Address Security Concerns

Improving Personal Security For Walking, Cycling, Transit and Urban Infill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated August 27, 2007

---

This chapter discusses ways to address the security concerns of people using alternative modes such as walking, cycling, ridesharing and public transit.

Description

Personal Security refers to freedom from risk of assault, theft and vandalism. Such risks can discourage walking, cycling and transit travel. These problems can be addressed through various programs and design strategies that increase security. These can include Neighborhood Watch and community policing programs, special police patrols (including police on foot and bicycles), pedestrian escorts, and monitoring of pedestrian, bicycle, transit and Park & Ride facilities. Transit agencies can implement special programs to increase rider security.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is concerned with landscape and building design strategies to maximize personal safety. It reflects the assumptions that crime is often opportunity driven, that it follows predictable patterns, and that these patterns are affected by the behavior of citizens as well as police. For example, public paths are more secure if located near residences, which provide passive surveillance. Lighting and vegetation should be located and maintained to ensure good sight lines, minimal places to hide, and ensure paths are visible to surrounding areas. The placement of bicycle parking facilities should also be well considered to reduce the likelihood of bicycle theft. Local police or CPTED specialists may be trained to perform “safety audits” that identify opportunities to reduce crime risk and help users feel secure.

CPTED Strategies To The Design Of The Planned Environment (Atlas, 1999)

1. Provide clear border definition of controlled space.

Through boundary or border definition, the user and the observer must be able to recognize space as public or private. The recognition of ownership helps identify illegitimate users. The defining of boundaries declares an ownership of space and thus creating a sense of territoriality.

7. Design for natural surveillance.

Natural surveillance means that an area or activity is viewed by residents and bypassers (called “eyes on the street”). This requires consideration of sightlines, adequate lighting, minimizing hiding places, providing windows that view public spaces, and encouraging legitimate uses, such as increased pedestrians on sidewalks and cyclists on paths.

3. Location of gathering areas.

The relocation of gathering spaces to areas of good natural surveillance and access control enables those spaces to become more active and likely to support the activity, encouraging public participation. For example, bus stops should be located where they are visible to businesses and residents.

4. Place safe activities in unsafe locations.

The premise of safety in numbers is used as safe activities bring normal or safe users as magnets to control behavior. The unsafe location must be within reason with respect to the activity pursued. A critical density of users must be reached to change the acceptability of behavior patterns.

5. Place unsafe activities in safe locations.

Vulnerable activities placed in areas of good natural surveillance and controlled space allows for the owners of the space to increase the perception of risk to offenders. The controlled atmosphere maintains a level of accountability for the offender and provides security to those attempting to act in accordance.

6. Overcome isolation and obstructions.

The use of walls and objects to provide protection must be used properly. Communication and observance of the user increases the perception of natural surveillance. The opaque wall defines ownership but may also serve as a hiding place or barrier from protection on the outside. The walls also become obstacles for the legitimate users, i.e. police and rescue personnel. Open space lowers the cost of construction and improves natural surveillance of the environment in allowing for visual connection.

Public safety tends to increase with increased community cohesion (positive interactions among neighbors), which tends to increase the sense of responsibility residents have for neighborhood safety (LGC, 2001). This can be encouraged by providing places and reasons for residents to interact on a regular basis, including pocket parks, community gardens and corner stores. Traffic Calming and other pedestrian-oriented design features can make streets more attractive to people, encouraging interaction and a sense of community.

Urban infill, Clustered development is sometimes opposed by residents afraid that higher densities increase crime, but such concerns are often misplaced (see discussion in Land Use Impacts on Transportation and Litman, 2001). Although urban neighborhoods often have higher crime rates than suburban neighborhoods, this reflects demographic differences rather than effects of density (Thousand Friends of Oregon, 1995; de Waal, Aureli and Judge, 2000). Infill by middle-class households, and neighborhood design features that encourage social interactions among residents tend to reduce crime risk (Jacobs, 1962). Residents of low-density, exurban areas tend to have greater risk of combined traffic and stranger-murder fatalities (Lucy, 2002). Although higher density areas have slightly lower stranger-murder fatalities, this is overwhelmed by the much higher traffic fatalities of residents in suburban areas. Moving to automobile-dependent suburbs tends to increase overall risk to residents:

