Well, We've Got A New Dumbest Article I've Ever Read
"Op-Ed: Vision Zero is an extreme & misguided program Hoboken should try to fix" is hilariously stupid, except traffic violence is no joke.
Every once in a while, I come across a piece of editorial writing that’s so unbelievably stupid that it simply must be satirical. For city planning humor to be, you know, funny, there’s got to be engagement with the subject matter that at least…points out some irony or ridiculous behavior that turns serious into farce. This article in question was written by Edward Reep (“Reep” the Benefits)1, who is a self-described Satirist2 and, worryingly, a political candidate who could make laws that affect Hoboken’s most impressive record of zero traffic deaths from 2019 through 2022. Such a streak continues into September 2023.
»Here it is so you can roll your eyes, too.«
In effect, Mr. Reep twists himself into knots to both defend and excoriate Vision Zero—a campaign aimed at “eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries among all road users — while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility.” In effect, Vision Zero is a goal that’s not often achieved; its principles and interventions are often aimed at aspiration rather than actualization. Except in Hoboken, which is the single place in the United States where it’s happened, four years in a row. What’s actually funny about this op-ed, placed gingerly into a local outlet called the “Hudson County View” is the statistical likelihood of this happening on its own is comically low. You could see an anti-Vision Zero rhetoric catching hold anywhere else—literally any one of the 20,000 or so towns in the US—but in Hoboken is very, very funny. I’m not sure Mr. Reep sees this irony. If he does, personally, it does not come across in his writing.
Let’s break it down. Mr. Reep’s words are in bold.
I am a critic of Hoboken’s specific Vision Zero program for “pedestrian safety,” yes, but I still am very supportive of pedestrian safety in general.
This on its face isn’t ridiculous. I am also a critic of many Vision Zero programs, especially ones that aren’t followed by actions and results. In name only, a VZ proclamation can be more harmful than helpful—placating safe-streets advocates for a short time mixed with no action will kill momentum for the very important goal of halting traffic violence.
I do not understand why “pedestrian safety” is in quotes. Maybe he’ll get to it later. Oh, there it is. Why is pedestrian safety not in quotes here? I’m going to sleuth this Mr. Reep believes that pedestrian safety achieved through means he doesn’t approve of isn’t worthwhile, but safety achieved through programs that he does approve of is. Maybe I’m wrong.
As someone who does not drive, I cross streets in Hoboken all the time walking to work or to other spots in town, and it is very important to me that me and my neighbors are not run over by cars and possibly killed or maimed.
The first two clauses in this sentence aren’t related. Drivers, when not actively maneuvering their own vehicles, also cross streets in Hoboken as pedestrians. I like to hear that it is important to him that he and his neighbors are not run over by cars and possibly killed or maimed. But even then, it’s not the car that does the running over on its own. The driver will direct the death box to do so. Certainly not on purpose, but these crashes aren’t accidents.
As a candidate running for City Council in the 3rd Ward in Hoboken, I especially care about pedestrian safety on the busy Willow Ave too, since it is the Eastern border of much of our Ward and the crossing by which most 3rd Ward residents make their way on foot to the PATH trains and New York ferries or the shops on Washington St.
However, I am also reasonable and understand that it would be utter madness to pursue pedestrian safety as an end goal without any regards to the costs.
First paragraph: fair point. I’m interested in learning more about how Mr. Reep would approach “safety on the busy Willow Ave.”
Second paragraph: pursuing pedestrian safety is not utter madness as an end goal. It in fact should be the end goal for traffic engineering. It is and was the achieved, documented end goal in Hoboken.
I am sympathetic to culling wasteful spending on programs and projects that aren’t directly tied to safety, dignity, and equity goals. So, let’s learn about what Mr. Reep means.
Pursuing any policy goal to perfection is non-sensical. Consider a vision for zero crime that involved draconian security measures like metal detectors in front of every bodega and armed guards on every street corner.
Pursuing the goal to perfection is perfectly sensible—it keeps all players and stakeholders aligned and honest. Expecting to achieve perfection is a worthwhile goal—considering anything less a failure is diminutive and discounts any progress made.
