Vision Zero Action Plan

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

What is the Vision Zero Action Plan?

What is Vision Zero?

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)

2. Development of the Plan

Relation to Other Safety Plans

3. Safety Analysis

Key Crash Trends and Emphasis Areas

4. High-Injury and High-Risk Networks

5. Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Engagement Strategy and Goals

Vision Zero Task Force

Who We Heard From

Engagement Takeaways

6. Vision Zero Actions, Policies, and Best Practices

Vision Zero Actions

Proven Safety Countermeasures and Best Practices

Future Policies

Funding for Implementation

7. Progress and Transparency

Boston Region MPO’s Role in Improving Transportation Safety

8. Next Steps

Appendix A: Terms and Acronyms

Appendix B: Existing Condition Data Analysis

Appendix C: High-Injury Network Methodology

Appendix D: High-Risk (Systemic) Network Methodology

Appendix E: Top Municipal Crash Data Profiles

Appendix F: Stakeholder Engagement Approach and Findings

Appendix G: Policy and Process Research and Findings

Boston Region Vision Zero Action Plan

Draft June 26, 2025

Final March 5, 2026

This plan was funded in part through grants from the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). Its contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the U.S. DOT.

What is the Vision Zero Action Plan?

In 2024, nearly 40,000 people were killed in traffic crashes in the United States and hundreds of thousands more were seriously injured. This national roadway safety problem affects us in the Boston region where traffic crashes kill or seriously injure more than 1,000 people per year.

Figure 1: Fatalities and Serious Injuries in the Boston Region

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal

The Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) believes that even one death on our roads is too many. That is why we are committed to Vision Zero. Vision Zero is an approach to roadway safety based on the assumption that serious traffic crashes are preventable. Together, we can change how we design, operate, and maintain our streets in order to make the region safe for all road users—people who walk, roll, bike, ride transit, and drive.  

The MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Destination 2050, set goals to achieve zero transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries and improve safety for all users of the transportation system:

• Eliminate fatalities, injuries, and safety incidents experienced by people who walk, bike, roll, use assistive mobility devices, travel by car, or take transit.
• Prioritize investments that improve safety for the most vulnerable roadway users: people who walk, bike, roll, or use assistive mobility devices.
• Prioritize investments that eliminate disparities in safety outcomes for people in disadvantaged communities.

The Boston Region Vision Zero Action Plan reflects the MPO’s commitment to saving lives. This Action Plan builds on transportation planning and safety initiatives already undertaken in the region. This effort will help the MPO and its 97 municipalities navigate the future of roadway safety and communicate clearly with residents about how we can implement roadway safety improvements necessary to save lives.

What is Vision Zero?

The traditional approach to roadway safety views traffic deaths and serious injuries as “inevitable side effects of modern life” and refers to these serious crashes as “accidents”  (Vision Zero Network). The Vision Zero approach recognizes that serious crashes are not accidents and we can take action to prevent them by proactively prioritizing traffic safety in the way we design our streets and in the policies we enact.

Vision Zero recognizes that people make mistakes and that no one should die or be seriously injured because of a mistake they make while travelling on our roads.

Vision Zero calls on us to work together, across disciplines, to improve roadway safety. Elected officials, policymakers, engineers, planners, first responders, public health professionals, and others all have a part to play. There are many complex factors that contribute to roadway safety and safe mobility, including street design, vehicle speeds, roadway user behaviors, and vehicle technology. We can design roads, update policies, and implement new programs to lessen the severity of crashes. Reaching zero fatalities and serious injuries requires us to set goals and work on actions to implement change in all of these areas.

Figure 2 | Safe System Approach Principles and Elements

Source: Federal Highway Administration.

 

The Safe System Approach

While Vision Zero establishes the goal of zero deaths and serious injuries on our streets, the Safe System Approach, illustrated in Figure 2, provides a more detailed framework for reaching that goal. The Safe System Approach aims to address and mitigate the risks inherent in the transportation system by building and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from happening in the first place and minimize the harm caused to those involved when crashes do occur.

This holistic and comprehensive strategy focuses both on human mistakes and vulnerability and promotes a system designed with many redundancies in place to protect all road users. The Safe System Approach also embraces all types of roadway safety countermeasures and acknowledges that a multidisciplinary approach is required to address the full range of possible safety risks. Figure 2 shows how the five Safe System elements—safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care—work together to create shared responsibility for the safety of all road users.

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)

2 Development of the Plan

The multistep process used by the Boston Region MPO to develop this Action Plan is shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 | Vision Zero Action Plan Development Process

Relation to Other Safety Plans

Several other transportation and safety plans were referenced during the creation of this Vision Zero Action Plan, as noted in Table 1.

Table1 | Relation to Other Strategic Safety Plans

3 Safety Analysis

An in-depth safety analysis, provided in Appendix B, forms a critical foundation for this Vision Zero Action Plan. This analysis identified where and why crashes are occurring across the Boston region, helped the MPO to assess current safety performance, supported data-driven decision-making by stakeholders and the Vision Zero Task Force, and guided the development of targeted safety strategies.

