Portland City Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane is about to take her commitment to traffic safety to the next level. In what she’s calling “Vision Zero Week,” the councilor will preside over a resolution next Wednesday (September 17th) that will reaffirm the city’s ambitious proclamation issued one decade ago.
Inspired in part by her connection to Jeanie Diaz, a southeast Portland librarian who was killed by a reckless driver in 2023, Councilor Koyama Lane elevated Vision Zero during the city’s most recent budget cycle. While her resolution does not obligate any funding for capital projects or programs, it would make significant administrative changes that could increase political urgency around the issue.
And Vision Zero needs all the help it can get. When the proclamation passed in 2015, advocates wanted the city to include a firm date to reach zero deaths. That date? 2025. Today we’ve still got way too many people killed while using Portland roads. And we’re still searching for answers as evidenced by a newly formed City Club research project that will study Vision Zero for the next 12 months.
If passed, the resolution would do two main things. It move the lead Vision Zero staffer from the Portland Bureau of Transportation into the Deputy City Administrator’s office. As we’ve seen with a plan hatched by an office overseen by Mayor Keith Wilson — and pushed for by City Administrator Mike Jordan — that would have removed traffic diverters in northwest, there’s a clear need for a stronger PBOT presence in the DCA’s office.
The resolution would also establish a new Vision Zero Task Force, “focused on identifying actions to meet the City’s goals in eliminating traffic deaths.” PBOT used to have a Vision Zero Task Force but they disbanded it in 2021. Also unlike the previous task force, this new one will not include reps from advocacy groups or individual road safety activists. Instead, it will be comprised solely of city staff and will connect with external groups or subject-matter experts only “where appropriate.”
Councilor Koyama Lane released a video on social media last week encouraging Portlanders to testify on the resolution and to wear orange when they show up. She’s also promoting three events for Vision Zero Week: on Wednesday there’s a ride to City Hall and a parade planned before the council meeting, on Thursday Portland will host the Age-Friendly Oregon summit, and Friday is the annual PARK(ing) Day where Koyama Lane says she is “taking to the streets” to convert a car parking spot on SE Stark and 30th into a community space with road safety-related activities.
I also hear Koyama Lane would love to meet more bicycle riders and lovers of safe streets at her Constituent Coffee event this Saturday (9/13) from 9:00 to 10:30 am at the PDX Saints Love Day Shelter (247 SE 82nd Ave).
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.
Criticism on either side of Vision Zero policy seems to focus on the word “zero,” as though it is an impossible or unrealized promise, instead of the word “vision,” as an ideal.
Very few understand the concept of “acceptable deaths” and even fewer realize that without this ideal, they are potentially one of the expendables.
One wonders if, like Defund the Police, just a little more nuance could be stuffed into these bumper sticker slogans that Americans latch onto before they are subverted and perverted.
My favorite is the reactionary “Zero Vision” meme.
More like zero results
I agree, but people are going to misrepresent things they politically disagree with no matter what. You could put a book worth of text on the bumper sticker, and they’ll make up some lie that disregards all that and says it’s something else. Then come up with nicknames like “zero vision” like dw pointed out that mock the idea while literally illustrating that they are misrepresenting the meaning.
So, in short, we shouldn’t worry about slogans being misrepresented by people who are ideologically opposed to the things we want. They’re going to do it anyway.
So tired of performative actions and rhetoric around VZ.
I want to see concrete actions – enforcement, infrastructure, etc – that reduce deaths from traffic violence.
Show us the numbers and then I’ll care.
Hi Fred,
You wrote
“ Show us the numbers and then I’ll care.”
Numbers are here.
https://bikeportland.org/fatality-tracker
For Portland.
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Documents/ODOT%20CAR%20Unit-Initial%20Reported%20Motor%20Vehicle%20Traffic%20Fatalities%202025.xlsx
And
https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Documents/ODOT%20CAR%20Unit-Initial%20Reported%20Motor%20Vehicle%20Traffic%20Fatalities%202024.xlsx
For Oregon as a whole.
Dramatic decrease from 2025 to 2024 in Portland.
Less so statewide.
Somebody, somewhere, is saving lives in Portland.
Enjoy!
These saved lives could be your neighbors, colleagues, friends, or yourself.
Ted Buehler
will not include reps from advocacy groups or individual road safety activists. Instead, it will be comprised solely of city staff and will connect with external groups or subject-matter experts only “where appropriate.”
Because listening to the end user is so unhelpful, right?
