Existing Conditions Report - DRAFT

Background Context and Assignment Significant mode shift improvements resulting in more travelers walking, biking, and using transit will result from implementing a variety of mobility strategies, including improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit experiences. A key component of such experience is personal security along the Total Travel Path™ or “whole journey” as others have noted. This includes the parts of the journey that regularly occur after dark, which happens regularly for most commuters except in summer months.

Recent research by the Minetta Transportation Institute and others confirmed that “safety concerns had significant impacts on whether or not a person rode mass transit.” 4 Importantly, such research points out several key conclusions: that perceptions are more important than actual risk of victimization; that perceptions vary by age, gender, and past urban living experiences; and that both the physical environment and a variety of operational efforts play a more important role in safety perceptions than most formal communications about crime and safety.

Given the importance of maximizing mode shift along the US 1 corridor to manage congestions and enhance overall mobility, we reviewed a variety of existing conditions related to crime and personal security perceptions. The purpose of our review is to identify potential current impediments for such a mode shift. Once those have been identified, more specific improvements can be included in conceptual physical and operational plans and related communications.

While our review focused on areas near transit stations, we also conducted limited field reviews of pedestrian and bicycle pathways along US 1 not near the stations.

Crime Statistics Extensive crime statistics and maps are not regularly collected by FDOT and were not readily available from Dade Police Department (MDPD) or Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), but we used the MDPD online system to create maps of transit station walking distance areas along the corridor for the period from June 8 to December 8, 2016. We searched for assaults, weapons crimes, robberies, homicides, theft of and from vehicles, and sex crimes as incidents most likely to discourage people from using transit, walking, or biking. A series of maps is contained in Appendix A, and the following are our summary observations:

Brickell Station had 5 robberies nearby during that period. Three were late night, but two were afternoon.

Robberies near the Station were late night, after service had ended. Vehicle break-ins were prevalent, with many occurring during daylight hours.

Douglas Road Station had fewer incidents overall, and most were vehicle break-ins or auto thefts.

December 13, 2016 1

No information was available for the South Miami or University Station. Apparently, the cities of Coral Gables and South Miami do not participate in the online system.

Dadeland North Station had extensive reports of vehicle break-ins.

Dadeland South Station also had extensive reports of vehicle break-ins in the vicinity, although it is pretty clear that many were actually associated with the Mall property versus the transit garage. There were four reported robberies nearby, however. City of Pinecrest is also not included in the system.

Around the busway station at 104th, there were a number of vehicle break-ins and thefts.

Around the busway station at 112th there were a few vehicle break-ins and one vehicle theft.

Around the 124th and 128th busway stations, there were a significant number of vehicle break-ins and thefts to the west of US 1.

Near the 136th busway station, there were four robberies and several vehicle crimes.

The area near the 152nd busway station had two robberies.

The 160th/Colonial busway station area had five robberies during the 6-month period. This is significant.

We also found several media reports about theft from auto problems in Metrorail parking garages, with additional reports of non-functioning camera systems.

Marketplace Safety Perceptions

Surveys and Focus Groups We had access only to one survey report, and it was conducted for existing transit riders, not people who currently drive, walk, or bike for their full journey. That provided little useful information about people who currently exclusively use private vehicles for mobility due to personal security concerns as pedestrians, transit riders, or bicyclists.

In addition, we requested relevant feedback from the “Rate your ride” system but did not receive anything as of this writing. We did review the rating system and noted it does not ask about security.

We were not made aware of any focus group reports related to personal security and transit, walking, or biking in the corridor. Such techniques often provide clearer insights than survey instruments because a facilitator can overcome reluctance to admit fear of crime and place avoidance.

