"Vision Zero" Aims To Eliminate Traffic Fatalities In San Diego

An anonymous reader writes: San Diego city officials Monday expressed support for a plan called "Vision Zero" to make San Diego's roadways safer for pedestrians and bicyclists over the next 10 years. Vision Zero aims to eliminate traffic deaths in the city by 2025 by improving crosswalks, raising medians, creating buffers between vehicle and bicycle lanes, and improving sidewalks. NBC 7 in San Diego reports: "Allison Street next to La Mesa City Hall provides a blueprint of sorts. Diagonal parking lines reduce the size of the street. Jim Stone, Executive Director of Circulate San Diego, says studies show smaller streets help slow traffic. Then there's the crosswalk with lights on the ground and signs that alert drivers when someone crosses. The curb extension also provides better visibility. 'They can see cars coming but more importantly the cars can see them coming,' Stone said about the curb extensions. 'So it's a great way to improve pedestrian safety.'"

Comments

What would Monderman say?

[digsbo]

This guy suggests they're going about it the wrong way. It's counterintuitive, but he found that making things more ambiguous causes people to use more caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:What would Monderman say?

[xevioso]

The problem with this approach is that ambiguity doesn't really mesh well with traffic laws.

Lets say you follow his design approach and you remove curbs, crosswalks and signage from a busy intersection. While trying to navigate through the intersection, I accidentally hit someone who has run into the street. There's no signs, no lights or anything...who is to blame? In California, the pedestrian always has the right of way, but this doesn't make it easy to navigate traffic in a busy city where you are trying to pay attention to 1000 things on the road at once.

Street signs have they benefit of at least attempting to make things predictable. If there is a "Do not cross" light for pedestrians at an intersection when I approach it, I can be reasonably certain that a pedestrian won't run out in front of me...I could easily be wrong, and some idiot could still do it, but most of the time they won't. With no traffic signs/lights, there is no predictability.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[Ichijo]

this doesn't make it easy to navigate traffic in a busy city where you are trying to pay attention to 1000 things on the road at once.

When you have trouble paying attention to your surroundings, you should slow down to a reasonable and prudent speed for conditions. That's the law.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[mjwx]

This guy suggests they're going about it the wrong way. It's counterintuitive, but he found that making things more ambiguous causes people to use more caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yes but this guy obviously didn't consider ego and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Remove all the road signs and make the rules unintelligible and you'll end up with a problem with attitudes like "I have right of way, am perfectly safe doing eleventy thousand KPH and can drive on the phone" making up their own rules which will make things more dangerous.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[bmimatt]

I live in San Diego. This is just another example of city officials funneling money to their buddies. It was the same with illegal hi-rise development and some other larger projects. The city is also a partner with ACE Parking corp and has effectively removed all free parking space downtown in exchange for ACE's paid parking and red 'no parking' curb. Bullshizzle.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[bmimatt]

...

There was never free parking in any downtown area. There were just spaces that the government paid for but couldn't directly monetize. There's plenty of street parking in rural towns - move there if you want to park your car for free.

There were several building removed and space turned into parking lots. Some of these buildings were taken from their rightful owners through the abuse of the imminent domain laws. Some of these ex building owners even won their cases against the city, after their buildings and businesses had already been leveled.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Anonymous Coward]

Developers own San Diego, they get whatever they want. Always.

Good luck fighting City Hall when the real estate interests have the council in their pocket.

Re: What would Monderman say?

[Runaway1956]

The better question is, why should all citizens subsidize a business whose model it is to use public facilities to turn a profit?

Perhaps you didn't really comprehend GP's post. Those parking spaces are being monetized by a private corporation. Said corporation throws some chump change at the city government. And, taxpayers are still paying for all that paved area, the corporation has not assumed any responsibilities in providing parking spaces.

Taxpayers are ENTITLED to park on the city streets, because they PAID FOR those streets.

Re:What would Monderman say?

[KingMotley]

You want less traffic deaths? When the light turns red have spikes come up from the ground right before the crosswalk. People will learn to stop before the crosswalk, or they will go broke repairing their car.

how do you stop jaywalkers?

