security, safety, and rapid transit · rapid transit project 2000 ltd. security, safety, and rapid...

136A StreetC V3T 5G9

[email protected]

p://www.securityresourcegroup.com

, Safety, andapid Transit

ional Review of Safety Security Prepared For:

ransit Project 2000 Ltd.

10708 - Surrey, BCanadaPhone: 6Fax: 604Email: kgWeb: htt

SecurityR

A Cross-Jurisdictand

Rapid T

able of Contents: Report Editors:

ie Tennant, BA Crim Joanna Piros

Crearar, Researcher Michael G.T. Kennedy

avid H. Wright Kenneth D. Gisborne

areness Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

s, and Hot Spots for Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

d a Selected Target . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

ironmental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

rime Review . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

d Crime . . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

ion for S elected G VRD M unicipa lities . . .23. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

February 1999

Table of Contents

Executive SummarThe Assignm ent . . . . . . . . . .

Key Find ings . . . . . . . . . . . .

S ign ificance o f the F ind ings . GVRD Crime – Then and

Current SkyTrain Crime .

Recom m endations for RTPO 1) Community Involvemen

2) Design . . . . . . . . . . . .

3) Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . .

4) Security Techniques .

5) Fare Payment . . . . . . .

Further S tudy . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 1: Building Purpose o f the S tudy . . . . . .

Approach and M ethodo logy .

Rapid Transit Project 2000 Page i

Fear o f C rim e . . . . . . . . . . .

C rim e Theory . . . . . . . . . . .The Criminal Event . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Ltd. Security, Safety, and Rapid Transit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The Framework . . . . . . . 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Section 3: SkyTrain anPublic Consulta tions . . . . . . . . . . .

C rim e Analysis/S tatistical Inform atDefinitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . .

BC Transit Security . . . . . . . .

Vancouver Police Department

Burnaby RCMP Detachment .

New Westminster Police Servi

TReport Contributors

Kenneth D. Gisborne, CPP Melan

Michael G.T. Kennedy, BA Crim Carolyn

Leslie Tuck, BA Crim D

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Movement of Criminals and Aw

Nodes of Activity, Conflict Area

Crime as a Rational Choice an

Crime Prevention Through Env

People Movement . . . . . . . . .

Effect on Crime Rates . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 2: Historical C1977 to 1997 - A Look Back . . . . .

F indings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table

Page ii SRG Security Resource Group Inc.

Surrey

Port M

Coquit

Findings .

Notes . . .

SectionSkyTraCurrent Se

Physic

Operat

Studies anCity of

BC Tra

Follow

Findings .

Notes . . .

SectionSystemO verview

Design

Securi

Broken

Station

Comm

Fare E

Comm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51shington Metro Area Transit Authority) . . . . . .51

Rail) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

Rapid Transit Authority) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

id Transit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

a Rapid Transit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58

RAIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

ation Planning and De- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63ough Environmental Design) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

gration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

s and Solutions . . . . 71onsidera tions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Security, Safety, and Rapid Transit

s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

ty Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Windows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

uter Parking Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

vasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

unity and Employee Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

Station Planning . . . . . . . . . . .

At Grade Stations . . . . . . . . . .

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 7: ConclusionN eighbourhood Im pact and R isk C

Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . .

Existing Crime/User Patterns

of Contents

RCMP Detachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

oody Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

lam RCMP Detachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

4: Facilities, Operations and Systems-in 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39curity System s and O perations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39al Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

ional Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

d Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42Vancouver Safer City Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

nsit Safer City Task Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5: Learning from Other Rapid Transit

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

System by System R eview . . . . . .Washington, DC (WMATA - Wa

Toronto (TTC - Toronto Metro

Calgary (C-Train) . . . . . . . . .

Atlanta (MARTA-Metro Atlanta

Portland (TRI-MET) . . . . . . . .

Dallas (DART-Dallas Area Rap

San Francisco (BART-Bay Are

London, England (OTS PRISM

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N otes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Section 6: Ideas for Stsign . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Physical D esign E lem ents . . . . . .

CPTED (Crime Prevention Thr

Site Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Site Layout/Transportation Inte

Table of Contents

Rapid Tran Page iii

Existin

Future

Report RecTo Rap

To BC

To Mun

Workin

To Loc

Proposed GSurveil

Sightlin

Territor

Access

Landsc

Pathwa

Lightin

Comm

Target

Future S tud

Notes . . .

ReferePrim ary R e

Statistica l A

AppendVancouver

Comm

n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

pen House #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

pen House #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88rime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

ute Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

use #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89rime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

ute Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

use #3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89rime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

ute Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

m ent) – O pen H ouse #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .90rime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

ute Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

m ent) – O pen H ouse #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91rime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

ute Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

sit Project 2000 Ltd. Security, Safety, and Rapid Transit

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

nces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81fe rences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

na lysis R eferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

ix A - Open House Notes . . . . . . . . . 87 - Segm ent 1 - O pen H ouse #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87ercial & Broadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

Crime Concerns relating to Ro

Overall Impressions . . . . . . . .

C oquitlam Extension (Eastern S egGeneral Security, Safety, and C



C oquitlam Extension (C entra l SegGeneral Security, Safety, and C


g and/or Projected Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Zoning/Development/Land Use Intentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

om m endations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73id Transit Project 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Transit/GVTA/SkyTrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

icipal Governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

g with Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

al Property Owners/Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

uide lines for S tation and Property Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75lance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

iality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

and Egress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

aping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

ys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

uter Parking Lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

Hardening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

y Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Clark/Glen Drive – VCC Statio

Nanaimo Station . . . . . . . . . .

Grandview station . . . . . . . . .

Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N ew W estm inster - Segm ent 7 – OGeneral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Woodlands – Fraserview Secto

Sapperton – Braid Sector . . .

Overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

N ew W estm inster - Segm ent 7 – OGeneral Security, Safety, and C



C oquitlam – Segm ent 6 – O pen HoGeneral Security, Safety, and C



C oquitlam – Segm ent 6 – O pen HoGeneral Security, Safety, and C

Table

Page iv SRG Security Resource Group Inc.

Overal

Coquitlam Genera

Crime

Overal

Burnaby - SGenera

Crime

Overal

Burnaby - SGenera

Crime

Overal


of Contents

l Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

E xtension (W estern Segm ent) – O pen H ouse #1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92l Security, Safety, and Crime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

Concerns relating to Route Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

l Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

egm ent 2,3,4 – O pen H ouse #2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93l Security, Safety, and Crime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93


l Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

egm ent 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93l Security, Safety, and Crime Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93


l Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

cutive Summary

tion that crime increases where transit is introduced, direct causal connection. Crime occurs where people rstandably, transit is located where people are, or need at SkyTrain, along with other modes of public and g areas of access, can act as a facilitator for certain vandalism, theft from autos, etc.

rea rose rapidly in the early 1980’s, then decreased 0’s when the rates went up again. Since the peak in ecreasing in the Vancouver area to a point where it is reas.

in this report, the region also experienced significant tion density and makeup, and development. All these rime trends.

out the impact of SkyTrain on crime, neighbourhoods . cording to studies gathered, the public is most ch as loitering, unsavory people and “street ed about urban life in general. SkyTrain-specific crime and the visible drug sub-culture.

edia portrayals of crime, in general, as feeding fears. cate offences near SkyTrain stations even if the

on. This tends to increase the perception of a direct

February 1999

The AssignmentPrior to construction of the origabout the impact of the projectsame concerns about the inten

As a pro-active effort to addresas well as crime, Rapid TransiResource Group Inc. (SRG) to to address them by:

• presenting comprehensive inand of security issues in othe

• investigating the actual relati

• researching and assessing w

• formulating guidelines to be ucommunity groups in proximi

This study of “Security, Safety findings and a recommended ccomprehensive review of the edictional compilation of relevanments in Burnaby, Coquitlam aWestminster and Port Moody, hensive analysis of the growth

Rapid Transit Project 2000 Page 1

which has affected those treon urban development and c

kyTrain. Recent coverage of gang activity in the area ay station is an example of such media coverage.


and Rapid Transit” represents a summary of SRG’s ourse of action to address specific concerns. It is a xisting literature as well as a precedent setting cross-juris-t material drawn from Statistics Canada, RCMP detach-nd Surrey, municipal police forces in Vancouver, New

and BC Transit Security. As such it provides a compre- of overall crime trends in the region, urban development

nds, and the influence of transit and general public mobility rime.

fearful of nuisance behaviour, supeople”. These are fears expresspublic concerns include property

5 The public also frequently cites mMedia reports on crime tend to loincident did not occur at the statirelationship between crime and Saround and including the Broadw

Exe

inal SkyTrain line, there was public concern expressed on crime in neighbouring communities. There are the ded SkyTrain extension.

s the public’s concerns about personal safety and security, t Project 2000 Ltd. (RTPO) contracted SRG Security explore these issues in detail and provide direction on how

formation and analysis of the existing SkyTrain system r major urban centres

onship, if any, between SkyTrain and crime in the GVRD

ays in which problems can be avoided or mitigated

sed by station designers, working in consultation with ty to the stations

Key Findings1 While there is a common percep

there is no evidence to support aand property are clustered. Undeto be. Research does suggest thprivate transportation by improvintypes of criminal activity, such as

2 Overall crime in the Vancouver aand levelled off until the early 1991991 and 1992, crime has been dnow below 1982 rates for most a

3 Throughout the 20 years studiedchanges in law, land use, populachanges have had an effect on c

4 There is some public concern aband personal safety and securityAc

Execu

Page 2 SRG Security Resource Group Inc.

6 Data fromWestminthe SkyTworld, typseparateuting fact

7 Potentialavoided, integral toaround thimplemen

SignificTraditionallgreatest woand (2) whebourhoods.are built to revenues a

GVRD CrimWhen lookithe same is

1982 markequarter of tproposed SNot surprisdensity.

dicates that there is no apparent correlation between mmunity and an increase, or decrease, in municipal-

how that in 1997 there were almost 42 million ain stations. The five busiest stations (Metrotown, ain Street) accounted for 44% of all boardings for

re the only sources of information relating to the crosses several police jurisdictions. While the data is hy, it does not provide a complete picture. For

d not include incidents that occur just off Transit’s unity. There may also be incidents that occur on the C Transit Security but are instead reported to the tionally, there are also incidents that go entirely

he volume of ridership noted above, the total number ded by BC Transit for SkyTrain in 1997 was only epugnant and unpleasant for those victimized by it, in passenger has a very slim chance of being in that ent recorded for every 18,755 boardings, and not involve victims.

elated (e.g. bail violation, breach of probation, d property damage)


e – Then and Nowng at crime from an historical perspective, it is highly apparent that some of sues of concern today have been local issues of concern for a very long time.

d the beginning of a rapid increase in GVRD crime rates. Even in 1982, one he area’s commercial development was within walking distance of the then-kyTrain and one third of the population was within five minutes of the route.

ingly, crime was distributed along major roadways, and in areas of population

position. In fact, there is only 1 incideven half of these could be said to

Of the 2,232 incidents cited:

• 43% were Other Criminal Code rdisturbing the peace, mischief an

• 21% property related

• 13% assault related

• 6% robbery related

• 8% intoxicated persons related

tive Summary

local police agencies, particularly from Vancouver, Burnaby and New ster, indicate that primary concentrations of crime activity occur away from rain system, usually in downtown cores. Downtown cores, in much of the ically support numerous other crime facilitators, making it difficult to

the potential influence of SkyTrain from the influences of these other contrib-ors.

crime issues anticipated as a result of the extension of SkyTrain can be to some degree, through planning and designing stations with security aspects the design. This forward-looking action will result in minimal crime impact e majority of the proposed new SkyTrain stations when the system is fully ted.

ance of the Findingsy, in communities affected by the expansion of public transit service, the two rries are (1) whether or not the transit systems are safe from criminal activities ther or not transit will cause a relative increase in crime within their neigh-

It is important to address both of these concerns because rapid transit systems serve communities and depend on those communities to maintain business nd ridership.

An analysis of historical research inthe introduction of SkyTrain to a colevel crime rates.

Current SkyTrain CrimeStatistics provided by BC Transit sboardings on the 20 existing SkyTrGranville, Broadway, Burrard and Mthe entire system during the year.

BC Transit Security and SkyTrain aentire SkyTrain system as the routecomprehensive in terms of geograpexample, BC Transit’s figures woulproperty, in the neighbouring commsystem which are not reported to Bmunicipal Police Department. Addiunreported.

It is significant to note that, despite tof crime and safety incidents recor2,232. While any such incident is rthe statistics indicate that a SkyTra

Executive Summary

Rapid Tran Page 3

• 8% Liquo

• 1% Menta

Expressing

• New WesStation in

• 29th Aven

• Scott Roa

• New Wes

• Main Stre

• Edmonds

Statistics a

• Ridership

• Most incidbetween

• Those stabut near m

• The type the greatestudy of tstations inclusteringWestminslocated isunredeem

• As anothetheft of anall parkinstation.

ilable statistics, overlaid on GIS information and tied alysis, indicates that while crime can be correlated r causal relationship.

ns and fears of crime related to SkyTrain, the system

RTPOo its occurrence require a concerted and sustained Project Office, but also by BC Transit, BC Transit lice, community groups and the community at

ll urban infrastructure and will reflect the strengths ronment in which it is located.

problems as a result of the introduction of SkyTrain enting crime prevention measures today in order to

pproach will result in minimal crime impact around kyTrain stations when the system is fully imple-

work together to enhance the safety and security munities, there are specific tasks that can be under-

t be applied with a broad brush; each station must be the individual circumstances and community require-

d and system riders should be involved in the designe educated as to the design principles, security tech-iderations available.


he Scott Road Park and Ride lot in Surrey, and various studies of transit New Westminster. In New Westminster, for example, there is an apparent of drug activity around the 8th Street station that does not occur at other New ter stations. It would appear that the area in which the 8th Street station is a traditional drug dealing neighbourhood whose character remains ed.

r example, Vancouver City Police figures indicate there is a concentration of d from autos around the Granville SkyTrain Station. Coincidentally, 17% of

g spaces in the Downtown core are within a five block square area of the

of the system and surrounding comtaken by different groups.

1) Community InvolvementCrime prevention measures cannoexamined and solutions tailored to ments.

a. Members of the neighbourhooof station environments and bnologies and operational cons

r Act related

l Health Act related

these numbers as offences per 100,000 boardings:

tminster Station had the highest rate of assault, followed closely by Gateway Surrey

ue in Vancouver had the highest rate of robbery

d in Surrey maintained the highest rate of property and Liquor Act offences

tminster had the highest rate of other Criminal Code offences

et maintains the highest rate of intoxicated persons

in Burnaby had the highest rate of Mental Health Act offences

lso show:

decreases dramatically after 6:00 p.m.

ents occur between 6:00 p.m. and 1:59 p.m. with the greatest number 10:00 p.m. and 1:59 p.m.

tions that experience the most incidents are not located near residential areas alls, theatres, youth centres, clubs and at Scott Road, an isolated parking lot.

of station and the character of the immediate surrounding area appear to have st effect on the type and level of crime to be expected. This is borne out by a

• A thorough examination of all avatogether with expertise-based anwith transit, there is very little clea

• Despite acknowledged perceptiois relatively safe for users.

Recommendations forPrevention of crime and solutions teffort, not only by the Rapid TransitSecurity, SkyTrain, jurisdictional polarge.

Transit is only one part of an overaand weaknesses of the urban envi

Communities expecting increased have the opportunity to start implemplan for tomorrow. This proactive athe majority of the proposed new Smented.

While it is imperative that all parties

Execu


b. The newith stRTPO with co

2) DesignThe concepcrime trendeither discotions of fea

Crime Prevdefined by effective usincidence o

In working stations, RTapplied, wil

a. Surveilple andrity.

b. Sightlinarea ar

c. Accesswhich m

d. TerritorAreas becom

e. Target reach aple.

f. User Svulneranot forc

be given to including dedicated office space for nearby the new stations. This office space could be ed with the BC Transit Special Provincial Constables.

dictions indicates that crime is prevented, and the rough the effective and judicious deployment of onnel. In SkyTrain’s case, the STA’s (SkyTrain atten- the system and, although they do not have

the ‘eyes and ears’ of the system.

effective enforcement strategies is a must, with owards a common set of goals on the system. BC f Special Provincial Constables, who have been Act, and a team of fare inspectors. While their “beat” ding transit property, these groups provide first by) to the system and act as a support agency to juris-hare information with them. Only the Special hority to enforce the provisions of the Criminal Code group, however, currently has no power to execute investigations or seizures.

tions are made as possible steps towards the l of safety and security on the system:

full territorial control of all transit property, not just

s continue to be conducted and that largely a zero--evaders and non-compliance of transit station regu-enforced.

lity and surveillance of stations, especially in theigher risk of incident exists. Consider enhancing the Constables to provide more effective enforcement


ound them and anticipate threatening people and situations.

and Egress refers to the entry and exit points of a facility and the degree toovement is restricted in and out.

iality is a way for legitimate users of a facility to show “ownership”.that are well maintained and cared for are less likely to be damaged ore places for crime, as compared to anonymous and uncontrolled spaces.Hardening literally refers to ways of making it tougher for offenders to given target through the use of locks and protective enclosures, for exam-

eparation can be used to avoid conflict between users and reduce fears ofble individuals. By providing optional pathways or waiting areas, users areed to share territory with groups that they fear.

objective of maintaining a high leve

a. Patrol and attempt to maintainthe platform areas.

b. Ensure regular fare inspectiontolerance attitude towards farelations and rules of conduct is

c. Provide increased staff visibiafternoon and at night, when huse of the BC Transit Specialcoverage.

tive Summary

ighbourhood around SkyTrain stations might use the opportunity of workingation planners to also initiate safety audits in their own neighbourhoods.can assist in this process by helping to create safety programs in conjunctionmmunity groups.

t of environmental criminology is of particular assistance when studying s and their relationship to public transit systems. The built environment can urage or encourage crime; good design can reduce crime as well as percep-r and unease. This does not have to mean a return to fortress architecture.

ention Through Environmental Design (CPTED, pronounced sep-ted) as the U.S. National Crime Prevention Institute, is the “proper design and e of the built environment that can lead to a reduction in the fear and f crime and the improvement in the quality of life”.

with community groups to determine design features of planned SkyTrain PO can take advantage of a number of CPTED principles which, when

l reduce the potential for problems:

lance really means people watching or “eyes on the street” – allowing peo- spaces to be naturally observed by onlookers to enhance safety and secu-

es give people visual prospect and control, enabling people to see a large

Additionally, considerations shouldjurisdictional police either within or used on an ad hoc basis, and shar

3) StaffingThe experience of many other jurispublic’s fear of crime is relieved, thtransit operations and security persdants) are the first line response onenforcement authority, are seen as

Clarity of jurisdictional authority forall enforcement agencies working tTransit currently operates a force oclassified as such under the Policeis the SkyTrain system and surrounresponse service (if they are close dictional police departments, and sProvincial Constables have the autas well as Provincial Statutes. Thiswarrants or to pursue drug-related

The following staffing recommenda

Executive Summary

Rapid Tran Page 5

d. Passento any ated toprotoco

4) SecurityGeneral deinput, inclu

a. Closedrecorddents, offende

b. Users and sedeviceinside

c. Designbetwee

Each of theexisting Skaddressed

5) Fare PaDiscussion

a. BC Tracannotstaff.

b. Other trolled revenunegativ

es, the need for larger stations with more capital out-el to staff stations.

r examination and study in the on-going quest for rs of transit services:

tistical data collection methods by police depart-sistencies between jurisdictions.

ld be useful to understand crime impact when a new ould carefully be studied related to before and after

ons.

r payment methods and fare compliance, including

al uniformed personnel at stations and on cars.

monitoring of CCTV system.

ssues affecting the enforcement of provincial and rable and illegal behavior on the SkyTrain cars, the g property should be considered. Policing on a dictional boundaries should remain consistent. to calls for service or threshold levels in investiga-tem.


yment on the subject of fare payment that requires further study:

nsit uses the honour system for fare payment. Fines are issued for those who produce a proof of payment voucher during random checks conducted by

systems use mandatory prepayment systems, many of which involve con-entry to stations. The benefits of barrier-equipped systems include increasedes through reduced fare evasion and reduced fear among passengers. Thees include the creation of a fortress effect at stations which could actually

Variances in differential responsetions can adversely affect the sys

gers must be confident that there will be immediate and effective responseemergency incident or call. A detailed master security plan should be cre- ensure that the most effective security systems, policies, procedures andls are used in the new system and the new stations.

Techniquessign concepts should be discussed at the station design level with community ding:

circuit TV systems can allow for security surveillance, monitoring anding of activities at stations for various reasons, including assessment of inci-deployment of security staff, investigations, and as a deterrent to potentialrs.

of the system must be able to quickly and easily contact transit operationscurity staff. Different systems studied have placed two-way communicationss at locations on the platform, near elevators, in designated waiting areas andtransit vehicles.

ated waiting areas provide security and comfort to passengers transferringn SkyTrain, bus loops and “kiss and ride” pick up areas.

above techniques have already been applied to some degree throughout the yTrain system. Additional applications of these measures should to be in conjunction with existing uses.

lead to more fear in some caslay and need for more personn

Further StudyThe following issues require furtheimproved services to the public use

1 More effective and consistent staments, especially to maintain con

2 A time-series analysis study woustation is built. Crime statistics sheffects of crime around new stati

3 Special study of fare collection ocost/benefit analysis, etc.

4 Cost-benefit analysis of addition

5 Cost-benefit analysis of security

6 A special study on jurisdictional ifederal statues related to undesistation platforms, and surroundinsystem that crosses several juris

Execu

tive Summary

Section 1:The Framework

es or recommendations that attempt to minimize the in and around station environments.

dations on operational approaches as well as these issues.

ologyt must be studied within the context of various social, mic influences. Often, a combination of elements and criminal incident will occur. There are no single

istence of crime and even with all the right ingredients, ally, acts can be unpredictable and occur without

ver realistically be eliminated and is largely a result n understanding of environmental influences that sures can be introduced to address safety and security

. Offenders and non-offenders all generate patterns h dictate how they use the physical and social es for work, school, shopping, leisure and home; so

that may affect crime impact and extension of the

February 1999

Purpose of the StudAny discussion of extending trously unserved by it raises con

Communities worry that transitcriminal mobility and they alsonities.

Because transit systems are cimportant, both for the public abe addressed and allayed.

Much of the concern being exppartial or skewed information aand not on scientific data. As suTransit Project Office (RTPO) tunderstanding of the issues.

SRG Security Resource Groupconcerns about safety and secwill result in a safer system for

The primary objectives in emb

1 Investigate and determine thcrime in the GVRD and provgeneral relationship.


2 Research and report on posecurity, and safety issues

al means of data collection to gather background

sultation forums to observe public opinion and ommunity members


urity and to work with the team to develop strategies which users and the general public.

arking on this study were to:

e actual relationship, if any, between rapid transit and ide the RTPO with valuable understanding about this

ssible mitigation techniques for dealing with various crime, .

concerns before they arise.

Most crimes do not occur at randomand routines in their daily lives whicenvironment. We all have our routindo offenders.

To discover the various influences SkyTrain system, SRG used severmaterial for this report, including:

• participation in over 12 public concollect thoughts and ideas from c

Building

yansit lines into new areas or through communities previ-cerns among the public about safety and security.

systems might attract criminal activity or increase worry that crime might be introduced into their commu-

reated to serve communities and their constituents, it is nd for the viability of the transit system, that these fears

ressed about the extension of SkyTrain is based on bout the reality of crime trends and the existing system, ch, there is a responsibility on the part of the Rapid o investigate these concerns and develop a more detailed

Inc. (SRG) was contracted by RTPO to address public

3 Formulate station design guidelinpotential for criminal opportunity

4 Provide guidance and recommencommunity initiatives to address

Approach and MethodCrime is a complex phenomenon. Ienvironmental, political, and econofactors need to be in place before acausal elements that prompt the exit doesn’t always happen. Occasionapparent reason.

Although the threat of crime can neof societal factors, by developing agenerate such activity, control mea

Buildin


• a thorougdocumenbooks an

• review ofSecurity,

• collectionBC, RCM

• workshopments, po

• meetingsRTPO pla

• interviewsAmerica a

The result iimplement neighbourh

Fear ofDespite staacts and pecontext of ta resulting

Fear of crimarea is danarea, thus r

The fear ofalong with tsocial cuesThe physic

dows; abandoned areas, such as empty retail shops, sm. It was discovered in Clarke’s study (1984) of the 1 out of 173,000 passengers in the allegedly crime-f theft, many people still feared the system.

area, in this case a SkyTrain station, common are automatically changed. By increasing safety and s, it is possible to improve the image of the area and its users.

an environment also give rise to fears among area ities include vandalism, graffiti, litter and vacant clude drug addicts, prostitutes and panhandlers. essages about social conditions and, because of this,

t is no one seems to be taking responsibility for environments. These are areas where social and arry on uninterrupted and largely uncontrolled by erally does not occur in these areas and users of the trol over their own well being.

ue to isolated stations and lack of funding for security ives rise to illegitimate activities such as prostitution r, forming a continuous circle.5 In this interrela-t fear of crime is addressed in concert with the actual

in an area.

affect the actual policing of an area. Because of, crime generates more “calls for service” to juris-ity for proactive policing functions. The more police, the less opportunity for participation in crime Increased fear can lead to reduced police effec-r risk of crime.


rsonal security have become growing concerns over the past decade. In the ransit, it has been found that fear of crime leads to a decline in ridership and decline in annual revenues.

e can change the overall image of a community and relay feelings that the gerous. This could, in turn, manifest itself as a change to those who use the educing actual safety of the neighbourhood.1

crime is influenced by the social activities that occur in a particular area, he physical design. Nasar and Fisher 2 stated that there are both physical and that will help form an individual’s perception of a situation or environment. al cues include: poor lighting; blocked escape; concealment of potential

tionship, it is important to ensure thacriminal activity patterns that exist

A related result of fear of crime canheightened sensitivity to, and fear dictional police, it reduces availabilreactive in nature the duties of the prevention and reduction activities.tiveness, and subsequently, greate

g The Framework

h international literature review, including searches of over 70 published ts from various sources, including academic journals, reports, periodicals, d Internet searches

available local studies and reports provided by SkyTrain, BC Transit municipal agencies, and community groups

and analysis of crime statistics from Statistics Canada, Attorney General of P, and various local municipal police forces

s and discussions with various groups including municipal planning depart-lice personnel, school boards, and community groups

and discussions with BC Transit Security, SkyTrain, criminologists, and nners, architects, and engineers

with transit officials from eight other transit systems throughout North nd in Europe

s a framework that will allow the RTPO to design a transit system as well as initiatives that minimize the risk of crime, both on the system and in the oods that surround transit stations.

Crimetistics which show most of the crimes we fear are actually declining, criminal

offenders; litter; graffiti; broken winand areas of little use; and vandaliLondon subway that, although onlyridden underground was a victim o

When adding an activity node to an pathways for the users of that areareducing fear along those pathwaydecrease threats of victimization to

Physical and social incivilities within users 3. Examples of physical incivilbuildings. Social incivilities would inSocial incivilities convey negative mincrease fear.4

Areas that lack spatial ownership (thathem) will also create fear-inducingphysical incivilities are allowed to cauthorities. Order maintenance genenvironments will feel a lack of con

This leads to an increase in crime dand maintenance personnel. This gand drug use and creates more fea

uilding The Framework

Rapid Tran Page 9

Crime TEnvironmean opporturelationship

Many of theeffect on hotenets of encrime and twithin the Gthe reality o

The Crim inA criminal e

• A law

• An offend

• A target

• A place

Environmethe place insect. Undeoccur is cru

MovementMost crimeand routineenvironmendo offender

ill, by nature, take the shortest possible route to get ring this, we all establish direct pathways from homes re or entertainment. These daily movement patterns

hese patterns are often shaped by how a person lly change when new transit routes or modes of trans-he change in activities and patterns of someone that

e familiar and are termed part of your awareness rove into an unfamiliar area and were surprised that is is an example of you generating your own ces fluctuate depending upon the mode of travel. more broad awareness space is formed because you

erving your surroundings. Rapid transit systems create and confined primarily to isolated locations along the as where you get on and off. Most system users will eyond the stations they primarily use.

ing your routine activities is referred to as your re most of your day to day activities are performed, ly constant over time, unless you move or change jobs

tend to engage in their “criminal” activities while they do so within the confines of their awareness spaces.8 ividuals may also result in increased risk of victim-requent bars regularly may be at an increased risk of


rstanding where, when and under what circumstances crimes are likely to cial to reducing the opportunity.

of Crim inals and Awareness Spaces do not occur at random. Offenders and non-offenders all generate patterns s in their daily lives which dictate how they use the physical and social t. We all have our routines for work, school, shopping, leisure and home. So s.

activity space. This is the area wheand these pathways remain relativeor schools.

It is understood that offenders also carry out these routine activities andAdditionally, routine activities of indization.9 For example, people who fassault or violence.

B

heoryntal criminology studies the criminal event itself and the factors that create nity for its occurrence. Interestingly, public concerns about transit and its to crime are based on the same, albeit unstated, assumptions.

principles of environmental criminology are interrelated and all have an w criminals select opportunities and targets. This report will lay out the basic vironmental criminology and take a more detailed look at the specifics of ransit. It will also examine some of the crime patterns that have developed VRD and combine the information to draw meaningful conclusions about f crime and the existing transit system, specifically SkyTrain.

al Eventvent is said to have taken place when four key elements come together6:

er

ntal criminology focuses on the fourth dimension of this definition, that is time, or space, where the other three elements that make up a crime inter-

Routine activities

Most people, offenders included, wfrom one place to another. Consideto work, school, shopping and leisuare referred to as routine activities.7 Ttravels. Activity patterns may actuaportation are introduced. Think of tloses, or acquires, a car.

