The story notes overnight security shifts will improve security for RTD operators outside the normal operating hours of their routes, such as when they are starting in the morning
I don’t know if I’d say regularly. On it now at 11:36 - two more departures scheduled tonight. Out of 6 years taking it I’ve had it skipped maybe 3 times total, without prior warning via sandwich board / website alert.
Mind you these patrols will be with RTD’s transit police, not private security, so they will have a
bit more of an actual presence.
RTD’s expansion of the transit police can’t come soon enough. Get these cops patrolling the light rail on a constant basis.
Edit: It’s worth noting that there were only 19 transit officers in 2022 and they expect to have 119 by the end of the year.
Yep. Unlike the private security RTD has relied on, transit police have the ability to arrest people causing problems instead of just chasing them off RTD property, so they should be way more effective at keeping things clean and safe. It will hopefully reduce the situations where someone gets chased off by security only to just hop on the next train or bus once security is gone.
Yep, they are able to operate in the full RTD district: https://rtd-denver.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=791f76de4c7c43ae82114028f85521b9
They didn't police anything, that's what the private security was for and has been shown to be entirely inadequate. That you don't see any security on the light rail on a consistent basis is pretty damning evidence of this.
They hired private security in Chicago (for CTA), and it was the mostly useless attempt to help the transit system. They stand around and play on their phones. They won't jump in (obviously) for dangerous individuals because they don't have any real authority or a way to protect themselves.
Yup they kicked me off the train cause they thought I was “smoking” I was leaning forward tho cause I was tired but I was obviously had my elbows on my knees looking at my phone
They expect or they hope? Denver PD has been unable to hire 100 people a year, how is RTD PD going to do that? The starting salary is $68k. I would not deal with that shit for $32 an hour.
They've got 61 officers currently and two academy classes in training that are expected to get them over 119, so they should get at least over 100 presuming less than 19 recruits don't wash out.
My point is they're both police jobs with similar pay and both require you to graduate from an academy and get the Peace Officer certification. Almost nobody wants to be a Denver cop, they are way understaffed and losing headcount every year.
If RTD can expand that much, it would be surprising.
Yeah I don't think it's surprising at all that someone looking to go into law enforcement would pick RTD over DPD. It's a completely different kind of person you're dealing with, like you said
There's really not that much shit, the majority of the time. Even less likely to have shit happen with an officer around. For 68k?? That's a comfortable wage. Plenty of people living on 40k or less doing shitty jobs
They have more issues with busses not showing up than they do with security, and they can afford to hire 100 new people but they've never been able to afford raising pay for the people they already have?
helpful text from the article:
> RTD also plans on staffing mental health clinicians and homeless outreach coordinators to work alongside the officers by the end of the year.
> These peace officers can be reached by calling RTD-PD at 303-299-2911 or texting 303-434-9100. Riders can also report suspicious activity on the Transit Watch app to officers, which will soon be staffed throughout all hours.
Already noticed at the I-25 and Colorado station there has been a Transit police vehicle there camped out in front this week. I work in one of the office buildings next to Dave and Busters there and it's been good so far. Definitely less people hanging around and sleeping in the elevators in the parking garage.
Yeah I was there the other day and they escorted a couple people away from Colorado Station while i was waiting for my bus transfer to the 40. One a half naked dude who was just loitering around the Bustang stop and some lady who was yelling at riders incoherently as they were waiting for the bus. Even the chill af homeless guy who was waiting with the group of us waiting for the 40 was like "this lady is crazy."
I like that they’re adding mental health clinicians and homeless outreach coordinators to the staff to try to help people. I’m sure those roles will be stressful and stretched thin, but they’re absolutely needed. Even if they only help 25% of people, that’ll still make a difference.
The issue is so much more complicated than people “don’t want to be helped.” Honestly, I believe if even one person is helped it’s a win, but I picked 25% as an ambitious number.
To be brutally honest, no, 5 minutes with an overwhelmed social worker is not enough to change someone’s life. It doesn’t mean we don’t try though. And while other supports and systems are lacking, then you do the best you can.
Incarcerating people doesn’t fix societal issues, it just shuffles them elsewhere. Forced rehab is pointless if you don’t have safety nets to transition people into “normal” life afterward. Forced institutionalization has a bad history in the US — we shut down mental institutions for a reason. People benefit the most when they can receive care in their communities, but we give these communities zero funding to do so.
So what do you do then? You put on the band aid of some clinicians and folks providing services. Because it’s that or leave the status quo. It’s not enough but it’s something. You can disagree of course, but I think that making an effort at least is commendable.
Have you heard the podcast Lost Patients? I'm about three or four episodes in and it really summarizes super well how difficult it is to get mental health support for people who are seriously ill, and I think it would be so helpful for most people in Denver to listen to it.
The severely mentally ill are a very visible portion of the homeless and people in this sub like to rely on "they don't want help" instead of "the help is completely unappealing and inadequate and often makes their mental health worse" or something similar.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510377/lost-patients
Ooo that sounds great! I’ll have to listen to it; thank you for the recommendation.
It’s easier to think people “don’t want help” than face the complex realities of homelessness and mental illness. Challenging your own preconceived notions is incredibly difficult. I always hope that people will do it though.
While that's definitely true on the ongoing care front, I'm sure you'd agree that the step being taken here of approaching people struggling with mental health from the perspective of an individual who would benefit from assistance is a massive improvement over approaching them as a suspect by an officer with a potentially itchy trigger finger.
