Address Security Concerns

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

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

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

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

Updated 28 November 2018

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 and respond to passenger concerns (Loukaitou-Sideris 2009).

 

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). For example, Gilderbloom, Riggs and Meares (2015) found that, normalizing for other factors, higher WalkScore ratings are associated with lower crime rates in Louisville, Kentucky neighborhoods. 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

Increased security can increase use of public transit and nonmotorized transportation. Several studies find that personal insecurity in neighborhoods, transit waiting areas and transit vehicles is a major concern which discourages use of alternative modes, and addressing these security concerns can increase walking, cycling and public transit travel, and reduce automobile travel (Barajas, Chatman and Agrawal 2016; Ferrell, Mathur and Mendoza 2008; Martin 2011; Ferrell, et al. 2012). 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”

 

 

Mixed Use Development Reduces Crime

Anderson, et al. (2012) evaluated crime rates in 205 blocks selected in eight different relatively high crime neighborhoods in Los Angeles that have similar demographic characteristics but different forms of zoned land use. They found that mixed commercial- and residential-zoned areas are associated with lower crime than are commercial-only zoned areas. They also matched neighborhoods undergoing zoning changes between 2006 and 2010 with neighborhoods that underwent no zoning changes during this period but had similar preexisting crime trajectories between 1994 and 2005. The primary zoning change in these neighborhoods was to convert parcels to residential uses. They found that neighborhoods in which there was a zoning change experienced a significant decline in crime. These results suggest that mixing residential-only zoning into commercial blocks may be a promising means of reducing crime.

 

 

Crime Rates Lower in Transit-Oriented Cities (Litman 2013)

People often assume that crime rates increase with city size and density, and therefore with transit travel and transit-oriented development. These assumptions are partly true and partly inaccurate. Simplistic analysis may lead to false conclusions concerning these factors. For example, crime mapping and real estate guides such as Neighborhood Scout  often indicate that more crimes occur in denser, mixed urban neighborhoods than lower-density suburbs, implying that urban environments tend to stimulate crime and increase risks to individuals, but this is not really what the data indicate. Dense, mixed urban areas have more of just about everything measured per square-mile or -kilometer): more people, businesses, wealth, poverty, social services, productivity, tragedy, generosity and crime. However, contrary to the impressions of crime mapping, crime density does not really reflect the risk to individuals; concentrated crime in city center does not really indicate that denser development causes responsible people to become criminals or increases the risk a typical person faces of becoming a crime victim.

 

Similarly, per capita crime rates tend to increase as a community grows in size from a village to a town, to a city, and all types of crime increased between 1955 and 1976. The positive association between community size and crime rates probably reflects community cohesion (the quality of relationships between community residents): smaller community residents are more likely to know and befriend their neighbors, or described differently, city residents tend to experience more anonymity and alienation.

 

However, during the last two decades, U.S. crime rates declined significantly. Rates declined for virtually all types of crime in virtually all size communities, but the declines were particularly dramatic in the largest cities (more than a million residents), resulting in their rates being lower than in medium-size cities (250,000 to 1,000,000 residents). As a result of these trends, the largest cities now have significantly lower crime rates (23% lower for violent crimes and 32% lower for property crimes) than medium-size cities.

 

Crime Rates By Community Population Group

 

 

Crime rates tend to increase as community population grows, peaks at 500,000-1,000,000 residents, and is significantly lower for cities with over a million population, which also have the highest transit ridership rates (AATPMPC = Average Annual Transit Passenger-Miles Per Capita).

 

 

This decline in urban crime rates probably resulted from a combination of aging population (older people commit fewer crimes), declining drug abuse, improved policing methods, and lower blood lead levels, but these do not explain the lower crime rates in large compared with medium-size cities, which experienced similar demographic trends. The relatively low crime rates in the largest cities can be explained by:

·         Large cities have less concentrated poverty as more middle- and higher-income residents move into inner neighborhoods. This can increase security and economic opportunity (better schools and local job opportunities) to low-income residents, which can help reduce poverty and crime rates.

