(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)
Portland will follow in the steps of Chicago and New York City by setting a schedule to completely eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries no matter the cost, the city’s transportation director said in a new interview.
In a two-year action plan a city contractor is about to begin preparing, “Vision Zero will be incorporated for certain,” Portland Bureau of Transportation director Leah Treat said in an interview with the KBOO Bike Show broadcast Feb. 5.
“Vision Zero,” as the philosophy is known, was first introduced in Sweden in 1997 and has spread to several U.S. cities in recent years. In 2012 it was embraced by the man Treat describes as her mentor, former Chicago Transportation Commissioner Gabe Klein, and it’s the centerpiece of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s transportation policy.
Vision Zero “moves forward from the premise that every traffic crash is preventable and that every injury and life lost on a city’s streets is a fundamental civic failure,” New York City advocacy group Transportation Alternatives wrote in an essay last year trumpeting de Blasio’s campaign endorsement of the concept.
Portland traffic killed 35 people last year while they were in motor vehicles or on foot, including 10 people who were walking across the street.
Though we haven’t yet seen what the city’s commitment will look like, this is the most substantive pledge we’ve heard yet from Treat about improving safety on local streets.
It’s worth noting that the idea of Vision Zero is different from simply making efforts to reduce traffic fatalities, a policy that every city pursues and every politician endorses. Its core principle is that no price, financial or otherwise, is unreasonable if the project would decrease the probability of serious traffic injury.
For example, various branches of the federal government calculate that $20 million, for example, would be too much to spend to prevent a human life from being lost, while $1 million would be worth spending. “Vision Zero” is, among other things, a rejection of that comparison.
The Chicago and New York Vision Zero plans, both of which aim to eliminate fatalities within 10 years, were celebrated by safety advocates there. Last month a trio of San Francisco city supervisors called for a similar plan, though the city hasn’t yet acted on their proposal.
Here’s what Treat said on the subject last week, in response to a question from her interviewer, former Oregon Walks Director (and longtime Vision Zero fan) Steph Routh:
Vision Zero is something that I articulated to my staff within my first week of being here. one person being killed on our roads is too many. There’s no acceptable number of traffic fatalities. I think you have to say Vision Zero. And it’s definitely our philosophy as we’re approaching all of our transportation projects, is you start with the pedestrian and build from there. And in that manner you capture the safety aspects for all users of the roadway. We are working on selecting a consultant — it should be announced in the next week or two — to do our two-year action plan, and in that two-year action plan we will be outlining pedestrian safety goals and Vision Zero will be incorporated for certain. It’s identifying the steps of how we’re going to get there and it’s identifying the time frame. I’m committed to Vision Zero.
Treat’s boss, Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick, said in the same interview that he wasn’t aware of the phrase “Vision Zero.” Routh summarized it as “the idea that any one person killed on our roads is one too many.”
“Oh, that,” Novick said. “That sounds like a pretty good vision.”
We’ll be watching with interest to see how this proposal develops. You can listen to the full show on KBOO’s website and PortlandTransport.com.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Inspiring.
I love the direction but I cringe at the semantics.
While our roads can and should be made much safer, it is deranged to expect that we will reach absolute zero, or that we will actually spend more and more money, “no matter the cost”. To continue repeating such claims damages credibility.
If it was really top priority “at any cost”, they would shut down the roads, or ban autos, or something equally ridiculous. But they won’t. Because this vision is just PR hyperbole.
I thought the same thing about the “no matter the cost” phraseology. As you say, want an activity or behavior to stop posing a danger? Ban the activity/behavior. But that won’t happen–and I should hope not. There will always be cases where somebody has a tire blowout or some mechanical failure that results in a crash with another vehicle; there will always be risk.
It might be more effective to aim for a “Vision Zero” in which Zero perpetrators of dangerous traffic behavior get away with it Scot free… Or one in which Zero traffic participants thought it was OK to endanger or threaten others with a vehicle… Or even that you had to miss exactly Zero points on a more rigorous driver’s test before you could be licensed…
To be clear, “no matter the cost” is my phrase, not Treat’s. I used it because that’s the meaning of “Vision Zero” as I understand it.
there is no need to ban motorists…aggressive automated seed enforcement would hugely reduce human road kill. unfortunately the state of oregon imposes morally repugnant barriers against inexpensive and effective speed enforcement.
Exactly. If you want “Vision Zero”, you eliminate the automobile. Is that realistic?
