Posts about Bag Searches

"Since it has been several years since Richard Reid, the notorious shoe bomber, attempted to bomb an airplane with his shoe, we don't want to give terrorists the idea that we have forgotten about this attack method," Taborn said. "We can't let them think that."

"In order to foil such a plot," Taborn continued, "we will randomly deploy officers to two or three of the 86 stations in the system, asking every 17th customer to remove one of their shoes and walk to the train in that manner. Experts say this will really keep potential terrorists on their toes."

The shoe-checking program will be instituted at the beginning of May. It will not be in effect on days with inclement weather, temperatures below 50 or above 75, or in any jurisdiction that requires shirt and shoes for service.

"While these new measures may raise questions with some customers about effectiveness or civil liberties," Sarles chided, "I've been told by various experts that they will reduce terrorist attacks by at least 100% year over year."

In fact, if Metro hears from national security experts that the threat level has reached a certain level, they have begun scoping more strict terrorism deterrents. Sarles told reporters, "Under certain circumstances, we may even choose random stations to shut down entirely or simply discontinue service for a period of months. Statistically, that is the most effective way to reduce the chance of attacks. Or at least so I've been told."

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.

Instead, he hoped the discussion would center around how to communicate this decision to customers. "Without a dedicated commitment to listening to our customers about heartfelt issues about privacy and other rights and about security," he said, the Board risks having the kind of reaction that the TSA encountered to its pat-downs.

Fairfax's Cathy Hudgins, the current Board chair, added that the Board should explore whether better communication could "alleviate concerns and stress" for riders over this program.

That wasn't compelling to Kathy Porter, new alternate from Montgomery County. She pointed out that there's not much the Board could do with any feedback it might receive, if it's not interested in taking any action based on that feedback.

"I respect the GM and the chief," she said, and acknowledged the law enforcement imperative to protect the safety and security of the system. However, she said, "Our relationship with our riders has a significant impact on the safety and security of the system," and that surely is the purview of the Board.

Fairfax's Jeff McKay, a staunch supporter of the bag searches, wondered why the Board was discussing the issue in this context. If they want to discuss the program, discuss the program, he said; but is there really value in discussing how much communication is needed for security measures?

McKay added that he'd hate to see any rules that the GM and chief had to give a certain amount of notice to the public if future credible threats arise and they have to institute other security measures.

McKay has a point. The Board was trying to avoid having to confront the bag searches directly through this exercise in talking instead about communication. The conversation became much better once they got their views out in the open. Some wholeheartedly like the program, some clearly don't, and others remained reluctant to take a stand.

DC Councilmember Tommy Wells argued that questions about the program "are highly appropriate" given the level of scrutiny the Board puts into spending priorities in other areas, like railcar replacement. He said that there is a tradeoff between any security measure's effectiveness and other factors, and that's what the Board should consider; he comes out against the program on those grounds.

Federal member Mort Downey feels differently. "This is a national security issue," said Downey, and "outweighs every other issue in civil society." Downey said he is afraid of having to go before a Congressional committee to justify why Metro didn't take these precautions.

It's clear Downey simply thinks the program is fine, but the argument about Congressional committees is the least convincing argument of all. We don't want Board members who make decisions based on what Senators might say in the event of various outcomes. That's a recipe for policy decisions based more on fear than on good policy.

Downey actually seemed to want stronger measures, saying that the current searches were just the edge of what needs to be done. He lamented the way airport security measures were "pushed back" by airlines before the 9/11 attacks.

Maryland's Peter Benjamin began his own remarks by saying that he's a long-term member of the ACLU, and a strong believer in civil rights. "I feel that bag checks are a violation of those rights, and the beginning of a process that moves towards us having fewer and fewer and fewer of those rights," he said.

If the decision was up to him, he'd take the risk of someone possibly getting in, blowing something up, and him being a victim of an attack. He feels that this program's effectiveness does not outweigh the cost.

As listeners could guess from hearing a statement starting with "I'm a long-term member of the ACLU," there was a "but." Benjamin continued that he's also sworn to uphold the safety and security of the system and the riders. He isn't comfortable making the decision for other riders, and while he heard the overwhelming rider input at the RAC meeting and the RAC's resolution, he doesn't know if that reflects all riders and isn't willing to overturn the expert opinion of the GM and police chief.

