TO RAY LAHOOD: More than one Path to Transportation Safety

Ray LaHood came out with a statement over the weekend calling SAFETY his "No. 1 Priority when it comes to planes, trains and automobiles." That's nice. Who is not in favor of safety? Actually, he's focusing on trains, talking about developing new federal oversight and standards for the nation's decentralized, motley and pathetically inadequate mass transit systems. Certainly, recent incidents in Los Angeles and Washington DC (especially Washington DC) have highlighted the fact that these systems are not always adequately maintained or operated.

Now, I am not one to automatically denounce federal action based on a knee-jerk opposition to "big government." I have no problem with a little broad, well-targeted regulation here and there, especially when it comes with carrots as well as sticks. We've yet to see if this initiative involves carrots, but certainly no amount of funding can be enough to bolster the skeletal, aging, and often (already) embattled mass transit systems of urban America. And, according to the Washington Post, there is a gaping lack of oversight protecting light rail and subway riders.

But, if safety truly is the biggest concern here, I want to suggest two approaches to reducing passenger risk that I urge Mr. LaHood to consider.

First, the safest way to travel is NOT TO TRAVEL. No matter how safe those "planes, trains and automobiles" are, there is an inherent element of risk in their use. I guess you can call this the ABSTINENCE approach to transportation safety. LaHood's recent statement reflects the chasm transportation and land use in American policy--chasm that needs to be bridged if we are going to develop policies that promote sustainability in the long-term. For too long, policy-makers in transportation have accepted blindly that the goal of transportation policy should be the efficient and inexpensive movement of passengers and goods. Making the vehicles of that movement more efficient and safer is a laudable goal, but reducing the need to move is a much more cost-effective way to reduce the need for spending on infrastructure, reduce pollution, and of course to reduce the number of accidents and failures overall. How do we do that? Adopt policies that allow for dense residential development, the revitalization of central cities, and easy access to jobs, services, recreation, shopping and other amenities. For the movement of freight: how about promoting local farming and manufacturing? Rather than cultivating suburbs and subsidizing endless movement, we could be cultivating local jobs and businesses. LaHood should be building ties and lending support to the local and regional planning initiatives that promote these goals.

Secondly, let's see some policies that encourage people to use the safest mode of travel. According to my calculations, based on numbers from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, (which I should say are rather inconsistent, come with lots of caveats, and don't seem to necessarily match up with their supposed sources), there is a highway fatality for about every 121 million passenger miles traveled in the United States--and this represents a recent improvement. In contrast, there is one fatality for every 285 million miles of transit--and that includes buses. However, I think it's fair to say that safety improvements are needed for rail of all sorts, particularly in terms of grade crossings. There are a shocking number of fatalities due to collisions of trains with cars, bicycles, pedestrians, etc. as a recent report from Transportation For America documents. Perhaps Mr. LaHood should be talking about the safety of streets, roads, and railroads rather than the vehicles that operate on them (I know that LA could sure use some grade separations, for example).

Certainly, one way to promote safety in transportation is to encourage people to use the safest means of travel. Improved safety standards and oversight that come with real and substantial funding for investments in infrastructure and better rolling stock would also be an enormous boon. Even better would be money for improved and expanded transit service that can lure people out of their dangerous automobiles. And, let's also think about encouraging walkable neighborhoods--overcoming entrenched local opposition to density and affordable housing is certainly something that could reduce fatalities and injuries associated with transportation. If safety is your No. 1 priority, make it a priority that helps break down barriers and obsolete paradigms for transportation policy.

A Novel Abuse of the California Environmental Quality Act

An angry group of misanthropes are suing to stop a suicide barrier on the Cold Spring Canyon Bridge in Santa Barbara County.

UPDATE: Report that this is the deadliest year to date for this remote bridge, seven deaths so far. Time to take action.

Suicide Barrier Seems to Be Going Nowhere without Funding from the Bridge District

Read the latest on the prospects for a suicide barrier. They are not good. This is not surprising, but discouraging nevertheless. I hope that the coalition that has been fighting for it over the last few years--and making real progress--re-orients its efforts to pressure the bridge district to actually put up the cash for the project. In good times or bad, that's the best bet for success, in my opinion. In bad times especially--when the reliability of toll revenue diminishes but nevertheless remains much more stable than most other potential sources of funding.

California Constitutional Convention Gaining Momentum, Opposition

I'm glad to see new analysis of the Constitutional Convention proposal, from the New America Foundation and Repair California. As my readers know, I've been optimistic about this idea since it was proposed by the Bay Area Council's Jim Wunderman last year. However, there seems to be a cohort organizing against a convention, using strong language in support of continued piecemeal reform without directly denouncing the convention proposal. California Forward seems to be the organization representing this approach. I imagine that a convention is seen as too risky for minority party members (and other conservatives) who have an interest in maintaining the vacuum of governance at the state level and the ongoing shift of authority to the local level where they still have pockets of power. I think we do need an effective state government, however, now and in the long-term. And, it is obvious that the piecemeal approach to reforming state government has failed. I hope that the convention movement can overcome inertia and weak reform measures designed to dampen its momentum.

Reconstructing Transportation

I know many of you will be glad to hear that my much-anticipated essay on transportation policy is finally available! The July issue of Technology and Culture has been released. It coincides with efforts to hammer out the terms of surface transportation legislation. Brace yourself for the same old battles between modes over the next two months. My hope is that if enough people start thinking about how modes are really an artificial and inadequate categorization of transportation they might start to think about systems rooted local and regional patterns of movement--and to develop policy to support efficient and effective multi-modal systems.

WARNING TO CITIES: push too hard for more federal transportation funding without reforming the way it is spent and we’ll end up with more of this:

Great article in the New York Times today pointing out that cities are getting way less than a fair share of transportation stimulus money. Of course, this is old, old news. I'm in DC right now looking into this very issue as it played out mid-century. City leaders knew that they should be getting more money from the feds, and they fought hard to get a bigger cut. But, their efforts backfired. The problem was, the funds that were coming out of Washington through state highway departments were earmarked for only one form transportation infrastructure. And, that form was very, very problematic for the physical reality of cities. After fighting so hard to get a bigger share, cities ended up with horrific, destructive highways shoved through their dense urban cores. They were dying for the money, wanted to spend it but could only spend it on highways, and rationalized the destruction by saying they were "renewing" urban neighborhoods by bulldozing slums. And, as was so painfully obvious even then and certainly now, all of this was shaped by deeply racist motivations and and carried out with devastating consequences for minority communities. The reaction to this disaster was manifest in nation-wide freeway revolts. And, we've been left with scarred, gutted city cores as a result.

Now, the very same problems that led to the urban transportation fiasco of the 50s and 60s still plague transportation policy. Funds are still earmarked by mode, planning still takes place separately by modes, urban transportation planning is still inadequate and weak. We need change the structures and procedures that shape transportation appropriations and planning to integrate modes.

My article in the July issue of Technology & Culture goes into more detail on ways to do this. Also, Raymond A. Mohl of the University of Alabama, Birmingham has done some great work on this subject and I believe will be coming out with a book soon. If you want to read more, I suggest looking up his numerous articles on the subject, including his contribution to a special issue of the Journal of Urban History on freeway revolts, vol. 30 no. 5 (2004). You'll find several other fantastic pieces in that issue, as well. I've got a freeway revolt piece, as well, but it's a suburban study, focusing on the origins of Marin County's growth control regime.