Saw this headline [inpart] in the news this day. Linked here is the Source @ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/congress-wants-the-tsa-to-help-secure-amtrak-and-buses
Should be a timely and relevant topic on the Forum. Many of us travel for business reasons, and our travel habits have been drastically altered over time; as the Government, and its bureaucrats seek to protect us, as we travel about on airlines.
AMTRAK has only had what could be considered modest incursions by "Security Forces" doing 'spot checks at some passenger rail station locations (?) Buses, not so much(?).
FTA:[snip] "...
Virtually all this occurs at airports, with about 80 percent of the agency’s $7.4 billion budget spent on aviation security. Only 2 percent of the TSA’s funding goes to surface transportation, according to a report by the Office of Inspector General earlier this month. Congress is looking to change that.
Several U.S. senators want the TSA to focus more attention and resources on rail, highway, and marine transportation, which would mean greater security oversight at such places as Amtrak stations and Megabus coach stops. A bipartisan bill introduced Thursday by Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) would require the TSA to use a risk-based security model for these transport modes and to budget money based on those risks. It would require a wider use of the agency’s terrorist watch list by train operators and more detailed passenger manifests along with tighter screening of marine employees. The legislation also would increase the TSA’s canine use by as many as 70 dog-handler teams for surface transportation..."[snipped]
Also FTA:[snipped] "...
Moreover, it’s unlikely Congress has the will or the wherewithal to fund any massive increase in TSA personnel, already stretched thin this year to handle airport staffing amid budget cuts. In the spring, airline passengers experienced extreme delays at many of the largest airports, leading to a national outcry and quick injection of funds from Congress. The TSA also shifted security agents among airports to ease the crisis. Now, with a budget impasse brewing on Capitol Hill, sufficient funding may again pose a problem for the agency.
The new bill “addresses gaps in TSA’s approach to assessing security risks and will help the agency better fulfill its role as a hub of analysis, planning, and information,” Thune said in a statement. Thune and a co-sponsor, Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), also pointed to the Sept. 18 incident in which police in Elizabeth, N.J., and the FBI were summoned to a train station after a bag containing pipe bombs was discovered. The day before, a device exploded harmlessly in a garbage can in Seaside Heights, N.J., and 29 people were injured in a bombing on a Manhattan street.." [snipped]
Also included in the article:FTA[snipped]"...
TSA spokesman Michael England declined to comment on pending legislation.
Amtrak wouldn’t be required to use TSA watch lists or other resources, but the bill would force the TSA to give the rail operator access to its Secure Flight program within six months, if Amtrak directors requested it. Spokesman Craig Schulz said Amtrak looks forward to working with Thune’s committee to develop a “comprehensive policy that helps keep the passenger rail system secure.”
Lanesha Gipson, a spokeswoman for Dallas-based Greyhound Lines Inc., said the bus operator hasn’t yet reviewed the bill..." [snip]
The article is rather lengthy, and included the Bill sponsor's names.
IF this Bill were to pass.. Do you think that not only the quality of the AMTRAK 'experience' for its riding public would be effected, but it would seem to also have the capability to really 'snarl' the National Rail Network; in the name of "Security'?
samfp1943IF this Bill were to pass.. Do you think that not only the quality of the AMTRAK 'experience' for its riding public would be effected, but it would seem to also have the capability to really 'snarl' the National Rail Network; in the name of "Security'?
The thought of airport like security at rail stations is downright scary. There would have to be significant investments in infrastructure to separate the passengers from the general public. Many rail stations have platforms that are completely unsecured - one is free to go trackside sans any barriers.
I see the security issue on trains (and buses) as completly different than airplanes. As we've seen from many incidents, even a catastrophic issue usually has only a few casualties (relatively speaking), and I'm pretty sure almost all of those catastrophic incidents originated outside the trains or involved crew error.
Most bus incidents have involved driver error. TSA isn't going to cure that.
So, yes - a fully implemented airport-style security scheme will cause problems - at least at major terminals. The station at Podunk Hollow, which sees a half dozen passengers most trains, much less so.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
There is a reason the terrorists didn't run a train into the pentagon and World Trade Center, so no need for TSA.
T heater of
S ecurity and
A bsurdity
A few years back before 9-11, at the Canadian border I saw the customs & immigration officials take several people off a northbound Adirondack. Serious looking dudes, too (no Mountie uniforms, though).
On my return leg (ferry from Yarmouth, N.S.), the US officials at Bar Harbor, ME were almost asleep.
October after 9-11, on a SB Amtrak Silver Service train, there was a young male passenger attendant who didn't quite know his duties and couldn't stand well with the rocking of the train. A couple of us were pretty sure he was the temporary rail equivalent of a Sky Marshal.
Conclusion: Security on the rails should be modeled after how the Canadians do it.
- Paul North.
rrnut282 There is a reason the terrorists didn't run a train into the pentagon and World Trade Center, so no need for TSA.