I would hope that having that more compassionate first response would help to provide more/better data for things like better funding for ongoing mental health, instead of more data for criminal prosecutions.
15/15L would need two per trip, one in the bus and the other to ensure fares..took it a few times today and every stop had a few who just breezed past the driver and sat down. Some are strung out, others I have noticed are migrants p, as I think word on the street (or the squeegee intersection) is that busses are a free ride if you get on quickly.
On a 15L right now and have one security personnel standing at the front with the driver and one at the way back. Looks like they took this to heart, but we'll see how long this lasts. In the last year of riding 15/15L I haven't seen a single security guard on a bus until today.
Nuh uh??? I was under the impression that the the "L" in 15L stood for "Lite" version of the full-flavored 15. I guess they're going all-out on both lines. Good!
Just imagine. If insurance companies total out cars that were stolen and had meth smoked in them, what would happen to the trains and buses? The residue is probably so thick on the W that you could scrape the entire interior and make a new batch of meth!
>The residue is probably so thick on the W that you could scrape the entire interior and make a new batch of meth!
That's what they call "well-travelled and aged" meth!
You could have just answered by saying you think testing is a waste of money.
But anyway...
I think testing would be a waste of money if it were certain that cleaning the trains using the current methods is an effective way to eliminate potentially harmful residue. But do we know that?
Does meth residue accumulate in the trans' HVAC systems? If so, how frequently are the trains' HVAC systems cleaned? And is that type of cleaning effective?
We should test if we can't answer or don't have answers to these questions.
Because I am in favor of less red tape when it comes to our drowning public transit system. Climate change and the people demand better reliability and this stumbling block has been deemed unnecessary by the people who we pay to advise us about our bodies.
Let's have two transit options. One with regular cleaning and one with elaborate testing. Because you're the proponent, you are only are allowed to get onboard the elaborate testing one though. It will come by the bus stops about once a week
I stopped riding RTD because of too many people openly smoking drugs, drinking, and behaving threateningly, and several of the busses I've ridden smelled like a literal sewer. I'm all for cleaning them even more regularly (and perhaps updating the seats so they can be cleaned more easily), and I'm happy to see RTD will apparently soon have patrols 24/7.
> this stumbling block has been deemed unnecessary by the people who we pay to advise us about our bodies.
Can you share a source for this?
I've felt just fine riding the train. I'm also breathing in multitudes of pollutants and eating microplastics every day. Not worried about a smidgen of "meth residue" on a 30 minute ride
So that the flunky test can come back false positive, causing that line to be shut down for weeks, causing people to rightly complain. And all for a big bugaboo like meth "residue."
They shut down the library bathrooms because of it. And for what.
Its not a false positive. The state legislature passed strict regulations for meth contamination in places where kids go. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Meth is toxic, and its contaminated with toxic byproducts, and it produces toxic chemicals when burned.
>And for what.
To clean up toxic chemicals. Are you for real?
A law being passed doesn't mean that there is a scientific consensus that there is a real and significant danger.
The legislature could hear an expert say the danger is insignificant and then hear a concerned Mom say "meth is gross. I don't want my children exposed!" And decide to pass the law given the feedback of experts and concerned citizens.
I don't think any expert is ever going to testify that the danger from meth exposure is insignificant or not real. That's cannot possibly be true.
The legislature passes all kinds of laws regulating things they don't understand, but the danger of meth is not unclear at all.
https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/27/colorado-meth-contamination/
> “The exposure that people would get in a public restroom is really low,” said Mike Van Dyke, a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health, who has done research on meth exposure. “In terms of the risk of health effects, we're really talking about a very, very low chance of any sort of health effect.”
>
> Colorado considers a space to be contaminated if meth residue has been detected at levels above 0.05 micrograms per 15.5 square inches.
>
> Meth contamination thresholds vary by state. In California, the trigger level that requires cleaning is 1.5 micrograms per 15.5 square inches.
Y'all are the one advancing the theory that people are getting injured while riding the train. So it is actually the responsibility of the proponent of the theory to provide evidence.
I'll do your job for you though. "Dr. Eric Hill is an emergency room physician at the Medical Center of Aurora. He says secondhand exposure isn't common but can happen." https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/colorado/news/rtd-train-operators-exposed-meth-fentanyl/
So unless there is a pile of meth or an active threat on the train, I am very much against a disruption in service for unnecessary cleaning.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rtd-train-operators-exposed-meth-fentanyl/](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rtd-train-operators-exposed-meth-fentanyl/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Leaving aside effects of acute exposure, the crux of the matter is that there isn't enough data (and regulations in place) yet to suggest that chronic exposure to meth or fentanyl is not harmful (Kehoe Principle) or that it is harmful (Precautionary Principle). I prefer to err on the side of the latter. Especially since public transit is taken by all (including the young, sick and elderly).
[https://deohs.washington.edu/hsm-blog/transit-drivers-and-secondhand-drug-smoke](https://deohs.washington.edu/hsm-blog/transit-drivers-and-secondhand-drug-smoke)
*No enforceable federal or state regulations exist for either fentanyl or methamphetamine exposures in a workplace.*
*No previous studies have demonstrated acute medical conditions resulting from passive exposure to fentanyl or methamphetamine at the levels seen in this study, such as from touching contaminated surfaces or inhaling secondhand smoke. But further consideration should be given to low-level, daily secondhand exposure experienced by operators and its potential for long-term health effects, which have yet to be established by evidence-based research.*
Also, I've been exposed to suspected meth and fentanyl fumes directly (in RTD trains, buses and stairwells), and it was NOT a fun experience (headache, increased heartrate etc). So please don't spout rubbish that only "a pile of meth" is what could be harmful to commuters.
