|
Post by WettCoast on Nov 14, 2008 22:52:44 GMT -8
|
|
Nick
Voyager
Chief Engineer - Queen of Richmond
Posts: 2,078
|
Post by Nick on Nov 15, 2008 16:27:34 GMT -8
I'm not sure how much stock we can put into an article that spells the company spokesperson's name wrong, though. "Debra Marshall"?
|
|
|
Post by BreannaF on Nov 17, 2008 2:07:40 GMT -8
I'm not sure how much stock we can put into an article that spells the company spokesperson's name wrong, though. "Debra Marshall"? I have found myself being asked a couple of times a year by one or another of the TV stations in town to come in and do an interview, usually in the month before the income tax filing deadline. The one thing I have always noticed is that, despite actually spelling my first and last name for the reporter, that the text on the screen and the article on the Internet will have one or the other name spelled wrong most of the time. (As in, it's Bryan with a Y, not with an I.) I take it that some stations don't put a high priority on details like that. It colors my opinion of just how accurate the other parts of their reporting are, too.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 17, 2008 16:47:56 GMT -8
I think it's cute that BC Ferries feels they're important enough to be a terrorist target.
|
|
|
Post by EGfleet on Nov 17, 2008 17:17:02 GMT -8
I think it's cute that BC Ferries feels they're important enough to be a terrorist target. Hey, it's happened before, but back in the days when they weren't calling it "terrorist" then. A bomb did go off in a locker on the Sechelt Queen don't forget.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 17, 2008 17:29:08 GMT -8
Well I can't disagree with you on that; terrorism as defined by the media is a fairly broad concept. But seriously BC Ferries as a target, unlikely. Possible, as is anything, but at a level requiring specialty security like this? I think not. Poor allocation of resources.
Here comes the Spirit of BC towards us, at 30Km/H.... everyone walk away... quickly!
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 17, 2008 18:06:33 GMT -8
With the economy the way it is the last thing needed is a further negative economic impact. Imagine what would happen if something happened on a full BC Ferry during the busy Christmas season. The disruption would be massive and the economic cost huge. Is that worth the risk for some additional dollars being spent on security^ To not do something reasonable would be foolish. To go overboard would be as foolish. You hope the money on security is wasted and never needed.
Many communities complained they suffered from high ferry fares and tourism was down. You can imagine how bad it would get if people were too afraid to travel on a ferry. The amount of money wasted on security would pale compared to the amount of money that would be needed in economic assistance to Salt Spring, the other Gulf Islands, and Vancouver Island.
You know the RCMP and Transport Canada are in regular communication over security issues with various transportation groups including ferries. They haven't over reacted yet but have been gradually been making improvements to security. Just the threat of having bomb sniffing dogs at the compounds has an impact on security and may make someone think twice.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 17, 2008 18:19:12 GMT -8
With the economy the way it is the last thing needed is a further negative economic impact. Imagine what would happen if something happened on a full BC Ferry during the busy Christmas season. The disruption would be massive and the economic cost huge. Is that worth the risk for some additional dollars being spent on security^ To not do something reasonable would be foolish. To go overboard would be as foolish. You hope the money on security is wasted and never needed. Like blowing an engine on the SoBC? Having the QoNW's super-refit run very late? A 6 month late delivery of a new vessel when the assets its replacing are already gone? These are problems BC Ferries actually has - there has never been a genuine security threat to BC Ferries. News 1130 used the bomb threat hoaxes as justification for the programme, but that's illogical. If that was the mechanism we used to determine threat level security would have to take a far different approach than it does now. I certainly agree they haven't gone overboard, but anything more than what they're doing now would be, in my opinion. Have you heard the new "please don't leave your bags unattended" part of the announcements on major vessels yet? As there is a need to update the recording you will eventually hear this on every vessel. The Cow and Coqu have it. I'm sure that will save a life. I do disagree with your statement to not do something would be foolish. Most "terrorism" (and I use the term lightly, and arguably incorrectly) in Canada has been domestic. We haven't really had any lately, depending on how you view the recent pipeline explosions to the North. Moreover Canada's crime rate is reasonable steady after a solid almost 20-year continuous decline (Shhh, don't let the media know that ;D ). Really, if something was going to be done, it should have been in a period of greater volatility. This measure will make people feel good, but is another irrational security response, at the end of the day. Again I am not saying BC Ferries is totally removed from threat, but on a scale it's on the low end. Money is tight for things such as this, so it ought to be spent as wisely as possible. Many communities complained they suffered from high ferry fares and tourism was down. You can imagine how bad it would get if people were too afraid to travel on a ferry. The amount of money wasted on security would pale compared to the amount of money that would be needed in economic assistance to Salt Spring, the other Gulf Islands, and Vancouver Island. Again, I would accept this in principle, but don't see the Skeena Queen as a potential target for serious crime. Perhaps civilian clothed police officers would be a wiser investment to deal with open alcohol, and under-aged drinking on ferries. You know, problems that actually exist. [quote author=pnwtraveler board=generaltalk thread=4210 post=91080 time=1226973993You know the RCMP and Transport Canada are in regular communication over security issues with various transportation groups including ferries. They haven't over reacted yet but have been gradually been making improvements to security. Just the threat of having bomb sniffing dogs at the compounds has an impact on security and may make someone think twice.[/quote] The serious criminal, or terrorist, won't give two hoots if there is dogs at the terminals - or fences.
