Equitable Transportation Requires Alternatives to Policing
How Transportation Justice Advocates Are Demanding More from Cities & Transit Agencies
By Christianna Johnson and Sandra Luo
Transportation is the foundation of our public infrastructure — connecting people, places, and goods. Yet, it is often a cause of injustice. A person’s ability to safely navigate is dependent on many factors, especially the socioeconomic makeup of a neighborhood or city. Social inequities are rooted in all forms of transportation: racial profiling when police conduct traffic stops, increased pedestrian accidents for lower-income people of color, and criminalization of the poor through fines for jaywalking or fare evasion.
Public transit is one way that the transportation system preserves privileges and oppressions at the expense of already vulnerable groups of people. The differences in quality and choices available on transit are often intentionally designed to prioritize the comfort of white people, which includes police patrols. As articulated by CityLab reporter Laura Bliss and explored in this article, “One dimension of systemic racism is how heavily transportation policy relies on police enforcement. We need to examine and be honest about that, and who it is impacting most.”
When the Black Lives Matter movement intensified in early 2020 after the high-profile police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, many people became more invested in learning about systemic racism, white supremacy, and the movement to Defund Police. Though, the act of policing is not limited to uniformed officers; it can also manifest through our everyday interactions with one another, such as through the white men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery under initial claims of conducting “a citizen’s arrest.” Other cases of violence against people of color have been all too common, despite the sustained national outrage. Whether it is walking to the convenience store, waiting to board a train, going for a run, or driving their own car, Black and brown folks are often targeted and even killed by both the police and self-proclaimed vigilantes like Travis McMichael and George Zimmerman.
To be clear, “Defund the Police” is both a slogan and a demand to divest funds from police departments and reinvest in alternative forms of public safety. Activists across the country demand the defunding of local police departments, as well as fundamental changes to their involvement in traffic and transportation-related cases. These Transportation Justice advocates want municipal and transit agency resources invested in improving transit and community infrastructure — instead of policing and enforcement. They argue that police involvement in the transportation system does not improve public safety but rather perpetuates harm.
Addressing systemic inequities in transportation requires an analysis of how its policies are shaped, especially around policing. Through the lens of both Social Construction and Policy Design Theory and Multiple Streams Analysis, we can begin to answer questions that have remained at the forefront of political discussions. How does policing in transportation affect people’s livelihoods? What is equitable transportation? How can policy achieve that?
These two frameworks help us understand current transportation inequities and the latest policy changes in cities across the United States. Social Construction Theory illustrates how we got to the most common policies related to policing and transportation. Meanwhile, Multiple Streams Analysis demonstrates the path forward, with recent demands and responses to create a more equitable transportation system. To better understand how policies affect different groups of people, we will first dive into Social Construction Theory.
Social Construction & Policy Design Theory and its Application
Social Construction & Policy Design Theory (Social Construction Theory, for short) by Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram is built on the idea that social constructions heavily influence how policies benefit and harm different groups of people. Societal beliefs about individuals — whether positive or negative — affect a person’s material welfare and their perceived social status, which in turn impacts the level of political participation they may have.
There are four distinct types of groups according to Social Construction Theory: the advantaged, contenders, dependents, and deviants. Each group falls on a spectrum of their political power (more or less power) and how they are socially constructed (more positively constructed or negatively constructed). Based on this categorization, each group is awarded benefits and assigned burdens by policymakers accordingly. Through Social Construction Theory, we can see how the justification for more policing — especially towards certain groups and places — is prefaced on the social framing of who is defined as a criminal (a deviant) in the first place.
These categories are ingrained in a system where people of color have less positive social constructions than white people. The harmful portrayal of people of color as “criminals” or “untrustworthy” allows racially discriminatory policies to shape how our society operates. This is especially true when it comes to the racist history of urban planning and transportation in the United States. From redlining limiting housing access, segregated public transportation, and federally funded highways tearing apart Black neighborhoods, the legacy of the United States' discriminatory transportation policies is still painfully apparent. Socially constructed policies may feel inevitably natural, but this is far from the truth: much of the political world is socially constructed.
