Loading...
5 - Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Guidelines CITY OF BOULDER TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: November 25, 2002 Agenda Item Preparation Date: November 15, 2002 SUBJECT: Staff briefing and Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) input on the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Guidelines. REQUESTING DEPARTMENTS: Public Works Department Tracy Winfree, Director of Public Works for Transportation Mike Sweeney, Transportation Planning and Operations Coordinator Bill Cowern, Transportation Operations Engineer Teresa Spears, Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program Liaison Fire Department Larry Donner, Fire Chief Steve Stolz, Deputy Fire Chief Police Department Mark Beckner, Police Chief Jim Hughs, Deputy Police Chief Tom Wickman, Commander of Police Traffic Unit BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: Input regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation Program guidelines. FISCAL IMPACT: To be determined. PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to brief the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on city staffs plan to consider possible changes to components of the current NTMP guidelines in 2003 and to seek input from TAB on these components. BACKGROUND: The first set of NTMP guidelines was adopted for use in 1995. These guidelines were used for a short period of time; as a result, physical mitigation was constructed on several roadways. However, issues from city staff and the public resulted in the suspension of these guidelines. Staff began working on a new set of program guidelines. After years of public process and deliberation, the current NTMP guidelines were adopted by City Council in 2000. In 2001,Teresa Spears was hired to a half-time position and given the responsibility of administering the program using the NTMP guidelines. In 2001, at City Council's request, staff continued working with the Whittier and $alsamlEdgewood neighborhoods on Stage III (physical mitigation) of the process. These neighborhoods are now nearing the end of the NTMP process, with their final physical mitigation plans (in CEAP form) as a tali-up item at the Nov. 19, 2002 City Council Meeting. Staff also began accepting applications to the new program. All neighborhoods and streets were required to re-apply to be involved in the program. To date, approximately 200 NTMP information kits have been sent upon request to interested individuals. A deadline of June 30, 2002 was set for applications. The NTMP received 12 completed applications and ascertained that the requirements needed to become part of the program (such as obtaining 51 percent of residents signing the petition) have been met for each application. Once the petition requirements are met the neighborhood begins Stage I (Education) of the NTMP process. During 2002, these neighborhoods have worked with the NTMP to go from Stage I (Education) to Stage U (Education and Enforcement). As requested by the TAB, staff has ascertained areas within the NTMP guidelines that could be examined for clarification and refinement. Below are some of the questions regarding the NTMP guidelines that have arisen; • How much involvement from members of a neighborhood should be expected during different stages of the program? • How effective are Stage I and Stage It of the NTMP guidelines? • Are the time requirements for Stage I and Stage II too long? • Should some consideration be given to neighborhoods in which enforcement and education have already been provided in prior years? • Is the requirement of requesting TAB and Council consideration of the use of delay versus non-delay-inducing, traffic-calming devices meet the intended purpose of the NTMP guidelines? • Should the program be subdivided to meet the needs of different neighborhoods-small non-CERR neighborhood projects verses neighborhoods which have CERR streets as part of their overall traffic mitigation plan? • Should we take another look at the prioritization criteria and weighting to make sure we are prioritizing correctly? Are factors (such as the number of people affected by a speeding problem) being left out or weighted properly? • How are issues about weighting and prioritization resolved? Who actually decides which two neighborhoods move forward into Phase III of the process? • What about situations that don't fit the typical mold? What if staff is seeking to address a documented (accident history) safety issue with traffic mitigation? What if a street has multiple speed limits? • What defines a neighborhood street (to qualify for the program)? How shall we handle a mix of commercial and residential land uses? What if the residential portion backs to the roadway instead of fronting the roadway? 