Just last week, Benjamin himself swore in several new Board members, and so we know that in that oath also includes a promise to uphold the Constitution. Did he forget about this piece?

Richard Sarles noted that given time and "being relaxed," he'd prefer to solicit more customer feedback, and he did have concerns about civil liberties, but "wanted to be ahead of the game instead of behind," especially going into the holiday season. Sarles defended his right to make decisions when necessary, saying if he had to take action for the safety of riders, "By God, I'm going to make that decision."

Sarles should have that right. McKay is right that the Board shouldn't require some long consultation process. However, it's also right for the Board to review whether the GM has gone too far. Most apparently don't.

But what about that slippery slope Benjamin is worried about (but not too worried)? Wells asked Chief Taborn, why not implement full body scans, or 100% ID checks to enter Metro? Porter later asked, if the GM did decide to start such programs, would the Board want to know?

There wasn't a good answer to that. Instead, Downs concluded with a suggstion to "establish some values" around customer communication. He made a good point that it might be healthy for the police to be doing more talking with concerned riders; at the RAC meeting, Capt. Kevin Gaddis seemed shocked at a suggestion he might benefit from talking with the ACLU and other groups from time to time. A little dialogue could go a long way if the police can come to see riders as something other than potential enemies.

The dangling question is how far the Board would let the GM and police chief go. To listen to Downey and McKay, who brought up many of the usual tropes about how things were different on 9/12/2001 versus 9/10/2001 and how we live in a different world, anything the GM does in the name of safety is acceptable.

It sounded suspiciously similar to the arguments for torture and Guantanamo. If only the Obama administration might reconsider its choice of federal representatives to find one that shares its values beyond simply having long expertise in transit.

Meanwhile, at least there's hope that the pushback on this program might dissuade Sarles and Taborn from performing very many bag searches or venturing into even more invasive security measures. And if that happens, a few more Board members just might find some fortitude and stand with Porter and Wells.

Safety staff are now "embedded out in the field," Sarles says at bus and rail shops. These staff are now interacting regularly with superintendents, mechanics and other employees, and are participating on the local safety committee. This is encouraging, though it highlights how awry Metro's safety procedures had gone, if its safety officers were not previously working at the local facilities on a regular basis.

In accordance with an NTSB recommendation, WMATA has also put in a safety measurement system to collect data which can analyzed to uncover trends and anomalies. These data can be better used to identify hazards over time.

Sarles also emphasized that WMATA's new focus on State of Good Repair investment will help promote the safety culture with employees at all levels. "The employees see [our state of good repair investments] and that helps them realize that we, as an organization, are making heavy investments in safety. That encourages people to think more about it."

"We had to really rebuild the capital program management capability of this organization, because it had been lost. Because of the feeling that construction was done, so we just have little to do. Well, we have a lot to do, $5 billion in 6 years."

On escalators and elevators

Sarles brought up the work WMATA is undertaking to implement the recommendations of a consultant for improving escalator and elevator reliability.

We've criticized that report, however, for not presenting any causal analysis of actual downtime, but rather a list of a couple dozen standards that WMATA falls short of.

When asked whether he knows the actual causes of escalator and elevator downtime, Sarles agreed that the report did not provide such causes. Such analysis is being done by the new head of the Elevator and Escalator Department (ELES) using data that is now being entered into the maintenance management system.

With this analysis, they hope to know the causes of downtime "in the next couple months". He pointed out that ELES had been elevated in the organizational structure to help problems be addressed more seriously.

Sarles added that the major overhaul work at Foggy Bottom, where the 3 street to mezzanine escalators are being completely replaced and a staircase added, is indicative of the steps Metro is willing to take to get the vertical movement problem under control.

"I'm an engineer by background," Sarles said. "I started out in construction, so my thing is delivering results, not talking about them forever."

On bag searches

Having told WTOP on Monday that the bag searches are more about deterrence than detection, we asked Sarles to explain how exactly these searches could deter a terrorist attack. Instead, he turned to the example of New York, essentially saying that because the NYPD and Port Authority Police have this policy, WMATA should as well.

"You don't want the bad guys to think everything is predictable," he said, reminded the group of bloggers several times that this is not his rationale, but that of counter­terrorism experts. These experts have advised the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and NYPD policies, where, he says, random searches have been successful, though without offering any clarification of what 'successful' means.

