Transit
Who pays for bag searches down the road?
Metro's random bag searches have drawn opposition on a number of counts, including their cost and demand on police officers' time. WMATA has continuously stated that a federal grant from the Transportation Security Administration pays for the program.
But will the searches continue when the TSA grant runs out, and how will they be paid for? New WMATA CEO Richard Sarles didn't answer that question when I posed it to him last week.
Sarles has said he plans to continue the agency's random bag searches at station entrances despite protests from many riders and civil liberties groups. During last week's meeting, the WMATA Board made clear it has no intention of intervening in this decision.
That means opponents are left with two options. They can fight the searches in court on the basis that they violate riders' liberties. Or, they can hope the agency will realize their ineffectiveness at deterring determined terrorists, or run out of grant money and eventually let the program expire.
Will the second one happen? I asked Sarles this week how long Metro expected that the $26 million TSA grant would sustain the random search program and whether he anticipates continuing the searches once the grant is expended. If they do continue, I asked, how much will they cost and how does WMATA expect to absorb them into their budget?
His response was a non-answer:
Our security strategy includes varying the methods that we use, as unpredictability is a factor in protecting the system. Another factor is being responsive to conditions as they change. For those reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about what methods we might use years from now with or without grant support.One of the most damning arguments against the bag searches, in my opinion, is that Metro is allocating its resources to a "security" function which has little or no other use. Despite the fact that the actual swabbing of bags is being carried out by TSA personnel, the full operation of these checkpoints requires the time of several Metro Transit Police officers to stand around at tables outside the station entrances.
As Metro Transit Police's assistant chief has admitted, the TSA grant under which the searches are purportedly funded simply stipulates that programs must increase visibility of security measures in the system.
Having anti-terror squads, or even random bag searches actually inside the faregates, on platforms and in trains could serve an equally effective terrorism deterrence function. It would also increase general public safety throughout the system at a time when riders are calling its and their safety into question.
While I have some concerns about the slow ebbing of passengers civil liberties the searches represent, I'm most vehemently opposed to them based on their gross ineffectiveness and the fact that the resources and personnel time they require to carry out could be put to much better use elsewhere in the system.
On numerous cases, Sarles, Transit Police Chief Michael Taborn, and other officials have dismissed concerns about the cost of and allocation of resources to the agency's new random bag searches. Questions have been deflected by the simple answer that the measures are paid for by a TSA grant from the federal government.
Yet, if Sarles' and Taborn's vehement defense of the searches as effective is to be taken seriously, then they surely won't let them end when the TSA grant is spent, right? That is a big concern, particularly considering that with a $26 million grant, they must not be cheap.
There are reasons to oppose the program even if Metro weren't spending a dime of its scarce resources on them. But if this program continues without TSA money in the future, while we face the continual threat of service cuts and fare increases, we should be severely disappointed.
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Where is downtown Prince George's County?
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional








by Kate on Feb 21, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report
by JD Ferry on Feb 21, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report
by Ivan4 on Feb 21, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report
Same person as now. China, aka the deficit.
by Jasper on Feb 21, 2011 4:02 pm • link • report
by Chris Adams on Feb 21, 2011 4:11 pm • link • report
The budget for this grant probably also includes money for equipment that WMATA would otherwise not be able to afford (like useful explosives detectors) that the agency will be able to keep after the grant is complete. Now, of course, Sarles can't say "we're only doing these stupid bag checks because we don't want to lose out on free money that some dimwit in DHS decided to give us", so he has to make up some lame excuse about safety.
If WMATA didn't do the bag checks as required by the grant, the Feds could demand a portion of their funds back. Metro just needed to run a few pilot programs and then report back to the Feds how they worked and where the money was spent. My guess is that once the grant funds run out there will be no further need to run bag checks. Unless, of course, another federal safety grant is in the pipeline...
by Adam L on Feb 21, 2011 6:48 pm • link • report
Why not just have the cops stop whomever they wish on the street and ask for their papers and search them?
Why not just set up random roadblocks to check ID and search people's trunks?
That would make us all safer, wouldn't it?
by Zak on Feb 21, 2011 8:41 pm • link • report
You evidently do not realize how close we may be to having all those things happen- bag searches at hotels and restaurants, cops stopping folks on the street, random roadblocks, and more! Just let two or three car bombs go off or suicide bombers be successful and you will see- people will be crying out for the government to DO something, anything, and those are the tactics that will be used. Furthermore, you will like it, in fact insist on it, and probably you will be blaming the authorities for not starting sooner, especially if one or more of your dear friends or relatives is injured in a bombing. We have been dodging the bullet for years now but it is inevitable that we will be hit with some domestic terror sooner or later.
Of course, our hit(s) may come sooner if Republicans have their way- cutting the government's ability to deal with these threats, all in the name of fiscal stability.
by KMM on Feb 22, 2011 8:36 am • link • report
Airport scanners will become more ubiquitous and will eventually come to the point where all of your luggage and body will be checked and viewed by just walking through a scanner.
Then, duh, the next target will not be an airport, but a train or bus or whatever. Then all of a sudden the companies that make the scanners (the guy Obama took to India is one of the largest producers of them) will advocate them from everywhere from trains to buses, schools to banks, metro systems to restaurants. Sure they will be way, way smaller... But this is the future... is it that hard to envision?
by Mike Rogers on Feb 22, 2011 10:45 am • link • report
by Goety on Feb 22, 2011 12:39 pm • link • report
Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever. Have you not heard about all of the uproar coming from Washingtonians about this? I am a high school student born and raised in DC, and not a single person I know thinks this is a good or effective idea. And did you also not just read an entire article about how a WASHINGTON CITIZEN thinks this is unreasonable? Are you simply commenting without reading anything first?
However, we are not giving up Constitutional rights because the Fourth Amendment protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure. While you may personally think it is unreasonable, it's not legally unreasonable unless they are racial profiling. They will be doing the searches at regular intervals.
And also, not everyone in DC works in the government. That is possibly the most ignorant assumption about the District that I have ever heard, and I trust me, I've heard a lot.
by Liz on Mar 2, 2011 10:38 pm • link • report
Add a Comment