Safety > Public Travel Security                                    Printer-friendly version

• Overview of Transit Crime
• Measures for Reducing Transit Crime
• Technologies Used for Transit Security
• Effects
• References

OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT CRIME

The security of a transit system is part of the service that the transit agency provides. Passengers regard their safety as the agency's responsibility. An early study by Thrasher and Schnell (1971) concluded that the risk of being involved in a crime incident is at least twice as great in a transit system as in a private vehicle. Because the perception of insecurity reduces people's willingness to use transit, and because crime can damage facilities, preventing crime on transit systems is of as much concern to transit agencies as on-time performance and comfort.

Crimes committed in transit systems include disorderly conduct, public drunkenness, non-payment of fares, theft, harassment/threat, narcotics, weapons violation, purse snatching, simple assaults and batteries, robberies and attempts, aggravated assaults, sexual assaults, rapes and attempts, and homicides and attempts (Needle, 1997). These crimes occur in transit stations, at transit stops, or on board transit vehicles, and often at night.

Crimes reported in the National Transit Database (NTD) are commonly categorized into three groups: (1) quality of life crimes, (2) property crimes, and (3) violent crimes (6). These three groups can be described as follows:

• Quality of life crimes are small crimes that degrade the overall quality of life and degrade the level of service of the transit system. These include public drunkenness, vandalism, and disorderly conduct.
• Property crimes include burglary, larceny, and fare evasion.
• Violent crimes include homicide, robbery, assault, and rape.

Past reviews of the federal statistics (Boyd 1998, Thompson 1998) have shown that quality of life crimes are the most numerous (64 percent) for bus crimes, with property crimes (22 percent) next and violent crimes (14 percent) last. In the quality of life category, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and vandalism account for nearly 80 percent of the crimes (Boyd 1998). Small- and medium-sized bus agencies had a higher incidence of drunkenness arrests and a higher rate of disorderly conduct crimes than did larger agencies, but reporting biases associated with agency size might lie behind these findings. For example, Levine and Wachs (1986) estimated that one agency’s crime data included only about four percent of the transit-related crime associated with that agency. Because they often have dedicated transit police, large transit agencies usually have higher quality crime data than do other agencies. Despite having dedicated enforcement, normally the information gathered and analyzed at the agency level does not include time of day or location of the incidents. Protecting the privacy of drivers, publicly reported data does not indicate who the involved driver was, if there was one. In contrast with larger agencies, smaller agencies generally rely on voluntary information exchange with local law enforcement. This further limits the extent of any analysis of transit-crime data.

Location of Transit-Related Crime
Location of transit crime varies by the type of offense. Reported quality of life and property crimes occur at locations other than stations or vehicles, such as bus stops. In contrast, most reported violent crimes happen on-board the transit vehicle. A fundamental reason for this difference is the type of interaction required. Quality of life crimes often require no direct interaction with specific victims (a drunken person does not need to interact with anyone to create an undesirable atmosphere). Table 1 shows the total number of transit crimes nationwide in these three categories (for 1996 as reported in the NTD), as well as the percentage of each that occurred in-vehicle.

Table 1: Transit Crime Frequency in the United States

Studies have suggested that most serious crimes occur at night, when there is little activity. Most non-violent crime, however, occurs during the evening rush hour (Levine 1986, Loukaitou-Sideris 1998). Taken as a whole, past research shows that crimes, including transit crimes, concentrate spatially and temporally (Loukaitou-Sideris 1998). Indeed, over the past two decades criminologists have argued that crimes should be viewed as events that occur at specific locations in specific situations (Brantingham 1991 & 1993).

Transit Vehicle Operator as Crime Victim
There is a paucity of published research on assaults against employees of transit agencies, but the consequences of these assaults are important. Attacks may affect the physical and emotional integrity of operators or generate absenteeism, high job dissatisfaction, and high turnover. Causes of these events include fare disputes, traffic incidents, and rowdy passenger behavior. Oxley (1987) indicates that in the United Kingdom most attacks happen during the day, although no attempt to control for exposure (e.g., number of passengers) is made. Furthermore, Oxley suggests that assaults are not limited to large cities, but also are prevalent in smaller cities.

Small and medium-sized bus agencies in the US reported a total of roughly 1,600 crimes in 1996. Of these, employees accounted for 21 percent of the crime victims. At a national scale, the National Transit Institute (NTI), with the collaboration of San Francisco’s Municipal Railway (MUNI), developed a comprehensive needs analysis to understand the nature and scope of transit violence against vehicle operators. The study classified driver-related incidents according to severity as low-level, medium-level, or high-level incidents. Low-level incidents have to do with infractions of rules that the operators enforce. They include refusing to pay fare, playing loud music, having an offensive odor, and alcohol consumption on the vehicle. Medium-level incidents involve interaction with operators or among passengers that are somewhat threatening to the operator or other passengers. These include the use of racial or gender slurs, urination on transit property, verbal threats, and pick-pocketing. High-level incidents are criminal actions that can cause harm.

