Arlington Vision Zero

[Steve O]

I was annoyed by the constant use of “will strive to….” It made me feel like they were providing themselves with an out if they failed at one thing or another.

In particular, when the statement was something like “will strive to collect and provide data…” Whaddya mean “strive?” How else would one even know if VZ is progressing or not? Seems like that should be imperative, not just striven for.

I put that in my comments.

[dbb]

I may have channeled my inner yoda with a response like “do or not, there is no strive”

[huskerdont]

I mentioned that a lot of their language was vague to the point of uselessness. That and enforcement of traffic laws; I always mention enforcement since it seems we’ve largely given up on that.

Oh, and my latest pet peeve of putting orange flags up so pedestrians can beg to cross without being killed at a crosswalk. People are dying, and instead of putting in effing 4-way stops or enforcing the law, their solution is to have people wave orange flags.

[arlcxrider]

Vision Zero is largely rhetorical and aspirational, therefore “strive” is perfect. But I am glad they’ve deemed traffic deaths and severe injuries are not “acceptable.” Glad that’s settled…

Example: new Lubber Run Center. Lots of new parking, lots of new traffic. But DES is going to wait for it to open and *then* do a “study,” and who knows how long to actually do any implementation. The intersection of Park Dr. and George Mason is already a cluster…can’t wait to see what it’s like when the shiny new Lubber Run Center opens. (One of the design options contemplated closing Park Dr. between 3rd St. and George Mason. That didn’t make the first cut.) The sight lines are horrible, and the 30-mph limit on George Mason is a joke.

[sjclaeys]

@huskerdont 198584 wrote:

I mentioned that a lot of their language was vague to the point of uselessness. That and enforcement of traffic laws; I always mention enforcement since it seems we’ve largely given up on that.

Oh, and my latest pet peeve of putting orange flags up so pedestrians can beg to cross without being killed at a crosswalk. People are dying, and instead of putting in effing 4-way stops or enforcing the law, their solution is to have people wave orange flags.

My understanding is that the orange flags is actually a private citizen’s (IMHO misguided) effort.

[huskerdont]

Okay, I cheerfully withdraw that portion of my cranky rant. It thought it must have been the county because I’ve seen them in many different neighborhoods, but it looks like civic associations reached out to the individual who started it locally.

https://www.arlingtonmagazine.com/a-bright-idea-for-making-crosswalks-safer/

Whether it’s a good idea or not, it’s an idea, and if it makes some people feel safer, I’m fine with it. (As a county solution, I felt it would have been a Bandaid on a gaping fleshwound.)

[rcannon100]

“Goal 5: Safety first”

Okay that’s just jargon. But does Arlco really want to go on record that it has a policy of NOT considering safety foremost? That safety is not considered in county work? Is that a reality in Arlington? (Cause I am pretty sure some Personal Injury attorneys would love to get that statement on the record”)

“Goal 6: Treat all citizens equally”

Checks constitution: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within the jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1868 called. A war was fought. The outcome was a constitutional amendment. Are you just hearing about this now??

[Dewey]

@huskerdont 198584 wrote:

I always mention enforcement since it seems we’ve largely given up on that.

The County budget for next year mentions Arlington PD hiring six traffic and enforcement control officers so this might be changing. Source page 9 of https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2020/02/Manager-Presentation-Proposed-FY-2021-Budget.pdf

[peterw_diy]

@Dewey 198594 wrote:

The County budget for next year mentions Arlington PD hiring six traffic and enforcement control officers so this might be changing. Source page 9 of https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2020/02/Manager-Presentation-Proposed-FY-2021-Budget.pdf

That doesn’t sound like much. How many are there now?

Alexandria City fairly recently began to admit that traffic enforcement positions are basically budget neutral – they generally generate enough revenue from fines to cover their salary, benefits, etc. So if the goal is Safety First you’d think the county would hire as many as they could, up until they can’t write legitimate citations fast enough to pay for themselves. My guess is that the local jurisdictions could each use 3-5 times as many traffic enforcement officers as they have today and still generate the same average revenue per officer.

