HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
Pedestrian-Bicyclist SubcommitteeBusiness Meeting
April 20, 2017
Administration
1. Introductions
2. Approval of Minutes
January 26, 2017
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
3. Election of Officers
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
4. Proposed Scope Modification:FM 526/IH 10 TAP project Bikeway Project
FM 526/IH 10Ped/Bike Facilities
2
Length
– 3.2 miles
Scope of Work
– Construct 8-foot wide path
Connectivity
– Maxey Rd Park & Ride– Bus Stops along IH-10– Maxey Park– Herman Brown Park– Residential Community– Existing Bicycle Facilities
Investment
– $2,459,000
FM 526 from IH-10 to Woodforest Dr
IH-10 frontage road from FM 526 to Freeport Street
Original Scope
3
Original Scope:
8 feet wide shared use path on the east side of FM 526 NB from Woodforest Blvd to IH 10 8 feet wide shared use path on IH 10 from FM 526 to Freeport StreetScope exclusion: bridge across Greens Bayou
Scope Change following stakeholder meetings:
10 feet wide shared use path on FM 526 from Woodforest Blvd to IH 105 feet wide sidewalk on FM 526 from Woodforest Blvd to IH 105 to 6 feet wide sidewalk on IH 10 frontage road from FM 526 to Normandy St 6 to 8 feet wide sidewalk on the west side of Normandy St SB from IH 10 to Greens Bayou
Change of Scope
What is the difference?
FM 526:– Higher comfort shared use path 10 ft– Sidewalk (new)IH 10 frontage rd:– Shorter distance– SidewalkNormandy St (logical end point)
4
FM 526 / IH 10
Stakeholder meetings
– > 10 meetings– December 2015 April 2017
Stakeholder meetings
– Northshore community– Houston Parks Board– METRO– City of Houston
Concerns/Priorities
West side of FM 526– High density residential– Commercial– Grocery– Govt. servicesEast side of FM 526– Maxey Rd Park & Ride– Maxey Rd Park– Future Greens Bayou Trail
MAP H-GAC RLUIS LAND USE
5
FM 526 Shared Use Path - Alternatives Considered
Signalized
Pedestrian
Crossing
East side (NB)
– less # of intersections– less # of driveways– Direct connection to:
– Park & Ride– Maxey Park
From West to East Side (map)
– Community Priorities– Access good & services – Direct connection to:
– Park & Ride– Maxey Park
West Side (SB)
– Community Needs/Priorities
East & West Side
– Higher comfort shared use path– 10 instead of 8 ft
– Sidewalk
6
Church Road
7
FM 526
– 10’ shared use path– 5’ sidewalk
H-GAC’s LCI Analysis
Avg. length of potential trips
– 0.91 miles: cycling– 0.53 miles: pedestrian
Proposed Change
MAP BY HOUSTON PARKS BOARD
8
Average Length of Potential Cycling Trip: 0.91 miles
Activity corridor
9
Average Length of Potential Cycling Trip: 0.91 miles
Activity corridor
10
Proposed Change of Scope along IH 10
MAP HOUSTON PARKS BOARD
11
Alternative considered along IH 10
MAP HOUSTON PARKS BOARD
12
Inter-agency coordination
Bus Route 137 & Bikes
– 120 bus routes
Ranked top 20 bus route
– Number of bikes carried on buses
Ranked top 18 bus routes
– Number of bikes carried on buses (New Metro Bus Network)
MAP HOUSTON PARKS BOARD
Original HPB AlignmentTxDOT alignment alternativeImprovements
13
H-GAC Bikeway Viewer
Spatial Distribution of Ped/Bike Facilities
14
Census Tracks:
48201232701
48201232702
Project located within Census Tract(s) with greater-than-
regional proportion of underserved population
Minority Populations
Low-Income Households
Senior Populations (Over
65)
Limited Educational
Attainment
Zero Automobile Ownership
Female Head of Household
Limited English Proficiency
H-GAC’s Environmental Justice Indicators
Source: 2013 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates (2009-2013)
15
Funds
Total: $2,459,000
Fiscal Year 2019
TIP 2017-2020
Provides connection to the Market St/Federal Rd
activity area
Needed ped/bike infrastructure
Conclusion
16
Maximizing benefit for short distance trips
Access from residential to retail, services, parks, park &
ride
Needed infrastructure for underserve population
Elderly
Low-income
Low automobile ownership
17
Questions?
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
5. Subcommittee Priorities
Subcommittee Priorities
The 2040 Regional Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
- Nine priority
- Accelerate, Facilitate, and Coordinate development of our
region’s pedestrian and bicycle network
Three actions to focus during 2015 through 2017 (in January 22,
2015):
o Build Capacity
o Collect Data
o Improve Cultural Awareness
Subcommittee Priorities
Subcommittee Priorities
• Bicyclist-Pedestrian Subcommittee Working Group
Meeting held on March 20, 2017
• Survey and discussion was conducted
• 25 participants
surveymonkey.com/r/ped-bike-032017
Subcommittee Priorities
Rank Score Priority
1 3.00 Connect Facilities
2 3.38 Invest in Pilot Projects
3 3.42
Promote Interjurisdictional and Intermodal
Coordination
4 4.52 Build Capacity
5 4.76 Reward Local Planning and Investment
6 5.36 Collect Data
7 5.43
Institutionalize Active Transportation
Planning
8 6.10 Improve Cultural Awareness
9 7.24 Create a System Vision
Subcommittee Priorities - Accelerate
Connect Facilities • Prioritize investment in projects that eliminate major
gaps in the regional pedestrian and bicycle network and/or connect localized networks.
