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.