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.

21 CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH sibility for security and launched the centralized program because of the concomitant high number and value of legal claims agencywide. Philadelphia’s surveillance technology is paying for itself, as it has decreased claims payouts by tens of millions. No department can implement and develop a successful camera system by itself. All of the agencies had and required support from executive management to be successful. Vari- ous departments, including bus operations, security, and legal launched the electronic surveillance programs at the transit agencies, and they had to work collectively with other departments to be successful. As it is not possible or reason- able to watch all video, the bus operators trigger when an incident occurs so that it can be reviewed and the agencies have various departments such as security, bus operations, and legal view the video for investigative purposes. TriMet’s program in Oregon was launched as a result of public outcry. Years ago, TriMet was reluctant to monitor bus operators with cameras. They were installed after a bus operator was videotaped by someone’s personal cell phone reading while driving. This program has had a great impact on labor relations, as TriMet is currently facing arbitration to settle whether an operator may be monitored while he or she is not driving. Labor relations has a role at all the agencies. Focusing the cameras on the bus operators has both benefits and draw- backs for the bus operators and their union representatives. Although agencies place the cameras in the buses to ensure operator safety from physical assaults, union representatives are concerned about the abuse of using the videos to treat operators unfairly, resulting in discipline. Union representa- tives are also concerned about the added stress that comes from constantly being monitored while working. In practice, agencies have dealt with this issue by enacting policies that do not allow management to discipline operators based on the videos or allow management to “mine” the videos for discipline purposes. In some cases, cameras came first and other technology integration happened later, and vice versa. At New York City Transit (NYCT), the bus department is launching the sur- veillance program by taking advantage of the wireless serv- ers that already exist at the bus depots and monitor the vitals This synthesis documents the current use and state of the practice of electronic surveillance by transit agencies on board buses, as well as demonstrates the great potential of camera applications for buses. It identifies the technologies, research, and opportunities associated with cameras on buses. Most important, it demonstrates what is working on a large and small scale throughout the country and identifies where agencies are currently focusing their attention. It also shows that small and large agencies identified similar ben- efits, are facing similar issues, and have similar technology in place (digital video recording, or DVR). All the transit agencies that responded to the survey (32 of 40, 80%) indicated that the camera applications for buses enhanced their agencies and have led to financial benefits. In agencies that have embraced them systemwide, cameras have changed the way they do business; and they have even paid for themselves. Cameras improved operator and cus- tomer safety and decreased the costs of legal claims, and the agencies have been able to integrate this technology with their other technologies. The issues with which the agen- cies are currently struggling focus on keeping up with the technology as it advances, recording the bus operators while driving, and paying for the systems. The benefits of camera systems on buses are consistent among the agencies surveyed. The systems provide value to the entire organization, from bus operator and customer safety to reduced legal expenses. And as with most large projects that encompass entire agencies, the systems require a champion to implement them successfully. Accomplishing these goals, though, did not happen overnight. It was necessary to pre-test and test equipment; install equipment; develop maintenance, labor relations, and legal policies and procedures to operate and maintain the cameras; and dedicate staff to maintain and review the videos collected. Agencies documented the importance of specifying the equipment properly and keeping up with the latest technology. Given the obvious need for security after 9/11, security grants help fund the surveillance programs. However, the benefits have gone beyond security and security is no longer necessarily the primary reason for camera installation. At SEPTA in Philadelphia, the legal department took respon-

22 of the buses. At MBTA in Boston, cameras were installed under the guidance of the security department and monitor- ing of bus vitals technology was added later. Development of preventive maintenance practices is nec- essary, but the information gathered did not identify how this was accomplished. Although the systems primarily self- diagnose, it is not clear if the cameras are among the parts that are checked along with the other vitals of the bus. The synthesis was not able to make conclusions about the actual costs of installing cameras and systems in agencies. The costs were not broken down to separate hardware items. It would appear logical that systems that were part of bus builds would cost less than retrofits; however, there were insufficient data to establish that. Further research would be needed to identify the actual costs associated with installation. Technology is difficult to manage, as it changes so fast. Managing technology requires dedicated staff and constant review and updates as equipment becomes obsolete. It can also be expensive. To combat the cost, agencies are evaluat- ing their return on investment (ROI), seeking security grants at the federal and state levels, and buying nonproprietary open systems. Finally, there is a strong trend toward installing more cameras on buses and this is becoming a standard practice throughout the industry. Surveillance systems are a tool used for many purposes throughout the country and throughout the agencies across many departments. Opportunities for future research related to this syn- thesis include • Identification of costs for installation (e.g., new bus versus retrofit) • Funding sources for new technology • Most effective practices of automatic vehicle mainte- nance systems on buses (e.g., automatic checking of bus vitals) • Camera specification recommendations for bus fleets • Incorporation of new technologies into bus mainte- nance practices • Onboard electronic surveillance technologies on rail fleets.