Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Share Stories  |  Traffic  |  Columns  |  Q&A     |  Get Gridlock:    Twitter |    Facebook  |     RSS   |  phone Alerts

Metro Is Watching

Metro has installed 20 exterior surveillance cameras at 12 Metrorail stations in the District and Fairfax County. The costs were paid for by the individual jurisdictions.

In the District, which provided Metro $200,000 for the cameras, they were installed at the following stations: Rhode Island Avenue-Brentwood, Congress Heights, Deanwood, Minnesota Avenue, Fort Totten, Takoma, Brookland-CUA, Columbia Heights, Georgia Avenue-Petworth, and Tenleytown-AU.

In Fairfax County, which provided $75,000, the cameras are at the Vienna/Fairfax-GMU and Franconia-Springfield stations.

Metro transit police identified stations where external cameras could help deter and prevent crime. But individual jurisdictions had to provide the funding.

-- Lena H. Sun

By Washington Post Editors  |  May 11, 2009; 12:20 PM ET
Categories:  Metro , Safety  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Mayor Fenty Releases New DC Pedestrian Plan
Next: Commuter Alert: Metro Red Line Delays Cleared


Metro spent $275,000 on 12 cameras, or $23,000 a piece? What am I missing here? Can these things look back in time or something. Some camera company sent their entire staffs kids to college for a year on that contract. Is it any wonder that Metro's budgets are chronically overblown?

My condo building just installed two state of the art cameras in our building, activated by motion, with 50X zoom and night vision, all recorded to a web accessible DVR system for a grand total of $3,800 dollars.

Posted by: Nosh1 | May 11, 2009 2:52 PM | Report abuse

Nosh, it's probably not just the purchase of cameras, but also of the hardware to suppport them, plus the cost of installation and maintenance. And don't forget it costs to hire someone to do the monitoring.

In addition condo system doesn't have to worry too much about things like exposure to weather and vandalism, either. So yeah, $23,000 doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.

Posted by: gilmoredaniel | May 12, 2009 7:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company