2 • Is the polling process effective? How can we ensure that people's expectations of what the polling process should and can provide is clearly understood? In addition, it is important to consider the city's resource constraints and their impact on these issues. Given that there is only one half-time person administering this program and that the NTMP budget has been significantly reduced, how can staff balance financial and human resources with NTMP workload? NEXT STEPS In 2003, staff will work with the neighborhoods that are already in the program using the current guidelines. An agenda item, detailing staff's recommendation for moving two neighborhoods forward into Phase III of the process, shall be brought before the TAB in the first quarter of 2003. Staff will continue to research programs from other jurisdictions and gather information from community members that have gone through the process. Staff from Public Works/Transportation, the Fire Department and the Police Department will work together to provide the TAB with a possible recommendation on changes to the NTMP, timed to be implemented with the 2004 program neighborhoods. If there are any comments or question pertaining to this item, please feel free to contact Teresa Spears at 303-441-1983 or e-mail directly to S12earsT@ci.boulder,co.us. 3 To: Transportation Advisory Board From: Crystal Gray, Whittier Resident Date: November 13, 2002 Re: Revision in NTMP Process, 2 pages Following are some suggestions, based on Whittier's recent experience, with the NTMP process: 1) The process is too long! ■ Whittier and Balsam are the first neighborhoods to go thru this process and it has taken years. 2) Problem with one CEAP and individual votes on each device. • One or two devices can fail out of 13, as happened in Whittier, and the only way to discuss the failed ones is to have the entire CEAP called up. This is unfair to the successful 11 ! Do something about this. 3) Problem with the letter the City sends out with the ballots. • The letter should not assume that everyone attended the meetings. The letter should explain the process carefully. ■ On 16th and Spruce, which failed, and on 18`h and Spruce, which only passed by 67%, the letter did not say that the existing mid block speed tables would be removed. You would know this if you attended meetings but not if you just read the letter. • You would not know that if a device was not approved a neighborhood could not apply for 3 years, and you must go to the bottom of the line. People who did not attend a meeting did not know this because it was not in the letter. ■ Explain things in detail the letter. Not everyone that received a ballot attended the meetings. Change this. 4) Allow an area with a failed device to meet, reach a consensus on another type of device and go forward (even with another vote) before 3 years. ■ Reserve the funds for the failed device. ■ Education and traditional enforcement do not work (as staffs own memo said - Oct. 28, 2002, page 4). A problem was identified so continue to work on solutions! 5 City used a database for sending ballots that did not reflect what the NTMP ordinance specked. ■ The ordinance says each unit within 400' shall receive a ballot and each property owner within 400' shall receive a ballot unless they live on site. They would only receive one ballot in that case. The database the city used did not include all units. ■ For some reason the units left off the database were older units. All the new multi family units were included. The older units had rental licenses and the owners were taxed on multi family property. Find the problem and fix this. ■ Vicki Naber and I walked the area around the 16`h and Spruce proposed circle and found 96 units (including offices). We provided a map to staff. The city database sent only 46 ballots to residents and 8 to non-resident property owners. This is a huge error! This is a high-density residential area and only 26 people voted because the other 50 (plus or minus) did not receive ballots. Even if Vicki and I were off in our count by half, 25 would have made a huge difference-especially since they are all in older residential units and we spoke to 19 and all said they would vote for the circle if they received a ballot! 6) If you keep the voting, develop a process for staff to respond to People within 400' that did not receive ballots. ■ We pointed this problem out to staff in an email and with a phone call before the balloting had finished and staff did nothing! This was very unfair! Do something about this and at least direct staff to develop a process to deal with disenfranchised voters during the process. ■ At the circle on 23`d and Spruce 64 people voted. It failed fairly (the developer of the Iron Flats project told me he voted his 10+ ballots no because he wanted another type of device that staff did not include). The Iron Flats Developer said he even had to call 4 times to get his ballots! That vote was 30-35. 7) Something positive! ■ The meetings were good and the chance to build consensus among neighbors was welcome. If this information can be communicated to all the voters that would be helpful. ■ The technical consultants were excellent. 