|
|
|
Post by cohocatcher on Nov 18, 2008 16:56:44 GMT -8
BREMERTON — The Seattle-Bremerton route is currently out of service due to a possible terrorist threat, authorities said.
A 911 call reporting the threat was made this afternoon from a store in Bremerton, said Marta Coursey, spokeswoman for Washington State Ferries.
Washington State Patrol Trooper Krista Hedstrom says it happened about 12:45 p.m. today, about five minutes after the ferry left Bremerton.
According to the Coast Guard, a threat was called in, and the ferry Hyak turned around and was immediately off-loaded.
The patrol is responsible for security on state ferries. Hedstrom says she was advised of the situation in Bremerton, but the case is being handled by the Department of Homeland Security.
The scheduled 12:45 p.m. departure from Seattle to Bremerton (Kaleetan) has been rerouted to Bainbridge Island. Washington State Ferries is coordinating with Kitsap Transit to transport customers from Bainbridge Island to Bremerton.
Customers who had to evacuate the Hyak were given ride vouchers, said Hadley Greene, ferry spokeswoman.
EDIT: a later report BREMERTON, Wash. — The Bremerton-Seattle ferry run returned to service Tuesday afternoon after a reported threat forced traffic to be rerouted to Bainbridge Island.
A man called 911 just after 12:30 p.m. to report that he overheard two men at a convenience store discussing a terrorist threat against a Bremerton ferry.
The ferry Hyak was just leaving Bremerton for Seattle and was ordered back to the terminal, where it was immediately off-loaded, said State Patrol Trooper Krista Hedstrom. The threat did not appear to be credible, she said, but officials were acting in an abundance of caution.
The terminal was evacuated, roads leading to it were closed and nearby businesses were alerted. Officials rerouted Bremerton ferry traffic to Bainbridge Island until after a bomb squad search turned up no explosives at the ferry or terminal.
The number of passengers aboard the ferry and in the terminal was not immediately known.
The caller refused to give his name, Hedstrom said.
"He called and said, 'I overheard two males talking about a terrorist threat on the next ferry leaving Bremerton,'" Hedstrom said. "When we tried to get more information about the conversation, that's when we lost the call."
The 911 operator did not have a number to call him back, she said.
Three Coast Guard boats responded, said Petty Officer Shawn Eggert, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said it was monitoring the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Hardy on Nov 24, 2008 3:13:37 GMT -8
I think that anyone that "Ostriches" (buries their head in the sand and pretends there is NO problem) does not have anything to do with Risk Management or disaster planning. In the grand scheme of things, yes, it is somewhat unlikely (I typed highly, but then thought about it more) that a BCFerry would be targetted by a credible terrorist threat. However, you have to look at what terrorism really is -- the "local" pipeline bombings in Northern BC are indeed an act of terrorism. Only property has been slightly damaged, luckily no fatalities, but make no mistake about it, it is terrorism. The restaurant bombing (what was it, a Taco del Mar?) in Vancouver that blew up on Broadway and took out a Starbucks etc -- that was NOT terrorism. There is a thin line to look at. An out and out bombing meant to only hurt one business owner or with the specific target and narrow scope of destroying one property is not defined as terrorism. However, add in some political or ideological beliefs and change your main goal to instilling fear in the general public with a seemingly random act, and you are getting close to terrorism as defined. Everyone says BCFS is UNLIKELY. Why is that? Do you not think that it is a high value target? Not enough casualties? What has tiny old BC ever done on a world stage to piss someone off? If these are your rationale for saying that BCFS is not a good target then you are missing the reason that terrorism is effective -- you strike where it is not expected, and to create publicity. Sure, for a quasi-political middle-eastern based (no capitals!) terrorist organization, something like taking out the Tokyo or London subways/underground, or say a major US east coast ferry would be a more likely target and in a higher population centre ... but if you think that someone setting a bomb off on a BCFerry would not attract world-wide attention to our sleepy little ferry system you are sadly mistaken. Let's talk scale. Suitcase sized bomb, say a small wheeled carry on ... Semtex/RDX/C4 surrounded by steel ball bearings or roofing nails or something like that set off in or near the cafeteria line up of a Spirit class on any non-slack day would have mass casualties. Lets say that on the inside of the thing you only have say 6 immediate deaths (the rate for 10 lbs of explosive and another 15 of 'shrapnel' would be A LOT HIGHER!!) and 40 injuries. I can guarantee