Social Construction Theory describes how the policies we enact are designed to accomplish certain objectives, distributing benefits and burdens to those who are deemed “deserving” and “undeserving” respectively. This creates a feedback loop where the advantaged will continue to reap rewards and remain politically influential. On the flip side, those who are disadvantaged will continue to face scrutiny from policymakers which prevents their access to engage in the political process. The criminalization of certain groups of people has given way to mass incarceration, fueled by petty “crimes” that lock people up because of perceived threats. This level of policing further endangers the livelihoods of those who are already discriminated against — especially in daily mobility.
We can see how this continues to play out in large cities like New York City. In early 2021, Mayor Bill de Blasio committed to adding 250 additional transit cops and called for even more state resources for extra policing. This action was the largest deployment of law enforcement on public transit in more than two decades despite subway ridership still down more than 60 percent compared to pre-pandemic.
Activists questioned de Blasio’s decision for a couple of reasons. First, they pointed out that the budget spent on hiring more officers for fare enforcement could have been invested in free fares. Second, the dangers posed by police on transit systems to people of color are well-documented. One of the most well-known cases is that of Oscar Grant, a 22-year-old Black man shot and killed by a Bay Area Rapid Transit police officer in 2009. This case was one of the first instances where bystander footage went viral; since then, countless videos have captured officers beating, tasering, and arresting individuals on buses and train platforms.
Longstanding but completely unmerited social constructions between public transit and social “deviants” have helped bolster the supposed rationale for transit surveillance. This extends beyond local transit and into commercial and charter buses. Those that come within 100 miles of the U.S. border are often subjected to random immigration and ICE searches, which hinders the ability of undocumented people to navigate safely.
Clearly, “fears of crime on public transit are often more about fears of particular types of people than about crime itself.” With transit ridership’s minority-leaning makeup, legal disparities in how transportation modes are policed have even been referred to as transportation apartheid. Some cities and transit authorities continue to hire more police officers, but this will never solve the root cause of flawed societal perceptions of safety on streets or public transit.
Everyone is deserving of accessible, reliable, and safe modes of transportation — sometimes, these are even forms of shelter for those who have none otherwise. But people of color, people who are unsheltered, undocumented, poor, disabled, LGBTQ+, and/or not presenting as mentally stable are heavily surveiled and criminalized in these “in-between spaces.” This policing of certain groups of people reinforces the underlying societal narratives of who can, should, and is afforded the luxury of movement.
As Social Construction Theory shows, negative portrayals of people have deadly consequences for those who are seen as dangerous. Now, Multiple Streams Analysis can help us understand how more equitable transportation policies are developing.
Multiple Streams Analysis and its Application
The Multiple Streams Analysis (MSA), developed by John Kingdon, shows why and how policy change happens. Within MSA, there are three different “streams” that interact to affect the policymaking process: the problem stream, the political stream, and the policy stream. We can see how activists and local governments (city leadership, transit agencies, and police departments) — defined as policy entrepreneurs by Kingdon — are impacting the agenda-setting process.
Using the framework of MSA, we can see that a policy window (an opportunity) is here: cities and agencies are starting to reconsider what “public safety” actually is. In some cases, these entities are dramatically reducing the scope and funding of police, specifically within the realm of transportation. There is sustained attention on the issue, a policy solution is being accepted, and the timing is allowing for conciliation between different actors. Policy actors are working within the system to achieve solutions considered to be a win-win for multiple stakeholders.
In this policy area, reducing the caseload for the police is a win for municipal governments (both city leadership and police departments) who are socially constructed as more advantaged. Reducing the budget and scope for the police is a win for activists because these policies have the power to prevent policing and criminalization (categorizing people as deviants). Finally, substantial changes to improve transportation equity for marginalized people in the United States (for instance, people of color and/or disabled people) is a win for these groups that have been socially constructed as dependents.
Problem Stream
First, there is the problem stream: these are problems that actually gain attention from policymakers and the general public. Since 2015, police nationwide have shot and killed almost the same number of people annually — nearly 1,000. These fatal shootings often begin with a traffic stop. The Stanford Open Policing Project studied the millions of traffic stops conducted by police each year, many for minor violations like broken taillights. This nationwide analysis shows that police stop people of color disproportionately. Not only that, police also subject people of color to excessive questioning, searching, citing, arresting, and physical violence.
One case that illustrates this is from 2014. Michael Brown, an 18-year-old Black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, was killed by a police officer named Darren Wilson. Brown and his friend were simply walking in the street when Wilson confronted them. Later, the Justice Department found that the Ferguson Police Department was “policing for profit.” This means police aggressively stop and fine residents for minor violations; it can turn something as benign as an everyday walk into a deadly encounter with the police. And policing for profit is not unique to Ferguson. Cities with large Black populations fine residents more per capita.