I can’t take this effort seriously if it just means a bunch of PBOT engineers sitting around a table with the AASHTO manual and saying “I don’t see a problem.”
Or worse yet, PBOT employees saying “safety is our number one priority” when clearly keeping their jobs and car traffic throughput are higher priorities.
Thoughts and Prayers…..
Jonathan — you should also note that in the 8 months since Councilor Koyama-Lane took office that traffic deaths are *already* down ~40% over the same time period from 2024.
That’s 18 Portlanders that are walking, driving, bicycling, living, breathing because of safer streets this year.
https://bikeportland.org/fatality-tracker
A huge success in safety and public health that should be touted. So we can keep on the pressure to not slip back into higher death counts….
Ted Buehler
Maybe you should accurately note, that Koyama-Lane had absolutely nothing to do with that downturn.
Solar — how do you figure? She has been out beating the drum of traffic safety since she first launched her campaign 14 months ago.
It’s hard to search social media channels, but it’s what she’s been doing.
Why not consider giving credit where credit is due? Especially if it is on a subject you care deeply about?
Honest question.
Thanks,
Ted Buehler
“in the 8 months since Councilor Koyama-Lane took office that traffic deaths are *already* down”
It is also been 8 months since Donald Trump took office, and I suspect he deserves as much credit for the downturn as Koyoma Lane.
Wow, Trump is saving lives!
Folks, Councilor Koyama-Lane is working hard on this issue to make streets safer for all of us.
If you appreciate this, consider sending her a “thank you” and/or “keep up the good work!”
https://www.portland.gov/council/districts/3/tiffany-koyama-lane
Appreciation from constituents helps maintain priorities.
Ted Buehler
I speak as an individual. Community voices are not wanted on the task force because the belief is that would disrupt process and ‘shut down conversation.’ Maybe instead of a ‘Task Force’ Councilor Lane et.al. should have called for an inter—bureau work group, which is much more accurate and would’ve helped manage expectations. I’m not convinced that a community stakeholder presence would be detrimental. Far from it. Most likely welcoming and respecting all perspectives would enhance the process, ultimately save time, forge relationships etc. etc . A robust task force welcomes diverse perspectives – that’s what makes it strong. Transparency is also lacking here. The public won’t be privy to what’s discussed. Involving community stakeholders more in garnering support for the resolution would’ve also been a smart move. In my opinion. A Vision Zero parade?
As long as the Street Trust is led… uh, the way it is now… I can see why a councilor might prefer to have such a task force without advocacy groups involved.
Good point!
Building on my previous comment, it sounds like community advocates are being asked to be cheerleaders and performers in support of a process they aren’t formally included in and didn’t help to form.
Replying to my own comment :- I sure hope the bureau reps that will be on the task force are at the parade!
^^in the parade. Not at – in
Ah, Vision Zero — Portland’s big, bold promise to eliminate traffic deaths by 2025. Fast forward a decade and what’ve we got? Bugger all. More people dying on the roads, more bureaucratic reshuffling, and now, a whole week dedicated to it by Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane — aka “Teacher Tiffany” — who seems to think a few orange t-shirts and a PARK(ing) Day booth will sort out years of political dithering.
Since the city’s 2015 pledge, Vision Zero’s been about as effective as a screen door on a submarine. They disbanded the original task force in 2021, and now Tiffany’s bringing it back — minus the pesky advocates who actually care about road safety. Instead, it’s just city staff talking to themselves in a closed-loop echo chamber. That should go well.
And get this: instead of funding actual safety projects, they’re moving the Vision Zero staffer to the Deputy City Administrator’s office. Because that’s where change happens — in administrative limbo. Brilliant!
Meanwhile, Tiffany’s out here organizing parades, calling for dress-up days, and sipping coffee with constituents like she’s hosting a school assembly — not tackling a public safety crisis. Bless her enthusiasm, but when it comes to actual governance? She’s clearly still on training wheels.
Portlanders deserve better than orange-themed PR stunts and recycled resolutions. If this is the “urgency” they’re bringing, we might want to change the name to Vision Someday — or better yet, Mission Impossible.
Thank you for your attention to this matter!
Angus — what factors do you credit for the dramatic decrease in Portland traffic deaths since Jan 2025?
We have a new city council. They have publicly stated, individually and collectively, that they care about this.
Any other theories?
Honest question
Ted Buehler
Ted — mate, you’re giving this new council credit for traffic fatality drops that started before they even figured out how to run a meeting. Bit generous, no?