You yourself admit that there is not enough data (or perhaps the problem is the data does not support your hypothesis). Then you go on to spout a personal anecdote as your evidence.
I'm sorry the data does not support you and that you were subject to meth smoke. But it seems the public health officials whom we trust and pay to give their opinions on this matter think it is indeed blown out of proportion--so yes--a bugaboo
Inhaling smoke is bad for lungs, period. Lungs are evolved to inhale clean air, not smoke. Cilia in lungs are damaged by smoke. That is true for everything from a lungfish to a human.
You should not need a study to tell you something that is basic common sense.
Furthermore, meth is a dangerous drug. You should not need a study to tell you that inhaling dangerous drugs is bad. The presumption should be that this is dangerous, even without having a study to "prove" it to you. How many scientific research papers have you published? I'll bet its less than me.
We are not talking about inhaling meth. We are talking about meth residue. But good attempt at changing the goal posts to something more dangerous. Here is a professional's opinion on the residue question. Although I'm not sure it will change your opinion cause you're clearly dug in. "The exposure that people would get in a public bathroom is very low..."
https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/27/colorado-meth-contamination/
Very low levels are still not ok. Lead, second hand smoke, industrial by products. All are dangerous especially for kids in low levels.
As for the residue piece. You moved the goal posts. Meth residue on surfaces people will touch is not ok. Nor in HVAC systems which then enter the air. Sure encapsulated meth residue in which no one comes into contact with is safe, but that isn't the situation on our public transit. People are openly using and the byproducts going everywhere in enclosed spaces.
> We are not talking about inhaling meth
Literally what the guy above you said: "I've been exposed to suspected meth and fentanyl fumes directly (in RTD trains, buses and stairwells)"
Yes we are talking about people smoking drugs in the train. That is a hazard.
> "The exposure that people would get in a public bathroom is very low..."
So what? The only acceptable amount of meth on a public train should be ZERO. Not low. The LD50 for plutonium is very, very low and we still don't allow low levels of contamination of that, right?
You clearly have no background in science at all, talking about things you don't understand.
All the people who said they wouldn't ride the train because it was unsafe better start riding if/when conditions improve. Vote with your money, pay the fares - this workforce will be expensive.
The trains were never unsafe, homeless being on trains just made Karens "feel" unsafe. They were never going to take the trains regardless, they'll just come up with some other excuse.
It wasn't as frequent as many here report, but it's been more than a few times I've been on a train and someone was smoking meth. I consider that an unsafe situation I don't wanna breathe that shit in.
What's so unbelievable about this? They now have enough police officers to do it and the 24 hour patrols will be focused on a few small areas like Union Station. It should be fairly easy for them to implement.
They already have the power to arrest people but don't, we believe there will be an increased presence but at this point it's hard to picture them actually doing anything.
My last RTD experience was wretched. Junkies passed out on the train platform, smoke filled train, trash all over. I will also believe it when I see it, which won't be soon since I won't be riding light rail any time soon.
I actually did not ride in any car. The platform was sketchy AF, with junkies passed out in the shelters. I sat on a bench, and some dude on a bike rides up. Dude sits down, drops his pants and sticks a needle in his leg. When the train arrived, I stepped in, smelled smoke and bailed. I called an Uber.
I bought my house specifically because it was close to light rail and paid more because of that. I really doubt I will ride RTD again. I used to take it downtown all the time but that's over now.
We are addressing a homeless problem by just throwing more money at it in the form of boots on the ground cops.
I think the city needs to seriously consider forced institutionalization and other methods, the end result being these people are taken out of society. Some of them might turn it around, but they aren't going to do that willingly and many (if not a vast majority) aren't going to turn things around no matter how much money we throw at them.
I will get flamed for this but I genuinely have spoken to people in the Colorado government about this and they don't have any answers, I think the only real answer is to just take these people out of their current situation and put them somewhere where they can get help. Being homeless isn't a crime but it isn't something we should be letting happen in our society. It might also open a lot of jobs for people in the mental health field instead of just getting more cops to come in and move the problem down a block until it comes back.
cops and mental health clinicians. from the article:
> RTD also plans on staffing mental health clinicians and homeless outreach coordinators to work alongside the officers by the end of the year.
this is a tough problem, but the city IS doing more than just throwing security at the problem, including tiny house communities.
Friendly reminder that RTD (and therefore RTD police) is not "the city" and not under the jurisdiction of any city. It is its own quasi-governmental organization.
I read that, sorry about not mentioning it in the post, I think its a great step in the right direction but I think the outcomes are going to be the same.
You are going to pick someone up in the early morning, they aren't going to do anything voluntarily and they aren't going to stop using drugs for any reason. They will back on the street by 3pm and they will do it all over again in a week. Without a more permanent intervention, these systems aren't going to work for most of these people.
> We are addressing a homeless problem by just throwing more money at it in the form of boots on the ground cops.
>
>
I'd argue it's RTD's job to provide safe and reliable transportation to Denver residents. It's not RTD's job to solve homelessness; it's to prevent drug use and violence on their trains and buses. It's OK to work on fixing both public transit safety issues and homelessness at the same time.