December 13, 2016 2

Pedestrian/Bicycle Counts The only counts we found were short term studies outside of Downtown Miami, were from 2008, and were limited to 7-9am weekdays and Noon-2pm Saturdays. No evening or early morning counts of commuters were identified, but there were some late-night counts on near Mary Village as part of the Downtown Miami Pedestrian Plan. In summary, there is no clear data to evaluate how frequently pedestrians and bicyclists are using corridor pathways, particularly after dark, as one indirect indicator that they feel safe enough to do so.

Other Indicators Gender of transit ridership, along with ridership between dusk and dawn, can provide additional insights about whether people avoid transit due to personal security concerns and perceptions. This information was not readily available for the corridor at the time of our analysis. For Metrorail, whose riders who must use a card, some estimates of this should be generally easy to uncover as the process moves forward.

Physical Environment Our field assessments and review of land development regulations/plans identified a variety of features in and near transit stations likely to have an impact on personal security risks and perceptions – as well as mode shifts. These fall into several categories:

Natural Surveillance Features - Land use patterns, station structure design, station landscaping, station parking location and design, adjacent building designs, lighting, landscaping near sidewalks, guard station locations and windows, building setbacks from the sidewalks, and a variety of other features impact the likelihood of casual observation by others (natural surveillance) of pathways and spaces, including transit shelters and platforms.

Disorder and Territoriality Features – Graffiti, trash, stickers, homeless camping, urine stains, poorly maintained landscaping, faded roadway or parking lot striping, security bars on windows, faded or poorly maintained signage, and similar features communicate disorder and a lack of care and concern that translates to increased fear and negative perceptions. On the other hand, the absence of such features along with signs of care and concern (territoriality) can reduce fear and perceptions of crime or risk. Positive territoriality features include public art, colorful flowers, high quality banners and signs (design and maintenance), high standards of cleanliness, decorative fencing,

Access Management Features – Fencing, walls, turnstile locations, garage barrier gates, landscape hedges, water features, busy roadways, and other features can help prevent easy entry and escape for criminals.

We use a Total Travel Path™ (TTP) approach to evaluate such conditions. This includes the basic premise that if a person considering a mode shift finds any part of the path to be less than safe enough, they will not shift modes and will stay in the safety of their personal vehicle. Significantly for many commuters, adding walking, biking, or transit to their travel will also add some time and regularly have them walking, biking, or at a transit stop or station after dark.

For the purpose of this report, we did not evaluate destinations or pathways beyond the Brickell Metrorail Station and surrounding areas in downtown Miami. However, it is important to note that conditions at other stations in downtown and beyond may be part of the TTP™ and impede mode shift if conditions are not considered safe enough.

December 13, 2016 3

Metrorail Stations Land Use Patterns - Only the Brickell and Dadeland South Stations have any residential structures with windows and balconies located in clear sight of the Metrorail platform and close enough to observe problems (natural surveillance). Some other nearby buildings in Brickell tall enough to see the platform have tall parking decks adjacent to the station and provide little to no natural surveillance. At other stations, there are some residential structures with clear sightlines, but they are too far away to provide any useful natural surveillance. On a positive note, many of the multi-story residential structures near stations have sizeable balconies that can greatly enhance natural surveillance – sound and sight.

Notably, the housing near the Dadeland South is at the far northern edge of the station and the closest units do not have functional balconies that would provide the best natural surveillance. The units further away have the larger balconies.

December 13, 2016 4

Structure and Site Designs - Platforms/Stations are generally open in design, providing good natural surveillance opportunities. Many use glass or glass block around escalators and elevators to aid natural surveillance as well. Rounded structural columns minimize attempts to hide behind them. However, the large signage structures with benches in the middle of the platforms block critical views of people sitting or standing, and in places where lighting is poor (typically platform ends), they create actual hiding areas. The Dadeland South station has a low wall against the tracks and a large structure on the south end of the platform that significantly inhibit natural surveillance of the platform, however. Likewise, the Dadeland North station has a parking garage solid wall immediately adjacent to the southern part of the platform that eliminates any natural surveillance of that part of the platform.

