If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ,"'lit,\ U M T A- V A-06-0088-83-1 A Case Studi~s of Transit US. Department of Transportation Security on B~us Systems Urban Mass / 9 Transportation Administration Prepared by: August 1983 MANDEX, Inc. Final Report Suite 304 1497 Chain Bridge Road McLean, Virginia 22101 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse prod- ucts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. UMTA-VA-06-0088-83-1 4. Title and Subtitle S. Report Date CASE STUDIES OF TRANSIT SECURITY ON BUS SYSTEMS August 1983 6. Performing Organization Code 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authorl s) --m-- E. O. Hargadine 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) MANDEX, Inc. 1497 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 304 11. Contract or Grant No. McLean, Virginia 22101 DTUM60-81-C-71098 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Final Report U.S. Department of Transportation September 1981-September 1981 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Office of Technical Assistance 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington D.C. 20590 T.~T-6 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The purpose of this report is to provide information on a selection of bus transit security measures for use by transit systems in developing their security programs. The report examines the security measures used by the principal bus trans- it system s in each of four cities -- Los Angeles, Detroit, Seattle, and Pittsburgh -- and indicates the conditions under which they are most likely to be effective. Certain transit security measures are common to all four transit systems. All make some use of either a transit police force, or members of a local law enforement agency. They also all use communications equipment installed in buses, and community programs or school programs. However, there are unique aspects to each city's program. Detroit has an undercover police operation which has been used as a model by many other cities. Los Angeles has several demonstration projects using sophisti- cated security equipment. Seattle has a stress-management program for its bus operators. Pittsburgh's system has a small police force which emphasizes a quick response to passengers' and operators' reports of problems as a means of heightening the deterrent effort. The report includes the following sections: an introduction to the problem of transit crime and the security measures taken to combat it; transit security programs in the four case study cities; a comparison of me~hods used to police bus transit systems; the surveillance and communications equipment used by the four transit systems; school and community education programs and training of operators; the comparative costs of security measures; the public's perception of transit mrime; and the study's conclusion on the effectiveness of the measures. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement transit Security Crime Perception Security Equipment DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE U.S. PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL Bus Systems INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, Community Education VIRGINIA 22161 Dperator Training 19. Security Classi|. (of this report) 20. Security Closslf. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages T 22. Price UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED ] 134 "arm DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS Approximate Conversionc to Metric Meecmes Approximate Conversions from Metric Measures - ~ : Symbol When You Know Mnltipiy by To Find Symbol Symbol _-___ Symbol When Yon Know Multiply by To Find - --=__ LENGTH -- == 2 LENGTH mm millimeters 0.04 inches in an centimeters 0.4 inches in m meters 3.3 feet h in inches "2.5 centimeters cm M m meters I .I yanls yd fl feet 30 centimeters cm km kilometers 0.6 miles mi vd yards 0.9 meters m mi miles 1.6 kilometers AREA AREA In2 m - m cn~ square contimetms 0.16 square inches in 2 squares inches 6.5 square centimeters c~ ~ ~ m2 square meters 1.2 M.am ymds ft 2 square feet 0.09 square motors J ." ~ km2 square kil~notors 0.4 eqle miles SClmUe yards 0.0 squ~o meters - ~ ~ ha hactmes (10.000 n~) 2.6 acres - squwe mites 2.6 squ~e kilmeetms acres 0.4 hectares ha " MASS (woigbt) MASS (weight) . ~_ I-'. g 9rams 0.035 cu,ces oz ~ ounces 28 ~ 0 "--~ ~-- .