News Release

Mineta Transportation Institute Releases Study on Motor Carrier Hazmat Transport Theft and Its Possible Use in Terrorism

Jenkins, Butterworth, et al studied the most effective ways that safety/security measures can be leveraged for anti-terrorism

San Jose, Calif., February 17, 2010 – The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), has published Report 09-03, Potential Terrorist Uses of Highway-Borne Hazardous Materials, which evaluates security risks created by truck-borne hazardous materials, particularly gasoline tankers. The Department of Homeland Security requested the report from MTI’s National Transportation Security Center of Excellence (MTI’s NTSCOE). It is authored by Brian Michael Jenkins and Bruce R. Butterworth, along with Douglas Reeves, Billy Poe and Karl S. Shrum.

MTI has also issued a companion report, MTI Report 09-04, Implementation and Development of Vehicle Tracking and Immobilization Technologies, a study by Brian Michael Jenkins, Bruce Butterworth, and Dr. Frances Edwards. It details specific developments in tracking and immobilization technology that can increase security.

“We consider gasoline tankers, and to a lesser extent, propane tankers to be the most attractive options for terrorists seeking to use highway-borne hazmat because they can create intense fires in public assemblies and residential properties,” said Brian Michael Jenkins, Director of MTI’s NTSCOE. “We strongly urge that DHS, State governments and the industry take a renewed look at flammable liquids and gases as a weapon of opportunity, and at a strategy to improve security measures and technology.”

The peer-reviewed reports came from a review of terrorist objectives, hazardous materials, and potential targets. The reports conclude that terrorists most often seek soft targets that yield significant casualties. They also prefer attacking public buildings and assemblies. Terrorists more often choose simple operations promising modest consequences rather than complex and uncertain operations promising catastrophic ones. Terrorists have also discussed substituting fire for harder-to-acquire explosives. Gasoline tankers have greater appeal because they can easily produce intense fires, operate in target-rich environments with predictable routes, and pose few security challenges.

The report urges that the government, which has focused more on hazmat that can cause catastrophic losses, also focus – as terrorists tend to – on the most readily available, least protected hazmat. The report calls for a clear strategy to increase and sustain security, and for resolving significant jurisdictional issues between federal and state authorities; strengthening hazmat security measures in the field; and implementing vehicle tracking technologies, panic alarms, and immobilization capabilities for vehicles carrying specific hazardous materials, including gasoline. These measures also offer safety and anti-crime benefits.

The free reports can be downloaded from www.transweb.sjsu.edu. Click “Research” and then “Publications.” Scroll down to the reports.

ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL AUTHORS:

BRIAN MICHAEL JENKINS, PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Mr. Jenkins is an international authority on terrorism and sophisticated crime. He directs MTI’s research on protecting surface transportation against terrorist attacks. He is also a senior advisor to the president of RAND. From 1989-98, Mr. Jenkins was deputy chairman of Kroll Associates, an international investigative and consulting firm. Before that, he was chairman of RAND’s Political Science Department, where he also directed research on political violence.

He has a BA in fine arts and an MA in history, both from UCLA. He studied in Mexico and Guatemala, where he was a Fulbright Fellow and received a fellowship from the Organization of American States. Mr. Jenkins was a paratrooper and a captain in the Green Berets, serving in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. He authored several articles, reports and books, including International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict and Will Terrorists Go Nuclear?

BRUCE R. BUTTERWORTH

Mr. Butterworth has had a distinguished government career, working at congressional, senior policy, and operational levels. With Brian Michael Jenkins he co-authored Selective Screening of Rail Passengers (MTI Report 06-07), published by the Mineta Transportation Institute in February 2007. He also co-authored a May 2007 study, Keeping Bombs Off Planes: Securing Air Cargo, Aviations Soft Underbelly with P.J. Crowley, senior fellow and director of Homeland Security at the Center for American Progress. Mr. Butterworth was awarded an MS degree from the London School of Economics in 1974 and a BA degree from the University of the Pacific in 1972.

Emergency Exercise for Train Rescues

Dr. Frances Edwards, one of MTI's faculty members for the Master of Science in Transportation Mangement, wrote this item for the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Emergency and Crisis Management's professional newsletter, Emergency Management Dispatch.

"San Jose's two commuter railroads - ACE Train (Altamont Commuter Express) and Caltrain (serving San Jose to San Francisco corridor) - worked with San Jose Fire Department and the local ambulance provider to hold an emergency preparedness exercise on Saturday, December 12, 2009. The exercise was supported by the DHS Transportation Security Grant program.