Awareness Space

The places you go regularly becomspace. Consider the last time you dyou had never noticed it before. Thawareness spaces. Awareness spaObviously, when travelling by foot, acan take more time and care in obsawareness spaces that are narrowroute alignment – namely those arenot develop an awareness space b

Activity Space

The territory you travel through dur

Buildin


Nodes of A

Activity No

When multactivity nodgroups anddistricts, anstations arepublic, stimsystems ththese types

Conflict Ar

Because mfrequentedconflict areuser group

Hot Spots

Traditionallrelatively hlargely duewill not necconfined ar

The naturetaken to pre

When fear as hot spot

By addressspots can b

Selected Target

events are the result of a conscious decision on the offenders may be plagued with social or psycho- to offend may not be entirely voluntary, most cations and times with a certain degree of regularity.

se rational choice when making their decision to

thought process. The decision is based on many a potential crime site, characteristics of a given vidual offender and his/her own experiences. Each crime template on which they base their decisions to crime template is a complex process, but it is this

ms the basis for how criminals approach each

/herself in a situation where there is a suitable target od of being detected or caught, an opportunity is

l cues are present, the offender then makes a rational the most common crimes are property offences es may vary, opportunity-based crimes can range urglary, robbery and certain types of motivated


essarily be high in crime, but they do bring many suitable targets into a ea where the risk of incident is high.

of the actual crime that results, however, will depend largely on the measures vent the criminal event from taking place.

coincides with the potential for criminal activity, these areas become known s.11 These hot spots threaten the overall quality of life in a community.

ing issues such as fear, through effective urban planning techniques, these hot ecome positive environments with reduced crime potential.

and where there is a limited likelihopresented. If certain environmentachoice to commit a crime.14 Althoughand motivations to commit the crimfrom vandalism and petty theft to bassaults.

g The Framework

ctivity, Conflict Areas, and Hot Spots for Crime

des

iple users share common gathering places, these places become known as es. These are usually locations that attract a wide variety of users and user maintain a high variation in land uses. Shopping centres, entertainment d sports complexes can all be considered activity nodes. Many rapid transit strategically located close to these types of environments to service the ulate system use and increase ridership. Additionally, the building of transit emselves stimulate the development of construction projects that incorporate of land uses.10

eas

ajor urban centres are usually part of everyone’s awareness spaces and are by many different user types, some of whom may have differing ideals, as are created. These are the places where movement patterns of conflicting s intersect in space and time.

y, activity nodes such as urban centres have been known to sustain a igh degree of criminal activity compared to their surrounding areas. This is to the sheer volume of users that converge upon the urban centre. These areas

Crime as a Rational Choice and a

Rational Choice

In general, the majority of criminal part of the offender. Although theselogical problems, and their decisioncriminals will choose their targets, lo

This process assumes offenders ucommit a specific criminal act.12

Crime Template

Target selection for an offender is afactors including characteristics of situation, characteristics of the indioffender forms what is known as a commit a crime.13 The formation of adecision making process which forindividual opportunity.

Opportunity

When a motivated offender finds him


Rapid Tran Page 11

Situational

In many caprevention reducing thsituational locking har

Crime PrevThe concepcrime trendEnvironmeCrime Prevenvironmenimproveme

The built encrime as w“fortress” s

CPTED is band economexisting fac

In working extension swill head of

A detailed d

People MoThe very natransit, largmovement awareness

omes sitting empty during the day, and more automo-

93) concluded that property crime targets were n individual, that is near an activity centre such as tres or home.

h igh activ ity locations such as sporting arenas orr at h igh activ ity tim es such as store c losing o r bar

ges o f the h igh ac tiv ity location or h igh ac tiv ityt near the subw ay station or bus stop, at the edge

at people who commit crimes normally spend the l behaviour and activities, and that criminals find ctivities, restricting those activities to known and es could include work, transportation centres, nd ride lots, and recreation and entertainment areas. arking lots found that juveniles are attracted to malls ttended parking lots with a variety of vehicles from gher rates of auto theft because of the opportunities ity of going to the mall. When transit becomes part of as the potential to become part of an illegitimate

media and by authorities, as landmarks for crimes stations themselves. When reported in this fashion, eption that crime on SkyTrain is a problem.

SkyTrain line, Buckley (1996) determined that 49% City of Vancouver occurred within 750 metres of

this single figure has been relied upon by various


with community groups to determine design features of planned SkyTrain tations, RTPO can take advantage of a number of CPTED principles which f problems.

iscussion of these techniques is contained in this report.

vementture of enhanced mobility creates opportunities for crime and criminals. With e numbers of people are moved from place to place and through that they increase their awareness space. For criminals this can increase their of potential targets.

Effect on Crime Rates

Surrounding Community

SkyTrain stations are often used, bythat happen close to, but not at, theone can easily be left with the perc

In a recent study on the Vancouverof all police “calls for service” in thean existing SkyTrain station. While

B

Crime Prevention

ses, opportunity can be greatly reduced through the use of situational crime techniques, either through increasing the effort, increasing the risk, or e rewards for the offender, i.e. reducing their motivation.15 Techniques of crime prevention can include a variety of strategies, from building design to dware to policy initiatives.

ention Through Environmental Designt of environmental criminology is of particular assistance when studying s and their relationship to public transit systems. Crime Prevention Through ntal Design (CPTED, pronounced sep-ted) as defined by the U.S. National ention Institute, is the “proper design and effective use of the built t that can lead to a reduction in the fear and incidence of crime and the

nt in the quality of life”.

vironment can either discourage or encourage crime; good design can reduce ell as perceptions of fear and unease. This does not have to mean a return to tyle architecture.

est brought in at the planning stage of a project as there are fewer structural ical limitations involved; however, many aspects can be incorporated into

ilities.

Mobility has also resulted in more hbiles left parked.16

Brantingham and Brantingham (19usually located near the nodes of arecreation, work, transportation cen

M any o f the crim es that occu r atcom m ercial centres, o r that occuclosing, in fact occu r a t the edtim e. C rim es cluster on the stree

of the norm al w aiting area.17

The same report also points out thmajority of their time in non-criminatheir targets through their routine aoften legitimate areas. These routinincluding transit stations and park aThe Barclay et al. (1996) study on pthat, in most cases, have large unawhich to choose. These lots had hithat arose through the routine activa legitimate routine activity, it also hroutine activity.

Buildin


interest grocontext andterpret Bucreport’s aut

Buckley’s sfactors playof the downequally incometres of a

service” is a very broad net which scoops up cidents, domestic violence, retail theft and a es that have no bearing on, or relevance to, the Train.

nducted a time series analysis of crime incidents in ourhoods surrounding two rapid rail stations

lb County, Georgia. His findings suggest that when tion provides direct access to a suburban area, the e may increase initially as people’s cognitive maps ces) are expanded. This was, however, followed by a e as opportunity restrictions were realized and ures put in place.

study, the trend for crime increases after the intro-t could not be directly associated with the new are many other contributing circumstances, such as of a gradual increase in crime prior to transit’s Also, with changing population densities and aracteristics, crime rates are naturally likely to

ists, dem ographers and o ther social sc ientis tst the stab ilization in serious crim e that has char-

e m idd le years o f th is decade w ill g ive w ay to increases in the late 1990 ’s and onto the early

e 21st century due to a dram atic rise in the youth

crim e-p rone sub population.18

ped by the city planners and decision-makers who h as location of stores, activity centres and other place s. As a result, they shape the crime generating areas.19 ncourage crime, however; it is the combination of land ividuals utilizing the built or physical environment e.0

Hierarchpreservivertical uses onsidewalkmeans btheir pre


ups throughout this study process, it is misleading, at best, if taken out of without regard to other factors. It is unfortunate that many people misin-

kley’s findings as conclusive evidence that rapid transit causes crime. The hor herself states that this is not so.

tudy goes on to explain zoning areas and land use and the major role those in the creation of this statistic. Inasmuch as the area studied encompasses all town, including the downtown eastside, it could be equally true, albeit nclusive, to say that 49% of all police “calls for service” occurred within 750 bank.

m easurab le

years o f th

population w hich has a s izeab le

The pattern of crime is partially shashape travel paths and zoning, sucwhere people gather and cross pathLand use alone does not shape or euse and social behaviour of the indthat creates the opportunity for crim2

g The Framework

Police “calls for motor vehicle acmyriad of offencpresence of Sky

Poister (1996) cosuburban neighbopened in DeKaa new transit staincidents of crim(awareness spadecrease in crimprevention meas

According to thisduction of transistations as therethe continuationimplementation.demographic chchange:

C rim ino logpred ic t thaacterized th

y of space in the urban context is critical tong street life. The hierarchy can be horizontal andas shown in the following illustration. The diversity of the street also provides visual interest. Allowing wides for restaurant spillover into the public realmusiness owners can exercise territoriality in front ofmises.


Rapid Tran Page 13

Station En

At times, arthere have to transit, o

In general, the surrounbourhood,

In some castations areareas. Thissystem.23

The level owithin the smaintain co

Finding1. While t

there apeopleare, orpublic aactivity

Notes1. Kenne2. quoted3. Buckle4. Nasar 5. Clarke

, 1991

, 1993

hman, 1993; Goodale, 1998

, 1993; Wright et al., 1995, 1993

, 1993:18

, 1993


need to be. Research does suggest that SkyTrain, along with other modes of nd private transportation, can act as a facilitator for certain types of criminal

, primarily property-related.

dy, 1996 in Buckley, 1996y, 1996and Fisher, 1993, 1984; Sloan-Howitt and Kelling, 1996

B

vironments

eas where transit has been introduced seem to have an increase in crime, but not been enough studies to confirm whether or not crime can be directly linked r if there are other causes or influences that play a role.21

it has been found that crimes at station and transit lines reflect the crime in ding neighbourhoods, meaning that if the station is in a high crime neigh-

it is more likely to have a high rate of crime.22

ses, however, crime prevention techniques that have been applied in the so effective that the stations have a lower rate of crime than the surrounding is particularly evident in Washington, D.C. with respect to the WMATA

f impact that a surrounding community will have on the criminal environment tations is largely dependent upon the initiatives of the transit authorities to ntrol over the environment.

shere is a common perception that crime increases where transit is introduced, re no studies to support a direct causal connection. Crime occurs where and property are clustered. Understandably, transit is located where people

6. Brantingham and Brantingham7. Felson, 19878. Brantingham and Brantingham9. Kennedy and Ford, 199010. Egby, 1989; Pucher and Hirsc11. Nasar and Fisher, 199312. Brantingham and Brantingham13. Brantingham and Brantingham14. Wright et al., 199515. Clarke, 199216. Ekblom, 199517. Brantingham and Brantingham18. Needle et al., 1997:319. Brantingham and Brantingham20. Levine, 1986; Loewen, 199321. Poister, 199622. Nelson, 1997; La Vigne, 199623. La Vigne, 1996

Buildin

g The Framework

Section 2:al Crime Review

nd crime contains an often misquoted statistic that ver is within 750 meters of a SkyTrain station. In

month period in the summer of 1995 nearly one half Police Department were within 750 meters of the

#&ULPH#5DWH#3HU#4333#3RSXODWLRQ

4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Year

February 1999

1977 to 1997 - A LoHistorically, transit systems hanities. 1891 heralded the arrivaAmerica, linking Vancouver witsystem followed much the sam

In general, people have welcommake improvements in their copotential for increased crime. InBridge, Surrey tripled its police

When looking at crime from anissues of concern today have bconsidered the world’s oldest p1800s when opium smuggling addiction was already becominemerged as a major issue in in1960s. The 1970s saw the intrus organized crime and gang a

1982 marked the beginning of by the GVRD in 1982 titled “ThVancouver’s Transportation Sitcommercial development was route. One third of the populat


A non-scientific look at popuSkyTrain route is still adjacen

discussed in Section 1 of this report, calls for service s which are entirely unrelated to transit. Additionally, ckley is almost double the conventional walking at is used by urban planners, and defined as transit’s


ctivity.1

a rapid increase in Vancouver area crime rates. A study e Journey to Work: An Overview of Greater uation” reported that one quarter of the GVRD's within walking distance of the then proposed SkyTrain ion was within five minutes of the route.

lation density in the GVRD today would indicate that the t to some of the most densely populated areas of the region.

Buckley’s thesis on public transit anearly one half of all crime in Vancoufact, Buckley stated that for a four-of calls for service to the Vancouvernine SkyTrain stations studied. As can include any number of situationthis 750- metre area studied by Budistance of 400 meters to transit thcatchment area.

Historic

ok Backve been the impetus for growth and change in commu-l of the first inter-urban tramway system in North h New Westminster. Perhaps presciently, the tramway e route as does the current SkyTrain system.

ed transit and transportation improvements as a means to mmunities, but there have often been concerns over the 1937, for example, following the opening of the Pattullo force from 1 officer to 3.

historical perspective, it is clear that some of the same een issues of concern for a very long time. Prostitution is rofession. Drugs have been a problem in BC since the was the primary concern. From 1914 to 1917, drug g a big problem in Vancouver. By the 1950s, heroin had ner-city areas, followed by the rise of “biker” gangs in the oduction of cocaine to Vancouver and the 1980s brought

9DQFRXYHU#$UHD#$YHUDJH

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 198

Rate

Histor


1982 has thincrease ofthe previou

In 1983, Bilmuch morerights of as

By 1984, thlisted on reStreet and the introducnot previouyoung pers

ct followed very quickly, with critics charging that it ncy which simply allowed young people to take

proved a plan to force prostitutes to move into the t. 1985 was also the year that the Food and Drug Act, anada Evidence Act were amended. The Supreme ight of the Narcotic Control Act (possession for

nal in Regina v. Oakes. A new prostitution law was or both prostitutes and their customers to commu-on.

prostitution legislation, 1986 saw a jump in prosti-from 1,225 charges in 1985 to 7,426 charges in 1986. e SkyTrain system, Expo’86, and the opening of the

, and Metrotown Mall. The Alex Fraser Bridge came k between the central core district and outlying occurring in 1986, that likely had an influence on the the eviction the or the Expo esult of these om

. ea was up to

1987 and by had levelled off to pre-1983 figures. 1989 saw the mpus, Science World, the East West Connector, and

aFarge gravel pit in Coquitlam.

atively static until 1990 but that year saw the Vancouver area crime rates. The first Molson Indy d the City became North America’s third largest film

4<;8#0#4/558#4<;9#0#:/759

9DQFRXYHU#3URVWLWXWLRQ#&KDUJHV


l C-127 was introduced. It replaced the Criminal Code definition of rape with broad provisions of sexual assault. This is significant because it expanded the sault victims to pursue criminal charges against assailants.

e Vancouver area was in recession, resulting in the largest Surrey tax sale cord. Prostitutes moved from their traditional West End strolls to Seymour points east. Perhaps most significant to a discussion of crime trends, 1984 saw tion of the Young Offenders Act which recognized rights of young people

sly recognized under the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Under this legislation, ons came to be protected from unfair treatment under the criminal justice

Unemployment in the Vancouver ar12%.

Crime rates dropped dramatically in1988, crime in the Vancouver areaopening of SFU Harbour Centre Caa recreational complex in the old L

Crime in the area would remain relbeginning of a two-year increase incar race was held in Vancouver anproduction centre.

ical Crime Review

e distinction of having the largest annual Vancouver area average crime rate the twenty-year study period. The average crime rate was 16% higher than s year.

system. Public outcry against the aamounted to a form of judicial lenieunfair advantage of its provisions.

In 1985, Vancouver City Council apindustrial area near Mount Pleasanthe Narcotic Control Act, and the CCourt of Canada declared section etrafficking provisions) unconstitutioalso enacted making it an offence fnicate for the purposes of prostituti

As a direct result of the changes totution offences of a little over 600% 1986 also saw the introduction of thWestminster Quay, Lonsdale Quayon the scene, providing another lincommunities. Another major event increase in crime for that year, wasof 1000 people from their homes inDowntown Eastside to make way ffair. Eleven people died as a direct revictions, and hundreds of single rooccupancy homes were torn down

istorical Crime Review

Rapid Tran Page 17

This was alSkyTrain, Slow in 1987in Surrey b

remained fa

1991 was thPrison FarmVancouver household over an 80%

s were on a definite downward trend. Approximately oad along the SkyTrain route were changed from development district zoning. This was the beginning al area known as Collingwood Village.

ntown eastside department store. Some would terioration of commercial viability in the downtown altering the Young Offenders Act by increasing new test for transfer to adult court; and providing for red to adult court. Section 264 of the Criminal Code ce of criminal harassment (stalking).

news of 1994. This was also the year that SkyTrain y neighbourhood. Once again, overall Surrey crime trend from a high in 1991. Despite a slight exception e was lower in 1997 (the last year for which complete 1979 and is actually equal to 1977’s rate of 121 is downward trend continues today.

ast Express commuter rail was introduced. This is also opened in downtown Vancouver. As with the e introduction of the West Coast Express does not verall municipal crime rates in Port Moody or ime rate in 1997 was the lowest it had ever been . Coquitlam’s crime rate was also lower in 1997 than eral important legal changes implemented in 1995: limit the use of intoxication defence in assault cases, as introduced, and the Young Offenders Act was alties for murder convictions and to provide for

ar old offenders to adult court, for serious offences, unless a reason not to do so was established.

In 1996, Port Coquitlam had the world’s largest LSD (and other drugs) factory raided.

0

5 0

1 0 0

1 5 0

2 0 0

2 5 0

3 0 0

1 9 7 7

am Average

57.00 $26,845.50

75.00 $34,633.50

36.00 $48,975.50

tatistics Canada


irly level through the five year period from 1991 to 1996.

e year that the Burnaby Public Library opened at Metrotown and the Oakalla in Burnaby was closed. By 1991, Statistics Canada had reported the

area average income to be $48,976 -

increase since 1981.

it was in 1982. There were also sevthe Criminal Code was amended toextensive gun control legislation wamended again to increase the penautomatic transfer of 16 and 17 ye

Average Household IncomeVancouver Burnaby New Westminster Surrey Port Moody Coquitl

1981 $24,856.00 $27,144.00 $21,169.00 $26,673.00 $30,374.00 $30,8

1986 $32,384.00 $35,085.00 $26,655.00 $34,499.00 $39,703.00 $39,4

1991 $45,076.00 $47,394.00 $39,480.00 $50,304.00 $56,863.00 $54,7

Source: S

H

so the year that SkyTrain was extended to Surrey. Prior to the introduction of urrey’s average crime rate was already on a slight increasing trend from a and 1988. This trend continued through to its peak in 1991 after which crime egan to decrease again. In fact, the number of property offences in Surrey

In 1992, Vancouver area crime rate10 square blocks near Boundary Rindustrial zoning to comprehensiveof a massive high-density residenti

In 1993, Woodward’s closed its dowconsider this the beginning of a deeastside. Bill C-12 came into force,penalties for murder; establishing aadult sentences for youths transferwas enacted establishing the offen

The Stanley Cup riots were the bigwas extended into Surrey’s Whallerates were already on a decreasingin 1996, Surrey’s average crime ratfigures are available) than it was incrimes per thousand population. Th

1995 was the year that the West Cothe year that General Motors Placeextension of SkyTrain to Surrey, thappear to have had any effect on oCoquitlam. In fact, Port Moody’s crduring the twenty-year study period

Annual Crime Rate Per 1000 Population for Se lected Municipalitie s

1 9 7 9 1 9 8 1 1 9 8 3 1 9 8 5 1 9 8 7 1 9 8 9 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 7

Vancouve r Burnaby New Westminster

Surrey Port Moody Coquitlam

Histor


Since 1988Broadway Sresidential)Worth notinin the GVRexpansion centres. Thhectares. T

conversion

hin residential areas for 1979 and 1996 indicate that, administrative boundary of the GVRD, there were, tare, or 3 more people per acre, living within were in 1979.2

ing any absolute conclusions, the data does provide s region of the past 20 years.3 All conclusions and ould be reviewed with consideration given to the and resolution of historical crime information

a went through a rapid increasing trend in the early g off until the early 1990’s where the trend increased 992, crime rates have been decreasing in the ey are now below 1982 rates for most areas.

period, there were many significant changes in law, evelopment, all of which have affected crime trends.

led look at crime statistics by jurisdiction.

rea rose rapidly in the early 1980’s, then decreased 0’s when the rates went up again. Since the peak in ecreasing in the Vancouver area to a point where it is reas.

elves to SkyTrain.

in this report, the region also experienced significant tion density and makeup, and development. All these rime trends.

-1 5

-1 0

-5

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

Percen t


of some industrial lands and the development of vacant lands.

and levelled off until the early 1991991 and 1992, crime has been dnow below 1982 rates for most a

2 Population densities align thems

3 Throughout the 20 years studiedchanges in law, land use, populachanges have had an effect on c

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997

Year

ical Crime Review

, approximately 75% of the area along the existing SkyTrain route from tation to Boundary Road has been changed from RS-1 (one family

to RS-1S (one family residential with conditional two family provisions). g is that since 1979, there has been a 63% increase in the amount of land use D classified as medium and high density residential. This significant of higher density residential uses has occurred mostly around major urban e amount of commercial land use in the GVRD has increased by about 300 his growth has sprung from an expansion of existing commercial areas, the

Population densities calculated witwithin the area defined by the 1979on average, 8 more people per hecresidential areas in 1996 than there

While data limitations prohibit maka good sense of crime trends in thianalysis contained in this report shlimitations of the quality, accuracy, provided for review.4

Overall crime in the Vancouver are1980’s, then decreasing and levellinagain. Since its peak in 1991 and 1Vancouver area to a point where th

Throughout the twenty-year study land use, population density, and d

The following section takes a detai

Findings1 Overall crime in the Vancouver a

Percen t Increas es In Crime Rate By Yearin Vancouver

istorical Crime Review

Rapid Tran Page 19

Notes1. H istoric

from a nR eferen

2. Source:P lann inA pril 19

3. T he m upersonsthat exctim e resm unic ipcrim e othat m um unic ippopulatthat a mcities arsign if icabusinesreside oPolice Sand C rim

4. W hile thexp laineinstancew hich aeducatiocertain tin pub licPolice Sand C rim

Port Moody Coquitlam Averge % Increase

108 85 115 0

118 81 115 1

128 87 120 4

114 90 128 7

101 96 126 -2

112 116 146 16

114 135 154 5

108 152 160 4

108 142 154 -4

115 140 163 6

100 126 148 -9

103 114 148 0

115 114 148 0

112 118 156 5

104 123 168 8

100 116 162 -4

103 125 156 -4

96 115 150 -4

93 115 154 2

96 110 155 1

90 109 135 -13

Population


e Sum m ary S tatis tics 1987 - 1996)ere are severa l theories, changes in the incidence o f crim ina l ac tiv ity are no t easily d o r understood. M any factors in f luence changes in the num ber o f c rim es. Fo r , a change in the crim e rate m ay be due to po licy dec is ions, or changes in the law,

ffect po lice en fo rcem en t prac tices. Facto rs such as age, gender, leve l o f incom e and n o f e ither the v ictim or o ffender m ay also a ffect the incidence and reporting o f

ypes o f crim es. In add ition, it has been suggested that popu la tion density and changes a ttitude m ay contribute to changes in the incidence and reporting o f crim e. (Source: erv ices D iv is ion M in istry o f A tto rney G eneral, P rov ince o f B ritish C o lum bia, Po lice e Sum m ary S tatis tics 1987 - 1996)

H

al in form ation presented in th is repo rt has been taken um ber o f sources, deta ils o f w h ich are prov ided in the ces Section . G reater Vancouver ’s L and U se: 1979 - 1996. S trateg ic g D epartm ent, G reater Vancouver R eg ional D istr ict, 97n ic ipa l crim e rate , or num ber o f crim es per 1000 , is based on the resident population o f a m unicipa lity ludes com m uters, studen ts, tou rists, and o ther part-idents. Fo r exam ple, if a person from ou ts ide the al boundaries enters the m unic ipality and com m its a r becom es a v ic tim of crim e, the crim e is attribu ted to n ic ipa lity. S ince the person does no t reside in the ality, he o r she is not included in the m unicipa l ion . M ore o ften than not, a h igh crim e ra te ind icates un ic ipality is a “co re” c ity or tou rist destina tion . C ore e usually su rrounded by un incorporated areas that have n t residentia l popu la tions. T hese cities are also the s and en tertainm ent centres for m any peop le w ho utside , as w ell as inside, the m unic ipality. (Sou rce: erv ices D iv is ion M in istry o f A tto rney G eneral, P rov ince o f B ritish C o lum bia, Po lice

Year Vancouver Burnaby New Westminster Surrey

1977 124 111 138 121

1978 129 109 137 117

1979 127 106 148 122

1980 140 112 187 126

1981 148 117 166 128

1982 166 144 199 138

1983 166 156 214 137

1984 164 150 242 145

1985 160 153 220 139

1986 179 165 230 148

1987 165 156 209 132

1988 166 161 211 132

1989 175 152 197 137

1990 187 164 212 145

1991 202 186 234 161

1992 200 174 222 158

1993 189 160 213 146

1994 187 153 211 140

1995 192 158 228 137

1996 198 168 215 143

1997 175 140 174 121

Municipal Crime Rate Per 1000

Histor

ical Crime Review

Section 3:Train and Crime

sk Force Report of January 1993 confirmed that anywhere in the city, not just at SkyTrain stations, viour than actual crime. The top three factors cited by

unsavory people, and street people. It must be noted, public transportation, and that even those people that ould be legitimate SkyTrain customers. The same

erta in ethn ic groups, sen iors, and the d isab led,ysica l and sexual assault in Vancouver. W hile sta-

tis tics do not seem to corrobo-ra te these fears, Vancouver ’slivab ility is be ing eroded by thefear o f assau lt. A ccurate report-ing o f crim e and an in fo rm edpublic w ould con tribute to aclearer understand ing o f the true

ex tent o f the prob lem ..1

The Safer City Task Force also stated that in 1991,

• 61% of system wide ridership was female and 39% was male.

• 18 to 24 year old passengers were 49% female and 51% male,

KW

February 1999

There is a significant differencSkyTrain and the reality of thatperceptions of SkyTrain amongexample, those people who docoverage of community crime, from personal observations an

Exploring the general public’s study prepared by BC Transit ffollowing major conclusions we

• A significant level of apprehewith regard to personal safetrelation to the public transit s

• Female respondents expressdegree of concern with the saspects of public transit thanmale counterparts;

• The two most frequently voicabout the transit system wereof “undesirable people” and thinsecurity within the “transit environment”.

Although this study was relate


transit system in general andspecific to SkyTrain, the samseem to exist with respect to of public transportation, i.e. Sand SeaBus.

• 65+ year old passengers were 73% female and 27% male.


ed concerns the presence e feeling of

d to the was not e concerns all three modes kyTrain, bus,

#

8

43

48 'D\

/RLWHUHU 8QVDYRU\ 6WUHHW 3RRUO\#/LW *DQJV 'HVHUWHG 'UXJ 'UXQNV 0HGLD

Vancouver Safer City Task Force Findings Related to Source of Public Concerns Related to Transit Systems in General

Sky

e between perceptions of crime as they relate to relationship. There is also a difference between those who use the system and those who do not. For

not use the system may derive their opinions from media whereas riders of the system would derive their opinions d experience, as well as other information.

fear of transit crime brings some interesting results. In a or the Safer City Task Force Committee in 1994, the re drawn:

nsion exists y issues in ystem;

ed a higher ecurity did their

In fact, the Vancouver Safer City Tapeople’s reasons for feeling unsafewere more related to nuisance behathose feeling unsafe were loiterers,however, that SkyTrain is a mode ofsome may classify as “unsavory” creport also states that:

C itizens, particu larly w om en , cexpressed increasing fear o f ph

#

53

58

63

1LJ

3HUFHQWDJH#RI#5HVSRQGHQWV

SkyTr


These figuron transit wmation is thand are oftdeveloping

Public At the timeseveral mecontinues tand percepoutlined in observationsents a sum

• Membersespeciallythe SkyTras the pri

• The publiColumbia

• Commonespeciallyisolation. on the Sk

• There is ato reducequently ri

• Several cproposed

ations to school areas was a repeated topic of was of prime importance. Concerns were different in f school environment (i.e., Elementary School,

traction, safety

, recruiting prostitution

n, gangs, truancy

sed about media coverage of Jennifer Buckley's the perception that 49% of all crime occurs within In fact, Buckley’s report states that 49% of all “calls er occur within 750 metres of a SkyTrain station. It impression left amongst members of the public, not

the actual findings.

about SkyTrain not having a staff member assigned to ommented they would be more likely to use the ore visible staffing.

rn about the lack of staff on board trains.

th respect to underground stations and the increased

and fears of crime related to SkyTrain, the system

it feeds private crime, which compares public transit such as the automobile, Brantingham, Brantingham, sting conclusions that are relevant to the issues

lim ited to a very lim ited set o f pathw ays betw eenaths o ften run underg round or on e levated leve ls

added) the entry o f the pathw ays betw een stopss a consequence, crim es and v ictim izations assoc i-uch m ore tightly c lustered in space than w ill be

ile riders.4


concerns were expressed about the overall safety of the SkyTrain system, during the night time hours when reduced ridership increases the sense of This feeling is common despite the fact that staffing levels are actually higher yTrain in the evening hours.

perception that turnstile barriers in the station environments would be likely the likelihood of the criminal element entering the station areas and subse-ding the trains.

oncerns were expressed about general loitering and littering around the station areas.