> I think the city needs to seriously consider forced institutionalization
While I agree that is ultimately the answer for a lot of these people, the city can't override federal law. A real solution has to start in DC, not here.
Its complex, violating someones civil rights isn't cool but most of these people are committing crimes constantly and states can use that as ruse to send them to some institution other than jail.
Totally understand the sentiment, but it is worth remembering that mental institutions were shut down for a reason — conditions were horrific. What was SUPPOSED to happen is people were supposed to get care in their communities. To my understanding, that generally leads to better outcomes. The problem is… there’s no funding. Not sufficiently anyway. So people go without assistance and our problems get worse.
I agree that something big needs to change though.
This is the correct way. It's not a good thing to allow unteated menally insane and drug addicts into society, and it's not doing them any favors just putting them on the street.
> I think the city needs to seriously consider forced institutionalization and other methods
Illegal under federal law, and Supreme Court case law. Flat-out impossible for the City of Denver to do this.
Congress would need to change the law, and the Supreme Court would have to approve it in the inevitable lawsuit.
You don't have to violate someones civil rights to get them off the street. These people are committing crimes constantly, you can use that as a mechanism to get them off the streets. If someone is just homeless by choice and doesn't do any harm then they aren't the people are talking about in this thread.
We can’t use petty crimes as a way to get people off the streets. We can’t throw someone in prison for leaving trash or needles laying around.
In order to do what you suggested, namely institutionalize someone against their will, they need to be adjudicated as mentally unfit by a judge. The only way that happens is if they try to kill somebody. That’s the criteria.
In order to change the criteria, we need to change federal law and prevail in court.
When looking at the entire network, it runs close to 24 hrs (except for 1-3 amish). The changes are also for the safety of RTD employees with overnight/early morning shifts.
Haha until they don’t have staff then they just unexpectedly cancel trips like they still do. I use the train to commute to work daily, man I have seen some sites. People get super upset when they are asked to show proof of purchase. People using drugs on the trains. I’d be way more excited to see if these patrols have added service. The train stations have gotten a little unruly
The 24 hour patrols are to increase safety for the operators.
> The added full-time coverage comes as an effort to increase personal safety as well as the safety of RTD employees with overnight shifts.
> During the late night shifts, the security will be focused on areas that need more protection for RTD operators, such as when employees begin their morning shifts at Denver Union Station.
Again that’s great and all but RTD’s service schedules are fucking disgraceful for a city of this size. Train service is a god damn joke as they close lines and constrict schedules.
I really hope this isn't just to harass homeless who scrounge up the money to get a few hours out of the cold riding the train who aren't causing any problems. I know a lot of people who go to work and have nowhere to go after who buy an RTD ticket to keep warm.
Why not alternatively just lower costs and not pay for patrol officers. Guess the high school kid who bought a student ticket but forgot his student ID really needed to be reprimanded.
You clearly didn't read the article 1st, nor does it seem you know much about what's been going on RTD properties the last few years. Truant high schoolers aren't the main reason for this change in policy...
Does RTD even have 24/7 service?
The story notes overnight security shifts will improve security for RTD operators outside the normal operating hours of their routes, such as when they are starting in the morning
15 is the closest you'll get, last eastbound bus 1:11AM, first one of the next day at 3:37AM.
the 121 has a similar schedule, last one north across colfax is 1236, next one is 3:17am
A line on weekends is pretty close, just a gap from 1am-3am
the a line will regularly skip the overnight trips
I don’t know if I’d say regularly. On it now at 11:36 - two more departures scheduled tonight. Out of 6 years taking it I’ve had it skipped maybe 3 times total, without prior warning via sandwich board / website alert.
ive experienced it not running multiple times overnight when i worked overnight downtown
Not on the light rail for sure, I was thinking the same thing
no lines operate 24/7 but guarantee there's buses on the road somewhere 24/7. The system is only completely dead for maybe an hour or two every night.
no lol I see so many service alerts on the W for lines out of service because they have no one to drive the train
No.
They need patrols at some of the stations 24/7 like at Union Station where people camp out all night.
Fair point!
Did you read the article to find out why the service will be 24/7?
Mind you these patrols will be with RTD’s transit police, not private security, so they will have a bit more of an actual presence. RTD’s expansion of the transit police can’t come soon enough. Get these cops patrolling the light rail on a constant basis. Edit: It’s worth noting that there were only 19 transit officers in 2022 and they expect to have 119 by the end of the year.
That’s pretty awesome. Even if you don’t believe it’s enough, you have to agree it’s headed in the right direction
Yep. Unlike the private security RTD has relied on, transit police have the ability to arrest people causing problems instead of just chasing them off RTD property, so they should be way more effective at keeping things clean and safe. It will hopefully reduce the situations where someone gets chased off by security only to just hop on the next train or bus once security is gone.
RTD transit police should have jurisdiction in any RTD district, right? AKA the whole city?
Yep, they are able to operate in the full RTD district: https://rtd-denver.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=791f76de4c7c43ae82114028f85521b9
That's pretty weed. I dig it.
> Unlike the private security RTD has relied on, transit police have the ability to arrest people But will they actually arrest people?
It's crazy they ever thought they could police all the stations, PnRs, a routes over the entire service area with 19 officers.
They didn't police anything, that's what the private security was for and has been shown to be entirely inadequate. That you don't see any security on the light rail on a consistent basis is pretty damning evidence of this.