Other aspects of policing, like citing people for jaywalking, are direct results of poorly built infrastructure. Many of our neighborhoods were designed for cars, not people, forcing individuals to navigate streets with poor access. This looks like streets with no bike lanes or bus stops, lack of crosswalks, broken sidewalks or no sidewalks at all.
However, at least one-third of U.S. Americans do not drive, including children, teenagers, older adults, disabled people, and those without access to a private vehicle. They are at a greater risk of vehicular accidents with the pedestrian fatality rate for Latinos over 60 percent higher than the rate for white people. Meanwhile, the rate for Black and African Americans is almost 75 percent higher. Low-income communities also experience unsafe streets as pedestrians. Where more than 20 percent of households have incomes below the federal poverty line, the pedestrian fatality rate is over 80 percent higher than the nationwide average. Poorer, non-white communities suffer disproportionately from the dual problems of policing and high rates of pedestrian injuries or even deaths.
Policy Stream
Next is the policy stream; major policy solutions develop over time and are usually only viable under certain circumstances. Traditional police reform often focuses on the same measures, such as adding more de-escalation training or implementing body-worn cameras. In 2021, members of the Utah Legislature passed a bill that increased the required hours that police officers must spend on de-escalation training.
However, experts on this topic report that there is no conclusive evidence that de-escalation training works. Perhaps most troubling, this training has not been studied with the statistical and academic rigor that could assuredly determine its effectiveness. Alex Vitale — a professor of sociology and the coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College — points out that the City of Minneapolis had unsuccessfully attempted traditional police reform for multiple years.
Starting in 2015, the Minneapolis Police Department implemented the following: training on implicit bias, mindfulness, de-escalation, and crisis intervention; diversifying the Department’s leadership; creating tighter use-of-force standards; adopting body cameras; initiating a series of police-community dialogues; and enhancing early-warning systems to identify “problem officers.” All of these reforms still did not prevent then-Officer Chauvin’s killing of George Floyd in 2020 as multiple fellow police officers watched and failed to intervene. A growing body of research suggests that some of the most commonly adopted reforms have not succeeded at stopping police violence in the ways the policies were meant to address. These reforms also do not address the root causes of unsafe streets and inequitable transportation, which are currently major focus areas for policing.
Politics Stream
Finally, there is the politics stream; policymakers have new motivations and opportunities to enact different policies. Change occurs when all three streams are aligned. In this case, some policy entrepreneurs are supporting new, different types of police reform — focused on transportation issues. Proponents argue that these budgetary, staffing, and infrastructure changes can reduce fatal police encounters while meaningfully increase transportation safety. Some of these proposals are aligned with the Defund Police movement, where Transportation Justice activists connect with a larger coalition.
A contingent of Defund Police activists identifies entirely with the police abolition movement, though even this movement is not a monolith. Some police abolitionists think of it as a literal policy proposal, working to dismantle the carceral state as we know it and eventually make police departments obsolete through the allocation of resources. Others think of it more as rhetorical — intended to shift the societal perspective on what is politically possible. There is a wide range of views regarding policy proposals for how to reduce the scope of policing focused on transportation.
For example, a community activist and organizer with the Los Angeles Bus Riders Union said that transit systems need to have a “defund-really-means-abolish” conversation about police. In contrast, a former Salt Lake City Police Chief offers a more moderate perspective. Chris Burbank, who now works at the Center for Policing Equity, has encouraged police departments to at least reconsider their involvement with traffic stops. He claims research shows they disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities and that disparity leads to the racial gap in fatal police shootings. He also argues that police stopping people for traffic violations does not make roads safer; this same logic applies to police on public transit focusing on actions like fare enforcement. And again, many police departments themselves (including the Salt Lake City Police Department) report being understaffed and overburdened with too many calls for service, which further impacts response times. Some local governments are listening and taking action.
New Types of Transportation-Focused Police Reform
Some cities and transit agencies are considering major traffic and fare enforcement changes, from replacing transit police with mental health workers to replacing municipal police with newly created “civilian traffic agencies” staffed by unarmed public employees. Jordan Blair Woods — criminologist and professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law — notes that while this latter type of program varies by locality, the central tenets are the same:
- Unlike police officers, civilian traffic monitors do not have the powers to detain, search, or arrest. Their authority is limited to stopping vehicles for traffic law violations, requesting documentation, and issuing traffic tickets.