In an article about how public transwith other modes of transportation and Wong (1991) draw some interediscussed in this report.

...Pub lic transit riders are usuallydestinations. M oreover, transit pthat substantia lly lim it (em phasisin to r ider ’s aw areness spaces. Aated w ith transit r iders w ill be m

crim es associated w ith autom ob

ain and Crime

es indicate that female passengers use transit more frequently and tend to rely ith increased age which is opposite with males. The importance of this infor-at women and the elderly, in general, are often more fearful of victimization,

en the targets of assaults.2 This fact must be realized and kept in mind when new transit systems.

Consultations this report was created, SRG had attended more than 12 open houses and etings and workshops with various municipal groups. Although our group o attend these meetings and elicit public comments, some common concerns tions have been generated in these forums. Detailed meeting minutes are Appendix A of this report, however, it is important to summarize our overall s of what is being commented on in the public realm. The following repre-mary of the more prominent concerns expressed through public comments:

of the public within most communities expressed an overall fear that crime, drug and property-related crime, would increase in their communities once ain extended to their neighbourhoods. Most citizens cited New Westminster mary threat for the spread of drug activity.

c expressed specific concerns about the potential for crime “spill-over” from and New Westminster stations.

• Concern about the proximity of stdiscussion. Protection of childrennature depending upon the type oMiddle School, High School).

- Elementary School - noise, dis

- Middle School - drugs, truancy

- High School - drugs, prostitutio

• Widespread concern was expresthesis.3 The specific concern was750 meters of a SkyTrain station.for service” in the City of Vancouvis important to note the erroneousto mention the lack of analysis of

• Safety concerns were expressed each station at all times. People csystem more often if there were m

• Many expressed a related conce

• A general fear was expressed wilikelihood of crime.

Despite acknowledged perceptionsis relatively safe for users.

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 23

This observpublic transHowever, itat transportraditional t

A further qu

Privaex tenhaulem icrothemw hichand rthe tr

very

The concluto facilitatedefined areSkyTrain syincluded. Intransit node

One can thnation nodeevery SkyTintroductionin and of its

The type oftype of crimAuto Theft there was aThis is not the largest

also found Bike Patrols by uniformed security officers heft from and of auto at the Scott Road Park and Ride patrols were utilized (reduced motor vehicle theft

ntation of the bike patrols in 1995, the Scott Road lot th. During and shortly after the study period, this

. If you assume that the lot is filled to capacity each car being stolen dropped from 1 in 3115 to 1 in

during these periods.

is report, there is an apparent clustering of drug related er (or 8th St.) Station that does not manifest itself at

ical Information for ipalitiesurposes other than crime analysis, Geographical

gy for use by police agencies is a relatively new ing location crime trends and determining resource because many police agencies do not yet record or at transfers easily to a GIS analysis, it is not currently graphic analysis of crime over the past 20 years in dy that can be achieved, however, provides a telling tion of crime and crime trends in various municipal-

alities in the study area were asked to provide crime g or proposed station locations.6 This section repre-e data collected from these agencies.7


en draw the logical conclusion that if SkyTrain clusters crime around desti-s, but that not every SkyTrain station is a strong destination node, then not rain station is likely to experience increased crime as a result of the simple of the system. Mobility may provide increased opportunity for crime, but elf, it will not cause crime.

station and the character of the immediate area have the greatest effect on the e to be expected. For example, a study by Barclay et al. titled “Preventing

in Suburban Vancouver Commuter Lots: Effects of a Bike Patrol” found that large number of theft of and from autos at the Scott Road Station in Surrey.

surprising considering that, at the time, the Scott Road Park and Ride lot was facility in the BC Transit System with 2,411 spaces (the second largest has

possible to perform a historical geocomputerized, GIS format. The stuvisual representation of the distribuities across policing jurisdictions.

BC Transit Security and all municipinformation for areas around existinsents a summary and analysis of th

ation suggests that crime and victimization may actually be lower along a portation route than traditional automobile based transportation routes. also suggests that public transit crimes will be more concentrated in clusters tation nodes (such as stations) than the distributed pattern of crimes along ransportation routes.

ote from the same article suggests the following:

te au tom obiles tend to facilitate c rim es in w hich the o ffender m ust searchsive ly fo r su itab le, unguarded targets or w here there is substan tia l booty to bed aw ay from the scene of the crim e. It is d iff icu lt, fo r instance, to carry acom puter and a v ideo reco rder aw ay on a bus o r subw ay car; it is easy to put

in the trunk o f your car.... Pub lic transit tends to facilitate persona l crim es in poten tia l target density is critical, such as p ickpocketing, pu rse snatch ing,

obbery. P ub lic transit a lso tends to genera te h igh vo lum es o f c rim es aga instansit system - vanda lism , unpa id fa res - as a no rm al by-product o f handling

large vo lum es of people over tim e.5

sions drawn in these excerpts would indicate that SkyTrain has the potential crime opportunity by clustering large numbers of people in a small, well a, along a well defined path. However, by virtue of this clustering, the stem also reduces the awareness space of users of the system, criminals other words, the familiar areas that become targets will be concentrated at s - specifically destination nodes.

only 400 spaces). This same study to be an effective tool for reducing tLot during the period when the bikecounts by 87.5%).

For the six months prior to implemeaveraged 24 thefts of auto per monfigure was reduced to 3 per monthday (2411 cars), the probability of a24,914 for each day it was parked

As is demonstrated elsewhere in thactivity around the New Westminstother New Westminster Stations.

Crime Analysis/StatistSelected GVRD MunicAlthough it is used extensively for pInformation System (GIS) technolotrend. It is a powerful tool for studyallocation requirements. However, store their information in a format th

SkyTr


DefinitionsCrime-relatvarious wathroughout

• Call for Stance. Altare receivproperty adeemed t

• Crime – eservice thdefinition

• Incidents agency. Avary depe

• Rate – exper 1000 regional plots.

Data SourcThere are amaintainingfor the day line collectoTransit alsoof a team osupport to jpersonnel hauthority ov

quired to report certain aspects of their crime infor- federal agencies in the standardized form of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) also trieval System (PIRS) which all RCMP detachments ents report to (New Westminster and Port Moody

.

ct that the RCMP is contracted to provide municipal dy communities (Burnaby, Coquitlam, and Surrey). uver, New Westminster, and Port Moody) have

ces. At a municipal level, therefore, statistical record considerably by municipality, even amongst the

ral’s Police Services Division produces a summary ed on the information provided by local jurisdictional s from this source were cited in the previous section

electronic records of calls for service on the tunately, this information was contained in a propri-ifficult to retrieve information from, requiring consid-

each single variable of interest. Fortunately, in 1997, ident reporting and records system from which data d. As a result, data presented in this report from BC te. There is no historical SkyTrain incident data prior es from earlier studies and reports compiled for other

tes a force of Special Provincial Constables, who r the Police Act, fare enforcement officers, and a team t” is the SkyTrain system and surrounding transit response service to the system (if they are close by) sdictional police departments, and share information


es number of different agencies in the GVRD responsible for collecting and information about crime. Each municipality has a police service responsible to day policing requirements of the community. These agencies are the front rs of crime information. In addition to the municipal police departments, BC has a Security Division responsible for the SkyTrain system itself consisting f fare inspectors and Provincial Special Constables who provide policing urisdictional police on the SkyTrain system. BC Transit and its security ave only partial policing powers, and do not have full jurisdictional er SkyTrain property.

Transit is from 1997 and 1998 to dato 1997 except occasional referencpurposes at earlier dates.

BC Transit Security BC Transit Security currently operahave been classified as such undeof security officers. While their “beaproperty, these groups provide firstand act as a support agency to juri

ain and Crime

ed statistical information comes in various forms and can be defined in ys. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions will apply the following pages of this section:

ervice – expressed as a raw number, any request for police service or assis-hough calls relating to personal crimes, property crimes, and drug offences ed in this manner, general disturbance issues, motor vehicle accidents, lost nd nuisance complaints will all generate calls for service, even if they are

o be unsubstantiated.

xpressed as a raw number of verified crimes. These refer to those calls for at have actually been substantiated by a peace officer and been assigned a under the Criminal Code of Canada or any other legislation.

– expressed as a raw number of verified occurrences as defined by a given s with calls for service, incidents are not necessarily classified as crimes, and nding on each agency’s definition of an incident.

pressed as a number of crimes or incidents per a given population (i.e. crimes population). Population can be defined in a variety of ways including as opulation, number of SkyTrain boardings, or number of vehicles in parking

Each municipal police service is remation to centralized provincial andUniform Crime Reports (UCR). Themaintains the Police Information Reand many municipal police departmmaintain the PIRS system as well)

It is also important to identify the fapolicing services to three of the stuThe remaining communities (Vancoindependent municipal police servikeeping and data availability variesRCMP-served communities.

The B.C. Ministry of Attorney Genereport of crime in BC each year baspolice agencies. Numerous statisticof this report.

BC Transit Security has maintainedSkyTrain system since 1988. Unforetary Focus database that proved derable programming of queries for BC Transit implemented a new inccan be quickly and reliably retrieve

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 25

with them. provisions has no pow

BC Transit to the entirearies. As wincidents, f

lly be recorded by a jurisdictional police agency, g an “increase” in overall incident numbers. By me token, there may be incidents which occur on stem that do not get recorded by BC Transit/ain either because the victim did not report the nt directly to BC Transit/SkyTrain, or reported it ly to the jurisdictional police agency which did not quently pass that information on to BC Transit/ain. Keeping these limitations in mind, the ing information does provide a useful base from to compare different stations along the route for ic types of problems, and to conduct a cursory examination of municipal crime data.

looking at the statistics prepared by BC Transit, it ortant to note that they deal with a very large lation” of riders. With nearly 42 million boardings fective population is more than 40 times the ined 1991 population of the six study municipal-hose population was a little over 1 million. It is .5 times the population of New York City ,906), and nearly 1.4 times the entire population ada which is currently estimated at just over 30 .

7, the total number of calls for security related e recorded by BC Transit for the SkyTrain was ,232. Against a total of 42 million boardings that service per boarding is an insignificant 0.000053318. d one call for service for every 18,755 boardings.

figures do not include incidents occurring just off BC community. Additionally, it is difficult to compare counts.

$VVDXOW

$VVDXOW#+&RPP

$VVDXOW#$JJUD

$VVDXOW#&DXVH#%+DUP

$VVDXOW#2WKHU

$VVDXOW#2WKHU#3H2IILFHU

$VVDXOW#3HDFH

$VVDXOW#6H[XD

$VVDXOW2:HDSRQ+DUP


Only the Special Provincial Constables have the authority to enforce the of the Criminal Code and Provincial Statutes. This group, however, currently er to execute warrants or to pursue drug-related investigations or seizures.

Security and SkyTrain are, however, the only sources of information pertinent SkyTrain system as the route crosses several jurisdictional police bound-

ith any statistical information, this data does have its limitations. Some or example, may be recorded by BC Transit/SkyTrain which would not

In 199serviconly 2

same year, the number of calls for Put another way, SkyTrain average

Again it should be noted that these Transit property in the surroundingboardings to municipal population

:HDSRQV#2WKHU

:HDSRQV#3URKLELWHG

:HDSRQV#5HVWULFWHG

6H[#2IIHQFHV#2WKHU

normacausinthe sathe sySkyTrincidedirectsubseSkyTrfollowwhichspecifcross-

Whenis imp“poputhe efcombities walso 5(7,380of Canmillion

%&#7UDQVLW#6HFXULW\#,QFLGHQW#7\SHV#E\#

&DWHJRU\

5REEHU\ 3URSHUW\ 2WKHU#&&& ,QWR[LFDWHG#3HUVRQV#

'HWHQWLRQ

0HQWDO#+HDOWK#$FW

/LTXRU#$FW

RQ,

YDWHG

RGLO\#

DFH#

#2IILFHU

O

#%RGLO\#

5REEHU\#2WKHU

5REEHU\#:LWK#)LUHDUPV

5REEHU\#:LWK#2IIHQVLYH#:HDSRQ

%UHDN#DQG#(QWHU#&RPPHUFLDO%UHDN#DQG#(QWHU#2WKHU

%UHDN#DQG#(QWHU#5HVLGHQFH

)UDXG#&KHTXHV

)UDXG#&UHGLW#&DUGV

3HUVRQDWLRQ

3RVVHVVLRQ#6WROHQ#3URSHUW\

7KHIW#$XWR

7KHIW#%LF\FOH#+8QGHU,

7KHIW#IURP#0RWRU#9HKLFOH#+8QGHU,

7KHIW#2YHU#2WKHU

7KHIW#6KRSOLIWLQJ#+8QGHU,

7KHIW#7UXFN

7KHIW#8QGHU#2WKHU

8WWHULQJ#)RUJHG#'RFXPHQW

$UVRQ

%DLO#9LRODWLRQV

%UHDFK#3UREDWLRQ

&RXQWHUIHLWLQJ

&ULPLQDO#&RGH#2WKHU

&ULPLQDO#+DUDVVPHQW

'LVWXUEDQFH#3HDFH

(VFDSH#&XVWRG\

,QGHFHQW#$FWV

0LVFKLHI25HODWLRQ#'DWD

0LVFKLHI21R#'DPDJH

2EVWUXFW#3HDFH#2IILFHU

3ULVRQHU#$W#/DUJH

3URSHUW\#'DPDJH#8QGHU

3URVWLWXWLRQ#2WKHU

SkyTr


Of the 2,23Property rerelated, 8%

BC Transit existing Sksuggest thastations in

• Metrotow

• Granville

• Broadway

• Burrard -

• Main Stre

4% of all boardings for the entire system in 1997.

etrotown Station experienced the most assaults and d Station had, by far, the highest number of property to the Park and Ride lot; Scott Road also had the es, narrowly edging out Main Street and Metrotown; Criminal Code offences; Main Street had the most Granville had the most Mental Health Act offences.

offences per 100,000 boardings, however, things look assault occurs at New Westminster Station, followed ve. has the highest rate of Robbery, Scott Road

13%

8%

y Station (Source: BC Transit)

2082

200152

2

187

166

278

142

150 200 250 300

mber of Incidents


statistics show that in 1997, there were 41,861,441 boardings on the 20 yTrain stations. Preliminary 1998 figures for the first ten months of the year t current year boardings are consistent with those of 1997. The five busiest

both 1997 and 1998 in order from highest to lowest are:

n - 4,636,935 boardings in 1997

- 4,323,193 boardings in 1997

- 3,729,515 boardings in 1997

3,326,869 boardings in 1997

et - 2,585,208 boardings in 1997

5595

10

3946

1071

0 50 100

Water f r ont

Bur r ar d

Gr anvi l le

Stadium

Main Str eet

Br oadway

Nanaimo

29th Ave

Joyce

Patter son

Nu

ain and Crime

2 incidents, 43% of the incidents were Other Criminal Code related, 21% lated, 13% Assault related, 6% Robbery related, 8% Intoxicated Persons Liquor Act related, and 1% Mental Health Act related.

These five stations accounted for 4

In terms of raw numbers in 1997, Mrobberies of all stations; Scott Roaoffences probably due in large partlargest number of Liquor Act offencSurrey Centre had the most Other Intoxicated Persons offences; and

When expressing these numbers asa little different. The highest rate of closely by Gateway Station; 29th A

1997 Offences by Category (Source: BC Transit)

43%

21%

8% 6% 1%Other Criminal Code

Property

Assaults

Intoxicated Persons

Liquor Act

Robberies

Mental Health Act1997 Total Incidents b

7998

44

48

69

51

Metr otown

Royal Oak

Edmonds

22nd Str eet

New West

Columbia

Scott Road

Gateway

Sur r ey Centr e

King Geor ge

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 27

maintains thighest ratecated Pers

In 1994, BC

• After 18:0by bus an

• Statistics greatest n

ers than others at varying times of day. For example, er customers after 18:00 than Granville, Broadway,

e most incidents are not located near residential areas, d at Scott Road, a large isolated parking lot.

the num ber o f acc idents and inc idents is m in im al over the past three years. T here is, how ever, acurring afte r 18:00 h rs particu larly at certain sta-few er bu t instances o f d isorderly activ ity, vanda l- a lcohol and youth activ ity are con tributing factors

o f iso lation and vu lnerab ility particu larly am ong

Transit security incident data, it is apparent that the ithstanding perceptions and fear of crime. The piled incidents are made up of Other Criminal Code ach of Probation, Disturbing the Peace, Mischief and es such as Break and Enter, Possession of Stolen tc. are the second most frequent incidents recorded omprise 13% of all incidents that BC Transit Security er is 291 incidents occurring with nearly 42 million

was asked to provide crime data for a 250m radius SkyTrain stations. The following analysis presents ographical representations that the Vancouver Police though the Vancouver Police Department was able to e first six months of 1998, the present analysis will sistency with other analyses in this report.

0.00

Waterfront

Burrard

Granville

Stadium

Main Street

Broadway

Nanaimo

29th Ave

Joyce

Patterson

Metrotown

Royal Oak

Edmonds

22nd Street

New West

Columbia

Scott Road

Gateway

Surrey Centre

King George


transit reported to the Vancouver Safer City Task Force that:

0 hrs ridership decreases dramatically as commuters complete their journey d SkyTrain.

show that most incidents occur between 18:00 hrs and 01:59 hrs with the umber between 22:00 and 01:59.

SkyTrain boardings.

Vancouver Police DepartmentThe Vancouver Police Departmentarea around existing and proposedthat information and some of the geDepartment was able to provide. Alprovide data for 1996, 1997, and thfocus on 1997 data to maintain con

0.42

0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20

Number of Incidents

he highest rate of Property and Liquor Act offences, New Westminster has the of Other Criminal Code, Main Street maintains the highest rate of Intoxi-

ons, and Edmonds has the highest rate of Mental Health Act offences.

• Some stations have more customWaterfront and Burrard have fewand Metrotown.

• Those stations that experience thbut near malls, theatres, clubs an

That same report concluded that:

It is sa fe to trave l on SkyTrain , and has no t varied s ign ificantlygreater likelihood of inciden ts octions. N um ber o f custom ers are ism and trespass increase. O ftenand create an increased sense

w om en.8

In conclusion, when looking at BC SkyTrain system is quite safe, notwmajority of BC Transit Security comoffences such as Bail Violation, BreProperty Damage. Property OffencProperty, Theft of and from Auto, eon the SkyTrain system. Assaults cdeals with, however, the total numb

1997 Incidents per 100,000 Boardings By Station (Source: BC Transit)

0.20

0.34

0.40

0.55

0.29

0.25

0.24

0.29

0.49

0.29

0.45

0.49

0.24

0.65

0.20

1.02

0.54

0.44

0.18

SkyTr


250m centroids around the nine existing SkyTrain 886 Property, Persons, and Other crimes. There were , and Other crimes in all of Vancouver in 1997. nd existing stations accounted for 11.4% of all in Vancouver that year.

dependently, these areas around the stations account % of all Persons crime, and 3.7% of all Other crime reas around stations account for 82% of the property move those four areas around stations from the und stations, including Main Street, account for only

couver in 1997. Attractions such as GM Place, BC re Mall, Granville Street, Gastown, and the majority also located within the areas covered by the 250m stations, supporting the contention that SkyTrain is y contributing to crime.

0

Waterfront

Burrard

Granville

Stadium

Main Street

Broadway

Nanaimo

29th. Ave.

Joyce

Patterson

Metrotown

Royal Oak

Edmonds

22nd. St.

New West.

Columbia

Scott Rd

Gateway

Surrey Centre

King George

3URSHUW\/#3HUVRQV/#2WKHU,#ZLWKLQ#583P#RI#D#\7UDLQ#6WDWLRQFRXYHU#3ROLFH#'HSDUWPHQW,

ium

Granville

Burrard

Waterfront

3 5333 5833 6333 6833


% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Assaults Robberies

Property Offences Other CCC

Intoxicated Persons DetainedLiquor Act

Mental Health

Joyce

29th Ave

Nanaimo

Broadway

Main St.

Stad

3 833 4333 483

ain and Crime

In terms of raw number totals, the stations accounted for a total of 10,a total of 95,482 Property, PersonsTherefore the 250m centroids arouProperty, Persons, and Other crime

When looking at each crime type infor 12.5% of all Property crime, 8.7in Vancouver. The four downtown acrime for all nine stations. If you reequation, the remaining 5 areas aro2.2% of total property crime in VanPlace, Robson Street, Pacific Centof the downtown business core arezone around of the four downtown only one of many factors potentiall

4<<:#&ULPH#7\SH#E\#6WDWLRQ#+6RXUFH=#%&#7UDQVLW,

4<<:#7RWDO#1XPEHU#RI#&ULPHV#+6N

+6RXUFH=#9DQ

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 29

The previouprovided byas having tVancouver next two stand Broadwthat the areactually higdiscrepancsome incidsome only inside and reports “onthat could ithe DowntoWaterfront high numbethe four doand Stadiufrom auto. Iparking spa55,395) are

The followiVancouver of criminal centred aro

What the imare concenpattern of sBroadway calong Comalong East One may b


demonstrate that the main concentration of all types activity is directly adjacent to the downtown core, und the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood.

ages clearly show is that Persons and Other crimes trated in the Downtown Eastside. There is also a lightly higher levels of Persons crime along the orridor between Main Street and Clark Drive, again

mercial Drive between 12th Ave. and 1st Ave., and Hastings between Victoria and Nanaimo Streets. e tempted to draw the conclusion for instance that a

s graph varies somewhat from the information BC Transit Security. Both show Granville Station

he highest number of incidents among the stations. However, where BC Transit reports the ations with the most incidents as being Main Street

ay, the Vancouver Police Department data shows as around Waterfront and Burrard Stations are her in raw numbers of offences. Part of the y may stem from different reporting systems, i.e. ents are reported only to BC Transit Security and to the police. Vancouver Police report on incidents outside the station whereas BC Transit Security the system”. There are also neighbourhood factors nfluence this, among them the close proximity of wn Eastside (a well-known crime hotspot) to Station. Another influencing factor is the relatively r of property offences occurring at the areas around

wntown stations: Waterfront, Burrard, Granville, m. No doubt much of this Property crime is theft t is interesting to note, for instance, that 17% of all ces in the downtown core (9,291 out of a total of within a five block square area of Granville Station.

ng geographic representations of crime in

SkyTr


higher incidit should begreater inci

Property cris not surprthere is a h

also provided several pin maps of the 250m are included below to illustrate some key points.

m area around Broadway Station. This represents o and a half-year period from January 1995 through s a concentration of incidents just east of the station, d large parking lot, as represented by the largest dot. centration at the intersection of Broadway and e way incidents are reported - sometimes to a cross . Aside from those two points, however, the remaining


ence of Persons crime occurs near the Broadway SkyTrain station. However, noted that other areas of the city without SkyTrain stations have equal and dence of Persons crime.

ime in Vancouver is centred more to the west within the downtown core. This ising, as much of the property crime in Vancouver is automobile related and igh concentration of automobiles in downtown Vancouver.

ain and Crime

The Vancouver Police Departmentsurrounding areas, of which a few

The above illustration is of the 250Property crime in that area for a twJune 1998. It is evident that there iin the vicinity of a Safeway store anThere is also a slightly smaller conCommercial. This is likely due to thstreet rather than a precise address

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 31

Property inhad the arelooking at sto major str

The above Communityadjacent st

As for proplocations hstations. Foabout an eq

the area near the Broadway Station. The proposed ve more Persons, Property, and Other crimes than the tions. The remaining three proposed stations all have , Persons, or Other crime compared to existing

ial police statistics for Vancouver, it becomes are unrelated to passenger use of the system and that t have higher crime rates or have greater instances of Train stations. It is also evident that one has to be ttributed to the SkyTrain system, particularly in the number of other factors at play.


a extended slightly further, this dispersal pattern would still exist. When ome of the other illustrations, it becomes evident that crime can be attributed eets and roadways as much as it can to the placement of SkyTrain stations.

illustration shows Property crime in an area around Clark Drive at Vancouver College. It is apparent that the incidents are clustered along Broadway and reets in existing traffic areas.

osed station locations, several of the zones show that some of the proposed ave equal to or greater numbers of crimes than several existing SkyTrain r example, the area near the proposed Clark Drive station discussed above has ual number of Property, Persons, and Other incidents as does the area around

Grandview and Renfrew Stations haexisting 29th Ave. and Nanaimo Starelatively low incidence of Propertystations.

In conclusion, when looking at officapparent that many calls for servicethere are other areas of the city thacrime than areas that are near Skycareful about which incidents are adowntown core, where there are a

cidents are dispersed relatively evenly throughout the area. It is probable that Joyce Station, but only half that of

SkyTr


Burnaby RBurnaby RCaround exiseach year atation of critop of the imcircular areexisting Skand less likby Vancouv

This imageBurnaby. Factivity in thdefinite conKingsway, Street, CanStreet all shis a major cLougheed HRoad to the

Unfortunateatom level,purposes beach atom different sizstatistics prexisting ancrime, 78.7totals, theythe atoms a

%XUQDE\#'HWDFKPHQW#3ROLFH#2FFXUUHQFHV#DUH#KHDYLO\#IRFXVHG#QHDU#WUDIILF#URXWHV#RI#.LQJVZD\/#&DQDGD#:D\/#DQG#LQ#1RUWK#%XUQDE\1#7KH#FLUFOHV#VKRZ#H[LVWLQJ#6N\7UDLQ#VWDWLRQV#DQG#VRPH#RI#WKH#QHZ#VWDWLRQ#ORFDWLRQV#IRU#LQFLGHQW#GHQVLW\#FRPSDULVRQ#WR#WKH#DUWHULDO#WUDIILF#URXWHV1


etween station areas. As explained in “Notes” on page 37, boundary is irregular, therefore creating atom areas of es and shapes. When reviewing the crime occurrence ovided by Burnaby RCMP for the atoms surrounding d proposed stations, occurrences are broken down as follows: 9.4% Persons % Property crime, and 11.8% Other crime. If Drug offences are added to the make up a mere 0.86% of Persons, Property, Other, or Drug occurrences in round existing and proposed station locations.

5R\DO#2DN(GPRQGV

ain and Crime

CMP DetachmentMP, like Vancouver, were also asked to provide statistical information ting and proposed SkyTrain stations. Rather than provide contour maps for s Vancouver had, Burnaby elected to provide a year to date pin map represen-

me distribution in the community. The nine circular areas running along the age represent a 500m radius around proposed station locations. The four

as running along the bottom of the image represent a 500m radius around the yTrain stations. As the stations in Burnaby are further apart from one another ely to overlap, 500m zones were used as opposed to the 250m data provided er.

provides some important information about crime in irstly, although there are definite concentrations of criminal e areas surrounding existing stations, there is a more centration of activity along major streets and roads.

Imperial Street, Edmonds Street, Marine Drive, Rumble ada Way, Lougheed Highway, Douglas Street, and Hastings ow concentrations of activity. It is also evident that there luster of activity in the northwest sector bounded by ighway to the south, Burrard Inlet to the north, Boundary west, and Springer Street to the east.

ly, the tabular data used for analysis is aggregated to the providing little useful information for comparison

*LOPRUH%UHQWZRRG

+ROGRP6SHUOLQJ

3URGXFWLRQ#:D\/RXJKHHG#0DOO

3DWWHUVRQ0HWURWRZQ

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 33

When comexisting SkGeneral Po2.6% of Buof Burnabysurrounding2.2% PropeoccurrencesurroundingAlarms (40(39%).

What is usesentations 1997 crime

In this imagIf this data image mayof one anotappears, hoOne reasonrecorded aBlvd. addreclustering oOak stationoffences an

As with theby Other anlimited, theareas of mostation areapatterns ar

l-maintained commercial and residential land uses ations occur. This conclusion is also supported by data

e atom level. As such, they provided information for osed SkyTrain stations for year to date 1998. As

data are that atom boundaries are irregularly shaped, hich detailed comparisons between areas cannot be New Westminster Police Service has been exploring able to provide limited mapped data for a one-month d to only one month, it is useful enough to demon-ithin the community.

hings. First, as with Burnaby and Vancouver, there is rvice NOT adjacent to SkyTrain stations. There is a ets and roads, particularly those with more


f incidents around the intersection of Kingsway and Imperial near the Royal . Looking at the Atom level data suggests that these are likely Property d could be in relation to the large number of automobile sales lots in the area.

other jurisdictions, it appears Property Crime is the most prevalent, followed d then Persons crime. In conclusion, although the data presented here is

graphical representation of crime distribution in Burnaby clearly indicates re highly concentrated criminal activity outside the immediate SkyTrain s. The Burnaby data provides the most conclusive visual evidence that crime

e more closely related to street and land use patterns than they are to the

New Westminster records data to ththe atoms around existing and propmentioned, the limitations with this creating inconsistent areas from wmade accurately. Fortunately, The GIS capabilities and as such, was period during 1998. Although limitestrate patterns of calls for service w

This image demonstrates several ta high concentration of calls for sedefinite patterning along major stre

paring the data for the atoms identified by Burnaby RCMP as surrounding yTrain stations to total municipal data provided by the Ministry of Attorney lice Services Division, one finds that areas near existing stations account for rnaby’s total Persons crime, 2.1% of Burnaby’s total Property crime, and 1% ’s total Other crime. The atoms identified by the Burnaby RCMP as proposed station locations account for 1.5% of Burnaby’s Persons crime, rty crime, and 1.3% Other crime. One should also note that the single largest reported for the atoms identified by the Burnaby RCMP as existing and proposed station locations was for False

%). This was followed closely by Property occurrences

ful for the present analysis, however, is the graphical repre-of crime provided by Burnaby. The following image shows around existing stations in Burnaby.

e, it is shown that the major impact in the area is actually the Kingsway strip. is removed, the Patterson Station area is left with virtually no activity. The be slightly misleading in that there are a number of points “stacked” on top her so the small clustering near Metrotown Station is actually greater than it wever, it is still smaller than the cluster along Kingsway within the same area. for this is that many incidents occurring at Metrotown Mall are likely

s occurring at the Kingsway address of the Mall as opposed to the Central ss that would be adjacent to the SkyTrain station. There is also a large

SkyTrain stations. Areas of older, ilappear to be where these concentrfrom New Westminster.

