metro transit security final report submitted by sid heal dec. 23, 2008

8/11/2019 Metro Transit Security Final Report submitted by Sid Heal Dec. 23, 2008

1/21

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit AuthorityContract No. OP3928068

Metro Transit !ecurity

"inal #eport$ece%&er 23' 2008

Submitted bySid Heala

()ecuti*e O*er*ie+

This is the final report of an assessment of the LA Metros security function. Itidentifies several concerns and describes the nature, context and circumstances in hichthey occur, as ell as recommended remedies. These include the folloin!"

The security function is bifurcated beteen the Los An!eles Sheriffs #epartment and

the LA Metro Security. $riction occurs because there is no clear delineation of the

roles and responsibilities for the to a!encies to or% to!ether and some assi!nmentsperformed by the LA Metro Security may re&uire police action but LA Metro Security!uards are ithout peace officer poers.

'ffectual mana!ement of any function or a!ency re&uires reliable and timely

information. The report describes the current (push) system for distributin!information and recommends au!mentin! existin! procedures ith a (pull) system to!ain a better perspective and broader scope of the factors and influences in play. Inparticular, it recommends the establishment of an extranet focused specifically onsecurity issues to ensure that all efforts are focused on critical ob*ectives and to avoidduplication of effort and interference.

The fare evasion issue is critical for both the security and the financial ellbein! of

the LA Metro. It is ell established that the li%elihood of a person avoidin! payin! afare is directly related to the li%elihood of their bein! as%ed for proof of purchase.+ecommendations are provided for ho this information is captured, compared andreported.

raffiti abatement is an oft cited source of irritation for transit conveyances and

facilities. +ecommendations are provided for ho !raffiti incidents are measured andreported.

eneral coordination of the LA Metro transit security function is a dynamic and

hi!hly complex responsibility. Moreover, as a result of the lobal -ar on Terrorism,protection of this system has ta%en on increasin! importance. In order to enhancecooperation, collaboration and provide the necessary direction and !uidance, re!ular

meetin!s are recommended for both those at the mana!ement and executive level asell as the operators.

The survey revealed some issues that ill need to be *ointly addressed by the LAS#

and the LA Metro Security to alleviate tension and facilitate collaboration. Theseinclude identifyin! an efficient ay of capturin!, storin!, retrievin!, distributin! andreportin! data used by both the LAS# and the LA Metro identifyin! (points ofcontact) for &uic% clarification and/or supplementation institutin! security measuresto protect sensitive information ithout hinderin! authori0ed persons from accessin!

Page 1


2/21

it authorin! a comprehensive, ritten strate!y to provide the essential focus to ensurebest practices and effective mana!ement for both the LAS# and the LA MetroSecurity.

!tu,y O&-ecti*e an, Metho,ology

1n September 2, 3442, I a!reed to conduct an assessment on operations securitycovera!e strate!ies for Metros rail stations, vehicles, and related facilities based uponLA Metro vandalism reports, operatin! seep needs, monthly reports and overall securityconcerns. In particular, I as as%ed to provide a list of essential data to assess andappropriately utili0e la enforcement resources in support of security operations, a list ofnecessary tools to effectively and efficiently inte!rate and mana!e la enforcementresources in a comprehensive security effort, and ma%e recommendations as to ho tobest exploit the %noled!e, s%ills and abilities of Los An!eles Sheriffs deputies assi!nedto policin! the LA Metro.5

The pro*ect as divided into three efforts. The first focused on rail operations andincluded !uided tours, meetin!s ith sub*ect matter experts, and familiari0ation ith

security related issues. To supplement the formal intervies and meetin!s, I alsotravelled each of the rail lines at all times of day and ni!ht, ee%days, ee%ends andholidays, as ell as intervieed deputies, services assistants, security !uards and fellopassen!ers. To !ain a ider perspective, I also travelled to and conducted similar fact6findin! and familiari0ation on both the transit systems in St. Louis, Missouri and San#ie!o, 7alifornia. The second effort as focused on bus operations in the same manneras those involvin! trains. The final effort as focused on !atherin!, examinin!,reviein! and comparin! the various data compiled by both LAS# and LA Metro.

i/urcate, !ecurity "unction

It has lon! been established that efficiency and control are enhanced by !roupin!or%ers accordin! to shared characteristics. This so called (division of labor) is aconcept that dates bac% to anti&uity and is in common use in all lar!e modernor!ani0ations today. enerally, or!ani0ations are divided alon! the natural (seams) by!roupin! accordin! to time, area, purpose, process or clientele. 7onse&uently, theseparation of the LA Metro security function by bus and rail operations 8process9 andservice sectors 8area9 are lo!ical divisions. The responsibility for other security functionsis shared beteen the LAS#s Transit Services :ureau and the LA Metros Security.3Since each or!ani0ation has different resources, capabilities, perspectives and priorities,friction is inevitable. -ith no exceptions, shared responsibility means that no one isresponsible.

