|
In the movie "The Godfather," Tom Hagen makes the comment, "Mr. Corleone is a man who insists on hearing bad news immediately." Although the mythical Don Corleone was hardly an upstanding citizen, he understood that catching a problem early was critical to running a complicated, high-risk operation. The ramifications of "hearing bad news immediately" are profound for rail security, where timely access to information carries real-life implications. As the rail industry searches for ways to reduce risk and improve response times to critical incidents, wireless monitoring systems are being evaluated for their contributions to this effort. Although many see clear security benefits to real-time wireless monitoring and tracking, there are those who doubt the technology can improve rail security and question the cost vs. benefits of such systems. This debate is occurring at a time when various branches of government are actively seeking ways of improving rail security. In March 2003, the Transportation Security Administration initiated 49 CFR Part 172, requiring shippers of hazardous commodities to have a security plan. Recently, the Senate passed Rail Security Bill S. 2273, which authorized $180 million in grants to upgrade rail security, including hazmat shipments. In addition, the Fiscal Year 2005 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security includes $1.2 billion in first responder assistance, and $150 million for rail security. Wireless monitoring systems can play a vital role in all of these initiatives and appropriations. Market forces, rather than security concerns, have been the driving force behind today’s deployment of wireless systems on freight cars. These systems typically include sensors that help protect the load or report on railcar health and handling. Examples include impact detectors, temperature sensors, and open door/open hatch alerts. Wireless monitoring systems are now used on a wide variety of rail applications, including hazmat tank cars, auto parts and paper box cars, and specialty cars like scale cars and track equipment. About 70% of all refrigerated freight cars currently have wireless systems; this should approach 100% within the next year. Proponents of wireless monitoring see a number of areas where this technology can improve security. When threat levels are high, loaded hazmat cars equipped with wireless systems could be polled to see if they are in proximity to likely terrorist targets such as schools or government buildings. Once identified, these cars would be evaluated and, if necessary, inspected and secured. In addition, open-hatch sensors can be used to detect tampering that might occur outside of authorized areas and loading times. In addition to providing an early security alert, these systems will help detect acts of vandalism and mischief. Finally, chemical sensors can provide immediate notification of a toxic release. Should terrorists or vandals puncture a tank car, receiving an immediate release alert will significantly reduce response times and could save lives and reduce the cost of cleanup. The technology to meet these goals is available now, and is being deployed. Detractors of wireless monitoring are concerned that terrorists could hijack data and use it for malevolent purposes (for example, to gain access to routes for hazmat shipments). Some have questioned whether government should have access to railcar information that is now proprietary to industry. A number of industry executives have asked me how knowledge about a railcar’s location could ever prevent a terrorist act. In addition, there are worries that the costs of deploying and maintaining a wireless monitoring system across a wide segment of the railcar fleet would place an excessive burden on private industry. As industry and government consider wireless security systems, these issues will need to be addressed. Railcar information, be it AEI data or wireless, needs to be protected to insure that it cannot be used for malevolent purposes. Although encryption technology is already standard, additional steps may be required to protect shipper privacy. No one would argue that knowing a railcar’s location, by itself, could prevent a terrorist attack. If the data is used with smart software to help identify cars in high-risk locations, however, then security personnel will be better able to focus their efforts where it matters most. Regarding the cost of such systems, this will have to be weighed with consideration to the above benefits, as well as the benefits that shippers can gain from receiving accurate and timely information on the condition and utilization of their railcars and loads. Whatever your views on wireless monitoring, it is a technology that is transforming rail operations today, and has the potential to play an important role in our homeland security efforts. John Felty is a partner at Lat-Lon, LLC, where he directs new business development. Felty has more than 20 years of experience in industrial sales. He represents his company to the Railway Industrial Clearance Association, AAR Damage Prevention and Freight Claims division, Chlorine Institute, Railway Supply Institute, Railway Systems Suppliers, Inc., and International Refrigerated Transportation Association. |