“If you want “Vision Zero”, you eliminate the automobile. Is that realistic?”
What is realistic about 33,000 people killed every year & 2.4 million injured? Is that just collateral damage, something we should take in stride because, after all, those in cars need to go places? I have to say, your dismissal of this as unrealistic reinforces for me the need for precisely this kind of rethinking.
Zero is not possible, but as a vision, being the best possible result, is where we should aim. ‘Only three a year” just doesn’t cut it.
Zero fatalities is possible and has been done! Here in Portland, Oregon it will take an entire rethinking of our transportation system. Vision Zero puts human safety above automobile throughput and speed, which, of course, is the reverse of what we have now.
Very encouraging. Little too abstract to say in operational terms what this means. I would like to see a definition. Given that a fatality/injury has occurred at intersection x, what concrete projects will the city commit funds in order to prevent it from happening again?
“Portland traffic killed 35 people last year”
or
“Portland drivers killed 35 people last year”?
people driving too fast killed 35 people in portland.
(it would also be interesting to determine how many of these people were actually portland residents.)
Hey, I take your point and it’s a good one. But part of the point of Vision Zero as I understand it is to (without absolving drivers of responsibility for their choices) acknowledge that they’re not the only ones responsible, and that the organization that designs a road also has responsibility for the ways people are likely to use it. That’s why I phrased this sentence this way.
How about the organizations that enforce the laws? Police who don’t cite until 11 over posted and judges that forgive portions of speeding tickets.
Red light cameras at all major intersections, speed cameras on all major arterials, and I increased crosswalk enforcement. Let’s make this happen.
The legislature limits the placement of speed cameras to 2 hours at a time. In the past, they have limited the number of red-light cameras.
Eliminate drunk drivers? Good luck with that.
Vision Zero: Portland’s view of anything east of 82nd.
Mossby “gets it.”
We get it – Portland often prioritized the city center and inner neighborhoods. But Vision Zero is a concept and program that can only lead to more focus on east Portland. That is where the major issues with street safety are, and that is the part of town that could see the most safety benefits from rethinking our streets.
I am not against reducing automobile accidents- it’s just a knock on the horrid attitude of Ms. Treat towards the outer districts. (I am a big on the Hunger Games meme).
You can read more about Commissioner Novick’s thoughts on safety here (about half way down, under ‘traffic safety’):
http://bikewalkvote.org/candidates/portland-city-council-position-4/steve-novick.html
I’m not sure that Vision Zero demands unlimited money to stop every death, and more importantly, I don’t think it’s necessary.
99% of traffic deaths can be prevented by cheap changes that make drivers slow down and drive cautiously.
Consider: how many people died in parking lots in Portland last year (answer: 0)? That’s because drivers go slowly and carefully in parking lots, expecting to see cars pulling out suddenly, and people suddenly walking out from between.
How many people died in downtown Portland from traffic last year during the day, when the lights (timed for 12 mph) keep speeds low and there is lots of foot traffic?
Reduce all streets to only 1 lane of car traffic each way. Design all road for 20 mph max speeds and 15 mph average speeds, thru narrowing lanes, changing traffic signal timing, adding street parking or moving it over and making parking-buffered bike lanes, turn extra lanes into bus-only lanes, etc.
Most of this could be done with pain, signs and electronics, for a few 10s of millions of dollars a year, so it would be cost effective even if only 20 lives a year were saved out of 35. And transit-only lanes would save Trimet millions of dollars thru higher ridership and lower costs from buses stuck in traffic.
The real expense is political capital and willpower: PBOT needs to show that this is possible and that it is worth slowing down cars and inconveniencing drivers to save lives and build a better city.
Yes, this. All it would take is driving at 20 instead of 30, with strict enforcement, and fatalities would become extremely rare. It wouldnt even be a huge speed reduction, since you could eliminate some stops also. And we wouldnt need expensive bike infrastructure, since riding along with cars that go 20 (max) is easy.
Again, those ideas essentially eliminate the car as we know it. Really, one-lane roads? Does road rage count as part of the “Vision Zero” philosophy?
Why the defeatist attitude, AA in PDX? The car as we know it is to a considerable extent the problem here, so unless you recalibrate your definition you’re not going to like anything that comes of this.
Joseph E said one lane of traffic in each direction rather than just one lane of traffic.
Sweden’s blood alcohol limit is 0.02. Sweden has put a high priority on traffic safety for years. It’s hardly surprising that they are making progress.