5Scope of -or% from 7ontract7ontractor shall provide Metro ith operations security covera!estrate!ies for Metros rail stations, vehicles, and related facilities based upon available Metro vandalismreports, operatin! seep needs, monthly reports, and overall security concerns. $rom this data 7ontractorshall provide security covera!e schedules to maximi0e safety of Metro and provide strate!ic paths forardto ma%in! Metro a safer and more secure operation. The scope of or% shall include a revie of existin!data, meetin!s ith staff, tour of the lines and select facilities folloed by a report hi!hli!htin! Metrosexposures and schedules to fill them. 1ther duties may be assi!ned based upon outcome of initial efforts.3Some of the more conspicuous are those re!ardin! (&uality of life) issues, especially minor infractions orLA Metro policy enforcement.

Page 2


3/21

This is particularly troublesome hen the a!encies have competin! interests. $orexample, universally, members of the Los An!eles Sheriffs #epartments TransitServices :ureau expressed that their focus of effort is on preventin! crimes, arrestin!criminals and preventin! acts of terrorism, especially eapons of mass destruction. 1nthe other hand, members of the LA Metro Security emphasi0ed enforcement of policy

violations and (&uality of life) issues, such as suppressin! !raffiti, preventin! vandalism,disorderly conduct, public drun%enness and other types of unruly conduct. The differentperspectives understandably result in disparate priorities and dis*ointed deploymentstrate!ies. -ithout the hi!hest de!ree of cooperation and collaboration, many tas%sbecome competin! activities in that the efforts to resolve a problem by one a!encyexacerbates the efforts of the other in handlin! a different problem or even the sameproblem usin! different methods.

The problem appears to stem from to underlyin! problems. The first is that there isno clear delineation of roles and responsibilities for the to a!encies to or% to!ether.This results in each or!ani0ation attemptin! to deal ith problems in their on ays andithout re!ard for the other. #urin! this survey members of both a!encies ere &uic% to

describe numerous instances in hich one a!ency conducted operations or responded toan incident but that the other as unaare. This has resulted in duplication of effort,uncoordinated deployments and lac% of accountability. #isputes as to ho as actuallyin char!e, ho should have responded, ho should have been notified, hen notificationsere actually provided, ad infinitum, usually folloed in the form of email exchan!esdurin! the inevitable in&uiries. 'ven minor incidents become contentious as theycontinually repeat themselves. At a minimum, this state of affairs results in confusion butorse case scenarios are not difficult to ima!ine.

The second problem is that both the LAS# and the LA Metro Security are !ivenassi!nments that may re&uire police action but ith different levels of police poers.This occurs because members of the LAS# en*oy the ri!hts and privile!es of peaceofficer status, to include immunity from civil liability in some cases, hile members ofLA Metro Security are limited to those ri!hts provided to private persons yet both shareresponsibility for security functions. -hen confrontations escalate into altercations,deputies actin! in their capacity as peace officers en*oy substantially more protectionunder state statutes than do security !uards.; Accordin!ly, both the LAS# and theLA Metro vicariously en*oy the same protections. $urthermore, issuin! a citationre&uires statute authority and so some assi!nments, li%e citin! for violations of fareevasion and other transit related crimes, are limited to those vested.