"The scenario was a train collision, necessitating gaining emergency access to the cars using the emergency windows, and then triaging and treating patients in the cars, then extricating them through the windows and doors. The interior of the cars have narrow walkways, and some cars are two levels, creating rescue challenges. Patients then had to transported using rolling carts and skeds to the treatment and transportation area at street level, above the railroad embankment.

"Mineta Transportation Institute Research Associate Dan Goodrich provided consultation services during exercise development, and Dan and Frannie Edwards, MTI's Deputy Director for DHS' National Transportation Security Center of Excellence, served as observers during the exercise. Over 100 public safety personnel from San Jose Fire Department and several mutual aid departments participated. Volunteer victims came from the Fire Explorer program of San Jose Fire Department."

Critical Mass Ruling in NY Could Move West

By: Mike Aldax
San Francisco Examiner
February 17, 2010

A court decision in New York City that may create strict restrictions on the Critical Mass bicycle event raises questions as to whether San Francisco could do the same.

A judge ruled Tuesday that New York City can force groups of 50 people or more on bicycles to get a parade permit, a process known to be cumbersome.

The legal battle stemmed from a clash between cyclists and police in 2004 during the Republican National Convention in which hundreds of bicyclists were arrested for alleged unruly behavior.

After the incident, the New York City Police Department sought stricter enforcement on Critical Mass, a group cycling event that clogs up busy city roadways on the last Friday evening of every month. The event started in San Francisco in 1992 and is now mimicked in cities around the world.

Participants argued restrictions infringed upon their First Amendment constitutional rights. However, the judge wrote in his ruling that “their lack of predictability and their tendency to try to stay together in a moving column, even if this means going through a red light … endanger other travelers and disrupt orderly traffic flow.”

Supporters of The City’s Critical Mass say they are wary that the legal decision in New York will inspire a similar push for restrictions here.

“There is always a chance that somebody is going to try to crack down,” said Chris Carlsson, a longtime San Francisco participant who co-authors a blog about Critical Mass.

Last month, police Chief George Gascón expressed dissatisfaction with the bike protest, saying he had been fielding complaints from drivers and bicyclists since becoming chief in August. The Police Department launched a review of the event, he said.

Mayor Gavin Newsom has repeatedly cautioned that the potential backlash from a major crackdown would not be worth the hassle.

The Mayor’s Office “hasn’t had a chance to review the [New York City] ruling to decide if it would apply here or whether we would even want it to,” Newsom press secretary Tony Winnicker said Tuesday.

Hugh d’Andrade, co-author with Carlsson and a longtime event participant, said new crackdown efforts would ultimately fail.

maldax@sfexaminer.com

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Traffic Fines as Cash Cow

It may be a good way to raise revenue, but planners should think carefully before imposing outrageous fines for relatively minor violations.

LA Times Editorial, February 6, 2010

If you're caught running a red light in Los Angeles, be prepared to shell out $446, up from $271 eight years ago. Make a rolling right turn at a stoplight and the ticket comes to $381 -- more than double what it cost in 2008. Park at an expired meter, pay a $50 fine.

It's getting so a person can't even drive badly in this town anymore.

Officials have been jacking up traffic fines recently as a budget crunch encourages creative methods of raising municipal revenue. Not only are fines going up, but the city is considering ways to nab more people to pay them. Times staff writer Rich Connell reports that discussions are underway at City Hall to double the number of intersections outfitted with red-light cameras to 64. Meanwhile, L.A. and other cities are lobbying the Legislature to let them put the "boot" on cars when their owners have as few as three outstanding parking tickets, rather than the current minimum of five. By recovering more overdue ticket money, the city could raise an estimated $61 million.

The state wants a piece of the ticketing action too. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget proposal contains a novel scheme to adapt red-light cameras to bust drivers for speeding as well as running lights. Most of these systems have the ability to measure a vehicle's speed, but state law doesn't allow cities and counties to use them for speed citations. The governor wants to change that and send 85% of the ticket proceeds to Sacramento.

Raising traffic fines has become attractive to politicians because, unlike hiking taxes, it seldom attracts much opposition. That's OK by us, but it's possible to raise fines to the point that they're grossly disproportionate to the infraction. We're getting perilously close to that level in L.A., and in some cases have probably exceeded it.

As a matter of principle, it's usually smart to tax socially destructive behavior such as bad driving; not only are there social benefits (fewer accidents), but public services get an important source of funding, and people who object to paying can avoid doing so simply by driving more responsibly. But when punishments don't fit the crime, it encourages public cynicism and lawless behavior. For a low-income driver, a $500 traffic fine -- the cost of running a red light in L.A.

