Terrorism and Transportation Choice
Jay Andress
Dennis Manning
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
Jack Slade
I see that they mention the problem of people carrying guns on trains. When I fly, here is the problem that bothers me most:
The well-meaning people on the plane have all been disarmed. If a terrorist with a gun slips past security,what am I supposed to do, throw my laptop at him?
Jack Slade
|
Dennis Manning
badger
alone up there.if anything happens,it's up to the real people. who
else is there to stop terrorists on every flight-the stewardesses?
On Feb 3, 5:15 pm, "Dennis Manning" <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Given what terrorists are using these days worrying about guns doesn't seem to be what one would worry about the most. Explosives are in these days.
>
> I hope you aren't suggesting that regular passengers be "armed". That's what your statement hints at.
>
> From: Jack Slade
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:21 PM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Terrorism and Transportation Choice
>
> I see that they mention the problem of people carrying guns on trains. When I fly, here is the problem that bothers me most:
>
> The well-meaning people on the plane have all been disarmed. If a terrorist with a gun slips past security,what am I supposed to do, throw my laptop at him?
>
> Jack Slade
>
> --- On Wed, 2/3/10, Dennis Manning <john.manni...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> From: Dennis Manning <john.manni...@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: [t-i] Terrorism and Transportation Choice
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 3, 2010, 8:25 PM
>
> Here's some timely discussion of the issue as regards HSR:
>
> http://www.infrastructurist.com/2010/02/02/how-much-security-do-we-ne...
>
> From: Jay Andress
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:09 AM
> To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [t-i] Terrorism and Transportation Choice
>
> Thought it would be interesting to introduce a different topic with some relevance....that terrorism could have more to do with future transportation system choice than economics and environment.
>
> The subject really gained momentum with the narrowly averted December plane bombing. Unfortunately this explosive looks like sugar and can easily destroy an airplane with a small amount. It could be just a matter of time before the terrorists are able to attack transportation systems AT WILL . This is a very troublesome idea. The results would be mass exit from trains and airplanes...but to what??? I would guess that the gasoline automobile is probably the least vulnerable.
>
> Under separate email I am sending an article from today's NY Times that has national security experts predicting a major attack on the US within the next six months. The article talks mostly about a cyber attack but this seems inconsistent with the expertise of terrorists and their usual mode of operations.
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
Dennis Manning
"normal" passenger?
--------------------------------------------------
From: "badger" <bad...@tellurian.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:03 PM
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [t-i] Re: Terrorism and Transportation Choice
Jack Slade
I wasn't " Hinting". Most of these people dont really have any guts. There is no way they would even get on a plane if they knew the passengers had a way to take them out.
Not all of us are beginners. My Militay training was such that I am an expert with firearms, and I know that a large segment of the population have been similiarly trained during their term of service. The first leader to disarm his population was....Guess who? |
Jack Slade
Dennis, we went through the whole buildup of aviation mostly in the years 1945 to 2000 without having to restrict firearms on aircraft.
During thise years, can you name me one problem that ever occurred, or one persin that was ever injured? If you can, it certainly did not ever get published in the aircraft accident and incident reports that I was reading constantly during that period.
Lesser of 2 evils....which would you prefer,(1) a trained, armed, passenger or (2) a terrorist who has total freedom to kill everybody on board? If you really want to put the fear of Allah into these terrorists, you should make it be known that ALL your bullets have been dipped in pig blood. All the Military bullets, too.
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jay Andress
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Dennis Manning
Jack Slade
You are thinking it backwards.. If a terrorist has managed to get on board with his pre-planned equipment, the whole plane comes down, unless there is somebody there to stop him.
If you think that one bullet will bring a plane down, after passing through the body of a terrorist. you know nothing about ballistics, and even less about planes. Why not leave the planning to people who know both?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Slade
No they don't. If they just wanted to die they could jump off a bridge. Their weird belief is that they are assured a place in Valhalla (Heaven, in our language) by killing a bunch of us "Infidels". Suicide alone does not get them there. You have to understand the motivation before you understand what you are trying to combat.
Jack Slade |
Jerry Roane
Going toward motivation at an early age it is important to help the children understand there are alternatives to the suicide path. Until we change the hearts of the natural man on a mass scale these kinds of things will happen. Shooting information to the young has more wisdom than dealing with the crazies later. I agree with you on arming the appropriate people on a plane but the airlines took the British approach to policing. The full body scan has to be implemented as well as letting the security professionals do their jobs without too much assistance from the legal perversions of the world. This is off topic but at the same time on topic because any transportation network or any 7/11 needs some assured level of safety for the average person to be a patron. Our system will have an incredible number of cameras and digital storage of the history in and around the guideway. We could not avoid evil being evil but we will be better able to play back the video after the fact to hunt down the supporters of the evil and end them.