BTW Alexandria has also posted budget proposals online; after a quick skim I don’t see any proposed increase in traffic enforcement positions.
https://www.alexandriava.gov/budget/info/default.aspx?id=113700

[wheelswings]

I filled out the Goals-of-Vision-Zero questionnaire last night. As others note, the six goals are wishy-washy, all about striving, e.g. for data collection. Stop “striving” and just do it, Arlington!

They try to please everyone… “strive to ensure safe transportation, no matter how you get around,” rather than seeking to protect the most vulnerable road-users (pedestrians, bicyclists, other micro-mobility users). Those driving 4000+ lb cars and SUVs will survive in Arlington, no matter what. The language reminds me of “share the road” signs, as if we’re all equally at risk.

Also the goals speak of protection as a “community-wide responsibility,” which seems evasive… we should be focusing on concrete steps the County can take to improve safety… enforcement, signaling, protected lanes, right-on-red restrictions, etc.

And they say their initiative is about striving to serve every Arlingtonian in a way that meets their unique needs. Huh? Not sure what they were smoking when they wrote that.

[dasgeh]

@peterw_diy 198598 wrote:

That doesn’t sound like much. How many are there now?

Alexandria City fairly recently began to admit that traffic enforcement positions are basically budget neutral – they generally generate enough revenue from fines to cover their salary, benefits, etc.

Arlington doesn’t have any now. This will be a new team. The proposed budget does not assume any revenue from these positions — any money that comes in can be allocated during the fiscal year, and in future budgets, they may take a different approach.

[lordofthemark]

@wheels&wings 198609 wrote:

I filled out the Goals-of-Vision-Zero questionnaire last night. As others note, the six goals are wishy-washy, all about striving, e.g. for data collection. Stop “striving” and just do it, Arlington!

They try to please everyone… “strive to ensure safe transportation, no matter how you get around,” rather than seeking to protect the most vulnerable road-users (pedestrians, bicyclists, other micro-mobility users). Those driving 4000+ lb cars and SUVs will survive in Arlington, no matter what. The language reminds me of “share the road” signs, as if we’re all equally at risk.

Also the goals speak of protection as a “community-wide responsibility,” which seems evasive… we should be focusing on concrete steps the County can take to improve safety… enforcement, signaling, protected lanes, right-on-red restrictions, etc.

And they say their initiative is about striving to serve every Arlingtonian in a way that meets their unique needs. Huh? Not sure what they were smoking when they wrote that.

Most VZ programs do make it a goal to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries for all, including drivers and passengers in motor vehicles. For the most part programs that advance that will also improve safety for vulnerable road users, and vice versa. This also improves political feasibility I believe – both of the VZ program as a whole, and of specific initiatives.

The real weakness I see is “striving”. Its certainly true that numeric goals may not be met for perfectly good reasons – but without a hard numeric goal (and well defined qualitative programmatic goals) , there is no way to measure success.

[lordofthemark]

@peterw_diy 198598 wrote:

That doesn’t sound like much. How many are there now?

Alexandria City fairly recently began to admit that traffic enforcement positions are basically budget neutral – they generally generate enough revenue from fines to cover their salary, benefits, etc. So if the goal is Safety First you’d think the county would hire as many as they could, up until they can’t write legitimate citations fast enough to pay for themselves. My guess is that the local jurisdictions could each use 3-5 times as many traffic enforcement officers as they have today and still generate the same average revenue per officer.

BTW Alexandria has also posted budget proposals online; after a quick skim I don’t see any proposed increase in traffic enforcement positions.
https://www.alexandriava.gov/budget/info/default.aspx?id=113700

I am pretty sure ALX has increased the size of the traffic squad in the last two years. One of the bigger VZ initiatives underway recently and continuing, IIUC, is getting ALL officers (not just traffic squad officers) focused on traffic enforcement.

[zsionakides]

@wheels&wings 198609 wrote:

I filled out the Goals-of-Vision-Zero questionnaire last night. As others note, the six goals are wishy-washy, all about striving, e.g. for data collection. Stop “striving” and just do it, Arlington!

They try to please everyone… “strive to ensure safe transportation, no matter how you get around,” rather than seeking to protect the most vulnerable road-users (pedestrians, bicyclists, other micro-mobility users). Those driving 4000+ lb cars and SUVs will survive in Arlington, no matter what. The language reminds me of “share the road” signs, as if we’re all equally at risk.

