Actions for Decriminalizing Transportation and Movement:  A Vision for Antiracist Approaches to Safety

The US Department of Transportation defines transportation equity as "fairness in mobility and accessibility to meet the needs of all community members. A central goal of transportation equity is to facilitate social and economic opportunities by providing equitable levels of access to affordable and reliable transportation options based on the needs of the populations being served," particularly the most marginalized populations.

The Transportation Equity Caucus (TEC) seeks to transform transportation policy to be antiracist, noncarceral, accessible, equitable, and safe for all. Transportation is not equitable if it is not safe. As a group, we have been working to advance transportation safety and justice for Black and Brown people, Indigenous people, and people of color overall, recognizing blatant inequities. With this document the TEC is laying out the principles that should guide transportation safety and justice. These principles are derived from the strategies, policies, and tactics that already exist and that demonstrate what is possible to make sure Black and Brown people, Indigenous people, and other marginalized communities thrive. Indeed, transportation safety approaches must prioritize making tangible and intentional progress toward dismantling the structures that perpetuate racism. Within its framework of transportation equity, the Caucus adheres to the principles of mobility justice set forth by the Untokening. Mobility justice demands that safety and equitable mobility address not only the construction of our streets, but the socioeconomic, cultural, and discriminatory barriers to access and comfort that different communities experience within public spaces.

Unfortunately, Black and Brown people have historically experienced a lack of safety and freedom of movement in public spaces and have been marginalized and disenfranchised by law enforcement. More specifically, traffic enforcement, ostensibly in the name of safety, is the most common form of police-initiated contact, disproportionately affecting Black people. A 2018 report by the Department of Justice found that “being a driver in a traffic stop was the most common form of police-initiated contact” and that “Blacks were more likely to be pulled over in traffic stops than whites and [Latinos].” Fortunately, our past does not have to pre-determine our future. The TEC is advancing and supporting the movement to remove law enforcement from traffic safety strategies to decrease the number of interactions Black and Brown people, Indigenous people, and people of color overall have with police. We want to redefine public safety to prioritize the needs of disenfranchised people, as well as disabled people, and other marginalized groups.

The harms that emerge from engaging the police in traffic safety reflect just one devastating symptom of the anti-Blackness, white supremacy, patriarchy, and ableism embedded in law enforcement’s living history. While this history dates back to genocide, land theft, and enslavement, we see in this acknowledgment an opportunity for a new path: one that leads toward a safer and thriving society where reparations for these harms become possible. We acknowledge and hold all these truths for not only how things have been, but how they can be. The Caucus believes and has documented that an array of alternative solutions exist to create equitable and safe transportation and urban planning policies, programs, and practices. We work to advance a more expansive definition of safety that centers dignity, health, and well-being for ALL.

While the investment in other social services and the elimination of police violence are some goals of the Caucus and other advocates, as the nation discusses how law enforcement is funded and used for transportation, infrastructure, pedestrian, and cycling projects, the following framework may help policymakers make substantial progress in ending systems of oppression within traffic safety.

Framing of Strategies and Outcomes

In this document, we discuss various enforcement policies and programs and how they contribute to the harmful interactions and killings of Black and Brown people, Indigenous people, and people of color who are simply engaging in public spaces for travel and movement. As is well documented, Black and Brown people are twice as likely to experience the threat of or use of force during police interactions, and Black people are more than twice as likely to be killed than non-Hispanic whites. The Caucus believes that these policies, programs, and practices must cease to exist to save lives, and that solutions must come from the residents of those communities who are directly impacted and living this experience. They must be given the opportunity and resources to create and implement new and innovative safety policies, programs, and practices that exclude interaction with law enforcement. We also outline recommended alternative strategies and cite examples of where innovative solutions are already taking place.

These principles and strategies are meant as a guide for remaking transportation policy so that all modes of transportation are truly safe. In order to do so, we expand our definition of safety beyond preventing death and injury in traffic crashes or train derailments to preventing harm and death at the hands of law enforcement.

For far too long, transportation safety has hinged upon enforcement of traffic laws rather than upon proper engineering and design of transportation infrastructure and good policy. It has also been created without the input of Black and Brown people, and Indigenous people, and with minimal attention to equity. Additionally, many traditional transportation advocacy organizations have followed the framework of the 5 E’s of traffic safety — Education, Encouragement, Enforcement, Evaluation, and Engineering. In order to facilitate transportation policy that advances safety for all, this framework must include and center a new "E": Equity, which the TEC has advocated for years. The Caucus has also worked to remove the “E” of Enforcement, which works against our goal of safety for all. In recent years, the inappropriate inclusion of enforcement as a strategy in traffic safety frameworks, including previous Vision Zero approaches as adopted by many communities across the country, has exacerbated this reliance on enforcement and increased the risks of racialized enforcement inequities in Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities.

