G
Guest
Guest
It might not agree with everyone but in the event of a problem, Amtrak would suffer enormous public relations problem along the lines of, "why didn't you...".
"Amtrak to add screenings, bomb-sniffing dogs"
- Thread starter mercedeslove
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
- Status
VentureForth
Engineer
Regrettably, that is the cost of freedom. You can pump $1 Billion into rail security and someone will thwart it if they want to bad enough. Then your question will STILL be asked.
Give me Liberty or give me death.
wayman
Engineer
Thoughts:
(1) I'm surprised this is news *now*. There have been Amtrak Police with dogs at PHL for at least four months. They were a fixture since at least Thanksgiving, and I think much of November. The dogs aren't always visible, but they (with their handlers, of course!) are frequently either wandering idly around the station hall or sniffing every passenger's bags in a queue preparing to board a train (at the "about to flash their tickets and go down a stairwell" point in the boarding procedure).
I have also seen an Amtrak Police dog board the Southwest Chief at Kansas City and do a thorough sniffing inspection of my coach, though in that case it was clear from all the radio chatter that the police team were searching for drugs and a suspected drug dealer working the train. Those police were undercover, though they did identify themselves as "Amtrak Police" as opposed to city or federal authorities; I assume the dog was also Amtrak Police, though I suppose he could have been a "loaner" from the local Kansas City drug-dog program.
In any event, parts of this program have been in place for quite some while already with extremely little fanfare and (in the several cases where a dog has walked my Keystone queue) absolutely no delays or hassles at all.
(2) I have never seen anyone called out of line for a swab test in conjunction with the Amtrak Police dogs. I assume there has been a procedure for "if the dog indicates he smells something", but I have no idea whether that would have been "swab test" or "bag inspection" or "security interview" or what. I have also been completely unaware of any sort of "machine" as a follow-up test. Of course, I would presumably see this stuff in action only in the unlikely event of it being necessary.
(3) It's possible that the dogs I have seen to this point were exclusively looking for drugs, not bombs. I never asked. That could be what's different.
(4) People have mentioned "Homeland Security" above, but I doubt they're involved at all. This looks (from the article, and from the police with bomb- or drug-sniffing dogs which have been active at PHL for months already) to be entirely an Amtrak Police operation. (The PHL dogs are very clearly "Amtrak Police", not DHS or Philadelphia Police.)
The feds (ie. DHS) may have put pressure on Amtrak to implement an internally-run security screening, and DHS may be providing the "mobile security team" equipment (swabbing kits and explosive-detecting machines), but I doubt even that. I expect the costs for those come out of Amtrak's budget, and could have instead gone towards maintenance costs of some sort. But perhaps they had earmarked funds for this, and it doesn't actually come at the expense of a coach overhaul or the like.
(5) Does anyone expect a "mobile security team" to ever show up at a station other than BOS, NYP, PHL, or WAS in the initial "Northeast Corridor" phase of implementation? Granted, transit between stations is extremely easy in this area, so I would not be tremendously surprised to hear reports of them setting up camp at Newark or Baltimore or Wilmington, I suppose. Still, I'd be a bit surprised.
A dog will never walk a train once it has been boarded. This will only ever happen at a train's point of origin--to do otherwise would delay the train by at a minimum ten minutes, which on a corridor train is unacceptable. The Kansas City boarding I mentioned above falls into the special case of "the conductor reported suspicious activity to the station, which responded to the incident". There was a significant delay--half an hour at least--while at least six plain-clothes police and one dog searched the train; numerous people were taken off the train and interviewed, some of whom were not permitted to re-board.
The fundamental flaw here is that they're attempting to build a security system on the airline model. (Whether the airline security itself is effective is another issue entirely, one I won't touch with a ten foot pole right now!) The airline *model* makes sense because all flights are from one airport to another, with no intermediate stops. The only way this comes *close* to being able to work for Amtrak is to secure the Acela stations (relatively few of them, and high-profile frequent trains with high ridership). The system will be completely useless for any wider implementation.
Once things move on to "nationwide", I will be *extremely* surprised to hear of a "mobile security team" outside of CHI, LAX, SEA, or PDX. Maybe other termini (EMY, NOL, etc) serving multiple trains, but these things will *never* *ever* show up in, say, Lynchburg or Grand Junction or even a frequently-served station like Paoli.