Will Oregon and Portland make any progress? I’m hopeful, but doubtful.
JR, the food and beverage lobby has its hooks in the state legislature.
A bar tender who serves the last drink to a drunken driver is personally sanctioned, and the bar can be held liable for all the damage the driver did. But in the new Portland, the city does not pursue the bar. No way would we sanction Clarke-Lewis or Blue Hour for the fact that Gus Van Sant drove in downtown Portland at several times the legal limit ( I was surprised he could stumble to his car). (Caveat: while it was reported that Gus VanSant drove when he should have been passed out in his own vomit, I do not know the actual point of over-service. Those bars are illustrative only).
I am not sure the city is really serious- this is more ADHD on the part of Novick, who lacks real focus.
If I were the Mayor, I would simply announce that the Portland Police will be closely investigating the source of alcohol for drunk drivers and will take action and anyone who over-served a guest or patron. That would take care perhaps 25% of fatalities right there. Shut down one yuppy venue and the rest will get scared and behave.
Unless the city addresses over-service in bars, we will know that this
is just this week’s feel-good aspirational goal that will never be achieved.
Make it harder to get a drivers license. Motor vehicle operators should have to prove that they are professional level experts before being allowed to operate a motor vehicle in public, and undergo psychological testing as well. Increase fees for licensing, remove all subsidies for noncommercial fuel use, charge motor vehicle users direct use fees that reflect the unsubsidized cost of infrastructure and infrastructure repair. Require comprehensive insurance and mandatory blood alcohol test equipment in every car. The ignored statistic of socialized habitual automobile use is that the vast majority of people using them are crippled by their very convenience, mentally and physically.
Your draconian and punitive ideas are a joke, right? Psychological testing?
You do know that you hurt the image of cycling in the broader community
with these over-the-top anti-car remarks?
On the other hand, maybe we should do what you want. Then the city will shrink in size as employers leave (many companies have employees running around in cars).
Vision Zero for New York means red-light enforcement stings for cyclists, police brutality of jay-walkers, and no charges filed against killer drivers. So, no thanks to that.
In New York City, it looks like “Vision Zero” means a crack down on pedestrians!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/nyregion/vow-to-end-traffic-deaths-vs-reality-of-city-streets.html
it’s nice to see PBOT thinking about Vision Zero but they don’t have the power to make it happen…
yes, they can try as best they can with the portion of the transportation system that they control, but they don’t control enough to force it to happen…
the only way we’ll know if they’re serious is to see what they do after the next fatality…
Don’t underestimate the symbolic power they could exercise. How about Novick’s pointing out that ODOT is broke, that even the most modest version of the CRC will doom everything and anything else transportation-related we may wish to do (we’re still & always the tax payers & bond repayers), and so the first thing to be scrapped is the CRC (and the hundreds of millions spent, being spent, on studying it). Next we’re not going to widen the Rose Quarter because that also does nothing for Vision Zero, and siphons money away from a more people focused vision.
You see this is not necessarily about building or spending, but Not Building and Not Spending. Double dividend, or perhaps even triple.
Another slogan just like “no child left behind” and ” the city that works”. Good intentions…
What a laugh. We won’t have funds for better sidewalks where the
peasants live (i.e. those who don’t live within a mile of the city center).
Why? Because Novick can’t say no to downtown bike share, a new streetcar, light rail to Tualatin, a new municipal fitness center at SE 12th and Powell etc. Talk is cheap, Ms. Leah Treat. I
f you don’t say no to the streetcar, we know that Vision Zero will have zero effect because it takes money that has been designated for the pleasure of your boss Homer Williams.
In the 70’s and 80’s, 1 mile from the city center was where the peasants lived. Some of us never left.
I agree that it is just a slogan. The problem is that autos are driven by free agents, individuals who have various preoccupations and abilities to concentrate, skills or lack of skills, respect for the law and for others or lack thereof. You cannot control everything every driver does. You can get better at training and licensing, drunk driving enforcement, and so on, but until the average driver is trained as well as the average airline pilot, there will be accidents and sometimes fatalities. This doesn’t mean the BOT should not keep trying to make our streets safer.
Vision Zero does not mean unlimited money to stop traffic deaths. That’s one of the most common misconceptions as we discuss VZ here in New York.
What it means is prioritizing public safety over personal convenience.
So if losing one or two parking spaces means that a few dozen people might not be able to park their cars on a given street in the course of a day, that has to be weighed against the dozens of other people who might benefit from daylighting a crosswalk. The cost to this improvement is next to nothing.
