Journeys to
Crime: Documentation and Evaluation of Crime Incidence on and around Railway
Stations in Los Angeles
Principal Investigator:
Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris
Department of Urban Planning
School of Public Policy and Social Research
3250 Public Policy Building, Box 951467
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1467
tel. 310-206-9679
Fax 310-206-5566
Funded by a UCTC
Year 12 Research Grant
Overview of
the research and tasks
The widespread perception that rapid transit brings
increased crime to the areas it serves is a problem for the planning and
implementation of new transit system stations. Evidence from Los Angeles
indicates fear of crime is one of three reasons cited for non-use of transit
stations. Most research on transit crime has focused on heavy rail systems and
has examined the underground station environment. There is limited and
inconclusive research on crime on and around surface and above-ground stations
and very limited understanding of the "journey-to-crime" of potential
offenders; we also do not clearly understand how new transit lines affect
outlying suburban areas, and how surrounding environments affect station
security. The link between the social and physical environment and transit
crime is an important one, but is not well understood or explored. While we
understand how certain design elements can mitigate crime in underground
stations we are not very clear as to which of these elements are relevant for
light rail stations.
This study investigates the
environment – transit crime connection by examining in-depth the relation
between crime incidence at the stations along a light rail line in Los Angeles
and the social and physical characteristics of the stations and their
neighborhoods. The study utilizes
the Los Angeles Green Line as a case study. The Green Line runs for 19.6 miles
from Norwalk to El Segundo in Los Angeles County. The line, which started
operating in 1995, has fourteen stations and twenty-four separate parking lots,
and had an average weekday ridership of 26,894 passengers in 1999.
The study employs a mix of qualitative and
quantitative methodologies to analyze crime statistics, census and ridership
data, and built environment data. More specifically, crime data was obtained
from the Transit Services Bureau of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
from 1998 onward. Ridership data was obtained from the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Agency. This data in conjunction with observation
counts at different times of the day at stations gave us information regarding
station densities. Demographic data available by census block group for 1997
was aggregated for the area within a ½ mile radius of each Metro Green Line station.
We also conducted a systematic and detailed fieldwork analysis and photographic
documentation of the vicinity of each station area, and compiled an
environmental inventory of each station neighborhood by collecting
environmental data and attributes that have been shown to be related to crime
incidence.
Crime at the fourteen
stations along the Los Angeles Metro Green Line was reported for the years 1998
and 1999. Crimes have been classified
as either Type 1 (serious crimes against persons and their property) or Type 2
(less serious crime such as petty theft, vandalism, and public nuisance). During the two-year period there were a
total of 540 crimes, the majority of which were Type 2 (368 crimes). Almost 90 percent of Type 2 crime was
vandalism. There was only one rape and no homicides. Most of the serious
crime was robbery, assault, larceny/theft and motor vehicle theft.
Key Findings
With an average of 1.55 crime incidents per 100
riders the Green Line can by no means be described as unsafe. However, certain
stations suffer more from crime than others do; car thefts are a real concern
in certain park-and-ride lots along the system, while they are almost a
non-issue in others. While crime at the station seems to be related to overall
crime at the neighborhood, we also noticed some more subtle relationships
between the sociodemographic and urban form characteristics of the station
neighborhood, the station design, and crime incidence at the Green Line
stations.
We
also found that different types of crime take place under different
conditions. Crime at the platforms
against people was strongly related to ridership—the busiest stations tended to
concentrate the most serious crime. Less serious crime tended to be higher in
stations located in dense neighborhoods with higher percentages of population
with less than high school education. Incidents of vandalism—in particular
graffiti spray-painting on elevators and stairs and platform pillars--comprised
the vast majority of less serious crime. Other studies have shown that
vandalism in transit stations is most often the work of school-age children and
young adults. Consistent with these findings, we also found that stations with
a high incidence of Type 2 crime also had high proportions of youth in the adjacent
neighborhood. We also noticed that vandalism tended to be higher in stations
with neighborhoods with littered sidewalks and deteriorating building stock.