And even if they were to show up in Paoli "because a terrorist could be trying to blow up 30th St by boarding a Keystone", don't you think the terrorist would board at Exton anyway? They're never going to walk the dog through the entire train at a non-terminal stop inbound from Exton (like Paoli)--it will delay the train by at least ten minutes. And they're never going to set up shop with a dog, etc, at Exton because it sees maybe four passengers per train and has a "bus shelter" for a station.
(6) I agree with the thought expressed by others that the "real danger" (small danger as it is) is of a train being blown up in a major destination station (as in the Madrid bombings). That means someone boarding an Acela at a major station intending to blow up another major station (which this security *could* prevent), or someone boarding a Keystone in Exton bound for PHL (which this security will *never* catch). Do I think the terrorists are going to figure this one out? Of course! They're not stupid.
(7) So do I feel the least bit safer? No. Do I feel like this was a reasonable expense? No.
(1) I'm surprised this is news *now*. There have been Amtrak Police with dogs at PHL for at least four months. They were a fixture since at least Thanksgiving, and I think much of November. The dogs aren't always visible, but they (with their handlers, of course!) are frequently either wandering idly around the station hall or sniffing every passenger's bags in a queue preparing to board a train (at the "about to flash their tickets and go down a stairwell" point in the boarding procedure).
I have also seen an Amtrak Police dog board the Southwest Chief at Kansas City and do a thorough sniffing inspection of my coach, though in that case it was clear from all the radio chatter that the police team were searching for drugs and a suspected drug dealer working the train. Those police were undercover, though they did identify themselves as "Amtrak Police" as opposed to city or federal authorities; I assume the dog was also Amtrak Police, though I suppose he could have been a "loaner" from the local Kansas City drug-dog program.
In any event, parts of this program have been in place for quite some while already with extremely little fanfare and (in the several cases where a dog has walked my Keystone queue) absolutely no delays or hassles at all.
(2) I have never seen anyone called out of line for a swab test in conjunction with the Amtrak Police dogs. I assume there has been a procedure for "if the dog indicates he smells something", but I have no idea whether that would have been "swab test" or "bag inspection" or "security interview" or what. I have also been completely unaware of any sort of "machine" as a follow-up test. Of course, I would presumably see this stuff in action only in the unlikely event of it being necessary.
(3) It's possible that the dogs I have seen to this point were exclusively looking for drugs, not bombs. I never asked. That could be what's different.
(4) People have mentioned "Homeland Security" above, but I doubt they're involved at all. This looks (from the article, and from the police with bomb- or drug-sniffing dogs which have been active at PHL for months already) to be entirely an Amtrak Police operation. (The PHL dogs are very clearly "Amtrak Police", not DHS or Philadelphia Police.)
The feds (ie. DHS) may have put pressure on Amtrak to implement an internally-run security screening, and DHS may be providing the "mobile security team" equipment (swabbing kits and explosive-detecting machines), but I doubt even that. I expect the costs for those come out of Amtrak's budget, and could have instead gone towards maintenance costs of some sort. But perhaps they had earmarked funds for this, and it doesn't actually come at the expense of a coach overhaul or the like.
(5) Does anyone expect a "mobile security team" to ever show up at a station other than BOS, NYP, PHL, or WAS in the initial "Northeast Corridor" phase of implementation? Granted, transit between stations is extremely easy in this area, so I would not be tremendously surprised to hear reports of them setting up camp at Newark or Baltimore or Wilmington, I suppose. Still, I'd be a bit surprised.
A dog will never walk a train once it has been boarded. This will only ever happen at a train's point of origin--to do otherwise would delay the train by at a minimum ten minutes, which on a corridor train is unacceptable. The Kansas City boarding I mentioned above falls into the special case of "the conductor reported suspicious activity to the station, which responded to the incident". There was a significant delay--half an hour at least--while at least six plain-clothes police and one dog searched the train; numerous people were taken off the train and interviewed, some of whom were not permitted to re-board.
The fundamental flaw here is that they're attempting to build a security system on the airline model. (Whether the airline security itself is effective is another issue entirely, one I won't touch with a ten foot pole right now!) The airline *model* makes sense because all flights are from one airport to another, with no intermediate stops. The only way this comes *close* to being able to work for Amtrak is to secure the Acela stations (relatively few of them, and high-profile frequent trains with high ridership). The system will be completely useless for any wider implementation.
Once things move on to "nationwide", I will be *extremely* surprised to hear of a "mobile security team" outside of CHI, LAX, SEA, or PDX. Maybe other termini (EMY, NOL, etc) serving multiple trains, but these things will *never* *ever* show up in, say, Lynchburg or Grand Junction or even a frequently-served station like Paoli.
