Video Surveillance Uses by Rail Transit Agencies: A Synthesis of Transit Practice (TCRP Synthesis)

The purpose of this synthesis was to document the current use of electronic video surveillance technology solely by passenger rail agencies, considering the totality of its use and including onboard railcars, as well as its right-of-way. It was accomplished by means of a literature review, transit agency survey, and case studies. TCRP Synthesis 90—Video Surveillance Uses by Rail Transit Agencies......Page 1 Video Surveillance Uses by Rail Transit Agencies......Page 3 About the National Academies......Page 5 TCRP Committee for Project J-7......Page 6 Preface......Page 7 Contents......Page 9 Summary......Page 11 CHAPTER ONE—Introduction......Page 15 Project Background and Objectives......Page 17 Report Organization......Page 18 History of Electronic Video Surveillance in Transit......Page 20 Video Surveillance and Risk Management......Page 21 Expanding the Definition of Risk......Page 23 The London Underground’s Influence on Transit Surveillance Systems......Page 25 Use of Surveillance by Transit Systems Worldwide......Page 26 Use of Video Surveillance by Canadian Transit Systems......Page 29 Video Surveillance and Public Perceptions of Safety and Security......Page 31 Introduction......Page 34 Stations, Station Platforms, and Shelters......Page 35 Onboard Railcars......Page 37 Parking Facilities......Page 38 Storage Yards, Other Yards, and Administrative Areas......Page 40 Right-of-Way Surveillance......Page 41 Deciding Where to Install Video Surveillance......Page 44 Funding Video Surveillance Systems......Page 46 Monitoring Video Cameras—When and by Whom......Page 48 Video Analytics......Page 49 Video Surveillance as a Forensic Tool......Page 51 Patron and Employee Awareness and Perceptions of Video Surveillance......Page 52 Case Study 1: Altamont Commuter Express, San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission, California......Page 54 Case Study 2: Metro Transit, Minneapolis, Minnesota......Page 56 Case Study 3: Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Houston, Texas......Page 59 Case Study 4: Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania......Page 61 Case Study 5: Valley Metro Rail, Phoenix, Arizona......Page 64 CHAPTER SIX—Conclusions......Page 67 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS......Page 71 GLOSSARY......Page 72 REFERENCES......Page 74 LITERATURE REVIEW [ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY]......Page 78 APPENDIX A—Synthesis Questionnaire......Page 84 APPENDIX B—Questionnaire Respondents......Page 89 Ch. 1. Introduction Ch. 2. Development of electronic video surveillance in transit systems Ch. 3. How transit agencies use video surveillance Ch. 4. Administrative considerations in the use of electronic video surveillance Ch. 5. Case studies Ch. 6. Conclusions.