By Scott Greiper and Mark Sauter

Factors Constraining the Market

Scope and Fragmentation

The size, fragmentation and jurisdictional complexity of the ground transportation sector create a huge range of potential threat scenarios and targets.  Some solutions used in aviation, such as screening all passengers and their bags for weapons or explosives, appear impossible on their face given the sheer number of passengers, the nature of the system (passengers board and exit at numerous times during a trip) and the limitations of current technology.

Lack of Resources

Faced with a choice between funding basic operations and additional security, many transit operators are likely to choose the immediate need.  In addition, market feedback indicates that even in sectors with strong revenue, such as freight rail, security budgets are often tight.

The U.S. government has committed hundreds of millions of dollars for ground transportation security since 9/11, and seems likely to support it at or above US$150 million per year going forward (albeit in different funding programs), but this does not fill the gap.  The Bush Administration has not stepped in more aggressively for several reasons.  First, it expects local jurisdictions and corporations to support their own security requirements.  Second, on a strategic level the Administration’s policy has been to invest far more heavily in securing the nation via “effensive” measures (Department of Defense and Intelligence Community funding for the Global War on Terrorism and the war in Iraq) versus “defensive” measures such as homeland security efforts.  For example, the cost of one new Navy destroyer (app. US$3 billion), or two weeks of supporting the war in Iraq War, is about what Administration critics say should be spent on ground transportation security. 22) Finally, as discussed earlier, homeland security officials believe aviation security is a higher priority.

Government Leadership and Regulatory Action

The U.S. government’s efforts on ground transportation security have attracted criticism not just for their limited scale, but also for their implementation.  For example, the police chief for the Washington transit system complained to the U.S. Senate that she had been waiting ten months for her security grant.  On a broader level, critics have assailed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to generate adequate plans to secure ground transportation.  The repeatedly delayed “National Strategy for Transportation Security”-- issued in 2005 year but not available to the public -- has been criticized for lacking detail.  Execution of the strategies that do exist has been hampered by over-lapping jurisdiction among the involved agencies, which include the TSA, DHS Office of Grants and Training (G&T), FRA, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), DOT and PHMSA, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others.23)

Even DHS’s own acting Inspector General warned in 2005: “While TSA continues to address critical aviation security needs, it is moving slowly to improve security across other modes of transportation.”4)

Factors Driving the Market

Regulations and Best Practices

Once the TSA finally did issue its “national Strategy for Transportation Security,”and following the Madrid and London attacks, the pace of standard-setting increased significantly.  Various private organizations are now focusing on standards for ground transportation security.  The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is developing standards, which TSA, the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) and the Freight Transport Association (FTA) are monitoring.25)  The American Association of Railroads (AAR) has developed a voluntary plan for its members.  Current government activities include:

• An expected review by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) of TSA rail security efforts26)
• A pending compliance program for TSA Security Directives (SDs) for rail and mass transit systems issued after the Madrid attacks (SDs are focused on areas such as inspection of stations and use of canine inspection teams) 27)
• Federal Security Analysis and Action Programs (SAAP) -- reviews by TSA inspectors of transit system security plans, compliance and requirements
• FTA mandated mass transit security plans; due this year
• Completion of High Threat Urban Areas (HTUAs) Corridor Assessments: vulnerability assessments of areas transited by trains carrying toxic by inhalation (TIH) HAZMAT, including Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Cleveland, New Orleans and Houston
• TSA voluntary action items for the transportation of TIH materials

The TSA says it has already completed over 2,600 “criticality assessments” for systems across the United States, including 848 for rail systems and 1,778 for mass transit systems; conducted at least 50 Site Assistant Visits (SAVs) for mass transit, bus, tunnel, and terminal systems; and finished 132 Buffer Zone Protection Plans (BZPPs).

Given that many, if not most, of these activities will likely surface significant security shortcomings and independent authentication of the need to correct them, it appears possible they may provide the impetus for new spending.

Ground transportation security has become a hot political issue on Capitol Hill, spurred in part by recent plots on over-seas transit systems.  Democratic leaders such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and House Homeland Security Committee ranking member Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS) have criticized the Administration for investing far too little in transportation security.  In 2006, a bi-partisan effort by House appropriators sought US$200 million in transportation security for FY07, up from US$150 million during the previous two years.  Two other bills would dramatically increase that number; each would allocate more than three billion dollars for transportation security over the next several years.  One of them was sponsored by Republican Tom Petri (RWI), who complained DHS has spent about 1 penny per passenger on public transportation security since 2003, compared with US$9 per passenger for aviation.  While political observers are skeptical about the chances for major funding increases this year, this activity demonstrates political support for increased funding, especially by Democrats.