Are Seven has moved! Go to areseven.com

This page has moved from its Blogspot origins and is now on a hosted server. If you're getting here from a blogspot.com bookmark or feed, stop where you are, go to areseven.com and never look back.

If you're feeling lazy, just hang on a couple seconds and you'll be redirected automatically.


Saturday, July 23, 2005

What I was assuming was already done

To answer the question, "what would you do" about increasing subway security, I can suggest that maybe, instead of proposing something as interfering as bag checks, maybe subway officials should have taken a creative approach to what to do in case of an emergency, and made those plans public.

For instance, if there is a suspicious package or bag left on board a train, and the riders alert the driver to it, maybe they should try to take it off immediately?

Jittery about the bombings in London and told to be vigilant, Metro riders spotted an unattended backpack yesterday on the last car of a Blue Line train and did exactly as officials have been urging. They alerted the train operator.

But the suspicious bag stayed on Train 401 as it rolled through two more stations -- Metro Center, a major hub, and McPherson Square, a few blocks from the White House -- before Metro officials took the train out of service and inspected the backpack.
Why is it that the first reaction of Metro and New York subway officials is to go to about the highest possible levels—bag checks and "lockdowns"—instead of first making sure that the subway drivers know what to do in the event of someone reporting a suspcious package on board? The people in charge of security are under pressure to make things more *ahem* secure, and so they come up with the most high-profile solution possible, so that EVERYone knows that they're doing their job. "Improving efficiency of responses" doesn't impress anyone, even though that's what's most needed.

Also on the subject of bag checks: it's one thing to do those sorts of things in airports and stadiums, but the subway is something that millions of people do everyday, twice a day, going in through just a couple of small entrances. It'd all be fine and well if the only people having to do anything out of the ordinary were the bag checkees, who just had to step aside for 10 seconds or so, but I just can't see any way possible that they could do subway bag checks without adding a significant amount of time to everyone's commute. The entrances get clogged enough as it is at rush hour, but imagine the same thing with a checkpoint. And then add about 20 minutes to your daily commute.

3 comments:

Hans said...

I'm definitely not in support of bag checks, but I feel I should point out that the checks are being conducted at "random" (all sorts of problems with that, yeah); that's not something that's clear from your posts, so i'm just playing devil's advocate.

Reid said...

I had heard that it was every fifth person. I can't imagine that they would even try doing it randomly. The boiling time for a major controversy would be about five minutes.

doug said...

I just heard "random checks" - but I haven't kept up with the story lately. Every fifth person? That just seems like it wouldn't work - if you assume that terrorists can count.