New Visitor Access Requirements at Ft Myer?

[Raymo853]

As a U.S. Taxpayer, unless I am allowed to drive across the White House lawn to cut time off of my commute, it is proof the President is really Heinrich Himmler, John Beoner is Rudolf Hess, and John McHugh is Marshal Ustinov.

[ShawnoftheDread]

No, no. The president is Stalin and Boehner is Himmler. McHugh is just himself.

[Alcova cyclist]

Mikey said it shorter, but… The military perspective is totally focused on mission. “Force protection” is central to mission accomplishment. Making life easier for neighboring communities is not. You can believe that’s not the way it should be, but that’s the way it is. Approaching this from the standpoint of our “entitlement” as citizens or neighbors or whatever to pass through the base is unlikely to be productive and is quite likely to be counter-productive. If you don’t agree with me, write your senators and congressman and complain. I do not think you’ll be satisfied with the response.

We also have no idea what might be driving the sudden changes to access policy. Maybe the threat has changed. Maybe the base just failed a readiness inspection for non-compliance with force protection directives. Maybe they have a new commander or force protection officer with different priorities. Maybe they’re just now getting around to it. Who knows? Certainly not us. If they believe (rightly or wrongly) these changes are necessary to base security, they are not going to factor much else into the equation.

That said, the base HAS been a good neighbor, and likely sees being a good neighbor as important — provided it doesn’t interfere with their mission. The approach most likely to yield results is one that acknowledges their primary responsibilities and looks for ways we can work together to get what we want without impacting what they see as their primary responsibilities. So the vibe we’d be looking for is more like this: “Area cyclists –DOD members, Federal employees, and the population at large– have historically enjoyed the ability to pass through Ft Myer transiting between central Arlington and the Potomac/DC. Given the other options for cyclists, the base has afforded a much safer alternative which has been much appreciated. As base access policies are revised and evaluated, we (WABA? ACB?) would like to work with you to help you understand the impacts to the cycling community and possibly identify ways to minimize those impacts without affecting the larger effort to make the base more secure. By working together, we can also help communicate any changes to the cycling community — which should help minimize confusion and delays at the gates and mitigate impacts to the cyclists who wish to access the base.”

[Raymo853]

@ShawnoftheDread 108335 wrote:

No, no. The president is Stalin and Boehner is Himmler. McHugh is just himself.

Plus, let’s be honest, without Marshal Ustinov there is a strong possibility Nazi Germany would have not been defeated.

[americancyclo]

If part of the reason for increased security is in response to previous attacks it seems that going after that 11% isn’t worth it as much as regular mental health screenings of the folks that have been cleared. Unless of course they are working on the Sky team theory of marginal gains.

[scoot]

@Alcova cyclist 108336 wrote:

We also have no idea what might be driving the sudden changes to access policy. Maybe the threat has changed. Maybe the base just failed a readiness inspection for non-compliance with force protection directives. Maybe they have a new commander or force protection officer with different priorities. Maybe they’re just now getting around to it. Who knows? Certainly not us. If they believe (rightly or wrongly) these changes are necessary to base security, they are not going to factor much else into the equation.

FYI: This goes well above Fort Myer. The impetus for all of this is a high-level revision of Army security policy. Fort Myer is changing their procedures in order to comply with these new regulations. Similar changes are being implemented at Army bases all across the country.

Don’t expect the base commander to violate his bosses’ directives in order to accommodate through-commuter bicyclists.

[dasgeh]

@scoot 108364 wrote:

FYI: This goes well above Fort Myer. The impetus for all of this is a high-level revision of Army security policy. Fort Myer is changing their procedures in order to comply with these new regulations. Similar changes are being implemented at Army bases all across the country.

Don’t expect the base commander to violate his bosses’ directives in order to accommodate through-commuter bicyclists.

The directive is 5 years old. They’re just getting around to implementing it. They are implementing a vague directive that has to be adapted to their particular situation in a way that makes them a particularly bad neighbor.

If there were some immediate need or order, I could see some of these points, but given what’s actually going on, I see no reason for them to implement on Monday. They should take time to actually notify people and take into consideration the feedback they get.

I’m not saying that all people should have unfettered access to all bases. I’m saying there’s no reason to make this sudden, unpublicized and unconsidered change that will endanger people.

Finally, the overall mission of the armed forces is to protect the American people. I don’t see how putting us in harms way is consistent with that mission.

[Mikey]

@dasgeh 108393 wrote:

. . . the overall mission of the armed forces is to protect the American people. I don’t see how putting us in harms way is consistent with that mission.

Wouldn’t it be awesome for the Army to shoot out the tires of cars that speed, follow too closely, or pass without yielding. I’m pretty sure that would make Columbia Pike much safer!