·         Large city neighborhoods tend to be dense, mixed and walkable, factors associated with reduced crime rates at the neighborhood scale due to more natural surveillance and community cohesion as more responsible (non-criminal) people live, work, walk and travel on city streets.

·         Larger cities and denser cities may have better policing and social services. They can afford to have more specialists and targeted programs, and increased density reduces emergency response times.

·         Large cities may offer residents who are at-risk to criminal behavior more economic opportunities due to better access to education and employment.

·         Large cities tend to have higher average incomes and education levels, although they also tend to have greater income disparities, with large numbers of both high- and low-income households.

·         Larger cities may have more affluence and corporate headquarters, and therefore more charity funds and other support for social programs.

·         Reduced vehicle ownership tends to reduce vehicle-related crime, which is a major portion of total crime.

 

 

 

Preventing Violence Against Women in Public Transit (Levaque 2015)

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) sponsors an Activism Against Gender-Based Violence Global Campaign which includes guidance for practical ways to reduce violence against women and girls (VAWG) in urban transport systems. These include:

 

Safe physical environment and design features

 

Prevention and support services

 

Capacity building

 

 

Women’s Safety and Security: A Public Transport Priority (www.itf-oecd.org/womens-safety-security)

Surveys indicate that women often feel exposed to physical aggression, sexual harassment or other forms of unwelcome behaviour in public transport. This is not only morally unacceptable in itself, it also causes economic and social harm, as well as reinforcing other forms of inequality. The International Transport Forum (ITF) launched a series of discussions on women in transport which provided an opportunity for all stakeholders to highlight their initiatives to enhance greater gender equality in the sector. The ITF invited stakeholders to discuss the importance of transport safety and security for women as transport users and employees in the sector. Their contributions highlight key safety and security issues, related challenges and shortcomings, and propose solutions for truly safe, secure, and ultimately inclusive and sustainable transport.

 

 

Actual Versus Perceived Crime Risk (www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics)

Many people have excessive fear of crime for themselves and their children, which discourages walking, cycling and public transit travel, and living in urban areas. In fact, official statistics indicate that most people’s risk of violent crime is small and declining, particularly in large cities, that many TDM and smart growth policies increase security, and there is much that individuals and communities can do to further reduce these risks (Litman 2014). Here some relevant facts:

 

Crime has been declining since the 1990s:

All U.S. homicides: Down 40% 1992 -2005.
Juvenile homicide: Down 36% 1993 – 2005 (kids under age 14)
Juvenile homicide: Down 60% 1993 – 2005 (age 14 – 17)
Forcible rape: Down 28% 1992 – 2006
Sex Abuse Substantiations of Children, 1990 – 2005: Down 51%
Physical Abuse Substantiations of Children, 1990 – 2005: Down 46%
Juvenile Sex victimization trends, 1993 – 2003: Down 79%

99.5% of Americans will never experience ANY violent crime.

 

Abductions in perspective:

Number of children age 2 – 14 killed in car accidents, as passengers: 1300
Number of children killed each year by family members and acquaintances: About 1000
Number of children abducted in “stereotypical kidnappings” (kidnapped by a stranger for ransom or for sexual purposes and/or transported away) in 1999, the most recent year for which we have statistics: 115.
Number of those children killed by their abductor: About 50.

Murders of children by abductors constitute less than 0.5% of all murders in America.

 

Stranger Danger?

Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005:

31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers

Moral: Your safest bet is to leave your child with a stranger.

There is approximately one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports of a missing child. (Source: Polly Klaas Foundation). Put it another way: The Department of Justice reports that of the 800,000 children reported “missing” in the United States each year, 115 are the result of “stereotypical kidnapping” — a stranger snatching the child. About 90 percent of abductees return home within 24 hours and the vast majority are teenage runaways. Despite declining crime rates, in 2009 the number of people who told Gallup that crime is getting worse climbed to 74%.

