District 5 Diary: Oct 23, 2020

Friday, October 23, 2020

Vision Zero crashes into reality

Vision Zero SF

From the November 20 SF Examiner:

Red light cameras have helped cut red light-running-related crashes to about one-third of what they were at the program’s inception, according to data presented to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, bringing last year’s total to around 300 injury collisions.

This is the pattern with the Examiner and the SF Chronicle: they accept without question or analysis the "data" city agencies provide. The reporter then explains that the SFCTA governing board is the Board of Supervisors, which means that the information on red light cameras was actually "presented to" the BOS.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency overhauled the [camera]hardware last year with a $2.5 million upgrade, transitioning the technology from film-based to digital. It also plans to deploy another $2 million in capital funds to install cameras at another 8 locations, tentatively selected based on a high incidences of crashes caused by drivers blowing through red lights...there are currently only 19 active cameras at 13 locations citywide.

Apparently the reporter didn't ask the SFMTA for the crash numbers at those 8 locations---or even where those presumably problematic intersections are.

Signal timing enhancements, improved signal visibility and other engineering options are tried first, alongside a more targeted approach from law enforcement...From January to August of this year, a total of 6,126 automated enforcement citations were issued at these 13 locations, while the San Francisco Police Department issued just under 1,000 citations to drivers running red lights during the first half of this year as part of its “Focus on the Five” initiative to support traffic safety efforts through enforcement.

"Law enforcement"? As I pointed out last year, there's no relationship between the number of traffic tickets issued by the SFPD and fatalities on city streets. Why should we think there's a relationship for other "crashes"?

And "engineering options" are the "improvements" the city has been implementing on city streets for years with no reduction in fatalities, which is one criterion for success or failure it's easy for the city to track.

The Examiner on October 21:

San Francisco is not on track to meet its goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2024...“We are not on a trend line that suggests we will get to zero,” [MTA's Tom]Maguire said. Through September, there had been 19 deaths as a result of traffic violence in San Francisco, which is about on par with the five-year average at this point in the calendar.

In 2014, 2024 probably seemed distant enough to safely deploy the Vision Zero slogan/policy. Hard to believe that City Hall really thought that it could reduce traffic fatalities to zero by then, if not eliminate all injury accidents.

Not surprising to learn that the city is not even close to zero. The average number of traffic deaths every year has remained exactly the same!

Instead of admitting that Vision Zero is aspirational---something the city hopes to achieve in the near future---the city is apparently doubling down on that fantasy.