Houston "Vision Zero" project

[hbg.50]

1 hour ago, wilcal said:

The city has a single planner whose job is to primarily make sure that all road users are accounted for in projects and is considered a vision zero coordinator. They are just part of the normal process.

Doesn't the job of a coordinator require representation from multiple departments?  And isn't that what caused the misalignment to begin with with Houston Avenue?  The fire and police departments were not consulted about the changes? 

[j.33]

@Moderators could we move some of the above comments pertaining to Vision Zero rumors to the Vision Zero thread? 

 

[j_cuevas713]

8 hours ago, steve1363 said:

Vision Zero is not a slogan, not a tagline, not even just a program. It is a fundamentally different way to approach traffic safety.
https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
 

This philosophy is extremely bureaucratic.  I can see how it might consume a ton of “wasted” meetings in the Whitmire administration and he clearly wants his team focused on different priorities.

I have mixed feelings about this.  This program at least gave visibility to the fact the city is committed to improved walkability.  My priority for Houston is improving the quality of life for its residents (I.e. ample parks, trails, affordable housing).  Whitmire must feel that Vision Zero has gone overboard with road diets and bike lanes.  It doesn’t help that the bike lanes are seldom used.  It’s not improving the quality of life for the majority of residents and he’s hearing the complaints of his constituents.

Who decides what is "getting used" or not? I never see that being said about roads for cars. I can name plenty of roads that don't carry many people every day but the option is still provided. It really comes down to drivers having an accurate understanding of how other commuters move and get around. The problem is drivers compare everything to their car and driving so when they see someone using another mode to get around, they naturally look down on it. And there's plenty of data showing that a street is safer with bike lanes. 

Edited March 20 by j_cuevas713

[hbg.50]

24 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Who decides what is "getting used" or not? I never see that being said about roads for cars. I can name plenty of roads that don't carry many people every day but the option is still provided. It really comes down to drivers having an accurate understanding of how other commuters move and get around. The problem is that not enough people walk, bike, or take transit so they equate everything in comparison to their car and driving and to the amount of time they feel it should take to get somewhere. And there's plenty of data showing that a street is safer with bike lanes. 

I understand your point.  I really hope Houston continues to improve in providing options for all types of commuters.

[Triton]

17 hours ago, j.33 said:

@Moderators could we move some of the above comments pertaining to Vision Zero rumors to the Vision Zero thread? 

 

Done.

[__nevii]

17 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Who decides what is "getting used" or not? I never see that being said about roads for cars. I can name plenty of roads that don't carry many people every day but the option is still provided. 

Yeah, I don't really understand that line of thinking either. Especially when "fiscal responsibility is the pretense" ... while living in a city that literally involves itself in enforcing deed restrictions of SINGULAR SUBDIVISIONS.

[wilcal]

19 hours ago, steve1363 said:

Doesn't the job of a coordinator require representation from multiple departments? 

From my understand, they aren't calling meetings. They are just attending most others or working as a different POV.

Quote

And isn't that what caused the misalignment to begin with with Houston Avenue?  The fire and police departments were not consulted about the changes? 

Fire is an enormous part of road design elements. They are involved with writing the rule book (the IBC) and many many many of the rules are designed specifically for them.

For example, the shared driveway length for 16' shared driveway (think townhome communities) was dropped from 200' to 150' last fall. Fire trucks don't drive on shared driveways and have hoses that are 300' long. There is a 3' Emergency Access Easement that runs around the properties, and it allows them to get their fire hoses to every inch of all of their properties. 

Turning radii and reverse curves are also designed specifically for minimums for fire trucks to be able to navigate through. Again, part of our codes is that fire is a huge part of the process. 

As for HPD, I'm not sure why they would have any design input. They just drive normal SUVs. They complained because a motorcycle officer drove into the median after it was built because they didn't see that it had been created (?). I think that the HPD officer was just used to (illegally I might add) cut through the painted median to speed up the turn from Washington onto Houston. There's a reason why they leave traffic barrels and put up signage when road configurations change. A bunch of people just don't pay attention. I think that there was a thread here about Fairview/Tuam @ Genesee and people are still just blowing through the intersection.

