1 of 67

May 29, 2024

Vision Zero 101

Shifting the Paradigm for

Safety & Equity

2 of 67

What is Vision Zero Network?

Resources

Discussions & Webinars

Peer exchange

Policy Initiatives

Events

Learn more at visionzeronetwork.org

3 of 67

Webinar User Tips

The webinar is recorded and will be available soon on the Vision Zero Network website.

During the webinar, you can type your questions into the Q&A box

Submit questions here

4 of 67

What we’ll cover today:

The problem before us

Overview: Vision Zero & the Safe System approach

Vision Zero in Action

Challenges

Key takeaways

5 of 67

The problem before us

6 of 67

The nation is experiencing record-high levels of traffic violence – a leading cause of preventable deaths

7 of 67

In 2021, the U.S. experienced a 16-year high in traffic deaths

= 42,915 people

8 of 67

Also in 2021, the U.S. experienced a 40-year high in pedestrian deaths

= 7,388 people

9 of 67

10 of 67

11 of 67

12 of 67

13 of 67

An important 1st: Vision Zero is the National Goal

14 of 67

National Leaders Commit Funds & Policy Change

“U.S. DOT adopts a Safe System Approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety.”

Safe Streets & Roads for All Funding

15 of 67

Overview of Vision Zero

16 of 67

is not a slogan…

not a tagline…

not even a program.

Vision Zero is fundamentally different.

It is a paradigm shift.

17 of 67

Vision Zero & Public Health

Source: Integrating Equity into Transportation, USDOT

https://visionzeronetwork.org/applying-the-health-impact-pyramid-to-roadway-safety/

And part of this fundamental paradigm shift has a lot to do with integrating public health thinking and strategies, based around the principles of injury prevention into transportation work at every level. It also has to do with acknowledging and recognizing that transportation impacts health outcomes.

Decisions related to our everyday transportation systems intersect with many consequential aspects of our lives. It can hinder or help our access to medical care, education, healthy food, employment and more - making it a critical factor in influencing our health outcomes.

And because we know that transportation impacts health outcomes and plays a role in public health, it also means that we can apply the principles of public health which focus on scaling up systems of prevention that everyone can benefit from.

And these principles systems level changes are also reflected in the Safe System approach, which underpins Vision Zero.

18 of 67

Vision Zero & the Safe System Pyramid

Source: Ederer, et al

Impacts an entire community

Impacts individuals

Public health practitioners use the Health Impact Pyramid (HIP) to prioritize which strategies require the least individual effort with the most far reaching or community wide impact (which sit at the bottom of the pyramid) and to de-prioritize strategies that require the most individual effort with the least far reaching or limited community wide impact (which sit at the top of the pyramid). The more individual effort required for an intervention means little to no impact on a population level - so we want to be prioritizing interventions that are far reaching in scope.

Here, I’ve included an image of the Safe System pyramid, which has been adapted from the Health Impact Pyramid. It essentially emphasizes that strategies that work at the lower levels of the pyramid (such as addressing the built environment or socioeconomic factors) will have the largest impact on safety because they are not dependent on individuals and other factors that influence individuals (such as income, lifestyle, culture, etc) on being effective.

These include redesigning roadways, adding life saving technology in vehicles - like intelligent speed assistance, and lowered speed limits with roadways designed to match the speed limit, all of which not only have a high, positive population-level impact but specifically address the built environment or socioeconomic factors.

In practice, this pyramid is helpful for discerning the best strategies for a particular safety problem. For instance, an individual-level strategy is encouraging people to drive a safe speed via education campaigns (billboards, radio ads) and the threat of getting speeding tickets. These have some, but not widespread, deep and lasting impacts. Meanwhile, a population-level strategy would be road designers physically separating people driving from people walking and biking wherever possible with fully separated, Complete Streets; another is slowing speeds whenever possible with traffic calming features on the road and lowering speed limits, so that if/when a crash happens, it is less severe. These population-level strategies are what we consider an “upstream” focus in Vision Zero, having far greater, more lasting safety impacts.

s”

19 of 67

Translating the Pyramid to Vision Zero

And so when it comes to translating the Safe System pyramid and some of the ways we, at VZN, have conceptualized its use in Vision Zero as functioning at the system’s level by nature:

In essence, this looks like

Changing organizational practices in ways bake in safety to planning process

(for instance, leveraging repaving processes as an opportunity to add in either more robust or near -term safety infrastructure - like quick builds)

Scaling up safe infrastructure, particularly in communities that are overburdened with streets with wide lanes, limited sidewalks / bikeways, that encourage high speeds, relying on enforcement in these communities that are already experiencing increased safety risk moving about within their community
Fostering coalitions & networks with public health, land use, transit departments, along with community based organizations so that planning decisions are not exacerbating unintended safety consequences or that they are complementing each other.