that BCFS would be shut down immediately, as would WSF. The Western 49th border would snap shut and I think that the airports would lock down quickly too. Threat level would go RED, and travel in and out of North America would snap shut tighter than a frog's rectum. Let's go back realistically now to that 25# shredding bomb. More realistically, I would peg casualties, if the device were set properly in the cafeteria LINE UP by a suicide bomber at 20-30 dead and 100+ additional injured. If you think about the 2-sided queue for the food, think at the 'merge' point, maybe by the soup/chowder self-serve station area when there is the line up down the hall. Other possibilities for smaller devices would be the main stairwells with another fragmentation/shrapnel device. Pick any passenger coming off a PCL bus and load up a backpack or a carry on and take out an entire stairwell of passengers heading up from or down to the MCD. Or skip the frag devices, and think Oklahoma City Murrah (?) Federal Building. That was a Ryder 5-ton (medium size moving van) truck -- 24' long cargo box, 12'6" tall. 6200# of material ... not a lot ... read all about that here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing#BombingLoad that little sucker on the car deck and let her rip. Total body count may not be as high, unless you detonate it just right (ie: next to a few busses), but to get the highest casualties, you would need to detonate near a port (arrival or departure, when there are PEOPLE on the car deck!), which would result in first responders being too close and potentially not a loss of the ship. Better bet would be to sink the ferry in open water outside Active Pass or in mid channel to limit the closeness of first responders to cause a catastrophic loss. Your casualty numbers go down though, unless you can do something to get a balance between causing damage enough to sink the vessel and targetting passengers ... I can detail more scenarios also, but I think I am going to be labelled as a terrorist just for this much detail ...
|
|
|
Post by Northern Exploration on Nov 24, 2008 7:30:49 GMT -8
I agree with Hardy. We use the term terrorist broadly but it is just as likely to be some wacked out local anarchist on meth trying to hurt the Olympics or a former employee with severe mental health problems wanting to make a statement. To go too far would be ridiculous but to take reasonable steps to lower probability is a good thing.
*adds Hardy to my watch list for Shroomland Security.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Nov 24, 2008 13:30:17 GMT -8
I can detail more scenarios also, but I think I am going to be labelled as a terrorist just for this much detail ... No one would label you a terrorist, but I'm concerned that you're planning your ferry lunch based on your chances of getting hit by a nail bomb. "Lessee, the chowder lineup, I've got a one-in-ten chance of surviving... the muffins don't take as long.. I'll go with the muffins... I mean, really. It's hard enough enjoying ferry food. I just hope you're not musing out loud about this stuff the whole time. I guess we could obsess about terrorist dangers everywhere- Seabus, Skytrain, Canucks games, Army & Navy shoe sales- but what's the point of thinking up every scenario imaginable? I guess we could just stay home and never come out. There's no clear agreement that terrorism is actually on the increase. Some say it's actually gone down in recent years. What has unarguably gone up is our tendency to assign the term terrorism to every act of vandalism that's accompanied by any sort of political rhetoric, for example, the pipeline bombings. The word terrorism gets thrown around way too loosely, and justifies too many fears and, possibly, too much expense. Prudence, yes, but let's keep some perspective. Not everyone who questions security measures and their effectiveness is an ostrich.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Nov 25, 2008 18:21:22 GMT -8
A bomb on a B.C. ferry is unlikely but it has happened in the past. Many years ago a dynamite bomb was found before it went off. Think about what would make BCFS a good target. Our troops in Afghanistan, huge media attention for the Olympics, tons of publicity for their cause. I would load up a truck or car with its gas tank packed with explosives and all the other cars around it would add to the explosion. Do it in Active Pass and you block the main route from SWB to TSA. I think it is prudent to take precautions.
|
|
|
Post by Dane on Nov 26, 2008 0:16:20 GMT -8
The bomb on the ferry wasn't a terrorist threat, but you are right it does point at a potential threat. Moreover the Olympics, like you cite, will bring need for greater attention. Strategies like sniffing dogs may be viable during that short period - however, I still believe it's a poor allocation of limited resources at this time.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Feb 4, 2009 20:00:55 GMT -8
|
|
Koastal Karl
Voyager
Been on every BC Ferry now!!!!!
