Women’s Issues in Transportation: Summary of the 4th International Conference, Volume 1: Conference Overview and Plenary Papers (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

103 What Is Blocking Her Path? Women, Mobility, and Security Anastasia loukaitou-Sideris, Department of Urban Planning, University of California, Los Angeles I am parking as close to my destination as I can. I’m definitely looking around and being very self- aware, understanding that it is important to be alert. (Amy Stear, Wisconsin Director of 9to5, quoted in loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009) We are talking about nothing less . . . [than] pub- lic transportation justice. This is one of the biggest concerns our members have. As low-income women and mothers, they depend heavily on public trans- portation, and unfortunately there are not a lot of safe places, especially in the evening, where they can wait for the bus; or they cut off service so you have to walk through not very safe neighborhoods to get home. If you work non-traditional hours, you are screwed! (Anita Rees, Associate Director, lIFe- TIMe, quoted in loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009) Fear and anxiety about personal security impede mobility. Historically, women’s presence in pub-lic environments and their journeys throughout the city have been impeded by norms imposed on them by society but also by their own fear of victimization. Indeed, fear of victimization and crime is quite wide- spread among women. Almost every fear of crime sur- vey reports that women are much more fearful than men (Gordon and Riger 1989). Many women are fearful of rape and serious violence against them, but feminist scholars also argue about an existing continuum of vio- lence against women that includes intimidation, grop- ing, sexual comments, harassment, threats, and other nuisance crimes with sexual undertones (Morrell 1996; Stanko 1990). In explaining the gendered nature of fear of crime, criminologists highlight these often “invisible” and underreported crimes against women. Whether real or only perceived, fear has significant consequences for women and leads them to use precau- tionary measures and strategies that affect their mobil- ity and travel behavior (Figure 1). These range from the adoption of certain behavioral mechanisms when in pub- lic to the choice of specific routes, modes, and transit environments over others to completely avoiding par- ticular transportation environments, trips, and activities deemed as more unsafe for women (e.g., walking or bicy- cling). of course, not all women experience similar lev- els of fear, and significant differences exist among them. As we will later discuss, important sociopsychological, sociodemographic, and environmental factors intervene and may modify women’s levels of fear. This paper takes stock of the issues affecting women’s unobstructed movement in the city and assesses changes occurring during the past decades with respect to per- sonal security as it pertains to women’s mobility. Follow- ing a brief historic overview of issues affecting women’s mobility patterns in the city, I discuss how changes in sociospatial conditions are currently affecting women’s travel. Because fear of crime and violence influence women’s travel behavior, I also examine and assess how research and practice have responded to these concerns. Finally, I outline some promising research and policy directions for making women’s travel in the city less hin- dered by the fear of crime and violence.

104 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 WoMen’s restricted Mobility Historically, and in most societies, women’s mobility in the city has been much more restricted than men’s, as a sharp division between public and private domains rel- egated women to a limited domestic role. This was the case in American cities of the 19th century, where the public and private spheres were rigidly separated. While men moved from private realms into public spaces and were expected to easily navigate both spheres, women who wished to maintain middle-class propriety were confined to the private edifices of their homes (loukai- tou-Sideris and ehrenfeucht 2009). Public and private boundaries were maintained by stigmatizing women who acted improperly (Franck and Paxson 1989). Indeed, no respectable 19th-century middle- or upper-class woman would be seen in public unescorted. In the daytime, only working-class women walked alone on the street as peddlers, and at night a woman alone was considered a prostitute (Baldwin 2002). Harassment and, at times, violence greeted women on the streets. Men intimidated them with “lecherous gazes” and followed, insulted, and abused them with sexual comments (Ryan 1990, p. 69). While men’s rambling and visual exploration of the city were completely accepted, even romanticized as fla- neurie, women’s presence and movement on streets and sidewalks was a source of public anxiety. As Rendell (1998, p. 88) explains, “In streets, the threat to social order posed by a mixing of classes and genders was caused for middle- and upper-class angst. So too was the worry that female forms of male property (mothers, wives, daughters) would be visually and sexually avail- able for other men.” By the late 19th century, when paid labor and paid leisure started contributing to an increasingly heteroso- cial public life, women’s presence in public spaces and movement around the city started expanding. Down- town department stores gave a justification to women to venture downtown. Their window displays extended women’s realm to the sidewalks, which were under the purview of the stores, and therefore clean and controlled (loukaitou-Sideris and ehrenfeucht 2009). In the 20th century, women’s increasing entrance into the paid labor force increased their presence on the streets and sidewalks and their use of public transportation. As streetcars, elevated trains, and subways started travers- ing the early-20th-century city, some women riders also appeared but were decidedly a minority. The proximity of bodies in the enclosed space of buses and train cars immediately generated uncomfortable circumstances for women. Referring to the experiences of female rid- ers on new York’s Interborough Rapid Transit, which began operating in 1904, Outlook magazine complained in 1912 that “a crowding at best is almost intolerable and at its worst is deliberately insulting. . . . Males were often not too chivalrous, and sometimes coarse-grained, Fear Constrained B ehavior Travel Choice Travel Time Travel Mode M odifiers Sociopsychological Factors Sociodemographic Factors Environmental Factors Perceived Risk FIGURE 1 Conceptual relationship of perceived risk, fear, and travel behavior.

105WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? vulgar or licentious” (Outlook 1912). The magazine’s article and publications by the New York Times referred to the sexual harassment and fondling of women riders on the subway as “the Subway problem” (New York Times, March 10, 1905; see Hood 1996). Although societal expectations about the presence of unaccompanied women on public streets and public transportation slowly changed in the 20th century with the increasing entrance of women into the labor force, women’s mobility still remained more restricted than men’s, for a variety of reasons. For one, women always have been and remain the primary caregivers for children, and they are mostly responsible for domestic chores and shopping. Both sets of responsibilities affect women’s mobility patterns, as these activities reduce the amount of time for discretionary activities and travel, increase the number of obligatory short trips related to household chores (trip chaining), and at times force women to look for jobs closer to home, even if these are less well paid or part time (Women’s Planning network Inc. 1995). Women’s travel typically involves more other peo- ple and activities than that of men, which also hinders women’s mobility (Franck and Paxson, 1989). empirical surveys of transit riders have often reported the hurdles encountered by women riders who are accompanied by young children in strollers and who have to carry large shopping bags on the buses and trains (Hamilton et al. 1991). Women are also more likely than men to be the caregivers of elderly family members, which may confine them to the home. While the number of women who own and drive private automobiles has increased consistently over the years, women in many countries still remain more dependent on public transportation than men. This is partly because of the higher poverty levels encountered among women, but also because men are the primary drivers in households that own only one car. Women’s greater dependency on public transportation necessarily reduces the time and range of their trips. Similarly, the fear of rowdy behavior and unwanted sexual advances and harassment that can easily take place on crowded buses and trains may act as a deterrent to women travel- ing at all (Hamilton et al. 2002). Indeed, one of the biggest hurdles of women’s unob- structed mobility in the city remains their fear and anxi- ety over their possible victimization in public spaces and transit environments. The situation seems to be particu- larly aggravating for low-income and minority women, who tend to live in high-crime neighborhoods, often return home from work at odd hours, and typically have fewer transportation options than more affluent women (evenson et al. 2002; eyler et al. 1998; Thompson et al. 2002; Wilbur et al. 2002). The relationship between women’s fear and the built environment has been the subject of much scholarly research with clear findings that women feel unsafe in a variety of public settings. Whether they are walking alone on the streets or traveling by bus, train, or private automobile, women’s fear of public spaces and transpor- tation settings and facilities in turn affects the way they engage in travel. This fear may preclude them from a basic right of the city—the ability to move carefree from origin to destination without worrying that a “wrong choice” of mode, transit setting, or time of travel could have consequences for their safety. The next section examines what is known about women’s fear of public spaces and outlines a series of facts and fallacies associ- ated with this fear. WoMen’s fear of Public sPaces: facts and fallacies Crime surveys and empirical studies from different parts of the world show that a majority of women fear potential violence against them when they are in public spaces. A number of explanations have been given to this phenomenon. These explanations include the perceived vulnerability of women because of a lesser physical abil- ity to defend themselves (Junger 1987); the influence on them of parental advice and societal admonitions (loukaitou-Sideris 2005); their greater propensity to transfer past experiences and memories of victimiza- tion to present situations (Warr 1984); the additional concern for their children, who often accompany them; and the persistent sexual harassment that they suffer on streets and in public transportation vehicles [united Kingdom (uK) Department for Transport 2002]. What- ever its root causes, women’s fear for their security in public places is often amplified by media accounts and the public representation and sensationalization of crime (loukaitou-Sideris 2005). Women’s high level of fear of victimization and crime does not seem to be justified by statistics, which consis- tently show low rates of reported crime against women in public spaces. This paradox has led to the fallacy that women’s fear of crime is irrational and more of a prob- lem than crime itself (Bennett, in Pain 2001). What the official statistics do not show, however, is that significant numbers of intimidating and even violent acts against women go unnoticed and underreported, and at times may not even be considered as criminal by the police or society (Pickup 2001). Additionally, different types of crime seem to be more prevalent against women than men. Women suffer higher victimization from sexual and harassment crimes as well as snatch thefts and, in certain places, pickpocketing (Smith 2008), and seem to be more intimidated by civil offenses such as drunken- ness, obscene language, and verbal threats (loukaitou- Sideris 2005).