The current situation ill not be resolved by mandate because both a!encies arecompletely autonomous ith separate chains of command and report to no commonsenior. Moreover, each vies the roles and responsibilities they currently perform asboth lo!ical and le!itimate. The friction occurs because many of the individualassi!nments are shared. 1ne of the most commonly cited examples is in maintainin! ahi!hly visible uniform presence to deter misconduct. The LA Metro Security posits thatthey can do the *ob far cheaper than the more hi!hly paid deputies, but heninterventions are necessary they are not permitted to rite citations and are limited to the

;The 7alifornia 7odes, especially the


4/21

authority of a private person for detentions and arrests. #eputies, on the other hand, areauthori0ed by 7alifornia state la to rite citations, lafully detain suspicious personsand arrest hen necessary. $urthermore, a suspect ho resists, delays or obstructs adeputy can not only be char!ed ith additional crimes, but their peace officer statusprovides protections not afforded to LA Metro Security. Thus, to a!encies providin!

the same service but ith different levels of authority and little or no cooperation send animplicit messa!e of hierarchy and subordination.-hile parity is not completely possible, provisions of 7alifornia la can provide

LA Metro Security !uards ith additional authority, includin! an ability to rite citationsand ma%e arrests, by either concludin! a memorandum of understandin! ith the LosAn!eles Sheriffs #epartment>or by an authori0in! ordinance.? In addition, they ouldalso be endoed ith some of the statute immunities provided to peace officers.@evertheless, even after the poer disparity issues are resolved the ma*or source offriction remains this bein! the shared responsibility for the same tas%s and assi!nments.

Many transit systems successfully inte!rate both la enforcement officers andsecurity !uards into the security function and to ere examined in detail durin! this

survey. The distin!uishin! characteristic for the success en*oyed by both the Saint Louis+e!ional Transit System and the San #ie!o Metropolitan Transit System is that both haveclearly identified roles and responsibilities for both contract la enforcement andsecurity. 'ach discipline performs ithin the limitations a!reed upon and collaborates toreinforce rather than compete ith the other. The security function is enhanced in bothefficiency and effectiveness by utili0in! less expensive security for saturation andenforcement of &uality of life issueshile la enforcement remains focused onprevention and detection of more serious crimes, as ell as conductin! investi!ations. Itould seem sensible that LA Metro emulate this successful strate!y. :ecause of thesituation has become so contentious, it ould also seem *udicious to formali0e theunderstandin! in a letter of a!reement si!ned by both a!encies.B

1sing n/or%ation

$or better or orse, effectual mana!ement decisions rely heavily on the &uality ofinformation from hich they are derived. In order for information to have value it mustbe ob*ective, thorou!h, accurate, timely, relevant and in a usable format. The nature ofthe LA Metro security function re&uires that data from both the LA Metro and the LAS#are necessary for measurin! effectiveness and efficiency, identifyin! trends andanomalies, estimatin! capabilities and intentions, and forecastin! all manner of factorsthat ill influence safe, effective and efficient transit security operations.

The to periodic reports are the Monthly Mana!ement +eport and the -ee%lyActivity +eport, both !enerated by the LAS# for use by the LA Metro. The MonthlyMana!ement +eport describes the la enforcement efforts for the reportin! period, toinclude the numbers and types of incidents on li!ht rail, heavy rail and buses, as ell ascomparisons ith the previous month by use of ;# bar charts and pie charts. 1ther

>See Appendix :,


5/21

factors, such as the response times, crime reports, arrests, and so forth, are provided intable format.

-hile the information provided is certainly essential, it leaves much to be desired inprovidin! any real understandin! of hat is !oin! on, hat is upcomin!, or any methodof identifyin! trends and anomalies over time. $urthermore, the reports present only the

perspective of the LAS#. This is troublesome because the security function is sharedbeteen the LAS# and the LA Metro. :y providin! only one perspective mana!ers andexecutives from either a!ency are unable to identify areas here collaboration may benecessary or is even already occurrin!. Moreover, there is a conspicuous lac% of futuresforecastin!, hich could identify events, factors and influences that ill affect everythin!from deployments to concentrations of effort. 'ven more important, hoever, is a lac% ofcomparisons beteen the various factors and influences affectin! problems over time.2The current (snapshot) method of reportin! is inade&uate in ma%in! trends and anomaliesconspicuous.

!haring n/or%ation

The predominate method of sharin! information beteen the LAS#/TS: and Metrosecurity employs a (push) strate!y, most commonly in the form of periodic reports andemail.


6/21

It ould seem to be in the best interests of both the LAS#/TS: and Metro security todevelop, install and maintain a system that ould provide members of both a!encies iththe most current and comprehensive information possible in a format immediately usableby both. Many or!ani0ations have developed these systems by usin! an (extranet.) Inthe simplest terms, an extranet may be thou!ht of as a ebsite for the exchan!e of

information that is limited to authori0ed parties from more than one a!ency. It differsfrom an intranet only in that members of other or!ani0ations are alloed access.-hile the actual content and display of critical information are best left to those ho

ould actually use it, the folloin! are examples of information that has provedbeneficial durin! this security revie.