As for fire (and METRO) it is my understanding that the street design did meet the standards, but it was much tighter than usual and was passable by both fire and METRO buses, but it was uncomfortable to drive through. 

That was south of Lubbock by the court parking lot. It was really dangerous because of the elevation difference AND there is a bus stop right there. It is one of those things that you don't have many options when putting a band-aid on a dangerous spot. The current rules would never let it be constructed this way. They were trying to make it a true 90 degree turn instead of this lazy 30-degree slip lane thing. We don't allow intersections this close together anymore. I believe the minimum is 60' or 65' and this is like 40ish. So again, the result is going back to an overall less safe design to facilitate larger vehicles and their professional drivers.

 

This is kind of the crux of the issue in terms of fire especially. We have to design streets so that they fit XXXXL vehicles like fire trucks and METRO buses, but that appears to result in big tradeoffs. Roads that people feel more comfortable speeding on, the reduction in the size of sidewalks (because lane widths need to be wider. yes this happens), and corners with radii that make it easier for large vehicles to turn... but smaller vehicles can turn faster in.

[samagon]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:09 AM, steve1363 said:

Whitmire must feel that Vision Zero has gone overboard with road diets and bike lanes.  It doesn’t help that the bike lanes are seldom used.  It’s not improving the quality of life for the majority of residents and he’s hearing the complaints of his constituents.

there are a few points to consider.

1. many of the bikes lanes do not connect together, which makes them roads to nowhere. I can safely cycle down Lawndale from Telephone road to Forest Hill drive, but without any real connections from there, I have to then navigate shared spaces with cars, and that's not healthy for my ability to live a long healthy life. and sure, I can drop into the bayou path on Brays, but that hardly gets me anywhere I want to go, unless I want to go to a park.

2. the amount of money spent on bike infrastructure compared to vehicle infrastructure is pretty similar to use of vehicles compared to bikes.

3. the negative impact for vehicles on roads like 11th, or Lawndale with safe alternatives to vehicles provided is seconds in their overall commute.

4. you aren't using the term road diet because you came up with it, you are using the term because someone else used it, and you haven't been told differently. it isn't a road diet. traffic engineers did studies to see the volume of cars using the road and determined that the amount of ROW being dedicated to vehicles was higher than necessary, so they aren't reducing lanes in an effort to reduce the vehicular travel on those streets (what you would commonly associate with the term diet), they sized the vehicle lanes appropriately for the current volume of cars. in turn, they used the surplus ROW to accommodate safely allowing for other forms of travel. so no, road diet isn't an appropriate term at all. right sizing the vehicular lanes for the volume of cars, and providing safety improvements for other road users is very much more appropriate, or if you just want to write something shorter, maybe just say safety improvements.

what people who are against these changes are effectively saying is that the safety of others isn't worth the 15 seconds they have to sacrifice to accommodate them, and that the 1627 crashes with pedestrians and 209 deaths in those collisions is acceptable trade for your convenience. is that who you want to be?

Edited March 21 by samagon

[samagon]

39 minutes ago, wilcal said:

I think that there was a thread here about Fairview/Tuam @ Genesee and people are still just blowing through the intersection.

decades of driving that Fairview/Tuam curve with no stop sign, and then there's a stop sign. when I first encountered the stop sign, it was obscured by overgrown oleander. there were no cones, traffic barrels, or other things noting that the traffic pattern had changed. it was just 'surprise stop sign!'. and I was indeed surprised. they didn't even have the flags on the stop sign to help gain attention (not that I'd have seen them through the oleander).

I blew through it once, immediately after it was put in, and saw the stop sign when I was too far into the intersection to stop. they seem to have cut back the oleander and I can see it far enough away, but I doubt I'll ever forget that they changed the configuration to have a stop there.

