"I don't want to hide problems. That's the worst thing you can do."
--Metro interim GM Richard Sarles
--Metro interim GM Richard Sarles
When you ride Metrorail, there are pretty much three basic things you care about – how often the trains come; whether one will break down and delay you once you get on; and whether you’re likely to be injured or killed while riding.
Those were the thoughts behind three public records requests Unsuck filed with Metro on July 26. Below is a scorecard on how the new, “open” Metro has fared in handling these requests for basic, vital information about system operations.
For each request, in addition to the actual inquiry, we also sought expedited consideration and a waiver of fees. We did so because these inquiries address information of urgent interest to riders and the public beyond, and because agencies typically seek to thwart information access by charging outrageous fees.
As the chart shows, the openness promised by Metro’s new general manager isn’t much in evidence.
Bad as the results are, keep in mind that the public records process is how Metro insists that many public inquiries be handled, including the salaries of its executive team!
We will be sharing these dismal results with each member of the Metro Board of Directors, to see what they’ve got to say – whether they’ll stand up for public access, or instead back the bureaucrats (who work for them!) that prefer to be roadblocks to access.
We’ll let you know the results.--CS
Sorry. Not sure why the table is so far down. Please scroll. If you can see the problem, please let us know.
| REQUEST 1: Reliability, repair, operation, or design of railcar doors | REQUEST 2: Safety and other issues with “bellying” 1000-series cars in middle of trains | REQUEST 3: Automatic train control and development of real-time collision-avoidance system | |
| Request for expedited consideration – Did Metro respond within required 10 calendar days? | NO (Took 22 days to respond) | NO (Took 22 days to respond) | NO (Response 46 days late as of 9/20/10) |
| Decision on request for expedited consideration. | DENIED (Stated reason: No urgency; information already known by public. Unsuck has appealed.) | DENIED (Stated reason: No urgency; information already known by public. Unsuck has appealed.) | PENDING |
| Request for fee waiver – Has Metro responded? | NO | NO | NO |
| Overall request – Did Metro respond within required 20 working days? | NO (Response 28 days late as of 9/20/10) | NO (Response 28 days late as of 9/20/10) | NO (Response 28 days late as of 9/20/10) |
| Decision on overall request – Has Metro released requested information? | PENDING | PENDING | PENDING |
Other items:
Pentagon Metro security changes rethought (Examiner)
San Fran's Muni chief on Metro's GM list (WTOP)
New CharmCard would work in DC and Baltimore (GGW)
Logging you in...
Oct. 11, 2012
February 21, 2012
March 4, 2010
Posts
.svg){kind=link}
@FixWMATA · 757 weeks ago
ghost · 757 weeks ago
JTDC · 757 weeks ago
Also, the nature of your request is extremely broad and could potentially include hundreds or thousands of emails that are not easily identified.
While I applaud your effort, I think you would get a better response by narrowing the focus of your request and clarifying it, particularly since a great deal of it does indeed seem to be available in the form of the public reports we've seen from WMATA and NHTSA.
Instead of asking for "any and all information" on a broad subject, with caveats about what you do and do not mean, you should ask for specific things.
E.g.: incident reports of door-closing failures. Copies of emails or memos pertaining to the the manual door closing decision.
Likewise request #2 is extremely broad and it's unclear what your goal is. We know why trains were place on automatic control -- it was a direct consequence of the accident, and the failure of the train detection system. What are you looking for other than the public reports about this? Do you want to see copies of the actual conversations following the accident? Why?
At the end of the day, you are fishing. It would be impossible for them to adequately respond to such a broad request in any reasonable amount of time. If you want to see data - ask for data. If you want to see emails on a subject, ask for them. Otherwise they have every right to just tell you to forget it because you're asking for everything.
C S · 757 weeks ago
Thanks for your comments. You raise valid issues about any records request. Have you read our actual requests? I think they get at what you mention about urgency and specifics. See what you think; would welcome further thoughts.
JTDC · 756 weeks ago
Guest · 757 weeks ago
Urgency: If Metro uses the same criteria for urgency as the FOIA, the meaning of urgency is extremely narrow and seldom granted. However, the heavy public interest in some of the records should be considered. Although, even an expedited request can take years because of the volume of records or the complexity of processing of the records.
Timeline: While 20 day responses are required, it is not unusual, and depending on the department, common, for the response to take longer.
I looked over the request and you are asking for an extensive search, as opposed to a single record or records from a specific day or month. These searches can take a long time and can include sifting through tens of thousands of emails and other electronic files. Particularly, your second request (for the train control system as related the June 22, 2009 crash) likely has many, many related records, as this system was extensively studied (based on news reports).
I know the request side often looks straight forward, but if you want Metro to make a complete and thorough effort to search and process records, it will take a lot of man hours.
@kara_h · 757 weeks ago
Guest · 757 weeks ago
@kara_h · 757 weeks ago
MrS · 757 weeks ago
aleonard1 52p · 757 weeks ago
unsuckdcmetro 92p · 757 weeks ago
John · 757 weeks ago
FIRE
DAVID
LACOSSE
NOW!
Who's with me?
All 4 Lacosse · 757 weeks ago
John · 757 weeks ago
anon · 756 weeks ago
king friday 13 · 757 weeks ago
John · 757 weeks ago
"The top Metro official in charge of escalators and elevators -- David Lacosse -- has since early January rejected repeated requests by e-mail, phone and in person for interviews by The Washington Post.
"He has made it clear to us that he has no interest in being interviewed," Metro spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein said in an e-mail. "We have contacted him numerous times. He does not want to, and we have no authority to make him," she said.
Lacosse has worked in his current position for about six years, according to Metro spokesman Steve Taubenkibel. On the day this article appeared on The Post's Web site, Taubenkibel forwarded the data on escalator reliability to The Post, which he said came from Lacosse."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
WE SHOULD BE CALLING FOR THIS GUY'S FIRING! ENOUGH SLOUCHING!!!!
GlenmontGirl · 757 weeks ago
If we didn't already know Metro had serious problems, I think this would raise a few red flags. Not only his refusal to be interviewed, but the fact that other "top Metro officials" (hmm, I don't know, like the GM?) seem to have no control/authority over him. I understand why Metro couldn't technically "force" him to do interviews, but I suspect in a well-run institution with powerful leadership he could be shall we say "compelled" to do them. I don't know that they would be honest interviews, as he would probably be parroting the views of said powerful upper management, but at least they could force him to pretend like he cares about communicating with the public.
John · 757 weeks ago
B.O. · 753 weeks ago
You have to be very very specific in what you ask. Know of a doors-wrong-side incident? Write an FOIA request about that, requesting data, analysis, memos, E-mails on that one incident.
And don't neglect the NTSB docket as a way of digging up details. e.g. http://www.ntsb.gov/Dockets/RailRoad/DCA09MR007/d...