Law enforcement has used discriminatory and harassing pretexts of checking for criminal violations to stop Black and Brown people from exercising their human right to mobility.[1]  Essentially, these stops are not about improving traffic safety at all. Even when a racially profiled traffic stop does not result in violence, these stops can cause fear, humiliation, distrust and PTSD among those who are stopped.[2] Nuisance tickets and fines can be a financial hardship to pay and can result in loss of a driver’s license and create bad credit reports.[3] These things can compound the cost of the ticket by creating burdens in many areas of life such as obtaining housing, mobility to get to and from jobs or school, and acquiring gainful full-time employment. These ticket fees also lead to Black and Brown people, Indigenous people, and people of color overall being placed in jail for nonpayment and many do not have the means to pay the fines and interest. Many also do not have the capital to post bail, leaving them left with little to no options once they are placed inside the criminal justice system. This is often true even in the case of automated enforcement of traffic laws, which we include in our analysis below.

We recognize that dangerous and reckless drivers are a risk and threat that should be addressed. Broader efforts to address traffic safety should be designed to proportionately address these harms without inadvertently perpetuating new ones. Data demonstrates that most people do not drive recklessly or drink and drive, and do not see bad driving behaviors as something to be proud of.[4] Preemptive strategies can combat these behaviors, such as supportive driver assistance technologies, subsidized cab rides, accessible transit services to prevent DUIs, and public education. Strategies should seek to prevent unwanted behavior and outcomes and promote positive ones, rather than relying on punishment after harmful instances have already occurred. For example, we should leverage tools like intelligent speed assistance to encourage safe driving.

Through the lens of the following principles, the Caucus suggests specific changes and legislation that should be considered at the federal, state, and local levels. These principles can also be used by advocates and policymakers to determine if new legislation should be endorsed or opposed; or to review existing transportation programs and policies to identify recommendations for how to improve or transform them.

Transformational outcomes for community safety

Our goal in addressing the role of law enforcement in creating safe places to walk, bike, and roll is to ensure that the infrastructure in all places is safe, accessible, and readily available for everyone to use, especially historically disenfranchised groups. Transportation safety approaches must demonstrate tangible progress toward dismantling structural racism and move us toward the following outcomes:

  1. Acknowledgment of historical problems and harms including systemic and structural racism.
  2. A complete elimination of police violence and criminalization of users of public and active transportation modes, and elimination of fines and fees that create financial harm to community members.
  3. Removal of enforcement as a strategy from safety programs such as Vision Zero.
  4. Addressing racial inequities such as a lack of investment in and a lack of focus on fair and just distribution of resources for safe places for walking, biking, and rolling in communities where Black and Indigenous people, people of color overall, and people with limited incomes live or travel.
  5. Improved life outcomes such as increased access to jobs and education, decreased rates of injuries and fatalities, and equitable health outcomes among Black and Indigenous people, people of color overall, and low-income communities.
  6. Community-created programs and performance measurements to evaluate contributions to dismantling systems of racism that have caused harm.

Meaningful strategies to advance transportation equity

The TEC recommends the following strategies to achieve the aforementioned outcomes:

  1. Acknowledge systemic racism and repair harm by enacting transportation justice frameworks.
  2. Expand the definition of safety to be more inclusive of historically marginalized groups.
  3. Divest from enforcement as the primary traffic safety strategy.
  4. Eliminate punitive enforcement and decriminalize sustainable and healthy transportation modes.
  5. Prevent speeding through roadway design and intelligent speed assistance technologies, not through enforcement.
  6. Build community power and ownership by ensuring access to resources and capacity for culturally relevant and contextual solutions.
  7. Invest and distribute resources equitably to achieve racially just outcomes and create efficient and safe transportation systems.
  8. Promote transparency and accountability through policies and practices.

The tabs below outline recommended actions that legislators, agencies, and other decision makers can take to advance the associated strategies, as well as examples of existing relevant initiatives or programs.

