Posts about Eleanor Holmes Norton

Escalator reliability reaches 100%: Metro has achieved a new milestone for escalator maintenance. They have now reached a reliability rate of 100%; all escalators are currently broken at the same time. (Examiner, Matt Johnson)

Hop on I-395 PE: With Virginia's new program to sell naming rights to roads, Sudafed has proposed sponsoring all of Northern Virginia's congestion. (WBJ, Steve Offutt)

LOV-0 coming to a road near you: Google is reportedly working on a new program to design "passengerless cars," which will transport no people at all. In anticipation of this breakthrough, VDOT announced a plan to implement "Low-Occupancy Vehicle" lanes for their exclusive use. (Wired, Neil Flanagan)

DC4D4Thomas: DC for Democracy has endorsed Harry Thomas, Jr. as a write-in candidate for the Ward 5 special election. Members cited Thomas' consistency in talking about revitalizing the ward's main streets without making anything happen, creatively moving around money dedicated to serve youth, and his plan to solve transportation problems by setting up a series of Audi dealerships. (Geoff Hatchard)

Norton targets Wyoming: After several unsuccessful efforts to lobby state legislatures to support DC statehood, Eleanor Holmes Norton announced a new strategy to try to remove statehood from Wyoming, as it is smaller than DC. (DCist, Nick Clark)

If few people attend, NPS or Norton's staff might erroneously conclude that there aren't many resident issues or requests about parks. That's not the case, but we can best demonstrate that fact by having a lot of folks attend.

If your suggestions or frustrations are with the DC Department of Parks and Recreation instead of NPS, you have an upcoming chance to voice them as well. Tommy Wells is holding an oversight roundtable on DPR, specifically its summer programs, but it's a good opportunity to bring up your concerns to Wells and DPR officials.

That event is Tuesday, October 25, 11 am to 3 pm in Room 412 of the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave, NW. To sign up to testify, email Tawanna Shuford at tshuford@dccouncil.us or 202-727-8204.

Are you planning to go to either? Post about what you plan to discuss in the comments.

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.

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.

Parsons was a co-author of the transportation priority study I criticized and has started a new organization to lobby on transportation. He and Bob Chase touted the study on TBD last week, so Bruce DePuyt had Stewart and me on to discuss the issue further.

Which arguments did you find most persuasive, on either side of the issue?

Also, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton appeared in the second half of the hour to discuss the recent Walmart ruling, Congressional budget riders that affect DC, and rallies at the White House.

Regardless of how you feel about personal liberties or the Fourth Amendment, there are several reasons you should oppose these screenings. Any one of these should be enough to give you pause.

The bag checks do nothing to secure the Metro system. If this morning is any indication of Metro's plans for screenings, they'll take place only at a few stations at any given time, probably less than 5 of Metro's 86 stations. They may even be restricted to rush hours. This morning's checks appear to have ended by 8:45, according to news reports.

Most importantly, anyone can refuse the checks and still be allowed to board a train or bus. If you don't want to be screened for whatever reason, all you have to do is tell the officer that you don't want to be screened. You won't be permitted to enter that station with your bag, but you will be permitted to enter the system elsewhere.

At a place like Vienna, that might be a challenge for a terrorist without a car. But at any of the downtown stations, or in other close-in neighborhoods, it's a short walk to another station. And Metrobuses tend to provide a link between stations, as well.

One could easily conceive of a terrorist deciding not to be screened at a station like Farragut North simply walking to Farragut West and boarding a train there.

Or to think of it another way, imagine that prior to September 11, there was no airport security. Afterwards, they put security in place at Boston Logan, Newark, and Washington Dulles only. It would still be easy for a terrorist to hijack a plane. All they'd need to do is start their journey from a different airport. Metro's permeable and brief security barriers will do nothing to stop even a moderately determined terrorist.

They're easy to avoid. Because these checks are considered outrageous by many people and because of the prevalence of social media tools like Twitter and Facebook, it's easy to determine ahead of time where these checks are happening.

A terrorist could easily check Twitter (as UnsuckDCMetro pointed out this morning), as can anyone else wishing to avoid the hassle.

They draw resources from real crime prevention. The Metro Transit Police Department is an asset to this region. I respect their officers for what they do to keep Metro safe.

But they have limited resources. The MTPD has only 423 sworn officers, certainly a small force for an agency spread across 3 "states", 86 stations, and hundreds of miles of bus lines.

Metro is not increasing the size of the Police Department as a part of these random bag checks. And that means that officers that otherwise would have been riding trains and buses, circling parking lots, or walking platforms are being pulled away from those duties.

There have been some high-profile crimes on Metro lately. In August, a brawl erupted at L'Enfant Plaza that injured 4, and reportedly involved 70 people. Metro Police officers were able to respond from Gallery Place, probably because the agency stations extra cops there to deal with unruly teenagers. What would have happened, however, if those officers had been assigned to Dupont Circle to do random bag checks?

Are these checks worth it if even one old lady gets mugged because an officer who otherwise would have been on her train was scanning bags elsewhere? How many iPhone thefts is this security theater worth? How many teenage brawls?

We already know that MTPD response times are poor. Putting officers behind security checkpoints will only exacerbate that problem.

