Video Surveillance Uses by Rail Transit Agencies (2011) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 26-35
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 26... ...
Yet, because not all agencies responded, the study cannot state without question that all transit agencies use some form of video surveillance. Although there seems to be overwhelming use of it, how extensive the use might be continues to be open to question.
|
From page 27... ...
TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF STATIONS, STATION PLATFORMS, AND SHELTERS MONITORED BY VIDEO SURVEILLANCE Category No. Less than 25% 8 26–50% 4 51–75% 8 76–100% 20 Among older, heavy rail systems, both WMATA and MARTA have had surveillance capabilities at all their stations since their inception.
|
From page 28... ...
Video surveillance systems provide protections for employees, particularly those working in remote locations at night or on weekends, but their installation is often met with resistance because employees suspect that anything observed on the video is as likely to be used to criticize their activities as to protect them from harm. Whatever the possible downsides of video surveillance may be perceived to be, responses from agencies as to plans for its use indicate a strong belief in its positive attributes.
|
From page 29... ...
Only two agencies with heavy rail vehicles indicated that more than 76% of their railcars had video surveillance; an additional agency reported that new cars would include cameras. Six agencies with commuter railcars indicated that more than 76% of their railcars were equipped with video surveillance, while 16 light rail systems indicated that more than 76% of their LRVs had surveillance cameras (Table 4)
|
From page 30... ...
As indicated in Table 5, only a small number of agencies employed video surveillance in operator/cab areas. An even smaller number anticipated that all new railcars would have this preinstalled.
|
From page 31... ...
. In addition to the risk this presents it has profound implications for transit ridership; those who are overly fearful of having to retrieve their vehicles from parking facilities are unlikely to consider using mass transit.
|
From page 32... ...
Just as cameras may be seen as enhancing risk mitigation and management oversight, they may also be seen as crime prevention mechanisms for protecting employees and their property. A number of transit agencies have used video surveillance in employee areas for decades, including Buffalo's NFTA and Cleveland's RTA, which in addition to monitoring key revenue facilities as early as the mid-1990s maintained a surveillance vehicle for covert operations (Gilbert 1995)
|
From page 33... ...
Phoenix's Valley Metro (another case study agency) did not state in its questionnaire response that it employs any ROW surveillance, but protection of its Town Lake Bridge in Tempe, Arizona, is a major element of its surveillance network (see chapter five)
|
From page 34... ...
PAAC has relied on chemical/radiation-detection sensors in a number of its downtown subway stations since 2006–2007. And Valley Metro relies on a combination of intrusion detection and surveillance cameras to protect the Tempe Town Lake Bridge.
|
From page 35... ...
Current DHS projects that involve passenger rail agencies are intended to provide ROW protection by extending the reach of electronic video surveillance from patron and employee areas to the tracks. In addition to those mentioned as already having received DHS funding, system upgrades currently under way generally call for a network based on surveillance and remote sensing equipment.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.