If a corridor sees heavy bike traffic, it might mean slowing down car traffic so that drivers and cyclists can more peacefully share the space. That’s not a solution that necessarily costs money, but it does mean that city government has to take a moral stand when people complain that their car trips might be lengthened by 30 seconds.
Vision Zero also doesn’t mean that a city can eliminate reckless, distracted, or drunk driving any more than it can eliminate jaywalking or “scofflaw” cyclists. What it does mean is recognizing that since humans make mistakes and will continue to do so, roads can be designed so that the consequences of those mistakes are less severe than they are now.
Glad to have your voice and take on this, Doug. It’s my understanding that VZ means prioritizing public safety over every other tradeoff, which is why I specified “financial and otherwise.” There are cheap and/or economically productive ways to achieve VZ goals (like road diets), and there are also expensive and/or economically costly ways (like severely restricting movement), but both seem consistent with the principle that preventing traffic injuries is always the first priority of a city’s transportation system.
Then there are things like, say, removing paid auto parking to create protected bike lanes, which certainly improves safety but might or might not be bad for business in an area. VZ as I understand it says this is always the right choice. And maybe it’s right!
As you said on Twitter, VZ is a philosophy, not just a policy direction. As you might have picked up, I’m a little dubious of the philosophy myself, but I’m trying to fully describe its implications so we can have an honest conversation about whether it’s actually being enacted or not.
Michael, I am definitely not questioning your understanding of VZ!
My concern is that outside of advocates and “inside baseball” types like many of your readers, few people, especially politicians, get what VZ means.
VZ is a philosophy, yes, but it’s also a philosophy with *very* specific tenets. It’s somewhat like the difference between pledging to be more spiritual versus choosing a specific religion to follow. Saying that one traffic death is too many just means you have to try hard to reduce traffic deaths and hopefully make it work. (But, hey, if it doesn’t, A for effort!) Saying that you want to implement Vision Zero means practicing a core set of principles.
As Transportation Alternatives describes it, “Under Vision Zero, safety is prioritized over all other objectives of the transportation system, including mobility.
How many politicians are willing to look at a business owner and say, “No, sir/ma’am, but one parking space in front of your store is not more important than the safety of the 100 people who cross the street there every hour.” When politicians sign on to Vision Zero, that’s what they’re signing up for.
Yep. VZ is certainly not what Portland is doing today and I do hope that further reporting by us and others can better explain what it means.
“Under Vision Zero, safety is prioritized over all other objectives of the transportation system, including mobility.”
What the hell does that mean? Can’t we be “safer” if we eliminate bikes and pedestrians in certain areas? I’m sure we’d all agree we’d be safer if we just ban the automobile completely.
The way I am interpreting this, is close to how I worded the engineering request at PBOT pertaining to the Burnside High Crash Corridor Program and its “Safety Modernization.” They are presenting their results next month to North Tabor N.A.m (East 41st to 71st).
I specifically stated that in the higher parking demand stretch between 48th and 53rd the question is: “IF we can save a row of parking without causing the traffic light to fail or cause too much diversion. If not, multi-modal improvements and safety would need to be prioritized over parking.” I KNOW that at least on the North Tabor side we would prefer parking elimination with pedestrian islands and bike lanes over the status quo. Our first meeting for our tentatively named group I am chairing called “CURBS” “Citizens Uniting around Burnside Safety”… or something like that…. is scheduled for March 10th.
While I also can’t realistically conceive of ZERO fatalities and injuries, I think we need that vision to hold onto. And obviously it has to be the goal. Not Vision Less-Than-There-Are-Now or Vision 100. One IS too many. Utah, Arizona, and Nevada have Zero Fatalities (my personal favorite, because they seem to be more active and are showing their results), Washington has Target Zero.
Here is a link to a video about Vision Zero with 6 local sheriffs: http://www.co.clark.wa.us/sheriff/community/index.html. Click on Vision Zero.
“Treat’s boss, Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick, said in the same interview that he wasn’t aware of the phrase “Vision Zero.” Routh summarized it as “the idea that any one person killed on our roads is one too many.”
“Oh, that,” Novick said. “That sounds like a pretty good vision.”
Looks like Steve Novick is as aware of what his employees are doing as John Kitzhaber is with his Care Oregon employees! And if it included a way to raise some “fees” on citizens, Steve Novick would be ALL for that too.