Key Crash Trends and Emphasis Areas

To better understand current crash patterns and the contributing factors associated with the most common and overrepresented crash types, the most recent five-year crash data (2018–22) were analyzed to help identify key factors that may contribute to future crashes.0F1

Data Sources

1.     Historical data (1980–2022) from the U.S. DOT Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

2.     Most recent five years (2018–2022) of available data from the MassDOT Open Data Portal and the MassDOT IMPACT tool

Who is being affected by serious crashes?

Nearly 1,000 people are killed or seriously injured in crashes in the Boston region every year. For development of the Action Plan, the MPO focused on crashes that occur on state- and municipal-owned roads, excluding crashes along interstates, expressways, and other fully access-controlled roadways. This approach allows us to focus actions on interventions that can lower driving speeds and make travel by vulnerable road users safer. Figure 4 shows the fatalities and serious injuries from 2018–22 excluding crashes on access-controlled roads. The remainder of the analysis in the action plan is focused on this same subset of roadways.

Figure 4 | Fatalities and Serious Injuries in the Boston Region, excluding Interstates and Access-Controlled Roadways

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal.

In addition to the number of serious crashes and the people impacted by crashes, it’s important to consider the modes most involved in fatal and serious crashes. Figure 5shows the breakdown of these crashes by mode from 2018 through 2022. Bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists are at significantly higher risk for serious injury or death when involved in crashes with motor vehicles.

Figure 5 | Total Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes in the Boston Region by Mode, 2018–22

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal.

What’s the economic impact of crashes?

Crashes result in significant costs.  These costs are borne not just by victims and survivors but by our entire community in the form of insurance premiums, taxes, congestion-related costs, and workplace losses. From 2018 through 2022 in the Boston region alone, crashes incurred an estimated total cost of $26.5 billion, averaging $5.3 billion per year. Of that total, $12.2 billion (or 46 percent) came from fatal and serious injury crashes.

Where are crashes occurring?

As part of our crash analysis, we identified the top 10 municipalities with the highest crash numbers and the highest crash rates in the region.2 These data only reflect crashes on non-access controlled roadways.

Table 2: Top 10 Municipalities by Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Number (2018–22)

¹ Due to crash reporting issues, the total number of crashes and fatal and serious injury crashes for the City of Boston are under-reported to the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV). The true crash rates in the City are estimated to be higher than shown in this table.

FSI = fatal and serious injury.

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal, 2020 population estimates from the US Census Bureau.

Table 3: Top 10 Municipalities by Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Rate (2018–22)

FSI = fatal and serious injury.

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal, 2020 population estimates from the US Census Bureau.

In addition to understanding which municipalities have the most serious crashes, crash data can also tell us what type of streets have the most serious crashes. Figure 6 shows that principle and minor arterials have the highest proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes in the Boston region. Crashes involving people walking, rolling, and bicycling are also more prevalent on principal and minor arterials—where fast vehicles and nonmotorized traffic mix, often in a dangerous way.

Most roads in the Boston region are managed, or owned, by either a municipality, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), or the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) . Figure 7 shows that most fatal and serious injuries occur on locally owned roads. This suggests a significant proportion of improvements to advance safety are actionable by municipalities in the region.

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal.

How are crashes happening?

Figure 8 illustrates that nearly 60 percent fatal and serious injury crashes involved two or more vehicles and approximately 40 percent were single-vehicle crashes. Among single-vehicle crashes resulting in a fatality or serious injury, the most common first harmful events were collisions with pedestrians (35 percent of single-vehicle crashes).

Figure 8 | Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes by Collision Type, 2018–22

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal.

The data also show that crashes that happen at night are disproportionately more likely to result in fatalities or serious injuries, often due to increased impaired driving and speeding.

Figure 9 |  Proportion of Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Happening at Night

Emphasis Areas

To further determine the major crash types this Action Plan should focus on, the MPO examined emphasis areas (also called contributing crash factors) for the Commonwealth identified in the Massachusetts Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which offer a helpful framework for identifying common crash issues, analyzing contributing factors, and linking them with a set of targeted countermeasures and strategies.1F3

Table 4, provides the number of fatal and serious injury crashes in the Boston region and Massachusetts according to emphasis area and the percentage of change between 2018 and 2022.  Data in this table do not include crashes along interstates, expressways, other fully access-controlled roadways, or ramps.

Table 4 | Emphasis Areas

Note:      Percentages bolded are greater than the corresponding percentage in the entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Data in the table does not include crashes along Interstates, expressways, other fully access-controlled roadways, or ramps.

HSIP = Highway Safety Improvement Program.

Source:  Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal.

Based on these data showing the prevalence of certain factors in the region’s fatal and serious injury crashes, the increasing rates of crashes observed over the past five years, and stakeholder input, the MPO’s Vision Zero Action Plan focuses on Intersections, Roadway Departure, Vulnerable Road Users, Older Drivers, Speeding, and Large Vehicles as key contributing crash factors to guide the focus of strategies and actions.