December 13, 2016 5

Also, areas at the ends of each station lower level (under stairs or escalators) that have little or no function, have very limited natural surveillance. A persistent feature significantly impacting natural surveillance is the walls, fencing, concrete tubes, ticket machinery, and other vertical elements that block the ability of people to view in or out of the first level of the stations. This includes guard personnel stationed near the turnstiles at most stations we observed. Only the Dadeland North Station has an open fence feature the eliminates this issue. Additionally, flooring materials are generally dark and do not reflect light well.

December 13, 2016 6

Landscaping around the station – Many stations have trees that block natural surveillance of the platform from nearby streets. This is particularly significant where cars must stop for traffic signals in locations that provide good views of the station platforms. Views of lower levels of stations and pathways outside the station were also sometimes blocked by high hedges in the medians of US1 or along the west side of the roadway. Such conditions also block light from the stations from adjacent sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways.

Similarly, trees along station pathways and in parking lots often conflicted with light fixtures, creating areas of light and dark that provide cover and produce discomfort if not fear. Some shrubs were also overgrown, providing hiding spots along important pathways on the property.

Notably absent were planters or planter beds of flowering plants or shrubs that would increase territoriality.

December 13, 2016 7

Payphones – The number of payphones at stations was somewhat surprising given how ubiquitous cell phones are. The phones can be used to legitimize loitering and were generally poorly maintained, creating signs of disorder. They are often poorly located out of view of security personnel as well.

Bicycle Parking – Bicycle racks and lockers were often somewhat isolated and frequently dark. We also observed some graffiti on lockers. The University Station location was much better, and was much more utilized.

December 13, 2016 8

Parking Lots – With one or two exceptions, MDT parking lots at stations are not fenced at all, providing poor access management both day and night.

Bus transfer shelters – Most shelters had good designs and lighting, but some designs created hiding places with signage on one end.

Garbage cans – On the platforms, garbage cans had clear sides and used clear bags so staff could see when to empty them. This created a certain sense of order and is also likely a security feature to help detect any dangerous objects that might be left in garbage containers.

December 13, 2016 9

Parking garages – Some pathways to/from or along parking garages were heavily landscaped and others had poor lighting. None of the garages have attendant stations or other forms of access control, but we did note some cameras. Elevator lobbies were isolated from outside view, and some required walking along snaking pathways to reach them. We also observed signs of homeless use in at least two garages, as well as the active presence of homeless individuals. Garage walls and ceilings were exposed concrete (not painted or stained to better reflect light). Lighting varied in color and consistency. Stairwells were isolated, dirty, and odoriferous. Graffiti was present but not dominant.

Dadeland Mall garage conditions with white ceilings and walls are a sharp contrast to those of the Metrorail stations serving Dadeland.

December 13, 2016 10

Lighting - Inside the stations, lighting is generally consistent and in the white color spectrum, although some lower level areas are too dark, and some ends of the platforms were dark. Outside the stations but on MDT property, lighting is often inconsistent in intensity, uniformity, and color. This is particularly concerning where it occurs along key pathways and in park and ride lots. We did not observe any lighting designed to also improve territoriality such as twinkle lights in trees, uplighting of trees, or light as public art. The lighting of the fountain at the Viscaya station was the only instance of lighting of public art we observed.

December 13, 2016 11

December 13, 2016 12

December 13, 2016 13

Security offices - At most stations, the offices are poorly located to observe key pathways, have bars on the windows that create significant signs of disorder, and have all the windows covered, eliminating any natural surveillance or sense of security presence.

General Maintenance – Etched glass and glass block were common. We also found areas with extensive urine stains, homeless camping indicators, some limited graffiti, and poorly maintained lawns and landscaping. All of these present significant signs of disorder.

December 13, 2016 14

Vendors – We observed private vendors at only one station on one of our visits, but there was not regular presence, even at that station. Given the natural surveillance benefits of vendors, this was surprising. We also did not find any permanent retail locations at any of the stations that might provide additional natural surveillance.

