Radio Problems: More than Meets the Quote?

Metro's relatively new, $70 million radio system is a top gripe for Metro employees. Every one I've talked to derides it. The cops hate it, and so does Jackie Jeter, the union head.

So initially, yesterday's "system wide radio communication problem" wasn't really surprising.

But did anyone find the Washington Post quote from Metro chief flack Dan Stessel odd?

“It was a console in the rail control center where a foot pedal that is used to key the mike became stuck in the open position,” he said. “It wasn’t a problem with the network or infrastructure. It was a very simple issue.”

I found it interesting that he added the part about the network and infrastructure. He didn't really need to, and I sloughed it off until I started to hear from Metro employees.

"We have always had problems where certain areas are not covered, but this is system wide and today, across multiple channels. That is why the pedal thing doesn't add up," said one Metro source.

Three sources said the problem yesterday was over multiple channels. Apparently, one channel starting making a funny sound and was unusable, and they switched to another, which worked for a while, but then it, too, failed and started making the same sound.

One worker called me up so I could hear the sound coming from the radio. It was like something from the 1960s Star Trek.

That source added that usually, if there's a stuck or open microphone, you can still hear people talking or hear background noise. I heard none of that.

Metro's story may be true, but there is definitely something else going on with those radios.

Two sources also said there was a 15-minute outage the day before. Another said it was the third outage over the past few days and that the radios gave a readout saying "SOFT fail." They weren't sure what that meant.

The radios are so rife with problems, sources confirm, that certain workers still carry the old radios, the new ones, personal cell phones and pagers.

The subpar radios also led Metro to change the zero-tolerance policy regarding cell phones so that certain positions can use their personal cell phones while on the job to communicate when the radios fail.

"We use our personal phones all the time because the radios are so bad," said one source. "It's all done with a wink."

One source added that since all communication goes through central (OCC), when the radio system breaks down, "who knows what could happen," so everyone, for example, working on the tracks, has to leave the area where they're working and get out of the way since no one really knows what's going on in the system.

This leads to losing a lot of time and money, they added.

filin' griev. bk 2 wrk soon. cu ;)

Remember this Einstein?

What they lack in brain size, the apparently make up for with WMATAcles the size of a WMATA budget gap. Metro says they've filed a grievance to get their job back. They were "let go" back in March, a month after the pics were snapped.

The driver was texting despite a very clearly stated zero-tolerance policy regarding such behavior instituted by Metro in the wake of several embarrassing incidents of distracted drivers, including one train operator apparently dozing off while at the helm.

Back then, we half joked that a return-to-work-date had not been set.

That day may be closer then we ever thought.

Drivers are entitled to the process, but COME ON, they're texting ... surreptitiously ... behind the wheel ... of a WMATA bus ... filled with passengers ... in violation of DC law ... against WMATA rules ... wearing a WMATA uniform.

The evidence would appear pretty damning, but then again, we all know that in Metroland, and anything can happen, so perhaps they're going for a Hail Mary, employing the Big Lie tactic. Actually, with the union's success in filing grievances, it's more like a third and inches.

According to WMATA, "if the ruling is that the employee’s termination is overturned, and it is determined that a suspension would have been warranted, the employee will receive back pay minus pay for the time they would have been suspended."

Perfect.

As we wait for the process to grind to some conclusion, we can all rest assured that all ATU 689 members "go to work every day cognizant of their responsibility to perform a job on behalf of our customers – the riding public,” just like their president says they do.

Stories like this give us the same warm and fuzzies for the union that we have for the Board. (NSFW)

For those interested, here's the grievance process as quoted from the current union contract:

Sec. 104 - Discipline and Grievance Procedure
(a) Employees (and assisting Union representatives) shall fill out grievance forms to the best of their knowledge and ability. Grievances should be as complete and specific as possible including a statement of the facts involved, the sections of the agreement alleged to have been violated and the remedy sought. Management officials responsible for filing written grievance responses shall do so to the best of their knowledge and ability. Responses shall be as complete and specific as possible including a statement of the facts involved, references to relevant contract language
and reasons for the decision.

(b) Grievances shall be processed in the following manner:

Step 1 - Any employee who has a grievance shall (together with the Union representative if the employee so desires) discuss the matter with the employee's immediate superior in an attempt to settle the matter satisfactorily. If the matter has not been settled within five (5) working days of the management action which gave rise to the grievance, the employee may, within ten (10) working days thereafter, file an official written grievance form, a copy of which shall be filed with the employee's immediate superior and another copy shall be filed with the Union through the
employee's shop steward (or other officially designated representative).

Step 2 - If the Union, through the employee's shop steward (or other officially designated representative) finds merit to the grievance, it shall, within ten (10) working days after the date of the filing of the formal written grievance, confer with the superintendent of the division (or other management official in charge of the division, garage, or other facility where the grievant is employed) in an effort to resolve the grievance satisfactorily. The occurrence of such conference shall be noted on the grievance form and signed by the participants. The management official involved shall render a written decision on the grievance within ten (10) working days after such conference with the Union.

