The reason given was that it would reduce payouts of false claims, and reduce vandalism. No figures were given for how much vandalism actually costs the system.

From the published data, however, this idea is nowhere near economic. Let's take the IT figures apart, shall we?

"He said the agency paid more than $84,000 as a result of 42 claims filed the past six years, according to written minutes from that meeting."

That works out to be $14,000 per year average. (84k / 6)

"Intercity Transit is considering spending up to $750,000 to install video surveillance on buses..."

Divide $750,000 by $14,000 annual payout for claims (assume they are ALL false and that the cameras would not raise the payouts): you get 53.57 years to repay the amount you would have paid in claims. And this also assumes that the cameras last that long, which they won't.

So - if this is their big argument, I have a question. Why not start out with just two cameras. We'll install them in Jim Merill's personal vehicle. One will look out his windshield to show us the terrified faces of the others who share the road with him, and the other will look at Jim's drivers seat to make sure it is him driving. That way we can document that he does not use the system he manages, and should have NO say over the conditions of those who do ride the bus.

This is management gone awry. It also happens to be a huge public document nightmare - the feed from 540 cameras has to be kept in the hard drive system AND RELEASED TO ANY AND ALL WHO ASK FOR IT - it is a public document, after all, for a period of how many weeks or months? Washington state has rules for retention of public documents, and if they don't archive this stuff then they are violating those rules. Take a peek at DVD prices and the system to dump all this video to storage, and then look again at that $750,000 they propose will be the total cost. I bet it will take more than 53 years to pay for itself once we've revised that figure!

I also have to ask: when someone gives you figures which do not add up to the conclusion they espouse, and you print them on the front page of your snooze-paper without comment on the discrepancy, is it journalism you're practicing, or is it stenography?