For more information on the existing conditions data and analysis, see Appendix B.

4 High-Injury and High-Risk Networks

In addition to analyzing crash data to understand the causes of serious crashes and the roadway user types affected, using the crash data to develop high-injury and high-risk networks is a Vision Zero best practice that allows roadway owners and decision-makers to focus limited resources in the areas with the most problems.

The MPO carried out a network screening to identify and classify sites with road safety risks using a two-part approach. By addressing both locations with a history of serious crashes (specific safety needs) as well as locations with a high risk of future serious crashes (systemic safety needs), we can build a Safe System.

High-Injury Network (HIN)

A crash data-based approach that identifies locations with the highest concentrations of past fatal and serious injury crashes based on historical crash data. This method targets locations with the greatest potential for safety improvement and supports site-specific safety issue diagnosis and countermeasure development.

High-Risk (Systemic) Network (HRN)

A proactive approach that focuses on sites with the highest risk of future fatal and serious injury crashes based on the presence of contributing risk factors from a systemwide perspective. This method enables the implementation of low-cost proven countermeasures across the network to prevent future severe crashes.

High-Injury Network

The HIN is based on 2018–22 data from the Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) and takes into account the following considerations:

• A focus on non-access controlled roadways: Roadways with access control, such as interstates, have stricter design standards and are often out of local municipalities’ control.
• A focus on crashes resulting in fatalities and serious injuries: This focus is consistent with the Safe System Approach to prioritize roadways with the most severe crashes.
• A focus on vulnerable road users: This focus is to reflect the importance of prioritizing locations where the most vulnerable users are at the most risk.

To account for the differences in crash severity, crashes were weighted if they were more severe or if they involved vulnerable road users. Table 5 shows how each crash was scored along a corridor to develop the HIN.

Table 5 | Crash Scores by Severity

VRU = vulnerable road user.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

More details on how the HIN was developed are in Appendix C.

Key Findings

This network crash analysis resulted in two categories of severity of high-injury roads in the region:

• HIN Corridors: These are parts of the network that are hotspots for the most severe and impactful crashes. These locations had two or more fatal crashes between 2018 and 2022.
• Corridors of Concern: These are parts of the network that have many crashes, but few fatalities or serious injuries. Specifically, the data shows fewer than two fatal crashes between 2018 and 2022.

The HIN provides valuable insight into how severe crashes are distributed across the roadway network. Regionally, HIN corridors make up just 7 percent of the roadway network by mileage, yet they account for approximately 65 percent of fatal and serious injury crashes between 2018 and 2022.

As shown in Figure 10, the regional HIN is heavily concentrated in and around the Inner Core Committee (ICC) subregion. This pattern is likely influenced by higher traffic volumes and levels of pedestrian and bicycle activity in the area, which lead to more frequent interactions among roadway users and a greater potential for conflicts.

Subregional and Municipal HINs

To provide a more context-sensitive understanding of corridors with severe crash concerns, subregional and municipal HINs were also developed. These finer-scale networks can support local municipalities in prioritizing safety improvements based on localized crash patterns. Municipalities can also partner with neighboring communities to implement coordinated safety projects along corridors that span municipal boundaries.

Figure 10 | Regional High-Injury Network

Note:      Data from MassDOT IMPACT tool do not include fully access-controlled roadways and ramps.

Source:  Massachusetts Department of Transportation, IMPACT Crash Data Portal and MassDOT Road Inventory 2022.

Community of Concern Areas

To identify neighborhoods with a disproportionate amount of unsafe infrastructure, the regional High-Injury Network was compared to the geographic distribution of Communities of Concern (CoCs). This analysis confirmed that census tracts with higher concentrations of residents with low income, who are minorities, or who have limited English proficiency contain a disproportionate share of dangerous roadway miles.

A scoring system was employed to provide a framework for roadway owners and municipalities to prioritize safety investments in the highest-need areas. To ensure a fair prioritization of these areas, a “CoC score” was assigned to each census tract by ranking its population shares against all other tracts in the region. These individual rankings were averaged into a single score and then categorized into four levels of need based on their distribution. Figure 11 shows the categorization of tracts into four levels of marginalization: most marginalized (top 25th percentile or 75th–100th percentile), more marginalized (50th–75th percentile), less marginalized (25th–50th percentile), and least marginalized (bottom 25th percentile or 0–25th percentile).

The percentile rank of each census tract was then incorporated into the prioritization of HINs. This allows transportation agencies to focus safety improvement efforts on areas where they are most needed, and ensures that the prioritization process aligns with the MPO’s vision of building an equitable transportation system, with an emphasis on improving outcomes for populations disproportionately exposed to dangerous roadways. Appendix C includes more detail on the methodology used for this analysis and the findings.

