Phoenix looking to adopt Vision Zero street policy


On Friday, Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio alerted residents to a scheme to be voted on next week known as Vision Zero. DiCiccio says the plan is being offered with virtually “zero public notice.”

DiCiccio’s Facebook post:

“The major policy focus of this plan is a massive reduction in speed limits across ALL city streets.

Boston adopted this program a few years ago and reduced all City streets to 25 MPH. When that didn’t work – and by “work” they mean eliminating ALL roadway fatalities – they developed a plan to reduce the speed to 15 MPH throughout their City core, and massively increase fines on drivers.

This is a horrifically bad idea for the City of Phoenix. Here’s why:

1. First, and foremost, even the short walks to public transit in many East Coast cities are not something most people want to do in 100 degree heat – and a fair lot of people (the elderly, those with disabilities, people with medical conditions, etc.) cannot do here.

2. We lack the density, and are still decades away from achieving it, to make mass transit an effective option for most people on both a cost and infrastructure basis.

3. The infrastructure spending required (a huge number of elevated pedestrian walkways and barriers between the street and sidewalk) to keep even a single City street accessible to vehicle travel above 20 MPH is money we don’t have.

4. We already have massive, basic needs that we don’t have the funding for – like paying off our unfunded pension liabilities, maintaining our current infrastructure, hiring more cops and firefighters, etc. So Vision Zero will come with a massive tax increase.

5. Slowing all traffic to a crawl will result in price increases for just about everything, as the time and resources needed to get products on the shelves and food on plates goes up and is passed along to you.

Proponents of this insane scheme are clear: it can only be passed by filling Council chambers with the victims and family members of accidents, and by lying about the intent of the program. They want to force everyone out of cars. They can’t sell their REAL vision to the public, so their goal is to make driving as inefficient and difficult as possible and slowly force people out of their cars.

If you don’t think their plan is a good idea, Council needs to hear you, they need to see you. Call your Council rep and let them know you think this is a terrible idea. Come to the meeting and stand up to the handful of “Urbanist” social engineers pushing this mess who think they have a right to dictate how your city operates to everyone. Let Council know they don’t speak for you.


In case you are curious, here are the requirements of this program, from the Vision Zero Website:

  • Type of infrastructure and traffic – Possible travel speed (km/h)
  • Locations with possible conflicts between pedestrians and cars 30 km/h (19 mph)
  • Intersections with possible side impacts between cars 50 km/h (31 mph)
  • Roads with possible frontal impacts between cars, including rural roads[6] 70 km/h (43 mph)
  • Roads with no possibility of a side impact or frontal impact (only impact with the infrastructure) 100 km/h (62 mph)+
  • About Arizona Daily Independent News Service 1956 Articles
    Under the leadership of Arizona Daily Independent Editor In Chief Huey Freeman, our team of staff reporters work tirelessly to bring the latest, most accurate news to our readers.


    1. Hey Sorry I apolozige to anyone I have offened Please understand the way I read the story was about lowering speed limits for safty,
      I am all in for safer driving and if driving slower helps great.
      So my point was yes slow down
      I am not a lefty
      People seem to be in a rush and bitch because they want to get there Now if waiting in line at a traffic light or in line in a store they bitch bitch
      Isnt there more to really worry about in life then a few minutes more in a line. All I meant was maybe lowering speed limits might save lives
      I was a bit confused on the reasons why the other side give reasons why driving slower would be so wrong
      Those 5 points against it. was from the other side I am not for those 5 points or against them

      But I am for safer roads And driving slower in places can and will help
      If you put as much energy in my post as you could in Standing up for stopping illegals coming in
      We just might get the border closed and something done.

    2. This appears to be more of a retaliation for the court agreement to stop funding for the light rail expansion and call for the completion and maintenance of current roads for auto traffic. Resources spent will ultimately be moved from law enforcement staffing, enforcement of criminal charges for multiple traffic violations and/or liability for injuries caused by poor vehicle control. It also is counter to environmental concerns many claim to have.

      To require bans on older cars would push many more into an inability for many to get to work because the population density does not support and economical expansion of public transportation. That is another way of “punish” those who work at affording comforts and expect them to suffer as those that have less. Once you live a life long enough you appreciate that life brings ups and downs, loss and enrichment and everything in between. Compassion is not always sweet and to help a community achieve rather than receive takes complicated solutions to remedy complicated issues and satisfy complicated human needs and desires.

      Rose: Your comment makes very little sense either. slowing traffic to a point of frustration will only cause more road rage, stupid driver’s taking shortcuts and embolden more pedestrians to assume that they have right away 100% with no responsibility. Given enough time and text space arguments can be made to both perspectives of logical validity.

      Comments only fuel a larger rift between people trying to share space in these huge metroplexes. Compromise means there needs to be a true consideration of all needs and possible solutions that will satisfy as much of both sides of the fence as possible and not to win one side’s own agenda.

    3. Maybe the MVD should stop giving licenses to incompetent drivers. Turn signals aren’t difficult. Parking straight isn’t difficult. But people with licenses do that all the time. The police don’t even use turn signals!

    4. Wow, what a terrible article. Clearly the person who wrote it has no idea of what Vision Zero means.

    5. How will this help? I was injured by a car making a u-turn. Technology is the future of this issue with cameras etc. In addition I believe the answer is car safety technology and external vision sensors etc. The city’s can ban older cars that don’t meet NEW safety requirements. I don’t see any other solutions

    6. It’s all about control. The left never gives up hope to take over everything, including our minds. Look at public schools and that’s easy to see.

    7. Just another stupid idea being pushed by a very small group.. Why in the world do we let these idiots get away with so much? This would be so bad for everyone excdept those that are not working, maybe living off others.. dumb idea.

    8. I think its a great Idea
      It has nothing to do with people walking its about safty

      Cars spewing a couple of seconds longer Or saving a childs life is worth it With your city full of Meth freaks and Other dangerous Drug users Slow Down
      It might even keep your ever growing wrong way drivers to actually think before going wrong way
      And with all your illegals that are driving with out insurence
      It might save others from flipping the bill
      I say Slow Down ..
      The points against makes no real point So what it takes you five seconds more to get the beauty palor Get your lazy butt up earlier in morning. This will save lives mostly children and elderly a few drunks and drug addicts.

      • to Rose:
        REducing the speed limit to 20 mph on all city streets (any street where there is a possibility of a vehicle pedestrian “conflict” [this means every single foot of every single surface street) will only succeed in making the entire city of phoenix a place that nobody every whats to drive in. I have an 8 mile commute (15 minutes at current limits) which would turn into a 35-40 minute commute. My already long work day will expand by nearly an hour. Are you going to pay me for that extra of hour away from my family?

        5 seconds more to your beauty parlor? Where is your beauty parlor, next door to your home?

        Do us a favor, do the math involved.
        Currently “rush hour” runs about 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon. If we see that change as suggested here, that will expand to approximately 3.5 hours twice a day.

        I used to have a 53 mile commute. It took me about an hour (except for the first 2 miles and the last 4 miles, it was all on limited access expressways. The 6 miles of surface street portion was about 15 minutes worth of time. That would have become 45 minutes. The other 45 minutes on the expressway would have turned into 1:15. So instead of 1 hour each way, it would have been 2 hours. NO WAY!

    9. Slow moving traffic means vehicles will be on the street longer spewing out more polluting emissions.

    Comments are closed.