Ea ng/ Liering/Loud Music Graffi /Vandalism School Related Disorder Countermeasures Security Ligh ng Most agencies (85%) reported using ligh ng to support security inspec ons, patrols, passenger and employee awareness, and deterrence. These agencies mostly reported ligh ng outside office buildings (93%), and maintenance facili es (83%), some sta ons (66%), and parking lots (59%). The type of ligh ng was generally building light (91%) and streetlights (85%), with some lampposts (56%), floodlights (56%), and a few mo on detec on lights (17%). Of the agencies with barriers and berms, most reported using natural barriers and Barriers and Berms Fencing Video Surveillance Intrusion Detec on Physical Sweeps or Inspec ons landscaping, bollards, and planters. Agencies located these dividers predominantly outside maintenance facili es (77%), office buildings (55%), parking lots (34%), and sta ons (32%). 79% of agencies reported using fences for access control, most frequently around maintenance facili es (80%), office buildings (49%), parking lots (48%), and some sta ons (22%). Agencies with fences generally reported using chain-link (84%), 6-10 › tall (83%), and some with barbed wire (22%). Less than half of the agencies used electronic systems to control access to restricted areas (40%). Systems generally included key-card use, fencing/gates, key locks, and key pads. Agencies with these systems reported using access control in office buildings, maintenance facili es, and a few at sta ons. 76% of medium-sized transit agencies used CCTV, most with playback storage, some monitored and recorded, others recorded but not monitored. Agencies reported predominantly fixed camera, some pan- lt-zoom, and night vision cameras as well. Agencies reported using CCTV on buses (75%), at office buildings (73%), maintenance facili es (71%), sta ons (59%), on paratransit (48%), and in parking lots (47%). Passenger Screenings for Firearms, Explosives, WMDs Access Control Security Signage Emergency Telephones, Duress Alarms, Assistance Sta ons Dedicated Security Staffing Table 3.3. (Continued).

Transit Agency Security Risk Profiles 23 44% of medium-sized transit agencies reported using intrusion detec on devices, predominantly audible alarms. Agencies with intrusion detec on devices reported loca ng them at office buildings (93%), maintenance facili es (75%), and sta ons (36%). Most intrusion detec on devices were for office buildings (98%), perimeters (47%), and internal security (35%). The most frequent type of duress alarm was driver address, followed by call boxes, panic alarms, and intercoms. Half of the agencies conduct some form of public awareness campaigns. 58% of agencies provided security training to employees. Training generally included security awareness (97%), emergency opera ng procedures (95%), and behavioral recogni on (62%). Most agencies had a security plan, and updated the plan within the past 12 or 36 months. Approximately half of these agencies had an employee responsible for implemen ng the plan. Addi onally, many agencies conducted a risk vulnerability assessment and had updated it within the past 12 or 36 months. Though 95% of agencies conducted background checks on employees, significantly fewer (28%) conducted checks on contractors. Security Awareness Training for Employees Security Training, Drills and Exercises Security Plan or Risk Management Framework Risk and Vulnerability Assessment Background Inves ga ons for Employees Background Inves ga ons for Contractors Table 3.3. (Continued). Security Risk Profile Small-Sized Agencies Medium-Sized Agencies Terrorism/Homeland Security Risk characterized as very low Risk characterized as very low Felony Crime Risk characterized as very low Risk characterized as low to very low Other Crime Risk characterized as very low Risk characterized as low Quality-of-Life Offenses Risk characterized as low Risk characterized as medium to low Table 3.4. Relative risk profile comparative findings/summary section.

24 Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems Security Measure Small-Sized Agencies Medium-Sized Agencies VL L M H VL L M H Security Lighng x x Barriers and Berms x x Fencing x x Video Surveillance x x Intrusion Detec on x x Physical Sweeps or Inspecons x x Passenger Screenings for Firearms, Explosives, WMDs x x Access Control x x Security Signage x x Emergency Telephones, Duress Alarms, Assistance Staons x x Dedicated Security Staffing x x Security Awareness Training for Employees x x Security Training, Drills and Exercises x x Security Plan or Risk Management Framework x x Risk and Vulnerability Assessment x x Background Invesgaons for Employees x x Background Invesgaons for Contractors x x KEY: Very Low (VL) = 0-25% Low (L) = 26-50% Medium (M) = 51-75% High (H) = 76-100% Table 3.5. Countermeasures deployment comparative findings/agency utilization rates.

Next: Chapter 4 - Crime, Statistics, and Reporting Procedures »
Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 180: Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems explores the current state of practice and identifies and responds to the specific challenges and issues associated with the security of small- and medium-sized transit agencies. The report follows the five stages of protection activity (prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery) by providing baseline options and identifying potential security countermeasures that could be deployed by both of these sizes of transit agencies.

The report is accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!