~ k9 kilograms 2.2 pounds Ib m pounds 0.45 kiloofams kg - = ~ t tonnee 11000 kc) 1.1 short t0ns short tons 0.9 tonnes t ~-~-. (2000 Ib) --~ ~ o VOLUME ~__~__ VOLUME ~ ml miliilitm8 0.03 fluid ounces fi oz top teaspoons 6 millilit~rs ml . ~ on I liters 2.1 pints pl Ibsp tsblespo(ms 15 millilitet~ ml - ~ I rite~ 1.06 quarts qt fl oz fluid ounces 30 miJiilltors mi ~ ~ I liters 0.26 gallons gab c cups 0.24 lira, s I ~ e,- m3 cubic motors 35 cubic foot ft 3 pl pints 0.47 liters I - ~ m3 cubic motets 1.3 cubic yards yd 3 qt (Fsarts 0.95 liters I -- U) 9,31 gallons 3.8 litms I h 3 cubic feet 0.03 cubic metros m3 TEMPERATUHE lexoct~ yd3 cubic yards 0.78 cubic meters m3 TEMPERATURE (execS) -- qp o C Celsius 9/6 (then Fahrenheit temperature odd 32) t onslperaturo ~ Fahrenheit 5/9 (attar Celsius ~C - ~ tOml~rctm, e subtracting temperature OF 32) OF 32 98-6 2S2 -40 o .14o on L ,2o, iO0 ,2,OOJ . t | | . , | . i t . J a ! ! .; 1 in : 2.54 teKactlyl. F~ creel exact co,lvefs,o~s and m~e detailed tableS, see NEtSMisc. Pub|. 286. 6o do ' ,~ --40 '-1o ' ~ ' ~'o ' I;o ' oC UmtS of We,0hts and Measures. Pr*ce $2.25. SD Carnie9 No. Ct3.10;286. or 37 PREFACE This study examines the measures taken by theprincipal transit systems in each of four cities -- Los Angeles, Detroit, Seattle, and Pittsburgh. This study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, Office of Technical ssistance and performed by MANDEX, Inc. under contract DTUM60- 81-C-71098. Transit and law enforcement officials in Detroit, Los Angeles, Seattle and Pittsburgh provided most of the data contained in this report as well as many valuable insights into transit crime and the measures taken to combat it. We wish to thank them for their cooperation and their numerous helpful suggestions. Many thanks also go to the citizens in the case study cities who took the time to talk with us about security on their buses. We especially wish to thank Ms. Gwendolyn Cooper of the Safety and Security Staff, Office of Technical Assistance, Urban Mass Transportation Administration, for her valuable supervision and comments on the draft reports. This project was begun under Mr. Robert Maxwell while he was a Vice President of MANDEX, Inc. We would like to thank him for his contribution to this project. When he left MANDEX, Dr. Eileen Hargadine became the principle investigator. The MANDEX officer in charge was Mr. David Couts. ill/iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. I 1.1 Background ........................................... I 1.2 Historical Perspective of Transit Passenger Security .................... 2 1.3 Determining e Measures .......................... ..... .. ........... !4 1.4 Selection of Four Cities for Case Stud~.~...~..O~ ;. 7 2. CITY CASE STUDIES ..................................... .... 16 i 2.1 Detroit ......................................... i6 2.1.1 Development of the Bluebirds ~QUHO~TDONS Alternatives Considered ........................ 17 2.1.2 Bluebird Operations ........................... 19 2.1.3 Additional Security Equipment and Related Programs ........ 22 2.1.4 D-DOT and The'City'It'Serves..................'''""" "" "'" "''''''''''''" "" 23 2.2 Los Angeles .......................................... 31 2.2.1 Development of the SCRTD Transit Police Force ......................................... 31 2.2.2 SCRTD Transit Police Operations ............... 32 2.2.3 SCRTD Coordination with Local Law Enforcement Agencies .......................... 35 2.2.4 Additional Security Measures .................. 38 2.2.5 Los Angeles and the Southern California Rapid Transit District ........................ 4Q 2.3 Seattle .............................................. 45 2.3.1 Seattle's Comprehensive Security Plans ........ 45 2.3.2 Seattle's Undercover Police Operations ........ 48 2.3.3 Development of the Stress Management Program.. 51 2.3.4 Other Measures to Improve Transit Security .... 53 2.3.5 Union Response to Measures to Improve Operator Security ............................. 54 2.3.6 Seattle and Its Transit System ................ 55 2.4 Pittsburgh ........................................... 59 2.4.1 Development of the PAT Police Force ........... 59 2.4.2 PAT Police Operations ......................... 6O 2.4.3 Other Security Measures and Equipment ......... 63 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section Page 2.4.4 Operator Response to Transit Security ......... 63 2.4.5 The PAT System ................................ 64 . POLICING TRANSIT SYSTEMS .................................. 67 3.1 Transit Policing Organizations ....................... 57 3.2 Transit Policing Operations .......................... 7O 3.3 Public Awareness ..................................... 74 3.4 Legislation and Prosecution .......................... 75 . MECHANICAL AND