In a recent poll by the Jersey Journal, PATH riders were asked if they felt safe on public rail transportation after the Brussels terrorist attack. 55 percent answered no, while 44 percent answered yes.

In the wake of recent terrorist attacks, a lot of rail passengers — many of whom love and enjoy riding the rails — are wondering how safe passenger rail is in 2016 and what officials are doing to maintain that safety.

Terror attacks

While there has always been an air of unease about travel in this new post-9/11 era, most of the attention has always been given to the airline industry.

The images and near-constant tropes of overly intrusive TSA agents and airport safety procedures have become meme-level annoying to even the most infrequent fliers. Yet we as passengers — shoeless and dejected — abide by these rules with the understanding, or at least the hope, that they work for the greater good of our national security.

But what about the railways?

Recent events haven't really allayed these fears. In 2004, a bombing on the Madrid, Spain, Cercanías commuter train system led to the deaths of 192 people, injuring around 2,000. Then there was the thwarted 2015 Thalys train attack and most recently the 2016 Brussels bombings that included attacks on the Maalbeek metro station and led to the deaths of 35 people.

The world's passenger rail systems have always been somewhat of a vulnerability. Although there are security agencies watching over them, the nature of rail allows a greater deal of access when compared to air travel.

As Amtrak correctly points out on its website, "Unlike the airlines with single points of staffed access, the Amtrak rail system has multiple points of access, and shares facilities with commuter rail operations and city transit systems handling millions of daily passengers at hundreds of stations."

Rail vulnerability

This recent tragedy in Brussels has raised many rail passengers' awareness about how vulnerable riders can be.

Soon after the Brussels bombings, U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), along with a large number of other members of Congress, asked for federal funding to heighten security measures in case of a terrorist attack. They weren't alone.

In response to the attacks, Amtrak deployed extra police officers along the Northeast Corridor promising "robust security measures are in place at stations, on trains and along the tracks." Amtrak also decided to re-release the guidance on active shooter incidents to its staff, as well as procedures for unattended bags.

And while these steps address issues on a smaller scale, the fear from many rail advocates and associations is that terrorism fears will force things to go the way of TSA airport security, dooming riders to a new reality of intrusive searches and uncomfortable passenger rail experiences.

Last August, following the thwarted 2015 Thalys train attack, the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) issued a statement asking for "balance between protecting passengers and preserving their mobility."

"Transit and rail systems allow people and goods to move freely between home and work, enabling access to critical goods and services; efficient operation of these systems is essential in maintaining a healthy economy," the statement read. "Policymakers must not allow the threat of terrorism [to] bring the U.S. rail system grinding to a halt. If Americans must take off their shoes every time they ride a subway, the U.S. will be weaker for it."

TSA intrusion

NARP's stance is common among rail riders. Rail enthusiasts tend to be both resilient and passionate, especially when it comes to freedom. So it's no surprise rail travel would appeal to the type of crowd that doesn't take kindly to any notion of conformity and confinement.

The idea of sacrificing the freedoms that come with rail travel over the vague (albeit, real) threat of terrorism doesn't always seem worth it.

Take, for example, the Visible Intermodal Protection and Response (VIPR). The Secretary of Homeland Security has authority over the program, which falls under TSA's Office of Law Enforcement/Federal Air Marshal Service. This office then shares responsibility for the program with the Office of Security Operations and Transportation Sector Network Management.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the creation of VIPR was prompted by the 2004 Madrid train terrorist attack, and the program detains and searches travelers at railroad and subway stations in the name of safety.

VIPR has been involved in its share of controversy. In 2011, VIPR detained and searched everyone at an Amtrak station in Savannah, Georgia. The incident happened without the knowledge of the Amtrak Police Department and involved searching people getting off trains as well as those getting on trains, which, according to Amtrak Police Chief John O'Connor, is illegal.

Ultimately, VIPR was barred temporarily from Amtrak property.

Other incidents occurred, this time with freight rail. TSA began demanding that VIPR agents be allowed to enter rail yards whenever they wanted, wherever they wanted. Of course, railroads denied this request, seeing that it was both dangerous and entirely up to the railroads, which are operated on private property.

Still, if VIPR is the best line of defense for rail lines, it'd be great if it were able to improve at some point, rather than simply be removed. According to a CNN article by Don Phillips, it looks like TSA and VIPR have done just that.

In fact, the article argues, not only is VIPR improved, but currently it may be better than its airport counterpart.

"The funniest thing happened to VIPR teams," the article states, quoting railroad officials. "They became fascinated with railroads even though most of them had come out of aviation security, and they follow the rules. O'Connor says he is pleased with their progress. Freight railroad officials also were surprised and pleased. One top freight rail security official, who did not want to be named, said many of the VIPR members have become rail fans and show a growing fascination with railroads."

A lot of the credit for VIPR's improvement has to go to the hardline expectations Amtrak and rail companies have had with TSA and VIPR. Whether it's been temporarily banning them when they do something inexplicably dumb, or being bold enough to simply say no when asked for rail yard access, being strong and reinforcing boundaries seems to have gone a long way.

This can end up being a good thing, as security for rail lines is necessary. So why not leave it in the hands of the rail industry as much as possible?