Posts from July 2011

Arlington has built tremendous economic success over the past 35 years around its transit system, and is recognized as a national leader in smart growth. Unfortunately, the people running Arlington Community Federal Credit Union don't seem to have gotten the message. The credit union, which serves Arlington County employees and residents, is running ads that perpetuate the anti-bus attitude:

The Arlington credit union seems to be missing the boat in more ways than one. Their two branch locations are nowhere near Metro, which seems odd considering so many Arlington employees work within blocks of the Court House Metro station. Space near Metro may be more expensive, but shouldn't Arlington's own credit union set a good example? Shouldn't it locate near its customers in the county government, which are intentionally clustered around Metro? More importantly, why would Arlington's own credit union advertise in ways that undermine Arlington's significant investments promoting alternative transportation?

This may seem like a minor issue, but eliminating anti-transit cultural stereotypes is important in the fight to change how Americans think about cities. ACFCU should rethink this misguided campaign.

At the specialty level, could the union do more to create a successful operation for WMATA instead of waiting for non-union WMATA officials to hand down directives? I.e. take ownership of the issues themselves and manage up?

The union does take ownership of issues that directly affect the union. Union officials stay in constant contact with WMATA management and offer suggestions for improvement when the need arises. An example of this would be the recent campaign to address the issue of bus operator assaults. Local 689 brought unprecedented attention to this issue through grassroots efforts (leafleting at bus and rail stations), media interviews (television and print media), and meetings with WMATA executives to discuss the union's concerns and propose solutions. As a result, WMATA is taking new steps to ensure that bus operator and rider safety is paramount. The union is actively following up with WMATA officials to make sure the new measures are effective and properly implemented.

Who should be held accountable for poor service. The union employees, or wmata management? Why?

All interested parties should be held accountable for poor service, including both individual employees and management. The union actively encourages all of its members to treat members of the public in a professional and courteous manner. The union has also asked WMATA to include customer service training to address shortcomings that some individuals may have. When new employees are hired, they are trained to perform their particular task (i.e. operate a bus), but they are not given customer service training, even though interacting with the public is as important as properly operating a bus. The union has recognized this shortcoming and has asked WMATA management to implement mandatory customer service training for new hires.

Is it appropriate for workers to sandbag when their contract demands are in limbo or not to their liking?

No, it is not appropriate and I have not seen or heard of any incidents where that has occurred.

What is proper percentage share of wmata revenues (all revenues) related to salary and benefits vs. operations and infrastructure maintenance?

I am not in a position to answer this question without researching the issue, but the answer should be available in the latest WMATA budget.

I want to know how they can justify defending Metro employees who commit acts of violence or simply pure stupidity and get them back on the job. Punching McGruff? There are too many stories of employees behaving badly and then getting their jobs reinstated. The union should NEVER defend such behavior.

Every member is entitled to request that his or her claim be sent to arbitration. If a member requests that his/her claim be arbitrated, the union officers then review the claim and make a recommendation to the membership at the next union meeting. At that meeting, that member requesting the arbitration also has the right to state his or her case to the membership. The union membership then votes on whether or not to arbitrate the claim. If the membership votes to arbitrate a claim, the union has no choice but to arbitrate the claim.

If someone gets his or her job back after arbitration, that generally means that there was not enough proof that the alleged offense was committed, that the offense that was committed did not give rise to termination, or that WMATA did not follow proper procedures in terminating the individual. The role of the union is similar to the role of a defense attorney in this situation.

How can the union and WMATA prevent wage, pension, and healthcare costs from rising faster than regional GDP? If you believe that wage, pension, or healthcare costs should rise faster than GDP, please outline your vision of how WMATA would continue to function properly without depending on increasing federal/state subsidies or fares that grow faster than regional wages. What would justify increased subsidization or disproportionate wage increases?

Our goal is to ensure that our members receive wage increases consistent with the increase in the cost of living. I don't know that we can prevent costs from rising disproportionately, but WMATA should not balance its budget on the back of its workers. When contract disputes arise, WMATA's contract with Local 689 and the WMATA Compact both state that disputes should be resolved by final and binding arbitration. In the current contract negotiations, the neutral arbitrator ruled in the Union's favor and now the Judge has affirmed the arbitrator's decision. Final and binding arbitration must be respected.