If the management action which gave rise to the grievance was taken at a level higher than the superintendent of the division (or other management official in charge of the division, garage or other facility where the grievant is employed) Step 2 may be waived and the Business Agent (or the Business Agent's designee) may proceed directly to Step 3 within ten (10) working days after the date of the filing of the formal written grievance.

Step 3 - If the Union through the Business Agent (or the Business Agent's designee) is not satisfied with the Step 2 decision, it may, within ten (10) working days of the receipt thereof, confer with the Office Director (or the Office Director's designee). The the participants. The management official involved shall issue a written decision on the appeal within ten (10) working days of the conference with the Union.

Step 4 - If the Union, through the Business Agent (or the Business Agent's designee), is not satisfied with the Step 3 decision, it may appeal the grievance by requesting a conference with the General Manager (or the General Manager's designee) within ten (10) working days of receipt thereof. The General Manager (or the General Manager's Designee) will hold said conference and issue a written decision within twenty (20) working days of the receipt of the Step 4 grievance or the Step 3 appeal.

Step 5 - If the Union is not satisfied with the Step 4 decision, it may, within sixty (60) calendar days after receipt thereof, invoke arbitration in accordance with Section 105 of this Agreement.

Other items:
Metro holding hearing on $709 million spending plan (Examiner)
Again with the consultants (WAPO)

Jst Let Me Fnsh My Shft CU Soon :)

WMATA has a zero tolerance policy regarding the use cell phones and texting devices while on the job. It is also illegal to text and drive in DC.

That some WMATA employees continue to do so, despite the clearly stated rules and laws, could easily lead one to conclude that these employees feel above the law. Wonder why?

From Matthew:

The route was one of the 90 buses (either 90,92,93 -- definitely NOT 96). It was Feb. 19, 2010 at around 3:30-3:45 p.m. The bus, number 2134, was packed, hence me standing so close and taking the picture. And yes, she was driving at the time!

She drove to 14th and Florida U. St., where she was relieved by another bus driver.

Read more about Metro's zero tolerance policy here. Another distracted driver.

Other items (added 2/22):
Suggestions for improving Metro (WaPo)
Metro's downhill slide (WaPo)
West Falls Church yard about to get busier (WaPo)
NTSB to hold hearing about 6/22 crash (WaPo)

Zero Tolerance

Nov. 11. From SNACKMANIAC. "Eastbound G2, @wmata bus #2147, driver playing video game on smart phone while driving around Dupont Circle IN THE RAIN. He was gaming/txting from GU to 16th & P when I got off. Am going to file a formal complaint. That's how people get run over."

Original pic

Other items:
Weekend delays (WMATA)
Metro charged with dumping hazardous waste (WaP0)
Mikulski tired of "lip service" (WTOP)
Hearing to be held to examine federal role in transit safety (Examiner)
What do you think of the new bus map? (GGW)

Bus Driver Allegedly Pulls Into Traffic While on Phone

UPDATE 2: From Metro: "On Tuesday, July 28, a Metrobus operator since April 2007, was alleged to have been using a cell phone while operating a route 63 near the Georgia Avenue-Petworth Metrorail station. During the investigation, it was determined that the bus operator used a personal cell phone to report a mechanical problem with the bus. The internal Metro investigation revealed that the bus was stopped and secured when the operator communicated with Central Control and she did not operate the bus while on the phone. She has been re-instructed regarding operating procedures and returned to service." Two other drivers were not so lucky. Stat tuned. This story is not over.

UPDATE: There’s some hubbub this morning (8/13) about the bus driver a user of this site, Brian, alleged was talking on her cell phone while driving.
The hoopla centers largely around the nature of the call, which, according to reports, appears to have been professional. Brian made no speculation about the topic of the conversation.
As reports today indicated, the driver appears to have been in an uncomfortable, yet non-emergency, situation: A bus destination sign wasn’t working, there was no response to her radio calls to central, and passengers were getting increasingly angry being left in the lurch.
Yet the bottom line is Brian said the driver was still on the phone while pulling into traffic. He has not amended his version of events and denies he was asleep, as has been alleged.
In DC, no one is allowed to operate a vehicle while talking on the phone, and furthermore, Metro has a “zero tolerance” policy about such behavior.
The WTOP story says Metro is “struggling to determine whether the driver should be punished.”
We bet they are.
--
From former Red Line rider Brian who alleges his bus driver was talking on a cell phone while driving*:
I caught my bus driver using her cellphone while driving Tuesday. I was riding the 63 from Takoma as I do every morning now that commuting on the Red Line is a mess. When we got to the stop just outside of the Petworth Metro station, our driver got out of the bus and started talking on her cell phone. One minute goes by, 2 minutes, 3 minutes ... and she's still talking on her phone. Passengers start getting very angry. One, in particular, steps outside and yells at the driver to get moving. Yet another minute goes by before the driver bothers to get back on the bus. And she's still talking on the phone.
If I were smarter (and more awake), I would have caught this moment on video, but she sat down and pulled out into traffic with phone to ear, and drove several hundred feet before ending her call. I got a crappy picture with my cell phone. It was the best I could get from my vantage point. If you zoom in on the driver, you can see her holding up a phone to her ear with one hand and pulling out into traffic with the other.
I contacted WMATA customer service via email between 8 and 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, and I still haven't heard back from them. Given their new zero tolerance policy, you'd think a complaint of this nature would have thrown up major red flags. Nope. Twenty four hours have come and gone, and I still have no response. WMATA is once again showing what a completely incompetent organization it is.
*It has been illegal to drive and use a cell phone without a hands free device in the District since 2004, according to the Washington Post. Even if this had been, say a family emergency, it seems like the driver could have told her passengers politely that it was a call she had to take and that the bus would be moving shortly.

