News   Jul 22, 2024
 645     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
 481     0 
News   Jul 22, 2024
 520     0 

Star: Transit security funds 'offensive'

W

wyliepoon

Guest
Link to article

Transit security funds `offensive'
`An offensive grant:' Moscoe
Nov. 15, 2006. 06:15 AM
DAVID BRUSER
TRANSPORTATION REPORTER

"Spit in the eye ... A slap in the face ... Like handing a bum a dime and saying, `Go buy a cup of coffee.'"

True to his iconoclastic form, TTC chairman Howard Moscoe used these unrepentant words, and more, to describe how he felt after getting just $1.46 million in security funding from the federal government yesterday.

Transit agencies in six cities nationwide received a total of $37 million to help beef up security. That money included $5.3 million to GO Transit and $4.3 million to Union Station.

"Based on our ridership, we should be getting one-third of the money. The TTC carries 85 per cent of all of the passengers in the GTA on its transit system. It's spit in the eye," he said. "It shows utter and complete disrespect for the citizens of Toronto. It's like handing a bum a dime and saying, `Go buy a cup of coffee.'"

Moscoe, re-elected Monday in Ward 15 (Eglinton-Lawrence), said the agency wanted $17 million to pay the cost of installing 2,500 security cameras in subways. Already the TTC is paying that amount to install cameras on buses and streetcars by the end of 2007.

"It's a completely offensive grant," Moscoe said, explaining that the money is for "some kind of security assessment. We spent $100,000 on a security assessment already."

Ontario Conservative MP Gord Brown (Leeds-Grenville), who led the press conference on behalf of federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon, noted that Union Station, which the TTC uses, also got a significant amount of money.

The announcements yesterday rounded out just one stage of the two-year, $80 million Transit-Secure plan, announced this summer, to help prevent bombings such as those seen in London and Madrid.

"We're moving onto Round 2, which will address some things in smaller centres and then Round 3, the operators here at Union Station will be eligible to apply under that," Brown said.

After the announcement, Moscoe and TTC staff wanted no part of an invitation for a photo-op marking the occasion.

The federal money also went to operations in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, the Ottawa region and Montreal. When asked why the TTC got only a fraction of what Moscoe said was asked for, Brown said, "They may have been asking for more money under things that did not qualify under the criteria."

This first round should pay for risk assessment studies, employee training and the upgrade of security equipment.

Added Moscoe: "I mean, why don't they send out an announcement to the terrorists to wait for Round 3, when they hand out some real money?"

"I don't want to overplay the threat of terrorism," he added. But, "If somebody wants to blow themselves up on a subway train, nobody's going to be able to stop them. Cameras act as a significant deterrent."

*****

I think the best way that money could be spent on preventing terrorism on the TTC is to build more subway/rapid transit lines. With relief subway lines, the level of overcrowding decreases, and terrorists would be more discouraged from striking the subway network. Even if they did strike, fewer passengers crowded onto the trains would result in fewer casualties.
 
I like your strategy.
1671.gif
 
If they spent these tens of millions on improving the horrible service on routes like my two local ones, maybe people wouldn't be so furious, reducing the need for security.
 
That's ok, instead of dealing with poor service, they're going to install driver shields on buses instead - because the union demanded it, and whatever ATU Local 113 wants, it gets, and gets away with just about anything, like illegal strikes. Even though poor service is the main reason why passengers get angry.

I think cameras on buses would be just fine - it should be enough to deter assaults (which happens to passengers too - should we install shields for passengers?) and for other security purposes.
 
If they spent these tens of millions on improving the horrible service on routes like my two local ones, maybe people wouldn't be so furious, reducing the need for security.

I'm sure Scarborough's bus lines need improvement, but I doubt they trigger terrorism. :lol
 
So, the Feds say its ok for the TTC to get less, because GO got some to improve union station, and that the TTC uses union station.

From my primitive knowlege of union station, GO union station and TTC union station is seperated into physically seperate buildings, where you can get a sausage between the stations if walking below ground. Just because the stations share the same name, I wonder if Harpers ever interchanged between the two modes of travel at Union.
 
GO Transit - mostly used by 905ers, politically contested ground.

TTC - serving mostly 416ers, with no hope for Harperites.

Nuff said.

AoD
 
^
Which is absurd. It proves this government has no interest in protecting Canada from a terrorist attack in one of the most likely places.
 
Just like the Republicans that Harper wants to emulate so much (even though it is damaged goods right now). Indiana got more funding for anti-terrorism than New York State - where in IN, even bowling alleys and petting zoos were identified as at-risk sites.

