The Portland City Auditor has released a report on the transportation bureau’s Vision Zero program. Vision Zero, a framework for decision-making with the goal of no traffic deaths, was adopted by Portland City Council as a goal in 2016. Since then, the annual fatality trendline has spiked upward. The auditor noted progress on some safety projects; but found incomplete work on other fronts. The report says the Portland Bureau of Transportation needs to refine its approach to equity and, “systematically evaluate whether its safety projects reduce traffic deaths and serious injury crashes.”
For several years now, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has weathered criticism about its Vision Zero program. The idea, adopted from road safety experts in Sweden, first came to town in 2010 when a public health researcher visited Portland and called the question: “Why do we allow these deaths to occur?” The idea grabbed hold of cycling and transportation advocates were eager to have a mechanism to build urgency for safer street designs and more human-centered mobility policies. By 2015, Vision Zero had firmly ensconced itself as one of the top priorities at PBOT.
Nine years later, the Vision Zero is more commonly the punchline of criticisms than the proud rallying cry many of us hoped it would be. While I quibble with the lazy scapegoating and lack of self-reflection from many who question its value as an organizing principle, the facts are inescapable. Whatever PBOT is doing is not keeping up with the threats posed on our streets by dangerous driving. When Vision Zero first gained favor in 2010, we had just 26 people die on Portland streets. We’ve averaged around 70 fatalities for the past three years and are on track for another tragically high tally this year.
The audit focused on PBOT’s Vision Zero work since 2019 when the bureau made it a key part of their strategic plan and council adopted an update on the program. In that 2019 update, PBOT listed for main strategies: protect pedestrians, reduce speeds citywide, design streets to protect human lives; and create a culture of shared responsibility. The audit assessed progressed on the first three of those strategies.
When it comes to protecting pedestrians, the report gave a mixed review. PBOT completed key projects like new signal timing and traffic calming projects, but hasn’t added as many streetlights or filled as many crossing gaps as their plan calls for.
The next critique from the report won’t come as a surprise to anyone: The Auditor found that PBOT has done a good job reducing speed limits, but hasn’t done enough to make sure they’re enforced — either by automated cameras or via police. In the first seven years of the speed camera program, PBOT had installed just nine cameras at five locations. Officials have blamed everything from contractor and supplier issues, to design problems, vandalism, and electrical challenges for the delay. The logjams appeared to be resolved last year.
The best grades given to PBOT in this report are in their efforts to redesign streets and corridors. “The bureau did well in most of its strategy to design streets to be safer for everyone,” the report states.
While its clear PBOT has ticked off many important boxes on their Vision Zero plan, the main takeaway of the Auditor’s report is that PBOT isn’t doing enough to prove the projects are actually making roads safer. Not only is PBOT not do routine systematic evaluations of completed projects, the Auditor said, “We found confusion within the Bureau as to what constitutes a Vision Zero project.”
Here’s more from the report:
Without systemic evaluation of safety outcomes, the Bureau is missing the opportunity to create more alignment between the work they do on safety projects and the overall goal of Vision Zero. A more systematic approach would allow trends to be identified and analyzed to better understand the outcomes of completed projects, and which may need to be altered or dropped. As traffic deaths continue to increase it is vital that the Bureau consistently evaluate completed safety projects so they can see which are working best at shifting the trend towards the intended goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries.
Given how important equity has become as a “north star” for PBOT in recent years, the report’s advice on the subject is notable. The Auditor says PBOT’s current approach to making sure safety focuses on areas with a higher percentage of low-income people and Portlanders of color, puts too much emphasis on large-scale corridor projects. The report says PBOT should focus on a more micro level. This insight came from audit staff who joined a series of community walks in east Portland and learned:
There are many dynamics at play within the city that impact where people live, play and congregate, which present more opportunities for equitable safety improvements if other sources of data, such as community stories, are used. The current methodology for incorporating equity in its decision-making may prevent the Bureau from considering other opportunities to address safety needs equitably, such as smaller-scale improvements that may evolve out of these other sources.
The City Auditor made three recommendations for PBOT: create a plan that closely ties safety projects to expected outcomes; install all promised speed cameras; and make sure a revised Vision Zero approach zooms into “smaller-scale improvements” to address equity goals.
None of the findings will come as a surprise to PBOT staff or leadership. My hunch is many folks in the bureau are glad to have this audit as a way to get more attention on their work. It will be interesting to see how Vision Zero changes and how these audit recommendations are operationalized under the new government structure and their new boss, Deputy City Administrator of the Public Works Service Area Priya Dhanapal.
— View the report and learn more about the audit.