There's some evidence that red-light cameras improve safety at intersections, so we're not bothered by plans to put up more. And if the city can collar parking ticket scofflaws and raise needed funds by booting cars more often, then boot away. Planners should think carefully, though, before imposing outrageous fines for relatively minor traffic violations. when traffic school is factored in -- is a devastating expense. Some people will break more laws to avoid paying it.

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Women, Transit, and the Perception of Safety

(This article about MTI researcher Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris discusses her recent research report. It appears online at http://www.planetizen.com/node/42878)

11 February 2010
by Tim Halbur, Planetizen

Transit agencies are failing to bring women into the planning process, according to a new report from the Mineta Transportation Institute. We talked with UCLA's Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris, author of the study, about what she uncovered in her research and strategies for improving the perception of safety on transit for women.

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris is no stranger to the issue of safety and transit. In 1998, she authored a study with her colleague Robin Liggett looking at 120 bus stops around Los Angeles and found significant links between environmental attributes and crime. But her latest study goes beyond the actual crime statistics to look at fear itself. What makes women riders feel unsafe, and thus decide not to ride transit? We talked to Loukaitou-Sideris about this fascinating study.

LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS: In many parts of the world, women rely on public transportation more than men. And women are more fearful than men being out in public spaces. This study looks at women's particular needs as transit riders, especially in respect to safety and security. What are they afraid of? What are the issue they are facing? But the other part of the study has to do with how these needs are being met, or not met. And then finally, are there any innovative solutions?

I did a number of surveys with national groups that are advocating for women's issues, and a nationwide survey of all transit agencies throughout the U.S. that have more than 50 public transportation vehicles. Almost every state was represented. And the findings were revealing: While 2/3rds of respondents believed that women travelers have some specific needs, only 1/3rd felt that transit agencies should really do something about it. The most shocking part of that survey was that only 3% of the agencies had any programs for women.

In terms of the interviews, women have significant concerns about riding transit, and there is a mismatch between the practices of transportation agencies and some of the wishes of women riders. For example, women are much more scared waiting at the bus stop or transit station than within the enclosed space of the transit vehicle. Yet most transportation safety resources are concentrated on the vehicle. Women were also not comforted knowing that there was a camera or CCT technology. They were not against it, but they felt that if anything happened to them the camera would only help after the event, not during. So they were much more in favor of more policing, human solutions rather than technological solutions. Yet the trend is towards more technology, not less. We found a lot of these sorts of mismatches between policy and what women want.

We also found that other countries are doing much more. Particularly I'm talking about the U.K., Australia and Canada, that have all incorporated women's voices into transportation planning. And the report talks about some of these efforts from the grassroots level to the institutional level that respond to women’s needs.

PLANETIZEN: It's not surprising to me that cameras aren't found effective when it comes to perceived safety. What were some strategies that you found are the most effective?

LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS: Well, when you're dealing with issues of crime or the fear of crime, there's not one solution. It's a combination of things, ranging from where you choose to locate your bus stops – so that they are in settings that enable natural surveillance, that they have good lighting – but also how you connect the different parts of your transportation system.

For example, you have a station platform that is well lit and there are a lot of people around. But if you have to park at the park-and-ride lot and walk to the platform, the walk may be dark. Oftentimes, women are scared of parking lots. So they range from locational issues and design issues to policy issues like having dedicated spaces for women drivers nearby security kiosks. Some other countries have "request stop" programs at night, where women can ask the bus driver to stop where it is safer for them instead of just at the designated bus stop.

I’m not against technological solutions. Buttons that one can press to summon police or connect to 911 if one feel victimized are useful. Women talked about trying to minimize the time when they wait for the bus, so "next bus" or "next train" signs are good. There's a combination of things that transportation agencies should use.

PLANETIZEN: There is obviously a difference here between actual crime statistics and what this report looks at, which is fear and feelings of safety. Did you look at the difference between the two?

First of all, it is two different things. But ultimately what matters for transportation agencies is if people, both men and women, are fearful. If people perceive an area as dangerous, they won’t take the bus or the train, no matter what the hard statistics say. So perception of fear, in my view, is as significant as the reality.

