Los Angeles marked a significant milestone with the 100th anniversary of the Traffic Ordinance, passed on January 24, 1925. While wildfires continue to dominate the conversation about climate change and the transportation sector’s responsibility for U.S. emissions, the centennial of this ordinance serves as a reminder of how transportation policy shaped American cities. This 35-page document altered the way streets were used, placing the needs of the automobile industry above those of pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit.
Before the 1925 ordinance, American streets were shared by many forms of transportation. Historical films, like those taken in 1911 in New York City, show a bustling environment where pedestrians walked freely, and streetcars, bicycles, and cars coexisted in relative harmony. In San Francisco, a 1905 film of Market Street depicts people standing in the middle of the road, waiting for streetcars, while bicycles, pedestrians, and vehicles all share the same space. Cities were vibrant hubs where people interacted in public spaces, and the streets were essential for daily activities.
The Rise of the Automobile and Changing Priorities
In the early 1900s, Los Angeles had an extensive electric streetcar system, and many people got around by walking, cycling, or using public transit. But as the automobile became more popular, this dynamic began to change. The Traffic Ordinance was drafted by Miller McClintock, a student of municipal governance, and Paul Hoffman, a staunch advocate for the automobile industry. This ordinance redefined the rules of the road by prioritizing cars over other forms of transportation, a shift that eventually influenced policies across the United States.
The Los Angeles Traffic Ordinance introduced speed limits, setting a maximum of 35 miles per hour for cars on most streets, which was a significant increase from previous speed limits. The ordinance recognized that cars needed to travel faster than streetcars to be an attractive option for consumers. McClintock’s measures, such as limiting streetcar speeds and pushing for faster cars, emphasized the need to cater to the automobile industry’s interests, despite the risks associated with higher speeds in urban areas.
Historian Peter Norton has explored the shift in attitudes brought about by the ordinance. Before its implementation, pedestrians had the right to cross streets at any point, even in areas without traffic signals. However, the ordinance shifted the focus onto pedestrians as the main cause of accidents. Norton’s research highlights how pedestrian rights were defended in courts, with some judges even warning that children’s safety would be jeopardized as automobiles became more dominant. This legal shift set the stage for the widespread criminalization of pedestrian behaviors like jaywalking.
Public Relations Campaigns and Cultural Shifts
The implementation of the Traffic Ordinance was accompanied by an effective public relations campaign aimed at changing social behavior. E.B. Lefferts of the Automobile Club of Southern California spearheaded a campaign to make people feel guilty for walking outside designated crosswalks. The campaign included radio broadcasts, Boy Scouts distributing “jaywalking” cards, and police officers enforcing these new behaviors with public shaming. This cultural shift reinforced the idea that pedestrians were to blame for accidents, not the increasing speed and volume of traffic.
Although the ordinance was presented as a measure to enhance safety, it primarily focused on protecting cars, not pedestrians. The 1920s saw a sharp rise in traffic-related fatalities, particularly among children and the elderly. McClintock’s ordinance aimed to reduce pedestrian-vehicle conflicts by creating designated areas for pedestrians and restricting where they could stand or stop. However, these measures largely ignored the fact that the growing number of cars and their increased speed were the real threats to public safety.
The Traffic Ordinance wasn’t just a legal or cultural change—it also led to the design of cities and streets that favored cars. The ordinance pushed for roadways built with higher speeds in mind, making them unsuitable for pedestrians, cyclists, or streetcars. As cities embraced this new car-centric model, public transportation was further marginalized. Streetcar tracks were removed, and the infrastructure needed for cars was prioritized, leading to an urban environment that increasingly catered to automobiles.
The National Spread of the Ordinance
The success of Los Angeles’ Traffic Ordinance didn’t remain confined to the city. It became a model for other U.S. cities, influencing the Model Municipal Traffic Ordinance of 1928. This ordinance became the foundation for similar laws across the country, promoting the interests of the automobile industry and shaping the design of American cities for decades to come. These laws paved the way for further changes in urban infrastructure, including the construction of highways that prioritized cars over all other forms of transportation.
Today, many cities are revisiting the legacy of laws like the Los Angeles Traffic Ordinance. With increasing awareness of climate change and the need for sustainable transportation, cities are reclaiming public spaces for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit users. Norton urges us to challenge the historical narrative that the rise of the automobile was inevitable. He highlights the many voices, particularly those of bereaved parents and concerned citizens, who fought against the dangers of increased automobile use. By recovering these lost perspectives, we can reimagine the future of urban transportation and create spaces that prioritize safety, equity, and freedom of movement for all.
The centennial of the Los Angeles Traffic Ordinance serves as a reminder of the profound changes that occurred in American cities 100 years ago. This ordinance shifted the balance of power on city streets, placing the automobile at the center of urban life. While the automobile industry benefitted from these changes, pedestrians, cyclists, and public transportation were sidelined. Today, as we rethink how our streets should be used, there is an opportunity to reclaim the shared public spaces that were once a defining feature of city life. By learning from the past, we can create more equitable and sustainable cities for the future.