Acknowledge systemic racism and repair harm by enacting transportation justice frameworks

Acknowledging the past harms perpetuated by transportation and infrastructure investments, racist policing, and discriminatory policies is necessary to achieve thriving communities. We must foster a system that ends transportation-related health, environmental, safety, economic, racial, and social inequities and provides unfettered access to all travel modes, for workers and users of all races, abilities, any actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, economic status, ability, disability, religious beliefs or disbeliefs, or immigration status. Acknowledging this harm is just the first step.

Action: Adopt language and frameworks that describe and operationalize this vision

  • Example: The Bureau of Transportation in the City of Portland, Oregon, has adopted a frame of transportation justice, acknowledging deep systemic disparities and committing to proactive steps here and now to ensure that all Portlanders enjoy the same access to safe, reliable, and affordable transportation options.
  • Example: Seattle Department of Transportation’s Equity Program

Action: Pass motions explicitly addressing systemic racism

  • Example: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency adopted a resolution declaring Anti-Black Racism a Human Rights and Public Health Crisis in San Francisco. The resolution condemns and apologizes for government practices that have resulted in, and continue to have disproportionate impacts on Black people, and directs all agency staff to move beyond acknowledgment of injustice and take concrete actions that are visible in the reallocation of resources and work programs to improve the health and well-being of Black people.

Action: Create policies and allocate funding targeted toward addressing past harm from urban planning decisions

Expand the definition of safety to be more inclusive of historically marginalized groups

The concept of safety must be reframed to include the human right of Black and Brown people and people who carry multiple identities and are multi-marginalized to engage in activities, be comfortable, safe, and secure in public spaces and to be free from the risk of structural and physical violence and harassment, including police violence.

Action: Remove the use of enforcement as the main tactic from safety frameworks and action plans

Action: Update language on transportation safety to be more inclusive and equitable through a community-driven process

  • Example: Sacramento City Council has proposed an expanded definition of “public safety” to align with the definition provided by Sacramento’s youth— that feeling safe means “having the freedom to live and thrive in a community environment that has the capacity and structure to protect and support their well-being socially, physically, mentally and economically.”

Action: Shift the narrative away from individual blame

  • Consideration: The dominant narrative of traffic safety in the United States is focused on changing individual behavior because behavior causes crashes:

  • Consideration: Instead, the dominant narrative needs to shift from changing behavior — often through enforcement — to providing safety through infrastructure, community support for marginalized people, and safer modes of transportation.
    • Example: Safe Systems is an approach to transportation safety that shifts the focus from individual decisions — that is, “safety individualism” — to higher level factors that perpetuate traffic injury, such as road and vehicle design.

Action: Address how traditional safety messaging perpetuates harm

  • Consideration: Traditional traffic safety messaging is limited to individual behavior change and only considers costs to messaging agencies. This perpetuates harm by promoting insufficient interventions as very effective without addressing harms of enforcement related to those interventions.
    • Example: For bicycle safety, NHTSA says the most effective countermeasure for adult bicyclist safety is a helmet law and that a helmet law is low cost. This ignores the societal costs of discouraging the use of a safe form of transportation and the history of racially disparate traffic enforcement against bicyclists, including a 2016 Department of Justice report that found “Tampa police bike tickets burden blacks, have no benefit.”

Divest from enforcement as the primary traffic safety strategy

Investment in law enforcement has proven to be harmful to many communities across the United States. By ending the use of law enforcement in traffic stops, on transit, and in the public right of way, cities could use these resources to invest in other social services that actually improve communities’ quality of life.

Action: Invest in essential community services rather than law enforcement and mass incarceration

  • Consideration: Most cities spend more on policing and incarceration of local residents than on proactive investments in residents’ well-being such as transportation, housing, parks, libraries, health care, and community services that are essential to improved quality-of-life outcomes.

Action: Create partnerships between transit agencies and social services to focus on getting riders the support they need and to divert people away from the criminal court system

Action: Stop funding police with transportation safety grants

Action: End the use of low-level vehicular and pretextual stops

  • Example: The City of Philadelphia passed a law preventing police from pulling drivers/cars over for eight traffic offenses, and the law remains in place after the police union filed a lawsuit against it.
  • Consideration: NHTSA funding + programs that can be used for traffic law enforcement (23 USC 402 and 23 USC 405 programs + DDACTS) lack safeguards against use for pretextual stops and likely encourage pretextual stops by promoting stops to address crime and traffic safety in a combined manner. Worryingly, these NHTSA-funded programs received increased funding in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law without adding any safeguards against their use for pretextual stops. Research has found that pretextual stops do not advance traffic safety.
  • California is attempting to advance a bill (SB50–Bradford) that would limit the ability of police to use pretextual stops (failed last year, but advocates will try again this year). 

