Innovating Transit Safety - What one city might learn from another

In 2024, New York deployed the National Guard to patrol subways
 - photo courtesy of Flickr via Creative Commons

by Gregory Saville

Comparing crime between cities is always a challenge. Crime rates, cultures, and demographics vary widely. This is especially the case with different transit systems where light rail station designs and social environments differ. 

With these caveats in mind, looking at the safety strategies in the public transit systems of Portland’s TriMet and Calgary Transit provides a unique opportunity to explore how transit security evolves and how Calgary (and other cities) might learn from a unique program in Portland: the Safety Response Team (SRT). 

(Editorial Rant: I am mindful of the recent US/Canada tariff war. I have my own opinions on that fiasco that will remain out of this blog. But now, perhaps more than ever, it is important to acknowledge how different cities can share important lessons from each other to make places safer for all our citizens! Rant done!) 

Different Cities, Different Systems

I have seen security footage of recent violent incidents on both the Calgary and Portland light rail systems. Clearly, neither system is immune from crime, even though overall rates of violence on public transit, compared to other areas in the city, are exceedingly low. 

Calgary Transit light rail - photo Greenwood714, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

I have also spent time on both transit systems, having taught SafeGrowth in both cities. I love spending time in both cities! 

Calgary and Portland are distinct in many ways. Calgary’s metropolitan area has about 1.4 million residents, while Portland’s metro population is closer to 2.5 million. Portland’s TriMet system covers 59 miles of light rail with 149 stations, compared to Calgary’s CTrain, which spans 27 miles with 42 stations. Calgary Transit moves about 106 million riders annually, whereas TriMet serves 67 million riders. 

Portland's TriMet light rail Tilikum Crossing
Photo Steve Morgan, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Portland also has a higher murder rate than Calgary (and more handguns in the US). Other types of crime rates, however, are not so different and since last year Calgary has seen an increase in the proportion of gun-related homicides. 

Calgary Transit employs about 140 peace officers, giving it a ratio of 3.11 officers per station. TriMet’s system, by contrast, has a much lower security/police officer-to-station ratio—approximately 1.06 per station (Portland uses a combination of security officers and law enforcement officers who respond when called). 

Despite these differences, Portland’s Safety Response Team (SRT) represents an innovation that Calgary could benefit from, even within its own distinct system.

The Portland SRT: A Social Response to Transit Safety

As we learned from Beth Dufek’s three-part blogs on TriMet’s SRT - the Safety Response Team (November 2023, January 2024, and March, 2024), it was a response to increasing safety concerns on the system. Rather than focusing purely on enforcement, SRT members take a different approach: they are unarmed, patrol in teams of 4, trained in conflict resolution and first aid skills. They use a Smartsheet on their phones to carefully track all interactions (in 2023, SRT had 11,354 interactions and provided 8,022 people with services).

TriMet's SRT group - January 2023 
Photo courtesy of TriMet

They discourage inappropriate and illegal behavior through engagement and, where possible, not enforcement. They also conduct social service outreach, providing referrals for housing, mental health support, and addiction treatment. The team even carries Narcan to intervene in opioid overdoses.

This program has gained national recognition. In 2023, the American Public Transportation Association awarded TriMet its highest honor for security and safety innovations, largely due to the impact of the SRT.

In contrast, Calgary Transit relies more on traditional enforcement. Its peace officers are sworn officers who can issue fines, make arrests, and carry batons and handcuffs. While effective in crime deterrence, this approach does not inherently offer a similar social service outreach that the SRT offers. Calgary does have an “ambassador program” with transit employees who help customers with route information and inquiries, but that is a far cry from the SRT. 

Conducting safety audits of a TriMet station in Portland
during SafeGrowth training

SafeGrowth and the Future of Transit Safety

Over the past few years, we conducted SafeGrowth Training with TriMet’s security team and the SRT. By applying SafeGrowth principles, the TriMet security team, along with their SRT, is equipped to create safer transit spaces not just through security, but through 1st and 2nd Generation CPTED, proactive engagement, and problem-solving.

Calgary Transit has taken steps to address safety, including increasing peace officers by 25% in 2023 and deploying security guards at select stations. However, the question remains: could a model like the SRT, rooted in social outreach and engagement, provide an additional layer of safety beyond enforcement? Given that nearly half of Calgarians still avoid transit due to safety concerns, it may be time to explore such an approach.

Moving Forward

The challenges of transit safety won’t be solved by enforcement alone. Transit systems across Canada and the US face challenges from declining ridership, public fears, and crime. For example, last year, New York deployed 1,000 National Guard troops on the subway system in response to some high-profile crimes and increasing fears. This was despite questions about their ill-preparedness for policing tasks and public concerns that, instead of feeling reassured, some citizens feel more uncomfortable about soldiers with machine guns on subway platforms. 

Portland at night - SafeGrowth training with public transportation   

There are better ways forward. Portland’s TriMet SRT offers a glimpse into what a different model can look like—one that combines security with social outreach. 

Calgary Transit has made strides in bolstering its security presence, but adding a program similar to the SRT could help address safety concerns in a way that enforcement alone cannot. As transit agencies worldwide explore new models of safety, it may be time for Calgary and other cities to take a closer look at what’s working in Portland.

