Amtrak Begins Random ID Checks on Trains

Amtrak conductors have begun random checks of passengers' IDs as a precaution against terrorist attacks. The onboard checks, which started at the beginning of November, are part of a broader program to improve security, Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black said.

"It is a ticket verification program, which is not intended to determine a person's identity, but to make sure the person who's traveling with the ticket is the person whose name is on the ticket," Black said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... _id_checks

That's all fine, well and good but what does it do?

I don't exactly understand why you need photo ID to ride Amtrak. Overnight trains might be one thing, but riding the NEC for a 90 minute ride for example, I just don't see the point. Not to mention, if I'm in a deep slumber coming home from work, should I expect to be awoken to show my photo ID long AFTER the conductor has punched my ticket?

Besides, what does my ID tell someone about my intents to perform a terrorist act?

I welcome security improvements, but I think its smoke in mirrors. Are we going to x-ray luggage next making us show up at the station an hour before departure next? I hate to see rail security mimic airline security.

Was this at request of the DLS? Also what if someone buys the Ticket for you?

AmtrakFan

AmtrakFan wrote:Was this at request of the DLS? Also what if someone buys the Ticket for you?

AmtrakFan

On the reserved trains, the individual passenger's name is supposed to be on the ticket, just like with airlines. I just made reservations for 2 people on line and I had to put both names down.

My most recent Amtrak ride was on the "Downeaster" from Portland to Boston about six weeks ago. When I presented my ticket to the conductor departing Portland, he requested a photo ID, which I produced. The name on my driver's license matched that on my ticket, and all was well.

As one who feels that one of the major obligations of my government these days is to protect me and my loved ones from being killed by mass murderers, Arab or otherwise, I have no problem with increased security in any mode of transportation. The train bombings in Madrid on 3/11 showed that it is not beyond reason to expect that terrorists might stage a similar attack over here at some point. I knew one of the victims of 9/11, who made the mistake of picking the wrong flight out of Boston that morning. I don't want to see another date etched on the calendar.

It is also reasonable to assume, of course, that any terrorist who's planning an en route explosion on an Amtrak train would have an ID of some sort in his/her possession. So showing ID, in itself, doesn't mean much. But the request for ID *does* provide an opportunity to identify individuals whose behavior may warrant further investigation.

Does the ID check policy insure that we'll never have a Madrid-type attack here? Of course not. But if it slightly increases the likelihood of preventing such an attack, just be letting the bad guys know that people are looking for them, then I have no problem with it. Speaking only for myself, I have no problem showing identification to an Amtrak conductor (or police officer), especially when the policy has been announced in advance. Keeping in mind Mr. Norman's request for respectful discourse, I would be curious to hear why some who like me aren't carrying explosives in their bags would have a problem with that policy.

If the conductors don't have a list of names to look for (which they won't), then the policy will do nothing with respect to preventing terrorism. What it does do is (supposedly) prevent someone from stealing someone else's ticket and using it for themselves. Amtrak used to have spots on the back of the ticket for a passenger to sign when they received the ticket, and again when they boarded the train; conductors never checked those, many people didn't sign them, and now the ticket backs don't have such a provision.

In fact, that is my larger concern: that someone could steal another's ticket and use it. It doesn't help the person that had the ticket stolen, but the thief (or anyone foolish enough to accept a ticket from same) risks being caught.

However, to suggest that it somehow increases security against terrorism is questionable at best. Terrorists can have perfectly valid IDs (or IDs that look valid, and the conductor isn't going to have the time nor the means to verify the validity of an identification card). I also can't see any terrorist wanting to blow up the Southwest Chief, when there are NJT, Metra, etc., trains that carry far more people, are far more densely packed, and none of whose passengers has to have a name on their ticket to which an ID could be compared.

I have no problem with Amtrak using ID checks to protect its customers from ticket theft, but this move won't do anything to increase security against terrorism.

Robert Madison

I have a problem with it because its not consistent. I ride Amtrak weekly on the NEC between WIL and PHL and only once in the past 2 months have I been asked to show ID.

If I had to produce ID every time, again---so what? Its still not consistent. I can ride a SEPTA train that travels the same route and not show ID. In fact, a 3/11 type attack on a SEPTA train could be much more devastating because their trains go through a tunnel under center city. Yet no one needs to produce ID to ride a SEPTA train. Same thing with NJT, which shares the same tracks as Amtrak at 30th Street. Being vigilant is one thing, I won't get into the politics of this whole area, but my main point is consistency.

What about our subways? They carry more people during rush hour than a half filled Amtrak train. You can board anywhere with no ID, pay in cash, carry what you want, even mask your face. No offense to those whose religious beliefs instruct that you shroud your entire body in a black robe, but how do we ID those people?

See my point? I'd be happy to show my ID, but I don't think this accomplishes much. If terrorists want to take out our transit system, they will bypass Amtrak for something less secure.

jfrey40535 wrote:If terrorists want to take out our transit system, they will bypass Amtrak for something less secure.

This statement basically sums up the whole point of the matter. Terrorists (in general) aren't out to hijack airplanes, or bomb buildings, or blow up trains. They are out to cause as large a devastation as possible to make their point (whatever that point may be). If we made the aviation system 100% secure (which is impossible, but anyway...), they'd go to trains. If we made that 100% secure (again, impossible), they'd go to subways or city buses. If we secured those, they'd go to elementary schools or shopping malls, etc.

