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.
45 C H A P T E R 4 The study team conducted a survey of transit agencies to gain a current understanding of existing security practices at transit agencies. An electronic survey was sent to 100 potential respondents from both urban and rural transit agencies. In addition to the largest 50 agencies, smaller agencies serving rural and suburban areas were included as well. Periodic email remind- ers were sent out to survey nonrespondents, and when necessary, selected transit agencies were contacted by phone, or in person during transportation meetings and events, to encourage participation in the survey. Responses were received from 43 transit agencies (a response rate of 43%). The survey results were compiled and analyzed to gain an overview of security preparedness practices in transit agencies. Survey summary results are provided in this section of the report. More detailed survey results are available in Appendix D. Transit Security Preparedness Fifty percent of the Transit Security Preparedness survey participants rate their level of engagement in security as âhighâ or as part of the core mission of the agency. High engage- ment includes dedicated resources to implement programs or sustained initiatives for security preparedness, security awareness, and reporting. Thirty-five percent of the agency respondents rate their level as âmediumâ engagement, which includes security awareness materials, training, and providing resources as required to support security initiatives. Almost all of the agencies (94%) have established policies and procedures for managing security incidents. Sixty percent of Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents rate their agency efforts to address their major security challenges as âsomewhatâ or âveryâ successful. However, only 25% say they have implemented any security risk reduction program that they consider to be exceptional or exemplary. In the past 5 years, agency respondents have made major changes in the following areas: ⢠Employee training (almost 80% of the agencies), ⢠Technology (more than 70% of the agencies), ⢠Customer outreach and education (almost 60% of the agencies), and ⢠Security staff (almost 55% of the agencies). Other major changes within the last 5 years include the establishment of passenger codes of conduct and formalization of or updates to system security plans. Survey Results
46 Transit Security Preparedness Incidents and Causes This section provides an overview of the incidents and causes of most concern to transit agencies, based on the survey of transit agencies conducted as part of this synthesis. The Transit Security Preparedness survey participants were asked the number of events in the previous year or over the past 3 years. Terrorism Synthesis 80 (Nakanishi 2009) found that transit agencies reported that reports of suspicious activities, persons, and items increased in the immediate period after 9/11, then diminished and plateaued in the 2005â2006 time period. TCRP Report 180: Policing and Security Practices for Small- and Medium-Sized Public Transit Systems (Frazier 2015) found that homeland security- or terrorism-related threats rarely occur on smaller systems. The survey results are consistent with these previous findings. More than 75% of the transit agencies respondents in the Transit Security Preparedness survey had either one or no bomb threats in the past 3 years. Fifteen percent of the agencies received between two and nine bomb threats in the past 3 years. The survey did not include questions about other types of terrorist incidents, such as vehicle ramming incidents. Crimes and Assaults The Transit Security Preparedness survey participants listed trespassing and assaults on pas- sengers and operators, along with drug offenses and fare evasion, as major concerns. Almost 85% of the agencies experienced assaults against passengers or operators in the past year, with 12% experiencing more than 100 passenger assaults in that time; 75% experienced assaults against operators in the past year, with most experiencing from 1 to 30 incidents in that time. Assaults against transit workers and operators are a significant concern in the transit industry. The following Figure 5 shows the types of techniques that the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents use to address or mitigate assaults on operators and passengers. Most agen- cies (around 70% of respondents) use the presence of security forces and the establishment/ enforcement of passenger codes of conduct to address the issue. Another common technique (also indicated by around 70% of respondents) is training on verbal techniques to diffuse situations. Most (almost 92%) of the Transit Security Preparedness survey participants experience inci- dents of fare evasion, with 35% of the agencies having more than 100 incidents in the past year. Twenty-one percent of the agencies use fare checkers on a regular basis. Trespassing The Transit Security Preparedness survey found trespassing to be the most significant crime listed by the responding agencies. Seventy five percent of the transit agency respondents expe- rienced trespassing incidents in the previous year, and more than 25% had more than 100 tres- passing incidents in the previous year. Quality of Life The Transit Security Preparedness survey found that quality of life issues were a concern for most transit agencies. Disorderly persons/conduct and infractions involving eating/drinking/ loud music and drunkenness/liquor law violations are listed by the responding agencies as the most common concerns. All (100%) of the transit agency respondents experienced disorderly persons/conduct and drunkenness/liquor law violations in the previous year, and almost 35% had more than
Survey Results 47 100 incidents of each in the previous year. More than 60% of the transit agency respondents experienced eating/drinking/loud music infractions in the previous year, and almost 20% had more than 100 incidents of each in the previous year. Public transportation agencies have developed written codes of conduct that address quality of life issues and establish policies and rules prohibiting certain types of conduct. The Transit Security Preparedness survey found that 85% of the transit agency respondents had a passenger code of conduct. Two-thirds of the agencies (67%) posted the code of conduct on the agency website and on agency property. About a third (30%) of the agencies posted the code in stations and on vehicles. Twice as many agencies (24%) posted the code of conduct only on agency vehicles than posted it only in stations (12% of agencies). Homelessness Almost 85% of the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents experienced homeless/ vagrancy incidents in the previous year, with 32% having more than 100 incidents of each in the previous year. About 20% of the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents have established agreements with local nonprofit agencies, mental health agencies, and health and human services to help with their disruptive customers and the specific problems encountered. Human Trafficking Fifteen percent of the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents experienced at least one human trafficking incident. Only 6% of agencies have experienced two or more incidents. Almost half of the agencies (45%) collaborate with law enforcement on countermeasures to address human trafficking and 15% collaborate with an ad hoc or special task force to address the issue. Almost a quarter (24%) of the agencies have had special training on human  Â Â Â  Â Â Â Â Â Â  Â Â Figure 5. Techniques used to address assault.