I will not consider such a “vision for zero” crime, because this phrase has been intentionally or unintentionally manipulated to draw a false equivalence. There is no Vision Zero policy that concerns metal detectors and armed guards. These are two separate ideas that shouldn’t be conflated here.
Vision Zero is an urban planning movement seeking to reduce all serious traffic injuries and fatalities to zero, which originated in Sweden, a country whose politics I usually agree with on issues like sensible non-authoritarian COVID policies and having an expansive welfare state.
Correct; correct; sure. I’m not sure why we have to lean into Sweden’s national politics, but there’s nothing ostensibly terrible about this sentence. Not worthwhile to dive into, either. Probably could have been cut for clarity.
But this movement has some very questionable premises, which are clearly stated on its Wikipedia page, including that “Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society”, a rejection of traditional cost-benefit analysis.
Ah, okay. That phrase is, indeed included on the movement’s Wikipedia page, and the view—that the tradeoff between life and health and other benefits to society—is just simply not what a “traditional cost-benefit analysis” is, or does.
I’m an economist by practice and I’ve worked extensively with CBAs. While the econometric value of balancing present-value costs against present-value benefits is technically correct, their execution in 2023 eschews many macro and microeconomic principles that would otherwise, still make this statement incorrect. A CBA is supposed to be valueless, but it’s obviously not—we make value choices all the time when building our costs and benefit categories. For instance, whose time do we value when we say a particular intervention will save workers time? How do we value a life? There is a number economists are supposed to use—around $13 million per life—but it’s wholly reductive, too.
Planners should approach CBAs with caution. But Mr. Reep is incorrect—life and health, by definition of a cost-benefit—can be exchanged for other benefits within the society. A vision zero planner should want to see the cost-benefit of a particular intervention, but it should always be interpreted within the larger value proposition that despite what a CBA’s result may be, we’ll choose to pursue the safety goal anyway.
It’d be fine—wrong, but fine—to plan strictly along the highest and best ROI to society, even if the health and safety of a population didn’t increase. But choosing to pursue Vision Zero values isn’t rejecting a CBA.
The Vision Zero movement has of course spread to the USA and Hoboken in particular, bringing some good ideas and initiatives but also some wanton excess, exactly what someone would expect from an ideology that is extreme by design, sincerely pursuing a perfectionist goal with a stated disregard to cost-benefit analysis.
Unnecessary “of course” here aside, I can’t wait to read what the wanton excess is.
Now I don’t want to reject all that the Vision Zero folks in Hoboken have done to improve safety the past few years as some of it is sensible and an improvement for quality of life, but I think these folks working for safety in Hoboken should add an asterisk to their mission statement or change the name of their program to “Vision within Reason” maybe.
Sure. But what’s the wanton excess? It doesn’t matter what we call the program as long as Hoboken’s planners and builders continue to make the city safer.
As a prime example of where I think the Vision Zero mindset shows both its upside and downside, I’d like to point out the situation with those bollard pole things that have popped up around town in order to block cars (and delivery trucks) from parking, dropping off, picking up, pulling over, or standing too close to a crosswalk.
The wanton excess is…bollards? A quick search places the cost of a bollard between $500-1200. But I want to give Mr. Reep the benefit of the doubt here: not included in that number is labor and also the “lost economic value” of a truck having to reconfigure how it unloads or, of course, how a driver might have to pull off elsewhere, nearby or not (Hoboken isn’t that big) to drop off or pick up a passenger.
All these “losses,” save the labor, shouldn’t be socialized at the expense of a single life. It’s a business’s decision whether or not it wants to adhere to mobility rules that apply to every truck and taxi driver equally. And if by “too close to a crosswalk,” that means close enough to dedicated pedestrian infrastructure that’s designed to help configure the street language and keep everyone—including Mr. Reep, who does not drive—safe, then that seems reasonable to me, at least. It doesn’t seem wanton, but I don’t know, how much does a can of paint cost? $10?3
These are installed in large part for visibility reasons.4 And clearly, they make sense at a lot of intersections in Hoboken where cars historically have had trouble seeing pedestrians5 or where one reasonably could imagine there would be such issues due to other factors impacting visibility.6
Good job on installing bollards in those areas!7 However, even if it’s true there are laws in New Jersey against parking too close to crosswalks, surely it’s extreme to install these poles on as many potentially random 3rd Ward corners as they do, even when the flow of one-way traffic means there’s no benefit such as the southwest corner on the one-way Willow Ave that flows south when it intersects the westward-flowing one-way 8th Street?