New Westminster Police Service

3DWWHUVRQ

0HWURWRZQ

5R\DO#2DN

(GPRQGV

SkyTr


commerciaThe Hill nebound by 6th

Avenue to tblocks, masafe urban Street statiWestminste

it is clear that Columbia station is located in an area hereas the 8th Street station is definitely located at ervice. The following close-up image also shows

the areas of New Westminster’s two main malls and

ences, which the public most often cites, for a one ge depicts Drug related calls for service to the New is obvious that there is a relationship between the 8th

as the historical data confirms, this area has been a e century.

55QG#6W#6W

&ROXPELD#6W#6WDWLRQ

1HZ#:HVWPLQVWHU#6WDWLRQ


l/retail activity. There is a large concentration of occurrences in the Brow of ighbourhood, an older, medium to high density residential neighbourhood St. to the east, Royal Ave. to the south, 12th Street to the west, and 6th he North. It consists of numerous three and four storey older apartment ny of which are poorly maintained and constructed prior to the influences of design. There are very few occurrences in the area around the existing 22nd on. Finally, there is a definite concentration of activity around New r’s 8th Street SkyTrain station.

Street station and drug activity but,drug centre for the better part of th

ain and Crime

Zooming in on the downtown area,of fairly evenly dispersed activity, wthe centre of a hotspot of calls for shigher concentrations of activity in Upper 12th Street.

The following four images show offmonth period in 1998. The first imaWestminster Police Department. It DWLRQ

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 35

The imagesColumbia fprimary cauprimarily rebars, clubs

The image dispersed tColumbia Sare concenfew incidenAve. and 12related thef


depicting Assaults in New Westminster demonstrates that these are also hroughout the community, although there is a definite clustering along the treet corridor. The Break and Enter image clearly shows that these incidents trated in areas at some distance from existing station locations. There are very ts around any of the three stations. Most activity appears to occur in the 6th th Street areas that are unrelated to SkyTrain stations. Finally, motor vehicle ts are also clearly distributed across the entire city.

also show there is no drug activity at 22nd Street station and little at or the period reviewed. This would suggest that the station itself is not the se, but highlights the influence of the surrounding neighbourhood. Thus a

sidential station such as 22nd Street does not attract the drug activity that the , and commercial establishments around the 8th Street station attract.

SkyTr


As a final nto date 199Persons cradjacent tolocations a

Surrey RCMThe Surreythey identifavailable onthe stations

rences near stations were Property offences, 11% ffences. These atoms accounted for 14.5% of Surrey’s ey’s total Persons offences, and 13% of Surrey’s total e atoms around existing station locations account for

ersons, and Other crime.

t Security statistics, the RCMP reported that the atom had the lowest number of property incidents of the atom with the greatest number of offences of the three area of Gateway and Surrey Central stations. This ents that take place near Gateway or Surrey Central ecurity but are reported directly to the RCMP.

urrent line, Port Moody Police were also asked to g proposed station locations. They too, reported atom icipality.

ed activity was Property related, 17% Persons related, toms currently account for 21.5% of Port Moody’s overall Persons crime.

urrent line, the Coquitlam RCMP were also asked to g proposed station locations.

ed from the Coquitlam RCMP. They were able to ll atoms in the municipality. Additionally, an atom ference. However, given the significant variation in he writing of this report, this material would be best nalysis as required.


P Detachment RCMP Detachment provided 1996 and 1997 atom level data for the atoms ied as being located around existing SkyTrain stations. This data was ly in tabular format, so no geographical analysis has been completed. Two of , Gateway and Surrey Central fall within the same atom.

Coquitlam RCMP DetachmentAlthough beyond the scope of the creport data for the areas surroundin

Statistical material has been receivreport tabular atom-level data for aboundary map was provided for rethe Coquitlam route options as of tsuited for the purposes of further a

ain and Crime

ote about crime in New Westminster, of the atom level data provided for year 8 by the police service, 11% of total Property related crime, 13% of total ime, and 10% of All Crime Categories occurred within the atoms directly or surrounding existing station locations. Areas near proposed station ccounted for 2% of crime in all categories.

Of the data reported, 63% of occurPersons offences, and 26% Other ototal Property offences, 11% of SurrOther offences. When combined, th13.7% of Surrey’s total Property, P

Surprisingly, considering BC Transiaround Scott Road station actuallythree atoms of study in Surrey. The studied was the one located in the statistic may indicate that the inciddo not get reported to BC Transit S

Port Moody Police DepartmentAlthough beyond the scope of the creport data for the areas surroundinlevel data for two atoms in the mun

For these two atoms, 78% of reportand 5% Other related. These two aoverall Property crime and 21% of

SkyTrain and Crime

Rapid Tran Page 37

Finding1 Feedbac

confirme

- Public hoods

- There

- There inciden

- Proxim

- There membelevels.

2 BC Transof all inciCode offeaccountin

3 Policing areportingtrends in

4 While thesystem, taccounts

5 The publUnsavoryinto a pefears appconcerns

6 JurisdictiWestminthe SkyT

other crime facilitators making it difficult to separate e from the influences of these other contributing

there has been an initial increase in criminal activity sit to a community, rates of crime typically level off e new environment.

Fo rce, 1993 Fo rce, 1993

Feeds C rim e: B ran tingham et al., 1991 Feeds C rim e: B ran tingham et al., 1991ell as B C Transit Secu rity w ere asked for sta tis tica l crim e : 1998 to date, 1997) for as m any years as possib le

in a 500m radius of existing & proposed SkyTrain pe (Violent Crime, Property Crime, Other Crime). A ations was provided.

sentation of crime distribution within their commu-

he data represented in the maps. For this analysis, address and crime type, which would permit overlay evant data in a GIS program. If the Police service r reasons of privacy, data already geocoded was also

t of this data would be: one map showing Violent and proposed stations; one map showing Property and proposed stations; one map showing Other and proposed stations; and one map showing the s for the year for the entire community for a total of provide the required “geographical” analysis.


his fear is not substantiated by the statistical information gathered. From all , the SkyTrain is quite safe for its users.

ic is most fearful of nuisance behaviour near transit nodes such as Loitering, Persons and Street People. These social nuisance behaviors get transposed

rceived threat against a person’s physical safety. It should be noted that these ly to many public places, not just to the transit system. SkyTrain specific include property crime and drug use.

onal police data, particularly from Vancouver, Burnaby, and New ster, indicate that primary concentrations of crime activity occur away from rain system, in downtown cores or along major road networks. Downtown

- Data tables in digital form for tthe only data required was an of the crime data with other relcould not release addresses foaccepted.

- An example of the end producCrime within 500m of existing Crime within 500m of existing Crime within 500m of existing general distribution of all crimefour maps per year. This would

sk obtained from community members at several public consultations d a number of research findings related to fear of crime

is fearful of property crime and drugs being brought into their neighbour-

is high fear associated with SkyTrain stations at night

is a commonly-held perception that turnstile system options would address ts of crime both on the system and in outlying communities near stations.

ity of stations to local schools and residential areas is a major concern

is a general lack of visible staff members at the stations and on trains. Many rs of the public felt that increased staffing would increase overall ridership

it statistics indicate a relatively low volume of incidents per boarding. 43% dents recorded classified under a miscellaneous category of Other Criminal nces. Property offences accounted for 21% of all incidents, with assaults g for 13% of all incidents.

gencies are inconsistent in their methods of data collection, retrieval, and . This make detailed comparative analysis of current or historical crime relation to SkyTrain difficult.

re is a certain amount of public fear of crime on and around the SkyTrain

cores typically support numerousthe influence of SkyTrain on crimfactors.

7 Research has shown that whereafter the introduction of rapid tranonce the community adjusts to th

Notes1. Source: Vancouver Safer C ity Task2. Source: Vancouver Safer C ity Task3. B uck ley, 19964. Source: H ow Pub lic Transporta tion5. Source: H ow Pub lic Transporta tion6. E ach of the po lic ing agenc ies as w

in fo rm ation agg regated by year (exconsisting o f:

- “Pin” maps showing crime withstations, separated by crime tylist of potential new station loc

- An overall map or visual reprenity.

SkyTr


- Many Paddresare fureratureusually

- Atom bboundadifficultland ustacted,Burnabagencigiven e

7. T he VanG V R D . 1998. Doverlap250m raan over

- The Bufrom 19aggregcouveraby RCin theircoded other pstudy p

- The Nethat imto colleautomaable toable toular inf

d SkyTrain station locations. An atom boundary ed.

CMP currently has the ability to use GIS technol- data. Both of these detachments, however, were could with the data they had available. As a result,

r data for the atoms surrounding existing Surrey 1996 and 1997. Coquitlam RCMP was able to pro-

r all policing districts in Coquitlam. An atom bound-ovided.

nly able to provide atom level data for the atoms ocations. An atom boundary reference map was also

Force S kyTrain S tation Safety A ud it


community. Burnaby was the only agency contacted that provided geo-information in digital form that could be used to overlay crime data with ertinent information. Subsequently, this information can be used for future urposes as required.

w Westminster Police Service has always been eager to assist with projects pact their community. They have recently transformed the methods they use ct and record incident data. Prior to 1998, all of their data was purged and tically passed on to provincial and federal agencies. As a result, they were

provide only current year statistics in tabular format. However, we were obtain GIS maps of calls for service in a one-month period in 1998. The tab-ormation that was provided was broken down by atom for those atoms sur-

ain and Crime

olice agencies do not represent their crime data in mapped format at an s level. In general, each municipality is divided into policing zones, which ther subdivided in “atoms” . An atom (referred to as a “precinct” in U.S. lit-) is a small geographical area that has some significance to the organization, by virtue of resource allocation, historical problem areas, etc.

oundaries are not the same as census tract or community planning area ries and are not consistent in their size or shape so it becomes increasingly to perform accurate analysis of crime data in relation to demographic and e information. Only two of the agencies (Vancouver and Burnaby) con- therefore, were able to fully comply with the request for radius information. y’s tabular data, however, was aggregated by atom, not radii. The remaining

es provided the information according to the atom or atoms surrounding a xisting or proposed station.

couver P o lice D epartm ent has been a leader in G eograph ica l C rim e A nalysis in the It w as ab le to prov ide tabu lar and m apped data , by m onth, from 1995 th rough June ue to the c lose prox im ity o f stations in the dow ntow n core o f Vancouver and the

created by a 500m rad ius, the Vancouver Po lice D epartm ent prov ided their data for a d ius instead. T hey also p rov ided contou r m aps by year and crim e type, w hich show

all genera l d istr ibution o f c rim e in the c ity. rnaby RCMP Detachment also has limited GIS capability and provided data 96 through 1998 in tabular and mapped format. The Tabular data was ated by Atom in the same manner as all of the other agencies (except Van- which was able to base tabular data on the centroid boundaries). The Burn-MP also provided a pin map representation of the overall crime distribution

rounding existing and proposereference map was also provid

- Neither Surrey nor Coquitlam Rogy for crime analysis of crimeeager to assist in any way theySurrey RCMP provided tabulaSkyTrain stations for the periodvide tabular atom-level data foary reference map was also pr

- Port Moody Police were also osurrounding proposed station lprovided.

8. Source: B C Transit Safer C ity Task9. Po ister, 1996

Section 4:ons and Systems-

SkyTrain 1999

yment fare system and has no barriers or controlled s unimpeded access and patron flow to station t proof of payment is required to be carried at all times -Paid Zones are clearly marked using signage, but are iers. Any pre-purchased BC Transit fare media

February 1999

In preparing this report, SRG aresearch material relating to thBritish Columbia Transit Corpoand policing agencies throughoor materials were requested tothe stations, on station propert

The information has been usedments that have already takensuccessful and which were noperceived to be more or less fewhich would make them so.

The majority of the documenteBC Transit bodies as well as frlocal academic research studiematerials were obtained that aAdditionally, interviews and focand SkyTrain personnel to gainmendations were implemented

Current Security SyClearly, attempts have been msafety measures in station envi


state of physical and operatioinfrastructure is important.


a more complete understanding of how previous recom- and their relative successes or failures.

stems and Operationsade in several areas to continually upgrade security and ronments and on the trains. To fully understand the current

nal security, a brief overview of the current overall security

Facilities, Operati

pproached several agencies in search of local studies and e safety and security of the existing SkyTrain system. ration (BC Transit), SkyTrain, municipal governments, ut the GVRD were consulted and written documentation

address specific safety and security considerations within ies, and on the trains themselves.

to study observations and security and safety enhance- place, to understand which of those measures were t, to help identify the nature of station areas which are ar inducing than others, and to isolate characteristics

d information came from research conducted by various om the Vancouver Safer City Task Force. In addition, s were collected, field observations were undertaken, and ddressed local issues related to SkyTrain security. us group meetings were held with BC Transit Security

Physical Security

Fare Payment

SkyTrain operates on a proof of paaccess for station entry. This allowplatform and trains on the basis thawhile in the Fare-Paid Zones. Farenot separated by any physical barr

Facilit


including trmedia or damachines (

CCTV Sys

The SkyTracontrolled, cameras arstations anupgraded sin 1986. Amobsolete swreplacemenmodern CClogging murecording okeeping blain low and

All camerastions Centrprovided bemanual capparticular im

Emergenc

SkyTrain cutions systemon each staarea. Additof the platfois not clearintercom palength of ea

tioned, is located in an emergency cabinet. Inside this will stop the train in an event of an emergency. The will generate a signal to the Control Centre if simply ity for the operator to investigate the incident even if

ated on the train, Control Operators can “dial-in” to ight be occurring. People on board the vehicle have ation they are being monitored and such ing typically continues until a staff member can he train. A flashing light on the outside of the train al which car the call was initiated from.

senger intercoms allow two-way voice communi- between the train car and the Control Operator. n be particularly effective if a medical emergency

nications System

ary method of communications between n and BC Transit Security staff is through the use ay hand-held radios. Cellular phones are not used rain Attendants (STA’s), partially due to the

cellular reception capabilities within the stations. ng to SkyTrain Control Centre, there are a suffi-mber of radio signal repeaters throughout the

and, as a result, few “dead spots” exist in radio ssions.

onal Security

of staffing on other transit systems (Section 5) clear message that the public welcomes the e of uniformed transit and security staff. What


age when an alarm is generated.

y Duress Alarm System

rrently operates an emergency communica-. There are 2 emergency telephones located

tion platform within the designated waiting ionally, there is one phone located at each end rm at the blue light station (although signage

). On each train car, there are 2 passenger nels as well as a silent alarm strip that runs the ch side of each vehicle.

Accordicient nusystemtransmi

Operati

A reviewsends apresenc

ies, Operations and Systems-SkyTrain 1999

ansfers or monthly passes is appropriate for presentation and single trip y passes can be purchased using cash from the automated ticket vending

TVM's) located at the station entrances.

tem

in system is equipped with an extensive CCTV system that is monitored, and recorded at SkyTrain Operations Centre by Control Operators. 447 e currently in operation throughout the 20 d the Operations Centre. This system has been everal times since the system went into service ong the upgrades was the removal of an itch system, the addition of 150 cameras, t of all out-dated tube-type cameras with D technology, and introduction of video ltiplex system which allows for continuous f 211 cameras. SkyTrain made the choice of ck & white cameras due to their performance

variable lighting conditions.

are recorded in interval cycles at the Opera-e. However, only a two-hour time window is fore these tapes are recorded over. Also, only ability exists for continual spot recording of a

The emergency telephone, as mencabinet, there is also a button that cabinet itself is tied to an alarm thatopened. This provides an opportunthe emergency phone is not used.

When the silent alarm strip is activthat vehicle to listen to whatever m

no indicmonitorattend twill sign

The pascationsThis caoccurs.

Commu

The primSkyTraiof two-wby SkyTlimited

d Systems-SkyTrain 1999

Rapid Tran Page 41

differentiateerment of tcapabilities

One of the combating placed on S

BC Transit offenders, wjurisdictionathe special

BC Transit regulationsinspection,payment frotrains are isindustry stamending thAlthough thencouragedregulationsSecurity iss

SkyTrain Ato see proowithout propurchase thmore than persuasivefare inspec

While this asystem relastaff withou

imates SkyTrain’s revenue loss rate due to fare etween October 1997 and August 1998, up from

stem average rate (including SkyTrain, Bus, and 1.81% and 1.90%. Although the loss incurred by an aggregate effect can be substantial.

ent Fare Audit Survey (October 1997 to August 1998) ain as $1.76 million. System-wide impact for fare antified as $3.21 million. Although the total revenue rates indicated for this period are within the North evasion.4

SkyTrain operates without on-board attendants or tion to staff the trains throughout all hours of significant increase in human resources and thus

capital.

s on duty at all times. The evening shift may operate stations. Two other 2 person teams ride on the trains. nsible for, first response first aid. Each person is

gh they may team up during evening hours between

creased staffing levels during the evening hours. 6 constables servicing the system during these re large and staff members are expected to randomly his, it is quite reasonable to assume, and does completes an entire trip without seeing a staff


ttendants are not authorized to issue fare violations, although they do request f of payment, both on the trains and at the entrances to the platforms. Those of of payment are asked to return to the ticket vending machines (TVM) to e correct fare. It is not the STA’s responsibility, nor are they mandated, to do

advise customers on fare procedures. They are encouraged to take a approach rather than be confrontational. Each month, there are about 750,000 tions documented at stations and on-board trains (100,000 on the trains).

pproach relies on the good intentions of the travelling public, it leaves the tively vulnerable to habitual evaders who know they have little to fear from t enforcement authority.

two stations.

BC Transit Security has provided inThey currently have a minimum of evening hours. SkyTrain stations acirculate throughout. Considering tcommonly occur, that a passengermember.

Facilities, Operations an

s the Canadian and American systems is the volume of staff, the empow-hat staff and, in the case of some American systems, the armed response of that staff.

weaknesses of the existing SkyTrain system, both from the perspective of active crime and dealing with fare evasion, is the enforcement limitation kyTrain attendants (STA’s) and on SkyTrain Security personnel.

Security Special Provincial Constables have the authority to arrest and detain ith the intention of turning them over to jurisdictional police. Currently, l police departments collectively have an opinion on increasing authority for

transit constables, some rejecting the notion.

Security Special Provincial Constables pro-actively enforce fare evasion on a regularly scheduled basis. Enforcement usually occurs through on-board where the constables and fare inspectors board the trains and request proof of m each passenger. Currently, those who are found to be evading fare on the sued a fine of $46.00 under the BC Transit Act, a provincial statute. In ndard terms, this penalty is minimal and BC Transit Security are recom-e fine be raised to $150.00, comparable to fines in other Canadian cities. ere is no zero tolerance policy in effect, Special Provincial Constables are to be firm with these penalties. The BC Transit Act and accompanying

do give the constables the power to refuse service to a passenger. BC Transit ued approximately 12,000 violations for fare-related offences in 1998.

Fare Evasion Statistics

BC Transit’s Fare Audit Survey estevasion was 5.49% for the period b4.67% in the previous year. The sySeaBus) for these two periods wasindividual incident is negligible, the

Figures available from the most recquantify the lost revenue for SkyTrevasion over the same period is quloss is significant, the revenue lossAmerican industry average for fare

Staffing Levels

By virtue of the automated system,operators. There is no current intenoperation. To do so would require atremendous increases in operating

There are between 22 and 26 STA’in pairs, each pair responsible for 2STA’s are also trained in, and resporesponsible for a station even thou

Facilit


CCTV and

A team of 4actually deincluding thinfrastructuequipped oto rely on thtwo-hour taretrieve a ta

Incident Re

Currently, iDispatchingControl Opappropriateby observinreset by Skaudits of re(immediatestaffing levpossible foincidents mcooperationpolice.

Studies

City of Van

In 1992, thea report thatransit syste

rain stations between Waterfront in Vancouver and d during night time hours and audited based on a

e human

hysical security deficiencies and made recommenda-operty maintenance, and general safety and security and policy considerations.

tions with relation to the SkyTrain system were as

t better at SkyTrain stations than at outdoor transit number of stations:

n to station and were relatively inconsistent. (e.g. isfactory lighting levels, the distribution of light was ave displayed good indoor lighting, but poor outdoor

well lit throughout. in more than one area or aspect were Burrard, Water-, Granville, Main Street, New Westminster, and


with BC Transit Security, who act as a support agency to the jurisdictional

and Reports

couver Safer City Task Force

City of Vancouver Safer City Task Force was formed. This body produced t identified clear directives for improvements in the safety and security of the m.1 The report addresses safety and security issues both at SkyTrain stations

Lighting was found to be somewhastops, but was still insufficient at a

• Lighting issues varied from statioSome were observed to have satseen to be uneven. Others may hlighting levels)

• Very few stations were seen to be• Those that were particularly poor

front, Columbia Street, EdmondsRoyal Oak.


Alarm Monitoring

control operators staff the SkyTrain Control Centre, only one operator is signated to managing all communications and general station monitoring, e surveillance of the 447 CCTV cameras in operation. Although the current re is appropriate for responding to alarms that are generated, the system is not r staffed to engage in proactive security monitoring. Moreover, it is difficult e system for investigation purposes as recording capability only allows for pe-over, which severely limits the time window that may be necessary to pe.

sponse

nitial response to these alarms is provided by station SkyTrain Attendants. occurs by SkyTrain Control Operators. If it is determined by the STA or the

erator that further assistance is required, BC Transit Security, or another agency, is dispatched to attend. Unless a disturbance is clearly visible, either g the platform camera images or by the STA on-site, the alarm is cleared and yTrain Attendants without the knowledge of BC Transit Security. SkyTrain sponses to these alarms indicate that staff provide a response within 5 minutes ly or at the next station) for 84% of the alarms received. Due to current els, however, during non-peak periods of operation, it would be entirely r a train to travel 3 stations before an attendant is on the scene. In the case of ore serious in nature, the jurisdictional police are called to attend and work in

and at major bus exchanges. SkyTScott Road in Surrey were reviewechecklist including:

1 overall impressions 2 lighting3 signage 4 sightlines5 isolation – eye distance6 isolation – ear distance 7 movement predictors8 possible assault sites 9 escape routes10 nearby land uses 11 maintenance12 factors that make the place mor13 overall design

The committee identified several ptions based on lighting, signage, prfeatures, as well as several training

Some of the most relevant observafollows:


Rapid Tran Page 43

• Those tha(interior).

Scott Road S

SkyTrain hstations anhave also wlanes. Altholighting issuimprove ligto establish

The followi

• Most statinside the

tations, is not appropriate for disabled persons in s too high to be effectively observed. to be insufficient in size to assist the visually

be generally unclear.

e to remove the deterrence that was indicated for use customers were afraid to use the emergency commu-al need to do so. Physically disabled customers are nes to meet any special need they might have during improvements, SkyTrain has also revised the chure to provide greater emphasis on the safety and . These brochures are available on every car and are the trains go through cleaning.

were made about visual sightlines in and around

clear sightlines varied from station to station.s examples of blind corners and hiding places near nd bushes. The only stations in which these problems ad (inside), Metrotown, and Main Street.ar sightlines.l that could be used at many of the stations to enhance

de blind and void areas that could be used as hiding ve or trim shrubbery that could also be used for covert ion). Most of the problem areas that remain are s and are, therefore, difficult to address. New designs unnecessary refuge areas.

ade about isolation of station areas:

cy systems decreased the feeling of isolationent at many of the SkyTrain Stations.


d in the areas immediately adjacent to the stations. On some occasions, they orked with municipalities to improve street lighting on nearby streets and ugh station lighting was built to existing code requirements of the day, es continue to be a concern. Retrofits are routinely being performed to

hting and eliminate deficiencies at the stations. Extreme care should be taken effective lighting in new stations to include documented concerns.

ng general observations were made about signage at the SkyTrain stations:

ions were found to have insufficient street identification and directional signs stations.

visibility.

SkyTrain has taken steps to barricaplaces and have attempted to remoactivity (e.g. New Westminster statproducts of the design of the stationshould carefully reviewed to avoid

The following observations were m

• Security telephones and emergen• Security personnel were not pres


t were most satisfactory were 22nd Street, Joyce, Metrotown, and Scott Road

tation Platform

as made lighting improvements periodically over the years, both inside

• The height of signage, in many swheelchairs. In many cases, it wa

• Signs in general were often foundimpaired.

• Signage is limited. • Emergency signage was found to

SkyTrain has modified most signagof emergency telephones as somenications even when they had a reactively encouraged to use the photheir journey. In addition to signagePassenger Safety and Security brosecurity features that are availablerestocked daily, as required, when

The following general observationsSkyTrain stations:

• The ability of passengers to enjoy• Many stations exhibited numerou

stairwells, sharp corners, walls, awere not observed were Scott Ro

• Poor lighting contributed to uncle• Security mirrors were a useful too

Facilit


• Stations w

Due to the each statioappropriateWhile therewith an exteOperation Cfor operatioand securit

There was installationsMillennium

ain stations were laid out in such a way that oo easily anticipated, and were therefore found to have strian routes and too many hiding places created could be vulnerable to attack. Where this can create lso be seen as an enhancement from a transit design re clearly directed in and out of the stations. Adequate d with movement predictors can maximize the ives.

mendations in that report that immediately followed d from pages 20-23, and included the following initi-

passengers to see around corners, in stairwells, and

ight stations.” on SkyTrain platforms close to emergency services

to increase real and perceived safety.

e introduced at all stations.or stations in order to improve sightlines and safety

dards for transit stations have been implemented ave had the most noticeable effect at the Scott Road

s for emergency services in SkyTrain.

stations.re SkyTrain locations to ensure that the design y concerns from a variety of perspectives, including

g with others, as part of a Transit Advisory Out-

assistance systems accessible at bus stops locations eived safety.

ark and Ride only.

arried out at the time of this study are as follows:

Example of P


4 Develop clearer information sign

- Signage was enhanced at all 5 Review planning policies for futu

process takes into account safetcitizen involvement.

- This action was initiated, alonreach process.

6 Ensure that there are emergencyin order to increase real and perc

- Implemented at Scott Road P

Recommendations that were not c


ere felt to be more isolated if assistance was not within sight or earshot.

operating budget available to SkyTrain, it is not currently possible to staff n at all times. As identified above, several steps have been taken to implement security technology to enhance safety levels at the stations and on the trains. is not always an attendant on the platforms, the platform areas are equipped nsive CCTV system that is monitored, controlled, and recorded at SkyTrain entre by Control Operators. However, the cameras are primarily monitored

nal purposes (track status, obstructions, etc.) and are used to respond to safety y issues only when an alarm is generated.

a problem with vandalism of payphones at SkyTrain stations and other public , but this has largely been eliminated with the installation of the new

card-reading payphones.

It was observed that several SkyTrpassengers’ movements could be tmovement predictors. Limited pedepredictor paths where passengers security flaws, limited routes can aperspective, as passengers are mosurveillance and prospect combinepositive effects from both perspect

Some of the most meaningful recomfrom these observations were founatives:

1 Install security mirrors to enable in other hidden areas.

- mirrors were budgeted for at e2 Create a “designated waiting area

or an emergency station in order

- Designated waiting areas wer3 Set minimum lighting standards f

factors.

- Increased overall lighting stanthroughout the system, and hStation.

oor Sightlines and an Entrapment Space


Rapid Tran Page 45

1 Install ou

- Additi2 Install ad

independ

- Althouinstawaiti

BC Transit

Following tformulate agroup geneassessed btions.2 The by the Saferesearch, dTransit SafTransit’s O

Overall, thedeficienciesentrapmenof adequateemergency

Many of thereport werephysical deexistence ointegral to tsuch as lighcreation of

tween SRG and members of BC Transit Security, the Safer City initiatives and to make determinations f those that had been undertaken.

eness of some of the main initiatives to date are


lighting and signage, ensuring unimpeded sightlines, and the installation of communications systems.

observations made in the original City of Vancouver Safer City Task Force problematic to correct with retrofit features because they were due to the sign of the stations themselves. Poor sightlines, feelings of isolation, and the f predictor paths are the most difficult issues to address because these are he original design. These issues were approached instead through initiatives ting improvements, the addition of mirrors, improved signage, and the

designated waiting areas.

A focus group meeting was held beduring our study process, to reviewon the relative success or failure o

The overall opinions of the effectividentified below:


tside surveillance cameras at SkyTrain stations.

onal staffing enhancements were recommended in their place.ditional lighting fixtures, where necessary, to ensure adequate lighting, ent of adjacent private lighting sources, in walkways near stations.

gh numerous lighting issues were identified, additional fixtures were lled only for a few select stations and primarily in relation to the designated ng areas and the bus loops at those stations.