Figure 11 | Communities of Concern

Prioritized High-Injury Network

The Prioritized High-Injury Network was developed to further prioritize the high-crash locations of the HIN (both at the regional and municipal levels). The network screening methodology combined scores based on percentile rank and scores based on a fixed number of points assigned if a location was in proximity to certain important facilities and services.

For the following factors, the network was prioritized based on how a section of the HIN compared to other locations on the HIN:

• Crash history (or HIN crash score)
• CoC area
• Overall travel activity (total trip activity)
• Pedestrian and cyclist travel (VRU trip activity)

Points were also assigned based on whether high-crash locations were in the vicinity of these important facilities and services:

• Healthcare facilities
• Education facilities
• Transit stops
• Other points of interest, including locations for shopping, dining, etc.

The methodology to develop the prioritized score for corridors and intersections on the regional and municipal HIN is described in detail in Appendix C. The regional prioritized network and corridor scoring is shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network

High Scoring Corridors

The following maps and tables identify the highest-scoring priority corridors within each of the eight subregions in the Boston region. The identification of these top scoring corridors in each subregion helps illustrate how the MPO can use the Prioritized HIN to start to focus in on the highest crash corridors that are in proximity to transit, schools, CoCs, and other locations that are important to improve access to. The next steps for what the MPO and municipalities can do to address safety concerns in these locations are detailed in the list of actions in Chapter 6.2F

Figure 13 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the ICC Subregion

Table 6 | High-Scoring Locations in the ICC Subregion

ICC = Inner Core Committee.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Figure 14 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the MAGIC Subregion

MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Table 7 | High-Scoring Locations in the MAGIC Subregion

MAGIC = Minuteman Advisory Group on Interlocal Coordination.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Figure 15 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the MetroWest Subregion

Table 8 | High-Scoring Locations in the MetroWest Subregion

MetroWest = MetroWest Regional Collaborative.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Figure 16 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the NSPC Subregion

\

Table 9 | High-Scoring Locations in the NSPC Subregion

NSPC = North Suburban Planning Council.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Figure 17 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the NSTF Subregion

Table 10 | High-Scoring Locations in the NSTF Subregion

NSTF = North Shore Task Force.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Figure 18 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the SSC Subregion

Table 11 | High-Scoring Locations in the SSC Subregion

SSC = South Shore Coalition.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

Figure 19 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the SWAP Subregion

Table 12 | High-Scoring Locations in the SWAP Subregion

SWAP = SouthWest Advisory Planning Committee.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

 Figure 20 | Prioritized Regional High-Injury Network in the TRIC Subregion

Table 13 | High-Scoring Locations in the TRIC Subregion

TRIC = Three Rivers Interlocal Council.

Source: Boston Region MPO.

High-Risk Network

While the HIN identifies locations with a history of fatal and serious crashes, the High-Risk Network (HRN) focuses on locations with a high risk of severe crashes, regardless of crash history. Corridors and intersections on the HRN were identified as locations with roadway features in common with locations  in the region that had the most severe crashes. Road owners can use the HRN proactively to prioritize these high-risk locations for preventative safety improvements before severe crashes occur.

The process to develop the HRN followed the process recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in its Systemic Safety User Guide. MassDOT’s IMPACT Risk-Based Network Screening Tool and methodology reports  were the primary data sources. MassDOT’s process and the process used for this Vision Zero Action Plan identifies facility types where crashes are most likely to occur, then calculates a risk score for locations with higher risk scores that are more likely to have crashes of a specific type. The risk scores are then used to categorize either intersections, segments, or municipalities into the following types:

• Primary Risk Sites: Ranked in the top 5^th percentile, indicating the highest risk level for a given emphasis area
• Secondary Risk Sites: Ranked in the next-highest 10^th percentile (i.e., the 6^th to 15^th percentile), representing a moderate level of risk

Six of these networks were developed, one for each of the region’s key contributing crash factors (Intersections, Roadway Departure, Vulnerable Road Users, Older Drivers, Speeding, and Large Vehicles). The MPO used MassDOT’s methodology to analyze risk related to intersection crashes, VRU crashes, roadway departure crashes, and older driver crashes. To better address MPO-specific safety concerns and Vision Zero focus areas, as part of this Action Plan the MPO developed distinct methodologies to analyze risk related to speeding crashes and large vehicle crashes. These methodologies, along with a summary of sites by jurisdiction, risk category, and all underlying data are described in more detail in Appendix D.

Figure 21 shows an example of the HRN for roadway departure crashes.

