Progress Update on Omaha’s Vision Zero Efforts
Blog post image is of Tim Adams, the WSP Consultant for the City of Omaha (image by me)
During the week of April 3rd, members from the Vision Zero Technical Advisory Committee met three days in a row for hours at a time to continue the Focus Area Working Group discussions. As we inch closer to the first draft of Omaha’s first Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP), I’m constantly noticing how complex and complicated this process is.
This update post summarizes the highlights of what I found to be the most memorable and important parts of the three meetings.
PARTNERSHIPS
One major takeaway from the meetings that was first suggested on day one, and was thankfully echoed by the consultants on subsequent days, was the need for public-private partnerships. In a city that has an established preference for public/private relationships, it was suggested that the upcoming VZAP recommend public and private partnerships for projects focused on traffic safety. Not only could this expand the reach of the city, but it could reduce the budgetary burden that comes with Vision Zero projects.
MAYORAL LEADERSHIP
The first day started off with the consultants playing a clip from the Omaha Mayor’s State of the City address, where she expanded on the topic of Vision Zero that she first introduced at the beginning of her speech. It was reemphasized to us that Omaha’s mayor is in full and complete support of Vision Zero. Here’s the transcript of the clip:
This summer, we will present our Vision Zero action plan to the City Council for approval. Vision Zero represents a comprehensive approach to eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries. This is accomplished through long-term changes in design, construction, and signage for streets, intersections, pedestrian paths, and other modes of transportation. We have joined 40 other communities in the United States and many others worldwide in our Vision Zero commitment. Last year 45 people died in crashes in Omaha, more than those killed in gun violence.
BEHAVIOR
The first day of meetings focused specifically on “behavioral” countermeasures vs “infrastructure” countermeasures that were discussed in the remaining two days of meetings.
SPEEDING - Most countermeasures that will curb speeding are infrastructure-focused, but here are some of the behavioral solutions for speeding including posting frequent speed limit signs, setting speed limits by safety target (ie based on context and users, not the 85th percentile rule), speed feedback signs, automated enforcement (specific to lobbying at the State level for it to be legal), and high-visibility speed enforcement.
High-visibility enforcement is different from regular enforcement.
Per the NHTSA:
High visibility enforcement combines enforcement, visibility elements, and a publicity strategy to educate the public and promote voluntary compliance with the law. Checkpoints, saturation patrols and other HVE strategies should include increased publicity and warnings to the public. Although forewarning the public might seem counterproductive to apprehending violators, it actually increases the deterrent effect.”
It’s basically enforcement with improved outreach and communication, which we appreciate.
Also regarding speeding and enforcement, it was brought up that enforcement is often the missing component to speed-reduction campaigns, but enforcement must be equitable and safe. Since Omaha depends as much on its citizens, as much as the OPD traffic unit to identify unsafe traffic conditions, the city and OPD should improve outreach regarding complaint-driven enforcement requests. To learn more about this, read our recent blog post titled “Perception vs. Reality in Citizen-driven Complaints.”
BICYCLISTS & PEDESTRIANS - Similar to the topic of speed above, pedestrians and cyclists are usually best protected by road design and infrastructure improvements more so than with behavioral changes. But behavioral approaches are still important and are often most effective when targeted.
Most of the behavioral countermeasures outlined by the consultants were focused on youth, while only 1 countermeasure was directed at adults, specifically Pedestrian Safety Zones (“allocating resources to problem areas. Focus on geography, as well as populations (older, younger & impaired pedestrians).”
This ended up being a long discussion about how Vision Zero solutions should be based on data, yet the data does not show that children are the victims of pedestrian or bicycle crashes; adults are. The TAC expects the consultants will likely suggest more behavioral solutions directed toward adults.
An interesting tidbit about age. . . one of the officers at the meeting mentioned that the youngest pedestrian to be killed last year was born in 1980.
It was also brought up that to keep pedestrians and cyclists safe, we also need to focus our behavior change on Drivers who share the road with those walking and riding.
MOTORCYCLISTS - There was good discussion on the limited countermeasures offered for motorcyclists; this was likely because Nebraska currently has a primary helmet enforcement law, but the consultants may not have known there is currently a bill in the legislature to repeal the helmet law. It is my understanding this new law would require more safety training of motorcyclists.
I am not a motorcyclist, but I love engaging with them about their choice to wear or not wear a helmet. And if our helmet law is repealed, it may come down to boosting not just education but engagement with our local motorcycle residents AND education and engagement with drivers as we have already lost two motorcyclists to traffic crashes this year.