Jerry Roane
Jay Andress
Dennis Manning
Dennis Manning
Jack Slade
Hunting down perpetrators and putting them on trial is the approach we take here in Canada. It is small consolation to the dead. We just finished a terrorism trial here that should have made world-wide headlines... The Leader of a group of 18, who planned to blow up large buildings in Toronto, and our Parliament Building, was given 9 years. The 2 years he spent in jail awaiting trial counts for 4 years of this, so with good behaviour he will be out on 3.5 years.
This is a Deterrent? In 31/2 years he will still be a terrorist, only smarter, so he won't get caught until after the damage is done. This group had accumulated 3 times as much explovises as used in the Oklahoma bombing.
If this is the kind of deterrent you want, you are welcome to it..
I still believe in my Military Training.
|
|
|
Jerry Roane
Could you comment more on how a linear track is more vulnerable than a highway bridge. It appears to me that if you take out a 6 lane highway bridge that you would disrupt more traffic flow than any other target. When the military attacks a city the bridges are the first to go if it is a real attack. With vulnerable guideway wouldn't the night crew just put out more guideway and be up by the next week? A single blown up highway bridge would take a year to rebuild with its 18,720 per hour capacity shut down for the duration. (1.3 passengers per car, 2400 cars per lane, 6 lanes) If a guideway section is missing for whatever reason the dual mode cars just drive around the problem so I do not understand your comment.
Jerry Roane
Michael Weidler
| Excuse me, but I seem to recall that guns were not allowed on planes even before 9-11. |
--- On Wed, 2/3/10, Dennis Manning <john.m...@comcast.net> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
| If I wanted to bring this country to its knees, I would blow up several key Interstate Highway overpasses. |
--- On Fri, 2/5/10, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Jerry Roane
"Hupp had actually brought a handgun to the Luby's Cafeteria that day but had left it in her vehicle because laws in force at the time forbade citizens from carrying firearms. According to her later testimony in favor of Missouri's HB-1720 bill and in general, after she realized that her firearm was not in her purse but "a hundred feet away in [her] car," her father charged at Hennard in an attempt to subdue him but was gunned down; a short time later, Hupp's mother was also shot and killed. Hupp later expressed regret for abiding by the law"
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre Notice I never gave the crazy's name even though mentioning his act still gives too much credence. Evil does have us in a headlock.
Jerry
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Jay Andress
Jerry Roane
You are correct that in the starting days of the automobile that it needed to go off roading but those days are absolutely over. When was the last time you were required to bog through the mud to get where you were going? Massively parallel is the answer and build them back faster than they are removed. A dual mode electric with a towable trailer running on cleaner burning propane will give further range than a gas guzzler with side tanks. The one (none) time when you have to escape to the hills because of the Iranian attack hardly justifies any change in choices. The survival excuse is not valid or if you think it is valid you are probably part of the crazies also.
Jerry Roane
Robbert Lohmann
hurry!
In general the number of casualties or the image are aspects of
interest to terrorists. In principle PRT has less potential
casualties, so should be less interesting. On the other hand, it has
an image, which makes it more interesting. It will be most important
to protect against people blowing themselves up in/near stations where
larger crowds are located. There are all new kinds of techniques with
intelligent camera's, both at stations and inside vehicles, that can
(partly) help to protect against this. But in this day and age, you
can never assure, like on any other transit system, that people are a
100% safe.
It only takes one guy, one gun, and he might not even be a terrorist,
to be 'temporarily not accountable' to kill people and the image of
the system...
Robbert
Jack Slade
If you can properly match PRT to the area served, the crowd buildup at the station should be smaller than any other transit form. Crowds are formed by people waiting for a scheduled system, which PRT isn't.
Crowds mean that people are gathering faster than the system can take them away, and proper design can eliminate most of this by matching station capability to the area it serves.
There are so many other areas where people congregate that I don't think PRT would be a very likely target. Having said that, I know you can't rule out anything when you are dealing with Nuts.
|
|
|
Dennis Manning
Kirston Henderson
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail® Transportation Systems, Inc.
Jerry Roane
That is quite a list. I can tell you that Roane Inventions has not been contacted by any one of them. I did send a letter of intent and am listed as one of just a few companies on that list. I think I am not supposed to talk to the city staff or at least that is the impression I get.
It also looks like my last big deal fell through I was chatting about. On super bowl weekend I just block sanded.
Jerry Roane
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
Richard Gronning
I thought that you might be interested in this list.
Dick
Dennis Manning
Jay Andress
Michael Weidler
| Jay, Autos are not the issue here. Freight movement is the issue. |
--- On Sat, 2/6/10, Jay Andress <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: |
Brad Templeton
While many have been wondering about how the fear of terror attacks
may drive people away from mass transit (such as airplanes and trains)
which can be a terror target, sadly the fear of terrorists may be a
big curse upon personal transit such as PRT and robocars.