Novick is too busy lying on grant applications . Now, what is the name of the sponsor he identified in the November PBOT application for 4 million dollars for bike share? Oh- wait- there was no sponsor. He & Leah Treat lied.
Meanwhile, at ODOT headquarters, Vision Thirty is unveiled.
Well Portland hold onto your respective hats…as per Ms. Treat’s past this is another “catchy” program that sounds good in the press but when you dig deep its not funded and will never really be fully inplemented. Let’s be real who does not want to absolutely eliminate traffic deaths of any nature? A few months back there was just a panic as to where Portland would find funding for its transportation infrastructure repairs..but somehow this “catchy” heart tugging program will be funded fully no matter the cost!…..many who know Ms. Treat’s background and real capabilities not the out of proportioned resume she used for her Portland interview it seems which if one really digs deep enough will find the resume thus her abilities are not accurately stated in her resume or past job experience…this program seems like another “catchy” phrase like the “first 100 days” lines used in DC and Chicago. I tis noteworthy to mention those cities both ran her out of town in (2) to (2 1/2) years time because smoke and mirrors always gets exposed eventually…..A more reasonable approach seems to involve infrastructure changes, community and driver involvment and education. Beware, however, Ms. Treat may try the installation of “red light cameras” shortly after annoucing this with the same ploy used in Chicago where they tried to sell it as a it will help eliminate fatalities when what they were really trying to do is obtain more revenues and fatalities were the least of the concerns…the cameras were all put in lower income areas of Chicago not in the more upscale or also in the more upscale areas as though only those with less means drive crazy…..anyway, Portlanders you seem smart and informed….hold Ms. Treat’s feet to the fire on this until you see her feel the heat….why? Otherwise, this is just another political “catchy” program with no teeth……Good luck!
A good start to VZ would be to lower the speed limit to 35 or better, 30 on all arterials in outer E. Portland. Glisan, Halsey in particular still have limits of 40 or 45, last I checked.
Their first test:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/02/pedestrian_dies_in_se_portland.html
Sigh.
http://systemicfailure.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/portland-had-zero-bike-fatalities-in-2013/
but fatalities of people on bikes and motorcycles and walking had increased nationwide. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811856.pdf
Quote:
“Its core principle is that no price, financial or otherwise, is unreasonable if the project would decrease the probability of serious traffic injury.”
Good thing the goobermint has the money printing press! While preventing traffic injury is an excellent goal, reasonable people know there is a limit to the amount of money available to achieve the goal; and we are probably over the limit already.
The amazing thing is that many cyclists think it is the responsibility of goobermint to make them safe and that they can go out in their drab hard-to-see clothing, no lights, etc and expect to be safe in congested city traffic. It’s laughable.
Hey city leaders, the beat goes on:
http://www.katu.com/news/local/Pedestrian-killed-in-Southeast-Portland-hit-and-run-245718651.html
Gosh, Portlanders you are catching on faster than expected….watch the Grant Application process carefully, the “we need to install Red Light cameras to help vision zero” and also the Procurement processes as closely as you all are capable of doing. Why? Ms. Treat was known for her number her honesty or integrity in Chicago or DC for that matter. She was surrounded by those who had little of either as well so she did not need to duck and cover until she got to brazen and she will give it another (6) months all things come to the light and the prediction she will to Portland also. Her main management strategy is to surround herself with “those she can trust” meaning friends, family or young right out of college idealist whose first introduction to government will be her and well let’s just say, I would stay as far away from Ms. Treat’s style of “good government” as possible as it mirrors quite nicely the “House of Cards” with Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright on Netflix now….catch an episode and I guarantee anyone can see the parallels………she was known for manpulation of budgets and grant irregularities in Chicago…..keep your viligance……she may have changed since she was under investigation in Chicago…..but usually an old dog is hard to learn new Tricks…….Good luck Portlanders really hope she changed her ways but so far looks like the same song and dance just a new City…………….
Did you know that she lied on a state grant application for bike share funds? Said that bike share had a sponsor and the money was committed. This was a material lie and she knew it. I know it’s just a 4 million dollar grant application, but the outright lie speaks volumes about Novick & Treat. Raise your hand if you have knowingly lied on a mortgage or grant application. I sure haven’t. Last I checked, that was a bar complaint (Novick) and just flat out dishonest (both).
