|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 3, 2007 17:16:27 GMT -8
I've just watched a piece on CBC's local television news saying that they've only just learned - demonstrated by the lack of anything on the net yet - of new yet vague security measures to be implemented at major terminals. Departure Bay will be the first, followed by all other major terminals by 2009. These measures are said by a BCFS rep. to include "more cameras and more fences," and the live news report mentioned that even foot passengers will be screened, like at airports, randomly and that vehicles might be subject to border-like screening at major terminals.
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 3, 2007 17:32:07 GMT -8
And here's the story, although from Canwest Global... ( From: www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=c56f388b-af3f-4ad2-9d06-4fe255144ea9&k=83324) BC Ferries to begin screening passengers and vehicles within three years Canadian Press* * * * NANAIMO, B.C. (CP) - B.C. Ferries will soon begin screening its passengers and their vehicles before they're allowed to board a vessel in an effort to bump up security. And passengers should get used to occasional delays if there is a security threat, said Manuel Achadinha, vice-president of terminal operations for the fleet, "There will be times, for example, if security incidents increase, it'll be like the airports," he said. "It might take you an hour to get through." Achadina said Ferries plans to have the new security measures fully implemented within three years. As well, Ferries will be installing more security cameras at their terminals. "There's going to be a lot more cameras monitoring the situation," he said. "You're going to see a lot of these changes. Some of these changes you won't see and you shouldn't see because it's security. But there are other ones that, you know, it'll be more visible to the customer." Achadina said Ferries will assess the ferry terminals and routes to determine which are in most need of heightened security, but he said he doubted the smaller routes would be seriously affected. In July 2005, shortly after the terrorist attacks on London's transportation system, B.C. Ferries CEO David Hahn said the company would review how it handles baggage on its ships. He said at the time there was too much unattended baggage and that would have to change. He also acknowledged the increased security might put a burden on the disabled and elderly, but the company had no choice. The company was also reviewing how buses would be screened. An official at the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union in Nanaimo said the union is aware of the security measures being considered and generally supports the initiative. "They are keeping us in the loop and that's where we like to be. We're all on the same side on this issue," said the union official, who did not want to be identified. In 2004, the union predicted waits of up to two hours if B.C. Ferries adopted airport-style screening. © The Canadian Press 2007
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 3, 2007 17:54:00 GMT -8
WARNING RANT COMING ON NOW WHAT THE HELL!!! SERIOUSLY, IF WE ARE GOING TO FREAK OUT THIS MUCH, WE MIGHT AS WELL WEAR PROTECTIVE SUITS WHEN WE GO OUTSIDE!! WSF IS NOT EVEN THIS BAD YET!!! I THOUGHT WE WERE FREAKING OUT THIS IS WAY BEYOND THE REACH!!!
First off, are you going to delay due to an event we do not know the truth about?
Second off, why react even more than the United States?
|
|
|
Post by Retrovision on Apr 3, 2007 18:10:05 GMT -8
...SERIOUSLY, IF WE ARE GOING TO FREAK OUT THIS MUCH... Who might you be referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Balfour on Apr 3, 2007 19:13:01 GMT -8
Surveillance: yes more guards: yes Screenings: NO!
I think the terrorists mainly target the USA, and international flights related. Airport style security at ferry terminals is overdoing a lot!
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 3, 2007 20:04:20 GMT -8
(i will use lower case for my reply...in case your ears are still hurting)
i think that the unknown contents of a vehicle on a ferry are more of a threat/risk than what a footie can carry on.
i think a ryder truck full of a fertilizer-bomb is a possibility.
my thoughts are re something that could seriously damage the ship.
of course, a small carry-on bomb in a backpack could kill a group of people...yet not sink the ship.
either attack scenario is bad.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 3, 2007 20:10:25 GMT -8
(i will use lower case for my reply...in case your ears are still hurting) My purpose has then worked. I agree, Canada is a very respectable country, keeping noses out of issues where as the U.S. wants to get involved in anything. Back to the point. Foot passenger screening would be far out of line since there is no airport style security on trains or buses. Til that happens, I do not see a reason to outline ferries as a primary target. Sure the statistics might seem gruesome, however, the threat of passengers carrying explosives will not jeopardize an operation of the vessel unlike a commercial truck.
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Apr 3, 2007 20:14:19 GMT -8
Oh boy, Hear we go!
Why stop hear? Why not have a check in system like the airlines? You would have to reserve your spot on the ferry then show up 1 hour before sailing to go through security. Then forget about taking any more pictures like most of us do.
This is going to be bad.
|
|
|
Post by queenofcowichan on Apr 3, 2007 20:19:16 GMT -8
THE FUTURE WE FACE IS GOING TO BE HARSH!!!
But hey, what about the Terroist in that speed boat chasing after the ferry? Better have some high powerd guns onboard to stop them. This is going to be a realy harsh future, you will get interrogated just for taking a picture of the ship. grrr!