Many believe the "pick" system for maintenance decreases safety and increases maintenance costs. Do you believe that we should keep the current system? If so, why? If you do not believe we should keep the current system, how would you change the "pick" system to improve safety and reliability, particularly on escalators and elevators?

The "pick" system does not decrease safety, so I do not believe that safety is a reason for abandoning the "pick" system. All of the mechanics are supposed to be sufficiently trained to perform the necessary tasks. If there is reason to believe a mechanic is not sufficiently trained, management should take steps to ensure that the individual is properly trained and proficient in his or her duties.

As an irregular visitor to DC, even I have been able to spot the pattern of WMATA subway station attendants who all but roll their eyes and say "take a hike" when customers approach the booth to ask a question about service, fares, or other normal customer information questions. Frankly, I have found these responses to be the rule, not the exception when I am in DC. This isn't a problem I experience in NYC, Boston, Chicago, or other major cities I travel to with unionized workforces.

With bus operators, seniority-based runpicking sometimes gives the best operators the chance to pick the easiest runs, where it should be the other way around. (and I support additional pay for superior-performing bus operators to encourage them to take challenging runs)

My question to the union is this: is there some similar incentive with unintended consequences that places employees who may be better suited for back office work than customer interactions, and places them in subway booths?
If not, how can the union make more progress here?

There is not a system that places individuals suited for back office work as station managers. All station managers were previously bus operators who were promoted to the position of station manager. Thus, it's possible that a station manager may be better suited to be a bus operator, but bus operators, as I'm sure you are aware, also interact with the public. People are not promoted to a station manager from a position that does not deal with the public.

Hm. Looks like the Union is following Dan Stessel's lead, and building its reputation by actually communicating with its critics. I welcome actual dialog, so yay!

I can't think of a great way to phrase it into a concise question, but I'd love to know what the ATU's position is on overtime. Every year, WMATA's overtime costs come out to a shockingly large number, and there's an inevitable debate about safety, staffing levels, "necessary evils," and worker compensation.

Airlines and FRA-regulated railroads have rather strict policies relating to the number of consecutive hours that their workers can be on the job, along with the amount of downtime that must be taken between shifts. Should Metro be adopting stronger regulations along these lines, even if it would translate to a de-facto pay cut for many ATU members?

That is a decision for Metro management to make. The union has never expressly advocated for our members to work excessive overtime and in the chart that the Washington Examiner published listing the top 10 positions working overtime, only one of the positions listed covered workers represented by Local 689. Also, there are regulations in Local 689's contract that require members to have eight hours of rest.

Does the union mandate the "senior escalator" thing as part of their contract or is this just something WMATA has practiced?

Management gives out the job assignments. The contract does state that seniority applies in picking the reporting location, but that only applies if there are multiple locations available for that individual's skills. Additionally, while this is the employee's reporting location, after the employee reports to that location, a supervisor can still send the technician anywhere he or she is needed.

Everybody understands performance starts and ends with high quality management. But in between are transit workers who need to be accountable to management. Transit Authority management has deserved--and gotten!--its share of criticism. No one expects significant reforms at the Union- and workforce-level without corresponding reforms at management. That said:

Could you identify one or two existing union rules that hamper management's goal of good service? Why do those rules exist? Are there better ways to achieve the goals without compromising performance? What is the union doing to work with management to lessen the impact?

I don't know of any union rules that hamper good service. Good service is something that the union strives for and encourages its members to provide.

Management accountability requires the threat of consequences and, regrettably, firings. What is the best way to fairly, but quickly, fire union workers when management determines it's necessary?

Union workers cannot be fired for arbitrary reasons. If there is just cause to terminate an employee, then management can terminate that employee and a just termination should be able to withstand any possible arbitration that may occur. As for whether it will occur "quickly," it depends on the circumstances of the termination and whether the employee challenges the termination and seeks to arbitrate the matter.

Will the union trade part of their deferred compensation (pension and OPEBs) for higher salaries now?

No, because the union has already made concessions in the areas of pension and wages.

