- qo (V)

- c -~ :::s <

( +

-"' c 0 ·-c:n ! c :1 ·­-0 a. e t; E

U

) j t; G

)

~

ca -II) N

G)

.c .., ... -2 c:n c ·- ., c :::s u. .., ·-"' c ca ~

'-0 ... 0 N

.'!:: ro

ro 0...

.'!:: .'!::

ro 0...

0... u

ro ro

,_ u

u Q

) ,_

,_ 0...

Q)

Q)

0)

0... 0...

c 0

)

0) ·-

c c

'"0 :..0:..0

c ::J c

c '-+

-::J

::J .'!::

'-+-

'-+-

(/)

.'!:: .'!::

c (/)

(/) ro

c c

,_ ......

ro ro -

,_ ,_

ro ......

...... ,_

-Q

) Q

) ro u

...... '"0

ro 0

...... Q

) _

J

Vl

LL

•••

I

I [

0 0 M ~

I

I

L

I

IJ

I 0 Ll)

I. r

I

I l

L __ • v>:,.,:. • -• -.. ----

Tam pa-S

t Pe

tersb

urg

Rive

rside

/Inla

nd

Em

pire

De

troit

m

Orla

nd

o

a. P

hoen

ix 0

Ho

usto

n

:;. S

an An

ton

io

.. ·-A

ltan

ta

u A

ustin

,

Da

llas-F

ort W

orth

c

StL

ou

is ftS

Mia

mi

E

Ch

aro

lette

a.

Min

ne

ap

olis-S

t Paul

J! S

an D

ieg

o

Po

rtlan

d

• ..

Ch

icag

o

·-en P

hila

de

lpia

c Lo

s An

ge

les

ftS B

altim

ore

a.

De

nve

r ..

Bo

ston

~

•• W

ash

ing

ton

D.C

. A

. S

an Fra

ncisco

-Oa

klan

d

.. S

eattle .. .c

Ne

w Y

ork

!' 0

(/) •

ro ca

>< =

~

.. 0

r-

.. •

0 N

!......

g (()

·; N

·;

c 0 ·-

•

Vision Zero is based on an underlying ethica l

principle that II it can never be ethica lly acceptable

that people are killed or seriously injured w hen

moving within the road transport system."

In most road transport systems, road users bear

complete responsibility for safety.

Vision Zero changes this relationship by

emphasizing that responsibility is shared by

transportation system designers and road users.

Fatalities in Sweden

140

Ill 120 ..., c:

-~ 100 .Q ~

.=. 80 c: -c: 60 Q ·---·- 40 E >-

.Q 20

0 ~--~~~~--~--~--~~--~--~--~~--~--~

1 990199219941 9961998200020022004200620082010201 220142016

Year

source Eurostat[211

Yearty fatalit ies 4NUTS2 re gion) e Sw4<1on

e Ostr~ Sv~ {E.ut Sw4dont

e Sodra Sv~ (S~h SwodtMt

e N on .. Sv~ (North S wodont

6,000

4,500

3,000

Options for the Future of the Traffic Death Epidemic in Texas - Total Deaths

o Annual traffic deaths - TTl Forecast o Annual traffic deaths - 2°/o reduction

Annual traffic deaths - 2011 goal 1 ,5oo o Annual traffic deaths - Gradual VZ shift goal

0

o Annual traffic deaths - VZ 2050 o Annual traffic deaths - if all safety programs stopped

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N m m ~ ~ m o ~ N w ~ m m ~ ~ m o ~ N

16.0

TraHic Deaths per 1 OOK in Texas & California w/2022 SHSP goals

12.0~

8.0

4.0

0.0

0 California traffic deaths per 1 00000 -0 -1.6 0 Texas rate per capita- TTl 2% reduction -0 -0.2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~0~~0 ~ ~0~0~~~~~~~

230%

173%

11 5%

58%

0%

How much more dangerous is Texas' transportation system

than California's transportation system w/2022 SHSP goals

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021

320

240

160

80

CAMPO's new performance target for reducing traffic deaths

0 CAMPO (growth trend) 0 CAMPO (growth trend - 2%)

The growth trend matches TXDOT and TTl projections for growth in

Traffic deaths, which assumes no change in VMT per capita or in

deaths per VMT over the next 5 years.

The green line shows the goal of reducing deaths by 2%, which w ill

mean an absolute increase in deaths across the reg ion to reach 305 deaths in 2022.