106 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 Thus, a second fallacy seems to disregard or render invisible some crimes and acts of sexual harassment (ver- bal or physical conduct of sexual nature such as grop- ing or fondling) that often take place in transportation settings such as overcrowded buses and trains. Such behavior against women is quite pervasive, as studies in different cities of the world (from new Delhi to new York and from london to Jerusalem) seem to indicate (Fenster 2005; Stringer 2007; viswanath and Mehrotra 2008). Indeed fear of harassment “cuts across the experi- ence of women in cities and across identities of marital status, nationality, and sexual orientation” (viswanath and Mehrotra 2008, p. 22). In a public culture that often puts blame on the victims of sexual assault, women are often embarrassed and reluctant to report sexual offenses against them. More empirical and qualitative research justifies women’s concerns by contradicting the offi- cial statistical numbers and showing that levels of vio- lence against women are significantly higher than those reported by the police (Hall 1985; loukaitou-Sideris, 1999; viswanath and Mehrotra 2008). A third fallacy identified by criminologists is a “spatial mismatch” between the locations in which most violent acts against women usually occur (pri- vate spaces) and the locations that women fear most (public spaces). The majority of violent crimes against women are committed by familiar and familial persons at home or in other private settings, not by strangers in public spaces. Yet, the social production of fear, which includes parental admonitions, highly publicized media stories, crime prevention classes at schools, and advice and warnings by the police, tends to emphasize the threat that women face in the public realm. Feminists argue that this fallacy, which underestimates domestic violence, leads also to women being misinformed about the main location of danger and to their avoidance of public settings (Pain 2001). Additionally, the perception of danger in public spaces has been accentuated in more recent decades by the increasing privatization of public life and the grow- ing preoccupation with control and surveillance of pub- lic spaces. This has been reflected in the proliferation of gated communities in the united States and the installa- tion of digital and security technologies in many public spaces of the Western world. Such actions, while intend- ing to serve as deterrents and countermeasures to a per- ception of crime and disorder, have arguably generated the counter-effect of more insecurity and fear (Graham 2008). Some have even talked about an “inflationary logic” that is inherent in increased patterns of surveil- lance and protection and in the omnipresence of secu- rity hardware and that augments fear and stimulates enhanced demands for protection (newburn 2001). Finally, another fallacy equalizes all women and their perceived agoraphobia under a broad and uniform cat- egory, ignoring important differentiations of age, race, class, cultural and educational background, sexual ori- entation, and disability status. This generalized, “one- size-fits-all” approach has been criticized by some, who rightly argue that the fear of crime can be profoundly affected by the aforementioned factors and a series of modifiers (Koskela and Pain 2000; loukaitou-Sideris and eck 2007) (see also Table 1). empirical studies typically find that older women generally feel less safe than younger women (Brownson et al. 2001) but also that different age groups differ in their fear of particular crimes. Thus, younger women (those under age 35) are more afraid of rape than older women (those over age 65) (Silverman and Della-Giustina 2001). lower socio- economic status is often shown to be associated with unsafe neighborhoods and transient domiciles (Seefeldt et al. 2002). Therefore, women in poor neighborhoods are typically afraid of being assaulted on the street (Ross 2000). Women from nonwhite and ethnic backgrounds often experience higher levels of fear in their neighbor- hoods than white women (Ross 2000). Similarly, women with physical or mental disabilities and lesbian women are more fearful of assault in public spaces (Morrell, 1996; valentine 1996). Sociopsychological factors such as prior victimization, familiarity with a setting, admoni- tions, and media stories can affect levels of fear. never- theless, researchers also warn us not to fall into the trap of considering social groups as uniform or stereotypical, urging a more nuanced analysis of the causes of fear of victimization and crime (Gilchrist et al. 1998). Although women’s fear of public environments often has social connotations, it also appears to be firmly situated in particular settings and physical conditions. empirical studies such as the analysis of crime data from Chicago show that women tend to be more sensitive TABLE 1 Modifiers of Fear and Perceptions of Risk Sociopsychological Factors Sociodemographic Factors environmental Factors experiences and memories Gender Geographic setting Prior victimization Race/ethnicity Physical incivilities Familiarity with setting Age Social incivilities Media stories Poverty Boundedness Admonitions Disability Surveillance opportunities lighting level Source: loukaitou-Sideris and eck (2007).

107WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? than men to signs of danger and social disorder, graf- fiti, and unkempt and abandoned buildings (Wekerle and Whitzman 1995). A Swedish study using crime data from Stockholm found that women and men respond to similar environmental conditions differently. Women are typically more fearful in public settings because they tend to perceive a higher risk there than men. The researchers attributed that finding to the threatening sexual behavior that many women often encounter from men in public settings (Smith and Torstensson 1997). Gil valentine (1990) emphasizes two general catego- ries of spaces as particularly frightening to women: (a) enclosed spaces with limited exit and natural surveil- lance opportunities such as multistory parking struc- tures, underground passages, and subway stations; and (b) anonymous and deserted open spaces such as des- olate transit stops. The first provide opportunities for criminals to trap and attack women, while the second may allow potential offenders to conceal themselves and act outside the visual range of others. Finally, as Pain (2001, p. 905) argues, “fear and bold- ness, although they may be gendered, are not essentially female and male qualities.” While many women tend to feel unsafe in certain environmental settings, fear is not inherent in women but, rather, socially constructed. The conceptualization of women as victims entails a certain danger of increasing women’s fears or perpetuating the notion that they must “operate under some kind of cur- few” (Trench et al. 1992, p. 283). Women’s fear of crime in public spaces has been ade- quately documented in the past two decades (Gilchrist et al. 1998; Gordon and Riger 1989; Hall 1985; Koskela and Pain 2000; Pain 2001; valentine 1990). Many of the feared spaces include transportation settings. The next section turns to examine what is known about women’s fear of transportation settings. fear of transPortation environMents Research on passengers’ perceptions of transit safety has intensified in the past three decades in response to the recognition that anxieties about crime are impeding travel choices and affecting transit ridership and rev- enue (Atkins 1989; Austin and Buzawa 1984; Ingalls et al. 1994; loukaitou-Sideris 1999; Reed et al. 1999; Thrasher and Schnell 1974; Wallace et al. 1999). Indeed, studies have consistently shown that fear and anxiety about personal security are important detractors from using public transit (needle and Cobb 1997). People avoid specific transit routes or bus stops, use them only during the daytime, or do not use transit at all if they believe that they may be harassed or victimized when on the bus or train or at the station or stop. empiri- cal research in different cities of the Western world has confirmed that fear about crime affects transit ridership. Indeed, a survey conducted by the uK Department for Transport in 2002 showed that “an extra 10.5% of jour- neys would be generated if the public felt more secure when traveling, particularly when waiting at stations” (Carter 2005, p. 100). Similarly, Wekerle and Whitzman (1995) found that the negative perception of passengers about transit security influenced their decisions to use transit in london, new York City, and Toronto, Can- ada. loukaitou-Sideris (1997) found that the majority of car owners who responded to a los Angeles inner-city survey would use public buses if they perceived them to be clean and safe. empirical studies have shown that the presence of certain environmental factors in a transportation setting (e.g., bus stop, train platform, parking structure) is in general associated with greater fear. These factors include darkness, desolation, lack of opportunities for informal surveillance by the general public or the residents of sur- rounding establishments, lack of maintenance, and poor environmental quality (Atkins 1989; valentine 1990). Therefore, the physical characteristics of the immediate neighborhood where a bus stop or station is located can affect people’s perception of risk and fear. Criminolo- gists have long talked about the relationship between physical incivilities (such as run-down vacant buildings, litter, or graffiti) and fear (Wilson and Kelling 1982). The specific design characteristics of a transportation setting can induce fear among passengers. People are mostly fearful in places where they do not have a clear line of sight of their surroundings; where there are many nooks, corners, or objects behind which someone can hide; and where they may feel trapped with no possibility of escape. underpasses, tunnels, and dark underground stations are typically more feared than open, ground- level transit facilities (Day in Zelinka and Brennan 2001, p. 7). Desolation and general lack of people and activity in a transportation setting contribute to anxiety and the fear that no one will be there to help if a crime occurs. The absence of visible staff and other passengers on station platforms and in train wagons contributes to concerns about safety. Women in particular have been found to be quite fearful of empty train cars (Crime Concern and Transport and Travel Research, 1997). At the same time, many women feel that having only one other passenger around while waiting for the bus or train is more threat- ening than being alone (uK Department for Transport 2004). Although most passengers typically feel safer in the presence of other passengers, drunks, beggars, home- less individuals, and rowdy crowds (often referred to as “social incivilities”) in the vicinity of a transit stop or station or on the vehicle can also have a chilling effect on transit riders. Surveying a national sample of 1,101 randomly selected adults, laGrange at al. (1992) noted

