Public Transit Security: Four Years After 9/11

1. Public Transit Security: Four Years After 9/11 Eva Lerner-Lam Palisades Consulting Group, Inc. Presented at theNYU Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management 6th Annual Tri-State Transit Symposium Tuesday, October 18, 2005

2. Overview of Presentation What’s happened, four years after 9/11? • 9/11 Commission Findings and “Common Sense” Recommendations • Congressional Action—and inaction • Research and Development—big bang for a small buck • Education, Training and Drills—win-win for everyone • What we must overcome… • Political Atrophy • Process vs. technology (both are important, but technology is not the “magic bullet”) • “I can tell you, but then I’d have to shoot you…” • Who’s going to pay for all this?

3. 9/11 Commission Report: Key Finding • “Lack of Imagination” by people and organizations with responsibility for public safety and security

4. 9/11 Commission Report Findings • “Fighting terrorism was not a high priority” • Capabilities of Intelligence, Defense and other agencies were constrained by antiquated and ineffective policies and processes • Inefficient management of government: “The enemy made mistakes; our government wasn’t able to capitalize on them.”

5. 9/11 Commission Report Recommendations—July 2004 • DHS should develop an integrated plan to focus resources in a manner to best protect all the transportation modes • Seek improvements in technologies with applications across transportation modes • Standardize equipment, data, processes

6. 9/11 Commission Report • H.R. 5040[108]: 9/11 Commission Report Implementation Act of 2004 – never became law • Non-profit organization 9-11 Public Discourse Project is trying to carry on the efforts of Commission

7. 9-11 Commission’s Public Discourse Project “Common Sense” Recommendations • Radio Spectrum for first Responders • Adoption of Incident Command System • Congressional Funding Based on Risk and Vulnerability Assessments, not “pork” • Complete two critical reports recommended by the Commission and required by the Intelligence Reform Act. • A National Strategy for Transportation Security (due April 1, 2005) • A report assessing the vulnerability of the national’s critical infrastructure (due June 15, 2005)

8. What’s Been Done So Far…

9. A National Framework for Better Integrated Incident Management • March 2004: DHS established a uniform set of processes and procedures that emergency responders at all levels of government will use to conduct response operations.

10. A National Framework for Better Integrated Planning • December 2004: DHS developed a National Response Plan (NRP) that consolidates and reconciles multiple, national-level incident response plans into a single, focused, universally understood strategy

11. Transit Vulnerability Assessments • Bus, Rail and Ferry Operators have performed vulnerability assessments of operations and facilities

12. Frequent, Available, Affordable Security Training for Transit Personnel Administered through the National Transit Institute: • Transit Explosives Incident Management • Effectively Managing Transit Emergencies • Transit System Security • Transit System Security: Design Review • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design • Threat Management and Emergency Response to Rail Hijackings • Threat Management and Emergency Response to Bus Hijackings

13. TOPOFF Exercises • TOPOFF 1 CO/NH May 2001 • TOPOFF 2 WA/IL/DC/Canada May 2003 • TOPOFF 3 NY/NJ/CT April 2005

14. Mixed Results from Research Efforts • Strong research program sponsored by Transportation Research Board • Updated Powerpoint slides summarizing program: http://www4.trb.org/trb/homepage.nsf/web/security#trbppmonth • Lack of coordination and significant progress by DHS or TSA research programs:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04890.pdf

15. FY 2005 Transit Security Grant Program Allocations • 1 Funding for the Ferry portion of the award is derived from the funds provided for port security

16. FY 2005 Transit Security Grant Program Allocation to NY-NJ-CT Region

17. Pending Congressional Legislation • Placed on Calendar in Senate: • Federal Public Transportation Act of 2005 [S.907] • Introduced in House • Rail Transit Security and Safety Act of 2005 [H.R.1109] • Secure Trains Act [H.R.3270] • Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2005 [H.R.153]

18. Challenge #1:Political Atrophy • Inability of US Congress to pass meaningful legislation for public transit security • Funding appropriations based on political influence instead of risks and vulnerabilities

19. Challenge #2:Over-Reliance on Technology • Technology can only go so far; must also address Process improvements, including: • “Layered” security throughout the system • Employee duties adapted for security • Securing contractors and supply chains • Lack of interoperability between systems

20. Challenge #3:Reluctance to Share Information and Best Practices • Notion that security-related projects must be kept secret, even among peers and colleagues, for fear of information falling into the “wrong hands” (or those of a competitor) • Need to find a way to exchange knowledge or we risk unnecessary duplication of effort--or worse • To “win the war” we need to find ways to communicate with each other on the “battlefield”!

21. Challenge #4:Who’s paying for all this security? • Partnership between government, private sector and users

22. In Summary • For public transit, a lot less progress than we’d all hoped for after 9/11 • Some high level national planning framework documents • Some good research by TRB • Some useful training, exercises and drills • Need to address some key challenges: • Lack of national leadership and funding • Difficulty in sharing knowledge and lessons learned • Re-emphasize importance of Process, in addition to Technology

23. We need to push ahead aggressively • For our First Responders…

24. We need to push ahead aggressively • And for our families…