Security Risk?
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
A recent bill approved by the House Homeland Security Commission (HR 1401) and now introduced before Congress is the latest attempt to increase security for our nation’s public transportation systems.
This bill takes a step forward in authorizing $5.1 billion dollars to go towards transit security. This money is definitely needed for agencies to provide or upgrade their security.
The bill also looks at “high-risk” and “medium-risk” agencies and asks them to submit vulnerability assessments and security plans so that they may be “approved.”
Okay, here’s where I have issue with these bills. Since 9-11 those “high-risk” agencies have gotten more security than most Midwestern cities.
When I was doing the cover story on NJ Transit for our December issue I got a tour of their police force by Sergeant Bob Noble. Let me tell you, NJ Transit has it together. Their officers are not only fully-trained officers of the law, but also many have volunteer fire fighting experience, hazmat training and other specialized training.
Chief Douglas DeLeaver of the Maryland Transit Police force instituted Zone Enforced Unified Sweeps (ZEUS) to forestall terrorist activity within the boundaries of the Maryland Transit Administration and it has worked exceptionally well for them. And Zeus is only part of the policies that DeLeaver has instituted at the MTP.
Here are but two examples of “high-risk” agencies that have already made steps to prevent future attacks on their grounds.
As far as new funding for transit security goes, we need to be vigilant, but not foolish. Our “high-risk” agencies already know they are at risk and have been working to prevent future terrorist acts since 9-11 happened.
If we want to truly be secure, we need to shore up those agencies that may not feel they are a “high-risk” because nothing has ever happened to them before. You know the ones I am talking about — those agencies with a single security guard at its leading station who does the job because he’s semi-retired and it gets him out of the house.
Many of our agencies (especially those with rail components) travel through rural areas. Sure, major urban centers have been and will be the major targets for attacks, but those rural areas are prime places for someone to plant something and let it be carried to those urban areas.
We need to look at security as a whole and not just pick out those “high-risk” targets because often it seems that a place doesn’t become high-risk until after something happens.
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.
March 22nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Thsi article sure makes a lot of sense. I agree that we need tightened security for transit systems, but let’s spread the funds appropriately and make sure we are “looking at security as a whole and not just pick those “high risk” targets.” Terrorists will look for easier targets and sometimes get the same scare whether it is a high risk or low.