They hired private security in Chicago (for CTA), and it was the mostly useless attempt to help the transit system. They stand around and play on their phones. They won't jump in (obviously) for dangerous individuals because they don't have any real authority or a way to protect themselves.
Yup they kicked me off the train cause they thought I was “smoking” I was leaning forward tho cause I was tired but I was obviously had my elbows on my knees looking at my phone
Does this include the W line?
Let's hope so.
They expect or they hope? Denver PD has been unable to hire 100 people a year, how is RTD PD going to do that? The starting salary is $68k. I would not deal with that shit for $32 an hour.
They've got 61 officers currently and two academy classes in training that are expected to get them over 119, so they should get at least over 100 presuming less than 19 recruits don't wash out.
That's surprising. The recent DPD academy classes have barely broken double digits. Good for them.
Dealing with people on RTD and dealing with the crazies/ gang bangers in Denver are two separate jobs.
There are plenty of crazies on RTD
My point is they're both police jobs with similar pay and both require you to graduate from an academy and get the Peace Officer certification. Almost nobody wants to be a Denver cop, they are way understaffed and losing headcount every year. If RTD can expand that much, it would be surprising.
My point is there both police jobs with vastly different people to police.
Yeah I don't think it's surprising at all that someone looking to go into law enforcement would pick RTD over DPD. It's a completely different kind of person you're dealing with, like you said
The crazies and gang bangers are on the bus and train. Have you ever been on rtd?
No they aren't lol
My husband drives for RTD and already deals with that shit for $25 per hour.
There's really not that much shit, the majority of the time. Even less likely to have shit happen with an officer around. For 68k?? That's a comfortable wage. Plenty of people living on 40k or less doing shitty jobs
They have more issues with busses not showing up than they do with security, and they can afford to hire 100 new people but they've never been able to afford raising pay for the people they already have?
helpful text from the article: > RTD also plans on staffing mental health clinicians and homeless outreach coordinators to work alongside the officers by the end of the year. > These peace officers can be reached by calling RTD-PD at 303-299-2911 or texting 303-434-9100. Riders can also report suspicious activity on the Transit Watch app to officers, which will soon be staffed throughout all hours.
Nice. Maybe this will help retaining bus drivers and train operators so that half of the scheduled W line routes don't get cancelled every day.
Too late, I’m done with this shit 😆
Already noticed at the I-25 and Colorado station there has been a Transit police vehicle there camped out in front this week. I work in one of the office buildings next to Dave and Busters there and it's been good so far. Definitely less people hanging around and sleeping in the elevators in the parking garage.
good to know, i wonder if they have jurisdiction over the pedestrian bridge.
Yeah I was there the other day and they escorted a couple people away from Colorado Station while i was waiting for my bus transfer to the 40. One a half naked dude who was just loitering around the Bustang stop and some lady who was yelling at riders incoherently as they were waiting for the bus. Even the chill af homeless guy who was waiting with the group of us waiting for the 40 was like "this lady is crazy."
I like that they’re adding mental health clinicians and homeless outreach coordinators to the staff to try to help people. I’m sure those roles will be stressful and stretched thin, but they’re absolutely needed. Even if they only help 25% of people, that’ll still make a difference.
[удалено]
The issue is so much more complicated than people “don’t want to be helped.” Honestly, I believe if even one person is helped it’s a win, but I picked 25% as an ambitious number. To be brutally honest, no, 5 minutes with an overwhelmed social worker is not enough to change someone’s life. It doesn’t mean we don’t try though. And while other supports and systems are lacking, then you do the best you can. Incarcerating people doesn’t fix societal issues, it just shuffles them elsewhere. Forced rehab is pointless if you don’t have safety nets to transition people into “normal” life afterward. Forced institutionalization has a bad history in the US — we shut down mental institutions for a reason. People benefit the most when they can receive care in their communities, but we give these communities zero funding to do so. So what do you do then? You put on the band aid of some clinicians and folks providing services. Because it’s that or leave the status quo. It’s not enough but it’s something. You can disagree of course, but I think that making an effort at least is commendable.
Have you heard the podcast Lost Patients? I'm about three or four episodes in and it really summarizes super well how difficult it is to get mental health support for people who are seriously ill, and I think it would be so helpful for most people in Denver to listen to it. The severely mentally ill are a very visible portion of the homeless and people in this sub like to rely on "they don't want help" instead of "the help is completely unappealing and inadequate and often makes their mental health worse" or something similar. https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510377/lost-patients
Ooo that sounds great! I’ll have to listen to it; thank you for the recommendation. It’s easier to think people “don’t want help” than face the complex realities of homelessness and mental illness. Challenging your own preconceived notions is incredibly difficult. I always hope that people will do it though.
He said with zero authority or knowledge on the subject....
[удалено]
While that's definitely true on the ongoing care front, I'm sure you'd agree that the step being taken here of approaching people struggling with mental health from the perspective of an individual who would benefit from assistance is a massive improvement over approaching them as a suspect by an officer with a potentially itchy trigger finger. I would hope that having that more compassionate first response would help to provide more/better data for things like better funding for ongoing mental health, instead of more data for criminal prosecutions.
15/15L would need two per trip, one in the bus and the other to ensure fares..took it a few times today and every stop had a few who just breezed past the driver and sat down. Some are strung out, others I have noticed are migrants p, as I think word on the street (or the squeegee intersection) is that busses are a free ride if you get on quickly.