Can you imagine any conditions under which pay increases would be linked to measurable increases in productivity, customer satisfaction, etc.?

I can envision WMATA giving bonuses to exemplary employees.

Would you join management in advocating for issues that improve the region's transit-friendliness (i.e., not just more money for capital and operations, but TOD, bus priority, pedestrian facilities, etc...)?

Local 689 already advocates for these issues. While we usually do not coordinate our advocacy with WMATA management, we are very pro-transit and actively advocate for measures that are beneficial to mass transit. We testify on behalf of and push for legislation in Maryland, DC, and Virginia.

During the past Maryland Legislative Session, I testified on behalf of the union in support of Senate Bill 623, Maryland Department of Transportation- Transit Review and Evaluation. This bill requires the Maryland Department of Transportation to review and evaluate the best practices for transit priority treatments, and to identify priority treatment corridors. In other words, it is a step towards ensuring that the transit priority treatments that are eventually implemented will best serve the goal of allowing buses to travel through certain corridors more efficiently (bus lanes). The testimony also highlighted other benefits of transit priority measures, such as reducing congestion and reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions.

We also advocate for and are part of coalitions that support and advocate for transit oriented development. We strongly support development around Metro stations and are very active in advocating for such development.

Would you invest union pension fund resources in TOD projects in the region?

We do not have the authority to invest union pension fund resources in transit oriented development (TOD) projects, but we will continue to advocate for TOD. Feel free to email me if there are any TOD initiatives that you believe it will be helpful to have the union's support. While I am not promising that we will take part in every initiative that is presented to us, we will evaluate any proposal and if we support it and are able to make the time commitment to engage in the issue, then we will make every attempt to do so.

i would ask the union how they managed to make a transit system that (compared to other rapid transit systems in the US) is brand new into a laughably dysfunctional and increasingly dangerous mess

i would also ask the union where its mechanics received their training, as they are evidently unable to master insanely complicated and difficult tasks such as "replacing escalators" and "driving trains without killing passengers"

i would then ask the union how they can possibly countenance the idea of any sort of pay increase when they are so manifestly incompetent and incapable

The overwhelming majority of our union members are well-trained and very professional. While, unfortunately, there are a few exceptions, the majority of our members take pride in going to work and doing their job in a professional, competent manner.

What is the union's turn-over rate? How many people are fired annually? And if this number is significantly lower than it is in the private sector (which I strongly suspect it is), why is this? Is it because the union's employees are especially productive and hard workers, or is it because it's virtually impossible to fire someone, even for doing their job poorly?

I am not in a position to answer this question. Even if the number of people fired annually was readily available (which it is not), I do not have information on the corresponding rate in the private sector.

With the current high number of vacancies for both bus drivers and train operators, why is it in the contract that train operators come from the ranks of bus drivers? It seems like a large waste of time and money. You fill up the bus vacancies then rob those positions to fill the train vacancies. I'm sure there must be people out who have no desire to drive a bus or operate a train and would be happier to do what it is they really want to do, drive a bus or a train. I think the two are completely different animals with the exception of customer service.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. Two months of training for a bus operator, two months of training for a train operator. I would think that by taking this out of the contract, even if only on a temporary basis, would fill the vacancies on both sides much faster.

I have always believed that people who desire a certain job make better, stable and happier employees.

The contract prioritizes the order that train vacancies must be filled. Bus operators are given first priority when vacancies arise. Metro has never had to go outside the bus operator ranks to fill train operator positions.

Has the seniority system proved to be the best way to promote union workers? What are ways to reform the seniority system so that it looks at merit AND tenure?

Employees are not promoted solely on seniority. Seniority is one factor that is used and that may cause one qualified candidate to be promoted over another similarly qualified candidate. If two candidates are not similarly qualified, there are mechanisms in place that allow for the most senior qualified candidate to be promoted.

There are rumors that some people have cheated on the promotion exams, including some people who have been promoted to supervisor.

Management has control over the promotion process and the process to become a supervisor. We do not represent people in the process of applying to become supervisors. If someone feels that they were wronged in that process, then they can file a complaint with the civil rights office or other appropriate office within WMATA.

