As areas of the United States move toward adopting high-speed rail, there is time to consider various security options and to build them into the rail systems, according to a new report from the Mineta Transportation Institute.
There has been a long-term increase in terrorist attacks on public surface transportation modes worldwide which “argues for continued security measures,” says the report, Formulating a Strategy for Security High-Speed Rail in the United States. However, it notes that while high-speed rail systems have been attacked by terrorists, subways and commuter trains have been attacked with more frequency and lethality.
Funding for the report was provided by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of University Programs.
The types of threats that drive security concerns include improvised explosive devices, shooters either on trains or at stations, active efforts to derail trains, and disruptions of rail traffic by various means, it says.
Options for security high-speed rail range from the post-9/11 aviation-style security model, less intensive variants of aviation screening, random screening, and even eliminating passenger screening, which the report deems unlikely. The report notes that in Japan there are no screening procedures for passengers boarding high-speed trains and officials there rely heavily on surveillance cameras.
In Spain, the report says that some high-speed rail trains have security measures, including ID confirmation and baggage screening with random personal searches.
The report also believes that a security model based on current types of aviation screening “would be difficult and is unnecessary,” noting that the limited amounts of explosives that could be used to bring down an airliner “cannot derail a train or cause catastrophic train crashes.” Even a successful hijacking of a train with firearms couldn’t result in it being crashed into a building, it says.
“Weapons pose a danger to passengers on board, but no more of a threat than that to persons at any other public venue,” the report says.
The report also notes creating checkpoints for passenger screening would impact how train stations are constructed and mean that high-speed rail passengers would have to remain separated from non-high speed rail passengers, limiting the integration of different types of rail systems and transportation modes. Such a security system would also minimize the convenience of high-speed rail, which is a key attraction, it says.
“An aviation security mode of 100 percent passenger inspection does not appear feasible with today’s technology,” the report says.
The report notes that random passenger screening “appears generally acceptable.”
The report also says that terrorists prefer to attack the rail lines of high-speed trains, which means rail security is an important consideration. It says that in other countries the rights of way for high-speed rail lines are fenced in and that there are no grade crossings. Moreover, bridges over the rail lines have sensors to detect fallen objects.
The report identifies a number of best security practices although it says the basic inventory hasn’t changed much since 2001. In the area of passenger security, the report says, these practices include ID checks, the use of explosive detection canines on platforms and trains, cameras in train cars, metal detectors, random armed security and the “see something, say something” campaigns.