The Planning Commission unanimously voted not to adopt Vision Zero at their public meeting on Wednesday, November 5, 2025. It’s not how I would have voted, but I’m also not on the Commission, so it’s not up to me. Ya win some, ya lose some. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Regional planning seems to make sense, but Chadds Ford leadership felt confident they could do a better job on their own.

dark road with dim street lights lined with trees and utility poles

No upside/downside to adopting Vision Zero

The Planning Commission saw no upside to adoption or downside to passing on the plan. Craig Huffman, Planning Commission Chair, said, “There’s no carrot and no stick.” (That’s debatable, but again, not up to me.)

Uncertain long-term commitments

Vision Zero includes many elements that apply to more urban settings and don’t directly apply to Chadds Ford as it’s designed today. It places heavy emphasis on pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit. However, speed reduction and enforcement are also among its primary elements (and Chadds Ford could undoubtedly use some slowdowns along our roads).

The Commission saw a risk in committing to a plan that included parts they liked and others they didn’t like. They expressed concern that the township might be obligated down the road to implement aspects of Vision Zero that the township didn’t like if such recommendations were consistent with the adopted Vision Zero plan. Planning Commission Vice Chair Valerie Hoxter seemed particularly concerned about being forced to welcome public transportation into Chadds Ford.

Huffman used a bus shelter as an example of obligated development. Someone might ask Chadds Ford to build a bus shelter in the future, and the township may be compelled to build it because it’s consistent with Vision Zero, even though the township doesn’t want it.

This example is notable, considering Supervisor Samantha Reiner recommended adding a bus shelter near Painter’s Crossing during the design process for the new retail space coming soon to Painter’s Crossing. The developer would have paid for the bus shelter. The idea was ultimately nixed during the review and approval process.

I can see some merit in this concern. While I think the upsides of joining Vision Zero Delco outweigh it, and I like enhanced walkability and public transit (build the bus shelter 🎉), someone in theory could try to compel the township to develop in a certain way as a result of the adoption. I don’t think that’s the county’s intent, but a rogue individual might exploit it.

On the flip side, a rogue individual could challenge the township for failing to adopt this or another road-safety resolution, particularly when the township has ample data showing that certain roads and intersections in our community are highly unsafe.

Both projections seem unlikely but equally plausible.

Chadds Ford can design better on its own

Some Commission members argued that the township could design and implement its own traffic-safety enhancements more effectively. Regarding thoughtful road safety planning, Huffman said, “It’s not rocket science” and “You don’t need a PhD to do it,” in the context of the township taking on road safety itself rather than participating in a broader Vision Zero regional planning process.

Traffic engineering may not require a PhD, but it does require a Professional Engineering license. According to the Pennsylvania Society of Professional Engineers, “To become licensed, engineers must complete a four-year college degree, work under a Professional Engineer for at least four years, pass two intensive competency exams, and earn a license from their state’s licensure board. Then, to retain their licenses, PEs must continually maintain and improve their skills throughout their careers.” That’s not nothing.

I suspect Huffman’s intent was not to diminish the value of professional expertise and experience in traffic engineering. Any projects Chadds Ford pursues would include Mike Schneider, the township engineer from Pennoni (an engineering consulting firm). But there were many comments made in the vein of “this can’t be that hard” and “we know our own township, so we can do better than a broad framework.” It seemed like an odd tone to take toward a well-established framework in a field that requires significant professional expertise.

Interestingly, several commission members reiterated that many of the most dangerous roads in our township aren’t managed locally. They are PennDOT roads, so the township has little direct say in their development. Commission members suggested that this circumstance encouraged the township to distance itself from Vision Zero Delco because it had limited agency over those roads.

Alternatively, that might be a reason to adopt Vision Zero. If other parties control our most problematic corridors, wouldn’t it make sense to join the regional transportation planning process rather than forge ahead on our own? Wouldn’t joining the Vision Zero Delco community make us more likely to have a seat at the table? It surely can’t hurt.

From a financial perspective, the Commission preferred having the township apply for grants (as needed) on its own rather than using Vision Zero to signal a specific type of commitment or participation in a broader safety planning initiative. Commission members favored bespoke safety planning designs over the application of a universal framework because, in their view, the plans could be informed by residents who know the ins and outs of the township’s roads.

Planning Commission member Thomas Bradley saw Vision Zero Delco as a way for Delaware County to “spend money with no way of guaranteeing the investment.” Adoption of Vision Zero Delco attaches no financial commitments. That aside, seemingly implicit in this comment is the expectation that a plan designed by Chadds Ford township, separate from Vision Zero Delco, was more likely than the decades-old Vision Zero framework to guarantee a return on the investment.