Action: Take police contracts out of transit agencies

  • Example: Los Angeles City Council passed a motion to establish a Transit Public Safety Advisory Committee tasked with developing a community-based approach to public safety on the transit system to replace the current police-based approach (but have also increased police funding).

Action: Create new living-wage transportation jobs by creating safety programs that use agency staff as transit ambassadors

  • Example: In 2022, the LA Metro Board created a Transit Ambassadors program, a first for LA Metro. About 300 friendly, welcoming guides will become the newest sets of eyes and ears, an unarmed patrol team equipped with radios to call in social workers for the homeless or other support teams.

Action: Move routine traffic and parking enforcement out of police departments

  • Example: In 2023, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, created 125 new civilian jobs to take over work previously done by police officers.
  • Example: In 2021, Berkeley, California, voted to explore shifting traffic and parking enforcement responsibilities away from the Berkeley Police Department. In 2023, two state bills were filed that would allow cities to authorize nonpolice employees to do that kind of work.
  • Consideration: A study by the Los Angeles City transportation department concludes that enforcement should be done by civilians.

Action: Remove other safety agents (e.g., crossing guards, event and construction traffic directors) from police

  • Consideration: In many places, crossing guards are employees of the police department, and police officers are performing routine traffic direction for overtime pay. These jobs could be hosted outside of police departments.
  • Example: Washington State considered a bill to authorize flaggers to direct traffic without a traffic or police officer present (it did not pass).
  • Example: In 2022, the Boston City Council held hearings to discuss amending police contracts to allow the City to hire civilian flaggers to direct traffic.

Action: Avoid automated enforcement (AE) as an alternative solution for community safety, and regulate it where it exists

Action: Create incentives for infrastructure projects that reduce the need for enforcement

  • Example: The Puget Sound Regional Council adopted new project selection criteria that included consideration for projects creating “reduced reliance on enforcement.”

Eliminate punitive enforcement, decriminalize, and fund sustainable and healthy transportation modes

Laws, policies, and practices that criminalize how and where people bike, walk, and roll are outdated and harmful. When good engineering cannot provide safe infrastructure in the short term, and enforcement is used to avoid traffic crashes and violence, methods should seek to remove police and human bias, and resolutions should account for ability to address and veer toward incentives over penalties and punitive measures.

Action: Legalize jaywalking

Action: End bike helmet and equipment laws

Action: Decriminalize/legalize riding on the sidewalk

Action: Decriminalize + reduce penalties for fare evasion

Action: Pursue progressive, income-based fines (e.g., day fines)

  • Example: Finland, Argentina, Germany, and other countries use progressive fines. Rather than a fixed fee, criminal fines are levied as a percentage of income.
  • Consideration: Some New York City Council Members have proposed making civil fines for things like parking tickets and traffic violations income based.

Action: Reform fines and fees

Action: Change debt-based mobility punishments

Action: Offer incentives and resources for the behavior you are trying to change

  • Example: “Lights On!” campaigns across the country give police officers the option to hand out repair vouchers rather than tickets for broken headlights or turn signals.
  • Example: Washington State legislators are considering a bill that, in addition to ending traffic stops for nonmoving violations, will create a new grant to develop incentive-based programming to address underlying issues of those violations.
  • Example: King County Metro in Washington offers free and low-income transit passes, and riders can waive a fare evasion citation by signing up.
  • Consideration: Implement fare-free transit systems.

Prevent speeding through roadway design and intelligent speed assistance technologies, not through enforcement

Speeding is the principal traffic safety threat to pedestrians, bicyclists, people using wheelchairs, transit riders, and motorists. Law enforcement and the threat of punishment are ineffective tools for managing vehicle speeds. Speeding will continue to be a safety threat because most American roadways have been intentionally designed to allow excessive speeds.

Action: Replace enforcement with “tactical” traffic calming strategies in order to reduce vehicle speeds and improve traffic safety

  • Consideration: A pedestrian struck by a car at 50 mph is killed 90 percent of the time — this probability falls to 10 percent when the vehicle speed is 30 mph, and just 1 percent at 20 mph. The same safety improvements through speed management benefit all travel modes including the occupants of vehicles. An authentic traffic safety program must reduce vehicle speeds wherever collisions are likely (essentially, everywhere except on separated, limited-access freeways).