A fully loaded jetliner makes for a fairly good weapon in terms of the kinetic energy and fuel. IIRC, OBL was trained as a civil engineer and probably would have been familiar with the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. That incident has often been used as to WHY structural redundancy in buildings is a good thing.
As you implied, trains aren't as useful for this application due to much fewer degrees of freedom in their movement. It's still possible to make headlines with an attack on a train, but that's no different than any other arena were a significant number of people are concentrated in a small area.
I would be quite a bit more concerned about large trucks, especially those carrying hazmats, volatile fuels or energetic materials.
Remember when we were the "land of the free and the home of the brave"?
Remember how it made you feel when you saw the "security" at East Berlin train stations? Remember how glad you were that you didn't live there?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I do remember standing in the one train car that was continuing from Bhf Friedrichsstrasse (East-Berlin) to to Bhf Zoo (Berlin [West]). Everybody on the whole train going on to Bhf Zoo was crammed into that car. Truly standing room only, packed like sardines, with luggage everywhere. Then the East-German border guards came in toting their submachine guns to make sure every little opening or space was checked, just in case someone from the German Democratic Republic was in there trying to hitch a ride across the border. You didn't really dare to sneeze and hoped the safety latch was on on those guns.
Don't need anything like that here. Don't need anything like airport security at train stations and bus depots either.
Just because SOME senators and congressmen want to see TSA expanded doesn't mean they all do.
Phoebe Vet Remember when we were the "land of the free and the home of the brave"?
I can understand the TSA wishing to expand its activities -- think of all the additional paperwork train passenger manifests would create, thus requiring additional TSA personnel to process them. After all, the size of the budget and the number of people employed are the benchmarks by which bureaucratic success is measured.
After that the requirement could be extended to train and light rail based transit systems. Just consider the vast system that will be required to updated each time someone steps on any form of public transportation.
Dakguy201 I can understand the TSA wishing to expand its activities -- think of all the additional paperwork train passenger manifests would create, thus requiring additional TSA personnel to process them. After all, the size of the budget and the number of people employed are the benchmarks by which bureaucratic success is measured. After that the requirement could be extended to train and light rail based transit systems. Just consider the vast system that will be required to updated each time someone steps on any form of public transportation.
And during the rush hour those "gentle" New Yorkers would likely walk right over he TSA people.
Norm
The bad guy who inspired this bill actually traveled on NJ Transit. He could’ve left a bomb in Penn Station but didn’t, probably because security is so tight.
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a004011d-eb2d-4869-8f4f-5c72b9f26b10/834F471C39E637CB43A583853C620E0C.sftsafe.12.pdf
https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=476
Can you imagine... "OK everybody, I have a bomb, this train is now going to CUBA!!!"
Looked up passenger miles. In millions:
Air 607,772 million passenger-miles
Bus 21,429
Rail, about 40,000 (I added up the light and heavy rail, the commuter, and Amtrak)
So that alone suggests air get the majority of attention, plus of course the obvious reasons others stated above. Blow up a train coach and kill 80 souls, blow up a 747 and kill hundreds.
I have seen TSA at the train station once. Sitting in Toledo Union Station one trip, in strolls a guy in camouflage combat gear, pants tucked into boots, flak jacket with TSA on the back in large letters, sidearm prominently displayed on belt. And a swagger. He came in a said hello to the desk clerk. What else would he do anyway?
Did it make me feel safe? No, I found the whole thing ludicrous. Might make more sense at Washington Union station because that place is stuffed with thousands of people.
Last time I flew to Las Vegas, the airport there was packed, it was late May, not a holiday. A terrorist could easily tote a bomb in there and do mayhem before he even got to the TSA booth. Doesn;t have to get ON a plane necessarily.
Now compare that to say New Carrolton. Why waste the TSA manpower.
Enzoamps Last time I flew to Las Vegas, the airport there was packed, it was late May, not a holiday. A terrorist could easily tote a bomb in there and do mayhem before he even got to the TSA booth. Doesn;t have to get ON a plane necessarily.
What is the most crowded location in an airport if you are intent on triggering a bomb? The crowd awaiting their turn for the TSA procedure, of course!
Quoting enzoamps: "Can you imagine... "OK everybody, I have a bomb, this train is now going to CUBA!!!""
Back in the sixties, as from time to time someone would try to highjack a plane and fly to Cuba, the Atlantic Coast Line advertised that its trains could not be taken to Cuba.
Johnny
Deggesty Quoting enzoamps: "Can you imagine... "OK everybody, I have a bomb, this train is now going to CUBA!!!"" Back in the sixties, as from time to time someone would try to highjack a plane and fly to Cuba, the Atlantic Coast Line advertised that its trains could not be taken to Cuba.
They already made that movie: The taking of Pellam 123.
I take the train to avoid the hassle of TSA groping my valubles.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.