Figure 21 | High-Risk Network Example—Roadway Departure Crashes

How to Use the Regional Vision Zero Network Analysis

As described throughout this chapter, the Boston Region Vision Zero Action Plan uses two key tools: the Prioritized HIN (developed both at the regional and municipal levels) and the HRN. The Prioritized HIN can help roadway owners and stakeholders pinpoint locations that have already proven to be dangerous, guiding a deeper look into why those crashes occurred. The HRN, on the other hand, offers a proactive approach by identifying locations with characteristics known to contribute to crashes even if there has not been a high number of reported crashes yet. As the MPO and municipalities work to implement the Vision Zero Action Plan, the priority high-injury and high-risk areas will guide project prioritization, selection, and design. The maps and tables of the highest scoring corridors in each subregion show how the prioritized corridors will guide the region to work with cities, towns, MassDOT and DCR to focus safety improvements in the areas most likely to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes.  Specific actions in Chapter 6 direct the MPO and municipalities to refer to the HIN and HRN, as well as specific crash type analysis, to guide the site specific and systemic implementation of countermeasures at priority locations.

Given the local and state context that needs to be considered during project development, the regional Action Plan takes an approach of identifying priority areas (see Chapter 4), identifying priority actions (Chapter 6), and assigning a framework for future implementation rather than selecting specific corridor projects. Under this approach, the responsibility for selecting and designing projects remains flexible, allowing the region and municipalities to work together to apply priority actions in the most appropriate locations. By focusing on high-need areas and proven safety strategies first, this collaborative process ensures that the plan’s goals are translated into site-specific improvements that address local conditions.

The  Vision Zero dashboard on the MPO’s website, provides an interactive tool  designed to help stakeholders understand priority locations and specific safety issues: https://www.bostonmpo.org/visionzero.  

In addition, Municipal Profiles were created for the municipalities with the top crash numbers and top crash rates in the region to help illustrate how the priority HIN, existing conditions data, and stakeholder engagement can help us understand the top safety challenges in a municipality. (See the Municipal Profiles in Appendix E.)  The profiles describe common infrastructure, behavioral, operational, and modal safety challenges specific to each municipality as well as the top effective infrastructure countermeasures to address the specific safety concerns.

5 Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Engagement is crucial to develop a successful Vision Zero Action Plan that directly addresses the region’s transportation safety challenges. By engaging a diverse group of stakeholders, the MPO was able to collect meaningful insight into their major safety concerns and identify what the Action Plan should focus on. Engagement activities also identified potential and preferred solutions that can make the Boston region’s streets safer for all people who walk, roll, bike, ride transit, and drive.  

Engagement Strategy and Goals

As communities in the Boston region range from relatively rural towns (such as Dover) to larger urban centers (e.g., Boston and Cambridge), the MPO developed an engagement strategy with goals to ensure input was collected from the wide array of diverse perspectives within the MPO’s planning area

Vision Zero Action Plan Engagement Goals

The engagement activities included meetings of a task force; outreach to municipalities; interviews with state and municipal planners, public health practitioners, law enforcement, and public works staff; interviews with stakeholders; public surveys; and a virtual public forum.  A range of communication tools were used to provide updates, collect input, and invite stakeholders to participate in the Action Plan development: the Vision Zero webpage on the MPO’s website, emails to a public distribution list, social media posts, the Community Partners Toolkit, and the Vision Zero email newsletter.

Appendix F describes the purpose of each individual engagement activity or communication tool and provides an overview of the participants involved in each engagement activity, as well as the intended audience or type of attendee.

Vision Zero Task Force

Vision Zero Task Force input was key to shaping an action plan that shifts the region away from the status quo. Task force members brought perspectives from municipalities; school systems; pedestrian, bike, accessibility, and public health organizations; and state and federal transportation agencies. In addition to the full task force, the MPO also designated three subcommittees focused on safety analysis, engagement, and policy. The members of the task force are listed in Table 14 .

Table 14 | Vision Zero Task Force Members

The participation of task force members informed several essential sections of the Action Plan’s development. The task force guided public and stakeholder engagement, the safety analysis, policy and process review, and selection of strategies and countermeasures for implementation.

Who We Heard From

Across all activities, participants included members of the general public, municipal planners and engineers, municipal law enforcement officers, other municipal staff, individuals with disabilities, Aging Service Access Point staff, Chambers of Commerce staff, and members of community-based and advocacy organizations. Table 15 lists all major engagement activities and who was involved.

Table 15 | Vision Zero Action Plan Engagement Activities

Engagement Takeaways

Across all engagement efforts, several key takeaways emerged about dangerous driver behaviors, roadway design and maintenance needs, policies influencing roadway safety, and funding gaps.  The sections below summarize the input we received from stakeholders.

Driver Behavior

People shared their mistrust of other road users. For example, people walking and rolling do not trust that people driving will stop for them at intersections or crosswalks; people riding bicycles do not trust that drivers will give them enough space or keep bicycle lanes free of barriers (such as parked cars); and, people driving do not trust other people on the road to drive unimpaired or distraction-free.

TOP REPORTED DRIVER BEHAVIOR CONCERNS:

• Speeding
• Distracted driving
• Aggressive and reckless driving
• Driver passing too close to people bicycling, walking, or rolling
• Red-light running 

Roadway Design and Maintenance

Stakeholders told us that roadway design and infrastructure conditions play key roles in their travel patterns and mode choices. Roadway designs that allow people driving to speed can decrease awareness of people walking, rolling, and riding bicycles and make people feel unsafe. When people feel unsafe biking, walking or rolling they reported that they are more likely to travel by motor vehicle. At the same time, some people said that when they are driving, they feel unsafe due to confusing roadway geometry coupled with speeding and aggressive behaviors from other people driving.