Okay, I’m not stupid, but could a driver not hit and kill or maim a pedestrian on Willow Ave., even where it intersects 8th St.? You know, one block from the high school? How could installing infrastructure—at a low cost to the taxpayer—help keep kids safe? I could see how that could be extreme. After all, Mr. Reep doesn’t want to kill kids. He said so!
Also, why install these on quieter streets where the minimal safety benefit causes meaningful inconvenience to residents needing quick drop offs and such?
Like at Willow and 8th. I see.
And most seriously, in an example where pedestrian safety is valued to the exclusion of health in other areas, the blocking of cars from easily pulling over on Willow Ave creates a dangerous potential time waster for ambulances going down that road to the hospital, which of course is in the 3rd Ward on Willow Ave between 3rd and 4th.
Ah, the old it-impacts-public-safety-without-any-evidence-that-it-does-but-now-I’ve-put-that-image-in-your-mind-so-you-must-agree-or-you-want-people-to-die-not-me argument. If it is found that a bollard would negatively affect an ambulance from saving lives, I’d hope that Mr. Reep—should he get elected—and the entire municipal government should remove it or move it.
I’ve seen so many cars stop traffic on that street for lack of pull-over areas, something we can mitigate if we were thoughtful about costs and benefits with those bollards! Just have common sense, not a zealous perfectionist vision!
I’ve also seen so many cars stop traffic on that street for lack of pull-over areas. This has nothing to do with public safety in se, but a lack of a curb management plan or execution. Let’s see yours.
Look, we can all work together to create a Hoboken that works for pedestrians, drivers, and bikers too.
I 100%, wholeheartedly agree that this should be what you’re talking about.
We can likely find areas we all agree need change or additional work, such as eventually moving Washington St’s bike lane to be in between the parked cars and sidewalk not to the left of the parked cars adjacent to the flowing traffic.
A “protected” bike lane, using parked cars as a buffer rather than plastic bollards or nothing at all, is a very good idea. And it’s a very good idea on Washington St. Let’s do that.
What we cannot do, however, is engage in net-negative efforts that undermine some in the city in pursuit of impractical attitudes and / or fanciful ideological notions!
Which are…? Are we back to bollards?
As a 3rd Ward councilperson, I would be a friend to car owners and drivers while also recognizing that pedestrian-only folks such as myself must be protected.
Sure, but just remember that “car owners” are not a protected class no matter how much you want them to be. Curiously, though, they seem to be thought of as a voting bloc, and boy do car owners band together when you want to “take away parking” or “return safe space to bikers and pedestrians.”
If you are elected, Mr. Reep, I hope you do stick to this. I’m here for safe streets in any form.
I would fight for common sense and not fanciful pursuits like the idea we can somehow “eliminate all traffic-related injuries and deaths by 2030.”
But…Hoboken did. Your city did this. It’s been almost five years since the last pedestrian fatality on a Hoboken street. I’d even go so far as to say whatever it is that Hoboken has been doing is the effective Vision Zero policy that you’re railing against. So which is it?
Think about how ridiculous that is, given that it is sincere and is influencing planners to actually make decisions without weighing the consequences properly?
Why is this a question?
Edward Reep
Hoboken 3rd Ward City Council candidate 2023
Good luck, and godspeed. But please stop writing drivel.
From his Xwitter bio: “3rd Ward Hoboken City Council Candidate 2023. Jesus loves you! I am a Satirist, Christian, and hold deep compassion for all! All is awesome!”
His capitalization, not mine.
Correct.
Correct, but also cars don’t see anything. Yet.
No issue here.
Go us!