Organizational Information=or!ani0ational information is that used to describe the

various a!encies involved in the Metro security function. In particular, thisinformation should precisely identify and clearly convey the roles and responsibilitiesfor each a!ency, as ell as provide current tables of or!ani0ation for each a!ency.Additionally, emer!ency contact information for critical personnel from each a!encyould expedite notifications and briefin!s.

In-Service Sheets=provides mana!ers an instant snapshot as to ho is on duty, theirindividual assi!nments and here they are or%in!. Additionally, In6Service Sheetsidentify those ith special s%ills and e&uipment, their reportin! supervisor and shifthours. Supervisor to subordinate ratios can also be ascertained as ell as personnelor%in! overtime.54 Assi!nments can be hyperlin%ed to detailed descriptions oftas%s, responsibilities and (:1L1s,)55to provide a capability for nely assi!ned andreportin! personnel to (self6brief.)53

Comparative Information= hile tables and matrices !enerally provide a !reater

volume and more precise vie of information, comparisons are more difficult. A farbetter method for identifyin! trends and anomalies is by the use of comparative!raphs and charts. The use of !raphs, charts, and dia!rams to &uic%ly estimate the

effectiveness and efficiency of deployment plans, various methods5;

, specialoperations and even specific individuals on reducin! or resolvin! the adverse impactsof chronic problems li%e fare evasion, !raffiti, disorderly conduct, etc., as ell as anability to compare data over time, ould facilitate understandin! by planners anddecision ma%ers for both a!encies.

Future vents=future events provide mana!ement an ability to plan for deployment

ad*ustments and can often be reliably forecast ee%s and even months into the future.'xamples include holidays, ma*or sportin! events, political rallies, festivals, cultural!atherin!s, and so forth. 'vents such as these can be expected to have a sur!e of

54Supervisor to subordinate ratios ere often cited as areas of concern durin! the security revie.

55:1L1 is police *ar!on. It is actually an acronym for (:e 1n Loo% 1ut) and refers to thin!s and peopleto hich security personnel should be especially attentive.531ne of the (sore spots) expressed by LA Metro executives is the number of LAS# deputies assi!ned toother LAS# units routinely or%in! overtime assi!nments to au!ment staffin! needs. Identifyin!personnel not normally assi!ned to LA Metro ill provide an immediate assessment of capabilities andexpectations by LA Metro mana!ers.5;As *ust one example, the efficacy of various methods for deterrin! fare evasions, such as arrests vs.arnin!s, visible deterrence vs. undercover operations and random chec%s vs. systematic saturation chec%s,have all reported varyin! de!rees of success at some point, but none appear to offer a consistently reliablesolution and are routinely alternated ith one another.

Page !


7/21

passen!ers in particular locations and an ability to anticipate and plan for them is of!reat benefit to efficient deployment strate!ies. 7onversely, maintenance, repairs andup!rades may delay or interrupt services.

"a# $ata=all of the data used for current reports are captured electronically. Storin!

the data here it can be accessed for revie, examination, and comparison by

members of both a!encies provides an ability for all concerned to harvest meanin!from ra data. This capability is commonly used by academia for vettin!information by encoura!in! peer revie. Additionally, it encoura!es members ofboth or!ani0ations to explore the data for more insi!ht.

%rchival information=an ability to access archival information, such as periodic

reports, !raphs, charts, studies, historical data, and the li%e, enables interested partiesto identify lon!6term trends and compare current operations and events ith previousones. $urther, more reliable forecasts and pro*ections can be ascertained by notin!hat has happened in past instances and estimatin! probabilities and ran!es for futureones. 1nce information is captured and stored electronically the effort to ma%ehistorical data available is exceedin!ly minimal.

&riefing area=this area ould provide authori0ed persons assi!ned to the varioussecurity functions an ability to (self6brief.) In the same manner that representativesfrom each a!ency ould be able to pull information for plannin! and decision ma%in!from a central repository, individuals ould also benefit. The functional e&uivalentof a la enforcement (briefin! board,)5>this area could provide information onanted persons, suspicious activities, persons of interest, ha0ards, and othernoteorthy events. :y !roupin! the information by time and location, supervisorsand individuals ould be able to au!ment their on %noled!e and conduct (self6directed)5?patrol. Additionally, by providin! a search en!ine focused specifically onthis site, follo6on investi!ations ould be possible.