When pressed on how much unpredictability is introduced by forcing a bad guy to go to a station several blocks away, Sarles again relied the authority of counter­terrorism experts. These unnamed experts say that terrorists like to plan, and the unpredictability of random searches may force them to go back to the drawing board. Asked what's to keep a terrorist for planning for the event that their first target station has bag checks, he immediately changed the subject.

We asked Sarles whether WMATA had explored any ways to use the TSA grants to implement counter­terrorism measures that also increase the presence of officers within the station, on the platforms. He answered quickly, "Well, these searches are just outside the fare control line," before changing the subject.

On a positive note, Sarles emphasized that he would not allow random searches to be something that caused any riders to stand in line to enter a station. "I don't want customers to be inconvenienced."

On funding

Sarles voiced far more concern over the future of federal funding, given the new Republican-controlled House, than the future of funding from Virginia or Maryland. He said he would be actively lobbying Congress, as well as working to mobilize other supporters much like was done at the end of 2010 to support extending the $230 transit benefit.

When asked what a drop in federal funding would mean, Sarles was blunt about the impact it would have on bringing WMATA up to a state of good repair. "We will not catch up. It's devastating."

On farecard improvements

WMATA has revealed plans to migrate from SmarTrip cards to an open payment fare technology. Sarles said the agency is just in the beginning phases of exploring these technologies, and will not be rolling out a full scale change until it is sure of the reliability and can mitigate the inconveniences to riders.

When asked about the summer revelation that the agency seemed to be running out of SmarTrip cards, he recognized there were clearly some communication issues that needed to be addressed as the agency moves forward with new fare payment programs.

On improving communication

We asked Sarles how he can help break the barriers between the various divisions of WMATA to improve communication within the agency, and between the operating divisions and the public. He said that he is working to instill the idea of "one message" with his leadership team.

When asked if this unifying approach could result in precluding more communication between the agency's divisions and the public, he said that WMATA is trying to open up communication through data reports and other regular releases.

On customer service

Sarles has been talking with riders at downtown stations over the last couple weeks, asking them what their biggest complaints are.

While the most common complaints he's heard deal with the disrespectful way in which many riders treat the trains and buses, leaving newspapers and trash behind, he acknowledged that the agency needs to make improvements in customer service.

WMATA is having an independent group assess the agency's customer call center, and how quickly and effectively it responds to customer issues. Sarles also plans to reintroduce a "secret shopper" program to get feedback from riders.

On increasing capacity

Major capital investments will be consumed by safety and state of good repair projects. In the near and medium term, Sarles acknowledged that the agency has no plans for major increases in capacity. Instead, WMATA will be concentrating on ways to improve the bus system, working with the jurisdictions to implement priority measures such as traffic signal priority and bus lanes.

On the 7000 series

The new rail cars, expected by 2014, will be 4-car sets, instead of married pairs, eliminating two cabs on each four car set and making more room for riders. The cars will have cameras throughout as well as automated station announcements and electronic information boards very similar to the New York Subway's new FIND systems.

While the "transverse" seating arrangements of the current cars, with forward and back facing seats, will remain, the cars we be built to allow reconfiguring the seating to "longitudinal," where seats face the center, if crowding becomes a problem and the agency decides to make the change.

Sarles said he would be happy to host blogger roundtables in the future, and we also discussed briefly the possibility of having chats with other members of the leadership team who can speak to more specific questions.

Although our time was short, and there were some dodgy answers regarding bag searches, the conversation with Sarles was informative and encouraging. We hope this engagement with the community continues.

Sarles is also appearing on TBD NewsTalk starting at 10 today.

Ironically, the "secret shopper" is something John Catoe had proposed, but which came under scorn for spending money on such a program amid budget cuts. If this is the best way to get real impartial data on customer service success, however, it's worth what's surely a very small expense.

Sarles also spoke about the importance of pushing for funding, including from Congress. Metro "needs to make COngress understand" how important the Metro system is to Washington, including to the federal government. Hopefully this signifies that he will work visibly to build support among the public and local and federal governments for Metro, in addition to managing internal operations.

Numerous public witnesses also criticized the bag search program, and the Riders' Advisory Council presented its resolution asking the Board to halt it amid concerns about its effectiveness, its impact on civil liberties, other potential use of police resources, and the lack of discussion at the Board before launching the program.