[known_coward_69]

i live on the blvd of death in NYC and they made safety improvements 15 years ago by building fences in the islands so people don't cross outside the crosswalk. the next month a 68 year old man died when he slipped jumping over the fence mid-block and falling into moving traffic. here in NYC i've seen dummies cross the street midblock behind a car with it's reverse lights on trying to get out of a parking spot. don't get me started on all the people on bikes who run red lights all the time

Seattle too

[Sowelu]

Yeah, we've got the same thing around Seattle, including radio ads where they ask people "how many yearly traffic fatalities do you think are acceptable" and of course people say zero. How silly. If someone is senile and doesn't look before taking a left turn...if a kid rides their bike directly into the road ignoring crosswalks...if someone is staring at their phone and walks in front of a moving bus...those are sad but they are pretty acceptable to me.

Re:Seattle too

[Jumunquo]

Oh man, do we ever. Did you read the article written by our transportation director?
http://www.seattletimes.com/op...
The summary is that he wants to redo all the sidewalks around schools (most of which are already abundantly signed, reflective, and lighted/flashing), implement massive lane reductions, and a 5-mph speed reduction across the board (lowering it to 25mph on arterials), all of which are very expensive projects. I'm sorry, but anyone who is old enough to walk alone has an infinite number of stupid ways they can kill themselves and an infinite number of places. If you're going to speed money anywhere, fix the key dangerous spots (if any still exist) and then spend the rest on mental health. Or police/fire/ambulance are good services too (most of the time), and they safe innocent lives. They are going to ask us in the Fall to vote a nearly billion dollar road-fixing proposition that only spends around $200M on fixing roads, $100M million on fixing bridges, and $600M on other stuff, like "safety projects." I wonder if the voters know that passing that means they will get fixed roads, but not for their cars to travel on!

Re:Seattle too

[Nemyst]

The problem is that any accident has a pretty good chance of harming/killing someone who did not do anything wrong. That senile person doing a left turn might run into a minivan with two kids on board. That kid riding their bike in traffic might cause someone to swerve into the opposite lane and collide with someone else. It's not that easy to say "eh, those are acceptable".

Re:Seattle too

[Ol Olsoc]

It's safety Culture. And Safety Culture never sleeps, and is never satisfied. Coupled with our increasingly reactionary nature, it's the perfect storm of hysteria.

And some times very stupid. Regarding those 25 mph limits, sometimes they backfire. A small town near mine was trying to get control over the main route that went through it. Speed limit was 35 mph. But they had to think of the children. So they lowered it to 25. The result was more accidents, as vehicles spent longer going through town than before, and backups were common. And a child darting in front of a car can be hurt just as easily as going 35. They ended up raising the speed limit back to it's original value.

Not so fast, ...

[Obfuscant]

The curb extension also provides better visibility. 'They can see cars coming but more importantly the cars can see them coming,' Stone said about the curb extensions. 'So it's a great way to improve pedestrian safety.'

They call these "bulbed intersections" where I live.

Here's the problem. By law (also where I live) vehicles are not required to stop for pedestrians unless they are in the crosswalk. Not standing on the corner looking helpless, not waving at cars going by to get their attention. Actually in the crosswalk.

A bulbed intersection forces pedestrians to be much close to active traffic before that traffic has to stop for them. Instead of putting a foot into the street that is still ten feet away from the moving traffic (the width of the parking lane), they will be putting that foot into, or very close to, the lane that has moving traffic. That cannot be a safer situation.

It will certainly create confusion for the hapless pedestrian who thinks that because the drivers can see him better they will be more likely to stop for him when he stands on the sidewalk. "Why aren't they stopping", he will ask, from his protected perch on the sidewalk where nobody is required to stop for him.

Re:Not so fast, ...

[The Raven]

You are making assumptions about laws and construction. The simple solution is to have part of the 'bulb' be the crosswalk. Have the lines for the crosswalk start ON the bulb (say, on the wheelchair pedestrian ramp) and then you have a safe place to stand where cars must legally stop for you.