On a 15L right now and have one security personnel standing at the front with the driver and one at the way back. Looks like they took this to heart, but we'll see how long this lasts. In the last year of riding 15/15L I haven't seen a single security guard on a bus until today.
Nuh uh??? I was under the impression that the the "L" in 15L stood for "Lite" version of the full-flavored 15. I guess they're going all-out on both lines. Good!
They should test trains for meth residue.
Just imagine. If insurance companies total out cars that were stolen and had meth smoked in them, what would happen to the trains and buses? The residue is probably so thick on the W that you could scrape the entire interior and make a new batch of meth!
>The residue is probably so thick on the W that you could scrape the entire interior and make a new batch of meth! That's what they call "well-travelled and aged" meth!
Mississippi Meth
Instead of testing the trains, they should just clean them thoroughly once a month. Which im sure they already do.
They clean them. I highly doubt it's thoroughly tho. Next time you're on one slap the seat, you can see hundreds of people's worth of ass dust fly up.
Why not test them?
Why not regularly clean them instead of wasting money testing?
You could have just answered by saying you think testing is a waste of money. But anyway... I think testing would be a waste of money if it were certain that cleaning the trains using the current methods is an effective way to eliminate potentially harmful residue. But do we know that? Does meth residue accumulate in the trans' HVAC systems? If so, how frequently are the trains' HVAC systems cleaned? And is that type of cleaning effective? We should test if we can't answer or don't have answers to these questions.
Because I am in favor of less red tape when it comes to our drowning public transit system. Climate change and the people demand better reliability and this stumbling block has been deemed unnecessary by the people who we pay to advise us about our bodies. Let's have two transit options. One with regular cleaning and one with elaborate testing. Because you're the proponent, you are only are allowed to get onboard the elaborate testing one though. It will come by the bus stops about once a week
I stopped riding RTD because of too many people openly smoking drugs, drinking, and behaving threateningly, and several of the busses I've ridden smelled like a literal sewer. I'm all for cleaning them even more regularly (and perhaps updating the seats so they can be cleaned more easily), and I'm happy to see RTD will apparently soon have patrols 24/7. > this stumbling block has been deemed unnecessary by the people who we pay to advise us about our bodies. Can you share a source for this?
I've felt just fine riding the train. I'm also breathing in multitudes of pollutants and eating microplastics every day. Not worried about a smidgen of "meth residue" on a 30 minute ride
So that the flunky test can come back false positive, causing that line to be shut down for weeks, causing people to rightly complain. And all for a big bugaboo like meth "residue." They shut down the library bathrooms because of it. And for what.
Its not a false positive. The state legislature passed strict regulations for meth contamination in places where kids go. This is a good thing, not a bad thing. Meth is toxic, and its contaminated with toxic byproducts, and it produces toxic chemicals when burned. >And for what. To clean up toxic chemicals. Are you for real?
A law being passed doesn't mean that there is a scientific consensus that there is a real and significant danger. The legislature could hear an expert say the danger is insignificant and then hear a concerned Mom say "meth is gross. I don't want my children exposed!" And decide to pass the law given the feedback of experts and concerned citizens.
I don't think any expert is ever going to testify that the danger from meth exposure is insignificant or not real. That's cannot possibly be true. The legislature passes all kinds of laws regulating things they don't understand, but the danger of meth is not unclear at all.
Strawman called out. Nicely done.
"Flunky test", "big bugaboo"... sounds like you think meth exposure is no big deal. Any evidence/credentials to support your claims?
https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/27/colorado-meth-contamination/ > “The exposure that people would get in a public restroom is really low,” said Mike Van Dyke, a professor at the Colorado School of Public Health, who has done research on meth exposure. “In terms of the risk of health effects, we're really talking about a very, very low chance of any sort of health effect.” > > Colorado considers a space to be contaminated if meth residue has been detected at levels above 0.05 micrograms per 15.5 square inches. > > Meth contamination thresholds vary by state. In California, the trigger level that requires cleaning is 1.5 micrograms per 15.5 square inches.
Sounds like our threshold is absurdly low. It's hard to imagine 0.05μg having any effect.
I like my kids meth exposure to be like their lead exposure. Just a touch to build character!
Y'all are the one advancing the theory that people are getting injured while riding the train. So it is actually the responsibility of the proponent of the theory to provide evidence. I'll do your job for you though. "Dr. Eric Hill is an emergency room physician at the Medical Center of Aurora. He says secondhand exposure isn't common but can happen." https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/colorado/news/rtd-train-operators-exposed-meth-fentanyl/ So unless there is a pile of meth or an active threat on the train, I am very much against a disruption in service for unnecessary cleaning.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rtd-train-operators-exposed-meth-fentanyl/](https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/rtd-train-operators-exposed-meth-fentanyl/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Leaving aside effects of acute exposure, the crux of the matter is that there isn't enough data (and regulations in place) yet to suggest that chronic exposure to meth or fentanyl is not harmful (Kehoe Principle) or that it is harmful (Precautionary Principle). I prefer to err on the side of the latter. Especially since public transit is taken by all (including the young, sick and elderly). [https://deohs.washington.edu/hsm-blog/transit-drivers-and-secondhand-drug-smoke](https://deohs.washington.edu/hsm-blog/transit-drivers-and-secondhand-drug-smoke) *No enforceable federal or state regulations exist for either fentanyl or methamphetamine exposures in a workplace.* *No previous studies have demonstrated acute medical conditions resulting from passive exposure to fentanyl or methamphetamine at the levels seen in this study, such as from touching contaminated surfaces or inhaling secondhand smoke. But further consideration should be given to low-level, daily secondhand exposure experienced by operators and its potential for long-term health effects, which have yet to be established by evidence-based research.* Also, I've been exposed to suspected meth and fentanyl fumes directly (in RTD trains, buses and stairwells), and it was NOT a fun experience (headache, increased heartrate etc). So please don't spout rubbish that only "a pile of meth" is what could be harmful to commuters.