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Apr 3, 2007 21:23:40 GMT -8
They'll loose interest by 2009. If they don't it'll be about 2012 when we've forgotten about 2010.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 3, 2007 22:51:51 GMT -8
"Departure Bay will be first..." very good idea. We'd better make sure we keep all those terrorists and explosives in Nanaimo.
But seriously, I don't think it will be as bad as some of you think. However I will argue that Canada is a target. Maybe most people in Europe and the Middle East think we're okay guys compared to the Americans, the terrorists who really hate the "west" and are responsible for most terrorism don't care whether we're Canadian or American. The main reason why we're probably safer is because if there was an attack here, it wouldn't get the worldwide attention it would if it were San Francisco or Boston or even Toronto. That would be true most of the time. It might not be true during major events like the Olympics when the world spotlight will be on us.
I think the ferry people might be a bit paranoid about it all. Ferries are a soft target in that they're easy. But unless they go to the extent of trying to sink a ferry (very expensive and not very easy), how is it going to be any different than a suicide bomb anywhere else where there is a crowd? Unless an attacker has a gripe against BC Ferries, wouldn't he probably rather save the 12 bucks and do it for free somewhere else?
As for ferry photos, I don't think they can stop that. Maybe for you guys who like to document every square inch of the interior of the vessel, it will be a problem. But as for people taking photos of the ferries and the passing scenery, there's not much that anyone can do to stop that unless you really want to discourage tourism.
|
|
|
Post by hergfest on Apr 3, 2007 23:58:10 GMT -8
Just remember guys, the Olympics come in 2010. The Olympics are a big target for terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 4, 2007 5:34:22 GMT -8
Having stayed across the street from the WTC the weekend before 9/11 and being in that city as much as twice a month just after, I may have a bit of a different perspective. I still eyeball people more than I ever did when I occasionally take the subway. I definitely am more alert in the airports and in the air. And I am more than willing to give up a bit of convenience to feel safer. And some of the security is more show than substance admittedly. Canada has been specifically named as a target. We should do what is reasonable but not go beserk. The fact that the union and management seem to agree is worth noting for a change. Spot checks of cars is entirely reasonable. Dogs that are walked up and down the waiting cars would be a great idea. Trained to sniff fertilizer (politicians may set off the dogs mind you for their ability to dispense the stuff ) or other explosive devices would be great. Maybe not every vehicle but random spot checks. Screening all foot passengers is as dumb as screening airline travelers when ground personnel and cargo isn't screened as much as it should. Screening airline passengers limits the actions that have taken place in the past and have known to be planned. But the other gaps should be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by In Washington on Apr 4, 2007 5:49:52 GMT -8
I am guessing that things in BC work the way they do down south. BCFerries is responding to direction from a governing entity. The USCG/Homeland Security tells WSF what they want and then WSF negotiates, if you will, by showing a plan that they can implement. Then both parties make concessions.
Security may seem invasive to some but if there is a threat most of us will be glad it is there.
That being said, I will believe intense passenger screening when I see it. Not very effective and very time consuming.
The sky is not falling... yet! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 4, 2007 7:00:45 GMT -8
Sorry, but I believe and have always believed that after 9/11, we have been too fearful. I feel we have made terrorism an overblown issue. Some people think that 9/11 was a wake up call. I honestly think that we completely over reacted. If they could have done the same in 1991, then why did we not care to put up measures 10 years ago? If we knew we could have prevented it, why did we take drastic measures after 9/11? Why are we proposing completely invasive security measures if we knew the risk of it before hand?
It does not add up in my opinion
That's my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Apr 4, 2007 13:44:34 GMT -8
After the '91 incident they did some minor changes. All vehicles going into the parking garage of the WTC were searched with those mirrors on the end of poles so under the vehicle could be examined and trunks were searched. The one time I actually drove to NYC (miracle no cabbie bashed my car lol) we parked under the WTC. Trucks and vans were searched more thoroughly. They changed the emergency procedures and a few other minor visible things. Smoke was the problem in 91 versus a major structural failure. There were many fewer fatalities and no one watched it on prime time TV like they did on 9/11. You may be right PC about over reacting out of fear. I was a little nervous though my first flight one week after 9/11 (yyz to yvr). I am more relaxed flying usually than on the 401 here . Wasn't too long ago that the guy got caught at customs for the Coho crossing. And don't forget Air India and Narita were allegedly hatched in quiet Duncan. But for many reasons I now feel much safer in NYC at night than I do in Stanley Park lol. Having Police on the subway platforms and on so many street corners has had many benefits other than just for terrorism. All sorts of crackpots will be eyeing BC with 2010 coming up and some new security on the ferries and elsewhere will be good. However a balance is necessary and hopefully while providing better security - rights and reasonableness will be taken into account.
|
|
|
Post by kylefossett on Apr 4, 2007 14:56:49 GMT -8
let's all remember that canada has troops in afghanistan so in the minds of some of the radicals over there we are the enemy. so if we have to start uping the security around this country or pull our troops out of the mid east then i say up the security.