Crime rates per capita in Seattle, for example, vary surprisingly little across all types of neighborhoods, and most crimes are committed by acquaintances, not strangers. Still, in the extreme case, the per capita rate of violent crime might be one-tenth as high in a distant suburb – say Issaquah – as in a close-in urban neighborhood – say Queen Anne. Consider, however, that the risk of an injury-causing car crash – already a more serious risk than crime for the Queen Anne dweller – roughly quadruples in Issaquah. It does so because residents of distant suburbs commonly drive three times as much, and twice as fast, as urban dwellers. All told, city dwellers are much safer (Durning, 1996).

Using geographic analysis of crime patterns Hillier (2001) finds that a more integrated street system with greater public exposure tends to have lower crime risk if there are few hidden areas (such as back alleys), but can have a higher crime rate if there are many areas with poor visibility.

How it is Implemented

Security programs can be implemented by local police, transit agencies and campus security officials. Neighborhood, cycling and women’s organizations may also be involved in planning and implementing such programs.

Travel Impacts

Security can increase use of public transit and nonmotorized transportation. One study found that aesthetic and safety factors at employment sites can contribute to reduced automobile commuting (Cambridge Systematics, 1994; Project for Public Spaces, 1999). Exact travel impacts vary depending on conditions.

Table 1 Travel Impact Summary

Travel Impact	Rating	Comments
Reduces total traffic.	2	Supports walking, cycling and public transit.
Reduces peak period traffic.	2
Shifts peak to off-peak periods.	0
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.	3	Makes alternative modes more attractive.
Improves access, reduces the need for travel.	2	Supports higher-density, infill development.
Increased ridesharing.	0
Increased public transit.	3
Increased cycling.	2
Increased walking.	3
Increased Telework.	0
Reduced freight traffic.	0

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Benefits And Costs

Benefits can include increased security and comfort for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, residents and businesses; increased Transportation Choice and Community Livability; increased use of alternative modes, and more efficient land use (New Urbanism). Costs are primarily program and equipment expenses.

Table 2 Benefit Summary

Objective	Rating	Comments
Congestion Reduction	2	Encourages use of alternative modes.
Road & Parking Savings	2	Encourages use of alternative modes.
Consumer Savings	3	Allows use of alternative modes, reduces crime costs.
Transport Choice	2	Allows greater use of alternative modes.
Road Safety	2	Encourages use of alternative modes, reduces risk to users.
Environmental Protection	2	Encourages use of alternative modes.
Efficient Land Use	3	Encourages use of alternative modes and higher-density development
Community Livability	3	Encourages use of alternative modes and makes urban neighborhoods more livable.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Equity Impacts

Increased personal security for nondrivers tends to provide significant equity benefits, particularly because it reduces risks and increases travel choices for low income and transportation disadvantaged people.

Table 3 Equity Summary

Criteria	Rating	Comments
Treats everybody equally.	3	Benefits all demographic group (except criminals).
Individuals bear the costs they impose.	-1	May require additional public resources.
Progressive with respect to income.	3	Increases safety and transport choice for lower-income people.
Benefits transportation disadvantaged.	3	Increases safety and transport choice for non-drivers.
Improves basic mobility.	3	Improves basic transport options, such as walking and transit.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

Applications

Security improvements can be appropriate virtually everywhere, but tend to be most important in large urban areas. It is implemented primarily at the local level, often with legal and financial support from other levels of government. Businesses can implement their own programs, and developers can incorporate security features in facility design.