Two of the new members, DC Councilmember Tommy Wells and Montgomery County alternate Kathy Porter, both voiced concerns about the program. Porter emphasized that the safety and security of the system is very important, but that it's important to balance that against intrusiveness and other possible uses of resources.

New Arlington member Mary Hynes said she felt the Board had delegated the decision about bag searches to the General Manager, and that it's appropriate for them to leave the decision to him. The RAC and Board of Trade governance reports did both call for the Board to delegate specific operational decisions to the GM, but it was always the RAC's intention, at least, that the Board could and would still review decisions and have the opportunity to accept or reject recommendations.

Board member Jeff McKay from Fairfax argued that if the security professionals feel there is a credible threat, then he would want to trust their judgment. It's worth pointing out, though, that Metro Transit Police actually said during the RAC's hearing that there was in fact no specific threat, but just a general concern about terrorism broadly.

Federal member Mort Downey also talked about his confidence in the professionals and his fear of attacks. He noted that 25% of terrorist attacks worldwide have targeted surface transportation systems.

However, if it takes police away from patrolling platforms, and as a result someone gets hurt or killed by regular non-terrorist thugs, that should be Taborn's problem. But it's not his job to consider this program in light of the bigger picture.

That's Richard Sarles' job, and Sarles has fallen down on this job. Sarles should not have authorized moving forward on a program whose value is extremely dubious, given other public safety needs and other potential drawbacks. Perhaps any security program, no matter what its value, is a good idea to Taborn, but someone higher up in the chain needs to intervene and say that such a controversial and intrusive program isn't worth the huge range of costs.

The same issue emerged with the 7000-series railcars. The people in charge of the railcars didn't want to consider longitudinal seating (where people sit with their back to the wall) because it might be a little bit less safe. However, they could not quantify this at all.

Assuming a train crashes into another, which it shouldn't since WMATA ought to fix the signals, then maybe—maybe—someone might get thrown a little farther down the car than they might have otherwise, which could possibly lead to a little bit more harm. Or something.

But what is the chance someone would fall off a platform that wouldn't be so overcrowded if cars had more capacity? Who knows? That's not the 7000 Series designers' problem.

On Monday, RAC member Carol Carter Walker also asked whether MTPD had done any outreach to the community or civil liberties groups before instituting the program. Deputy Chief Ron Pavlik seemed baffled by the suggestion that they should work with anyone outside MTPD as opposed to simply "notifying" the Board, riders, and others that the searches were going to happen. They certainly didn't talk to the RAC.

Jay Marks of DC said in his comments, "I don't have any confidence that the Metro Board will listen to [the RAC] either, but thanks for trying." Based on Board Chairman Peter Benjamin's comments to Dr. Gridlock, there's reason to worry the Board may not stand up for liberty. If they don't, they're doing a lot of harm to the agency they represent.

It's always politically tough for elected or appointed officials to stand up in the face of comments like, "If only one person's life is saved, then this program is worth it." That's the kind of thinking that is leading the Board to put every safety measure, no matter how questionable in value, above every other kind of repair the system needs, or Sarles to put this bag search program above all other public safety priorities.

There's an easier way out. The Board should agree to hold a public hearing on this issue and members should express their concerns about the program in a meeting. Then, Sarles, who's going to leave really soon anyway, should quietly stop performing the searches, just as they started them with little notice. Everyone can claim to still be protecting safety, and WMATA can reverse a very bad decision.

One of the more eloquent speakers was a colonel in the United States Air Force. He said of the searches, "Regardless of whether [they're] constitutional, [they're] not right... If we give up liberty for security, we dishonor the sacrifice" of those who have died to protect this country.

Johnny Barnes from ACLU of the Nation's Capital said, "We can be safe and free, but we are not safe if we are not free." Sue Udry from Defending Dissent noted that FDR's famous "Four Freedoms" includes "freedom from fear," and said that this program fosters an "atmosphere of fear."

Others made less philosophical but more practical arguments. Andy Hunt argued that if he can walk 10 blocks to avoid a "peak of the peak" fare, then a terrorist certainly could do so. Apparently, quite a few people agree. A petition opposing the searches from the Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition has been signed by over 600 people, evenly split between Maryland, Virginia, and the District.

