Hearing spotlights Vision Zero gaps as BLA estimates $2.5 billion economic cost of San Francisco crashes

The Land Use and Transportation Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on May 19 heard a multi-agency briefing on street safety, including a Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA) estimate that traffic collisions cost the San Francisco economy about $2.5 billion over a five-year period.

Fred Brusso of the Budget and Legislative Analyst office summarized a national methodology from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that the BLA applied to local crash reports and estimated 92,799 total crashes in San Francisco between 2018 and 2022 (about 18,560 per year) and 193 fatalities over that period. Adjusted for 2024 cost-of-living changes, the BLA’s total economic-cost estimate was roughly $2.5 billion for the five-year window. “We found that there were 92,799 total crashes between 2018 and 2022,” Brusso told the committee.

Public health and city agencies described the patterns and tools in use and limitations in measurement. Iris Hsu, lead epidemiologist for Vision Zero at the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH), said pedestrians remain the city’s most vulnerable travelers and that the city’s Vision Zero High Injury Network (HIN) — 12 percent of street mileage — contains more than two-thirds of the city’s severe and fatal traffic injuries. “Pedestrians remain the most vulnerable travelers on our streets,” Hsu said, and she reported that seniors are overrepresented in recent fatality counts.

Shannon Haik, a program manager in the SFMTA Streets Division, described engineering and program responses including quick-build projects (paint, posts and delineators), signal timing changes and a pilot automated speed camera program. Haik said quick-build projects have cut some bike-involved crashes by about 25% and pedestrian-involved crashes by more than a third in evaluated locations, and that 18 speed cameras were active and issuing warning violations with the agency planning to reach 26 within days and 33 total under the state-authorized allocation. “These are projects where we use paint and posts and other adjustable tools to address safety issues,” Haik said.

Captain Peter Shields of the San Francisco Police Department’s traffic enforcement division said enforcement priorities use data from SFMTA and DPH; he described two enforcement models in use (directed enforcement and a rotating WAVES program) and noted SFPD’s dedicated traffic officer staffing has declined from about 80 officers in 2014 to 16 in recent years. “Our main goal is to change people’s driving behavior through enforcement and education,” Shields said.

Agency reporting, data gaps and costs. Brusso told the committee MTA does not systematically track the portion of MTA spending devoted specifically to street-safety initiatives; the BLA relied on an MTA breakdown showing about $85.8 million in street-related activity in FY24–25, with $52.4 million categorized as traffic enforcement (backed out by the BLA) and $33.4 million as other street-related activities. The BLA also reported $60 million in streets-related capital budget in FY24–25 but said that figure is not exclusively collision-related. From the city-attorney office, Brusso cited about $61.4 million paid in settlements and judgments from 2020–2024 for collisions involving city vehicles, and roughly $243,500 in settlements tied to street design during the same period.

Several presenters recommended improvements to routine reporting and budgeting. The BLA recommended annualized reporting from MTA and DPH on collision trends and that city staff prepare estimates of the cost of street-safety measures so the Board of Supervisors can weigh investments against projected savings.

Public comment and policy push. More than a dozen members of the public addressed the committee during an extended public comment period, urging faster action and a new Vision Zero policy. Several speakers called for a new, time-bound interagency Vision Zero plan — many requested a policy by July 30 and a detailed implementation plan by September 30 — citing recent pedestrian fatalities and a perceived accountability gap since the city’s previous Vision Zero policy lapsed. Jody Maderas of Walk San Francisco asked the committee to press for a new policy and interagency plan: “It is painful, angering, unconscionable that the city currently has no policy plan, public accountability for traffic safety,” she said.

Committee action. After testimony and departmental responses, Chair Mirna Melgar moved to file the hearing. The committee voted 3-0 to file the hearing record and to continue work on a revised Vision Zero approach that the chair said should incorporate lessons learned and address accountability and reporting. The filing motion recorded votes as Chen, aye; Mahmood, aye; Melgar, aye.

What this means: the hearing collected estimates of the economic costs of collisions, described the city’s current tools and limitations (data, staffing and statutory limits on some enforcement technologies), and generated public pressure and a committee directive to press for a renewed, time-bound Vision Zero policy and improved cross-agency reporting and budgeting. The committee did not adopt a new Vision Zero policy at the hearing; it filed the hearing record and directed follow-up work and interagency coordination.