(The following story by Janice D’Arcy appeared on the Hartford Courant website on March 28.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Amtrak train 93 was barreling southward through Fairfield County last December, full of holiday travelers, when a buzzing sound erupted from the overhead baggage bin. Passengers glanced at one another, but no one claimed the buzzing green duffel.
“It’s hard to know when you’re over-reacting,” said Scott Matheson, a New Haven student aboard the train that afternoon and the only passenger who eventually found a conductor to report the mysterious, abandoned bag.
“The conductor told me he wasn’t authorized to look in the bag,” Matheson later recalled. “He told me If I wanted to look inside he’d `look the other way.’ He made it clear he thought he had more important things to do.”
Matheson said he returned to his seat and never found out what was in the bag, which by then was silent. “I figured if it was a bomb, we’d all already be dead.”
It was unsettling enough even before the Madrid train bombings, which killed 190 and injured nearly 1,500 earlier this month. Now Matheson’s experience stands as a jarring example of the vulnerabilities of the U.S. rail system and the challenges of improving security. The nature of train travel, particularly in the crowded Northeast commuter system, seems incompatible with full-scale monitoring and protection.
“One particularly challenging area [is] trying to preserve the flexibility, the convenience and the easy access to mass transit, and railroads particularly, and then balance that off with security,” U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday when he announced the first phase of a new rail security plan.
“Clearly, we could provide enough security to put the mass transit systems out of business. So trying to find that balance is something that we need to do.”
Ridge’s plan is intended to cover all rail service, including long distance travel and freight. But it was the passenger commuter rail, the same service attacked in Spain, that drew most attention all week as legislators asked publicly the same question that passengers asked silently: Can Madrid happen here?
There was no clear answer. An Amtrak spokesman said that without more information on the Spanish attack it was impossible to know. At the same time, the General Accounting Office issued a report flatly stating, “The open access and high ridership of mass transit systems make them both vulnerable to attack and difficult to secure.”
Jack Riley, a terrorism expert with the Virginia-based Rand Corp., warned senators at a hearing on the issue this week that American rail security planning is lacking. “Compared to other transportation sectors, decision-making appears to be quite decentralized between a number of federal, state, local and private concerns,” he said.
At that same hearing, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., repeated emphatically, “Rail is a target. Rail is a target.”
The crush of attention to rail security in Washington came amid public hearings on the failure to prevent the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, adding even more urgency.
So far, Ridge’s plan is the only federal response plan close to implementation. It would create a unit of bomb-sniffing dogs to assist with bomb threats. It calls for new research into mobile explosion detection equipment better suited to rail service.
The plan also includes a pilot program to begin in May to test baggage-screening methods in the rushed atmosphere of train stations. Amtrak, which carries about 35,000 passengers daily between Boston and Washington, will be the first testing ground for Ridge’s new screening program.
Amtrak spokesman Dan Stessel said it has not been determined where the screening will take place or how it will work. In the meantime, he said, “We haven’t changed our policies and procedures with the exception of the increase of patrol and canine units.”
Ridge’s plan, which he said would be funded within the existing budget, met with immediate criticism from detractors who said it was not ambitious enough.
“It’s extremely disconcerting to me that the administration is not treating this threat with the seriousness it deserves,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who called for an alternative plan to provide $500 million in grants for rail safety over the next five years.
Boxer was one of several legislators, including Biden, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., and Rep. Christopher Shays, R-4th District, who support heightened penalties for terrorist acts against mass transit, tackling the issue this week with new or renewed calls for legislation.
Rail advocates were quick to point out the funding discrepancies between rail and air security. The airline industry, where security has been federalized, has received between $11 billion and $12 billion in federal funds since the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the 2002 and 2003 fiscal years, $115 million in federal grants was directed to security of mass transit, which includes train, subway and bus travel. Much of that money, wrapped in the bureaucratic process, has yet to be spent.
Dennis Murphy, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, defended the disparity. The federal government, he said, is responsible for all air travel security, while other transit security is the responsibility of individual operating entities that are not dependent on federal resources. Also, he said, much federal security spending, such as intelligence and research and development, also protects rail service.
“There’s a lot more that goes on behind the scenes,” Murphy said.
Beyond the federal funds, the rail industry has already spent about $1.7 billion since the Sept. 11 attacks according to the American Public Transit Association.
Amtrak, for instance, increased armed patrol forces to between 300 and 400 officers, canine units and unarmed auxiliary officers. It staged emergency drills and developed security plans. It also mandated identification checks for customers buying tickets at stations or checking luggage.
But it also encountered obstacles that are indicative of the problems security officials now face as they try to make rail service more secure.
Amtrak has not found a feasible way to mandate identification checks for passengers buying their tickets online or at the electronic kiosks. Passenger baggage is not screened and patrols are too limited to offer a constant presence.
There is also a funding concern. Amtrak was struggling just to meet operating costs before the Madrid bombings; now it is faced with new and unexpected security costs. And it is not eligible for any of the current homeland security grants, which are intended for local transit agencies such as Metro-North.
As for the Matheson incident in December, Stessel said the protocol remains the same – it is up to the conductor to decide if the case merits a call to Amtrak police.
With passengers moving about in cars between the restrooms and cafe cars and choosing new seats, Stessel said, “it can be difficult to identify if a bag is truly abandoned.”
Matheson, for his part, boarded an Amtrak train last week just a few days after the Madrid bombings. He had purchased his ticket online and was not asked for identification when he boarded in New Haven, nor was his luggage inspected.
Yet he said he wasn’t particularly worried. “Maybe its just denial,” he said, “It doesn’t feel like it could happen to you.”