ALCOHOL - While I am nearly a teetotaler in the negative way I view alcohol abuse, I’m always stunned by how little I know about our current alcohol laws, programs, etc. That’s why the TAC is lucky to have folks like Chris, from Project Extra Mile and Eric from the Nebraska Chapter of the National Safety Council on the team because they are experts in this area.
One of the behavioral countermeasures for alcohol was to lobby at the state level for lower BAC (blood alcohol concentration) for repeat offenders, 0.05 specifically. This led to a conversation about laws in other states, current laws (both those enforced and not enforced), as well as conversation about how many of our state laws thwart any really good solutions we’d like to enact as a city.
SPEAKING OF THE STATE
Home Rule allows Omaha and Lincoln (cities over 5,000 pop) some autonomy in their government, however:
Thus we continue to be subject to State laws that may thwart our best attempts at keeping people safe. While there was an interesting conversation around recommending more autonomy at the city level, many in the meeting basically said it’s a lost cause, and we just have to accept the laws coming out of the legislature.
As examples, automated enforcement is currently illegal at the State level, and we have no primary enforcement laws for seat belts or distracted driving at the State level.
The VZAP will recommend lobbying at the State level for safer laws.
DAY 2 & Day 3
Days 2 and 3 were focused on infrastructure solutions. These two days were absolutely packed with discussion, debate, and questions. Since we are still in the planning stages, what I will share here will be more about some tidbits that I found mind-changing or revelatory.
INTERDISCIPLINARY EXPERTISE
A common theme from all these meetings is the expansive expertise and care of all the members. The reason there was so much debate is that there was so much sharing of knowledge.
We absolutely need some iteration of the VZ TAC or a new VZ committee to continue after the VZAP has been adopted. Their role could include oversight, recommendations, monitoring, etc., etc. The change that could be brought about by a Vision Zero Action Plan AND an interdisciplinary team of safety experts could be monumental.
TWO TYPES OF CHANGE
The VZAP will look at both systemic AND targeted change, where systemic can be applied pretty much anywhere and targeted is more specific.
BEST PRACTICES VS GROUND EXPERIENCE
Be aware of the gap between “best practices” and the pedestrians’, cyclists’, or drivers’ on-the-ground experience.
WE’VE GOT THE LIGHTS
Omaha has a lot of signalized intersections! We have about 1,000 compared to Kansas City’s 600.
STATE ROAD REGS
There are state regulations for roads that all cities and municipalities must comply with, and this is for reasons of safety and liability. We learned that this strict adherence to state statutes regarding roads means that no matter the size of the town or the expertise of the local traffic engineer, every community in Nebraska can be guaranteed safe, responsible road design.
COST-BENEFIT VS ROI
When looking at the cost of solutions and countermeasures, the “benefit of cost” is not the same as “return on investment,” meaning the city won’t get cash back on any money it spends on VZ projects, but it will get benefits like the intrinsic value of life, fewer insurance costs, fewer emergency costs, fewer lawsuits, less loss of profit, etc.
HOW WILL WE. . . .
An interesting question that was asked at the meeting but wasn’t answered remains with me, “As we continue to build out the urban core again, how do make it even safer?”
. . . PAY FOR IT?
Upgrades and Vision Zero projects are going to cost a lot of freaking money. If you’re not in the industry, it may be lost on you just how much signal upgrades, road diets, etc, can cost.
For example, a typical pavement-marking-only road diet (meaning no road tear-up or construction) can cost $100,000 per mile. Further, sometimes these pavement-marking-only projects STILL require signal upgrades, which can also cost a lot.
Since implementing Vision Zero projects will cost money, there was a lot of open-ended discussion about how to
a) acquire and ensure funding and
b) prioritize that funding and use it efficiently.
I can’t say anything was answered in this meeting about that, but money drives society, unfortunately, and currently, there is no funding specifically allocated for VZ projects.
How would you fund Vision Zero projects?
The topic of equity and funding was brought up a lot as well, so many members of the TAC are proponents of making sure funding is prioritized in equity areas, which also makes sense as it is in the equity areas of Omaha where most of the fatal and serious injury crashes occur.
WHAT’S NEXT?
Since the meetings spanned nearly 8 hours, this is a quick summary of some interesting talking points. The results of these meetings will be relayed by the consultants to the Vision Zero Executive Committee, and then the TAC will reconvene in May.
Do you have any questions about this process? Pop them in the comments below or feel free to keep up with the TAC here on Omaha’s Vision Zero website.
Thanks for reading!
~ Trilety