Vision Zero: No more traffic deaths on Berkeley streets Image courtesy of Fehr & Peers Farid Javandel, Transportation Division Manager Beth Thomas, Principal Planner, Transportation Division 1
Presentation Outline Why Vision Zero? Core Principles of Vision Zero What s Different about Vision Zero History of Vision Zero Impact Speed and Crash Severity Severe and Fatal Crashes in Berkeley Key Elements of a Vision Zero Policy (the Three E s) Vision Zero and Existing City Efforts Potential Tradeoffs to be Addressed / Considerations for Effective Implementation Next Steps 2
Why Vision Zero? Traffic deaths and severe injuries have human toll Emotional pain of survivors and care givers - magnified in cases where child killed Physical pain and disability of surviving crash victims Lost productivity and economic cost Each year Berkeley has high-profile crashes Vision Zero approach found to be effective Developing Vision Zero Policy recommended in Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan Photo above-right courtesy of Fehr & Peers 3
Core Principles of Vision Zero No loss of life is acceptable Focus on preventing fatalities and serious, lifealtering injuries Humans make mistakes The roadway system should be designed, to the extent possible, such that human error does not result in death or severe injury. A culture of traffic safety Multimodal roadway users and government Prioritize safety over speed 4
What s Different about Vision Zero Why Language Matters Source: Vision Zero Network 5
What s Different about Vision Zero Air Travel Safety as a Model Fatalities not acceptable Reconstruction and analysis of crashes Data-driven: continuous improvement using lessons learned Source: National Transportation Safety Board 6
What s Different about Vision Zero Design and Policy Traditional Approach React to accident hot spots Design streets to forgive speeding Individual responsibility (e.g., signage) Vision Zero Approach Focus on preventing fatalities & serious injuries Design streets to result in lower driving speeds Assume human error will occur 7
History of Vision Zero 1997- Sweden First Vision Zero policy Traffic deaths have since fallen by nearly 70%, saving approx 600 lives per year 2012 - Chicago Chicago Forward Action Agenda goal of eliminating traffic fatalities in 10 years Vision Zero Action Plan adopted in 2017, with goal of eliminating crash deaths by 2026 2014 - New York City Vision Zero Policy and Action Plan adopted 2014 - San Francisco Adopted a Vision Zero policy Identified a working group, created a crisis intervention team, accelerated key projects 2015 - Los Angeles Adopted Vision Zero Initiative, identified high injury network and strategic investments 8
Impact Speed and Crash Severity Source: Seattle Department of Transportation, based on statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 9
Driving Speed and Cone of Vision Source: Streets.mn 10
Severe and Fatal Crashes in Berkeley 2016-2 people killed (both pedestrians) and 33 people seriously injured 2015-2 people killed and 39 people seriously injured 2014-3 people killed, 25 seriously injured 2013-2 people killed, 33 seriously injured 2012-5 people killed, 27 seriously injured So far this year: - A bicyclist was killed by a vehicle collision on Sacramento Street at Ada Street - A pedestrian was killed by a vehicle collision while in the crosswalk on Monterey Street at Hopkins Street 11
Key Elements of a Vision Zero Policy (the three E s) Creating a culture that prioritizes traffic safety Engineering Systematic, data-driven approach Protect the most vulnerable road users Calm traffic Enforcement Focus on the Five Focus traffic enforcement on the 5 violations that cause the most injuries and deaths. Education Increase public awareness of laws related to the violations that cause the most injuries and deaths. 12
Vision Zero and existing efforts Relationship to existing plans, policies and programs Engineering Safe Routes to School Berkeley Strategic Transportation Plan Bicycle Plan Pedestrian Master Plan Traffic Calming Program Enforcement DUI Checkpoints March Ped Safety Awareness Month Education Safe Routes to School 13
Potential Tradeoffs to be Addressed Cost of physical infrastructure changes Limited staff time Emergency service response times Traffic delay and diversion Loss of parking 14
Considerations for Effective Implementation Enforcement 30 kph / 20 mph recognized internationally as key max speed on neighborhood streets for saving lives 20 mph speed limit generally precluded by CA law Many other US states allow 20 mph limit on residential streets 20 is plenty campaign and new default speed limit in several UK cities. Source: STREETFILMS Vision Zero Seattle. Source: Seattle Neighborhood Greenways 15
Considerations for Effective Implementation Enforcement CA requirement to set speed limit / enforcement by 85 th percentile Assumes, without research evidence, that only 15% of drivers misjudge risk Drivers going 25 mph need 150 feet to react, brake, stop - few realize this Source: Glendining Signs 100 required to react, 50 required for braking distance 16
Considerations for Effective Implementation Enforcement Other competing public safety demands on officers Automated speed enforcement found to reduce injury crashes by 20 to 50%* Precluded by State law New York City has new pilot program in school zones San Francisco & San Jose sponsoring AB 342 for 5-year pilot Police enforcement efforts would need to focus on highest-risk traffic violations Relationship to engineering Joint police-traffic engineer investigation and crash reconstruction after fatal and severe crashes * Rodier and Shaheen, Automated Speed Enforcement in the US: A Review of the Literature On Benefits and Barriers to Implementation, 2007 17
Considerations for Effective Implementation Engineering Vertical traffic-calming elements: speed tables, raised crosswalks Highly effective at reducing traffic speeds 24/7 (passive enforcement) Design not to impact emergency response times Design not to cause discomfort for vehicle occupants with spinal cord or other back or neck injuries Image courtesy of Fehr & Peers 18
Considerations for Effective Implementation Engineering Horizontal traffic-calming elements: chicanes, curb extensions, traffic circles, ped refuge islands Carefully select design vehicle Consider use of mountable features for very large vehicles 19
Considerations for Effective Implementation Engineering Traffic control & warning devices: signals, beacons, stop signs Use data to ID highest-risk locations and match treatment type with need Would need to accept some additional delay to separate vehicle left turns from ped crossings Source: PedSafe Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System 20
Considerations for Effective Implementation Engineering Night Lighting City has converted existing street lights to LED Focus additional lighting on conflict points, intersections, crosswalks LED technology presents opportunity for low-cost, solar-powered deployment, but locations add up Source: Swarco LED Lighting 21
Considerations for Effective Implementation Education Other Vision Zero cities campaigns Emphasize human toll by personalizing tragedy Yielding and Anti-speeding campaigns emphasize responsibility of those imposing risk on more vulnerable roadway users Vision Zero San Francisco 22
Next Steps Designate champions within each department (Public Works, Public Health, Planning, Police, Fire, City Manager s Office) Form an interdepartmental staff working group Develop a policy and implementation strategy Identify funding sources 23
Thank You! Questions? Farid Javandel, Transportation Division Manager Beth Thomas, Principal Planner, Transportation Division 24