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

But the market has grown substantially in the past few decades. These days, transit agencies don't want to be locked into a single vendor. Instead, they want to be able to buy some of their faregates from one manufacturer, and some from another. And, they want them to see those faregates work with ticket vending machines from yet another supplier.

Open standards, like ISO 24014 and the ITSO specification, enable this kind of interoperability. By using open standards, transit authorities can procure fare collection equipment from multiple vendors and rely on it to work together seamlessly.

The use of open standards also enables better cooperation between neighboring transit authorities, even if they use fare collection equipment from different manufacturers. Existing regional smart cards for transit, like SmarTrip, TAP, and the ORCA card, have required all of the participating transit agencies to use the same equipment, from the same manufacturer.

By contrast, with open standards, riders can use the same ticket or smart card to pay their fare on multiple transit authorities as long as their fare collection systems adhere to relevant standards, regardless of manufacturer. In addition to the convenience of having a single card for fare payment, this enables benefits for riders like discounted transfers between transit systems.

Open payment represents another major shift in thinking for transit authorities. Historically, transit authorities have been the sole suppliers of what is known in the industry as 'fare media'—that is, the token, ticket, or smart card you use to pay your fare. While you may be able to reload your smart card or buy tokens at a location that is not directly controlled by the transit authority (such as a convenience store), ultimately the transit authority is responsible for supplying the fare media, no matter where you might buy it.

Open payment changes that. Open payment systems make use of smart cards and similar devices that riders already have, rather than requiring them to use a card dedicated to a specific transit authority (like New York's MetroCard or the SmarTrip card). In an open payment system, riders can use existing contactless credit and debit cards (like MasterCard PayPass, Visa payWave, American Express ExpressPay, and Discover Zip) to pay their fare directly, by tapping the card on a faregate or bus farebox.

Other contactless smart cards, such as university, government, and corporate IDs, and even some smartphones, can also be used by open payment systems, as well, allowing transit users to pay their fare using cards and devices they already carry. In addition to providing a new level of convenience to riders, open payment systems enable transit agencies to spend less distributing fare media, because more riders will opt to use personal cards and devices, rather than relying on fare media provided by the transportation authority.

However, not all riders may have a contactless credit or debit card, or other smart card, that they can use to pay their fare. For most transit agencies which are looking to adopt open payment (including WMATA), the solution is to continue to distribute some type of prepaid card (similar to the existing SmarTrip card). While many riders will choose to use a contactless credit or debit card, the prepaid card will remain an option for users who prefer a more traditional way to pay for their trips.

Together, open standards and open payment reduce the cost of a fare collection system and increase flexibility for transit authorities and riders. With these two innovations in place, transit authorities no longer have to worry about the vendors of proprietary equipment going out of business or making a system uneconomical to maintain. Instead, they can take advantage of a growing marketplace of innovative, interoperable solutions. These solutions give riders new, more convenient ways to pay their fare, and they allow transit agencies to create new programs like frequent rider rewards and cross-promotions with local merchants.

Norton said:

The National Park Service should develop flexible standards that take into account the unique circumstances and population of individual parks and changing conditions throughout the country, in keeping with Congressional recognition of both conservation and recreation as primary reasons for our parks. The neighborhood parks in the District of Columbia serve a very different function from Yellowstone. Dont Circle park is a central urban community meeting place in the District ...

I have come to the floor because I have tried unsuccessfully to get the Park Service to make small adaptations. perfectly compatible with their mission, to allow for the people in the parks in my own district, and I am certain that other members have found similar roadblocks. For example, the Park Service won't allow bikeshare stations on or near federal parks, and they are not permitting the 3 golf courses in the District of Columbia to be run as a public-private partnership.

Both of these examples have run into the same one-size-fits-all concession concerns. Yet the National Park Service could negotiate concession agreements that accommodate bikeshare in the future. And inflexibility in Park Service insistence on concession contracts that do not allow capital investment, resulting in an astonishing deterioration of invaluable, capital-intensive golf courses in the District, could give way to other approaches, such as public-private partnerships operating under long-term leases that would allow private funding to assist the Park Service with upgrading and maintain these public assets which taxpayers can't possibly by themselves maintain.