So far empirical research on
crime in railway systems has given very limited attention to incidents
occurring at parking facilities. Yet, in systems like the Green Line many
riders are expected to reach the station by car, park at the system’s
park-and-ride lot, and walk to the platform. The safety of the rider during his
or her walk to and from the lot and the safety of the car property become
important. The Green Line is not immune from car thefts and thefts of private
property from parked vehicles. Car thefts tended to happen primarily in large
parking lots which were filled with cars but were void of pedestrian activity.
Dark and desolate parking areas under the freeway (such as in the Long Beach
station) projected a feeling of lack of safety. Smaller parking lots that were well integrated to their surrounding
context and were visible from the adjacent sidewalks had fewer incidents of
crime.
Crimes
against people (assaults, robberies) tended to happen primarily at the station
platforms, elevators and stairs. Certain design characteristics of the station
were found to be related to platform crime. Underpass platforms with no
visibility from their surrounding areas had higher crime incidence. At the same
time, some sociodemographic characteristics of the station neighborhood were
also relevant for serious crime against people at the station. While our
results cannot be conclusive because of the small number of serious crimes
against people, we found more such crime in low-income neighborhoods with more
persons per household, and higher concentrations of youth.
Many
of the Green Line stations are located on a platform in the middle of an urban
freeway, and they are effectively cut off from surrounding land uses.
Therefore, the effect of specific land
uses and other urban form characteristics (e.g. layout of streets, existence of alleys, etc.) on station crime
does not seem to be as important as in cases where the railway station is
located in the midst of an urban neighborhood. Nevertheless, we found a strong
correlation between station crime and the existence of liquor stores in the
vicinity.
The study gives a clear indication that a
combination of social and physical variables at the light rail station and its
neighborhood impact station crime. While transit authorities cannot deal with
many of the social variables that affect crime on a light rail system, the
study pinpoints to a number of design and policy recommendations to tackle the
physical variables. For one, the security of transit passengers should extend
from the platform to the public environment that surrounds the station. The
on-street location of light rail stations provides opportunities for more
visibility from surrounding establishments. On the other hand, the physical
conditions of the surrounding environment seem to be more important for the
security of light rail stations than for underground stations. Therefore, the
upkeep, good maintenance, and surveillance of the public environment that
surrounds light rail stations are of paramount importance for the safety of
transit passengers.
Second,
since many light rail stations are often in close proximity to park-and-ride
lots, the security of these lots and of the routes connecting them to the
station is very significant. The study showed that smaller, well-lit lots that
well-integrated to the surrounding urban fabric scored well in terms of
security. Increased police patrolling
of the lot, possibly paid from parking revenue, could help in the reduction of
park-and-ride crime. Also, the incorporation of convenience stores and ticket
machines in the parking lot could increase pedestrian presence and reduce car
thefts.
Third,
appropriate station and parking lot design that eliminates entrapment spots and
hiding places and increases visibility through design and adequate lighting can
create a station environment whose physical attributes contribute to its better
security. Incidents of vandalism can be reduced through the use of
vandal-resistant materials.
Finally,
a regular security audit by transit authorities will reveal the hot spots of
crime on the transit systems and will guide a targeted deployment of security
personnel to the most dangerous stations during the most dangerous times.
References
Other
Accomplishments:
·
The
paper “The Geography of Transit Crime: Documentation and Evaluation of Crime
Incidence on and around Green Line Stations in Los Angeles,” received the 2003
Chester Rapkin Award by the Association of Collegiate School of Planning, as
the best paper published in the Journal
of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 22.
·
Grant
from the Haynes Foundation to continue work on the environmental attributes of
railway crime
Acknowledgement
Professor Robin Liggett was a key research
participant. UCLA graduate students Hiroyuki Iseki, David DeGrazia, Katsumi
Nonaka, Jose Rodriguez, Manuel Soto, Kimberly Yu, Allison Yoh, helped at different
stages of the research with the fieldwork and input of the data.