And even if they were to show up in Paoli "because a terrorist could be trying to blow up 30th St by boarding a Keystone", don't you think the terrorist would board at Exton anyway? They're never going to walk the dog through the entire train at a non-terminal stop inbound from Exton (like Paoli)--it will delay the train by at least ten minutes. And they're never going to set up shop with a dog, etc, at Exton because it sees maybe four passengers per train and has a "bus shelter" for a station.
(6) I agree with the thought expressed by others that the "real danger" (small danger as it is) is of a train being blown up in a major destination station (as in the Madrid bombings). That means someone boarding an Acela at a major station intending to blow up another major station (which this security *could* prevent), or someone boarding a Keystone in Exton bound for PHL (which this security will *never* catch). Do I think the terrorists are going to figure this one out? Of course! They're not stupid.
(7) So do I feel the least bit safer? No. Do I feel like this was a reasonable expense? No.
Last edited by a moderator:
yarrow
Engineer
not much terror attack potential on most of the cs route these days. maybe that is the direction amtrak should move in
had8ley
Engineer
We were on #20 pulling into Meridian, MS on the morning of 9/11. The mayor, chief of police and a bomb sniffing dog greeted us along with the local news station. I tried to tell the officer, to no avail, not to make the dog sniff the hot wheels but he insisted. All they found in two hours of witch hunting was a dog with third degree burns on his nose.
Last edited by a moderator:
caravanman
Engineer
I loved the tongue in cheek statementfrom Amtrak : "On-time performance is a key element of Amtrak service." Together with the polite staff and quality food, no doubt!
Ed B)
Ed B)
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
There are more flaws with the entire concept than I can shake a stick at. I don't know where to begin even.
First off, I've always been pretty good at planning operations like this. I don't know why, I just seem to have the knack for it. You wouldn't believe the number of operations of this sort, albeit not malevolent particularly, I have planned and executed and not been caught with. My favourite was the one involving slightly diluted prune juice, a modified water pistol, and my teachers desk drawer, but I digress.
The biggest question is: What are you trying to accomplish? Now, I know the answer is terror, but its more complicated than that. The loss of life during September 11th was a big deal, yes. But the bigger, more substantial result was financial and infrastructural chaos.
Are you trying to achieve the most visibility? By which I mean, is it supposed to be something spectacular in the view of everybody such that it makes people shiver with fright? The World Trade Center was pretty visible. But a better example of a visual terror attack would be something along the lines of the Anthrax attack. It created fear, although it caused very little direct financial damage or death. Blowing up a bridge while nobody is going over it would be a good example.
Are you trying to create the most economic damage? Carry a powerful bomb in the form of, perhaps, large aluminum soda cans. The large red bull cans would work. If you detect considerable security, toss it in a garbage can before boarding the train. If you don't, take it on, pretend to drink it, place it in a trash can on the train, get off at newark. Wait until dispatch indicates the train has entered the tunnels tunnels, detonate it. Those tunnels are ready to collapse as it is, a bomb would disintegrate them and close the country's largest city to rail transport from the south. Probably kill several hundred people in the process. You might have to try it a dozen times, but it can easily be done. Especially if you board a NJT train at a small commuter station.
Are you looking for a massive loss of life? Thats a bit more difficult, but far from impossible. It doesn't involve setting a single foot into a train station, either. I've seen many places on the NEC that can be easily accessed by someone at night. Install a fairly powerful bomb, wire it to be triggered by the weight of a train when that weight is placed on three adjacent tracks at once, preferably in a location where the speed limit is high. Heck, the bomb doesn't need to be particularly large or powerfull. All it needs to do is wait for three trains to pass at once, produce enough force to lift up the nose of one train a couple of feet, and you will have a spectacular wreck that will kill hundreds, or even thousands as the speed of the train accordions it, and turns the cars of all three trains into speeding missiles.
First off, I've always been pretty good at planning operations like this. I don't know why, I just seem to have the knack for it. You wouldn't believe the number of operations of this sort, albeit not malevolent particularly, I have planned and executed and not been caught with. My favourite was the one involving slightly diluted prune juice, a modified water pistol, and my teachers desk drawer, but I digress.
The biggest question is: What are you trying to accomplish? Now, I know the answer is terror, but its more complicated than that. The loss of life during September 11th was a big deal, yes. But the bigger, more substantial result was financial and infrastructural chaos.