As expected, the results showed that low-level incidents are very frequent (about 80-90 percent of drivers have experienced these). Medium level incidents were less frequent than low-level incidents. Almost a quarter of all drivers had at least one pick-pocketing scene on their vehicles during the six months prior to the survey. Finally, the frequency of high-level incidents is lowest of all categories, yet still quite high. Twelve percent of vehicle operators reported being punched or hit by riders in the past 12 months (Haider 1996).

MEASURES FOR REDUCING TRANSIT CRIME

Measures for improving transit security are well received by the public. Levine and Wachs (1986) found strong support for financing bus crime prevention programs, preferably via higher fares. Bus-driver reactions to such measures, however, are not as well studied.

Most safety and security improvement measures can be categorized as one of the following types: patrol and security, design actions, media and information campaigns, technological innovation, transit service improvements, and increasing sanctions of offenders (Ingalls 1994, Wallace 1999). Following are some examples of each type:

Patrol and Security

• Uniformed
• Undercover
• Community patrolling
• Focal point booths
• Vehicle operator

• Lighting
• Signage
• Cleanliness campaigns/ facilitators of compliance
• See-through shelters
• Overall visibility
• Operator cabin screens (e.g., plexiglass)
• Graffiti and vandal-resistant materials
• Moving stops closer to activity nodes
• Widen sidewalks to minimize pedestrian conflict
• Creation of Off-hours waiting areas
• Eliminating/limiting seating at bus stations and major stops

Technology

• Access control systems (e.g., motion detectors) to monitor ingress and egress
• Closed circuit television (CCTV)
• Alarms (overt and silent)
• Call boxes in vehicles and stations
• Emergency signs on vehicle
• Radios

Information campaigns

• Media campaigns for riders and non-riders
• Leaflet distribution

Transit service improvements

• Increased service frequency on major thoroughfares
• Change in bus service from fixed-route to flexible-routing at certain times (e.g., evening)

Sanctioning Offenders

• Improve apprehension
• Improve prosecution (e.g., felonization of transit crimes)
• Increase punishment
  

TECHNOLIGIES USED FOR TRANSIT SECURITY

New technology, such as CCTVs and automatic alarms, can improve transit system security. Needle et al. (1997) performed a complete survey of the new technology employed in transit systems, and examples are given in their report. Presently, however, no evaluatory research has been conducted to assess the extent to which new technologies actually reduce or help prevent transit crime. Following are the chief technologies employed to enhance transit security:

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV)
CCTV allows transit staff or police to continuously monitor activities at the station and in some cases, even in vehicles. Cameras are placed in the locations where crimes are most likely to happen. As soon as an incident happens, and if it witnessed by a human operator, appropriate security personnel can be dispatched to the scene, including the police, if necessary. The presence of CCTV also gives potential criminals the impression that the system is monitored and any violation will be detected. CCTV is commonly accepted by transit agencies and has been installed in several transit systems. For example, Washington, D.C. (WMATA) has CCTV cameras in every station. Miami MDTA installed cameras at fare collection and elevator/escalator areas. San Francisco MUNI has cameras in vehicles on the routes with the highest incident rate. Bay Area Rapid Transit (San Francisco's regional railway system) also has cameras on all its trains. GPTC in Gary, Indiana combines CCTV with other communication equipment and coordinates with local police to protect passengers from crime.

Call boxes/Emergency Phone
Call boxes provide a means for transit users or transit personnel to call for assistance. The location must be obvious and the phones must be convenient to use. Regular inspection and maintenance are necessary to ensure they are in working condition. A transit center should establish a procedure for responding to calls for different types of help.

The Santa Clara County transit agency (SSCTD) California has public phone access to 911 and loudspeakers directly linked to their control center. All train operators, fare inspectors are also equipped with two-way radio for communication with the center. The green, red, and blue lines of Los Angeles (LACMTA) have passenger communications systems onboard. Niagra Frontier Transportation Authority installed emergency communication panels readily accessible to riders in every train and station.

Alarms
Alarms are used to deter criminality and to call police or security personnel. They can be placed in stations and vehicles. For example, Toronto GO Transit has alarms in all stations and passenger assist alarms on all trains.

Automated Ticketing and Fare Systems
Automatic ticketing systems not only reduce transit operation costs and save users' time, they also protect transit employees from exposing themselves to robbery. Santa Clara SSCTD machines have communication features and alarms built-in for use by transit staff. Niagra Frontier Transportation Authority has fully automated ticket machines installed. St. Louis (Bi-State) equips their fare enforcement staff with hand-held ticketing units. More on Advanced Fare Systems.