108 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 a significant relationship between neighborhood inci- vilities and perceptions of risk. Rohe and Burby (1988) found that social incivilities were more predictive of fear than physical incivilities, while laGrange et al. (1992) did not find one type of incivility more predictive of fear than the other. Almost every survey of transit passengers has found that they feel more unsafe walking to their stops or wait- ing for the bus or the train after dark than they do dur- ing the daytime (uK Department for Transport 2002). Indeed, very few respondents of a 1997 survey admin- istered by the uK Department for Transport felt unsafe waiting at the bus stop alone during the day, but this number increased significantly for nighttime waiting, when 44% of women and 19% of men felt unsafe (Crime Concern and Transport and Travel Research, 1997). Similarly, the British Crime Survey, an annual national survey that gathers information on residents’ concerns about crime, found that the majority of residents feel unsafe walking alone after dark (uK Department for Transport 2002). Table 2 shows the significantly higher percentages of British women who feel unsafe after dark in various transportation settings. Passengers are typically more fearful during their journeys to and from the stop or station and during their wait for the bus or train than when they are on the tran- sit vehicle (Crime Concern and Transport and Travel Research, 1997; loukaitou-Sideris 1999). Presumably the presence of a bus driver or train operator and the structured setting of the transit vehicle are more reassur- ing to passengers than the unpredictability of the more public and open environment of the bus stop or station platform. These sentiments seem to be justified by empirical research. Indeed, in a survey of 10 transit agencies, Shen et al. (1997) found that most crime incidents took place either in the near vicinity of or at the transit station or stop (42% and 36%, respectively), while only 22% of the incidents happened in the transit vehicle. This fear of transportation settings affects mobility. empirical studies have shown that women take pre- cautions and make behavioral adjustments to the per- ceived risk in transit settings. If their financial situation allows, they often prefer to use their car or take a taxi rather than walk or use public transit because of fear for their safety (loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009; Stanko 1990; Wekerle and Whitzman 1995). Interviews with leaders of women’s advocacy groups in the united States revealed that u.S. women consider riding on the metro safer than riding on the bus, which is in turn preferred to walking or waiting at a bus stop (loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009). A survey of Canadian women indicated that about half avoided public transportation and parking structures because of fear of victimization (MeTRAC 2006). Women more than men also tend to confine their use of public transit to certain hours of the day or to use transit only if they are accompanied by boyfriends, spouses, or friends (Atkins 1989; Ross 2000). early studies of transit security did not specifically focus on women’s needs. Some have argued that “this is partly due to the imperceptibility of women, for which female researchers criticize most of the existing research. It applies a universal human concept based on the assumption that women and men are in the same situation, and therefore, have the same needs and atti- tudes” (larsen and Topsøe-Jensen 1984, p. 2). Increas- ingly, however, an emerging literature is focusing on women’s concerns and fears about personal safety in transit environments (Hamilton et al. 2002; loukaitou- Sideris 2005; loukaitou-Sideris and Fink 2009; lynch and Atkins 1988; Schultz and Gilbert 1996; Smith 2008; Trench et al. 1992). Has our increased knowledge about the causes of women’s fear led to more focused research and efforts to understand and address women’s safety and security needs? Have more targeted interventions and nuanced policy responses emerged that are tailored to the particularities of different groups of women? The next sessions address these issues. WoMen’s distinct safety and security needs As already discussed, empirical research has clearly estab- lished that the transportation needs and travel behavior TABLE 2 Transportation Settings Where British Women and Men Feel Unsafe After Dark Setting Women (%) Men (%) Walking in multistory parking structures 62 31 Waiting on underground station platforms 61 32 Waiting on train platforms 60 25 Traveling on the underground 60 32 Walking from a bus stop or station 59 25 Traveling on a train 51 20 Walking in a surface parking lot 51 21 Waiting at a bus stop 49 20 Walking to a bus stop or station 48 20 Traveling on a bus 40 18 Source: uK Department for Transport (2004), p. 28.

109WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? of women are different from those of men (Bianco and lawson 2000; Rosenbloom 1995), and women typically have more concern for their safety during travel. never- theless, as Hamilton and Jenkins observed, As consumers of transport, women have too often been assumed to have identical needs to men’s. However, it is clear that women have travel needs as significant as those of men and in many respects distinct from them. We do not believe or assume that all women are the same or feel the same about public transport. . . . However, there are sufficiently significant differences between women’s transport demands and experience as opposed to men’s—differences in access to private transport, in patterns of commuting and employment, in child- and elder-care responsibility, in basic atti- tudes to private and public transport—to justify treat- ing women separately. (Hamilton and Jenkins 2000, p. 1794) While scholars agree that women have diverse and specific travel needs, few researchers, transit agencies, or policy makers have directly asked women riders about their safety needs or sought to identify women’s pro- posals and preferences regarding safe and secure travel. The limited information we have on this topic comes primarily from surveys of women in the united King- dom and Canada as well as safety audits undertaken by women in these two countries and other parts of the world (Whitzman 2008). In safety audits, women walk around a transportation setting or public environment noting their fears and concerns and making suggestions for improved safety. From such surveys and audits, we know that women passengers generally prefer staffing to technological solutions and are very skeptical of the ten- dency of transit agencies to replace staff from trains or buses with automated machines. Thus a study of wom- en’s transport needs in Great Britain’s West Yorkshire conducted in the late 1980s found that women wanted the reinstatement of conductors in buses, mostly for reasons of security (Hamilton et al. 2002). Discussing the findings of a 2002 survey by the uK Department of Transport, Carter explained that When traveling by bus, women prefer an additional staff member and the refusal by the driver to board those influenced by alcohol or drugs, whereas men prefer CCTv [closed-circuit television] and in-vehicle radio contact for the driver. on trains, women and men both prefer to have a staff member walking through a train, although for women the preference is more marked. (Carter 2005, p. 100) Similarly, an earlier survey of women in Southamp- ton, england, found that they repeatedly favored more staff and police officers as measures to improve their per- ceptions of safety while on buses, in parking lots, or on the streets (lynch and Atkins 1988). The tendency of many transportation agencies to ret- rofit their station platforms and bus stops with CCTv cameras seems to offer little comfort to women. Female participants in focus groups and workshops in not- tingham, england, argued that they “do not feel more secure in the knowledge that someone, somewhere is supposed to be watching them” (Trench et al. 1992, p. 291). Similarly, a study of transit passenger reactions to implemented safety measures in Ann Arbor, Michigan, found that while CCTv cameras were the most noticed of the various security improvements, they did not have a significant impact on passengers’ feelings of safety (Wal- lace et al. 1999). Certain design measures seem to have a positive effect in reducing women’s fear. Surveys of women passengers in the united Kingdom (lynch and Atkins 1988; Trench et al. 1992), Canada (Scarborough Women’s Centre– MeTRAC 1991), and the united States (Wallace et al. 1999) showed that good lighting has a positive role in reducing women’s fear. Women conducting safety audits in Scarborough, Canada, indicated, however, that good lighting should extend from the bus stops to the adja- cent streets so that bus stops avoid the “fishbowl effect”1 (Scarborough Women’s Centre–MeTRAC 1991). Good visibility and natural surveillance opportunities of tran- sit stops and stations from surrounding establishments emerged as a positive feature in the 1997 national per- ceptions study conducted in the united Kingdom. In contrast, survey participants argued that they often felt unsafe and entrapped in corridors and ramps leading to underground stations (uK Department for Transport 2002). Similarly, interviews with representatives of wom- en’s advocacy organizations in the united States showed that the location of transit settings (particularly bus stops) near people and activities was deemed essential to achieve the “safety in numbers” dictum (loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009). Some respondents in the same study also argued for bus shelter designs that allow good visibility from the surroundings. Surveys in the united Kingdom revealed that general maintenance and upkeep of transit facilities and the reg- ular cleaning of graffiti and litter received high marks from women riders. In contrast, the presence of graffiti and litter at transit settings, the absence of visible staff, the inadequacy of travel information, long wait times, and infrequent service contributed to feelings of insecu- rity (uK Department for Transport 2002). 1 The “fishbowl effect” describes the situation in which a setting (e.g., a bus shelter) is brightly lit, but the surrounding environment is dark. In such a case, the passenger is seen, but he or she is unable to see others outside the bus shelter.