Are you trying to achieve the most visibility? By which I mean, is it supposed to be something spectacular in the view of everybody such that it makes people shiver with fright? The World Trade Center was pretty visible. But a better example of a visual terror attack would be something along the lines of the Anthrax attack. It created fear, although it caused very little direct financial damage or death. Blowing up a bridge while nobody is going over it would be a good example.
Are you trying to create the most economic damage? Carry a powerful bomb in the form of, perhaps, large aluminum soda cans. The large red bull cans would work. If you detect considerable security, toss it in a garbage can before boarding the train. If you don't, take it on, pretend to drink it, place it in a trash can on the train, get off at newark. Wait until dispatch indicates the train has entered the tunnels tunnels, detonate it. Those tunnels are ready to collapse as it is, a bomb would disintegrate them and close the country's largest city to rail transport from the south. Probably kill several hundred people in the process. You might have to try it a dozen times, but it can easily be done. Especially if you board a NJT train at a small commuter station.
Are you looking for a massive loss of life? Thats a bit more difficult, but far from impossible. It doesn't involve setting a single foot into a train station, either. I've seen many places on the NEC that can be easily accessed by someone at night. Install a fairly powerful bomb, wire it to be triggered by the weight of a train when that weight is placed on three adjacent tracks at once, preferably in a location where the speed limit is high. Heck, the bomb doesn't need to be particularly large or powerfull. All it needs to do is wait for three trains to pass at once, produce enough force to lift up the nose of one train a couple of feet, and you will have a spectacular wreck that will kill hundreds, or even thousands as the speed of the train accordions it, and turns the cars of all three trains into speeding missiles.
meatpuff
Train Attendant
Just adding another opinion to the pot, but I am fine with this new policy. Swabbing my luggage for explosives residue is not intrusive; I would consider it less intrusive than a security officer standing right next to me intently watching me board. Explosives don't belong on trains. Incidentally, they didn't belong on trains before 9/11 or Madrid either, it's just too bad that those were needed as a catalyst. This constitutes an improvement in Amtrak operations.
This is nothing like airport screening. For example, this does nothing about guns, knives, drugs, big bottles of shampoo, etc, and doesn't x-ray or metal-detect you or your luggage. Let's fervently hope it never gets like that on rail. Yes, there is a slope to these draconian measures, but it isn't all that slipperyof a slope. With flying these measures seem justified, based on all the highjackings and airplane/airport bombings that used to take place, even well before the year 2000. The restrictive airport screening procedures of today have evolved only after thousands (and certainly 1,000+ just in the U.S.) of airline passengers have been killed in these incidents stretching over decades.
Those tunnels are a heck of a lot stronger than you give them credit for, and they are far from collapse even with outside interference. Most of the work being done on the tunnels is safety work, not work to "shore" them up. Safety work like fire supression, way's to evacuate people, and so on.
And since the train cars will intially contain the bulk of any explosion, it's going to take a lot more explosive than one can fit in a Red Bull can to punch a hole in the tunnel.
Yes, the odds are that most people on the train might be killed, depending on the location of the bomb. But again, I rather doubt that you'd be bringing down the tunnel. Those things were built to last back then, frankly I'd be more worried about being in a new tunnel with today's contruction and design, than those old PRR tunnels.
Today as I was leaving NYP they announced, "Please do not pet or feed the K-9 units."
Aboard Acela, I asked the café car man whether the presence of dogs would affect FDA hygiene requirements. He said, "The dogs are exempt. They can even come behind the counter if they want to - they're not subject to the FDA's rules."
Aboard Acela, I asked the café car man whether the presence of dogs would affect FDA hygiene requirements. He said, "The dogs are exempt. They can even come behind the counter if they want to - they're not subject to the FDA's rules."
adam_aussie
Train Attendant
Anyone else see the irony here?
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
Fact of the matter is, you could ride the dog more ways than once.
frj1983
OBS Chief
Well let's take it even further then:
Every time a car crosses a State Border, it should be searched by bomb sniffing dogs, and before you get into a taxi, the driver will run a wand over you, and rental car companies will have the right to search your luggage before allowing you to drive off in their cars, and it just gets sillier and sillier. All the terrorists today have to do is send out messages about a "plan" to do something, somewhere, and suddenly the US is running around like a chicken with it's head cut off...meanwhile, a terrorist cell in the Middle East is laughing it's butt off!