you may not agree with canadian troops being over seas but support them for what they have to go through everyday over there
|
|
|
Post by lest69 on Apr 5, 2007 10:04:57 GMT -8
My .02
If they implement any measures that take some time, such as airport or border-style screening, it could spell the end of driving right on to the ferry. Several weeks ago, I was coming back over to Victoria after seeing a Canucks game. I was actually aiming for the 9 am on the Monday. Due to my inexperience with mainland roads, I left plenty of time because I thought there would be a lot of traffic (weekday rush hour). I actually made unbelievable time, and got to TSA at about 5-10 minutes before 7 am. When I paid, she said there may still be a chance I could get on the 7. It turns out I was the last car on. I drove on, turned off the engine, opened my door, and they started casting off. If I had had to endure ANY security measure, I would not have made it. In this case, it was really just a bonus that I got on that ferry, but I'm sure there have been many cases where someone REALLY needed to get a ferry, and just barely got on.
About a week ago, they were talking on the news about the security at the floatplanes here in Victoria. People were attempting to make a big deal out of it, saying that terrorists could hijack a plane and fly it into the Leg., or another building in downtown Victoria. Transport Canada has classified the floatplanes as "low risk". I'm curious to know what Transport Canada considers BC Ferries?
If BC Ferries is "in need" of increased security measures, why not other ferries, like the Albion, or the inland ferries? The same potential risks apply to these as well (vehicles and walk-ons).
I am of the opinion that they should do things like fences and cameras, and maybe dog patrols as someone mentioned, but nothing too extreme. Just before and during the Olympics, however, there should definitely be greatly increased security. If you were a terrorist, wanting to "get the most bang for your buck", why not attack while the entire world is watching. During this period, they could have airport-style screening, and definitely things like bomb-sniffing dogs and the under-car mirrors. I'm sure the ferries are going to be overwhelmed during the Olympics, and unfortunately these measures would only make it worse, but I think it would be necessary.
Does anyone know if there have ever been any threats against BC Ferries (that we know about)?
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 5, 2007 11:06:30 GMT -8
What Transport Canada is pointing out is the risk of many deaths. 2100 passengers on a ferry is a target if they believe terrorists want to kill innocent lives to scare people. There have not been any threats against BCFS I have knowledge of. I still believe airport style security is overkill for ferry passengers. Screening commericial vehicles and busses makes the most sense in my opinion due to they are closer to the engines and you can carry much more explosives versus an SUV.
|
|
|
Post by Ferry Rider 42 on Apr 5, 2007 14:24:49 GMT -8
Nuts and the Olympics have both been brought up. These new security measures will likely build up and peak during the Olympics. Afterwards, I predict they severity of the measures will ease off.
I reason that the Olympics are a high profile event that the world will be watching. This is an ideal time to blow something up to get your cause or vendetta noticed. Certainly, there are plenty of target out there, but Ferries would look quite the fool if they hadn’t thought in advance of tighten security. Sure the odds of a tragic event are low, but if tighter security measures are not put in place and something was to happen, well… you know, people love to point fingers.
Let’s further the honesty. Do you expect Ferry Corp to come out and say in a press release, “During the Olympics we think some joe with a screw loose could try and blow a boat up… but don’t worry; we have some ideas on how to stop him.” Well, at least that’s my read on what is going on.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Apr 5, 2007 18:38:34 GMT -8
The Vancouver Sun had an article on this topic on B1 and B6 today. It mentioned that Washington State Ferries already practises and uses many of the measures mentioned in this thread. They even have gun-boat escorts sometimes and police airplanes flying over the ferry routes. So I don't think we will be too inconvenienced by anything BC Ferries does.
|
|
|
Post by Political Incorrectness on Apr 5, 2007 18:50:44 GMT -8
However, we do not screen vehicles and passengers even at an elevated terror level. At elevated, we add the patrol boats and the planes and all vehicles sniffed out.
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Apr 5, 2007 19:57:25 GMT -8
Talk about security and they are so worried about it. Me and Graham took the Bowen Queen over to Bowen Island yesterday. We were on a SCHOOL sailing which meant the whole damn passenger lounges were taking up by little teenyboppers everywhere. But the point is we got boarding passes and the guy never took them. So now if you know on a busy sailing like the 2:35, 3:35, 4:35 sailings out of HSB to Bowen when there are crowds of school kids you can get the crowd and actually get on FREE as they never took boarding passes. But it's a matter of luck. You dont know they wont take them but like yesterday we could of probably waited a few hours then took the Bowen back using our same boarding card which they never took before. Dosent show the time on it just the date. Talk about security.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Apr 18, 2007 20:00:32 GMT -8
Here's a story from "Queen Charlotte Observer", re the implementation of photo-id requirement for some northern sailings. (it's somewhat security related, but mostly to get a more accurate manifest) www.qciobserver.com/articles.aspx?article=2629
|
|
|
Post by WettCoast on Apr 18, 2007 20:56:04 GMT -8
We were asked to present photo ID on April 5th, prior to boarding the NorAd to go to QCI. They have been gradually implementing this for a while now, I gather.
|
|