 

Addressing Aggressive Driving (www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext)

The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (www.aaafoundation.org) has sponsored research to identify aggressive driving risk and recommend strategies for reducing this problem. According to one study (Mizell 1995), between January 1990 to September 1996 there were at least 10,037 reported incidents of criminal aggressive driving that resulted in at least 218 murders and at least 12,610 injuries, including scores of cases in which people suffered paralysis, brain damage, amputation, and other seriously disabling injuries. The number of reported aggressive driving cases increased every year between 1990 and 1995, when the study was completed.

 

 

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).

 

Heather Allen and Marianne Vanderschuren (2016), Safe and Sound: International Research on Women's Personal Safety on Public Transport, FIA Foundation (www.fiafoundation.org); at www.fiafoundation.org/media/224027/safe-and-sound-report.pdf.

 

James M. Anderson, John M. Macdonald, Ricky Bluthenthal And J. Scott Ashwood (2013), Reducing Crime By Shaping The Built Environment With Zoning: An Empirical Study Of Los Angeles” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 161, pp. 699-756; at www.pennumbra.com/issues/pdfs/161-3/Anderson-161-U-Pa-L-Rev-699.pdf.

 

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

 

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

 

Alex Blum (2012), “New MAX Line Might Not Be The ‘Crime Express’”, Portland Tribune (www.portlandtribune.com), 1 August 2012; at http://portlandtribune.com/pt-rss/9-news/112995-new-max-line-might-not-be-the-crime-express.

 

Jesus M. Barajas, Daniel G. Chatman and Asha Weinstein Agrawal (2016), Exploring Bicycle and Public Transit Use by Low-Income Latino Immigrants: A Mixed-Methods Study in the San Francisco Bay Area, MTI Report 12-57; at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1202-bicycle-and-transit-use-by-low-income-latino-immigrants.pdf.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Graham Currie, Alexa Delbosc and Sarah Mahmoud (2013), “Factors Influencing Young Peoples’ Perceptions of Personal Safety on Public Transport,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 47-66; at www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/jpt_16.1.pdf.

 

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).

 

DfT (2010), Crime and Public Transport, UK Department For Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/crime. This website has various resources for improving travelers’ security, with special attention to walking, cycling and public transport.

 

DfT (2011), Transport Analysis Guidance, Integrated Transport Economics and Appraisal, Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk/webtag)

Safety Objective: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.php

Security Objective: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.4.2.php

 

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, pp. 76-81.

 

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

 

Christopher Ferrell, Shishir Mathur and Emilia Mendoza (2008), Neighborhood Crime and Travel Behavior: An Investigation of the Influence of Neighborhood Crime Rates on Mode Choice, Report 07-02, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://works.bepress.com/shishirmathur/12.

 

Christopher E. Ferrell, Shishir Mathur, Justin Meek and Mathew Piven (2012), Neighborhood Crime And Travel Behavior: An Investigation Of The Influence Of Neighborhood Crime Rates On Mode Choice – Phase II, Report 11-04, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/2802-Neighborhood-Crime-Travel-Mode-Behavior.pdf. Also published in Transportation Research Record 2320, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 55-63, http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1130646.

 

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.

 

John I. Gilderbloom, William W. Riggs and Wesley L. Meares (2015), “Does Walkability Matter? An Examination Of Walkability’s Impact On Housing Values, Foreclosures And Crime,” Cities, Vol. 42, pp. 13–24 (doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.08.001); at www.researchgate.net/publication/265731006_Does_walkability_matter_An_examination_of_walkability%27s_impact_on_housing_values_foreclosures_and_crime.

 

Bill Hillier (2004), “Can Streets Be Made Safe?,” Urban Design International, Vol. 9, No. 1, April, Pages 31-45 (www.palgrave-journals.com/udi/journal/v9/n1/abs/9000079a.html).

 

Bill Hillier and Ozlem Sahbaz (2006), High Resolution Analysis of Crime Patterns in Urban Street Networks: An Initial Statistical Sketch From An Ongoing Study Of A London Borough, University College London (www.spacesyntax.tudelft.nl/media/Long%20papers%20I/hilliersahbaz.pdf).

 

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

 

Gerald Ingalls, David Hartgen and Timothy Owens (1994), “Public Fear of Crime and Its Role in Bus Transit Use,” Transportation Research Record 1433, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 201-211.