Now I'm not in San Diego, so I have no idea if this is part of their plan or what their laws are. I'm just saying that even with your example law there are simple, safe solutions.

Where are the round-abouts

[markus]

I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections. Many European countries have been aggressively converting their intersections to traffic circles; and they found that accident rates go down, throughput goes up, there are zero operating costs (i.e. no need for traffic lights), and often the round-about needs the same or even less space than traditional intersections.

It takes a little bit of time for everybody to get used to the new design -- and that means both city planners, drivers, and pedestrians. But in the end the benefits are very obvious.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Obfuscant]

I am always surprised that American cities don't learn from the rest of the world and install round-abouts instead of intersections.

Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians. The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections. I care what vehicles are coming from the left. The ones coming from the right have to stop for me.

Many European countries have been aggressively converting their intersections to traffic circles;

Where I live, traffic circles and roundabouts are two different things with two very different sets of rules.

and often the round-about needs the same or even less space than traditional intersections.

You must be talking about something other than the roundabouts that I know of in Europe. How can a circular roadway be smaller than a simple intersection? You can't put a median in the middle of an intersection and force the traffic to go around it without it being bigger than a simple cross.

But in the end the benefits are very obvious.

The benefits of a simple, cheap crossing intersection are also obvious. We're dropping half a million dollars in our area to replace a simple intersection because a few people don't like waiting at the stop signs on the intersection side streets. I see no obvious benefit to that waste.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[Noah Haders]

yeah, rounabouts destroy cities, too. converts a vibrant intersection with cars, peds, bikes, shops, parking, businesses to a sterile area that feels like a perpetual onramp. it's like a mass fish kill event for the city life.

if you've ever been to paris, you've likely seen the arc de triumphe - the fanciest traffic circle in the world.

Re:Where are the round-abouts

[mjwx]

Because roundabouts consume a lot more land and are not that much safer for pedestrians.

Roundabouts actually consume the same amount of land as an intersection of similar traffic, they're also self regulating and dont require power. They're also more efficient and help the flow of traffic, with a crossroad or traffic light, you can only be using a maximum of two lanes, with a roundabout you can use all four at once.

The drivers are busy looking for traffic going around the circle and not compelled by personal protection to look both ways like they are at intersections

But it seems that it requires a higher quality of driver than is typical of your area.

At a roundabout you look both ways as you would for any intersection, not just for pedestrians but because people dont follow the rules. Think of it this way, when you're turning right at a T junction, do you only look for traffic approaching from the left?

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[aardvarkjoe]

I think you mean that it must be the world capital of bad murderers. I mean, the drivers aren't even trying.

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[Ichijo]

The problem is that San Diego is mostly suburb, and suburbs are more dangerous than inner cities.

Slow traffic

[silas_moeckel]

What fsking idiots thought this up?? Want crosswalks to be safer, build a walkway, install traffic circles, build tunnels. Stop stealing time from people by slowing traffic.

Not in New England

[crow]

I serve on the Planning Board in my small New England town. We've looked at some of these same measures, but many of them are eliminated because they make it more difficult for snow plowing. Anything involving raised crosswalks or bump-outs gets push-back from the DPW. Paint gets mostly sanded off every winter.

Separated bike lanes ("cycletracks" is the buzzword here) are great. The problem is our roads are too narrow and old, so even if we have the money to put them in, there simply isn't enough space without using eminent domain to take land for widening. That doesn't go over very well.

It's great that they can do these things in San Diego. It's unfortunate that we can't do all the same things here. Every location needs to find solutions to improve safety that work in that location.

No Vision

[Sir Realist]

"provides better visibility"

Then what idiot ad company exec came up with "Vision Zero" as the name?

Re:Huh?

[known_coward_69]

it is interesting. history has shown technology won't solve people's stupidity

Re:Capital of bad drivers

[viperidaenz]

USA murders in 2013: 14,196
USA road fatalities in 2013: 32,719

It would be strange if there were more murders than road fatalities in San Diego