Let’s look at what actually changed on the streets:
-Traffic Division of PPB was restored in late 2024 after being gutted for years. Suddenly, you’ve got trained officers actually pulling over reckless drivers again. That tends to make a difference — like it or not.
-Vision Zero projects from years possible finally bearing fruit — lane reductions, pedestrian infrastructure, signal timing.
-And automated speed cameras ramped up late last year too.
I’m not saying council doesn’t care — but let’s not hand them the trophy for a race they barely showed up to. Credit where it’s due — even if it goes to folks you’d rather not clap for.
Cheers,
Angus
Angus — thanks for your response.
A few counterpoints —
This city council was making their priorities known long before they ran their first meeting.
For example:
https://bikeportland.org/2024/11/20/podcast-what-they-said-and-why-it-matters-world-day-of-remembrance-391492
Other instances lost to the ephemeral twitter/instagram universe.
Why not give them some enthusiastic support?
It’s basic human nature that when someone appreciates what you do that you’re more likely to continue it.
And that if someone is working hard at something, and gets the idea that nobody appreciates it, well, might as well stop the effort and do something else instead.
On your other comments —
Certainly putting traffic police officers back on the street helped. But I think our council deserves appreciation and credit for their consistently strong statements and actions.
PBOT’s traffic calming is helpful, but I don’t think it would be responsible for the 40% reduction in fatalities we’ve experienced.
Will you be there on the 17th? I’m out of town, otherwise I’d certainly attend.
Showing support helps move the dial of city priorities. The next life saved could be yours. Or your neighbors.
Ted Buehler
Ranked Choice Voting saves lives!
Perhaps as a first step the councilor could draft an ordinance that actually funds and implements the many unfunded recommendations of the previous task force. (Of course it’s always easier to kick off a task force than find money for the many effective interventions outlined in the previous vision zero process.)
OMG, I actually “thumbs up’d” a Soren post! Did I just see some pigs fly by . . .?
Hi Soren,
Good to bump elbows in the comments section here.
What factors do you think have contributed to the dramatic decline in traffic fatalities in Portland since Jan 2025?
It seems likely that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd steps have already been done.
Just curious.
Ted Buehler
First of all 8 months of modestly reduced traffic violence is not enough to claim that steps 1, 2, and 3 are done. Secondly, PBOT and the city continue to drag their feet on the many effective mitigations outline in the previous Vision Zero report.
For example:
Speed limits — Vision Zero Action S.2
I give PBOT and the city a “C” but there is still critical work needed to decrease speed on non-residential roads.
Automated speed safety cameras – Vision Zero Action S.1
I give PBOT an F.
Redesigning streets to achieve safe driving speeds — Vision
Zero Action S.3
I give PBOT an F.
Safe Routes to School program – VZ Action
EA.3
I give PBOT a D.
If Councilor Koyama wants to see progress we need a funding taskforce, not some new visioning process.
Hi Soren,
Thanks for the citations.
Is this the source?
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/making-streets-safe
Certainly they’ve missed some of these.
Lots of speed limits have been lowered, though.
Best,
Ted
Those were two year action items from the original 2016 vision zero plan. The five year actions were far more aggressive and it’s telling that almost ten years later very little progress has been made. The issue then and the issue now is that there is little political will to fund even the bare minimum of interventions.
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/documents/vision-zero-action-plan-2016/download
Thanks for the link. This would be a good document to print out and hold in the air at the Sept 17 event.
Ted
I think this is great, because it is a proactive movement that builds on a preexisting framework. Many of the times we have heard frustrating VZ rhetoric in the past without action, it has been reactive. It has been a deflection or misuse of the ideas. We shouldn’t confuse the failures of the past with the sincere efforts that councilor Koyama Lane is pursuing.
As an addendum to my queries above, I’ll also put in the theory that Sarah Risser and Families For Safe Streets did a lot of safety advocacy work in 2024 (and continue).
https://bikeportland.org/2025/01/16/guest-article-a-journal-of-my-year-placing-signs-at-every-fatal-traffic-crash-site-392200/amp
And that the presence of 80+ individual memorials at crash sites has caused a net improvement in driver awareness and safety.
(I heard, for example, from a Tri-Met bus driver that she sees the memorials all over the city, and they are a constant sobering reminder to her).
Best,
Ted Buehler
Naturally none of this has anything to do with making streets safer. It’s about antagonizing drivers (blocking traffic with an activist parade) and making parking more difficult.
Completely performative.