trevorhayden
Active Member
Exactly. How is ETS allowed to run 1-car trains during rush hour? That should be criminal.
Yes, I agree some kind of dedicated transit police would be better.Can't really blame the security officers who have no means of defending themselves when a potential issue arises.
And all they can do is call EPS/Peace Officers to come assist them and by the time most of them arrive, they suspects have probably taken off.
I maintain a dedicated transit police of some kind (EPS/Peace Officers, etc.) needs to be an option, and not just a once in a while thing.
there has been a noted increase of Peace Officers and police on the system, but they need to be spread out not a gaggle of 6 ticketing 1 guy at century while trains come and go and not 1 person was fair checked, meanwhile things be happening elsewhere.We don't need the military, we just need a bit more enforcement than the so called security guards often hiding in the corner, texting or ignoring problems.
Who are never around…Peace officers that we’ve had for years…? Not working so well…
1) We don’t exactly have the largest and most disposable military personnel, and this would open up a huge can of worms for municipalities wanting the feds to deploy troops to… transit centres?The challenge is 1) training new officers (police/peace) takes a lot of time and money 2) it’s city money vs federal 3) we use a lot of security who have little sense of intimidation or physical training to stop criminals. Your average male college athlete could probably beat up most of our transit police…without being on meth or using knives…
We have to stop pretending all issues are simply poverty. This is about crime. Drug use in areas that should be safe for kids, the elderly, etc is a crime. Full stop. If you aren’t cool with a teacher or sports coach for your kids doing tranq, why are you justifying any tolerance of it on transit. Kids use that space and need to be protected. This isn’t a bar, adult area, or even a sports venue where we tolerate a bit more “intoxication” as a society and that no one is forced to go to.
This is key infrastructure that many people depend on and deserve to be safe and protected on.
Our current approach isn’t working.
This is a national crisis in every city.
We can’t afford to pay for turnstiles and police to the level we likely need.
So the federal government should deploy its resources (military) to protect its citizens.
All sorts of cities do this globally, usually due to tourism being higher/terrorism risk, or due to simply higher military presence in their society. Our time to make changes.
EPS has officers dedicated to Transit. While fare checks have been rare for me, one time it was by EPS.EPS is only called onto transit if there's a criminal matter taking place.
EPS has a couple of transit-dedicated police teams, and I believe they said a few months ago they're on track to have 50 total officers dedicated to transit by end of year.EPS is only called onto transit if there's a criminal matter taking place. TPOs and private security deal with most security issues.
Going off that first point, the military is being hampered enough by wildfire response; transit security duty would take soldiers away from much needed training and preparation time. And speaking of useless: During the High Level Flood response, they were tasked by a very overstretched and underresourced RCMP to help keep people out of the town. The military was very much against crossing "the line" into conducting operations against Canadians, so they agreed to station soldiers and a vehicle at one checkpoint, on one condition: They were completely for show. People trying to enter were naturally intimidated by seeing soldiers with guns, and turned away on their own accord. But had they pressed on, they could have entered the town without so much as a verbal warning.1) We don’t exactly have the largest and most disposable military personnel, and this would open up a huge can of worms for municipalities wanting the feds to deploy troops to… transit centres?
Again, it’s a strawman to end your comments with such exaggerated stupidity. Insinuating that’s an equivalent act to what I’m calling for is just intellectually dishonest.1) We don’t exactly have the largest and most disposable military personnel, and this would open up a huge can of worms for municipalities wanting the feds to deploy troops to… transit centres?
2) Well it should be considering it’s an issue in municipally owned and run facilities. I think they should ask for some help from the feds, but it is not their job to step in.
3) The security on transit is not peace officers or police, they are contracted and their job is purely to dissuade bad behaviour and to have eyes on the platform.
“We have to stop pretending all issues are simply poverty. This is about crime.” Woof. I don’t know how to respond to this comment. I can’t really process the ignorance and simplicity applied here.
Deploying the military on our own citizens is just as useless an idea as everything else that doesn’t address the actual societal problems that have caused the high drug use in ETS facilities. For fare evasion? I think fare gates are worth the cost. But for homeless people? Getting the feds to spend a bunch on troops to kick homeless people out of transit facilities (which is actually not their job, fun fact!) and pulling military resources away from our already underfunded military will not make the problem magically disappear.
I would bet that running red lights is far more common than violence towards bystanders on transit, and therefore poses a more significant risk to lives. So how about we get a tank at every major intersection with their gun pointed at random drivers they think *might* run a red. That’s a reasonable use of resources, right??