Extinction or Evolution? CPTED Guidelines

The new Under Armor development on the Baltimore Peninsula.
Urban design is a major force in the modern city. 

by Gregory Saville

I was recently asked to review CPTED guidelines for a national government, the kind of thing builders, architects, and developers will use across that country. There are many CPTED guidelines posted on the website of the International CPTED Association

CPTED guidelines fit into the broader strategy called urban design guidelines. Many people do not really understand the concept of design guidelines or why urban design guidelines are needed. Even urban designers question their use. Paul Goldberger, an architectural critic for the New Yorker, commented in 2003 in The Next American City magazine (now Next City):

 “…design guidelines are a safety net. But they also, almost invariably, prevent anything creative, fresh, interesting or different from happening. They force things toward a banal middle.”

Some design checklists are plodding, time-consuming, and extensive. They can also slow development, a disaster for some projects on a tight fiscal budget. This can be a problem! Consider when affordable housing and economic activity are needed quickly in a struggling city. Shouldn’t we streamline new building regulations, not slow them down? Design guidelines are the poster children for red tape.  

If CPTED guidelines make that worse, should they vanish? Do they accomplish the goal of a safer environment?

 

The atrium of the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC.
Some say that beautiful architecture is not possible with design guidelines 

A STAPLE IN URBAN DESIGN 

Urban design guidelines are pervasive and have been around for decades. They are a staple in the urban design world, especially in municipal government. Public sector urban planners walk a tightrope between protecting public safety on one hand, and being careful not to overload private developers with already burdensome regulations and building controls. 

But what about CPTED design guidelines? 

I have created CPTED guidelines many times in different cities over the years, including co-authoring the extensive Saskatoon CPTED/SafeGrowth guidelines with urban planner, Elisabeth Miller.  

CPTED design guidelines also appear in cities like New York City and Vancouver. Despite political hullabaloo in that city opposing CPTED, Vancouver still uses CPTED guidelines.

Vancouver Place Stadium. Vancouver, BC, still uses CPTED guidelines
despite the political hullabaloo to the contrary.

DO CPTED GUIDELINES WORK?

Back in 1996, I helped design some CPTED guidelines for the City of Langley, BC. Since then, obviously, they have been updated. When I read the updated Langley CPTED guidelines, the problem became obvious. Whoever updated them did not read the current research. In fact, many CPTED guidelines are hopelessly out of date and no longer align with current research. Or, more to the point, they present CPTED without describing how environmental context determines success or failure.

The governmental BC Housing CPTED guidelines are a prime offender. Despite a 2019 publication date, those guidelines still promote practices that have been shown not to work. Others can make things worse. Some of the claims are, at best, specious:  

“Research into criminal behaviour indicates that the decision to offend or not to offend is more influenced by cues to the perceived risk of being caught than by cues to reward or ease of entry.” 

If you read the research, you discover a more nuanced truth. Research studies say something quite different. Consider psychological research of  environmental influences on criminal behavior:

"Opportunities present themselves, but only a small number of people exploit those opportunities in a criminal manner [Environmental] changes do not transform a criminal into a responsible person. Attributing criminal behavior to external circumstances perpetuates a deterministic view that ignores the role of choice and tends to absolve people of personal responsibility."

The International CPTED Association publishes the
latest research and statements about the state of the art

THE REQUIRED INGREDIENTS

That is the problem with CPTED design guidelines. Without instructions on the necessary research that must accompany any application of CPTED, there is no way to understand the context of a particular crime situation. Without context, CPTED is risky. As the International CPTED Association suggests for certified practitioners: “Context is Everything”. 

You can definitely reduce crime risks by using the right CPTED strategies, but it’s important to gather data and do research first. Only after this risk assessment research can you figure out the best approach. For example, adding more lights might help reduce crime in one area, but in another spot, you might need to turn off the lights and try a different approach.

Good CPTED strategies aren't a one-size-fits-all solution. If you come across guidelines that only offer outdated, basic CPTED ideas without context or fail to consider modern approaches like 2nd Generation CPTED or the role of psychology and sociology in crime behavior, just disregard them! They're as outdated as dinosaurs. They are extinct.

Home of the late Elvis Presley in Palm Springs, California.
Can design guidelines produce beautiful architecture and safe places? 

A CPTED guideline for reducing crime is not like an engineering guideline for construction. Stairway materials, weight, and strength are a simple matter of physics. Materials have known scientific properties. Few, if any, such social or psychological “materials” exist consistently in the social world. Human behavior, it turns out, is exceedingly complex. 

STICK WITH CPTED AS IT HAS EVOLVED 

Crime risks can definitely be reduced, and CPTED strategies can be effective. But basic 1st Generation CPTED strategies don't always work unless you also do a proper risk assessment first. If the guidelines don’t explain how to do that research, you're setting yourself up for failure.

This principle is clearly stated on the ICA website. Governments would be wise - and legally prudent - to follow their advice: 

"As with all CPTED principles, there are no single strategies that will reduce all crime; they should be applied in combinations based on a thorough analysis of the local context. However, the history of CPTED suggests that comprehensive urban planning and community development requires consideration of all First and Second Generation CPTED principles."