Invest in Pilot Projects • Provide financial and technical support to innovative
pedestrian and bicycle projects that will spur local investment in underserved communities and/or serve as demonstration projects.
Subcommittee Priorities - Coordinate
Promote Interjurisdictional and Intermodal Coordination
• Help communities and agencies work together during the planning, design, and construction of interjurisdictional pedestrian and bicycle projects.
• Continue to integrate pedestrian and bicycle improvements into sub-regional plans, access management studies, and other regional planning efforts.
Examples
• Best Practice case studies
• Technical tools/training
• Cross jurisdictional bicycle pedestrian project
• Critical gaps in regional trail connections
• Connections to transit stations
• Safety issues – audit
• Safety initiatives review
• Project development and implementation workshops
• Site visits/workshops
• 3 ideas for regional pilot projects
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
6. Bicycle-Pedestrian Safety Outreach
Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Safety Outreach
Neal A. Johnson
Behavioral Research Team
College Station, TX
Houston-Galveston Area CouncilPed-Bike Subcommittee Meeting
Introduction
• TTI Intro
• TxDOT Traffic Safety Grants
•Why Houston?
What is a bicyclist?
What is a pedestrian?
Project Overview
• What did we do?
• How did we do it?
• What did we find?
• What’s next?
What did we do?
• Identify the problem(s)– What behaviors are leading to pedestrian
and bicyclist crashes? Different roadway environments.
– What factors are associated with these crashes? Where?
Who?
When?
• Gathering the data
How did we do it?
• Two-pronged approach
–Observational Survey 10 locations
Different walking, biking, driving environments
Behaviors
–Crash Analysis
What did we find in the Observational Survey?
Motorists (n=3,094)
• Actions
3% performed a reckless action
• Distractions
20% distractedo Lowest near schools
o Highest on higher speed roads
What did we find in the Observational Survey?Pedestrians (n=2, 198)• Locations
16% chose risky location
• Actions 16% engaged in risky action
• Distractions 12% distracted
• Site differences Downtown site (n=1,439) Variances by location type
Site Road Type# of Pedestrians
Observed# of Risky Locations
# of Reckless Actions
# of Pedestrians Distracted
1 Major Arterial 65 43 17 15
2 Interstate (nighttime) 9 6 3 1
3 School area 137 32 52 7
4 City Street 22 12 44 5
5 University area 339 59 76 32
6 School area 123 0 0 1
7 High Speed Road 25 8 6 0
8 Major Arterial 5 2 2 1
9 Interstate 34 10 26 16
10 City Street (downtown) 1,439 190 142 174
Site Road Type# of Pedestrians
Observed# of Risky Locations
# of Reckless Actions
# of Pedestrians Distracted
1 Major Arterial 65 43 17 15
2 Interstate (nighttime) 9 6 3 1
3 School area 137 32 52 7
4 City Street 22 12 44 5
5 University area 339 59 76 32
6 School area 123 0 0 1
7 High Speed Road 25 8 6 0
8 Major Arterial 5 2 2 1
9 Interstate 34 10 26 16
10 City Street (downtown) 1,439 190 142 174
What did we find in the Observational Survey?Bicyclists (n=59)• Locations
30% failed to maintain a consistent path
• Actions 42% performed reckless action(s)
• Distractions 5%, relatively low
• Helmet Use – 8.5%• Infrastructure
Sites with bike lanes or separated path had overall lower occurrences of reckless actions
73% of bicyclists at site 10 used the protected bike lane
What did we find in the Observational Survey?Situational Observations – interactions between different road users.
What did we find in the Crash Analysis?
Where are Crashes Occurring?• 60% City of Houston• 31% in “Rural Harris County”Who are these Pedestrians and Bicyclists?• Age
– Pedestrians – 21-65– Bicyclists – 11-60
• Gender– Males
Pedestrians – 68% Bicyclists – 84%
• Race/ethnicityAre Bicyclists Wearing Helmets?• 12.6%
What did we find in the Crash Analysis?When are Crashes Occurring?• 79% of pedestrian deaths and serious injuries
occurred in the dark.– 2-3 am Sunday morning (Saturday night)
• 37% of bicyclist deaths and serious injuries occurred in the dark.
What Road Types do Crashes Occur on?• “Urban principal arterial”Where on the Roadway do Crashes Occur?• 71% on mainlanes of highway
What’s next?
1. Paper outreach materials – Brochure
2. Videos – Theme of: “it could be you”
3. Educational Seminars – with interactive component
4. Website – informational pages/links
5. Social media
OUTREACH
Contact Information
Neal A. Johnson3135 TAMU
College Station, TX 77843-3135
(979) 845-0913
**FYI, I’ll be out of the office 4/21-5/1**
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
7. Bike-to-Work Day
Bike-to-Work Day
• H-GAC - May 18, 2017
• Greenway Plaza partnership
• Transportation Policy Council Resolution
• Commute Solutions Program
H-GAC
Bike-to-Work Day
Bike Month Promotion – Flyer/Poster
Bike Month Promotion - Website
Bike-to-Work Day
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
8. Member Roundtable
9. 2017 Meeting Dates
Pedestrian-Bicyclist Subcommittee:
9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.Conference Room B (Second Floor)
Thursday, May 18, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Upcoming Meetings