Action: Increase DOT funding for the design and construction of “self-enforcing” streets

  • Consideration: Incorporate designs such as protected intersections, protected bike lanes, protected bus lanes, narrowed roadways, bulb-outs, leading pedestrian intervals, and accessible curb ramps. The redesign of curbs with loading zones should also be prioritized to lessen the need for parking enforcement.
  • Example: Hoboken, New Jersey, has consistently cut the number of crashes and injuries while — and by — aggressively installing the things that are proven to make cities safer and more efficient for everyone: bike lanes, curb extensions, bus lanes, high-visibility crosswalks, and raised intersections. Other cities are seeing similar progress.
  • Consideration: Existing roadways can be quickly and inexpensively redesigned to limit speeding, using “tactical” traffic calming approaches if there is the political will to do so. As an example, New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan implemented a dramatic and highly effective program in 2009.

Action: Require vehicles to have intelligent speed assistance technology as a standard feature

  • Consideration: The National Transportation Safety Board just recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration require vehicles to have intelligent speed assistance technology as a standard feature to help mitigate speeding.

Build community power and ownership by ensuring access to resources and capacity for culturally relevant and contextual solutions

When seeking to understand problems and designing solutions, programs, and implementation, we must center and share power with Black, Brown, and Indigenous people, especially youth and people with disabilities. In order for Black, Brown, and Indigenous residents to achieve full self-determination, they must be fully empowered at all levels of decision making. Community members should lead any and all processes that directly and indirectly impact or benefit them. Their voices and agency should drive planning, design, and implementation processes, and they should be regarded as experts in their own communities. Invest in solutions that directly locate power in communities to design safe streets and creatively develop transportation safety solutions.

Action: Create community-driven engagement planning processes

  • Consideration: US Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Alex Padilla (D-CA) introduced a bill that would establish a pilot program to address the following: pursue community-driven decision-making where community-based organizations representing impacted communities have a direct role in the transportation planning process in partnership with local transportation agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations/Regional Transportation Planning Organizations.
  • Example: In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Mobility Hub partnership between TransForm and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is engaging directly with residents of affordable housing projects to ensure greater community engagement in planning mobility hubs for those communities.
  • Example: Los Angeles Walks developed their Promotoras program to help community members better engage and be represented in the transportation planning process.
  • Consideration: Provide resources to communities for community-led traffic calming interventions.

Action: Create resourced, frontline community advisory groups

Action: Develop community-driven budgeting, planning, and decision-making processes

  • Example: Co-designing equitable transportation planning, decision-making, and implementation processes with community partners (e.g., South San Francisco and Oakland).
  • Example: Participatory budgeting and planning processes (e.g., Vallejo, California, and New York, New York).
  • Example: Resource community-led safety solutions such as Newark Community Street Team.

Action: Partner with local community leaders and organizations

Invest and distribute resources equitably to achieve racially just outcomes and create efficient and safe transportation systems

Resource allocation should be prioritized based on need, address past disinvestment, and be intended to address existing inequities of fatalities and injuries in Black, Brown, Indigenous, and low-income communities.

Transportation safety investments should focus on engineering and programming (e.g., community bicycle rides, neighborhood walking tours, open streets festivals, pedestrian audits, safe walking and biking networks, designing for safe speeds, affordable access to transit) that make it easy for folks to use the system without injury to themselves or others, rather than rely on enforcement and a punitive approach to reduce traffic violence.

At the same time, we must recognize that often investment in place without investment in people can result in gentrification and displacement. Infrastructure and programming must involve current community members to ensure it helps them stay rooted in place.

Action: Develop prioritization processes that use equity to drive investment

  • Example: In Oakland, OakDOT uses citywide prioritization factors to better allocate funding based on need. OakDOT weighted equity — defined as investment in underserved Oakland — the highest of the nine factors that determine funding for road repairs.

Action: Increase federal funding for transportation education

  • Consideration: Driver’s education requirements vary state to state. Some states do not require transportation education in schools and rely on the private sector to provide driver education. Strong public education is important so that everyone has access to education about how to safely get around their community. Integrating multimodal education, including bicycling, can improve people’s mobility and the culture of traffic safety, while reducing car dependency.

Action: Support community ride programs

  • Example: Equiticity in Chicago offers neighborhood-based mobility justice tours hosted in partnership with community organizations. Every tour is explicitly designed to serve as a vehicle for social transformation — increasing mobility, advocating for equity and advancing justice, and serve as community engagement opportunities, connecting in an authentic manner with elected officials, stakeholders, and influencers at the neighborhood level. In addition, the tours will serve as economic development opportunities, actively seeking out chances for tour participants to patronize POC-owned businesses and organizations operating at the hyper-local level.