Second, there is a tremendous underreporting of crime from women on sexual harassment and assault. So the hard data about crime don't show the whole story. And I'm not talking necessarily about what the FBI calls "type 1" crime, which is the most serious crime. What oftentimes scares is a whole category of crime that involves groping and sexual harassment. Women are quite intimidated to report these kinds of crimes, it is difficult to report, and there is a perception that there is not much that the police can do. And these types of crime really intimidate women transit riders, and leads them to avoid certain transit modes or use them only during specific times of the day or only when they are accompanied. If you only look at the hard data, you don’t see that.

And transit agencies have to do something about this, because after all, 51% of their users are women. So even from the standpoint of expanding the transit market, it is a real issue.

PLANETIZEN: Did you also look at the demographics of the transportation agencies themselves? I assume they are overwhelmingly male.

LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS: The people we asked to survey from the transportation agencies were the general managers and the heads of security, and 75% of the respondents were men. Which I would say is indicative of the field, and certainly at higher administrative levels you find more men than women. This may be one of many explanations of why transit agencies here in the U.S. have not really looked at this issue. If you look into Japan, or Mexico, Brazil, the countries I mentioned before, this issue is being dealt with much more systematically than here in the U.S.

PLANETIZEN: Your "whole journey" approach is fascinating, that transit agencies need to plan not only for the vehicle and the station, but the parking lot and the surrounding approach to the station or stop.

LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS: There are studies in Chicago that find block-by-block that more crime tends to happen in the vicinity of the station than within the station, and my own studies show the same. And that's something more transit agencies need to look at. It's admittedly more difficult to implement, it's easier to protect the enclosed vehicle or the enclosed station. But there are so many components to today's transit stations, like park-and-ride lots, escalators, elevators. They really need to look at all of these components and how they link to the rest of the city, because a lot of the crime happens in these in-between spaces.

PLANETIZEN: So imagine I'm a transportation planner, and I'm reading your interview right now on Planetizen. What would you urge me to do?

LOUKAITOU-SIDERIS: To incorporate women's voices into the planning process. I was asked to speak at a conference recently specifically on women's issues and transportation, and there were some women transportation planners there who were saying, "Well, we have to look only to universal needs." I respectfully disagree, because there are specific needs. Transportation planners really need to look at women's fears in transportation settings and know that there are things that they can do to if not completely eliminate but reduce these fears. These solutions involve policy, design, policing, and outreach and education.

Of course, this costs money. But my work and the work of others has shown that crime comes at hotspots: not every area is equally unsafe. Transit agencies do audits every year, and they know where these hotspots are. So when we talk about limited resources, they could concentrate their resources on these areas.

The full report can be downloaded from http://www.transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/summary/mti0901.html

Photo is courtesy of Flickr user net_efekt http://www.flickr.com/people/wheatfields/

--------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris is a Professor of Urban Planning in the Department of Urban Planning at UCLA. She is the co-author of the book Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form (University of California Press, 1998), the co-editor of the book Jobs and Economic Development in Minority Communities (Temple University Press, 2006). Her latest book, Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space (Urban and Industrial Environments), about the social uses of sidewalks was published by the MIT Press in 2009.

Bay Area has some catching up to do for high-speed rail stimulus cash

By Mike Rosenberg, San Mateo County Times

February 4, 2010

The state may expand its high-speed rail engineering team in the Bay Area as the region began racing Thursday against Southern California and the Central Valley for $2.25 billion in stimulus funds.

California High-Speed Rail Authority board member Rod Diridon said after a San Diego board meeting that of the four corridors eligible for the federal cash, the Los Angeles-to-Anaheim section was clearly leading. He said the corridor is about 18 months ahead of the San Francisco-to-San Jose section in terms of planning.

"We're going to have to catch up (in the Bay Area)," said Diridon, one of two Bay Area representative on the board, which is in charge of divvying up stimulus funds. "That doesn't mean shortcut — shortcuts are deadly."

The two other corridors eligible for stimulus cash are Fresno to Bakersfield and Merced to Fresno. The board decided it will give the most money to sections that can begin and finish construction the quickest.

Diridon said the authority has enough money to add to the engineering force responsible for building the San Francisco-to-San Jose section along the Caltrain tracks.

At the very least, he said they would "put a lot of pressure" on the Bay Area engineering team to maintain its schedule. In the Bay Area last year, the state extended a public outreach process by 30 days and its critical report on track alignment, originally scheduled for completion in December, now will be out in March.

The larger staff would not necessarily accelerate the process past checkpoints, only ensure planners don't fall behind schedule while holding all the public hearings they promised, Diridon said.