39 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

 

This is kind of the crux of the issue in terms of fire especially. We have to design streets so that they fit XXXXL vehicles like fire trucks and METRO buses, but that appears to result in big tradeoffs. Roads that people feel more comfortable speeding on, the reduction in the size of sidewalks (because lane widths need to be wider. yes this happens), and corners with radii that make it easier for large vehicles to turn... but smaller vehicles can turn faster in.

if we're redesigning that intersection, just kill that little stub, and make a left turn from Memorial onto Lubbock to accommodate that traffic.

or if they want to maintain that section of street for METRO and fire/EMS, but close it to regular traffic and put the left turn from Memorial to Lubbock.

long term it shouldn't matter because with the I45 rebuild there's some serious rebuilding of roads on that side anyway.

[wilcal]

Yeah, I agree that they should have probably just killed the stub. 

[astrohip]

6 hours ago, __nevii said:

Yeah, I don't really understand that line of thinking either. Especially when "fiscal responsibility is the pretense" ... while living in a city that literally involves itself in enforcing deed restrictions of SINGULAR SUBDIVISIONS.

I ask out of ignorance... I thought the city couldn't enforce deed restrictions, since they weren't laws or regulations.

When I lived in Southampton (strong deed restrictions), we had a resident who flagrantly violated one restriction. Built a permanent structure in a deed-restricted part of his lot (think "easement"). But since there wasn't any city code violation (it wasn't a legal easement, only a deed restriction), the city had zero interest in our problem. We had to sue to get him to remove it.

[__nevii]

28 minutes ago, astrohip said:

I ask out of ignorance... I thought the city couldn't enforce deed restrictions, since they weren't laws or regulations.

When I lived in Southampton (strong deed restrictions), we had a resident who flagrantly violated one restriction. Built a permanent structure in a deed-restricted part of his lot (think "easement"). But since there wasn't any city code violation (it wasn't a legal easement, only a deed restriction), the city had zero interest in our problem. We had to sue to get him to remove it.

I guess it does depend on the situation/infarction at hand, as well as the strictness of the deed in question — I know for sure that River Oaks is very strict, probably moreso than Southampton.

Edited March 21 by __nevii

[TXK]

8 hours ago, samagon said:

What people who are against these changes are effectively saying is that the safety of others isn't worth the 15 seconds they have to sacrifice to accommodate them, and that the 1627 crashes with pedestrians and 209 deaths in those collisions is acceptable trade for your convenience. is that who you want to be?

Very well put and sad how many people are more than happy to make that tradeoff, truly can't understand that mindset. I think there's also a significant portion of the population who have never even realized that this tradeoff is what enables them to have whatever car they could possibly want and be able to take it anywhere, because it's so ingrained as the default way of living in most of the country.

[hbg.50]

1 hour ago, TXK said:

Very well put and sad how many people are more than happy to make that tradeoff, truly can't understand that mindset. I think there's also a significant portion of the population who have never even realized that this tradeoff is what enables them to have whatever car they could possibly want and be able to take it anywhere, because it's so ingrained as the default way of living in most of the country.

I guess you guys tell yourself that to make yourselves feel self-righteous about your position.  Guess what…the opposition also argues that the safety of their children is their number one concern.  Why can’t you acknowledge that creating congestion on a neighborhood’s main thoroughfare will increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets?   Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are selfish and take pleasure in pedestrian deaths.  That’s simplistic thinking.  Try looking at both sides.

[j_cuevas713]

It’s official. This mayor does not get it and we’re stuck with him for the next few years. I’m really worried how this affects us from getting future funding. 