'ournal=many problems are chronic and re&uire persistence and continual

adaptation to ade&uately address. These prolon!ed problems tend to be especiallyfrustratin! and continual sources of irritation. -hen more than one a!ency issimultaneously attemptin! to resolve such a problem, or hen coordination isnecessary to avoid conflict, alle!ations of interference, *ustified or not, are difficult torefute. Moreover, it is difficult to !ain insi!ht on hat has failed or or%ed in thepast. 1ther professions, ran!in! from medicine to the military, use *ournals5hendealin! ith such problems. It ould seem beneficial that information captured andprovided in such a manner ould benefit all concerned and encoura!e collaborationand cooperation hile discoura!in! duplication of efforts and unsuccessful courses ofaction.-hile either the LAS# or LA Metro could develop and install such an extranet, the

routine maintenance for updatin! and appendin! data and comments should be theresponsibility of the (issue oner.) The a!ency 8person9 responsible for fare evasions or

5>A (briefin! board) ta%es its name from the clipboards or to6hole binder boards la enforcementa!encies have used for decades to centrally locate information necessary to inform officers or%in!different shifts, different !eo!raphical locations and different assi!nments.5?(#irected patrol,) as opposed to (random patrol) is a term used to describe deployments based uponcrime analysis. +elyin! on an analysis of criminal activity police officers may be assi!ned to specificallyfocus on !eo!raphical areas, tar!et !an!s, or even specific individuals.5Sometimes called an (operations lo!) for tactical operations or a (unit diary) for military a!encies.

Page (


8/21

!raffiti, for example, ould be responsible for maintainin! the specific pa!e8s9 dealin!ith that particular area. This method ould !reatly minimi0e the burden for ensurin!the data is current and accurate since these issue oners are not only the ones ho aremost familiar ith the data but are ultimately also the beneficiaries. This decentrali0edapproach ill (spread load) the tedious and time6consumin! burden of !atherin! and

inputtin! data and allo the a!ency hostin! the extranet to focus on critical controlissues, such as access, security, reliability, and so forth.

"are (*asion

$are evasions are an understandably critical component of security because theydirectly affect the fundin! necessary to recoup expenses. LA Metro uses a (proof ofpurchase) method in hich a passen!er is re&uired to sho a valid tic%et hen as%ed bya fare inspector. Enderstandably, every bus passen!er is inspected upon boardin! but railpassen!ers are inspected randomly by LAS# Security Assistants. #ependin! on the dayof the ee% and the time of the day, fare evasions have been reported as lo as ?F and ashi!h as 54F.5B $are evasion chec%s, arnin!s and citations are reported to Metro by the

LAS# in each Monthly Mana!ement +eport. These reports cover the previous monthand provide data in both table format and to pie charts. -hile tables provide a !reatervolume and more precise method of presentin! data, they are notably poor forcomparisons.


9/21

percenta!e. -hile conductin! fact6findin! and familiari0ation ith rail operations atboth the transit systems in St. Louis, M1 and San #ie!o, both reported that the !reatestfactor in reducin! fare evaders as the li%elihood of bein! chec%ed and fined if apassen!er as unable to produce a valid tic%et. San #ie!o reported that their fareevasion rate as less than 3F hen about ;4F of the passen!ers ere chec%ed5Dand St.

Louis reported that they chec% nearly every passen!er on rail and buses resultin! in a lessthan 5F fare evasion rate over all.34In determinin! both the fare evasion and saturation rates for the LA Metro, the

number of passen!ers boarded each month as captured and available from theLA Metro.35 The number of persons chec%ed and those arned or cited for violationsas obtained from the Monthly Mana!ement +eports provided by the LAS#. +atherthan duplicate the methodolo!y previously described, a line chart as used to identify allthe factors over one years time. Additionally, a trend line 8line of best fit9 asincorporated to identify the !eneral course of the data for passen!er boardin!s and thenumber of persons chec%ed. 8See $i!ure 39

