TICKET TO RIDE

STPP's second annual "Mean Streets" report, which this year focused on the danger to children, ranked Southern California as one of the 10 most dangerous urban regions for pedestrians in the United States. The region ranked eighth most dangerous, using a "pedestrian danger index" that factored in population and U.S. census data on how much people walk so as to compare regions across the country.

While Southern California ranks eighth using the index, the raw data shows that more pedestrians die or are seriously injured here (1,382 in 1996) than anywhere else in the nation -- almost twice as many as in the New York City-Northern New Jersey-Long Island region, which had the second most deaths and serious injuries. Only statewide statistics on children were available; California ranked as the 11th most dangerous state for children.

This is a public health and safety crisis that is going unnoticed. Many more people die on the streets than die from headline-grabbing incidents of random gun violence or e-coli bacteria. Consider the number of federal hearings and investigations into deaths by airbags. Yet in 1996, when 23 children died because of airbags, 837 were hit and killed by cars. And while 18 percent of all motor-vehicle-related deaths and serious injuries in 1996 were pedestrians, Caltrans spent less than 1 percent of its highway safety money on pedestrian safety. The other 99 percent was spent on improving the safety of motorists, which typically involves making roads wider and straighter, which often encourages motorists to drive faster -- with the unfortunate result that streets become even less safe for pedestrians.

Our streets have become so dangerous that few parents allow their children to walk or bike to school anymore. The phenomenon of the "soccer mom" came about largely because our communities are built so that parents have to drive their children everywhere. Though there are few statistics kept on the decline in walking and biking, the Oregon Department of Transportation has been monitoring bicycling activity among children, and reports that the average number of children seen biking at various sites around the state declined from 61 to 27 in 10 years. The Centers for Disease Control has reported increasing concern about childhood inactivity and about childhood obesity. 

California is getting over 40 percent more federal funding under the just- passed Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, TEA-21. Pedestrians should get their fair share. Caltrans should make the streets safe for everybody, and if 18 percent of deaths and serious injuries are pedestrians Caltrans should spend at least 18 percent of its highway safety money on pedestrians.

The pedestrian used to be king of the road in California -- when a pedestrian stepped into the street cars would come to an immediate halt -- and drivers here were recognized as the safest in the nation. But in 1972 the state law giving pedestrians the right of way in all circumstances was amended to put the burden of responsibility on pedestrians walking outside of crosswalks and in driveways. And pedestrian safety has been heading south ever since.

"Times have changed. From the '30s to the '50s public transportation was the mode of choice and there was lots of pedestrian activity," says Vincent Moreno of Caltrans. "But cars soon outnumbered pedestrians, our priorities changed, and we haven't got the time anymore for common courtesy."

Exacerbating the pedestrian safety crisis in California is a statewide trend to remove crosswalks at unsignalized intersections following the publication of two studies questioning their effectiveness -- one by traffic engineers in San Diego in 1970 and another by Caltrans in 1994. Traffic engineers contend these crosswalks promote "a false sense of security," causing pedestrians to drop their guard in what is potentially a dangerous situation. The City of L.A. has been removing 160 crosswalks a year.

Safety experts have questioned the credibility of these studies, pointing out that many of the crosswalks were installed on particular stretches of road precisely because they were the site of high accident rates. Pedestrian advocates point out that removing the crosswalks does nothing to enhance pedestrian safety but discourage people from walking.

A flurry of stories in the national media last summer about Southern California's disappearing crosswalks prompted an outcry from local officials. A New York Times story contrasted Santa Monica in Southern California with Santa Rosa in Northern California, which is trying to improve pedestrian safety at midblock crosswalks by installing flashing lights in the roadbed at a cost of $5,000 to $10,000 per intersection -- compared for $100,000 to install a traffic signal.

The conflict between traffic engineers who want to move traffic and residents who want to reclaim their neighborhood streets for pedestrians and bicyclists is being played out in one L.A. community right now: A mini-revolution has been brewing in scenic Santa Monica Canyon where residents are sick and tired of playing host to cars that speed down West Channel Road in order to get to Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and the beach.

The neighborhood's residents association wants to calm traffic that barrels through the local business district by narrowing the road's four lanes to two, and by adding bicycle lanes. Residents are also concerned that the only pedestrian access to the beach is via two underground tunnels that are continually flooded, dark and dangerous, and that the only access to the tunnels is via narrow and unsafe sidewalks that crowd close up against PCH's fast-moving traffic.