TOP REPORTED INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS:

• Poor or missing sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes
• Roadway design that feels unsafe
• Lack of visibility at intersections
• Poor drainage (e.g., ice, snow, or water on the roads or sidewalks)

Roadway Policies

Public policy and decision-making processes determine what safety priorities people and organizations will focus on. While the Commonwealth and the Boston region have many proactive and supportive safety policies and processes, stakeholders identified several policy areas where change is needed. Organizations that will lead and support policy changes include the Boston Region MPO, municipalities, MassDOT, the Department of Conservation and Recreation, the Massachusetts General Court, and advocacy and nonprofit organizations.

POLICY AND PROCESS SUGGESTIONS:

• Legalizing automated enforcement for speeding, speeding in work zones, red-light running, and moving violations in bus lanes and bike lanes
• Expanding driver education curriculum and licensing requirements
• Expanding protections for and education about vulnerable road users
• Implementing taxes and fees for large vehicles
• Expanding speed management guidance and implementation at the local level

Funding

Many municipal staff stakeholders, including planners, public works staff, and law enforcement officers, identified a lack of funding and funding inflexibility as critical challenges to undertaking more roadway safety improvements. This sentiment was expressed in many engagement activities, including the municipal survey, virtual office hours, interviews, and roundtables. Stakeholders want to address roadway safety in a holistic and comprehensive manner but have insufficient resources to do so. While quick-build, low-cost improvements can improve safety outcomes in some cases, many proven safety countermeasures are resource- and time-intensive. Staff capacity can also be a challenge, especially for smaller municipal departments with many shared responsibilities.

6 Vision Zero Actions, Policies, and Best Practices

This Vision Zero Action Plan offers a comprehensive set strategies, countermeasures, and implementation resources to address regional traffic safety challenges identified throughout the Action Plan development process.

The Role of Mode Shift in Vision Zero

In addition to making our streets safer through design and policy changes, achieving the goals of the regional Vision Zero Action Plan requires a fundamental shift in how residents move through the Boston region. Historically, our transportation network has been optimized for the speed and volume of single-occupancy vehicles, a design philosophy that inherently increases the frequency and severity of crashes. By actively promoting mode shift—transitioning trips from private automobiles to transit, walking, and biking—we directly reduce "exposure," or the total number of vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Fewer cars on the road translates to fewer opportunities for conflict between vehicles and vulnerable road users. When we prioritize the growth of sustainable modes, we improve mobility for all roadway users and reduce the vehicle traffic that contributes to the dangerous roadway conditions.

The Vision Zero Action Plan integrates this concept by encouraging the redesign of our streets to support multimodal use, utilizing proven safety countermeasures such as separated bike lanes and improved pedestrian crossings. By reallocating road space to accommodate a more diverse split of travel modes, the MPO aims to lower average vehicle speeds and create a self-enforcing environment where human error no longer results in fatal outcomes.

Vision Zero Actions

Achieving Vision Zero in the Boston region necessitates a rethinking of how our streets are designed and how drivers operate their vehicles. While the MPO plays an important role in achieving its regional safety goals through research, education, and engagement, the most impactful actions center on tangible changes to the physical infrastructure. By actively redesigning our streets to prioritize the safety and comfort of those outside a vehicle, we can inherently slow down traffic and create environments that encourage walking, rolling, cycling, and public transit use. This action plan is our first step towards encouraging all municipalities to implement traffic-calming measures that effectively reduce vehicle speeds. It is vital that local policies and practices support, rather than hinder, the deployment of such critical safety interventions across our communities.

The actions discussed in the following tables in this chapter are organized by the six contributing crash factors that are the focus of this Action Plan (Intersections, Roadway Departure, Vulnerable Road Users, Older Drivers, Speeding, and Large Vehicles). These actions include policies, process changes (including education and engagement), and infrastructure strategies to address the top safety concerns in the region.  Each section includes actions that the MPO will take as well as key actions that the MPO encourages municipalities to take over the next 5 years to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our streets. Each action also identifies a lead agency for implementation (either the Boston Region MPO or municipalities) and supporting partners.

Progress Towards Implementation

Actions in the tables are assigned a timeframe: short-term (1–3 years); medium-term (3–5 years); or long-term: 5 or more years.  These designations indicate the target window during which the MPO or its municipal partners aim to initiate or launch a specific strategy. However, these timeframes should be viewed as "start dates" rather than "expiration dates." Because the pursuit of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries is an iterative process, many of the actions listed are not one-time tasks; rather, they represent foundational shifts in policy, design, and engagement that will require sustained effort well beyond their initial implementation window.

