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.
The military suggestion is also slightly extreme because it’s meant to point out how “not serious” our responses have been.
Many of us have become accustomed to seeing open drug use, seeing violent outbursts in public spaces, vandalism, ODs, etc. but we shouldn’t be. If we actually care about those dealing with addictions AND everyone else, the approach many Canadian/American cities have taken the last 15 years isn’t compassionate, safe, or working.
I’m with you on the car stuff, but it’s a bit off topic. I bike with a baby and sometimes people comment on the “safety” of it. I often joke that they’d never say that about me driving the baby to jasper on highway 16, even though serious and fatal crashes happen more there than me biking MUPS in the river valley! So I’m with ya.
But there is also perception. Even if an assault doesn’t happen, gang members, people high on drugs, or those uttering violent threats is enough to make many people not use transit again unless they have to (another way out inaction harms vulnerable people most…the elderly, lower income earners, immigrants, the disabled).
And as many people say “why don’t we address the root cause”. Of course. Military solves squat for that. But that’s a seperate goal, and a generational challenge. It’s so multifaceted. It’s about kids having safe homes and the foster system, it’s about access to drugs, it’s about stopping gangs, it’s about social supports, employment, affordable housing, addiction and recovery programs, domestic violence and counselling, etc. those that act like “housing” fixes everything are just as simple minded as the idea that “military fixes” this.
But we need a separate goal. 1) all the drug, homelessness, poverty challenges needs work.
But a seperate goal (yes related, but not fully dependent), is 2) transit safety. Our transit will be safer if we make progress on those first, for sure. Our transit can also be safe while we still continue the long journey to solve those more complex issues. See Vancouver and many other cities. Safe transit, clean stations, protection of critical infrastructure for the good of all residents. Yet, still a massive amount of work to do on drugs and houselessness.
The military suggestion is simply an extreme way to point out that 1) our city and others have failed 2) our sense of urgency has been so lackluster that we seen hundreds of serious violent offences and thousands of issues every year for 5+ years now. 3) we’ve completely lost public trust in the current approach and only an extreme approach will rebuild the average persons trust.
The slow addition of a few more security guards and peace officers…even if it legitimately makes stuff a few percentage points better… does nothing for everyone that’s sworn off transit. And it does nothing to the criminals that continue to exploit our transit and harm others with 0 fear of consequences for their illegal behaviour.
What did airports do after 9/11? They beefed up security hard and noticeably (I remember military men with machine guns while going to Disneyland in 2002 in the airport). Some of that was legit to try to stop future attacks. But also it’s an attempt to make the general public feel safer and that action is being taken.
When a 5”4 security guard with 0 weapons and who walks around texting all day gets added to an LRT station, I don’t feel any better. That’s the problem. We don’t allow gangs and drugs inside schools, we shouldn’t allow them inside LRTs stations. 1 guy high on drugs walks through a school park and we do a school lockdown and call the police. Think of the difference in response. Kids still use our LRT, yet people with knives and drugs are around all the time. It’s all a choice and about priorities and what we choose to tolerate.
My personal opinion is that tolerating any of this is transit is completely unacceptable and I think the general public has also voiced that by the steep decline in public safety perceptions and transit use, and all the negative stuff written online.