And that seems to be the case even if TSA personnel are stationed at the checkpoints, since it appears that Metro Transit officers will always be present at the bag checks, too.

The searches decrease the utility of transit. Traveling on Metro is not always easy. All too early in the evenings, train frequencies drop precipitously. Riders who have to transfer often spend more time standing around on platforms than they do riding on trains.

These bag checks mean that riders have to add more time into their schedules. While the checks can take at least 8 minutes, even a shorter one can mean missing a train. And if they're only coming every 20 minutes, that is a significant delay to a rider. If it makes them miss the train which would connect with their hourly bus, it's even worse.

These checks make riding transit less attractive for those who choose to take Metro. And it makes it less convenient for everyone, especially those who have no alternatives.

And that probably means that some people are going to get pushed into other modes, like driving. Lost revenue for Metro is bad, but worse is increased traffic on the Beltway, more pollution in our neighborhoods, and an increasing number of car crashes.

Metro's fare increases have already driven transit ridership down, especially for short trips, where Capital Bikeshare, walking, Metrobuses, or taxis are increasingly taking up the slack. These bag checks give riders one more reason to abandon the system.

The checks could open WMATA up to lawsuits. While similar checks undertaken by the New York City MTA were upheld by the Second Circuit in MacWade v. Kelly, that does not immunize WMATA from lawsuits.

Metro operates in the Fourth Circuit and the DC Circuit. These checks are not a part of settled case law here, and it is very likely that someone who objects to these searches will sue WMATA.

And even if those circuits uphold the searches as in MacWade, there are other grounds for lawsuits. For instance, how does Metro inform riders that they can decline the search? If they do not, does that trigger a Fourth Amendment violation?

If the Transit Police are not informing each searchee that they can decline and if the searchee does not fully understand that, it would seem to bring up circumstances similar to those adjudicated in Miranda v. Arizona.

Regardless, for no apparent security benefit, WMATA would appear to be welcoming a court challenge. And as a taxpayer and daily rider, I find that troubling.

They infringe upon privacy rights. Americans are sensitive about their privacy. As well they should be. These checks do nothing to secure our transportation network, and yet they significantly infringe upon our right to privacy.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. These searches are far from reasonable, for the variety of reasons listed here.

Random inspections are often ineffective. And even if a terrorist went to a station that was being checked, he or she might not even get selected for screening.

Truly random screening means that the vast majority of those screened are innocent commuters. And those that look or act suspicious are not necessarily screened.

Profiling like that seems to violate case law in the Second Circuit. While WMATA is not located in the Second Circuit, the only place these checks have been tested is there, and WMATA has cited that case as justification.

In New York's MacWade decision, the Second Circuit held that in order for the checks to be constitutional, they had to meet several conditions. One of those was that "police exercise no discretion in selecting whom to search, but rather employ a formula that ensures they do not arbitrarily exercise their authority" [emphasis mine].

That means that this approach checks hundreds of innocents and does not ensure that even suspicious individuals will get checked. That doesn't sound like a good approach to safety.

Of course, officers can already search someone based on probable cause, but they don't need checkpoints to do that. And using checkpoints to generate probable cause would seem to violate the spirit and letter of MacWade.

They create false perceptions in the traveling public. These searches create two false perceptions in riders, though not both in the same rider.

On the one hand, the mere fact that screenings are taking place creates an atmosphere of threat. It reminds people that they need to be suspicious and afraid. After all, a terrorist could be lurking just behind the next platform pylon.

But on the other hand, they also generate a false sense of security. Why should a rider be alert if people are screened before entering? Unfortunately, the ineffectiveness of this security measure means that transit riders are really no more secure than they were before the checks.

Treating customers with suspicion is not the way to win their patronage. As noted earlier, close to all of those being screened are going to be regular, innocent riders. Treating them like potential terrorists is insulting and inconvenient. And it's unlikely to encourage them to ride transit again.

They show poor resource planning. The planning profession is often associated with urban planning, but it's actually a much larger field. And it includes strategic and resource planning.

Planners are taught to use the Rational Planning Model to evaluate policy.

Essentially the model works like this:

1. Identify the problem
2. Generate solutions
3. Generate objective assessment criteria
4. Choose the best alternative
5. Implement chosen alternative
6. Continuously evaluate outcomes and repeat model as necessary

It's clear that the bag check policy was not subjected to that model.

Terrorism is a real threat. And it is a problem that needs to be addressed. But looking carefully at the approach which has been taken shows that it is riddled with holes, fails to address the core issues, and generates unintended consequences which may be larger threats to the agency than the original problem.

Metro and the Transit Police Department need to cease this program of bag checks immediately. They have angered the public, inconvenienced riders, and failed to solve or even reduce the terrorism problem.

These random bag checks make riding transit less safe. And as long as Metro wastes resources this way, it will continue to exhibit its general inability to deal effectively with the real problems of the agency.

You can speak up at the Riders' Advisory Council meeting on Monday, January 3. It's at 6:30 pm in the committee room at WMATA HQ, 600 5th Street, NW, left and then right after security. Any rider can speak, and the RAC has reached out to MTPD to see if someone can make a presentation and answer questions.