BART directors to management: stop using terrorism "fearmongering"
BART, the Bay Area's metro line, is debating whether or not to allow drinks on trains. As Schneier points out, there are plenty of reasons to ban drinks on the carpeted (!) trains, like spills. But the BART management have invoked fears of terrorists bearing Super Big Gulps filled with lighter fluid to try to make their point.
Just another stupid terrorism scare? Nope! The BART's top bosses have clobbered management for invoking terrorism to get their way, calling it "fearmongering."
Added Director Tom Radulovich, "If somebody wants to break the law and bring flammable liquids on, they can. It's not like al Qaeda is waiting in their caves for us to have a sippy-cup rule."BART debates allowing drinks on trains (via Schneier)Directing his comments to BART administrators, he said, "You know, it's just fearmongering and you should be ashamed."
the latest
latest episodes
Drinks are not allowed because BART trains have carpeted floors (so nice when they're clean, and they also have the effect of dampening a lot of the rail sound). Carrying a sealed drink or bottle is perfectly acceptable.
A note: BART director Tom Radulovich is up for re-election this election cycle. After reading his comments RE: the sensationalist managers, I'm very happy to vote him back in to office.
First they came for the sippy-cups.
Remove that man from his job immediately: he is displaying signs of common sense.
What? A public official with common sense? Holy fright, it's...it's...unheard of!
Good for him!!
Some of the newer BART trains are uncarpeted, thank goodness, so that's one more strike against the terrorist juice stains.
I've dealt with Director Radulovich before, and he really does have his head on straight in a way that is completely surprising for someone in an elected position. He has common sense, isn't afraid to call people on bullshit, and makes decisions for the people.
That is probably the most intelligent thing I've EVER heard a politician say on the topic of terrorism.
The debate on whether to permit drinks on BART has been going on for a long time and it's quite entertaining. My favorite episode so far was when one of the directors held a news conference to demonstrate how spill-proof the reusable sippy cup that BART was proposing to sell was--and the lid came off and spilled the contents all over. The terrorism thing is a close second!
Why stop there? Explosives aren't really any more dangerous on trains than any crowded place, so I suggest we ban all liquids in public. Also, solids.
@Moriarty
Clearly then the law abiding terrorists will resort to their old standby - poison gas. Only plasmas should be allowed in public.
As a BART rider I agree there are good reasons to discourage drinks, especially during rush hour when people are squeezed in like sardines and spills most likely.
But TERRORISM? Christ. You can bring a suitcase big enough to hide a nuclear warhead without getting screened, so why the hell would a terrorist choose to hide his weapon in a pepsi can?
Tom Radulovich, way to grow a pair.
Isn't a politician with common sense one of the signs of the Apocalypse?
Hold me, I'm scared.
Yeah, worth noting that you can bring whatever drink you like on BART right now, so long as you stuff it into your bag instead of sitting there drinking out of it. Unless our hypothetical supervillain is sitting there taking swigs out of his waterbottle full of boom-juice this rule ain't doing a whole lot to protect anybody.
Kudos to Tom Radulovich, he's plainly a clear thinker and a capable public servant and I look forward to his being forced out of office via some sort of asinine sex scandal with all the haste our political establishment can muster.
Excellent work-- the terrorism comment was a lazy attempt by BART management to make the sippy-cups-on-BART question disappear. Still, it's unclear that allowing drinking on the trains is something that (1) people want and (2) will solve any issue. What subway systems _do_ allow drinking on trains? I've never ridden a system that didn't prohibit eating and drinking.
@ #14 - The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) may officially forbid food & drinks on the subways & buses (although I don't see it in the bylaws http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/by_law1.htm), but I've never seen it enforced. In fact, the TTC often holds a fund-raiser where they sell pizza slices in subway stations, and just about every subway station has a little shop that sells food & beverages (inside the station, after you've paid your fare). I've occasionally seen spills, but not too often.
@#14: really ? i guess you've never been to NYC. it's practically mandatory there. and you have to leave the wrappers and cups smeared all over the floor. those are the rules.
Plenty of public servants have common sense.
The amazing part here is that said public servant was in a position where he was actually allowed to use it, and did so.
It's usually a career ending move for a professional bureaucrat.
Now maybe BART will reopen bathrooms in most of their major stops. I didnt buy the excuse of "securtiy measure" for keeping bathrooms locked after 9/11, and I sure dont buy it now.
Yeah, trying to invoke terrorism is way stupid.
About drinks, the NYC subway system doesn't prohibit drinks or food at all (or if they do they never enforce it).
So, subway cars and platforms are frequently covered in garbage and sticky syrups, and the tracks are also usually covered in garbage and rats nests.
It's pretty nasty, and probably costs the city a lot to clean.
But, it is so convenient to be able to have my breakfast on the subway on the way to work, or have a few beers on my way to a party.
Keeping drinks out of the train is a good idea though, I was just on the DC Metro, and was blown away at how clean everything was!
It made the whole experience much more pleasant.