Safer City Task Force

his report, BC Transit formed its own Safer City Task Force Committee to ction on the recommendations that were presented in the above report. This rated a report that added additional information on the recommendations, udgetary requirements, and identified the feasibility of specific recommenda-

primary mandate of this group was to ensure that each recommendation made r City Task Force was acted upon, either through implementation, additional eferral, or elimination. Thirteen of the thirty recommendations made in the BC er City Task Force report were found to be consistent with those made in BC perational Safeguard report from 1993.

committee acknowledged in its report3 that a majority of safety and security that were identified could be corrected through the elimination of isolation/

t areas and the implementation of CPTED, or similar, principles, the provision Follow-up

“Kiss and Ride” at Edmonds Station

Facilit


Signage

Significant identifying improvememade (e.g.signage).

Designate

Designatedfollowing thStaff find thcreates a n

Lighting

Despite sevidentified ostations. Stproblematicor split grad

Security M

Mirrors werStadium, Band providestaff feel th

FindingAfter a cursof the SkyT

venue loss due to fare evasion on SkyTrain as being to August 1998 compared to $3.21 million system-best, due to the limited numbers of security staff ly small penalty for infractions.

difficult to enforce fare payment and also make it blesome, abusive or dangerous individuals. Jurisdic-

of calls for service and transit infractions receive e severity of the incident.ve and updated CCTV system throughout the everal limitations exist that restrict the ability of the

security purposes.s not currently have full time dedicated security

larm systems on the platforms and on the trains are er these systems are generally limited to specific d in the train cars.

s systems appear to be adequate for their applica- are the primary communications devices used.sit Security and SkyTrain Attendants do not make it affed at all times. Current staff complements make it lete an entire trip without seeing a staff member. tly visible staff at stations reduces public fear and can .concerns were expressed with respect to lighting d as being of particular concern.

sit from a source of the American Public Transit rban Transit Association Statistics


e added to several of the stations (including Waterfront, Burrard, Granville, roadway, 29th Ave., Patterson, and New Westminster) to increase sightlines better visibility around blind corners. For the most part, BC Transit Security

at these have been useful.

sory review by SRG of the existing state of security systems and operations rain system, the following conclusions were drawn:

8 Despite improvements, ongoing levels. Specific stations were cite

Notes1. City of Vancouver, 19922. BC Transit, 1994a; 1994b3. BC Transit, 1994b4. Statistics provided by BC Tran

Administration and Canadian U


improvements were made to signage throughout the system, especially security or emergency services. Transit Security employees felt these nts have been relatively successful but that further improvements should be Fare-Paid Zones should be more clearly defined at some stations with larger

d Waiting Areas (DWA’s)

passenger waiting areas were implemented at all SkyTrain Stations e audit. According to staff, these areas have been effective in most cases. at passengers use them as they are located in an area of the platform that atural congregation point.

eral lighting improvements that were made, BC Transit Security Staff ngoing deficiencies in lighting quality in isolated areas at many of the ations without independent adjacent lighting sources appeared to be most , and those that were of particular concern were those that are below grade e stations, such as Waterfront, Burrard, Stadium, and Columbia.

irrors

1 Fare evasion audits estimated re$1.76 million from October 1997wide. Enforcement is difficult, at available, and also to the relative

2 Jurisdictional limitations make it difficult to apprehend or eject troutional police have their own loaddifferential response based on th

3 Although there is a comprehensiSkyTrain system for operations, ssystem to be used effectively for

4 The SkyTrain Control Centre doemonitoring of the CCTV system.

5 The existing emergency duress aeffective and appropriate, howevareas on the station platforms an

6 Existing security communicationtions. Two-way hand-held radios

7 Current staffing levels of BC Tranpossible for each station to be stpossible for passengers to compResearch indicates that consistenlead to increased ridership levels

Section 5:er Rapid Transit

Systems

rail systems and the surrounding areas. Crimes nt on the whole. Offences do not vary with the level . Though there is an increase in fear, more crime does Assaults/drug trafficking offences tend to occur at nd other attractor nodes. As is seen in the lower t in adjacent neighbourhoods is simply

e low in all but the most problematic stations found in ome incidences of patrons being pushed onto the rail, theft/robbery. Assaults do occur but data suggests ted patrons and is usually not a random crime. Fear, ers overestimate the level and seriousness of crime.

to rely on staffing methods to reduce fear and crime. design approaches, rather than increasing staffing and

he design of recently built stations, especially in o, where regular system extensions are taking place. rofessionals (police, private companies) are at least t the practice to the best of their knowledge. Practi-curity/police involvement often does not come early

credit, Toronto Metro Rail has all players involved as

February 1999

A look at various transit systemsimilarities and also many diffeexamines security and safety rthe various systems that were DC, Atlanta, Portland, Dallas, Sis not possible as much of the

OverviewSolutions to the problem of crimfrom increased illumination an

In a decade of environmental ariders, however, will not comprosuccess on the level of choicereduced systems are not only na business -- its insurance of s

It must be kept in mind that feaesting, but not surprising, to nonon-riders than riders. Humanexperience of the transit systemnantly negative accounts, both

Perceptions o f personal saf


elec t or decline to ride mprotect passengers from

m ote perceptions o f pers

nt process. Community Response Unit and Toronto %, 30%, 60%, 75%, 90%, and 100% stages of the


r has a monetary impact on transit systems. It is inter-te that some cities reported a higher level of fear among

nature is to fear the unknown so those people with no would have an image of it largely drawn from predomi-

anecdotal and media reported.

ety w eigh heav ily in the decis ion o f pa trons w hen theyass transit veh ic les. I t is , therefore, necessary, not on ly to in ju ry and o ther abuse, but to sustain , enhance and pro-

onal safety and com fort am ong the genera l r idersh ip .1

DesignCPTED has been incorporated in tWashington, DC and San FranciscIt is apparent that transit security pfamiliar with CPTED and implementioners have voiced concern that seenough in the design phase. To its early as possible in the developmeMetro Police are included at the 10design review process.

Learning from Oth

s across North America and in Europe reveals many rences in approaches to crime and security. This section elated discussions held with representatives from each of studied, including those in Calgary, Toronto, Washington, an Francisco, and London, England. Statistical analysis

information provided by these systems is anecdotal.

e and incivilities on rapid transit come at varying levels, d adequate signage to an overhaul of security staffing.

wareness, transit seems an obvious choice. Potential mise perceived safety. Many systems gauge part of their

riders (those with vehicles who opt for transit).Crime-ecessary for an enhanced quality of life, but for transit as

uccess and revenue generation.

Crime rates differ slightly between against person remain fairly constaof grade at which the stop is locatednot occur at underground stations. stations situated near bars, malls amainland, behaviour already presenmirrored on the system.

Crimes against person appear to bNorth America. There have been sthough most violent crime involvesthat this is often a result of intoxicahowever, is of concern as many rid

Generally, American systems tend Canadian systems appear to utilizesecurity personnel numbers.

Learn


Some systegraffiti and money to recost to replis the placecost. PorceBurrard andinitial cost i

All systemsdeterrent ahave cameemergencysystems stuIn addition necessary are not trapability to avgreatly emp

The type ofences percthat has thecrime statis

No matter weffective destation is bgood lightineffective in

Security PeAll systemsassuring pasystems, cl

uniformed presence does ease patrons' minds and has not yet developed a police-reliant mentality like tion for policing has been limited.

s difficult to allocate funds to address perceptions of is important to recognize that public tolerance for a

ith poorly designed stations, long-established archaic hierarchies that impede innovation and change. An is necessary to ensure success. Often frontline ilosophy behind the actions:

n every observab le ru le v io lation, a practice hetu ff so the b ig stu ff doesn 't fo llow '… officers m ayr v io la tions as m uch as bus and subw ay patrons, the o fficers understood that their duty o f pro tec t-perceptions o f safety and com fo rt re lied on cha l-R em arkab ly, m any regu lar r iders app lauded th is

now.3

ave been high on all transit lines, usually occurring outside of the cars. Such actions serve to raise some em, by allowing everyone to see their names and work ame time, this graffiti has negative impacts on the ti with more serious crimes and maintenance enerates fear in riders. Transit authorities have

stepping stone for future and more serious crimes.4

e force (Washington DC), as an example, subscribes ws” Theory. Advocating quick removal of graffiti, nce for broken transit bylaws, encourages an are more serious. Tackling incivilities of a minor


hat kind of station environment is required for each station location, sign techniques can be used to enhance safety and reduce fear. Whether a

uilt 25 meters below grade or 10 meters above, generous use of open spaces, g, clear sightlines and an optimal number of access and egress routes will be

reducing fear levels, no matter what the environment.

rsonnel have both uniformed and plain clothed security whose primary focus is trons and alleviating fear. Riders want to see security, and for many rail ient concerns are paramount. Whether or not this type of resource is the most

of the young perpetrators’ self-estecirculating around the city. At the stravelling public who connect graffiproblems. This type of crime also gidentified graffiti and vandalism as

The Washington Metro Transit Policto George Kelling's “Broken Windorepair of vandalism and little toleraenvironment free of infractions that

ing from Other Rapid Transit Systems

ms, either in the newer stations or as retrofit, are target hardening to combat vandalism. Scratchiti (etchings on glass) costs an exorbitant amount of pair or replace. Toronto Transit Commission has been faced with a $2 million

ace 10,000 pieces of damaged glass. A popular method to reduce this problem ment of a plastic laminate on windows as it allows for ease of repair at a lower lain enamel panels and tiles are used in Calgary (and in Vancouver at the Granville SkyTrain stations) to aid in the removal of graffiti. The higher

s offset by its maintainability.

use CCTV to varying degrees. Some utilize the technology strictly as a nd apprehension tool as the cameras roll tape, but are not monitored. Others ras monitored by a central area, as is the case with SkyTrain, that also receives telephone calls and has the ability to dispatch appropriate personnel. All died have emergency communications devices on both platform and trains.

to panic phones and CCTV, multiple exits are another design feature for alleviating fear and increasing safety. Patrons need to feel as though they ped on platforms and have options upon exiting a train. Giving a rider the oid an unwanted situation, (e.g. by not having to walk past the panhandler) owers him or her and reduces anxiety.

station environment itself affects fear of crime among passengers and influ-eptions of actual crime levels within the stations. In general, the station-type most potential for fear of crime is the underground station, although actual tics do not support an increased risk of crime in these station environments.

cost effective in reducing crime, theincreases choice ridership. Canadathe United States, so budget alloca

One transit authority states that it icrime versus the reality of crime. “Itlack of protection is limited…”2

Some authorities are encumbered wpolicing practices and bureaucraticunderstanding of policing practice workers are not informed of the ph

… Transit o fficers take action oca lled 'tak ing care o f the sm all sd islike w riting c ita tions for m inoresent receiv ing them . H ow evering passengers and prom oting leng ing all v io lators o f the law.

effort o f zero to lerance then and

Broken WindowsIncidents of vandalism and graffiti hboth on board the train and on the

r Rapid Transit Systems

Rapid Tran Page 49

nature has that the pubfears such

Examples o

• New Yorkremovingnoticed b

• Toronto's

• Portland's

• London'srailways

This seemiemploying

Some systePortland, loschools, it ito discouragroup.

SkyTrain hafor graffiti rBurrard Staplanters. Ththe respons

Station LocTypes of crand rides atransients, evaders.5 Orelated to v

ss).6 For the surrounding areas, such as park and d to include vandalism, auto theft and in some cases,

t to tell where the crime originated...was crime crime influencing the station from the surrounding

nt surrounding environment, this is a difficult question uthority Transit Station in New York, for example, it coming in from Times Square, for warmth, shelter ch is seen as the cause of station crime.

schools as being particularly problematic because of volve students. Criminals know their target groups s. It is imperative that any stops placed in areas where searched and thoroughly policed to deter a hotbed of

e desired location of stops in various areas. Calgary e transit end points, or termini, both of which are systems, however, recommend that transit stations eased surveillance reduces crime and incivilities. set of eyes on the street. Fear is often higher at these f users and feeling of isolation. Conversely, in San

rail transit areas has increased dramatically for both ments.

ties are characterized by large, multi-layered lots, refore increased crime. Crimes in such lots include hicles and drug selling. Many such lots have been itimate users are afraid to leave their cars in the lot.8 rity, surveillance, or boundaries, such as fencing. t there are three conditions that contribute to crime in evel of authorities, especially when it comes to outer With car parks, there is often isolation from public


tion, to discourage skateboarding and the damage it causes to benches and e area around the station, however, is Vancouver Park Board property, and ibility for its repair and modification belongs to VPB.

ationsime vary between stations and trains and surrounding properties, such as park nd storage yards. The stations are more likely to have panhandlers, beggars, drug addicts, robberies, assault, pickpockets and prostitution, as well as fare n the other hand, occurrences on the trains themselves are more likely to be andalism, graffiti, and the recently popularized etching, or scratchiti (refers

Commuter Parking LotsIn many cities, Park and Ride faciliwhich allow for blind spots and theprostitution, car theft, theft from vetaken over by the criminals and legOften parking lots are without secuMancini and Jain (1987) stated thastation lots; isolation; lighting; and ltransit property such as car parks.

Learning from Othe

the effect of portraying a caring, crime free system. It has been demonstrated lic equates litter, vandalism and general disrepair with crime, and therefore

areas.

f this theory in action include:

's removal of trains from the system as soon as vandalism is detected. By this artwork from view, the perpetrator is unable to have his or her work y others

issuance of by-law tickets for smoking and loitering

combating the problem of urination in elevators

specially designated “no drink” trains to reduce public drunkenness on

ngly tough approach is a relatively simple way to reduce fear without an excessive amount of armed officers.

ms approach these problems on a case by case or station to station basis. In itering, for example, may be tolerated in some areas but at stops near high s forbidden. The need to prohibit congregation by youth is fuelled by a desire ge drug trafficking, prostitution and graffiti often associated with that age

s a zero tolerance attitude to graffiti and trains have been pulled from service emoval. Modifications are required around some stations, for example at

primarily to scratching graffiti on glarides and rail yards, the crimes tenassaults.

Literature suggests that it is difficuloverflowing from the station or wasarea? As each station has a differeto answer. In the case of the Port Ais the crime and potential offendersand a place to do illegal business7 whi

Many cities report stops near high the aforementioned issues which inand will actively seek out these areayouth congregate are proactively reunwanted activity.

There is some discrepancy as to threports increased problems with thsituated in mixed-use areas. Othershould lie in such areas as the incrShops open late add an additional stops due to the sparse presence oFrancisco, land value around light residential and commercial develop

Learn


view, whichinadequateto increasecrime. If the

Park and Rto this epidpatrols andnecessary

Some reco

• Parking lo

• Fenced lo

• Low vege

• No pathw

• Attendan

In the GVRto Barclay eIncreasing which helpe

Fare EvasiFare evaderevenues. Aand can gre

The most cSkyTrain) inmedia for ilcounterfeit systems as

access exists, fare evasion can be minimized, but not ile vaulting,11 the use of slugs in the turnstiles,12 or rnstile vaulting has led to an increased level of fear, ted disorder and gives the public the impression that rs.13 New York and London have both had serious

don, the use of slugs was the problem and in New ile vaulting, and double entry (where one person a legitimate rider).14

mente key to transit success lies in the inclusion of the ss. By encouraging participation, transit hands

e community. Residents who have had a say, a hand in, and responsibility for, the area. This simple

also incivilities, crime and general deterioration. A “not my problem or concern” is converted into quick ay.

ees as well. Key players are left out to the detriment

serve, will never be crime free. Such a Utopia is where transit stations are gathering points for commu- crime, crime that is generally present at the outset. of life, with varying opinions, attitudes and life lways be challenges to a peaceful existence. One f crime and incivilities on transit quite appropriately. ften directed at mass transit and questioned to what what extent it is the excuse.


onrs have been a problem in almost all transit systems, causing serious losses in nnual revenue lost to fare evasion can easily amount to millions of dollars atly affect the overall operating budget of the system.

ommon forms of fare evasion with honour-based systems of payment (e.g. clude simply not purchasing a ticket, posting insufficient fare, using fare

legal round trips, presenting expired fare media, and presenting fraud or fare media.10 However, a number of these methods are also common to bus well.

Transit systems, like the cities theyunattainable in metropolitan areas nities. Stations absorb surroundingWhere people from different walks experience cross paths, there will apractitioner summed up the issue oHe challenged the finger pointing oextent transit is the problem, and to


limits the potential for surveillance by onlookers. The lack of lighting or lighting has been seen by police and criminologists to be a contributing factor d crime rates. Also, the level of police authorities and activities directly affects re is no authority present then the opportunity for crime is much greater.

ide facilities were seen as extremely problematic on every system. Response emic ranges from none, (it is not the responsibility of the rail system), to parking attendants. A representative from one system feels it may be to charge for parking in order to fund an attendant to reduce the theft problems.

mmendations for a reduction of incidents in commuter lots include:

ts placed in areas easily seen by surrounding buildings and houses

ts

tation to allow informal surveillance from the street

ays intersecting the lot

ts and patrols are definitely desirable though costly

D, park and ride lots are characterized by large, ground level lots. According t al. (1996), these commuter parking lots were seen as crime ridden.

patrols and lighting levels enhanced the security and surveillance potential, d to reduce incidents and fear during the period of increased patrol.9

In those systems where controlled eliminated. Methods include turnstpaying less than the full amount. Tuas it is a good indicator of deep-seathere is little control over lawbreakeproblems with fare evasion. In LonYork, it was the use of slugs, turnstsqueezes through the turnstile with

Community and Employee InvolveMany transit authorities feel that thpublic in the decision-making procepartial ‘ownership’ of the sites to thand voice in the process, take prideprinciple not only reduces fear but potentially lackadaisical attitude of reporting and little tolerance of dec

This inclusion holds true for employof the project.

Summary


Rapid Tran Page 51

A detailed eprofessionapractising),supplemen

System

WashingtoWashingtonestablishedcontinues tmiles of tra

The missiooperating psystem. MeencompassWMATA feleverywhere

These by-laities are nopriority withtransit polic

The police ordinancesmilitary fasof transit coOne docum

Transit poliand motorccanine unit

r is assigned on foot to patrol 3+ stations including and trains. In addition to transit police, each station and staffed with a station attendant to monitor activ-

h is innovative architectural design. Underground and openness about them. Arches are used instead of t impede sightlines. Spacious, pleasant environments s are viewed by some as too dark). This is a relatively system, believed to be unencumbered by design ime.

Crime and incivilities are not static, therefore nor are s and engineers studied systems world wide for safety est designs at that time.


the local police departments. They are however, aggressively enforced by e with warrants being issued and followed up on.

force is comprised of 298 uniformed and plain-clothes members who enforce and regulations of both the state and transit authority. Originally run in a para-hion, it is evolving into a community policing oriented organization. The job p is a career as opposed to a job that is a stepping stone to another career goal. ent insisted that 500 people are screened for each position.

ce are organized in similar fashion to local departments with a mountain bike ycle unit, foot patrol, dedicated auto theft unit, under cover drug team and . Both transit police and other rail employees are trained in the basics of bomb

ities and provide customer service.

Coupled with their policing approacstations have high, vaulted ceilingscolumns for support, as they do noare desired (although some stationnew, functionally designed moderncharacteristics that aid and abet cr

To this system, change is the key. the prevention measures. Architectand security and incorporated the b

Learning from Othe

xamination of each system follows. Data was gathered anecdotally from ls in the area of safety and security. Police, security (management and property developers and transit officials were interviewed by telephone with tal reports, studies and statistics forwarded and examined.

by System Review

n, DC (W MATA - Washington Metro Area Transit Authority) Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) rapid transit system is a well-, well-designed transit system that has been in operation since 1952 and o add extensions to its line regularly. The system currently operates on 103 ck with 84 stations to serve the 1.5 million daily riders.

n statement of the Washington Metro system is the protection of patrons and ersonnel, protection of Metro property and of revenues generated by the tro services three different states (D.C., Maryland and Virginia) which numerous counties, each with its own set of laws and by-laws. Due to this, t the need to have standardized transit by-laws that would be enforceable in the tri-state area.

ws are fashioned after the “Broken Windows” theory and even minor incivil-t tolerated. The by-laws are strict and infractions are often not a high

detection. On average, one membeplatforms, mezzanines, parking lotsis equipped with an attendant booth

Learn


CCTV camimages areand dark spcommunicaagency (popolice dispaflashing ligh

Though traprefer the pdrivers are arrival and

gh magnetically encoded swipe cards. The smart tions’ fare-paid zones and can carry as little as one fare xit from platforms is gained without a valid card. lid card is inserted. Lost cards can be deactivated and

nd usually take the form of armed robberies. Purse s from transit in residential areas. Drug trafficking uit between three states. Undercover operations are tution is found at bus stops and not at rail stations. rly in busy stations. Loitering is a problem with youth ile patrols are made during these times and loiterers lems result as youth catch the next train or leave the

o be associated with this age group. Metro has strict damage. Authorities stay on top of the problem and etection.

de of the station but are correlated with the level of ict approach to incivilities, panhandling is tolerated ients are permitted to not only loiter, but to approach station itself. Aggressiveness is forbidden and those

tic in commuter parking lots and attention to this is a ll 40 lots and 4 garages are toll. The use by 37,200 orning and at night and patrols by transit police are in and lighting levels have recently been upgraded.

indicated that although ridership has increased, es against persons) have decreased. Fear of crime is

e's decision to ride the rail system. Perceptions of relations campaigns and visual presence of police.


te directly with the transit operator who directs the concern to the appropriate lice, fire or ambulance). Serious, life-threatening calls can go directly to the tcher. Trains are equipped with silent alarms that also trip an exterior, t on the outside of the car. Operators and police share two-way radios.

ins could be fully automated, feedback from riders has demonstrated that they resence of a driver. Though driving, stopping and starting are computerized, present to close doors, deal with emergencies and make announcements on departure.

autos funds the attendants in the mmade sporadically. Lots are fenced

Washington Metro authorities haveincidences of crime (especially crimtargeted as it weighs heavily on onsafety are promoted through public


eras are found on trains and platforms and all are monitored. However, these not recorded for investigation purposes. A concerted effort to reduce niches aces was made in the station design process. Panic alarms and telephones

Fare is dealt with in one way, throucards are purchased outside the staamount on them. No access to or eElectronic turnstiles open once a vanew cards reissued.

Crimes against persons do occur asnatching occurs primarily on pathdoes exist, as the system is a condcarried out when necessary. ProstiPickpockets are prevalent particulaat times when school is out. Juvenare asked to move along. Few probarea. Vandalism and graffiti seem tpolicies for reporting and repair of graffiti is removed within hours of d

Problems are not based on the graactivity in it. Surprisingly, with its strat the stations in Washington. Transriders providing it occurs outside thewho harass patrons are removed.

Theft from and of auto is problemasecondary yet essential function. A


Rapid Tran Page 53

Washingtonof this systecourts is docuted to thetolerance a

Environmebasic undeagencies in

and designdesign, onereduce, as local policeenced on trresources a

stems in the world, this system appears to encompass nnovative use of architectural design.

) has been in operation since 1954, with the most 5. It consists of 69 stations with a 5km expansion rvices approximately 1.2 million passengers per day,

nd is driver operated.

rime and incivilities collected by corporate security ophy of the security department is one shared by ndows” approach attempts to take a proactive stance ilities. By-laws such as smoking and loitering are t these activities lead to greater incidences of crime

legitimate users.

ty Response Unit, a team of 57 sworn, uniformed and uipped with batons, handcuffs, body armour and . Of the 57 members, 40 operate in the field. Security

ion of 10 additional members.

t of crimes and each one is dealt with on a case by able to provide a broad overview of incident statistics r accuracy of these numbers and reporting methods accordingly.

of reported crimes:

kpockets and purse snatching)

utos

passes sexual and unwanted touching)


should not be discounted. Security of stations should be professional and like gets what one pays for. Washington Metro advises other transit systems to much as possible, their expectations that security issues will be handled by departments. They stress self-reliance and point out that problems experi-ansit systems are rarely a high priority with jurisdictional police whose own re spread thin.

are unknown and should be judged

TTC reports the following numbers

• 1996 – 1,070 thefts (primarily pic

• 1996 - 436 thefts from autos

• 1997 – decline to 918 thefts

• 1997 – decline to 294 theft from a

• 1997 – 84 sexual assaults (encom

Learning from Othe

Metro authorities believe that a number of things contribute to the success m. A good reputation for extreme safety is paramount. Liaison with the ne to ensure that public violation of by-laws and fare evasions are prose- fullest extent. Warrants are actively sought by transit police. A zero

pproach is necessary to prevent little problems from becoming larger ones.

ntal criminology is important in design of station and police members have a rstanding of CPTED. Change and training are essential. Advice to other cludes good initial design of stations that deter crime and inhibit fear. Security

Rumored to be one of the safest syboth good management style and i

Toronto (TTC - Toronto Metro RailToronto Metro Rail is a system thatrecent extension completed in 199scheduled for 2004. The system seoperates on a 24-hour schedule, a

There is extensive information on cfor Toronto Metro. The basic philosNew York Subway. The “Broken Wito crime and fear by targeting incivaddressed aggressively for fear thaand to apprehension on the part of

This system is policed by Communiplain clothed special constables eqpepper foam. All are CPTED trainedhas just approved the implementat

Toronto appears to suffer the gamucase basis. Sources from TTC werethat occur on their system, howeve

Learn


There are 2transit authhave workesting opera

There havementally undealt with a

There is a gassault andmore rigoroemployee ra cost of $2database. Toffenders.

Under the upurpose of takers and counsellingcomplianceavoid interfIf such inte

Additionallyacts of hero

Station desDesignatedriders. Eacand CCTV with paraboof the needphases of s

r assistance phones that alert the driver who directs the ill be investigated at the next stop. A light flashes on

ce in order to notify security of the origin of the ther it is a medical or police emergency. Toronto s that indicated that improper use would result in as felt that many legitimate problems were never ns. Signage at these points now reads “penalty for

le on trains to educate riders on how to obtain help. on crime related issues. For this, Toronto Metro is ctly from the source and the issue is adequately ssary fear. Security audits of public perception are monstrated that women feared riding transit after crease in incidents at night and the fear is generally

al and therefore, needs to be addressed.


, there is a Corporate Recognition Program that acknowledges voluntary ism by both the public and paid employees.

ign is constantly being retrofitted with new measures to address problems. waiting areas have been designed to encourage safety and reduce fear in

h area is equipped with benches, increased lighting, emergency telephones, cameras monitored by station collectors' booths. Stations are also equipped lic mirrors to reduce blind corners. Designers and landscapers are well aware to maintain vegetation and this is never a problem. Security has input at all tation design in the review process, including landscaping.

removed warning signs from phonemonetary fine or imprisonment. It wreported due to fear of repercussiomisuse”.

Pamphlets and leaflets are availabSecurity does liaise with the mediathankful as information comes direaddressed without instilling unnecedone regularly. One recent audit de2200 hrs. Though there is not an inunfounded, the apprehension is re


3 commuter parking lots in and around some of the stations. Though the ority is not technically responsible for the safety and security of them, they d in conjunction with the local police department conducting surveillance and tions. This may account for the 33% reduction in thefts from 1996 to 1997.

been 5 incidences of people being pushed off of platforms. One suspect was stable and remained on scene. Indecent acts in washrooms also occur and are s swiftly as possible.

reat deal of youth loitering and gang related activity including robbery, theft. This occurs around stations near high schools that, in turn, are targeted usly by constables. Additionally, graffiti and vandalism is high. One TTC eports that 10,000 pieces of glass need to be replaced because of scratchiti, at million. One constable documents damage and enters this information into a his is done to enable quick removal as well as aiding in prosecution of

mbrella of Security, there is also an Operator Assault Task Force. The this group is to address assaults against employees including janitors, ticket constables. A review of the event is done with recommendations and offered. All front line workers receive security procedures training and to these guidelines is reviewed. For example, employees are instructed to ering in domestic situations due to the level of danger associated with them. rvention does occur, actions and policies are reviewed on a case by case basis.

Trains are equipped with passengecall to security where the problem wthe car that signalled the disturbanincident. It is then ascertained whe


Rapid Tran Page 55

Toronto Meuniformed pproactive s

RecommenTraining ne

Calgary (CThe Calgarstops alongservices apmately 20 h

Protective S28 uniformethe trains, bcriminal cosystem runwork out of

In 1997, 13until Augustransit authinspection

Calgary trasubject attrincidents ofongoing ba(there haveDrug dealinincidents, bPolice Serv

after school. To counter this, there is an overlap in platforms are “blitzed” with uniformed presence. ng around and compliance is the norm.

a problem as it is in most Canadian urban centres. ources are limited and vehicle safety is not the highest f Commissionaires has been utilized in an attempt to units operate 5 days a week patrolling the lots. ployees who are on disability, make up a they too, patrol the lots between 0730 and 1230 hrs.

platforms and trains and all are monitored and taped. th places and are monitored by an operator at the anced by the presence of concession stands at the

e vendors will make money, reality is that they rs attractive financial considerations to offset this in yes on the site.


nsit authorities claim few incidents of crime and incivilities, which one ibutes to enforcement and another to design. In 1998, there were 20 reported crimes against person system wide, including buses. This system deals on an sis with drunks and has few problems with panhandling and prostitution been however, some complaints of harassment of young girls by pimps). g is rarely seen or reported. Plain-clothes officers occasionally witness such ut as it is a criminal code offence any information is passed on to Calgary ice.

