An article posted on the Atlantic‘s CityLab last week documented that many of the cities that have adopted “vision zero” policies have seen pedestrian fatalities sharply increase. These cities, notes the article, have “spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the process, rebuilding streets to calm traffic and reduce driving, lobbying for speed limit reductions, launching public awareness campaigns, and retraining police departments.” Yet Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, among others, saw sharp increases in pedestrian and/or bicycle fatalities after adopting Vision Zero policies.
This won’t be a surprise to Antiplanner readers. As described in Policy Brief #25, Vision Zero is an overly simplistic strategy that fails to solve the real problems that are causing pedestrian fatalities to rise.
Vision Zero is based on the observation that pedestrians hit by cars traveling at high speeds are more likely to die than if the cars are traveling at low speeds. So Vision Zero’s primary tactic is to reduce driving speeds. Vision Zero’s secondary goal is to reduce driving period by making auto travel slower and less desirable compared to the alternatives. Neither of these are working very well.
As Policy Brief #25 noted, the real problem isn’t speed but design. The fastest driving speeds are on urban freeways, yet they have the lowest pedestrian fatality rates because pedestrians are normally excluded from the freeways. Traffic on one-way streets tends to be faster than on two-way streets, yet pedestrians suffer fewer accidents on one-way streets because they only have to worry about traffic coming from one direction when crossing the streets.
With services such as free home delivery, and full confidentiality of the patients, for the successful get viagra in canada treatment of the problem. They include: Problems urinating – It’s not at all uncommon for men that are seen suffering from ED will often keep it to themselves; however, this is where horny goat weed is most commonly used based on its name. secretworldchronicle.com levitra on line This problem can also target young http://secretworldchronicle.com/?s=season+6&x=0&y=0 viagra online age women. Erection is maintained by the shutting down of the veins generic cialis online http://secretworldchronicle.com/2018/10/ep-9-19-lost-cause/ that carry blood away from the penis. Moreover, simply slowing daytime traffic doesn’t treat another major problem, which is unsafe behavior. More pedestrians die and the rise in fatalities is greater during the three-hour period between 3 am and 6 am than the nine-hour period between 9 am and 6 pm. Most fatalities are also away from intersections and a high percentage of nighttime pedestrians who died had alcohol in their bloodstreams. Presumably the same is true for the drivers, but the data don’t report driver alcohol levels for pedestrian accidents alone.
Better street lighting, better enforcement of driving under the influence laws, and policies aimed at discouraging people from crossing the streets outside of designated crosswalks, especially at night, would be more successful at reducing fatalities than increasing traffic congestion during rush hours, which is really what Vision Zero is all about.
We can say for certain that Vision Zero’s efforts to reduce driving have failed. Chicago and Los Angeles were the first major cities to adopt Vision Zero goals in 2012. Since then, per capita driving in Chicago has grown by more than 5 percent while in Los Angeles it has grown more than 2 percent.
For decades, traffic engineers followed a tried-and-true formula for reducing auto fatalities: improve roadway designs in ways that reduce the number and impact of accidents. Vision Zero has diverted cities from that formula in an overt anti-auto strategy that sometimes actually makes streets more dangerous (such as when one-way streets are converted to two-way operation). So it is no surprise that Vision Zero isn’t working.
Only real solution: Pedestrian grade separation. It’s done wonders on Las Vegas boulevard.
I don’t have any data, but I have observed that pedestrians seem to be empowered by having the right of way. I have seen them stepping on to the road when traffic is high, without a thought as to who would win between them and a car. They seem to think they have a super power. They might be safer having to look both ways and not assuming a car is going to stop for them.
The problem is the incentives at work here.
Planners win every time a pedestrian is hit. Period. They release lie-filled statements about how drivers are careening down city streets, and the subsequent need for traffic calming devices.
Instead of rightfully being blamed that the designs they implement (deliberately) cause or exacerbate these situations, planners are feeding off the resulting mayhem to further their anti-auto goals.
Never forget congestion kills. “Traffic calming” doesn’t reduce auto use, it just makes it more congested. They “traffic Calmed” Hillsboro St here in Raleigh, NC from 4 lanes down to 2, to the point that it is a permanent traffic jam from sun-up to sun-down. Now, when the lights turn red and pedestrians are told to cross, the cars cannot clear the intersection, so now the pedestrians have to walk around and between cars to cross.
”
Now, when the lights turn red and pedestrians are told to cross, the cars cannot clear the intersection, so now the pedestrians have to walk around and between cars to cross.
” ~lonesnark
Now there’s something that would make pedestrian’s lives better, find a way to prevent cars from blocking intersections and crosswalks.
Couldn’t agree more. https://medium.com/just-opinions/thoughts-on-vision-zero-855b4c197076 Enjoying your writing.
The problem goes beyond design, as the anti planner points out. I’m hopping back here to point out my experience. The street I live on recently went on a rare road diet. It’s got the works. It’s pretty damn nice.
I’m coming home after dark, looking to make a left turn into the driveway for our building. And at the last second I realize off on the corner of my vision is something moving. A pedestrian!
An older couple had decided that during a busy time, it was the tail end of evening rush hour, they were going to jay walk. It’s not poorly lit but it’s not well lit there. They were hard to see.
To add insult to injury, just 40 feet down the sidewalk is a newly installed crosswalk. It has bump outs on both sides, big flashy yellow lights, ample lighting and even an island in the middle.
And yet, they were just going to cross the street right then and there.
Design matters. But so does stupidity. You can’t fix stupid.