Table 4 Application Summary

Geographic	Rating	Organization	Rating
Large urban region.	3	Federal government.	1
High-density, urban.	3	State/provincial government.	1
Medium-density, urban/suburban.	3	Regional government.	2
Town.	3	Municipal/local government.	3
Low-density, rural.	2	Business Associations/TMA.	3
Commercial center.	3	Individual business.	2
Residential neighborhood.	3	Developer.	2
Resort/recreation area.	3	Neighborhood association.	3
		Campus.	3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

Category

Improved Transport Choice

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Personal Security is a component of Transportation Safety, and an important aspect of transportation system Resilience. Such programs may be supported by, or incorporated into, TDM Programs, Public Transit Improvements, Nonmotorized Transport Planning, Commute Trip Reduction, School Trip Management and Campus Transport Management. It supports land use strategies, including New Urbanism, Smart Growth, Transit Oriented Development and Location Efficient Development.

Stakeholders

Personal security improvements require support from TDM program planners and agencies responsible for public safety (local police, transit or campus security officials). Business and residents should be involved in program development and implementation.

Barriers To Implementation

Security improvements usually receive broad support, but are limited by financial and staff resources. Some public safety officials may feel that they are already doing as much as possible to ensure security. Some personal security strategies, such as efforts to increase community interaction, require police, planners and citizens to consider new approaches and implement new types of programs.

Best Practices

Organizations and publications listed below provide advice and resources for implementing effective transportation security programs (particularly ODPM, 2004 and LGC, 2004). Best practices include:

· Make security planning an integral component of TDM planning and development of alternative modes.

· Involve community members in crime prevention program planning and implementation.

· Use urban design features to maximize visibility in pedestrian, cycling and transit areas.

· Revive downtowns as public gathering places, and create mixed-use centers with both commercial and residential development, so people are in the downtown at night.

· Use traffic calming and pedestrian improvements to create more attractive streets.

· Encourage “eyes on the street” by designing buildings with windows and public areas that have good views of the sidewalks and streets.

· Support programs that help create community cohesion, including the development of local organizations, services and activities that foster activities that involve residents, employees and businesses in an area.

· Incorporate common space in new developments and existing neighborhoods, including pocket parks, community gardens, community centers and neighborhood schools.

· In dense, multi-family housing, provide semi-private courtyards shared by no more than 20 to 30 people.

· Eliminate litter, garbage, weeds and graffiti. Create incentives and regulations that encourage owners to clean up, maintain and renovation rundown and vacant properties.

· Maximize visibility of public areas. Remove visual obstructions where appropriate.

· Maintain good lighting in pedestrian areas and transit centers.

· Encourage shops to stay open and well lit in the evenings.

· Reduce impacts of vacant shops, for example, by maintaining attractive window displays.

· Prove space for youth activities such as skateboarding.

· Encourage street life by supporting special events and diverse activities in public spaces.

· Locate transit stops near shops to increase informal surveillance.

Ten Ways Transit Agencies Can Improve Security

By Brian Jenkings, Mineta Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu).

1. Review threat potential with local and national authorities.
2. Review and rehearse immediate response procedures.
3. Make staff and security more visible, and make sure that they are ready to help.
4. Increase the frequency of security patrols
5. Insure adequacy and awareness of crisis management plans.
6. Enlist the public in surveillance.
7. Instill a security mindset throughout your staff.
8. Review security plans.
9. Keep the premises spotless. The cleaner it is, the less chances people have of hiding and your staff is better able to do a rapid search of the area.
10. Reduce obvious hiding places.

Case Studies and Examples

Community-Oriented Transit Security (Sullivan, 1995)

New Jersey Transit has several programs to improve security for patrons and community members. “Transit on Patrol” means that all transit operators and field staff are prepared to provide emergency assistance and communication. “Police on Board” means that NJ Transit security officers and local police ride buses regularly. “Request-A-Stop” means that riders can ask to be let off anywhere along a route, rather than just at bus stops, when riding buses at night.

Anti-Crime Codes (http://www.lgc.org/freepub/land_use/guidelines/anti-crime.html)

The Local Government Commission has identified local agencies that have incorporated anti-crime design concepts into local codes and development guidelines. These include:

· City of Watsonville, CA, “Livable Residential Design Guidelines,”

· San Diego Southeastern Economic Development Corp., “Multi-Family Development Guidelines,” Chapter 7: Safety and Security. Guidelines available at SEDC's web site: www.sedcinc.com/multifamily_housing.html.

