By Mat Wahlstrom / Special to the OB Rag
My attention was caught by a throwaway statement in Wednesday’s [1-15-25] Union-Tribune article about dangerous street intersections and Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a public policy initiative that has taken priority over and bled into the other programs and initiatives being pursued by the City of San Diego.
For those who don’t know, Vision Zero has as its singular goal “to reduce traffic fatalities to zero within a decade.”
As such, one might understandably think that this initiative merits applause and anticipate these street intersections will become less dangerous. Yet readers were greeted with this airy admission: “Vision Zero hasn’t reduced injury crashes or fatalities since it was launched in 2015. But instead of giving up, city officials said they plan to spend more money on safety features and other initiatives.”
I, too, needed to reread that sentence to be sure I understood it correctly. Because there have definitely been consequences to elevating this policy imperative above all others.
Later yesterday, the mayor concluded his fifth State of the City address to proclaim that San Diego is facing a deficit of more than $258 million dollars, and that “steep” spending cuts need to be made. It is widely expected that he is looking at cuts to libraries, recreation centers and social services to make up the shortfall.
But a review of the costs for Vision Zero (as bundled in the Transportation Budget) suggests other, better options:
“In the Fiscal Year 2025 Adopted Budget, $43.6 million is being allocated to implement the City’s Vision Zero goals.”
Dig a little further and you find projects such as the Normal Street Promenade, for which the City Council voted yet another $9 million stopgap last September. This was on top of the $6.43 million already earmarked this year, with another $3 million in “future fiscal years,” for an eye-watering expected project total of $20,784,550 — all basically to repave three paved blocks.
Or consider the University Avenue Complete Street Phase1, a project that “will provide* increased safety on University Avenue between Fairmount Avenue and Euclid Avenue. The project includes installing three roundabouts and medians with enhanced pedestrian crossings….Justification: This corridor has been identified as a high frequency pedestrian crash segment. It is part of the Mayor’s Vision Zero strategy to eliminate severe and fatal crashes in the City.” (Asterisk added, as again Vision Zero has never accomplished its stated aims.) All this, for the bargain price of $12.4 million.
Consider that this $43.6 million is just the most recent of ten years’ of earmarks for Vision Zero. Perhaps someone with a stronger constitution to figure out the opportunity cost will do so, but I didn’t have the stomach to add up the tab since 2015.
Vision Zero has been the cudgel for attacking every query and questioner asking about the alleged need for removed parking and eliminated vehicle lanes, in favor of roundabouts, bike paths, redundant bus routes and dozens of other impediments to our roadways and practical mobility.
The problem with Vision Zero goes beyond whatever merit it may have in ideation. It is an initiative that began in the advanced, northwestern countries of Europe that have already woven a seamless social safety net for their citizen’s welfare and were looking for how they could improve.
Instead, Vision Zero’s domestic proponents have knowingly deprived housing, health and public safety programs of already limited funds that are becoming scarcer. And they want to double down on wanting to keep spending inordinate amounts on a vision that has zero chance of success.
I cannot imagine how allowing the unhoused to die from certain disease, exposure and starvation can make some persons feel good about themselves, because they pretend they are protecting them from vehicular incidents. Especially when it’s indisputable that accidents happen no matter what.
But I suggest we should look at the price we’re paying to indulge their self-importance.
Well hello, while we’re gutting parking 20 ft to the crosswalk, why then in Cali then can you?
Pedestrian rights outside of crosswalks
Pedestrians can cross the street outside of a crosswalk, but they must yield to vehicles that are close enough to be a hazard
Drivers must use reasonable due care to watch out for pedestrians
With that logic, drivers should be able to pass on an unobstructed shoulder.
I can remember when this first started as the seemingly innocuous “Share the Road” campaign for sharrows — as if bikes and cars didn’t already share the same streets. Yet every inch since has come with miles of bike lanes hoarding public thoroughfares to the exclusion of other modes, along with continued carping about whether they are Class 1V or whatever adequate to their boutique “needs.”