Inflexible, one-size-fits-all policies keep Americans from using our parks for compatible purposes such as bike stations or worse, condemn unique iconic resources to inevitable decline.

Moran, whose district includes Arlington, Alexandria, Reston, and southern Fairfax, endorsed the principles behind the amendment, and referred to my Post op-ed:

I think we ought to have a consideration by the Park Service of whether they are sufficiently flexible in dealing with local communities. There was a recent article written in the Washington Post talking about some of the opportunities that exist to bring the community in to local parks, urban parks, where far more people could be involved, people could participate, people could enhance the enjoyment of things that take place. ...

We could find ways to discourage automobiles and encourage bikes. Have bike sharing, for example, on the National Mall so that people could rent bikes and bike around the mall. It wouldn't cause any environmental damage; in fact, it would preserve some of the lawn on our National Mall and I think some people would enjoy it more. They'd get a little exercise.

However, Moran also noted that the amendment could be considered an earmark, which Congress is now not permitting. Simpson, too, said he felt this was an earmark, but that he agreed with Norton's objective and pledged to work with her "in conference" to accomplish this end.

On bike sharing, DDOT has wanted to have a station around Archives Metro for a long time, and in fact maps currently show a planned station there. It's a big hole in the downtown coverage. However, DDOT's Chris Holben said the area is controlled by the Park Service, preventing a station from going into this area.

More broadly, many communities would love to be more involved in local parks, perhaps through a public-private partnership involving local businesses and residents pitching in money and time to help maintain the parks, run events, and bring in concessions that enhance the park for residents and tourists alike.

Such steps would even save money, but require more flexibility by the Park Service on its policies and its concession contracts. So far, the Park Service has resisted efforts by residents and even, apparently, by Congresswoman Norton to make progress. Perhaps with more members of Congress joining in, they'll see the light.

What do you think of these locations? Will they grow Capital Bikeshare ridership and/or alleviate crowding problems?

Also, Arlington will be adding 30 new stations, whose locations haven't yet been chosen, to the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor this fall and next spring.

Here's the complete list. I've sorted the list below into broad geographic areas of the city. Stations in italics are ones slated to expand, while the ones in normal type would be new.

West downtown/Golden Triangle:

• 17th Street and Rhode Island Ave NW
  
• 18th Street and Pennsylvania Ave NW
  
• 19th Street and New Hampshire Avenue NW (Dupont South)
  
• 21st Street and I Street NW
  
• Massachusetts Avenue and Dupont Circle NW

Georgetown:

• M Street and Pennsylvania NW (Georgetown)
  
• C and O Canal and Wisconsin Ave NW

East downtown to U Street:

• Thomas Circle at 14th Street NW
  
• 7th Street and R Street NW
  
• 12th Street and G Street NW (Metro Center)
  
• 14th Street and Rhode Island Ave NW
  
• 14th Street and V Street NW
  
• 16th Street and U Street NW

Adams Morgan/Mount Pleasant:

• Columbia Road and Belmont Road NW
  
• Florida Avenue and California Street NW
  
• Lamont Street and Mt. Pleasant Street NW

Columbia Heights:

• 16th Street and Euclid Street NW
  
• Georgia Avenue and Columbia Road NW
  
• 11th Street and Kenyon Street NW
  
• 16th Street and Harvard Street NW
  
• Park Road and Holmead Place NW

Petworth area:

• Upshur Street and 14th Street NW
  
• Upshur Street and Georgia Avenue NW

North Capitol corridor:

• Rhode Island Avenue and 1st Street NW
  
• 1st Street and Michigan Ave NW

Woodley Park/Glover Park:

• 3000 Connecticut NW (Zoo)
  
• Calvert Street and 39th Street, NW (Stoddert Recreation Center)
  
• Calvert Street and Woodley Place NW

Southwest and Near Southeast:

• 4th Street and E Street SW
  
• Maryland Avenue and Independence Avenue SW (at 6th Street)
  
• Tingey Street and 3rd Street SE (Yards Park)
  
• 4th Street and M Street SW
  
• 7th Street and Water Street SW (SW Waterfront)

