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.

7 CHAPTER THREE SURVEY RESULTS limited its retrofit program and did not retrofit one particular type of bus because of its age and configuration. FIGURE 2 Fleet sizes of surveyed agencies. Source: Survey results. Currently, more than one-half (18) of the agencies have 100% of their buses equipped and 85% (27) of the surveyed agencies have at least 75% of their buses equipped (Figure 3). Of those that are not fully equipped, 85% (27) have plans to equip all their buses between 2015 and 2020. FIGURE 3 Percentage of fleet equipped with cameras. Source: Survey results. FUNCTIONS Cameras on buses have a number of functions. Agencies use them for safety purposes, accident and insurance claims, inves- tigations, training, and passenger counting. There do not appear RESPONDENTS A total of 32 out of 40 (80%) transit agencies from across the United States and Canada completed the electronic survey in 2015. They ranged in size, geographic area, and maturity of onboard electronic surveillance programs. Some have 100% of their fleets equipped; others have plans to fully equip their fleets; one small agency has not installed cameras and has no plans to do so. These agencies are shown in the map in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 Map of surveyed agencies. Source: Survey results. Sizes of Fleets The 32 transit agencies ranged in size from some of the smallest fleets in the country to the largest, including Met- ropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) New York City Transit (NYCT) and Los Angeles County MTA (Figure 2). Five (15%) of the agencies have 100 buses or fewer. One- third (34%) of the agencies surveyed have 101–500 buses. Maturity According to the agencies surveyed, they started equip- ping fleets with cameras as early as 1990 and as recently as 2014. Most agencies started to install them in 2005, after 9/11. The current trend among the agencies is to equip their fleets with surveillance equipment. With a small exception, new buses are now purchased with cameras; that trend is expected to continue. Almost all (91%) of the agencies have buses that been ret- rofitted with surveillance equipment. Only one agency (3%)

8 to be standard policies associated with the use of the equipment among the agencies surveyed. However, the agencies have con- sistent reasons for installing the equipment as well as consistent associated benefits. All (100%) of the agencies have interior cameras and 25 (nearly 80%) have exterior cameras. The cam- eras are either running constantly (18 agencies) or are activated by the bus operator upon log-in or starting the shift. The agencies use the images from the surveillance cameras for a variety of reasons, including safety, legal, and training purposes. Although available in real time at some agencies, the videos are typically reviewed when there is an incident. Common triggers include operator reports, customer reports, criminal incidents, and accidents (Figure 4). Some of the agencies review the videos regularly as part of a periodic audit. Although the question was asked in the survey, it is unclear from the responses how long agencies archive their video images. Many responded that it depended on whether they were triggered for review and on the legal requirement. FIGURE 4 Reasons for reviewing surveillance. Source: Survey results. Twelve of the agencies, less than half, reported they have a policy associated with onboard surveillance technologies on buses. Examples of policy areas include • Safety of bus operator and customer; • How and when surveillance is allowed; and • Standard operating procedures for the cameras. Transit Policy Examples • For use in investigation into security or criminal investigations, incidents involving vehicle accidents and/or potential for claims of injury or damage to property. • Surveillance signs on the bus must be posted in both English and Spanish. Motivations or Purposes There are many motivations or purposes for installing cameras on buses, of which the top five were safety related (Figure 5). Four of the top five reasons are operator safety, customer safety, deterrence of criminal activity, and part of an overall security strategy. Another one of the top five rea- sons is accidents and insurance claims. When adjusted based on significance (very significant, significant, or somewhat significant), operator safety and accidents and insurance claims were ranked equally. MBTA: Video Surveillance Policy The MBTA’s video surveillance policy provides the backbone for organization. They have a detailed management policy that includes • Retention rates of video; • How video is stored; • Who has access depending on operational need; • How to request copies of video; • Who downloads video; and • How video is downloaded. All of this results in knowing what video is available and provides a strict chain of custody so that it can be used for civil claims and criminal evidence. Source: MBTA FIGURE 5 Reasons given for surveillance implementation. Source: Survey results. All of the agencies (100%) identified bus operator safety and customer safety as being among their motivations for installation of cameras. Thirty-one (97%) included accidents and insurance claims as one of their motivations. These 31 agencies gave accidents and insurance claims a more signifi- cant ranking overall. The next group of significant motivations was not as spe- cific as safety. These motivations included part of an agen- cywide plan for camera installation, operator performance, technology availability, workers’ compensation reports, training, and fare evasion. Generally, the agencies are not

