Washington Monument security alternatives / Unified Mall management
December/06/2010 10:23 PM Filed in: Washington Monument | National Park Service
Dear Coalition Friends:
As we move into the holiday season and work activities start winding down, we are going to take a much-needed vacation with only occasional access to email. If you know of matters that demand attention, please contact the Coalition's intrepid jack-of-all-trades Kay Murphy at mkaymurphy@gmail.com.
Two parting comments:
You have until January 7th to comment on the National Park Service proposal to replace security screening at the Washington Monument with an underground entrance/visitor facility or an above-ground structure larger than the existing temporary building. See our comments as well as those submitted by the D.C. Society of Professional Engineers below. We have to wonder how the Park Service continues to pursue an underground entrance into the Monument when history and modern security concerns point to the dangers to both the Monument's foundation and to visitor safety.
GreaterGreaterWashington's David Alpert proposes a thoughtful list of answers to his question "How can Obama really do more for DC?" that includes, we are happy to see, support for the Coalition's call to unify management of lands on the National Mall. Read the entire essay here.
# # #
December 2, 2010
The National Coalition to Save Our Mall attended the November 8, 2010 public scoping meeting for security screening at the Washington Monument held at National Park Service administrative offices in East Potomac Park. We were prepared to comment on the Park Service’s proposed alternatives, as well as to offer a number of serious alternatives to those proposed by NPS. Since the NPS did not permit any open questioning and discussion during that session, we submit them now and ask that NPS respond seriously to our proposed alternatives.
The Coalition feels strongly that a major goal in any security screening solution should be to protect the look and simplicity of the iconic obelisk and its landscape as much as possible, and be fully reversible. In our opinion, the alternatives proposed by NPS so far do not achieve those goals. After commenting on the serious problems associated with the underground options, we devote the majority of our comments to what we believe is a promising alternative. This alternative is a prefabricated, module security screening unit that can be inserted into the Monument’s doorway, a solution now being used by government and business in highly sensitive security environments. This alternative would avoid any adverse visual impacts on the Monument and its landscape, be far more cost effective than the underground solutions, be friendlier to visitors by allowing them direct entry through the Monument’s door, and be entirely reversible. We strongly urge NPS to undertake a serious study of this option.
The NPS proposes to replace the existing temporary screening shed with a number of underground/below grade structures that would provide a new entrance to the Monument, and one alternative of a new glass above-ground structure. We wonder what the program is for these alternatives, all of which appear to be considerably larger than the existing screening structure that has performed the necessary function for seven years. We request that NPS provide additional information about the need being addressed and the scope of the program.
Major adverse impacts and potential threats to the Monument’s foundation from all underground alternatives
The most serious concern is that all of these underground options will require cuts through the Monument’s concrete foundation to provide a new public entrance into the Monument below grade. The long history of engineering concerns about the Monument foundation’s integrity, dating back to the 1880s, should raise red flags about this approach.
To read the rest of our comments on our website, click here.
# # #
And from the DC Society of Professional Engineers:
Ms. Gallegos:
The District of Columbia Society of Professional Engineers is concerned about the November 4 proposal by the National Park Service to undermine the Washington Monument in the name of security. We testified against this plan when it was proposed seven years ago. Then the funding for the plan was removed. We are appalled that it is being proposed again. At the December 3 meeting of the D.C. Society of Professional Engineers, our Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose the plan and directed me to write you on this.
From an engineering standpoint, there is no need to construct additional security features to protect the Monument. It has 15-foot thick walls. The barrier around the Monument grounds effectively prevents a truck bomb attack, which would be the only security concern for the Monument itself. No visitor could carry sufficient explosives on his person to endanger the Monument. The only security threat would be to other visitors.
The proposed underground entrance to the Monument hurts security. The confined space would magnify the pressures from any explosion, further endangering visitors. The best way to check visitors is the way it is done now, in the screening facility outside the Monument. The temporary screening facility should continue to be used. If the security atmosphere improves in the future, it can be torn down.