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/traffic/2024/03/21/481261/houston-deemphasizing-commitment-to-vision-zero-traffic-safety-initiative-under-new-mayor-john-whitmire/?fbclid=IwAR2qT9efQH5-RUObATO6Rphn268auzgrO3cKE3K1DsOfkNdwLnO1osv-6cc_aem_ARsJG5Ui7ogEPO68dvO4NvCFZl7pqoU0IvnNXqziacc0RGSVkJfAI63--43EeQ0NM8U

[TXK]

5 hours ago, steve1363 said:

I guess you guys tell yourself that to make yourselves feel self-righteous about your position.  Guess what…the opposition also argues that the safety of their children is their number one concern.  Why can’t you acknowledge that creating congestion on a neighborhood’s main thoroughfare will increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets?   Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are selfish and take pleasure in pedestrian deaths.  That’s simplistic thinking.  Try looking at both sides.

If you're worried about more people driving down your street, I appreciate that - I feel the same way about mine. But if there's not any evidence to support that side streets become more dangerous as a result of lowering car speeds and increasing pedestrian infrastructure, then it's not a relevant argument. And it still has baked in assumptions that there are a fixed amount of cars on the road and all these projects do is divert them elsewhere and that there's no way to change people's transportation decisions. If more people chose to walk or bike down my street instead of drive because of infrastructure design, that makes me and my family safer. If there is something showing that there is another negative side effect of these projects besides driver inconvenience, I'm happy to learn more.

Side note, it comes across as disingenuous to characterize it as simplistic thinking when "taking pleasure in pedestrian deaths" wasn't ever an argument anyone made.

[samagon]

18 hours ago, steve1363 said:

I guess you guys tell yourself that to make yourselves feel self-righteous about your position.  Guess what…the opposition also argues that the safety of their children is their number one concern.  Why can’t you acknowledge that creating congestion on a neighborhood’s main thoroughfare will increase traffic on interior neighborhood streets?   Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are selfish and take pleasure in pedestrian deaths.  That’s simplistic thinking.  Try looking at both sides.

no one is creating congestion.

traffic studies were done. the results of those studies determined that the amount of lanes for vehicles was more than necessary for the volume of vehicles. so they used the surplus ROW to safely accommodate other forms of transportation.

if drivers feel entitled to then get off that road and take to side streets then you don't throw away the safety improvements on the initial street, you make other streets safer too.

the problem isn't making streets safer, the problem is people who feel they are entitled to drive unsafely, not just on streets like 11th, but then going out of their way to do the same on streets that are completely residential.

maybe this mayor should follow through on his campaign promise to put more officers on the streets, or supplement the traffic cops with state troopers, and then the bulk of those officers could go stop the people from speeding on the residential streets.

Edited March 22 by samagon

[hbg.50]

Mayor Whitmire isn't quitting Vision Zero. He's making street safety his own. | Opinion

“We came away from our interview with the mayor persuaded that he intends to keep some version of Turner’s Vision Zero Action Plan. We believe he wants to stop the deaths and injuries and we admire his vision of doing it equitably, making sure, for instance, that more neglected neighborhoods get 3-foot sidewalks before others get 10-foot sidewalks.  

Whitmire told us he would release a comprehensive plan within a few months. The theme will be “options.” That includes modernizing Metro to include ride share programs and more efficient bus routes; installing and raising crosswalks all over the city; improving mobility for motorists; and beefing up traffic enforcement.”

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/john-whitmire-vision-zero-pedestrians-bikes-cars-19375071.php

Edited April 8 by steve1363

[j_cuevas713]

Someone posted on X that the mayor is feeling the heat from Houstonians wanting safe infrastructure and he seems to be changing his tune a bit. I'm not against what he's saying but I don't like that he categorizes anyone outside of a car as not commuting

[hbg.50]

https://www.axios.com/local/houston/2024/04/18/vision-zero-texas-summit-john-whitmire
 

All eyes on Mayor Whitmire as Houston hosts Vision Zero summit

Texas nonprofit Farm&City, which leads the statewide effort to get local governments to adopt Vision Zero policies, will host its Texas Vision Zero Summit on May 3 in downtown Houston.

• Farm&City asked Whitmire to be its keynote speaker, but the mayor has a scheduling conflict, Benton tells Axios.