Can Vision Zero reduce deaths and injuries on Rochester streets?

This Wednesday, the Rochester Beacon is presenting a forum on the city of Rochester’s “Vision Zero” rollout. You may already know that the “Zero” in the title refers to deaths and serious injuries on Rochester’s streets.

The people of Rochester, acting through their elected leaders, have to decide how important street safety is and what they are willing to pay to achieve it.

Safety can be engineered

A “safe system” approach reinvents the street. Rochester’s Vision Zero envisions physical changes to our streets.

■ A safe roadway physically separates travelers moving at different speeds and directions.

■ Travelers can be separated by time, too: “Turn taking” reduces conflicts among toddlers and travelers.

■ Streets can be redesigned to encourage a natural reduction in vehicle speeds. Dedicated bike lanes, turn lanes, protected turn times and pedestrian walk signals can all make the roadway safer.

■ You can’t avoid what you can’t see: Street lights improve nighttime safety. Obstructions in the roadways, such as cars parked at corners, hide pedestrians from drivers and cars from pedestrians.

Collisions are more common at intersections. Roundabouts and other intersection designs can both improve safety and increase roadway efficiency.

See Pedestrian Priority Zones, Safe Crossings City Initiative, the Bicycle Spine Network and Winter Safe Streets in the Vision Zero plan. The Lake Avenue Enhanced initiative addresses one of Rochester’s most dangerous corridors by incorporating a range of similar strategies.

Slow down

■ Speed is a contributing factor to the frequency and the severity of collisions for all involved—motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.

■ A change in driver behavior cannot be achieved by the “stroke of a pen”: effective enforcement is essential.

See Safe Speed City Initiative and Automated Traffic Enforcement in the Vision Zero plan.

An effective strategy relies on a supportive culture

Rochester’s Vision Zero effort tackles community engagement and support through the creation of the ROC Vision Zero Task Force (see the list of members at the end of this post). The efforts of the Task Force and the organizations they represent will be enhanced by the recruitment of Traffic Safety Champions.

What’s the price of zero?

When confronted with the consequences of inaction—another dozen deaths in 2025 and 2026 and 2027, etc.—safety advocates ask why not?

■ Physical improvements are essential but will take time and money. Every intersection slated for improvement should be designed according to “safe streets” principles. While no opportunity for no-cost or low-cost improvements should be ignored, the more significant improvements will take significant expenditures. What kind of support has already been received or is forthcoming from the state? How might the new Trump administration change priorities and influence funding streams?

■ Culture change is hard. While community engagement is a critical component of any effort to improve roadway safety, there will always be individuals who don’t get the memo. What efforts are already underway? Is public education effective?

■ The use of police to improve enforcement is both costly and runs the risk of sometimes-deadly interaction between police and motorists. Can automated enforcement fill the gap left by an understaffed police department? Are speed and red light cameras effective?

■ Rochester’s last experiment with automated enforcement lost the support of the community, partly as many perceived the initiative to be aimed at drivers who were people of color. How can automated enforcement be implemented in a manner that is demonstrably fair to all and targets a reduction of deaths and serious injuries among the disadvantaged?

■ The previous program also lost community support through what was perceived to be a “zero tolerance” enforcement policy. How can a renewed automated enforcement program avoid making perfect the enemy of the good?

■ Many in the community expressed the belief that the red light camera program was simply an arm of the city of Rochester’s Budget Office, a “cash grab” to support other city initiatives.Recognizing that fines are a key motivator, how can the funds be used to in a way that retains community support?

Join the Rochester Beacon at 9 a.m. on Wednesday at the Central Library to explore these and other questions. Register here.

Kent Gardner is Rochester Beacon opinion editor.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing  [email protected].