Explosive detectors to be tested on Connecticut commuter rail

[StillGrande]

From the Boston Globe
------------------------------------
Explosive detectors to be tested on Connecticut commuter rail
By Diane Scarponi, Associated Press Writer | July 16, 2004
NEW HAVEN, Conn. --Connecticut rail commuters will participate in a test of an on-board explosive detection system as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security studies options for increasing security on trains.
Riders on the Shore Line East Commuter Rail will have their bags scanned through an X-ray and explosive-detecting device, similar to devices used at airports, and will also have their tickets scanned for explosive residue.
"We recognize the unique challenges presented by the rail environment and are conducting this pilot to identify the best methods to increase security," Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security, said Thursday.
The monthlong test, which starts Monday, is the last of three studies exploring options for rail security.
The Connecticut tests will be done while the train is underway, preventing a security line from forming in train stations, which are vulnerable to terrorist attacks, Hutchinson said.
An earlier study in Maryland tested bags for explosive detection devices before passengers got on the trains, and a Washington, D.C. study scanned cargo and baggage loaded into trains.
Security experts will evaluate the performance and risks of each option. They will also assess how passengers respond to the security options, and whether the screening unduly delayed rail travel.
Hutchinson said the government does not plan to require these security measures on all trains in the country. But such systems could be quickly deployed in response to a terrorist threat or in times of heightened security, he said.
Different security systems may be appropriate for different kinds of rail travel, he said.
Shore Line East was chosen for the test because it is not heavily used, unlike Metro-North and other commuter rails, making it easier for TSA agents and law enforcement to test the equipment and decreasing the likelihood that the test would delay trains.
The commuter rail takes about 1,200 passengers a day along the Connecticut shoreline, from New Haven to Old Saybrook.
Passengers will step onto the train in a rail car that is entirely dedicated to detecting explosives, including firearms and bomb-making material.
While the train is underway, passengers will individually place their bags on a conveyor belt to be scanned through an X-ray and explosives-detecting device, about the size of an office desk.
If the bag does not clear the X-ray, it is examined more closely by a Transportation Security Administration agent.
Passengers next will present their tickets to a Transportation Security Administration agent, who will rub the tickets several times over a cloth pad. The pad slides into a scanning device about the size of a microwave oven. The cloth is quickly analyzed for explosive residue.
If the ticket clears the scan, it is handed back to the passenger. If not, the passenger is taken aside for a more thorough check.
Passengers who pass these tests then can take their seats in an adjacent train car.
The test will cost the Transportation Security Administration about $500,000.
Rail passengers at Union Station Thursday said they would be willing to go through the tests, as long as they don't delay travel too much or result in higher ticket prices.
Monique Johnson said security was on her mind as she traveled from Maryland to New Haven to visit family.
"I was thinking as we were going through the tunnels, they could blow us up right now," Johnson said. "Yes, it's a good idea to have some kind of security."
Christopher Robert, who traveled from Rhode Island to New York City, a bouquet of sunflowers in his hand for his girlfriend in New York, said he does not think about security much. Increased airport security has not been bothersome, but there seems to be no security on trains, he said.
"I guess it's a good idea," Robert said.
-------------------------------------

Has anyone seen the car?
Does it look like the rest of the train or does it really stand out?

[88gta350]

I hope people are willing to be questioned and searched when the machines give a false positive.... and they will give a false positive. We use the same explosive detectors at work (both for personell and for bags) and while the ones for personell are pretty good, the ones for bags (we use them for vehicles) give a couple false positives per day. Recently, we had a flase positive at work and somehow the media heard about it and started reporting TMI had a bomb scare. This is why I hate the media and take what they say with a grain of salt. They don't know this is a routine occurance and we have procedures for dealing with it. I just wonder what will happen when the false positives start on the trains.

If you live in a rural area where fertilizers are used, or if you've been doing yard work with fertilizers, or even washing your car with certain products, they will give explosive residue hits. The machines are extremely sensitive.

[Anonymous]

And so dissapears a little bit more of our rights.

"he who is willing to give up freedom for security deserves neither"

[AntonioFP45]

O.K,

Now that President Bush is in the White House, the "Wack-Job" psychos are probably not too happy and may think about trying to do us harm again. It is disconcerting that our trains are vulnerable.

Anyone know if this procedure is still in place? Also, any improvements or funding for better securtiy going towards Amtrak, Commuter lines and even our big Freight railroads?

An attack on our rail lines could pretty well cripple our economy. Something that should be on the mind of our President and his aides.

As for "more of our rights" being compromised. Doesn't seem to be, IMHO. But as the saying goes: Freedom does have a price.
10-4!

[dldance]

As a frequent flyer - I have been able to adapt to changes in security over the years. For example, I have specific shoes and clothes that I wear when flying because they are less likely to trip a metal detector. I never wear my gardening clothes for travel. I have a special shave kit for traveling for the same reason. I know that there are routes that I fly where I will most always be singled out for additional security because I have to use one-way tickets and I allow for the extra time in traveling. That is ok for the 2 to 4 trips a month I take.

However, if the same routine were part of my daily commute it would become extremely intrusive. Nor would it add to my security, since when something becomes that routine - it almost becomes meaningless. As it is now, I drive instead of fly on certain trips because the security time delays make the flight as long as the drive.

dd