- Traffic monitors would not be authorized to run criminal background checks, and police would not be able to access that information.
- Under this new system, police officers would no longer conduct routine traffic stops based on minor traffic violations (for example, speeding or running a red light).
- Additionally, and crucially, traffic monitors could not act as “eyes” for the police to investigate non-traffic “crime.”
Critics of this program claim that traffic stops are exceptionally dangerous for police and would be hazardous for unarmed civilian monitors. However, studies show that police officers experience violence during traffic stops at extremely low rates. Under a conservative estimate, the rate that police officers are killed during a standard traffic stop was 1 in every 6.5 million stops. Transportation Justice activists argue that unarmed monitors could automatically de-escalate situations — in essence, making traffic stops really just about traffic.
Some cities are moving ahead with pilot programs. In July 2020, Berkeley government officials voted in favor of a new proposal to reimagine public safety. This California City was the first in the country to remove police from conducting traffic stops. Meanwhile, Mayor Mike Elliott and City Council Members in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, also supported an “unarmed civilian traffic enforcement department” to handle all minor traffic violations. This new stance in early 2021 was undoubtedly in response to a police officer shooting and killing Black motorist Daunte Wright just a few weeks earlier. Now, the City’s Police Department cannot pull over cars for driving with expired plates or broken taillights.
Transit agencies are similarly reexamining the scope and role of their police departments. As touched upon previously, policy entrepreneurs have offered up progressive proposals and priorities for how these agencies can better address public safety. One is example is that agencies could invest current policing dollars instead into staffing mental-health workers on transit. In the summer of 2020, the transit agency that serves Portland, Oregon, announced plans to divert $1.8 million from its transit police force to test alternative safety measures. The TriMet agency’s new plans include crisis intervention teams trained to respond to mental and behavioral health issues.
Systemwide free fares on public transportation are another way to support equity and affordability goals, while also producing savings when considering the high annual costs for agencies to enforce fares (from using fare machines to staffing police on transit). This policy of free fares tends to produce higher ridership which is often the biggest goal of transit agencies, especially as agencies try to recover from the past year. For example, the SunTran system in Tucson, Arizona, made all transit free when COVID began; they currently have higher ridership than before the pandemic.
City governments also have a new focus on traffic calming, a strategy to reduce vehicle speeds through street design. The Salt Lake City Council recently discussed this very issue in determining the level of funding for the City’s Livable Streets Program. A local advocacy group called Sweet Streets Salt Lake City supports these types of changes, calling for the City Council to enact reduced neighborhood speed limits. Traffic calming can be as simple as lowering the speed limit or even just adding speed bumps. While infrastructure improvements are not a police reform per se, they have the power to dramatically reduce traffic stops and transportation issues that police are frequently tasked with addressing. This is why policy entrepreneurs are also advocating for traffic calming. Paired with changes to traffic and fare enforcement, these complementary approaches have the potential to proactively solve transportation problems by preventing speeding, an automobile accident, or a deadly encounter with police.
What’s Next?
Since 2020, there has been a heightened call from activists and advocates across the United States for true racial justice — especially as it relates to policing. This potential for systemic changes felt more tangible with the level of participation nationwide. Between increased engagement with educational resources on racism and local protests highlighting the racism embedded in our local communities, our society has to examine how policing and its policies create injustice. This is particularly relevant within transportation. The demand to defund police departments, with reallocation of these resources to underfunded social services, highlights decades of failed police reforms that have not prevented police violence. Some cities across the United States seized the moment: Portland, Oregon; Berkeley, California; and Brooklyn Center, Minnesota have started enacting structural changes to their traditional models of “public safety” through streets, transit systems, and public spaces.
However, these new transportation policies are very recent. Only time will tell how feasible, effective, and long-lasting these implemented changes will be. Without actual divestment from police, underfunded services like public transit and infrastructure (as well as other services like affordable housing and financial security) will continue to be neglected year after year in pursuit of ineffective police reforms and their ever-increasing funding. Any diverting of police staffing and funds — whether for free transit fares, more mental health workers, or better traffic calming — is a significant step in the ongoing policy process of reimagining public safety. The ultimate goal is to make transportation and society’s collective spaces safer and more accessible for all.