Last edited by a moderator:
rmgreenesq
Lead Service Attendant
Im not sure why this is news now. I've seen the sniffer dogs and the TSA people swabbing luggage at Boston Route 128 for several months. They are generally unobtrusive and seem to focus on passengers boarding the Acela.
It must have been a slow news day.
Rick
It must have been a slow news day.
Rick
It's news because Amtrak issued a press release making it news. Besides this is an Amtrak initiative, not a TSA one, this will be done by Amtrak policemen. Although it may well have been due to pressure from the TSA.
yarrow
Engineer
increased security measures long overdue
i don't much agree with this article but read it if you wish
i don't much agree with this article but read it if you wish
Joel N. Weber II
Engineer
If thousands of people dying is the actual reason for doing something, anything, no matter how inconvenient, then why isn't more being done about fatal car accidents? Nobody seems to care much that the number of people who have died in car accidents each and every month in the US since 9/11 is roughly equal to the number of people who died in the WTC, and if we truly care about saving lives, I bet that redirecting all the money that has been spent on extra airline security since 9/11 to rebuilding dangerous intersections would be more effective at saving lives.
yarrow
Engineer
or treating and feeding starving and sick kids in the third world(or any world). they have no power. the military and industry do. who gets the bucks?
I think the biggest "danger" to the travelling public are some of the "Design your own terrorist attack" routines going on here.......
Bottom line is mass public transport is really undefenable against a random bloke with a boooomb in a rucksack, any show of security is just that, a show, unless you want hours of waiting to be screened and prodded by some hired in "Security Gimp" just to board a subway or tube train. Never going to happen, but if it makes the sheep happy then thats a good thing......
Quite sad that on both sides of the Atlantic people who should know better fall for this nonsense and see a brown man and his bomb hiding behind every corner.
Dont believe the hype.
Bottom line is mass public transport is really undefenable against a random bloke with a boooomb in a rucksack, any show of security is just that, a show, unless you want hours of waiting to be screened and prodded by some hired in "Security Gimp" just to board a subway or tube train. Never going to happen, but if it makes the sheep happy then thats a good thing......
Quite sad that on both sides of the Atlantic people who should know better fall for this nonsense and see a brown man and his bomb hiding behind every corner.
Dont believe the hype.
meatpuff
Train Attendant
Your straw man argument ignores all the evidence that commercial air travel security screening procedures have been very successful. With the terrible exception of September 11, 2001, the airliner hijackings and shoot-outs that happened frequently in the USA in the 1970s are almost unheard of in the last 25 years. These security screening procedures have contributed to making commerical air travel the safest form of travel (by deaths per passenger-mile) there is: taking Amtrak is less safe, even walking down the street is less safe. Furthermore, the perception of safety and great market success of domestic air travel (30,000 flights per day) has eliminated many long-distance car trips, saving scores more lives indirectly, since driving is about 25 times more deadly per passenger-mile.
The fact that driving kills 40,000 Americans each year is irrelevant to airline procedures. Specfically, this is a terrible argument for eliminating airline passenger security screening.
FWIW though, deaths from auto accidents have also steadily dropped, with an all-time low of 1.41 fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles in 2006, steadily down from 4.8 in 1970. But this certainly still is not good enough.
I find your views very cynical. American industry and the American consumer are helping to lift hundreds of millions out of poverty in the Third World every day. Just in China, American consumption has created tens of millions of jobs with wages that are rising all the time, where there simply were no jobs at any wage twenty years ago in many cases. American industry has facilitated this, and this may wind up being our nation's greatest gift to the world's poor. The federal government could spend $25 billion per year airdropping food and medicine in the Third World and would never be able to help as many people as globalization and American industry has. Whether you think globalization is good for America or not, it's hard to disagree that it has helped many millions of the world's poor.
As far as the military and government, well, the military is a mixed bag (particularly their latest interventions) and too expensive, but America will need some kind of military if they want to be heard. Meanwhile on the government side, the U.S. is the largest donor of foreign aid in the world; indeed, they probably should be as the world's largest economy, but they are. U.S. foreign aid has increased dramatically since 2000. Pres. Bush's actions to curb disease in Africa are especially exciting and hopeful. This trend needs to continue, because we do need to be doing a lot more.
Guys and/or gals, all is not as it should be in the world, I agree. But try to show a little optimism, or at least realism/rationality. Things are getting better all the time, be it in transportation safety or aid to the world's poor. I agree we have a long, long (long) way to go. But denying and not taking the time to understand the progress will lead us in the wrong direction even as we try to improve things.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
The US is an apple with a rotten core, a horror show on wheels. Cynicism is a good defense against it. We aren't entering a recession, we are entering a depression. A long depression, which we will recover from. But when we do, we will no longer, and never again, be the most powerful country in the world.