Posts: 7,747
|
Post by Koastal Karl on Feb 4, 2009 23:29:22 GMT -8
My trip back to the island on Sunday on the SOVI I saw two new security cams outside the Seawest Lounge. I think they are new as I dont remember seeing them before there. I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
Post by Mac Write on Feb 5, 2009 13:32:33 GMT -8
That article is over ten years old, as I remember reading it back then.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,185
|
Post by Neil on Feb 5, 2009 14:12:26 GMT -8
That article is over ten years old, as I remember reading it back then. I think you're right. There was no date on the article, but I should have noticed the 'Expo' paint job on the boat. My internal editor was asleep on the job.
|
|
|
Post by ferryrider42 on Feb 5, 2009 20:42:57 GMT -8
About that article Neil posted, I've run across that website on my own and sometimes wonder if the whole event ever happened.
It's entirely possible that some ferry geek with pictures of an empty ship, and engine room wrote a nice little story for that website. Of course, not discounting that what was written didn't occur; just throwing a possibility out there. Either way, nicely dramatized story.
|
|
|
Post by kerryssi on Feb 6, 2009 22:05:51 GMT -8
That ship is empty. Note no one on the ramp, passenger walkway raised, no sign of anyone on board. It is tied up and not in use.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 6, 2009 6:26:25 GMT -8
The Federal Government recently released a draft of their proposed new security regulations for domestic ferries. The draft regulations can be found at: www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2009/2009-09-19/html/reg2-eng.htmlIt's a big document. I'll be reading through it for the next week or so, and posting some quotes from it, along with my questions and comments. There is an appendix that lists the routes that are affected. It's the major/middle BCF routes plus some northern ones. Here's a quote from a news release, which is what drew my attention to the above noted draft regulations: Take a read, and tell us what you think...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 6, 2009 11:07:30 GMT -8
Excerpts from the draft Domestic Ferries Security Regulations =============
BC Routes and Terminals affected:
What routes are missing, that are located near major cities? - Bowen Island route? - route 9 from Tsawwassen to Gulf Islands.
Also, route-40 Discovery Coast is not included in the draft regulations.
Presumably, these routes aren't included because each sailing is relatively low volume of passengers carried. Although the route-9 is busy on Fridays & Sundays and in summertime.
I wonder what the criteria was in choosing which routes would be covered by the draft regulations?
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Oct 20, 2009 11:37:25 GMT -8
Some cut/paste from the draft regulations: ==============
3 options considered by Gov't with regards to the scope of who these regulations apply to:
================
Description of items funded by special Federal funding. Funding is by the Transport Canada Marine Security Contribution Program (MSCP), whereby the federal government would reimburse up to 75% of eligible marine security enhancements:
=============
What are the benefits of enhanced security?
===============
|
|
|
Post by lmtengs on Oct 20, 2009 17:47:36 GMT -8
When I was at Tsawwassen Terminal last month (or was it the start of this month?) I asked an employee why they had the new fences and signs saying "ABSOLUTELY NO ACCESS TO BEACH AREA; STRICTLY INFORCED". The guy says that it's jsut to keep people from getting in the way of traffic when vessels unload. He actually said it's not enforced at all and the signs are just there to scare people. He ended it by telling me that I could go over if I wanted. Well, I went right ahead. I waited for the people at the terminal control tower to turn on the loudspeakers telling me to leave, but no such thing happened. I even saw an employee look at me over there and she just shrugged it off. Surprising, but I like it.
|
|
|
Post by whidbeyislandguy on Oct 30, 2009 18:28:15 GMT -8
When I was at Tsawwassen Terminal last month (or was it the start of this month?) I asked an employee why they had the new fences and signs saying "ABSOLUTELY NO ACCESS TO BEACH AREA; STRICTLY INFORCED". The guy says that it's jsut to keep people from getting in the way of traffic when vessels unload. He actually said it's not enforced at all and the signs are just there to scare people. He ended it by telling me that I could go over if I wanted. Well, I went right ahead. I waited for the people at the terminal control tower to turn on the loudspeakers telling me to leave, but no such thing happened. I even saw an employee look at me over there and she just shrugged it off. Surprising, but I like it. wow, I don't think i'd push my luck, you might have just been lucky.
|
|