This is exactly how YIMBY has portrayed itself as “Yes In My Back Yard” in order to arrogate your property for their projects. It’s always others who have to pay the price for their virtue signalling.
Whoops, TOSD news flash,
A 22-year-old man was seriously injured Wednesday when he was struck by a Metropolitan Transit System bus while walking in a marked crosswalk in University City.
I was in Oslo, Norway, a few months ago. Oslo has been held up as the shining success story for Vision Zero, but while I was there I heard a local news story that fatalities had started to rise again. I haven’t been able to verify this because, not surprisingly, I don’t speak much Norwegian. Most of the stories I have found in English are at least somewhat dated and I’m not sure how up to date they are.
That being said, I’ve always believed that public policy should be data driven. Why in the world would you look at the data and find that what you are doing is not having the desired effect but rather than re-evaluate the plan just throw more money at it? That sentence in the UT story absolutely floored me, but I’m sorry to say that it did not surprise me.
Right you are, Paul. And what is particularly troubling is that the Vision Zero program has no phone number or email address or staff identified or even outside resources to contact to seek information about or accountability for it: https://www.sandiego.gov/city-hall/programs. (You’ll notice it’s likewise for the adjacent “Better by Bike” and “Our Climate, Our Future” programs.)
Given the reporting that’s recently been done on bloated municipal middle management, it should be noted that millions more are being spent on personnel for these projects that are hidden in payroll.
Long story short: a lot of people have made a lot of money selling YIMBY snake-oil and counting on bureaucratic inertia to keep them in business.
I agree with the author’s position the City’s Vision Zero is blind to reality and writer Webb’s contention that public policy should be data driven-it seems ridiculous that those responsible for San Diego’s fiscal stability ignore reality over and over again. There is more than just the bike paths and roundabouts that has taken the city off the tracks of responsible governance.
Finally, I would be remiss not to the mention the millions being spent by SANDAG on its Vision Zero initiative, https://www.sandag.org/projects-and-programs/regional-initiatives/vision-zero.
Damning account. After a decade of failure, bankrolling more of the same. And at such a cost, while other needs that we know how to address go un-/under-addressed.
San Diego’s particular implementation of some of these Vision Zero concepts seems more like a “War against Left Turns” than other cities or than seems to be necessary. Per Donald Shoup, a significant amount of street traffic in any built up commercial area is just cars circling around looking for free / cheap parking, called “cruising for parking.” San Diego’s implementation seems to make this phenomenon worse by making those loops larger and pushing more cars into adjoining residential streets.
I think the major issue is that San Diego’s Vision Zero is a “War Against Cars.” Just look at YIMBY social media if you don’t believe me — they’re quite open about this objective.
San Diego has fewer fire fighters than Los Angeles yet, city hall’s answer is let’s build more units without parking narrow streets and add more bike lanes. Wow, masterful evacuation plan. I guess our mayor and city council are taken care of so just keep paying taxes and increased fees so they will stay safe.
If you have a job in La Jolla and live in North Park, would you take public transportation? But our mayor is chauffeured around and can park in red zones downtown. City council members have assigned spaces by the front door of city hall. They’re ok, so what’s your problem?
“Todd Gloria: working for all of us” Yeah, right.
“If you have a job in La Jolla and live in North Park, would you take public transportation?”
Depending where in La Jolla, yes.
Obviously since there is only the north end of the trolley, 1 real bus line in the entire 92037 zip code plus several short loop routes that go mostly on the same bus 30 route. A minimum of an hour to get to USCSD and 1.5 hours to get to downtown LJ via the 30 or double connections via Bus 10, Trolley, and some circulator.
Not exactly rapid transit.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Vision Zero is a failure, to keep throwing money at it is insane.
For the record, the term “Zero Vision” can be applied to everything this administration attempts to implement.