9 Camera Views—Interior and Exterior All (100%) of the agencies’ buses have interior cameras and 24 agencies (more than 80%) have exterior cameras on the buses. The configurations and number of cameras on each bus, however, vary from agency to agency and from bus type to bus type within each agency. The agencies reported on their various configurations and views for both interior and exterior surveillance equipment. FIGURE 6 Reported benefits of surveillance implementation. Source: Survey results. FIGURE 7 Comparison of motivators and benefits for surveillance implementation. Source: Survey results. Buses with interior cameras have a minimum of two on each bus and the majority have more than six. There are fewer exterior cameras on the buses; the number ranges from one to six. The average numbers of exterior cameras for buses are as follows: • One-door buses: two cameras • Two-door buses: three cameras • Three-door buses: three cameras. The interior views on the buses are consistent with the motivators for installing the cameras. Almost all focus on safety at the doors (Figures 8 and 9). The most common view on all buses (one-, two-, and three-door) is the farebox installing cameras as part of a citywide strategy or for pas- senger counting purposes. The agencywide plans for cam- era installation include surveillance equipment on rail fleets and at fixed locations such as stations and right of ways. Although six agencies listed “Other” as a motivation for installing cameras, none of them elaborated. Transforming qualitative ranking to quantitative ranking was done by assigning numerical values to indicate varying degrees in the qualitative response. For example, a question on drivers was scored as follows: • Not Significant = 0 • Somewhat Significant = 1 • Significant = 2 • Very Significant = 3 These questions were also scored to show simply whether there was some importance or no importance. They were valued as either a “0” for no importance and a “1” for any importance. When an agency decided to install surveillance equip- ment on certain routes, about half of the agencies chose these routes because of criminal activity. Seven agencies (22%) put cameras on certain routes because of high acci- dent frequency and three (9%) were concerned about traf- fic congestion, wanting to address bus bunching or on-time performance of buses in real time. Benefits The agencies reported that they met their goals for install- ing camera equipment. The benefits reflected the reasons for installation. When ranked for importance, the benefits were consistent with the motivations or reasons for installation, although accidents and insurance claims ranked slightly higher than operator safety (Figure 6). Customer safety was the third most significant benefit. Although agencies are not typically installing cameras as part of citywide plans, some cities have benefited from the transit agencies’ programs. “Over 90% of the video we use comes from SEPTA,” City of Philadelphia Police Department Source: SEPTA When compared simply for importance or non-impor- tance, the agencies responded similarly (Figure 7). The ben- efit of customer safety was as important as operator safety and accidents and insurance claims. Thirty-one (97%) listed customer safety as a motivator for cameras and all 32 (100%) identified it as a benefit.

10 and front door. The second most common view is the rear door (for those that have rear doors). FIGURE 8 Interior camera views for one-door buses. Source: Survey results. FIGURE 9 Interior camera views for two- and three-door buses. Source: Survey results. At the 25 transit agencies (about 80%) that have exterior cameras on the buses, the most common view is the passen- ger side (Figure 10). FIGURE 10 Exterior camera views for one-door buses. Source: Survey results. The cameras are either running constantly (20 agencies, 63%) or are activated by the bus operator (12 agencies, 37%) upon log-in or starting the shift. According to the responses, the operators have access to the camera views while driv- ing at only two (6%) of the agencies. These operators have interior views of the rear doors and exterior views of the passenger side and behind the bus (Figure 11). One of these agencies has a view of both the operator’s side and the front of the bus. FIGURE 11 Exterior camera views for two- and three-door buses. Source: Survey results. Nearly half of the agencies point a camera at the bus oper- ators while they are driving. About a third of the agencies reported that they have agreements with the bargaining union relating to surveillance of the drivers, and half have a policy relating to surveillance of the drivers. The policies include • No surveillance/monitoring of bus operators • Only random/glancing views of bus operators • Continuous view of bus operators but no “mining” for discipline reasons Pointing a camera at a bus operator is problematic for many agencies because of labor concerns. Half of the agen- cies (16) found lack of union support was a significant bar- rier to implementation and half (16) responded that it had no significance. TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES AND INTEGRATIONS As technology continues to quickly change and improve, some of the agencies have more than one type of technol- ogy on their buses to record media images (Figure 12). All of the agencies protect the images they collect from unauthorized use and some are able to view the videos in real time. FIGURE 12 Types of surveillance equipment. Source: Survey results.