That's because it's hard to design these systems so somebody can't
load a pod car up with a very big bomb and then command it to go to
the target.
I can think of various tricks to try to stop this, ranging all the way
to forcing passengers to solve a Turing test before approaching a
station, or checking for respiration or demanding movement but they're
all ugly and most of them can be defeated by somebody evil and
clever. The main one that can't be defeated is a major burden --
not letting the tracks get anywhere near crowded areas or important
destinations -- certainly never running inside buildings. It also
demands never having crowded PRT stations, such as might be found at a
stadium when the game is over.
That doesn't leave you with much of a transportation system.
PRT and robots eliminate the need for the terrorist to commit suicide,
and in fact run the risk of being used simply as weapons for murder or
other non-political violence, if your target lives or works next to
track.
Jay Andress
Dennis Manning
Jerry Roane
That is very interesting. I was sent an email asking me to bid on an eco park the state of Connecticut wants to build on an old landfill location and they specifically state that the money spent has to abide by the buy-American concept. It also says women owned and minority bid participants have a prejudicial point advantage in the way the bids are scored. I could have bid that job had I not been born white and male and if my suppliers were not from China. I guess buy-American is not applied in this case.
Jerry Roane
Brad Templeton
be a bomber without the annoying suicide part.
We react to terrorism by defending against the attacks of the past.
After the unabomber mails a bomb, we change the postal system so you
can't put heavy mail stamped into a mailbox and other changes. After
somebody puts a bomb in his shoes we make people take off their
shoes. It's how it operates.
If somebody decides to load up PRTs with bombs (and one could even go
to a station with 50 small bombs and blow up 50 remote stations
simultaneously) then they will try to clamp down on the PRT, and
that's very tough, because you can't have security at PRT stations,
which are inherently unmanned in most PRT visions.
On Feb 8, 1:02 pm, Jay Andress <andress....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brad,
>
> You raise a point that I was just going to bring up myself. However if
> you consider the fact that many of the bombers are suicide bombers then
> automobiles and trucks are already guided vehicles.
> I think the nearest term problem is with airplanes. If there are
> widespread attacks on airplanes this world will become a vastly different
> place with personal freedoms curtailed and commerce hurt.
> To stray off topic for a minute...the dumbest thing that terrorists could
> do is attack the US public (however they are obviously going to do it). With
> Pearl Harbour, the Iranian Hostage Situation...which led to the election of
> Reagan, to 9/11...the American public will respond forcefully if provoked.
> I don't think it will ever come to widespread terrorism in non-Muslim
> areas.
> Jay
>
> > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
Hengning Wu
--
Jack Slade
Unmanned does not mean that somebody will not be watching a video if what is happening at each station. While some of us contemplate freight via PRT, that will not happen from people-stations, and freight-shipping stations are going to need operators. Freight also pays more, per pound, than people, so it will still be profitable.
I am just pointing out that PRT is not the easiest target....more trouble, small damage, greater chance of getting your picture taken. It would take almost as much planning as blowing up a football stadium. If things ever degenerate to that extent we will also have a very different approach to anti-terrorism than we have now, and little old ladies will not be the people manning the security check-lines.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Slade
Some companies are guilty of over-engineering ....designing non-critical parts with the same tolerance they apply to more important parts:
Example: You can build a foot-pedal with a one-thou tolerance in the hinge pin, and it will work in the Lab forever. Install it in a vehicle where the pin begins to rust, and it may begin to stiffen up or bind after a period of time.
I have had to re-design things built like this on several vehicles in the past, and they were not Toyotas.
|
Brad Templeton
Really, video surveillance at every PRT station? I mean yes, you can
do that, but it seems for any full PRT network it would cost a lot.
I think it would also be a shame to only allow cargo from cargo
shippers. If I need to get something to you I would love to be able
to just quickly drop it at any station and you go to your station to
pick it up, if they are close.
On Feb 8, 10:01 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Unmanned does not mean that somebody will not be watching a video if what is happening at each station. While some of us contemplate freight via PRT, that will not happen from people-stations, and freight-shipping stations are going to need operators. Freight also pays more, per pound, than people, so it will still be profitable.
>
> I am just pointing out that PRT is not the easiest target....more trouble, small damage, greater chance of getting your picture taken. It would take almost as much planning as blowing up a football stadium. If things ever degenerate to that extent we will also have a very different approach to anti-terrorism than we have now, and little old ladies will not be the people manning the security check-lines.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Brad Templeton <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Reagan, to 9/11...the American public will respond forcefully if provoked..
> > > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
> > > .
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.