But many officials and residents in the Peninsula and South Bay have pushed for the opposite, hoping to slow down the process to make sure each detail is tirelessly examined. They already fear the White House stimulus grant awarded last week will spark the authority into a mad dash that could result in oversights and critical errors. The state needs to enter a construction contract by September 2012 or lose the federal money.

To make matters even trickier, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said last week the federal government would give $400 million in stimulus funds to San Francisco's Transbay Terminal. But the authority does not yet know whether that will come out of the $2.25 billion total.

Also at Thursday's board meeting, the authority announced it expects to have a $458 million budget for the next fiscal year, which begins in July. Diridon said the authority worked out the finances with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office in anticipation of his May revise budget, but the Legislature will still need to approve it.

About half the money will go toward environmental planning and corridor studies while the rest will be invested in the protection of land subject to development along the planned route, he said.

Lastly, the authority board agreed to set the pay for its incoming executive director at $250,000 to $375,000. It expects to hire a replacement for outgoing Executive Director Mehdi Morshed by the end of March.

"That's obviously way above most state salaries, but we all recognize that this is the largest construction project in the nation's history," Diridon said.

Backers of maglev train say Chinese bank prepared to fund project

By Richard N. Velotta

Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2010 | 2:05 a.m.

Las Vegas Sun

The proponents of a maglev train line between Las Vegas and Southern California say a Chinese government-controlled bank has agreed to loan up to $7 billion to help build the high-speed transportation system.

But the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission still has several hurdles to clear before it could move ahead with plans to develop the project between Las Vegas and Anaheim, Calif.

The commission late Monday announced that the Export-Import Bank of China, which has 14 domestic offices and three overseas offices, said it would provide a direct loan that would require the backing of the U.S. government as well as cooperation with Chinese enterprises.

“It is a very positive development for Nevada’s employment picture and very telling that the financiers who are stepping up to bat are the Chinese, the people most familiar with Transrapid Maglev technology,” Neil Cummings, president of the American Magline Group, said in a press release announcing the loan.

American Magline has contracted with the commission to build the system and is partnering with Transrapid, a German company that built a maglev system operating in Shanghai and has since developed upgrades to the technology that are proposed for the Nevada system.

“In China, it has been operating flawlessly for six years, carrying 20 million passengers over 4.1 million miles,” Cummings said.

In an interview today, maglev spokesman Mark Fierro said the Chinese bank’s backing of the project is an employment game-changer for the hard-hit Southern Nevada economy.

Maglev backers view the project as a massive stimulus package for Southern Nevada, with an estimated 90,000 jobs that could be created.

Fierro said development of the project could be one of the most significant economic events in Las Vegas history, because the city would become a virtual suburb of Los Angeles if trains could make the trip from Anaheim to Las Vegas in just more than an hour.

“People in Los Angeles could come to the Las Vegas Strip for dinner,” Fierro said. “This couldn’t be a more perfect technology for the kind of visitor we’re going to attract.”

Fierro said the commission has been in negotiations with the bank — known in the industry as “China Eximbank” — for about a year. He said the bank was unclear about what type of assurances it would need from the federal government to back the loan.

Support from the Chinese bank would help the maglev team’s efforts after the group hit a stumbling block last week. Nevada was left off the list of high-speed rail projects receiving a total $8 billion in federal stimulus funding.

Commission officials viewed the rejection as a double loss for Nevada, because not only was the project not funded, but Florida received $1.25 billion for a rail project that would help Las Vegas’ biggest rival for attracting meetings and conventions — Orlando.

The largest portion of the stimulus funds, more than $2 billion, went to California for a traditional steel-wheels-on-rail project with which the proposed DesertXpress — a Las Vegas-to-Victorville, Calif., line — would link.

U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the California project eventually would benefit Las Vegans because the Victorville end of the DesertXpress line would be connected to the California system at Palmdale.

Another problem for the maglev is credibility.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said after the stimulus funds were announced that the reason the maglev project was rejected was because it failed to apply — a claim maglev leaders deny.

In a video released by Reid’s office, LaHood said, “Nevada did not submit any paperwork, any proposal for high-speed rail.”

LaHood also said the California-Nevada Super Speed Train Commission was not eligible to submit a proposal because it was not sanctioned in California.

The commission responded that not only did it file an application, but it has received correspondence from the Federal Railroad Administration, the clearinghouse agency for the high-speed rail proposals, five times in the last 10 years.

The commission also said its plans were jointly submitted with the Nevada Department of Transportation.

Federal Railroad Administration representatives did not return calls on Tuesday.