11 In most agencies, bus department management specifies the type of surveillance equipment installed. At some other agencies, the procurement department identifies the type of equipment. At one agency (3%), the legal department makes this decision. The most prevalent equipment on the buses is DVR (25 agencies, 78%). A number of agencies also use more than one type that they have identified as wireless cel- lular modem and radio. Six (19%) of the agencies have audio surveillance and one (3%) is considering it. It is also important to note that some states, such as Connecticut, prohibit audio surveillance. All of the agencies protect the video from unauthorized use. They stated that the video is encrypted (i.e., the infor- mation is encoded so that only authorized parties can read it), “read only,” or protected. Six (19%) of the agencies reported that they can view the videos in real time. The departments with real-time access include transit security, bus department management, and transit police. LA Metro is one of the agencies that can view images in real time. CASE PROFILE: LA METRO—REAL-TIME MONITORING: MOST EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR SAFETY To keep bus operators and passengers safe, LA Metro is purchasing all new buses with cameras as well as video monitor displays, and is even testing systems that can allow onboard cameras to be monitored in real time. The buses already have video surveillance, but LA is increasing safety, and discouraging unsafe behavior, with video monitors that will let riders and bus drivers see what’s going on around them. The intention of the systems is to decrease the number of assaults on operators and passengers. On operators alone, there were 191 assaults between 2010 and 2013. After deliberation with the bus operators and Metro, they both agreed that the new system of cameras and monitors are the most effective tools to keep operators and passengers safer. The video also has the ability to be downloaded remotely if an incident occurs. LA Metro can also pull alongside a bus in another vehicle and get videos in real time wirelessly. Each bus will have 11 cameras mounted to it internally and externally. Video display monitors similar to those used in markets and convenience stores were recently added on LA Metro’s newest buses. The agency would also like to retrofit older buses with the equipment but needs to determine how to pay for it. The 25 agencies with DVR store on the bus the images that can be downloaded. Of these agencies, 14 (56%) can also trans- fer the images wirelessly and five (20%) manually transfer the videos. All 25 agencies can download the images as needed. The time for which images stored on the bus varies among the agencies and within agencies (Figure 13). Twenty (80%) of the 25 agencies with DVR store the images there for 1 week to a month. Six (24%) download the data only as needed and the time varies. Three (12%) download the images between 24 and 72 hours. Two agencies (8%) down- load the images daily at a minimum. One agency (3%) stores the images on the buses for more than a month. FIGURE 13 Storage time for surveillance images. Source: Survey results. According to the survey question asked, management and bus maintainers have direct access to the stored images. As shown in Figure 14, it is primarily transit agency security (24 agencies, 75%) that have direct access. Bus department management has direct access at 19 (60%) of the 32 agen- cies; transit agency management has access at 13 agencies (41%); and the legal department has access at five agencies (16%). Bus maintainers have access at two agencies (6%), and the safety department and video security administrator each have access at one agency (3%). At all the agencies sur- veyed, bus operators do not have direct access to the images. FIGURE 14 Agency departments with direct access to images. Source: Survey results. Buses are becoming smarter and smarter. Many of the agencies are integrating their camera systems with global

12 positioning system (GPS) technology and monitors for average speed, G-force, vitals of the bus, routes, and fare- box collection (Figure 15). This allows the agencies to use the cameras to help manage congestion, bus bunching, and accident investigations. It is also possible to use the camera images to investigate bus breakdowns when applicable. FIGURE 15 Other types of equipment. Source: Survey results. Twenty-six (81%) of the agencies integrate cameras with their GPS systems on the buses. While 18 agencies (56%) integrate average speed with their cameras, 17 agencies (53%) responded that they integrate their surveillance equipment with both average speed and G-force. Ten (31%) integrate it with the vitals of the bus and fewer than six (≤19%) agencies integrate surveillance with routes and farebox collection. Nearly one- third (33%) of the agencies integrate the vitals of the buses; one agency surveyed, New York State MTA, downloads the vitals of the bus at the same time they download the videos at the fuel line. Five agencies integrated their systems with other technol- ogy; however, the other results were not provided. CASE PROFILE: VIDEO IMAGES AND BUS HEALTH REPORTS UPLOADED DURING FUELING The MTA New York City Transit and Bus Company has bus camera security systems on 1,728 of its buses. The systems capture video images and then upload them wirelessly at the depots while the bus is being fueled (Figure 16). At the same time, a system health report of the bus is uploaded wirelessly. A diagnostic of all the mechanical systems on the buses identifies whether there are any potential maintenance issues or reasons for extra maintenance. This all happens automatically as buses come in from their runs. MTA’s primary purpose for the electronic surveillance equipment is safety for their customers and employees. “Video surveillance is a vital element of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s ongoing effort to maintain a transit network that is as safe and secure as possible,” said MTA Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Thomas F. Prendergast when they started installation of the equipment in 2012. “Bus cameras offer a visible crime deterrent, while also providing a state-of-the-art electronic tool that will aid in the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity aboard the vehicle” (MTA 2012). FIGURE 16 MTA camera views. Source : MTA New York City Transit MAINTENANCE The camera systems, in general, self-diagnose; however, they require regular inspection by bus maintainers. From this point of the survey forward, there were 31 responses. The percentages are therefore based on a total of 31 agen- cies. Twenty-four agencies (77%) stated that their systems self-diagnose and this happens on either a continuous or a daily basis. Maintenance of the systems is predominantly the job of bus maintainers. Meanwhile, many (11, 35%) of the systems are relatively new and are still under warranty. Six agencies (19%) hire contractors to maintain the systems. To address maintenance issues, agencies mandate preventive maintenance programs, keep daily reports, and constantly train the bus maintainers on the systems so that they are always operating. LEGAL AND LABOR RELATIONS ISSUES The transit agencies use the videos for safety and security reasons, as well as discipline of bus operators in a few agen- cies. To maintain the integrity of the videos for investiga- tive and legal purposes, 25 (81%) of the agencies maintain a chain of custody (CoC) (Figure 17). The CoC is the pro- cedure used to show how the video was made, transferred, and saved, ensuring there was no tampering with the images. Chain of custody (CoC) refers to the chronological documentation or paper trail, showing the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of physical or electronic evidence. At about half the agencies, the security department is responsible for maintaining the CoC. Otherwise, bus depart-