Learning from Othe

tro believes more funds need to be made available for a more prominent resence as well as public education. Part of the success of this system is the

tance that corporate security takes. Public awareness is paramount.

dations for other systems include investment in a highly trained team of staff. eds to encompass CPTED principles, proactive approaches and technology.

-Train)y LRT is a driver operated, above grade rail system consisting of 31 transit its route. The system was built in four phases and was completed in 1981. It proximately 91,000 passengers per day, operating a schedule of approxi-ours per day.

ervices appears to be the main form of crime prevention. This is a group of d and 4 plain clothed special transit constables whose jurisdiction includes uses and platforms. They do not have the power of arrest and cannot enforce

de infractions but ensure adherence to transit by-laws. This integrated transit s 24 hours, 7 days a week and Protective Services does the same. Members a central location and are fully mobile.

,000 summons were issued for by-law infractions. For the year of 1998, up t, 8400 summons were issued, of which 6400 were for fare evasion. This ority uses an honour system of fare collection which is supported by fare to deal with fare evasion. The penalty for violation is a $150 fine.

Loitering is a problem, particularly shifts of the transit constables and Youths are simply not allowed to ha

Theft from auto and theft of auto isTransit has done what it can but resof priorities. The Canadian Corps oalleviate the problem. Three mobileAdditionally, 20 Calgary Transit Em“Vandalism Awareness Team” and

There are over 200 cameras on theHelp phones are also present in boCCTV site. Surveillance is also enhstations. Though it is hoped that thstruggle to break even. Transit offeexchange for an additional set of e

Learn


Fear is reponot fearful oconcerns.

The terminterminatingencourages

Graffiti is mCPTED intoownership including plast stop deabuse”. Deand stainle

Communityrecommendworkshopshad pride in

All stops haniches. The

Atlanta (MAThe MARTAstations ansystem ser

As with mosecurity declothed andand have fu

pressed to be not terribly problematic for the MARTA access to platforms after tokens are purchased from

important aspect of security is the presence of e and alleviate fear. MARTA listens to its patrons’ uman, as opposed to technological, crime prevention

, there is an officer on every train.

not based on the grade of the platform. Park and ride ut are handled by the state and are not a concern of

f less importance due to the presence of uniformed with unmonitored, 24 hour recording CCTV cameras. as were not found on trains due to the presence of the oth the platforms and trains. Vegetation surrounding to inhibit any criminal activity. A lighting survey is aim of improving illumination in and around the ngineers with MARTA advising on security issues.

D training.

ost important aspect of security is to listen to the to see uniformed members doing patrols. Improve-ussed as it was deemed a management issue.

utilizes driver-operated, two-car trains on a track that st recently completed, in 1998, over 2 phases of devel- passengers daily, and operates various schedules

r system of fare collection and has both uniformed and . Fare evasion is reportedly less than 5 percent. ever, when conducting fare inspections.


RTA-Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) system in Atlanta, Georgia is a driver operated system consisting of 36

d a total of 182 miles of rail. Its last rail extension was completed in 1996. the vices approximately 107,000 passengers daily, and operates 20 hours per day.

st American systems that were reviewed, MARTA relies heavily on their partment for crime prevention. The force consists of 300 uniformed, plain special operations response teams (for acts of terrorism). Members are armed ll powers of arrest.

Portland (TRI-MET)The rapid transit system in Portlandspans 33 miles. The system was juopment. The system serves 60,000spanning 24 hours per day.

This transit system uses the honouplain clothed roving fare inspectorsDetailed sweeps are not done, how


rtedly not an issue. A survey conducted of riders showed that most riders are f riding transit yet there is a small minority who are vocal about their fear

i are the largest and most problematic of stations with both ends of the line in mixed use areas, one by a shopping mall. The transit authority, however, stops located in mixed-use areas.

inimal at Calgary transit stops. The design engineer has incorporated every facet of the stations. The subject believes that target hardening,

and surveillance are imperative. Graffiti and vandalism-resistant material, orcelain enamel panel and tiles, and textured stainless steel, was used. The signed was described as “a really classy place that deterred disrespect and

signers went the extra mile putting in decorative features such as granite walls ss steel lattice handrails.

groups were consulted and included in the design process. A budget and ations for landscaping were handed down. An urban landscaper facilitated

and discussion groups resulting in beautiful landscaping that the community and took ownership of.

ve 2 exit points, high lighting, are well maintained and have no hidden se simple features go a long way in reducing fear in users.

Fare evasion is present, though expolice. Turnstiles are used to gain vending machines.

It is believed by staff that the most uniformed members to reduce crimconcerns that indicate a desire for hmethods. Therefore, after 1500hrs

Crime rates vary by location and aresites are found at some locations bMARTA.

Design of stations appears to be omembers. Platforms are equipped It was mentioned that CCTV camerpolice. Panic alarms are found on bstations is kept low and maintainedcurrently being undertaken with thesystem. Stations are designed by ePolice members have some CPTE

In summary, it is believed that the mpatrons. In this case, riders wantedments to this system were not disc


Rapid Tran Page 57

Local policeplain clotherides the rareduces feainto an acti

The subjecother areashowever pr

Park and rispots availa“virtual shoin order to

Crimes agariders beingstops near Resistant mpossible anproblematic

Police targewith their breported ye

Fear is grepatron feardifficult to ju

The subjecriders. Usein the uppenot increasin lower so

sign of the station should have occurred. This would nt of retrofit necessary with some of the stations. Good in order to have the public on board.

ransit) transit system features 20 stations over a 20-mile The system serves approximately 40,000 passengers

atively trouble free. A representative of the transit lems to a heavy, authoritative presence. DART members carry firearms and have powers of arrest.

plain clothed members.

ugh a vending machine honour system. Fare evasion h heavy police presence cited as the cause. The fine d by removal from the train.

t persons is insignificant, prostitution and drug nt and the city enforces a zero tolerance approach to

s appears to be the most prominent issue. Another city s” approach, Dallas takes a proactive stance on immediately. Protective spray is used on surfaces to staff, there is no vandalism on trains themselves.

e park and ride facilities and with the remaining level of theft from and of vehicles. In the more 00 spots), private security conducts patrols until the returns, so do the patrols. This appears, however, to n.

y of the sites or on the trains. A transit representative ember on every train which alleviates the need for panic telephones that signal the driver on the train e. A light flashes on the top of the rail car indicating


ater amongst non-riders than riders. One staff member believes that to allay s, more money needs to be spent on visible security. The problem is that it is stify spending money on a perception versus a reality of crime.

t believes that the system is successful due to the number and composition of by choice riders (those that have a car but opt for transit) is increasing. Riders r socio-economic classes appear to choose rail over buses. The crime rate is ing with the expansion of the rail system and major problems appear to occur cio-economic neighbourhoods.

None of the downtown stations havthirteen of twenty stops, there is a problematic lots (those with over 9thefts diminish. When the problem be somewhat of a Band-Aid solutio

There are no CCTV systems at aninforms that there is a uniformed mcameras. Trains are equipped withwho in turn notifies the transit polic

Learning from Othe

are contracted specifically for the rail system. There is both uniformed and d presence. In addition, a community advocacy group, paid for by transit, il. This presence enforces transit use by legitimate users, increases safety and r. This program originated as a group of people with concerns and evolved

ve advocacy group.

t reports that crime along rails is hard to track as statistics are lumped in with . It is stated, anecdotally, that serious crime does not increase near the rail, operty crime (such as vandalism and auto-related theft) is higher.

de facilities do not exist in the inner city. The lack of car parks (there are 3800 ble) appears to be a bone of contention with riders. Reportedly, the lots are a

pping centre” for thieves and one solution may be to incorporate pay parking fund an attendant and security.

inst persons are low, though there have been a very small number of cases of followed, one murder, and a sexual assault. Loitering is a problem in the high schools. Graffiti, vandalism and scratchiti are related to that issue. aterials, such as plastic laminate on windows, are used so that removal is d less expensive. Incivilities, such as urination in elevators, are also .

t hotspots at rail stations, however Portland appears to have more problems us system than with rail. Drug trafficking at city bus stops is frequently t little, if any, is seen on the rail system.

Earlier police involvement in the dehave helped to decrease the amoucommunity relations are necessary

Dallas (DART-Dallas Area Rapid TCompleted in May 1997, this rapidtrack that spans 13 different cities. daily, operating 19 hours per day.

This system appears to be comparauthority attributes this lack of probemploys its own police force whoseThere are over 100 uniformed and

Primary method of payment is throis reported as low (% unknown) witfor fare evasion is $85 accompanie

Numbers of reported crimes againstrafficking are apparently non-existepanhandling. Loitering by teenagersubscribing to the “Broken Windowgraffiti and any damage is rectifiedensure easy removal. According to

Learn


the locationrailcars no for escape

Lighting hanecessary

A visible prsystem.

San FranciThe Bay Arrecent extelength with

This is primused as thesystem to t

The systemagency. Thon life at theto situate s

Recent expresidents. Twas overstthat he hadfewer than

BART policofficers whdirectly to Bis funded thnew station

ity was paid for by a developer who built ninety-six rea. The concern of area residents was paramount in

alent incidents along the system are property crimes. 97 through to March 1998 prompted the implemen-each station. Uniformed Community Service Atten-e areas in an attempt to reduce theft from and of auto. also serve as additional eyes on the station and increased to 3 times its original illumination levels talled. An escort program uses volunteers and paid

ir vehicles at night. The system also employs a person ers. This transit booth attendant's primary function is ment of the booth increases formal surveillance on


he amount and degree of crime was overestimated and consequently this stop affed. A recent article in one local paper quoted the Bart Police Chief saying a lot of members sitting around doing nothing and that the problems were previously anticipated.

e department is composed of 120 members who are fully sworn, armed peace ose primary function is patrolling the station. The Chief of Police reports ART general manager. Police members are paid by the transit system, which rough taxes and is widely accepted by BART district residents. Anxiety about s and attendant problems recently motivated the building of a 'zone command

Increases in incidents from May 19tation of an additional presence at dants (CSA) patrol the park and ridThrough their visible presence theyreduce fear in riders. Lighting was and emergency call boxes were inscity employees to walk riders to theto provide general assistance to ridfor information. The strategic placethe platform and stairs.


of the problem. Because of problems experienced in other cities, doors to longer stay locked at cessation of movement. The unlocking of doors allows if necessary.

s never been adjusted and has proven adequate. The only retrofitting in any of the stations was to allow access for those with disabilities.

esence is believed to be 99% of the battle with crime and incivilities for this

sco (BART-Bay Area Rapid Transit)ea Rapid Transit (BART) is a 25-year old rapid transit system that has had nsions to it within the past 4 years. The system operates on 90 miles of track 39 stations to service the 275,000 daily patrons, operating 20 hours per day.

arily an automated system with drivers present on every train. Turnstiles are primary method of fare collection. There is currently a plan to extend the

he San Francisco International Airport with 4 new stations by the year 2001.

uses people as its primary crime prevention method and has its own police e transit authority believes the most effective way to deter crime is to focus station with attention being paid to stops in mixed-use areas. It is imperative

tops in an area of residential housing, retail and light commercial.

ansion into Alomena County (eastern part of Bay area) raised fears with area

facility'. This 2500 square-foot facilunits of affordable housing in the athis decision.

It appears as though the most prev


Rapid Tran Page 59

Eighty camThe camerThe presenand wipe orun out of t

The public BART spokin police pr

Design of ndecisions aAmerican D

ndow theory and the transit authority believes that d “have teeth”. Special legislation is necessary for rail tion are desirable. Strong crime prevention and an keep riders feeling safe. The subjects believe that he success of the system.

IL)don, England is a driver-operated transit system that tions along its route. It was completed in the 1950’s engers daily, operating 21.5 hours daily.

rnstiles) and revenue collectors for payment from r believes these methods to be very effective and

wn). Double fare fines or by-law charges of 'intent to


he stations.

likes to see uniformed employees at the station to appease their fear although espeople report it is difficult to spend money on perception when an increase esence is not necessarily warranted.

ew stations attempted to address this issue. Police were involved in the design nd CPTED was incorporated. Retrofit measures were necessary as the isability Association voiced its concerns over inaccessibility and safety.

Learning from Othe

eras have been placed on the trains to prevent crime and reduce rider anxiety. as are unmonitored but tape 24 hours. Tapes are reviewed if graffiti is noted. ce of cameras deters and helps apprehend vandals. Maintenance crews report ut any graffiti within 24 hours to adhere to a strict anti-graffiti program being

BART subscribes to the Broken Wirules must be swift, enforceable ansystems and both fines and restituabsence of incivilities is needed to good public relations is the key to t

London, England (OTS PRISM RAThe OTS Prism Rail System in Lonspans 42 miles of track with 27 staand currently services 30,000 pass

This system uses ticket barriers (turiders. The Crime Prevention Officecites fare evasion as low (% unkno

Learn


defraud raion the train

This systemof arrest anpermission

Many sitescompanieson the lots.

Inebriated rand footbaltransit has

allowed, transit has designated some trains as alcohol free. This allows the apprehension of liquor and expulsion of rider from the system. Riders opting for a safer train may choose cars indicated as drink free.

Vandalism is also a concern. Seats are torn out of the train and thrown out the window. Transit has installed louver type windows so that nothing can be discarded out of the train. Scratchiti is also a problem and has yet to be addressed.

Station design includes emergency phones located on the trains and platforms. Emergency braking systems to stop the train are also available. Unmonitored CCTV cameras have been installed on the platforms with upgrades to colour cameras forthcoming. The subject mentioned that the security cameras would soon be monitored. Improved lighting was necessary to facilitate the use of the cameras.

The Crime Prevention Officer’s main concern ers versus those who rely on the system to get to and riority for leisure travellers, as it is believed that the er the increase in choice riders.

ecure system relies on the presence of a good, well is necessary to appease riders as well as to reduce

design principles in station planning and retrofit is s internationally. When new station environments are ulted and CPTED principles are applied.

Comparison

��

��

��

��

)DUH#3D\PHQHonour SysTurnstiles6WDIILQJOn all TrainIn all Statio&&79On TrainsIn StationsMonitoredRecorded&RPPXQLFDWPanic/DurePanic/Dure

-#%DVHG#RQ#DQH


whose duties include not only security but fare review as well.

employs 24 uniformed and plain clothed transportation officers with powers d armed with batons. Requests have been made for part time officers and to use pepper foam.

do have park and ride facilities nearby that are patrolled by private . Black and white cameras, that will soon be upgraded to colour, are focused

iders appear to be the biggest problem facing London transit. Groups of teens l fans cause problems and instill fear in other riders. To combat this problem, incorporated dry and drink trains. Though public consumption of alcohol is

safer the system appears, the high

The subject believes the key to a strained staff. Authoritative presencecrime and incivilities.

Findings1 The liberal application of CPTED

common among transit authoritiedesigned, transit police are cons


lways' are imposed for those neglecting to pay. There are uniformed guards seemed to be with the pleasure ridfrom work. Safety was deemed a p

of Security Features Between Systems Examined and SkyTrain

%$57&DOJ

DU\'$57/RQGRQ0$57$75,00

(777&

:0$7$6N\7

UDLQ

��

��

��

��

Wtem X X X X

X X X X X

s X X X Xns X X X X X

X X XX X X X X XX X X X

X X X XLRQVss on Trains X X X X X X Xss in Stations X X X X X X

FGRWDO#LQIRUPDWLRQ#SURYLGHG#E\#RIILFLDOV#IURP#HDFK#WUDQVLW#V\VWHP1#5HFHQW#FKDQJHV#RU#LQIRUPDWLRQ#ZLWKKHOG#LV#QRW#LQFOXGHG1


Rapid Tran Page 61

2 Fear leveelevated)these sta

3 Most trandependsthrougho

4 Applicatiosocial inc

5 The proxofficials. truancy, lare usua

6 Crimes aall transitcommonenhance

7 Communbeen a mcommunthem to e

Notes1. Taborn2. Taborn3. Hanso4. S loan -H5. Felson,

D esC ha6. G ips, 1

K elling,7 . Felson,

an tingham , 1991

rke, 1996; S t. John, 1995

been derived from Internet sources.


1998:15 1998n 1996, in Taborn 1998ow itt and K e lling , 1996

1996; G ips, 1995 ; L eo, 1996 ; N eedle, 1997; Weidner, 1996; van A ndel, 1992 ; and m ps, et a l, 1992

995; L a Vigne, 1996; L eo, 1996; P oyner, 1992b; S chu lz , 1996; S loan -H ow itt and 1996 ; and van A ndel, 1992 1996

Learning from Othe

ls related to the different station environments underground, at grade, and are significant despite the lack of variation in actual crime levels between tion types.

sit administrators indicate that, to a large degree, the safety of their system on the extensive use of highly visible and highly trained security personnel ut the transit system.

n of the Broken Windows theory is widely used to address physical and ivilities associated with problem areas at and near stations.

imity of transit stations to high schools is a common concern for most transit Problems associated with such locations usually comes in the form of oitering, graffiti, and drug trafficking. Additional law enforcement measures lly required at these locations.

t commuter parking lots are common concerns and are highly problematic for officials surveyed. Auto crime, prostitution, and liquor act offenses are on these sites. Transit officials endorse the use of CPTED design and d security patrol levels to combat these issues.

ity and employee involvement at all stages in transit system development has ajor advantage for most transit authorities. These processes empower the

ity and staff members to take part in the overall planning process and enable mbrace the security measures are implemented.

8. Poyner, 1992a; Fe lson, 19969. Schulz, 1996; B arclay et a l., 199610 . D esC ham ps, B rantingham , and B r11. G ips, 1995; Weidner, 199612 . Weidner, 1996 ; E kb lom , 1995 ; C la13 . Weidner, 199614 . Weidner, 1996 ;F elson , 199615. Photos from this Section have

Learn


Section 6:nning and Design

the most stringent adherence to CPTED design guide-t supported, adopted and maintained by the various l governments and boards, jurisdictional police and y must be applied under the correct circumstances jectives. The primary purpose of applying these

ve use of the environment to enhance the safety and is can be done naturally, using basic CPTED design er ongoing site maintenance, system staffing and initiatives, and community involvement, CPTED station environments.

en to urban fit into the community, and each station to site specific conditions and community fit. This “standardization” of design, and can weigh heavily

pt ownership of and care for the property.2 That sense vel of fear and increased ridership.

are outlined in the following section.

ire specific study on an independent basis to towards achieving effective CPTED results. Consid-g land uses, existing dynamics, and the nature of the rade, elevated or split grade. All of these factors will concepts are utilized and on the property that is

February 1999

Approaching the planning stagextremely complex, at best. Despecifically, recommended desrequires technical and budgetaTransit, municipal government

For a new system being built, ivisible staff, application of CPTnance of stations be incorpora

Physical Design EleAs identified throughout this rekey role in reducing station-levof safety. Of primary importancPrevention through Environmeforce behind station design init

CPTED (Crime Prevention ThCPTED is a form of target hardopportunity and motivation to cmaking the crime more difficultthe building phase, but can als


Washington Metro and the Pbe incorporated right from thexample of how CPTED can

principles. The following are general considerations station sites.


rough Environmental Design)ening by manipulating the environment to minimize ommit crimes by increasing the risk of being caught, or to commit.1 CPTED works best if it is implemented in o be successfully incorporated in older buildings. The

aris Metro are both excellent examples of how CPTED can e design stage, whereas Toronto’s rail is an excellent be brought into an older facility.

Site PlanningEach property or site plan will requdetermine the overall requirementseration must be given to surroundinstation type, be it underground, at ghave an impact on the way CPTEDavailable to incorporate the designto be given to the overall design of

Ideas for Station Pla

es for crime prevention at SkyTrain stations can be cisions to incorporate specific design principles and more ign guidelines, in rapid transit station environments ry agreement and support by a variety of agencies: BC

s, the community, etc.

t is recommended that a combination of technology, ED design principles, and strict rules about the mainte-ted to ensure the perceived and real safety of passengers.

mentsport, the physical design of station environments plays a el crime and plays a key role in the perception and reality e to physical design of stations is the concept of Crime ntal Design (CPTED). This principle should be a driving iatives for crime prevention.

It should be kept in mind that even lines will be minimally effective if noother agencies, including municipacommunity groups. Additionally theor they will not meet the desired obtechniques is to facilitate the positisecurity of the property. Much of thtechniques. However, without propenforcement, surrounding land usebenefits will be reduced in SkyTrain

Careful consideration should be givarea should be designed accordingconcept implies “variety” rather thanon the community’s decision to adoof ownership will result in a lower le

Detailed CPTED design guidelines

Ideas for Station Planning and Design

Page 64 Security, Safety, and Rapid Transit SRG Security Resource Group Inc.

ion Planning and Design

Rapid Tran Page 65

Site LayouOverall sitesurroundinghave a “kisintegrated bintegration the station “kiss and riDesignateditate the saexample of

Bus Loop at E

s, surveillance potential by nearby businesses should design of the site layout. Wherever possible, eyes on hese neighbouring businesses to the station areas and siness influences are not currently in place to provide l, municipal governments should be encouraged to ch encourage positive business expansion in these

area users and land users. User pathways and died and future natural pathways anticipated. otentially conflicting user groups should occur. n can define public, semi-public, semi-private and in the transit environment is the separation between sit property) and between semi-public and semi-nes). Natural spatial barriers, such as landscaping, can be effectively used to define areas of separation environments a reasonable mix of users should be ate a sense of fear when different user groups are

hese decisions should be made relative to land use ty.

m improperly designed pathways surrounding station destrian paths are often created surrounding newly travel of pedestrians to and from the stations. These nned for in advance to avoid fear and safety should be given when designing station bility (i.e. provide numerous route options). For all ropriate well-balanced lighting levels, ensure paths ning areas. Provide landscaping that does not impede atural surveillance.


Numerous safety concerns stem froenvironments. Naturally formed peconstructed stations due to naturalpaths should be anticipated and placoncerns.3 Additionally, specific careapproaches so as to avoid predictapedestrian pathways, maintain appare wide and mitigate against confisightlines or prospect, or restricts n

Ideas for Stat

t/Transportation Integration layout will depend somewhat upon the nature of the station location and the amenities that are adjacent. It is understood that many of the stations will

s and ride” associated with them. Additionally, some will also have an us loop. In order to maintain an appropriate level of passenger safety,

with other transit modes should be made easily available and located close to entrance for enhanced surveillance potential and passenger safety. Likewise, de” proximity should be adjacent to the station entrance for added safety. passenger waiting areas should also be considered for these areas, to facil-fer transfer between modes of transportation. Edmonds station is a good an efficient integration of bus loop and “kiss and ride”.

dmonds Station

When considering nearby land usebe identified and integrated into thethe street should be provided from tadjacent transit stops. If positive buthe necessary surveillance potentiaelicit development applications whiareas.

User Separation

Primarily, planners should considerfrequencies of travel should be stuWherever possible, separation of pDifferent levels of spatial separatioprivate areas. Of particular interestpublic and semi-public spaces (tranprivate spaces (station fare-paid zoelevation differences, and signage where required. Although in some considered, other environments creforced to share the same space. Tvariables that exist in the communi

User Pathways and Approaches

Ideas


Commuter

Commuter to the protestation recotheft from astation. Coproperty cridesigned spresence ocrime muchstation envfacilitate inw

hould enable effective police patrol and general access points should be kept to a minimum to reduce

ape. As with all station environments, lighting is a ety and reduction of fear, as well as reduced risk of

ld be in terms of overall design, landscaping and ey elements that should be constant throughout the tems that maintain a certain level of functional, opera-ility standards.4 As examples, these may include the

following:

• Platform characteristics

• Waste receptacles

• Lighting levels and fixtures

• Signage

• Elevators, stairs, and escalators

• Emergency services

• Fare collection devices

In general, station entrance areas should be set out with good surveillance capability from adjacent land uses. It should be ensured that surrounding land uses provide an attractive setting and invite the type of clientele that would provide capable guardianship over the area. Ideally, a service or retail outlet should be located on station property or immediately adjacent to station property.


for Station Planning and Design

Parking Lots

lots should be designed with consideration given to both personal safety and ction of passenger property. As noted in the statistical research, Scott Road rded the highest level of BC Transit-recorded incidents (i.e., theft of auto, uto). This figure is largely related to the large commuter parking lot at this

mmon occurrences in commuter lots in the GVRD are related primarily to me and other criminal code offences. Wherever possible, these lots should be uch that they can be observed from the passenger loading platforms. The f emergency phones on the platforms makes reporting of visible commuter lot more efficient. This concept can be naturally incorporated into elevated

ironments. Wherever there are adjacent nearby streets, landscaping should ard visibility by passing vehicles. Configurations of parking stalls and rows

should facilitate this visibility and ssurveillance. Vehicle and pedestrianoffenders’ perceptions of easy esccritical component for personal safincidents.

Station PlanningHowever unique each station shouaesthetics, there are a number of kentire system. These are primarily itional, safety, security and accessib


Rapid Tran Page 67

Undergrou

The undergclearly beeOne researgreater riskground statresults havsupports thenvironmenseems to b

The traditioundergrounconstructiomakes useprovides thcontrol ovecantly reduconstructiopolicies, is systems in

Additionallycommit crimconfined seperimeter wbarriers, etentrapmenover to the for escape.risks of vict

Although thenhance thdesign prinminimal us

the user. Elevators of transparent material er possible. Being able to anticipate oncoming threats e keys to reducing fear.


t of access points, it is always easier to control the ith physical security measures (e.g. CCTV cameras,

c.). Although there is clearly potential for feelings of t on the part of passengers, this feeling will also carry criminals who feel as though they have little opportunity Once again, however, research is mixed about the true imization with respect to this type of station environment.

e challenge is greater in this type of space, there is significant potential to e overall feeling of passenger safety through the effective use of CPTED ciples. Use of wide hallways, stairwells and escalator guideways with e of sharp corners throughout the underground passageways will contribute

to the overall feeling of comfort for construction should be used wherevthrough clear sightlines is one of th

Ideas for Stat

nd Stations

round station environment is one type of station that has n identified, by the public, as inducing a level of fear. cher5 found that system users actually suffer from a of victimization above ground than they do in under-ion environments. Throughout the research, however, e been mixed. Whether or not the statistical evidence e actual risk involved with these types of station t, it is critical that efforts are made to reduce the fear that

e associated with it.

nal column support or transverse beam construction for d stations has taken a sideline to column-free clear span n in recent years.6 This type of station environment of wide open spaces with limited areas of refuge and e user with broad, clear sightlines and a good sense of r the environment. This station design is said to signifi-ce fear levels. Washington, D.C. uses this type of n in spectacular fashion and, along with its strict policing deemed to be one of the most crime-free rapid transit the world.7

, it is often easier to control opportunity for criminals to e in an underground station environment. With a

Ideas for Station Planning and Design

Page 68 Security, Safety, and Rapid Transit SRG Security Resource Group Inc.


Rapid Tran Page 69

Elevated S

Elevated ststation, areaccess poinseem to haAdditionally

t. Through providing good visual sightlines and structural columns, good visual control can be

r it, wherever possible the use of transparent materials er of the station platform for good inward and outward ctive film can be used and peeled off should scratchiti

occur. As with underground stations, elevators should be clear of visual obstruction through the use of transparent materials. Clear lines of definition should be used to separate fare-paid zones from other public spaces. If psychological barriers are used, such as signage or clearly defined entrance ways, and enforcement methods are exercised to enforce these barriers, undesirable people and behaviour will be reduced.

At Grade StationsThose stations that are built at grade have different dynamics that impact upon them. These station areas, if not properly controlled through CPTED principles or physical security techniques, can invite numerous unwanted activities. As with the elevated station areas, it should be ensured that those at grade show clear definitions of fare-paid zones. However, these stations should maintain restricted numbers of access points due to the increased likelihood of influences from the surrounding area invading the space.


Ideas for Stat

tations

ation environments, although not nearly as fear inducing as the underground still segregated from street level interaction and have limited numbers of ts. The difference in reduced fear levels stems from the fact that the users

ve an increased sense of prospect than in the underground stations. , the elevation will clearly have an effect on the control that the users feel

over their surrounding environmenreducing the use of wide impedingmaintained.

Because the environment allows foshould be used around the perimetvisual surveillance capability. Prote

Ideas


Crossover the tracks, sightline disoverpass sto passeng

Finding1. Potentia

avoideaspectmal crwhen t

95


ers should they feel threatened.

sl crime issues anticipated as a result of the extension of SkyTrain can be d, to some degree, through planning and designing stations with security s integral to the design. This forward-looking action will result in mini-ime impact around the majority of the proposed new SkyTrain stations he system is fully implemented.