 

International Centre for the Prevention of Crime (www.crime-prevention-intl.org) helps bridge the gap between knowledge and action by focusing on effective and sustainable crime prevention strategies.

 

ITF (2018), Women’s Safety and Security: A Public Transport Priority, International Transport Forum (www.itf-oecd.org); at www.itf-oecd.org/womens-safety-security.

 

Jane Jacobs (1961), Death and Life of the Great American Cities, Random House (New York).

 

Brian Jenkings (1997), Protecting Surface Transportation Systems and Patrons From Terrorist Activities, IISTPS Report 97-4, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University (www.transweb.sjsu.edu/publications/terrorism/terrorism.pdf).

 

Ketron (1994), Transit System Security Program Planning Guide, Federal Transit Administration, USDOT (www.fta.dot.gov/library/planning/TSSP/tssp.html).

 

Matt Lerner (2014), Crime Grade for Homes and Apartments, Walkscore (http://blog.walkscore.com); at http://blog.walkscore.com/2014/09/crime-grade-for-homes-and-apartments.

 

Laurence Levaque (2015), How To Integrate Violence Against Women Prevention, Response In Urban Transport, Asian Development Bank (www.adb.org); at http://blogs.adb.org/blog/how-integrate-violence-against-women-prevention-response-urban-transport.

 

LGC (2000), Land Use Planning for Safe Crime-Free Neighborhoods, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org).

 

LGC (2004), Designs and Codes That Reduce Crime Around Multifamily Housing, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org); at www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/fact_sheets/anti-crime_design.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2004), Evaluating Smart Growth Criticism, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at http://www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2005), “Terrorism, Transit and Public Safety: Evaluating the Risks,” Journal of Public Transit, Vol. 8, No. 4 (www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/journal.htm), pp. 33-46.; at www.vtpi.org/transitrisk.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2006), Cities Connect: How Urbanity Helps Achieve Social Inclusion Objectives, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/citiesconnect.pdf.  

 

Todd Litman (2006), Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning Goal, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2009), “Public Transportation and Health,” in The Transportation Prescription: Bold New Ideas for Healthy, Equitable Transportation Reform in America, (Bell and Cohen eds.)  PolicyLink and the Prevention Institute Convergence Partnership (www.convergencepartnership.org/transportationhealthandequity).

 

Todd Litman (2009), “Transportation Policy and Injury Control,” Injury Prevention, Vol. 15, Issue 6 (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/15/6/362.full); at www.vtpi.org/tpic.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2010), Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2011), Pricing For Traffic Safety: How Efficient Transport Pricing Can Reduce Roadway Crash Risk, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/price_safe.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2013), Safer Than You Think! Revising the Transit Safety Narrative, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/safer.pdf. 

 

Todd Litman and Steven Fitzroy (2008), Safe Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic Safety Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/safetrav.pdf.

 

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris (2009), How to Ease Women´s Fear of Transportation Environments: Case Studies and Best Practices, Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sideris.pdf.

 

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, Robin Liggett, and Hiroyuki Iseki (2010), The Geography of Transit Crime: Documentation and Evaluation of Crime Incidence on and Around the Green Line Stations in Los Angeles, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net); at www.uctc.net/papers/550.pdf.  

 

William Lucy (2002), Danger in Exurbia: Outer Suburbs More Dangerous Than Cities, University of Virginia (www.virginia.edu); at http://arch.virginia.edu/exurbia/death-in-exurbia.pdf.

 

William Lucy and David L. Phillips (2006), Tomorrow’s Cities, Tomorrow’s Suburbs, Planners Press (www.planning.org).

 

Wesley E. Marshall and Norman W. Garrick (2011), “Evidence on Why Bike-Friendly Cities Are Safer for All Road Users,” Environmental Practice, Vol 13/1, March; at http://files.meetup.com/1468133/Evidence%20on%20Why%20Bike-Friendly.pdf.

