Interesting. But am I correct in remembering tht the incident in Spain was caused by a backpack left near the tracks?
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
The bombings in Spain were not the result of a backpack near the tracks. There were 13 bombs in several places placed by the terrorists, including 4 bombs on 4 separate trains on the same line running in the same direction. 191 people were killed, and almost 1,800 were injured. There was never a direct link made to Al Queda, however, they were Al Queda "inspired" terrorists. That's the nutshell version, but the details of these bombings are quite lengthy and complex.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
I don't believe terrorists in the U.S. are likely to target passenger trains, since the no. of people who ride trains in the U.S. is very very small, compared to the European countries -- as we have read on many occasions in this forum, isn't it something like 2% of the traveling public in the U.S. go by rail? Europe, which, as we all know, has a much higher passenger train travel base than the U.S. (and whose governments actually WANT to support a national passenger train network), would pose a much larger potential target base for terrorists on the various national railroad syetems than in the U.S.
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
quote:Originally posted by RRRICH: I don't believe terrorists in the U.S. are likely to target passenger trains...
Me neither. But bringing in officers with automatic weapons, police dogs, and bomb-detection equipment seems likely to create the feeling, familiar from air travel, where every passenger is subject to suspicion. In my view this is an inappropriate response to the low levels of threat that might exist. Couldn't the police presence be strengthened in other, less visible, ways? But maybe it was inevitable that Amtrak would eventually be subjected to the kind of thinking that calls for everyone to be suspicious and paranoid, and worried that the next person in line might be a terrorist. As Roosevelt said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Another question that arises, is how much does this new policy and its accompanying media coverage (intentionally or otherwise) serve to make Amtrak appear less attractive to travelers? Given that negative media coverage of Amtrak is quite apparent on subjects such as derailments and government spending. From the Amtrak-security article that appeared in our local newspaper, it looked like more negative coverage aimed at Amtrak.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Maybe I am paranoid, but I tend to wonder if part of the emphasis on "security" for Amtrak is being pushed by the airlines because they know that the current system is a major aggravation to airline passengers?
Posted by 20th Century (Member # 2196) on :
I was thinking the same thing Mr.Harris.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
The info on the new system has been all over the TV today. One station took a poll and at that point 88% of respondents were in favor. they also interviewed "the man on the street" and everyone thought it is a good idea. They kept stressing that it would only take a few minutes,no one had to be there early and stand in line and lastly it is a test similar to the system used on the NY subway. It is the same old story, some people object to anything that may possibly inconvenience them and when somethng does happen they are the first to scream sue the gov't, company etc. I would rather be safe than sorry.
Posted by amtraxmaniac (Member # 2251) on :
Maybe this is just me, but when I do fly, the security presence at airports is a comfort to me. Hell, you doesn't fly these days and doesn't expect the extensive screening process. I sense a great relief once I pass throught the screening area that each and every person around me is unarmed and NOT a known terrorist. The longer wait is worth the peace of mind. Anybody taht has flied recently could attest that it would be easier to smuggle a bomb into the Pentagon than it would be to sneek one on a plane.
I applaud Amtrak for taking similar measures. This could be even good publicity for Amtrak. The message could be that Amtrak cares as much for its traveling public as the airlines do. As for the airline industry wanting to conspire against Amtrak by demanding the railroad institute the same "annoying" security standards, it works both ways. For some reason, I don't believe people flock in great numbers to Amtrak because they detest airport security THAT much (maybe I'm wrong). If they objected so much to Amtrak's new security measures, they could fly...AND BE SUBJECTED TO THE SAME MEASURES. It's refreshing to see that Amtrak is getting proactive. The "See Something, Say Something" campaign to me isn't very reassuring. A safer Amtrak can only be a good thing...even if just superficially.
Posted by train lady (Member # 3920) on :
I couldn' agree with you more. As I said I would rather be safe than sorry. Has a survey been done as to the numbers of people who do not fly any more because of the security measures?
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I recall after the Oklahoma City bombing and before they figured out who did it, the profile for the potential suspects was something like, someone with access to diesel fuel and fertilizer in quantity who was unhappy with the way the government acted at Waco and a couple of other places. This was silly beyond belief, because it fairly well described most of rural America. This is just about the level of thinking that goes into what passes for security in most places.