8) Keep residents of NTMP Proiects informed in time so they can get letters in the TAB Packet. We only were aware of the Whittier and Balsam item by reading it in the Sunday Paper! This has happened repeatedly. EDITORIALS and during cognitive activity: a review of neuroimaging studies. Neuroimage. 2001; 17. Wang PN, Liao SO, Liu RS, et al. Effects of estrogen on cognition, mood, and 14789-801, cerebral blood flow in AD: a controlled study. Neurology. 2000;54:2061-2066. 5. Yaffe K, Sawaya G, Lieberburg I, Grady D. Estrogen therapy in postmen- 18. Brenner DE, Kukull WA, Stergachis A, et al. Postmenopausal estrogen re- pausal women: effects on cognitive funcion and dementia. JAMA. 1998;279: placement therapy and the risk of Alzheimer's disease: a population-based case. 688-695. control study. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:262-267. 6. LeBlanc ES, Janowsky 1, Chan BK, Nelson HD. Hormone replacement therapy 19. Seshadn S, Zomberg GL, Derby LE, Myers MW, lick H, Drachman DA. Post- andcugnition: systematic review and meta-analysis. )AMA. 2001;285:1489- menopausal estrogen replacement therapy and the risk of Alzheimer disease. Arch 1499. Neurol. 2001;58:435-440. 7. Zandi PP, Cadson MC, Plassman BL, et al, for the Cache County Memory Study 20. Marder K, Sano M. Estrogen to treat Alzheimer's disease: too little, too late? Investigators. Hormone replacement therapy and incidence of Alzheimer disease so what's a woman to do? Neurology. 2000;54:2035-2037. in older women: the Cache County Study. JAMA 2002;288:2123-2129. 21. Resnick SM, Maki PM. Effects of hormone replacement therapy on cognitive 8. Tang M-X, Jacobs D, Stern Y, et al. Effect of oestrogen during menopause on and brain aging. Ann N YAcad So. 2001;949:203-214. risk and age at onset of Alzheimer's disease. Lancet 1996;348:429-432. 22. Gibbs RE. Long-term treatment with estrogen and progesterone enhances ac- 9. Kawas C, Resnick S. Morrison A, et al. A prospective study of estrogen replace- quisition of a spatial memory task by ovanectom¢ed aged rats. Neurobiol Aging, ment therapy and the risk of developing Alzheimels disease: the Baltimore Lon- 2000;21:107-116. gitudinal Study of Aging. Neurology. 1997;48:1517-1521. 23. Shumaker SA, Reboussin BA, Espeland MA, et al. The Women's Health Ink 10. Paganini-Hill A, Henderson VW. Estrogen replacementthempy and risk of Alz- dative Memory Study (WHIMS): a trial of the effect of estrogen therapy in pre- heimer disease. Arch intern Med. 1996;156:2213-2217. venting and slowing the progression of dementia. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19: 11. Waring SC, Rocca WA, Petersen RC, O'Brien PC, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. 604-621. Postmenopausal estrogen replacement therapy and risk of AD: a population- 24. Vickers M. Collins N. Progress on the WISDOM trial-Women's Interne- based study. Neurology. 1999;52:965-970. tional Study of Long Duration Oestrogen After Menopause. Climacteric. 2002;5 12. Fratiglioni L, Viitanen M, von Strauss E, Tontodonati V, Herlitz A, Winblad B. (supp0:133. Very old women at highest risk of dementia and Alzheimels disease: incidence 25. Sano M. Prevention of Alzheimer's disease: the problem of the drugs and the data from the Kungsholmen Project, Stockholm. Neurology. 1997;48:132-138. designs. Cun Neurol Neuroso Rep. 2002;2:392-399. 13. Andersen K, Laurier U, Dewey ME, et al, for the EURODEM Incidence Re- 26. Toran-Allerand Co. Estrogen as a treatmerltforAJzheimer disease (letter]. JAMA. search Group. Gender differences in the incidence of AD and vascular dementia: 2000;284:307-308. the EURODEM Studies. Neurology. 1999;53:1992-1997. 27. Petersen RC. Smith GE, Waring SC, Ivnik FL, Tangalos EG, Kokmen E. Mild 14. Miech RA, Breitner JC, Zandi PP, Khachatunan AS, Anthony JC, Mayer L. In- cognitive impairment: clinical characterization and outcome. Arch Neurol. 1999; cidence of AD may decline in the early 90s for men, later for women: the Cache 56303-308. County Study. Neurology. 2002;58:209-218. 28. Ettinger B, Pressman A, Silver P. Effect of age on reasons for initiation and 15. Henderson VW, Paganini-Hill A, Miller BL, et al. Estrogen for Alzheimer's dis- discontinuation of hormone replacement therapy. Menopause. 1999;6:282-289. ease in women: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled teal. Neurology. 29. Henderson VW, Klein BEK, Resnick SM. Menopause and disorders of neuro- 2000;54:295-301. logic function, mental health, and the eye. In: Wenger NK, Paoletti R, Lenfant CJM, 16. Mulnard RA, Cotman CW, Kawas C, et al. Estrogen replacement therapy for Pinn VW,eds. International Position Paper on Women's Health and Menopause: treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease: a randomized controlled trial. A Comprehensive Approach. Vol 02-3284. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of JAMA. 2000;283:1007-1015. Health; 2002:251-270. Crosswalk Markings and Motor Vehicle Collisions Involving Older Pedestrians Jeffrey W. Runge, MD lisions was similar at intersections with or without marked Thomas B. Cole, MD, MPH crosswalks if the intersections were controlled by stop signs or signals. At intersections without stop signs or signals, pe- LDER ADULTS ARE MORE LIKELY THAN ANY OTHER destrians were 3 times as likely to be struck by motor ve- age group to be killed while crossing a street. hicles in marked crosswalks as in unmarked crosswalks. Although only 12.6% of the US population in These findings confirm previous reports that marked cross- O 2001 was estimated to be 65 years or older, these walks are associated with an increased risk of pedestrian- older adults accounted for 1049 (21.5%) of 4882 deaths of motor vehicle collisions,',' but the study provides stronger pedestrians in motor vehicle crashes in that year.' Marked evidence of this increased risk by controlling more care- crosswalks are often constructed at intersections to enable fully for other factors associated with pedestrian-motor ve- edestrians to cross safely. However, an article b Koe sell hicle collisions at intersections. The most important of these j et al' in this issue of THE] URNAL suggests that marked cross- factors are pedestrian and motor vehicle traffic density: the greater the exposure of pedestrians to vehicles at a given in- walks might not always be safe for pedestrians. tersection, the greater the opportunity for a collision. Pre- Koepsell et al compared intersections where motor ve- hicles had collided with pedestrians aged 65 years or older vious investigators" directly observed pedestrians and mo- Vith intersections Of similar traffic density, speed limits, and for vehicles at intersections, perhaps with knowledge of numbers of lanes where collisions of older pedestrian and which intersections had pedestrian-motor vehicle colli- motor vehicles had not occurred, by the presence or ab- sions.Koepselletalmeasured vehicle speeds with radar guns sence of marked crosswalks. They found that the risk of col- Author Afflllations: or Runge is Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. or Cole is Contributing Editor, JAMA. See also p 2136. Corresponding Author and Reprints; Thomas B. Cole, MD, MPH, JAMA, 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610 (e-mail: Thomas_Cole®ama-msn.org). 2172 JAMA, November 6, 2002-Vol 288, No. 17 ED[TORLALS d at intersections, but measured pedestrian and vehicle traf- ever, in the process of constructing the crosswalk guide- fic by videotaping intersections and having research assis- lines, it was observed that few members of the guideline study tants, who were blinded to the intersections' case or con- group, who were practicing traffic engineers in9 geographi- trol assignment, review the videotapes to count pedestrians cally diverse state and municipal agencies, measured pe- h and vehicles. In addition, to assess the potential bias of mis- destrian volumes or other variables before installing cross- counting pedestrians and motor vehicles, the authors con- walks. Therefore it is likely that many marked crosswalks ducted a sensitivity analysis to estimate how imprecise their in the United States may not meet these guidelines, and re- e traffic density measurements would have to be to invali- view of their safety may be warranted. On the other hand, date their estimates of relative risk. The authors found that marked crosswalks at intersections that meet guidelines of q. their measurements of traffic density would have had to be low traffic densities, low speed, and adequate visibility may implausibly imprecise to produce a spurious estimate of the be safe, despite the finding of Koepsell et al that marked cross- relative risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions at inter- walks at uncontrolled intersections were unsafe in the sections with marked crosswalks. aggregate- What, then, should be done about marked crosswalks, Three general strategies maybe helpful for improving the ,5 and how should older adults be advised to cross the street safety of crosswalks. One strategy would be to improve sig- ,e safely? To address these questions, it may help to think about nalization and signage at intersections, as suggested by cross- how older adults cross streets at intersections. At streets with walk guidelines. The finding of Koepsell et al that marked A. traffic moving in both directions, older adults have been ob- crosswalks are not hazardous at intersections controlled by id served to take more time to cross the street and to allow less stop signs or signals suggests that the lack of stop signs and 9; time than younger adult pedestrians to complete their cross- signals may be the source of increased risk, not the marked ,d ings before oncoming vehicles arrive at the intersection.' In crosswalks. Signalization is not an option for every cross- '9 other words, many older people may not compensate ad- walk, but improvement of crosswalk visibility and control °n equately for their slower walking speeds. Moreover, older of vehicle speeds may be options. ;e: adults may need to recalibrate their crossing times as they A