Restrooms – Often a source of significant crime and disorder issues, we did not observe any public restrooms in the stations. If they are remotely located, they are likely even more of an issue. (note: while visiting the government center recently, we did observe a very isolated and poorly maintained restroom near the Metrorail station entrance).

Public Art – We observed very limited public art at stations. This creates a missed opportunity to significantly enhance territoriality and safety perceptions.

December 13, 2016 15

Seating – Seating features on or near the station that encourage loitering were problematic in several locations. Low walls, actual benches, and guardrails were all used by people not using the transit service.

December 13, 2016 16

Pedestrian Bridges – Stakeholder interviews noted the need for more lighting on the Viscaya pedestrian bridge and our field visit confirmed that condition. The area highlighted below is the ramp for the bridge on the north side of US 1. Notably, the ramps and stairs for the bridges are placed away from the view of nearby traffic, limiting natural surveillance. The Viscaya bridge has solid walls on the ramps that also limit natural surveillance and attract graffiti.

December 13, 2016 17

Metrorail Stations - Nearby Pathways While MDT and FDOT do not control most conditions beyond the US 1 Right of Way or the Metrorail stations, the pedestrian experience in those places will have a significant impact on peoples’ mode choices for all kinds of trips, including local trips for shopping or entertainment. We observed the following conditions along those pathways that influence mode shift decisions due to safety perceptions.

Private Properties - Some nearby developments along key pedestrian pathways provide good lighting and natural surveillance from residential balconies and windows, but others do not.

Graffiti/stickers – We observed graffiti and stickers regularly on pedestrian pathways near the stations, including on traffic control boxes and other public assets.

December 13, 2016 18

Landscaping – A number of pathways beyond the stations have overgrown landscaping on public or private property that inhibits natural surveillance and can serve as hiding places, including some at new private projects. This makes the pathways feel less than safe enough for many pedestrians, particularly after dark.

December 13, 2016 19

Outdoor restaurant seating – Seating that is outdoors or “open air” through large windows or doors can provide significant natural surveillance of important pathways. It was not common around stations, but we found some examples.

Street Vendors and Food Trucks – These small businesses were notably absent from off-station pathways within the 5-minute walk shed. This is a missed opportunity to create significant natural surveillance in strategic locations.

December 13, 2016 20

Security shutters – Shutters at street level are often used for physical security, but they often have negative impacts by attracting graffiti and limiting natural surveillance. We did find some instances of closed security shutters on occupied buildings near stations, but they were not prevalent.

December 13, 2016 21

Underline Trail – Sections of the M-Path or Underline trail near many stations have existing adjacent land use patterns that create a pathway with very limited natural surveillance. Even adjacent businesses with signage treat the area as a back door or storage area. The large support columns for the Metrorail also provide cover and hiding places, and we observed signs of homeless camping next to them. Both create perceptions of safety risk that hamper mode shift decisions.

December 13, 2016 22

Metrorail Vehicles The vehicles we observed over several days were in generally good condition with few major signs of disorder. There were some exceptions to this as shown below. Graffiti, poorly cleaned vehicle floors, and some poorly maintained interior signage create some signs of disorder.

December 13, 2016 23

December 13, 2016 24

Busway Stations We visited several busway stations both day and night and have a variety of observations about real and perceived safety features. Most notably, unlike Metrorail stations, there is very little access control and non- patrons seem to regularly use the benches and station areas for non-transit use. While impossible to design around completely, this also creates more risk of crime, particularly given very limited natural surveillance as noted below.

Dadeland South Station has good lighting but poor natural surveillance from adjacent parking lots and the backs of commercial structures. We observed people loitering, shouting at police, and panhandling. As a critical transfer point, this has an impact on ridership for all points south.