This method provides a number of advanta!es over the current methods. $or

example, the increase in passen!er boardin!s can be readily discerned ith both theactual monthly totals alon! ith the !eneral trend. Li%eise, the decrease in thesaturation rate is !raphically displayed alon! ith the actual numbers of passen!erschec%ed and the saturation rate expressed as a percenta!e. $urthermore, the comparisonbeteen the to variables is conspicuous and far more understandable than tables or piecharts. Li%eise, the fare evasion rate is also included and expressed as a percenta!ealon! the bottom of the chart. This format not only provides more information but bettercomprehension of the impact of these influences on each other. 1f note, is that thesaturation rate has decreased nearly five6fold in the year examined resultin! in a nearlyfour6fold increase of the fare evasion rate. 'ven so, the hi!hest saturation rate is less thanthat reported by the Transportation Mana!ement G #esi!n assessment.33

5D


10/21

"igure 2"are e*asion /actors an, in/luences co%pare, o*er ti%e

It ould seem prudent to chan!e the reportin! format from the current tables and piecharts to one that ill more readily provide planners and decision ma%ers an ability to&uic%ly compare influences and factors ith one another and over time. Additionally, by

providin! the data and charts in an editable format3;

factors and influences obscured overtime could also be examined more closely. $or example, simply chan!in! the 6Axis8ordinate9 hi!hli!hts the saturation rate revealin! the noted decline even more clearly.8See $i!ure ;9 It ould also seem beneficial to examine comparative data over shorterperiods of time, perhaps &uarterly, to more &uic%ly identify and attenuate adverseinfluences.

3;#ata is currently provided in either hard6copy or


11/21

"igure 3 4!a%e ,ata as "igure 2 &ut a ,i//erent scale re*eals e*en %ore clearly the ,ecline o/ the saturation rate

an, resulting e//ect on the /are e*asion rate

5ra//iti A&ate%ent

1ne of the most often cited sources of irritation for both bus and rail operations is thedisfi!uration of LA Metro e&uipment ith !raffiti. In some areas of the 7ounty, !raffitiis a bli!ht that has resulted in the defacin! of nearly every ob*ect capable of bein! rittenor painted upon and LA Metro buses, trains and e&uipment have not been spared. Theprimary responsibility for preventin! and investi!atin! incidents of !raffiti falls upon theLos An!eles Sheriffs #epartment and they report their efforts each month in the MonthlyMana!ement +eport. That said, !raffiti, per se, is not sin!led out but rather included inall types of vandalism.3> 7onse&uently, it is impossible to compare *ust !raffiti incidents,albeit !raffiti comprises the vast ma*ority of vandalism reports and so they provide somepredictive value. :oth the number of reports ta%en and the arrests made are provided intable format and ith to bar !raphs that compare the reportin! period ith the previousmonth. Additionally, comparisons are provided beteen buses and the various rail lines.That said, only data from the previous month is available for comparison ith thereportin! month. 8See $i!ure >9

3>All !raffiti is vandalism but not all vandalism is !raffiti. andalism, by definition, includes all types ofillful and malicious dama!e or destruction of property.

Page 11


12/21

"igure 7an,alis% reporting /ro% Monthly Manage%ent #eport' Octo&er 2008

LA Metro also captures and reports data related to dama!e from !raffiti. 1ne report,the (andalism G raffiti +eport,)3?trac%s the amount of money spent by Metro onrepairin! dama!e resultin! from !raffiti but because the amount spent is an arbitrarydecision based upon economic concerns rather than the amount of dama!e or the numberof incidents actually incurred it provides no probative value in determinin! effectivenessof efforts to reduce it. The other report, (+ail $acilities raffiti Incidents G 7ost)3issimply a spreadsheet that trac%s the number of incidents recorded by LA Metromaintenance personnel hen removin! and/or repairin! !raffiti dama!e.

@otithstandin! a lac% of formality inherent in more formal reports, the spreadsheet notonly captures the number of !raffiti incidents noted by maintenance personnel each timethey clean a railay carria!e but is reported monthly. $urthermore, the data is availablebac% to January of 3445. These values appear to be a useful measurement for accuratelyidentifyin! the number of (ta!s)3Bper month. :ecause a sin!le (ta!!er) is oftenresponsible for multiple (ta!s,) hoever, it lac%s an ability to be more precise.

3?