110

82.5

27.5

City of Austin Vision Zero Goal of Reaching Zero by 2025

0 City of Austin

0 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

Traffic Deaths and Incapacitating Injuries per 100/000

people in the City of Laredo- 3 year average

0 Pedalcyclist 0 Pedestrian 0 Driver or Passenger 0 Motorcycle 0 Other

o.o Q 8 8 9 9 9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

0 Q

) '+

-co 0

(f)

~

0::: -co

z s

6W

0 Q

)

r-'+

-co (f)

~N

z Q

)

<t ~

a::l

Er~

z Q

) '+

-

~~

<t co (f)

Vl

Q)

~·i

>

1.....

0

::I: 0.. :e U

') C"\1 I

0 C"\1

c: 0 'iii s cu

Q)

"-u

(I) c

..s:: c'tl

:c Q

_ .... Ill

0..

\,. ·-

Q)

--o :E

Q

_ 01~

LO

V'l

s:: ·-

·-\,.

\,.

C.....s;:

M

Q)

I >

C

...Vl

0 0

(0

"-t:

I...

M

0 u

c: 0 V

l ·::;: ~

Q)

'-u

(]) ~

..c rn

0... ..... V'l

'-·-

:t: C

]) -o

c.. 0...

0)~

::!: V

'l ~ ·-

·-

I.. '-

O......c:

C])

+

>

O...V

'J

0 0

rn '-

..... 1.....

~

0 V

'l u

Hrt by a veh1cle traveling ar 20 MPH

J-II~ by a veh1cle l!"ave!lng at

H1t by a veh1cle trave11ng at 40 MPH

Only 1 out of 10 pedestrians survive.

II Chance of pedestrian death

100 %----------------------------------------~~----iim

80% 75 %

50 %

40%----------------~

25 %

5% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Automobile Speed

60

I -

40 -..c. Q. ~ 30 -

I •

I ., ~ Q. 20 "'

10

o , mn;· -rnnr-- . · ·· 1 I I • I I I ,.

0 200, 400 600 800 1,0001 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 21000

Hourly Vehicles Per l ane

Speed-Flow Rel,ationship

Texas Strategic Highway

Safety Plan

TexasSHSP.com

Strategy #6 1 Establtsh vehicle operating speeds to decrease crash severity

Countermeasures and Programs:

6a I Encourase use of tarset speeds that consider pedestrians, land use, and the roadway context (e.g., a target speed of 35 MPH or less on arterials) Other examples: provide design flexibility guidance for techniques to reduce operating speeds on surface streets; encourage use of tree lined medians, bicycle lanes, safe and attractive pedestrian crossings and walkways; support use of traffic calming for local streets

Steps for Implementation:

Step 1: Work with a diverse set of jurisdictions, including TXDOT districts as well as diverse stakeholders including those representing people with disabilities, pedestrians, business districts, low income communities, and transit providers, to explore benefits and barriers to implementation of slower target speed concepts, drawing from NACTO and AASHTO Guidance for designing urban streets with appropriate speeds, recent Florida DOT design manual overhaul, and the Netherlands Sustainable Safety Approach - including the concept of management of kinetic energy. (Lead organization: TXDOT)

Step 2: Provide guidance to cities, counties and Districts regarding the ability to set speed limits based on the target speed concept (e.g., USLimits2) (Lead organization: FHWA, TXDOT)

Step 3· Consider potential changes to Sec. 545.356 of the Transportatwn Code "AUTHORITY OF MUNICIPALITY TO ALTER SPEED LIMITS" to allow Cities to use safe target speed and remove umntended barners to 1mplementat1on of safe neighborhood streets . (lead organization: Texas Legislature and Governor)

Step 4: Implement pilot programs to develop pilot arterial and collector "slow zones" and other safe design speed pilots across the state in various jurisdictions and various overlapping bureaucracies. (Lead organization: Cities and Counties, Texas Legislature and Governor,)

Step 5: Evaluate effectiveness and how to spread effective treatments of pilot "slow zones" and other safe design speed t reatments. (Lead organization: Cities, TXDOT)

Step 6: Write guidance on road design to achieve target speed based upon lessons learned, best practices, and proven countermeasures. (Lead organization: Cities, TXDOT)

Step 7: Build and retrofit streets with target speeds that consider pedestrians, land use, and the roadway context. (Lead organization: TXDOT, cities, counties, developers)

Effectiveness: ***

Cost to implement: S Time to implement : medium (1-5 years)

Barriers:

The Elements of a NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY

TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES o o o~r:t'Pn~ Traffic calming devices, including speed bumps, bulb-outs, and traffic circles are provided to keep traffic at a safe speed along low-traffic residential streets_ This helps to ensure that Neighborhood Greenways priorize bicyclists, pedestri­ans, and neighbohood residents while limiting high-speed cut-through traffic.

