Subway Security

As the MTA gears up for another round of board meetings this week after a six-week winter hiatus, the crime numbers are going to take center stage. Already, amNew York’s Theresa Juva has noted an uptick in subway crime, and as this is the first such increase since 2004 and only the second since 1997, subway watchers will try to figure out why.

The pure numbers themselves aren’t too shocking, and subway crime is still near all-time lows. Yet, the slight increase is there. The New York Police Department reported 36 more felony assaults in 2010 over 2009 and 91 more grand larcenies last year over the year before. Percentage-wise, felony assaults were up 23.2 percent, and grand larcenies were up 7.7 percent to 1269.

One of the key drivers behind the increase in grand larcenies, as the police noted in December, is the proliferation of smart phones. The New York Penal Code defines a grand larceny as the theft of “an access device which the person intends to use unlawfully to obtain telephone service.” In non-legalese, then, that means any time a perp robs another of any cell phone — a Droid, a Blackberry, an iPhone, you name it — it’s a grand larceny. As Raymond Diaz, head of the NYPD Transit Bureau chief, said last month, “The snatching of electronic devices seems to be our biggest concern with crime.”

In amNew York, Juva wonders if “the bad old days underground have returned.” While a seemingly natural question, it’s tough to look at these numbers and conclude so. Even as late as 1997, when the subways were far, far safer than they were in 1987, grand larcenies totaled 3463 or nearly three times as many as police recorded in 2010. That year, cops reported 17.04 major felonies per day, but even with the increase last year, the NYPD counted just 5.96 major felonies daily — out of five million weekday riders.

Cops and rider advocates pointed fingers in different directions. A police spokesman told amNew York that “teen-on-teen” crime is to blame for the increase in grand larcenies. After kids get out of school, they seem to like to take each other’s phones. “Deployments are designed to address after-school ridership when most teen on teen crime occurs,” the department said.

Others looked, naturally enough, at the decline of the station agent. “There are less eyes and ears in the system and many more things to take as more gadgets are displayed all over the place,” Transit Riders Council chair Andrew Albert said to Juva.

On the one hand, I can see why Albert wants to blame the decrease in station staffing levels. If someone’s iPod is snatched and no station agent is present, the victim must track down someone to help. By the time he or she reaches street level and can call the cops, the perpetrator is long gone. On the other hand, it sounds that most of these grand larcenies are of the snatch-and-go variety. Someone looking for an easy score grabs a phone out of their victim’s hands and then bolts out of the subway car as the doors close. The victim has no recourse whether a station agent is there or not.

As I wrote in October, I believe the increase in thefts to be a result of our obliviousness. As the subways are drastically safer today than they were 13 or 23 or 33 years ago, New Yorkers are more comfortable riding with luxury. We flash everything from Kindles to iPads to laptops and just assume that subway crime won’t happen to us. Toward the end of the year, grand larceny reports spiked, and that’s when people needed money the most. Cell phones are an easy target, and as long as riders stay aware of their surroundings, those numbers should decline naturally this year.

Random bag searches have been the way of life underground since 2005. (Photo by flickr user Runs With Scissors)

For New Yorkers, random subway bag searches have been a way of life for six years. Now and then, straphangers see a trio of NYPD officers set up shop at an entrance, usually at rush hour when most people would rather just got home. Right now, ten years after 9/11 and what seems like a lifetime since Transit and the police started its own bag searches, Washington’s WMATA is launching its own bag searches, and the riders are not happy.

In many regards, the stories coming out of the District of Columbia mirror those from New York in 2005, but Metro passengers in DC are unhappier than straphangers here ever were. Dr. Gridlock of The Washington Post offers up his take on the bag searches in DC. While New Yorkers hate the MTA, folks in DC loathe the WMATA and have not take kindly to the latest intrusion into their privacy. He criticizes the WMATA board for falling to explore this change in policy, and the rhetoric is strong. It is, he says, “one more indignity” customers who have “taken so much from the transit authority” must withstand.

The WMATA officials of course defended the policy in December on grounds that, hey, New York is doing it. “While there is no specific or credible threat to the system at this time, this inspection program is part of our practice of varying our security posture and adds another type of visible protection on our system,” Richard Sarles, Metro’s interim GM, said.

“[Police Chief Michael] Taborn has ensured that this program will minimize inconvenience to riders. The program is based on similar successful law enforcement programs used routinely on transit systems in the New York, New Jersey and Boston areas. Inspections will be brief and are typically non-intrusive, as police will randomly select bags or packages to check for hazardous materials using ionization technology, as well as K-9 units trained to detect explosive material. Carry on items will generally not be opened and physically inspected, unless the equipment indicates a need for further inspection.”

As with in New York, those who refuse inspection are not permitted entrance into the system, and the riders absolutely hate it. “We’re not Israel, nor should we be. The searches are ineffective,” one said at a recent public forum.

