MTA: Why Spend on Security Now When There's Later

There are many, many things that Gothamist doesn't understand, the least of which is the MTA's bizarre actions. Today, the NY Times' Sewell has an interview with MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow, who says possibly the most confounding thing in response to criticism that the MTA has only spent $30 million of $600 million budgeted for security:

"The easy way out would be to spend the money quickly, without a thorough analysis of the cost and benefit. The technology for this kind of stuff is still emerging. When stuff is proven, we'll be there. We don't think we should be wasting money on unproven technology."

Man, take that logic another level and just say, "Well, since hindsight is 20/20, there's no need to fix anything, because it's just going to get broken and outdated." This is why New Yorkers have problems with MTA management! AUGH! Kalikow does go on to say he'd like to use that money to hire more police officers (not mention use more bomb sniffing dogs and closed-caption TV), but can't because the money is restricted, but please, this is a public agency, Gothamist is sure there's some loophole that can be exploited to fund them. Like, "Hey, we're putting in this new fangled motion sensor, we're going to need some officers to monitor it. And they will need their bomb sniffing dogs. And we'll need CCTV to monitor them." Yes, yes, Gothamist is Pollyanna-ish, but it's all we have.

The Daily News says that the MTA will award contracts for surveillance cameras later this year. And after yesterday's revelations about the MTA's potential but failed partnership with the Army to secure the subways, the MTA emphasizes that the Army's proposals were too small for the MTA's size and that the Army wanted to have the right to change train schedules. Oh, and the Army would have wanted money upfront to pay Lockheed for work, which is laughable because the MTA seems like the kind of client that would pay its bills three months after the third invoice.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on July 13, 2005 8:52 AM

Comments [rss]

Nobdoy

The tenor of this article is ridiculous. What, precisely, the *hell* is Gothamist's problem with the MTA?

It's better to spend money on programs without a thorough investigation of the costs, benefits, and risks?

$600 million in a one-time investment is a lot, but it's not so much that you can just spend it on instinct or whim. For instance, wouldn't you be upset if they decided to improve the system-wide communication system, as suggested above, but didn't also install a system for train tracking and arrival anticipation?

(FYI, right now, as the system was designed, they have no idea where trains actually are. 100 years ago there was no such thing as a 748-mile communication system which could monitor train traffic, just locally operated and powered cab signals and switches. That's why we don't have signs in each station saying "The next Uptown [C] Train Will Arrive in [4] Minutes" like some other systems do. When considering running new cables and equipment to improve system-wide communication it would be wise to think about a tracking system, no? Wouldn't you be mad if they spent $600m to improve their walkie-talkies and squandered an opportunity to improve service at the same time?

Anyway, a one-time fund of $600million could put one policeman in each station 24/7 for about three years. Then what? (Math: $100k/year per cop, including benefits, HR costs, training, and pension; 468 stops; each working 5 of a total 21 8-hour shifts per week: 600m/(468*4*100k) = 3.2)

And finally, the assertion that the MTA pays invoices only when past-due seems childish and perhaps even libelous.

Ed

Are you sure they want to use "closed-captioned" video instead of "closed-circuit" video cameras? Which conversations would they subtitle? And with all the languages spoken in this city...?

S.D.

Security isn't just about prevention, but control too. They could spend money Now to improve communications inside the subway using proven technology.

Did the MTA do this? I would hope so, but I'm not so sure...

Cheng-Jih Chen

I tend to agree with Dave. This is a wickedly hard problem they're trying to address. Note that London as a whole is probably the most surveillance-heavy city in the world, and all those security cameras did little good to prevent the attack. More money should probably be devoted to damage mitigation, as well as killing those a-holes while they're still in their beds, both literally and metaphorically.

Captain Midnight

The idea was that if a suicide bomber was accurately detected in a crowd, any warning to "run" or exclaim "bomb!" would cause the crowd to scatter or drop down away from the bomber,

That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. As if "bomb!" will tell you which way to run. All you'd get is a human stampede.

The big question is: When was the last time Kalikow said anything that didn't make the MTA and especially himself look like a total idiot?

S.D.

"The easy way out would be to spend the money quickly, without a thorough analysis of the cost and benefit."

Sounds like a clear case of paralysis by analysis. They'll spend Millions on unproven technology with absolutely no Production Mileage, but "Analyze" security with no real action or improvement...

Dave H.

This may sound counterintuitive, but I actually find it heartening that a public official is hesitant about pissing away hundreds of millions of dollars just because it's authorized and not because he thinks he can spend it ineffectively. The alternative would be Kalikow claiming years from now "We wanted to spend $300 million on dogs and cops, but decided to spend it helping Raytheon develop terrorist-sniffing sensors, which really don't help us anyway."

And all this security may be moot. The Wall Street Journal had a disturbing article late last week (sorry, no link) saying that real-time, 100% accurate, remote explosive detection technology might actually increase the fatality of suicide bombers. The idea was that if a suicide bomber was accurately detected in a crowd, any warning to "run" or exclaim "bomb!" would cause the crowd to scatter or drop down away from the bomber, reducing the shrapnel-absorbing role of the people immediately surrounding a bomber and increasing the deadly blast radius. If this sounds like cold calculus, it certainly is, but it raises the point that all the anti-terrorist tech spending in the world can't keep us safe and may leave us even more vulnerable. I say kick back those funds to counter-intelligence and kill these a-holes while they're still in their beds.

Dirk

Man, the MTA are a bunch of idiots. They're probably waiting until they can develop and army of robots to patrol the subways. Until then no unproven technology.