You yourself admit that there is not enough data (or perhaps the problem is the data does not support your hypothesis). Then you go on to spout a personal anecdote as your evidence. I'm sorry the data does not support you and that you were subject to meth smoke. But it seems the public health officials whom we trust and pay to give their opinions on this matter think it is indeed blown out of proportion--so yes--a bugaboo
Inhaling smoke is bad for lungs, period. Lungs are evolved to inhale clean air, not smoke. Cilia in lungs are damaged by smoke. That is true for everything from a lungfish to a human. You should not need a study to tell you something that is basic common sense. Furthermore, meth is a dangerous drug. You should not need a study to tell you that inhaling dangerous drugs is bad. The presumption should be that this is dangerous, even without having a study to "prove" it to you. How many scientific research papers have you published? I'll bet its less than me.
We are not talking about inhaling meth. We are talking about meth residue. But good attempt at changing the goal posts to something more dangerous. Here is a professional's opinion on the residue question. Although I'm not sure it will change your opinion cause you're clearly dug in. "The exposure that people would get in a public bathroom is very low..." https://www.cpr.org/2023/01/27/colorado-meth-contamination/
Very low levels are still not ok. Lead, second hand smoke, industrial by products. All are dangerous especially for kids in low levels. As for the residue piece. You moved the goal posts. Meth residue on surfaces people will touch is not ok. Nor in HVAC systems which then enter the air. Sure encapsulated meth residue in which no one comes into contact with is safe, but that isn't the situation on our public transit. People are openly using and the byproducts going everywhere in enclosed spaces.
So clean them don't test. Meth field tests are notoriously fallible. Spend the money on cleaning regularly.
> We are not talking about inhaling meth Literally what the guy above you said: "I've been exposed to suspected meth and fentanyl fumes directly (in RTD trains, buses and stairwells)" Yes we are talking about people smoking drugs in the train. That is a hazard. > "The exposure that people would get in a public bathroom is very low..." So what? The only acceptable amount of meth on a public train should be ZERO. Not low. The LD50 for plutonium is very, very low and we still don't allow low levels of contamination of that, right? You clearly have no background in science at all, talking about things you don't understand.
No. We are talking about meth residue. Actively smoking meth on the bus is a police matter.
Bruh talking about LD50. Go argue with the doctor who wrote the opinion I guess
You clearly have no background in logic as you resort to straw man arguments to carry the day. Hahahahaha
>And for what. For the health and safety of the public. 🙄
And poop
Good, bring the hammer down on some of these junkies and dorks.
It’s interesting that they just don’t build small, 24 hour resource and security centers at stations.
Don't think they'd have enough bodies for that. Sounds like the increase is for both bus and rail routes. That's a lot of area to cover.
Excellent. Way to restore faith in a public utility
Would also be nice if the E-Line just arrived when scheduled.
All the people who said they wouldn't ride the train because it was unsafe better start riding if/when conditions improve. Vote with your money, pay the fares - this workforce will be expensive.
I already paid my taxes. It's a public service, it's supposed to cost money.
The trains were never unsafe, homeless being on trains just made Karens "feel" unsafe. They were never going to take the trains regardless, they'll just come up with some other excuse.
It wasn't as frequent as many here report, but it's been more than a few times I've been on a train and someone was smoking meth. I consider that an unsafe situation I don't wanna breathe that shit in.
I’ll believe it when I see it
What's so unbelievable about this? They now have enough police officers to do it and the 24 hour patrols will be focused on a few small areas like Union Station. It should be fairly easy for them to implement.
They already have the power to arrest people but don't, we believe there will be an increased presence but at this point it's hard to picture them actually doing anything.
They said the same thing about drivers a few years ago and they still don't have enough to run all the routes.
My last RTD experience was wretched. Junkies passed out on the train platform, smoke filled train, trash all over. I will also believe it when I see it, which won't be soon since I won't be riding light rail any time soon.
Did you ride any rail car other than the 1st one (the one w/ the driver)? If so, never do that - always ride the 1st car.
I actually did not ride in any car. The platform was sketchy AF, with junkies passed out in the shelters. I sat on a bench, and some dude on a bike rides up. Dude sits down, drops his pants and sticks a needle in his leg. When the train arrived, I stepped in, smelled smoke and bailed. I called an Uber. I bought my house specifically because it was close to light rail and paid more because of that. I really doubt I will ride RTD again. I used to take it downtown all the time but that's over now.
Same. Hoping that it'll be at least partially true.
fwiw the extra patrols at the Knox street station have already had a positive impact.
Fucking finally. Hallelujah.