The more "security" we add, the more they'll just look for some other way to make their impact. We'll never be 100% secure. That's just a fact that we must accept. If some terrorist out there really wants to kill a lot of people, he'll probably find a way to do so. The real goal ought to be reducing the likelihood of creating these terrorists, and not putting the whole country on lockdown, but discussing that further would be beyond the scope of this forum.

They may say that its to only see if the ticket name matches the ID now, but once they get you used to showing your ID on the train, they will be looking to identify who you are next and then why are you traveling- you may think I am wrong, but think about what information they will have in a hand held web enabled PDA with the ability to access a computer (perhaps the FBI) somewhere from the train.

I hope that the UTU and the conductors fight this.

I just get concerned when I hear about adding "security" to a "threat" on, for forum's sake, the railroads.

Adding layers of security will only inconvenience passengers. Should we be willing to give up convenience for security? Sure, to a certain extent. But I hate to see Amtrak's ridership gains tank in the name of security. I'm tempted to get into other issues surrounding this whole realm, but I will refrain.

I must say though, that for what I use Amtrak for, its not really a time saver, it is more expensive but it is enjoyable and convenient. I use a multiride ticket so I don't have to buy tickets every time. I show up at the station 5 minutes before the train arrives, visit the men's room, and I'm on my way. No lines, no waiting. I get to nap in the quiet car or enjoy the scenery or do paperwork.

Its this smoothness of travel that I don't want to give up. If they start x-raying my briefcase & laptop and having us walk through metal detectors, etc. etc, its only going to add time and frustration. Adding 15 minutes to a trip is enough to make alot of people stick to their cars. That's where we need to be careful. Sure I want the train to be safe, but I hate to say it, if it becomes a hassle to use (and sometimes it already is), our system-on-the verge is going to suffer.

I would take the new ID check in stride. Other agencies were doing it too, such as my hometown MBTA system, which went forward with such a program during the DNC week. Amtrak might as well start veryfying passengers also.

I agree that an ID check is pretty useless for several reasons:
1) Most of the 9/11 hijackers had valid IDs.
2) Terrorists will to spend years preparing for an attack can probably come up with a fake good enough to fool a railroad conductor. For example, how many NEC conductors know what a Montana license looks like?
3) It's really a placebo. It sounds far more effective than it actually is. A real ID-checking system would give the conductors the means to determine if the IDs presented to them are truly valid, beyond just assessing if the name on the ID matches the name on the ticket.
4) It inconveniences everyone for no gain.

This identity check is one of many things the government is doing to give people the illusion of being protected. Anyone can get a photo ID made. Probably you can do it at Kinkos. There aren't even any requirements that the photo ID be official.
Aside from giving people the illusion of being protected, this will get people used to more official intrusions into their privacy.
Meanwhile, the government is doing absolutely nothing actually to protect us. They won't pay for radiation detectors in our harbors, so right now the bad guys dont need missiles. They only have to put a nuclear device in a container and ship it to a port here, then set it off. They won't pay for real security improvements to our railroads. They diverted security money from New York to Wyoming, home of Dick Cheney.
But, you have to be prepared to show your Kinkos photo ID on demand.

ID checks are the current fad. New Jersey is about to pass a law requiring anyone renting a small airplane in NJ to copy the info from the person's pilot's license and also copy the info from a government-issued photo ID such as a drivers license and keep that info on file for at least 5 years.

Now, the clerk at the rental operator is not trained in identifying forgeries. Second, the rental operators always want to see an aircraft renters insurance policy, and also require that the renter pass a flight test with an insructor.

What about a 16 year old pilot who wants to rent a plane? Too young to have a car drivers license or maybe even a passport. Maybe a birth certificate will be OK in NJ?

All that retaining the info from the drivers license does is provide fertile ground for someone to break into the office and steal the info and use it for identity theft.

At least this Amtrak policy, while hardly effective, isn't diverting law-enforcement personnel from more important duties. Let's hope its not a waste of time for the conductors that prevents them from attending to more important duties, too. Some cases in point:

The MBTA "random search and ID check" policies (which, btw, were supposed to be permanent, but died a quiet death after the DNC) which would ahve required large numbers of transit police to be occupied doing random ID checks of subway passengers and/or manning search checkpoints at stations. How many police would that divert from patrolling the system , preventing suspicious activity or just regular crime?

The onboard security screening on Shore Line East. Great -- let's check them for bombs after they're on the train. Offers little protection, but at least it hassles the regulars every morning.

Time and again, we see security procedures that are at best, copied from commercial avaition, applied to rail, in the hopes that it looks like "something" is being done. Hopefully, at some point, the public will see past the smoke and mirrors and realize that hassles and inconvienence do not automatically equal greater security, and can at worst threaten our civil liberties and divert law enforcement personnel from more effective duties. I can't imagine that Amtrak's police department is large enough to truly cover the NEC and other areas as much as would be ideal -- let's hope they don't adopt (or are forced to adpot) some of the more hairbrained security ideas that would further thin out their presence.