A "short-term" designation identifies immediate priorities that must be undertaken to build momentum, but these actions will often be repeated, refined, and scaled throughout the life of the plan. To ensure accountability and transparency, the MPO will utilize an annual reporting framework to measure the progress of each action. This recurring evaluation will allow for the development of evolving "next steps" for implementation, ensuring that the plan remains responsive to new data, emerging technologies, and the unique needs of the region’s communities.

Cross-cutting Actions

Cross-cutting actions span across every emphasis area to reflect the MPO’s commitment to saving lives. Cross-cutting action items reinforce the guiding principles of the Safe System Approach: death and serious injuries are unacceptable, humans make mistakes, humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, safety is proactive, and redundancy is crucial. 

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Intersection Actions

Intersection safety is a cornerstone of any effective action plan, as intersections are frequently points of conflict and high-severity crashes. The goal is to design intersections that are forgiving of human error and minimize vehicle speed involved in potential collisions.

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Roadway Departure Actions

Roadway departure crashes, where a vehicle leaves the traveled way and often strikes a fixed object, overturns, or enters a ditch, are a significant contributor to fatalities and serious injuries. This Action Plan will implement a multifaceted approach to prevent these crashes by recommending more forgiving roadsides, improved driver awareness, and steps to address common contributing factors.

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Vulnerable Road User Actions

Vulnerable road users are disproportionately affected by traffic crashes, often sustaining severe or fatal injuries due to their lack of physical protection. The MPO, through this Action Plan, is committed to creating a transportation system that prioritizes the safety and comfort of all vulnerable road users, making walking, biking, and rolling safe and accessible modes of travel for everyone.

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Older Adults and Older Drivers Actions

Older adults, whether as pedestrians, drivers, or transit users, face unique challenges in the transportation system, often due to vision, hearing, reaction time, or physical mobility. This Action Plan aims to create a transportation environment that is safe, accessible, and accommodating for our aging population, ensuring their continued mobility and independence. The Action Plan’s strategies will address both infrastructure and behavioral aspects to mitigate risks for older adults and older drivers.

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Speeding Actions

Speed is the single most critical factor in crash severity. The faster a vehicle is traveling, the greater the kinetic energy involved in a collision; thus, the higher the likelihood of severe injury or fatality for all road users, especially vulnerable ones. This Action Plan provides for a comprehensive approach to managing speed through infrastructure design, policy changes, and targeted enforcement, ensuring that speeds are safe and appropriate for all roadway contexts.

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Safer Vehicle Actions

Large vehicles, including commercial trucks, buses, and municipal fleets, present unique safety challenges due to their size, weight, blind spots, and longer stopping distances. Crashes involving large vehicles often result in severe outcomes, particularly for vulnerable road users. This Action Plan provides a commitment to mitigating these risks by promoting safer vehicle design, implementing robust fleet policies, and designing infrastructure that accounts for the operational characteristics of large vehicles.

Note:  Short-term timeframes are 1-3 years, medium-term are 3-5 years, and long-term are 5+ years.

Proven Safety Countermeasures and Best Practices

Future Policies

Policies that Require Legislative Changes

Some strategies require legislative changes in the Massachusetts General Court. As Action Plan implementation continues, the MPO will track roadway safety bills and help communicate the role and importance of these policies to stakeholders. Listed below are some of the key laws identified through our research and stakeholder engagement as being important for advancing transportation safety improvements in the Boston region and the Commonwealth. There are several important roadway safety bills currently being considered by the General Court’s Joint Committee on Transportation. Appendix G includes more detail on the policy research conducted for this Action Plan.

• Automated enforcement including for red-light running, speeding, and moving violations in bike and bus lanes
• Primary seat belt usage enforcement for all passengers
• Additional legal protections for vulnerable road users to enhance the 2022 Massachusetts law, An Act to Reduce Traffic Fatalities
• Enhancements to the education and testing requirements for older and younger drivers as specific groups that are more vulnerable to serious crashes

Other Best Practice Policies and Process Changes

In addition to laws currently being considered by the Massachusetts Legislature, the Vision Zero Task Force recommended that the MPO and municipalities remain aware of and consider advocating for the following best practice policies and roadway safety innovations:

• Enact a “superspeeder” law to impose additional, steeper penalties on drivers who exceed the posted speed limit by a particularly high margin.
• Develop and enact a Safe Urban Driving Training and license endorsement for commercial truck drivers.
• Consider approaches to enact higher vehicle-related fees and insurance rates for larger vehicles.
• Enact requirements through the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary education to incorporate requirements for transportation safety education in all grades.
• Research the potential use and benefit of special Operating Under the Influence (OUI) Courts in Massachusetts. Massachusetts has a number of drug courts, but many states have begun leveraging OUI courts to offer individualized supervision and treatment for impaired driving offenders at high risk of reoffending.
• Research the potential benefit of increased Drug Recognition Training. In addition to training police officers as Drug Recognition Experts (DRE), some law enforcement agencies have set goals to have all of their traffic officers certified in Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE), a course offered by the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee.