H Street area:

• 6th Street and Florida NE (Gallaudet University)
  
• 7th Street and Maryland Avenue NE
  
• 11th Street and H Street NE
  
• 13th Street and D Street NE
  
• 13th Street and H Street NE

Capitol Hill:

• 3rd Street and G Street SE
  
• Massachusetts Avenue and 15th Street SE
  
• New Jersey Avenue and D SE
  
• Pennsylvania Avenue and 7th Street SE (Eastern Market Metro)
  
• 13th and East Capitol Street NE (Lincoln Park)

Ward 7:

• Anacostia Avenue at Benning Road NE (River Terrace)
  
• 4500 Benning Road NE (Benning Road Metro)
  
• 38th Street, SE at Pennsylvania Ave (Fairfax Village)

Ward 8:

• 5th Street SE between Alabama and Martin Luther King Avenue SE
  
• Good Hope Road and Minnesota Avenue SE
  
• Alabama Avenue at 13th Street SE (Congress Heights Metro)
  
• W Street and Martin Luther King Avenue SE

Regardless of the final path that future development will take in the neighborhood, all three proposals would deck the CSX rail line to extend Maryland Avenue SW, include some degree of infill development, and vastly improve the connection between Benjamin Banneker Park and the Southwest Waterfront.

Rehabilitation

Under the Rehabilitation proposal, future development of the Ecodistrict would focus on retooling the vastly inefficient 60's and 70's era federal buildings that currently dominate the site. This would primarily involve a vast upgrade of the heating and cooling systems present in many of these buildings, enhancing stormwater management, and increasing on-site electricity production and conservation.

Some of the buildings may also start to incorporate residential and commercial uses in order to enhance the diversity of the neighborhood. While no buildings would be removed under this option, it would cut away the Department of Energy's overhang that currently cuts off views along 10th Street of the Smithsonian Castle to the north.

Furthermore, it would enhance the current network of streets by adding a number of new intersections and enhancing the neighborhood's connectivity.

Redevelopment

The Redevelopment proposal includes many of the elements of Rehabilitation, such as the energy-efficiency and stormwater elements, but it goes a farther in some key respects. Instead of just cutting out the 10th Street overhang, this plan would completly demolish the Department of Energy's James Forrestal building, replacing it with a number of new structures.

The great appeal of this plan is that it will open up brand new views of the Washington Monument from Virginia Avenue SW. The plan also seeks to deck over a portion of I-395 between 10th Street and 9th Street, increasing the number of potential buildings along the corridor and partially removing the unsightly highway from view.

This Redevelopment proposal also goes the farthest to enhance the connectivity of the street grid by breaking up the Department of Energy superblock and adding the greatest number of new intersections to the neighborhood.

Repurpose

NCPC's final proposal is the simplest. It focuses on repurposing several federal buildings to new uses. The buildings with the most potential include the nearby US Postal Services Library, the General Services Administration Building, and the FAA's Orrville Wright Building.

NCPC believes that simply repurposing these buildings and renovating others to more efficiently use their space could yield up to another million square feet of space in which to add neighborhood amenities.

No plan has been set in stone, and any future development will likely include bits and pieces from any or all of these proposals. All seek to enhance the neighborhood by adding new amenities, including restaurants, retail, and cultural destinations that will not only draw new residents to the area but also pull some of the millions of tourists away from the National Mall and towards the cultural amenities of our fair city.

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

The county transportation officials who designed this street to be so dangerous, the AJC reporter who pointed out she hadn't been charged, the prosecutors who overcharged the case, and the jurors who had never taken a public bus all showed no remorse for encouraging a situation where people have to break laws and put themselves in dangerous situations just to travel to work and shop.

A similar windshield perspective is on display in a recent Anne Arundel crash. A driver fatally hit Alex Canales Hernandez and, as in Nelson's case, left the scene. Also like Nelson's, it happened on a busy arterial street that's been designed for maximum vehicle speeds and not for bicycle or pedestrian safety.

Anne Arundel police spokesperson Justin Mulcahy told the Maryland Gazette, "Certain stretches of roads should really be just for vehicles." He also encouraged cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers all to pay attention and make eye contact.