Hi-jackings were common because they were profitable, highly visible, and damned easy. We removed the damned easy component, and they've virtually disappeared. Whoop-de-doo. It doesn't demonstrate the effectiveness of increased security. The security as it stood was more than enough to deter amateur opportunists. Nothing will ever prevent a coordinated, intelligent, suicidal (key point) and malevolent organization from achieving their terrible ends.
You don't know finance. Our country is in terrible shape. The average American owes over $40,000 in credit card debt alone. Unemployment is going up and there isn't much room to fill the gap. We aren't going to be heard ever again, or if we do it is going to be a result of our own delusions. We can fund things that will help us, or we can fund a delusional military and generally ineffective comforts that we are doing something.
Hi-jackings were common because they were profitable, highly visible, and damned easy. We removed the damned easy component, and they've virtually disappeared. Whoop-de-doo. It doesn't demonstrate the effectiveness of increased security. The security as it stood was more than enough to deter amateur opportunists. Nothing will ever prevent a coordinated, intelligent, suicidal (key point) and malevolent organization from achieving their terrible ends.
You don't know finance. Our country is in terrible shape. The average American owes over $40,000 in credit card debt alone. Unemployment is going up and there isn't much room to fill the gap. We aren't going to be heard ever again, or if we do it is going to be a result of our own delusions. We can fund things that will help us, or we can fund a delusional military and generally ineffective comforts that we are doing something.
Alright, I shall speak seriously now.
This is my industry, this is it. Post 9/11 security in various public areas is me, I work specifically within skyscrapers, my design which while I am by no means the only one responsible for it, is the only post 9/11 design that is actually allowed to operate in the city, despite the various other attempts by my competitors, some have actually been installed but were forced to be turned off. However my company also is very present in the security of public transit, Buses and Subways.
Security cameras are the only form of technology, that can be currently integrated which allows a suitable compromise between the demands and safety of its users, unfortunately while there are technologies that will allow the security cameras to become active investigators they are not practical at this time. Cameras are still best for post act investigations. Truthfully, while we develop new technologies and concepts that can further strengthen the security of public transport, the high turnover rates of passengers still leave the best form of security to be the awareness of the people and the occasional hired gun on board.
This is my industry, this is it. Post 9/11 security in various public areas is me, I work specifically within skyscrapers, my design which while I am by no means the only one responsible for it, is the only post 9/11 design that is actually allowed to operate in the city, despite the various other attempts by my competitors, some have actually been installed but were forced to be turned off. However my company also is very present in the security of public transit, Buses and Subways.
Security cameras are the only form of technology, that can be currently integrated which allows a suitable compromise between the demands and safety of its users, unfortunately while there are technologies that will allow the security cameras to become active investigators they are not practical at this time. Cameras are still best for post act investigations. Truthfully, while we develop new technologies and concepts that can further strengthen the security of public transport, the high turnover rates of passengers still leave the best form of security to be the awareness of the people and the occasional hired gun on board.
wayman
Engineer
I beg to differ with all of your points, but the one I can quickly and easily discount is your credit card debt figure. A quick survey of articles regarding credit card debt give figures from $8200-$9200 average *household* credit card debt for households *with at least one* credit card. There are some households with no credit cards. Most people owe *nothing* in credit card debt; most households with credit card debt owe less than $2000; only 1 in 20 households owes more than $8000.
It's simply nowhere near the numbers you gave.
And that's by and large true for the larger economic picture, too.
Dakguy201
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 67
I have little problem with the use of bomb detection dogs in public faciilities. I've seen that kind of presence, and I do not feel it is nearly as intrusive as metal detectors or the usual airport screening. Also, I suspect the presence of ANY dog who appeared to be working would scare a would-be terriorist to the point his conduct would make him stand out from the crowd.
Green Maned Lion
Engineer
It would also scare people who are simply afraid of dogs, and be a major hassle for them, too.
If you want to discuss my views on American economics, I'd be glad to on AIM, my aim screen name is in my profile.
If you want to discuss my views on American economics, I'd be glad to on AIM, my aim screen name is in my profile.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement RFP discussion 2024 H1- Latest: Paniolo Man
-
-
St. Paul, Milwaukee, Chicago (TCMC) second daily service
- Latest: Metra Electric Rider