4. Allen, 19935. Nancy La Vigne, 19966. Allen, 19937. La Vigne, 1996

for Station Planning and Design

bridges/overpasses, where required to transfer passengers to the other side of should be designed so that they provide wide passage and have ample tances. If structurally possible and economically feasible, more than one

hould be constructed to ensure that there are adequate escape routes available

Notes1. Needle, 1997; McKay, 19962. Allen, 19933. Action Assessment Group, 19

Section 7:ns and Solutions

dings. Each neighbourhood must be looked at on an odified user schedules and patterns would react with t.

n to other social and geographic factors, that when ential for crime surrounding a given rapid transit site. s do not drive crime, there are certain combinations esult in more criminal activity.

geographic locations of criminal activities are, in ns of activity nodes, the formation of user pathways, different land use types.1 Each type of land use will

al activity within the spaces that surround them. It is zoning” areas and actual “land use” because in many area is a more general term and can be defined as an r a specific purpose, whereas land use can be seen as the land is actually being used and relates somewhat e physical and social environments.

of users, differentials in activity levels and character-s of day or night when an area becomes particularly amples of such variations in land use that may patterns may be areas defined as commercial, of these land uses will attract different types of people

February 1999

It is clear from our observationabsolute direct causal relationssuch relationship between Skysupported in any existing reseafor this study, the patterns that hypothesis that rapid transit, o

The results of this local assesscrimes in some areas of the GSkyTrain stations, not all crimeAdditionally, statistical evidencof SkyTrain has had a direct efsimilar crime patterns developcontribute to higher risk enviroplanning for station design and

Neighbourhood ImpConsiderationsA blanket prediction for crime idifficult to determine. In our asresearch conducted indicates issues experienced at differentdemographics, social cohesive


few. Buckley (1996) categoricommercial. We find this clas

imes of the day or days of the week. Commercial g most active during weekday periods, whereas parks

active during the weekend days and in the evenings d parents are home from work. In many commercial


act and Risk

mpact around any one type of station location is very sessment, there are no constants. The background significant differences in results between studies. Crime locations will vary based on land use patterns, ness, and existing crime environments – just to name a

zed stations in a two-classification system – residential and sification scheme to be too general in nature which results

being more descriptive about how more to the relationship between th

Variation can be seen in the types istics, and variations between timeactive or abandoned. Simplistic exgenerate different types of activity residential, and park spaces. Each for different purposes, at different tareas may be characterized as beinand residential areas may be morewhen children are out of school an

Conclusio

s and initial statistical analyses, that we have found no hip between transit and crime. The issues that lead to any Train and crime are extremely complex and are not rch. Although historical localized crime data was limited

develop from those that were available do not support the n its own, has generated crime increases.

ment, and research, give us clear indication that, although VRD could loosely align themselves around existing “hot spots” are located in relation to these areas. e has been inconclusive in showing us that the presence fect on rates of crime. If this were the case, we would see ing surrounding all existing stations. Factors that nments should be understood and considered when implementing crime prevention strategies.

in inconsistent and inconclusive finindividual level to determine how mthe social and physical environmen

Further consideration must be givecombined, will lend clues to the potAlthough on their own, these factorof higher-risk elements that could r

Land Use PatternsIt is important to keep in mind that many cases, shaped by the locatioand the definition of edges betweendevelop different patterns of generimportant to differentiate between “cases, these terms differ. A zoningarea that is legislated to be used fo

Concl


areas, busisurroundinguse designupon the naSimilarly, thchange, crifrom one g

Edges are use will havedges maydevelopmeedges mayuses.2 In theseparation areas that uconflict and

Existing CrCrime pattein shaping tadded. The but not neabuild on preof how thesindependen

An assessmexisting crimlished crimSkyTrain, oland use ch

pedestrian use within the area and by predicting how n of another activity node like SkyTrain, further act that such a transit node can have on individuals’

of criminal activity can cause dramatic changes in the utilize their physical environment.

aphics, housing tenure, and age distribution all contribute to ities where there are social pressures, such as poverty, levels of rental tenancy as opposed to home potential for negative impact related to low level ch as drug activity and social incivilities.

ssess these areas of higher risk and implement e impact when new SkyTrain stations are intro-

Use Intentionsects, landscape architects, and building inspectors are onment. It is well established that rapid transit spurs velopers must ensure that new zoning changes, permits are carefully reviewed and that they fit with urrounding the SkyTrain stations. These individuals

e change. If structures and land uses are designed to table, members of the community will retain control le to provide eyes on the street.

cteristics, we are able to make some relative determi-rns that would result from the addition of a rapid usions are as follows:

ts where there is no clear control over who has itory, existing crime and incivilities may be perpet- station areas.


viously established behavioral patterns. In order to understand the true extent e influence a given community, each station environment must be studied tly based on existing crime patterns.

ent of risk in a particular area must also be considered through the study of e statistics in the surrounding neighbourhood. If there is already an estab-

e problem developed within the area, it is unlikely that implementing r any single element, will mitigate against the problem, unless significant anges are implemented as well.

the overall objectives in the areas shave the power to influence positivmake passers-by feel more comforover the neighbourhood and be ab

By studying existing land use charanations about expected crime pattetransit station. Some general concl

• By placing stations in environmenownership of the surrounding terruated and simply extended to the

usions and Solutions

nesses close during the evening and night-time hours, allowing the area to be used for other purposes. As a result, these, and other, types of land

ations will present very different user dynamics that are dependent largely ture of the services and amenities that are available to the various users. ese areas will also offer different opportunities for crime. As user patterns minal opportunities may shift from one type of crime or target to another, or eographical area to another.

relative lines of definition between these different land use areas. Every land e an edge that surrounds it and separates it from another. In some cases, these be very clearly defined, such as is the case when a high-density residential nt borders an adjacent park or wooded area. In other examples, however, these be defined by major roads that cross between two different types of land se cases, the roadway may have been used as a logical dividing line for the of land use zoning areas. These edges help to define territorial areas, that is, ser groups will claim and use as their own. Territoriality can create social also generate fear.

ime/User Patternsrns and activities that pre-exist in an area play a major contributing role he nature of emerging crime patterns as new environmental influences are addition of a SkyTrain station will influence the crime dynamics of an area, rly as much as do pre-existing patterns. In most cases, new crime trends will

By studying the existing patterns ofthese might change with the additioconclusions can be drawn. The improutine activities and the geometry way in which the users of the area

Existing and/or Projected DemogrPopulation densities, income levelsthe social environment. In communhigh population densities, and highownership, there may be a greatercrimes and nuisance behaviour, su

Special care needs to be taken to amitigation strategies to reduce crimduced.

Future Zoning/Development/Land Urban planners, developers, architall key in shaping the physical envirdevelopment.3 Municipalities and dedevelopment permits, and building

onclusions and Solutions

Rapid Tran Page 73

• Too manyareas canconflict.

• Those arepositive la

ReportEnvironmetransit systHowever, athe premisebeen introdintroductionfactors thatupon crimesurrounding(CPTED) c

It is clear frsolutions toSecurity, SkTransit is jusame problis an integreffects are

The followitogether to

e to be considered by Rapid Transit Project 2000 as blic confidence and safety and security, through the rapid transit extension:

ommunity and transit employees in the design of tive that there is acceptance of the designs that are

n and that the designs of the station fit into the

d concepts (as outlined within the proposed guide-gn, as contained further in the report) into station and turally possible and economically feasible to reduce re that especially underground stations are designed cing fear.

consultant during the station design phase to partic-s and to study local environmental influences on

station area will present different user dynamics and . When there are concerns associated with station that there is further study undertaken to consider the st appropriate pro-active crime prevention measures.

aster plan is undertaken in the design process to urity systems, policies and procedures, and protocols

on the new system. This would include a detailed security systems and new technology.

st by initiating safety programs with community elop safety audits of their own community neighbour-active design of prevention measures and mitigation

aintained for security lighting levels to limit future ult with a security lighting engineer for further detail


st part of an overall urban infrastructure and, as such, is vulnerable to the ems that plague urban centres and public places the world over. Because it ated system, however, the opportunities to prevent crime and mitigate its much greater than they are in the overall urban environment.

ng are recommendations to the various groups and agencies who must work ensure a safe and security transit system.

are used in the new stations andreview and integration of existing

5 Begin to gather community interegroups that organize them to devhoods. This will assist in the pro-techniques.

6 Ensure a minimum standard is mrequired lighting upgrades. Conson standard requirements.

C

variations in user patterns and land uses along edges of planning or zoning be problematic as they bring a variety of users and user groups into potential

as with positive land uses surrounding them, or intended developments for nd uses, are likely to maintain a high degree of care and reduced fear levels.

Recommendationsntal criminology theory supports the general notion that introducing new ems into a community may have an effect on crime in that community. nalysis of statistical research of crime trends in the GVRD does not support that SkyTrain has increased crime levels in any community into which it has uced. In fact, some communities have seen a decrease in crime rates since the of the service. It should be noted, however, that transit is only one of many affect crime rates in areas. Of those factors, land use has a significant impact trends. Crime around transit nodes will often reflect the level of crime in the neighbourhood. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

an be very valuable in the mitigation and prevention of crime.

om the information collected for this report that prevention of crime and its occurrence require a concerted effort by RTPO, BC Transit, BC Transit yTrain, jurisdictional police, community groups and the community at large.

To Rapid Transit Project 2000The following recommendations armitigating measures to increase pudesign and construction of the new

1 Continue to actively involve the cstation environments. It is imperabeing put forward for constructiocommunity image.

2 Incorporate CPTED principles anlines for station and property desiproperty designs wherever structhe risk, and fear, of crime. Ensuwith the primary objective of redu

3 Retain a CPTED or Urban Crimeipate in the station design processtation safety and security. Eachshould be studied independentlylocation and crime impact, ensurerisk factors and determine the mo

4 Ensure that a detailed security mensure that the most effective sec

Concl


To BC TranOnce the nbe made byto minimizeobjectives:

1 Patrol anthe platfoities and

2 Continueother rap

3 Ensure rtolerancetions andaddress staffing).

4 Ensure thdetermincontrave

5 Provide iafternoonuse of thcoverage

6 Provide g– easy totrain outslocation owindow ocomfort l

evels are achieved and maintained at all stations his will enhance safety and comfort of passengers as cludes cleanliness of light fixtures for maximum

ting CCTV surveillance systems. BC Transit e CCTV network for security surveillance. There are

use and monitoring those cameras would require hould be a review of the operational CCTV systems rity monitoring can be integrated into the system. The ed to ensure that the most effective technology is

on of emergency duress alarm systems to include latforms. Some such emergency stations have been s, but further integration would maximize the safety

providing dedicated office space to jurisdictional ments. This office space could be used on an ad hoc ansit Special Provincial Constables.

ning and development strategies for neighbourhoods hese programs and planning processes should be tion of ideas and strategies should begin incorpo-

ent before operation begins on the new SkyTrain ould be considered and initiated prior to this time also.

ning and development permits are carefully reviewed appropriate land use considerations. If necessary, CPTED consultant or Urban Crime designer to assist oversial development applications. It would be cialist to sit on the development permit board on an


.

ood information about train frequencies for passengers (i.e. posted schedules read).5 Make use of a clear LED display showing time until arrival of the next ide the station so that approaching passengers can wait in a more visible utside the station until the train is about to arrive. This will reduce the f opportunity for offenders seeking available targets and will increase the

evel of passengers.

that are near SkyTrain stations. Tdeveloped early, and implementaration into the physical environmextensions. Land use changes sh

2 Ensure that applications for re-zoby city planning departments for consult the services of a qualifiedin the approval process for contradvisable to retain a CPTED speongoing basis.


sit/GVTA/SkyTrainew system extension becomes operational, several considerations will have to the GVTA to maintain a high level of safety and security on the system and fear. The following recommendations outline possible steps to achieve these

d attempt to maintain full territorial control of all of transit property, not just rm areas. Apply techniques of the broken window theory to remove incivil-'clean up' existing problem areas.

to ensure that station areas are regularly maintained to a high standard. Many id transit systems identified this shortfall as contributing to a fear problem.

egular fare inspections continue to be conducted and that largely a zero- attitude towards fare-evaders and non-compliance of transit station regula- rules of conduct. This will require a fare compliance cost/benefit study to technology options, and cost/benefits of alternative strategies (i.e., increasing

e riding public is familiar with the SkyTrain rules of conduct policy and e how far BC Transit Security can go in ejecting people from the system for ning the policy.

ncreased staff visibility and surveillance of stations, especially in the and at night when higher risk of incident exists.4 Consider enhancing the

e BC Transit Special Constables to provide more effective enforcement

7 Ensure that appropriate lighting lincluding common approaches. Twell as reduce fear levels. This inlighting levels.

8 Conduct a detailed review of exisSecurity does not currently use th447 CCTV cameras currently in additional, trained, staff. There sto determine how dedicated secuexisting system should be reviewbeing used.

9 Consider extending the applicatiareas other than the trains and putilized at specific station locationof system users.

10Consideration should be given topolice within new station environbasis, and shared with the BC Tr

To Municipal Governments1 Establish positive pro-active plan


Rapid Tran Page 75

3 Considerpermit apCPTED p

4 Begin coas with locommun

Working wPolicing teccrime activprograms, ments, crimbecause ofthen proact

1 Use targwould beschools b

2 Establishproximityproperty

3 Each projurisdictio

To Local P1 Use land

travelled

2 Provide cyour propfor.

s in residential areas where there are common areas irs, elevators and mailboxes. These guardians help to

in high fear areas.

at divert outsiders around your property.

h group through cooperation from local police rages neighbours to look out for one another and e neighbourhood.

or Station and Property

guidelines, not rules. Each site must be examined at a lication of these crime prevention measures. Some able; others may need to be applied in conjunction d the scope of the station site is necessary: adjacent ers must be included. Eradication of crime and incivil-rutiny of relevant factors and proper application of iour can be reduced. Key principles of CPTED and follow.

, the following points should be considered:

nto areas of concern will reduce unwanted behaviour g of safety. The eyes on the street mentality should site including stairwells, parking lots and platforms.

s or newspaper vendors are present at the station eillance onto busy or potentially isolated areas. t allow for concessions in stations.)


nal police and RTPO.

roperty Owners/Residents 6

scaping techniques to reduce opportunity for graffiti on blank walls in highly areas.

lean, well maintained and well managed grounds within public travel area on erty. Offenders will generally target properties that appear to be less cared

SurveillanceTo provide reasonable surveillance

1 Windows and other visual paths oand give legitimate users a feelinbe encouraged at all areas of the

2 If concession stands, coffee shopensure good positioning for surv(Current SkyTrain policy does no

C

the implementation of a CPTED review as a component of the building plication process to ensure that appropriate consideration has been given to rinciples in structural design.

-operative working groups with municipal departments and agencies as well cal community members and business groups to work towards positive

ity cohesiveness.

ith Policehniques and resources available in a given area will have an effect on the

ities. If there is an opportunity for proactive enforcement, crime prevention and participation in community efforts to maintain socially healthy environ-e opportunities are reduced. If police are forced into reactive policing increased demand, reduced resources, or a combination of several factors, ive opportunities to reduce crime are not nearly as effective.

eted policing techniques for potential problem station areas, or those that anticipated to consist of heavy use at specific times of day or night (i.e., high etween 3 - 4 PM).

community policing offices in neighbourhoods where visibility and close would help alleviate fear and criminal activity. Cooperative efforts with owners near stations should be pursued to facilitate this land use objective.

posed station location area should be the subject of a crime analysis by both

3 Encourage oversight by guardianfor parking garages, laundry, stareduce fear.

4 Use lighting to increase visibility

5 Encourage natural travel paths th

6 Organize a Neighbourhood Watcdepartment. This program encouprovide general surveillance of th

Proposed Guidelines fDesignThese suggestions are meant to bemicro level to ensure optimum apprecommendations will not be applicwith other measures. A look beyonland use, hours of operation and usities is impossible but with close scthese techniques, unwanted behavguidelines for their implementation

Concl


3 Platform especiall

4 Where nesurveillan

5 A varietydifferent that will i

6 Encourag

round stations decrease abandonment and increase of the station. One must be careful to balance legit-nwanted loitering.

ld not be ignored. Encouraging use in these areas will migrating here.

areas are important. Consider the following:

niches and blind corners when situating dumpsters, Large pillars will also hamper an unimpeded view and le. Where specific design cannot be avoided, install ors.

ow walkways, walls and handrails will increase sight-perative to the building.

ovide hiding spots for offenders and alcove reduction

uld not impede sightlines or surveillance.

l maintained so as not to impede sightlines. One dvises that branches should be no lower than 7 feet eet.

th consideration of those with disabilities and should perspective.

eople in designated spaces and out of restricted areas.

signs are barriers that announce that an area is not

n entire area as it increases fear and takes ownership


ceilings that are high and vaulted give a feeling of openness and safety, y in underground stations.

cessary, stations and waiting areas should be in open spaces with informal ce by surrounding areas.

of uses at stations and in adjacent areas increases the presence of people at times of the day and night. It may be necessary to restrict incompatible uses nevitably cause conflict.

e use of space as a police substation or Community Crime Prevention Office.

6 Sightlines need to be planned wibe at both a standing and sitting

TerritorialityIt may also be necessary to keep p

1 Gates, landscaping, fences and publicly accessible.

2 Where possible avoid walling off aaway from the street.


7 Street activity and eating areas aobservation livability and vitality imate use without encouraging u

8 Lanes and rears of stations shoureduce unwanted behaviour from

SightlinesUnobstructed views of surrounding

1 During initial design, avoid dark benches and vending machines. should be avoided where possibsight aids such as parabolic mirr

2 Transparent materials along narrlines when such structures are im

3 Recessed doorways may also prshould be kept in mind.

4 Posters and advertisements sho

5 Landscaping should be kept welguideline is the 7&3 rule, which aand shrubbery no higher than 3 f


Rapid Tran Page 77

3 In areas structuretaller tha

4 Elevationempower

5 Shop owthe conceimplies la

6 Maintenaproperty.

Access andThis shouldlike stations

1 Platformsexit is blostations.

2 Side-load

3 Stairs ananother.

LandscapinLandscapinhow one feLandscapinsightlines aindividuallysections, a

an be reduced with climbing plants such as ivy. Fast s the vulnerability of open walls that would otherwise

edestrian walkways to and from station may provide contraband. Species of plants should be chosen ny, low-lying shrubs can help.

ility of an environment. Community groups and to participate in this aspect of design. This inclusion wnership of the area and ensures the station fits in

f

t

t

e y


gg plays an important role in interpretation of the environment, and influences els in a particular setting. Its impact can be either positive or negative. g defines different spaces. It can create barriers, induce fear by impeding nd be used as a screen for illegal activities. Each station must be looked at to determine how vegetation will affect it. Though touched on in other dditional things to keep in mind include:

unrestricted sightlines need to beexamined.

2 Paving materials can be used todiscourage use of an area. For example, unit pavers with a roughsurface and bevelled edges makit difficult to skateboard and rollerblade but may also impede use bpeople with disabilities.

C

where loitering will be discouraged, such as around stations near schools, s can be designed to make sitting uncomfortable. Planters for example, can be n waist height, have sloping or in extreme circumstances, jagged tops.

of certain areas (designated waiting area for example) give users a sense of ment over the environment and increase feelings of safety.

ners should be encouraged to view some of the space as theirs as it increases pt of ownership of the area. Abandoned or unclaimed “no man's land” ck of caring and draws vandals.

nce is of paramount concern in reducing fear and discouraging damage to Vandalism and graffiti should be removed as soon as detected.

Egress be approached carefully with both safety and fare evasion in mind. Fortress- will increase fear and can hamper safe exit in case of an emergency.

should have at least two exits. Riders should not be trapped if one entrance/cked. Feelings of entrapment are especially prevalent in underground

ing platform stations need to ensure the widest waiting area possible.

d walkways should also be as wide as possible to allow people to pass one

1 Graffiti on the sides of stations cgrowing and adaptable, it reducebe havens for vandalism.

2 Large, overgrown hedges along phiding spots for both people andcarefully to reduce this risk. Thor

3 Landscaping increases the livabresidents should be encouragedin the design process promotes owell with the community.

PathwaysPathways control the movements opeople and should be designed carefully. Predictable pedestrian routes can increase crimes againspersons. Limited options increase fear and potential for victimization.

1 Special consideration should be given to routes that will be used anight; lighting, multiple exits, and

Concl


3 Becausepreferabl

LightingAdequate lcrime. Theslighting levetheir use anan area as that lighting

1 Lightingnumeroulights.

2 Fixtures

3 Sidewalklighting.

CommuterIn many jurincidence owhere com

1 Parking l

2 Lots shouegress aMultiple e

3 Vegetatio

4 Overhearesearchpolice or

consideration to neighbours) to reduce shadows in oes not necessarily reduce thefts in parking lots (as t and increased lighting allows the thief to see what

e fear among legitimate users.

atrols of lots are encouraged. Cooperation between d community volunteers will create programs that .

latforms that overlook commuter lots will encourage ort such crime.

extra effort and cost to use materials that will reduce hould an area become damaged.

windows should scratchiti occur.

aterials are available for walls, railings, trains,

d spray paint marking difficult.

y owned by other agencies (BC Tel, Hydro, The Sun d to them as soon as possible to ensure repair.

vertical landscaping, murals or artwork.

amage done by skateboarding. Long continuous victims of “skateboard rash”. Jagged designs or a to reduce this problem.

loitering should be avoided.

V, panic telephones and buttons may be necessary at carefully scrutinized to ensure that the best d that placement is optimal.


muter lots are necessary, a combination of strategies may be needed:

ots should be placed in areas seen by surrounding buildings and houses.

ld be fenced to decrease foot traffic through parking lots. Easy access and llows potential offenders to “scope out” the number of targets available. xit points also increase susceptibility to crime.

n around lots should be kept low to increase surveillance by passers-by.

d pedestrian walkways should not be situated overtop of parking lots as has shown that thieves use this ability to alert others to oncoming security, car owners.

5 Blank areas can be covered with

6 Proper design can also reduce dplanters and handrails are often variety of materials can be used

7 Avoid canopying an area where

8 Security technology such as CCTsome stations. Each site must betechnology for the site is used an


different groups of people are using the same space, a choice of pathways is e. This choice reduces conflict and fear among the more vulnerable groups.

ighting can be successful in reducing fear of crime and some types of actual e levels will vary depending on the environment and their application. Both ls and distribution should be appropriate for the operational requirements of d the area they are monitoring. One must be extremely careful with lighting

it may actually increase certain types of crime. It is important to keep in mind may promote a false feeling of security.

should be kept as even as possible and should not cast shadows. The use of s low wattage lights prevents shadow casting better than a few high wattage

must be protected against tampering.

s and pedestrian pathways should be lit with pedestrian, versus street level,

Parking Lotsisdictions, Park and Ride facilities are extremely challenging due to the high f theft from and theft of autos. To help reduce the numbers of calls for service

5 Illumination should be high (withlots. Though increased lighting dmost crimes occur during daylighhe or she is doing) it does reduc

6 Parking attendants and regular pBC Transit, local police, ICBC anwill reduce this problematic area

7 Locating 911 phones on station psystem users to immediately rep

Target HardeningIn certain areas it may be worth thethe time and cost of replacement s

1 Protective film can be peeled off

2 Graffiti resistant paint and other mgarbage cans etc.

3 Rough surfaces make felt pen an

4 Damage or vandalism to propertand Province) should be reporte


Rapid Tran Page 79

9 Warning worded cfeature fo

In addition of staff canthe importasuccess of

Future Throughouvaluable tofollowing id

1 More effements, e

2 A time-sestation is

3 A speciamethodsrelated to

4 Cost-ben

5 Cost-ben

6 A speciaundesirasurroundjurisdictioto calls fo

, 1993, 1993her and Hirschman, 1993; Goodale, 1998

1996


efit analysis of additional uniformed personnel at stations and on cars

efit analysis of continual monitoring of CCTV system

l study on the enforcement of provincial and federal statues related to ble and illegal behavior on the SkyTrain cars, the station platforms, and ing property should be considered. Policing on a system that crosses several nal boundaries should remain consistent. Variances in differential response r service or threshold levels in investigations can adversely affect the system.

C

signs prohibiting misuse of emergency telephones and buttons should be arefully so as not to deter legitimate use. Some riders hesitate to use this r fear that they will be prosecuted.

to these design recommendations, proper maintenance of the site and training not be emphasized enough. An understanding of key concepts of CPTED and nce of maintenance and enforcement of transit rules is imperative to the crime and fear reduction.

Study Suggestionst the study process, areas were identified where further study would be the implementation of specific recommendations or considerations. The entifies recommended areas of future research:

ctive and consistent statistical data collection methods by police depart-specially to maintain consistencies between jurisdictions

ries analysis study would be useful to understand crime impact when a new built.

l study related to ticket barriers and turnstiles, fare collection and/or payment , and fare evasion should be conducted to provide a cost-benefit analysis the SkyTrain system.

Notes1. Brantingham and Brantingham2. Brantingham and Brantingham3. Egby, 1989; Callow, 1992; Puc4. Clarke et al., 19965. Clarke et al., 19966. Primary source: Brantingham,

Concl


References

ed). “Manual on Crime and Safety in the Urban r Ministry of the Attorney General, British

gham (1991). “Notes on the geometry of crime.” In tingham, P.L. (eds.), Environmental Criminology,

s, Illinois: Waveland Press.

gham. (1993). “Nodes, Paths and Edges: Consider-f Crime and Physical Environment.” Journal of 3(1): 3-28.

.J., and P.S. Wong (1991). “How public transit feeds Vancouver ‘SkyTrain’ experience.” Security

d Crime: A Routine Activities/Ecological Simon Fraser University.

sit Terrorism.” Mass Transit, Nov-Dec: 50.

d Screens Help Reduce Crime.” American City &

K.A. Stevenson. (1992) “Exact Fare on Buses,” on: Successful Case Studies. Ronald Clarke editor. ston, Publishers.

on Northwest Light Rail Transit. Prepared by

February 1999

Primary ReferencesAction Assessment Group Inc.

Environmental DesignAssessment Group In

Allan, S. (1993). “A Primer for

Arko, R.L. (1992). “Contract SeManagement, July: 26-

B.C. Transit (1992). Public Meetwith Disabilities. VancoTransit Department.

B.C. Transit Safer City Task FoVancouver: B.C. Trans

B.C. Transit Safer City Task FoTransit.

Barclay, P., Buckley, J., Brantin“Preventing Auto ThefBike Patrol.” Crime PreWillow Tree Press Inc

Batiste, F. (1991). “Invasion of

Baxter, T. (1996). “Mitigating A


Community Perspec

Block, R. and S. Davis. (199Street Crime or JusRonald Clarke edito

Ltd. Calgary.

d Corridor Transportation and Land Use Study. stems Management International. Coquitlam.


gham, P.J., Brantingham, P.L., and T. Whin-Yates. t in Suburban Vancouver Commuter Lots: Effects of A vention Studies v.6. Ronald Clarke editor. New York:

.

the Vandals.” Mass Transit, March: 50-51.

dverse Social Impacts of Light Rail Transit A tive.” Plan Canada, September: 28-33.

6). “The Environs of Rapid Transit Stations: A Focus for t Another Risky Place?” Crime Prevention Studies v.6. r. New York: Willow Tree Press Inc.

Caylor, P. (1998). “Translucent WinCounty. March: 16.

Chaiken, J.M., Lawless, M.W., andSituational Crime PreventiNew York: Harrow and He

City of Calgary (1988). Final Report Townframe Urban Design

City of Coquitlam (1994). North RoaPrepared by Resource Sy

(1995). Collingwood Village: Crime Prevention Through Review for Phase 2 & 3. Port Moody, Action c.

Station Design,” Railway Age, March: 37-41.

curity Rolls in to the Transit Industry.” Security 31.

ings Report: Accessible Transit Services for People uver: Planning and Marketing Division, Accessible

rce Committee (1994) (a). SkyTrain Station Safety Audit. it.

rce Committee (1994) (b). Draft report. Vancouver: B.C.

Brantingham, P.L. (1996, unpublishEnvironment”, Prepared foColumbia.

Brantingham, P.L. and P.J. BrantinBrantingham P.J. and Branpp 27-54, Prospect Height

Brantingham, P.L. and P.J. Brantinations on the Complexity oEnvironmental Psychology 1

Brantingham, P.L., Brantingham, Pprivate crime: notes on theJournal. 1:175-181.

Buckley, J. (1996). Public Transit anApproach. Masters Thesis,

Burke, L. (1997). “Combatting Tran

Refere


City of NortPrNo

City of ToroAv

Clarke, R.V24

Clarke, R.VNe

Clarke, R.VCrPr

Clarke, R.VTePrInc

(1996). “Co

DeschampTraStu

DeschampPa

(1992) “Dri17

Egby, B. (1

Ekblom, P.

Fattah, E. (

ice of Safety & Security. (1998). “Transit http:// www.fta.dot.gov/library/program/tsn8.html

ice of Safety & Security (1998). “Transit ttp:// www.fta.dot.gov/fta/library/safety-security/

6). Planning, Developing, and Implementing sit. Office of Planning, Federal Transit Adminis-

es and Crime Prevention in the Developing 5(4): 911-931.

ell, G.S., Fried, C.L., Grofik, K.C., Mazur, I.S., P.J., Ullman, A.L., and L.M. Williams. (1996) ting Crime and Disorder at The Port Authority Bus n Studies v.6. Ronald Clarke editor. New York:

use, Here Comes the Train.” US News &World

Business Area is Hurting: Crime, Fear of Crime and rime & Delinquency. 37: 363-373.

t.” Security Management. April: 10.

it Station Becomes a Cultural Oasis.” Urban Land.

Enhance U-Bahn Security.” Railway Gazette Inter-

n Planning: as if the neighbourhood mattered. A edar Cottage Neighbourhood Association. Ministry ment, Province of BC: Vancouver.

992). “A Summary of an ITE Informational Report s on Land Use.” ITE Journal, Jan: 37-39.


s, S. (1993). “Operational Safeguard: BC Transit’s Review of Employee & ssenger Safety and Security.” Draft Report. Vancouver: BC Transit.

verless Metros: Wave of the Future or Expensive Toy?” UTI, May-June: 12-.