20 of 67

Overview of the Safe System Approach

Poll #1

21 of 67

Source: USDOT, Federal Highway Administration

22 of 67

What’s the difference?

Image source: USDOT

23 of 67

With the Safe System approach, the goal is not to prevent crashes, but rather to help ensure that when crashes do happen - they are less severe and don’t result in serious injury or death.

Note that the goal of Vision Zero is zero traffic deaths and severe injuries, in many ways it’s actually not as ambitious as setting the goal of zero crashes.

This is because Crashes will happen - humans make mistakes and so a a safe system really focuses on making our system more forgiving so that that when crashes occur they don’t result in death and serious injuries

To highlight the difference I’ve included two maps.

On the left - features an image of all crashes
On the right - a High Injury network map - focusing on deaths and serious injuries

This allows a more targeted approach and can be particularly helpful for prioritizing safety / infrastructure changes (From an equity perspective, communities that experience the highest rates of injuries and deaths are often not the ones who make requests for safety infrastructure.)

24 of 67

In addition, instead of trying to improve human behavior - it focuses on designing for human mistakes and limitations.

For instance, many safety campaigns will emphasize that people walking should wear bright colors or avoid walking at night, to avoid the risk of crashes happen. But these strategies do not take into account the realities of the built environment, which may be plagued with insufficient street lighting & no sidewalks, and the realities of an individual's situation - who may be unable to avoid commuting at night, have a job that requires them to wear a dark uniform or who are commuting in unsafe built environments in the first place.

Instead the safe system strategies focus on addressing the root causes of the safety problem - the unsafe built environment and conditions. These strategies can include but are not limited to:

-High visibility crosswalks

-Narrowing roadways (with bollards as done here)

-Using colors to signal to drivers

-Leading Pedestrian Intervals

25 of 67

Focus on individual speeding = reactive

Less effective & equitable

Focus on making the *system* safer proactively by managing speeds with physical designs, lower speed limits, etc.

26 of 67

Another key difference is holding individuals responsible for crashes vs the importance of shared responsibility. This is really emphasizing safety as a shared responsibility in which our leaders, electeds, and municipalities are invested in improving safety in ways that are upstream and impact entire communities. We can’t educate/enforce our way out of this problem because people are moving about in imperfect systems.

Therefore, we’ve got to redesign systems to be more safe/forgiving. an over-emphasis on traditional education strategies, such as promotional campaigns reminding people to “be safe” while walking or biking, rests on the assumption that all individuals have safe walking or biking choices to begin with. So, transportation systems need to be evaluated for gaps in infrastructure to

27 of 67

Ex: Left Turn Risk

Ex: Installing Leading Pedestrian Intervals Citywide

28 of 67

Vision Zero in Action

29 of 67

Shifting from the Es to a Safe System Approach

Prioritizing safety over speed

Advancing racial, health equity

Vision Zero in Action

30 of 67

Shifting from the Es to a Safe System Approach

31 of 67

Physically separate people walking & biking from drivers, wherever possible

Use traffic calming strategies and proactive road designs to slow speeds and improve visibility.

Designing streets to complement & reinforce lowers speeds

Managing speeds to keep impacts on the human body at tolerable levels

Designing streets for desired, safe speeds, not predominant speeds

Prioritizing lower speeds when people walking and biking are mixing with drivers

32 of 67

Shifting from the Es to a Safe System Approach

Example Problem: Kinetic energy is highest between vehicles and people walking or biking

Example of Safe System Design: Minimize kinetic energy by physically separating walkways and bikeways

33 of 67

Shifting from the Es to a Safe System Approach

And so to help us visualize what this means in VZ planning process, I’m highlighting two versions of Philadelphia’s VZAP - one from 2017 - based on the Es and the second from 2020 - based on the SSA.

The first plan states one of their VZ priorities as being engineering and the priority is highlighted as “engineer streets to reduce risk of crashes.” But when compared to the Safe System based plan - engineering’s role still shows up of course, but is shifted to one that focuses on: “Creating roads that are predictable and aren’t confusing for anyone using them”

“

In some ways the priorities laid in the SSA based plan come across as more straightforward and actionable compared to the first. With safety being at the core of the SSA - It’s not about working harder, but about doing things differently

34 of 67

Prioritizing Safety Over Speed

Higher vehicle speeds significantly increase likelihood of death

35 of 67

Prioritizing Safety over Speed

https://visionzeronetwork.org/resources/safety-over-speed/

Part of managing speeds also means recognizing how street design and speed limits interact with and influence each other. It’s not enough to simply lower the speed limit on an arterial road with wide travel lanes and limited traffic calming features. Streets have to be designed in ways to complement the desired safe speed.