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS o o Improving the existing pedestrian infrastructure with new sidewalks, ADA ramps, high-visibility crosswalks, and shorter crossing distances helps to create a pedestrian environment that is safe for people of all ages and abilities.

SIGNED BIKE/PED. NETWORK Clear signage is provided so that pedestrians and bicyclists are aware of the various neighborhood destinations within biking and walking distance. This wayfinding system helps to direct all users to the safest route for traveling between destinations.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENTo o Stormwater-cleaning bioswales are installed within the traffic calming bulb-outs to naturally retain and treat stormwater runoff. This helps to reduce neighborhood flooding while also reduc-ing the contanination of the natural waterways the existing stormwater system drains into.

What a Neighborhood Greenway might mean for Houston Curb extensions at intersections, continuous good sidewalks, speed bumps, stop sign rerouting to allow continuous bicycling, way finding signs, sharrows, safe crossings at major streets, lower speed limit

Developing the two mile Harold Neighborhood Greenway in Neartozon would cost around $500,000

-what a Neighborhood Greenway might mean for Hotiston Curb extensions at intersections, continuous good sidewalks, speed bumps, stop sign rerouting to allow continuous bicycling, way finding signs, sharrows, safe crossings at major streets, lower speed limit

Developing the two mile Harold Neighborhood Greenway in Neartown would cost around $500,000

-what a Neighborhood Greenway might mean for Houston Curb extensions at intersections, continuous good sidewalks, speed bumps, stop sign rerouting to allow continuous bicycling, way finding signs, sharrows, safe crossings at major streets, lower speed limit

Developing tlze two mile Harold Neighborhood Greemvay in Neartown would cost around $500,000

e ~ ~ ~ •ti

~ ~ ,g }! ! u ~ ~ ~ -! ~ - ~

- ok1 -- -.j PIC e · ·

-what a Neighborhood Greenway might mean for Houston Curb extensions at intersections, continuous good sidewalks, speed bumps, stop sign rerouting to allow continuous bicycling, way finding signs, sharrows, safe crossings at major streets, lower speed limit

Developing the two mile Harold Neighborhood Greenway in Neartown would cost around $500,000 ..

The Equation ofTraffic Deaths

+ Traffic Deaths I Vehicle Miles Traveled X

+ Vehicle Miles Traveled I Capita X

+ Total Population

+ Traffic Deaths

The Equation ofTraffic Deaths

+ Traffic Deaths I Vehicle Miles Traveled X

+ Vehicle Miles Traveled I Capita X

+ Total Population

+ Traffic Deaths

The Equation ofTraffic Deaths

+ Traffic Deaths I Vehicle Miles Traveled X

+ Vehicle Miles Traveled I Capita X

+ Total Population

+ Traffic Deaths

The Equation ofTraffic Deaths

+ Traffic Deaths I Vehicle Miles Traveled X

+ Vehicle Miles Traveled/Capita X

+ Total Population

+ Traffic Deaths

Ideal implementation in • your c1ty or county

• Vision Zero Task Force

• Vision Zero Goal and

Commitment

• Add to comprehensive

plan

• Traffic Fatality Review Board

• Vision Zero Action Plan

• Pedestrian and/or Bicycle

Advisory Committee

• Pedestrian and/or Bicycle

Safety Action Plan

• Funding for countermeasures

• Data analysis and evidence

based prioritization of

countermeasures,

interventions

Ideal implementation for your Metropolitan Planning Organization

• Explicit Vision Zero Goal & Commitment by the elected

officials of the Policy Board

• Active Transportation Advisory

Committee

• Regional Vision Zero Task

Force

• Vision Zero integration into

performance metrics,

allocation decision-making

metrics (TIP Call)

• Regional Pedestrian & Bicyclist

Safety Action Plan

• Regional Active Transportation

Plan

• Make all funding streams

ava ilable to safety programs

(/)

ro >< ~

L 0 . 0 !....... (])

N c 0

·-(/) ·->