Representatives of Metro Transit Police (MTPD), though, weren't fazed by the opposition. Deputy Chief Ron Pavlik gave a very brief presentation of the program without addressing concerns around effectiveness or the fear of an ever-encroaching police state.

In fact, when asked if MTPD would ever voluntarily discontinue the program, Pavlik said that would happen "when the world changes." For many in the audience and for many at MTPD, I expect, that means never.

MTPD Captain Kevin Gaddis noted that of the 55 comments Metro had received regarding this topic through their online comment system, most were supportive of the policy.

MTPD has run 5 station bag checks and screened approximately 100 riders. Only one bag tested positive, and the follow-up X-ray screening cleared that person's bag. No one has declined to be screened, although if someone left before encountering an officer, they wouldn't have been counted.

Gaddis characterized each of these sessions as "successful." When pressed, he clarified that "successful" means that the officers completed the screening with a minimum of passenger delay, no incidents occurred, and they made a "show of force" against terrorism.

Whether any terrorists were deterred, the officers couldn't say, nor whether this program has been effective in any other cities.

Searchees are selected at random by counting bags "larger than a typical woman's purse," and stopping the rider representing a predetermined number without respect to the characteristics of theat rider. No one is exempt from the searches, including children and Metro employees.

Anyone can decline to be screened, though they will not be allowed to board the train with the bag. If someone refuses a bag search, they will be permitted to "leave the bag in their car" and then board the train. When pressed about riders who arrive on foot, bicycle, or by bus and would otherwise be stranded, Pavlik agreed that riders would indeed be permitted to board a Metrobus with the bag in question.

On the other hand, Pavlik said that they could use "other means" if someone refuses to have their bag searched and leaves. They would not elaborate on what these "other means" were, and specifically avoided addressing whether these means included following or questioning search refusers.

If someone is selected for a random search and elects to allow the screening, the exterior of their bag will be examined for explosive residue. This search is only for explosives. However, if the sensor detects the residue, the officers will run the bag through an X-ray machine. If they see anything suspicious, they could open the bag, and if they find anything illegal in the second round of screening, whether explosive or not, the rider could be charged.

MTPD considers this program to come at "no cost" to the agency. The officers used for these screenings are funded through a $26 million, multi-year antiterrorism grant from the TSA. The grant funds the officers' salaries, equipment, and training. Only certain programs qualify, though that doesn't necessarily have to include random bag searches. One requirement of the grant is "visibility", which MTPD has fulfilled in the past through major "shows of force" at selected stations.

Of course, as Pavlik admitted, these officers could perform for other tasks in the system were they not screening bags. But the police force seems unable to recognize the concept of resource prioritization. Repeatedly, RAC members asked whether this was a wise use of resources. The MTPD representatives only responded that a "layered approach" was ideal, and that no one approach was best.

If bag searches take resources away from something known to be effective, that's okay with MTPD, because it means better layering. But that's a recipe for bad policy. They also seemed unconcerned that this particular layer, even with its indeterminate value, could potentially run afoul of civil liberties and undermine public support for Metro.

As far as delay is concerned, the Transit Police only seem concerned that in general the flow through the station is unimpeded. They characterized the delay to individuals as only approximately 20 seconds, but later revealed that they only count the time from when the bag "hits the table". The time when a rider is pulled aside, spoken with, or a delay resulting from a missed train or connection is not considered.

Several members of the audience pointed out even a 30 second check can result in a "cascading effect" on riders. Missing one train might mean missing an hourly bus, and an hour in the extreme cold or summer heat is an added burden to Metro's valued customers.

With respect to the searches themselves, the Transit Police report that they are not retaining any personal data from passengers who undergo screening. Records are kept regarding how many searches are done, how long they take, and at which stations they occur.

Proposals to run bag searches came up in 2005 and 2008, but following public pushback and concerns from the WMATA Board, the previous GMs and police chiefs decided not to move ahead. This time, Interim GM Sarles and Chief Taborn gave their approval with only the briefest of notifications to the Board.

I'm glad the Metro Transit Police Department is trying to make our system more secure. But this particular application, even if it's only one layer, is an inefficient and ineffective use of resources. It erodes personal liberties and public support for Metro. The Board should step in to stop the program.