Lots of of tens of millions of {dollars} have been spent on visitors security initiatives since Seattle launched Imaginative and prescient Zero in 2015. But extra individuals are dying. There are fewer automobiles on the highway, but by some means congestion is worse. One thing clearly isn’t working.
Deadly crashes have climbed dramatically since 2015, and pedestrian deaths doubled final 12 months. As the town prepares to audit Imaginative and prescient Zero, the query is whether or not it would confront the likelihood that its personal insurance policies could also be a part of the issue. (“As Seattle pedestrian deaths rise, traffic safety program to get audit,” April 17, Site visitors Lab)
A pure assumption is that Seattle’s worsening congestion is because of extra visitors. The Seattle Division of Transportation’s 2025 traffic report reveals the other: fewer automobiles, fewer pedestrians and almost 30% fewer cyclists than in 2019. This paradox — much less use however extra congestion and deaths — ought to be the start line of any severe assessment.
Seattle has decreased roadway capability by changing lanes to bus and bike use. It has additionally added widespread traffic-calming and “no activate purple” restrictions. These measures goal to enhance security and — the town hopes — shift folks out of automobiles. However that shift hasn’t occurred. Bike commuting has been stalled at 3% for years, and transit ridership stays about one-third beneath prepandemic ranges, whilst Seattle’s inhabitants has grown. As a substitute, visitors has been squeezed into fewer lanes and there are longer backups at intersections. This all ends in extra congestion even with fewer automobiles.
SDOT largely treats this byproduct of its highway designs as an inconvenience to drivers. However what whether it is contributing to the rise in deaths on our roads?
A 2021 peer-reviewed University of Barcelona study of 129 massive European cities discovered that congestion’s security results aren’t linear: Reasonable congestion can cut back deaths by reducing speeds, however in extremely congested cities the connection reverses: Extra congestion is related to worse security outcomes.
Why? Cease-and-go visitors results in erratic driving and extra conflicts — drivers chopping out and in, bursts of velocity to make up time, extra fatigue, distraction and highway rage.
But congestion appears absent from SDOT’s evaluation. (Once I offered this research to SDOT’s chief security officer in 2024, he mentioned he was not conversant in it. It has since been shared with present Metropolis Council members, however stays unacknowledged.)
The way in which “success” is measured additionally raises questions. On Rainier Avenue South, SDOT’s 2017 report claimed a lane discount considerably improved security however these conclusions have been based mostly on a short while body. Longer-term information present severe damage crashes rose by greater than 50%, whilst visitors volumes declined sharply following the lane discount. This doesn’t show causation, however makes clear that short-term snapshots might be deceptive and that the connection between congestion and security deserves nearer scrutiny.
Imaginative and prescient Zero has proven the most effective ends in cities the place transit is powerful, each day wants simply accessible and biking sensible. Seattle is making an attempt to copy these insurance policies in a really completely different sort of metropolis: one that’s hilly and wet, with some neighborhoods poorly served by transit; important providers and jobs usually distant; and per SDOT’s Transportation Plan, barely half of households inside simple attain of frequent transit.
For many residents, driving isn’t a selection; it’s a necessity. Insurance policies that penalize drivers earlier than Seattle builds a greater basis gained’t get folks to cease driving and can proceed to fall most closely on these with the least flexibility.
SDOT’s “Vision Zero Top-to-Bottom Review” in 2023 recognized gaps in crash evaluation and located venture outcomes aren’t persistently evaluated over time. With no extra rigorous and sincere analysis of what’s and isn’t working, how can the town perceive why severe accidents and deaths are rising?
The audit should additionally embrace a clear, case-by-case evaluation of each loss of life and severe damage — asking not simply what straight prompted a crash, however whether or not highway designs that enhance congestion contributed to situations resembling fatigue, distraction, and highway rage that so usually precede tragedy.
If the town is unwilling to confront the likelihood that its insurance policies are a part of the issue, the audit will fall wanting what issues most: stopping extra deaths.