The Monument has rested on a good solid foundation for many years. There is no reason to risk undermining this iconic structure. For this reason, we testified against the National Park Service plan seven years ago. We urge you to withdraw it.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Robert L. Hershey, P.E., Past President
D.C. Society of Professional Engineers
As we move into the holiday season and work activities start winding down, we are going to take a much-needed vacation with only occasional access to email. If you know of matters that demand attention, please contact the Coalition's intrepid jack-of-all-trades Kay Murphy at mkaymurphy@gmail.com.
Two parting comments:
You have until January 7th to comment on the National Park Service proposal to replace security screening at the Washington Monument with an underground entrance/visitor facility or an above-ground structure larger than the existing temporary building. See our comments as well as those submitted by the D.C. Society of Professional Engineers below. We have to wonder how the Park Service continues to pursue an underground entrance into the Monument when history and modern security concerns point to the dangers to both the Monument's foundation and to visitor safety.
GreaterGreaterWashington's David Alpert proposes a thoughtful list of answers to his question "How can Obama really do more for DC?" that includes, we are happy to see, support for the Coalition's call to unify management of lands on the National Mall. Read the entire essay here.
# # #
December 2, 2010
Comments on the National Park Service's Proposed New Security Screening at the Washington Monument
The National Coalition to Save Our Mall attended the November 8, 2010 public scoping meeting for security screening at the Washington Monument held at National Park Service administrative offices in East Potomac Park. We were prepared to comment on the Park Service’s proposed alternatives, as well as to offer a number of serious alternatives to those proposed by NPS. Since the NPS did not permit any open questioning and discussion during that session, we submit them now and ask that NPS respond seriously to our proposed alternatives.
The Coalition feels strongly that a major goal in any security screening solution should be to protect the look and simplicity of the iconic obelisk and its landscape as much as possible, and be fully reversible. In our opinion, the alternatives proposed by NPS so far do not achieve those goals. After commenting on the serious problems associated with the underground options, we devote the majority of our comments to what we believe is a promising alternative. This alternative is a prefabricated, module security screening unit that can be inserted into the Monument’s doorway, a solution now being used by government and business in highly sensitive security environments. This alternative would avoid any adverse visual impacts on the Monument and its landscape, be far more cost effective than the underground solutions, be friendlier to visitors by allowing them direct entry through the Monument’s door, and be entirely reversible. We strongly urge NPS to undertake a serious study of this option.
The NPS proposes to replace the existing temporary screening shed with a number of underground/below grade structures that would provide a new entrance to the Monument, and one alternative of a new glass above-ground structure. We wonder what the program is for these alternatives, all of which appear to be considerably larger than the existing screening structure that has performed the necessary function for seven years. We request that NPS provide additional information about the need being addressed and the scope of the program.
Major adverse impacts and potential threats to the Monument’s foundation from all underground alternatives
The most serious concern is that all of these underground options will require cuts through the Monument’s concrete foundation to provide a new public entrance into the Monument below grade. The long history of engineering concerns about the Monument foundation’s integrity, dating back to the 1880s, should raise red flags about this approach.
To read the rest of our comments on our website, click here.
# # #
And from the DC Society of Professional Engineers:
Ms. Gallegos:
The District of Columbia Society of Professional Engineers is concerned about the November 4 proposal by the National Park Service to undermine the Washington Monument in the name of security. We testified against this plan when it was proposed seven years ago. Then the funding for the plan was removed. We are appalled that it is being proposed again. At the December 3 meeting of the D.C. Society of Professional Engineers, our Board of Directors voted unanimously to oppose the plan and directed me to write you on this.
From an engineering standpoint, there is no need to construct additional security features to protect the Monument. It has 15-foot thick walls. The barrier around the Monument grounds effectively prevents a truck bomb attack, which would be the only security concern for the Monument itself. No visitor could carry sufficient explosives on his person to endanger the Monument. The only security threat would be to other visitors.
The proposed underground entrance to the Monument hurts security. The confined space would magnify the pressures from any explosion, further endangering visitors. The best way to check visitors is the way it is done now, in the screening facility outside the Monument. The temporary screening facility should continue to be used. If the security atmosphere improves in the future, it can be torn down.
The Monument has rested on a good solid foundation for many years. There is no reason to risk undermining this iconic structure. For this reason, we testified against the National Park Service plan seven years ago. We urge you to withdraw it.
Very truly yours,
Dr. Robert L. Hershey, P.E., Past President
D.C. Society of Professional Engineers