· City of Salem, OR, “Development Design Handbook - Multifamily and Compact Residential Development,”

· City of Sacramento, CA, “Multi-Family Residential Design Principles,”

· City of Overland Park, KS, “Multifamily Residential Design Guidelines and Standards,”

· City of Santa Monica, CA, “Ocean Park Design Guidelines”

Transit Oriented Development

Moreno Garcia (2005) found that criminal activity decreased significantly in urban neighbrhoods after the implementation of the Transmilenio Bus Rapid Transit system in Bogotá, Columbia. The study suggests that transit oriented development can reduce and displace criminal activity in high crime areas.

Long Island Rail Roads Auto Crime Unit

The Long Island Rail Road Police established a special unit to discourage auto theft at stations. Five plain-clothes officers petrol LIRR parking lots, with backup from other LIRR units and local police. The unit is equipped with surveillance vans, remote video cameras, and laptop computers to perform vehicle checks. The unit also provides education to train users and community groups, and distributes literature on how to avoid auto crime at stations. This program reduced auto theft 36% during its first year of operation.

Wit and Humor

A big mugger walked up to a little old lady waiting at a bus stop and demanded her money.

She looked him in the eye and protested, “You should be ashamed of yourself, robbing a poor little old lady like me. A man of your size should be robbing a bank.”

References And Resources For More Information

AARP (2005), Livable Communities: An Evaluation Guide, AARP Public Policy Institute (http://assets.aarp.org).

ACCPA, What is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design? Alberta Community Crime Prevention Association, University of Alberta (www.albertacrimeprevention.com).

Donald Appleyard (1981), Livable Streets, University of California Press.

APTA, Public Transit and Security Issues Website (www.apta.com/services/security).

Randy Atlas (1999), Designing Safe Communities and Neighborhoods, APA National Planning Conference (www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings99/ATLAS/ATLAS.HTM).

Cambridge Systematics (1994), Effects of Land Use and Travel Demand Management Strategies on Commuting Behavior, USDOT (http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/landuse.html), DOT-T-95-06, pp. 3-17 to 3-21.

Campus Safety Journal (www.campusjournal.com) provides information on campus safety issues.

Canadian National Crime Prevention Centre (www.crime-prevention.org).

Paul M. Cozens, et al (2002), “Investigating Perceptions of Personal Security on the Valley Lines Rail Network in South Wales,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 1

(http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm), Jan. 2002, pp. 19-29.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) (www.cpted.net) and (www.cpted.org) provide support for enhancing professional development in CPTED and related disciplines.

Crime Prevention From the Ground Up, National Council for the Prevention of Crime (www.ncpc.org/2add4dc.htm).

CUTA (2000), Transit's Safety and Security Record, STRP S3, Canadian Urban Transit Association (www.cutaactu.ca).

DETR (1999), Personal Security Issues in Pedestrian Journeys, Mobility Unit, Department for Environment, Transport, and Regions (now Department for Transport; www.dft.gov.uk).

Alan Durning (1996), The Car and the City, Northwest Environment Watch (www.northwestwatch.org).

Frans de Waal, Filippo Aureli and Peter Judge (2000), “Coping With Crowding,” Scientific American, May 2000, pp. 76-81.

Design and Crime Program, Nottingham Trent University (www.ntu.ac.uk/soc/psych/miller/crime.htm).

ECMT (2003), Vandalism, Terrorism And Security In Urban Public Passenger Transport, ECMT Round Table 123, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (www.oecd.org/bookshop).

Federal Transit Administration Office of Safety and Security (www.transit-safety.volpe.dot.gov) works to improve safety for transit passengers, employees, and agencies.

Yaakov Garb (2003), “Transit Terror: The View from Jerusalem,” Sustainable Transport, Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (www.itdp.org), No. 15, Fall 2003, pp. 12-117.

Edward Glaeser and Bruce Sacerdote (1999), “Why is There More Crime in Cities?” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 107, pp. 225-258.

Bill Hillier