Other items:
Metro to tighten the penalties on rule breakers (WMATA)
Crash investigation focuses on 30-year-old electronics (WaPo)
Catoe again lying or ignorant (Examiner)
Bus driver charged with kidnapping (WaPo)

Are Metro and the UnionTexting/Sleeping on the Job?

The last several weeks provide some really good insight in just how Metro and the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 689, the "voice for transit workers in the nation’s capitol," appear to operate.
On the heels of the two embarrassing videos, Metro suddenly announced a "zero tolerance" policy regarding using cell phones while driving. Prior to the emergence of the videos, there was a three-strike policy.
First, a violator was suspended for 5 days, second, they got a 10-day suspension and finally, if they were so mind blowingly stupid as to do it again, they got the boot.
Had it not been for a couple of entrepreneurial passengers armed with video cameras, would the three strike policy have continued indefinitely? Who is in charge here? WMATA? The union?
The trains may now be in manual, but WMATA and the union seem to coast in cruise control until they're jolted to action by an outside force.
We asked Metro if they'd ever considered putting cameras in the operator cabins, and they said they had not, but that the union would certainly have a say something like that. So, it's certain the zero tolerance rule had to get the union's blessing, too.
We tried to contact union president Jackie L. Jeter twice to ask about the union's stance on cameras. We have yet to hear from her.
Now we hear from WTOP that Jeter said before the cell phone ban can take effect, Metro should enter into talks with the union about the poor communications equipment on board the trains. Wait a minute. Say what?
Is the next line in this argument going to be that operators need their cell phones as backup to Metro's communications gear? Are they all Verizon customers? Surely not.
Then is the zero tolerance policy is a bargaining chip? Sounds like Jeter is saying that Metro operators will cling the old ways until Metro agrees to talk about another issue altogether.
The union may have a point about the communications gear, but they should not tie it together with the texting ban. That is absurd and reckless.
Then again, Jeter is not unfamiliar with those concepts. On July 8, in an Examiner article about growing impatience with Red Line delays, Jeter said "I understand that you want to get to work a little sooner ... everybody should back off that. ... At least you're alive."
Can you believe there was ever any tolerance for texting or cell phone usage by an operator at the helm of a train carrying hundreds of people? Who at WMATA signed off on that? We'd love a transcript of that negotiation.
It appears that Metro and the union's “culture of safety” is nothing more than reactive, responding only when they have egg on their faces.
What other moronic policies are hiding in Metro's closet waiting for a YouTube video or worse to shed light on them?
We obviously aren't privy to Metro and the union's internal discussions, and from where we sit as normal Metro passengers, we're only able to report on what's visible: the accidents, breakdowns, foul ups and other absurd blunders.
Yet every once in a while, when Metro and the union are left with no choice but to act, there's a revealing flash of sudden policy changes, and we get a quick, illuminating glimpse into the core of how things work. It's not a pretty sight.

Other items:
Metro seeking input on X1, X2 and X3 routes (WMATA)
Takoma Stn. staying open tonight (WMATA)
City Paper take on Red Line rehab

Drugs, Alcohol Cost Metro, You

On this St. Patrick's Day, it's only appropriate to examine Metro's apparent problem with boozing and drugging bus drivers.

Personnel costs eat up a lot of any organization's budget, but when you have to fire 38 people in a year due to drug and alcohol problems, as reported in the Examiner, these costs skyrocket.

In the report, Jackie Jeter, a union leader maintains the "number of bus drivers fired for substance abuse in 2008 represented a small fraction of the total bus drivers the system employs ... less than 2 percent."

The report adds the following:

"All drivers are tested for drugs and alcohol before hiring. They also are tested after every crash. They may additional face testing if the agency has suspicions of substance abuse — or as part of a random testing program. On a first violation, drivers who have been employees for at least six months then get referred to a rehabilitation program, Jeter said. If they drop out or fail another drug test, she said, they then lose their jobs."

These costs add up.

Given the spate of recent driver incidents such as the McGruff attack, Metro has issues a press release announcing it is "reviewing hiring practices and procedures."

One has to wonder what's going on with the train conductors, who certainly have a less demanding job. Maybe this explains all jerky stops and starts.

Do you think Metro should have a "zero tolerance" rule for drugs and alcohol?

Other news:
A rather dull Q&A with AGM of Planning and Joint Development Nat Bottigheimer