Onboard Camera Applications for Buses (2016)

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.

5 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard Univer- sity, testified before the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on “Mass Transit Security After the London Bombings,” and the vulnerability of public transit to terrorist attacks. He stated the following: According to the Congressional Research Service, fully one-third of terrorist attacks worldwide target transportation systems, and public transit is the most frequent transportation target. Analysis of more than 22,000 terrorist incidents from 1968 through 2004 indicate that attacks on land-based transportation targets, including mass transit, have the highest casualty rates of any type of terrorist attack. On average, attacks against such systems created more than two-and-a-half times the casualties per incident as attacks on aviation targets. In terms of fatalities, attacks on surface transportation are among the deadliest, ranking behind attacks on aviation and nearly equaling fatality rates of attacks on religious and tourist targets. (Prieto 2005) Prieto explained how there are a number of low-cost ini- tiatives that transit agencies could pursue to improve secu- rity, including visibility of security, public awareness, and assessments of vulnerabilities. He also stated that after the Madrid bombings in 2004, transit agencies recommended cameras and other surveillance equipment as part of their security measures; however, the expense could pose obsta- cles. Other measures included interoperable communications systems, training, canine teams, and capital improvements to infrastructure. Security is a key motivator for agencies to install video surveillance on their bus fleets. As described in a 2013 arti- cle from Security Today, widespread use of video surveil- lance has resulted from terrorist attacks throughout the years (Notbohm 2013). Within hours after the London bombings in 2005, the terrorists were arrested—largely because they were seen on camera entering and exiting the London Under- ground. Transit bombings such as those in Madrid (2004) and London have served to demonstrate the way transit systems can be vulnerable to terrorist attacks (Notbohm 2013). As a result, the federally funded Transit Security Grant Program invested $250 million in mass transit security. These grants help augment and improve surveillance systems, providing funding for new and improved surveillance technology that has proved to have better visual clarity as well as have the ability to obtain audio recordings of injuries, altercations, traffic incidents, and so forth. Currently, clear digital camera images are available in real time and can be transferred wirelessly and automatically to transit agency management and security, just as passen- gers have real-time transit information available to them on mobile devices. While onboard electronic surveillance tech- nology on buses has become widespread and commonplace over the past decade, this has not always been the case. The transit agencies surveyed did not start using cameras on buses regularly until 10 to 15 years ago. What led up to its widespread use and what problems are agencies still facing? In 2001, TRB published TCRP Synthesis 38: Electronic Surveillance Technology on Transit Vehicles. The report described the practice and use of onboard surveillance technologies that were designed to address both safety and security issues at public transit agencies at that time. Costs, maintenance requirements, and liability and privacy concerns were a barrier of implementation. Liability and privacy concerns have been trumped by security concerns since 9/11. Since 2001 and 9/11, the federal government and transit agencies around the country have been focusing on secu- rity and emergency preparedness. In the 2011 Mass Transit article, “10 Years Later: How Has Transit Security Changed Since 9/11?” APTA’s director of operations for safety and security programs, Greg Hull, stated, “Prior to 9/11 what we had in the industry were calmer approaches toward security and policing.” APTA had worked with FTA to develop com- mon approaches toward system safety, which included secu- rity and emergency preparedness; however, within hours of the attacks, senior management at transit systems and the FTA convened to discuss what needed to be put in place and what resources were available (Kaiser 2011). “Among the first things that were undertaken were financial resources being put into place by the FTA for vulnerability assessments to aid transit systems in refining their security plans and tightening up any aspects that needed to be addressed.” APTA Director of Operations for Safety and Security Programs As time went on, there were more attacks, some specific to public transit. In 2005, Daniel B. Prieto, research director of the Homeland Security Partnership Initiative and fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the

6 As camera applications continue to prevail, transit agen- cies have found themselves grappling with issues such as funding, legal battles, and union disputes; however, they have also reaped financial benefits resulting from the cameras. Funding for surveillance equipment is not reliable and the practices are not standard. Among the findings in TCRP Synthesis 90: Video Surveillance Uses by Rail Transit Agen- cies (Moses Schulz and Gilbert 2011), which documented the use of electronic video surveillance technology, • Reliable funding sources are necessary to assist agen- cies in making more effective use of available grants to upgrade security systems; • Policies tend to vary on how images are accessed; and • Publicizing successful applications of video surveil- lance may result in diversifying funding sources for systems installation and upgrading. As video surveillance is growing, TriMet in Oregon is currently in arbitration with its bus operator’s union for installing cameras focused on the operators. Before 2010, TriMet was opposed to installing cameras until a customer recorded with his mobile phone a bus operator reading a Kindle while driving the bus. The video went viral and the operator was fired. By 2012, all new buses had eight cam- eras, with one specifically focused on the operator. The purpose of the camera focused on the operator is to prevent crimes and assaults committed against the driver, to further improve customer satisfaction, and to clarify false reports. Currently, TriMet is going to arbitration over whether the cameras can roll when the bus operator is on breaks or not driving (Rose 2014). Electronic surveillance has reportedly saved South- eastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) $11 million in claims. Payouts made by the transit agency dropped by $11 million as well as an additional 5% in fis- cal year 2013. In addition to the payout rate going down, the numbers of claims and lawsuits have also declined. Video surveillance provides the images plaintiffs will see in court. Lawyers who would typically sue SEPTA, con- sidered an easier claim to collect on, now call first. The technology has changed their mentality. As of today, 75% of SEPTA’s buses are equipped with cameras, and in 2016, all of their bus fleets will be equipped with video surveil- lance (Fisher 2014). Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) uses video surveillance to assist with legal claims and improve security. They secured a grant from the Department of Homeland Security to improve the security of its fleets. The MBTA credits the short time they have recently had to spend on closing cases to the new surveillance technology. Customer feedback surveys indicate they feel safer, which is invaluable (Clarke 2014).