Funding for Implementation

In addition to the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (see https://www.bostonmpo.org/tip), other programs are available to provide funding to implement projects described in this Action Plan. Projects may be implemented as safety-focused projects or as part of other, broader initiatives, depending on the countermeasure and project.

• The Massachusetts Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program offers funding for transportation safety projects. Municipalities can apply on behalf of public or charter schools partnered with the SRTS program for both larger infrastructure projects and smaller "Signs and Lines" projects, which provide design services and up to $10,000 for low-cost improvements. Additionally, a Bike Rack Grant is available to install bike racks at eligible SRTS partner schools. For more information see the SRTS Engineering webpage.
• MassDOT provides funding for safety related projects through several programs including the Complete Streets Funding Program, Shared Streets & Spaces Program, Local Early and Actionable Planning (LEAP) Program, Chapter 90 Program, and the Community Transit Grant Program. Grant Central is their new online portal for all funding requests.
• The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities offers the Community Development Block Grant Program  for infrastructure projects, including street and sidewalk repairs.
• The Executive Office of Economic Development offers two types of grants for communities planning on implementing safe streets: The Massachusetts Downtown Initiative offers technical assistance grants to assist communities with downtown revitalization, including Complete Streets improvements.
• The MassWorks Infrastructure Program offers capital funds for infrastructure projects.
• The Office of Grants and Research offers Highway Safety Grants for behavioral highway safety initiatives.
• The Department of Conversation and Recreation offers MassTrails Grants for recreational trail and shared-use pathway projects.
• U.S. DOT offers a range of competitive grants that may be applied to safety initiatives, including the Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP), Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Grants, the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant Program, the Railroad Crossing Elimination (RCE) Grant Program, and the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program.

7 Progress and Transparency

Achieving the goal of eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes by 2050 will require collaboration and sustained effort among all regional transportation safety stakeholders, including planners, road owners, maintenance, law enforcement, first responders, the public, advocacy groups, engineers, policymakers, emergency medical services, and community-based organizations.

Boston Region MPO’s Role in Improving Transportation Safety

The MPO will continue to play a critical role in enhancing transportation safety by leading implementation of several Vision Zero action items to advance the region toward a Safe System.

The MPO will utilize this Action Plan to track and report regional safety progress based on Action Plan goals, using both outputs and outcomes on an annual basis. Outputs track and report on the progress of the MPO in supporting, promoting, and leading safety initiatives, programs, policies, plans, and projects. Outcomes evaluate the effectiveness of safety programs and investments in reducing crash frequency and severity, and evaluation findings are used to strengthen successful strategies and revise or discontinue ineffective ones.  

In addition to tracking the MPO’s progress on the actions in Chapter 6, the MPO will track performance annually through quantitative analysis of the performance metrics listed in Table 16 and Table 17. While similar metrics are tracked statewide in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan, these metrics will be tracked specifically for the Boston region and publicly reported by the MPO.

Table 16 | Vision Zero Action Plan Performance Metrics: Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes

Notes: Population from 2020 US Census is 3,357,194.

Vulnerable road users include categories from MassDOT IMPACT crash database of bicyclists, pedestrians, other vulnerable road users, and persons on personal conveyance.

Source: MassDOT IMPACT crash database.

Table 17 | Vision Zero Action Plan Performance Metrics: Crash Emphasis Areas

Source: MassDOT IMPACT crash database.

8 Next Steps

The Boston Region Vision Zero Action Plan represents a critical step forward in our commitment to eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2050. Through a thorough analysis of crash data, extensive public and stakeholder engagement, and a review of policy and infrastructure needs, we identified key areas of concern such as intersections, roadway departures, and the heightened vulnerability of pedestrians and cyclists. This Action Plan is a regional roadmap built on the Safe System Approach, recognizing that human error is inevitable and that our transportation system must be designed with multiple layers of protection to ensure everyone's safety.

Moving forward, the success of this Vision Zero Action Plan hinges on sustained collaboration and proactive implementation. The Boston Region MPO will continue to play a central role in coordinating efforts, embedding Safe System principles into future planning, and prioritizing investments in high-risk areas. We will also focus on educating the public, evaluating our progress against clear performance metrics, and researching and providing information to stakeholders about necessary legislative changes. This plan provides a regional framework, but its impact will be measured by the collective actions taken by all stakeholders—from state agencies and municipalities to community organizations and individual road users.

chieving Vision Zero is a shared responsibility, demanding a unified commitment from everyone who uses and shapes our roadways. We urge all stakeholders to actively engage with the strategies and countermeasures outlined in this plan. By working together, leveraging the identified data, and adopting the Safe System Approach, we can transform our streets into safer, more equitable spaces for all. Your active participation is not just encouraged, it is essential to reach Vision Zero in the Boston region.

Boston Region Vision Zero Action Plan:

A Roadmap to Safer Streets

For more information, visit our website!