I’m exaggerating slightly because I don’t wish to take this completely ridiculous idea seriously. Most people consider traffic deaths and violence to be normal, despite the huge loss of life that it brings, but it doesn’t make me intellectually dishonest to use it in a comparison, it just ignores the normalization of the crime. Idk about you but I consider drivers a far greater danger to those walking (undeniably inclusive of transit users) than violent people on the train. Tanks or other military equipment at intersections would intimidate drivers and likely lead to fewer traffic violations. I’m not saying we should do this, I’m purely making the comparison to show how dumb this idea is.Again, it’s a strawman to end your comments with such exaggerated stupidity. Insinuating that’s an equivalent act to what I’m calling for is just intellectually dishonest.
1-2) we use troops for many other emergencies to help bolster manpower when we are under resourced. And sure, transit is a municipal area mostly…but it’s also given tens of billions by the feds and provinces. And many of the legal challenges and drug crisis epidemic issues we are seeing are considered national problems. Housing, healthcare, security, gangs, weapons, black markets…those aren’t on a city to tackle by themselves.
And again, many other countries…”western” “wealthy” countries use military or highly armed/trained personnel in transit systems. It’s not like it’s a radical idea.
What’s radical is not taking swift action when guns, knives, needles, ODs, and violence are happening weekly on a transit system 10%+ of our resident depend on.
“Deploying on our citizens”. Dude, that’s a twist. How about “deploying to our stations to protect vulnerable citizens from those committing crimes and violence”?
It’s not about homeless people. It’s about criminals. They’re not the same. But too many progressives let criminals hide behind the actual victims of houselessness and poverty.
You seem to be suggesting all issues are related to poverty? You don’t think theres any personal agency to crime? When a grandma gets pushed on the train tracks by a red alert gang member doing an initiation task, should her family should feel sorry for the gang member and not demand better protection?
The military suggestion is also slightly extreme because it’s meant to point out how “not serious” our responses have been.I’m exaggerating slightly because I don’t wish to take this completely ridiculous idea seriously. Most people consider traffic deaths and violence to be normal, despite the huge loss of life that it brings, but it doesn’t make me intellectually dishonest to use it in a comparison, it just ignores the normalization of the crime. Idk about you but I consider drivers a far greater danger to those walking (undeniably inclusive of transit users) than violent people on the train. Tanks or other military equipment at intersections would intimidate drivers and likely lead to fewer traffic violations. I’m not saying we should do this, I’m purely making the comparison to show how dumb this idea is.
As CplKlinger said before, the military itself is against enforcing local laws on Canadian citizens, which is what you are proposing. The Canadian military steps in when there is an imminent emergency like a natural disaster. Not someone smoking crack at Churchill station.
I find it funny that you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty while in the same breath deny the connection between homelessness and disorder on transit. “Taking swift action” on disorder on city property isn’t a novel, never-attempted strategy, and it inherently targets homeless people because that’s by far the largest source of disorder on transit. That’s the approach that’s used time and time again and it doesn’t work. When EPS disassembled homeless encampments, they characterized this action as for the sake of public safety. They then justified that showing the weapons they found. Did that suddenly fix any problems? Would it have worked if the military had done it? I do think the military has a part to play in combatting the root causes of the drug problem (and similarly the gang problem) since you’re right, they are national crises, and doing this work is actually part of their job. None of that happens on an LRT platform.
This is a nice sentiment in theory, and is currently being attempted. The problem is you can't help people who don't want help.OR
We could continue advocating to get help for these folks. How has the city been doing with providing help to these folks? The non-violent ones perhaps as the violent ones tend to be repeat offenders.
Violent criminals are much more complex. I think more investments in youth programs, as some of the LRT's violent offenders are, may be a better spending so they're not tempted on joining gangs or worse, criminal organizations.
The destroyed doors on Corona Station are still boarded over. I think it has been a year or two now. It gives the impression that upkeep and security on our LRT system are a low priority for our city.EPS is only called onto transit if there's a criminal matter taking place. TPOs and private security deal with most security issues. When things were really bad a year and we had the safety task force that's why the province said publicly they expected Edmonton to hand over transit policing to EPS, which hasn't happened and is obviously more expensive.
Also it's summer, there's less issues in general. We'll see how things are once the weather turns.
The shelter doors on many or most of the Valley Line stations are still broken or don't work. Just take them off and stop trying to fix them. It's a stupid design that can never work properly and will always be vandalized and provides a place for people to do drugs, particularly at the Downtown stations.