(The following article by Fred Bayles was posted on the USA Today website on June 15.)
BOSTON — A ride on the Boston subway could get you searched by transit police worried about terrorism, but don’t expect random searches on trains to become routine in other cities across the USA.
Most transit agencies barely have enough money or manpower for train security, much less the beefed-up system announced by Boston transit officials last week. It’s the nation’s first program of random passenger checks on a subway.
Random searches raise questions of logistics, legalities and effectiveness. But the biggest challenge may be limited resources. The economic downturn, funding cuts and energy costs have forced more than half the nation’s transit authorities to reduce staff, according to the American Public Transit Association (APTA). Few systems have money for such security upgrades as new surveillance cameras or bomb-proof garbage cans.
“Forgetting the legal questions, I couldn’t do it with the personnel I have,” says Gary Gee, police chief of San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit system. Gee says his department needs $85 million in equipment alone. He is unlikely to get more personnel: Layoffs are already pending for 50 BART workers. “No way would random searches happen here,” he says.
Random searches and other stringent security measures aren’t expected to become routine at train stations. But authorities are mindful of the bombings of commuter trains in Madrid that killed 191 people March 11. Beefed-up security will be occasionally implemented in the weeks leading up to high-profile events that are considered possible targets for terrorists.
The Boston decision, for instance, was shaped by the Democratic National Convention, which will be held in that city July 26-29. And transit police in New York City, site of the Republican National Convention from Aug. 30 to Sept. 2, have already been stopping passengers with oversized packages. Metropolitan Transit Authority spokesman Tom Kelly says the stops are not considered random searches because packages are checked, not people.
“What we do is just a matter of common sense,” he says.
‘We need more funding’
Industry leaders say Boston’s plan for random searches will do little to ensure security. What is needed, they say, is more federal support.
“We don’t need another wake-up call like Madrid. We need more funding,” says William Millar, APTA’s president.
Since the Madrid attacks, federal and state authorities have taken steps to tighten rail security. Many systems have called on employees and passengers to be more aware of abandoned bags and packages and suspicious behavior.
Last month, the Department of Homeland Security put out new regulations for transit agencies. It called for federal oversight of training and better communications systems.
Millions ride rails
Every day, passengers take more than 10 million trips on U.S. subway and commuter-rail systems. Daily passenger trips on the nation’s subway systems and busiest commuter rails:
City
Subway
Commuter rail
New York 6,030,600 825,800
Washington 845,100 39,300{+1}
Chicago 494,300 291,700
Boston 425,700 142,800
San Francisco 321,800 28,700
Philadelphia 313,400 103,700
Atlanta 222,800 None
Los Angeles 108,500 33,300
Miami 48,600 9,200
Baltimore 41,600 39,300{+1}
Cleveland 16,300 None
Dallas None 7,400
Seattle None 2,800
1 Both Washington and Baltimore passengers
Source: American Public Transportation Association, fourth-quarter 2003 data
But rail security remains the poor cousin to the multibillion-dollar effort to make air travel safe.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the federal government has spent $12 billion on commercial airline security. Federal officials have taken over the role of screening the roughly 2 million passengers a day that pass through the nation’s 431 commercial airports.
By comparison, the APTA estimates that subways and commuter rail have received just $115 million in federal funding for security. The industry itself has invested $1.7 billion at a time of growing budget deficits.
“When the money started pouring out to aviation security, they didn’t think about transit, and now there is no money around,” Gee says.
Rail officials meeting at an APTA convention in Miami last week spoke of the need for as much as $6 billion more for security cameras, fencing and personnel. But spending has been limited by the hard times in the transit industry. And proposals to provide more money remain tied up in Congress.
Reduced operations
Funding cuts by state and local government have forced many transit systems to reduce operations, raise fares and cut workers at a time they are being ordered by Homeland Security to increase security patrols.
A freeze in state funding, for instance, has left Pittsburgh’s transit system with a projected $30 million budget shortfall this year. Fares have gone from $1.25 to $1.75 in the past two years, and service has been cut by 7%. Now a $2 fare is being contemplated, along with an end to Sunday service.
Despite the cuts, Jason Fincke, chief of staff for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, says the system has been forced to add personnel and equipment to bolster security. An $832,000 grant from the Homeland Security Department will help, but Fincke says the system needs an additional $1 million to meet minimum goals. “It’s a constant struggle to take limited resources and stretch them,” he says.
Meanwhile, legal issues may make it hard for many systems to follow Boston in conducting random searches.
“If terrorists know that there is a potential of them being identified and checked, it becomes a better deterrent,” says Rod Diridon, director of the Mineta Transportation Institute, a federally created think-tank. “The problem is you have to be careful about profiling because it is a no-no in our society.”
Airline passengers must submit to searches because airports are under federal jurisdiction. But public transit systems fall under a plethora of local and state agencies. Some jurisdictions may allow random searches while others may not. And many rail lines travel through a series of cities and counties that could have conflicting laws.
“There’s a lot of practical questions about such a strategy,” says Gregg Hull, a security specialist with APTA. “There’s many jurisdictions where people could refuse to be searched.”
In the future, smaller transit authorities, such as San Diego’s light-rail system, plan to use the public as its eyes and ears. Peter Tereschuck, executive director of San Diego Trolley, says there is little else he can do with the current limited budget.
“In our free and open society, you have to balance what is right with what is necessary,” he says.