13/21

Thus, the LAS# uses the number of vandalism reports to measure the amount of!raffiti, hile the LA Metro uses the number of actual (ta!s.) In comparin! the tomeasurements, the mean avera!e ta!s recorded in the past year32by LA Metro as55,45 per month, hile LAS# too% an avera!e of only 5? reports per month for thesame period. @either fi!ure is holly representative, hoever, since a sin!le vandal ill

often ta! a number of items in a sin!le incident and a sin!le report often covers multipleincidents resultin! from a sin!le vandal. :oth fi!ures have value, hoever, in that thenumber of reports used by the LAS# is more closely ali!ned ith the number ofincidents resultin! in dama!e. The fi!ures captured by the LA Metro maintenance cre,on the other hand, capture the amount of dama!e.

An additional problem ith trac%in! !raffiti is the nature of the transit system, sincethe buses and trains that are bein! ta!!ed are in near constant motion. @otithstandin!,even a %noled!e of hich particular lines 8and hen9 are sufferin! the most provides anability to redistribute forces and craft intervention strate!ies specifically focusin! on thecurrent problem.

The most noteorthy shortcomin! in the reportin! format, hoever, is the inability to

identify trends and anomalies over time. Trends and anomalies are most conspicuous inline !raphs, not tables. In plottin! the number of vandalism reports ta%en by the LAS#and chartin! the results in a smoothed line !raph over the past 53 months it appears clearthat the preponderance of incidents occurred on all four rail lines durin! the months ofMay and June 3442. $urthermore, a third of all !raffiti reports ta%en for the entire yearon the reen Line occurred durin! the sin!le month of May 3442. 8See $i!ure ?9 -hentrends li%e these can be &uic%ly and intuitively identified efforts to intervene can be moreprecise and prompt. 'ven ithout additional analysis, perceptive intervention anddeployment strate!ies can be formulated. The more this type of information is shared themore li%ely that adverse conse&uences can be attenuated or avoided alto!ether.3D

3BA (ta!) is a term used to describe a personal identifier, such as the name of an individual or !an!, amoni%er or representative icon, ritten, scratched, painted or dran as !raffiti.32@ovember 344B throu!h the end of 1ctober 34423D1f note is that the data captured by the LA Metro maintenance personnel 8number of ta!s9 varied lessthan 5F throu!hout the same time period.

Page 13


14/21

"igure 5ra//iti reports taen &y LA!$ ,eputies o*er the past 2 %onths

5eneral Coor,ination o/ the LA Metro Transit !ecurity "unction

-hile the security for air transportation has been !iven !reat attention, urbantransport systems carry more people. 7onsiderin! the critical impact these systems haveon an economy coupled ith the hi!h numbers of passen!ers and comparatively lessersecurity;4than air transport they ma%e ideal tar!ets for terrorists. 'ven before the attac%son the Enited States on September 55, 3445, security of domestic transit systems hadta%en on unprecedented importance and become increasin!ly difficult. Successful attac%son transit rail systems in To%yo, Japan in 5DD> and 5DD? London, 'n!land in 344? and the nearly continual bombin!s of buses inIsrael and Sri Lan%a are poi!nant reminders that public transit offers an ideal tar!et forterrorists.;5 The fact that most of the attac%s have occurred on the lar!est systems in thelar!est cities should be a lesson that does not !o unheeded in Los An!eles here nearly a&uarter of a million ride the trains and more than one million ride the buses each day.

;4It has been reported as recently as last year that for every D spent per passen!er for air security only 5is spent on rail security. $ran% J. 7illuffo and Laura


15/21

The LA Metro is not only lar!e but complex and dynamic and the need to seamlesslyinte!rate those responsibilities hich are clearly la enforcement in nature ith thosethat are better left to security ill not be easily resolved. #evelopin! and implementin!effective strate!ies and best practices, estimatin! the impact of trends and anomalies andpreparin! and plannin! for forecasted events and influences re&uires continual attention

and cooperation. @o reportin! system, no matter ho efficient or elaborate, can replacethe insi!ht and comprehension !ained by face to face meetin!s. Accordin!ly, re!ularmeetin!s focused on security issues should be considered essential. Most critical arethose at the mana!ement/executive level for all concerned parties on at least a &uarterlybasis. :esides providin! a much needed focus of effort, these meetin!s could do much toobviate much of the discord resultin! from miscommunications, mischaracteri0ations andmisunderstandin!s beteen the LAS# and the LA Metro Security. Similarly, morefre&uent meetin!s at the operator level ould provide an open forum for exchan!in!information on effective tactics, techni&ues and procedures, as ell as be!in to build thecamaraderie necessary for collaboration.