Community activists were galvanized into action by a study done by two UCLA urban planning students who cited 173 traffic accidents in the canyon in three years and urged improved bike and pedestrian safety and better coastal access. So much interest has been aroused that L.A. City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski has taken residents' concerns to the L.A. DOT, and Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl has organized a task force to investigate safety on PCH. But not even this much political pressure has so far moved the L.A. Department of Transportation (DOT), which is balking at the notion of limiting the street's car "storage" capacity, though the DOT has turned eliminated one lane of traffic by turning it into a center turn lane in what it describes as a "trial project."

The California Transportation Commission backed away from making controversial changes in the very small but enormously popular Transportation Enhancements Activities (TEA) program following a storm of protest by bike and pedestrian advocates, environmentalists, and local and regional officials earlier this month. Unfortunately, the last-minute proposal offered instead by the CTC at its meeting in San Diego August 19 may be just as objectionable -- although as of this writing it was still unclear exactly what the agency intended to do and whether it could legally do it.

The CTC had proposed eliminating several TEA funding categories -- including historic preservation, scenic acquisition and water pollution mitigation -- and restricting the ability of rural counties to access TEA funds. Most objectionable, said critics, was a provision creating what they called a "slush fund" Caltrans could use to sell otherwise objectionable highway projects to communities that didn't want them. The CTC's latest proposal addresses most of these concerns but transfers a small portion of TEA dollars into a state-run enhancements program; funding from that program would then be transferred to Caltrans to use for staffing.

While the amount of money involved is small -- $1 million escalating to $20 million in year six of the federal transportation spending bill -- advocates worry it sets a very bad precedent. "California is the trend-setter," says Laura Cohen of Rails to Trails, a bike advocacy and community development group. "If California transfers money out of TEA so will other states." What was made very clear was that the CTC risks attracting a lot of negative publicity if it doesn't deal sensitively with the TEA program, which has gained the enthusiastic support of elected officials and communities around the state.

The California Futures Network (CFN) is determined to get state policy-makers interested in land use reform, and the effort gained supporters and momentum this summer with a series of six policy roundtables across the state. CFN ratified a set of five smart growth principles at a meeting in L.A. August 22, and will now focus on injecting these issues into the gubernatorial campaign.

The issues are compelling in Southern California, where the population grew 45 percent in the last 20 years while the amount of developed land increased 300 percent. CFN is setting about the ambitious task of building a tent big enough to accommodate the environmentalists from Northern California who started the effort as well as agricultural interests from the Central Valley and the Latinos and environmental justice and social-equity advocates who would be important players in a Southern California campaign. The smart growth movement has spawned curious coalitions including the potent union in Fresno of environmentalists, the building industry, agriculture and the Chamber of Commerce.

U.S. Representative Ron Packard (R-Vista) succeeded in getting a last-minute rider into the House Transportation Appropriations bill limiting environmental review of the controversial Foothill South toll road in Orange County -- from whose lobbyist he accepted $7,000 in campaign contributions. But there will be an effort to remove the amendment in the conference committee that takes up the bill early next month.

Packard has been widely criticized for accepting the money as well as for attempting to circumvent review of the $644 million project by limiting environmental agencies' right under the National Environmental Policy Act to question its "purpose and need." Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as environmentalists have questioned the need for the 16-mile toll road, which would cut through pristine wilderness and wetlands and slice down the middle of the San Onofre State Beach campground.

"If Packard succeeds expect other members of Congress to attach their own riders exempting other highway projects from adequate environmental review," warns Dan Silver of the L.A.-based Endangered Habitats League. Silver urges activists to send letters by Sept. 5 to Vice President Al Gore and California Senator Barbara Boxer asking them to oppose the Packard Amendment to HR 4328.

Last month's "Ticket to Ride" included myth No. 8 in a series on L.A's. transportation myths: "We can't afford the per person subsidies required to operate mass transit, which range as high as $38 per person on commuter rail lines in Southern California."

This prompted a reply from Richard Stanger, executive director of Metrolink, who agreed with our point that automobile subsidies far outweigh spending on transit, but disputed our facts about commuter rail.

He wrote: "The $38 per passenger calculation used early-year ridership figures when the system was meant to carry ten times more passengers, and it included capital costs. The average subsidy of a Metrolink trip is now $5.60 for an average trip of 35.5 miles, or 16 cents per passenger-mile. The MTA subsidy for an average 3.7-mile bus trip is $1.20 or 32 cents per passenger-mile, twice that of Metrolink. Moreover, the MTA's share of the subsidy (since Metrolink's costs are shared by the five counties it serves) is 60 percent, so that it pays only $3.36 per Metrolink passenger or 10 cents per passenger-mile, one third that of bus. Moreover, MTA local funds used to build the system in L.A. County accounted for only $1 of every $7 that was spent, while 90 percent of all Metrolink trips are to, from, or within the county.