 

John Martin (2011), The Incidence and Fear of Transit Crime: A Review of the Literature, Centre for Public Safety, University of the Fraser Valley (www.ufv.ca); at www.ufv.ca/Assets/CCJR/Reports+and+Publications/Transit_Crime_2011.pdf.

 

Louis Mizell (1995), Aggressive Driving, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (www.aaafoundation.org); at www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=agdrtext.

 

Alvaro Jose Moreno Garcia (2005), Estimating TranMilenio's  Impact on Crime on the Avenida Caraca and its Neighboring Area, University of the Andes, Department of Economics, Columbia (http://economia.uniandes.edu.co); at http://economia.uniandes.edu.co/~economia/archivos/temporal/d2005-55.pdf.

 

MTI, Transit Security Publications, Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu/transitsecurity.htm).  

 

NCSRS (2009), National Safe Routes to Schools Program Promotes Role for Law Enforcement, National Center for Safe Routes to Schools (www.saferoutesinfo.org); at http://apps.saferoutesinfo.org/lawenforcement.

 

NCSRTS (2009), Law Enforcement Officer Tips: Addressing Personal Security for Students, National Center for Safe Routes to Schools (www.saferoutesinfo.org); at www.saferoutesinfo.org/lawenforcement/resources/personal_security.cfm.

 

NCSRTS (2010), Personal Security and Safe Routes to School, National Center for Safe Routes to Schools (www.saferoutesinfo.org); at www.saferoutesinfo.org/program-tools/education-personal-security-and-safe-routes-school.

 

ODPM (2004), Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (www.odpm.gov.uk).

 

Oliver Page, Prudence Moeketsi, Willem Schurink, Leseli Molefe and David Bruce (2001), Crime & Crime Prevention On Public Transport, UNISA Press (www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/uprebook/crime.html).

 

Renata Pistone (2002), Transportation Choices and Personal Security: Exploring the Relationship, City of Vancouver Engineering Services (www.vancouver.ca/engsvcs).

 

Talia Shadwell (2017), “'Paying to Stay Safe': Why Women Don't Walk as Much as Men. A Study Shows in Most Countries, Women Walk Significantly Fewer Steps Each Day Than Men,” The Gardian (www.theguardian.com); at www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/oct/11/paying-to-stay-safe-why-women-dont-walk-as-much-as-men.

 

Safer Cities Programme (www.unhabitat.org/programmes/safercities), UN-Habitat

 

Lenore Skenazy (2013), Crime Statistics, Free Range Kids (www.freerangekids.com); at www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics.

 

Social Research Associates (1999), Personal Security Issues in Pedestrian Journeys, UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (www.mobility-unit.detr.gov.uk/psi).

 

John P. Sullian (2005), “Transit Security: Lights, Camera, Action,” Transit Connections, June 1995, p. 37-40.

 

Teke Wiggin (2014), Trulia Crime Maps Paint Different Picture From Walk Score: Heat Maps Factor In Population Density, Inman (www.inman.com); at www.inman.com/2014/09/09/walk-score-says-its-new-crime-ratings-paint-a-more-accurate-picture.

 

Thousand Friends of Oregon (1999), “The Debate Over Density: Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism?, Landmark, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org), Winter 1999, pp. 2-5; at http://www.vtpi.org/1k_density.pdf.

 

USDOT (2005), Effects Of Catastrophic Events On Transportation System Management And Operations: New York City- September 11, U.S. Department of Transportation (www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov//JPODOCS/REPTS_te/14129.htm).

 

Gerda Wekerle and Whitzman (1995), Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning, Design and Management, Van Nostrand Reinhold (http://eng.archinform.net/arch/30993.htm).

 

Wikipedia (2013), Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_prevention_through_environmental_design).

 

Nilay Yavez and Eric W. Welch (2010), “Addressing Fear of Crime in Public Space: Gender Differences in Reaction to Safety Measures in Train Transit,” Urban Studies, Vol. 47, No. 12, November, pp. 2491-2515 (http://usj.sagepub.com/content/47/12/2491.abstract?etoc).

This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

VTPI

Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC,  V8V 3R7,  CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

 

#37