Interesting that New Yorkers are such jerks about their ability to eat on the train...
We're allowed to eat and drink on the buses in Ottawa (Canada), and aside from the occasional empty water bottle rolling around in the summer (and I do mean occasional) things are pretty tidy and non-sticky.
It might help that we have a (tiny) garbage pail on every bus, and a (usually overflowing) garbage can at about half the bus stops, I suppose.
Or perhaps people in Ottawa just litter less than you folks in New Yawk. :D
I don't have a source to back this up, but I have heard that original plans for BART included coffee dispensers in each train.
suddenoutbreakofcommonsense
Oops. Forgot which site I was on.
'bout freakin' time.
BART used to allow food & drink, long before my time as a rider. The thing about them forbidding it now because of carpet cleaning is kinda silly though. I understand it's literal intent, but de facto people barf and pee and poop on BART all the time and they're cleaning the carpets anyway. So I don't see how not having food and drinks on there is saving us any money.
Take into consideration the people who may save a half hour out of their day eating on their way to work. That's an extra half hour of sleep, work or playing with the kids we all stand to gain from food on BART.
And terrorism: If they're legitimately going to ban things that could be flammable, maybe we should check our backpacks, briefcases, suitcases, laptop bags etc at the door too. What could fit in that volume of space is far more dangerous than what could fit in a starbucks cup.
#19: Yeah, it was dumb when they closed the bathrooms, dumb when they took all the trash cans out of the stations, and dumb when people can't drink coffee in the morning. Now, about those kids and their sunflower seeds. ;)
Can we spend the drink clean-up money on keeping the BART open after 2am instead?
bart? more like fart.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The CalTrain commuter rail system serves a corridor between San Francisco's SOMA district, and San Jose.
The trains are carpeted, and they allow eating and drinking.
It's funny. BART and CalTrain both serve SF, but their approaches to just about everything are polar opposites.
With respect to the drink issue, CalTrain does tend to be less crowded than a BART train going through downtown during rush hour... but that's really the only applicable difference between the two systems I can think of.
Thank you for putting an (!) next to the word "Carpeted" in the above description.
I cannot tell you how many times, late on a Friday or Saturday night, I have see actual coils of human shit on the carpet in BART trains. Those brown stains you see...
Then, I cannot even imaging what kinds of deadly chemicals are required to get human shit out of carpet without leaving some mutant hepatitis strain behind. I'm not talking about baby feces, I am talking about adult homeless people and drunk frat boy poop who can't use the toilets on the BART anymore because of post-9/11 terrorism paranoia, and so people shit on the trains.
On the carpet.
There are no windows on the BART. It makes me congested just riding from San Francisco to the East Bay, and I am not allergic to anything.
Can we spend the drink clean-up money on keeping the BART open after 2am instead?
Colleen for president!
Considering the current mix of mysterious stains, questionable smells, general litter, and the lack of facilities aboard the otherwise excellent trains - why add more messy variables without adequate solutions?
If BART wants to get serious about service improvements, how about:
-tracks that don't burn;
-a second trans-Bay path to deal with the tunnel's current congestion problem;
-a connection to north Bay counties;
-luggage racks for the airport services;
-additional bicycle storage options aboard the rolling stock
-on-board toilets for the longest-distance services.
BART is actually phasing out carpeting on its trains. We rode in an uncarpeted train over the weekend and I noticed something was wrong about it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Then I realized -- no human brown stains on the carpet because there was no carpet.
toilets aren't needed if they keep the station toilets open. those are nasty enough. i don't want to have to ride on cars with them.
Allowing / disallowing things on trains (& buses, etc.) has very little to do with policy it seems and much more to do with physical proximity to the vehicle operator. Case in point, I have enjoyed a great many drinks, foodstuffs and etc. on BART, and other riders seem to have been so bold as to smoke cigarettes & joints, as well as going to the bathroom on the train. But try bringing a bicycle into an (empty!) lead car and you will get your ass rudely handed to you (via loudspeaker). Similarly, other modes of public transportation that forbid drinks and which require you to pass right by the driver's seat while boarding (i.e. Golden Gate Transit Buses) are much more successful at preventing drinking on board thanks to the tireless efforts of their cranky employees.
I took a bike on Bart the other day. I was forced to take four, possibly three positions (but the train wasn't full) and had trouble getting out the gate at the exit.
the dread bicycle bomb
I would also point out that Caltrain alows alchol, yup, you can have a beer on the train (BYOB, they don't server). At least they used to I haven't checked recently.
And BARTs policies are generaly insane.
In Italy they have coffee shops at most of the subway stations. The only difference is: NO TAKE OUT CONTAINERS. There is no such thing as a 'coffee to go.' You order your coffee and drink it out of a real cup. That would take care of all the problems.
#15 posted by salsaman
Really? I'm yet to have ridden a system that doesn't allow it. Hell until last year I don't think you were allowed onto 'The Tube' in London without a can of Fosters in your hand. Which as an Aussie I found totally revolting. Fosters!