Adding even more value to video surveillance
Identity and non-traditional use cases help orgs find funding
30 December, 2016
category:
Because public transit agencies do not always deploy access control mechanisms, many of them depend upon video surveillance for identifying problems. To compound the challenge, public transit hubs are often large buildings that serve as congregation points for crowds while also linking critical infrastructure, making them attractive targets for criminals and terrorists.
Protecting public transit hubs requires cooperation between many regional and local security partners, Clarke says. Attacks on public transit systems in Madrid and London, as well as Israel in recent years, have compelled agencies to strengthen their partnerships globally.
Expanding roles can expand funds for video surveillance
Since 9/11, the U.S. transit industry has spent about $2 billion on security and hardening measures, but transportation agencies have still identified a $6 billion gap in funding required to address all outstanding security concerns.
Public transit supports 11 billion trips annually, 16 times more than airlines, Clarke says. Almost all people riding public transit go through little to no security checks
Many public transit agencies start new security initiatives with money from a one-time grant, often awarded by the federal government. They rarely have the opportunity to refresh these grant funds, so they must make carefully considered strategic decisions as they can only implement limited security measures with the money, Clarke says.
Sometimes, however, transit agencies may choose not to implement a particular security measure for reasons other than funding. For example, public transit agencies generally do not incorporate automatic facial recognition technology into their video surveillance systems out of caution to avoid intruding on the privacy concerns of their passengers.
In another video screened at the Summit, a golf cart drives by, dragging a trash bin into its wake. The trash bin drifts away from its perch against a pillar, and begins to roll across the platform towards the tracks. An Amtrak train then whisks into the station, and the trash bin flies into the train as it comes to a stop. Moments later, a worker scrambles out to collect the bin and investigate any potential damage.
Edouard Sonnenschein, manager for surveillance and video systems for the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (or Amtrak), agrees that video footage like that of the trash bin helps solicit internal support for surveillance systems across his organization. By deploying such tactics, the security staff at Amtrak is able to then share the cost of maintaining video surveillance, demonstrating its utility throughout the system for uses other than security. Doing so has yielded strong results for Amtrak, where managers can figure out how to resolve issues by working together and without placing blame on specific individuals.
“We have used video like this to go to operations and say, ‘look you have a situation,’” Sonnenschein told the Summit. “They can use the video to improve upon the environment.”
Video then proves its worth to other departments, who are watching their environments but can also watch the people who enter those environments. All employees have protocols they can easily follow if they see something bad or unusual. By watching people as they move, transit employees can also manage the flow of passengers along the transit system. They can identify that people are where they are supposed to be and judge capacities to adjust operations accordingly.
WMATA’s Epler supports dual-use arguments for surveillance cameras, emphasizing that funding for video surveillance is often limited. But making the case for video as a dual-use technology, beyond security, helps to attract more funding.
So WMATA can watch its platforms with cameras at its stations, where the agency usually runs about 30-50 cameras. If platforms become too crowded, it can send its police force in to conduct safety checks and direct passengers to alternate routes, Epler says.
In the long run, cameras pay for themselves, Epler says. Cameras on Metro buses serve as a means to deter assaults on buses, whether against WMATA employees or passengers, thus saving potential medical and maintenance costs. WMATA also replaced parking lot attendants with cameras as it implemented SmarTrip for parking payment in the past decade.
“About 10 years ago, the best paid employees at WMATA were the parking attendants,” Epler notes. Some parking attendants would run a scam and collect extra money. “One dollar for WMATA, and one dollar for the attendant!” Epler quips.
WMATA phased out parking attendants and now travelers pay with a SmarTtrip or credit card. Video cameras provide a means of two-way communication with a WMATA employee if a traveler has a problem at the exit gate. “The cameras pay for themselves,” Epler says.