Also the goals speak of protection as a “community-wide responsibility,” which seems evasive… we should be focusing on concrete steps the County can take to improve safety… enforcement, signaling, protected lanes, right-on-red restrictions, etc.

And they say their initiative is about striving to serve every Arlingtonian in a way that meets their unique needs. Huh? Not sure what they were smoking when they wrote that.

This type of language is what a lack of leadership looks like. Either there’s no buy-in from senior leaders on vision zero or those senior leaders have no ability to lead themselves. Considering vision zero was passed by the board and based on the project execution I see in general, I would assume it’s a lack of leadership ability.

The big issue with lacking leadership is you see all these transportation projects where they only go partway in regarding bike/ped safety (e.g. bike lanes ending abruptly mid-block, signs instead of stop lights or all way stops, etc.). These “solutions” end up satisfying no one as cyclists and pedestrians aren’t given a safe facility and drivers are inconvenienced without seeing benefits (e.g. a bike facility they would actually use or a place they would like to walk around). The statement that the bike lanes built are for the lycra crowd ends up with a fair amount of truth to it, as they become recreational facilities instead of transportation ones.

If the county wants to lead, they need to go all in with the strategy, whatever that is. If we’re going to greatly increase bike usage, then actually build the facilities to do so. If cars and buses are going to be the strategy, then they need to stop pretending it’s otherwise.

[lordofthemark]

@zsionakides 198617 wrote:

If the county wants to lead, they need to go all in with the strategy, whatever that is. If we’re going to greatly increase bike usage, then actually build the facilities to do so. If cars and buses are going to be the strategy, then they need to stop pretending it’s otherwise.

1. Buses are a complement a bike/ped strategy, as people need to walk to bus stops, and need safer streets to do it. And people who go car free of car lite often benefit from both.

2. No city or county in the USA, that I know of has attempted to go from “zero to 60 ” so to speak – to get a complete, go everywhere, comfortable from 8 to 80 bike network, at a time when their bike mode share was below 5%, and their auto mode share much higher than that. The politics do not work. Going for a complete network of class A bike facilities requires a lot of money, an awful lot of street real estate, or both. You need an existing constituency for that. The only way I can see to get that constituency is incrementally, by growing biking, and using incomplete and imperfect infra to help do that.

At a recent community meeting I had someone tell me that Alexandria should be building bike facilities for everyone, like Amsterdam. Complete network of off street trails. This in a City where raising the tax rate to pay for rehabbing crumbling and overcrowded schools is drawing cries of “The City should live within its means!” . Well, the Federal govt should pay for it, like in the NL, my fellow citizen replied. I didn’t know what to make of this since the meeting was to shape CITY transporation policy. Of course the individual was from one of the civic associations that opposed the (imperfect, but used by more than the lycra clad already) Seminary Road bike lanes/road diet. He was not honestly interested in a national program of bike trails. He wanted Seminary to be four lanes, so he would not face delays between 8 and 8:30 a few days a week. The language of bike infra perfectionism has been coopted by people who want no interference with car culture.

Note, of course his assumption (like yours) is that these are done only for people on bikes. On Seminary, as in parts of Arlington, as in many other parts of the country, road diets are implemented to make it safer for pedestrians (A. By slowing driver speeds B. By providing sidewalk buffers C. By eliminating the multiple lane threat at crossings ) and also for nonspeeding drivers. Once you are doing that, it makes sense to use the space created to add to the bike network.

Early in the Seminary process, I said this to one opponent. Her response – ok, if its not about people on bikes, then just don’t call them bike lanes and don’t but bike symbols in. Again I was dumbfounded. Why would you NOT call them bike lanes? Doing so is no incremental harm to non bikers, and they ARE an addition to the bike network.

There are plenty of people who will ride in an imperfect or incomplete bike network, who are not the 1% of take the lane everywhere Vehicular Cyclists. Its those people who will get us from 1 or 2% mode share to 5% or higher, when we will have a constituency for better (even that will likely take multiple steps)

[Author]

Posts