These DC responses remind me of a time nearly six years ago when the MTA implemented a similar procedure. In the wake of the July train bombings in Europe in 2005, the MTA and other area transit authorities began random bag inspections throughout the region. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly felt that “time was right” to begin this security initiative, and taking to the airwaves, Mayor Bloomberg tried to assuage public fears of police misconduct. “I hope that we have established the right balance here, providing the kind of security we need while not being too intrusive and not violating their rights,” he said. “The way we’ve done this is: You can walk away if you don’t want your bag searched; you just can’t get on the subway. So we do it outside the turnstile. And there’s no profiling.”

Calling protecting our subways a “vital national interest,” The Times endorsed the practice, and after the first week, most watching the program cited “an absence of drama.” Still, civil liberties groups were not too happy with the searches, and the NYCLU filed suit in November.

The following year, a three-judge panel in the Second Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the searches. “In light of the thwarted plots to bomb New York City’s subway system, its continued desirability as a target, and the recent bombings of public transportation systems in Madrid, Moscow and London, the risk to public safety is substantial and real,” determined the judges.

Today, the bag searches have become background noise in the subways. At first, cops were inspecting every fifth passenger to enter the system, but these days, it appears far more random than that. I constantly see the police set up shop at West 4th St., but even with a heavy backpack in tow, I’ve never once had to stop for a bag search. Despite Bloomberg’s promises in 2005, I can’t help but think that I don’t look the part enough for the NYPD.

As D.C. grapples with a similar project — a legal challenge seems both brewing and bound to fail — maybe it’s time to reevaluate our city’s own program. Has it made the subways safer? Does it still? The MTA still faces fears of photography at depots where security staffing had to be reduced, and anti-terrorist experts admit that our rail systems remain insecure. There’s no good one way to keep terrorists at bay, and a wide array of local responses seem to be warranted to make sure we’re as safe as possible.

We seem to be stuck with the bag search hand we’ve been dealt. It — and the threat of terrorism — isn’t going away any time soon, and DC’s Metro riders will soon, for better or worse, learn the same lesson. While New Yorkers didn’t put up much of a fight or offer public outcry, though, Washingtonians won’t take their bag searches lying down.

While you were sleeping, the MTA has terror-proofed its subway tunnels and bridges, according to a report in The Post. Transit reporter Tom Namako spills the beans on a $250-million plan to shore up the ten subway tunnels that pass under the East River.

Since 2004, agency contractors have been lining subway tubes — especially the 10 that run under the East River — with high-impact-bearing metal that would prevent collapse or massive flooding in the case of a terrorist attack, multiple sources said. And in the more shallow tunnels that aren’t fully dug into rock, like the F line that connects 63rd Street to Roosevelt Island, workers dropped massive slabs of rock and concrete on the riverbed to prevent disaster, the sources said.

The MTA’s security makeover isn’t limited to tunnels. The agency’s seven bridges are being “hardened” with plates and “collars” on cables that can resist a blast, sources said. The agency originally planned to use a lightweight, blast-resistant material to ring the tunnels — but sources said that various types of materials have been used.

One of more complicated tasks was determining which parts of the aged tunnels were bored deep into rock and which parts come close to the surface. “That presents several issues. With some tunnels, there’s a point where they come out to the surface and there’s different vulnerability there than with tunnels in bedrock,” one source said.

The work, was deemed 93 percent completed in January, has come in at $22 million over budget. “A lot has been done in regards to hardening, and that work continues to move forward,” MTA spokesman Kevin Ortiz said to The Post.

Namako’s report follows an earlier revelation that the Port Authority has spent $600 million to to ring PATH tunnels in steel. Reported The Post, “Defense contractors — toiling in the cloak of darkness — are installing reinforced metal plates along the interior walls of the tunnels, and massive flood-prevention gates are being erected at either end of the two main lines that run from the World Trade Center and the West Village to Jersey City, sources said. The flood gates are designed to close off one or more tubes should water come surging in. That would protect other parts of the PATH system and its riders, which number about 250,000 a day.”

The PATH project, funded in part by the Department of Homeland Security and some stimulus dollars, carries a higher price tag than the MTA’s own security initiatives, but it has come in at nearly $300 million under budget. “The safety of our customers is the Port Authority’s highest priority, which is why we have spent over $5 billion since 9/11 upgrading the security systems at our facilities,” PATH COO Ernesto Butcher said. “Hardening our PATH rail tunnels is one example of that effort.”

In a 59-page whistle-blower lawsuit fired on Tuesday in federal court, a 25-year MTA employee alleges that the authority is not prepared for a mass evacuation and is violating safety standards. The Post, which first reported on the suit, summarizes Peter Nichik’s complaint:

He alleges that “anti-crime” gates — which make it possible to close off alternate entrances and exits to subway stations during certain times of the day — are not being padlocked while open meaning anyone can shut and lock them up with their own equipment.

