• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

OUR OPINION; Paying for Transit Security

Posted on: Wednesday, 27 July 2005, 18:00 CDT

The debate about whether the federal government is allocating too much homeland security money to one area - airports and airplanes - at the expense of other possible targets is not new.

It is especially dismaying that in the latest round of that discourse new Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff continued to defend that policy, despite what happened in London. Anti-terror experts have argued for years that mass transit and other targets, including nuclear power plants, do not receive enough money or attention. So one would expect that the bombings in Madrid last year and now in London would have changed Washington's stance, at least somewhat.

Since no security system is foolproof, it is legitimate to argue that airports have been secured almost to the max. How many screening gadgets can we have?

After the nation has spent $15 billion in four years on airport security, compared to $250 million for mass transit security, Chertoff told members of Congress that airports and planes are still the main priority. Then he suggested states and localities had the main responsibility for protecting their transit systems.

That posture is not legitimate. Homeland defense is, first and foremost, a federal government responsibility. For Chertoff to recite the cold calculation that a fully fueled plane can cause 3,000 deaths - as they did on Sept. 11 - while a bomb in a subway car may kill 30 people and that the two should be considered by the order of magnitude is infuriating.

The issue is shortchanging the American public that rides on mass transit - or works in other venues that represent ripe terror targets. Transit systems will always be far more open than airports. They offer attractive opportunities for a potential terrorist. Several well-placed bombs exploding on trains at rush hour could kill dozens, possibly hundreds, and also disrupt a city's commerce for days or weeks.

The response to Chertoff from the office of state Public Safety Secretary Edward Flynn was disconcerting. A spokeswoman, Katie Ford, said there was a point of diminishing returns "by throwing money at public transit for anti-terrorist security." We have not reached that point, not even close. The federal government has given the T $7 million for security in the same period it gave $92 million for Logan Airport. The issue is not either/or. Screening devices are impractical for mass transit, but more uniformed police - not private security - are needed in train and subway stations. The overriding theme of analyses done since 9/11 has been that Washington needs to look at the world differently. Judging from his comments last week, Chertoff appears to have missed this message. Members of Congress are right to be alarmed, and they should continue to say so.

Source: Patriot Ledger, The; Quincy, Mass.

More News in this Category