Another strategy communities are exploring to managed speeds include safe speed technology. This includes speed safety cameras - which are a new area of practice for many communities. However, because they are fine based and many communities are disproportionately burdened with dangerous roadways that encourage high speeds, equity considerations should be intentionally and thoroughly considered.

Plus, if the goal is to slow speeds, ultimately, infrastructure still news to be changed to accommodate safety changes in the long run so as to avoid over penalizing folks residing in communities with poorly built environments.

Other speed technology includes intelligent speed assistance (which is an even newer area of practice) which uses GPS-linked speed limit data and/or video cameras that recognize speed signs to advise drivers of the current speed limit.

Ex. In Nyc they are piloting a program to retrofitting municipal fleet vehicles with ISA technology.

36 of 67

Prioritizing Safety over Speed

Scaling up road design features:

Speed cushions
Painting/posting bulb outs
Beacon crossings
New sidewalks & curb ramps
Protected bike lanes

37 of 67

Prioritizing Safety over Speed

Implement traffic calming measures: both permanent & demonstrations

Review speed limits citywide, using a context-based method

Designate slow-zones in areas with high numbers of kids, people w/ disabilities, pedestrians & bicyclists

38 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016-2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates; Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): 2016-2020 Final File and 2021 Annual Report File (ARF)

39 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

40 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

41 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

In the U.S., Black drivers about 2x as likely to be pulled over and about 4x as likely to be searched by police.

Source: The Stanford Open Policing Project

Photo: Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times

42 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

43 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

44 of 67

Source: Ederer, et al

Impacts an entire community

Impacts individuals

Advancing racial, health equity

Which brings me to this pyramid and the importance of assessing the most effective & equitable safety strategies…

In working towards our goals of Vision Zero and safe streets we must look critically at whether the strategies we uplift yield the impact we’re looking for and hold ourselves accountable to that.

We know that kinetic energy plays a big role in safety risk so we’ve got to focus on designing our transportation systems in ways that manage it and that are far reaching = not hindered by individual reach.

Those that impact an entire community include narrowed roadways, additional walking and biking infrastructure, signal retiming, leading pedestrian intervals. These are truly the most effective and equitable strategies to lower speeds and improve safety. Enforcement rests at the top of the pyramid.

45 of 67

Advancing racial, health equity

And so while trying to assess the most effective and equitable strategies to improve roadway safety, it’s also important to consider the role of data in advancing racial & health equity.

As it stands, using death and serious injury crashes data to identify a community’s High Injury Network (HIN), is increasingly becoming a best practice, we should consider the ways in which indicators of vulnerability can show up across communities.

Specifically, layering data sources, (such as your HIN and demographic data) and can highlight that.

For instance, I’ve highlighted here two HIN maps from Philadelphia & Tampa
YOu’ll see that when crash data is overlaid with demographic data

In philadelphia - read slide
In tampa - read slide

Unfortunately, could have taken this from any Vision Zero Action Plan & this overlap would likely show up.

46 of 67

Prioritize safety funding & projects in historically underserved communities.

Source: Oakland DOT

Advancing racial, health equity

47 of 67

Investing time & resources in relationships with community

Advancing racial, health equity

48 of 67

Challenges

Poll #2

49 of 67

50 of 67

We can do this. We’ve made big changes before.

Smoking is down 70% over the last 60 years

“Driving is the new smoking: Lessons from America’s public health victory over tobacco”

51 of 67

The Safe System approach works

52 of 67

Seattle: Rainier Ave.

53 of 67

Seattle: Lower speeds, increase sign density

Crashes down 39%

Reduced speeding, esp. high-end speeds

Over the past couple of years, Seattle installed thousands of new 25 MPH speed limit signs across the city. Now, more than 90% of city of Seattle arterial streets are signed at 25 MPH and at more frequent intervals.

Prior to speed limit reductions, most locations included 30 mph signs with sign spacing ranging from 1 to 1 ½ miles in each direction or they were unsigned (default 25 mph speed limit). All locations included new 25 mph signs spaced at ¼ mile intervals in each direction. The estimated cost to install reduced speed limit signs in Seattle is $4,000 to $5,000 per mile and includes design, materials and labor.

Seattle is one of the first cities in the country to study how reducing speed limits and increasing speed limit sign frequency improves safety for everyone. Early results show a decrease in vehicular speeds and a reduction of up to 39% in crashes

SDOT has found lowering speed limits and increasing sign density alone - absent any marketing campaigns, additional enforcement, retimed signal progressions, or engineering changes to the street geometry – resulted in lower speeds and fewer crashes.