“These conditions present a significant danger to the riding public and [MTA] employees in the event of a situation requiring rapid evacuation or emergency response and rescue,” said his lawyer, Clare Norins. “The defects continue to exist unabated in many NYC subway stations.”

..Nichik, a former superintendent in the Division of Station Operations, first brought the security break to the MTA’s attention in August 2007, when he warned his bosses that the gates weren’t secure for the usually rambunctious West Indian Day Parade in Brooklyn. That meant someone could enter the station, close the gates, and lock them, creating “a very dangerous and potentially lethal event in an emergency situation,” like an explosion, bomb threat, or chemical or biological attack, the suit claims. He also claims the MTA provided him with too few chains and padlocks for the gates, and when transit bosses took a survey of how many were unsecured, “the actual safety conditions in the field were being underreported in the survey.”

In his suit, which I’ve embedded after the jump, Nichik claims his constant complaints about security also lead to “a hostile work environment.” He has requested that court order the MTA to both address these security concerns and refrain from taking action against him.

For its part, the MTA denied the allegations in the complaint and said that any security deficiencies have been addressed. “We have had a procedure in place since 2008 to survey all station entrances to make certain that 24-hour security gates are padlocked in the open position,” Transit spokesman Kevin Ortiz said. “As a result, we secured all entrances with new padlocks and chains and began a regular inspection cycle to insure compliance.”

The authority also said in a statement that the “there is no merit whatsoever to this individual’s claim that he has been retaliated against as a result of having raised safety-related concerns.”

After the jump, read the complaint in full.

In the 1974 version of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three — airing later today at Film Forum — Robert Shaw has successfully hijacked a subway car, and to ensure his ransom demands and getaway plans, he threatens to kill the passengers on board. In a moment quintessentially New York, the passengers laugh. They don’t believe that the guy with a gun is actually going to use it. It’s the subway after all; anything goes.

At that point, the subways were amidst a long, slow decline to lawlessness. Graffiti markings that marred every available surface of nearly every single subway car lent the subways an aura of anarchy, and the always-feared subway shooting can to pass in December of 1984 when Bernard Goetz opened fire on four young men he claimed were trying to rob him. Straphangers took the subway at night at their own risk, and riders were always aware of their surroundings.

Today, we treat subway crimes with an aura of detachment and murder with spectacle. In the backs of our minds, we know that people can get robbed, mugged or raped in the subway, but the numbers and anecdotes say it doesn’t happen too frequently. In fact, through August 2010, the police have received no reports of any rapes in the subway and just 775 instances of grand larceny. As recently as 2000, the NYPD had fielded four rape calls in the subway, and as recently as 1997, grand larceny reports numbered 2264.

Yet, a narrative has emerged, fueled in part by overeager police and in part by real-life experience, that suggests straphangers have become almost too complacent underground. The narrative is summarized by Andrew Grossman and Tamar El-Ghobashy in the Wall Street Journal. Criminals, they say, are targeting high-tech devices.

Based on the latest totals released by the NYPD, grand larcenies were up only 15 percent for August 2010 as compared with August 2009. Overall, grand larcenies are up from 759 from January-August in 2009 to 775 over the same period in 2010. That’s a jump of just 2.1 percent, and while it’s hardly an alarming increase, this year marks just the second time since 1997 that grand larceny has increased over the first eight months of the year.

Cops tell the Journal that the increase in theft is directly related to appealing iEverythings. Police officials claim that perps grab iPhones, Blackberries or anything else electronic out of the hands of those sitting near car doors and then bolt right before the train leaves. “We often see spikes in thefts of popular items, especially in teen-on-teen crime after school,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. “For example, when eight-ball jackets were popular among teens, we saw a spike in their thefts. Same thing when certain expensive sneakers became popular. In more recent years, Sidekicks, cellphones and iPhones were targeted.”

So when then do I say we ride obliviously? If the NYPD says more people are getting their high-tech gadgets snatched, I believe New Yorkers have become too complacent on the subways. Newcomers to the city and even younger kids who grew up here don’t remember the days when the subways were dangers. Their parents have never told them to avoid the train at night or to ride in packs. Rather, they see people who flaunt their iPods, iPhone, iPads and Kindles. They see people who do work on their laptops during long rides. They see everyday life going on underground without an undercurrent of menace looming around the corner as many felt in the 1970s and 1980s.

Now, don’t get me wrong; a safe subway system is far preferable to one where we must sit on guard at all times wary of that guy giving us an eye across the aisle. But at some point, riders buried in their oh-so-familiar Apple headphones should remember where they are. Just as the noise leaking from headphones screams “obliviously,” so too does a disregard for personal security. It only takes a moment to see that iPhone ripped away from the train. Beware of the closing doors.