Ne)t !tepsThis survey has been a necessary first6step to identify useful metrics to !ain insi!htand understandin! in the measurement of effectiveness and efficiency of the La Metrosecurity function. Additionally, issues ere identified that need to be addressed to ensurethe best possible services. -hile the recommendations contained in this report ill serveto provide direction they stop short of providin! meanin!ful solutions. The folloin! aresome of the more conspicuous follo6on re&uirements.

Spreadsheets need to be developed to store data and calculate comparisons. This isespecially important because the LA Metro uses Microsoft 'xcel hile the LAS# uses7orel uattro


16/21

function ould serve to provide the essential focus to sharpen the efforts of botha!encies, avoid confliction, establish accountability and enhance cooperation. Such astrate!y ould necessarily re&uire a *oint effort and include identification of roles andresponsibilities, adoption of *oint policies and procedures, and establish benchmar%s andmeasures of effectiveness. 1f all the challen!es that face contemporary mass transit, a

failure of security ill have the most immediate and catastrophic conse&uences. In theords of one international expert ith painful experience, ou can have the cleanesttrains in the #orl$ 0ou can have the most luminous trains in the #orl$ an$ 0ou can

have the most comfortale trains in the #orl$ an$ 0ou can have the most punctual trainsin the #orl$ &ut #hen 0ou go in a train an$ $o not feel safe 0ou are not going to use that

train633

;;Manuel +odri!ue0 Simons, #irector of Security and 7ivil


17/21

APP(N$: ALa+s protecting peace o//icers

/he follo#ing are e7amples of la#s 8California Penal Co$e sections9 specificall0 protectingpeace officers in the scope of their $uties

Penal Co,e ;83a. Any peace officer ho has reasonable cause to believe that the person to bearrested has committed a public offense may use reasonable force to effect the arrest, to preventescape or to overcome resistance. A peace officer ho ma%es or attempts to ma%e an arrest neednot retreat or desist from his efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of theperson bein! arrested nor shall such officer be deemed an a!!ressor or lose his ri!ht to self6defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcomeresistance.

Penal Co,e ;836. 8a9 A public officer or employee, hen authori0ed by ordinance, may arrest aperson ithout a arrant henever the officer or employee has reasonable cause to believe thatthe person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in the presence of the officer or

employee that is a violation of a statute or ordinance that the officer or employee has the duty toenforce.8b9 There shall be no civil liability on the part of, and no cause of action shall arise

a!ainst, any public officer or employee actin! pursuant to subdivision 8a9 and ithin the scope ofhis or her authority for false arrest or false imprisonment arisin! out of any arrest that is laful orthat the public officer or employee, at the time of the arrest, had reasonable cause to believe aslaful. @o officer or employee shall be deemed an a!!ressor or lose his or her ri!ht to self6defense by the use of reasonable force to effect the arrest, prevent escape, or overcomeresistance.

Penal Co,e ;66.9. 8a9 @otithstandin! any other la, a *udicial officer may issue an ex parteemer!ency protective order here a peace officer, as defined in Section 2;4.5, 2;4.3, or 2;4.;3,asserts reasonable !rounds to believe that a person is in immediate and present dan!er of stal%in!based upon the personOs alle!ation that he or she has been illfully, maliciously, and repeatedlyfolloed or harassed by another person ho has made a credible threat ith the intent of placin!the person ho is the tar!et of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety ofhis or her immediate family, ithin the meanin! of Section >.D.

8*9 A peace officer ho acts in !ood faith to enforce an emer!ency protective order is notcivilly or criminally liable.

Penal Co,e ;6


18/21

APP(N$: La+s relating to transit policing

/he follo#ing are e7amples of la#s 8California Penal Co$e sections9 specificall0 relate$ totransit policing

Penal Co,e ;830.


19/21

not to exceed >2 hours over a period not to exceed ;4 days, durin! a time other than durin! his orher hours of school attendance or employment, hen committed on or in any of the folloin!"

859 A facility or vehicle of a public transportation system as defined by Section DD355 ofthe


20/21

penalty imposed and enforced in a civil proceedin!. The ordinance for imposin! and enforcin!the administrative penalty shall be !overned by 7hapter 2 8commencin! ith Section DD?249 of


21/21

a7harles (Sid) Heal, D4D6B;362;3?, HDD3Qveri0on.net
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

metro transit security final report submitted by sid heal dec. 23, 2008

Documents