110 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 Women seem to have mixed reactions to segregated transport schemes that establish women-only services or women-only cars on commuter trains and subways. Female transit riders in Brazil seemed to appreciate them (Khimm 2006), while women in Southampton, england, were concerned that such segregated transport facilities would draw attention to them as targets (lynch and Atkins 1988). Policies viewed positively by women pas- sengers include request-stop programs, allowing women to disembark from the bus at locations closer to their final destination during late evening hours, taxicab vouchers for low-income women, real-time information on bus schedules to minimize long waits (which are per- ceived as unsafe), public awareness campaigns against violence, and visible signs in public places denouncing sexual harassment and groping (Figure 2) (loukaitou- Sideris et al. 2009; Schulz and Gilbert 2000; Trench et al. 1992). (lack of) resPonse of u.s. transit oPerators While research clearly indicates that women have dis- tinct security needs, the response of transit operators around the world has been uneven.2 u.S. transit agencies have largely failed to develop particular programs and interventions and tailor safety and security strategies to the specific needs of their female clients. Indeed, a recent survey of 131 u.S. transit agencies found that while two-thirds of the agencies indicated that female passen- gers have distinct safety and security needs, only about one-third believed that transit agencies should institute specific programs for them. only three of the surveyed agencies had instigated programs targeting the security needs of women riders. Interestingly, a significant num- ber of agencies rightly provide special services to other subgroups of vulnerable customers (senior citizens, handicapped individuals) but are worried that they may be accused of “reverse discrimination” if they develop specific security strategies for women (loukaitou-Sideris and Fink 2009). 2 This section is drawn from loukaitou-Sideris and Fink (2009). Additionally, the study showed a serious mismatch between the existing safety and security practices of transit operators and the needs and desires of women passengers as identified in scholarly research and inter- views with representatives of women’s interest groups. For example, u.S. transit operators tend to concentrate their security measures on the more enclosed and easily controllable parts of their system (buses, trains, and sta- tion platforms) and generally neglect the more open and public parts (bus stops and parking lots) (Figure 3). This pattern does not serve women’s needs well. Women pas- sengers are typically more fearful of desolate bus stops and empty parking lots than being seated among other passengers on the bus or train. Similarly, most agencies seem to privilege technological over human security mea- sures, which goes contrary to women’s wishes. There seem to be important reasons why the response of u.S. transit operators to the particular safety and security needs of women is less than satisfactory and why there is a mismatch between research findings and policy. For one, unlike in some other countries, there has been no funded mandate or support from the federal or state governments to address women’s safety and travel needs. Second, only limited financial resources are available to public transit operators. As indicated by Taylor et al. (2005, p. 8), especially after September 11, 2001 (9/11), “transit managers have struggled to balance the costs and uncertain benefits of increased transit security against the costs and certain benefits of attracting passengers.” There is no doubt that transit agencies do not have the resources to install a police officer at every transit stop in their system. Security strategies generally favored by transit operators, such as the installation of cameras, are decidedly less expensive than instituting police patrols or employing security personnel on transit vehicles and at stops. Third, the overreliance on technological responses to crime is also influenced by the aggressive post-9/11 mar- keting of “antiterrorist” technologies and security hard- ware by the security industry as well as by the example of British and Japanese cities, which have extensively ret- rofitted their stations with security cameras and CCTv technology (Cherry et al. 2008). FIGURE 2 Sign installed at New York City stations by Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

111WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? Fourth, transit operators are facing a risk-management dilemma, as the courts are not inclined to find against them when passengers are accosted while travelling to and from bus stops and stations. on the other hand, if a transit agency institutes an on-street security program and then fails to provide accurate security measures, and an incident occurs, it may be found liable by the court. Fifth, the concentration of male planners in transpor- tation planning is arguably higher than in other planning subfields. Therefore, it is likely that men are overrepre- sented in the gender mix of management in public transit agencies, and they may not be knowledgeable about or responsive to the particular needs of their female transit customers. In our survey (which was sent to the general managers of transit agencies) 76% of the respondents were male. As already mentioned, a higher percentage of female than male survey respondents indicated that women passengers have distinct needs; however, this difference was not statistically significant (loukaitou- Sideris and Fink 2009). In contrast to the situation in the united States, dur- ing the past decade, municipal governments and tran- sit operators in other parts of the world have started responding to the different travel needs and concerns of women by initiating specific policies and plans. Aus- tralia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and the united Kingdom, among other countries, have initi- ated a variety of measures to ease the fear of women passengers and provide them with more safe and secure public transportation. For example, the municipal gov- ernment of Mexico City started the We TRAvel SAFe program in 2007, with the goals of responding to wom- en’s needs and preventing physical and sexual violence in the city’s public transportation system. In Canada, a number of municipal governments have funded the nonprofit Metropolitan Action Committee on violence Against Women and Children (MeTRAC) to train com- munity and women’s groups to conduct safety audits of transportation settings. In 2005, the Government of South Australia’s Minister for the Status of Women launched a program called our Commitment to Wom- en’s Safety that explicitly focuses on improving the safety and security of transportation settings. Transport for london (Tfl), one of the largest transport operators in the world, has initiated plans targeting the needs of its women riders, while the government of Great Britain issued the Gender equality Duty in 2007, a mandate to all public agencies to promote gender equality and eliminate sexual discrimination and harassment. During the same period, some grassroots groups in the united States and overseas have also developed initiatives that seek to enhance women’s mobility and unobstructed travel in the city and reduce their fear. The next section highlights some of these efforts. initiatives tackling WoMen’s transPortation needs This section presents four indicative examples of initiatives and programs that seek to address wom- en’s concerns for safe travel. The examples are quite 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Su rve illa nc e c am era s/ CC TV Pa nic /al arm bu tto ns Pu bli c a dd res s s ys tem Pu bli c e d/u se r o utr ea ch Un ifo rm ed of fic ers No n-u nif orm ed of fic ers Em erg en cy te lep ho ne s Ot he r s ec uri ty ha rdw are En vir on me nta l d es ign Pe rc en ta ge o f a ge nc ie s Buses Bus stops FIGURE 3 Security measures on buses and at bus stops. [Source: Loukaitou-Sideris and Fink (2009)].

112 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 varied in terms of scope and means. They include a comprehensive planning effort undertaken by a large transportation agency in the united Kingdom; a part- nership between a nonprofit organization, municipal governments, and communities in Canada; and two grassroots efforts in the united States. They all have the common goal of providing safer transportation options for women. TfL’s Initiatives for Women Passengers Tfl has initiated a large effort of understanding and responding to the distinct needs of its women rid- ers, reasoning that “once Tfl has improved london’s transport system to a standard that meets the needs of every woman, then everyone in london will benefit” (Tfl 2007, p. 9). Tfl is supported in such efforts by the Women’s Transport network (WTn), which is facili- tated by the Accessibility and equalities unit of the uK Department for Transport. The WTn was established in 1995 “to bring together like-minded women who work in the transport sector in the uK” and now has about 200 members (Annette lewis, quoted in loukaitou- Sideris et al. 2009). The WTn was influential in help- ing the Department for Transport initiate and support research on gender auditing that led to a significant pub- lication in 2000 titled Women and Public Transport: The Checklist (uK Department for Transport 2000). This publication, which was distributed to all munici- pal governments and transport operators in the united Kingdom, urges them to conduct regular gender auditing of the vehicles and waiting areas of their transportation facilities and provides a detailed checklist for doing so.3 As reasoned in the document, Gender auditing is a means by which public trans- port operators and other providers can assess whether the services within their responsibility take account of the specific needs of all their passengers: men, women, and children. . . . While gender audit- ing seeks to benefit both men and women passen- gers, the emphasis is on women. . . . The Gender Audit pack has been prepared for use by managers to: 1) raise awareness of the gender differences in use and experience of public transport by men and women; 2) assess how well the organization meets women’s needs; 3) identify priorities for improve- 3 The checklist includes 96 items that require a response of yes or no. The items are grouped into 12 categories: 1) Gender equality: Policy and Commitment; 2) Staff Recruitment and Training; 3) Service Planning; 4) Passenger Research; 5) Consultation; 6) Passenger Complaints; 7) Fares and Ticketing; 8) Service Information; 9) Getting to the Stop or Station; 10) Getting on Public Transport; 11) Information; and 12) Comfort and Security. ment; and 4) measure progress towards targets. (uK Department for Transport 2000, pp. 1–4) Tfl issued in 2004 its first Women’s Action Plan for london, titled Expanding Horizons, which is a far- reaching document that includes a total of 21 actions to better address the needs of women riders. The plan is motivated by the realization that There are recognizable differences between wom- en’s transportation demands and experiences, as opposed to those of men. . . . Women are heavy users of public transport. However, the message that we regularly hear from women is that they have to overcome several barriers to use the system. It also seems that women are increasingly more prepared to turn to the car as a means of meeting their specific transport needs. In order to build or renew women’s confidence in public transport Tfl wants to understand the barriers women face and address their needs. (Tfl 2004, p. 4) Tfl’s Women’s Action Plan has the following four goals (Tfl 2004, pp. 6 and 7): • Improve levels of real and perceived personal secu- rity; • Provide a transport system shaped by women’s life- styles and needs in terms of flexibility, cost, and acces- sibility; • Develop TfL’s relationship with women by pro- actively engaging with them to better comprehend their travel preferences and the barriers they may face; and • Increase the number of women employees at TfL. To increase levels of security, the plan initiates or enhances a series of actions and offers a time frame for their implementation. These actions include the following: • Transport Policing Initiative, which calls for the hiring of additional uniformed officers for london’s bus network and london underground. • Safer Travel at Night Initiative, which includes per- sonalized night travel information at college campuses and the designation of “hub stops” with safe waiting areas along night bus routes. • Real Time Information Initiative with electronic displays at stations and bus stops, showing arrival times of services. At the time that the Women’s Action Plan was issued, about 2,000 bus stops (out of approximately 17,500) already had such displays installed. • Secure Stations Scheme, a national accreditation scheme setting standards for safety that was launched in 1998 to improve security at Great Britain’s railway sta-

113WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? tions.4 By 2004, 20 london underground stations had been accredited and more were in the pipeline for accredi- tation. Additionally, security enhancements for the above- ground network of stops and stations have been launched on pilot routes. These included 24-hour CCTv; better lighting, signage, and customer information; reduced waiting times; the availability of staffed Help Points at stations; and the removal of graffiti and vandalism dam- age from bus shelters and transit vehicles. To achieve the goal of providing a transport system shaped by women’s lifestyles, the Women’s Action Plan calls for a series of actions that include the promotion of alternatives to car use, so that parents do not always have to drive their children to school. Since many women are working part time, the plan proposes discounted fares for part-time employees. It also calls for more research to evaluate the success of providing child-care centers at transit stations. The plan calls for a fleet of buses that are low-floor and step-free, allowing easy access by disabled individuals and women carrying strollers and young chil- dren. Additionally, the plan calls for an upgrading of bus stops to ensure that they are compatible with the low- floor, step-free transit vehicles (Tfl 2004). A number of actions are also proposed in the plan to improve Tfl’s interaction with its women customers. The agency has started consultation with women’s focus groups across london to find out about their specific travel needs and has plans to commission research studies investigating the various lifestyles of london women and their impact on travel patterns. Tfl has started reviewing its passengers’ correspondence by gender to gain a better understanding of the complaints raised by women riders. The agency is also in the process of reviewing and deter- mining standards that safeguard against advertising that is offensive to women. Finally, the plan sets recruitment targets to increase participation of women in its labor force from the current 22% to 52%, which is in align- ment with london’s population (Tfl 2004). A number of the proposed actions are under way or have been completed. More specifically, by 2005 all london buses had become low floor and step free. The new london buses have large designated spaces for people with strollers, and this space also accommodates wheelchairs. There are also designated areas on the bus for packages and groceries, which are also useful for the elderly and infirm. of london Rail’s above-ground sta- tions, 172 have been retrofitted with CCTv, while 160 4 To achieve accreditation as a Secure Station, the operator of the station must demonstrate that “1) the design of the station conforms to standards which prevent crime and improve passenger perceptions; 2) the station is managed so as to prevent crime, respond to incidents, and communicate effectively with passengers; 3) the crime rate at the station is evidence that crime is being managed; and 4) passengers feel secure when using the station” (uK Department for Transport 2000, p. 15). stations have monitored Help Points. Two-hundred additional transit police officers have been hired for the london underground and Docklands light Rail network, and 89 extra officers have been hired for the above-ground network. Tfl completed the installation of real-time information on buses, bus stops, and sta- tions by the end of 2008 (Tfl 2007). In 2007, in response to the government’s Gender equal- ity Act of 2006, which required all public authorities in Great Britain to produce a gender equality scheme,5 Tfl published the Gender equality Scheme 2007–2010. This process involved extensive consultation with 140 different women’s groups in london’s 24 different boroughs. The consultation informed the proposed action plan, which falls into five broad categories: accessibility, safety and security, affordability, information, and employment in the transport sector. The 2007 plan extends the plan of 2004 by presenting all the key concerns women riders identified in Tfl’s many consultations; it also outlines a specific time- table as well as the responsible agency unit charged with the implementation of each proposed action. Tfl’s Women’s Action Plan and Gender equality Scheme constitute what is arguably the most compre- hensive effort by a transport operator to respond to the needs of women riders. The effort is notable and repre- sents a best practice not only because of its wide-ranging initiatives but also because it involved an unprecedented inclusion of women’s voices in the planning process. Safety Audits by METRAC MeTRAC was founded in the early 1980s as a reaction to a series of sexual assaults and rapes that had occurred in Toronto parks. There was an outcry from many women’s groups, as well as support from counselors and police, to form a specific body and committee to address violence against women in public spaces. Since that time, MeTRAC has grown into a nonprofit, community- based organization that partners with municipal agen- cies and community groups to increase women’s safety and provide safer public spaces for women. According to MeTRAC’s website, We work collaboratively with a broad range of part- ners to develop strategies to end violence against women and build safer communities for everyone. MeTRAC has three main program areas: Com- munity Safety, Community Justice, and Commu- nity outreach and education. . . . The Community Safety Program provides training, workshops, and 5 The equality Act of 2006 in Great Britain stipulates that all public authorities enact the “gender equality duty” as of April 2007 to eliminate sexual harassment and discrimination and promote gender equality.

114 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 educational materials on personal and community safety in the diverse communities of Toronto. . . . We work with individuals, community groups and organizations, government agencies, police, edu- cational institutions, development companies, and the medical profession in drafting recommenda- tions and developing long term safety plans and actions for safer communities. (MeTRAC website, http://www.metrac.org) A major contribution of MeTRAC is the invention of the safety audit process. This is a tool that can be used by a group to document a variety of physical and social fac- tors in its environment. Safety audits provide a method of evaluating space from the perspective of those who feel threatened and lead to improvements that reduce the risk of assault. MeTRAC developed the tool as a grassroots approach that could empower community members and women. According to MeTRAC’s safety director, narina nagra, MeTRAC was the first organization to create safety audits in 1989. MeTRAC pioneered the idea of safety audits and the concept that a group of women, who live in and frequent an area, can assess the physical elements of a neighborhood and help improve safety and prevent assaults. Through the safety audit process, MeTRAC developed best practices around physical features and standards for safety. Since that time the safety audit has become a global resource that has been translated around the world. Different governments use it in different capacities. (narina nagra, quoted in loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009) Indeed, a recent survey of organizations working on women’s safety around the world, commissioned by the un–Habitat Safer Cities Programme and the Huairou Commission (2007, p. 19), found that the safety audit was the “single specific tool most often mentioned.” It has been translated into different languages and adapted and replicated worldwide and is generally recognized as a best-practice tool. The tool has been used extensively by the city of Toronto, where women, youth, and com- munity groups audited more than 150 neighborhoods between 2000 and 2004 (MeTRAC website, http:// www.metrac.org). MeTRAC collaborated with Toronto’s Transit Com- mission to conduct a comprehensive safety audit of the city’s transit system. The goal was to assess the Toronto transit system and define ways it could be made safer for women riders. MeTRAC made the following recom- mendations: • Transparent bus shelters for better visibility, • Emergency intercoms in transit settings with little or no staff, • Elevators for safer and easier access of under- or above-ground transit settings, • Designated waiting areas at subway stations that are well lit and equipped with CCTv cameras and inter- coms, and • A request-stop program on buses between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m. for women traveling alone. Most of these recommendations, including the request- stop program, were implemented (MeTRAC website, http://www.metrac.org). Through the safety audit structure, MeTRAC hopes that communities are becoming more centrally involved and empowered, not only to identify safety issues, but also to make more connections within their community and to affect change. As nagra argues, The process gives community members an oppor- tunity to discuss safety, which has become obsolete in our society in so many ways. In particular, it has become normalized that women should be fearful at night. . . . The [safety audit] benefits are around empowering communities to address public safety and for individuals to connect with their commu- nity. Safety audits are a community development tool in many ways, because they can foster dia- logue around these issues and provide an oppor- tunity for staff and residents to come together to address these issues. A lot of times we don’t feel that we have a say in what kind of safety we should have. And our tool provides a way to say, “yes we can address these issues together.” (narina nagra, quoted in loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009) using the community as safety experts is not without challenges, however. As nagra explained, “because we put the responsibility back in the hands of the commu- nity, lack of resources and time can make it difficult to get information back or keep the process moving forward. There is also a lack of funding at the munici- pal level to make changes and implement community suggestions” (quoted in loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2009). Another challenge comes in the form of gentrification, as safety audits have been used at times to gentrify an area or push people out. low-income or homeless individu- als, sex workers, and drug addicts are often identified as safety concerns by neighborhood groups who seek their removal. MeTRAC believes that space should not be made safer for some at the expense of others by sim- ply calling the police and getting rid of certain groups; rather, communities should work toward identifying safe places and fostering more resources for these mar- ginalized groups.

115WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? RightRides RightRides is a grassroots nonprofit organization that offers women, transgendered people, and gender-queer individuals a free, safe, late-night ride home on Saturday nights and early Sunday mornings in 45 new York City neighborhoods. The RightRides motto reflects the heart of its goals: “Because Getting Home Safely Shouldn’t Be a luxury.” The organization began in 2004 as a response to increased assaults against women who were walk- ing home alone at night in Brooklyn. The free service provides secure transportation for individuals who feel threatened walking the streets and who find that other transportation modes, such as cabs, private cars, or public transit, are financially unviable or otherwise risky. The organization relies on volunteer drivers and has partnered with Zipcar (a car-sharing service), which provides six vehicles for free use during RightRides oper- ating hours as well as discounted Zipcar memberships for the RightRides volunteers. For each shift, volunteer drivers are paired with volunteer navigators. The respon- sibility of these teams is to “see our riders home safely and help advocate for their increased personal safety.” (RightRides website, http://www.rightrides.org). Driver– navigator teams are dispatched by a volunteer dispatcher with the aim of reaching the rider within a 20-minute window. All driving teams go through a screening pro- cess to assure a safe and supportive environment for all riders and volunteers, and at least one person on each team has to be female. Since September 2004, when RightRides started, it has grown from its two founders using their own private car to an award-winning organization with a fleet of six cars and more than 100 active volunteers. A larger orga- nization, RightRides for Women’s Safety, Inc. (RRWS), has also been established. In addition to the RightRides program, RRWS operates initiatives that encourage empowerment and awareness in an effort to reduce the risk of harassment and assault in new York City. Such initiatives include the neighborhood Safety Meet- ings Program, which organizes panel discussions with local leaders in crime prevention to hear the concerns of participants and generate discussion regarding neigh- borhood street safety. RRWS also supports a Safe Walk program that provides walking escorts and educational programs that hope to “empower and educate people of all ages and backgrounds to increase their personal safety awareness to reduce the risk of harassment and assault” (RightRides website, http://www.rightrides.org). RRWS assisted in conducting a Subway Safety Survey in 2007 that was undertaken by the Manhattan borough president’s office. nearly two-thirds of the 1,780 survey respondents reported some version of sexual harassment on the subway, and one-tenth reported sexual assault. RRWS uses this study, titled Hidden in Plain Sight: Sexual Harassment and Assault in the New York City Subway System (Stringer 2007), to encourage the transit police and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to take the issue more seriously. RRWS is a central orga- nizer leading a new effort, the Subway Safety Coalition. Formed in 2008, the coalition is pursuing the recommen- dations of the Manhattan borough president’s report by collaborating with civic groups and other community organizations, such as Hollaback nYC, to pursue fur- ther work in this area (RightRides 2008). If there is any criticism of RightRides, it is that many are unaware of the program despite ongoing outreach efforts, such as posting flyers and distributing the dis- patch number on palm cards. Primarily known through a strong word-of-mouth network, RightRides would benefit from better publicity, especially in the neighbor- hoods that it covers. The founders, however, are optimis- tic and see the program as “a seed for further action.” Hollaback NYC Hollaback nYC is a grassroots website (http://www. ihollaback.org) that provides a forum for victims of street harassment in new York City, who contribute verbal and visual postings that document their assaults. The goal is to offer a virtual public space for women to reclaim power from perpetrators by providing a collec- tive location for the victims’ stories to be told and their assaulters to be recorded. According to the Hollaback nYC website, the “larger goal of the program is to sup- port women’s rights to exist in public in safety and with- out fear of harassment, particularly on the street” (http:// hollabacknyc.blogspot.com). Hollaback nYC was founded by four women and three men in September 2005, following a well-publicized sex- ual harassment incident on the new York City subway. In the summer of 2005, a young woman riding the train used her cell phone to snap a picture of her harasser as he was performing a lewd act in front of her. She took the picture to the police who did not show interest in the evidence presented. She then posted the image on the Web, warn- ing other women to watch out for this guy. The New York Daily News picked up the story and published the image on its front page. This led to further identifications of and accusations against the perpetrator by more women vic- tims and, subsequently, to his arraignment in court on four counts of public lewdness (Clift 2006). Motivated by this incident, a group of young people established the site to allow women to tell their stories and post pictures of their harassers in an effort to stop them. According to emily May, one of the Hollaback nYC founders, “street harassment happens to women on a daily basis. Men don’t understand the extent or effect

116 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 of the harassment, and women are in denial like other women who are coping with violence against women. That’s why we wanted to give them a safe space to talk about it” (quoted in Clift 2008). May also sees the site as an opportunity for women who are victims of street harassment to find others in similar situations who are sharing their stories. This helps combat the fear of con- fronting abuse and harassment and promotes simple rec- ognition of what constitutes appropriate behavior and what crosses an acceptable line. obviously, the prolifera- tion of the Internet is necessary for the successful opera- tion of Hollaback, as are cell phones with photo (and now video) capabilities. The down side of this, however, is that those with access to technology have a greater opportunity to join the group’s community than those without. Since its establishment, the website has accumulated multiple postings and has on average 1,500 hits per day (Agrell 2007). As the original website started receiving significant media attention, several national and interna- tional branches of Hollaback emerged in Boston, Massa- chusetts; Charleston, South Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Miami, Florida; San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; Washington, D.C.; and Toronto, Canada, among other cities. The founders believe that all this attention and visibility have helped to bring awareness to the severity and seriousness of street harassment. Hollaback’s nYC founders also hope that their site has made transit police more sensitive and attentive to the security issues faced by women riders, as evidenced by the aforementioned sting operation and the posting of signs and posters at new York’s subway stations. on the other hand, the organization has also raised criti- cism by those who are concerned that it perpetuates a surveillance society, mutual suspicion, or even para- noia, and may open the door to misuse and defamation (Belgiorno 2006). taking stock: What is ProMising; What needs to haPPen Safe transportation will get you to work, get your kids around. So access to safe and affordable trans- portation anywhere, at any time, is a legitimate feminist concern. (Rev. Della Fahnestock, Alli- ance of Faith and Feminism, quoted in loukaitou- Sideris et al. 2009) In the past few decades, a number of promising trends have appeared that work to increase women’s safe travel and unobstructed movement in the city. on the research front, we have witnessed a significant increase in schol- arly activity on issues relating to women’s safety, travel patterns, and health. At the same time, advances in environmental criminology have promoted the concept of “situational crime prevention” as a way of reducing opportunities for crime. This concept asserts that the physical and social characteristics of spaces determine offenders’ decisions and suggests that prevention will be more effective if a careful analysis of the microen- vironment is undertaken before developing prevention programs (loukaitou-Sideris and eck 2007). Situational crime prevention is largely compatible with earlier crime prevention strategies, such as crime prevention through environmental design, and seems “particularly well suited for a public transport context where large numbers of strangers come into close contact with each other across a wide variety of settings” (Smith 2008, p. 125). This approach, which stresses the importance of focusing on the particular sociospatial characteristics of the microen- vironment of crime, rejects the “one-size-fits-all” model in favor of a better understanding of specific needs, con- texts, and situations. In parallel to these developments, research toolkits such as safety audits have been devel- oped and disseminated across different global contexts, allowing groups affected by fear and crime to document and convey their concerns to policymakers. From the policy perspective, the past decades have wit- nessed a progressive transformation of crime prevention from approaches focusing almost exclusively on crimi- nal justice and policing to broader, multiprong strate- gies that include education and outreach, environmental design, security technology, and problem-oriented polic- ing components. At the same time, an understanding is emerging that responses to crime and violence against women require coordinated approaches at different scales, from international and national directives and plans, to local government initiatives, to community and grassroots efforts (Whitzman 2008). A number of agen- cies around the world (though, woefully, not extensively in the united States) have started incorporating a gen- der perspective in crime prevention, enacting “gender audits.” These recognize the differences in the needs of men and women and assess the implications of planning interventions as well as the safety of spaces from the per- spectives of both groups. Finally, from an activism standpoint, we have wit- nessed the emergence of robust movements and coali- tions in different parts of the world fighting to decrease and eliminate violence against women. Globalization and digital technologies assist in the spreading of infor- mation and the building of coalitions across national borders. even the powers of cellular technologies and the World Wide Web are being mobilized to lessen harass- ment against women, as the Hollaback initiative dem- onstrates. As Whitzman argues (2008, p. 252) “there is a greater stress on grassroots ownership, participatory processes, and leadership skills in capacity building in community safety.”

117WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? While the aforementioned trends are very promising, the example of u.S. transit operators and many other public agencies around the world shows that ambigui- ties among transit operators still exist regarding the secu- rity needs of and the appropriate security measures for female passengers. There is an almost complete lack of implemented programs in the united States. This finding points to a significant gap between research and practice and to a mismatch between the needs of women and the practices of many transit agencies. Researcher–practitio- ner dialogues and incorporating women’s voices in the planning process may help close this gap. Researcher–Practitioner Dialogues The initiation of researcher–practitioner dialogues in professional and academic conferences would help make research on women’s issues in transportation more accessible to transit professionals. Initiatives, programs, and policies targeting women’s safety in Australia, Can- ada, Germany, Japan, Sweden, and the united Kingdom remain largely unknown in the united States. The com- pilation, publication, and dissemination of best practices from the American Public Transportation Association and the Transit Cooperative Research Program would allow operators to access information about the lessons learned from successful programs in other countries. Incorporating Women’s Voices in the Planning Process Women are often the real experts of their neighbor- hoods, and they are the best to articulate their own needs and to identify the barriers they may encounter that limit their mobility. The incorporation of women’s voices in planning and policy making regarding transportation issues through regular consultation with focus groups, targeted surveys of women passengers, and safety and gender audits would help diminish the current ambiguity of transit operators regarding gender-appropriate safety and security measures. Partnering with Local Nonprofits As the examples of RightRides, Hollaback, and MeTRAC indicate, community, grassroots, and nonprofit groups have an important role to play in promoting women’s safe travel. Such groups are often hampered by a lack of resources and organizational structure. A partnership of such nonprofit, community, and volunteer groups with municipal departments and transit agencies can be benefi- cial for both parties and, most of all, for women’s safety. Prioritizing Needs The issue of funding safety and security initiatives is always challenging for transit operators. At the same time, particular transportation settings in a city may be less safe than others. A recent survey of u.S. transit agencies showed that less than one-third of them assess the different safety and security needs on their systems and allocate security resources accordingly (Taylor et al. 2005). A careful monitoring of incident reports, coupled with regular safety and gender audits and situational crime-prevention techniques, could help agencies make the best use of their limited security budgets. Adopting a “Whole-Journey Approach” Although transit agencies have to prioritize their needs, they should not focus their resources solely on improving the safety of their vehicles or transit stations. It is clear from empirical studies (loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2002; Smith 2008) that in addressing crime and fear of crime, a whole-journey approach should be adopted. Block and Davis (1996) have found that areas in close vicinity of Chicago transit stops were more susceptible to street crime than station platforms, while loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2002) found that a significant percentage of crime incidents occurred at parking lots adjacent to Green line stations in los Angeles. A holistic approach is challeng- ing, however, as it requires a better coordination between transit agencies and other entities responsible for public environments (e.g., bureaus of street services and sher- iff’s departments). Tailoring Safety and Security Initiatives to Particular Needs of Communities Different groups have different needs as well as different levels of vulnerability. It is therefore important that inter- ventions be tailored to the needs of particular subgroups as well as to the characteristics of the neighborhood and its various transportation settings. It is also important to evaluate whether proposed interventions are reaching the populations who seem to display higher levels of fear and vulnerability, may be more susceptible to crime and harass- ment, and may have the fewest mobility options, such as the elderly; low-income, minority women; and individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transsexual. Adopting a Multipronged Approach to Safety Crime prevention interventions from different parts of the world point to the need for a multipronged approach

118 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 to women’s travel safety. environmental design strategies should be complemented by policing and neighborhood watch groups, the use of security technology in transpor- tation settings, information and media campaigns (e.g., antiharassment messages on bus shelters and stations), and specific policies (e.g., escort programs, cab vouch- ers, request-stop programs) that intend to decrease the fear of women riders. The balance and particular mix of these strategies should depend on the particularity of each setting, women’s expressed needs, and available resources. Initiating Pilot Programs The creation of certain pilot programs with the explicit goal of enhancing the safety of women riders, supported though targeted and competitive funding from the Fed- eral Transit Administration, could go a long way toward implementing initiatives “on the ground” and measuring their impact and success. Safe travel is extremely important for both men and women. Being able to access desired destinations safely and with comfort is not only an aspect of the quality of life in cities, but also relates to one’s economic security and well-being. Safe travel and unobstructed mobility should, therefore, be seen as an important right of citi- zens. This right is at times compromised for women, who feel that their paths in the city are blocked because of crime or fear of violence. The above initiatives would be the necessary first steps toward a transportation system that serves the needs of female passengers and achieves what the quote of the introduction referred to as nothing less than transportation justice. acknoWledgMents The author thanks the Transportation Research Board, the Mineta Transportation Institute, and the university of California Transportation Center for their support of this research. references Agrell, S. 2007. let Catcalls Slide or Hollaback? Globe and Mail, november 29, 2007. www.theglobeandmail.com/ servlet/story/RTGAM.20071129.wlcatcall29/BnStory/ PersonalTech/home. Atkins, S. 1989. Critical Paths: Designing for Secure Travel. Design Council, london. Austin, T., and e. Buzawa. 1984. Citizen Perceptions on Mass Transit Crime and Its Deterrence: A Case Study. Trans- portation Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 103–120. Baldwin, P. C. 2002. nocturnal Habits and Dark Windows: The American Response to Children in the Streets at night 1880–1930. Journal of Social History, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 593–611. Belgiorno, K. 2006. The 21st-Century Peep Show: Big Broth- er’s Got You under Surveillance. But So Does little Sister. The Village Voice, April 18, http://www.villagevoice.com/ news/0616,belgiorno,72978,6.html. Bianco, M., and C. lawson. 2000. “Trip-Chaining, Childcare, and Personal Safety: Critical Issues in Women’s Travel Behavior.” In Women’s Travel Issues: Proceedings from the Second National Conference, october 1996, FHWA, u.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., pp. 121–143. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/womens/ chap8.pdf. Block, R., and S. Davis. 1996. The environs of Rapid Transit Stations: A Focus for Street Crime or Just Another Risky Place? In Preventing Mass Transit Crime (R. Clarke, ed.). Criminal Justice Press, Monsey, n.Y. Brownson, R. C., e. A. Baker, R. A. Houseman, l. K. Bren- nan, and S. J. Bacak. 2001. environmental and Policy Determinants of Physical Activity in the united States. American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 1995–2003. Carter, M. 2005. Gender Differences in experience with and Fear of Crime in Relation to Public Transport. In Con- ference Proceedings 35: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Report of a Conference; Volume 2: Technical Papers, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C., p. 100. Cherry, C., A. loukaitou-Sideris, and M. Wachs. 2008. Subway Station Design and Management: lessons from Case Studies of Contemporary Terrorist Incidents. Journal of Architec- tural and Planning Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 76–90. Clift, e. 2008. ‘Holla Back’ to end Street Harassment. Women and Life on Earth. http://www.wloe.org/Holla-Back-to- end-Stree.340.0.html. Accessed oct. 7, 2008. Crime Concern and Transport and Travel Research. 1997. Perceptions of Safety from Crime on Public Transport. Department for Transport, london. evenson, K.R., o. l. Sarmiento, M. l. Macon, K. W. Taw- ney, and A. S. Ammerman. 2002. environmental, Policy, and Cultural Factors Related to Physical Activity Among latina Immigrants. Women and Health, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 43–57. eyler, A. A., e. Baker, l. Cromer, A. C. King, R. C. Brownson, and R. J. Donatelle. 1998. Physical Activity and Minor- ity Women: A Qualitative Study. Health Education and Behavior, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 640–652. Fenster, T. 2005. The Right to the Gendered City: Different Formations and Belonging in everyday life. Journal of Gender Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 217–231. Franck, K., and l. Paxson. 1989. Women and urban Public Space. In Public Places and Spaces (I. Altman and e. Zube, eds.), Plenum Press, new York and london.

119WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? Gilchrist, e., J. Bannister, J. Ditton, and S. Farrall. 1998. Women and the ‘Fear of Crime’: Challenging the Accepted Stereotype. British Journal of Criminology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 283–298. Gordon, M., and S. Riger. 1989. The Female Fear: The Social Cost of Rape. The Free Press, new York. Graham, S. 2008. Cities and the War on Terror. In Indefensible Space: The Architecture of the National Insecurity State (M. Sorkin, ed.), Routledge, new York and london. Hall, R. e. 1985. Ask Any Woman: A London Enquiry into Rape and Sexual Assault. Falling Wall Press, Bristol, united Kingdom. Hamilton, K., and l. Jenkins. 2000. A Gender Audit for Pub- lic Transport: A new Policy Tool in the Tackling of Social exclusion. Urban Studies, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 1793–1800. Hamilton, K., l. Jenkins, and A. Gregory. 1991. Women and Transport: Bus Deregulation in West Yorkshire. Bradford university, united Kingdom. Hamilton, K., S. Ryley Hoyle, and l. Jenkins. 2002. The Pub- lic Transport Gender Audit. Transportation Studies unit, university of east london. Hood, C. 1996. Changing Perceptions of Public Space on the new York Rapid Transit System. Journal of Urban His- tory, vol. 22, pp. 308–331. Ingalls, G. l., D. T. Hartgen, and T. W. owens. 1994. Public Fear of Crime and Its Role in Bus Transit use. In Trans- portation Research Record 1433, TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 201–211. Junger, M. 1987. Women’s experience of Sexual Harassment. Brit- ish Journal of Criminology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 358–383. Khimm, S. 2006. Warning: no-Groping Zone. Alternet. http:// www.alternet.org/module/printversion/35753. Accessed June 6, 2006. Koskela, H., and R. Pain. 2000. Revisiting Fear and Place: Women’s Fear of Attack and the Built environment. Geo- forum, vol. 31, pp. 269–280. laGrange, R., K. Ferraro, and M. Supancic. 1992. Perceived Risk and Fear of Crime: Role of Social and Physical Inci- vilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 311–334. larsen, v., and H. Topsøe-Jensen. 1984. Urban Planning and the Everyday Life of Women. Danish Building Research Institute, urban and Regional Planning Division, Hør- solm, Denmark. loukaitou-Sideris, A. 1997. Inner-City Commercial Strips: evolution, Decay—Retrofit? Town Planning Review, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 1–29. loukaitou-Sideris, A. 1999. Hot Spots of Bus Stop Crime: The Importance of environmental Attributes. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 395–411. loukaitou-Sideris, A. 2005. Is It Safe to Walk Here? Design and Policy Responses to Women’s Fear of victimization in Public Places. In Conference Proceedings 35: Research on Women’s Issues in Transportation: Report of a Con- ference; Volume 2: Technical Papers, Transportation Research Board of the national Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 102–112. loukaitou-Sideris, A., and J. e. eck. 2007. Crime Prevention and Active living. American Journal of Health Promo- tion, vol. 21, no. 4, Supplement, pp. 380–389. loukaitou-Sideris, A., and R. ehrenfeucht. 2009. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., and london. loukaitou-Sideris, A., and C. Fink. 2009. Addressing Women’s Fear of victimization in Transportation environments: A Survey of u.S. Transit Agencies. Urban Affairs Review, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 554–587. loukaitou-Sideris, A., A. Bornstein, C. Fink, l. Samuels, and S. Gerami. 2009. How to Ease Women’s Fear of Transporta- tion Environments: Case Studies and Best Practices. MTI Report 09-01. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State university, Calif. loukaitou-Sideris, A., R. liggett, and H. Iseki. 2002. The Geography of Transit Crime: Documentation and evalu- ation of Transit Incidence on and Around Transit Sta- tions in los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 135–151. lynch, G., and S. Atkins. 1988. The Influence of Personal Secu- rity Fears on Women’s Travel Patterns. Transportation, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 257–277. Metropolitan Action Committee on violence Against Women and Children (MeTRAC). 2006. “Why Women’s Safety?” http://www.metrac.org/programs/safe/why.htm. Accessed oct. 16, 2007. Morrell, H. 1996. Women’s Safety. In Changing Places: Wom- en’s Lives in the City (C. Booth, J. Darke, and S. Yeandle, eds.), Paul Chapman Publishing ltd., london. needle, J. R., and M. Cobb. 1997. TCRP Synthesis 21: Improv- ing Transit Security: A Synthesis of Transit Practice. TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C. newburn, T. 2001. The Commodification of Policing: Security networks in the late Modern City. Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 5 and 6, pp. 829–848. Outlook. 1912. new York’s Subway Problem: A Review. Out- look 101, June 22, pp. 384–388. Pain, R. 2001. Gender, Race, Age, and Fear in the City. Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 5 and 6, pp. 899–914. Pickup, F. 2001. Ending Violence Against Women: A Chal- lenge for Development and Humanitarian Work. oxfam Publishing, london. Reed, T. B., R.W. Wallace, and D. A. Rodriguez. 1999. Transit Passenger Perceptions of Transit-Related Crime Reduction Measures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1731, TRB, national Research Council, pp. 130–141. Rendell, J. 1998. Displaying Sexuality: Gender Identities and the early nineteenth-Century Street. In Images of the Street: Planning, Identity, and Control in Public Space (n. Fyfe, ed.). Routledge, london, pp. 75–91.

120 WoMen’S ISSueS In TRAnSPoRTATIon, voluMe 1 RightRides. 2008. RightRides for Women’s Safety Annual Report, 2008. http://www.rightrides.org/templates/about .php?page=annual_report. Rohe, W. M., and R. J. Burby. 1988. Fear of Crime in Public Housing. Environment and Behavior, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 700–720. Rosenbloom, S. 1995. Travel by Women. In Demographic Special Reports: 1990 NPTS Publication Series, FHWA, u.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Washington, D.C., pp. 2-1 to 2-57. Ross, C. e. 2000. Walking, exercising, and Smoking: Does neighborhood Matter? Social Science and Medicine, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 265–274. Ryan, M. 1990. Women in Public: Between Banners and Bal- lots, 1825–1880. Johns Hopkins university Press, Balti- more, Md. Scarborough Women’s Centre–Metropolitan Action Commit- tee on violence Against Women and Children (MeTRAC) 1991. Making Transit Stops Safer for Women: Scarbor- ough Moves Forward. Scarborough, Canada. Schulz, D., and S. Gilbert. 2000. Women and Transit Security: A new look at an old Issue. In Women’s Travel Issues: Proceedings from the Second National Conference, octo- ber 1996, FHWA, u.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., pp. 550–562. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ ohim/womens/chap30.pdf. Seefeldt, v., M. R. Malina, and M. A. Clark. 2002. Factors Affecting levels of Physical Activity in Adults. Sports Medicine, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 143–168. Shen, D., D. ospoina, F. Zhao, and H. elbardawi. 1997. Analy- ses of Technologies and Methodologies Adopted by U.S. Transit Agencies to Enhance Security. national urban Transit Institute, Florida International university, Miami. Silverman. e., and J. A. Della-Giustina. 2001. urban Policing and the Fear of Crime. Urban Studies, vol. 38, no. 5 and 6, pp. 941–958. Smith, M. J. 2008. Addressing the Security needs of Women Passengers on Public Transport. Security Journal, vol. 21, pp. 117–133. Smith, W., and R. Torstennson. 1997. Gender Differences in Risk Perception and neutralizing Fear of Crime: Toward Resolving the Paradoxes. British Journal of Criminology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 608–634. Stanko, e. 1990. Everyday Violence: Women’s and Men’s Experience of Personal Danger. Pandora, london. Stringer, S. M. 2007. Hidden in Plain Sight: Sexual Harass- ment and Assault in the new York City Subway System. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/city_ room/20070726_hiddeninplainsight.pdf. Accessed oct. 2, 2008. Taylor, B., A. loukaitou-Sideris, R. liggett, C. Fink, M. Wachs, e. Cavanagh, C. Cherry, and P. Haas. 2005. Designing and Operating Safe and Secure Transit Systems: Assessing Current Practices in the United States and Abroad. MTI Report 04-05. Mineta Transportation Institute, San José State university, Calif. Thompson, J. l., P. Allen, l. Cunningham-Sabo, D. Yazzie, M. Curtis, and S. M. Davis. 2002. environmental, Policy, and Cultural Factors Related to Physical Activity in Sedentary American Indian Women. Women and Health, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 17–28. Thrasher, e. J., and J. B. Schnell. 1974. Studies of Public Atti- tudes Toward Transit Crime and vandalism. In Trans- portation Research Record 487, TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 26–33. Transport for london (Tfl). 2004. Expanding Horizons: Transport for London’s Women’s Action Plan. london. Transport for london (Tfl). 2007. Gender Equality Scheme 2007–2010. london. Trench, S., T. oc, and S. Tiesdell. 1992. Safer Cities for Women: Perceived Risks and Planning Measures. Town Planning Review, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 279–293. uK Department for Transport. 2000. Women and Public Transport: The Checklist. london. uK Department for Transport. 2002. People’s Perception of Personal Security and Their Concerns About Crime on Public Transport: Literature Review. london. uK Department for Transport. 2004. People’s Perception of Personal Security and Their Concerns About Crime on Public Transport: Research Findings. london. un Habitat Safer Cities Programme and Huairou Commission. 2007. Global Assessment on Women’s Safety: Preliminary Survey Results. nairobi, Kenya. valentine. G. 1990. Women’s Fear and the Design of Public Space. Built Environment, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 288–303. valentine, G. 1996. (Re)negotiating the ‘heterosexual street’: lesbian production of space. In Body Space: Destabilizing Geographies of Gender and Sexuality (n. Dunkan, ed.). Routledge, london. viswanath, K., and S. T. Mehrotra. 2008. Safe in the City? Seminar, vol. 583, pp. 21–24. http://www.india-seminar .com/2008/583/583_kalpana_and_surabhi.htm. Wallace, R. R, D. A. Rodriguez, C. White, and J. levine. 1999. Who noticed, Who Cares? Passenger Reactions to Tran- sit Safety Measures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1666, TRB, national Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 133–138. Warr, M. 1984. Fear of victimization: Why Are Women and the elderly More Afraid? Social Science Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 681–702. Wekerle, G., and C. Whitzman. 1995. Safe Cities: Guidelines for Planning, Design and Management. van nostrand Reinhold, new York. Whitzman, C. 2008. The Handbook of Community Safety, Gender and Violence Prevention. earthscan, london and Sterling, va. Wilbur, J., P. Chandler, B. Dancy, J. Choi, and D. Plonczynski. 2002. environmental, Policy, and Cultural Factors Related to Physical Activity in urban, African American Women.” Women and Health, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 17–28.

121WHAT IS BloCKInG HeR PATH? Wilson, J. Q., and G. l. Kelling. 1982. Broken Windows: The Police and neighborhood Safety. Atlantic Monthly, vol. 249, no. 3, pp. 29–38. Women’s Planning network Inc. 1995. Women’s Transport Needs. victoria, Australia. Zelinka, A., and D. Brennan. 2001. Safescape: Creating Safer, More Livable Communities Through Planning and Design. American Planning Association, Planners Press, Washington, D.C.