As of February 2024, 59 U.S. cities had adopted Vision Zero, including 13 in California. Indianapolis is one of the latest to jump on the bandwagon, and it has already begun implementing some of its strategies. These include reducing speed limits to 20 mph and banning right turns on red in the downtown area, repurposing travel lanes to bus-only lanes, and placing “bump-outs” in what would otherwise have been right-turn lanes on major arterials.
The first problem with Vision Zero is the goal. “Zero” is statistically impossible to reach without drastic measures. It is reminiscent of the COVID lockdowns in 2020, which were justified with advocates stating, “If it saves just one life, it’s worth it.” We learned the lockdowns cost lives by, for instance, delaying necessary medical treatments.
All-or-nothing thinking is used to justify government overreach, which is why it is important to have economists around. The goal should be to balance safety and efficiency, applying cost-benefit analysis to answer the question, “How can we make streets safer while continuing to efficiently move traffic?”
To Vision Zero advocates, the drastic measures are the point. The goal is not really saving lives, but punishing people for the sin of using a car, rather than the outdated modes of transportation – walking, cycling and transit – that the car replaced three-quarters of a century ago.
Vision Zero plans call for removing travel lanes for bike lanes, narrowing travel lanes, removing peak-hour travel lanes, narrowing streets at intersections, banning right turns on red, significantly lowering speed limits, timing traffic signals to create more red light phases, putting bump-outs into intersections and placing “chicanes” (curves) in the middle of roads to cause drivers to swerve to artificially slow them down.
In some cases, they may create more accidents. The intersection bump-outs force turning drivers to turn from the travel lanes and slow not just themselves, but everyone else behind them. It causes them to slow to turn, leading to an increased likelihood of rear-end collisions.
Every one of those items has one direct effect – slowing traffic and creating congestion. And that’s ultimately the point. A D.C. advocacy group said the quiet part out loud: “Vision Zero is meaningless unless we get more drivers off the road.” In Minneapolis, another enthusiastic Vision Zero adopter, the city is intertwining its Vision Zero plans to create congestion with a “Transportation Action Plan” designed to “encourage” 60% of trips to be taken by transit, cycling or walking by 2035.
As one of the northernmost large cities in the country, cycling is not feasible during a large portion of the year, yet the city has stated it has no intention of relieving traffic congestion or increasing throughput.
It’s all to discourage and prevent driving, as it is seen by urban planners as an inferior mode of transportation to transit and cycling. Not surprisingly, those are the modes of transport preferred by urbanists who like – and attempt to legislate – high densities and tend to hold disdain for suburbs and those who live in them, even though 91.7% of American households own a car.
It’s an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle of urban design by frustrating people out of their cars and eventually out of their suburban homes. Vision Zero and related plans are an attempt to direct peoples’ way of life, rather than reflect it.
Is Vision Zero working in reducing traffic fatalities? Not really. In Los Angeles, the 337 traffic deaths in 2023 were the highest in a decade. In Seattle, the 167 traffic deaths in 2023 were double the 83 from 2014. While Vision Zero focuses on speed as the main factor, Washington Traffic Safety Commission data show only one-third of the fatal crashes in Seattle were due to speeding.
In Austin, traffic deaths in 2023 (90) were down from the previous two years’ totals of 116 and 111, but higher than the 76 in 2016, the year after it adopted its Vision Zero policy. Boston’s fatality rate was higher in 2021 than it had been in a decade.
Vision Zero is not saving lives, but it is causing other problems. In Boston, the repurposing of travel lanes to bike lanes is causing problems for ambulances transporting patients to hospitals, as drivers now have no place to go to clear a path thanks to narrowed streets. City Councilor Ed Flynn said, “They don’t seem concerned about the issue. They’re downplaying or ignoring it.”
There is another problem, and that is many working-class jobs – especially in logistics, manufacturing, construction and retail – are not in the urban core, not along transit routes and not necessarily within cycling distance of their employees. Therefore, even though “equity” is a major buzzword of Vision Zero plans, creating artificial congestion will harm working-class people as it will extend their commute times and make it more difficult to get to work.
While Vision Zero has largely failed in its goal of reducing traffic fatalities, that will not be held up as evidence of its failure, but as evidence we need to do more. As these policies continue to be implemented, people will not abandon their cars and suburban homes. Instead, businesses and entertainment venues will be more likely to locate in suburbs, where their employees and consumers can access them.
Some safety measures are welcome, but those designed to create artificial congestion in favor of a futile attempt at shifting travel and work modes will ultimately do nothing but cause frustration and failure.
Andrew Smith is an economics instructor at New Palestine (Indiana) High School and an adjunct instructor for Vincennes University.