second strategy for improving the safety of crosswalks of f become infirm and walking becomes slower. However, when would be to enforce existing traffic safety laws. However, the crossing environment is less complex, such as divided at uncontrolled intersections there is ambiguity as to when streets with traffic moving in only one direction on either the driver or pedestrian should proceed. The uniform ve- side of a median strip, older adults may be able to cross the hicle code (11-502[a] on which all states model their traf- street as safely as younger pedestrians.' That is, older pe- fic laws, says that "when traffic control signals are not in destrians may benefit from traffic engineering that breaks place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield up and simplifies the crossing task and provides a safe ref- the right of way to a pedestrian crossing in the road- uge for slower pedestrians who cannot cross the street be- way within a crosswalk."' Unfortunately, traffic safety laws fore oncoming vehicles enter the crosswalk. are often inconsistent from state to state and if pedestrians d To help pedestrians cross streets safely, guidelines have and drivers are unaware of the provisions of these laws, they is been published for installation of crosswalk markings e These cannot be expected to behave appropriately. In addition, com- e- guidelines suggest that crosswalks should not be marked at peting priorities of law enforcement officers may present an e- intersections with high-traffic speeds, insufficient visibil- impediment to consistent enforcement of crosswalk viola- ity of the crosswalk at a distance within which drivers can lions. If pedestrians have an expectation that cars must stop •s stop in time to avoid colliding with crossing pedestrians, for them when they are in the crosswalk and drivers do not 1- or poor illumination. The guidelines further suggest that expect to see a pedestrian or slow down or stop for one, it '=T crosswalks should be designed for ages and other charac- creates a dangerous and untenable traffic environment. e- teristics of pedestrians likely to cross at specific intersec- A third strategy for improving the safety of crosswalks e- lions For example, at intersections with signal lights, older would be to educate pedestrians and drivers to use cross- se pedestrians may not have enough time to cross the street walks safely.'' A systematic review' of safety education pro- 1e before the signal changes.' The guidelines suggest that at grams found that pedestrian safety education can change ob- n- intersections with greater traffic volumes and speeds, cross- served street crossing behavior in children, but the authors e walk markings should be supplemented with advance warn- identified no trials designed to test the effects of safety edu- o ings of signal changes. The guidelines further suggest that cation programs for older pedestrians. Education pro- of crosswalks should not be marked "where complex high- grams for older pedestrians should be implemented and ti- way geometries, signing, or other circumstances distract the evaluated. ns driver's attention away from them."' Children are taught to look left, then right, then left again it is not known whether the intersections studied by before crossing the street. Unfortunately, for many older ty Koepsell et al met these guidelines, nor is it certain whether adults, crossing the street might not be that simple. Model N crosswalks installed according to these guidelines can re- design for crosswalk conspfcuityand signage should be used duce the risk of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions. How- by local departments of transportation, and states should JAMA, November 6, 2002-Vol 288, No. 17 3173 EDITORIALS pass and enforce traffic safety laws consistent with the uni- 3. Harms BF, Pedestrian crosswalk study: accidents in painted and unpainted cross- form vehicle code. Educators familiar with the special needs 4 walk,, Highway Stewart R Huang , agerwey P. Safety effects of marked vs un- and abilities of older adults should design and evaluate pro- marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: analysis of pedestrian crashes in 30 grams for teaching older adults to choose the safest inter- cities (with discussion and closure). rransp Res Record. 2001;1773:56-68. 5. Oxley 1, Fildes 8, Ihsen E, Charlton J. Day R. Differences in traffic judge- section, look both ways, tune out distracting information, ments between young and old adult pedestrians. Accid Ana( Prev. 1997;29: estimate distances and times, and focus on the difficult and 639-847. 6. Smith SA, Knoblauch RL. Guidelines for the installation of crosswalk markings. potentially dangerous task Of Crossing the street safely. Fmnsp Res Record. 1987;1141:15-25. 7. Home RE, Rubenstein LZ. Are older pedestrians allowed enough time to cross REFERENCES intersections safely? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994;42:241-244. 