SCM1002 is a Senate concurrent memorial urging the President and Congress to eliminate the Vision Zero and “safe systems” approach to transportation planning and federal transportation funding. The memorial argues that Vision Zero has not improved safety in U.S. cities and instead has contributed to higher fatalities, slower emergency response, reduced roadway capacity, and transportation policies that favor lower speeds, traffic calming, and multimodal street design over traditional engineering-based approaches.
The measure asks federal officials to replace Vision Zero with transportation policy that emphasizes sound engineering, flexibility, innovation, and what the memorial describes as reliable safety outcomes without compromising individual freedom or economic efficiency. It also directs the Arizona Secretary of State to transmit the memorial to federal leadership and Arizona’s congressional delegation.
Impact
Because this is a concurrent memorial rather than a statutory bill, SCM1002 does not change Arizona law or create enforceable state requirements. Its practical effect is to express the Legislature’s position to Congress and the President, seeking changes in federal transportation policy and funding priorities. The memorial specifically targets Vision Zero and safe systems concepts as they relate to roadway design, speed limits, traffic calming, multimodal planning, and grant conditions tied to transportation projects.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately favorable support in the Legislature. It passed the Senate and House on third reading, though with notable opposition in both chambers, indicating that the issue was politically divisive rather than unanimous. The committee and floor votes suggest that supporters viewed the memorial as a defense of engineering-based roadway policy and mobility, while opponents were likely concerned about rejecting a safety framework widely associated with reducing traffic deaths and injuries.
Contention
The main point of contention is Vision Zero itself: supporters of the memorial argue it is ideological, overly rigid, anti-car, and harmful to emergency response and roadway efficiency, while critics likely see it as a safety-oriented approach that prioritizes reducing fatalities for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. Another disputed issue is whether lower speed limits, road diets, and multimodal street design improve safety or instead create congestion and unintended risks. The memorial also raises tension between transportation efficiency and safety, and between local engineering discretion and federal funding conditions.