48 Transit Security Preparedness trafficking. Twelve percent of the respondents issue public service announcements on human trafficking awareness. Technology Half of the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents are currently making what they consider to be âhighâ investments in technology. Almost three-quarters (72%) have made major changes in their agencyâs technology in the past 5 years. Technology currently in place and planned for future implementation is shown in Table 2. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Only 42% of the Transit Security Preparedness survey agencies have reviewed or assessed their facilities based on CPTED principles in the last 3 years. A little more than a quarter (27%) of the agencies have trained and certified CPTED inspectors on staff or available as contractors, which may partially account for the lack of regular assessments being done. More than 12% of the agencies plan to make security investments in CPTED in the future. Figure 6 shows the frequency of CPTED studies for agency facilities in the responding agencies. Most of the agencies that conduct reviews do them every 2 to 5 years, with slightly more than half of those occurring every 2 to 3 years. Technology Agencies currently using (%) Agencies planning to use (%) CCTV with recorded images 88 0 Intelligent video 15 17 Body-worn cameras 22 8 Facial recognition 3 8 Electronic inspection of persons/baggage 6 â Drones 12 0 Smartphone apps 28 22 Table 2. Technology use at transit agencies. Figure 6. Frequency of CPTED facility studies.
Survey Results 49 Cybersecurity Sixty-five percent of agency respondents have encountered cybersecurity challenges. In the past 3 years, almost 40% of respondent agencies have experienced a cyber breach. One-quarter of those breaches were in the administrative systems, and 7% were in the agency website or enterprise data system. Others involved email phishing and a breach in a vendorâs website. Other issues related to cybersecurity and technology encountered by the agencies include ⢠Privacy issues (45%), ⢠Civil rights/profiling issues (15%), and ⢠Other issues such as cost or maintenance (25%). Use of Visible, Unpredictable Deterrence: Security Presence The Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents use a variety of types of security forces, as shown in Figure 7. More than half of the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents (60%) have contract security forces. Almost a third (30%) of the agencies use local law enforce- ment for general patrol. Twenty-one percent have a dedicated transit police department, and 15% have an in-house security force. More than 12% of the agencies use contract local law enforcement as a dedicated security presence or off-duty part-time police. Almost half of the agencies (49%) have security staffing levels of between one and 25 people, while almost a quarter have more than 100 people on their staffs. For those agencies without a     Â Â Â Â Â Â  Â Â Â Â Â Figure 7. Types of security forces.
50 Transit Security Preparedness dedicated transit force, agencies use a contract security force (39%) or the local police general patrol (36%). Twenty-eight percent of the agencies use undercover or plainclothes officers, and 21% of the agencies have fare checkers. More than 30% use K-9 dogs to perform canine inspections for explosives; 9% use dogs for narcotics inspections. Forty-four percent of the agencies conduct random sweeps with their security forces. Partnerships Three-quarters (75%) of the Transit Security Preparedness survey respondents have formal cooperative relationships (e.g., MOUs) with external agencies/entities. Those external agencies include local law enforcement (97% of the respondents have MOUs in place), first responders, social service and community agencies, and utilities. Figure 8 provides respondent details on the specific partners. The âOtherâ category includes other law enforcementâthe FBI, the JTTF, or the state police; private entities such as nursing homes and extended-stay facilities; and informal MOUs with other regional transit partners. The coordination and collaboration established by these agreements provide intelligence information sharing, joint planning and emergency response, joint exercises and drills, and additional capabilities to address transit agency issues. A number of effective practices were highlighted in the survey responses. One agency partici- pates in a regional surface transportation security committee that meets quarterly at the Joint Regional Information Center to share transit security information with federal, state, and local police and works well. Another does intelligence sharing through the state, county, and major city fusion centers, which does not require an MOU. Another agency has an officer assigned full time to the JTTF, which promotes good communications. Â ÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â ÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ ÂÂÂ Â ÂÂ ÂÂÂÂ Figure 8. Transit agency partnerships.