[americancyclo]

@Mikey 108396 wrote:

Wouldn’t it be awesome for the Army to shoot out the tires of cars that speed, follow too closely, or pass without yielding. I’m pretty sure that would make Columbia Pike much safer!

Columbia Pike Bike Snipers! That’s a BAFS team name next year for sure!

[Alcova cyclist]

@dasgeh 108393 wrote:

Finally, the overall mission of the armed forces is to protect the American people. I don’t see how putting us in harms way is consistent with that mission.

A military command fulfills their portion of “protect the nation” by doing a very specific set of missions. Other units, bases, departments, etc. are doing other missions and all contribute to the whole. So, the units at Fort Myer are assigned a specific set of functions and it is their responsibility to do those things. They’re not responsible for the safety or ease of commute for local cyclists any more than they’re responsible to shoot down ballistic missiles. That doesn’t mean neither of those things are important, it means those things aren’t the responsibility of the base commander at Fort Myer — they’re somebody else’s job.

If they can complete their assigned missions and manage to help out in other areas, they usually will; just not at the expense of their primary assigned duties. It is folly to expect otherwise.

[lordofthemark]

While the point that military bases have specific missions is well made, the reality is that miltary bases make up a lot of the land area in greater Washington. There would be benefits if DoD could support the development of the DC area, and many of those benefits would accrue to the DoD and its employees and contractors. This goes beyond cycling and includes broader locational questions, such as building a massive new building located without proximity to metrorail. This stands in contrast to some other federal agencies which have used their locations to positively transform neighborhoods. I am not sure the best political or institutional strategy to achieve that though. Even the active involvement of a US Congressman only had limited impact on the BRAC issues, as far as I know.

[AFHokie]

@lordofthemark 108431 wrote:

While the point that military bases have specific missions is well made, the reality is that miltary bases make up a lot of the land area in greater Washington. There would be benefits if DoD could support the development of the DC area, and many of those benefits would accrue to the DoD and its employees and contractors. This goes beyond cycling and includes broader locational questions, such as building a massive new building located without proximity to metrorail. This stands in contrast to some other federal agencies which have used their locations to positively transform neighborhoods. I am not sure the best political or institutional strategy to achieve that though. Even the active involvement of a US Congressman only had limited impact on the BRAC issues, as far as I know.

The Mark Center’s a prime example of building without regard to existing transportation infrastructure, but it is certainly not limited to the DoD. The planned DHS HQ at St. Elizabeth’s and proposed new FBI HQ are just a few of many.

Unfortunately congressional involvement with BRAC typically centers around what will garner votes from constituents in their home districts/states (i.e. jobs/money inflow) rather than the best interests of the military.

[Alcova cyclist]

It seems like there were a couple of irons in the fire. Has anyone heard back?

Henry was going to run this through Arlington County
LtCol Molina was supposed to get back to Dasgeh
The community relations officer was supposed to get back to Chris_s

Anyone noticed any difference in gate procedures? (I actually haven’t been through the base since 2/13).

[dasgeh]

My reason for going through the gate on President’s Day (the Parade) was canceled, and I’ve been homebound since. I’ve traded some calls with Lt. Col. Molina but no contact.

[lordofthemark]

@AFHokie 108534 wrote:

The Mark Center’s a prime example of building without regard to existing transportation infrastructure, but it is certainly not limited to the DoD. The planned DHS HQ at St. Elizabeth’s and proposed new FBI HQ are just a few of many.

Unfortunately congressional involvement with BRAC typically centers around what will garner votes from constituents in their home districts/states (i.e. jobs/money inflow) rather than the best interests of the military.

I am confused. DC govt very much wants DHS HQ to go to St E’s and IIUC, the main complaint from DC is how long the process is taking. Not comparable to Mark Center at all – DHS is not right at a metro station, no, but its closer to both Anacostia and Congress Heights metros than Mark Center is to any metro (or even to Shirlington bus station) Plus at the time DHS committed to go there, DC was committed to an Anacostia Street Car line (we will see if that still happens)

As for the FBI, DC govt is agreeable that it move away from its current location. The relocation criterion are to be within 2 miles of a metro station, and all currently envisioned sites (Greenbelt, Landover, and Springfield) are. That is not walking distance to metro, but given the kind of campus FBI requires it would be hard to find (but the Greenbelt location is pretty close, isn’t it) and at many stations that would waste an opportunity to put something that would enliven the area more in. Again in contrast to Mark Center, which is just an office building, AFAIK, and could have been located closer to metro fairly easily, except for the cost.

And then of course there are agencies that have moved to metrorail adjacent locations. I note the USDOT HQ, which helped to transform the Navy Yard area in the late ought’s, and even the BATF building, which though criticized for its design, was located near the new NoMa metro station, and may have helped advance the transformation of NoMa.

[Author]

Posts