In other locations, overgrown landscaping between surface lots and station areas greatly reduced natural surveillance and creates hiding places along the pedestrian pathway. We observed a number of men loitering in the landscaped area near the 152nd Street Busway station after dark. We observed no fencing or other access management features for the surface lots in general.

December 13, 2016 25

While lighting at Busway stations is good in the passenger loading areas and many parts of the parking lots, the nearby pathways are often dark. The large advertising boxes also inhibit natural surveillance from passing or stopped vehicles US 1.

December 13, 2016 26

Most of the park-and-ride lots for busways are isolated from nearby buildings – particularly any housing with views of the lots – and have very limited natural surveillance day or night.

Overgrown landscaping near busway station shelters also limits natural surveillance from passing vehicles in some places.

December 13, 2016 27

Pedestrian Pathways Beyond the Stations

Most pathways beyond both Metrorail and Busway station sites have inconsistent lighting, particularly beyond 200 yards from the station.

Some pathways had new housing along them with good natural surveillance coming from windows and balconies. These were the exception, however.

Dadeland North Station pathway to the Mall has good lighting but limited natural surveillance given surrounding land uses and structures.

December 13, 2016 28

Several important pathways beyond stations had major signs of disorder. The Viscaya Pedestrian bridge is the most extreme example, but there are others.

December 13, 2016 29

Pedestrian Pathways Along US 1 – Not Near a Transit Station

Lighting is generally good but some dark areas exist. Much of the sidewalk lighting comes from business buildings, signs, or parking lot lights, including car sales lots. However, there is limited natural surveillance of these sidewalks because most buildings are set back very far from the sidewalk and very few have outdoor restaurant seating or residential uses. In northern parts of the corridor where residential uses are more common, pedestrian lighting conditions actually get worse. This includes lighting of the pathways under the Metrorail or along side it. This is due in part to the extensive tree canopy and the location of street lights (often only on one side of the roadway).

Banners on light poles are a consistent sign of territoriality along much of the US 1 corridor.

Bicycle Pathways not near US 1 have some sections that are very isolated and have little natural surveillance – and some have little or no lighting.

December 13, 2016 30

Past Plans and Reports We reviewed a number of past plans and reports for both assessments and recommendations impacting real and perceived safety, noting past observations that may be consistent or inconsistent with our own, identifying whether past efforts evaluated key safety features, and providing initial thoughts about proposed improvements such studies and plans suggested.

Busway Stations1 A previous study of the 152nd Street Station did not intentionally evaluate security or safety perception conditions (not an objective), and generally recommended several related improvements. (We include our own notes in parentheses).

Upgrading parking lot and pedestrian pathway markings (signs of disorder) Canopy over eastern edge of parking lot (new place to hang out for homeless people) Installation of a covered bicycle cage (unclear if locked or located with good natural surveillance) Removal of hockey rink to use for parking (removes safe activity – if only occasional) Provide a designated MDT parking space (for security) Improve lighting to a white source (no standards suggested. Budget of $69,141 vs. $240,000 for a parking space counter and $60,000 for gateway features/signs) Landscape maintenance is needed (no clear link to CPTED or problems of hiding spaces) Install Ticket Vending Machine (design and location unclear – strong Natural Surveillance needed) Long term development of mixed use garage (does not require residential component carefully designed to provide Natural Surveillance) No mention of homeless issues No customer feedback or interviews noted (perceptions and fears) No mention of removing large signs near seating that block Natural Surveillance from US1 No mention of seating designs that encourage sleeping or “camping” Conceptual site plan does not include ideas about lighting improvements, including any tree conflicts (current or future) No comments about security (other than a parking space for MDT security) even though the assessment form provides for it under “ancillary facilities” (vs. essential features)

December 13, 2016 31

Underline Plans2 Extensive stakeholder input was received for the creation of the recent Framework Plan for the Underline project. We completed an initial review of the plan components and images, and share the following observations related to real and perceived safety and their likely impact on mode shift to Underline pathways.