Action: Provide federal funding for active transportation and trail networks

  • Consideration: The Connecting America’s Active Transportation System Act (S. 684) would provide $2.5 billion over five years to fund community efforts to build safe, connected networks for walking and biking with targeted investment in low-income communities and communities of color that have historically faced lack of investment.
  • Example: US DOT’s Reconnecting Communities grant program also aims to support projects that remove, retrofit, or mitigate highways or other transportation facilities that create barriers to community connectivity, including to mobility, access, or economic development.

Promote transparency and accountability through policies and practices

Much of the country’s enforcement data and information is not collected, not publicly accessible, or inaccurate, making it hard to change existing practices and systems. All existing policing and enforcement in transportation should collect and report out on stops, searches, arrests, citations, and whether citations are resolved or go to collections, disaggregated by race and gender.

Action: Require collection and reporting of enforcement interactions by race and gender

  • Consideration: There is currently a small, underused federal program for racial data collection, Section 1906. Federal funding could be conditioned on this data collection.
  • Example: The Office of the Missouri Attorney General is required, by law, to collect data on the demographics of the traffic stops made by law enforcement officers from across the state, and to report these findings to the governor and the public. This requirement has been in place since 2000 and the annual “Vehicle Stops Report (VSR)” is usually published in June or July for the previous year. 2022 Vehicle Stops Report.

Action: End qualified immunity both for police departments and for individual police officers

Action: Publish records of police disciplinary actions (other than unsubstantiated complaints and active investigations) through public records requests

Action: Analyze and improve existing enforcement practices

Action: Pass state laws that make records of police disciplinary actions available in all 50 states

Acknowledgments

PolicyLink would like to thank the members of the Removing Enforcement Working Group of the Transportation Equity Caucus for their dedication and guiding vision. They were instrumental in co-developing the concept and co-authoring the publication.

A number of individuals have contributed to this publication, as authors, reviewers, and advisors. We are especially grateful to these individuals and organizations for their work on this document:

  • Ken McLeod, League of American Bicyclists, who co-authored and helped the publication reach the finish line.
  • Hester Serebrin, Transportation Choices Coalition, who co-authored and co-led the work group in the development of the publication.
  • Oboi Reed, Equiticity, who also co-authored and co-led the work group in the development of the publication.
  • Dara Baldwin, who co-chaired the Caucus and supported the work group in the development of the publication.
  • Axel Santana, PolicyLink, who chairs the Caucus, supported the work group, and co-led the development of the publication. 

Additionally, the following individuals contributed to the document as well, serving as authors, editors, researchers, and advisors:

  • Carlton T. Mayers, II, Esq, Mayers Strategic Solutions, LLC
  • Carol Tyson, Disability Rights, Education, and Defense Fund
  • Caron Whitaker, League of American Bicyclists
  • Catherine Gleason, Livable Streets Alliance
  • Chelsea Glass and Judy Greene, Decarcerate Memphis
  • Dustin Roberston, formerly with Ride New Orleans
  • Edward Engel & Brock Howell, Snohomish County Transportation Coalition (SNOTRAC)
  • Ian Thomas, America Walks
  • Josh Boxerman, formerly with Leadership Conference
  • Marisa Jones, Safe Routes Partnership
  • Sagirah Jones, Propel ATL
  • Shirani Jayasuriya, Ride New Orleans
  • Rio Oxas, RAHOK

The Transportation Equity Caucus is a diverse coalition of organizations promoting policies that ensure access, mobility, and opportunity for all. It is coordinated by PolicyLink.

Citations

[1] Karen Thompson, “Pretextual Traffic Stops Are Unconstitutional and Life-Threatening – Lawmakers Must Act,” ACLU, October 18, 2023, https://www.aclu-nj.org/en/news/pretextual-traffic-stops-are-unconstitutional-and-life-threatening-lawmakers-must-act

[2] University of Texas at San Antonio, "Impact of Police Stops on Youth's Mental Health," ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191009075125.htm (accessed April 18, 2024), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191009075125.htm

[3] Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law and Fines and Fees Justice Center, Debt Sentence: How Fines and Fees Hurt Working Families, May 24, 2023, https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/debt-sentence-how-fines-and-fees-hurt-working-families/

[4] Foundation for Traffic Safety, “2022 Traffic Safety Culture Index,“ November 2023, https://aaafoundation.org/2022-traffic-safety-culture-index/