Setting aside the fact that "vehicles" include bicycles, certain stretches of road are just for motor vehicles, like freeways. But those always coexist with networks of other roads that can potentially serve all modes. In most suburban areas like Cobb County, Georgia and Anne Arundel County, Maryland, designers have often made local arterial roads more freeway-like without actually providing for safe bicycle and pedestrian alternatives.

Bus stops become tiny roadside perches mere feet from speeding traffic with few or no places to cross, and people trying to get around without a car, sometimes because they can't afford one, have to take their lives into their hands and risk being blamed when anything goes wrong.

Not only do rude commenters and commentators blame these victims, but so do some police and callous spokespeople like Mulcahy or Jonathan Perok of Prince William, who blamed a pedestrian for getting killed in Dumfries who turned out to be a VDOT contractor there to install a traffic signal.

Jay Mallin made a great video in response to a similar Prince William incident that's equally relevant to Raquel Nelson's and Alex Canales Hernandez's cases. It's worth rewatching:

Wired also wrote today about a new report (PDF) framing transportation as a civil rights issue:

According to the report, the average cost of owning a car is just shy of $9,500. That may not sound like much until you realize the federal poverty level is $22,350 for a family of four. One-third of low-income African-American households do not have access to an automobile. That figure is 25 percent among low-income Latino families and 12.1 percent for whites. Racial minorities are four times more likely than whites to use public transit to get to work.

Yet the federal government allocates 80 percent of its transportation funding to highways.

"This is the civil rights dilemma: Our laws purport to level the playing field, but our transportation choices have effectively barred millions of people from accessing it," the report states. "Traditional nondiscrimination protections cannot protect people for whom opportunities are literally out of reach."

The report couldn't be more timely. Sarah Goodyear asks, could the intense media coverage of this issue mean that society is ready to start taking pedestrian rights more seriously?

There's no reason the Park Service actually has to treat every park the same, from the tiny triangle across Q Street from Dupont Circle (where they've delayed for years efforts to fix deteriorating grass and benches) to the enormous Yellowstone. I also noted that the General Service Administration, a typically slower-moving organization that has recently exhibited refreshingly forward-thinking sustainability practices, created a separate office to handle urban facilities.

Congresswoman Norton and her staff have apparently seen the coverage of these problems. She put out a press release linking up the Capital Bikeshare with another issue, NPS's reluctance to enter into public-private partnerships for DC's golf courses. Her press release says:

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) will offer an amendment today to the Interior Department Appropriations bill that requires the National Park Service (NPS) to study ways to make NPS parks in the District and throughout the nation more responsive to the diverse park communities they serve. The study is the first step towards changing current NPS policy that inflexibly treats all parks the same from, Yosemite to Dupont Circle Park.

The Congresswoman has tried unsuccessfully to get important changes for parks in the District, including allowing Capital Bikeshare stations on or near parks and permitting the three golf courses in the District to be run as a public-private partnership. Both of these examples have run into existing concession concerns. However, Norton said, "NPS could negotiate concession agreements that accommodate Capital Bikeshare in the future.

Moreover, another particularly harmful example of inflexibility is NPS insistence on concession contracts that do not allow capital investment, resulting in astonishing deterioration of invaluable, capital-intensive golf courses in the District. Inflexible, one size fits all policies keep Americans from using our parks for compatible purposes, such as bike stations, or worse, condemning unique iconic resources to inevitable decline.

Golf courses also aren't the only places NPS could benefit from public-private partnerships. Richard Layman wrote, "For 10 years the Downtown BID has been trying to get MOUs with the NPS to manage the downtown federal parks such as at McPherson Square or Franklin Square, to manage them more like how similar facilities (but not controlled by the federal government) are managed in New York City."

Some neighborhood organizations have also been looking into the potential to do the same with their local parks. Downtown BID officials wouldn't comment on the issue since they want to maintain a positive working relationship with NPS.

I've collected a lot of stories about NPS decisions that let bureaucratic process trump sensible and sustainable policies. If you have some such experiences, or would like to participate in meetings with other frustrated people, NPS officials, or members of Congress, please get in touch.