Does any traffic-safety investment guarantee a return on investment, particularly when that ROI is based in part on intangible benefits like saved lives? Honest question. What might a guarantee on a traffic safety investment look like?

Bespoke vs Vision Zero plan misses the point

I think this distinction between a bespoke plan and a Vision Zero Delco plan misses the point. Vision Zero represents a set of best practices. Any framework offers guiding principles to then make a design unique to the roadway(s) where it’s being applied. I’m not a traffic engineer, but I’ve got to believe that every plan starts with baseline traffic engineering principles and design options (Vision Zero or similar), and then is tailored accordingly.

On that note, I was listening to one of my favorite nerdy podcasts recently called Volts (all about clean energy). The guest, Liya Rechtman, a former policy advisor for the US Department of Transportation, noted in a discussion about sustainable transit development that:

“Engineers are licensed, and their licenses come with very limited protection from exposure to liability. That means they are very unlikely to sign off on novel project types and very unlikely to support innovation because their whole livelihood is at risk almost immediately when they are a first mover.” (source)

I found this interesting. It suggests traffic engineers rely on tried-and-true best practices already used in other places with similar needs and objectives, often for good reason. Whether it’s a Vision Zero framework or something else, professional expertise and proven design inform even the most unusual or bespoke traffic safety planning. Engineers aren’t reinventing the wheel with every plan, even if each client thinks they’re extra special. We’re all, for the most part, relying on general frameworks that have been tested and proven effective over time.

Substance + semantics of a promise vs. a goal

Some township leaders got really hung up on the idea of eliminating traffic deaths, feeling that Vision Zero promised zero deaths as opposed to setting a goal for zero deaths. While everyone agreed the goal should be zero deaths, those semantics were a point of contention in this meeting and in previous public discussions on the topic.

I suppose the language indicates the plan intends to eliminate traffic deaths. Without a deadline, it feels like a continuous improvement project, always working toward fewer traffic fatalities. In that case, shouldn’t the goal always be zero?

Some township leaders seemed to let substance get lost in semantics. Bradley, for example, said:

“Well, they actually don’t say in their literature that they’re going to reduce. They say they’re going to eliminate. Yeah. And they say it multiple times. I found that very offensive, like snake oil salesman. Well, yeah. Drink this, and whatever you have, cancer, whatever, you’re going to be cured. It just, just… you’re not going to eliminate traffic deaths by anything that anybody does other than getting rid of cars.”

Some cities, like Hoboken, New Jersey, have eliminated traffic deaths for many years. Their road system differs from Chadds Ford’s, but it’s evidence of the target’s merit while also leaving room for continued progress.

But suggesting Vision Zero is an offensive snake oil salesman because it seeks to eliminate all traffic deaths by some undefined date in the future? The language of Vision Zero feels (to me at least) more like a “shoot for the moon and land among the stars” agenda than a malicious attempt to sell someone a shoddy bill of goods.

Takeaways

I would have loved to hear more from the township engineer, Mike Schneider, but he was pretty quiet on the matter. It’s ultimately not up to him either.

Hopefully, the discussion reiterated the need for continued investment in traffic safety, particularly given Chadds Ford’s high rate of serious and fatal accidents per capita.

Planning Commission members Carolyn Daniels and Kathy Koch noted that there are serious traffic safety concerns in the township that are regularly discussed among residents. They both expressed interest in seeing something akin to Vision Zero traffic-safety improvements for the township in the future, even if this particular plan and timing weren’t the right fit for Chadds Ford.

As is often the case, Huffman brought a largely reasoned perspective to the table. While I disagree with his conclusion, his rationale for reaching it was sufficiently sound. His concern about unforeseen obligations implicit in adopting the Vision Zero plan seemed to be the most influential factor in deciding not to move forward.

It was disappointing to see some of our township leaders get hung up on the semantics of Vision Zero. This is not the only meeting where someone sitting behind the dias mocked Vision Zero’s goal of eliminating, rather than just reducing, traffic deaths. The tone of disdain from some (but certainly not all) of our township leaders for a decades-old, internationally recognized traffic planning framework, because it sets an ambitious goal of zero fatalities in an imperfect world, is disappointing.

Several Commission members seemed to see the substance through the semantics and draw their conclusion on the merits of the framework, separate from its ambitious goals. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that was the case for everyone.