My wife and I invariably get pulled out because I have metal in my leg from a car accident and she has had knee replacements. The top idiot statement was once she was told by the person, "I don't know how to hand check someone wearing a skirt," while the woman is standing there able to see the surgical scars on my wife's knees. Why are these people always wasting time on the obviously innocent?
No, it would not be easier to sneak a bomb into the Pentagon than onto a plane.
As someone above said, there are plenty of ways to cause trouble for a train with having to put anything on it. I regard this as an outstanding example of the government looking like it is doing something even if useless or counterproductive because they really have no clue of what they ought to do, or even if anything should be done at all.
The only relief I feel after going through airport security is the relief that I am done with the nonsense for this trip.
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
Yea, that's a stupid policy.
Amtrak does not have the manpower to accomplish that random search policy. I like riding the train because I do not have to go through that onerous inspection process at an airport. I do not like taking off my shoes, nor do I like government workers going through my personal property.
My solution to the hijacker problem is furnish everyone on the plane with a good hunting knife. Let the hijacker worry about the passengers, instead of visa-versa.
Posted by 4021North (Member # 4081) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: The only relief I feel after going through airport security is the relief that I am done with the nonsense for this trip.
That's exactly how I feel about it. The way they do things on the airlines now doesn't make me feel safer at all. If anything it makes me worried that they're paying less attention to flight safety and more attention to looking out for the "suspicious" behavior that people think they see everywhere. For example when I simply stood up in my seat to stretch after a long time sitting down, people around gave me funny looks, like "what are you doing just standing there??" As if at best I was a real weirdo for wanting to stretch after sitting in one place for two or three hours. Not a big deal but not pleasant. Moreover, the accounts of truly stupid behavior, overreaction, etc. by overly suspicious people lead me to think that the level of suspicion is way out of proportion to the threats that might exist.
I already avoid flying more than I used to, and according to one of my co-workers who travels frequently, a lot of people are beginning to do the same. The only thing I see offsetting this is that for the moment, the trend toward cheaper and more frequent air travel continues. Cheaper because inflation doesn't seem to apply. I still enjoy flying but I enjoy it a lot less, and I do ride Amtrak more often now because of the more relaxed atmosphere.
Posted by dmwnc1959 (Member # 2803) on :
The last time I flew was February 2003. I was going through Security at Kansas City MCI and after removing my shoes and belt, then being required to fully lift my shirt in full view of my family and friends and everyone else, I swore that was the last time I ever set foot in an airport or airplane. I was embarrased beyond belief, and from that moment on, if it wasn't accessible by bus, car, or Amtrak, I'm wasn't going.
Security on AMTRAK is only as good as its weakest link. There are countless small and tiny stations on every route that you can just walk right onto the train with your carry-on after showing your ticket and ID. There is no way to provide all of these stations with hand scanners, metal detectors, or the staffing to randomly hand search carry-ons. What are they going to do, make you get off and run your carry-on through a scanner or detector at the first major station? What if I am getting on at a tiny station, and getting off at the end of the line major station (say Kannapolis, NC to NYC). Dozens, even hundreds of passengers could go very long distances and never have their baggage scanned or checked by Security. Whats the point other than a 'show' of security?
Posted by Spokker (Member # 6983) on :
quote:Originally posted by amtraxmaniac: I sense a great relief once I pass throught the screening area
quote:In tests conducted in 2006 and disclosed to USA Today last year, investigators successfully smuggled 75 percent of fake bombs through checkpoints at Los Angeles International Airport, 60 percent through Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and 20 percent at San Francisco International Airport.
It's all a big show. The security employees might as well be actors.
Posted by amtraksupporter (Member # 5619) on :
amtraxmaniac said
quote: For some reason, I don't believe people flock in great numbers to Amtrak because they detest a airport security THAT much
Between Washington and New York, I think this is a big factor because of the time.
Once upon a time, you could jump out of a cab at National Airport, run to a gate, and board just as they closed the door. You can't do that today. You can spend as much time waiting in line as you spend flying.
At Penn station and Union Station you can make a train at the last minute.
The security time delays have reduced the savings in time of flying between the two cities and made the difference a function of exactly where you are coming from and exactly where you are going to.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by amtraksupporter: amtraxmaniac said
quote: For some reason, I don't believe people flock in great numbers to Amtrak because they detest a airport security THAT much
Between Washington and New York, I think this is a big factor because of the time.
