Security: no magic formula: though government recommendations may help, the industry is tapping its own expertise to boost the well-being of its customers, neighbors, and its own ranks

Railway Age, Jan, 2008 by Douglas John Bowen

When it comes to security, North American railroading may wish to follow the lead of its European counterparts. That extends beyond safeguarding physical assets and rights-of-way to include the human aspect: employees and, in the case of intercity and commuter railroads, passengers.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Beyond that is a realization that Europe in general has learned how to move beyond an actual security breach, as painful as that may be to accept. "Many world security experts believe you cannot protect everything all the time," says Nancy Wilson, vice president-security for the Association of American Railroads. "Many of the same experts believe that the right approach is to become a more resilient nation--you have to assume bad things may happen." But the ability to recover may prove key, and "by doing that, ultimately you devalue the target," Wilson suggests.

CSX's proactive approach

U.S. freight and passenger railroads have moved to implement tangible measures to improve security and head off security breaches before they occur. In one case, one railroad has moved to address both industry segments. CSX Corp. formed its Police Rapid Response Team in May 2004 to anticipate and respond to potential threats to property and person.

Commander Bob Flake, head of the CSX team, says the team's mission extends beyond CSX's own operations, as it informs and trains with law enforcement personnel and emergency response organizations (fire and ambulance) on federal, state, and municipal levels, and with Amtrak and commuter railroads that are tenants on CSX rights-of-way.

"We're the only game in town, other than the FBI, that deals specifically with passenger rail issues," Flake says. And when he says "in town," Flake is being literal: The Police Rapid Response Team has shared its program with agencies from New York to Toledo to Jacksonville, and the team's expertise is being sought by entities nowhere near CSX's own sphere of operations, to the point where a backlog of requests has ensued.

In a submission to the Transportation Security Administration, a CSX document notes, "With over 21,000 miles of track and operations in 23 states, including 26 DHS high-threat, high-density urban areas, CSXT recognized early on that it had both an opportunity and a responsibility to train and educate other law enforcement agencies about the unique attributes of the rail industry and the challenges of responding to a rail-related terrorist event. With eight primary passenger and commuter rail agencies operating approximately nine million train-miles annually on CSXT track with 18 million passengers, the mission of the CSX Police Rapid Response Team (RRT) needed to incorporate both freight and passenger rail interdiction tactics into its training curriculum."

The passenger's perspective

A Rand Corp. study, "Securing America's Passenger-Rail Systems," was released last month addressing such risks. The study created a generic intracity rail system with characteristics similar to existing American transit systems such as Atlanta's MARTA, and then identified and applied 17 security improvement options in an effort to measure security effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

The Rand study reports that 80% of the worldwide attacks on rail systems were bombings, followed by sabotage at 6%, and armed attack (also 6%). Explosives accounted for 77% of the weapons used in rail system terrorist incidents, with 8% of the incidents classified as hoaxes or threats

Study co-author Jack Riley warns that forming policy and procedure by extrapolating such data is risky at best. "While it isn't practical, or desirable, to base security planning on every conceivable terrorist threat, it's important that security personnel not limit their planning to the obvious attacks from the past," Riley says. "We simply can't be certain what terrorists will do next." Instead, the study recommends the need for adaptability.

Amtrak is attempting to employ such adaptability in its daily operations, according to spokesman Cliff Black. "We already have a number of steps in place, some visible, some not readily apparent," Black says. The more visible measures include requiring photo identification when purchasing tickets at a ticket counter, random ticket verification on board trains, and increased use of K-9 inspection teams at Amtrak stations.

"The majority of our passengers seem to welcome stepped-up security on trains, and presumably do the same on commuter trains and transit," Black says. But he notes Amtrak also tries to offer a "comfort zone," an approach hailed by transportation writer Don Phillips as critical to the railroad's well-being.

"Amtrak appears to be pushing 'the power of humor,'" and employing security measures in such a way that "a lot of people may not even see it," Phillips says. "Courtesy was a big deal in Europe from the beginning," and failure to offer it causes discomfort and fear while failing to address security most effectively.

Federal focus falls short

Phillips is a stern critic of the approach taken by TSA and its parent, the Department of Homeland Security, calling it counterproductive and outdated. "On September 12, 2001, top security people in Europe had put together a team of people, and arranged a flight, to help the U.S." develop a security strategy. The U.S. response, Phillips says, "essentially was: We'll call you if we need you." Much of the ongoing effort at the federal level now, he adds, "was what they wanted to teach us."