Vehicle Location Systems
Vehicle location systems give a real-time, dynamic profile of system operation. They also help to determine the best response strategy by pinpointing the current location of the vehicle when there is a security event. MCTO in St. Paul of Minneapolis has an Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system on its buses for control and security purposes. Baltimore MTA installed vehicle locators in all buses, and there are several agencies considering the installation of similar location systems. More on AVL

Pager Systems
A transmitter inside the bus sends a signal to an individual's pager alerting the person when the bus is in the vicinity of the bus stop. The transmitter holds 10,000 codes to prohibit any confusion about which bus arrives at a certain stop. Since the more a person waits at a bus stop the more he or she is potentially exposed to crime, such a pager system allows to minimize the possibility of crime occuring at a bus stop.

SMARTEL Labs Inc., located in Washington, designed BusPAL a pager system to alert parents and children of bus arrival time. BusPAL is in operation in several school districts throughout the country. It is used in high crime areas, at bus stops where there are bushes and trees and at bus stops located near highways. A pager costs 99 cents. The price for the service varies depending on a family's income. Low-income families receiving reduced price and free school lunches would have to pay $3 a month. The regular service costs $5 a month.

EFFECTS

To date no evaluatory research has been conducted to formally assess the extent to which new technologies actually reduce or help prevent transit crime. New public transit security technologies could have the following potential impacts and benefits:

Potential Travel Impacts

• Increased public transit use.

Potential Benefits

• Reduced crime and enhanced travel security.
• Reduced damage to facilities and vehicles.
• Increased transit use.

Costs

• Setting up new security technologies such as CCTV's and AVL.
• Security staff, training and equipment.

REFERENCES

The sections "Overview of Transit Crime" and "Measures for Reducing Transit Crime" are mostly excerpted from Wallace et al (2000).

Balog, J. N., Schwarz, A. N., Hathaway, W. T., and Watson, L., "Maximization of Transit Security Through Effective Use of Procedures", Transportation Research Record, No. 1433, 1994.

Benjamin, J. M., Hartgen, D. T., Ownes, T. W., and Hardiman, M. L., "Perception and Incidence of Crime on Public Transit in Small Systems in the Southeast", Transportation Research Record, No. 1433, 1994.

Boyd, M. A., Maier, M. P., and Kenney, P. J., "Perspectives on Transit Security in the 1990s: Strategies for Success", Final Report, FTA-MA-90-7006-96-1, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1996.

Boyd, A., and Boyd, P. (1998). “Transit Security Handbook.” FTA-MA-90-9007-98-1, DOT-VNTSC- FTA-98-3, US Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Brantingham, P. J., and Brantingham, P. L. (1991). Environmental Criminology, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL.

Brantingham, P. J., and Brantingham, P. L. (1993). “Environment, Routine, and Situation: Toward a Pattern Theory of Crime.” Routine Acitivity and Rational Choice. Advances in Criminological Theory, R. V. a. F. Clarke, M., ed., Transaction Publications, New Brunswick, NJ.

Ghobrial, A. and Poister, T. H., "Evaluating Security of Rail Transit Systems: A Metric System Approach", Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 29, No. 2, Summer 1995.

Hundenski, R. J. (1996). “Typology and Analytical Model Of Violent Incidents In Public Transit.” Transportation Research Record, 1521, 129-136.

Ingalls, G. L., Hartgen, D. T., and Owens, T. W., "Public Fear of Crime and Its Role in Bus Transit Use", Transportation Research Record, No. 1433, 1994.

Levine, N., and Wachs, M. (1986a). “Bus Crime in Los Angeles, I: Measuring the Incidence, II: Victims and Public Impact.” Transportation Research, 20A(4), 273-296.

Levine, N., and Wachs, M. (1986b). “Tracking Crime on Buses.” TR News, 18-22.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1994). “Reviving Transit Corridors and Transit Riding.” Access, 4(Spring), 27-32.

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (1998). “Hot Spots of Bus Stop Crime.” UCTC 384, University of California, Berkeley.

Morse, L. B. and Benjamin, J. M., "Analysis of Feeling of Security on Public Transit Among Residents of small Urban Area", Transportation Research Record, No. 1557, 1996.

Needle, J. A., "Synthesis of Transit Practice 21, Improving Transit Security", Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.

Oxley, P. R. (1987). “Assaults on Bus Staff in Great Britain.” Transportation Research Record, 1108, 27-30.

"Seventh National Conference on Light Rail Transit", Vol. 1, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995.

Wallace, Richard R., Daniel Rodriguez and Thomas B. Reed "Transit Crime and Transit Vehicle Operators: A View from the Driver's Seat", Transportation Research Board, January 2000.

Reed, Thomas B., Richard Wallace and Daniel Rodriguez "Transit Passenger Perceptions Regarding Transit-Related Crime Reduction Measures" Transportation Research Board, January 2000.

Thompson, A., and Aftandilian, E. (1998). “Safety Management Information Statistics (SAMIS) 1996 Annual Report.” FTA-MA-26-9033-98-1 DOT-VNTSC-FTA-98-4, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

Authors: D. Loukakos and Glenn Blackwelder.  Last update: 12/15/00