![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
More Security Theater on the MBTA
Last night, on my ride home, I saw a bunch of postings up at the T sites, saying that there will be busing along part of the Red Line this Sunday morning, due to something I think they called an "Emergency Preparedness Exercise". I gather they're going to simulate some sort of emergency, and see how well various agencies respond. [irony]Because emergencies so often happen with 4 days warning, on a predictable schedule, and at a time when the system is relatively empty. Whether it's terrorists, medical emergencies, or mechanical failures, you can always expect them to happen when the system is at its least loaded, yep.[/irony]
It seems to me that this exercise is going to cost a lot of money and attention, and there is only one outcome which would actually be helpful. If this exercise shows that the agencies in question *can't* respond to a softball exercise like this, then we will have learned something important. But if they do a good job under these contrived circumstances, that gives us absolutely no assurance about their ability to deal with an *actual* emergency, unplanned, under a rush hour load. Whose bright idea was this, anyways?
It seems to me that this exercise is going to cost a lot of money and attention, and there is only one outcome which would actually be helpful. If this exercise shows that the agencies in question *can't* respond to a softball exercise like this, then we will have learned something important. But if they do a good job under these contrived circumstances, that gives us absolutely no assurance about their ability to deal with an *actual* emergency, unplanned, under a rush hour load. Whose bright idea was this, anyways?
no subject
I suppose what gripes me here is the double standard. Politicians are perfectly happy to whip up a climate of fear in their rhetoric, but they aren't willing to *act* in an effectual manner, lest it inconvenience their constituency.
If we take as a given that full-scale surprise runs are not available, then we are debating having something over having nothing.
I really don't want to take that as a given. But I will (grudgingly) agree that something is better than nothing here.
Not much - the city took a whole lot of flack for the lite-brite bomb scares, never mind that it was an excellent exercise.
I think that's a serious oversimplification. The city government *took* flack largely about its attitude. They *generated* flack because the affair made them look silly. But since part of today's political climate is to never admit weakness in any form, including silliness, the cost was made out to be the primary issue and artificially inflated.
I agree with you that the system on the street worked well. It was the media and governmental responses that got silly.
no subject
To be fair, I have seen no signs that the constituency has any tolerance for inconvenience at all. "Civic duty" isn't exactly a buzzphrase these days.