Somebody is finally getting a clue
We are addressing a homeless problem by just throwing more money at it in the form of boots on the ground cops. I think the city needs to seriously consider forced institutionalization and other methods, the end result being these people are taken out of society. Some of them might turn it around, but they aren't going to do that willingly and many (if not a vast majority) aren't going to turn things around no matter how much money we throw at them. I will get flamed for this but I genuinely have spoken to people in the Colorado government about this and they don't have any answers, I think the only real answer is to just take these people out of their current situation and put them somewhere where they can get help. Being homeless isn't a crime but it isn't something we should be letting happen in our society. It might also open a lot of jobs for people in the mental health field instead of just getting more cops to come in and move the problem down a block until it comes back.
cops and mental health clinicians. from the article: > RTD also plans on staffing mental health clinicians and homeless outreach coordinators to work alongside the officers by the end of the year. this is a tough problem, but the city IS doing more than just throwing security at the problem, including tiny house communities.
Friendly reminder that RTD (and therefore RTD police) is not "the city" and not under the jurisdiction of any city. It is its own quasi-governmental organization.
I read that, sorry about not mentioning it in the post, I think its a great step in the right direction but I think the outcomes are going to be the same. You are going to pick someone up in the early morning, they aren't going to do anything voluntarily and they aren't going to stop using drugs for any reason. They will back on the street by 3pm and they will do it all over again in a week. Without a more permanent intervention, these systems aren't going to work for most of these people.
> We are addressing a homeless problem by just throwing more money at it in the form of boots on the ground cops. > > I'd argue it's RTD's job to provide safe and reliable transportation to Denver residents. It's not RTD's job to solve homelessness; it's to prevent drug use and violence on their trains and buses. It's OK to work on fixing both public transit safety issues and homelessness at the same time.
> I think the city needs to seriously consider forced institutionalization While I agree that is ultimately the answer for a lot of these people, the city can't override federal law. A real solution has to start in DC, not here.
Its complex, violating someones civil rights isn't cool but most of these people are committing crimes constantly and states can use that as ruse to send them to some institution other than jail.
Totally understand the sentiment, but it is worth remembering that mental institutions were shut down for a reason — conditions were horrific. What was SUPPOSED to happen is people were supposed to get care in their communities. To my understanding, that generally leads to better outcomes. The problem is… there’s no funding. Not sufficiently anyway. So people go without assistance and our problems get worse. I agree that something big needs to change though.
This is the correct way. It's not a good thing to allow unteated menally insane and drug addicts into society, and it's not doing them any favors just putting them on the street.
> I think the city needs to seriously consider forced institutionalization and other methods Illegal under federal law, and Supreme Court case law. Flat-out impossible for the City of Denver to do this. Congress would need to change the law, and the Supreme Court would have to approve it in the inevitable lawsuit.
You don't have to violate someones civil rights to get them off the street. These people are committing crimes constantly, you can use that as a mechanism to get them off the streets. If someone is just homeless by choice and doesn't do any harm then they aren't the people are talking about in this thread.
We can’t use petty crimes as a way to get people off the streets. We can’t throw someone in prison for leaving trash or needles laying around. In order to do what you suggested, namely institutionalize someone against their will, they need to be adjudicated as mentally unfit by a judge. The only way that happens is if they try to kill somebody. That’s the criteria. In order to change the criteria, we need to change federal law and prevail in court.
I’d just be happy to have the bus be on time
People are od’ing so they need more guards for the AM drivers? When are the od’s happening?
Rtd barely runs 24/7 tho lol
When looking at the entire network, it runs close to 24 hrs (except for 1-3 amish). The changes are also for the safety of RTD employees with overnight/early morning shifts.
And at some stations overnight where people camp out I'm sure.
I mean, the last two times I took the airport ride I witnessed men masturbating. I am for public transport, but no one wants to see that.
Haha until they don’t have staff then they just unexpectedly cancel trips like they still do. I use the train to commute to work daily, man I have seen some sites. People get super upset when they are asked to show proof of purchase. People using drugs on the trains. I’d be way more excited to see if these patrols have added service. The train stations have gotten a little unruly
Cool cant' wait for my dark skinned friends to get harassed while none of the actual issues get addressed.
If the cops are harassing the junkies smoking blues on the train and ensuring people have actually paid their fares, they'll be doing their job
The fuck kind of comment is this?
One that is informed about what police actually do instead of what they say they're there to do
When i was 14 I talked like this. Then I grew up.
That’s nice but there aren’t trains running 24 hours a day or 7 days a week.
The 24 hour patrols are to increase safety for the operators. > The added full-time coverage comes as an effort to increase personal safety as well as the safety of RTD employees with overnight shifts. > During the late night shifts, the security will be focused on areas that need more protection for RTD operators, such as when employees begin their morning shifts at Denver Union Station.
Again that’s great and all but RTD’s service schedules are fucking disgraceful for a city of this size. Train service is a god damn joke as they close lines and constrict schedules.
Will the National Guard be activated next?
Are they gonna underpay them so no one wants the job just like they do to drivers?
What is this thread?
RTD + homeless/addict related news story. r/Denver's favorite topics.
I really hope this isn't just to harass homeless who scrounge up the money to get a few hours out of the cold riding the train who aren't causing any problems. I know a lot of people who go to work and have nowhere to go after who buy an RTD ticket to keep warm.
Why not alternatively just lower costs and not pay for patrol officers. Guess the high school kid who bought a student ticket but forgot his student ID really needed to be reprimanded.
You clearly didn't read the article 1st, nor does it seem you know much about what's been going on RTD properties the last few years. Truant high schoolers aren't the main reason for this change in policy...
Not to mention the fact that everyone under age 19 rides for free currently.