Survey Results 51 Agencies have MOUs and mutual aid agreements with local law enforcement and fire depart- ments across the region, especially to handle major unplanned events. For some, local law enforcement reviews policies, provides recommendations and assistance, and participates in drills. One agency has an intergovernmental agreement with local law enforcement that provides the agency with direct access to a police officer, greatly enhancing security presence and reducing response time. Many agencies say they have a great relationship with the local law enforcement. Effective col- laboration and cooperation have led to many benefits for both parties. There is a coordinated sharing of criminal and threat information. As noted by one respondent, âWe have access to their network for locating and limiting access by individuals who have been identified as potential risks.â Agencies coordinate with the local emergency operations center (EOC) through a multi- agency MOU or with an EMS task force. Some work with Homeland Security and hold evacu- ation drills, for example, for the elderly. Others cooperate on security awareness training and disaster recovery. Some agencies establish agreements with local nonprofit agencies, mental health agencies, and health and human services. One agency noted in particular, âThey help in some capacity with our disruptive customers that go through the banning process because of some misconduct.â For others, social service organizations provide information based on the city or property closely aligned with the specific problems encountered. These relationships, according to a respondent, âAll work extremely well.â Training Most of the Transit Security Preparedness survey agencies (55% to 60%) provide formal secu- rity training to all of their employees, including contract security forces. The Transit Security Preparedness survey found that more than 80% of agencies had provided security awareness training in the past 3 years. Seventy-six percent of agencies provide refresher training courses in security awareness to transit police, security staff, and employees. Fifty percent of the agencies provide refresher training every year, and 20% provide refresher training every 2 years. Other training provided, according to the Transit Security Preparedness survey results, includes ⢠Immediate emergency response (58% of agencies), ⢠National Incident Management System (50% of agencies), ⢠Behavior recognition (30% of agencies), and ⢠Management of transit emergencies (30% of agencies). Preparedness Drills and Exercises More than two-thirds of agencies (66%) hold field exercises and drills, both inter- and intra- agency, and half of the agencies hold exercises and workshops. Figure 9 shows the frequency of the field exercises, drills, and workshops. Both interagency and intra-agency field exercises occur at about the same frequency, every 1 to 2 years. If there is any difference, it is that intra-agency exercises occur slightly less frequently than interagency exercises. Simulations and tabletop exercises are held less frequently than other exercises, drills, or workshops.
52 Transit Security Preparedness  Â Â         Figure 9. Frequency of field exercises, drills, and workshops.
Survey Results 53 Awareness Campaigns for Public and Transit Employees The Transit Security Preparedness survey found that today most transit agencies are aware of and use national awareness programs such as See Something, Say Something and the First Observer programs, as shown in Table 3. More than 80% use the See Something, Say Some- thing awareness program. More than 90% of the agencies receive suspicious activity and objects reports from both employees and passengers. Fifteen percent of the agencies have developed or used other security awareness programs, including programs for sexual harassment and for human trafficking; programs targeted at schoolchildren; one for the Citizens Police Academy; and âmarketing blitzes at stations, pam- phlets, community outreach at stations, schools, Agency Web Site, YouTube.â Agencies rate the effectiveness of employee awareness programs higher than that of passenger programs. Almost 60% of the agencies rate employee awareness programs as somewhat or very successful, versus 30% for passenger awareness programs. For most agencies, both employees and passengers report the same types of suspicious activity, objects, or persons, with the exception of probing for vulnerabilities. Vandalism, suspicious or unattended packages, and disruptive behavior are reported more frequently by employees than passengers. Reporting mechanisms cited in the survey responses were different for employees and pas- sengers. Figures 10 and 11 display the types of reporting mechanisms cited for each, and the percentage of agencies that responded to the survey. âOtherâ mechanisms cited for employee Awareness Program Agencies Aware of Program (%) Agencies That Use Program (%) See Something, Say Something 94 82 First Observer 42 30 Table 3. Transit use of national awareness programs. Â Â Â Â Figure 10. Employee reporting mechanisms.
54 Transit Security Preparedness programs include using the transit agency app and calling 911; for passengers, âOtherâ mecha- nisms included contacting the driver and using the agency website for reports. Twenty-eight percent of the survey respondents are currently using apps to report an issue such as suspicious activity, people, or objects; disruptive behavior; or safety or maintenance issues. Twenty-two percent plan to do so in the future. Most agencies (more than 60%) notify state or local authorities of reported suspicious activity, people, or objects. Almost a third (30%) notify the Transportation Security Operations Center (TSOC) about the report. Fewer than a quarter of the agencies (15% to 20%) notify DHS, the FBI, or the FTA about the reports. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Figure 11. Passenger reporting mechanisms.