The Plan does not recognize that existing landscaping is often overgrown, limiting a very good source of natural surveillance from cars on US 1. This is not openly addressed by the plan.

It appears the police or other security experts were involved only marginally in this phase, and little to no CPTED or Safedesign™ analysis performed. Lighting was considered for the pathway, but not for the areas west of the path, where potential risks are greatest.

The Plan suggests retail vendors at UM station that will enhance Natural Surveillance, but lacks suggestions about hours of operation (including after dark). It is unclear whether vendors are contemplated for other stations.

The proposed solar panel rail screen on the platform will eliminate Natural Surveillance opportunities and reduce real and perceived safety on the platform.

Suggested general lighting improvements at MetroRail stations are good. But the Plan does not specifically suggest other adjustments to enhance natural surveillance and territoriality. Also, little

December 13, 2016 32

evaluation or recommendations about lighting for surface parking adjacent to trails and stations are included, and they are much needed.

Suggested photoluminescent surface coverings and light art installations will greatly enhance territoriality and comfort after dark.

Currently depicted lighting and landscaping will create hiding areas off-path, limit natural surveillance, and reduce use after dark – which can be during rush hour during the winter months. The Plan does not suggest any motion sensor lighting or other lighting technologies that might help better address these issues.

A few of the project lighting concepts are very positive. The ribbon park concept creates strong territoriality.

The Plan does not specifically identify the fundamental relationship between adjacent land uses and natural surveillance, particularly for areas where seating will be placed and can attract camping or other problem activities.

Suggested additional ped/bike bridges will create additional cover for homeless to camp below them if not carefully designed. Also, care must be taken to avoid visually isolating users with dense landscaping and tree cover – as show below.

December 13, 2016 33

Proposed understory plantings do not meet criteria for crime prevention. This condition is exacerbated in locations where the primary natural surveillance comes from passing vehicles at a grade lower than the path/planting level. The vehicle silhouette shown in the diagram is inaccurate given existing conditions.

Wayfinding signage is a very positive safety feature. It should be easily visible at night, and care must be taken not to reduce Natural Surveillance or create hiding spaces as the signs below will do.

Proposed light colored asphalt for pathways will enhance reflection and even dispersion of light. This is a very positive feature.

Various pavement markings are helpful for wayfinding, brand, and territoriality. It will be important to make sure they are well maintained so they do not become signs of disorder.

The regular presence of young children will help improve real and perceived safety. The Brickell area Hammock Play Zone is a good start, but what about the other 99% of the trail/park? Intentionally placing play areas for young children will help safety in otherwise isolated parts of the linear space.

The ribbon rink near UM is a potentially positive feature, but the design and management details will be critically important if poor behaviors, graffiti, and other signs of disorder typically associated with skate parks are to be minimized.

December 13, 2016 34

Some of the furniture and structures depicted will harm natural surveillance and create seating that will be attractive for homeless to camp/sleep. Seating, structures, and other built features must be careful to avoid such conditions.

Water fountains and other features should anticipate dogs for the entire path, not just in Brickell or the southern reaches. People feel more comfortable walking (or even biking) with their dogs.

Conceptually, public art installations are included, and this will significantly enhance territoriality and a sense of care and concern, particularly when appropriate lighting is included and installation locations are strategically chosen.

It is notable that bathrooms and restrooms are not included. There will likely be pressure to add them later, and this should be avoided. Private businesses should be encouraged to provide this amenity, with careful design and management incorporated.

Conceptually, native species have been suggested over colorful varieties that could substantially improve territoriality and natural surveillance. As details are developed, this will require very careful discussion and design to maximize impacts on mode shifts.