8. Blomberg RD, Cleven A. Resource Guide on Laws Related to Pedestrian and 1. Fatal Analysis Reporting System. Available at: http://www-fam.nhtsa.dot Bicycle Safety. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; ' gov. Accessed September 30, 2002. 2002. Publication DOT HS 609368. 2. Koepsell T, McCloskey L, Wolf M, et al. Crosswalk markings and the risk of 9. Duperrex O, Bunn F, Roberts I. Safety education for pedestrians for injury pre- pedestran-motor vehicle collisions in older pedestrians. JAMA. 2002;2882136- venbon: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2002;324:1129- 2143. 1133. A 4 r Pain Management A Call for Papers r' Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH Areas of interest include pain management in the elderly, and t' in children; patients with cancer, human immunodeficiency I1 Pleasure is nothing else but the intermission of pain. virus, and other chronic illnesses; medico-legal implications a; John Seldez (1584.1654) of opioid and other medications; manipulative, neurostimu- lation, and rehabilitation therapies; complementary- and alter- HE MANAGEMENT OF PAIN IS A CONTINUING PUBLIC native therapies; and ethical implications of treatment. health problem. Pain of all descriptions is one of the Authors should consult the JAMA Instructions for Au- most frequently encountered complaints in physi- thors for guidelines on manuscript submission and prepa- clans' offices, hospitals, chronic care facilities, and ration. n Manuscripts received before May 1, 2003, will have nursing homes. Virtually all health care professionals en- the best chance of acceptance for the November 12, 2003, counter patients with pain, whether it is acute or chronic; JAMA theme issue. a is due to trauma, surgery, arthritis, cancer, or other ill- Our goal for publication of a JAMA theme issue on pain nesses; or occurs as part of daily life or at the end of life. management is to stimulate authors to report their re- According to a World Health Organization study involving search, and to enable clinicians to gain new insights to re- numerous countries, 22% of primary care patients re- lieve pain in patients and afford them some pleasure. ported persistent pact.tSchnitzer2 reported that 75 million US adults experience chronic pain. Pain is difficult to docu- REFERENCES 'i ment or study in some groups, such as children ' and ne0- 1. Guueje O, VonKOrff M, Simon G, et al. Persistent pain and well-being: aworld . natess and older persons, but it does occur.6 Health Organization study in primary care. JAMA. 1998;280:147-151 2. Schnitzer TJ. Non.NSAID pharmacologic treatment options for the manage- Despite the development of new drugs and supportive thera- ment of chronic pain. Am 1 Med. 199$105:45S-52S. _ pies and documentation of their effectiveness, appropriate use 3. Ross OM, Ross SA. Childhood palm the school-aged child's viewpoint. Pain. r-30 1984;20:179-191. y to relieve pain remains poor. The management of pain has 4, Gaffney A, Dunn E. Development components of children's definition of pain. 'j major implications for patient care, basic and clinical scien- Pain. 1986;26:105-117. 5. Taddio A, Shah V, Gilbert-Malleod L, et al. Conditioning and hyperalgesia in ~a tific research, and medico-legal and health care policy. Given newborns exposed to repeated heel lances. JAMA. 2002;288'857-861. the importance of pain management for all health profession- 6. The management of persistent pain in older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002; a1sJAMA and several ArchivesJournals Will publish theme is_ 50(6suppi):5205-5224. 7. Zech OF, Grond S, Lynch], etal. ValidationpfWorld Health Organization guide- sues on this topic in November 2003. We invite authors to lines for cancer pain relief: a 10-year prospective study. Pain. 1995;63:65-76. submit manuscripts involving original research including ran- a3 2 ley KM. Pain relief into practice: rhetoric without reform. J Gin Oncof. 1995; 14-2151. domized clinical trials and high-quality observational re- 9 . Donovan M, Dillon P, McGuire L. Incidence and characteristics of pain in a sample search; systematic reviews; scholarly commentaries; and spe- of medical-surgical inpatients. Pain. 1987;30:69-87. cial communications addressing pain management. Basic 10, Schechter NL. The undertreatment of pain in children: an overview. Pediatr g P Gin North Am. 1989;36:781-794 science and translational research studies that provide in- 11. JAMA instructions foraurhors.JAMA. 2002;288:108-114. Also available at: - sight to underlying mechanisms of pain and its management http://iamaama-mn.wg/info/auinsLhtml. Accessibility verified October 1, 2002. are also highly encouraged to be submitted. - Topics !night include direct therapeutic interventions, aneil- Author Affiliations: Dr DeAngelis is Editor, )AMA. CortespondingAuthor and Reprints: Catherine D. DeAngelis, MD, MPH, ]AMA, lary support for patients and their families, and ethical issues. 515 N State St, Chicago, IL 60610 (e-mail: Cathy_DeAngelis®ama-assn.org). 2174 JAMA, November 6, 2002-Vol[288, No. 17 :lira