The only surprise is that Red Deer Transit didn't make the cut.
 
spmarshall, you wrote:

I think cameras on buses would be just fine - it should be enough to deter assaults (which happens to passengers too - should we install shields for passengers?) and for other security purposes.

Mississauga is looking into cameras on buses. I was there DriveCam Technology gave a presentation to General Committee. The presenter showed actual video of cameras in use on buses.

Very Scary.

It's not like you get a record of what's happened. The visual "record" is only 40 seconds long. 20 seconds before the camera is triggered --and 20 seconds after.

The camera is automatically triggered in an accident.

Other times, the driver can trigger it. Hence a problem.

Let's say a driver has taken a dislike to a passenger over a period of time (perhaps the passenger complained about his driving). One day, the driver arrives on duty crabby and sees The Passenger board the bus and becomes even crabbier.

The driver takes it into his head to spread his misery around and mutters abuse throughout the time The Passenger needs to reach his destination.

Nearing the drop-off point, the bus driver serves up tender remark about The Passenger's wife.

Then triggers the camera.

The Passenger is then recorded getting up from his seat, going over to the driver and shaking his fist at him and telling him to shove it.

And guess what the camera would "reveal"?

An unprovoked attack on a bus driver by The Passenger.

That's "Differential Reporting".

Think it's just paranoid-me who was worried about that scenario during that presentation?

Nope, one councillor (I think it was Corbisson) raised concern over the same thing --recording only the 20 seconds prior and 20 seconds after the camera is triggered. That the visual record wouldn't tell "the whole story".

I was really impressed that someone on council would care enough to voice such concerns openly.

The presenter; however, minimized the Councillor's concern.

Next:

I was also interested in whether the minutes of that June 14th General Committee meeting would record the councillor's concerns about the limitations of that "40 second" technology.

If I'd taken the minutes, I'd have made sure her concerns would've made it into the records.

While the minutes state:

Councillor Nando Iannicca initiated discussion noting that he discovered the availability of this technology at a recent symposium, and that he requested this presentation to General Committee, as this technology can be used to enhance the safety of Transit operators and the drivers of other publicly used vehicles.

there is zero mention of concerns raised by a councillor regarding the 40 second max.

Here are the June 14th minutes

That too is Differential Reporting.

I was of course, was interested in the following General Committee meeting to see whether the minutes of the previous June 14th one would be passed as read.

If I'd been sitting on council, I've have gone, "Whoa, wait a second, the concerns raised by my fellow councillor didn't make the minutes..."

Not a peep. Passed as read.

sp, you know what the GREATEST argument there is against a 40-second BIG BROTHER?

The June 28, 2006 General Committee Minutes

Yeah yeah, I know. Getting shafted in a 40-second movie by a bus-driver-from-Hell is as likely as a Canadian getting attacked by a shark.


Signed,
The Mississauga Muse
 
Mark Dowling asked:

why is Moscoe so obsessed with terrorism???

Conduct a survey of 100 citizens of Ontario with this question:

If you were a motivated terrorist and you had just One Target in Ontario, where you would fling your paperclip?

The truly terror-fying choices would involve crowds and $infrastructure$.

And Toronto.

All municipalities are required to have Emergency Preparedness Plans in place --mandated by the Province under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter E.9.

Relevant part:

Municipal emergency management programs

2.1 (1) Every municipality shall develop and implement an emergency management program and the council of the municipality shall by by-law adopt the emergency management program. 2002, c. 14, s. 4.

And this part has special relevance to Toronto:

Hazard and risk assessment and infrastructure identification

(3) In developing its emergency management program, every municipality shall identify and assess the various hazards and risks to public safety that could give rise to emergencies and identify the facilities and other elements of the infrastructure that are at risk of being affected by emergencies. 2002, c. 14, s. 4.

The "City of Toronto" website has an excellent section on their Emergency Preparedness Plans at:

City of Toronto Office of Emergency Management (OEM)

Believe it or not reading your municipality's Master Emergency Plan gives you a decent idea about whether your city is in good hands or should the--

shitflying.jpg


--it's every man for himself.

Moscoe is obsessed with terrorism because The TTC would be on any terrorist's Top Five list for Ontario.


Signed,
The Mississauga Muse
 
The question is why would you hit Toronto once rather than any US target?

Afghanistan and Kyoto aside, there's a reason US backpackers sew red and white flags to their backpacks.

Canada transportation has problems and terrorism is well down the list. Emergency preparedness is important but terrorism is a NATIONAL security issue and therefore the Feds can pay for ALL of it.
 

Back
Top