December 13, 2016 35

Operations and Programs

Cleaning - Areas inside the stations were generally clean and free of graffiti, litter, stickers, and urine-stained areas, but cleanliness standards were not particularly high, limiting any strong sense of territoriality. Other parts of MDT properties sometimes were not cleaned to the even those standards, particularly the parking garages and some pathways close to US 1. We noticed cleaning personnel at the stations in the afternoons, but none on the platforms after dark. We also did not observe attendants or cleaning personnel on the trains, and noted some significant cleanliness issues with floors and seat backs. It appears the new rail cars will be easier to maintain.

Landscape maintenance – We did not observe any high weeds or other landscape features that were a major source of disorder perceptions. Trees did block a significant amount of lighting and it did not appear they were trimmed with any regularity. We did not notice landscape personnel during our three visits, but that is not a complete surprise. Finally, we found no instances of colorful flowers or carefully manicured shrubs in key locations to help improve territoriality.

Signage/advertising – Signage and advertising can help create additional territoriality if well-designed and located. The current program has some examples of this, but more often we found signs that blocked natural surveillance, had only limited artistic quality, and were often not lighted. Some signs actually created hiding places near seating or important pathways.

Vending – Vending machines were present at a number of locations for drinks and snacks and seem to be well managed and maintained. While the machines were generally placed in locations that did not impede natural surveillance, and were well maintained, they do not actually create active natural surveillance the way live vendors do. An online search did not reveal the current policies about vendors in MDT station areas.

December 13, 2016 36

Security Goals and Metrics – As noted below, MDT measures success on technology presence, patrol efforts, and the incidents per 100,000 riders. While these are all good operational metrics, there is no mention or measure of perceptions and whether they are improving for current or prospective riders.

Security Patrols - Security personnel were clustered at several stations. Others were positioned where they had very limited views of much of the property. While our scope does not include an evaluation of security operations, we did not observe security personnel in parking lots, and only occasionally in parking garages.

Electronic Surveillance Features – While camera surveillance was present inside most stations, we did not notice much coverage in park-and-ride lots, busway shelters, or most area pathways. We also did not receive any feedback or reports about how functional the system is.

Vehicle tracking technology – Smart phone applications that accurately track transit vehicles can help riders minimize their time waiting in public places, which helps minimize their perception of risk, particularly after dark. While riding Metrorail on three separate days, we tested the real time map tracking software and it was not functioning. Specific Station times do seem to function, but they were somewhat awkward to use. In station arrival boards were not present at every station, either. A better system will help reduce fears about wait times and improve mode shift.

December 13, 2016 37

Intentional Activation – We did not observe or find evidence of intentional activation of station areas during morning and evening dark periods, although the Underline Plan conceptually suggests some such efforts. Food truck events, musicians, health fairs, and even non-profit fundraising events were absent from the station areas and from any documents we reviewed. Such activities have a significant positive impact on safety perceptions when carefully designed and managed. Another form of activation for those dark time periods is a pricing differential, but that kind of program is currently not in use.

Strategic Communications Whether communicating with riders about transit operational features or simply encouraging more people to bike, walk, or ride transit, safety messages must be carefully delivered in ways that do not inadvertently create more fear of those mode choices. We observed several aspects of existing safety communications.

Signage - Crime watch style signs were present on MDT vehicles and in stations. “If you see something, say something” is one of the main messages. It encourages people to call the MDT security line. It does not suggest anonymity and does not have a texting feature that helps with anonymity (from nearby passengers). Such signage, when too frequent, can suggest there is something to be afraid of.

Signage - Cameras in use signs are present in parking areas and some station pathways, but are not so excessive as to have a negative impact on perceptions.

Anti-harassment communications - Such programs are designed to reduce sexual harassment (and assault) of women on transit – a significant fear that keeps many women in their private cars. We did not find any evidence of a program for the corridor or the system in general.

Imagery – Photos and videos on the web site and printed materials can have strong impacts on safety perceptions. Our review of the MDT website did not contain imagery that helped communicate safety. Most images were of vehicles, and the one video explaining the use of the Easy Card (from April 2012) did not intentionally communicate safety either directly or indirectly.

