4 ms·

This winter I took train from Seattle to Vancouver, BC. There was a security check before boarding the train, but it was much much faster than airport. Train w

by vl 16y ago

This winter I took train from Seattle to Vancouver, BC. There was a security check before boarding the train, but it was much much faster than airport. Train was patrolled by assault rifle-armed guards in bullet-proof vests, some had dogs. I still trying to imagine what is the threat profile they were trying to respond to.

mmt 16y ago
How long did the trip end up taking, and how much did it cost? I'm curious if there's much, if any, time savings versus driving[1]. [1] With a highly variable border crossing time if not all passengers hold a NEXUS card
- vl 16y ago
  The cost was around $80 for business class which is something like $10 more expensive than regular. Travel time is 4 hours (driving is 2 hours). Border check is in Vacouver, so we just rushed around slowly walking people not to get stuck in line. In general it makes more sense to drive than to take this train. We took it because we were going to Olympic Games and we were afraid that border wait time will be unpredictable (it turned out it was completely ok on that day, but we already had the tickets) and for sightseeing reasons. It was also refreshing not to worry about parking and to use public transportation, which is quite usable in Vancouver (compared to Seattle, for example)
anigbrowl 16y ago
A train bombing can be massively destructive, as has happened in London and Madrid. You mention that you were traveling to visit the winter Olympics: imagine the effect of a mass casualty attack close to the venue, in a town full of foreign visitors. Besides the immediate loss of life and panic, the resulting investigation would be difficult and almost certainly involve a large number of mistaken arrests, to say nothing of the global publicity which most extremists crave.
- kjhghjk 16y ago
  Yes but it's hard to see how machine guns prevent somebody having left a 'package' under seat. It's like how after 911 there were tanks at Heathrow airport - in case of hijacker on a plane? Or in case the hijackers decide to attack the airport with a wave of T32 ?
- vl 16y ago
  I don't know if this was standard security or it was there for the Olympics, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out either way. It was just surprising since they were relatively heavily armed. As for the bombing threat: bad guys don't need to be on the train to bomb the train. Also, unlike commuter train or subway it's a "low people-density" train.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    It's not that I think this security theater is so logical or effective. I think it's often a waste of money and resent the ubiquitous impositions it creates, although I think this may change somewhat after next year.* But it does attempt to address some basic realities: the most attractive place to cause damage is at the incoming station, where a crowd will be waiting for the train; getting a parcel onto the train will require passing armed police/troops (and who knows what else? dogs? electronic detectors? the uncertainty is meant to erode a terrorist's confidence); there's a reasonable chance a bomb would be carried by a human, given a) the demonstrated preference for suicide bombings among Islamic fundamentalists and b) the relatively low participation by Islamic countries in winter sports, reducing the probability of a would-be martyr inadvertently blowing up co-religionists. In a nutshell, the sight of heavily armed guards is, sadly, meant to look familiar and imposing to potential terrorists - because many Middle Eastern countries have paramilitary-type law enforcement. Polite and discreet security (eg the US secret service guys in their suits, or friendly-looking beat cops) wouldn't make a terrorist feel especially nervous - the same way that kids don't take mall cops very seriously because they don't have guns or tasers. * When I go downtown, the subway station restrooms are still locked with increasingly faded stickers on them saying 'closed for security reasons due to September 11 attack'. The 10 year anniversary of that event will be a sad one, but at the same time a decade seems to be the difference between past and present for most people. So my hunch is that after it passes, there will be a lot of questioning along the lines of '10 years on, do we still need this?' In that light, and with an election the following year, the question of budgets will also arise. the Department of Homeland Security costs about $56 billion/year. For comparison, the Department of Justice (including the FBI, DEA, and all the other law enforcement agencies) costs less than half that amount. The entire Federal court system costs under $7 billion/year. So I think a reassessment of our security strategy is on the horizon.

by vl 16y ago

mmt 16y ago

How long did the trip end up taking, and how much did it cost? I'm curious if there's much, if any, time savings versus driving[1]. [1] With a highly variable border crossing time if not all passengers hold a NEXUS card

vl 16y ago
The cost was around $80 for business class which is something like $10 more expensive than regular. Travel time is 4 hours (driving is 2 hours). Border check is in Vacouver, so we just rushed around slowly walking people not to get stuck in line. In general it makes more sense to drive than to take this train. We took it because we were going to Olympic Games and we were afraid that border wait time will be unpredictable (it turned out it was completely ok on that day, but we already had the tickets) and for sightseeing reasons. It was also refreshing not to worry about parking and to use public transportation, which is quite usable in Vancouver (compared to Seattle, for example)

anigbrowl 16y ago

A train bombing can be massively destructive, as has happened in London and Madrid. You mention that you were traveling to visit the winter Olympics: imagine the effect of a mass casualty attack close to the venue, in a town full of foreign visitors. Besides the immediate loss of life and panic, the resulting investigation would be difficult and almost certainly involve a large number of mistaken arrests, to say nothing of the global publicity which most extremists crave.

kjhghjk 16y ago
Yes but it's hard to see how machine guns prevent somebody having left a 'package' under seat. It's like how after 911 there were tanks at Heathrow airport - in case of hijacker on a plane? Or in case the hijackers decide to attack the airport with a wave of T32 ?
vl 16y ago
I don't know if this was standard security or it was there for the Olympics, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out either way. It was just surprising since they were relatively heavily armed. As for the bombing threat: bad guys don't need to be on the train to bomb the train. Also, unlike commuter train or subway it's a "low people-density" train.
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  It's not that I think this security theater is so logical or effective. I think it's often a waste of money and resent the ubiquitous impositions it creates, although I think this may change somewhat after next year.* But it does attempt to address some basic realities: the most attractive place to cause damage is at the incoming station, where a crowd will be waiting for the train; getting a parcel onto the train will require passing armed police/troops (and who knows what else? dogs? electronic detectors? the uncertainty is meant to erode a terrorist's confidence); there's a reasonable chance a bomb would be carried by a human, given a) the demonstrated preference for suicide bombings among Islamic fundamentalists and b) the relatively low participation by Islamic countries in winter sports, reducing the probability of a would-be martyr inadvertently blowing up co-religionists. In a nutshell, the sight of heavily armed guards is, sadly, meant to look familiar and imposing to potential terrorists - because many Middle Eastern countries have paramilitary-type law enforcement. Polite and discreet security (eg the US secret service guys in their suits, or friendly-looking beat cops) wouldn't make a terrorist feel especially nervous - the same way that kids don't take mall cops very seriously because they don't have guns or tasers. * When I go downtown, the subway station restrooms are still locked with increasingly faded stickers on them saying 'closed for security reasons due to September 11 attack'. The 10 year anniversary of that event will be a sad one, but at the same time a decade seems to be the difference between past and present for most people. So my hunch is that after it passes, there will be a lot of questioning along the lines of '10 years on, do we still need this?' In that light, and with an election the following year, the question of budgets will also arise. the Department of Homeland Security costs about $56 billion/year. For comparison, the Department of Justice (including the FBI, DEA, and all the other law enforcement agencies) costs less than half that amount. The entire Federal court system costs under $7 billion/year. So I think a reassessment of our security strategy is on the horizon.