54 of 67

Philadelphia: Roosevelt Blvd.

55 of 67

Philadelphia: Roosevelt Blvd.

56 of 67

Portland, Oregon

34% reduction in speeds > than 30mph

50% reduction in speeds > than 35mph

57 of 67

Alexandria, Virginia

Zero Traffic Deaths in 2023

Shifted from Level of Service (LOS) → Level of Safety performance measurements

Amended City Code to reduce speed limits below 25mph in slow zones

Reducing speed limits on high-speed corridors

Piloted “Slow Streets” and car-free spaces – later made many permanent

Banning right turns on red

Pedestrian head-starts at intersections

58 of 67

Jersey City

Zero Traffic Deaths in 2022

Focus on tactical urbanism — small-scale, low-cost pilot interventions:

Slow Streets
mini-roundabouts
bikeways
parklets & increased pedestrian spaces

59 of 67

NYC: Queens Blvd.

60 of 67

NYC

Pedestrian deaths decreased 29% in NYC, as they increased 67% nationally over past decade

- Reduced citywide speed limits 30->25mph

- Road diets = 28% reduction in ped fatalities & serious injuries

- Turn-calming treatments = 33% reduction in ped fatalities & serious injuries

- Speed cameras = 72% reduction in speeding

This was through

-Road diets: which showed a 28 percent reduction in pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries.

-Turn calming: a 33 percent reduction in pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries.

-traffic calming - via speed humps ( Speed humps and cushions: New York City installed almost 2,200 speed humps and 40 speed cushions between 2014 and 2020.) - showed a 17 percent reduction in juries

-Lowered speed limits - reduced the citywide default speed limit to 25 mph and installed more than 5,000 new speed limit signs in combination with speed cameras

In 2014, New York City Department of Transportation (NYC DOT) reduced the citywide default speed limit to 25 mph and installed more than 5,000 new speed limit signs in combination with camera-based speed enforcement (Figure 10).

Further, NYC DOT reduced the speed limit by 5 mph on more than 70 miles of arterial corridors

• Speeding at fixed camera locations in school zones has dropped 72 percent.

• Crashes with injuries, considering all road users, decreased by 8 percent on speed camera corridors in school zones.

• Injuries resulting from bicycle and pedestrian crashes with children decreased by 20 percent on speed camera corridors in school zones.

• Injuries at speed-hump locations decreased by 9 percent.

• Injuries at speed-cushion locations decreased by 17 percent.

• Pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries decreased by 28 percent after road diet projects.

• Pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries decreased by 33 percent after intersection turn calming improvements.

61 of 67

Fremont, CA

Fremont: 45% reduction in fatal & severe injuries over past 5 years

- Reduced posted speed limits on 20+ miles

- 12+ protected intersections

- 30+ Quick-Build bulb-outs

- Restriped 50% of arterial roads, reducing lane widths from 12–14 ft to 10 ft

- Shifted to brighter LED street lights: Estimate 23% reduction in fatal & severe injury crashes in dark conditions

62 of 67

Fremont, CA

63 of 67

Hoboken, New Jersey

“Implementing bold action through Vision Zero is tough work. It requires political courage and facing our challenges head on, knowing that saving lives is worth fighting for.”

Mayor Ravi Bhalla, Hoboken

64 of 67

Hoboken, New Jersey

Hoboken: = 50% reduction in ped serious injuries over the last year

- Daylighted 78 intersections

- Installed 61 high visibility crosswalks

Hoboken: = 67% reduction in bicyclist serious injuries over the last year

65 of 67

Key Takeaways

66 of 67

Key Takeaways

Lead with upstream design changes
Managing speeds
Advancing racial & health equity
Scale up changes city-wide
Center safety across departments
Reallocating $$$
Start where you are

We’re all working hard to improve safety and save lives. But “It’s not really about working harder” but about doing things differently. And so to help close out our session today, I want to emphasize a few key takeaways.

Prioritizing changes to the built environment (upstream approaches) over education and enforcement (downstream approaches)
Managing speeds for safety - prioritizing kinetic energy instead of vehicle throughput
Prioritizing investments in communities experiencing a disproportionate burden of safety risk, particularly prevalent in BiPOc / low income
Re-allocating funding for safety projects in ways that prioritize equity, vulnerable road users, and robust infrastructure changes

Start where you are - the strategies and examples I’ve highlighted today might be more in reach for some than for others. The important thing is that you start somewhere. This might look like initiating a conversation with colleagues who are interested in improving roadway safety, reaching out to your public health department. Or it might look like building scaling up small safety changes you know make a big safety difference.

67 of 67

Tiffany Smith

tiffany@visionzeronetwork.org

www.visionzeronetwork.org

@visionzeronet