989). “A Catalyst for Development.” BC Transit SkyTrain. April.

(1995). “Less Crime, By Design.” The Annals. 539: 114-129.

1989). Crime and Victimization of the Elderly. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Goodale, D. (1998). “A Metro TransJan: 21-23.

Haase, H. (1993). “Automation willnational, Oct: 700-702.

Hurmuses, A.D. (1997). TransportatioReport prepared for the Cof Employment and Invest

ITE Technical Committee 6Y-38. (1Impacts of Transit Facilitie

nces

h Vancouver (1997). Building to Reduce Crime: Guidelines for Crime evention Through Environmental Design. Prepared by Melanie D. Tennant. rth Vancouver: City of North Vancouver.

nto (1998). “The Toronto Transit Commission on Safety and Security.” ailable: http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/ttc/safety.htm.

. (1984). “Opportunity-Based Crime Rates.” British Journal of Criminology. (1): 74-81.

. (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, w York: Harrow and Heston.

. (1996). “Editorial Introduction: Crime and the Economics of Mass Transit.” ime Prevention Studies v.6. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Willow Tree ess Inc.

., Belanger, M., and J.A. Eastman (1996). “Where Angel Fears to Tread: A st in the New York City Subway of Robbery/Density Hypothesis.” Crime evention Studies v.6. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Willow Tree Press .

ntrolling Trains for Safety.” Mass Transit, July-August: 92-95.

s, S., Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. (1992) “The British Columbia nsit Fare Evasion Audit.” Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case dies. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Harrow and Heston, Publishers.

Federal Transit Administration, OffNewsletter.” 8. Available:

Federal Transit Administration, OffNewsletter.” 3. Available: hsspp.html

Federal Transit Administration (199Community-Sensitive Trantration.

Felson, M. (1987). “Routine ActivitiMetropolis.” Criminology. 2

Felson, M., Belanger, M.E., CampbO’Regan, A.B., Sweeney, “Redesigning Hell: PrevenTerminal.” Crime PreventioWillow Tree Press Inc.

Ferguson, G. (1994). “Lock the HoReport. Aug: 18.

Fisher, B. (1991). “A NeighborhoodDisorders Take Their Toll.”C

Gips, M. (1995). “Security Spotligh

References

Rapid Tran Page 83

Jensen, S.

Kelling, G. cri

Kennedy, LVic

Kennedy, MCaSc

La Vigne, NCrPr

Leo, J. (199

Levine, N., me

Loewen, L.Ur

LouderbackAu

Mancini, A.Tra

McKay, T. (Ap

Morris, C. (Atl

Myhre, M.LMeNe

ot Spots’ of Fear and Crime: A Multi-Method Inves-nmental Psychology. 13: 187-206

). “Synthesis of Transit Practice 21 Improving Transit esearch Board. Washington D.C.: National

e of the Law.” Mass Transit. March-April: 68.

ransit: Serving A Unique Community.” Available: 71.htm.

igger Bite out of Crime.” Mass Transit. November-

ransit.” Mass Transit. March: 18-20.

atch Over Mass Transit.” Security Management.

Crime in Suburban Areas.” Journal of Urban

d the Streetcar Revival.” American Heritage, May-

rime Prevention in Two Parking Facilities.” Situa-uccessful Case Studies. Ronald Clarke editor. New Publishers.

ras and Bus Vandalism.” Situational Crime se Studies. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Harrow

). ath to Balanced Transportation: Expand Public d Require Auto Users to Pay the Full Social,

mic Costs of Driving. U.S.A.

ansit Crime the Old Fashion Way.” Mass Transit. .


nsportation Quarterly. 41(4): 539-554.

1996). “The Right Design for Reducing Crime.” Security Architecture. ril: 31-37.

1991). “Heroin Smugglers View Metro Area as High-Growth Market.” anta Business Chronicle. March: 1A, 22A.

. and F. Rosso. (1997). “Designing For Security in Meteor: A Projected New tro Line In Paris.” Crime Prevention Studies v.6. Ronald Clarke editor. w York: Willow Tree Press Inc.

York: Harrow and Heston,

Poyner, B. (1992) (b). “Video CamePrevention: Successful Caand Heston, Publishers.

Pucher, J. and I. Hirschman. (1993PTransportation Services anEnvironmental and Econo

(1998) “San Francisco Reduces TrSeptember-October: 41-45

(1996). Broadway Station Area Crime and Safety Review. (unpublished).

and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring order and reducing me in our communities. New York: The Free Press.

.W. and D.R. Forde (1990). “Routine Activities and Crime: An Analysis of timization in Canada.” Criminology. 28(1): 137-151.

. and (1996, unpublished). Routine Activities and the Geometry of Crime: A se Study of Neighbourhood Pub Site Selection. Simon Fraser University hool of Criminology.

.G. (1996). “Safe Transport: Security by Design on the Washington Metro.” ime Prevention Studies v.6. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Willow Tree ess Inc.

6). “You Might Even want to live There.” US News &World Report, Nov: 19.

Wachs, M., and E. Shirazi. (1986). “Crime at Bus Stops: A Study of Environ-ntal factors.” Journal of Architect Plan Res. 3:339-361.

J., Steel, G.D., and P. Suefeld. (1993) “Perceived Safety From Crime in The ban Environment.” Journal of Environmental Psychology. 13(4): 323-331.

, J. (1995) “D.C. Lays down the Law on Subway Crime.” Mass Transit, July-gust: 56-60.

and R. Jain. (1987). “Commuter Parking Lots - Vandalism and Deterrence.”

Nasar, J.L. and B. Fisher (1993). “‘Htigation.” Journal of Enviro

Needle, J.A. and R.M. Cobb. (1997Security.” Transportation RAcademy Press.

Nelson, K. (1995). “Stop In the Nam

Nelson, K. (1998). “Policing Mass Thttp://www.fbi.gov/leb/ jan9

(1995). “New Technology takes a BDecember: 32-42, 98.

O’Connor, R. (1991) “Terrorism in T

O’Mahoney, T. (1990). “Keeping WJanuary: 50-54.

Poister, T. (1996). “Transit-RelatedAffairs, 18(1): 63-75.

Post, R.C. (1998). “The Myth BehinJune: 95-100.

Poyner, B. (1992) (a). “Situational Ctional Crime Prevention: S

Refere


Schulz, D.MCrPr

Schulz, D.M59

Shepard, L29

Simanaitis,&T

Sloan-HowUpCaPu

Souter, G. for

Stern, J.D. Ja

Surette, R.Co

(1998). Titlww

van Andel, Pran

Vancouver TraVa

Vantuono, WMa

ening at A New York City Subway Station: t What Price.” Crime Prevention Studies v.6. Ronald illow Tree Press Inc.

ecker (1995). “Criminal Expertise and Offender rimental Study of the Target Selection Process in al of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 32(1)

ferences7, The Linkman Press, Surrey, BC. ISBN: 1-896846-

ogy" 1986, Windsor Publications. ISBN: 0-89781-

of Greater Vancouver’s Transportation Situation" ver Regional District.

ystem Summary Statistics 1977 - 1991" 1992, Police of Attorney General, Province of British Columbia.

tics 1987 - 1996" 1997, Police Services Division, al, Province of British Columbia. ISBN: 1198-

icipalities: Selected Crime Categories; 1991 - 1997" sion, Ministry of Attorney General, Province of

ily, and Labour Force Data Census of Canada, 1976"

usehold, and Census Family Characteristics, for tatistics Canada.


e IV. Violence Against Women Section 40131-40211. Available at: http://w.vera.org/pub/crimebill/title4b.html.

H. (1992). “The Care of Public Transit in the Netherlands.” Situational Crime evention: Successful Case Studies. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Harrow d Heston, Publishers.

Safer City Task Force (1992). “Safety Steps for Transit”: The Report of the nsit Safety Audit Pilot Project. Prepared by Carla Hotel. Vancouver: City of

ncouver.

.C. (1997). “Public Transit Crime Prevention, By the Book.” Railway Age. rch: 16.

Ministry of Attorney Gener9971.

"Vancouver and Fraser Valley Mun1998, Police Services DiviBritish Columbia.

"General Population, Housing, FamStatistics Canada.

"Selected Population, Dwelling, HoCensus Divisions, 1981" S

nces

. (1996). “Strategies for Combining Community Crime Prevention with ime Prevention Through Environmental Design: The Transit Experience.” esented in Vancouver, March 3, April 3.

. (1997). “Private Security Comes on Board.” Security Management. April: -65.

. (1994) “Swiss Metro/Swiss Rail 2000 Projects.” Mass Transit. May-June: -32.

D. (1994). “The Three Great Subterranean Transportation Systems.” Road rack. 98-106.

itt, M. and G.L. Kelling. (1992). “Subway Graffiti in New York City: ‘Gettin ’ vs. ‘Meanin it and Cleanin it’.” Situational Crime Prevention: Successful se Studies. Ronald Clarke editor. New York: Harrow and Heston, blishers.

and M. Kielmas. (1995). “Subway Gas Attack in Tokyo Serves as a Warning Others.” Business Insurance. March: 19.

(1998). “Dallas Transit Station Prompts Mixed Use Project.” Urban Land. n.St. John, W. (1995). “Tokenisms.” The New Yorker. October 9: 33.

(1992). Media, Crime, and Criminal Justice. Belmont, California: Brooks/les.

Weidner, R.R. (1996). “Target HardDecreased Fare Evasion aClarke editor. New York: W

Wright, R., Logie, R.H., and S.H. DDecision making: An ExpeResidential Burglary.” Journ39-53.

Statisitical Analysis Re"The Greater Vancouver Book" 199

00-9.

"Vancouver: An Illustrated Chronol176-3.

"The Journey to Work: An Overview1982, The Greater Vancou

"Police Management Information SServices Branch, Ministry ISBN: 0840-8033.

"Police and Crime Summary Statis

References

Rapid Tran Page 85

"Selected PSoSt

"Selected PSoPo

"Selected Cpo

"Selected C20

"Selected CCe

"A GraphicSt

"Public TraBa

"How PubliExVo

"Greater VaHu

"Greater VaGr

"PreventingPaBr

"BC TransitCo

"Safer City


ncouver rapid Transit Retail and Commercial Baseline Study" 1998, Harris dema Consulting Group Limited.

ncouver’s Land Use: 1979 - 1996" 1997, Strategic Planning Department, eater Vancouver Regional District.

Auto Theft in Suburban Vancouver Commuter Lots: Effects of a Bike trol" Paul Barclay, Jennifer Buckley, Paul J. Brantingham, Patricia L. antingham, and Terry Whinn-Yates. Simon Fraser University.

Safer City Task Force Committee Draft Report" 1994, Safer City Task Force mmittee.

Task Force Final Report" 1993, City of Vancouver.

opulation, Dwelling, Household and Family Distribution, Showing Selected cial and Economic Characteristics, for Census Sub Divisions, 1981" atistics Canada.

opulation, Dwelling, Household and Family Distribution, Showing Selected cial and Economic Characteristics, for Census Sub Divisions of 5,000 pulation and Over, 1981" Statistics Canada.

haracteristics for Component Census Subdivisions of the Census Metro-litan Area, 1986 Census - 20% Sample Data" Statistics Canada.

haracteristics for Census Divisions and Census Subdivisions, 1991 Census - % Sample Data" Statistics Canada.

haracteristics for Component Census Subdivisions of the Census-tracted ntre, 1991 Census - 20% Sample Data" Statistics Canada.

al Overview of Crime and the Administration of Criminal Justice in Canada" atistics Canada - Cat No. 85F0018XPE.

nsit and Crime: A Routine Activities/Ecological Approach" 1996, Jennifer rbara Buckley. Simon Fraser University

c Transit Feeds Private Crime: Notes on the Vancouver "SkyTrain" perience" 1991, Brantingham, Brantingham, and Wong. Security Journal l. 2, No. 2.

Refere

nces

pen House Noteslated Concerns and Comments

re concerns

by apartments

e area

d crime in area

e and potential increases in crime surrounding

ep commerce viable at Broadway and Commercial

gment 7 – Open House #2

February 1999

The following notations represby Open House attendees to Sto date. These thoughts and idResource Group Inc. or its conbrought forward for our consid

Vancouver - SegmeVCC to Highway 1Monday, September 28, 19984:00pm – 8:00pmItalian Cultural Centre (Grandview a

Commercial & Broadway1 Reduce harassment in statio

2 Walkway from one line to thepedestrians

3 Crime prevention office shoustation areas

4 Groups hanging around the

5 There are no consumer serv

- Must be people-friendly


- Earls/Red Robin-style 6 B & E’s will increase in the


ld be on site – also a request for an attendant to patrol the

station feed the perception of crime.

ices available in the area (i.e. Coffee shops, etc.)

restaurant might be good. residential areas

1 General concerns regarding crimstations

2 How can rent be kept down to ke

New Westminster - SeWoodlands to BraidWednesday, September 30, 19984:00pm – 8:00pmKeary Centre

Appendix A - OSecurity/Crime-Re

ent a sample of common concerns and queries presented RG consultants at various Open Houses we have attended eas in no way represent the opinions of SRG Security sultants. They are strictly comments that have been eration.

nt 1 - Open House #1

nd Slocan)

n areas

other must have shops and other attractors that draw

Clark/Glen Drive – VCC Station1 Panhandlers and drug needles a

2 Crime in the area brings anger

3 VCC surrounded on three sides

- There is a lot of car theft in th

Nanaimo Station1 General concern about safety an

Grandview station1 General concern over crime

Overall

Appen


General1 Some re

vandalism

2 Visually i

3 Crime annot theregeneral f

4 Designatlance of b

5 Public wo

6 Look at imstations.

7 Concern

8 Above gr

Woodlands1 Concern

McBride

2 There waarea – thWoodlan

3 Requests

Sapperton 1 Security

obstruction, noise, and property values than about

ench or elevated options for reduced impact on view, le way along Fraserview is preferred to some tunnel,

id Street station option because they felt that there was that it would just create a desolate stations that will

gment 7 – Open House #3

e Concernsause of safety concerns

n public areas and the train platforms to reduce ate legitimate users from outside influences.

mmunity, what is the RTPO going to do about issues g areas such as pedestrian pathways.

Optionsnger ramp from the street to the platform at the Keary

CTV monitoring in place on the ramp to enhance


is may cause a fear and safety concerns if residents are forced to walk to ds station.

for police action such as foot patrol, bike patrol, and vehicle enforcement.

– Braid Sectorconcerns surrounding proximity of local daycare to the Sapperton Station.

3 If we are building a station in a cosuch as lighting in the surroundin

Crime Concerns relating to Route 1 If there is going to be a long passe

Street station, there should be Csafety of passengers.

dix A - Open House Notes

sidents felt that open enclosures below grade (trenches) would attract inside them.

mpaired and handicapped access to stations should be considered for safety

d safety concerns were expressed about underground stations and whether or was more potential for crime here or in above ground stations. There is a eeling that these stations are more isolated and vulnerable.

ed waiting areas for stations near the bus-loops are desired with better surveil-us loops near these stations (e.g. New West Station).

uld like to see graphic examples of security approaches

plementing community police offices or administrative offices within the

about spill-over activity from Columbia and New West Stations.

ound stations are preferred for safety reasons.

– Fraserview Sector expressed that the presence of SkyTrain would cause the area between and Richmond Street to become “ghetto-ized” and run-down.

s word that the local bus service may be discontinued to Richmond Street

Overall1 More concern surrounding view

crime concerns.

2 Tunnel was widely preferred to trnoise, and crime. Tunnel the whosome trench.

3 Most attendees were against Branot the ridership to support it andattract criminal opportunity.

New Westminster - SeWoodlands to BraidTuesday, October 27, 19984:00pm – 8:00pmCentennial Lodge – Queens Park

General Security, Safety, and Crim1 Will not ride the train at night bec

2 Barriers should be added betweepotential fare evasion and separ

ix A - Open House Notes

Rapid Tran Page 89

Overall Imp1 There ap

was abou

2 People w

CoquitlLougheed MaThursday, Oc4:00pm – 8:0Alderson Ele

General Se1 Opinions

2 Several cSkyTrain

3 Feeling tin this pro

- One mabout

4 ContinuaResident

5 Concern Protectioon this to

Crime Con1 Question

Woolridgjust caus

0pm, and throughout the evening, there will be no nd that the surrounding areas will suffer from ially at Tupper/Woolridge locations).

n about an existing presence of drug activity on Blue Mountain and are concerned that this problem ere.

e Tupper station after certain evening hours to reduce

become a parking lot for SkyTrain users.

and thoughts presented at previous open houses were ards.

onsult process was a smoke screen and that the ring the feelings of residents.

igh on the agenda of attendees, however it seemed as dowed by the opinions that the interests of the red by the RTPO or the Provincial Government.

here was no station planned for Lougheed Hwy. They residents, the better.

need for a station along Lougheed however for

6 – Open House #3


s are insistent upon the fact the crime will increase in the residential areas.

about proximity of stations to schools was a repeated topic of discussion. n of the children was of prime importance. Further research should be done pic area.

cerns relating to Route Optionss were brought forth as to the purpose of a station in the area of Tupper/e. Some feel that there is no ridership to support this station and that it will e problems.

- A few residents expressed a better access.

Coquitlam – SegmentBraid to Lougheed MallWednesday, October 29, 19984:00pm – 8:00pmAlderson Elementary School

Append

ressionspeared to be more concern still about view obstruction and noise than there t crime issues.

ere offering constructive solutions rather than just presenting problems.

am – Segment 6 – Open House #2ll to Braidtober 1, 19980pmmentary School

curity, Safety, and Crime Concerns were strong that crime will increase in station areas.

oncerns were expressed about loitering and littering in and around the stations.

hat policing issues and the quality of life for residents is not being considered cess.

ember of the community admitted that there appears to be a lot of anger policing, but little of it is to do with SkyTrain.l concerns relating to crime increases in residential areas were fielded.

2 General consensus that after 6:0legitimate users at the stations aincreased property crime (espec

3 One individual expressed concerTupper and Sherwood just off of will skyrocket if a station goes th

4 Recommendation to shut down thcrime potential.

5 Concern that Tupper Avenue will

Overall Impressions1 Attendees complained that ideas

not being displayed on criteria bo

2 Many people felt that the public cRTPO has no interest in conside

3 Crime concerns were relatively hthough this concern was oversharesidents were not being conside

4 Most residents were happy that tfelt that the further away from the

Appen


General Se1 Concern

SkyTrain

Crime Con1 Preferred

issues be

Overall Imp1 People a

CoquitlOpen HLougheed MaTuesday, Oct4:00pm – 8:0Gleneagle Se

General Se1 Widespre

that say tSkyTrain

2 Public arRapid Tr

3 Attendeewill resultpossibilit

4 Positive luses surr

e attendant present at every station to address safety schools, such as Guildford).

d that the public does not feel safe on SkyTrain at

the presence of SkyTrain will bring the drug problem lam Centre area.

eds to be addressed on a larger scale and that it is not pid Transit Project.

Optionsards the Green route option (Guildford Way), and

oposed Guildford Station for a number of reasons:

of crime to the Guildford area.

proximity to this line and there is widespread fear tened by both crime and safety issues.

g undesirables to the community.

lers will infiltrate the schools in search of students

en down the hill from their homes and will not e to the excessive grade of the hillside. In other equire a park and ride or it will not be used by

ng residential property crimes were mentioned.equipped with a community policing station at the

that travel along the Barnet or the CP Rail line will r away from the schools and residential areas.


ad concern about findings of Jennifer Buckley's MA Thesis and the figures hat 49% of all crime in Vancouver takes place within a 750m radius from a station.

e looking for answers as to how much crime changes with the addition of a ansit station.

s feel that more police personnel are required to address the crime impact that from SkyTrain and that the existing municipal budget does not facilitate the y of this.

ong-term urban planning should be conducted to facilitate more positive land ounding areas where SkyTrain will exist.

words, the station will either rresidents.

- Once again, concern regardi2 A station at Guildford should be

design level.

3 Many people felt that the optionsbe better because they are furthe


curity, Safety, and Crime Concerns about school children at middle schools and possible drugs and truancy when is up and operational.

cerns relating to Route Options route option was announced. Most people were happy and had few crime cause it was discovered that there would be no SkyTrain station in the area.

ressionsppeared to be pleased with the preferred route.

am Extension (Eastern Segment) – ouse #1

ll, Port Moody, Coquitlam Town Centreober 6, 19980pmcondary School

curity, Safety, and Crime Concerns

5 SkyTrain should have at least onconcerns (especially those near

6 General concerns were expressenight.

7 There was a common feeling thatfrom New Westminster to Coquit

8 A few attendees felt that crime nereally the responsibility of the Ra

Crime Concerns relating to Route 1 Strong opposition was shown tow

especially the existence of the pr

- This option will bring all types

- There are 3 schools in close that the children will be threa

- A station at Guildford will brin

- Gangs, pimps, and drug deato recruit or sell to.

- Most people drive or are drivlikely walk to the SkyTrain du


Rapid Tran Page 91

4 A few attcommunrelating tfrom othe

Overall Imp1 The com

Station fotheir opin

2 In generaattendee

CoquitlHouse Lougheed MaWednesday, 4:00pm – 8:0Port Moody M

General Se1 Resident

2 SkyTrain

3 Drug tranthe SkyTproblem

4 Turnstilebased cr

5 Localizedcapped,

of primary importance on this level.te outsiders to come into Port Moody to carry out

me will happen whether or not SkyTrain is in want to encourage outsiders to come here.kyTrain and station areas:

n

ded in the parking areas

Optionssed about the various route options and their crime

opposition to the Yellow Route along St. John's for :

he Miller Ravine option, especially because of

Blue or Red Options were more acceptable as they hole segment of the route.

ford Route Alignment and Station was expressed at were raised, but repeated concerns emerged and student safety.

about property values, land acquisitions, and the re about the impact on crime within Port Moody.


s and community members are concerned about safety in general.

station proximity to schools was an issue.

sport between communities will be facilitated by enabling traffickers to use rain and stations for activities. Some were fearful that the New Westminster will move into Port Moody/Coquitlam areas.

s in stations (ensuring proper payment methods) may prevent more broad-iminal opportunity and misuse of the SkyTrain for other purposes.

station design are important, including accessibility to seniors and handi-etc.

4 In general, attendees thought theavoided schools throughout the w

5 Continued opposition to the Guildthis Open House. No new issuessurrounding the school proximity

Overall Impressions1 Residents were more concerned

effects of tunnelling than they we

Append

endees felt that a station in the area of Guildford would better service the ity than one on the Barnet Hwy. There were also safety concerns expressed o pedestrians crossing the Barnet and isolation of SkyTrain users being away r people.

ressionsmunity does not appear to support the Guildford Way route or the Guildford r numerous crime and security related concerns. Of those who expressed ion, proximity to schools is the largest single concern.

l, the route option that travels along the Barnet did not seem to effect the s in a negative way and they were most accepting of these options.

am Extension (Central Segment) – Open #1ll, Port Moody, Coquitlam Town Centre

October 7, 19980pmiddle School

curity, Safety, and Crime Concerns

- General feeling of comfort is 6 Existence of SkyTrain will facilita

their crimes.

- Many residents admit that crioperation, but that we do not

7 Localized security concerns re: S

- Security on trains is a concer

- Security in the parking areas

- Welfare of vehicle left unatten

Crime Concerns relating to Route 1 Not many concerns were expres

impact within Port Moody.

2 There was, however, significant various reasons as well as crime

- Proximity to schools

- Appearances

- Congestion3 Opposition existed surrounding t

environmental issues.

Appen


2 General concerns

3 There wafor answe

4 Again, th

CoquitlOpen HLougheed MaWednesday, 4:00pm – 8:0Banting Midd

General Se1 Turnstile

element.

2 Women'sis not eno

3 Stations

4 Every tra

5 Stations

6 Security between

7 Many att

8 If the syswill not b

Optionss emerged regarding the Burquitlam Plaza station. e concerns in this Plaza and residents feel that these he addition of SkyTrain.

sed at this Open House than those previous that the ter is likely to migrate to the Burquitlam Area. This munity members acknowledge that there may already

at because there is only a 20 minute walking distance quitlam Plaza, the entire area between the two a crime corridor.

opening in Burquitam Plaza. Attendees believe that e to address crime problems that will result from the nts would like to see a community police station

ime would increase at Lougheed Mall and most were ase, however, the concern surrounded the spreading

ket in the Coquitlam area and there is already drug

t up again as residents feel that their children will be cruitment of prostitutes.

regarding the influence of pay phones on crime. It was f payphones be considered.

ion in the Plaza parking lot were expressed and the treets. Residents feel that this will bring and increase oods.


ins should be staffed with an attendant for enhanced safety and security.

should be located where they can be self-policed by area users.

on the trains is a major concern (what do passengers do when they are stations?)

endees said that they would not use the SkyTrain at night for safety issues.

tem is not made to be comfortable for everyone (i.e. safe, free from fear) it e used and crime on the system will increase.

7 Proximity to schools was broughsubject to drug solicitation and re

8 Specific concern was expressed recommended that surveillance o

9 Concerns about parking congestspill-over effecting surrounding sin auto crime to their neighbourh


crime concerns were raised about the existence of SkyTrain, but few specific relating to the route alignment and crime were expressed.

s a general acceptance that SkyTrain is on its way, and residents were looking rs about how it will impact them.

e Blue or Red options appeared to be preferable to most attendees.

am Extension (Western Segment) – ouse #1

ll, Port Moody, Coquitlam Town CentreOctober 8, 19980pmle School

curity, Safety, and Crime Concernss should be considered as a station design option to reduce the criminal

perspective for safety and crime issues should be used - some feel that there ugh focus on women's concerns and their safety.

in general should be above ground for safety considerations

Crime Concerns relating to Route 1 Numerous crime-related concern

There are already identified crimactivities will only increase with t

2 There was more concern expresdrug activity from New Westminsappears to be partly because combe a problem.

3 There was expressed concern thbetween Lougheed Mall and Burintended stations would become

4 A new community police station isthis was initiated by the local policplanned SkyTrain station. Residewithin the SkyTrain station.

5 Many attendees assumed that craccepting of this perceived increof this crime to Burquitlam.

6 Burquitlam is a lower income pocactivity and graffiti concerns.


Rapid Tran Page 93

Overall Imp1 Resident

SkyTrain

2 Resident

3 Based onof Rapid

BurnabOpen House Boundary to Wednesday, 4:00pm – 8:0Bill Copeland

General Se1 More con

along Lo

Crime Con1 Some pe

though thwould im

Overall Imp1 There wa

presente

2 Most peolacking tr

e Concernse vicinity of the SkyTrain stations will enhance

fear and crime concerns because there are no drivers

ortant to many people than train attendants for safety.

being brought into the community.

y while using the system.

l increase because we are allowing more outsiders to oods they were not previously aware of.

ht in from New West were common, however most already drug issues around Lougheed Mall.

by one attendee that the guideway itself may attract to be sure that we were considering this possibility.

Optionsferred the elevated stations as opposed to the under-crime and safety perspective.

as it forced people to have to walk further from the dpoint, people felt that they would be more at risk

rground station as it reduced the likelihood that youths ld force them to loiter on street level).


e station would be on the opposite side of Lougheed Hwy., some feel that this pact on the safety of the schools.

ressionss little opposition from a crime and security perspective to the route options

d.

ple felt that SkyTrain presence was a good thing because it enhanced the ansit system in the Lougheed corridor.

Crime Concerns relating to Route 1 For the most part, attendees pre

ground option (Option A) from a

2 Option B had the most oppositionmall to get to. From a safety stanbecause of isolation.

3 One attendee preferred the undewould loiter in the station (it wou

Append

ressionss are convinced that crime will increase within the Burquitlam Plaza if a Station were to be constructed here.

s identified an already established growing crime problem in the area.

the opinions of the attendees, there appeared to be a general negative opinion Transit coming to this area.

y - Segment 2,3,4 – Open House #2#2Lougheed Mall ApproachOctober 14, 19980pm Sports Centre

curity, Safety, and Crime Concernscerns were expressed about crime shifting into residential communities

ugheed Highway.

cerns relating to Route Optionsople were concerned about station alignment relative to local schools. Even

Burnaby - Segment 5Lougheed MallThursday, October 22, 19984:00pm – 8:00pmCameron Elementary School

General Security, Safety, and Crim1 Some feel that small stores in th

surveillance.

2 An automated system generateson them.

3 Station attendants are more imp

4 Concerns about increased crime

5 Concerns about personal securit

6 Feeling that residential B&E's wilbecome aware of the neighbourh

7 Opinions that drugs will be brougattendees admitted that there are

8 General concern was expressedthe criminal element and wanted

Appen


4 Some felproblemsa concer

Overall Imp1 Some att

they knowcrime mathe best

2 Many peopoint. Moities invo

3 It was megroups, pthe desig



t that the Bell station was not necessary and that it would simply cause . The feeling was that if the area were more highly populated, it would not be n. But because it is near the ravine, there are safety considerations presented.

ressionsendees expressed that they felt much better about the crime issues because that we are addressing their issues. They feel that although it is likely that

y go up in their respective area, they are comfortable that the RTPO is doing they can to minimize this risk.

ple appeared to be willing to accept the SkyTrain from a crime impact stand-st people had constructive comments to make and understood the complex-lved.

ntioned on numerous occasions that SRG should be in touch with community olice, planners, school administrators, and residents so that they can assist in n process for the station.

security, safety, and rapid transit · rapid transit project 2000 ltd. security, safety, and rapid...

Documents