And it will be in other areas as well when the facilities become available.
Thought about this a few weeks ago when I made a one day trip San Francisco to LA. Flight takeoff from Oakland: 7:00, arrive LA at 8:30 am. Leave home time in SF: 4:55 am, catch BART at 5:08, take AirBART bus from Oakland Coliseum, arrive OAK at 6:05, check in, go through security, grab coffee and roll, line up for plane, in plane at 6:45 or thereabouts.
If California high speed rail was in place with the 2.5 hour service, instead I could have walked out my door 30 minutes later say 5:30, taken a bus to station at gotten on a 6:00 am train with time to spare, leaned back and relaxed until having to get off in LA at the same 8:30.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
I like to take brisk walks at long station stops or transfer points on rail trips, just to get the blood flowing. On more than one occasion I have been questioned by station personnel as to why I was doing this. They were always polite, but it makes me feel strange to be a suspect because I am not standing still.
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
My wife and I DO hear lots of Amtrak passengers, both coach and sleeper, saying on long-distance trains that they're taking the train BECAUSE traveling by air is so unpleasant and they're sick, sick, sick of airport "security."
Of course this is anecdotal. We need a more scientific survey. Maybe we can get the national pollsters to do one while they're resting from telling us Tom Dewey is going to win the '48 presidential race.
As for myself, I take Amtrak partly because I have a bad back and sitting in an airplane for more than an hour and a half is agony. (Of course this means I need a sleeper room -- can't sit up all night in coach.)
But most of the reason I take Amtrak is I just like train travel for its own sake.
Posted by RRRICH (Member # 1418) on :
Twin Star -- are you saying that there is now a problem if people want to get off the train at long stops and walk around some? (such as Albuquerque, Minot, El Paso, etc.) Is AMTRAK now requiring security for passengers re-entering the train after walking around at station stops?
Posted by Mike Smith (Member # 447) on :
As long as they don't mess with any of my guns, I don't care if they inspect my luggage for bomb residue...
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
Rich: In general I have had no problems walking around at long stops. I just tend to take very energetic walks that look unusual to some.
In Portland, while waiting for the EB I was walking mostly outside the station, but into the lobby often to keep an eye on the luggage I had left on a bench. A security guard politely asked me when I was outside if "anything was wrong". When I explained I was just getting some excercise before a long ride to MN, he was satisfied. He was very pleasant, really.
In Havre, I was questioned by the Border Patrol as to why I was walking back and forth rapidly alongside the train. I explained that I didn't want to be far away in case it left. They said some people try to evade being questioned by moving around a lot.
In Denver, I was told very sternly that I was too close to some yellow lines that I must never cross, with only unused platform space and no rail traffic on the forbidden side. Other passengers had wandered slowly across the lines to photograph the engine without challenge. I guess I exceeded the yellow line crossing speed limit.
I tend stay close to the train so I can hop on anywhere when it is ready to leave. Some Amtrak people have not been happy I got back on in a car not my own. I never tried to enter a first class car while riding coach.
I suppose if I wore a jogging suit and headphones I would not look so suspiciuous. Once in Minot, another passenger I met liked my idea of getting brisk excercise at station stops, so we ran back and forth along the train together. When there were two of us, I never got the strange looks I usually get.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Yes, Mr. Twin Star, in our post 9/11 world any activity around transportation facilities other than being sheep ready to be herded is considered "suspicious'. Your experiences are certainly indicative of that.
Of course "suspicious activity" evolves with time. You note a jogging suit; however I can recall a board game named "Clue' where by deductive reasoning, the players would attempt to solve a crime. One of its "suspicition" playing cards, along with some such as "screaming woman" was "running man". Somehow, if that game were updated, I don't think the latter would be included.
Posted by GIZMOS (Member # 4953) on :
Speaking of new security measures, I recently discovered that Amtrak is no longer willing to mail tickets. If you are departing from a staffed station, you are now apparently required to pick the tickets up in person at the station.
The nice lady on the phone told me that it was "for my convenience, so that the USPS wouldn't lose the tickets." Personally I'm hard put to see how forcing me to stand in line at the ticket counter is an any way convenient, but that's the spin.
Reading between the lines, I wonder if this isn't just a way to check everyone's ID before they board the train, without making the conductor do it on the train.