Limited security on Amtrak trains; lawmakers want more

eolesen wrote: ↑Tue Nov 07, 2023 6:28 pm Hey, it's not my idea to impose this. Ask Congress why this is being discussed -- I do know it's not about the food, since nothing stops you from bringing food on Amtrak.

Amusement parks have had metal detectors for over a decade because gang violence was showing up inside their gates.

Chicago added metal detectors to visit a park in the Loop, again because of gang violence.

Union Station in DC was on partial lockdown today because of someone seen carrying a rifle across the street.

Someone attacked someone with a freakin' machete on Amtrak.

DEA got into a shootout with another person.

It's not about the food.

It's about the 302 assaults and 370 drug offenses on Amtrak trains in 2021.

Keep coming up with reasons why it's not necessary, but it won't change the fact that, as I've said in other threads, we're just another serious incident or two away from security theater coming to Amtrak.

Never said the AMTRAK stuff was about the food. Last time I checked Amusement Parks weren't stopping operations for 20 minutes nor were sports stadiums stopping games to check out somebody trying to get in that the mall cops thought needed to be checked out. If you're fine with adding hours to the schedules and dollars to the fares to pay for super enhanced security for something that rarely happens on AMTRAK and constantly happens on city public transit than that's your right and you can push for it. I just see it as one more solution in search of a problem because the people in Washington are totally incapable of solving any real ones.

I've given you commercial operations who manage to move large crowds with a decent thru-put. Nobody's waiting hours or even minutes in most cases.

Given the option, I'd rather see long distance rail terminated at the Fumbuck, MO's of the world who can't locally fund and provide the security.

As for your "rarely happens on Amtrak" observation... Almost one assault daily and more than one drug offense daily is not what I'd call rare.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:24 am With or without it being a magnet for violence, in all likelihood, it would have been closed today (it was hardly a "theme park"). The real estate is now home to two "elite" secondary schools (one Lane Tech; Chicago Public Schools; other De Paul University) and several retail outlets.

My mom was a regular at Riverview while going to nursing school at Illinois Masonic, just down Belmont.

Gang violence was definitely a problem towards the end. She said you didn't want to be there after sundown.

Lane Tech was always there in the northeast quadrant of that almost-square formed by Belmont/Western/Addison and the river. The school's footprint hasn't changed in almost 100 years.

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:29 pm I've given you commercial operations who manage to move large crowds with a decent thru-put. Nobody's waiting hours or even minutes in most cases.

Given the option, I'd rather see long distance rail terminated at the Fumbuck, MO's of the world who can't locally fund and provide the security.

As for your "rarely happens on Amtrak" observation... Almost one assault daily and more than one drug offense daily is not what I'd call rare.

It absolutely will increase times everywhere but terminal stations where people can be pre-screened. I worked as an operator of a commuter line of just 14 miles for over 20 years and two incidents like you describe was a slow day. And metal detectors have sure stopped the assaults at amusement parks and sport venues. You need to fight for this for all the subway stops that are two blocks apart if this is so easy to implement. It would have more of an impact on rider safety. Just out of curiosity, what transportation company did you operate for?

Dealing with airline passenger screening & security issues was my day job after 9/11 at American Airlines. I'm still under a NDA 22 years later even though I'm retired from there.

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2023 6:15 pm Dealing with airline passenger screening & security issues was my day job after 9/11 at American Airlines. I'm still under a NDA 22 years later even though I'm retired from there.

Respectfully, you are experienced with apples but we are discussing oranges in this thread. Every single airport has significant infrastructure and staffing, making pre-screening possible (though certainly expensive and complex). This is not true for most train stations. The suggestion of using an onboard screening process in the absence of station based infrastructure is interesting, but ultimately will mean unsustainable schedule delays unless we are willing to have some screening take place after the train has already left the station, which I'm sure you agree would downgrade the quality of result.

When I look at the complexity required to achieve an at best imperfect solution, and more likely a highly damaging set of unintended consequences weighed against actual risk, I conclude that air travel style security is not warranted.

The most dangerous parts of my commute are crossing Market Street at 16th in Center City Philadelphia or striking a white tail deer with my car in Malvern.

Imagine SEPTA trying to do this…

Huh, I wonder why a Republican congressperson from Texas might try to nix one of the key advantages rail travel has over air travel.

Next.

You know the mutt that smells me and my bag just before I get on the train seem to be doing a good job at protecting me very passive and takes no time away from me. That same pup walking up and down random trains will also passively protect me and not inconvenience me. And onto the knives, what is the number of passengers attacked? Statistically it's just not going to happen to me or anyone I know.

Red Wing wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2023 7:16 pm You know the mutt that smells me and my bag just before I get on the train seem to be doing a good job at protecting me very passive and takes no time away from me. That same pup walking up and down random trains will also passively protect me and not inconvenience me. And onto the knives, what is the number of passengers attacked? Statistically it's just not going to happen to me or anyone I know.

The vast majority of train assaults don't involve knives or guns. It's people that can't control themselves using fists or shoving.

BandA wrote: ↑Fri Nov 10, 2023 10:15 am

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2023 7:48 am

It is truly sad when the Russian FSB tries to warn the FBI about terrorists and the FBI ignores them and the US government in fact funds their terrorist training. And the solution is to hire more federal agents to provide security...

Tip of the iceberg. The clincher, had the intelligence been handled right and made it to local police, would have flagged up their names in an earlier homicide at Brandeis in which the two brothers had were already linked by evidence, but without any strong cause or motive to detain.

Back to security screening as the main topic, looking at the MTA map of Penn Station, there are 10 entrances (pre-Moynihan) into the station from street level (plus subway connections), which poses a major challenge to passenger screening.

Regarding cross-border traffic, pre-screening could work before boarding (as proposed with the Adirondack at Gare Centrale). But large stations poses large challenges if every passenger was to be inspected.

All this talk of what needs to be done to pull it off... but I must remind over and over again.

Who's going to fund it?

If this Congress Critter wants it, he needs to fund it, or it's not getting done.

Congress rarely has a problem with passing unfunded mandates; just extend the effective dste until someone comes up with some money. In the meantime they show the folks back home that they've "done something."

(Unfortunately that didn't work with PTC: they pressed for adoption before it was ready and caused more problems than it solved.)