13 ment management and the legal department are responsible for it, as shown in Figure 17. FIGURE 17 Chain of custody. Source: Survey results. At 15 agencies (48%), the bus operators are monitored while driving. At most agencies, this is not the case and there are policies prohibiting it. Nevertheless, six (19%) agencies reported operators may be disciplined as a result of the video. At more than half the agencies (17), union representatives are involved in developing the surveillance policy. There are policies at two agencies (6%) that do not allow management to intentionally view the videos for discipline purposes. Surveillance Policy “For security, safety, and supervisory purposes, the Employer reserves the right to install and operate video and audio recording systems in all Valley Transit vehicles and facilities. Audio records shall not be used for the purpose of Valley Transit disciplinary action unless related to the commission of an illegal act by the employee.” Source: Valley Transit, Washington State Although the responses to the surveys came from manage- ment, focusing the cameras on the bus operators may be a problem for the bus operators and their union representatives. Agencies place the cameras in the buses to ensure safety; nevertheless, union representatives are concerned about the abuse of using the videos to treat operators unfairly, resulting in discipline. Union representatives are also concerned about the added stress that comes from constantly being monitored while working. The survey suggests that agencies have dealt with this issue by enacting policies that do not allow manage- ment to discipline operators based on the videos or allow driv- ers to be “watched” when they are not driving the bus. TRAINING Twenty-seven agencies (87%) reported that they use the vid- eos for training bus operators. Seventeen (63%) of these 27 agencies use them for accident prevention and 16 (59%) use them for customer service. The videos document incidents and assist operators to develop safer, more efficient driving habits. One of the agencies presents awards to bus operators for accident avoidance. FINANCIAL IMPACTS Despite the cost of installing cameras on buses, all but two agencies (6%) reported financial benefits, with reduction in accident claims and payouts being the greatest. Others included fewer workers’ compensation claims, as well as fewer grievances submitted to labor relations because the evidence was clear in the video. When the agencies were requested to identify the costs associated with installing the cameras, most agencies did not know the actual cost. The cameras were part of new bus builds and/or they were purchased more than 10 years ago by other departments and records were not reliable. The costs varied widely and there was no adjustment for inflation or buying the cameras in bulk quantities. When reported, the cost to install cameras on new buses was much more consistent than the cost to retrofit. Accord- ing to the responses, the average cost to install camera equipment as part of a bus build was $9,800 per bus and the average cost to retrofit was $9,000. On two-door buses, the average cost was $9,400 to install on new buses and $8,600 to retrofit. For three-door buses, the average costs were $12,000 and $12,300, respectively. The cost to retrofit one-door buses ranged from $4,000 to $14,000 each. On the two-door buses, the cost ranged from $5,000 to $17,000 per bus, with one low cost of $2,700 per bus. The three-door buses ranged from $10,000 to $18,000 to retrofit, with a low outlier of $4,000. It is important to note that these costs do not necessar- ily include the hardware such as servers in depots or the equipment used to view the videos. Although this study provides ballpark costs of installation, further research is required to compare costs of systems. Regardless, agen- cies still find that the financial benefits outweigh the cost of installation, as demonstrated in the case examples in chapter five.