Oregon Mamacita — Yes she has lied on applications in DC and Chicago as well and yes lied not misstated she intentionally placed incorrect informaiton on forms…left DC before IG continued on and left Chicago apparently as the heat was beginning to hit her and her boss Mr. Klein. As an example, Mr. Klein was materially involved in ZIP cars as DC obtained the ZIP car contract after contract was implemented Mr. Klein soon became the Head of Dept of Transportation in DC. ..there were Grant, Employment , Budget and Procurement questions as well as Procurement investigations surrounding ALTA bikes and the other Bike contracts in DC apparently Mr. Klein was also linked through a shell company to the Bike Companies that received multi-million dollar contracts in DC during the start of the investigations Mr. Klein and crew (Ms. Treat and Scott Kubley) left for Chicago so the DC investigations ceased…apparently the same shady practices continued in Chicago and investigations into procurement action ensued there and again, Mr. Klein for no apparent reason resigned (rumor is was forced too) and Ms. Treat was fortunate enough to get a lead on the job in Portland not for her achievements or “talent” but because of who she knew that knows the Portland folks…Ms. Treat knows Dan Tangerhlini the GSA Head (he was Treat’s and Kubley’s boss at DDOT and garned the contracts with Klein before he took DDOT job in DC and CDOT job in Chicago) and so does Mr. Klein and Mr. Kubley…”Oh what tangled webs we weave when we practice to DC” Sorry but watch the “House of Cards” these folks all should be in starring roles…they are not “good government” or at least not what it seems Portlanders want or desire of “good government” nor any of us anywhere for that matter…but again, maybe after the near nab in Chicago they have turned on the straight and narrow….I sure hope so from the comments Portlanders seem rational, involved in their community and decent…this crew I have to say was far from “good government.” Good luck and maybe you can contact a non-political/non-partisan with no ax to grind source to investigate those Grant Claims……if there was no wrongdoing than there should not be anything for Ms. Treat or he boss to worry about……my guess is the start of an investigation will keep them up at night….
We would not have to spend millions of dollars to save people if:
Drivers started paying attention.
How do we do that here in Portland?
Hold the Portland Police Dept. liable for their lackluster enforcement of the laws in place to save lives.
Start firing those we pay to do a job that are not doing it, and hire those that will.
Oregon Mamacita — I wrote a rather long answer to your prior post regarding Grant Application irregularities. It is being moderated by this site which in hindsight is probably okay as I read over it, I realize that although every stitch of what was written was accurate and their is a trail to substantiate the behaviors referenced in the post. In hindsight, this is a site interested in Biking. With that said, I would simply write, there were irregularities in DC and Chicago with regard to Grant application, Budgetary presentations and funding transfers and with many personnel appointments and firings that involve Ms. Treat and her prior bosses. However, at the end of the day none of this is relevant to Portland unless it is also exhibited in Portland’s political system which it seems it may be in less than a year since Ms. Treat’s tenure has begun which, again, those familiar with her are far than surprised at seeing. If you have seen grant application irregularities best to send what you have to a press person aka investigative reporter with no ax to grind who simply interested in the facts and who you trust…send it anonymously. A contact has indicted that OregonLive may not be your first choice for reasons reading their posts you can probably figure out. If nothing turns up from a thorough investigation than nothing turns up. My guess is at this point tracks have been well covered but smetimes those who feel they are the smartest in the room tend not to be that smart or thorough. Good luck Portlanders. I hope pedestrian safety improves, your biking aspirations meet their full potential for all citizens and most of all Ms. Treat and crew have mended their ways so that truly “good government” is what you experience during her tenure and certainly not what we witnessed in Chicago or DC. Take care!
Leah Treat,
below are two quotes from an Australian paper about Vision Zero:
“Vision Zero focuses on the inherent safety of the road transport system, as well as safe use of the system. Given no change to the inherent safety of the system, the only radical way to drop the road toll is to reduce travel speeds. If this does not seem acceptable, especially as speeds would have to be dropped substantially, the alternative is to invest to improve the inherent safety of the system, with a more or less given mobility. These investments will be mainly directed towards the infrastructure.”
and:
“In the short term, the implication of Vision Zero in Victoria would be to invest differently into road traffic infrastructure. In order to make a substantial change to safety within a reasonable time, large investments would be needed, mostly related to traffic calming, improved intersections and well designed barriers on high-speed roads. Speed limits would need to be reduced in areas where improving the infrastructure is not an option.”
from here: http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/papers/visionzero.html
Can you give us an update on how your Vision Zero work is going here in the Portland area?
Thanks very much.