Abstract
AbstractVision Zero was established in 2014 as the foundation of the New York City road safety policy. The purpose of this chapter is to understand why and how Vision Zero was introduced as well as by whom and with what tools. The chapter focuses on understanding this policy change in New York City and is based on a document study and 18 semi-structured interview with 19 respondents city administration staff, researchers, media, and NGOs. The analysis is made by looking closer at the state of four aspects by the time of the establishment of Vision Zero – problem framing, policy formulation, political actors, and proposed solutions. This theoretical framework is mainly based on the work of John Kingdon (Agenda, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown, Boston, 1984) and Michael Howlett (Public Policy Adm 34(4):405–430, 2019). The chapter states that there were several factors leading to the adoption of Vision Zero. First, the road safety problems were not as serious as in many other regions of the USA, but compared to other major cities in the western world, the fatalities and serious injuries in New York City were deemed unacceptable by politicians, NGOs, and the public. The imminent problem on the ground was further emphasized by several high-profile cases of child fatalities in traffic crashes. Second, the Vision Zero policy or philosophy was a coherent and above all a successfully tested policy based on a scientific foundation. The credit for introducing Vision Zero in the New York City context is given to non-governmental organizations such as Transportation Alternatives and Families for Safe Streets and specific public administrators in key positions. These actors were all searching for new solutions, and as the politicians placed road safety high on the agenda, a window of opportunity was opened to Vision Zero. In addition, politicians, with the support and pressure from NGOs, established a policy program based on Vision Zero, and this program further established a belief in Vision Zero as a credible way forward. There was and is criticism directed towards the policy based on equity and that Vision Zero risks strengthening discriminatory structures. The basic idea of adapting the physical infrastructure to accommodate human mistakes is challenging in many American contexts, but in a diverse city such as New York, this approach may be able to address equity, according to several respondents, if based on solid crash data. The Vision Zero in New York City differs from the original Swedish version in mainly two ways: the focus in New York on law enforcement and on the behavior of the individual road user.
Highlights
I do think that it was through our advocacy work that Vision Zero was brought to New York. (NGO 2)It really was their advocacy that brought the urgency to this issue. [. . .] they came together and said enough is enough, so I think it has come from this urgency of wanting to change and for New York, it really was just good timing. (NGO 3)Mayor Bloomberg and his Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan they had really laid a lot of the groundwork for pedestrian and bike projects that would become key parts of Vision Zero. (City Administration 1)In 2014, New York City adopted Vision Zero as a foundation for its road safety policies
It is easy to assume that a policy change is made because the previous policies were bad or even absent, but the New York City Vision Zero was not introduced in a vacuum, as there were plenty of road safety initiatives and measures prior to the introduction
We must not forget the role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Transportation Alternatives, Families for Safe Streets, organizations working with sustainability and research, and others, constantly challenging the city administration to do better as they ask for more Vision Zero, not less
Summary
I do think that it was through our advocacy work that Vision Zero was brought to New York. (NGO 2). The analysis of the road safety policy change in New York City in this chapter is based on a model adding this fourth stream, the program stream, as there is often a need for a credible program of implementation in order to open the window of opportunity. The Policy Stream This stream in Kingdon’s framework is based on solutions that solve specific problems, and there are often differences in opinion as to what solution is the best, among people with varying expertise, professional viewpoints, or political points of view Another key aspect is that solutions are developed over time, often in lengthy processes of discussion, translation, transformation, and compromise. The focus of the policy stream will be on policy formulation with policy solutions being dealt with in the program stream
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