David Maymudes
> Really, video surveillance at every PRT station? I mean yes, you can
> do that, but it seems for any full PRT network it would cost a lot.
are you worried about equipment costs, or staffing costs? you pretty much already need to have a network anywhere the track goes, so we're just talking about a $200 network camera... probably the most expensive part is making it vandal-proof, so I think it's a pretty minor cost even for a cheap $250K PRT station. (that's for Taxi2000-style all-elevated systems; I can see what you're saying more for at grade systems that are more like a bus shelter)
and, again, you pretty much need to have an operations staff 24/7, so you've already got people sitting around waiting for things to happen... the biggest challenge may be thinking up enough things for them to do between terrorist incidents that they don't fall asleep or go crazy.
Our current plan is that there's video surveillance in each *vehicle* too, which is a bigger cost than the stations... obviously many things to balance here between customer service/privacy/security/cost. I don't know what ULTra's current vehicles do; obviously they're on an airport where there's a heightened background police presence in any case.
Jay Andress
Michael Weidler
How about we solve this "unsolvable" with a simple load cell and the fact that the pod can't go anywhere unless the door is closed. |
--- On Mon, 2/8/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
Michael Weidler
| --- On Tue, 2/9/10, Brad Templeton <bra...@gmail.com> wrote: |
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Slade
It is much cheaper to install video than it is to pay an attendant. I don't want to be like a railroad and keep all the farebox for myself.
When freight is shipped, I think you will find that you have to follow whatever rules the Company has put in place, just as you do now, no matter what the carrier is. I follow your thought, but freight doesn't load itself as people do.
However, shipping from a passenger terminal might be a good idea, as that would permit me to have an attendant at each station, and a way to pay them other than farebox. I still would not permit people I don't know put packages in my cars. That would be the attendant's job....you pay him, and he does the loading.
I am not a Government, so he would do racial profiling, and X-rays
Jack Slade |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce Attah
With PRT, the terrorist has to go to a station, which is likely to be
monitored, and quickly load the bomb without being noticed and
stopped, and then subvert the system which is designed to ensure the
vehicle does not move until the door is closed and someone on board
presses the "start" button, and then hope that the the system doesn't
notice something is wrong and divert the vehicle from its target
destination. Not impossible, but not ideal from the terrorist's point
of view.
Cars are much more convenient for the would-be terrorist bomber than
PRT. A terrorist can go somewhere out of sight and take their time
loading a car with bombs, before driving it to the target area,
parking it, walking away, and then detonating it remotely. This has
been done many times in the past.
Buses, trains, trucks, etc., are even bigger bomb threats, and in the
case of buses and passenger trains, there's not even any need to go
anywhere in search of a target - a convenient target is already on
board the vehicle.
Jack Slade
It is even easier than that for track systems like railroads. One wreck was caused here in Canada a few years ago by a juvenile and an older idiot whose motivation was just that they wanted to see a train wreck.
The method was simple. They dragged a piece of heavy iron across the tracks, out in the countryside where there is nobody monitoring anything, and waited to watch a passenger train de-rail at full speed. It is difficult to make trains or anything else idiot-proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Templeton
Such measures do impede with a lot of useful abilities, like putting
mommy putting a child on the PRT, and programming it to send the child
to mommy who is waiting at the destination station, and of course the
highly valuable cargo use. It's hard to stop a person from putting
their suitcase in the PRT and getting off. If you won't let them code
the destination before the door closes, it's a little harder but not
that bad.
Or is their video surveillance in every pod car too?
As to cargo -- I think moving cargo will be one of the big
applications for PRT/Robots -- in some cases as big as moving
people. As to how this works, the professional shippers don't ship
until the receiver has indicated on their mobile that they are at or
near the destination station, so the vehicles do not wait. If the
recipient does not show up, the car does not come into the station
until they signal they are close to it, and they pay by the minute to
hold the car as the price of being late.
For shippers who don't have a PRT station in their warehouse, they can
either coordinate with their recipient, pay by the minute to keep the
vehicle holding the cargo, or ship to a warehouse that holds the cargo
until the recipient signals being ready to go get the package.
> > > > > transport-innova...@googlegroups.com<transport-innovators%2Bun subs...@googlegroups.com>
Bruce Attah
> Such measures do impede with a lot of useful abilities, like putting
> mommy putting a child on the PRT, and programming it to send the child
> to mommy who is waiting at the destination station,
I'm not sure the above described ability is a good feature. If a child
is too young to press the "go" button themselves, they probably
shouldn't be in the vehicle on their own.
> and of course the
> highly valuable cargo use. It's hard to stop a person from putting
> their suitcase in the PRT and getting off. If you won't let them code
> the destination before the door closes, it's a little harder but not
> that bad.
Unaccompanied cargo should probably use separate, specialized
stations, with different security measures.
> Or is their video surveillance in every pod car too?
Buses and trains normally have video surveillance on board. Why should
PRT necessarily be different?