Incident Response – A casual internet search about crime on Transit revealed a thoughtful but traditional communications approach to negative crime incidents. There was limited effort to ensure that transit facilities were not positioned as the “villain” that people need to be afraid of.

Why Ride – We did not find any communications directed at potential new riders, including direct or indirect safety messages to help allay fears about personal safety and security.

December 13, 2016 38

Summary Observations of Existing Conditions

Given our limited scope focusing on personal security as a barrier to mode shift, we have the following summary observations about real and perceived safety conditions for the corridor:

1. There are few if any measures in place to intentionally and proactively help current drivers of personal vehicles by addressing a this key obstacle. There are no metrics in place to measure perceptions, and no goals to improve perceptions as part of a mode shift strategy.

2. The physical environment inside Metrorail stations is adequate to minimize actual incidents, but it does not maximize positive safety perceptions, particularly after dark.

3. The physical environment outside Metrorail stations on MDT property does not consistently apply proven techniques to prevent crime and improve perceptions. Lighting is inconsistent, access management is poor, landscaping is poorly designed, garages and lots lack key features, and natural surveillance is hampered by poor land use patterns, tree placements, and inappropriate structural and landscape features.

4. Pathways beyond MDT property and within a 5-minute walk shed are dominated by non-residential uses or active commercial spaces, have poor natural surveillance and highly inconsistent lighting, and often contain significant signs of disorder (graffiti, litter, etc)

5. Signs of territoriality that could greatly improve perceptions of safety are largely missing from stations, station sites, busway station and park-n-ride lots, and nearby pathways. There are some exceptions on private properties, but they are few.

6. Transit vehicles are generally well-maintained and do not contain significant signs of disorder. At the same time, they maintain a “brand” attribute of being primarily for the poor who cannot afford a car. To other riders, this implies a certain kind of safety risk.

7. Previous studies and Plans suggest some positive improvements, but also create some new issues due to a lack of intentional focus on real and perceived safety and personal security.

8. Maintenance procedures are adequate but are not maximizing the impact they could have on real and perceived safety.

9. Positive communications about safety seem infrequent at best. More effort will be needed to help improve perceptions and mode shift.

10. Vending programs, station activation events and programs, outdoor restaurant seating, and other features not currently in use are an easy way to improve safety significantly.

11. Private projects along key pedestrian pathways can add significantly to the solutions, but regulations and reviews will need to provide additional guidance.

12. Transit technology in use is not maximizing the benefits it can provide for real and perceived safety.

December 13, 2016 39

Documents and Studies Reviewed or Cited

1. Countywide Bus and Auto/Rideshare Access to Transit Facility Assessment Study. 2015. Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. 2. The Underline Framework Plan and Demonstration Projects. 2015. James Corner Fields Operations. 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic County Program. 2008. David Plummer & Assocaites. 4. Why Correcting Misperceptions About MassTransit May Be More Important Than Improving Service. CityLab. November 2013. 5. Safer Stops for Vulnerable Customers. FDOT & CUTR. 2003. 6. Miami Ranks as Least Safe City for Women. Miami Herald. 9.14.16

December 13, 2016 40

Appendix A – Crime Maps Showing incidents between July 8 and December 8, 2016.

Brickell Station

Viscaya Station

December 13, 2016 41

Coconut Grove Station

Douglas Road Station

South Miami Station and University Station (no information available – not in MDPD system)

December 13, 2016 42

Dadeland North Station

Dadeland South Station

December 13, 2016 43

Busway Station at 104th

Busway Station at 112th

December 13, 2016 44

Busway Station at 116th and 120th

Busway Station at 124th and 128th

December 13, 2016 45

Busway Station at 136th

Busway Station at 144th

December 13, 2016 46

Busway Station at 152nd

Busway Station at 160th /Colonial Drive

December 13, 2016 47